1 / 35

EU-SILC from a Research Perspective

EU-SILC from a Research Perspective. Heike Wirth & Christof Wolf. Topics covered. Strengths of EU-SILC Flexible implementation of EU-SILC Selected issues regarding data comparability Opportunities for longitudinal analysis with EU-SILC. Strengths of EU-SILC. Coverage of countries

callum
Download Presentation

EU-SILC from a Research Perspective

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. EU-SILC from a Research Perspective Heike Wirth & Christof Wolf

  2. Topics covered • Strengths of EU-SILC • Flexible implementation of EU-SILC • Selected issuesregardingdatacomparability • Opportunities for longitudinal analysis with EU-SILC

  3. Strengths of EU-SILC • Coverage of countries • Coverage of topics • (Private) Household survey • Cross-sectional and longitudinal data • Good and improving data documentation • Access for researchpurposesfree of charge(but moredemandingundernewregulation)

  4. Flexibility

  5. Flexible implementation of EU-SILC • EU-SILC is based on a common framework • guidelines: concepts, definitions, classifications, procedures • Target variables, i.e. ex ante harmonization • Within this framework high flexibility regarding data generation • Accommodates the national conditions and needs (+) • Potential to limit cross-national comparability (–) • While the input side might be diverse, the output side is harmonized (standardized microdata set) • i.e. problems of data comparability are not directly visible

  6. Flexible implementation of EU-SILC Some potential sources of non-comparability • Different sampling strategies • Different survey designs • Different modes of data collection • Different field work periods and procedures • Different national questionnaires • Different reference periods • Different nonresponse rates • Different attrition rates …

  7. Comparability

  8. Whyiscomparability so important? EU-SILC is the central data source for social reporting in Europe • Social indicators based on EU-SILC are used • to assess countries’ places in relation to each other • to learn from others’ best practices • to evaluate policy measures

  9. Selected issuesregardingdatacomparability 1. Different survey designs and response rates 2. Different modes of data collection 3. Ex-ante output harmonization: Wording of questions

  10. Comparability 1: Survey design and response rates • Survey design • Rotational panel: variations across countries in the number of rotations. Most countries 4, but 8 in NO, 9 in FR and full panel in LU(in the future possibly 6 or more waves) • Response rates and attritionvary throughout Europe

  11. SILC responserates 2007 (onlynewrotationalgroup) Source: Eurostat: Proposal for revising the design of EU-SILC longitudinal component. Item 4; 5thMeeting of the Task-Force on the revision of the EU-SILC legal basis.

  12. EU-SILC retention rates (a) households, (b) individuals re-interviewed the following year, in % Source: Iacovou et al (2012) from EU-SILC longitudinal files, release 2008-4, unweighted

  13. Comparability 2: Different modes of data collection Sources of EU-SILC data could be: • survey(s) • register(s) • combination of survey(s) & register(s) • Data could come from one source or two sources • Issue of concern: Substantial findings of EU-SILC such as indicators used in social reporting may differ due to the diversity in the data collection across countries

  14. Different modes of data collection (2010)

  15. Use of registers for different domains

  16. Different modes of data collection • Measures in surveys and registers may be based on different concepts, e.g. • Earnings information in registers • tax-based (non taxed earnings?) • different points in time when income and tax are collected (self-employed, temporary workers) • Employment, Unemployment • evidence that information on unemployment in survey and registers differ in a significant way at the individual level • survey: e.g. memory errors regarding employment situation in the past • Consistency problems if combining information from different sources?

  17. Different modes of data collection • Mixed modes of data collection in surveys • Personal interview (respondent) • CATI (Computer Assisted Telefon Interview) • CAPI (Computer Assisted Personal Interview) • PAPI (Paper andPencil Personal Interview) • self-administered (respondent completes the questionnaire him/herself) • Proxy-interview (respondent has someone else answer the questions for him/her) • Type of interview mightaffect the responseandthusreduce the comparabilitybetween countries andfor countries withsequentialmixedmodebetweenwaves

  18. Different modes of data collection (2010)

  19. Proxy interview by country – ‘register countries’ As a ruleonly 1 person in hhisinterviewed, whoanswersalso for all otherhhmembers

  20. Proxy interviews by country – ‘survey countries’

  21. Flexibility in modes of data collection • Quality ofproxyinterviewsmightdepend on thereasonoftheproxy interview • a respondent is not accessible or willing to give an interview • proxy interview are cofounded with other characteristics like age or sex • producers take proxy interviews as a mean to lower costs • data producers might make efforts for a random selection of proxy respondents

  22. Comparability 3 – Different questionnaires • SILC is ex ante harmonized, i.e.variables which are delivered by the NSIs to Eurostat are defined in regulations & guidelines (=> standard EU-SILC definition) • But there is no common SILC questionnaire • questionnaire design varies (e.g. order of questions) • wording of questionsvaries (e.g. ‘How often do you usually ..’ or 'How often during a usual year do you …?)

  23. Research example • Research exampleGash (2011): Methodological issues in comparative research. European Workshop to Introduce the EU-SILC and EU-LFS Manchester Research interest • Howdoesunemploymentaffectsocialengagement? • EU-SILC Module (2006) on SocialParticipation • Frequencyofcontacts/gettingtogetherwithfriends &relatives • Abilitytoask relatives, friends, neighboursforhelp • Participation in formal and informal activities • Participation in cultural/sportevents

  24. Research example Main findings: • Broad agreement in the questionnaire wording across countries, but • Some countries provide examples of social participation others not • Some countries mention reference periods others not • Some countries prompt that respondents should exclude people they live with others not • Might have an effect on the reported frequencies of contacts

  25. Source: Gash, Vanessa (2011): METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES in COMPARATIVE RESEARCH

  26. Comparability 3 - Output harmonization • WhenEurostatknowsaboutproblemsarisingfrom different wordingorotherdeviations in the questoinnaireitreportsthis • Most national questionnairesareavailable • Check documentation!!!

  27. Opportunities for Longitudinal Analysis with EU-SILC

  28. Opportunities for Longitudinal Analysis Main topicsstudiedwith SILC (Eiffe & Till 2013) • Income studies • Povertystudies • Labour marketstudies • Limitationsarisebecause SILC isa short-term panel, i.e. a maximum of 3 transitions

  29. Income studies Income distribution • What are the consequences of income gains and losses on income inequality and poverty levels? • How do regional economic and labour market structures as well as national institutions contribute to changes of income level and income distribution? Income dynamics • How much does income mobility vary across European countries? See: Franz F. EiffeandMatthias Till. 2013. The Longitudinal Component of EU‐SILC Still Underused? NetSILC2: Working Paper 1/2013.

  30. Income studies Impact of socio-economic events on income • Impact of having a disabled person in a household • Changes in women’s contribution in Italian families • Effect of partnership breakdown on individual income See: Franz F. EiffeandMatthias Till. 2013. The Longitudinal Component of EU‐SILC Still Underused? NetSILC2: Working Paper 1/2013.

  31. Povertystudies • How long do individuals or households remain in poor living conditions? • How often do Europeans experience poverty over their life span (or at least over four years)? • What are the profiles of households who remain in poverty for longer periods? • What are the events/determinants that trigger poverty transitions? See: Franz F. EiffeandMatthias Till. 2013. The Longitudinal Component of EU‐SILC Still Underused? NetSILC2: Working Paper 1/2013.

  32. Labour marketstudies • What patterns of occupational mobility can be observed in Europe? • How difficult is it to leave unemployment? • How do labour market dynamics differ across countries? • Can difference between countries be explained by different institutions, e.g. welfare state arrangements? See: Franz F. EiffeandMatthias Till. 2013. The Longitudinal Component of EU‐SILC Still Underused? NetSILC2: Working Paper 1/2013.

  33. Possibleproblems of SILC longitudinal • Different attritionratescouldbe a problem • Ifthereis a correlationbetweenattritionandincomeorothers variables thiswouldbe a problemHowever, incomebiasrelatedtoattritionseemstobelow

  34. Householdparticipation in SILC byIncome Quintiles in previousyear Source: Eurostat: Proposal for revising the design of EU-SILC longitudinal component. Item 4; 5thMeeting of the Task-Force on the revision of the EU-SILC legal basis.

  35. Thanks for listeing!

More Related