170 likes | 331 Views
Impact of using fiscal data on the imputation strategy of the Unified Enterprise Survey of Statistics Canada Ryan Chepita, Yi Li, Jean-Sébastien Provençal, Chi Wai Yeung Statistics Canada ICES III, Montréal, June 2007. Goals.
E N D
Impact of using fiscal data on the imputation strategy of the Unified Enterprise Survey of Statistics CanadaRyan Chepita, Yi Li, Jean-Sébastien Provençal, Chi Wai YeungStatistics CanadaICES III, Montréal, June 2007
Goals • To illustrate the challenges of applying a centralized E and I strategy to a broad range of industrial sectors • To discuss the changes put in place due to the increasing use of fiscal data • To discuss one approach used to quantify the overall E and I effect
Outline • Overview of the Unified Enterprise Survey (UES) • Survey content • Imputation strategy • Use of fiscal data • Challenges • Diagnostic tool • Conclusion
Overview of the UES • Annual business survey • Initiated with 7 industries in 1997 • Presently integrates over 40 industries covering the major sectors of the economy • 950K establishments in the population • 127K establishments in the sample
Overview of the UES • Stratified sampling design • NAICS, province, and size in terms of revenue • Data collection • Mail out survey, fax and phone follow-up • Edit and Imputation • Estimation • H.-T. for totals and provincial and industrial breakdowns
Survey content • 2 or 3 Key variables • Total revenue and total expenses • Similar concepts from one industry to another • A lot of details (over 50 variables) • Totals breakdowns • By province, type of expenses or source of revenue • Industry specific • Can be revised from year to year
Survey content • Example : manufacturing sector Details Key
Imputation Strategy • Categories of non-response • Category 1: Partial response with at least 1 key variable reported • Category 2: Total non-response with historical data • Category 3: Total non-response without historical data
Imputation Strategy • Historical data for some records • Records sampled the year before • Same questionnaire • Administrative data for all records • Stratification information • NAICS, province, size in terms of revenue
Imputation Strategy • Type 1 and type 2 non-response • Missing key variables • Historical Trend • Ratio using current survey information • Missing details • Historical distribution • Distribution from all respondent within a homogeneous group • Distribution from a single donor
Imputation Strategy • Type 3 non-response • Donor imputation • Closest neighbour based on administrative data
Use of fiscal data • Use fiscal data as a proxy value for total non-response • Use fiscal data as a proxy value for simple units randomly selected at the sampling stage • Use to update the initial size in terms of revenue • Number of survey variables for which we use fiscal data as proxy range from 7 to 25
Challenges • Conceptual differences • Questionnaire content review • Variables for which there is no proxy value on the fiscal data base • Modeling • Industry specific needs • Tailored strategy
Challenges • Monitoring the effect • Creation of a distinct path for records where we used fiscal data (category 4 of non-response) • Creation of a diagnostic tool
Diagnostic tool • Identification section • Industry, province, variable description • Weighted sums, share and percentages by category of non-response Variable Y (Total) 150M 25M 20M 55M 250M
Conclusion • Centralized E and I strategy vs industry specific needs • Diagnostic tool • Modeling