1 / 30

Today’s Presentation

Calibrating census microdata against a gold standard (employment survey): women in the workforce, Mexico 1990 and 2000 * * * Robert McCaa, Albert Esteve, Rodolfo Gutierrez and Gabriela Vasquez, Minnesota Population Center paper at: www.hist.umn.edu/~rmccaa/mxflfp.doc.

varen
Download Presentation

Today’s Presentation

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. Calibrating census microdata against a gold standard (employment survey): women in the workforce, Mexico 1990 and 2000* * *Robert McCaa, Albert Esteve, Rodolfo Gutierrez and Gabriela Vasquez, Minnesota Population Center paper at: www.hist.umn.edu/~rmccaa/mxflfp.doc Calibrate, v. 1864. a. trans....to graduate a gauge of any kind with allowance for its irregularities.The Oxford English Dictionary Online(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2001) www.ipums.org/international

  2. Today’s Presentation • 1. The Infomercial: IPUMS-International a. Preserving the world’s census microdatab. And making them usable • 2. The paper: Calibrating census microdata a. Census vs. employment surveysb. Female labor force participation(FLFP) c. vs. ENEU (“national” urban survey): 1990 & 2000d. vs. ENE (national survey): 2000e. Conclusion: Mexican census microdata on FLFP are better than commonly thought www.ipums.org/international

  3. ** Infomercial ** www.ipums.org/international

  4. IPUMS-International goals • 1. Inventory the world’s census microdata a. historicalb. contemporary • 2. Preserve endangered microdata and metadataa. contract preservation with repositoriesb. archive validated copies * * * • 3. Integrate census microdata and metadata of selected countries on all continents using UN, ECE, and other standards • 4. Disseminate resulting database without charge with full access to all who agree to non-disclosure www.ipums.org/international

  5. IPUMS-International partners by stagefinal stage (data in development/dissemination) = darkestmiddle stage (signed agreement) = medium greenfirst stage (verbal agreement, signing pending) = lightest www.ipums.org/international

  6. IPUMS For census 2000 (and earlier, historical censuses):42 OSI (official statistical institutes) agree to produce a new statistical product: scientifically anonymized, integrated census microdata samples made up of unidentifiable individuals... INTERNATIONAL www.ipums.org/international

  7. NIH funding Began July 2003 -2008 IPUMS Round 1 partners: 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 INEGI-Mexico 1960 1970 1990 2000plus new 10% samples: 1970 1990 & 2000 DANE-Colombia 1964 1972 1985 1993 IBGE-Brazil 1960 1970 1980 1991 2000 Round 2, 2003-2008: census round: 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s Argentina 1960 1970 1980 1991 2001 Bolivia 1976 1992 2001 Chile 1960 1970 1982 1992 2002 Costa Rica 1963 1973 1984 2000 Dominican Republic1960 1970 1981 1993? 2004 Ecuador 1962 1974 1982 1990 2001 El Salvador 1961 1971 1992 2002 Guatemala 1964 1973 1981 1994 2002 Honduras 1961 1974 1988 2001 Nicaragua 1971 1995 Panama 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Paraguay 1962 1972 1982 1992 2002 Peru 1981? 1993 2003 Puerto Rico 1960? 1970 1980 1990 2000 Venezuela 1961 1971 1981 1990 2001 LATINAMERICA www.ipums.org/international

  8. in review at NIH IPUMS 2004?-2009? Round 1: 3 partners: INSEE-France 1962, 1968, 1975, 1982, 1990, 1999 CSO-Hungary 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000 INE-Spain 1981, 1991, 2001 Round 2, 2004-2009: +14 Signed: Austria, Belarus, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Spain, and the UK 9 Negotiating:*Belgium, Finland, Ireland, Italy, *Poland, *Russia, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine *= included in proposal; likely to sign before project begins EUROPE www.ipums.org/international

  9. IPUMS-International principles: • 1. Respect absolute anonymity and confidentiality • 2. Preserve all original data, except adjustments to insure privacy (top codes, blurrings, masking, re-ordering, etc.) • 3. Harmonize codes using international standardsoccupation: ISCO, HISCO (detailed, general)education: ISCED “ “family: IPUMS, etc. “ “ • 4. Enhance with constructed variables (momloc, etc.) • 5. Disseminate free of charge to reseachers who need the data and agree to abide by conditions of use (please see Table 5) • Of 346 applicants, 197 accepted; denial of access rate = 43% • Usage by country (% of projects): Mexico (43), USA (38), Kenya (31), Colombia (29), Vietnam (26), China (9—1982 census, May-Aug 2003). www.ipums.org/international

  10. IPUMSi » Integrate (harmonize), not standardize 1. retain all original detail 2. harmonize every digit INTEGRATES » How is this possible? Composite codes (multiple digits, 111) Not serial (1, 2, 3, ....) (see next slide) » Why? Researcher confidently understands uses as much detail as needed www.ipums.org/international

  11. Composite coding scheme: employment status integrated codes Codes in original data www.ipums.org/international

  12. IPUMS-InternationalEmployment Status variablecomparability discussion:Mexico 1990, 2000 “In 1990, the employment status question refers to ‘Principal Activity’ and therefore under-reports secondary economic activity by students, housewives, family-workers, the semi-retired, and others. “The 2000 Census sought to overcome deficiencies in reporting work status for people whose primary activity was not work (students, housewives, retirees, etc.), but who in fact were working according to international definitions. A second question, introduced for the first time in 2000, sought to capture this secondary economic activity. For strict comparability with earlier Mexican censuses, this recovered activity (codes 1101-1106) should be considered ‘inactive’." www.ipums.org/international

  13. 2000 census--two questions on LFP: 1: “Last week did (NAME)...” ...” 2000 census--two questions on LFP: 1: “Last week, did (NAME)...?” 2: “Besides (...), did (NAME)...?” Question 1: Last week (Name): Did you work? 27.5% Had work? 0.4 Look for work? 0.3 Are you a student? housewife? retired? permanently incapacitated? Did you not work? Question 1: Last week (Name): Did you work? 27.5% Had work? 0.4 Looked? 0.3 Q. 1&2: combined student/wrkd 0.5 housewife/wr 3.7 retired/wrkd 0.0 other/wrkd 0.4 no reply/wrkd 0.0 Question 2: Did you help in a family business? Sell some product? Make some product to sell? Help on a farm or with livestock? Or in exchange for pay did you do some other activity? www.ipums.org/international

  14. ** Web-site **www.ipums.org/international www.ipums.org/international

  15. ** Paper ** www.ipums.org/international

  16. Today’s Presentation, part 2 • 1. The project: IPUMS-International a. Preserving the world’s census microdatab. And making them usable • 2. The paper: Calibrating census microdata a. Census vs. employment surveysb. Female labor force participationc. vs. ENEU (“national” urban survey): 1990 & 2000d. vs. ENE (national survey): 2000e. Conclusion: Mexican census microdata on FLFP are better than commonly thought www.ipums.org/international

  17. Calibration testMexico 1990, 2000: FLFP census microdata vs. employment surveys Employment surveys: date from the late 1980s; many probing questions finely tuned instrument administered by trained interviewers Urban (ENEU)—quarterly from 1987, 16 cities in 1990, rising to 47 in 2000--lacks national coverage; National (ENE)—from 1988; annual since 1995 Census microdata: strength: national coverage back to 1960 weakness: untrained interviewers, one question on LFP omits many working women, particularly informal workers Purpose of paper: calibrate census microdata w/ employment surveys www.ipums.org/international

  18. Table 1. Selected microdata samples of Mexico, 1960 - 2000 Year Type Sample Size % pop. 1960* Census 502,702 1.5 1970* Census 480,265 1.0 1980 Census No sample available due to earthquake damage 1990* Census 802,774 1.0 1990, ENEU (urban survey) 172,233 0.2 2000* Census 10,099,182 10.0 2000 ENEU (urban survey) 562,471 0.62001 ENE (national survey) 588,912 0.6 (*integrated in IPUMS-International) Coming soon!!!New 10% samples for 1970, 1990 & 2000 www.ipums.org/international

  19. The problem (table 2) Mexico’s “global” female labor force participation rate (12-64 years) microdata19902000 survey (ENEU): 34.8% 43.3% national census: 20.6% 32.9%  14.2 10.4 A solutionControl for survey (ENEU) sampling frame: 16 cities in 1990 survey (16 cities): 34.8% 41.7% census (16 cities): 29.0% 40.2%*  5.8 1.5 * includes responses to LFP questions 1 (“activity”) & 2 (“verification”). www.ipums.org/international

  20. Table 3. Urban Females, 1990(aged 12-64) StructureFLFP Rates SurveyCensusSrvyCnss Total 62,248 63,929 34.8 29.0 Education Less than 6 years 20.9 21.7 29.3 20.1 Completed primary 34.7 34.8 27.6 21.1 Completed middle 20.4 24.3 31.3 37.9 Post-middle (10+) 23.9 19.3 53.1 42.2 Marital Status Married (all types) 48.2 50.4 27.7 21.3 Not in union 51.8 49.6 41.4 36.9 www.ipums.org/international

  21. Table 5. Females 2000: Urban (limited to same 16 cities as 1990) StructureFLFP Rates SurveyCensusSrvyCnss Total 124,051 1,073,222 41.7 40.2 Education Less than 6 years 14.9 15.9 35.3 31.0 Completed primary 30.8 28.7 32.1 30.1 Completed middle 28.5 19.7 47.0 41.0 Post-middle (10+) 25.8 36.0 51.1 51.9 Marital Status Married (all forms) 51.9 52.9 35.1 34.0 Not in union 48.1 47.1 48.9 47.3 www.ipums.org/international

  22. Table 5. Logistic Regression: Source (Females 1990, 2000; same 16 cities as in ENEU 1990) Female labor force participationENEU (indicator) vs. CensusVariable B S.E. Wald df Sig R Exp(B) 1990: -.2212 .0135 267.2291 1 .0000 -.0412 .8015 2000: .0860 .0067 163.1781 1 .0000 .0100 1.0898 Model source effect taking into account age, marital status and education. Interpretation If for both sources weights are considered correct and slight structural differences are taken into account: 1990 census under-reported 20% of FLFP. 2000 census “over-reports” FLFP by 9%. www.ipums.org/international

  23. Today’s Presentation • 1. The project: IPUMS-International a. Preserving the world’s census microdatab. And making them usable • 2. The paper: Calibrating census microdata a. Census vs. employment surveysb. Female labor force participationc. vs. ENEU (“national” urban survey): 1990 & 2000d. vs. ENE (national survey): 2000e. Conclusion www.ipums.org/international

  24. Table 6a. Females 2000: National StructureFLFP Rates SurveyCensusSrvyCnss Total 212,890 3,431,891 39.8 32.9 Education Less than 6 years 22.0 27.6 30.9 23.3 Completed primary 38.0 30.0 36.4 25.0 Completed middle 16.5 16.8 41.2 36.8 Post-middle (10+) 23.5 25.6 52.4 49.9 Marital Status Married (all forms) 54.7 54.8 36.3 27.6 Not in union 45.3 45.2 43.9 39.3 www.ipums.org/international

  25. Table 6b. Females 2000: National Limited to municipios in ENE StructureFLFP Rates SurveyCensusSrvyCnss Total 39.8 35.7 Education Less than 6 years 22.0 22.3 30.9 25.4 Completed primary 38.0 29.6 36.4 26.7 Completed middle 16.5 30.8 41.2 40.5 Post-middle (10+) 23.5 27.3 52.4 55.5 Marital Status Married (all forms) 54.7 54.3 36.3 30.1 Not in union 45.3 45.7 43.9 42.2 www.ipums.org/international

  26. Postscript* * * * * * * www.ipums.org/international

  27. Fig 1. LFP by sex and marital statusMexico 1990 and 2000 (national figures) Females 1990 Males 2000 www.ipums.org/international

  28. Marriage and education strongly affect FLFP (Mexico 1990 and 2000, national figures) Not Married 1990 2000 www.ipums.org/international

  29. Reflections Mexican census microdata may be more informative, than commonly thought—even about FLFP Mexican census microdata on FLFP display remarkable coherence in time and space “Chorus of calamity” on Mexican FLFP may overlook enormous changes in education weakening power of patriarchy over married women real advances of women in the workforce 2000 microdata tell the story Calibrate me! weigh strengths and weaknesses of sources. www.ipums.org/international

  30. Thank you* * * * * * *rmccaa@umn.edu www.ipums.org/international

More Related