Presentation on theme: "EU-SILC from a Research Perspective"— 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 issues regarding data comparabilityOpportunities for longitudinal analysis with EU-SILC
3 Strengths of EU-SILC Coverage of countries Coverage of topics (Private) Household surveyCross-sectional and longitudinal dataGood and improving data documentationAccess for research purposes free of charge (but more demanding under new regulation)
5 Flexible implementation of EU-SILC EU-SILC is based on a common frameworkguidelines: concepts, definitions, classifications, proceduresTarget variables, i.e. ex ante harmonizationWithin this framework high flexibility regarding data generationAccommodates 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-comparabilityDifferent sampling strategiesDifferent survey designsDifferent modes of data collectionDifferent field work periods and proceduresDifferent national questionnairesDifferent reference periodsDifferent nonresponse ratesDifferent attrition rates…
8 Why is comparability so important? EU-SILC is the central data source for social reporting in EuropeSocial indicators based on EU-SILC are usedto assess countries’ places in relation to each otherto learn from others’ best practicesto evaluate policy measures
9 Selected issues regarding data comparability 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 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 attrition vary throughout Europe
11 SILC response rates 2007 (only new rotational group) Source: Eurostat: Proposal for revising the design of EU-SILC longitudinal component. Item 4; 5th Meeting 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 , 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 sourcesIssue 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) Information/Interview completed fromSurvey73.1%Survey countriesBE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, GR, ES, EE, FR, HU, IT,LT, LU, MT; AT, PL, PT, RO, SK, UKRegister3.4%Both: Survey & Register22.8%Register countriesDK, FI, SE, NL, IS, LV, SI, IEFull Record Imputation0.7%
16 Different modes of data collection Measures in surveys and registers may be based on different concepts, e.g.Earnings information in registerstax-based (non taxed earnings?)different points in time when income and tax are collected (self-employed, temporary workers)Employment, Unemploymentevidence that information on unemployment in survey and registers differ in a significant way at the individual levelsurvey: e.g. memory errors regarding employment situation in the pastConsistency problems if combining information from different sources?
17 Different modes of data collection Mixed modes of data collection in surveysPersonal interview (respondent)CATI (Computer Assisted Telefon Interview)CAPI (Computer Assisted Personal Interview)PAPI (Paper and Pencil 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 might affect the response and thus reduce the comparability between countries and for countries with sequential mixed mode between waves
18 Different modes of data collection (2010) SURVEY COUNTRIESInterview73.1%Face to FaceCAPI 29.1%PAPI 42.3%CATI3.9%Self-administered5.5%Proxy Interview18.3%REGISTER COUNTRIESRegister & Interviews22.8%CAPI %PAPI 11.7%65.6%0.4%22.0%
19 Proxy interview by country – ‘register countries’ % of proxy interviews Countryproxy interviewIceland0.0Nederland1.2Sverige2.1Ireland23.7LatviaNorway23.8Slovenia24.6Suomi42.7Danmark48.6Datasource: UDB_c10R_ver from , own computationAs a rule only 1 person in hh is interviewed, who answers also for all other hh members
20 Proxy interviews by country – ‘survey countries’ % of proxy interviewsSlovak Republic4.3Czech Republic19.3Ellada8.0Hungary19.8Belgique8.6Luxembourg20.1United Kingdom10.7Bulgaria20.3Oesterreich13.7Portugal20.5Romania15.3Espana21.9Lithuania15.6Cyprus23.0Deutschland18.8Estonia24.3Italia19.0France27.6Poland19.2Malta28.9Datasource: UDB_c10R_ver from , own computation
21 Flexibility in modes of data collection Quality of proxy interviews might depend on the reason of the proxy interviewa respondent is not accessible or willing to give an interviewproxy interview are cofounded with other characteristics like age or sexproducers take proxy interviews as a mean to lower costsdata 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 questionnairequestionnaire design varies (e.g. order of questions)wording of questions varies (e.g. ‘How often do you usually ..’ or 'How often during a usual year do you …?)
23 Research exampleResearch example Gash (2011): Methodological issues in comparative research. European Workshop to Introduce the EU-SILC and EU-LFS ManchesterResearch interestHow does unemployment affect social engagement?EU-SILC Module (2006) on Social ParticipationFrequency of contacts/getting together with friends &relativesAbility to ask relatives, friends, neighbours for helpParticipation in formal and informal activitiesParticipation in cultural/sport eventsoo PS090 - Ability to ask any relative, friend or neighbour for helpo PS100 - Participation in informal voluntary activitieso PS110 - Participation in activities of political parties or trade unionso PS120 - Participation in activities of professional associationso PS130 - Participation in activities of churches or other religious organisationso PS140 - Participation in activities of recreational groups or organisationso PS150 - Participation in activities of charitable organisationso PS160 - Participation in activities of other groups or organisations
24 Research example Main findings: Broad agreement in the questionnaire wording across countries, butSome countries provide examples of social participation others notSome countries mention reference periods others notSome countries prompt that respondents should exclude people they live with others notMight have an effect on the reported frequencies of contacts
25 Source: Gash, Vanessa (2011): METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES in COMPARATIVE RESEARCH
26 Comparability 3 - Output harmonization When Eurostat knows about problems arising from different wording or other deviations in the questoinnaire it reports thisMost national questionnaires are availableCheck documentation!!!
27 Opportunities for Longitudinal Analysis with EU-SILC
28 Opportunities for Longitudinal Analysis Main topics studied with SILC (Eiffe & Till 2013)Income studiesPoverty studiesLabour market studiesLimitations arise because SILC is a 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 dynamicsHow much does income mobility vary across European countries?See: Franz F. Eiffe and Matthias Till 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 householdChanges in women’s contribution in Italian familiesEffect of partnership breakdown on individual incomeSee: Franz F. Eiffe and Matthias Till The Longitudinal Component of EU‐SILC Still Underused? NetSILC2: Working Paper 1/2013.
31 Poverty studiesHow 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. Eiffe and Matthias Till The Longitudinal Component of EU‐SILC Still Underused? NetSILC2: Working Paper 1/2013.
32 Labour market studiesWhat 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. Eiffe and Matthias Till The Longitudinal Component of EU‐SILC Still Underused? NetSILC2: Working Paper 1/2013.
33 Possible problems of SILC longitudinal Different attrition rates could be a problemIf there is a correlation between attrition and income or others variables this would be a problem However, income bias related to attrition seems to be low
34 Household participation in SILC by Income Quintiles in previous year Source: Eurostat: Proposal for revising the design of EU-SILC longitudinal component. Item 4; 5th Meeting of the Task-Force on the revision of the EU-SILC legal basis.