1. Census Bureau – Fernando Casimiro, Coordinator
IPUMS - Portugal
Census Bureau – Fernando Casimiro, Coordinator
Barcelona

2. Summary Main subjects of the slides: History
Quality indicators for the last 3 censuses
Microdata files
Samples
Metadata consistency across time

3. Main historic features
Population counts in the years 0000, 1260, 1421, 1527,1636, 1732, 1776 and 1801;
New census data set, following main features of Brussels Congress held on 1853: 1864, 1878, 1890, 1900, 1911, 1920, 1930, 1940, 1950, 1960, 1970, 1981, 1991 and 2001;
Last 3 censuses constitute the most consistent group in terms of concepts, tabulation data and microdata available.

4. Quality indicators 1981
First attempt to carry out a PES, but didn’t succeed due to technical constrains and lack of human resources;
In any case, 1981 census data were very well accepted, but:
Previous census data (1970) had a lot of problems/suspicions due to the decrease of population
Substantial change in the population due to return of people from former African colonies (1974 and 1975)
Most municipalities increased their population
There was not a deep tradition on contesting official figures

5. Quality indicators 1991
Building
Housing unit
Private household
Resident person
PORTUGAL
99,6
99,42
99,24
99,04
North 99
Centre
99,67
Lisboa
98,12
Alentejo
102,2
Algarve
100,3
Açores
99,48
Madeira
100
For the first time a PES released data, but not very well accepted due to:
Higher expectations regarding population figures at national level as well as local level mostly due to the existing population estimates and some local registers not duly updated (electoral register);
Emigration higher than expected;
Some difficulties on the public’s perception about net and gross differences;
And a PES not fully succeeded regarding methodology and results

6. Quality indicators 2001
Building
Housing unit
Private household
Resident person
Rate (%) SD
PORTUGAL
99,7
0,3
99,5
0,2
101,1
0,4
100,7
North
0,5
99,8
101
Centre
99,9
100
101,4
0,7
100,9
Lisboa
98,7
0,6 99
101,6
1,1
Alentejo
100,6
102,1
0,9
100,8
0,8
Algarve
96,8
1,9
96,7
1,7
101,5
2,5
102,4
2,1
Açores
0,1
104,6
Madeira
99,3
99,2
101,2
1,3
101,8
1,8
For the first time a PES was fully released and its results almost fully accepted:
Methodology was clear and supported by an academic institution;
Results were released completely in line with the scheduled;
Portugal becomes a immigration country instead of an emigration country
Final figures are in line with the population estimates;
Some strong updates were carried out in the electoral register

7. 1981, 1991 and 2001 microdata samples
Systematic selection for every 20th private dwelling/housing unit (start on the first dwelling for each of the seven NUTS II);
Systematic sample for every 20th person living in collective dwellings (start on the first person living in a collective dwelling of each of the seven NUTS II)
Geographical breakdowns only for areas ≥ people

8. 1981, 1991 and 2001 microdata samples
Why did we decide to extract independent samples?

9. 1981, 1991 and 2001 microdata samples (National and Regional)
Main age groups 1981
<15
>=65
Portugal
0,02
0,69
0,05
-0,17
North
0,74
1,02
0,00
0,12
Center
0,28
-0,39
0,32
0,31
Lisbon
0,01
1,52
0,19
-1,61
Alentejo
-2,47
-0,15
-0,75
-1,17
Algarve
-0,27
0,63
-0,40
1,64
Azores
-4,98
-0,79
1,76
Madeira
-0,35
0,87
0,67
2,48
Main age groups 1991
15-24
25-64
-0,56
0,24
-0,64
0,52
-1,22
0,46
-1,05
0,48
-0,42
0,41
-0,84
1,97
0,47
0,55
0,04
-0,26
-0,28
0,83
1,71
0,34
0,11
-5,06
-0,86
2,24
-1,81
-5,27
-3,01
-5,17
-2,03
6,67
Data on main age groups seem very consistent; only some few major differences in Azores in 1981 and Algarve in 1991 and 2001, although most of them below 5%
Main age groups 2001
< 15
15-24
25-64
>=65
Portugal
-0,09
-0,35
-0,24
0,27
North
0,06
-0,03
-0,23
-0,17
Center
-0,40
0,91
0,37
0,10
Lisbon
0,35
-1,41
-0,79
0,70
Alentejo
0,79
-1,01
0,25
-0,84
Algarve
-4,48
-2,65
-0,99
3,91
Azores
-1,26
-0,64
-2,00
1,55
Madeira
0,89
1,42
0,49

10. 1981, 1991 and 2001 microdata samples (National)
Persons
1981
1991
2001
Resident population
0,12
-0,2
-0,15
Living in conventional dwellings
0,11
-0,3
-0,13
Living in other housing units than com. Dw.
0,75
-1,3
-3,15
Living in collective dwellings
0,16
0,07
Data on type of housing unit where resident population are living as well as on marital status seem also very consistent at national level
Marital status
1981
1991
2001
Single
0,10
-0,22
-0,23
Married (registered)
0,26
-0,52
-0,19
Married (not registered)
1,57
0,65
Viúvo
-0,65
0,50
0,16
Separado
-2,15
-1,45
0,28
Divorciado
-0,36
-2,57
-0,60

11. 1981, 1991 and 2001 microdata samples (National)
But not exactly the same happens with the main source of livelihood, where some modalities have greater differences
Main source of livelihood
1981
1991
2001
Employment
0,10
-0,47
-0,34
Unemployment benefits
2,20
0,97
0,08
Benefits due to accident or sickness
-20,35
0,21
-5,07
Other benefits
-15,08
5,81
3,87
Minimum allowance
-1,69
Pension
0,39
0,34
0,23
Public or private assistance
1,38
-2,42
4,62
On household charge
0,14
-0,57
-0,20
Property and investments
2,49
1,60
4,02
Other
-0,13
-0,17
-0,07

12. 1981, 1991 and 2001 microdata samples (National)
Educational attainment (ISCED 97)
1981
1991
2001
Iliterate
0,07
-0,25
-0,13
Literate, but witout educational attainment
0,48
-0,50
0,26
1º Cycle (ISCED 1)
-0,08
-0,26
-0,46
2º Cycle (ISCED 1)
0,68
0,14
0,33
3º Cycle (ISCED 2)
-1,64
0,25
-0,17
Secundary (ISCED 3)
1,50
-0,23
Post secundary (ISCED 4)
-0,58
-2,14
1,22
Bachelor (ISCED 5B)
0,08
-0,56
Licenciate (ISCED 5A)
-0,81
-0,82
Master (ISCED 5A)
3,36
Doctorate (ISCED 6)
-3,31
High level (ISCED 5+6)
0,56
Master and Doctorate (ISCED 5+6)
But educational attainment seems also very consistent, almost surprisingly for some levels of education.

13. 1981, 1991 and 2001 microdata samples (National)
As well as main economic characteristics … with a little exception
Status in employment
1981
1991
2001
Employer
3,02
1,19
-0,24
Own-account worker
0,30
-0,05
-1,47
Contributing family worker
-0,18
-0,74
-0,28
Employee
2,46
-0,43
Compulsary military service
5,37
5,82
Member of producer's co-operatives
-1,83
-2,71
-7,42
Other situation
3,92
4,53
-0,87
Not applicable
0,13
-1,26
0,03
Current activity status
1981
1991
2001
Employed
0,22
-0,36
Unemployed
0,96
-1,76
0,21
Not economically active
0,04
-0,25
0,00

14. 1981, 1991 and 2001 microdata samples (National)
Regarding housing units, the type of housing surprises by the size of the difference in 1991 but it only concerns a small part of housing;
Occupancy status is very consistent;
Type of housing
1981
1991
2001
Housing units
0,00
Conventional dwellings
0,10
0,01
Other housing units than convent. dwellings
0,11
-8,57
-1,3
Occupancy status
1981
1991
2001
Usual residence
0,00
-0,17
-0,06
Seasonal or secondary use
2,70
-0,46
0,03
Vacant for sale
-2,02
-1,46
-0,79
Vacant for rent
-2,56
1,53
-0,69
Vacant for demolition
-2,83
-0,98
-0,04
Other cases
-3,11
2,33
0,96

15. 1981, 1991 and 2001 microdata samples (National)
Consistency still remains high for bathing facilities and kitchen
Bathing facilities
1981
1991
2001
Fixed bath or shower
-0,09
-0,19
-0,05
No fixed bath or shower
0,98
-0,08
-0,15
Not applicable
2,51
-0,60
0,14
Kitchen
With kitchen
-0,03
-0,31
Only kitchenette
1,52
-0,44
0,90
No kitchen or kitchenette
0,27
-1,19
5,21
3,80
-0,61
0,12

16. 1981, 1991 and 2001 microdata samples (National)
Overall consistency also for sewage system, while …
More or less the same for the type of ownership with the exception of the sub-rented dwellings in 1991
Type of sewage disposal system
1981
1991
2001
Piped system conected to public network
0,10
0,17
Piped system conected to private network
-0,69
-0,56
-0,57
Other system to a open destination
0,26
1,79
2,26
No system at all
2,32
-0,73
-1,81
Not applicable
2,51
-0,60
0,14
Type of ownership
1981
1991
2001
Owner
0,22
-0,19
0,02
Rented dwelling
-0,36
0,01
0,00
Sub-Rented dwelling
0,52
-9,56
-2,59
Other cases
0,85
-0,32
-1,39
Not applicable
3,80
-0,34
0,12

17. Users must be advised about the differences?
Why not, unless all of them are aware of all the differences by checking the national results available … what is not so easy!
Not for all, but at least for greater than 20%?
It must be noted that the regional and local levels usually have greater differences.
Why not a common framework (Quality certification?) to check the consistency between data samples released and the respective universes?

18. Metadata consistency across time
Population characteristics (de jure)
Geographic
No problems at all, more than the updating of geographic classifications
Demographic
Marital status: prevalence of legal in 1981, while prevalence of de facto in the remaining
Economic
Different minimum age limits: 12 in 1981 and 1991 and 15 in 2001
Some adjustments in modalities of some variables, like time usually worked
International classifications are have changed across time

19. Metadata consistency across time
Population characteristics (de jure)
Educational
No major questions more than the inclusion of professional training as level of education in 1981 and 1991; because professional training may correspond to different official levels of education, in 2001 only official levels of education were enumerated
Migrations
In 1981, previous residence 5 years before census day … was 7 years (1973), to capture migration flows from Africa
No other questions, more than the updating of geographic classifications

20. Metadata consistency across time
Population characteristics (de jure)
Ethno-cultural
Only religion exists and no problems at all
Disability
Only for 2001
Household and family
International definition of “child” changed in 2001 from “single” to “not married” and we did it accordingly

21. Metadata consistency across time
Housing units characteristics
Type of heating and lift
Only for 2001
Water, bathing, electricity, mortgage or loan, sewage, ownership, nº of rooms, nº of residents, type of living quarter and type of roof and materials used
Fully comparable
Kitchen
Breakdown “less than and 4m2 or more” was inserted in 1991 following international recommendations; fully comparable with this aggregation

22. Metadata consistency across time
Housing units characteristics
Occupancy status
Full comparability needs the aggregation of sub-modalities of secondary use
Toilet
Fully comparability needs the aggregation of modality “outside the dwelling” included in 1991 following international recommendations
Dwelling ownership
Some modalities have to be aggregated to reach full comparability
Period of construction
Most recent modalities have to be aggregated to reach full comparability upon the date of each census

23. Final
Thanks for your attention!