1. LAMAS Working Group 19-21 June 2017
Agenda Item 2.4 Implementing Act for the Monthly Unemployment Rate
Eurostat

2. I. Background
Importance of Monthly Unemployment Rate (MUR) data for European citizens
Main strengths / weaknesses of the current publication
Strengths: good timeliness (t+30/31 days in most cases)
Weaknesses: no harmonization of methods. Large spread in performance (as measured by volatility / revisions)
Large range of methods used due to:
- Different situations: high/low correlation between ADMIN and ILO data; high/reasonable volatility of the monthly LFS
- Different attitudes towards revisions
Eurostat

3. II. Need for a EU Regulation
To specify clear rights and obligations for all stakeholders
- For MSs: transmitting MUR inputs/data on time (t+25/26 days)
- For Eurostat: publishing MUR data according to a fixed calendar
To improve quality over time
- No input harmonization (different methods allowed)
- BUT: quality monitoring through common criteria
Eurostat

4. III. Main features of the proposal
Legal instrument: IESS Implementing Act
Transmission deadline: t+25 days (26 for ILO data?) as specified in the IESS Framework Regulation. The MUR proposal settles the case of Week- Ends.
Definition of the reference month:
- calendar month for ADMIN-based methods;
- 'LFS reference month' for LFS-based estimates. LFS months are a set of full weeks, using the 'Thursday rule' in case of overlaps over 2 months / quarters
Quality indicators and thresholds included in the regulation
Data requirements:
- MUR estimates published nationally;
- Benchmark data, every 3 years, for quality monitoring purposes
Eurostat

5. IV. Exchange of views
Do you agree on the proposal to collect and publish at EU level the same MUR data as published nationally?
Answers
Ratio
Yes 25
81% No 1 3%
Don't know 4
13%
No Answer
Eurostat

6. Do you agree on including the quality criteria and thresholds endorsed by LAMAS directly in the MUR implementing act?
Answers
Ratio
Yes 13
42% No 10
32%
Don't know 7
23%
No Answer 1 3%
Eurostat

7. for quality benchmarking purposes?
Do you agree on transmitting monthly LFS data (seasonally adjusted) to Eurostat, every 3 years,
for quality benchmarking purposes?
Answers
Ratio
Yes 15
49% No 5
16%
Don't know 10
32%
No Answer 1 3%
Eurostat

8. V. Quality monitoring - Carried out every 3 years; Some precisions:
- Concerns the headline indicators published by Member States / Eurostat;
- Results of the quality indicators to be checked against (1) absolute thresholds
and (2) the results obtained for a common benchmark i.e. monthly LFS data (SA)
Amendments accepted by Eurostat:
- Exempt 'option 1 countries' from the 3-yearly transmission of monthly LFS data;
- Redrafting Articles 7.1 and 7.3 to make clear that quality monitoring applies to the
published data (i.e. headline indicators).
- - 8
Eurostat

9. VI. Proposal LAMAS is invited to take note:
Of the revised proposal for a MUR Implementing Act
That a revised version, further to this LAMAS meeting, will be loaded on CIRCAbc
That this revised version will be the basis for further discussions, including at DSS level
Eurostat