Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

The standard error of estimates based on EU-SILC. An exploration through the Europe 2020 poverty indicators

Contents:

Author Info

  • Tim Goedemé

Abstract

Currently, the European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC) is the single most important data source for cross-national comparative research on income and living conditions in the European Union. As EU-SILC consists of a sample of European households, point estimates should be accompanied by appropriate standard errors and confidence intervals. This is especially so if indicators are constructed for measuring progress towards pre-defined targets such as those of the Europe 2020 strategy. All too often this has been neglected in European poverty research and official publications. In contrast, this paper pays explicit attention to the calculation of standard errors and confidence intervals. Standard errors are strongly dependent on the sample design. Therefore, accurate information on the sample design is crucial, especially for a database like EU-SILC which contains data on about 30 European countries which employ different complex sample designs. However, information on the sample design is incomplete in the EU-SILC User Database for data confidentiality reasons and there are several options for handling this lack of information. In this paper, we document the sample designs used in EU-SILC and compare the information available through different sources, namely the Quality Reports, the User Database and a specific dataset containing additional information about the sample design prepared by Eurostat. Furthermore, on the basis of the specific dataset prepared by Eurostat, we explore which variables are best used when analysing EU-SILC for adequately computing standard errors. We illustrate the importance of various assumptions with regard to the sample design by presenting results for the official Europe 2020 poverty indicators. It is shown that neglecting the sample design can lead to a serious underestimation of the standard errors. In addition, it is discussed how researchers using EU-SILC could best take account of the sample design for appropriately estimating standard errors.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://www.centrumvoorsociaalbeleid.be/sites/default/files/CSB%20Working%20Paper%2010%2009_december%202010-1.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by Herman Deleeck Centre for Social Policy, University of Antwerp in its series Working Papers with number 1009.

as in new window
Length:
Date of creation: Dec 2010
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:hdl:wpaper:1009

Contact details of provider:
Email:
Web page: http://www.centreforsocialpolicy.eu
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords: at-risk-of-poverty rate; Complex sample design; EU-SILC; Europe 2020 poverty reduction target; Europe 2020 Strategy; low work-intensity; material deprivation; poverty; poverty indicators; sampling variance; Standard error;

References

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. E. Roy Weintraub & Evelyn L. Forget, 2007. "Introduction," History of Political Economy, Duke University Press, vol. 39(5), pages 1-6, Supplemen.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as in new window

Cited by:
  1. Tim Goedemé, 2013. "How much Confidence can we have in EU-SILC? Complex Sample Designs and the Standard Error of the Europe 2020 Poverty Indicators," Social Indicators Research, Springer, vol. 110(1), pages 89-110, January.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hdl:wpaper:1009. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wim Van Lancker).

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.