Current labour force counting relies on general guidelines set by the International Labour Office(ILO) to classify individuals into three labour force states: employment, unemployment and in activity. However, the resulting statistics areknown to be sensitive to slight variations of operational definitions prima facie consistent with the general guidelines. In this paper two alternative classification criteria are considered: a 'strict' criterion followed by Eurostat, which results from a stringent interpretation of the ILO guidelines, and a 'mild' criterion followed by the Italian Statistical Office up to 1992. We first show that the labour force statistics resulting from the two classification criteria differ considerably. We then discuss the relative merits of the two criteria by comparing those individuals whose classification depends on the criterion adopted to individuals whose classification is common across criteria. Similarities are established with respect to characteristics known to be relevant to the labour force state to assess which benchmark group individuals whose state is questionable look like the most. An application is presented to samples of married women from the Italian Labour Force Survey from five survey occasions between 1984 and 2000. Results are neatly in favour of the 'mild' criterion and are rather robust to changes in the business cycle, the participation rate, local labour market conditions and the questionnaire design.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. 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.
Publisher Info
Paper provided by Institute for Fiscal Studies in its series IFS Working Papers with number
W05/18.
Length: 48 pp. Date of creation: Oct 2005 Date of revision: Handle: RePEc:ifs:ifsewp:05/18
Contact details of provider: Postal: The Institute for Fiscal Studies 7 Ridgmount Street LONDON WC1E 7AE Phone: (+44) 020 7291 4800 Fax: (+44) 020 7323 4780 Email: Web page: http://www.ifs.org.uk
Order Information: Postal: The Institute for Fiscal Studies 7 Ridgmount Street LONDON WC1E 7AE Email:
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Emma Hyman).
Find related papers by JEL classification: J64 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Mobility, Unemployment, and Vacancies - - - Unemployment: Models, Duration, Incidence, and Job Search J22 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demand and Supply of Labor - - - Time Allocation and Labor Supply
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
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.:
Bound, John & Brown, Charles & Mathiowetz, Nancy, 2001.
"Measurement error in survey data,"
Handbook of Econometrics,
in: J.J. Heckman & E.E. Leamer (ed.), Handbook of Econometrics, edition 1, volume 5, chapter 59, pages 3705-3843
Elsevier.
[Downloadable!] (restricted)
Killingsworth, Mark R. & Heckman, James J., 1987.
"Female labor supply: A survey,"
Handbook of Labor Economics,
in: O. Ashenfelter & R. Layard (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 2, pages 103-204
Elsevier.
[Downloadable!] (restricted)