IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/diw/diwwpp/dp376.html

Missing Income Data in the German SOEP: Incidence, Imputation and its Impact on the Income Distribution

Author

Listed:
  • Joachim R. Frick
  • Markus M. Grabka

Abstract

This paper deals with the question of selectivity of missing data on income questions in large panel surveys due to item-non-response and with imputation as one alternative strategy to cope with this issue. In contrast to cross-section surveys, the imputation of missing values in panel data can profit from longitudinal information which is available for the very same observation units from other points in time. The “row-and-column imputation procedure” developed by Little & Su (1989) considers longitudinal as well as cross-sectional information in the imputation process. This procedure is applied to the German Socio-Economic Panel study (SOEP) when deriving annual income variables, complemented by purely cross-sectional techniques. Based on the SOEP, our empirical work starts with a description of the overall incidence of imputation and its relevance given by imputed income as a percentage share of the total income mass: e.g. while 21 % of all observations have at least one missing income component of their pre-tax post-transfer income, 9 % of the overall income mass is imputed. However, this picture varies considerably for more recent sub-samples of the panel survey. Secondly, we analyze the respective impact of imputation on the personal distribution of income as well as on results of income mobility. When comparing income inequality measures based only on truly observed information to those derived from all (i.e., observed and imputed) observations, we find an increase in inequality due to imputation and this effect appears to be relevant in both tails of the distribution, although somewhat more prominent among higher incomes. Longitudinal analyses show firstly a positive correlation of item-non-response on income data over time, but also provide evidence of item-non-response as being a predictor of subsequent unit-non-response. Applying various income mobility indicators there is a robust picture about income mobility being understated using truly observed information only. Finally, multivariate models show that survey-related factors (number of interviews, interview mode) as well as indicators for variability in income receipt (due to increased complexity of household structure and income composition) are significantly correlated with item-non-response. In conclusion, our empirical results based on the German SOEP indicate the selectivity of item-non-response on income questions in social surveys and push the necessity for adequate imputation.

Suggested Citation

  • Joachim R. Frick & Markus M. Grabka, 2003. "Missing Income Data in the German SOEP: Incidence, Imputation and its Impact on the Income Distribution," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 376, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    • Handle: RePEc:diw:diwwpp:dp376
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.40900.de/dp376.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jörg-Peter Schräpler, 2002. "Respondent Behavior in Panel Studies: A Case Study for Income-Nonresponse by Means of the German Socio-Economic Panel (GSOEP)," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 299, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    2. Regina Riphahn & Oliver Serfling, 2005. "Item non-response on income and wealth questions," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 521-538, September.
    3. Daniel H. Hill & Robert J. Willis, 2001. "Reducing Panel Attrition: A Search for Effective Policy Instruments," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 36(3), pages 416-438.
    4. Jürgen Schupp & Gert G. Wagner, 2002. "Maintenance of and Innovation in Long-Term Panel Studies: The Case of the German Socio-Economic Panel (GSOEP)," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 276, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    5. repec:bla:econom:v:66:y:1999:i:264:p:455-71 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. SOEP Group, 2001. "The German Socio-Economic Panel (GSOEP) after More than 15 Years: Overview," Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung / Quarterly Journal of Economic Research, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 70(1), pages 7-14.
    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


    Cited by:

    1. Pirmin Fessler & Peter Mooslechner & Martin Schürz & Karin Wagner, 2009. "Housing Wealth of Austrian Households," Monetary Policy & the Economy, Oesterreichische Nationalbank (Austrian Central Bank), issue 2, pages 104-124.
    2. Viktor Steiner & Peter Haan & Katharina Wrohlich, 2005. "Dokumentation des Steuer-Transfer-Mikrosimulationsmodells STSM 1999 - 2002," Data Documentation 9, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    3. Rodríguez-Oreggia, Eduardo & López-Videla, Bruno, 2015. "Imputación de ingresos laborales. Una aplicación con encuestas de empleo en México," El Trimestre Económico, Fondo de Cultura Económica, vol. 0(325), pages .117-146, enero-mar.
    4. Susanne Rässler & Regina T. Riphahn, 2006. "Survey Item Nonresponse and its Treatment," Springer Books, in: Olaf Hübler & Jachim Frohn (ed.), Modern Econometric Analysis, chapter 15, pages 215-230, Springer.
    5. Jan Eckhard, 2018. "Indicators of Social Isolation: A Comparison Based on Survey Data from Germany," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 139(3), pages 963-988, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Joachim R. Frick & Markus M. Grabka, 2007. "Item Non-response and Imputation of Annual Labor Income in Panel Surveys from a Cross-National Perspective," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 736, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    2. Michal Myck & Mateusz Najsztub, 2015. "Data and Model Cross-validation to Improve Accuracy of Microsimulation Results: Estimates for the Polish Household Budget Survey," International Journal of Microsimulation, International Microsimulation Association, vol. 8(1), pages 33-66.
    3. Joachim R. Frick & Kristina Krell, 2010. "Measuring Income in Household Panel Surveys for Germany: A Comparison of EU-SILC and SOEP," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 265, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    4. Joachim Frick & Kristina Krell, 2011. "Einkommensmessungen in Haushaltspanelstudien für Deutschland: Ein Vergleich von EU-SILC und SOEP," AStA Wirtschafts- und Sozialstatistisches Archiv, Springer;Deutsche Statistische Gesellschaft - German Statistical Society, vol. 5(3), pages 221-248, December.
    5. Kerstin Bruckmeier & Katrin Hohmeyer & Stefan Schwarz, 2018. "Welfare receipt misreporting in survey data and its consequences for state dependence estimates: new insights from linked administrative and survey data," Journal for Labour Market Research, Springer;Institute for Employment Research/ Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), vol. 52(1), pages 1-21, December.
    6. Hank, Karsten & Jürges, Hendrik & Schupp, Jürgen & Wagner, Gert G., 2006. "Die Messung der Greifkraft als objektives Gesundheitsmaß in sozialwissenschaftlichen Bevölkerungsumfragen: Erhebungsmethodische und inhaltliche Befunde auf der Basis von SHARE und SOEP," Discussion Papers 2006/6, Technische Universität Berlin, School of Economics and Management.
    7. Teresa Molina Millán & Karen Macours, 2017. "Attrition in randomized control trials: Using tracking information to correct bias," FEUNL Working Paper Series novaf:wp1702, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Faculdade de Economia.
    8. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde, 2009. "Homo Reciprocans: Survey Evidence on Behavioural Outcomes," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(536), pages 592-612, March.
    9. C. Spiess & Katharina Wrohlich, 2008. "The Parental Leave Benefit Reform in Germany: Costs and Labour Market Outcomes of Moving towards the Nordic Model," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 27(5), pages 575-591, October.
    10. Constant, Amelie F. & Gataullina, Liliya & Zimmermann, Klaus F., 2009. "Ethnosizing immigrants," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 274-287, March.
    11. Michael Fertig & Katja Görlitz, 2012. "Item Nonresponse in Wages: Testing for Biased Estimates in Wage Equations," Ruhr Economic Papers 0333, Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Universität Dortmund, Universität Duisburg-Essen.
    12. Liebig, Stefan & Schupp, Jürgen, 2008. "Leistungs- oder Bedarfsgerechtigkeit? Über einen normativen Zielkonflikt des Wohlfahrtsstaats und seiner Bedeutung für die Bewertung des eigenen Erwerbseinkommens," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 59(1), pages 7-30.
    13. Frick, Joachim R. & Grabka, Markus M. & Groh-Samberg, Olaf, 2007. "Economic Gains from Publicly Provided Education in Germany," IZA Discussion Papers 2911, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    14. Hai Zhong, 2010. "The impact of missing data in the estimation of concentration index: a potential source of bias," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 11(3), pages 255-266, June.
    15. Jensen, Nathan M. & Li, Quan & Rahman, Aminur, 2007. "Heard melodies are sweet, but those unheard are sweeter : understanding corruption using cross-national firm-level surveys," Policy Research Working Paper Series 4413, The World Bank.
    16. Kapteyn, Arie & Michaud, Pierre-Carl & Smith, James P. & van Soest, Arthur, 2006. "Effects of Attrition and Non-Response in the Health and Retirement Study," IZA Discussion Papers 2246, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    17. McGovern, Mark E. & Canning, David & Bärnighausen, Till, 2018. "Accounting for non-response bias using participation incentives and survey design: An application using gift vouchers," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 239-244.
    18. Laszlo Goerke & Markus Pannenberg, 2005. "Severance Pay and the Shadow of the Law: Evidence for West Germany," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 541, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    19. Adrian Chadi, 2019. "Dissatisfied with life or with being interviewed? Happiness and the motivation to participate in a survey," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 53(3), pages 519-553, October.
    20. Schaefer, Thilo & Peichl, Andreas, 2006. "Documentation FiFoSiM: integrated tax benefit microsimulation and CGE model," FiFo Discussion Papers - Finanzwissenschaftliche Diskussionsbeiträge 06-10, University of Cologne, FiFo Institute for Public Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C81 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Methodology for Collecting, Estimating, and Organizing Microeconomic Data; Data Access
    • D31 - Microeconomics - - Distribution - - - Personal Income and Wealth Distribution
    • I32 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - Measurement and Analysis of Poverty

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:diw:diwwpp:dp376. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Bibliothek (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/diwbede.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.