Choosing among alternative classification criteria to measure the labour force state
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.
|Date of creation:||Oct 2005|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Phone: (+44) 020 7291 4800
Fax: (+44) 020 7323 4780
Web page: http://www.ifs.org.uk
More information through EDIRC
|Order Information:|| Postal: The Institute for Fiscal Studies 7 Ridgmount Street LONDON WC1E 7AE|
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.:
- Stephen R. G. Jones & W. Craig Riddell, 1999.
"The Measurement of Unemployment: An Empirical Approach,"
Econometric Society, vol. 67(1), pages 147-162, January.
- Stephen R. G. Jones & W. Craig Riddell, . "The Measurement Of Unemployment: An Empirical Approach," Canadian International Labour Network Working Papers 09, McMaster University.
- Erich Battistin & Barbara Sianesi, 2006. "Misreported schooling and returns to education: evidence from the UK," CeMMAP working papers CWP07/06, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
- David Bartholomew, 1997. "Editorial: The Measurement of Unemployment in the UK: the Position at June 1997," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 160(3), pages 385-388.
- Christopher J. Flinn & James J. Heckman, 1982.
"Are Unemployment and Out of the Labor Force Behaviorally Distinct Labor Force States?,"
NBER Working Papers
0979, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Flinn, Christopher J & Heckman, James J, 1983. "Are Unemployment and Out of the Labor Force Behaviorally Distinct Labor Force States?," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(1), pages 28-42, January.
- 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.
- Andrea Brandolini & Piero Cipollone & Eliana Viviano, 2004.
"Does the ILO Definition Capture All Unemployment?,"
Temi di discussione (Economic working papers)
529, Bank of Italy, Economic Research and International Relations Area.
- 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.
- Filippo Altissimo & Domenico J. Marchetti & Gian Paolo Oneto, 2000. "The Italian Business Cycle; Coincident and Leading Indicators and Some Stylized Facts," Temi di discussione (Economic working papers) 377, Bank of Italy, Economic Research and International Relations Area.
- Filippo Altissimo & Domenico J. Marchetti & Gian Paolo Oneto, 2000. "The Italian Business Cycle: Coincident and Leading Indicators and Some Stylized Facts," Giornale degli Economisti, GDE (Giornale degli Economisti e Annali di Economia), Bocconi University, vol. 59(2), pages 147-220, September.
- Altissimo, F. & Marchetti, D.J. & Oneto, G.P., 2000. "The Italian Business Cycle: Coincident and Leading Indicators and Some Stylized Facts," Papers 377, Banca Italia - Servizio di Studi.
- Dominik H. Enste & Friedrich Schneider, 2000. "Shadow Economies: Size, Causes, and Consequences," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(1), pages 77-114, March.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ifs:ifsewp:05/18. 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: (Stephanie Seavers)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.