IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

The comparability of Labour Force Survey (LFS) and Quarterly Labour Force Survey (QLFS)

Listed author(s):
  • Derek Yu


    (Department of Economics, University of Stellenbosch)

Registered author(s):

Statistics South Africa (Stats SA) has been collecting labour market data since 1993 with the October Household Survey (OHS), which was conducted annually between 1993 and 1999, as well as the Labour Force Survey (LFS), which was a biannual survey introduced in 2000 to replace the OHS. In March 2005, consultants from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) were appointed to revise all aspects of the LFS. All documents, processes and procedures relating to the LFS were reviewed, before a report on the findings was presented to Stats SA in June 2005. At the end, it was decided to re-engineer the LFS, and this took place in October 2005. Moreover, consultants were appointed in 2006 to help improve the survey questionnaire, sampling and weighting, data capture and processing systems. Eventually, Stats SA came up with a decision that the LFS would take place on a quarterly basis from 2008, i.e., the Quarterly Labour Force Survey (QLFS) was introduced to replace the LFS. The comparability issues between the OHSs and LFSs have been discussed thoroughly by Burger and Yu (2006), Casale, Muller and Posel (2005), Wittenberg (2004) and Yu (2007), focusing on changes in the sampling frame, inconsistencies in the questionnaire design, changes in the methodology to derive labour market status, trends in numerous variables (e.g., demographics, educational attainment, labour force participation rates, unemployment rates, earnings, etc.), oversampling of informal sector workers in 2000, overestimation of the earnings of self-employed in the OHSs, and the continuous improvement of the questionnaire by Stats SA. Therefore, this paper rather focuses on the comparability between LFS and QLFS, so as to assist researchers and policy makers when they try to analyze or compare both the LFS and QLFS data. As only four QLFSs have taken place at the time of writing, trends in variables will not be the focus of this paper. Instead, this paper will mainly look at the changes in questionnaire design, sampling method, derivation of new variables (i.e., underemployment status and unemployment status), a new methodology to capture the formal/informal status of the employed, as well as the drastic changes in methodology to capture labour market status. With regard to the latter, it is found that there is no longer a clear distinction between strict and broad labour market status in the QLFS, and this makes it difficult to derive long-term trends in the labour force participation rates (LFPRs) and unemployment rates under both strict and broad definitions.

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:
File Function: First version, 2009
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Stellenbosch University, Department of Economics in its series Working Papers with number 08/2009.

in new window

Date of creation: 2009
Handle: RePEc:sza:wpaper:wpapers80
Contact details of provider: Postal:
Private Bag X1, 7602 Matieland

Phone: 021-8082247
Fax: +27 (0)21-808 2409
Web page:

More information through EDIRC

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

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

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sza:wpaper:wpapers80. 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: (Melt van Schoor)

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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.