Census Bureau – Fernando Casimiro, Coordinator IPUMS - Portugal Census Bureau – Fernando Casimiro, Coordinator Barcelona - 2008.07.10

Summary Main subjects of the slides: History Quality indicators for the last 3 censuses Microdata files Samples Metadata consistency across time

Main historic features Population counts in the years 0000, 1260, 1421, 1527,1636, 1732, 1776 and 1801; New census data set, following main features of Brussels Congress held on 1853: 1864, 1878, 1890, 1900, 1911, 1920, 1930, 1940, 1950, 1960, 1970, 1981, 1991 and 2001; Last 3 censuses constitute the most consistent group in terms of concepts, tabulation data and microdata available.

Quality indicators 1981 First attempt to carry out a PES, but didn’t succeed due to technical constrains and lack of human resources; In any case, 1981 census data were very well accepted, but: Previous census data (1970) had a lot of problems/suspicions due to the decrease of population Substantial change in the population due to return of people from former African colonies (1974 and 1975) Most municipalities increased their population There was not a deep tradition on contesting official figures

Quality indicators 1991   Building Housing unit Private household Resident person PORTUGAL 99,6 99,42 99,24 99,04 North 99 Centre 99,67 Lisboa 98,12 Alentejo 102,2 Algarve 100,3 Açores 99,48 Madeira 100 For the first time a PES released data, but not very well accepted due to: Higher expectations regarding population figures at national level as well as local level mostly due to the existing population estimates and some local registers not duly updated (electoral register); Emigration higher than expected; Some difficulties on the public’s perception about net and gross differences; And a PES not fully succeeded regarding methodology and results

Quality indicators 2001   Building Housing unit Private household Resident person Rate (%) SD PORTUGAL 99,7 0,3 99,5 0,2 101,1 0,4 100,7 North 0,5 99,8 101 Centre 99,9 100 101,4 0,7 100,9 Lisboa 98,7 0,6 99 101,6 1,1 Alentejo 100,6 102,1 0,9 100,8 0,8 Algarve 96,8 1,9 96,7 1,7 101,5 2,5 102,4 2,1 Açores 0,1 104,6 Madeira 99,3 99,2 101,2 1,3 101,8 1,8 For the first time a PES was fully released and its results almost fully accepted: Methodology was clear and supported by an academic institution; Results were released completely in line with the scheduled; Portugal becomes a immigration country instead of an emigration country Final figures are in line with the population estimates; Some strong updates were carried out in the electoral register

1981, 1991 and 2001 microdata samples Systematic selection for every 20th private dwelling/housing unit (start on the first dwelling for each of the seven NUTS II); Systematic sample for every 20th person living in collective dwellings (start on the first person living in a collective dwelling of each of the seven NUTS II) Geographical breakdowns only for areas ≥ 200.000 people

1981, 1991 and 2001 microdata samples Why did we decide to extract independent samples?

1981, 1991 and 2001 microdata samples (National and Regional) Main age groups 1981   <15 15 - 24 25 - 64 >=65 Portugal 0,02 0,69 0,05 -0,17 North 0,74 1,02 0,00 0,12 Center 0,28 -0,39 0,32 0,31 Lisbon 0,01 1,52 0,19 -1,61 Alentejo -2,47 -0,15 -0,75 -1,17 Algarve -0,27 0,63 -0,40 1,64 Azores -4,98 -0,79 1,76 Madeira -0,35 0,87 0,67 2,48 Main age groups 1991 15-24 25-64 -0,56 0,24 -0,64 0,52 -1,22 0,46 -1,05 0,48 -0,42 0,41 -0,84 1,97 0,47 0,55 0,04 -0,26 -0,28 0,83 1,71 0,34 0,11 -5,06 -0,86 2,24 -1,81 -5,27 -3,01 -5,17 -2,03 6,67 Data on main age groups seem very consistent; only some few major differences in Azores in 1981 and Algarve in 1991 and 2001, although most of them below 5% Main age groups 2001   < 15 15-24 25-64 >=65 Portugal -0,09 -0,35 -0,24 0,27 North 0,06 -0,03 -0,23 -0,17 Center -0,40 0,91 0,37 0,10 Lisbon 0,35 -1,41 -0,79 0,70 Alentejo 0,79 -1,01 0,25 -0,84 Algarve -4,48 -2,65 -0,99 3,91 Azores -1,26 -0,64 -2,00 1,55 Madeira 0,89 1,42 0,49

1981, 1991 and 2001 microdata samples (National) Persons 1981 1991 2001 Resident population 0,12 -0,2 -0,15 Living in conventional dwellings 0,11 -0,3 -0,13 Living in other housing units than com. Dw. 0,75 -1,3 -3,15 Living in collective dwellings 0,16 0,07 Data on type of housing unit where resident population are living as well as on marital status seem also very consistent at national level Marital status 1981 1991 2001 Single 0,10 -0,22 -0,23 Married (registered) 0,26 -0,52 -0,19 Married (not registered)   1,57 0,65 Viúvo -0,65 0,50 0,16 Separado -2,15 -1,45 0,28 Divorciado -0,36 -2,57 -0,60

1981, 1991 and 2001 microdata samples (National) But not exactly the same happens with the main source of livelihood, where some modalities have greater differences Main source of livelihood 1981 1991 2001 Employment 0,10 -0,47 -0,34 Unemployment benefits 2,20 0,97 0,08 Benefits due to accident or sickness -20,35 0,21 -5,07 Other benefits -15,08 5,81 3,87 Minimum allowance   -1,69 Pension 0,39 0,34 0,23 Public or private assistance 1,38 -2,42 4,62 On household charge 0,14 -0,57 -0,20 Property and investments 2,49 1,60 4,02 Other -0,13 -0,17 -0,07

1981, 1991 and 2001 microdata samples (National) Educational attainment (ISCED 97) 1981 1991 2001 Iliterate 0,07 -0,25 -0,13 Literate, but witout educational attainment 0,48 -0,50 0,26 1º Cycle (ISCED 1) -0,08 -0,26 -0,46 2º Cycle (ISCED 1) 0,68 0,14 0,33 3º Cycle (ISCED 2) -1,64 0,25 -0,17 Secundary (ISCED 3) 1,50 -0,23 Post secundary (ISCED 4) -0,58 -2,14 1,22 Bachelor (ISCED 5B)   0,08 -0,56 Licenciate (ISCED 5A) -0,81 -0,82 Master (ISCED 5A) 3,36 Doctorate (ISCED 6) -3,31 High level (ISCED 5+6) 0,56 Master and Doctorate (ISCED 5+6) But educational attainment seems also very consistent, almost surprisingly for some levels of education.

1981, 1991 and 2001 microdata samples (National) As well as main economic characteristics … with a little exception Status in employment 1981 1991 2001 Employer 3,02 1,19 -0,24 Own-account worker 0,30 -0,05 -1,47 Contributing family worker -0,18 -0,74 -0,28 Employee 2,46 -0,43 Compulsary military service   5,37 5,82 Member of producer's co-operatives -1,83 -2,71 -7,42 Other situation 3,92 4,53 -0,87 Not applicable 0,13 -1,26 0,03 Current activity status 1981 1991 2001 Employed 0,22 -0,36 Unemployed 0,96 -1,76 0,21 Not economically active 0,04 -0,25 0,00

1981, 1991 and 2001 microdata samples (National) Regarding housing units, the type of housing surprises by the size of the difference in 1991 but it only concerns a small part of housing; Occupancy status is very consistent; Type of housing 1981 1991 2001 Housing units 0,00 Conventional dwellings 0,10 0,01 Other housing units than convent. dwellings 0,11 -8,57 -1,3 Occupancy status 1981 1991 2001 Usual residence 0,00 -0,17 -0,06 Seasonal or secondary use 2,70 -0,46 0,03 Vacant for sale -2,02 -1,46 -0,79 Vacant for rent -2,56 1,53 -0,69 Vacant for demolition -2,83 -0,98 -0,04 Other cases -3,11 2,33 0,96

1981, 1991 and 2001 microdata samples (National) Consistency still remains high for bathing facilities and kitchen Bathing facilities 1981 1991 2001 Fixed bath or shower -0,09 -0,19 -0,05 No fixed bath or shower 0,98 -0,08 -0,15 Not applicable 2,51 -0,60 0,14 Kitchen With kitchen -0,03 -0,31 Only kitchenette 1,52 -0,44 0,90 No kitchen or kitchenette 0,27 -1,19 5,21 3,80 -0,61 0,12

1981, 1991 and 2001 microdata samples (National) Overall consistency also for sewage system, while … More or less the same for the type of ownership with the exception of the sub-rented dwellings in 1991 Type of sewage disposal system 1981 1991 2001 Piped system conected to public network 0,10 0,17 Piped system conected to private network -0,69 -0,56 -0,57 Other system to a open destination 0,26 1,79 2,26 No system at all 2,32 -0,73 -1,81 Not applicable 2,51 -0,60 0,14 Type of ownership 1981 1991 2001 Owner 0,22 -0,19 0,02 Rented dwelling -0,36 0,01 0,00 Sub-Rented dwelling 0,52 -9,56 -2,59 Other cases 0,85 -0,32 -1,39 Not applicable 3,80 -0,34 0,12

Users must be advised about the differences? Why not, unless all of them are aware of all the differences by checking the national results available … what is not so easy! Not for all, but at least for greater than 20%? It must be noted that the regional and local levels usually have greater differences. Why not a common framework (Quality certification?) to check the consistency between data samples released and the respective universes?

Metadata consistency across time Population characteristics (de jure) Geographic No problems at all, more than the updating of geographic classifications Demographic Marital status: prevalence of legal in 1981, while prevalence of de facto in the remaining Economic Different minimum age limits: 12 in 1981 and 1991 and 15 in 2001 Some adjustments in modalities of some variables, like time usually worked International classifications are have changed across time

Metadata consistency across time Population characteristics (de jure) Educational No major questions more than the inclusion of professional training as level of education in 1981 and 1991; because professional training may correspond to different official levels of education, in 2001 only official levels of education were enumerated Migrations In 1981, previous residence 5 years before census day … was 7 years (1973), to capture migration flows from Africa No other questions, more than the updating of geographic classifications

Metadata consistency across time Population characteristics (de jure) Ethno-cultural Only religion exists and no problems at all Disability Only for 2001 Household and family International definition of “child” changed in 2001 from “single” to “not married” and we did it accordingly

Metadata consistency across time Housing units characteristics Type of heating and lift Only for 2001 Water, bathing, electricity, mortgage or loan, sewage, ownership, nº of rooms, nº of residents, type of living quarter and type of roof and materials used Fully comparable Kitchen Breakdown “less than and 4m2 or more” was inserted in 1991 following international recommendations; fully comparable with this aggregation

Metadata consistency across time Housing units characteristics Occupancy status Full comparability needs the aggregation of sub-modalities of secondary use Toilet Fully comparability needs the aggregation of modality “outside the dwelling” included in 1991 following international recommendations Dwelling ownership Some modalities have to be aggregated to reach full comparability Period of construction Most recent modalities have to be aggregated to reach full comparability upon the date of each census

Final Thanks for your attention!