Highlights from ILO LFS pilot studies (2015-2017) Elisa M. Benes ILO Department of Statistics LAMAS TF1 Meeting Athens, Greece 24-25 April 2017 ILO Department of Statistics

Contents Overview of ILO pilot studies, phase 1 Model questionnaires tested Differences in module: Identification of persons employed Differences in module: Job search, desire and availability Main findings from Cognitive tests Main findings from Field tests ILO Department of Statistics

Objectives and scope To develop model question sequences and guidance for LFS Aligned with new 19th ICLS standards Based on existing good practice AND new evidence Scope focuses on measurement of Employment (as work for pay or profit) Measures of Labour Underutilization Persons in own-use production of goods (and working time) Main activity as self-reported Not designed to assess impact on indicators (*) Measurement of Volunteer work, Unpaid trainee work and Other forms of work to be researched in the future ILO Department of Statistics

Pilot study design Cognitive test Field test Wave 1 -Reliability Global level 10 participating countries selected from different regions 5 questionnaire types as per most common LFS practices Country level 2 model questionnaires (1 as per national practice, 1 alternative) Implementation phase: May 2015 – November 2016 Qualitative evaluation Cognitive test -Specification errors -Design effects Quantitative evaluation Field test Wave 1 -Reliability -Coherence -Operational issues Field test Wave 2 -Reliability ILO Department of Statistics

Countries and Model assignment Choice based on: -Economic context -National practice -Regional comparisons ILO Department of Statistics

Model Questionnaires: 5 developed & tested Work in agriculture starting approach For settings with widespread agriculture M1 Main activity approach Common in population censuses, pacific islands M2 Worked for pay or profit approach Traditional in LFS M3 Employment type approach Common in Southern Africa & Asia M4 Has job / business approach Suggested in Europe to address problems with absence q. M5 ILO Department of Statistics

Basic structure of model questionnaires Models 3, 4 and 5 Work in agriculture / fishing Main activity / situation Employment For market production For market production 1st & 2nd job Job search Employment Employment Main activity / situation 1st & 2nd job Job search 1st & 2nd job Job search Main activity / situation Own use production work Own use production work

Main differences: models 3, 4 & 5 Identification of persons employed Did something to generate income, 1+ hours Worked for pay or profit Short Absence Main job Job search N S For market production Family helper Worked for profit, 1+ hrs Worked for pay, 1+ hours Short Absence Main job Job search N S Family helper For market production Has business Has work for pay Short Absence Main job Job search N S Family helper For market production Last week, did something to generate income, 1+ hours

Main findings from cognitive tests: Employment Participants in general understood the main objective of the questions In some cases, some terms / phrases were not clearly understood “for profit”: as “god-given”; “additional paid activity”; “extra money from an occasional job” “in kind”: as “illegal payments/exchanges”; “in exchange for personal services” “for at least 1 hour”: as “additional work or overtime” “household”: as “household assets” “help” a “household” member with...: as “financial help”; “help with domestic work”;... Recovery questions served well to identify persons with short, casual, informal type jobs List of examples; specific questions for family workers Inconsistent understanding of the reference periods: Last week: as “Monday to Friday”; “Sunday to Saturday”; “Monday to Saturday”;... Last 7 days: as “Monday to Friday”; “Monday to Sunday”;... ILO Department of Statistics

Identification of employed respondents Differences between models (I) Significant differences in: M5 vs M3 (only) Borderline significant in: M3 vs M2 (PHL) M4 vs M1 (NAM) Otherwise, no significant differences in levels of employment identified. ILO Department of Statistics

Main findings (II): Relevance of recovery questions Share of employed identified by question component M5 M4 M3 M2 M1 Core Q ~78-97% ~95-98% ~80-94% ~90% ~85% Recovery Q ~6-10% n/a <0.2-7% ~7-11% ~3-7% CFW Q <0.5-15% ~2-7% ~1-11% <0.5-5% ~2-5% Absence Q <0.5-4% ~2-8% 5-7% Agric. rec. ~0-1% Issues -Over id. of absence >3mo. -Over id. of subsistence agric -Miss-id of self-employed in Q1. -No need to recover agric. -Need additional Q to recover agric. -Complex skips Burden Lower: -No market check -Small % asked market check Q Higher: -High % asked market check Q Lowest: -Shortest seq. -Low burden also for those not employed -Most relevant for rural areas -No so relevant start for urban areas ILO Department of Statistics

Model 5 –Stepwise identification 1 2 3 4 Relies on understanding of “job” and “business” to identify persons employed [78-97% of employed] Essential to include recovery questions for persons who worked in reference week (including as CFW) but did not recognize their work as a “job” or “business” [15-20% of employed] Question on temporary absence recovers few [0.4% of employed], seems more relevant for CFW Can lead to some misclassification of persons on long absence from a “job/business” [0.1-10% of employed)] ILO Department of Statistics

Model 4 –Stepwise identification 1 2 3 4 Separate Q. on “work for a wage, salary or other pay” and “do any kind of business, farming or other activity to generate an income” seem to identify most of the employed [95-98% of employed] Need to include a separate question to recover contributing family workers [2-7% of employed] Some misreporting of agriculture / fishing for own final use as “ work to generate income” [1-5% of employed] Does not seem to require additional recovery of agriculture/fishing for market [0-1% of employed] ILO Department of Statistics

Model 3 –Stepwise identification 1 2 3 4 Traditional question on “work for pay or profit” identifies between 80-94% of employed Essential to include a separate question to recover contributing family workers [1-11% of employed] Limited misreporting of agriculture/fishing for own final use as “work for profit” [1-6% of employed] Requires additional recovery of agriculture/fishing for market [1-6% of employed] ILO Department of Statistics

Job search modules tested: 2 versions Version A (models 3 & 5) Version B (models 1, 2 & 4) Focus Search for casual jobs recovery All job search methods Desire to work only Two ref. periods for availability Tested in 9 pilot countries Cameroon Ecuador Ivory Coast Kyrgyzstan Moldova Peru Philippines Tunisia Vietnam Focus Q. for seeking self-employment Main job search method only Q. for future starters Need and desire to work Two ref. periods for availability Tested in 8 pilot countries Cameroon Ivory Coast Kyrgyzstan Peru Philippines Tunisia Vietnam Namibia ILO Department of Statistics

Module A: Job search ILO Department of Statistics

Module B: Job search ILO Department of Statistics

Main findings from cognitive tests: Job search, desire, need and availability Overall the questions performed well Clear and consistent understanding of job search as referring to search for work in exchange for pay / profit Clear and consistent understanding of “desire”, “need” and availability” to work for pay / profit Desire as “want” (personal factors considered in answering: financial need, use of qualifications, independence from relatives, avoid boredom) Need as “financial need” Availability as “having time” (personal factors considered in answering) Reference period for job search Last 4 weeks: Inconsistent interpretation as “last month”, “previous and current month” ILO Department of Statistics

Methods of job search Passive methods seldom reported as only method (version A) But higher share reports it as main method ILO Department of Statistics

Desire to work Reporting of desire slightly higher than need Relevant in urban/rural areas, with different groups ILO Department of Statistics

Availability to work Relevance of extending availability of reference period ILO Department of Statistics

Principal conclusions Employment Alternative sequences are comparable when all components are included Starting question best kept simple (reduces confusion, burden) Recovery Q. important for CFW and casual work Boundary Q. important to separate Employment & Own-use production Need to specify the start-end of the reference week Job search, desire, availability Interpreted as intended Passive methods generally reported together with active methods Desire Q. relevant for different groups (urban/rural; men/women) Need to specify the start-end of reference periods ILO Department of Statistics

Resources and Contact ILO LFS pilot studies programme http://www.ilo.org/stat/Areasofwork/Standards/lfs/lang--en/index.htm ICLS Resolutions and Guidelines http://www.ilo.org/global/statistics-and databases/standards-and-guidelines/ STATISTICS contact statistics@ilo.org ILO Department of Statistics