Application of ESeC in Estonian Social Surveys based on EU-SILC and LFS data Merle Paats Leading Statistician from the Social Statistics Department, Estonia

ESeCJuly, 2006 The comparison between the ESeC simplified classes and ESeC full classes. To compare the usage of ESeC based on LFS and EU-SILC data. The purpose

ESeCJuly, 2006 The aim of the survey is to get an overview of the labour market situation. ES conducted the first LFS at the beginning of The survey is conducted continuously since The Estonian LFS is based on the definitions devised by the ILO and EUROSTAT regulations. Estonian LFS

ESeCJuly, 2006 The aim of the survey is to obtain comparative and reliable statistics on income distribution, living conditions and social exclusion. ES runs the survey since The Estonian EU-SILC is based on the EUROSTAT regulations. Estonian EU-SILC

ESeCJuly, 2006 Required information ISCO88, 3 digitISCO88, 4 digit Yes For ref. period, for the inactive number of direct subordinates in the last job For ref. period yes, for the inactive no Number of direct subordinates Information about reference week or about last job.

ESeCJuly, 2006 For assigning the ESeC values the SPSS Syntax developed by Institute for Social and Economic Research was used. Number of employees is included in information about job during of reference week. For the information about the last job, the number of direct subordinates was used: –Sole proprietor – 0 employees –Employer with employee(s) – number of direct subordinates The number of direct subordinates for supervisor status was used. The person with at least 3 direct subordinates was coded into the supervisor group. Problems with implementing ESeC

ESeCJuly, 2006 The code Crop and animal producers – was missing in the syntax of ESeC Simplified classes. It was coded into class number “5” according the table of “Class matrix for EuroESeC”. The combined classification of ISCO-88 and ISCO-88 for European Union purposes is used in Estonia. Problems with implementing ESeC

ESeCJuly, 2006 The difference is not very big between using of the ESeC simplified classes and ESeC full classes: 94% of persons fall in the same class and 6% of the persons fall to different classes. The difference is higher in following Esec classes: –Small employers and self-employed (agriculture) –Lower technical –Lower mgrs/professionals, higher supervisory/technicians Results

ESeCJuly, 2006 Results

ESeCJuly, 2006 Small employers and self-employed (agriculture): –When using the simplified ESeC 17% of them fall into class of lower technical occupations and 3% of them fall in the class of routine occupations. Actually they are self-employed without employees. Lower technical –When using the simplified ESeC 18% of them fall into class of small employers and self-employed in agriculture. Actually they are employees or non-paid family workers. Lower mgrs/professionals, higher supervisory/technicians –When using the simplified ESeC 13% of them fall into class of small employers and self-employed. Actually they are managers of small enterprises. The simplified ESeC is based on the occupation only and it is thus impossible to consider the employment status. Results

ESeCJuly, 2006 The more problematic occupations are: Managers of small enterprises (131): –ESeC full classes they fall into the class of large employers, higher mgrs/professionals; lower mgrs/professionals, higher supervisory/technicians or small employers and self-employed (non- agriculture) according to employment status, number of employees and supervisor status. –ESeC simplified classes they fall into the class of small employers and self-employed (non-agriculture). Skilled agricultural workers (611, 612, 613): –ESeC full classes they fall mostly (70%) into the class of lower technical occupations or small employers and self-employed (agriculture) (30%). –ESeC simplified classes they fall into the class of small employers and self-employed (agriculture) Results

ESeCJuly, 2006 Forestry and fishery workers (614, 615): –ESeC full classes they mostly fall into the class of lower technical occupations (55%) or small employers and self-employed (agriculture) (31%). –ESeC simplified classes they fall into the class of lower technical occupations. In general, the problems occur with recoding of 6% of persons. Results

ESeCJuly, 2006 ESeC simplified classification was used for comparison of EU-SILC and LFS data The distribution of ESeC classes was similar in the LFS and EU- SILC The differences between surveys were a result of different survey methodology – LFS includes all working-age population (15 – 74) and EU-SILC includes all persons older than 15. EU-SILC and LFS

ESeCJuly, 2006 EU-SILC and LFS

ESeCJuly, 2006 For assigning the ESeC values the full ESeC classification should be used – for this purpose the several questions should be added. For earlier years, it is possible to use the simplified Esec classification. For comparison with earlier years the Esec classes on higher level should be used. Conclusion