Validation studies : projects using French data Assessing the consistency of ESEC with theoretical framework à la Goldthorpe Assessing the explanatory power of ESEC on various outcome variables

Assessing the consistency of ESEC The data : 1998 working conditions survey (supplementing the LFS) => Information available on autonomy, routine, authority over employees, wage, tenure, short term contract (details below) Compare various definitions of ESEC … => based on French PCS (first definition of ESEC) => based on beta-matrix => based on matrix V2 … In terms of explanatory power => regarding autonomy, routine, authority, wage…

Method of analysis Carry out analysis of variance for previous variables Criterion : definition of ESEC performs better, the higher the variance between groups, & the smaller the variance within groups Run the regression by OLS of variables on ESEC group indicators, and recover the R²

Method of analysis 2 sets of variables : “global variables” assumed to be relevant for every group of ESEC : autonomy, wage, tenure, short term contract “local variables” relevant for given pairs of groups : routine, authority => assess the ability of a given definition of ESEC to separate particular pairs

Autonomy variables (employees) “You carry out instructions strictly” vs “Sometimes you do otherwise” & “Most of the time you do otherwise” & “Not relevant” “You are told what to do & how to do it” vs “You are told what to do but you decide how to do it”

Wage variable (employees) Monthly earnings + yearly bonus Lack of sufficient information on structure of earnings (monthly bonuses) More information available in other sources than LFS, yet 4-digit occupation not available in these sources Further analysis using additional sources requires measure of ESEC based on 2-digit occupation

Short term contract Unlimited duration labour contracts (“contrat à durée indéterminée”) Vs Limited duration contract (“contrat à durée déterminée”) Temporary work (“intérim”) Subsidized jobs, training schemes, work placement (“emplois aidés”, “stages”)

Routine “Does your job consist in repeating the same series of operations ?” => local variable : group 7 vs group 8 in ESEC first definition, groups 6 & 8 vs group 9 in ESEC second definition

Authority “Do you have one employee or more under your authority” Local explanatory power : => group 1 vs group 2, group 2 vs group 3, in both ESEC definitions => group 6 vs group 7 & 8, in first ESEC definition => group 7 vs groups 6, 8 & 9, in second ESEC definition

Conclusion Summary of above results : most of the time, relatively poor explanatory power Most of the time ESEC based on ISCO 2 better than ESEC based on ISCO 1 On autonomy, PCS based definitions slightly better than ISCO 1, close enough to ISCO 2 On wage, PCS based definitions slightly better On routine, PCS based definitions slightly better but weak explanatory power On authority, ISCO based definitions better in upper part of ESEC (1/2, 2/3), PCS based definition better in lower part (6/7 & 8)

Conclusion Future research on outcome variables : Testing various ESEC definitions to explain cultural and sportive activities (EPCV 2003, Y Lemel) To be confirmed : health, consumption Important restriction : requires definition of ESEC built on 2-digit PCS (Catégories socioprofessionnelles)