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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. Model 5 –Stepwise identification1 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

13. Model 4 –Stepwise identification1 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

14. Model 3 –Stepwise identification1 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

15. 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

16. Module A: Job search
ILO Department of Statistics

17. Module B: Job search
ILO Department of Statistics

18. 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

19. 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

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

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

22. 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

23. Resources and Contact ILO LFS pilot studies programme
ICLS Resolutions and Guidelines
databases/standards-and-guidelines/
STATISTICS contact
ILO Department of Statistics