1. Some comments on ESEC outline of the talk Theoretical aspects, objectives : what we agree on, what we suggest Measurement issues Coding ISCO Additional information Proposals More specific comments on matrix

2. Theoretical aspects, objectives We agree to construct & use a european socioeconomic classification Main argument : allow cross country comparability To achieve this, ESEC must be based on explicit foundations Allow cross country comparability Bonus : clear interpretation in terms of own effect Not many “theoretical” frameworks available We agree on schema à la Golthorpe Causal interpretation of ESEC is in terms of employment relations

3. Theoretical aspects, main proposals On the ranking of ESEC groups : independents & employees have fundamentally different employment relations  renumber groups 4 & 5 into 1 & 2 What about “life employment” type contracts ? Current ESEC solely based on service relationship vs labour contract In France, “life employment” is an omitted & important type of employment relation (full security contract)

4. About “life employment” Proposal = add “full security” contract as form of employment regulation At the 2 digit level of ESEC ? 2 digit codes empty in countries where “life employment” does not exist France : over 20% of employees have “full security” contracts ; high explanatory power

6. Measurement issues Coding 3-digit ISCO using french sources requires : 4 digit occupation + 4 digit activity In turn, this requires a large amount of information, not available in many sources relevant for ESEC validation (eg : health, cultural participation)

7. Measurement issues Using the matrix requires additional information : status of employment (independent / employee) + number of employees if independent : mostly OK, only issue is farmers Employees : problem of identifying managers & supervisors Within managers & professionals, problem of identifying higher & lower

8. Managers Use of firm size, not viewed as acceptable to distinguish higher from lower managers Constructing the category in French sources : use of self-declared classification of employment in the firm (“conventions collectives”) Higher managers = directors or one of their close assistants Lower managers = all other executives (“cadres”) with commercial or administrative function Choice consistent with “theory” (“higher” = “senior”)

9. Professionals A professional can be a manager in the above sense (eg : head of R&D) If so, should be treated as a manager Higher & lower professional (based on level of “expertise”) can not often be distinguished (engineers, senior vs junior) In French sources, we use 4-digit occupation ; most engineers do not qualify as higher professional

10. Supervisors Missing variable : cannot solely be inferred from occupation ; not usually available Add a new variable ? Also useful to define managers & higher professionals (eg : if engineer, number of persons under direct supervision) Otherwise : acceptable approximation = self- declared employment classification (“agent de maîtrise”)

11. Routine vs semi-routine Neither observed, nor precisely defined Major measurement issue French attempts to proxy by skill (firm classification of skills based on technical level of expertise, but also responsibility) Matrix V2 : routine vs lower technical

12. More specific comments on matrix V1 Independents : no comment

13. More specific comments on matrix V1 Employees : Upper part of classification French approach leads to more “elitist” ESEC, consistently with theoretical definition ; => Small group 1 : directors, close associates + specialized doctors, researchers, University teachers & similar occupations ; group 2 reserved for plain engineers & executives, teachers ; nurses, librarians belong to group 3, unless supervisor Matrix : all executives more or less presumed to be higher managers ; most professionals presumed “higher” =>Consequence : all in group 1 ; group 2 reserved for nurses and the like

14. More specific comments on matrix V1 Examples : Upper part of classification Most professional (ISCO 21, 22, 24) => group 1 ; only exception : teachers (ISCO 23) => group 2 Criticism : a majority of professionals theoretically belongs to group 2 All “managers” (ISCO 12) => group 1 Criticism : most of them are not higher managers (plain administrative or commercial executives, even (or more so ?) in large firms

15. More specific comments on matrix V1 Examples : Upper part of classification Most administrative or sales associate professionals (ISCO 34) => group 2 ; Criticism : no reliable information on supervisory powers (higher supervisory) Most clerks (ISCO 41, 42, including plain secretaries, supermarket cashiers) => group 3 Criticism : most of them do not have sufficient “expertise” ; they would be better classified in group 7, unless additional information available

16. More specific comments on matrix V1 Employees : lower part of classification By default, french approach of ESEC also more “elitist” ; => group 3 : nurses, sales representatives, technicians ; group 6 : supervisors + upper fringe of production workers ; group 7 : most secretaries, skilled employees ; group 8 : unskilled employees Matrix : as nurses & the like in group 2, most secretaries in group 3 ; Difference stems from choices made in upper part of classification

17. More specific comments on matrix V1 Example : salespersons Matrix : ISCO 52 => group 7 ; ISCO 91 => group 8 ; Problem in France : few persons coded in ISCO 91; Solution : use french PCS instead, with distinction between “skilled” & “unskilled” salespersons

18. Conclusions Using matrix induces 2 sources of errors, at the stage of coding ISCO, in rows (eg France does not use the 10 employees threshold), At the stage of defining additional variables, in columns Countries have access to different information on occupation & additional variables Matrix different across countries desirable, based on national classification of occupation + all relevant information available

19. Conclusions Therefore ESEC consistent with theoretical foundations + permitting cross country comparability is best achieved by providing “guidelines” based on ISCO rather than a ready-to-use matrix “Validation” in terms of consistency with theoretical principles to be carried out on this basis