This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
www.ipums.org/international 1
IPUMS-International partners IPUMS-International partners by stageby stage
final stage (data in development/dissemination) = final stage (data in development/dissemination) = darkestdarkest
middle stage (signed agreement) = medium greenmiddle stage (signed agreement) = medium greenfirst stage (verbal agreement, signing pending) = first stage (verbal agreement, signing pending) =
lightestlightest
www.ipums.org/international 2
Composite coding scheme: employment statusComposite coding scheme: employment status
IPUMSI IPUMSI Col Col Fra Fra Ken Mex Mex US Viet Viet
census microdata census microdata vs. employment surveys vs. employment surveys
Employment surveys: Employment surveys: date from the late 1980s; many probing questions date from the late 1980s; many probing questions finely tuned instrument administered by trained finely tuned instrument administered by trained interviewersinterviewersUrban (ENEU)—quarterly from 1987, 16 cities in 1990, Urban (ENEU)—quarterly from 1987, 16 cities in 1990,
rising to 47 in 2000--lacks national coverage; rising to 47 in 2000--lacks national coverage; National (ENE)—from 1988; annual since 1995National (ENE)—from 1988; annual since 1995
Census microdata: Census microdata: strength: national coverage back to 1960 strength: national coverage back to 1960 weakness: untrained interviewers, one question on weakness: untrained interviewers, one question on LFPLFP omits many working women, particularly informal omits many working women, particularly informal workersworkers
Purpose of paper: calibrate census microdata Purpose of paper: calibrate census microdata w/ employment surveysw/ employment surveys
www.ipums.org/international 6
IPUMS-InternationalIPUMS-InternationalEmployment Status variableEmployment Status variable
““In 1990, the employment status question refers to In 1990, the employment status question refers to ‘‘Principal ActivityPrincipal Activity’ and therefore under-reports ’ and therefore under-reports secondary economic activity by students, housewives, secondary economic activity by students, housewives, family-workers, the semi-retired, and others. family-workers, the semi-retired, and others.
“The 2000 Census sought to overcome deficiencies in “The 2000 Census sought to overcome deficiencies in reporting work status for people whose primary activity reporting work status for people whose primary activity was not work (students, housewives, retirees, etc.), but was not work (students, housewives, retirees, etc.), but who in fact were working according to international who in fact were working according to international definitions. A second question, introduced for the first definitions. A second question, introduced for the first time in 2000, sought to capture this secondary economic time in 2000, sought to capture this secondary economic activity. For strict comparability with earlier Mexican activity. For strict comparability with earlier Mexican censuses, this recovered activity (codes 1101-1106) censuses, this recovered activity (codes 1101-1106) should be considered ‘inactive’."should be considered ‘inactive’."
www.ipums.org/international 7
2000 census--two questions on 2000 census--two questions on LFP: LFP:
1: “Last week did (NAME)...” 1: “Last week did (NAME)...” ...”Question 1:Question 1:
Married (all forms)Married (all forms) 51.951.9 52.9 52.9 35.135.1 34.034.0
Not in unionNot in union 48.148.1 47.1 47.1 48.948.9
47.347.3
Table 5. Females 2000: Urban Table 5. Females 2000: Urban (limited to same 16 cities as 1990) (limited to same 16 cities as 1990)
www.ipums.org/international 12
Female labor force participationFemale labor force participationENEU (indicator) vs. CensusENEU (indicator) vs. Census
Variable B S.E. Wald df Sig R Exp(B)
1990: -.2212 .0135 267.2291 1 .0000 -.0412 .8015
2000: .0860 .0067 163.1781 1 .0000 .0100 1.0898Model source effect taking into account age, marital status and education.Model source effect taking into account age, marital status and education.
Table 5. Logistic Regression: Table 5. Logistic Regression: Source Source (Females 1990, 2000; same 16 cities as (Females 1990, 2000; same 16 cities as
in ENEU 1990)in ENEU 1990)
InterpretationInterpretationIf for both sources weights are considered If for both sources weights are considered correct and slight structural differences are correct and slight structural differences are taken into account:taken into account:
1990 census under-reported 20% of FLFP.1990 census under-reported 20% of FLFP.
2000 census “over-reports” FLFP by 9%.2000 census “over-reports” FLFP by 9%.
www.ipums.org/international 13
Today’s PresentationToday’s Presentation
» 1. The project: IPUMS-International1. The project: IPUMS-International
a.a. Preserving the world’s census microdataPreserving the world’s census microdata
b. And making them usableb. And making them usable
» 2. The paper: Calibrating census microdata 2. The paper: Calibrating census microdata
a. a. Census vs. employment surveysCensus vs. employment surveys
b. Female labor force participationb. Female labor force participation
c. vs. ENEU (“national” urban survey): 1990 & c. vs. ENEU (“national” urban survey): 1990 &
20002000
d. vs. ENE (national survey): 2000d. vs. ENE (national survey): 2000
Married (all forms)Married (all forms) 54.754.7 54.3 54.3 36.336.3 30.130.1
Not in unionNot in union 45.345.3 45.7 45.7 43.943.9
42.242.2
Table 6b. Females 2000: National Table 6b. Females 2000: National
Limited to municipios in ENELimited to municipios in ENE
www.ipums.org/international 16
PostscriptPostscript
* * * * * * ** * * * * * *
www.ipums.org/international 17
Fig 1. LFP by sex and marital Fig 1. LFP by sex and marital statusstatus
Mexico 1990 and 2000 (national figures)Mexico 1990 and 2000 (national figures)The iron grip of m arriage on working for pay is w eakeningMarriage dam pens partic ipation for fem ales in c ontras t to m ales
F ig . 1 . D e ta ile d lab o r fo rc e ra te s s ta tus : M e x ic o , 1 9 9 0 , 2 0 0 0Married inc ludes religious or consensual as w ell as legal unions
R a t e s o f m a r ried w o m e n w e re les s th a n h a lf th o s e o f s in g le , w id ow e d , s e p a ra t e d o r d iv o rc e d
pe
rce
nt
F em ales : 1990age
12 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
0
20
40
60
80
100
Sing le
M ar r ied
W idSe pD v
T h e g ap b e twe e n m a rr ie d w o m en a n d o th e rs s h ra n k , bu t t h e d if fe re n c e re m a in s s u b s ta n t ia l
F em ales : 2000age
12 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
0
20
40
60
80
100
Sing le
M ar r ied
W idSe pD v
R a te s o f m a rr ie d m a le s a re m a rk e d ly h ig he r t h a n f o r o t h e rs
pe
rce
nt
M ales : 1990age
12 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
0
20
40
60
80
100
Sing le
M ar r iedW idSe pD v
T h e g a p n a r ro w e d s l ig h t ly ,p a r t ic u la rly f o r t h e w id o w e d , s e p a ra te d a nd d iv o rc e d
Males : 2000age
12 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
0
20
40
60
80
100
Sing le
M ar r iedW idSe pD v
FemaleFemaless
MalesMales19901990 20002000
www.ipums.org/international 18
Bigges t change is for w om en w ith les s than 7 years of s choolingLittle = < 6 years ; P rim ary = 6-8; Middle = 9; Higher = 9+ years
Fig. 2. Schooling and Marriage strongly influence female work ratesMarried inc ludes all form s of unions
F ew wit h les s t han 7 y ea rs o f s c hooling wo rk ed fo r pay
pe
rce
nt
1990: Not C urrently Marr iedage
12 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
0
20
40
60
80
100
litt le
prim ary
m idd le
h igher
G rea t es t inc reas es a re fo r t hos e wit h les s than 7 y ea rs o f s c hoo ling
2000: Not C urrently Marr iedage
12 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
0
20
40
60
80
100
litt le
prim arym idd le
h igher
pe
rce
nt
1990: Marr iedage
12 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
0
20
40
60
80
100
litt leprim ary
m idd le
h igher
2000: Marr iedage
12 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
0
20
40
60
80
100
litt leprim arym idd le
h igher
Marriage and education strongly Marriage and education strongly affect FLFP affect FLFP (Mexico 1990 and 2000, national (Mexico 1990 and 2000, national
figures)figures)
19901990 20002000MarriedMarried
NotNot
www.ipums.org/international 19
ReflectionsReflections
Mexican census microdata may be more Mexican census microdata may be more informative, informative, than commonly thought—even about FLFP than commonly thought—even about FLFP
Mexican census microdata on FLFP display Mexican census microdata on FLFP display remarkableremarkable coherence in time and space coherence in time and space
““Chorus of calamity” on Mexican FLFP may Chorus of calamity” on Mexican FLFP may overlook overlook
enormous changes in educationenormous changes in education
weakening power of patriarchy over married womenweakening power of patriarchy over married women
real advances of women in the workforce real advances of women in the workforce
2000 microdata tell the story2000 microdata tell the story
Calibrate me!Calibrate me! weigh strengths and weigh strengths and weaknesses ofweaknesses of sources. sources.