Abstract

Accurate working time estimates represent an important component of the statistical toolbox used for economics forecasting and policy-making. The relatively good availability of such estimates may sometimes induce researchers to take them for granted and see their reliability as largely unproblematic. There is however a growing body of evidence showing that measurement errors may affect their robustness and quality, especially as far as specific but policy relevant subgroups of the population such as part-time or atypical workers are concerned. Against this background, the goal of this paper is to investigate the reliability of paid weekly working-time measurement instruments commonly available in a key UK social survey, the Labour Force Survey. It focuses on the discrepancies between estimates obtained by self-assessed/aggregated instruments—also known as stylised—and those recorded using time diaries which have been found more truthful to the time spent working in ones paid job(s). It is also to explore ways to improve the reliability of stylised estimates in datasets for which no time diary instruments are available, contrasting those where ’usual’ and ’actual’ hours of work are recorded. It does so by creating calibration weights based on the Work Schedule recorded in the 2000 and 2015 UK Time Use Surveys and using them to up/down scale stylised estimates in the 2000 and 2015 UK Labour Force Survey using statistical matching. Such techniques could enable significant improvements of measurement errors in large scale social surveys at a minimal cost.

Highlights

  • Accurate working time estimates represent an important component of the statistical toolbox used for economics forecasting and policy-making

  • The goal of this paper is to investigate the reliability of paid weekly working-time estimates commonly available in a number of key UK social surveys focusing on the discrepancies between those obtained by self-assessed/ aggregated instruments known as stylised—that is when respondents produce their own estimates—which are the norm in large scale social surveys with those recorded using time diaries

  • An hour and a half difference in the usual weekly hours is noticeable between the two time use surveys, which is close to the drop in usual weekly working time between the 2000 and 2015 LFS

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Accurate working time estimates represent an important component of the statistical toolbox used for economics forecasting and policy-making. Gershuny as specific but policy relevant subgroups in the labour force such as part-time or atypical workers are concerned Against this background, the goal of this paper is to investigate the reliability of paid weekly working-time estimates commonly available in a number of key UK social surveys focusing on the discrepancies between those obtained by self-assessed/ aggregated instruments known as stylised—that is when respondents produce their own estimates—which are the norm in large scale social surveys with those recorded using time diaries. It is to explore ways to improve the reliability of stylised estimates in datasets for which no time use instruments are available, by creating calibration weights based on the more accurate diary instrument in a time use survey and use it to up/down scale the stylised estimates conditional to a respondent’s socio-demographic characteristics Such technique would enable improvement of measurement errors in labour force and employment statistics at a minimal cost

Objectives
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call