European Socio-Economic Classification: A Validation Exercise
description
Transcript of European Socio-Economic Classification: A Validation Exercise
European Socio-Economic Classification: A Validation Exercise
Figen DevirenOffice for National Statistics
Introduction• The UK context
• Creating E-SeC
• Validation
• Using the Labour Force Survey
• Results
• Conclusions
The UK context8 classes 5 classes 3 classes
1 Higher managerial and professional occupations
1.1 Large employers and higher managerial occupations
1 Managerial and professional occupations
1 Managerial and professional occupations
1.2 Higher professional occupations
2 Lower managerial and professional occupations
3 Intermediate occupations 2 Intermediate occupations 2 Intermediate occupations
4 Small employers and own account workers
3 Small employers and own account workers
5 Lower supervisory and technical occupations
4 Lower supervisory and technical occupations 3 Routine and
manual occupations
6 Semi-routine occupations 5 Semi-routine and routine occupations
7 Routine occupations
8 Never worked and long-term unemployed
Never worked and long-term unemployed
Never worked and long-term unemployed
Deriving NS-SeC
Questions asked about occupation
SOC 2000Questions about
Employment status
Questions on
Size of organisation
NS-SeC
Deriving NS-SeC
Questions asked about occupation
SOC 2000Questions about
Employment status
Questions on
Size of organisation
NS-SeC
SupervisorSelf-employed
Deriving E-SeC
SOC 2000
ISCO-88Employment
statusSupervisory
responsibilities
Working alone
E-SeC
Deriving E-SeC
SOC 2000
ISCO-88Employment
statusSupervisory
responsibilities
Working alone
E-SeC
Size of organisation
Validation
For our purposes validation meant
Will E-SeC provide a representative picture of the UK that is comparable to the one provided using the NS-SeC?
Does E-SeC have a similar predictive power to that of NS-SeC?
Choice of survey
• The Labour Force Survey – Sample size, 72,500 of working age (men aged 16 - 64, women aged 16 - 59)
– Recent quarterly data – Autumn 2005
– Available at both individual and household levels
– Relevant questions
Comparison of E-SeC and UK NS-SeC (reduced categories)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
routine
Lower sales, service andtechnical
lower supervisors andtechnicians
small employers and self-employed
intermediate occupations
lower mgrs/professionals,higher
supervisory/technicians
large employers, highermgrs/professionals
E-SEC
NS-SEC
Source: Labour Force Survey, Autumn 2005
Case comparabilityCase comparability
Agree at 7 categories
Agree at 3 categories
No agreement
Source: Labour Force Survey,
Autumn 2005
A Comparison of E-SEC and NS-SEC for males
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Routine occupations
Semi-routine occupations
Lower supervisory and technical
Small employers and own accountworkers
Intermediate occupations
Lower managerial and professional
Higher managerial and professional
E-SEC
NS-SEC
Source: Labour Force Survey, Autumn 2005
Lower sales, service and technical
A Comparison of E-SEC and NS-SEC for females
Source: Labour Force Survey, Autumn 2005
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
routine
Lower sales, service and technical
lower supervisors and technicians
small employers and self-employed
intermediate occupations
lower mgrs/professionals, highersupervisory/technicians
large employers, highermgrs/professionals
E-SEC
NS-SEC
European Socio-Economic Classification by sex
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
routine
Lower technical
Lower sales and service
lower supervisors andtechnicians
small employers and self-employed (agricultural)
small employers and self-employed (non-agricultural)
intermediate occupations
lower mgrs/professionals,higher supervisory/technicians
large employers, highermgrs/professionals
Male
Female
Source: Labour Force Survey Autumn 2005
Lower managers, professionals, higher supervisory and technicians: E-SeC and NS-SeC by age and sex.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Age 16-24
Age 25-34
Age 35-44
Age 45-54
Age 55-64
E-SeC female
NS-SeC female
E-Sec male
NS-SeC male
Source: Labour Force Survey, Autumn 2005
Routine occupations:E-SeC and NS-SeC by age and sex
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Age 16-24
Age 25-34
Age 35-44
Age 45-54
Age 55-64
E-SeC female
NS-SeC female
E-SeC male
NS-SeC male
Source: Labour Force Survey, Autumn 2005
Comparison of E-SeC and NS-SeC at household level
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Routine
Lower sales, service andtechnical
Lower supervisors andtechnicians
Small employers and self-employed
Intermediate occupations
Lower mgrs/professionals,higher supervisory/technicians
Large employers, highermgrs/professionals
E-SEC
NS-SEC
Source: Labour Force Survey, Autumn 2005
European Socio-Economic Classification by sex of household reference person
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Routine
Lower technical
Lower sales and service
Lower supervisors andtechnicians
Small employers and self-employed (agriculture)
Small employers and self-employed (non-agriculture)
Intermediate occupations
Lower mgrs/professionals, highersupervisory/technicians
Large employers, highermgrs/professionals
Male
Female
Source: Labour Force Survey, Autumn 2005
Predictive power
• NS-SeC is accepted as a predictor of ill-health
• Linear regression – binary outcome yes/no
• Choice of variables
• Significance of classifications
Chronic morbidity for males (individual level)
Source: Labour Force Survey, Autumn 2005
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Routine
Lower sales, service and
technical
Lower supervisors and
technicians
Smal l employers and sel f -
employed
Intermediate occupations
Lower mgrs/ prof essionals,
higher
supervisory/ technicians
Large employers, higher
mgrs/ prof essionals
E-SeC
NS-SeC
Chronic morbidity for females(individual level)
Source: Labour Force Survey, Autumn 2005
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Routine
Lower sales, service and technical
Lower supervisors and technicians
Small employers and self -employed
Intermediate occupations
Lower mgrs/ professionals, higher
supervisory/ technicians
Large employers, higher
mgrs/professionals
E-SeC
NS-SeC
Predictive power – Individual level
-using NS-SeC as an independent variable
B S.E. Exp(B)
sex -0.01 0.001 0.992
Age25_34 0.18 0.002 1.196
Age35_44 0.49 0.002 1.63
Age45_54 0.93 0.002 2.541
Age55_64 1.51 0.002 4.513
ethn2 0.13 0.002 1.142
quals -0.21 0.001 0.813
degree -0.39 0.002 0.68
nsec_h2 0.13 0.002 1.139
nsec_h3 0.22 0.002 1.242
nsec_h4 0.13 0.002 1.14
nsec_h5 0.34 0.002 1.403
nsec_h6 0.39 0.002 1.481
nsec_h7 0.48 0.002 1.612
Constant -1.92 0.003 0.147
Chronic morbidity - using E-SeC as an independent variable
B S.E. Exp(B)
sex -0.01 0.001 0.995
Age25_34 0.26 0.002 1.291
Age35_44 0.56 0.002 1.75
Age45_54 1.00 0.002 2.726
Age55_64 1.58 0.002 4.846
ethn2 0.16 0.002 1.175
quals -0.22 0.001 0.802
degree -0.40 0.002 0.67
esec_h2 0.16 0.002 1.177
esec_h3 0.22 0.002 1.251
esec_h4 0.15 0.002 1.162
esec_h5 0.36 0.002 1.438
esec_h6 0.35 0.002 1.421
esec_h7 0.47 0.002 1.596
Constant -2.02 0.003 0.133
Results of the regression analysis containing age, ethnicity and educational attainment
Predictive power – Household level
Chronic morbidity - using E-SeC as an independent variable
B S.E. Exp(B)
sex -0.17 0.001 0.848
Age25_34 0.22 0.002 1.245
Age35_44 0.54 0.002 1.717
Age45_54 0.97 0.002 2.638
Age55_64 1.58 0.002 4.835
ethn2 0.12 0.002 1.124
quals -0.42 0.001 0.655
degree -0.22 0.002 0.804
esec_h2 0.11 0.002 1.113
esec_h3 0.26 0.002 1.296
esec_h4 0.16 0.002 1.175
esec_h5 0.33 0.002 1.391
esec_h6 0.45 0.002 1.566
esec_h7 0.48 0.002 1.615
Constant -1.79 0.004 0.168
-using NS-SeC as an independent variable
B S.E. Exp(B)
sex -0.17 0.001 0.842
Age25_34 0.27 0.002 1.306
Age35_44 0.59 0.002 1.801
Age45_54 1.02 0.002 2.764
Age55_64 1.62 0.002 5.072
ethn2 0.13 0.002 1.143
quals -0.45 0.001 0.637
degree -0.24 0.002 0.786
nsec_h2 0.15 0.002 1.160
nsec_h3 0.26 0.002 1.297
nsec_h4 0.17 0.002 1.187
nsec_h5 0.34 0.002 1.409
nsec_h6 0.38 0.002 1.468
nsec_h7 0.48 0.002 1.614
Constant -1.83 0.004 0.160
Conclusions
• The picture of the UK using E-SeC is broadly similar to that obtained when using NS-SeC
• Differences observed between the two classifications for lower managers/professionals and routine occupations by age and sex
• E-SeC is comparable to NS-SeC when used as a predictor of chronic morbidity.
• More validation needed?