A European Socioeconomic Classification: How we got here and where we are going More info www'iser'e

1 / 32
About This Presentation
Title:

A European Socioeconomic Classification: How we got here and where we are going More info www'iser'e

Description:

A European Socio-economic Classification: How we got here and where we are going ... Greater control over the job and thus trust between employer and employee ... –

Number of Views:79
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 33
Provided by: s7305
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: A European Socioeconomic Classification: How we got here and where we are going More info www'iser'e


1
A European Socio-economic ClassificationHow we
got here and where we are goingMore info _at_
www.iser.essex.ac.uk/esec
  • David Rose Eric Harrison
  • Institute for Social and Economic Research
  • University of Essex

2
Eurostat Statistical Harmonisation Programme
  • Aims to create a common set of
  • core units
  • core variables and
  • core classifications
  • for use in European and national social
    statistics

3
ESeC
  • Expert Group appointed by Eurostat in January
    2000
  • Proposals for an ESeC made in 2001 Feasibility
    Report (see www.iser.essex.ac.uk/esec)
  • This report forms the basis for the project

4
Form of classification.
  • The outline classification takes the form of a
    two-level nested hierarchy, similar to
    classifications such as the French PCS. In its
    disaggregated form (level 2, what we term
    Socio-economic Groups - SEGs) it covers the
    whole population at the individual level.
  • There are SEGs to cover various other active
    and inactive groups. Individuals who are
    allocated to these groups on the basis of current
    status may then be allocated to ESeC classes in a
    variety of ways, depending partly on analytic
    purpose and partly on the group concerned.

5
Possible ESeC Classes (Level 1)
  • Large employers, higher managerial and
    professional occupations
  • Lower managerial and professional occupations
  • Intermediate occupations
  • Small employers and own account workers
  • Employers and self-employed in agriculture
  • Lower supervisory and lower technician
    occupations
  • Lower services etc occupations
  • Lower technical occupations
  • Routine occupations
  • Never worked and long term unemployed

6
Conceptual basis for the NS-SEC(Goldthorpe)
  • Employment relations and conditions are central
    to delineating the structure of socio-economic
    positions in modern societies

7
The Derivation of the NS-SEC
8
Dimensions of work as sources of contractual
hazard
Specificity of human assets
high
Difficulty of monitoring
low
high
low
9
Typical elements of the Labour Contract
  • Short-term exchange of money for effort
  • Payment by the time or piece
  • No occupational pension or health scheme
  • Contract easily terminated
  • Low level of job security

10
Typical elements of the Service Relationship
  • Long-term exchange of service for compensation
  • Greater job security and employability
  • Salary
  • Incremental or similar payment systems
  • Occupational pension and health schemes
  • Greater control over the job and thus trust
    between employer and employee

11
Dimensions of work as sources of contractual
hazard, forms of contract and class locations
Specificity of human assets
high
1
6
Service relationship
mixed
Difficulty of monitoring
low
high
mixed
Labour contract
3
low
9
12
The conceptual derivation of ESeC
13
Underlying ESeC Socio-economic Groups (Level 2)
Class 1 Large employers, higher managerial and
professional occupations
  • 11. Employers (other than in agriculture) with
    10 employees
  • 12. Farmers with full-time employees (or large
    business farmers)
  • 13. Higher managerial occupations
  • 14. Higher professional occupations (employees)
  • 15. Self-employed professional occupations

14
Other active groups
  • 01. Other unemployed
  • 02. Unpaid family workers
  • 03. National service

Inactive groups
04. Retired 05. Students (full-time) 06. Children
07. Permanently sick and disabled 08. Looking
after home
Not classifiable
00. Not classifiable (occupations not given or
inadequately described etc.)
15
Classification rules for the individual level of
ESeC
  • The other unemployed in SEG 01, unpaid family
    workers in SEG 02, national service personnel in
    SEG 03 and the inactive SEGs 04 - 08 do not
    immediately collapse to any class. Rather,
    individuals in these groups are (re-) allocated
    to the group of their career typical (usually
    last main) job or to their household class.

16
Household level rules
  • The household level of this classification would
    work in a similar way, except that the ESeC class
    position (level 1) would be allocated through a
    household class measure. In this case, those in
    SEGs 01-08 and 00 would be allocated to their
    household class.
  • Equally, those allocated to SEGs 11-92 would take
    on the ESeC values of their household.

17
Flexibility
  • One of the advantages of a nested two-level
    schema such as this is that it will permit
    analysts to look inside classes. This will
    assist them in understanding how life-chances may
    vary between groups with the same employment
    relations. For example, do higher professionals
    in SEGs 14 and 15 have better health outcomes
    when compared with higher managers in SEG 13?

18
Number of SEGs (1)
  • As far as the number of SEG categories to be
    recognised within each class is concerned, this
    is partly an issue of face validity, i.e. of
    grouping together in sub-categories similar types
    of occupations that share similar employment
    relations.
  • It should be noted that the SEGs within this
    outline classification are only postulated ones,
    designed to help illustrate how a possible
    two-level classification might work.

19
Number of SEGs (2)
  • However, it is the classes themselves that will
    need to be validated. Which SEGs we then wish to
    recognise within each class will be largely a
    matter of contingency, depending upon, for
    example, what might be useful for the internal
    analysis of classes, face validity issues, etc.
  • The question of which SEGs exist, therefore,
    relates to which useful class sub-divisions we
    might wish to make among those combinations of
    occupation and employment status that share
    similar employment relations.

20
Criterion validation of ESeC (1)
  • We have a measure similar to ESeC that has
    already been created and validated using the
    method of collecting employment relations data at
    the level of occupations. This is the UK NS-SEC.
    We will also build on previous European research
    aimed at developing a comparative measure of
    social structure similar to ESeC, for example the
    Comparative Analysis of Social Mobility in
    Industrial Societies (CASMIN).

21
Criterion validation of ESeC (2)
  • Given the broad similarities of market economies
    and occupational and industrial structures across
    the EU, we can expect that employment relations
    will also be similar. Thus, it is reasonable to
    begin by creating an ESeC derivation matrix with
    cell values based on UK employment relations
    data. These data were collected in the 1996/97
    winter quarter of the LFS.

22
What we have to do
  • We have constructed a derivation matrix on the
    basis of the best available evidence we have on
    the employment conditions typical for the
    occupational unit groups of ISCO88(COM). This
    evidence was drawn from work for the project that
    produced the UK National Statistics
    Social-economic Classification (NS-SEC), as well
    as from earlier work on social mobility by
    Erikson, Goldthorpe and their colleagues and more
    recent work by academics on employment relations
    in Europe. In addition, the matrix is now being
    examined by NSIs, partners in the project and
    other nominated academic experts.

23
Constructing ESeC
  • In order for an ESeC to be fully operationalized
    in line with our theoretical model, at a minimum
    we require measures of occupation, status in
    employment and, in some cases, enterprise size.
    We also believe that labour market position
    should be part of what an ESeC measures. In
    addition, some measure of farm size may be
    necessary, too, in order to distinguish
    capitalist farmers from other (e.g. subsistence)
    farmers. How, precisely, are these common
    elements to be measured? Do all the datasets we
    intend to use have these measures in the form
    required?

24
Occupation
  • For the most part occupation is measured either
    by (4-digit) ISCO88(COM) or by a national
    occupational classification similar to it. France
    is exceptional in this regard, but has developed
    a Table des Correspondances between the
    Catégories Socioprofessionnelles (CSP) and
    ISCO88(COM). ISCO88(COM) is a core variable for
    the Eurostat harmonisation programme and so is
    the obvious measure of occupation to use for ESeC.

25
Status in employment
  • All SECs distinguish between employers, the
    self-employed (own account workers) and
    employees. In the EU context, we may need to add
    the category of family worker. The EU harmonised
    variable is ICSE-93.

26
ICSE-93
  • Employees
  • Employers
  • Own account workers
  • Members of producers co-operatives
  • Contributing family workers
  • Workers not classifiable by status

27
Labour market position
  • It is necessary to distinguish more than activity
    status. Our theoretical model requires us to
    discriminate between employers by size, the
    self-employed, and between managers (by size of
    enterprise or preferably managerial level),
    supervisors and other employees. Managerial
    status will be dependent on allocation to Major
    Group 1 of ISCO88(COM). Thus, labour market
    position involves a combination of ICSE-93,
    enterprise size and supervisory status.

28
Number of employees
The size cut-off for enterprise size in the
non-agricultural sector varies across the
national SECs 1-9, 10 1-24, 25 1-49, 50 or
combinations of these. However, since ISCO88(COM)
is the harmonised occupational classification,
then the initial simple rule for ESeC will need
to be that employed by ISCO for managers and
employers 1-9 and 10.
29
Example illustration of parts of the ESeC
derivation matrix
Note in this table, for simplicitys sake, we
assume a seven-category empstat (i.e. that farm
can be established via ISCO).
30
Reduced ESeC
  • Some data sets may not contain all the elements
    required to create ESeC in the prescribed manner.
    However, it would also be possible to produce a
    reduced form of ESeC for use where data on
    establishment size are not given. Naturally, the
    costs and benefits of this would have to be
    assessed for each member state. The reduced form
    could be derived in essentially the same way as
    the full form of ESeC, except that (ignoring the
    agricultural sector again) the employment status
    variable would only have five categories
  • 1. Self-employed with employees
  • 2. Self-employed with no employees
  • 3. Manager
  • 4. Supervisor
  • 5. Employee
  • The ESeC category for self-employed with
    employees and for managers would be based on the
    modal employment status category for each
    occupation.

31
Simplified ESeC
  • The simplified form of ESeC would be for data
    sets in which only information on occupation
    (i.e. on 4 digit ISCO OUG) is available. The
    primary rule would be that occupations (OUGs) are
    allocated to the ESeC category for other
    employees, except where these are in a minority
    within that occupation or an occupation has no
    other employee status (e.g. managers). In these
    cases the ESeC category of the modal occupation
    by employment status combination would be used.
    Hence, for example, if within a particular OUG
    supervisory status predominates, then the ESeC
    value for supervisors in that OUG will apply.

32
Next Steps
  • Create derivation matrices done
  • Matrices report to partners, NSIs, Eurostat and
    experts for responses - done
  • Statistical Compendium being undertaken
  • Validation studies May to November 2005
  • Validation conference January 2006
  • ESeC User Guide mid 2006
  • NSIs Workshop mid 2006
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com