Ref. No: 544-49/2007/22
Date: 29.6. 2010
Eurostat Unit F2
Mr. Joachim Recktenwald, Head of Unit F2
Mr. Didier Dupré
Head of section “Earnings, labour costs, PEEI for the labour market” statistics
Eurostat grants for 2009
Theme: 1.02 - Title: "Labour Market"
Action: Preparation of the implementation of ISCO-08
Grant Agreement: No. 10202.2009.002-2009.422
Subject: Interimtechnical implementation report - Slovenia
Introduction
The Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia (SORS) is held responsible for current maintenance of the Standard Classification of Occupations (further on the SKP) and for harmonisation of the SKP with international standards. SKP is an obligatory national standard used in keeping records, collecting, processing, analysing, disseminating and presenting data important for observing situations and changes on the labour market in the Republic of Slovenia. The SKP bases on the international standard classification of occupations ISCO-88 and is also harmonised with ISCO-88(COM).
The Government of the Republic of Slovenia adopted the Decree on the Introduction and Use of the SKP at its meeting held on 20 March 1997. At the end of 1999 changes of the SKP were prepared. The Government of the Republic of Slovenia adopted the Decree on Changes and Supplements of the Decree on the Introduction and Use of the Standard Classification of Occupations at its meeting held on 3 March 2000.
In some surveys we ask about the data on the occupations (Labour Force Survey, Household Budget Survey, Time Use Survey, European Health Interview Survey, Adult Education Survey, ICT usage in households and by individuals), but in others we retrieve information from the Statistical Register of Employment (further on SRDAP) (Population Census, Annual Job Vacancy statistics, EU-SILC, Structure of Earning Survey, Average Annual Gross Earnings).
SORS keeps SRDAP which is updated with data from M forms (registration of data for the introduction and keeping of records of pension and disability insurance, health insurance and employment; since 1 January 1987 the Institute of Health Insurance of Slovenia, the Employment Office, the Institute of Pension and Disability Insurance of Slovenia and the Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia have been using the same forms for data collection).
Our goal was to prepare new SKP-08, harmonised with ISCO-08 and implemented in all surveys and sources in due time (according to the time schedule set up in draft Regulation and Recommendation on the use of ISCO-08).
Major activities and results (August 2009-June 2010)
The part of the grant application was also the translation of the ISCO-08 definitions by an external translator. Definitions are very important for the understanding the ISCO-08 structure. The task was accomplished and we received the translated material which we used in the process of further preparation of SKP-08.
In order to implement thenew classification in our data collections we prepared the inventory of all statistical surveys (internal and external) which contain the data on occupation. We informed all survey managers about the planned changes and gatheredthe information about the way data on occupation are collected and disseminated in different surveys.
InAugust 2009, we started with the activities for coordination and consultation about the implementation of the new SKP-08, based on ISCO-08. We prepared the structure of ISCO-08 for presentation to the main users and draft of the new SKP-08 structure, which wascompatible with the ISCO-08 structure.
Wesent the draft of new SKP-08structureto the main users together with main explanations of the changes of the new classification. We based our SKP-08 on the structure of ISCO-08 – that means that we used 4 level structure. We asked them for their remarks and opinions about the draft of SKP. We examined the received remarks. Some of them proposed the new occupation group, some of the proposed improved name of the group etc. We invited certain institutions to a meeting to further discuss their proposals. Some of the remarks we took into account. For some others coordination continued through further discussions and meetings.
At the same time we preparedother documents and material needed for the legal procedure for adopting the new regulation for SKP-08. We also prepared the working version of coding index and first draft conversion table between old and new SKP and ISCO-88 and ISCO-08 (we prepared the simple, automatic translation in MS Access between old SKP and ISCO-88 and between ISCO-88 and ISCO-08. In that way weaccomplished the translation between the old SKP and ISCO-08 and the new SKP). That was needed at that stage so we could present to our users major changes of the structure and a proposal of coding index for the future use. We still have to review and improve these supporting documents before they are ready forthe regular public use.
In April 2010,we sent our proposal for the new SKP-08 regulation and structure of SKP-08 in the legal procedure. We took into account all the relevant remarks that we had previously received. We also annexed the supporting documents (coding index, definitions of occupations, conversion) even if they were not the subject of regulation, but our interest was to get response from the public and institutions in order to reach possible improvements.
We received responses from 9 institutions (4 of them agreed and 5 had some remarks). SORS performed meetings and coordination with all the institutions that sent their remarks in May 2010. Together with them we reached the final solutions (at that stage mainly changes in the names of the occupation groups and additional inclusions in the coding index).
Comparing the ISCO-08 and SKP-08, 10 additional groups at the 4th classification level were included in SKP-08. Regarding national circumstances there was one group deleted at 2nd classification level, five at 3rd classification level and sixteen at 4th classification level.
After that the proposal of regulation for SKP-08together with the SKP-08 structure was sent further for endorsement to government committee and then to the Government where it was endorsed on June 16, 2010.Regulation for SKP-08 was published in the Official Journal of the Republic of Slovenia on June 24, 2010, and will enter into force on January 1, 2011.
We have started to prepare also technical solutions for the coding index – regarding also dissemination and maintenance.
Part of the grant is also Comparison of data on occupations between different sources (SRDAP and LFS) for ISCO-88. In Annex 1, there are main features and results of the analysis. The analysis shall contribute to the overall aim of implementation of ISCO-08 in a way that high quality data may be provided; the results provide differences in the occupational structure between the two sources.
Annex 1:
REPORT ON THE DATA ON OCCUPATIONS IN THESTATISTICAL REGISTER OF EMPLOYMENT AND THE LABOUR FORCE SURVEY
Introduction
The purpose of the analysis was to compare data on occupation according to ISCO-88 from two different sources: the Statistical Register of Employment (SRDAP) and the Labour Force Survey (LFS). The quality of data on occupation in SRDAP is pretty important, since it is used in the following surveys: Population Census, EU-SILC, Structure of Earnings Survey, Annual Job Vacancy Statistics, Average Annual Gross Earnings and some national surveys. The aim was to get a more thorough insight into the quality of data in both sources.
SRDAP was established on the basis of the census of employed persons in 1986. Data in SRDAP are updated monthly by data from “M forms”, which provide for registration for mandatory social insurance in Slovenia. Employers are obliged by law to turn in “M forms” for registration of persons in employment and they are the ones to code the occupations in “M forms”. There has been an improvement in the data quality on occupations over the years, the cause also being that employers are better acquaintedwith the Standard Classification of Occupations (SKP), which is the national classification based on ISCO-88. However, implementation of the new classification in the register (compared to survey collecting) is far more challenging since all employers need to be aware of the classification change. Furthermore, the codes in ISCO-88 are used for different occupations in ISCO-08. This represents no problem in survey collected data, but it is a challenge when data are collected through an administrative source. Therefore, the analysis provided a starting-point for possible future similar comparisons, which shall be even more valuable due to the fact of »same codes and different meaning« in ISCO-88 and ISCO-08.
Sample size
Comparisons between the two sources were made at the individual level. The sample included 11,546 persons who were in employment according to SRDAP on the day of the last LFS interview, had no missing data, were employed by the same employer and their matching through the SID (Statistical Identifier) was undoubted. Reference time is the day of the LFS interview in 2008.
Besides general characteristics concerning administrative and survey based data, advantages and disadvantages of each source are compiled in Figure 1.
Figure 1: General advantages and disadvantages of the two sources
Statistical Register of Employment (SRDAP) / Labour Force Survey (LFS)Advantages / Employers have all the data on one's job / Coding is performed by personnel especially qualified for this job
The same understanding of coding rules, and uniformity
Disadvantages / Complexity of the Standard Classification of Occupations and because of that different understanding among the employers / Another person may answer for the surveyed person
Change of occupation is not always reported / Data for coding may be scarce
Coding errors (shallow knowledge of classification, superficiality, fast coding, etc.)
There is no uniformity of coding / Subjectivity in coding may have significant impact on the results
Structure accordance
At the one-digit level of ISCO-88 the structure of the sample between SRDAP and the LFS was coherent in 82% of cases. The largest deviations in the structure were observed in the major groups Professionals (3.4 percentage points - pp), Elementary occupations (3.2 pp) and Architects, engineers and related professionals (3.1 pp).
At the two-digit level the results were similar. The sample structure of SRDAP was in 81% of cases in accordance with the LFS, nevertheless the numbers were quite worrying at the three-digit level (73% accordance) and the four-digit level (only 63% accordance).
Figure 2: Sample structure by major groups of ISCO-88
Individual data accordance
The major group or one-digit code was the same in both sources at 63% of all persons in the sample, the two-digit code at 57% of persons, while the code of unit groups (4 digits) was the same for only 43% of persons.
Reasons for differences
Reasons for differences in codes for the two sources are mainly:
-different methodology in obtaining data (register, survey),
-ISCO-88 (and SKP) is a very complex classification,
-occupations with a broad range of tasks and duties may be very easily coded differently,
-impact of subjectivity in coding,
-coding mistakes.
A more detailed analysis was made for the comparison of data collected by both sources and determining the causes of differences. In SRDAP there are some problematic occupations (6-digit national level), which are edited according to other data: skill requirement, education, company activity, etc. The reason for these coding mistakes is that there are some occupation names which are frequently misunderstood and misinterpreted among employers. For example: 1210 Directors and chief executives. The problem with these is that director is a function in Slovenia that a person has in every company and even if they are self-employed they are named directors.Some of these are edited in SRDAP, but the consequence is that the group number is too large, well in comparison to the LFS we conclude that the group number is also too large in the LFS.
For this report we list only the most obvious distinctions concerning occupation data in the sample between the two sources:
- Major group 1 Legislators, senior officials and managers
The most obvious differences in this major group are in the subgroup 13 General managers. Actually the number of general managers in the LFS is more than three times the number of SRDAP. This is mostly the consequence of different methodology in obtaining data, and unclear distinction between managers and other groups. Coding in the LFS results from job titles and short task descriptions (which were answered as managerial); while employers (SRDAP) decided in a lot of cases that other tasks dominated the managerial tasks.
- Major groups 2 Professionals and 3 Technicians and associate professionals
The number of Professionals is 25% higher in the LFS than in SRDAP, while the number of Technicians and associate professionals is 13% lower. The largest differences are in 213 Computing professionals, 214 Architects, engineers and related professionals, 241 Business professionals, 311 Physical and engineering science technicians, and 323 Nursing and midwifery associate professionals.There are several reasons for these differences: sometimes employers tend to believe that skills needed for the job are not adequate for Professionals; while LFS coding is according to obtained education, data in SRDAP are edited according to required skill and only partly according to education obtained; and also some of these differences arise from employers not reporting a change of occupation in the M forms.
- Major groups 7 Craft and related trades workers and 8 Plant and machine operators and assemblers
The borderline between these two groups is sometimes hard to determine when collecting data on occupations. Employers look at a job title not paying enough attention to major group description, resulting in more occupations in group 7. Also coding in the LFS is not always reliable concerning the distinction between craft-oriented and machine-oriented occupations since a job title and the description of tasks do not always give the necessary data (e.g. Sewer and Sewing machine operator).
- Major group 9
Differences were also in the group 92 Agricultural, fishery and related labourers – the number of these in SRDAP was twice the number in the LFS. Employers tend to think more often that it is an elementary occupation; a large part of these occupations are in the LFS coded in 82 Machine Operators and Assemblers and 72 Metal, machinery and related trades workers.
Conclusions
Data on occupation of 11,546 persons who were in employment were compared between the two sources – the LFS and SRDAP. At the one-digit level of ISCO-88 the structure of the sample between SRDAP and the LFS was coherent in 82% of cases, while at the four-digit level it was coherent in 63% of cases. At the individual level, the major group or one-digit code was the same in both sources at 63% of all persons, while the code of unit groups (4 digits) was the same for only 43% of persons.
Reasons for differences between the two sources are different methodology in obtaining data, that ISCO-88 (and the SKP) is a very complex classification, different coding of occupations with broad scope of tasks, some groups of occupations do not have clear borderlines, and coding mistakes. Actually, classification provides definitions and descriptions, but a large part of the decision is left to subjective judgement. Differences in the two sources concerning the occupation data are significant. These differences could be reduced by clear definitions and borderlines among groups of occupations. We believe uniformity of coding in the LFS could be improved and clear rules for data editing in the SRDAP should be determined.
“Problematic occupations” or job titles in the SKP were identified to be named differently in the SKP-08 and also systematic coding mistakes were defined in the detailed report.
Prepared by: Kaja Malešič, Erika Žnidaršič
Vožarski pot 12, SI-1000 Ljubljana, SloveniaPhone: +386 1 241 51 00; fax: +386 1 241 53 44; E-mail: ; / 1/8