Commission staff working document - Annexes to the Report from the Commission to the Council and to the European Parliament on the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 577/98 {COM(2007) 10 final}
Date: 2007-01-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU statistics, disclosure of information, employment statistics, impact study, report, sample survey, statistical method, working population













EUR-Lex - 52007SC0029 - EN






Important legal notice




|



52007SC0029

Commission staff working document - Annexes to the Report from the Commission to the Council and to the European Parliament on the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 577/98 {COM(2007) 10 final}  /* SEC/2007/0029 */  








[pic] | COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES |Brussels, 17.1.2007SEC(2007) 29COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENTAnnexes to theReport from the Commission to the Council and to the European Parliament on the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 577/98{COM(2007) 10 final}COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENTReport from the Commission to the Council and to the European Parliament on the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 577/98ANNEX I - Technical Specifications1. ARTICLE 1 - FREQUENCY OF THE SURVEYThe survey shall be a continuous survey providing quarterly and annual results; however, during a transitional period not extending beyond 2002, Member States which are unable to implement a continuous survey shall instead carry out an annual survey, to take place in the spring.By way of derogation, the transitional period shall be extended(a) until 2003 for Italy,(b) until 2004 for Germany under the condition that Germany provide quarterly substitute estimates for the main labour force sample survey aggregates as well as annual average estimates for some specified labour force sample survey aggregates.All the EEA Member States, except Italy and Germany by way of derogation, had adopted the continuous survey approach by 2003. Due to legal problems, Austria was not able to implement the continuous survey until 2004. With the enlargement in 2004 all of the new Member States had shifted to a continuous survey. Croatia, Turkey and Switzerland have not yet moved to a continuous survey, although Turkey and Switzerland expect to do so in 2009 and Croatia in 2007.Table 1. Transition to a continuous survey providing quarterly and annual results |Country | Year | Country | Year | Country | Year | Country | Year |Belgium | 1999 | Ireland | 1998 | Netherlands | 2000 | United Kingdom | 1999q2 |Czech Republic | 1998 | Italy | 2004 | Austria | 2004 | Bulgaria | 2000 |Denmark | 1999 | Cyprus | 2004q2 | Poland | 2000 | Croatia | 2007 |Germany | 2005 | Latvia | 2002 | Portugal | 1998 | Romania | 1999 |Estonia | 2000 | Lithuania | 2002 | Slovenia | 1999 | Turkey | 2009 |Greece | 1998 | Luxembourg¹ | 2003 | Slovakia | 1998 | Iceland | 2003 |Spain | 1999 | Hungary | 1999 | Finland | 2000 | Norway | 2000 |France | 2003 | Malta | 2004 | Sweden | 1999 | Switzerland | 2009 |¹ Annual results only |In the case of a continuous survey-  the reference weeks are spread uniformly throughout the whole yearMost of the Participating Countries comply with the requirement of spreading the reference weeks uniformly throughout the whole year. There are, however, exceptions, with regard to both uniform distribution and coverage of weeks. Germany, Luxembourg, Hungary, the Netherlands, Slovenia and Romania have the highest deviation from uniform distribution of the reference week, as measured by the standard deviation of the weekly number of respondents as a percentage of the average number of respondents per reference week. Hungary, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey did not cover all weeks of the year. Hungary, Slovenia, Romania and Turkey have moved to cover all the weeks of the quarter in 2006.Table 2. Relative standard deviation of the weekly number of respondents (aged 15–74) and the number of reference weeks per year 2003-2005 |2003 | 2004 | 2005 |Relative standard deviation | Weeks | Relative standard deviation | Weeks | Relative standard deviation | Weeks |Belgium | 4.0 | 52 | 3.4 | 52 | 4.8 | 52 |Czech Republic | 2.1 | 52 | 2.1 | 52 | 1.8 | 52 |Denmark | 4.9 | 52 | 11.1 | 53 | 3.1 | 52 |Germany | - | - | - | - | 26.5 | 52 |Estonia | 6.5 | 52 | 7.4 | 52 | 7.3 | 52 |Greece | 7.1 | 52 | 17.8 | 53 | 2.8 | 52 |Spain | 1.8 | 52 | 10.2 | 53 | 3.5 | 52 |France | 3.6 | 52 | 5.0 | 53 | 5.0 | 52 |Ireland | 4.3 | 52 | 8.4 | 52 | 5.5 | 52 |Italy | - | - | 10.7 | 53 | 3.6 | 52 |Cyprus | - | - | 16.5 | 40¹ | 11.5 | 52 |Latvia | 4.7 | 52 | 4.9 | 53 | 6.6 | 52 |Lithuania | 5.9 | 52 | 6.7 | 53 | 5.4 | 52 |Luxembourg | 43.0 | 52 | 56.2 | 53 | 46.2 | 52 |Hungary | 25.3 | 36 | 27.2 | 36 | 33.2 | 36 |Malta | - | - | 7.2 | 52 | 8.4 | 52 |Netherlands | 27.9 | 52 | 26.5 | 53 | 30.5 | 52 |Austria | - | - | 6.8 | 52 | 4.5 | 52 |Poland | 2.0 | 52 | 5.1 | 53 | 2.1 | 52 |Portugal | 3.6 | 52 | 10.3 | 53 | 4.3 | 52 |Slovenia | 36.8 | 50 | 33.8 | 51 | 45.8 | 47 |Slovakia | 6.5 | 52 | 9.2 | 52 | 8.3 | 52 |Finland | 10.5 | 52 | 11.7 | 53 | 10.9 | 52 |Sweden | 10.9 | 52 | 17.2 | 53 | 14.9 | 52 |United Kingdom | 1.8 | 52 | 2.2 | 52 | 2.7 | 52 |Bulgaria | 5.1 | 48 | 5.1 | 48 | 4.8 | 48 |Croatia | - | - | - | - | - | - |Romania | 50.2 | 50 | 51.1 | 50 | 24.9 | 51 |Turkey | - | - | - | - | - | - |Iceland | 3.2 | 52 | 3.7 | 52 | 3.9 | 52 |Norway | 3.7 | 52 | 10.5 | 53 | 3.6 | 52 |Switzerland | - | - | - | - | - | - |Note: Relative standard deviation is the standard deviation of the weekly number of respondents divided by the average number of respondents per week multiplied by 100. Surveying the 53rd week in the year by spreading one week’s sample over two weeks has noticeable effects on the relative standard deviation. |¹ The continuous survey started in the 14th week of 2004. |Source: The EU-LFS |-  the interview normally takes place during the week immediately following the reference week. The reference week and the date of the interview may not be more than five weeks apart, except in the third quarter,The variable on the interview week is of relatively poor quality in the EU-LFS. The information should thus be regarded with caution. In 2005, 98% or more of the interviews in quarters 1, 2 and 4 were completed before the end of the 5th week after the reference week, except in Austria (see however footnote to Table 3).Table 3. Interview week relative to the reference week in 1st, 2nd and 4th quarters 2003-2005 |% interview in the next week | % interviewed within 6 weeks¹ |2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 |Belgium | 54.7 | 52.1 | 50.5 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |Czech Republic | 73.7 | 73.4 | 71.0 | 99.2 | 99.2 | 98.9 |Denmark | - | - | 71.2 | - | - | 99.8 |Germany | 18.1 | 17.3 | - | 69.4 | 69.0 | - |Estonia | 52.8 | 46.4 | 46.8 | 100.0 | 99.6 | 99.7 |Greece | 51.1 | 11.2 | - | 92.8 | 87.8 | - |Spain | 93.7 | 93.8 | 73.8 | 99.7 | 99.6 | 99.0 |France | 71.3 | 68.1 | 65.3 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |Ireland | - | - | 0.0 | - | - | 100.0 |Italy | - | 17.8 | 33.9 | - | 100.0 | 100.0 |Cyprus | 97.7 | 99.6 | - | 99.0 | 99.9 | - |Latvia | - | - | - | - | - | - |Lithuania | - | 82.8 | 84.4 | - | 100.0 | 100.0 |Luxembourg | 0.0 | 0.0 | - | 100.0 | 100.0 | - |Hungary | - | - | - | - | - | - |Malta | - | 23.2 | 20.9 | - | 100.0 | 100.0 |Netherlands | - | - | - | - | - | - |Austria | - | 19.5 | 40.4 | - | 77.7 | 91.1 |Poland | - | - | - | - | - | - |Portugal | 45.6 | 38.6 | 43.2 | 98.9 | 97.5 | 98.9 |Slovenia | - | - | - | - | - | - |Slovakia | 92.0 | 93.1 | 96.1 | 99.8 | 100.0 | 100.0 |Finland | 91.5 | 92.3 | 92.5 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |Sweden | 56.2 | 58.9 | 58.9 | 99.6 | 99.8 | 99.6 |United Kingdom | - | - | - | - | - | - |Bulgaria | - | - | - | - | - | - |Croatia | - | - | - | - | - | - |Romania | - | - | - | - | - | - |Turkey | - | - | - | - | - | - |Iceland | 86.0 | 82.0 | 83.7 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |Norway | - | - | - | - | - | - |Switzerland | - | - | - | - | - | - |¹ Including cases where the interview is registered as the same week as the reference week. |Note: Data are not published in the case of a 1:1 relationship between the reference week and interview week. Hyphen (“-”) denotes unavailable or suspect data. No account is taken of non-response, which was relatively high for all years in France (9%) and Sweden (7-8%) due to imputation of records for older workers, and in Denmark in 2005 (20%) due to postal questionnaires. |Source: The EU-LFS |-  the reference weeks and years are respectively groups of 13 weeks or 52 consecutive weeks. A list of the weeks making up a given quarter or year is drawn up according to the procedure laid down in Article 8.Commission Regulation (EC) No 1571/98[1] laid down the reference weeks for the years 1998 and 1999, and also provided derogations for Ireland and United Kingdom to use seasonal quarters instead of calendar quarters. Since then, the reference periods have not been specified in a Commission Regulation, but continued each year from the sequence established in 1998. Commission Regulation (EC) No 1571/98 also stipulated that the last week of the year 1998 would be skipped, as that year had 53 weeks.When preparing for the year 2004, the experts in the Working Group on Employment and Unemployment statistics agreed that the last week of the year should not be skipped when the year contains 53 weeks, as that particular week tends to differ substantially from the average week of the year. No agreement was reached on the preferred method for 2004, but the Participating Countries were advised either to cover all 53 weeks of the year or to select a typical week for skipping. In the end, seven countries skipped the last week of the year, four countries skipped a typical week and twelve countries spread the sample over all weeks of the year.Table 4. Treatment of the extra week in 2004 |No action taken (not all weeks of the year covered in any case) | All 53 weeks covered | Typical week skipped | Last week of the year skipped |Germany, Hungary, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, Turkey, Switzerland | Denmark, Spain, France, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, Finland, Sweden, Norway | Belgium, Ireland, Austria, United Kingdom, Iceland | Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece¹, Luxembourg¹, Malta, Netherlands¹, Slovakia |¹ The last week of the year covered with less than 10% of the average weekly number of respondents |Sources: Quality Reports. |2. ARTICLE 2 - UNITS AND SCOPE OF THE SURVEY, OBSERVATION METHODS2.1 The survey shall be carried out in each Member State in a sample of households or of persons residing in the economic territory of that State at the time of the survey.The definition of resident population varies across the Participating Countries, which may cause comparability differences, especially with regard to non-nationals and migrants. Efforts are underway to provide a harmonised approach through the Explanatory Notes for the European Union Labour Force Survey.[2] There are two main approaches used in the Member States and other Participating Countries:1) Length of stay or intention to stay for a specified length of time. These are either implicit in the sampling frame (rules for population registers) or in the field work. Three main benchmarks are used:-  Spain has a filter question on the intention to stay more than one year in Spain, if a person has stayed less than one year. All those answering in the negative are excluded from the survey. Cyprus, Slovakia, Bulgaria and Croatia apply the one-year rule via interviewer instructions. The population register in Finland, which forms the basis for the sampling frame, uses a similar rule for being allowed to register. Estonia, Lithuania, Sweden and Switzerland (the special sample on foreigners) also have a one-year rule for inclusion in the population registers.-  Denmark (EEA citizens), Iceland and Norway require registration when a stay exceeds 6 months. In the Romanian LFS, “usual residence” is defined as a stay of at least 6 months.-  Some countries require registration in the Population Registers (or a residence permit) if a stay goes beyond 3 months (Belgium, Denmark (non-EEA citizens), Latvia, Luxembourg and Slovenia) or define “usual residence” as at least 2 months (Poland).2) Usual residence or main residence. In contrast, there is no time limit in the Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, France, Ireland, Italy, Hungary, the Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, the United Kingdom and Turkey, only the condition that a person's main or usual residence is in the territory of the Participating Country.In all the Participating Countries, except Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Iceland, Norway and Switzerland, the whole household is covered. In the countries mentioned, the final sampling unit is the person.2.2 The principal scope of the survey consists of persons residing in private households on the economic territory of each Member State. If possible, this main population of persons living in private households, is supplemented by persons living in collective households.Wherever possible, collective households are covered by means of samples specially drawn to permit direct observation of the persons concerned. If this is not possible, then persons in these groups who continue to have an association with a private household are included in connection with that household.Denmark, Germany, Estonia, France, Cyprus, Lithuania (until 2004), Slovakia, the United Kingdom, Romania (from 2005) and Iceland cover collective households in their surveys. Denmark, Germany, Estonia and Iceland survey persons in collective households directly. Finland, Sweden and Norway also survey collective households directly, but do not deliver data to Eurostat, or else these persons cannot be distinguished from persons in private households. France, Cyprus, Slovakia and Romania survey persons in collective households if they maintain connections with the sampled private household. So do Spain, Portugal and Bulgaria, but they do not deliver data to Eurostat. Lithuania and the United Kingdom use both methods for surveying persons in collective households.Table 5. Coverage of collective households 2003-2005 |No coverage | Directly | Through the sampled private household | Directly and through the sampled household |Belgium, Czech Republic, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania (2005), Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Slovenia, Croatia, Romania (2003-2004), Turkey, Switzerland | Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Iceland | France, Cyprus¹, Slovakia, Romania (2005) | Lithuania (2003-04), United Kingdom |No data delivered to Eurostat |Finland², Sweden, Norway | Spain, Portugal, Bulgaria |¹ Conscripts only. ² Persons in collective households are classified as living in private households. Sources: Quality Reports. |2.3. The variables used to determine labour status and underemployment must be obtained by interviewing the person concerned, or, if this is not possible, another member of the household. Other information may be obtained from alternative sources, including administrative records, provided that the data obtained are of equivalent quality.All the Participating Countries obtain information about labour status and underemployment by interview, either from the person or another member of the household. The share of proxy interviews is much lower in countries sampling persons than countries sampling households, dwelling or family units. Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Iceland and Norway all make use of administrative sources, mainly for supplying information about demographic and educational characteristicsTable 6. Share of proxy interviews (15–74 year-olds) and use of administrative sources |% proxy interviews (15-74 year-olds) | Alternative (administrative) sources (2005) |2003 | 2004 | 2005 |Belgium | 25.1 | 24.8 | 22.6 | - |Czech Republic | 49.2 | 48.3 | 48.1 | None |Denmark | 2.0 | 2.8 | 2.6 | Col. 3, Col. 10, Col. 11/14, Col. 15, Col. 16, Col. 17/18, Col. 19/20, Col. 21/22, Col. 100, Col. 176, Col. 184, Col. 307/308, Col. 309/311, Col. 312/315 |Germany | 27.8 | 28.3 | 26.6 | None |Estonia | 17.4 | 11.7 | 15.3 | None |Greece | 45.9 | 43.3 | 43.6 | - |Spain | 58.6 | 58.2 | 52.9 | None |France | 38.3 | 33.3 | 32.1 | None |Ireland | 38.6 | 39.8 | 43.1 | None |Italy | 34.8 | 36.1 | 40.3 | - |Cyprus | 42.2 | 32.3 | 29.9 | None |Latvia | 42.7 | 42.7 | 39.9 | None |Lithuania | 45.7 | 45.5 | 43.2 | - |Luxembourg | 48.2 | 52.1 | 52.4 | - |Hungary | 40.0 | 43.2 | 42.7 | None |Malta | 44.9 | 47.8 | 48.2 | None |Netherlands | 46.4 | 46.9 | 46.6 | - |Austria | 39.4 | 42.8 | 27.6 | None |Poland | 41.7 | 40.5 | 41.6 | - |Portugal | 40.1 | 46.0 | 45.8 | None |Slovenia | 57.7 | 57.0 | 57.6 | - |Slovakia | 60.1 | 61.7 | 61.6 | - |Finland | 8.5 | 8.7 | 6.9 | Col. 10, Col. 11/14, Col. 15, Col. 16, Col. 17/18, Col. 21/22, Col. 307/308, Col. 309/311, Col. 312/315 |Sweden | 3.0 | 2.9 | 2.8 | Col. 10, Col. 11/14, Col. 15, Col. 17/18, Col. 19/20, Col. 21/22, Col. 27/29, Col. 100, Col. 312/315, Col. 309/311 |United Kingdom | 32.8 | 33.6 | 34.4 | - |Bulgaria | 39.4 | 41.9 | 41.5 | - |Croatia | 36.3 | 37.3 | 38.5 | - |Romania | 26.3 | 28.6 | 28.2 | None |Turkey | - | - | - | None |Iceland | 1.1 | 1.1 | 0.8 | Col. 10, Col.11/14, Col. 15, Col. 16, Col 17/18, Col. 21/22 |Norway | 14.0 | 13.4 | 13.7 | Col. 10, Col. 11/14, Col. 15, Col. 16, Col. 17/18, Col. 19/20, Col. 21/22, Col. 100, Col. 120/121, Col. 122/123, Col. 294, Col. 295/297, Col. 307/308, Col. 309/311, Col. 312/315 |Switzerland | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | - |Note: Hyphen “-” denotes that no information is available. |Sources: The EU-LFS (proxy), Quality Reports. |2.4. Regardless of whether the sampling unit is an individual or a household, information is usually collected for all individuals of the household. However, if the sampling unit is an individual, the information concerning the other members of the household-  may exclude the characteristics listed under Article 4(1)(g), (h), (i) and (j),-  and may be collected from a sub-sample defined in such a way that:-  the reference weeks are uniformly distributed throughout the whole year,-  the number of observations (individuals sampled plus the members of their household) satisfies, for the annual estimates of levels, the reliability criteria defined in Article 3.Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Iceland all survey a sub-sample of households as prescribed by Article 2(4). Only Denmark and Finland, however, have delivered data to Eurostat on a sub-sample of households as prescribed by Article 2(4). Finland provides data for all the required characteristics and most of the optional variables, but Denmark did not provide any information on 21 compulsory variables in 2003 and 20 variables in 2004 and 2005.[3] Norway, which selects the family unit, does not ask other members of the household, but plans to implement this from 2007 onwards. Switzerland, which selects one person from the each sampled household (telephone number), does not survey a sub-sample of households.No information on the representativeness of the household sub-samples is available for Denmark and Finland. However, assuming a design effect of 2, these comply with the specification laid down in Article 2(4), bullet 4.3. ARTICLE 3 – REPRESENTATIVENESS OF THE SAMPLE3.1. For a group of unemployed people representing 5% of the working age population the relative standard error for the estimation of annual averages (or for the spring estimates in the case of an annual survey in the spring) at NUTS II level shall not exceed 8% of the subpopulation in question.Regions with less than 300 000 inhabitants shall be exempt from this requirement.In 2004 and 2005, there were 281 regions defined at NUTS II level in the 31 countries providing data to Eurostat, an increase of one since 2003. Of these, 16 regions have fewer than 300 000 inhabitants. The relative standard error is a function of the sample size, overlap of observation units within the year and design effect. The labour force surveys in 51 regions in 10 countries are estimated to have exceeded the benchmark in one or more of the years 2003-2005, and in 31 regions in all years in France (8), Poland (6), the United Kingdom (8), Bulgaria (2) and Romania (7).Table 7. Regions with 300 000 inhabitants or more, where the relative standard error for the estimate of annual average unemployment (5%) exceeded 8% in 2003-2005 |Country | Region | Sample size per quarter 2005 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 |Germany | DE50 | Bremen | 1 227 | 8.2 | 7.7 | 7.5 |DE80 | Mecklenburg-Vorpommern | 3 049 | 8.4 | 8.0 | 4.7 |DEB2 | Trier | 902 | 9.6 | 8.6 | 7.6 |DED3 | Leipzig | 2 057 | 7.5 | 8.2 | 6.1 |DEE1 | Dessau | 1 034 | 8.7 | 8.9 | 7.8 |France | FR21 | Champagne-Ardenne | 2 628 | 8.1² | 8.0² | 8.2² |FR22 | Picardie | 2 366 | 8.5² | 8.6² | 8.5² |FR23 | Haute-Normandie | 2 407 | 8.6² | 8.8² | 8.8² |FR24 | Centre | 2 579 | 8.0² | 8.1² | 8.0² |FR25 | Basse-Normandie | 1 903 | 9.8² | 9.6² | 9.4² |FR26 | Bourgogne | 2 614 | 8.1² | 7.9² | 8.1² |FR41 | Lorraine | 2 510 | 8.0² | 8.6² | 8.3² |FR42 | Alsace | 2 104 | 9.1² | 9.2² | 9.0² |FR43 | Franche-Comté | 1 867 | 9.7² | 9.6² | 9.6² |FR52 | Bretagne | 2 568 | 8.0² | 8.1² | 8.0² |FR53 | Poitou-Charentes | 2 341 | 8.9² | 8.7² | 8.4² |FR63 | Limousin | 1 865 | 9.5² | 9.3² | 9.4² |FR72 | Auvergne | 1 813 | 10.0² | 9.8² | 10.0² |Italy | ITF1 | Abruzzo | 3 685 | 8.2 | 4.1 | 4.6 |Austria | AT21 | Kärnten | 4 782 | 8.3 | 4.4 | 5.0 |AT32 | Salzburg | 4 511 | 8.7 | 5.1 | 5.2 |Poland | PL33 | Swietokrzyskie | 2 535 | 9.9 | 8.4 | 8.8 |PL34 | Podlaskie | 2 052 | 8.7 | 9.9 | 9.6 |PL42 | Zachodniopomorskie | 2 352 | 8.2 | 8.8 | 8.7 |PL43 | Lubuskie | 2 150 | 8.3 | 8.8 | 8.3 |PL52 | Opolskie | 1 913 | 9.0 | 10.1 | 11.1 |PL62 | Warminsko-Mazurskie | 2 363 | 8.4 | 8.8 | 9.1 |PL63 | Pomorskie | 2 519 | 7.5 | 8.2 | 8.6 |Portugal | PT15 | Algarve | 4 000 | 7.1 | 8.4 | 7.9 |PT16 | Centro | 6 239 | 8.3 | 5.5 | 4.7 |PT18 | Alentejo | 4 980 | 8.1 | 7.0 | 7.5 |United Kingdom | UKD1 | Cumbria | 860 | 11.1² | 11.5² | 11.6² |UKD2 | Cheshire | 1 541 | 8.8² | 8.4² | 8.7² |UKE1 | East Riding and North Lincolnshire | 1 565 | 8.4² | 8.4² | 8.4² |UKE2 | North Yorkshire | 1 308 | 9.0² | 9.0² | 9.4² |UKF3 | Lincolnshire | 1 154 | 9.3² | 9.8² | 10.5² |UKK3 | Cornwall and Isles of Scilly | 855 | 11.4² | 10.7² | 11.3² |UKM1 | North Eastern Scotland | 815 | 11.2² | 10.6² | 11.3² |UKM4 | Highlands and Islands | 1 013 | 10.6² | 10.3² | 10.5² |Bulgaria | BG01 | Severozapaden rajon | 2 197 | 9.5 | 9.8 | 9.0 |BG02 | Severen tsentralen rajon | 4 656 | 7.3 | 8.2 | 6.8 |BG06 | Yugoiztochen rajon | 2 902 | 8.3 | 10.0 | 9.9 |Romania | RO01 | Nord-Est | 9 286 | 14.3 | 9.5 | 9.1 |RO02 | Sud-Est | 7 633 | 14.4 | 9.2 | 9.4 |RO03 | Sud | 9 676 | 16.2 | 8.4 | 7.8 |RO04 | Sud-Vest | 6 409 | 16.5 | 10.7 | 10.5 |RO05 | Vest | 5 312 | 16.6 | 10.6 | 10.2 |RO06 | Nord-Vest | 7 426 | 12.9 | 10.5 | 10.5 |RO07 | Centru | 7 300 | 23.2 | 11.3 | 10.5 |RO08 | Bucuresti | 5 560 | 13.4 | 9.1 | 10.4 |Switzerland | CH07 | Ticino | 5 708 | 8.3 | 7.8 | 7.2 |¹ See Annex III. |² Assuming the (average) relative standard error of the quarterly estimates. |3.2 In the case of a continuous survey, for sub-populations which constitute 5 % of the working age population the relative standard error at national level for the estimate of changes between two successive quarters, shall not exceed 2 % of the sub-population in question.For Member States with a population of between one million and twenty million inhabitants, this requirement is relaxed so that the relative standard error for the estimate of quarterly changes shall not exceed 3 % of the sub-population in question.Member States whose population is below one million inhabitants are exempt from these precision requirements concerning changes.Seven Member states do not achieve the precision benchmark specified by Article 3(2). Greece, however, made changes in the design in 2004, leading to full compliance. Denmark will make changes in the design (more than double the sample size, increase overlap and make better use of auxiliary variables) from 2007 onwards, which will lead to full compliance with Article 3(2). Bulgaria and Romania also fall short of the precision requirements in Article 3(2).Cyprus, Luxembourg, Malta and Iceland are exempt from the precision requirements of Article 3(2).Table 8. Countries with 1 million population or more, where the relative standard error¹ for the estimate of quarterly change in unemployment (5%) exceeded 2% or 3% in 2003-2005 |Population | Country | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 |20 million + | Poland | 2.7 | 2.7 | 2.9 |1-20 million | Belgium | 6.0 | 5.8 | 5.8³ |Denmark² | 5.2 | 5.1 | 5.2 |Estonia | 8.8 | 9.2 | 9.5 |Latvia | 10.1 | 9.4 | 10.4 |Lithuania | 5.5 | 5.6 | 5.5 |Bulgaria | 3.7 | 3.8 | 3.8 |Romania | 5.1 | 3.5 | 3.4 |¹ See Annex III. |² Population aged 15-66. |³ Variance data are missing, a design effect of 2 is assumed. |3.3 Where the survey is carried out only in the spring, at least a quarter of the survey units are taken from the preceding survey and at least a quarter form part of the following survey.These two groups shall be identified by a code.Article 3(3) is only relevant for Germany 2003 and 2004, Cyprus 2003, Croatia and Switzerland. Only Croatia had not complied with Article 3(3) by 2005, having no overlap between successive years. In 2003, Italy, Austria and Malta had a quarterly but not a continuous survey. In Italy and Austria the yearly overlap met the requirements of Article 3(3). There was no overlap in Malta between successive years in 2003.3.4 Where non-response to certain questions results in missing data, a method of statistical imputation shall be applied where appropriate.A minority of Participating Countries apply statistical imputation. Three of the nine impute for all or most of the variables. The remaining six mostly impute when missing data pertains to hours worked or wages. Three main methods are used, hot-deck, regression and means with classes.Table 9. Imputation of variables |Country | Variable | Method |Imputation | Germany | Usual hours and actual hours worked and economic activity | Hot-deck |Spain | All variables | Fellegi-Holt, donor technique |France | Wages | Regression |Italy | All variables | Fellegi-Holt, donor technique |Malta | Wages | Means with classes |Austria | All variables | Hot-deck |Slovenia | All variables except for Col. 3, Col. 10, Col. 4/5, Col. 6/7, Col. 8/9, Col. 23, Col. 24, Col. 26, Col. 27/29, Col. 30/33, Col. 60, Col. 62/63, Col. 66, Col. 74, Col. 75/76, Col. 77/79, Col. 80/81, Col. 98, Col. 101, Col. 118/119 and Col. 312/315 | Hot-deck |Finland | Actual hours worked | Means of professional status and economic activity classes |Iceland | Usual and actual hours of work | Regression |Norway | Underemployment, desired working hours, actual hours worked | Hot-deck |No imputation | Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Ireland, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Hungary, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Sweden, United Kingdom, Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania, Turkey, Switzerland |No information | Greece |Sources: Quality Reports. |3.5. The weighting factors are calculated taking into account in particular the probability of selection and external data relating to the distribution of the population being surveyed, by sex, age (five-year age groups) and region (NUTS II level), where such external data are held to be sufficiently reliable by the Member States concerned.All the Participating Countries take into account the probability of selection. All except Croatia use sex in the weighting process. Germany (until 2004) and Croatia do not use age in the weighting process, and six countries (Germany (2005), Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, Slovenia and Bulgaria) use broader age groups than five-year. All of the countries with more than one NUTS II region,[4] except France, use at least NUTS II regions for calculating the weighting factors.3.6. Member States shall provide the Commission (Eurostat) with whatever information is required concerning the organisation and methodology of the survey, and in particular, they shall indicate the criteria adopted for the design and size of the sample.Eurostat has standardised the requests for methodological information on the LFS in annual quality reports, using a standard definition of quality components. Most of the Participating Countries have provided Eurostat with these reports (all except Greece, Iceland, Switzerland, Croatia and Turkey in 2003, Belgium, Greece, Ireland and Turkey in 2004 and Belgium, Greece and Luxembourg in 2005). Since 2004, the Participating Countries have also provided the Commission (Eurostat) with quarterly information relating to the precision of selected characteristics, non-response, publication thresholds and recent and anticipated changes in the survey design.4. ARTICLE 4 – SURVEY CHARACTERISTICSThe following section lists the characteristics as defined by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1575/2000,[5] as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2104/2002.[6]In 2003-2005, Norway surveyed a number of variables only in the spring quarter. These are the characteristics: year and month when started to work in current job, duration of temporary contract, reasons for difference between usual and actual hours of work, working at home, search for another job, type of employment looked for and methods of doing so, as well as module i on previous work experience.In the following discussion, only those countries which do not observe non-optional variables for all of the years 2003-2005 are highlighted.4.1 Data shall be provided on:(a) demographic background:-  sequence number in the household,-  sex,-  year of birth,-  date of birth in relation to the end of the reference period,-  marital status,-  relationship to reference person,-  sequence number of spouse,-  sequence number of father,-  sequence number of mother,-  nationality,-  number of years of residence in the Member State,-  country of birth (optional),-  nature of participation in the survey (direct participation or proxy through another member of the household);Article 4(1)(a) contains some of the household variables. For the countries sampling persons, the missing data have already been discussed with regard to Article 0. Ireland does not provide information on the relationship to the reference person. Italy does not provide data on the citizenship of the respondents and Bulgaria and Iceland do not provide information on the number of years a foreign-born person has resided in the country.Table 10. Non-optional variables in module a, not provided in 2003-2005 |Characteristic | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 |Relationship to reference person | Ireland | Ireland | Ireland |Spouse ID in household | Italy |Bulgaria |Father ID in household | Italy |Austria |Bulgaria |Mother ID in household | Italy |Austria |Bulgaria |Nationality | Italy | Italy | Italy |Poland |Years of residence | Poland |Bulgaria | Bulgaria | Bulgaria |Romania | Romania |Iceland | Iceland | Iceland |Switzerland | Switzerland |Source: The EU-LFS |(b) labour status:-  labour status during the reference week,-  reason for not having worked though having a job,-  search for employment for person without employment,-  type of employment sought (self-employed or employee),-  methods used to find a job,-  availability to start work;Malta and Croatia do not cover any of the so-called “passive” methods of looking for employment. France consolidates these methods into a single question and cannot therefore separate them in the European data format. Croatia does not cover two of the “active” methods, and Iceland and Norway do not ask whether a person took a test in order to find a job. In addition, Poland, Iceland and Switzerland do not ask whether a person is waiting for a call from a public employment agency and Slovenia, Bulgaria, Iceland, Norway and Switzerland do not ask if a person is waiting for the result of a competition. Ireland does not check if any other method has been used.Table 11. Non-optional variables in module b, not provided in 2003-2005 |Characteristic | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 |Method, contacted private employment agency (non-employed) | Norway | Norway |Method, asked friends (non-employed) | Malta |Method, answered ads (non-employed) | Croatia | Croatia | Croatia |Method, studied ads (non-employed) | Malta |Method, took a test (non-employed) | Iceland | Iceland | Iceland |Norway | Norway | Norway |Method, looked for land (non-employed) | Poland |Method, looked for permits (non-employed) | Croatia | Croatia | Croatia |Method, waiting for test results (non-employed) | France | France | France |Malta | Malta | Malta |Croatia | Croatia | Croatia |Method, waiting for public employment agency (non-employed) | France | France | France |Malta | Malta | Malta |Poland | Poland | Poland |Croatia | Croatia | Croatia |Iceland | Iceland | Iceland |Switzerland | Switzerland | Switzerland |Method, waiting for competition results (non-employed) | France | France | France |Malta | Malta | Malta |Poland |Slovenia | Slovenia | Slovenia |Bulgaria | Bulgaria | Bulgaria |Croatia | Croatia | Croatia |Iceland | Iceland | Iceland |Norway | Norway | Norway |Switzerland | Switzerland | Switzerland |Method, other (non-employed) | Spain | Spain |Ireland | Ireland | Ireland |Source: The EU-LFS. |(c) employment characteristics of the main job:-  professional status,-  economic activity of local unit,-  occupation,-  number of persons working at the local unit,-  country of place of work,-  region of place of work,-  year and month when the person started working in current employment,-  permanency of the job (and reasons),-  duration of temporary job or work contract of limited duration,-  full-time/part-time distinction (and reasons),-  working at home;Bulgaria does not ask the question whether a person was working at home or not.Table 12. Non-optional variables in module c, not provided in 2003-2005 |Characteristic | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 |Country and region of workplace | Romania |Working at home | Bulgaria | Bulgaria | Bulgaria |Croatia |Source: The EU-LFS. |(d) hours worked:-  number of hours per week usually worked,-  number of hours actually worked,-  main reason for hours actually worked being different from person's usual hours;All the Participating Countries provided data relating to all of the characteristics of module d.(e) second job:-  existence of more than one job,-  professional status,-  economic activity of the local unit,-  number of hours actually worked;All the Participating Countries provided data relating to all of the characteristics of module e.(f) visible underemployment:-  wish to work usually more than the current number of hours (optional in the case of an annual survey),-  looking for another job and reasons for doing so,-  type of employment sought (as employee or otherwise),-  methods used to find another job,-  reasons why the person is not seeking another job (optional in the case of an annual survey),-  availability to start work,-  number of hours of work wished for (optional in the case of an annual survey);Ireland, Croatia and Iceland did not supply data on methods of job search for the underemployed for all years. Switzerland did not check which type of employment is sought. Certain other Participating Countries (France, Malta, Poland, Finland, Bulgaria, Switzerland and Norway) also did not cover all the variables for all years, especially those relating to passive methods[7] of job search and availability for work.Table 13. Non-optional variables in module f, not provided in 2003-2005 |2003 | 2004 | 2005 |Number of hours wished for | Malta | Malta |Type of job sought (employed) | Malta |Croatia | Croatia | Croatia |Iceland | Iceland | Iceland |Switzerland | Switzerland | Switzerland |Method, contacted public employment agency (employed) | Ireland | Ireland | Ireland |Croatia | Croatia | Croatia |Iceland | Iceland | Iceland |Method, contacted private employment agency (employed) | Ireland | Ireland | Ireland |Croatia | Croatia | Croatia |Iceland | Iceland | Iceland |Norway | Norway |Method, applied directly (employed) | Ireland | Ireland | Ireland |Croatia | Croatia | Croatia |Iceland | Iceland | Iceland |Method, asked friends (employed) | Ireland | Ireland | Ireland |Malta |Croatia | Croatia | Croatia |Iceland | Iceland | Iceland |Method, answered ads (employed) | Ireland | Ireland | Ireland |Croatia | Croatia | Croatia |Iceland | Iceland | Iceland |Method, studied ads (employed) | Ireland | Ireland | Ireland |Malta |Croatia | Croatia | Croatia |Iceland | Iceland | Iceland |Method, took a test (employed) | Ireland | Ireland | Ireland |Croatia | Croatia | Croatia |Iceland | Iceland | Iceland |Norway | Norway | Norway |Method, looked for land (employed) | Ireland | Ireland | Ireland |Poland |Croatia | Croatia | Croatia |Iceland | Iceland | Iceland |Method, looked for permits (employed) | Ireland | Ireland | Ireland |Croatia | Croatia | Croatia |Iceland | Iceland | Iceland |Method, waiting for test results (employed) | France | France | France |Ireland | Ireland | Ireland |Malta | Malta | Malta |Croatia | Croatia | Croatia |Iceland | Iceland | Iceland |Method, waiting for public employment agency (employed) | France | France | France |Ireland | Ireland | Ireland |Malta | Malta | Malta |Poland | Poland | Poland |Croatia | Croatia | Croatia |Iceland | Iceland | Iceland |Switzerland | Switzerland | Switzerland |Method, waiting for competition results (employed) | France | France | France |Ireland | Ireland | Ireland |Malta | Malta | Malta |Poland |Slovenia | Slovenia | Slovenia |Bulgaria | Bulgaria | Bulgaria |Croatia | Croatia | Croatia |Iceland | Iceland | Iceland |Norway | Norway | Norway |Switzerland | Switzerland | Switzerland |Method, other (employed) | Spain | Spain |Ireland | Ireland | Ireland |Croatia | Croatia | Croatia |Iceland | Iceland | Iceland |Available to work (employed) | Ireland | Ireland | Ireland |Malta | Malta |Slovenia |Iceland | Iceland | Iceland |Norway | Norway | Norway |Switzerland | Switzerland | Switzerland |Source: The EU-LFS. |(g) search for employment:-  type of employment sought (full-time or part-time),-  duration of search for employment,-  situation of person immediately before starting to seek employment,-  registration at public employment office and whether receiving benefits,-  willingness to work for person not seeking employment,-  reasons why person has not sought work;Ireland, Croatia, Iceland and Switzerland did not ask for the duration of job search when looking for another job. Ireland and Poland did not ask for the situation immediately before seeking employment, while France did so in a way not comparable with the specification of the variable.[8] Bulgaria did not check for registration at a public employment agency.Table 14. Non-optional variables in module g, not provided in 2003-2005 |Characteristic | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 |Duration of job search (employed) | Ireland | Ireland | Ireland |Croatia | Croatia | Croatia |Iceland | Iceland | Iceland |Norway | Norway | Norway |Switzerland | Switzerland | Switzerland |Situation before seeking employment | France | France | France |Ireland | Ireland | Ireland |Poland | Poland | Poland |Norway |Registration at a public employment agency | Ireland | Ireland | Ireland |Bulgaria | Bulgaria | Bulgaria |Source: The EU-LFS. |(h) education and trainingparticipation in formal education or training during previous four weeks (optional in 2003)-  level (optional in 2003),-  field (optional);participation in courses and other taught learning activities during previous four weeks (optional in 2003)-  total length (optional in 2003),-  purpose of the most recent course or other taught activity (optional),-  field of the most recent taught activity (optional),-  participated in most recent taught activity during working hours (optional);educational attainment-  highest successfully completed level of education or training,-  field of this highest level of education and training,-  year when this highest level was successfully completed;The Czech Republic and Iceland do not provide data on the level of education the respondent participated in during a 4-week reference period. France and Switzerland do not provide data on the length of the courses or taught activities. France, however, collects data but only on the last course if more than one. The Czech Republic does not provide the field of completed education and Norway does not provide the year when the highest completed level of education was finished.From the 2nd quarter of 2005, Sweden implemented a new questionnaire design. With this change, the question on participation in education or training courses in the past 4 week only referred to a 1-week reference period, making it non-comparable with other countries.Table 15. Non-optional variables in module h, not provided in 2003-2005 |Characteristic | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 |Level of education | Czech Republic | Czech Republic |Iceland | Iceland |Norway |Length of course | France | France |Switzerland | Switzerland |Field of completed education | Belgium |Czech Republic | Czech Republic |Lithuania |Malta |Poland |Portugal |Sweden |Croatia |Romania |Year when completed education | Croatia |Norway | Norway | Norway |Source: The EU-LFS. |(i) previous work experience of person not in employment:-  existence of previous employment experience,-  year and month in which the person last worked,-  main reason for leaving last job or business,-  professional status in last job,-  economic activity of local unit in which person last worked,-  occupation of last job;Ireland, France and the Netherlands do not provide data on professional status or occupation of last job held by the non-employed person.Table 16. Non-optional variables in module i, not provided in 2003-2005 |Characteristic | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 |Status in last job | Ireland | Ireland | Ireland |Occupation in last job | France | France | France |Netherlands | Netherlands | Netherlands |Source: The EU-LFS. |(j) situation one year before the survey (optional for quarters 1, 3, 4)-  main labour status,-  professional status,-  economic activity of local unit in which person was working,-  country of residence,-  region of residence;Ireland and Bulgaria do not provide data on the main status one year before the survey and Switzerland does not ask about the professional status or economic activity of those who had a job one year ago. Slovenia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Iceland and Switzerland do not provide information on the country and region of residence one year before the survey.Table 17. Non-optional variables in module j, not provided in 2003-2005 |Characteristic | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 |Main status 1 year ago | Ireland | Ireland | Ireland |Bulgaria | Bulgaria | Bulgaria |Professional status 1 year ago | Switzerland | Switzerland | Switzerland |Economic activity 1 year ago | Switzerland | Switzerland | Switzerland |Country of residence 1 year ago | Slovenia | Slovenia | Slovenia |Bulgaria | Bulgaria | Bulgaria |Croatia | Croatia | Croatia |Romania |Iceland | Iceland | Iceland |Switzerland | Switzerland | Switzerland |Region of residence 1 year ago | Slovenia | Slovenia | Slovenia |Bulgaria | Bulgaria | Bulgaria |Croatia | Croatia | Croatia |Romania |Iceland | Iceland | Iceland |Switzerland | Switzerland | Switzerland |Source: The EU-LFS. |(k) main labour status (optional);Although module k is optional, only five countries (Germany, Spain, the United Kingdom, Bulgaria and Switzerland) do not provide data on the variable main status. Of these, Spain started to gather this information in 2005.(l) income (optional);In 2005, eight Member States (Belgium, Estonia, Greece, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland and Portugal) provided (partial) data for income characteristics. So did Croatia and Switzerland.(m) technical items relating to the interview-  year of survey,-  reference week,-  interview week,-  Member State,-  region of household,-  degree of urbanisation,-  serial number of household,-  type of household,-  type of institution,-  weighting factor,-  sub-sample in relation to the preceding survey (annual survey),-  sub-sample in relation to the following survey (annual survey),-  sequence number of the survey wave.Norway does not provide any information about the interview week and Poland, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Iceland and Switzerland do not supply data on the degree of urbanisation. Germany and Luxembourg do not classify the wave number of the respondent. Neither of them, however, has overlapping interviews within the year.Table 18. Non-optional variables in module m, not provided in 2003-2005 |Characteristic | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 |Interview week | Denmark | Denmark |Norway | Norway | Norway |Degree of urbanisation | Malta |Poland | Poland | Poland |Slovenia | Slovenia |Slovakia | Slovakia | Slovakia |Bulgaria | Bulgaria | Bulgaria |Romania | Romania | Romania |Iceland | Iceland | Iceland |Norway | Norway |Switzerland | Switzerland | Switzerland |Wave number | Germany |Luxembourg | Luxembourg |Source: The EU-LFS. |4.2. A further set of variables, hereinafter referred to as an “ad hoc module”, may be added to supplement the information described above in paragraph 1. A programme of ad hoc modules covering several years shall be drawn up each year.A programme of ad hoc modules covering several years shall be drawn up each year according to the procedure laid down in Article 8:-  this programme shall specify for each ad hoc module, the subject, the reference period, the sample size (equal to or less than the sample size determined according to Article 3) and the deadline for the transmission of the results (which may be different from the deadline according to Article 6),-  the Member States and regions covered and the detailed list of information to be collected in an ad hoc module shall be drawn up at least twelve months before the beginning of the reference period for that module,-  the volume of an ad hoc module shall not exceed the volume of the module c described under paragraph 1.Commission Regulations (EC) No 1626/2000[9] and No 246/2003[10] provided a list of ad hoc modules for the years 2003 to 2005. In 2003, an ad hoc module on lifelong learning was implemented (Commission Regulation (EC) No 1313/2002[11]), in 2004 an ad hoc module on work organisation and working time arrangements (Commission Regulation (EC) No 247/2003[12]) and in 2005 an ad hoc module on reconciliation between work and family life (Commission Regulation (EC) No 29/2004[13]).As part of the implementation of ad hoc modules, each module is evaluated afterwards by a special Task Force. The evaluation reports for the 2003 ad hoc module on life long learning and 2004 ad hoc module on work organisation and working time arrangements are available[14], with the evaluation of the 2005 ad hoc module on reconciliation between work and family life to be finalised in 2007. The following highlights the main findings with regard to the implementation of the Regulations relating to ad hoc modules 2003 to 2005.Geographical coverage: All the Participating Countries participated in all three ad hoc modules, except for Croatia and Turkey.Reference period: The reference period in the ad hoc modules 2003 to 2005 was specified as either the second quarter in the respective year or the all year. France, Sweden and Iceland opted to spread the data collection over the whole year in 2003. Estonia, France, Luxembourg, Malta and the Netherlands spread the reference week over the whole year in 2004. Germany, Estonia, France, the Netherlands, Austria, Finland and Sweden distributed the sample evenly throughout the year in 2005.Sample size: Depending on the reference period the minimum sample size was defined either the full sample in the second quarter or at least 15% of the full sample necessary to fulfil the requirements of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 577/98 if the sub-sample were to be equally distributed throughout the year. All the Member States complied with these requirements.Data collected: The variables of the three ad hoc modules were surveyed by all the countries for the most part. In 2003, however, some Participating Countries did go into depth only for the most (or two most) recent taught learning activities. In addition, informal learning activities were not fully covered by three Participating Countries. In 2004, the annualising of hours worked was not covered in four countries, mainly as the concept didn’t exist in these countries, and data on the possibility to work variable hours[15] were not collected by four countries. The characteristics of the 2005 ad hoc module were surveyed by all the Member States. Of other Participating Countries, Bulgaria, Malta, Poland, Norway and Switzerland did not survey all the variables in 2003, Bulgaria, Iceland and Switzerland in 2004 and Switzerland in 2005 (See Table 19 for further detail).Table 19. Countries not providing all the variables for the ad hoc modules 2003 - 2005 |Ad Hoc Module | Characteristic | Countries |2003 | Field of (formal) education participated in | Switzerland |Duration in number of hours for a taught activity |2nd most recent activity | United Kingdom, Norway |3rd most recent activity | United Kingdom, Norway, Switzerland |Main reason for participating in this taught activity |2nd most recent activity | United Kingdom, Norway |3rd most recent activity | United Kingdom, Norway, Switzerland |Timing of this taught activity during working hours |2nd most recent activity | Netherlands, United Kingdom, Norway |3rd most recent activity | United Kingdom, Norway,, Switzerland |Field of this taught activity |Most recent activity | Switzerland |2nd most recent activity | United Kingdom, Norway, Switzerland |3rd most recent activity | United Kingdom, Norway, Switzerland |Length of all taught activities if more than 3 in past 12 months | Malta, Poland, United Kingdom, Switzerland |Participation in 4 informal non-taught learning activities |Self-studies | United Kingdom |Computer based training | United Kingdom, Norway |Broadcasting based training | United Kingdom, Norway |Visiting learning centres | United Kingdom, Norway, Switzerland |2004 | Annualised hours contract | Lithuania, Hungary, Slovenia, Iceland |On-call work | Iceland |Working time patterns of part-timers | Switzerland |Possibility to work variable hours | Lithuania, Bulgaria, Iceland, Switzerland |2005¹ | Days off during school holidays | Switzerland |Possibility to vary start/end of working day due to family reasons |Possibility to take whole days off for family reasons |Time off taken in past 12 months for family emergencies |Parental leave taken in past 12 months |¹ Information about Iceland is missing. |Deadline for the transmission: The deadline for delivering microdata pertaining to each ad hoc module to Eurostat was set at 31 March of the year following the reference year for all three ad hoc modules. The Member States were for the most part able to adhere to this deadline, with the exception of Sweden for 2003 data, Czech Republic, Greece, Italy and Sweden for the 2004 ad hoc module and Germany, Greece and Sweden for the ad hoc module in 2005. Of other Participating Countries, Iceland delivered data in the 28th week after the deadline for the ad hoc module 2003 and has not delivered data for the 2005 ad hoc module by mid-December 2006. (See Table 20 for details). The delays could be traced to exceptional circumstances in all the cases. Microdata for Germany in 2005 and Sweden in 2004 were available to Eurostat on the first working day after the deadline.Table 20. Transmission delays in weeks (first version) for the ad hoc modules 2003-2005 |Country | AHM2003 | AHM2004 | AHM2005 |Belgium |Czech Republic | 4 |Denmark |Germany | 1¹ |Estonia |Greece | 3 | 16 |Spain |France |Ireland |Italy | 1 |Cyprus |Latvia |Lithuania |Luxembourg |Hungary |Malta | 4 |Netherlands |Austria |Poland |Portugal |Slovenia |Slovakia |Finland |Sweden | 9 | 1¹ | 8 |United Kingdom |Bulgaria |Romania |Iceland | 28 | NO DATA YET |Norway |Switzerland |Note: Blank cells indicate that the data files were delivered in time. ¹ Micro data delivered on the first working day after 31 March. |4.3. The definitions, the edits to be used, the codification of the variables, the adjustment of the list of survey variables made necessary by the evolution of techniques and concepts, and a list of principles for the formulation of the questions concerning the labour status, are drawn up according to the procedure laid down in Article 8.Commission Regulation (EC) No 430/2005[16] concerning the codification to be used for data transmission from 2006 onwards and the use of a sub-sample for the collection of data on structural variables was adopted. The regulation will be implemented from 2006 onwards.Commission Regulation (EC) No 1897/2000[17] sets out the operational definition of unemployment and the principles for the formulation of the questions on labour status.The definition of unemploymentSeveral Participating Countries had not fully complied with the definition of unemployment by the end of 2005. The deviations mainly regard the reference period for being available for work.[18] Germany, Slovakia and Norway made changes to the survey in 2006 in order to fully comply with the definition. Hungary made changes in order to test for the availability of persons who had found a job to start later. Croatia made changes in 2006 to check whether a future job started within 3 months.Table 21. Participating Countries not fully complying with the definition of unemployment by the end of 2005 |Divergence from the definition | Countries |Age group not defined as 15-74 | Spain, United Kingdom, Iceland, Norway |The reference period for the availability of a person to take up a new job ends 2 weeks after the end of the interview week but not after the end of the reference week. | Belgium, Czech Republic, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Netherlands, Finland, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania, Turkey, Iceland, Norway |Job found, which starts later, but not tested whether it starts within 3 months | Estonia, Ireland, Slovenia, Croatia, Norway |If job is found, which starts later, no test is made for the availability to start work | Estonia, Ireland, Luxembourg, Hungary, Romania |Sources: Quality Reports, National Questionnaires. |The 12 principles for formulating the questionnaireTable 22 summarises the status in 2005 with regard to the 12 principles for formulating the questionnaire as stipulated by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1897/2000. A detailed analysis is to be found in Annex I to this report.Spain and Austria respected all the principles in 2005. Most of the variations relate to Principles 2, 3, 6 and 10, which are partly met by many countries. Principle 8 was observed by all countries. The following describes briefly the findings with regard to each of the principles.Ireland, Malta, Slovenia and Croatia asked about the main status of the person prior to the employment status in the reference week, thus in contradiction to Principle 1. In addition, Malta preceded the question on labour status by a question on registration at a public employment office. The Netherlands strayed from the Principle by not having the questions on employment status among the first questions in the questionnaire.Principle 2 was partly observed by 25 Participating Countries, mostly because the test for people on lay-off was not carried out or only partially.[19] Denmark and Lithuania, however, partially adhered to the Principle as the question of having a job preceded the question on actually working in the reference week. The Czech Republic and the Netherlands did not abide by any of the stipulations of Principle 2.Principle 3 was partly observed by 23 Participating Countries, mainly because the question on job search for the non-employed does not contain a cue to indicate that looking for minor jobs, even for one hour, should not be excluded. Poland, the United Kingdom and Croatia did not adhere to this principle at all, as the question on work does not contain a cue for the identification of persons in employment with a minor job of a few or even one hour.The Czech Republic, Hungary and Malta did not probe for unpaid family workers as stipulated by Principle 4.The Danish questionnaire referred only to “work” but not work for pay or profit and thus did not clearly indicate that only work for pay or profit is considered as an economic activity as specified by Principle 5.Principle 6 was partly observed by 25 Participating Countries, largely because the reference period for job availability does not start from the reference week (see also Table 21 and footnote 17).The Netherlands and Norway did not apply the question on job search to all non-employed but filtered out those who answered negatively to a question on whether they wanted to work. This was at variance with Principle 7.Malta and Bulgaria only asked for active search methods, whereas Principle 9 states that both active and passive methods must be asked for.Principle 10 was partly fulfilled by 10 Participating Countries, in most part because it was either not clear from the question that the contact with the public employment agency is in order to find work as distinct from maintaining or renewing the status as a registered unemployed person, or that this question was not the first option when asking about methods of seeking work. If both of these requirements were absent, the Principle was considered not to be observed at all, as was the case for Latvia and Turkey.Croatia did not observe Principle 11 as it only allows two methods of job search to be mentioned by the respondent, instead of at least 3 active methods as laid down by the Principle.As also indicated above (see Table 21), Estonia, Ireland, Slovenia, Croatia and Norway did not check if a job which had been found started within 3 months or not, as stated by Principle 12.Table 22. Partly or not observed Principles for formulating the questionnaire by Participating Countries (2005) |Country | Principles partly observed | Principles not observed |Belgium | 3, 6 |Czech Republic | 3 | 2, 4, 6 |Denmark | 2 | 5 |Germany | 2, 3, 6 |Estonia | 2, 3, 6 | 12 |Greece | 2, 3, 6 |Spain |France | 2, 6 |Ireland | 2, 3, 6 | 1, 12 |Italy | 2, 3, 6 |Cyprus | 2, 3, 6, 10 |Latvia | 2, 3, 6 | 10 |Lithuania | 2, 3, 6 |Luxembourg | 2, 3, 6, 10 |Hungary | 2, 3, 6 | 4 |Malta | 2, 3, 6, 10 | 1, 4, 9 |Netherlands | 1, 6, 10 | 2, 7 |Austria |Poland | 2, 6, 10 | 3, 9 |Portugal | 2, 3 |Slovenia | 2, 3, 6 | 1, 12 |Slovakia | 2, 3, 6, 10 |Finland | 3, 6 |Sweden | 2 |United Kingdom | 2 | 3 |Bulgaria | 2, 3, 6 | 9 |Croatia | 2, 6, 10 | 1, 3, 11, 12 |Romania | 2, 3, 6 |Turkey | 2, 3, 6 | 10 |Iceland | 2, 3, 6, 10 |Norway | 2, 3, 6, 10 | 7, 12 |Switzerland | 2, 3, 6, 10 |Source: Annex II |5. ARTICLE 5 – CONDUCT OF THE SURVEY5.1. The Member States may make it compulsory to reply to the survey.Participation in the LFS is compulsory in twelve Participating Countries (Belgium, Germany, Spain, France, Italy, Cyprus, Malta, Austria, Portugal, Slovakia, Turkey and Norway), but voluntary in 19 Member States. Information is not available for Greece.6. ARTICLE 6 – TRANSMISSION OF THE RESULTS6.1. Within twelve weeks of the end of the reference period in the case of a continuous survey (and within nine months of the end of the reference period in the case of a survey in the spring), the Member States shall forward to Eurostat the results of the survey, without direct identifiers.Turkey did not manage to solve the legal restrictions to delivering data to Eurostat, but expects to be able to do so by 2006. Of the remaining 31 Participating Countries, only Denmark, Portugal and Switzerland have managed to meet the deadline for all data deliveries relating to 2003, 2004 and 2005. In 2005, Slovakia, Finland, the United Kingdom, Croatia and Norway joined these countries, and all but five of the other Participating Countries showed improvements. Some of the delays can be attributed to problems with converting to a continuous survey, or making substantial changes to the survey design.Table 23. Number of weeks from deadline when data were first delivered to Eurostat 2003-2005 |2003¹ | 2004¹ | 2005 |¹ The delays may reflect the date of transmission of the first correct (accepted) file, rather than the date of the very first transmission of a file. |Source: The EU-LFS. |7. ARTICLE 7 – REPORTS7.1. A report on the implementation of this Regulation shall be submitted by the Commission to the Parliament and the Council every three years, beginning in the year 2000. This report shall evaluate in particular the quality of the statistical methods envisaged by the Member States to improve the results or to lighten the survey procedures.The European Labour Force Survey is a huge undertaking. In an average quarter in 2005, Eurostat received data pertaining to 1.4 million sampled individuals aged 15 and older. Table 24 lists major design changes in the period 2003-2005 and the planned changes in the next three-year period.Table 24. Major changes in the survey design 2003-2005 or planned changes in 2006-2008 |Country | Short description of the changes | Date when implemented |Belgium | Redesign of questionnaire. | 2005 |Sample size increased to 14 924 households each quarter. | 2006 |Enlargement of 2nd wave questionnaire, meeting the precision requirements for quarterly changes. Gradual move from PAPI to CAPI | 2007 |Denmark | Sample size more than doubled, rotation scheme changed to 2-(2)-2, more efficient use of auxiliary variables in weighting procedures. | 2007 |Germany | Moved to a continuous survey, with no overlap between quarters. Yearly sample size increased. Increased standardisation of interviews with CAPI. Improved weighting with additional use of age classes. Nationality considered in the weighting procedures of foreigners. | 2005 |Greece | Sample size increased, more efficient stratification and weighting procedures. | 2004 |Spain | Redesign of questionnaire. CATI method in the 2nd and subsequent interviews | 2005 |France | Moved to a continuous survey. Questionnaire changed, rotation scheme changed. | 2003 |Ireland | Redesign of questionnaire | Q3 2006 |Italy | Moved to a continuous survey, questionnaire and weighting procedures revised, data collected with CAI. | 2004 |Cyprus | Rotation scheme changed, moved to a continuous survey. | Q2 2004 |Latvia | Sample size more than doubled. Rotation scheme changed to 2-(2)-2, more efficient use of auxiliary variables in weighting procedure and Principle 10 observed | 2007 |Lithuania | Only private households interviewed | 2005 |Questionnaire adapted to EU-LFS list of variables | 2006 |Luxembourg | Moved to a continuous survey, albeit not quarterly. | 2003 |Hungary | Increased coverage of weeks from 1 per month to 3 per month. | 2003 |Move to cover all the weeks of the quarter. | 2006 |Malta | Moved to a continuous survey, sample frame changed, better coverage of households. | 2004 |Austria | Moved to a continuous survey. Questionnaire, sample frame and rotation scheme changed. | 2004 |Slovenia | Move to a more uniform distribution of sample and coverage of all weeks of the quarter. | 2006 |Finland | Household sub-sample implemented. | 2003 |Sweden | Questionnaire adapted to the EU-LFS list of variables. | Q2 2005 |Delivery of household sub-sample data with weights. | 2006 |United Kingdom | Move to calendar quarters. | 2006 |Croatia | Planned move to a continuous survey | 2007 |Romania | Sample size increased. Questionnaire adapted to the EU-LFS list of variables. | 2004 |Move to full and uniform coverage of the weeks of the quarter. | 2006 |Revision of sampling plan and enlargement of sample | 2008 |Turkey | Revision of questionnaire and increase of sample size. | 2004 |Delivery of micro-data | 2006 ? |Iceland | Moved to a continuous survey. | 2003 |Norway | Redesign of questionnaire for improved EU comparability. Lower age limit moved to 15. | 2006 |Source: Quality Reports and communication from Member States |ANNEX II – PRINCIPLES FOR FORMULATING THE QUESTIONS ON LABOUR STATUS[pic][pic][pic][pic]ANNEX III – IMPUTATION OF RELATIVE STANDARD ERRORImputation of relative standard error for regional annual averages[pic]where [pic] n h is the annual average number of respondents (15 and older) in region h , [pic]is the annual average of population aged 15 and older in region h as estimated from the LFS , [pic] (estimated design effect in region h ), c h is the coefficient of variation in region h as given by the Participating Country, p h is the proportion of unemployed persons in region h (of all persons aged 15 and older in region h ), K is the number of quarters (estimates) during the year, o k,k+ t is the proportion of sample overlapping between quarters k and k+t, [pic] (correlation of unemployment between quarter k and k +t), p h ( k,k+ t) is the proportion of persons unemployed both in quarter k and k+ t as estimated from the characteristic duration of unemployment . When the coefficients of variation ( c h ) are provided by countries, the equation for the relative standard error reduces to [pic]. If no variance data are available for the region, the design effect (average national quarterly estimates) as calculated below is assumed.Imputation of relative standard error for change between 2 quarters[pic]where [pic], [pic] and [pic] is the average of the quarterly coefficients provided by the Participating Countries and [pic] is the average number of unemployed persons during the year divided by the estimated average population aged 15 and older. If no coefficients are provided, a design effect of 2 is assumed. When the coefficients of variation ( c q ) are provided by countries, the equation for the relative standard error reduces to [pic][1] OJ L 205, 22.7.1998, p. 40.[2] For the last edition of these notes, cf. Eurostat: The European Union Labour Force Survey, Methods and Definitions, 2001.[3] These are the variables: Col. 16, Col. 17/18, Col. 19/20, Col. 25, Col. 26, Col. 27/29, Col. 30/33, Col. 34/35, Col. 36/37, Col. 38/39, Col. 40/43, Col. 46, Col. 49/50, Col. 56/57, Col. 58, Col. 59, Col. 60, Col. 66, Col. 170/171 and Col. 176. In addition, no information was provided in Col. 51/52 in 2003.[4] The whole country constitutes a NUTS II region in Denmark, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Slovenia and Iceland.[5] OJ L 181, 20.7.2000, p. 16.[6] OJ L 324, 29.11.2002, p. 14.[7] France has a question on passive methods, but this question consolidates the various passive methods into one question.[8] The category “Having domestic/family responsibilities” is missing.[9] OJ L 187, 26.7.2000, p. 5.[10] OJ L 34, 11.2.2003, p. 3.[11] OJ L 192, 20.7.2002, p. 16.[12] OJ L 34, 11.2.2003, p. 5.[13] OJ L 5, 9.1.2004, p. 57.[14] DG Education and Culture: “Detailed analysis of the results of the 2003 LFS ad hoc module on lifelong learning. Quality report” and Eurostat: “Final report of the task force for evaluating the 2004 LFS ad hoc module on work organisation and working time arrangements”.[15] This variable was, for other reasons, considered a failure by the Evaluation Task Force.[16] OJ L 71, 17.3.2005, p. 71.[17] OJ L 228, 8.9.2000, p. 18.[18] The discrepancies can be partly attributed to the fact that the Explanatory Notes for the EU-LFS continued to use the interview week as the starting point for the availability period, despite this having been changed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1897/2000, cf. The European Union Labour Force Survey, Methods and Definitions, 2001.[19] It should be noted that Commission Regulation (EC) No 1897/2000 offers two types of test for measuring the job attachment of persons on lay-off. In both cases the period of absence cannot exceed three months for a person to be considered employed. In addition, the first type of test refers to whether or not significant salary is received, the other if there is an assurance to return to work at the end of the contingency. Principle 2 favours the second approach, while the definition of unemployment and the Explanatory Notes of the European Union Labour Force Survey favour the first approach. In scoring the adherence to Principle 2, only the second approach was used. If no distinction is made, then Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Hungary, Malta, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey would also have fully observed Principle 2.