Accompanying document to the Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 577/98 COM(2010)46
Date: 2010-02-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU statistics, impact study, report, sample survey, sampling, statistical method, working population

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION  

Brussels, 9.2.2010 
SEC(2010)115 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Accompanying document to the 

Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the 
implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 577/98 

COM(2010)46 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Accompanying document to the 

Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the 
implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 577/98 

COM(2010)46 

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS 

1. 

ARTICLE 1 — FREQUENCY OF THE SURVEY 

The  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. 

By  2006,  all  countries  except  Luxembourg,  Croatia,  Switzerland  and  Turkey  had  adopted  a 
continuous  survey  producing  quarterly  results.  Luxembourg  has  provided  quarterly  results 
from  2007,  whereas  only  annual  results  were  available  up  to  2006,  despite  the  fact  that  it 
conducted  a  continuous  survey.  Croatia  moved  from  a  semi-annual  to  a  continuous  survey 
producing quarterly results in 2007. Switzerland plans to adopt a continuous survey in 2010. 
Turkey thus remains the only country with no plan to move to a continuous survey. 

Table 1. Transition to a continuous survey providing quarterly and annual results 

France 
Italy 

Country 
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Czech Republic 
Denmark 
Germany 
Estonia 
Ireland 
Greece 
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 

Year  Country 
1999  Spain 
2003 
1998 
1999  Cyprus 
2005 
Latvia 
2000 
Lithuania 
1998 
Luxembourg¹ 
1998  Hungary 

Country 
Year 
1999 
Malta 
2003 
Netherlands 
2004 
Austria 
2004q2  Poland 
2002 
2002 
2003 
1999 
2006 

Portugal 
Romania 
Slovenia 
Slovakia 

Year  Country 
2004 
Finland 
2000  Sweden 
2004  United Kingdom 
2000  Croatia 
1998 
Turkey 
1999 
Iceland 
1999  Norway 
1998  Switzerland 

Year 
2000 
1999 
1999q2 
2007 
- 
2003 
2000 
2010 

¹ Until 2006, annual results only 

In the case of a continuous survey 

– 

the reference weeks are spread uniformly throughout the whole year 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In 2007, all participating countries conducting a continuous survey except Bulgaria complied 
with the requirement to cover all weeks of the year.  

Germany,  Hungary,  the  Netherlands,  Luxembourg,  Slovenia  and,  in  2006,  the  Former 
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia still had the highest deviation from a uniform distribution of 
the reference week1, in spite of some progress made by Luxembourg and Slovenia compared 
to the previous report. On the other hand, Romania has made substantial progress since 2006.  

Table 2. Relative standard deviation of the weekly number of respondents (aged 15–74) 
and the number of reference weeks per year 2006-2007 

Country 

2006 

2007 

Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Czech Republic 
Denmark 
Germany 
Estonia 
Ireland 
Greece 
Spain 
France 
Italy 
Cyprus 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Hungary 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Austria 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovenia 
Slovakia 
Finland 
Sweden 
United Kingdom 
Croatia 
Former Yugoslav Republic of 
Macedonia 
Turkey 
Iceland 
Norway 
Switzerland 

Relative 
standard 
deviation 
5.9 
4.6 
1.8 
2.7 
25.4 
7.7 
6.7 
3.2 
2.7 
3.8 
3.3 
11.8 
8.6 
6.1 
42.3 
55.9 
5.9 
27.8 
5.4 
2.5 
3.1 
4.1 
24.7 
8.8 
11.7 
10.0 
2.2 
- 

20.0 

- 
2.9 
4.4 
- 

Weeks 
52 
48 
52 
52 
52 
52 
52 
52 
52 
52 
52 
52 
52 
52 
52 
52 
52 
52 
52 
52 
52 
52 
52 
52 
52 
52 
52 
- 

52 

- 
52 
52 
- 

Relative 
standard 
deviation 
6.0 
4.7 
2.5 
6.2 
26.6 
7.1 
6.1 
2.7 
2.3 
3.0 
3.6 
10.3 
7.5 
10.9 
37.1 
69.0 
6.9 
31.4 
5.7 
2.6 
3.6 
4.5 
22.9 
9.5 
11.7 
10.7 
2.3 
5.9 

7.3 

- 
2.6 
3.9 
- 

Weeks 
52 
48 
52 
52 
52 
52 
52 
52 
52 
52 
52 
52 
52 
52 
52 
52 
52 
52 
52 
52 
52 
52 
52 
52 
52 
52 
52 
52 

52 

- 
52 
52 
- 

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. 

Source: EU-LFS 

1 

The deviation from uniform distribution of the reference week is measured by the standard deviation of 
the weekly number of respondents as a percentage of the average number of respondents per reference 
week. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
– 

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 information on the interview week is not always provided or in some cases is not reliable 
and should thus be treated with caution2. In five of the countries for which the information is 
available,  namely  Estonia,  Italy,  Malta,  Austria  and  Portugal,  less  than  50 %  of  interviews 
were  carried  out  during  the  week  immediately  following  the  reference  week.  However,  in 
2007, at least 98 % of the interviews in quarters 1, 2 and 4 were completed before the end of 
the 5th week after the reference week in almost all countries.  

Table 3. Interview week relative to the reference week in 1st, 2nd and 4th quarters 
2005-2007 

Country 

% interview in the next week 

2006 

2007 

50.3 

94.7 

67.4 

84.4 

- 

33.4 

- 

70.8 

70.5 

65.2 

35.9 

98.5 

- 

81.7 

- 

- 

22.8 

- 

36.2 

- 

42.8 

- 

- 

95.3 

65.0 

59.4 

- 

- 

- 

56.3 

82.4 

50.9 

95.2 

65.3 

57.6 

- 

34.9 

- 

69.2 

72.5 

67.5 

34.2 

93.6 

87.4 

80.6 

- 

- 

23.0 

- 

34.6 

- 

43.3 

- 

- 

94.2 

69.0 

59.1 

- 

- 

- 

59.1 

61.2 

% interview within 5 weeks after 
reference period¹ 

2006 

100.0 

100.0 

99.0 

99.9 

- 

99.5 

- 

95.2 

98.6 

100.0 

100.0 

99.8 

- 

100.0 

- 

- 

100.0 

- 

91.0 

- 

98.8 

- 

- 

100.0 

100.0 

99.6 

- 

- 

- 

100.0 

100.0 

2007 

100.0 

100.0 

98.5 

100.0 

- 

100.0 

- 

100.0 

98.7 

100.0 

100.0 

99.0 

99.6 

100.0 

- 

- 

100.0 

- 

91.3 

- 

99.4 

- 

- 

100.0 

100.0 

99.6 

- 

- 

- 

100.0 

100.0 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Czech Republic 

Denmark 

Germany 

Estonia 

Ireland 

Greece 

Spain 

France 

Italy 

Cyprus 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Hungary 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Austria 

Poland (1) 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

Finland 

Sweden 

United Kingdom 

Croatia 
Former Yugoslav 
Republic of Macedonia 

Turkey 

Iceland 

2 

The criteria for identifying the interview week could also differ from country to country. For instance, 
for  those  sampling  households,  dwelling  or  addresses,  the  date  recorded  could  be  the  date  when  the 
first,  or  the  last  (as  in  the  case  of  Austria)  or  each  individual  member  of  the  family  has  been 
interviewed. Alternatively, each person could be assigned the date when he is actually interviewed. The 
results in table 3 can thus be influenced by the approach followed by each country. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
                                                 
Table 3. Interview week relative to the reference week in 1st, 2nd and 4th quarters 
2005-2007 

Country 

% interview in the next week 

Norway 

Switzerland 

2006 

60.4 

- 

2007 

63.4 

- 

% interview within 5 weeks after 
reference period¹ 

2006 

98.1 

- 

2007 

98.1 

- 

¹ Including cases where the interview is registered as the same week as the reference week. 

Note:  Hyphen  (‘-’)  denotes  unavailable  or  suspect  data,  including  the  case  of  a  1:1  relationship  between  the 
reference week and interview week. No account is taken of non-response, which was relatively high for all years 
in Denmark (30 %, up from 20 % in 2005) due to postal questionnaires; in France (9 %) and Sweden (7-8 %) due 
to imputation of records for older workers; in Portugal (5 %) and in Norway (8 %). 

(1)  Although  the  information  is  not  available  to  Eurostat,  Poland  reports  anecdotal  evidence  that  many  of  the 
interviews are carried out in the week following the reference week. Poland has also committed to start providing 
information on the interview week from 2010. 

Source: 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 1571/983 laid down the reference weeks for the years 1998 
and 1999, and also provided derogations for Ireland and the United Kingdom to use seasonal 
quarters instead of calendar quarters. Since then, the reference periods have not been specified 
in a Commission Regulation, but have continued each year from the sequence established in 
1998.  

In  2006  and  2007,  all  countries  conducting  a  continuous  survey  used  the  same  reference 
period  for  the  quarters  and  years,  with  the  exception  of  Ireland  —  which  used  seasonal 
quarters  instead  of  calendar  quarters  —  and  Iceland  and  the  United  Kingdom,  where  the 
reference period was shifted one week ahead and one week back respectively. In spite of this 
slight  deviation,  this  can  be  considered  as  an  improvement  for  the  United  Kingdom,  where 
seasonal quarters had been used until 2005.  

2. 

ARTICLE 2 — UNITS AND SCOPE OF THE SURVEY, OBSERVATION METHODS 

2.1  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. 

In Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Iceland, Norway and Switzerland the final sampling unit is the 
person.  In  all  the  other  participating  countries  the  final  sampling  units  are  households, 
(clusters of) dwellings or addresses, so that information is collected for the whole household.  

The definition of ‘resident population’ varies from one participating country to another, which 
may  cause  comparability  differences,  especially  with  regard  to  non-nationals  and  migrants. 
Efforts are under way to provide for a harmonised approach through the Explanatory Notes 
for the European Union Labour Force Survey4. However, the situation has not changed since 

3 
4 

OJ L 205, 22.7.1998, p. 40. 
The  Working  document  ‘Labour  Force  Survey  —  Revised  explanatory  notes  (to  be  applied  from 
2008q1 onwards)’ is available on request. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
  
 
                                                 
the  previous  report.  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,  Croatia  and  the  Former 
Yugoslav  Republic  of  Macedonia  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 used for the sample. 

–  Denmark  (EEA  citizens),  Iceland  and  Norway  require  registration  when  a  stay 
exceeds six months. In the Romanian LFS, ‘usual residence’ is defined as a stay 
of at least six months. 

–  Some  countries  require  registration  in  the  Population  Registers  (or  a  residence 
permit)  if  a  stay  exceeds  three  months  (Belgium,  Denmark  (non-EEA  citizens), 
Latvia,  Luxembourg  and  Slovenia)  or  define  ‘usual  residence’  as  at  least  three 
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 quarters 1, 3 and 4, France does not comply with Article 2(1), as the LFS is carried out in 
the  Overseas  Territories  (DOM)  in  the  second  quarter  only.5  Consequently,  not  the  whole 
economic territory is covered in the other quarters. 

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. 

In  2006  and  2007,  Denmark,  Germany,  Estonia,  Iceland,  Finland,  Sweden  and  Norway 
directly  surveyed  persons  in  collective  households.  France,  Cyprus,  Romania,  Bulgaria, 
Spain,  Portugal  and  the  Former  Yugoslav  Republic  of  Macedonia  surveyed  persons  in 
collective  households  if  they  maintained  connections  with  the  sampled  private  household. 

5 

However,  France  is  currently  working  to  introduce  a  continuous  survey  as  for  the  metropolitan 
departments (départements métropolitains) from 2013. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

                                                 
However,  for  Spain,  Portugal  and  the  Former  Yugoslav  Republic  of  Macedonia,  persons 
living in collective households cannot be distinguished from those in private households in the 
datasets  sent  to  Eurostat.  The  United  Kingdom  used  both  methods  for  surveying  persons  in 
collective  households.  Some  countries  grossed  up  the  LFS  sample  to  the  total  population, 
although those living in institutional households were either not covered in the data collection 
(Belgium,  Ireland,  Latvia,  Malta,  Slovenia  and  Switzerland)  or  only  partially  covered 
(Bulgaria,  France,  Portugal,  Romania,  Slovakia  and  The  Former  Yugoslav  Republic  of 
Macedonia). At the opposite, Lithuania used the population living in private households only 
as reference, in spite of the fact that collective households are included in the sampling frame. 

Table 4. Coverage of collective households 2006-2007 

No coverage 

Directly 

Through the sampled 
private household 

Directly and through the 
sampled household 

Belgium, Czech Republic, 
Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, 
Lithuania, Luxembourg, 
Hungary, Malta, Netherlands, 
Austria, Poland, Slovenia, 
Croatia, Turkey, Switzerland  

Denmark, Germany, 
Estonia, Iceland, 
Finland, Sweden, 
Norway 

France, Cyprus¹, 
Romania, Bulgaria, Spain2, 
Portugal2, Slovakia, 
Former Yugoslav Republic 
of Macedonia2 

United Kingdom 

¹ Conscripts only. 2 Persons living in collective households cannot be distinguished from those in private households 
in Eurostat’s datasets. 

Sources: Quality Reports, EU-LFS (HHPRIV). 

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. 

In 2006 and 2007 all the participating countries obtained information about labour status and 
underemployment  by  interview,  either  from  the  person  or  from  another  member  of  the 
household. The share of proxy interviews varied considerably across participating countries, 
from 0.4 % in Switzerland to nearly 60 % in Turkey. In general, the share of proxy interviews 
was  much  lower  in  countries  sampling  persons  than  in  countries  sampling  households, 
dwelling or addresses. The share of proxy interviews remained approximately the same as in 
2005 for all countries except Italy, where it more than halved from 2006. Denmark, Finland, 
Sweden,  Iceland  and  Norway  all  make  use  of  administrative  sources,  mainly  for  supplying 
information about demographic and educational characteristics. 

Table 5. Share of proxy interviews (15–74 years) and use of administrative sources 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 
Czech Republic 
Denmark 

Germany 
Estonia 
Ireland 

EN 

Share of proxy 
interviews (%) 

2006 

2007 

22.1 

19.6 

Variables for which alternative (administrative) sources 
are used (2007) 

  SEX, YEARBIR, DATEBIR, MARSTAT, NATIONAL, 
COUNTRYB, COUNTR1Y, REGION, REGION1Y, 
DEGURBA  

42.7 
47.6 
2.1 

26.9 
17.7 
47.5 

41.7 
46.7 
1.9 

  None 
  None 
  HHLINK, SEX, YEARBIR, DATEBIR, MARSTAT, 

NATIONAL, YEARESID, COUNTRYB, REGISTER, 
DEGURBA, HHINST, HATLEVEL, HATFIELD, HATYEAR  

27.3 
21.6 
49.2 

  None 
  None 
  None 

7 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
Table 5. Share of proxy interviews (15–74 years) and use of administrative sources 

Share of proxy 
interviews (%) 

2006 

2007 

Greece 
Spain 
France 
Italy 
Cyprus 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Hungary 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Austria 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovenia 
Slovakia 
Finland 

Sweden 

United Kingdom 
Croatia 
Former Yugoslav 
Republic of Macedonia 
Turkey 
Iceland 

Norway 

42.5 
53.5 
32.0 
15.7 
31.4 
38.7 
45.2 
52.1 
42.6 
50.2 
47.2 
25.5 
41.4 
45.8 
28.8 
58.1 
61.2 
4.4 

2.6 

36.0 
40.3 

43.0 

58.8 
1.1 

14.9 

Variables for which alternative (administrative) sources 
are used (2007) 

  None 
  None 
  None 
  None 
  None 
  None 
  SEX, YEARBIR, DATEBIR, NATIONAL, COUNTRYB  

- 
  None 
  None 
- 
  None 
  None. 
  None 
  None 
- 
- 

  SEX, YEARBIR, DATEBIR, MARSTAT, NATIONAL, 
COUNTRYB, HATLEVEL, HATFIELD, HATYEAR 
  SEX, YEARBIR, DATEBIR, NATIONAL, YEARESID, 

COUNTRYB, NACE, REGISTER, HATFIELD, HATYEAR 
- 
- 

- 

  None 
  SEX, YEARBIR, DATEBIR, MARSTAT, NATIONAL, 

COUNTRYB 

42.0 
53.9 
31.5 
18.1 
31.7 
38.8 
43.0 
53.0 
44.4 
50.2 
46.5 
23.4 
41.6 
46.3 
28.3 
58.0 
55.9 
4.4 

2.7 

35.7 
42.1 

39.8 

59.1 
1.3 

15.0 

  SEX, YEARBIR, DATEBIR, MARSTAT, NATIONAL, 

Switzerland 

0.5 

0.4 

YEARESID, COUNTRYB, REGISTER, COUNTRY1Y, 
REGION1Y, EDUCLEVEL, EDUCFIELD, HATLEVEL, 
HATFIELD, HATYEAR 
- 

Notes: Hyphen ‘-’ denotes that no information is available.  

Sources: 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, Norway  and Iceland all survey a sub-sample of households as stipulated 
by Article 2(4), while in Sweden and Switzerland the household is not covered. However, in 
2006  and  2007,  only  Denmark  and  Finland  delivered  data  to  Eurostat  on  a  sub-sample  of 
households according to Article 2(4). In these sub-samples, Finland provided data for almost 
all  the  required  characteristics  and  most  of  the  optional  variables,  while  Denmark  did  not 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
provide  any  information  on  22  compulsory  variables  in  2006  and  on  24  variables  in  20076. 
Denmark has committed to provide all mandatory characteristics in the household sub-sample 
from  2010  onwards.  Sweden  has  committed  to  start  supplying  information  on  household 
members of selected persons from the same year, while Norway will need more time.  

No information on the representativeness of the Danish and Finnish household sub-samples is 
available  from  the  quality  reports.  However,  taking  into  account  the  sample  and  population 
size and the estimated design effect for the full yearly sample, it can safely be assumed that 
these comply with the specification laid down in Article 2(4), fourth bullet. 

3. 

ARTICLE 3 — REPRESENTATIVENESS OF THE SAMPLE 

3.1.  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. 

The relative standard error for the estimation of annual averages is a function of the sample 
size, the sampling rate, the overlap of observation units within the year and the design effect7. 
While the first three elements are known, the design effect can be computed only for actual 
estimates, whereas Article 3(1) refers to a theoretical situation. The following assessment is 
therefore  based  on  ad  hoc  assumptions  on  theoretical  design  effects  (see  Annex  II),  and  for 
this  reason  it  shows  only  circumstantial  evidence  of  deviations  from  the  requirement. 
Accordingly,  the  assessment  should  not  be  seen  as  providing  conclusive  proofs  for 
compliance with Article 3(1)8.  

The  assessment  considers  the  age  group  15-74  as  a  benchmark  for  the  sample  size  and  the 
sampling fraction, as this is the one covered by the definition of unemployment. In order to 
determine  whether  or  not  a  region  is  exempt  from  the  requirement,  the  total  regional 
population is considered instead. 

In  the  33  countries  providing  data  to  Eurostat,  there  were  307  regions  defined  at  NUTS  II 
level in 2006 and 311 in 20079. In both years, 17 regions had fewer than 300 000 inhabitants. 

6 

7 

8 

9 

These  variables  are:  MARSTAT,  NATIONAL,  YEARESID,  STAPRO,  NACE3D,  ISCO4D, 
COUNTRYW,  REGIONW,  YSTARTWK,  FTPT,  EVENWK,  NIGHTWK,  SATWK,  SUNWK, 
HWUSUAL, WISHMORE, HWWISH, HOMEWK, LOOKOJ, EXIST2J, INTWEEK, DEGURBA and, 
in  2007,.SEEKREAS  and  AVAIREAS.  Denmark  has  committed  to  collect  and  provide  Eurostat  with 
household information on a quarterly basis from the first quarter of 2010. 
Although not strictly according to the definition of design effect (cf. Kish 1965), here it is assumed for 
simplicity that the effects of weighting, including the use of auxiliary variables, also contribute to the 
design effect. 
The  need  for  clarification  of  articles  3(1)  and  3(2)  has  been  highlighted  by  the  LFS  community  and 
recognised by Eurostat. An initiative is to be launched soon to address this issue. 
In 2008 the revised Nomenclature of territorial units entered into force. As the changes with respect to 
the previous NUTS 2003 version were known in advance, most countries implemented them already in 
2007. The difference between 2006 and 2007 is partly due to the introduction of five NUTS II regions 
in Denmark and two in Slovenia — countries which were each previously considered as a single region. 
It is also due to the coverage of the NUTS II level (three regions) in Croatia — for which data were 
available only at national level up to 2006 — and to the merging of three NUTS II regions into one in 
Germany. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

                                                 
The  benchmark  is  estimated  to  have  been  exceeded,  either  in  2006  or  2007,  in  60  regions 
belonging  to  ten  participating  countries:  Belgium  (3  regions),  Bulgaria  (4),  Germany  (2), 
Greece (7), Spain (1), France (18), Poland (7), Portugal (2), Romania (7) and United Kingdom 
(9).  The  threshold  was  exceeded  in  both  years  in  35  regions  in  Belgium  and  in  Bulgaria  (1 
region),  Greece  (5),  France  (10),  Poland  (5),  Portugal  (2),  Romania  (3)  and  the  United 
Kingdom (8).  

Table  6.  Regions  with  300 000  inhabitants  or  more,  where  the  relative  standard  error 
(RSE)  for  the  estimate  of  annual  average  unemployment  (5 %)  exceeded  8 %  in  2006-
2007 

Country 

Region (NUTS II) 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

BE31 
BE33 
BE35 
BG31 
BG32 
BG33 
BG34 
DE50 
DEB2 
Greece (*)  GR11 
GR14 
GR21 
GR23 
GR24 
GR25 

Germany 

Spain 
France 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

GR43 
ES23 
FR21 
FR22 
FR23 
FR24 
FR25 
FR26 
FR41 
FR42 
FR43 
FR51 
FR52 
FR53 
FR61 
FR62 
FR63 
FR72 
FR81 
FR82 
PL33 
PL34 
PL42 
PL43 
PL52 
PL62 
PL63 
PT15 
PT18 
RO11 
RO12 
RO21 

Brabant wallon 
Liège 
Namur 
Severozapaden 
Severen tsentralen 
Severoiztochen 
Yugoiztochen 
Bremen 
Trier 
Anatoliki Makedonia, Thraki 
Thessalia 
Ipeiros 
Dytiki Ellada 
Sterea Ellada 
Peloponnisos 

Kriti 
La Rioja 
Champagne-Ardenne 
Picardie 
Haute-Normandie 
Centre 
Basse-Normandie 
Bourgogne 
Lorraine 
Alsace 
Franche-Comté 
Pays de la Loire 
Bretagne 
Poitou-Charentes 
Aquitaine 
Midi-Pyrénées 
Limousin 
Auvergne 
Languedoc-Roussillon 
Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur 
Swietokrzyskie 
Podlaskie 
Zachodniopomorskie 
Lubuskie 
Opolskie 
Warminsko-Mazurskie 
Pomorskie 
Algarve 
Alentejo 
Nord-Vest 
Centru 
Nord-Est 

2007 yearly 
sample size 
(15-74 years) 
4 652 
9 664 
5 344 
14 052 
12 752 
13 984 
14 188 
4 196 
3 324 
14 980 
13 056 
16 236 
14 860 
13 632 
15 088 

17 664 
8 732 
8 724 
9 180 
9 484 
9 304 
7 148 
9 048 
9 160 
7 548 
7 232 
13 788 
9 368 
8 284 
10 624 
9 028 
6 604 
6 276 
10 376 
18 628 
8 776 
6 964 
7 580 
7 460 
6 576 
8 092 
8 676 
13 064 
15 440 
25 500 
25 144 
31 296 

2007 yearly 
sampling rate (%) 
(15-74 years) 

1.69 
1.24 
1.56 
1.95 
1.71 
1.79 
1.63 
0.80 
0.84 
3.33 
2.36 
6.28 
2.72 
3.24 
3.43 

4.06 
3.65 
0.91 
0.68 
0.72 
0.52 
0.70 
0.78 
0.55 
0.55 
0.90 
0.57 
0.43 
0.66 
0.47 
0.45 
1.29 
0.66 
0.57 
0.53 
0.81 
0.83 
0.66 
0.88 
0.90 
0.74 
0.58 
4.06 
2.67 
1.19 
1.26 
1.10 

RSE 
 2007 
8.03 

8.08 

12.16 
10.96 

8.35 
9.04 
9.46 
8.36 
9.90 
8.03 
9.90 
8.47 

9.86 

8.20 
8.18 

8.44 

11.08 
8.83 

8.15 

8.57 
12.36 
8.55 

8.22 
9.25 
8.86 
8.10 
9.16 
8.14 

9.38 
8.56 

RSE  
 2006 
8.38 
10.49 

8.85 
10.72 

8.53 

10.05 
8.55 
9.80 

9.70 
8.51 

8.73 
8.49 
9.97 
10.30 
12.52 
9.65 
10.40 
11.08 
10.64 
8.60 
9.89 
14.13 
11.23 
12.26 
11.48 
12.92 
8.69 
11.22 
11.50 
8.84 
9.13 
8.98 
8.43 

10.22 
10.17 
8.71 
9.82 
8.21 
11.76 
9.75 
12.34 

EN 

10 

   EN 

  
  
  
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
Table  6.  Regions  with  300 000  inhabitants  or  more,  where  the  relative  standard  error 
(RSE)  for  the  estimate  of  annual  average  unemployment  (5 %)  exceeded  8 %  in  2006-
2007 

Country 

Region (NUTS II) 

United 
Kingdom 

RO22 
RO32 
RO41 
RO42 
UKD1 
UKD2 
UKE1 

UKE2 
UKF3 
UKK3 
UKK4 
UKM5 
UKM6 

Sud-Est 
Bucuresti — Ilfov 
Sud-Vest — Oltenia 
Vest 
Cumbria 
Cheshire 
East Riding and North 
Lincolnshire 
North Yorkshire 
Lincolnshire 
Cornwall and Isles of Scilly 
Devon 
North Eastern Scotland 
Highlands and Islands 

2007 yearly 
sample size 
(15-74 years) 
25 944 
18 656 
21 792 
18 076 
3 152 
5 756 
5 536 

4 560 
4 292 
3 060 
6 444 
2 876 
3 520 

2007 yearly 
sampling rate (%) 
(15-74 years) 

1.15 
1.03 
1.21 
1.18 
0.84 
0.79 
0.83 

0.77 
0.83 
0.80 
0.78 
0.84 
0.80 

Note: Empty cells indicate that the RSE was under the threshold. 

(*) 2007 CVs used as proxy of 2006 CVs for the calculation of the design effect (see Annex II)  

RSE  
 2006 
8.60 
11.00 
11.55 
10.54 
11.55 
8.84 
8.72 

10.19 
10.34 
12.20 
8.38 
11.52 
11.07 

RSE 
 2007 
8.38 

8.10 
8.64 
11.32 
8.55 
9.46 

8.94 
10.46 
12.27 

11.92 
10.38 

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. 

The total population is taken into account when determining which precision requirement in 
Article 3(2) is relevant for which country. According to this criterion, Cyprus, Luxembourg, 
Malta  and  Iceland  were  exempt  from  these  requirements  as  they  had  less  than  one  million 
inhabitants. Croatia (in 2006 only), Turkey10 and Switzerland are not concerned since they do 
not conduct a continuous survey. 

Although Article 3(2) does not refer to any specific characteristic, the assessment is made for 
unemployment. As for Article 3(1), the age group used as benchmark for the sample size and 
the sampling fraction is 15-74.  

Also for Article 3(2) the assessment is based on ad hoc assumptions about theoretical design 
effects (see Annex II). Therefore the same remarks on the interpretation of the results apply as 
for Article 3(1). 

10 

Although only  covering  all  the  weeks  of  the  year  but  only  the  first  week  of  each  month,  the  Turkish 
LFS  produces  quarterly  results.  By  applying  the  hypothesis  outlined  below,  Turkey  meets  the 
requirements stated in article 3.2. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

  
  
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
                                                 
Germany, Poland and Romania exceeded the benchmark of 2 % for countries with more than 
20  million  inhabitants,  whereas  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Denmark,  Estonia,  Latvia,  Lithuania, 
Slovenia, Croatia and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia exceeded the benchmark 
of 3 % for countries with a population between 1 million and 20 million inhabitants. The 2006 
and  2007  relative  standard  errors  for  the  estimate  of  quarterly  change  in  unemployment 
corresponding to 5 % of the working age population for these countries are shown in table 7.  

Table  7.  Countries with a  continuous  survey  and  1  million  population  or  more,  where 
the relative standard error for the estimate of quarterly change in unemployment (5 %) 
exceeded 2 % or 3 % in 2006-2007 

Population 

20 million + 

1-20 million 

Country 

Germany 

Poland 

Romania 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Slovenia 

Croatia 

Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 

RSE 

2006 

2.10 

3.11 

4.28 

5.65 

4.64 

5.52 

9.60 

13.33 

6.63 

4.99 

- 

9.76 

RSE 

2007 

2.19 

3.10 

4.83 

5.60 

4.80 

3.57 

9.01 

7.68 

5.71 

5.01 

6.99 

9.48 

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  Croatia  for  2006  and  Switzerland.  In  2006,  Croatia  had  no 
overlap between successive years, and thus did not comply with Article 3(3). This changed in 
2007  with  the  implementation  of  the  continuous  quarterly  survey  adopting  a  sample  design 
with a quarterly and yearly rotation scheme. The Swiss sample design provides for a yearly 
rotation pattern, complying with Article 3(3). 

3.4  Where non-response to certain questions results in missing data, a method of 
statistical imputation shall be applied where appropriate. 

Only  eleven  out  of  32  participating  countries  applied  statistical  imputation  (Table  8).  Five 
countries  —  Italy,  Austria,  Spain,  Romania  and  Slovenia  —  imputed  for  all  or  most  of  the 
variables.  The  remaining  countries  mostly  imputed  when  missing  data  pertained  to  hours 
worked  or  wages.  Three  main  methods  were  used:  hot-deck,  regression  and  means  with 
classes. 

Table 8. Imputation of variables (2007) 

Imputation 

Country 
Germany 

Spain 

Variable 
Usual hours and actual hours worked and economic 
activity 
All variables 

Method 
Hot-deck 

Manual imputation (for 
household variables) 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
Table 8. Imputation of variables (2007) 

Country 

Variable 

France 
Italy 

Malta 
Austria 
Slovenia 

Finland 

Iceland 
Norway 

Wages 
All variables 

Wages 
All variables 
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 
Actual hours worked 

Usual and actual hours of work 
Underemployment, desired working hours, actual 
hours worked 

Method 
and Fellegi-Holt, 
donor technique 
Regression 
Fellegi-Holt, donor 
technique 
Means with classes 
Hot-deck 
Hot-deck 

Mean imputation with 
classes (professional 
status and economic 
activity) 
Regression 
Hot-deck 

No imputation 

Belgium,  Czech  Republic,  Denmark,  Estonia,  Greece,  Ireland,  Cyprus,  Latvia,  Lithuania, 
Luxembourg,  Hungary,  Netherlands,  Poland,  Portugal,  Slovakia,  Sweden,  United  Kingdom, 
Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Switzerland 

Source: 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  took  into  account  the  probability  of  selection.  All  except 
Croatia used sex and age in the weighting process. Bulgaria, Germany, Greece, Luxembourg, 
Hungary,  Malta  and  Slovenia  used  broader  age  groups  than  five-year  groups.  All  of  the 
countries with more than one NUTS II region used at least NUTS II regions for calculating 
the weighting factors11, except France up to 2006 and Denmark in 2007.  

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. 

Information  for  methodological  information  on  the  LFS  is  requested  by  Eurostat  in  a 
standardised  form  by  means  of  annual  quality  reports,  organised  according  to  a  standard 
definition  of  quality  components.  In  2006  and  2007  all  participating  countries  provided 
Eurostat  with  these  reports  (for  2007  Iceland  only  provided  partial  information),  the  only 
exception  being  the  Former  Yugoslav  Republic  of  Macedonia  for  2007.  The  participating 
countries  also  provide  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.  

11 

The  whole  country  constitutes  a  NUTS  II  region  in  Denmark  until  2006,  Estonia,  Cyprus,  Latvia, 
Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Slovenia and Iceland. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
4. 

ARTICLE 4 — SURVEY CHARACTERISTICS 

The characteristics to be surveyed in the period 2006-2007 are defined by Council Regulation 
(EC)  577/9812,  as  amended  by  Commission  Regulation  (EC)  2104/200213  and  by  EP  and 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  2257/200314.  The  latter  introduced  into  the  list  of  mandatory 
variables,  from  2006  onwards,  six  new  variables:  continuing  receipt  of  wages  and  salary; 
supervisory  responsibility;  involvement  of  public  employment  service  in  finding  the  current 
job;  contract  with  a  temporary  work  agency;  number  of  hours  of  overtime  in  the  reference 
week; lack of care facility. It also introduced module ‘n’ on atypical working times, hitherto 
surveyed  on  the  basis  of  a  gentlemen’s  agreement.  The  codification  to  be  used  for 
transmission of data to Eurostat, against which the assessment in this section is performed, is 
defined  by  Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  430/200515,  which  also  covers 
the 
abovementioned innovations. 

Variables not provided in 2006 and 2007 are listed in the tables from 9(a) to 9(n). Whenever a 
country  is  mentioned  in  connection  with  a  quarterly  variable,  this  means  that  –  unless 
otherwise  specified  –  it  did  not  provide  that  variable  for  all  the  four  quarters  of  the 
corresponding  year.  The  cases  in  which  variables  were  provided,  but  where  the  same  code 
was used for all applicable cases, are also mentioned.  

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); 

Table 9(a). Non-optional variables in module a, not provided in 2006-2007 

Periodicity  Characteristic 

2006  2007  Comments 

Yearly 

Relationship to reference person in the household 

Yearly 

Sequence number of spouse or cohabiting partner 

12 
13 
14 
15 

OJ L 77, 14.3.1998, p. 3. 
OJ L 324, 29.11.2002, p.14. 
OJ L 336, 23.12.2003, p. 6. 
OJ L 71, 17.3.2005, p. 36. 

IE 

SE 
NO 
IS 
CH 
SE 

IE 

SE 
NO 
IS 
CH 
SE 

2006:  not  provided.  2007:  provided 
with errors, which prevents its use 

SE,  NO,  IS  and  CH:  sample  of 
individuals  and  no  household  sub-
sample 

SE NO IS and CH: sample of

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
                                                 
Table 9(a). Non-optional variables in module a, not provided in 2006-2007 

Periodicity  Characteristic 

Yearly 

Sequence number of father 

Yearly 

Sequence number of mother 

Quarterly 

Quarterly 

Date  of  birth  in  relation  to  the  end  of  reference 
period 
Nationality 

Yearly 

Years of residence in this country 

Source: EU-LFS 

(b) labour status: 

2006  2007  Comments 
NO 
IS 
CH 

NO 
IS 
CH 

individuals  and  no  household  sub-
sample 

Variable  provided  with  errors,  which 
prevents its use 

SE,  NO,  IS  and  CH:  sample  of 
individuals  and  no  household  sub-
sample 

Variable  provided  with  errors,  which 
prevents its use 

SE,  NO,  IS  and  CH:  sample  of 
individuals  and  no  household  sub-
sample 

Variable  provided  with  errors,  which 
prevents its use 
Variable  provided,  but  with  constant 
values for Q3 and Q4 

Variable 
old 
classification, which prevents its use  

provided 

with 

IE 

SE 
NO 
IS 
CH 

IE 

SE 
NO 
IS 
CH 

IE 

TR 

IE 

MK 

IE 

SE 
NO 
IS 
CH 

IE 

SE 
NO 
IS 
CH 

IE 

IE 

TR 

IE 

MK 
IS 

– 
– 
– 
– 
– 
– 
– 

labour status during the reference week, 
continuing receipt of wages and salary, 
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; 

Table 9(b). Non-optional variables in module b, not provided in 2006-2007 

Periodicity  Characteristic 

2006 

2007 

Quarterly 

Continuing receipt of the wage or salary 

Quarterly 

Type of employment sought (non-employed) 

Quarterly 

Quarterly 

Studied advertisements in newspapers or 
journals (employed) 
Took a test, interview or examination (non-
employed) 

Quarterly 

Looked for land, premises or equipment (non-
employed) 

Quarterly 

Quarterly 

Looked for permits, licences, financial resources 
(non-employed) 
Awaiting the results of an application for a job 
(non-employed) 

EE 

FI 

IE 

FR 

UK 

MK 

IS 

UK 

IE 

IE 

FR 

MT 

EE 

FI 

FR 

UK 

HR 

IS 

UK 

MK 

FR 

MT 

Comments 
Variable provided with constant 
values, except for Q1 and Q2 2007, 
when it was correctly provided 
Implemented from 2008 onwards 

Variable provided only for Q2. 
Quarterly from 2008 
Variable provided only for Q4 

Variable provided from Q2 2007 

Variable provided from Q2 2007 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
Table 9(b). Non-optional variables in module b, not provided in 2006-2007 

Periodicity  Characteristic 

Comments 

2006 
NL 
PT 
MK 

2007 
NL 
PT 

Quarterly 

Waiting for a call from a public employment office 
(non-employed) 

Quarterly 

Awaiting the results of a competition for 
recruitment to the public sector (non-employed) 

Quarterly 

Other method used (non-employed) 

Quarterly 

Availability to start working within two weeks 
(non-employed) 

Source: EU-LFS 

FR 
IS 
MT 
PT 
UK 

FI 
FR 
IS 
MT 
NL 
NO 
PT 
SI 
UK 
MK 
BG 
EE 

PT 

CH 

FR 
IS 
MT 
PT 
UK 
MK 

CH 

FI 
FR 
IS 
MT 
NL 
NO 
PT 
SI 
UK 
MK 
BG 
EE 
IE 
PT 

MK 

CY 

EE 

Variable provided from Q2 2007 

Not applicable in Finland 

Variable provided from Q2 2007 

Not applicable in Slovenia 

 Variable provided, but with constant 
values for Q3 
Variable provided, but with constant 
values for Q3 
Variable provided, but with constant 
values for Q4 

(c) employment characteristics of the main job: 

– 
– 
– 
– 
– 
– 
– 
– 
– 
– 
– 
– 
– 
– 

professional status, 
economic activity of local unit, 
occupation, 
supervisory responsibilities, 
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, 
involvement of public employment service in finding the current job, 
permanency of the job (and reasons), 
duration of temporary job or work contract of limited duration, 
full-time/part-time distinction (and reasons), 
contract with a temporary work agency, 
working at home; 

Table 9(c). Non-optional variables in module c, not provided in 2006-2007 

Periodicity  Characteristic 

2006 

2007 

Comments 

Yearly 

Supervisory responsibilities 

EN 

FI 

Implemented from 2008 onwards 

FI 

IE 

16 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 9(c). Non-optional variables in module c, not provided in 2006-2007 

Periodicity  Characteristic 

2006 

2007 

Comments 

Quarterly 

Country of place of work 

Quarterly 

Region of place of work 

Yearly 

Involvement of the public employment 
office at any moment in finding the 
present job 

Quarterly 

Quarterly 

Full-time/part-time distinction 
Total duration of temporary job or work 
contract of limited duration 

Yearly 

Contract with a temporary employment 
agency 

MK 

NO 

CY 

EL 

IS 

NO 

TR 

CY 

HR 

IS 

LT 

LV 

SI 

MK 

CH 

FI 

IE 

MK 

IE 

IE 

UK 

MK 

CY 

FI 

IE 

IS 

PT 

MK 

TR 

NO 

CY 

EL 

IS 

NO 

TR 

CY 

IS 

LT 

LV 

SI 

MK 

CH 

FI 

Implemented from 2008 onwards 
Variable provided, but with constant values 
(always Cyprus) 
Variable provided, but with constant values 
(always Greece) 
Variable provided from Q2 2007 

Variable provided, but with constant values 
(always Cyprus, which is one NUTS2 region) 

Variable provided from Q2 2007 
Variable provided, but with constant values 
(always Lithuania, which is one NUTS2 
region) 
Variable provided, but with constant values 
(always Latvia, which is one NUTS2 region) 
Implemented from 2008 onwards 

Implemented from 2010 onwards 

Implemented from 2008 onwards 

Variable not provided for Q3 and Q4 
Variable provided only for Q2. Quarterly from 
2008 

UK 

CY 

Variable provided, but with constant values 

Implemented from 2008 onwards 

FI 

IE 

Variable collected and sent to Eurostat, but 
at INE’s request not disseminated for quality 
reasons 

TR 

Variable not provided because no temporary 
agencies in Turkey 

Source: EU-LFS 

(d) hours worked: 

– 
– 
– 
– 

number of hours per week usually worked, 
number of hours actually worked, 
number of hours of overtime in the reference week, 
main reason for hours actually worked being different from usual hours; 

Table 9(d). Non-optional variables in module d, not provided in 2006-2007 

Periodicity 

Characteristic 

2006 

2007 

Comments 

Quarterly 

Paid overtime in the reference week in the main job 

Quarterly 

Unpaid overtime in the reference week in the main 
job 

IE 

HR 

IS 

CH 

IE 

MK 

IS 

CH 

Variable provided from Q2 2007 
Implemented from 2010 
onwards 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 9(d). Non-optional variables in module d, not provided in 2006-2007 

Periodicity 

Characteristic 

2006 

2007 

Comments 

FI 

MK 

TR 

IS 

CH 

TR 

IS 

CH 

Variable provided from Q2 2007 
Implemented from 2010 
onwards 

Source: EU-LFS 

(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); 

Table 9(f). Non-optional variables in module f, not provided in 2006-2007 

Periodicity  Characteristic 

Quarterly 

Looking for another job 

Quarterly 

Type of employment sought (or found) 
(employed) 

Quarterly 

Contacted public employment office to find work 
(employed) 

Quarterly 

Contacted private employment agency to find 
work (employed) 

Quarterly 

Quarterly 

Quarterly 

Quarterly 

Applied to employers directly (employed) 
Asked friends, relatives, trade unions, etc. 
(employed) 
Inserted or answered advertisements in 
newspapers or journals (employed)  
Studied advertisements in newspapers or 
journals (employed) 

2006 

2007 

Comments 

CH 

.  

Variable provided only for Q2. 
Quarterly from 2008 

Variable provided only for Q4 

Variable provided, but with 
constant values for Q1, Q3 and Q4 
Variable provided but with 
constant values for all 2006 
quarters and Q1 2007 

UK 

MK 

HR 

CY 

TR 

MK 

CH 

UK 

IE 

IS 

CY 

IE 

TR 

IE 

IE 

IE 

IE 

EN 

TR 

TR 

18 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
Table 9(f). Non-optional variables in module f, not provided in 2006-2007 

Periodicity  Characteristic 

2006 

2007 

Comments 

Quarterly 

Took a test, interview or examination (employed) 

IE 

IS 

UK 

IE 

UK 

Variable provided, but with 
constant values for Q1, Q3 and Q4 

Looked for land, premises or equipment 
(employed) 

Quarterly 

Quarterly 

Looked for permits, licences, financial resources 
(employed) 

CY 

CY 

Variable provided, but with 
constant values for Q1 and 
Q4 2006 and Q1, Q3 and Q4 2007 

Quarterly 

Awaiting the results of an application for a job 
(employed) 

IE 

TR 

FI 

FR 

IE 

MT 

NL 

MK 

TR 

FI 

FR 

MT 

NL 

Variable provided, but with 
constant values for Q2 and 
Q3 2006 and Q1, Q3 and Q4 2007 

Variable provided with constant 
values, except for Q2 2006 when it 
was correctly provided 

Quarterly 

Waiting for a call from a public employment office 
(employed) 

CH 

CH 

Implemented from 2010 onwards 

FI 

FR 

MT 

TR 

UK 

CH 

FI 

FR 

MT 

NL 

SI 

NO 

UK 

MK 

TR 

BG 

ES 

FI 

FR 

IE 

IS 

MT 

TR 

UK 

CH 

FI 

FR 

IE 

IS 

MT 

NL 

SI 

NO 

UK 

TR 

BG 

ES 

IE 

IE 

MT 

Variable provided, but with 
constant values for Q1, Q2 and 
Q3 2006 and Q3 and Q4 2007 

Variable provided, but with 
constant values for Q1, Q3 and Q4 

Not applicable in Finland 

Variable provided, but with 
constant values for Q1, Q3 and Q4 

Variable provided, but with 
constant values for Q1, Q3 and 
Q4 2006 and Q1, Q3 and Q4 2007 
Not applicable in Slovenia 

Variable provided, but with 
constant values 

Quarterly 

Awaiting the results of a competition for 
recruitment to the public sector (employed) 

Quarterly 

Other method used (employed) 

Quarterly 

Availability to start working within two weeks 
(employed) 

Source: EU-LFS 

EN 

19 

   EN 

  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
 
(g) search for employment: 

– 
– 
– 
– 
– 
– 
– 

type of employment sought, 
duration of search for employment, 
situation of person immediately before starting to seek employment, 
registration at public employment office and whether receiving benefits, 
for person not seeking employment, willingness to work, 
reasons why person has not sought work, 
lack of care facilities; 

Table 9(g). Non-optional variables in module g, not provided in 2006-2007 

Periodicity  Characteristic 

2006 

2007 

Comments 

Yearly 

Reasons for not seeking employment 

Quarterly 

Duration of search for employment (non employed) 

Quarterly 

Duration of search for employment (employed) 

Yearly 

Situation immediately before person started to seek 
employment (or was waiting for new job to start) 

Yearly 

Need for care facilities 

Yearly 

Registration at a public employment office 

Source: EU-LFS 

(h) education and training 

Variable not provided for Q1 

Variable not provided for Q1 

Implemented from 2008 
onwards 

UK 

CH 

MK 

FR 

IE 

MK 

FI 

UK 

MK 

IE 
NO 

UK 

SE 

CH 

IE 

SE 

FR 

IE 

MK 

FI 

UK 

MK 

IE 
NO 

TR 

– 

– 

– 

participation in formal education or training during previous four weeks  
– 
– 

level  
field; 

participation  in  courses  and  other  taught  learning  activities  during  previous 
four weeks 
– 
– 
– 
– 

total length, 
purpose of the most recent course or other taught activity, 
field of the most recent taught activity, 
participated in most recent taught activity during working hours; 

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; 

Table 9(h). Non-optional variables in module h, not provided in 2006-2007 

Periodicity  Characteristic 

2006 

2007 

Comments 

Quarterly 

Level of this education or training 

Quarterly 

Number of hours spent on all taught learning 

IS 

NO 

CH 

IS 

CH 

From 2010 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
Table 9(h). Non-optional variables in module h, not provided in 2006-2007 

Periodicity  Characteristic 

2006 

2007 

Comments 

activities within the last four weeks 

Quarterly 

Yearly 

Yearly 

Highest level of education or training successfully 
completed 
Field of highest level of education or training 
successfully completed 
Year when highest level of education or training was 
successfully completed 

IS 

IE 

NO 

IE 

NO 

Source: EU-LFS 

Variable not provided in Q4 

(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; 

Table 9(i). Non-optional variables in module i, not provided in 2006-2007 

Periodicity 
Quarterly 

Characteristic 
Month in which person last worked 

Quarterly 

Quarterly 

Quarterly 

Professional status in last job 
Economic activity of the local unit in which person last 
worked 
Occupation of last job 

2007 

Comments 

LU 

FR 

2006 
HR 

IE 

FR 

NL 

Source: 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; 

Table 9(j). Non-optional variables in module j, not provided in 2006-2007 

Periodicity 

Yearly 

Characteristic 
Situation with regard to activity one year before 
survey 

Yearly 

Yearly 

Economic activity of local unit in which person 
was working one year before survey 
Country of residence one year before survey 

Yearly 

Region of residence one year before survey 

2006 

2007 

Comments 

BG 

CH 

IE 

SE 

CH 

IS 

NO 

SI 

TR 

CH 

CY 

Implemented from 2010 onwards 

BG 

CH 

IE 

LU 

CH 

Implemented from 2010 onwards 

NO 

SI 

TR 

CH 

Implemented from 2008 onwards 

Implemented from 2010 onwards 
Variable provided, but with constant 
values (always Cyprus, which is one 
NUTS2 region) 

EN 

21 

   EN 

  
 
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
Table 9(j). Non-optional variables in module j, not provided in 2006-2007 

Periodicity 

Characteristic 

2006 

2007 

Comments 

IS 

LT 

NO 

SI 

LT 

NO 

SI 

Variable provided, but with constant 
values (always Lithuania, which is one 
NUTS2 region) 

Implemented from 2008 onwards 

Source: EU-LFS 

(k) main labour status (optional); 

Although  module  k  is  optional,  only  seven  countries  (Bulgaria,  Germany,  the  United 
Kingdom,  the  Former  Yugoslav  Republic  of  Macedonia,  Turkey,  Norway  and  Switzerland) 
did not provide data on the variable main status in 2006 and 2007. 

(l) income (optional); 

In 2006 and 2007, sixteen countries did not provide any data for the optional variable income: 
Bulgaria,  Czech  Republic,  Denmark,  Germany,  Ireland,  Spain,  Cyprus,  the  Netherlands, 
Austria,  Romania,  Slovenia,  Slovakia,  Finland,  Sweden,  the  Former  Yugoslav  Republic  of 
Macedonia, Iceland and Norway. 

(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. 

Table 9(m). Non-optional variables in module m, not provided in 2006-2007 

Periodicity 

Characteristic 

Quarterly 

Region of household 

Quarterly 

Degree of urbanisation 

Quarterly 

Sequence number of the survey wave 

2006 

2007 

Comments 

Variable provided from Q2 

Variable provided from 
Q3 2008 

HR 

MK 

BG 

CH 

IS 

NO 

RO 

SK 

MK 

TR 

MK 

CH 

IS 

NO 

RO 

MK 

TR 

HR 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
Table 9(m). Non-optional variables in module m, not provided in 2006-2007 

Periodicity 

Characteristic 

2006 

2007 

Comments 

MK 

MK 

Source: EU-LFS 

(n) atypical working times: 

– 
– 
– 
– 
– 

shift work, 
evening work, 
night work, 
Saturday work, 
Sunday work. 

Table 9(n). Non-optional variables in module n, not provided in 2006-2007 

Periodicity 
Yearly 

Characteristic 
Evening work 

2006 
PT 

2007 
PT 

Comments 
Not included, as evening work was believed to 
be very limited and would be confused with night 
work 

Source: 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 be limited to 11 variables. 

An ad hoc module on transition from work into retirement and one on accidents at work and 
work-related  health  problems  were  carried  out  in  2006  and  2007  respectively.  The  topics, 
reference periods, geographical  coverage and deadlines for data transmission for the two ad 
hoc  modules  were  laid  down  in  Commission  Regulations  (EC)  No  246/200316  and  No 
384/200517 respectively. The specifications of the 2006 ad hoc module, including the list of 
variables  and  their  codification,  were  adopted  through  Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No 
388/200518; those of the 2007 ad hoc module were adopted through Commission Regulation 
(EC) No 341/200619. 

16 
17 
18 
19 

OJ L 34, 11.2.2003, p. 3. 
OJ L 61, 8.3.2005, p. 23. 
OJ L 62, 9.3.2005, p. 7. 
OJ L 55, 25.2.2006, p. 9. 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
As part of the implementation of ad hoc modules, each module is evaluated afterwards. The 
evaluation  report  for  the  2006  ad  hoc  module  on  transition  from  work  into  retirement  is 
available20, while the evaluation of the 2007 ad hoc module on accidents at work and work-
related health problems is due for the end of 2009. The following headings highlight the main 
findings  regarding  implementation  of  the  legislation  concerning  the  2006  and  2007  ad  hoc 
modules. 

Geographical  coverage:  All  the  participating  countries  implemented  both  ad  hoc  modules, 
except for Croatia and Iceland in 2006 and, in both years, the Former Yugoslav Republic of 
Macedonia, Turkey and Switzerland.  

Reference period: The reference period in the ad hoc modules 2006 and 2007 was specified as 
either  the  second  quarter  in  the  respective  year  or  the  whole  year.  In  general,  participating 
countries  complied  with  this  requirement.  Exceptions  for  the  2007  ad  hoc  module  were  the 
Netherlands,  Austria  and  the  United  Kingdom.  The  Netherlands  used  quarters  2  to  4  as 
reference  period21,  Austria  only  surveyed  it  for  quarters  1  to  3,  while  the  United  Kingdom 
used  quarter  1  as  the  reference  period.  Of  the  complying  countries,  the  Czech  Republic, 
Germany, Estonia, Spain, France, Luxembourg, Finland, Sweden, Norway and, for the 2006 
module, the Netherlands, Austria and the United Kingdom opted to spread the data collection 
over the whole year. All other countries used the second quarter as the reference period.  

Data collected: All countries which carried out the two ad hoc modules covered all variables, 
except  for  Bulgaria  in  2006,  which  did  not  provide  information  for  the  variable  ‘Person 
reduced his/her working hours in a move to full retirement’, and Iceland in 2007, which did 
not cover the five variables in the section on work-related health problems suffered during the 
last 12 months (apart from accidental injuries):  

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

‘Illness(es),  disability(ies)  or  other  physical  or  psychic  health  problem(s), 
apart  from  accidental  injuries,  suffered  by  the  person  during  the  past  12 
months (from the date of the interview) and that was (were), caused or made 
worse by work’,  

‘Type of the most serious complaint caused or made worse by work’,  

‘Whether the most serious complaint caused or made worse by work limits the 
ability  to  carry  out  normal  day-to-day  activities  either  at  work  or  outside 
work’,  

‘Number  of  days  off  work  during  the  last  12  months  due  to  the  most  serious 
complaint caused or made worse by work’ and  

‘Job that caused or made worse the most serious complaint’. 

Deadline for data transmission: for both ad hoc modules, the deadline for sending Eurostat 
the microdata was 31 March of the year following the reference year. In the case of the 2006 
module,  27  of  the  28  participating  countries  delivered  a  dataset  on  time,  while  Ireland 
transmitted  the  first  data  32  weeks  later.  Twelve  countries  —  Germany,  Greece,  Spain, 

20 

21 

Eurostat: Final report of the task force for evaluating the 2006 LFS ad hoc module on ‘transition from 
work into retirement’, is available on request. 
This was due to adjustments in the questionnaire from the second quarter onwards which did not allow 
to use data collected for the first quarter. 

EN 

24 

   EN 

                                                 
Finland,  France,  Hungary,  Ireland,  Italy,  Latvia,  Norway,  Poland  and  Slovenia  —  sent 
revisions  after  the  deadline.  As  for  the  2007  ad  hoc  module,  all  of  the  30  participating 
countries  delivered  a  dataset  by  the  deadline,  except  Denmark  (3  weeks  late),  France  (1 
week),  Iceland  (34  weeks)  and  Norway  (3  weeks).  Nine  countries  (Austria,  Germany, 
Denmark, Spain, France, Malta, Norway and Slovenia) sent revisions after the deadline. 

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.  

The  Commission  has  adopted  two  Regulations:  first,  Regulation  (EC)  No  973/200722 
implementing  the  statistical  classification  of  economic  activities  NACE  Revision  2  in  some 
statistical  domains  among  which  the  Labour  Force  Survey;  second,  Regulation  (EC)  No 
377/200823 concerning the codification to be used for data transmission from 2009 onwards, 
the use of a sub-sample for the collection of data on structural variables and the definition of 
the  reference  quarters.  These  regulations  are  being  implemented  from  2008  and  2009 
respectively. 

Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  1897/200024  sets  out  the  operational  definition  of 
unemployment and the principles for the formulation of the questions on labour status. 

The definition of unemployment 

By the end of 2007, a majority of participating countries were still not fully complying with 
the  definition  of  unemployment.  Spain,  the  United  Kingdom  and  Iceland  referred 
unemployment  to  the  16-74  age  group.  Eighteen  countries  still  used  two  weeks  after  the 
interview as a reference period for the availability of a person to take up a new job, rather than 
two weeks after the reference week (see table 10)25. Estonia, Ireland and Slovenia still did not 
check whether a job which was due to start later would start within three months, whereas the 
Former  Yugoslav  Republic  of  Macedonia,  although  it  asked  the  question,  considered  as 
unemployed  those  who  would  start  a  job  after  three  months  but  were  currently  available  to 
start working. Estonia and Ireland still did not ask about availability to start work within two 
weeks  in  the  case  of  people  who  had  already  found  a  job  which  would  start  later.  Ten 
countries  did  not  check  the  conditions  under  which  lay-offs  could  be  classified  as 
unemployed, i.e. (a) receiving a significant wage or salary during the absence and (b) seeking 
employment  and  being  currently  available  to  start  working.  Germany  did  not  ask  about  the 
former condition, while Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Sweden, the 
United Kingdom, Croatia and Iceland did not verify the latter. Luxembourg and Portugal did 
not check either of the two requirements for lay-offs. 

22 
23 
24 
25 

OJ L 216, 21.8.2007, p. 10. 
OJ L 114, 26.4.2008, p. 57. 
OJ L 228, 8.9.2000, p. 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.  Explanatory  notes  on  this  point  have 
been changed for 2008 data collection onwards. 

EN 

25 

   EN 

                                                 
Table  10.  Participating  countries  not  fully  complying  with  the  definition  of 
unemployment by the end of 2007 

Divergence from the definition 

Countries 

Age group not defined as 15-74 
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. 
Job found, which starts later, but not 
checked whether it starts within 3 months 
If job is found, which starts later, no check 
is made on the availability to start work 
Lay-offs not asked if they receive any 
significant wage or if they are seeking 
work and are currently available 

Spain, United Kingdom, Iceland 

Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Greece, Ireland, Cyprus, Lithuania, 
Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Slovenia, Finland, 
Croatia, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Iceland  

Estonia, Ireland, Slovenia, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 

Estonia, Ireland 

Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands, 
Portugal, Slovakia, Sweden, United Kingdom, Croatia, Iceland 

Sources: Quality Reports, National Questionnaires. 

The twelve principles for formulating the questionnaire 

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1897/2000 lays down twelve principles for formulating the 
questionnaire.  In  2007,  only  principles  8  and  11  were  fully  observed  by  all  thirty-two 
countries. Most of the divergences relate to principles 2, 3, 6 and 10. Table 11 summarises the 
situation with regard to each of the principles. A detailed analysis can be found in Annex I to 
this document. 

Table  11.  Countries  not  observing  or  only  partly  observing  the  principles  for 
formulating the questions on labour status by the end of 2007 

Principle 
Principle 1 

Status 
Not observed 

Principle 2 

Partly observed 
Partly observed 

Countries 
Ireland, Malta, Croatia 
Slovenia, United Kingdom, Netherlands26 
Germany, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal 

Principle 3 

Not observed 

United Kingdom, Croatia 

Partly observed 

Principle 4 

Not observed 

Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Germany, Estonia, Greece, Ireland, 
Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Portugal, 
Slovenia, Slovakia, Finland, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, 
Turkey, Iceland, Switzerland 
Hungary, Malta 

Principle 5 

Not observed 

Denmark 

Principle 6 

Not observed 

Czech Republic, Greece, Cyprus, Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, 
Netherlands, Slovenia, Croatia, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, 
Iceland 

Partly observed 

Principle 7 

Not observed 

Belgium, Bulgaria, Germany, Estonia, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, 
Finland, Turkey, Switzerland 
Netherlands 

Principle 9 

Not observed 

France, Malta, Portugal 

Principle 10 

Not observed 

Turkey 

Partly observed 

Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Slovakia, Former Yugoslav 
Republic of Macedonia, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland 

Principle 12 

Not observed 

Estonia, Ireland, Slovenia 

Source: Annex I. 

Principle 1 was not observed by Ireland, Malta and Croatia. In these countries, the questions 
on labour status were not the first ones on the individual questionnaire, did not immediately 
follow the questions on the demographic characteristics of the household members, and were 
preceded by questions on the main status. 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
  
  
  
  
 
Malta also preceded the question on labour status with a question on registration at a public 
employment office. Slovenia and the United Kingdom partly deviated from this principle by 
not  having  the  questions  on  employment  status  among  the  first  questions  in  the 
questionnaire26.  

Principle  2  was  only  partially  observed  by  five  countries.  Germany,  Luxembourg  and 
Portugal  did  not  check  the  conditions  for  identifying  people  on  lay-off27.  In  Lithuania,  the 
question about actually working was put in the reference week, after a question on having a 
job.  The  Netherlands  deviated  from  this  principle  as  regards  both  the  formulation  of  the 
question on currently being at work and the sequence of questions on employment. 

Principle  3  was  not  observed  by  the  United  Kingdom  and  Croatia,  as  their  questions  on 
employment  did  not  contain  any  cue  for  the  identification  of  persons  with  a  minor  job.  In 
addition, questions on job search in their questionnaire did not specify that jobs lasting only a 
few  hours,  or  even  one  hour,  still  have  to  be  considered.  Twenty-two  countries  only  partly 
respected principle 3 in that they did not fulfil the latter condition.  

Principle 4 was not observed by Hungary and Malta, which did not probe for unpaid family 
workers. 

Principle 5 was not observed by Denmark, whose questionnaire referred only to ‘work’, but 
did not clearly indicate that only work for pay or profit is considered as an economic activity. 

Principle  6  was  not  observed  by  eleven  countries,  which  did  not  fully  align  to  any  of  the 
prescriptions concerning the reference period for employment, job search, job search methods 
and  availability  to  start  working.  The  principle  was  only  partially  observed  by  eleven 
countries, which respected at least one but not all of those requirements. In particular, fifteen 
countries  mentioned  the  reference  week  for  employment  but  did  not  give  the  exact  dates, 
whereas  one  country  —  the  Netherlands  —  surveyed  labour  status  with  reference  to  the 
current  situation  at  the  time  of  the  interview.  Nineteen  countries  mentioned  the  past  four 
weeks as the reference period for job search and seventeen did so for job search methods, but 
did  not  refer  to  the  reference  week.  Two  countries  did  not  follow  either  of  the  two 
prescriptions for job search and four deviated from both requirements for job search methods. 
Finally, for eighteen countries the reference period for job availability did not start from the 
reference week (see also Table 10 and footnote 27). 

Principle  7  was  not  observed  by  the  Netherlands,  which  did  not  apply  the  question  on  job 
search to all non-employed, but filtered out those who answered in the negative to a question 
on whether they wanted to work. 

26 

27 

In the Netherlands, the effects of this deviation on labour status were found negligible after ad hoc tests, 
so that the principle can be considered as respected. 
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1897/2000 offers two types of test for measuring the job attachment 
of  persons  on  lay-off.  In  both  cases,  for  a  person  to  be  considered  employed,  the  period  of  absence 
cannot exceed three months. In addition, the first type of test refers to whether or not significant salary 
is received; the other checks whether there is an assurance to return to work at the end of the period of 
absence.  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 assessing 
adherence to principle 2 both approaches have been considered in line with this principle. 

EN 

27 

   EN 

                                                 
Principle 9 was not observed by France, Malta and Portugal28, which did not ask for passive 
search methods in addition to active ones. 

Principle 10 was not observed by Turkey, which deviated from two prescriptions: that contact 
with  the  public  employment  office  in  order  to  find  work  should  be  included  as  the  first 
question on job search methods, and that this contact should be distinct from the renewal of a 
registration  to  claim  unemployment  benefits  and  from  any  assistance  provided  by  the 
employment office to improve the employability of the registered unemployed person. 

Nine  countries  only  partially  observed  principle  10,  as  they  did  not  specify  in  their 
questionnaires that the contact with the public employment agency  must  be in  order to find 
work as distinct from maintaining or renewing the person’s status as registered unemployed. 

Principle 12 was not observed by Estonia, Ireland and Slovenia, which did not check whether 
or not a job which had been found would start within three months (see above Table 10).  

4.4.  On a proposal from the Commission, a list of variables, hereinafter referred to 
as  ‘structural  variables’,  may  be  identified  from  among  the  survey  characteristics 
specified  in  paragraph  1  which  need  to  be  surveyed  only  as  annual  averages  with 
reference  to  52  weeks  rather  than  as  quarterly  averages.  This  list  of  structural 
variables,  the  minimum  sample  size  and  the  survey  frequency  will  be  drawn  up  in 
accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 8. Spain, Finland and the United 
Kingdom  may  survey  the  structural  variables  with  reference  to  a  single  quarter 
during a transition period until the end of 2007.  

This list of structural variables includes those labelled as yearly in the column ‘periodicity’ in 
Annex  II  of  Commission  Regulation  (EC)  430/2005.  This  list  includes  42  variables  (six 
optional), plus the yearly weights. 

The  option  of  using  a  sub-sample  to  survey  structural  variables  was  introduced  from  2006. 
Only seven countries, Spain, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Finland, the United Kingdom 
and Norway, took up this option in 2006 and/or 2007.  

The  extent  to  which  a  sub-sample  is  used  varies  widely  from  country  to  country.  Spain 
surveyed nearly all 42 structural variables using only the yearly sub-sample. The Netherlands, 
the United Kingdom and Norway used a sub-sample for about half of the structural variables 
(Norway  did  not  ask  at  all  for  eleven  structural  variables,  thus  limiting  the  number  of 
structural variables which were in fact surveyed on the whole sample). Finland, Germany and 
France made limited use of a sub-sample. Finland used it for nine variables and Germany for 
four, whereas France used a sub-sample for six variables in 2006 and for one variable only — 
namely income — in 2007. 

Annex  III  summarises  the  way  in  which  the  structural  variables  were  covered  by  countries 
using a sub-sample in 2006 and 2007.  

Annex I of Commission Regulation (EC) 430/2005 states the following conditions for using a 
sub-sample to collect data on structural variables:  

28 

Portugal did not put the question about passive methods to persons who were looking for a job but only 
to those who were not searching. 

EN 

28 

   EN 

                                                 
1. 

Yearly/quarterly variables 

The word ‘yearly’ in the ‘Periodicity’ column of the Codification laid down in Annex 
II, identifies structural variables which optionally need only to be surveyed as annual 
averages,  using  a  sub-sample  of  independent  observations  with  reference  to  52 
weeks,  rather  than  as  quarterly  averages.  Core  variables  to  be  surveyed  each 
quarter are identified as ‘quarterly’ 

All these countries spread the yearly sub-sample over the 52 weeks of the year, exceptFinland 
in 2006, which by derogation surveyed the five variables on the situation one year before the 
survey  in  the  second  quarter  only,  and  the  United  Kingdom  in  both  years  which,  by 
derogation,  surveyed  most  of  the  structural  variables  in  the  second  quarter  and  two  in  the 
fourth quarter. 

2. 

Representativeness of the results 

For  structural  variables,  the  relative  standard  error  (without  taking  design  effect 
into  account)  of  any  yearly  estimate  representing  1 %  or  more  of  the  working  age 
population shall not exceed: 

(a) 9 % for countries with a population between 1 million and 20 million inhabitants 
and 

(b) 5 % for countries with a population of 20 million or more. 

Countries  with  less  than  1  million  inhabitants  are  exempted  from  these  precision 
requirements and structural variables should be collected for the total sample unless 
the sample meets requirements expressed in (a). 

For countries using a sub-sample for data collection on structural variables, if more 
than  one  wave  is  used,  the  total  sub-sample  used  shall  consist  of  independent 
observations. 

Of  the  seven  countries  using  a  sub-sample  to  survey  structural  variables  in  2006  and  2007, 
Spain,  France,  Germany  and  the  United  Kingdom  have  more  than  20  million  inhabitants, 
whereas the Netherlands, Finland and Norway have a population of between 1 and 20 million. 
Considering a generic estimate of 1 % of the working age population (15-74 years), none of 
those countries exceeded the above benchmark during the whole period. 

For all countries using a sub-sample to survey structural variables, such sub-samples are made 
up of independent observations. 

3. 

Consistency of totals 

Consistency between annual sub-sample totals and full sample annual averages shall 
be  ensured  for  employment,  unemployment  and  inactive  population  by  sex  and  for 
the following age groups: 15 to 24, 25 to 34, 35 to 44, 45 to 54, 55 +. 

For  estimates  rounded  to  thousands,  consistency  of  totals  between  the  annual  sub-sample 
totals and the full sample annual averages was ensured by Norway, Spain (with the exception 
of inactives aged 15-24, both males and females) and Finland in 2007. 

EN 

29 

   EN 

For Finland in 2006 and the United Kingdom in both years, the annual sub-sample totals were 
consistent with estimates from the second quarter. For Germany, France and the Netherlands, 
totals were different for nearly all of the thirty clusters (three employment statuses multiplied 
by two genders and five age groups), in both 2006 and 2007. 

Table 12. Differences between yearly sub-samples and annual averages of full yearly samples 
(x1000) — Countries spreading the annual sub-sample over 52 weeks 

Employment 
status 

Employed 

Sex 

Males 

Females 

Unemployed 

Males 

Females 

Inactive 

Males 

Females 

Age 
group 

DE 

ES 

2006 
FR 

NL 

NO 

DE 

ES 

FR 

NL 

FI 

NO 

2007 

15-24 
25-34 
35-44 
45-54 
55+ 
15-24 
25-34 
35-44 
45-54 
55+ 
15-24 
25-34 
35-44 
45-54 
55+ 
15-24 
25-34 
35-44 
45-54 
55+ 
15-24 
25-34 
35-44 
45-54 
55+ 
15-24 
25-34 
35-44 
45-54 
55+ 

7 
1 
6 
-21 
-3 
-7 
11 
-26 
-9 
-6 
1 
0 
0 
1 
-2 
1 
-2 
0 
1 
3 
9 
-19 
-9 
-12 
-38 
-27 
-9 
-6 
-4 
-6 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
-13 
0 
0 
0 
0 
-11 
0 
0 
0 
0 

40 
-89 
-67 
0 
-1 
33 
-11 
5 
-12 
0 
3 
36 
57 
11 
10 
11 
27 
13 
9 
4 
-49 
31 
16 
-21 
9 
-70 
-4 
-27 
8 
-3 

-11 
-7 
-7 
-10 
1 
-26 
-6 
-11 
-11 
1 
7 
4 
3 
6 
4 
10 
3 
6 
2 
4 
4 
4 
3 
4 
-6 
15 
3 
4 
9 
-5 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

-1 
-7 
2 
-11 
1 
-12 
17 
4 
1 
1 
2 
1 
2 
0 
1 
1 
-5 
2 
1 
0 
13 
7 
2 
-5 
-15 
0 
-1 
4 
-3 
-11 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
8 
0 
0 
0 
0 
-9 
0 
0 
0 
0 

23 
-31 
-44 
-6 
21 
55 
-4 
7 
-8 
-34 
4 
55 
22 
-12 
-24 
-10 
1 
2 
6 
-2 
-21 
-17 
0 
15 
7 
-19 
-18 
12 
13 
27 

-23 
-1 
-8 
-9 
-13 
-27 
-4 
-4 
-5 
-6 
7 
1 
5 
2 
5 
10 
-1 
1 
4 
1 
16 
1 
3 
7 
8 
16 
6 
3 
2 
5 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

Source: EU-LFS 

4. 

Ad hoc modules 

The  sample  used  to  collect  information  on  ad  hoc  modules  shall  also  provide 
information on structural variables 

In general, participating countries respected this requirement, with the exception of Finland in 
2006 and the United Kingdom and France in 2006 and 2007. Finland and the United Kingdom 
carried  out  the  ad  hoc  modules  on  all  fifty-two  weeks  of  the  year,  whereas  some  structural 
variables  were  only  collected  in  the  second  quarter.  France  surveyed  both  the  structural 
variables  and  the  ad  hoc  modules  with  reference  to  the  whole  year,  but  on  different  sub-
samples.  

Table 13. Structural variables not included in the ad hoc module datasets 

Country 

Year 

Variables 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 13. Structural variables not included in the ad hoc module datasets 

Country 

France 

Year 

Variables 

2006 

2007 

WSTAT1Y, STAPRO1Y, NACE1Y2D, COUNTR1Y, REGION1Y, 
INCMON 

WSTAT1Y, STAPRO1Y, NACE1Y2D, COUNTR1Y, REGION1Y, 
INCMON 

Finland 

2006 

WSTAT1Y, STAPRO1Y, NACE1Y2D, COUNTR1Y, REGION1Y  

United Kingdom 

2006 

FTPTREAS, SHIFTWK, EVENWK, NIGHTWK, SATWK, SUNWK, 
HOMEWK, SEEKREAS, NEEDCARE, WSTAT1Y, STAPRO1Y, 
NACE1Y2D, COUNTR1Y, REGION1Y 

2007 

FTPTREAS, SHIFTWK, EVENWK, NIGHTWK, SATWK, SUNWK, 
HOMEWK, SEEKREAS, NEEDCARE, WSTAT1Y, STAPRO1Y, 
NACE1Y2D, COUNTR1Y, REGION1Y 

Source: EU-LFS 

5. 

ARTICLE 5 — CONDUCT OF THE SURVEY 

5.1. 

The Member States may make it compulsory to reply to the survey. 

Participation in the LFS is compulsory in thirteen participating countries (Belgium, Germany, 
Greece,  Spain,  France,  Italy,  Cyprus,  Malta,  Austria,  Portugal,  Slovakia,  Turkey  and 
Norway), but voluntary in 20 participating countries.  

6. 

ARTICLE 6 — TRANSMISSION OF THE RESULTS 

6.1. 

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. 

The  Former  Yugoslav  Republic  of  Macedonia  and  Turkey  started  delivering  microdata  to 
Eurostat with the 2006 datasets, bringing the number of countries providing microdata to 33. 
In  2006,  thirty  countries  delivered  four  quarterly  datasets29,  whereas  Croatia  delivered  two 
semi-annual  datasets  and  Switzerland  one  annual  dataset.  From  2007  also  Croatia  has 
delivered four quarterly datasets. In total, Eurostat received 127 datasets for 2006 and 129 for 
2007. 

Overall, 63 datasets were on time in 2006 (49.6 %) and 87 in 2007 (67.4 %). In 2006, only five 
countries consistently met the deadline (cells with grey background in table 14). This number 
rose to fourteen in 2007.  

29 

Indeed, in 2006 Luxembourg sent the same annual dataset for all four quarters. 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
  
 
                                                 
Only  Spain  and  Portugal  always  delivered  microdata  on  time  for  all  quarters  of  2006  and 
2007.  At  the  other  end  of  the  scale,  Malta,  Croatia,  the  Former  Yugoslav  Republic  of 
Macedonia  and  Iceland  were  consistently  late  in  sending  data  during  both  years,  while 
Belgium, Ireland, Italy, Turkey and Switzerland30 were late for all 2006 deliveries.  

Table  14.  Number  of  weeks  from  deadline  when data  suitable  for  dissemination  were 
delivered to Eurostat. Years 2006-20071 

Country 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Czech Republic 

Denmark 

Germany 

Estonia 

Ireland 

Greece 

Spain 

France 

Italy 

Cyprus 

Latvia 

Lithuania 
Luxembourg2  
Hungary 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Austria 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

Finland 

Sweden 

United Kingdom 

Croatia 
Former Yugoslav Republic of 
Macedonia 

Turkey 

Iceland 

Norway 

Switzerland 

2006 

2007 

Q1 

Q2 

Q3 

Q4 

Q1 

Q2 

Q3 

Q4 

3 

1 

1 

T 

14 

2 

2 

1 

T 

9 

9 

T 

1 

T 

1 

T 

T 

T 

1 

2 

1 

1 

T 

2 

4 

1 

1 

T 

4 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

2 

T 

T 

12 

3 

T 

T 

T 

39 

26 

13 

3 

2 

1 

1 

4 

T 

4 

T 

3 

2 

4 

2 

- 

109 

48 

7 

2 

- 

T 

4 

T 

T 

1 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

1 

T 

12 

96 

38 

48 

1 

9 

T 

3 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

5 

- 

83 

25 

35 

T 

- 

1 

T 

T 

T 

1 

T 

3 

T 

T 

T 

1 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

1 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

1 

T 

T 

10 

70 

12 

8 

T 

- 

6 

T 

T 

4 

T 

T 

6 

T 

T 

T 

2 

T 

T 

T 

14 

T 

1 

T 

T 

T 

T 

3 

T 

1 

1 

4 

1 

23 

89 

T 

1 

T 

- 

3 

T 

T 

1 

T 

T 

3 

T 

T 

T 

1 

T 

T 

1 

1 

T 

3 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

1 

T 

18 

76 

T 

54 

1 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

3 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

7 

63 

T 

42 

11 

- 

3 

T 

T 

2 

T 

T 

5 

1 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

2 

T 

T 

1 

T 

T 

T 

T 

T 

1 

T 

T 

T 

T 

11 

50 

4 

28 

T 

- 

Note: Each week begun after the deadline is counted as 1 week. T denotes delivery on or before the deadline (12 
weeks after end of each reference quarter, or 9 months after end of the second quarter in the case of an annual 
survey). Hyphen ‘-’ denotes that a country did not carry out the LFS in the respective quarter. The grey background 
highlights an on-time delivery for all datasets of a year.  

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. 
2 In 2006 the same annual dataset was sent for all four quarters. 
Source: EU-LFS 

30 

The  Former  Yugoslav  Republic  of  Macedonia  and  Turkey  started  data  transmission  with  the  2006 
datasets. Switzerland, carrying out an annual survey, only transmitted one dataset. 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
7. 

ARTICLE 7 — REPORTS 

7.1. 

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  the  largest  sample  survey  in  Europe.  In  an  average 
quarter  in  2007,  Eurostat  received  data  for  over  1.5  million  individuals  aged  15  and  older. 
Table 15 lists major design changes in the period 2006-2007 and the planned changes in the 
next three-year period.  

Table  15.  Major  changes  in  the  survey  design 2006-2007  or  changes  planned by  participating 
countries in 2008-2013 

Country 

Short description of the changes 

All 

Introduction of six new characteristics, according to Council Regulation 2257/2003. 

Implementation of NACE Rev 2. 

Introduction of variable on Income, according to Council Regulation 1372/2007. 

Belgium 

Sample size increased 25 % to about 15 000 households each quarter. 

Bulgaria 

Introduced a new LFS questionnaire the first quarter of 2006. 

Gradual move from PAPI to CAPI (30 % of CAPI in 2007). 

Denmark 

Implementation of the wave approach. 
Sample  size  more  than  doubled,  rotation  scheme  changed  to  2-(2)-2,  more  efficient 
use of auxiliary  variables in weighting procedures, face-to-face interviewing used  as 
supplementary method of collecting data. 
Collection and transmission of household variables on a quarterly basis. 

Germany 

Implementation of the wave approach. 

Estonia 

Spain 

France 

Questionnaire changed to better capture ILO employment. 
Questionnaire  changed  to  align  with  principles  2  and  3  (inclusion  of  the  questions 
regarding the duration of the absence and the continued receipt of salary; addition of a 
cue mentioning a minor or marginal job in the question on job search). 
Sample size increased from 2 500 to 3 000 households each quarter. 

Implementation of the wave approach. 

Implementation of the wave approach. 
Questionnaire changed to fully implement the definition of unemployment. Weighting 
procedure  from  NUTS  II.  Supplementary  non-response  survey  to  collect  data  from 
non-respondents. 
Gradual enlargement of the survey sample, up to 50 % more than at present. 

Implementation of the continuous survey in the Overseas Territories (DOM). 

Ireland 

Redesign of questionnaire. 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Hungary 

Malta 

Move to calendar quarters. 
Questionnaire  changed  so  ‘Availability  to  work  within  2  weeks’  now  starts  from 
reference week rather than interview week, in line with principle 6. 
LFS was changed from PAPI to CAPI. Change of questionnaire to align to Principle 2 
Sample size more than doubled. Rotation scheme changed to 2-(2)-2, more efficient 
use  of  auxiliary  variables  in  weighting  procedure  and  ‘contact  with  the  public 
employment office to find work’ is asked first in the list of job search methods, CATI 
interviewing introduced in combination with CAPI. 
Improve calculation of  weights to improve consistency between sampling frame and 
target  population  regarding  the  treatment  of  collective  households.  Redesign  of 
questionnaire to align to principles 3, 6 and 10. 
Questionnaire adapted to EU-LFS list of variables. 
Sample  (households)  increased  of  about  35 %.  CAPI  used  from  quarter  IV  2007  in 
combination with PAPI. 
Redesign of questionnaire to align to principles 2, 3 and 6. 

Move to cover all the weeks of the quarter. 

Weighting scheme changed to correct for non-response in second wave. 

Date when 
implemented 
2006 

2008 

2009 

2006 

2007 

2006 

2008 

2007 

2010 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2007 

2006 

2006 

2007 

2009 

2013 

2006 

2009 

2006 

2006 

2007 

2010 

2006 

2007 

2010 

2006 

2006 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table  15.  Major  changes  in  the  survey  design 2006-2007  or  changes  planned by  participating 
countries in 2008-2013 

Country 

Short description of the changes 

Netherlands 

Austria 

Poland 

Romania 

Slovenia 

Finland 

Sweden 

United Kingdom 

Croatia 

Turkey 

Norway 

Switzerland 

Quarterly sample size increased from 2500 to 3200 households. 

Rotation scheme changed from 2- to 2-(2)-2. 
Use of CATI also in the first wave (in replacement of CAPI) for sampled households 
whose telephone number is available. 
Replacement of PAPI with CAPI for first wave interviews. 
Change  of  questionnaire  to  align  to  Regulation  430/2005  and  the  12  principles. 
Variable MAINSTAT introduced. Introduction of CAPI supplementing PAPI.  
Increase  of  the  sample  size  in  the  7  NUTS  2  areas  not  meeting  the  precision 
requirements. Improved population estimates taking migration into account. 
Change of the questionnaire to further align to the definition of unemployment and the 
12  principles  (better  specification  of  reference  periods  of  job  search  and  current 
availability; one hour jobs mentioned in the question on labour status). 
Sample doubled to meet precision requirements for estimates of change. Introduction 
of information on interview week. 
Move to full and uniform coverage of the weeks of the quarter. 
Move  to  a  more  uniform  distribution  of  sample  and  coverage  of  all  weeks  of  the 
quarter. 
Question on Main status moved to the end of questionnaire, in line with principle 1. 

Implementation of the wave approach. 
Extension of the wave approach. Redesign of the questionnaire to align to Regulation 
430/2005. 
Implementation of household sub-sample data with weights. 

Move to calendar quarters. 
Change of residency rules, in order to improve coverage of short-term migrants and 
temporary foreign workers. Implementation of the wave approach. 
Move  to  a  continuous  survey,  data  available  at  NUTS  II  level,  quarterly  results 
available, yearly sample size doubled, rotation scheme changed to 2-(2)-2. 
Delivery of micro-data. 
Redesign of questionnaire for improved EU comparability  (alignment to principles 6, 
7, 9, 11 and 12). Lower age limit moved to 15. Implementation of the wave approach. 
Move to a continuous survey. 

Sources: Quality Reports and communications from Member States 

Date when 
implemented 
2007 

2008 
2010 

2006 

2006 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2006 

2006 

2007 

2007 

2008 

2010 

2006 
2008 

2007 

2006 

2006 

2010 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX I — PRINCIPLES FOR FORMULATING THE QUESTIONS ON LABOUR 
STATUS 

YEAR
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

-

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

BE

DE

CZ

BG

DK

N
P

N
P

N
P

N
P

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y
Y

N
Y
Y
Y

N
Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y
Y

N
N
N
P

2007
The questions on the labour status
- are in general the first questions on the individual questionnaire
- immediately follow the questions on the demographic characteristics of the household 
members
- are not preceded by questions on the main or the usual activity
- are not preceded by questions on the registration at the public employment office
Is the principle respected?
The sequence of questions on employment consists of at least two separate questions,
- one on currently working
- and another on having a job when being temporarily absent from work
- and the question on being at work precedes the question on having a job
The identification of lay-offs and their classification as employed (or unemployed) persons depends on two conditions of formal job attachment:
- an assurance of return to work after the end of the contingency
   (- continues to receive 50% or more of the salary)
- and the short duration (<=3 months) of the suspension of the labour contract
Is the principle respected?
The questions on employment
- contain a cue for the identification of persons with a minor job a few or even one hour
The questions on job search
- contain a cue for the identification of persons with a minor job a few or even one hour
Is the principle respected?
The questions on employment
- contain a cue for the identification of unpaid family workers
- unpaid family workers are identified by a separate question about being at work
Is the principle respected?
The questions on employment
- clearly indicate that only work for pay or profit is considered as an economic activity
Is the principle respected?
The reference period of employment is clearly specified
- as the last week, defined as 'from Monday to Sunday', giving the exact date
The reference period of job search is clearly specified
- as the past four weeks including the reference week
The reference period of job search methods is clearly specified
- as the past four weeks including the reference week
The reference period of availability is clearly specified
- as the period until the end of the two weeks following the reference week
Is the principle respected?
All persons who were asked the questions on employment and were identified as having no job
- are asked the question on job search
Is the principle respected?
The question on job search
- refers to any effort, even irregular, to find work, i.e. the wording does not suggest that only a 
continuous search throughout the entire reference period is considered as a sufficient condition 
for job search
Is the principle respected?
The question on job search methods contains
- active search methods
- and passive search methods
Is the principle respected?
The 'contact with the public employment office to find work"
- is included as the first (response category in the) question on job search methods
- is distinct from the renewal of a registration to claim unemployment benefits
- is distinct from the assistance provided by the employment office to improve the employability 
of the registered unemployed person
Is the principle respected?
The questions on job search methods are asked
- until at least three active methods are recorded as having been used by the respondent
Is the principle respected?
For persons who are currently not employed and who are not looking for a job because they have already found a job which will start later
- there exists a question on the starting date of that job (within 3 months/after more than 3 
months)
Is the principle respected?

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

N
N

N
N

N
P

N
P

Y
Y

Y
P

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

N

Y

N

Y

N

N

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

P

P

P

P

P

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

EE

EL

ES

Y

Y

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y
Y

Y

N
P

Y

Y
Y

Y

Y

P

Y
P

Y
Y

Y

Y

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y

Y

Y

Y
Y

N

N

Y

Y

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y

N
Y
Y
Y

Y

N
P

Y

Y
Y

N

P

P

N
N

Y
Y

Y

Y

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y

Y

Y

Y
Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y
Y

Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y

Y

Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y

Y

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y

Y

Y

Y
Y

Y

Y

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
YEAR
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

IT

IE

FR

LV

CY

N
P

N
P

N
P

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y

N
Y
N

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y
Y

N
Y
Y
Y

N
Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y
Y

Y
N
Y
Y

2007
The questions on the labour status
- are in general the first questions on the individual questionnaire
- immediately follow the questions on the demographic characteristics of the household 
members
- are not preceded by questions on the main or the usual activity
- are not preceded by questions on the registration at the public employment office
Is the principle respected?
The sequence of questions on employment consists of at least two separate questions,
- one on currently working
- and another on having a job when being temporarily absent from work
- and the question on being at work precedes the question on having a job
The identification of lay-offs and their classification as employed (or unemployed) persons depends on two conditions of formal job attachment:
- an assurance of return to work after the end of the contingency
   (- continues to receive 50% or more of the salary)
- and the short duration (<=3 months) of the suspension of the labour contract
Is the principle respected?
The questions on employment
- contain a cue for the identification of persons with a minor job a few or even one hour
The questions on job search
- contain a cue for the identification of persons with a minor job a few or even one hour
Is the principle respected?
The questions on employment
- contain a cue for the identification of unpaid family workers
- unpaid family workers are identified by a separate question about being at work
Is the principle respected?
The questions on employment
- clearly indicate that only work for pay or profit is considered as an economic activity
Is the principle respected?
The reference period of employment is clearly specified
- as the last week, defined as 'from Monday to Sunday', giving the exact date
The reference period of job search is clearly specified
- as the past four weeks including the reference week
The reference period of job search methods is clearly specified
- as the past four weeks including the reference week
The reference period of availability is clearly specified
- as the period until the end of the two weeks following the reference week
Is the principle respected?
All persons who were asked the questions on employment and were identified as having no job
- are asked the question on job search
Is the principle respected?
The question on job search
- refers to any effort, even irregular, to find work, i.e. the wording does not suggest that only a 
continuous search throughout the entire reference period is considered as a sufficient condition 
for job search
Is the principle respected?
The question on job search methods contains
- active search methods
- and passive search methods
Is the principle respected?
The 'contact with the public employment office to find work"
- is included as the first (response category in the) question on job search methods
- is distinct from the renewal of a registration to claim unemployment benefits
- is distinct from the assistance provided by the employment office to improve the employability 
of the registered unemployed person
Is the principle respected?
The questions on job search methods are asked
- until at least three active methods are recorded as having been used by the respondent
Is the principle respected?
For persons who are currently not employed and who are not looking for a job because they have already found a job which will start later
- there exists a question on the starting date of that job (within 3 months/after more than 3 
months)
Is the principle respected?

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y

Y
N
N

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

N
N

N
P

Y
P

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
N

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

P

P

P

P

P

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

LT

LU

HU

Y

Y

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
N

Y
Y
Y
P

Y

N
P

Y

Y
Y

Y

P

P

N
P

Y
Y

Y

Y

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y

Y

Y

Y
Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y

N
N
N
P

Y

N
P

Y

Y
Y

N

P

P

N
N

Y
Y

Y

Y

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y

N

P

Y
Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y

N
Y
Y
Y

Y

N
P

N
N

Y
Y

N

P

N

N
N

Y
Y

Y

Y

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y

Y

Y

Y
Y

Y

Y

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
YEAR
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

N

N

N

Y

Y

PT

PL

AT

NL

MT

N
P

N
P

N
P

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

N
N

Y
Y

N
N
-

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
P

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y

N
N
N

N
Y
Y
P

Y
Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y
Y

N
Y
Y
Y

N
N
N
P

2007
The questions on the labour status
- are in general the first questions on the individual questionnaire
- immediately follow the questions on the demographic characteristics of the household 
members
- are not preceded by questions on the main or the usual activity
- are not preceded by questions on the registration at the public employment office
Is the principle respected?
The sequence of questions on employment consists of at least two separate questions,
- one on currently working
- and another on having a job when being temporarily absent from work
- and the question on being at work precedes the question on having a job
The identification of lay-offs and their classification as employed (or unemployed) persons depends on two conditions of formal job attachment:
- an assurance of return to work after the end of the contingency
   (- continues to receive 50% or more of the salary)
- and the short duration (<=3 months) of the suspension of the labour contract
Is the principle respected?
The questions on employment
- contain a cue for the identification of persons with a minor job a few or even one hour
The questions on job search
- contain a cue for the identification of persons with a minor job a few or even one hour
Is the principle respected?
The questions on employment
- contain a cue for the identification of unpaid family workers
- unpaid family workers are identified by a separate question about being at work
Is the principle respected?
The questions on employment
- clearly indicate that only work for pay or profit is considered as an economic activity
Is the principle respected?
The reference period of employment is clearly specified
- as the last week, defined as 'from Monday to Sunday', giving the exact date
The reference period of job search is clearly specified
- as the past four weeks including the reference week
The reference period of job search methods is clearly specified
- as the past four weeks including the reference week
The reference period of availability is clearly specified
- as the period until the end of the two weeks following the reference week
Is the principle respected?
All persons who were asked the questions on employment and were identified as having no job
- are asked the question on job search
Is the principle respected?
The question on job search
- refers to any effort, even irregular, to find work, i.e. the wording does not suggest that only a 
continuous search throughout the entire reference period is considered as a sufficient condition 
for job search
Is the principle respected?
The question on job search methods contains
- active search methods
- and passive search methods
Is the principle respected?
The 'contact with the public employment office to find work"
- is included as the first (response category in the) question on job search methods
- is distinct from the renewal of a registration to claim unemployment benefits
- is distinct from the assistance provided by the employment office to improve the employability 
of the registered unemployed person
Is the principle respected?
The questions on job search methods are asked
- until at least three active methods are recorded as having been used by the respondent
Is the principle respected?
For persons who are currently not employed and who are not looking for a job because they have already found a job which will start later
- there exists a question on the starting date of that job (within 3 months/after more than 3 
months)
Is the principle respected?

Y
Y
Y

Y
N
N

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y

Y
N
N

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

N
N

Y
Y

N
N

Y
Y

N
P

Y
N

Y
N

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

N
N

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

N

N

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

P

P

P

P

P

P

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

RO

SI

SK

Y

Y

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y
Y

Y

Y
Y

Y

Y
Y

Y

P

Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y

Y

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y

Y

Y

Y
Y

Y

Y

N

N

Y
Y
P

Y
Y
Y

N
Y
Y
Y

Y

N
P

Y
Y

Y
Y

N

P

P

N
N

Y
Y

Y

Y

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y

Y

Y

Y
Y

N

N

Y

Y

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y

N
Y
Y
Y

Y

N
P

Y

Y
Y

Y

P

P

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y

Y

Y
Y
Y

Y
N

N

P

Y
Y

Y

Y

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
YEAR
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

-

-

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

N

N

N

Y

Y

N

N

Y

Y

FI

SE

TR

HR

UK

N
P

N
P

N
P

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

MK

N
N

N
N

Y
Y

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
P

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y

N
Y
N

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y

N
Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y
Y

N
Y
Y
Y

N
Y
Y
Y

Y
N
Y
Y

Y
N
Y
Y

2007
The questions on the labour status
- are in general the first questions on the individual questionnaire
- immediately follow the questions on the demographic characteristics of the household 
members
- are not preceded by questions on the main or the usual activity
- are not preceded by questions on the registration at the public employment office
Is the principle respected?
The sequence of questions on employment consists of at least two separate questions,
- one on currently working
- and another on having a job when being temporarily absent from work
- and the question on being at work precedes the question on having a job
The identification of lay-offs and their classification as employed (or unemployed) persons depends on two conditions of formal job attachment:
- an assurance of return to work after the end of the contingency
   (- continues to receive 50% or more of the salary)
- and the short duration (<=3 months) of the suspension of the labour contract
Is the principle respected?
The questions on employment
- contain a cue for the identification of persons with a minor job a few or even one hour
The questions on job search
- contain a cue for the identification of persons with a minor job a few or even one hour
Is the principle respected?
The questions on employment
- contain a cue for the identification of unpaid family workers
- unpaid family workers are identified by a separate question about being at work
Is the principle respected?
The questions on employment
- clearly indicate that only work for pay or profit is considered as an economic activity
Is the principle respected?
The reference period of employment is clearly specified
- as the last week, defined as 'from Monday to Sunday', giving the exact date
The reference period of job search is clearly specified
- as the past four weeks including the reference week
The reference period of job search methods is clearly specified
- as the past four weeks including the reference week
The reference period of availability is clearly specified
- as the period until the end of the two weeks following the reference week
Is the principle respected?
All persons who were asked the questions on employment and were identified as having no job
- are asked the question on job search
Is the principle respected?
The question on job search
- refers to any effort, even irregular, to find work, i.e. the wording does not suggest that only a 
continuous search throughout the entire reference period is considered as a sufficient condition 
for job search
Is the principle respected?
The question on job search methods contains
- active search methods
- and passive search methods
Is the principle respected?
The 'contact with the public employment office to find work"
- is included as the first (response category in the) question on job search methods
- is distinct from the renewal of a registration to claim unemployment benefits
- is distinct from the assistance provided by the employment office to improve the 
employability of the registered unemployed person
Is the principle respected?
The questions on job search methods are asked
- until at least three active methods are recorded as having been used by the respondent
Is the principle respected?
For persons who are currently not employed and who are not looking for a job because they have already found a job which will start later
- there exists a question on the starting date of that job (within 3 months/after more than 3 
months)
Is the principle respected?

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

N
N

N
N

Y
Y

N
P

N
P

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

N
N

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
N

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

P

P

P

P

P

P

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

IS

NO

CH

Y

-

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y

N
Y
Y
Y

Y

N
P

Y
Y

Y
Y

N

P

P

N
N

Y
Y

Y

Y

Y
Y
Y

Y
N

Y

P

Y
Y

Y

Y

Y

-

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y

N
Y
Y
Y

Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y

Y

P

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y

Y

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y

N

P

Y
Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y

N
Y
Y
Y

Y

N
P

Y

Y
Y

N

P

P

Y
P

Y
Y

Y

Y

Y
Y
Y

Y
N

N

P

Y
Y

Y

Y

EN 

38 

   EN 

ANNEX II — Imputation of relative standard error 

Imputation of relative standard error for regional annual averages 

ˆ
c

h

=

1(

−

ˆ)
df
h

h

1{19

+

1

2

o
3(

r
kkh
,
(

+

)1

+

2

o

kk
,

1
+

r
kkh
,
(

+

o

r
kkh
,
(

+

)3

)}

kk
,

+

3

+

)2

kk
,
2
+
)1
−

h

nK
(

where 

f

h

=

n
h
ˆ
N

h

 nh is the annual average number of respondents aged 15-74 in region h,  

hNˆ is 

the  annual  average  of  population  aged  15-74  in  region  h  as  estimated  from  the  LFS, 

ˆ
d

h

=

1(

−

f

1)(

−

p

1){

+

1

2

o
3(

r
kkh
,
(

+

o

r
kkh
,
(

)}

h

h

,
kk
+
effect in region h), ch is the coefficient of variation in region h as given by the Participating 
Country, ph is the proportion of unemployed persons in region h (of all persons aged 15-74 in 
region h), K is the number of quarters (estimates) during the year, ok,k+t is the proportion of 

kk
,

kk
,

1
+

)2

)3

+

+

+

+

3

2

  (estimated  design 

(

2
nKcp
hh
r
kkh
,
(

)1

h
+

−
2

)1
o

sample  overlapping  between  quarters  k  and  k+t, 

r
kkh
,(

+

)t

=

p

,
kkh
(
p

h

)t
+
−

p

2
h

−
2
h

p

  (correlation  of 

unemployment  between  quarter  k  and  k+t),  ph(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 (ch) are provided by countries, the equation for the relative 

standard error reduces to 

ˆ
c

=′
h

2
19
cp
hh
1
p
−

h

. If no variance data are available for the region for 

one  year,  data  for  the  previous  or  the  following  year  are  used  (e.g.  2007  data  as  proxy  for 
2006  data  and  vice  versa).  If  no  data  are  available  either  for  2006  or  for  2007,  the  design 
effect (average national quarterly estimates) as calculated below is assumed. 

Imputation of relative standard error for change between 2 quarters 

ˆ
c

kk
,

1
+

=

1(

−

1(38ˆ)
df
n

−

o

kk
,
1

−

)

1
+

,

where 

f

=

n
ˆ
N

ˆ
d

=

, 

2
ncp
(
f
1)(
−

)1
−
p
−

1(

 ,

  and   c   is  the  average  of 

)

the quarterly coefficients provided by the participating countries and  p  is the average number 
of unemployed persons during the year divided by the estimated average population aged 15-
74. If no coefficients are provided, a design effect of 2 is assumed. When the coefficients of 
variation (cq) are provided by countries, the equation for the relative standard error reduces to 

ˆ
c

′
kk
,

1
+

=

38

cp

2

1(

−

o

kk
,

1
+

1

−

p

)

.

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX III – Implementation of a yearly sub-sample to survey structural variables 

STRUCTURAL VARIABLES

Germany

Spain

France

Relationship to reference person
Sequence number of spouse
Sequence number of father
Sequence number of mother
Marital status
Years of residence in the country
Supervisory responsibilities
Number of persons working at the local 
unit
Involvement of public employment service 
in finding the current job
Reasons for part-time work
Reasons for temporary job
Contract with a temporary employment 
agency
Shift work
Evening work
Night work
Saturday work
Sunday work
Way a person wants to work more hours

Working at home
Reasons for looking for another job
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
Reasons why person has not sought work
Reasons for not being available to start 
work within 2 weeks
Situation of person immediately before 
starting to seek employment
Lack of care facilities
Registration at public employment office 
Main status (optional)
Field of education in the last 4 weeks 
(optional)
Purpose of the most recent course 
(optional)
Field of the most recent taught activity 
(optional)
Most recent taught activity during working 
hours (optional)
Field of highest level of education 
completed
Year when highest level of education was 
completed
Main labour status one year before
Professional status one year before
Economic activity of local unit in which 
person was working one year before

Country of residence one year before

Region of residence one year before
Monthly pay from main job (optional)

2006

2007

2006

2007

2006

2007

quar-
ters
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
all

waves
all
all
all
all
all
all
10% of total sample
all

quar-
ters
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
all

waves
all
all
all
all
all
all
10% of total sample
all

quar-
waves
ters
6
all
6
all
6
all
6
all
all
6
all 6 until Q3. 
6
all
6
all

quar-

quar-

quar-

ters waves
6
6
6
6
6
all
6
6

all
all
all
all
all
all
all
all

ters waves
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
all

all
all
all
all
all
all
all
all

ters waves
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
all

all
all
all
all
all
all
all
all

all

all
all
all

all
all
all
all
all
all

all
all
all

all
all

all
all
all

all

all
all
all
all

all

all

6

6
6
6

6
6
6
6
6
6

6
6
6

all
all

all
6
6

6

6
6
6
6

6

6

all

all
all
all

all
all
all
all
all
all

all
all
all

all
all

all
all
all

all

all
all
all
all

all

all

all

10% of total sample

all

10% of total sample

all
all
all

all
all
all
all
all
all

all
all
all

all
all

all
all
all

all

all
all

all

all

all

all

all
all
all

all

all

all
all
10% of total sample

all
all
all
all
all
all

all
all
all

all
all

all
all
all

all

10% of total sample
all

not surveyed
not surveyed

not surveyed

all

all

all

all

all
all
all

all

all

all
all
all

all
all
all
all
all
all

all
all
all

all
all

all
all
all

all

all
all

all

all

all

all

all
all
all

all

all

all
all
10% of total sample

all
all
all
all
all
all

all
all
all

all
all

all
all
all

all

10% of total sample
all

not surveyed
not surveyed

not surveyed

all

all

all

all

all
all
all

all

all

not surveyed

not surveyed

6

6
6
6

6
6
6
6
6
6

6
6
6

all
all

all
6
6

all

all
all
all

all
all
all
all
all
all

all
all
all

all
all

all

all
all
all

all
all
all
all
all
all

all
all
all

all
all

all

all
all
all

all
all
all
all
all
all

all
all
all

all
all

all

all
all
all

all
all
all
all
all
all

all
all
all

all
all

not surveyed
all
all

all
all

not surveyed
all
all

all
all

6

not surveyed

not surveyed

6
6
6
6

6

6

all
all
all
all

all

all

all

all

all

all
all
all

all

all
all
all
all

all

all

all

all

all

1
1
1

1

all
all
all
all

all

all

all

all

all

all
all
all

all

all
all
all
all

all

all

all

all

all

all
all
all

all

not surveyed

not surveyed

all

all

all
all
all

all

6

6

6
6
6

6

all

all

all
all
all

all

all
not surveyed

6

6

6
6
6

6

6

all

6
not surveyed

all
1
all 1 and 6

all
all
all 1 and 6

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
STRUCTURAL VARIABLES

Netherlands

Finland

United Kingdom

Norway

2006

2007

2006

2007

2006

2007

2006

2007

quar-

quar-

quar-

quar-

quar-

ters waves
all
all
all
all
all
all
1
all

all
all
all
all
all
all
all
all

ters waves
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
1
all
all
all

all
all
all
all
all
all

ters waves
5
5
5
5
all
all
not surveyed
all

all

all
all
all
all
all
all

ters waves
5
5
5
5
all
all
not surveyed
all

all

quar-

quar-

waves
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
all

ters waves
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
not surveyed
all

all

ters waves
all
all
not surveyed
not surveyed
not surveyed
all
all
not surveyed
all

all
all

all

Relationship to reference person
Sequence number of spouse
Sequence number of father
Sequence number of mother
Marital status
Years of residence in the country
Supervisory responsibilities
Number of persons working at the local 
unit
Involvement of public employment service 
in finding the current job
Reasons for part-time work
Reasons for temporary job
Contract with a temporary employment 
agency
Shift work
Evening work
Night work
Saturday work
Sunday work
Way a person wants to work more hours

Working at home
Reasons for looking for another job
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
Reasons why person has not sought work
Reasons for not being available to start 
work within 2 weeks
Situation of person immediately before 
starting to seek employment
Lack of care facilities
Registration at public employment office 
Main status (optional)
Field of education in the last 4 weeks 
(optional)
Purpose of the most recent course 
(optional)
Field of the most recent taught activity 
(optional)
Most recent taught activity during working 
hours (optional)
Field of highest level of education 
completed
Year when highest level of education was 
completed
Main labour status one year before
Professional status one year before
Economic activity of local unit in which 
person was working one year before

Country of residence one year before

not surveyed
all
all

all
all

not surveyed
all
all

all
all

all

all
all
all

all
all
all
all
all
all

all
all
all

all
all

1

1
all
all

1
1
1
1
1
all

all
all
1

all
all

all

all
all
all

all
all
all
all
all
all

all
all
all

all
all

all

all
all
all
all

all

all

all

all

all

all
all
all

all

1

1
all
1
all

all

all

1

all

all

1
1
1

1

all

all
all
all
all

all

all

all

all

all

all
all
all

all

1

not surveyed

not surveyed

1
all
all

1
1
1
1
1
all

all
all
1

all
all

1

1
all
1
all

all

all
all

all
all
not surveyed

all
all

all
all
not surveyed

all
all
all
all
all
all

all
all
all

all
all

all
all
all

all

all
all
all
all
all
all

all
all
all

all
all

all
all
all

all

all
all
all
all
all
all

all
all
all

all
all

all
all
all

all

all
all
all
all
all
all

all
all
all

all
all

all
all
all

all

not surveyed
all
all
not surveyed

all
all

not surveyed
all
all
not surveyed

all
all

all

all

all

all

all

not surveyed

not surveyed

1

all

all

1
1
1

1

all

all

all

2
2
2

2

all

all

all

all
all
all

all

all

all

all

all
all
all

all

all

all

all

5
5
5

5

ters waves
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
all

all

2
all
all

2
2
2
2
2
all

2
2
all

all
all

all
4
all

all

all

all
all
all

all
all
all
all
all
all

all
all
all

all
all

all
all
all

all

4
all

all
all
not surveyed
all

all

all

all

all

all

all

2
2
2

2

all

all

all

all

all

all
all
all

all

quar-
ters
all
all
all
all
all
all
all
all

all

2
all
all

2
2
2
2
2
all

2
2
all

all
all

all
4
all

all

4
all

all

all

all

all

all

all

2
2
2

2

2

not surveyed

all

all
all
all

all
all
all
all
all
all

all
all
all

all
all

all
all
all

all

all
all

all

all 1 and 8

all 1 and 8

all 1 and 8
all 1 and 8
all 1 and 8

all 1 and 8
all 1 and 8
all 1 and 8

all 1 and 8
all 1 and 8
all 1 and 8
all 1 and 8
all 1 and 8
all 1 and 8

all 1 and 8
all 1 and 8
all 1 and 8

all 1 and 8
all 1 and 8
all 1 and 8
all 1 and 8
all 1 and 8
all 1 and 8

all 1 and 8
all 1 and 8
all 1 and 8

all
all
all 1 and 8

all
all
all 1 and 8

all 1 and 8
all 1 and 8
all 1 and 8

all 1 and 8
all 1 and 8
all 1 and 8

all 1 and 8

all 1 and 8

all 1 and 8
not surveyed
not surveyed
not surveyed

all 1 and 8
not surveyed
not surveyed
not surveyed

all

not surveyed

not surveyed

all

not surveyed

not surveyed

all

not surveyed

not surveyed

all

all 1 and 8

all 1 and 8

all

not surveyed

not surveyed

all
all
all

all

all

all 1 and 8
all 1 and 8
all 1 and 8

all 1 and 8
all 1 and 8
all 1 and 8

not surveyed

not surveyed

not surveyed
not surveyed

not surveyed
not surveyed

Region of residence one year before
Monthly pay from main job (optional)

all

1
not surveyed

all

1
not surveyed

2

all
not surveyed

all

5
not surveyed

2

all
not surveyed

not surveyed

EN 

41 

   EN