both the basic employment outcomes and the determinants of household welfare using very simple techniques. We discuss what these problems mean for economic analysis relating these employment outcomes to other key variables at the household, sectoral or macro level in order to analyze the performance of economic development policy and processes.

The outcomes focused on here are the measurement of i) LFPR, ii) primary employment status, and iii) multiple economic activities and the related issues of underemployment and household livelihood portfolios. Although relevant for analysis, we do not discuss the issue of measuring individual and household earnings as we had trouble finding a baseline from which to work.

# **3.2 The measurement of labor force participation**

Until the 2009/2010 UNHS survey (except in the 2002/3 survey), in at least one employment status question, respondents were simply asked: “What is your primary activity?” without any preparation to clarify the meaning of “activity” – that is, work (Table 2). The problem was compounded by the inclusion of _inactivity_ response options alongside the activity response question – which often happens with failure to screen. We cannot isolate the bias associated with the inactivity response from the bias associated with lack of screening, so we consider them together, first with the earliest survey and then with the 2005/6 survey.

In the IHS 1992/93 survey, no screening was used and all employment status questions (primary and secondary) included inactivity responses such as “domestic duties”, “too young/old to work” and “student”. The inclusion of inactivity response options in employment status questions encouraged some respondents to provide these non-economic activity responses as their _primary_ employment status, and only list their economic activity as a secondary activity.<sup>15</sup> Table 3 shows the magnitude of the bias induced by this methodology, and it is large. One indication of the size of the bias is found by comparing primary and secondary activity. Many of those who reported a “non-economic” activity as their primary employment status also reported an economic activity as their secondary employment status. These respondents should be counted as active.

# **Table 3: Effect of including inactivity response questions in primary employment status question on measurement of economic participation**

||**1992**<br>Unadjusted<br>(from primary<br>activityonly)|**/93**(all questio<br> <br>Including<br>secondary<br>activity|ns)<br>**Difference**|**2005/**<br>Unadjusted<br>(from primary<br>activityonly)|**06**(12-month re<br>Including<br>activity|call)<br>**Difference**|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|LFPR|78.3|86.6|**8.3**|78.6|89.4|**10.8**|
|Labor Force|6,470,667|7,172,816|**702,149**|9,935,893|11,304,948|**1,369,055**|

_Source_ **_:_** _Author calculation based on the IHS 1992/93, UNHS 2005/06 Note: 12 month recall questions used._

> 15 To the extent that this happened, it also indicates that even the interviewers were not aware of how to measure economic activity either.  If the literate, educated interviewers were confused, it is not surprising to find serious non-sampling error.

14