Application of the ESeC on data of the Dutch Labour Force Survey: a

comparison between years

Sue WestermanRoel Schaart

Service Centre for the Classifications ofEducation and Occupation

Statistics Netherlands

• Background: which socio-economic classifications are used at Statistics Netherlands

• Dutch Labour Force Survey: dataset used to apply the ESeC

• Application of the ESeC

• Results: distribution of the population into the ESeC classes over time

• Concluding remarks

Outline of the presentation

• (Dutch) Standard Classification of Occupations, SBC: based on skill level, skill specialisation and most important tasks. Derivations for:

– EGP-class schema: based on occupations and on employment relations of industrial societies

– International Socio-Economic Index of occupational status: based on educational level and earnings in job

– Ultee&Sixma-06: measure for occupational prestige

Socio-economic classification at Statistics Netherlands

• Population

All people aged 15 years and older, living in the Netherlands in private households

• Data collection

1987-2000: CAPI

2000 onwards: panel survey, first interview CAPI, next quarters CATI

Data: Dutch Labour Force Survey

Application of the ESeC

• 9-class model and 3-class model: derivation according to ESeC user guide

• Unit of analysis: individual or household level

• Class 10, excluded

• System missing

Results

• Class structure over time

• Household position

• Sex

• Educational attainment

Distribution of the population (15-64 years) according to ESeC class

Distribution of the population (15-64 years) into ESeC classes, 2005

8%

19%

8%

5%

0%5%

10%

5%

11%

29%

I - Large employers, higher managers/professionals

II - Lower managers/professionals, highersupervisory/technicians

III - Intermediate occupations

IV - Small employers and self-employed (non-agriculture)

V - Small employers and self-employed (agriculture)

VI - Lower supervisors and technicians

VII - Lower sales and service

VIII - Lower technical

IX - Routine

Non-employed

I

IX

VIIIVII VI

V

IV

III

IINon-employed

SALARIAT

WORKING CLASS INTE

RMEDIA

TE

• Each class contains a substantial proportion of the population ranging from 5 – 30 %, with one exeption: class 5.

• Smallest proportion (< 0.1%) of the population is classified as farmers (class 5).

• Largest proportion (19%) of the population is classified as ‘lower professionals and managers’ (class 2).

-production and operation managers

-nursing and midwifery associate professionals

-teaching professionals

0

20

40

60

80

100

Non-employed 35 33 31 30 28 28 28 28 29 29

Working class 26 27 27 27 27 28 27 27 26 26

Intermediate 16 16 16 17 17 17 17 17 18 18

Salariat 23 24 26 26 27 27 27 28 28 27

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

%

Distribution of the population into ESeC classes, 1996-2005

Distribution has changed in 2005 compared to 1996:

• Strongest increase of the proportion in the salariat class (23 % 27 %).

• More gradual increase of the proportion in the intermediate class (16 % 18 %).

• Proportion in the working class remains rather stable throughout the years.

ESeC 3 class model: distribution by household position, 2005

0

20

40

60

80

100

Non-employed 39 38 34 32 20

Working class 46 22 22 20 24

Intermediate 8 17 16 18 22

Salariat 7 23 28 31 34

living at parental home single parent living alone cohabiting, no children cohabiting, with children

%

Distribution of the population among the 3 ESeC classes varies by household position

Living at parental home

Single parent

Living alone

Cohabiting without children

Cohabiting with children

Proportion in salariat

Proportion in non-employed

ESeC 9 class model, distribution by sex, 1996 and 2005

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

1996 2005 1996 2005 1996 2005 1996 2005 1996 2005 1996 2005 1996 2005 1996 2005 1996 2005 1996 2005

Largeemployers,

highermanagers /

professionals

Lowermanagers /

professionals,higher

supervisory /technicians

Intermediateoccupations

Smallemployersand self-employed

(non-agriculture)

Smallemployersand self-employed

(agriculture)

Lowersupervisors

andtechnicians

Lower salesand service

Lowertechnical

Routine Non-employed

Female

Male

21%

60%

66%

40%37%

9%9%

70%70%

29%24%

64%45%

30%26%

70%65%

51%

44%

31%

* 1000

7 - Lower sales and service =

3 - Intermediate occupations ↑

5 - Small employers and self-employed (agriculture) ↑

2 - Lower managers / professionals, higher supervisory / technicians ↑

9 - Routine ↑

1 - Large employers, higher managers / professionals ↑

4 - Small employers and self-employed (non-agriculture) ↑

6 - Lower supervisors and technicians ↑

8 - Lower technical =

♂

Male proportion

♀

Female proportion

ESeC 9 class model distribution by sex, 1996 and 2005

ESeC 9 class model distribution by educational attainment, 2005

0

20

40

60

80

100

(Pre-)primary, ISCED 0 + 1 0 1 1 2 7 6 5 8 7

Lower secondary, ISCED 2 4 7 7 16 25 25 24 27 25

(Post-)secondary, ISCED 3 + 4 20 42 41 60 57 55 58 56 57

Tertiary, ISCED 5 + 6 76 49 51 22 11 14 13 9 11

I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX

I - Large employers, higher managers/professionals

II - Lower managers/professionals, higher supervisory/technicians

III - Intermediate occupations

IV - Small employers and self-employed (non-agriculture)

V - Small employers and self-employed (agriculture)

VI - Lower supervisors and technicians

VII - Lower sales and service

VIII - Lower technical

IX - Routine

%

ESeC 3 class model distribution by educational attainment, 1996 and 2005

0

20

40

60

80

100

(Pre-)primary, ISCED 0 + 1 1 1 5 4 14 11

Lower secondary, ISCED 2 7 5 22 20 38 37

(Post-)secondary, ISCED 3 + 4 37 33 59 58 43 46

Tertiary, ISCED 5 + 6 56 60 13 18 5 6

1996 2005 1996 2005 1996 2005

salariat intermediate working class

%

• All ESeC classes: shift towards higher level of educational attainment in

2005 compared to 1996

• ESeC class 1:highest proportion of tertiary education (75 %), followed

by class 2 and 3 (both 50%)

• ESeC classes 5 and higher:comparable educational attainment levels

(Pre-)primary: 5 - 8%Lower secondary: 24% - 27%(Post-)secondary: 55% -58%Tertiary: 9% - 14%

ESeC classes by educational attainment

Concluding remarks

• ESeC classes can be derived from data of the Dutch Labour Force Survey. Problems:

Non-employed Household reference personTemporary jobs

• The composition of the ESeC classes changes over time for social variables such as education or sex.

• For interpretation of the changes insight in the underlying level, the socio-economic groups, would be helpful.

• This implies need for derivation material to derive the 2nd level of ESeC.