A comparison of sample survey measures of earnings of English graduates with administrative data
A comparison of sample survey measures of earnings of English graduates with administrative data
复制标题
英语毕业生收入抽样调查指标与行政数据的比较
DOI：
10.1111/rssa.12382
复制
发表时间：
2019
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
A. Vignoles
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Britton;N. Shephard;A. Vignoles
行政数据集因其覆盖面广、规模大而越来越多地用于研究。然而，在英国，使用个人收入，特别是毕业生收入的行政数据是新颖的。了解这些数据的优点和缺点很重要，因为它们将被广泛用于研究和为政策提供信息。在这里，我们比较了英国劳动力调查（LFS）基于调查的劳动力收入数据与英国政府管理来源的个人收入数据，分别关注年轻（32岁以下）的毕业生和非毕业生。这种类型的行政数据集几乎没有样本选择问题，并且是纵向的，其大样本意味着可以以低误差研究子人群的收入。总体而言，我们在LFS和行政数据中发现了类似的零收入个人比例，但在行政数据中收入低于8000英镑的比例要高得多（以工作为条件）。LFS通常通过分配获得更高的收入，尽管高于中位数的大部分差异可能是由员工养老金缴款解释的。我们还发现，在调查数据中，性别差异相当大。研究结果适用于毕业生和非毕业生。这些差异是非常重要的，并建议不同的结论性别工资差距，毕业生的收入溢价和收入不平等的程度。
Administrative data sets are increasingly used in research because of their excellent coverage and large scale. However, in the UK the use of administrative data on individuals’ earnings, and particularly graduates’ earnings, is novel. Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of such data is important as they are set to be used extensively for research and to inform policy. Here we compare survey‐based labour earnings data from the UK's Labour Force Survey (LFS) with UK Government administrative sources of individual level earnings data, focusing separately on young (up to age 32 years) graduates and non‐graduates. This type of administrative data set has few sample selection issues and is longitudinal and its large samples mean that the earnings of subpopulations can potentially be studied with low error. Overall we find a similar share of individuals with zero earnings in the LFS and administrative data, but a considerably higher share (conditionally on working) earning below £8000 in the administrative data. The LFS has generally higher earnings right through the distribution, though above the median a large share of the differences can potentially be explained by employee pension contributions. We also find considerably larger gender difference in the survey data. The findings hold for both graduates and non‐graduates. These differences are substantively important and suggest different conclusions about the gender wage gap, the graduate earnings premium and the extent of earnings inequality.