Final Report
of Grant application on
Test on the
European Socio-economic Classification
Eurostat ID of the agreement: 32100.2007.001-2007.691
Prepared in the Hungarian Statistical Office
March 2009
1
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
1. OCCUPATIONS
1.1. HSCO’98 mapping to ISCO-88 (COM)
1.2. Important characteristics of the revision of the occupation classification (ISCO-88 and FEOR-98)
2. EXPERIENCES GAINED DURING THE APPLICATION OF ESEC IN HUNGARY
2.1. Differentiations
2.2. The effect of ISCO-08 and FEOR-08 on ESEC
3. THE HUNGARIAN SOCIO-ECONOMIC CLASSIFICATION
3.1. The function of the model
3.2. Conceptual basis
3.3. Information used to derive Hu-SeC
3.4 The structure of the model
3.4.1. Categories of social strata by different level of aggregation
3.4.2 Four basic groups of individuals based on link to the labour market
3.4.2.1. Employers
3.4.2.2. Self employed without emploees
3.4.2.3. Employees
3.4.2.4. Persons breaking or not having contacts with the labour market
4. SOCIAL STRATA OF UNEMPLOYED AND INACTIVE PERSONS
5. HOW TO DERIVE HU-SEC
6. CHECKING OF HU-LFS DATA
6.1. Occupation
6.2. Status in employment
6.3. Supervisory status
6.4. Establishment size
7. COMPARISON OF HU-LFS DATA WITH HU-SILC DATA BY ESEC
(consistency of the structures)
8. STABILITY OF ESEC IN TIME BASED ON LFS DATA
9. COMPARISON OF THE EMPLOYED POPULATION ACCORDING TO ESEC AND HU-SEC
10. CONCLUSION
1
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the general results of the tests on the European Socio-economic Classification carried out by the Hungarian Central Statistical Office (HCSO).
The objective of the project was to participate in creating of a conceptually clear, validated and easily applicable socio-economic classification for use in comparative European analyses of key policy and scientific issues. The prototype of this so called European Socio-economic Classification (ESeC) is a matrix, based on existing variables of different social surveys. It makes theoretically easy to build this classification and use it,not only at country, but also at EU level, since it does not require any additional data collection.
Studies on the use of the current prototype of ESeC is based on the with EU-LFS fully harmonised Hungarian LFS data, which means on the most important and most regularly used labour market information in Hungary. All basic information – occupation coded to ISCO-88 (COM) occupational unit group (or minor group or sub-major group), employment status coded to ICSE-93, establishment size coded by number of persons working in the local unit (0,1-9,10+) and supervisory responsibilities – required to derive EseC for all eligible persons are available in the survey. So this ESeC Classification – on the basis of critical assessment of its validity and suggestions for improvements included in our tests – could be developed and could be done suitable for characterization of socio-economic groupsof Hungarian population and at the same time for international comparisons.
The final report of the presented grant application describes main aspects of tests on EseC-prototype dimension, attests to the efforts made by HCSO to have a well prepared socio-economic classification, which allows EU wide analyses of health, living conditions, labour market situation of men and women, economic situation of citizens among Member States etc., i.e. which makessurveysapplicable for producing comparable data of high quality.
1. OCCUPATIONS
1.1. HSCO’98 mapping to ISCO-88 (COM)
The experiment to assign the socio-economic groups/situation is based on the assumption that the persons’ chance in life is influenced by labour market position and by occupational position. Code of occupationbased on ISCO-88(COM) is one of the most important information to build ESeC classification.Since Hungary has own national classification of occupation (FEOR’98), in the frameof this grant improvements were done, to have a correct mapping of the Hungarian SCO’98 to the ISCO-88.
The Hungarian Standard Classification of Ooccupations (FEOR’93, in English HSCO’93) was introduced in 1993 on the basis of ISCO-88. There was a short revision in 1996 – to survey the experiences of the introduction –, therefore the Hungarian occupational system has been effective with unchanged content and form since 1997 (HSCO’98).
Comparison of the ISCO-88 and HSCO-98 classification at different levels:
Major group / ISCO-88 / HSCO-98Num-ber / Denomination / Sub-major group / Minor-group / Occupation / Sub-major group / Minor-group / Occupation
number
1. / Legislators, administrative and economic managers, and managers of representative associations / 3 / 8 / 33 / 4 / 11 / 64
2. / Professionals / 4 / 18 / 55 / 7 / 24 / 112
3. / Other occupations requiring higher or secondary qualifi-cations / 4 / 21 / 73 / 8 / 24 / 123
4. / Clerical and administrative (customer services) occu-pations / 2 / 7 / 23 / 2 / 6 / 20
5. / Service occupations / 2 / 9 / 23 / 3 / 13 / 62
6. / Agricultural and forestry occu-pations / 2 / 6 / 17 / 4 / 7 / 30
7. / Industrial and building indust-rial occupations / 4 / 16 / 70 / 6 / 23 / 120
8. / Machine operators, assemblers, drivers / 3 / 20 / 70 / 3 / 17 / 76
9. / Elementary occupations not requiring qualifications / 3 / 10 / 25 / 2 / 8 / 23
0. / Armed Forces occupations / 1 / 1 / 1 / 3 / 3 / 3
Total / 28 / 116 / 390 / 42 / 136 / 632
However, the HSCO’98 is ISCO-based (in particular ISCO-88(COM)), its principles and structure are the same, we could find differences even in the major groups (in one digit). In order not to lose comparability with ISCO most of the national adaptations have been done at the unit group level. In case of the majority of occupations there is a direct cross-walk between OUGs of HSCO’98 and ISCO-88(COM) (4 digit codes), but there are about 50 OUGs in the HSCO which has to be re-coded according to the short description of the occupation given by respondents.In the table of attached filewe show these occupations and how we mapped them to ISCO-88.
1.1. HSCO'98 mapping to ISCO-88 (COM).doc (Annex 1)
1.2. Important characteristics of the revision of the occupation classification (ISCO-88 and FEOR-98)
The Hungarian Occupational System has been effective with unchanged content and form since 1997,however, the HCSO has received a number of suggestions from users relating to the renewal of the system. Experts always refused because they would consider these suggestions in the revision of HSCO’98, when the total revision of ISCO-88 will be finished. The users are becoming more and more impatient relating to their proposals, therefore they were pleased to learn that the revision of international standard classification of occupations was started and is in an advanced state. The HCSO had some problems concerning ISCO-08, based on the revision of HSCO’98, which had to be cleared and became manifest for the revision of ISCO-88.
A revision of national standard classification of occupation was begun and is in an advanced state, too. According to our plans we will finish the revision of HSCO’98 in 2009, and we should introduce the new system on 1st January 2010.
One of the main characteristics of the draft ISCO-08 is that ISCO-08 compartmentalizes the system in more detail and builds more major and sub-major groups, and occupations into the system (it raises the number of occupations with 40 occupations). It details especially the information technology related occupations, but it pays greater attention also to the occupations in environmental management, health and education. It provides more details on agricultural occupations and elementary occupations of the Major group 9. It contracts some industrial occupations belonging to Major groups 7 and 8 and initiates significant changes affecting fundamentally certain major groups (e.g. Major groups 3 and 8) (See operators of valuable machines and process controllers).
During revision of FEOR’98, the main principles of the system transformation were the following:
–ISCO-08 system shall be taken into the utmost account;
–the characteristics of the Hungarian classification of occupations shall be also reckoned;
As a result of the revision, the number of FEOR-08 occupations decreased from 632 to around 530, but the numbers of occupation groups and sub-major groups have not decreased significantly.
In the following, some changes, which may affect the system of ESeC are detailed (not listing all major groups).
Major group 1
FEOR’98 – according to the Hungarian circumstances – tried to create a distinct occupation structure of managerial occupations making logic and coherent classification possible. This structure was more detailed than the one suggested by ISCO-88. In certain fields, ISCO-88 tries to simplify managerial occupations and provide more details on them. By essence, the summarised, less detailed structure of ISCO-88 managerial occupations has basically remained. The FEOR’08 may also follow the orientation of ISCO-08, but it provides a more detailed classification for several points (see managers of small enterprises).
Some questions, problems met during revision process:
– Classification of managers of small enterprises – depending on the activity (industrial or catering trade) of the economic organization: in sub-category 112 or category 14?
– What kind of economic organization is considered as small enterprise on the basis of the staff number? According to the Hungarian experiences those enterprises are considered as small enterprises the staff number of which is 20 persons or less. The HSCO’98 – independently from activity – classifies every manager of small enterprises in one occupational category.
– In ISCO-08 some department managers of economic organizations are classified in categories 12 and 13. What kind of occupational activities serve as a basis of the listing in the case of the two groups, or what kind of department activity is included in the listing?
–The HSCO’98 classifies in sub-categories under main group 1 those people who directly control the production (foreman, supervisor), manage certain area in the process of production, and control workers’ activity. If these occupations belong to category 312 in the system of ISCO-08, we miss those managers in this sub-category who are directly managing the smaller commercial, service departments.
Major group 2
FEOR’08 – similarly to ISCO-08 – applies a more detailed classification for occupations in the information technology and communication, and health sector.
Some questions, problems met during revision process:
– The occupation “2141 Industrial and production engineers” is found in category 214 Engineering professionals of ISCO-08. How do we separate the activities of this occupation from the functions referring to the occupations in 2142-2147?
– The ISCO-08 combines the occupations of mathematician and statistician. Where shall we classify those professional statisticians who mostly do not specialize in mathematical statistics (for example: demographers, social statisticians, economic statisticians)?
–In Hungary the claim was brought up that in addition to medical doctors and veterinarians, flora specialists should also be taken into account within medical activity.
Major group 3
The experiences of FEOR’98 show that where the separation of occupations is not easy between Major groups 2 and 3, it is worth listing them in one of these major groups (e.g. actors, musicians, journalists, young licentiates). One of the experiences gained during the application of FEOR’98 is that many people interpret this nomenclature only as a hierarchical system and try to classify certain occupations under higher classes, though the principles of their distinction from other occupations are obvious.
Within Major group 3, ISCO-08 recommends two important changes. One of them is transferring the foreman occupations belonging to FEOR’98 Sub-major group 135 into this major group, the other one is reassigning operators of complicated systems (e.g. nuclear power plants) from Major group 8 to this major group. In the case of FEOR’08, these solutions are taken into account.
Some questions, problems met during revision process:
– ISCO-08 classifies high-level automated machine controllers in sub-category 313 as Process control technicians. On what the separation of these occupations is based?
–Classification of police inspectors and detectives in category 3 (3355). One can do this activity with higher qualification, therefore we would have separated these occupations in sub-category 261 under main category 2 of ISCO-08. In this case we should have distinguished the qualification level in the denomination too, but in our opinion the minimum qualification level of police inspectors and detectives is college degree, so we would have rather classified them in main category 2. The situation is the same in the case of the chief of police, whose classification to main category 1 of ISCO-08 is very difficult. Distinction is always very difficult between employment at the police, frontier-guards, the trainband and the occupations listed in category 0.
Main group 7
FEOR’98 followed the principle of trying to separate industrial activities rather by craft related, craft industrial type occupations supposing professions in the traditional sense in Major group 7 and by unskilled occupations preferred by the large-scale industry in Major group 8. During revision of FEOR’98, the users continuously reported this problem. Finally, such solution was chosen for FEOR’08 that every possible occupation from the occupations of Major group 7 would be included in Major group 8, that is to say, the possibility that a given industrial activity be included in both major groups is decreased. Moreover, more summarised categories are striven to apply in both major groups.
Major group 8
The craft related, traditional type industrial activities requiring all kinds of activities and high level skills remained in Major group 7. Even from the start, the difficulties of distinction were obvious. Meanwhile, there have been major advances related to the machinery of the production process, the operation of which is a very complicated activity requiring special attention and responsibility, and assuming high level – sometimes engineering level – skills. During revision of FEOR’98, the draft FEOR’08 suggested significant changes in this major group, taking into account the experiences of other countries.
Accordingly, FEOR’08 contracts many occupations. Mainly those activities are contracted, which can be characterized by same technological solutions, considering the kind of products manufactured and produced is a less important aspect. (Since the main content of an occupation – owing to modern technical equipment – is less influenced by the type of products produced.)
Some questions, problems met during revision process:
– The comprehensive category of machine operators in ISCO-88 dissolving into sub-categories 313 and 312 (supervisors or controllers) of ISCO-08 caused problems. There are not any opportunities for us to leave the physical nature of the activity of machine operators with lower qualifications in category 81.
–In this main group there were some occupations the separation of which was problematic according to ISCO-08. This problem arose in the application of ISCO-88 generally in the case of mechanics and repairers. (Occupations suggested in categories 74 and 82 of ISCO-08.)
Major group 9
During revision of FEOR-93, many comments were received on the fact that the nature of activities of semi-skilled worker type had changed in the occupation classification, compared to the former one. The significance of manual work decreased, today even the simplest work necessitates the operation of machines – e.g. cleaning – and the elementary occupations requiring certain level of training or education are also extending. The role and significance of this major group did not break off but its function have changed. FEOR’08 pays great attention to this major group and specifies these occupations in more detail compared to FEOR’98.
The revision of ISCO-88 coordinated by ILO finished. One of its main aims was to serve as a model for the development of national occupational classifications. It does notmean, that ISCO’08 could replace national classifications of occupations, since national classifications of individual countries should reflect the structure of the national labour market. However, the structure of the modernised system of Hungarian Standard Classification of Occupations (HSCO’08) is in line with the new system of the international occupational classification, ISCO’08.
Since the comparibility of ESeC at EU level is dependant from the comparibility of its dimensions, one of the most important issues of this project was to ensure the comparibility of ISCO and FEOR (HSCO) data. The transition from ISCO-88 to ISCO’08 needed to be studied for all occupations which had to be reclassified at national level, too. Documentation of the derivation of ISCO data at national level was a very important aspect of our work.
Since the revision of national standard classification of occupation is in an advanced state, but not yet finished, only drafts (not final versions) of the modernised system developed by Hungarian Central Statistical Office could be presented here. However it is ready for professional inter-departmental coordination and testing.
Correspondence tables between different versions of classification of occupations could be found in the following files:
a)1.2.a Correspondence table ISCO'08 & ISCO-88 .xls (developed by ILO) (Annex 2)
b)1.2.b Correspondence table ISCO'08 & HSCO'08 .xls (Annex 3)
c)1.2.c Correspondence table ISCO'08 & ISCO-88 & HSCO'08 .xls (Annex 4)
d)1.2.d Correspondence table HSCO'08 & HSCO-98.xls (Annex 5)
e)1.2.e Correspondencetable HSCO'08 & ISCO'08.xls (Annex 6)
f)1.2.f Correspondence table HSCO'08 & HSCO-98 & ISCO'08.xls (Annex 7)
2. EXPERIENCES GAINED DURING THE APPLICATION OF ESEC INHUNGARY
The major dimension of ESEC distinction is the International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO), and the Standard Classificationof Occupations (FEOR) in Hungary. In the census-related surveys of Hungary – owing to exhaustiveness and greater samples – there was no way to ask complementary data(such as the method of managing activity) that are important from the aspect of ESEC. In the 2001 Census, from the criteria important from the aspect of ESEC only the occupational status, the number of working staff of employers and the number of subordinates were asked in addition to occupations. Question on management and supervision were not included in the criteria. There was a chance to raise thisformer question in the labour force survey, so the complete establishment of the system of ESEC became to be tested and could be improved by HCSO.
Last years different socio-economic classifications were developed - on an experimental basis–in Hungarytaking the EGP categories into consideration. The most proper one was applied for ESEC.
2.1. Differentiations
According to the ESEC based stratification structure, the Hungarian experiences can be summarised as follows:
Differentiation of manual and non-manual workes
In the currently used work nature classification,it is essential to differentiate occupations from this aspect but this is not the most significant dividing line in the case of different international classification schemas. However, based on our results, it can be stated that the most important differentiation is still the intellectual-manual separation within the Hungarian occupation classstructure. The manual – non-manual “opposition” shall be interpreted flexibly. It is also proved by our empirical results according to which a “buffer zone”, the group of qualified service occupations exists within the occupations, which forms a transition between the strictlynon-manual and manual occupations.