Some comments on ESEC outline of the talk

Theoretical aspects, objectives : what we agree on, what we suggest

Measurement issues Coding ISCO Additional information Proposals

More specific comments on matrix

Theoretical aspects, objectives

We agree to construct & use a european socioeconomic classification

Main argument : allow cross country comparability

To achieve this, ESEC must be based on explicit foundations

Allow cross country comparabilityBonus : clear interpretation in terms of own effectNot many “theoretical” frameworks available

We agree on schema à la Golthorpe Causal interpretation of ESEC is in terms of employment relations

Theoretical aspects, main proposals

On the ranking of ESEC groups :independents & employees have fundamentally

different employment relations renumber groups 4 & 5 into 1 & 2

What about “life employment” type contracts ? Current ESEC solely based on service relationship vs labour contract

In France, “life employment” is an omitted & important type of employment relation (full security contract)

About “life employment”

Proposal = add “full security” contract as form of employment regulation

At the 2 digit level of ESEC ? 2 digit codes empty in countries where “life

employment” does not exist France : over 20% of employees have “full

security” contracts ; high explanatory power

Higher 1Lower 2Higher 1Lower 2

Clerical 7Services 7Technical 6Semi-routine 7Basic 8Higher 1Lower 2Higher 1Lower 2Clerical 3Sales 3Services 3Technical 3Supervisory 6Technical 6Semi-routine 7Basic 8

Intermediate

6

Labour contract

Manager

Professional

Full security contract

Service relationship

Manager

Professional

Non supervisory

Supervisory

Measurement issues

Coding 3-digit ISCO using french sources requires :

4 digit occupation + 4 digit activity In turn, this requires a large amount of

information, not available in many sources relevant for ESEC validation (eg : health, cultural participation)

Measurement issues

Using the matrix requires additional information : status of employment (independent / employee) +

number of employees if independent : mostly OK, only issue is farmers

Employees : problem of identifying managers & supervisors

Within managers & professionals, problem of identifying higher & lower

Managers

Use of firm size, not viewed as acceptable to distinguish higher from lower managers

Constructing the category in French sources : use of self-declared classification of employment in the firm (“conventions collectives”)

Higher managers = directors or one of their close assistants

Lower managers = all other executives (“cadres”) with commercial or administrative function

Choice consistent with “theory” (“higher” = “senior”)

Professionals

A professional can be a manager in the above sense (eg : head of R&D)

If so, should be treated as a manager Higher & lower professional (based on level

of “expertise”) can not often be distinguished (engineers, senior vs junior)

In French sources, we use 4-digit occupation ; most engineers do not qualify as higher professional

Supervisors

Missing variable : cannot solely be inferred from occupation ; not usually available

Add a new variable ? Also useful to define managers & higher professionals (eg : if engineer, number of persons under direct supervision)

Otherwise : acceptable approximation = self-declared employment classification (“agent de maîtrise”)

Routine vs semi-routine

Neither observed, nor precisely defined Major measurement issue French attempts to proxy by skill (firm

classification of skills based on technical level of expertise, but also responsibility)

Matrix V2 : routine vs lower technical

More specific comments on matrix V1

Independents : no comment

More specific comments on matrix V1

Employees : Upper part of classification French approach leads to more “elitist” ESEC, consistently

with theoretical definition ;

=> Small group 1 : directors, close associates + specialized doctors, researchers, University teachers & similar occupations ; group 2 reserved for plain engineers & executives, teachers ; nurses, librarians belong to group 3, unless supervisor

Matrix : all executives more or less presumed to be higher managers ; most professionals presumed “higher”

=>Consequence : all in group 1 ; group 2 reserved for nurses and the like

More specific comments on matrix V1

Examples : Upper part of classification Most professional (ISCO 21, 22, 24) => group 1 ;

only exception : teachers (ISCO 23) => group 2 Criticism : a majority of professionals

theoretically belongs to group 2 All “managers” (ISCO 12) => group 1 Criticism : most of them are not higher managers

(plain administrative or commercial executives, even (or more so ?) in large firms

More specific comments on matrix V1

Examples : Upper part of classification Most administrative or sales associate

professionals (ISCO 34) => group 2 ; Criticism : no reliable information on supervisory

powers (higher supervisory) Most clerks (ISCO 41, 42, including plain

secretaries, supermarket cashiers) => group 3 Criticism : most of them do not have sufficient

“expertise” ; they would be better classified in group 7, unless additional information available

More specific comments on matrix V1

Employees : lower part of classification By default, french approach of ESEC also more

“elitist” ;

=> group 3 : nurses, sales representatives, technicians ; group 6 : supervisors + upper fringe of production workers ; group 7 : most secretaries, skilled employees ; group 8 : unskilled employees

Matrix : as nurses & the like in group 2, most secretaries in group 3 ;

Difference stems from choices made in upper part of classification

More specific comments on matrix V1

Example : salespersons Matrix : ISCO 52 => group 7 ; ISCO 91 => group

8 ; Problem in France : few persons coded in ISCO

91; Solution : use french PCS instead, with distinction

between “skilled” & “unskilled” salespersons

Conclusions

Using matrix induces 2 sources of errors, at the stage of coding ISCO, in rows (eg France

does not use the 10 employees threshold), At the stage of defining additional variables, in

columns Countries have access to different

information on occupation & additional variables

Matrix different across countries desirable, based on national classification of occupation + all relevant information available

Conclusions

Therefore ESEC consistent with theoretical foundations + permitting cross country comparability is best achieved by providing “guidelines” based on ISCO rather than a ready-to-use matrix

“Validation” in terms of consistency with theoretical principles to be carried out on this basis