1 / 17

Improving the quality of European monthly unemployment statistics

Improving the quality of European monthly unemployment statistics. Nicola Massarelli, Eurostat Q2014 - European Conference on Quality in Official Statistics Vienna , 3-5 June 2014. UNEMPLOYMENT RATES. KEY WORDS. TIME SERIES. QUALITY FRAMEWORK. Main features.

egil
Télécharger la présentation

Improving the quality of European monthly unemployment statistics

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Improving the quality of European monthly unemployment statistics Nicola Massarelli, Eurostat Q2014 - European Conference on Quality in Official Statistics Vienna, 3-5 June 2014

  2. UNEMPLOYMENT RATES KEY WORDS TIME SERIES QUALITY FRAMEWORK

  3. Main features • ILO unemploymentrates and levels • Total, plus age and gender breakdown • NSA, SA, TREND • Monthly, quarterly, yearly • T+30days • EU28, EA18, MS • Levels, M-M and Y-Y changes

  4. Current production • Ownership: about 50-50 Eurostat-MS • 3 mainmethods for unadjustedseries • Pure monthly LFS • 3 monthrollingquarters of LFS data • Temporaldisaggregation(Quarterly LFS + monthlyadministrative data) • Publication of adjustedseries: SA, but trends for 4 countries

  5. How temporal disaggregation works Bulgaria, number of male unemployed aged 25-74, NSA (thousands)

  6. Quality concerns • Volatility • Revisions • Turning points identification • Timeliness

  7. Developing a quality framework • Goal: • Provideacceptancecriteria • Compare series • Structure: • Define appropriate indicators for each quality dimension • Synthetic indicator vs. scoreboard • Acceptancethresholds

  8. Volatility: big foot effect

  9. Volatility: pitching & roller coaster effects

  10. Measuring volatility • Big foot effect: STDev of M-M and Q-Q changes • Thresholds: 0.25 / 0.63 • Pitchingeffect:% signinversions • Threshold: 20% • Roller coastereffect: % double large inversions • Large: ≥0.2 p.p. for M, ≥ 0.3 p.p. for Q • Threshold: 0%

  11. Measuring revisions • Focus on last data point (headline) • Averageabsoluterevision of the level • Maxabsoluterevision of the level • STDevrevisionM-M change • % signinconsistency of M-M changes Whichthresholds?

  12. Turning point identification

  13. Unemployment rate: delay in the identification of turning points (monthly vintages)

  14. Summary: no perfect approach

  15. How to discriminate? • Do we focus on the right qualityconcerns? • Syntheticindicator or scoreboard? • Whichindicators? • Whichthresholds for acceptance? • Whichweights for indicatorsand qualitydimensions?

  16. Possible synthetic indicator: RMSE volatility + revisions

  17. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION AND YOUR FEEDBACK nicola.massarelli@ec.europa.eu

More Related