1. Methodology
Download icon

Cross-validating administrative and survey datasets through microsimulation

  1. Philippe Liégeois  Is a corresponding author
  2. Frédéric Berger  Is a corresponding author
  3. Nizamul Islam  Is a corresponding author
  4. Raymond Wagener  Is a corresponding author
  1. CEPS/INSTEAD, Belgium
  2. CEPS/INSTEAD
  3. Inspection Générale de la Sécurité Sociale (IGSS), Luxembourg
Research article
Volume 4(1) Spring 2011
Cite this article as: P. Liégeois, F. Berger, N. Islam, R. Wagener; 2011; Cross-validating administrative and survey datasets through microsimulation; International Journal of Microsimulation; 4(1); 54-71. doi: 10.34196/ijm.00045
1 figure and 8 tables

Figures

Figure 1
Download asset Open asset
Relative change in mean equivalised income due to the tax reform, by decile (*)

Source: PSELL3/EU-SILC, 2004, Luxembourg Social Security Data Warehouse, 2003, and EUROMOD computations

(*) Deciles of equivalised income distributions are determined with and without tax reform, separately, and then compared.

Tables

Table 1
Adaptation of survey and administrative datasets to enhance comparability.
Topic Survey-based data Administrative-based data Action / Remarks
Number of individuals before the adaptation process 443,642 (weighted) 449,025 Some information about cross-border workers available in administrative data but not in survey data; hence initially dropped in the former, leading to 449,025 cases
Unit of analysis Resident household Fiscal household All comparisons and actions to be based on fiscal households
Institutional households Not included Included but cannot be identified None (**)
International civil servants Included Excluded but may happen that household’s members still within the data (**) Administrative-based data : Drop cases (*) if a married partner announced despite absence from the data (***) Survey-based data : Drop cases (*) if a member of the household not socially insured in GDL (***)
Voluntarily insured Included but cannot be identified Included and can be identified (but earnings not reliable) (**) Drop cases (*) in administrative-based data if a member of the household voluntarily insured
Capital income and private transfers Information collected Unknown Variables set to ‘0’ in survey-based data
Income from agriculture Information collected Information available (but earnings not reliable) Drop cases (*)
Number of individuals left after the present adaptation process 419,030 (weighted) 418,749 Administrative-based data : 7% cases dropped Survey-based data : 5% cases dropped
  1. (*)

    ‘Drop cases’ should be understood as ‘Drop all fiscal household’s members’ if the condition is fulfilled. Dropping individuals separately (hence partially depriving households of members) would bias computations of equivalised disposable income (see infra), at-risk-of-poverty rates, and other computations that are based on (fiscal) households as a whole.

  2. (**)

    This decision, despite its necessity, generates some (or is unsuccessful in removing all sources of) non-comparability between datasets.

  3. (***)

    This is most probably due to an ‘international civil servant’ status (a proxy only). For example, as a proxy for “institutional households”.

Table 2
Equivalised income and the unit of analysis.
Household ID Individual characteristics Equivalised income
Resident Fiscal ID Age Status Net earnings Weight Resident Fiscal
Resident Fiscal
IA145Unmarried partner (father)2,110111,7002,110
IB242Unmarried partner (mother)1,8000.511,7001,000
IB320Child (student)00.50.51,7001,000
IB413Child (student)00.30.31,7001,000
Table 3
Comparing EUROMOD datasets when unit of analysis is the HOUSEHOLD.
Characteristics Categories Survey-based EUROMOD data Administrative-based EUROMOD data (fiscal households only)
Resident households Fiscal households
Number of households Raw data (i) 3,296 4,274 212,578
Weighted count (i) 169,620 205,802
Number of fiscal households in the resident household 1 80% (ii) Not available Not available
2 17% Not available Not available
3 or more 2% Not available Not available
Number of persons in the household 1 30% 47% 50%
2 28% 25% 24%
3 or 4 33% 23% 21%
5 or more 9% 5% 5%
Number of workers (iii) in the household 0 30% 34% 35%
1 40% 48% 47%
2 or more 29% 18% 17%
Type of household Single (< 65) 19% 35% 37%
Single (> 65) 11% 12% 14%
Single with dependent(s) (iv) 7% 6% 5%
Couple – 0 dependent 63% 21% 20%
Couple – 1–2 dependent(s) 20% 20%
Couple – 3 dependents or more 5% 5%
Others Not relevant Not relevant
  1. (i)

    Raw data: number of surveyed households; Weighted counts: households’ weights (from PSELL3/EU-SILC survey) taken into account

  2. (ii)

    All results below given in % of total number of households (households’ weights taken into account)

  3. (iii)

    Employer, self-employed, or employee (from the employment status)

  4. (iv)

    Dependent: neither head of household nor partner in a couple

  5. Guide to reader: 3,296 resident households’ characteristics are reported from the 2004 PSELL3/EU-SILC in the EUROMOD survey-based dataset, ‘representing’ 169,620 resident households within the population; 19% of the resident households (household weights taken into account) are composed of one person who is less than 65 years old; 17% are composed of 2 fiscal households.

Table 4
Comparing EUROMOD datasets when the unit of analysis is the INDIVIDUAL: Non-monetary characteristics.
Characteristics Categories Survey-based EUROMOD data Administrative-based EUROMOD data
Number of persons Raw data (i) 8,657 418,749
Weighted count (i) 419,030
Gender Female 50.7% 50.5%
Male 49.3% 49.5%
Age Age < 18 22% 22%
18 <= Age < 59 59% 59%
Age >= 60 19% 20%
Type of household Single (< 65) 17% 19%
Single (> 65) 6% 7%
Single with dependent(s) (ii) 7% 6%
Couple – 0 dependent 21% 21%
Couple – 1–2 dependent(s) 35% 35%
Couple – 3 dependents or more 14% 12%
Number of workers (iii) in the household 0 25% 26%
1 45% 45%
2 or more 30% 29%
  1. (i)

    Raw data: number of surveyed individuals; Weighted counts: individual weights (from PSELL3/EU-SILC survey) taken into account.

  2. (ii)

    Dependent: neither head of household nor partner in a couple.

  3. (iii)

    Employer, self-employed, or employee (from the employment status).

Table 5
Comparing EUROMOD datasets when the unit of analysis is the INDIVIDUAL: Monetary characteristics, on average (in EUR / month).
Monetary variables Survey-based data Ratio: Fiscal/Resident Administrative- based data
Resident households Fiscal households
Primary income (excluding capital income) (mean) 1,493
[1,416 – 1,570]		 Not relevant 1,384
Capital income (mean) 78 Not relevant Not available in source data
Standard disposable income (excluding capital income) (mean) 1,644 Not relevant 1,579
Total household primary income (excluding capital income) (mean) 4,489 3,900 0.913 3,561
Total household disposable income (excluding capital income) (mean) 4,715 4,068 0.863 3,822
OECD equivalent weight (mean) 1.96 1.77 0.903 1.74
OECD equivalised income Mean 2,444 2,314 0.947 2,200
Median 2,219 2,095 0.944 1,975
Poverty line (60% of the median) 1,331 1,257 [1,237 – 1,277] 0.944 1,185

  1. Source: PSELL3/EU-SILC, 2004, Luxembourg Social Security Data Warehouse, 2003, and EUROMOD computations

    Notes:

    All amounts based on the 2003 income distribution; Values in square brackets = 95 % ‘bootstrap’ confidence intervals (500 replications) calculated using STATA

    Primary income = gross earnings (all sources), before employee social contributions and income taxation, excluding public pensions and social benefits (i.e. gross employment income and self-employment income + gross investment and property income + maintenance payments + gross private pension benefits + apprentice income)

    Capital income = gross property income + gross investment income

    Standard disposable income = primary income – employee social contributions – income taxes + social benefits in cash (Reminder: the capital income is here excluded from computations)

    Total household disposable income – attributed to each member in conformity with the computation of the equivalised household income

Table 6
Comparing EUROMOD datasets when the unit of analysis is the INDIVIDUAL: Inequality indicators and redistribution effects of the tax system (*)
Inequality indicators Survey-based EEROAIOD data Administrative-based EUROMOD data
Without tax reform (A) With tax reform (B) Without tax reform (C) With tax reform (D)
Gini before tax (i)
(1)		 0.297 0.299
Gini after tax (ii)
(2)		 0.231 0.245 [0.238−0.251] (iii) 0.233 0.248
ΔG
(3) = (1) – (2) = (4) – (5)		 0.067 0.053 0.066 0.051
Reynolds-Smolesnsky index of vertical equity
(4) = (6)*((7)/1-(7))		 0.068 0.054 0.067 0.052
Re-ranking Index of horizontal inequity 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
Kakwani index of tax progressivity 0.342 0.411 0.357 0.430
Rate (iv)
(7)		 0.166 0.115 0.158 0.108
P75/P25 1.721 1.811 [1.772 − 1.850] 1.739 1.823
P90/P10 2.741 2.917 [2.836 − 2.998] 2.720 2.907
Atkinson index
(inequality aversion = 0.5)		 0.042 0.047 [0.045 − 0.050] 0.045 0.051
Atkinson Index
(inequality aversion = 2)		 0.151 0.168 [0.160 − 0.177] 0.207 0.226
  1. (*)

    Based on the distribution of individual equivalised income in 2003; When applying formula, rounding effects observed sometimes

  2. (i)

    Based on the individual equivalised income when all taxes dropped = household total disposable income if no tax / equivalent weight of the household (see Section 2.3)

  3. (ii)

    Based on the individual equivalised income when all taxes included (normal case)

  4. (iii)

    95% STATA ‘bootstrap’ confidence intervals (500 replications)

  5. (iv)

    Average taxation rate, based on the distribution of equivalised income

Table 7
At-risk-of-poverty rates and distribution of categorical populations over income quintiles and deciles (based on equivalised income determined through the ‘fiscal households’ framework).
Characte-ristics Categories Data (*) Share in total population Poverty rate Share of categorical populations between equivalised income QUINTILES (Q1-Q5), with lowest and highest DECILES (D1, D10) also mentioned (**)
D1 Q1Q2 Q3Q4 Q5 D10
All Adm 100.0% 9.6% 10.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 10.0%
Survey 100.0% 11.5% 10.1% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 10.0%
Gender Female Adm 50.5% 9.6% 9.9% 20.7% 20.0% 20.5% 20.0% 18.9% 9.4%
Survey 50.7% 11.4% 10.1% 20.2% 20.4% 20.2% 20.9% 18.2% 8.8%
Male Adm 49.5% 9.7% 10.1% 19.3% 20.0% 19.5% 20.0% 21.1% 10.6%
Survey 49.3% 11.6% 10.0% 19.8% 19.6% 19.7% 19.2% 21.8% 11.1%
Age Age < 18 Adm 21.5% 12.1% 12.4% 22.6% 21.9% 18.8% 18.4% 18.3% 8.5%
Survey 22.4% 17.0% 14.4% 25.8% 19.0% 18.7% 17.9% 18.5% 8.5%
18 <= Age < 60 Adm 58.8% 11.0% H.6% 20.1% 18.4% 17.8% 20.0% 23.6% 1272%
Survey 58.9% 12.1% 11.1% 19.1% 19.0% 18.3% 20.5% 23.1% 11.6%
Age >= 60 Adm 19.7% 2.7% 247% 16.8% 22.6% 27.9% 21.6% 11.1% 5.1%
Survey 18.7% 2.9% 1.7% 15.8% 24.4% 26.9% 21.0% 11.8% 6.5%
Type of household Single (< 65) Adm 18.6% 13.5% 1447% 27.4% 17.5% 15.5% 19.8% 19.8% 9.0%
Survey 17.3% 13.6% 13.4% 24.7% 17.6% 15.5% 20.9% 21.2% 10.0%
Single (>= 65) Adm 6.9% 3.5% 3.5% 23.4% 14.0% 26.6% 27.5% 8.4% 3.0%
Survey 6.0% 1.7% 1.7% 18.5% 20.0% 26.0% 27.2% 8.6% 3.4%
Single with dependent(s) Adm 6.4% 24.8% 25.3% 40.6% 20.8% 15.9% 14.5% 8.2% 3.0%
Survey 7.5% 26.8% 23.6% 41.5% 26.3% 10.2% 13.0% 9.0% 2.1%
Couple−0 dependent Adm 20.8% 3.5% 3.6% 11.8% 22.0% 23.4% 18.8% 24.0% 14.2%
Survey 20.5% 4.7% 3.1% 13.2% 23.0% 24.1% 18.1% 21.6% 14.8%
Couple – 1–2 dependent(s) Adm 35.2% 9.4% 9.6% 15.1% 19.2% 20.2% 21.5% 24.0% H.9%
Survey 35.2% 11.2% 10.4% 15.8% 18.0% 20.1% 22.6% 23.5% 11.0%
Couple – 3 dependents or more Adm 12.1% 10.2% 10.6% 24.0% 25.7% 18.9% 16.6% 14.7% 6.4%
Survey 13.5% 15.8% 11.8% 24.2% 20.3% 21.9% 15.9% 17.7% 7.1%
Number of workers in the household 0 Adm 26.0% 9.4% 9.5% 26.2% 23.3% 25.1% 18.3% 7.1% 2.5%
Survey 24.8% 13.6% 11.8% 29.2% 24.5% 22.7% 17.2% 6.5% 3.4%
1 Adm 44.7% 11.9% 12.6% 22.2% 19.8% 18.7% 20.3% 19.1% 8.8%
Survey 45.2% 15.0% 14.2% 22.4% 20.3% 20.2% 18.6% 18.4% 8.3%
2 or more Adm 29.3% 6.4% 6.5% 11.2% 17.4% 17.4% 21.2% 32.9% 18.4%
Survey 30.0% 4.5% 2.4% 8.8% 15.8% 17.4% 24.6% 33.4% 17.9%

  1. Source: PSELL3/EU-SILC, 2004, Luxembourg Social Security Data Warehouse, 2003, and EUROMOD computations Notes:

  2. (*)

    ‘Adm’ = Administrative-based EUROMOD input data ’Survey’ = Survey-based EUROMOD input data

  3. (**)

    Income deciles/quintiles as evaluated over the whole population (not the category only); the unit of analysis is the individual; income in 2003; proportions rounded to the closest percentage point: the resulting total may differ from 100%

  4. Guide to reader: 20% of the ‘couples with 1 or 2 dependent(s)’ belong to the third quintile of the population equivalised income distribution

Table 8
Distribution of equivalised income, in % of overall means (determined through the ‘fiscal households’ framework).
Characteristics Categories Data (*) Share of tax payers Mean equivalised income, for the overall population (in EUR) or in % of the population average (**)
All QUINTILES (Q1-Q5), lowest and highest DECILES (D1, D10)
D1 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Q5 D10
All Adm 75.6% 2,200 46.7% 52.0% 70.2% 89.8% 112.7% 175.3% 209.3%
Survey 77.1% 2,314 46.3% 51.8% 71.6% 90.0% 112.5% 174.2% 208.1%
Gender Female Adm 73.2% 99% 47.1% 52.5% 70.3% 89.9% 112.4% 174.4% 208.0%
Survey 75.2% 98% 47.4% 52.4% 71.4% 90.2% 112.2% 172.7% 206.9%
Male Adm 78.1% 101% 46.3% 51.4% 70.2% 89.7% 112.9% 176.2% 210.5%
Survey 79.0% 102% 45.2% 51.2% 71.7% 89.8% 112.9% 175.6% 209.1%
Age Age < 18 Adm 59.1% 96% 49.8% 53.0% 69.8% 89.5% 113.0% 170.4% ‘204.0%
Survey 59.9% 95% 49.1% 52.6% 70.6% 90.0% 111.7% 168.9% 203.9%
18 <= Age ̼ 60 Adm 78.7% 103% 45.4% 50.2% 70.0% 89.7% 113.3% 175.6% 207.4%
Survey 80.4% 103% 44.8% 50.1% 71.7% 89.9% 113.4% 175.0% 208.7%
Age >= 60 Adm 84.5% 95% 47.4% 56.6% 71.2% 90.1% 110.5% 182.4% 232.9%
Survey 87.2% 95% 49.2% 56.7% 72.3% 90.4% 110.6% 179.4% 211.4%
Type of household Single (< 65) Adm 91.3% 96% 40.1% 47.8% 69.6% 90.0% 113.5% 171.6% 207.2%
Survey 91.7% 99% 38.6% 47.3% 71.7% 90.3% 113.2% 174.0% 212.3%
Single (>= 65) Adm 62.0% 92% 47.7% 57.6% 70.7% 91.0% 110.5% 164.4% 205.9%
Survey 66.9% 92% 48.0% 56.7% 72.7% 91.3% 110.1% 162.1% 191.1%
Single with dependent(s) Adm 31.9% 79% 49.1% 52.0% 69.2% 89.5% 112.5% 162.7% 202.9%
Survey 31.5% 78% 47.8% 51.9% 70.6% 90.8% 112.6% 159.7% 213.5%
Couple – 0 dependent Adm 93.1% 109% 47.6% 54.3% 71.3% 89.7% 112.0% 186.6% 217.7%
Survey 92.7% 106% 47.6% 55.1% 71.7% 89.7% 113.2% 187.5% 207.9%
Couple – 1–2 dependent(s) Adm 74.3% 105% 49.2% 52.1% 70.4% 89.7% 113.0% 172.7% 204.4%
Survey 76.3% 105% 48.0% 51.5% 71.4% 90.0% 112.5% 172.1% 208.5%
Couple – 3 dependents or more Adm 56.3% 92% 50.1% 53.9% 69.5% 89.2% 113.0% 171.2% 210.9%
Survey 66.1% 94% 51.1% 53.7% 71.8% 89.4% 111.8% 163.9% 202.5%
Number of workers in the household 0 Adm 78.5% 84% 43.1% 52.5% 70.7% 89.9% 110.4% 157.4% 189.3%
Survey 76.8% 83% 40.9% 50.9% 72.1% 90.2% 110.7% 163.5% 186.0%
1 Adm 70.0% 98% 47.5% 51.5% 69.9% 89.8% 113.1% 175.0% 214.4%
Survey 70.4% 97% 48.5% 51.7% 71.2% 89.8% 112.6% 171.7% 210.0%
2 or more Adm 81.7% 117% 48.8% 52.3% 70.3% 89.6% 113.7% 179.1% 208.1%
Survey 87.4% 119% 48.5% 54.7% 71.7% 90.4% 113.5% 178.0% 210.3%

  1. Source: PSELL3/EU-SILC, 2004, Luxembourg Social Security Data Warehouse, 2003, and EUROMOD computations Notes :

  2. (*)

    ‘Adm’ = Administrative-based EUROMOD input data ’Survey’ = Survey-based EUROMOD input data

  3. (**)

    Average income for individuals belonging to the decile/quintile as evaluated over the whole population (not the category only); the unit of analysis is the individual; income in 2003

  4. Guide to reader: ’Singles less than 65 years old’ in the 1st decile benefit from a mean equivalised income of 40.1% * 2,200 EUR = 882.2 EUR / month through ‘Adm’ data

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Download citations (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)