Sampling Errors in the Family Expenditure Survey

Kemsley, W. F. F.

doi:10.2307/2985629

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 5 publications

(5 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These formulae give the errors for a simple random sample: the F.E.S. is a two-stage sample and the standard errors are somewhat higher (see Kemsley, 1966). In interpreting some of the lowest earnings, e.g.…”

Section: £20·19mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Distribution of Earnings of Employees in Great Britain

Thatcher¹

1968

Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Frequency distributions of the wages and salaries of individual employees can be obtained from wagecensuses, tax records and the Family Expenditure Survey. These various sources are described and compared. Some old and new data are presented which illustrate current variations in earnings and also confirm previous findings. Some of the main distributions are of the lognormal and Champernowne forms, and their relative dispersions show a very marked stability over time. In the case of manual workers, the weekly and hourly earnings of both men and women appear to have almost identical distributions, apart from scale factors. Existing theories do not seem to provide a complete explanation of the empirical results. 1968]THATCHER -Distribution of Earnings of Employees 135 3. SOURCES OF DATA The Board of Trade and Ministry ofLabour SurveysThe earliest surveys of the distribution of weekly earnings were known as "Wage Censuses". These were confined to manual workers, and were made by obtaining details from large numbers of employers about the earnings of each of the manual workers on their payrolls. This method was first used by the Board of Trade in 1886. Owingto the expense involved, full-scale surveys of this type have been very infrequent and only three others have been held, in 1906, 1938 and 1960. Their coverage was extensivebut not complete: in particular they did not include agriculture, coal mining, distributive trades or miscellaneous services, though in 1960 distributions for coal miners and agricultural workers were available separately.

show abstract

Section: £20·19mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…showed a misleadingly large increase in earnings per household between 1965 and 1966-as was explained in both the report and in accompanying press notices. It has been estimated by Kemsley (1966) that the standard error of the average earnings per household in a particular year is about 2 per cent. )…”

Section: --45mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Distribution of Earnings of Employees in Great Britain

Thatcher¹

1968

Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Abel‐Smith and Townsend's conclusions were based on the analysis of a sample of the returns to the 1953–1954 and 1960 Ministry of Labour household expenditure surveys. The surveys themselves, known collectively from 1957 to 2001 as the Family Expenditure Survey (FES), were sufficiently innovative to attract methodological scrutiny in this journal: see, for instance, Kemsley (, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Poor and the Poorest, 50 years on: Evidence from British Household Expenditure Surveys of the 1950s and 1960s

Gazeley

Rufrancos

Newell

et al. 2016

Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We re-explore Abel-Smith and Townsend's landmark study of poverty in early post WW2 Britain. They found a large increase in poverty between 1953-4 and 1960, a period of relatively strong economic growth. Our re-examination is a first exploitation of the data extracted from the recent digitisation of the Ministry of Labour's Enquiry into Household Expenditure in 1953-4. First we closely replicate their results. We find that Abel-Smith and Townsend's method generated a greater rise in poverty than other reasonable methods. Using contemporary standard poverty lines, we find that the relative poverty rate grew only a little at most, and the absolute poverty rate fell, between 1953-4 and 1961, as might be expected in a period of rising real incomes and steady inequality. We also extend the poverty rate time series of Goodman and Webb (1995) back to 1953-4.

show abstract

Sampling Errors in the Family Expenditure Survey

Cited by 2 publications

References 5 publications

The Distribution of Earnings of Employees in Great Britain

The Distribution of Earnings of Employees in Great Britain

The Poor and the Poorest, 50 years on: Evidence from British Household Expenditure Surveys of the 1950s and 1960s

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About