The name is absent



Table 1 summarises the income response for sweeps one and two by type of
respondent: original sample, new families and proxy respondents. Both the „new
family’ respondents and the proxy respondents have higher rates of non-response
among the eligible sample than the original sample (Tables 1(b) and 1(c)). The lower
response with the proxy is to be expected as the main respondent is less likely to
know the partner’s actual earnings than the partner themselves. We shall focus on
the responses from the original sample for the rest of the paper.

Table 2 shows the relationship between main and partner respondents’ responses to
the income questions at each sweep for the original sample. The first panel contains
the within family income response for MCS1. We can see that if the main respondent
responds to the income question then the partner is also most likely to respond to
their income question (78.5%). If the main respondent does not respond to the
income question then 26.6% of partners also do not respond. A similar pattern of
results is found for MCS2.

Table 1: Pattern of Income Non-Response, MCS sweeps 1 and 2

(a) Original Sample

Swee

p One

Swee

p Two

Main

Partner

Main

Partner

income response

45.9%

64.7%

50.6%

62.9%

don’t know/refusal

2.7%

4.3%

4.4%

8.7%

not applicable

51.5%

31.0%

45.1%

28.4%

sample

__________18552__________

__________14898__________

(b) Sweep Two including New Families

New Families Only

All Families (New &
Original)

Main

Partner

Main

Partner

income response

27.9%

42.4%

49.5%

61.9%

don’t know/refusal

5.7%

11.5%

4.4%

8.9%

not applicable

66.4%

46.2%

46.1%

29.3%

Sample

____________692____________

___________15590___________

(c) Proxy

Sweep One

Sweep Two

income response

32.9%

59.3%

don’t know/refusal

22.0%

39.6%

not applicable

45.1%

1.1%

sample

___________338___________

___________226___________

NOTES:

1. weighted percentages, unweighted observations

The second panel contains the within family income response for sweep two of the
MCS. Similar patterns to panel one can be seen. However, we can see that there
are generally larger proportions of respondents in each cell who don’t know or refuse
to respond to the income questions.



More intriguing information

1. The name is absent
2. The name is absent
3. The name is absent
4. Fiscal federalism and Fiscal Autonomy: Lessons for the UK from other Industrialised Countries
5. On the job rotation problem
6. Monetary Policy News and Exchange Rate Responses: Do Only Surprises Matter?
7. Partner Selection Criteria in Strategic Alliances When to Ally with Weak Partners
8. What Contribution Can Residential Field Courses Make to the Education of 11-14 Year-olds?
9. The name is absent
10. Washington Irving and the Knickerbocker Group
11. Subduing High Inflation in Romania. How to Better Monetary and Exchange Rate Mechanisms?
12. Wirkt eine Preisregulierung nur auf den Preis?: Anmerkungen zu den Wirkungen einer Preisregulierung auf das Werbevolumen
13. The name is absent
14. Graphical Data Representation in Bankruptcy Analysis
15. Impacts of Tourism and Fiscal Expenditure on Remote Islands in Japan: A Panel Data Analysis
16. Feeling Good about Giving: The Benefits (and Costs) of Self-Interested Charitable Behavior
17. The name is absent
18. Types of Tax Concessions for Promoting Investment in Free Economic and Trade Areas
19. Effects of red light and loud noise on the rate at which monkeys sample the sensory environment
20. Strategic Investment and Market Integration