Table 2: Within-Family Income Response by MCS Sweep
|
SWEEP ONE |
______________Partner respondent______________ | |||
|
don’t |
not |
income |
Total | |
|
Main don’t |
26.6% |
27.4% |
45.9% |
100% |
|
Respondent know/refusal |
16.6% |
2.4% |
1.9% |
2.8% |
|
128 |
147 |
189 |
464 | |
|
not applicable |
3.9% |
42.7% |
53.4% |
100% |
|
46.2% |
71.0% |
42.5% |
51.5% | |
|
418 |
5135 |
4711 |
10264 | |
|
income |
3.5% |
18.0% |
78.5% |
100% |
|
response |
37.2% |
26.6% |
55.6% |
45.9% |
|
278 |
1685 |
5861 |
7824 | |
|
total |
4.3% |
31.0% |
64.7% |
100% |
|
100% |
100% |
100% |
100% | |
|
824 |
6967 |
10761 |
18552 | |
|
SWEEP TWO |
______________Partner respondent______________ | |||
|
don’t |
not |
income |
Total | |
|
Main don’t |
26.7% |
29.0% |
44.3% |
100% |
|
Respondent know/refusal |
13.3% |
4.4% |
3.1% |
4.3% |
|
163 |
200 |
251 |
614 | |
|
not applicable |
9.6% |
36.5% |
54.0% |
100% |
|
49.3% |
58.1% |
38.6% |
45.1% | |
|
728 |
2982 |
3480 |
7190 | |
|
income |
6.5% |
21.0% |
72.5% |
100% |
|
response |
37.4% |
37.5% |
58.3% |
50.6% |
|
473 |
1697 |
4924 |
7094 | |
|
total |
8.7% |
28.4% |
62.9% |
100% |
|
100% |
100% |
100% |
100% | |
|
1364 |
4879 |
8655 |
14898 | |
NOTES:
1. weighted percentages, unweighted observations
2. each cell contains: row %, column % and observations
2.2 Across Sweeps 1 and 2
Table 3 shows the relationship between each respondents’ response to income
questions in sweeps one and two. This has been restricted to those who are the
same respondent across the two sweeps. The first panel contains the within
individual income response across the sweeps of the MCS for the main respondent.
If the main respondent provided income data in sweep one they are most likely to
provide income data at sweep two (79.9%). If the main respondent was not
applicable in sweep one they are largely not applicable in sweep two (74.4%). This
group is mostly those who have not been in the labour market at each of the two
sweeps. The main respondent was more likely not to report their income in sweep
two (4.4%) than in sweep one (2.6%).
The second panel contains the within individual income respondent across sweeps of
the MCS for the partner respondent. If the partner responded to income at sweep
More intriguing information
1. DEVELOPING COLLABORATION IN RURAL POLICY: LESSONS FROM A STATE RURAL DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL2. Unemployment in an Interdependent World
3. The name is absent
4. Party Groups and Policy Positions in the European Parliament
5. Examining the Regional Aspect of Foreign Direct Investment to Developing Countries
6. Proceedings from the ECFIN Workshop "The budgetary implications of structural reforms" - Brussels, 2 December 2005
7. Konjunkturprognostiker unter Panik: Kommentar
8. Declining Discount Rates: Evidence from the UK
9. The name is absent
10. Explaining Growth in Dutch Agriculture: Prices, Public R&D, and Technological Change