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. The name is absent2. Mean Variance Optimization of Non-Linear Systems and Worst-case Analysis
3. Why unwinding preferences is not the same as liberalisation: the case of sugar
4. The name is absent
5. HACCP AND MEAT AND POULTRY INSPECTION
6. Financial Development and Sectoral Output Growth in 19th Century Germany
7. The InnoRegio-program: a new way to promote regional innovation networks - empirical results of the complementary research -
8. A Regional Core, Adjacent, Periphery Model for National Economic Geography Analysis
9. CROSS-COMMODITY PERSPECTIVE ON CONTRACTING: EVIDENCE FROM MISSISSIPPI
10. The name is absent