The name is absent



Table 2: Within-Family Income Response by MCS Sweep

SWEEP ONE

______________Partner respondent______________

don’t
know/refusal

not
applicable

income
response

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
know/refusal

not
applicable

income
response

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 absent
2. TWENTY-FIVE YEARS OF RESEARCH ON WOMEN FARMERS IN AFRICA: LESSONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS; WITH AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
3. Dual Inflation Under the Currency Board: The Challenges of Bulgarian EU Accession
4. Nurses' retention and hospital characteristics in New South Wales, CHERE Discussion Paper No 52
5. Disentangling the Sources of Pro-social Behavior in the Workplace: A Field Experiment
6. Manufacturing Earnings and Cycles: New Evidence
7. Testing Hypotheses in an I(2) Model with Applications to the Persistent Long Swings in the Dmk/$ Rate
8. Giant intra-abdominal hydatid cysts with multivisceral locations
9. ISSUES AND PROBLEMS OF IMMEDIATE CONCERN
10. Announcement effects of convertible bond loans versus warrant-bond loans: An empirical analysis for the Dutch market
11. Stakeholder Activism, Managerial Entrenchment, and the Congruence of Interests between Shareholders and Stakeholders
12. The name is absent
13. Tax systems and tax reforms in Europe: Rationale and open issue for more radical reforms
14. Telecommuting and environmental policy - lessons from the Ecommute program
15. Accurate and robust image superresolution by neural processing of local image representations
16. Sustainability of economic development and governance patterns in water management - an overview on the reorganisation of public utilities in Campania, Italy, under EU Framework Directive in the field of water policy (2000/60/CE)
17. The name is absent
18. Educational Inequalities Among School Leavers in Ireland 1979-1994
19. Examining the Regional Aspect of Foreign Direct Investment to Developing Countries
20. The name is absent