The name is absent



one they are highly likely to respond to income in the second sweep (91.2%). There
are only 82 cases in sweep two that are not applicable. Finally if the partner
respondent did not respond to the income questions at sweep one, 35.2% also
refused at sweep two, a higher proportion than for the main respondent (17.9%).

Tables 2 and 3 tell us that there are substantial within household correlations in
response behaviour: item non-response by the main respondent predicts item non-
response by the partner. There are also important within individual correlations
across sweeps: a don’t know or refusal at sweep two is more likely if there was a
don’t know or refusal at sweep one. On the other hand, both Tables 2 and 3 show
considerable movement across response categories: a don’t know or refusal by the
main respondent is more likely to be accompanied by a response rather than a non-
response from the partner and those who are item non-respondents at sweep one
are more likely than not to be respondents at sweep two.

Table 3: Within Individual Income Response across MCS Sweeps

MAIN

______________Sweep Two______________

don’t
know/refusal

not
applicable

income
response

Total

Sweep One        don’t

17.9%

26.7%

55.4%

100%

know/refusal

10.4%

1.5%

2.8%

2.6%

64

87

206

357

not applicable

2.9%

74.4%

22.8%

100%

32.0%

82.5%

22.0%

49.3%

198

5920

1615

7733

income

5.3%

14.8%

79.9%

100%

response

57.6%

16.0%

75.2%

48.1%

347

953

5204

6504

total

4.4%

44.5%

51.1%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

609

6960

7025

14594

PARTNER

______________Sweep Two______________

don’t
know/refusal

not
applicable

income
response

Total

Sweep One        don’t

35.2%

0.4%

64.4%

100%

know/refusal

13.9%

4.3%

3.5%

4.7%

174

4

323

501

not applicable

22.9%

2.4%

74.7%

100%

27.1%

73.4%

12.0%

14.1%

421

59

1298

1778

income

8.7%

0.1%

91.2%

100%

response

59.0%

22.4%

84.5%

81.2%

707

19

6707

7433

total

11.9

0.5%

87.6%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

1302

82

8328

9712

NOTES:

1. weighted percentages, unweighted observations

2. each cell contains: row %, column % and observations

3. only including providing an interview at both sweeps one and two, therefore excluding unit non responders
at sweeps one and two

4. restricted to those who are the same main and partner respondents at both sweeps



More intriguing information

1. Dual Inflation Under the Currency Board: The Challenges of Bulgarian EU Accession
2. Measuring and Testing Advertising-Induced Rotation in the Demand Curve
3. The name is absent
4. How Offshoring Can Affect the Industries’ Skill Composition
5. The name is absent
6. Improving the Impact of Market Reform on Agricultural Productivity in Africa: How Institutional Design Makes a Difference
7. Moi individuel et moi cosmique Dans la pensee de Romain Rolland
8. The name is absent
9. Pupils’ attitudes towards art teaching in primary school: an evaluation tool
10. Social Cohesion as a Real-life Phenomenon: Exploring the Validity of the Universalist and Particularist Perspectives
11. The name is absent
12. WP RR 17 - Industrial relations in the transport sector in the Netherlands
13. AN ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF COTTON AND PEANUT RESEARCH IN SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES
14. On the Relation between Robust and Bayesian Decision Making
15. Does South Africa Have the Potential and Capacity to Grow at 7 Per Cent?: A Labour Market Perspective
16. Income Growth and Mobility of Rural Households in Kenya: Role of Education and Historical Patterns in Poverty Reduction
17. Clinical Teaching and OSCE in Pediatrics
18. A Rare Case Of Fallopian Tube Cancer
19. On Dictatorship, Economic Development and Stability
20. The Tangible Contribution of R&D Spending Foreign-Owned Plants to a Host Region: a Plant Level Study of the Irish Manufacturing Sector (1980-1996)