IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/vrs/offsta/v38y2022i4p1205-1234n14.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Determination of the Threshold in Cutoff Sampling Using Response Burden with an Application to Intrastat

Author

Listed:
  • Polanec Sašo

    (School of Economics and Business, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.)

  • Smith Paul A.

    (Department of Social Statistics and Demography, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.)

  • Bavdaž Mojca

    (School of Economics and Business, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.)

Abstract

Statistical offices frequently use cutoff sampling to determine which businesses in a population should be surveyed. Examples include business surveys about international trade, production, innovation, ICT usage and so on. Cutoff thresholds are typically set in terms of key variables of interest and aim to satisfy a minimum coverage ratio–the share of aggregate values of reporting units. In this article we propose a simple cost-benefit approach to determination of the sampling cutoff by taking into account the response burden. In line with existing practice, we use the coverage ratio as our measure of accuracy and provide either analytical or numerical solutions to cutoff determination. Using a business survey on response burden of reporting trade flows within the EU (Intrastat), we present an application that illustrates our approach to cutoff determination. An important practical implication is the possibility to set industry-contingent cutoffs.

Suggested Citation

  • Polanec Sašo & Smith Paul A. & Bavdaž Mojca, 2022. "Determination of the Threshold in Cutoff Sampling Using Response Burden with an Application to Intrastat," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 38(4), pages 1205-1234, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:vrs:offsta:v:38:y:2022:i:4:p:1205-1234:n:14
    DOI: 10.2478/jos-2022-0051
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.2478/jos-2022-0051
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2478/jos-2022-0051?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Luís M B Cabral & José Mata, 2003. "On the Evolution of the Firm Size Distribution: Facts and Theory," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(4), pages 1075-1090, September.
    2. Marco Bee & Stefano Schiavo, 2018. "Powerless: gains from trade when firm productivity is not Pareto distributed," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 154(1), pages 15-45, February.
    3. John M. Abowd & Ian M. Schmutte, 2019. "An Economic Analysis of Privacy Protection and Statistical Accuracy as Social Choices," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(1), pages 171-202, January.
    4. Sophie Baillargeon & Louis‐Paul Rivest, 2009. "A General Algorithm for Univariate Stratification," International Statistical Review, International Statistical Institute, vol. 77(3), pages 331-344, December.
    5. Raymond Chaudron & Krit Carlier, 2015. "The advantages of random sampling versus cutting-of-the-tail: the application of a stratified sample design for the collection of data on special financial institutions in the Netherlands," IFC Bulletins chapters, in: Bank for International Settlements (ed.), Indicators to support monetary and financial stability analysis: data sources and statistical methodologies, volume 39, Bank for International Settlements.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ruben Dewitte & Michel Dumont & Glenn Rayp & Peter Willemé, 2022. "Unobserved heterogeneity in the productivity distribution and gains from trade," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(3), pages 1566-1597, August.
    2. Monika Mrázová & J. Peter Neary & Mathieu Parenti, 2021. "Sales and Markup Dispersion: Theory and Empirics," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 89(4), pages 1753-1788, July.
    3. Alexandre Janiak & Paulo Santos Monteiro, 2011. "Inflation and Welfare in Long‐Run Equilibrium with Firm Dynamics," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 43(5), pages 795-834, August.
    4. Rui Baptista & Joana Mendonça, 2010. "Proximity to knowledge sources and the location of knowledge-based start-ups," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 45(1), pages 5-29, August.
    5. Ayyagari, Meghana & Demirguc-Kunt, Asli & Maksimovic, Vojislav, 2014. "Does local financial development matter for firm lifecycle in India ?," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7008, The World Bank.
    6. Antoine Gervais, 2015. "Product quality, firm heterogeneity and trade liberalization," The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(4), pages 523-541, June.
    7. Alexander Monge-Naranjo, 2009. "Entrepreneurship and firm heterogeneity with limited enforcement," Annals of Finance, Springer, vol. 5(3), pages 465-494, June.
    8. Alessandra Bonfiglioli & Rosario Crinò & Gino Gancia, 2018. "Firms and Economic Performance: A view from Trade," Working Papers 1034, Barcelona School of Economics.
    9. Elsa Morais Sarmento & Alcina Nunes, 2011. "Survival dynamics in Portugal, a regional perspective," ERSA conference papers ersa10p1313, European Regional Science Association.
    10. Georg Götz, 2005. "Market Size, Technology Choice, and the Existence of Free-Entry Cournot Equilibrium," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 161(3), pages 503-521, September.
    11. Kim Huynh & David Jacho-Chávez & Robert Petrunia & Marcel Voia, 2015. "A nonparametric analysis of firm size, leverage and labour productivity distribution dynamics," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 337-360, February.
    12. Breinlich, Holger, 2008. "Trade liberalization and industrial restructuring through mergers and acquisitions," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 254-266, December.
    13. Angelo Secchi & Federico Tamagni & Chiara Tomasi, 2016. "Financial constraints and firm exports: accounting for heterogeneity, self-selection, and endogeneity," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 25(5), pages 813-827.
    14. Luc Laeven & Christopher Woodruff, 2007. "The Quality of the Legal System, Firm Ownership, and Firm Size," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 89(4), pages 601-614, November.
    15. Cristina Fernández & Roberta García & Paloma Lopez-Garcia & Benedicta Marzinotto & Roberta Serafini & Juuso Vanhala & Ladislav Wintr, 2017. "Firm growth in Europe: An overview based on the COMPNET labour module," BCL working papers 107, Central Bank of Luxembourg.
    16. Heinrich, Torsten & Yang, Jangho & Dai, Shuanping, 2020. "Growth, development, and structural change at the firm-level: The example of the PR China," MPRA Paper 105011, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Opromolla, Luca David & Dell’Era, Michele & Santos-Pinto, Luis, 2018. "A General Equilibrium Theory of Occupational Choice under Optimistic Beliefs about Entrepreneurial Ability," CEPR Discussion Papers 13225, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    18. William R. Kerr & Ramana Nanda, 2010. "Banking Deregulations, Financing Constraints, and Firm Entry Size," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 8(2-3), pages 582-593, 04-05.
    19. Alex Coad, 2018. "Firm age: a survey," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 13-43, January.
    20. Segarra, Agustí & Teruel, Mercedes, 2012. "An appraisal of firm size distribution: Does sample size matter?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 314-328.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:vrs:offsta:v:38:y:2022:i:4:p:1205-1234:n:14. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.sciendo.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.