IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cen/wpaper/91-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Multiple Classification Systems For Economic Data: Can A Thousand Flowers Bloom? And Should They?

Author

Listed:
  • Robert H Mcguckin

Abstract

The principle that the statistical system should provide flexibility-- possibilities for generating multiple groupings of data to satisfy multiple objectives--if it is to satisfy users is universally accepted. Yet in practice, this goal has not been achieved. This paper discusses the feasibility of providing flexibility in the statistical system to accommodate multiple uses of the industrial data now primarily examined within the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system. In one sense, the question of feasibility is almost trivial. With today's computer technology, vast amounts of data can be manipulated and stored at very low cost. Reconfigurations of the basic data are very inexpensive compared to the cost of collecting the data. Flexibility in the statistical system implies more than the technical ability to regroup data. It requires that the basic data are sufficiently detailed to support user needs and are processed and maintained in a fashion that makes the use of a variety of aggregation rules possible. For this to happen, statistical agencies must recognize the need for high quality microdata and build this into their planning processes. Agencies need to view their missions from a multiple use perspective and move away from use of a primary reporting and collection vehicle. Although the categories used to report data must be flexible, practical considerations dictate that data collection proceed within a fixed classification system. It is simply too expensive for both respondents and statistical agencies to process survey responses in the absence of standardized forms, data entry programs, etc. I argue for a basic classification centered on commodities--products, services, raw materials and labor inputs--as the focus of data collection. The idea is to make the principle variables of interest--the commodities--the vehicle for the collection and processing of the data. For completeness, the basic classification should include labor usage through some form of occupational classification. In most economic surveys at the Census Bureau, the reporting unit and the classified unit have been the establishment. But there is no need for this to be so. The basic principle to be followed in data collection is that the data should be collected in the most efficient way--efficiency being defined jointly in terms of statistical agency collection costs and respondent burdens.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert H Mcguckin, 1991. "Multiple Classification Systems For Economic Data: Can A Thousand Flowers Bloom? And Should They?," Working Papers 91-8, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
  • Handle: RePEc:cen:wpaper:91-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www2.census.gov/ces/wp/1991/CES-WP-91-08.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stigler, George J & Sherwin, Robert A, 1985. "The Extent of the Market," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 28(3), pages 555-585, October.
      • Stigler, George J. & Sherwin, Robert A., 1983. "The Extent of the Market," Working Papers 31, The University of Chicago Booth School of Business, George J. Stigler Center for the Study of the Economy and the State.
    2. Maxwell R. Conklin & Harold T. Goldstein, 1955. "Census Principles of Industry and Product Classification, Manufacturing Industries," NBER Chapters, in: Business Concentration and Price Policy, pages 15-55, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Steven J. Davis & John Haltiwanger, 1990. "Gross Job Creation and Destruction: Microeconomic Evidence and Macroeconomic Implications," NBER Chapters, in: NBER Macroeconomics Annual 1990, Volume 5, pages 123-186, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. James L. Monahan & Frank M. Gollop, 1986. "From Homogeneity to Heterogeneity: An Index of Diversification," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 129, Boston College Department of Economics.
    5. Froeb, L.M. & Werden, G.J., 1991. "Correlation, Causality, and all that Jazz: The Inherent Shortcomings of Price Tests for Antitrust Market Delineation," Papers 91-6, U.S. Department of Justice - Antitrust Division.
    6. Werden, G.J., 1990. "Four Suggestions On Market Delineation," Papers 90-5, U.S. Department of Justice - Antitrust Division.
    7. Thomas A Abbott III & Stephen H Andrews, 1990. "The Classification of Manufacturing Industries: an Input-Based Clustering of Activity," Working Papers 90-7, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    8. Steven J. Davis & John C. Haltiwanger & Scott Schuh, 1998. "Job Creation and Destruction," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262540932, April.
    9. Gollop, Frank M & Monahan, James L, 1991. "A Generalized Index of Diversification: Trends in U.S. Manufacturing," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 73(2), pages 318-330, May.
    10. White, Lawrence J, 1987. "Antitrust and Merger Policy: A Review and Critique," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 1(2), pages 13-22, Fall.
    11. Robert H Mcguckin & George A Pascoe, 1988. "The Longitudinal Research Database (LRD): Status And Research Possibilities," Working Papers 88-2, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    12. Salop, Steven C, 1987. "Symposium on Mergers and Antitrust," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 1(2), pages 3-12, Fall.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Marilyn E. Manser, 1998. "Existing Labor Market Data: Current and Potential Research Uses," NBER Chapters, in: Labor Statistics Measurement Issues, pages 9-50, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    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. repec:eee:labchp:v:3:y:1999:i:pb:p:2711-2805 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Joe Mattey, 1993. "Evidence on IO Technology Assumptions From the Longitudinal Research Database," Working Papers 93-8, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    3. Robert H Mcguckin, 1993. "The Importance of Establishment Data in Economic Research," Working Papers 93-10, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    4. John Haltiwanger & Scott Schuh, 1999. "Gross job flows between plants and industries," New England Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, issue Mar, pages 41-64.
    5. J. David Brown & John S. Earle, 2002. "Job Reallocation and Productivity Growth under Alternative Economic Systems and Policies: Evidence from the Soviet Transition," CERT Discussion Papers 0208, Centre for Economic Reform and Transformation, Heriot Watt University.
    6. Oznur Ozdamar & Eleftherios Giovanis & Sahizer Samuk, 2020. "State business relations and the dynamics of job flows in Egypt and Turkey," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 10(4), pages 519-558, December.
    7. Andersson, Fredrik & Vejsiu, Altin, 2001. "Determinants of plant closures in Swedish manufacturing," Working Paper Series 2001:6, IFAU - Institute for Evaluation of Labour Market and Education Policy.
    8. John Abowd, 2002. "Unlocking the information in integrated social data," New Zealand Economic Papers, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(1), pages 9-31.
    9. Böckers, Veit & Heimeshoff, Ulrich, 2014. "The extent of European power markets," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 102-111.
    10. Yoonsoo Lee, 2006. "Relocation patterns in U.S. manufacturing," Working Papers (Old Series) 0624, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland.
    11. Giovanni Gallipoli & Gianluigi Pelloni, 2013. "Macroeconomic Effects of Job Reallocations: A Survey," Review of Economic Analysis, Digital Initiatives at the University of Waterloo Library, vol. 5(2), pages 127-176, December.
    12. Steven J. Davis & John Haltiwanger, 1998. "Measuring Gross Worker and Job Flows," NBER Chapters, in: Labor Statistics Measurement Issues, pages 77-122, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Julián Messina & Giovanna Vallanti, 2007. "Job Flow Dynamics and Firing Restrictions: Evidence from Europe," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 117(521), pages 279-301, June.
    14. Ricardo J. Caballero & Mohamad L. Hammour, 2005. "The Cost of Recessions Revisited: A Reverse-Liquidationist View," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 72(2), pages 313-341.
    15. John M. Abowd & Patrick Corbel & Francis Kramarz, 1999. "The Entry And Exit Of Workers And The Growth Of Employment: An Analysis Of French Establishments," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 81(2), pages 170-187, May.
    16. Ravi Balakrishnan, 2001. "The interaction of firing costs and on-the-job search: an application of a search theoretic model to the Spanish labour market," Working Papers 0102, Banco de España.
    17. Chang, Yongsung & Kwark, Noh-Sun, 2001. "Decomposition of hours based on extensive and intensive margins of labor," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 72(3), pages 361-367, September.
    18. Jonas D. M. Fisher & Jeffrey R. Campbell, 2000. "Aggregate Employment Fluctuations with Microeconomic Asymmetries," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(5), pages 1323-1345, December.
    19. Giovanni Dosi & Xiaodan Yu, 2017. "Technological catching-up, sales dynamics and employment growth: evidence from China's manufacturing firms," LEM Papers Series 2017/27, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    20. Marcelo L. Veracierto, 2002. "Plant-Level Irreversible Investment and Equilibrium Business Cycles," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(1), pages 181-197, March.
    21. Marcela Eslava & John Haltiwanger & Adriana Kugler & Maurice Kugler, 2010. "Factor Adjustments after Deregulation: Panel Evidence from Colombian Plants," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 92(2), pages 378-391, May.

    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:cen:wpaper:91-8. 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: Dawn Anderson (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cesgvus.html .

    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.