IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nzt/nztaps/ap17-01.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Comparing the Household Economic Survey to administrative records: An analysis of income and benefit receipt

Author

Listed:

Abstract

We investigate the difference between people's survey responses to the Household Economic Survey (HES) and these same people's administrative income and benefit receipt records using the Integrated Data Infrastructure (IDI). 83% of people can be linked to the IRD data within the IDI. Those that are linked have higher incomes, are more likely to be male, are more likely to be of European descent and have lower reported benefit receipt than those who are not linked. HES reported total incomes (excluding benefit income and some other categories) are typically 1.5-6% higher than administrative measures of these same people's income. Despite this difference, there is still a strong correlation between HES and administrative income (about 0.79). On the other hand, reported benefit receipt in HES correlates poorly with the administrative measure. Benefits are under-reported on average, but many people also report receiving benefits that the administrative record says that they did not receive.

Suggested Citation

  • Chris Ball & Judd Ormsby, 2017. "Comparing the Household Economic Survey to administrative records: An analysis of income and benefit receipt," Treasury Analytical Papers Series ap17/01, New Zealand Treasury.
    • Handle: RePEc:nzt:nztaps:ap17/01
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.treasury.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2017-06/ap17-01.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bound, John & Brown, Charles & Mathiowetz, Nancy, 2001. "Measurement error in survey data," Handbook of Econometrics, in: J.J. Heckman & E.E. Leamer (ed.), Handbook of Econometrics, edition 1, volume 5, chapter 59, pages 3705-3843, Elsevier.
    2. Bound, John & Krueger, Alan B, 1991. "The Extent of Measurement Error in Longitudinal Earnings Data: Do Two Wrongs Make a Right?," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 9(1), pages 1-24, January.
    3. Dean R. Hyslop & Wilbur Townsend, 2020. "Earnings Dynamics and Measurement Error in Matched Survey and Administrative Data," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(2), pages 457-469, April.
    4. Arie Kapteyn & Jelmer Y. Ypma, 2007. "Measurement Error and Misclassification: A Comparison of Survey and Administrative Data," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 25(3), pages 513-551.
    5. Hyslop, Dean R. & Townsend, Wilbur, 2017. "Employment misclassification in survey and administrative reports," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 19-23.
    6. Bound, John & Brown, Charles & Duncan, Greg J & Rodgers, Willard L, 1994. "Evidence on the Validity of Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Labor Market Data," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 12(3), pages 345-368, July.
    7. Pischke, Jorn-Steffen, 1995. "Measurement Error and Earnings Dynamics: Some Estimates from the PSID Validation Study," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 13(3), pages 305-314, July.
    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. Hyslop, Dean R. & Townsend, Wilbur, 2017. "Employment misclassification in survey and administrative reports," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 19-23.
    2. Dean R. Hyslop & Wilbur Townsend, 2020. "Earnings Dynamics and Measurement Error in Matched Survey and Administrative Data," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(2), pages 457-469, April.
    3. ChangHwan Kim & Christopher R. Tamborini, 2014. "Response Error in Earnings," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 43(1), pages 39-72, February.
    4. Peter Gottschalk & Minh Huynh, 2010. "Are Earnings Inequality and Mobility Overstated? The Impact of Nonclassical Measurement Error," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 92(2), pages 302-315, May.
    5. Stella Martin & Kevin Stabenow & Mark Trede, 2024. "Measurement Error in Earnings," CQE Working Papers 10824, Center for Quantitative Economics (CQE), University of Muenster.
    6. de Nicola, Francesca & Giné, Xavier, 2014. "How accurate are recall data? Evidence from coastal India," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 52-65.
    7. Lisa M. Dragoset & Gary S. Fields, 2006. "U.S. Earnings Mobility: Comparing Survey-Based and Administrative-Based Estimates," Working Papers 55, ECINEQ, Society for the Study of Economic Inequality.
    8. Jaanika Meriküll & Tairi Rõõm, 2020. "Stress Tests of the Household Sector Using Microdata from Survey and Administrative Sources," International Journal of Central Banking, International Journal of Central Banking, vol. 16(2), pages 203-248, March.
    9. Quinn Moore & Irma Perez-Johnson & Robert Santillano, 2018. "Decomposing Differences in Impacts on Survey- and Administrative-Measured Earnings From a Job Training Voucher Experiment," Evaluation Review, , vol. 42(5-6), pages 515-549, October.
    10. Paulus, Alari, 2015. "Tax evasion and measurement error: An econometric analysis of survey data linked with tax records," ISER Working Paper Series 2015-10, Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    11. Daniel Wilhelm, 2018. "Testing for the presence of measurement error," CeMMAP working papers CWP45/18, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    12. Stüber, Heiko & Grabka, Markus M. & Schnitzlein, Daniel D., 2023. "A tale of two data sets: comparing German administrative and survey data using wage inequality as an example," Journal for Labour Market Research, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg [Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany], vol. 57, pages 1-8.
    13. Donal O'Neill, 2015. "Correcting for Self-Reporting Bias in BMI: A Multiple Imputation Approach," Economics Department Working Paper Series n263-15.pdf, Department of Economics, National University of Ireland - Maynooth.
    14. Akee, Randall K. Q., 2007. "Errors in Self-Reported Earnings: The Role of Previous Earnings Volatility," IZA Discussion Papers 3263, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    15. Stefan Angel & Richard Heuberger & Nadja Lamei, 2018. "Differences Between Household Income from Surveys and Registers and How These Affect the Poverty Headcount: Evidence from the Austrian SILC," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 138(2), pages 575-603, July.
    16. Whalley, Alexander, 2011. "Education and labor market risk: Understanding the role of data cleaning," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 528-545, June.
    17. Arie Kapteyn & Jelmer Y. Ypma, 2007. "Measurement Error and Misclassification: A Comparison of Survey and Administrative Data," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 25(3), pages 513-551.
    18. Stella Martin, 2025. "We Might Both Be Wrong - Reconciliation of Survey and Administrative Earnings Measurements," CQE Working Papers 11025, Center for Quantitative Economics (CQE), University of Muenster.
    19. Adam Bee & Joshua Mitchell & Nikolas Mittag & Jonathan Rothbaum & Carl Sanders & Lawrence Schmidt & Matthew Unrath, 2023. "National Experimental Wellbeing Statistics - Version 1," Working Papers 23-04, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    20. Bollinger, Christopher R. & Hirsch, Barry & Hokayem, Charles M. & Ziliak, James P., 2018. "Trouble in the Tails? What We Know about Earnings Nonresponse Thirty Years after Lillard, Smith, and Welch," IZA Discussion Papers 11710, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C80 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:nzt:nztaps:ap17/01. 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: CSS I&T Web & Publishing, The Treasury (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/tregvnz.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.