1 Q2008 Conference Rome 2008 The Relevance of ‘Private Household’ for Cross-cultural Survey...

49
1 Q2008 Conference Rome 2008 The Relevance of ‘Private Household’ for Cross-cultural Survey Comparison by Uwe Warner, CEPS/INSTEAD, Differdange Luxembourg and Jürgen H.P. Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik, GESIS-ZUMA, Mannheim, Germany

Transcript of 1 Q2008 Conference Rome 2008 The Relevance of ‘Private Household’ for Cross-cultural Survey...

Page 1: 1 Q2008 Conference Rome 2008 The Relevance of ‘Private Household’ for Cross-cultural Survey Comparison by Uwe Warner, CEPS/INSTEAD, Differdange Luxembourg.

1

Q2008 ConferenceRome 2008

The Relevance of ‘Private Household’ for Cross-cultural Survey Comparison

by Uwe Warner, CEPS/INSTEAD, Differdange Luxembourg

and Jürgen H.P. Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik, GESIS-ZUMA, Mannheim, Germany

Page 2: 1 Q2008 Conference Rome 2008 The Relevance of ‘Private Household’ for Cross-cultural Survey Comparison by Uwe Warner, CEPS/INSTEAD, Differdange Luxembourg.

22

The structureA. Different household definitions across

European countriesa. from the ESS fieldwork instrumentb. from (Micro-) Census

B. The various household structures based on different definitions

C. The impact of the obtained household information on

a. total net household incomeb. socio economic status of a household and its

membersD. A proposal for harmonizing the background

variable household for comparative surveysE. Conclusion

Page 3: 1 Q2008 Conference Rome 2008 The Relevance of ‘Private Household’ for Cross-cultural Survey Comparison by Uwe Warner, CEPS/INSTEAD, Differdange Luxembourg.

33

A. Different household definitions across European countries

It is important to know the HH concepts because:• Different definitions constitute various

memberships to a HH and generate different answers to the HH-size and relation variables

• Variations in the number of persons (and there relationships) contributing to the HH total income and the consumptions of HH resources are observable

• Socio economic status of all HH members is in generally defined by the highest position of a HH member

• And others …

Page 4: 1 Q2008 Conference Rome 2008 The Relevance of ‘Private Household’ for Cross-cultural Survey Comparison by Uwe Warner, CEPS/INSTEAD, Differdange Luxembourg.

44

a. Some examples from the ESS fieldwork instrument

MAIN QUESTIONNAIRE

And finally, I would like to ask you a few details about yourself and others in your household.

F1 Including yourself, how many people – including children – live here regularly as members of this household?WRITE IN NUMBER:

(Don’t know) 88

Page 5: 1 Q2008 Conference Rome 2008 The Relevance of ‘Private Household’ for Cross-cultural Survey Comparison by Uwe Warner, CEPS/INSTEAD, Differdange Luxembourg.

55

Interviewer Instructions of ESS:One person living alone or a group of people living

at the same address (and have that address as their only or main residence), who either share at least one main meal a day or share the living accommodation (or both).

Included are: people on holiday, away working or in hospital for less than 6 months; school- age children at boarding school; students sharing private accommodation.

Excluded are: people who have been away for 6 months or more, students away at university or college; temporary visitors.

EUROPEAN SOCIAL SURVEY 2002 Project Instructions (PAPI) ESS Document date: 15/07/02, Autumn 2002

Page 6: 1 Q2008 Conference Rome 2008 The Relevance of ‘Private Household’ for Cross-cultural Survey Comparison by Uwe Warner, CEPS/INSTEAD, Differdange Luxembourg.

66

GERMANY

Wie viele Personen leben ständig in diesem Haushalt, Sie selbst eingeschlossen? Denken Sie dabei bitte auch an alle im Haushalt lebenden Kinder.

ANZAHL EINTRAGEN

Antwort verweigert97

Weiß nicht98

permanently, always

Page 7: 1 Q2008 Conference Rome 2008 The Relevance of ‘Private Household’ for Cross-cultural Survey Comparison by Uwe Warner, CEPS/INSTEAD, Differdange Luxembourg.

77

SWITZERLAND

Wenn Sie sich selbst dazuzählen, wie viele Personen - Kinder eingeschlossen - leben regelmässig als Mitglieder in Ihrem Haushalt ? Und nun möchte ich Ihnen noch ein paar Fragen zu Ihrer Person und zu den anderen Personen in Ihrem Haushalt stellen.

- weiss nicht 88 eingeben !

MAXIMUM 9 PERSONEN EINGEBEN. your household

Page 8: 1 Q2008 Conference Rome 2008 The Relevance of ‘Private Household’ for Cross-cultural Survey Comparison by Uwe Warner, CEPS/INSTEAD, Differdange Luxembourg.

88

SWITZERLAND

Combien de personnes, vous même et les enfants y compris, vivent régulièrement comme membres de votre ménage ? Et finalement, je voudrais vous demander quelques détails à propos de vous et des autres membres de votre ménage.

Si ne sait pas - coder '88' ! POSSIBILITE MAXIMUM DE 9 PERSONES.

your household

Page 9: 1 Q2008 Conference Rome 2008 The Relevance of ‘Private Household’ for Cross-cultural Survey Comparison by Uwe Warner, CEPS/INSTEAD, Differdange Luxembourg.

99

SWITZERLAND

Quante persone, i bambini e Lei inclusi - vivono qui regolarmente, quali membri della Sua economia domestica ?

E infine, vorrei conoscere alcuni dettagli su di lei e gli altri componenti della Sua economia domestica.

Se non so - introdurre '88' ! POSSIBILITÀ D'INTRODURRE 9 PERSONE AL

MASSIMO.

“economic home”

Page 10: 1 Q2008 Conference Rome 2008 The Relevance of ‘Private Household’ for Cross-cultural Survey Comparison by Uwe Warner, CEPS/INSTEAD, Differdange Luxembourg.

1010

ITALYDesidererei avere alcune informazioni su di

Lei e su ciascuna persona che compone la sua famiglia.

F1 Compresi Lei ed eventuali bambini, quante persone vivono regolarmente in questa casa come membri della famiglia?

SCRIVERE IN NUMERO:

(Non so) 88family

Page 11: 1 Q2008 Conference Rome 2008 The Relevance of ‘Private Household’ for Cross-cultural Survey Comparison by Uwe Warner, CEPS/INSTEAD, Differdange Luxembourg.

1111

LUXEMBOURG

Wie viele Personen leben ständig in diesem Haushalt, Sie selbst eingeschlossen?

Denken Sie dabei bitte auch an alle im Haushalt lebenden Kinder.

Anzahl eintragen

(Weiß nicht) 88

this household

Page 12: 1 Q2008 Conference Rome 2008 The Relevance of ‘Private Household’ for Cross-cultural Survey Comparison by Uwe Warner, CEPS/INSTEAD, Differdange Luxembourg.

1212

LUXEMBOURG

Y compris vous-même – et vos enfants – combien de personnes vivent ici de façon régulière comme membres de votre ménage?

Ecrivez en chiffres

(Ne sait pas) 88 your household

Page 13: 1 Q2008 Conference Rome 2008 The Relevance of ‘Private Household’ for Cross-cultural Survey Comparison by Uwe Warner, CEPS/INSTEAD, Differdange Luxembourg.

1313

LUXEMBOURG

Incluindo-o(a) a si e aos seus filhos – quantas pessoas residem aqui de forma regular como membros do seu agregado?

Escrever:. (Não sabe) 88

?

Page 14: 1 Q2008 Conference Rome 2008 The Relevance of ‘Private Household’ for Cross-cultural Survey Comparison by Uwe Warner, CEPS/INSTEAD, Differdange Luxembourg.

1414

PORTUGALGOSTARIA DE LHE FAZER ALGUMAS

PERGUNTAS SOBRE SI E AS OUTRAS PESSOAS QUE VIVEM NESTA CASA

F1: Contando consigo, quantas pessoas – incluindo crianças – vivem habitualmente nesta casa?

ESCREVER O NÚMERO: Recusa 77 Não sabe 88 Não Responde 99

usually

house

Page 15: 1 Q2008 Conference Rome 2008 The Relevance of ‘Private Household’ for Cross-cultural Survey Comparison by Uwe Warner, CEPS/INSTEAD, Differdange Luxembourg.

1515

Different >units< across the countries:

“household”

“dwelling”

“house”

“economic home”

“family”

Summary of the ESS findings

Page 16: 1 Q2008 Conference Rome 2008 The Relevance of ‘Private Household’ for Cross-cultural Survey Comparison by Uwe Warner, CEPS/INSTEAD, Differdange Luxembourg.

1616

Findings so far• Confusing number of definition elements across

the countries

• Translation difficulties: the vocabulary does not exist in the target language (e.g. Portugal)

• The concept “household” is ambiguous in the target culture (e.g. Italy)

• No cross nationally harmonized measurements in national surveys

Page 17: 1 Q2008 Conference Rome 2008 The Relevance of ‘Private Household’ for Cross-cultural Survey Comparison by Uwe Warner, CEPS/INSTEAD, Differdange Luxembourg.

1717

1. share a common budget, income and/or expenditure

1.1 share a common budget

1.2 share income

1.3 share expenditures

1.4 share fully or partly living costs

1.5 common contribution to shared vital necessities of life

b. (Micro-) Census dimensions of HH definitions

Page 18: 1 Q2008 Conference Rome 2008 The Relevance of ‘Private Household’ for Cross-cultural Survey Comparison by Uwe Warner, CEPS/INSTEAD, Differdange Luxembourg.

1818

2. common housekeeping and/or sharing the organization of life

2.1 common housekeeping in an “economic unit”

2.2 shared living room2.3 common comestibles and food2.4 common meals

a) once a dayb) at least once a week

2.5 living together

Page 19: 1 Q2008 Conference Rome 2008 The Relevance of ‘Private Household’ for Cross-cultural Survey Comparison by Uwe Warner, CEPS/INSTEAD, Differdange Luxembourg.

1919

3. shared dwelling and/or common habitation

3.1 common habitation, reside together

3.2 shared common dwelling

3.3 have the same address

3.4 registered at the same address

3.5 the address where most of the nights are spend

Page 20: 1 Q2008 Conference Rome 2008 The Relevance of ‘Private Household’ for Cross-cultural Survey Comparison by Uwe Warner, CEPS/INSTEAD, Differdange Luxembourg.

2020

4. family relations by blood and/or legal regulations and/or emotional ties

4.1 legal family relations

4.2 family ties by marriage and adoption

4.3 emotional ties

Page 21: 1 Q2008 Conference Rome 2008 The Relevance of ‘Private Household’ for Cross-cultural Survey Comparison by Uwe Warner, CEPS/INSTEAD, Differdange Luxembourg.

2121

Country Elements included populationDenmark 3.4 registered at the same

addressFrance 3.2 share the common dwellingLuxemb 2.5 + 3.2 live together and share the

common dwellingGermany 1.1 + 3.1 share a common budget,

common habitationEngland 2.4a/2.2 + 3.3 daily common meal or

share living room and at the same address

Italy 4 family relations, independent from common habitation and address

Page 22: 1 Q2008 Conference Rome 2008 The Relevance of ‘Private Household’ for Cross-cultural Survey Comparison by Uwe Warner, CEPS/INSTEAD, Differdange Luxembourg.

2222

B. Household structures based on different definitions

a. Consequences for the relationship dwelling by household

b. Consequences for the household size

c. Consequences for the household composition

Page 23: 1 Q2008 Conference Rome 2008 The Relevance of ‘Private Household’ for Cross-cultural Survey Comparison by Uwe Warner, CEPS/INSTEAD, Differdange Luxembourg.

2323

a. Relations of dwelling by household

Denmark: n dwellings by 1 household

France: 1 dwelling by 1 household

Luxemb: 1 dwelling by n households

Germany: 1 dwelling by n households

UK: 1 dwelling by n households

Italy: n dwellings by 1 family

Page 24: 1 Q2008 Conference Rome 2008 The Relevance of ‘Private Household’ for Cross-cultural Survey Comparison by Uwe Warner, CEPS/INSTEAD, Differdange Luxembourg.

2424

b. Household size

Denmark

ESS1 ESS2 ECHP8

Cumulative Percent

1 person 18.0 20.5 25.2

2 persons 59.5 60.5 64.0

3 persons 76.1 74.9 79.6

4 persons 91.3 91.4 93.1

5 and more 100.0 100.0 100.0

Mean 2.63 2.55 2.40

Page 25: 1 Q2008 Conference Rome 2008 The Relevance of ‘Private Household’ for Cross-cultural Survey Comparison by Uwe Warner, CEPS/INSTEAD, Differdange Luxembourg.

25

France

ESS1 ESS2 ECHP8Census1)

1999

Cumulative Percent

1 person 12.6 12.7 25.1 31.0

2 persons 43.8 47.3 55.7 62.1

3 persons 63.0 66.2 73.4 78.3

4 persons 84.2 85.9 92.1 92.1

5 and more 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Mean 3.05 2.94 2.56 2.36

Page 26: 1 Q2008 Conference Rome 2008 The Relevance of ‘Private Household’ for Cross-cultural Survey Comparison by Uwe Warner, CEPS/INSTEAD, Differdange Luxembourg.

2626

Luxembourg

ESS1 ESS2 ECHP8Census1)

2001

Cumulative Percent

1 person 11.8 9.1 27.1 29.3

2 persons 32.7 32.2 58.5 57.5

3 persons 53.3 54.0 76.0 74.6

4 persons 83.3 81.0 91.9 91.0

5 and more 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Mean 3.25 3.33 2.50 2.47

Page 27: 1 Q2008 Conference Rome 2008 The Relevance of ‘Private Household’ for Cross-cultural Survey Comparison by Uwe Warner, CEPS/INSTEAD, Differdange Luxembourg.

2727

Germany

ESS1 ESS2 ECHP8

Micro Census

04/20021)

Cumulative Percent

1 person 18.9 20.4 38.1 36.7

2 persons 55.7 55.8 63.2 70.5

3 persons 74.3 74.6 78.5 84.6

4 persons 91.8 92.1 93.2 95.8

5 and more 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Mean 2.63 2.60 2.30 2.12

Page 28: 1 Q2008 Conference Rome 2008 The Relevance of ‘Private Household’ for Cross-cultural Survey Comparison by Uwe Warner, CEPS/INSTEAD, Differdange Luxembourg.

2828

United Kingdom

ESS1 ESS2 ECHP8

Cumulative Percent

1 person 18.2 13.8 30.9

2 persons 53.7 48.3 64.6

3 persons 73.0 67.9 79.8

4 persons 90.5 85.4 93.6

5 and more 100.0 100.0 100.0

Mean 2.68 2.95 2.33

Page 29: 1 Q2008 Conference Rome 2008 The Relevance of ‘Private Household’ for Cross-cultural Survey Comparison by Uwe Warner, CEPS/INSTEAD, Differdange Luxembourg.

2929

Italy

ESS1 ESS2 ECHP8Census1)

2001

Cumulative Percent

1 person 8.7 21.4 24.9

2 persons 31.4 43.9 52.0

3 persons 56.4 65.8 73.5

4 persons 86.0 88.2 92.5

5 and more 100.0 100.0 100.0

Mean 3.21 2.86 2.57

Page 30: 1 Q2008 Conference Rome 2008 The Relevance of ‘Private Household’ for Cross-cultural Survey Comparison by Uwe Warner, CEPS/INSTEAD, Differdange Luxembourg.

3030

C. The impact on

a. total net household income and

b. socio economic status of a household and its members

Page 31: 1 Q2008 Conference Rome 2008 The Relevance of ‘Private Household’ for Cross-cultural Survey Comparison by Uwe Warner, CEPS/INSTEAD, Differdange Luxembourg.

31

Persons address no. of dwelling

grandfather A 2grandmother A 2father A and B 1 or 4mother A 1child no. 2 student A and C 1 or 5child no. 3 A 1uncle D 3child no. 1 E 6son-in-law E 6grandchild E 6

Page 32: 1 Q2008 Conference Rome 2008 The Relevance of ‘Private Household’ for Cross-cultural Survey Comparison by Uwe Warner, CEPS/INSTEAD, Differdange Luxembourg.

32

Table 12:Household composition and household income in ItalyHHPersons Income OECD-modified equivalised

Scale HH incomeHH1 uncle 1500 0.5

grandfather 1800 0.5grandmother 0 0.5father 2500 1.0mother 500 0,5child no. 1 400 0.5son-in-law 2500 0.5grandchild 0 0.3child no. 2 1000 0.5child no. 3 600 0.3total 10800 5.1 2118

Page 33: 1 Q2008 Conference Rome 2008 The Relevance of ‘Private Household’ for Cross-cultural Survey Comparison by Uwe Warner, CEPS/INSTEAD, Differdange Luxembourg.

33

Table 13: equivalised HHincome in DenmarkHH1 uncle 1500 1.0 1500HH2 grandfather 1800 0.5

grandmother 0 0.5father 2500 1.0mother 500 0.5child no. 2 1000 0.5child no. 3 600 0.3total 6400 3.3 1939

HH3 child no.1 400 0.5son-in-law 2500 1.0grandchild 0 0.3total 2900 1.8 1611

average household income 1683

Page 34: 1 Q2008 Conference Rome 2008 The Relevance of ‘Private Household’ for Cross-cultural Survey Comparison by Uwe Warner, CEPS/INSTEAD, Differdange Luxembourg.

34

Table 14: equivalised HHincome in FranceHH1 uncle 1500 1.0 1500HH2 grandfather 1800 1.0

grandmother 0 0.5total 1800 1.5 1200

HH3 father 2500 1.0mother 500 0.5child no. 2 1000 0.5child no. 3 600 0.3total 4600 2.3 2000

HH4child no. 1 400 0.5son-in-law 2500 1.0grandchild 0 0.3total 2900 1.8 1611

average household income 1578

Page 35: 1 Q2008 Conference Rome 2008 The Relevance of ‘Private Household’ for Cross-cultural Survey Comparison by Uwe Warner, CEPS/INSTEAD, Differdange Luxembourg.

35

Table 15: equivalised HHincome in LuxembourgHH1 uncle 1500 1.0 1500HH2grandfather 1800 1.0

grandmother 0 0.5total 1800 1.5 1200

HH3 father 2500 1.0mother 500 0.5child no. 3 600 0.3total 3600 1.8 2000

HH4child no. 1 400 0.5son-in-law 2500 1.0grandchild 0 0.3total 2900 1.8 1611

HH5child no. 2 1000 1.0 1000average household income 1462

Page 36: 1 Q2008 Conference Rome 2008 The Relevance of ‘Private Household’ for Cross-cultural Survey Comparison by Uwe Warner, CEPS/INSTEAD, Differdange Luxembourg.

36

Table 16: equivalised HHincome in EnglandHH1 uncle 1500 1.0 1500HH2 grandfather 1800 1,0

grandmother 0 0,5total 1800 1,5 1200

HH3 father 2500 1,0 2500HH4 mother 500 1,0

child no. 3 600 0,3total 1100 1,3 846

HH5 child no. 1 400 0,5son-in-law 2500 1,0grandchild 0 0,3total 2900 1,8 1611

HH6 child no. 2 1000 0,1 1000average household income 1443

Page 37: 1 Q2008 Conference Rome 2008 The Relevance of ‘Private Household’ for Cross-cultural Survey Comparison by Uwe Warner, CEPS/INSTEAD, Differdange Luxembourg.

37

Table 17:Socio-economic status (ISEI) of the household members* in Italy

HH No. ISCO-88ISEI overall statusHH1 uncle 7422 33grandfather 8285 30Father 3112 45Mother 7331 29son-in-law 2142 69 69*) All persons who are not employed and who, therefore, have no status of their own (ISEI), are not listed.

Page 38: 1 Q2008 Conference Rome 2008 The Relevance of ‘Private Household’ for Cross-cultural Survey Comparison by Uwe Warner, CEPS/INSTEAD, Differdange Luxembourg.

38

Table 18: Socio-economic status (ISEI) of the household members* in Denmark

HH No. ISCO-88 ISEI overall statusHH1 uncle 7422 33 33HH2 grandfather 8285 30

father 3112 45 45mother 7331 29

HH3son-in-law 2142 69 69*) All persons who are not employed and who, therefore, have no status of

their own (ISEI), are not listed.

Page 39: 1 Q2008 Conference Rome 2008 The Relevance of ‘Private Household’ for Cross-cultural Survey Comparison by Uwe Warner, CEPS/INSTEAD, Differdange Luxembourg.

39

Table 19:Socio-economic status (ISEI) of the household members* in France

HH No. ISCO-88ISEI overall statusHH1 uncle 7422 33 33HH2 grandfather 8285 30 30HH3 father 3112 45 45

mother 7331 29HH4son-in-law 2142 69 69*) All persons who are not employed and who, therefore, have no status of

their own (ISEI), are not listed.

Page 40: 1 Q2008 Conference Rome 2008 The Relevance of ‘Private Household’ for Cross-cultural Survey Comparison by Uwe Warner, CEPS/INSTEAD, Differdange Luxembourg.

40

Table 20:Socio-economic status (ISEI) of the household members* in Luxembourg

HH No. ISCO-88 ISEI overall statusHH1 uncle 7422 33 33HH2 grandfather 8285 30 30HH3 father 3112 45 45

mother 7331 29HH4 son-in-law 2142 69 69HH5 child no. 2studying n/a see father*) All persons who are not employed and who, therefore, have no status of

their own (ISEI), are not listed.

Page 41: 1 Q2008 Conference Rome 2008 The Relevance of ‘Private Household’ for Cross-cultural Survey Comparison by Uwe Warner, CEPS/INSTEAD, Differdange Luxembourg.

41

Table 21: Socio-economic status (ISEI) of the household members* in England

HH No. ISCO-88 ISEI overall statusHH1 uncle 7422 33 33HH2 grandfather 8285 30 30HH3 father 3112 45 45HH4 mother 7331 29 29HH5 son-in-law 2142 69 69HH6 child no. 2 studying n/a see father*) All persons who are not employed and who, therefore, have no status of their own (ISEI), are not listed.

Page 42: 1 Q2008 Conference Rome 2008 The Relevance of ‘Private Household’ for Cross-cultural Survey Comparison by Uwe Warner, CEPS/INSTEAD, Differdange Luxembourg.

4242

D. A proposal for harmonizing the household variable for comparative

surveys

• We propose four questions

• one question lists all persons who are members or not by using a show card

• Three questions deal with the combination of dwelling and household

Page 43: 1 Q2008 Conference Rome 2008 The Relevance of ‘Private Household’ for Cross-cultural Survey Comparison by Uwe Warner, CEPS/INSTEAD, Differdange Luxembourg.

4343

1. A household is built from all persons living together and have a common housekeeping.

These are (listed on a show card)

- yourself- all other adults living in this household permanently- all children and the babies living in this household permanently- all people in education, training, pupils and students being temporarily and momentarily absent

Page 44: 1 Q2008 Conference Rome 2008 The Relevance of ‘Private Household’ for Cross-cultural Survey Comparison by Uwe Warner, CEPS/INSTEAD, Differdange Luxembourg.

4444

(show card continued)

- also persons being momentarily absent because of the job, like weekend commuters, seasonal workers and persons being away for a construction job - people on community and civilian service, also military service- people being absent for maximal half a year because of sickness and holidays- people being absent for maximal half a year because of other reasons, like imprisonment on remand- also included are domestic workers, au-pairs and caregivers/nurses

Page 45: 1 Q2008 Conference Rome 2008 The Relevance of ‘Private Household’ for Cross-cultural Survey Comparison by Uwe Warner, CEPS/INSTEAD, Differdange Luxembourg.

4545

(show card continued)

Not counted as household members are:

- regular, professional soldiers and police men living in barracks and caserns

- family members living in nursing homes and homes for the elderly

- people being absent longer than half a year

- visitors and also long-time visitors

Page 46: 1 Q2008 Conference Rome 2008 The Relevance of ‘Private Household’ for Cross-cultural Survey Comparison by Uwe Warner, CEPS/INSTEAD, Differdange Luxembourg.

4646

1a. Please, fill in the number of persons:

2. Is this household spread over more than one dwelling?

yes no

If yes:

2a. How many different dwellings?

Please, fill in the number of dwellings:

Page 47: 1 Q2008 Conference Rome 2008 The Relevance of ‘Private Household’ for Cross-cultural Survey Comparison by Uwe Warner, CEPS/INSTEAD, Differdange Luxembourg.

4747

2b. In this dwelling, how many people share the common house keeping?

Please count again all persons also the children and the persons being absent for maximal half a year because of work, education, sickness or holidays.

Please, fill in the number of persons:

Page 48: 1 Q2008 Conference Rome 2008 The Relevance of ‘Private Household’ for Cross-cultural Survey Comparison by Uwe Warner, CEPS/INSTEAD, Differdange Luxembourg.

4848

E. Conclusion• Transparency of the household definition

– to data producers– to interviewers– to interviewees– to data users

• Common in-/exclusion rules of household membership– across countries– across cultures

Page 49: 1 Q2008 Conference Rome 2008 The Relevance of ‘Private Household’ for Cross-cultural Survey Comparison by Uwe Warner, CEPS/INSTEAD, Differdange Luxembourg.

4949

• Easier to survey

• Less discrepancies among the household configurations and types during the fieldwork

• More reliable information for cross-national and cross-cultural analyses obtained