People's Security Surveys: An outline of methodology and concepts

International Labour Review, Vol. 141 (2002), No. 4

Copyright © International Labour Organization 2002

People’s Security Surveys: An outlineof methodology and concepts

Richard ANKER*

here is a general feeling around the world that insecurity in workT and life is increasing because of rapid change caused by phenom-ena such as technological innovation and globalization. Yet, relativelylittle empirical information is available about the various dimensions ofinsecurity, how people feel about security and insecurity, how peoplecope with insecurity, and what policies and social rules people considerappropriate to help them deal with insecurity. There is even less infor-mation about how insecurity varies across countries and developmentlevels or by socio-economic status, sex, age, etc.

In light of this situation, the ILO’s InFocus Programme on Socio-Economic Security began a household survey programme in 2000,which it dubbed People’s Security Surveys (PSSs). This initiative wasdriven by a desire to learn from the voices of people about their secur-ities and insecurities in work and life so as to ensure that policy formu-lation could take account of people’s experiences and views.

But going from a desire to learn from people’s voices to a usefulsurvey was a major jump. For example, it implied that the PSS question-naire needed to include both objective factual questions and subjectiveperception questions. It also implied that a wide range of socio-economic securities needed to be covered. The wide range of subjectsand types of information covered in the PSSs implied that concepts andsurveys from a number of disciplines were relevant (e.g. economicsand especially labour economics, industrial relations, demography,health, sociology, gender, poverty, psychology and opinion polls). Fur-ther complicating matters for an international organization such as theILO was the great variety of country settings and, therefore, of socio-economic security in the world, which meant that PSS questionnairesneeded considerable adaptation to local settings.

* InFocus Programme on Socio-Economic Security, ILO.

310 International Labour Review

This article describes the layout and contents of the PSS question-naires. Following an overview of the 13 PSSs carried out at the time ofwriting, the first section describes the eight forms of security/insecurityand the four aspects of each security/insecurity which are covered, alongwith a conceptual framework which draws these four aspects together.The second section provides brief descriptions of the contents of eachsecurity section in the PSS questionnaire. Some general rules for field-ing a PSS as well as possible extensions for future PSSs are discussed inthe third section. A final section offers some concluding remarks.

Scope, contents and frameworkof the PSS questionnaire

At the time of writing this article, PSSs were undertaken in13 countries of East Asia, South Asia, Latin America, Africa, and cen-tral and eastern Europe. The table opposite gives information on theregion/area covered, types of workers and persons interviewed, ages ofrespondents, and sample sizes. Purposeful samples were used in mostcountries, and five were taken in urban areas only. Only two countrieshave representative national samples. Aside from financial constraints,another reason why there are national representative samples in onlytwo countries was a desire to investigate particular issues in detail (e.g.differences between flood-prone and non-flood-prone rural areas inBangladesh). For a new survey such as the PSS, it was felt preferable toundertake more surveys with larger sample sizes for the areas coveredthan fewer surveys with nationally representative samples.

Eight forms of socio-economic securityThe PSS questionnaire collects information on eight forms of socio-

economic security – basic security and seven forms of work-related secur-ity. Each of these forms of security is described briefly below.1

(1) Basic security: Security in important non-work-related aspects ofpeople’s lives. This includes a wide range of basic securities such ashousing, health, education, environment, food, freedom fromdebt, and safety.

(2) Income security: Security of having suf�cient income or earningsfrom work, based on a broad concept of income and earnings. Thisincludes cash wages; non-cash wage bene�ts; income in kind andproducts for own consumption such as food produced on a familyplot and by family-owned animals; enterprise-provided bene�tssuch as health care and pensions; state-provided bene�ts and trans-

1 For a more complete description and rationale for the seven work-related securities, seeGuy Standing: Global labour flexibility: Seeking distributive justice (London, MacMillan, 1999).

People’s Security Surveys 311

fers; and bene�ts and support from NGOs. The term “social income”is sometimes used to describe this broad concept of income.

(3) Labour market security: Security of having income-generating work(based on a broad concept of gainful work). In addition to wageemployment, income-generating work includes self-employment,unpaid family work and income-generating home-based economicactivities.

(4) Employment security: Security from loss of current work, and thesecurity/capability of keeping one’s main job or work. For em-ployees, this includes security from dismissal. For self-employed

Country Rural (R)Urban (U)

Area Ages Samplesize

Observations

Asia

China R & U 3 regions 18+ 3 000

Indonesia R & U 4 provinces 15+ 3 000 Poorest districts and areas and persons over-sampled.

Bangladesh R & U Flood affected rural areaFlood-free rural areaDhaka city

15-59 3 200 Inactive women have lower sample fraction.Additional separate female garment worker sample.

India R & U Gujarat (in/near Ahmedabad city)

15-60 1 236 Additional separate sample ofSelf Employed Women’s Association (SEWA) women workers.

Pakistan U Karachi city 15-64 750 Transport workers sample.Home-based workers sample.Slum-dwelling workers sample.

Latin America

Argentina U 3 metropolitan areas

15-64 2 800

Brazil U 3 metropolitan areas

15-64 4 000

Chile U 3 metropolitan areas

15-64 1 180

Africa

Ethiopia R & U 2 regions 16+ 1 520 Residents in the manufacturing and production belt of the country.

South Africa U 2 metropolitan areas

15-64 1 600

Tanzania, United Rep. of

R & U 3 regions 14-65 1 950

Eastern Europe

Hungary R & U National 18-59 1 000

Ukraine R & U National 18+ 8 200 Wage/salary (manufacturing; agricul-ture; private services; public services) samples.Inactive (retired; students) samples.Unemployed sample.


workers, farmers and unpaid family workers, this refers to securityfrom bankruptcy and/or business failure due to factors such as lossof market, credit and/or raw materials. For workers without a con-tract, this refers to the likelihood of keeping one’s current work.

(5) Work insecurity: Security of having a safe and healthy workplace.The concern here is with all forms of physical and mental safety, i.e.from injury, illness and stress.

(6) Job security: Security of having an occupational niche (often life-long) or a career with opportunities for advancement andimprovement.

(7) Skills reproduction security: Security of being able to develop mar-ketable skills, including formal training.

(8) Representation security: Security of having a collective voice torepresent one’s rights and interests at work.

Four aspects of each form of securityFor each of the above eight forms of socio-economic security, the

PSS questionnaire collects information on four aspects of security andinsecurity, namely:l Actual level of security/insecurityl Perceived level of security/insecurityl How people cope with insecuritiesl People’s normative values regarding social rules and justice

This combination of information, both on the actual situation andon people’s perceptions and normative values, provides a powerfulmeans of describing and understanding people’s security. For example,it then becomes possible to observe and contrast the extent of workers’employment stability – e.g. by learning how long they have been work-ing for their current employer or in their current occupation – with howsecure workers feel in their work (e.g. by asking about their perceptionof the likelihood of losing their work in the future). Similarly, it is pos-sible to observe the type of contract a worker holds and to contrast thiswith the availability of training opportunities at work and expressed jobsatisfaction. Many other examples could be given.

Framework of People’s Security SurveysA flow chart of the types of information collected in the PSS ques-

tionnaire is presented in figure 1. Notice that the perceived level ofinsecurity is measured by: (i) threat/probability of a particular insecu-rity occurring, and (ii) severity if that particular insecurity is experi-enced. The actual level of people’s insecurity and their ability to cope


with it are affected by: (i) the resources and capabilities available tothem (which can be measured at several different levels of aggregation,such as individual capabilities, household resources, workplace bene-fits, community facilities, and state benefits), and (ii) each individual’soutlook on life in terms of his/her perceived ability or powerlessness tocontrol events (although control and powerlessness are very difficultto measure in a sample survey, and are unfortunately not measuredwell in PSS questionnaires at present).

The remainder of this section provides some observations on theframework outlined in figure 1. First, the PSS questionnaire and theabove framework tend to treat the seven work-related securities as ifthey were independent of each other. While this is obviously an over-simplification, there is relatively little knowledge about how theseseven work-related (in)securities interconnect. This is an area whereempirical analysis is required.

Second, the four aspects of each of those securities, on whichinformation is collected in PSS questionnaires, are interrelated. Forexample, the more resources a person has to cope with a given insecu-rity, the less severe the corresponding loss of security should be, andtherefore the less acute the perception of its loss. 2 A first crude attemptat diagrammatic modelling of these interrelationships is presented infigure 1.

Third, six of the eight forms of socio-economic security covered ina PSS questionnaire are individual-oriented. For this reason, infor-mation on these securities is collected from a main respondent about

2 For example, an individual in a household with savings and assets is likely to perceive lossof work as less important than an individual in a household without assets or savings.

Figure 1. Conceptual framework of People’s Security Surveys

Community and institutional level:– facilities and resources– state benefits– social norms and social justice

Individual level:– capabilities– feelings of powerlessness/power

Household resources and assets

Workplace benefits and setting

Perceived importanceof security and insecurity(perceived probabilityof occurrence times perceived severity if itoccurs)

Coping with insecurity

Actual experiencesof security andinsecurity


himself or herself: Does s/he have work? Does s/he have the chance todevelop marketable skills? Does s/he have a chance to have an improv-ing work life and possibly a career? What work does s/he do, and is s/helikely to continue doing this work? Does s/he have a safe work environ-ment? Does s/he belong to a union or other group which defends her orhis interests at work? While trade union representation is basically notan individual-level concept, it is treated as such here because it ismeasured as pertaining to the situation of a specific respondent. Basicsecurity and, to a lesser extent, income security are household-levelconcepts, since household members pool their incomes and resources.For this reason, PSSs questionnaires collect information on incomesecurity and basic security for the household.

Fourth, resources to cope with insecurity are found at severallevels of aggregation. There is the individual’s own human capital; thereare household assets and income from other household members; thereare community facilities and services; there is collective representation;and there are state-level benefits, laws and regulations. All are impor-tant for socio-economic security.

Fifth, several elements of the framework in figure 1 are similar tothose found in the value expectation model used in psychology, whichsays that:

insecurity = threat ´ severity ´ powerlessness.

Sixth, PSS questionnaires have not collected information in equaldepth on all four aspects of the conceptual framework. This partlyreflects their relative importance.

Seventh, PSS questionnaires ask a number of questions aboutsecurity and insecurity only for the respondent’s main current work.3

This presents a problem for “portfolio workers” who are especiallycommon in low-income countries. These workers have multiple econ-omic activities either at the time of the interview or over the year.4 Insuch situations, it is not obvious which of the respondent’s activitiesshould be addressed in the PSS questionnaire: main current work at thetime of the interview (defined in terms of income or time?); or mainwork over the year; or such work as the respondent self-identifies as themost important; or all work activities together when this makes sense?Treatment of portfolio workers calls for further thought and experi-mentation in future PSSs.

3 It is worth noting, however, that information is collected on the existence of multiple gain-ful activities performed by household members, including the main respondent.

4 For example, someone may work on his/her farm while at the same time performingcasual labour or running a small business. Three months from now, his/her main work might becasual labour near home or temporary casual labour elsewhere (in addition to secondary work onhis/her own farm or business).


Eighth, the way in which a particular security or insecurity is mani-fested – and, therefore, how it should be measured – often differs acrossemployment-status groups. For example, the insecurity of self-employed workers in terms of “keeping their work” is quite differentconceptually from that of employees who can be dismissed. For thisreason, PSS questionnaires frequently include different questions toemployees and self-employed workers.

PSS questionnairesPSS country studies have not used a model questionnaire: what

constitutes people’s security around the world was felt to vary so widelythat a model questionnaire would be too constraining, and con-sequently prevent many important national and regional issues frombeing investigated. Instead, a “cafeteria approach” has been used fornational PSS questionnaires, whereby questions particularly relevant toa country were selected from a longer list of questions. Indeed, col-laborating national institutes were encouraged to design questions onpolicy issues of particular concern in their respective countries.5

The following nine subsections provide brief descriptions of thecontents of each section of a PSS questionnaire, together with the un-derlying approaches. Appendix A lists the wide range of topic areascovered in each section of the PSS questionnaire. 6

Background informationPSS questionnaires always open with a “Background information”

section. This collects socio-economic and demographic backgroundinformation on the household and the main respondent. A typical“household members table” is used where household members arelisted, with socio-economic and demographic information recorded foreach member (such as name, relationship to household head, age, sex,education, work activity, marital status, migrant status). The Back-ground section also collects information on the household’s ownershipand operation of a family farm or business (e.g. size, sales, products,inputs, number of family workers and hired workers) and on disabilitiesof household members.

5 Although previous surveys were available, none covered all (or even most) of the relevantwork-related and socio-economic securities in a single questionnaire. For example, poverty sur-veys (and some household surveys) collect information on basic security and household income;opinion polls and psychology surveys collect information on opinions and perceptions; labourforce and household surveys collect information on work experiences and incomes; establishmentsurveys collect information on working conditions.

6 For the actual wording of the PSS questions, readers are referred to Richard Anker:People’s Security Surveys, unpublished manuscript (forthcoming in the IFP/SES Working PaperSeries), Geneva, ILO, 2002.


Basic securityNext, PSS questionnaires collect information on a broad range of

non-work-related aspects of people’s basic security in life. This isgenerally a large section designed to collect information on basic needs– such as housing, education, safety/violence, health care, environmentand food – and on less traditional topics (such as debt, perceived suffi-ciency of income, financial crises experienced, sleep, fatalism, andtransfers received).7 It represents an extended basic-needs approach tobasic security, whereby households can be classified according to theirsocio-economic status. The section also includes normative questionson whether respondents feel that individuals should regularly give tothe poor and whether government should help the poor.

Income security: Having suf�cient incomeBecause income security is such an important concern for workers,

this too is a relatively long section in PSS questionnaires with 12 generaltopics covered. In addition to questions on the earnings and income ofthe respondent and household, there are questions on how such incomeis paid and on the form in which it is received. Other questions, address-ing different aspects of income security, inquire about fluctuations inincome, past income levels, expectations about future income levels,and opinions about the sufficiency and relative size of householdincome. There are also questions on savings (cumulative income insome sense), knowledge of available official income supports for thepoor, and wage arrears (an especially important topic in transition-economy countries). Lastly, there are normative questions on whetherrespondents feel that society should set upper or lower limits to an indi-vidual’s income.

It is important to note, however, that PSS questionnaires do notattempt to measure all sources of income in detail (e.g. net businessincome or family-farm income).8 PSS questionnaires take the alterna-tive approach of collecting proxy information on socio-economic statususing information on basic security (see above).

7 In future PSSs, serious consideration will need to be given to limiting questions on basicsecurity so as to allow more time for those on work-related securities.

8 There are several reasons for taking this approach. Prominent among them is the largeamount of interview time which would be required to collect reasonably accurate householdincome data for Third World households (especially poor households). Such households typicallyhave a variety of income sources and a number of earners on whom detailed information wouldhave to be collected. Many Third World households have businesses and/or farms, and householdmembers generally do not know their net income; therefore, net business/farm income has to bepieced together using a long series of questions about sales, costs, inputs, and own-consumption.In any case, considerable variability across years in farm income implies that current householdincome may not be indicative of “usual” household income or measure their permanent incomelevel.


Labour market security: Finding/having employmentThis section of the PSS questionnaire – also relatively long – is

concerned with whether or not respondents have work or employ-ment. Twelve general topics have been covered in different nationalPSSs, focusing on unemployment and the possibility of losing one’swork. Questions on unemployment cover, inter alia, unemploymentexperiences of the respondent (and of other household members andclose relatives); receipt of unemployment benefits; opinion/knowledgeof the local and/or national unemployment rate; and recent changes inthe number of workers employed at the respondent’s current work-place. Questions on the consequences of the possible loss of currentwork address the likely difficulty of finding similar work; willingnessto migrate for work; the likelihood of receiving advance notice; andopportunities available for public works jobs. There are also norma-tive questions on whether respondents feel that government shouldprovide unemployment benefits.

Employment security: Current work and its continuationThis section of the PSS questionnaire is concerned with security

and insecurity related to the respondent’s current work, its characteris-tics, and prospects for its continuation. Like previous sections, this sec-tion uses the same broad definition of work as that embodied in thelabour force concept and the international definition of work. A broadset of 11 topic areas have been covered in PSS questionnaires. Theseinclude not only questions about the respondent’s current work – suchas contract type, occupation, place of work, regularity of work, tenure/changes in workplaces in past, and employer characteristics – but alsoperception questions that relate to job/work satisfaction, keeping one’scurrent job/work, the likelihood of pregnant women losing their job,and the effect of globalization on work.

Skills reproduction security: Having skillsThis section of the PSS questionnaire is concerned with the work-

related skills of respondents. It is worth noting that while the questionsand concepts in this section are generally straightforward, they addresscharacteristics which are difficult to measure in survey questions. Forexample, the distinction between formal and informal training is oftendifficult to make in practice. Six general topics have been covered,including: training received; opportunities for training; use of qualifica-tions and skills at work; opinions on need for training and skill upgrad-ing; and expectations for own children’s education.


Job security: Improvements in working lifeThis section of the PSS questionnaire is concerned with career

possibilities and advancement in a broad sense. It is the smallest sectionin the PSS questionnaire, addressing only three topics: experiences withadvances and setbacks in working life; future expectations; and per-ceived importance of following a particular profession. This partlyreflects the difficulty of capturing the concepts of career and lifelongprofession in survey questions, but partly also the relative lack ofimportance of these concepts in lower income countries.

Work security: Safety in the workplaceThe range of questions on occupational safety makes this section

one of the largest and most interesting of the PSSs questionnaire. Usingbroad concepts of occupational safety and working conditions, it col-lects a wide range of information on eight topic areas. In particular, thissection includes questions on absence from work due to illnesses, stressand injuries, whereas most internationally available statistics on thistopic focus solely on injuries (mainly because it is easier to attributesomeone’s absence from work to injury than to illness or stress). Thereare also questions about overwork, control over working time, sexualharassment, discrimination, the safety of working conditions (“factual”,perception and opinion questions), provision for occupational injurycompensation, and childcare availability.

It is worth noting that a special effort was made in the PSSs toadapt questions to working conditions in low-income countries. Forexample, there have been questions on the availability of toilets at theworkplace, and on harassment by police and local mafia. In future, it isimportant that many of the innovative questions asked in PSS question-naires be fine-tuned and further investigated for reliability.

Voice representation security: Voice in the workplaceSince unions are by far the most important form of representation

in the workplace around the world, this section emphasizes issuesrelated to trade unions. Accordingly, there have been questions onknowledge of trade unions, opinion of trade unions, and trade unionmembership and activity. Some questions take into consideration thepossibility that respondents may not be knowledgeable about tradeunions. For example, respondents have been asked to indicate whattrade unions do, and what they think union density is in their country.

Here, PSS questionnaires also ask about other organizations rep-resenting workers in order to capture this dimension where it exists,such as in the informal sector in particular. There are also labour rela-


tions questions which inquire about the respondent’s relationship withhis/her employer and the degree to which the respondent feels that his/her employer is concerned about his/her welfare. For example, there isa question about the respondent’s perception of his/her relationshipwith the employer in terms of trust and attentiveness to his/her con-cerns and grievances.

Selected issues and rules for fielding a PSSThis section discusses some of the rules followed during PSS field-

work. It covers issues related to the respondent, the use of differentquestions for different types of respondents, household definition,reference period, sampling, and additional survey instruments.

One main respondent per selected householdInformation on the seven work-related securities is collected for

only one adult person per sample household. 9 There are two main rea-sons for applying this rule, even though it substantially increases thecost of a PSS for a given sample size (because the cost of developingsamples, contacting sample households and collecting household infor-mation is not spread across several household members). First, itincreases the variance of responses for a given sample size, since dif-ferences between similar types of persons within a household aresmaller than differences between similar types of persons across house-holds. Second, there is every reason to believe that one householdmember’s answers to perception and opinion questions would affectresponses from other household members in settings where interviewsare frequently conducted with other persons present (as is often thecase in developing countries).

Different questions for different types of respondentA major challenge in designing PSS questionnaires has been to

capture the great diversity in security and insecurity around the world.For example, there are major differences in people’s basic security andliving conditions as between high-income and low-income countries,and between urban and rural areas within countries at similar levels ofdevelopment. There are also major differences in work-related securityand insecurity between people with different employment statuses;indeed, even the basic concepts underlying work-related securities often

9 The main respondent is chosen using a randomized method such as a random numberstable, as in Bangladesh, or a last birthday method, as in South Africa (see Anker, op. cit., for adetailed description of the former method).


differ significantly (e.g. between the self-employed and employees, casualworkers and regular employees, the employed and the unemployed,those who are inactive and labour force participants).

In some countries, PSSs have captured some of this diversity byusing separate blocks of questions for different types of respondents(e.g. self-employed vs. employees, rural vs. urban, women vs. men). Butsince it is not possible to capture all these differences in one question-naire, the following practical approach is recommended for futuremodel questionnaires.(a) Many questions should be addressed to all respondents regardless

of the country’s level of development or the respondent’s employ-ment status or sex (e.g. most questions in the “Background informa-tion” and “Basic security” sections; most opinion, perception andnormative questions; and many of the questions dealing with ex-periences and coping mechanisms for the work-related securities).

(b) When relevant for a particular security, separate blocks of ques-tions should be used for employees and self-employed persons,and another block of questions for women.

(c) National PSSs should include questions on security issues whichare particularly important in the local context.

Reference periodPSS questionnaires have so far used a variety of reference periods.

To ensure cross-country comparability, however, reference periods willneed to be standardized in future PSS questionnaires. Standardizedreference periods for specific questions should be set after consideringconceptual relevance, event frequency, and likely recall error. To thatend, the following general rules are recommended:(a) A three year reference period when questions inquire about future

expectations and prospects, or about past experiences and condi-tions. Three years is long enough to represent the future, but not sofar into the future that it lacks concreteness to respondents.

(b) A one-year reference period for most work-related security ques-tions. One year is the typical reference period for economicmeasures such as income, as it encompasses one annual cycle withseasonal changes.

(c) A one-week or one-month reference period for questions aboutcurrent work/labour force activity. One week is the internationallyaccepted reference period for de�ning current labour forceactivity in the labour force approach. However, this referenceperiod is too short to represent the situation of many poor peoplein developing countries, hence the one-year reference periodgenerally used in the “gainful worker approach”. A one-month


reference period could be a reasonable practical compromise forcurrent work-related situations in many low-income countries.

De�nition of householdThe definition of a household has to be clear: aside from being the

sampling unit, the household is, of course, critical for its members’security. The most common definition used for household surveys isthat of persons eating from a common hearth and/or sleeping togetherunder the same roof.

The PSS extends this typical definition to include persons whopool/share a substantial part of their income. By this economic defini-tion, households include persons who are temporarily away from home,such as children who are supported while in school, and migrants whoregularly send money back home. Although this definition requiresmore judgement by the interviewer, it is closer to the household-levelbasic security concepts of concern in the PSS.

Sampling and sample designPSSs typically use multi-stage sampling. Large areas or regions are

often chosen in the first stage (e.g. capital city, smaller cities, and/orparticular rural districts with differing agricultural structures andincomes). These areas or regions might be chosen (purposely or ran-domly) to reduce interview cost per household, but also to ensurevariation and/or emphasis in the sample. Within the purposely chosenareas (e.g. city or rural district), sub-areas are typically chosen in thesecond and subsequent stages of sampling (e.g. zones of a city and thenslum neighbourhoods in urban areas; counties and then villages in ruralareas).10 In the final sampling stage, households would be randomlyselected from a complete list of households (e.g. all households in a vil-lage; all households from a small set of streets/lanes in an urban slum).In countries where household listings are unavailable, incomplete orout of date, survey teams develop their own sample frame by doing acensus listing of households in the final cluster (e.g. villages in ruralareas; neighbourhoods/lanes/streets in urban areas).

It is important to note that while PSS samples should be represen-tative of households in sample areas, they are not representative ofadults in those areas. Since only one person in each randomly selected

10 Within urban areas (or rural areas for that matter), it may be desirable purposely to over-sample poor areas (e.g. slums in urban areas, or backward districts in rural areas) when one is par-ticularly interested in the situation of the poor and worst off. This is acceptable if information iscollected and retained so that weights can be calculated for the final sample, thereby enabling thesurvey data collected to be post-weighted at the analytical stage in order to report results that arerepresentative of the general population.


household is interviewed, persons in larger households have less chanceof being selected compared to persons in smaller households. In otherwords, persons living in small (e.g. nuclear) households are over-represented, and persons in large (e.g. extended) households are under-represented in PSS samples.

Additional PSS instrumentsPSS questionnaires are household/individual-type questionnaires.

Yet future PSSs could usefully collect information using communityquestionnaires and qualitative methodologies as well. This wouldmean that a complete PSS would include three types of instruments andinformation:l Household/individual questionnairel Community questionnairel Qualitative data

So far, PSSs have not collected community-level data using com-munity questionnaires. Yet, community-level information is importantfor understanding and describing both basic security and work-relatedsecurity, since the community setting greatly influences (and sometimesdetermines) security. For example, some communities are prone tonatural disasters; labour market opportunities vary across communi-ties; and provision of public and private facilities – such as roads,schools or health clinics – varies across communities. Many other exam-ples could be given.11 For these reasons, it is recommended that futurePSSs should include a complementary community questionnaire.

Even though only two PSSs (Gujarat/India and the United Repub-lic of Tanzania) have so far included complementary qualitative en-quiries, it is recommended that they be included in all future PSSs. Agood time to collect qualitative information would be after the initialanalysis of PSS data, since this would allow in-depth investigation of theunderlying reasons for interesting preliminary results. It is thereforerecommended that semi-structured qualitative PSS guides should bedeveloped. The complexity of socio-economic and work-related secu-rity and insecurity is often impossible to capture in a structured house-hold survey questionnaire. Qualitative approaches (such as in-depthcase studies, life histories, and group discussions) provide a way of in-

11 It is important to keep in mind that recommended interviewing techniques differ asbetween community questionnaires and household questionnaires (see Richard E. Bilsborrow,Richard B. Anker and Deborah S. DeGraff: Poverty monitoring and rapid assessment surveys,Geneva, ILO, 1998). Whereas privacy is recommended for household surveys, group discussion isrecommended for community questionnaires. Whereas face-to-face interviews with an individualare used for household surveys, information is obtained from key informants and records for com-munity surveys.


vestigating the complex nature of security and insecurity, and putting“flesh” on the dry bones of survey data.

Portfolio workersMany workers in low-income countries are “portfolio” workers,

i.e. workers with a portfolio of work/income-earning activities/jobswhich help them to spread risk and make ends meet. However, PSSquestionnaires have not handled this situation well. Further thoughtand discussions need to be put into capturing the work-related securitysituation of workers engaged in multiple activities, whether during thecurrent work reference period (e.g. one week or one month) or over thepast year.

The “cafeteria approach”, model questionsand model questionnaires

As noted earlier, PSSs have so far followed a flexible approach,allowing national collaborators to include questions and change ques-tion wording when they felt it to be important for their country setting.As a result, a wide range of questions and topics have been covered in dif-ferent PSSs – far too many to be included in any single PSS. Even thoughthis “let-a-thousand-flowers-bloom” approach has contributed to thevitality and development of the PSSs, it is important to move away fromthis approach in future PSSs. It is recommended that model questionswith fixed wording should be identified for each topic so as to ensurestandardization and cross-country comparability. Also, the structure andapproximate size of the different security sections of the PSS question-naire should be set, and a core set of issues and questions should be iden-tified. Finally, the core set of PSS questions should be few enough innumber to allow national institutes some opportunity to add questionson security issues which are especially important in their country.

Concluding remarksThe People’s Security Survey is a new type of household survey

which was launched in 2000 by the ILO’s InFocus Programme on Socio-Economic Security. The idea of such a survey was born of the perceivedneed to learn, from people’s own voices, about insecurity in work andlife. By the end of 2001, surveys had been carried out in 13 countriesaround the world.

PSSs differ from typical household surveys in how they combinequestions which collect information on: (i) the actual socio-economicsituation facing respondents; (ii) perceptions of respondents abouttheir security and insecurity; (iii) resources available to respondents for


coping with insecurity; and (iv) opinion of respondents about social jus-tice and norms regarding security and insecurity.

PSSs also differ from typical household surveys in the broad rangeof socio-economic security issues they cover. They include informationon households’ basic socio-economic security situation and on sevenwork-related aspects of security and insecurity, with questionnaire sec-tions on: work/unemployment, keeping/losing current work, skills,career advancement, work safety, voice at work, and income from work.

Considerable work has been put into developing the PSSs in thepast two years. The outcome is in many ways an impressive achieve-ment. Many would agree that the PSS represents a useful approach tomeasuring and understanding socio-economic security. At the sametime, more needs to be done to improve and refine the PSSs. Thepresent article, it is hoped, provides a basis for moving forward and waswritten in that spirit.

Appendix A: Detailed contents of PSS questionnaires

Background information1. Household members’ characteristics

a. Demographic (age, sex, marital status, temporary absence, name, relationshipto household head)

b. Work activity (main and multiple)c. Educationd. Ethnicity, religion, language, etc.e. Disability

2. Respondenta. Demographic (age, sex, marital status, number of children, age of youngest

children, migrant experience, place of birth)b. Education (self, spouse, household head)c. Work activity (main and multiple)d. Disability

3. Amount of land owned and cultivated

4. Family farm activities (e.g. crops grown, number of harvests, types of inputs,yields, major losses, etc.)

5. Family business activities (e.g. sector, sales, number of paid and unpaid workers,seasonality, etc.)

Basic security1. Perceived suf�ciency of income for various aspects of basic needs

2. Perceived �nancial security in future

3. Health carea. Access and useb. Ability to pay and need to borrowc. Medical insurance


4. Housinga. Ownershipb. Quality and size

5. Environment near home

6. Educationa. Attendance of childrenb. Accessc. Change in quality of school facilities

d. As an investment for respondent

7. Fooda. Number of meals and hungerb. Consumption of milk, meat, etc.

8. Watera. Sourceb. Need to purchase water

9. Debta. Extent of debtb. Why borrowc. Borrow from whomd. Perceived ability to pay back

e. Obligation to work to pay back

10. Financial crises experienceda. Experiencesb. Rely on whom for help

11. Violence/safetya. Experiencesb. Offenderc. Perception of safety

12. Transfers received from public or private sources

13. Number of hours of sleep

14. Perceptions of fatalism and control on life

15. Opinion on income rules for societya. Rules for limits on income level of individualsb. Acceptability of current income inequality level

16. Opinion on helping poora. Whether government should compensate unpaid care workb. Whether non-poor should give to poor householdsc. Whether government should provide a minimum income for the poor

17. Opinion on taking action (when and what)a. Against government and local authoritiesb. Against employers


Income security (having sufficient income) 1. Income level

a. Householdb. Respondentc. Most important income source(s) for household

2. Fringe bene�ts on various dimensions

3. Wage arrears

4. Change in income from past

5. How income receiveda. Payment methodb. Share of income known in advancec. Whether women get to keep cash earnedd. Whether raw materials and equipment provided by employer

6. Income �uctuationsa. Regularity of incomeb. Major farm losses

7. Expectations for future incomea. Next 12 monthsb. Old age

8. Opinion on suf�ciency of income for usual needs

9. Opinion on own relative income

10. Transfers receiveda. From othersb. From government or NGOs

11. Savingsa. Ability to saveb. Main reason to savec. Perceived security of savings in various forms

12. Knowledge of of�cial supportsa. Of�cial minimum wage rateb. Of�cial poverty linec. Government and NGO transfers

Labour market security (finding/having employment) 1. Current work activity

a. Employment statusb. Hours of workc. Multiple work activities

2. Length of work experience

3. Unemployment experiencea. Experience in past 12 months and statusb. Reason for unemployment


c. Efforts made when unemployed to �nd workd. Past experience

4. Unemployment experience of other household members or close relatives

5. Unemployment bene�tsa. Receipt of bene�tsb. Requirements imposed to receive bene�tsc. Opinion on government providing bene�ts

6. Opinion/knowledge of unemployment rate levela. Current levelb. Expected change in future

7. Change in size of current workplacea. Change in past 12 monthsb. Expected change in next 12 months

8. Work considered unacceptable and restrictions on taking wage worka. Restrictions on women working for wagesb. Experience with and desire for wage workc. Types of work considered unacceptable

9. In case of job-lossa. Dif�culty of �nding similar workb. Willingness to migrate for workc. Receipt of notice period and �nal payd. Opinion on advance notice employers should be required to give

10. Perceived likelihood of losing job due to pregnancy or illness

11. Public works opportunities in locality

12. Opinion on government providing social bene�tsa. Unemployment bene�tsb. Social services and social bene�tsc. Duration of maternity and paternity leave

Employment security (current work and its continuation) 1. Characteristics of current work

a. Occupationb. Place of workc. Regularity of work

2. Characteristics of employera. Sectorb. Private or publicc. Foreign or domestic ownershipd. Size of establishmente. Use of subcontracting

3. Contracta. Type of contractb. Subcontracting work or work for labour contractorc. Self-employed’s need for licence


4. Multiple work activitiesa. Respondentb. Other household members

5. Workplace changes

a. Tenure at current workplaceb. Workplace changes in past

6. Perceived satisfaction with current work on various dimensions

7. Perceived expectation of keeping current worka. Employee keeping current jobb. Self-employed keeping current work/business

8. Perceived importance of keeping present work

9. Opinion on globalization’s effect on work

10. Children’s help for self-employed and effect on schooling

11. Perception of whether pregnant women would keep job

Skills reproduction security (having skills) 1. Training received

a. Formal trainingb. Informal training

2. Training opportunities inside and outside current workplace

3. Use of quali�cations, skills and traininga. Use of own skills and training in current workb. Use of computers

4. Opinion on quali�cations, skills and traininga. Opinion on time (training and experience) required for current workb. Opinion on adequacy of own skills and training for current workc. Opinion on need for formal training in future

5. Other factors limiting training opportunities

6. Expectations for children’s education

Job security (work and job improvements) 1. Past experiences of advances and regressions in work life

2. Future expectationsa. Advances and regressionsb. Need for new skills

3. Perception of importance of following own work or profession

Work security (safety in the workplace) 1. Work-related injuries, illnesses, and stress experiences

a. Absence from work because of injury, illness or stress of respondentb. Absence of others at workplacec. Absence due to household activities


2. Overwork and control on work timea. Overwork: Break possibilitiesb. Overwork: Unreachable targets, long hours, and unusual hours of workc. Breaks allowed and control of work

3. Sexual and other harassmenta. Sexual harassment of respondent at workplaceb. Sexual harassment of others at workplacec. For self-employed: Harassment by others (e.g. police, ma�a, customers/

spouse)d. For self-employed: Problems of needing licence

4. Safety of workplacea. Whether unsafe work conditions experiencedb. Whether use protective equipment or clothingc. Whether toilet and water available at workplaced. Whether safety department or committee at workplace

5. Opinion on workplace safetya. Opinion of overall safety of current workplaceb. Opinion of need for a sexual harassment policy at current workplace

6. Compensation for medical costs if hurt at workplacea. Whether has insurance at workb. Whether has health and family welfare bene�ts at work

7. Childcare help

8. Opinion on discriminationa. Acceptability of discrimination against different groups on payb. Acceptability of discrimination against different groups on hiringc. Experiences of discrimination observed

Voice in the workplace (voice representation security)1. Trade unions: Knowledge and opinions

a. Knowledge of unions and what they dob. Knowledge of trade union density ratec. Opinion of unionsd. Opinion about forming a union in current workplacee. Opinion about joining a union

2. Opinion of trade unions

3. Trade unions: Activitiesa. Whether union and/or collective bargaining in current workplaceb. Whether a union memberc. Activity as a union member

4. Other organizations representing workersa. Knowledge of other such organizationsb. Membership in other such organizations

5. Employer-employee relationship

6. Circumstances for action

People's Security Surveys: An outline of methodology and concepts

Documents

Transcript of People's Security Surveys: An outline of methodology and concepts