Transcript Household Finances and Consumption Survey: Developing the

A Eurosystem Household Finance and Consumption Survey:
Developing the questionnaire for the planned survey
Panagiota Tzamourani and Carlos Sánchez Muñoz
Q2008, Rome, July 2008
The Household Finances and Consumption
Survey (HFCS)
• Micro data essential to study household financial
behaviour, impact of monetary policy, effect of shocks
• Similar surveys exist in some euro area countries only
– lack of data or data non-harmonised
• EU surveys either do not cover wealth and liabilities
(eg EU-SILC) or target only parts of the population
(eg SHARE)
2
The Household Finances and Consumption
Survey – a proposal
• Eurosystem ‘Household Finance and Consumption
Network’ (HFCN):
• Proposal for a survey on HFC for the euro area
• Proposal should include:
– a common questionnaire
– modalities for the survey implementation
– an estimate of the associated costs
• The survey has not yet been approved
3
This presentation: on the HFCS questionnaire
• Topics
• Questionnaire challenges
– Due to the survey topic
– Due to the international nature of the survey
• Development process
– pretests
• Resolutions
– Content and definitions
– Structure and wording
4
Questionnaire to cover
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Real assets and financial wealth
Liabilities and credit constraints
Income
Consumption
Pensions and insurance policies
Intergenerational transfers
Demographics and employment
• [Payment habits]
5
Data requirements
• Data adequate to address key issues for monetary
policy analysis, financial stability analysis and research
• Consistency with macro data (National Accounts,
banking statistics)
• Consistency with other European survey data (eg.
SILC)
6
Challenges posed by the survey topic
• Detail required, but questions sensitive, questionnaire can
become too long
• Information required ‘difficult’, eg portfolio composition: find
alternative ways of getting information, or, simply resign (!)
• Translate economic concepts and statistical classifications into
everyday language
• Ensure a natural flow of the questionnaire, relax respondents
after demanding sections
7
Challenges posed by the international nature of
the survey
•
Different structure of household assets (real/financial): level of detail
required different in each country
•
Different prevalence and use of loan types (mortgage collaterals; credit
cards)
•
Understanding and knowledge of common concepts varies, eg
• Salaries: Gross or net, monthly or annual
•
Reference period for income and wealth (more general: connected with the
use of tax records, time period of fieldwork)
•
Differences in the characteristics and labelling of financial products, eg
• Sight accounts (current accounts, saving accounts)
• Individual retirement accounts or life insurance
•
Differences in the pension systems across countries
• Social security /occupational pensions
•
Comparability with existing time series
8
The process of developing the questionnaire
•
May-July 2007: drafting questionnaire, written procedure
•
In parallel: Drafting of the handbook of definitions
•
September 2007: Irish pretest (60 cases, spread over 3 phases)
•
November 2007: Revision based on pretest results and written
procedure
•
January 2008: Greek pretest (30 Cases) of new version
•
February 2008: revision and streamlining from ‘Questionnaire subgroup’
•
Spring 2008:
– German pretest (20+180 cases)
– Belgian pretest (40 cases)
– Portuguese pretest (80 NCB staff)
•
Summer 2008: final revision
9
Questionnaire pretests: aims
• Ascertain appropriateness of questionnaire content
• Test understanding of the questions and ease with which
questions can be answered
• Time each phase of interview
• ‘Core’ and ‘non-core’ (optional) components
• Test impact of sectioning ordering
• Test appropriateness of reference person for household
questions // feasibility of getting responses from all adults
• Phrasing in own language
• Implementation issues, e.g. survey letter, non-response,
interviewers’ training, understanding and performance,
oversampling the wealthy
10
Questionnaire pretests: some lessons (1)
Ireland (September 2007, 60 cases, PAPI)
• July version comprising core and non-core questions unworkably
long
• Perceived duplication of income questions (last years’ annual
income and current monthly income)
• Lack of knowledge about pensions held
• Interest rates not known
• Self-employed often found income difficult to report
• Popular questions: consumption, attitudes, payment habits (non-core)
• Resented questions: parents’ occupation, credit constraints, cash in
the house
11
Questionnaire pretests: some lessons (2)
Germany (Spring 2008, 200 achieved interviews, CAPI +
self-completion)
• Questionnaire overall well received
• Fine-tuning needed: modify some questions and lists of answer
categories
Belgium (Spring 2008, 40 cases, PAPI)
• Questions overall well received - very few criticism on the
questions, except
• Income and pension sections inappropriate for many children
above 16
• Questions on mutual funds considered intrusive
12
The HFCS approach
• Overall: output oriented approach, i.e. countries
bound to common definitions rather than
questionnaire
• Streamlined ‘core’ questionnaire /output variables, to
be complemented by ‘non-core’ and country specific
variables, so that
– average interview length about 1 hour
– basic requirements of data provided covered
– concepts applicable and relevant to all countries
• Blue-print common questionnaire to be used in
countries with new surveys
13
HFCS – current questionnaire structure
Pre-interview: selection of respondent/
Household listing
Employment
Demographics
Income
Real assets and their financing
Pensions and insurance policies
Other liabilities / Credit constraints
Intergenerational transfers / gifts
Private businesses / Financial assets
Consumption
Post-interview: interviewer debriefing
Pre/post interview
Individual questions
Household questions
14
HFCS data issues: comparability
• Comparability with National Accounts
– Countries to make the distinction between producer
households and quasi corporations
– Calculation of some ESA95 wealth components; further
comparability possible by adding ‘non-core’ questions
• Comparability with other survey data:
– Income: in line with Canberra report recommendations
– Definitions to the extent possible consistent with EU-SILC
and Eurostat's Concepts and Definitions Database, the OECD
glossaries and other standards
15
HFCS data issues: reference period
Reference period for income and wealth:
• optimal for wealth: current status
• for (annual) income:
– Last calendar year
• Accurate: respondents could consult records, e.g. tax files
• Could be out-of-date, particularly if fieldwork after the middle of
the year
• Inconsistent with wealth
– Last twelve months (chosen)
• Closer to fieldwork
• Consistent with wealth
16
HFCS data issues: pensions, consumption
• Pensions
› Only indicator variables: social insurance/ private
plans, contributions
• Consumption
› Only indicator variables: Money spent on food
outside home, money spent on food at home
17
HFCS: ease respondents’ burden
• Use a communication strategy that creates trust and
stresses confidentiality and anonymity
• Streamlined questionnaire
• Add some ‘soft’ questions to relax respondents
• Allow households to report what they know best (eg
monthly amounts for some income types)
18
Conclusions and next steps
• Overall current questionnaire well received
• Countries with existing surveys will be using their own
questionnaire, with amendments so that they can
provide the ‘core’ variables
• New surveys will use Eurosystem questionnaire
• Governing Council will decide on the proposal this
autumn
• First countries to implement survey in 2009
19
Thank you