West Virginia and Kansas had the lowest cost of living across all U.S. states, with composite costs being half of those found in Hawaii. This was according to a composite index that compares prices for various goods and services on a state-by-state basis. In West Virginia, the cost of living index amounted to **** — well below the national benchmark of 100. Virginia— which had an index value of ***** — was only slightly above that benchmark. Expensive places to live included Hawaii, Massachusetts, and California. Housing costs in the U.S. Housing is usually the highest expense in a household’s budget. In 2023, the average house sold for approximately ******* U.S. dollars, but house prices in the Northeast and West regions were significantly higher. Conversely, the South had some of the least expensive housing. In West Virginia, Mississippi, and Louisiana, the median price of the typical single-family home was less than ******* U.S. dollars. That makes living expenses in these states significantly lower than in states such as Hawaii and California, where housing is much pricier. What other expenses affect the cost of living? Utility costs such as electricity, natural gas, water, and internet also influence the cost of living. In Alaska, Hawaii, and Connecticut, the average monthly utility cost exceeded *** U.S. dollars. That was because of the significantly higher prices for electricity and natural gas in these states.

Luxembourg stands out as the European leader in quality of life for 2025, achieving a score of 220 on the Quality of Life Index. The Netherlands follows closely behind with 211 points, while Albania and Ukraine rank at the bottom with scores of 104 and 115 respectively. This index provides a thorough assessment of living conditions across Europe, reflecting various factors that shape the overall well-being of populations and extending beyond purely economic metrics. Understanding the quality of life index The quality of life index is a multifaceted measure that incorporates factors such as purchasing power, pollution levels, housing affordability, cost of living, safety, healthcare quality, traffic conditions, and climate, to measure the overall quality of life of a Country. Higher overall index scores indicate better living conditions. However, in subindexes such as pollution, cost of living, and traffic commute time, lower values correspond to improved quality of life. Challenges affecting life satisfaction Despite the fact that European countries register high levels of life quality by for example leading the ranking of happiest countries in the world, life satisfaction across the European Union has been on a downward trend since 2018. The EU's overall life satisfaction score dropped from 7.3 out of 10 in 2018 to 7.1 in 2022. This decline can be attributed to various factors, including the COVID-19 pandemic and economic challenges such as high inflation. Rising housing costs, in particular, have emerged as a critical concern, significantly affecting quality of life. This issue has played a central role in shaping voter priorities for the European Parliamentary Elections in 2024 and becoming one of the most pressing challenges for Europeans, profoundly influencing both daily experiences and long-term well-being.

Quality of life is a measure of comfort, health, and happiness by a person or a group of people. Quality of life is determined by both material factors, such as income and housing, and broader considerations like health, education, and freedom. Each year, US & World News releases its “Best States to Live in” report, which ranks states on the quality of life each state provides its residents. In order to determine rankings, U.S. News & World Report considers a wide range of factors, including healthcare, education, economy, infrastructure, opportunity, fiscal stability, crime and corrections, and the natural environment. More information on these categories and what is measured in each can be found below:

Healthcare includes access, quality, and affordability of healthcare, as well as health measurements, such as obesity rates and rates of smoking. Education measures how well public schools perform in terms of testing and graduation rates, as well as tuition costs associated with higher education and college debt load. Economy looks at GDP growth, migration to the state, and new business. Infrastructure includes transportation availability, road quality, communications, and internet access. Opportunity includes poverty rates, cost of living, housing costs and gender and racial equality. Fiscal Stability considers the health of the government's finances, including how well the state balances its budget. Crime and Corrections ranks a state’s public safety and measures prison systems and their populations. Natural Environment looks at the quality of air and water and exposure to pollution.

Cost of Living - Country Rankings Dataset

Context:

The "Cost of Living - Country Rankings Dataset" provides comprehensive information on the cost of living in various countries around the world. Understanding the cost of living is crucial for individuals, businesses, and policymakers alike, as it impacts decisions related to travel, relocation, investment, and economic analysis. This dataset is intended to serve as a valuable resource for researchers, data analysts, and anyone interested in exploring and comparing the cost of living across different nations.

Content:

This dataset comprises four primary columns:

1. Countries: This column contains the names of various countries included in the dataset. Each country is identified by its official name.

2. Cost of Living: The "Cost of Living" column represents the cost of living index or score for each country. This index is typically calculated by considering various factors, such as housing, food, transportation, healthcare, and other essential expenses. A higher index value indicates a higher cost of living in that particular country, while a lower value suggests a more affordable cost of living.

3. 2017 Global Rank: This column provides the global ranking of each country's cost of living in the year 2017. The ranking is based on the cost of living index mentioned earlier. A lower rank indicates a lower cost of living relative to other countries, while a higher rank suggests a higher cost of living position.

4. Available Data: The "Available Data" column indicates whether or not data for a specific country and year is available.

This dataset is designed to support various data analysis and visualization tasks. Users can explore trends in the cost of living, identify countries with high or low cost of living, and analyze how rankings have changed over time. Researchers can use this dataset to conduct in-depth studies on the factors influencing the cost of living in different regions and the economic implications of such variations.

Please note that the dataset includes information for the year 2017, and users are encouraged to consider this when interpreting the data, as economic conditions and the cost of living may have changed since then. Additionally, this dataset aims to provide a snapshot of cost of living rankings for countries in 2017 and may not cover every country in the world.

Link: https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/cost_of_living_wb/

Disclaimer: The accuracy and completeness of the data provided in this dataset are subject to the source from which it was obtained. Users are advised to cross-reference this data with authoritative sources and exercise discretion when making decisions based on it. The dataset creator and Kaggle assume no responsibility for any actions taken based on the information provided herein.

The ACCRA Cost of Living Index (COLI) is a measure of living cost differences among urban areas compiled by the Council for Community and Economic Research. Conducted quarterly, the index compares the price of goods and services among approximately 300 communities in the United States and Canada. This Microsoft Excel file contains the average prices of goods and services published in the ACCRA Cost of Living Index since 1990.

Abstract

In 2001, the World Bank in co-operation with the Republika Srpska Institute of Statistics (RSIS), the Federal Institute of Statistics (FOS) and the Agency for Statistics of BiH (BHAS), carried out a Living Standards Measurement Survey (LSMS).

The Living Standard Measurement Survey LSMS, in addition to collecting the information necessary to obtain a comprehensive as possible measure of the basic dimensions of household living standards, has three basic objectives, as follows:

1. To provide the public sector, government, the business community, scientific institutions, international donor organizations and social organizations with information on different indicators of the population's living conditions, as well as on available resources for satisfying basic needs.

2. To provide information for the evaluation of the results of different forms of government policy and programs developed with the aim to improve the population's living standard. The survey will enable the analysis of the relations between and among different aspects of living standards (housing, consumption, education, health, labor) at a given time, as well as within a household.

3. To provide key contributions for development of government's Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper, based on analyzed data.

The Department for International Development, UK (DFID) contributed funding to the LSMS and provided funding for a further three years of data collection for a panel survey, known as the Household Survey Panel Series (HSPS) – and more popularly known as Living in BiH (LiBiH). Birks Sinclair & Associates Ltd. in cooperation with the Independent Bureau for Humanitarian Issues (IBHI) were responsible for the management of the HSPS with technical advice and support provided by the Institute for Social and Economic Research (ISER), University of Essex, UK.

The panel survey provides longitudinal data through re-interviewing approximately half the LSMS respondents for three years following the LSMS, in the autumns of 2002 and 2003 and the winter of 2004. The LSMS constitutes Wave 1 of the panel survey so there are four years of panel data available for analysis. For the purposes of this documentation we are using the following convention to describe the different rounds of the panel survey: - Wave 1 LSMS conducted in 2001 forms the baseline survey for the panel - Wave 2 Second interview of 50% of LSMS respondents in Autumn/Winter 2002 - Wave 3 Third interview with sub-sample respondents in Autumn/Winter 2003 - Wave 4 Fourth interview with sub-sample respondents in Winter 2004

The panel data allows the analysis of key transitions and events over this period such as labour market or geographical mobility and observations on the consequent outcomes for the well-being of individuals and households in the survey. The panel data provides information on income and labour market dynamics within FBiH and RS. A key policy area is developing strategies for the reduction of poverty within FBiH and RS. The panel will provide information on the extent to which continuous poverty and movements in an out of poverty are experienced by different types of households and individuals over the four year period. Most importantly, the co-variates associated with moves into and out of poverty and the relative risks of poverty for different people can be assessed. As such, the panel aims to provide data, which will inform the policy debates within BiH at a time of social reform and rapid change.

In order to develop base line (2004) data on poverty, incomes and socio-economic conditions, and to begin to monitor and evaluate the implementation of the BiH MTDS, EPPU commissioned this modified fourth round of the LiBiH Panel Survey.

Geographic coverage

National coverage. Domains: Urban/rural/mixed; Federation; Republic

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The Wave 4 sample comprised of 2882 households interviewed at Wave 3 (1309 in the RS and 1573 in FBiH). As at previous waves, sample households could not be replaced with any other households.

Panel design

Eligibility for inclusion

The household and household membership definitions assume the same standard definitions used at Wave 3. While the sample membership, status and eligibility for interview are as follows: i) All members of households interviewed at Wave 3 have been designated as original sample members (OSMs). OSMs include children within households even if they are too young for interview, i.e. younger than 15 years. ii) Any new members joining a household containing at least one OSM, are eligible for inclusion and are designated as new sample members (NSMs). iii) At each wave, all OSMs and NSMs are eligible for inclusion, apart from those who move outof-scope (see discussion below). iv) All household members aged 15 or over are eligible for interview, including OSMs and NSMs.

Following rules

The panel design provides that sample members who move from their previous wave address must be traced and followed to their new address for interview. In some cases the whole household will move together but in other cases an individual member may move away from their previous wave household and form a new "split-off" household of their own. All sample members, OSMs and NSMs, are followed at each wave and an interview attempted. This method has the benefits of maintaining the maximum number of respondents within the panel and being relatively straightforward to implement in the field.

Definition of 'out-of-scope'

It is important to maintain movers within the sample to maintain sample sizes and reduce attrition and also for substantive research on patterns of geographical mobility and migration. The rules for determining when a respondent is 'out-of-scope' are:

i. Movers out of the country altogether i.e. outside BiH This category of mover is clear. Sample members moving to another country outside BiH will be out-of-scope for that year of the survey and ineligible for interview.

ii. Movers between entities Respondents moving between entities are followed for interview. Personal details of "movers" are passed between the statistical institutes and an interviewer assigned in that entity.

iii. Movers into institutions Although institutional addresses were not included in the original LSMS sample, Wave 4 individuals who have subsequently moved into some institutions are followed. The definitions for which institutions are included are found in the Supervisor Instructions.

iv. Movers into the district of Brcko
Are followed for interview. When coding, Brcko is treated as the entity from which the household moved.

Feed-forward

Details of the address at which respondents were found in the previous wave, together with a listing of household members found in each household at the last wave were fed-forward as the starting point for Wave 4 fieldwork. This "feed-forward" data also includes key variables required for correctly identifying individual sample members and includes the following: - For each household: Household ID (IDD); Full address details and phone number - For each Original Sample Member: Name; Person number (ID); unique personal identifier (LID); Sex; Date of birth

The sample details are held in an Access database and in order to ensure the confidentiality of respondents, personal details, names and addresses are held separately from the survey data collected during fieldwork. The IDD, LID and ID are the key linking variables between the two databases i.e. the name and address database and the survey database.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

Approximately 70% of the questionnaire was based on the Wave 3 questionnaire, carrying forward core measures in order to measure change over time. However in order to develop base line (2004) data on poverty, incomes and socio-economic conditions, and to begin to monitor and evaluate the implementation of the BiHDS the Wave 4 questionnaire additionally contained the Wave 1 Consumption module and a few other LSMS items to allow direct comparability with the Wave 1 data.

Cleaning operations

Dat entry

As at previous waves, CSPro was the chosen data entry software. The CSPro program consists of two main features intended to reduce the number of keying errors and to reduce the editing required following data entry:
- Data entry screens that included all skip patterns. - Range checks for each question (allowing three exceptions for inappropriate, don't know and missing codes).

The Wave 4 data entry program had similar checks to the Wave 3 program - and DE staff were instructed to clear all anomalies with SIG fieldwork members. The program was tested prior to the commencement of data entry. Twelve data entry staff were employed in each Field Office, as all had worked on previous waves training was not undertaken.

Editing

Instructions for editing were provided in the Supervisors Instructions. At Wave 4 supervisors were asked to take more time to edit every questionnaire returned by their interviewers. The SIG Fieldwork Managers examined every Control Form.

Response rate

The level of cases that were unable to be traced is extremely low as are the whole household refusal or non-contact rates. In total, 9128 individuals (including children) were enumerated within the sample households at Wave 4, 5019 individuals in the FBiH and 4109 in the RS. Within in the 2875 eligible households, 7603 individuals aged 15 or over were eligible for interview with 7116 (93.6%) being successfully interviewed. Within co-operating households (where there was at least one interview) the interview rate was

Abstract

THE CLEANED AND HARMONIZED VERSION OF THE SURVEY DATA PRODUCED AND PUBLISHED BY THE ECONOMIC RESEARCH FORUM REPRESENTS 100% OF THE ORIGINAL SURVEY DATA COLLECTED BY THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STATISTICS - TUNISIA (INS)

The National Survey on Household Budget, Consumption, and Standard of Living is a quinquennial survey. The 2010 survey is the ninth of its kind that was carried out by the National Institute of Statistics (INS) in Tunisia. The eight previous surveys were conducted in 1968, 1975, 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995, 2000 and 2005, concurrently with the preparatory work for the Tunisian development plans.

The survey aims at providing detailed information on the procurement of goods and services for consumption. Its data was collected from direct observation of household consumption to allow for having the necessary elements to assess the situation & changes in the living standards & conditions of the households.

The National Survey on Household Budget, Consumption, and Standard of Living consists of three fundamental parts; the budget survey, the nutrition survey and the access to community services survey. Thus, it tackles three areas of study: 1- Households expenses and acquisitions during the survey period. 2 - Food consumption and nutritional status of households. 3 - Household access to health and education community services.

The main objectives of the "budget survey" are: a- Estimate the levels of expenditure on the household level: The total expenditure of the household is not only an indicator on household income, but it is also a quantitative assessment of the standard of living index. b- Evaluate the income distribution: Due to the absence of data on income distribution, the mass distribution of expenditure between the different categories of the population constitutes a first sketch for the income distribution in the country. c- Assess the structure of expenditure: Detailed information collected on expenditures per product are used to establish the structures of the household expenditure, as well as the budget coefficients according to different levels of classifications of goods and services. These coefficients are particularly useful in the revision and development of the Consumer Prices Index (CPI) weights. d- Predict the demand of households: The household behavior, assessed in terms of product demand, is synthesized by the coefficients of income elasticity, which, according to the model of consumption retained and under the assumptions of the growth of income and population, allows predicting future household demand. e- Analyze the importance of consumer subsidies: analysis of the consumption of subsidized goods by expenditure deciles allows identifying the impact of direct consumer subsidies. It also allows evaluating the effectiveness of public policies grants.

The main objectives of "the nutrition survey" are: a- Provide estimates of food consumption by product for different groups of households according to their demographic and socio-economic characteristics. b- Estimate food consumption of each product by collecting data on the quantities consumed of each product by source, whether purchased or own produced. c- Identify the nutritional status of the population according to its demographic, geographic and socio-economic level. The comparison between the standards needs of nutrients to those acquired by the household enables assessing of the nutritional status and thus deficits in different nutrients such as calories, protein, vitamins, calcium, ... can also be captured. d- Estimate the calorie intake and energy needs of the Tunisian population: This estimate is indispensible in the calculation of the food component of the poverty line and, in consequence, the threshold of global poverty.

The main objective of "the access to community services survey" is to provide an overview on the state of morbidity of the Tunisian population, from one hand, and on the households' access to various health and education public services on other hand.

The raw survey data provided by the Statistical Agency were cleaned and harmonized by the Economic Research Forum, in the context of a major project that started in 2009. During which extensive efforts have been exerted to acquire, clean, harmonize, preserve and disseminate micro data of existing household surveys in several Arab countries.

Geographic coverage

Covering a sample of all urban, small and medium towns and rural areas.

Analysis unit

1- Household/family. 2- Individual/person.

Universe

The survey covered a national sample of households and all individuals permanently residing in surveyed households.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

Sampling method

The National Survey on Household Budget, Consumption and Standard of Living, 2010 has focused initially on a sample of 13,392 households drawn using a two stages stratified random sampling in each governorate. The sampling frame follows that of the General Census of Population and Housing in 2004 which was updated during the implementation of the National Population and Employment Survey in 2009.

Stratification criteria: The sampling frame is stratified by two geographical criteria: namely the governorate and the living area. The latter is stratified as follows: large cities, medium and small cities, and non-communal areas.

These stratification criteria (governorate, living area and size of city) represent variables that differentiate between surveyed households' lifestyles. Thus, the 3 strata types used are as follows:

Stratum of large cities (stratum 1): This stratum is formed of large urban centers corresponding to municipalities with more than 100.000 inhabitants and neighboring municipalities.

Stratum of medium and small cities (stratum 2): This stratum includes all medium and small sized cities other than those classified in the stratum of large cities.

Stratum of non-communal areas (stratum 3): It includes agglomerations in rural areas that are classified as major agglomerations in the General Census of Population and Housing 2004 and the National Population and Employment Survey in 2009. In addition to other areas that are located outside the territory of main municipalities and cities. 

Households in these areas reside in scattered dwellings or are grouped in small agglomerations.

Survey type

The sampling frame is divided on the level of each governorate according to strata previously defined. On the stratum level, a two-stage random sampling is planned for the selection of the survey sample of households. This process allows to breakdown the sample into clusters of 12 households relatively little distant from each other, thereby facilitating the conduct of the survey at the time of the information collection in the field.

In the first stage, a sample of 1,116 primary units is drawn in proportion to the number of households identified in the 2009National Population and Employment Survey. Taking into consideration that the primary units correspond to the districts that have been defined in the General Census of Population and Housing in 2004, which are geographic areas comprising on average 70 households.

In the second stage, from each primary unit (or cluster), twelve households are drawn through a simple random sampling technique. A substitutive sample of 12 additional households is further drawn from each primary unit. Those additional households constituting a substitutive list are used to cover for unidentified households at the time of the survey, given the mobility of households and the period between the date on which the sample is drawn and the date on which the survey is conducted.

Sample size

The size of the sample drawn in the first stage is 1,116 primary sampling units (PSU) corresponding to 13,392 households. The samples in the second stage are 12 households per primary unit. To optimize the use of logistic and material resources available, a sample of at least 36 PSU was selected from the less populated governorates, 3 PSU per month (the survey is conducted over a 12 months period). This represents the monthly work of the survey team (3 interviews and 1 supervisor to whom a car is assigned). Moreover, as the number of households varies from one governorate to another, it was agreed to adopt different rate of sampling from one governorate to another.

The following table shows the regional distribution of the sample and the corresponding sampling rates.

Regional Distribution of the Survey Sample

This dataset contains replication files for "The Fading American Dream: Trends in Absolute Income Mobility Since 1940" by Raj Chetty, David Grusky, Maximilian Hell, Nathaniel Hendren, Robert Manduca, and Jimmy Narang. For more information, see https://opportunityinsights.org/paper/the-fading-american-dream/. A summary of the related publication follows. One of the defining features of the “American Dream” is the ideal that children have a higher standard of living than their parents. We assess whether the U.S. is living up to this ideal by estimating rates of “absolute income mobility” – the fraction of children who earn more than their parents – since 1940. We measure absolute mobility by comparing children’s household incomes at age 30 (adjusted for inflation using the Consumer Price Index) with their parents’ household incomes at age 30. We find that rates of absolute mobility have fallen from approximately 90% for children born in 1940 to 50% for children born in the 1980s. Absolute income mobility has fallen across the entire income distribution, with the largest declines for families in the middle class. These findings are unaffected by using alternative price indices to adjust for inflation, accounting for taxes and transfers, measuring income at later ages, and adjusting for changes in household size. Absolute mobility fell in all 50 states, although the rate of decline varied, with the largest declines concentrated in states in the industrial Midwest, such as Michigan and Illinois. The decline in absolute mobility is especially steep – from 95% for children born in 1940 to 41% for children born in 1984 – when we compare the sons’ earnings to their fathers’ earnings. Why have rates of upward income mobility fallen so sharply over the past half-century? There have been two important trends that have affected the incomes of children born in the 1980s relative to those born in the 1940s and 1950s: lower Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth rates and greater inequality in the distribution of growth. We find that most of the decline in absolute mobility is driven by the more unequal distribution of economic growth rather than the slowdown in aggregate growth rates. When we simulate an economy that restores GDP growth to the levels experienced in the 1940s and 1950s but distributes that growth across income groups as it is distributed today, absolute mobility only increases to 62%. In contrast, maintaining GDP at its current level but distributing it more broadly across income groups – at it was distributed for children born in the 1940s – would increase absolute mobility to 80%, thereby reversing more than two-thirds of the decline in absolute mobility. These findings show that higher growth rates alone are insufficient to restore absolute mobility to the levels experienced in mid-century America. Under the current distribution of GDP, we would need real GDP growth rates above 6% per year to return to rates of absolute mobility in the 1940s. Intuitively, because a large fraction of GDP goes to a small fraction of high-income households today, higher GDP growth does not substantially increase the number of children who earn more than their parents. Of course, this does not mean that GDP growth does not matter: changing the distribution of growth naturally has smaller effects on absolute mobility when there is very little growth to be distributed. The key point is that increasing absolute mobility substantially would require more broad-based economic growth. We conclude that absolute mobility has declined sharply in America over the past half-century primarily because of the growth in inequality. If one wants to revive the “American Dream” of high rates of absolute mobility, one must have an interest in growth that is shared more broadly across the income distribution.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

• Households
• Individuals

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The population for LSMS consists of Republic of Serbia residents, excluding Kosovo and Metohija . The sampling frame for the LSMS was based on the Enumeration District (ED) delineated for the 2002 Serbia Census, excluding those with less than 20 households. It is estimated that the households in the excluded EDs only represent about 1 percent of the population of Serbia.

The sampling frame also excludes the population living in group quarters, institutions and temporary housing units, as well as the homeless population: these groups also represent less than 1 percent of the population, so the sampling frame should cover at least 98 percent of the Serbian population.

Stratification was done in the same way as for the previous LSMSs. Enumeration District werestratified according to: - Region in 6 strata (Vojvodina, Belgrade, West Serbia, Sumadija and Pomoravlj e, East Serbia and South East Serbia). - Type of settlement (urban and other).

The allocation of EDs according to region and type of settlement was propoI1ionai to the number of occupied dwellings, adjusted to provide sufficient precision of estimates at the regional level. To provide optimal sample sizes in each region we decided that the minimum number of allocated EDs to each stratum should be 60. The result of this procedure was a slight deviation from strictly proportional allocation.

The sample size for LSMS 2007 was 71 40 households from 510 selected EDs. Within each ED 14 occupied dwellings were selected. From each selected occupied dwellings one household was selected (using a Kish Grid). The sample size was determined according with the aim of achieving 5,000 household interviews with an expected non-response rate of around 30%. The final response rate was 78%, producing a sample size of 5,557 households.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Response rate

Response rate was 78%.

The average for 2021 based on 165 countries was 79.81 index points. The highest value was in Bermuda: 212.7 index points and the lowest value was in Syria: 33.25 index points. The indicator is available from 2017 to 2021. Below is a chart for all countries where data are available.

Abstract

In 1992, Bosnia-Herzegovina, one of the six republics in former Yugoslavia, became an independent nation. A civil war started soon thereafter, lasting until 1995 and causing widespread destruction and losses of lives. Following the Dayton accord, BosniaHerzegovina (BiH) emerged as an independent state comprised of two entities, namely, the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina (FBiH) and the Republika Srpska (RS), and the district of Brcko. In addition to the destruction caused to the physical infrastructure, there was considerable social disruption and decline in living standards for a large section of the population. Alongside these events, a period of economic transition to a market economy was occurring. The distributive impacts of this transition, both positive and negative, are unknown. In short, while it is clear that welfare levels have changed, there is very little information on poverty and social indicators on which to base policies and programs. In the post-war process of rebuilding the economic and social base of the country, the government has faced the problems created by having little relevant data at the household level. The three statistical organizations in the country (State Agency for Statistics for BiH -BHAS, the RS Institute of Statistics-RSIS, and the FBiH Institute of Statistics-FIS) have been active in working to improve the data available to policy makers: both at the macro and the household level. One facet of their activities is to design and implement a series of household series. The first of these surveys is the Living Standards Measurement Study survey (LSMS). Later surveys will include the Household Budget Survey (an Income and Expenditure Survey) and a Labour Force Survey. A subset of the LSMS households will be re-interviewed in the two years following the LSMS to create a panel data set.

The three statistical organizations began work on the design of the Living Standards Measurement Study Survey (LSMS) in 1999. The purpose of the survey was to collect data needed for assessing the living standards of the population and for providing the key indicators needed for social and economic policy formulation. The survey was to provide data at the country and the entity level and to allow valid comparisons between entities to be made. The LSMS survey was carried out in the Fall of 2001 by the three statistical organizations with financial and technical support from the Department for International Development of the British Government (DfID), United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the Japanese Government, and the World Bank (WB). The creation of a Master Sample for the survey was supported by the Swedish Government through SIDA, the European Commission, the Department for International Development of the British Government and the World Bank. The overall management of the project was carried out by the Steering Board, comprised of the Directors of the RS and FBiH Statistical Institutes, the Management Board of the State Agency for Statistics and representatives from DfID, UNDP and the WB. The day-to-day project activities were carried out by the Survey Management Team, made up of two professionals from each of the three statistical organizations. The Living Standard Measurement Survey LSMS, in addition to collecting the information necessary to obtain a comprehensive as possible measure of the basic dimensions of household living standards, has three basic objectives, as follows: 1. To provide the public sector, government, the business community, scientific institutions, international donor organizations and social organizations with information on different indicators of the population's living conditions, as well as on available resources for satisfying basic needs. 2. To provide information for the evaluation of the results of different forms of government policy and programs developed with the aim to improve the population's living standard. The survey will enable the analysis of the relations between and among different aspects of living standards (housing, consumption, education, health, labour) at a given time, as well as within a household. 3. To provide key contributions for development of government's Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper, based on analysed data.

Geographic coverage

National coverage

Analysis unit

Households

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

(a) SAMPLE SIZE A total sample of 5,400 households was determined to be adequate for the needs of the survey: with 2,400 in the Republika Srpska and 3,000 in the Federation of BiH. The difficulty was in selecting a probability sample that would be representative of the country's population. The sample design for any survey depends upon the availability of information on the universe of households and individuals in the country. Usually this comes from a census or administrative records. In the case of BiH the most recent census was done in 1991. The data from this census were rendered obsolete due to both the simple passage of time but, more importantly, due to the massive population displacements that occurred during the war. At the initial stages of this project it was decided that a master sample should be constructed. Experts from Statistics Sweden developed the plan for the master sample and provided the procedures for its construction. From this master sample, the households for the LSMS were selected. Master Sample [This section is based on Peter Lynn's note "LSMS Sample Design and Weighting - Summary". April, 2002. Essex University, commissioned by DfID.] The master sample is based on a selection of municipalities and a full enumeration of the selected municipalities. Optimally, one would prefer smaller units (geographic or administrative) than municipalities. However, while it was considered that the population estimates of municipalities were reasonably accurate, this was not the case for smaller geographic or administrative areas. To avoid the error involved in sampling smaller areas with very uncertain population estimates, municipalities were used as the base unit for the master sample. The Statistics Sweden team proposed two options based on this same method, with the only difference being in the number of municipalities included and enumerated.

(b) SAMPLE DESIGN For reasons of funding, the smaller option proposed by the team was used, or Option B. Stratification of Municipalities The first step in creating the Master Sample was to group the 146 municipalities in the country into three strata- Urban, Rural and Mixed - within each of the two entities. Urban municipalities are those where 65 percent or more of the households are considered to be urban, and rural municipalities are those where the proportion of urban households is below 35 percent. The remaining municipalities were classified as Mixed (Urban and Rural) Municipalities. Brcko was excluded from the sampling frame. Urban, Rural and Mixed Municipalities: It is worth noting that the urban-rural definitions used in BiH are unusual with such large administrative units as municipalities classified as if they were completely homogeneous. Their classification into urban, rural, mixed comes from the 1991 Census which used the predominant type of income of households in the municipality to define the municipality. This definition is imperfect in two ways. First, the distribution of income sources may have changed dramatically from the pre-war times: populations have shifted, large industries have closed, and much agricultural land remains unusable due to the presence of land mines. Second, the definition is not comparable to other countries' where villages, towns and cities are classified by population size into rural or urban or by types of services and infrastructure available. Clearly, the types of communities within a municipality vary substantially in terms of both population and infrastructure. However, these imperfections are not detrimental to the sample design (the urban/rural definition may not be very useful for analysis purposes, but that is a separate issue).

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Cleaning operations

(a) DATA ENTRY

An integrated approach to data entry and fieldwork was adopted in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Data entry proceeded side by side with data gathering to ensure verification and correction in the field. Data entry stations were located in the regional offices of the entity institutes and were equipped with computers, modem and a dedicated telephone line. The completed questionnaires were delivered to these stations each day for data entry. Twenty data entry operators (10 from Federation and 10 from RS) were trained in two training sessions held for a week each in Sarajevo and Banja Luka. The trainers were the staff of the two entity institutes who had undergone training in the CSPro software earlier and had participated in the workshops of the Pilot survey. Prior to the training, laptop computers were provided to the entity institutes, and the CSPro software was installed in them. The training for the data entry operators covered the following elements:

• Introduction to the LSMS Survey questionnaire; Introduction to the personal computers/ lap top computers; Copying data on diskette and printing of output
• The Data entry programme (CSPro). Understanding of the Round 1 data entry screens (Modules 1-10)
• Practice of Round 1 (data entry trainees enter questionnaires completed by interviewer trainees during practice interviews)
• Understanding of Round 2 Data entry screen (Modules 11-13)
• Practice of Round 2 Data entry screens (data entry trainees entered the questionnaires completed by interviewer trainees)
• Control Procedures; Copying

This table contains data on the living wage and the percent of families with incomes below the living wage for California, its counties, regions and cities/towns. Living wage is the wage needed to cover basic family expenses (basic needs budget) plus all relevant taxes; it does not include publicly provided income or housing assistance. The percent of families below the living wage was calculated using data from the Living Wage Calculator and the U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey. The table is part of a series of indicators in the Healthy Communities Data and Indicators Project of the Office of Health Equity. The living wage is the wage or annual income that covers the cost of the bare necessities of life for a worker and his/her family. These necessities include housing, transportation, food, childcare, health care, and payment of taxes. Low income populations and non-white race/ethnic have disproportionately lower wages, poorer housing, and higher levels of food insecurity. More information about the data table and a data dictionary can be found in the About/Attachments section.

This statistic shows an assessment of living standards by Germans from 2007 to 2011. In 2011, 23 percent of respondents stated that their standard of living is getting worse.

Purpose and brief description EU-SILC (European Union - Statistics on Income and Living Conditions) is a survey on income and living conditions and an important tool to map poverty and social exclusion at both Belgian and European level. The objective of this survey is to establish a global framework for the production of 'Community' statistical data on income and living conditions (EU-SILC), including both coherent cross-sectional and longitudinal data on income and poverty (level, composition,...) at national and European level. The survey is carried out in Belgium and in the other EU Member States and is coordinated by Eurostat, the statistical office of the European Union. In Belgium, the SILC is organised by Statbel. Population Private households in Belgium Data collection method and sample size CAPI (Computer Assisted Personal Interview) - CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone Interview). Response rate ± 60% (N= ± 6.000 households) Periodicity Annually. Release calendar First quarter after survey year Forms SILC: individual questionnaire SILC: questionnaire households Definitions Risk of poverty or social exclusion (AROPE) The risk of poverty or social exclusion, abbreviated AROPE, refers to the situation in which individuals are faced with at least one of the 3 following poverty risks: monetary poverty, severe material and social deprivation or living in a household with very low work intensity. The AROPE rate, the share of the total population at risk of poverty or social exclusion, is the main indicator for monitoring the ‘EU 2030’ target on poverty and social exclusion. Poverty risk = Monetary poverty risk (AROP) The at-risk-of-poverty rate (AROP) is the percentage of people with an equivalised disposable income (after social transfer) below the poverty threshold. The indicator does not measure wealth or poverty, but low income in comparison to other residents in that country. This does not necessarily imply a low standard of living. Poverty risk before social transfers: Percentage of people whose equivalised disposable income after deduction of all social transfers falls below the poverty threshold. Poverty risk before social transfers, excluding pensions: Percentage of people whose equivalised disposable income after deduction of social transfers, excluding pensions, falls below the poverty threshold. Material and social deprivation rate (MSD) and severe material and social deprivation (SMSD) The material and social deprivation rate refers to the inability to afford some goods/services considered by most people to be desirable or even necessary to lead an adequate life. The indicator distinguishes between individuals who cannot afford a certain good/service/activity, and those who do not have this good/service/activity for another reason, e.g. because they do not want or do not need it. The EU-SILC survey asks households about their financial (in)ability to: Pay the bills as scheduled Take every year one week’s holiday away from home Eat a meal with meat, chicken, fish or vegetarian equivalent every second day Face unexpected financial expenses Afford a car Keep the home warm Replace damaged or worn-out furniture In addition, people are asked about their individual financial (in)ability to: Replace worn out or old-fashioned clothes by new ones Have two pairs of shoes in good condition Afford an internet connection at home Get together with friends/family (relatives) for a drink/meal at least once a month Participate regularly in a leisure activity Spend a small amount of money each week on yourself The material and social deprivation rate (MSD) is defined as the enforced inability to pay for at least five of the above-mentioned items. The severe material and social deprivation rate (SMSD) is defined as the enforced inability to pay for at least seven of the above-mentioned items. Low work intensity (LWI) The indicator persons living in households with very low work intensity is defined as the number of persons living in a household where the members of working age worked a working time less than 20% of their total work-time potential during the previous 12 months. The work intensity of a household is the ratio of the total number of months that all working-age household members have worked during the income reference year and the total number of months the same household members theoretically could have worked in the same period. An employee of working age is a person aged 18-59, excluding students aged 18-24. Households composed only of children, of students aged less than 25 and/or people aged 60 or more are completely excluded from the indicator calculation. Level of education The level of education is measured using a detailed questionnaire, and the people are then divided into three groups. Low-skilled people are people who list lower secondary education as their highest level of education. Medium-skilled people are people who obtained a diploma of higher secondary education but not of higher

Abstract

This study aims to help address the issue of the appropriate use of statistical data in policy development in Serbia. Faced with enterprise restructuring, high unemployment and high levels of social exclusion, as well as the consequences of internal population displacement, the Government of Serbia (GoS) has recognized and acknowledged the need for fundamental reforms in social policy area and the collection of adequate data of social statistics. Reliable household data are scarce in Serbia, with the result that social policy making is put on a precarious basis. The exceptional circumstances of Serbia have left a legacy of immense complexity, in which social groups have become fractured and excluded. A statistically reliable basis for policy making, particularly in the social sphere, is a priority. Data on poverty and living standards are seen as a part of information system to support decision making by the GoS and its line Ministries. The public is also keenly interested in poverty data. Therefore poverty data are also crucially important for strategic planning bodies within GoS, and for donors in assessing their strategies in support of the Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRS).

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

Households

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The population for LSMS consists of Republic of Serbia residents, excluding Kosovo and Metohija . The sampling frame for the LSMS was based on the Enumeration District (ED) delineated for the 2002 Serbia Census, excluding those with less than 20 households. It is estimated that the households in the excluded EDs only represent about 1 percent of the population of Serbia. The sampling frame also excludes the population living in group quarters, institutions and temporary housing units, as well as the homeless population: these groups also represent less than 1 percent of the population, so the sampling frame should cover at least 98 percent of the Serbian population. Stratification was done in the same way as for the previous LSMSs. Enumeration District were stratified according to: (1) Region in 6 strata (Vojvodina, Belgrade, West Serbia, Sumadija and Pomoravlj e, East Serbia and South East Serbia) (2) Type of settlement (urban and other)

The allocation of EDs according to region and type of settlement was propoI1ionai to the number of occupied dwellings, adjusted to provide sufficient precision of estimates at the regional level. To provide optimal sample sizes in each region we decided that the minimum number of allocated EDs to each stratum should be 60. The result of this procedure was a slight deviation from strictly proportional allocation. The sample size for LSMS 2007 was 71 40 households from 510 selected EDs. Within each ED 14 occupied dwellings were selected. From each selected occupied dwelling one household was selected (using a Kish Grid). The sample size was determined according with the aim of achieving 5,000 household interviews with an expected non-response rate of around 30%. The final response rate was 78%, producing a sample size of 5,557 households.

Sampling deviation

The overall estimated total number of households from the 2007 LSMS based on the final weights is about 10 percent lower than the corresponding figure from the 2002 Census frame. The difference is larger for the rural strata (12.1 percent) than the urban strata (8.7 percent). These differences probably include an actual decline in the number of households in some strata and may also reflect the quality of the updating of the listing of occupied dwelling units in sample EDs.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Response rate

Response rate was 78 percent

Abstract

The main objectives of the 2018/19 NLSS are: i) to provide critical information for production of a wide range of socio-economic and demographic indicators, including for benchmarking and monitoring of SDGs; ii) to monitor progress in population's welfare; iii) to provide statistical evidence and measure the impact on households of current and anticipated government policies. In addition, the 2018/19 NLSS could be utilized to improve other non-survey statistical information, e.g. to determine and calibrate the contribution of final consumption expenditures of households to GDP; to update the weights and determine the basket for the national Consumer Price Index (CPI); to improve the methodology and dissemination of micro-economic and welfare statistics in Nigeria.

The 2018/19 NLSS collected a comprehensive and diverse set of socio-economic and demographic data pertaining to the basic needs and conditions under which households live on a day to day basis. The 2018/19 NLSS questionnaire includes wide-ranging modules, covering demographic indicators, education, health, labour, expenditures on food and non-food goods, non-farm enterprises, household assets and durables, access to safety nets, housing conditions, economic shocks, exposure to crime and farm production indicators.

Geographic coverage

National coverage

Analysis unit

Households

Universe

The survey covered all de jure households excluding prisons, hospitals, military barracks, and school dormitories.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

SAMPLING PROCEDURE The 2018/19 NLSS sample is designed to provide representative estimates for the 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja. By extension. The sample is also representative at the national and zonal levels. Although the sample is not explicitly stratified by urban and rural areas, it is possible to obtain urban and rural estimates from the NLSS data at the national level. At all stages, the relative proportion of urban and rural EAs as has been maintained. Before designing the sample for the 2018/19 NLSS, the results from the 2009/10 HNLSS were analysed to extract the sampling properties (variance, design effect, etc.) and estimate the required sample size to reach a desired precision for poverty estimates in the 2018/19 NLSS.

EA SELECTION: The sampling frame for the 2018/19 NLSS was based on the national master sample developed by the NBS, referred to as the NISH2 (Nigeria Integrated Survey of Households 2). This master sample was based on the enumeration areas (EAs) defined for the 2006 Nigeria Census Housing and Population conducted by National Population Commission (NPopC). The NISH2 was developed by the NBS to use as a frame for surveys with state-level domains. NISH2 EAs were drawn from another master sample that NBS developed for surveys with LGA-level domains (referred to as the “LGA master sample”). The NISH2 contains 200 EAs per state composed of 20 replicates of 10 sample EAs for each state, selected systematically from the full LGA master sample. Since the 2018/19 NLSS required domains at the state-level, the NISH2 served as the sampling frame for the survey. Since the NISH2 is composed of state-level replicates of 10 sample EAs, a total of 6 replicates were selected from the NISH2 for each state to provide a total sample of 60 EAs per state. The 6 replicates selected for the 2018/19 NLSS in each state were selected using random systematic sampling. This sampling procedure provides a similar distribution of the sample EAs within each state as if one systematic sample of 60 EAs had been selected directly from the census frame of EAs.

A fresh listing of households was conducted in the EAs selected for the 2018/19 NLSS. Throughout the course of the listing, 139 of the selected EAs (or about 6%) were not able to be listed by the field teams. The primary reason the teams were not able to conduct the listing in these EAs was due to security issues in the country. The fieldwork period of the 2018/19 NLSS saw events related to the insurgency in the north east of the country, clashes between farmers and herdsman, and roving groups of bandits. These events made it impossible for the interviewers to visit the EAs in the villages and areas affected by these conflict events. In addition to security issues, some EAs had been demolished or abandoned since the 2006 census was conducted. In order to not compromise the sample size and thus the statistical power of the estimates, it was decided to replace these 139 EAs. Additional EAs from the same state and sector were randomly selected from the remaining NISH2 EAs to replace each EA that could not be listed by the field teams. This necessary exclusion of conflict affected areas implies that the sample is representative of areas of Nigeria that were accessible during the 2018/19 NLSS fieldwork period. The sample will not reflect conditions in areas that were undergoing conflict at that time. This compromise was necessary to ensure the safety of interviewers.

HOUSEHOLD SELECTION: Following the listing, the 10 households to be interviewed were selected from the listed households. These households were selected systemically after sorting by the order in which the households were listed. This systematic sampling helped to ensure that the selected households were well dispersed across the EA and thereby limit the potential for clustering of the selected households within an EA. Occasionally, interviewers would encounter selected households that were not able to be interviewed (e.g. due to migration, refusal, etc.). In order to preserve the sample size and statistical power, households that could not be interviewed were replaced with an additional randomly selected household from the EA. Replacement households had to be requested by the field teams on a case-by-case basis and the replacement household was sent by the CAPI managers from NBS headquarters. Interviewers were required to submit a record for each household that was replaced, and justification given for their replacement. These replaced households are included in the disseminated data. However, replacements were relatively rare with only 2% of sampled households not able to be interviewed and replaced.

Sampling deviation

Although a sample was initially drawn for Borno state, the ongoing insurgency in the state presented severe challenges in conducting the survey there. The situation in the state made it impossible for the field teams to reach large areas of the state without compromising their safety. Given this limitation it was clear that a representative sample for Borno was not possible. However, it was decided to proceed with conducting the survey in areas that the teams could access in order to collect some information on the parts of the state that were accessible.

The limited area that field staff could safely operate in in Borno necessitated an alternative sample selection process from the other states. The EA selection occurred in several stages. Initially, an attempt was made to limit the frame to selected LGAs that were considered accessible. However, after selection of the EAs from the identified LGAs, it was reported by the NBS listing teams that a large share of the selected EAs were not safe for them to visit. Therefore, an alternative approach was adopted that would better ensure the safety of the field team but compromise further the representativeness of the sample. First, the list of 788 EAs in the LGA master sample for Borno were reviewed by NBS staff in Borno and the EAs they deemed accessible were identified. The team identified 359 EAs (46%) that were accessible. These 359 EAs served as the frame for the Borno sample and 60 EAs were randomly selected from this frame. However, throughout the course of the NLSS fieldwork, additional insurgency related events occurred which resulted in 7 of the 60 EAs being inaccessible when they were to be visited. Unlike for the main sample, these EAs were not replaced. Therefore, 53 EAs were ultimately covered from the Borno sample. The listing and household selection process that followed was the same as for the rest of the states.

Mode of data collection

Computer Assisted Personal Interview [capi]

Research instrument

Two sets of questionnaires – household and community – were used to collect information in the NLSS2018/19. The Household Questionnaire was administered to all households in the sample. The Community Questionnaire was administered to the community to collect information on the socio-economic indicators of the enumeration areas where the sample households reside.

Household Questionnaire: The Household Questionnaire provides information on demographics; education; health; labour; food and non-food expenditure; household nonfarm income-generating activities; food security and shocks; safety nets; housing conditions; assets; information and communication technology; agriculture and land tenure; and other sources of household income.

Community Questionnaire: The Community Questionnaire solicits information on access to transported and infrastructure; community organizations; resource management; changes in the community; key events; community needs, actions and achievements; and local retail price information.

Cleaning operations

CAPI: The 2018/19 NLSS was conducted using the Survey Solutions Computer Assisted Person Interview (CAPI) platform. The Survey Solutions software was developed and maintained by the Development Economics Data Group (DECDG) at the World Bank. Each interviewer and supervisor was given a tablet which they used to

This data set records the statistical data of the measurement table of the realization of the well-off living standard in rural areas of Qinghai Province, and the data is divided according to the realization of the well-off living standard in urban areas of Qinghai Province. The data are collected from the statistical yearbook of Qinghai Province issued by the Bureau of statistics of Qinghai Province. The data set consists of three data tables Calculation table of the realization of well-off living standard in cities and towns of Qinghai Province, 1990-2002.xls, Calculation table of realization of well off living standard in Qinghai Province from 1990 to 2002.xls, The calculation table of rural well-off living standard in Qinghai Province from 1990 to 2002.xls. The data table structure is similar. For example, there are four fields in the 1990-2002 data table of the well-off living standard in cities and towns of Qinghai Province Field 1: GDP per capita (yuan) Field 2: proportion of added value of tertiary industry (%) Field 3: per capita disposable income (yuan) Field 4: urban per capita housing area (M2)

Abstract

The Project for Statistics on Living standards and Development was a countrywide World Bank Living Standards Measurement Survey. It covered approximately 9000 households, drawn from a representative sample of South African households. The fieldwork was undertaken during the nine months leading up to the country's first democratic elections at the end of April 1994. The purpose of the survey was to collect statistical information about the conditions under which South Africans live in order to provide policymakers with the data necessary for planning strategies. This data would aid the implementation of goals such as those outlined in the Government of National Unity's Reconstruction and Development Programme.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

Households

Universe

All Household members. Individuals in hospitals, old age homes, hotels and hostels of educational institutions were not included in the sample. Migrant labour hostels were included. In addition to those that turned up in the selected ESDs, a sample of three hostels was chosen from a national list provided by the Human Sciences Research Council and within each of these hostels a representative sample was drawn on a similar basis as described above for the households in ESDs.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

(a) SAMPLING DESIGN

Sample size is 9,000 households. The sample design adopted for the study was a two-stage self-weighting design in which the first stage units were Census Enumerator Subdistricts (ESDs, or their equivalent) and the second stage were households. The advantage of using such a design is that it provides a representative sample that need not be based on accurate census population distribution in the case of South Africa, the sample will automatically include many poor people, without the need to go beyond this and oversample the poor. Proportionate sampling as in such a self-weighting sample design offers the simplest possible data files for further analysis, as weights do not have to be added. However, in the end this advantage could not be retained, and weights had to be added.

(b) SAMPLE FRAME

The sampling frame was drawn up on the basis of small, clearly demarcated area units, each with a population estimate. The nature of the self-weighting procedure adopted ensured that this population estimate was not important for determining the final sample, however. For most of the country, census ESDs were used. Where some ESDs comprised relatively large populations as for instance in some black townships such as Soweto, aerial photographs were used to divide the areas into blocks of approximately equal population size. In other instances, particularly in some of the former homelands, the area units were not ESDs but villages or village groups. In the sample design chosen, the area stage units (generally ESDs) were selected with probability proportional to size, based on the census population. Systematic sampling was used throughout that is, sampling at fixed interval in a list of ESDs, starting at a randomly selected starting point. Given that sampling was self-weighting, the impact of stratification was expected to be modest. The main objective was to ensure that the racial and geographic breakdown approximated the national population distribution. This was done by listing the area stage units (ESDs) by statistical region and then within the statistical region by urban or rural. Within these sub-statistical regions, the ESDs were then listed in order of percentage African. The sampling interval for the selection of the ESDs was obtained by dividing the 1991 census population of 38,120,853 by the 300 clusters to be selected. This yielded 105,800. Starting at a randomly selected point, every 105,800th person down the cluster list was selected. This ensured both geographic and racial diversity (ESDs were ordered by statistical sub-region and proportion of the population African). In three or four instances, the ESD chosen was judged inaccessible and replaced with a similar one. In the second sampling stage the unit of analysis was the household. In each selected ESD a listing or enumeration of households was carried out by means of a field operation. From the households listed in an ESD a sample of households was selected by systematic sampling. Even though the ultimate enumeration unit was the household, in most cases "stands" were used as enumeration units. However, when a stand was chosen as the enumeration unit all households on that stand had to be interviewed.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Cleaning operations

All the questionnaires were checked when received. Where information was incomplete or appeared contradictory, the questionnaire was sent back to the relevant survey organization. As soon as the data was available, it was captured using local development platform ADE. This was completed in February 1994. Following this, a series of exploratory programs were written to highlight inconsistencies and outlier. For example, all person level files were linked together to ensure that the same person code reported in different sections of the questionnaire corresponded to the same person. The error reports from these programs were compared to the questionnaires and the necessary alterations made. This was a lengthy process, as several files were checked more than once, and completed at the beginning of August 1994. In some cases, questionnaires would contain missing values, or comments that the respondent did not know, or refused to answer a question.

These responses are coded in the data files with the following values: VALUE MEANING -1 : The data was not available on the questionnaire or form -2 : The field is not applicable -3 : Respondent refused to answer -4 : Respondent did not know answer to question

Data appraisal

The data collected in clusters 217 and 218 should be viewed as highly unreliable and therefore removed from the data set. The data currently available on the web site has been revised to remove the data from these clusters. Researchers who have downloaded the data in the past should revise their data sets. For information on the data in those clusters, contact SALDRU http://www.saldru.uct.ac.za/.

Contained within the 4th Edition (1974) of the Atlas of Canada is a set of three maps. The first map shows per capita personal income by census division for 1966 and is accompanied by a supplementary text and chart showing, by province, the percentage personal income of total national income and per capita personal income. The second map shows the total personal income by census division for 1966 as a percentage of the total national income. The third map shows the percentage of the total income by census division that is derived from sources other than employment (i.e. rental income, investment income, alimony received etc.) for 1966. The maps are accompanied by a chart expressing the structure of salaries and wages for each province and territory.