ESeC: the European Union's Socio-economic Classification project

Cécile Brousse

Description

The European Socio-economic Classification (ESeC) project—one of the European Union’s harmonization initiatives—is based on the International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO). Inspired by Goldthorpe’s theoretical framework, which focuses on “employment relations,” ESeC has been shaped most notably by studies undertaken in the United Kingdom. Both professional statisticians and academics have voiced criticisms of the project in recent years. Because of these developments, the future of the French classification of occupations and socio-occupational categories (PCS) needs to be reconsidered in a new light.

Sujets

• INSEE
• Économie

Informations

• Publié par: insee
• Nombre de lectures: 135
• Langue: English

Extrait

ESeC: the European Union’s Socioeconomic 1 Classification project

! Cécile Brousse*

The European Socioeconomic Classification (ESeC) project—one of the European Union’s harmonization initiatives—is based on the International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO). Inspired by Goldthorpe’s theoretical framework, which focuses on “employment relations,” ESeC has been shaped most notably by studies undertaken in the United Kingdom. Both professional statisticians and academics have voiced criticisms of the project in recent years. Because of these developments, the future of the French classification of occupations and sociooccupational categories (PCS) needs to be reconsidered in a new light.

tarting in the mid1990s, as S the harmonization of social statistics was gaining momentum, the European Commission ordered a series of studies on the feasibility of developing a European socio economic classification. In the period 19962004, researchers and statisticians, mainly French and British, competed to offer expertise and proposals.

The first validation studies were coordinated by two British teams headed by David Rose and Eric Harrison, and supported by the Office for National Statistics of the United Kingdom. In 2006, the teams submitted a project named ESeC (European Socioeconomic Classification) to the statistical institutes. The project is currently being examined by Eurostat and the institutes. It may be designated for use in the common core of EU household surveys.

The French PCS classification (occupations and sociooccupational categories) is based on categories defined in collective agreements between employers and employees in industries and on government service status categories. By contrast, ESeC relies on a theoretical framework that has been championed under the name of “Goldthorpe class schema.” It is a variant of the EGP classification, named after the initials of its inventors: Robert Erikson, John H. Goldthorpe, and Lucienne Portocarero (Box 1).

To understand the dissemination of ESeC in European academia and the interest it has generated in statistical institutes, two moments seem particularly decisive:

 in the early 1990s, the massive adoption by European countries— particularly those of the former Soviet bloc—of the International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO88), the building block of the ESeC prototype

 in the late 1990s, the classification redesign in the U.K.

The ESeC project is directly inspired by the 2001 British socioeconomic classification

Between 1998 and 2001, the U.K. thoroughly redesigned its system of socioeconomic classifications. The

1 Originally publishedas “ESeC, projet européen de classification socioéconomique,” Courrier des statistiques (French series), no. 125, Nov. Dec. 2008, pp. 2736, http://www.insee.fr/fr/ffc/ docs_ffc/cs125f.pdf. The text has been updated and slightly expanded for the English edition. * INSEE, Employment Division.

Box 1: A theoretical framework informed by the work of John H. Goldthorpe

Goldthorpe’s class schema explains social behavior by people’s labormarket status; as specifically regards employees, the determinant is the type of relationship to their employers. Among employees, the relationship ranges from subordination strictly defined in the labor contract to far more flexible, informal relationships that offer a large measure of autonomy to the employee. The opposition between the two ideal types illustrates this concept of “employment relations”:  At one end, the “labor contract” relationship comprises situations where job content, working conditions, and pay are totally specified in the contract signed between the employee and the employer—a contract subject to strict control.  At the other end, the “service relationship” describes situations where the employee enjoys wide autonomy in performing his or her job; the employee achieves this autonomy by engaging in highlevel supervisory tasks or possessing technical skills that make him or her a specialist.  Between the two, a continuum of “mixed” statuses, combining aspects of “labor contracts” and “service relationships.” The differences between service relationships and labor contracts center on the employee’s autonomy but also career prospects and the level and method of compensation. The centerpiece of the analysis is indeed the relationship that binds the employee to the employer: in one case, the relationship is wholly described by the labor contract; in the second, there exists a longerterm relationship based on mutual dependence.

Courrier des statistiques, English series no. 15, 2009

27