Hi,

Common sources of admin data are tax records and official company registrars.

Both are useful in complementing/ammending data for establishment surveys. However, there are also other sources to complement these data such as private company directories done by Yellow pages other companies. 

In practice one uses 2 or three of them to come up with a decent coverage of the population of interest, and even those who produce this data use them in order to improve the completeness of the data.

I am not sure that Europe has more admin data available than US; the issue lies in the fact that official statistics in Europe are produced by well-recognized statistical institutes which gives them power of negotiation and credibility with respect the the proper use of the data by another government entity, whereas in the US official stats are handled by smaller specialized bodies. Beside size, the US practice of making available data for free may also translate into more reluctance of the owners of admin data to share them with the interested parties.

My 2 cents...

Hi,

Common sources of admin data are tax records and official company registrars.

Both are useful in complementing/ammending data for establishment surveys. However, there are also other sources to complement these data such as private company directories done by Yellow pages other companies. 

In practice one uses 2 or three of them to come up with a decent coverage of the population of interest, and even those who produce this data use them in order to improve the completeness of the data.

I am not sure that Europe has more admin data available than US; the issue lies in the fact that official statistics in Europe are produced by well-recognized statistical institutes which gives them power of negotiation and credibility with respect the the proper use of the data by another government entity, whereas in the US official stats are handled by smaller specialized bodies. Beside size, the US practice of making available data for free may also translate into more reluctance of the owners of admin data to share them with the interested parties.

My 2 cents...

Collecting auxiliary variables on respondents and nonrespondents to guide attempts to balance response rates across key subgroups is wise. AD can be thought of as encompassing all information not obtained directly from the interview of a respondent or case - specific informant. First, it starts with information from the sample frame itself. What is available varies greatly. In many samples of special populations there are often sample frames not only rich in information, but having abundant data closely related to the subject of the survey being conducted.

Matters as gaining more familiarity with many auxiliary databases,  learning about using GPS and GIS, better mastery of multi- level, geographical data, and improving record linkage procedures. In brief, it means that the repertoire of skills and expertise necessary for conducting survey research needs to expand.

Adding more AD increases the likelihood of deductive disclosure and thus potentially undermines confidentiality. Files with extensive AD would either have to be restricted, sensitive - data files and/or the AD would have to be partly masked to eliminate the possibility of deductive disclosure. Data files can be thought of as falling along a sensitivity continuum from public -use files that have been designed to ensure that respondent identity cannot be broached via deductive disclosure or other means to in-house files with explicit respondent identifiers. In between these are restricted-access data files which contain more detailed information than the public files, but lack explicit identifiers. These may be accessible to researchers via sensitive-data access agreements and / or via data enclaves.

http://www.norc.org/PDFs/ARC/CSPS/midareport615.pdf

Regarding official use, the major problem with obtaining administrative records in the US appears to be that in the US, the various agencies are greatly restricted from sharing information with each other, and even within an agency.  In contrast, I've heard that is not such a problem for, say, Statistics Canada.  

Comments? 

THis is just to say that the UK is making quite large scale investments in admin data through national centres

http://www.esrc.ac.uk/news-and-events/press-releases/28673/the-big-data-family-is-borndavid-willetts-mp-announces-the-esrc-big-data-network.aspx

New Zealand is also investing in AD, partly to reduce costs, and partly to reduce respondent burden (both more important in a small country where sample sizes are relatively greater than for a big country), and also for better SAE. Privacy issues are well known as well as the fact that AD is not designed for statistical purposes. Sometimes an organisation can be persuaded to collect a little more information.

For privacy, linked data is not sent back to the institution supplyiing it.

Here's one project that makes extensive use of AD: http://www.stats.govt.nz/leed

The Census Bureau Center for Economic Studies (http://www.census.gov/ces/) has extensive data on establishments.  Some of the data are restricted use, so there is a process to obtain access to the data.  CES also has public-use data on US businesses.

• Tax Authority Records
• Federal Labour Office
• Chamber of Commerce and trade
• Handicrafts Chamber etc.,

http://www.geostat.ge/cms/site_images/_files/georgian/methodology/business/15.%20Use%20of%20administrative%20sources%20for%20business%20statistics%20purposes%20Handbook%20on%20good%20practices%20%281999%20Edition,%20Eurostat%29.pdf