// Distribution of Missings and number of valid observations // German Version version 8 set more off set scheme s1mono capture log close log using anmiss1D, replace // Data // ---- use cntry *_o using data02, clear replace cntry = "Deutschland (W)" if cntry == "Germany (W)" replace cntry = "Deutschland (O)" if cntry == "Germany (E)" replace cntry = "Ungarn" if cntry == "Hungary" replace cntry = "Türkei" if cntry == "Turkey" label define country 4 "Deutschland (W)" 3 "Deutschland (O)" 2 "Ungarn" 1 "Türkei" encode cntry, gen(country) label(country) foreach var of varlist own_o - turkey_o { gen v`var' = `var' < . gen m`var' = `var' >= . } replace mgermany_o = motherpart_o if cntry == "Deutschland (W)" | cntry == "Deutschland (O)" replace msweden_o = . if cntry == "Deutschland (W)" | cntry == "Deutschland (O)" replace mhungary_o = . if cntry=="Ungarn" replace mgermany_o = . if cntry=="Türkei" replace vgermany_o = votherpart_o if cntry == "Deutschland (W)" | cntry == "Deutschland (O)" replace vsweden_o = . if cntry == "Deutschland (W)" | cntry == "Deutschland (O)" replace vhungary_o = . if cntry=="Ungarn" replace vgermany_o = . if cntry=="Türkei" drop votherpart_o vturkey_o motherpart_o mturkey_o collapse (sum) v* (mean) m*, by(country) local i 1 foreach word in hungary poland spain italy germany france sweden netherlands switzerland { ren m`word'_o misfrac`i' ren v`word'_o valid`i++' } reshape long misfrac valid, i(country) j(refgroup) lab val refgroup refgroup local i 1 foreach word in hungary poland spain italy germany france sweden netherlands switzerland { local cap = proper("`word'") label define refgroup `i++' "`cap'", modify } // Translate Labels for refgroup into German // ----------------------------------------- label language en, rename label language en label language de, new copy label define refgroup_de /// 1 Ungarn /// 2 Polen /// 3 Spanien /// 4 Italien /// 5 Deutschland /// 6 Frankreich /// 7 Schweden /// 8 Niederlande /// 9 Schweiz label value refgroup refgroup_de // Distribution of Missings // ------------------------ foreach var of varlist misfrac mfriends_o mneighbours_o mown_o { replace `var' = `var' * 100 } graph twoway /// (dot misfrac refgroup, horizontal mcolor(black) ) /// (line refgroup mfriends_o, clpattern(dash) clcolor(black) ) /// (line refgroup mneighbours_o, clpattern(dot) clcolor(black) ) /// (line refgroup mown_o, clpattern(longdash_dot) clcolor(black) ) /// , by(country, cols(1) note("")) /// legend(rows(2) lab(1 "Andere Länder") lab(2 "Freunde") lab(3 "Nachbarn") lab(4 "Eigenes Land")) /// ylabel(1(1)9, valuelabel angle(horizontal) nogrid) ytitle("") xtitle("") /// ysize(5.15) xsize(3.15) graph export anmiss1D.eps, replace // Numbers of Observations // ----------------------- by country: list refgroup valid, constant sep(9) by country: list vfriends vneighbours vown if _n==1 log close exit Other countries can be seen as reference points for comparisons only, if people are able to make evaluations about foreign countries. If respondents denied to answer to questions on the living conditions in other countries this might be an indicator that they cannot make such an evaluation. In this sense, the distribution of missing values can be used as a first indicator for the importance of other countries as reference points. Figure \ref{anmiss1.eps} displays the fractions of missing observations in the variables for the evaluation of other countries by survey country. In addition the figure displays the fraction of missing observations for the evaluation of the living conditions of friends, neighbors and of the living conditions in respondent's own country. As it stands, the fraction of missings varies a good deal between the four survey countries. There are considerable high fractions of missings observations in the Turkish, Hungarian and East German Data, while the West German data has relatively low fractions of missings. An explanation for the low fraction of non-response in West-Deutschland might be, that the reference-countries are either neighboring countries (Switzerland, Netherlands, France, Poland) or very important Holliday countries (Spain, Italy). With some exceptions much more respondents denied to evaluate the living conditions of other countries than to evaluate the living conditions of friends, neighbors and the respondent's own country. In this respect a large minority of respondents cannot have other countries as a reference point for their individual aspirations. Another general pattern is that non-response tend to be somewhat more frequent with respect to the poorer reference countries. As noted, there are some exceptions from the overall pattern of higher non-response rates for the questions about the living conditions in other countries. The most obvious case in point can be found in the Hungarian data: In Ungarn, friends and neighbors seem to be as alienate as other countries, or even more so. We cannot explain the extraordinary high non-response rates for Ungarn here, however these rates coincidence with a high rate of people saying to have no close friends outside the family (51 \% in Ungarn as opposed to 21 \% in Türkei and Deutschland), and 81 percent of the respondents, who say that they have no close friend outside the family do not evaluate the living conditions of friends (anmissHU.do). The second exception can be found in the data for Deutschland. Respondents from Deutschland seem to have no difficulty to answer the question on the living conditions in the other part of Deutschland, and the East Germans answers this question even more frequent than the West Germans.