We provide both a theoretical and empirical analysis of the relation between administrative and survey data. By distinguishing between different sources of deviations between survey and administrative data we are able to reproduce several stylized facts. We illustrate the implications of different error sources for estimation in (simple) econometric models and find potentially very substantial biases. This article shows the sensitivity of some findings in the literature for the assumption that administrative data represent the truth. In particular, the common finding of substantial mean reversion in survey data largely goes away once we allow for a richer error structure.

In contrast to the believed similarity in their health outcomes, workers in different Western countries report very different rates of work disability. Using new data from the United States and the Netherlands, we offer a partial resolution to this paradox. We find that observed differences in reported work disability largely stem from the fact that Dutch respondents have a lower threshold in reporting whether they have a work disability than American respondents. For those who do not suffer from pain, work disability is similar in both countries once thresholds are the same. For respondents with pain, however, a significant difference remains.

In contrast to the believed similarity in their health outcomes, workers in different Western countries report very different rates of work disability. Using new data from the United States and the Netherlands, we offer a partial resolution to this paradox. We find that observed differences in reported work disability largely stem from the fact that Dutch respondents have a lower threshold in reporting whether they have a work disability than American respondents. For those who do not suffer from pain, work disability is similar in both countries once thresholds are the same. For respondents with pain, however, a significant difference remains.