The first meeting of the Consortium Board was held on 12–13 October 2000 in Paris (France). It was hosted by INED, chaired by Mr. Patrick Festy and funded by the PAU.

What has been mainly discussed?

• The project proposal submitted to the DG Research and its implications for future work sharing among the members of the Consortium and
• How to promote the work on the programme in light of the Recommendations of the Generations and Gender Meeting.

Survey sampling design

The CB concluded that the sampling design would be person-oriented with possible extensions to other household members, other age groups, a panel design. The CB agreed that non–resident members of the household would not be interviewed but that information on them can be asked.

Census data

The CB discussed micro– and macro–approaches to preparation and use of census data. At the micro–level, census data could be used to describe living arrangements and hence reduce burden on the survey. At the macro–level, census data could provide information for the contextual information database.

Work package 1 (WP1)

WP1 envisaged the drafting of two background papers: one on the lessons learned from large survey research efforts in the 1990’s and one on the identification of the needs of policy makers. Moreover, It was agreed that, in order to make better-informed decisions on the scope of the work under the GGP and the contents of the GGS instruments, several papers on the minimum information requirements for the main substantive areas to be covered by the GGP should be commissioned on the following topics:

• Minimum requisite set of life histories that should be covered by the GGS instrument
• Minimum set of “value orientation (values/personality results in idea of value orientation: general versus specific values)” issues (value issues should be there across the various research questions) to be covered
• Intergenerational transfers (including) and care–giving
• Fertility and partnership issues in relation to (poverty and) social exclusion and well being
• Pros and cons of a panel design for GGS, issues related to countries with economies in transition, and specifically how to get a retrospective handle of the effects of the transition
• Gender issues.

What’s new?

It was suggested that an extension of GGPs Informal Working Group (IWG) should be considered, so that it includes also countries that are not formally part of the programme.

Much of the discussion focused on the various bodies to be constituted under the GGP and what their mandate and composition should be:

• It was suggested that the Co–ordination and Implementation Group (CIG) and the Programme Scientific Board (PSB) be constituted as distinct bodies, at least in the beginning. Such an arrangement would give the programme more flexibility, as the mandate and functions of CIG are fairly rigidly defined in the Recommendations of the July 2000 meeting.
• It was decided that representation in CB and IWG will be institutional, while the members of the CIG will be acting in their personal capacity.