Transcript Main comments received from national organisations on ISP

Main comments received from national and
international organisations on ISP manual
28 June 2004
STESEG Task Force on Services
(Eun-Pyo HONG/OECD)
1
Overall structure of the ISP manual: Questions
1. Any suggestions on the overall content of the
prototype? fine
2. View on the contents in sections B, C and D of
the prototype? a few reservations
2
Overall structure: Comments (1)
- General approach of the prototype looks fine:
Switzerland, Netherlands, ECB, Luxembourg,
Germany, China, Sweden, Czech republic,
Austria, Canada.
- Overall contents of the prototype are fine:
Sweden, Hungary, China, New Zealand,
Canada.
- No reservations on the overall structure of the
prototype.
3
Overall structure: Comments (2)
Reservations
- needs to clarify the differences between ISP
and monthly GDP: France, New Zealand
- should consider serviceableness: Netherlands
- should consider to be useful for quarterly
periodicity: Switzerland, Netherlands, Norway,
New Zealand
- should be harmonised with Eurostat: Austria
- tables and graphs in introduction to be removed:
US
4
Section B: Questions
1. The appropriate statistical unit(s)? No agreement
- to collect basic information on services production;
- to ensure adequate coverage of services sector
activity.
2. Agree that ISIC should be the primary activity
classification used? If yes, should ISIC Rev. 3.1 or
ISIC Rev. 4 be used? ISIC Rev. 4
3. Concordance between ISIC Rev. 3.1 and Rev. 4 in
section B.2.2 is necessary? No comments
5
Section B: Comments (1)
Preferred statistical unit(s)
- Establishment: Switzerland, Luxembourg, China,
Norway, Korea, Mexico
- KAU: US, Sweden, New Zealand
- Enterprise: Hungary, Ireland, Sweden(2), Korea,
Luxembourg(2), China(2), Czech Republic, Mexico
Comments
- Basic information can be collected from more than one
statistical unit or more aggregated level.
- Unit(s) should be determined by each nation: Canada,
Korea, etc.
6
Section B: Comments (2)
- Classifications: all respondents (Luxembourg,
Hungary, China, Ireland, Canada) think that ISIC
Rev. 3 or Rev. 4 should be used.
- ISIC Rev. 4 is more preferable: Switzerland,
Norway, US, Hungary, Sweden, Canada.
-But should consider the timing: Ireland
- Concordance between ISIC Rev. 4 and NAICS
2002 to be developed.
7
Section C: Questions
1. Any comments on terminologies related to ISP?
No common or strong preference on sources
2. Any comments on types and definitions for input
variables?
No strong disagreement with approaches in
prototype. One definition should be kept
3. A clear distinction between turnover/sales/
receipts is necessary?
Theoretical clarification seems to be useful
8
Section C: Comments (1)
Terminologies related to ISP
- preferences vary within MS: to prefer
- EU or harmonised definition: Luxembourg
- UN or SNA definition: Ireland, Hungary
- various definitions by subjects: US
Types and definition for input variable
- EU definition for turnover is preferable: Sweden
- turnover is improper for gross output: Ireland
- more use of physical output: US
9
Section C: Comments (2)
Market and non-market services
- ISP should be presented with sub-indexes for market and
non-market: US, Switzerland, ECB, Ireland, Mexico.
- market ISP monthly and non-market ISP quarterly:
Switzerland
Turnover/sales/ receipt
- theoretical clarification is:
- useful: US, Korea, ECB, Hungary, New Zealand, Canada.
- not useful: Czech republic, Ireland
- clarification on inclusion/exclusion of various taxes and
income is needed: Hungary, Mexico, S. Africa.
10
Section D: Questions
1. Endorse the approach of compiling a table that
presents three options? Strongly agree
2. Endorse the use of Eurostat Prices & volume
manual as a basis for deciding appropriate
indicators?
Mostly agree except Korea
3. Agree with data sources being most appropriate
indicators for measuring short-term change in
Gross Value Added? Strongly agree
4. Any comments on the tables presented in D.4.2:
format and contents?
Very useful and well presented
11
Section D: Comments (1)
A table with three options
- relevant, useful, allow MS to reflect own specifics, etc.:
Switzerland, Luxembourg, US, Korea, ECB, Norway,
Hungary, China, Ireland, S. Africa, Sweden, New Zealand,
Czech republic.
- a weak reservation on comparability: Sweden
Evaluation of variables
- comprehensive, consistent with Eurostat: Hungary,
Ireland, UK.
- add additional criteria: serviceableness (Netherlands),
variable’s performance relative to established benchmarks,
and proportion and effects of non-response on the data (US)
12
Section D: Comments (2)
use of Eurostat Prices & volume manual
- support: Switzerland, Luxembourg, Norway, US,
Hungary, Sweden, Czech republic, S. Africa.
- reservation: Korea as it is for annual data and less
known in Korea
measuring short-term change in Gross Value Added
- support: Switzerland, Norway, US, Hungary, Sweden,
Czech republic, China, Ireland, S. Africa, New Zealand.
- to ensure consistency with NA in terms of:
- data sources: New Zealand
- long-term movement: Ireland
13
Section D: Comments (3)
tables presented in D.4.2: format and contents
- very useful and well presented: Switzerland, Sweden,
Luxembourg, US, Ireland, New Zealand, Czech republic.
- one page per industry: Canada
- no reservations
14
Discussions: Overall structure & Section A
- Prefer monthly ISP or quarterly ISP?
- If monthly ISP is preferred, how to make it
useful for quarterly periodicity?
- How to clarify the differences between monthly
ISP and monthly GDP?
- Monthly ISP be for market services only?
- Should tables and graphs in introduction be
removed?
- Further suggestions on contents of the manual?
- Other suggestions for introduction?
15
Discussions: Section B
- Any strong preference on statistical unit(s)? If not
the following combination will be recommended:
either
- establishment and/or enterprise; or
- KAU and/or enterprise.
- Comparability across MS would be suffered?
- ISIC is preferred?
- If ISIC Rev. 4 is preferable, then:
- ISP manual should be prepared after 2007?
16
Discussions: Section C
- Should only one definition be kept? If yes, then:
- to take a definition from a source, e.g. EU/SNA/UN? (in
this case, all the definitions from the same source or not); or
- to create a definition as a mixture from several sources?
- Coverage of ISP:
- Market ISP: monthly;
- Non-market ISP: monthly, quarterly or no need?
- How to distinguish market and non-market services?
- Should be a guideline or determined by MS?
- Turnover/sales/receipts:
- theoretical clarification is needed? If yes, How?
17
Discussions: Section D
- Evaluation of variables:
- need for additional criteria? Such as:
- serviceableness,
- variable’s performance relative to established
benchmarks,
- proportion and effects of non-response on the data.
- Consistency with GDP?
- ISP will be benchmarked to quarterly and annual GDP?
- Data sources for ISP and GDP to be consistent.
- Invites careful study and further suggestions on tables in
section D.4.2
18