1 / 18

Main comments received from national and international organisations on ISP manual

Main comments received from national and international organisations on ISP manual. 28 June 2004 STESEG Task Force on Services (Eun-Pyo HONG/OECD). Overall structure of the ISP manual: Questions. 1 . Any suggestions on the overall content of the prototype? fine

lena
Download Presentation

Main comments received from national and international organisations on ISP manual

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Main comments received from national and international organisations on ISP manual 28 June 2004 STESEG Task Force on Services (Eun-Pyo HONG/OECD)

  2. 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

  3. 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.

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. 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.

  11. 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

  12. 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)

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. 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?

  16. 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?

  17. 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?

  18. 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

More Related