WRITTEN QUESTION E-1552/00 by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission. Contradictory results produced by the various methods of calculating purchasing power parities (PPPs).
Date: 2000-05-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Eurostat, housing, market prices, property leasing, purchasing power parity, statistics

13.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 81 E/53

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(15 June 2000)

At a discussion between the Commissioner responsible for trade and representatives of Euratex on
1.
14 April 2000 in Brussels on the Community(cid:146)s policy in the textiles and clothing sector, the Commission
agreed to explore the possibilities of achieving improved market access through bilateral negotiations, in
view of the expiry of quantitative restrictions under the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Marrakech
agreements. These negotiations would seek improved and tangible market access for exports, in exchange
for possible quota increases or their elimination for certain supplier countries, and should be mutually
beneficial for both supplier countries and the Community. In this context, the Commission will be putting
forward a proposal for a mandate for negotiations to enable it to enter into discussions with certain third
countries.

These negotiations will aim at

improving export opportunities to third countries from which
2.
European industry (cid:129) including Portugal(cid:146)s industry (cid:129) should benefit.
Improved market access for
Community exports aims at outweighing any adverse impact of increased import possibilities to the
Community market for a limited number of countries. All quotas will be eliminated by the year 2005, and
any improvement that could be obtained from third countries as a result of such negotiations will be
permanent even after the expiry of the quotas.

3.
In 1995 an examination by the Commission of the impact of trade liberalisation after the Marrakech
agreements concluded that the impact of liberalisation at that stage was fairly limited. For a detailed
analysis of the impact of trade liberalisation, the Honourable Member may refer to the Commission(cid:146)s
communication on the impact of international developments on the Community(cid:146)s textile and clothing
sector (1).

(1) COM(95) 447 final.

(2001/C 81 E/062)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1552/00

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(18 May 2000)

Subject: Contradictory results produced by the various methods of calculating purchasing power parities

(PPPs)

In its reply to written question E-0276/00 (1) the Commission confirmed that the various methods of
calculating PPPs produce contradictory results with regard to relative price levels in different countries and
put forward a number of explanations for those differences.

if different
Even if these explanations are valid, they in no way detract from the conclusion that,
applications of PPPs made by equally credible institutions produce contradictory results, it is not acceptable
to apply PPPs for the purposes for which the Commission has used them in the past.

As regards the explanations given, it should be borne in mind that, in contrast to the impression given in
the reply, written question E-0276/00 did not refer to comparisons between GDP but only to comparisons
between consumer prices by Eurostat and the Wiesbaden institute.

However, the remarks made on rents in Portugal and Germany are highly interesting and provide an
objective basis on which to test Eurostat(cid:146)s results.

Is the Commission prepared to promote a rigorous and independent study of market housing prices in
Germany and Portugal and the influence of administrative factors on non-market prices in the two
countries?

C 81 E/54

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.3.2001

Will the Commission undertake to revise its whole attitude to the use of PPPs if it is shown that:

1. At market prices, the share accounted for by spending on housing in Portugal is not four times lower

than the corresponding figure in Germany but is probably higher;

2.

Prices for housing of equivalent quality in Portugal and Germany are not 78 % lower in Portugal but
are also likely to be higher in Portugal than in Germany?

(1) OJ C 303 E, 24.10.2000, p. 170.

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 2000)

In its reply to written question E-0276/00 (1), to which the Honourable Member refers, the Commission
did not seek to compare two methods of calculating purchasing power parities, but two methods by which
spatial comparisons of price statistics can be calculated. One of these methods, the Commission method,
produces a definition of purchasing power parities in accordance with the only methodology which is
internationally accepted and proven (in particular, by the 15 Member States).

With regard to the statement about rents ((cid:145)in the case of rents, rents, which, in 1995, represented 17,4 %
of private final consumption expenditure in Germany compared with 4,7 % in Portugal, revealed a the
price index for Portuguese Portugal was 78 % lower than that of Germany(cid:146)price index whiprice index whi),
the Commission can assure the Honourable Member that the statistics are, of course, the product of
meticulous and independent work carried out by the Instituto Nacional de Estatistica for the Portuguese
statistics and the Statistisches Bundesamt for the German statistics.

In short, in order to obtain the aforementioned statistics, the Commission used the data supplied by the
national statistical institutes of Portugal and Germany on rents.

With regard to rents as a proportion of private final consumption expenditure, the Commission used the
data transmitted by the two institutes in September 1996.

The Commission has no reason to doubt the reliability of the data supplied by the Instituto Nacional de
Estatistica and the Statistisches Bundesamt, which are the result of the sort of meticulous and independent
work called for by both the Honourable Member and the Commission.

(1) OJ C 303 E, 24.10.2000, p. 170.

(2001/C 81 E/063)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1563/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(24 May 2000)

Subject: Human rights in Turkey

In its answer to written question E-0028/00 (1) the Council says that it is unaware of the statements by
Mr Sklan on Turkey which I quoted. The statements in question are given verbatim in the text of E-0028/
00 and are therefore known to the Council.

Since projects carried out by the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture are cofinanced by
the Commission, I think it is right that the Council should adopt a position on this. After all, the nature of
the activities and the statements made by Mr Sklan are of importance for the common foreign and security
policy and enlargement of the European Union.

Can the Council

1.
the Medical
Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture are from Turkish Kurdistan(cid:146), as stated by the Foundation(cid:146)s
Mr Alex Sklan?

(cid:145)By far the largest group of patients of

therefore confirm that