WRITTEN QUESTION E-2710/02 by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Comparability of EU and US figures.
Date: 2002-09-26
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU statistics, United States, comparative analysis, economic statistics, national statistics, statistical method

C 52 E/204

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2003

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(30 October 2002)

The Commission has recently received similar information, from complainants as well as from the French
authorities, on the progress of the work and the situation of rail traffic in the Channel Tunnel.

It emerges from all this information that the situation at the Calais-Fréthun terminal is improving and that
is reflected in a steady increase in rail traffic through the Tunnel.

The Commission welcomes this encouraging improvement, which is the result of measures already taken
by the French authorities, such as the erection of a double security fence around the site.

The Commission has nevertheless drawn the attention of the French authorities (cid:1) in particular, at the
meeting on 30 September 2002 between the Member of the Commission responsible for the Internal
Market and Mme Lenoir, Minister with responsibility for European Affairs (cid:1) to the fact that it is waiting
for the complete and final removal of any hindrance to the free movement of goods.

This removal can involve only the reintroduction of unrestricted traffic throughout the day, which was the
case before the disruptive events of November 2001.

Although the current volume of traffic, which has been affected by a lengthy period of restrictions, does
not yet require the rail terminal to be open for 24 hours a day, the Commission considers that when traffic
returns to the levels which existed before the disruption the site will in fact need to be open night and day.

The Commission will thus continue to monitor the progress achieved by the French authorities with a
view to attaining this aim.

The French authorities have also been asked to keep the Commission regularly informed about future
measures at the Fréthun site to increase security, as well as about any resulting improvements in traffic.

(2003/C 52 E/227)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2710/02

by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 September 2002)

Subject: Comparability of EU and US figures

In the mid-1990s the United States introduced a system of hedonic price indexing. The use of this system
results in higher growth figures because it calculates product replacement differently from more traditional
methods.

1.

2.

To what extent are the results of the US economy flattered by the use of this index?

Is it possible to compare the US results that would be obtained with and without this indexing?

To what extent is indexing applied to European figures? If not or if only in part, would be right to

3.
say that there is an ‘optical divide’ between the US and Europe?

The indexing system is controversial among economists and could entail calculating non-existent

4.
wealth. What does the European Commission think about the use of this method?

6.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52 E/205

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(28 October 2002)

The American figures for economic growth are not necessarily flattered by the use of hedonic methods.
Statisticians use a range of methods to take account of quality change, with different comparative
advantages. Hedonic methods do not lead to uniformly higher or lower results. It is not clear that
alternative methods are a priori better than the hedonic approach.

Eurostat cannot compare the American results with and without the application of hedonic methods (1),
since such an analysis could only be conducted using American micro-data. Given that a range of
alternative methods might be used in the place of hedonics, the alternative methods could be expected to
give a range of results. It would, therefore, not be appropriate to conclude that there is an ‘optical divide’
between the United States and Europe. The position is not so clear-cut.

European national statistical institutes are currently very active in the field of hedonics in terms of research
but
their use is rather limited in practice. Only a few Member States are using hedonics in the
measurement of some economic activities. Eurostat has set up a centre to consolidate research in this field
and to evaluate the scope for future use. Eurostat,
in collaboration with the Member States’ national
statistical institutes,
is also currently developing additional standards for the quality adjustment of the
Harmonised Indices of Consumer Prices, whether by using hedonic methods or other methods.

Eurostat is of the view that hedonic research currently offers a promising route for improving quality
adjustment in price indices and hence measuring economic growth in volume terms. That said, Eurostat
agrees that there are some controversial issues concerning the application of hedonic methods (2) which are
currently discussed in international fora.

(1) The US Bureau of Labor Statistics has published some comparisons for individual product types, see for example:

http://stats.bls.gov/.

(2) See for example: US National Academy of Sciences ‘At What Price? Conceptualizing and measuring cost-of-living
and price indexes’, Charles Schultze and Christopher Mackie, editors, National Academy Press, Washington, DC,
2001.

(2003/C 52 E/228)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2723/02

by Peter Skinner (PSE)
and Helle Thorning-Schmidt (PSE) to the Commission

(30 September 2002)

Subject: Implementation of Council Directive 1999/38/EC on protecting workers against the carcinogenic

effects of wood dusts

Epidemiological studies which have been carried out over an extended period of time have repeatedly
pointed to increased cancer prevalence rates among employees engaged in wood-processing. Reports
published by the Lyon Cancer Research Agency (IARC)
in 1995 and in 1998 particularly produced
evidence that, from what was known of the subject at the time, it could be established at the very least that
hardwood dust had carcinogenic effects. From the knowledge we possess today, other types of wood are
also suspected of being cancer-causing agents. Lately, this position was confirmed by the Scientific
Committee for Occupational Exposure Limits (SCOEL) (cf. SCOEL/SUM/102B (cid:1) June 2002). Following a
lengthy debate on this subject, the Council passed the directive 1999/38/EC (1) in which all hardwoods
were classified as carcinogenic work materials. A workplace limit of 5mg/m3 was decided upon.