WRITTEN QUESTION E-3310/02 by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Follow-up question to Written Question E-2710/02 on the comparability of EU and US figures.
Date: 2002-11-21
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU statistics, United States, economic aggregate, economic growth, economic statistics, macroeconomics, national statistics, productivity, statistical method

8.5.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 110 E/201

Identical provisions appeared in Article 6 of and Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 170/83 of
25 January 1983 (2) instituting a common fisheries policy.

Fishing within the Belgian 3 mile zone by other Member States’ vessels is thus not regulated by
Community law. If as the Honourable Member indicates there has been a legal fishing activity within that
zone it was exercised ‘under existing neighbourhood relations’ between Belgium and the countries
concerned.

Any problem or dispute over fishing within the 3 mile zone thus has to be examined in the light of the
provisions of these ‘neighbourhood agreements’, of which the Commission has no knowledge. It is thus
not in a position to indicate what rights French, Dutch or British vessels may be entitled to in the 3 mile
zone under these agreements.

(1) OJ L 389, 31.12.1992.
(2) OJ L 24, 27.1.1983.

(2003/C 110 E/223)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3310/02

by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 November 2002)

Subject: Follow-up question to Written Question E-2710/02 on the comparability of EU and US figures

The Commission’s answer to Written Question E-2710/02 (1) includes the following statement: ‘Given that
a range of alternative methods might be used in place of hedonics, the alternative methods could be
expected to give a range of results’. The Commission thus acknowledges that figures for economic growth
in the European Union and the United States are difficult to compare. According to The Economist, this
also applies to the measurement of productivity growth. The magazine writes that in the United States
productivity growth is measured as output per hour, whereas in Europe it is measured as output per
worker (The Economist, 18 May 2002). If the relevant calculations were based on output per hour, the
differences between the EU and the US would be smaller.

Given the apparent impossibility of comparing figures for economic growth, how can the EU

1.
measure whether the strategic goal laid down in Lisbon has been achieved or not?

2.

Does the Commission endorse the argument put forward by The Economist?

3.
The Economist also writes that GDP (gross domestic product) increased by 1,2 % in the US in 2001,
whereas NDP (net domestic product, i.e. corrected to take account of capital consumption) fell by 0,1 %.
Can the Commission confirm these figures, and state what the EU’s NDP was? The Economist takes the
view that NDP is a better indicator of economic development. Does the Commission share this view?

On the basis of NDP per hour worked, how do the respective figures for the EU and the US compare

4.
in recent years? What conclusions can be drawn from such a comparison?

5. What implications do these differences in statistical methods have for the results of OECD studies?

(1) OJ C 52 E, 6.3.2003, p. 204.

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(8 January 2003)

1.
The Commission notes that a very considerable degree of harmonisation work has been undertaken
within the Community on economic statistics, and work will continue to improve price deflation methods.
this further
The Commission will shortly produce a new Decision to provide a legal basis for

C 110 E/202

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.5.2003

improvement. The Commission notes that the structural indicators used to monitor the implementation of
the Lisbon process include two productivity measures (cid:1) one for productivity per head and one for
productivity per hour worked.

2.
The Commission believes that it is important to look at both productivity per head and productivity
per hour worked when comparing productivity between countries. That is why the structural indicators
include both measures.
It is true that on a per hour basis the productivity differences between the
Community and the United States are smaller. There are however some recognised quality problems with
the available data on hours worked, and the Commission is currently working with Member States to
improve the timeliness and comparability of this data.

3.
The figures for growth of the gross domestic product (GDP) in the United States have been revised.
The latest figures for the United States are 0,3 % growth for GDP in 2001 and a fall of 0,9 % for net
domestic product (NDP). On latest estimates of the 15 Member States’ (EU 15) NDP grew by 1,2 % in real
terms between 2000 and 2001. The Commission notes that the choice between use of GDP or NDP to
measure growth depends on the concept that one is seeking to measure, and on the quality of figures for
‘consumption of
(which represents the difference between GDP and NDP). Given that
consumption of fixed capital is usually measured by use of a model based on simplifying assumptions, the
Commission believes that the GDP measure is likely to be more reliable.

fixed capital’

4.
Data for Net Domestic Product per hour worked are presented below. The data are at current prices
based on purchasing power parities (PPP). The data show that using an NDP-based indicator of
productivity produces a wider gap between Community and United States productivity levels in the years
presented than the more traditional indicator based on GDP.

United States

EU15

Ratio US/EU

Memo: GDP-based ratio

Net Domestic Product per hour worked

1997

25,6

24,6

104,2

102,5

1998

27,2

25,5

106,7

105,2

1999

27,5

26,5

103,8

102,5

2000

29,0

27,8

104,4

103,1

(EUR PPP)

2001

29,5

28,6

103,4

102,7

The Commission needs more precise details of which studies the Honourable Member refers to.

5.
The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development produces many studies in this field.

(2003/C 110 E/224)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3313/02

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(22 November 2002)

Subject: Safety of off-piste skiing

Does the Commission intend to take action to ensure that there are safety measures in place for those
wanting to participate in off-piste skiing?

Is there any likelihood that measures will be taken to address this matter?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2002)

The Commission wishes to refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written question E-1026/01 by
Mr Maccormick (1). As stated in this answer the Commission does not intend to take specific sectorial
action related to the safety of off-piste skiing.