Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament Concerning Short Term Statistics Containing a summary of the Quality Report as required by the Council Regulation (EC) No 1165/98 of 19 May 1998
Date: 2003-01-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU statistics, economic statistics, statistical method, statistics

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 29.01.2003
COM(2003) 36 final

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL
AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

Concerning Short Term Statistics

Containing a summary of the Quality Report as required by
the Council Regulation (EC) No 1165/98 of 19 May 1998

Introduction

The Commission has to submit to the European Parliament and to the Council a
report on the Short-term statistics (STS)-Regulation 1165/98.

The Report
is requested by Article 14, paragraph 2 of the Council Regulation
1165/98. The Regulation is very clear in that the report should deal with the statistics
compiled for the STS-Regulation and should focus in particular on relevance, quality
and the burden of business.

Main findings are presented below as of the end of 2001 (unless otherwise stated in
the text):

Current Data Situation

Three years after the adoption of the Regulation on short-term statistics the overall
data situation is far from satisfactory. Although Eurostat can calculate important
EU15/Euro-zone indicators, no aggregates can be estimated for 14 of the 32
demanded indicators. The situation should improve in 2002 as about 60% of the
derogations will lapse during this year. However, the remaining 40% of Member
States’ derogations will expire only by mid-2003.

Results of a User Survey

One major concern for users is the availability of historic time series. This concerns
all indicators, especially retail trade and output prices. Timeliness and the issue of
revisions are concerns for industrial production and particularly critical for the
volume of retail sales index. Compared to these issues, the accessibility of data is
considered a minor problem. Users also expressed their need for additional business
cycle indicators.

Timeliness

Timeliness and availability of source data from Member States at the time of the first
estimate have recently improved. No further major improvements in timeliness for
key indicators seem possible within the existing legal framework. To reduce
publication delays any further, additional efforts are therefore needed from Eurostat
and the Member States which go beyond the existing regulation.

Availability of Metadata

The metadata situation is currently satisfactory. However, some areas - especially in
information. The
trade and other services - lack sufficient
construction, retail
challenge for the future is to keep the metadata-base STS-Sources up to date.

Towards Common Definitions

Many indicators are already transmitted according to common definitions although
this is not yet obligatory. However, this is not the case for some important indicators,
such as the index of domestic output prices. Quality problems will persist for these
indicators until all Member States apply the common definitions.

2

A note on national methods for working days adjustment

Currently the situation concerning working day adjustment methods for raw data can
only be described as lacking harmonisation. Aggregation of these non-harmonised
working day adjusted data may consequently lead to serious quality problems. There
is a strong case to be made for progressing towards the formulation and
implementation of common general guidelines in this area.

Revisions

Revision practices are not harmonised between Member States. This leads to
significant problems for the users of the indicators. The evidence presented here
supports strongly the case for additional steps towards a common revision policy.

Selected Sampling Characteristics

For their surveys Member States use various methods for replacing enterprises
(units) which have disappeared and for estimating missing answers. The unweighted
and weighted sample coverage compared to the overall population in percent differs
widely between Member States. Most but not all Member States use size classes for
indicators. Questions arising from sampling characteristics should be
different
studied further in order to seek common approaches.

Sources of potential non-sampling errors

A slight majority of Member States measures the weighted and unweighted response
rate of their samples, but only a very small minority looks at other possible errors in
the process of data collection, processing or transmission to Eurostat. These errors
are therefore not recorded and can consequently not be reduced systematically.

Statistical burden on business

The time needed for the business community to compile necessary information for
the purpose of statistical indicators, the number of enterprises asked and the policies
in place for reducing the burden on small businesses differ between Member States.
Eurostat proposes to exchange best practices in these areas in order to reduce the
burden on business.

Cost for the National Statistical System

This chapter presents an overview of a first collection of data about costs for the
national statistical system. Together with Member States, this issue should be further
explored in order to arrive at a better and more harmonised measurement, and
consequently a deeper understanding of the costs involved in producing business
cycle statistics.

3

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL
AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

Concerning Short Term Statistics

Containing the annexes of the Quality Report as required by
Council Regulation (EC) No 1165/98 of 19 May 1998

4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.

2.

2.1.

2.2.

2.3.

2.4.

2.5.

3.

3.1.

3.2.

3.3.

3.4.

4.

5.

CURRENT DATA SITUATION............................................................................ 10

RESULTS OF A USER SURVEY ......................................................................... 15

Industrial production .............................................................................................. 16

Output prices of the domestic market...................................................................... 16

Volume index of retail sales ................................................................................... 17

Cross indicator comparison..................................................................................... 18

Additional Indicators, which might be useful.......................................................... 19

TIMELINESS ........................................................................................................ 19

Industrial Production Index..................................................................................... 20

Domestic Output Price Index.................................................................................. 22

Volume of Retail Sales Index ................................................................................. 23

Production in Construction Index ........................................................................... 24

AVAILABILITY OF METADATA ....................................................................... 25

TOWARDS COMMON DEFINITIONS ................................................................ 28

5.1.

Excursus: National methods for working days adjustment ...................................... 31

6.

6.1.

6.2.

7.

7.1.

7.2.

7.3.

7.4.

7.5.

8.

8.1.

8.2.

9.

9.1.

9.2.

REVISIONS........................................................................................................... 32

STS-Revisions as seen by a user ............................................................................. 33

Revision Practices in Member States ...................................................................... 37

SELECTED SAMPLING CHARACTERISTICS................................................... 41

Treatment of disappearing enterprises (units).......................................................... 42

Treatment of non-respondents or missing answers .................................................. 42

Sample coverage compared to overall population in % ........................................... 42

Weighted coverage rate compared to overall population in % ................................. 42

Size classes............................................................................................................. 43

SOURCES OF POTENTIAL NON-SAMPLING ERRORS ................................... 47

Industrial production and output prices ................................................................... 47

Production in construction and retail trade.............................................................. 48

STATISTICAL BURDEN ON BUSINESS ............................................................ 51

Number of enterprises (units) surveyed for key indicators ...................................... 51

Time needed for questionnaire................................................................................ 52

5

9.3.

10.

Burden on small business ....................................................................................... 54

COST FOR THE NATIONAL STATISTICAL SYSTEM...................................... 56

6

Summary

Under Council Regulation 1165/98 the Commission has to submit to the European
Parliament and to the Council a report on Short-Term Statistics (STS) .

The Report is required by Article 14 (2) of Regulation 1165/98. The Regulation is
very clear in that the report should deal with the statistics compiled for the STS
Regulation and should focus in particular on relevance, quality and the burden of
business.

The discussion with the Member States concerning the outline of the structure for the
report started in the short-term statistics Working Party of October 2000. In
December of the same year, Eurostat sent out a first initial proposal for chapter topics
and used a written procedure in the spring of 2001 to let Member States express their
approval or disapproval of the proposed structure. Most chapters were approved in
this procedure, but some had to be re-discussed in a Working Party in June 2001,
incomplete draft of the report, reflecting the
where Eurostat presented a first
information available at that time.

The second draft proposal, which updated most of the information to September
2001, was discussed with Member States in the Working Party of December 2001.

Two further rounds of consultations with Member States (versions 3.0 and 3.1)
allowed them to comment in early 2002 on further drafts. The comments have been
taken into account as much as possible and the Member States have been informed
about the detailed changes based on their comments.

Draft version 3.2 was finalised in April 2002 and submitted to Member States for
their position as a preparatory committee for the SPC through a written procedure.
This version was discussed during the STS Working Party (6 and 7 June 2002)
especially with Germany, France and Finland.

The current draft version 3.3 takes into account comments made by Member States.

Main Findings

1. Current Data Situation

Three years after the adoption of the Regulation on short-term statistics the overall
data situation is far from satisfactory. Although Eurostat can calculate important
EU15/Euro-zone indicators, no aggregates can be estimated for 14 of the 32
demanded indicators. The situation should improve in 2002 as about 60% of the
derogations will lapse during this year. However, the remaining 40% of Member
States’ derogations will expire only by mid-2003.

2. Results of a User Survey

One major concern for users is the availability of historic time series. This concerns
all indicators, especially retail trade and output prices. Timeliness and the issue of
revisions are concerns for industrial production and particularly critical for the
volume of retail sales index. Compared to these issues, the accessibility of data is
considered a minor problem. Users also expressed their need for additional business
cycle indicators.

7

3. Timeliness

Timeliness and availability of source data from Member States at the time of the first
estimate have recently improved. No further major improvements in timeliness for
key indicators seem possible within the existing legal framework. To reduce
publication delays any further, additional efforts are therefore needed from Eurostat
and the Member States which go beyond the existing regulation.

4. Availability of Metadata

The metadata situation is currently satisfactory. However, some areas - especially in
construction, retail
information. The
trade and other services - lack sufficient
challenge for the future is to keep the metadata-base STS-Sources up to date.

5. Towards Common Definitions

Many indicators are already transmitted according to common definitions although
this is not yet obligatory. However, this is not the case for some important indicators,
such as the index of domestic output prices. Quality problems will persist for these
indicators until all Member States apply the common definitions.

A note on national methods for working days adjustment

Currently the situation concerning working day adjustment methods for raw data can
only be described as lacking harmonisation. Aggregation of these non-harmonised
working day adjusted data may consequently lead to serious quality problems. There
is a strong case to be made for progressing towards the formulation and
implementation of common general guidelines in this area.

6. Revisions

Revision practices are not harmonised between Member States. This leads to
significant problems for the users of the indicators. The evidence presented here
supports strongly the case for additional steps towards a common revision policy.

7. Selected Sampling Characteristics

For their surveys Member States use various methods for replacing enterprises
(units) which have disappeared and for estimating missing answers. The unweighted
and weighted sample coverage compared to the overall population in percent differs
widely between Member States. Most but not all Member States use size classes for
different
indicators. Questions arising from sampling characteristics should be
studied further in order to seek common approaches.

8. Sources of potential non-sampling errors

A slight majority of Member States measures the weighted and unweighted response
rate of their samples, but only a very small minority looks at other possible errors in
the process of data collection, processing or transmission to Eurostat. These errors
are therefore not recorded and can consequently not be reduced systematically.

8

9. Statistical burden on business

The time needed for the business community to compile necessary information for
the purpose of statistical indicators, the number of enterprises asked and the policies
in place for reducing the burden on small businesses differ between Member States.
Eurostat proposes to exchange best practices in these areas in order to reduce the
burden on business.

10. Cost for the National Statistical System

This chapter presents an overview of a first collection of data about costs for the
national statistical system. Together with Member States, this issue should be further
explored in order to arrive at a better and more harmonised measurement, and
consequently a deeper understanding of the costs involved in producing business
cycle statistics.

9

1.

CURRENT DATA SITUATION

In May 1998, Member States adopted a new regulation concerning short-term
statistics. This regulation covers four parts, namely industry (Annex A), construction
(Annex B), retail trade (Annex C) and other services (Annex D). In total, Member
States have asked for 32 indicators. The following is an overview of the data
situation as of end 2001.

Eurostat is in a position to calculate 13 EU15/Euro-zone aggregates out of the 32
indicators required by the regulation. These includes important indicators such as
industrial production, output prices of the domestic market and the turnover indicator
trade. Estimates can also be made for production in construction,
in retail
construction costs and number of persons employed in both industry and
construction.

Five of the 32 indicators can be rated as partially operational. Although it is possible
to calculate aggregates for these indices, serious concerns persist
relating to
coverage, methodological quality or timeliness. The indicators concerned are total
turnover, hours worked, and wages and salaries (all three indicators in industry),
building permits in square metres for the construction sector and employment in
retail trade.

No aggregates can be calculated for 14 indicators. In Annex A (Industry) these are
domestic and non-domestic turnover and the new order indicators, plus output prices
for the total and the external market. Construction (Annex B) has no aggregates for
the new order indices, wages and salaries indicators and for building permits
(dwellings). No aggregates at all can currently be estimated in Annex D (Other
Services).

On a Member State scoreboard of data non-availability, most indicators are missing
from Greece (78%), Ireland (66%) and Portugal (63%). Spain (46%) covers about
half of the indicators. Roughly three out of ten are missing from Sweden (34%),
France (31%), Belgium (28%) and Italy (27%). The UK (21%) and Denmark (22%)
the
are fairly well advanced. Germany (3%), Finland (3%), Austria (5%),
Netherlands (11%) and Luxembourg (14%) are near completing implementation of
the Regulation.

Annex

A
B
C
D*
Total

In %

Vari-
ables

13
14
3
2
32

B

3
3
1
2
9

100

28

22

DK

D

EL

E

F

IRL

I

L

NL

A

P

FIN

S

UK

3
4
0
0
7

0
0
0
1
1

3

11
11
1
2
25

78

10
3
0
2
15

5
5
0
0
10

46

31

8
10
1
2
21

66

0
2
4
6
0
0
½ ½
4
8
½
½
14
27

0
3
0
½
3 ½

11

0
1
0
½
1
½
5

5
12
1
2
20

63

1
0
0
0
1

3

3
6
1
1
11

34

5
1
1
0
9

21

Scoreboard on non-availability of data (data delivered by mid-November 2001 is included); The short-term statistics regulation covers a
wide range of different ‘other service’ sectors in Annex D. A half (½) point has been attributed for Member States for which data on
service sectors are available, but where the coverage is limited to a few sectors only. The table lists also temporary transmission
disruptions of more than two months as no data available.

10

The derogation period for non-available indicators will elapse within the coming 18 months.
A look into the derogation document reveals that about 40% of the remaining derogations
lapsed at the end of 2001, and another 20% during or at the end of 2002. It will be mid-2003
(the maximum derogation period allowed) before the last 40% of the indicators are
transmitted by Member States.

The following table shows whether indicators are operational or not as well as the
situation for individual Member States.

Indicator

Oper-
ational?

Comments

Data is declared missing if major aggregates and most
detailed data (> 90% of the data required by the STS
Regulation) are missing

Missing
Member States

Annex A: Industry

A 110

Production

YES

All MS provide data. Delay for European aggregate slowly
approaching the required 45 days. EL and L do not provide
data in time, but L transmits early econometric estimate. EL,
IRL, UK send old MIGs.

A 120

Turnover

YES
(part.)

European coverage just sufficient. F has started to provide
data, but not yet on time.

EL, E

A 121

A 122

A 130

A 131

A 132

A 210

Domestic
turnover

Non-domestic
turnover

New orders
received

Domestic new
orders

Non-domestic
new orders

Number of
persons
employed

A 220

Hours worked

NO

NO

Partial

NO

NO

YES

YES
(part.)

A 230

Gross wages
and salaries

YES
(part.)

Insufficient weight of data for European aggregate. B has
started to provide data.

EL, E, F, IRL, UK

Insufficient weight of data for European aggregate. B has
started to provide data.

EL, E, F, IRL, UK

Questionable quality of European aggregate due to missing
data. Missing alignment to common variable definition puts
European aggregation into question.

A European aggregate would have too little coverage.
Methodological problem as with total new orders.

A European aggregate would have too little coverage.
Methodological problem as with total new orders.

EL, E, F, IRL, P

E, F, EL, IRL, P

E, F, EL, IRL, P

Data available for European coverage. European aggregates
possible for most 2-digits. Nevertheless, issues of data quality
persist. B, NL and UK do not send the new MIGs.

EL, IRL, S

The weight is sufficient for European aggregate for total
industry but not for all MIGs and more detailed levels. F
transmits data very late. B, NL and UK do not send the new
MIGs. F sends them partially.

The weight is sufficient for a European aggregate for total
industry, but not for MIGs or detailed levels. Problem of
timeliness persists. F transmits late. B and UK do not send
new MIGs. NL MIGs are too short.

DK, EL, E, IRL, S

EL, E, IRL, S, UK

A 310

Output prices

NO

No sufficient weight of available data for European
aggregate.

DK, E, F, EL, I,
P, FIN, UK

A 311

A 312

Output prices of
domestic market

Output prices of
non-domestic
market

YES

NO

All MS supply data. The index is on time and of good
quality. B and IRL send still the old MIGs.

No sufficient weight of available data for European
aggregate.

DK, E, F, EL, I,
P, UK

11

Annex B: Construction

B 110

Production

YES

B 115

B 116

Production of
building
construct.

Production of
civil engin-
eering

YES

YES

Data missing from some Member States but European
aggregate can be constructed. However, there are some long
delays for data from E, I and UK

EL, IRL, P, S

Data missing from some Member States but European
aggregate can be constructed. Long delays from E, I and UK.

EL, IRL, P, S

Data missing from some Member States but European
aggregate can be constructed. However, there are some long
delays for data from E, I and UK.

DK, EL, IRL, P, S

B 130

New orders

NO

Insufficient weight of available data for European aggregate.

B 135

B 136

B 210

New orders for
building
construct.

New orders civil
engineering

Number of
persons
employed

NO

Insufficient weight of available data for European aggregate.

NO

Insufficient weight of available data for European aggregate.

YES

European aggregate is possible. There are serious issues of
timeliness and data quality.

DK, EL, F, IRL, I,
NL, P, S

DK, EL, F, IRL, I,
L, NL, P, S

DK, EL, F, IRL, I,
L, NL, P, S

EL, E, I, P

B 220

Hours worked

YES

European aggregate is possible. There are serious issues of
timeliness and data quality.

DK, EL, E, I, P, S

B 230

B 320

Gross wages
and salaries

Construction
costs

NO

YES

B 321 Material costs

YES

B 322

Labour costs

YES

Insufficient weight for calculation of European aggregate.
There are also problems of quality.

EL, E, F, P, S

Some countries provide data on output prices or on other
branches than new residential buildings, so that
methodological issues of aggregating quite different
indicators to European aggregates persist.

B, P

Some countries provide data on output prices or on other
branches than new residential buildings, thus methodological
issues of aggregating different indicators to European
aggregates. Long delay for E.

Some countries provide data on output prices or on other
branches than new residential buildings, so that
methodological issues of aggregating quite different
indicators to European aggregates persist.

B, IRL, L, P

B, IRL, L, P

B 411

B 412

Building
permits:
dwellings

Building
permits: m2 use-
ful floor area

NO

Partial

European aggregates are not possible for all foreseen
branches. Data from NL and E are very late. Due to shortness
of time series, A and S currently not usable.

EL, I

European aggregates are not possible for all foreseen
branches. There remain considerable questions on the data
quality. Data from E and NL are very late. Due to shortness
of time series, F and S currently not usable.

EL, A, UK

12

Annex C: Retail Trade and Repair

C 120

Turnover

YES

Data available from all countries, but not for all sectors required by
regulation. F is very late.

C 210

Number of
persons
employed

Partial

F and NL only supply confidential data. European aggregates
exist only for the total retail trade index. A supplies only very
recent data that cannot be used for European aggregation.

B, EL, IRL, P, S,
UK

C 330

Deflator of sales

YES

Identical to variable 120. Almost all MS supply deflated
turnover (EL supplies deflator of sales)

Annex D: Other Services

D 120

Turnover

NO

The situation is very mixed in the different service sectors. I,
NL and UK supply only very recent data. European
aggregates would be possible for certain sectors but weights
are not yet available.

D 210

Number of
persons
employed

NO

Situation is very heterogeneous as for variable 120. DK, A
and UK transmit very short series. Weights are also missing.

No or almost no
data from B, EL,
E, IRL, P. Many
series missing
from D, I, L, NL,
A

No or almost no
data from B, EL,
E, IRL, P, S.
Many series
missing from D

(data delivered by 15 November 2001 included)

13

Of particular interest for the future evolution of the STS Council Regulation is the
service sector part. The following table provides an overview.

Sector

Turnover

Number of persons employed

Division 50:

Data missing completely from: B, EL, E, I, P

Data missing completely from: B, EL, E, L, P, S

Sale, maintenance
and repair of motor
vehicles and
motorcycles: retail
sale of automotive
fuel

Data partially missing from: D (sends only 5050) Data
partially missing from: NL (sends only 5020,5050).
Data sent only starting 1998: NL

According to current derogation requests, a European
aggregate is likely to be possible by end of 2002.

Data sent only starting 1999: DK Data sent only
starting 1998: UK, IRL. According to current
derogation requests, a European aggregate is likely
to be possible by end of 2002, at the latest June
2003.

Division 51:

Data missing completely from B, EL, E, I, P

Data missing completely from: B, EL, E, L, P, S

Wholesale trade and
commission trade,
except of motor
vehicles and
motorcycles

Data partially missing from: D, FR (does not send
5110). Data sent only starting 1998: IRL

European aggregates are probably possible now. Work
on weights has to be completed.

NL sends data starting in 2000 not currently possible
to integrate.

Division 55:

Data missing completely from B, EL, E, I, A, P

Hotels and
restaurants

Section I

(Division 60-64):

Transport, storage
and communication

Data partially missing from: NL (does not send 5500,
but all three-digits). Data sent only starting 1998: IRL,
NL. According to current derogation requests, a
European aggregate is likely to be possible by end of
2002.

Data completely missing from B, D, EL, E, L, A, P.
Data is partially missing from: I (does not send 6000,
6300). Data are partially missing from: UK (sends
only 6300, 6420). Data sent only starting 1998: IRL, I,
UK. According to current derogation requests, a
European aggregate is likely to be possible by end of
2002. NL sends data starting in 2000 not currently
possible to integrate.

I and NL (sends part of three digits series). Data
sent only starting 1999: DK Data sent only starting
1998: UK, IRL. According to current derogation
requests, European aggregates are likely to be
possible by end of 2002, at the latest June 2003.

Data missing completely from: BE, EL, E, P, S.
Sends data only since 1999: DK Send data only
since 1998: IRL, UK According to current
derogation requests, a European aggregate is likely
to be possible by June 2003

Data missing completely from: B, D, EL, E, L, P,
S. Data sent only starting 1999: DK. Data sent
only starting 1998: UK, IRL. According to current
derogation requests, a European aggregate is likely
to be possible by June 2003.

Division 72:

Computer and
related activities

Data completely missing from B, D, EL, E, L, A, P.
Data sent only starting 1998: IRL, NL. Data sent only
starting 1999: IT. According to current derogation
requests, a European aggregate is likely to be possible
by end of 2002.

Data missing completely from: B, D, EL, E, L, P,
S. Data sent only starting 1999: DK. Data sent
only starting 1998: UK, IRL. According to current
derogation requests, a European aggregate is likely
to be possible by June 2003.

Division 74:

Other business
activities

Data completely missing from B, D, E, EL, I, L, NL,
A, P. Data sent only starting 1998: IRL. According to
current derogation requests, a European aggregate is
likely to be possible by end of 2002.

Data missing completely from: B, D, EL, E, L, P,
S. Data sent only starting 1999: DK. Data sent
only starting 1998: UK, IRL. According to current
derogation requests, a European aggregate is likely
to be possible by June 2003.

(data delivered by end December 2001 included)

Conclusions

Three years after the adoption of the Regulation on short-term statistics the overall
data situation is far from satisfactory. Although Eurostat can calculate important
EU15/Euro-zone indicators, no aggregates can be estimated for 13 of the 32 required
indicators. The situation should improve in 2002 as about 60% of the derogations
will
the remaining 40% of Member States’
lapse during this year. However,
derogations will expire only by mid-2003.

14

2.

RESULTS OF A USER SURVEY

The following chapter looks at the results of a user survey compiled during summer
2001. Users were asked to give their opinion on three key indicators, which are all
currently published via a News Release. Eurostat was especially interested in their
assessment concerning the aspects of timeliness, revisions, accessibility of data and
the lengths of the available time series. Respondents also had the chance to give their
opinion about the need for any additional indicators which are currently not available
or planned in the STS Regulation, but might be useful for the future.

The Eurostat unit in charge of short-term statistics sent questionnaires to the ECB,
DG ECFIN and certain users who at the time occasionally contacted the unit for
additional information when press releases were issued. The Eurostat press office
contacted News Agencies and the Eurostat unit in charge of the Datashops asked
their network, which is constantly in contact with users, for their views.

Answers came from the ECB, DG ECFIN, Eurostat datashops in Berlin, New York,
Paris, Rome and Voorburg as well as from Goldman Sachs, Reuters and Kyodo. The
ECB pointed out that their answers would refer to Euro-zone aggregates only. In
order to distinguish the needs of different users better, Eurostat formed four different
groups of users, namely:

–

–

–

–

ECB

DG ECFIN

Datashops

Other external users

The questionnaire gave users the opportunity to give each issue a rating of
“Excellent”, “Good”, “Sufficient” or “Insufficient”. In order to calculate overall
results, Eurostat attributed 3 points for “excellent”, 2 for “good”, 1 for “sufficient”
and 0 for “insufficient”. In a few cases, when answers were not entirely clear or not
tried to map the respective replies by making best
easy attributable, Eurostat
guesses1.

Eurostat wishes to stress that the survey gives a snapshot of the perception of the data
situation for key indicators among respondents as of summer 2001. It is, however,
not a representative survey of all users. Furthermore, the size of the sample of
respondents is relatively small. It could also be argued that the scale of response
possibilities is not symmetrical as the terms “excellent” and “good” might associate
positive feelings for some persons, while there is only the term “insufficient” which
associates clearly negative sentiments and the term “sufficient” is for some persons
connected with a more neutral assessment. Eurostat took therefore steps to neutralise

1 For example, this was the case for the ECB, which rated the availability of historic time series as sufficient for
the overall aggregate, but as insufficient for the Main Industrial Groupings (MIGs). In this case 0.5 points were
attributed (average of “sufficient” (1) and “insufficient” (0) points). Another example concerns the New York
datashop, which did not fill in the provided forms, but gave instead only a general indication that the lengths of
the historic time series are not sufficient. This comment was mapped to each of the 3 rated indicators. Not all
respondents replied to all questions and in these cases they were not taken into account for calculating the
averages of the issues involved. The rounded averages are calculated from non-rounded numbers

15

this issue in the numerical calculation of overall results. Without wanting to give too
much importance to the survey, Eurostat believes that the overall results show a valid
picture of the current state of the perception of users. The following are the results of
the survey.

2.1.

Industrial production

The overall grade of 1.6 is slightly closer to “good” than to “sufficient”.

For industrial production, the best rating is given to the dimension accessibility with
a rating of “good” (2.4). DG ECFIN and the ECB assessed this issue as “excellent”,
while the datashops and external users viewed accessibility generally as “good”.

The assessment of the availability of historic time series is between “sufficient” and
“good” with a value of 1.5. While datashops and external users gave a rating lower
than the average, DG ECFIN judged this issue as “excellent”. The ECB, however,
gave an assessment of 0.5 (between “insufficient” and “sufficient”). Comments
included “backdata is often limited to 1995 because of lack of backdata for small
countries” and “one of the main complaints we have is the lack of history. Many
people really would like to see more history available”.

The perception of timeliness is 1.3, closer to “sufficient” than to “good” and slightly
lower than that for the availability of historic time series. The ECB assessment of this
issue (0.5) is between “insufficient” and “sufficient”. External users rate timeliness
as “sufficient”, while DG ECFIN and the datashops assess this dimension as “good”.

Revisions are graded as “sufficient” (1.2), the lowest score of all dimensions for the
industrial production indicator. While DG ECFIN rates this dimension as “good”, the
ECB considers it “unsatisfactory”. Comments included “important revisions of the
data are frequent and not sufficiently documented” and “series considered unreliable
as revisions are so big”.

By averaging these four dimensions, the overall grade for the industrial production
index sums up to 1.6, which is slightly closer to “good” than to “sufficient”.

Industrial Production; overall grade*= 1.6

Timeliness

Revisions

Accessibility

Historic time series

ECB

DG ECFIN

Datashops

External Users

Average

0.5

2.0

1.8

1.0

1.3

0.0

2.0

1.5

1.3

1.2

3.0

3.0

1.8

1.7

2.4

0.5

3.0

1.2

1.3

1.5

*Overall grade is the average of the four averages presented, but calculated with more decimals than shown; ratings:
3=excellent, 2=good, 1=sufficient, 0=insufficient

2.2.

Output prices of the domestic market

The overall grade is 1.8, close to “good”.

The best rating for this indicator comes for timeliness with “good” (2.0), with all user
groups consistently giving marks of around 2. The only group which rates timeliness
slightly lower is the external users (1.7).

16

Revisions are viewed as “good” (1.9), with all users giving a straight 2 except the
datashops, who rate this issue 1.5 (between “sufficient” and “good”). Comments
included “data is … revised less frequently and is generally stable.”

The accessibility of data is viewed as close to “good” (2.1), although the datashops
rate it “sufficient”, which is below the average. The ECB assess this issue as
“excellent”.

The lowest score for the output price index is recorded for the category availability
of historic time series with close to “sufficient” (1.2). Negative ratings from the ECB
and datashops more than wipe out the more positive perceptions from DG ECFIN
and external users.

By averaging the four dimensions, the overall grade comes to 1.8, which is close to
“good”.

Output prices of the domestic market; overall grade*= 1.8

Timeliness

Revisions

Accessibility

ECB

DG ECFIN

Datashops

External Users

Average

2.0

2.0

2.5

1.7

2.0

2.0

2.0

1.5

2.0

1.9

3.0

2.0

1.0

2.3

2.1

Historic time
series

0.0

2.0

1.0

1.7

1.2

*Overall grade is the average of the four averages presented, but calculated with more decimals than shown;
ratings: 3=excellent, 2=good, 1=sufficient, 0=insufficient

2.3.

Volume index of retail sales

The overall grade is 1.2, close to “sufficient”

Of all dimensions, timeliness is rated worst, between “insufficient” and “sufficient”
with 0.6. Both the ECB and the DG ECFIN give an “insufficient”, while both
datashops and external users rate this issue 1.3 closer to “sufficient” than to “good”.
Comments included “The index is published within the deadline of the STS-
Regulation, but 60 days is not satisfactory” or “the usefulness of the indicator is
reduced by the delay with which it is published”.

The quality of revisions is perceived as “sufficient”, with the “insufficient”
assessment from the ECB weighting heavily on the score. The datashops (1.3) and
external users (1.7) are slightly more positive. Comments included “the indices tend
to be heavily revised”.

The same rating is given for the availability of historic time series, which are rated
overall as “sufficient”, but “insufficient” from the ECB and under average from the
datashops. DG ECFIN gave the most positive assessment here with viewing the issue
as “good”. Comments included “many people complain that there is not enough
(back)data for proper analysis”.

The best score comes for accessibility of data, which is perceived as “good”. All user
groups rate this issue consistently as “good”, the ECB gives “excellent”.

By averaging the four dimensions, the overall grade is 1.2, close to “sufficient”.

17

Volume index of retail sales; overall grade*= 1.2

Timeliness

Revisions

Accessibility

Historic time series

ECB

DG ECFIN

Datashops

External Users

Average

0.0

0.0

1.3

1.3

0.6

0.0

n.a.

1.3

1.7

1.0

3.0

2.0

1.7

2.0

2.2

0.0

2.0

0.6

1.3

1.2

*Overall grade is the average of the four averages presented, but calculated with more decimals than shown; ratings:
3=excellent, 2=good, 1=sufficient, 0=insufficient

2.4.

Cross-indicator comparison

Looking at a cross-indicator comparison it becomes evident that the perception of
domestic output prices and industrial production is, at 1.8 and 1.6 respectively, closer
to “good” than to “sufficient”. In contrast, the volume index of retail sales is rated
lowest at 1.2, which is close to “sufficient”.

The available information suggests that accessibility is not a major concern for any
of the indicators as all are rated slightly better than “good”.

Revision practice is perceived as “good” for the domestic output price index;
however, the same issue is only rated as “sufficient” for the industrial production
index and the volume index of retail trade.

Another area of major indicator difference is timeliness, which is rated for the
domestic output price index as “good” (2.0), closer to “sufficient” than to “good” for
the industrial production index (1.3) and between “sufficient” and “insufficient” for
the volume index of retail trade (0.6).

The rating concerning availability of historic time series is not considered “good” for
any of the indicators. The best grading comes for the production index with 1.5
(exactly between “good” and “sufficient”). For the output price index and the index
of retail sales the grades are close to “sufficient” with 1.2.

Cross indicator comparison

Timeliness

Revisions

Accessibility

Historic time
series

Overall grade

Industrial
production

Domestic output
price index

Volume index of
retail trade

1.3

2.0

0.6

1.2

1.9

1.0

2.4

2.1

2.2

1.5

1.2

1.2

1.6

1.8

1.2

*Overall grade is the average of the four averages presented, but calculated with more decimals than shown;
ratings: 3=excellent, 2=good, 1=sufficient, 0=insufficient

18

2.5.

Additional Indicators which might be useful

A open-ended question asked users to describe their need for additional indicators
which might help them to assess the evolution of the business cycle. Only two users,
the ECB and Goldman Sachs, responded to this question.

The ECB pointed to their need for import prices, employment for services, “reliable”
new orders data, prices in the services sector and output/turnover in the services
sector. Concerning existing indicators, the ECB would like to have monthly data for
construction and working days adjusted series for turnover, gross wages and salaries
as well as for hours worked. Another concern is the geographical breakdown
between activities relating to the “domestic” and “external” market, which should be
available for domestic Euro-zone activities and transactions with non Euro-zone
Member States for turnover, new orders and prices.

Goldman Sachs asked for industrial orders, level of stocks (as an index indicator),
monthly average earnings, stock of capital, business productivity, household savings
and vacancies.

Conclusions

One major concern for users is the availability of historic time series. This concerns
all indicators, especially retail trade and output prices. Timeliness and the issue of
revisions are concerns for industrial production and particularly critical for the
volume of retail sales index. Compared to these issues, the accessibility of data is a
minor problem. Users also expressed their need for additional business cycle
indicators.

3.

TIMELINESS

The early publication of EU15/Euro-zone figures depends on the rapid availability of
sufficient information from Member States. This chapter explains the release of
EU15/Euro-zone data in the light of series sent from Member States by focusing on
indices for which Eurostat currently issues a News Release, including the production
of construction index for which a quarterly News Release was recently launched.

Eurostat calculates EU15/Euro-zone aggregates if the weighted Member State
coverage reaches at least 60%. However, if timeliness allows, Eurostat tries to attain
a higher coverage in order to keep revisions low and to improve quality. In the first
estimation,
industrial production and domestic output price data are currently
published with over 90% of the possible weight. The volume of retail sales index was
published with 70% during the first half of 2001, but the coverage rose when France
started to provide the monthly figures on time. No News Release for production in
construction was published until September 2001, and only the current schedule of
release dates from Member States is therefore shown for this indicator.

The situation concerning timeliness has improved markedly since the adoption of the
short-term statistics Regulation in May 1998 and the run-up to the introduction of the
Euro, but further improvements are urgent and necessary.

19

The ECB, as the most important user of short-term statistics, has demanded the
availability of monthly data between 30 and 40 days after the reference month2.
Currently only domestic output prices meet this target. The other key indicators
presented here are published with a longer delay3.

the current

legal framework does not

However,
leave much room to improve
timeliness further as the publications for the key indicators are already close to the
delays demanded by the regulation of 1998. This is shown in the table below. All
four key indicators are released either on time or within one week or less after the
deadline set by the Regulation. But
this is well short of the ECB’s demands.
Compared with ECB demands, key indicators are late by 1 to 2 weeks (industrial
production) or almost a month (retail sales and production in construction). Further
initiatives. In 2001, Eurostat
improvements can only come through additional
therefore started discussions with Member States about shorting delays.

Another persistent problem is additional delays caused by some Member States, such
as France and Italy during the summer period. Due to national holiday patterns, a
large proportion of establishments close in the summer months, complicating the
timely provision of indices. This adds to delays for the publication of some indices
for these reference periods.

It should be noted that the information presented reflects the situation of July 2001.

I:

II:

Current Delay

Demands of
Regulation4

III:

ECB needs

II-III: Difference
Regulation and
ECB needs

49 days

45 days

30-40 days

5-15 days

34 days

35 days

30-40 days

On time

63 days

60 days

30-40 days

20-30 days

65 days

60 days

30-40 days

20-30 days

Industrial production
index

Output price index
domestic market

Retail sales volume
index

Production in
construction index*

* some Member States send monthly data, others quarterly

3.1.

Industrial Production Index

The delay in the publication of the EU15/Euro-zone index as well as the weighted
the time of the first publication has been
Member State coverage available at
improved considerably over time. The figure is now normally published within 50
days after the reference period. This is very close to the deadline required by the
Regulation. The available weighted Member State coverage is now typically about

2 Statistical requirements of the European Central Bank in the field of general economic statistics, European

Central Bank, August 2000

3 In addition to that, many EU15/Euro-zone aggregates for other indices cannot be calculated due to a lack of

available Member State data (see chapter 1 of the Quality Report)

4For large Member States; smaller Member States have 15 additional days to transmit the data. For the retail
sales volume index smaller Member States have 30 additional days. For the purposes of the Council Regulation
on short-term statistics large Member States are: Germany, Spain, France, Italy and UK

20

90% for the first estimation. The delay for the summer 2000 was caused by the
additional delay of data coming from France and Spain5.

EU15/Euro-zone Industrial Production Index:
First estimation coverage, in % (bars),
delay after reference month, in days (line)

Weight EU15

Weight Euro-zone

Delay after reference month

95

85

75

65

55

45

7
9
-
t
c
O

7
9
-
c
e
D

8
9
-
b
e
F

8
9
-
r
p
A

8
9
-
l
u
J

8
9
-
p
e
S

8
9
-
v
o
N

9
9
-
n
a
J

9
9
-
r
a
M

9
9
-
y
a
M

9
9
-
l
u
J

9
9
-
p
e
S

9
9
-
v
o
N

0
0
-
n
a
J

0
0
-
r
a
M

0
0
-
y
a
M

0
0
-
l
u
J

0
0
-
p
e
S

0
0
-
v
o
N

1
0
-
n
a
J

1
0
-
r
a
M

1
0
-
y
a
M

The following graph shows the typical data transmission delay for each Member
State (data arrivals until 31 July 2001).

Comparison of data release timetables for Industrial Production Index

e
n
o
z
-
o
r
u
E
/
5
1
U
E
r
o
f

t
h
g
i
e
w
e

l

b
a

l
i

a
v
a

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

F,I,FIN,P

A,IRL,S

EL

UK
B

D, ES, NL

EU15/Euro-zone
publication

45 days is limit
for larger
Member States

60 days is limit for
smaller Member
States

3
0

L, DK

4
0

4
5

5
0

5
5

6
0

6
5

7
0

7
5

days after the reference month

EU15 weight

Euro-zone weight

5 Spain now publishes regularly each month, but the problem for France is unchanged.

21

3.2.

Domestic Output Price Index

This index has been published in a News Release since July 1999, the delay situation
has improved from about 45 days after the reference month to about 35 days in 2001.
The available coverage for the first estimate has been typically around 90% for EU15
and Euro-zone.

Publication of Domestic Output Price Index:
First estimation coverage, in % (bars),
delay after reference month, in days (line)

Weight EU15

Weight Euro-zone

Days published af ter ref erence month

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

9
9
-
n
u
J

9
9
-
g
u
A

9
9
-
t
c
O

9
9
-
c
e
D

0
0
-
b
e
F

0
0
-
r
p
A

0
0
-
n
u
J

0
0
-
g
u
A

0
0
-
t
c
O

0
0
-
c
e
D

1
0
-
b
e
F

1
0
-
r
p
A

1
0
-
n
u
J

The following graph shows the current delay for each Member State. Austria does
not supply data for the index6 (data arrivals until 31 July 2001).

6 Derogation until July 2001

22

Comparison of data release timetables for Domestic Output Price Index

e
n
o
z
-
o
r
u
E
/
5
1
U
E
r
o
f

t
h
g
i
e
w
e
l
b
a
l
i
a
v
a

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

E

DK,L

B

EL

I

F,NL,P

EU15/Euro-zone
publication

No data available
from Austria

D,S

UK

FIN

IRL

35 days is limit for
large Member
States

50 days is
limit for small
Member
States

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

days after the reference month

EU15 weight

Euro-zone weight

3.3.

Volume of Retail Sales Index

The first News Release on retail trade was published for the reference month of
January 2000. Initially the index came out around 73 days after the reference month
and is now released after 63 days. Since France has started to provide the index on
time, the coverage has increased to over 95% for the first estimation.

EU15/Euro-zone Volume of Retail Sales Index:
First estimation coverage, in % (bars),
delay after reference month, in days (line)

Weight EU15

Weight Euro-zone

Delay after ref erence month

100

95

90

85

80

75

70

65

60

0
0
-
n
a
J

0
0
-
b
e
F

0
0
-
r
a
M

0
0
-
r
p
A

0
0
-
y
a
M

0
0
-
n
u
J

0
0
-
l
u
J

0
0
-
g
u
A

0
0
-
p
e
S

0
0
-
t
c
O

0
0
-
v
o
N

0
0
-
c
e
D

1
0
-
n
a
J

1
0
-
b
e
F

1
0
-
r
a
M

1
0
-
r
p
A

1
0
-
y
a
M

1
0
-
n
u
J

23

The current transmission dates of Member States can be seen in the following
graphic. What is visible here is the unequal distribution of the release dates between
Member States. While the figure from UK is published after 19 days, the other
Member States publish their figures 20 or more days later (data arrivals until 31 July
2001).

Comparison of data release timetables for Volume of Retail Sales

100

80

60

40

20

e
n
o
z
-
o
r
u
E
5
1
U
E
r
o
f

/

i

t
h
g
e
w
e

l

b
a

l
i

a
v
a

0

1
5

UK

B,F

DK,EL

A

IRL,I

EU15/Euro-
zone
publication

P,FIN

E

S

D,NL

60 days is limit
for large Member
States

90 days is limit
for small
Member States

2
5

3
5

4
5

5
5

6
5

7
5

days after the reference month

EU15 weight

Euro-zone weight

3.4.

Production in Construction Index

Eurostat started a regular News Release on production in construction in autumn
2001. One problem is the possibility for Member States to transmit quarterly or
monthly data. Denmark, Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Sweden7 do not supply data at
all. The current transmission dates of Member States can be seen in the following
graphic. (data arrivals until 31 July 2001).

7 Derogation until end 2001 for Portugal and Sweden. Derogation until March and December 2002 for Greece

and Ireland respectively

24

Comparison of data release timetables for Production in construction

NL

D,F

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

e
n
o
z
-
o
r
u
E
/
5
1
U
E
r
o
f

t
h
g
i
e
w
e
l
b
a
l
i
a
v
a

B

4
0

Conclusions

A

L

UK,FIN

E

60 days is limit for
large Member
States

75 days is limit
for small
Member States

… of which quarterly data
from E, NL, FIN, UK

no data available from DK,
EL, IRL, P, S

I: excessive delay

6
0

8
0

days after the reference month

EU15 weight

Euro-zone weight

Timeliness and availability of source data from Member States at the time of the first
estimate has recently improved. No further major improvements in timeliness for key
indicators seem possible within the existing legal framework. To reduce publication
delays any further, additional efforts are therefore needed from Eurostat and the
Member States which go beyond the existing regulation.

4.

AVAILABILITY OF METADATA

A comprehensive and coherent set of meta-information enhances users’ ability to get
a good understanding of published series. Moreover, a lack of background
information may lead to misinterpretation or misunderstandings of trends in the
economy. The following chapter looks at the availability of metadata for short-term
business statistics.

In 2000 Eurostat created a new database gathering meta-information from all
Member States on all indicators. The collected information covers now over 600
pages and is available under the name of STS-Sources (sources of short-term
statistics). In addition to that information, Eurostat has started to compile meta-
information for EU15/Euro-zone based on the agreed definitions.

STS-Sources is based on a per Member State information of the national statistical
system, followed by details for each indicator. In addition to the compiled meta-
information, the name of a contact person is given. However, not every Member
State has produced meta-information for all indicators. The following is an overall
assessment of the current situation (see table below for an overview).

25

The situation for meta-information for the production index in industry is highly
satisfactory. Meta-information is available from all Member States based either on
the year 2000 or 1999. The information on output prices is available for all Member
States. However, the information from Sweden and Belgium is more than 6 years
old, and might need some updating. Metadata availability for turnover in retail sales
is missing from Belgium, Ireland, Luxembourg and Sweden. For some Member
States, metadata is missing for number of persons employed, hours worked and
building permits in the construction sector.

For other indicators, the situation mostly resembles the availability of the indicators
themselves. Member States which send data as a general rule also make the
necessary metadata available. In contrast, Member States which do not send the
requested indicator due to a total derogation, send no metadata either. The following
table gives an overview of the available meta-information. Member States - which
are marked with an asterisk (*) - have a complete derogation for this indicator and
might therefore not be in a position to send the respective metadata.

The table represents the data base at the end of 2001. Some methodological remarks
have been submitted by the Member States outside the official procedure. A new
collection of metadata will be launched in 2002.

26

Indicator

Meta-
information

EU15/Euro-
zone

Meta-information available for
Member States
(reference year)

No meta-information
from Member States

(* = Member State with a
complete derogation)

Annex A: Industry

A 110

Production

A 120

A 121

A 122

A 130

Turnover (total,
domestic, non-
domestic)

New orders received
(total, domestic, non-
domestic)

A 210

Number of persons
employed

A 220

Hours worked

A 230

Gross wages and
salaries

A 310

A 311

A 312

Output prices (total,
domestic, non-
domestic)

Annex B: Construction

B 110

B 115

B 116

B 130

B 135

B 136

B 210

Production (total,
buildings, civil
engineering)

New orders received
(total, buildings, civil
engineering)

Number of persons
employed

B 220

Hours worked

B 230

B 320

B 321

B 322

B 411

B 412

Gross wages and
salaries

Costs (construction,
material, labour)

Building permits
(number of dwellings,
square meters)

Annex C: Retail Trade and Repair

C 120

C 330

Turnover (deflated,
non-deflated)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

All Member States (2000), except UK
(1999)

DK, D, F, I, L, P, FIN, S (2000), A,
UK (1999) B, IRL, NL (1995)

EL*, E*

DK, D, I, L, FIN, S (2000), A, UK
(1999), B, NL (1995)

EL*, E*, F*, IRL*, P*

DK, D, IRL, I, L, NL, P, FIN (2000),
A, UK (1999), EL (1998), B, F, S
(1996)

E

D, IRL, I, L, NL, P, FIN (2000), A,
UK (1999), EL (1998), B, F, S (1996)

DK*,E*

D, DK, IRL, I, L, NL, P, FIN (2000),
A, UK (1999), EL (1998), B, F, S
(1996)

DK, D, EL, E, F, IRL, I, L, NL, P,
FIN (2000), UK (1999), S (1994), B
(1993)

E*

A*

B, DK, D, E, F, I, L (2000), A, FIN,
UK (1999)

EL*, IRL*, NL, P*, S*

B, D, E, L, NL, FIN (2000), A, UK
(1999)

DK*, EL*, F* IRL, I*,
P*, S*

B, DK, D, IRL, L, NL, FIN (2000), A
(1999), EL (1998)

E, I, P*, S*, UK

B, D, IRL, L, NL, FIN (2000), A, UK
(1999), EL (1998)

DK*, E, I*, P*, S*

B, DK, D, IRL, L, NL, FIN (2000), E,
A, UK (1999), EL (1998)

I*, P*, S*

DK, D, EL, E, I, L, F, NL (output
prices), FIN (2000), A, UK (1999), B
(1996), IRL, S (input prices) (2000)

P*

DK, D, I, FIN, S (2000), E (1999),
IRL (1994)

B, EL, F, L, NL, A, P,
UK*

DK, D, EL, E, NL, P, FIN (2000), I,
A, UK (1999)

B, IRL, L, S

27

C 210

Number of persons
employed

Annex D: Other Services

D 120

Turnover

D 210

Number of persons
employed

Overview status mid 2001.

Conclusions

Yes

Yes

Yes

DK, D, E, NL, P, FIN (2000), I, A,
UK (1999), EL (1998)

B*, IRL, L*, S*

DK, D, NL, P, FIN (2000), A, UK
(1999)

B, EL*, E*, IRL, I*, L*, S

DK, D, I, NL, P, FIN (2000), A, UK
(1999), EL (1998)

B*, E*, IRL, L*, S*

The situation of meta-information is currently satisfactory. However, some areas -
especially in construction, retail trade and other services - lack sufficient information.
The challenge for the future is to keep the meta-database STS-Sources up to date.

5.

TOWARDS COMMON DEFINITIONS

On 26 March 2001 the Commission adopted Regulation 588/2001, which defined
common definitions for the indicators of short-term statistics. Many discussions with
Member States concerning the usefulness of a common approach in this area had
preceded this decision. Finally, however, a broad understanding emerged that this
was the right way forward. The regulation specifies that indices are to be transmitted
in accordance with the common definitions no later than 2003. The common
definitions will improve the comparability of statistics between Member States. This
chapter presents a roadmap for the application of common definitions as well as
information about
the current state of observation units used for the various
indicators.

Many indicators are already transmitted according to common definitions although
this is not yet obligatory. This is the case for industrial production, where all
reporting Member States provide the indicator within the common definitions, except
Denmark, which does not take into account the changes in stocks.

For the production in construction indicator, most Member States are transmitting
indices based on the common definitions, except Italy, which does not
include
maintenance. Italy does not use the correct observation unit and bases its information
on administrative data.

For the deflated turnover of retail sales, all reporting Member States transmit the
indicators already based on the common definitions, except Denmark, Greece, Spain
and UK, which include VAT.

However, only Germany, Spain, Luxembourg and UK are currently sending the
domestic output price index in accordance with to the common definitions. Greece,
France, the Netherlands, Portugal, Finland and Sweden do not yet include all duties
and taxes as required. However, most intend to switch within the timeframe provided
by the Regulation. Other deviations include issues such as list prices (not actual
transaction prices/Portugal), invoices (not the moment of order/Sweden) and the use
of the old NACE (Ireland). Sweden has indicated that they would not switch to the
common definitions within the required time frame.

28

A brief overview of the four annexes of the Regulation shows the following: For
each indicator in industry a maximum of 13 Member States (industrial production)
are currently already transmitting their data based on the common definitions. The
weak points are the price indicators, where currently only between 2 and 4 Member
States supply information in accordance with the common definitions. UK has given
no indication about when they would implement the agreed definition for new orders
and numbers of persons employed. Finland sends an alternative leading indicator for
new orders, which is permitted until 2008.

The required observation unit is for the most part respected for industry statistics, but
there are some exceptions. Portugal uses other observation units for all indicators in
Annex A except production and output prices. Observation units other than those
agreed are used by Denmark (wages and salaries), Spain (persons employed), Italy
(all social variables) and Austria (all turnover variables).

For indicators in construction, most Member States already transmit the figures
within the common definitions. Compliance ranges from 9 to 11 Member States for
the three production indicators and construction costs to a low of six Member States
for civil engineering new orders. There is currently no indication that any Member
State would not be able to deliver their indicators on the basis of the common
definitions on time, except for Italy, which plans to convert
to the common
definitions for their building and civil engineering figures only in 2004.

Most Member States respect the agreed observation units in the construction sector.
An exception is Italy, which uses other observation units for a whole range of
available (and planned) indicators. Denmark uses another observation unit for hours
worked and wages and salaries, and Spain for the persons employed indicator.

In the retail trade sector there are no indications that any Member State might not
send data based on the common definitions within the required time-frame. Already
now, for each of the indicators, a clear majority sends data based on the definitions.
But Italy has so far not given any date on when it plans to apply the common
definitions to turnover. Denmark is the only Member State which does not use the
prescribed observation units, deviating for all three retail trade indicators.

For other services, a clear majority of Member States indicated that they would be
following the common definition by now for turnover, but only a slight majority said
the same for employment. No time-frame for implementation was given in the
questionnaire by Denmark (for turnover) and Austria, UK (for persons employed).
Denmark (turnover, persons employed) and Austria (persons employed) do not send
their data in accordance with the required observation units.

Conclusions

Many indicators are already transmitted according to common definitions although
this is not yet obligatory. However, this is not the case for some important indicators,
such as the index of domestic output prices. Quality problems will persist for these
indicators until all Member States apply the common definitions.

29

Current state and implementation plans for common definitions

Indicator

B

DK

D

EL

E

F

IRL

I

L

NL

A

P

FIN

S

UK

Industry

Production

Turnover

Domestic

Yes

2003 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes

Yes Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes Yes Yes

Yes

2003 Yes

Yes

2003 Yes

non-domestic

Yes

2003 Yes

New orders received

Yes

2003 Yes

domestic

Yes

2003 Yes

non-domestic

Yes

2003 Yes

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

Yes Yes

Yes

Yes 2002 2002* Yes* Yes Yes Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

D

D

D

D

D

Yes

Yes 2002 2002* Yes* Yes Yes Yes

Yes

Yes 2002 2002* Yes* Yes Yes Yes

Yes

Yes 2002 Yes

Yes*

(No) Yes No

Yes

Yes 2002 Yes

Yes*

(No) Yes No

Yes

Yes 2002 Yes

Yes*

(No) Yes No

Number of persons

Yes 2003* Yes

D Yes* 2003 Yes Yes* Yes Yes

2002

Yes* Yes Yes No

Hours worked

Yes

D

Yes

Gross wages and salaries

Yes Yes* Yes

Output prices

Yes

D

Yes

D

D

D

D

D

D 2003 2003 Yes* Yes 2003 2002

Yes* Yes

Yes Yes Yes* Yes Yes

Yes

Yes* Yes

D

D

Yes

D

domestic market

Yes

2003 Yes 2002 Yes 2003 2002

non-domestic market

Yes

D

Yes

D

D

D 2002

D 2002

D

?

D

Yes 2002

Yes 2002

Yes 2002

D

D

D

?

2003 2005 D

2002 2003 2005 Yes

?

Yes 2005 D

Construction

Production

Yes

Yes

Yes

building construction

Yes

Yes

Yes

civil engineering

Yes

Yes

Yes

New orders received

building construction

civil engineering

Yes

Yes

Yes

D

D

D

Yes

Yes

Yes

D

D

D

D

D

D

Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes

D

D

D

Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes

D

D

2002* Yes Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

2004* Yes Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

2004* Yes Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

D

D

D

Yes

D

D

D

D

D

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

D

Yes

Yes

Yes

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Number of persons

Yes

Yes

Yes

D Yes* 2003 Yes 2001* Yes Yes

2002

Yes

Yes Yes Yes

Hours worked

Yes Yes* Yes

Gross wages and salaries

Yes Yes* Yes

D

D

D 2003 Yes

D

Yes Yes

Construction costs

Yes

Yes

Yes 2003 Yes Yes Yes

Material costs

Labor costs

Yes

Yes

Yes 2003 Yes Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes 2003 Yes Yes

D

D

D

D

?

?

?

Yes 2003 2002

Yes

Yes

Yes Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

D

D

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

D

D

D

D

D

Building permits (number of

Yes

Yes

Yes 2003 Yes Yes Yes Yes* Yes Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes Yes

Building permits (sq. metres) Yes

2003 Yes 2003 Yes Yes Yes Yes* Yes Yes

D

Yes

Yes Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

D

D

Retail trade

Turnover

Yes 2003* Yes 2003 No Yes Yes

No

Yes 2002 Yes

Yes

Yes Yes 2001

Number of persons

Yes 2003* Yes

D

Yes 2003 Yes

Yes

Yes Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes Yes No

Yes 2003* Yes Yes No

?

Yes

Yes

Yes Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes Yes 2001

Number of persons

Yes 2003* Yes

Yes

No*

Yes

D

D

?

?

Yes Yes

Yes

Yes 2002 Yes

Yes

Yes Yes Yes

2003 Yes

Yes

Yes Yes

No*

Yes

Yes Yes No

Yes = In accordance with common definitions

No = No date for availability in common definition

2003 = Year of availability in common definition

D = Complete derogation and/or no data available

* = Not in accordance with required observation unit ? = No information

(NO) = Alternative leading indicator, allowed up to 2008

30

Deflator

Services

Turnover

5.1.

A note on national methods for working days adjustment

Another area where discussions about common approaches have recently begun is
the working days adjustment methods used by Member States. A major incentive to
Eurostat to look into working days adjustment was the release of the production
figures for industry for the reference months of December 2000 and January 2001.
The growth rates for December 2000 showed a strong increase, followed by a sharp
drop in the rates for January 2001. Why?

Subsequent investigations revealed that those Member States which had used a
proportional method (in contrast to those who had used a regression method) had
overestimated the December figure that was characterised by fewer working days
than an average December. But it was not the first time this had happened. In the past
when this calendar phenomenon occurred, two times out of three a sharp increase in
December was followed by a strong decline in January. See table below (similar
examples could be given for some Member States).

Euro-zone growth
rates

December of
indicated year

January of
following year

Number of
working days in
December

1990

1995

2000

0.6%

1.2%

1.7%

0.9%

-1.1%

-1.9%

20

20

20

Average Number
of working days
for December of
last 11 years

21.36

The working days adjusted series is therefore a crucial element for certain indicators8
as it forms the basis for most aggregation processes for EU15/Euro-zone figures. The
Regulation demands these figures directly from National Statistical Institutes, as each
Member State should know best
in this process.
However, if the general statistical approach for the correction of these effects differs
the result might be an EU15/Euro-zone
too widely between Member States,
aggregate which lacks harmonisation. The following is an overview on how Member
States approach this issue.

its particularities that count

A fundamental choice each Member State has to make is to decide whether to use a
proportional or a regression method for the working days adjustment. Here the
choices differ widely. Just to take the example of the production index: five Member
States use a regression method and nine a proportional method. One Member State
does not make any working day adjustment.

that

It has to be noted, however,
in practice all Member States use different
regression methods (proportional methods also differ). This starts with the choice of
the software packages and probably ends with the different versions of each program.
A first look reveals that some Member States take a package from the X11 family,
while others opt for Tramo Seats. Some use six regressors and others two.

8 Currently the production indices in industry and construction as well as the turnover indices in retail trade and

other services have to be provided on the basis of a working days adjusted presentation

31

Overview over working days adjustment methods in the European Union

Member
State

Regression or
Proportional

Method used

B

DK

D

EL

E

F

IRL

I

L

NL

A

P

FIN

S

UK

Regression

No adjustment

1 or 2-Regression (P, C), 6 or 7-Regression (R), 2 or 7-Regression (rest) with
TRAMO-SEATS (Excel Macro (R, P, C), DEMETRA (rest)).

Regression

Regression (P, C) with Modified X-11; 8-Regression (R,OS) with BV4 (R, OS);

Proportional

Proportional (P, R).

Regression

2-Regression (P)

Regression

“1+”-Regression (P,C, R, OS)

Proportional

Proportional (P, R) with internal CSO programs used

Proportional

Proportional (P)

Proportional

Proportional (P, C, R, OS)

Proportional

Proportional (P, C)

Regression

Regression method developed by the Deutsche Bundesbank

Proportional

Proportional (P, R)

Both

Both

Regression

Proportional (P), Regression (R, C, OS) with X-11 ARIMA (SAS)

Proportional (P, OS), Regression (R, OS)

7-Regression is chosen, 6 for the working days and one for the Easter effect,
using X-11 ARIMA.

P Industrial Production
R Turnover in Retail Trade
C Production in Construction
OS Turnover in Other Services

Conclusions

Currently the situation concerning working day adjustment methods for raw data can
only be described as lacking harmonisation. Aggregation of these non-harmonised
working day adjusted data may consequently lead to serious quality problems. There
is a strong case to be made for progressing towards the formulation and
implementation of common general guidelines in this area.

6.

REVISIONS

Due to late responses, further data from additional sources, corrections and other
reasons, revisions are in many cases unavoidable in the area of business statistics.
This chapter looks in a first section at how users are affected by revisions and in a
second at the revision practices indicated by Member States.

Indicators for which Eurostat
production in construction are examined.

issues a press release as well as the series for

32

6.1.

STS-Revisions as seen by a user

This section looks at revision rates for Euro-zone and individual Member States
figures as seen by a user9.

The STS-Regulation asks Member States to transmit data for different indicators
within a specific time period. Nothing, however, is mentioned in the regulation
concerning revisions or any kind of common revision policy. Therefore, Member
States revise according to their own timetables and traditions and some Member
States do not revise at all. This lack of co-ordination leads to a situation where the
EU15 and Euro-zone aggregates, which are based on Member States’ information,
are frequently revised.

To get a first idea of the dimensions involved here, a revision measure has been
applied in the following table for the mentioned indicators covering the Member
States and the Euro-zone (see footnote). The table covers the time period from
January 1999 (Q1 1999) to September 2000 (Q3 2000) and measures updates and
revisions of the indices. The measure (ABoR = average of the monthly sum of the
balance of revisions) is basically the first estimate of an index value compared with
the final estimate for the monthly index, averaged over time.

To give an example: Say that the index values for the reference month January
199810 are in subsequent weeks 101 (first observation), 105 (first revision), 100 (last
revision), thenABoR would be estimated by comparing the original number 101 with
the last number 100, which results equally in 1.

The table shows the situation as experienced by the ECB, as user of the data. Please
note that this indicator might also include data errors, i.e. that Member States coded
data wrongly, or that false figures were transmitted to Eurostat, or that a mistake was
made in the data entry within Eurostat11. The table therefore shows the average “real-
life” picture as experienced by a user. Note however, that most revisions are not due
to these “errors”, but were made for other reasons.

For industrial production and output prices, the first estimation is on average within
0.4 index points around the “final” estimate (as represented by the ABoR values).
However, the first Euro-zone estimate for production in construction is on average
1.5 index points away from the final estimate.

9 Tables and graphs in Section 6.1. are taken from a presentation by the European Central Bank delivered at an
international seminar on short-term statistics held in Luxembourg on 8-9 March 2001. Only editing changes
have been performed. The text and the conclusions drawn, however, are fully shared by Eurostat. No EU15
aggregate information was available; however the conclusions for the Euro-zone aggregate can be considered
as equally relevant for EU15

10 Only one reference month is given in this example and therefore no average – as would be the case if more,

additional reference values were presented - is calculated

11 Several Member States have indicated that the amount of revisions could not possibly come from them as their
revisions are much smaller. Other possible factors might explain divergences, such as those mentioned above

33

Industrial
production

Industrial
producer prices

Retail Trade

Production in
construction

Euro-zone1)

B

D

EL

E

F

IRL

I

L

NL

A

P

FIN

DK

S

UK

ABoR

ABoR

ABoR

ABoR

ABoR

ABoR

ABoR

ABoR

ABoR

ABoR

ABoR

ABoR

ABoR

ABoR

ABoR

ABoR

0.4

1.4

1.2

0.1

-0.5

0.6

0.4

0.2

-0.1

-0.6

0.5

0.5

0.7

0.4

0.6

0.8

-0.4

0.2

0.0

0.2

0.0

-2.2

0.0

0.0

3.5

0.1

-

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

-0.1

0.2

-0.2

1.0

3.8

-0.27

0.1

-3.8

-1.4

0.9

0.1

0.0

0.0

-0.8

0.0

-0.2

0.1

1.5

2.4

1.0

-

0.5

5.412

-

-0.2

0.3

0.6

5.3

-

2.2

10.0

-

-

ECB calculations based on Eurostat data.
ABoR: average of the monthly sum of the balance of revisions

Source:
Notes:
i.e. taking into account the sign of the revision.
1) Excluding Greece

However, average numbers – such as those above - sometimes mask the unaveraged
real life picture. But what is it for the user? The following graphs try to give an idea.
One specific reference month is taken (here January 1999) and the respective index
values of January 1999, which are in many cases revised each and every month, are
mapped.

12 This value is known to have been due to a coding error and transmission problem. This phenomenon, which is

different from pure revisions, could occur in other countries

34

Chart 1: Industrial production in the Euro-zone,
revisions to the January 1999 value (1995=100)

Chart 1

Industrial production in the Euro-zone; revisions to the January 1999 value
(index;1995=100)

106.2

106

105.8

105.6

105.4

105.2

105

104.8

/

9
9
9
1
4
0
2
1

/

/

9
9
9
1
5
0
2
1

/

/

9
9
9
1
6
0
2
1

/

/

9
9
9
1
7
0
2
1

/

/

9
9
9
1
8
0
2
1

/

/

9
9
9
1
9
0
2
1

/

/

9
9
9
1
0
1
2
1

/

/

9
9
9
1
1
1
2
1

/

/

9
9
9
1
2
1
2
1

/

/

0
0
0
2
1
0
2
1

/

/

0
0
0
2
2
0
2
1

/

/

0
0
0
2
3
0
2
1

/

/

0
0
0
2
4
0
2
1

/

/

0
0
0
2
5
0
2
1

/

/

0
0
0
2
6
0
2
1

/

/

0
0
0
2
7
0
2
1

/

/

0
0
0
2
8
0
2
1

/

/

0
0
0
2
9
0
2
1

/

/

0
0
0
2
0
1
2
1

/

/

0
0
0
2
1
1
2
1

/

/

0
0
0
2
2
1
2
1

/

The index value for the reference month January 1999 changes practically every
month, especially in the year following its first publication. Within two months after
the first estimation, the Euro-zone value changes from 106 to 105.4, goes up to
105.8, only to fall to 105.3 in April 2000. Even a full year after the first Euro-zone
estimation, the “facts” about the index value “January 1999” changed for users of
Euro-zone data.

The following tables show the revision patterns for the industrial producer price
index, the retail trade turnover index and the production in construction index
respectively, all for the reference month January 1999, over time. Note that the scales
are not always the same.

35

Chart 2: Industrial producer prices in the Euro-zone,
revisions to the January 1999 value (1995=100)

Chart 2

Industrial producer prices in the Euro-zone; revisions to the January 1999 value
(index;1995= 100)

99.1

99

98.9

98.8

98.7

9
9
9
1
/

4
0

/

2
1

9
9
9
1
/

5
0

/

2
1

9
9
9
1
/

6
0

/

2
1

9
9
9
1
/

7
0

/

2
1

9
9
9
1
/

8
0

/

2
1

9
9
9
1
/

9
0

/

2
1

9
9
9
1
/

0
1

/

2
1

9
9
9
1
/

1
1

/

2
1

9
9
9
1
/

2
1

/

2
1

0
0
0
2
/

1
0

/

2
1

0
0
0
2
/

2
0

/

2
1

0
0
0
2
/

3
0

/

2
1

0
0
0
2
/

4
0

/

2
1

0
0
0
2
/

5
0

/

2
1

0
0
0
2
/

6
0

/

2
1

0
0
0
2
/

7
0

/

2
1

0
0
0
2
/

8
0

/

2
1

0
0
0
2
/

9
0

/

2
1

0
0
0
2
/

0
1

/

2
1

0
0
0
2
/

1
1

/

2
1

0
0
0
2
/

2
1

/

2
1

Chart 3: Retail trade turnover in the Euro-zone,
revisions to the January 1999 value (1995=100)

Chart 3 Retail trade turnover in the Euro-zone; revisions to the January 1999 value

(index; 1995= 100)

99

98.5

98

97.5

97

96.5

96

9
9
9
1
/
5
0
/
1
3

9
9
9
1
/
6
0
/
0
3

9
9
9
1
/
7
0
/
1
3

9
9
9
1
/
8
0
/
1
3

9
9
9
1
/
9
0
/
0
3

9
9
9
1
/
0
1
/
1
3

9
9
9
1
/
1
1
/
0
3

9
9
9
1
/
2
1
/
1
3

0
0
0
2
/
1
0
/
1
3

0
0
0
2
/
2
0
/
9
2

0
0
0
2
/
3
0
/
1
3

0
0
0
2
/
4
0
/
0
3

0
0
0
2
/
5
0
/
1
3

0
0
0
2
/
6
0
/
0
3

0
0
0
2
/
7
0
/
1
3

0
0
0
2
/
8
0
/
1
3

0
0
0
2
/
9
0
/
0
3

0
0
0
2
/
0
1
/
1
3

0
0
0
2
/
1
1
/
0
3

36

Chart 4: Production in the construction in the Euro-zone,
revisions to the January 1999 value (1995=100)

Chart 4 Production in construction in the Euro-zone; revisions to the January 1999 value

(index; 1995= 100)

88

87.5

87

86.5

86

85.5

85

84.5

84

9
9
9
1
/
7
0
/
6
2

9
9
9
1
/
8
0
/
6
2

9
9
9
1
/
9
0
/
6
2

9
9
9
1
/
0
1
/
6
2

9
9
9
1
/
1
1
/
6
2

9
9
9
1
/
2
1
/
6
2

0
0
0
2
/
1
0
/
6
2

0
0
0
2
/
2
0
/
6
2

0
0
0
2
/
3
0
/
6
2

0
0
0
2
/
4
0
/
6
2

0
0
0
2
/
5
0
/
6
2

0
0
0
2
/
6
0
/
6
2

0
0
0
2
/
7
0
/
6
2

0
0
0
2
/
8
0
/
6
2

0
0
0
2
/
9
0
/
6
2

0
0
0
2
/
0
1
/
6
2

0
0
0
2
/
1
1
/
6
2

6.2.

Revision Practices in Member States

The following section shows the revision practices of Member States for the
mentioned indicators as reported by them.

The following four issues are presented:

–

–

–

–

Existence of revisions

Frequency of revisions

Source of additional information, which leads to revisions

Existence of systematic bias

All reporting Member States made revisions for the industrial production index and
the figures are revised at different frequencies and according to different timetables.
Revisions come usually within one or two months after the first estimate based on
additional information from monthly, quarterly and/or annual surveys. No Member
States reported a bias in its first estimate (see following table).

37

B

DK

D

EL

E

F

IRL

I

L

NL

A

P

FIN

S

UK

Existence

Frequency

Source

Bias

Industrial production index

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

After one month, after three month

From original sample

The following two months

From original sample

Once per month/ once per quarter/
once per year/ other periodicities

From original sample

Once per month and in March of
following year

Original sample

When the definitive figures are
available. In the practice when next
two months are published

From original sample

The following month, quarterly,
annual

From original sample (one month after first
publication) and from additional sample

Once

Once

From original sample

From original sample

Following three months; yearly
revision

From original sample Estimates are corrected
when definitive figures are available.

Once a month

Original sample; annual National Accounts

After one month and in September
of year t+1

The following two months and the
annual revision in March of year
t+1.

After one month, when errors are
detected and annual revision.

From original sample

From original sample

From annual index, which is calculated based
on structural business statistics and
PRODCOM statistics. The benchmarking
takes place at T + 18 months.

For late respondents

From original sample

Once per month; for latest quarter

From original sample, also from revisions to
price data and inventory changes. Revisions
also come from the Annual Business Inquiry

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

About half the Member States make revisions for the domestic output price index,
while the others make no revisions. Revisions come usually in the months following
the publication of the index and sometimes within the frame of an annual revision.
Additional information comes from the original sample and no reporting Member
States had observed a systematic bias in its first estimate.

38

Existence

Frequency

Source

Domestic output price index

B

DK

D

EL

E

EL

F

IRL

I

L

NL

A

P

FIN

S

UK

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

When the definitive figures are
available. In the practice when next
two months are published

From original sample

-

-

The following months

From original sample

-

-

Once per month

From original sample

The following three months. Yearly
revision some months after end of
year

From original sample, Estimates are corrected
when definitive figures are available.

For up to 6 months

From original sample

After one month and in September
of year t+1

Each month revised twice; annual
revision March of year t+1.
However, index is rarely revised

STS Sample (PRODCOM data)

Wholesale price index

From the original sample

-

-

-

-

Can be revised for 3 months after
first publication. Revisions unusual
after that

From original sample

Bias

n.a.

-

-

-

No

-

No

-

No

No

No

No

No

-

-

No

Ten Member States revise their retail sales index, while four do not (no information
from one Member State). Common revision frequencies are shortly after the first
release or once per month. Additional information comes usually from the original
sample and none of the reporting Member States had observed a systematic bias in
its first estimate.

39

Existence

Frequency

Source

Retail Sales Index

B

DK

D

EL

E

F

IRL

I

L

NL

A

P

FIN

S

UK

n.a.

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

n.a.

n.a.

One time 14 days after the first
release

From original sample

Once per month

From original sample

-

Twice per month

Each month revised twice and an
annual revision in summer t+1

Once

-

Once per month

Once per month

-

-

From original sample

From original sample

From original sample

-

From original sample

From original sample

-

Each month revised twice and the
annual revision every March

From original sample

Monthly for up to six months as the
VAT data accumulates

First release based on survey. Later also
administrative data

-

-

Monthly for 2nd & 3rd estimate

From original sample

Bias

n.a.

No

No

-

No

No

No

No

No

No

-

No

No

-

No

Available information for the production in construction index shows that most
Member States make revisions for this index, with the exception of Italy. Revisions
are common after one month and after one quarter. Some Member States make an
annual revision as well. Additional information comes mostly from the original
sample and from other sources such as updated administrative registers, annual
Prodcom surveys and Quarterly Accounts data. None of the reporting Member States
had observed a systematic bias in its first estimate.

40

Production in Construction Index

Existence

Frequency

Source

Yes

Yes

After one month, after three month

From original sample

Once per quarter

Administrative register; quarterly due to
gradually updated register

Yes

Once per month and once per year

From original sample

Derogation

Derogation

Derogation

Yes

Yes

Once per quarter

From original sample

The following month, quarterly,
annual

From original sample (one month after first
publication) and from additional sample

Yes

Once per quarter

From original sample

B

DK

D

EL

E

F

F

IRL

Derogation

Derogation

Derogation

I

L

NL

A

P

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

-

-

Following 3 months. Yearly some
months after end of year

From original sample, Estimates are corrected
when definitive figures are available.

Once per quarter due to the regular
Quarterly Accounts; Annual

From original sample; Alignment with
Quarterly Accounts and production statistics

After one month and in September
of year t+1

From original sample

Derogation

Derogation

Derogation

FIN

Yes

For up to 6 months, due to
administrative data and revisions of
deflator

Accumulation and changes in administrative
registers.

S

UK

Derogation

Derogation

Derogation

Yes

Once

From original sample

Bias

No

Not
known

No

Derog
ation

No

No

No

Derog
ation

-

No

No

No

Derog
ation

No

Derog
ation

No

Conclusions

Revision practices are not harmonised between Member States. This leads to
significant problems for the users of the indicators. The evidence presented here
supports strongly the case for additional steps towards a common revision policy.

7.

SELECTED SAMPLING CHARACTERISTICS

Sampling characteristics influence the quality of economic business indicators.
Consequently, a new meta-database, STS-Sources, has been established in order to
collect the overall sampling designs of various indicators. But some essential points,
such as the treatment of enterprises (units) which have disappeared, the treatment of
non-responses, the weighted and unweighted coverage rate of the sample when
compared to the overall population of enterprises (units) as well as eventual size
classes are mostly missing in this database. Therefore, this chapter looks at the
following issues in more detail:

–

Treatment of disappearing enterprises (units)

41

–

–

Treatment of missing answers

Sample coverage compared to overall population in %

– Weighted coverage rate compared to overall population in %

–

Size classes

The following chapter looks at the results for indicators for which Eurostat issues a
press release as well as for production in construction.

7.1.

Treatment of disappearing enterprises (units)

Most Member States replace disappearing enterprises (units) for their key business
cycle indicators. There are only a few exceptions such as Greece, Luxembourg
(which add only new enterprises),
the Netherlands and Sweden in industrial
production and Luxembourg for turnover in retail sales. Some Member States,
however, perform their replacement less than once every year.

7.2.

Treatment of non-respondents or missing answers

Non-respondents or missing answers are estimated in some form in all responding
Member States, but different methods are used for the estimation. This can be seen in
industrial production, where the value of the previous month is taken (Germany), the
estimation is based on information from the previous month (Austria, Portugal), the
growth rates of the known averages are used (Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands and
UK) or the cases are studied individually (Spain). Greece takes the value of one year
previously, modified by the past evolution of the index, and Finland estimates the
missing data only if it is essential to do so. The other Member States did not specify
their method of estimation.

7.3.

Sample coverage compared to overall population in %

When looking at the unweighted13 share of the sample when compared with the
overall population of enterprises (units) in %, the differences between Member States
is not yet possible to draw
and between indicators are striking. However it
conclusions. The comparability of this type of statistics on quality must be ensured
before they are compared.

7.4.

Weighted coverage rate compared to overall population in %

A similar picture emerges when looking at the weighted shares. The sample size,
when compared to the overall population, on a weighted basis ranges from a little
over 60% (in Denmark and UK) to 90% or higher (in Spain, Ireland, Luxembourg,
the Netherlands, Austria and Portugal) for industrial production. For output prices the
share varies between 10-30% (in Sweden) and over 90% (in Spain). The few
Member States which report in the construction sector indicated that their share was
between 35% (the Netherlands) and 100% (France), while the coverage for retail
trade was between 20% (Ireland, Italy) and 100% (France).

13 Which gives each enterprise (unit) the same weight, regardless of size

42

7.5.

Size classes

A clear majority of Member States report that they use size classes, which usually
spare small enterprises the burden of response. This was generally the case for all
indicators except retail sales turnover, where Spain, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the
Netherlands, Austria, Sweden and UK reported that they apply no size classes.

The following tables give more detailed information.

Indicator: Industrial production

Treatment of
disappearing
enterprises (units)

Treatment of missing
answers

Sample coverage
in % of overall
population

Weighted
coverage in %
of overall
population

Size class

B

DK

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Additional
enterprises included

Growth rates of known
average assumed

10% for total;
41% for over 19
employees

63% for total;
74% for over 19
employees

19 employees

D

Annual replacement Value of previous month

30%

is taken

EL

No replacement

Year ago value modified
by past evolution of index

35%

E

F

Replaced with
another similar unit

Estimation, cases are
individually studied

Annual replacement

Estimation

IRL

New units are
introduced

Estimation

I

L

Replaced by similar
enterprises

Estimation based on
known average and trend

No replacement;
new units are
introduced

Estimation and later
replaced by authentic
value

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

25%

27%

NL

No

A

P

Replaced based on
different sources

Estimation based on
known values

Estimation based on
previous month
information

Replacement

Estimation based on latest
known estimation

FIN

Replacement once a
year

Estimation if missing data
is significant

S

Annual replacement

Estimation

100% of enterp. >
20 employees

25%

25%

4.6%

30%

78%

80%

90%

83%

90%

70%

97%

90%

90%

90%

80%

75% of
employees

No

At least 10 employees

At least 20 employed

Generally more than 20
employees

At least 20 employed

Generally more than 20
employees

No

At least 20 employed

Normally at least 20
employed

No

At least 20 employed

At least 10 employed

UK

Replacement

Estimation
known answers

based

on

n.a.

65%

No

43

Indicator: Domestic Output prices

Treatment of
disappearing
enterprises (units)

Treatment of missing
answers

Sample coverage
in % of overall
population

Weighted
coverage in %
of overall
population

Size class

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Inclusion of
additional units in
survey

Response rate at 99.5%,
missing info regarded as
unchanged

5% for total, 25%
for over 19
employees

42% for total,
49% for over 19
employees

20 Mio. DKK and 19
employees

Immediate
replacement; if
impossible
extrapolation

Replaced by
enterprises with
same products

replaced

Immediate contact to get
answer or replacement
product; if impossible
same procedure like with
disappearing unit

Price of previous month
used

Estimation from units,
which send data

Every five years

Estimation

Renewed annually;
earlier replacement
when coverage falls
below 40%

Missing data treated as
unchanged data

No precise answer
possible, but high
coverage

No precise
answer possible,
but high
coverage

No enterprises with less
than 20 employees

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

19%

70%

No enterprise with less than
20 employees

92.7% of 1990
weight

Normally, units with less
than 20 employees not
surveyed

86.7%

40%

No, some exceptions
(shoes,…)

At least 3 employees

B

DK

D

EL

E

F

IRL

I

Replaced

Estimation by using data
from previous month;
These estimations are
used until enterprise is
replaced

1%

n.a.

No

L

NL

A

P

Replaced when base
year is changed

Estimation based on
previous data

Another enterprise
from original
sample is selected

Estimation by taking into
account rate of higher
aggregate

Replaced based on
different sources

Extrapolation of
preceding month

Replacement

FIN

Replacement

S

Not during the year

UK

Replacement

Estimation based on
information from previous
month

Estimation based on
previous month
information

Estimation based on
information from previous
month

Estimation based on
known answers

17%

51%

25%

30%

n.a.

90%

80%

90%

No

At least 20 persons
employed

Normally at least 20
employed

No precise
answer, but high
coverage

No

n.a.

At least 5 persons employed

Only some %

10-30%

At least 20 persons
employed

n.a.

n.a.

No

44

Indicator: Production in Construction

Treatment of
disappearing
enterprises (units)

Treatment of missing
answers

Sample coverage
in % of overall
population

Weighted
coverage in %
of overall
population

Size class

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Annual replacement Growth rates of known

15%

average assumed

n.a.

n.a.

63%

n.a.

n.a.

No

Derogation

Derogation

Derogation

Derogation

Derogation

B

DK

D

EL

E

Other enterprises
selected with same
size in same region

Cases are studied
individually with an
estimation based on the
previous information

F

Monthly data do not
take disappearing
units into account

Growth rates of known
average assumed

100% for
enterprises with
100 employees or
more and 2% for
those with less
than 100
employees

35% of building
and 29% of civil
engineering

100% for
enterprises with
100 employees
and 2% for
those with less
than 100

100%

Enterprises without persons
employed are not surveyed

Less than 10 employees are
not sampled for building
and all sampled for civil
engineering

IRL

Derogation

Derogation

Derogation

Derogation

Derogation

I

L

NL

A

Administrative
source

Replaced when base
year is changed

Estimation based on
previous values

56%

Over 20 persons all
enterprises included

12%, but all
enterprises
included with
more than 20
persons

Replaced by
enterprise of same
size class in
following month

Replaced based on
different sources

Try to get data from other
sources or use averages of
higher aggregate

2%

35%

Estimation based on
previous month
information

27%

78%

At least 10 employees for
sample; data for less than
10 is taken from VAT

Normally at least 20
persons employed, less only
in case of insufficient sector
coverage, but at least 10
persons employed

P

Derogation

Derogation

Derogation

Derogation

Derogation

FIN

n.a.

n.a.

0.9%

n.a.

Only the largest
construction companies are
directly surveyed.

S

UK

Derogation

Derogation

Derogation

Derogation

Derogation

Rotational sampling

Estimation based on
known answers

7.3%

n.a.

No enterprises, which do
not have VAT register

45

Indicator: Turnover in Retail Sales

Treatment of
disappearing
enterprises (units)

Treatment of missing
answers

Sample coverage
in % of overall
population

Weighted
coverage in %
of overall
population

Size class

Old sample no
replacement, new
sample replacement

Currently no treatment,
but changes with new
sample

0.55% in old and
2.22% in new
sample

Annual replacement

Estimates based on year
earlier data

24.7%

100%

B

DK

n.a.

n.a.

Almost all reply

replacement every
3rd year; 2002 from
supplementary
sample

D

New units

All reply

EL

Replaced by other
enterprises

Turnover of previous
month and year on year
percentage change

n.a.

28%

7%

4%

E

F

IRL

I

L

NL

A

FIN

S

Supplementary
panel used

Not used in calculation

6%

Replaced with
similar units from
same stratum

Estimation on bases of
mean values observed by
other enterprises

No replacement

Estimation

Replaced monthly

Estimation

Replaced if possible

Estimation by using the
value of previous month
and stratum specified
percentage change

0.7%

75%

10%

8%

P

Replacement

Estimation by using the
value of previous month

15%

Replacement during
the year

No treatment

1.3%

Only large
enterprises replaced

Estimation based on
average value of strata

6%

n.a.

UK

n.a.

n.a.

Conclusions

n.a.

70%

75%

n.a.

n.a.

20%

20%

95%

70%

70%

75%

68%

80%

68%

n.a.

Only over 2,5 Mio. DKK
included

No enterprises with less
than 500 000 DM annual
turnover

Over 15 Mio. Drachmas in
cities with over 10.000
inhabitants

No

No

4 size classes used

No

No

No

No

At least 2 persons
employed, usage of 7 size
classes.

Largest industries covered,
threshold varies

No

No

For their surveys Member States use various methods for replacing enterprises
(units) which have disappeared and for estimating missing answers. The unweighted
and weighted sample coverage compared to the overall population in % differs
widely between Member States. Most but not all Member States use size classes for
indicators. Questions arising from sampling characteristics should be
different
studied further in order to seek common approaches.

46

8.

SOURCES OF POTENTIAL NON-SAMPLING ERRORS

In order to detect and eliminate potential non-sampling errors, it is helpful to observe
their possible sources and measure the results of this exercise. The following chapter
looks whether or not this is done in Member States and its available results.

Member States were asked to indicate three items, which are in this chapter
identified as potential non-sampling errors:

–

–

–

Their unweighted non-response rate for an indicator (giving each enterprise
{unit} the same weight)

Their weighted non-response rate (applying a relevant weighting factor to each
enterprise {unit})

Other possible errors in the collection, processing and tabulation or in the
transmission of data to Eurostat

The following chapter looks at the results for indicators for which Eurostat issues a
press release as well as for production in construction.

8.1.

Industrial production and output prices

For the industrial production survey,
the unweighted non-response rate of all
enterprises which have been canvassed by Member States is between 1% and 5% in
the first published estimate in Finland, Spain and Austria on the low end, but 15% in
Italy (first estimation) and Luxembourg and up to slightly over 20% in Portugal and
Sweden.

The weighted non-response rate, which gives a greater weight to bigger enterprises
than to smaller ones, is between 1% and 3% in Finland and about 4% in the
Netherlands and Austria, while the rate is around 10% in Sweden, rising to 15% -
20% for France (for direct surveys).

The only Member State which measures other possible non-sampling errors is
Portugal, which checks revisions. No results of this action were available.

For the output price survey the unweighted non-response rate is 5% or less in
Denmark as well as in Spain, Ireland, Luxembourg and Sweden, while UK has a
non-response rate of 18% for the first estimation (which subsequently falls to 5% in
the following months), and Italy records 30% non-response (which falls to 15% for
the second estimate).

Only two reporting Member States measure the weighted non-response rate: the
Netherlands (30% for the first estimation and 4% for the final number) and France,
whereby no result is available for the latter.

For the other possible non-sampling errors, measurements were made for Italy,
which checked quality adjustments and large price deviations, Portugal, which
looked into the levels of revisions and Finland, which investigated large price
changes. No results of these checks were available.

47

Industrial production

Non response
rate in %

Weighted non
response rate in
%

Measurement of
other possible
errors

Non response
rate in %

Output prices

Weighted non
response rate
in %

Measurement
of other
possible errors

B

DK

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Not measured

Not measured

3% for first
estimation, falls to
0 in subsequent
months

n.a.

0.5%

n.a.

n.a.

Not measured

Not measured

D

Not measured

Below 10% in
most of the data
(observations
available from
1999 onwards)

Not measured

Not measured

Not measured

Not measured

EL

Not measured

Not measured

Not measured

Not measured

Not measured

Not measured

E

F

5% for first
estimation

Not measured

Not measured

Not measured

3%

Not measured

Not measured

15 to 20% for
direct surveys,
second estimate 5
to 10%

Not measured

Not measured

Measured, but
no results
available

Not measured

IRL Not yet measured

Under 10%

Not measured

2%

Not measured

Not measured

I

15% for first
estimation and
10% for second

8% for first
estimation and 4%
for second

Not measured

30% for first
estimation and
15% for second

Not measured

Quality
adjustments and
large price
deviations
checked

5% to 10%

Not measured

Less than 5%

Not measured

Not measured

L

15%

NL

8.5%

A

P

5%

23%

4%

4%

5% to 10%

FIN 1% for first

estimate, 0 in
following
estimate

1 to 3% in first
estimate, around 0
for final estimate

Not measured

Not measured

Not measured

30% for first
estimation and
4% for final
number

Not measured

5%

4%

Not measured

Levels of
revisions checked

Measured, but
results not
available

Not measured

Not measured

7%

Not measured

Levels of
revisions
checked

Large price
changes are
checked

S

UK

20 to 22%

9 to 10%

Not measured

2 to 5%

Not measured

Not measured

Not measured,
survey is statutory

Not measured,
survey is statutory

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

18% for first
estimation and
5% for
following
estimation,
survey is
statutory

8.2.

Production in construction and retail trade

For the production in construction survey, non-response rates are clearly higher than
for any other indicator. At the lower end are the non-response rates in Austria (5%)

48

and Luxembourg (15%), while Spain (45% for large and 30% for small enterprises),
UK (35% for first estimate) and the Netherlands (40-50% for first estimate and 20%
for the final number) topped the table. Only six Member States could provide
answers for this question.

The little information available for the weighted non-response rate showed Austria
(with 5%) again at the lower end, while Finland records 15-25% weighted non-
response rate and Spain 20% for large enterprises. No information was available
from other Member States.

No Member State reported a check of other possible non-sampling errors, except
Finland, which checks the VAT source concerning data coverage. No result of this
exercise was available.

The non-response rates for the volume of retail trade index fall between 6% and 10%
in Austria and Denmark. Higher non-response rates were reported from France (15-
20% for the first estimation), Sweden (18-22%), Finland (18.9% in first estimation)
and Portugal (25% to 30%). Italy had a non-response rate of 45%.

The weighted non-response rate was about 1% in Denmark, 5% and 8% in Austria
and Italy respectively and between 7-10% in Sweden. The rate was 7.3% in Finland
for the first estimation (while dropping to 1.6% in the following month) and 10% to
15% in Portugal.

No Member State reported additional measurements of other non-sampling errors,
except Austria which checks the standard error and Portugal which looks at the levels
of revisions. No results of these checks were available.

49

Production in Construction

Volume of Retail Trade index

Non response
rate in %

Weighted non
response rate in
%

Measurement
of other
possible
errors

Non response
rate in %

Weighted non
response rate
in %

Measurement
of other
possible errors

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Administrative
source

Administrative
source

Not measured

10%

n.a.

1%

n.a.

Not measured

Not measured

Not measured

Not measured

Not measured

Not measured

Not measured

Derogation

Derogation

Derogation

Not measured

Not measured

Not measured

45% for large
enterprises, 30%
for small

20% for large
enterprises, 4%
for small

Not measured

Not measured

Not measured

n.a.

B

DK

D

EL

E

F

Not measured

Not measured

Not measured

IRL

Derogation

Derogation

Derogation

15 to 20% for first
estimation, and
5% to 10% for
following months

Not measured,
but smaller than
unweighted
non-response
rate

Not measured

Measured, but no
results available

Not measured

n.a.

Administrative
source

Administrative
source

Not measured

45%

8%

n.a.

15%

Not measured

Not measured

Not measured

Not measured

Not measured

40 to 50% for first
estimation, 20%
for final number

5%

n.a.

5%

n.a.

Not measured

Between 10 and
15%

Not measured

Not measured

6%

5%

Derogation

Derogation

Derogation

25% to 30%

10% to 15%

I

L

NL

A

P

FIN

18 to 24%

15 to 25%

VAT source is
checked for
data coverage

Falls from 18.9%
for first estimation
to 7.6% for
second and 6.1%
for third to 0% for
final estimation
(after six months)

Falls from 7.3%
for first
estimation to
1.6% for second
and 0.7% for
third to 0% for
final estimation
(after six
months)

S

UK

Derogation

Derogation

Derogation

18 to 22%

7 and 10%

Not measured

Not measured

Not measured

Not measured

Not measured

Not measured

35% for first
estimation falls to
30% for final
number

Conclusions

A slight majority of Member States measures the weighted and unweighted response
rate of their samples, but only a very small minority looks at other possible errors in
the process of data collection, processing or transmission to Eurostat. These errors
are therefore not recorded and can consequently not be reduced systematically.

50

Standard error is
calculated

Levels of
revisions
checked

Not measured

9.

STATISTICAL BURDEN ON BUSINESS

The need for fast and reliable statistics demands the co-operation and help of the
business community. Without their contribution, these statistics would be impossible
to compile. This chapter tries to give an assessment of the statistical burden on
business and looks at what Member States are doing in order to spare small
enterprises as much as possible from this burden.

9.1.

Number of enterprises (units) surveyed for key indicators

The following table shows the number of enterprises asked per month for those
indicators on which Eurostat issues a press release as well as for the indicator
production in construction.

For the industrial production index, “large” Member States ask between 8 000 and
15 000 enterprises per month, while "small" Member States tend to survey between
1 000 and 2 500. The two exceptions are Luxembourg, which - given its small size –
asks only about 185 enterprises and Austria, which, despite being a “small” Member
State, asks 6 800 enterprises, slightly more than the larger Netherlands and 800 more
than France.

Only a limited amount of data is available for the production in construction
indicator. However according to the available information, Germany (12 500),
France (9 200) and UK (12 000) are the Member States surveying the most
enterprises. Austria surveys 5 000 enterprises, and the Netherlands about 1 600.

For output prices in industry, “larger” Member States tend to demand information
from between 3 600 and 13 000 enterprises, with Italy (3 680) and UK (3 000) at the
lower end of the range and Spain (7 000) and Germany (13 000) at the top. “Smaller”
Member States tend to ask less than 1 000 enterprises per month.

For the volume index of retail trade, UK, the Member State with the shortest delay in
the provision of this indicator, surveys 5 000 enterprises. UK is at the lower end of
the “larger” Member States as France (6 000)14, Italy (7 300), Spain (11 445) and
Germany (24 000) request information from significantly more enterprises. Austria
and Sweden survey around 3 500 businesses, while Greece and Ireland ask roughly
2 000. Denmark (750) and Finland (330) demand information from less than 1 000.

14 plus 42 000 from administrative sources

51

Industrial production

Production in
construction

Output prices in industry

Retail sales index

Number of enterprises
asked per month/other
frequency

Number of enterprises
asked per month/other
frequency

Number of enterprises
asked per month/other
frequency

Number of enterprises
asked per month/other
frequency

B

DK

D

EL

E

F

IRL

I

L

n.a.

1.300

15.000

2.441

10.000

6.000

2.000

8.000

185

NL

6.500/400 per quarter

6.800

n.a.

Administrative source

12.500

Derogation

3 000

9.200

Derogation

Administrative source

180

1.600

5.000

n.a.

750

13.000

970

7.000

4.500

800

3.680

117

n.a.

750

24.000

2.185

11.445

6.000 (additional 42.000
from administrative
source)

2.000

7.300

Administrative source

727 (460 half-yearly, 149
yearly)

1700

10.000

3.600

1800 (2.500 for base year
2000)

Derogation (3000 for base
year 2000)

2500 (3600 for base year
2000)

1500 (2100 for base year
2000)

1.300

2.400

9.000

200

Derogation

800

650

12.000 three quarters per
year and 30.000 in final
quarter

Approximately 3.000

330

3.200

5.000

A

P

FIN

S

UK

9.2.

Time needed for questionnaire

This section looks at
the total person/years per year needed for the business
community to compile the necessary information for selected short-term statistics
indicators and to fill in the questionnaires.

Eurostat asked Member States to reply to the following question for table 9.2:

How many person/years per year do all surveyed enterprises need in order to compile
the necessary data and to fill in the questionnaire for the index? (If there is only one
questionnaire for several indicators, try to estimate the time needed for the mentioned
indicators only)

The table 9.2. reports on the sum of the time needed for all enterprises (the whole
business community) for

–

–

–

A: compilation of the necessary information

B: filling in (of this information) the questionnaire

C: handling of the questionnaires received from the Statistical Institutes

52

The answer should therefore comprise the sum of A+B+C. The answer was to be
given in person/years per year. Member States could provide estimates.

More detailed information for those Member States, who did not follow this
methodology, or wished to specify more explicitly their methodology used for
providing this information,
is available below, after the following table. These
Member States are marked in the following table with a single asterisk (*).

Although this question seems to be relatively straightforward, the utmost caution
should be used when comparing different Member States, as the measurement may
not have been done in the same way.

Industrial production

Production in
construction

Output prices in
industry

Retail sales index

Person/years per year
needed to fill in

Person/years per year
needed to fill in

Person/years per
year needed to fill in

Person/years per
year needed to fill in

B

DK*

D*

EL*

E*

F*

IRL

I

L

NL*

A

P

FIN

S*

UK

n.a.

0.75

46

8

16

n.a.

n.a.

16

0.55

15

n.a.

30

5.1

5

15

n.a.

Administrative source

38

Derogation

4.6

n.a.

Derogation

n.a.

0.4

40

3

11

10

n.a.

Administrative source

8

0.25

10

n.a.

Derogation

0.3

Derogation

44

0.35

3

n.a.

5.6

3.2

2

2

n.a.

2.6

22

6

36

6

n.a.

11

1

13

n.a.

5

0.5

6

8

* For Member States marked with a *, see more detailed methodological explanation below.

53

The following Member States asked Eurostat to add additional methodological explanations:

Denmark

For industrial production and output prices in industry, Denmark conducts several surveys in the two
questionnaires, which includes more indicators than shown in the table. Overall person/years per year figures
are nationally available for these surveys. The figures shown above are based on these overall figures, but
adjusted in order to show only the relevant persons/years per year for the indicators, i.e. only a part of the
overall figures.

Germany

Based on 163 working hours per month in 1999.

Greece

Spain

France

Figures are estimations based on the year 2000.

Industrial production: estimation. Number of persons engaged full time during one year needed to fill in the
120.000 questionnaires (10.000 questionnaires per month) of one year of the industrial production index
sample.

Production in construction: estimation. Number of persons engaged full time during one year needed to fill in
the 9.000 questionnaires (2.250 questionnaires per quarter) of one year of the production in construction index
sample. The data are for the year 2000.

Output prices in industry: estimation. Number of persons engaged full time during one year needed to fill in
the 84.000 questionnaires (7.000 questionnaires per month) of one year of the industrial price index sample.

Retail sales index: estimation. Number of persons engaged full time during one year needed to fill in the
137.340 questionnaires (11.445 questionnaires per month) of one year of the retail sales index sample.

France explains that for industrial production, 3500 enterprises receive directly pre-printed questionnaires
from the administration, covering only those products on which information is collected. This procedure
makes it easier for enterprises to answer the questionnaires. An annual survey allows for the correct calibration
of the monthly survey. The survey for construction is performed by a professional organisation, and includes
more questions than needed for the production in construction indicator. It should be noted that these surveys
for production (in industry and construction) are also used for the collection of data on new orders.

The Nether-
lands

For industrial production and production in construction: refers to the burden of collecting information for the
source statistics of the indices. This information is also used for and published in several other statistics.

Sweden

Calculation formula used for person/years per year needed to fill in: Number of enterprises multiplied with the
Number of surveyed months multiplied with the time needed for enterprises to fill in questionnaire every
month (h/month) divided by working hour per person/year

The response burden has been surveyed for industrial production and retail sales, but is estimated for output
prices.

9.3.

Burden on small business

The following table gives some indications about policies in place for the reduction
of statistical burden on small enterprises. All responding Member States try to avoid
burden on small business. Approaches include size thresholds (such as no surveys of
enterprises with less than 20 employees), the use of administrative data or rotating
samples.

Italy and
No information on this issue is available from Belgium, Spain,
Luxembourg. The following table gives an overview of the situation of policies
concerning the reduction of burden for small enterprises.

54

B

DK

D

EL

E

F

n.a.

Policy for reducing burden on small business

Policy of reducing response burden, specifically for small enterprises by omitting them from a sample or
requiring only minimal representation

Enterprises with less than 20 employees are normally not surveyed. For retail trade enterprises with less than
500.000 DM of the annual turnover are excluded from the monthly survey.

No specific policy, but for industrial production index, the sample is selected in a way that enterprises
employing 10-20 persons do not exceed 10% of the total sample. Enterprises employing less than 10 persons
are not surveyed. For the (domestic) producer prices, enterprises employing less than 20 persons are excluded
from the survey.

Enterprises with less than 20 employees are not normally surveyed for Industrial Production Index and for
Output Price Index. Concerning the Production in Construction, enterprises without persons employed are not
surveyed.

Enterprises with less than 20 employees for production and less than 10 employees for construction are
normally not surveyed. For the producer price indicator no enterprises are surveyed with less than 5 million
Euros turnover. Usage of administrative data for Retail Trade for larger enterprises and rotating sample for
survey of smaller enterprises.

IRL

Size thresholds and rotating samples are applied

I

L

NL

A

P

FIN

S

UK

A size threshold of 20 employees is applied for Industrial Production and Industrial Turnover indexes.
Rotating samples of small enterprises are applied in Retail Trade survey. Administrative sources are used to
produce Hours worked and Wages and Salaries data for enterprise with less than 500 employees.

Use of administrative data for indicators of annexes C and D. Turnover uses monthly and quarterly VAT
declarations and employment uses monthly declarations towards the social security system.

Preferably, small businesses are not surveyed; they are estimated or VAT information is used. If proportion of
small businesses is relatively large, they are sampled

For Production in Industry and Construction enterprises with less then 20 employees are only included if the
90% criteria is not covered by the enterprises with 20 and more persons employed. Enterprises with less than
10 employees are excluded. Rotation concept in Retail Trade for small enterprises.

There are specific policies in this field. For Turnover, Hours worked and wages and salaries (in industry, retail
trade and other services) a small sample is selected for enterprises with 20 employees or less.

Businesses with less than 20 persons employed are practically exempted in all surveys (except the business
register survey of new enterprises) and in many individual surveys the cut-off point is higher, even as high as
50 persons employed. Statistical data on small businesses are based on administrative data, for example
monthly VAT reports or annual business income tax reports

Special consideration is taken to see if information from small enterprises is needed. Administrative data, cut-
off samples or model estimation are used to reduce need to ask small enterprises.

Sampling strategies adopted to avoid troubling smaller businesses as far as possible. Businesses with less than
10 employees have a 1 in 16 chance of being selected for an inquiry and respondents are encouraged to
provide best estimates when precise figures are not readily available.

Conclusions

The time needed for the business community to compile necessary information for
the purpose of statistical indicators, the number of enterprises asked and the policies
in place for reducing the burden on small businesses differ between Member States.
Eurostat proposes to exchange best practices in these areas in order to reduce the
burden on business.

55

10.

COST FOR THE NATIONAL STATISTICAL SYSTEM

The production of statistics involves costs for the national statistical system. This
chapter makes a first excursion into this subject. It starts with the reflection that costs
can be measured via person/years per year of work inside the statistical institute (as
well as local branches) and via a budget for the outsourcing of work.

For this chapter, Member States were asked the following two questions:

relationship with the NSI or one of

First question: How many person/years per year are needed for the operational work
of “internal” persons (persons in the statistical office as well as local branches, who
have a direct contractual/legal
their
representatives {through for example a work contract}) to collect, process and
calculate data and indices (counting the head of unit and secretaries, but not for
example the share of the persons from the personnel department or other persons not
directly linked with the production of statistics - for example not persons from the
computer help department, persons from the administration etc.)? If professional
organisations collect the data free of charge, their person/years per year should be
indicated in this question. Only one number should be given.

Second question: How much budget (in Euro) does the National Statistical Office
spend to get work done outside the statistical institute (outsourcing of work)?

The costs for the National Statistical System should therefore be split
categories:

into two

–

–

First question: Person/years per year for operational work of “internal persons”

Second question: Budget used for outsourcing of work (for “external persons”)

“Internal persons” are therefore - for the purpose of this question - those, who have a
direct contract/legal relationship with the National Statistical Institute (or one of their
representations in a region/department of a Member State), through a work contract
for example. “Non-Internal persons” or “external persons” - for the purpose of this
question - are those, who do not have a direct legal/contract relationship with the
NSI, but are employed by another enterprise which has won a call for tender for
performing a certain activity and which then supplies the necessary persons for the
performance of the contract.

Therefore persons with direct
legal/contractual obligations (“internal persons”)
should be counted in the first question, while persons without direct legal/contractual
obligations (“external persons”) should not be counted. Instead, the sum of the
money provided to the contracting enterprise should be stated in the second question.

Some Member States did not follow this methodology, or wished to specify more
explicitly their way of counting these costs. These Member States are marked in the
following table with a single * and more details are given below the following table.

Although these questions seem to be relatively straightforward, the utmost caution
should be used when comparing different Member States, as the measurement may
not have been done in each Member State in exactly the same way and the
definitions leave some room for different interpretations.

56

Industrial production

Production in
construction

Output prices in industry

Volume index of retail
sales

Number of
person/
years per
year in
statistical
system

n.a.

1.05

26.1**

17

26

60

16

18

0.75

4.5

17

3.8

4

3

27

B

DK*

D**

EL*

E*

F*

IRL

I

L

NL*

A*

P

FIN

S*

UK

Budget (in
Euro)
subcon-
tracting
work

Number of
person/
years per
year in
statistical
system

Budget (in
Euro)
subcon-
tracting
work

Number of
person/
years per
year in
statistical
system

Budget (in
Euro)
subcon-
tracting
work

Number of
person/
years per
year in
statistical
system

Budget (in
Euro)
subcon-
tracting
work

n.a.

0

0

0

0

n.a.

0

24 000

0

0

100 000

0

0

0

0

n.a.

0.5

n.a.

n.a.

0

n.a.

Derog.

Derog.

2.85

5

Derog.

14

0.75

1

6

Derog.

1.2

199 606

n.a.

Derog.

15 000

0

0

53 000

Derog.

0

Derog.

Derog.

33

0

n.a.

0.7

15

14

18

33

10

13

0.6

17

n.a.

6

4

7

32

n.a.

0

0

0

0

n.a.

0

11 500

0

0

n.a.

0

0

0

0

n.a.

3.33

48

16

20

3

7

8

1

6

5

2.4

1.8

3

16

n.a.

0

0

0

0

n.a.

0

17 500

0

0

83 000

0

0

0

0

* for these Member States see methodological explanations below.
**Germany gives only an overall figure of 26.1 for industrial production and production in construction

57

The following Member States asked Eurostat to add additional methodological explanations:

Denmark

Greece

Spain

Denmark conducts a survey in a joint questionnaire, which includes more variables than shown in the table.
The overall person/years per year figure for this survey is nationally available. The figures shown above are
based on these findings, but adjusted in order to show only the relevant persons/years per year for the above
mentioned indicators.

Greece wants to stress that figures are estimates which refer to year 2000. Persons belonging to relevant
departments (permanent staff) and the persons employed by NSSG to collect data for indicators (private
collaborators). These persons are not on the payroll of the NSSG, but their payment depends on the number
of the questionnaires they collect. They have a direct and legal relationship with the NSSG and therefore
“internal persons” and their payment should therefore not be counted. Consequently there is no
subcontracting of work.

For industrial production, output prices in industry and volume index of retail sales: Number of internal
persons (which have a direct
the
operational work to collect, process, calculate, carry out the quality control and data analysis as well as index
calculation and publication. The personnel in charge of the elementary data collection are as well included in
this item.

legal/contractual relationship with the Spanish NSI) carrying out

Production in construction: Same as for other indicators, but contractual relationship is with Ministry of
Formento and the personnel in charge of the elementary data collection are not included in this item. The
budget refers to the four quarters of 2000.

France

Figure for France includes information on new orders as well.

The
Netherlands

Austria

For industrial production and production in construction: Only staff needed for calculating the index on the
basis of source statistics, not the staff needed for processing the source statistics themselves.

As the monthly questionnaires in the production and trade domain cover a whole range of indicators, and not
only production and retail trade, Austria tried to calculate the relevant share of person/years per year needed
for the mentioned indicators in the table of this chapter. Austria included persons involved in the processing
of the monthly questionnaires as well as those for the index calculation, whereby not included are persons,
who receive the data questionnaire (administration), the secretariat and the director. A similar mapping was
made in order to get results for the budget of subcontracting.

Sweden

Hours worked divided by Working hours per person/year

Conclusions

This chapter presents an overview of a first collection of data about costs for the
national statistical system. Together with Member States, this issue should be further
explored in order to arrive at a better and more harmonised measurement, and
consequently a deeper understanding of the costs involved in producing business
cycle statistics.

58