Notably, we read form the weighted employment totals in the second panel of the table that the employment share of tradables declined by about 4 percentage points between UBI 2002 and UBI 2009, which is in agreement with the decline in the same share by 7 percentage points that we see between UBR 2001 and UBR 2010 (in table 2) but also contrasts with the fact that the share of the traded sector in the unweighted employment total of the UBI 2009 sample (shown in the first panel of table 11) was smaller than the share of the same in the aggregate for the UBI 2002 sample by less than 2 percentage points. Similarly, the weighted employment totals show that the share of the manufacturing sector declined by about 6 percentage points between UBI 2002 and UBI 2009, which is also the scale of the decline in the share of manufacturing between UBR 2001 and UBR 2010 (in table 2) but also contrasts with the fact that the share of manufacturing enterprises in the employment aggregate of the UBI 2009 sample was 4 percentage points higher than that employment share of the manufacturing enterprises in the UBI 2002 sample (shown in the first panel of table 12).

Similarly the application of sampling weights to sample values of UBI 2002 and 2009 leads to consistent estimates of the employment totals by enterprise size groups and enterprise age groups that are in sync with what we read from the UBR on the scale and direction of employment across the age and size distribution of firms but are also quite at variance with what we might infer by comparing unweighted sample totals of size or age groups between the 2002 and 2009 waves of the UBI. This can readily be seen in a comparison of the second and third panels of table 10 with corresponding panels of table 15, where sample weighted estimates of employment totals are reported for enterprise size and age groups. Thus the weighted size group total for 2002 and 2009 in table 15 imply a shift to have occurred in employment share to micro enterprises at the expense of large establishments over the seven year period on a scale consistent with that of the shift to microenterprises seen to have occurred between UBR 2001 and UBR 2010. By contrast, the corresponding (unweighted) sample employment total for size groups shown in table 10 might, not only exaggerate the employment share of larger firms, but also suggest that the employment share of larger enterprises had increased between UBI 2001 and UBI 2009.

====== Tables 13 and 14 here==== In table 13, we report unweighted sample values of annual value added for each single digit industry at constant prices for UBI 2002 as well as UBI 2009 alongside weighted industry totals. Here also unweighted sample values overstate the share of tradable goods and services in GDP while understating the extent of resource shifts towards the non‐traded goods and services. Thus enterprises sampled from the traded sector accounted for 33 percent to 36 percent of the aggregate for each of the samples of UBI 2002 and UBI 2009 while the true magnitude must have been around the 15 percent to 22 percent shown as the range of sample weighted estimates in the same table. This also means that the unweighted sample values would understate the scale of the resource shift from the traded sector to the non‐traded sector. The weighed estimates show a decline in the share of the traded sector by about 14 percentage points which is about the same order of magnitude as the (weighted) estimate of the decline in the employment share of the sector between the two waves of the UBI but contrasts with the 4 percentage point increase in the share of enterprises sampled from the sector in the UBI sample total value added.

27