DOCSLIB.ORG

National Accounts Report of the Eurostat Task Force Software

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Room document 1 STATISTICS DIRECTORATE National Accounts Report of the Eurostat Task Force Software Measurement OECD MEETING OF NATIONAL ACCOUNTS EXPERTS Château de la Muette, Paris 8-11 October 2002 Beginning at 9:30 a.m. on the first day Report of the Eurostat Task Force Software Measurement June 2002 2 Table of contents 1. INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................1 2. GUIDELINES FROM THE ESA95...................................................................................................2 3. COUNTRY PRACTICES...................................................................................................................3 4. INTERPRETATION OF ESA95 .......................................................................................................6 4.1. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................6 4.2. SOME GENERAL PRINCIPLES FOR SOFTWARE ......................................................................................6 4.2.1. Definition of software..............................................................................................................6 4.2.2. The life of a software system ...................................................................................................8 4.2.3. Embedded and bundled software; subcontracting..................................................................8 4.2.4. Estimating own-account; which inputs to include? ..............................................................10 4.3. DATABASES.....................................................................................................................................11 4.4. DISCUSSION BY PRODUCT................................................................................................................12 5. BUSINESS ACCOUNTING FOR SOFTWARE ............................................................................18 6. THE MEASUREMENT OF SOFTWARE .....................................................................................19 6.1. BALANCING SUPPLY AND DEMAND FOR SOFTWARE .........................................................................19 6.2. OUTPUT, INCLUDING OWN-ACCOUNT...............................................................................................20 6.2.1. Output of marketed computer software.................................................................................20 6.2.2. Output for own fixed capital formation.................................................................................23 6.3. INTERMEDIATE CONSUMPTION ........................................................................................................26 6.4. GROSS FIXED CAPITAL FORMATION..................................................................................................26 6.5. HOUSEHOLD FINAL CONSUMPTION...................................................................................................27 6.6. CHANGES IN INVENTORIES...............................................................................................................28 6.7. EXPORTS AND IMPORTS ...................................................................................................................29 6.7.1. Trade in goods ......................................................................................................................29 6.7.2. Trade in Services...................................................................................................................30 6.8. CONSUMPTION OF FIXED CAPITAL....................................................................................................33 7. DEFLATION OF SOFTWARE.......................................................................................................34 7.1. DEFLATION OF PACKAGED SOFTWARE .............................................................................................34 7.2. CUSTOM SOFTWARE ........................................................................................................................35 7.3. OWN-ACCOUNT SOFTWARE .............................................................................................................35 8. FINAL REMARKS...........................................................................................................................36 ANNEX 1: CONCORDANCE TABLE IN CPA 2002 .............................................................................37 ANNEX 2:THE ANNUAL LICENSE PAYMENT PROBLEM .............................................................38 ANNEX 3: BUSINESS ACCOUNTING: SOME EXAMPLES ..............................................................40 ANNEX 4: ESTIMATING OWN-ACCOUNT OUTPUT: WHICH INPUTS TO INCLUDE? ...........45 ANNEX 5: ESTIMATING OWN-ACCOUNT OUTPUT FROM DIFFERENT SOURCES OF LABOUR DATA.........................................................................................................................................49 ANNEX 6: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS TO TASK FORCE ...................................................................55 ANNEX 7: LIST OF TASK FORCE DOCUMENTS..............................................................................56 4 1. INTRODUCTION SNA93 and ESA95 require expenditure on software to be recorded as gross fixed capital formation: this is one of the biggest changes compared to SNA68 and ESA79. In the last few years, therefore, countries have included estimates for investment in software in their national accounts, adding directly to GDP. However, evidence shows that the methodologies behind the estimates do not necessarily lead to comparable results. At the meetings of the National Accounts Working Party in June 2001 and the GNP Committee in July 2001 it was therefore proposed to organise a Task Force to study this issue and propose recommendations to improve comparability. The Task Force's objective was to investigate current methods for the measurement of output and GFCF in software, to clarify any conceptual issues where necessary, to analyse the advantages and disadvantages of each method and to propose solutions to bring the results of different methods closer together. In particular, the following issues were discussed: • What is software? What are the different types of software? Should all types be included as GFCF? What about large data bases? • Estimation from the supply side: what sources are available? How then to make the distinction between intermediate consumption and GFCF? • Estimation from the demand side: what sources are available? How then to make adjustments to company accounts if necessary? • How to reconcile data from the supply and demand sides? • How to estimate software produced on own-account? • Possible sources of price or volume information for software. • The bundling of software with hardware and the consequences for measurement. • How to estimate consumption of fixed capital of software? What are appropriate service lives? The Task Force was comprised of nine EU countries plus Eurostat and the OECD (see annex 6 for a list of participants). The OECD ran a parallel Task Force to which the Eurostat Task Force contributed. The recommendations of this report are fully compatible with the recommendations from the OECD Task Force. The Eurostat Task Force met three times: 25-26 October 2001 in Luxembourg, 31 January-1 February 2002 in London and 16-17 May 2002 in Luxembourg. In addition, a joint meeting with the OECD was organised in Paris on 22-23 April 2002. A list of documents prepared by the Task Force is included as annex 7. 1 2. GUIDELINES FROM THE ESA95 Starting point is the definition of gross fixed capital formation (GFCF): 3.102 Gross fixed capital formation (P.51) consists of resident producers’ acquisitions, less disposals, of fixed assets during a given period plus certain additions to the value of non-produced assets realised by the productive activity of producer or institutional units. Fixed assets are tangible or intangible assets produced as outputs from processes of production that are themselves used repeatedly, or continuously, in processes of production for more than one year. 3.105 The following types of gross fixed capital formation may be distinguished: (a) acquisitions, less disposals, of tangible fixed assets: (…) (b) acquisitions, less disposals, of intangible fixed assets: (1) mineral exploration (2) computer software (3) entertainment, literary or artistic originals (4) other intangible assets (c) … (d) … Thus, computer software is an intangible fixed asset when used in production for more than one year. The asset category "Computer software" (AN1122) is defined as follows (in annex to chapter 7): Computer programs, program descriptions and supporting materials for both systems and applications software. Included are purchased software and software developed on own account, if the expenditure is large. Large expenditures on the purchase, development or extension of computer databases that are expected to be used for more than one year, whether marketed or not, are also included. This definition makes clear that also large expenditures on databases are to be included1. GFCF is valued at purchaser's prices including all transport, installation and other costs of ownership transfer or - in the case of own account production - at estimated basic prices, or at production cost when satisfactory estimates of basic prises cannot be
Recommended publications
  • Research Directorate-General

    Research Directorate-General

    Logics of Decision-making on Community Asylum Policy A Case Study of the Evolvement of the Dublin II Regulation Jonathan P. Aus Working Paper No. 03, February 2006 Working Papers can be downloaded from the ARENA homepage: http://www.arena.uio.no/publications/ Abstract This case study of the evolvement of the so-called Dublin II Regulation on asylum demonstrates the role of Council-specific informal rules and procedures in facilitating intergovernmental agreement. The paper addresses a Rationalist “puzzle,” namely the question why the Justice and Home Affairs Council reached political agreement on Dublin II in spite of the Regulation’s likely redistributive effects on the number of asylum applications processed by individual Member States. The empirical material suggests that issue-linkage, informal decision- making procedures, and a strong reluctance on the part of Council members to exercise their right to veto are jointly sufficient conditions for reaching political agreement. Technical Note All primary sources cited in this study are locally stored at the website of ARENA – Centre for European Studies at the University of Oslo and can be accessed online by following the appropriate hyperlink. Reproduction of this text is subject to permission by the author. © Arena 2006 2 Table of Contents 1. Introduction: Dublin II as a Rationalist “Puzzle”................... 4 2. Images of the Council: Arena or Institution? ......................... 4 2.1 Informal Rules and Procedures in the Council ............................. 6 2.2 Rational Choices in Zero-sum Games ....................................... 11 2.3 Methodological Notes............................................................... 14 3. The Negotiation of the Dublin II Regulation in the JHA Council ........................................................... 16 3.1 The Commission’s Proposal .....................................................
  • Economic and Social Portrait of Luxembourg NOTES

    Economic and Social Portrait of Luxembourg NOTES

    Economic and social portrait of Luxembourg NOTES 1. This publication is being released at a time 2. In this “economic and social” portrait, par- when great uncertainty regarding the global ticular emphasis has been placed on compara- situation is weighing heavily on Luxembourg’s tive aspects, which should make it possible to economic prospects. There has been a marked position Luxembourg’s economic development change in climate in Luxembourg. GDP growth in relation to other European countries. As (in volume) fell from 8.9 % in 2000 to 1 % in there is often a two-to-three year delay in pub- 2001. At the time of publication, STATEC fore- lication of the comparative and harmonised casts are banking on GDP growth of 0.5 % for statistics by EUROSTAT and the OECD, many 2002 and 2 % for 2003. In this document, it has comparative tables and charts relate to the not been possible to carry out a detailed analy- year 2000, and in some cases 1999. As regards sis of the impact of this current decline on the comparative statistics, the document Luxembourg’s economy, especially as the sta- deliberately confines itself to structural social tistical data for 2002 is still incomplete. In fact, and economic indicators relating to 2001 is the most recent year included in most Luxembourg’s economy and society which are of the charts and tables. The publication deals unlikely to be deeply affected by short-term mainly with the development of economic changes. structures since 1985. Recent economic events are referred to only where they represent changes likely to affect future developments.
  • National Background Report for Luxembourg

    National Background Report for Luxembourg

    Services for Supporting Family Carers of Elderly People in Europe: Characteristics, Coverage and Usage National Background Report for Luxembourg Prof. Dr. Dieter Ferring University of Luxembourg Dept. of Psychology [email protected] Prof. Dr. Germain Weber University of Vienna Institute for Clinical Psychology [email protected] May 2005 The project EUROFAMCARE is supported by the European Union - Contract: QLK6-CT-2002-02647 This report is part of the European Union funded project “Services for Supporting Family Carers of Elderly People in Europe: Characteristics, Coverage and Usage” - EUROFAMCARE EUROFAMCARE is an international research project funded within the 5th Framework Programme of the European Community, Key Action 6: The Ageing Population and Disabilities, 6.5: Health and Social Care Services to older People, Contract N° QLK6-CT-2002-02647 "EUROFAMCARE" http://www.uke.uni-hamburg.de/eurofamcare/ All rights by the authors and the EUROFAMCARE-consortium. EUROFAMCARE is co-ordinated by the University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Institute for Medical Sociology, Dr. Hanneli Döhner Martinistr. 40 20246 Hamburg Germany [email protected] This report reflects the authors’ view. It does not necessarily reflect the Euro- pean Commission's view and in no way anticipates its future policy in this area. Design: Christopher Kofahl Final Layout: Maik Philipp, Florian Lüdeke Hamburg, 16th June 2005 The project EUROFAMCARE is supported by the European Union - Contract: QLK6-CT-2002-02647 EUROFAMCARE – National Background
  • Ten Years of the Enactment of the Stabilisation and Association

    Ten Years of the Enactment of the Stabilisation and Association

    Ten Years of the Enactment of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement Acknowledgements The monograph was published on the tenth anniversary of the implementation of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA) between the Republic of Macedonia and the European Union. The publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by Dragan Tilev, State Counselor, Secretariat for European Affairs (SEA) and Minister Counselor in the Mission of the Republic of Macedonia to the European Union; Selvet Baruti, State Counsellor, SEA; Ana Angelovska, Acting Head of Sector for Integration, SEA; Biljana Butlevska, Assistant Head of the Sector for Integration, SEA; Mbaresa Shaqiri, Junior Associate, Cabinet of the Deputy Prime Minister for European Affairs, SEA; Robert Scott Heaslet, Deputy Resident Director, National Democratic Institute (NDI); and, Aleksandra Cvetkovska, Senior Program Manager, NDI. Special thanks goes to the employees of the SEA’s Sector for Integration and the entire SEA for their contribution to the monograph. The authors Development or the United States Government. views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Publisher: Secretariat for European Affairs (SEA) Editor-in-chief: Dragan Tilev, M.Sc Editorial Board: Selvet Baruti, SEA; Ana Angelovska, M.Sc, SEA; Biljana Butlevska, SEA; Mbaresa Shaqiri, SEA; Robert Scott Heaslet, M.Sc, NDI; and, Aleksandra Cvetkovska, NDI. Contents I. Foreword ............................................................................................................................................................................................................5

  • ZERP Tenancy Law Project

    This project has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration under grant agreement no. 290694. TENLAW: Tenancy Law and Housing Policy in Multi-level Europe National Report for LUXEMBOURG Author Marta Santos Silva Team Leader Prof. Dr. Christoph Schmid National Supervisors Avocat avoué Jerôme Krier Maître Saliha Dekhar Other contributors Dr. Julien Licheron Mr Romain Schanen Peer reviewers Prof.dr.sc. Tatjana Josipović Dr József Hegedüs (PhD) Dipl. engineer Ioan Bejan Mr Mark Jordan Table of Contents2 Inhaltsverzeichnis 1. Housing situation ....................................................................................... 4 1.1. General features ..................................................................................... 4 1.2. Historical evolution of the national housing situation and housing policy 4 1.3 Current situation ..................................................................................... 21 1.4 Types of housing tenures ....................................................................... 27 1.5. Other general aspects ........................................................................... 50 2. Economic urban and social factors ..................................................... 53 2.1 Current situation of the housing market ................................................. 53 2.2 Issues of price and affordability .............................................................. 63 2.3. Tenancy contracts and investment
  • 3 Rue Gracieuse, 75005 Paris

    3 Rue Gracieuse, 75005 Paris

    Laurent Ferrara Full Professor of International Economics French citizen SKEMA Business School Married 5 Quai Marcel Dassault 92150 Suresnes, France email : [email protected] / [email protected] Update : March 2021 website : https://laurent-ferrara.org Current positions Full Professor of International Economics, SKEMA Business School Senior Economist, QuantCube Technology Board of Directors, French Economic Association (AFSE) Chair of MacroFor Section of the IIF Adjunct Professor of Economics, University of Paris Nanterre Research fellow, EconomiX, CNRS - University of Paris Nanterre Research Associate, Center for Applied Macro Analyses, Australian National University Associate Editor, International Journal of Forecasting Associate Editor, International Economics Education Research Habilitation in Economics, December 2007, University Paris 1 - Panthéon - Sorbonne. Supervisor : T. Chauveau (Univ. Paris 1), Referees : M. Billio (Univ. Ca Foscari, Venice), C. Bordes (Univ. Paris 1), G. Cette (Univ. Aix-Marseille 2), C. de Boissieu (Univ. Paris 1) and D. Guégan (Univ. Paris 1) PhD Thesis in Econometrics, December 2000, University Paris North Supervisor: D. Guégan (Univ. Paris 1), Referees: P.M Robinson (LSE) and C. Starica (Chalmers Univ.) MSc in Statistics, June 1996, Univ. Montpellier 2 Professional Since September 2019 Experience Full Professor, International Economics, SKEMA Business School Since April 2020 Senior Economist, QuantCube Technology Since May 2020 Board of Directors, French Economic Association (AFSE)
  • Pierre Werner Was Born of Luxembourgish Parents on December 29Th 1913 at Saint- André, Near the Northern French Town of Lille

    Pierre Werner Was Born of Luxembourgish Parents on December 29Th 1913 at Saint- André, Near the Northern French Town of Lille

    Pierre Werner ( * 1913 - † 2002) Biographical note Pierre Werner was born of Luxembourgish parents on December 29th 1913 at Saint- André, near the Northern French town of Lille. He went to primary and secondary schools in Luxembourg before studying law in Luxembourg and the University of Paris (1934 to 1937) as well as political science at the “Ecole libre des Sciences politiques” in Paris. In January 1938 Mr. Werner was awarded a PHD in law in Luxembourg. During his years at university, Pierre Werner was active in various student organizations and was chairman of the Association of Catholic Students (1935 to 1937) and vice- president of Pax Romana (1937). Mr. Werner started his professional career as a lawyer in Luxembourg in 1938 before joining an important bank in Luxembourg city where he stayed until 1944. After the government’s return form exile after World War II, Pierre Werner became a civil servant at the Ministry of Finance. In 1945 he was nominated Commissioner for banking control, a post he held until 1949 in parallel with being government counselor. Mr. Werner’s assignments ranged form organizing banking control on the Luxembourg financial market as well as international financial cooperation within the framework of the newly founded Bretton Woods institutions (IMF, World Bank). On December 29th 1953, the day of his 40th birthday, Mr. Werner, although not a politician, was named Minister of Finance and Minister of Defence in the newly formed government of Prime Minister Joseph Bech who succeeded the late Prime Minister Pierre Dupong. After the general elections of June 1954, Pierre Werner is re-appointed Minister of Finance and Minister of Defence.
  • BANQUE CENTRALE DU LUXEMBOURG ANNUAL REPORT 2002 © Banque Centrale Du Luxembourg, 2003

    BANQUE CENTRALE DU LUXEMBOURG ANNUAL REPORT 2002 © Banque Centrale Du Luxembourg, 2003

    BANQUE CENTRALE DU LUXEMBOURG ANNUAL REPORT 2002 © Banque centrale du Luxembourg, 2003 Address: 2, boulevard Royal - L-2983 Luxembourg Telephone: (+352) 4774 - 1 Fax: (+352) 4774 - 4901 Internet: http://www.bcl.lu E-mail: [email protected] The cut-off date for the data included in this Report was 14 February 2003. Reproduction for educational and non commercial purposes is permitted provided that the source is acknowledged. annual report 2002 EUROSYSTEM 4 BANQUE CENTRALE DU LUXEMBOURG ANNUAL REPORT 2002 CONTENTS 5 contents foreword Part I Economic and Financial Situation 18 1.1 Economic situation at the international level 18 1.1.1 Short term interest rates 18 1.1.2 Long-term interest rates 19 1.1.3 Stock markets 19 1.1.4 Exchange rates 20 1.1.5 Price and cost evolution 21 1.1.5.1 Consumer prices 21 1.1.6 Output, demand and labour market developments 21 1.1.7 External trade 22 1.1.8 Balance of payments 22 1.1.8.1 Current account 22 1.1.8.2 Financial account 22 1.2 Economic situation in Luxembourg 23 1.2.1 Prices and costs 23 1.2.1.1 Consumer prices 23 1.2.1.2 Producer prices in industry 25 1.2.1.3 Construction prices 26 1.2.2 Sector-based activity 27 1.2.3 Economic activity 29 1.2.4 The financial sector 30 1.2.4.1 Monetary financial institutions 30 1.2.4.2 Credit institutions 30 1.2.4.3 Mergers and Acquisitions 30 1.2.4.4 Number of institutions 31 1.2.4.5 Aggregate balance sheet 31 1.2.4.6 Aggregate balance sheet structure 31 1.2.4.7 Financial derivatives 32 1.2.4.8 Employment in the financial sector 32 1.2.4.9 Investment funds 33 1.2.4.10Profit
  • Competitiveness Report 2019: Focus on Entrepreneurship

    Competitiveness Report 2019: Focus on Entrepreneurship

    NOVEMBER 2019 N° 35 PERSPECTIVES DE POLITIQUE ÉCONOMIQUE Focus onentrepreneurship Focus REPORT COMPETITIVENESS 2019 NOVEMBER 2019 NOVEMBER PERSPECTIVES N° 35 DE POLITIQUE ÉCONOMIQUE 2019 COMPETITIVENESS REPORT Focus on entrepreneurship The “Perspectives de Politique Économique” series includes reports, studies, research results or summaries of conferences commanded by or carried out by employees of the Ministry of the Economy or by experts of associated institutions. The opinions expressed in these publications are those of the authors and do not necessarily correspond with those of the Ministry of the Economy or the government. For any request or suggestion, please contact the Observatoire de la compétitivité of the Ministry of the Economy of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. Ministère de l’Économie Observatoire de la compétitivité 19-21 Boulevard Royal L-2449 Luxembourg [email protected] November 2019 ISBN: 978-2-919770-26-7 This publication can be downloaded from https://odc.gouvernement.lu © Ministère de l’Économie, Luxembourg 2019 Competitiveness Report The following persons contributed to this publication: Serge ALLEGREZZA Ministry of the Economy/STATEC Martine HILDGEN Max JENTGEN Laurent PUTZ Giulia SPALLETTI Pierre THIELEN Ministry of the Economy Chiara PERONI STATEC and the STATEC Research ASBL team 3 2019 Competitiveness Report Introduction The European economy is currently experiencing its seventh consecutive year of growth and it is forecast to continue growing in 2020 and 2021, against a difficult global backdrop. However, the external environment has become much less favourable and there are great uncertainties, such as global trade tensions and significant international political uncertainties. Although the situation varies considerably between Member States, these factors are not to be ignored as investors’ concerns are reflected in the markets in real time, thus weakening the growth forecast.
  • Pe R S Pe C Tiv

    Pe R S Pe C Tiv

    NOVEMBER 2018 N° 34 PERSPECTIVES DE POLITIQUE ÉCONOMIQUE Holding up in a turbulent time Holding upinaturbulent REPORT COMPETITIVENESS 2018 NOVEMBER 2018 NOVEMBER PERSPECTIVES N° 34 DE POLITIQUE ÉCONOMIQUE 2018 COMPETITIVENESS REPORT Holding up in a turbulent time The ‘Perspectives de Politique Économique’ series includes reports, studies, research results or summaries of conferences commanded by or carried out by employees of the Ministry of the Economy or by experts of associated institutions. The opinions expressed in these publications are those of the authors and do not necessarily correspond with those of the Ministry of the Economy or the government. For any request or suggestion, please contact the Observatoire de la compétitivité of the Ministry of the Economy of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. Ministère de l’Économie Observatoire de la compétitivité 19-21 Boulevard Royal L-2449 Luxembourg [email protected] November 2018 ISBN : 978-2-919770-25-0 This publication can be downloaded from https://odc.gouvernement.lu © Ministère de l’Économie, Luxembourg 2018 Competitiveness Report The following persons contributed to this publication: Serge ALLEGREZZA Ministry of the Economy/STATEC Martine HILDGEN Max JENTGEN Laurent PUTZ Giulia SPALLETTI Pierre THIELEN Ministry of the Economy Chiara PERONI STATEC and the STATEC Research ASBL team 3 2018 Competitiveness Report Summary Chapter 2 The discussion on territorial competitiveness is regularly revived at the time of publication of benchmarks and international rankings. The most closely monitored annual reports include those issued by the World Economic Forum, the International Institute for Management Development (IMD), the Heritage Foundation and the European Commission. A strong correlation may be observed between these four international rankings and the national system of indicators among the Member States of the European Union (see Chapter 3).
  • 4.5.2. Land Transport: Market Access

    4.5.2. Land Transport: Market Access

    4 Common policies 05 Transport policy played a crucial role in shaping the EU’s transport policy of the modes of transport. It stressed the importance of through numerous legislative procedures. creating an integrated global transport system. The shift of 2. General attitude emphasis towards environmentally friendly modes of transport, whilst maintaining the competitiveness of road The large majority of MEPs have long since demanded an transport, was approved as was the fair charging of integrated global approach to the common transport infrastructure and external costs for each mode of policy. Parliament’s aforementioned legal action against the transport. Additionally, Parliament demanded that Council did much to bring the common transport policy transport should be given the political and budgetary into being. Alongside fundamental support for the consideration warranted by its strategic character and its liberalisation of the transport markets carried out, the EP role as a service of general interest. Parliament continued to stress the necessity of implementing this supplemented this general approach with a multitude of alongside an all-embracing harmonisation of the prevailing speciic demands and proposals for each individual mode social, tax and technological conditions and of safety of transport, transport safety, the schedule, and inancing of standards. Moreover, the EP regularly supported the model the European transport network as well as better of sustainable mobility with speciic proposals and coordination with other EU policy areas. The same applies demands. for the further transport-related topics of intermodality, On 12 February 2003, Parliament adopted a resolution on research, development and new technologies. The the Commission’s White Paper ‘European Transport Policy Commission has already taken up many of these themes in for 2010: a time to decide’.