A code for an internationally integrated production system?

1. >>
A code for an internationally
integrated production system?
Søren Schiønning Andersen (ssa@dst.dk)
Nordic Statistical Meeting 2013

2. >> The outline
1. Why write this paper?
2. What is the aim and the
perspective?
3. What is the Code of Practice?
4.1. – 4.4. Findings for each principle
5. Concluding remarks 2

3. >> Introduction
 CoP from 2005 – put in place to strengthen trust in
ESS
 Originates from ‘traditional’ modus operandi in ESS
~ the coordinated way of working
 Numerous initiatives in recent years to change the
ESS to a ‘European approach’ ~ an integrated way of
working
 Necessary for some new user needs to be fulfilled
 New technological opportunities
 Need for cost reductions
 But also organisational/’political’ aims play a role
 Varying perceptions of such a ‘paradigm shift’
3

4. >> Aim and perspective
 Is the ‘integrated approach’ in line with the CoP?
 Could aspects of the ‘integrated approach’ impair
trust?
 Aim: Explore and discuss with colleagues in ESS
 Not the aim: To oppose the CoP and ‘the Vision’
 Perspective: Trust from enterprises – as
respondents
 Four principles were selected for this paper
 ”Method”: Interviews with MNEs, Eurostat and
colleagues
4

5. >> The ESS Code of Practice
5
 Developed in 2005, updated in
2011 ~ ‘living but stable’
 Endorsed by the ECOFIN Council
~ high level policy document
 15 principles about
 institutional environment,
 statistical processes
 statistical output
 each with sub-ordinate indicators
 Reference to ‘statistical
authorities’, but not their
respective roles

6. >> Mandate for data collection
6
Principle 2 Statistical authorities have a clear legal mandate to
collect information. Enterprises may be compelled by
law to allow access to or deliver data.
Questions
and issues
• Could data for MNEs be collected/consolidated by
UCIs before delivery to statistical authorities?
• Could data be delivered to a CoC – or to Eurostat?
Perceptions • Int. enterprises could relate to an int. stat. system
• UCI reporting strongly opposed because of burden
– requirements and systems are not aligned
• CoC reporting was not considered feasible
Suggestions • New indicator 9.8: “Collection of consolidated data
from international enterprises presupposes full
harmonisation of data requirements in all MS”
• Discussion needed on suitability of UCI reporting
• Discussion needed on applicability of CoC approach

7. >> Statistical confidentiality
7
Principle 5 The privacy of data providers ... , the confidentiality of
the information they provide and its use only for
statistical purposes are absolutely guaranteed
Questions
and issues
• Do enterprises see ESS as ’one actor’? Do they trust
data protection can be monitored and sanctioned?
Perceptions • Confidentiality is critical to trust, and it is based on
framework and experience
• Micro data exchange is a ‘game changer’ – is likely
to reduce trust. Framework and comm. is needed.
• Synergies also influence perceptions ~ but ”trust is
more important than cost”
Suggestions • New indicator 5.7: “Common rules and strict
security measures adopted by all participating
statistical authorities apply to exchange of
statistical micro data between different MS”
• A communication strategy is needed

8. >> Appropriate statistical procedures
8
Principle 8 Appropriate statistical procedures, implemented from
data collection to data validation, underpin quality
statistics
Questions
and issues
• Indicator 8.8: ‘Agreements are made with owners of
adm. data which set out their shared commitment
to the use of these data for statistical purposes’.
• Will owners of adm. data accept that their data are
shared with other MS? Will enterprises approve it?
Perceptions • Enterprises not comfortable with cross border
exchange of adm. data – especially fiscal data
• Position of owners not known – will probably differ.
In som domains benefits have been achieved.
Suggestions • Extension of indicator 8.8: “ … When administrative
data are exchanged with other MS they are used
according to harmonised rules adopted by all
participating statistical authorities”

9. >> Non-excessive response burden
9
Principle 9 The reporting burden is proportionate to the needs of
the users and is not excessive for respondents […].
Questions
and issues
• Indicator 9.5 does not address data sharing among
statistical authorities within MS, or across borders
with statistical authorities in other MS
• Will enterprises approve data sharing in order to
keep burden low? Will their position depend on the
statistical domain in question?
Perceptions • Limit exchange to domains with asymmetries and a
strong burden reduction potential (our claim)
Suggestions • Extension of 9.5: Data sharing within and between
statistical authorities within the MS is generalised in
order to avoid multiplication of surveys
• New indicator 9.7: For cross-border statistical
phenomena data can be shared with statistical
authorities in other MS if it can reduce burden and
reconcile asymmetries

10. >> A few concluding remarks
 Preliminary analysis with few observations and limited
scope
 More questions than answers – and some were more like
‘positions’
 The CoP is strong: Difficult to challenge – but not
impossible
 Big changes to the ESS are likely to happen – but will it
be a structured or organic process? How to manage, who
will pay?
 If stakeholders really put ‘trust over cost’ then we clearly
need to discuss with them how trust in the ESS is
preserved
 But the ESS should first ‘find its own feet’ – taking into 10

11. >>
Thank you for your attention
11