Rammeverk: A code for an internationally integrated production system web
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