Download Annex I

EUROSTAT STRUCTURAL INDICATORS QUALITY PROFILE
DRAFT
Indicator (definition)
ICT expenditure: IT expenditure/Telecommunications
expenditure as a percentage of GDP
Eurostat Unit
Other Commission DGs
European Statistical System
Working Group (WG)
Date
F-6: Information Society and Tourism Statistics
DG INFSO
WG on Information Society Statistics
May 2006
1. Objective and relevance
2a. Data availability: overview
2b. Data availability: details
3. Overall assessment of accuracy and comparability
4. Overall accuracy
5. Comparability across countries
6. Comparability over time
7. Development perspective
8. Contribution to quality of the set/potential to qualify for an integrated policy analysis
Relevant European legislation
Annex – Description of Quality Grades
Further explanatory notes (SDDS Metadata)
1. Objective and relevance of the indicator:
The indicator shows data on expenditure for IT/Telecommunications hardware, software, and other
services as a percentage of GDP.
The European Commission’s i2010 initiative stressed the impact of information and communication
technologies (ICT) on the well-being of modern economies. ICTs are a key element for productivity
growth.
The European Council in March 2005 noted that it is essential to build a fully inclusive information
society, based on widespread use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in public
services, SMEs and households. To that end, the i2010 initiative will focus on ICT research and
innovation, content industry development, the security of networks and information, as well as
convergence and interoperability in order to establish a seamless information area.
Restriction of the indicator’s relevance and other characteristics which may lead to restriction for using
it in the Annual Progress Report
The indicator measures market size which stands for ICT investment as a replacement of the ultimate
target indicator on which data is not yet available.
2a. Data availability - overview
2b Data availability: details
(t1: earliest reference year available; t2: latest reference year avail. in May 2006)
Member States
Candidate and Acceding
US and Japan
Countries
2002 – EU-15
2004 – BG, RO
2002
t1
t2
2004 - EU-23 (no data for CY
2004 – BG, RO
2004
EEA-EFTA1
2002 - NO
2004 - NO
and MT)
3. Overall assessment of accuracy and comparability
A
short summary explanation:
4. Overall accuracy
High
Restricted
(sources, errors,
methodology etc.)
B
C
Indicator to be
developed
Data quality is restricted due to problems with accuracy and
limited comparability across countries and over time.
Data on IT/Telecommunications expenditure are provided by the
European Information Technology Observatory (EITO). There are some
problems with accuracy of the data due to the lack of control over the
basic data.
GDP data are regularly transmitted in the framework of the transmission
programme associated to Annex B of ESA 95 (European System of
Accounts). Countries compile GDP according to standard international
rules (ESA 95/SNA 93 – with some exceptions). At the European level,
accuracy of GDP is regularly monitored in the framework of the GNI
(Gross National Income) Committee and technical aspects are regularly
analysed in several working groups and technical committees.
5. Comparability across countries
High
Restricted
Comparability
across
countries
concerning
data
on
IT/Telecommunications expenditure is not guaranteed.
Concerning the GDP data comparability across countries is ensured by
the application of the legal framework represented by the European
System of Accounts (ESA 95) and the System of National Accounts
(SNA 93).
Comparability of GDP for EU countries is regularly monitored in the
context of the work of the Gross National Income (GNI) Committee. In
addition, international harmonisation of techniques and, to some extent,
1
While being a member of the EEA, Liechtenstein has complete or partial exemptions from several statistical
requirements due to its size. Thus, Liechtenstein is excluded from this overview as most of the data for
structural indicators are missing.
compilation tools is ensured by the work of the national accounts
working groups (Eurostat, OECD, UN).
At present, some EU Member States are still in the implementation phase
of ESA 95 and full comparability is not yet achieved but this leads only
to minor discrepancies.
6. Comparability over time
High
Restricted
Comparability over time of IT/Telecommunications expenditure data
is restricted due to frequented changes in the time series.
ESA 95 requires coherent long time series for GDP which are produced
by most of the EU Member States. In some countries, methodological
breaks can affect time series (normally on a temporary basis). Backward
calculations of time series are provided to ensure full time coherence in
the case of methodological changes.
7. Development perspective for improving quality of this indicator (including as far as possible an
indication of burden on Member States and respondents.)
ICT investment pilot project in 10 countries is ongoing. The aim of the project is to elaborate a
methodology that later on will be applied to all countries. Data collection in a harmonised day is
expected in 2008 and consequently the first data will be available in 2009 only.
8. Contribution to quality of the set/potential to qualify for an integrated policy analysis
Relevant European legislation: None
Top of the page
Annex
Description of Quality grades
Description of Eurostat quality grades:
overall technical assessment of the indicator based on accuracy and comparability
Grade “A”
An indicator is graded “A” when all of the following conditions are fulfilled:
- Data is collected from reliable sources applying high standards with regard to
methodology/accuracy and is well documented in line with Eurostat metadata
standard.
- The underlying data is collected on the basis of a common methodology for the
European Union and, where applicable, data for US and Japan can be considered
comparable; major differences being assessed and documented.
- Data are comparable over time; impact of procedural or conceptual changes
being documented.
Grade “B”
An indicator is graded “B” if
- data is collected from reliable sources applying high standards with regard to
methodology/accuracy and is well documented in line with Eurostat metadata
standard.
- there are
EITHER some serious shortcomings with regard to comparability
across countries (including the lack of data)
OR breaks in series for several countries which seriously hamper
comparison over time (including the lack of data).
Deficiencies with regard to assessing and documenting the impact of these
shortcomings might be identified.
Grade “C”
An indicator is graded “C”, if one or both of the following conditions is fulfilled:
- Data might have to be interpreted with care as methodology/accuracy does not
meet high quality standards.
- There are
some serious shortcomings with regard to comparability across
countries (including the lack of data)
AND breaks in series for several countries which seriously
hamper comparison over time (including the lack of data).
Indicator to be
developed
The indicator is not ready to be used for the Annual Progress Report.