Download Lessons learned

Item 2.4
OECD 2006 Draft Report
Comparative Data Table

Purposes:
– to calculate initial estimates
– to stimulate debate at the international
level
– to undertake a practical assessment of
the difficulties involved

Compiled during April/July 2006
(refer to pages 2 and 3 of the Room Document)
1
Overview of Procedure




UK Creative industries and the
Canadian FCS provided the starting
point for the categories
Expressed in multiple industry standards
Data extracted from (or supplied by)
official data sources
Tables referred to national agencies for
comment and approval
2
Selection of categories


Comparison of existing published
frameworks
(UNESCO FCS, Canadian FCS,
Eurostat LEG, UK DET and Creative
Industries, Australian ACLC)
Most frameworks use a 2-dimensional
matrix
(refer to pages 4 and 5 of the Room Document)

Available data tended to be
concentrated at the creation/production
end of the chain
3
Selection of categories


Practicality dictated use of a pragmatic
approach
1-dimensional approach very similar to
the UK DCMS “creative industries”
frame
4
Bridging the Classifications


Started from the UK SIC
Two way process:
– UK SIC→NACE→ISIC→NAICS
– NAICS→ISIC→NACE→UK SIC


Published concordance tables were used
Followed by a stand-alone review of and
comparison with entire NACE, ISIC and
NAICS
5
Filling the grid




Official national sources were used in all
cases
For Australia Canada and UK, published
national statistical data were used
For France, data were supplied by the
DEP (Ministry of Culture and
Communications)
For USA, raw data were downloaded
from the Census Bureau website and
table entries were entirely constructed by
OECD
6
Adjustments

Allocation factors were required for
classes which contained both cultural
and non-cultural components
– Applied those developed for and by the UK
DCMS

In several cases only “gross output”
type measures were available
– Value added/Production ratios applied
– These were derived from parallel sources
and were not always available at the full
level of detail
7
Advice sought


Data tables dispatched to national
statistical agencies
Comments and more recent data
incorporated
8
Findings




“The devil is in the detail”
Very real problems with cross-continent
comparability
Lack of published value added
measures at the level of detail required
Best done by countries?
– Which demands an acceptable, well-defined
framework at the broadest international level
– And systematised collection of data at the
national level to the appropriate level of
detail
9
Finally



Culture, even narrowly defined,
accounts for 3 per cent GDP
It can reach 5+ per cent
Culture is a significant part of the
economy
10
Questionnaire on Culture
Statistics Practices

Replies received from:
– AUS, AUT, CAN CZE, FIN, FRA, DEU,
HUN, IRL, JPN, MEX, NLD, NZL, POL, PRT,
ESP, SWE, CHE, TUR, UKM
(refer to page 7 of the Room Document)

Synthesis paper will be circulated
before the end of the year and original
responses put on the meeting website
11
Questionnaire: to summarise

Countries with an integrated culture
statistics programme:
– CAN, FIN, LUX, MEX, NZL, PRT, TUR
– DNK, IRL are at the planning stage

Countries with a culture statistics
framework:
– AUS, AUT, CAN, FIN, HUN, LUX, MEX,
NLD, NZL, PRT, ESP, CHE, UKM

Countries considering a Culture Satellite
Account:
– FIN, MEX
– NZL already has a partial account
12
Thanks……

To the national contacts

And Barry Haydon of ABS
13