1

Item 2.4OECD 2006 Draft ReportComparative 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)

2

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

3

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

4

Selection of categories

Practicality dictated use of a pragmatic approach

1-dimensional approach very similar to the UK DCMS “creative industries” frame

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

Advice sought

Data tables dispatched to national statistical agencies

Comments and more recent data incorporated

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

Thanks……

To the national contacts

And Barry Haydon of ABS