Item 2 4 OECD 2006 Draft Report Comparative

Item 2. 4 OECD 2006 Draft Report Comparative Data Table n Purposes: – to calculate initial estimates – to stimulate debate at the international level – to undertake a practical assessment of the difficulties involved n Compiled during April/July 2006 (refer to pages 2 and 3 of the Room Document) 1

Overview of Procedure n n 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 n n 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) n Available data tended to be concentrated at the creation/production end of the chain 3

Selection of categories n n Practicality dictated use of a pragmatic approach 1 -dimensional approach very similar to the UK DCMS “creative industries” frame 4

Bridging the Classifications n n Started from the UK SIC Two way process: – UK SIC→NACE→ISIC→NAICS – NAICS→ISIC→NACE→UK SIC n n Published concordance tables were used Followed by a stand-alone review of and comparison with entire NACE, ISIC and NAICS 5

Filling the grid n n 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 n Allocation factors were required for classes which contained both cultural and non-cultural components – Applied those developed for and by the UK DCMS n 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 n n Data tables dispatched to national statistical agencies Comments and more recent data incorporated 8

Findings n n “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 n n n 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 n 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) n Synthesis paper will be circulated before the end of the year and original responses put on the meeting website 11

Questionnaire: to summarise n Countries with an integrated culture statistics programme: – CAN, FIN, LUX, MEX, NZL, PRT, TUR – DNK, IRL are at the planning stage n Countries with a culture statistics framework: – AUS, AUT, CAN, FIN, HUN, LUX, MEX, NLD, NZL, PRT, ESP, CHE, UKM n Countries considering a Culture Satellite Account: – FIN, MEX – NZL already has a partial account 12

Thanks…… n To the national contacts n And Barry Haydon of ABS 13