Report on the region-wide Capacity Screening of Economic Statistics in

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMISSION FOR ASIA AND THE PACIFIC
Statistics Division
Regional Programme for the Improvement of Economic Statistics
in Asia and the Pacific (RPES)
Report on the region-wide Capacity
Screening of Economic Statistics in
Asia and the Pacific
February 2014
DRAFT REPORT
These Capacity Screening results were completed based on the Capacity Screening Tool
and the best possible communication between ESCAP Secretariat and representatives of
its member countries. This version is prepared for consultation with the Steering Group
members and does not reflect any changes made after the10 February 2014.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... 2
Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 6
Section 1: Technical Cooperation .................................................................................... 8
Section 2: Institutional Setting ......................................................................................... 9
Section 3: IT and Human Resources ............................................................................. 13
Section 4: Infrastructure ................................................................................................ 15
Section 5: Core Set .......................................................................................................... 24
Annex 1: Country Profiles.............................................................................................. 27
Annex 2: National agencies and sources for filling ...................................................... 29
1
Executive Summary
The capacity screening, conducted as part of the Implementation Plan of Regional
Programme for Improvement of Economic Statistics in Asia and the Pacific (RPES),1 was
administered to 58 ESCAP member countries in March, 2013 and completed by 50 of
them over the course of the year. Responses signify that most countries in the region are
actively trying to build capacity for economic statistics. Several countries are
participating in technical cooperation projects with organizations such as the IMF,
UNFPA, ADB, PFTAC, and SPC. Countries, overall, are more interested in receiving
technical assistance rather than providing it. This can be attributed in part to the lack of
sufficient resources in many of these countries, which are almost exclusively smaller
and/or of lower income.
A national statistical strategy has at least reached the planning stages everywhere across
the region aside from just six countries, three of which are territories of larger countries.
All but one of the respondents have statistical laws in place to specify the distribution of
responsibilities in the national statistics system. Moreover, 37 countries reported that
plans are in place to improve coordination in producing economic statistics.
Aside from the Maldives, only Pacific island developing states have no publication
policies in place and/or do not have contact points publicized for each statistical domain.
Pacific island developing states are also far less active in advocating for economic
statistics compared to the rest of the region. This also can be partially attributed to a lack
of resources. For the number of staff working on economic statistics, 15 countries
reported ten people or less. All 15 are Pacific island developing states, and 14 of them
reported inadequate human resources for producing and disseminating the Core Set of
Economic Statistics. In total, 33 of the 50 respondents feel that their human resources are
inadequate for Core Set production, while only eleven respondents feel that their IT
systems are inadequate.
All responding countries compile national accounts and all but one produce a population
census. Of them 46 also produce balance of payments accounts, 42 countries conduct a
labour force survey, 47 a household income and expenditure survey and 39 conduct an
enterprise/establishment survey. Most of those without some of these key collections are
Pacific island developing states. Only 24 of the respondents produce an economic census
and those who do not are spread across all sub-regions and economic groupings. The 14
respondents that do not conduct an agricultural census often cited a lack of interest in
developing one in the future due to a limited presence of agriculture within the country.
In addition to Pacific island developing states, Singapore, Hong Kong SAR China, and
Macao SAR China are included in this group.
Implementation of the 2008 SNA is at least planned in 37 of the responding countries.
Meanwhile 24 of the responding countries use ISIC Rev. 4 or an equivalent standard for
industrial classification in their national accounts compilation and another 18 have plans
1
E/ESCAP/CST(2)/5. Available at http://www.unescap.org/official-documents/committee-onstatistics/session/2
2
to update their current standard. For product classification, 14 countries use CPC Version
2 (or equivalent) and an additional 13 have plans to update to it. And for the production
of balance of payments 45 responding countries are either coherent with BPM6 or plan to
be in the near future.
A quality assessment framework (QAF) is used by 26 countries and is planned to be
implemented by another eight. 35 countries use a centralized business register while an
additional ten are planning or designing one, and three of the four without plans are
Pacific island developing states.
Core Set
For each of the 31 statistics in the Core Set, a recommended frequency of production was
specified by the ESCAP Committee on Statistics as a guideline. Figure 1 summarizes the
average number of recommended frequencies met out of the 31 for all responding
countries in the region, disaggregated by economic grouping as well as by sub-region.
Economic groupings had very little relationship with the trends of countries meeting
guidelines in the Core Set, although there were some trends related to sub-regional
groupings. The guidelines for most of the 31 statistics in the Core Set were met by East
and North-east Asian countries such as China (26), Hong Kong SAR China (24), Japan
(26), Mongolia (24) and Republic of Korea (24). The same applies to Central Asian
countries such as Armenia (29), Azerbaijan (24), Kazakhstan(24), and Kyrgyzstan (28).
The average number of core economic statistics met by countries in the Pacific subregion was just over seven, and that drops to less than five and a half if Australia and
New Zealand are not included.
3
Figure 1:
Average number of core statistics meeting recommendations
High-income countries
17.0
Upper middle-income countries
17.1
13.2
Lower middle-income countries
11.0
Low-income Countries
7.4
Pacific
23.6
North and Central Asia
13.1
South and South-West Asia
South-East Asia
17.2
24.2
East and North-East Asia
14.2
Entire region
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
Aside from the CPI, all statistics in the Prices and Cost sub-section of the Core Set are
either unavailable or produced less frequently than the stated guidelines in at least 20
countries. GDP (p) is produced at the recommended frequency (quarterly) in only 22
countries. The remaining 27 compile this indicator annually. GDP (e), on the other hand,
is produced quarterly by 20 countries and annually by another 20. Consistent reporting of
external trade statistics for services is a bigger challenge than that of merchandise for the
region. Merchandise trade statistics are reported quarterly or annually by 16 countries in
addition to the 31 reporting them at the recommended frequency (monthly). Meanwhile
25 countries meet the recommended quarterly frequency of services trade reports and
another six report them annually. In the remainder of the Demand and Output sub-section
only one of the five short-term indicators are produced at the recommended frequency
(quarterly) by more than 20 respondent countries.
(BoP) is compiled at the recommended quarterly frequency by 32 countries. 13 other
countries produce annual BoP. As for the rest of the Income and Wealth statistics, the
number of countries reporting that an item is not produced reaches double digits. Nearly
half of the respondents (24) do not produce institutional sector accounts, while another
three did not respond to the question.
The Money and Banking sub-section displays a wide range of responses, with interest rate
statistics having the highest number (30) of countries meeting the recommended
frequency of production. The two Government statistics (general government operations
4
and general government debt) have a large number of respondents producing statistics
annually, but the guideline for both is set at quarterly. The number of countries not
producing labour market statistics is high, with 20 not reporting labour supply and
demand and 18 not reporting hours worked.
The Natural resources and commodity price index statistics are both unavailable in the
systems of 30 or more countries, while another 14 of the core statistics are either
unavailable or were left blank in the survey by 20 or more countries.
5
Introduction
One of the first activities in the Implementation Plan of RPES was to conduct a capacity
screening of national statistics systems with the objective of providing a baseline for the
implementation of the Core Set of Economic Statistics.2
The Steering Group for the Regional Programme on Economic Statistics3 developed a
questionnaire for Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP)
member countries, which was administered to 58 member countries in the Asia-Pacific
region in March 2013 and completed by 49 countries over the course of the rest of the
year.
The 49 countries that responded to the screening make up more than 94% of the ESCAP
population and over 97% of the total regional GDP, they are listed below. 4
Responding Countries:
Afghanistan
American Samoa
Armenia
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bangladesh
Bhutan
Brunei Darussalam
Cambodia
China
Cook Islands
Fiji
French Polynesia
Georgia
Guam
Hong Kong SAR China
India
Indonesia
Japan
Kazakhstan
Kiribati
Republic of Korea
Kyrgyzstan
Lao PDR
Macao SAR China
Malaysia
Maldives
Marshall Islands
Federated States of Micronesia
Mongolia
Nauru
New Caledonia
New Zealand
Niue
Northern Mariana Islands
Pakistan
Palau
Papua New Guinea
Philippines
Russian Federation
Samoa
Singapore
Solomon Islands
Tajikistan
Thailand
Tonga
Turkey
Tuvalu
Vanuatu
Viet Nam
The nine countries which did not respond to the survey account for less than 6% of the
population and only 2.5% of the total regional GDP.4 The list of non-responding
countries is given below.
Non-responding Countries:
Iran (Islamic Republic of)
Democratic People's Republic of Korea
Myanmar
Nepal
Sri Lanka
Timor-Leste
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
2
E/ESCAP/CST(2)/4. Available at http://www.unescap.org/official-documents/committee-onstatistics/session/2
3
http://www.unescap.org/events/steering-group-regional-programme-economic-statistics
4
ESCAP Statistical Yearbook for Asia and the Pacific 2013: http://www.unescap.org/resources/statisticalyearbook-asia-and-pacific-2013
6
The population and GDP of each individual country in the region, as well as economic
classifications can be found in Annex 1. Of the 49 respondents, four countries are
classified as low-income, 19 lower middle-income, 14 upper middle-income, and 12
high-income.
The capacity screening questionnaire has five sections: technical cooperation,
institutional setting, IT and human resources, (statistical) infrastructure, and the Core Set
of Economic Statistics. This report summarizes the 49 responses received.
7
Section 1: Technical Cooperation
The first section, on technical cooperation, is a set of three questions to gauge the level of
interest in participating in RPES for each member country. Results are provided in Table
1. Questions 1.2 and 1.3 entail a judgment call on the side of the respondent.
French Polynesia, India, Federated States of Micronesia, New Caledonia, New Zealand,
and Northern Marina Islands were the only countries reporting “No” to question 1.1,
while the Russian Federation did not fill out Section 1.
New Caledonia was the only country to answer “No” to all of Section 1, meaning that
there is interest in capacity building across most of the region. Two other countries,
Azerbaijan and Singapore, answered “No” to both 1.2 and 1.3.
Several of the comments elaborating on “No” responses to question 1.2 came from the
Pacific island developing states, using the lack of sufficient resources as a justification for
their positions. Meanwhile a wide range of topics were listed as motivations for
participation in RPES from countries answering “Yes” to 1.2 and 1.3. Balance of
payments, business registers, and systems of national accounts were all listed by a
number of countries, while others specified a few of the core indicators, such as GDP and
trade indices, that they would welcome assistance in producing.
Table 1: RPES Technical Cooperation
Yes No Blank
1.1 Currently involved in international technical cooperation projects and programmes
aimed at building capacity for economic statistics.
42
6
2
1.2 Interested in participating in Regional Programme on Economic Statistics (RPES)
as a provider of technical assistance to other national statistical systems.
29
19
2
Interested in participating in Regional Programme on Economic Statistics (RPES)
1.3 as a recipient of technical assistance from other national statistical systems and
international agencies.
41
7
2
The technical cooperation projects listed by the highest number of respondents were the
IMF’s SDDS and GDDS, while the ADB’s ICP was also reported by a number of
countries. Pacific countries often listed SPC as a partner agency.
8
Section 2: Institutional Setting
The first of the five components of Section 2, statistical legislation, is summarized in
Table 2. India answered “Yes” to 2.1.1 but left the following questions blank. Bhutan
answered “No” to question 2.1.1, allowing them to omit (leave blank) the remainder of
the sub-section. The last three questions were left blank by American Samoa,
Kazakhstan, and Mongolia, respectively.
Brunei Darussalam, New Caledonia, and Singapore selected “No” to both questions 2.1.3
and 2.1.5, and Hong Kong SAR China and French Polynesia did so only to 2.1.3 and
2.1.5, respectively.
The responses to question 2.1.5 are likely to be subjective and therefore caution should be
used when formulating conclusions based on the results.
Table 2: Statistical Legislation
Yes No Blank
2.1.1 Existence of a Statistical law indicating distribution of responsibilities for
producing official statistics. (If no law, skip to 2.2)
49
1
0
2.1.2 Law/regulation to protect confidentiality of respondent's information and
ensure that data are used for statistical purposes only.
48
0
2
2.1.3 Law/regulation requires transparent statistical system, meaning that terms,
conditions and methodologies of official statistical producers are made public.
43
4
3
2.1.4 There are current/ongoing plans to modify legislation that governs the
statistical system.
25
22
3
2.1.5 Statistical law protects the independence of official statistics from political
influence.
43
4
3
Sub-section 2.2 began with a question about the status of each respondent’s national
statistical strategic plan. A total of 34 countries reported that their national strategies are
being implemented, while ten reported that theirs is still being designed or planned, and
six did not have a national strategy planned at the time of the Capacity Screening. These
six countries are: American Samoa, French Polynesia, Macao, Northern Mariana Islands,
Palau and Singapore. The latter considered the NSDS being not critical as their
decentralized statistical system would suffice the needs of their users. Figure 2
summarizes the results of question 2.2.1 by economic grouping.5
5
Survey responses to question 2.2.1 were cross-checked with NSDS data from Paris21. In cases where
responses in this summary were changed from survey responses, the reasoning was usually due to
respondents reporting that they have no plans to implement NSDS when in fact they have implemented a
national strategy that ESCAP qualifies as an equivalent to NSDS. In this situation, countries reporting “Not
Planned” could have their responses changed to “Being Implemented”.
9
Figure 2: Status of National Stasticial Strategy
20
18
Number of Countries
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
Low-income
Lower middle-income
Being Implemented
Upper middle-income
Being Designed or Planned
High-income
Not Planned
For all but the six respondents reporting no plans, six follow-up questions were
administered. Responses to the remainder of sub-section 2.2 are summarized in Table 3.
Table 3: Strategic Planning
Yes No Blank
2.2.2 National strategic plan/NSDS available on public website.
25
17
2
2.2.3 Statistical strategic plan or NSDS covers/includes:
2.2.3.1 Issues relating to co-ordination across the NSS
36
3
5
2.2.3.2 Government support (and the need for improved advocacy)
38
1
5
2.2.3.3 Adequacy of existing statistical legislation
34
5
5
33
7
4
36
3
5
2.2.3.4 Detailed action plan (including specific activities, responsibilities, timelines)
and cost and funding sources for proposed activities
2.2.3.5 Monitoring and review process
Fourteen countries answered “Yes” to all of Table 3, all of which are implementing their
national strategic plans. Federated States of Micronesia and New Caledonia were the only
countries with three “No” responses to questions in 2.2.3, while three additional countries
answered “No” for two sub-components.
Several of the omissions in Table 3 were due to the changes made to responses based on
the Paris21 report, as countries which originally reported that there was no current
strategy planned were asked to skip the remainder of sub-section 2.2. One such example
10
is Kiribati, who responded to 2.2.1 with “Not Planned” then skipped the remaining
questions, but they are now reported as “Being Implemented”.
Sub-section 2.3, National Statistical Coordination, first asked every country to indicate
the level of centralization of their statistical system. The first option, “Centralized” means
that all indicators are compiled by the NSO, with BoP compiled by the Central Bank.
“Semi-centralized” means that most indicators are compiled by the NSO, BoP by Central
Bank, and some indicators are compiled by other agencies, while “Decentralized” means
that some are compiled by the NSO, BoP by Central Bank, and some by other agencies.
A summary of responses by sub-regional grouping is provided in Figure 3.
The responses to two additional questions in sub-section 2.3 are summarized in Table 4.
Afghanistan, American Samoa, Azerbaijan, French Polynesia, Kyrgyzstan, Maldives, and
New Caledonia answered “No” to both questions in Table 4, while both questions were
omitted by Bhutan and the second question was omitted by the Russian Federation.
Table 4: National Statistical Coordination
Yes No Blank
2.3.2 The distribution of responsibility among agencies for producing the core set
of economic statistics is clearly specified
36
13
1
2.3.3 Plans are currently being implemented or are under development to
improve coordination of production of economic statistics
37
11
2
11
Sub-section 2.4 comprises four questions relating to the dissemination of economic data.
The results are provided in Table 5. Question 2.4.2 was omitted by American Samoa.
Papua New Guinea was the only country to answer “No” to all of sub-section 2.4.
Table 5: Dissemination Yes No
Blank
2.4.1 Publication policies are in place and available to users and staff
42
8
0
2.4.2 Contact points for each subject/statistical domain are publicized
42
7
1
2.4.3 Catalogues of publications, documents, and other services, including information
on any charges, are publically available
42
8
0
2.4.4 Information on how to receive assistance understanding/interpreting data from
producing agencies are publicised for users
42
8
0
Sub-section 2.5 is a set of four questions regarding each country’s advocacy activities for
economic statistics. Responses are provided in Table 6. All of sub-section 2.5 was
omitted by the Russian Federation and Kyrgyzstan. American Samoa, Brunei
Darussalam, Kiribati and Palau answered “No” to the entire sub-section, while Bhutan,
French Polynesia, the Maldives, and Papua New Guinea answered “No” to three of the
four questions. The phrasing of question 2.5.3 is such that the responses are subjective.
2.5.1 Table 6: Advocacy for Economic Statistics
Yes No
Blank
There are current/ongoing activities to improve awareness and use of economic
statistics from official sources within countries
42
6
2
36
12
2
There are current/ongoing activities in country to build analytical/research
2.5.2 capacities, develop data analysis methodologies, and increase utilization of official
data
2.5.3 There is sufficient awareness, knowledge and appreciation among users/potential
users of the relevance of official statistics for economic policy
35
13
2
2.5.4 Seminars or other regular opportunities for communication with users are
organized by producers of economic statistics
34
14
2
12
Section 3: IT and Human Resources
Sub-section 3.1 consists of a single Yes/No question regarding whether an IT systems
(computing power, software, equipment) are adequate for producing and disseminating
the Core Set of Economic Statistics. All countries answered “Yes” aside from the
following ten: Afghanistan, Armenia, Bhutan, Fiji, Lao PDR, Maldives, Nauru, Niue,
Papua New Guinea, and Solomon Islands.
The next sub-section, on human resources, starts with a measurement of economic
statistics staff for every country.6 Results are provided in Figure 4.
All countries with ten or less employees are Pacific island developing states. The sizes of
countries in the over-500 group reached as high as 14,782 (Russian Federation) with
Australia (1,000), Malaysia (1,500), Japan (1,933), India (4,000) and Viet Nam (4,966)
all reporting a staff of one thousand or more.
The remainder of Section 3 was a series of Yes/No questions related to human resources.
The responses are summarized in Table 7.
6
Some countries have provided the overall number of staff due to the difficulty of delineating exactly how
many staff members work on economic statistics.
13
A majority of respondents answered “No” to question 3.2.2 which is about the adequacy
of human resources to produce and disseminate the Core Set,. All but two of the 17
countries which answered “Yes” to 3.2.2 are classified as upper-middle or high-income
countries, with Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan being the exceptions (low-income).
Of the 13 countries which had not recently conducted assessments, ten reported that their
human resources are inadequate for producing the core set. Of the 17 reporting a lack of
available manuals, 11 reported inadequate human resources, as did 14 of the 16 reporting
a lack of internal process documentation.
Brunei Darussalam, China, New Caledonia, and Thailand were the only ones out of the
16 countries reporting adequate human resources that did not answer “Yes” to the
remainder of the sub-section.
Table 7: Human Resources Yes No
Human resources are adequate for producing and disseminating the Core Set of
Economic Statistics
17
33
3.2.3 Skills need / assessment recently conducted within your agency
37
13
3.2.4 Staff manuals/guidelines available on statistical processes for internal use
33
17
34
16
3.2.2 3.2.5 Internal processes (e.g. data editing, metadata documentation, etc.) are documented
for internal use and reference by new staff
14
Section 4: Infrastructure
The fourth section is made up of 15 sub-sections including a set of optional questions at
the end which only a few countries filled out. In sub-section 4.1, countries were asked if
they use a quality assessment framework (QAF). Those which do not were asked if one
was planned, and those which do were asked if international guidelines are followed.
Aside from the Philippines, who omitted the follow-up question, all of the 26 countries
that use a QAF which follows international guidelines.
The responses to the first two questions are summarized by economic grouping in Figure
5,
Figure 5: Quality Assessment Framework
18
Number of Countries
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
Low-income
Lower middle-income Upper middle-income
Have QAF
Planned
High-income
Unplanned or No Response
The sub-section on metadata repository is a set of four Yes/No questions, with the results
summarized in Table 8. All the blanks were left by Kyrgyzstan, the Russian Federation
and American Samoa in sub-section 4.2. Eight countries answered “No” to all four
questions, while 16 countries answered “Yes” to all four.
15
Table 8: Metadata Repository
Yes No
Blank
Statistical releases accompanied with comprehensive metadata (source information,
relevant accompanying notes and disclaimers for users, etc.)
39
9
2
4.2.2 Centralized national metadata repository available
21
27
2
4.2.3 Metadata format standard implemented
23
24
3
4.2.4 Metadata quality standard implemented
21
26
3
4.2.1 In the first question of sub-section 4.3, 35 countries reported that a centralized business
register is currently in use for multiple statistical products/collections. Of the 15 which
answered “No”, ten reported that a register is currently being designed or planned.
Meanwhile Afghanistan, Cambodia, Kiribati, Nauru, and Niue did not have plans to
design a register at the time of the Capacity Screening. A sub-regional breakdown of
responses to question 4.3.1 is displayed in Figure 6.
The remaining questions from sub-section 4.3 asked countries to report whether the use
of business registers is shared by a number of agencies, which industrial classification is
used to classify units, and whether they have methods established for identifying births
and deaths of businesses. The question on industrial classification is repeated in subsection 4.5 and its results are displayed in Figure 11. There are several countries which
have provided different responses to questions 4.3.4 and 4.5.5. For instance, the
16
Philippines, Maldives and Turkey use ISIC Rev. 4 for classifying units in their business
register while ISIC Rev. 3 (Turkey) or 3.1 is used in national accounts compilation. On
the other hand, Hong Kong SAR, China, India and the Republic of Korea use ISIC Rev.
3.1 or Rev. 2 (Republic of Korea).7
The results for the remainder of the questions in sub-section 4.3 are provided in Table 9.
All three questions in Table 9 were omitted by Cambodia, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Nauru,
Niue, Samoa and Tonga while eight countries answered “No” to all three questions.
4.3.3 Table 9: Business Registers, Births and Deaths
Yes No Blank
Use of business register shared by a number of agencies in the national
statistical system
22
21
7
33
12
5
31
14
5
4.3.5 Established method for identifying 'births' (new businesses)
4.3.6 Established method for identifying 'deaths' (disbanded businesses or
mergers)
Sub-section 4.4 is a series of three Yes/No questions with responses summarized in Table
10. The first two questions were both omitted by Mongolia while Kyrgyzstan omitted all
three. Afghanistan is the only responding country who has yet to participate in the ICP
Programme.
Table 10: Other Statistical Infrastructure
4.4.1 Documented general guidelines available for survey sampling design
4.4.2 Design of key data collections include method to estimate the nonobserved economy, including informal economy/employment
4.4.3 Participant in ICP Programme (for calculating PPPs)
Yes No Blank
32
15
2
18
29
3
48
1
1
Sub-sections 4.5 through 4.12 inquire about a series of key collections in which
respondents were first asked to report whether they collect the specified statistic, then a
series of follow-up questions were administered in each sub-section regarding the
frequency of collections, timeliness of reporting and the standards followed.
Figure 7 is a summary of responses to the first question on the availability of the
respective statistics in each sub-section while Figures 8 through 12 represent answers to
the follow-up questions.
7
Nauru, Kiribati and Tajikistan left question 4.3.3 blank and Palau indicated use of ISIC Rev. 3 for
business register purposes while the response to 4.5.5 read Others without further elaboration. In some
cases, such as for Armenia and Kazakhstan, different but fully compatible classifications were indicated for
business registers and national accounts, e.g. ISIC Rev. 4 and NACE Rev. 2.
17
NA=National Accounts; BoP=Balance of Payments; LFS=Labour Force Survey; HI&ES = Household Income & Expenditure Survey
EES= Enterprise/Establishment Survey; PC=Population Census; EC=Economic Census; AC=Agricultural Census
The frequencies of collection for each of the items in Figure 7 are summarized in Figures
8A and 8B, with four indicators displayed in each of the two graphs.
18
Figures 9A and 9B summarize the timeliness of reporting for each key collection.
19
Figure 10 summarizes the latest implemented standards for systems of national accounts,
separated by economic grouping. Although only six countries reported that the 2008 SNA
had been implemented, an additional 35 countries reported that they have plans to update.
20
Figures 11 and 12 summarize responses to questions on industrial and product
classifications, separated by economic grouping.
21
The remainder of Section 4 was optional and had additional data collections filled in by a
total of eight countries. Armenia conducts a Demographic and Health Survey every 5
22
years. Bangladesh noted three ad-hoc survey collections on private health establishments,
private education institutions, and non-profit institutions serving households. The first
item filled in by Hong Kong SAR China was an annual survey to study the profiles of
companies in Hong Kong SAR China representing parent companies located outside
Hong Kong SAR China. The second was a quarterly business tendency survey to collect
data for compiling statistics on business prospects at sectoral and aggregate levels for
predicting the short-term future economic performance of the local economy.
Mongolia reported two ad-hoc collections: a non-observed economy survey and survey
under the international comparison program. Every two years the Northern Mariana
Islands investigates federal labour wage requirements. The Philippines filled in two items
in section 4.13 regarding quarterly surveys of the NSO but with no further elaboration.
Tonga reported ad-hoc conduct of Demographic and Health Survey and the Tongatapu
electricity consumption survey. Finally, Tajikistan collects reports on finance statistics
from banks (monthly), enterprises and organizations (quarterly), and insurance
companies (semi-annually).
23
Section 5: Core Set
The Core Set consists of seven sub-sections: Prices and Costs, Demand and Output,
Income and Wealth, Money and Banking, Government, Labour Market, and Natural
Resources and the Environment. For each statistic, respondents were asked to indicate the
frequency of production in their countries.
Tables 11 through 14 summarize the number of countries that meet the recommendations
defined by RPES, how many do not meet the recommended, and how many indicated adhoc production or do not have the statistics available. The codes for each column are as
follows: M = number of countries meeting or exceeding the recommended frequency; B
= number of countries regularly collecting the indicator but at a rate below the
recommended frequency; A = number of countries reporting ad-hoc production; O =
number of countries reporting other rates of production; U = number of countries
reporting that the item is unavailable; X = number of countries leaving responses blank.
The results from the first sub-section are summarized in Table 11. Indonesia reported
annual production of the first four statistics and omitted the last. American Samoa,
Nauru, Niue, and Vanuatu do not produce any statistics in Table 11 aside from CPI,
which they collect quarterly. Brunei Darussalam, Marshall Islands, Federated States of
Micronesia, Tonga and Tuvalu do not collect the last five statistics aside from wages,
which is measured annually.
Afghanistan omitted three questions in Table 11 while no other country omitted more
than one. Japan produces every statistic monthly, making it the only country to meet the
recommended frequency of production for all of the first six statistics in the Core Set.
The “Other” response to wages was given by India, which went on to state that wages
data depend on the sector and are available in different segments from several sources.
Table 11: Prices and Costs Consumer price index (CPI)
Producer price index (PPI)
Commodity price index
External merchandise trade price
indices
Wages / Earnings data
Labour costs index / Wage index
Recommended frequency
Quarterly
Quarterly
Monthly
Monthly
M
B
A O U X
49
27
11
11
1
1
2
9
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
21
32
25
0
0
5
4
Quarterly
Quarterly
23
11
14
8
1
1
1
0
10
26
1
4
Responses from the next sub-section are summarized in Table 12. In both questions
related to GDP, annual production was reported by Afghanistan, American Samoa,
Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, Fiji, Guam, Kiribati, Maldives, Pakistan, Solomon
Islands, Tonga, and Vanuatu. Seven additional Pacific island developing states reported
annual measurement of GDP (p) and that GDP (e) is not available.
24
Bhutan, Cambodia, New Caledonia, and Northern Mariana Islands reported that both
trade statistics are produced annually, while both were marked as unavailable for Kiribati,
and Lao PDR. A total of 26 countries met the recommended frequencies for both trade
items.
No short-term indicators were available from Afghanistan, American Samoa, Cook
Islands, Kiribati, Lao PDR, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia,
Nauru, Niue, Northern Mariana Islands, or Solomon Islands while Armenia, Australia,
Brunei Darussalam, Japan, Republic of Korea, Macao SAR China, Malaysia, New
Zealand, the Russian Federation and Thailand met the recommended frequencies for all
short-term indicators. There were 17 countries meeting the recommended frequencies for
both of the last two statistics in Table 12 but another 19 marked both as unavailable.
The “Other” response to GDP (e) was left by Samoa, stating that it is an experimental
estimate. The next three were left by India, again citing different sectors of business as
producers of reports at different rates.
Table 12: Demand and Output GDP (Production)
GDP (Expenditure)
External Trade – Merchandise
External Trade – Services
Short-term Indicators – Industry Output
Short-term Indicators – Services Output
Short-term Indicators – Consumer
Demand
Short-term Indicators – Fixed Investment
Short-term Indicators – Inventories
Economy structure statistics
Productivity
Recommended frequency
M
B
A O U X
Quarterly
Quarterly
Monthly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
23
21
32
27
30
21
27
21
16
5
4
3
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
6
2
16
15
21
0
0
0
1
0
3
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Every 5 years
Annually
17
17
14
22
17
3
5
4
5
0
1
3
2
2
1
0
0
0
1
1
25
22
27
19
29
4
3
3
1
2
Table 13 summarizes responses from the income and wealth sub-section, a set of six
statistics. The first two items were both marked as unavailable by Brunei Darussalam,
Hong Kong SAR China, Maldives, Pakistan, and twelve Pacific island developing states.
Four Pacific island developing states reported that Balance of payments was unavailable,
but the recommended frequency was met by six other Pacific island developing states.
The institutional sector accounts statistic was answered as “Other” by Thailand, stating
that business, government, and households are not separately identified. The “Other”
response to external debt was left by Azerbaijan, stating that only external government
debt is measured. India cited an alternative survey used to measure income distribution
although it does not cover household income. Indonesia cited their household expenditure
survey in place of the income distribution response. New Caledonia and the Philippines
did not explain their “Other” responses.
25
Table 13: Income and Wealth Recommended frequency
M
B
A O U X
Integrated National Accounts
Institutional Sector Accounts
Balance of Payments (BOP)
International Investment Position (IIP)
External debt
Income distribution
Annually
Annually
Quarterly
Annually
Quarterly
Every 5 years
30
19
33
33
28
22
0
0
13
0
8
1
1
3
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
1
4
17
24
4
17
11
18
2
3
0
0
2
3
The remainder of the Core set is summarized in Table 14. The first three questions were
omitted by Afghanistan, Georgia and New Caledonia, while the first two were omitted by
Cambodia, Indonesia, and the Russian Federation. Several countries collect all or some of
the first three statistics quarterly, meaning that they are close to meeting the
recommended frequency. Both government statistics were omitted by Afghanistan, while
all of the last three were left blank by Indonesia.
The “Other” responses were both given by India, citing more than one source combining
to provide the data which can range anywhere from annual to every five years depending
on the specific survey. The eight countries that measure natural resources annually are
Armenia, Australia, Bhutan, China, India, Lao PDR, the Russian Federation and Viet
Nam, five of which are lower middle-income countries.
Table 14: Money, Labour and Recommended Government frequency
Assets/liabilities of depository
corporations
Monthly
Broad money and credit aggregates
Monthly
Interest rate statistics
Monthly
General government operations
Quarterly
General government debt
Quarterly
Labour supply and demand
Annually
Hours worked
Quarterly
Natural resources
Annually
M
B
A O U X
24
24
31
21
21
24
19
8
10
9
7
25
20
2
7
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
9
11
9
2
6
20
18
36
7
6
3
1
2
1
4
3
A challenge for RPES is to address the production of statistics that do not exist in many
countries. There are 22 countries in which ten or more of the core statistics are
unavailable, 18 of which are Pacific island developing states.8
8
There are some differences between the Core Set of Economic Statistics and the National Minimum
Development Indicators specified by SPC. The latter is available at
http://www.spc.int/nmdi/MdiHome.aspx
26
Annex 1: Country Profiles
Afghanistan
American Samoa
Armenia
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bangladesh
Bhutan
Brunei Darussalam
Cambodia
China
Cook Islands
DPR Korea
Fiji
French Polynesia
Georgia
Guam
Hong Kong, China
India
Indonesia
Iran (Islamic Rep. of)
Japan
Kazakhstan
Kiribati
Kyrgyzstan
Lao PDR
Macao, China
Malaysia
Maldives
Marshall Islands
Micronesia (F.S.)
Mongolia
Myanmar
Nauru
Nepal
New Caledonia
New Zealand
Niue
Northern Mariana Is.
Pakistan
Palau
Papua New Guinea
Philippines
Republic of Korea
Russian Federation
Samoa
Population*
29,824
55
2,969
23,050
9,309
154,695
742
412
14,865
1,377,065
21
24,763
875
274
4,358
163
7,148
1,236,687
246,864
76,424
127,250
16,271
101
5,474
6,646
557
29,240
338
53
103
2,796
52,797
10
27,474
253
4,460
1
53
179,160
21
7,167
96,707
49,003
143,170
189
GDP**
1,221
unavailable
5,347
34,214
8,857
1,545
5,225
45,643
2,040
7,286
unavailable
unavailable
4,203
unavailable
4,949
unavailable
44,484
3,256
4,069
unavailable
30,780
11,899
2,102
2,159
2,376
69,244
14,223
7,554
unavailable
3,249
4,257
unavailable
unavailable
1,241
unavailable
24,381
unavailable
unavailable
2,432
12,151
2,364
3,630
28,133
14,665
3,877
Economic Grouping
Low-income
Upper middle-income
Lower middle-income
High-income
Upper middle-income
Low-income
Lower middle-income
High-income
Low-income
Upper middle-income
Upper middle-income
Low-income
Lower middle-income
High-income
Lower middle-income
High-income
High-income
Lower middle-income
Lower middle-income
Upper middle-income
High-income
Upper middle-income
Lower middle-income
Low-income
Lower middle-income
High-income
Upper middle-income
Upper middle-income
Lower middle-income
Lower middle-income
Lower middle-income
Low-income
Upper middle-income
Low-income
High-income
High-income
Upper middle-income
High-income
Lower middle-income
Upper middle-income
Lower middle-income
Lower middle-income
High-income
Upper middle-income
Lower middle-income
Sub-Region
SSWA
Pacific
NCA
Pacific
NCA
SSWA
SSWA
SEA
SEA
ENEA
Pacific
ENEA
Pacific
Pacific
NCA
Pacific
ENEA
SSWA
SEA
SSWA
ENEA
NCA
Pacific
NCA
SEA
ENEA
SEA
SSWA
Pacific
Pacific
ENEA
SEA
Pacific
SSWA
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
SSWA
Pacific
Pacific
SEA
ENEA
NCA
Pacific
27
Singapore
5,303
53,504 High-income
SEA
Solomon Islands
550
2,650 Lower middle-income
Pacific
Sri Lanka
21,098
4,916 Lower middle-income
SSWA
Tajikistan
8,009
1,832 Low-income
VCA
Thailand
66,785
7,972 Upper middle-income
SEA
Timor-Leste
1,114
1,494 Lower middle-income
SEA
Tonga
105
4,313 Lower middle-income
Pacific
Turkey
73,997
13,575 Upper middle-income
SSWA
Turkmenistan
5,173
8,316 Upper middle-income
NCA
Tuvalu
10 unavailable Upper middle-income
Pacific
Uzbekistan
28,541
3,026 Lower middle-income
N
Vanuatu
247
3,993 Lower middle-income
Pacific
Viet Nam
90,796
2,943 Lower middle-income
SE Asia
ENEA=East and North-East Asia; NCA=North and Central Asia; SEA=South-East; SSWA=
South and South-West Asia
*In thousands
**GDP Per Capita in 2005 PPP
Source: ESCAP Statistical Yearbook for Asia and the Pacific 2013
Available at http://www.unescap.org/resources/statistical‐yearbook‐asia‐and‐pacific‐2013
28
Annex 2: National agencies and sources for filling
Country
Afghanistan
National agencies listed
Central Statistic Organization
Line Ministries
Central Bank
Department of CommerceStatistics Div
Individual respondents
Eid Marjan Samoon
Armenia
National Statistical Service
Central Bank
Ministry of Finance
Ministry of Agriculture
Ministry of Energy and
Natural Resources
Ministry of Urban Planning
Ministry of Natural
Protection
Ministry of Justice
Directorate of General Civil
Aviation
Anant Safyan
Australia
Azerbaijan
Australian Bureau of Statistics
State Statistical Committee
Central Bank
Ministry of Finance
Ministry of Taxes
State Customs Committee
Michael Smedes
Mr Nuru Suleymanov (NSO)
Bangladesh
Bureau of Statistics
Central Bank
Ziauddin Ahmed (NSO)
Department of Economic
Planning and Development
National Institute of Statistics
(NIS), Ministry of Planning
Line Ministries
Central Bank
Titisutinah Hj Mohd.Diah
China
National Bureau of Statistics
Customs
Ministry of Commerce
State Administration of Foreign
Exchange
People’s Bank of China
Ministry of Finance of China
Ministry of Labour and Social
Security of China
Ministry of Land and
Resources of China
Chengjinjing (NSO)
Cook Islands
Statistics Department
Ms Taggy Tangimetua (Statistics
American Samoa
Bhutan
Brunei Darussalam
Cambodia
Ma’u A. Leha,
Acting Chief Statistician
Mr Nor Vanndy (NSO)
29
Customs Dept
Tax Dept
Commercial Banks
Ministry of Justice
Business Trade and Investment
Bureau
Treasury
DPR Korea
Fiji
French Polynesia
Georgia
Non-responding
Bureau of Statistics
Reserve Bank of Fiji
Ministry of Finance
Fiji Revenue and Custom
Authority
National Bank of Georgia
Ministry of Finance
National Statistics Office
Department)
Epeli Waqavonovovno (Bureau of
Statistics)
SPC
Mr. Teimuraz Gogishvili (NSO)
Guam
Bureau of Statistics and Plans
Department of Labour
Department of Revenue and
Taxation
Albert M. Perez (Bureau of
Statistics and Plans)
Hong Kong, China
Census and Statistics
Department
Monetary Authority
Treasury
Mr CHAU Kam Tim (NSO)
India
Central Statistics Office
Department of Industrial Policy
and Promotion
Reserve Bank of India
Shri G.C. Manna (CSO)
Indonesia
Iran (Islamic Rep. of)
Japan
BPS Statistics Indonesia
Non-responding
International Statistical Affairs
Division, Ministry of Internal
Affairs and Communications
Line Ministries (Finance,
Labour, Agriculture, and
Economy)
Bank of Japan
Sasmito Wibowo
Kazakhstan
Agency of the Republic of
Kazakhstan for Statistics
National Bank of the
Republic of Kazakhstan
Ministry of Finance of the
Republic of Kazakhstan
Abdulla K.
Kiribati
National Statistics Office
Customs
Finance
Tekena Tiroa (NSO)
Ms Rumi Tanaka (NSO)
30
Kyrgyzstan
Lao PDR
Non-responding
Department of Economic
Statistics
Bank of Lao
Line Ministries (Finance,
Industry and Commerce,
Agriculture and Forestry,
Energy and Mines, Public
Works and Transport, Tourism)
Macao, China
Malaysia
Statistics and Census Service
Department of Statistics
Malaysia
Department of National
Planning/ Ministry of Finance
and Treasury
Ministry of Economic
Development
Monetary Authority
Customs
Revenue Authority
Ms KONG Pek Fong (Vanessa)
Dr Mohd Uzir bin Mahidin
Economic Policy, Planning and
Statistics Office
FSM National Government SBOC, Statistics Division
Hemline Ysawa
Maldives
Marshall Islands
Micronesia (F.S.)
Mongolia
Central Bank
Customs General
Administration
Ministry of Finance
Ministry of Energy
NSO
Myanmar
Nauru
Non-responding
Nauru Bureau of Statistics
Department of Treasury
Department of Immigration
Non-responding
ISEE, NSO, Central Bank
Statistics New Zealand
Statistics, Customs, Treasury,
Power and Fuel, Environment
Meteorological Services
Central Statistics Division
US Department of Commerce –
Bureau of Census, Bureau of
Economic Analysis
US Department of Agriculture NASS
Nepal
New Caledonia
New Zealand
Niue
Northern Mariana Is.
Pakistan
Bureau of Statistics
1) Mr Phousavanh
Chanthasombath
2) Mr Thonekham Inthalack
Mariyam Niyaf Mohamed (NSO)
Santus Talugmai
Ms Batjargal Badamtsetseg
(NSO)
Ipia Gadabu (NSO)
Alexandre Gautier (ISEE)
Jeff Cope (NSO)
KimRay Vaha (NSO)
Alfonis Sound (Statistics)
Mr Shahid Mahmood Butt
31
Ministry of Finance
Ministry of Climate Change
State Bank
(Statistics)
Palau
Papua New Guinea
Bureau of Budget and Planning
National Statistical Office
Bank of PNG
Customs
Ministry of Finance and
Treasury
Mr Rhinehart Silas
Tony Waisa (NSO)
Philippines
NSO, NSCB, Bangko Sentral
(Central Bank)
Republic of Korea
Statistics Korea
The Bank of Korea
Customs
Ms Estela T. de Guzman (NSO)
Mr Raymundo J. Talento (NSCB)
Ms Rosabel B. Guerrero (BSP)
Kyuhyun Choi (Statistics)
Russian Federation
Federal Service of State
Statistics
Bank of Russia
Federal Customs Service
Samoa
Samoa Bureau of Statistics
Central Bank
Immigration
Land Transport Authority
National Provident Fund
Line Ministries (Finance,
Revenue, Agriculture and
Fisheries)
Leota Aliielua Salani (NSO)
Singapore
Department of Statistics
Accountant General
Accounting and Corporate
Regulatory Authority
Building and Construction
Authority
Economic Development Board
International Enterprise
Monetary Authority
Manpower Research and
Statistical Department
Tourism Board
National Statistics Office
Reserve Bank
Immigration Department
Customs Department
Inland Revenue Department
Forest Department
Health Department
Education Department
Neo Poh Cheem (NSO)
Lim Pei Xuan (NSO)
Solomon Islands
Sri Lanka
Lyubova Galina Albertovna
Bobrova Margarita Vasilyevna
Douglas Kimie (NSO)
Non-responding
32
Tajikistan
Thailand
Statistical Agency
Ministry of Finance
National Bank
National Statistical Office
Bank of Thailand
National Economic and Social
Development Board
Line Ministries (Finance,
Commerce, Industry,
Agriculture and Cooperatives,
Labour)
Timor-Leste
Tonga
Non-responding
Statistics Department
Reserve Bank
Customs
Immigration
Line Ministries (Finance,
Health, Education, Revenue
Services, Agriculture,
Commerce, Tourism and
Labour)
Turkey
Turkish Statistical Institute
Ms Budsara Sangaroon (NSO)
Mr Ata'ata Finau (NSO)
Cevdet Öğüt (NSO)
Central Bank of Republic of
Turkey
Turkmenistan
Tuvalu
Uzbekistan
Vanuatu
Viet Nam
Non-responding
Central Statistics Office
Department of Treasury
Customs
Non-responding
National Statistics Office
Reserve Bank
Departments (Treasury,
Customs, Education, Land and
Climate Change)
General Statistics Office
State Bank
Ministries (Planning and
Investment, General Statistics
Office, Finance, Customs,
Public Security (Immigration),
Industry and Trade,
Transportation, Construction,
Labour, Education, Health)
Semu Malona (NSO)
Simil Johnson (NSO)
Ms Nguyen Thi Ngoc Van (GSO)
33