Rammeverk: A code for an internationally integrated production system web
0 likes969 views
The document discusses exploring how an "integrated approach" to statistical production in the European Statistical System (ESS) aligns with the ESS Code of Practice, which was established to strengthen trust. It analyzes four principles of the Code - on legal mandate for data collection, statistical confidentiality, appropriate statistical procedures, and reducing response burden - in the context of integrated data collection and sharing across national statistical systems. While some data sharing may reduce burden, enterprises are concerned about how data will be protected and used when shared across borders. More discussion is needed on how to balance trust, quality, and cost in an increasingly integrated ESS.
![>> Non-excessive response burden
9
Principle 9 The reporting burden is proportionate to the needs of
the users and is not excessive for respondents […].
Questions
and issues
• Indicator 9.5 does not address data sharing among
statistical authorities within MS, or across borders
with statistical authorities in other MS
• Will enterprises approve data sharing in order to
keep burden low? Will their position depend on the
statistical domain in question?
Perceptions • Limit exchange to domains with asymmetries and a
strong burden reduction potential (our claim)
Suggestions • Extension of 9.5: Data sharing within and between
statistical authorities within the MS is generalised in
order to avoid multiplication of surveys
• New indicator 9.7: For cross-border statistical
phenomena data can be shared with statistical
authorities in other MS if it can reduce burden and
reconcile asymmetries](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/rammeverk-acodeforaninternationallyintegratedproductionsystemweb-130829045048-phpapp01/85/Rammeverk-A-code-for-an-internationally-integrated-production-system-web-9-320.jpg)
Rammeverk: A code for an internationally integrated production system web
- 1. >> A code for an internationally integrated production system? Søren Schiønning Andersen (ssa@dst.dk) Nordic Statistical Meeting 2013
- 2. >> The outline 1. Why write this paper? 2. What is the aim and the perspective? 3. What is the Code of Practice? 4.1. – 4.4. Findings for each principle 5. Concluding remarks 2
- 3. >> Introduction CoP from 2005 – put in place to strengthen trust in ESS Originates from ‘traditional’ modus operandi in ESS ~ the coordinated way of working Numerous initiatives in recent years to change the ESS to a ‘European approach’ ~ an integrated way of working Necessary for some new user needs to be fulfilled New technological opportunities Need for cost reductions But also organisational/’political’ aims play a role Varying perceptions of such a ‘paradigm shift’ 3
- 4. >> Aim and perspective Is the ‘integrated approach’ in line with the CoP? Could aspects of the ‘integrated approach’ impair trust? Aim: Explore and discuss with colleagues in ESS Not the aim: To oppose the CoP and ‘the Vision’ Perspective: Trust from enterprises – as respondents Four principles were selected for this paper ”Method”: Interviews with MNEs, Eurostat and colleagues 4
- 5. >> The ESS Code of Practice 5 Developed in 2005, updated in 2011 ~ ‘living but stable’ Endorsed by the ECOFIN Council ~ high level policy document 15 principles about institutional environment, statistical processes statistical output each with sub-ordinate indicators Reference to ‘statistical authorities’, but not their respective roles
- 6. >> Mandate for data collection 6 Principle 2 Statistical authorities have a clear legal mandate to collect information. Enterprises may be compelled by law to allow access to or deliver data. Questions and issues • Could data for MNEs be collected/consolidated by UCIs before delivery to statistical authorities? • Could data be delivered to a CoC – or to Eurostat? Perceptions • Int. enterprises could relate to an int. stat. system • UCI reporting strongly opposed because of burden – requirements and systems are not aligned • CoC reporting was not considered feasible Suggestions • New indicator 9.8: “Collection of consolidated data from international enterprises presupposes full harmonisation of data requirements in all MS” • Discussion needed on suitability of UCI reporting • Discussion needed on applicability of CoC approach
- 7. >> Statistical confidentiality 7 Principle 5 The privacy of data providers ... , the confidentiality of the information they provide and its use only for statistical purposes are absolutely guaranteed Questions and issues • Do enterprises see ESS as ’one actor’? Do they trust data protection can be monitored and sanctioned? Perceptions • Confidentiality is critical to trust, and it is based on framework and experience • Micro data exchange is a ‘game changer’ – is likely to reduce trust. Framework and comm. is needed. • Synergies also influence perceptions ~ but ”trust is more important than cost” Suggestions • New indicator 5.7: “Common rules and strict security measures adopted by all participating statistical authorities apply to exchange of statistical micro data between different MS” • A communication strategy is needed
- 8. >> Appropriate statistical procedures 8 Principle 8 Appropriate statistical procedures, implemented from data collection to data validation, underpin quality statistics Questions and issues • Indicator 8.8: ‘Agreements are made with owners of adm. data which set out their shared commitment to the use of these data for statistical purposes’. • Will owners of adm. data accept that their data are shared with other MS? Will enterprises approve it? Perceptions • Enterprises not comfortable with cross border exchange of adm. data – especially fiscal data • Position of owners not known – will probably differ. In som domains benefits have been achieved. Suggestions • Extension of indicator 8.8: “ … When administrative data are exchanged with other MS they are used according to harmonised rules adopted by all participating statistical authorities”
- 9. >> Non-excessive response burden 9 Principle 9 The reporting burden is proportionate to the needs of the users and is not excessive for respondents […]. Questions and issues • Indicator 9.5 does not address data sharing among statistical authorities within MS, or across borders with statistical authorities in other MS • Will enterprises approve data sharing in order to keep burden low? Will their position depend on the statistical domain in question? Perceptions • Limit exchange to domains with asymmetries and a strong burden reduction potential (our claim) Suggestions • Extension of 9.5: Data sharing within and between statistical authorities within the MS is generalised in order to avoid multiplication of surveys • New indicator 9.7: For cross-border statistical phenomena data can be shared with statistical authorities in other MS if it can reduce burden and reconcile asymmetries
- 10. >> A few concluding remarks Preliminary analysis with few observations and limited scope More questions than answers – and some were more like ‘positions’ The CoP is strong: Difficult to challenge – but not impossible Big changes to the ESS are likely to happen – but will it be a structured or organic process? How to manage, who will pay? If stakeholders really put ‘trust over cost’ then we clearly need to discuss with them how trust in the ESS is preserved But the ESS should first ‘find its own feet’ – taking into 10
- 11. >> Thank you for your attention 11