OECD World Forum “Statistics, Knowledge and Policy”, Palermo, 10-13 November 2004 1

OECD World Forum on Key Indicators

Statistics, Knowledge and Policy

Palermo, 10-13 November 2004

OECD World Forum on Key Indicators

Statistics, Knowledge and Policy

Palermo, 10-13 November 2004

OECD World Forum “Statistics, Knowledge and Policy”, Palermo, 10-13 November 2004 2

THE IMPACT OF STATISTICS THE IMPACT OF STATISTICS

ON A COMPETITIVE AND ON A COMPETITIVE AND

KNOWLEDGE-BASED ECONOMYKNOWLEDGE-BASED ECONOMY

ADELHEID BÜRGI-SCHMELZADELHEID BÜRGI-SCHMELZDirector General, Swiss Federal Statistical

Office

OECD World Forum “Statistics, Knowledge and Policy”, Palermo, 10-13 November 2004 3

1. Introduction

2. Success Factors 2.1 The Impact of Science and Technology 2.2 The Impact of Human Capital on the Economic Well-Being

3. The Role of Official Statistics

4. Three Examples Showing the Demand for Indicators in Swiss Politics 4.1 Carbon Dioxide Emissions 4.2 Health Care 4.3 Swiss Universities

5. Conclusion

OverviewOverview

OECD World Forum “Statistics, Knowledge and Policy”, Palermo, 10-13 November 2004 4

1. Introduction

“I love the winning, I can take the losing, but most of all I love to play.”

(Boris Becker, 1967- )

OECD World Forum “Statistics, Knowledge and Policy”, Palermo, 10-13 November 2004 5

Table 1: Growth Competitiveness Index rankings and 2003 comparisonsSource: World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report 2004-2005October 13, 2004.

OECD World Forum “Statistics, Knowledge and Policy”, Palermo, 10-13 November 2004 6

Figure 1: Parts (in %) of economic activities in Swiss GDP 2002 Source: Swiss Federal Statistical Office

OECD World Forum “Statistics, Knowledge and Policy”, Palermo, 10-13 November 2004 7

2. Success Factors

“We want to be first; not first if, not first but; but first!”

(John F. Kennedy, 1917-1963)

OECD World Forum “Statistics, Knowledge and Policy”, Palermo, 10-13 November 2004 8

Table 2: Patent applications to the EPO by country 1998-2001Source: Eurostat. National Patent Indicators Statistics in focus. Science and Technology. ISSN 1609-5995. 9/2004.

OECD World Forum “Statistics, Knowledge and Policy”, Palermo, 10-13 November 2004 9

Gross domestic expenditure on R&D (GERD) as a percentage of GDP

1992 1996 2000 2001 2002 2003 Australia 1.52 1.66 1.54 .. .. ..

Austria 1.45 c 1.60 c 1.86 c 1.92 c,p 1.93 c,p 1.94 c,p

Belgium .. 1.80 2.04 2.17 .. ..

Canada 1.64 1.68 1.92 2.03 1.91 p 1.87 b,p

Czech Republic 1.72 d,t 1.04 1.33 1.30 1.30 ..

Denmark 1.68 1.85 c .. 2.40 2.52 ..

Finland 2.13 c 2.54 c 3.40 3.41 3.46 ..

France 2.38 2.30 2.18 a 2.23 2.20 p ..

Germany 2.40 c 2.25 c 2.49 c 2.51 2.52 c 2.50 c

Greece .. .. .. 0.65 c .. ..

Hungary 1.04 d,t 0.65 d 0.80 d 0.95 d 1.02 d ..

Iceland 1.35 .. 2.75 c 3.06 3.09 c ..

Ireland 1.04 c 1.32 c 1.15 c 1.15 c .. ..

Italy 1.18 1.01 1.07 1.11 .. ..

Japan 2.89 l 2.78 a 2.99 3.07 3.12 ..

Korea 2.03 g 2.60 g 2.65 g 2.92 g 2.91 g ..

Luxembourg .. .. 1.71 .. .. ..

Mexico .. 0.31 0.37 0.39 .. ..

Netherlands 1.90 2.01 a 1.90 1.89 .. ..

New Zealand 1.00 a .. .. 1.18 a .. ..

Norway .. .. .. 1.60 1.67 ..

Poland .. 0.67 0.66 0.64 0.59 b ..

Portugal 0.61 .. 0.80 c 0.85 0.93 c ..

Slovak Republic 1.78 a,d,t 0.92 d 0.65 m 0.64 m 0.58 m ..

Spain 0.88 a 0.83 c 0.94 0.95 1.03 ..

Sweden .. .. .. 4.27 m .. ..

Switzerland 2.59 2.67 2.57 .. .. ..

Turkey 0.49 0.45 0.64 .. .. ..

United Kingdom 2.02 a 1.88 1.84 1.86 1.88 ..

United States 2.65 j 2.55 j 2.72 j 2.74 j 2.67 j,p 2.62 b,j,p

Japan (adj.) 2.71 b,l .. .. .. .. ..

EU-25 .. 1.71 b 1.80 b 1.83 b 1.83 b,p ..

EU-15 1.87 a,b 1.80 b 1.88 b 1.92 b 1.93 b,p ..

Total OECD 2.18 b 2.12 b 2.24 b 2.28 b 2.26 b,p ..

Table 3: Gross domestic expenditure on R&D as a percentage of GDP.Source : OECD, Main Science and Technology Indicators, May 2004.

a Break in series with previous year for which data is available. b Secretariat estimate or projection based on national sources. c National estimate or projection adjusted, if necessary, by the Secretariat to meet OECD norms. d Defence excluded (all or mostly) g Excluding R&D in the social sciences and humanities. h Federal or central government only. j Excludes most or all capital expenditure. l Overestimated or based on overestimated data. m Underestimated or based on underestimated data. p Provisional. t Do not correspond exactly to the OECD recommendations.

OECD World Forum “Statistics, Knowledge and Policy”, Palermo, 10-13 November 2004 10

Figure 2: Summary Innovation IndexSource: European Innovation Scoreboard 2003. http://trendchart.cordis.lu/scoreboard2003/index.html

OECD World Forum “Statistics, Knowledge and Policy”, Palermo, 10-13 November 2004 11

A.11.7. Social internal rates of return (RoR) for individuals obtaining a tertiary-level degree or an advanced research qualification (ISCED 5(A, B)/6) from an upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary level of education (ISCED 3/4) (2001)

OECD countries

RoR when the individual immediately acquires the next

higher level of education

RoR when the individual, at age 40, begins the next higher level of education in full-time studies

RoR when the individual returns, at age 40, to acquire next higher level of

education in part-time studies

(duration is doubled)

Males Females Males Females Males Females

Australia 8,3 7,6 5,5 1,7 6,9 -0,1

Denmark 4,9 3,5 2,7 0,2 3,6 -0,5

Finland 10,5 8,7 8,6 5,4 8,9 4,3

Hungary 16,1 9,1 13,4 6,6 11,6 5,1

Spain 8,1 6,7 10,2 6,2 12,3 4,9

Sweden 8,2 6,5 6,5 3,9 12,7 7,6

Switzerland 6,7 4,9 -- -- 4,6 1,8

United Kingdom

12,6 13,7 6,2 10,3 11,8 10,9

United States 11,1 7,9 8,0 3,2 7,3 0,8

Table 4: Social internal RoRSource: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2004).

OECD World Forum “Statistics, Knowledge and Policy”, Palermo, 10-13 November 2004 12

Estimating the macroeconomic returns to education

A large body of empirical research has confirmed a positive link between education and

productivity. Better educated employees are generally more productive, and may raise

the productivity of coworkers…..

Studies of the macroeconomic returns to education are methodologically diverse and

based on two broad theoretical approaches. The first, a neo-classical approach, models

the relationship between the stock of education and the long-run level of GDP. Most

studies follow this tradition. A second approach derives from “new-growth” theory and

models the relationship between the stock of education and the rate of growth of GDP.

Whether increases in the stock of education primarily affect the level of output, or its

growth rate, is still unclear. Concerning the magnitude of the returns, the available

studies indicate that in the neo-classical models a one-year increase in average

education raises the level of output per capita by between 3 and 6%. Studies of the

“new-growth” variety find that the same increase in average education raises the rate of

growth of output by around 1%.

Box 1: Estimating the macroeconomic returns to educationSource: Education at a Glance: OECD Indicators – 2004 Edition. OECD Code 962004081P1. 9/2004.

http://www.oecd.org/edu/eag2004, p. 187

OECD World Forum “Statistics, Knowledge and Policy”, Palermo, 10-13 November 2004 13

3. The Role of Official Statistics

“If you have knowledge, let others light their candle with it.”

(Winston Churchill, 1874-1965)

OECD World Forum “Statistics, Knowledge and Policy”, Palermo, 10-13 November 2004 14

4. Three Examples Showing the Demand for Indicators in Swiss Politics

“Es ist nicht genug zu wissen, man muss es auch anwenden; es ist nicht genug zu

wollen, man muss es auch tun.” (Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, 1749-1832)

OECD World Forum “Statistics, Knowledge and Policy”, Palermo, 10-13 November 2004 15

Figure 3: Carbon Dioxide Emissions according to the CO2 LawSource: Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests and Landscape (SAEFL)

OECD World Forum “Statistics, Knowledge and Policy”, Palermo, 10-13 November 2004 16

R2 = 0.59

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

Number of physicians / 1000 insured persons

Co

sts

pe

r v

isit

(in

SF

r.)

AG AR BE BL BS FR GE GL GR JU LU NE NW OWSG SH SO SZ TG TI UR VD VS ZG ZH AI CH

Figure 4: Cost per medical visit and density of physicians – general practitioners, 2003;Source: Datenpool Santésuisse, 4/2004. Analysis: obsan 2004.

OECD World Forum “Statistics, Knowledge and Policy”, Palermo, 10-13 November 2004 17

R2 = 0.80

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

Number of physicians / 1000 insured persons

Co

sts

per

Insu

red

(in

SF

r )

AG AR BE BL BSFR GE GL GR JULU NE NW OW SGSH SO SZ TG TIUR VD VS ZG ZHAI CH Linéaire (lin)

R2 = 0.80

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

Number of physicians / 1000 insured persons

Co

sts

per

Insu

red

(in

SF

r )

AG AR BE BL BSFR GE GL GR JULU NE NW OW SGSH SO SZ TG TIUR VD VS

R2 = 0.80

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

Number of physicians / 1000 insured persons

Co

sts

per

Insu

red

(in

SF

r )

AG AR BE BL BSFR GE GL GR JULU NE NW OW SGSH SO SZ TG TIUR VD VS ZG ZHAI CH Linéaire (lin)

Figure 5: Number of medical visits and density of physicians – specialists, 2003;Source: Datenpool Santésuisse, 4/2004. Analysis: obsan 2004.

OECD World Forum “Statistics, Knowledge and Policy”, Palermo, 10-13 November 2004 18

5. Conclusion

“For knowledge itself is power.” (Francis Bacon, 1561-1626)

OECD World Forum “Statistics, Knowledge and Policy”, Palermo, 10-13 November 2004 19

Thank you for your Thank you for your

attentionattention