Let us consider the case of Italy as an example: time series are currently produced by the Italian National
Statistical Institute (Istat) in a format more analytical than that required by table 3 above, even if they are
not published. Therefore, in principle, the requested data could already be delivered. Of course, there
could be problems with reference to the reliability of these more analytical estimates. The evaluation of
the present degree of reliability is a task of the national compilers of statistics. This might be considered
a target in case the demand by the Ecofin Council of more information to enhance the analysis on quality
of public finances were to result in a strong request of specific common commitments to Member States.
Using the survey evidence, it should be pointed out that some of the additional data requested could be
delivered with a sufficient timeliness, i.e. at time t+12. This should be even more realistic if, during a
transition period, these data are limited only to the last years of the series (e.g. starting from 1999).
We propose a transmission of the amended level-2-categories in the transmission programme on a
voluntary basis. In the meantime the issue of a possible lean regulation will be discussed further.
Step 2
The second step consists in the harmonisation among countries of the time series formats in the present
NEWCRONOS database.
With reference to backwards estimates, only a part of countries is in line with the standards established
by the ESA95 transmission programme. Considering NEWCRONOS data or those in AMECO database
(therefore excluding new access countries), Belgium, Denmark, Greece, Italy, Luxemburg, Portugal and
United Kingdom show data since 1990; Germany from 1991; France, Ireland, Netherlands, Austria,
Finland and Sweden from 1995; Spain from 1999.
As to the timeliness (the deadline is fixed at time t+12, therefore at present data available in the database
should include at least the year 2002) the situation is the following: Belgium, Denmark, Germany,
Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxemburg, Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Finland, France, Spain, Sweden and
United Kingdom show data until 2002.
Step 3
Step 3 would be in a longer-term perspective. It consists of – in several cases – new specific elaborations
and, probably, new collections of basic data. Therefore its implementation would be obviously more
problematical. Obviously all the proposals advanced in this paper are very open to discuss.
In particular, the survey allows answering some of the additional requests of information listed in
paragraph 3 as follows:
a) using specific additional accounting rules
1) Investment expenditure gross of sales of assets: this calculation is generally considered easily
feasible, though in some cases with some efforts and on condition of common
commitment/additional resources;
2) Tax expenditure measures to support the productive process, in particular investment
initiatives and R&D private expenditure: no question on this issue was inserted in the survey. In
the case of Italy (to which, as already said, we have asked additional information) the answer is
this can be provided, but with relevant efforts and in the medium-long term;
b) more details in economic classification
1) to identify separately expenditure to (re-)construct infrastructures from those for the
acquisition of dwellings, other buildings, machineries and equipment: from the survey, the
average answer is: yes, but not immediately and on condition of common commitment/financing;
2) to identify public expenditure in PPPs initiatives: the survey says that generally it is not
immediately feasible (in three cases it is very difficult, especially for backward data);