APPENDIX ICT and Non-ICT Sectoral Classification
ICT Producing. In Manufacturing: Office machinery (30); Insulated wire (313); Electronic valves and tubes (321); Telecommunication equipment (322); Radio and television receivers (323); Scientific instruments (331). In Services: Communications (64); Computer & related activities (72).
ICT Using. In Manufacturing: Clothing (18); Printing & publishing (22); Mechanical engineering (29); Other electrical machinery & apparatus (31–313); Other instruments (33–331); Building and repairing of ships and boats (351); Aircraft and spacecraft (353); Railroad equipment and transport equipment (352+359); Furniture, miscellaneous manufacturing; recycling (36–37). In Services: Wholesale trade and commission trade, except of motor vehicles and motorcycles (51); Retail trade, except of motor vehicles and motorcycles; repair of personal and household goods (52); Financial intermediation, except insurance and pension funding (65); Insurance and pension funding, except compulsory social security (66); Activities auxiliary to financial intermediation (67); Renting of machinery & equipment (71); Research & development (73); Legal, technical & advertising (741–3).
Non-ICT. In Manufacturing: Food, drink & tobacco (15–16); Textiles (17); Leather and footwear (19); Wood & products of wood and cork (20); Pulp, paper & paper products (21); Mineral oil refining, coke & nuclear fuel (23); Chemicals (24); Rubber & plastics (25); Non-metallic mineral products (26); Basic metals (27); Fabricated metal products (28); Motor vehicles (34). In Services: Sale, maintenance and repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles; retail sale of automotive fuel (50); Hotels & catering (55); Inland transport (60); Water transport (61); Air transport (62); Supporting and auxiliary transport activities; activities of travel agencies (63); Real estate activities (70); Other business activities (749); Public administration and defense; compulsory social security (75); Education (80); Health and social work (85); Other community, social and personal services (90–93); Private households with employed persons (95); Extra-territorial organizations and bodies (99).
Other: Agriculture (01); Forestry (02); Fishing (05); Mining and quarrying (10–14); Electricity, gas and water supply (40–41); Construction (45).
Source: O’Mahony and van Ark (2003).
Bassanini, A., and E. Ernst, 2002, “Labour Market Institutions, Product Market Regulation, and Innovation: Cross-Country Evidence,” Economics Department Working Paper 316, January (Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development).
Bassanini, A., S. Scarpetta, and P. Hemmings, 2001, “Economic Growth: The Role of Policies and Institutions. Panel Data Evidence from OECD Countries,” ECO/WKP(2001)9.
Blanchard, O., 2004, “The Economic Future of Europe,” (forthcoming) Journal of Economic Perspectives, NBER Working Paper 10310, February (Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research).
Blanchard, O., and Wolfers J., 2000, “The Role of Shocks and Institutions in the Rise of European Unemployment: the Aggregate Evidence,” The Economic Journal, March, 110 (462): C1-C33.
Boeri, T., 2005, “Reforming Labor and Product Markets: Some Lessons from Two Decades of Experiments in Europe,” IMF Working Paper 05/97, May (Washington: International Monetary Fund).
Debrun, X., 2003, “Unemployment and Labor Market Institutions: Why Reforms Pay Off,” World Economic Outlook, Chapter IV, April (Washington: International Monetary Fund).
Decressin, J., M. Estevão, P. Gerson, and C. Klingen, 2001, “Job-Rich Growth in Europe,” France, Germany, Italy, and Spain: Selected Issues Paper, Chapter 2, IMF Country Report 01/203, pp. 36–80.
Estevão, M., 2004, “Why is Productivity Growth in the Euro area so Sluggish?” IMF Country Report 04/235, August (Washington: International Monetary Fund).
European Commission, 2003, “Drivers of Productivity Growth: An Economy-Wide and Industry Level Perspective,” The EU Economy 2003 Review.
Foster, L., J. Haltiwanger, and C. J. Krizan, 2002, “The Link Between Aggregate and Micro Productivity Growth: Evidence from Retail Trade,” NBER Working Paper 9120.
Kolasa, M., 2005, “What Drives Productivity Growth in the New EU Member States? The Case of Poland,” Working Paper 486 (Frankfurt: European Central Bank).
Oliner, S., and D. Sichel, 2000, “The Resurgence of Growth in the late 1990s: Is Information Technology the Story?” Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 3–22.
O’Mahony, M. and B. van Ark, 2003, EU Productivity and Competitiveness: An Industry Perspective (Brussels: European Commission).
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2003, “A Detailed Description of Employment Protection Regulations in Force,” Background Material for the 2004 Edition of the OECD Employment Outlook.
Schreyer, P., 2000, “The Contribution of Information and Communication Technology to Output Growth: A Study of the G7 Countries,” STI Working Papers (Paris: OECD).
Stiroh, K.J., 2002, “Information Technology and the US Productivity Revival: What Do the Industry Data Say?” American Economic Review, December, Vol. 92, no. 5, pp. 1559–76.
Takizawa, H., 2003, “Job-Specific Investment and the Cost of Dismissal Restrictions—The Case of Portugal,” IMF Working Paper 03/75 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).
Prepared by Paulo Drummond.
Economies with GDP per capita below that of the euro area as of 1995.
To the extent possible, the cross-country comparisons in this paper use harmonized data from the same database for all countries. Yet, national accounts data could still differ due to different national methodologies in the calculation of investment flows, deflators (including the treatment of quality improvements in high-tech equipment), aggregation methods, and changes in labor quality.
Basic identity: -TFP = -Y Δ α-L Δ (1 Δ α)-K, where, Y is real value added, L is total hours of work, K is the capital stock, and α is the share of labor compensation in total domestic income.
This section is based on the Industry Labor Productivity Database from the Groningen Growth and Development Center. The database contains information on value added, employment and hours worked in the countries covered in this section for 56 separate industries between 1979 and 2002. For details on the methodology, see http://www.ggdc.net/dseries/60-industry.
The industry data suggest a somewhat stronger deceleration in labor productivity in Portugal, by 2.2 percentage points since the first half of the 1990s, as opposed to 1 percentage point in the AMECO database.
For a review of the employment protection legislation indicator as a useful indirect indicator of labor adjustment costs, see OECD Employment Outlook, 2004.
The indicators of employment protection legislation focus on both regular and temporary contracts. Regulations for regular contracts include: i) procedural inconvenience that employers face when trying to dismiss a worker; ii) advance notice of dismissal and severance payments; and iii) prevailing standards of, and penalties for, unfair dismissals. Indicators of the stringency of EPL for temporary contracts include: i) the objective reasons under which they can be offered; ii) the maximum number of successive renewals; and iii) the maximum cumulated duration of the contract.