EUROPEAN COMMISSION

STATISTICAL OFFICE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Direction E: Social and regional statistics and geographical information system

Doc. HBS/123/99/EN

Working Group

HOUSEHOLD BUDGET SURVEYS

Summary records of the WP meeting 19 - 20 April 1999

Introduction §1. The chairman welcomed the participants of all NSIs, the Central-Eastern countries,

Mr. Battye (DG5), Mr. Mair (DG24) and Mrs. Hale from Statistics Canada. He thanked the countries for their co-operation on the 1994 data base. The objectives of the meeting were: To finalise the 1994 data; To get support from the Working Party to proceed on harmonisation of the most

important variables; To speed up the processing for future waves; To encourage the use of the HBS in the National Accounts; To inform the Working Party about future developments, concerning the new

VAT system and the Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices (HCPI).In order to finalise the 1994 data, Germany, Ireland, France, Norway and Iceland would be contacted outside the meeting. Eurostat informed about the new procedures for Working Party meetings.

I. Adoption of the agenda§2. The chairman informed the Working Party that presentations by Mr. Battye (DG5)

and Mr. Mair (DG24) about the relevance of the HBS for the Commission will be included after agenda item A.2, “Quality of data in HBS 1998”.

§3. The agenda was adopted.

II. Approval of the summary records of the meeting of the Working Group on 3-4 November 1997 in Luxembourg (doc. HBS/110/99)

§4. Germany gave a written correction on the description of the survey design, the dissemination of the data and the interviewing costs. Austria also gave a written correction concerning item 4 of the records referring to the Austrian publication on poverty saying: “Austria used expenditure data from the HBS and income data from the ECHP and the Micro Census.” The corrections will be included in the minutes.

Methodology in HBS 1998 – Results from an inquiry to the Member States (doc HBS/111/99 for discussion)

§5. Eurostat presented the document, mentioning the following objectives: To finalise the 1994 data base. To present the changes with respect to the previous wave. To show differences in practises and definitions. To know whether MSs will use harmonised concepts. To know when the data of the new wave arrive at Eurostat.In a “tour-de-table” the chairman invited the countries to address methodological issues, to provide corrections to the document and to indicate the date the results of the 1998 (=Eurostat reference year) wave will be available at Eurostat. Concerning the last point, the EU15 countries were also asked to fill in a form with the dates. (This form has been included as an annex to this document.)

§6. The comments from the EU countries were as follows:Belgium said that the 1997/1998 survey was the last yearly survey. From the beginning of last year Belgium changed to a monthly (continuous) survey. It was mentioned that the description of the 1997/98 survey results transmitted to Eurostat

1

contained some mistakes that were due to the change of the COICOP classification. Before the end of this month, Belgium will provide the revised results of the 1997/98 survey according to the COICOP-HBS. Belgium will try to follow the Eurostat harmonised concepts as close as possible.Denmark mentioned that they follow the COICOP, contrary to what was put on the slide. In spring of 2001, Eurostat can expect the results of the new wave (reference years 1997-1999). Germany said that 69.000 households were interviewed in 1998. The survey is on a quarterly basis (was on an annual basis). The results on private consumption for the first quarter in 1998 can be made available to Eurostat at the end of 1999. COICOP will be followed, but expenditures on food will be taken together with all beverages. A more detailed description of this category will be available at a latter date. As regards to net income, the required split up cannot be given because the German tax system does not allow this. Greece will send the new details on the methodology. Income data will be available on the individual level for the new wave (1998/99), the results of which will be available to Eurostat by November 2000. Provisionnal statistics on expenditure will not be given (only final data).Spain will send some corrections on the methodology description. By the end of 2000, the data for the new wave (1998) will be send to Eurostat. The results are harmonised according to Eurostat definitions.France pointed out a mistake in the description of a household: Long-term absentees are not considered to be part of the household, students are included. The French survey starts at the beginning of 2000 and Eurostat can expect the results in September 2001.Ireland is moving towards the COICOP classification. The household definition is according to Eurostat’s recommendation. The reference person is defined by the household. Ireland also registers the person with the highest income called the chief economic supporter. Accordingly there is no problem to define the reference person according to Eurostat’s recommendation. The same is the case for the definition of a child. The survey will start next month and Eurostat can expect the results in the summer of 2001, probably also somewhat earlier. The ambition for an annual survey cannot be realised in the short term. Ireland expects the 5-year cycle of the survey to continue in the future.Italy said that there has not been a reduction in the sample size, contrary to what was put in the document. Italy reorganised the survey. The head of household will normally be the reference person. A “child” can be defined according to Eurostat’s recommendations. Italy provides the results of the new wave in July 1999.Luxembourg informed that the results for the new wave (1998) are available to Eurostat the first quarter of 2000. Luxembourg follows the recommendations of Eurostat. Netherlands said that there are some minor mistakes in the methodology description. The data of the 1998 survey can be transmitted to Eurostat in July of 2000. The survey is on an annual basis.United Kingdom said that the results of the 1998/99 survey will be available in December 1999. Income of all household members is registered, so that the reference person (Eurostat definition) can be constructed. The UK does not apply COICOP for 1998/99 data collection, but hopes to go to COICOP in 2001. The codes, however, can be made available quite close to COICOP. The UK has an annual survey. In the survey of 1998/99 data of children 7-15 year are included for the first time. The UK will combine the survey with the national food survey from the beginning of 2001.

2

Sweden said that they will start their 1999 survey this week with about 3.000 households. Food expenditure is collected as a lump sum because of very high non-response rates in earlier surveys. Data on food will be available in detail in some other form. Other government bodies will have a survey on food consumption. More information on how Sweden can deliver the data on food is available soon. The data for 1999 will be published in June 2001. Delays occur because income data are taken from registers. The diary period is decreased from 4 weeks in 1994 to 2 weeks in 1999. Interviews are made by telephone only; there will be no field interviews.Finland noted that the up-date of the methodology has been sent to Eurostat last week. Finland follows the United Nations’ recommendations of 1977. The COICOP is adapted since last year. The move to an annual survey in 1994 proved to be unsuccessful since the sample size reduction gave rise to an unacceptable increase in standard errors. Therefore, Finland decided to go back to a three-year cycle. At the end of this year, the data on expenditures of the 1998 survey will be available. Income information should be available 3 months later. Eurostat can expect the data by about April 2000. A “child” can be defined according to Eurostat’s recommendations, because the date of birth is known of every member in the household.Portugal said an e-mail had been sent with the corrections to the description of the methodology. Portugal, basically uses the variables recommended by Eurostat, The COICOP is applied. The results for the 1999/2000 wave will be available at Eurostat by the 2nd half of 2001.Austria will start the survey in autumn 1999. A private firm will collect the data. In the beginning of 2002 the results can be transmitted to Eurostat. Austria will use the COICOP and the recommended definitions and concepts of Eurostat for the 1999/2000 survey. The 5-year cycle will be maintained.

§7. Information on EFTA countries is summarised as follows:Iceland was not part of the inquiry. The new survey is planned for next year. It will be conducted in a similar way as in 1995. Data can be transmitted to Eurostat in the beginning of 2002.Norway was not part of the inquiry. Norway plans to deliver the data of 3 years together (1996-1998) at the beginning of next year.

§8. Information on the PHARE countries is summarised as follows:The Slovak Republic was not part of the inquiry. The Slovak Republic uses the COICOP from 1996 on.Romania carries out the so called household integrated survey. It contains a budget module, which was designed in co-operation with the World Bank and a university. A household is defined as a group of 2 to 6 persons living together and sharing income and expenditures. The members of the household declare the reference person as such. The data for 1998 will be published in April 1999. Poland uses the COICOP. The household is defined according to Eurostat’s definition with one exception: If the main earner is abroad or lives in another town (s)he is included in the household only if (s)he contributes to the households income. There is not a concept of reference person used (according to Eurostat's definition) in Poland but a concept of head of a household who is the person with the highest income from among all the household members with the main source of income the same as the main source of income of the household. The head of household is defined according to Eurostat's definition of the reference person with one exception : if the main source of income of the person with the highest income is not the same as the main source of income of the household the head is another household member, whose income is the highest from among all the

3

households members with the main source of income the same as the main source of income of the household. Poland needs 4 months after the survey to get the results but about 6 months to publish them as a yearly publication.Lithuania has had a continuous survey from 1996 on. The Eurostat recommendations are followed as closely as possible; the COICOP is used. Results for the 1998 survey are available now. Latvia started the survey in September 1995 and was technically assisted by the World Bank. The survey is harmonised according to the requirements of Eurostat. The survey of 2000 will be redesigned taking into account the experiences of European countries, in particular Statistics Denmark. Estonia will redesign their survey taking into account the Eurostat recommendations.Cyprus’s last survey was in 1996/97. The survey is harmonised to a large extent; COICOP is used as well as the Eurostat definitions of other variables. In the Czech republic 1.800 households are interviewed for the HBS. Quota sampling has been applied as a sampling method. Results are published quarterly and annually. This year the COICOP is used for the first time. Eurostat’s reference person can probably be constructed from the data. Hungary has an annual HBS. The concept of a household used is similar to the Eurostat concept. The concept of reference person is not used. The head of household is the husband or the oldest active earner. Quarterly data are published since 1996. Hungary is not planning to apply the COICOP classification.

§9. After the tour-de table, the chairman stressed the importance of getting the expenditures from the HBS, because of their use for the weights in the HCPI and in the National Accounts. Eurostat would prefer not to wait for all the HBS data if the expenditure data, which should be of reasonable quality, are available at an earlier date. The data may also be provisional and aggregated. The chairman informed that Eurostat will present a revised version of the methodology before the end of 2000.

§10. The conclusions from this agenda point can be summarised as follows

The Member State delegates: will make available to Eurostat the observations/corrections of the

methodology description for the “1998” HBS presented in document HBS/111/99 by 10/05/99.

informed Eurostat on the date the definitive results for the 1998 survey will be available to Eurostat according to the annex enclosed.

will inform Eurostat by 10/05/99 when provisional statistics on expenditures (12 commodities) can be made available and on what basis.

will send documentation about the survey (codes etc.) to Eurostat if possible by 10/05/99.

Quality of data in HBS 1998 (doc HBS/112/99 for discussion)

§11. Eurostat presented the document mentioning the following objectives: To improve the quality (i.e. comparability and the rapidity of availability to

Eurostat) of data for the 1998 survey; To present a proposal for the variables that are of major importance to Eurostat

because of their use for community purposes.

4

§12. In addition to the presentation of the paper, Eurostat mentioned the Eurostat qualitstat project and its consequences for the work on the HBS. The objectives are: To promote the use of standardised procedures for treating the data when they

arrive at Eurostat; To improve on the quality of the data (more comparable data, and at least to

know about the quality).On the paper sheets of this presentation these points are elaborated. Eurostat strives at a process time of 2 months per country after receipt of the data. To realise this, Eurostat asks for documentation to be sent well ahead of the data delivery that will help to realise the above mentioned objectives. Moreover, Eurostat will communicate effectively with the Member States. A time-table for the delivery of data will be made available per country.

§13. The chairman emphasised the importance of good quality data (particularly, expenditure data) and asked the countries to participate in the project to reach the quality goals. The chairman stressed the need for more recent data.

§14. Germany offered to provide the data for the first quarter of 1998 by the end of 1999 and also addressed the methodological issue of register time of expenditures. Germany uses a transaction based approach (registration is at the moment the goods/services are bought). For the treatment of non-monetary expenditures, Germany favours a household-friendly approach. For presents; for instance, the receiving household is not asked to indicate a value; the buyer registers the expenditure.

§15. Eurostat answered that consumption is recorded when the consumption is done. The persons who bought the presents record the expenditure.

§16. The chairman concluded that

The Member State delegates agreed upon what Eurostat presented as the most important variables for obtaining good quality according to document HBS/112/99.

Eurostat will communicate intensively with the Member State delegates to reach implementation of the recommendations.

Consumer Policy and need for statistics (for information)

§17. Mr. Mair, responsible for consumer policy (DG 24) and a user of HBS data addressed in his presentation the questions:

What are the user data requirements for consumer policy?Major points were: Statistics are needed to underpin consumer policy. Information is needed on several issues:

Who are consumers and what are they consuming? Comparison of consumption data across member state and between social

groups. To detect long-term trends in consumer behaviour. How are consumers being satisfied (price, quality, choice, affordability and

access).

Mr. Mair would like to have an inventory of available statistics.

5

Copies of the Commission’s action plan for consumer policies 1999-2001 were available.

§18. Mr. Battye from DG5 (employment and social policy area) accentuated the role of the HBS in the annual reports on social protection in his presentation. DG5 is interested in variables that describe the change of the demand/supply on social services. Moreover, there is a demand for variables determining wealth and poverty ( or “social quality”). In this respect information from the HBS on the household structure and consumer expenditure structure is an important source. Mr. Battye supported the quality improvement initiative of Eurostat to have more comparable data between countries and over time.

Imputed rent- Evaluation of quality in HBS 1994 (doc HBS/113/99 for discussion)

§19. Eurostat presented the document noting the low comparability of data and encouraged the countries to follow the recommendations of the Commission, i.e. to apply the stratification method. Since the imputed rent is such an important variable and it is computed in so many different ways by the countries, harmonisation is really required. Eurostat could compute the imputed rent for the Member State, if the Member State provides the method.

§20. The chairman said that the recommendation is already applied for compilation of the NA and invited the Member States to describe how the imputed rent has been computed and whether they would start using the stratification method or not.

§21. The answers from the EU countries were as follows:Belgium asked people who live in their own dwelling to make an estimate of the rent. This information is afterwards checked with the national housing register. When there are big differences further analysis is carried out in which the size of the dwelling, location, and the general state of the dwelling play a role. In fact in these cases a sort of stratification method is used.Denmark uses the stratification method with the three recommended variables and the variables age and quality of the building. Denmark wanted to know whether imputed rent of secondary dwellings and dwellings with reduced rents should be computed according to Eurostat recommendations.Eurostat: For the time being it should not be computed. Eurostat will look into this when the methodology will be updated.Germany mentioned that in Germany around 75% of the households rent a house or apartment. According to national law, it is only allowed to ask households for actual rents including charges (without heating costs). However, Germany will try to get the information of charges separately in the monthly survey started in 1999. For the HBS 1998, Germany calculated a price per square meter from the households renting an apartment or house and then computes the imputed rent from the squared meters of the owner-occupied dwellings. Germany is willing to experiment with a more detailed stratification, but is more in favour of a simple method, such as the one used for the HBS 1998.

Greece doesn't use the stratification method but the interviewer checks and corrects, where necessary, the answer of the interviewee taking into account (1) the locality, (2) mean of actual rent per locality, (3) number of rooms in the dwelling, (4) area of the

6

dwelling, (5) year of construction and (6) the quality of the building/dwelling. Greece said, the locality is a condition variable very difficult to be specified since differences in the dwellings are being observed, even among the blocks of the same locality. Greece think that Eurostat's estimated imputed rent would not be totally correct.Spain used a self-assessment method and cannot change the method. France used only actual rents in the 1994 survey to compute the imputed rent. It is fairly simple to apply the stratification method. France estimated a rent-equation with a number of independent variables. Given the values of the coefficients and the independent variables for the owner-occupied dwelling, the imputed rent can be estimated. Independent variables are size, location etc. Ireland tried to use the stratification method combining three sources, HBS, LFS and Census. For the HBS 1994/95 the sample was too small to get good estimates. Consequently, other sources were used. Ireland will provide the data for the imputed rent very quickly to Eurostat.Italy collected data on rent self-assessed by the owners. The stratification method is difficult to adopt because of the housing market structure in Italy. Italy will continue to work on the imputed rents.Luxembourg used self-assessment and the stratification method. Luxembourg prefers the self-assessment method.Netherlands hired estate officers to do the estimation of the imputed rent. The results are very accurate, though the method is expensive. A study indicated that the stratification method leads to an underestimation of the imputed rent in the middle and high income groups. The Netherlands recommended the estate office approach. United Kingdom did not provide imputed rents to Eurostat for their 1994 survey, but will provide an estimate for the 1998 survey. A problem for applying the stratification method is the high share of households owning their dwelling. Another problem was that private rents by regulation were set very much below market levels. Now there is a better basis for applying an imputation method. The United Kingdom suggested to use modelling, taking data of several years together with the year of the survey as an independent variable. In the model it is important to distinguish between furnished and unfurnished dwellings and to identify households whose rents are very much below the market prices. Sweden used housing and rent surveys as the basis for calculating the imputed rent. Stratification is by region, size and the number of rooms.Finland used the stratification method, which is quite similar to the recommendation of Eurostat.Portugal will use the method of self-assessment for 1998 in order to have data comparable to previous surveys. They will compare with the National Accounts and find out if the recommended stratification method can be applied for the 1999 survey.Austria used the housing census to compute the imputed rent. Stratification criteria were region, year of construction, size etc. For the 1999/2000 survey, a similar procedure will be used.

§22. The answers from the EFTA countries were as follows:Iceland used a user-cost method for computing imputed rent. The basis of this method is the official real estate value. The stratification method would be difficult to implement given the structure of the housing market in Iceland.Norway said that it is very difficult to adopt the stratification method because of the structure of the housing market (most households own their dwellings). Nevertheless experiments will start with the stratification method.

§23. The answers from the PHARE countries were as follows:

7

Poland said to have problems in applying the stratification method. In Poland there are a lot of co-operative dwellings (something between rent and property) for which it is difficult to determine an imputed rent. There are few dwellings rented on free-market which could be the base for imputations, especially in the rural area where there is a majority of private owned dwellings for which imputed rents are to be calculated.Cyprus said to have problems in applying the stratification method, because of the housing market structure (12% of the dwelling is rented).

§24. The chairman concluded:

The Member State delegates accept the stratification method to be used for calculating imputed rents.

The Member State delegates will try to adopt this method.

Health and education - Evaluation of quality in HBS 1994 (doc HBS/114/99 for discussion)

§25. Eurostat presented the document and asked for comments on this difficult issue where a low comparability of expenditure data is the result of very different systems among the Member States. The chairman asked the Member States to progress on harmonisation and apply the net approach when recording health expenditures.

§26. The comments are given next:Belgium has a mixed system. For pharmacy expenditures there are no reimbursements; payments for doctors are reimbursed. Household’s expenditures on pharmacy products and medical services are recorded. Reimbursements are booked as income. The application of the net approach is complicated because of a time lag between the payment of the bill and the reimbursement. The private health insurances should also be included. This is not the case now. France said that out-of-pocket expenses are recorded before reimbursements through the social security system. Reimbursements from the social security system are on average 30% of the bill. Reimbursements of private insurance companies are not recorded. Low-income groups do not pay anything to a doctor or pharmacy. The doctor or the pharmacist is reimbursed by the social security system. This could explain why ESSPROS reimbursements are higher than HBS expenditures. The Eurostat HBS figure of health expenditures, about 29.000 ff. surprises, as France expected about 8.000 ff. (= 5 to 6% of the budget).United Kingdom has a direct system. The value of health and education is modelled, using the age of the respondents in the survey.Ireland said that for low-income groups, health care is for free. Reimbursements paid by the government or via taxes, or by the private health insurance companies. For Ireland it is therefore impossible to have the net price from the HBS. Overall reimbursements are, however, known. Greece collects net health and education expenditure and no implementation modeling device for imputed expenditure will be needed.

§27. The chairman concluded that

The Member State delegates:

8

Agreed upon as a principle to adopt the net approach on health expenditures in the short term, recognising the difficulties of implementation in some countries.

Agreed to co-operate with Eurostat to implement modelling devices to impute net health expenditures at the micro level in the long term.

Income - Evaluation of quality in HBS 1994 (doc HBS/115/99 for discussion)

§28. Eurostat presented the document mentioning that income is a main control and background variable in the HBS. However, the ECHP is used as the main source for statistics on income.

§29. As a reaction, the following was said:Denmark asked how Eurostat could produce the net income figure, because it cannot be computed. The concept of a “deficit” household is misleading. The fact that expenditures are higher than income at a certain moment in time could simply be due to the registration method.Eurostat: The issue with the net income will be solved outside the meeting. The word “deficit” household is used only for analytical purposes to find out where problems of comparability could arise. United Kingdom asked about what had been included in the income tax. In the United Kingdom income tax as well as National Insurance contributions are included.Eurostat answered that insurance contributions are not included. The concept is disposable income, which is after income tax and after social contributions.Italy said that income is measured from the Community Panel. The part of income which is imputed could explain the problems for Italy. Spain said that the HBS was never considered as a source for measuring income. The income questions are at the end of the questionnaire. Moreover, the ECHP and the HBS income data are not comparable per definition (because of different methods).Luxembourg found the difference between the HBS and ECHP income surprising. The reason may be that the sample size of the ECHP was small.

§30. The chairman concluded that

The Member State delegates:consider the ECHP to be the source for EU comparable statistics on income.consider the income variable in the HBS is an important control/background.variable which should have a good quality.agreed upon that missing data should be imputed. (not to be equal to 0).

Proposal for a new COICOP (doc HBS/116/99 for information)

§31. Eurostat presented the document. §32. In an answer to Greece, the chairman said that there will be no problem if the

COICOP99 is already applied. Eurostat will do the transformations if necessary.

§33. It was concluded that

The Member State delegates:The Member State delegates are asked to apply the COICOP97 for the 1998 wave

data.9

Eurostat will change to the COICOP99 together with other statistical units at Eurostat.

Eurostat will provide the 4th level of COICOP99 which is necessary for the COICOP-HBS-99 within one month.

Eurostat can do the recodifications between COICOP97 and COICOP99.

Housing, amenities and consumer durables – harmonised statistics (doc HBS/117/99 for information)

§34. Eurostat presented the document, stating that as a principle the ECHP will be used as a source for amenities and durables unless better alternatives are available. It was asked if questions about durables like computers, internet-connections and cell-phones are included in the HBS.

§35. The following answers were given:Germany indicated that methodological differences between sources could be the reason behind differences in the results. In this respect it is important to distinguish availability (e.g. % of households having a TV) from absolute numbers (e.g. the numbers of TV’s per household). Eurostat said that normally the availability is the most interesting information.Denmark reacted to the list of durables included in the HBS. Denmark will not ask the households about computers with or without modems nor about TVs with satellite or cable. The HBS is not suited to this purpose, since the production time is long.The United Kingdom stressed the importance to define a secondary dwelling precisely. It is important to consider that the secondary house could be the main residence of somebody else and that somebody could live in a second home because (s)he has just bought a new property. In the definition of a second home one might decide to exclude these two categories.France said that questions about satellite TV should not be included in the HBS.Italy explained why differences may exist between the HBS and the ECHP.The United Kingdom said that there are questions about satellite TV and mobile phones in the HBS. The United Kingdom indicated that there are two types of modems, which should not be mixed up, one for the satellite TV and one for the connection to Internet. A satellite decoder is much more expensive than the Internet connection.Germany asked in the HBS1998 the households if they use satellite TV or cable TV. Results are difficult to interpret. Germany stated that if information about Internet connection is required one should not concentrate on modems.France asked the households in the HBS if they have satellite TV, pay-TV or an Internet connection.Belgium asked the households if they have an Internet connection, possess a PC, a GSM. This list of durables is updated every year.Ireland included information on mobile phones, satellite and Internet in the HBS.Greece, used COICOP 97 and further more in quite a lot of cases COICOP 99, according to the instructions of the Economic Indices Departement of Greece's service. Greece also note that COICOP 97 and COICOP 99 were subdivided into five digits.

10

§36. Eurostat indicated that lot of information about the concerned items is collected, and there is certainly a need to harmonise the concepts if there is a request for statistics at the European level. In the next methodology (2000) update this could be taken into account. The conclusions were:

Eurostat will use the data from the ECHP starting from 1994. A questionnaire will be sent to the Member States asking to provide meta

data on other sources that can be used. Eurostat is open to accept the Member State’s suggestions on more suitable

sources than the ECHP for specific items.

Quality with respect to the future proposal of a new VAT system (doc HBS/118/99 for information)

§37. Eurostat explained the background of the proposal for a new VAT system. The idea is that the new VAT should be a common system that is more appropriate to the single market than the current system. In 1996 the Commission made a proposal outlining the main features of such a new system that would satisfy the requirement.

Two aspects of the new VAT system are: Each operator should declare the VAT tax only in one place. All VAT revenues will go into one pool and will be reallocated to the MSs

according to the place of consumption. The new system would require high quality data. In this respect, note that 7% of EU GDP is the total amount of VAT money to be reallocated. The role of the HBS may as a consequence be very much reinforced as a source of the NA and good quality data are required. The timing of the project has to be planned with DG21 who is working on the conceptual aspects and the details of the project. Since it requires a lot of time to prepare the statistics for the new VAT system a discussion on the quality requirements already started at Eurostat.

§38. Eurostat presented the document and mentioned that the MSs will be asked about the sources for compiling the NA aggregates. In a “tour-de-table” the Member States were asked about the use of HBS in the NA.

§39. The following answers were given by the Member States:Germany has analysed the differences between the NA and the HBS (Germany before unification) for 1988. If one corrects the HBS for differences in coverage in population (not in HBS: institutional population, tourists and households with a net income of above DM 35.000 a month), final private consumption in the HBS differs about 13 % from the NA figure. Rents and energy were somewhat lower in the NA; food was very close; large differences occurred for tobacco and alcoholic beverages as well as for health. There were two main quality improvements in the German HBS: A change from an annual to a quarterly survey (from 1998 on). The questionnaire is adapted to what the households can answer (e.g. rents

include charges, because the households cannot indicate the rent without charges).

11

France compared the results between the HBS and the NA for 1995. The purpose was not to get the same results. There are differences in concepts and definitions: Population coverage; Domestic production (NA counts all domestic production, the HBS only counts

the own production); Insurance (NA takes account of returns to the households, HBS just records

insurance payments); Goods exchange between households (in the NA only the margin is recorded, in

the HBS the selling and buying household are registered for the complete price); Housing (in the NA part of maintainance is considered to be an investment, in the

HBS, for tenants, repairs and the like are considered as consumption; in the HBS, for owners, the expenditure is considered to be an investment or a consumption good depending on the magnitude of the expenditure)

France uses a computer-aided questionnaire to filter erroneous or inconsistent answers. At the end of the first week of the two weeks diary period, an interviewer visits the household. This improves the quality of the answers (increases reporting). Italy said that the HBS staff works together with the NA staff quite well. Differences between the sources are therefore quite small. The questions of the 1996 survey were evaluated and needed improvement.United Kingdom said that some items from the HBS are used for the NA.

§40. The chairman concluded that

There will be a serious demand for improving the quality of HBS expenditure data when a common VAT system will be applied. Quality improvements relate to:a) frequencyb) coveragec) timeliness d) accessibilitye) reliabilityf) comparability

A questionnaire from the National Accounts Dept. of Eurostat will be sent to the Member States asking about the sources used for computing private household consumption in the National Accounts.

A new collection methodology for the Canadian Survey of Household Spending (doc HBS/119/99 for information)

§41. Statistics Canada presented the development of their HBS with respect to their new system of VAT.

§42. Eurostat asked about the use of the HBS in the NA. §43. Statistics Canada said that the NA basically use everything from the HBS and

mainly in combination with other sources.

HBS-demands for HCPI (doc HBS/120/99 for information)

§44. Eurostat presented the document pointing out that there is a need for integration of the HBS and the HCPI. E.g. the same commodities in the HBS should also be used

12

in the weights of the HCPI. The chairman also mentioned that the HCPI is one of the main clients for the HBS.

§45. The chairman asked the countries to give their experiences on the co-operation between the HCPI and the HBS. In particular Eurostat asked if there are studies on differences in the classification of commodities in the HBS and the HCPI; type of payment (credit cards/internet); type of outlet.

§46. Most countries provide more detailed lists of commodities to the CPI dept. than the COICOP. Some countries had collected information about type of payment (UK) and type of outlet (Spain, France, Ireland, The Netherlands, UK, Finland and Austria). Very few countries mentioned that they apply a geographical breakdown for the CPI (Spain, Ireland, Italy). Time of consumption is treated differently in the countries. Austria uses the moment at which the product is bought as the criterion, whereas others use the moment of payment.

§47. The chairman said that Eurostat should put a large effort in guiding the MS on how to apply the COICOP. He concluded that:

Eurostat is in the process of improving overall quality in the HBS. A close co-operation between HBS, HCPI and PPS is required to benefit

from this improvement, in particular concerning the calculation of the weights used for the HCPI.

Key social indicators, core variables and a framework for the joint use of administrative sources, register and survey data (doc HBS/121/99 for information)

§48. Eurostat presented the document and said that an inventory is made of meta data about income components used at the national level in order to look at the scope for harmonising the income concept. There is no direct implication for the HBS as income will be used as a background variable in tables and as a variable for checking the expenditure data.

Presentation of Stadium – A system for transmission of data to Eurostat (for information)

§49. Eurostat demonstrated the software and concluded that

Eurostat encourages the use of Stadium as a software package for data transmission to Eurostat, in particular for a situation with annual surveys.

13

III. Other business§50. The chairman finished the meeting by saying that Eurostat will study in the future the

collection of HBS data from the PHARE countries. Moreover, paper publications will be replaced to a large extent by electronic publications for data dissemination (New Cronos). The chairman again stressed the importance to finish the 1994 database. The next Working Party is planned for April/May 2000.

§51. The chairman thanked the interpreters and the participants of the Working Party for their contributions.

14

Annex: Date of transmission of the 1998 wave results to Eurostat

CountryDate of transmission

Belgium February 1999Italy July 1999Germany End of 1999 (private consumption first

quarter 1998)United Kingdom December 1999Luxembourg First quarter 2000Finland April 2000Netherlands July 2000Greece November 2000Spain End of 2000Denmark Beginning of 2001Sweden June 2001Ireland Summer 2001Portugal 2nd half of 2001France September 2001Austria Beginning of 2002

15