Presentation on theme: "Industry-of-Origin Prices and PPPs:"— Presentation transcript:
1Industry-of-Origin Prices and PPPs: A New Dataset for International ComparisonsBart van Ark & Marcel TimmerGroningen Growth and Development CentrePresentation for EU KLEMS Public Session on”The Determinants of Europe’s Productivity Revival”9 June 2005HelsinkiThanks.Follow up to last year’s presentation suggested idea of combining E-PPPs and O-PPPs for international comparisons by ioo.Now made quite some progress apologize for incomplete versionThis paper is partly funded by an NSF research project on “Improved Methods of Estimating Production and Income across Nations” and by the EU 6th Framework Programme on EU KLEMS “Industry Productivity in the EUThis work is partly funded by an NSF research project on “Improved Methods of Estimating Production and Income across Nations” and by the EU 6th Framework Programme on EU KLEMS “Industry Productivity in the EU”
2BackgroundIncreased attention for PPPs (theory, methodology and practical applications)Largely based on expenditure PPP (E-PPP) concepts and databases (e.g., ICP and PWT)Various applications deserve use of PPPs by industry (productivity, price convergence, Balassa-Samuelson hypothesis, historical work)Use of output PPPs (O-PPPs) is hampered by a range of problems (small country coverage & bilateral nature, lack of readily available price surveys, double deflation, unit values, weak price measures for services, reconciliation problems with E-PPPs)Background: as appears from recent publications increased attention for PPPs both on theory, methodology and practical applications.Striking that most of the work is based on expenditure PPP (E-PPP) concepts and databases clear path dependency here in early 50s couple of approaches were tried concluded that expenditure PPP approach was preferred over ioo approach for some obvious and some less obvious reasons creation of good expenditure survey (e.g., ICP and PWT)But various applications (productivity, price convergence, Balassa-Samuelson hypothesis, historical work) deserve use of PPPs by industryUse of output PPPs (O-PPPs) is hampered by a range of problems:small country coverage & bilateral naturelack of readily available price surveys (census & industry surveys)double deflation of output and intermediate inputs to get at VAMuch of output price information are unit valuesMeasurement of output prices in servicesReconciliation of E-PPPs and O-PPPs never got serious attention (e.g. only with work of Feenstra and others serious focus on role of import & export prices in PPPs)Balassa-Samuelson hypothesis one of the old workhorses
3Double Motivation of Paper Provide conceptual basis for system of PPPs by industry of origin:Based on system of supply-use tablesDevelop criteria for use of expenditure prices or output prices for construction of industry PPPsProvide new dataset of industry PPPs:45 industries (aggregated from digit NACE industries)Based on a motivated mix of O-PPPs and adjusted (‘peeled’) E-PPPs26 countries, including 19 EU member statesNew benchmark year 1997Paper tries to do two things:1) lot of the work on industry of origin PPPs was ad-hoc and entirely based on data availability need to provide conceptual basis for system of PPPs by industry of origin do here on basis of system of supply-use tables develop criteria for choosing between expenditure prices or output prices for construction of industry PPPs2) provide new dataset of industry PPPs that cover aggregate economy 45 industries (aggregated from digit NACE industries)Mix of O-PPPs and adjusted (‘peeled’) E-PPPs motivated by our conceptual approachbigger set than before 26 countries (OECD)New benchmark year 1997
4Supply-Use Tables is Useful Framework to Reconcile Expenditure & Output PPPs Basic identity that equals use and supply of products:intermediate consumption + final consumption + gross capital formation + exports = domestic output + importsProducts can be valued at three price concepts:Basic price of the product received by the producerProducer price = basic price + taxes on the product - subsidies on the productPurchasers’ price = producer price + trade and transport margins in delivering the product to the purchaserTake step back and look at SNA use framework of supply-use tables is useful framework to reconcile expenditure & output PPPs & provide basis for our criteria:Balance between total supply and total use of a product: intermediate consumption + final consumption + gross capital formation + exports = domestic output + importsRelationship holds for quantities but also for values provided that supply and use are valued at the same price concept (which is what we are after)Products can be valued at three price concepts:basic price: amount receivable by the producer from the purchaser for a unit of a good or service produced as output minus any tax payable, and plus any subsidy receivable, on that unit as a consequence of its production or sale; it excludes any transport charges invoiced separately by the producer.producer price add net taxespurchasers’ price add net taxes & margins on trade and transport.Supply is typically valued at basic prices & use is typically valued at purchasers’ price but at various concepts (exports are valued at free on board (f.o.b.) prices and the imports at cost, insurance and freight (c.i.f.) prices.
5Basic identity reveals relationship between expenditure and output prices (see also Table 1) (1)WithXij = the quantity of product i used as intermediate input by industry jpXij = the purchasers’ price paid by industry j for intermediate consumption of product iCi = quantity of product i for final domestic demandpCi = the purchasers’ price for final domestic demand of product iEi = quantity of product i exportedpEi = the purchase (f.o.b) price of exported product iYij = the quantity of product i produced by industry jpYij = the basic price received by industry j for selling product iMi = the imported quantity of product ipMi = the basic (c.i.f) price of imported product iTY = total taxes net of subsidies on domestically produced productsTM = total taxes net of subsidies on imports.R = total trade and transport marginsExpress the identity above in total values, which are product of prices and quantities On left hand side we got the useOn right hand side we got the supply is row identity also column identity equates income of production factors and intermediate inputs with output leave that aside & focus on output sideWith this identity it is clear that if we need prices for Y output PPP is the obvious approach problem is that it is not always easy to obtain output prices that can be used for international comparisons (for reasons explained earlier & come back to later)
6Relationship between O-PPPs and adjusted E-PPPs (1) Assumption 1: basic price of a product i is equal in all its uses:Assumption 2: trade, transport margins and taxes of product i do not depend on their uses:Result 1: basic output price of supplied product i equals final expenditure price adjusted for net average taxes and margins:so we need to take a broader approach what prices could possibly be used as measure for PY more precisely: in which circumstances, adjusted expenditure prices are a reasonable proxy for basic output pricesto get handle on this make a couple simplying assumptions:There is only one basic price for each single product basic output price of a single product i is the same across industries & the same as the import price of the items.More tricky (& unrealistic but relax in a minute): margins and net tax rates are equal across all uses % margin & net tax rate is the same for intermediate consumption, final expenditure and exportsIf these assumption hold then it is easy to relate the expenditure price namely through average margins and net taxes on suppllied productThis in fact is what is done a lot in studies that use expenditure price to proxy industry price, e.g. in Jorgenson and associates(6)
7Relationship between O-PPPs and adjusted E-PPPs (2) Result 2: when relaxing assumption on equality of trade, transport margins and taxes of product i in all their uses:Implications of result 2: adjustment of expenditure price to proxy output price depends on:Size of differences between final expenditure prices and other purchasers’ prices (on exports, imports and intermediate consumptionRatio of exports, imports and intermediate consumption to total domestic output(7)But assumption (2) does probably not hold as margins and taxes are likely to differ across its uses if we relax assumption (2) see that simple 1st result changes in a more complex second result, where simple original result is only a good proxy if:1) Difference between tax & margin adjusted-final expenditure prices (PC) and other purchasers’ prices on exports, imports and intermediate consumption (PE, PM, PX) are small2) Ratio of exports, imports and intermediate consumption to total domestic output (Y) are close to 1
8Relationship between O-PPPs and adjusted E-PPPs (3) Assumption 3: margins and next taxes on intermediate consumption and exports are lower than for final expenditure:Result 3: purchasers’ prices for intermediate consumption and exports and basic price for imports after adjustment for margins and net taxes are all lower than final expenditure price:But what do we know about margins and net taxes on intermediate consumption and exports? Likely that both are lower than the final expenditure prices trade margins will be typically higher for final expenditure than for intermediate consumption or exports retail industry is capturing part of marginAlso for exports this is probably true although we need to assume here that we are looking at exactly same good i and undifferentiated marketsBut on this assumption result 3 after adjustment for margins and net taxes (and with assumption 1) export and intermediate consumption prices are lower than final expenditure prices + margin adjusted import price is lower than expenditure price
9Adjusted Expenditure PPP useful for industry PPPs in limited number of cases No int. tradeOnly ExportOnly ImportBothOnly Final use(1) √(4) overest(7) underest(10) ?Only Intermediate use(2) n.a.(5) n.a.(8) n.a.(11) n.a.Both uses(3) overest(6) overest(9) ?(12) ?Result 4:Only for final good, not internationally traded, the adjusted final expenditure price equals basic output priceWhen only used for intermediate consumption, no final expenditure price is availableIn all other cases, the ‘adjusted component’ final expenditure price is biasedWhat does that imply when choosing to use adjusted expenditure prices as proxy for industry output price worked also through a range of possible cases with 2 dimensions: 1) in product only used for final use, intermediate use or both; and 2) in product not traded int.ly, only exported or imported or both?12 possible cases 3 major results:Only for final goods, which are not internationally traded, the adjusted final expenditure price are equal to the basic output prices (cell 1)When the product is only used for intermediate consumption, there is no final expenditure price by definition affects entire second rowIn all other the adjusted expenditure PPP is somehow biased e.g. in case 4 only export of final product assume actual PE is lower than PC adjusted expenditure price overstates basic output price (see result 2) similarly is case 7 where we only import import PE price is lower than PC adjusted expenditure price understates the basic output price (see result 2) many other cases are mixed
10Pro’s and con’s of output prices & adjusted expenditure prices for industry PPPs O-PPPs:In theory preferable for industry PPPsOften based on unit value ratios (product mix problems)Often biased towards relatively homogeneous productsProblems with services output pricesAdjusted E-PPPs:Based on separate price survey with consistent methodologyWhen adjusted for margins and net taxes, still applicable to limited number of industriesDetailed information on margins and net taxes is often lacking (only with detailed SUT in prices and quantities)Import and export adjustments are very problematicWith application of SUT criteria better choices can be made, but remains largely empirical issue on industry by industry basisSo now that we have conceptually clear how well adjusted expenditure prices proxy industry prices when should we nevertheless use them this of course depends on how big the biases are, but also involves additional considerations, largely of practical nature:O-PPPs in theory preferable for industry PPPs as they should genuinely measure output prices should always be first step but ICOP studies have shown some tough problems:often based on unit value ratios (product mix problems) essentially deal with unit values for product groups rather than prices for specified items (as in ICP, supposedly)output PPPs often biased towards relatively homogeneous products quality problems are less problematic (cement, food products, steel, etc.)eell know problems, as in regular NA, with services output pricesSo adjusted E-PPPs need to be considered strength is that they are based on separate price survey with consistent methodology below U& above basic heading level but:as shown when adjusted for margins and net taxes, still applicable to limited number of industriesdetailed information on margins and net taxes is often lacking (only with detailed SUT in prices and quantities)import and export adjustments are very problematic some exercises, notably Hooper and Vrankovich, but it really requires individual prices of exports and imports of items that are matched with domestically used and supplied goods has not been done so: although better choices can be made with with application of SUT it remains largely empirical issue requires approach on industry by industry basis
11Assessment of output PPPs & adjusted expenditure PPPs for industry comparisons This table gives clue for major sectors on preferable approach on industry-by-country basis graded on 0-5 scale.Issues of concern for E-PPPs:Size of final expenditure in total use not good case for E-PPPs (agriculture, mining, distribution (???), transport, business services)High import share not good case (e.g. durable and non-durable mnf.)Issues of concern for O-PPPs:product and quality problems (durable mnf., quite a few services industries)no output PPPs for non-market services, but then E-PPPs are largely input based, and also less usefulNote: ranking indicates 0 (not useful), 1 (very poor), 2 ( poor), 3 (acceptable), 4 (useful) and 5 (very useful).Source: assessment based on E-PPPs for OECD from 1999 round and O-PPPs for 1997 from Groningen Growth and Development Centre.
12A New ICOP Dataset for Industry-of-Origin PPPs Improvements over previous ICOP studies:uses consistent criteria for the selection of the PPP method (O-PPPs or adjusted E-PPPs)uses a single set of industry weights (221 industries)applies multilateral (EKS) weighting system for all industries;country and industry coverage is much biggerConsistent approach:Above industry (“basic heading”) level use of EKS multilateral weighting systemWeights are based on gross output or “matched output” depending on quality of prices (output coverage, variation, number of products covered)Below industry (“basic heading”) level use of best possible source on broad sector basis (agriculture, mining, manufacturing, public utilities, distribution, transport & communication and other services)New dataset:Improvements over previous ICOP studies:uses consistent criteria for the selection of the PPP method (O-PPPs or adjusted E-PPPs)uses a single set of industry weights (221 industries) at 3 digit level quite a job in itself because NA do not collect thisapplies multilateral (EKS) weighting system for all industries move away from bilateralcountry and industry coverage is much bigger 26 countries (19 of 25 EU members) + other OECD members (US, Canada, Japan, Australia, Korea, Mexico) & Taiwan industries here aggregated up to 45 major industries (between 2 and 3 digit)Consistent approach:Alike ICP two levels above industry (“basic heading”) level use of EKS multilateral weighting systemWeights are based on gross output or “matched output” depending on quality of prices (output coverage <20-30%, coefficient of variation >0.1, number of products covered <3)Below industry (“basic heading”) level use of best possible data sources on broad sector basis (agriculture, mining, manufacturing, public utilities, distribution, transport & communication and other services)
13Agricultural PPPs are based on off-farm prices from FAO database Quickly run you through 3 examples of our approach for France-US comparison agriculture strongly based on O-PPP approach uses actual prices (much alike ICP) cover 2 industries major share in input for other industries we use output weighted average of crops & livestock
14With exception of East European Countries, U. S With exception of East European Countries, U.S. has lowest prices in agricultureLots of applications here in terms of analysis of relative price levels for agriculture with exception of East European Countries, U.S. has lowest prices in agriculture (Japan is big outlier)
15Manufacturing PPPs for EU countries are now based on common database for manufacturing products (PRODCOM), matched through Germany with USIn manufacturing mix of O-PPPs and adjusted E-PPPs example for food strong emphasis on O-PPPs for European countries benefit from PRODCOM database run bilateral comparison through Germany many products + industries PPPs at 3 digit level are Fisher PPPs comparison each EU country through Germany with US (and other countries directly use EKS PPPs.
16Manufacturing PPPs show considerable larger output and product coverage than before For aggregate manufacturing about 10% of 36% output coverage are ICP PPPs. In total for France-US comparison up to 700 product matches (compared to in past) EKS PPPs not very different from Fisher PPPs as industry weights within manufacturing are not as strongly different as in some other sectors
17Relative price spread in manufacturing is more than 2:1 Relative price spread in manufacturing is more than 2:1 suggesting no price equalization in mnf.
18Derivation of PPPs in Retail Trade is now consistent with commonly applied approach in national accountsIn retail sector compared to earlier work (incl. work with double deflated sales and purchases of retail goods) chosen approach that mimics approach in NA use of sales prices (directly obtained from ICP) adjusted to margin prices on basis of relative margin of two countries gives purchase price effect 219 matches & 28% coverage
19With exception of Eastern Europe and Japan, relative price spread in services is not larger than in manufacturingManufacturingWith exception of Eastern Europe and Japan, relative price spread in services is not larger than in manufacturing implications for Balassa Samuelson hypothesis suggest that price differences between services should be bigger than for manufacturing.
20Conclusions and Next Steps An economy-wide application of industry PPPs is now within sightComplementary to GDP PPPs with E-PPPsExtension with input PPPs (intermediate inputs, capital, labour)Application to complete valuation SUT (quantity and price table)New applications:EU KLEMS growth accounting and productivityBalassa-Samuelson hypothesisPrice convergencePotential for replication of mixed approach for historical comparisonsExtension to non-OECD countriesConclusions:An economy-wide application of industry PPPs is now within sightComplementary to GDP PPPs with E-PPPsNext steps:Extension with input PPPs (intermediate inputs, capital, labour)Application to complete valuation SUT (quantity and price table)New applications:- EU KLEMS growth accounting and productivity- Balassa-Samuelson hypothesis- Price convergence- Potential for replication of mixed approach for historical comparisonsExtension to non-OECD countries