Registry Detail

1874

Information

24 November 2003

2003 quest.-Summary of question 16 and ISIC section 04 responses

Question 16 in the "questions" document: Which of these structure and placement options for repair activities would you support in a future ISIC? Do you support the approach taken in the ISIC structure draft? The proposed two-digit level structure for Section 04 "Repair and Maintenance": 4.1 Repair and maintenance of transport equipment 4.2 Repair and maintenance of personal and household goods 4.3 Repair and maintenance of machinery and equipment

Summary of responses to question 16 and section 04: Q16: Replies were sent in by 50 countries. Options: A) All repair and maintenance activities are grouped together. In favour: Honduras, Indonesia, Viet Nam, In favour but not on section level: Japan, Philippines, In favour and in a new section: US, Thailand, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, India, Cuba, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Mexico, Nicaragua, Afristat (in Africa many repair is done by specialised units) Arguments pro: - R&M have other production functions; - R&M have other taxes; - Growing fast because of outsourcing; Arguments against: - R&M are within the same unit combined with manufacture; - R&M of cars are within the same unit combined with trade; - R&M of household goods are within the same unit combined with retail trade; - Heterogeneity. B) Maintain the status quo, but split up into portions that identify the detail in Manufacturing, Trade and Other Services. Belgium, Bulgaria, France, Austria?, Croatia, Cyprus?, Czech Republic, Denmark?, Estonia, Finland?, Germany?, Greece?, Hungary, Ireland?, Italy?, Latvia, Lithuania?, Luxembourg, Netherlands?, Norway?, Poland?, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia?, Spain?, Sweden, Switzerland, Eurostat, OECD, Slovakia The countries with a question mark say they want to keep it as it is. In fact this is neither A nor B (no portions that identify the detail in manufacturing etc., because that is a change). The Netherlands call this option C and are together with UK and Australia explicitly in favour of this possibility. Bulgaria and France recommend the study of the best place in manufacturing for repair of capital goods. Remarks: Australia: against A and B because we cannot get decent concentration and coverage ratios. Argentina: wants to separate repair and maintenance, doesn't matter how (option B, a separate section etc.) S04 subdivisions: US presents an alternative subdivision. Boundary lines: US sees 3 repair activities which are not a part of the sector R&M: In buildings etc. --> construction Maintenance and minor repair of transport --> support to transport Rebuilding of machinery and equipment on factory basis--> manufacturing. Canada, Brazil: major modifications to aircraft systems or equipment, ship repair on shipyards, rebuilding locomotives--> manufacturing. Germany: Ship repair on floating dry-docks--> repair. Brazil: maintenance and minor repair at airfields and harbours --> supporting transport activities. Czech Republic: separate sub-contracting with reference to the manufacture of goods on a lowerlevel. Thailand sees retreading of tyres as repair as well as towing services. Musical instruments and lawn and garden equipment in 4.3; jewellery in 4.2; household furniture and computers in 4.3, don't split it in household and business because it is the same activity.