Registry Detail

1885

Information

24 November 2003

2003 quest.-Summary of question 24 and ISIC section 15 responses

Question 24 in the "questions" document: Do you support the approach taken in the ISIC structure draft with respect to the scope of Public administration activities? Do you currently use other specific criteria for defining the scope of Public administration in your country? The proposed two-digit level structure of section 15 "Public administration and defence; compulsory social security": 15.1 Administration of the state and the economic and social policy of the community 15.2 Provision of services to the community as a whole 15.3 Compulsory social security activities

Summary of responses to question 24 and section 15 There is broad support for defining public administration in a revised ISIC according to a limited definition of activities that represent the essential role of government - public order, safety, etc. There was not a clear majority position regarding what those activities should include. In general, the activities of making laws, enforcing laws, courts, prisons, fire fighting, and similar activities were supported for inclusion, regardless of whether they are provided by public or private institutions. The TSG will need to discuss the limited scope of the core activities of governments but it is clear that the current scope of public administration (ISIC 75) should not be expanded and may be restricted somewhat. Detailed Summaries by Question Q-24, Public Administration (Mechanical translation of Spanish Responses) Columbia The general criterion of the CIIU always must be the one to classify statistical units according to its economic activity which will allow to preserve the essence of the classification. When classifying within defense and public administration own activities of other sectors of the economy taking care of the criterion of the legal nature of the same one (public or prevailed) would be being been violating the main criterion of the classification. In addition so and as you raise exists a strong tendency to the privatization of certain functions of the state which demonstrates that all the activities related to the state are not of governmental nature and therefore activities are due to include in this section that unquestionably are today and in Cuba In agreement. Mexico No, in the SCIAN Mexico we considered that the governing criterion to form the sector of Public Administration was to group activities that are exclusive of the Government and who this one makes in support to all the other sectors of activity. These activities are characterized not to have profit aims and not to generate income. The form of financing of this sector is through taxes, quotas, rights and recoveries that are administered and distributed between the governmental dependencies by means of assigned budgets. The specific activities such as schools, hospitals, research centers, generating plants of electricity and other governmental economic units that, according to their main activity, have a place of classification within other sectors of activity, are not classified in the sector of Public Administration. Nicaragua We do not know the proposed document. Summary: There were 45 individual responses to the question regarding the approach to Public administration. The overwhelming majority expressed a desire to define public administration to a limited set of activities that represent the core functions of government (making laws, ensuring public order and safety, taxing, etc). Forty-three responses noted that a limited definition of public administration activities representing those activities needed to operate a state or nation should be included. Two responses (Czech Republic and Nicaragua) were indeterminate. Europe overwhelmingly responded that the activities should be classified to public administration regardless of the provider of the activity (public or private). There was not a complete discussion of which activities should be defined as public administration. Australia noted specific groups of activities for inclusion: setting policy; oversight of government programs; collecting revenue under the law to fund government programs; creating laws, creating case law through civil courts, criminal courts and similar courts; and distributing public funds. The United States, Japan, and Mexico expressed a desire to classify operating units of governments outside of public administration when they are appropriately classified elsewhere. Most responses simply referenced 'duties or activities necessary for a state to function'. Two responses supported moving Public Administration to the end of the classification (France and Eurostat). In summarizing these comments, the inclusion of private providers was noted when specifically included in the response. Of the 43 responses that support a limited definition of activities in public administration, 23 specifically included a desire to classify the activities, "irrespectively of who performs the activities" (or similar wording). The other 20 either had no comment or did not provide examples that would indicate support or opposition to including private units. Of the 23 "irrespectively" comments, two provided further explanation that appears to contradict the inclusion of private units. Hungary further noted that they only classify government units to L and Latvia said they use an SNA treatment (institutional definition would exclude private units?). On the question of fire departments, 13 responses specifically noted that fire departments should be classified to Public administration. Total Responses: 45 Support limited definition of activities: 43 Indeterminate answers: 2 Related Boundary questions responses S-15 (Mechanical translation of Spanish responses) Mexico We considered that the activities of the public administration must restrict to the own activities of the government such as the establishment of laws; administration and application of the resources public; to the regulation and promotion of the economic development and the activities to improve and to preserve the medio.ambiente; to the administrative activities of institutions of social welfare; to the outer activities of relations; to the teaching of justice and the observance of safety requirements and the public order; and to safeguard the national security. It excludes all those activities that take place of classification in other sectors such as schools, hospitals, research centers, plants There were eight separate responses to question S-15 regarding public administration. In general, all expressed a preference for public administration being defined by a limited definition of activities related to the normal activities of governments to run the state. The answers differed on what should be included as public administration activities and what should be excluded. Australia noted that activities such as archives, management of government buildings, police laboratories, and tax collection should be outside of public administration. (although not stated specifically in the responses, the question lists the NAICS treatment for Canada, Mexico, and the United States for these same questions). Thiland on the other hand noted that most of these activities should be in public administration. There was more common support for including commercial fire fighting in public administration (Australia, Finland, Germany, and Thailand). These countries also supported the inclusion of private prison services within Public Administration. Portugal noted that extraterritorial bodies should be included under the broad grouping of public administration (as did the United States in their response to question S-22) in order to reduce the number of groupings at the top.