Registry Detail

1895

Information

24 November 2003

2003 quest. - Summary of question 03 responses

Question 03 from the "questions" document: What is your position regarding the purpose and scope of the revised CPC? -see section on Purpose, scope and coverage of the CPC

Summary of responses to question 03 Twenty-seven similar responses from European countries recommend that the CPC cover only the production of goods and services. Some indicate that links to other transactions and assets should be further studied and a few mention that it should retain its role as a central link to other existing product classifications. Norway, Austria and Great Britain make a point of questioning the value, present and future, of the CPC indicating that it is not much used currently and has few prospects of becoming used. Another group of eight countries, plus the countries of Afristat, favour the "family of classifications" approach. Some countries favour a very integrated form (one system under the name CPC) - these include Mexico, Brazil, India and Laos - and some see it as a system of related classifications. These countries include Canada, France, Colombia. The United States and the countries of Afristat straddle this position, agreeing that the scope of the CPC should cover production, but beyond the production boundary of the SNA, and in time expand to cover the other objects of transactions. Japan reserves comment on the issue as it does not make use of the CPC and 6 countries did not give specific responses of favour the status quo. One of these, Nicaragua, indicates that the CPC has filled a void and is much appreciated. While Eurostat aligns of course with the European position, the OECD sees some usefulness in expanding the scope of the CPC.