The OECD Statistics Newsletter, December 2020, Issue 73

The Statistics Newsletter For the ex tended OECD s tatis tic al net work

FEATURING + Has COVID-19 distorted international comparability of unemployment rates? + All you need is trust: informing the role of government in the COVID-19 context + Updating the 2008 System of National Accounts: a major endeavour

THE LATEST OECD GEOSPATIAL LAB CLEARINGHOUSE ON FINANCING DEVELOPMENT DATA oe.cd/statisticsnewsletter Issue No. 73, December 2020

Contents 3

Has COVID-19 distorted international comparability of unemployment rates?

Benoît Arnaud (benoit.arnaud@oecd.org), Statistics and Data Directorate, OECD

7

All you need is trust: informing the role of government in the COVID-19 context

Monica Brezzi (monica.brezzi@oecd.org), Santiago González (santiago.gonzalez@oecd.org) and Mariana Prats (mariana.prats@oecd.org) Directorate for Public Governance, OECD

11

Updating the 2008 System of National Accounts: a major endeavour

Peter van de Ven (Peter.VANDEVEN@oecd.org), Statistics and Data Directorate, OECD

15

A data-driven decade of action: making financing for development data smarter

Caroline Bernreiter (caroline.bernreiter@oecd.org), Paris21, Statistics and Data Directorate, OECD

17

Recent publications

18

Forthcoming meetings

The Statistics Newsletter is published by the OECD Statistics and Data Directorate.

This issue and previous issues can be downloaded from http://oe.cd/statisticsnewsletter To receive the OECD Statistics Newsletter by email, you can sign up at https://oe.cd/statsnews-signup Follow us on

@OECD_STAT

Editor-in-Chief: Paul Schreyer Editors: Nadim Ahmad and Peter van de Ven Editorial and technical support: Ashley Ward and Sonia Primot Contact us at SDD.CommTeam@oecd.org

2 The OECD Statistics Newsletter - Issue No. 73, December 2020

Has COVID-19 distorted international comparability of unemployment rates?

Benoît Arnaud (benoit.arnaud@oecd.org), Statistics and Data Directorate, OECD

C

OVID-19 has had a profound impact on economic activity across the globe, with GDP falling precipitously almost everywhere where stringent confinement measures have been implemented. However, official statistics on unemployment paint a more differentiated picture. In some countries, unemployment rates increased when lockdown measures were imposed but in others they fell. Differences in the immediate impact of the crisis on unemployment rates across countries have also translated into differences in the evolution of rates as the impact of the crisis has unfolded.

In the United States, for example, unemployment rates spiked significantly at the height of lockdown measures in April and have gradually, and significantly, fallen since then, whilst in Europe, rates increased steadily through to July, with a marginal decline appearing only in recent months (Figure 1).

The casual observer might conclude from this that the employment situation has been improving in the US but deteriorating in Europe, and that differences in underlying economic structures and conditions – for example, resilience of firms, the regulatory environment, government support packages, the strength of the economy, etc. – can explain the divergence. But is there another explanation? Could differences in measurement, at least in part, be a factor?

Furloughed workers: What do the international guidelines say?

Broad comparability of unemployment data across OECD countries is achieved through adherence to International Guidelines from the International Conference of Labour Statisticians (ICLS). One aspect of those guidelines, of particular relevance to current official estimates of unemployment, concerns the treatment of persons on temporary lay-off or furloughed workers, i.e, those ‘employed’ persons who, in their present job, were ‘not at work’ due to economic reasons for a short duration but maintained a job attachment during their absence (ILO, 2013 and 2020).

The guidelines treat furloughed workers as being employed when: • the expected total duration of the absence is up to three months (which can be more than three months, if the return to employment in the same economic unit is guaranteed) OR • workers continue to receive remuneration from their employer, including partial pay, even if they also receive support from other sources, including government schemes.

Figure 1. Official unemployment statistics point to diverging trends across countries United States (aged 16 and over)

European Union (aged 15 and over)

16 14 12

In turn, furloughed workers not satisfying the criteria above are classified as unemployed, if they are actively looking for work and are available for work, or, otherwise, as outside of the labour force. i.e. neither employed nor unemployed.

10

Furloughed workers: What do countries actually do?

8 6 4 2 0

Feb-20

Mar-20

Apr-20

May-20

Jun-20

Jul-20

Aug-20

Sep-20

Oct-20

In practice, departures from these guidelines in national practices do exist. In the United States for example, persons on temporary layoff are classified as ‘unemployed’ if

Source: US Current Population Survey; Eurostat, Monthly Unemployment Rate

Issue No. 73, December 2020 - The OECD Statistics Newsletter 3

they expect to be recalled to their job within six months.

Indeed, for the latest US figures “people who were effectively laid off due to pandemic-related closures were counted among the unemployed on temporary lay-off” without further testing for their return to their previous job (BLS, 2020). In Canada, persons on temporary lay-off are also classified as ‘unemployed' even if they have a date of return or an indication that they will be recalled by their employers. In Europe, on the other hand, only those furloughed workers that don’t have an assurance to return to work within three months and receive less than half of their salary are treated as unemployed, if they are also available to start work in the next two weeks (and are ‘actively looking’ – and those not actively looking, even if available, are excluded from the labour force entirely and are classified as ‘inactive’).

Ordinarily, these differences have only a marginal impact on international comparability and, indeed, on measures of unemployment and employment, as furloughed workers typically account for a relatively insignificant part of the population. However, lockdown measures imposed by countries to contain the spread of COVID-19 have significantly increased their numbers.

Available to work?

This is not the only area of unemployment statistics where COVID-19 has created measurement and interpretation problems. ICLS guidelines define the unemployed as “all those of working age who were not in employment, carried out activities to seek employment during a specified recent period and were currently available to take up employment given a job opportunity”.

However, when severe lockdown measures are in place it may be impossible to satisfy the ‘available to work’ or ‘employment seeking’ criteria, which may, in turn, create counter-intuitive movements in unemployment statistics: in some European economies for example (Figure 2), unemployment rates fell in the second quarter of 2020.

Figure 2. Unemployment rate Persons aged 15 and over, seasonally adjusted1, 2, 3 France

12

Italy

Portugal

11 10 9 8 7 6 5

Source : Eurostat, Labour Force Survey

The flip-side of these falls is an increase in persons outside of the labour force, and persons not in the labour force who didn’t seek work in the previous four weeks but who wished and were available to work, i.e. persons marginally attached to the labour force (Figure 3).

Can we adjust for COVID-19 distortions to improve international comparability?

Prior to the outbreak of the COVID-19 crisis, furloughed workers represented 0.5% of the labour force in the United States and less than 0.2% in the European Union.4 In the second quarter of 2020, immediately after confinement measures entered into force in many countries, these shares jumped to 9.3% in the United States and 9.6% in the EU27. However, as described above, the treatment of furloughed workers in the United States differs significantly from that in the EU, resulting in the diverging trends of Figure 1. Excluding temporary layoffs from the United States unemployment statistics (and instead treating them as they generally are in the EU) reveals very similar upward trends in unemployment rates (Figure 4). On this basis the unemployment rate was 1.9 percentage points higher in the United States in October compared to February, while the increase over the same period in the European Union was 1.1 percentage points.

Further adjustments for the treatment of persons marginally attached to the labour force (i.e including

Figure 3. Persons outside the labour force increased Persons marginally attached to the labour force Persons aged 15 and over, percentage of population, seasonally adjusted

Persons outside the labour force Persons aged 15 and over, percentage of population, seasonally adjusted France

Italy

Portugal

53 50 47 44 41 38 35

Source : Eurostat, Labour Force Survey

4 The OECD Statistics Newsletter - Issue No. 73, December 2020

France 4 3 2 1 0

Italy

Portugal

Figure 4. Adjusting for furloughed workers reveals similar, differences such as those highlighted above, but also upward, trends in unemployment in the US and Europe on other existing complementary indicators that provide Unemployment rate excluding temporary lay-offs seasonally adjusted

United States (aged 16 and over)

a fuller picture of the labour market. Many of these are produced by official statistics agencies but are only rarely used in analyses. These include: • Potential labour force, which includes persons available to work but not seeking and persons seeking work but not immediately available.

• The extended labour force, which is the sum of the labour force and those seeking work but not immediately available and those available to work but not seeking.

• Total hours actually worked • Full-time/Part-time employment

European Union (aged 15 and over)

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Feb-20

Mar-20

Apr-20 May-20 Jun-20

Jul-20

Aug-20 Sep-20

Oct-20

Source: OECD estimates based on US Current Population Survey; Eurostat Monthly Unemployment Rate

them in the labour force and as unemployed) reinforces the pattern of upwards movements in underlying unemployment rates. In the EU for example, (as a share of the labour force plus the marginally attached), this extended measure of unemployment was 1.4 percentage points higher in the second quarter of 2020, compared to the first quarter, whilst in the US, it was 1.2 percentage points higher (Figure 5).

1 https://www.insee.fr/en/statistiques/4642442 2 https://www.ine.pt/xportal/xmain?xpid=INE&xpgid=ine_ destaques&DESTAQUESdest_boui=415280114&DESTAQUESmodo=2 3 Statistics Flash on April 2020 Employment and Unemployment released on 3 June 2020, http://newsletter.oecd.org/q/119zhJ9uG1o3/wv.

4 Considering the population aged 20-64.

Figure 5. Broader measures of unemployment point to a stronger crisis impact on the labour market

5 The number of unemployed, marginally attached and underemployed, can be aggregated into a single measure, expressed as a ratio of the labour force, to form the labour underutilisation rate, as published in the OECD Household Dashboard (https://www. oecd.org/economy/household-dashboard.htm).

Unemployed (excluding temporary lay-offs) and marginally attached as a share of the labour force plus marginally attached, seasonally adjusted United States (aged 16 and over)

European Union (aged 15 and over)

References

12

BLS (2020), Frequently asked questions: The impact of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic on The Employment Situation for March 2020, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 2020, Washington DC. https://www.bls.gov/cps/employment-situation-covid19-faq-march-2020.pdf

10 8 6

ILO (2013), Resolution concerning statistics of work, employment and labour underutilization, 19th International Conference of Labour Statisticians (ICLS), Geneva. https:// www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---stat/documents/normativeinstrument/wcms_230304.pdf

4 2 0

2019 - Q4

2020 - Q1

2020 - Q2

ILO (2020), COVID-19: Guidance for labour statistics data collection, International Labor Organisation (ILO), Geneva. https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/--dgreports/---stat/documents/publication/wcms_741145.pdf

Note: In this chart, European Union total includes Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden.

Source: OECD estimates based on US Current Population Survey; EU Labour Force Survey.

The broader labour underutilisation rate5 is compiled by combining the above information with another component of the population: the underemployed.

This population, which consists of full-time workers working less than usual during the survey reference week for economic reasons and part-time workers who wanted to but could not find full-time work, increased significantly between the first and the second quarter of 2020, leading to increases in labour underutilisation rates in the European Union and the United States of, respectively, 8.7 and 13.6 percentage points (Figure 6).

The significant impact of COVID-19 on components of the labour market that are, in normal times, relatively insignificant, calls for caution in interpreting current estimates of official unemployment rates and, in particular, cross country comparisons.

To better understand the evolution of the labour market, greater awareness is needed of current measurement

OECD dashboard of household statistics: https://www.oecd.org/economy/householddashboard.htm OECD Short-Term Labour Market Statistics. https://stats.oecd.org/Index. aspx?DataSetCode=STLABOUR. OECD (2020), OECD Employment Outlook 2020: Worker Security and the COVID-19 Crisis, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1686c758-en

Figure 6. Labour underutilisation rates have grown significantly Labour Underutilisation Rate As a percentage of labour force, seasonally adjusted United States (Aged 16 and over)

European Union (Aged 15 and over)

30 25 20 15 10 5 0

2019Q4

2020Q1

2020Q2

Note: In this chart, European Union total includes Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden.

Source: OECD Household Dashboard; based on US Current Population Survey, EU Labour Force Survey

Issue No. 73, December 2020 - The OECD Statistics Newsletter 5

EIGE’s Intimate Partner Violence data collection

The European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) (https://eige.europa.eu/) defines Intimate partner violence (https://eige.europa.eu/thesaurus/terms/1265) as “any act of physical, sexual, psychological or economic violence that occurs between former or current spouses or partners, whether or not the perpetrator shares or has shared the same residence with the victim”.

The effects of the Covid-19 pandemic, with a rising number of women reporting domestic abuse across the EU, highlights the urgency of government action to collect data in a harmonised way.

EIGE’s statistics on intimate partner violence mark the first time administrative data on this issue have been collected and released at the EU-level. This constitutes an important step towards raising awareness on the existing data gaps and in turn influencing the creation of effective EU-wide policies to prevent violence.

The first data release provides 13 Indicators on Intimate Partner Violence (https://eige.europa.eu/gender-statistics/ dgs/browse/genvio/genvio_int/genvio_int_adm/genvio_int_adm_ipv) as well as a metadata webpage for each indicator and methodological report (https://eige.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/MH0420277ENN_002.pdf) on data collection. As a highlight of what is available, Figure 1 shows rates of women reporting rape and victims of femicide across EU Member States, revealing significant cross-country differences. In 2018, for example, six out of every 100,000 women reported rape in Germany compared to 22 in Finland. It is worth noting, however, that some care is needed in making such cross-country comparisons as recording practices are not fully harmonised and there may be cultural or country-specific factors at play that impact on comparability.

Figure 1. Annual number of women reported as victims of IPV in 2018 (rate per 100,000 women) Annual number of women victims of intimate femicide

Annual number of women victims reporting rape Finland (507)

Malta (2)

Austria (509)

Latvia (8) Finland(18)

Estonia (71)

Sweden (22)

Germany (1997)

Czech Republic (23)

Lithuania (65)

Slovenia (4)

Slovak Republic (102)

Germany (122)

Greece (204)

Italy (74)

Czech Republic (178)

Spain (50)

Latvia (33)

Lithuania (3)

Slovenia (23)

Slovak Republic (5) 0

10

20

0

0.4

0.8

Note: The number in brackets along the y-axis is the headcount number of women victims for the corresponding Member States.

A longer piece by EIGE on their intimate partner violence data collection can be found on the OECD’s Statistics Insights blog (http://www.oecd.org/sdd/statistical-insights-eiges-intimate-partner-violence-data-collection.htm).

More information is also available on EIGE’s webpage on Gender based-violence (https://eige.europa.eu/genderbased-violence) and on EIGE’s Gender Statistics Database (https://eige.europa.eu/gender-statistics/dgs).

6 The OECD Statistics Newsletter - Issue No. 73, December 2020

All you need is trust

Informing the role of government in the COVID-19 context Monica Brezzi (monica.brezzi@oecd.org), Santiago González (santiago.gonzalez@oecd.org), Mariana Prats (mariana.prats@oecd.org) Directorate for Public Governance, OECD

M

easures of people’s trust in government are commonly used indicators of public administration performance. During the pandemic for example, trust was found to be strongly correlated with citizens’ compliance to measures designed to flatten the infection curve (Bargain and Aminjonov, 2020). In addition, a consensus is emerging that the erosion of people’s trust in government is nurturing political polarisation, and favouring the emergence of populist movements (Devine et al. 2020).

Table 1. OECD Framework on the determinants of trust in government institutions COMPONENT

DIMENSION Responsiveness

Competence: ability of governments to Reliability deliver to citizens the services they need, at the quality level they expect

DEFINITION The provision of accessible, efficient and citizen-oriented public services that effectively address the needs and expectations of people, and evolve over time along with these needs.

The ability of governments to minimise uncertainty in the economic, social and political environment facing people, and to act in a consistent and predictable manner in responding to this uncertainty.

Integrity

The alignment of public institutions with broader principles and standards of conduct in order to safeguard the public interest while mitigating the risk of corruption.

Openness/Inclusiveness The extent to which relevant information is shared with citizens in an accessible and usable manner, actions and plans are transparent and a comprehensive approach to interact with stakeholders is in place.

Fairness The consistent treatment of citizens and business in policymaking and policy implementation.

Values: drivers and principles that inform and guide government action

Source: OECD (2017a)

Understanding what is captured by these metrics, and the role that trust plays in the implementation of policies, has become even more relevant during the COVID-19 crisis. The refinement of this understanding will contribute to the design of policy in the direction of an inclusive, fair and sustainable recovery, as well as monitoring its implementation, based on methodologically sound and relevant governance statistics.

Contrary to many existing trust measures, the OECD approach aims to understand citizens’ perception and evaluation of the public sector, measure the influence of trust on policymaking, and identify public policy tools that can enhance trust.

Our focus is primarily on improving measures of trust in institutions and developing comparative evidence on its main determinants that are amenable to policy, namely responsiveness, reliability, integrity, fairness and openness as defined in the ‘Framework of Citizen’s Trust in Public Institutions’ (OECD, 2017 – Table 1). With this in mind, through a dialogue with policy makers, data providers, academia and civil society the OECD is revisiting the way we understand public trust to take into account the long-term impact of COVID-19 and to improve the measurement of the main drivers of public trust.

An experimental module of questions covering these five drivers of trust is included in the OECD Guidelines for Measuring Trust (OECD, 2017). The module includes situational questions (e.g. How do you think government institutions would behave under a given specific circumstance? If X happens, do you trust government

institutions to do Y?) with a 1-10 scale from most unlikely to very likely. The statistical feasibility and empirical relevance have been tested in six countries through the OECD TrustLab (Murtin et al, 2018) and three countries through specific country case studies (OECD/KDI 2018, OECD forthcoming 2021, OECD, forthcoming 2022).

In addition, a small survey on the determinants of institutional trust will be fielded to 12 European countries in 2021 and 2022 through the European Social Survey.

While accurate measures of responsiveness, reliability, integrity, openness and fairness remain relevant to understand the determinants of people’s trust in government, additional insights into what shapes trust during a crisis can help governments build robust evidence for the recovery from COVID-19. Three elements are emerging that will require more attention – and better measurement – for public institutions to regain and maintain citizens’ trust.

1. Identifying pockets of institutional distrust and advancing towards common measurement of the drivers One way to enhance the understanding of institutional trust would be to improve the representation of different population groups that may be systematically excluded from population surveys. Especially in the case of nonofficial statistics, it is not uncommon for urban areas to be over-represented, and even in official statistics, surveys may explicitly exclude some groups such as inmates, people in nursing homes, and the homeless.

Issue No. 73, December 2020 - The OECD Statistics Newsletter 7

In addition, in many countries, there are often laws in place prohibiting the collection of data that differentiates people based on whether they belong to a certain group. For example, in Denmark, Finland, France-New Caledonia, Japan, Norway and Sweden, laws impede collecting data on the basis of ethnicity (Balestra and Fleischer, 2018).

However, collecting data for the aggregate may mask significant differences across groups, and, so, constrain the ability to tackle disparities. For example, a recent population survey in the United States revealed that 45% of non-white Americans display low levels of trust in the federal government compared to 31% of white-Americans.1 Moreover, differences may occur at the sub-national level.

Recent research for 173 regions in 28 EU countries found that variations in the level of trust in public administrations within countries can be large. For example, in Italy, Austria, Spain and Portugal more than 6% of the country variance of trust in public administrations is explained by regional variation (Van de Walle and Migchelbrink, 2020).

More granular and disaggregated data can clearly help to better understand and reveal important pockets of distrust and in turn help to deliver better policy responses.

Finally, the questions in the experimental module on the drivers of institutional trust could be expanded and refined to better capture how citizens experience and evaluate their governments’ performance and the robustness of governance principles such as integrity, openness and fairness. With these data, “good governance” could be assessed as experienced by citizens and not just on the design of policymakers.

In the context of a COVID-19 recovery, this information could also be used to increase government’s accountability with regards to their recovery strategy, at a time when many regular oversight and accountability processes have been disrupted due to safety concerns. For example, data would help to identify whether vulnerable population groups and territories gain fair access to government services and benefit from measures put in place to mitigate the economic consequences of COVID-19.

2. Enhancing citizen’s participation and better monitoring political attitudes At a time when countries are defining measures for their long-term recovery from COVID-19, it is of utmost importance to understand how the public is involved, whether governments are listening to people’s concerns and, equally, considering their interests. Ensuring open and equal access to policymaking processes is at the core of democratic public life, and effective policies.

For example, the “2020 Adaptation Strategy” of the city of Milan (Italy)2 provides evidence that engaging people in

8 The OECD Statistics Newsletter - Issue No. 73, December 2020

open conversations that allow them to express their needs and expectations can not only improve service delivery, but also policy design. Participation and institutional trust are positively related. Civic-minded citizens are more participative and have higher levels of trust than passive citizens (Almond & Verba, 1963; Brehm & Rahn, 1997). Additionally, trust in public institutions is positively correlated with government “openness”, which can be interpreted as “providing an explanation of government’s actions”.3 People’s belief that they have a say in what government does (described as external political efficacy), and that they can participate and understand politics (described as internal political efficacy) are positively correlated with engagement and participation (Figure 1). Besides, high levels of political efficacy are considered desirable for the stability of democracies, as they are linked to people’s feeling that they have power to influence governments’ actions (Schulz 2005).

Of some concern however is that 60% of Europeans consider that mainstream parties and politicians do not care about people like them (Fundamental Rights Survey 2019),4 while according to the YouGov Cambridge Globalism Survey,5 70% of respondents believe that the will of the people should be the highest principle in their country’s politics. This, together with lower global turnout levels, as well as participation gaps based on demographic characteristics or socioeconomic status, have increased concerns regarding democratic legitimacy, substantiating the necessity to better understand the impact of efficacy on participation in its many forms.6 Better data on political attitudes will be key to anticipating democratic deficits and developing different strategies for governments to strengthen their efforts to improve efficacy, in its external (for example, developing new institutional mechanisms or channels to encourage participation) and internal dimension (for example, including more practical civic curricula at school).

Results from the 2012 European Social Survey, show a gap between the ideal view of democracy (expectations) and assessments of how democracy actually works. While people’s evaluation of how democracy works is aligned with experts’ evaluations (World Bank World Governance Indicators), people’s expectations of a well-functioning democracy correlate negatively with the quality of governance in their own country. Monitoring people’s expectations as well as their evaluations of democracy can aid our understanding of trust in government.

3. Capturing perceptions of long-term sustainability The COVID-19 crisis has put governments through a ‘stress-test’ to deliver on the needs of people and

Figure 1. Political efficacy in its external and internal dimension corresponds to higher 0.9 0.8

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.5 0.4

Petition

0.3

Work in an organisation Boycott

0.2

Post online Wear a badge Demonstrate

0.1 Work in political party 0

Vote

Vote

0.8

Low

Middle

Level of external efficacy

High

Proportion

Proportion

0.9

Petition

0.5

Boycott

0.4

Work in an organisation Post online

0.3

Wear a badge

0.2

Demonstrate Work in a political party

0.1 0

Low

Middle

Level of internal efficacy

High

Source: ESS, 2018 Round 9

businesses and made clear the need for coordinated, coherent and simple institutional communication strategies. We know that trust, once lost, is hard to restore. Trust in others and in public institutions are at risk in times of crisis, and at the same time they play a protective role against systemic shocks like the current pandemic.

available at http://www.oecd.org/fr/gov/webinar-seriesbuilding-a-new-paradigm-for-public-trust.htm.

To understand the long-term impact of COVID-19 recovery policies, we should also include measures on the perception of long-term sustainability of those policies, in addition to measures of trust in the outcomes (government competence) and the processes (government guiding values) related to these policies. For example, recent data from Finland, a country that has maintained high levels of trust in government even during the pandemic, showed that the share of people believing that others are not complying with COVID related restrictions doubled between June and October 2020 (from 30% to 60%), and those perceiving low compliance also reported lower levels of trust.

2 Milan’s “2020 Adaptation Strategy was defined after the COVID-19 lockdown, and is based on extensive consultation with citizens who submitted proposals on sustainability (e.g. expanding bicycle lanes), timing, spaces and services (e.g. increasing green areas) and labour (e.g. smart-working).

Citizens’ trust in the sustainability of government choices can take different forms, such as beliefs about whether the state can afford to maintain benefits given fiscal challenges, or continuity of public services and predictability of government actions. For example, an analysis on the results of targeted social interventions introduced by the government of Colombia since the pandemic shows that these measures have mitigated the impact of the crisis on extreme poverty and contributed to the inclusion of people in the formal economy. Around 45% of beneficiaries of financial aid have used the account generated to receive government benefits for their own savings, signalling confidence in the mediumterm sustainability of this intervention.

The COVID-19 crisis has shed light on the importance of public trust for effective policy implementation, still there is room to improve and extend the evidence base on the drivers of trust and develop complementary measures (e.g. on compliance and long-term sustainability). The OECD is committed to advance in this direction; more information on the work currently being conducted is

1 Pew Research Center, September, 2020, “Americans’ Views of Government: Low Trust, but Some Positive Performance Ratings” https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/ wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2020/09/PP_09.14.20_views.of_.government.full_.report. pdf

3 Highlights from “The ties that bind: Government Openness as Key Driver of Trust”, September 11th, 2020, OECD Webinar series Building a New Paradigm for Public Trust 4 https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/ fra-2020-fundamental-rights-survey-human-rights_en.pdf 5 https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/04ld9273ze/Globalism2020%20Guardian%20 Populism%20Annual%20Comparison.pdf 6 For example, a Pew Research Center Survey found that American adults under 30 are the ones more likely to be politically informed by social media, they have lower political knowledge than other groups and are less politically engaged. https://www. journalism.org/2020/07/30/americans-who-mainly-get-their-news-on-social-media-areless-engaged-less-knowledgeable/

References Almond, G., and Verba, S. (1963) The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. doi:10.2307/j. ctt183pnr2.

Balestra, C. and L. Fleischer (2018), "Diversity statistics in the OECD: How do OECD countries collect data on ethnic, racial and indigenous identity?", OECD Statistics Working Papers, No. 2018/09, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi. org/10.1787/89bae654-en.

Brehm, J., & Rahn, W. (1997) “Individual-Level Evidence for the Causes and Consequences of Social Capital”, American Journal of Political Science, 41(3), 9991023. doi:10.2307/2111684.

Murtin, F., et al. (2018), "Trust and its determinants: Evidence from the Trustlab experiment", OECD Statistics Working Papers, No. 2018/02, OECD Publishing, Paris, https:// doi.org/10.1787/869ef2ec-en.

OECD (2017a), Trust and Public Policy: How Better Governance Can Help Rebuild Public Trust, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi. org/10.1787/9789264268920-en.

OECD (2017b), OECD Guidelines on Measuring Trust, OECD Publishing, Paris, https:// doi.org/10.1787/9789264278219-en.

Schulz, W. (2005) Political Efficacy and Expected Participation among Lower and Upper Secondary Students. A comparative analysis with data from the IEA Civic Education Study. Paper prepared for the ECPR General Conference, Budapest.

Van de Walle, S and Migchelbrink, K. (2020) Institutional quality, corruption, and impartiality: the role of process and outcome for citizen trust in public administration in 173 European regions, Journal of Economic Policy Reform, DOI: 10.1080/17487870.2020.1719103

Issue No. 73, December 2020 - The OECD Statistics Newsletter 9

OECD Laboratory for Geospatial Analysis The OECD Centre for Entrepreneurship, SMEs, Regions & Cities (CFE), under the auspices of its Working Party on Territorial Indicators, organised an inaugural workshop on 9 December 2020 to develop a road map and process for the creation of an OECD Laboratory for Geospatial Analysis (aka Geospatial Lab).

The workshop brought together distinguished speakers from many domains (producers and users) to share their experiences on the creation, dissemination, and analyses of geospatial data, and in particular its (growing) importance in informing policy-making. A panel of high-level experts also discussed key challenges and the potential to use geospatial data to help manage the current COVID-19 crisis and to build back better. Further information on the workshop is available at https://www.oecd.org/regional/regional-statistics/networks-and-communities.htm.

What the Lab will offer Building on CFE’s long-running expertise in place-based analysis, spatial statistics, and urban and regional economics, the Geospatial Lab aims to provide a platform to: • • • • •

connect academia, policy-makers, the private sector, and official statisticians; showcase current research; develop best-practices; drive momentum; and disseminate data and policy-relevant analyses based on geospatial information.

How to join the Lab We’re looking to build on the momentum of this first workshop by expanding our constituency of stakeholders, with further events planned in the new year to help further develop the road map and governance structures. If you’re interested in helping to shape this dialogue, being part of the initiative, or would like to know more, please contact Jaebeum.CHO@oecd.org.

Released on 30 November!

Report and country profiles available at oe.cd/3kN

Explore the Atlas to find and download indicators on demographic, social, economic and environmental topics of regions and cities: https://regions-cities-atlas.oecd.org

10 The OECD Statistics Newsletter - Issue No. 73, December 2020

Updating the 2008 System of National Accounts: A major endeavour Peter van de Ven (Peter.VANDEVEN@oecd.org), Statistics and Data Directorate, OECD1

I

nternational statistical standards are an important tool to arrive at internationally comparable statistics.

The “mother” of these standards is the System of National Accounts (SNA). The first set of what can be considered statistical standards for national accounts was the 1953 SNA. Since then, three updates have been agreed upon by the international statistical community: the 1968 SNA, the 1993 SNA, and the latest version, the 2008 SNA. One important characteristic of this update process is the continual extension of both the scope and the detail of the standards, resulting in a 2008 version consisting of more than 700 double column pages; compared with the SNA 1953, containing 53 pages only. While the original consisted of a set of six standard accounts and 12 standard tables presenting details and alternative classifications of the flows in the economy, the SNA 2008 includes a complete and very detailed set of integrated accounts and tables for production, income, finance and wealth accumulation.

It also includes relatively specific recommendations on the various flows and positions distinguished.

In addition to the SNA, several other statistical standards have been developed. Mentioning only the most important ones in the field of macroeconomic statistics: the Balance of Payments and International Investment Position Manual (first edition in 1948, and now reaching its sixth iteration (BPM6)); the Government Finance Statistics Manual (GFSM 2012); the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting Central Framework (SEEA CF 2012). Furthermore, a new set of standards in the area of Accounting for Ecosystems is emerging, currently available for global consultation.

Recently, agreement has been reached to initiate an update process for the international standards for national accounts and balance of payments (2008 SNA and BPM). This short article provides an overview of the plans and the organisational arrangements in place to approach this major endeavour, involving the worldwide statistical community, including the users of these official statistics. In addition, some of the content-related work is touched upon.

Starting the update process for the 2008 SNA At the March 2020 meeting of the United Nations Statistical Commission (UNSC), it was decided to take up the research agenda of the 2008 SNA, with the objective of having an updated set of standards by 2025. This was, in large part, motivated by economic and societal developments which warrant further discussion, and which almost certainly impact the current SNA. Three topics were considered high priority: (i) accounting for the impact of digitalisation; (ii) accounting for the impact of globalisation; and (iii) accounting for well-being and sustainability. For each of these three priority areas, special Task Teams have been established to draft guidance notes on the various issues related to these phenomena.

At a somewhat later stage, also a Task Team on Communication was created. This Task Team will work to develop recommendations and tools aimed to improve the way macroeconomic statistics and accounts are communicated and presented to a diverse community of users. Yet another Task Team will explore the definition and measurement of informal economic activities,2 and

Issue No. 73, December 2020 - The OECD Statistics Newsletter 11

other Task Teams may follow. Importantly, the Task Teams will include, when relevant, membership of specialists in related areas, such as balance of payments, government finance and environmental-economic accounting. In the case of digitalisation and globalisation, the Task Teams are a shared responsibility of national accounts and balance of payments. It is considered of the utmost importance to arrive at a consistent set of international standards.

Planning and organising the update process The starting point for the topics to be reviewed is the consolidated list of SNA research issues, comprising two parts.3 Part one approaches the priority areas for the research (globalisation, digitalisation, and well-being and sustainability); cross-cutting issues; and compilation issues. Part two deals with the long-term SNA research agenda. Criteria for selecting issues relevant for the update of the SNA include the urgency with which these issues should be addressed and the feasibility of making progress on these issues in the short to medium term (thereby identifying remaining issues for the longer term).

The various issues are to be elaborated, in the form of guidance notes, by the various Task Teams during the 2020-2023 period. The resulting recommendations will be sent to countries for comments, and experimentation and testing, as they become available in the course of time. A full set of consolidated recommendations for changes to the 2008 SNA will be circulated to countries for comments in the second half of 2023, and submitted to the UNSC for their endorsement in the March 2024 meeting. The drafting of the updated SNA will be initiated

12 The OECD Statistics Newsletter - Issue No. 73, December 2020

in 2022, with the objective to have a complete draft for global consultation on consistency and readability by May 2024. The final text would then be put forward, for endorsement, to the Advisory Expert Group (AEG) on National Accounts at its meeting in the fourth quarter of 2024, after which the whole document will be distributed for global consultation at the end of 2024, and submitted to the UNSC for adoption in March 2025.

The priority areas for investigation It is useful to add some words on the issues being dealt with under the three priority areas, starting with digitalisation. With hindsight, it is quite remarkable that the 2008 SNA does not contain any reference to the digitalisation of the economy. The only time the word “digital” is used concerns price measurement in the comparison between a digital camera and a non-digital camera. Times have changed! Nowadays it is almost impossible to escape the progress, and increasing necessity, of digital technologies. That’s not to say that new digital activities like cloud services, social media, intermediary platform services are not accounted for in the system of national accounts. For the most part they are, but it’s also clear that they are not explicitly visible in the current system of national accounts, apart from computers, software and the like. As part of the update process, guidance has therefore been drafted on the compilation of digital supply and use tables, to show, for example, the magnitude of digital activities, the extent of e-commerce and digitally delivered services, etc.

In addition, it has become clear that the role of data in current business models is not fully appreciated in the current standards, and guidance on the recording

and measurement of data is in the process of being prepared. Guidance will also be provided on how to approach “free” services provided by social media and the internet more broadly, as well as on the recording and measurement of crypto-assets.

Globalisation has created new opportunities for businesses to organise their production chains more efficiently, thereby allocating economic activities across countries in the most cost-effective way. In addition, the allocation of profits and value added to countries is often motivated by the objective to minimise the global tax burden. All of this, combined with the “intangilisation” of the economy, has increased the complexity of compiling national economic statistics, as it has become much more difficult to break down production activities on country-by-country basis. As a result, the measurement of key economic indicators, including Gross Domestic Product (GDP), has been affected to a considerable degree, leading to economic growth estimates that are sometimes hard to explain.4 The main challenges include the implementation of the principle of economic ownership, especially in relation to intellectual property products, and the recording and valuation of crossborder transactions in goods and services. It also concerns the elaboration of a typology of the various global production arrangements, including phenomena like factory-less production and “merchanting”. The treatment of Special Purpose Entities, which are often set up in certain countries to re-rout transactions for fiscal purposes, is yet another problem that needs to be addressed.

Finally, it is clear that the current framework of national accounts mainly targets the appropriate measurement of economic activities, thereby more or less ignoring the impact of economic activities on environmental and social conditions. The objective of the third priority area of research is to define a broader framework of accounts, which would provide a tool to arrive at an improved monitoring and analysis of well-being and sustainability, including the trade-offs and win-wins between the various policy goals. The idea is not to redefine the current set of macroeconomic indicators like GDP, which are still highly relevant for the monitoring of income and macroeconomic policy making more generally. Instead, the proposition is to generate “extended accounts”, which feed into the broader framework. For the time being, a rather pragmatic approach is being pursued, by including accounts on which much progress has been made in the form of extensive guidance, and for which various countries have already gained practical compilation experience. Accounts are considered in the following areas: distribution of household income,

consumption, saving and wealth; unpaid household service work; education and human capital; health and social conditions; and, last but certainly not least, environmental-economic accounts.5 Progress up to now and the way forward This year the Task Teams have made considerable progress. Various draft guidance notes have been discussed at the meeting of the AEG held on October 5 – 9, 2020.6 After taking into account the comments and suggestions of the AEG, and the subsequent endorsement of the revised notes by the AEG, the recommendations will be put forward for global consultation in the beginning of 2021. After another round of discussion at the AEG on February/March 2021, countries will be invited to test the feasibility of the recommendations in practice. This latter stage is considered highly relevant, especially for countries with fewer resources and less well-developed statistical systems, although it should also be acknowledged that in some new areas, such as the digitalisation of the economy, conceptual guidance is necessary regardless.

Given the current status of the guidance notes, it is to be expected that, in the case of digitalisation, global consultation can take place on the digital supply and use tables, and the recording and measurement of crypto-assets. In the case of globalisation, the proposed guidance points towards the status quo when it comes to the allocation of economic activities to countries; instead, proposals are put forward for much more granularity in national statistics to make the activities of multinational enterprises, and their impact on growth, income and jobs, much more visible. In relation to well-being and sustainability, the plan is to put forward guidance notes on extended accounts for distributional data, unpaid household service work, and health and social conditions. In addition, revised recommendations on the recording of economic ownership and depletion of non-renewable natural resources are envisaged.

Work is going ahead in updating the 2008 SNA and BPM6, and new rounds of guidance notes will be produced and put forward in the years to come. Statisticians and researchers from around the world are invited to join the effort, and contribute to the update process, by directly participating in one of the Task Teams, by contributing to the global consultation, and/or by testing the agreed recommendations.

Issue No. 73, December 2020 - The OECD Statistics Newsletter 13

1  Please note that a major part of the text below has been derived from documents that have been prepared for the meeting of the Advisory Expert Group (AEG) on National Accounts, without appropriately acknowledging the contributors to these documents.

2 Please note that in the area of balance of payments other specific Task Teams have been created.

3 The consolidated list can be found under the following link: https://unstats.un.org/ unsd/nationalaccount/aeg/2020/M14_SD_2_1_Annotated_RA_Issues.pdf.

4 See, for example, http://www.oecd.org/sdd/na/Irish-GDP-up-in-2015-OECD.pdf.

5 In relation to environmental-economic issues, consideration is not only given to which accounts according to the relevant international standards, the System of Environmental-Economic Accounts (SEEA), could be included in the broader framework. Research is also taking place on the classification, recording and measurement of natural resources, with the goal to arrive at a better alignment of the SNA and the SEEA Central Framework.

6 See https://unstats.un.org/unsd/nationalaccount/aeg/2020/M14.asp.

Innovation, Global Value Chains, and Globalisation Measurement A Workshop 6-7 May 2021

LAST CALL FOR PAPERS

to meet 21 December deadline Hosted by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Funded by the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, within the National Science Foundation In recent decades, production processes of final products have been increasingly fragmented across countries in what are called global value chains (GVCs). While National Statistical Organisations collect a great deal of information on economic performance, trade, employment, and foreign direct investment, this information cannot always be used to quantify the international linkages and flows that characterise these cross-border transactions, especially those related to research and development (R&D) or software.

The U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine is planning a workshop, to be held on 6-7 May 2021, to address measurement needs and related gaps in the theory on globalisation of research and development and will publish a proceedings volume summarising the workshop discussions.

The organising committee has issued the following Call for Papers (https://www.nationalacademies.org/ docs/D8089E94DE6B059FE4FD667F0FE94898C3CF75F3089B). The deadline for submissions of abstracts is December 21, 2020. Additional project information is available at https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/ understanding-the-impact-of-global-value-chains-a-workshop.

14  The OECD Statistics Newsletter - Issue No. 73, December 2020

A data-driven decade of action: making financing for development data smarter Caroline Bernreiter (caroline.bernreiter@oecd.org), Paris21, Statistics and Data Directorate, OECD

T

he entire world came to a standstill as COVID-19 spread across the globe earlier this year. As the foundation of effective, inclusive and efficient responses and recovery measures, data has gained prominence on the global stage, and the need for timely, granular and disaggregated data is greater than ever. Yet this need has, in large part, not translated into more funding for data and statistics.

With infection rates again on the rise in numerous regions, including Europe and North America, donor countries might not be able to take their eyes off homebound economic, social and health emergencies for some time. This, in turn, is likely to drive budgetary pressures on global aid. As a result, external financial inflows to developing countries could drop by an extraordinary 700 billion dollars, down more than a third from 2018 levels – bearing in mind that, in 2018, global aid for data was only half of what was required. Given the global situation, this trend is likely to remain unchanged in the near-term.

Solutions are therefore needed to maximise the effectiveness and efficiency of existing aid flows and data development cooperation. The Bern Network on Financing Data for Development, a global alliance of organisations working to promote more and better

financing for development data, has responded to this challenge and is developing the world’s first online information platform that provides data and forecasting on the global supply and demand of financing for data and statistics in near real-time.

The platform, called the ‘Clearinghouse on Financing Development Data’, assists donors to identify key data funding gaps in recipient countries, benchmark their country’s data funding and highlight opportunities for joint projects with other donors.

For the Bern Network, creating a win-win scenario is key. This is why the platform also targets the needs of recipient countries, who can use it to understand how much aid they are receiving for statistics across the board and plan investments accordingly, assess their funding gaps to lobby for more resources from government and donors, and access best practices to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of investments in data and statistics.

In addition, researchers can analyse and forecast trends in financing for data. Civil society organisations advocating for better data can review the funding landscape and identify who the top donors and recipients are and which countries are increasing their own investment in data and statistics.

Figure 1. Mock-up of the Clearinghouse on Financing Development Data Platform

The final platform will fill a longstanding niche and aims to respond to a number of upcoming challenges and long-term commitments of the global community. During 20202021, for instance, three-quarters of the world’s countries will be conducting a census. These largescale activities will be paralleled by efforts to measure progress on the Sustainable Development Goals. To successfully navigate this ambitious statistical agenda, the world needs significant improvements in the funding of effective, inclusive, and resilient data ecosystems. The Bern Network takes action today to put

Issue No. 73, December 2020 - The OECD Statistics Newsletter 15

Figure 2. Total number of census’ planned, by region

development data in the global spotlight and make sure that every dollar for statistical capacity goes further.

A preview of the pilot clearinghouse was launched at the Virtual 2020 UN World Data Forum in October 2020 and is available online (youtu.be/KZFjqq7cBlw). A fully operational clearinghouse is expected to be launched at the UN World Data Forum in October 2021.

The clearinghouse is being developed by the Bern Network on Financing Data for Development, a multistakeholder alliance created in 2019 by the Swiss Government and led by a group of core members including PARIS21, the OECD, GPSDD, Open Data Watch, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, United Nations Statistics Division, and the World Bank. PARIS21 serves as the Secretariat of the Bern Network.

New data collection on accrued-to-date social insurance pension entitlements in a national accounts context: Main findings

OECD Statistics Working Papers 2020/05

New data collection on accrued-to-date social insurance pension entitlements in a national accounts context: Main findings

Catherine Girodet, Haukur Gudjonsson, Matthias Wicho, Bettina Wistrom, Jorrit Zwijnenburg https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/93abd66a-en

The working paper N°107 analyses results on social insurance pension liabilities and entitlements across OECD countries, on the basis of a new data collection. In addition to information on employment-related schemes (covered in the central framework of the national accounts), this new data collection also includes information related to social security pension schemes. As these latter make up a large part of pension liabilities and entitlements, this new data collection provides important new insights in the role of social insurance pensions across OECD countries and in how countries may be affected by ageing populations. The results, that focus on the year 2015, show that pension liabilities and entitlements are on average more significant in European countries than in non-European OECD countries. Furthermore, the results show, an increasing preference for defined contribution schemes over defined benefit schemes in the private sector, possibly in order to address some of the challenges put forward by the ageing society.

Read the paper at https://doi.org/10.1787/93abd66a-en

16  The OECD Statistics Newsletter - Issue No. 73, December 2020

Recent publications OECD Digital Economy Outlook 2020 Improved Internet connectivity and skills have helped many countries to cope with the health and economic crisis from COVID-19. Yet the pandemic has raised the bar for the digital transition and underscores the need to close the digital divides that risk leaving some people and firms worse off than others in a post-COVID world, according to a new OECD report.

With some Internet providers reporting increases in traffic of 60% since the start of the pandemic, as people adapt to living and working online, the OECD’s latest Digital Economy Outlook reveals the gaps between and within countries in access to fast and reliable Internet.

OECD (2020), OECD Digital Economy Outlook 2020, OECD Publishing, Paris. www.oecd.org/digital/oecd-digital-economy-outlook-2020-bb167041-en.htm

Global Outlook on Financing for Sustainable Development 2021 A New Way to Invest for People and Planet The Global Outlook on Financing for Sustainable Development 2021 calls for collective action to address both the short-term collapse in resources of developing countries as well as long-term strategies to build back better following the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. The financing gap to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in developing countries was estimated at several trillions of dollars annually before the pandemic. The report demonstrates that progress to leave no one behind has since reversed, and the international community faces unprecedented challenges to implement the holistic financing strategy set out in the Addis Ababa Action Agenda (AAAA).

OECD (2020), Global Outlook on Financing for Sustainable Development 2021: A New Way to Invest for People and Planet, OECD Publishing, Paris www.oecd.org/dac/global-outlook-on-financing-for-sustainable-development-2021-e3c30a9a-en.htm

PISA 2018 Results (Volume VI): Are Students Ready to Thrive in an Interconnected World?

Schools and education systems are failing to give boys and girls across the world the same opportunities to learn and apply their knowledge of global and multicultural issues, according to a new report on the first OECD PISA assessment of the knowledge, skills and attitudes of students to engage with other people and cultures.

Are Students Ready to Thrive in an Interconnected World? focused on students’ knowledge of issues of local and global significance, including public health, economic and environmental issues, as well as their intercultural knowledge, skills and attitudes. Students from 27 countries and economies took the test. Students, teachers, parents and school principals from around 66 countries and economies completed a questionnaire*.n.

OECD (2020), OECD (2020), PISA 2018 Results (Volume VI): Are Students Ready to Thrive in an Interconnected World?, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris. www.oecd.org/pisa/publications/pisa-2018-results-volume-vi-d5f68679-en.htm

Issue No. 73, December 2020 - The OECD Statistics Newsletter 17

Forthcoming meetings Unless otherwise indicated attendance at OECD meetings and working parties is by invitation only.

OECD Date

Meeting

8-9 February 2021

Informal meeting of the DAC Working Party on Development Finance Statistics (WP-STAT), Development Co-operation Directorate, OECD Paris21 UN Women, Paris21, Statistics and Data Directorate, OECD Working Group on International Investment Statistics (WGIIS), Directorate for Financial and Enterprise Affairs, OECD Working Party on Indicators of Educational Systems (INES), Directorate for Education and Skills, OECD Working Party on Indicators of Educational Systems (INES), Directorate for Education and Skills, OECD Working Group on International Investment Statistics (WGIIS), Directorate for Financial and Enterprise Affairs, OECD 4th and 5th session of the Working Party on Tourism Statistics, Centre for Entrepreneurship, SMEs, Regions and Cities, OECD ITF International Transport Statistics, International Transport Forum

9-10 March 2021 16-18 March 2021 22-24 March 2021 29-31 March 2021 6-8 April 2021 13-15 April 2021 22-23 April 2021 3 May 2021 14-18 June 2021

Working Party on Territorial Indicators, Centre for Entrepreneurship, SMEs, Regions and Cities and Directorate for Public Governance, OECD SIS-CC Workshop, Statistics and Data Directorate, OECD https://siscc.org/

21-25 June 2021

Committee on Statistics and Statistical Policy (CSSP) and CES, Statistics and Data Directorate, OECD 28-29 June 2021 Formal Meeting of the DAC Working Party on Development Finance Statistics (WP-STAT), Development Co-operation Directorate, OECD 23-29 September 2021 2nd Workshop on Time Series Methods for Official Statistics, Statistics and Data Directorate, OECD 4-8 October 2021 Working Party on International Trade in Goods and Services Statistics (WPTGS), Working Party on International Trade in Goods and Services Statistics (WPTGS) 20-22 October 2021 Working Party on Indicators of Educational Systems (INES), Directorate for Education and Skills, OECD 25-29 October 2021 Working Party on National Accounts (WPNA), Statistics and Data Directorate, OECD 26-28 October 2021 24 November 2021 8 December 2021 13-15 December 2021

Working Group on International Investment Statistics (WGIIS), Directorate for Financial and Enterprise Affairs, OECD Working Party on Indicators of Educational Systems (INES), Directorate for Education and Skills, OECD Task Force on Pension Statistics, Task Force on Pension Statistics Working Party of National Experts on Science and Technology Indicators (NESTI), Directorate for Science, Technology and Innovation, OECD

Other meetings 25-29 January 2021 6-7 April 2021 9-11 April 2021 15-17 October 2021 30-31 October 2021

The Davos Agenda, https://www.weforum.org/events/the-davos-agenda-2021 Global Technology Governance Summit, https://www.weforum.org/events/ global-technology-governance-summit-2021 Spring Meeting of the World Bank Group and the International Monetary Fund Annual Meeting of the World Bank Group and the International Monetary Fund G20 Heads of State and Government Summit, https://www.g20.org/en/vertice-di-roma.html

18  The OECD Statistics Newsletter - Issue No. 73, December 2020

The Statistics Newsletter

for the extended OECD statistical network Issue 73 - December 2020 http://oe.cd/statisticsnewsletter To receive the OECD Statistics Newsletter by email, you can you can sign up at

https://oe.cd/statsnews-signup

@OECD_STAT