Transcript Comments on SIEC by the Expert Group on International Economic and Social Classifications UNSD.

Comments on SIEC by the
Expert Group on International
Economic and Social Classifications
UNSD
Review of classifications
 According to general criteria defined in:
 Best practice guidelines for developing
international statistical classifications
 These criteria are being applied to all
international classifications
 Determine if a classification can be a
member of the International Family of
Classifications
General remarks
 A classification provides exhaustive building
blocks and an aggregation structure for a
defined scope of objects
 Not just a flat list of items
 Building blocks are mutually exclusive
 Defined using consistent criteria
 Different levels of the classification should have
statistical application
 Classifications are typically more aligned with
data presentation than collection
 Do not have to fully reflect contents of a
questionnaire
EG comments on SIEC
 Primary use of the classification
 Improved from earlier draft
 How does SIEC act as guide for other
classification schemes?
 What is relationship to other standards?
EG comments on SIEC
 Underlying concepts
 Scope refers to “products”
 But the concept of “energy products” is introduced
late
 Should this be made clear in the title?
 Criteria for delineating categories are not always clear
 Differ from other classifications (e.g. CPC)
 Impacts criteria for aggregation
 Suggestions:
 More explicitly reflect primary vs. secondary EP
 Review criteria for subdividing waste:
 Renewable vs. non-renewable; organic vs. non-organic vs.
mixed
EG comments on SIEC
 Number of levels / coding structure / balance
 This is a major concern
 SIEC coding system seems excessive (a 10character code for a classification with only 67
items at the most detailed level)
 Detailed categories appear necessary in only few
areas
 Can a regrouping help?
 What is the use of top and intermediate
groupings?
 What are criteria for grouping?
 Examples for alternative structures have been
given; subdivisions for section 5 have been
suggested -> may need better explanation
EG comments on SIEC
 Correspondence tables
 Partial references to other standard
classifications should be avoided (in particular
CPC as reference classification for products)
 Difficult if CPC (or others) do not provide the
detail necessary
 This could be taken into account for future CPC
revisions (example: Agricultural products)
 Particular concern: Only partial coverage of CPC
items
 Develop links to updated classifications (e.g. HS
2012)
 Observation: SIEC and HS treat coking coal
differently -> needs clarification
EG comments on SIEC
 Explanatory notes
 Editing suggested -> needs review
(distinguish definitions from
supplementary text)
 General concern:
 Are needs / circumstances of developing
countries properly reflected?
EG comments on SIEC




Custodian
Implementation plan
Maintenance schedule
Dissemination