|
Table 8 Evolution of relative volatility | |||||||||
|
(1980-2001, in percentage points) | |||||||||
|
Agriculture |
Industry |
Construction |
Trade |
Finance | |||||
|
1980s |
1990s |
1980s |
1990s |
1980s |
1990s |
1980s 1990s 1980s |
1990s | ||
|
Belgium |
21.2 |
23.8 |
6.7 |
3.6 |
28.7 |
8.2 |
1.7 2.2 |
37.4 |
8.5 |
|
Denmark |
11.5 |
13.6 |
4.1 |
7.4 |
21.1 |
20.8 |
3.0 4.3 |
19.9 |
14.8 |
|
Germany |
25.1 |
3.6 |
4.9 |
4.7 |
5.7 |
5.1 |
2.6 2.9 |
5.6 |
8.1 |
|
Greece |
na |
na |
na |
na |
na |
na |
na na |
na |
na |
|
Spain |
21.4 |
14.8 |
1.4 |
2.3 |
10.9 |
11.3 |
1.2 1.0 |
14.8 |
9.3 |
|
France |
13.7 |
9.8 |
1.8 |
4.9 |
3.9 |
19.0 |
3.3 3.4 |
6.1 |
10.4 |
|
Ireland |
na |
na |
na |
na |
na |
na |
na na |
na |
na |
|
Italy |
39.7 |
15.4 |
4.4 |
5.7 |
4.6 |
9.9 |
1.0 2.0 |
12.4 |
3.6 |
|
Luxembourg |
na |
na |
na |
na |
na |
na |
na na |
na |
na |
|
Netherlands |
na |
8.0 |
na |
2.6 |
na |
5.8 |
na 3.9 |
na |
3.5 |
|
Austria |
na |
24.5 |
na |
3.7 |
na |
8.8 |
na 1.7 |
na |
5.6 |
|
Portugal |
na |
na |
na |
na |
na |
na |
na na |
na |
na |
|
Finland |
4.2 |
7.8 |
1.3 |
3.4 |
6.4 |
6.1 |
2.3 2.0 |
7.3 |
11.0 |
|
Sweden |
14.5 |
2.5 |
5.4 |
5.1 |
4.7 |
3.7 |
2.0 0.9 |
19.1 |
33.8 |
|
United Kingdom |
5.7 |
12.6 |
2.0 |
3.2 |
2.5 |
2.4 |
7.7 3.7 |
5.2 | |
|
EU average |
20.5 |
10.9 |
3.6 |
4.5 |
4.9 |
6.4 |
2.4 2.6 |
9.6 |
9.2 |
|
std. dev. |
4.8 |
7.4 |
1.7 |
0.5 |
18.9 |
2.9 |
1.4 0.3 |
40.3 |
1.7 |
|
Business activities |
Public services |
Country |
Country |
Country |
Country | ||||
|
average |
std. dev. |
average |
std. dev. | ||||||
|
1980s |
1990s |
1980s |
1990s |
1980s |
1980s |
1990s |
1990s | ||
|
Belgium |
3.4 |
1.4 |
0.7 |
0.7 |
6.7 |
3.8 |
3.0 |
1.3 | |
|
Denmark |
1.2 |
4.4 |
0.6 |
0.9 |
4.3 |
2.2 |
5.7 |
1.9 | |
|
Germany |
1.2 |
1.5 |
0.3 |
0.3 |
3.3 |
1.2 |
3.1 |
0.8 | |
|
Greece |
na |
na |
na |
na |
na |
na |
na |
na | |
|
Spain |
3.9 |
0.4 |
0.4 |
0.7 |
3.9 |
2.1 |
3.1 |
1.6 | |
|
France |
1.3 |
1.5 |
0.5 |
0.4 |
2.4 |
1.0 |
4.0 |
1.7 | |
|
Ireland |
na |
na |
na |
na |
na |
na |
na |
na | |
|
Italy |
0.3 |
1.3 |
0.4 |
0.4 |
3.8 |
2.8 |
3.5 |
1.3 | |
|
Luxembourg |
na |
na |
na |
na |
na |
na |
na |
na | |
|
Netherlands |
na |
1.3 |
na |
0.4 |
na |
na |
2.6 |
0.7 | |
|
Austria |
na |
2.4 |
na |
1.4 |
na |
na |
3.5 |
1.5 | |
|
Portugal |
na |
na |
na |
na |
na |
na |
na |
na | |
|
Finland |
0.3 |
0.8 |
0.1 |
0.5 |
1.8 |
0.7 |
2.7 |
1.0 | |
|
Sweden |
2.3 |
4.1 |
0.3 |
0.9 |
3.7 |
1.6 |
4.2 |
2.5 | |
|
United Kingdom |
3.1 |
3.9 |
1.0 |
1.7 |
3.1 |
0.7 |
4.0 |
1.0 | |
|
EU average |
1.6 |
1.8 |
0.6 |
0.8 | |||||
|
std. dev. |
0.9 |
0.4 |
0.1 |
0.1 | |||||
|
Sources: Eurostat, NCBs, ECB calculations. | |||||||||
|
Notes: The table shows - |
- for the sub-periods 1980-1990 and 1991-2001 |
- the variance of the business cycle component of the logarithm | |||||||
|
of sectoral gross value added divided by the variance of the business cycle component of the logarithm of total gross value added. The | |||||||||
|
between the 1980s and 1990s. | |||||||||
When analysing the relative volatility of
manufacturing sectors classified by their
technological intensity, there seems to be a
stronger volatility in high-tech and medium to
high-tech sectors than in low and medium to
low-tech sectors, which holds true across all
EU countries (see Table 9 below). On the one
hand, it should be noted that owing to the
important differences in the volatility of
manufacturing production across EU countries
(in comparison with the EU cycle), the absolute
volatility in these sectors may differ to a certain
extent. On the other hand, given the differences
of relative volatility across manufacturing
sectors, the variation of manufacturing
volatility across EU countries can be related,
partly, to differences regarding EU countries’
manufacturing specialisation, as reported in the
preceding section.
ECB
Occasional Paper No. 19
July 2004
3 SECTORAL
COMPOSITION
AND BUSINESS
CYCLES
More intriguing information
1. The technological mediation of mathematics and its learning2. The name is absent
3. SOME ISSUES CONCERNING SPECIFICATION AND INTERPRETATION OF OUTDOOR RECREATION DEMAND MODELS
4. Portuguese Women in Science and Technology (S&T): Some Gender Features Behind MSc. and PhD. Achievement
5. Why unwinding preferences is not the same as liberalisation: the case of sugar
6. Design and investigation of scalable multicast recursive protocols for wired and wireless ad hoc networks
7. The name is absent
8. The name is absent
9. Poverty transition through targeted programme: the case of Bangladesh Poultry Model
10. How Offshoring Can Affect the Industries’ Skill Composition