|
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. Synchronisation and Differentiation: Two Stages of Coordinative Structure2. WP RR 17 - Industrial relations in the transport sector in the Netherlands
3. PROFITABILITY OF ALFALFA HAY STORAGE USING PROBABILITIES: AN EXTENSION APPROACH
4. TOWARDS THE ZERO ACCIDENT GOAL: ASSISTING THE FIRST OFFICER MONITOR AND CHALLENGE CAPTAIN ERRORS
5. The name is absent
6. Voluntary Teaming and Effort
7. The name is absent
8. The name is absent
9. Improving behaviour classification consistency: a technique from biological taxonomy
10. The use of formal education in Denmark 1980-1992