|
Table 9 Relative volatility in manufacturing | ||||||
|
(1990-2000) |
High-tech |
Medium-high- |
Medium-low- |
Low-tech- |
Manufacturing |
Manufacturing |
|
Belgium |
1.38 |
3.06 |
1.08 |
0.37 |
0.79 |
0.75 |
|
Denmark |
2.11 |
1.86 |
1.52 |
0.93 |
- |
1.01 |
|
Germany |
1.77 |
0.99 |
0.55 |
0.54 |
1.83 |
1.73 |
|
Greece |
3.32 |
1.51 |
2.90 |
1.50 |
0.46 |
0.44 |
|
Spain |
2.01 |
2.05 |
0.69 |
0.76 |
1.48 |
1.41 |
|
France |
1.75 |
2.24 |
0.65 |
0.35 |
0.78 |
0.74 |
|
Ireland |
na |
na |
na |
na |
na |
na |
|
Italy |
2.26 |
1.32 |
0.74 |
0.63 |
1.36 |
1.29 |
|
Luxembourg |
na |
na |
na |
na |
na |
na |
|
Netherlands |
3.04 |
3.37 |
0.32 |
0.25 |
0.63 |
0.60 |
|
Austria |
na |
na |
na |
na |
na |
na |
|
Portugal |
na |
na |
na |
na |
na |
na |
|
Finland |
1.45 |
1.25 |
1.90 |
0.24 |
6.60 |
6.26 |
|
Sweden |
1.13 |
2.04 |
1.20 |
0.45 |
- |
4.78 |
|
United Kingdom |
1.42 |
2.18 |
0.81 |
0.84 |
- |
1.19 |
|
Euro area average |
2.12 |
1.98 |
1.10 |
0.58 |
- |
- |
|
std. dev. |
0.71 |
0.87 |
0.87 |
0.41 |
- |
- |
|
EU average |
1.97 |
1.99 |
1.12 |
0.62 |
- |
- |
|
std. dev. |
0.69 |
0.73 |
0.74 |
0.37 |
- |
- |
|
Sources: Eurostat, NCBs, ECB calculations. Notes: Business cycle components were extracted from monthly industrial production indices as available in the short-term statistics | ||||||
Overall, one can conclude that a further
specialisation in high and medium to high-tech
industries, as is currently underway in some EU
countries, could contribute to a rise in the
volatility of the manufacturing sector as a
whole, notwithstanding any potential positive
role in increasing potential output growth or
productivity. However the current figures
should not be extrapolated because the observed
level of volatility in emerging high-tech sectors
should normally decline when the innovation
wave reaches maturity.
3.2.3 SECTORAL COMPOSITION AND
AGGREGATE VOLATILITY
In order to calculate the impact of sectoral
change during the last two decades on changes
in the volatility of the aggregate business
cycles, aggregate volatility was decomposed
into its sectoral contributions.48 When fixing
sectoral shares both at their initial level in
1982:Q2 and at their final level in 2001:Q1, the
impact of sectoral change on aggregate
volatility can be assessed (see Chart 9).
Interestingly, despite much cross-sectoral
diversity in relative volatility, sectoral changes
seem to have played only a limited role in
explaining the change in aggregate volatility,
confirming earlier studies that claim that the
change in aggregate volatility has been a cross-
sectoral phenomenon.49 For instance, in France,
Austria and - to some extent - Italy, sectoral re-
allocations seem to have contributed to reduced
aggregate fluctuations (albeit on a small scale)
during the 1990s. However, the general
movement of business cycle volatility was
significantly more important in all three
countries than sectoral re-allocations.
For Germany, an impact of the change in
sectoral composition following reunification
can be detected in the data, albeit on a small
scale. Here, aggregate output volatility was
48 See C. Buch, J. Doepke and C. Pierdzioch, “Business Cycle
Volatility in Germany”, German Economic Review, forthcoming.
49 T. Dalsgaard, J. Elmeskov and C.-Y. Park (2002), “Ongoing
changes in the business cycle - evidence and causes”, OECD
Economics Department Working Paper 315.
40
ECB
Occasional Paper No. 19
July 2004