Table 1. Aggregate reform intensity indicator, reform intensity indicators by area: 1994-2004
|
Summary reform intensity |
_________________________________________Reform intensity indicator by area1_________________________________________ | ||||||||
|
Score |
Ranking |
Active labour |
Taxes and |
Employment |
Unemployment |
Wage |
Working-time |
Early | |
|
Australia |
210 |
7 |
54 |
25 |
-7 |
19 |
27 |
0 |
17 |
|
Austria |
17.8 |
8 |
15 |
31 |
13 |
23 |
2 |
17 |
33 |
|
Belgium |
21.4 |
6 |
40 |
44 |
10 |
15 |
5 |
33 |
17 |
|
Canada |
15.2 |
13 |
38 |
13 |
0 |
23 |
0 |
17 |
17 |
|
Czech Republic |
6.2 |
28 |
17 |
0 |
-3 |
12 |
-5 |
-17 |
33 |
|
Denmark |
29.3 |
1 |
56 |
13 |
10 |
42 |
27 |
17 |
25 |
|
Finland |
25.0 |
3 |
48 |
13 |
13 |
35 |
0 |
17 |
50 |
|
France |
14.5 |
16 |
42 |
31 |
-7 |
0 |
-5 |
33 |
42 |
|
Germany |
23.9 |
4 |
58 |
13 |
17 |
19 |
9 |
17 |
25 |
|
Greece |
13.8 |
17 |
42 |
13 |
7 |
12 |
5 |
17 |
-8 |
|
Hungary |
12.3 |
19 |
31 |
25 |
-7 |
19 |
-9 |
0 |
33 |
|
Iceland |
3.6 |
30 |
19 |
-38 |
0 |
19 |
0 |
0 |
8 |
|
Ireland |
17.4 |
9 |
46 |
88 |
-10 |
15 |
-14 |
0 |
0 |
|
Italy |
21.7 |
5 |
31 |
56 |
23 |
-12 |
5 |
33 |
50 |
|
Japan |
8.7 |
25 |
23 |
-13 |
13 |
4 |
0 |
33 |
8 |
|
Korea |
12.3 |
19 |
27 |
0 |
25 |
8 |
0 |
17 |
8 |
|
Luxembourg |
14.9 |
15 |
33 |
38 |
0 |
4 |
-5 |
33 |
33 |
|
Mexico |
4.3 |
29 |
8 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
14 |
17 |
0 |
|
Netherlands |
25.7 |
2 |
56 |
25 |
13 |
12 |
14 |
33 |
42 |
|
New Zealand |
12.3 |
19 |
42 |
19 |
-13 |
15 |
-5 |
0 |
33 |
|
Norway |
15.2 |
13 |
46 |
-19 |
10 |
27 |
0 |
17 |
8 |
|
Poland |
11.2 |
23 |
29 |
0 |
-3 |
15 |
5 |
17 |
25 |
|
Portugal |
15.9 |
12 |
23 |
25 |
17 |
8 |
5 |
33 |
17 |
|
Slovak Republic |
13.0 |
18 |
12 |
25 |
14 |
19 |
0 |
17 |
8 |
|
Spain |
10.5 |
24 |
8 |
19 |
17 |
8 |
7 |
0 |
8 |
|
Sweden |
17.4 |
9 |
50 |
13 |
13 |
12 |
5 |
0 |
8 |
|
Switzerland |
8.7 |
25 |
23 |
6 |
0 |
15 |
0 |
17 |
0 |
|
Turkey |
6.5 |
27 |
4 |
0 |
13 |
8 |
0 |
33 |
8 |
|
United Kingdom |
16.7 |
11 |
50 |
56 |
-10 |
12 |
-9 |
0 |
25 |
|
United States__________ |
_______11.6________ |
22 |
_______19 |
_______50 |
_________0 |
________12 |
_________0 |
_________0 |
_________0 |
|
OECD average |
14.9 |
15.3 |
33.0 |
19.0 |
5.6 |
14.0 |
2.6 |
15.0 |
19.2 |
|
EU-15 average |
19.1 |
9.5 |
39.9 |
31.7 |
8.4 |
13.6 |
3.3 |
18.9 |
24.4 |
|
EMU-12 average |
18.5 |
10.1 |
36.9 |
32.8 |
9.4 |
11.5 |
2.3 |
22.2 |
25.7 |
|
non-EMU EU______ |
21.1__________ |
7.0 |
51.9 |
27.1 |
4.4 |
21.8 |
7.6 |
5.6 |
19.4 |
1: all reform intensity indicators are expressed as a percentage of the maximum possible socre, i.e. the score that would be obtained if all possible reforms were
implemented. See main text for details.
Source: Brandt, Burniaux and Duval (2005).
180
More intriguing information
1. Correlation Analysis of Financial Contagion: What One Should Know Before Running a Test2. Urban Green Space Policies: Performance and Success Conditions in European Cities
3. The name is absent
4. Thresholds for Employment and Unemployment - a Spatial Analysis of German Regional Labour Markets 1992-2000
5. An Efficient Circulant MIMO Equalizer for CDMA Downlink: Algorithm and VLSI Architecture
6. Nonlinear Production, Abatement, Pollution and Materials Balance Reconsidered
7. Une Classe de Concepts
8. THE INTERNATIONAL OUTLOOK FOR U.S. TOBACCO
9. Towards a framework for critical citizenship education
10. Individual tradable permit market and traffic congestion: An experimental study