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. Epistemology and conceptual resources for the development of learning technologies2. ‘Goodwill is not enough’
3. Self-Help Groups and Income Generation in the Informal Settlements of Nairobi
4. The name is absent
5. Informal Labour and Credit Markets: A Survey.
6. Response speeds of direct and securitized real estate to shocks in the fundamentals
7. The name is absent
8. The name is absent
9. The Impact of Individual Investment Behavior for Retirement Welfare: Evidence from the United States and Germany
10. FUTURE TRADE RESEARCH AREAS THAT MATTER TO DEVELOPING COUNTRY POLICYMAKERS