Invest.climate;functioning of government international comparison 1990-2012

Invest.climate;functioning of government international comparison 1990-2012

Countries Periods State control (score on scale 0-6) Online availability of basic public serv (% of basic public services) Starting a new business Required number of days (number of days) Starting a new business Required number of procedures (number of procedures) Starting a new business Administrative burden (score on scale 1-7) Government effectiveness (score on scale 0-100) Ad hoc and sectoral state support (% of Gross Domestic Product) Corporate tax rate (% of net revenues)
Belgium 2003 2.58 35 56 7 . 96.1 0.06 34.0
Belgium 2004 . 35 56 7 3.7 94.6 0.08 34.0
Belgium 2005 . . 34 4 . 93.2 0.13 34.0
Belgium 2006 . 47 34 4 . 94.6 0.11 34.0
Belgium 2007 . 63 27 4 . 91.7 0.11 34.0
Belgium 2008 2.53 . 4 3 . 87.9 0.11 34.0
Belgium 2009 . 69 4 3 . 92.8 0.13 34.0
Belgium 2010 . 79 4 3 . 93.3 0.09 34.0
Belgium 2011 . . 4 3 . 93.8 . 34.0
Belgium 2012 . . 4 3 . . . 34.0
Denmark 2003 1.34 72 7 5 4.7 99.0 0.15 30.0
Denmark 2004 . 61 7 5 4.7 100.0 0.18 30.0
Denmark 2005 . . 7 5 . 99.5 0.12 28.0
Denmark 2006 . 66 6 4 . 100.0 0.13 28.0
Denmark 2007 . 61 6 4 . 100.0 0.14 25.0
Denmark 2008 1.37 . 6 4 . 99.5 0.12 25.0
Denmark 2009 . 84 6 4 . 100.0 0.12 25.0
Denmark 2010 . 95 6 4 . 99.0 0.10 25.0
Denmark 2011 . . 6 4 . 99.5 . 25.0
Denmark 2012 . . 6 4 . . . 25.0
Finland 2003 2.01 61 31 3 5.6 100.0 0.94 29.0
Finland 2004 . 69 31 3 5.6 99.0 0.94 29.0
Finland 2005 . . 14 3 . 100.0 0.99 26.0
Finland 2006 . 64 14 3 . 99.5 0.92 26.0
Finland 2007 . 65 14 3 . 97.6 0.82 26.0
Finland 2008 1.75 . 14 3 . 99.0 0.71 26.0
Finland 2009 . 86 14 3 . 99.0 0.76 26.0
Finland 2010 . 95 14 3 . 99.5 0.71 26.0
Finland 2011 . . 14 3 . 100.0 . 26.0
Finland 2012 . . 14 3 . . . 24.5
Germany 2003 2.13 40 45 9 4.3 89.8 0.25 40.2
Germany 2004 . 47 45 9 4.1 90.2 0.23 38.9
Germany 2005 . . 45 9 . 90.7 0.20 38.9
Germany 2006 . 49 24 9 . 91.7 0.16 38.9
Germany 2007 . 72 24 9 . 93.2 0.14 38.9
Germany 2008 1.96 . 18 9 . 91.3 0.13 30.2
Germany 2009 . 74 18 9 . 92.3 0.12 30.2
Germany 2010 . 95 18 9 . 91.9 0.11 30.2
Germany 2011 . . 15 9 . 91.9 . 15.8
Germany 2012 . . 15 9 . . . 15.8
The Netherlands 2003 1.87 26 9 7 5.0 98.0 0.23 34.5
The Netherlands 2004 . 33 9 7 4.7 97.1 0.21 34.5
The Netherlands 2005 . . 9 7 . 98.0 0.20 31.5
The Netherlands 2006 . 56 9 7 . 95.6 0.13 29.6
The Netherlands 2007 . 63 8 6 . 94.7 0.17 25.5
The Netherlands 2008 1.71 . 8 6 . 94.7 0.16 25.5
The Netherlands 2009 . 71 8 6 . 95.2 0.16 25.5
The Netherlands 2010 . 95 8 6 . 94.3 0.20 25.5
The Netherlands 2011 . . 8 6 . 96.7 . 25.0
The Netherlands 2012 . . 8 6 . . . 25.0
Sweden 2003 2.77 69 15 3 . 98.5 0.09 28.0
Sweden 2004 . 76 15 3 5.4 97.6 0.09 28.0
Sweden 2005 . . 15 3 . 97.1 0.10 28.0
Sweden 2006 . 76 15 3 . 96.6 0.13 28.0
Sweden 2007 . 75 15 3 . 98.1 0.11 28.0
Sweden 2008 2.38 . 15 3 . 98.1 0.09 28.0
Sweden 2009 . 95 15 3 . 98.6 0.14 26.3
Sweden 2010 . 100 15 3 . 98.6 0.09 26.3
Sweden 2011 . . 15 3 . 98.6 . 26.3
Sweden 2012 . . 15 3 . . . 26.3
United Kingdom 2003 1.28 50 13 6 5.3 92.7 0.09 30.0
United Kingdom 2004 . 59 13 6 5.6 92.7 0.09 30.0
United Kingdom 2005 . . 13 6 . 93.7 0.07 30.0
United Kingdom 2006 . 68 13 6 . 93.2 0.07 30.0
United Kingdom 2007 . 78 13 6 . 92.7 0.06 30.0
United Kingdom 2008 1.50 . 13 6 . 93.7 0.06 28.0
United Kingdom 2009 . 93 13 6 . 90.9 0.07 28.0
United Kingdom 2010 . 98 13 6 . 92.3 0.06 28.0
United Kingdom 2011 . . 13 6 . 92.4 . 26.0
United Kingdom 2012 . . 13 6 . . . 24.0
United States 2003 1.19 . 6 6 5.8 91.2 . 39.3
United States 2004 . . 6 6 5.6 92.2 . 39.3
United States 2005 . . 6 6 . 91.2 . 39.3
United States 2006 . . 6 6 . 89.8 . 39.3
United States 2007 . . 6 6 . 90.8 . 39.3
United States 2008 1.10 . 6 6 . 89.3 . 39.3
United States 2009 . . 6 6 . 88.5 . 39.1
United States 2010 . . 6 6 . 90.0 . 39.2
United States 2011 . . 6 6 . 88.6 . 35.0
United States 2012 . . 6 6 . . . 35.0
Source: CBS.
Explanation of symbols

Table description


This table provides an international overview of several aspects of how the government functions in relation to the investment climate. The functioning of the apparatus of government is about two roles, namely:
(1) the government corrects markets that do not work well. It is expressed by the degree in which the government exerts influence on economic activity (for example by state control, sectoral and ad hoc state support and rules for starting up a business);
(2) the government as a market party, for example as a supplier of online basic public services.

Note:
Comparable definitions are used to compare the figures presented internationally. The definitions sometimes differ from definitions used by Statistics Netherlands. The figures in this table could differ from Dutch figures presented elsewhere on the website of Statistics Netherlands.

Data available from 1990 up to 2012.

Status of the figures:
The external sources of these data frequently supply adjusted figures on preceding periods. These adjusted data are not mentioned as such in the table.

Changes as of 22 December 2017:
No, table is stopped.

When will new figures be published?
Not.

Description topics

State control
One index of product market regulation (PMR). It concerns both state property and involvement in and control of activity. State control is expressed in scores of 0 to 6. A high score indicates more state control. For a complete description of how the score is determined and a further description of PMR indicessystem, see the reference in the general explanation.

Source: OECD, Indicators of Product Market Regulation.
Online availability of basic public serv
Online availability of basic public services. Basic public services for individuals and companies via internet and other digital techniques. The indicator is about online availability of 20 basic public services for individuals and companies. It must be possible for the whole procedure to be completed online. Elementary services are for example tax declarations, applications for licenses or birth certificates.

2001-2004: measured in October of the year concerned.
2006: measured in April.
2007: period of measurement is unknown.

Source: Eurostat
Starting a new business
Required number of days
Required number of days for starting up a new enterprise. It concerns meeting the legal requirements, such as registration at the Chamber of Commerce and the tax authorities.

Sources: World Bank.
Required number of procedures
Number of procedures to pass through for starting up a venture. This indicator gives an impression of the ease of starting a new venture in each of the countries concerned. It concerns both the procedures officially required before establishing a venture formally, and the procedures which must be accomplished by the entrepreneur after the establishment. Procedures which are required for all ventures are taken into account. Procedures which are specific for a certain line of business are not counted.

Source: World Bank.
Administrative burden
Score on the question 'starting a new business in your country is generally? (1 = extremely difficult and time consuming,... 7 = easy)'.

Source: World Economic Forum.
Government effectiveness
Measuring government effectiveness is based on a combined index of the World Bank on government competence (expertise and powers) and the quality of public services. The score goes from 0 (totally ineffective) to 100 (very effective). A high value indicates an effective government. The index combines the indicators on the quality of public services, the quality of government bureaucracy, the competence of civil servants, the independence of civil servants, and the credibility of government policy.

Source: World Bank, Governance matters.
Ad hoc and sectoral state support
State support given on ad hoc basis to individual companies, for example to save or reorganise the company, and state support to specific sectors (agriculture, fishery, industry, coal, transport excluding railroads and other services). For methodological reasons, aid to the financial sector is not included in these figures. Support to the financial sector is regarded by Eurostat as a crisis measure which disturbs an accurate picture of spending on aid to industry and services.

Source: Eurostat, Structural Indicators.
Corporate tax rate
The sum of the taxes levied by the national and local authorities on the income (profits) of companies. For countries with a progressive tariff system, where a lower tax rate is paid when profit falls below a certain tax threshold, we show only the top rate.
Australia and the United Kingdom:
Tax years do not run parallel with calendar years. The values refer to the situation starting in July and April.
Belgium (as from 2006):
The corporation tax can be partly compensated by deductions of notional interest. The deduction is not related to the results of the company, but only to the amount of assets and the yield of long-term government bonds. The deduction means that a relatively low result (before taxes) on the net assets of a company leads to a lower effective tax rate.
France:
The tariff includes allowances, but excludes local company tax (Taxe professionnelle) and turnover-related solidarity tax (Contribution de Solidarité).
Germany:
Including regional company tax (Gewerbesteuer) and allowances.
Hungary:
Excludes turnover-related local company tax and, as from 2004, innovation tax and, as from 2005, special allowances for financial and credit institutions.
Italy:
Excludes regional company tax (Imposta regional sulle Attivit Produttive;
IRAP).
The Netherlands (from 2008):
Concerns the taxable income above EUR 200.000.
Poland (from 2008):
There is no decentral government tax, but local authorities share in tax revenues to a certain percentage (for all local authorities).
United States:
The tariff of the states is a weighted average of the 'state corporate marginal income tax rate' that is levied by individual states.

Source: OECD, Tax Database.