3.91 score from hupso.pl for:
oecdinsights.org



HTML Content


Titleoecd insights blog

Length: 18, Words: 3
Description pusty

Length: 0, Words: 0
Keywords pusty
Robots
Charset UTF-8
Og Meta - Title exist
Og Meta - Description pusty
Og Meta - Site name exist
Tytuł powinien zawierać pomiędzy 10 a 70 znaków (ze spacjami), a mniej niż 12 słów w długości.
Meta opis powinien zawierać pomiędzy 50 a 160 znaków (łącznie ze spacjami), a mniej niż 24 słów w długości.
Kodowanie znaków powinny być określone , UTF-8 jest chyba najlepszy zestaw znaków, aby przejść z powodu UTF-8 jest bardziej międzynarodowy kodowaniem.
Otwarte obiekty wykresu powinny być obecne w stronie internetowej (więcej informacji na temat protokołu OpenGraph: http://ogp.me/)

SEO Content

Words/Characters 9418
Text/HTML 39.08 %
Headings H1 1
H2 12
H3 7
H4 0
H5 0
H6 0
H1
H2

towards an empowering state: turning inclusive growth into a global reality
two cheers for lower food prices: good for poor consumers and not the real issue for farmers
a dash of data: spotlight on dutch households
a home truth: we need better quality and more affordable housing
out of complexity, a third way?
statistical insights: inclusive globalisation, does firm size matter?
more private capital for infrastructure investment in asia?
search
archives
follow
translate
H3
share this:
share this:
share this:
share this:
share this:
share this:
share this:
H4
H5
H6
strong
in short, we need to put people, and their multidimensional well-being, back at the centre.
only by recognising that mistakes have been made can we begin to build a new socio-economic narrative that goes beyond the old tropes of growth first, redistribution later; and beyond aggregate economic measures like gdp.
the false certainty provided by an all too literal interpretation of models needs to be balanced by a humbler, more grounded approach to economics that draws on the lessons of other disciplines like physics, biology, psychology, sociology, philosophy and history, to feed a richer, more nuanced policy discussion.
if we want to save open markets and globalisation, we need to re-write the rules of the economic system to make them work for everyone. we also need to bring back that much neglected concept, fairness, to the heart of the policy debate.
the role of the state is absolutely key to this discussion. we need to redefine and reimagine its role, to ensure that it is prepared for contemporary opportunities and challenges and is set up to empower people.
 to begin with, we need a new approach to welfare that goes beyong just mitigating risk. the work of behavioural economists like
has shown us that people are not ‘risk averse’ so much as ‘loss averse’. if we are to create entrepreneurial societies that encourage everyone to fulfil their productive potential, we need to deploy this insight via welfare policy to reduce the consequences of failure.
to be sure, providing people with a social safety net is vital, but it is not enough. we need to move beyond this approach, to create an empowering state that serves its citizens as a launch pad by furnishing them with capacity enhancing assets.
social expenditure in vital areas like education and healthcare not as operating costs, but as investment in our most valuable assets – people.
useful links
useful links
gdp and household income
confidence, consumption and savings
debt and net worth
 
unemployment
useful links
.
useful links
useful links
useful links
useful links
b
i
em in short, we need to put people, and their multidimensional well-being, back at the centre.
only by recognising that mistakes have been made can we begin to build a new socio-economic narrative that goes beyond the old tropes of growth first, redistribution later; and beyond aggregate economic measures like gdp.
the false certainty provided by an all too literal interpretation of models needs to be balanced by a humbler, more grounded approach to economics that draws on the lessons of other disciplines like physics, biology, psychology, sociology, philosophy and history, to feed a richer, more nuanced policy discussion.
if we want to save open markets and globalisation, we need to re-write the rules of the economic system to make them work for everyone. we also need to bring back that much neglected concept, fairness, to the heart of the policy debate.
the role of the state is absolutely key to this discussion. we need to redefine and reimagine its role, to ensure that it is prepared for contemporary opportunities and challenges and is set up to empower people.
 to begin with, we need a new approach to welfare that goes beyong just mitigating risk. the work of behavioural economists like
has shown us that people are not ‘risk averse’ so much as ‘loss averse’. if we are to create entrepreneurial societies that encourage everyone to fulfil their productive potential, we need to deploy this insight via welfare policy to reduce the consequences of failure.
to be sure, providing people with a social safety net is vital, but it is not enough. we need to move beyond this approach, to create an empowering state that serves its citizens as a launch pad by furnishing them with capacity enhancing assets.
social expenditure in vital areas like education and healthcare not as operating costs, but as investment in our most valuable assets – people.
useful links
useful links
gdp and household income
confidence, consumption and savings
debt and net worth
 
unemployment
useful links
.
useful links
useful links
useful links
useful links
Bolds strong 22
b 0
i 0
em 22
Zawartość strony internetowej powinno zawierać więcej niż 250 słów, z stopa tekst / kod jest wyższy niż 20%.
Pozycji używać znaczników (h1, h2, h3, ...), aby określić temat sekcji lub ustępów na stronie, ale zwykle, użyj mniej niż 6 dla każdego tagu pozycje zachować swoją stronę zwięzły.
Styl używać silnych i kursywy znaczniki podkreślić swoje słowa kluczowe swojej stronie, ale nie nadużywać (mniej niż 16 silnych tagi i 16 znaczników kursywy)

Statystyki strony

twitter:title pusty
twitter:description pusty
google+ itemprop=name pusty
Pliki zewnętrzne 31
Pliki CSS 7
Pliki javascript 24
Plik należy zmniejszyć całkowite odwołanie plików (CSS + JavaScript) do 7-8 maksymalnie.

Linki wewnętrzne i zewnętrzne

Linki 195
Linki wewnętrzne 23
Linki zewnętrzne 172
Linki bez atrybutu Title 163
Linki z atrybutem NOFOLLOW 0
Linki - Użyj atrybutu tytuł dla każdego łącza. Nofollow link jest link, który nie pozwala wyszukiwarkom boty zrealizują są odnośniki no follow. Należy zwracać uwagę na ich użytkowania

Linki wewnętrzne

skip to content #content
[i] #_edn1
[ii] #_edn2
[iii] #_edn3
[iv] #_edn4
[v] #_edn5
[vi] #_edn6
[i] #_ednref1
[ii] #_ednref2
[iii] #_ednref3
[iv] #_ednref4
[v] #_ednref5
[vi] #_ednref6
more #
more #
more #
more #
more #
more #
[1] #_ftn1
[1] #_ftnref1
more #
cancel #cancel

Linki zewnętrzne

- http://oecdinsights.org
home http://oecdinsights.org
glossary http://oecdinsights.org/glossary/
about http://oecdinsights.org/about-2/
contact http://oecdinsights.org/contact-us/
disclaimer http://oecdinsights.org/disclaimer/
towards an empowering state: turning inclusive growth into a global reality http://oecdinsights.org/2017/02/20/towards-an-empowering-state-turning-inclusive-growth-into-a-global-reality/
inclusive growth http://oecdinsights.org/tag/inclusive-growth/
- https://www.inclusivegrowth.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/final.5-appg-inclusive-growth-the-state-of-the-debate-2017.pdf
gabriela ramos http://www.oecd.org/about/whodoeswhat/gabriela-ramos.htm
inclusive growth: the state of the debate 2017 https://www.inclusivegrowth.co.uk/appg_events/the_state_of_the_debate_2017/
inclusive growth http://www.oecd.org/inclusive-growth/
all on board: making inclusive growth happen http://www.oecd.org/environment/all-on-board-9789264218512-en.htm
household http://oecdinsights.org/glossary/household/
productivity-inclusiveness nexus https://www.oecd.org/global-forum-productivity/library/the-productivity-inclusiveness-nexus-preliminary.pdf
recent oecd research http://www.oecd.org/social/in-it-together-why-less-inequality-benefits-all-9789264235120-en.htm
post-truth http://oecdinsights.org/2017/02/01/telling-the-whole-truth-in-a-post-truth-environment/
new approaches to economic challenges http://www.oecd.org/naec/
more to life than money http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/#/11111111111
taxes http://www.oecd.org/tax/beps/
responsible business conduct https://mneguidelines.oecd.org/responsible-business-conduct-matters.htm
due diligence http://www.oecd.org/corporate/mne/mining.htm
anti-corruption http://www.oecd.org/corruption/
inclusive growth: the state of the debate 2017 https://www.inclusivegrowth.co.uk/appg_events/the_state_of_the_debate_2017/
welcome to the future of the political economy https://www.inclusivegrowth.co.uk/welcome-to-the-future-of-political-economy/
inclusive growth, the challenge of our times https://www.inclusivegrowth.co.uk/inclusive-growth-the-challenge-of-our-time/
inclusive growth, a new agenda george https://www.inclusivegrowth.co.uk/inclusive-growth-a-new-agenda/
inclusive growth: turning aspiration into action https://www.inclusivegrowth.co.uk/inclusive-growth-turning-aspiration-into-action/
globalisation and inclusive growth: the challenges for government and business https://www.inclusivegrowth.co.uk/globalisation-and-inclusive-growth-the-challenges-for-governments-and-business/
the difference between economic growth, and economic growth for all https://www.inclusivegrowth.co.uk/the-difference-between-economic-growth-and-economic-growth-for-all/
social policy: a vital partner in any inclusive growth strategy https://www.inclusivegrowth.co.uk/social-policy-a-vital-partner-in-any-inclusive-growth-strategy/
we need to rethink economic policy to bring prosperity to the whole country https://www.inclusivegrowth.co.uk/we-need-to-rethink-economic-policy-to-bring-prosperity-to-the-whole-country/
inclusive growth at city region level: a perspective from greater manchester https://www.inclusivegrowth.co.uk/inclusive-growth-at-city-region-level-a-perspective-from-greater-manchester/
tweet https://twitter.com/share
print http://oecdinsights.org/2017/02/20/towards-an-empowering-state-turning-inclusive-growth-into-a-global-reality/
share on tumblr https://www.tumblr.com/share/link/?url=http%3a%2f%2foecdinsights.org%2f2017%2f02%2f20%2ftowards-an-empowering-state-turning-inclusive-growth-into-a-global-reality%2f&name=towards%20an%20empowering%20state%3a%20turning%20inclusive%20growth%20into%20a%20global%20reality
email http://oecdinsights.org/2017/02/20/towards-an-empowering-state-turning-inclusive-growth-into-a-global-reality/?share=email
pocket https://getpocket.com/save
2 comments http://oecdinsights.org/2017/02/20/towards-an-empowering-state-turning-inclusive-growth-into-a-global-reality/#comments
insights http://oecdinsights.org/category/insights/
two cheers for lower food prices: good for poor consumers and not the real issue for farmers http://oecdinsights.org/2017/02/16/two-cheers-for-lower-food-prices-good-for-poor-consumers-and-not-the-real-issue-for-farmers/
food prices http://oecdinsights.org/tag/food-prices/
food security http://oecdinsights.org/tag/food-security/
- http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/agriculture-and-food/oecd-fao-agricultural-outlook-2016_agr_outlook-2016-en
trade and agriculture directorate http://www.oecd.org/tad/agricultural-policies/
oecd-fao agricultural outlook 2016-2025 http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/agriculture-and-food/oecd-fao-agricultural-outlook-2016_agr_outlook-2016-en
- https://i0.wp.com/oecdinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ag-prices.jpg
willard cochrane https://www.jstor.org/stable/1235391
food security and the sustainable development goals http://oecdinsights.org/2016/04/06/food-security-and-the-sustainable-development-goals/
tweet https://twitter.com/share
print http://oecdinsights.org/2017/02/16/two-cheers-for-lower-food-prices-good-for-poor-consumers-and-not-the-real-issue-for-farmers/
share on tumblr https://www.tumblr.com/share/link/?url=http%3a%2f%2foecdinsights.org%2f2017%2f02%2f16%2ftwo-cheers-for-lower-food-prices-good-for-poor-consumers-and-not-the-real-issue-for-farmers%2f&name=two%20cheers%20for%20lower%20food%20prices%3a%20good%20for%20poor%20consumers%20and%20not%20the%20real%20issue%20for%20farmers
email http://oecdinsights.org/2017/02/16/two-cheers-for-lower-food-prices-good-for-poor-consumers-and-not-the-real-issue-for-farmers/?share=email
pocket https://getpocket.com/save
leave a comment http://oecdinsights.org/2017/02/16/two-cheers-for-lower-food-prices-good-for-poor-consumers-and-not-the-real-issue-for-farmers/#respond
insights http://oecdinsights.org/category/insights/
a dash of data: spotlight on dutch households http://oecdinsights.org/2017/02/09/a-dash-of-data-spotlight-on-dutch-households/
household debt http://oecdinsights.org/tag/household-debt/
households http://oecdinsights.org/tag/households/
income http://oecdinsights.org/tag/income/
savings rate http://oecdinsights.org/tag/savings-rate/
oecd statistics directorate https://www.oecd.org/std/
household disposable income http://oecdinsights.org/glossary/household-disposable-income/
compensation of employees http://oecdinsights.org/glossary/compensation-of-employees/
net cash transfers to households ratio http://oecdinsights.org/glossary/net-cash-transfers-to-households-ratio/
- https://i0.wp.com/oecdinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/nld-chart-1.fw_.png
net cash transfers to households http://oecdinsights.org/glossary/net-cash-transfers-to-households/
- https://i0.wp.com/oecdinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/nld-chart-2.fw_.png
household consumption expenditure http://oecdinsights.org/glossary/household-consumption-expenditure/
- https://i0.wp.com/oecdinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/nld-chart-3.fw_.png
- https://i1.wp.com/oecdinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/nld-chart-4.fw_.png
households’ savings rate http://oecdinsights.org/glossary/households-savings-rate/
- https://i2.wp.com/oecdinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/nld-chart-5.fw_.png
- https://i0.wp.com/oecdinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/nld-chart-6.fw_.png
financial net worth http://oecdinsights.org/glossary/financial-net-worth/
- https://i2.wp.com/oecdinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/nld-chart-7.fw_.png
unemployment rate http://oecdinsights.org/glossary/unemployment-rate/
labour underutilisation rate http://oecdinsights.org/glossary/labour-underutilisation-rate/
- https://i1.wp.com/oecdinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/nld-chart-8.fw_.png
here http://www.oecd.org/std/na/measuring-inequality-in-income-and-consumption-in-a-national-accounts-framework.pdf
here http://www.oecd.org/std/household-wealth-inequality-across-oecd-countries-oecdsb21.pdf
information on income, consumption, and wealth broken down by household characteristics http://statline.cbs.nl/statweb/selection/?dm=slen&pa=82958eng&la=en&vw=t
better life initiative http://www.oecd.org/statistics/better-life-initiative.htm
dashboard http://www.oecd.org/std/na/household-dashboard.htm
tweet https://twitter.com/share
print http://oecdinsights.org/2017/02/09/a-dash-of-data-spotlight-on-dutch-households/
share on tumblr https://www.tumblr.com/share/link/?url=http%3a%2f%2foecdinsights.org%2f2017%2f02%2f09%2fa-dash-of-data-spotlight-on-dutch-households%2f&name=a%20dash%20of%20data%3a%20spotlight%20on%20dutch%20households
email http://oecdinsights.org/2017/02/09/a-dash-of-data-spotlight-on-dutch-households/?share=email
pocket https://getpocket.com/save
leave a comment http://oecdinsights.org/2017/02/09/a-dash-of-data-spotlight-on-dutch-households/#respond
insights http://oecdinsights.org/category/insights/
a home truth: we need better quality and more affordable housing http://oecdinsights.org/2017/02/08/better-quality-and-more-affordable-housing/
housing http://oecdinsights.org/tag/housing/
- https://i0.wp.com/oecdinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/affordable-housing.jpg
directorate for employment, labour and social affairs http://www.oecd.org/els/
- https://i1.wp.com/oecdinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/overcrowding.jpg
affordable housing database http://www.oecd.org/social/affordable-housing-database.htm
tweet https://twitter.com/share
print http://oecdinsights.org/2017/02/08/better-quality-and-more-affordable-housing/
share on tumblr https://www.tumblr.com/share/link/?url=http%3a%2f%2foecdinsights.org%2f2017%2f02%2f08%2fbetter-quality-and-more-affordable-housing%2f&name=a%20home%20truth%3a%20we%20need%20better%20quality%20and%20more%20affordable%20housing
email http://oecdinsights.org/2017/02/08/better-quality-and-more-affordable-housing/?share=email
pocket https://getpocket.com/save
1 comment http://oecdinsights.org/2017/02/08/better-quality-and-more-affordable-housing/#comments
insights http://oecdinsights.org/category/insights/
out of complexity, a third way? http://oecdinsights.org/2017/02/07/out-of-complexity-a-third-way/
complexity http://oecdinsights.org/tag/complexity/
governance http://oecdinsights.org/tag/governance/
bill below, https://twitter.com/thepowerofgov
- http://www.oecd.org/naec
gov http://www.oecd.org/gov/
from transactional to strategic: systems approaches to public challenges https://www.oecd.org/governance/observatory-public-sector-innovation/blog/page/systemsapproachesforpublicpolicychallenges.htm
oecd observatory of public sector innovation https://www.oecd.org/governance/observatory-public-sector-innovation/
oecd directorate for public governance and territorial development http://www.oecd.org/gov/
comparing governments for long term threats and complex challenges (oecd, 2016) http://www.oecd.org/gov/preparing-governments-for-long-threats-and-complex-challenges.pdf
building a government for the future: survey of strategic, systems thinking in the public sector  (oecd 2013) http://www.oecd.org/gov/building-a-government-for-the-future.pdf
tweet https://twitter.com/share
print http://oecdinsights.org/2017/02/07/out-of-complexity-a-third-way/
share on tumblr https://www.tumblr.com/share/link/?url=http%3a%2f%2foecdinsights.org%2f2017%2f02%2f07%2fout-of-complexity-a-third-way%2f&name=out%20of%20complexity%2c%20a%20third%20way%3f
email http://oecdinsights.org/2017/02/07/out-of-complexity-a-third-way/?share=email
pocket https://getpocket.com/save
1 comment http://oecdinsights.org/2017/02/07/out-of-complexity-a-third-way/#comments
insights http://oecdinsights.org/category/insights/
new approaches to economic challenges http://oecdinsights.org/category/naec/
statistical insights: inclusive globalisation, does firm size matter? http://oecdinsights.org/2017/02/06/statistical-insights-inclusive-globalisation-does-firm-size-matter/
global value chains http://oecdinsights.org/tag/global-value-chains/
smes http://oecdinsights.org/tag/smes/
- http://oecdinsights.org/?s=%22statistical+insights%22
oecd statistics directorate http://www.oecd.org/std/
who’s who in international trade http://oecdinsights.org/2016/04/25/statistical-insights-whos-who-in-international-trade-a-spotlight-on-oecd-trade-by-enterprise-characteristics-data/
report http://www.dst.dk/site/dst/udgivelser/getpubfile.aspx?id=28140&sid=nordglobchains
- https://i2.wp.com/oecdinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/statinsight-7-fig-1.fw_.png
- https://i2.wp.com/oecdinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/statinsight-7-fig-2.fw_.png
- https://i2.wp.com/oecdinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/statinsight-7-fig-3.fw_.png
- https://i2.wp.com/oecdinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/statinsight-7-fig-4.fw_.png
nordic countries in global value chains http://www.dst.dk/site/dst/udgivelser/getpubfile.aspx?id=28140&sid=nordglobchains
denmark https://www.statbank.dk/statbank5a/default.asp?w=1366
finland https://www.stat.fi/index_en.html
norway https://www.ssb.no/en/
sweden http://www.scb.se/en_/
report http://www.dst.dk/site/dst/udgivelser/getpubfile.aspx?id=28140&sid=nordglobchains
here http://www.dst.dk/site/dst/udgivelser/getpubfile.aspx?id=28140&sid=nordglobchains
http://oe.cd/tiva http://oe.cd/tiva
tweet https://twitter.com/share
print http://oecdinsights.org/2017/02/06/statistical-insights-inclusive-globalisation-does-firm-size-matter/
share on tumblr https://www.tumblr.com/share/link/?url=http%3a%2f%2foecdinsights.org%2f2017%2f02%2f06%2fstatistical-insights-inclusive-globalisation-does-firm-size-matter%2f&name=statistical%20insights%3a%20inclusive%20globalisation%2c%20does%20firm%20size%20matter%3f
email http://oecdinsights.org/2017/02/06/statistical-insights-inclusive-globalisation-does-firm-size-matter/?share=email
pocket https://getpocket.com/save
leave a comment http://oecdinsights.org/2017/02/06/statistical-insights-inclusive-globalisation-does-firm-size-matter/#respond
insights http://oecdinsights.org/category/insights/
statistical insights http://oecdinsights.org/category/statinsights/
more private capital for infrastructure investment in asia? http://oecdinsights.org/2017/02/03/more-private-capital-for-infrastructure-investment-in-asia/
infrastructures http://oecdinsights.org/tag/infrastructures/
investment http://oecdinsights.org/tag/investment/
- http://www.sdhsg.com/en/intro.jsp
georg inderst http://www.georginderst.com/
pension fund investment in infrastructure http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/finance-and-investment/pension-fund-investment-in-infrastructure_227416754242
oecd working papers on finance, insurance and private pensions http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/finance-and-investment/oecd-working-papers-on-finance-insurance-and-private-pensions_20797117
pension fund investment in infrastructure: a comparison between australia and canada http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/finance-and-investment/pension-fund-investment-in-infrastructure_5k43f5dv3mhf-en
oecd working papers on finance, insurance and private pensions http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/finance-and-investment/oecd-working-papers-on-finance-insurance-and-private-pensions_20797117
oecd work on institutional investors and long-term investment http://www.oecd.org/finance/private-pensions/institutionalinvestorsandlong-terminvestment.htm
oecd centre on green finance and investment http://www.oecd.org/cgfi/
infrastructure investment, private finance, and institutional investors: asia from a global perspective https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2721577
tweet https://twitter.com/share
print http://oecdinsights.org/2017/02/03/more-private-capital-for-infrastructure-investment-in-asia/
share on tumblr https://www.tumblr.com/share/link/?url=http%3a%2f%2foecdinsights.org%2f2017%2f02%2f03%2fmore-private-capital-for-infrastructure-investment-in-asia%2f&name=more%20private%20capital%20for%20infrastructure%20investment%20in%20asia%3f
email http://oecdinsights.org/2017/02/03/more-private-capital-for-infrastructure-investment-in-asia/?share=email
pocket https://getpocket.com/save
leave a comment http://oecdinsights.org/2017/02/03/more-private-capital-for-infrastructure-investment-in-asia/#respond
insights http://oecdinsights.org/category/insights/
« older entries http://oecdinsights.org/page/2/
vigilance theme http://thethemefoundry.com/vigilance/
the theme foundry http://thethemefoundry.com

Zdjęcia

Zdjęcia 22
Zdjęcia bez atrybutu ALT 20
Zdjęcia bez atrybutu TITLE 22
Korzystanie Obraz ALT i TITLE atrybutu dla każdego obrazu.

Zdjęcia bez atrybutu TITLE

http://oecdinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/oecd-insights-logo21.png
https://i1.wp.com/oecdinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/inclusive-growth-debate.jpg?resize=200%2c281
https://i0.wp.com/oecdinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ag-outlook-2016.jpg?resize=162%2c216
https://i0.wp.com/oecdinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ag-prices.jpg?resize=300%2c223
https://i0.wp.com/oecdinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/nld-chart-1.fw_.png?resize=595%2c303
https://i0.wp.com/oecdinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/nld-chart-2.fw_.png?resize=595%2c303
https://i0.wp.com/oecdinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/nld-chart-3.fw_.png?resize=595%2c303
https://i1.wp.com/oecdinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/nld-chart-4.fw_.png?resize=595%2c303
https://i2.wp.com/oecdinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/nld-chart-5.fw_.png?resize=595%2c303
https://i0.wp.com/oecdinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/nld-chart-6.fw_.png?resize=595%2c303
https://i2.wp.com/oecdinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/nld-chart-7.fw_.png?resize=595%2c303
https://i1.wp.com/oecdinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/nld-chart-8.fw_.png?resize=595%2c303
https://i0.wp.com/oecdinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/affordable-housing.jpg?resize=202%2c142
https://i1.wp.com/oecdinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/overcrowding.jpg?resize=595%2c744
https://i1.wp.com/oecdinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/naec.jpg?resize=200%2c244
https://i1.wp.com/oecdinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/stat-insights.jpg?resize=140%2c215
https://i2.wp.com/oecdinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/statinsight-7-fig-1.fw_.png?resize=595%2c473
https://i2.wp.com/oecdinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/statinsight-7-fig-2.fw_.png?resize=595%2c479
https://i2.wp.com/oecdinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/statinsight-7-fig-3.fw_.png?resize=595%2c531
https://i2.wp.com/oecdinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/statinsight-7-fig-4.fw_.png?resize=595%2c471
https://i0.wp.com/oecdinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/jiaozhou-bay-bridge.jpg?resize=140%2c204
http://oecdinsights.org/wp-content/plugins/jetpack/modules/sharedaddy/images/loading.gif

Zdjęcia bez atrybutu ALT

http://oecdinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/oecd-insights-logo21.png
https://i1.wp.com/oecdinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/inclusive-growth-debate.jpg?resize=200%2c281
https://i0.wp.com/oecdinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ag-outlook-2016.jpg?resize=162%2c216
https://i0.wp.com/oecdinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ag-prices.jpg?resize=300%2c223
https://i0.wp.com/oecdinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/nld-chart-1.fw_.png?resize=595%2c303
https://i0.wp.com/oecdinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/nld-chart-2.fw_.png?resize=595%2c303
https://i0.wp.com/oecdinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/nld-chart-3.fw_.png?resize=595%2c303
https://i1.wp.com/oecdinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/nld-chart-4.fw_.png?resize=595%2c303
https://i2.wp.com/oecdinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/nld-chart-5.fw_.png?resize=595%2c303
https://i0.wp.com/oecdinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/nld-chart-6.fw_.png?resize=595%2c303
https://i2.wp.com/oecdinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/nld-chart-7.fw_.png?resize=595%2c303
https://i1.wp.com/oecdinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/nld-chart-8.fw_.png?resize=595%2c303
https://i0.wp.com/oecdinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/affordable-housing.jpg?resize=202%2c142
https://i1.wp.com/oecdinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/overcrowding.jpg?resize=595%2c744
https://i1.wp.com/oecdinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/naec.jpg?resize=200%2c244
https://i1.wp.com/oecdinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/stat-insights.jpg?resize=140%2c215
https://i2.wp.com/oecdinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/statinsight-7-fig-1.fw_.png?resize=595%2c473
https://i2.wp.com/oecdinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/statinsight-7-fig-2.fw_.png?resize=595%2c479
https://i2.wp.com/oecdinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/statinsight-7-fig-3.fw_.png?resize=595%2c531
https://i2.wp.com/oecdinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/statinsight-7-fig-4.fw_.png?resize=595%2c471

Ranking:


Alexa Traffic
Daily Global Rank Trend
Daily Reach (Percent)









Majestic SEO











Text on page:

skip to content home glossary about contact disclaimer towards an empowering state: turning inclusive growth into a global reality 20 february 2017 tags: inclusive growth by guest author gabriela ramos, special counsellor to the oecd secretary-general and sherpa to the g20. with thanks to shaun reidy, acting coordinator of the oecd inclusive growth initiative. this article is part of inclusive growth: the state of the debate 2017 being published today by the uk all-party parliamentary group on inclusive growth, that brings together reformers across politics, business, trade unions, finance, churches, faith groups and civil society, to forge a new consensus on inclusive growth and identify the practical next steps for reform. we live in turbulent times. nine years on from the eruption of the financial crisis, we remain stuck in a low growth trap. to make matters worse, the great upheaval in our economies has now transmuted into a profound political crisis in many countries. the economic hardship of the last nine years has created many casualties, but chief among them has been trust – the glue that holds our societies together. trust between different groups of people, and trust in institutions has plunged to record lows, with public belief in governments in the oecd standing at just 42% in 2016.[i] this has now spilled over into the social realm, stoking fear and provoking the rejection of global interconnectedness, trade, migration and technological progress. everywhere we look, globalisation is being called into question and the potential consequences of the rise of protectionist measures could scarcely be greater. the origins of this loss of faith in international integration are numerous and vary considerably from country to country, but there is a common thread running throughout: a growing sense that the global economy is delivering only for the lucky few. international elites have categorically failed to deal with this. the benefits of globalisation and rapid technological change were understood in an overly simplistic economic framework that relied too heavily on averages and representative agent models, blurring the outcomes for different income groups. simplistic assumptions of how the economy operates prevented us from advancing better policies. trade and investment became an end in itself, and the efficiency of markets became the ultimate goal of economic policy. we neglected the differentiated outcomes of policies for different income groups, and by relying on incomplete metrics – like gdp per capita alone – we ignored the distributional outcomes of the policies we undertook. we have since learned that this was not the right choice – and we have learned it the hard way. . policies have affected different groups in very different ways. the initiative i lead at the oecd on inclusive growth has charted how rising income inequalities have been blighting people’s opportunities, wasting their potential contribution to productive activity and limiting their ability to lead meaningful lives. the numbers make for stark reading. here in the uk, the average income of the richest 10% has gone from being eight times that of the poorest 10% in the late-1980s, up to almost ten times greater today. the situation is markedly worse at the very top, with the highest 1% of earners in the uk taking home around 20% of pre-tax national income in the last three decades.[ii] our report all on board: making inclusive growth happen has set out how this reflects a more general trend seen across the oecd, where those at the top of the income distribution have pulled away from those at the bottom. we see this particularly in the period after the crisis, where across the oecd, the top 10% of income earners have managed to recover their pre-2008 income levels, while those in the middle and at the bottom have seen incomes fall and stagnate. the picture is even more troubling in terms of wealth, where the richest 10% in the oecd own around half of all household assets, whilst the bottom 40% own barely 3%. at the very top of the distribution, the top 1%, holds a staggering 19% of total wealth.[iii] all too often, wealth and income inequality stand in a symbiotic relationship with the intangible social trappings of success, such as cultural capital and access to parental networks. together, they influence the key formative outcomes in children’s lives, helping to turn the unequal outcomes of one generation into the unequal opportunities of the next, affecting everything from employment to health status. nowhere is the damage more keenly felt than in education. oecd data shows that the children of poorer parents struggle to keep up with the social and cultural capital of their wealthier class-mates. from that initial disadvantage, many go on to lower educational attainment, with children whose parents did not complete secondary school having only a 15% chance of making it to university against a 60% chance for peers with at least one parent who had attained tertiary education.[iv] more troubling still is the fact that the very same children at a disadvantage in the education system typically go on to receive smaller salaries and, most worryingly of all, to lead shorter lives. this is profoundly unjust. but it is not only those at the bottom who suffer when inequalities scale new heights – we all do. of course, inequality has always been with us and it has often been presented as an engine for growth. when it derives purely from differences in efforts and investment, such an argument may have some merit, but with the levels of inequality we see today that is demonstrably not the case. as oecd’s work on the productivity-inclusiveness nexus spells out, when the poorest are unable to fulfil their potential, we all lose out on the visionary leaders, the innovators, and the economic growth that could have come to pass. moreover, recent oecd research has highlighted how rising inequality knocked 6 to 10 percentage points of gdp growth between 1990 and 2010 across a range of oecd countries including the uk, mexico, finland, italy, and the united states.[v] with the ongoing global and technological transformation of our economies these issues are likely to be brought into starker relief. digitalisation has the potential to unleash untold benefits for all of human kind, but if it is not managed properly, it could exacerbate inequalities by creating greater job insecurity and cementing ‘winner takes all’ dynamics in our most rapidly growing markets. already, since the early 90s, around half of the jobs created in the oecd have been in more insecure temporary, part-time or self-employed work. over roughly the same period, the power of multinational firms at the global frontier to exploit their greater access to knowledge-based capital, digital technology, finance, cheap labour and low-tax jurisdictions have been able to lock-in their productive advantages. in the manufacturing sector for instance, since the early 2000s, labour productivity of oecd firms at the technological frontier has increased at an average annual rate of 3.5%, compared to just 0.5% for non-frontier firms.[vi] given the extent of these social and economic costs, it is hardly surprising that rising inequality has translated into growing political disaffection, anti-market sentiment and disenchantment with globalisation. in such a context, we desperately need to take action to promote inclusive growth and restore public confidence in the power of policy makers to improve people’s lives. so what can we do to redress this situation and regain trust? to start with, we need to listen to people. it is not enough to talk about a ‘post-truth’ environment. or to say that people haven’t paid attention to facts and evidence. it is we that have not listened. we have to be honest with ourselves and acknowledge that the “truths” in our economic models have failed to capture much of what matters to people. in short, we need to put people, and their multidimensional well-being, back at the centre. the oecd’s inclusive growth and new approaches to economic challenges (naec) initiatives are at the forefront of efforts to put people at the centre, to create social and economic models that provide a more accurate representation of the world around us. today, advances in computing power are also opening up new tools to support our work, with possibilities for integrating complex systems dynamics and behavioural insights into our approaches with agent-based modelling and network analysis. yet, we also must recognise that economics does not have a monopoly on truth. in many countries, we have seen the bottom 40% left behind and their potential wasted. only by recognising that mistakes have been made can we begin to build a new socio-economic narrative that goes beyond the old tropes of growth first, redistribution later; and beyond aggregate economic measures like gdp. the false certainty provided by an all too literal interpretation of models needs to be balanced by a humbler, more grounded approach to economics that draws on the lessons of other disciplines like physics, biology, psychology, sociology, philosophy and history, to feed a richer, more nuanced policy discussion. if we want to save open markets and globalisation, we need to re-write the rules of the economic system to make them work for everyone. we also need to bring back that much neglected concept, fairness, to the heart of the policy debate. the role of the state is absolutely key to this discussion. we need to redefine and reimagine its role, to ensure that it is prepared for contemporary opportunities and challenges and is set up to empower people. to begin with, we need a new approach to welfare that goes beyong just mitigating risk. the work of behavioural economists like amos tversky and daniel kahneman has shown us that people are not ‘risk averse’ so much as ‘loss averse’. if we are to create entrepreneurial societies that encourage everyone to fulfil their productive potential, we need to deploy this insight via welfare policy to reduce the consequences of failure. to be sure, providing people with a social safety net is vital, but it is not enough. we need to move beyond this approach, to create an empowering state that serves its citizens as a launch pad by furnishing them with capacity enhancing assets. such a state would also seek to prevent disadvantage cascading down generations. it would recognise that its role was not simply to remove barriers to opportunities, but also to furnish people with the capacity to seize them. crucially, it must see redistribution and social expenditure in vital areas like education and healthcare not as operating costs, but as investment in our most valuable assets – people. in practice, this would mean deploying a coherent approach to intervention across individual’s life-cycles to provide high-quality early years education, comprehensive training throughout adult life, income and skills support to help people transition between jobs and perhaps even a universal basic income. but it wouldn’t stop there, because, when all is said and done, there is more to life than money. the key role of the state should be to support people helping them to have meaningful lives. however we also need to face up to the big global challenges of dealing with concentration of wealth, international tax and competition issues, the mobility of tax bases, labour rights and regulatory standards. we need to ensure that globalisation is based on international rules that are respected. we have to create trade agreements that are comprehensive and, crucially, also inclusive. we must hold global firms to higher standards of responsible business conduct. oecd work on taxes, responsible business conduct, due diligence and anti-corruption will be key to ensuring better functioning global rules. to restore the faith and trust of people in the role of governments, a priority for an empowering state must be to focus on the bottom 40%, who risk being trapped in a cycle of deprivation and lack of opportunity. we need to deploy targeted policies to help these groups access quality education, healthcare and the benefits of innovation, finance, and entrepreneurship. of course, giving people the chance to make the most of these opportunities is reliant on a thriving business sector. the state has a role to play to ‘crowd in’ financing in young and innovative sectors and in investing in basic r&d that will see positive spill-overs into countless other domains. we also need policies which support the diffusion of innovation through the economy, ensuring a level playing field for incumbents and challenger firms, enabling small companies to access finance, technology and high-quality skills. adopting such an approach will require some changes to the way we design and implement policies, with particular care taken to avoid the entrenchement of vested interests. one aspect of this will be ensuring that policy recommendations take regional and local circumstances into account. regions and cities have a key role to play by adapting economy-wide policies to the characteristics of local communities, as well as by promoting local policies that reduce or remove the barriers limiting access to opportunities. there is also a dire need to overcome traditional ‘silo-based’ approaches to policy making. this will require a renewed ‘whole-of-government’ push, where different government departments, agencies and ministries work together to deliver joined-up solutions as part of a coherent systemic approach. the challenge before us is clear. succeeding in our endeavours will demand a new approach, where political parties, and leaders from civil society and business come together to recognise that the long-term prosperity of a society depends on the success of its individual parts. together we can make inclusive growth a reality. [i] gallup world poll 2016 [ii] oecd income distribution database [iii] oecd statistical database [iv] oecd (2016, forthcoming), calculations from piaac [v] oecd (2015), in it together [vi] oecd (2015) the future of productivity, oecd publishing, paris useful links as well as gabriela ramos’s article, inclusive growth: the state of the debate 2017 contains the following: welcome to the future of the political economy rt hon. liam byrne mp, chair of the appg on inclusive growth and labour member of parliament for birmingham hodge hill inclusive growth, the challenge of our times professor colin hay, co-director of the sheffield political economy research institute (speri) inclusive growth, a new agenda george freeman mp, conservative member of parliament for mid norfolk; chairman of the prime minister’s policy board and chairman of the conservative policy forum inclusive growth: turning aspiration into action richard samans, member of the managing board, world economic forum globalisation and inclusive growth: the challenges for government and business rt hon. dame caroline spelman mp, vice-chair of the appg on inclusive growth and conservative member of parliament for meriden the difference between economic growth, and economic growth for all alison mcgovern mp, vice-chair of the appg on inclusive growth, labour member of parliament for wirral south social policy: a vital partner in any inclusive growth strategy dr hannah lambie-mumford, research fellow, sheffield political economy research institute (speri) we need to rethink economic policy to bring prosperity to the whole country michael jacobs, director of the ippr commission on economic justice inclusive growth at city region level: a perspective from greater manchester professor ruth lupton, head of the inclusive growth analysis unit, the university of manchester share this:tweetprintmoreshare on tumblremailpocket 2 comments from → insights two cheers for lower food prices: good for poor consumers and not the real issue for farmers 16 february 2017 tags: food prices, food security by guest author jonathan brooks, head of agro-food trade and markets division, oecd trade and agriculture directorate what’s the difference between a mississippi mud pie and a haitian mud cake? the answer is mud. the mud pie is a dessert containing vast amounts of chocolate. the mud cake is literally that, mud with some salt and margarine mixed in. at one time, only pregnant women in poor areas ate mud cakes, in the hope of getting some calcium or other minerals. but following the sudden rise in food prices in 2008, mud cakes became a staple for thousands of haitians who couldn’t afford anything else. haiti is one of the poorest countries on earth, but its hungry were not alone in their misery. food riots broke out in africa, asia, the middle east and latin america and the caribbean. international crop prices of crop started falling in 2012. the oecd-fao agricultural outlook 2016-2025 projects that over the next ten years, real prices of most agricultural products will decline slightly, but remain higher than they were prior to the 2007-08 price spike. fundamentally, supply growth is expected to keep pace with demand growth, as population growth slows and the per capita demand for food staples becomes increasingly saturated in many emerging economies. these projections assume continuing low oil prices and a sluggish recovery of the global economy, with abundant global food stocks to keep markets relatively stable. but merely a repetition of historic variability in oil prices, economic growth, and yields may well lead to another price spike within ten years. in addition, the uncertainties associated with climate change are starting to mount. a major question is whether lower prices are to be welcomed, in particular whether they will benefit the world’s poor and hungry. even before the food price crisis, when real food prices were lower than ever before, about 900 million people were not getting enough to eat (fao). the 2007-2008 crisis was projected to add significantly to these numbers, given that the poor spend a relatively large share of their budgets on food, while the poorest farmers in the world are typically net buyers of food. fortunately, the worst fears were not realised and the total number of undernourished has continued to decline, to below 800 million in 2015. the impact of international price shocks was cushioned by three factors. first, domestic food markets in the poorest countries are often only partially integrated with international markets because they don’t have the ports, roads, storage facilities and other infrastructure required. this ultimately impedes development, but provides some isolation from international shocks. second, many countries implemented policies to protect the incomes of the poor. the use of cash transfers seems to have been particularly effective at sheltering the worst off from the impact of price rises. third, the recession of 2008-09 resulted in only mild slowdowns in most developing countries, and many of the poor could still afford to buy food. click graph to see full size there is an argument that while poor consumers suffer from food price rises in the short term, in the longer term farmer need higher prices for it to be profitable for them to engage with markets, while increased output generates further benefits in terms of increased employment and higher wages. however, this line or argument misrepresents the development process by failing to take account of the pressures imposed by market competition. in developed countries, farmers who can continually reduce their costs, essentially thanks to technology such as adopting new crop varieties or exploiting economies of scale, will make profits. these profits will persist until other farmers catch up and prices fall from the cumulative impact on supply. farmers who cannot adapt will of course be unprofitable at lower prices. this is no more than the competitive dynamic that we see in other sectors. in developing countries, competitive pressures are mild or non-existent for subsistence farmers who are only weakly integrated with markets, but they kick in as infrastructure and local markets become more developed. of course, few would suggest that the best way of helping developing country farmers is by failing to build rural roads, yet tariff walls and price protection can have just the same effect. as farmers become more integrated with markets, higher long term prices reflect little more than the costs of productive factors (land, labour and capital), which means that the opportunities for profit are still confined to innovative farmers. for farmers in both developed and developing countries, prices are therefore not the real issue. what matters is productivity. higher rates of productivity growth lower prices in a way that is simultaneously good for consumers and beneficial for those farmers who are driving the productivity gains. “laggards”, as willard cochrane termed them in 1958, face the choice of either improving their competitiveness or shifting into other economic activities. focusing on prices as the route towards higher incomes is in fact distracting because prices ultimately need to reflect the scarcity of natural resources. in many countries, for example, there is no pricing of water. that keeps costs low and contributes to lower prices, but also fosters unsustainable farming practices that will harm both producer and consumers in the longer run. lower prices are welcome to the extent that they derive from sustainable productivity growth. but from the standpoint of farmers, and the sector as a whole, prices are the wrong variable to focus on. as paul krugman put it: “productivity isn’t everything, but in the long run it is almost everything”. useful links food security and the sustainable development goals jonathan brooks on oecd insights share this:tweetprintmoreshare on tumblremailpocket leave a comment from → insights a dash of data: spotlight on dutch households 9 february 2017 tags: household debt, households, income, savings rate by guest author florence wolff, oecd statistics directorate economic growth (gdp) always gets a lot of attention, but when it comes to determining how people are doing it’s interesting to look at other indicators that focus more on the actual material conditions of households. let’s focus on a few alternative indicators to see how households in the netherlands are doing. gdp and household income real household disposable income per capita increased at a slower pace than real gdp per capita in q3 2016. whereas real gdp per capita increased by 0.6 % from the previous quarter (the index increased from 102.2 in q2 2016 to 102.8 in q3 2016), real household income increased by 0.4% (the index increased from 97.1 in q2 2016 to 97.5 in q3 2016). the rise in household disposable income in q3 2016 was driven by an increase in compensation of employees but this gain was somewhat offset by an increase in taxes, which explains the drop in the net cash transfers to households ratio (chart 2). chart 1 also provides a longer-term perspective and shows that dutch households have yet to recover to their pre-crisis level of household income, which means that households have less purchasing power now than they had before the crisis. also of note is that household income has been more volatile than gdp and has been trending upward since q3 2014. the divergent patterns between household disposable income and gdp are often related to changes in net cash transfers to households (chart 2), from government as well as from pension funds. for instance, government intervention that cushioned households’ material conditions in q2 2009 resulted in a large increase in net cash transfers to households during that quarter (seen in chart 1 as a sharp increase in real household income in q2 2009 compared with a slight drop in gdp). since then, net transfers have been trending downwards slightly, mainly because of government acting to consolidate its finances. confidence, consumption and savings household disposable income is a meaningful way to assess material living standards, but to get a fuller picture of household material well-being one may also want to look at households’ consumption behaviour. consumer confidence (chart 3) continued to rise in q3 2016 (the index increased from 100.4 in q2 2016 to 100.8 in q3 2016). coupled with a rise in real household income, this boosted real household consumption expenditure per capita by 0.7% in q3 2016 (the index increased from 96.9 in q2 2016 to 97.6 in q3 2016) (chart 4). real household consumption expenditures have been trending up since q3 2014, in line with a similar trend in household income; however, dutch households are still buying less goods and services per capita than they were before the crisis. the households’ savings rate (chart 5), which shows the proportion that households are saving out of current income, was relatively stable at 12.3% in q3 2016 indicating that dutch households chose to spend the increase in their income in q3 2016 on goods and services while preserving the level of their savings. like in many other oecd countries, it is worth noting that dutch households increased their savings during the economic crisis (with a peak at 16.9% in q2 2009) – as a buffer to the deterioration in financial markets and the increased uncertainty over future income -, and that their savings rate has still not dropped back down to the levels observed before the crisis, indicating that dutch households remain cautious. debt and net worth the households’ indebtedness ratio, i.e. the total outstanding debt of households as a percentage of their disposable income, may reflect (changes in) financial vulnerabilities of the household sector and provides a useful yardstick to assess their debt sustainability. in q3 2016, household indebtedness was 255 % of disposable income, slightly above the minimum reached in q1 2016 (254.7%), yet remaining one of the highest levels among oecd countries. one reason for the high debt levels in the netherlands relates to generous tax incentives on mortgage loans which constitute the bulk of household debt. debt levels had been declining for several years because households redeemed relatively large amounts and took up fewer new mortgages. in the more recent period however, the decrease of the debt ratio has ended, mainly due to the revival of the housing market and the low interest rates. when assessing households’ economic vulnerabilities, one should also look at the availability of assets, preferably taking into account both financial assets (saving deposits, shares, etc.) and non-financial assets (for households, predominantly dwellings). because information on households’ non-financial assets is generally not available on a quarterly basis, financial net worth (i.e. the excess of financial assets over liabilities) is used as an indicator of the financial vulnerability of households. in q3 2016, financial net worth of households was at its highest level, at 477.4% of disposable income (chart 7) – an increase of 7 percentage points from the previous quarter, and of 214.1 percentage points since 2010. these levels are amongst the highest among the oecd. the increase in dutch households’ financial net worth in q3 2016 mainly reflects the increase of pension entitlements (a large proportion of dutch households’ wealth). not counting assets related to pensions, the financial net worth of dutch households was 15.5% of disposable income in the third quarter of 2016. all in all, the increase in assets significantly outpaced the declining trend in households’ debt (chart 6). unemployment the unemployment rate and the labour underutilisation rate (chart 8) also provide indications of potential vulnerabilities of the household sector. more generally, unemployment has a major impact on people’s well-being. in q3 2016 the unemployment rate dropped to 5.8% confirming a downward trend observed since q1 2014 when it reached a maximum of 7.8% in the period observed. the labour underutilisation rate, which takes into account underemployed workers and discouraged job seekers, is on average a little more than two times the size of the unemployment rate, indicating unmet aspirations among dutch workers to work more. it is interesting to note that part-time employment is a long-standing characteristic of the labour market in the netherlands: it is the oecd country with the highest part-time employment rate – with more than 35% of employed people working part-time – and where the share of involuntary part-timers (wanting full-time work) is low. this indicates the dutch people’s preference for part-time work arrangements, in particular dutch women, and therefore does not affect much the labour underutilisation rate. one should keep in mind that households’ income, consumption and savings may differ considerably across various groups of households; the same holds for households’ indebtedness and (financial) net worth. the oecd is working on these distributional aspects and preliminary results can be found here and here. in addition, the dutch central bureau of statistics has information on income, consumption, and wealth broken down by household characteristics. like in many other countries, the economic crisis affected dutch households who still haven’t recovered their pre-crisis income and consumption levels. yet, overall, the third quarter of 2016 saw an increase of dutch households’ material well-being, with expanding income and consumption per capita while their savings remain stable and unemployment continued to decrease. however, to fully grasp people’s overall well-being, one should go beyond material conditions, and also look at a range of other dimensions of what shapes people’s lives, as is done in the oecd better life initiative. useful links for many years, oecd has been focusing on people’s well-being and societal progress. to learn more on oecd’s work on measuring well-being, visit the better life initiative. interested in how households are doing in other oecd countries? visit our household’s economic well-being dashboard. share this:tweetprintmoreshare on tumblremailpocket leave a comment from → insights a home truth: we need better quality and more affordable housing 8 february 2017 tags: housing by guest author alice pittini, oecd directorate for employment, labour and social affairs a home is meant to be a safe and secure shelter for individuals and families, fulfilling the basic need to have a roof over your head. yet a home is also a tradable asset, an investment from which there’s potentially big money to be made, or to be lost as the global financial crisis has shown us. although the crisis led to a general drop in house prices in the short term, house prices have since picked up again in most countries and today they are growing faster than incomes in austria, canada, germany, luxembourg, new zealand, sweden, switzerland, the united kingdom and the united states. particularly in attractive metropolitan areas, house prices and rents are soaring, with a negative impact on access to opportunities and jobs, especially for people on low incomes. for example auckland, new zealand, has one of the most heated housing markets on the planet. despite a recent reform increasing the taxation of housing property transfers, ‘flipping’ – i.e. the practice of buying properties and re-selling it at a much higher price over a short time span – has become increasingly common, with some properties reported as having been sold up to five times its initial value in four days. at the same time the capital is faced with an unprecedented housing affordability crisis, which led the government to announce for the first time in its 2016 budget a four-year programme for emergency housing. increasing house prices make it impossible for people to buy a home and step onto the property ladder, particularly young people. at the same time big cities and capitals are also faced with a shortage of affordable rental housing, and the spread of airbnb and other short-term letting agencies is further aggravating the situation. as a result, housing costs constitute the single highest expenditure item from the household budget, with an increase in the oecd average share of housing-related expenditure from 20.3% in 2000 to 22.9% in 2013. housing costs represent a substantial financial burden for low-income households in many oecd and eu countries. for example, in chile, croatia, greece, portugal, spain, the united kingdom and the united states more than half of poor tenants (those in the bottom fifth of the income distribution) spend more than 40% of their disposable income on housing costs. furthermore, in nearly all countries, the overcrowding rate increases as household income decreases, with countries like hungary, mexico, poland and romania experiencing overcrowding rates that are over 40% among poor households. lack of sufficient living space for household members can significantly hamper wellbeing, with negative effects on health and on child outcomes. worryingly, poor children are most prone to living in overcrowded dwellings, compounding their economic disadvantage and hurting their chances of succeeding in life compared with children from richer backgrounds. moreover, there are many people who have no permanent roof over their heads at all. even though the homeless make up less than 1% of the total population in oecd countries surveyed, that is still a significant number of people without a home. the united states reports 564 708 homeless people, and australia, canada and france all report having over 100 000 in their most recent surveys. progress on this front has been uneven in recent years, with the number falling in finland and the united states, but increasing in denmark, england, france, ireland, the netherlands and new zealand. improving access to affordable housing, particularly for low-income households and those in need, is an important policy objective across oecd countries. what can countries do to meet this goal? there is no one-size-fits-all solution, but countries are implementing a range of different instruments. most countries have housing allowances and/or social housing arrangements as well as different kinds of financial support towards homeownership. indeed, housing allowances are now one of the most widely used instruments of housing support. at 1.4% of gdp, public spending on housing allowances in oecd countries is by far the highest in the united kingdom, followed by france and finland. most countries also provide social rental housing (either directly or increasingly through supporting not-for-profit housing organisations). however, in a number of countries there has been a decline in the amount of social rental housing available, partly due to the slowdown in construction and privatisation of social housing, such as in germany and the united kingdom. that being said, social rental accommodation still represents over 20% of total housing in austria, denmark, and the netherlands. grants, subsidised mortgages and mortgage guarantees are common ways to help low- and middle-income people buy homes. chile is the country with the largest share of support to home buyers through grants, and most other countries are aiming to ease access to mortgage credit. tax relief is another frequently used instrument for homeownership support: mortgage interest deductibility alone costs 0.5% of gdp in the united states and 2.1% of gdp in the netherlands. however, the extent that measures supporting home buyers really target those in need varies across countries and schemes. the oecd’s new affordable housing database helps countries monitor access to good-quality housing and provides governments with clear evidence to design the best combination of policy options to tackle homelessness, unaffordable housing, and overcrowding. useful links share this:tweetprintmoreshare on tumblremailpocket 1 comment from → insights out of complexity, a third way? 7 february 2017 tags: complexity, governance by guest author bill below, oecd directorate for public governance and territorial development (gov) the perennial curmudgeon h.l. mencken is famously misquoted as saying: “for every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.” the ability to simplify is of course one of our strengths as humans. as a species, we might just as well have been called homo reductor—after all, to think is to find patterns and organize complexity, to reduce it to actionable options or spin it into purposeful things. behavioural economists have identified a multitude of short-cuts we use to reduce complex situations into actionable information. these hard-wired tricks, or heuristics, allow us to make decisions on the fly, providing quick answers to questions such as ‘should i trust you?’, or ‘is it better to cash in now, or hold out for more later?’ are these tricks reliable? not always. a little due diligence never hurts when listening to one’s gut instincts, and the value of identifying heuristics is in part to understand the limits of their usefulness and the potential blind spots they create. the point is, there is no shortage of solutions to problems, whether we generate them ourselves or receive them from experts. and there’s no dearth of action plans and policies built on them. so, the issue isn’t so much how do we find answers?—we seem to have little trouble doing that. the real question is, how do we get to the right answers, particularly in the face of unrelenting complexity? there’s a nomenclature in the hierarchy of complexity as well as proper and improper ways of going about problem solving at each level. this is presented in the new publication “from transactional to strategic: systems approaches to public challenges” (oecd, 2017), a survey of strategic systems thinking in the public sector. developed by ibm in the 2000s, the cynefin framework posits four levels of systems complexity: obvious, complicated, complex and chaotic. obvious challenges imply obvious answers. but the next two levels are less obvious. while we tend to use the adjectives ‘complicated’ and ‘complex’ interchangeably, the framework imposes a formal distinction. complicated systems/issues have at least one answer and are characterised by causal relationships (although sometimes hidden at first). complex systems are in constant flux. in complicated systems, we know what we don’t know (known unknowns) and apply our expertise to fill in the gaps. in complex systems, we don’t know what we don’t know (unknown unknowns) and cause and effect relations can only be deduced after the fact. that doesn’t mean one can’t make inroads into understanding and even shaping a complex system, but you need to use methods adapted to the challenge. a common bias is to mistake complexity for mere complication. the result is overconfidence that a solution is just around the corner and the wrong choice of tools. unfortunately, mismatches between organisational structures and problem structures are common. for example, in medicine, without proper coordination, two specialists can work at cross-purposes on a single client. while the endocrinologist treats the patient’s hyperglycaemia (a complicated system) with pharmaceuticals and diet, the nephrologist might treat her kidney failure (also a complicated system) through a separate set of pharmaceuticals and dietary recommendations. not only can these two pursuits be at odds (what may be good for the kidneys may be bad for blood sugar, for example), but both treatments can have effects on other systems of the body that may go unmonitored. understanding these interactions and those of each treatment on the body’s individual systems as well as on the body as a joined up, holistic entity (which it certainly is) would be the broader, complex and more desirable goal. the body politic may not be so different. institutions have specific and sometimes rather narrow remits and often act without a broader vision of what other institutions are doing or planning. each institution may have its specific expertise yet few opportunities for sustained, trans-agency approaches to solving complex issues. thus, top-down, command-and-control institutional structures breed their own resistance to the kind of holistic, whole-of-government approach that complex problems and systems thinking require. this may be an artefact of the need for structures that adapt efficiently to new mandates in the form of political appointees overseeing a stable core of professional civil servants. also, the presence of elected or appointed officials at the top of clearly defined government institutions may be emblematic of the will of the people being heard. structural resistance may also stem from competitive political cycles, discouraging candidates to engage in cycle-spanning, intertemporal trade-offs or commit to projects with complex milestones. in a world of sound-bites, fake news and scorched earth tactics, a reasoned, methodical and open-ended systems approach can be a large, slow-moving political target. and that’s the challenge of approaching complex, ‘wicked’ problems with the appropriate institutional support and scale—there must be fewer sweeping revolutions or cries of total failure by the opposition. disruption gives way to continuous progress as the complex system evolves from within. it is a kind of third way that eschews polarization and favors collaboration, that blends market principles with what might be called ‘state guidance’ rather than top-down intervention. global warming, policies for ageing populations, child protection services and transportation management are all examples of complex systems and challenges. to take the last example, in the us, traffic congestion is estimated to cost households usd 120 billion per year and 30 billion to businesses (oecd, 2016). but where to start? with a massive infrastructure building spree? where would you add additional capacity? how much would you invest in roads, and how much in pubic transportation? what are the relative advantages of toll roads vs increases in gas or vehicle taxes? what are the likely effects of gas price fluctuations and the onset of fleets of electric, self-driving cars? what about the technologies that have yet to be invented? and what will be the impact of policies on income inequality, gender equality, the environment and well-being? finally, how do you efficiently join up levels of government and all the stakeholders potentially involved? complex systems are hard to define at the outset and open ended in scope. they can only be gradually altered, component by component, sub-system by sub-system, by learning from multiple feedback loops, measuring what works and evaluating how much closer it takes you to your goals. general systems theory (gst), that is, thinking about what is characteristic of systems themselves, sprang from a bold new technological era in which individual fields of engineering were no longer sufficient to master the breathtaking range of knowledge and skills required by emerging systems integration. that know-how gave us complex entities as fearful as the intercontinental ballistic missile and as inspiring as manned space flight. today, the world seems to be suffering from complexity fatigue, whose symptoms are a longing for simple answers and a world free of interdependencies, with clear good guys and bad guys and brash, unyielding voices that ‘tell it like it is’, a world with lines drawn, walls built and borders closed. bringing back a sense of excitement and purpose in mastering complexity may be the first ‘wicked’ problem we should tackle. in the meantime, we need to find a way to stop approaching complex challenges through the limits of our institutions and start approaching them through the contours of the challenges themselves. otherwise too many important decisions will be clear, simple and wrong. useful links oecd observatory of public sector innovation oecd directorate for public governance and territorial development comparing governments for long term threats and complex challenges (oecd, 2016) building a government for the future: survey of strategic, systems thinking in the public sector (oecd 2013) share this:tweetprintmoreshare on tumblremailpocket 1 comment from → insights, new approaches to economic challenges statistical insights: inclusive globalisation, does firm size matter? 6 february 2017 tags: global value chains, smes by guest author click for more statistical insights oecd statistics directorate the rapid increase in global value chains (gvcs) in the last two decades, in response to falling communication costs and reductions in trade barriers, has in large part been fuelled by large and multinational enterprises. but across the oecd, 99.8% of enterprises are classified as smes, very few of which engage in international trade. yet collectively, smes are responsible for two-thirds of employment and over half of economic activity in the oecd. this has raised policy concerns about the inclusive nature of globalisation and more specifically whether smes, and their employees, are less able to benefit from gvcs. while it is clear that smes face particular and more significant challenges to exporting compared to larger firms (see for example the oecd statistical insights who’s who in international trade) it is also true that direct export channels are not the only mechanism available to smes for integration into gvcs. a new report by the oecd, nordic countries in global value chains, developed in collaboration with national statistical offices in the nordic countries, shows that smes play an important role in gvcs as suppliers of larger exporting enterprises. in particular, it highlights that in the nordics, more than half of the domestic value added of exports originates in smes. in the nordic countries, indirect exports through gvcs by independent smes are around twice as important as their direct exports… a significant share of total value-added (and hence employment) generated by smes is dependent on foreign markets, with the contribution of exports provided via indirect channels rising the smaller the firm. for example, while only 5% of value added generated by independent micro smes (smes with less than 10 employees) in sweden is exported directly, an additional 24% of their value added is generated through value chains of downstream exporters, highlighting the significant dependencies of these firms on foreign markets. figure 1 further illustrates this by separating dependent smes (firms with fewer than 250 employees which are part of a larger enterprise group) from independent smes (similar firms that do not have such ties). it shows that for the latter category, indirect exports are more than twice as important as direct exports. figure 1. share of domestically produced value added that is exported ….reflecting the important channels provided by larger firms and mnes… larger enterprises provide important channels for smes to access foreign markets and benefit from international growth, in particular in emerging economies where barriers to direct exports may be onerous for smes. figure 2 illustrates that 28% of all sme’s exports are channelled through larger firms, with a significant share reflecting mnes (both foreign and domestically owned). figure 2. channels through which smes link to foreign markets ….which generate significant spillovers for jobs and income… in turn, a quarter of every dollar of gdp created by exports of large firms reflects the value of goods and services provided by upstream smes (figure 3), thus highlighting the important role larger firms can play in generating upstream spillovers in the form of income and employment. indeed, in the nordic countries, on average, each unit of value added by large exporting firms generates an additional 0.66 units of value-added in upstream (large and small) suppliers. this partly reflects the stronger focus of large firms on their core business functions. in this respect, it is also useful to mention that larger firms also typically include a larger share of imports in their exports: in other words, a higher import content of exports can go hand in hand with strong domestic supply chains. figure 3. upstream contribution to exports of large enterprises: per cent of total domestic value added ..…particularly for smes in the services sector. upstream spillovers generated by larger firms are especially important for sme services providers. as figure 4 illustrates, around 20% of the domestic value added exported by large manufacturing firms consists of services provided by upstream smes. overall, services account for over 4o% of the gross exports of the main manufacturing industries. this shows the importance of e.g. efficient logistic services providers, and specialised business services such as accounting and legal services, for manufacturing exports. figure 4. sme services providers’ contribution to exports of large manufacturers policy relevance the findings in the report nordic countries in global value chains summarised above highlight the importance of policy measures (e.g. improved access to finance, skills and technology transfers that recognise the upstream role of smes in driving competitiveness of downstream exporters, as well as their ability to disperse the benefits of trade more widely), as complements to more ‘traditional’ measures that focus on direct exporters, such as removing red tape, special (export) financing schemes, and facilitating match-making with business partners abroad. the measure explained the indicators on the role of smes in gvcs have been developed via a unique and innovative collaboration between the oecd and the statistical offices in denmark, finland, norway and sweden. this cooperation allowed for the linking and integration of detailed and harmonised micro data into the inter-country input-output (icio) table that underpins the oecd-wto trade in value added (tiva) indicators. building upon standardised national linked micro datasets in all four countries, a shared sas program ensured that identical calculations were performed in all countries without the microdata having to leave national statistical offices. the full report includes a detailed methodological annex that describes how data were combined and indicators derived. the domestic value added in exports reflects the value of exports that is domestically produced (i.e. not imported), either by the exporting firm itself, or by its upstream suppliers (i.e. value that is indirectly exported). useful links this statistics insights accompanies the report “nordic countries in global value chains”, which examines the role of smes, mnes and trading enterprises nordic global value chains. the report can be downloaded here. more information on trade in value added (tiva), the indicators and the icio table can be found at http://oe.cd/tiva. share this:tweetprintmoreshare on tumblremailpocket leave a comment from → insights, statistical insights more private capital for infrastructure investment in asia? 3 february 2017 tags: infrastructures, investment by guest author jiaozhou bay bridge georg inderst, independent adviser, inderst advisory since the financial crisis, infrastructure investment has moved up the political agenda in most countries – now also including the usa. asia is often seen as the world’s infrastructure laboratory, with massive construction of transport and energy projects. japan and china have spent 5% and over 8% of gdp, respectively, on infrastructure over the last 20 years while the western developed world has been trending down to about 2.5% of gdp. the impact is clearly visible, especially in east asia. at the same time, the “old world” is struggling even to maintain existing infrastructure. is there an “asian model” of infrastructure finance? it is worth taking a closer look before jumping to conclusions, as argued in our recent working paper for the adbi[1]. the first thing to note is that the picture is not uniform across the asian continent. south asia (4%) and south-east asia (2-3%) invest well below the required levels of 6-7% of gdp. secondly, asia’s infrastructure investment and finance is primarily driven by the state. the ratio of public to private finance is 2:1 to 3:1 or higher, compared to a ratio of roughly 1:2 in europe and north america. the private sector still plays a subdued role, often supported by substantial government subsidies and guarantees. both privatizations and public-private partnerships (ppps) are below the global average. thirdly, asia’s project finance is very dependent on bank loans, especially from state-owned banks and development institutions. there is scope for more securitization in this field. the use of project bonds or us-style revenue bonds is still tiny overall, although interest is rising in some places. a fourth point is of growing interest: institutional investors are traditionally not much involved in infrastructure. faced with budgetary and banking problems, many asian governments are now trying to find new sources of infrastructure finance. however, the local investor scene is rather concentrated, with a predominance of public reserve funds, social security funds and sovereign wealth funds (swf). the asian private pension systems are comparatively small. most asian investors traditionally run very conservative investment policies with a high allocation to domestic government bonds and deposits. investor regulation tends to keep insurers and pension funds away from riskier and less liquid assets such as infrastructure debt and equity. however, some change is underway. for example, the world’s largest pension scheme, japan’s government pension investment fund, started to move into infrastructure in 2015. but higher commitments to real assets do not necessarily mean more finance for asian infrastructure. singaporean and chinese swfs, for example, have been very active in european real estate and infrastructure markets in recent years, and so has the korean national pensions service, in line with many other large asian funds. finally, asia’s attractiveness has so far been sub-par for international investors. there are widespread restrictions on foreign direct investment in infrastructure sectors not only in china but also in most asean and south asian countries. other factors that make life difficult for potential foreign investors include cryptic regulations and land laws, bureaucracy, and judicial processes. in summary, there are certain commonalities across asia but is there an “asian model”? if any, it would apply to east asia’s massive public expenditure programs from abundant state budgets on the back of strong export revenues. this also drives the construction, engineering, and related industries to the extent they can be exported worldwide. it is also remarkable that, at the same time, china has managed to become the largest producer of renewable energies. but not many countries are in such a position. nor should other countries necessarily follow the “east asian model”, at least not fully. japan ended up with expensive overcapacities and a massive debt burden. even china is trying to change its reliance on heavy state spending at all levels and on easy credit from domestic public banks and local government financing vehicles. public money is eventually limited everywhere. asia can build on the existing diversity of “infrastructure financing cultures”. different approaches work in different places. korea, taiwan, singapore and hong kong, for example, are following a more open model with capital markets that attract private and international investors. india has seen substantial domestic private activity in project finance, ppp and private equity funds. corporate bonds have been widely used in thailand and elsewhere. malaysia has developed the world’s biggest market for sukuk, including islamic infrastructure bonds. indonesia and the philippines have been experimenting with new ppp institutions to “crowd in” more private capital. furthermore, in terms of institutional investor involvement, it is worth looking across the pacific to places like australia, new zealand and canada. good long-term savings institution can help rebalance the wide maturity mismatch between short-term bank deposits and long-term project financing. so, what lessons can be learned from asia? there is probably more to learn about political determination than about infrastructure finance or setting the framework for private investment. political leadership and consensus-building are most needed for cross-border projects such as intercontinental railway, or large distribution networks for energy, water, and communication. with the “belt and road” initiative, the $40bn silk road fund, the fast establishment of the asian infrastructure investment bank, the construction of ports and railways in africa and elsewhere, and by pushing green energy, china has marched forward in in impressive way. finding more private finance and attracting more long-term investors to asian infrastructure is a new and different challenge. the focus needs to shift towards increasing efficiency and quality of infrastructure. private and social returns need to be properly assessed. environmental, social and health considerations will feature more prominently in the future, also in emerging markets. the oecd with other organizations can surely help in enhancing governance standards and international collaboration. useful links pension fund investment in infrastructure georg inderst oecd working papers on finance, insurance and private pensions pension fund investment in infrastructure: a comparison between australia and canada georg inderst, raffaele della croce oecd working papers on finance, insurance and private pensions oecd work on institutional investors and long-term investment oecd centre on green finance and investment [1] inderst, g., infrastructure investment, private finance, and institutional investors: asia from a global perspective, adbi working paper series, no. 555, january 2016 share this:tweetprintmoreshare on tumblremailpocket leave a comment from → insights « older entries search archives archives select month february 2017 (9) january 2017 (13) december 2016 (12) november 2016 (21) october 2016 (22) september 2016 (22) august 2016 (8) july 2016 (12) june 2016 (21) may 2016 (17) april 2016 (24) march 2016 (15) february 2016 (15) january 2016 (18) december 2015 (12) november 2015 (16) october 2015 (18) september 2015 (15) august 2015 (8) july 2015 (15) june 2015 (23) may 2015 (23) april 2015 (15) march 2015 (17) february 2015 (11) january 2015 (10) december 2014 (14) november 2014 (17) october 2014 (17) september 2014 (14) august 2014 (5) july 2014 (12) june 2014 (18) may 2014 (10) april 2014 (5) march 2014 (7) february 2014 (10) january 2014 (7) december 2013 (7) november 2013 (11) october 2013 (11) september 2013 (10) august 2013 (10) july 2013 (10) june 2013 (12) may 2013 (9) april 2013 (7) march 2013 (11) february 2013 (8) january 2013 (9) december 2012 (5) november 2012 (8) october 2012 (7) september 2012 (7) august 2012 (7) july 2012 (8) june 2012 (10) may 2012 (11) april 2012 (9) march 2012 (14) february 2012 (5) january 2012 (4) december 2011 (3) november 2011 (8) october 2011 (10) september 2011 (11) august 2011 (8) july 2011 (8) june 2011 (12) may 2011 (30) april 2011 (11) march 2011 (20) february 2011 (11) january 2011 (9) december 2010 (11) november 2010 (16) october 2010 (18) september 2010 (17) august 2010 (9) july 2010 (15) june 2010 (18) may 2010 (32) april 2010 (15) march 2010 (16) february 2010 (16) january 2010 (18) december 2009 (13) november 2009 (2) october 2009 (1) follow email address translate copyright 2017 vigilance theme by the theme foundry send to email address your name your email address cancel post was not sent - check your email addresses! email check failed, please try again sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.


Here you find all texts from your page as Google (googlebot) and others search engines seen it.

Words density analysis:

Numbers of all words: 9416

One word

Two words phrases

Three words phrases

the - 6.8% (640)
and - 3.59% (338)
ate - 1.55% (146)
for - 1.54% (145)
her - 1.18% (111)
are - 1.17% (110)
all - 1.06% (100)
that - 1.02% (96)
use - 1% (94)
with - 0.83% (78)
old - 0.81% (76)
hold - 0.74% (70)
house - 0.72% (68)
come - 0.71% (67)
household - 0.68% (64)
over - 0.68% (64)
oecd - 0.64% (60)
our - 0.62% (58)
per - 0.58% (55)
more - 0.57% (54)
act - 0.55% (52)
from - 0.55% (52)
income - 0.52% (49)
have - 0.51% (48)
era - 0.5% (47)
but - 0.49% (46)
rate - 0.49% (46)
end - 0.48% (45)
here - 0.47% (44)
not - 0.46% (43)
holds - 0.45% (42)
countries - 0.45% (42)
can - 0.44% (41)
2016 - 0.44% (41)
this - 0.44% (41)
has - 0.42% (40)
able - 0.42% (40)
out - 0.42% (40)
low - 0.42% (40)
households - 0.41% (39)
one - 0.41% (39)
ten - 0.39% (37)
growth - 0.39% (37)
their - 0.38% (36)
part - 0.36% (34)
people - 0.35% (33)
price - 0.35% (33)
red - 0.35% (33)
invest - 0.34% (32)
how - 0.34% (32)
export - 0.34% (32)
its - 0.33% (31)
ease - 0.33% (31)
work - 0.32% (30)
also - 0.32% (30)
large - 0.31% (29)
stem - 0.31% (29)
system - 0.3% (28)
need - 0.3% (28)
global - 0.3% (28)
complex - 0.3% (28)
economic - 0.3% (28)
infrastructure - 0.29% (27)
high - 0.29% (27)
inclusive - 0.28% (26)
increase - 0.28% (26)
market - 0.28% (26)
asia - 0.28% (26)
new - 0.28% (26)
own - 0.28% (26)
sme - 0.28% (26)
than - 0.28% (26)
housing - 0.28% (26)
share - 0.27% (25)
been - 0.27% (25)
prices - 0.25% (24)
add - 0.25% (24)
other - 0.25% (24)
unit - 0.25% (24)
value - 0.25% (24)
time - 0.25% (24)
eat - 0.25% (24)
there - 0.24% (23)
smes - 0.24% (23)
net - 0.23% (22)
firm - 0.23% (22)
ratio - 0.23% (22)
land - 0.23% (22)
way - 0.23% (22)
may - 0.23% (22)
any - 0.23% (22)
well - 0.23% (22)
dire - 0.22% (21)
ever - 0.22% (21)
national - 0.22% (21)
state - 0.22% (21)
ports - 0.22% (21)
set - 0.22% (21)
into - 0.21% (20)
markets - 0.21% (20)
most - 0.21% (20)
now - 0.21% (20)
real - 0.21% (20)
see - 0.21% (20)
get - 0.21% (20)
government - 0.21% (20)
direct - 0.21% (20)
on. - 0.21% (20)
term - 0.2% (19)
approach - 0.2% (19)
systems - 0.2% (19)
level - 0.2% (19)
finance - 0.2% (19)
many - 0.2% (19)
what - 0.2% (19)
cent - 0.2% (19)
firms - 0.19% (18)
investment - 0.19% (18)
very - 0.19% (18)
challenge - 0.19% (18)
who - 0.19% (18)
led - 0.19% (18)
far - 0.19% (18)
exports - 0.18% (17)
gdp - 0.18% (17)
provide - 0.18% (17)
capita - 0.18% (17)
social - 0.18% (17)
financial - 0.18% (17)
differ - 0.18% (17)
will - 0.18% (17)
rise - 0.17% (16)
which - 0.17% (16)
poor - 0.17% (16)
food - 0.17% (16)
public - 0.17% (16)
crisis - 0.17% (16)
policy - 0.17% (16)
being - 0.17% (16)
2015 - 0.17% (16)
february - 0.16% (15)
2014 - 0.16% (15)
where - 0.16% (15)
home - 0.16% (15)
world - 0.16% (15)
institution - 0.16% (15)
them - 0.16% (15)
insight - 0.16% (15)
dutch - 0.16% (15)
private - 0.16% (15)
debt - 0.15% (14)
insights - 0.15% (14)
such - 0.15% (14)
employment - 0.15% (14)
international - 0.15% (14)
2013 - 0.15% (14)
2010 - 0.15% (14)
import - 0.15% (14)
form - 0.15% (14)
long - 0.15% (14)
these - 0.15% (14)
you - 0.15% (14)
politic - 0.15% (14)
policies - 0.15% (14)
only - 0.15% (14)
email - 0.14% (13)
particular - 0.14% (13)
quality - 0.14% (13)
different - 0.14% (13)
fact - 0.14% (13)
comes - 0.14% (13)
even - 0.14% (13)
sector - 0.14% (13)
trade - 0.14% (13)
down - 0.14% (13)
levels - 0.14% (13)
farmer - 0.14% (13)
2017 - 0.14% (13)
2012 - 0.14% (13)
stand - 0.14% (13)
role - 0.14% (13)
was - 0.14% (13)
nor - 0.14% (13)
countries, - 0.14% (13)
- 0.14% (13)
less - 0.14% (13)
added - 0.13% (12)
asian - 0.13% (12)
they - 0.13% (12)
example - 0.13% (12)
like - 0.13% (12)
through - 0.13% (12)
farmers - 0.13% (12)
political - 0.13% (12)
make - 0.13% (12)
domestic - 0.13% (12)
services - 0.13% (12)
assets - 0.13% (12)
know - 0.13% (12)
fund - 0.13% (12)
across - 0.13% (12)
households’ - 0.13% (12)
year - 0.13% (12)
support - 0.13% (12)
challenges - 0.13% (12)
pension - 0.13% (12)
2011 - 0.13% (12)
increased - 0.13% (12)
potential - 0.12% (11)
main - 0.12% (11)
saving - 0.12% (11)
chart - 0.12% (11)
labour - 0.12% (11)
and, - 0.12% (11)
while - 0.12% (11)
some - 0.12% (11)
take - 0.12% (11)
investor - 0.12% (11)
cost - 0.12% (11)
access - 0.12% (11)
higher - 0.12% (11)
business - 0.11% (10)
link - 0.11% (10)
tax - 0.11% (10)
useful - 0.11% (10)
mean - 0.11% (10)
short - 0.11% (10)
united - 0.11% (10)
two - 0.11% (10)
much - 0.11% (10)
still - 0.11% (10)
larger - 0.11% (10)
reflect - 0.11% (10)
costs - 0.11% (10)
is, - 0.11% (10)
try - 0.11% (10)
project - 0.11% (10)
were - 0.11% (10)
about - 0.11% (10)
years - 0.11% (10)
between - 0.11% (10)
sent - 0.11% (10)
top - 0.11% (10)
road - 0.11% (10)
since - 0.11% (10)
report - 0.1% (9)
would - 0.1% (9)
significant - 0.1% (9)
worth - 0.1% (9)
live - 0.1% (9)
capital - 0.1% (9)
distribution - 0.1% (9)
rates - 0.1% (9)
yet - 0.1% (9)
model - 0.1% (9)
good - 0.1% (9)
mud - 0.1% (9)
line - 0.1% (9)
when - 0.1% (9)
january - 0.1% (9)
important - 0.1% (9)
group - 0.1% (9)
(11) - 0.1% (9)
focus - 0.1% (9)
those - 0.1% (9)
opportunities - 0.1% (9)
every - 0.1% (9)
finance, - 0.1% (9)
too - 0.1% (9)
data - 0.1% (9)
savings - 0.1% (9)
however - 0.1% (9)
help - 0.1% (9)
complexity - 0.1% (9)
lower - 0.1% (9)
disposable - 0.1% (9)
proper - 0.1% (9)
well-being - 0.1% (9)
benefit - 0.08% (8)
times - 0.08% (8)
investors - 0.08% (8)
chains - 0.08% (8)
power - 0.08% (8)
(10) - 0.08% (8)
nordic - 0.08% (8)
productivity - 0.08% (8)
just - 0.08% (8)
interest - 0.08% (8)
child - 0.08% (8)
economy - 0.08% (8)
december - 0.08% (8)
november - 0.08% (8)
clear - 0.08% (8)
change - 0.08% (8)
point - 0.08% (8)
october - 0.08% (8)
generate - 0.08% (8)
statistical - 0.08% (8)
(8) - 0.08% (8)
east - 0.08% (8)
globalisation - 0.08% (8)
director - 0.08% (8)
buy - 0.08% (8)
march - 0.08% (8)
answer - 0.08% (8)
look - 0.08% (8)
afford - 0.08% (8)
ability - 0.08% (8)
create - 0.08% (8)
trend - 0.08% (8)
problem - 0.08% (8)
upstream - 0.08% (8)
few - 0.08% (8)
(chart - 0.08% (8)
developed - 0.08% (8)
consumption - 0.08% (8)
growth, - 0.08% (8)
however, - 0.08% (8)
rises - 0.08% (8)
wealth - 0.08% (8)
table - 0.08% (8)
same - 0.08% (8)
total - 0.08% (8)
example, - 0.08% (8)
income, - 0.08% (8)
figure - 0.08% (8)
special - 0.08% (8)
enterprise - 0.07% (7)
funds - 0.07% (7)
third - 0.07% (7)
cause - 0.07% (7)
(15) - 0.07% (7)
put - 0.07% (7)
often - 0.07% (7)
before - 0.07% (7)
back - 0.07% (7)
august - 0.07% (7)
(7) - 0.07% (7)
approaches - 0.07% (7)
april - 0.07% (7)
people’s - 0.07% (7)
wide - 0.07% (7)
increasing - 0.07% (7)
july - 0.07% (7)
this:tweetprintmoreshare - 0.07% (7)
tumblremailpocket - 0.07% (7)
- 0.07% (7)
bottom - 0.07% (7)
author - 0.07% (7)
tags: - 0.07% (7)
institutions - 0.07% (7)
issue - 0.07% (7)
build - 0.07% (7)
lead - 0.07% (7)
indicator - 0.07% (7)
links - 0.07% (7)
guest - 0.07% (7)
education - 0.07% (7)
june - 0.07% (7)
quarter - 0.07% (7)
impact - 0.07% (7)
dependent - 0.07% (7)
foreign - 0.07% (7)
highest - 0.07% (7)
recent - 0.07% (7)
together - 0.07% (7)
comment - 0.07% (7)
groups - 0.07% (7)
transfers - 0.07% (7)
country - 0.07% (7)
particularly - 0.07% (7)
off - 0.07% (7)
face - 0.07% (7)
life - 0.07% (7)
average - 0.07% (7)
september - 0.07% (7)
oecd, - 0.07% (7)
ways - 0.07% (7)
around - 0.07% (7)
action - 0.07% (7)
should - 0.07% (7)
inequality - 0.06% (6)
think - 0.06% (6)
material - 0.06% (6)
first - 0.06% (6)
require - 0.06% (6)
institutional - 0.06% (6)
find - 0.06% (6)
indicators - 0.06% (6)
(12) - 0.06% (6)
(9) - 0.06% (6)
member - 0.06% (6)
measure - 0.06% (6)
local - 0.06% (6)
keep - 0.06% (6)
gain - 0.06% (6)
expenditure - 0.06% (6)
children - 0.06% (6)
complicated - 0.06% (6)
shows - 0.06% (6)
outcomes - 0.06% (6)
liam - 0.06% (6)
effect - 0.06% (6)
both - 0.06% (6)
profit - 0.06% (6)
better - 0.06% (6)
netherlands - 0.06% (6)
common - 0.06% (6)
states - 0.06% (6)
each - 0.06% (6)
full - 0.06% (6)
unemployment - 0.06% (6)
enterprises - 0.06% (6)
follow - 0.06% (6)
number - 0.06% (6)
trust - 0.06% (6)
learn - 0.06% (6)
among - 0.06% (6)
crisis, - 0.06% (6)
today - 0.06% (6)
bank - 0.06% (6)
all, - 0.06% (6)
working - 0.06% (6)
mortgage - 0.06% (6)
great - 0.06% (6)
development - 0.06% (6)
play - 0.06% (6)
account - 0.06% (6)
(18) - 0.06% (6)
2009 - 0.06% (6)
your - 0.06% (6)
thing - 0.06% (6)
initiative - 0.06% (6)
general - 0.06% (6)
hard - 0.06% (6)
range - 0.06% (6)
seen - 0.06% (6)
2016) - 0.06% (6)
job - 0.06% (6)
gvcs - 0.06% (6)
early - 0.06% (6)
start - 0.06% (6)
part-time - 0.06% (6)
rising - 0.06% (6)
directorate - 0.06% (6)
because - 0.06% (6)
cash - 0.05% (5)
further - 0.05% (5)
spend - 0.05% (5)
i.e. - 0.05% (5)
growing - 0.05% (5)
small - 0.05% (5)
low- - 0.05% (5)
leave - 0.05% (5)
consumer - 0.05% (5)
remain - 0.05% (5)
city - 0.05% (5)
economies - 0.05% (5)
competitive - 0.05% (5)
ruth - 0.05% (5)
(17) - 0.05% (5)
standing - 0.05% (5)
four - 0.05% (5)
governments - 0.05% (5)
budget - 0.05% (5)
rental - 0.05% (5)
parliament - 0.05% (5)
represent - 0.05% (5)
chair - 0.05% (5)
become - 0.05% (5)
course - 0.05% (5)
could - 0.05% (5)
future - 0.05% (5)
affordable - 0.05% (5)
found - 0.05% (5)
individual - 0.05% (5)
drop - 0.05% (5)
long-term - 0.05% (5)
affect - 0.05% (5)
front - 0.05% (5)
last - 0.05% (5)
technological - 0.05% (5)
countries. - 0.05% (5)
measures - 0.05% (5)
pace - 0.05% (5)
field - 0.05% (5)
financing - 0.05% (5)
compared - 0.05% (5)
structures - 0.05% (5)
reduce - 0.05% (5)
goal - 0.05% (5)
open - 0.05% (5)
provided - 0.05% (5)
relative - 0.05% (5)
roads - 0.05% (5)
must - 0.05% (5)
us. - 0.05% (5)
certain - 0.05% (5)
people. - 0.05% (5)
bonds - 0.05% (5)
poorest - 0.05% (5)
greater - 0.05% (5)
result - 0.05% (5)
channels - 0.05% (5)
reflects - 0.05% (5)
exported - 0.05% (5)
incomes - 0.05% (5)
fall - 0.05% (5)
china - 0.05% (5)
half - 0.05% (5)
highlight - 0.05% (5)
40% - 0.05% (5)
health - 0.05% (5)
inderst - 0.05% (5)
turn - 0.05% (5)
key - 0.05% (5)
move - 0.05% (5)
doing - 0.05% (5)
allow - 0.05% (5)
answers - 0.05% (5)
due - 0.05% (5)
benefits - 0.05% (5)
search - 0.05% (5)
models - 0.04% (4)
years, - 0.04% (4)
6). - 0.04% (4)
adapt - 0.04% (4)
related - 0.04% (4)
emerging - 0.04% (4)
paper - 0.04% (4)
used - 0.04% (4)
trending - 0.04% (4)
relatively - 0.04% (4)
information - 0.04% (4)
(oecd - 0.04% (4)
whether - 0.04% (4)
projects - 0.04% (4)
recover - 0.04% (4)
characteristic - 0.04% (4)
productive - 0.04% (4)
size - 0.04% (4)
disadvantage - 0.04% (4)
acting - 0.04% (4)
time, - 0.04% (4)
growth: - 0.04% (4)
contribution - 0.04% (4)
ended - 0.04% (4)
based - 0.04% (4)
overall - 0.04% (4)
infrastructure. - 0.04% (4)
here. - 0.04% (4)
big - 0.04% (4)
pensions - 0.04% (4)
well-being, - 0.04% (4)
lives. - 0.04% (4)
10% - 0.04% (4)
confidence - 0.04% (4)
cultural - 0.04% (4)
jobs - 0.04% (4)
making - 0.04% (4)
collaboration - 0.04% (4)
research - 0.04% (4)
provides - 0.04% (4)
protect - 0.04% (4)
longer - 0.04% (4)
world’s - 0.04% (4)
generated - 0.04% (4)
takes - 0.04% (4)
percentage - 0.04% (4)
technology - 0.04% (4)
issues - 0.04% (4)
developing - 0.04% (4)
independent - 0.04% (4)
(5) - 0.04% (4)
don’t - 0.04% (4)
stable - 0.04% (4)
standards - 0.04% (4)
slight - 0.04% (4)
extent - 0.04% (4)
exporting - 0.04% (4)
micro - 0.04% (4)
(16) - 0.04% (4)
period - 0.04% (4)
oecd’s - 0.04% (4)
markets, - 0.04% (4)
next - 0.04% (4)
situation - 0.04% (4)
taking - 0.04% (4)
below - 0.04% (4)
lose - 0.04% (4)
manufacturing - 0.04% (4)
asia’s - 0.04% (4)
assess - 0.04% (4)
little - 0.04% (4)
cake - 0.04% (4)
recognise - 0.04% (4)
run - 0.04% (4)
towards - 0.04% (4)
traditional - 0.04% (4)
treat - 0.04% (4)
mp, - 0.04% (4)
governance - 0.04% (4)
integration - 0.04% (4)
body - 0.04% (4)
though - 0.04% (4)
housing, - 0.04% (4)
wrong - 0.04% (4)
conservative - 0.04% (4)
mid - 0.04% (4)
construction - 0.04% (4)
empower - 0.04% (4)
solution - 0.04% (4)
risk - 0.04% (4)
zealand - 0.04% (4)
progress - 0.04% (4)
framework - 0.04% (4)
sector. - 0.04% (4)
thinking - 0.04% (4)
finland - 0.04% (4)
posits - 0.04% (4)
obvious - 0.04% (4)
000 - 0.04% (4)
survey - 0.04% (4)
barriers - 0.04% (4)
statistics - 0.04% (4)
question - 0.04% (4)
georg - 0.04% (4)
canada - 0.04% (4)
without - 0.04% (4)
cycle - 0.04% (4)
(the - 0.04% (4)
board - 0.04% (4)
indirect - 0.04% (4)
beyond - 0.04% (4)
employees - 0.04% (4)
kingdom - 0.04% (4)
head - 0.04% (4)
attract - 0.04% (4)
address - 0.04% (4)
massive - 0.04% (4)
building - 0.04% (4)
especially - 0.04% (4)
right - 0.04% (4)
problems - 0.04% (4)
index - 0.04% (4)
chance - 0.04% (4)
consumers - 0.04% (4)
having - 0.04% (4)
skills - 0.04% (4)
whole - 0.04% (4)
harm - 0.04% (4)
kind - 0.04% (4)
bring - 0.04% (4)
south - 0.04% (4)
parent - 0.04% (4)
security - 0.04% (4)
does - 0.04% (4)
complexity, - 0.03% (3)
living - 0.03% (3)
note - 0.03% (3)
strong - 0.03% (3)
inderst, - 0.03% (3)
japan - 0.03% (3)
include - 0.03% (3)
domestically - 0.03% (3)
energy - 0.03% (3)
spillovers - 0.03% (3)
illustrates - 0.03% (3)
mnes - 0.03% (3)
exporters, - 0.03% (3)
transport - 0.03% (3)
2016. - 0.03% (3)
post - 0.03% (3)
sweden - 0.03% (3)
program - 0.03% (3)
efficient - 0.03% (3)
model” - 0.03% (3)
mainly - 0.03% (3)
2016). - 0.03% (3)
households. - 0.03% (3)
funds. - 0.03% (3)
conditions - 0.03% (3)
bill - 0.03% (3)
widely - 0.03% (3)
smes. - 0.03% (3)
places - 0.03% (3)
faced - 0.03% (3)
vision - 0.03% (3)
practice - 0.03% (3)
reform - 0.03% (3)
directly - 0.03% (3)
rents - 0.03% (3)
earth - 0.03% (3)
rather - 0.03% (3)
ppp - 0.03% (3)
approaching - 0.03% (3)
us, - 0.03% (3)
amount - 0.03% (3)
additional - 0.03% (3)
again - 0.03% (3)
deposits - 0.03% (3)
specific - 0.03% (3)
although - 0.03% (3)
effects - 0.03% (3)
strategic - 0.03% (3)
denmark, - 0.03% (3)
100 - 0.03% (3)
france - 0.03% (3)
relations - 0.03% (3)
homeless - 0.03% (3)
(oecd, - 0.03% (3)
2000 - 0.03% (3)
overcrowding - 0.03% (3)
centre - 0.03% (3)
seem - 0.03% (3)
substantial - 0.03% (3)
australia - 0.03% (3)
failure - 0.03% (3)
so, - 0.03% (3)
environment - 0.03% (3)
suppliers - 0.03% (3)
understand - 0.03% (3)
fewer - 0.03% (3)
smes, - 0.03% (3)
instrument - 0.03% (3)
slightly - 0.03% (3)
2016, - 0.03% (3)
vulnerabilities - 0.03% (3)
indebtedness - 0.03% (3)
allowances - 0.03% (3)
observed - 0.03% (3)
indicating - 0.03% (3)
target - 0.03% (3)
(14) - 0.03% (3)
offices - 0.03% (3)
goods - 0.03% (3)
decrease - 0.03% (3)
available - 0.03% (3)
money - 0.03% (3)
employed - 0.03% (3)
there’s - 0.03% (3)
join - 0.03% (3)
define - 0.03% (3)
done - 0.03% (3)
overall, - 0.03% (3)
works - 0.03% (3)
might - 0.03% (3)
(i.e. - 0.03% (3)
underutilisation - 0.03% (3)
active - 0.03% (3)
knowledge - 0.03% (3)
required - 0.03% (3)
simple - 0.03% (3)
purpose - 0.03% (3)
largest - 0.03% (3)
markets. - 0.03% (3)
rules - 0.03% (3)
everything - 0.03% (3)
changes - 0.03% (3)
inequalities - 0.03% (3)
decline - 0.03% (3)
implement - 0.03% (3)
supply - 0.03% (3)
intervention - 0.03% (3)
way. - 0.03% (3)
population - 0.03% (3)
increasingly - 0.03% (3)
choice - 0.03% (3)
learned - 0.03% (3)
areas - 0.03% (3)
falling - 0.03% (3)
alone - 0.03% (3)
vital - 0.03% (3)
care - 0.03% (3)
ultimate - 0.03% (3)
appg - 0.03% (3)
behavioural - 0.03% (3)
network - 0.03% (3)
significantly - 0.03% (3)
including - 0.03% (3)
after - 0.03% (3)
welcome - 0.03% (3)
always - 0.03% (3)
helping - 0.03% (3)
became - 0.03% (3)
middle - 0.03% (3)
perspective - 0.03% (3)
20% - 0.03% (3)
innovation - 0.03% (3)
region - 0.03% (3)
prices, - 0.03% (3)
sectors - 0.03% (3)
innovative - 0.03% (3)
partner - 0.03% (3)
costs, - 0.03% (3)
difference - 0.03% (3)
ensuring - 0.03% (3)
picture - 0.03% (3)
crop - 0.03% (3)
terms - 0.03% (3)
uk, - 0.03% (3)
responsible - 0.03% (3)
listen - 0.03% (3)
following - 0.03% (3)
enough - 0.03% (3)
frontier - 0.03% (3)
meaningful - 0.03% (3)
haiti - 0.03% (3)
activity - 0.03% (3)
basic - 0.03% (3)
buyers - 0.03% (3)
points - 0.03% (3)
continued - 0.03% (3)
faith - 0.03% (3)
people, - 0.03% (3)
created - 0.03% (3)
dynamic - 0.03% (3)
matters - 0.03% (3)
database - 0.03% (3)
suffer - 0.03% (3)
scale - 0.03% (3)
protection - 0.03% (3)
factors - 0.03% (3)
civil - 0.03% (3)
driving - 0.03% (3)
either - 0.03% (3)
debate - 0.03% (3)
deploy - 0.03% (3)
engine - 0.03% (3)
initiative. - 0.03% (3)
society - 0.03% (3)
derive - 0.03% (3)
amos - 0.03% (3)
leaders - 0.03% (3)
sustainable - 0.03% (3)
demand - 0.03% (3)
want - 0.03% (3)
ensure - 0.03% (3)
empowering - 0.03% (3)
course, - 0.03% (3)
fear - 0.03% (3)
managed - 0.03% (3)
failed - 0.03% (3)
integrated - 0.03% (3)
rapid - 0.03% (3)
gdp. - 0.03% (3)
least - 0.03% (3)
rises. - 0.03% (3)
gets - 0.03% (3)
roads, - 0.03% (3)
capacity - 0.03% (3)
had - 0.03% (3)
typically - 0.03% (3)
cities - 0.03% (3)
argument - 0.03% (3)
loss - 0.03% (3)
engage - 0.03% (3)
fulfil - 0.03% (3)
called - 0.03% (3)
via - 0.03% (3)
mexico, - 0.02% (2)
twice - 0.02% (2)
potential, - 0.02% (2)
value-added - 0.02% (2)
(see - 0.02% (2)
human - 0.02% (2)
instance, - 0.02% (2)
finland, - 0.02% (2)
digital - 0.02% (2)
investment, - 0.02% (2)
dynamics - 0.02% (2)
exploit - 0.02% (2)
dependencies - 0.02% (2)
multinational - 0.02% (2)
likely - 0.02% (2)
roughly - 0.02% (2)
efforts - 0.02% (2)
highlighting - 0.02% (2)
downstream - 0.02% (2)
moreover, - 0.02% (2)
growth. - 0.02% (2)
intercontinental - 0.02% (2)
2000s, - 0.02% (2)
literal - 0.02% (2)
gas - 0.02% (2)
economics - 0.02% (2)
advantages - 0.02% (2)
made - 0.02% (2)
begin - 0.02% (2)
goes - 0.02% (2)
first, - 0.02% (2)
redistribution - 0.02% (2)
billion - 0.02% (2)
certainty - 0.02% (2)
transportation - 0.02% (2)
equality, - 0.02% (2)
top-down - 0.02% (2)
‘wicked’ - 0.02% (2)
needs - 0.02% (2)
lessons - 0.02% (2)
commit - 0.02% (2)
feed - 0.02% (2)
clearly - 0.02% (2)
core - 0.02% (2)
discussion. - 0.02% (2)
efficiently - 0.02% (2)
whole-of-government - 0.02% (2)
vehicle - 0.02% (2)
yet, - 0.02% (2)
0.5% - 0.02% (2)
guys - 0.02% (2)
gvcs. - 0.02% (2)
given - 0.02% (2)
enterprises. - 0.02% (2)
communication - 0.02% (2)
restore - 0.02% (2)
improve - 0.02% (2)
chains, - 0.02% (2)
with, - 0.02% (2)
insights, - 0.02% (2)
wrong. - 0.02% (2)
lines - 0.02% (2)
free - 0.02% (2)
finally, - 0.02% (2)
say - 0.02% (2)
haven’t - 0.02% (2)
attention - 0.02% (2)
master - 0.02% (2)
engineering - 0.02% (2)
ourselves - 0.02% (2)
closer - 0.02% (2)
today, - 0.02% (2)
sub-system - 0.02% (2)
component - 0.02% (2)
tools - 0.02% (2)
presented - 0.02% (2)
interesting - 0.02% (2)
exports. - 0.02% (2)
fast - 0.02% (2)
[1] - 0.02% (2)
itself, - 0.02% (2)
insurance - 0.02% (2)
papers - 0.02% (2)
efficiency - 0.02% (2)
properly - 0.02% (2)
shift - 0.02% (2)
finding - 0.02% (2)
green - 0.02% (2)
africa - 0.02% (2)
neglected - 0.02% (2)
agent - 0.02% (2)
energy, - 0.02% (2)
networks - 0.02% (2)
mismatch - 0.02% (2)
distributional - 0.02% (2)
equity - 0.02% (2)
affected - 0.02% (2)
ways. - 0.02% (2)
singapore - 0.02% (2)
credit - 0.02% (2)
opportunities, - 0.02% (2)
position. - 0.02% (2)
adbi - 0.02% (2)
older - 0.02% (2)
any, - 0.02% (2)
nine - 0.02% (2)
check - 0.02% (2)
turning - 0.02% (2)
theme - 0.02% (2)
translate - 0.02% (2)
reality - 0.02% (2)
gabriela - 0.02% (2)
thanks - 0.02% (2)
article - 0.02% (2)
consensus - 0.02% (2)
identify - 0.02% (2)
(23) - 0.02% (2)
profound - 0.02% (2)
simplistic - 0.02% (2)
societies - 0.02% (2)
progress. - 0.02% (2)
everywhere - 0.02% (2)
consequences - 0.02% (2)
(22) - 0.02% (2)
considerably - 0.02% (2)
(21) - 0.02% (2)
sense - 0.02% (2)
deal - 0.02% (2)
(13) - 0.02% (2)
archives - 0.02% (2)
industries - 0.02% (2)
limiting - 0.02% (2)
produced - 0.02% (2)
whose - 0.02% (2)
asia? - 0.02% (2)
unequal - 0.02% (2)
icio - 0.02% (2)
globalisation, - 0.02% (2)
(tiva) - 0.02% (2)
detailed - 0.02% (2)
education. - 0.02% (2)
partners - 0.02% (2)
parents - 0.02% (2)
initial - 0.02% (2)
e.g. - 0.02% (2)
relationship - 0.02% (2)
importance - 0.02% (2)
did - 0.02% (2)
complete - 0.02% (2)
university - 0.02% (2)
chains. - 0.02% (2)
hand - 0.02% (2)
receive - 0.02% (2)
thus - 0.02% (2)
smaller - 0.02% (2)
worryingly - 0.02% (2)
reflecting - 0.02% (2)
lives, - 0.02% (2)
assets, - 0.02% (2)
investors. - 0.02% (2)
revenue - 0.02% (2)
numbers - 0.02% (2)
necessarily - 0.02% (2)
fund, - 0.02% (2)
regulation - 0.02% (2)
stark - 0.02% (2)
sources - 0.02% (2)
trying - 0.02% (2)
involved - 0.02% (2)
traditionally - 0.02% (2)
richest - 0.02% (2)
places. - 0.02% (2)
eight - 0.02% (2)
wealth, - 0.02% (2)
scope - 0.02% (2)
banks - 0.02% (2)
almost - 0.02% (2)
worse - 0.02% (2)
europe - 0.02% (2)
earners - 0.02% (2)
three - 0.02% (2)
away - 0.02% (2)
“asian - 0.02% (2)
existing - 0.02% (2)
troubling - 0.02% (2)
generation - 0.02% (2)
enhancing - 0.02% (2)
resistance - 0.02% (2)
broke - 0.02% (2)
safe - 0.02% (2)
meant - 0.02% (2)
women - 0.02% (2)
visit - 0.02% (2)
measuring - 0.02% (2)
getting - 0.02% (2)
cakes - 0.02% (2)
fully - 0.02% (2)
staple - 0.02% (2)
bureau - 0.02% (2)
hungry - 0.02% (2)
america - 0.02% (2)
shelter - 0.02% (2)
started - 0.02% (2)
workers - 0.02% (2)
rate, - 0.02% (2)
agricultural - 0.02% (2)
downward - 0.02% (2)
slightly, - 0.02% (2)
prior - 0.02% (2)
counting - 0.02% (2)
oecd. - 0.02% (2)
oil - 0.02% (2)
abundant - 0.02% (2)
generally - 0.02% (2)
secure - 0.02% (2)
roof - 0.02% (2)
non-financial - 0.02% (2)
property - 0.02% (2)
shortage - 0.02% (2)
onto - 0.02% (2)
step - 0.02% (2)
(speri) - 0.02% (2)
agenda - 0.02% (2)
chairman - 0.02% (2)
forum - 0.02% (2)
aspiration - 0.02% (2)
span - 0.02% (2)
dame - 0.02% (2)
properties - 0.02% (2)
vice-chair - 0.02% (2)
negative - 0.02% (2)
in. - 0.02% (2)
manchester - 0.02% (2)
attractive - 0.02% (2)
states. - 0.02% (2)
analysis - 0.02% (2)
zealand, - 0.02% (2)
austria, - 0.02% (2)
jonathan - 0.02% (2)
pie - 0.02% (2)
haitian - 0.02% (2)
amounts - 0.02% (2)
potentially - 0.02% (2)
that, - 0.02% (2)
another - 0.02% (2)
spike - 0.02% (2)
sheffield - 0.02% (2)
means - 0.02% (2)
generates - 0.02% (2)
during - 0.02% (2)
process - 0.02% (2)
failing - 0.02% (2)
pressures - 0.02% (2)
profits - 0.02% (2)
cannot - 0.02% (2)
patterns - 0.02% (2)
best - 0.02% (2)
crisis. - 0.02% (2)
walls - 0.02% (2)
pre-crisis - 0.02% (2)
therefore - 0.02% (2)
profitable - 0.02% (2)
improving - 0.02% (2)
driven - 0.02% (2)
competitiveness - 0.02% (2)
focusing - 0.02% (2)
producer - 0.02% (2)
previous - 0.02% (2)
0.6 - 0.02% (2)
isn’t - 0.02% (2)
goals - 0.02% (2)
brooks - 0.02% (2)
dash - 0.02% (2)
households, - 0.02% (2)
output - 0.02% (2)
term, - 0.02% (2)
within - 0.02% (2)
fortunately, - 0.02% (2)
addition, - 0.02% (2)
major - 0.02% (2)
took - 0.02% (2)
declining - 0.02% (2)
constitute - 0.02% (2)
loans - 0.02% (2)
million - 0.02% (2)
reason - 0.02% (2)
reached - 0.02% (2)
above - 0.02% (2)
budgets - 0.02% (2)
food. - 0.02% (2)
worst - 0.02% (2)
click - 0.02% (2)
2015. - 0.02% (2)
dropped - 0.02% (2)
shocks - 0.02% (2)
cushioned - 0.02% (2)
proportion - 0.02% (2)
5), - 0.02% (2)
ultimately - 0.02% (2)
seems - 0.02% (2)
buying - 0.02% (2)
similar - 0.02% (2)
resulted - 0.02% (2)
mild - 0.02% (2)
institute - 0.02% (2)
spread - 0.02% (2)
role, - 0.02% (2)
throughout - 0.02% (2)
them. - 0.02% (2)
tend - 0.02% (2)
imply - 0.02% (2)
crucially, - 0.02% (2)
healthcare - 0.02% (2)
coherent - 0.02% (2)
high-quality - 0.02% (2)
solving - 0.02% (2)
going - 0.02% (2)
education, - 0.02% (2)
comprehensive - 0.02% (2)
built - 0.02% (2)
systems, - 0.02% (2)
stop - 0.02% (2)
problems, - 0.02% (2)
said - 0.02% (2)
competition - 0.02% (2)
limits - 0.02% (2)
heuristics - 0.02% (2)
tricks - 0.02% (2)
taxes, - 0.02% (2)
decisions - 0.02% (2)
diligence - 0.02% (2)
actionable - 0.02% (2)
lack - 0.02% (2)
sometimes - 0.02% (2)
furnish - 0.02% (2)
clear, - 0.02% (2)
system) - 0.02% (2)
broader - 0.02% (2)
welfare - 0.02% (2)
economists - 0.02% (2)
shown - 0.02% (2)
holistic - 0.02% (2)
joined - 0.02% (2)
treatment - 0.02% (2)
averse’ - 0.02% (2)
bad - 0.02% (2)
everyone - 0.02% (2)
kidney - 0.02% (2)
pharmaceuticals - 0.02% (2)
providing - 0.02% (2)
unknowns) - 0.02% (2)
approach, - 0.02% (2)
mere - 0.02% (2)
mistake - 0.02% (2)
challenge. - 0.02% (2)
system, - 0.02% (2)
understanding - 0.02% (2)
seek - 0.02% (2)
prevent - 0.02% (2)
remove - 0.02% (2)
fill - 0.02% (2)
expertise - 0.02% (2)
apply - 0.02% (2)
young - 0.02% (2)
territorial - 0.02% (2)
short-term - 0.02% (2)
richer - 0.02% (2)
solutions - 0.02% (2)
succeeding - 0.02% (2)
prosperity - 0.02% (2)
success - 0.02% (2)
[i] - 0.02% (2)
[ii] - 0.02% (2)
australia, - 0.02% (2)
[iii] - 0.02% (2)
[iv] - 0.02% (2)
calculations - 0.02% (2)
[v] - 0.02% (2)
all. - 0.02% (2)
[vi] - 0.02% (2)
indeed, - 0.02% (2)
(2015) - 0.02% (2)
space - 0.02% (2)
sufficient - 0.02% (2)
increases - 0.02% (2)
paris - 0.02% (2)
furthermore, - 0.02% (2)
low-income - 0.02% (2)
burden - 0.02% (2)
hon. - 0.02% (2)
professor - 0.02% (2)
item - 0.02% (2)
single - 0.02% (2)
arrangements - 0.02% (2)
deliver - 0.02% (2)
economy, - 0.02% (2)
guarantees - 0.02% (2)
firms, - 0.02% (2)
tackle - 0.02% (2)
options - 0.02% (2)
evidence - 0.02% (2)
companies - 0.02% (2)
monitor - 0.02% (2)
adopting - 0.02% (2)
homeownership - 0.02% (2)
relief - 0.02% (2)
design - 0.02% (2)
chile - 0.02% (2)
aspect - 0.02% (2)
mortgages - 0.02% (2)
instruments - 0.02% (2)
grants, - 0.02% (2)
netherlands. - 0.02% (2)
represents - 0.02% (2)
germany - 0.02% (2)
recommendations - 0.02% (2)
slowdown - 0.02% (2)
partly - 0.02% (2)
supporting - 0.02% (2)
characteristics - 0.02% (2)
agencies - 0.02% (2)
spending - 0.02% (2)
gdp, - 0.02% (2)
content - 0.02% (2)
of the - 0.69% (65)
in the - 0.64% (60)
and the - 0.34% (32)
at the - 0.32% (30)
to the - 0.25% (24)
the oecd - 0.24% (23)
inclusive growth - 0.23% (22)
need to - 0.19% (18)
with a - 0.17% (16)
on the - 0.17% (16)
q3 2016 - 0.15% (14)
with the - 0.13% (12)
we need - 0.13% (12)
have been - 0.13% (12)
dutch households - 0.12% (11)
value added - 0.11% (10)
there is - 0.11% (10)
the united - 0.11% (10)
and so - 0.1% (9)
for the - 0.1% (9)
as the - 0.1% (9)
disposable income - 0.1% (9)
income in - 0.1% (9)
increase in - 0.1% (9)
such as - 0.08% (8)
of gdp - 0.08% (8)
household income - 0.08% (8)
of household - 0.08% (8)
access to - 0.08% (8)
per capita - 0.08% (8)
that is - 0.08% (8)
as well - 0.08% (8)
february 2017 - 0.08% (8)
more than - 0.08% (8)
the poor - 0.08% (8)
value chains - 0.07% (7)
share of - 0.07% (7)
guest author - 0.07% (7)
from the - 0.07% (7)
the bottom - 0.07% (7)
oecd countries - 0.07% (7)
for example, - 0.07% (7)
has been - 0.07% (7)
the same - 0.07% (7)
the world - 0.07% (7)
this:tweetprintmoreshare on - 0.07% (7)
→ insights - 0.07% (7)
the net - 0.07% (7)
useful links - 0.07% (7)
in many - 0.07% (7)
by guest - 0.07% (7)
complex system - 0.07% (7)
share this:tweetprintmoreshare - 0.07% (7)
of their - 0.07% (7)
2017 tags: - 0.07% (7)
on tumblremailpocket - 0.07% (7)
from → - 0.07% (7)
well as - 0.07% (7)
real household - 0.06% (6)
that a - 0.06% (6)
in our - 0.06% (6)
global value - 0.06% (6)
larger firms - 0.06% (6)
holds a - 0.06% (6)
food price - 0.06% (6)
may be - 0.06% (6)
can be - 0.06% (6)
is the - 0.06% (6)
nordic countries - 0.06% (6)
role of - 0.06% (6)
comment from - 0.06% (6)
by the - 0.06% (6)
is also - 0.06% (6)
on inclusive - 0.06% (6)
infrastructure in - 0.06% (6)
net worth - 0.06% (6)
the state - 0.06% (6)
united states - 0.06% (6)
the challenge - 0.06% (6)
the netherlands - 0.06% (6)
the high - 0.06% (6)
economic growth - 0.05% (5)
have a - 0.05% (5)
of households - 0.05% (5)
by large - 0.05% (5)
member of - 0.05% (5)
the highest - 0.05% (5)
an increase - 0.05% (5)
the increase - 0.05% (5)
is not - 0.05% (5)
in part - 0.05% (5)
will be - 0.05% (5)
lower prices - 0.05% (5)
from a - 0.05% (5)
income and - 0.05% (5)
a home - 0.05% (5)
the crisis - 0.05% (5)
a large - 0.05% (5)
the economic - 0.05% (5)
one of - 0.05% (5)
in their - 0.05% (5)
the household - 0.05% (5)
we have - 0.05% (5)
are the - 0.05% (5)
many countries - 0.05% (5)
the last - 0.05% (5)
across the - 0.05% (5)
not the - 0.05% (5)
investment in - 0.05% (5)
half of - 0.05% (5)
the global - 0.05% (5)
the poorest - 0.05% (5)
of total - 0.05% (5)
of large - 0.05% (5)
infrastructure investment - 0.05% (5)
direct exports - 0.05% (5)
growth and - 0.05% (5)
of course - 0.05% (5)
to create - 0.04% (4)
look at - 0.04% (4)
cash transfers - 0.04% (4)
house prices - 0.04% (4)
most countries - 0.04% (4)
united kingdom - 0.04% (4)
financial net - 0.04% (4)
the extent - 0.04% (4)
the future - 0.04% (4)
working paper - 0.04% (4)
new approach - 0.04% (4)
same time - 0.04% (4)
levels of - 0.04% (4)
prices are - 0.04% (4)
email address - 0.04% (4)
in most - 0.04% (4)
rising in - 0.04% (4)
and more - 0.04% (4)
affordable housing - 0.04% (4)
to make - 0.04% (4)
in infrastructure - 0.04% (4)
the financial - 0.04% (4)
the labour - 0.04% (4)
inclusive growth, - 0.04% (4)
also in - 0.04% (4)
of parliament - 0.04% (4)
employment rate - 0.04% (4)
leave a - 0.04% (4)
oecd work - 0.04% (4)
farmers who - 0.04% (4)
new zealand - 0.04% (4)
the role - 0.04% (4)
parliament for - 0.04% (4)
a comment - 0.04% (4)
institutional investor - 0.04% (4)
we also - 0.04% (4)
tumblremailpocket leave - 0.04% (4)
work on - 0.04% (4)
household disposable - 0.04% (4)
increased from - 0.04% (4)
been trending - 0.04% (4)
the per - 0.04% (4)
exports of - 0.04% (4)
foreign markets - 0.04% (4)
while the - 0.04% (4)
2016 to - 0.04% (4)
index increased - 0.04% (4)
q2 2016 - 0.04% (4)
shows that - 0.04% (4)
were no - 0.04% (4)
to keep - 0.04% (4)
domestic value - 0.04% (4)
since the - 0.04% (4)
(the index - 0.04% (4)
provided by - 0.04% (4)
of exports - 0.04% (4)
in particular - 0.04% (4)
before the - 0.04% (4)
the nordic - 0.04% (4)
range of - 0.04% (4)
the world’s - 0.04% (4)
in global - 0.04% (4)
the body - 0.04% (4)
are doing - 0.04% (4)
over the - 0.04% (4)
we see - 0.04% (4)
statistical insights - 0.04% (4)
that dutch - 0.04% (4)
rise in - 0.04% (4)
countries in - 0.04% (4)
food prices - 0.04% (4)
of our - 0.04% (4)
the top - 0.04% (4)
reflects the - 0.04% (4)
is clear - 0.04% (4)
the oecd, - 0.04% (4)
countries are - 0.04% (4)
the impact - 0.04% (4)
focus on - 0.04% (4)
way to - 0.03% (3)
households in - 0.03% (3)
continued to - 0.03% (3)
q2 2009 - 0.03% (3)
the total - 0.03% (3)
that households - 0.03% (3)
but also - 0.03% (3)
material conditions - 0.03% (3)
is worth - 0.03% (3)
transfers to - 0.03% (3)
goods and - 0.03% (3)
households are - 0.03% (3)
to households - 0.03% (3)
in household - 0.03% (3)
the level - 0.03% (3)
savings rate - 0.03% (3)
and services - 0.03% (3)
drop in - 0.03% (3)
net cash - 0.03% (3)
social rental - 0.03% (3)
into account - 0.03% (3)
contribution to - 0.03% (3)
and over - 0.03% (3)
more private - 0.03% (3)
value of - 0.03% (3)
statistical offices - 0.03% (3)
of smes - 0.03% (3)
the report - 0.03% (3)
for smes - 0.03% (3)
a significant - 0.03% (3)
of public - 0.03% (3)
of all - 0.03% (3)
dependent smes - 0.03% (3)
on foreign - 0.03% (3)
generated by - 0.03% (3)
the domestic - 0.03% (3)
compared to - 0.03% (3)
and their - 0.03% (3)
has in - 0.03% (3)
the asian - 0.03% (3)
finance is - 0.03% (3)
the first - 0.03% (3)
2015 (15) - 0.03% (3)
2010 (18) - 0.03% (3)
2010 (16) - 0.03% (3)
2011 (11) - 0.03% (3)
2011 (8) - 0.03% (3)
2012 (7) - 0.03% (3)
2013 (10) - 0.03% (3)
2013 (11) - 0.03% (3)
(8) july - 0.03% (3)
faced with - 0.03% (3)
georg inderst - 0.03% (3)
and social - 0.03% (3)
asian infrastructure - 0.03% (3)
infrastructure finance - 0.03% (3)
and private - 0.03% (3)
a more - 0.03% (3)
private pension - 0.03% (3)
of infrastructure - 0.03% (3)
public sector - 0.03% (3)
how do - 0.03% (3)
– an - 0.03% (3)
information on - 0.03% (3)
led to - 0.03% (3)
financial crisis - 0.03% (3)
also a - 0.03% (3)
oecd directorate - 0.03% (3)
insights a - 0.03% (3)
of what - 0.03% (3)
quarter of - 0.03% (3)
labour underutilisation - 0.03% (3)
of housing - 0.03% (3)
unemployment rate - 0.03% (3)
also provide - 0.03% (3)
underutilisation rate - 0.03% (3)
the unemployment - 0.03% (3)
of dutch - 0.03% (3)
dutch households’ - 0.03% (3)
percentage points - 0.03% (3)
increase of - 0.03% (3)
particularly in - 0.03% (3)
i.e. the - 0.03% (3)
how much - 0.03% (3)
for more - 0.03% (3)
of complex - 0.03% (3)
systems thinking - 0.03% (3)
we don’t - 0.03% (3)
don’t know - 0.03% (3)
systems are - 0.03% (3)
but the - 0.03% (3)
the value - 0.03% (3)
to reduce - 0.03% (3)
housing costs - 0.03% (3)
to find - 0.03% (3)
directorate for - 0.03% (3)
other countries - 0.03% (3)
support to - 0.03% (3)
rental housing - 0.03% (3)
the most - 0.03% (3)
housing allowances - 0.03% (3)
of people - 0.03% (3)
labour and - 0.03% (3)
was not - 0.03% (3)
people, and - 0.03% (3)
20% of - 0.03% (3)
policies to - 0.03% (3)
at least - 0.03% (3)
use of - 0.03% (3)
empowering state - 0.03% (3)
part of - 0.03% (3)
the real - 0.03% (3)
the very - 0.03% (3)
trade and - 0.03% (3)
when it - 0.03% (3)
income distribution - 0.03% (3)
those at - 0.03% (3)
markets and - 0.03% (3)
and local - 0.03% (3)
into the - 0.03% (3)
of global - 0.03% (3)
globalisation and - 0.03% (3)
the potential - 0.03% (3)
and economic - 0.03% (3)
political economy - 0.03% (3)
also need - 0.03% (3)
ability to - 0.03% (3)
not only - 0.03% (3)
were not - 0.03% (3)
appg on - 0.03% (3)
benefits of - 0.03% (3)
are not - 0.03% (3)
in international - 0.03% (3)
to help - 0.03% (3)
recognise that - 0.03% (3)
of course, - 0.03% (3)
the benefits - 0.03% (3)
is part - 0.03% (3)
end in - 0.03% (3)
growth: the - 0.03% (3)
outcomes of - 0.03% (3)
the appg - 0.03% (3)
to economic - 0.03% (3)
developing countries, - 0.03% (3)
impact on - 0.03% (3)
in other - 0.03% (3)
and investment - 0.03% (3)
gdp per - 0.03% (3)
terms of - 0.03% (3)
good for - 0.03% (3)
their potential - 0.03% (3)
that are - 0.03% (3)
through the - 0.03% (3)
with markets, - 0.03% (3)
in terms - 0.03% (3)
offices in - 0.02% (2)
across a - 0.02% (2)
that smes - 0.02% (2)
how rising - 0.02% (2)
that in - 0.02% (2)
to fulfil - 0.02% (2)
oecd statistical - 0.02% (2)
in gvcs - 0.02% (2)
such an - 0.02% (2)
important role - 0.02% (2)
national statistical - 0.02% (2)
all, to - 0.02% (2)
us and - 0.02% (2)
indirect exports - 0.02% (2)
the unequal - 0.02% (2)
up with - 0.02% (2)
the social - 0.02% (2)
in emerging - 0.02% (2)
benefit from - 0.02% (2)
to lower - 0.02% (2)
important channels - 0.02% (2)
is exported - 0.02% (2)
exports. figure - 0.02% (2)
as important - 0.02% (2)
do not - 0.02% (2)
we all - 0.02% (2)
a larger - 0.02% (2)
with children - 0.02% (2)
of downstream - 0.02% (2)
an additional - 0.02% (2)
dependent on - 0.02% (2)
and technological - 0.02% (2)
significant share - 0.02% (2)
important as - 0.02% (2)
twice as - 0.02% (2)
independent smes - 0.02% (2)
including the - 0.02% (2)
(oecd, 2016) - 0.02% (2)
this has - 0.02% (2)
complicated system) - 0.02% (2)
to start - 0.02% (2)
systems approach - 0.02% (2)
engage in - 0.02% (2)
may also - 0.02% (2)
will of - 0.02% (2)
the form - 0.02% (2)
with, we - 0.02% (2)
enough to - 0.02% (2)
may have - 0.02% (2)
that people - 0.02% (2)
that have - 0.02% (2)
can have - 0.02% (2)
pharmaceuticals and - 0.02% (2)
power of - 0.02% (2)
economic models - 0.02% (2)
a common - 0.02% (2)
after the - 0.02% (2)
can only - 0.02% (2)
unknowns) and - 0.02% (2)
know what - 0.02% (2)
what matters - 0.02% (2)
to people. - 0.02% (2)
what we - 0.02% (2)
to put - 0.02% (2)
use the - 0.02% (2)
levels are - 0.02% (2)
can we - 0.02% (2)
kind of - 0.02% (2)
the oecd. - 0.02% (2)
‘wicked’ problem - 0.02% (2)
activity in - 0.02% (2)
smes are - 0.02% (2)
for all - 0.02% (2)
our most - 0.02% (2)
around half - 0.02% (2)
value chains, - 0.02% (2)
→ insights, - 0.02% (2)
building a - 0.02% (2)
complex challenges - 0.02% (2)
long term - 0.02% (2)
the power - 0.02% (2)
approaching complex - 0.02% (2)
firms at - 0.02% (2)
third way - 0.02% (2)
back a - 0.02% (2)
guys and - 0.02% (2)
with clear - 0.02% (2)
their productive - 0.02% (2)
the early - 0.02% (2)
of systems - 0.02% (2)
and open - 0.02% (2)
on income - 0.02% (2)
what are - 0.02% (2)
would you - 0.02% (2)
rising inequality - 0.02% (2)
in such - 0.02% (2)
a quarter - 0.02% (2)
and price - 0.02% (2)
the key - 0.02% (2)
in africa - 0.02% (2)
insurance and - 0.02% (2)
on finance, - 0.02% (2)
working papers - 0.02% (2)
and canada - 0.02% (2)
finance, insurance - 0.02% (2)
papers on - 0.02% (2)
oecd working - 0.02% (2)
and trust - 0.02% (2)
fund investment - 0.02% (2)
and health - 0.02% (2)
finance and - 0.02% (2)
the construction - 0.02% (2)
different groups - 0.02% (2)
consequences of - 0.02% (2)
the framework - 0.02% (2)
the rise - 0.02% (2)
more to - 0.02% (2)
failed to - 0.02% (2)
furthermore, in - 0.02% (2)
and international - 0.02% (2)
and on - 0.02% (2)
trying to - 0.02% (2)
managed to - 0.02% (2)
china has - 0.02% (2)
private pensions - 0.02% (2)
january 2016 - 0.02% (2)
budgets on - 0.02% (2)
2014 (10) - 0.02% (2)
thanks to - 0.02% (2)
2010 (15) - 0.02% (2)
state of - 0.02% (2)
the debate - 0.02% (2)
nine years - 0.02% (2)
2012 (8) - 0.02% (2)
2013 (9) - 0.02% (2)
(12) may - 0.02% (2)
on from - 0.02% (2)
financial crisis, - 0.02% (2)
2014 (7) - 0.02% (2)
(18) may - 0.02% (2)
(12) november - 0.02% (2)
2014 (14) - 0.02% (2)
2014 (17) - 0.02% (2)
(11) january - 0.02% (2)
(15) march - 0.02% (2)
2015 (23) - 0.02% (2)
our economies - 0.02% (2)
(18) september - 0.02% (2)
2016 (15) - 0.02% (2)
2016 (12) - 0.02% (2)
has now - 0.02% (2)
2016 (22) - 0.02% (2)
2016 (21) - 0.02% (2)
they can - 0.02% (2)
for different - 0.02% (2)
upstream smes - 0.02% (2)
downstream exporters, - 0.02% (2)
10% in - 0.02% (2)
more general - 0.02% (2)
away from - 0.02% (2)
all countries - 0.02% (2)
countries, a - 0.02% (2)
trade in - 0.02% (2)
micro data - 0.02% (2)
in denmark, - 0.02% (2)
the crisis, - 0.02% (2)
to recover - 0.02% (2)
as their - 0.02% (2)
complex and - 0.02% (2)
richest 10% - 0.02% (2)
to exports - 0.02% (2)
importance of - 0.02% (2)
figure 4 - 0.02% (2)
sme services - 0.02% (2)
upstream spillovers - 0.02% (2)
the richest - 0.02% (2)
very top - 0.02% (2)
income inequality - 0.02% (2)
cultural capital - 0.02% (2)
large firms - 0.02% (2)
of income - 0.02% (2)
the important - 0.02% (2)
georg inderst, - 0.02% (2)
construction of - 0.02% (2)
has the - 0.02% (2)
project finance - 0.02% (2)
the economy - 0.02% (2)
recent years, - 0.02% (2)
some change - 0.02% (2)
debt and - 0.02% (2)
pension funds - 0.02% (2)
a high - 0.02% (2)
of economic - 0.02% (2)
of policies - 0.02% (2)
point is - 0.02% (2)
and by - 0.02% (2)
the use - 0.02% (2)
in europe - 0.02% (2)
trending down - 0.02% (2)
ratio of - 0.02% (2)
– we - 0.02% (2)
of gdp. - 0.02% (2)
below the - 0.02% (2)
have since - 0.02% (2)
the picture - 0.02% (2)
to note - 0.02% (2)
– and - 0.02% (2)
an “asian - 0.02% (2)
is there - 0.02% (2)
same time, - 0.02% (2)
gdp. the - 0.02% (2)
picture is - 0.02% (2)
complex problem - 0.02% (2)
the public - 0.02% (2)
material well-being - 0.02% (2)
relatively stable - 0.02% (2)
mp, vice-chair - 0.02% (2)
shows the - 0.02% (2)
rate (chart - 0.02% (2)
difference between - 0.02% (2)
in line - 0.02% (2)
household consumption - 0.02% (2)
economic growth, - 0.02% (2)
vice-chair of - 0.02% (2)
at households’ - 0.02% (2)
to look - 0.02% (2)
research institute - 0.02% (2)
conservative member - 0.02% (2)
and savings - 0.02% (2)
in real - 0.02% (2)
chart 1 - 0.02% (2)
director of - 0.02% (2)
head of - 0.02% (2)
the inclusive - 0.02% (2)
households’ material - 0.02% (2)
for instance, - 0.02% (2)
in net - 0.02% (2)
poor consumers - 0.02% (2)
is that - 0.02% (2)
mud pie - 0.02% (2)
government and - 0.02% (2)
institute (speri) - 0.02% (2)
household income, - 0.02% (2)
constitute the - 0.02% (2)
to access - 0.02% (2)
of this - 0.02% (2)
among the - 0.02% (2)
key role - 0.02% (2)
will require - 0.02% (2)
the previous - 0.02% (2)
together to - 0.02% (2)
a coherent - 0.02% (2)
of financial - 0.02% (2)
succeeding in - 0.02% (2)
non-financial assets - 0.02% (2)
oecd (2015) - 0.02% (2)
debt levels - 0.02% (2)
economy research - 0.02% (2)
welcome to - 0.02% (2)
disposable income, - 0.02% (2)
q3 2016, - 0.02% (2)
to assess - 0.02% (2)
vulnerabilities of - 0.02% (2)
their disposable - 0.02% (2)
rt hon. - 0.02% (2)
households’ indebtedness - 0.02% (2)
and net - 0.02% (2)
challenge of - 0.02% (2)
other oecd - 0.02% (2)
sheffield political - 0.02% (2)
which means - 0.02% (2)
level of - 0.02% (2)
third quarter - 0.02% (2)
employment and - 0.02% (2)
seems to - 0.02% (2)
interesting to - 0.02% (2)
people are - 0.02% (2)
statistics directorate - 0.02% (2)
resulted in - 0.02% (2)
to see - 0.02% (2)
an argument - 0.02% (2)
the short - 0.02% (2)
the longer - 0.02% (2)
to engage - 0.02% (2)
food security - 0.02% (2)
on. as - 0.02% (2)
more on - 0.02% (2)
failing to - 0.02% (2)
that will - 0.02% (2)
focusing on - 0.02% (2)
choice of - 0.02% (2)
who are - 0.02% (2)
consumers and - 0.02% (2)
way that - 0.02% (2)
productivity growth - 0.02% (2)
as infrastructure - 0.02% (2)
for farmers - 0.02% (2)
are still - 0.02% (2)
means that - 0.02% (2)
that focus - 0.02% (2)
of households. - 0.02% (2)
their pre-crisis - 0.02% (2)
growth, and - 0.02% (2)
yet to - 0.02% (2)
households have - 0.02% (2)
the mud - 0.02% (2)
provides a - 0.02% (2)
mud cakes - 0.02% (2)
became a - 0.02% (2)
prices of - 0.02% (2)
falling in - 0.02% (2)
driven by - 0.02% (2)
they were - 0.02% (2)
q3 2016). - 0.02% (2)
prices and - 0.02% (2)
price spike - 0.02% (2)
from international - 0.02% (2)
addition, the - 0.02% (2)
are to - 0.02% (2)
previous quarter - 0.02% (2)
increased by - 0.02% (2)
real gdp - 0.02% (2)
increased at - 0.02% (2)
relatively large - 0.02% (2)
the worst - 0.02% (2)
in 2015. - 0.02% (2)
markets in - 0.02% (2)
gdp and - 0.02% (2)
and other - 0.02% (2)
households was - 0.02% (2)
all, the - 0.02% (2)
thinking in - 0.02% (2)
and new - 0.02% (2)
want to - 0.02% (2)
of gdp, - 0.02% (2)
widely used - 0.02% (2)
are now - 0.02% (2)
work for - 0.02% (2)
social housing - 0.02% (2)
what can - 0.02% (2)
oecd countries. - 0.02% (2)
and those - 0.02% (2)
particularly for - 0.02% (2)
affordable housing, - 0.02% (2)
the number - 0.02% (2)
of social - 0.02% (2)
in recent - 0.02% (2)
without a - 0.02% (2)
to bring - 0.02% (2)
still a - 0.02% (2)
in oecd - 0.02% (2)
though the - 0.02% (2)
over their - 0.02% (2)
have no - 0.02% (2)
compared with - 0.02% (2)
are most - 0.02% (2)
effects on - 0.02% (2)
rates that - 0.02% (2)
been a - 0.02% (2)
needs to - 0.02% (2)
of poor - 0.02% (2)
public governance - 0.02% (2)
survey of - 0.02% (2)
of complexity - 0.02% (2)
the right - 0.02% (2)
the limits - 0.02% (2)
to understand - 0.02% (2)
new approaches - 0.02% (2)
put people - 0.02% (2)
behavioural economists - 0.02% (2)
not have - 0.02% (2)
have seen - 0.02% (2)
the best - 0.02% (2)
and territorial - 0.02% (2)
out of - 0.02% (2)
due to - 0.02% (2)
tumblremailpocket 1 - 0.02% (2)
and provides - 0.02% (2)
countries and - 0.02% (2)
in need - 0.02% (2)
to build - 0.02% (2)
that goes - 0.02% (2)
home buyers - 0.02% (2)
all too - 0.02% (2)
the largest - 0.02% (2)
country with - 0.02% (2)
are common - 0.02% (2)
the netherlands. - 0.02% (2)
on housing - 0.02% (2)
than half - 0.02% (2)
of innovation - 0.02% (2)
and consumption - 0.02% (2)
people. in - 0.02% (2)
to support - 0.02% (2)
them to - 0.02% (2)
responsible business - 0.02% (2)
due diligence - 0.02% (2)
must be - 0.02% (2)
better life - 0.02% (2)
people’s well-being - 0.02% (2)
life initiative. - 0.02% (2)
to focus - 0.02% (2)
also look - 0.02% (2)
lack of - 0.02% (2)
home is - 0.02% (2)
the third - 0.02% (2)
be found - 0.02% (2)
income, consumption - 0.02% (2)
where the - 0.02% (2)
finance, and - 0.02% (2)
part-time employment - 0.02% (2)
little more - 0.02% (2)
average a - 0.02% (2)
make the - 0.02% (2)
a major - 0.02% (2)
to play - 0.02% (2)
and innovative - 0.02% (2)
roof over - 0.02% (2)
barriers to - 0.02% (2)
kingdom and - 0.02% (2)
with some - 0.02% (2)
key to - 0.02% (2)
to ensure - 0.02% (2)
oecd and - 0.02% (2)
low-income households - 0.02% (2)
that it - 0.02% (2)
housing, and - 0.02% (2)
shortage of - 0.02% (2)
cities and - 0.02% (2)
to buy - 0.02% (2)
in its - 0.02% (2)
with an - 0.02% (2)
opportunities and - 0.02% (2)
higher price - 0.02% (2)
has shown - 0.02% (2)
shown us - 0.02% (2)
new zealand, - 0.02% (2)
for people - 0.02% (2)
so much - 0.02% (2)
united states. - 0.02% (2)
fulfil their - 0.02% (2)
in austria, - 0.02% (2)
to deploy - 0.02% (2)
short term, - 0.02% (2)
policy to - 0.02% (2)
reduce the - 0.02% (2)
to move - 0.02% (2)
a global - 0.02% (2)
in q3 2016 - 0.15% (14)
we need to - 0.11% (10)
february 2017 tags: - 0.07% (7)
from → insights - 0.07% (7)
this:tweetprintmoreshare on tumblremailpocket - 0.07% (7)
share this:tweetprintmoreshare on - 0.07% (7)
as well as - 0.07% (7)
in the oecd - 0.06% (6)
on inclusive growth - 0.06% (6)
comment from → - 0.06% (6)
inclusive growth and - 0.05% (5)
and the united - 0.05% (5)
the role of - 0.04% (4)
financial net worth - 0.04% (4)
in the nordic - 0.04% (4)
the same time - 0.04% (4)
of parliament for - 0.04% (4)
on tumblremailpocket leave - 0.04% (4)
a comment from - 0.04% (4)
q2 2016 to - 0.04% (4)
in the netherlands - 0.04% (4)
(the index increased - 0.04% (4)
one of the - 0.04% (4)
index increased from - 0.04% (4)
in global value - 0.04% (4)
domestic value added - 0.04% (4)
leave a comment - 0.04% (4)
it is not - 0.04% (4)
at the same - 0.04% (4)
tumblremailpocket leave a - 0.04% (4)
we also need - 0.03% (3)
labour underutilisation rate - 0.03% (3)
there is no - 0.03% (3)
we don’t know - 0.03% (3)
in the long - 0.03% (3)
transfers to households - 0.03% (3)
in q2 2009 - 0.03% (3)
investment in infrastructure - 0.03% (3)
inclusive growth: the - 0.03% (3)
role of smes - 0.03% (3)
at the very - 0.03% (3)
it is also - 0.03% (3)
of the appg - 0.03% (3)
the bottom 40% - 0.03% (3)
countries in global - 0.03% (3)
gdp per capita - 0.03% (3)
net cash transfers - 0.03% (3)
a range of - 0.03% (3)
goods and services - 0.03% (3)
oecd directorate for - 0.03% (3)
it is worth - 0.03% (3)
real household income - 0.03% (3)
the increase in - 0.03% (3)
the value of - 0.03% (3)
there is an - 0.02% (2)
of gdp in - 0.02% (2)
and territorial development - 0.02% (2)
for public governance - 0.02% (2)
1 comment from - 0.02% (2)
kingdom and the - 0.02% (2)
those in need - 0.02% (2)
the extent that - 0.02% (2)
than half of - 0.02% (2)
in the united - 0.02% (2)
social rental housing - 0.02% (2)
of the most - 0.02% (2)
of their disposable - 0.02% (2)
in recent years, - 0.02% (2)
in oecd countries - 0.02% (2)
growth: the state - 0.02% (2)
thinking in the - 0.02% (2)
is there an - 0.02% (2)
provided by upstream - 0.02% (2)
contribution to exports - 0.02% (2)
services provided by - 0.02% (2)
trade in value - 0.02% (2)
in value added - 0.02% (2)
more private capital - 0.02% (2)
the picture is - 0.02% (2)
of value added - 0.02% (2)
working papers on - 0.02% (2)
finance, insurance and - 0.02% (2)
fund investment in - 0.02% (2)
oecd working papers - 0.02% (2)
on finance, insurance - 0.02% (2)
and private pensions - 0.02% (2)
twice as important - 0.02% (2)
a significant share - 0.02% (2)
what we don’t - 0.02% (2)
governance and territorial - 0.02% (2)
for example, in - 0.02% (2)
a complicated system) - 0.02% (2)
the top of - 0.02% (2)
the challenge of - 0.02% (2)
what are the - 0.02% (2)
directorate for public - 0.02% (2)
systems thinking in - 0.02% (2)
as important as - 0.02% (2)
the public sector - 0.02% (2)
approaches to economic - 0.02% (2)
6 february 2017 - 0.02% (2)
national statistical offices - 0.02% (2)
more than half - 0.02% (2)
of the domestic - 0.02% (2)
the limits of - 0.02% (2)
the household sector - 0.02% (2)
the united states. - 0.02% (2)
half of the - 0.02% (2)
the future of - 0.02% (2)
is also a - 0.02% (2)
role to play - 0.02% (2)
to make the - 0.02% (2)
need to deploy - 0.02% (2)
of the state - 0.02% (2)
but it is - 0.02% (2)
a new approach - 0.02% (2)
with, we need - 0.02% (2)
in many countries, - 0.02% (2)
new approaches to - 0.02% (2)
the power of - 0.02% (2)
social and economic - 0.02% (2)
firms at the - 0.02% (2)
in our most - 0.02% (2)
conservative member of - 0.02% (2)
to fulfil their - 0.02% (2)
at least one - 0.02% (2)
the very top - 0.02% (2)
the richest 10% - 0.02% (2)
particularly in the - 0.02% (2)
of the income - 0.02% (2)
at the top - 0.02% (2)
in the last - 0.02% (2)
around 20% of - 0.02% (2)
for different income - 0.02% (2)
of globalisation and - 0.02% (2)
the global economy - 0.02% (2)
and the potential - 0.02% (2)
the financial crisis, - 0.02% (2)
economy research institute - 0.02% (2)
chairman of the - 0.02% (2)
united kingdom and - 0.02% (2)
has been trending - 0.02% (2)
in most countries - 0.02% (2)
oecd’s work on - 0.02% (2)
country with the - 0.02% (2)
third quarter of - 0.02% (2)
income in the - 0.02% (2)
net worth of - 0.02% (2)
of dutch households’ - 0.02% (2)
also look at - 0.02% (2)
of the debate - 0.02% (2)
like in many - 0.02% (2)
real household consumption - 0.02% (2)
in q3 2016). - 0.02% (2)
q3 2016 (the - 0.02% (2)
in net cash - 0.02% (2)
note is that - 0.02% (2)
on inclusive growth, - 0.02% (2)
in the longer - 0.02% (2)
labour member of - 0.02% (2)
not the real - 0.02% (2)
the poorest countries - 0.02% (2)
than they were - 0.02% (2)
lower prices are - 0.02% (2)
the short term, - 0.02% (2)
by failing to - 0.02% (2)
by an increase - 0.02% (2)
farmers who can - 0.02% (2)
to the extent - 0.02% (2)
→ insights a - 0.02% (2)
increased at a - 0.02% (2)
real gdp per - 0.02% (2)
income in q3 - 0.02% (2)
oecd work on - 0.02% (2)

Here you can find chart of all your popular one, two and three word phrases. Google and others search engines means your page is about words you use frequently.

Copyright © 2015-2016 hupso.pl. All rights reserved. FB | +G | Twitter

Hupso.pl jest serwisem internetowym, w którym jednym kliknieciem możesz szybko i łatwo sprawdź stronę www pod kątem SEO. Oferujemy darmowe pozycjonowanie stron internetowych oraz wycena domen i stron internetowych. Prowadzimy ranking polskich stron internetowych oraz ranking stron alexa.