W(h)ither the SNA?
Anne Harrison
A depressing moment in 2007
• When will the next revision take place?
• Tensions between those wanting change and
those resisting it could militate against
another update being successful
• How did this come about?
2
The early days of the SNA
• Rebuilding economies after WWII
• Marshall plan “return to normal economic
health, …policy directed against hunger,
poverty, desperation, chaos
• Beveridge plan to address five “giant evils”
squalor, ignorance, want, idleness, and
disease
3
The 1970s
• Opec and the oil price increase – inflation
– Undermined IO models
• Breakdown of the Bretton Woods agreement
on fixed exchange rates
– Rise of monetarism
• Computers become ubiquitous
– Microsimulation
4
Consequences
• End of “golden age” for SNA
• SNA seen as Keynesian – economists lost
interest
• Reduction of statistical resources
• Changing priorities in statistics – management
not technical skills
5
Why did SNA not die?
•
•
•
•
•
Increasing use as an administrative tool
UN committee of contributions
World Bank IDA conditions
Focus on GDP per capita
Rise of ICP
6
1993 Revision
• Incorporated
– Prices and volumes
– Financial accounts
– Balance sheets
– Satellite accounts
• Downplayed but did not remove IO
• Increased emphasis on the system as the
overall framework for economic statistics
7
Major concerns
• What about developing countries?
– Did not want SNA “Lite”
• Centrally planned economies?
– Even before collapse of iron curtain moves to
reconcile MPS and SNA, then MPS overtaken by
events
8
Post 1993
• City groups emerged
– Household income
– Environment
• Not everyone as enthusiastic about the idea of
the SNA as the overall framework as the
national accountants
– ILO – prices; informal sector; production boundary
9
ESA95
•
•
•
•
Becomes a directive
Emphasis on cross-country comparability
Focus on particular aggregates and ratios
Concentration on most recent observations
and timeliness
• Greatly reinforced the use of national
accounts for administrative purposes
10
Tensions during the 2008 revision
•
•
•
•
•
Europe vs. others
Administrative uses vs. economic analysis
Cross-country vs. time series
Accuracy vs. looser, wider picture
Observation vs. data from models
11
Two extremes
• “GDP is discredited as a
measure of wellbeing or
even as a policy goal”
• “GDP serves a number
of purposes very well”
• “ I can tell you what you
should add and why”
• “There are good
reasons why it cannot
or should not be done”
12
The SNA withers?
• If nothing is done to answer demands to reach
out to well-being and other concerns, the risk
is the SNA becomes increasingly marginalised
if not irrelevant
• At best becomes a “heritage” statistical system
• In the limit it withers and dies
13
Whither the SNA?
• The demands for change are numerous, not
always completely thought out, sometimes
may be in conflict with one another
• How to decide which to pursue, in what order
and when?
• Where is the SNA headed – whither?
14
A personal position
• Should the SNA survive and be revised – YES
• Do I sympathise with the reasons why some
wish to consolidate the present system rather
than enlarge it – Yes
• Do I think anything and everything should be
incorporated into the system – NO
• Can indicators be a useful supplement - YES
• Should some extensions be considered - Yes
15
First steps to increase the relevance of
the SNA
• Make better use of what we have
• Use GNI as well as GDP and make the
difference clear
• Use NDP and NNI when appropriate
• Disaggregate households
– Not just NPISHs but institutional households also
• Do more with corporate sub-sectors
16
Making changes
• Instead of nominating issues, consider how an
update is organised
• Who is involved
• Why it takes so long
• What might help ease the process
17
How does the SNA change?
• ISWGNA sets an an agenda
• The expert group discusses
• Ultimately the UN Statistical Commission
approves
• Note that only official statisticians involved
• Process is not very transparent
18
Why does it take so long?
• There is no such thing as a small change to the
system
• In the past the topics for discussion have been
agreed at the outset but the implications for
the system as a whole were not worked
through – takes a lot of time
• Need for widespread consultation if the SNA is
to remain suitable for all countries
19
Advancing the case for a change
• Need to consider the proposal in the light of
the accounting structure of the SNA
– Not everyone making a proposal is very familiar with the system and
the possible ramifications of a suggested change
• SNA Para 1.1 - the system is comprehensive,
consistent, integrated
• Does the proposal fit within these constraints
• Does it follow the SNA accounting rules,
classifications, valuation conventions
20
Example 1
• Moving an item used in production from
intermediate consumption to be a fixed asset
• Increases GDP; Increases NDP much less
• Changes the asset boundary
• Does not change the production boundary
• Data not observed, would need to be modelled
• Relevant more to industrialised than to
developing countries
21
Example 2
• Move an item from final consumption to be a
fixed asset
• Does not change the asset boundary
• Does change the production boundary
• Data readily available
• May have much greater impact on developing
countries than industrialised
22
Suggestion
• Based on the way in which the (commercial)
International Accounting standards are revised
• Two part system
• Part 1 elaborate the proposal and
consequences – ask for comments
• Part 2 consider proposal in light of comments
and decide whether to proceed
23
Part 1
• A proposal for change (e.g. the papers before
this meeting) should be accompanied by a
document explaining in detail the implications
for the system
– Would need constructive engagement between
proponents of change and SNA experts
• These should be posted on the internet
soliciting comment
24
What sort of implications?
• Does this proposal change the level of GDP or
simply increase analytical depth?
• Does it change the growth rate of GDP?
• Is any change steadily increasing over time?
• Or does it smooth fluctuations over time?
• Does it change NDP as much as GDP?
• Does it change NNI?
25
Does this proposal..
• Apply to industrialised and developing
countries equally?
• Require changes to the production or asset
boundary?
• Fit within the classifications of the system?
• Use a valuation method that can be used for
all parties involved?
26
Feasibility
• Does the necessary data exist ?
• Could it be gathered by minor modifications to
existing data collections ?
• Does it need a new data source?
27
Timing
• Would incorporation of the proposed change
impact the resources needed to produce
quarterly accounts on the current schedule?
• Do the results actually need to be presented
quarterly or would annually or even less
frequently be sufficient?
28
Integration
• Does your proposal really need incorporating
formally into the SNA or could it simply be
associated with it?
– Quicker to achieve
– Could still appear in the same publication
29
Part 2
• A review body (similar to an editorial board
for a journal) helps ensure all aspects are
covered and and correct and in the light of
comments and the merits of the case judges
whether the proposal should go forward to
the ISWGNA
– Should involve both economists and statisticians
30
Looking forward
• We must ensure the SNA does not wither and
die
• We need to find a way to decide whither it is
headed that as many people as possible can
contribute, see how the decisions are made
and understand why one path rather than
another has been chosen
31