Transcript ESA/STAT/AC.161/Ec.1 Social statistics on economic resources: a user perspective Marco Mira d’Ercole Counsellor, OECD Statistics Directorate UNSD Expert meeting on the Scope and Content of Social.

ESA/STAT/AC.161/Ec.1
Social statistics on economic
resources: a user perspective
Marco Mira d’Ercole
Counsellor, OECD Statistics Directorate
UNSD Expert meeting on the Scope and Content of
Social Statistics,
9-12 September 2008
1
Social statistics on economic resources are
attracting much policy interest



Statement of OECD Secretary General at the
Ministerial meeting (May 2008)
Commission on the “Mésure du pouvoir d’achat des
menages” reporting to the French Minister of
Finances (February 2008)
“Commission on the Measurement of Economic
Performance and Social Progress” (Stiglitz, Sen,
Fitoussi) established by the French Presidency
Big opportunity but also challenge to the statistical
community to come up with credible data
2
Long stream of OECD work on household
economic resources and their distribution



Comparisons of 12 countries in mid-1970s based on
most-commonly used sources (Malcom Sawyer)
Report for the OECD by Tony Atkinson, Lee
Rainwater and Tim Smeeding (LIS based) in 1995
Periodic data collection based on a network of
consultants since late 1990s (every 5 years); latest
report (Growing Unequal?) to be presented on 21
October 2008
3
“Benchmark” definition of household
economic resources (as used by OECD)




Household disposable income excluding imputed
elements such as rents from own-occupation
Household income adjusted for differences in needs
(square root elasticity)
Distribution of household income across people
(rather than households/families)
Common assumptions on how to treat negative
income and to aggregate across components
Overall: much progress since early efforts
4
Expert Group on Household Income
Statistics (Canberra Manual)



It has played a critical role in allowing better
comparative work on household income distribution
Most recommendations have stood well the test of time
Some areas where revisiting of concepts is needed:
– Non-standards households
– Income flows that are not regular
5
Beyond concepts, areas for improvements in the
measurement of household disposable income



Ongoing monitoring of the extent to which national
surveys departs from benchmark definitions (e.g.
Appendix 6 of Canberra Report “Robustness
assessment report for income distribution data”)
Reconciliation between micro and macro estimates of
household income (to assess “quality” of survey
measures; to allow developing household accounts in
the SNA for more homogeneous categories)
Temporal consistency of the data (better surveys
typically replace older ones, no bridge between old
and new data)
6
“Big” challenge ahead: moving beyond household
income as measure of economic resources (1)
In-kind services (in particular “public” services that
confer personal benefit to users).
– Large on average; SNA already includes measures of
“actual” consumption and household income
– Big impact on measures of inequality in the distribution of
economic resources of households
– To allow imputations, surveys should include questions
about use of public services
– Importance of ongoing discussions on the measurement of
government services in the SNA (from input to output
measures)
7
“Big” challenge ahead: moving beyond household
income as measure of economic resources (2)
Other non-cash income flows
– Agricultural goods for own-production (important for
countries with large subsistence agriculture)
– Imputed rents from own occupation
– Capital gains on asset holdings
As in the case of in-kind services, it is important to produce
these measures of “expanded” economic resources
alongside (rather than in substitution) conventional ones.
8
“Big” challenge ahead: moving beyond household
income as measure of economic resources (3)
Household wealth:
– Theoretical case established since Samuelson; in practice,
limited developments (both at macro and micro level)
– Progress with the establishment of Luxembourg Wealth
Study: but limited country-coverage and large differences in
the asset-types covered (implications for results)
– Need of an analogue of the “Canberra manual” to achieve
greater ex-ante standardisation in household wealth results.
9
Conclusion: further ahead

Economic resources matter for well-being as
determinants of consumption possibilities: but we
also need direct measures of these possibilities.
– Measures of actual consumption expenditures.
– Measures of access to critical consumption items and
activities (i.e. deprivation / hardship).
– Measures of family and community ties (i.e. support they
provide at times of greater need)
10