Transcript COMPETITIVITATEA FISCALĂ – CONCEPT ȘI CONDIȚII DE …

CENTRU L
D E C E R C E T Ã R I FIN A N C IA R E ŞI M O N E T A R E
„V IC T O R SLÃ V E SC U ”
IN ST IT U T U L N A Ţ IO N A L D E
C E R C E T Ă R I E C O N O M IC E
C a le a 1 3 Se p te m b rie n r.1 3 , C a sa A ca d e m ie i, co rp B , e ta j 5 ,
se cto r 5 , co d p o şta l 0 5 0 7 1 1 , B u cu re şti, R o m â n ia
T e le fo n : ++4 0 .2 1 .4 1 0 .5 5 .9 9 , FA X : ++4 0 .2 1 .4 1 0 .5 5 .9 9
e -m a il: icfm 0 1 @ icfm .ro
e-Frame Final Conference
“GDP and beyond: Measurement, Policy use and Moving Forward”
(WP3 – National Accounts)
Implications of GDP and beyond
for National Accounts
•
Rapporteur: Emil Dinga, WP3’s leader, CFMR – Romania
•
Team of Report elaboration: Emil Dinga, Camelia Băltărețu, Elena Pădurean
•
Date: February 10-11, 2014
•
Place: Okura Hotel, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Issues discussed
• WP3’s goals, tasks and deliverables (1 slide)
• WP3’s working framework (2 slides)
• WP3’s main results (10 slides)
• WP3’s open issues (2 slides)
18.07.2015
e-frame: European Framework for Measuring Progress - Final Conference, Amsterdam, February 10-11, 2014
2
WP3’s goals, tasks and deliverables
The fundamental
objective of the WP3
within the project: to
identify the general way
and the methodological
procedures to capture
into the NASs the
indicators and/or the
accounts (or satellite
accounts, if the case)
which could quantify a
sui generis „quality of
life impulse” and the
„quality of life position”
of the macro-indicators
18.07.2015
e-frame: European Framework for Measuring Progress - Final Conference, Amsterdam, February 10-11, 2014
3
WP3’s working framework (1/2)
• (1) The current SNA2008 critical analysis from the perspective of completeness, and of
signifying both the social progress and the well-being
– the SNA2008 is, par excellence, focused on the economic issues
– the SNA2008 is, totally, a registration system, without concern on their signification for the quality of life
(however, seems that the SAM has important inferential functions!)
– ignoring of the non-market economic activity
– ignoring of the leisure (both as cause and effect of the market economic activity)
– SNA2008 doesn’t measure the well-being (considering that an increase of the consumption is, by itself, a
measure for an increase of the well-being !)
– SNA2008 ignores any outputs that cannot be associated with an institutional unit
– SNA2008 doesn’t contain registrations with ex ante signaling vocation (so, such registrations could be made
into the so-called inferential accounts)
– SNA2008 measures the quantitative macro-indicators only; but the economic dynamics, especially its
sustainability, is done by the structural changes
– nominal and real (by deflating) expressions of the macro-indicators have their importance, but the gaps
between the actual values of the macro-indicators and the desirable values of them could be also of a great
relevance
– SNA2008 follows the economic (and, also, the institutional) channels of transmission of relevant information
for the macro-economic evaluation, but it doesn’t operate the principle of traceability (in order to identify
not only the functional relationships, but also the causal relationships among the macro-economic
indicators); for example, is of interest not only the inputs for outputs, but also the outputs for inputs
18.07.2015
e-frame: European Framework for Measuring Progress - Final Conference, Amsterdam, February 10-11, 2014
4
WP3’s working framework (2/2)
• (2) SSF (explicit or implicit) suggestions concerning the SNA desirable
reconfiguration:
– about the individual well-being (IW):
• (IW-1) the non-market production and consumption are important (ex: households
production and auto-consumption)
• (IW-2) not only the income and consumption generate the IW perception, but also the
wealth
• (IW-3) subjective perception of the IW is conditioned by the objective sources of the IW
– about the social progress (at the societal level) (SP):
• (SP-1) not only the production (GDP) is relevant for the social progress, but also its
distribution (i.e., transferring of the production into income, consumption and wealth)
• (SP-2) economic and unfair inequalities (see here the Rawls’ concept of fairness) is a
source of adjusting the IW perception
– about the sustainability of economic process (S):
• (S-1) all economic flows must reproduce, ultimately (of last resort), the economic stocks
involved, both as nature, quality, and potentiality
• (S-2) the natural environment is the hard (physical) basis of the sustainability, while the
IW is the soft (cultural) basis of the sustainability
18.07.2015
e-frame: European Framework for Measuring Progress - Final Conference, Amsterdam, February 10-11, 2014
5
WP3’s main results (1/10)
(1) Concerning the measurement of macroeconomic indicators (UNIVPM)
•
the time-use structure could be a very strong base (because it concomitantly is cause and effect of the economic
activity quality and productivity) to estimate the macro-economic sources of well-being
•
discrepancies in income and wealth generate an overall perception on the well-being and quality of life, at the
societal level
•
the jobs opportunities (or, by the contrary, the „production” of unemployment) illustrates a possible concept of
potential well-being (or, by the contrary, of potential bad-being) in the society
•
cultural clusters (which may appear at sub-national, national, and supra-national levels, having, in the same time,
a historical nature) can be a methodological tool to better understand and quantify the well-being (for example,
at the most „atomistic” level, such a cultural cluster is just the household);
•
from a statistical point of view, well-being comparability implies very difficult methodological problems
(especially when well-being is measured for small societal entities)
•
the composite indicators measuring the well-being put extremely difficult questions, primarily because the
weights involved, and then because econometric properties of the indicators integrated: complementarity,
substitutability, non-independence, auto-correlations, etc. (NB: the democratic participation to establish the
weights of each indicator, proposed in the Bucharest workshop, seems to be very polemical in the context)
•
is very doubtful the monetisation of economic flows and stocks can provide a correct estimation (by
homogenization) of them, having in mind the value is not equivalent with the price (especially when different
axiological matrices are involved)
•
the best way to estimate the well-being seems to be the dashboard; of course, here a very elaborated
hermeneutics is needed in order to correct and adequately interpret the non-integrated indicators in the
dashboard
18.07.2015
e-frame: European Framework for Measuring Progress - Final Conference, Amsterdam, February 10-11, 2014
6
WP3’s main results (2/10)
(2) Concerning the well-being estimating from the household perspective (UNIPI)
• an improved economic measurement must be developed within the current border of
the national accounts system (however, this result was been very disputed from the
„side” of supporters for extending of the current national accounts system)
• estimating of the well-being must be performed at the most relevant level of
aggregation: the household (in this end, the macroeconomic indicators have to pass
beyond the current GDP)
• the household economic activity must be measured broader (whether it is monetised or
not)
• a concept of full income should be developed (including own methodology) in order to
capture the economic content of well-being
• the household heterogeneity could be a key for appropriate quantifying of the wellbeing
• the social account matrix (SAM) could stay as ground for the well-being measuring at the
household level
18.07.2015
e-frame: European Framework for Measuring Progress - Final Conference, Amsterdam, February 10-11, 2014
7
WP3’s main results (3/10)
(3) On the national accounts architecture (CFMR)
• (3.1) On the principles and methodology to upgrade the national accounts system
 four principles to rebuild the national accounts system could be held:
• the principle of finality: the economic activity is only a mean to get the individual well-being
• the principle of totality: the general anthropic mutual relationship with the non-anthropic
environment must be completely identified and registered
• the principle of anchorage: the new SNA must be based on a conceptual grid of O/D
(origin/destination) knots (the knots should be the social capital typology)
• the principle of sustainability: the SNA must register information about the perpetuity feature of the
anthropic action (information on income, consumption and wealth must be associated to their
replication potential (a sort of quid pro quo condition)
 designing of new accounts requires an examination of their features concomitantly from two point of view:
a) semantic relevance for the quality of life; b) their statistical significance and robustness
 designing of new accounts must start from their role (in generating not only the needed information, but
also the desired signification for the quality of life)
 the both well-being and social progress cannot be satisfactorily measured through registration accounts
(either of current national accounts system, or of an improved such a system); it is needed to introduce a
new sort of national accounts, namely inferential accounts, that have to register/calculate the dynamics of
the well-being and of the social progress, at the national level
 the current nine satellite accounts must be relocated on the current and the new national accounts, so they
work as analytical tools for the genuine accounts; new five satellite accounts are needed to be introduced
(Education, Wealth, Externalities , Funds, Un-accounted economy)
18.07.2015
e-frame: European Framework for Measuring Progress - Final Conference, Amsterdam, February 10-11, 2014
8
WP3’s main results (4/10)
•
(3.2) On the structure of a possible new architecture of the national accounts system
 a possible new configuration of the national accounts system must contain two classes of
accounts: a) registration accounts: accounts which record the statistical indicators as such; b)
inferential accounts: accounts which calculate and record the results of calculation based on
registration accounts
 the satellite account concerning the environment (in fact, the natural environment) must
become a genuine account
 the inferential accounts are more deep and more relevant from the point of view of the
quality of life than the registration accounts
 if the registration accounts are related especially to the physical and human capital, the
inferential accounts must be related to the social capital:
• social capital aimed to socialization: communication, participation, mutualisation
• social capital aimed to individualization: freedom, trust, symmetry
 a proposal could be of a hexa-SNA, formed by: a) three registration accounts, b) three
inferential accounts
18.07.2015
e-frame: European Framework for Measuring Progress - Final Conference, Amsterdam, February 10-11, 2014
9
WP3’s main results (5/10)
(3.3) On the reliability issue of the national accounts system
 the (possible new) national accounts system must verify the completeness condition, given by two
complementary criteria: a) outcomes isomorphism with the reality addressed; b) internal consistence
among the NAs (new national accounts)
 the registration accounts must registered the observables (i.e., variables, quantified as indicators, that are
directly measurable by the observer: analyst, decision maker, etc.)
 the inferential accounts must „calculate” the un-observables (i.e., variables which are either indirectly
measurable: ex: underground economy outcomes, both outputs and spillovers, or un-measurable: ex:
internal feed-backs, either positive or negative, noise, etc.)
 there are two basic un-observables: a) actual perturbations (hidden known variables): taken over through
indirect measurement related to a benchmark pre-established (ex: underground economy – black, grey);
b) anachronic perturbations (hidden un-known variables, lags & leads): taken over through methodological
considerations (ex: rational/adaptive expectations)
 correct and complete identification of the necessities to measure (quantify) non-economic phenomena
around the CNAs (that are economic only); what are un-measurable but need be measured, must be
indirectly measured
 correct and complete identification of the causality relationship between the CNAs and the new desired
national accounts (not the correlations between NNAs and CNAs are of interest, but the causalities)
 correct and complete description of the flows and stocks mechanisms inside the NNAs (NNAs must be
consistent by themselves, concerning the own flows and the own stocks involved)
 correct and complete description of the flows and stocks mechanisms inside the ENAs (extended national
accounts system); the ENAs must be also consistent by themselves, concerning the total flows and the total
stocks involved over the whole economy/society
18.07.2015
e-frame: European Framework for Measuring Progress - Final Conference, Amsterdam, February 10-11, 2014
10
WP3’s main results (6/10)
(3.4) On the controllability and practicability issues of the national accounts system
•
controllability of the (new possible) national accounts system consists in simultaneously verification of
four conditions:
 complete capturing of CNAs (current national accounts) outputs into NNAs inputs: input isomorphism
 complete delivering of NNAs outputs to CNAs inputs: output isomorphism
 closing of the flows and stocks within the every NNA and within the all NNAs
 avoiding multiple registration of flows or stocks within NNAs
•
practicability of the (new possible) national accounts system consisted in simultaneously verification of
five conditions:
 official, permanent and accurate registration of statistical data involved (in order, inter alia, to test,
on long term, the general information circuit within NNAs)
 methodological coherence between NNAs data and CNAs data (in order, inter alia, to construct the
input-output matrix over the ENAs)
 uniformity of data system used (in order, inter alia, to allow comparative analyses among the states)
 ensuring the networkinghood of the information on flows and stocks (in order to quasiinstantaneously access to any information „produced”, transferred, actualized in the SNA)
 appropriateness of data system at the SNA level for qualitative (hermeneutical) purposes concerning
the wellbeing (since the wellbeing measuring and assessing must be the final purpose of the new
SNA)
18.07.2015
e-frame: European Framework for Measuring Progress - Final Conference, Amsterdam, February 10-11, 2014
11
WP3’s main results – Annex 1 (7/10)
The hexa-SNA (extended SNA)
CURRENT ACCOUNTS
REGISTRATION
Economic
(in force)
-EC -
Measuring of:
Role
A CCOUNTS
Environmental
(in processing)
-EN-
Non-market
activity
-NM-
NEW POSSIBLE ACCOUNTS
INFERENTIAL
ACCOUNTS
Sustainable
flows
- PF-
Social progress
-SP-
Individual wellbeing
-IW-
Quantifying of:
 market economic
outcomes
Quantifying of:
 natural constraints
(out)
 natural auto-poiesis
(in)
Quantifying of:
 households
economies
 un-observable
economies
Quantifying of:
 economic
possibilities
 economic
reproducibility
Quantifying of:
 social justice
 translational
economies
Quantifying of:
 perception of
social progress
 perception of
proximal vicinity
1) Economic monetized
production
1) Substantial
environment
1) Home informal
production
1) Automatic
counter-cyclical
processes
1) Requited
distribution
1) Human capital
2) Economic monetized
distribution
2) Global
environment
2) Home informal
consumption
2) Discretionary
counter-cyclical
processes
2) Non-requited
distribution
2) Leisure
3) Economic monetized
consumption
3) National
environment
3) Un-observed
economy
3) Long wave selfnourish processes
3) Social
opportunities
distribution
3) Pareto-gaps of
utilities
4) Economic monetized
accumulation (saving)
4) Circular
environment
4) Illegal economy
4) Circular flows
4) Reciprocity
distribution
4) Proximal private
externalities
18.07.2015
e-frame: European Framework for Measuring Progress - Final Conference, Amsterdam, February 10-11, 2014
12
WP3’s main results – Annex 2 (8/10)
Re-allocation of the satellite accounts (including five new satellite accounts)
CURRENT ACCOUNTS
REGISTRATION ACCOUNTS
Economic
(in force)
-EC-
Environmental
(in processing)
-EN-
Non-market
activity
-NM-
NEW POSSIBLE ACCOUNTS
INFERENTIAL ACCOUNTS
Sustainable
flows
- PF-
Social
progress
-SP-
Individual
well-being
-IW-
Working satellite accounts
Agricultural
Environmental
Health
Households
Labour and SMA
Productivity and growth
R&D
Social protection
Tourism
New satellite
accounts
Education
Wealth
Externalities
Funds
Un-accounted economy
18.07.2015
e-frame: European Framework for Measuring Progress - Final Conference, Amsterdam, February 10-11, 2014
13
WP3’s main results – Annex 3 (9/10)
Capital typology - Social capital – Well-being relationships
18.07.2015
e-frame: European Framework for Measuring Progress - Final Conference, Amsterdam, February 10-11, 2014
14
WP3’s main results – Annex 4 (10/10)
The hexa-SNA and satellite accounts viewing
18.07.2015
e-frame: European Framework for Measuring Progress - Final Conference, Amsterdam, February 10-11, 2014
15
WP3’s open issues (to be studied) (1/2)
(1) Conceptual open issues
• if well-being is simply a perception, then we’ll never can objectively quantify or measure it; so, how should we
proceed in the case?
» (suggestion) by renouncing at the resulting measurement and to approach a procedural measurement: if there
is a procedure that ensure on obtaining the well-being, then we should measure that procedure only
• indicators measuring within the individual well-being account seems to be polemical also from the point of view of
the measurement itself
» (suggestion) because the subjective dimension of the individual well-being perception, we need, probably a
special sort of such indicators: in context, we suggest the ordinal indicators, not the cardinal ones
• the input-output table among the current SNA and the new national accounts proposed could be questionable,
because the differences of the indicators degree
» (suggestion) primary registration within the registration accounts is of first degree, and the non-primary
derivation within the inferential accounts is of second (or more) degree
• the current types of quantitative relations calculated within SNA must be completed with an extra type one
» (suggestion) current quantitative relations calculated are of four kinds: a) production transactions; b)
distributive transactions; c) financial transactions; d) accumulative (or accumulating) inputs; so, an extra
(fifth) quantitative relation is needed to be calculated is: e) externalities transactions (including the hazard)
• how should be designed the proposed inferential accounts, given their mandatory function to deliver rather
signification and relevance, than simple quantifications?
» (suggestion) have we to think about some specific flows and stocks, some specific physical depletion, and
some specific moral depreciation?
18.07.2015
e-frame: European Framework for Measuring Progress - Final Conference, Amsterdam, February 10-11, 2014
16
WP3’s open issues (to be studied) (2/2)
(2) Methodological open issues
• indicators measured within the inferential accounts (sustainability, social progress, individual well-being) seems to
be of special sort
» (suggestion) a dedicated methodology and technology must be designed and implemented in order to calculate
derived (secondary, tertiary etc.) such indicators
• how could be thought the transactions with externalities (especially the natural externalities, and the private
anthropic externalities)?
» (suggestion) for example: the same positive (commonly assessed as such) externality can generate a well-being
impulse or, by the contrary, a bad-being impulse, according to the current state of the individual involved!
• how could we monetarily measure the non-market economy?
» (suggestion) for example: a way provided by the dedicated literature is the replacing of the price by the value;
but, in this case, how about the utility functions? Could we find a common utility function for individuals?
• the actual human behaviour is generated by the human nature or by the human condition?
» (suggestion) for example: a need seems be driven through the human nature; but, the need always appears
under the interest manifestation (which is driven through the human condition)!
• as it is well known, there is a famous paradox (Arrow, Păun) on the principled impossibility of indicators
aggregation; how could be overpowered this paradox?
» (suggestion) for example: according the utility theory, a monetary unit differently values for different
individuals; how could we add these monetary units into a sum?
• how could be measured the un-observable variables?
» (suggestion) for example: the underground economy is an un-observable; quantifying the biases from a
benchmark (which?) could be a solution for the national accounts?
18.07.2015
e-frame: European Framework for Measuring Progress - Final Conference, Amsterdam, February 10-11, 2014
17
18.07.2015
e-frame: European Framework for Measuring Progress - Final Conference, Amsterdam, February 10-11, 2014
18