OECD experience on measuring the costs for national accounts Paul Schreyer OECD Statistics Directorate Special session of the CCSA September 2016 Paris

2006 Survey OECD NA WP surveyed costs of national accounts production in countries Significant interest but difficult: Scope effect: differences in terms of the scope of national accounts tables Institutional effects: the compilation process is organized differently between countries with differences in the degree of vertical integration or intermediate inputs delivered by other parts of the administration the complexity of the compilation process varies between countries due to differences in administrative and legal arrangements and rules Possible size effect: previous studies indicated that the size of a country is an important parameter to explain the size of statistical offices and/or units – not obvious whether this applies to Nas (fixed costs, hardly direct survey activity)

2006 Survey Survey tried to account for these differences E.g., it included questions about the exact coverage, the type of work and the overall complexity of the national accounts in each country But many issues of comparability remained

Resources of NA Resources were measured in terms of FTE staff devoted to a certain set of activities, defined as “core activities” of the national accounts Number of FTE for the production of the core tables varied between 20 and 160 FTE Differences much greater on a per-capita basis, signaling fixed costs But no adjustment for scope yet

Varying coverage of 23 core tables (2006)

…and bigger differences for ‘additional’ tables

Institutional effects Differentiation by sectors: General Government, Corporations, Financial Accounts, and RoW For each sector estimation of the number of staff and distinction between: “complex” tasks (i.e. does involve the manipulation of numerous individual accounts) “simple” tasks (i.e. does basically involve only adjustments to pre-aggregated figures). Staff devoted to BOP is excluded.

Other characteristics…

Final result: ‘hedonic’ regression Regression of resources against scope of the NA and other characteristics to control for differences Countries could then be placed below or above the regression line Below: fewer resources than expected Above: more resources than expected Great interest but no publication of result

Another attempt - 2016 Bean Review of UK Statistics Many developments since 2006 UN System of National Accounts 2008, BPM6 Resourcing of the national accounts in the UK was broadly in line with its European counterparts and the median of G7 economies, once account was taken of differences in population sizes

A one-variable hedonic regression Bean Review of UK Statistics (2016)

Some lessons (1) Measuring costs and controlling for characteristics is possible, at least in principle Most difficult bit: accounting for institutional differences Difficulties lie also with the potential use of results ‘Above-the-line countries’ fear resource cut following benchmarking But reduced pressure for ‘Below-the-line countries’

Attempt to repeat survey, in refined form, in 2013 by the OECD Some lessons (2) Attempt to repeat survey, in refined form, in 2013 by the OECD WP Members voted against Main reason: differences in institutional arrangements and constraints: “Not clear that survey would actually yield valid and comparable information on the resources available and used for compiling NA”

Clearly, cross-country comparisons most difficult Some lessons (3) Clearly, cross-country comparisons most difficult Within country comparisons over time more promising? Quality-adjusted output measures of statistical production Compare with input volumes for productivity measurement

Thank you!