1. A proposal for a future policy in developing Satellite accounts
Advisory Expert Group on National Accounts
Paris, France, April 13 – 15, 2016
Peter van de Ven
Head of National Accounts
OECD

2. A typology of satellite accounts
Putting focus on a key areas of interest:
Extending supply and use tables:
Further breakdown of relevant industries and/or products
Enlarging the production boundary by including the in-house production of relevant goods and services
Adding more details on value added components (e.g. more details on labour inputs and compensation of employees
Adding physical data on the relevant phenomenon
Possibly, extending institutional sector accounts:
Providing additional information on income and financing of relevant activities (depending on proper allocation to institutional units)
Examples: tourism, transport, health, education, non-profit institutions, … but also extended supply and use tables for globalisation, and SEEA Central Framework
Great demand from rather specific groups of users

3. A typology of satellite accounts
Introducing conceptual variations to the central framework of the SNA:
Introducing significant changes to the production boundary (e.g. unpaid household activities)
Introducing significant changes to the asset (and production) boundary (e.g. extending knowledge based capital, either or not including human capital)
True departure from the main SNA-concepts for measuring economic activities
Sometimes interrelated with first type of satellite account:
Satellite accounts for education vs. Satellite account for human capital
SEEA Central Framework vs. Extended SEEA including accounting for ecosystems

4. Priorities and a possible, more strategic policy for the future
IARIW-OECD Conference: Social and environmental issues to be presented in a more inclusive framework, of which the System of National Economic Accounts (the “central framework”) forms one part, and alternative or additional frameworks (satellite accounts) given equal status
Very much related to criticism that SNA does not appropriately reflect issues related to broader measures of well-being and sustainability
Proposal to use the latter as a criterion for priority setting and developing a more systematic approach

5. Addressing well-being
Distributional aspects of income, consumption and wealth (considered as part of central framework)
Well-being: housing, income, jobs, community, education, environment, civic engagement, health, life satisfaction, safety, and work-life balance.
Possibly extending information on income and jobs
Better linking and extending relevant information on housing, education, health, and environment
Unpaid household activities …?

6. Addressing sustainability
First step: Implementation of SEEA Central Framework
Further alignment with the capital approach:
Financial capital: already included
Produced capital: already included, but possibly to be extended with other types of economic capital
Human capital: implementing satellite account for human capital
Natural capital: implementing SEEA Extended Ecosystem Accounting
Social capital: ???

7. Addressing sustainability
What does the AEG think of the proposed lines for priority setting?
Does the AEG see potential for the development of a more integrated approach?
Does the AEG have alternative ideas about moving forward?

8. Thank you for your attention!