Abstract
Modelling plays a limited role in the central framework accounts of the System of National Accounts (SNA), which are based essentially on observations. By contrast, satellite environmental accounts in money terms, with the more ambitious objectives advanced in the United Nations System of integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting (SEEA), seem largely a modelling construct. Modelling is used in a broad sense, covering valuation relying on economic theory. Such an approach requires careful explanation of what types of flows and stocks are intended to be measured, what seems to be measurable, what is actually measured (or measurable) and what is the meaning of the aggregates that are proposed. This chapter discusses some issues in relation with the interim version of the SEEA. They include mainly the difficulty raised by the advocated combination of exchange values (market prices) and use values (based on analysis of the consumer surplus) in the welfare approach. Ex post modelling used for the estimation of the hypothetical maintenance costs also raises some questions as to the meaning of the results, based on partial and constrained modelling, and their inclusion in an accounting framework.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
We can sometimes observe expectations, which is a different issue.
See for instance the discussion in the 1993 SNA (Commission of the European Communities et al.,1993 paras 6.188 to 6.200).
The following references in parentheses refer to paragraphs and tables of United Nations (1993a).
Of course the equivalent adjustment due to market valuation in version IV.3 (Table 4.8, row 16, columns 1, 2, 3) has no special significance. Rows 16 to 18 simply represent a bridge table.
For instance, the value attributed by consumers to natural assets and their services covers both use value — direct, indirect, option use value — and non-use value, the existence value; there are different measures of the surplus, etc.
For instance, if there is a river close to your house, you can swim twice a day if you like. However, you cannot choose swimming only once and have a chocolate bar in exchange for the second swim.
Beyond basic human needs, individuals are supposed to allocate freely their entire time between money earning activities and leisure (including housework). At equilibrium, the mar-ginal values of market work and leisure coincide. The wage rates of individuals enjoying leisure are thus the basis for valuing leisure time. This valuation is obviously in terms of exchange value. The non-marginal leisure time has a greater value for individuals (more than the wage rate would be required for accepting to reduce their time of leisure) who benefit, in addition to the estimated exchange value, from something similar to a consumer surplus.
I leave aside the consumption of market natural assets. As the resources are marketed, they are valued in the system of market transactions. There is wide agreement nowadays, if not on the details at least on recording the consumption of such assets in the capital account and not just as other changes in volume of assets (as stipulated in the 1993 SNA).
Actually, the SEEA does not indicate how the accounts are closed. The rows reconciling EDP and NDP are simply bridge tables. On the issue of how to close the accounts, see Vanoli (1995a). Incidentally the authors of the SEEA probably misunderstood my proposal, stating (para. 367) that `as an alternative… the direct deduction of the loss of those services [that is, the consumers services] from the final consumption of households has been proposed)’. I never proposed such a treatment.
I already referred to the last sentences of para. 301 of the SEEA. It is worth quoting now the first part of this paragraph: ‘the concept of immediate responsibility is introduced for theoretical and statistical reasons. It is difficult to identify the economic activity that is ultimately responsible. Economic activities interact to a great extent and it is nearly impossible to trace the chain of economic dependencies and corresponding synergistic or antagonistic effects on the environment. It could be argued that the final demand for products is ultimately responsible for all stages of intermediate consumption and their environmental impacts. Following this argument, the environmental costs of different production activities should be associated, by using input—output models, with the final use of products. Such modelling is outlined in section D of chapter V’. Then comes the end of the paragraph contrasting modelling and the SEEA as an information system.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1998 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Vanoli, A. (1998). Modelling and accounting work in national and environmental accounts. In: Uno, K., Bartelmus, P. (eds) Environmental Accounting in Theory and Practice. Economy & Environment, vol 11. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1433-4_20
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1433-4_20
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-4851-6
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-1433-4
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive