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

2. 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)

3. 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

4. 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

5. Varying coverage of 23 core tables (2006)

6. …and bigger differences for ‘additional’ tables

7. 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.

8. Other characteristics…

9. 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

10. 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

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

12. 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’

13. 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”

14. 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

15. Thank you!