# Households Satellite Account for France in 2010. Methodological issues on the assessment of domestic production

Aurélien Poissonnier, Delphine Roy

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Aurélien Poissonnier, Delphine Roy. Households Satellite Account for France in 2010. Methodological issues on the assessment of domestic production. 2013. hal-05462311

HAL Id: hal-05462311

https://insee.hal.science/hal-05462311v1

Preprint submitted on 16 Jan 2026

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
Direction des Études et Synthèses Économiques

G 2013 / 14

Households Satellite Account for France in 2010.

Methodological issues on the assessment of domestic
production.

Aurélien POISSONNIER et Delphine ROY

Document de travail
INSTITUT NATIONAL DE LA STATISTIQUE ET DES ÉTUDES ÉCONOMIQUES

Série des documents de travail
de la Direction des Études et Synthèses Économiques

G 2013 / 14

Households Satellite Account for France in 2010.

Methodological issues on the assessment of domestic
production

Aurélien POISSONNIER* et Delphine Roy#

2 DÉCEMBRE 2013

Ce travail reprend avec de mineures corrections et complète les estimations du dossier « La consommation faite maison » publié en français pour un large public dans l'Insee Références L'économie française, édition 2013. Nous adressons nos remerciements à nos collègues de la comptabilité nationale et leurs anciens de l'association de comptabilité nationale pour leurs aides multiples et leurs conseils avisés.

<footnote>* Département des Études Économiques - Division « Études Macroéconomiques » Timbre G220 - 15, bd Gabriel Péri - BP 100 - 92244 MALAKOFF CEDEX et CREST-LMA -15, bd Gabriel Péri - 92245 MALAKOFF CEDEX</footnote>

<footnote># Au moment de la rédaction de l'étude : Département des Études Économiques - Division « Retraites et Politiques Sociales » Timbre G220 - 15, bd Gabriel Péri - BP 100 - 92244 MALAKOFF CEDEX et CREST-LMI -15, bd Gabriel Péri - 92245 MALAKOFF CEDEX</footnote>
# Households Satellite Account for France in 2010.
## Methodological issues on the assessment of domestic production

### Abstract

We estimate the value of French domestic production in 2010, using the input method. We describe productive activities not currently covered by the system of national accounts (SNA) in a household satellite account (HHSA), following the recommendations of Eurostat. In line with previous studies in many developed countries, we find that remodelling the frontier of production to include domestic activities (house chores, cooking, care...) would have a sizeable effect on key macroeconomic indicators (the equivalent of 36% of the GDP, 55% of the disposable income, 63% of the consumption, and -5 percentage points for the savings ratio).

These estimates bring up several methodological issues. Most importantly, we quantify their sensitivity to technical choices which have not yet been settled by an international benchmark. The two most important issues are: first, the boundary of household production, and we advocate using a relatively narrow definition; second, the use of a gross or a net wage in the valuation of domestic work time.

Valuating home production in order to build a HHSA is a very different exercise from valuating it in a welfare economics perspective. Openly choosing one or the other can help settling some of the pending issues. This work should allow further harmonisation and development of Household Satellite Accounts.

**JEL-code:** D13, E01

**Keywords:** unpaid work, domestic production, household satellite account, time-use survey

## Le compte satellite des ménages en France en 2010
### Problèmes méthodologiques dans la mesure de la production domestique

### Résumé

Nous estimons la valeur des tâches domestiques en France en 2010 avec la méthode *input*. Nous décrivons ces activités productives actuellement non couvertes par le système européen des comptes (SEC) dans un compte satellite des ménages conforme aux recommandations d'Eurostat. Conformément aux précédentes études dans plusieurs pays développés, nous trouvons que la redéfinition de la frontière de production pour y inclure les tâches domestiques (ménages, cuisine, soins...) aurait un effet notable sur les principaux indicateurs macroéconomiques (l'équivalent de 36 % du PIB, de 55 % pour le revenu disponible brut, de 63 % pour la consommation et de -5 points pour le taux d'épargne).

Ce travail soulève plusieurs problèmes méthodologiques. En premier lieu, nous quantifions l'impact de décisions de méthode qui ne font actuellement pas l'objet d'un consensus international. Les deux choix les plus importants sont : tout d'abord la définition de la production domestique et nous défendons l'usage d'une définition relativement restreinte ; ensuite l'utilisation d'un salaire net ou super brut dans la valorisation du temps accordé aux tâches domestiques.

La valorisation de la production domestique dans le cadre d'un compte satellite se distingue de sa valorisation dans une perspective d'économie du bien-être. Choisir clairement entre ces deux exercices permet de résoudre certains points en suspens. Ce travail devrait permettre une plus grande harmonisation des comptes satellites des ménages.

**Code JEL :** D13, E01

**Mots clés :** travail bénévole, production domestique, compte satellite des ménages, enquête emploi du temps
# Introduction

From their daily domestic work, households produce services they directly consume. No monetary transaction takes place to record this process. Whether a family has dinner at home or in a restaurant, they consume a meal which has been cooked. The same goes for the shirts they clean and iron themselves instead of taking them to the dry cleaner: in both cases, a service is produced and consumed, thus participating to the material well-being of the household. But in one case, there is a market transaction, and the consumption is recorded by System of National Accounts (SNA), whereas in the other case, it goes unrecorded for lack of market transaction.

As the Sen-Stiglitz-Fitoussi report on the measurement of economic progress recently pointed out (Stiglitz et al., 2009), this is not without consequence for international comparisons of household consumption across countries that differ in their reliance on the market for the provision of household services (the US vs European countries vs developing countries, for instance). This caveat is not new to economists: some of them have worked on the valuation of hours of unpaid work recorded by Time Use Surveys (TUS) in the last decades and pioneer works date back to the thirties. It is not new to national accountants either: the SNA in its 1993 edition (IMF et al., 1993) exposes the limitations of its production boundary, in particular with respect to household production, but for conceptual and technical reasons it consigned the measurement of domestic production to a satellite account.

An attempt to overcome such limitations of the SNA is the recent development of Household Satellite Accounts (HHSA). It consists in additional tables, compatible with the SNA framework, describing the economic transactions (monetary or not) related to domestic production. The HHSA affect households' production and consumption, but also their income. It also marginally impacts their investment. These modifications can have marked consequences on their savings ratio and the purchasing power of their disposable income. Also, care must be taken not to disrupt the fragile balance of the SNA; in particular not to create monetary counterparts to non-monetary transactions or not to record only one side of a transfer between two categories of agents.

The present paper is an attempt at implementing such principles in the design of a household satellite account that includes production, for France in 2010. Quantitatively, our estimates comfort previous work on the magnitude of domestic production with regard to GDP and consumption. In line with previous studies in many developed countries, we find that remodelling the frontier of production to include domestic activities (house chores, cooking, care...) has a sizeable effect on key macroeconomic indicators (GDP +36%, disposable income +55%, consumption +63%, savings ratio -5 percentage points). Moreover, for each function of domestic production, household production is much larger than their expenditure on market equivalents.

The estimation of HHSA aggregates is very sensitive to methodological choices. A vast strand of literature exists on these issues. In the wake of work done in the 1990s, a European task force made a first set of recommendations in 2003 (Eurostat, 2003). Still, a consensus has yet to emerge on several points. These points, and their relative importance for international compar-
isons of HHSA, are the object of this paper.

A crucial matter for harmonisation is the frontier between domestic work (a productive activ-
ity but excluded from the SNA) and leisure (non productive). In its broadest definition domestic
work can be twice as large as it is in a more restrictive sense. Because its components are more
consensual and less subject to an overestimation of productivity, we favour the narrowest defi-
nition of domestic production (hereafter core perimeter ).

A greatly debated question is the choice of the wage to value time spent on various domestic activities. The *generalist substitute* method levels out any composition effect of domestic productions. In practice, such a composition effect seems marginal and hard to disentangle from the statistical noise between successive Time Use Surveys. We therefore believe that this does not constitute an obstacle to the use of the generalist substitute method. Also, using the *specialised* or *generalist* substitutes has a secondary effect on the estimates. In both cases, whether the wage is net of taxes and social contributions or gross is a key issue. Their inclusion raises other difficulties, in particular for the interpretation of the savings ratio and thus is a key issue for harmonisation.

The evaluation of services provided by households durables is aslo a difficult issue. A simpli-
fied permanent inventory method (PIM) can be used, but the PIM remains highly conventional
and using it should discourage from reclassifying all the durables as productive capital.

Some other accounting questions can be solved by a simplicity argument: a parsimonious
HHSA should not modify taxes and subsidies on production or changes in inventories, nor arbi-
trarily distribute ancillary functions of domestic production to principal functions. It can also
easily avoid double counts of *production for own final use* already recorded by the SNA.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: section 2 reviews the literature on HHSA; section 3 deals with the definition and valuation of hours of unpaid work, and quantifies the effects of related methodological choices; section 4 deals with several issues specific to the national accounts and the HHSA, in particular intermediate consumption, capital, the permanent inventory method and finally section 5 exposes our estimation of the HHSA for France in 2010.

1 Domestic production amounts to 30 to 50% of GDP in most studies

**An old debated question** The measurement of domestic work and domestic production is an old debated question in national accounts as recalled by Vanoli (2002). In the related literature, one may find references dating back to the 19th century (Charlotte Perkins Gilman (Women and Economics 1898)), or to the 1930s and 1940s such as Margaret Reid (Economics of Household Production, 1934), Wassily Leontief (The Structure of the American Economy, 1941), cited in (Ironmonger, 2000) or S. Kuznets, L. Epstein and W. I. King, H. Kirk, W. C. Mitchell cited by Chadeau and Fouquet (1981), Alfred Marshall (Principles of economics: An introductory
volume, 1920), Arthur Pigou (The Economics of Welfare, 1932) in (Abraham and Mackie, 2006) or Lindahl *et alii* (1937), Wesley C Mitchell *et alii* (1921), Kuznets (1941) in (Vanoli, 2002). This question is also a matter of history (Folbre and Wagman, 1993) since the prevalence of market over informal economy is relatively recent in economic history.

Hawrylyshyn (1976) reviews some of the early quantitative studies on domestic work, from the second half of the 20th century. They mostly deal with the US but pioneer quantifications were performed in Nordic countries as well (Denmark, Norway, Sweden). Over the last 30 years, many authors have investigated this issue, mainly through Time Use Surveys and the valuation of hours worked for domestic production. We found references to 27 national or regional economies<fnref n="1" /> where at least hours of domestic work have been converted to monetary equivalents. Chadeau (1992) reviews such work in 7 countries; Goldschmidt-Clermont and Pagnossin-Aligisakis (1995) and Goldschmidt-Clermont and Pagnossin-Aligiasakis (1999) do so in 14 countries.

Over the last 15 years or so, the focus has shifted from the valuation of productive time to the construction of Household Satellite Accounts (HHSA) as suggested by the SNA (IMF et al., 1993). In addition to the long debated questions already raised by hours worked and their valuation, the production of HHSA yields specific issues. The interested reader will find them expounded in (Eurostat, 2003), (Varjonen and Aalto, 2006) for the European Input approach, in (Abraham and Mackie, 2006), (Nordhaus, 2006) for the US Input approach and (Holloway et al., 2002) for the UK's Output approach.

**Similarities of the estimates despite methodological differences**
The valuation of time in different countries and at different dates usually concurs to the same (blurry) picture of domestic work.

Hours of unpaid work are at least equal to hours of paid work (Chadeau, 1992), (Goldschmidt-Clermont and Pagnossin-Aligisakis, 1995), and (Roy, 2012). The value of this time can be estimated using various sets of assumptions and methodologies. These choices account for an important share of the estimates' dispersion in the literature (Chadeau, 1985). In his review, Hawrylyshyn (1976) corrects such methodological differences and finds that "housework is about a third of GNP". Chadeau (1985), Chadeau (1992) or Goldschmidt-Clermont and Pagnossin-Aligiasakis (1999) find ratios closer to 40%.

Beyond working time, domestic production has been estimated in several countries. Accounting for this production in household consumption (as households are both producers and consumers of domestic production) substantially modifies the national accounts figures. Prior to any adjustment, Chadeau (1992) finds for 6 countries in the seventies-eighties, using the specialist substitute method, that domestic work alone would increase household consumption by

<footnote n="1">¹Australia, Austria, Basque Country, Bulgaria, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Israel, Japan, Luxembourg, Madrid, Mexico, Nepal, Netherlands, New-Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Russia, Slovenia, South-Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, United-Kingdom, United-States, but unfortunately we could find less than half of the referenced papers.</footnote>
57% to 83%. Goldschmidt-Clermont and Pagnossin-Aligakis (1995) find for Finland, Germany and Bulgaria in the late eighties-early nineties, that once domestic production is accounted for it is equal to 60% of total consumption.

Using the HHSA framework, Landefeld and McCulla (2000), Landefeld et al. (2009), Varjonen and Aalto (2006), Hamunen et al. (2012), Eustat (2004), Holloway et al. (2002) and Ruger and Varjonen (2008) have estimated domestic production for the US, Finland, the Basque Country, the UK and Germany, respectively. Table 1 gathers some of their results showing the impact of HHSA on key macroeconomic aggregates. Accounting for all the inputs of domestic production has a sizeable effect on major macroeconomic aggregates. For the US and the Basque Country, this effect diminishes with time. According to the authors, this can be explained by a greater access of women to the labour market. Also, accounting for domestic production can have a marked impact on savings ratios in both directions: the UK's households savings ratio would be negative while Finland's would be closer to zero.

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Country</th><th rowspan="2">Source</th><th rowspan="2">Year</th><th colspan="3">Revisions</th><th colspan="3">Income and Savings ratio</th></tr><tr><th>GDP</th><th>Cons.</th><th>GFCF</th><th>Income</th><th>SNA<sup>†</sup></th><th>non-SNA<sup>†</sup></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>USA</td><td>a</td><td>1946</td><td>+50%</td><td>+63%</td><td>+50%</td><td>+59%</td><td>8.3%</td><td>10.8%</td></tr><tr><td>USA</td><td>b</td><td>1965</td><td>+39%</td><td>+49%</td><td>+50%</td><td>+49%</td><td>8.6%</td><td>11.5%</td></tr><tr><td>USA</td><td>a</td><td>1997</td><td>+36%</td><td>+34%</td><td>+54%</td><td>+38%</td><td>1.8%</td><td>8.5%</td></tr><tr><td>USA</td><td>b</td><td>2004</td><td>+27%</td><td>+26%</td><td>+48%</td><td>+32%</td><td>1.8%</td><td>4.2%</td></tr><tr><td>Finland</td><td>c</td><td>2001</td><td>+40%</td><td>+59%</td><td>+60%</td><td>+81%</td><td>-1.2%</td><td>0.2%</td></tr><tr><td>Finland</td><td>d</td><td>2006</td><td>+39%</td><td>+55%</td><td>+47%</td><td>+77%</td><td>-1.8%</td><td>-0.3%</td></tr><tr><td>Basque Country</td><td>e</td><td>1993</td><td>+49%</td><td>+74%*</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Basque Country</td><td>e</td><td>1998</td><td>+39%</td><td>+64%*</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Basque Country</td><td>e</td><td>2003</td><td>+33%</td><td>+56%*</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>UK</td><td>f</td><td>2000</td><td>+63%*</td><td>+95%*</td><td>+98%*</td><td>+93%*</td><td>4.2%</td><td>-6.9%*</td></tr><tr><td>Finland</td><td>g</td><td>2001</td><td>+36%</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Germany</td><td>g</td><td>2001</td><td>+43%</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr></tbody></table>

<caption>Table 1: HHSA estimates in 5 countries: effects on key macroeconomic aggregates</caption>

Table 2 describes the inputs for domestic production as described by the HHSA, for 4 countries or regions. It is quite similar across countries. Net value added is equal to approximately three fourth of production while capital consumption is the smallest of the three components. However, the comparison between (Ruger and Varjonen, 2008) and (Varjonen and Aalto, 2006) for Finland in 2001 shows that international comparisons going beyond orders of magnitude are fragile: Ruger and Varjonen (2008) revise initial estimates of the German and Finish HHSA so as to make them comparable, which significantly modifies the estimates both in absolute and relative terms.

Table 3 shows the *Gross Value Added* in 3 countries by function of domestic production. As

<footnote>*: our calculations, -: not available</footnote>

<footnote>†: SNA refers to production and other concepts as defined by the System of National Accounts, while non-SNA refers the extension of these concepts for the purpose of the Households Satellite Account.</footnote>

<footnote>a: (Landefeld and McCulla, 2000), b:(Landefeld et al., 2009), c:(Varjonen and Aalto, 2006), d:(Hamunen et al., 2012), e:(Eustat, 2004), f:(Holloway et al., 2002), g: (Ruger and Varjonen, 2008)</footnote>

<footnote>GFCF: household gross fixed capital formation, Cons.: household final consumption includes individual consumption except for Basque Country</footnote>
<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Source<br>Reference Year</th><th colspan="3">Basque Country</th><th colspan="4">Finland</th><th rowspan="2">Germany<br>g<br>2001<sup>•</sup></th><th rowspan="2">UK<br>f<br>2000<sup>•</sup></th></tr><tr><th>e<br>1993</th><th>e<br>1998</th><th>e<br>2003</th><th>c<br>1990</th><th>c<br>2001</th><th>d<br>2006</th><th>g<br>2001<sup>•</sup></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Production<br>(10<sup>6</sup> €,£)</td><td>11.7</td><td>13.3</td><td>15.9</td><td>-</td><td>68.9 10<sup>3</sup></td><td>86.5 10<sup>3</sup></td><td>76.0 10<sup>3</sup></td><td>1.3 10<sup>6</sup></td><td>879.2 10<sup>3</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Net Value Added<br>(%)</td><td>77.4</td><td>75.0</td><td>71.4</td><td>76.4</td><td>75.1</td><td>71.5</td><td>67.5</td><td>71.5</td><td>73.0</td></tr><tr><td>Intermediate Cons.<br>(%)</td><td>21.6</td><td>23.9</td><td>27.3</td><td>21.4</td><td>20.8</td><td>24.0</td><td>24.7</td><td>23.0</td><td>21.1</td></tr><tr><td>Capital Cons.<br>(%)</td><td>1.1</td><td>1.1</td><td>1.2</td><td>2.2</td><td>4.1</td><td>4.5</td><td>7.8</td><td>5.5</td><td>5.9</td></tr></tbody></table>

<caption>Table 2: HHSA in 4 countries: inputs of non SNA domestic production</caption>

for the other tables, orders of magnitude are similar across countries, but it is impossible to say which part of the differences stems from national specificities or from the methodology. In particular, with their output method, Holloway et al. (2002) have an extensive approach of child care and accommodation for the UK. However, the accommodation function is similar across countries which hides the fact that for the UK, figures covers both SNA (imputed rents) and non-SNA<fnref n="2" /> production for own use. Care covers twice as much gross value added than in the other two countries. Also, the small fraction of food production in UK households could reflect the stereotypical lack of interest in food of the British, but can also be explained by the way ancillary functions (transportation in particular) are reallocated to other principal functions.

<table><thead><tr><th>Country<br>Year<br>Source</th><th>Basque<br>2003<br>e</th><th>UK*<sup>•</sup><br>2000<br>f</th><th>Finland<br>2006<br>d</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Food</td><td>46.6</td><td>9.6</td><td>31.6</td></tr><tr><td>Housing</td><td>30.3</td><td>32.1</td><td>34.6</td></tr><tr><td>Care</td><td>14.8</td><td>33.3</td><td>13.3</td></tr><tr><td>Clothing</td><td>8.4</td><td>5.4</td><td>11.1</td></tr><tr><td>Transportation</td><td>-</td><td>17.7</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Shopping</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>HH management</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Volunteer work</td><td>-</td><td>1.9</td><td>9.4</td></tr></tbody></table>

<caption>Table 3: HHSA in 3 countries: ventilation of non SNA domestic Gross Value Added by functions (in %)</caption>

From these comparisons we can draw the following conclusions: our estimation should be

<footnote>*: our calculations,</footnote>

<footnote>-: not available</footnote>

<footnote>◇: SNA + non SNA</footnote>

<footnote>c:(Varjonen and Aalto, 2006), d:(Hamunen et al., 2012), e:(Eustat, 2004), f:(Holloway et al., 2002), g: (Ruger and Varjonen, 2008)</footnote>

<footnote>*: our calculations,</footnote>

<footnote>-: not available</footnote>

<footnote>◇: SNA + non SNA</footnote>

<footnote>d:(Hamunen et al., 2012), e:(Eustat, 2004), f:(Holloway et al., 2002)</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²non-SNA refers to the concepts of production and other operations for the purpose of Households Satellite Accounts as opposed to SNA referring to the definitions in the System of National Accounts</footnote>
broadly in line with others but in details, comparisons can not be made without specific adjust-
ments. The corollary conclusion is that there is a great need for a benchmarking method from
which historical and international comparisons can be made.

2 The accounting and valuation of hours of domestic work

2.1 Time-use surveys: towards harmonisation

We use the latest French Time Use Survey, whose fieldwork took place between September 2009 and December 2010. It is representative of the non-institutional population of mainland France and 3 overseas *départements*. One individual was selected in each sampled household, among its members aged 11 and above. His/her spouse or partner, if there was one, was also interviewed. Respondents were given two diaries to fill in, one for a weekday and one for a weekend day. The sample eventually consists of 12 000 households, 18 500 interviewed individuals, 27 900 diaries. The activity list comprises roughly one hundred basic activities, in compliance with Eurostat's Guidelines on Harmonised Time Use Survey (Eurostat, 2008).

**Household surveys and National Accounts have different scopes.** The sum of the weights of the respondents with a diary is 54,4 millions, when the total population of France was 64,6 on Jan 1st, 2010. The difference consists of: the inhabitants of French Guyana; the children under 11; the residents of institutions such as care homes, boarding schools, prisons; and the students on campuses. The amount of unpaid domestic work made in France over the year 2010 estimated from Time Use data will therefore exclude Guyana, and using it as our estimate implies making 2 additional hypotheses:

* The amount of domestic work made by children under 11 is negligible, which seems to be a realistic assumption, in a developed country like France at least

* Residents of institutions do little domestic work. This assumption is standard in this literature and seems acceptable since by definition, most of these institutions provide cooking, cleaning, etc. for their residents.

Since their onset, time use surveys have been at the heart of an international community of researchers, and they are fairly comparable across countries, as regards their activities coding list in particular. At the European level, most countries follow Eurostat's Guidelines (Eurostat, 2008). This means that the data exist to compute comparable estimates of hours of unpaid work. The crux of the problem is to agree on which activities to include in domestic work.

2.2 Defining domestic work

2.2.1 The definition is debatable, we test three possibilities

The question is not so much to give a theoretical definition of domestic work, as it is to decide
where to set the boundary between productive and unproductive activities. Our view is that
a consensus can not be reached solely from any set of criteria. Yet, section 4 (in particular Table 11) demonstrates that estimates are very sensitive to the definition of domestic work, so that the agreement on a boundary is one of the keys to make international comparisons possible.

We favour the most restrictive definition (*core perimeter*) of domestic work for three main reasons: all its elements are commonly accepted as productive, it is *a priori* the easiest to measure across countries, and it is less subject to an overestimation of productivity (see 2.3 and 3.2), a key issue for the input method.

**Drawing the frontier of production across the *grey zone*** The *third party criterion* is usually the cornerstone of the definition of domestic production: "If an activity is of such character that it might be delegated to a paid worker, then that activity shall be deemed productive" (Reid, 1934, p.11) cited by *Ironmonger* (2000). Being too inclusive, this criterion has been completed with the reference to social norms: "the third party criterion comes up against borderline cases which must be resolved by reference to normal social practice and standards" (Chadeau, 1992).

However, there may remain ambiguous cases and these criteria should be seen as general guidelines more than golden rules. If sexual intercourse is identified as an important activity for well being (Stiglitz et al., 2009), it is chastely eluded in the literature on HHSA. However, it meets both criteria suggested by Reid and Chadeau. It can be delegated to a third party outside the household (sometimes to the detriment of the institution of marriage). Prostitution also exists (legal or tolerated) in most countries. However, we find hard to argue that unpaid sexual intercourse within the household should be deemed productive.

Here, National Accounting encounters serious anthropological issues that we are bound to leave unresolved within the scope of this paper. But theoretically, we could have included sexual intercourse in our most extensive perimeter since it is part of the "grey zone" if we take the third party criterion seriously. In practice, we totally lack the data to do so, even solely as a thought experiment.

The point of this far-fetched counterexample is: the SNA frontier of production is necessarily conventional and imperfect, the frontier of domestic production will be just as much. Comparability comes at this cost: somehow arbitrary, but unified conventions.

**Including the *grey zone* could double the duration of domestic work** House chores, cooking, taking care of a dependent adult, driving children to their football lesson... are commonly accepted as *productive* activities. On the other hand, breathing, sleeping and eating are undesbated examples of *non-productive* activities. But beyond these core physiological activities lies a wide *grey zone* of daily actions that can be considered productive or not. The literature on domestic work traditionally relies on two criteria to sort productive and non productive activities, without solving all the conflictual cases. In order to highlight the impact of methodological choices on estimates of household production, we define 3 possible perimeters of domestic work,
from the most restrictive (the core definition) to the most inclusive (the extensive definition) (see Table 4). The extensive perimeter is almost twice as large as the core perimeter, both in terms of duration and imputed value.

<table><thead><tr><th>Perimeter</th><th>core (I)</th><th>intermediate (II)</th><th>extensive (III)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Included Activities</td><td>cooking, dish washing, household upkeep, cleaning, child and adult care, laundry, household management, driving children or others</td><td>(I) and shopping, home repair, gardening, playing with children</td><td>(II) and driving oneself, walking the dog</td></tr><tr><td>Daily</td><td>2 h 07</td><td>3 h 04</td><td>3 h 53</td></tr><tr><td>Weekly</td><td>14 h 50</td><td>21 h 30</td><td>27 h 14</td></tr><tr><td>Share of volunteer work</td><td>3.7%</td><td>3.8%</td><td>5%</td></tr><tr><td>Women's Share</td><td>72%</td><td>64%</td><td>60%</td></tr></tbody></table>

Coverage: individuals aged 11 and over, France (excl. French Guyana and Mayotte).

Source: Insee, 2010 Time Use Survey.

<caption>Table 4: Working time for three possible perimeters of domestic work</caption>

1. The core perimeter consists of only those activities that every study in the literature agrees to be productive: chores such as cleaning, doing the laundry, the dishes, etc.; cooking; material care to and driving children and disabled persons; household management. All these routine tasks can be delegated and many households use market substitutes for them.

2. The median perimeter adds to the first list a number of activities that belong to the grey zone, either because they border on leisure ('productive leisure' such as gardening, home repairs and decoration, fishing and hunting, picking berries...) and are probably performed less efficiently than in a professional context, or because their utility lies (at least partly) in the process itself and their delegability can be questioned (productive leisure, playing with children). Shopping is also classified here because in our data, we cannot distinguish everyday grocery shopping, a productive chore, from "window shopping" or shopping for pleasure.

3. The extensive perimeter furthermore contains, as discussed below, travelling by car for oneself and walking the dog.

### 2.2.2 Three perimeters in details

Table 13 exhaustively lists the activities classified as productive in each of the three perimeters. Four main types of activities that make up the differences between the three perimeters require further discussion: personal care, transportation, productive leisure and childcare.
**Personal care** Men used to go to the barber to get shaved, but no longer do. So, is shaving oneself productive? The textbook example is that of the nobleman of the 18th century who had servants dress him, comb his hair, read books to him, etc. This would seem anecdotal except that today, more and more dependent elderly people receive paid help to wash, dress, eat, etc. So, washing can be delegated in some cases, and there exists a market substitute for it. Washing one's handicapped spouse is then productive work, but washing him or her if he or she has no disability isn't (and neither is washing oneself), which might seem paradoxical since the exact same task is performed, the same service rendered.

In this line of thought, Alesina and Ichino (2009), using the MTUS (Multinational Time Use Survey) database, include the *AV13: dress/personal care* category in their definition of unpaid domestic work. Doing this with our French data would add almost an hour to the average daily estimate of unpaid work. This would mean a dramatic increase: +50% over the core definition of domestic work, +33% over the intermediate one which currently totals 3 hours a day, +25% with the most extensive definition (currently 4 daily hours, see table 4).

The issue is the same with medical care: if a person does their own injections, massages or bandages (as people with chronic diseases often do), should it be counted as production since these acts are usually delegated to nurses and physiotherapists? In theory, the answer should be positive, but we choose not to include medical care done to oneself within our production boundary, mainly for measurement reasons: in our data, it is impossible to distinguish *serious* medical care (injections, strapping...) from everyday benign care (putting a band-aid on your child's finger). The latter is not delegable (you don't call the doctor for that) but constitutes most of the time households spend on *medical care*.

**Travel time** There is no consensus in the literature on how travel time should be treated (see for example (Eustat, 2004)). Some studies include travel time into the time devoted to the activity to which the travel is leading, for example travel to the store is incorporated into shopping time, travel to work into paid working time, etc., but this is not entirely satisfactory, since at least part of the travel time could be delegated. Clearly, driving someone else, a child or a relative for example, can be delegated and is productive. But what does it mean to delegate self-transportation? If I drive to work, I could delegate the driving to a chauffeur or use public transportation, and use that time to do something else: write work-related emails, read a book, etc. But the time that becomes available cannot be used totally freely, since I would still need to be in a car or a bus. If I have to go somewhere, my travelling can only be partially delegated. And I can pay someone to drive me to work, but what if I'm walking 10 minutes to work? Here, the means of transportation enters into play: only driving can be delegated, and only partially so.

The 2010 TUS data for France includes information on the means of transportation / location for every 10-minute interval. We use this information to include only travelling by car (*travelling to work* or *other travelling*) into unpaid work, and only in the most extensive definition of domestic work. *Accompanying a child* and *travelling for another household* (mostly driving other people) are included in core productive activities, since they are entirely delegable to any trustworthy driver.
**Gardening, home repairs, fishing and hunting: the frontier with leisure**

There is another *grey zone* where domestic work and leisure overlap. If the person mainly derives utility not from the output of the activity (the good or service produced), but from performing the activity, from the process itself, then it can no longer be delegated without losing all its value. Amateur pianists do not play the piano in order to be able to hear some (probably poorly performed) music, but for the sake of playing. So, it is generally agreed that unpaid artistic endeavours (music, painting, photography, making films) should not be counted as productive.

The case of what is, precisely, often called *productive leisure* is less clear cut. It includes gardening; home or vehicle repairs; sewing and knitting; fishing; hunting; picking plants, berries or mushrooms. Producing vegetables, fishing and repairing the car are most often delegated in our society, so one might think that people who engage in these activities do so because they enjoy it. But then, from a National Accounting perspective (as opposed to a welfare economics perspective), the question of whether one is enjoying the activity is not necessarily relevant. Indeed, to measure market production, we do not take enjoyment into consideration to measure the value of paid work: the same wage is counted, whether one enjoy the job or not. Most of the literature thus includes gardening, home repairs, knitting and sewing in domestic work, because these are productive, delegable activities. Actually, the current SNA definition of production, used to measure GDP, includes the goods produced by households for themselves, thus recognizing the productive potential of households. In industrialized countries however, it is admitted that only agricultural goods, alcohol, game and fish require counting, because the production of other goods (clothes, furniture, etc.) is too small to be worth the measurement effort.

This means that if counting hours of unpaid domestic work was to become the basis for an input-based valuation of household production to be recorded aside GDP as a complement, goods for own consumption would potentially cause double-counting. The way we correct for double counts is detailed in 3.2. Yet the amounts at stake are small relative to the overall value of unpaid domestic work. For France in 2010, the value of household own production of goods included in GDP was 3.18 billion €, a very small figure compared to the 1900 billion € of GDP.

Productive leisure is a case in point regarding the issue of productivity that one necessarily encounters when measuring production through inputs and not outputs. Since gardening, home repairs or fishing are often done for pleasure, we can suspect that people take their time to do it, and productivity is lower than if it was done for pay. On this basis, together with the fact that they are probably done for themselves (as hobbies) as much as for their output, we do not include gardening and DIY in the core definition of domestic work, but only in the intermediate and extensive ones. On the contrary, unpleasant activities such as vacuuming or doing the laundry are less suspect of such bias, and their productivity is probably closer to that of their market equivalent.

The same goes with walking the dog: it can be delegated and "dog-sitters" are beginning to appear in France but most often, when reading the diaries, one feels that walking the dog and taking a pleasure walk are one and the same activity, and it generally takes much longer than the necessary time for the dog to be walked. This is why we have included walking the dog only in the most extensive definition of domestic work, whereas material care of pets is included in the median definition and care of productive animals in the core definition.
**Is all time spent with children productive?** Childcare is the last major issue that needs to be tackled if one is to agree on a definition of unpaid domestic work. First, social norms as to what can be delegated are variable over time and place. Breastfeeding is no longer physiologically delegated to another woman in industrialized countries, but feeding a newborn can be delegated thanks to bottle feeding. Some people have therefore argued that breastfeeding is productive, while others who oppose bottle feeding argue that it is not, because it can not be delegated. At the other end of the spectrum, can *playing with one's child* or *having a conversation with one's child* be delegated without losing its (emotional) value?

Within the Eurostat Task Force (Eurostat, 2003), no consensus could be reached on the question of what constitutes productive childcare. In Time Use data, it is possible to consider as childcare (in descending intensity of care):

* only time spent with an explicit activity of material childcare as primary activity

* time spent engaging into various activities for or involving children, but less material and more leisure-like: games, conversations... as primary activity

* time spent on these two types of activities, either as primary or secondary activity

* all time spent in the presence of a child, even if it is not involved in the activities described in the diary. Even sleeping when a child is present could potentially be counted as childcare, since an adult needs to be there and the task of "being there" could be delegated to a babysitter.

As an illustration, one can compute this latest, extreme figure: the amount of time adult respondents spend alone with a child or several children (so we can assume that the respondent is in charge of supervising the children). It amounts to 46mn a day on average, 138mn for a mother living in a couple, 57mn for a father living in a couple, and 272mn for a single mother. This is twice the time spent with childcare as a primary activity (23mn on average), and the figure would be even larger if time spent with both children and other adults was included.

This shows that, with the French TUS data at least, deciding whether or not to count the time spent with children in passive childcare as productive would have a major impact on the measurement of domestic work. This impact is much stronger than that of secondary activities.

In what follows, we choose to include only active childcare done as a primary activity, and we distinguish between core childcare (material care and supervision), which we include in the *core* definition, and leisurely childcare (playing, discussion with the child) which we include in the *intermediate* and *extensive* definitions only.

## 2.3 The valuation of time

In the literature, three methods for valuing domestic work exist: the *generalist substitute*, the *specialised substitute*, and the *opportunity cost* methods.

In the *generalist substitute* method, hours worked are valued using the hourly wage of a worker performing all tasks indifferently (e.g. *housekeeper*). In the *specialised substitute* method, each hour worked is valued using the hourly wage of a worker performing that task specifically (resp.
<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="2">core</th><th colspan="2">Perimeter</th><th colspan="2">extensive</th></tr><tr><th>Billion h</th><th>Billion €</th><th>Billion h</th><th>Billion €</th><th>Billion h</th><th>Billion €</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Housing</td><td>13</td><td>211</td><td>18</td><td>293</td><td>18</td><td>293</td></tr><tr><td>Food</td><td>17</td><td>290</td><td>17</td><td>290</td><td>17</td><td>290</td></tr><tr><td>Clothing</td><td>4</td><td>61</td><td>4</td><td>75</td><td>4</td><td>75</td></tr><tr><td>Care</td><td>6</td><td>95</td><td>8</td><td>134</td><td>9</td><td>149</td></tr><tr><td>Transportation</td><td>1</td><td>29</td><td>2</td><td>37</td><td>16</td><td>317</td></tr><tr><td>Shopping</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>7</td><td>115</td><td>7</td><td>115</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Total excl. volunteer</strong></td><td>40</td><td>687</td><td>56</td><td>944</td><td>70</td><td>1239</td></tr><tr><td>Volunteer</td><td>2</td><td>28</td><td>2</td><td>42</td><td>3</td><td>60</td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: Insee Time Use Survey 2010, DADS 2010 - our calculations

<caption>Table 5: Three definitions of domestic work and their valuation using the least qualified specialised substitute in 2010 in France</caption>

cook, housecleaner, handyman...). In the *opportunity cost* method, hours worked are valued using the market hourly wage of the person performing the task (e.g. dentist wage when he is cooking). We favour the *specialised substitute* to avoid the overestimation of productivity.

We also test 2 *generalist substitute* methods for a sensitivity analysis: the minimum wage and the housekeeper wage.

We disregard the *opportunity cost* method. Disregarding it is standard in the literature on household satellite accounts, but we have an additional reason to do so: this method is a welfare economics method, while we perform a national accounting exercise.

Also, we assess the sensitivity of time valuation to the treatment of imputed taxes and social contributions.

**We use the least qualified specialist wage** We value the time spent on each activity at the wage of the *specialised substitute* one would have to hire to do the job (Table 13). This method is one of the methods suggested by Eurostat (2003). Of course, very few people have all the skills of a cook, a plumber, a childminder and a teacher at the same time, so this valuation might somewhat over-estimate the productivity of household work. But two elements allow us to mitigate this criticism. First, people tend to self-select out of the tasks they are very unproductive at. Very few economists do their own plumbing at home, for example. Second, the tasks that make up the greater part of unpaid work are not the most skilled ones: food preparation, housecleaning, child care. Nevertheless, there may remain some differences due to capital intensity and increasing returns to scale. In order to account for this, we choose the least qualified and least capital intensive job as our specialist substitute every time we have a choice: we value cooking time at the wage of a kitchen aide, not at that of a chef, and cleaning at the wage of a domestic cleaner, not an industrial one.
**We favour the *core perimeter* which is less subject to an overestimation of productivity** As mentioned in 2.2.1, we favour the core perimeter of domestic work for three main reasons: all its elements are commonly accepted as productive, it is *a priori* the most easily measurable across countries and it is less subject to an overestimation of productivity. Indeed, contrary to the core perimeter, the median perimeter includes many productive activities which can be performed for their own sake: gardening, sewing, knitting, handy-work... When considered as leisure by the households, using a market wage to value the hours worked will most surely overestimate the value of the output. An example of this overestimation is given by the *production for own final use* already accounted for in the national accounts, with an output method. In 3.2, we compare these figures with those derived from the input method using the TUS (see table 7). The output method might be somewhat imprecise and conventional since it is not accurately measured each year, but the input method clearly overestimates the productivity of households in their kitchen garden or when they fish, hunt, pick-up mushrooms... For this reason, we favour the most restrictive perimeter of domestic work which contains mostly off-putting tasks that a majority of people would consider chores (apart from cooking in some countries): dish washing, house cleaning, laundry...

**We do not consider the valuation of time through the opportunity cost method**

The *opportunity cost* method is fraught with well known difficulties, it implies imputing a potential market wage to all individuals outside of the labour market, e.g. at-home parents, retired persons... The usual argument to disqualify this method is the following: if one values domestic productive time with the market wage of the person performing the house chore then a dentist would implicitly be a much better cook than a bus driver: there is *a priori* no reason for this outcome to be right. However, it does not suffice to disqualify the opportunity cost method. Essentially, the market wage represents the opportunity cost only in the simplest microeconomic allocation of time model, where workers can freely allocate marginal amounts of time between market work, domestic work and unproductive activities (leisure). One could then argue that a refined model could allow to more appropriately measure the opportunity cost than equalizing it to the market wage.

Beyond the difficulty of building such a model, our argument is more straightforward: the frontier between national accounts and welfare economics is drawn in such a way that the opportunity cost method is beyond the scope of the present exercise<fnref n="3" /> (see also (Landefeld and McCulla, 2000) for more details).

**2.3.1 Wage sensitivity analysis**

**Generalist or specialised substitute (-3%)** The generalist wage method consists in valuing all the hours of domestic work at the same rate. It is one of the methods suggested by Eurostat (2003): using the wage of a *generalist housekeeper*. This method might be preferred for an international benchmark since the data for the *specialised substitute* method are not available in every country (see (Varjonen et al., 1999) appendix 2). It is also the method used

<footnote n="3">³This should not be seen as an endorsement of the current distinction from our part; we leave to more experienced national accountants/economists the task of remodelling it, if need be.</footnote>
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>core<br>perimeter</th><th>median<br>perimeter</th><th>extensive<br>perimeter</th><th>generalist<br>substitute</th><th>minimum<br>wage</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Super gross</th><td>17.2</td><td>17.0</td><td>17.6</td><td>16.5</td><td>10.4</td></tr><tr><th>Net</th><td>10.1</td><td>10.1</td><td>10.3</td><td>9.8</td><td>6.9</td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: Insee : Time Use Survey 2010, DADS 2010 - our calculations

<caption>Table 6: Substitute wage in € per hour in 2010</caption>

by Landefeld and McCulla (2000) and Landefeld et al. (2009) on US data.

However, the generalist wage method does not solve the issue of international comparability: even where the data do exist, the choice of the reference wage is not clear-cut and references are made, depending on the publication, to ISCO-88 categories 3221 (Medical assistants), 3231 (Nursing associate professionals), 512 (Housekeeping and restaurant services workers), 5121 (Housekeepers and related workers), 513 (Personal care and related workers), 9131 (Domestic cleaners and helpers), ISCO-08 category 5322 (Home-based personal care workers) or simply 51 (Personal services workers). With our data set, based on the French PCS classification, we would use domestic services and cleaning workers for the generalist substitute (PCS 563c *Employés de maison et personnels de ménage chez des particuliers*, which includes ISCO-08 5152 *Domestic housekeepers* and 9111 *Domestic cleaners and helpers*). Their hourly wage is equal to 16.5€ while the average wage of the specialised substitute lies between 17.0 and 17.6€ depending on the perimeter (see Table 6). The method of the generalist substitute scales down by less than 1€ the hourly wage, i.e. by 3%, the valuation of domestic work. The choice of a substitute wage is thus not a major source of discrepancies compared to the definition of domestic work and the treatment of social contribution and working time, at least in the French context.

**Gross or net wages: a critical choice** (–41%) Whether or not one should include all taxes and social contributions within the valuation of hours of unpaid work is a matter of perspective. If the main interest is household production, the imputed wage would include taxes and social contributions. If the main interest is household income, the imputed wage would be net of taxes and social contribution.

We choose to use *super gross* hourly wages (i.e., including all taxes and social contributions whether paid by the employer or the employee). The main reason for this choice is that it is coherent with the National Accounts concept of *Compensation of Employees* (the total remuneration, in cash or in kind, payable by an enterprise to an employee in return for work done by the latter during the accounting period).

Using net wages (before income tax) would induce a 41% decrease in the valuation of domestic work. Thus, the decision to use one wage or the other is not marginal quantitatively, and it should be a priority in the agenda towards international harmonisation. It is also not benign for the interpretation of the savings ratio (see 3.9).
Moreover, the conversion from net to super gross wage raises its own conceptual issues. In France, paid domestic work is subject to tax rebates and subsidies. In particular, compensations paid by households to domestic personnel are partly subsidized by the general government for some specific domestic work (help for the elderly, handicapped persons but also care of young children). Under some conditions, up to 50% of the compensations paid can be deducted from the employers' income tax. This tax rebate is treated as imputed subsidies by the ESA 2010. Should we include specific subsidies and tax rebates in imputed wages ? For sake of simplicity, we chose not to.

**The minimum wage (-40%)** France has an hourly minimum wage (SMIC) below which workers can not legally be paid. By construction, this wage is lower than average wages recorded by our administrative wage data ("DADS"). Although the SMIC is almost a reflex for a French economist, using it to value hours of unpaid work will not allow for international comparisons as not all countries have a minimum wage, and existing ones are not even comparable. In some countries, the minimum wage is very low compared to the mean wage, and very few people are actually paid at the minimum wage. In other countries such as France, the minimum wage is set at a level closer to the median wage, it can be considered as a "living wage", and a significant proportion of the workforce actually earns it (around 15%).

In 2010, the minimum wage was 10.43€/h super gross and 6.95 €/h net. It is noteworthy that due to regressive social contribution rebates on small wages, the difference between the valuation with the minimum wage and the specialist substitute is markedly smaller in net (-32%) than in super gross (-40%, see Table 6).

In both cases, using this wage for the valuation of domestic work does not seem relevant, at least not for the purpose of international comparisons.

**The generalist substitute method levels out any composition effect across time (±1%)**

In temporal comparisons, the generalist wage method has the major drawback of levelling out the various skills required for different domestic tasks. Indeed, in comparison across time, we would like to be able to measure the effect of a shift from less skilled unpaid domestic tasks to more skilled ones. Such shifts may have happened in the last decades, with better educated women working more often outside their home. If they now spend less time doing the laundry and more time helping their children with homework for instance, the value of their home production may have increased. Using the same wage for all domestic tasks would prevent us from registering any composition effect of this kind.

However, the composition effect is potentially small, as the imputed wages are very close: in the core perimeter 87% of hours are imputed with specialists wages which differ by less than 1.5€ from the generalist substitute. One fourth of unpaid working time is dedicated to cleaning the dwelling. If one half was reallocated to skilled child care (homework supervision), valued at the average wage of a teacher, the value of domestic work would increase by just 0.2%. If it was reallocated to food preparation, valued at the average wage of a kitchen aide, it would increase
by less than 1%.

Thus this is not a strong case against the generalist substitute method.

**Working time vs. paid time (+22%)** Our source for hourly wage (DADS) uses paid time as a reference but TUS record worked time. The difference between these durations are paid holidays, sick leaves, maternity leaves, national holidays... periods during which workers are paid but not productive. As a consequence, our hourly wage from DADS is equal to $w = \frac{Annualwage}{Annualpaidtime}$ which we multiply by TUS's worked time, a duration conceptually shorter. On aggregate for the market industries there is a 22% wedge between these two durations in 2010: 22% of paid time is actually not worked. As a first approximation, we could thus assume that our valuation of domestic work underestimates by approximately 22% the true value of domestic work because it ignores non worked paid time. However, we can not assess whether there are some specificities linked to the particular occupations we consider (the working time and paid time of domestic cleaners paid by the hour are probably closer to one another, for instance). Before engaging in complex correction, the choice of an international benchmark on this matter could be guided by the available data.

# 3 From TUS to HHSA

## 3.1 The output and input approaches are two polar ways of measuring an in-between reality

Alternatively to the input method used here, the output method has been used for domestic production. As the UK's experience shows (Holloway et al., 2002), it is quite complex, whereas the input approach, based on previous experience on Time-Use Surveys, seems more practical to implement (both in terms of method and available data). Previous experiences and TUS availability are the main reasons for our choice of the input method. This choice is thus open to criticism and orientates the scope of domestic production we consider, in particular when it comes to capital (see 3.7).

However, there seems to be a consensus on the fact that the output method would, theoretically, be the first-best estimation procedure. Yet one may argue otherwise: the output and input approaches are two polar ways of measuring an in-between reality.

When a market exists, prices theoretically measure the willingness to pay of the marginal buyer for a good or service. The price embeds information beyond the cost of producing the said good or service. Typically, when the right logo is printed on a t-shirt, the value of the product increases by much more than the printing cost. What is relevant from the National Accounts perspective is that prices are public and allow for a better description of the transactions.

On the one hand, using the output method and applying market prices to domestically pro-
duced goods and services implies that the willingness to acquire these products does not depend on their producers: market and domestic products are essentially identical. It is thus implicitly assumed that households are constrained to produce domestically in some way (financially, because of time, through social norms...) but otherwise they would purchase their domestic production from the market.

On the other hand, the input method implies that the decision to domestically produce is deliberate so that market and domestic products are essentially different. In the absence of any price to measure the specific value of these products, the best value we can (objectively) impute to domestic production is the valuation of its inputs.

Both methods are subject to a problem of quality evaluation. In addition, the output method raises the difficulty that market prices embed characteristics which do not apply to domestic production (allowing firms to price with a mark-up). The input method poses similar difficulties on wages as a measure of productivity.

In both cases, one may be tempted to go beyond these objective measures to capture the true willingness to pay for domestic production. Indeed, one can argue that nothing compares with dad's chocolate cake, while nothing is worse than wearing grandma's hand-knit pull-over at school, implying that their value is neither the price of their market equivalent nor their production cost. For the present exercise we did resist this temptation, which is quite consensual and justified by similar reasons as those invoked for not considering the *opportunity cost method*: we are working within the theoretical framework of national accounting, not welfare economics.

## 3.2 Avoiding double counts of *Output for own final use* (5% of production)

As mentioned in 2.2, there are some double counts between the standard household account and the TUS estimates. Specifically, food products, either grown, picked, hunted, fished, bred, milked, vinified, distilled or brewed are already counted, both in *Output for own final use* and *final consumption expenditure* (P12). Also, major construction work and maintenance of dwellings are counted both in *Output for own final use* and *GFCF*.

In these cases we favour the existing National Accounts' estimation of *P12* and we do not count the corresponding time from the TUS data. This choice has a limited impact for construction work (see table 7), but the input method appears to overestimate the productivity of households in their kitchen garden or when they fish, hunt, pick-up mushrooms... probably because these are both productive and leisure activities. We choose to trust the output-based estimation, in spite of its own limitations. Provided that the output method was perfectly accurate, then the overestimation avoided by not valuing the agricultural production of households with the input method would amount to 49 billion €, i.e. 5% of domestic production in the *core perimeter*.
<table><thead><tr><th>HHSA</th><th>Activity</th><th>Gardening (1/2)</th><th>Breeding</th><th>Fishing, hunting</th><th>Gathering</th><th>Construction</th></tr><tr><th></th><th>Hours*wage</th><th>26.6</th><th>7.0</th><th>13.9</th><th>0.8</th><th>2.7</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">SNA</td><td>B1=P12-P2</td><td></td><td></td><td>2.5</td><td></td><td>2.3</td></tr><tr><td>P12</td><td></td><td></td><td>3.4</td><td></td><td>4.9</td></tr><tr><td>P2</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.9</td><td></td><td>2.6</td></tr></tbody></table>

For construction (incl. major maintenance of dwellings), the SNA figures are close to the imputed value of time from the TUS. For domestic production of food products, valuing time with low qualified specialists' wages is 20 times larger than the output estimation from the SNA account.

Source: Insee: National accounts - Base 2005, Time Use Survey 2010, DADS 2010 - our calculations

<caption>Table 7: Labour input from TUS and Output for own final use in billion (€)</caption>

## 3.3 Reclassified consumption expenditure

In France, household consumption expenditure is built using the "Nace rev2" nomenclature for the balancing of the Supply and Use Table (SUT). It is also published using the COICOP classification. We use the Nace to isolate intermediate consumption and Gross Fixed Capital Formation (GFCF) because it is available in greater detail.

### ... into intermediate consumption
Table 15 lists the goods and services we reallocate into intermediate consumption. Table 8 evaluates the value of this intermediate consumption depending on the chosen perimeter. The value of intermediate consumption ranges from 255 billion € to 315 billion €, depending on the chosen perimeter. The definition of domestic production therefore has a limited impact on the value of intermediate consumption: ±60 billion €. It amounts to one tenth of the effect of the choice of the perimeter on the valuation of time (Table 5). From the core to the intermediate perimeters, productive leisure activities such as gardening, sewing and knitting account for 12 billion € of additional intermediate consumption. From the intermediate to the extensive perimeters, the fraction of car use counted as domestic production jumps from 11% to 97%. Consequently, the proportion of car-related expenditures that falls into intermediate consumption dramatically increases (+47 billion €), making up most of the difference between perimeters as regards intermediate consumption.

<table><caption>in billion euros</caption><thead><tr><th>Perimeter</th><th>Housing</th><th>Food</th><th>Clothing</th><th>Care</th><th>Transportation</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Core</td><td>64</td><td>175</td><td>5</td><td>5</td><td>6</td><td>255</td></tr><tr><td>Intermediate</td><td>75</td><td>175</td><td>7</td><td>5</td><td>6</td><td>268</td></tr><tr><td>Extensive</td><td>75</td><td>175</td><td>7</td><td>5</td><td>53</td><td>315</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: There is no intermediate consumption for the ancillary functions Shopping and Volunteer Work

Source: National accounts - Base 2005, Insee - our calculations

<caption>Table 8: Three definitions of intermediate consumption for domestic production in 2010 in France</caption>

### ... into GFCF
Table 16 lists the goods and services we reallocate into GFCF. It is shorter than the one used with the input method in Finland (Varjonen and Aalto, 2006) or the US (Landefeld et al., 2009). The reason for this is explained in 3.7: we assume that durables
can not be productive without the addition of labour. Table 9 evaluates both GFCF and CFC depending on the chosen perimeter. In the same way as for intermediate consumption, capital is also impacted by the perimeter of domestic production, mainly through the way car use is counted as productive. This effect is however small, compared to that of the valuation of time (Table 5).

Because CFC for each function is a moving average of the corresponding GFCF with specific weights defined by the permanent inventory method (see section 3.8) and as the trends in GFCFs are small, CFCs have the same order of magnitude as GFCFs.

<table><caption>in billion euros</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Perimeter</th><th colspan="2">Housing</th><th colspan="2">Food</th><th colspan="2">Clothing</th><th colspan="2">Transportation</th><th colspan="2">Total</th></tr><tr><th>GFCF</th><th>CFC</th><th>GFCF</th><th>CFC</th><th>GFCF</th><th>CFC</th><th>GFCF</th><th>CFC</th><th>GFCF</th><th>CFC</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Core</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>6</td><td>6</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>8</td><td>8</td><td>18</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td>Intermediate</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>6</td><td>6</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>8</td><td>8</td><td>19</td><td>19</td></tr><tr><td>Extensive</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>6</td><td>6</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>73</td><td>74</td><td>84</td><td>84</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: There is no capital for the functions *Care*, *Shopping* and *Volunteer Work*

Source: National accounts - Base 2005, Insee - our calculations

<caption>Table 9: Three definitions of capital (GFCF and CFC) for domestic production in 2010 in France</caption>

## 3.4 No change in taxes and subsidies on production

We do not change the taxes and subsidies on production as they currently appear in the SNA household account. The reason for this is twofold: first, we are reluctant to reclassify transactions which have a counterpart outside the Households Account (here in the General Government Account); second, it would not be significant. Luckily for us, there is no longer a tax on car use in France, taxes on dwellings are already properly accounted for and there are only marginal if any subsidies that are conditional on engaging in domestic production of some kind (childcare for instance). We could have reallocated some individual consumption of general government to subsidies, when it was on products used as intermediate consumption for domestic production (e.g. food bank). In addition to representing only a small amount, this choice would raise similar issues as volunteer work: everything else being unchanged, this reclassification from *transfers in kind* to *subsidies* would modify the gross disposable income without changing household final consumption expenditure. Savings would be impacted but hardly in link with domestic production, consumption, or actual saving behaviour.

## 3.5 Household production as its own intermediate consumption (neutral on value added and final consumption but +5% on production)

We could call it the *driving to the shop to purchase food to cook dinner* problem. The question is: how much of a specific domestic production do you engage in, not for its own sake, but as a means to another one? Our convention on this matter is chosen for the sake of simplicity.
Eurostat (2003) suggests to estimate domestic production in five principal functions: housing, food, clothing, care and volunteer work. Ancillary functions (transportation, shopping, management) should be allocated to their true final purpose (driving to the shop to purchase food to cook diner = food preparation).

Unfortunately, allocating ancillary work to principal functions is not always possible with our data (*shopping* and *transportation*). Since any judgemental breakdown from our part would have a sizeable impact on the relative sizes of domestic production functions, we choose to treat these two ancillary functions as if they were an end to themselves.

This convention is neutral on the total value added and final consumption. It also enables better international comparisons than when allocations are made differently across countries, and allows others to use their own breakdown, when more data is available. Moreover, counting the ancillary functions *Transportation* and *Shopping* as intermediate consumption in the other functions would increase domestic production by 5% in the *core perimeter* and 34% in the *extensive perimeter*.

## 3.6 No changes in inventories

The standard framework already accounts for changes in inventories of households as users. We see no reason to modify this estimation even though some goods were reclassified from final to intermediate consumption.

Productive households may also generate *other inventories* and *work in progress*. Under this category, work in progress for construction and other major maintenance of dwellings are already accounted for. In the remaining possibilities, as most of domestic production falls into the services category, we could only think of such things as unfinished knitting by December 31st and jars of jam. Hopefully, our judgemental estimation of such changes in inventories (0) is not too far from reality.

## 3.7 New Frontier - on the capital side (+8% production)

Defining the frontier of domestic production from the sole point of view of Time Use Surveys could be misleading (Ironmonger, 2000). Indeed, dwellings produce rents (real or imputed) without any hours worked. Similarly, one could consider that owning (or more restrictively using) any durable is similar to producing a rental service for oneself. A possible valuation of this production stemming from durable goods could be the time of domestic use times market rental cost, but due to a lack of data we do not implement it: *we do not include production resulting from capital alone in our estimate of domestic production*.

We believe that the alternative to estimate capital input through the Permanent Inventory Method (PIM) would be unsatisfactory. In the present estimation, consumption of fixed capital
(CFC) is by far the smallest of the three inputs so that defined as it is, domestic production is satisfactorily estimated despite the flaws of the PIM. Considering all the durables as productive capital would scale-up GFCF and CFC to approximately 100 billion € resulting in an 8% increase (respectively 1.5%) of domestic production in its core perimeter (resp. extensive perimeter).

In the principal function housing, we mainly consider house chores, decorative gardening and small house repairs. The services provided by a fully furnished dwelling are not included. The output method does not raise this kind of issues because it does not require the identification of productive capital (Holloway et al., 2002).

## 3.8 The robustness of the Permanent Inventory Method (PIM) (±0.1% of production)

Our approach to capital depreciation is in-between that of Landefeld and McCulla (2000), who break down the total services provided by durables in proportion of hours of unpaid work, and Fraumeni (1997) or Jalava and Kavonius (2009), who specify depreciation rates for each durable. We do not develop a complete set of depreciation factors for each durable reclassified in GFCF, but borrow from the capital accounts 3 sets of such factors, which are compatible with the PIM:

* (AN.11131) transportation equipment: average duration 7 years, maximum 21 years

* (AN.111321) computers: average duration 5 years, maximum 10 years

* (AN.111322) communication equipment: average duration 10 years, maximum 20 years

Investment is grouped for each of the domestic production functions and as a sensitivity test, the three sets of coefficients are applied.

Depreciation factors are not chosen for the similarity of the assets with reclassified durables, but because the average and maximum durations seem reasonable assumptions for domestic appliances nowadays. However, for cars and other transportation-related investment, coefficients for transportation equipment should be the favoured assumption. They should be chosen from an industry which uses mainly cars to avoid other transportation equipment.

Figure 1 shows the sensitivity of the estimated CFC for food services to the choice of a depreciation rate of durables. It is the function with the highest sensitivity to the depreciation factor: in 2010 when the average duration of capital goods is assumed to be 5 years, CFC is 6.2% below its value when the assumed duration is 10 years. Our estimation using the PIM is not very precise, however an uncertainty of 5% on CFC weights only 1 billion € whereas the total value of domestic production is larger than 959 billions. It is only a fraction of the suspected uncertainty on the valuation of time spent in productive leisure such as gardening (see 3.2).

If all durables were reclassified into investment, a 5% uncertainty on CFC would still weight only 5 billion € on total domestic production. Hence, our choice not to consider capital production more extensively may be thought drastic. However, we wish to make it clear that if
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

Source: National accounts - Base 2005, Insee - our calculations

<caption>Figure 1: *Consumption of Fixed Capital (CFC)* of durables used for domestic production of food services</caption>

a lot has been done empirically and conceptually in the treatment and harmonization of TUS, for a complete input approach of domestic production, more needs to be done on the treatment of capital. Valuing the service of capital through time of use multiplied by rental cost would a priori be a good start.

## 3.9 Implications for the interpretation of the savings ratio and purchasing power of disposable income

The key figures for economic analysis that are extracted from the household account are the savings ratio and the purchasing power of disposable income. The construction of a HHSA raises questions on both concepts and their values must be handled with great caution.

**Purchasing power of disposable income** This figure is directly impacted by all the choices made to value domestic work: perimeter, substitute wage, imputed taxes and contributions, worked time or paid time (see 2.3.1). These methodological choices can greatly affect the imputed disposable income derived from domestic production (equal to the value added derived from this activity). This additional income is not marginal (704 billion €) in the total disposable income (SNA plus domestic production, see Table 12). It is almost as high as households' gross
wages and salaries (768 billion €).

In addition, to estimate the purchasing power of this total income (SNA+HHSA), the defla-
tor of consumption including domestic production would have to be computed. This practice
is currently impossible as the HHSA is not produced on a regular basis. The alternative is to
use the SNA consumption deflator which requires the strong assumption that SNA consumption
prices and non-SNA consumption *prices* have similar evolutions.

**Savings ratio (11% or 13%)** The SNA's estimate of the savings ratio is 15.9% in 2010. Our estimate in the HHSA is 11.2%. The way the treatment of imputed taxes and social contributions affects the savings ratio is not straightforward. Let $C^{HHSA}$, $GDI^{HHSA}$ denote total consumption and gross disposable income as we measure them, that is SNA plus non-SNA, including imputed taxes and social contributions. Let $\tau^{imputed}$ denote these taxes. If one is interested in the value of domestic production/consumption, taxes and contributions should be included as they are included in the value of market production. However, if one is interested in the potential income from domestic production, one may consider net wages $GDI^{HHSA} - \tau^{imputed}$, that is subtract imputed taxes from the *mixed income* in the distribution of income accounts.

In this case, the savings ratio would be negative: $-3.4\% \left( \frac{GDI^{HHSA-\tau^{imputed}} - C^{HHSA}}{GDI^{HHSA-\tau^{imputed}}} \right)$. Although this savings ratio seems economically relevant, it yields severe accounting and communication issues. Subtracting the imputed taxes and contributions from the mixed income would modify the net lending/net borrowing of households while no monetary transaction is recorded. It is then necessary to apply a specific correction to make the HHSA neutral on the financial accounts. This correction is mandatory because the financial account describes the detention of money, stocks and financial assets in general, and they can not be affected by transactions in kind: one can not save domestic production. But, this correction leaves the door open to abusive policy recommendations as part of the production simply vanishes in the sequence of accounts.<fnref n="4" />

In line with National Accounting practice and for sake of simplicity, we choose not to make
such a correction and leave imputed taxes and contributions in the mixed income. This con-
vention is somehow related to the accounting of imputed rents: imputed income equals avoided
expenditures. With our choice to use super gross wages the savings ratio is equal to 11.2%
$$ \left( \frac{GDI^{HHSA} - C^{HHSA}}{GDI^{HHSA}} \right) $$
The alternative is to use net wages in the production account, in which case
the savings ratio is equal to 13.0%
$$ \left( \frac{(GDI^{HHSA-\tau^{imputed}}) - (C^{HHSA-\tau^{imputed}})}{GDI^{HHSA-\tau^{imputed}}} \right) $$

**The invisibility of volunteer work (+3% of production)** Introducing the value of volunteer work into the HHSA is not straightforward. The value of this work can logically be added to the production of NPISHs. It does not appear in household consumption expenditure but only

<footnote n="4">⁴We published a prior version of this work in French. Although we did not subtract imputed taxes from the mixed income, some reactions, both from journalists and the general public, were that we implied a recommendation to tax domestic production.</footnote>
in household final consumption: household savings are neutral to NPISHs production. However, if imputed wages from NPISHs to households were counted, they would have no counterpart in consumption and be added to both *gross saving* and *net lending or net borrowing*. This would have to be corrected as there is no monetary transaction in domestic production which could justify a modification of the *net lending or net borrowing* of the original households account. To correct for this inconsistency, one would have to assume that part of NPISH production (the amount corresponding to household wages due to volunteer work) is in fact consumed directly as household consumption expenditure.

Given the small share of volunteer work in total domestic work, we found it less confusing not to include it in the HHSA but to value this time separately.

# 4 A household satellite account for France in 2010

## 4.1 The production account (+36% of GDP) and its distribution by functions

Following the input approach, we add up the three inputs of home production (labour, intermediate consumption and *consumption of fixed capital* (CFC)) to obtain an estimated value of this production (see Table 10). We do so using three definitions of household production (see 2.2.1).

This production can be evaluated between 959 billion € and 1,639 billion €. The corresponding gross value added amounts to between 704 and 1,324 billion € which corresponds to a revaluation of GDP (in current prices) of +36% and +68% respectively.

This result is in line with other estimates ranging from 27% in the USA in 2004 to 63% in the UK in 2000 (see Table 1).

The production function of households is quite similar to that of other countries (see Table 2): labour (or net value added) accounts for three fourth of total production while Consumption of Fixed Capital is the smallest of the three inputs (between 2 and 5%, similar to the estimates for Finland).

Household production can be broken down into 4 principal functions and 2 ancillary functions, plus volunteer work (see Table 11).<fnref n="5" /> The ventilation of domestic production in functions can be compared with satellite accounts in other countries (see Table 3). As for the Basque Country (Eustat, 2004) and Finland (Hamunen et al., 2012), *food* and *housing* account for the bulk of domestic production while *clothing* accounts for less than 10% of the total. Compared to Holloway et al. (2002) for the UK, we define *care* and *transportation* more restrictively, which can explain the smaller share of these functions in domestic production. Indeed, with our *extensive* definition of domestic production, transportation accounts for a much larger share of production (27% instead of 5% initially, larger than the UK’s estimate of 17.7%) as almost all

<footnote n="5">⁵We do not distribute ancillary functions to principal functions (see 3.5 for a discussion of this choice), and *volunteer work* is treated separately (see 3.9)</footnote>
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th colspan="6" style="text-align: right;">in billion euros</th></tr><tr><th></th><th colspan="2" style="text-align: center;">Core</th><th colspan="2" style="text-align: center;">Intermediate</th><th colspan="2" style="text-align: center;">Extensive</th></tr><tr><th></th><th colspan="2" style="text-align: center;">Perimeter</th><th colspan="2" style="text-align: center;">Perimeter</th><th colspan="2" style="text-align: center;">Perimeter</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th scope="row">Labour</th><td>687</td><td>72%</td><td>944</td><td>77%</td><td>1 239</td><td>76%</td></tr><tr><th scope="row">Intermediate Consumption</th><td>255</td><td>27%</td><td>268</td><td>22%</td><td>315</td><td>19%</td></tr><tr><th scope="row">Consumption of Fixed Capital</th><td>17</td><td>2%</td><td>19</td><td>2%</td><td>84</td><td>5%</td></tr><tr><th scope="row"><strong>Domestic Production</strong></th><td>959</td><td>100%</td><td>1 231</td><td>100%</td><td>1 639</td><td>100%</td></tr><tr><th scope="row"><strong>Gross Value Added</strong></th><td>704</td><td>73%</td><td>963</td><td>78%</td><td>1 324</td><td>81%</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: the details of each input by function are displayed in Table 5 for labour, Table 8 for intermediate consumption and Table 9 for consumption of fixed capital.

Source: National accounts - Base 2005, Insee - our calculations

Table 10: Houshehold domestic production account for three definitions of production in France in 2010

car journeys are assumed to be productive in this perimeter (see 2.2.1). Besides, volunteer work is a minor function: 3%, in-between the figures for the UK and Finland.

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th colspan="8" style="text-align: right;">in billion euros</th></tr><tr><th>Perimeter</th><th>Housing</th><th>Food</th><th>Clothing</th><th>Care</th><th>Transportation</th><th>Shopping</th><th>Total°</th><th>Volunteer</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th scope="row">Core</th><td>276</td><td>472</td><td>68</td><td>100</td><td>43</td><td>0</td><td>959</td><td>28</td></tr><tr><th scope="row"></th><td>29%</td><td>49%</td><td>7%</td><td>10%</td><td>5%</td><td>0%</td><td>100%</td><td>3%</td></tr><tr><th scope="row">Intermediate</th><td>370</td><td>472</td><td>83</td><td>139</td><td>51</td><td>115</td><td>1231</td><td>42</td></tr><tr><th scope="row"></th><td>30%</td><td>38%</td><td>7%</td><td>11%</td><td>4%</td><td>9%</td><td>100%</td><td>3%</td></tr><tr><th scope="row">Extensive</th><td>370</td><td>472</td><td>83</td><td>154</td><td>445</td><td>115</td><td>1639</td><td>60</td></tr><tr><th scope="row"></th><td>23%</td><td>29%</td><td>5%</td><td>9%</td><td>27%</td><td>7%</td><td>100%</td><td>4%</td></tr></tbody></table>

<caption>Table 11: Three definitions of domestic production in 2010 in France</caption>

## 4.2 The complete sequence of accounts for the most restrictive definition of domestic production (core perimeter)

Table 12 presents the modified sequence of accounts resulting from the incorporation of the HHSA into the household account. It adds 959 billion € to the production of households (estimated at 416 billion € with current SNA conventions), and 255 billion € to their intermediate consumption. Their consumption is in turn scaled-up by 686 billion € (+959 billion € of home production, -255 billion € reclassified as intermediate consumption and -18 billion € as gross fixed capital formation).

Financial accounts are not impacted by home production, and net lending or net borrowing is unchanged. This is a necessary property of HHSA as it only adds non-monetary transactions to the initial account. Stock of capital accounts should be modified to include the goods reclassified as *Gross Fixed Capital Formation* (GFCF) for home production, but because this capital increase

<footnote>°: This total is excluding volunteer work</footnote>

<footnote>Source: National accounts - Base 2005, Insee - our calculations</footnote>
would be marginal compared to the value of household dwellings, this account is not displayed here.

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">ESA code</th><th rowspan="2">operation</th><th colspan="3">in billion euros</th></tr><tr><th>SNA</th><th>non-SNA</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>Production Account</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="5"><u>Resources</u></td></tr><tr><td>P1</td><td>Output at basic price</td><td>415.9</td><td>958.9</td><td>415.9</td></tr><tr><td>P11</td><td>of which : Market output</td><td>230.5</td><td></td><td>230.5</td></tr><tr><td>P12</td><td>Output for own final use</td><td>185.4</td><td>958.9</td><td>1 144.3</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5"><u>Uses</u></td></tr><tr><td>P2</td><td>Intermediate consumption</td><td>87.9</td><td>255.3</td><td>343.2</td></tr><tr><td>B1</td><td>Gross value added</td><td>328.0</td><td>703.6</td><td>1 031.6</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>Generation of income account</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="5"><u>Resources</u></td></tr><tr><td>B1</td><td>Gross value added</td><td>328.0</td><td>703.6</td><td>1 031.6</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5"><u>Uses</u></td></tr><tr><td>D11</td><td>Gross wages and salaries</td><td>34.2</td><td></td><td>34.2</td></tr><tr><td>D121</td><td>Employers' actual social contributions</td><td>9.4</td><td></td><td>9.4</td></tr><tr><td>D122</td><td>Employers' imputed social contributions</td><td>0.0</td><td></td><td>0.0</td></tr><tr><td>D29</td><td>Other taxes on production</td><td>16.3</td><td></td><td>16.3</td></tr><tr><td>D291</td><td>of which : Taxes on salaries and manpower</td><td>0.6</td><td></td><td>0.6</td></tr><tr><td>D292</td><td>Miscellaneous taxes on production</td><td>15.7</td><td></td><td>15.7</td></tr><tr><td>D39</td><td>Other subsidies on production</td><td>-3.1</td><td></td><td>-3.1</td></tr><tr><td>B2+B3</td><td>Gross operating surplus and gross mixed income</td><td>271.2</td><td>703.6</td><td>974.8</td></tr><tr><td>B2</td><td>Gross operating surplus</td><td>152.8</td><td></td><td>246.9</td></tr><tr><td>B3</td><td>Gross mixed income</td><td>118.4</td><td>703.6</td><td>727.9</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>Allocation of primary income account</strong></td></tr><tr><td colspan="5"><u>Resources</u></td></tr><tr><td>B2+B3</td><td>Gross operating surplus and gross mixed income</td><td>271.2</td><td>703.6</td><td>974.8</td></tr><tr><td>D11</td><td>Gross wages and salaries</td><td>767.6</td><td></td><td>767.6</td></tr><tr><td>D121</td><td>Employers' actual social contributions</td><td>224.8</td><td></td><td>224.8</td></tr><tr><td>D122</td><td>Employers' imputed social contributions</td><td>49.6</td><td></td><td>49.6</td></tr><tr><td>D41</td><td>Interest</td><td>28.7</td><td></td><td>28.7</td></tr><tr><td>D42</td><td>Distributed income of corporations</td><td>65.0</td><td></td><td>65.0</td></tr><tr><td>D421</td><td>of which : Dividends</td><td>40.0</td><td></td><td>40.0</td></tr><tr><td>D422</td><td>Withdrawals from the income of quasi-corporations</td><td>25.0</td><td></td><td>25.0</td></tr><tr><td>D44</td><td>Property income attributed to insurance policy holders</td><td>48.3</td><td></td><td>48.3</td></tr></tbody></table>

*Continued on next page*
Continued from previous page

<table><thead><tr><th>ESA code</th><th>operation</th><th>SNA</th><th>non-SNA</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>D45</td><td>Rents</td><td>2.5</td><td></td><td>2.5</td></tr><tr><td></td><td><u>Uses</u></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>D41</td><td>Interest</td><td>19.8</td><td></td><td>19.8</td></tr><tr><td>D45</td><td>Rents</td><td>1.3</td><td></td><td>1.3</td></tr><tr><td>B5</td><td>Balance of primary incomes</td><td>1 436.6</td><td>703.6</td><td>2 140.2</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>Secondary distribution of income account</strong></td></tr><tr><td></td><td><u>Resources</u></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>B5</td><td>Balance of primary incomes</td><td>1 436.6</td><td>703.6</td><td>2 140.2</td></tr><tr><td>D62</td><td>Social benefits other than social transfers in kind</td><td>415.6</td><td></td><td>415.6</td></tr><tr><td>D621</td><td>Social security benefits in cash</td><td>298.0</td><td></td><td>298.0</td></tr><tr><td>D622</td><td>Private funded social benefits</td><td>30.7</td><td></td><td>30.7</td></tr><tr><td>D623</td><td>Unfunded employee social benefits</td><td>54.1</td><td></td><td>54.1</td></tr><tr><td>D624</td><td>Social assistance benefits in cash</td><td>32.8</td><td></td><td>32.8</td></tr><tr><td>D72</td><td>Non-life insurance claims received</td><td>28.2</td><td></td><td>28.2</td></tr><tr><td>D75</td><td>Miscellaneous current transfers received</td><td>30.7</td><td></td><td>30.7</td></tr><tr><td>D752</td><td>Current transfers between households</td><td>2.0</td><td></td><td>2.0</td></tr><tr><td>D759</td><td>Other miscellaneous current transfers</td><td>28.7</td><td></td><td>28.7</td></tr><tr><td></td><td><u>Uses</u></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>D51</td><td>Taxes on income</td><td>142.6</td><td></td><td>142.6</td></tr><tr><td>D59</td><td>Other current taxes</td><td>21.6</td><td></td><td>21.6</td></tr><tr><td>D611</td><td>Employers' actual social contributions</td><td>224.8</td><td></td><td>224.8</td></tr><tr><td>D6112</td><td>Employees' social contributions</td><td>105.1</td><td></td><td>105.1</td></tr><tr><td>D6113</td><td>Social contributions by self- and non-employed persons</td><td>27.7</td><td></td><td>27.7</td></tr><tr><td>D612</td><td>Imputed social contributions</td><td>49.6</td><td></td><td>49.6</td></tr><tr><td>D71</td><td>Net non-life insurance premiums paid</td><td>24.6</td><td></td><td>24.6</td></tr><tr><td>D75</td><td>Miscellaneous current transfers paid</td><td>24.2</td><td></td><td>24.2</td></tr><tr><td>D751</td><td>Current transfers to non-profit institutions serving households</td><td>10.0</td><td></td><td>10.0</td></tr><tr><td>D752</td><td>Current transfers between households</td><td>3.1</td><td></td><td>3.1</td></tr><tr><td>D754</td><td>Fines and penalties</td><td>1.0</td><td></td><td>1.0</td></tr><tr><td>D759</td><td>Other miscellaneous current transfers</td><td>10.1</td><td></td><td>10.1</td></tr><tr><td>B6</td><td>Gross disposable income</td><td>1 290.9</td><td>703.6</td><td>1 994.5</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>Use of disposable income account</strong></td></tr><tr><td></td><td><u>Resources</u></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>B6</td><td>Gross disposable income</td><td>1 290.9</td><td>703.6</td><td>1 994.5</td></tr></tbody></table>

Continued on next page
Continued from previous page

<table><thead><tr><th>ESA code</th><th>operation</th><th>SNA</th><th>non-SNA</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td><u>Uses</u></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>P31</td><td>Individual consumption expenditure</td><td>1 085.3</td><td>686.0</td><td>1 771.3</td></tr><tr><td>B8</td><td>Gross saving</td><td>205.6</td><td>17.5</td><td>223.2</td></tr></tbody></table>

## Capital account

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Resources</th><th></th><th></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>B8</td><td>Gross saving</td><td>205.6</td><td>17.5</td><td>223.2</td></tr><tr><td>D9C</td><td>Capital transfers received</td><td>5.1</td><td></td><td>5.1</td></tr><tr><td>D92C</td><td>Investment grants</td><td>2.1</td><td></td><td>2.1</td></tr><tr><td>D99C</td><td>Other capital transfers</td><td>3.0</td><td></td><td>3.0</td></tr><tr><td>D9D</td><td>Capital transfers paid</td><td>-9.5</td><td></td><td>-9.5</td></tr><tr><td>D91D</td><td>Capital taxes</td><td>-7.7</td><td></td><td>-7.7</td></tr><tr><td>D92D</td><td>Investment grants</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>D99D</td><td>Other capital transfers</td><td>-1.7</td><td></td><td>-1.7</td></tr><tr><td></td><td><u>Uses</u></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>P51</td><td>Gross fixed capital formation</td><td>112.3</td><td>17.5</td><td>129.8</td></tr><tr><td>P52</td><td>Changes in inventories</td><td>-0.2</td><td></td><td>-0.2</td></tr><tr><td>P53</td><td>Acquisitions less disposals of valuables</td><td>0.7</td><td></td><td>0.7</td></tr><tr><td>K2</td><td>Acquisitions less disposals of non-financial non-produced assets</td><td>-1.6</td><td></td><td>-1.6</td></tr><tr><td>B9A</td><td>Net lending (+) or net borrowing (-)</td><td>90.1</td><td>0</td><td>90.1</td></tr></tbody></table>

## Redistribution of income in kind account

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Resources</th><th></th><th></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>B6</td><td>Gross disposable income</td><td>1 290.9</td><td>703.6</td><td>1 994.5</td></tr><tr><td>D63</td><td>Social transfers in kind</td><td>352.6</td><td>28.3</td><td>380.8</td></tr><tr><td>D631</td><td>Social benefits in kind</td><td>182.3</td><td></td><td>182.3</td></tr><tr><td>D6311</td><td>Social security benefits. reimbursements</td><td>76.8</td><td></td><td>76.8</td></tr><tr><td>D6312</td><td>Other social security benefits in kind</td><td>75.4</td><td></td><td>75.4</td></tr><tr><td>D6313</td><td>Social assistance benefits in kind</td><td>30.1</td><td></td><td>30.1</td></tr><tr><td>D632</td><td>Transfers of individual non-market goods and services</td><td>170.2</td><td>28.3</td><td>198.5</td></tr><tr><td></td><td><u>Uses</u></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>B7</td><td>Adjusted disposable income</td><td>1 643.5</td><td>731.8</td><td>2 375.3</td></tr></tbody></table>

## Use of adjusted disposable income account

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Resources</th><th></th><th></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>B7</td><td>Adjusted disposable income</td><td>1 643.5</td><td>731.8</td><td>2 375.3</td></tr><tr><td></td><td><u>Uses</u></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>P4</td><td>Actual final consumption</td><td>1 437.8</td><td>714.3</td><td>2 152.1</td></tr><tr><td>B8</td><td>Gross saving</td><td>205.6</td><td>17.5</td><td>223.2</td></tr></tbody></table>

Continued on next page
<table><thead><tr><th colspan="4">Continued from previous page</th></tr><tr><th>ESA code</th><th>operation</th><th>SNA</th><th>non-SNA</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead></table>

Source: National accounts - Base 2005, Insee - our calculations

<caption>Table 12: The complete sequence of households account and the households satellite account in France in 2010</caption>

## 4.3 Consumption is increased by 63%, income by 55% and the savings ratio is lower by 5 percentage points

The inclusion of home production, in its most restrictive definition (the core perimeter), substantially changes the picture of the economic activity of households. Indeed, it implies a 686 billion € net increase in consumption, which can be compared with the individual consumption expenditure as it is currently computed in National accounts (1,085 billion €): incorporating home production raises final consumption by 63%. Gross disposable income also increases by 55% (+704 billion € of Value Added). Correlatively, the savings ratio (savings on gross disposable income) goes down from 16% to 11%.

Taking the extensive definition of home production boosts the increases in income and consumption to 103% and 114%, respectively. The saving ratio still drops by 5 points, a result unchanged because GFCF also increases. However, the savings ratio should be analysed with caution (see 3.9).

## 4.4 Home made consumptions are much larger than their market equivalents

Even within the core perimeter, consumption of home-produced services dwarfs its market equivalents for every function considered. Generally speaking, the French domestic services sector is made of much more home-made services than externalized ones. Home food production represents 472 billion €, 8 times the consumption of meals in restaurants and eateries (59 billion €). The gap is even wider for household upkeep - 276 billion € vs. only 9 billion € for the employment of gardeners, cleaners and housekeepers -, and for clothing - 68 billion € of home production (laundry, ironing, mending...) vs. less than 2 billion € of corresponding market services (dry cleaning). Finally, one could think that France having a lot of public transportation, a relatively high level of female labour force participation and an active policy of childcare, market consumption of transportation and care could be large relative to the amount of household production of these services. Yet we find that the value of transportation provided by households (within the core perimeter, i.e. excluding self-transportation) is more than 50% higher than consumption of transportation services whether it is by plane, train, taxi, bus... (43 vs. 28 billion €). As regards care, home production (100 billion €) tops household final consumption of Social work activities (67 billion €) as recorded by the SNA, i.e. including general government and NPISHs contributions.

It would be interesting to compare these results across countries with various levels of public transportation, of women labour force participation and with different levels of socialization of care. However, since transportation and childcare are precisely two major grey zones in the definition of home production, such comparisons cannot be made until an agreement is found over a common delineation of their boundaries. Being able to compare the relative contribution of the private sector, the public one and households to the provision of transportation and care, across economies that are organized differently, would be a particularly valuable outcome of such an agreement.
Conclusion

One century ago, economists were estimating the value of a housewife using the cost of a housekeeper. Time Use Surveys then allowed for more precise and less sexist appraisals of domestic work. We are now linking these estimations with National Accounts. On the one hand, a lot has been said and done in this literature, on the other hand more harmonisation is needed before we can enlighten policy makers with estimates of domestic production following a shared methodology, reproduced every 5 or 10 years.

Our estimates on France in 2010 show that these methodological issues can be ranked: agreeing on a frontier of domestic production and on a net or gross wage rate are the two decisions that have the greater quantitative impact on the results. We chose the most restrictive perimeter of domestic production because we believe it to be the less disputable, and gross wages in accordance with the SNA definition of employee compensation, but these choices are obviously still open to debate.

As for the other methodological choices (specialist or generalist wage, capital depreciation rate...), they seem quantitatively less urgent, at least for comparisons between industrialised countries. We tried to advocate that they should be made under two main guiding principles. The first one is a practical argument of simplicity: whenever possible, the most parsimonious solutions and the ones that imply the least changes in the existing SNA figures should be favoured. The second one is that when working within the framework of National Accounting, one should rely on preexisting National Accounting concepts and principles. In this regard, we tried to show that valuating home production in order to build a Household Satellite Account is a different exercise from valuating it in a welfare economics perspective.
References

Abraham, K. and Mackie, C. (2006). A framework for nonmarket accounting. In Jorgenson, D. W., Landefeld, J. S., and Nordhaus, W. D., editors, *A new architecture for the US national accounts*, volume I.

Alesina, A. and Ichino, A. (2009). *L'italia fatta in casa. mondadori edition.*

Chadeau, A. (1985). Measuring household activities: some international comparisons. *Review of income and wealth*, (136).

Chadeau, A. (1992). What is households’ non-market production worth? *OECD Economic Studies*, (18).

Chadeau, A. and Fouquet, A. (1981). Le Travail domestique essai de quantification. *Archives et documents.*

Eurostat (2003). *Household Production and Consumption*.

Eurostat (2008). Guidelines on harmonised European Time Use surveys. *Eurostat methodologies and working paper*.

Eustat (2004). Household production satellite account for the autonomous community of the Basque country. Technical report.

Folbre, N. and Wagman, B. (1993). Counting housework: New estimates of real product in the United States, 1800-1860. *Journal of Economic History*, 53(2):275-288.

Fraumeni, B. (1997). The measurement of depreciation in the US national income and product accounts. *Survey of current business*, (July).

Goldschmidt-Clermont, L. and Pagnossin-Aligiasakis, E. (1999). Households' non-sna production: labour time, value of labour and of product, and contribution to extended private consumption. *Review of Income and wealth*, December(4).

Goldschmidt-Clermont, L. and Pagnossin-Aligiasakis, E. (1995). Measures of unrecorded economic activities in fourteen countries. *Human Development Report Office Occasional Papers*.

Hamunen, E., Varjonen, J., and Soinne, K. (2012). Satellite Accounts on Household Production: Eurostat Methodology and Experiences to Apply It. In *Paper Prepared for the 32nd General Conference of The International Association for Research in Income and Wealth*.

Hawrylyshyn, O. (1976). The value of household services: a survey of empirical estimates. *Review of Income and Wealth*.

Holloway, S. O., Short, S. O., and Tamplin, S. O. (2002). Household Satellite Account (HHSA) (experimental) Methodology. (April).

IMF, Eurostat, OECD, United Nations, and WorldBank (1993). *System of National Accounts*.

Ironmonger, D. (2000). Household production and the household economy. *Research Paper University of Melbourne*, pages 1-14.

Jalava, J. and Kavonius, I. (2009). Measuring the Stock of Consumer Durables and its Implications for Euro Area Savings Ratios. *Review of Income and Wealth*, (502049):1-19.

Landefeld, J. B. and McCulla, S. (2000). Accounting for nonmarket household production within a national accounts framework. *Review of Income and Wealth*, (3).
Landefeld, J. S., Fraumeni, B. M., and Vojtech, C. M. (2009). Accounting for Household Production: a Prototype Satellite Account Using the American Time Use Survey. *Review of Income and Wealth*, 55(2):205–225.

Nordhaus, W. (2006). Principles of national accounting for nonmarket accounts. *A new architecture for the US national accounts*.

Roy, D. I. (2012). Unpaid domestic work : 60 billion hours in 2010. *Insee Première*, (1423):1-4.

Ruger, Y. and Varjonen, J. (2008). Value of Household Production in Finland and Germany. *Working Papers, National Consumer Research Center*.

Stiglitz, J. E., Sen, A., and Fitoussi, J.-P. (2009). Rapport de la Commission sur la mesure des performances économiques et du progrès social. Technical report.

Vanoli, A. (2002). *Une histoire de la comptabilité nationale-A History of National Accounting*. La Découverte - IOS Press (English translation).

Varjonen, J. S. F. and Aalto, K. S. F. (2006). Household Production and Consumption in Finland 2001. Technical report.

Varjonen, J. S. F., Niemi, I. S. F., Hamunen, E. S. F., Pääkkönen, T. S. F., and Sandström, H. S. F. (1999). Proposal for a satellite account of household production. Technical report.
A Activity, time and wage

<table><thead><tr><th>perimeter</th><th>activity</th><th>corresponding occupation</th><th>wage/hour (gross)</th><th>hours/year</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>setting the table and serving food</td><td>Waiters, busboys, bartenders (bars, cafés and restaurants)</td><td>15,4</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>cleaning dwelling</td><td>In-home domestic services workers</td><td>16,5</td><td>186</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>driving a child for one's own household</td><td>Drivers of private vehicles (salaried)</td><td>21,6</td><td>25</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>driving a child or an adult for another household</td><td>Drivers of private vehicles (salaried)</td><td>21,6</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>food preparation</td><td>Cooks and assistant cooks</td><td>17,9</td><td>219</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>dish washing</td><td>Kitchen help, kitchen apprentices and general food service workers</td><td>15,6</td><td>68</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>arranging purchases, loading and unloading the car</td><td>In-home domestic services workers</td><td>16,5</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>cleaning garden</td><td>In-home domestic services workers</td><td>16,5</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>laundry</td><td>In-home domestic services workers</td><td>16,5</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>ironing</td><td>In-home domestic services workers</td><td>16,5</td><td>32</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>packing/unpacking, sorting clothes</td><td>In-home domestic services workers</td><td>16,5</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>heating and water</td><td>Skilled general building maintenance workers</td><td>18,0</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>household management</td><td>Secretaries</td><td>20,5</td><td>31</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>other household upkeep</td><td>Skilled general building maintenance workers</td><td>18,0</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>moving</td><td>Movers (excluding drivers-movers), unskilled</td><td>15,3</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>administrative services</td><td>Secretaries</td><td>20,5</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>house construction and renovation</td><td>Unskilled construction workers, light work</td><td>15,7</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>tending domestic animals</td><td>Animal production workers</td><td>16,3</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>childcare:physical care and supervision</td><td>Childminders and foster parents</td><td>16,8</td><td>78</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>childcare: accompanying child</td><td>Home care workers, home help, family workers</td><td>14,5</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>childcare: medical care</td><td>Paediatric nurses</td><td>24,5</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>childcare: teaching the child, help with homework</td><td>Childminders and foster parents</td><td>16,8</td><td>10</td></tr></tbody></table>

Continued on next page
Continued from previous page

<table><thead><tr><th>perimeter</th><th>activity</th><th>corresponding occupation</th><th>wage/hour (gross)</th><th>hours/year</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>physical care of an adult</td><td>Home care workers, home help, family workers</td><td>14,5</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>installing or repairing computers</td><td>Radio and television, appliance and electronic equipment repairmen (salaried)</td><td>19,9</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>commercial services</td><td>In-home domestic services workers</td><td>16,5</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>reading and talking with child</td><td>Sociocultural and leisure centre workers</td><td>18,0</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>other help to an adult household member</td><td>Home care workers, home help, family workers</td><td>14,5</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>organisational volunteer work (meetings)</td><td>Secretaries</td><td>20,5</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>producing and repairing textiles</td><td>Tailors and seamstresses, skilled fabric workers (excluding garment manufacture), skilled leather workers</td><td>19,4</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>shopping for goods</td><td>In-home domestic services workers</td><td>16,5</td><td>128</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>repairs of dwelling</td><td>Unskilled construction workers, light work</td><td>15,7</td><td>61</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>making, repairing and maintaining equipment</td><td>Unskilled construction workers, light work</td><td>15,7</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>vehicle maintenance</td><td>Skilled maintenance and repair mechanics: automotive</td><td>18,5</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>gardening</td><td>Gardeners</td><td>15,6</td><td>65</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Pet care</td><td>Home care workers, home help, family workers</td><td>14,5</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>other or unspecified domestic activities</td><td>Miscellaneous service employees</td><td>18,2</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>childcare: other interactions with children</td><td>Childminders and foster parents</td><td>16,8</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>childcare: playing with children</td><td>Sociocultural and leisure centre workers</td><td>18,0</td><td>21</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>accompanying, keeping company to an adult household member</td><td>Home care workers, home help, family workers</td><td>14,5</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>fishing, hunting</td><td>Fishermen and aquatic life cultivation workers</td><td>20,5</td><td>13</td></tr></tbody></table>

Continued on next page
Continued from previous page

<table><caption>Table 13: Correspondance between TUS activities and occupation, with corresponding time and wage</caption><thead><tr><td>perimeter</td><td>activity</td><td>corresponding occupation</td><td>wage/hour (gross)</td><td>hours/year</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2</td><td>picking berries, mushrooms or herbs</td><td>Agricultural workers with no particular specialisation</td><td>13,3</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Walking the dog</td><td>Home care workers, home help, family workers</td><td>14,5</td><td>19</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>driving to/from work</td><td>Drivers of private vehicles (salaried)</td><td>21,6</td><td>81</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>other travel by car</td><td>average of 642b, 643a (personal and delivery drivers)</td><td>19,5</td><td>175</td></tr></tbody></table>
## B Compatible classifications for National Accounts and HHSA

In the French National Accounts, using Nace rev 2 classification, households are already productive in:

(01) Crop and animal production, hunting and related service activities

(02) Forestry and logging

(03) Fishing and aquaculture

(10.1) Processing and preserving of meat and production of meat products

(10.5) Manufacture of dairy products

(11) Manufacture of beverages

(43) Specialised construction activities

(68.R) Real estate activities (real rents)

(68.1) Real estate activities (imputed rents)

(87.N) Residential care activities (non market)

(88.N) Social work activities without accommodation (non market)

(97) Activities of households as employers of domestic personnel

Using the TUS we found a way to estimate domestic production in:

(01) Crop and animal production, hunting and related service activities
incl. (01.49) *Raising of other animals* when pet care is considered

(43) Specialised construction activities, more precisely

(43.2) *Electrical, plumbing and other construction installation activities*

(43.3) *Building completion and finishing*

(47) Retail trade, except of motor vehicles and motorcycles (more simply shopping)

(49.3) Other passenger land transport
plus its ancillary function (45.2) *Maintenance and repair of motor vehicles*

(56) Food and beverage service activities

(78) Employment activities (volunteer work provided to NPISHs)

(81.2) Cleaning activities

(81.3) Landscape service activities

(88.N) Social work activities without accommodation (non market)

(96.01) Washing and (dry-)cleaning of textile and fur products
Other ancillary activities for domestic production such as

(69.20) or (77.22) Accounting, bookkeeping and auditing activities; tax consultancy or Business and other management consultancy activities
(49.42) Removal services

(62) Computer programming, consultancy and related activities

(95.2) Repair of personal and household goods

This sample from Nace rev 2 covers the functions identified by Eurostat (Eurostat, 2003), it is given to point out that the HHSA can be built with very limited modifications to the SNA's conceptual framework. Even with an extensive approach to capital, capital services could be recorded under rental services (77). In the exposition of the HHSA we aggregate these productions so as to isolate the broader functions of domestic production.

It is also noteworthy that the TUS estimates hours in domestic production for which the output is already accounted for (namely food and construction when big enough to be counted as investment). The way we avoid double counts is explained in 3.2.

## B.1 Final consumption and production for own use common to SNA and HHSA

<table><thead><tr><th>Code</th><th>Product</th><th>Million €</th><th>Own use</th><th>Final</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>HA01S1B</td><td>Potatoes (P12)</td><td>330</td><td>1,0</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>HA01S6B</td><td>Leguminous (P12)</td><td>6</td><td>1,0</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>HA01S7B</td><td>Fresh vegetables (P12)</td><td>1149</td><td>1,0</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>HA01T1B</td><td>Tropical and oleaginous fruits (P12)</td><td>15</td><td>1,0</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>HA01T1D</td><td>Temperate climate fruits (P12)</td><td>254</td><td>1,0</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>HA01U8B</td><td>Eggs (P12)</td><td>64</td><td>1,0</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>HA01U9C</td><td>Honey (P12)</td><td>9</td><td>1,0</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>HA02Z0B</td><td>Forestry products (P12)</td><td>506</td><td>1,0</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>HA03Z0B</td><td>Fishing products (P12)</td><td>11</td><td>1,0</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>A88.12</td><td>Manufacture of tobacco products</td><td>18137</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>HC19Z2C</td><td>Heavy fuel oil</td><td>35</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>HC19Z2D</td><td>Other fuel oil (white spirit)</td><td>37</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>HC19Z2E</td><td>Liquified Petroleum Gas</td><td>1661</td><td>-</td><td>0,3</td></tr><tr><td>GC26AB</td><td>Manufacture of computers and peripheral equipment, electronic components and loaded electronic boards</td><td>6097</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>GC26C</td><td>Manufacture of communication equipment</td><td>2055</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>GC26D</td><td>Manufacture of consumer electronics</td><td>9169</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>HC26E0BC</td><td>Manufacture of watches and clocks, scientific and technical instruments</td><td>1073</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>GC26G</td><td>Manufacture of optical instruments and photographic equipment, magnetic and optical media</td><td>2028</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>HC27A0E</td><td>Electric toiletries</td><td>435</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>HC27B3C</td><td>Other batteries</td><td>423</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>HC27B3D</td><td>Lamps</td><td>536</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>HC27B3EF</td><td>Manufacture of electric lighting equipment</td><td>940</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>HC27B3G</td><td>Manufacture of other electrical equipment n.e.c</td><td>92</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>HC27B4</td><td>Manufacture of electronic and electric wires and cables, wiring devices</td><td>331</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr></tbody></table>

*Continued on next page*
<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Code</th><th rowspan="2">Product</th><th colspan="3">Continued from previous page</th></tr><tr><th>Million €</th><th>Own use</th><th>Final</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>HC28A8</td><td>Manufacture of office machinery and equipment (except computers and peripheral equipment)</td><td>36</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>HC28B0A</td><td>Farm tractors (excl repair)</td><td>78</td><td>-</td><td>0,5</td></tr><tr><td>HC28B0B</td><td>Agricultural machinery</td><td>606</td><td>-</td><td>0,5</td></tr><tr><td>HC28DIV</td><td>Manufacture of other special purpose machinery</td><td>109</td><td>-</td><td>0,2</td></tr><tr><td>HC29A1D</td><td>Camper vans</td><td>949</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>HC29A2</td><td>Manufacture of bodies (coachwork) for motor vehicles; manufacture of trailers and semi-trailers</td><td>157</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>GC30AC</td><td>Building of pleasure and sporting boats, air and spacecraft</td><td>1491</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>HC30E0B</td><td>Manufacture of bicycles</td><td>1255</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>HC30E0C</td><td>Manufacture of invalid carriages</td><td>73</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>HC30E0D</td><td>Stroller, pushchair, baby carriage</td><td>271</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>HC13Z3B</td><td>Household linen</td><td>1639</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>HC13Z3C</td><td>Net, net curtains</td><td>372</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>HC13Z3D</td><td>Small beddings and bedclothes</td><td>375</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>A88.14</td><td>Manufacture of wearing apparel</td><td>34469</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>A88.15</td><td>Manufacture of leather and related products</td><td>11530</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>A88.16</td><td>Manufacture of wood and of products of wood and cork, except furniture; manufacture of articles of straw and plaiting materials</td><td>1930</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>HC17B2A</td><td>Cotton wool products</td><td>183</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>HC17B2B</td><td>Manufacture of household and sanitary goods and of toilet requisites</td><td>3136</td><td>-</td><td>0,7</td></tr><tr><td>HC17B2CD</td><td>Manufacture of paper stationery</td><td>1077</td><td>-</td><td>0,9</td></tr><tr><td>HC20B2</td><td>Manufacture of perfumes and toilet preparations</td><td>15191</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>HC20C3DIV</td><td>Manufacture of other chemical products n.e.c.</td><td>90</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>A38.CF</td><td>Manufacture of basic pharmaceutical products and pharmaceutical preparations</td><td>11730</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>HC22A2A</td><td>Condoms</td><td>63</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>HC22B2</td><td>Manufacture of plastic packing goods</td><td>2074</td><td>-</td><td>0,8</td></tr><tr><td>HC22B3B5</td><td>Manufacture of other plastic products</td><td>3871</td><td>-</td><td>0,5</td></tr><tr><td>GC23A</td><td>Manufacture of glass and glass products</td><td>2050</td><td>-</td><td>0,9</td></tr><tr><td>HC23B1</td><td>Manufacture of refractory products, bricks, tiles and construction products, in baked clay</td><td>583</td><td>-</td><td>0,5</td></tr><tr><td>HC23B5A</td><td>Cutting, shaping and finishing of stone</td><td>597</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>GC25C</td><td>Manufacture of weapons and ammunition</td><td>356</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>HC25E2DIV</td><td>Manufacture of other fabricated metal products n.e.c.</td><td>1473</td><td>-</td><td>0,5</td></tr><tr><td>HC31Z1A</td><td>Manufacture of office and shop seats</td><td>232</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>HC31Z1B</td><td>Manufacture of office furniture</td><td>233</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>HC31Z2A</td><td>Manufacture of kitchen furniture</td><td>3402</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>HC31Z2B</td><td>Manufacture of mattresses</td><td>1990</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr></tbody></table>

*Continued on next page*
<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Code</th><th rowspan="2">Product</th><th colspan="3">Continued from previous page</th></tr><tr><th>Million €</th><th>Own use</th><th>Final</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>HC31Z2C</td><td>Manufacture of home furnishing chairs and seats</td><td>2050</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>HC31Z2D</td><td>Other furniture n.e.c</td><td>5633</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>HC31Z2E</td><td>Garden and outdoor furniture</td><td>345</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>GC32A</td><td>Manufacture of jewellery, related articles and musical instruments</td><td>5450</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>HC32B1</td><td>Manufacture of medical, surgical and dental equipment</td><td>776</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>HC32B2</td><td>Manufacture of glasses</td><td>5129</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>GC32C</td><td>Manufacture of sports goods, games, toys and other goods</td><td>10397</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>A88.33</td><td>Repair and installation of machinery and equipment</td><td>341</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>GD35A</td><td>Electric power generation, transmission and distribution</td><td>21846</td><td>-</td><td>0,2</td></tr><tr><td>HD35B2</td><td>Distribution of gaseous fuels through mains</td><td>11035</td><td>-</td><td>0,3</td></tr><tr><td>GH49A</td><td>Rail transport</td><td>4819</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>GH49B</td><td>Other passenger land transport</td><td>10627</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>A88.50</td><td>Water transport</td><td>390</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>A88.51</td><td>Air transport</td><td>8611</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>A88.53</td><td>Postal and courier activities</td><td>1716</td><td>-</td><td>0,9</td></tr><tr><td>HI55Z1</td><td>Hotels, holiday and similar accommodation</td><td>14341</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>HI55Z2</td><td>Camping grounds, recreational vehicle parks and trailer parks</td><td>1671</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>HI55Z3</td><td>Other accommodation</td><td>743</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>A88.56</td><td>Food and beverage service activities</td><td>59188</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>A38.JA</td><td>Publishing, audiovisual and broadcasting activities</td><td>20162</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>HJ61Z0A</td><td>Telecommunications (excl. TV and radio packages)</td><td>26764</td><td>-</td><td>0,9</td></tr><tr><td>HJ61Z0B</td><td>TV and radio packages</td><td>2261</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>A88.62</td><td>Computer programming, consultancy and related activities</td><td>26</td><td>-</td><td>0,9</td></tr><tr><td>A88.63</td><td>Information service activities</td><td>58</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>A88.64</td><td>Financial service activities, except insurance and pension funding</td><td>15502</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>HK65Z1</td><td>Life insurance</td><td>17307</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>HK65Z2A</td><td>Health insurance</td><td>8907</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>HK65Z2D</td><td>Third-party insurance</td><td>386</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>HK65Z4</td><td>Pension funding</td><td>0</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>A17.LZ</td><td>Real estate activities</td><td>202055</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>A88.69</td><td>Legal and accounting activities</td><td>8409</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>A38.MC</td><td>Other professional, scientific and technical activities; veterinary activities</td><td>3602</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>HN77Z2Z3</td><td>Renting and leasing of other goods</td><td>3499</td><td>-</td><td>0,8</td></tr><tr><td>A88.78</td><td>Employment activities</td><td>283</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>A88.79</td><td>Travel agency, tour operator and other reservation service and related activities</td><td>1647</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>A88.80</td><td>Security and investigation activities</td><td>65</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr></tbody></table>

Continued on next page
<table><caption>Table 14: Goods and services kept in final consumption and production for own use</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Code</th><th rowspan="2">Product</th><th colspan="3">Continued from previous page</th></tr><tr><th>Million €</th><th>Own use</th><th>Final</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>A88.81</td><td>Services to buildings and landscape activities</td><td>2775</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>A88.82</td><td>Office administrative, office support and other business support activities</td><td>278</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>A38.OZ</td><td>Public administration and defence, compulsory social security</td><td>649</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>A38.PZ</td><td>Education</td><td>11225</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>A38.QA</td><td>Human health services</td><td>23255</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>A38.QB</td><td>Residential care and social work activities</td><td>20247</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>A38.RZ</td><td>Arts, entertainment and recreation</td><td>19073</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>HS95Z0A</td><td>Repair of computers and peripheral equipment</td><td>357</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>HS95Z0B</td><td>Repair of communication equipment</td><td>81</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>HS95Z0C</td><td>Repair of consumer electronics</td><td>957</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>HS95Z0E</td><td>Repair of footwear and leather goods</td><td>259</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>HS95Z0F</td><td>Repair of furniture and home furnishings</td><td>1211</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>HS95Z0G</td><td>Repair of watches, clocks and jewellery</td><td>278</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>HS95Z0H</td><td>Repair of other personal and household goods</td><td>681</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>A88.96</td><td>Other personal service activities</td><td>12359</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>A38.TZ</td><td>Activities of households as employers</td><td>5786</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: Insee National Accounts, Million € in 2010
## B.2 Final consumption reclassified into intermediate consumption

<table><thead><tr><th>Code</th><th>Product</th><th>Million €</th><th>Housing</th><th>Food</th><th>Clothing</th><th>Care</th><th>Transp.*</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>HA01S1A</td><td>Potatoes</td><td>1509</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>HA01S6A</td><td>Leguminous</td><td>245</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>HA01S7A</td><td>Fresh vegetables</td><td>6967</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>HA01S8</td><td>Plants and Flowers</td><td>6053</td><td>1,0</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>HA01T1A</td><td>Tropical and oleaginous fruits</td><td>1442</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>HA01T1C</td><td>Temperate climate fruits</td><td>7368</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>HA01U8A</td><td>Eggs</td><td>1538</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>HA01U9A</td><td>Honey</td><td>290</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>HA01U9B</td><td>Pets</td><td>359</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>HA02Z0A</td><td>Forestry products</td><td>691</td><td>1,0</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>HA03Z0A</td><td>Fishing products</td><td>3557</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>GC10A</td><td>Processing and preserving of meat and production of meat products</td><td>34175</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>GC10B</td><td>Processing and preserving of fish, crustaceans and molluscs</td><td>4786</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>GC10C</td><td>Processing and preserving of fruit and vegetables</td><td>8760</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>GC10D</td><td>Manufacture of vegetable and animal oils and fats</td><td>1728</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>GC10E</td><td>Manufacture of dairy products</td><td>22471</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>GC10F</td><td>Manufacture of grain mill products, starches and starch products</td><td>1425</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>GC10G</td><td>Manufacture of bakery and farinaceous products</td><td>18472</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>GC10H</td><td>Manufacture of other food products</td><td>25518</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>GC10K</td><td>Manufacture of prepared animal feeds</td><td>2845</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>A88.11</td><td>Manufacture of beverages</td><td>22597</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>HC19Z1</td><td>Manufacture of coke oven products</td><td>0</td><td>1,0</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>HC19Z2A</td><td>Conglomerates and briquettes of coal</td><td>68</td><td>1,0</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>HC19Z2B</td><td>Heating oil</td><td>6871</td><td>1,0</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>HC19Z2E</td><td>Liquified Petroleum Gas</td><td>1661</td><td>0,6</td><td>0,1</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>HC19Z2F</td><td>Leaded petrol</td><td>0</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>HC19Z2G</td><td>Unleaded petrol</td><td>14047</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr></tbody></table>

*Continued on next page*
<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Code</th><th rowspan="2">Product</th><th rowspan="2">Million €</th><th colspan="5">Continued from previous page</th></tr><tr><th>Housing</th><th>Food</th><th>Clothing</th><th>Care</th><th>Transp.*</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>HC19Z2H</td><td>Gas oil, diesel oil</td><td>21752</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>HC19Z2I</td><td>Lubricants</td><td>1297</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>HC27B3AB</td><td>Manufacture of car batteries and accumulators</td><td>408</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>HC13Z1</td><td>Preparation and spinning of textile fibres, weaving of textiles</td><td>380</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>HC13Z3DIV</td><td>Manufacture of other textiles n.e.c.</td><td>936</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>HC17B2B</td><td>Manufacture of household and sanitary goods and of toilet requisites</td><td>3136</td><td>-</td><td>0,1</td><td>-</td><td>0,3</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>HC17B2CD</td><td>Manufacture of paper stationery</td><td>1077</td><td>0,1</td><td>0,1</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>HC17B2E</td><td>Manufacture of wallpaper</td><td>252</td><td>1,0</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>HC17B2F</td><td>Manufacture of other articles of paper and paperboard</td><td>250</td><td>0,5</td><td>0,5</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>HC20A1</td><td>Manufacture of industrial gases, dyes and pigments, basic chemicals</td><td>47</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>HC20A3</td><td>Manufacture of fertilisers and nitrogen compounds</td><td>129</td><td>1,0</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>HC20B1A</td><td>Soap and detergents</td><td>2923</td><td>0,5</td><td>-</td><td>0,5</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>HC20B1B</td><td>Cleaning and polishing preparations</td><td>1921</td><td>1,0</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>HC20C1</td><td>Manufacture of pesticides and other agrochemical products</td><td>286</td><td>1,0</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>HC20C2</td><td>Manufacture of paints, varnishes and similar coatings, printing ink and mastics</td><td>1503</td><td>1,0</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>HC20C3C</td><td>Manufacture of glues</td><td>224</td><td>1,0</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>HC22A1</td><td>Manufacture of rubber tyres and tubes; retreading and rebuilding of rubber tyres</td><td>1799</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>HC22A2B</td><td>Manufacture of other rubber products n.e.c</td><td>283</td><td>1,0</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>HC22B2</td><td>Manufacture of plastic packing goods</td><td>2074</td><td>-</td><td>0,3</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>HC22B3B5</td><td>Manufacture of other plastic products</td><td>3871</td><td>0,1</td><td>0,5</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>GC23A</td><td>Manufacture of glass and glass products</td><td>2050</td><td>0,1</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>HC23B1</td><td>Manufacture of refractory products, bricks, tiles and construction products, in baked clay</td><td>583</td><td>-</td><td>0,5</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>HC23B5B</td><td>Production of abrasive products</td><td>89</td><td>0,5</td><td>0,5</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>HC23B5C</td><td>Manufacture of other non-metallic mineral products n.e.c.</td><td>668</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td><td>-</td></tr></tbody></table>

Continued on next page
<table><caption>Table 15: Goods and services reclassified from final to intermediate consumption</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Code</th><th rowspan="2">Product</th><th rowspan="2">Million €</th><th colspan="5">Continued from previous page</th></tr><tr><th>Housing</th><th>Food</th><th>Clothing</th><th>Care</th><th>Transp.*</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>A88.24</td><td>Manufacture of basic metals</td><td>169</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>HC25E1</td><td>Manufacture of cutlery, locks, hinges, tools</td><td>1912</td><td>0,4</td><td>0,6</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>HC25E2C</td><td>Household metallic supplies</td><td>1311</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>HC25E2DIV</td><td>Manufacture of other fabricated metal products n.e.c.</td><td>1473</td><td>0,3</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>A38.BZ</td><td>Mining and quarrying</td><td>76</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>GD35A</td><td>Electric power generation, transmission and distribution</td><td>21846</td><td>0,5</td><td>0,2</td><td>0,2</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>HD35B2</td><td>Distribution of gaseous fuels through mains</td><td>11035</td><td>0,6</td><td>0,1</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>HD35B4</td><td>Steam and air conditioning supply</td><td>1713</td><td>1,0</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>A38.EZ</td><td>Water supply; sewerage, waste management and remediation activities</td><td>13045</td><td>1,0</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>A17.FZ</td><td>Construction</td><td>12615</td><td>1,0</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>GH49C</td><td>Freight transport by road and transport via pipelines</td><td>649</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>A88.52</td><td>Warehousing and support activities for transportation</td><td>7094</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>A88.53</td><td>Postal and courier activities</td><td>1716</td><td>0,1</td><td>0,1</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>HJ61Z0A</td><td>Telecommunications (excl. TV and radio packages)</td><td>26764</td><td>0,1</td><td>0,1</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>A88.62</td><td>Computer programming, consultancy and related activities</td><td>26</td><td>0,1</td><td>0,1</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>HK65Z2B</td><td>Dwellings insurance</td><td>5495</td><td>1,0</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>HK65Z2C</td><td>Car insurance</td><td>5627</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>A88.71</td><td>Architectural and engineering activities; technical testing and analysis</td><td>830</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>HN77Z1</td><td>Renting and leasing of motor vehicles</td><td>1322</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>HN77Z2Z3</td><td>Renting and leasing of other goods</td><td>3499</td><td>0,3</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: Insee National Accounts, Million € in 2010

*: reclassified goods are counted in proportion of car use.

There is no intermediate consumption for volunteer work.
B.3 Final consumption reclassified into GFCF

<table><caption>Table 16: Goods and services reclassified from final consumption to gross fixed capital formation
Source: Insee National Accounts, Million € in 2010</caption><thead><tr><th>Code</th><th>Product</th><th>Million €</th><th>Housing</th><th>Food</th><th>Clothing</th><th>Transp.*</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>HC26E0A</td><td>Manufacture of aid to navigation equipment</td><td>349</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>HC27A0A</td><td>Domestic refrigerators and freezers</td><td>1735</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>HC27A0B</td><td>Washing machines</td><td>1572</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>HC27A0C</td><td>Dishwashers</td><td>703</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>HC27A0D</td><td>Electric cooker, electric heating and cleaning devices</td><td>2694</td><td>0,3</td><td>0,7</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>HC27A0F</td><td>Other small electric domestic appliances</td><td>1921</td><td>-</td><td>0,8</td><td>0,2</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>HC27A0G</td><td>Manufacture of non-electric domestic appliances</td><td>188</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>HC28A9</td><td>Manufacture of power-driven hand tools</td><td>980</td><td>1,0</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>HC28B0A</td><td>Farm tractors (excl repair)</td><td>78</td><td>0,5</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>HC28B0B</td><td>Agricultural machinery</td><td>606</td><td>0,5</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>HC28DIV</td><td>Manufacture of other special purpose machinery</td><td>109</td><td>0,2</td><td>0,2</td><td>0,3</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>HC29A1A</td><td>New motor vehicles</td><td>26594</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>HC29A1B</td><td>Second-hand motor vehicles</td><td>9125</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>HC29A1C</td><td>Engine swap</td><td>460</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>GC29B</td><td>Manufacture of parts and accessories for motor vehicles</td><td>22686</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>HC30E0A</td><td>Manufacture of motorcycles</td><td>1688</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>HC25E2DIV</td><td>Manufacture of other fabricated metal products n.e.c.</td><td>1473</td><td>0,2</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>A17.GZ</td><td>Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles</td><td>14554</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1,0</td></tr><tr><td>HS95Z0D</td><td>Repair of household appliances and home and garden equipment</td><td>595</td><td>0,5</td><td>0,3</td><td>0,3</td><td>-</td></tr></tbody></table>

*: reclassified goods are counted as GFCF in proportion of car use.

There is no GFCF for care and volunteer work.
<table><tr><td>G 9001</td><td>J. FAYOLLE et M. FLEURBAEY<br>Accumulation, profitabilité et endettement des entreprises</td></tr><tr><td>G 9002</td><td>H. ROUSSE<br>Détection et effets de la multicolinéarité dans les modèles linéaires ordinaires - Un prolongement de la réflexion de BELSLEY, KUH et WELSCH</td></tr><tr><td>G 9003</td><td>P. RALLE et J. TOUJAS-BERNATE<br>Indexation des salaires : la rupture de 1983</td></tr><tr><td>G 9004</td><td>D. GUELLEC et P. RALLE<br>Compétitivité, croissance et innovation de produit</td></tr><tr><td>G 9005</td><td>P. RALLE et J. TOUJAS-BERNATE<br>Les conséquences de la désindexation. Analyse dans une maquette prix-salaires</td></tr><tr><td>G 9101</td><td>Équipe AMADEUS<br>Le modèle AMADEUS - Première partie - Présentation générale</td></tr><tr><td>G 9102</td><td>J.L. BRILLET<br>Le modèle AMADEUS - Deuxième partie - Propriétés variantielles</td></tr><tr><td>G 9103</td><td>D. GUELLEC et P. RALLE<br>Endogenous growth and product innovation</td></tr><tr><td>G 9104</td><td>H. ROUSSE<br>Le modèle AMADEUS - Troisième partie - Le commerce extérieur et l'environnement international</td></tr><tr><td>G 9105</td><td>H. ROUSSE<br>Effets de demande et d'offre dans les résultats du commerce extérieur manufacturé de la France au cours des deux dernières décennies</td></tr><tr><td>G 9106</td><td>B. CREPON<br>Innovation, taille et concentration : causalités et dynamiques</td></tr><tr><td>G 9107</td><td>B. AMABLE et D. GUELLEC<br>Un panorama des théories de la croissance endogène</td></tr><tr><td>G 9108</td><td>M. GLAUDE et M. MOUTARDIER<br>Une évaluation du coût direct de l'enfant de 1979 à 1989</td></tr><tr><td>G 9109</td><td>P. RALLE et alii<br>France - Allemagne : performances économiques comparées</td></tr><tr><td>G 9110</td><td>J.L. BRILLET<br>Micro-DMS<br>NON PARU</td></tr><tr><td>G 9111</td><td>A. MAGNIER<br>Effets accélérateur et multiplicateur en France depuis 1970 : quelques résultats empiriques</td></tr><tr><td>G 9112</td><td>B. CREPON et G. DUREAU<br>Investissement en recherche-développement : analyse de causalités dans un modèle d'accélérateur généralisé</td></tr><tr><td>G 9113</td><td>J.L. BRILLET, H. ERKEL-ROUSSE, J. TOUJAS-BERNATE<br>"France-Allemagne Couplées" - Deux économies vues par une maquette macro-économétrique</td></tr><tr><td>G 9201</td><td>W.J. ADAMS, B. CREPON, D. ENCAOUA<br>Choix technologiques et stratégies de dissuasion d'entrée</td></tr><tr><td>G 9202</td><td>J. OLIVEIRA-MARTINS, J. TOUJAS-BERNATE</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>G 9203</td><td>I. STAPIC<br>Les échanges internationaux de services de la France dans le cadre des négociations multilatérales du GATT<br>Juin 1992 (1ère version)<br>Novembre 1992 (version finale)</td></tr><tr><td>G 9204</td><td>P. SEVESTRE<br>L'économie sur données individuelles-temporelles. Une note introductive</td></tr><tr><td>G 9205</td><td>H. ERKEL-ROUSSE<br>Le commerce extérieur et l'environnement international dans le modèle AMADEUS (réestimation 1992)</td></tr><tr><td>G 9206</td><td>N. GREENAN et D. GUELLEC<br>Coordination within the firm and endogenous growth</td></tr><tr><td>G 9207</td><td>A. MAGNIER et J. TOUJAS-BERNATE<br>Technology and trade: empirical evidences for the major five industrialized countries</td></tr><tr><td>G 9208</td><td>B. CREPON, E. DUGUET, D. ENCAOUA et P. MOHNEN<br>Cooperative, non cooperative R &amp; D and optimal patent life</td></tr><tr><td>G 9209</td><td>B. CREPON et E. DUGUET<br>Research and development, competition and innovation: an application of pseudo maximum likelihood methods to Poisson models with heterogeneity</td></tr><tr><td>G 9301</td><td>J. TOUJAS-BERNATE<br>Commerce international et concurrence impartie : développements récents et implications pour la politique commerciale</td></tr><tr><td>G 9302</td><td>Ch. CASES<br>Durées de chômage et comportements d'offre de travail : une revue de la littérature</td></tr><tr><td>G 9303</td><td>H. ERKEL-ROUSSE<br>Union économique et monétaire : le débat économique</td></tr><tr><td>G 9304</td><td>N. GREENAN - D. GUELLEC / G. BROUSSAUDIER - L. MIOTTI<br>Innovation organisationnelle, dynamisme technologique et performances des entreprises</td></tr><tr><td>G 9305</td><td>P. JAILLARD<br>Le traité de Maastricht : présentation juridique et historique</td></tr><tr><td>G 9306</td><td>J.L. BRILLET<br>Micro-DMS : présentation et propriétés</td></tr><tr><td>G 9307</td><td>J.L. BRILLET<br>Micro-DMS - variantes : les tableaux</td></tr><tr><td>G 9308</td><td>S. JACOBZONE<br>Les grands réseaux publics français dans une perspective européenne</td></tr><tr><td>G 9309</td><td>L. BLOCH - B. CŒURE<br>Profitabilité de l'investissement productif et transmission des chocs financiers</td></tr><tr><td>G 9310</td><td>J. BOURDIEU - B. COLIN-SEDILLOT<br>Les théories sur la structure optimale du capital : quelques points de repère</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>G 9311</td><td>J. BOURDIEU - B. COLIN-SEDILLOT<br>Les décisions de financement des entreprises françaises : une évaluation empirique des théories de la structure optimale du capital</td></tr><tr><td>G 9312</td><td>L. BLOCH - B. CŒURÉ<br>Q de Tobin marginal et transmission des chocs financiers</td></tr><tr><td>G 9313</td><td>Équipes Amadeus (INSEE), Banque de France, Métric (DP)<br>Présentation des propriétés des principaux modèles macroéconomiques du Service Public</td></tr><tr><td>G 9314</td><td>B. CREPON - E. DUGUET<br>Research &amp; Development, competition and innovation</td></tr><tr><td>G 9315</td><td>B. DORMONT<br>Quelle est l'influence du coût du travail sur l'emploi ?</td></tr><tr><td>G 9316</td><td>D. BLANCHET - C. BROUSSE<br>Deux études sur l'âge de la retraite</td></tr><tr><td>G 9317</td><td>D. BLANCHET<br>Répartition du travail dans une population hétérogène : deux notes</td></tr><tr><td>G 9318</td><td>D. EYSSARTIER - N. PONTY<br>AMADEUS - an annual macro-economic model for the medium and long term</td></tr><tr><td>G 9319</td><td>G. CETTE - Ph. CUNÉO - D. EYSSARTIER - J. GAUTIÉ<br>Les effets sur l'emploi d'un abaissement du coût du travail des jeunes</td></tr><tr><td>G 9401</td><td>D. BLANCHET<br>Les structures par âge importent-elles ?</td></tr><tr><td>G 9402</td><td>J. GAUTIÉ<br>Le chômage des jeunes en France : problème de formation ou phénomène de file d'attente ?<br>Quelques éléments du débat</td></tr><tr><td>G 9403</td><td>P. QUIRION<br>Les déchets en France : éléments statistiques et économiques</td></tr><tr><td>G 9404</td><td>D. LADIRAY - M. GRUN-REHOMME<br>Lissage par moyennes mobiles - Le problème des extrémités de série</td></tr><tr><td>G 9405</td><td>V. MAILLARD<br>Theorie et pratique de la correction des effets de jours ouvrables</td></tr><tr><td>G 9406</td><td>F. ROSENWALD<br>La décision d'investir</td></tr><tr><td>G 9407</td><td>S. JACOBZONE<br>Les apports de l'économie industrielle pour définir la stratégie économique de l'hôpital public</td></tr><tr><td>G 9408</td><td>L. BLOCH, J. BOURDIEU, B. COLIN-SEDILLOT, G. LONGUEVILLE<br>Du défaut de paiement au dépôt de bilan : les banquiers face aux PME en difficulté</td></tr><tr><td>G 9409</td><td>D. EYSSARTIER, P. MAIRE<br>Impacts macro-économiques de mesures d'aide au logement - quelques éléments d'évaluation</td></tr><tr><td>G 9410</td><td>F. ROSENWALD<br>Suivi conjoncturel de l'investissement</td></tr><tr><td>G 9411</td><td>C. DEFEUILLEY - Ph. QUIRION<br>Les déchets d'emballages ménagers : une analyse économique des politiques française et allemande</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>G 9412</td><td>J. BOURDIEU - B. CŒURÉ - B. COLIN-SEDILLOT<br>Investissement, incertitude et irréversibilité<br>Quelques développements récents de la théorie de l'investissement</td></tr><tr><td>G 9413</td><td>B. DORMONT - M. PAUCHET<br>L'évaluation de l'élasticité emploi-salaire dépend-elle des structures de qualification ?</td></tr><tr><td>G 9414</td><td>I. KABLA<br>Le Choix de breveter une invention</td></tr><tr><td>G 9501</td><td>J. BOURDIEU - B. CŒURÉ - B. SEDILLOT<br>Irreversible Investment and Uncertainty: When is there a Value of Waiting?</td></tr><tr><td>G 9502</td><td>L. BLOCH - B. CŒURÉ<br>Imperfections du marché du crédit, investissement des entreprises et cycle économique</td></tr><tr><td>G 9503</td><td>D. GOUX - E. MAURIN<br>Les transformations de la demande de travail par qualification en France<br>Une étude sur la période 1970-1993</td></tr><tr><td>G 9504</td><td>N. GREENAN<br>Technologie, changement organisationnel, qualifications et emploi : une étude empirique sur l'industrie manufacturière</td></tr><tr><td>G 9505</td><td>D. GOUX - E. MAURIN<br>Persistance des hiérarchies sectorielles de salaires: un réexamen sur données françaises</td></tr><tr><td>G 9505<br>Bis</td><td>D. GOUX - E. MAURIN<br>Persistance of inter-industry wages differentials: a reexamination on matched worker-firm panel data</td></tr><tr><td>G 9506</td><td>S. JACOBZONE<br>Les liens entre RMI et chômage, une mise en perspective<br>NON PARU - article sorti dans Économie et Prévision n° 122 (1996) - pages 95 à 113</td></tr><tr><td>G 9507</td><td>G. CETTE - S. MAHFOUZ<br>Le partage primaire du revenu<br>Constat descriptif sur longue période</td></tr><tr><td>G 9601</td><td>Banque de France - CEPREMAP - Direction de la Prévision - Érasme - INSEE - OFCE<br>Structures et propriétés de cinq modèles macroéconomiques français</td></tr><tr><td>G 9602</td><td>Rapport d'activité de la DESE de l'année 1995</td></tr><tr><td>G 9603</td><td>J. BOURDIEU - A. DRAZNIEKS<br>L'octroi de crédit aux PME : une analyse à partir d'informations bancaires</td></tr><tr><td>G 9604</td><td>A. TOPIOL-BENSAÏD<br>Les implantations japonaises en France</td></tr><tr><td>G 9605</td><td>P. GENIER - S. JACOBZONE<br>Comportements de prévention, consommation d'alcool et tabagie : peut-on parler d'une gestion globale du capital santé ?<br>Une modélisation microéconométrique empirique</td></tr><tr><td>G 9606</td><td>C. DOZ - F. LENGLART<br>Factor analysis and unobserved component models: an application to the study of French business surveys</td></tr><tr><td>G 9607</td><td>N. GREENAN - D. GUELLEC<br>La théorie coopérative de la firme</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>G 9608</td><td>N. GREENAN - D. GUELLEC<br/>Technological innovation and employment<br/>reallocation</td></tr><tr><td>G 9609</td><td>Ph. COUR - F. RUPPRECHT<br/>L'intégration asymétrique au sein du continent<br/>américain : un essai de modélisation</td></tr><tr><td>G 9610</td><td>S. DUCHENE - G. FORGEOT - A. JACQUOT<br/>Analyse des évolutions récentes de la producti-<br/>vité apparente du travail</td></tr><tr><td>G 9611</td><td>X. BONNET - S. MAHFOUZ<br/>The influence of different specifications of wages-<br/>prices spirals on the measure of the NAIRU: the<br/>case of France</td></tr><tr><td>G 9612</td><td>PH. COUR - E. DUBOIS, S. MAHFOUZ,<br/>J. PISANI-FERRY<br/>The cost of fiscal retrenchment revisited: how<br/>strong is the evidence?</td></tr><tr><td>G 9613</td><td>A. JACQUOT<br/>Les flexions des taux d'activité sont-elles seule-<br/>ment conjoncturelles ?</td></tr><tr><td>G 9614</td><td>ZHANG Yingxiang - SONG Xueqing<br/>Lexique macroéconomique Français-Chinois</td></tr><tr><td>G 9701</td><td>J.L. SCHNEIDER<br/>La taxe professionnelle : éléments de cadrage<br/>économique</td></tr><tr><td>G 9702</td><td>J.L. SCHNEIDER<br/>Transition et stabilité politique d'un système<br/>redistributif</td></tr><tr><td>G 9703</td><td>D. GOUX - E. MAURIN<br/>Train or Pay: Does it Reduce Inequalities to En-<br/>courage Firms to Train their Workers?</td></tr><tr><td>G 9704</td><td>P. GENIER<br/>Deux contributions sur dépendance et équité</td></tr><tr><td>G 9705</td><td>E. DUGUET - N. IUNG<br/>R & D Investment, Patent Life and Patent Value<br/>An Econometric Analysis at the Firm Level</td></tr><tr><td>G 9706</td><td>M. HOUBEBINE - A. TOPIOL-BENSAÎD<br/>Les entreprises internationales en France : une<br/>analyse à partir de données individuelles</td></tr><tr><td>G 9707</td><td>M. HOUBEBINE<br/>Polarisation des activités et spécialisation des<br/>départements en France</td></tr><tr><td>G 9708</td><td>E. DUGUET - N. GREENAN<br/>Le biais technologique : une analyse sur données<br/>individuelles</td></tr><tr><td>G 9709</td><td>J.L. BRILLET<br/>Analyzing a small French ECM Model</td></tr><tr><td>G 9710</td><td>J.L. BRILLET<br/>Formalizing the transition process: scenarios for<br/>capital accumulation</td></tr><tr><td>G 9711</td><td>G. FORGEOT - J. GAUTIÉ<br/>Insertion professionnelle des jeunes et processus<br/>de déclassement</td></tr><tr><td>G 9712</td><td>E. DUBOIS<br/>High Real Interest Rates: the Consequence of a<br/>Saving Investment Disequilibrium or of an in-<br/>sufficient Credibility of Monetary Authorities?</td></tr><tr><td>G 9713</td><td>Bilan des activités de la Direction des Études<br/>et Synthèses Économiques - 1996</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>G 9714</td><td>F. LEQUILLER<br/>Does the French Consumer Price Index Over-<br/>state Inflation?</td></tr><tr><td>G 9715</td><td>X. BONNET<br/>Peut-on mettre en évidence les rigidités à la<br/>baisse des salaires nominaux ?<br/>Une étude sur quelques grands pays de l'OCDE</td></tr><tr><td>G 9716</td><td>N. IUNG - F. RUPPRECHT<br/>Productivité de la recherche et rendements<br/>d'échelle dans le secteur pharmaceutique<br/>français</td></tr><tr><td>G 9717</td><td>E. DUGUET - I. KABLA<br/>Appropriation strategy and the motivations to use<br/>the patent system in France - An econometric<br/>analysis at the firm level</td></tr><tr><td>G 9718</td><td>L.P. PELÉ - P. RALLE<br/>Âge de la retraite : les aspects incitatifs du régime<br/>général</td></tr><tr><td>G 9719</td><td>ZHANG Yingxiang - SONG Xueqing<br/>Lexique macroéconomique français-chinois,<br/>chinois-français</td></tr><tr><td>G 9720</td><td>M. HOUBEBINE - J.L. SCHNEIDER<br/>Mesurer l'influence de la fiscalité sur la locali-<br/>sation des entreprises</td></tr><tr><td>G 9721</td><td>A. MOUROUGANE<br/>Crédibilité, indépendance et politique monétaire<br/>Une revue de la littérature</td></tr><tr><td>G 9722</td><td>P. AUGERAUD - L. BRIOT<br/>Les données comptables d'entreprises<br/>Le système intermédiaire d'entreprises<br/>Passage des données individuelles aux données<br/>sectorielles</td></tr><tr><td>G 9723</td><td>P. AUGERAUD - J.E. CHAPRON<br/>Using Business Accounts for Compiling National<br/>Accounts: the French Experience</td></tr><tr><td>G 9724</td><td>P. AUGERAUD<br/>Les comptes d'entreprise par activités - Le pas-<br/>sage aux comptes - De la comptabilité<br/>d'entreprise à la comptabilité nationale - A<br/>paraitre</td></tr><tr><td>G 9801</td><td>H. MICHAUDON - C. PRIGENT<br/>Présentation du modèle AMADEUS</td></tr><tr><td>G 9802</td><td>J. ACCARDO<br/>Une étude de comptabilité générationnelle<br/>pour la France en 1996</td></tr><tr><td>G 9803</td><td>X. BONNET - S. DUCHÈNE<br/>Apports et limites de la modélisation<br/>« Real Business Cycles »</td></tr><tr><td>G 9804</td><td>C. BARLET - C. DUGUET -<br/>D. ENCAOUA - J. PRADEL<br/>The Commercial Success of Innovations<br/>An econometric analysis at the firm level in<br/>French manufacturing</td></tr><tr><td>G 9805</td><td>P. CAHUC - Ch. GIANELLA -<br/>D. GOUX - A. ZILBERBERG<br/>Equalizing Wage Differences and Bargaining<br/>Power - Evidence form a Panel of French Firms</td></tr><tr><td>G 9806</td><td>J. ACCARDO - M. JLASSI<br/>La productivité globale des facteurs entre 1975 et<br/>1996</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>G 9807</td><td>Bilan des activités de la Direction des Études et<br/>Synthèses Économiques - 1997</td></tr><tr><td>G 9808</td><td>A. MOUROUGANE<br/>Can a Conservative Governor Conduct an Ac-<br/>comodative Monetary Policy?</td></tr><tr><td>G 9809</td><td>X. BONNET - E. DUBOIS - L. FAUVET<br/>Asymétrie des inflations relatives et menus costs<br/>: tests sur l'inflation française</td></tr><tr><td>G 9810</td><td>E. DUGUET - N. IUNG<br/>Sales and Advertising with Spillovers at the firm<br/>level: Estimation of a Dynamic Structural Model<br/>on Panel Data</td></tr><tr><td>G 9811</td><td>J.P. BERTHIER<br/>Congestion urbaine : un modèle de trafic de<br/>pointe à courbe débit-vitesse et demande<br/>élastique</td></tr><tr><td>G 9812</td><td>C. PRIGENT<br/>La part des salaires dans la valeur ajoutée : une<br/>approche macroéconomique</td></tr><tr><td>G 9813</td><td>A.Th. AERTS<br/>L'évolution de la part des salaires dans la valeur<br/>ajoutée en France reflète-t-elle les évolutions<br/>individuelles sur la période 1979-1994 ?</td></tr><tr><td>G 9814</td><td>B. SALANIÉ<br/>Guide pratique des séries non-stationnaires</td></tr><tr><td>G 9901</td><td>S. DUCHÈNE - A. JACQUOT<br/>Une croissance plus riche en emplois depuis le<br/>début de la décennie ? Une analyse en compa-<br/>raison internationale</td></tr><tr><td>G 9902</td><td>Ch. COLIN<br/>Modélisation des carrières dans Destinie</td></tr><tr><td>G 9903</td><td>Ch. COLIN<br/>Évolution de la dispersion des salaires : un essai<br/>de prospective par microsimulation</td></tr><tr><td>G 9904</td><td>B. CREPON - N. IUNG<br/>Innovation, emploi et performances</td></tr><tr><td>G 9905</td><td>B. CREPON - Ch. GIANELLA<br/>Wages inequalities in France 1969-1992<br/>An application of quantile regression techniques</td></tr><tr><td>G 9906</td><td>C. BONNET - R. MAHIEU<br/>Microsimulation techniques applied to inter-<br/>generational transfers - Pensions in a dynamic<br/>framework: the case of France</td></tr><tr><td>G 9907</td><td>F. ROSENWALD<br/>L'impact des contraintes financières dans la dé-<br/>cision d'investissement</td></tr><tr><td>G 9908</td><td>Bilan des activités de la DESE - 1998</td></tr><tr><td>G 9909</td><td>J.P. ZOYEM<br/>Contrat d'insertion et sortie du RMI<br/>Évaluation des effets d'une politique sociale</td></tr><tr><td>G 9910</td><td>Ch. COLIN - FI. LEGROS - R. MAHIEU<br/>Bilans contributifs comparés des régimes de<br/>retraite du secteur privé et de la fonction publique</td></tr><tr><td>G 9911</td><td>G. LAROQUE - B. SALANIÉ<br/>Une décomposition du non-emploi en France</td></tr><tr><td>G 9912</td><td>B. SALANIÉ<br/>Une maquette analytique de long terme du<br/>marché du travail</td></tr><tr><td>G 9913</td><td>Ch. GIANELLA<br/>Ch. GIANELLA<br/>Local unemployment and wages</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>Bis</td><td>Une estimation de l'élasticité de l'emploi peu<br/>qualifié à son coût</td></tr><tr><td>G 9913</td><td>Division « Redistribution et Politiques Sociales »<br/>Le modèle de microsimulation dynamique<br/>DESTINIE</td></tr><tr><td>G 9914</td><td>E. DUGUET<br/>Macro-commandes SAS pour l'économétrie des<br/>panels et des variables qualitatives</td></tr><tr><td>G 9915</td><td>R. DUHAUTOIS<br/>Évolution des flux d'emplois en France entre<br/>1990 et 1996 : une étude empirique à partir du<br/>fichier des bénéfices réels normaux (BRN)</td></tr><tr><td>G 9916</td><td>J.Y. FOURNIER<br/>Extraction du cycle des affaires : la méthode de<br/>Baxter et King</td></tr><tr><td>G 9917</td><td>B. CRÉPON - R. DESPLATZ - J. MAIRESSE<br/>Estimating price cost margins, scale economies<br/>and workers' bargaining power at the firm level</td></tr><tr><td>G 9918</td><td>Ch. GIANELLA - Ph. LAGARDE<br/>Productivity of hours in the aggregate production<br/>function: an evaluation on a panel of French firms<br/>from the manufacturing sector</td></tr><tr><td>G 9919</td><td>S. AUDRIC - P. GIVORD - C. PROST<br/>Évolution de l'emploi et des coûts par quali-<br/>fication entre 1982 et 1996</td></tr><tr><td>G 2000/01</td><td>R. MAHIEU<br/>Les déterminants des dépenses de santé : une<br/>approche macroéconomique</td></tr><tr><td>G 2000/02</td><td>C. ALLARD-PRIGENT - H. GUILMEAU -<br/>A. QUINET<br/>The real exchange rate as the relative price of<br/>nontrables in terms of tradables: theoretical<br/>investigation and empirical study on French data</td></tr><tr><td>G 2000/03</td><td>J.-Y. FOURNIER<br/>L'approximation du filtre passe-bande proposée<br/>par Christiano and Fitzgerald</td></tr><tr><td>G 2000/04</td><td>Bilan des activités de la DESE - 1999</td></tr><tr><td>G 2000/05</td><td>B. CREPON - F. ROSENWALD<br/>Investissement et contraintes de financement : le<br/>poids du cycle<br/>Une estimation sur données françaises</td></tr><tr><td>G 2000/06</td><td>A. FLIPO<br/>Les comportements matrimoniaux de fait</td></tr><tr><td>G 2000/07</td><td>R. MAHIEU - B. SÉDILLOT<br/>Microsimulations of the retirement decision: a<br/>supply side approach</td></tr><tr><td>G 2000/08</td><td>C. AUDENIS - C. PROST<br/>Déficit conjoncturel : une prise en compte des<br/>conjonctures passées</td></tr><tr><td>G 2000/09</td><td>R. MAHIEU - B. SÉDILLOT<br/>Équivalent patrimonial de la rente et souscription<br/>de retraite complémentaire</td></tr><tr><td>G 2000/10</td><td>R. DUHAUTOIS<br/>Ralentissement de l'investissement : petites ou<br/>grandes entreprises ? industrie ou tertiaire ?</td></tr><tr><td>G 2000/11</td><td>G. LAROQUE - B. SALANIÉ<br/>Temps partiel féminin et incitations financières à<br/>l'emploi</td></tr><tr><td>G2000/12</td><td>Ch. GIANELLA<br/>Local unemployment and wages</td></tr></table>
G2001/13 B. CREPON - Th. HECKEL
- Informatisation en France : une évaluation à partir de données individuelles
- Computerization in France: an evaluation based on individual company data

G2001/01 F. LEQUILLER
- La nouvelle économie et la mesure de la croissance du PIB
- The new economy and the measurement of GDP growth

G2001/02 S. AUDRIC
La reprise de la croissance de l'emploi profite-t-elle aussi aux non-diplômés ?

G2001/03 I. BRAUN-LEMAIRE
Évolution et répartition du surplus de productivité

G2001/04 A. BEAUDU - Th. HECKEL
Le canal du crédit fonctionne-t-il en Europe ? Une étude de l'hétérogénéité des comportements d'investissement à partir de données de bilan agrégées

G2001/05 C. AUDENIS - P. BISCOURP - N. FOURCADE - O. LOISEL
Testing the augmented Solow growth model: An empirical reassessment using panel data

G2001/06 R. MAHIEU - B. SÉDILLOT
Départ à la retraite, irréversibilité et incertitude

G2001/07 Bilan des activités de la DESE - 2000

G2001/08 J. Ph. GAUDEMET
Les dispositifs d'acquisition à titre facultatif d'annuités viagères de retraite

G2001/09 B. CRÉPON - Ch. GIANELLA
Fiscalité, coût d'usage du capital et demande de facteurs : une analyse sur données individuelles

G2001/10 B. CRÉPON - R. DESPLATZ
Évaluation des effets des dispositifs d'allégements de charges sociales sur les bas salaires

G2001/11 J.-Y. FOURNIER
Comparaison des salaires des secteurs public et privé

G2001/12 J.-P. BERTHIER - C. JAULENT
R. CONVENEVOLE - S. PISANI
Une méthodologie de comparaison entre consommations intermédiaires de source fiscale et de comptabilité nationale

G2001/13 P. BISCOURP - Ch. GIANELLA
Substitution and complementarity between capital, skilled and less skilled workers: an analysis at the firm level in the French manufacturing industry

G2001/14 I. ROBERT-BOBEE
Modelling demographic behaviours in the French microsimulation model Destinie: An analysis of future change in completed fertility

G2001/15 J.-P. ZOYEM
Diagnostic sur la pauvreté et calendrier de revenus : le cas du "Panel européen des ménages"

G2001/16 J.-Y. FOURNIER - P. GIVORD
La réduction des taux d'activité aux âges extrêmes, une spécificité française ?

G2001/17 C. AUDENIS - P. BISCOURP - N. RIEDINGER
Existe-t-il une asymétrie dans la transmission du prix du brut aux prix des carburants ?

G2002/01 F. MAGNIEN - J.-L. TAVERNIER - D. THESMAR
Les statistiques internationales de PIB par habitant en standard de pouvoir d'achat : une analyse des résultats

G2002/02 Bilan des activités de la DESE - 2001

G2002/03 B. SÉDILLOT - E. WALRAET
La cessation d'activité au sein des couples : y a-t-il interdépendance des choix ?

G2002/04 G. BRILHAULT
- Rétropolation des séries de FBCF et calcul du capital fixe en SEC-95 dans les comptes nationaux français

- Retropolation of the investment series (GFCF) and estimation of fixed capital stocks on the ESA-95 basis for the French balance sheets

G2002/05 P. BISCOURP - B. CRÉPON - T. HECKEL - N. RIEDINGER
How do firms respond to cheaper computers? Microeconomic evidence for France based on a production function approach

G2002/06 C. AUDENIS - J. DEROYON - N. FOURCADE
L'impact des nouvelles technologies de l'information et de la communication sur l'économie française - un bouclage macro-économique

G2002/07 J. BARDAJI - B. SÉDILLOT - E. WALRAET
Évaluation de trois réformes du Régime Général d'assurance vieillesse à l'aide du modèle de microsimulation DESTINIE

G2002/08 J.-P. BERTHIER
Réflexions sur les différentes notions de volume dans les comptes nationaux : comptes aux prix d'une année fixe ou aux prix de l'année précédente, séries chaînées

G2002/09 F. HILD
Les soldes d'opinion résument-ils au mieux les réponses des entreprises aux enquêtes de conjoncture ?

G2002/10 I. ROBERT-BOBÉE
Les comportements démographiques dans le modèle de microsimulation Destinie - Une comparaison des estimations issues des enquêtes Jeunes et Carrières 1997 et Histoire Familiale 1999

G2002/11 J.-P. ZOYEM
La dynamique des bas revenus : une analyse des entrées-sorties de pauvreté

G2002/12 F. HILD
Prévisions d'inflation pour la France

G2002/13 M. LECLAIR
Réduction du temps de travail et tensions sur les facteurs de production

G2002/14 E. WALRAET - A. VINCENT
- Analyse de la redistribution intragénérationnelle dans le système de retraite des salariés du privé - Une approche par microsimulation

- Intragenerational distributional analysis in the french private sector pension scheme - A microsimulation approach

G2002/15 P. CHONE - D. LE BLANC - I. ROBERT-BOBEE
Offre de travail féminine et garde des jeunes enfants

G2002/16 F. MAUREL - S. GREGOIR
Les indices de compétitivité des pays : interprétation et limites

G2003/01 N. RIEDINGER - E.HAUVY
Le coût de dépollution atmosphérique pour les entreprises françaises : Une estimation à partir de données individuelles

G2003/02 P. BISCOURP et F. KRAMARZ
Création d'emplois, destruction d'emplois et internationalisation des entreprises industrielles françaises : une analyse sur la période 1986-1992

G2003/03 Bilan des activités de la DESE - 2002

G2003/04 P.-O. BEFFY - J. DEROYON - N. FOURCADE - S. GREGOIR - N. LAÎB - B. MONFORT
Évolutions démographiques et croissance : une projection macro-économique à l'horizon 2020

G2003/05 P. AUBERT
La situation des salariés de plus de cinquante ans dans le secteur privé

G2003/06 P. AUBERT - B. CRÉPON
Age, salaire et productivité
La productivité des salariés décline-t-elle en fin de carrière ?

G2003/07 H. BARON - P.O. BEFFY - N. FOURCADE - R. MAHIEU
Le ralentissement de la productivité du travail au cours des années 1990

G2003/08 P.-O. BEFFY - B. MONFORT
Patrimoine des ménages, dynamique d'allocation et comportement de consommation

G2003/09 P. BISCOURP - N. FOURCADE
Peut-on mettre en évidence l'existence de rigidités à la baisse des salaires à partir de données individuelles ? Le cas de la France à la fin des années 90

G2003/10 M. LECLAIR - P. PETIT
Présence syndicale dans les firmes : quel impact sur les inégalités salariales entre les hommes et les femmes ?

G2003/11 P.-O. BEFFY - X. BONNET - M. DARRACQ-PARIES - B. MONFORT
MZE: a small macro-model for the euro area

G2004/01 P. AUBERT - M. LECLAIR
La compétitivité exprimée dans les enquêtes trimestrielles sur la situation et les perspectives dans l'industrie

G2004/02 M. DUÉE - C. REBILLARD
La dépendance des personnes âgées : une projection à long terme

G2004/03 S. RASPILLER - N. RIEDINGER
Régulation environnementale et choix de localisation des groupes français

G2004/04 A. NABOULET - S. RASPILLER
Les déterminants de la décision d'investir : une approche par les perceptions subjectives des firmes

G2004/05 N. RAGACHE
La déclaration des enfants par les couples non mariés est-elle fiscalement optimale ?

G2004/06 M. DUÉE
L'impact du chômage des parents sur le devenir scolaire des enfants

G2004/07 P. AUBERT - E. CAROLI - M. ROGER
New Technologies, Workplace Organisation and the Age Structure of the Workforce: Firm-Level Evidence

G2004/08 E. DUGUET - C. LELARGE
Les brevets accroissent-ils les incitations privées à innover ? Un examen microéconomique

G2004/09 S. RASPILLER - P. SILLARD
Affiliating versus Subcontracting: the Case of Multinationals

G2004/10 J. BOISSINOT - C. L'ANGEVIN - B. MONFORT
Public Debt Sustainability: Some Results on the French Case

G2004/11 S. ANANIAN - P. AUBERT
Travailleurs âgés, nouvelles technologies et changements organisationnels : un réexamen à partir de l'enquête « REPONSE »

G2004/12 X. BONNET - H. PONCET
Structures de revenus et propensions différentes à consommer - Vers une équation de consommation des ménages plus robuste en prévision pour la France

G2004/13 C. PICART
Évaluer la rentabilité des sociétés non financières

G2004/14 J. BARDAJI - B. SÉDILLOT - E. WALRAET
Les retraites du secteur public : projections à l'horizon 2040 à l'aide du modèle de microsimulation DESTINIE

G2005/01 S. BUFFETEAU - P. GODEFROY
Conditions de départ en retraite selon l'âge de fin d'études : analyse prospective pour les générations 1945 à 1974

G2005/02 C. AFSA - S. BUFFETEAU
L'évolution de l'activité féminine en France : une approche par pseudo-panel

G2005/03 P. AUBERT - P. SILLARD
Délocalisations et réductions d'effectifs dans l'industrie française

G2005/04 M. LECLAIR - S. ROUX
Mesure et utilisation des emplois instables dans les entreprises

G2005/05 C. L'ANGEVIN - S. SERRAVALLE
Performances à l'exportation de la France et de l'Allemagne - Une analyse par secteur et destination géographique

G2005/06 Bilan des activités de la Direction des Études et Synthèses Économiques - 2004

G2005/07 S. RASPILLER
La concurrence fiscale : principaux enseignements de l'analyse économique

G2005/08 C. L'ANGEVIN - N. LAÎB
Éducation et croissance en France et dans un panel de 21 pays de l'OCDE

G2005/09 N. FERRARI
Prévoir l'investissement des entreprises
Un indicateur des révisions dans l'enquête de conjoncture sur les investissements dans l'industrie.

G2005/10 P.-O. BEFFY - C. L'ANGEVIN
Chômage et boucle prix-salaires :
apport d'un modèle « qualifiés/peu qualifiés »

G2005/11 B. HEITZ
A two-states Markov-switching model of inflation in France and the USA: credible target VS inflation spiral

G2005/12 O. BIAU - H. ERKEL-ROUSSE - N. FERRARI
Réponses individuelles aux enquêtes de conjoncture et prévision macroéconomiques :
Exemple de la prévision de la production manufacturière

G2005/13 P. AUBERT - D. BLANCHET - D. BLAU
The labour market after age 50: some elements of a Franco-American comparison

G2005/14 D. BLANCHET - T. DEBRAND - P. DOURGNON - P. POLLET
L'enquête SHARE : présentation et premiers résultats de l'édition française

G2005/15 M. DUÈE
La modélisation des comportements démographiques dans le modèle de microsimulation DESTINIE

G2005/16 H. RAOUI - S. ROUX
Étude de simulation sur la participation versée aux salariés par les entreprises

G2006/01 C. BONNET - S. BUFFETEAU - P. GODEFROY
Disparités de retraite de droit direct entre hommes et femmes : quelles évolutions ?

G2006/02 C. PICART
Les gazelles en France

G2006/03 P. AUBERT - B. CRÉPON - P. ZAMORA
Le rendement apparent de la formation continue dans les entreprises : effets sur la productivité et les salaires

G2006/04 J.-F. OUVRARD - R. RATHELOT
Demographic change and unemployment: what do macroeconometric models predict?

G2006/05 D. BLANCHET - J.-F. OUVRARD
Indicateurs d'engagements implicites des systèmes de retraite : chiffrages, propriétés analytiques et réactions à des chocs démographiques types

G2006/06 G. BIAU - O. BIAU - L. ROUVIERE
Nonparametric Forecasting of the Manufacturing Output Growth with Firm-level Survey Data

G2006/07 C. AFSA - P. GIVORD
Le rôle des conditions de travail dans les absences pour maladie

G2006/08 P. SILLARD - C. L'ANGEVIN - S. SERRAVALLE
Performances comparées à l'exportation de la France et de ses principaux partenaires
Une analyse structurelle sur 12 ans

G2006/09 X. BOUTIN - S. QUANTIN
Une méthodologie d'évaluation comptable du coût du capital des entreprises françaises : 1984-2002

G2006/10 C. AFSA
L'estimation d'un coût implicite de la pénibilité du travail chez les travailleurs âgés

G2006/11 C. LELARGE
Les entreprises (industrielles) françaises sont-elles à la frontière technologique ?

G2006/12 O. BIAU - N. FERRARI
Théorie de l'opinion
Faut-il pondérer les réponses individuelles ?

G2006/13 A. KOUBI - S. ROUX
Une réréprétrétation de la relation entre productivité et inégalités salariales dans les entreprises

G2006/14 R. RATHELOT - P. SILLARD
The impact of local taxes on plants location decision

G2006/15 L. GONZALEZ - C. PICART
Diversification, recentrage et poids des activités de support dans les groupes (1993-2000)

G2007/01 D. SRAER
Allègements de cotisations patronales et dynamique salariale

G2007/02 V. ALBOUY - L. LEQUIEN
Les rendements non monétaires de l'éducation : le cas de la santé

G2007/03 D. BLANCHET - T. DEBRAND
Aspiration à la retraite, santé et satisfaction au travail : une comparaison européenne

G2007/04 M. BARLET - L. CRUSSON
Quel impact des variations du prix du pétrole sur la croissance française ?

G2007/05 C. PICART
Flux d'emploi et de main-d'œuvre en France : un réexamen

G2007/06 V. ALBOUY - C. TAVAN
Massification et démocratisation de l'enseignement supérieur en France

G2007/07 T. LE BARBANCHON
The Changing response to oil price shocks in France: a DSGE type approach

G2007/08 T. CHANEY - D. SRAER - D. THESMAR
Collateral Value and Corporate Investment Evidence from the French Real Estate Market

G2007/09 J. BOISSINOT
Consumption over the Life Cycle: Facts for France

G2007/10 C. AFSA
Interpréter les variables de satisfaction : l'exemple de la durée du travail

G2007/11 R. RATHELOT - P. SILLARD
Zones Franches Urbaines : quels effets sur l'emploi salarié et les créations d'établissements ?

G2007/12 V. ALBOUY - B. CRÉPON
Aléa moral en santé : une évaluation dans le cadre du modèle causal de Rubin

G2008/01 C. PICART
Les PME françaises : rentables mais peu dynamiques

G2008/02 P. BISCOURP - X. BOUTIN - T. VERGÉ
The Effects of Retail Regulations on Prices Evidence form the Loi Galland

G2008/03 Y. BARBESOL - A. BRIANT
Économies d'agglomération et productivité des entreprises : estimation sur données individuelles françaises

G2008/04 D. BLANCHET - F. LE GALLO
Les projections démographiques : principaux mécanismes et retour sur l'expérience française

G2008/05 D. BLANCHET - F. TOUTLEMONDE
Évolutions démographiques et déformation du cycle de vie active : quelles relations ?

G2008/06 M. BARLET - D. BLANCHET - L. CRUSSON
Internationalisation et flux d'emplois : que dit une approche comptable ?

G2008/07 C. LELARGE - D. SRAER - D. THESMAR
Entrepreneurship and Credit Constraints - Evidence from a French Loan Guarantee Program

G2008/08 X. BOUTIN - L. JANIN
Are Prices Really Affected by Mergers?

G2008/09 M. BARLET - A. BRIANT - L. CRUSSON
Concentration géographique dans l'industrie manufacturière et dans les services en France : une approche par un indicateur en continu

G2008/10 M. BEFFY - É. COUDIN - R. RATHELOT
Who is confronted to insecure labor market histories? Some evidence based on the French labor market transition

G2008/11 M. ROGER - E. WALRAET
Social Security and Well-Being of the Elderly: the Case of France

G2008/12 C. AFSA
Analyser les composantes du bien-être et de son évolution

G2008/13 M. BARLET - D. BLANCHET - T. LE BARBANCHON
Microsimuler le marché du travail : un prototype

G2008/13 M. BARLET - D. BLANCHET - T. LE BARBANCHON
A Monthly Indicator of the French Business Climate

G2009/01 P.-A. PIONNIER
Le partage de la valeur ajoutée en France, 1949-2007

G2009/02 Laurent CLAVEL - Christelle MINODIER
A Monthly Indicator of the French Business Climate

G2009/03 H. ERKEL-ROUSSE - C. MINODIER
Do Business Tendency Surveys in Industry and Services Help in Forecasting GDP Growth?
A Real-Time Analysis on French Data

G2009/04 P. GIVORD - L. WILNER
Les contrats temporaires : trappe ou marchepied vers l'emploi stable ?

G2009/05 G. LALANNE - P.-A. PIONNIER - O. SIMON
Le partage des fruits de la croissance de 1950 à 2008 : une approche par les comptes de surplus

G2009/06 L. DAVEZIES - X. D'HAULTFOEUILLE
Faut-il pondérer ?... Ou l'éternelle question de l'économétre confronté à des données d'enquête

G2009/07 S. QUANTIN - S. RASPILLER - S. SERRAVALLE
Commerce intragroupe, fiscalité et prix de transferts : une analyse sur données françaises

G2009/08 M. CLERC - V. MARCUS
Élasticités-prices des consommations énergétiques des ménages

G2009/09 G. LALANNE - E. POULIQUEN - O. SIMON
Prix du pétrole et croissance potentielle à long terme

G2009/10 D. BLANCHET - J. LE CACHEUX - V. MARCUS
Adjusted net savings and other approaches to sustainability: some theoretical background

G2009/11 V. BELLAMY - G. CONSALES - M. FESSEAU - S. LE LAIDIER - É. RAYNAUD
Une décomposition du compte des ménages de la comptabilité nationale par catégorie de ménage en 2003

G2009/12 J. BARDAJI - F. TALLET
Detecting Economic Regimes in France: a Qualitative Markov-Switching Indicator Using Mixed Frequency Data

G2009/13 R. AEBERHARDT - D. FOUGÈRE - R. RATHELOT
Discrimination à l'embauche : comment exploiter les procédures de testing ?

G2009/14 Y. BARBESOL - P. GIVORD - S. QUANTIN
Partage de la valeur ajoutée, approche par données microéconomiques

G2009/15 I. BUONO - G. LALANNE
The Effect of the Uruguay round on the Intensive and Extensive Margins of Trade

G2010/01 C. MINODIER
Avantages comparés des séries des premières valeurs publiées et des séries des valeurs révisées - Un exercice de prévision en temps réel de la croissance trimestrielle du PIB en France

G2010/02 V. ALBOUY - L. DAVEZIES - T. DEBRAND
Health Expenditure Models: a Comparison of Five Specifications using Panel Data

G2010/03 C. KLEIN - O. SIMON
Le modèle MÉSANGE réestimé en base 2000
Tome 1 – Version avec volumes à prix constants

G2010/04 M.-É. CLERC - É. COUDIN
L'IPC, miroir de l'évolution du coût de la vie en France ? Ce qu'apporte l'analyse des courbes d'Engel

G2010/05 N. CECI-RENAUD - P.-A. CHEVALIER
Les seuils de 10, 20 et 50 salariés : impact sur la taille des entreprises françaises

G2010/06 R. AEBERHARDT - J. POUGET
National Origin Differences in Wages and Hierarchical Positions - Evidence on French Full-Time Male Workers from a matched Employer-Employee Dataset

G2010/07 S. BLASCO - P. GIVORD
Les trajectoires professionnelles en début de vie active : quel impact des contrats temporaires ?

G2010/08 P. GIVORD
Méthodes économétriques pour l'évaluation de politiques publiques
G2010/09 P.-Y. CABANNES - V. LAPÈGUE - E. POULIQUEN - M. BEFFY - M. GAINI Quelle croissance de moyen terme après la crise ?

G2010/10 I. BUONO - G. LALANNE La réaction des entreprises françaises à la baisse des tarifs douaniers étrangers

G2010/11 R. RATHELOT - P. SILLARD L'apport des méthodes à noyaux pour mesurer la concentration géographique - Application à la concentration des immigrés en France de 1968 à 1999

G2010/12 M. BARATON - M. BEFFY - D. FOUGÈRE Une évaluation de l'effet de la réforme de 2003 sur les départs en retraite - Le cas des enseignants du second degré public

G2010/13 D. BLANCHET - S. BUFFETEAU - E. CRENNER S. LE MINEZ Le modèle de microsimulation Destinie 2: principales caractéristiques et premiers résultats

G2010/14 D. BLANCHET - E. CRENNER Le bloc retraites du modèle Destinie 2: guide de l'utilisateur

G2010/15 M. BARLET - L. CRUSSON - S. DUPUCH - F. PUECH Des services échangés aux services échangeables : une application sur données françaises

G2010/16 M. BEFFY - T. KAMIONKA Public-private wage gaps: is civil-servant human capital sector-specific?

G2010/17 P.-Y. CABANNES - H. ERKEL-ROUSSE - G. LALANNE - O. MONSO - E. POULIQUEN Le modèle Mésange réestimé en base 2000 Tome 2 - Version avec volumes à prix chaînés

G2010/18 R. AEBERHARDT - L. DAVEZIES Conditional Logit with one Binary Covariate: Link between the Static and Dynamic Cases

G2011/01 T. LE BARBANCHON - B. OURLIAC - O. SIMON Les marchés du travail français et américain face aux chocs conjoncturels des années 1986 à 2007 : une modélisation DSGE

G2011/02 C. MARBOT Une évaluation de la réduction d'impôt pour l'emploi de salariés à domicile

G2011/03 L. DAVEZIES Modèles à effets fixes, à effets aléatoires, modèles mixtes ou multi-niveaux: propriétés et mises en œuvre des modélisations de l'hétérogénéité dans le cas de données groupées

G2011/04 M. ROGER - M. WASMER Heterogeneity matters: labour productivity differentiated by age and skills

G2011/05 J.-C. BRICONGNE - J.-M. FOURNIER V. LAPÈGUE - O. MONSO De la crise financière à la crise économique L'impact des perturbations financières de 2007 et 2008 sur la croissance de sept pays industrialisés

G2011/06 P. CHARNOZ - É. COUDIN - M. GAINI Wage inequalities in France 1976-2004: a quantile regression analysis

G2011/07 M. CLERC - M. GAINI - D. BLANCHET Recommendations of the Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi Report: A few illustrations

G2011/08 M. BACHELET - M. BEFFY - D. BLANCHET Projeter l'impact des réformes des retraites sur l'activité des 55 ans et plus: une comparaison de trois modèles

G2011/09 C. LOUVOT-RUNAVOT L'évaluation de l'activité dissimulée des entreprises sur la base des contrôles fiscaux et son insertion dans les comptes nationaux

G2011/10 A. SCHREIBER - A. VICARD La tertiairisation de l'économie française et le ralentissement de la productivité entre 1978 et 2008

G2011/11 M.-É. CLERC - O. MONSO - E. POULIQUEN Les inégalités entre générations depuis le baby-boom

G2011/12 C. MARBOT et D. ROY Évaluation de la transformation de la réduction d'impôt en crédit d'impôt pour l'emploi de salariés à domicile en 2007

G2011/13 P. GIVORD - R. RATHELOT - P. SILLARD Place-based tax exemptions and displacement effects: An evaluation of the Zones Franches Urbaines program

G2011/14 X. D'HAULTFOEUILLE - P. GIVORD - X. BOUTIN The Environmental Effect of Green Taxation: the Case of the French "Bonus/Malus"

G2011/15 M. BARLET - M. CLERC - M. GARNEO - V. LAPÈGUE - V. MARCUS La nouvelle version du modèle MZE, modèle macroéconomique pour la zone euro

G2011/16 R. AEBERHARDT - I. BUONO - H. FADINGER Learning, Incomplete Contracts and Export Dynamics: theory and Evidence form French Firms

G2011/17 C. KERDRAIN - V. LAPÈGUE Restrictive Fiscal Policies in Europe: What are the Likely Effects?

G2012/01 P. GIVORD - S. QUANTIN - C. TREVIEN A Long-Term Evaluation of the First Generation of the French Urban Enterprise Zones

G2012/02 N. CECI-RENAUD - V. COTTET Politique salariale et performance des entreprises

G2012/03 P. FÉVRIER - L. WILNER Do Consumers Correctly Expect Price Reductions? Testing Dynamic Behavior

G2012/04 M. GAINI - A. LEDUC - A. VICARD School as a shelter? School leaving-age and the business cycle in France

G2012/05 M. GAINI - A. LEDUC - A. VICARD A scarred generation? French evidence on young people entering into a tough labour market

G2012/06 P. AUBERT - M. BACHELET Disparités de montant de pension et redistribution dans le système de retraite français

G2012/07 R. AEBERHARDT - P. GIVORD - C. MARBOT Spillover Effect of the Minimum Wage in France: An Unconditional Quantile Regression Approach

G2012/08 A. EIDELMAN - F. LANGUMIER - A. VICARD Prélèvements obligatoires reposant sur les ménages: des canaux redistributifs différents en 1990 et 2010

G2012/09 O. BARGAIN - A. VICARD Le RMI et son successeur le RSA découragent- ils certains jeunes de travailler ? Une analyse sur les jeunes autour de 25 ans

G2012/10 C. MARBOT - D. ROY Projections du coût de l'APA et des caractéristiques de ses bénéficiaires à l'horizon 2040 à l'aide du modèle Destinie

G2012/11 A. MAUROUX Le crédit d'impôt dédié au développement durable: une évaluation économique

G2012/12 V. COTTET - S. QUANTIN - V. RÉGNIER Coût du travail et allègements de charges: une estimation au niveau établissement de 1996 à 2008

G2012/13 X. D'HAULTFOEUILLE, P. FEVRIER et L. WILNER Demand Estimation in the Presence of Revenue Management

G2012/14 D. BLANCHET et S. LE MINEZ Joint macro/micro evaluations of accrued-to-date pension liabilities: an application to French reforms

G2013/01- F1301 T. DEROYON - A. MONTAUT et P-A PIONNIER Utilisation rétrospective de l'enquête Emploi à une fréquence mensuelle: apport d'une modélisation espace-état

G2013/02- F1302 C. TRÉVIEN Habiter en HLM: quel avantage monétaire et quel impact sur les conditions de logement ?

G2013/03 A. POISSONNIER Temporal disaggregation of stock variables - The Chow-Lin method extended to dynamic models

G2013/04 P. GIVORD - C. MARBOT Does the cost of child care affect female labor market participation? An evaluation of a French reform of childcare subsidies

G2013/05 G. LAME - M. LEQUIEN - P.-A. PIONNIER Interpretation and limits of sustainability tests in public finance

G2013/06 C. BELLEGO - V. DORTET-BERNADET La participation aux pôles de compétitivité: quelle incidence sur les dépenses de R&D et l'activité des PME et ETI ?

G2013/07 P-Y. CABANNES - A. MONTAUT - P-A. PIONNIER Évaluer la productivité globale des facteurs en France: l'apport d'une mesure de la qualité du capital et du travail

G2013/08 R. AEBERHARDT - C. MARBOT Evolution of Instability on the French Labour Market During the Last Thirty Years

G2013/09 J-B. BERNARD - G. CLÉAUD Oil price: the nature of the shocks and the impact on the French economy

G2013/10 G. LAME Was there a « Greenspan Conundrum » in the Euro area?

G2013/11 P. CHONÉ - F. EVAIN - L. WILNER - E. YILMAZ Introducing activity-based payment in the hospital industry: Evidence from French data

G2013/12 C. GRISLAIN-LETRÉMY Natural Disasters: Exposure and Underinsurance

G2013/13 P.-Y. CABANNES - V. COTTET - Y. DUBOIS - C. LELARGE - M. SICSIC French Firms in the Face of the 2008/2009 Crisis

G2013/14 A. POISSONNIER - D. ROY Households Satellite Account for France in 2010. Methodological issues on the assessment of domestic production