Abstract
Confidence in national accounts is undermined by expanding the conceptual framework to serve the needs of productivity analysis. Extensions of the SNA to include knowledge assets as produced output and direct volume measures of government output require an increasing number of assumptions and imputations, which threaten the status of national accounts as a reliable source of official economic statistics. Both national accounts and productivity analysis would be better served by meeting the data needs of productivity analysis through satellite systems. It is recommended that the movement towards increased recognition of capital formation of knowledge in the core system of national accounts be halted. The recording of the performance of Research and Development expenditures as capital formation and the endorsement of direct volume measures for the provision of government services introduced with the 2008 SNA should be reconsidered in the next revision of the SNA.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
