Modelling and accounting work in national and environmental accounts

Vanoli, André

doi:10.1007/978-94-017-1433-4_20

Cited by 8 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is not the purpose of this paper to review these challenges. For an outline, one can see "Part 2 -The present: big challenges ahead" of the paper that I published, Vanoli (2014), in EURONA 1/2014 "National Accounting at the beginning of the 21 st century: Wherefrom? Where to?"…”

Section: S243mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For the time being, there are conflicting views on this topic. A limited discussion on the issue at stake took place in the Review of Income and Wealth (December 2010) between myself (Vanoli, 2010) and three colleagues from the U.S. (Jorgenson, Landefeld and Nordhaus, 2010). My position is that multifactor productivity estimates (and growth accounting whose conceptual basis is similar) are analytical constructs depending on models and theoretical assumptions which are stronger than those than can be accepted and used in the SNA central framework.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…My position is that multifactor productivity estimates (and growth accounting whose conceptual basis is similar) are analytical constructs depending on models and theoretical assumptions which are stronger than those than can be accepted and used in the SNA central framework. In 1998 I introduced the distinction between soft modelling and hard modelling in this respect (see Vanoli, 1998). Some people seem to have difficulties with such a distinction.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Future of the SNA in a Broad Information System Perspective

Vanoli¹

2017

Review of Income and Wealth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, three questions are considered in relation to the general issue raised by the title of the IARIW‐OECD Conference on the “Future of National Accounts: W(h)ither the SNA”. Firstly, often so much is expected from the System of National Accounts (SNA) that a crucial clarification is needed as to the possible ambitions which can be assigned in the future to it in terms of extension of its coverage. More precisely, my query concerns the integrated “central framework” of the SNA. Secondly, I ask some questions about the revision strategy of the central framework. Thirdly, taking stock of my previous conclusions, I would like to briefly specify the position of what I propose to call the “System of National Economic Accounts” (SNEA), in a broad information system's perspective that distinguishes four spheres, the Economy, Nature, People and Society.

show abstract

Section: S243mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Future of the SNA in a Broad Information System Perspective

Vanoli¹

2017

Review of Income and Wealth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some national accountants raised similar questions in the 1990s, in the context of environmental accounting. In a 1996 paper (see Vanoli, 1998), I suggested myself a distinction between “soft modeling” (in the national accounts central framework) and “hard modeling” (elsewhere). This suggestion was tentative and not rigorously elaborated.…”

Section: National Accounting Growth Accounting and Multifactor Pmentioning

confidence: 99%

The New Architecture of the U.S. National Accounts and Its Relationship to the Sna

Vanoli¹

2010

Review of Income and Wealth

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The values obtainable for SNI(i) and SNI(ii) depend more heavily on the choice of model and the parameter specifications than on the empirical price/quantity data obtainable from the real world (see also Common 1993 andVanoli 1996). But since we do not know what the "right model" is, and we cannot deduce this reliably from empirically available information, we are in a "chicken and egg" situation.…”

Section: Empirical Measurements and The Intermediation Of Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neoclassical Natural Capital Theory and "Weak" Indicators for Sustainability

Faucheux¹,

Muir²,

O'Connor³

1997

Land Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. This content downloaded from 169.230.243.252 on TueABSTRACT. We appraise neoclassical theory of growth with natural capital for the estimation of indicators for sustainability. Relationships between four theoretically distinct measures are clarified: Hicksian "change in capital stock value"; the Hartwick "net savings" (which excludes capital gains); "sustainable national income" (SNI); and "environmentally-adjusted net national product" (gNNP). An overlapping generations (OLG) general equilibrium model with depletable natural capital demonstrates the significance of model parameters determining technical feasibility and intertemporal distribution of consumption. Irremediable uncertainties in model specification and empirical measurement mean that the neoclassical theory is not robust for defining or estimating indicators for sustainability. (JEL 011) All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 73(4) Faucheux et al.: Natural Capital Theory 529 gNNP as an indicator of prospects for sustainable future welfare levels relative to the current level of consumption.1 The usual response in the economics literature relies on theoretical results from neoclassical growth-with-natural-capital theory.Part II of the paper reviews key elements of the neoclassical theory of economic growth with natural capital. Part III then presents a simple overlapping generations general equilibrium model with a depletable natural resource, which is used to highlight the significance for "socially optimum" consumption timepaths of axiomatic assumptions relating to model structure and parametrization, in particular presumptions about substitutability, time-discounting, and relative prices as measures of opportunity costs. On this foundation we assess the ambition and limitations of recent work, both theoretical and applied, that has sought to assess by the "weak" criteria the "sustainability" or nonsustainability of national economies. Part IV gives a synthetic overview of the search for macroeconomic indicators of sustainable development based on the neoclassical natural capital theoretical approaches. Part V assesses the combined impact of the theoretical and empirical limits to validity of the "weak" sustainability indicators. We will conclude, in Part VI, with the assessment that insurmountable problems of aggregation and measurement at both theoretical and empirical levels mean that the neoclassical theory is not robust-and cannot ever be made robust-as abasis for deriving reliable indicators for sustainability.

show abstract

Modelling and accounting work in national and environmental accounts

Cited by 8 publications

References 0 publications

The Future of the SNA in a Broad Information System Perspective

The Future of the SNA in a Broad Information System Perspective

The New Architecture of the U.S. National Accounts and Its Relationship to the Sna

Neoclassical Natural Capital Theory and "Weak" Indicators for Sustainability

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About