Περί ΑΕΠ ο λόγος, πάλι

Αντιγράφω επιστολή αναγνώστη με τίτλο “Why family childcare is not counted in GDP figures”, η οποία δημοσιεύθηκε στην Φαϊνάνσιαλ Τάιμς της 6 Μαρτίου 2026. Οι τεχνικές και ηθικές αιτιάσεις μεροληψίας στην μέτρηση του ΑΕΠ είναι γνωστές, μα η παρούσα επιστολή είναι καλογραμμένη, η δε καταληκτική εικασία της είναι εύλογη και έξυπνη. Ας σημειώσω, δίκην εισαγωγής: εάν κάποιος νυμφευθεί την κυρία που φροντίζει το σπίτι του –ξέρω, αναπαράγω σεξιστικά στερεότυπα, το κάνω για την οικονομία του λόγου, συγχωρήστε με–, το ΑΕΠ θα μειωθεί – με την επιφύλαξη ύπαρξης προγαμιαίου συμφώνου το οποίο προβλέπει συνέχιση της επίσημης (και όχι σκιώδους) αμοιβής της (τώρα πια) συζύγου.    

“Judith Ward and family say it is ‘infamous’ that the impact of family childcare does not count statistically for GDP (“Demography’s silver lining”, Letters, March 4).

It seems to me that the question is more wide-ranging than that. Childcare may be the single most important example but is certainly not the only example of a huge range of unpaid self-supply services — on a household, an extended family or individual level.

At one end of a possible conceptual scale there is DIY work, on major home improvements as well as maintenance, as an alternative to using professional construction services that count for GDP (unless missed, through tax evasion perhaps exceeding its official estimates).

At the other end would be home cooking, routine housework and all the personal grooming tasks that, while we are able bodied, we do for ourselves from a very early age. Yet as with general childcare there is of course a GDP-counted professional sector for other cases.

Somewhere in between, if it is viewed as a freestanding item, would be driving our own cars (or riding bikes) on private business as an alternative to GDP-counted public transport. All of these things raise much the same social accounting question. Yet as Kenneth Williams famously (or infamously) said in the film Carry On Cleo, infamy is when “they’ve all got it ‘in for me’” and it gets truly personal.

If all of the self-supplies were estimated within social accounting, the resulting GDP figures would be vastly greater — though nobody would be better off as a result. Those who like to express concerns about income inequality might feel cheated. For I guess there would be much less measurable social inequality if we counted the notional income (with equal expenditure) within most self-supply sectors, compared with paid work.

Under existing statistical practices any moves towards, or away from, self-supply in any sectors could make a significant difference to the recorded trend of GDP over the transition period. Yet GDP per head could move in the opposite direction.

For in two-parent households in the case of childcare, it will usually be the partner with the lower potential earning power (counting as lower productivity) in the measured economy who will undertake most self-supply work, where either of them do so.”

Andy Thompson

Worcester Park, Surrey, UK

Για την αντιγραφή

νκ