Household Production and Consumption in Finland 2001

The data were well suited for the compilation of this Household Satellite
Account. A major consideration in the process of harmonising the method of
the European Time Use Survey was to make sure that unpaid work can be
distinguished from leisure and personal activities. The Classification of
Individual Consumption by Purpose (COICOP), for its part, is highly detailed
and provided a sound basis for the necessary classifications; there were only a
few instances where time use or consumption categories had to be divided into
two or more parts on a discretionary basis. These classifications concerned (1)
the allocation of a certain category between different principal functions of
household production and (2) the allocation of a certain consumption category
between household production and some other activity, such as leisure. The
former classification impacts the relative weight of different principal
functions, but not the total value of household production. The latter impacts
the value of household production.
In the case of time use categories, discretionary classification was required
when allocating the amount of time spent in shopping and services, household
management, and to some extent travel related to unpaid work to different
principal functions (see Table 5). In consumption expenditure, the use of
energy and water were divided between intermediate consumption in housing,
meals and clothing according to the average distribution of use (Appendix 8).
Gardening products (garden soils, fertilizers, seedlings and seeds) were divided
in half between housing (decorative garden) and SNA food (vegetable garden)
intermediate consumption. Among final consumption products, home care
and meal services for the elderly were also split equally between final care and
final meal consumption. These decisions seemed to have a minor impact on
the relative weight of different principal functions, but not on the total volume
of household production.
Discretion was also needed in the allocation of intermediate consumption
goods and services as well as capital goods between household production and
non-household production. Three per cent of telephone costs, Internet costs,
postal fees, short bus and train trips and newspaper subscription fees were
allocated to services (running errands). Accordingly, three per cent of
telephone appliances and PCs were allocated to capital goods and capital
consumption. In the input method used in the Satellite Account, intermediate
consumption does not affect value added, but the consumption of capital does,
although its share overall is very small.
In the national accounts, household final consumption of goods includes
the consumption of both foreign nationals resident in Finland and people living
in institutions. Consumption by these two groups was subtracted from total
consumption when compiling the Satellite Account. We had access to only
rather crude estimates of these people’s consumption, and therefore the
allocation of that consumption to the detailed classification of the Household
Budget Survey was done on a discretionary basis. This has no significant effect
on the overall end-result, but it might show up in individual categories. In the
future the tourism satellite account will help to shed further light on this
problem. According to 2001 national accounts, these population groups
accounted for around 3 per cent of total consumption expenditure.
72 Statistics Finland National Consumer Research Centre