Household Production and Consumption in Finland 2001

influences the efficiency of labour input (e.g. Robinson 1982, Ruuskanen
2004). For example, in a survey on the leisure time use, most respondents
(61%) felt that cooking was “at least sometimes a pleasure and a hobby”, and
the same was true for gardening. In the same survey, about one-half of the
respondents said they regarded doing the laundry and cleaning “always as a
routine and a duty”. On the other hand more than one-quarter said they never
helped with the laundry and one in ten said they never did any cleaning up
(Hanifi 2005, 128).
The international literature on satellite accounts works from the
assumption that as far as household production is concerned, it is irrelevant
whether people enjoy the work they are doing or whether they consider it
simply a chore and a duty (e.g. Goldschmidt-Clermont 1994). After all the
same goes for wage employment: it is very rarely that people are paid on the
basis of whether or not they enjoy the job they are doing. Preparing a meal at
home therefore has economic significance regardless of the cook’s mood, and a
well-tended garden increases the value of housing services even if people did
their gardening simply because they enjoyed it (see also Chapter 4.3). It is also
noteworthy that the data collected for the Time Use Survey is so extensive
that it probably includes people who take very different views on this matter
and that these fluctuations will be smoothed away in averages.
The value of labour is calculated by multiplying the amount of time spent in
unpaid work by the hourly wage of a person in an equivalent paid job. For this
study we opted to use the hourly pay of generalist housekeeper/ home helper,
which in the International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO)
comes under category 51331. Earlier studies in Finland have also used this
same wage to determine the value of unpaid work (Säntti et al. 1982,
Vihavainen 1995). According to 2001 wage statistics, the gross hourly wage of
a housekeeper and home helper, excluding employer’s social insurance
contributions, was 9.99 euros/hour.
There has been much debate in the international literature on the choice of
the most appropriate wage concept that would be compatible with national
accounting principles (see e.g. Blades 1997, Varjonen et al. 1999). Should we
use net wages or gross wages, or perhaps gross wages with employer
contributions. Here a case in point has been the wage concept used in
calculating outputs in the public sector and in non-profit institutions serving
households. These calculations use gross wages including all employer
contributions.
Analogously, then, we might use the same wage concept to determine the
value of household production. It has also been suggested that different wage
concepts might be used depending on the end-use of the results. If the purpose
is to describe the expenditure incurred to a household from purchasing a
service from the market instead of producing that service itself, then the most
appropriate choice is gross wage plus employer costs because all these costs are
included in the price of the product. If, on the other hand, the purpose is to
describe changes in the household’s disposable income when it produces a
service instead of buying that service, net wage might be a more appropriate
choice: this is because in this activity the household does not generate social
security, nor does it add to public sector tax revenue.
National Consumer Research Centre Statistics Finland 19