The Accounting for Unpaid Work Project
The Accounting for Unpaid Work Project is a progressive process that seeks to incorporate some of the activities that do not appear in the System of National Accounts (SNA). SNA refers to a standard set of recommendations that are internationally accepted on how to compile economic activity measures. Since its inception in 1947, several milestones have been made in SNA. Some of the recommendations are the inclusion of subsistence production as a measure of economic activity in 1966 and further revisions in 1993, and the inclusion of informal employment as well in the 2000s.
The relationship between the Accounting for Unpaid Work Project and feminist economics is that despite the improvement milestones in both subsistence production and informal employment, there is a continued underestimation of women’s labor in both forms. Feminist economics believe that certain women activities such as domestic work, taking care of families, and raising children, are aspects of subsistence production that ought to be included in the SNA. Equally, feminist economics feel there is a deliberate effort to incorporate economic activities from men under both informal employment and subsistence production while negating activities conducted by women.
The other area where feminist economists feel that the SNA fails to account for is volunteer labor. The reason for the exclusion of volunteer labor is because of its definitional problems and the lag in measurement effort. In the case of domestic labor, some of the fronted arguments for its exclusion include conceptual bias in economics and the resistance of statistical enterprise to count non-market work. Feminist economics argue that all activities, irrespective of their direct economic impact, should form part of the SNA.
The two feminist objections to pursuing this goal include arguments that the process is not important, while the other objection is that it is not appropriate. In the first objection, some feminist economists feel that consideration of accounting for unpaid work such as domestic work is both a waste of time and a glorification of the housewife. The second objection, which focuses on the inappropriate nature of the project, the feminist economists highlight the incommensurability of market-sourced activities versus unpaid care. Some feminist economists who propel this argument explain that care is not work, and it is impossible to account for the emotional and personal value of unpaid care work. Other arguments for objection include the lack of uniformity in quality, which makes the process of accounting lack clarity.
Some feminist economists justify pursuing this project, and they include Waring, BBF, and Folbre. In the case of Marilyn Waring, she argues that there are welfare benefits that are received by the community from domestic labor. She argues that where women ensure that their children are well taken care of, they eliminate other health concerns that might arise if they did not provide such services. This means that their activities contribute to the wellbeing of society; hence there is justification to pursue the project. BBF and Folbre, on the other hand, justify pursuit for the project by pointing to the failure of accounting in measuring intangibles such as the personal and emotional value of unpaid care work, and uneven SNA practices in imputations for the financial sector, housing, and illegal transactions. BBF and Folbre believe that through the project, these failures of SNA would be addressed.