Feminist Economics, 2017

Vol. 23, No. 2, 200–218, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13545701.2016.1178854

TWENTY-FIVE YEARS OF COUNTING FOR NOTHING :

WARING’S CRITIQUE OF NATIONAL ACCOUNTS

Caroline Saunders and Paul Dalziel

ABSTRACT
Marilyn Waring’s If Women Counted (1988) shows how national income
accounting became infused with the patriarchal values dominant during its
post–World War II development. This article revisits Waring’s analysis in the
light of continued support of gross domestic product as a useful statistic.
It explains the historical and personal context for her analysis, emphasizing
postwar patriarchal values as well as Waring’s experience as a Member of
the New Zealand Parliament (1975–84) and her active engagement with
women in developed and developing countries. It illustrates the support If
Women Counted gives to reformers and recognizes that change has occurred,
including provision for satellite accounts in the United Nations System of
National Accounts (UNSNA). Nevertheless, the paper concludes that Waring’s
profound challenge to the central framework of UNSNA will continue as long
as the system excludes unpaid household work and impacts on the natural
environment from its core statistics.
KEYWORDS
Feminist economics, household work, national income accounting, patriarchy

JEL codes: B54, E01, P44

INTRODUCTION
The United Nations System of National Accounts (UNSNA) is a human-
made tool, invented at a particular moment in history and modified from
time to time (United Nations 1953, 1968, 1993, 2009). These accounts
are universally used to evaluate the success of a country’s economic
policies, even by economists who acknowledge serious shortcomings.
The Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and
Social Progress, for example, proclaimed that “the time is ripe for
our measurement system to shift emphasis from measuring economic
production to measuring people’s well-being,” but accepted that gross
domestic product (GDP) will “continue to provide answers to many
important questions such as monitoring economic activity” (Joseph E.

© 2016 IAFFE
 COUNTING FOR NOTHING: WARING’S CRITIQUE

Stiglitz, Amartya Sen, and Jean-Paul Fitoussi 2009: 12). More recently,
Diane Coyle’s GDP: A Brief but Affectionate History acknowledges “several
reasonable critiques of GDP and the role it has come to play in guiding
economic policy,” but nevertheless supports the statistic – albeit not acting
on its own – as “an important measure of the freedom and human capability
created by the capitalist market economy” (Coyle 2014: 5).
In contrast, an influential publication by Marilyn Waring in 1988
condemned the UNSNA and its core GDP statistic. That publication argued
that the UNSNA was infused with patriarchal values dominant among
economists of the day, constructing reality in a particular way by deciding
which facts would be relevant and what parts of human experience were to
be made invisible to economic policymakers (Marilyn Waring 1988: 17).
The result excluded large amounts of unpaid work within households,
predominantly performed by women, and ignored substantial damage
that recognized economic activities can have on local and global natural
environments. Waring summarized the UNSNA as “applied patriarchy” and
the subtitle of her book’s international edition announced A New Feminist
Economics (Waring 1988: 17).1
Time had not stood still between Waring’s feminist denouncement
of GDP in 1988 and Coyle’s affectionate history twenty-five years later.
Herman E. Daly and John B. Cobb Jr’s For the Common Good (1989) initiated
a substantial research program that has produced a range of alternative
measures of sustainable progress. Following the Beijing Platform for Action
agreed at the United Nations Fourth World Women’s Conference in
1995, the Accounting for Women’s Work project has succeeded in making
unremunerated work within households visible for national accounts
(Lourdes Benería 1992, 2003; Valeria Esquivel 2011; see also essays in
Rania Antonopoulos and Indira Hirway [2010]). Two major revisions
of the UNSNA have included provision for optional satellite accounts
to measure environmental impacts and unpaid household production
(United Nations 1993, 2009). Satellite accounts prepared in several
countries have confirmed the significant size of unremunerated work
within households (Nadim Ahmad and Seung-Hee Koh 2011; Benjamin
Bridgman, Andrew Dugan, Mikhael Lal, Matthew Osborne, and Shaunda
Villones 2012; Eeva Hamunen, Johanna Varjonen, and Katri Soinne 2012;
Valerie Fender, Rosemary Foster, Atif Khan, Sue Punt, and Gerard Carolan
2013).
Despite these developments, this article argues that Waring’s description
of the UNSNA as “applied patriarchy” continues to have force.

THE IDEOLOGY OF POSTWAR PATRIARCHY

Neither the United Nations System of National Accounts in 1953 nor
Marilyn Waring’s critique in 1988 emerged from social vacuums. A context
201
 ARTICLE

for both can be usefully approached through Betty Friedan’s The Feminine
Mystique (1963), widely considered to have launched second-wave feminism
in North America. Friedan analyzed the postwar emergence of a highly
constraining propaganda that confined women’s work to domesticity within
family households and gave rise to the title of her book:

The feminine mystique says that the highest value and the
only commitment for women is the fulfillment of their own
femininity. . . . The mistake, says the mystique, the root of women’s
troubles in the past is that women envied men, women tried to be like
men, instead of accepting their own nature, which can find fulfillment
only in sexual passivity, male domination, and nurturing maternal love.

But the new image this mystique gives to American women is the old
image: “Occupation: housewife.” Beneath the sophisticated trappings,
it simply makes certain concrete, finite, domestic aspects of feminine
existence – as it was lived by women whose lives were confined, by
necessity, to cooking, cleaning, washing, bearing children – into a
religion, a pattern by which all women must now live or deny their
femininity. (38)

Discussing the origins of this ideology, Friedan drew attention to the

impact of the end of World War II: “After the loneliness of war and the
unspeakableness of the bomb, against the frightening uncertainty, the
cold immensity of the changing world, women as well as men sought the
comforting reality of home and children” (Friedan [1963] 1965: 160).
Returning armed-service members were given jobs that had been filled
by women during the war, while anti-feminine prejudices, reinforced by a
“polite but impenetrable curtain of hostility” as well as wage differentials
sanctioned by legislation, “sent many women scurrying for the cover of
marriage and home” (Friedan 1963: 162–3). Accepting confinement to the
home meant sacrificing opportunities to be creative participants in wider
society, which denied every person’s need to grow and realize her or his
full potential:

Self-esteem in woman, as well as in man, can only be based on real

capacity, competence, and achievement; on deserved respect from
others rather than unwarranted adulation. Despite the glorification
of “Occupation: housewife,” if that occupation does not demand, or
permit, realization of woman’s full abilities, it cannot provide adequate
self-esteem, much less pave the way to a higher level of self-realization.
(273)

Nancy Folbre and Heidi Hartmann published an important essay

in the same year as Waring, demonstrating that the same ideological
202
 COUNTING FOR NOTHING: WARING’S CRITIQUE

separation between women’s work and men’s work was firmly embedded
in mainstream economics. Their analysis of founding documents in
neoclassical and Marxian economics exposed an idealized view of the family
in which women were defined as relatively noneconomic based on “a set of
basic assumptions that have divided the economist’s world into two parts,
variously designated public and private, market and household, economic
and noneconomic, self-interested and altruistic, male and female” (Nancy
Folbre and Heidi Hartmann 1988: 185; Sheila C. Dow [1990], Paula
England [1993], and Nancy Folbre and Julie A. Nelson [2000] have also
analyzed dualist approaches permeating the economics literature). Folbre
and Hartmann described this separation as ideological because it served
the interests of men, who dominated the economics profession.
This does not mean that this ideological separation was uncontested by all
economists. As early as 1934, Margaret Reid led the way with her Economics
of Household Production, which is now recognized “as a major contribution to
economic theory and widely cited in a growing field of applied research”
(Nancy Folbre 1996: xi; see also the review by Yun-Ae Yi [1996] in the
same special issue of Feminist Economics). In 1970, Ester Boserup published
Woman’s Role in Economic Development, which Lourdes Benería and Gita
Sen (1981: 279) describe as “a comprehensive and pioneering effort to
provide an overview of women’s role in the development process” despite
some identified weaknesses. Well before Waring’s 1988 book, Benería had
established a strong research program on economics and the gendered
divisions of labor (see, for example, Benería [1979], [1981], [1982]) that
has now entered its fifth decade (Benería 1992, 2003, 2012).
Nevertheless, national income accounting and its codification in the
rules of the UNSNA emerged during the first half of the period when
the feminine mystique took hold. It was constructed by economists, who
generally accepted without question that the world was divided between
economic and noneconomic spheres. It would have been extraordinary,
therefore, if the UNSNA did not reflect the patriarchal values of the day.
Indeed, just as Friedan emphasized the importance of wartime experience
in perpetuating the ideology of female domesticity, so Waring (1988: 54–8)
would also emphasize the impetus to national income accounting given by
the need to finance the war efforts of the United Kingdom and the United
States (John Maynard Keynes 1940; Milton Gilbert 1942). Before discussing
that analysis further, it is useful to know something of Waring’s own context
that gave rise to If Women Counted.

T H E O R I G I N S O F IF WOMEN COUNTED
Marilyn Waring was born in New Zealand in 1952 and so grew up in what
Rosemary Du Plessis (1993) has aptly described as a male breadwinners’
welfare state. At least until the early 1970s, full employment was maintained
203
 ARTICLE

for men as a cornerstone of macroeconomic policy but married women

were marginal to the labor force and women’s wage rates were typically
well below those of men (Prue Hyman 1981; Peter Brosnan and Moira
Wilson 1989: 21–34). Some policy recognition was given to the value of
caring work in the form of a universal benefit paid to primary caregivers of
children under age 16 (almost always the mother), but single, divorced, or
separated mothers struggled financially (Maureen Baker 2012). Indeed, Du
Plessis (1993: 214) observes that “assumptions about the ideal family often
led to punitive action against women who did not conform to traditional
expectations.”
As that system began to break down in the early 1970s, Marilyn Waring
was completing an honors degree in political science and international
politics at Victoria University of Wellington. In October 1974 she accepted
a position as a researcher for the New Zealand National Party and won
selection to represent the party in a vacant electorate at the following year’s
general election (Janet McCallum 1993). Consequently, Waring was elected
to the New Zealand House of Representatives in November 1975 at a time
of great social change. Responding to widespread agitation by women
for equality, the previous Labour government had appointed a Select
Committee to investigate the extent of discrimination against women with
particular attention to: education and training; earnings and employment
opportunities; legal and commercial transactions; family and social welfare;
and all areas of public life. Launched at the Second United Women’s
Convention held as part of the United Nations’ International Women’s
Year in 1975, the committee’s report was founded on the following
diagnosis:

The inequalities that remain characteristic of our society arise mainly

from traditional acceptance of the assumption that men and women
have essentially different roles, and the reflection of this view on
the division of rights and responsibilities in employment, public life,
education, and the home. In conforming with their traditional role
not only have women had fewer opportunities than men to participate
in activities outside the home, but also their position within these roles
has by custom been of a lower status. (Select Committee on Women’s
Rights 1975: 103)

The report made fifty-three recommendations for far-reaching change,

but the newly elected government was strongly resistant. There were fifty-
three men and only two women in its Caucus, one of whom was Waring; and
after the 1978 election, Waring was the sole woman on the government’s
side until Ruth Richardson (later Minister of Finance) was elected in 1981.
Consequently, Waring experienced the burden of putting the case for
women to a Cabinet of exclusively male Ministers in a setting that was
204
 COUNTING FOR NOTHING: WARING’S CRITIQUE

overtly hostile to feminist issues (Hugh Templeton 1995). Reflecting on

that experience more than a decade later, Waring commented:

Your colleagues would try and break you however they could. There
was no quarter given. If they thought that, spiritually and emotionally,
they could crack you in Caucus or on the floor of the House, that your
credibility would be broken, they’d try. But within those confines I
could cross the floor [to vote with the Opposition]. If I could stand
it and I could make it across there was nothing to stop me. (cited in
Arthur Baysting, Dyan Campbell, and Margaret Dagg 1993: 75)

Waring was not a Minister during her nine years in government, but
her talent was acknowledged with an appointment as chairperson of the
important Public Expenditure Select Committee at the end of 1978. This
occurred just as New Zealand’s National Income and Expenditure Accounts
were being revised using UNSNA international standards. Waring describes
her encounter with these standards as a “rude awakening”:

I learned that in the UNSNA, the things that I valued about life in
my country – its pollution-free environment; its mountain streams
with safe drinking water; the accessibility of national parks, walkways,
beaches, lakes, kauri and beech forests; the absence of nuclear
power and nuclear energy – all counted for nothing. . . . Since the
environment effectively counted for nothing, there could be no “value”
on policy measures that would ensure its preservation.

Hand in hand with the dismissal of the environment, came evidence

of the severe invisibility of women and women’s work. For example,
as a politician, I found it virtually impossible to prove – given the
production framework with which we were faced – that child care
facilities were needed. “Non-producers” (housewives, mothers) who
are “inactive” and “unoccupied” cannot, apparently, be in need.
(1988: 1–2)

In the language of national income accounting, Waring discovered that

the UNSNA asset-boundary rules exclude many environmental assets and
the production-boundary rules exclude many unpaid household services.
Traveling on behalf of the government, Waring met peers on similar
committees in other jurisdictions and found the same rules leading
everywhere to the same exclusions. Wherever she visited, Waring sought
to arrange time with at least one woman her age to learn about her host’s
working day. In developed and in developing countries, Waring found
women commonly engaged in 16 to 18 hours of daily work that were
unrecorded in national accounts and overlooked in economic policy. This
205
 ARTICLE

confirmed her judgment that women’s interests were not being served by
the UNSNA, which instead reflected the same patriarchal assumptions and
values she was fighting in the New Zealand Parliament.
Waring retired from Parliament on her own terms in 1984, after which
she spent two months at Rutgers University hosted by the Institute for
Research on Women and by the Eagleton Institute of Politics. Her purpose
was to study the UNSNA source material in the Dag Hammarskjöld Library
at the United Nations. There she read in the founding manual that
households classified as primary producers could have production for
their own consumption included in the national accounts but “no other
imputations of this kind are made since primary production and the consumption
of their own produce by non-primary producers is of little or no importance”
(United Nations 1953: 5; emphasis added by Waring 1988: 78). Waring
acknowledged this rule had been broadened in the 1968 revision, but
she had personally met many women in developing countries who spent
hours of work every day transporting water, gathering firewood, tending
small crops or looking after food-producing animals. Rather than being “of
little or no importance,” such work is essential for the subsistence survival
of millions of people. Waring therefore denounced this dismissal in the
strongest terms:

Over the years I have read and reread the last sentence of the above
quote. It still makes me gasp for breath. It embodies every aspect of
the blindness of patriarchy, its arrogance, its lack of perception – and
it enshrines the invisibility and enslavement of women in the economic
process as “of little or no importance.” (1988: 78)

Waring discussed her research findings with a number of feminists, social

scientists, and economists, including John Kenneth Galbraith who urged
her to publish. She did so in 1988.

IF WOMEN COUNTED: A NEW FEMINIST ECONOMICS

Waring recognized that previous researchers had addressed the invisibility
of women’s work in policy. After citing Boserup (1970), Kathleen Newland
(1979), Lourdes Benería (1979, 1982), and Barbara Rogers (1981), the
prologue explained that her own book would focus on demystifying
the UNSNA’s role as an essential tool of the male economic system
(Waring 1988: 7). The book’s first half introduced the main themes of
this judgment. After an overview of the UNSNA in the opening chapter,
chapter 2 explained how national income accounting was developed
to answer questions about financing World War II. Chapters 3 and 4
analyzed how the UNSNA rules make women’s work within households
invisible, which carries over into the way voluntary work is recorded
206
 COUNTING FOR NOTHING: WARING’S CRITIQUE

in Census questionnaires around the world (discussed in chapter 5).

Chapter 6 acknowledged that economists were aware of three difficulties
in the UNSNA – how to measure the hidden economy, how to integrate
environmental pollution costs, and how to value leisure time – but pointed
out that efforts by the profession to address these difficulties simply
reinforced the contrast to the way in which “women’s work continues to
be ignored” (Waring 1988: 164).
The book’s second half moved into more detailed analyses of
these themes. Chapters 7 and 8 compared the UNSNA’s exclusion of
reproductive activities with its inclusion of war-orientated activities. Chapter
9 focused on the exclusion of household production for own consumption:
“The conceptual models are limited to the world that the economist
knows or observes, and housework is most certainly not part of that
world” (Waring 1988: 225). Chapter 10 focused on the exclusion of
environmental values and the invisibility in the UNSNA of the threat of
ecological devastation. Chapters 11 and 12 reported Waring’s search for
alternatives, finishing with a brief exploration of how unpaid work and
the natural environment might be incorporated into more comprehensive
understandings of a national economy, using models developed by Hazel
Henderson (1981) and by Hilkka Pietilä (1987) to argue for different
conceptual approaches.
The book was well received on publication. It was reviewed in academic
journals by Hazel Henderson (1990) and Harry H. Postner (1992) and for
a wider readership by Mary Huff Stevenson (1989) and Brenda Hancock
(1989). It was cited in Marianne A. Ferber and Julie A. Nelson’s (1993)
introduction to the foundational volume Beyond Economic Man: Feminist
Theory and Economics (and also by Julie A. Nelson 1995). It became the
subject of a 1995 documentary of the National Film Board of Canada,
Who’s Counting? Marilyn Waring on Sex, Lies and Global Economics. French,
Japanese, Norwegian, and Spanish translations of her book followed, and
the University of Toronto Press published an extended second edition in
1999 (Marilyn Waring 1999).
The Thomson Reuters Web of Science database (accessed February 17,
2014) records that the book was cited 335 times between 1988 and 2014.
Consistent with observations by Diana Strassmann (1993), Prue Hyman
(1994: chapter 1), Frances Woolley (2005), and Frederic Lee (2008), there
are fewer citations of this feminist contribution in the highest-ranking
economics journals, which have preferred to cite a contemporaneous
article by Robert Eisner (1988). Nevertheless, a feature of Waring’s book is
the breadth of its academic reach, with large citation counts in the diverse
research areas of business economics (89 citations), women’s studies (68),
sociology or social sciences other topics (65), public administration (36),
government or law (36), environmental sciences or ecology (24), and
other research areas (84). These statistics, however, do not capture the full
207
 ARTICLE

character of the publication’s influence; for Waring herself, the intention

was to move beyond an academic audience to encourage empowered
women to pursue social and ecological justice, as memorably expressed in
her final paragraph:

We women are visible and valuable to each other, and we must, now
in our billions, proclaim that visibility and that worth. Our anger
must be creatively directed for change. We must remember that true
freedom is a world without fear. And if there is still confusion about
who will achieve that, then we must each of us walk to a clear pool of
water. Look at the water. It has value. Now look into the water. The
woman we see there counts for something. She can help to change the
world.(Waring 1988: 326)

Recent publications have documented the book’s inspiration for change.

In the forward to Margunn Bjørnholt and Ailsa McKay’s recent tribute
volume, Julie Nelson records how she could count on one hand the number
of people she had found who had put together “feminist” and “economics”
in the same sentence “when Marilyn Waring’s groundbreaking book came
out” (2014: ix). On the other side of the world, Debbie Budlender in South
Africa describes how the book is one of a small number that has changed
her worldview and how it played a part in her country’s first national
time-use survey (Shirin Rai, Debbie Budlender, and Ulla Grapard 2015:
525–7). In the diverse nation states of the Pacific Ocean, Tagaloatele Peggy
Fairbairn-Dunlop (2014: 121) explains how Waring’s critical perspective
“was hugely welcomed by Pacific women” and how her book was “a source of
inspiration in a decade of pivotal action (1990–2000).” That inspiration has
been fueled by Waring’s supervision of many postgraduate students from
the Pacific and other parts of the world (Karen Webster 2014).
In her home country of New Zealand, Waring’s research coincided with
the creation in 1985 of the Ministry of Women’s Affairs. The then Director
of Policy, Mary-Jane Rivers, has recalled how Waring’s research provided
important foundations for the Ministry’s program that included the first
studies of women in the national economy (Anne Horsfield 1988; Anne
Horsfield and Miriama Evans 1988); further, Waring’s research led directly
to the Ministry’s decision to initiate the first time-use survey in New Zealand
in 1990 (Paul Dalziel and Caroline Saunders 2014a). For one of the authors
of this article, Waring’s book made a lifelong impression when read as a
young academic in 1988, and for both authors Waring’s conceptual insights
have provided essential tools for well-being economics (Paul Dalziel and
Caroline Saunders 2014b). Marty Grace and Lyn Craig similarly explain
the impact in Australia of this conceptual work (2014: 213):

We characterise Waring’s work as creating conceptual tools for change

because her timely and meaningful ideas became shared concepts
208
 COUNTING FOR NOTHING: WARING’S CRITIQUE

in the minds and conversations of the people influenced by her

work. These shared understandings became incorporated into the
Australian social policy discourse. Many academics, policymakers,
politicians and ordinary Australians read and understood Waring’s
work, and used her concepts in talking to each other and
developing understandings and proposals that have eventually led to
change.

Waring’s book has been very important in Canada. Mara Fridell and
Lorna Turnbull (2014) tell how forty-five women in 1995 traveled from
Manitoba in the center of Canada to attend the Fourth World Conference
on Women in Beijing, China. Inspired by that experience and by Marilyn
Waring’s book, they founded the United Nations Platform for Action
Committee (UNPAC) six months later. The Committee’s first conference
was the “Marilyn Waring Counting Women’s Work” conference, and their
account concludes: “Across geographies, across social divides, and across
liberation’s surges and retrenchments, organizations like UNPAC magnify
Waring’s work, advancing the visibility, claiming the value, and promoting
the fearlessness of women” (Fridell and Turnbull 2014: 260). Waring
continues to be a member of the Advisory Board that supervises the
Canadian Index of Wellbeing (2012).
The above narratives are illustrations of how If Women Counted has
supported women and men around the globe to work for change through
its articulation of shared concepts and its encouragement of personal
empowerment. Change has occurred over the last two decades, and
so it is timely to revisit the criticism that the UNSNA acts as applied
patriarchy.

T H E UN S N A A N D T H E I D E O L O G Y O F P A T R I A R C H Y
Those responsible for the UNSNA have not been impervious to criticisms
of its asset and production boundaries. The strategy has been to maintain
a “central framework” where the exclusions generally remain in place
(although small changes have been made; the 1993 revision, for example,
expanded the production boundary to include household services of
firewood collection and water supply) and then to provide for linked
satellite accounts where the excluded items can be measured. Thus, in
terms of the central framework, the rules continue to state that “natural
resources that are not capable of bringing economic benefits to their
owners are outside the scope of assets in the SNA” (United Nations 2009:
19; the atmosphere and the high seas are given as examples on page
7), and the following six services produced by household members for
consumption within the same household are specifically listed as outside
209
 ARTICLE

the production boundary:

a. The cleaning, decoration and maintenance of the dwelling occupied

by the household, including small repairs of a kind usually carried out
by tenants as well as owners;
b. The cleaning, servicing and repair of household durables or other
goods, including vehicles used for household purposes;
c. The preparation and serving of meals;
d. The care, training and instruction of children;
e. The care of sick, infirm or old people;
f. The transportation of members of the household or their goods. (98)

The manual recognizes that these activities not only involve a

considerable amount of labor, but also make an important contribution
to economic welfare; yet it nevertheless argues that “national accounts
serve a variety of analytical and policy purposes and are not compiled
simply, or even primarily, to produce indicators of welfare” (98; the
phrase “or even primarily” is an addition to the 1993 text). Instead,
the manual’s overview explains that “the central framework describes the
essential phenomena which constitute economic behaviour: production,
consumption, accumulation and the associated concepts of income and
wealth” (15).
This explanation is at the heart of Waring’s critique. Recall Waring’s
argument that the economic theory underlying national income
accounting constructs reality in a particular way, by deciding what facts
are relevant to an analysis and what parts of human experiences are
kept economically invisible. Updating that argument, the UNSNA does
not simply describe essential phenomena constituting economic behavior;
its rules of inclusion and exclusion define those essential phenomena,
particularly for policy purposes, and moreover they do so in a narrow
way that removes the six activities listed above from economic behavior
and ignores the impacts of human activity on non-owned natural
resources.
Consequently, we argue that the conceptual tools provided in If Women
Counted continue to offer a profound challenge to the UNSNA central
framework. Waring insists that activities to care for sick, infirm, or
old people (to take one example from the above list) are essential
economic phenomena, whether they take place within a hospice or within
a household. Waring insists that the impacts of economic activities on
the natural environment are essential economic phenomena, whether
the affected resources are owned for economic benefit or are part of
humanity’s common heritage. Waring insists, following an argument she
drew from Joan Robinson (1955), that if the UNSNA is unable to include
recognition of all economic activity then the system is exposed as an
210
 COUNTING FOR NOTHING: WARING’S CRITIQUE

ideology functioning to legitimize the invalid propaganda of patriarchy

(Waring 1988: 44).
These observations are not intended to trivialize the changes that have
occurred in the UNSNA, nor to downplay the achievements of international
programs such as the Accounting for Women’s Work project. The practice
to allow satellite accounts that are linked to the central framework (United
Nations 2009: chapter 29) represents progress of a kind. Four examples
highlighted in the 2008 revision are: (1) tourism satellite accounts;
(2) environmental accounting; (3) health satellite accounts; and (4)
unpaid household activity. Among these examples, however, standards for
measuring unpaid household activity remain hopelessly underdeveloped,
as the manual explains: “This has been an area of interest for very many
years but the difficulties in determining how to measure unpaid activities
has so far been a stumbling block in reaching international agreement
on how to proceed” (531). Even Coyle’s affectionate history of GDP
is moved to comment that it is really not difficult to measure unpaid
housework through surveys, “but generally official statistics agencies have
never bothered – perhaps because it has been carried out mainly by
women” (2014: 108).
Thus, although satellite accounts may be a step in the right direction, they
are not sufficient to counter the normative power that the UNSNA central
framework exercises for defining core concepts and so framing economic
policies in particular ways. The opening paragraph of the current manual
expresses this well:

The System of National Accounts (SNA) is the internationally agreed

standard set of recommendations on how to compile measures
of economic activity . . . expressed in terms of a set of concepts,
definitions, classifications and accounting rules that comprise the
internationally agreed standard for measuring such items as gross
domestic product (GDP), the most frequently quoted indicator of
economic performance.(United Nations 2009: 1, emphasis added)

While economic performance is so strongly linked to GDP, and while

GDP is so narrowly defined to exclude unpaid household work and
impacts on the natural environment, the UNSNA cannot help but reflect
the patriarchal values of its origins in the first half of the twentieth
century.
It is being increasingly recognized that it is not sensible to treat the
so-called “economic system” in isolation from social and environmental
goals. A good example is the urgent problem of climate change. The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concludes, for example, that
“human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic
211
 ARTICLE

emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history” (IPCC 2014: 2).
It continues: “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the
1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to
millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow
and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.” Nevertheless, the UNSNA
deliberately excludes the atmosphere and the deep seas from the definition
of “the most frequently quoted indicator of economic performance” (IPCC
2014: 2). As Waring (1988) entitled her Chapter 10 on economics and the
exploitation of the planet, “your economic theory makes no sense.”
Similarly, there is a growing literature recognizing that work that is
classified within the UNSNA production boundary and work that is
classified outside the boundary have strong connections that should not
be ignored by policymakers. This was emphasized by Rania Antonopoulos
in her 2008 background paper for the International Labour Organization,
who analyzed the essential nature of the daily social reproduction of all
members of society achieved through unpaid care work. The connections
work both ways – market activities are effectively subsidized by this unpaid
care work, but the care work is made easier or more difficult by access to
market-provided resources and infrastructure. Detailed knowledge about
unpaid care work is therefore critical for successful macroeconomic and
microeconomic policies.
Considerations such as these have encouraged statistical agencies to
begin thinking more broadly about how to measure wellbeing beyond
the national accounts, leading to country-specific initiatives such as the
United Kingdom’s national well-being program (Abigail Self, Jennifer
Thomas, and Chris Randall 2012), and the creation of integrated sets of
broad statistical indicators such as the World Bank’s World Development
Indicators database (data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-
indicators), the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development’s Better Life Initiative (OECD 2011), and the European
Union’s Sustainable Development Strategy (Eurostat 2011). These projects
have their own weaknesses (see, for example, the critique of the UK
program by Karen Scott [2015]), but they aim to track a full range
of changes that affect human well-being so that policymakers are not
restricted to a narrow understanding of what counts as good economic
performance.

CONCLUSION
This article has revisited Waring’s analysis in 1988 of the United Nations
System of National Accounts as “applied patriarchy.” This is timely in the
light of recent publications that recognize shortcomings in the UNSNA
but have nevertheless continued to support gross domestic product as a
useful statistic. The article has explained the historical and personal context
212
 COUNTING FOR NOTHING: WARING’S CRITIQUE

for the book’s analysis, emphasizing postwar patriarchal values as well as

Waring’s experiences as a Member of the New Zealand Parliament (1975–
84) and her active engagement with women in developed and developing
countries around the world. It has illustrated the support given by If Women
Counted to women and men around the globe working for change; and
it has recognized that change has occurred over the last two decades,
including provision for satellite accounts in the UNSNA that can include
environmental accounting and unpaid household activity. Nevertheless, we
conclude that Waring’s book remains a profound challenge to the UNSNA
central framework and will continue to do so while the system excludes
unpaid household work and impacts on the natural environment from its
core statistics.
It need not be this way. This article has commented at several points
on how wartime experiences influenced social norms and structures
in wider society and also influenced the design of the first sets
of national accounts by economists. Another social movement that
emerged from those experiences was a commitment to fundamental
human rights. The United Nations emerged from World War II, for
example, and its Charter begins by expressing the determination “to
save succeeding generations from the scourge of war” (see www.un.org/
en/sections/un-charter/preamble/index.html). This is followed by
determinations “to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the
dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and
women and of nations large and small” and “to promote social progress
and better standards of life in larger freedom.” This vision should be a spur
for creating a better national accounting system that covers all economic
activity and includes all the anthropogenic impacts on social and natural
environments (see, for example, Jane Gleeson-White 2015).

Caroline Saunders
Lincoln University – AERU
PO Box 85084, Lincoln 7647, New Zealand
e-mail: [email protected]

Paul Dalziel
Lincoln University – AERU
PO Box 85084, Lincoln 7647, New Zealand
e-mail: [email protected]

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS
Caroline Saunders is Professor of Trade and Environmental Economics
and Director of the Agribusiness and Economics Research Unit (AERU)
at Lincoln University, New Zealand. Her research focuses on sustainable
213
 ARTICLE

well-being, including recent publications in Agricultural and Resource

Economics Review, Ecological Economics, Energy Policy, Environmental and
Resource Economics, Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, Journal
of Political Science, and Review of Agricultural Economics. She serves on the
Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand and received the NZIER
Economics Award in 2007.
Paul Dalziel is Professor of Economics and Deputy Director of the
Agribusiness and Economics Research Unit (AERU) at Lincoln University,
New Zealand. His research focuses on economic policy, including regional
economic development. His work has been published in Cambridge Journal
of Economics, Journal of Economic Surveys, Journal of Human Development and
Capabilities, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, and Review of Political Economy.
He is the coauthor with Caroline Saunders of Wellbeing Economics: Future
Directions for New Zealand, published by Bridget Williams Books in 2014.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors are pleased to acknowledge the assistance of Marilyn Waring
in the preparation of this paper. They are also very grateful for insightful
comments on two earlier drafts from referees and an Associate Editor of
the journal.

NOTE
1 The book appeared under two titles – Counting for Nothing: What Men Value and What
Women Are Worth in the author’s home country of New Zealand, and If Women Counted:
A New Feminist Economics elsewhere. This article’s title refers to the New Zealand one,
but all citations are from If Women Counted.

REFERENCES

Ahmad, Nadim and Seung-Hee Koh. 2011. “Incorporating Estimates of Household

Production of Non-market Services into International Comparisons of Material
Well-being.” Working Paper 42, Statistics Directorate. Paris: OECD.
Antonopoulos, Rania. 2008. “The Unpaid Care Work – Paid Work Connection.” Working
Paper 541. Annandale-on-Hudson: Levy Economics Institute of Bard College.
Antonopoulos, Rania and Indira Hirway, eds. 2010. Unpaid Work and the Economy: Gender,
Time Use and Poverty in Developing Countries. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Baker, Maureen. 2012. “Family Welfare – A Model Welfare State, 1946–1969.” Te Ara –
The Encyclopedia of New Zealand. www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/family-welfare/page-4.
Baysting, Arthur, Dyan Campbell, and Margaret Dagg. 1993. Making Policy . . . Not Tea:
Women in Parliament. Auckland, NZ: Oxford University Press.
Benería, Lourdes. 1979. “Reproduction, Production and the Sexual Division of Labor.”
Cambridge Journal of Economics 3(3): 203–25.
______. 1981. “Conceptualizing the Labor Force: The Underestimation of Women’s
Economic Activities.” Journal of Development Studies 17(3): 10–28.
______. 1982. Women and Development – The Sexual Division of Labor in Rural Societies: A
Study. New York: Praeger.

214
 COUNTING FOR NOTHING: WARING’S CRITIQUE

______. 1992. “Accounting for Women’s Work: The Progress of Two Decades.” World
Development 20(11): 1547–60.
______. 2003. Gender, Development, and Globalization: Economics as if All People Mattered. New
York: Routledge.
______. 2012. “Globalization, Labor, and Women’s Work: Critical Challenges for a Post-
Neoliberal World.” In Harvesting Feminist Knowledge for Public Policy: Rebuilding Progress,
edited by Devaki Jain and Diane Elson, 70–92. London: SAGE.
Benería, Lourdes and Gita Sen. 1981. “Accumulation, Reproduction, and Women’s Role
in Economic Development: Boserup Revisited.” Signs 7(2): 279–98.
Bjørnholt, Margunn and Ailsa McKay, eds. 2014. Counting on Marilyn Waring: New
Advances in Feminist Economics. Bradford, ON: Demeter Press.
Boserup, Ester. 1970. Woman’s Role in Economic Development. New York: St. Martin’s.
Bridgman, Benjamin, Andrew Dugan, Mikhael Lal, Matthew Osborne, and Shaunda
Villones. 2012. “Accounting for Household Production in the National Accounts,
1965–2010."Survey of Current Business 25 (May): 23–36.
Brosnan, Peter and Moira Wilson. 1989. “The Historical Structuring of the New Zealand
Labour Market.” Industrial Relations Centre Working Paper 4–89. Wellington, NZ:
Victoria University of Wellington.
Canadian Index of Wellbeing. 2012. How are Canadians Really Doing? The 2012 CIW Report.
Waterloo, ON: Canadian Index of Wellbeing and University of Waterloo.
Coyle, Diane. 2014. GDP: A Brief but Affectionate History. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Daly, Herman E. and John B. Cobb Jr. 1989. For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economic
toward Community, the Environment, and a Sustainable Future. Boston: Beacon Press.
Dalziel, Paul and Caroline Saunders. 2014a. “Statement of the Contribution of Professor
Marilyn Waring.” Unpublished nomination of Marilyn Waring for the NZIER
Economics Award 2014, AERU, Lincoln University.
______. 2014b. Wellbeing Economics: Future Directions for New Zealand. Wellington: Bridget
Williams Books.
Dow, Sheila C. 1990. “Beyond Dualism.” Cambridge Journal of Economics 14(2):
143–57.
Du Plessis, Rosemary. 1993. “Women, Politics, and the State.” In State and Economy in
New Zealand, edited by Brian Roper and Chris Rudd, 210–25. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Eisner, Robert. 1988. “Extended Accounts for National Income and Product.” Journal of
Economic Literature 26(4): 1611–84.
England, Paula. 1993. “The Separative Self: Androcentric Bias in Neoclassical
Assumptions.” In Beyond Economic Man: Feminist Theory and Economics, edited by
Marianne A. Ferber and Julie A. Nelson, 37–53. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Esquivel, Valeria. 2011. “Sixteen Years after Beijing: What are the New Policy Agendas
for Time-Use Data Collection?” Feminist Economics 17(4): 215–38.
Eurostat. 2011. Sustainable Development in the European Union: 2011 Monitoring Report of the
EU Sustainable Development Strategy. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the
European Communities.
Fairbairn-Dunlop, Tagaloatele Peggy. 2014. “A Pacific Way of Counting.” In Counting on
Marilyn Waring: New Advances in Feminist Economics, edited by Margunn Bjørnholt and
Ailsa McKay, 121–37. Bradford, ON: Demeter Press.
Fender, Valerie, Rosemary Foster, Atif Khan, Sue Punt, and Gerard Carolan. 2013.
Household Satellite Accounts, Valuing Informal Childcare in the UK. London: Office for
National Statistics.

215
 ARTICLE

Ferber, Marianne A. and Julie A. Nelson. 1993. “Introduction.” In Beyond Economic Man:
Feminist Theory and Economics, edited by Marianne A. Ferber and Julie A. Nelson, 1–22.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Folbre, Nancy. 1996. “Introduction: For Margaret, With Thanks."Feminist Economics 2(3):
xi–xii.
Folbre, Nancy and Heidi Hartmann. 1988. “The Rhetoric of Self-interest: Ideology and
Gender in Economic Theory.” In The Consequences of Economic Rhetoric, edited by Arjo
Klamer, Deirdre N. McCloskey, and Robert M. Solow, 184–203. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Folbre, Nancy and Julie A. Nelson. 2000. “For Love or Money–Or Both?” Journal of
Economic Perspectives 14(4): 123–40.
Fridell, Mara and Lorna Turnbull. 2014. “Resilient Feminism: Social Movement Strategy
in a Conservative Regnum.” In Counting on Marilyn Waring: New Advances in Feminist
Economics, edited by Margunn Bjørnholt and Ailsa McKay, 247–62. Bradford, ON:
Demeter Press.
Friedan, Betty. (1963) 1965. The Feminine Mystique. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.
Gilbert, Milton. 1942. “Measuring National Income as Affected by the War.” Journal of the
American Statistical Association 37(218): 186–98.
Gleeson-White, Jane. 2015. Six Capitals, or Can Accountants Save the Planet. New York: W.
W. Norton.
Grace, Marty and Lyn Craig. 2014. “Creating Conceptual Tools for Change: Marilyn
Waring’s Influence in Australia.” In Counting on Marilyn Waring: New Advances in
Feminist Economics, edited by Margunn Bjørnholt and Ailsa McKay, 211–27. Bradford,
ON: Demeter Press.
Hamunen, Eeva, Johanna Varjonen, and Katri Soinne. 2012. “Satellite Accounts on
Household Production: Eurostat Methodology and Experiences to Apply It.” Paper
prepared for the 32nd General Conference on the International Association for
Research in Income and Wealth, Boston, 5–11 August.
Hancock, Brenda. 1989. “The Other Half.” New Statesman and Society, 8 September, p. 37.
Henderson, Hazel. 1981. The Politics of the Solar Age: Alternatives to Economics. New York:
Anchor Press/Doubleday.
______. 1990. “Economics Demolition and Reconstruction.” Futures 22(5): 530–32.
Horsfield, Anne. 1988. Women in the Economy. Wellington: Ministry of Women’s Affairs.
Horsfield, Anne and Miriama Evans. 1988. Maori Women in the Economy. Wellington:
Ministry of Women’s Affairs.
Hyman, Prue. 1981. “Women and Low Pay – A Review Article.” New Zealand Journal of
Industrial Relations 6(2): 78–89.
______. 1994. Women and Economics: A New Zealand Feminist Perspective. Wellington: Bridget
Williams Books.
IPCC. 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Geneva: Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change.
Keynes, John Maynard. 1940. How to Pay for the War. London: Macmillan.
Lee, Frederic. 2008. “A Comment on ‘The Citation Impact of Feminist Economics’.”
Feminist Economics 14(1): 137–42.
McCallum, Janet. 1993. Women in the House: Members of Parliament in New Zealand.
Auckland: Cape Catley.
Nelson, Julie A. 1995. “Feminism and Economics.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 9(2):
131–48.
Nelson, Julie A. 2014. “Foreword.” In Counting on Marilyn Waring: New Advances in
Feminist Economics, edited by Margunn Bjørnholt and Ailsa McKay, ix–x. Bradford, ON:
Demeter Press.
Newland, Kathleen. 1979. The Sisterhood of Man. New York: Norton.

216
 COUNTING FOR NOTHING: WARING’S CRITIQUE

OECD. 2011. How’s Life? Measuring Well-being. Paris: OECD.

Pietilä, Hilkka. 1987. “Tomorrow Begins Today: Elements for a Feminine Alternative
in the North.” IFDA Dossier 57/58: 37–50. http://www.burmalibrary.org/docs19/ifda_
dossier-57_58.pdf.
Postner, Harry H. 1992. “Review of If Women Counted: A New Feminist Economics.” Review of
Income and Wealth 38(2): 237–43.
Rai, Shirin, Debbie Budlender, and Ulla Grapard. 2015. “Feminist Classics/Many Voices:
Marilyn Waring. If Women Counted: A New Feminist Economics."International Feminist
Journal of Politics 16(3): 523–9.
Reid, Margaret. 1934. Economics of Household Production. New York: Wiley.
Robinson, Joan. 1955. “Marx, Marshall, and Keynes.” Delhi School of Economics
Occasional Papers 9. Delhi, India: Delhi School of Economics, University
of Delhi.
Rogers, Barbara. 1981. The Domestication of Women: Discrimination in Developing Societies.
London: Tavistock.
Scott, Karen. 2015. “Happiness on Your Doorstep: Disputing the Boundaries of
Wellbeing and Localism.” Geographical Journal 181(2): 129–137.
Select Committee on Women’s Rights. 1975. The Role of Women in New Zealand Society.
Wellington: Government Printer.
Self, Abigail, Jennifer Thomas, and Chris Randall. 2012. Measuring National Well-being:
Life in the UK, 2012. London: Office for National Statistics.
Stevenson, Mary Huff. 1989. “Book & Business; Gender and the G.N.P.” New York Times
Book Review, 29 October, p. 36.
Stiglitz, Joseph E., Amartya Sen, and Jean-Paul Fitoussi. 2009. Report by the
Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress. http://
www.insee.fr/fr/publications-et-services/dossiers_web/stiglitz/doc-commission/
RAPPORT_anglais.pdf.
Strassmann, Diana. 1993. “Not a Free Market: The Rhetoric of Disciplinary Authority in
Economics.” In Beyond Economic Man: Feminist Theory and Economics, edited by Marianne
A. Ferber and Julie A. Nelson, 54–68. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Templeton, Hugh. 1995. All Honourable Men: Inside the Muldoon Cabinet 1975–1984.
Auckland: Auckland University Press.
United Nations. 1953. A System of National Accounts and Supporting Tables. Department
of Economic Affairs Statistical Office, Studies in Methods, Series F, No. 2. New York:
United Nations.
______. 1968. A System of National Accounts. Department of Economic and Social Affairs
Statistical Office of the United Nations, Studies in Methods, Series F, No. 2. Rev. 3.
New York: United Nations.
______. 1993. System of National Accounts 1993. Prepared under the auspices of the Inter-
Secretariat Working Group on National Accounts. Published by the Commission
of the European Communities, the International Monetary Fund, the Organisation
for Economic Co-operation and Development, the United Nations, and the
World Bank.
______. 2009. System of National Accounts 2008. Published by the European Commission,
the International Monetary Fund, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development, the United Nations and the World Bank.
Waring, Marilyn. 1988. If Women Counted: A New Feminist Economics. San Francisco: Harper
and Row.
______. 1999. Counting for Nothing: What Men Value and What Women Are Worth. 2nd ed.
Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

217
 ARTICLE

Webster, Karen. 2014. “Post-graduate Supervision with M.J.W.” In Counting on Marilyn

Waring: New Advances in Feminist Economics, edited by Margunn Bjørnholt and Ailsa
McKay, 279–93. Bradford, ON: Demeter Press.
Woolley, Frances. 2005. “The Citation Impact of Feminist Economics.” Feminist Economics
11(3): 85–106.
Yi, Yun-Ae. 1996. “Margaret G. Reid: Life and Achievements.” Feminist Economics 2(3):
17–36.

218
Copyright of Feminist Economics is the property of Routledge and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.