By structuring economic analysis around what could be counted in national accounts, the accounts enforced the commodified-utilities frame and transformed productive labour into paid labour.

By structuring economic analysis around what could be counted in national accounts, the accounts enforced the commodified-utilities frame and transformed productive labour into paid labour.

• National income accounts, the dominant economic statistical representation, measured primarily market transactions and thereby made nonmonetary utility exchanges, including unpaid household work, unobservable.
• The accounts' primary inclusion criterion was market transactions; consequently, market transactions came to define productive activity.
  Evidence for this premise (2)

  What counts as productive? Redefining ‘producers’ in economic discourse, 1890–1960 — National accounts institutionalize commodified utility and convert productive labour into paid labour

  The primary criterion national accounts used were market transactions

  https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2024.2404355#unit-6-p3

  What counts as productive? Redefining ‘producers’ in economic discourse, 1890–1960 — National accounts institutionalize commodified utility and convert productive labour into paid labour

  The primary criterion national accounts used were market transactions

  https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2024.2404355#unit-6-p3
• By imposing no ethical or practical qualifiers on utility transfers, national accounts also excluded earlier moral and practical limits on what market transactions should count as productive.
  Evidence for this premise (2)

  What counts as productive? Redefining ‘producers’ in economic discourse, 1890–1960 — National accounts institutionalize commodified utility and convert productive labour into paid labour

  national accounts simultaneously removed from the table any ethical or other practical limits

  https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2024.2404355#unit-6-p5

  What counts as productive? Redefining ‘producers’ in economic discourse, 1890–1960 — National accounts institutionalize commodified utility and convert productive labour into paid labour

  national accounts simultaneously removed from the table any ethical or other practical limits

  https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2024.2404355#unit-6-p5
• National accounting construction explicitly excluded housework, defining work primarily done by women in the home as unproductive.
  Evidence for this premise (2)

  What counts as productive? Redefining ‘producers’ in economic discourse, 1890–1960 — National accounts institutionalize commodified utility and convert productive labour into paid labour

  the most contentious decision was to exclude housework from the accounts

  https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2024.2404355#unit-6-p6

  What counts as productive? Redefining ‘producers’ in economic discourse, 1890–1960 — National accounts institutionalize commodified utility and convert productive labour into paid labour

  the most contentious decision was to exclude housework from the accounts

  https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2024.2404355#unit-6-p6
• By the mid-twentieth century, national income accounting statistics had become the dominant means of statistically representing economies.
  Evidence for this premise (2)

  What counts as productive? Redefining ‘producers’ in economic discourse, 1890–1960 — National accounts institutionalize commodified utility and convert productive labour into paid labour

  the development of national income accounting statistics as the dominant way to statistically represent economies by the mid-twentieth century

  https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2024.2404355#unit-6-p1

  What counts as productive? Redefining ‘producers’ in economic discourse, 1890–1960 — National accounts institutionalize commodified utility and convert productive labour into paid labour

  the development of national income accounting statistics as the dominant way to statistically represent economies by the mid-twentieth century

  https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2024.2404355#unit-6-p1
• Because the accounts relied on market transactions, nonmonetary transactions—including utility exchanges outside markets—became empirically unobservable to economists.
  Evidence for this premise (2)

  What counts as productive? Redefining ‘producers’ in economic discourse, 1890–1960 — National accounts institutionalize commodified utility and convert productive labour into paid labour

  making any nonmonetary economic transactions, including the exchange of utilities outside of market transactions, impossible to observe

  https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2024.2404355#unit-6-p4

  What counts as productive? Redefining ‘producers’ in economic discourse, 1890–1960 — National accounts institutionalize commodified utility and convert productive labour into paid labour

  making any nonmonetary economic transactions, including the exchange of utilities outside of market transactions, impossible to observe

  https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2024.2404355#unit-6-p4
• National income accounts measure income flows in nationally bounded economies and were constructed through contested measurement decisions, including decisions about utility-providing activities without clear market payments.
  Evidence for this premise (2)

  What counts as productive? Redefining ‘producers’ in economic discourse, 1890–1960 — National accounts institutionalize commodified utility and convert productive labour into paid labour

  National income accounting statistics measure the flows of income throughout a nationally bounded economy.

  https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2024.2404355#unit-6-p2

  What counts as productive? Redefining ‘producers’ in economic discourse, 1890–1960 — National accounts institutionalize commodified utility and convert productive labour into paid labour

  National income accounting statistics measure the flows of income throughout a nationally bounded economy.

  https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2024.2404355#unit-6-p2

These are challenges this argument’s reasoning pattern must still withstand. Answering them on Isonomia strengthens the argument.

• Could a different cause produce the same effect E in this case?Open
• Is there a plausible causal mechanism by which C could bring about E?Open
• How strong is the causal generalization linking C to E? Are there documented cases where C does not produce E?Open
• Are there intervening or confounding factors that could interfere with the causal chain from C to E?Open
• Is the apparent link between C and E merely a post hoc correlation rather than a causal relation?Open

Cited by 1 · 0 contests