| 10/11/2006||Armenia||The National Statistical Service of the Republic of Armenia agrees with the most recent AEG recommendations.|
| 9/29/2006||Bank of Korea||We agree to the recommendations in general. |
| 8/21/2006||Central Bank of El Salvador||Se está de acuerdo con el AEG. Sería conveniente que proporcionen algunos ejemplos específicos de cómo medirlo.|
The SCN agrees with the AEG. It would be worthwhile to provide some specific examples of how this should be measured.
| 8/18/2006||Netherlands||We generally support the recommendations made at the Frankfurt Meeting of the AEG. |
| 8/18/2006||USA||We generally agree with the recommendations of the AEG. In drafting the text, however, care should be taken to avoid setting prescriptive rules and to allow for the possibility that through research, the state of the art in measuring non-market output may improve.|
| 8/2/2006||European Central Bank||The ECB generally supports the recommendations made by the AEG.|
| 8/1/2006||National Bank/National Bureau of Moldova||National Bank and National Bureau for Statistics of Moldova agree with the recommendations made at the latest meeting of the AEG.
| 8/1/2006||Reserve Bank of South Africa||We carefully worked through all the issues and would like to give our general support to the recommendations made by the AEG.|
| 7/31/2006||Macao SAR||Statistics and Census Service of Macao SAR agrees to the AEG recommendations and has no further comments.|
| 7/31/2006||Bosnia and Herzegovina||We agree with AEG recommendations on the update of the 1993 SNA and do not have any further comments.|
| 7/28/2006||Vietnam||- I also agree with the outcomes of the AEG in this area.
- However, in the new updated SNA, we should have definitions and methods to measure to value of non market output of market NPIS. So far in the existing SNA 93, no discussion has been made for the value of non market output of market output of market NPIs.
| 7/28/2006||National Bank of Slovakia||Concerning the results of the most recent AEG meeting, we fully support the conclusions and recommendations made by the AEG.|
| 7/28/2006||Bank of Portugal||Banco de Portugal would like to express general support for the recommendations made in the Frankfurt meeting of the Advisory Expert Group on National Accounts (AEG). |
| 7/28/2006||Bank of Poland||Please find our general support for the AEG recommendations made during its recent meeting in Frankfurt. |
| 7/27/2006||Bank of Sierra Leone||We agree with the recommendations made by the AEG.|
| 7/25/2006||Bank of Italy||We broadly support the conclusions.|
| 7/24/2006||Switzerland||We welcome the attempt to clarify the conditions of a proper measurement of prices and volumes for non-market activities in the new SNA and also support the 3 recommendations which were agreed in the e-discussion. We share the view of the AEG that marginal benefits should not be described as the basis for measuring the volume of non-market services. It would be risky to associate the theory of marginalism, which is proper of a competitive market, to a one supplier economy where services are free of charge. While the marginal benefits approach can be a good proxy, it is not the perfect method to evaluate a non-market service. It would therefore be inappropriate to mention this approach in the manual|
| 7/24/2006||National Bank of the Republic of Azerbaijan||We have analyzed the “Comment on the recommendations of the most recent Advisory Expert Group on National Accounts (AEG) meeting (January 30 – February 8, 2006) in Frankfurt” within the scope of our responsibilities and I am pleased to inform you that we are in agreement with the AEG recommendations. |
| 7/24/2006||Central Bank of Costa Rica||We support the recommendations of the AEG to include in the revised SNA more guidance regarding output indicators for non-market production.|
| 7/12/2006||Finland||We agree with the AEG clarifications. We do not support the inclusion of new sentences in Chapter 16 of the SNA discussing the importance in theory of taking into account marginal benefits to households in the estimation of the volume change of non market services. But more precise definitions of input/output/outcome should be included in the new SNA. We agree, on a general level, to include in the new SNA practical descriptions of acceptable output indicators. ‘Descriptions should be only as an illustration of the general principles and should emphasize that the indicators may be appropriate in some countries and not in others. It should be clear that they are intended as examples, not as requirements. Best practice in measurement of price and volume changes over time.’|
We also agree to revise paragraph 16.139 to give it a more positive tone and reflect current thinking.
| 12/13/2005||Canada||Canada agrees that this is an important topic which could benefit from some elaboration in SNA93. Canada believes that the "state of the art" measurement in this area has yet to be established, since no methodology has evolved that can account for quality change in direct measures of outputs. More work and research should be encouraged to address the issue.|