I. Introduction

For several decades, economics has largely neglected domestic work. This unpaid labor, mostly carried out by women, is indispensable to the functioning of the market economy (Himmelweit 1995; Elson 2021). It sustains individuals’ capacity to work, enables the reproduction of productive forces (Folbre 1994), and shapes professional trajectories (Goldin 2006, 2021). Yet, it remains missing from national economic measures. This paradox, the fundamental importance of an activity rendered economically invisible, is the starting point of this study.

The history of its valuation reveals a sequence of continuities and ruptures: from the early 20th century’s tacit but methodologically constrained acknowledgment (Mitchell, Kuznets, and important European works) to the diversification and improvement of approaches in the 1950s–1970s (opportunity cost methods, functional approaches, hybrid methods). These shifts show how, rather than being a purely technical matter, the value of domestic work continues to be at the junction of social and political concerns, and theoretical discussions.

These discussions and methodological adjustments were impacted by Oli Hawrylyshyn. Born in Ukraine in 1943, he escaped Hitler and Stalin’s governments to Canada (Douarin and Watchel 2023). Specializing in migration economics, he began to include domestic work in economic calculations in the 1970s. This change happened when feminist and critical movements pushed for its recognition in GDP calculations¹—to show women’s part in the economy and move toward social and legal recognition of their work (Hawrylyshyn 1974).

Oli Hawrylyshyn was a frequent attendee of the International Association for Research in Income and Wealth conferences.² He conducted several studies on the accounting of domestic work, initially theoretical and then empirical. The first focused on the limitations of GDP and possible ways to improve it (1974), while the second aimed to carry out international comparisons of the few studies that had been conducted on the accounting of domestic work (1976). He then developed a theoretical reflection to distinguish market activities from non-market activities (1977), before finally turning to detailed methodological analyses and the practical application of his concepts (1978). By developing useful methods to value domestic work, Hawrylyshyn extended Becker’s microeconomic theories to the macroeconomic level. The foundation for national accounting standards was provided by this work.

So, a key question is: How does Hawrylyshyn’s research challenge our view of domestic labor’s role in economic data, specifically in the history and methods of national accounting? Also, how does his link between Becker’s theory and problems with GDP help make a base for recognizing domestic work statistically, socially, and legally?

The role of gender in understanding the economy is gaining increasing attention in academic circles (Nelson 2016), with the Covid-19 pandemic helping to show that unpaid work remains essential (Couprie 2022). Moreover, the Nobel Prize-winning economist Claudia Goldin has shown how important it is to take into account the institutional and historical aspects of economics as well as gender in economic analysis (Goldin 1990, 2006) (Diebolt and Perrin 2024).

This study examines how economic models treat domestic work through the lens of Oli Hawrylyshyn, not only to clarify why it was either partially or fully included in national accounting, but also to show how his methodological and theoretical choices can still inform today’s debates on production and gender equality.

This article is organized as follows. Section II retraces the historical development of methodological approaches to measuring domestic work, starting with the first efforts at estimation in the early 20th century and continuing through the methodological diversification of the 1950s–1970s and the synthesis achieved by Oli Hawrylyshyn. Section III turns to the theoretical rupture introduced by Gary Becker, whose “new theory of the consumer” redefined the household as both a producing and a consuming unit. By defining the difference between direct and indirect utility, Hawrylyshyn expanded and criticized Becker’s analysis, as discussed in Section IV. Section V examines the practical application of this conceptual distinction and the use of the third-person criterion. In the final section (Section VII), the significance and legacy of Hawrylyshyn’s work are finally emphasized, particularly in France in the 1980s³ (Section VI).

II. The Historical Evolution of Methodological Approcaches to Valuing Domestic Work: Continuities, Ruptures and Conceptual Legacies

The economic valuation of domestic work is an old subject of study, regularly rediscovered in the wake of debates on measuring production and well-being. Since the early 1900s, different ways of measuring it have emerged, each based on specific ideas, techniques, and the data available at the time. This paper aims to show how this research area has changed over time by looking at the main ways of measuring housework’s value. It also places these discussions within the larger framework of the development of national accounting. While the first half of the 20th century was characterized by an implicit recognition of the economic value of domestic work, the lack of usable data prevented any systematic integration into national accounts. Although there is some interest in the methods developed during this time, they are still constrained by the prevalent conceptual framework inherited from Kuznets.

The Market Approximated Household Cost (MAHC) method estimates the value of housework by multiplying the average yearly cost of a domestic worker by the amount of households. This method was initially used in a study on the possibility of expanding the scope of national accounting, conducted by a Wesley C. Mitchell and his research team at the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) (Mitchell et al. 1921).

A major milestone was set by Simon Kuznets and his research collaborators at the National Bureau of Economic Research (Kuznets, Epstein, and Jenks 1941). In 1934, regarded as founding fathers of national accounting, they published National Income, 1929–1932, the first systematic estimate of U.S. national income. In the chapter Concept, Scope, and Method, they proposed a classification of goods and services to be included in national income, based on their market value, while pointing out its limitations:

Provides a fair description of the various groups of services which are included, at their market value, in the national income. But they are far from an exhaustive account of the possible contents and scope of the national income measurement (Kuznets, 1934, 3).

They stated: “a number of other services, in addition to those listed above, might also be considered a proper part of the national economy’s end-product” (Ibid., 3). The importance of household services was explicitly acknowledged, with the argument that the unpaid work performed by housewives and family members should be considered, as it significantly impacts national income when considering the scale of the population. However, they concluded that the organization of these services made them an integral part of family life rather than of the business life of the nation, and that it was therefore preferable to omit this large group of services from national income, particularly since no reliable basis was available for estimating their value. This choice, which established the dominant framework of national accounting, illustrates the tension between conceptual recognition and methodological impossibility. In Europe, pioneering works (in Sweden, Denmark or even Norway) adapted Kuznets’ method to their national contexts. However, their rudimentary nature led their authors to refrain from recommending the inclusion of domestic work in official accounts. In parallel, Benjamin Andrews (1923), without providing numerical estimates, proposed a methodological typology that anticipated debates still ongoing today.

Improved data availability and methodological advancements in the post-war era led to a diversification of approaches. The first one, the Work Opportunity-Cost of Time (WOCT) method calculates the potential hourly wage of individuals based on the number of hours spent on household tasks. One of the most complete uses of this strategy is given by Sirageldin (1973), who includes capital income, income tax, unemployment, illness, work-life imbalances, and more. These adjustments make it possible to calculate a “true opportunity-cost wage” applied to hours derived from time-use surveys. To incorporate domestic production into their Measure of Economic Welfare, Nordhaus and Tobin (1972) separated the population into groups based on their status (employed, unemployed, housewife, student, and other), then assigned each group a certain wage. Weinrobe (1974) also applied the WOCT method, but only to women, and showed that the growth of an expanded GDP (including domestic work) was lower than that of market GDP. The second one, the Market-Approximated Income from Functions (MAIF) divides the number of household type of task (cleaning, sewing, gardening, etc.) and assigns each one the appropriate market wage. Walker and Gauger (1969) used detailed time-use surveys to estimate the value of domestic tasks at the regional level first and then extended it to the national scale.

Some studies use hybrid approaches. For example, Morgan et al. (1962) focused on food self-production and home improvement work, valuing them based on the savings reported by households. Colin Clark (1958) used observed costs in institutions (orphanages, retirement homes, etc.) to calculate the value of domestic services and deducting the cost of goods and services that have been purchased.

Oli Hawrylyshyn’s contribution in the mid-1970s marked a decisive step forward in the international debate on how to measure domestic work. His 1976 article in the Review of Income and Wealth was the first to classify the approaches used since the 1960s in various national contexts, rather than creating new techniques. In doing so, he provided both a comparative framework and a critical reflection on their implications.

First, the replacement cost approach, views domestic work as interchangeable with market labor. It values household work at the rate of a general-purpose domestic worker.

$H=D\times N$

Where:

H: The annual value ($) of household work

D: The annual average salary of a domestic worker

N: The number of households

Second, the opportunity cost approach highlights the structural inequalities present in labor markets by calculating what the household member could have made in the labor market.

$H=P\times 52\times (QT \times W)$

Where:

H: The annual value ($) of household work

QT: The weekly hours devoted to household work

W: The opportunity cost wage (what the individual could earn in the market)

P: The number of individuals performing household work

Finally, the functional or production approach values each domestic task at the relevant market rate, by estimating the final output like meals or clothing.

$H=P\times 52\times {\Sigma }_{i=1}^n (Q{T}_i\times W_i)$

Where:

H: The annual value ($) of household work

P: The number of individuals performing household work

QT_i: The weekly hours devoted to household function i

W_i: The hourly market rate for the occupation corresponding to function i

n: The number of functions considered

His comparative analysis highlighted recurring biases. For example, replacement cost methods produce higher values. Inversely, functional approaches yield intermediate results but require detailed data. Finally, the choice of method reflects both a theoretical conception of domestic work and the availability of data. This first historical phase illustrates a paradox: while the role of domestic work is acknowledged, the lack of statistical tools has kept it at the margins of economic aggregates. This deadlock would set the stage for a conceptual revolution: rethinking the place of the household in economic theory itself.

III. From Consuption to Production: Becker’s Theory and the Valuation of Domestic Work Through the Opportunity Cost

The result of almost twenty years of methodological investigation was the synthesis proposed by Oli Hawrylyshyn in the middle of the 1970s. In addition to offering a methodical summary of the field, his identification and comparison of the three primary approaches to valuation—replacement cost, opportunity cost, and functional methods—also revealed the conceptual and practical drawbacks of each. His research highlighted a fundamental paradox: despite being recognized as economically important, domestic work remained marginalized in official statistics due to the lack of a unified theoretical or statistical framework.

After the war, a shift in perspective began to take place and better ways to gather information, like time-use surveys, gave us new facts to work with. But Gary Becker’s analyses of families as work units were revolutionary. He made a system that put a price on housework and tied together making stuff, using stuff, and working in one system. The concept of opportunity cost became viable.

Becker’s influence went beyond household economics. Despite being well-known for his work on discrimination (1971), human capital (1964), the family (1991), and crime (1968), his “new theory of the consumer” (1965) remains central. Although it was initially intended to be a microeconomic framework, (Stigler and Becker 1977; Becker 1996), it has significant implications for macroeconomic accounting. In this context, Hawrylyshyn is one of the few economists who have applied Becker’s ideas to the macroeconomic field by using them to value non-market activities, thereby advancing the conceptual reinterpretation of national accounting.

The American economist Gary Becker holds a particular place in the history of accounting for domestic work. Whether through his conception of the household as a producer or his use of the opportunity cost approach, Becker belongs to “the economic theories that integrate domestic work into their reasoning” (Chadeau and Fouquet 1981, 7) and is also “at the origin of the so-called opportunity cost valuation method” (Ibid., 11). Moreover, the notion of production has progressively broadened over time, moving beyond its initial restriction to specific sectors. Its boundaries have always been shaped by institutional contexts and conventions (Chadeau and Fouquet 1981). In this sense, Becker’s contribution can be understood yet another attempt to extend the definition of production to the household sphere. Through his new consumer theory, he provided a framework that made it possible to attribute an economic value to domestic work via the opportunity cost approach. This perspective fundamentally changed the way domestic labor was perceived, positioning it at the core of economic production (Bankovsky 2020).

Traditional consumer theory sets work in opposition to leisure: what does not count as work is treated as leisure. The maximization of utility under a budget constraint therefore leaves out the goods produced within the household. This omission is far from trivial, as it assumes that such goods provide no utility to the individual—a doubtful proposition. Goods produced through domestic work often do contribute to individual well-being. This is the point Becker emphasized in his theory of time allocation: by overlooking these activities, traditional consumer analysis offers only a partial understanding of utility and human behaviour. As he wrote in the introduction to his 1965 article:

In the light of this it is perhaps surprising that economists have not been equally sophisticated about other non-working uses of time. For example, the cost of a service like theatre or a good like meat is generally simply said to equal their market prices, yet everyone would agree that the theatre and even dining take time, just as schooling does, times that often could have been used productively (Becker 1965, 493–494).

By deciding to formalize a new consumer theory, Becker in a certain way contributed to taking domestic work into account, since he altered the perception of households. They were no longer seen merely as consumers but also as producers. Consumption was considered an activity of combining inputs, that is, the allocation of goods and time:

In this formulation households are both producing units and utility maximisers. They combine time and market goods via the « production functions » to produce the basic commodities, and they choose the best combination of these commodities in the conventional way by maximizing a utility function (Ibid., 495).

The activity of transforming goods is even compared to that of a firm that combines capital and labor to produce: “it should be pointed out, […] that a household is truly a ‘small factory’: it combines capital goods, raw materials and labor to clean, feed, procreate and otherwise produce useful commodities” (Ibid., 496).

The distinction Becker makes between “goods”, that is, the inputs of production, and “commodities,” the outputs of production or final products, leads him to challenge the traditional boundary between work and non-work. This is illustrated by his example of sleep. Sleep is considered a final good, an output (“another is sleeping” (Ibid., 495)), which depends on the necessary goods and on time, both of which are inputs (“which depends on the input of a bed, house (pills ?) and time” (Ibid., 495)). It is from this output, as a household transformation activity, that utility arises.

It is therefore remarkable how far Becker goes in contributing to the accounting of domestic work. On the one hand, he renders it productive. On the other hand, he gives it a price, which makes it amenable to accounting. By replacing the traditional distinction between work and leisure, he makes it theoretically possible to include domestic activity on the productive side:

Although the social philosopher might have to define precisely the concept of leisure, the economist can reach all his traditional results as well as many more without introducing it at all! Not only is it difficult to distinguish leisure from other non-work but also even work from non-work. […] Indeed, the notion of productive consumption was introduced precisely to cover those commodities that contribute to work as well as to consumption (Becker 1965, 504).

However, non-work for Becker is a broad category that “includes very different elements from one another” and thus brings together a multitude of activities. Domestic work is “dissolved into leisure, dissolved into the production of well-being” (Faugère 1980, 322).

This approach represents a crucial turning point: for the first time, domestic labor was incorporated into economic theory as a productive, quantifiable, and valuable form of activity. However, Becker failed to address a crucial problem by treating all hours of domestic work as equal under the opportunity cost framework: how to identify which domestic activities fall under the purview of production. Oli Hawrylyshyn aimed to close this gap by redefining “productive domestic activity”, using a set of precise and useful standards.

IV. The Emergence of the Distinction Between Direct Utility and Indirect Utility for the Theoretical Explication of Accountable Activities

Oli Hawrylyshyn’s ideas continue and critique Gary Becker’s work. While Becker made it possible to integrate domestic work into economic theory through the notions of production and opportunity cost, he did not provide a conceptual tool to distinguish, within these activities, those that were redefined as economic production. Building on the statistical advances of time-budget surveys, Hawrylyshyn went beyond this limitation by introducing a crucial distinction: that between direct utility and indirect utility. This differentiation is not merely an analytical refinement; it profoundly changes the way we conceive the boundary between productive work and leisure activities, thereby paving the way for a redefinition of the activities that can be accounted for.

We can produce and devote more time to production than Becker’s theory suggests. Thus, if the amount of time used exceeds the minimum time required for production, then the price of time will have no effect on the consumer’s decision. One might say that this extra time is “wasted” in production and that, in such a case, it would be better to work professionally and purchase the finished goods on the market. However, if the individual spends more time producing, it is also because they obtain “some satisfaction directly from that time, in addition to any indirect value that obtains from producing a commodity—that is, there occurs joint-production of indirect and direct utility” (Hawrylyshyn 1977, 85).

The demonstration is as follows, starting from the following assumptions (Hawrylyshyn 1977):

• Imagine a professor devoting 1,000 hours per year to restoring an old stone farmhouse.

• Assume that the minimum time required to carry out the same work is 500 hours.

We then obtain two time-demand functions, as shown in Figure 1: demand D1, corresponding to the minimum time required to carry out the work, and demand D2, corresponding to the time spent by the professor restoring the old stone farmhouse. We assume that both economic agents have the same productivity as each other, as well as productivity equivalent to that of a professional builder, and an equivalent wage W.

Figure 1

Indirect and Direct Utility.

Reproduced image From Hawrylyshyn, Oli, 1977.

If the first person with demand D1 were indifferent between doing the renovation themselves and hiring a qualified person to do it — because their time demand equals the minimum required to renovate the dwelling and their productivity is the same — the second demand D2 would have a surplus of 500 hours compared to the minimum required (1,000h – 500h). For some economists, the price of time is therefore not relevant for properly analysing individuals, since time is used differently here to produce the same housing.

However, unlike the 500 minimum hours required to renovate the dwelling, the professor needs twice as much time because they derive two distinct things from their production — elements omitted from Becker’s analysis. The professor gains indirect utility from their production, related to the usefulness inherent in constructing the dwelling. They also gain direct utility from the act of producing the good: by taking more time, the person may, we assume, derive psychological satisfaction from the process itself. Thus, our professor could well find themselves in a state of relaxation while carrying out this activity.

Contrary to earlier critiques aimed at Becker (see Sandmo 1993), the price of time is important in the decision-making of economic agents, as it allows for the optimal allocation of production (Hawrylyshyn 1977). For Hawrylyshyn, utility is broken down into two parts: an indirect one and a direct one.

However, Becker’s theory is challenged by this distinction. Thus, the theory of opportunity cost is not always valid:

The opportunity cost of time equilibrium is correct only in the case where we mean by utility of non-market activity the total utility including both direct and indirect components. Clearly, a rational individual will attempt to reach the ‘optimum’ point where his value of the last hour of market-work (the wage rate) equals his valuation of the marginal hour of non-market time (Hawrylyshyn 1977, 86).

This is the key point in Oli Hawrylyshyn’s theory, one that would have a lasting impact on the way domestic work is accounted for: by theoretically distinguishing between indirect and direct utility, it becomes possible to arrive at an operational definition identifying which domestic activities are productive and should be included. By making this distinction, Hawrylyshyn provides a breakthrough: it is no longer simply a matter of measuring what takes place in the domestic sphere, but of setting clear criteria to separate, within domestic activities, those that are treated as productive from those that are not. This line of reasoning directly paves the way for the introduction of another central methodological tool in his work: the third-person criterion, which would make this distinction operational in surveys and in the compilation of satellite accounts.

V. Defining Accountable Activities: From Theory to Practice

The distinction made by Hawrylyshyn between direct utility and indirect utility takes on its full impact when applied to reality through empirical data. Following in the footsteps of Margaret Reid, Hawrylyshyn used the third-person criterion as a tool to identify, among domestic activities, those that fall within the scope of economic production and those that do not. In this sense, the activities that can be considered part of economic production may then be accounted for and thus have the possibility of being included in a potential satellite account of domestic work (Bankovsky 2020; Philippy 2022; Wood 1997).

Margaret Reid (1934) defined domestic production with the third-person criterion: unpaid work is domestic work if it could be performed by someone else. This includes cleaning, cooking, or caring for kids. It doesn’t cover leisure or personal tasks like watching TV or getting dressed. For Oli Hawrylyshyn, the concept of the third person derives directly from the distinction between direct and indirect utility:

Activities yielding direct utility and those yielding indirect utility differ sharply in that direct utility can never be produced by a third party without altering its value for household members, whereas indirect utility can always be produced by a third party without any change in value (Hawrylyshyn 1978, 17).

To illustrate, a household member gains no utility by paying for a show for someone else to attend, whereas: “the value of a clean floor remains the same for the household, even if it has been cleaned by a hired third party.” (Ibid., 17). Thus, Hawrylyshyn tells us:

An economic activity of an individual is one which may be done by a third person (generally hired at a market price), without affecting the utility or value of the individual (Hawrylyshyn 1977, 17).

This criterion makes it possible to distinguish productive from non-productive activities. It allows, in essence, the substitution of a non-market activity with a market-based equivalent. In other words, it enables the assignment of a monetary value to the activity in question.

The implementation of the third-person criterion allows for the classification of different activities. Hawrylyshyn pays particular attention to the distinction between economic and non-economic activities, emphasizing that while the former are subject to monetary valuation, non-market economic activities also deserve to be measured in a comparable way. He acknowledges that economic activities can occur outside the market, and more importantly, that:

The part is important enough to merit the attention of social accountants

(Hawrylyshyn 1977, 79).

The diagram below – extracted from Hawrylyshyn’s 1977 article – clearly illustrates his reasoning (see Figure 2). On the one hand, economic activities are only a subset of all human activities, and on the other, market activities represent only a subset of economic activities. Thus, non-market economic activities, which he refers to as non-marketed, in opposition to marketed economic activities, “should be measured in a way analogous to market activities.” (Ibid., 79). While he considers, in line with the social indicators’ movement, that all human activities could be “measured and valued”, he insists that they must be assessed differently, because: “The different dimensions of human activity may each require different yardsticks for measurement” (Ibid., 80).

Figure 2

Diagrammatic representation of different activities – human, non-market economic, and market economic – whether they are included in GDP.

Reproduced image From Hawrylyshyn, Oli, 1977, 1978.

Hawrylyshyn asserts that domestic activities belong to both market and non-market economic activities, and that it is essential to distinguish between what is and is not an economic activity.

With this criterion, Hawrylyshyn completed the evolution of thought that had begun with Kuznets and had previously culminated with Becker. The third-person criterion turned theoretical reflection into a practical tool that could be used by statisticians and national accountants. It created a bridge between theory and practice. It also marked a major step toward measuring the economic value of domestic production.

Hawrylyshyn drew on the framework of the first time-use surveys to apply his third-person criterion: “let us apply the third person criterion to delineate clearly the activities to be included as non-market economic ones. Time-use studies have been sufficiently systematized so that a conventional international classification exists, defined, for example, in The Use of time edited by Alexander Szalai” (Hawrylyshyn 1978, 20).

These surveys, which first appeared in the 1960s, provided an empirical basis for documenting the “invisible” work of household tasks. Alexander Szalai identified an important gap in the use of quantitative data: despite the existence of time-budget studies, none of them were harmonized at the international level. In response, Szalai led the creation of the Multinational Comparative Time-Budget Research Project in 1964, which involved twelve nations conducting surveys with identical design (Goguel 1966).

This project had two main objectives. The first was to compare how time was divided between paid work, domestic work, and leisure. The second aimed to develop a common and harmonized methodology for recording different types of human activities. To achieve this, participating countries asked respondents to fill out detailed 24-hour time diaries, in which they recorded each main activity (and secondary activity, when applicable) in the chronological order of their day. This method made it possible to make domestic work periods visible (Dussuet 2017).

One of the major achievements of the project was the establishment of a common international classification comprising 99 categories of activities, divided into ten sections. Although it might appear technical, this classification effort revealed disciplinary divisions. While national statistical institutions (such as those of France and Hungary) took part, most participants were sociologists, which influenced the conceptual framework behind the categories created. For example, the term “housework” was preferred over “domestic activity.” In contrast to market-based economic definitions, this choice demonstrated a sociological approach that was centered on social relationships. Economists had long ignored unpaid domestic work because it was outside market exchange. However, sociologists argued that this activity was like paid work, since it also met real needs, the only difference being the lack of payment.

Hawrylyshyn based his third-person criterion on this standardized classification. He defined non-market economic activities as items 10 to 39 of the 99-item classification. These activities include household tasks such as cooking, cleaning, and childcare (see Table 1). This connection showed how sociological data and economic analysis could work together.

The combined legacy of these works is significant for the history of economic thought and the history of accounting. Unpaid work can now be measured through time-use surveys, and its economic value can be assessed using the third-person criterion. Together, these advances have redefined the boundaries of economic activity, laying the groundwork for contemporary studies on labor distribution, gender inequalities, and the valuation of unpaid work. Current time-use surveys continue to inform debates on how society values different forms of work, whether visible or invisible, and still rely on the methodological frameworks developed in the 1960s.

VI. Impact and Legacy of Hawrylyshyn: The Case of France

In France, Hawrylyshyn’s ideas had a strong impact in the 1970s and 1980s, influencing both academic discussions and institutional practices. A prime illustration is France’s initial action to assess home labor, conducted by Ann Chadeau and Annie Fouquet at Insee. This project, started because there was a need to quantify home output, reflected the intellectual environment of the time, which included growing feminist movements, criticisms of GDP as the only marker of progress, and a new interest in types of production outside of the market (Chadeau and Fouquet 1981).⁴ The fact that two women statisticians in France’s national accounting office led this early study is very telling. It pointed to the rise of different views, often pushed by women researchers, in a field mainly formed by market-based, male-run approaches.

Chadeau and Fouquet’s method is based on the same idea as Oli Hawrylyshyn’s research. They started by drawing a clear line between paid and unpaid time, saying that time after paid work is mostly spent on home activities (Chadeau and Fouquet 1981). Using Hawrylyshyn’s idea of direct utility, they grouped family activities into three categories: biological needs (like eating or sleeping), leisure (like taking a walk or going to a show), and productive household activities (like cooking, caring for children, or doing laundry).

Chadeau and Fouquet, influenced by the Canadian model, chose to broaden the definition of home labor by including its social dimension. They define it as “work carried out within the family, necessary for the day-to-day functioning of life, under current social norms” (Ibid..: 20). This definition links home labor to cultural and social contexts, rather than viewing it as simply a functional activity. Additionally, they noted that this labor, which is mostly performed by women and without pay, includes activities like food preparation and childcare. They argue that this type of work is essential to society’s existence. Their research aligns with the feminist concepts that emerged in France during the 1970s. Even though they used the language of public economics, their stance echoed Christine Delphy (1970), who saw home labor as a form of gender-based unfairness at the core of social reproduction.

The switch from housework to home labor in words is important, but its meaning needs a closer look. This change didn’t really change the accounting methods used. Still, it showed a big change in theory and meaning, which was directly inspired by Christine Delphy’s work (mainly 1970) on the economic side of household labor.

Delphy (1970) showed that the idea of housework didn’t quite add up. If some types of unpaid production, like farmers’ self-consumption, were already counted in national accounts, then there was no good reason to leave out home labor just because it wasn’t paid for. Even though they aren’t visible in accounting procedures, she believed that the processes of cooking, cleaning and serving in homes are productive from an economic standpoint. After demonstrating that some household labor was already indirectly recorded in national accounts, Delphy claimed that deliberately missing it resulted from a fictitious division between production and consumption. This split kept some operations that are key to society’s survival out of the productive world, which led to a theoretical problem: not paying for labor leads to not recognizing labor that is still productive. She ended by saying that housework means “work which, unpaid, is also unrewarded, because it is performed for others” (Delphy 1970, 53). From this perspective, talking about home labor instead of housework isn’t just about words, it’s a must for understanding. It means accepting that this type of labor follows the same productive logic as paid work, only differing in how it’s done and paid for socially. Based on this idea, Delphy asked to get rid of the ideas of housework and household activities, and instead use home labor, writing that “as soon as one claims to interpret the economic nature of household work, one must adopt its economic definition, which in turn requires taking into account all domestic labor, that is, all work performed within the same relations of production” (Ibid., 53).

Chadeau and Fouquet clearly followed this way of thinking. The titles of their works make this clear — “Le travail domestique. Essai de quantification and Peut-on mesurer le travail domestique?”. Insee started talking about labor instead of activity. This lexical change showed that they were using a new theoretical view, one that was aware of the productive side of unpaid work. The two authors said that they were counting home labor for this very reason, writing that “this mass of domestic work is generally forgotten in the economic analysis of life stages” (Chadeau and Fouquet 1981). As Annie Fouquet later noted, this evolution made it possible to compare “domestic work with professional work, rather than activities — a broad and vague concept — with work, a closed and serious concept implying constraint” (Fouquet 2003, 289).

So, the terminological shift wasn’t just about saying things differently, it marked a real turning point in theory. It demonstrated how an analytical framework influenced by feminist critics as well as ideas about the productive nature of domestic work was being adopted by the statistical and institutional world. Using the term “domestic labor” instead of “housework” made it more plausible to include a wider range of tasks — especially those done by men — thereby expanding the scope of what could be considered non-market production.

At the same time, the authors themselves recognized the social limits of their classification. They noted that in a different type of society, even shared leisure activities could be seen as part of domestic production, since they involve reciprocal and simultaneous exchanges (Ibid., 23). This shows again how the measurement of domestic labor always depends on specific social norms and values.

The French case demonstrates how theoretical innovation, feminist critique, and institutional adaptation interact. Hawrylyshyn’s work established a methodological foundation for measuring non-market production. By highlighting the inconsistencies of national accounting systems and redefining domestic work as a legitimate form of production, Delphy’s analysis expanded this framework. By incorporating these ideas into the bureaucratic structure and nomenclature of Insee, Chadeau and Fouquet helped to close the gap between feminist theory and public statistics. Their work showed how feminist theory could reshape economic categories from within state institutions.

VII. Conclusion

Oli Hawrylyshyn’s contributions were crucial in allowing the inclusion of unpaid labor in economic accounting analysis. His influence extended well beyond Canada, particularly in Europe, where scholars actively applied his methods to estimate the value of domestic labor throughout the 1980s. This success was partly built upon the methodological foundation laid by the Multinational Comparative Time-Budget Research Project, launched in 1964 under the leadership of Alexander Szalai (Szalai 1972). Hawrylyshyn’s influence can be seen in the development of accounting classifications, and in new methods for evaluating unpaid labor. By incorporating long-ignored social realities, his legacy contributed to the expansion of economics’ bounds.

However, unlike fields like education or health, domestic labor has never been incorporated in satellite accounts of national accounting. Technical issues are not the only reason for this absence. Even among those who studied domestic work, it also shows hesitancy and disagreement. In many ways, their work was more of an intellectual inquiry than a call for the full inclusion of unpaid labor in official accounts. Chadeau and Fouquet themselves acknowledged the risks: assigning a monetary value to unpaid domestic labor can distort its meaning. It removes the aspect of mutual care and voluntary support that defines family life. As they write:

The monetary unit […] does not allow unpaid domestic work to be aggregated, except by subjecting it to a treatment that distorts it (which we have done here) (Chadeau and Fouquet 1981, 80).

Incorporating unpaid labor into official statistics would impact the overall economy’s price balance, causing changes in the way value is perceived and determined. Alain Desrosières reminds us that national accounting does more than just reflect society; it actively shapes and transforms it: Quantification, especially in the form of national accounting, shapes and reconfigures society, and does not simply measure or reflect it” (Desrosières 2008, chap. 10). This does not mean that social reality is mechanically changed by measurement; rather, it means that accounting frameworks help define the parameters of what constitutes social value and economic activity. In this sense, the attempts to account for domestic work illustrate how quantification can serve a specific purpose: to make visible what has long remained outside the scope of policy.

Therefore, Hawrylyshyn’s contribution serves as a reminder that, although measurement is never completely neutral, it can be used as a tool to guide social and economic policy, influencing how societies prioritize and conceptualize their overall well-being. The studies conducted by Hawrylyshyn and the subsequent research have led to more detailed economic analyses while introducing new areas of inquiry. By organizing international conferences dedicated to women, the United Nations established itself as a key actor in recognizing unpaid work as one of the main contributors to gender inequality (Waring 1989; Luxton 1997). Following Hawrylyshyn’s work, Canada committed to better accounting for domestic labor. This turning point became evident after the well-known 1991 episode, when a homemaker refused to complete the national census form, arguing that her domestic activities were not recognized as real work (Luxton and Vosko 1998). This symbolic event, amplified by growing international mobilization, helped stimulate the expansion of time-use and domestic labor surveys conducted by national statistical institutes (such as Chadeau and Fouquet, 1981; Goldschmidt-Clermont 1987; Goldschmidt-Clermont 1989; Finland Ministry of Social Affairs and Health 1986; Aslaksen and Koren 1996; Frick et al. 2012; Frazis and Stewart 2011; Gottschalk and Mayer 2002; Folbre et al. 2014), as highlighted by Folbre and Suh (2017).

The introduction of a temporal dimension has broadened the scope of economic analysis while regarding social disparities. Economists now speak not only of monetary poverty, but also of time poverty (Vickery 1977). A minimum amount of free time is crucial to preventing time poverty, just as a minimum income is required to prevent financial poverty. The gap between the actual time worked and the time required to meet basic needs thus reveals deep social inequalities (Goodin et al. 2008). Additionally, the concept of discretionary time highlights the unique vulnerability of single parents (Rice et al. 2006; Goodin et al. 2008; Burchardt 2010). Furthermore, as examined by Juster (1985), Larson and Richards (1994), time-use studies have brought a neglected component into economic analysis: the subjective experience of time (Krueger et al. 2009).

The integration of domestic labor has strengthened the ability of economic models to describe and predict disparities in employment and the distribution of work between men and women. Research on multitasking domestic work (Goodin et al. 2008; Folbre 2005, 2008) and on the intensity of domestic labor (Floro 1995a, 1995b) has shown that the division of time between caregiving, household tasks, and multitasking directly influences participation in the labor market. The distinction between active care and passive or supervisory care, often overlooked, demonstrates that the latter significantly constrains mothers’ labor supply (Folbre et al. 2005; Folbre 2008).

Making domestic work visible is an important step in highlighting its contribution to the economy. Finding the ideal balance between acknowledging the economic impact of domestic work and making it visible, or granting it recognition, while maintaining the significance of this unpaid activity is the true challenge behind accounting for it. This tension remains at the heart of ongoing attempts to partially integrate domestic work into the economic sphere.

Acknowledgements

A previous version of this paper was presented at the European Society for the History of Economic Thought conference held at the University of Turin from May 22 to June 24, 2025. I wish to thank all participants for their insightful remarks, and in particular Virginie Gouverneur for her comments. I owe warm thanks to Rebeca Gomez Betancourt for her invaluable support throughout the entire process of this paper — from her guidance during my research dissertation in my master’s degree at the University of Lyon, to the presentation at the conference and my participation in the Student Work-in-Progress Competition. I also owe special thanks to Gerardo Serra, my mentor for the RHETM Student Work-in-Progress Competition, for his invaluable guidance and generosity.

Competing Interests

The author has no competing interests to declare.