STRUCTURAL ACCOUNTS OF SERVICES

Abstract

It is quite possible to use the cluster of conventional service terms without further specification, (service jobs, service sectors, service economy), as long as no rigorous empirical theories are intended and as long as data aggregated under that category is likewise not mobilised on behalf of explanation claims. Hence, data published by any number of sources classifies economic activity with reference to agriculture, manufacturing and services, in which services is a residual category. However, the researcher using such data comparatively is at risk since the residuals included in “services” are apt to be the least standardised of all the grossly aggregated data. Where “services” is used as an empty nominal term to stand for other itemised subcategories of service, the term is redundant. Hence, in a recent semi‐popular article, after noting that the term may indeed be so broad as to signify “anything sold in trade that could not be dropped on your foot”, a specification of sub‐categories is given which includes financial services, communication and transportation services, and distribution and retail networks, “among others”, which latter then becomes a rather sizable, unspecified residual itself. (Quinn, Baruch, Paquette 1987).

Citation

Cooperman, D. and Plummer, P. (1989), "STRUCTURAL ACCOUNTS OF SERVICES", International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, Vol. 9 No. 2/3, pp. 5-17. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb013067