Did I detect just a hint of sarcasm in today’s Freeps story about the Genuine Progress Indicator?
One thing most probably could agree on is that there is no perfect way to measure a population’s well-being, however defined. But the measures keep coming, and a new one for Vermont is in the pipeline, thanks in part to the environmental movement.
Oh, those wacky environmentalists.
The traditional way to quantify how well a state or nation is doing, is by means of its “GDP” (Gross Domestic Product) which is
the market value of all officially recognized final goods and services produced within a country in a given period of time. GDP per capita is often considered an indicator of a country’s standard of living;
That a smaller and smaller class of Americans enjoys the lion’s share of this productivity seems to have escaped the attention of Wall Street and the rest of the Sunshine Boys who point to the GDP as an unimpeachable sign that things are looking up.
The Free Press article acknowledges that the resulting figure does not take into account negative impacts generated by that economic activity, including things like pollution, erosion and loss of significant habitat; stuff that is apparently of only limited interests to people other than environmentalists, until a price tag for necessary remediation is attached.
But environmental impacts are only a part of the story of why a Genuine Progress Indicator is needed in order to truly understand how well one state or one nation is doing.
GDP looks only at the amount of economic activity that is generated over a given period of time, without judgment as to whether that activity contributes to or detracts from a sustainable future. It then divides that “product” on a per capita basis, concluding that each unit of population (or person) enjoys an equal share of that “productivity.”
As income inequity has grown exponentially in the U.S., continuing to apply the same old GDP yardstick seems akin to economic malpractice.
It speaks well for Vermont’s legislature that they recognize this fact and are moving toward adoption of a GPI which will take into consideration both the positive and negative effects of commerce and development, as well as quality of life factors that have previously been ignored in quantifying our well-being.
Establishing GPI standards would be a positive step toward shaping a sustainable future; and Vermont’s legislature deserves our respect for having recognized that value.
a great step in the right direction (thanks Anthony)
as you noted, per capita indices mask inequalities and divert attention from issues of equity; however, using per capita indicators to measure consumption can be useful in some cases (e.g., energy use)
and while using data to compare Vermont with other states is sometimes helpful, the results have no normative value; being better than most might sound great but such rankings should not substitute for setting our own goals and measuring progress against those standards
finally, I hope the folks working on the GPI will consider a measure of capital flows into and out of Vermont as I attempted to do in The Leaky Bucket back in 2000