1

NOVA PARADIGMA – ZAKAJ JE POMEMBNO,

DA SE MERI NAPREDEK DRUŽBE?

Drahomira Dubska (drahomira.dubska@czso.cz), Czech Statistical Office

POVZETEK Ali si je mogoče predstavljati napredek družb brez gospodarske rasti? Ali bo prihodnji razvoj statistike zajemal izgradnjo »super BDP« ali pripravo novega sistema, ki temelji na treh stebrih (gospodarskem, okoljskem in socialnem)? Ali zadošča zbirati podatke kot doslej, analizo pa prenesti na akademsko sfero? Kakšne spremembe v zbiranju podatkov bi prinesel nov sistem merjenja napredka? Sedanja globalna kriza je odprla vprašanje o novi paradigmi ne le v merjenju napredka, ampak tudi v samem konceptu – ali bo to »zelena« paradigma ali morda nova socialna paradigma? Odgovori predvidevajo rešitev naslednjih vprašanj: 1. Kaj je napredek družb v 21. stoletju (geneza merjenja napredka – premiki v določitvi naslednjih osnovnih sprememb v razvoju globalnega statističnega sistema, rezultati Tretjega svetovnega foruma OECD v Busanu, na katerem je bilo predstavljeno Stiglitzevo poročilo). 2. Izredne težave z merjenjem človekove blaginje, npr. blaginja (sreča in zadovoljstvo z življenjem); merjenje kapitala, potrebnega za vzdrževanje blaginje in tudi boljše merjenje tega, kako proizvodnja vpliva na ta kapital; in končno, kako bi bilo treba meriti različne razlike (dohodek, bogastvo, zdravje, izobrazbo, politična mnenja ipd.). 3. Kaj ta ambiciozen program zahteva. 4. Trije stebri razvoja – gospodarski steber (dosedanje meritve tržne proizvodnje), steber trajnostnega razvoja (zakaj kazalnik ekološkega odtisa ni dovolj) in steber družbenega razvoja (razlika med informacijami uradne statistike o gospodarski dejavnosti na eni strani in zaznavanjem povprečnih ljudi o lastnih življenjskih razmerah na drugi strani se veča). 5. Problem oblikovanja sestavljenega kazalnika. 6. Analiza prednosti in pomanjkljivosti ter priložnosti in nevarnosti (SWOT) – prihodnost projekta v nacionalnem statističnem uradu.

Ključne besede: napredek, blaginja, statistika

THE NEW PARADIGM –WHY IS IT IMPORTANT TO MEASURE THE PROGRESS OF SOCIETIES

ABSTRACT

Is it possible to imagine progress in societies without economic growth? Does the future

development of statistics consist in the building of the “Super GDP“ or in the composition of

a new system standing on three pillars (economic, environmental, social)? Is it enough to

collect and compile data as usual and to devolve it upon academicians to analyse? What

change in data finding would the new system of the measurement of progress mean? The

current global crisis has introduced the question of a new paradigm not only in the

measurement of progress but also in the conception itself - will it be the “green“ paradigm or

perhaps a new social paradigm? The answers suppose to define and solve following topics: 1.

What is the progress of society in 21st century (the genesis of the progress´ s measurement -

movements in the determination of the next basic changes in the development of the global

statistics system, results of the 3rd

World forum OECD in Busan where the Stiglitz report was

presented). 2. Extreme difficulty regarding the measurement of human prosperity, e.g. well-

2

being (happiness and living satisfaction); measuring the capital needed for keeping for

prosperity and also, a better measurement of how production influences this capital; and

finally, how different imbalances should be measured (incomes, wealth, health, education,

political opinions, etc.). 3. What does this ambitious agenda require. 4. The three pillars of

development - the economic pillar (metrics of the market production up to this time), the

pillar of sustainable development (why the Ecological footprint indicator is not sufficient), the

pillar of social development (there is increasing difference between information from official

statistics about economic performance and - on the other hand - average peoples´ perceptions

of their own living conditions). 5. The problem with identification of the composite indicator.

6. SWOT analysis - the future of the project in a national statistical office.

Key words: Progress, well-being, statistics

1. PARADIGM OF “ECONOMIC GOVERNANCE”

1.1 World economy

The extremely strong economic growth of the global economy which was noted especially

during 2001-2008 was driven by the biggest emerging (developing) countries, i.e. China,

India, Russia and Brazil (BRIC). It came after the longest economic boom in USA lasting

practically over the entire 90´s and which was provoked, among other factors, by the

technological boost of .dot companies and their establishment in capital markets. However,

this strong growth was connected on an excessive scale – widely large than until that time -

with financing by debt. The biggest economy of the world producing one quarter of global

GDP was operating already during the first half of this decade (till 2005) in conditions of deep

internal and external imbalances. The external one was controlled by the attractiveness of US

capital markets and “hunger” for dollars and US assets. The internal imbalances ran deep by

wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The dramatic indebtedness of the US households became

the motor of consumption and investment in real estate which also powered economy.

Europe moved about within both more moderate growth and indebtedness. It has a bigger risk

aversion and it generally has protected this continent from the volatility of growth and

imbalances. Europe also historically accentuated the social aspects of economic growth (such

as leisure) and seems to have better responsibility for global development as its approach to

the environmental problems in as some global summits have shown.

The group of the biggest emerging economies, which China, India, Russia and Brazil belong

to, grew by 8 % a year on an average (Chart 1) and they have become the accelerator of

global economic development. But also in these countries economic growth was accompanied

by growth in incomes of inhabitants and improvement of their lives. However, from an

environmental point of view such growth of these economies became big risk. They depended

primarily upon industrial branches in comparison with developed countries where, on the

contrary, the service sector dominates. So the big countries with their emerging economies

gradually are becoming the large exploiters of the natural sources on Earth. Producing

processes and their effects are environmental burden, which threaten the future of our planet

in many considerations.

3

The paradigm of the necessity of unceasing economic growth became something of a religion.

Growth is invocated, the lost of its rate is demonised and strong booms excite rejoicing.

Politicians measure their ephemeral functioning in politics by the phase of economic cycle,

whether an economy grew during their governance or not. Also, a lot of the rational people

gets through the mental humiliation (degradation) evoked by the haste of economic growth,

escalation of consumption and media-marketing activities. Accordingly, this mentality leads

to a “to not have any-thing means not to be” mindset.

1.2 Inequalities

This paradigm was tenable in times when the devastating effects of human activities (in order

to grow) for the life in planet was not known and when the implicit proposal strengthened that

economic growth which be able to reduce inequalities. This did not prove true. In 2000 on the

meeting of IMF and the World Bank the problem of poverty in the world was being resolved

at the tables sagging with the rich food and drinks while NGO´ s protested. As for

inequalities, even after ten years more than one billion people live under the poverty level.

They do not have access to water and basic medicine. Due to this twelve thousand children

die every day. Inequalities deepen in spite of the biggest developing countries grow faster

than developed ones. Inequalities grow namely into these developing countries.

1.2.1 Loss of wealth during global crisis

The wealth of the world decreased during last economic crisis (according data of September

2009 compared with September 2008) by 12 % measured by assets under management. The

deepest fall was noticed in North America (almost 22 %). Inequalities widen in spite of the

numbers of dollar millionaires in some countries amount to the percentage of their total

population. For example, in Singapore 8.5 % of households keep property exceeding on

million dollars and from six countries with the densest net of the millionaire households the

three are on Middle East (Kuwait, United Arab Emirates and Qatar). Withal undoubtedly, it is

just these countries have one of the highest income inequalities. All-over the world the

numbers of millionaire households decreased during crisis from 11 million to roughly 9

million (almost 4 million in US), i.e. by almost 18 % (the most in the North America and

Europe, by 22 % every one). As a value of assets under management, the decline of US

households´ property (-22 %) was deeper than in Europe (-6 %). It is caused by the structure

of these assets with domination of capital market investment in US. The only region where

the wealth of households increased in spite of crisis was Latin America (+3 %).

1.2.2 Future expectations

The impact of crisis has influenced also the expectation for the future. This spring, more than

one third of US population expected that economy would not be better in some next years in

spite of the percentage of those who felt the uncertainty had diminished year by year. It was

roughly the same situation as in Europe where the share of those who felt in danger

financially was lower. In China, on the contrary, the situation seemed to be much more

optimistic (when only 9 % of respondents said the future would not be better). However, it

was not the same in others big developing countries. In Mexico, Brazil and Russia relatively

significant share of respondents expressed fears about their future financial situation or

directly financial difficulties (42 %, 33 % and 27 % of respondents).

4

1.3 Exploitation of natural resources

Can we imagine how would the exploitation of the resources on the globe was changed if the

consumption in the big developing countries began to be almost the same as in trans-Atlantic

civilisation with its consumption paradigm? In 2007 6.8 billion of people lived on the Earth.

In 2030, a “second” Earth would be necessary to absorb carbon dioxide emissions due to the

numbers of people, their use of natural resources and climate changes. The World Wildlife

Fund (WWF) wrote study with this findings for October Summit on biodiversity held in

Nagoja, Japan. “If every country produced the same emission a used so much resources as US

or United Arab Emirates so all human society would need other four and half of new globes,”

argues the study titled “Living Planet”. The US and UAE are two countries with the biggest

share of the produced greenhouse gas per capita. Additionally, the study specifies further

another 71 countries which used sources of fresh water too quickly and non-effectively.

May be it is important to repeat the well-known verity: human living environment is the place

for life. The existing market economy which causes the changes for the worse shows, that

this banal verity cannot remain unheeded. The existing market economy has a “notable”

ability - to satisfy much more and larger needs of much lesser number of people. A lot of

people live in an illusion that creating or protecting of resources can be replaced by earning

money or spending it.

2. GENESIS OF THE CHANGE

During 2004-2005, there was started activity in Organisation of Economic Cooperation and

Development (OECD) which was later named the Global Project on Measuring the Progress

of Societies. At first it had been accepted sceptically but later a lot of academicians began to

work in the partial issues. It was clear that besides definition of what is progress, also its

measurement, i.e. statistically expressed movement (change) in time would be key moment.

2.1 History of the Global project OECD

Determining of the future basic changes in the development of the global statistical system

came through in three global forums of the OECD up to the present: The first, in Palermo

2004, Italy then in Istanbul, Turkey 2007 and finally in Busan, South Korea in 2009. These

meetings were organized according the approaches of the Global Project “Measuring Progress

of Societies” which was initiated by Statistical Section of the OECD and connected groups of

academicians all over the world. The initial idea was understandable: to try to measure

progress by not only the economic indicators but also by using the others, i.e. beyond GDP.

Actually it means to involve together with well-known and traditionally used economic

indicators (especially national accounts systems) in addition with a special indicator

describing environmental characteristics and also social statistics tied to GDP and the other

items of national accounts. The basic theme “Statistics, knowledge and politics” was common

for all three meetings. The next forum will be organised in India 2012.

Next motions for following up of the project were received on the second forum in Istanbul

2007. The so-called “Istanbul Declaration” was signed by a representative composition of the

participants. The first signatories were the most influential institutions such as the European

5

Commission, the OECD, the Organisation of Islamic Conference, the United Nations, the

United Nations Development Programme and the World Bank. Others added their signatures

at the same time such as the Economic and Statistical Observatory for Sub-Saharan

Africa (AFRISTAT), EFTA, the Gallup Organization, ILO, ISI, UNESCO, UNICEF and the

UN Office for Partnerships or UN University-Comparative Regional Integration Studies

(UNU-CRIS).

The necessity to create wider and more comprehensive of definition of progress was firstly

asked in the Istanbul Declaration with a question: What is progress in 21st century? It results

to the need to measure the social prosperity, the quality of life and progress. At the 3rd

forum

in Busan (South Korea) in 2009 the shifting from declaration to the commitment was

noticeable. The OECD engaged to evaluate the priorities for the statistical agenda and to

evolve measurements, methods and tools. Furthermore, the OECD accepted an engagement to

improve and enrich the formation of politics.

The project had ambition to be a focal point on global level for all who like to measure and

determine the progress. The motto of it was concentrate on the possible answer to the

question: Is life getting better? Is it possible to see the progress in society? Actually, what

does it mean the progress for inhabitants all over the world?

2.2 Definition of progress

The Project defined the progress of societies in term: progress exists if there is noticeable

(evident) improvement in sustainable and just, fair and spreading prosperity (well-being) of

the society on the national and international level. To record the well-being thoroughly means

to be able to measure the expectations and level of satisfaction of the individuals, i.e. how

they spend their leisure, health and education, their relationship with the other people,

political views, participation on the public life etc. But to measure happiness and satisfaction

with the life, well-being and human prosperity seems to be extremely difficult.

Besides human prosperity, the capital needed for sustainable well-being is necessary to

measure and to develop a better measuring how production influences this capital (“the green

growth”). Inequalities in income, wealth, education, in political opinions should be measured,

as well. Special attention should be paid to disadvantaged individuals who are more and more

handicapped by inequality.

As results from above mentioned, - it is very ambitious agenda, which asks the political will,

the budget means for statistics, clear arrangement of the priorities, international methodology

and cooperation of the key player, i.e. national statistical offices, regional and supranational

institutions, policymakers and organizations of civic society.

2.2.1 Results of “Stiglitz report”

The academic background of the project was gradually developed towards an authoritative

opinion, which posed the result in the so-called “Stiglitz report”.

The Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress was

established after activities of the first two World Forums. Its constitution was initiated by

6

French President Sarkozy. Its timing seemed to be very convenient because due to economic

crisis the political demand for this research was increasing as accepted. Originally, four Nobel

prize-winners in Economics should have work on it but finally a Commission was created by

two of them - Professors Joseph Stiglitz as Chair and Amartya Sen as Chair Adviser. Joseph

Stiglitz is the former vice-president of World Bank and currently the critic of its activities and

market fundamentalism. A well-known founder of the Initiative for Policy Dialogue, started

in 2000, and focused on international development which he teaches at Columbia University.

Indian-born Amartya Sen teaches at Cambridge University. He framed new theoretical

concepts of growth and prosperity and was engaged in ethical sides of development especially

in developing countries. Professor Jean-Paul Fitoussi as a Professor of Economics at the

Institute d'Etudes Politiques de Paris comments notably the issues of European economic

integration and the economics of transition. His research has focused on the theories of

inflation, unemployment and foreign trade. He works as a coordinator of Commission. As Commission itself expressed, its aim is to “identify the limits of GDP as an indicator of

economic performance and social progress, to consider additional information required for the

production of a more relevant picture, to discuss how to present this information in the most

appropriate way, and to check the feasibility of measurement tools proposed by the

Commission”.

Results of the work or analysis of the Commission was expected in April 2009 but was

presented in September. Prof. Stiglitz referred to it at the 3rd

World Forum OECD in Busan

(October 2009).

2.3 Three pillars of the development of society

Economic, environmental and social pillars of the development of society have been

monitored for relatively long time – the economic variables (especially GDP) since the 1930,

the environmental ones since 80´s years and the concentration on social aspects of the life is

notable continuously since the beginning of classical economy in analyses of disparities. In

comparison to the last two pillars the social one seems to be the least frequented - maybe due

to ideological aspect in formation of economic theories (i.e. new laissez-faire schools, etc.).

Currently, the social aspects of life are monitored also by non-governmental organizations

(NGO´s).

2.3.1 Economic pillar

The Instanbul Declarations as well as the Stiglitz report proposed to move the focus from a

common system of measuring from the metric of the market production to the system

concentrated purely on the prosperity of people and its change in the time (i.e. progress).

Gross domestic product is a very important measurement of economic activity. But it

measures primarily just market production. It does not reflect the progress in society. Also, an

indicator GDP per capita is not able to afflict a lot of additional dimensionalities of life of

people especially the quality of life. It is possible imagine what would happen if China or

India adopted the consuming way of life as the transatlantic civilization according the existing

paradigm.

7

2.3.2 Environmental pillar

The essence of sustainable growth on the Earth is to achieve such economic growth (or more

likely the all-round progress), which will keep the global resources without strong damage

and to make them possible to save. It depends on not only on policies but also on human

behaviour. It is also necessary to develop the apposite indicators of biodiversity and

ecosystems, which would be able to catch development of the parts of so-called critical nature

capital. The tendency of the wastage of nature capital (i.e. on account of the increasing of the

built-up areas) means also devaluation of the other environmental processes including losses

of biodiversity.

The so-called “Ecological footprint” (Chart 2) is popular indicator but analogous to GDP - it

is not able to measure all aspects of sustainability of the human living environment, as well. It

only says how much of the approachable bio-capacity the society appropriates for it own

needs (everybody can find out his own ecological footprint and compare it with value for his

country, etc.). But Ecological footprint does not predict about the quality of environment. It

illustrates rather the unfavourable development of nature capital.

2.3.3 Social pillar

The social aspect of progress is possible to define as a human prosperity and social well-

being. There is a permanently increasing difference between communication of mass media

about economic performance in the country on one hand and subjectively perceived own

living conditions by people on the other hand. This difference was self-evident during the

“good times” after 2000 and now, the risk exists that it will spread again. If people do not

believe the figures, which their government produces they will probably lose the trust in it.

The difference between found macroeconomic facts and the impressions of the public is not

given by low level of the official statistics but by unsuitable using of certain statistics. It can

lead to the misrepresented analysis and appointment of the incorrect aims of policies.

The researchers recommend setting forward in the direction of social and behavioural

dynamics of society namely in connection with sustainability of progress, such as the

reduction of the consumption, lengthening of life of things, a personal determining of the

consumer dynamics, etc. Also, the changes in used energies, recycling, knowledge in certain

area, an enlightenment of children. And, last but not least, the communal, club and political

participations.

Indices of social development as well as environmental aspects in some cases are developed

by academicians or even published by some statistical offices. For example, the” Index of

Sustainable Economic Welfare” as an ambitious effort to reform the calculation of the

indicator of economic wealth. Furthermore, the “Genuine Progress Indicator (Adjusted Net

Saving)”, takes into consideration data about individual consumption according GDP

inclusive of income distribution, and with reduction by the expenditure on criminality,

pollution, etc. The so-called “Genuine Savings” is an indicator of sustainability based on

“Green National Accounts” as well as comprehensive indices combining environmental

impacts and human prosperity. Also very interesting indicators, which are published by

statistical offices of Canada, Australia of Ireland, describe these countries or regions.

8

2.4 Taxonomy of indicators The Global Project OECD: Measuring Progress of Societies in a further phase proposed a

taxonomy of indicators. It is a sort of starting shot which can be inspiration for various

initiatives. It is wide enough to be used by various cultures and spheres. They are:

• Conditions of ecosystem – land, fresh water, seas and oceans, biodiversity,

atmosphere

• Human well-being – physical and mental health, knowledge and intelligence, work

and leisure, material well-being, freedom and right of self-determination or decision

making, interpersonal relationships

• Economy – national income, national wealth

• Administration and governance – human rights, civil initiatives, security and

criminality, accessing to the services

• Culture – culture heritage, arts and leisure time.

2.5 Composite indicator

The composite indicator should respect the parameters of all three pillars for measurement of

the progress as mentioned above. Probably mathematic-statistical models will be used with

multi-criterion optimizing. The weights of the particular parameters are set subjectively and

just this setting can come out as a problem. If the composite indicator is used for international

comparisons maybe just chosen weights would not show the adequate picture of progress in

compared countries.

2.6 Final aims

What should the measurement of progress reach a peak by? The final aim is to define directly

the measurements of well-being, i.e. prosperity of people and ecosystem. Naturally, not only

for their definition and description but also for the selection of these ones which are relevant

for ensuring of human prosperity and prosperity of ecosystem. On the contrary, the

intermediary aims should cover spheres of the economy, culture and governance. They are the

inputs to the human prosperity and to prosperity in environmental level.

2.7 Future of measuring progress in the Czech Republic Simple SWOT analysis could be used for adumbration of the future how to measure the

progress in Czech Statistical Office.

Strengths: relatively advanced the statistical system in the Czech Republic; the invention and

the creativity of academicians and statisticians

Weaknesses: risk of non-acceptance by official statistics (it is possible only to sort out the

indicators which are available now…); a non-helpful approach of media; difficulty with

acceptance of terminology; pessimism regarding aims (is it possible at all to compile for

example a composite indicator?); shortage of resources

9

Opportunities: participation of a new conception of statistics; the jump in comparison with

the countries, which will fall behind on implementation

Threats: the rejection by official statistics; scepticism the certain forms of progress actually

is not possible to measure or that existing measuring is enough; fatal failure of resources

(staff, money).

The seminar in the Czech Statistical Office held this year showed that the approach of the

Czech academicians was not so warm to this question. Also the budget of the Office will be

cut markedly.

3. THE NEW PARADIGM

Is it possible to imagine prosperity without economic growth? The answer seems to be yes

through the life in a healthier and more favourable living environment with a more secure

community. With children, who are educated at good schools. In the improved human

relationship when the elderly people can live in the families with their children and with

grandchildren, and so on. All of it they are aspects of quality of life which do not regard

directly economic development and they are very difficultly measurable. Also just in it there

is a problem of statistics to involve economic, environmental and social features of the life to

be able to express the progress.

3.1 Limits of national accounts system

Some statisticians deduce that the sophisticated system of national accounts enables to catch

practically almost everything. But it seems not to be in every case. For example, in some

countries of Africa where the fresh water is not simply available the women must leave their

children for a long time to bring water. If many wells are built which shorten the way for

water for local women there is definitely progress for them. An apologist for a national

accounts system objects to it that just the same is caught in them – through the increases in

investment, i.e. gross fixed capital formation in this country. But it stands to reason that

subjectively – but from other point of view also objectively – perceived progress in better

available fresh water is much more bigger than how big is quantified increases of investment

it such project of the excavation of the wells.

3.2 Progress without economic growth

It sounds rather unusually if we say that the progress can be achieved in such case that we will

actively decelerate the economic growth. But when growth should be nourished by a new

indebtedness the old paradigm would continue with the risk of the lack of natural resources a

worse life on the planet together with distribution of the world for these who spend and those

who save.

Saving in China is now (expressed in dollars) USD 47 from such USD 100 of income and

strong is also in Japan. In US it is only USD 11. The strong propensity to save in Asia is

caused by institutional framework (e.g. in China there is no pension system, also “politics of

one child” aims to moderate demographic development seems to be now risky for the future).

There is a question whether the dividing of the world between the “saving nations” and

“spending ones” is for a sustainable long term. How long will the savers willing to buy the

10

debts of the spenders? Of course, so long how long they will believe that they will get back

their money.

If the savers decided to strengthen their consumption then the impact on economic,

environmental and social pillar of progress would be probably substantive. The government

of China decided to promote domestic private demand instead of relying on the external one

by creating a social net (so that Chinese will not be afraid about for example healthy

complications and it will increase their willingness to spend). The Chinese government is

going also to develop the branches of products and services of mass consumption (now the

Chinese sector of services is only 40 % of GDP and it is least of all big economies). Further

use of the internet and increased communication technology for central and west part of China

is expected to promote the demand. Surely, such a praiseworthy aim will improve the quality

of life especially in the country of China.

It seems that Asia is much more able to reflect a new paradigm in the look in progress and its

implementation. Sometimes the approach of Bhutan used to be notice. Its index of national

happiness has no formula. But it goes far beyond economic growth, which is composed to

contribute to the poor. Bhutan has made effort to save not only its large forest, but also its

traditional egality and wants to cultivate its national cultural heritage. This Himalayan

kingdom takes this approaches to this process of change unbelievable thoughtfully, according

to Buddhist tradition. They ask a question themselves: how many things we can take hold of

without erosion of own mental stability?

But also advanced Europe mostly results from the opinion that standard of living in its

households is high enough and that in the future they will only to change the quality of life

according updated social and environmental structural parameters. And what about the

European convergent countries? What are they converging to? According to the Maastricht

Treaty it should be towards level of the European economic and currency union. Subsequently

they will accept the Western European standards in ecology, the social area etc. But some of

them think now yet that they will lose their comparative advantages soon and its GDP will

grow only so fast as in Euro area. However, it does not connected so much directly with new

paradigm.

4. CONCLUSION

The setting and governance of the world should be probably different because we simply do

not have energy, trees, etc. enough. But “every bigger movement was connected with the

tectonic change which mostly felt out better than the previous ones and much better than

contemporary intellectuals thought”, as was stated at the Conference Forum 2000 in Prague

this year. Its key themes, discussed yearly, are also multi-polarity of world or the possibility

of preventing of cultural, religious and ethnic conflicts.

There are a lot of targets and challenges but the means are not enough. The problems are

global but the means are not global. The question stands: Who will do it? Nobody knows how

long we will live in a wealthy society because the economy is only an instrument, not the aim.

The negative globalisation hits almost all spheres of life in society. It preys upon the valuable

attribute of societies such as local habits of its inhabitants and their groups. It also manifests

itself as an increasing financial power, trade with guns and drugs, as terrorism. Still recently it

11

seemed that current global crisis - whose roots lies just in the over-inflated consumerism and

in ambitions without limits – would speed up recognition that it is not way. But now a

question is emerging: was this crisis deep enough so that the new paradigm - not only in an

introspection of the world but also in the behaviour – would be able to enforce itself?

Chart 1: Real GDP (y/y in %, source IMF)

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

1992-2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

US Euro area Brazil China India Russia

Chart 2: Ecological print (source WWF)

12

Chart 3: HIV infected (database Gapminder)

References: 1. Annul National Accounts (internet application) http://apl.czso.cz/pll/rocenka/rocenka.indexnu in Czech

2. Dubska, D. (2005). Net balance of the Czech households´ property income decreases, Analysis, Prague: Czech

Statistical Office. 2005. http://czso.cz/eng/csu.nsf/informace/akta052405.doc

3. Dubska, D. (2006). Czech households: Escalating consumption and strong changes in the structure of savings

during period 1995-2004, Statistika Journal, 2/2006, pp. 112-135

4. European system of Accounts ESA 1995. http://apl.czso.cz/nufile/ESA95_cz.pdf in Czech

5. Gross National Income Inventory 2002 Czech Republic. http://apl.czso.cz/nufile/GNI_CZ_en.pdf

6. Handbook of the price and volume indicators in the national accounts (2008).

http://apl.czso.cz/nufile/Cenove_a_objemove_ukazatele_NU.pdf in Czech

7. Living Planet Report. World Wildlife Fund. (2010).

http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/all_publications/living_planet_report/

8. Quarterly National Accounts (internet application). http://czso.cz/csu/redakce.nsf/i/ctvrtletni_ucty

9. The Global Project on "Measuring the Progress of Societies". www.oecd.org/progress 10. The 3rd OECD World Forum, South Korea (2009). www.oecd.org/progress/korea