Two approaches to alternative measures of progress: the Happy Planet Index and National Accounts of...
23
Two approaches to alternative measures of progress: the Happy Planet Index and National Accounts of Well-being ESRC Research Methods Festival 8 July 2010 Juliet Michaelson Centre for Well-being nef (the new economics foundation)
-
date post
19-Dec-2015 -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
Transcript of Two approaches to alternative measures of progress: the Happy Planet Index and National Accounts of...
Two approaches to alternative measures of progress: the Happy Planet Index and National Accounts of Well-being
ESRC Research Methods Festival8 July 2010
Juliet MichaelsonCentre for Well-beingnef (the new economics foundation)
About nef
• An independent UK think-and-do-tank (founded 1986).
• Inspired by 3 principles– Sustainable development– Social justice– People’s well-being
• Well-being programme set up in 2001 to ask: What would policy look like if it focused on improving
well-being?
How not to measure progress
Gross National Product counts air pollution, and cigarrette advertising and…the destruction of the redwood and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy or their play…the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages. It measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.
Robert Kennedy, 1968
GDP and GWB
“GDP. Gross domestic product. Yes it's vital. It measures the wealth of our society. But it hardly tells the whole story.
Wealth is about so much more than pounds, or euros or dollars can ever measure. It's time we admitted that there's more to life than money, and it's time we focused not just on GDP, but on GWB - general well-being.”
David Cameron MP May 2006
So why do we do it?
Simon Kuznets in the US wanted to ‘improve the welfare of the poorest’ during the Great Depression in the 1930s
“The welfare of a nation can scarcely be inferred from a measurement of national income”
So why do we do it?
Contextual importance: During WW2 the militarisation process created an almost exclusive emphasis on production.
Institutionalisation: UN System on National Accounting (1953). Currently 1993 standard being used most widely.
‘Stiglitz’ Commission recommendations
• Improve economic measures:
– focus on income, household, wealth and assets, distribution, non-market activities
• Measure dimensions of quality-of-life, including subjective well-being
• Measure sustainability through a dashboard of measures
A view of society
Human society
Life Sat x Life Exp = Happy Life Years
Ecological Footprintland required to produce resources and sequester CO2
produced by a nation, based on consumption patterns
The HPI
• Combined into an efficiency index:
Results by country
HPI rank Countries Region Life Sat Life Exp EF HPI
1 Costa Rica 1a 8.5 78.5 2.3 = 76.1
2 Dominican Rep 1a 7.6 71.5 1.5 = 71.8
3 Jamaica 1a 6.7 72.2 1.1 = 70.1
9 Brazil 1b 7.6 71.7 2.4 = 61.0
20 China 6a 6.7 72.5 2.1 = 57.1
35 India 5a 5.5 63.7 0.9 = 53.0
43 Netherlands 2c 7.7 79.2 4.4 = 50.6
74 UK 2c 7.4 79.0 5.3 = 43.3
114 USA 2b 7.9 77.9 9.4 = 30.7
143 Zimbabwe 4a 2.8 40.9 1.1 = 16.6
Global results
A sense of direction
What HPI doesn’t do
• Provide texture
• Links to specific policy
• Sensitivity
• Other aspects of human society
Where National Accounts of Well-being can help…
Functioning welland satisfaction
of needs
e.g. to be connected to others,
autonomous, and competent
Psychologicalresources
e.g. resilience, optimism, self-esteem
Enablingconditions
e.g. opportunities and obstacles, inequalities, social norms, culture
Experience of life e.g. happiness,
satisfaction, interest, boredom and distress
A dynamic model of well-being
National Accounts structure
Personal well-being
www.nationalaccountsofwellbeing.org
Social well-being
www.nationalaccountsofwellbeing.org
Overall well-being: adjustable ratio
www.nationalaccountsofwellbeing.org
Country well-being profiles
www.nationalaccountsofwellbeing.org
Enhancing policy making
Means and ends – policy outcomes and drivers– e.g. autonomy better education
outcomes?
self-esteem better health outcomes?
Looking back and looking forward– Track change, evaluate, compare– Identify need, assess proposals, shape content,
delivery and targeting
Sensitivity to policy?– Multiple measures means more scope for change– Current scores suggest room for improvement
Levels of analysis
HPI
NAWB
