After my posting 363. Measure of Domestic Progress (MDP) peaked in 1976, an anonymous website reader from Emberton, USA, has written thus:

<<<<

Surely the MDP measure is missing something. What about huge breakthroughs in medicine which improve the quality of life for millions? Medicines available now would have allowed my grandparents who died in the 70s to live longer. I don't know that any one simplistic index like GDP or MDP can really tell us much.

>>>>

I don't know the make-up of the MDP, so I don't know whether there is a health component. I guess there is. However, longevity by itself is not necessarily a good indicator either. Quality of life in one's last years is also important. I cringe when I see on TV, all too frequently, sights of old people in nursing homes who are barely conscious or, even worse, rows of beds of totally ga-ga old people in hospital being kept alive on drips. In many so-called 'primitive' societies the people have more humane ways of letting their old people go.

I think that GDP and MDP can tell us quite a lot and that, increasingly, politicians will begin to use MDP-type indicators when talking about life for ordinary people. The latter is much more difficult to devise. It's probably impossible to get the factors balanced for all classes of people in any one culture, and different cultures would need different MDPs. But something like this is being called into being because the need for a more realistic measure than GDP of social satisfaction is necessary. When I was in the Conservation Society 30 years ago, we devised one that tried to measure the effects of environmental destruction, not only on the environment itself, but also on our minds. Many more 'social satisfaction indicators' have been devised and one of them will probably emerge as the most useful one when considering the increasing stresses of daily living and working.

The following is an article about another one -- the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) -- posted by Karen Watters Cole. It's worth reading and is a pretty good analysis of the mis-measures that are now bundled up in the GDP.

Keith Hudson

<<<<

RE-EVALUATING THE NUMBERS

Jason Venetoulis and Michel Gelobter

It's commonly accepted that the accounting and financial mischief that took place at Arthur Anderson, Enron, Halliburton, WorldCom, Xerox, and other large American corporations had a negative effect on public trust in corporations and, by extension, that it has been bad for America's economy. That logical jump does not seem to have legs. Aside from marginally increased scrutiny by the Securities and Exchange Commission, much of the economic activity surrounding Enron and other corporate fraud is considered positive in a leading measure of economic progress, the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Taking into account numbers alone, the Enron scandal alone may well contribute up to $1 billion dollars to the US economy.

Nobel Prize winning economist Simon Kuznets, one of the developers of the GDP, warned in 1934 and again in 1962 that it should not be used as an indicator of America's economic welfare. The intent of fraudulent accounting may have been more direct at Enron but, in the final tally, all the court cases, lawyers' fees, housing criminals, media frenzy, and payouts continue to be counted as positive gains by the accounting standards of GDP. And politicians are eager to take credit for the growth.

"We've got a consistent and effective strategy, and we're making progress ... Our third-quarter economic growth was vibrant, and that's good" (President George W. Bush, New York Times, November 3, 2003). When the President of the United States proudly takes responsibility for growth in the economy, as measured by the GDP and affirms a continued dedication to the 'all growth is good agenda' and the media reports it, the public can become over-confident and may even change their vote.

However, before we become too hopeful and cast votes based on one-sided accounting, it is important to consider what is really going on in the economy. Are non-productive contributions such as "creative accounting" or destructive spending like war fueling our economy? Plans and presidential sound bites premised on empty economic growth, might well lead America further off-course and contribute to future economic instability the world over.

If all new economic activity moves from the middle and lower income classes to the richest 1 percent in America, the GDP reports the same number as it would if the money went to all Americans. GDP, of course, is not meant to account for where the money goes, but if most of it goes to a select elite is it really worth the same as if it went to Americans who needed it most? Since 1968, income inequality in America has been steadily worsening. Meanwhile, the volunteer work and raising children are not counted at all, though few would argue that they do not contribute to the well being of the economy or society. Higher health care and education costs, longer commute times to work, increasing pollution, clear cutting forests and paving over open space, and increased use of fossil fuels can all add to the "positive-only" ledger accounting of the GDP.

In the 1960s Robert F. Kennedy said of the Gross National Product, the forerunner of today's GDP, "...[It] does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play; it does not include the beauty of our poetry of the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate for the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country it measures everything in short except that which makes life worthwhile."

Redefining Progress has developed an economic indicator that attempts to get much closer to the economic reality that people experience. The Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) includes more than twenty positive and negative aspects of our economic lives. The GPI uses the same personal consumption data as the GDP but takes into account a number of other factors. Adjustments include factors such as income distribution. Additions take into consideration things like the value of volunteer and housework. Deductions are made for crime, degradation and destruction of natural resources, and other factors. The result is a substantively different picture than that presented by the GDP.

The GDP shows that in the period from January 2000, (the year before George W. Bush took presidency) and January 2003 the economy grew approximately 2.64 percent -- about $272 billion or $180 per American. Without reference to the quality and distribution, this economic growth may look good on the surface. Using GPI analysis, however, the value of economic activity grew by less than one percent (0.12 percent) during the same period. On a per capita basis, from 2000 to 2003 there was actually a $212 decline in GPI, with the biggest reductions coming from the degradation on natural resources and national debt, respectively. On the other -- positive -- side of the ledger, GPI shows a $600 billion increase in the value of housework and volunteer work from 2000 to 2003, which is not counted in the GDP.

There is an argument that measures of economic progress must be scientific and value free. Some believe that the attempt to measure the quality of what is going on in the economy and how it affects people makes too many assumptions or too many value judgments. The GDP, however, is not value free. To leave social and environmental costs and contributions to the economy off the books does not avoid value judgments. On the contrary, it makes the obvious value judgment that things such as the destruction of farmland and natural resources, underemployment, longer-commute times, and the loss of free time, count for nothing in assessing how the economy is fairing. GDP does put a value on such factors Zero. Keep in mind, this is on top of adding in the value of crime, deficits and war related expenditures and other less desirable expenditures.

The ambiguous accounting practices of Anderson, Enron, WorldCom, Xerox and other large American corporations combined pale in comparison to the over-counting of the GDP. Using GDP as a measure of economic progress amounted to a $7 trillion overstatement of economic gains in 2002 -- about $25,000 per American.

AlterNet -- 17 March 2004

Dr. Jason Venetoulis is a sustainability educator and co-director of the Sustainably Indicators Program at Redefining Progress. Michel Gelobter is Executive Director of Redefining Progress.

>>>>