Measuring Progress Part Two
Apr 12 '07 (Updated Apr 13 '07)
The Bottom Line Fun with numbers!
About a year ago I posted an essay here on the subject of Measuring Progress and comparing different nations. The most common economic measure, the Gross National Product, (GDP) is the sum of all products and services produced annually by a nation. Annual growth of GDP is the accepted measure of economic growth and is often seen as the indicator of the state of well-being of a nations economy. Although it has some shortcomings it is the generally accepted measure of prosperity.
One of the criticisms is that GDP growth implies increasing consumption of resources. Another is that GDP does not measure Quality of Life. In my previous posting I suggested a separation of GDP into two parts, one for private industry and another for government-mandated goods and services. Then, maybe, divide one by the other and call it a Free Choice Index or FCI, recognizing that government-mandated services do not reflect free individual choices.
Some have argued for a different kind of measure that would relate more directly to Quality of Life. So---I would like to offer here an idea presented by my friend, Dr. Tong N. Chique, in a presentation to the Alumni Club at his alma mater, the College of Alta Rigo. Dr. Chique (pronounced Cheeq) proposes a measure of the Quality of Life that could be used to compare how well different nations provide happiness for their citizens. Here is my paraphrase of the suggestion of Dr, Chique:
"My suggestion is to make a calculation of Happiness Per Acre (HPA) and think of it as the Happiness Index (HI). It will be calculated as follows:
We will need to define a measure of the total Happiness of a population. That number would then be divided by the number of acres of land required to produce the resources consumed by that nation, and divide by the population to obtain resource consumption per capita, expressed in Acres
Happiness has both a "quantity" and a "duration", so the numerator of our index will need to be the product of two terms. One is Life Expectancy, a statistical figure that is readily available for all developed nations. The Quantity of Happiness will need to be determined by interviewing a sampling of citizens and asking them to rate their Happiness on a scale, say 0 to 1.0, where 1.0 equates to Perfect Happiness, 0 to Total Misery. Then Happiness times Life Expectancy provides our numerator, which has the units of Years of Happiness. An average Happiness rating of 0.6 and a Life Expectancy of 70 years would result in a numerator of 42 Years of Happiness. (0.6 X 70)
The Denominator requires a calculation of the total natural resources of the earth, the total acreage of the earth, and the proportion of those resources being consumed by each nation. Dividing by the population provides the per capita consumption of resources, the number of acres of the earth's resources required to sustain each member of the population of that nation.
Dividing the Years of Happiness by the Acres of Resources provides a measure of how much Happiness is being produced by how much consumption of resources. That figure can be interpreted as an indication of how well each nation is doing in consuming Resources to produce Happiness!
Each nation has the opportunity to improve their Happiness Index in one of three ways: By REDUCING their consumption of resources to lower the denominator---or by taking government actions to increase Happiness---or by taking government actions to increase Life Expectancy--thereby increasing the numerator and providing additional Years of Happiness for their citizens.
Here is the answer to those who claim they do better for their citizens by continuously increasing their GDP---and destroying the planet in the process!"
I have had to explain to my friend, Dr. Chique, that he is too late with this idea. It has already been implemented, and the calculations have already been completed and are available on the Happy Planet Index website:
http://www.happyplanetindex.org
The above by Dr. Chique is a somewhat simplified explanation of what is found at that web site. The website is sponsored by the New Economic Foundation (NEF) and is supported by Friends of the Earth (FOE), both environmental activist organizations. Here is a sampling of the results tabulated there:
--A "reasonable ideal" for the Happy Planet Index (HPI) is stated to be 83.5. Data is presented for 178 nations, with the US ranking 150th with an HPI of 28.8---just ahead of Rwanda, number 152 at 28.3!
--The number 1 and 2 nations are Vanuatu and Columbia, (!) with HPI's of 68.2 and 67.2, respectively---2 1/2 times as high as the US!
--Cuba is ranked number 6 (!) with an HPI of 61.9.
--At number 9 is El Salvador at 61.7 and number 56 is Mongolia at 49.6.
The parameter that most influences the individual HPI's is, of course, the denominator, and NONE of the developed nations fare very well in this calculation. That is consistent with the bias of these "investigators" whose avowed intention is to influence public policy to avoid ecological disaster, which they believe is imminent, and to do so with arguments based on their conception of the "well-being" of all the citizens of the world.
I guess I have to admire these folks for trying, but I think there is MUCH to be feared from people who do these kinds of psuedo-scientific computations. I learned in courses in mathematical statistics---the kind used to draw conclusions from experimental data---that when you divide or multiply two inaccurate values, the inaccuracy of the result is drastically increased. In the HPI these folks are doing highly sophisticated and complex statistical computations using a great many values that are each extremely inaccurate, often ball-park guesses at best. To present the calculated results as though they were accurate to the first decimal is utterly ridiculous! The website offers no discussion of error limits on either their basic values or their computations, although they offer a lot of words about "growing acceptance " in "academia."
Even more seriously, I think the idea of measuring "well-being" by asking people to rate their "happiness" is extremely questionable. An Eskimo living in an igloo surviving on whale blubber may well say he is very happy. A Neanderthal living in a cave that just participated in killing a mammoth would probably say he was very happy. Or---to paraphrase an old, OLD philosophical question---if we could ask a large number of pigs they would probably say they are very happy wallowing in the mud.
And finally---use of resources and happiness are apples and oranges. Resources are used to create food, housing, clothing, transportation, communication, entertainment, health care and other useful and necessary goods and services that provide our well-being. If we're genuinely interested in measuring how well each nation uses resources, than the numerator should be GDP per capita, not some abstract and subjective "years of Happiness" based on unreliable polling data.
It's interesting stuff---but ought to be taken with a HUGE dose of skepticism, in my opinion! Somehow it reminds me of that old expression---"Figures don't lie---but Liars WILL figure!"
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
gaviidae
|
|
Member: Gavia Immer
Location: Minneazona, Arisota, USA
Reviews written: 178
Trusted by: 67 members
About Me:
"---temporarily retired.
|
|
|
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.