Such indices of social welfare aren't new, they date back at least to the 1950s. There are a whole bunch of them out now.

The "Social-Health Index", which tracks statistics on 16 different social problems, was developed by social scientists at Institute for Innovation in Social Policy, at Fordham University (my alma mater) in 1970. The study director is Marc. L. Miringoff.
If you're really interested I'm sure you could call him (if he's not on vacation like every other academic). Fordham people are friendly, even if we are New Yorkers. Get the phone number for the Tarrytown campus

Fordham got its Web site going only last year and other than for faculty directories it's still rather sparse, there's nothing about the Index there. But I found the 1995 Index report for Connecticut.

The Social Health Index is quite reasonable in that it tracks a sound set of data, focuses on defined issues, and doesn't claim to reveal more than it does.
On the other hand, the Genuine Progress Indicator fails horribly by all these measures and is IMHO just plain junk.
The GPI's authors are, as far as I can tell, without any professional expertise in economics or social science but are journalists and social activists.

Yet the GPI has received vastly more publicity in the Atlantic, NY Times, etc., than the Fordham Index and other well-constructedsocial indices compiled by respected social scientists. So I guess it really is who your friends are rather than what you know that gets you in the papers.

The Atlantic's article on the GPI: Atlantic

If you can't find at least a half dozen statements in it displayingilliteracy in economics -- I mean the equivalent of "the world isflat" in geography -- it's time to get your old Econ 101 text out forsome review.

The authors open with the straw-man argument that the GDP is a measureof social health and welfare, which it isn't; then say that GDP is avery bad measure of social health and welfare, which it would be ifanyone used it that way; then "improve" GDP as a measure of socialwelfare by making adjustments to it, arriving at their GPI.

The "adjustments" they make can be explained only by assuming thatthey started at their conclusion and selected whatever data would fitit. But even then they are hard to explain.

For instance, they subtract from GDP such things as:
* The cost of health care -- the expense of the polio vaccine is adeadweight loss to society.
* The cost of repairs to assets such as homes and cars -- if your home burns or your car breaks down, society will be better off if you leaveit that way.
* The practice of commuting to work -- they don't like cars on theroad.
* The second incomes of two-earner families -- guess those uppitywomen really shouldn't ever have been allowed in the workplace. Ormaybe women with careers shouldn't be allowed to marry.
And so on.
Not surprisingly, the authors conclude that over the period of theircalculations GPI has dropped from $7,000 to only $4,000 per person --a decline somewhat larger than that which occurred during the GreatDepression.

Paul Krugman has some comments on the GPI

If you still want to spend $10 for a copy of it, contactRedefining Progress,One Kearny Street, Fourth FloorSan Francisco, CA 94108 415-781-1191 Fax: 415-781-1198.

Personally, I'm really troubled by the way such ilk gets all thepress, and actually influences people, while serious studies of the same issues go ignored.

One person's opinion.

This page hosted by Get your own Free Home Page