×
I'm sympathetic to the concerns of an anonymous Economist writer who's definitely not Will Wilkinson, but as a general initiative, trying to include measures of well-being alongside a country's growth statistics would be a very good thing. The meaning of GDP growth is deeply overplayed, particularly given concerns about distribution in unequal societies (strong GDP growth could mean massive gains for Bill Gates, and slight losses for everyone beneath the 70th percentile in income). And in a country with higher GDP growth, but no green space or vacation days, really doing all that well? As Robert F. Kennedy said:
The gross national product includes air pollution and advertising for cigarettes and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and jails for the people who break them. GNP includes the destruction of the redwoods and the death of Lake Superior. It grows with the production of napalm, and missiles and nuclear warheads... it does not allow for the health of our families, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It is indifferent to the decency of our factories and the safety of our streets alike. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, or the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile."How much leisure time we get, how healthy we are, how much satisfaction we extract from our lives, how much trust we place in our neighbors -- all these things are broadly measurable, and indicators of a strong nation. GDP, though important, should not be the sole determinant of success. So while anonymous-Wilkinson is right to worry about a measure constructed specifically to obscure economic shortcomings, an independently designed measure -- and there have been many attempts at this, some of them quite good -- is worth adopting. It will be imperfect. But then, so is GDP.
