1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
on 16 October 2013
This brilliant little book asks whether Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the most widely used measure of economic activity, is a reliable indicator of economic and social progress.
The authors point out, "GDP mainly measures market production, though it has often been treated as if it were a measure of economic well-being." They urge "the time is ripe for our measurement system to shift emphasis from measuring economic production to measuring people's well-being."
To do so, we need to look at households' incomes and consumption, and at the distribution of incomes and consumption; we need to broaden income measures to non-market activities; and we need to attend to subjective and objective dimensions of well-being.
The authors note, "many of the services people received from other family members in the past are now purchased on the market. This shift translates into a rise in income as measured in the national accounts and may give a false impression of a change in living standards, while it merely reflects a shift from non-market to market provision of services. Many services that households produce for themselves are not recognized in official income and production measures, yet they constitute an important aspect of economic activity."
They point out, "there are many reasons why market values cannot be trusted when addressing sustainability issues, and more specifically their environmental component." As they note, "market prices are non-existent for quite a large number of the assets that matter for future well-being."
They conclude that we do indeed need a monetary index of sustainability. But we also need an assessment of the stocks of natural and human resources, so that we can check whether we are adding to or depleting them.
The authors ask how, even whether, the economy serves our needs. They conclude that we cannot trust market values to guide our choices.
0 of 1 people found the following review helpful
on 8 August 2013
I chose this rating, because, for now this ideas are in „no man's land,“ neither science nor policy. If they bring together people and knowledge, than it will be excellent, if they are just a tribute to two Nobel laurates and former President of Frnace, than it is harmfull.
I like their effort to limit economic, but still they subordinate other measures to it. We should begin by broader thinking.
I chose title of review from Abraham's deciosion. For love (to get a son, and saving a son) you need strength beyond yourself. We are not jelous for our children to go beyond us. But to help others (Sodoma) you need goodness, personal will (leadreship), critical mass (Abraham 10, Jesus 12) and organization. This is rational, human responsibility on thios planet.
Personally I'm tryin to advance conferences of goodness, to create such policies, from bottom up, not tje other way. I run on that platform for European platform.
Also I'm convinced that era of political parties is over.
New forms and forums must be created.
I rtecommend it to people who accepting the basic measure, of all people being equal, want to integratre their knowledge, experrience and will in bein among the critical group to prevent new failures and promote opportunities
4 of 12 people found the following review helpful
on 13 July 2010
"The Commission regards its report as opening a discussion rather than closing it. The report hints as issues that ought to be addressed in the context of more comprehensive research efforts". Thus reads the opening statement of the last section of the Executive Summary. - Is it just me, or isn't it just a bit tame - given the grand opportunity presented to the authors by pres. Sarkozy?
This is one of those rare occasions where a lengthy preface signed by a politician - French pres. Sarkozy of all persons! - is actually the most engaging and interesting part of a book - and that preface is really worth reading! - It may be unfair to the leaders of the Commission, not knowing what their working conditions has been: Nevertheless, I am left with the impression that this is yet another occasion where politics and science fail to connect, in this case uncharacteristically mainly due to science being wholly unprepared for a sudden political opening. A trifle sad, at least. Much as I would love to like the book, I cannot rate it any higher than three stars.