Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Sustainability and well-being indicators

By Eric Neumayer

Abstract

This paper provides a review and critical discussion of indicators, which attempt to combine the measurement of sustainability with that of well-being. It starts with some commonly agreed definitions of sustainability, showing how most well-being indicators tell us little if anything at all about this issue. Sustainability is most commonly defined in economics as non-declining utility or well-being over time. Yet, due to its future orientation, most indicators of sustainability such as Genuine Savings (GS) have merely focused on the capacity to provide utility in the future, but have not included the measurement of current well-being. Indicators of well-being such as the Human Development Index (HDI), on the other hand, have typically failed to account for sustainability in their measurement of current well-being. The paper then critically reviews the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW) and the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI), which are the most prominent examples of an indicator, which attempts to fully integrate the measurement of welfare with that of sustainability into one single indicator. Such an integration, whilst seemingly attractive, is rendered difficult by the fact that what contributes to current well-being need not contribute at all or in the same way to sustainability and vice versa. We also review various proposals of extending a welfare indicator, namely the HDI, with sustainability considerations without full integration of both concepts. All of these proposals suffer from a range of fundamental conceptual problems. As one possible alternative, we propose a combination of the HDI and GS, which holds great promise for an assessment of wellbeing and its sustainability, particularly in developing countries

Topics: GE Environmental Sciences, HC Economic History and Conditions
Publisher: UNU-WIDER
Year: 2004
OAI identifier: oai:eprints.lse.ac.uk:30851
Provided by: LSE Research Online

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. (1785) [1968], Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten, doi
  2. (2002a), ‘An Index of Economic Well-Being for Selected OECD Countries’. doi
  3. (1972). A Theory of Justice. doi
  4. (1981). Absorptive Capacity, the Demand for Revenue, and the Supply of Petroleum’,
  5. (1999). An Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW) for Chile. doi
  6. (1998). An Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare for Italy’, Working Paper 5/98. Milano: Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
  7. (1997). An Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare for the UK 1950-1996.
  8. (1993). Commission of the European Communities–Eurostat, International Monetary Fund, Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development, United Nations, and World Bank
  9. (2003). Diminishing and Negative Returns of Economic Growth: An Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW) for Thailand. doi
  10. (2000). Does Income Inequality Raise Aggregate Saving?’. doi
  11. (1981). Economic Growth and Declining Social Welfare. doi
  12. (1995). Economic Growth and Quality of Life: A Threshold Hypothesis’, doi
  13. (1999). Environment Sensitive Human Development Index: Issues and Alternatives’,
  14. (1988). Extended Accounts for National Income and Product’, doi
  15. (1994). Green Adjustments to GDP’, doi
  16. (2002). Green National Accounting with a Changing Population*, Working Paper, doi
  17. (1995). Greening of the HDI?’
  18. (2001). HDPI: A Framework for PollutionSensitive Human Development Indicators’, Environment, Development and Sustainability,
  19. (2001). Human Well-being and the Natural Environment, doi
  20. (2004). Indicators of Sustainability’, in T. Tietenberg and H. Folmer (eds)
  21. (2001). International Evidence on How Income Inequality and Credit Market Imperfections Affect Private Saving Rates’, doi
  22. (1972). Is Growth Obsolete?’,
  23. (1992). Is Growth Sustainable? Reflections on the Concept of Sustainable Economic Growth, paper prepared for the International Economic Association Conference,
  24. (1995). ISEW for the Netherlands: Preliminary results and some proposals for further research.
  25. (1993). Measuring Development? The UNDP’s Human Development Index’, doi
  26. (2000). On the Methodology of ISEW, GPI and Related Measures: Some Constructive Suggestions and Some Doubt on the “Threshold” Hypothesis’, doi
  27. (1996). Pollution and Pollution Abatement in the National Accounts’, doi
  28. (2001). Quality of Life Indexes for National Policy: Review and Agenda for Research’, doi
  29. (1997). Sustainability and Technical Progress’, doi
  30. (2001). Sustainable Development: Concepts and Rankings’, doi
  31. (1996). Sustainable Economic Welfare in Sweden: A Pilot Index 1950-1992.
  32. (1998). Sustainable Human Development Index: A Suggestion for ‘Greening’ the UN’s Indicator. Mimeo, Wuppertal: Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy.
  33. (1996). Sustainable Human Development: A Zero-Sum Game?,
  34. (2000). Sustaining Economic Welfare – Estimating Changes in Per Capita Wealth’, Policy Research Working Paper 2498. Washington DC: doi
  35. (1999). The Genuine Progress Indicator: Methodological Developments and Results from Australia’, doi
  36. (1994). The Green National Product: A Proposed Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare. Lanham:
  37. (2001). The Human Development Index and Sustainability – A Constructive Proposal’, doi
  38. (1998). The Human Development Index: Some Technical Issues and Alternative Indices’, doi
  39. (1997). The Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW) as an Alternative to GDP doi
  40. (1994). The Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare: A Case Study of the Federal Republic of Germany’,
  41. (1997). The Inequality-Adjusted Human Development Index: A Constructive Proposal’, doi
  42. (1999). The ISEW: Not an doi
  43. (1989). The Proper Calculation of Income from Depletable Natural Resources’, doi
  44. (2002). UK Real National Income, 1950-1998: Some Grounds for Optimism’, doi
  45. (2001). Valuing Objects and Evaluating Policies in Imperfect Economies’, doi
  46. (2003). Weak versus Strong Sustainability: Exploring the Limits of Two Opposing Paradigms, 2nd rev. edn. doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.