Beyond GDP: the need for new measures of progress

This repository item contains a single issue of The Pardee Papers, a series papers that began publishing in 2008 by the Boston University Frederick S. Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future. The Pardee Papers series features working papers by Pardee Center Fellows and other invited authors. Papers in this series explore current and future challenges by anticipating the pathways to human progress, human development, and human well-being. This series includes papers on a wide range of topics, with a special emphasis on interdisciplinary perspectives and a development orientation.This paper is a call for better indicators of human well-being in nations around the world. We critique the inappropriate use of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as a measure of national well-being, something for which it was never designed. We also question the idea that economic growth is always synonymous with improved well-being. Useful measures of progress and well-being must be measures of the degree to which society’s goals (i.e., to sustainably provide basic human needs for food, shelter, freedom, participation, etc.) are met, rather than measures of the mere volume of marketed economic activity, which is only one means to that end. Various alternatives and complements to GDP are discussed in terms of their motives, objectives, and limitations. Some of these are revised measures of economic activity while others measure changes in community capital—natural, social, human, and built—in an attempt to measure the extent to which development is using up the principle of community capital rather than living off its interest. We conclude that much useful work has been done; many of the alternative indicators have been used successfully in various levels of community planning. But the continued misuse of GDP as a measure of well-being necessitates an immediate, aggressive, and ongoing campaign to change the indicators that decision makers are using to guide policies and evaluate progress. We need indicators that promote truly sustainable development—development that improves the quality of human life while living within the carrying capacity of the supporting ecosystems. We end with a call for consensus on appropriate new measures of progress toward this new social goal

Insights from the Field: Forests for Water

This issue brief describes analyses by the World Resources Institute (WRI) in support of emerging payments for watershed services (PWS) programs in two major watersheds in Maine and North Carolina and insights gleaned from work in progress. The three pilot initiatives discussed represent different approaches to establishing PWS programs that protect forests and other green infrastructure elements. In the Neuse River Basin in North Carolina, WRI is working with partners to identify beneficiaries and their water-related dependencies. We learned that clear documentation of the risks that beneficiaries face from water pollution, drought, and watershed degradation will help jump-start their participation in emerging PWS programs. In the Sebago Lake Watershed in Maine, WRI is finalizing a methodology for "green-gray" analysis that will provide beneficiaries a way to identify cost-effective green infrastructure solutions to water infrastructure demands of the 21 st century. Green infrastructure comprises all natural, seminatural and artificial networks of multifunctional ecological systems within, around, and between urban areas at all spatial scales. We learned that, to convince public investment managers to invest in green rather than gray, it is important to make the financial and business case using the same basic methodologies that are used for calculating the costs and benefits of conventional gray approaches. WRI is also working to develop PWS programs that help the city of Raleigh meet streetscape, conservation development, tree conservation, storm water management, and water quality goals contained in its Unified Development Ordinance in a least cost manner. We learned that market-based solutions like PWS can play a large role in land-use planning processes and that these processes may represent a large untapped demand driver for PWS programs throughout the Sout

How Baywide Nutrient Trading Could Benefit Pennsylvania Farms

Outlines how legislation to make the Chesapeake Bay watershed healthier, including a program allowing farms that reduce runoff of nutrients to below target to sell "credits," would benefit Pennsylvania farms through cost-sharing funds and new revenues

How Baywide Nutrient Trading Could Benefit Maryland Farms

Outlines pending legislation to improve the health of the Chesapeake Bay watershed, including a nutrient trading program that allows farms that reduce runoff of nutrients to below target to sell "credits." Estimates costs, credits, and credit revenue

Closing the Inequality Divide

https://ips-dc.org/closing_the_inequality_divide

World scientists' warnings into action, local to global

‘We have kicked the can down the road once again – but we are running out of road.’ – Rachel Kyte, Dean of Fletcher School at Tufts University. We, in our capacities as scientists, economists, governance and policy specialists, are shifting from warnings to guidance for action before there is no more ‘road.’ The science is clear and irrefutable; humanity is in advanced ecological overshoot. Our over exploitation of resources exceeds ecosystems’capacity to provide them or to absorb our waste. Society has failed to meet clearly stated goals of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Civilization faces an epochal crossroads, but with potentially much better, wiser outcomes if we act now. What are the concrete and transformative actions by which we can turn away from the abyss? In this paper we forcefully recommend priority actions and resource allocation to avert the worst of the climate and nature emergencies, two of the most pressing symptoms of overshoot, and lead society into a future of greater wellbeing and wisdom. Humanity has begun the social, economic, political and technological initiatives needed for this transformation. Now, massive upscaling and acceleration of these actions and collaborations are essential before irreversible tipping points are crossed in the coming decade. We still can overcome significant societal, political and economic barriers of our own making. Previously, we identified six core areas for urgent global action – energy, pollutants, nature, food systems, population stabilization and economic goals. Here we identify an indicative, systemic and time-limited framework for priority actions for policy, planning and management at multiple scales from household to global. We broadly follow the ‘Reduce-Remove-Repair’ approach to rapid action. To guide decision makers, planners, managers, and budgeters, we cite some of the many experiments, mechanisms and resources in order to facilitate rapid global adoption of effective solutions. Our biggest challenges are not technical, but social, economic, political and behavioral. To have hope of success, we must accelerate collaborative actions across scales, in different cultures and governance systems, while maintaining adequate social, economic and political stability. Effective and timely actions are still achievable on many, though not all fronts. Such change will mean the difference for billions of children and adults, hundreds of thousands of species, health of many ecosystems, and will determine our common future

Genuine Progress Indicator 2.0: Pilot Accounts for the US, Maryland, and City of Baltimore 2012-2014

For over thirty years the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) has been used to evaluate economic performance, quantify benefits and costs of growth, and predict effects of policy changes on economic wellbeing. The popularity and use of the metric is increasing partially in response to new global demands for metrics that go beyond Gross Domestic Product (GDP). However, because the basic GPI accounting protocols have yet to be consistently updated to respond to theoretical critiques, new valuation methods, and new data sources a proliferation of studies at the global, national and sub-national level contain widely divergent methodologies. Because of this, GPI practitioners have called for a new, consistent framework to guide future GPI studies – GPI 2.0. This paper is an attempt to operationalize some of the concepts that have emerged from GPI 2.0 deliberations online and at recent workshops in the form of GPI 2.0 pilot accounts for the US, State of Maryland, and City of Baltimore. The goal is to demonstrate the feasibility of multi-scale GPI accounts that provide a more accurate measure of current economic welfare than GDP and that incorporate new methods and sources of information to replace many of the outdated aspects of the prevailing GPI approach