I read Stiglitz and Sen’s “Mismeasuring Our Lives” a while back, and I bought their
arguments that GDP was itself defective and overly reductive and measured some
of the wrong things. They proposed a dashboard of stats that would better
measure wellbeing than GDP does.
Coyle does not think this is necessary. After going through
a history of GDP, she concluded:
GDP does a good job of measuring how fast (or not) the
output of “the economy” is growing. And GDP growth is closely linked to social
welfare. GDP struggles with measuring innovation, quality and intangibles, but
it does a better job than any currently available alternative. (136)
And then she proposes some tweaks to GDP to better work in
the information economy.
Overall she does a good job outlining the history. It is accessible to everyone with some
background in national accounting (even if just econ 101). My only issue is where she looks at possible alternatives
to GDP. I kept waiting for her to really
get into the Sen/Stiglitz study, and then she did. For one page (118). Then
where she lost me, was her paragraph dismissal of the Bhutaneese metric of “Gross
National Happiness” (112). I am a fan of
trying to track flourishing, even if that makes me “Grotesque” by her words without much justification. These
parts are all too short and come across as dismissive, even in a brief,
affectionate history.
No comments:
Post a Comment