Success, good marks, top ranks can never be substituted for good health. It is a common saying that "health is wealth." If this is true for us as individuals, then analogously it is true for an entire nation.

Ideally, the health of a nation can be monitored by having a range of statistics except the GDP, which is merely the measure of the economic profits. What about factors like - environmental conditions, green cover, CO2 production, social well being and literacy?

Thus I agree, that a range of statistics should be used to measure a country's well being.

GDP is the most widely-used measure of economic activity. There are international standards for its calculation, and much thought has gone into its statistical and conceptual bases. Earlier paragraphs have emphasized some of the important areas where more progress is needed in its computation. As statisticians and economists know very well, GDP mainly measures market production – expressed in money units – and as such it is useful. However, it has often been treated as if it were a measure of economic well-being. Conflating the two can lead to misleading indications about how well-off people are and entail the wrong policy decisions. Material living standards are more closely associated with measures of net national income, real household income and consumption – production can expand while income decreases or vice versa when account is taken of depreciation, income flows into and out of a country, and differences between the prices of output and the prices of consumer products.

GDP is the most widely-used measure of economic activity. There are international standards for its calculation, and much thought has gone into its statistical and conceptual bases. Earlier paragraphs have emphasized some of the important areas where more progress is needed in its computation. As statisticians and economists know very well, GDP mainly measures market production – expressed in money units – and as such it is useful. However, it has often been treated as if it were a measure of economic well-being. Conflating the two can lead to misleading indications about how well-off people are and entail the wrong policy decisions. Material living standards are more closely associated with measures of net national income, real household income and consumption – production can expand while income decreases or vice versa when account is taken of depreciation, income flows into and out of a country, and differences between the prices of output and the prices of consumer products.

The GDP has traditionally been the benchmark for determining the health of an economy and every country strives to achieve higher growth rates.

However the GDP overlooks one major fact which is how much are the benefits of the economic growth percolating to the weakest sections of society.

Hence i beleive that an approach that compares the economic progress with the purchasing power of the average citizen, and compares that with the cost of living would be a more accurate barometer to judge the wellbeing of an economy.

Also these measures require the formation of different benchmarks by income. As the super rich would drive the average income up slightly which would not be presenting an accurate picture.

Finally I feel that other non economic factors such as availability of nutrition, primary health care, sanitation and literacy rate should be factors to judge economic well being .

In response to the counter argument. Im thinking that you;re confused about what the wellbeing of a country means. The argument that physically healthy people are more economically productive is ridiculous. I think the term health refers to the degree of poverty, illeteracy, malnutrition and other economic banes that exist in the country

Application of GDP in measuring country's wellbeing is quite limited. Moreover from its very begining GDP(Gross Domestic Product- products and services produced in a country through a period of one year) was not created for measuring countries' wellbeing, it is an instrument for analysing economic development and growth. And high rates of growth not always mean prosperity and high quality of life for people. The simple example can be India where more than one third of population live in a severe poverty whereas its GDP is quite high. I agree with the idea that we should use other statistics rather than GDP for measuring a country's weelbeing. Beacause "wellbeing" is not only economic growth but encompasses in itself many other things such as good health which also imply high-quality of health services, security of people's lives which means that you are protected from acts of violence against you and your kin, when a goverment ensures and maintains your rights (ecological rights - which means you have rights to live in the environment which is safe for you and which does not affect your health causing you health problems).

To my mind, the very important task at the moment is to develop such analytical instruments for measuring countries' wellbeing which include in themselves or consider as crucial the following criterias (combine several social and economic statistics): The first is HSSQ (health and social services quality). NGO's working in healthcare and social and humanitarian assistance sphere monitor everything within a scope of their activities (during assisting government, implementing joint projects and programs and etc.)After gathering the required statistical data NGO's and (there also may be so called GONGO's-government organised nongovernmental organisations), they can provide govermental bodies with the data. And government and its respected bodies can take into account,using statistics they obtained,exiting realities in a country throughout the certain period when they make decisions, pass bills in a parliament and undertake certain actions.

The second is SELC (Satisfaction with the environment and living conditions within area). It includes in itself a broad range of statistics mostly gathered by environmental NGO's along with Ministries working for protection and preservation of the environment. First of all, it measures the level of environmental damage people cause to their environment each month or year and how this insignificant, at once, damage can influence people's living conditions in the perspective. It also pays a great attention to the development of production (industries and other manufacture) and its negative effects on people's living conditions in a ceartain area and the environment as a whole.

My point of view is that such kind of synthesized statistics can significantly enhance the efficiency of governmental actions and will help us in our difficult way towards attaining high standarts of living.

GDP is just a mathematical value that does not take into consideration many of the factors that affect a person's well-being and thus a nation's well-being. THe fact that GDP used to measure the well being of people just shows that people making the decisions think that material wealth is the ultimate factor to acheive happiness.

So, more GDP means, that more goods and services are being produced, but that does not mean people are better off. If its due to ruthless development, its indeed quite the opposite. Whether a person is better off, depends a lot on factors like working conditions, negative externalities, composition of the output, and secret trade.

Lets take the USA and France for example. THe USA had a GDP per capita of USD 46, 716 in 2008 while France had 45, 982. Not a big difference, but France trails by a litle. Now let's consider how well are people off in each country - In the Happy Planet Index, France ranks 71, while the USA ranks 114, just below Madagascar. People in France are much happier than people in the USA. They have better and free healthcare, free education, etc. etc.

Besides these two countries, Costa Rica has a GDP much lower than both^[1], but its people are considered to be the happiest in the world^[2]. Maybe its because it is the 5th best country in the Environmental Performance Index(EPI)^[3].

Some countries, even though they have low GDPs, its people are better off. Countries that one rarely hears off, have very good life expectancies like in Andorra, Cayman Islands, etc. etc.

Besides these facts, other things like freedom of speech and other human rights also play a role here. Even though China has a higher GDP than Bhutan and Sri Lanka, the freedom of the public in terms of speech, etc. is much greater in the latter two countries than in China. People are better off there as they do not have to suffer human rights violations in everday life.

GDP can also be misleading if the composition of output is unfavourable. For example, if a country produces most of its goods and services for export or non-counsumer goods, the GDP is high, even though the general people do not have access to cheap consumer goods that will increase their SoL and so they wont be better off.

The disparity between rich and poor can also mislead people. For example, Bangladesh's GDP, whatever low amount it is, does not represent the mass people, most of whom live way below the poverty line.

1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita
2. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Planet_Index
3. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_Performance_Index