Could a range of statistics be used to measure a country’s wellbeing rather than GDP?

Current version: 05 Dec 2009 | 18:00 | mridulnaidu

<< Older version | Newer version >>

All versions

Key

  • Text coloured Greenhas been added snce the previous version
  • Text marked red and striked-throughhas been deleted

Yes, because... GDP does not consider many factors

 

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

 

breathing and living people make money. healthy people are more economically productive. GDP thus measures the overall health of a country.

However GDP does not reveal who's making more money or less money or who is healthier/wealthier. GDP does not provide individual comparitive statistics.

The gap between the wealth of the rich and poor in developing countries is much greater than that in developed ones. The rich of the entire world(whether from the first or third world) have very similar tastes/quality-of-life/lifestyles.

Extremely poor people living in environmentally rich rural settings live longer a lot of the time. Poor people however have a higher M.P.C(marginal propensity to consume).

In the end GDP is avery good measure of the 'overall' health of a country BUT not of individuals(which no statistic is)