Measuring Quality of Life

In an earlier post called "Why Economic Growth?", I followed a line of logic that led me to some big questions that lie at the very foundation of our civilization:

• Where do we want the economy to take us?
• What do we expect from economic growth?
• What is development? 
• What is prosperity?
• What is quality of life?

I think the last question is probably the most important because it only makes sense that quality of life would be at the heart of how we define development, progress and prosperity and, thus, it would also be what motivates our economic and social systems.  So, the economy (and economic growth) is motivated by a desire for a higher quality of life.  Seems to make sense right?  After all, we have heard countless times that more money increases the standard of living.  So, it's safe to assume that most people want to make money, at least in part, because they want a higher standard of living, or quality of life. 

However, if one looks at the way we measure the progress of our economies and societies, we only seem to be measuring the money aspect, as if money was the goal, in and of itself.  To measure the health of an economy, which is taken to be the main indicator of the health of society in general, we use the GDP (Gross Domestic Product). It measures the market value of all goods and services produced in a country within a year.  In essence, it measures how much money is being made by a country.  Since the GDP was introduced in 1942 (a time of war), we have taken this number to be the main indicator of how high the standard of living in a nation is.  As Alan AtKisson puts it, the GDP is what we use to measure our success as a civilization.  However, this idea is coming under increasing criticism as more and more people and nations are finding out that money is not all you need to make you happy. 

Aside from this argument that money can't make you happy, the GDP has some major flaws, as the website of an organization called Redefining Progress points out.  As an alternative to the GDP, they have created the GPI (Genuine Progress Indicator).  Here are some of the major differences between the GDP and the GPI:

• The GPI counts a huge income gap between the wealthy and poor people of a nation as a negative.  The GDP does not; money is money, no matter where it is.
• The GPI gives more points for higher rates of education in the population.  The GDP doesn't address education.
• The GPI counts expenditures on war as a negative.  The GDP measures it as a positive.  With the GDP, war is a good thing, it generates more money.  (How f#*ked-up is that?!)
• The GPI takes into account that free time adds to the quality of life, so the more free time people have, on average, the higher the GPI count.  The less free time they have, the lower the count.  GDP would prefer we all work 24 hours a day, because it generates more income.
• The GPI counts environmental destruction as a factor that negatively impacts the quality of life, so it is a deduction.  The GDP usually encourages environmental degradation.  It doesn't account for the fact that what's cheap now will cost future generations in the form of resource depletion and pollution.

There are even more differences described in detail on the Redefining Progress website.  It's definitely worth taking a look at.

Of course, I'm not tooting the GPI as a perfect indicator of well-being or quality of life.  There are numerous groups, governmental and private, throughout the world working to create an indicator set that can most accurately measure quality of life and I can't yet say that one is better than the other.  But I will say that all of them must be better than the GDP.  Wouldn't you agree that having as a guiding light an indicator that tells us wars, car accidents, violence and crime are good things because they generate more money in the economy is a bit sick?

It's essential that we, as citizens, really start questioning the stuff that we hear and read in the media.  These are the things that guide our society and the direction in which civilization is evolving.  When we hear that economic growth is a good thing and that we need a higher GDP, we need to question it.  A great number of our systems are outdated and more and more are quickly becoming outdated as the human species develops higher levels of thinking and understanding.  (Not to mention the natural limitations we're running into with resource depletion, pollution, species extinction and climate change.  See my article on global change.)  We are mentally and psychologically evolving and our systems and the indicators by which we measure our progress, successes and failures must keep up. 

Everybody wants a higher quality of life.  That's easy to say.  But how do you define quality of life? What does well-being mean to you?  How do you measure it?  How can we achieve it?

If you're interested, here are some other alternative indicators:

The Happy Planet Index
Gross National Happiness index
European Quality of Life Survey

If you want to contribute to research about this and you live in the US, take the Self-Perceived Quality of Life survey.  To take the survey, click here.