Jump to content

Genuine progress indicator

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Genuine progress indicator (GPI) is a metric that has been suggested to replace, or supplement, gross domestic product (GDP).[1] The GPI is designed to take fuller account of the well-being of a nation, only a part of which pertains to the size of the nation's economy, by incorporating environmental and social factors which are not measured by GDP. For instance, some models of GPI decrease in value when the poverty rate increases.[2] The GPI separates the concept of societal progress from economic growth.

The GPI is used in ecological economics, "green" economics, sustainability and more inclusive types of economics. It factors in environmental and carbon footprints that businesses produce or eliminate, including in the forms of resource depletion, pollution and long-term environmental damage.[2] GDP is increased twice when pollution is created, since it increases once upon creation (as a side-effect of some valuable process) and again when the pollution is cleaned up; in contrast, GPI counts the initial pollution as a loss rather than a gain, generally equal to the amount it will cost to clean up later plus the cost of any negative impact the pollution will have in the meantime. While quantifying costs and benefits of these environmental and social externalities is a difficult task, "Earthster-type databases could bring more precision and currency to GPI's metrics."[2] It has been noted that such data may also be embraced by those who attempt to "internalize externalities" by making companies pay the costs of the pollution they create (rather than having the government or society at large bear those costs) "by taxing their goods proportionally to their negative ecological and social impacts".[2]

GPI is an attempt to measure whether the environmental impact and social costs of economic production and consumption in a country are negative or positive factors in overall health and well-being. By accounting for the costs borne by the society as a whole to repair or control pollution and poverty, GPI balances GDP spending against external costs. GPI advocates claim that it can more reliably measure economic progress, as it distinguishes between the overall "shift in the 'value basis' of a product, adding its ecological impacts into the equation".[2]: Ch. 10.3  Comparatively speaking, the relationship between GDP and GPI is analogous to the relationship between the gross profit of a company and the net profit; the net profit is the gross profit minus the costs incurred, while the GPI is the GDP (value of all goods and services produced) minus the environmental and social costs. Accordingly, the GPI will be zero if the financial costs of poverty and pollution equal the financial gains in production of goods and services, all other factors being constant.


Some economists assess progress in people's welfare by comparing the gross domestic product over time—that is, by adding up the annual dollar value of all goods and services produced within a country over successive years. However, GDP was not intended to be used for such purpose. It is prone to productivism or consumerism, over-valuing production and consumption of goods, and not reflecting improvement in human well-being. It also does not distinguish between money spent for new production and money spent to repair negative outcomes from previous expenditure. For example, it would treat as equivalent one million dollars spent to build new homes and one million dollars spent in aid relief to those whose homes have been destroyed, despite these expenditures arguably not representing the same kind of progress. This is relevant for example when considering the true costs of development that destroys wetlands and hence exacerbates flood damages. Simon Kuznets, the inventor of the concept of GDP, noted in his first report to the US Congress in 1934:

the welfare of a nation can scarcely be inferred from a measure of national income.[3]

In 1962, he also wrote:

Distinctions must be kept in mind between quantity and quality of growth, between costs and returns, and between the short and long run... Goals for more growth should specify more growth of what and for what.[4]

Some[who?] have argued that an adequate measure must also take into account ecological yield and the ability of nature to provide services, and that these things are part of a more inclusive ideal of progress, which transcends the traditional focus on raw industrial production.

Theoretical foundation[edit]

The need for a GPI to supplement indicators such as GDP was highlighted by analyses of uneconomic growth in the 1980s, notably that of Marilyn Waring, who studied biases in the UN System of National Accounts.[citation needed]

By the early 1990s, there was a consensus in human development theory and ecological economics that growth in money supply was actually reflective of a loss of well-being: that shortfalls in essential natural and social services were being paid for in cash and that this was expanding the economy but degrading life.[citation needed]

The matter remains controversial and is a main issue between advocates of green economics and neoclassical economics. Neoclassical economists understand the limitations of GDP for measuring human well-being but nevertheless regard GDP as an important, though imperfect, measure of economic output and would be wary of too close an identification of GDP growth with aggregate human welfare. However, GDP tends to be reported as synonymous with economic progress by journalists and politicians, and the GPI seeks to correct this shorthand by providing a more encompassing measure.

Some economists, notably Herman Daly, John B. Cobb[5] and Philip Lawn,[6] have asserted that a country's growth, increased goods production, and expanding services have both costs and benefits, not just the benefits that contribute to GDP. They assert that, in some situations, expanded production facilities damage the health, culture, and welfare of people. Growth that was in excess of sustainable norms (e.g., of ecological yield) had to be considered to be uneconomic. According to the "threshold hypothesis", developed by Manfred Max-Neef, "when macroeconomic systems expand beyond a certain size, the additional benefits of growth are exceeded by the attendant costs" (Max-Neef, 1995). This hypothesis is borne out in data comparing GDP/capita with GPI/capita from 17 countries. The graph demonstrates that, while GDP does increase overall well-being to a point, beyond $7,000 GDP/capita the increase in GPI is reduced or remains stagnant.[7] Similar trends can be seen when comparing GDP to life satisfaction as well as in a Gallup Poll published in 2008.[8]

According to Lawn's model, the "costs" of economic activity include the following potential harmful effects:[9]

Analysis by Robert Costanza also around 1995 of nature's services and their value showed that a great deal of degradation of nature's ability to clear waste, prevent erosion, pollinate crops, etc., was being done in the name of monetary profit opportunity: this was adding to GDP but causing a great deal of long term risk in the form of mudslides, reduced yields, lost species, water pollution, etc. Such effects have been very marked in areas that suffered serious deforestation, notably Haiti, Indonesia, and some coastal mangrove regions of India and South America. Some of the worst land abuses for instance have been shrimp farming operations that destroyed mangroves, evicted families, left coastal lands salted and useless for agriculture, but generated a significant cash profit for those who were able to control the export market in shrimp. This has become a signal example to those who contest the idea that GDP growth is necessarily desirable.

GPI systems generally try to take account of these problems by incorporating sustainability: whether a country's economic activity over a year has left the country with a better or worse future possibility of repeating at least the same level of economic activity in the long run. For example, agricultural activity that uses replenishing water resources, such as river runoff, would score a higher GPI than the same level of agricultural activity that drastically lowers the water table by pumping irrigation water from wells.

Income vs. capital depletion[edit]

Hicks (1946) pointed out that the practical purpose of calculating income is to indicate the maximum amount that people can produce and consume without undermining their capacity to produce and consume the same amount in the future. From a national income perspective, it is necessary to answer the following question: "Can a nation's entire GDP be consumed without undermining its ability to produce and consume the same GDP in the future?" This question is largely ignored in contemporary economics but fits under the idea of sustainability.

In legislative decisions[edit]

The best-known[dubiousdiscuss] attempts to apply the concepts of GPI to legislative decisions are probably the GPI Atlantic,[10] an index, not an indicator, invented by Ronald Colman for Atlantic Canada, who explicitly avoids aggregating the results obtained through research to a single number, alleging that it keeps decisions makers in the dark; the Alberta GPI[11] created by ecological economist Mark Anielski to measure the long-term economic, social and environmental sustainability of the province of Alberta and the "environmental and sustainable development indicators" used by the Government of Canada to measure its own progress to achieving well-being goals.

The Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators program is an effort to justify state services in GPI terms.[citation needed] It assigns the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, an officer in the Auditor-General of Canada's office, to perform the analysis and report to the House of Commons. However, Canada continues to state its overall budgetary targets in terms of reducing its debt to GDP ratio, which implies that GDP increase and debt reduction in some combination are its main priorities.

In the European Union (EU) the Metropole efforts and the London Health Observatory methods are equivalents focused mostly on urban lifestyle.

The EU and Canadian efforts are among the most advanced in any of the G8 or OECD nations,[citation needed] but there are parallel efforts to measure quality of life or standard of living in health (not strictly wealth) terms in all developed nations. This has also been a recent focus of the labour movement.


The calculation of GPI presented in the simplified form is the following:

GPI = A + B - C - D + I

A is income weighted private consumption

B is value of non-market services generating welfare

C is private defensive cost of natural deterioration

D is cost of deterioration of nature and natural resources

I is increase in capital stock and balance of international trade

The GPI indicator is based on the concept of sustainable income, presented by economist John Hicks (1948). The sustainable income is the amount a person or an economy can consume during one period without decreasing his or her consumption during the next period. In the same manner, GPI depicts the state of welfare in the society by taking into account the ability to maintain welfare on at least the same level in the future.


The Genuine Progress Indicator is measured by 26 indicators which can be divided into three main categories: Economic, Environmental, and Social. Some regions, nations, or states may adjust the verbiage slightly to accommodate their particular scenario.[12] For example, the GPI template uses the phrase "Carbon Dioxide Emissions Damage" whereas the state of Maryland uses "Cost of Climate Change"[13] because it also accounts for other greenhouse gases (GHG) such as methane and nitrous oxide.

+/- Indicator[14] Brief explanation
+ Personal Consumption Expenditures The bulk of GDP as well, consumption informs the baseline from which the rest of the indicators will be added or subtracted.
÷ Income Inequality Using the Gini index, published by World Bank, and the Income Distribution Index (IDI), its relative change over time.
(PCE/IDI)*100 Adjusted Personal Consumption Formula=(Personal consumption/IDI) x 100. Forms the base number from which the remaining indicators are added or subtracted.
- Cost of Consumer Durables Calculated as a cost to avoid double counting the value provided by the durables themselves.
+ Value of Consumer Durables Household appliances, cars, etc. are not used up in one year and are considered a part of household capital. Their value is depreciated over a number of years.
- Cost of Underemployment Encompasses the chronically unemployed, discouraged workers, involuntary part-time workers and others with work-life restraints (lack of childcare or transportation).
+/- Net Capital Investment Capital investment in foreign markets minus incoming investments from other countries. If lending (+) if borrowing (-).
- Cost of Water Pollution Damage to water quality from things such as chemicals or nutrients, and the costs of erosion/sedimentation in waterways.
- Cost of Air Pollution Includes damage to vegetation, degradation of materials, cost of clean-up from soot or acid rain, and resulting reduced property values, wage differentials and aesthetics.
- Cost of Noise Pollution Noise from traffic and factories can cause hearing loss and sleep deprivation.
- Loss of Wetlands Valuates the services given up when wetlands are lost to development i.e. buffering of weather, habitat, water purification.
- Loss of farmland, soil quality or degradation Due to urbanization, soil erosion and compaction. This indicator is measured cumulatively to account for all years of production lost as it compromises self-sufficient food supply.
- Loss of Primary Forest and damage from logging roads Loss of biodiversity, soil quality, water purification, carbon sequestration, recreation etc. Cumulative affect year over year.
- CO2 Emissions Increases in severe weather is causing billions in damages. A value of US$93/metric ton of CO2 emitted is used, based on a meta-analysis study by Richard Tol (2005) of 103 separate studies of costs of economic damages.
- Cost of Ozone Depletion Our protective layer in the atmosphere. Depletion can lead to increased cases of cancer, cataracts and plant decline. Weighed at US$49,669/ton
- Depletion of Non-Renewables These cannot be renewed in a lifetime. Depletion is measured against cost of implementing and substituting with renewable resources.
+ Value of Housework and Parenting Child care, repairs and maintenance are valued equivalent to the amount a household would have to pay for the service.
- Cost of Family Changes Social dysfunction presents itself early in family life. Care is taken to avoid double counting goods and services duplicated due to split-parent households.
- Cost of Crime Medical expenses, property damages, psychological care and security measures to prevent crime are all included in this indicator.
- Cost of Household Pollution Abatement Cost to residents to clean the air and water in their own household i.e. air and water filters.
+ Value of Volunteer Work Valued as a contribution to social welfare. Neighborhoods and communities can find an informal safety net through their peers and volunteer work.
- Loss of Leisure Time Compared to 1969 hours of leisure. Recognizes that increased output of goods and services can lead to loss of valuable leisure time for family, chores or otherwise.
+ Value of Higher Education Accounts for the contribution resulting knowledge, productivity, civic engagement, savings, and health; a "social spillover," set to $16,000 per year.
+ Value of Highways and Streets Annual value of services contributed from the use of streets & highways. Valued at 7.5% of net stock of local, state and federal highways.
- Cost of Commuting Money spent to pay for the transportation and time lost in transit as opposed to other more enjoyable activities.
- Cost of Auto Accidents Damage and loss as a result of traffic accidents. Increased traffic densities are a direct result of industrialization and wealth accumulation.

Development in the United States[edit]

Non-profit organizations and universities have measured the GPI of Vermont, Maryland, Colorado, Ohio, and Utah. These efforts have incited government action in some states. As of 2014, Vermont, Maryland, Washington and Hawai'i have passed state government initiatives to consider GPI[15] in budgeting decisions, with a focus on long-term cost and benefits. Hawai'i's GPI spans the years from 2000 to 2020 and will be updated annually.[16]

In 2009, the state of Maryland formed a coalition of representatives from several state government departments in search of a metric that would factor social well-being into the more traditional gross product indicators of the economy. The metric would help determine the sustainability of growth and economic progress against social and environmental factors typically left out of national indicators. The GPI was chosen as a comprehensive measure of sustainability as it has a well-accepted scientific methodology that can be adopted by other states and compared over time.[17] Maryland's GPI trends are comparable to other states and nations that have measured their GPI in that gross state product (GSP) and GPI have diverged over the past four decades where GSP has increased more rapidly than GPI. While economic elements of GPI have increased overall (with a significant drop off during the Great Recession), social well-being has stagnated, with any values added being cancelled out by costs deducted, and environmental indicators, while improving slightly, are always considered costs. Combined, these elements bring the GPI below GSP.[18] However, Maryland's GPI did increase by two points from 2010 to 2011.[19]

The calculation methodology of GPI was first developed and published in 1995 by Redefining Progress and applied to US data from 1950 to 1994.[20] The original work on the GPI in 1995 was a modification of the 1994 version of the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare in Daly and Cobb. Results showed that GDP increased substantially from 1950 to 1994. Over the same period, the GPI stagnated. Thus, according to GPI theory, economic growth in the US, i.e., the growth of GDP, did not increase the welfare of the people over that 44 year period. So far, GPI time-series have been calculated for the US and Australia as well as for several of their states. In addition, GPI has been calculated for Austria, Canada, Chile, France, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, Scotland, and the rest of the UK.

Development in Finland[edit]

The GPI time-series 1945 to 2011 for Finland have been calculated by Statistics Finland. The calculation closely followed the US methodology. The results show that in the 1970s and 1980s economic growth, as measured by GDP, clearly increased welfare, measured by the GPI. After the economic recession of the early-1990s the GDP continued to grow, but the GPI stayed on a lower level. This indicates a widening gap between the trends of GDP and GPI that began in the early-1990s. In the 1990s and 2000s the growth of GDP has not benefited the average Finn. If measured by GPI, sustainable economic welfare has actually decreased due to environmental hazards that have accumulated in the environment. The Finnish GPI time series[21] have been updated by Dr Jukka Hoffrén at Statistics Finland.

Within EU's Interreg IV C FRESH Project (Forwarding Regional Environmental Sustainable Hierarchies) GPI time-series were calculated to Päijät-Häme, Kainuu and South-Ostrobotnia (Etelä-Pohjanmaa) regions in 2009–2010.[22] During 2011 these calculations were completed with GPI calculations for the Lappland, Northern Ostrobothnia (Pohjois-Pohjanmaa) and Central-Ostrobothnia (Keski-Pohjanmaa) regions.


GPI considers some types of production to have a negative impact upon being able to continue some types of production. GDP measures the entirety of production at a given time. GDP is relatively straightforward to measure compared to GPI. Competing measures like GPI define well-being, which are arguably impossible to define. Therefore, opponents of GPI claim that GPI cannot function to measure the goals of a diverse, plural society. Supporters of GDP as a measure of societal well-being claim that competing measures such as GPI are more vulnerable to political manipulation.[23]

Finnish economists Mika Maliranta and Niku Määttänen write that the problem of alternative development indexes is their attempt to combine things that are incommensurable. It is hard to say what they exactly indicate and difficult to make decisions based on them. They can be compared to an indicator that shows the mean of a car's velocity and the amount of fuel left.

They add that it indeed seems as if the economy has to grow in order for the people to even remain as happy as they are at present. In Japan, for example, the degree of happiness expressed by the citizens in polls has been declining since the early 1990s, the period when Japan's economic growth stagnated.[24]

Supporting countries and groups[edit]

  • Canada planning applications.[25] GDP has functioned as an "income sheet". GPI will function as a "balance sheet," taking into consideration that some income sources are very costly and contribute a negative profit overall.
  • Beyond GDP[26] is an initiative of the European Union, Club of Rome, WWF and OECD.
  • Redefining Progress.[27] Reports and analyses. A non-profit organization with headquarters in Oakland, California.[28]
  • Gross National Happiness USA[29] has commissioned studies and advocated adoption of GPI in the United States.

GPI and GPI-type studies completed[edit]

Indicator name Region Beginning year of study End year of study Year of publication Authors
MEW -(A/S) United States of America 1929 1965 1972 Nordhaus and Tobin
ISEW United States of America 1951 1986, 1992 1989, 1994 Daly and Cobb
ISEW Germany 1950 1990 1994 Diefenbacher
ISEW Scotland, United Kingdom 1980 1991 1994 Moffatt and Wilson
ISEW Netherlands 1950 1992 1995 Oegema and Rosenberg
ISEW Netherlands 1950 1992 1995 Rosenberg, Oegema, Bovy
ISEW Sweden 1950 1992 1996 Jackson and Stymne
ISEW Austria 1955 1992 1997 Stockhammer et al.
ISEW United Kingdom 1950 1996 1997 Jackson, et al.
ISEW Austria 1955 1992 1997 Stockhammer, Hochreiter, Obermayr, Steiner
ISEW Italy 1960 1991 1998 Giogio Guenno, Silvia Tiezzi
ISEW Chile 1965 1995 1999 Castañeda
GPI United States of America 1950 1994 1995 Cobb, Halstead, Rowe
GPI United States of America 1950 1996 1999 Cobb, Goodman, Wackernagel
GPI Australia 1950 1996 1999 Clive Hamilton
SNBI Australia 1966 1967 1999 Lawn and Sanders
SNBI Australia 1994 1995 1999 Lawn and Sanders
ISEW Scotland, United Kingdom 1980 1993 1999 Hanley
GPI Australia 1950 2000 2000 Hamilton and Dennis
GPI Minnesota 1960 1995 2000 Minnesota Planning Agency
GPI Alberta, Canada 1961 1999 2001 Mark Anielski
ISEW Czech Republic 1988 1998 2002 Scasny
ISEW Poland 1980 1997 2003 Gil and Sleszynski
ISEW Wales, United Kingdom 1990 2000 2003 Matthews, Williams, Roberts, Munday
GPI United States of America 1950 2002 2004 Venetoulis and Cobb
GPI San Francisco Bay Area 2000 2000 2004 Venetoulis and Cobb
GPI Vermont: Chittenden County and Burlington 1950 2000 2004 Costanza, Erickson et al.
ISEW Thailand 1975 1999 2005 Matthew Clarke, Sardar M.N. Islam
GPI Colombia 1976 2003 2006 Sánchez et al.
GPI United States of America 1950 2004 2006 John Talberth, Clifford Cobb, and Noah Slattery
ISEW Siena, Italy 1999 1999 2006 Pulselli, Ciampalini, Tiezzi, Zappia
ISEW Belgium 1970 2000 2006 Brent Bleys
GPI Victoria, Australia 1986 2003 2006 Clarke and Lawn
ISEW Mexico 1993 2005 2007 Castillo López A.
ISEW Netherlands 1971 2004 2007 Brent Bleys
IBES/ISEW Puerto Rico 1970 2006 2007 Alameda-Lozada and Diaz-Rodriguez
GPI China (4 regions) 1991 2001 2007 Zongguo Wen, Kunmin Zhanf, Bin Du, Yadong Li, Wei Li
GPI Northern Vermont (7 counties) 1950 2000 2007 Bagstad and Ceroni
ISEW Belgium 1970 2004 2008 Brent Bleys
R-ISEW England (regions) 1994 2005 2008 Tim Jackson, Nat McBride, Saamah Abdallah and Nic Marks
ISEW France 1990 2002 2008 Nourry
ISEW Modena and Rimini, Italy ? ? 2008 Pulselli, F.M., Tiezzi, E., Marchettini, N., Bastiononi, S.
GPI India 1987 2003 2008 Ed: Philip Lawn and Matthew Clarke (Book)
GPI Australia 1967 2006 2008 Ed: Philip Lawn and Matthew Clarke (Book)
GPI New Zealand 1970 2005 2008 Ed: Philip Lawn and Matthew Clarke (Book)
GPI Japan 1970 2003 2008 Ed: Philip Lawn and Matthew Clarke (Book)
GPI China 1970 2005 2008 Ed: Philip Lawn and Matthew Clarke (Book)
GPI Thailand 1975 2004 2008 Ed: Philip Lawn and Matthew Clarke (Book)
GPI Vietnam 1992 2004 2008 Ed: Philip Lawn and Matthew Clarke (Book)
Edmonton Wellbeing Index Edmonton, Canada 1981 2008 2009 Anielski and Johannessen
ISEW Tuscany, Italy 1971 2006 2009 Pulselli, F., Bravi, M., Tiezzi, E.
GPI Ukraine 2000 2007 2010 Danilishin & Veklich
GPI Utah 1990 2007 2011 Berik, G. and E. Gaddis
GPI Baltimore City, County, and the State of Maryland 1950 2005 2011 Posner, S. and R. Costanza
GPI Vermont 1960 2010 2011 Zencey, Eric, Sebastian Castro, Marigo Farr, Mark Isselhardt, Brian Kelly, Katharine Lucas, Julie Nash, Matt Pescatore, Meagan Pharis, Vinson Pierce, Tarah Rose, Daniel Sanchez, Aaron Witham, Zach Zimmerman.
GPI Maryland 1950 2004 2012 MacGuire, S., S. Posner, H. Haake
ISEW Netherlands 1970 2010 2012 Bob van Moerkerk
GPI Northern Ohio 1990 2005 2012 Kenneth Bagstad and Md Rumi Shammin
ISEW Flanders, Belgium 1990 2009 2013 Brent Bleys
GPI Vermont 1960 2011 2013 Jon D. Erickson, Eric Zencey, Matthew J. Burke, Sam Carlson, and Zachary Zimmerman
GPI Austria 1955 1992 2013 Kubiszewski, Costanza, Franco, Lawn, Talberth, Jackson, Aylmer
GPI Belgium 1970 2005 2013 Kubiszewski, Costanza, Franco, Lawn, Talberth, Jackson, Aylmer
GPI Netherlands 1950 1992 2013 Kubiszewski, Costanza, Franco, Lawn, Talberth, Jackson, Aylmer
GPI Poland 1980 1998 2013 Kubiszewski, Costanza, Franco, Lawn, Talberth, Jackson, Aylmer
GPI Italy 1960 1990 2013 Kubiszewski, Costanza, Franco, Lawn, Talberth, Jackson, Aylmer
GPI Sweden 1950 1992 2013 Kubiszewski, Costanza, Franco, Lawn, Talberth, Jackson, Aylmer
GPI United Kingdom 1950 2001 2013 Kubiszewski, Costanza, Franco, Lawn, Talberth, Jackson, Aylmer
GPI United States 1950 2005 2013 Kubiszewski, Costanza, Franco, Lawn, Talberth, Jackson, Aylmer
GPI Chile 1950 1992 2013 Kubiszewski, Costanza, Franco, Lawn, Talberth, Jackson, Aylmer
GPI Australia 1965 2006 2013 Kubiszewski, Costanza, Franco, Lawn, Talberth, Jackson, Aylmer
GPI New Zealand 1970 2005 2013 Kubiszewski, Costanza, Franco, Lawn, Talberth, Jackson, Aylmer
GPI China 1970 2006 2013 Kubiszewski, Costanza, Franco, Lawn, Talberth, Jackson, Aylmer
GPI India 1985 2003 2013 Kubiszewski, Costanza, Franco, Lawn, Talberth, Jackson, Aylmer
GPI Japan 1970 2003 2013 Kubiszewski, Costanza, Franco, Lawn, Talberth, Jackson, Aylmer
GPI Thailand 1975 2005 2013 Kubiszewski, Costanza, Franco, Lawn, Talberth, Jackson, Aylmer
GPI Vietnam 1990 2005 2013 Kubiszewski, Costanza, Franco, Lawn, Talberth, Jackson, Aylmer
GPI Global 1950 2005 2013 Kubiszewski, Costanza, Franco, Lawn, Talberth, Jackson, Aylmer
ISEW Tuscany and Marche, Italy 1999 2009 2013 Chelli, Ciommi, Gigliarano
GPI Maryland 1960 2013 2014 Hans Haake
GPI Hawaii 2000 2020 2022 Regina Ostergaard-Klem, Kirsten Oleson
GPI Colorado 1960 2011 2014 Chris Stiffler
ISEW Flanders, Belgium 1990 2012 2014 Brent Bleys
GPI Washington 1960 2015 2014 Siefer Amber & Rossman Jamie
GPI Krasnoyarsk Krai, Russia 2005 2011 2014 Pyzhev, Pyzheva & Zander
GPI Brazil 1970 2010 2015 Daniel Caixeta Andrade, Junior Ruiz Garcia
GPI Hong Kong 1968 2010 2015 Claudio O Delang (Book)
GPI Singapore 1968 2010 2015 Claudio O Delang (Book)
GPI Massachusetts 1960 2012 2015 Jon D. Erickson, Eric Zencey, and Zachary Zimmerman
GPI Oregon 1960 2010 2015 Ida Kubiszewski, Robert Costanza, Nicole E. Gorko, Michael A. Weisdorf, Austin W. Carnes, Cathrine E. Collins, Carol Franco, Lillian R. Gehres, Jenna M. Knobloch, Gayle E. Matson, Joan D. Schoepfer
ISEW Greece 2000 2012 2015 Angeliki Menegaki and Konstantinos Tsagarakis
ISEW Flanders, Belgium 1990 2014 2016 Brent Bleys
GPI Missouri 2000 2014 2016 Zencey, Eric
ISEW Flanders, Belgium 1990 2015 2017 Brent Bleys
GPI US, 50 States 2010 2011 2017 Mairi-Jane Fox
GPI Liaoning, China 1978 2011 2017 Yu Hou
ISEW Spain 1995 2014 2017 Ignacio Rodriguez Rodriguez
GPI California 2010 2014 2018 Brown and Lazarus
ISEW Turkey 2001 2012 2018 Angeliki Menegaki
N/RWI Germany, Bavaria, Hamburg, North Rhine/Westphalia, Rhineland-Palantinate, Saxonia, Thuringia 1991 2014 2018 Held, Rodenhäuser, Diefenbacher, Zieschank
ISEW Spain 1970 2012 2018 Tadhg O'Mahony, Paula Escardó-Serra, Javier Dufour
SWI Italy 1960 2014 2018 Mirko Armiento
ISEW Luxembourg 1960 2010 2018 Benedetto Rugani, Antonino Marvuglia, Federico Maria Pulselli
GPI Vermont 2000 2015 2018 Eric Zencey
GPI Ohio 2009 2016 2018 Rob Moore
GPI & ISEW Finland 1945 2017 2018 Hoffren
GPI & ISEW 19 regions, Finland 1960 2017 2018 Hoffren
GPI 10 Chinese megacities (Beijing, Tianjin, Nanjing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Chongqing, Chengdu, Xi'an, Wuhan, Shenyang), China 199x 201x 2018 Lu Huang
ISEW Flanders, Belgium 1990 2016 2018 Brent Bleys, Jonas Van der Slycken
GPI Iceland 2000 2016 2018 Anna Balafina
GPI Australia 1962 2013 2019 Kenny et al.
GPI 31 provinces, China 1997 2016 2019 Xianling Long, Xi Ji
GPI China 1997 2016 2019 Xianling Long, Xi Ji
GPI 28 OECD countries 1995(*) 2015(*) 2019 Pais, Alfonso, Marques, Fuinhas
GPI South Korea and Malaysia 1980 2014 2019 Mastura Hashim, Azhar Mohamad, Imtiaz Mohammad Sifat
GPI South Australia 1986 2016 2019 Philip Lawn
ISEW Romania 1990 2017 2019 Butnariu & Luca
ISEW Flanders 1990 2017 2019 Brent Bleys, Jonas Van der Slycken
GPI New Zealand 1970 2016 2019 Patterson et al.
GPI 21 cities in the Rust Belt, United States 1990 2015 2019 LaToya S. Moten
ISEW Ecuador 2001 2015 2020 Sanchez et al.
GPI Ohio 2009 2018 2020 Rob Moore
GPI North Carolina 2005 2018 2020 Juhi Modi
NWI Germany 1991 2018 2020 Held, Rodenhäuser, Diefenbacher
ISEW Flanders 1990 2018 2020 Brent Bleys, Jonas Van der Slycken
GPI Rio de Janeiro state in Brazil 2002 2016 2021 Senna G.N. and Serra E.G.
GPI Iceland 2000 2019 2021 David Cook and Brynhildur Davíðsdóttir
GPI China and 29 provinces 2016 2016 2021 Guan, Weng, Zhao, Lin, Zhang and Tu
GPI United States of America, and California 1995 2017 2022 Eli Lazarus and Clair Brown
ISEW/GPI Belgium 1995 2018 2023 Jonas Van der Slycken, Brent Bleys
ISEW/GPI EU-15 and its Member States 1995 2018 2024 Jonas Van der Slycken, Brent Bleys

See also[edit]


  1. ^ Kubiszewski, Ida; Costanza, Robert; Franco, Carol; Lawn, Philip; Talberth, John; Jackson, Tim; Aylmer, Camille (September 2013). "Beyond GDP: Measuring and achieving global genuine progress". Ecological Economics. 93: 57–68. Bibcode:2013EcoEc..93...57K. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.04.019. ISSN 0921-8009. S2CID 17390700.
  2. ^ a b c d e Bensel, Terrence; Turk, Jon (2011). Contemporary Environmental Issues. Bridgepoint Education. ISBN 9781935966159. 1935966154.
  3. ^ Simon Kuznets, 1934. "National Income, 1929–1932". 73rd US Congress, 2d session, Senate document no. 124, page 7. access-date=13 February 2022
  4. ^ "Beyond GDP: Measuring What Counts for Economic and Social Performance". OECD. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Retrieved 13 February 2022.
  5. ^ "For the Common Good by Herman Daly and John Cobb Jr. – A Book Review by Scott London". scottlondon.com.
  6. ^ "Initiative Details". iisd.org.
  7. ^ Kubiszewski, Ida; Costanza, Robert; Franco, Carol; Lawn, Philip; Talberth, John; Jackson, Tim; Aymler, Camille (30 April 2013). "Beyond GDP: Measuring and achieving global genuine progress". Ecological Economics. 93: 57–68. Bibcode:2013EcoEc..93...57K. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.04.019. S2CID 17390700.
  8. ^ Deaton, Angus (27 February 2008). "Ph.D." Gallup. Retrieved 10 December 2014.
  9. ^ Lawn, Philip A. (2003). "A theoretical foundation to support the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW), Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI), and other related indexes". Ecological Economics. 44 (1): 105–118. Bibcode:2003EcoEc..44..105L. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00258-6.
  10. ^ "GPI Atlantic". gpiatlantic.org.
  11. ^ "fiscallygreen.ca". ww12.fiscallygreen.ca. Retrieved 14 April 2023.
  12. ^ "GDP -- does size matter more than essence?". The Financial Express.
  13. ^ "Maryland GPI Indicators". Maryland Genuine Progress Indicator. MD DNR. Archived from the original on 2014-11-29. Retrieved 2014-10-21.
  14. ^ "Genuine Progress Indicator". Genuine Progress: Beyond GDP. Genuine Progress. Archived from the original on 2014-10-21. Retrieved 2014-10-22.
  15. ^ "Using GPI". gpiinthestates.org. Retrieved 14 April 2023.
  16. ^ Hawai'i's GPI dbedt.hawaii.gov
  17. ^ "MD-GPI Background & Methodology". Maryland Genuine Progress Indicator. MDDNR. Archived from the original on 28 November 2014. Retrieved 16 November 2014.
  18. ^ "Maryland Genuine Progress Indicator Overview". Maryland Genuine Progress Indicator. MD DNR. Archived from the original on 28 November 2014. Retrieved 16 November 2014.
  19. ^ "Governor O'Malley Hosts GPI Summit". maryland.gov.
  20. ^ Cobb, Clifford; Halstead, Ted; Rowe, Jonathan. "The Genuine Progress Indicator: Summary of Data and Methodology". Wasting Assets: Natural Resources in the National... Redefining Progress.
  21. ^ "Energy and material flows". Docstoc.com.
  22. ^ "MEASURING SUSTAINABLE WELL-BEING ON SUB-NATIONAL LEVEL WITH GENUINE PROGRESS INDICATOR (GPI) IN FINLAND" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-11-05. Retrieved 2012-05-10.
  23. ^ Goossens, Yanne. "Alternative progress indicators to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as a means towards sustainable development" (PDF). European Parliament. Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (EVNI). Retrieved 27 September 2015.
  24. ^ "Politiikanteon ohjaamiseen ei tarvita 'onnellisuusmittareita'", professor Mika Maliranta and research manager Niku Määttänen, Helsingin Sanomat 2011-02-06, page C6
  25. ^ "Canada planning applications". Archived from the original on 13 September 2004. Retrieved 14 April 2023.
  26. ^ "Site is undergoing maintenance". Beyond GDP - Zvýšte svoj príjem s najlepším slovenským online kasínom!. Retrieved 14 April 2023.
  27. ^ "Redefining Progress". Archived from the original on 10 September 2004. Retrieved 14 April 2023.
  28. ^ "Redefining Progress – Research and Publications". rprogress.org. Archived from the original on 2017-12-19.
  29. ^ "Genuine Progress Indicator". Retrieved 14 April 2023.

Further reading[edit]

News articles[edit]

Scientific articles and books[edit]

  • Anielski, M, M. Griffiths, D. Pollock, A. Taylor, J. Wilson, S. Wilson. 2001. Alberta Sustainability Trends 2000: Genuine Progress Indicators Report 1961 to 1999. Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development. April 2001. Anielski Home (see the Alberta Genuine Progress Indicators Reports)
  • Anielski, M. 2001. The Alberta GPI Blueprint: The Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) Sustainable Well-Being Accounting System. Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development. September 2001.http://www.anielski.com/Publications.htm (see the Alberta Genuine Progress Indicators Reports)
  • Anielski, M. and C. Soskolne. 2001. "Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) Accounting: Relating Ecological Integrity to Human Health and Well-Being." Paper in Just Ecological Integrity: The Ethics of Maintaining Planetary Life, eds. Peter Miller and Laura Westra. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield: pp. 83–97.
  • Bagstad, K., G. Berik, and E. Gaddis. 2014. “Methodological developments in U.S. state-level Genuine Progress Indicators: Toward GPI 2.0” Ecological Indicators 43: 474-485.
  • Berik, G. 2020. “Measuring What Matters and Guiding Policy: An Evaluation of the Genuine Progress Indicator” International Labour Review, 159 (1): 71-93.
  • Bleys, B., & Van der Slycken, J. (2019). De Index voor Duurzame Economische Welvaart (ISEW) voor Vlaanderen, 1990–2017. Studie uitgevoerd in opdracht van de Vlaamse Milieumaatschappij, MIRA, MIRA/2019/04, Universiteit Gent. Web: https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/8641018/file/8641020
  • Charles, A. C. Burbidge, H. Boyd and A. Lavers. 2009. Fisheries and the Marine Environment in Nova Scotia: Searching for Sustainability and Resilience. GPI Atlantic. Halifax, Nova Scotia. Web: [1]
  • Colman, Ronald. 2003. Economic Value of Civic and Voluntary Work. GPI Atlantic. Halifax, Nova Scotia. Web: [2]
  • Cobb, C., Halstead T., and J. Rowe. 1995. Genuine Progress Indicator: Summary of Data and Methodology. Redefining Progress, San Francisco.
  • Costanza, R., Erickson, J.D., Fligger, K., Adams, A., Adams, C., Altschuler, B., Balter, S., Fisher, B., Hike, J., Kelly, J., Kerr, T., McCauley, M., Montone, K., Rauch, M., Schmiedeskamp, K., Saxton, D., Sparacino, L., Tusinski, W. and L. Williams. 2004. "Estimates of the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) for Vermont, Chittenden County, and Burlington, from 1950 to 2000." Ecological Economics 51: 139–155.
  • Daly, H., 1996. Beyond Growth: The Economics of Sustainable Development. Beacon Press, Boston.
  • Daly, H. & Cobb, J., 1989, 1994. For the Common Good. Beacon Press, Boston.
  • Delang, C. O., Yu, Yi H. 2015. "Measuring Welfare beyond Economics: The genuine progress of Hong Kong and Singapore". London: Routledge.
  • Fisher, I., 1906. Nature of Capital and Income. A.M. Kelly, New York.
  • Hicks, J., 1946. Value and Capital, Second Edition. Clarendon, London.
  • Lawn, P.A. (2003). "A theoretical foundation to support the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW), Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI), and other related indexes". Ecological Economics. 44: 105–118. Bibcode:2003EcoEc..44..105L. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00258-6.
  • Max-Neef, M. (1995). "Economic growth and quality of life". Ecological Economics. 15: 115–118. doi:10.1016/0921-8009(95)00064-X.
  • Redefining Progress, 1995. "Gross production vs genuine progress". Excerpt from the Genuine Progress Indicator: Summary of Data and Methodology. Redefining Progress, San Francisco.
  • L. Pannozzo, R. Colman, N. Ayer, T. Charles, C. Burbidge, D. Sawyer, S. Stiebert, A. Savelson, C. Dodds. (2009), The 2008 Nova Scotia GPI Accounts; Indicators of Genuine Progress, GPI Atlantic. Halifax, Nova Scotia.
  • Van der Slycken, J.; Bleys, B. (2020). "A Conceptual Exploration and Critical Inquiry into the Theoretical Foundation(s) of Economic Welfare Measures" (PDF). Ecological Economics. 176: 106753. Bibcode:2020EcoEc.17606753V. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106753. S2CID 211396197.
  • Van der Slycken, J. (2021). Beyond GDP : alternative measures of economic welfare for the EU-15. Universiteit Gent. Faculteit Economie en Bedrijfskunde. Web: Beyond GDP : alternative measures of economic welfare for the EU-15

External links[edit]