Yes I know. GDP is not concerned with how national product is produced, it simply adds it all up. And it doesn't, as in the case of Sardor Sarovar, take the negatives into account unless they are directly deductable from the assumed positives in monetary terms. An article in the Atlantic a few years ago pointed out that GDP includes all kinds of bad (e.g. the production of tabacco products, the production of power from polluting coal fired plants) and trivial things, as well as good things. Many have argued that GDP should be replaced by something more comprehensive such as Genuine Progress Indicators or by something else that takes both positives and negatives into account (e.g. Herman Daly), but governments have not bought it.
IMHO, a study on the relationship between GDP and the quality of life is in order. However, it would not be a simple study. It would be the kind of thing that, in Canada, a Royal Commission might have to undertake. If it were done, it could lead to a better national accounting system. I don't think we should heap too much blame on poor old Keynes. He may have planted the idea of a national accounting system, but a lot of other people, including the US National Bureau of Economic Research, bought into it and refined it into something functional. It's still a very good and useful idea, but it should be broadened to be more inclusive of bads as well as goods. Statistics Canada has done some work to broaden it by taking things like resource depletion into account, but I'm not sure of how far they've got. Ed Ed Weick 577 Melbourne Ave. Ottawa, ON, K2A 1W7 Canada Phone (613) 728 4630 Fax (613) 728 9382 ----- Original Message ----- From: "mcandreb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Ed Weick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 7:20 PM Subject: Re: [Futurework] Re: Not ideological (was More crap again) > EDwrote: > > I suppose it would depend on how threatening to conventional norms the > > curiosity was. If one proposed to demonstrate that the quality of > > life was > > inversely related to GDP one might not get funded. > > Hi Ed, > Marilyn Waring created a documentary film called "Sex, Lies, and > Economics". You can get it through your public library.It is available > through NFB. In it she challenges the concept of GDP as it is currently > define: > ----------------------------- > Meanwhile more feminists have tried to bring this submerged economy to > the surface, particularly with regard to women's work (Waring: 1988 > Henderson:1993 Steinem: 1993). Particularly Marilyn Waring has tried to > show, what it would mean if women's work counted, if their work was > included in the GDP. In my view, the most interesting part of her > analysis is her tracing the history of the GDP as an indicator of > economic growth, which was/is considered equivalent to "well-being". > > Not only was this indicator developed by British economists like Keynes, > Stone and Gilbert during WW II (Waring: 1989) in order to find out > whether the war was economically profitable, after the war this > indicator was universalized in the UNSNA (United Nations System of > National Accounting) to measure the achievements, i. e. the growth of > all national economies in the world. It is characteristic for this > indicator that it excludes not only women's work in the household, but > also all other non-wage work for subsistence, particularly that of small > peasants in the South. It also excludes the "work" of nature; her > regenerative cycles are taken for granted. Not the destruction of nature > is counted, but only if the repair of this destruction involves further > wage labour, investment, industry, profits. Only the labour that > contributes directly to the generation of profit is called productive > labour. And only the labour that produces commodities is counted in the > GDP. Hence, the GDP is still an indicator which rather measures > destructive production than the well-being of people. This is quite > evident if one looks at the environmental and social costs of what still > is called "development". As a recent example I want to mention the > gigantic dam project on the Narmada in India, known as the Sardar > Sarovar Project. 3,000 dam projects are planned which are supposed to > serve for irrigation, power generation, drinking water collection. But > this "development", meant mainly for urban and rural middle classes, > will destroy the livelihood of more than 200,000 people - mainly > tribals, who are being evicted from their traditional habitat in the > forests. It will destroy huge areas of primeval forests with their > wild-life, their species variety, and it will also destroy a large > number of temples on the river banks, cultural centres since ancient > times. The promoters of this project, the World Bank (which meanwhile > has stopped its credits) and the Indian Government simply argue, that in > the process of development always some people will have to suffer. Of > course, those who have to suffer are never those who reap the fruits of > this development. > > -------------------------------------- > So you can see Ed that the GDP was the creation of a man, Keynes, whose > beliefs, assumptions, attitudes and values shaped his economic theory. > What if a women had been given the task? > > Take care, > Brian _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
