Cultural advice

The Australian National University acknowledges, celebrates and pays our respects to the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people of the Canberra region and to all First Nations Australians on whose traditional lands we meet and work, and whose cultures are among the oldest continuing cultures in human history.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are advised that ANU Library collections may include images, names, voices, and other representations of deceased persons.

Material in the collection may contain terms, language or views that reflect the period in which the item was created and may be considered inappropriate today.

Australia's Genuine Progress Indicator Revisited (1962 - 2013)

Loading...
Thumbnail Image

Date

Authors

Kenny, Daniel C
Costanza, Robert
Dowsley, Tom
Jackson, Nichelle
Josol, Jairus
Kubiszewski, Ida
Narulla, Harkiran
Sese, Saioa
Sutanto, Anna
Thompson, Jonathan

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Publisher

Elsevier

Abstract

The Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) has been proposed as an alternative to GDP as an indicator of national progress. GPI includes 26 components that adjust GDP for inequality, include household and volunteer work, and subtract a number of social and environmental costs best seen as negatives. The GPI has been estimated for over 20 countries and many states and territories. This paper updates Australia's GPI to determine whether Australia as a nation has progressed overall since the 1960s and compares two alternative approaches that differ in some important details. We find that despite these differing approaches, we find that GPI remained largely stagnant from the 1960s through to the 1990s, and only at the turn of the century has GPI started to increase, despite increasing negative environmental costs. While GPI is well placed to serve as an improved Australian and global measure of national progress, further work is needed to measure national well-being and support its integration into political decision-making and to include the full range of subjective and objective indicators. Ultimately, this paper argues that while GPI is well placed to serve as a new Australian and global measure of well-being, we stress the need for an alternative indicator, like GPI, to supplement GDP and to better inform policy decisions.

Description

Keywords

Citation

Source

Ecological Economics

Book Title

Entity type

Access Statement

License Rights

Restricted until

2099-12-31