IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v167y2020ics0921800919302411.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Design and meaning of the genuine progress indicator: A statistical analysis of the U.S. fifty-state model

Author

Listed:
  • Fox, Mairi-Jane V.
  • Erickson, Jon D.

Abstract

The Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) was designed to reveal the trade-offs between costs and benefits of economic growth. Although originally estimated and contrasted with Gross Domestic Product (GDP) at national scales, an interest in a state-level adoption has developed in the United States to inform and guide policy. As GPI scholarship and a community of practice has developed, questions have arisen about the quality and legitimacy of the GPI. To investigate, we apply a composite indicator analysis developed by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to fifty US state GPI estimates using a consistent method. We focus on a multi-variate analysis of the structure of the composite, sensitivity to weighting and aggregation assumptions, and the statistical relationship with other well-being indicators. Results are heavily influenced by a small number of components, point to a number of unintended policy outcomes, and have mixed relationships with allied indicators. The study suggests steps towards shared GPI governance among practitioners and researchers, consideration of data parsimony and potential double-counting, and data selection criteria to help fill gaps, prioritize needs, and better articulate the purpose and meaning of GPI.

Suggested Citation

  • Fox, Mairi-Jane V. & Erickson, Jon D., 2020. "Design and meaning of the genuine progress indicator: A statistical analysis of the U.S. fifty-state model," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:167:y:2020:i:c:s0921800919302411
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106441
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800919302411
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106441?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Posner, Stephen M. & Costanza, Robert, 2011. "A summary of ISEW and GPI studies at multiple scales and new estimates for Baltimore City, Baltimore County, and the State of Maryland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1972-1980, September.
    2. Tol, Richard S. J., 2005. "The marginal damage costs of carbon dioxide emissions: an assessment of the uncertainties," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(16), pages 2064-2074, November.
    3. Philip Lawn, 2005. "An Assessment of the Valuation Methods Used to Calculate the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW), Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI), and Sustainable Net Benefit Index (SNBI)," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 185-208, June.
    4. Kubiszewski, Ida & Costanza, Robert & Franco, Carol & Lawn, Philip & Talberth, John & Jackson, Tim & Aylmer, Camille, 2013. "Beyond GDP: Measuring and achieving global genuine progress," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 57-68.
    5. Kenny, Daniel C. & Costanza, Robert & Dowsley, Tom & Jackson, Nichelle & Josol, Jairus & Kubiszewski, Ida & Narulla, Harkiran & Sese, Saioa & Sutanto, Anna & Thompson, Jonathan, 2019. "Australia's Genuine Progress Indicator Revisited (1962–2013)," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 1-10.
    6. Layard, R. & Mayraz, G. & Nickell, S., 2008. "The marginal utility of income," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(8-9), pages 1846-1857, August.
    7. Fox, Mairi-Jane V. & Erickson, Jon D., 2018. "Genuine Economic Progress in the United States: A Fifty State Study and Comparative Assessment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 29-35.
    8. Beça, Pedro & Santos, Rui, 2010. "Measuring sustainable welfare: A new approach to the ISEW," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(4), pages 810-819, February.
    9. Costanza, Robert & Erickson, Jon & Fligger, Karen & Adams, Alan & Adams, Christian & Altschuler, Ben & Balter, Stephanie & Fisher, Brendan & Hike, Jessica & Kelly, Joe, 2004. "Estimates of the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) for Vermont, Chittenden County and Burlington, from 1950 to 2000," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(1-2), pages 139-155, November.
    10. Frances C. Moore & Delavane B. Diaz, 2015. "Temperature impacts on economic growth warrant stringent mitigation policy," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 5(2), pages 127-131, February.
    11. Eric Neumayer, 1999. "The ISEW -- not an Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 77-101, September.
    12. Frances C. Moore & Delavane B. Diaz, 2015. "Erratum: Temperature impacts on economic growth warrant stringent mitigation policy," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 5(3), pages 280-280, March.
    13. 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, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 105-118, February.
    14. Brennan, Andrew John, 2008. "Theoretical foundations of sustainable economic welfare indicators -- ISEW and political economy of the disembedded system," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 1-19, August.
    15. Talberth, John & Weisdorf, Michael, 2017. "Genuine Progress Indicator 2.0: Pilot Accounts for the US, Maryland, and City of Baltimore 2012–2014," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 1-11.
    16. Andrew Sharpe, 2004. "Literature Review of Frameworks for Macro-indicators," CSLS Research Reports 2004-03, Centre for the Study of Living Standards.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Herrero, Carmen & Pineda, José & Villar, Antonio & Zambrano, Eduardo, 2020. "Tracking progress towards accessible, green and efficient energy: The Inclusive Green Energy index," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 279(C).
    2. Ji, Xi & Wu, Guowei & Su, Pinyi & Luo, Xuanyuan & Long, Xianling, 2022. "Does legislation improvement alleviate the decoupling between welfare and wealth in China?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    3. Carmen Herrero & Jose' Pineda & Antonio Villar & Eduardo Zambrano, 2020. "The Inclusive Green Energy index of progress," Working Papers 2003, California Polytechnic State University, Department of Economics.
    4. Melgar-Melgar, Rigo E. & Hall, Charles A.S., 2020. "Why ecological economics needs to return to its roots: The biophysical foundation of socio-economic systems," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    5. Lazarus, Elias & Brown, Clair, 2022. "Improving the genuine progress indicator to measure comparable net welfare: U.S. and California, 1995–2017," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    6. Comim, Flavio & Hirai, Tadashi, 2022. "Sustainability and Human Development Indicators: A Poset Analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Long, Xianling & Ji, Xi, 2019. "Economic Growth Quality, Environmental Sustainability, and Social Welfare in China - Provincial Assessment Based on Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI)," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 157-176.
    2. Van der Slycken, Jonas & Bleys, Brent, 2020. "A Conceptual Exploration and Critical Inquiry into the Theoretical Foundation(s) of Economic Welfare Measures," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    3. Fox, Mairi-Jane V. & Erickson, Jon D., 2018. "Genuine Economic Progress in the United States: A Fifty State Study and Comparative Assessment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 29-35.
    4. Rugani, Benedetto & Marvuglia, Antonino & Pulselli, Federico Maria, 2018. "Predicting Sustainable Economic Welfare – Analysis and perspectives for Luxembourg based on energy policy scenarios," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 288-303.
    5. Günseli BERIK, 2020. "Measuring what matters and guiding policy: An evaluation of the Genuine Progress Indicator," International Labour Review, International Labour Organization, vol. 159(1), pages 71-94, March.
    6. Brennan, Andrew John, 2013. "A critique of the perceived solid conceptual foundations of ISEW & GPI — Irving Fisher's cognisance of human-health capital in ‘net psychic income’," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 159-166.
    7. Cook, David & Davidsdottir, Brynhildur & Petursson, Jón Geir, 2015. "Accounting for the utilisation of geothermal energy resources within the genuine progress indicator—A methodological review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 211-220.
    8. Armiento, Mirko, 2018. "The Sustainable Welfare Index: Towards a Threshold Effect for Italy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 296-309.
    9. Kubiszewski, Ida & Costanza, Robert & Gorko, Nicole E. & Weisdorf, Michael A. & Carnes, Austin W. & Collins, Cathrine E. & Franco, Carol & Gehres, Lillian R. & Knobloch, Jenna M. & Matson, Gayle E. & , 2015. "Estimates of the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) for Oregon from 1960–2010 and recommendations for a comprehensive shareholder's report," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 1-7.
    10. Lazarus, Elias & Brown, Clair, 2022. "Improving the genuine progress indicator to measure comparable net welfare: U.S. and California, 1995–2017," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    11. Xincheng Zhu & Yulin Liu & Xin Fang, 2022. "Revisiting the Sustainable Economic Welfare Growth in China: Provincial Assessment Based on the ISEW," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 162(1), pages 279-306, July.
    12. Daniel Francisco Pais & Tiago Lopes Afonso & Ant nio Cardoso Marques & Jos A Fuinhas, 2019. "Are Economic Growth and Sustainable Development Converging? Evidence from the Comparable Genuine Progress Indicator for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Countries," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 9(4), pages 202-213.
    13. Talberth, John & Weisdorf, Michael, 2017. "Genuine Progress Indicator 2.0: Pilot Accounts for the US, Maryland, and City of Baltimore 2012–2014," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 1-11.
    14. Menegaki, Angeliki N. & Tugcu, Can Tansel, 2017. "Energy consumption and Sustainable Economic Welfare in G7 countries; A comparison with the conventional nexus," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 892-901.
    15. Hayashi, Takashi, 2015. "Measuring rural–urban disparity with the Genuine Progress Indicator: A case study in Japan," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 260-271.
    16. Jonas Slycken & Brent Bleys, 2023. "Towards ISEW and GPI 2.0: Dealing with Cross-Time and Cross-Boundary Issues in a Case Study for Belgium," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 168(1), pages 557-583, August.
    17. Kenny, Daniel C. & Costanza, Robert & Dowsley, Tom & Jackson, Nichelle & Josol, Jairus & Kubiszewski, Ida & Narulla, Harkiran & Sese, Saioa & Sutanto, Anna & Thompson, Jonathan, 2019. "Australia's Genuine Progress Indicator Revisited (1962–2013)," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 1-10.
    18. Ji, Xi & Wu, Guowei & Su, Pinyi & Luo, Xuanyuan & Long, Xianling, 2022. "Does legislation improvement alleviate the decoupling between welfare and wealth in China?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    19. Anders Hayden & Jeffrey Wilson, 2018. "Taking the First Steps beyond GDP: Maryland’s Experience in Measuring “Genuine Progress”," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-24, February.
    20. Cook, David & Davíðsdóttir, Brynhildur, 2021. "An estimate of the Genuine Progress Indicator for Iceland, 2000–2019," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:167:y:2020:i:c:s0921800919302411. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.