The movement toward a better, broader metric to replace GDP is growing (a new book, “GDP: A Brief But Affectionate History,” exhibits the growing cultural interest in this topic). Prime international examples of the movement to replace GDP include the European Commission’s Beyond GDP Initiative, the UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) indicators, and the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) (see paragraph 38 of the Annex to UN General Assembly Resolution 66/288). The States of Maryland and Vermont have begun measuring GPI. The rapid growth of sustainability reporting by corporations shows that the business community recognizes the importance of broader metrics. Developments in science and information technology (“big data”) give us the ability to measure and analyze many factors beyond classic economic transactions.
Collective action is necessary to raise the status of GPI, or a similar metric. More states could require measuring GPI. Federal agencies could issue regulations broadening cost-benefit analyses to include GPI factors. The President could issue an Executive Order requiring the use of GPI in certain agency actions. Citizens should demand accountability from politicians when a political district’s overall well-being fails to increase despite economic growth. The political significance of GDP must be significantly reduced to make space for a new and improved indicator.
The GDP fails as a measure of true progress and prosperity. Until GDP is used as originally intended, environmental disasters will continue to “contribute” to our growth as a society. As long as GDP maintains this preeminent position, America as a society essentially acquiesces to this outcome. We should demand better. The time has come to adopt a new indicator of progress appropriate to our 21st century technology, economy, and expectations.
