DOCSLIB.ORG

Human Development Index

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Human Development Index Human Development Index World map indicating the category of Human Development Index by country (based on 2013 data; published July 24, 2014). The Human Development Index (HDI) is a compos- ite statistic of life expectancy, education, and per capita income indicators, which is used to rank countries into four tiers of human development. It was developed by Pakistani economist Mahbub ul Haq, is anchored in the Nobel laureate Amartya Sen’s work on human capabili- ties, often framed in terms of whether people are able to [1] “be” and “do” desirable things in life, and was published Mahbub ul Haq by the United Nations Development Programme.[2] The 2010 Human Development Report introduced an posed this idea, but he soon went on to help Haq develop Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index (IHDI). the Index in the future. Sen was worried that it was go- While the simple HDI remains useful, it stated that “the ing to be difficult to capture the full complexity of human IHDI is the actual level of human development (account- capabilities in a single index, but Haq persuaded him that ing for inequality),” and “the HDI can be viewed as an in- only a single number would shift the attention of policy- dex of 'potential' human development (or the maximum makers from concentration on economic to human well- IHDI that could be achieved if there were no inequality).” being.[3][4] 1 Origins 2 Dimensions and calculation The origins of the HDI are found in the annual Develop- ment Reports of the United Nations Development Pro- 2.1 New method (2010 Report onwards) gramme (UNDP). These were devised and launched by Pakistani economist Mahbub ul Haq in 1990 and had Published on 4 November 2010 (and updated on 10 June the explicit purpose “to shift the focus of development 2011), starting with the 2010 Human Development Re- [5] economics from national income accounting to people- port the HDI combines three dimensions: centred policies”. To produce the Human Development Reports, Mahbub ul Haq brought together a group of de- • A long and healthy life: Life expectancy at birth velopment economists including Paul Streeten, Frances Stewart, Gustav Ranis, Keith Griffin, Sudhir Anand and • Education index: Mean years of schooling and Ex- Meghnad Desai. Working along with Nobel laureate pected years of schooling Amartya Sen, they worked on capabilities and function- • ings that provided the underlying conceptual framework. A decent standard of living: GNI per capita (PPP Haq was sure that a simple composite measure of human US$) development was needed in order to convince the public, academics, and policy-makers that they can and should In its 2010 Human Development Report, the UNDP be- evaluate development not only by economic advances but gan using a new method of calculating the HDI. The fol- also improvements in human well-being. Sen initially op- lowing three indices are used: 1 2 2 DIMENSIONS AND CALCULATION 2.2 Old method (before 2010 Report) The HDI combined three dimensions last used in its 2009 Report: • Life expectancy at birth, as an index of population health and longevity to HDI • Knowledge and education, as measured by the adult literacy rate (with two-thirds weighting) and the combined primary, secondary, and tertiary gross en- rollment ratio (with one-third weighting). • Standard of living, as indicated by the natural log- arithm of gross domestic product per capita at purchasing power parity. 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 Amartya Sen 0.4 0.3 − LE 20 0.2 1. Life Expectancy Index (LEI) = 85−20 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2004 MYSI+EYSI 2. Education Index (EI) = 2 HDI trends between 1975 and 2004 2.1 Mean Years of Schooling Index (MYSI) = This is the methodology used by the UNDP up until its MYS [6] 15 2011 report. The formula defining the HDI is promulgated by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).[8] In 2.2 Expected Years of Schooling Index (EYSI) general, to transform a raw variable, say x , into a unit- EYS [7] = 18 free index between 0 and 1 (which allows different in- dices to be added together), the following formula is used: − ln(GNIpc)−ln(100) • xindex = x min(x) 3. Income Index (II) = ln(75;000)−ln(100) max(x)−min(x) Finally, the HDI is the geometric mean of the previous three normalizedp indices: where min (x) and max (x) are the lowest and highest val- HDI = 3 LEI · EI · II: ues the variable x can attain, respectively. LE: Life expectancy at birth The Human Development Index (HDI) then represents MYS: Mean years of schooling (Years that a 25-year-old person the uniformly weighted sum with ⅓ contributed by each or older has spent in schools) of the following factor indices: EYS: Expected years of schooling (Years that a 5-year-old child will spend with his education in his whole life) • LE−25 Life Expectancy Index = 85−25 GNIpc: Gross national income at purchasing power parity per • 2 × 1 × capita Education Index = 3 ALI + 3 GEI 3.1 Inequality-adjusted HDI 3 • ALR−0 Adult Literacy Index (ALI) = 100−0 7. Sweden 0.840 ( 4) • Gross Enrollment Index (GEI) = CGER−0 100−0 8. Denmark 0.838 ( 1) • log(GDP pc)−log(100) GDP = log(40000)−log(100) 9. Canada 0.833 ( 4) 10. Ireland 0.832 ( 4) Other organizations/companies may include other fac- tors, such as infant mortality, which produces different 11. Finland 0.830 ( ) number of HDI. 12. Slovenia 0.824 ( 2) 13. Austria 0.818 ( 1) 3 2014 report 14. Luxembourg 0.814 ( 3) Main article: List of countries by Human Development 15. Czech Republic 0.813 ( 1) Index 16. United Kingdom 0.812 ( 3) The 2014 Human Development Report by the United 17. Belgium 0.806 ( 2) Nations Development Program was released on July 24, 2014, and calculates HDI values based on estimates for 18. France 0.804 ( ) 2013. Below is the list of the “very high human develop- ment” countries:[9] 19. Japan 0.799 (New) 20. Israel 0.793 ( 1) • = increase. • = steady. 21. Slovakia 0.778 ( 1) • = decrease. 22. Spain 0.775 ( 2) • The number in brackets represents the number of 23. Italy 0.768 ( 1) ranks the country has climbed (up or down) relative to the ranking in 2013 report. 24. Estonia 0.767 ( 1) 25. Greece 0.762 ( 2) 3.1 Inequality-adjusted HDI 26. Malta 0.760 ( 3) Main article: List of countries by inequality-adjusted 27. Hungary 0.757 ( 1) HDI 28. United States 0.755 ( 12) The Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index 29. Poland 0.751 ( 1) (IHDI)[9] is a “measure of the average level of human de- velopment of people in a society once inequality is taken 30. Cyprus 0.752 ( 1) into account.” 31. Lithuania 0.746 ( 2) Note: The green arrows ( ), red arrows ( ), and blue dashes ( ) represent changes in rank. The changes in rank are not 32. Portugal 0.739 ( ) relative to the HDI list above, but are according to the source 33. South Korea 0.736 ( 5) (p. 168) calculated with the exclusion of countries which are missing IHDI data. 34. Latvia 0.725 ( 1) 35. Croatia 0.721 ( 4) 1. Norway 0.891 ( ) 36. Argentina 0.680 ( 7) 2. Australia 0.860 ( ) 37. Chile 0.661 ( 4) 3. Netherlands 0.854 ( 1) Countries in the top quartile of HDI (“very high human 4. Switzerland 0.847 ( 3) development” group) with a missing IHDI: New Zealand, 5. Germany 0.846 ( ) Singapore, Hong Kong, Liechtenstein, Brunei, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Andorra, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, 6. Iceland 0.843 ( 2) Cuba, and Kuwait. 4 4 2013 REPORT 3.2 Countries not included 20. France 0.893 ( ) Some countries were not included for various reasons, 21. Finland 0.892 ( 1) mainly the unavailability of certain crucial data. The fol- lowing United Nations Member States were not included 22. Slovenia 0.892 ( 1) in the 2014 report:[9] North Korea, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Nauru, San Marino, Somalia,India, Pakistan, 23. Spain 0.885 ( ) South Sudan, and Tuvalu. 24. Liechtenstein 0.883 ( 16) 4 2013 report 25. Italy 0.881 ( 1) Main article: List of countries by Human Development 26. Luxembourg 0.875 ( 1) Index 27. United Kingdom 0.875 ( 1) The 2013 Human Development Report by the United Na- tions Development Program was released on March 14, 28. Czech Republic 0.873 ( 1) 2013, and calculates HDI values based on estimates for 2012. Below is the list of the “very high human develop- 29. Greece 0.860 ( ) ment” countries:[11] Note: The green arrows ( ), red arrows ( ), and blue dashes 30. Brunei 0.855 ( 1) ( ) represent changes in rank when compared to the new 2012 data HDI for 2011 – published in the 2012 report. 31. Cyprus 0.848 ( 1) 1. Norway 0.955 ( ) 32. Malta 0.847 ( 4) 2. Australia 0.938 ( ) 33. Estonia 0.846 ( ) 3. United States 0.937 ( 1) 34. Andorra 0.846 ( 1) 4. Netherlands 0.921 ( 1) 5. Germany 0.920 ( 4) 35. Slovakia 0.840 ( ) 6. New Zealand 0.919 ( 1) 36. Qatar 0.834 ( 1) 7. Ireland 0.916 ( ) 37. Hungary 0.831 ( 1) 8. Sweden 0.916 ( 3) 38. Barbados 0.825 ( 9) 9. Switzerland 0.913 ( 2) 10. Japan 0.912 ( 2) 39. Poland 0.821 ( ) 11. Canada 0.911 ( 5) 40. Chile 0.819 ( 4) 12. South Korea 0.909 ( 3) 41. Lithuania 0.818 ( 1) 13. Hong Kong 0.906 ( ) 42. United Arab Emirates 0.818 ( 12) 14. Iceland 0.906 ( ) 43. Portugal 0.816 ( 2) 15. Denmark 0.901 ( 1) 44.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Delhey, Jan; Kroll, Christian Working Paper A "happiness test" for the new measures of national well-being: How much better than GDP are they? WZB Discussion Paper, No. SP I 2012-201 Provided in Cooperation with: WZB Berlin Social Science Center Suggested Citation: Delhey, Jan; Kroll, Christian (2012) : A "happiness test" for the new measures of national well-being: How much better than GDP are they?, WZB Discussion Paper, No. SP I 2012-201, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB), Berlin This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/60235 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von
    [Show full text]
  • The Capability Approach and Well-Being Measurement for Public Policy
    Oxford Poverty & Human Development Initiative (OPHI) Oxford Department of International Development Queen Elizabeth House (QEH), University of Oxford OPHI WORKING PAPER NO. 94 The Capability Approach and Well-Being Measurement for Public Policy Sabina Alkire* March 2015 Abstract This chapter presents Sen’s capability approach as a framework for well-being measurement with powerful and ongoing relevance to current work on measuring well-being in order to guide public policy. It discusses how preferences and values inform the relative weights across capabilities, then draws readers’ attention to measurement properties of multidimensional measures that have proven to be policy-relevant in poverty reduction. It presents a dual-cutoff counting methodology that satisfies these principles and outlines the assumptions that must be fulfilled in order to interpret ensuing indices as measuring capability poverty. It then discusses Bhutan’s innovative extension of this methodology in the Gross National Happiness Index and reflects upon whether it might be suited to other contexts. It closes with some remarks on relevant material in other Handbook chapters. Keywords: capability approach, Amartya Sen, preferences, ordinal data, relative weights, AF dual-cutoff counting methodology, multidimensional poverty, Bhutan’s Gross National Happiness Index. JEL classification: D60, I30, I32, A13 Acknowledgements This is a chapter 'The Capability Approach' drafted for Oxford Handbook on Well-being and Public Policy. The early sections of this chapter drew on a 2008 unpublished background note for the Sarkozy Commission. I am grateful to Amartya Sen, James Foster, and Enrica Chiappero-Martinetti for discussion and comments; I am also grateful to participants in the March 2014 Handbook workshop for * Oxford Poverty & Human Development Initiative, Oxford Department of International Development, University of Oxford, 3 Mansfield Road, Oxford OX1 3TB, UK, +44-1865-271915, [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • Measuring Well-Being and Progress: Looking Beyond
    Measuring well-being and progress Looking beyond GDP SUMMARY Gross domestic product (GDP), a measure of national economic production, has come to be used as a general measure of well-being and progress in society, and as a key indicator in deciding a wide range of public policies. However GDP does not properly take into account non-economic factors such as social issues and the environment. In the aftermath of the economic and financial crisis, the European Union (EU) needs reliable, transparent and convincing measures for evaluating progress. Indicators of social aspects that play a large role in determining citizens' well-being are increasingly being used to supplement economic measures. Health, education and social relationships play a large role in determining citizens' well-being. Subjective evaluations of well-being can also be used as a measure of progress. Moreover, changes in the environment caused by economic activities (in particular depletion of non-renewable resources and increased greenhouse gas emissions) need to be evaluated so as to ensure that today's development is sustainable for future generations. The EU and its Member States, as well as international bodies, have a role in ensuring that we have accurate, useful and credible ways of measuring well-being and assessing progress in our societies. In this briefing: Background Objective social indicators Subjective well-being Environment and sustainability EU and international context Further reading Author: Ron Davies, Members' Research Service European Parliamentary Research Service 140738REV1 http://www.eprs.ep.parl.union.eu — http://epthinktank.eu [email protected] Measuring well-being and progress Background The limits of GDP Gross domestic product (GDP) measures the market value of all final goods and services produced within a country's borders in a given period, such as a year.1 It provides a simple and easily communicated monetary value that can be calculated from current market prices and that can be used to make comparisons between different countries.
    [Show full text]
  • Are We Progressing?
    “ Extensive monitoring and reporting of the highest quality are essential for the achievement of a sustainable society. ” Are we progressing? Comprehensive monitor- Andrew Macintosh is the Associate Director ing and reporting in Australia is an examina- of the Centre for Climate Change Law & tion of social, environmental and economic Policy at the Australian National University reporting practices. It discusses the importance and a Fellow of the ANU’s Australian Centre for of reporting, optimal arrangements for report- Environmental Law. A lawyer and economist, ing, problems that need attention to avoid pit- Andrew has published widely on environmen- ARE WE falls and the different types of reporting needed tal policy and governance, with a particular for different purposes. focus on climate change and the administra- tion of environmental law. It describes the state of play in Australia, PROGRESSING? discussing the adequacy of national, state and Deb Wilkinson is a Research Associate of territory reporting arrangements. It also looks the Australian Centre for Environmental Law at the development of organisational reporting at the Australian National University. With Comprehensive monitoring and reporting in government agencies, business corporations, degrees in urban planning, sociology, politics universities and not-for-profit bodies. It finds and environmental policy, Deb also has a keen many deficiencies in current reporting prac- interest in environmental governance and has in Australia tices but also some areas where improvements
    [Show full text]
  • Alternatives and Complements to GDP-Measured Growth As a Framing Concept for Social Progress
    Life Beyond Growth Alternatives and Complements to GDP-Measured Growth as a Framing Concept for Social Progress 2012 Annual Survey Report of the Institute for Studies in Happiness, Economy, and Society — ISHES (Tokyo, Japan) Commissioned by Produced by Published by Table of Contents Preface 4 A Note on Sources and References 7 Introduction 8 Chapter 1: The Historical Foundations of Economic Growth 13 Chapter 2: The Rise (and Possible Future Fall) of the Growth Paradigm 17 Chapter 3: The Building Blocks of the Growth Paradigm 24 Chapter 4: Alternatives to the Growth Paradigm: A Short History 29 Chapter 5: Rethinking Growth: Alternative Frameworks and their Indicators 34 Chapter 6: Looking Ahead: The Political Economy of Growth in the Early 21st Century 50 Chapter 7: Concluding Reflections: The Ethics of Growth and Happiness, and a Vision for the Future 65 References & Resources 67 2 Dedication Dedication This report is dedicated to the memory of Donella H. “Dana” Meadows (1941-2001), lead author of The Limits to Growth and a pioneering thinker in the area of sustainable development and ecological economics. Dana, throughout her life, managed not only to communicate a different way of thinking about economic growth and well-being, but also to demonstrate how to live a happy and satisfying life as well. 3 Preface Preface “Life Beyond Growth” began as a report One week later, on 11 March 2011, the depth and commissioned by the Institute for Studies in breadth of those unresolved questions expanded Happiness, Economy, and Society (ISHES), based in enormously. In the series of events known in Japan Tokyo, Japan.
    [Show full text]
  • Survey of Existing Approaches to Measuring Socio-Economic Progress*
    Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and social Progress SURVEY OF EXISTING APPROACHES TO MEASURING SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROGRESS* 1. INTRODUCTION GDP shortcomings, as an index for measuring socio-economic progress, feature again prominently in the public debate, following years of benign neglect. Such criticisms are almost as old as the concept itself and national accountants have repeatedly warned about limitations of GDP as a welfare indicator. At the end of the day, it is essentially a measure of economic activity, and more specifically of economic activities leading to monetary transactions. As a result, GDP suffers from two major weaknesses: (a) being a monetary aggregate, it pays little or no attention to distributional issues and to elements of human activity or well-being for which no direct or indirect market valuation is available; (b) it is measuring productive flows and, as such, ignores the impact of productive activities on stocks, including stocks of natural resources. These criticisms first culminated during the mid-seventies with worries about ecological limits to growth and an increasing concern over the relative weights to be given to economic and social aspects of human progress, for developed as well as for developing countries. Some early initiatives took place at that time, in particular the attempt by Nordhaus and Tobin (1973) to develop a measure of economic welfare (MEW), based on GDP, but correcting GDP for its most evident limitations. Following these early moves, interest in alternatives approaches to GDP temporarily fell, with other pressing but more traditional problems taking centerstage, such as stagflation or rapid increase in unemployment rates and the GDP-targeted policies needed to address them.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Cohesion in a Shifting Wealth World
    Processes in development progress measurement Examples from OECD work on Measuring Development and Well- Being Outcomes Federico Bonaglia Head of Policy Dialogue Division OECD Development Centre Seminar on: Outcome and impact measurement in Trade Union development cooperation 11-13 June, Malines/Mechelen, Belgium Outline 1 Setting the context: social cohesion in a shifting wealth world 2 Measuring development outcomes: recent OECD work a Social Institutions and Gender Index b Better Life Initiative and Index 3 Conclusions and Summing Up A success story? • A lower-middle income country • Average 5% annual growth rate since 1990 • Improving rankings in the ease of doing business • ‘Prudent public debt management’ (42.8% of GDP in 2009) • 3% fiscal deficit • Inflation at approx. 3% in the 2000s • 60% of budget dedicated to social sectors • Nearly 100% primary enrolment in 2008 • 80% health care coverage Tunisia Source: OECD/AfDB/UNECA (2010), African Economic Outlook Growth in life satisfaction and income do not necessarily coincide Sources: Authors„ calculation based on Gallup World Poll (2010) and World Bank (2010) Relative poverty levels across the world % Living below 60% median 35 Living below 50% median Living below 40% median 30 Living below $1.25 PPP/day 25 20 15 10 5 0 Source: PGD 2010, OECD and Garroway and de Laiglesia (forthcoming) Shift in Focus from Absolute Poverty to Relative Deprivation •Absolute and relative poverty headcount for selected OECD and non-OECD 40% countries (mid-2000s) 35% Living below 60% of median 30% Living below $1.25 PPP/day 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% * Indicates income rather than consumption measure Source: OECD Development Centre, Perspectives on Global Development 2010 Shifting Wealth based on OECD (2008) and World Bank (2009).
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing the Impact of Economic Reform
    AssessingAssessing thethe ImpactImpact ofof EconomicEconomic ReformReform OECDOECD WorldWorld ForumForum onon Statistics,Statistics, KnowledgeKnowledge andand PolicyPolicy JonJon Hall,Hall, WorldWorld ForumForum ProjectProject Leader,Leader, OECDOECD [email protected]@oecd.org 1 1 “We have to move towards measuring welfare not just output. ” Angel Gurria, OECD Secretary General - OECD Ministerial Meeting May 2007 2 2 IntroductionIntroduction Q Economic reform is not an end in itself – there is more to life than GDP Q But how do we assess reform? How do we decide whether it is leading to progress? Q Progress for whom? In which ways are societies progressing? Where is there cause for concern, and where is they reason for optimism? st Q Indeed, what does progress (or ‘reform’) mean in the 21 century? 3 3 SomeSome ““megatrendsmegatrends”” Q Around the world, societies are increasingly concerned with their quality of life and a consensus is growing around the need to develop a more comprehensive view of progress rather than focussing on the economic one (GDP). Q Mistrust in national governments (and therefore in national statistical offices). Q Growing number of “agents” in the society (NGOs, etc.). Q Individuals are asked to take decisions that in the past were taken by the government (pensions, school, etc.). Q In an age of unprecedented, and overwhelming, information flows, the common understanding necessary for informed public discourse is often inadequate. 4 4 TheThe OECDOECD Q The OECD brings together the governments of 30 member
    [Show full text]
  • UNICEF 2014 Annual Consolidated Report
    PEACEBUILDING, EDUCATION AND ADVOCACY IN CONFLICT-AFFECTED CONTEXTS PROGRAMME UNICEF 2014 Annual Consolidated Report June 2015 Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................................... 1 ACRONYMS ......................................................................................................................... 2 CONTRIBUTION SUMMARY ............................................................................................... 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 4 1. PROGRAMME OVERVIEW........................................................................................... 7 2. STRATEGIC CONTEXT .............................................................................................. 11 Global context .............................................................................................................. 11 Regional and country contexts ..................................................................................... 11 Strategic engagement in crises-affected and fragile contexts ....................................... 13 UNICEF action ............................................................................................................. 13 3. CONFLICT ANALYSIS ................................................................................................ 14 Role of conflict analysis and findings ...........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Global Project on Measuring the Progress of Societies by Angela Hariche
    progress 進歩 vooruitgang التقدم ilerleme progresso fremskridt framsteg progrès haladás 进展 progreso The Global Project on Measuring the Progress of Societies by Angela Hariche Measuring progress: a trend from grassroots… An increasing gap between official statistics on economic performance and how people perceive their own living conditions Real risk of people losing faith in governments’ ability to address “what matters for them” Implications for the very functioning of democracy Income inequality widened in ¾ of OECD countries between 1985 and 2005 Source: Growing Unequal?, OECD 2008 Wealthier populations not necessarily more satisfied with their lives NNI per capita (left-axis) Subjective well-being (right-axis) 60 000 100 90 50 000 80 70 40 000 60 30 000 50 40 20 000 30 20 10 000 10 0 0 Beyond GDP : Focus on households’ and individuals’ well-being GDP inadequate as measure of well-being: Includes economic activities that either reduce well-being or remedy the costs of growth Does not include all economic resources (own-use household services) Excludes dimensions which matter to well-being (health, inequalities, education, quality of work, leisure, social ties, good institutions, etc.) Does not inform on sustainability (stocks of natural, human and social capital) The OECD-hosted Global Project on Measuring the Progress of Societies In 2003, OECD began addressing issues 2007 Global Project in partnership with other international organisations Initial objectives: Encourage communities, regions and countries to consider for themselves what progress means in the 21st century Stimulate national and international debate on societal progress and its measurement. Three World Forums: Palermo (2004), Istanbul (2007), Busan (2009) Create a network of networks for advocacy and sharing of information on progress Strong political support President Sarkozy set-up the Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi Commission (Sept.
    [Show full text]
  • Museletter 232 / September 2011
    MuseLetter 232 / September 2011 richardheinberg.com MuseLetter #232 / September 2011 by Richard Heinberg The September Museletter is comprised of two pieces related to my book 'The End of Growth'. The first is the op-ed which the mainstream press seems reluctant to publish as they hang desperately on to idea that economic growth will continue. The second is a section from Chapter 6 of my book and looks at one piece of the puzzle in changing our economic model. Welcome to the Post-Growth Economy During recent weeks, evidence has piled up that U.S. and European economies, far from recovering, are swirling back into recession. Failure of American politicians to address the federal debt crisis, the U.S. credit rating downgrade, and increasing fragility of European economies have investors running for the hills. Concern is being voiced that we may be at a fundamental economic turning point. Deutsche Bank’s strategist Jim Reid even suggests that the western world’s financial system might be “totally unsustainable.” As it happens, I’ve just published a book, The End of Growth: Adapting to Our New Economic Reality, that reaches the same conclusion, and that foresaw the economic relapse that’s playing out in headlines. The book’s content was finalized in March, when economic data appeared to show the nation in a recovery. I suppose I’m justified in saying “I told you so,” but others are as well. Herman Daly, former World Bank economist, has pointed out the absurdity of expecting continual economic growth on a planet with limited resources.
    [Show full text]
  • Macroeconomics and the Environment
    Macroeconomics and the Environment by Jonathan M. Harris and Anne-Marie Codur A GDAE Teaching Module on Social and Environmental Issues in Economics Global Development And Environment Institute Tufts University Medford, MA 02155 http://ase.tufts.edu/gdae Copyright © 2004 Global Development And Environment Institute, Tufts University. Copyright release is hereby granted for instructors to copy this module for instructional purposes. Students may also download the module directly from http://ase.tufts.edu/gdae. Comments and feedback from course use are welcomed: Tufts University Global Development And Environment Institute Tufts University Medford, MA 02155 http://ase.tufts.edu/gdae E-mail: [email protected] 1. THE CIRCULAR FLOW MODEL AND THE BIOSPHERE The Economic System and the Environment A basic building block of economic theory is the standard "circular flow" model of an economic system. As illustrated in Figure 1, this model shows the exchange of goods, services, and factors of production between two types of economic actors, consumers (households) and producers (firms). However, the environment and the natural resources which make economic production possible do not appear in the usual version of this model. Figure 1. The Standard Circular Flow Model When a good or service is purchased, two kinds of flow occur: the good moves from the firm to the household and a corresponding payment moves from the household to the firm. Similarly, when firms purchase factors of production, a payment of money for the use of these factors accompanies the flow of factor services from households to firms. These transactions are symbolized on the graph above by the arrows going in both directions – from firms to households and vice versa.
    [Show full text]