[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rff/dpaper/dp-00-24.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Valuation and Evaluation: Measuring the Quality of Life and Evaluating Public Policy

Author

Listed:
  • Dasgupta, Partha
Abstract
This paper is about measuring social well-being and evaluating policy. Section 1 concerns the links between the two, while Sections 2 and 3, respectively, are devoted to the development of appropriate methods for measuring and evaluating. In Section 2 I identify a minimal set of indices for spanning a general conception of social well-being. The analysis is motivated by the frequent need to make welfare comparisons across time and communities. A distinction is drawn between current well-being and sustainable well-being. Measuring current well-being is the subject of discussion in Sections 2.2-2.3. It is argued that a set of five indices, consisting of private consumption per head, life expectancy at birth, literacy, and indices of civil and political liberties, taken together, are a reasonable approximation for the purpose at hand. Indices of the quality of life currently in use, such as the United Nations Development Programme’s (UNDP) Human Development Index, are cardinal measures. Since indices of civil and political liberties are only ordinal, aggregate measures of social well-being should be ordinal. In this connection, the Borda index suggests itself. In Section 2.3 the Borda index is used on data from 46 of the poorest countries in the early 1980s. Interestingly, of the component indices, the ranking of the sample countries in terms of life expectancy at birth is the most highly correlated with the countries' Borda ranking. Even more interestingly, the ranking of countries in terms of gross national product (GNP) per head is almost as highly correlated. There can be little doubt that this finding is an empirical happenstance. But it may not be an uncommon happenstance. If so, GNP per head could reasonably continue to be used as a summary measure of social well-being, even though it has no theoretical claims to be one. It is widely thought that net national product (NNP) per head measures the economic component of sustainable well-being. Section 2.4 and the Appendix show that this belief is false. NNP, suitably defined, can be used to evaluate economic policies, but it should not be used to make intertemporal and cross-country comparisons of the standard of living. In particular, comparisons of sustainable welfare should involve comparisons of wealth. For the purposes of comparing social well-being in an economy over time, often, one would analyze whether net investment is positive, negative, or nil. Writings on the welfare economics of NNP have mostly addressed economies pursuing optimal policies, and are thus of limited use. The analysis in Section 2.4 and the Appendix generalizes this substantially by studying environments where governments are capable of engaging only in policy reforms, in economies characterized by substantial non-convexities. The analysis pertinent for optimizing governments and convex economies are special limiting cases of the one reported here. In Sections 3.1-3.3 I explain that policy-evaluation techniques developed in the 1970s, while formally correct, neglected to consider (1) resource allocation in the wide variety of non-market institutions throughout the world, and (2) the role the environmental-resource base plays in society. It is argued that the evaluation of policy changes can be done effectively only if there is a fair understanding of the way socioeconomic and ecological systems would respond to the changes. The observation is no doubt banal, but all too often decisionmakers have neglected to model the combined socioeconomic and ecological system before embarking upon new policies or keeping faith in prevailing ones. Examples are provided to show that such neglect has probably meant even greater hardship for groups of people commonly regarded as particularly deserving of consideration. The examples are also designed to demonstrate how recent advances in the understanding of general resource allocation mechanisms and of environmental and resource economics can be incorporated in a systematic way into what are currently the best-practice policy evaluation techniques.

Suggested Citation

  • Dasgupta, Partha, 2000. "Valuation and Evaluation: Measuring the Quality of Life and Evaluating Public Policy," RFF Working Paper Series dp-00-24, Resources for the Future.
    • Handle: RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-00-24
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.rff.org/RFF/documents/RFF-DP-00-24.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. J. A. Mirrlees, 1967. "Optimum Growth when Technology is Changing," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 34(1), pages 95-124.
    2. Bruno S. Frey & Alois Stutzer, 1999. "Measuring Preferences by Subjective Well-Being," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 155(4), pages 755-778, December.
    3. Oswald, Andrew J, 1997. "Happiness and Economic Performance," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 107(445), pages 1815-1831, November.
    4. Skiba, A K, 1978. "Optimal Growth with a Convex-Concave Production Function," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 46(3), pages 527-539, May.
    5. Martin L. Weitzman, 1976. "On the Welfare Significance of National Product in a Dynamic Economy," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 90(1), pages 156-162.
    6. Elinor Ostrom & Roy Gardner, 1993. "Coping with Asymmetries in the Commons: Self-Governing Irrigation Systems Can Work," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 7(4), pages 93-112, Fall.
    7. Sefton, J. A. & Weale, M. R., 1996. "The net national product and exhaustible resources: The effects of foreign trade," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 21-47, July.
    8. Per-Olov Johansson & Karl-Gustaf Löfgren, 1996. "On the interpretation of ‘green’ NNP measures as cost-benefit rules," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 7(3), pages 243-250, April.
    9. Hartwick, John M, 1977. "Intergenerational Equity and the Investing of Rents from Exhaustible Resources," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 67(5), pages 972-974, December.
    10. Abramovitz, Moses, 1986. "Catching Up, Forging Ahead, and Falling Behind," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 46(2), pages 385-406, June.
    11. Easterlin, Richard A., 1974. "Does Economic Growth Improve the Human Lot? Some Empirical Evidence," MPRA Paper 111773, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Dasgupta, Partha & Weale, Martin, 1992. "On measuring the quality of life," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 119-131, January.
    13. Robert E. Hall & Charles I. Jones, 1999. "Why do Some Countries Produce So Much More Output Per Worker than Others?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 114(1), pages 83-116.
    14. John C. Harsanyi, 1955. "Cardinal Welfare, Individualistic Ethics, and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 63(4), pages 309-309.
    15. Dreze, Jean & Stern, Nicholas, 1990. "Policy reform, shadow prices, and market prices," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 1-45, June.
    16. Hahn, F H, 1971. "Equilibrium with Transaction Costs," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 39(3), pages 417-439, May.
    17. Dasgupta, Partha, 1998. "Population, consumption and resources: Ethical issues," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(2-3), pages 139-152, February.
    18. Putnam, H., 1989. "Objectivity and the Science/Ethics Distinction," Research Paper 70, World Institute for Development Economics Research.
    19. Pearce, David & Hamilton, Kirk & Atkinson, Giles, 1996. "Measuring sustainable development: progress on indicators," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(1), pages 85-101, February.
    20. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    21. Pezzey, J., 1992. "Sustainable Development Concepts; An Economic Analysis," Papers 2, World Bank - The World Bank Environment Paper.
    22. Weitzman, Martin L., 1998. "On the welfare significance of national product under interest-rate uncertainty," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 42(8), pages 1581-1594, September.
    23. repec:bla:scandj:v:96:y:1994:i:2:p:257-65 is not listed on IDEAS
    24. Heal, G., 1998. "Valuing the Future: Economic Theory and Sustainability," Papers 98-10, Columbia - Graduate School of Business.
    25. Hartwick, John M., 1990. "Natural resources, national accounting and economic depreciation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 291-304, December.
    26. Tjalling C. Koopmans, 1959. "Stationary Ordinal Utility and Impatience," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 81, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    27. F. A. Lutz, 1961. "The Theory of Capital," International Economic Association Series, Palgrave Macmillan, number 978-1-349-08452-4 edited by D. C. Hague, December.
    28. Irma Adelman & Cynthia Taft Morris, 1965. "A Factor Analysis of The Interrelationship Between Social and Political Variables and Per Capita Gross Naitonal Product," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 79(4), pages 555-578.
    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. Pearce, David, 2002. "Measuring the poverty impact of ACIAR projects: a broad framework," Impact Assessment Series (IAS) 47697, Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research.
    2. Di Tella, Rafael & MacCulloch, Robert, 2008. "Gross national happiness as an answer to the Easterlin Paradox?," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(1), pages 22-42, April.
    3. Rafael di Tella & Ernesto Schargrodsky, 2009. "Happiness, Ideology and Crime in Argentine Cities," Research Department Publications 4645, Inter-American Development Bank, Research Department.

    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. Dasgupta, Partha, 2000. "Valuation and evaluation: measuring the quality of life and evaluating policy," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 6657, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    2. Dasgupta, Partha, 2000. "Valuation and Evaluation: Measuring the Quality of Life and Evaluating Policy," Discussion Papers 10560, Resources for the Future.
    3. Partha Dasgupta & Karl-Goran Maler, 1998. "Decentralization Schemes, Cost-Benefit-Analysis, and Net National Product as a Measure of Social Well-Being," STICERD - Development Economics Papers - From 2008 this series has been superseded by Economic Organisation and Public Policy Discussion Papers 12, Suntory and Toyota International Centres for Economics and Related Disciplines, LSE.
    4. Partha Dasgupta, 2009. "The Welfare Economic Theory of Green National Accounts," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 42(1), pages 3-38, January.
    5. Geir B. Asheim, 2003. "Green national accounting for welfare and sustainability:A Taxonomy Of Assumptions And Results," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 50(2), pages 113-130, May.
    6. Geir B. Asheim & Wolfgang Buchholz, 2004. "A General Approach to Welfare Measurement through National Income Accounting," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 106(2), pages 361-384, June.
    7. Lucas Bretschger & Simone Valente, 2011. "International trade and net investment: theory and evidence," International Economics and Economic Policy, Springer, vol. 8(2), pages 197-224, June.
    8. Enrico Ivaldi & Guido Bonatti & Riccardo Soliani, 2016. "The Construction of a Synthetic Index Comparing Multidimensional Well-Being in the European Union," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 125(2), pages 397-430, January.
    9. Marc Fleurbaey, 2009. "Beyond GDP: The Quest for a Measure of Social Welfare," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(4), pages 1029-1075, December.
    10. Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh, 2007. "Abolishing GDP," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 07-019/3, Tinbergen Institute.
    11. Pezzey, John C.V., 2004. "Exact measures of income in a hyperbolic economy," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(4), pages 473-484, August.
    12. Rubio, M. del Mar, 2004. "The capital gains from trade are not enough: evidence from the environmental accounts of Venezuela and Mexico," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 1175-1191, November.
    13. John C. V. Pezzey, 2004. "Sustainability Policy and Environmental Policy," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 106(2), pages 339-359, June.
    14. Asheim, Geir B., 2000. "Green national accounting: why and how?," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(1), pages 25-48, February.
    15. Thomas Aronsson & Karl-Gustaf Löfgren (ed.), 2010. "Handbook of Environmental Accounting," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 12796.
    16. Butterfield, David W., 2003. "Resource depletion under uncertainty: implications for mine depreciation, Hartwick's Rule and national accounting," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 219-238, August.
    17. Geir Asheim & Taoyuan Wei, 2009. "Sectoral Income," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 42(1), pages 65-87, January.
    18. Kenneth Arrow & Partha Dasgupta & Karl-Göran Mäler, 2003. "Evaluating Projects and Assessing Sustainable Development in Imperfect Economies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 26(4), pages 647-685, December.
    19. John C. V. Pezzey, 2002. "One-sided Unsustainability Tests and NNP Measurement with Multiple Consumption Goods," Economics and Environment Network Working Papers 0208, Australian National University, Economics and Environment Network.
    20. Dasgupta, Partha, 2010. "The Place of Nature in Economic Development," Handbook of Development Economics, in: Dani Rodrik & Mark Rosenzweig (ed.), Handbook of Development Economics, edition 1, volume 5, chapter 0, pages 4977-5046, Elsevier.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:rff:dpaper:dp-00-24. 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: Resources for the Future (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rffffus.html .

    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.