Although it must be agreed that the material aspect is the basis of everything (primum vivere, deinde philosophare, the ancients remind us with their wisdom), reflections lead us to say that there is also a range of possible declinations that give this word its full meaning.
It is therefore a matter of considering, alongside economic aspects, those of a political and social nature; those concerning environmental and health issues; the lifestyle of a community or an individual person.
The main index in any political and economic discussion, the GNP (which, let us remember, measures the value of production of goods and services over a specific time period) is not or is no longer the only criterion that can determine whether we can be satisfied or not (individually or collectively) with our fate?
Of course, the GNP is very useful, even indispensable for any analysis of economic policy but… there are always limits to any index!
Besides, even the father of the GNP, Simon Kuznets (an American Nobel laureate in economics), told the United States Congress (and it was in 1934) that ‘the well-being of a Nation cannot be confined to an index that measures only national income’.
On the other hand, it must be agreed that the calculation of GNP does not take into account goods and services that have no market value and does not calculate negative externalities nor the costs derived from productive activities, such as pollution, exploitation of resources beyond the natural replacement capacities, biodiversity loss; nor does it consider the quality of public expenditure.
Thus, general or global indices that attempt to take into account other indicators to go beyond the simple ‘national turnover’ (which is, in some way, what GNP is) have emerged and fueled discussions among scientists about their value and have been variously used by political decision-makers always ready to appropriate anything that might support their actions.
As of now, there are about ten with international reputation which explains why this playing field is rather crowded with players and each one can claim their share of truth!
But here is the latest novelty in the field which is the result of multilateral work and supported by an internationally renowned Advisory Board, whose members include:
Mario Monti, economist and former European Commissioner,
Jean-Paul Fitoussi, French economist, professor, and president of the Scientific Council at IEP Paris and president of the French Economic Observatory
Joseph Sassoon and Claude Fischler, sociologists
Barbara Buchner of the International Energy Agency
Umberto Veronesi, president of the European Institute of Oncology and former Italian Minister of Health
Camillo Ricordi, University of Miami, USA
Gabriele Riccardi, Italian Diabetes Society
It is an index (BCFN) that aims to be comprehensive because it is multidisciplinary and takes into account several sectors: the quality of life of people, the environment, and, of course but not exclusively, economy.
Some basic considerations to fully understand the logic of the research:
Collective and individual wealth has value if it is a source of well-being for individuals
It must never be forgotten that there is not ‘one’ single definition of ‘well-being’
Taking into account the greatest number of factors can only make an index more complete and reliable
That there are and it is necessary to consider both objective and subjective factors
That there is and one cannot negate the gap between measurement, which is objective by definition, and perception which, on the other hand, is subjective
That there is no analysis without critical points
The research method is based on a dashboard of 41 kpis (key performance indicators) grouped into 3 sub-indices and then into 1 general index.
The three sub-indices are:
a) wealth and sustainability (lifestyle): income, investments, assets, quality of the environment
which weighs 35% of the global result
b) quality of interpersonal life (wealth/sustainability):
psycho-physical behavior, health, diet/nutrition
which weighs 35% of the final result
c) quality of the social fabric (social/interpersonal):
education/schooling, welfare, family, society, institutions, democracy, and individual political freedoms
which weighs 30% of the final result
The scope of the research involved the following 10 countries:
3 from the Mediterranean Europe (Italy, Spain, Greece)
2 from Continental Europe (France and Germany)
2 from Scandinavia (Sweden and Denmark)
+ The United Kingdom
+ The United States
+ Japan
*China, which would obviously have deserved to be included, was excluded due to the unreliability of certain social indicators
The rating of the 41 kpis was done on a scale of 10.
And here is the final result and the partials in parentheses with the best grade in uppercase:
Sweden 7.23 a) 7.64; b) 6.64; c) 7.43
Denmark 6.88 A) 7.78; b) 4.88; C) 8.16
Japan 6.61 a) 6.44; B) 7.97; c) 5.22
FRANCE 5.90 a) 6.56; b) 6.24; c) 4.73
U.K. 5.81 a) 6.19; b) 5.53; c) 5.69
Germany 5.57 a) 5.69; b) 5.54; c) 5.46
Italy 4.85 a) 5.42; b) 6.10; c) 2.73
Spain 4.51 a) 4.11; b) 6.10; c) 3.11
U.S.A 3.88 a) 4.07; b) 3.24; c) 4.39
Greece 3.29 a) 2.61; b) 4.65; c) 2.51
In conclusion: we can only appreciate the multidisciplinary methodological approach of the research and the originality of the construction of the BCFN index which can better be defined as an open platform and refers, at least intellectually, to the works of the working group led by professors Joseph Stiglitz, Amartya Sen, and Jean-Paul Fitoussi and titled ‘Measurement of Economic Performances and Social Progress’ presented to President Sarkozy during his period as President of the European Union (2008).
While for economists this study will be an opportunity for new discussions and intellectual confrontations, the utility for political decision-makers comes from considering that ‘what is measurable can only influence our actions’.
And finally, that any economic policy decision should have, as its perspective, a better world!
