Poor indicators make poor policy

In his new book Measuring Tomorrow: Accounting for Well-Being, Resilience, and Sustainability in the Twenty-First Century, OCFE* researcher Eloi Laurent challenges existing economic indicators and invites us to rethink the economy from top to bottom. We asked Dr Laurent more.

In your new book, Measuring Tomorrow, growth and gross domestic product (or GDP) get a bad name. Why?

Because “growth”, that is the growth of GDP, captures only a tiny fraction of what goes on in complex human societies. It tracks some but not all of economic well-being (saying nothing about fundamental issues such as income inequality), it fails to account for most dimensions of well-being (think about the importance of health, education or happiness for your own quality of life), and it completely ignores sustainability, which basically means well-being in the future as well as the present (imagine your quality of life in a world where the temperature is six degrees higher).

My point is that because well-being (human fulfillment), resilience (resistance to shocks) and sustainability (caring about the future) have been overlooked by mainstream economics in the last three decades, our economic world has been mismanaged and our prosperity is now threatened by inequality and ecological crises. Understanding how the things that matter to human beings can be properly accounted for is the first step towards valuing and taking care of what really counts.

Economics, as I understand it, is precisely the discipline that measures what really matters for human beings, then designs incentives and provides policy makers with tools to shape human behaviours and attitudes so that societies have a chance of reaching the goals they set themselves. At its best, economics measures what counts and provides societies with the means to make it count. Among the most powerful of these are good indicators.

Can you give an example of how conventional economic indicators can mislead policy makers?

Take the US economy today. One of the things Donald Trump likes to brag about is the record-breaking mood his election triggered on stock markets. Markets were indeed driven up all through 2017 by the prospect of large increases in corporate profits, themselves conditioned on considerable federal tax cuts, which are eventually likely to boost growth. But stock markets, profits and growth are the holy trinity of economic mismeasurement.

Consider another US trinity—inequality, health and trust—and the picture changes radically. Recent data show that income inequality is higher today than it was during the Gilded Age and is relentlessly fracturing the American society; that Americans in large numbers have been “dying of despair” since the late 1990s while the economy (not to mention corporate profits) was growing; and that the level of trust in Congress is now three-and-a-half times lower than in the mid-1970s with political polarisation at an all-time high, while GDP per capita roughly doubled over the same period. There is every reason to believe that, once enacted, the Republican tax bill that the US Congress passed last year will degrade the country on all three counts while further increasing corporate profits, stock market indices and GDP growth.

Quite simply, growth, profits and stock markets cannot help us understand let alone solve either of the major crises that mark the early twenty-first century: inequality (the growing gap between the haves and the have-nots) and ecology (the alarming degradation of the climate, ecosystems and biodiversity that threatens human well-being).

But alternative indicators themselves are debatable, aren’t they?

Of course they are and they should be! We have plenty of pointed critiques of GDP but we also need to address the limitations of alternative indicators. Dozens of these are created or updated each year, but their conceptual and empirical foundations are sometimes obscure or weak. What exactly do they measure? How well do they measure it? This book is not only a (necessarily partial) guide to alternative indicators, but a guide to understanding their meaning, accuracy, and usefulness.

So how can we accelerate what you call in the book the “well-being and sustainability transition”?

This transition is actually already under way—it is part of the “Great Transition” which we explore with Marie-Laure Djelic and Dominique Cardon in a new class at the School of Management and Innovation. Economic research is devoting far more attention to the question of inequality, while sustainability analysis has made valuable progress in recent years. To take just two examples, US scholars and (some) policy makers increasingly recognise the importance of paying attention to inequality rather than just growth, while China’s leaders acknowledge that sustainability is a much better policy target than explosive economic expansion. But progress toward well-being and sustainability should indeed be accelerated.

First, we need to engage in a transition in values to change behaviours and attitudes. We live in a world where many dimensions of human well-being already have a value and often a price; it is the pluralism of value that can therefore protect those dimensions from the dictatorship of the single price.

Next we need to understand that the challenge is not just to interpret or even analyse this new economic world, but to change it. We therefore need to understand how indicators of well-being and sustainability can become performative and not just descriptive. This can be done by integrating indicators into policy through representative democracy, regulatory democracy and democratic activism. If private and public decision makers apply them carefully, well-being and sustainability indicators can foster genuine progress.

Finally, we need to build tangible transitions at the local level. Well-being is best measured where it is actually experienced. Localities (cities, regions) are more agile than states, not to mention international institutions, and better able to bring well-being indicators into play and translate them into new policies. We need what the late Elinor Ostrom called a “polycentric transition,” where each level of government seizes the well-being and sustainability transition as an opportunity. There is so much exciting work to be done!

Eloi Laurent, Measuring Tomorrow: Accounting for Well-Being, Resilience, and Sustainability in the Twenty-First Century, Princeton University Press

*The Observatoire français des conjonctures économiques (OFCE), or French Economic Observatory, is a Sciences Po research unit.

Read more

Concours juridiques : un palmarès brillant

Concours juridiques : un palmarès brillant

L’École de droit de Sciences Po confirme son excellent positionnement dans la préparation aux concours juridiques avec un taux de réussite de 53 % au concours 2017 de l’École Nationale de la Magistrature (ENM). Parmi les 170 étudiants de la classe préparatoire ayant présenté le concours,  90 ont été admis. Neuf d’entre eux, dont la major, figurent dans les dix premiers du classement.

Lire la suite
Les économistes se mobilisent pour la zone euro

Les économistes se mobilisent pour la zone euro

Alors que l’Europe connaît une embellie économique après une longue période de stagnation, 14 éminents économistes appellent les gouvernements européens à mettre en place de nouvelles règles économiques pour la zone euro dans un rapport publié aujourd'hui. Philippe Martin, enseignant-chercheur au Département d’économie de Sciences Po, est l’un d’entre eux. Il explique pourquoi il est urgent de réformer.

Lire la suite
Et si vous étudiez à Sciences Po cet été ?

Et si vous étudiez à Sciences Po cet été ?

Vous êtes lycéen ou étudiant ? Vous souhaitez étudier les sciences humaines et sociales à Sciences Po le temps d'un été ? Les candidatures pour l’édition 2018 de la Summer School sont ouvertes, avec deux programmes distincts, l'un pour les étudiants, l'autre pour les lycéens. Voici ce qu’il faut savoir avant de déposer sa candidature.

Lire la suite
Artillerie : découvrez notre futur campus !

Artillerie : découvrez notre futur campus !

Une nouvelle histoire débute pour Sciences Po. L’équipe qui a été choisie pour redessiner le site de l’Artillerie, acquis fin 2016, vient d’être révélée : le projet sera emmené par Sogelym Dixence, avec les architectes Jean-Michel Wilmotte, Moreau-Kusunoki et Sasaki. Au delà du défi architectural - transformer en campus universitaire durable et innovant un ancien noviciat fondé au XVIIè siècle - c’est pour Sciences Po une véritable refondation, 150 ans après sa création.

Lire la suite
“Les peuples arabes n’ont pas dit leur dernier mot”

“Les peuples arabes n’ont pas dit leur dernier mot”

Syrie, Égypte, Libye, Yémen… Après avoir connu, en 2011, un élan  démocratique sans précédent, ces pays subissent aujourd’hui un retournement glaçant avec une répression féroce et des guerres meurtrières. Dans son dernier ouvrage « Généraux, gangsters et jihadistes. Histoire de la contre-révolution arabe » (La Découverte), Jean-Pierre Filiu, historien à Sciences Po, s’emploie à décrire la fragilité de régimes autoritaires trop souvent présentés comme un “moindre mal”.

Lire la suite
Projet Artillerie : premières impressions

Projet Artillerie : premières impressions

Sciences Po dévoilait jeudi 11 janvier 2018 le projet architectural qui va redessiner le site de l'Artillerie, acquis en 2016, et plus largement recomposer son campus parisien à l'horizon 2022, date de ses 150 ans. Premières impressions de nos étudiants, partenaires, alumni et invités lors de l'événement organisé sur place à cette occasion. 

Lire la suite
Qui possède les médias ?

Qui possède les médias ?

Qui possède les médias ? Pas facile de répondre à cette question tant l’actionnariat des médias d’information se caractérise par sa complexité et son manque de transparence. Dans une étude récente, Julia Cagé, Assistant Professor au Département d’économie et chercheuse affiliée au Laboratoire interdisciplinaire d’évaluation des politiques publiques (LIEPP) de Sciences Po, tente de retracer qui détient nos radios, télés et médias de presse écrite et en ligne, en France et en Espagne.

Lire la suite
Tout savoir sur l'insertion professionnelle de nos diplômés

Tout savoir sur l'insertion professionnelle de nos diplômés

D’après notre dernière enquête d’insertion professionnelle portant sur la promotion 2015, nos diplômés s’insèrent toujours aussi aisément sur le marché du travail. 91% de ceux qui ont choisi d’entrer dans la vie active ont ainsi un emploi un an après leur diplôme. A 71%, ils travaillent dans le privé et, à 35%, hors de France. Découvrez tous les résultats de notre enquête !

Lire la suite
Qui est entré à Sciences Po en 2017 ?

Qui est entré à Sciences Po en 2017 ?

Avec près de 17 000 candidats au total, le bilan des admissions 2017 confirme l’attractivité de Sciences Po, notamment auprès des candidats internationaux qui sont de plus en plus nombreux. Beau succès aussi pour nos masters, avec une hausse de 6 % pour les candidats à nos sept Écoles de second cycle.

Lire la suite