Return to: Home | Blogs | The God Blog

5 comments from readers

mount
15 September 2009 at 21:43

Somewhat disingenuous. I did follow the Bhutan link, to find out the problem there is possibly recent rapid Westernisation/urbanisation. I also read the Mail, which had a brief well-informed piece on the Sarkozy speech; in which he apparently made points amongst others of measuring distribution and household income rather than GNP - surely agreed not to be a 'felicific calculus'. Lazier negativity than the Daily Mail!

Daniel Taghioff
16 September 2009 at 07:47

Sholto, the point about Utility is hardly a new one...

The issue is not one about happiness, but about the idea that one can run society via indicators only.

Happiness is a core outcome if you are trying to understand what progress is, hence especially Sen's interest in this.

That it is very hard to measure indicates a problem with methodology. Now you can sit on the sidelines of this debate and see if Sarkozy gets it right, but that in itself settles nothing in the debate on the place of human happiness in social progress.

Are there any fewer problems with GDP? All the critiques you leveled also apply to GDP. What is good and bad spending? Surely there must be some relation to human happiness in any attempts to make such a distinction.

But OK, at least you raised the issue.

mrblobby
16 September 2009 at 09:43

I think it is reasonable to characterise the American economic model as a 'growth dynamic' model. The neoliberal project has, at its core, the classical economic idolatry of free markets which relies strongly for its growth dynamism on the promotion of inequality - this is in fact the true value of a market-subordinated system. The preoccupation within the economic community with measures of GDP and GDP per capita is attractive precisely because of the ease with which it can be measured (the murky aspiration of the dismal science to be a science) and because it reinforces this growth dynamic model that increasingly relies upon the dynamics of inequality. Since this model is bound to deliver rising GDP and GDP per capita it is self-reinforcing. Much of the work of Professors Stiglitz and Sen are aimed at seeking a more sophisticated measure of 'well-being' than merely using straight measures of GDP; measures that aim to include issues of health care, education, and environmental impact. Ultimately this could become a potent tool for challenging the whole growth dynamic model itself - a requirement of some urgency I would suggest.

It is interesting that a similar project begun by the New Economic Foundation (NEF) with its Happy Planet Index seems to uncover higher levels of life-satisfaction among poorer but more equitable societies than among richer but much less equitable societies. Perhaps more seriously they also seek to address the question of levels of well-being and life-satisfaction in relation to impact on environment, i.e., in relation to sustainability. Clearly folk who enjoy high levels of well-being in an essentially unsustainable way are living in a fool's paradise. Both the models of Stiglitz and Sen and of the NEF seek to include these factors in their measurement of well-being. This is not only a crucial requiremnet right now but increasingly an absolute imperative for the long-term survival of our species.

Surely such an important issue deserves better than this glib and wilfully obtuse response by Byrnes. Even Mill thought that Bentham's 'absence of pain, presence of pleasure' principle too crude to be of much utility.. Does he think that the Nobel prize winning Professor Emeritus of Harvard hasn't chewed this one over? Are we really taking climate change and environmental degradation seriously? Relegating this vitally important subject to a frivolous outing in the blogosphere would strongly suggest not.

Sholto Byrnes
16 September 2009 at 11:14

Thank you for the above comments. My aim really was just to raise this briefly - as Mr Blobby points out, a proper discussion of all of the above would require a much, much longer posting. In fact you could easily take up a whole issue of the NS on it.

As to whether the distinguished profs have chewed over notions of utility and methodology: I'm sure they have. The question is, has Sarkozy? I fear the likelihood of any of this being implemented is small. There is the nagging suspicion that such announcements sound impressive but don't amount to much if the people who will have to put the proposals into practice aren't really committed to them. And Sarkozy strikes me as far too populist and mutable a politician for this to be anything more than something he remains attached to for as long as it remains eyecatching - and no longer.

mrblobby
16 September 2009 at 13:13

Certainly we may suspect Sarkozy of populism and empty gesturing but nevertheless we should still applaud him for putting such issues into the limelight. For Mr Brown on the other hand, who remains in thrall to the City of London and frantic in his efforts to revive the engine of growth, the prospect of embracing this much needed debate is not even on the horizon. Perhaps the media should do more to try to force the agenda - to at least begin the debate in earnest. Ridiculing Sarkozy for his efforts or besmirching his motives as the sneering elements within Fleet Street are currently doing hardly seems to be the way to go about it.