Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is often treated as shorthand for national economic well-being, even though it was never intended to be; it is a measure of (some) of the marketable output of the economy. This paper reviews several developments in measuring welfare beyond GDP that were recently presented at the Economic Statistics Centre of Excellence (ESCoE) annual conference in May 2019. The papers discussed fall into three broad areas. First, a significant amount of work has focused on incorporating information about the distribution of income, consumption and wealth in the national accounts. Second, the effects of digitisation and the growth of the internet highlight the potential value in measuring time use as a measure of welfare. Third, the digital revolution has spawned many new, often ‘free’ goods, the welfare consequences of which are difficult to measure. Other areas, such as government services, are also difficult to measure. Measuring economic welfare properly matters because it affects the decisions made by government and society. GDP does a reasonable job of measuring the marketable output of the economy (which remains important for some policies), but it should be downgraded; more attention should be given to measures that reflect both objective and subjective measures of well-being, and measures that better reflect the heterogeneity of peoples' experiences.
AitkenA. and OultonN. (2019), ‘Estimating true cost-of-living (Konüs) price indices from household data’ (forthcoming).
2.
AitkenA. and WealeM.R. (2018), ‘A democratic measure of household income growth: theory and application to the United Kingdom’, ESCoE Discussion Paper 2018–02.
3.
AitkenA. and WealeM.R. (2019), ‘A democratic measure of national income growth for the United Kingdom, 2006–2015’ (forthcoming).
4.
ArrowK.J. (1963), Social Choice and Individual Values, Second edition, New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
5.
AlvaredoF., AtkinsonA., PikettyT., SaezE and ZucmanG. (2017), The World Wealth and Income Database, http://www.wid.world, 2011–2017.
6.
AtkinsonA.B. (1970), ‘On the measurement of inequality’, Journal of Economic Theory, 2(3), pp. 244–63.
AtkinsonA.B. (2005b), ‘Top incomes in the UK over the 20th century’, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A, 168, pp. 325–43.
9.
BeckerG.S. (1965), ‘A theory of the allocation of time’, Economic Journal, 75, pp. 493–517.
10.
BrewerM., EtheridgeB. and O'DeaC. (2017), ‘Why are households that report the lowest incomes so well-off?, The Economic Journal, 127 (605), F1–631.
11.
BrynjolfssonE., CollisA., DiewertW.E., EggersF. and FoxK.J. (2019), ‘GDP-B: accounting for the value of new and free goods in the digital economy’, NBER Working Paper 25695, https://www.nber.org/papers/w25695.
12.
BrynjolfssonE., EggersF. and GannamaneniA. (2018), ‘Using massive online choice experiments to measure changes in well-being’, National Bureau of Economic Research working paper 24514, April.
13.
CherchyeL., De RockB. and VermeulenF. (2012), ‘Married with children: a collective labor supply model with detailed time use and intrahousehold expenditures information’, American Economic Review, December, pp. 3377–405.
14.
CowenT. (2013), Average is Over, New York: Penguin.
15.
CoyleD. (2014), GDP: A Brief but Affectionate History, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
16.
CoyleD. and Benjamin Mitra-KahnB. (2017), ‘Making the future count’, Indigo Prize Winning Entry.
17.
CoyleD. and NakamuraL. (2019), ‘Towards a framework for time use, welfare and household-centric economic measurement’, Economic Statistics Centre of Excellence (ESCoE) Discussion Papers ESCoE DP-2019-01.
18.
DeatonA. (2018), ‘What do self-reports of wellbeing say about life-cycle theory and policy’, NBER Working Paper 24369, March.
19.
DiewertW.E., FoxK.J. and SchreyerP. (2018), ‘The digital economy, new products and household welfare’, Economic Statistics Centre of Excellence (ESCoE), Discussion Paper 2018–16.
20.
DiewertW.E., FoxK.J. and SchreyerP. (2019), ‘Experimental economics and the new commodities problem’, Discussion Paper 19-03, Vancouver School of Economics.
21.
FesseauM. and MattonettiM. (2013), ‘Distributional measures across household groups in a national accounts framework: results from an experimental cross-country exercise on household income, consumption and saving’, OECD Statistics Working Papers, No. 2013/04, Paris, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.17887/5k3wdjqr775f-en.
22.
FixlerD.J., GindelskyM. and JohnsonD. (2019), ‘Improving the measure of the distribution of personal income’, US Bureau of Economic Analysis working paper.
23.
FixlerD. and JohnsonD. (2014), ‘Accounting for the distribution of income in the US National Accounts’, in JorgensonD., LandefeldJ.S. and SchreyerP. (eds), Measuring Economic Stability and Progress, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
24.
FixlerD., JohnsonD., FurlongK. and CraigA. (2017), ‘A consistent data series to evaluate growth and inequality in the National Accounts’, Review of Income and Wealth, 63:S2, pp. S437–59.
25.
FleurbaeyM. and ManiquetF. (2011), A Theory of Fairness and Social Welfare, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
26.
FoxtonF., GriceJ., HeysR. and LewisJ. (2019), ‘The welfare implications of public goods: lessons from 10 years of Atkinson in the UK’, ESCoE Discussion Paper 2019-11, July.
GoolsbeeA. and KlenowP.J. (2006), ‘Valuing consumer products by the time spent using them: an application to the internet’, American Economic Review, May, pp. 108–12.
29.
HeysR. (2019), ‘Bridging the gap between GDP and welfare’, paper given at ESCoE Conference, King's College London, 8 May.
30.
HicksJ.R. (1940), ‘The valuation of the social income’, Economica, 7, pp. 105–24.
HorlingsE. and SmitsJ.-P. (2019), ‘Measuring well-being and sustainability in the Netherlands: the first monitor of well-being’, paper given at ESCoE Conference, King's College London, 8 May.
33.
JänttiM., SierminskaE.M. and Van KermP. (2015), ‘Modeling the joint distribution of income and wealth’, in Measurement of Poverty, Deprivation, and Economic Mobility, pp. 301–27, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
34.
JohnsonD., FisherJ., SmeedingT. and ThompsonJ. (2018), ‘Inequality in 3D: income, consumption, and wealth’, Washington Center for Equitable Growth, Working Paper
35.
JonesC.I. and KlenowP.J. (2016), ‘Beyond GDP? Welfare across countries and time’, American Economic Review, 106(9), pp. 2426–57.
36.
JorgensonD.W. (2018), ‘Production and welfare: progress in economic measurement’, Journal of Economic Literature, 56, 3, pp. 867–919.
37.
JorgensonD.W. and SchreyerP. (2017), ‘Measuring individual economic well-being and social welfare within the framework of the system of national accounts’, Review of Income and Wealth, 63, Supplement 2, pp. S460–77.
38.
KahnemanD. (1999), ‘Objective happiness’, in KahnemanD., DienerE. and SchwartzN. (eds), Well-Being: The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology, New York: Russell Sage, pp. 3–25.
39.
KonüsA.A. (1939), ‘The problem of the true index of the cost of living’, Econometrica, 7 (1), pp. 10–29.
40.
KruegerA.B., KahnemanD., SchkadeD., SchwartzN. and StoneA.A. (2009), ‘National time accounting: the currency of life’, in KruegerA.B. (ed.), Measuring the Subjective Well-Being of Nations, University of Chicago Press: Chicago, pp. 9–86.
41.
KuznetsS. (1955), ‘Economic growth and income inequality’, American Economic Review, 45, 1, pp. 1–28.
42.
New Zealand Treasury (2019), The Treasury Approach to the Living Standards Framework, February.
43.
NordhausW.D. and TobinJ. (1972), ‘Is growth obsolete?’, in Economic Research: Retro-spect and Prospect, Volume 5: Economic Growth, pp. 1–80, New York: National Bureau of Economic Research.
44.
ONS (2016), Household Satellite Accounts: 2005 to 2014.
45.
OultonN. (2008), ‘Chain indices of the cost of living and the path-dependence problem: an empirical solution’, Journal of Econometrics, 144, 1 (May), pp. 306–24.
46.
OultonN. (2012), ‘How to measure living standards and productivity’, Review of Income and Wealth, 58, 3 (September), pp. 424–56.
47.
PayneC.S. and VassilevG. (2019), ‘Invisible economics – valuing time-use to measure the modern economy’, paper given at the ESCoE Conference, King's College, London, 9 May.
48.
PikettyT. (2003), ‘Income inequality in France, 1901–1998’, Journal of Political Economy, III, pp. 1004–42.
49.
PikettyT. (2014), Capital in the Twenty-First Century, Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press (translated by Arthur Goldhammer).
50.
PikettyT. and SaezE. (2003), ‘Income inequality in the United States, 1913–1998’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118, pp. 1–39.
51.
PikettyT., SaezE. and ZucmanG. (2018), ‘Distributional National Accounts: methods and estimates for the United States’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 133, 2, pp. 553–609.
52.
PillingD. (2018), The Growth Delusion The Wealth and Well-Being of Nations, Bloomsbury Publishing.
53.
RavallionM. (2012), ‘Mashup indices of development’, World Bank Research Observer, 27 (I), pp. 1–32.
54.
SeftonJ.A. and WealeM.R. (2006), ‘The concept of income in a general equilibrium’, Review of Economic Studies, 73 (1), pp. 219–49.
55.
SenA.K. (1970), Collective Choice and Social Welfare, San Francisco, Calif.: Holden-Day.
56.
SenA.K. (1985), Commodities and Capabilities, Amsterdam: North Holland.
57.
SlesnickD.T. (1998), ‘Empirical approaches to the measurement of welfare’, Journal of Economic Literature, 36, 4, pp. 2108–65.
58.
StiglitzJ., FitoussiJ.-P. and DurandM. (2018a), Beyond GDP: Measuring what Counts for Economic and Social Performance, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264307292-en.
59.
StiglitzJ., FitoussiJ.-P. and DurandM. (eds) (2018b), For Good Measure: Advancing Research on Well-Being Metrics Beyond GDP, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264307278-en.
60.
StiglitzJ., SenA. and FitoussiJ. (2009), Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress, S.l: [s.n.]. [Also published as Mismeasuring Our Lives: Why GDP Doesn't Add Up, New York: The New Press.]
TonkinR. (2015), The Distribution of Household Income, Consumption and Savings: an OECD Study, Technical Report, ONS.
63.
WaltlS.R. (2019), ‘Multidimensional wealth inequality: a hybrid approach toward distributional national accounts in Europe’, paper given at ESCoE Conference on Economic Measurement.
64.
WaringM. (1988), Counting for Nothing: What Men Value and What Women are Worth, Wellington: Allen & Unwin/Port Nicholson Press.
65.
WeitzmanM.L. (1976), ‘On the welfare significance of national product in a dynamic economy’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 90 (1), pp. 156–62.
