The acceptance of a particular theory impacts the type and directions of linkages between factors. Consequently, the importance of choosing a theory becomes crucial as it literally serves to shape the way one analyses the world. How then, does one go about choosing an appropriate theory to explain a given phenomenon? While most epistemic privilege is commonplace and uncontroversial, claims of epistemic privilege over contested topics such as the definition and measurement of progress are clearly not. In this sense, knowledge is recognised as being both partial and subjective. This raises another important issue. If different standpoints and assumptions allow a measure to see only certain things, then conversely these same standpoints and assumptions must hide other things. Thus, anyone undertaking a review of progress measurement should not only consider what the measure analyses, but more > importantly, what it fails to analyse. This is what this paper intends to do since progress indicators act as a crucial guide for national policy decision-making.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2001), Australian System of National Accounts 2000–01 Appendix 1: Conceptual Framework, cat. no. 5204.0, ABS, Canberra.
2.
BeedC. (1991), ‘Philosophy of Science and Contemporary Economics: An Overview’, Journal of Post-Keynesian Economics, 13(4), pp. 459–494.
3.
BoltK., MateteM. & ClemensM. (2002), Manual for Calculating Adjusted Net Savings, World Bank Environment Department, Washington, DC.
4.
CaldwellB.J. (1982), Beyond Positivism: Economic Methodology in the Twentieth Century, Allen & Unwin, London.
5.
CobbC.W., GoodmanG.S. & WackernagelM. (1999), Why Bigger Isn't Better: The Genuine Progress Indicator - 1999 Update, Redefining Progress, San Francisco.
6.
CobbC.W., HalsteadT. & RoweJ. (1995), ‘If GDP Is Up Why Is America Down?’, Atlantic Monthly, 276(4), pp. 59–78.
7.
DalyH. & CobbJ.B. (1994), For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy Toward Community, the Environment and a Sustainable Future, Beacon Press, Boston.
8.
FeyerabendP. (1975), Against Method, New Left Books, London.
9.
Fukuda-ParrS. (2003), ‘The Human Development Paradigm: Operationalizing Sen's Ideas on Capabilities’, Feminist Economics, 9(2–3), pp. 301–317.
10.
GoreC. (1997), ‘Irreducibly Social Goods and the Informational Basis of Amartya Sen's Capability Approach’, Journal of International Development, 9(2), pp. 235–250.
11.
HamiltonC. & DennissR. (2000), Tracking Well-Being in Australia: The Genuine Progress Indicator 2000’, Discussion Paper No. 35, The Australia Institute, Canberra.
12.
HamiltonC. (1998), ‘Measuring Changes in Economic Welfare: The Genuine Progress Indicator for Australia’, in EckersleyR (ed.), Measuring Progress: Is Life Getting Better? CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, pp. 69–92.
13.
HamiltonC. (1999), ‘The Genuine Progress Indicator Methodological Developments and Results from Australia’, Ecological Economics, 30(1), pp. 13–28.
14.
HamiltonK. (2001), Indicators of Sustainable Development: Genuine Savings, World Bank, Washington, DC.
15.
HeilbronerR. (1988), Behind the Veil of Economics: Essays in the Worldly Philosophy, WW Norton, New York.
16.
HodgsonG.M. (1993), ‘Calculation, Habits and Action’, in GerrardB (ed.), The Economics of Rationality, Routledge, London, pp. 36–51.
17.
KahnemanD. & TverskyA. (2000), Choices, Values and Frames, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
18.
KatznerD.W. (2003), ‘Why Mathematics in Economics?’, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 25(4), pp. 561–574.
19.
KuhnT. (1962), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
20.
KunteA., HamiltonK., DixonJ. & ClemensM. (1998), ‘Estimating National Wealth: Methodology and Results’, Environment Department Papers, Environmental Economics Series Paper No. 57, World Bank, Washington, DC.
21.
KuznetsS.S. (1962), ‘How to Judge Quality’, The New Republic, October 20, pp. 29–32.
22.
LakatosI. (1970), ‘Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes’, in LakatosI. & MusgraveA. (eds), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 51–58.
23.
LaoTzu, (600 BC), Lao Tzu: Tao Te Ching, Chapter 11, 1974 edn, eds FengG & EnglishJ, Vintage Books, New York.
24.
LawnP.A. (2005), ‘An Assessment of the Valuation Methods Used to Calculate the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW), Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) and Sustainable Net Benefit Index (SNBI)’, Environment, Development and Sustainability, 7(2), pp. 185–208.
25.
LehtonenM. (2004), ‘The Environmental-Social Interface of Sustainable Development: Capabilities, Social Capital, Institutions’, Ecological Economics, 49(2), pp. 199–214.
26.
MachlupF. (1991), Economic Semantics, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
27.
MamalakisM.J. (1996), ‘Misuse and Use of National Accounts as a Welfare Indicator: Selected Analytical and Measurement Issues’, Reviezv of Income and Wealth, 42(3), pp. 293–320.
28.
MankiwG.N. (2004), Principles of Macroeconomics, Thomson/South-Western, Ohio.
29.
Martinez-AlierJ. (1995), ‘The Environment as a Luxury Good, or “Too Poor to be Green”?’ Ecological Economics, 13(1), pp. 1–10.
30.
McCloskeyD. (1985), The Rhetoric of Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.
31.
McLennanG. (1996), ‘Post-marxism and the ‘Four Sins’ of Modernist Theorizing’, New left Review, 218, July-August, pp. 53–74.
32.
MyersR.H. (ed.) (1996), The Wealth of Nations in the Twentieth Century: The Policies and Institutional Determinants of Economic Development, Hoover Institution Press, Stanford.
33.
NelsonJA (1997), ‘Feminism, Ecology and the Philosophy of Economies’, Ecological Economics, 20(2), pp. 155–162.
34.
NeumayerE. (2000), ‘Resource Accounting in Measures of Unsustainability: Challenging the World Bank's Conclusions’, Environmental and Resource Economics, 15(3), pp. 257–278.
35.
NewC. (1998), ‘Realism, Deconstruction and the Feminist Standpoint’, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 28(4), pp. 349–372.
36.
PearceD.W. & AtkinsonG. (1993), ‘Capital Theory and the Measurement of Sustainable Development: An Indicator of Weak Sustainability’, Ecological Economics, 8(2), pp. 103–108.
37.
PillarisettiJ.R. (2005), ‘The World Bank's “Genuine Savings” Measure and Sustainability’, Ecological Economics, 55(4), pp. 599–609.
38.
PopperK.R. (1934), The Logic of Scientific Discovery, 1959 edn, trans, by author, FreedJ. & FreedL., Hutchinson, London.
39.
Prescott-AllenR. (2001), The Weil-Being of Nations: A Country-by-Country Index of Quality of Life and the Environment, Island Press, Washington, DC.
40.
RobeynsI. (2003), ‘Sen's Capability Approach and Gender Inequality: Selecting Relevant Capabilities’, Feminist Economics, 9(2–3), pp. 61–92.
41.
RobeynsI. (2005), ‘Selecting Capabilities for Quality of Life Measurement’, Social Indicators Research, 74(1), pp. 191–215.
42.
SamuelsW.J. (1990), Economics as Discourse, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.
43.
SamuelsW.J. (1991), ‘“Truth” and “Discourse” in the Social Construction of Economic Reality: An Essay on the Relation of Knowledge to Socioeconomic Policy’, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 13(4), pp. 511–524.
44.
SenA.K. (1984), Resources, Values and Development, Blackwell, Oxford.
45.
SenA.K. (1999), Development as Freedom, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
46.
SoubbotinaT.P. (2004), Beyond Economic Growth: An Introduction to Sustainable Development, World Bank, Washington, DC.
47.
StockhammerE., HochreiterH., ObermayrB. & SteinerK. (1997), ‘The Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare as an Alternative to GDP in Measuring Economic Welfare: The Results of the Austrian (revised) ISEW calculation 1955–1992’, Ecological Economics, 21(1), pp. 19–34.
48.
StoneR. (1986), ‘Comments on the Overall Program’, Review of Income and Wealth, 32(2), pp. 117–118.
49.
TanG. (1997), The Economic Transformation of Asia, Times Academic Press, Singapore.
50.
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (1999), Human Development Report 1999: Globalization with a Human Face, Oxford University Press, New York.
51.
Van StaverenI. (2001), The Values of Economics: An Aristotelian Perspective, Routledge, London.
52.
WolffR.D. & ResnickS.A. (1987), Economics: Marxian Versus Neoclassical, John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
53.
World Bank (WB) (1999), World Development Indicators 1999, World Bank, Washington, DC.
