Peter Verwer |
Monday, 14 March 2011 12:02 AM |
Add Comment
The pocket-sized Himalayan Kingdom of Bhutan led the way in the early 70s.
While the Western world puzzled over the meaning of Don Maclean’s American Pie, the newly crowned 16-year-old Bhuttanese king declared his people should not just have their cake, they should eat it and pen their own food review.
The young ruler decided his nation’s priority was happiness, not simply economic growth measured by GDP.
The result was the world’s first index of Gross National Happiness (GNH).
King Jigme Singye Wangchuck turned out to be the coolest dude on the policy block.
These days every caring political leader wants to play the “going beyond GDP” riff.
David Cameron, the UK Tory Prime Minister, has said measuring happiness is one of “the central policy issues of our time”.
“It’s time we admitted that there’s more to life than money, and it’s time we focussed not just on GDP but on GWB – general wellbeing.”
French President Nicholas Sarkozy – clearly cheesed off by “the cult of figures” that assumes the “cult of the market is always right” (and that the French economy grows at a snail’s pace) – commissioned Nobel Laureates Joe Stiglitz and Amaryta Sen to devise dashboards of GDP alternatives.
The eminent economists concluded it was time to complement metrics of economic production and market activity with measures of sustainable wellbeing, social progress and quality of life.
Taking their cue, G20 leaders decreed they would “encourage work on measurement methods to better account for the social and environmental dimensions of economic development.”
The Summer of Love Woodstock generation has morphed into wonks wielding Excel worksheets.
Maybe they should download the results of the TrackYourHappiness project, which employs an iPhone app to get volunteers to record their state of mind three times a day for a few months.
The research (in progress) concludes people are happier when their minds are occupied, while daydreamers tend to sulk.
Well, not just their minds. The study revealed the highest rated happiness activity is having sex. It seems only 30 percent of participants let their minds wander during carnal exertions …
Australia is no laggard in the quest to unveil GDP alternatives.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics has operated its Measures of Australian Progress (MAP) program for several years.
Community Indicators Victoria and TasTogether are just two Australian dashboard projects that measure the social vibe behind an economic beat.
Industry and the Property Council are also on board.
The Green Building Council’s draft Green Star Communities Framework sets out six multiple bottom line principles for designing sustainable neighbourhoods.
The Property Council is also involved with an Australian Sustainable Built Environment Council (ASBEC) project to settle on an agreed dashboard of sustainability metrics that industry, community groups and government can sign up to.
Last month, the Property Council released a unique perspective – My City: The People’s Verdict – on the liveability of our major cities.
Auspoll asked more than 4000 Australians to define and then rate their city’s liveability. In doing so, we acknowledged that Australian citizens, not academics, politicians (or even the Property Council), were the experts.
Check out last month’s Property Australia editorial or www.propertyoz.com.au/mycity for the results.
An inevitable ‘announceable’ from the Federal Government’s current population and cities consultations will be a dashboard of liveability indicators.
This is where we get nervous.
Even metrics loving KPI junkies such as the Property Council see the dangers of measurement fetishism.
The biggest problem with Australia’s governments is their failure to make decisions based on a long-term view, followed by an inability to make decisions that join up to a coherent platform of action.
Governments can hatch dashboards and indicators to rival the latest mind-boggling Airbus cockpit. It won’t improve the lot of Australians unless we modernise the nation’s disjointed machinery of government.
By all means measure liveability, sustainability, economic competitiveness, security and the like.
However, start by setting meaningful targets for improving national performance in each of these prosperity categories.
Ensure the targets map together.
Then totally re-organise the machinery of government at all levels to guarantee efficient delivery on these targets.
As the Property Council’s Auspoll study revealed, Australians rate delivery, not promises.
Peter Verwer |
Monday, 14 March 2011 12:02 AM |
Add Comment
