Abstract
Measuring sustainable development based on analytical models of growth and development and modern methods of growth accounting is an economic approach—often called the capital approach – to establishing sustainable development indicators (SDIs). Ecological approaches may be combined with the capital approach, but there are also other approaches to establishing sustainable development indicators—for example the so-called integrated approach. A recent survey of the various approaches is provided in UNECE, OECD and Eurostat [1]. This review note is not intended to be another survey of the various approaches. Rather the objective of this paper is twofold: to present an update on an economic approach to measuring sustainable development—the capital approach—and how this approach may be combined with the ecological approach; to show how this approach is actually used as a basis for longer-term policies to enhance sustainable development in Norway—a country that relies heavily on non-renewable natural resources. We give a brief review of recent literature and set out a model of development based on produced, human, natural and social capital, and the level of technology. Natural capital is divided into two parts—natural capital produced and sold in markets (oil and gas)—and non-market natural capital such as clean air and biodiversity. Weak sustainable development is defined as non-declining welfare per capita if the total stock of a nation's capital is maintained. Strong sustainable development is if none of the capital stocks, notably non-market natural capital, is reduced below critical or irreversible levels. Within such a framework, and based on Norwegian experience and statistical work, monetary indexes of national wealth and its individual components including real capital, human capital and market natural capital are presented. Limits to this framework and to these calculations are then discussed, and we argue that such monetary indexes should be sustainable development indicators (SDIs) of non-market natural capital, and physical SDIs, health capital and social capital. Thus we agree with the Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi Commission [2] that monetary indexes of capital should be combined with physical SDIs of capital that have no market prices. We then illustrate the policy relevance of this framework, and how it is actually being used in long term policy making in Norway—a country that relies heavily on non-renewable resources like oil and gas. A key sustainability rule for Norwegian policies is to maintain the total future capital stocks per capita in real terms as the country draws down its stocks of non-renewable natural capital —applying a fiscal guideline akin to the Hartwick rule.
Highlights
Twenty-five years after the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) published the book Our Common Future [3], there is an emerging view in economic literature on sustainable development that one should focus on sustaining wellbeing per capita in real terms for future generations, and that analyses of measurement and policies should be based on analytical models of growth and development and modern wealth accounting.a main message from the Stiglitz, Sen and Fitoussi Report from 2009 is: The report distinguishes between an assessment of current well-being and an assessment of sustainability
That measures of economic or national wealth in monetary terms have their limits, and one needs a few indicators in physical terms of non-economic aspects of development, such as critical elements of non-market natural capital and health and social capital in order to make a comprehensive assessment of whether a country is on a sustainable path
For the medium term, current policies to sustain present well-being for future generations will probably be largely national with relatively little regional or global cooperation and coordination
Summary
Twenty-five years after the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) published the book Our Common Future [3], there is an emerging view in economic literature on sustainable development that one should focus on sustaining wellbeing per capita in real terms for future generations, and that analyses of measurement and policies should be based on analytical models of growth and development and modern wealth accounting. Current well-being has to do with both economic resources, such as income, and with non-economic aspects of peoples' life (what they do and what they can do, how they feel, and the natural environment they live in) Whether these levels of well-being can be sustained over time depends on whether stocks of capital that matter for our lives (natural, physical, human, social) are passed on to future generations That measures of economic or national wealth in monetary terms have their limits, and one needs a few indicators in physical terms of non-economic aspects of development, such as critical elements of non-market natural capital and health and social capital in order to make a comprehensive assessment of whether a country is on a sustainable path.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
