Ecological Economics 192 (2022) 107257 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Ecological Economics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon A procedure for globally institutionalizing a ‘beyond-GDP’ metric Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh a, b, c, * a Institute of Environmental Science and Technology, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, Spain b ICREA, Barcelona, Spain c School of Business and Economics & Institute for Environmental Studies, VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T Keywords: If governments are serious about meeting environmental and social goals, they should overcome dominance of Beyond GDP the GDP indicator in political discourse. Institutionalizing a beyond-GDP metric would be an essential step, in Gross domestic product interaction with a shift in the direction of an “agrowth” paradigm. For a significant step forward, a permanent UN Economic growth panel could be charged to explore the options and prepare a metric for global implementation. This essay outlines United Nations the choice spectrum and provides criteria and guidelines for the metric-selection process. It is suggested that the panel considers four critical dimensions of potential alternatives, namely means versus ends, objective versus subjective information, aggregate index versus multiple indicators, and monetary versus other units. In deciding about each dimension, serious attention needs to be given to the psychological-communicative appeal of the resulting options, so as to guarantee a fluent uptake of the selected beyond-GDP metric in society, media and politics. The combined environmental and inequality crises at national and global scales make this the right time to finally translate a respectable history of beyond-GDP thinking into practical action. 1. Introduction interest groups (van den Bergh, 2009). I argue here that international organizations and national governments should join forces to overcome Although it is widely accepted that the Gross Domestic Product GDP dominance if they are serious about meeting environmental and (GDP) is a poor measure of societal progress, it still dominates media and social goals. Their aim should be to institutionalize a substitute metric politics. The main shortcomings of the GDP are that it does not capture (set) that reasonably approximates genuine well-being. In particular, I environmental damages, inequality and the informal economy (more suggest that effective institutionalization of metrics beyond GDP could details are in Table 1). It therefore biases policy evaluation towards be achieved by creating a permanent panel under the auspices of the options that promote average income growth over sustainability and United Nations. To this end, I outline the choice spectrum and provide social goals. criteria and guidelines for the metric-selection process. Climate change is arguably the major environmental challenge for future economic or GDP growth, since climate damages are predicted to 2. Potential insights from alternative progress metrics generate substantial economic costs and stringent climate policies may curtail growth (van den Bergh, 2017). Fear of the latter is an important Based on insights generated by many studies employing alternative reason for many voters and politicians to refrain from genuinely sup­ metrics of progress, one might conclude that we do not really need an porting ambitious climate policy. This underpins the need to move away aggregate progress indicator for political and policy decision-making in from a focus on GDP in public-policy debates. the future. The reason is that green-GDP types of studies, such as based Both criticism of GDP and proposals for alternative indicators have a on the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW) (Daly and Cobb, long history (Blanchet and Fleurbaey, 2013), but so far have not 1989) and the closely related Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) – which threatened the dominance of GDP. Reasons include disagreement on try to repair the shortcomings listed in Table 1 –, show that many rich whether the ideal approach is a composite index or a set of indicators, countries (Posner and Costanza, 2011) and even the world as a whole and institutional resistance by national accountants, policy-makers and (Kubiszewski et al., 2013) have reached a welfare plateau and that * Corresponding author at: Institute of Environmental Science and Technology, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Edifici Z, UAB Campus, 08192 Bellaterra, Spain. E-mail address: jeroen.bergh@uab.es. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107257 Received 27 May 2021; Received in revised form 7 October 2021; Accepted 11 October 2021 Available online 19 October 2021 0921-8009/© 2021 The Author. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). J.C.J.M. van den Bergh Ecological Economics 192 (2022) 107257 Table 1 standardized calculation of the GDP is controlled by an inclusive and Main shortcomings of GDP as a metric of social welfare and progress. global organization, namely the UN. With its ample experience in 1 GDP harms two principles of good bookkeeping: (i) divide between costs and creating communities involving scientists, government representatives benefits; and (ii) correct for changes in stocks and NGOs to tackle policy-relevant issues, the UN provides the best 2 GDP ignores income inequality, basic needs, human adaptation to higher income context to work on the implementation of a beyond-GDP metric. In fact, and more consumption, and effects of relative income (i.e. comparison with a firm basis for the GDP was created by a community that emerged after others) 3 GDP neglects the informal economy (non-market transactions), including the Second World War, when the UN established the Sub-Committee on housework, voluntary work and self-sufficient food production (especially National Income Statistics to develop the system of national accounts relevant to many low-income countries) (SNA). A more recent example relevant to sustainability and well-being 4 GDP does not capture environmental and ecosystem damages, biodiversity loss, is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which serves and the depletion of renewable and non-renewable natural resources as a global and inclusive institution for transferring insights about Note: summary of the literature survey in van den Bergh (2009). climate change and policy from science to society and politics. Likewise, a future UN panel could help in guaranteeing a solid and further growth will not add much to well-being. A similar finding is inclusive process of collecting and transferring relevant insights about suggested by empirical evidence on happiness-income delinking (East­ beyond-GDP metrics from science to politics. This would contribute to erlin et al., 2010) and studies of hedonic adaptation (Frederick and the institutionalization in all countries of a consistent progress metric as Lowenstein, 1999). Further confirmation comes from stable and a substitute for the GDP. In turn, this could facilitate the implementation converging values of the Human Development Index (HDI) for rich na­ of adequate national policies to address urgent social and sustainability tions (van den Bergh and Botzen, 2018). It therefore appears valid to issues. question the measurement of growth, or even well-being, at least in those countries that have already attained a welfare plateau. 4. A panel under the auspices of the United Nations Add to this that future economic growth in rich countries may be low anyway, not just because of the Covid-19 crisis and negative global The foregoing suggests that a concerted effort by countries through environmental feedback (Dell et al., 2012), but also as both education the UN system could aid in getting more focus and acceleration in and technical innovation seems to have reached the realm of dimin­ selecting a beyond-GDP metric (set). In particular, an interdisciplinary ishing returns (Gordon, 2016). This suggests that if we could get rid of and international UN panel with executive power regarding coordina­ the focus on GDP, potential future disappointments of our societies tion of national policy indicators could provide the missing permanent would be avoided: namely, that growth of both GDP and welfare will bridge from social and sustainability sciences to statistical offices and slow down or even come to a halt. policy makers. In view of both previous points, one might claim that no alternative The panel would have to institutionalize a relevant beyond-GDP well-being or progress indicator for GDP is really needed to assess metric (set) to empower sustainability and social policies worldwide. further developments in rich countries. Instead, it seems sufficient to As part of this, the panel should coordinate the development of a new focus on inequity (of income and well-being) and global environmental accounting framework and language to create a solid and globally uni­ issues that still lose out in the competition with GDP growth. In other form basis for a beyond-growth metric. This will create clarity about words, we do not really need a substitute for GDP to know what its data requirements and allow for regular and globally consistent calcu­ growth means for well-being or social welfare: namely very little. lation of the metric, in turn providing policy-makers with a tool for However, such arguments are not easily going to convince a majority of assessing and supporting sustainability and equity policies. Challenges politicians and governments. Moreover, appeals to give less importance and tasks of the panel involve both fundamental and practical issues. to GDP might be more effective if they go along with evidence, in the form of an alternative aggregate measure, that GDP growth does not 4.1. A fundamental transition away from the growth paradigm necessarily and always translate into genuine progress of a society. Hence, it is worthwhile to garner support for a substitute index or in­ It is not unlikely that political groups or particular countries will dicator (set) capable of replacing the GDP indicator in political resist the formation of a beyond-GDP panel. One understandable but discourse. misplaced fear is that it would mean supporting an anti-growth position. However, one should recognize that since ‘beyond GDP’ means giving 3. Learning from success stories of GDP and IPCC less attention to GDP information, it is more in line with adopting a kind of neutral position known as ‘agrowth’, namely being indifferent about Although we have learned useful lessons from research on alterna­ the specific course followed by GDP (van den Bergh, 2018). It allows tive progress metrics, this has not translated into implementation of an giving more priority to urgent social and environmental issues without alternative indicator as a core element of current national indicator being immediately overruled by a dogmatic push for economic growth. systems. The reason is that GDP is hard to compete with, having become Agrowth could serve as the intellectual foundation of a genuine beyond- a global standard that is adopted in virtually all countries. It is supported GDP approach. Conversely, substituting GDP by a beyond-GDP metric by a transparent accounting framework laid out in the System of Na­ could reinforce an agrowth paradigm, by aiding escape from the un­ tional Accounts (SNA), whose harmonization is institutionally sup­ productive polarization of pro- versus anti-growth. Hence, in the process ported by the United Nations (UN). In contrast, the Beyond-GDP of preparing an alternative to GDP, the UN panel, along with enthusi­ community still lacks a common, harmonized language, as well as global astic supporters and countries, might embrace and diffuse the agrowth institutions and organizations that could support it. In line with this, it is position, as this could help to reduce potential resistance against the very heterogeneous, proposes many different indicators, and uses a va­ panel and its assignment. riety of terms for similar or even identical concepts relating to well- To avoid confusion, it may be noted that an ‘agrowth paradigm’ does being, progress or sustainability (Hoekstra, 2019). not imply limiting growth opportunities for low-income countries in the To institutionalize a ‘beyond GDP’ metric (set) around the world, one global south. One needs to recognize, though, that if such growth follows needs to learn from the success of the GDP, in terms of features that the global-north model guided by GDP, it is likely to compromise make it attractive and the particular institutional support it receives. As environment and equity. Indeed, a strong focus on GDP will promote we will discuss later, the aggregate character and monetary dimensions developments that sacrifice equity and fair opportunities for the whole of the GDP contribute to the first. Regarding the second, the population. In addition, by ignoring the informal economy, GDP tends to overestimate the progress of low-income countries due to a rapid 2 J.C.J.M. van den Bergh Ecological Economics 192 (2022) 107257 transition to a market economy, notably if this goes along with many contacts, health, freedom and corruption – or on subjective measures – people moving away from subsistence agriculture and ending up in the such as individual responses to happiness and life satisfaction surveys slums of large cities. This illustrates that the flawed nature of the GDP as (for more details, see ch.11 of the recent “Dasgupta review on the Eco­ a welfare/progress metric extends beyond the scope of rich nations. To nomics of Biodiversity,” Dasgupta, 2021). In terms of practice and policy illustrate, an empirical study of a panel dataset covering a period of four impact, the UN frequently employs the first approach to report de­ decades and 81 quality-of-life indicators found that income per capita velopments worldwide, notably of low-income countries; the second had a significantly positive impact on only a minority of indicators approach has been less popular in actual policy-making settings, but (Easterly, 1999). These considerations suggest that striving towards an recently gained attention through New Zealand’s project to link agrowth paradigm and replacement of GDP by a beyond-GDP indicator important national policies to ‘Living standards’ and a ‘Well-being (set) make sense when aiming for a more equitable and sustainable budget’ (Karacaoglu, 2020). development in both the global north and south. Third, the panel has to decide how many ‘beyond growth’ indicators are considered worthy of investing significant time and effort in. In other 4.2. Communicative and psychological appeal words, should one strive for a single metric or a set of few or many in­ dicators? Five main options are shown in Table 2, along with advantages In comparing the possible choices regarding the metric (set), the and disadvantages. The ultimate choice should arguably give much panel should consider both their scientific robustness and psychological- weight to which metric (set) is regarded most likely to replace the GDP communicative capability. Regarding the first, the main question is how indicator from a communicative perspective. As part of this crucial well an indicator integrates direct well-being, including equity, and choice, one needs to select between index and indicator: the first covers longer-term environmental impacts on well-being. This indicates that multiple issues or themes and requires aggregation plus weighting; the the panel should include experts on these themes as well as on how to second avoids this but typically only covers one issue or theme. In integrate them. In particular, panel members with experience regarding addition, the panel should think carefully about suitable aggregations of comparison of indicators and aggregation of information would be indicators into an index. Indeed, distinct indexes easily produce incon­ essential. sistent insights – as illustrated by a comparison of national sustainability Regarding psychological-communicative capability, the main ques­ indexes (Pillarisetti and van den Bergh, 2010). tion is how indicators should be designed and presented to make sure Fourth, the panel should examine whether a monetary metric will that they are easily and well understood by a broad group of potential more easily gain support than a non-monetary one. Arguably, part of the users in society (Rosling, 2007). To make an informed decision on this, popularity of GDP (per capita) is that it is in monetary units, which one the panel could incorporate experts from the cognitive and communi­ can easily interpret as a national (average) income level. Generally, most cation sciences and give them the task to shed light on which metric operational alternative indexes, apart from green-GDP types of in­ approach most likely overcomes GDP dominance. This might involve dicators like the ISEW, lack this feature. They may thus have a testing for several countries how journalists, politicians and citizens communicative disadvantage. In fact, its non-monetary value may partly respond to different metric options as sketched below. I looked for ac­ explain why the HDI has been unable to replace the GDP as the dominant ademic studies in this vein but did not find any. This suggest that measure of countries’ progress. A metric with a monetary value will research on this issue is welcome or even urgent, so that the panel can have communicative advantages as all journalists, voters and politicians build upon its results. are trained in reading monetary information and comparing income To illustrate, given humans’ bounded rationality, it is understand­ over time or between households. An ‘indicator transition’ from GDP to able that an aggregate indicator is so popular. It avoids a multitude of a green GDP might therefore be easier than to an alternative with a non- information describing the complex economy and human well-being, monetary scale. which simplifies information transfer through education and media. It is therefore not unlikely that we will need another aggregate indicator or 4.4. Relation with existing indicators like SDGs index rather than a set of indicators (or indexes) to escape from behavioural and institutional ‘lock-in’ of the GDP. However, other Most countries use already a multitude of economic, social and considerations play a role as well, as discussed henceforth. environmental indicators at distinct policy levels – local, provincial and national – and for different purposes, such as monitoring, policy prep­ 4.3. Reflecting upon four indicator dimensions aration, or input to social and political debate. The proposal to replace GDP by a ‘beyond GDP’ metric (set) does not mean that all these in­ To prepare a well-informed decision on which metric to focus on, the dicators are to be removed. The aim of dethroning GDP is to create more panel should address four important questions with regard to indicators, space for environment and equity at the national level of policy making, related to the dimensions of means versus ends, objective versus sub­ not to question the use of indicators for other purposes or at other levels. jective information, the sheer number of indicators, and – if a single To illustrate, the SDG indicator approach, in which the UN has invested metric – whether in monetary or non-monetary units. much, can continue parallel to the proposed ‘beyond GDP’ approach, First, the panel should decide whether steering society is best done although perhaps some adaptations will be needed. In fact, it is likely on the basis of ‘means indicators’ like inclusive wealth (the accounting that achieving SDG goals specifically focused on equity and sustain­ value of an economy’s produced, human and natural capital, UNU/ ability will become easier if the constraint of unconditional growth is IHDP-UNEP, 2015) or on the basis of ‘ends indicators’ like social welfare ultimately relieved, notably in rich countries, through the panel’s work. or happiness? (Kahneman et al., 2004). If the right policies for sustain­ At the same time, this could create more global space for sustainable ability and wellbeing are in place, there will be a one to one connection growth by low-income countries. between the two (Arrow et al., 2012). Nevertheless, one needs to judge On the other hand, the problem of GDP dominance has not been which practical elaborations of these alternatives are more challenging solved by the development of the SDGs. This is arguably due to the large in terms of construction, theoretical underpinning, and data availability number of SDGs, a great diversity in their units, and overlap or even and reliability. There is no perfect option here, and so the panel’s task is inconsistency between some. As a result, the SDGs do not easily or to assess for which option advantages more outweigh disadvantages, quickly allow getting an overview of the state of, or change in, a coun­ building upon existing evaluations in the scientific literature (van den try’s overall welfare performance. In fact, the SDG approach seems to Bergh and Antal, 2014). contrast with the need for indicator transparency and uncomplicated­ Second, the panel should deliberate whether to focus on objective ness arguably required to reduce the dominance of the GDP. Indeed, few measures – such as social statistics on income, distribution, social laypersons or even experts will be able to faultlessly list the different 3 J.C.J.M. van den Bergh Ecological Economics 192 (2022) 107257 Table 2 Table 2 (continued ) Five options for ‘beyond GDP’ metrics and their (dis)advantages. Option Advantages Disadvantages Option Advantages Disadvantages 169 sub-goals (known overlap between certain 1. A single evaluation index Offers perhaps the best If an index, it requires as ‘targets’) (UN, 2015). indicators is likely while or indicator chance to dethrone the much aggregation and (to trade-offs become opaque Aggregates relevant GDP as it is also a single some extent subjective) (Pradhan et al., 2017). economic, social and metric that simplifies weighting. Certain issues Note: The text discusses illustrative indicators in more detail and with references. environmental complexity. If an index, may be over-represented information into a it can integrate many due to arbitrary single number. The different issues. A single weighting. If an indicator, (groups of) SDGs. There just are too many of them, and the human brain ISEW index is a good index or indicator can in it may omit certain issues. cannot handle so much information. In line with this, aggregate in­ example. Indicators can principle compete well focus on happiness or with, and might thus dicators and SDGs occupy extreme positions of the choice spectrum subjective well-being. stand a good chance to regarding indicators, as illustrated by Table 2. My personal take is that to replace, GDP. maximize the likelihood of dethroning the GDP we’d best focus on a 2. Two evaluation indexes Keeping the two basic It still requires single metric with a monetary value. However, it is important that this or indicators dimensions clearly considerable aggregation issue is examined critically and with an open mind, also taking into This could capture separate contributes to and weighting. A set of current and future well- transparent public and two is probably less account experiences with SDGs so far – ideally based on interviews and being, with the latter political debates about attractive and powerful surveys with relevant stakeholders. depending on long-term fundamental trade-offs. than a single aggregate sustainability effects. indicator such as GDP. 5. Conclusions Indicators under 1 can capture the first, while the ‘inclusive wealth’ The increasingly felt urgency in society about effectively responding indicator might serve to to climate change, biodiversity loss and global inequality make this the capture the second. right time to bring beyond-GDP thinking finally into practice. Learning 3. Three evaluation Avoids aggregation of For many people and indicators or indexes very different aspects of journalists this may from the historical success of GDP construction and climate-change These would reality. This small set of already be an overdose of assessment guided by the United Nations, a beyond-GDP panel under represent the key indicators also information. A set of three the auspices of the UN would create the required institutional support, dimensions of well- contributes to will not easily replace a which through careful deliberation, could deliver an internationally being, sustainability transparent public and single indicator like GDP harmonized beyond-GDP metric (set) to replace the GDP indicator. The and equity. Again, In­ political debates about in media and politics. dicators under 1 can fundamental trade-offs. panel would guide implementation of the alternative by statistical of­ capture the first. The fices around the world via support of metric construction and data broad scope of sustain­ collection as well as through communication of a new agrowth paradigm ability might be consistent with ‘beyond GDP’. Ultimately, this would aid the prepara­ captured as done by the Environmental Sustain­ tion, evaluation and support of relevant public policies. ability Index (ESI Wen­ To decide about a metric (set), the panel should consider critical dling et al., 2020). For dimensions of it, notably whether to focus on means versus ends, equity the Gini index or objective versus subjective information, an aggregate index versus Atkinson’s inequality multiple indicators, and monetary versus other units. To arrive at a good measure can be used, with the latter giving choice, the panel’s ponderings should assign a serious role to the more weight to the psychological-communicative appeal of alternative options, so as to lower end of the income guarantee a fluent uptake of the selected option in society, media and distribution (Atkinson, politics. While the panel will not have an easy task, the urgency to 1970). 4. An intermediate set of This avoid aggregation Which issues indicators reduce GDP dominance is great, the knowledge about alternatives is complementary into indexes as in should cover becomes established, and the potential benefits for humanity will be perpetual. indicators, say 5 to 10 options 1-3. It can be arbitrary and subjective. This can be regarded based on more concrete Too many indicators as a compromise and disaggregate obscures clear trade-offs Declaration of Competing Interest between the very indicators about which for public and political distinct options 3 and 5. there is little debate and debate. It is further None. Influential initiatives disagreement. unlikely this option will promoting indicator weaken GDP dominance. dashboards of this kind Note that the widely used Acknowledgements are the Stiglitz-Sen- set of macro-indicators Fitoussi commission (unemployment, I am grateful to Stefan Drews and Rutger Hoekstra for helpful com­ (Stiglitz et al., 2018) inflation, etc.) has never ments and discussions. The usual disclaimer applies. and the OECD’s Better threatened GDP Life Initiative (OECD, dominance. 2013). References 5. A large set of indicators Such a rich approach Complex reality is These could explicitly allows representation of translated into a complex Arrow, K.J., Dasgupta, P., Goulder, L.H., Mumford, K.J., Oleson, K., 2012. Sustainability capture each domain of multiple stakeholders set of indicators which and the measurement of wealth. Environ. Dev. Econ. 17 (3), 317–353. human life and and interests. One can few will be able to Atkinson, A.B., 1970. On the measurement of inequality. J. Econ. Theory 2 (3), 244–263. sustainability. This strive for complete oversee. This may hamper Blanchet, D., Fleurbaey, M., 2013. Beyond GDP: Measuring Welfare and Assessing approach is well coverage of issues. communication with the Sustainability. Oxford University Press, Oxford UK. illustrated by the 17 Nothing important has public and politics. Daly, H.E., Cobb, J., 1989. For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy Toward Sustainable to be left out. Interest groups may Community, the Environment, and a Sustainable Future. Beacon Press, Boston, MA. Dasgupta, P., 2021. The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review. HM Treasury, Development Goals highlight some indicators London. (SDGs) and associated at the cost of others. Dell, M., Jones, B., Olken, B., 2012. Temperature shocks and economic growth: evidence Contradiction and from the last half century. Am. Econ. J. Macroecon. 4 (3), 66–95. Easterlin, R.A., Angelescu McVey, L., Switek, M., Sawangfa, O., Smith Zweig, J., 2010. The happiness–income paradox revisited. PNAS 107 (52), 22463–22468. 4 J.C.J.M. van den Bergh Ecological Economics 192 (2022) 107257 Easterly, W., 1999. Life during growth. J. Econ. Growth 4, 239–276. Rosling, H., 2007. Communicating content: new communication tools for new measures. Frederick, S., Lowenstein, G., 1999. Hedonic adaptation. In: Kahneman, D., Diener, E., In: Beyond GDP Measuring Progress, True Wealth, and the Well-Being of Nations, Schwartz, N. (Eds.), Well-Being: The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology. Russell pp. 37–40. Conference proceedings, European Parliament, Brussels. Sage Foundation, New York, pp. 302–329. Stiglitz, J., Fittoussi, J., Durand, M., 2018. Beyond GDP. In: Measuring What Counts for Gordon, R.J., 2016. The Rise and Fall of American Growth: The U.S. Standard of Living Economic and Social Performance. OECD. November 27, 2018. since the Civil War. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. UN, 2015. Transforming Our World: The SDG Agenda for Sustainable Development. Hoekstra, R., 2019. Replacing GDP by 2030: Towards a Common Language for the Well- United Nations, New York. being and Sustainability Community. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK. UNU/IHDP-UNEP, 2015. Inclusive Wealth Report 2014. Cambridge University Press, Kahneman, D., Krueger, A., Schkade, D., Schwarz, N., Stone, A., 2004. Toward national Cambridge. well-being accounts. Am. Econ. Rev. Pap. Proc. 94 (2), 239–434. van den Bergh, J., 2009. The GDP paradox. J. Econ. Psychol. 30, 117–135. Karacaoglu, G., 2020. I LOVE YOU – investing for intergenerational wellbeing. Real- van den Bergh, J.C.J.M., 2017. A third option for climate policy within potential limits to World Econ. Rev. 92, 207–227. growth. Nat. Clim. Chang. 7 (February), 107–112. Kubiszewski, I., Costanza, R., Franco, C., Lawn, P., Talberth, J., Jackson, T., Aylmer, C., van den Bergh, J., 2018. Agrowth instead of anti- and pro-growth: less polarization, more 2013. Beyond GDP: measuring and achieving global genuine progress. Ecol. Econ. support for sustainability/climate policies. J. Popul. Sustain. 3 (1), 53–74. 93, 57–68. van den Bergh, J., Antal, M., 2014. Evaluating Alternatives to GDP as Measures of Social OECD, 2013. Guidelines on Measuring Subjective Well-being. Organisation for Economic Welfare/Progress. Working Paper no 56, WWWforEurope project - Welfare, Wealth Co-operation and Development, Paris. and Work for Europe, Vienna. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/12 Pillarisetti, R., van den Bergh, J., 2010. Sustainable nations: What do aggregate indexes 5713/1/WWWforEurope_WPS_no056_MS211.pdf. tell us? Environ. Dev. Sustain. 12 (1), 49–62. van den Bergh, J., Botzen, W., 2018. Impact of a climate treaty if the Human Posner, S.M., Costanza, R., 2011. A summary of ISEW and GPI studies at multiple scales Development Index replaces GDP as welfare proxy. Clim. Pol. 18 (1), 76–85. and new estimates for Baltimore City, Baltimore County, and the State of Maryland. Wendling, Z.A., Emerson, J.W., de Sherbinin, A., Esty, D.C., et al., 2020. 2020 Ecol. Econ. 70 (11), 1972–1980. Environmental Performance Index. Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy, Pradhan, P., Costa, L., Rybski, D., Lucht, W., Kropp, J.P., 2017. A systematic study of New Haven, CT. https://epi.yale.edu. Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) interactions. Earth’s Future 5, 1169–1179. 5