4 ms·

There's a fundamental issue with this report. It doesn't provide insight into why these indicators for well-being are important. For example, Exhibit 2 in the

by Dwolb 10y ago

There's a fundamental issue with this report. It doesn't provide insight into why these indicators for well-being are important. For example, Exhibit 2 in the linked report [1] shows 44 indicators that make up well-being. These range from inflation volatility to carbon dioxide intensity. Now I have no doubt that those indicators may tell you something about society, but how do we know these indicators tell you about well-being? Put in another way, how can I tell that these indicators should be included at the level importance this report gives them? Kudos to the report authors for number crunching and making nice charts though. [1] (Warning: pdf) https://www.bcgperspectives.com/Images/BCG-The-Private-Sector-Opportunity-to-Improve-Well-Being-Jul-2016.pdf https://www.bcgperspectives.com/Images/BCG-The-Private-Secto...

humanrebar 10y ago
> Put in another way, how can I tell that these indicators should be included at the level importance this report gives them? Absolutely. Also: * What is the relative importance of the indicators? How much GDP growth is worth a crackdown on the freedom of the press? * How sure are we that we can even assign a numerical value to these things? How do we compare American corruption to Mexican corruption, which clearly present differently? Can we even say one is worse than the other, let alone 23.2% worse?
- hammock 10y ago
  It gets you in the ballpark though, which is the best you can hope for with these types of analyses. Better to consider the indicators that were left out vs. included, than to nitpick about the individual weightings.
- jdavis703 10y ago
  Corruption is generally measured as people's perception of corruption, which should help to normalize something that is culturally nebulous. Secondly if corruption becomes really bad it'll bleed into other numbers like GDP growth (see China), pollution (oil leaks and spills in Nigeria) and even life expectancy (recent crisis in Venezuela).
noobermin 10y ago
So, I looked at the report too, and I am convinced that many of indicators are somewhat sensible. Life expectancy at birth? Access to a water source? Gini Index? Level of civil activism? Intergroup cohesion? I think humanrebar's point is a bit more valid of a point, how does one either weigh or quantify such measures, which I'd guess they probably do address (I don't have time to read it through right now). The choice of things to look at I have less qualms with.
uola 10y ago
"There's a fundamental issue with this report. It doesn't provide insight into why these indicators for well-being are important." Not really, it's getting tiring to read these sort of comments on HN. If you actually go and read on the page that outlines what SEDA is, you'll find their justifications for how they choose to measure well-being. https://www.bcgperspectives.com/content/articles/public_sector_globalization_from_wealth_to_well_being/?chapter=3#chapter3 https://www.bcgperspectives.com/content/articles/public_sect...
- Dwolb 10y ago
  My take is these are justifications not backed up by insights. Here's a couple of excerpts from your link we can discuss. >Income is important because it measures the ability of a nation’s population to purchase necessities as well as discretionary goods and services >Environmental stewardship helps ensure that citizens have access to clean water and are not subject to unhealthy pollution levels or the adverse climate effects caused by unchecked carbon emissions. In addition, the preservation of plants and animals and their habitats is increasingly recognized as an important objective. Sure to us in the US (or other developed countries) these both sound reasonable. But let's say you live in rural Lesotho or other rural village in a developing country. Does marginal income increase your well-being? Maybe, maybe not. We don't know if the marginal dollar is enough to raise well-being nor if it is being spent on investments or items which increase well-being. e.g. does the marginsl dollar on average get spent on vices? Is this good or bad? What if you're urban India? Does increasing environmental stewardship increase well-being? What if it's at the expense of increased costs for farmers which increases food costs? Is this a net negative or positive for well-being? Furthermore, how do we define well-being? There needs to be some baselone in the study which sets the level for 'good' well-being vs bad 'well-being'. My frustration comes from setting up an NGO to tackle some of these issues. We met and were advised by similar social enterprise groups that put forth pillars of livelihood or well-being without ever checking back with humans and what real people need. It's easy to say "this sounds reasonable" and implement solutions based on these assumptions. It's tougher to be boots on the ground and solve real problems.
  - uola 10y ago

by Dwolb 10y ago

humanrebar 10y ago

> Put in another way, how can I tell that these indicators should be included at the level importance this report gives them? Absolutely. Also: * What is the relative importance of the indicators? How much GDP growth is worth a crackdown on the freedom of the press? * How sure are we that we can even assign a numerical value to these things? How do we compare American corruption to Mexican corruption, which clearly present differently? Can we even say one is worse than the other, let alone 23.2% worse?

hammock 10y ago
It gets you in the ballpark though, which is the best you can hope for with these types of analyses. Better to consider the indicators that were left out vs. included, than to nitpick about the individual weightings.
jdavis703 10y ago
Corruption is generally measured as people's perception of corruption, which should help to normalize something that is culturally nebulous. Secondly if corruption becomes really bad it'll bleed into other numbers like GDP growth (see China), pollution (oil leaks and spills in Nigeria) and even life expectancy (recent crisis in Venezuela).

noobermin 10y ago

So, I looked at the report too, and I am convinced that many of indicators are somewhat sensible. Life expectancy at birth? Access to a water source? Gini Index? Level of civil activism? Intergroup cohesion? I think humanrebar's point is a bit more valid of a point, how does one either weigh or quantify such measures, which I'd guess they probably do address (I don't have time to read it through right now). The choice of things to look at I have less qualms with.

uola 10y ago

"There's a fundamental issue with this report. It doesn't provide insight into why these indicators for well-being are important." Not really, it's getting tiring to read these sort of comments on HN. If you actually go and read on the page that outlines what SEDA is, you'll find their justifications for how they choose to measure well-being. https://www.bcgperspectives.com/content/articles/public_sector_globalization_from_wealth_to_well_being/?chapter=3#chapter3 https://www.bcgperspectives.com/content/articles/public_sect...

Dwolb 10y ago
My take is these are justifications not backed up by insights. Here's a couple of excerpts from your link we can discuss. >Income is important because it measures the ability of a nation’s population to purchase necessities as well as discretionary goods and services >Environmental stewardship helps ensure that citizens have access to clean water and are not subject to unhealthy pollution levels or the adverse climate effects caused by unchecked carbon emissions. In addition, the preservation of plants and animals and their habitats is increasingly recognized as an important objective. Sure to us in the US (or other developed countries) these both sound reasonable. But let's say you live in rural Lesotho or other rural village in a developing country. Does marginal income increase your well-being? Maybe, maybe not. We don't know if the marginal dollar is enough to raise well-being nor if it is being spent on investments or items which increase well-being. e.g. does the marginsl dollar on average get spent on vices? Is this good or bad? What if you're urban India? Does increasing environmental stewardship increase well-being? What if it's at the expense of increased costs for farmers which increases food costs? Is this a net negative or positive for well-being? Furthermore, how do we define well-being? There needs to be some baselone in the study which sets the level for 'good' well-being vs bad 'well-being'. My frustration comes from setting up an NGO to tackle some of these issues. We met and were advised by similar social enterprise groups that put forth pillars of livelihood or well-being without ever checking back with humans and what real people need. It's easy to say "this sounds reasonable" and implement solutions based on these assumptions. It's tougher to be boots on the ground and solve real problems.
- uola 10y ago