3 ms·

"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 tir

by 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
  I can see your concern, but I think your overthinking it. It's a high level report. We can argue how important any one is for well-being, but that isn't necessarily the point. The point is, in this case, that if you have a certain amount of growth and multiple of these areas get better then you're converting growth to well-being better than a country in which fewer of these areas get better. Which I, while it doesn't tell the whole story, wouldn't consider controversial.

by uola 10y ago

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
I can see your concern, but I think your overthinking it. It's a high level report. We can argue how important any one is for well-being, but that isn't necessarily the point. The point is, in this case, that if you have a certain amount of growth and multiple of these areas get better then you're converting growth to well-being better than a country in which fewer of these areas get better. Which I, while it doesn't tell the whole story, wouldn't consider controversial.