INTERNATIONAL WELFARE COMPARISON USING GDP AND BETTER LIFE INDEX PARAMETERS

Abstract

Purpose- In this study, an international welfare comparison is made for OECD members together with selected thirty eight countries using purchasing power parity (PPP) based on GDP per capita and better life index (BLI) parameters which is prepared by OECD as an alternative to welfare measurement. The purpose of this study is to research relations between national income and human welfare that is generated according to BLI criteria’s.  

Methodology- For this study, 2016 year data is used. The reasons are: Latvia and South Africa countries are added in 2016 and 2016 year is the latest edition for BLI which is renewed itself year by year. In addition when BLI is compared with GDP, reasons of being preferred PPP numbers are:  One of the variables of BLI which is income criteria and its indicators incomes and fortunes of households are calculated by PPP based; PPP gives opportunity to comparison of real good and services eliminating the differences of price level among countries; in calculation of PPP, economic factors such as currency fluctuations, interest rates and capital flows are not taken into account; rather than just National income, PPP based GDP per capita is more personal like BLI.

Findings- The result obtained from this study is that; when it examined carefully, countries with high national income per capita cannot score high in terms of BLI values. At first glance, it can be asserted that there is a strong positive relation between GDP per capita and BLI parameters by saying that countries like Norway, Switzerland and Sweden are at the top both in national income per capita and BLI based rankings; or countries like South Africa, Mexico, Brazil, Turkey are at the bottom both in national income per capita and BLI based rankings. However, if there was a strong positive relation between  GDP per capita and BLI; Luxembourg, which is by far the best in national income per capita ranking, wouldn’t be placed rank number twelve in average BLI values ranking. Similarly, New Zealand, which is placed rank number twenty in national income per capita ranking among thirty eight countries, wouldn’t be placed rank number seven in average BLI values ranking. These tangible examples are not limited to a few countries. For example, Ireland, which ranks fourth in GDP per capita rankings, ranks sixteenth in average BLI values rankings; Denmark, which ranks twelfth in the national income per capita, ranks third in terms of average BLI values rankings.

Conclusion- A country’s high level of national income does not necessarily mean that it is at a level of contemporary civilization. If it is asked to evaluate a country in terms of welfare perspective; not just only monetary value of produced goods and services in that country shouldn’t be taken into account  but also factors such as education, justice, employment, security, environment and social connections should be taken into account from a wider perspective.

Keywords

• Better Life Index,OECD,international welfare comparison

References

1. Akar, S. (2014). Türkiye'de Daha İyi Yaşam Endeksi: OECD Ülkeleri İle Karşılaştırma. Journal of Life Economics, pp. 1-12.
2. Barraso, J. M., Pöttering, H.-G., Almunia, J., & Berès, P. (2007). Beyond GDP. Measuring progress, true wealth and well-being. Brussels: European Comission, European Parliament, Club of Rome, WWF, OECD.
3. Boarini, R. (2012). Well-being and GDP: why we need them both. http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/blog/well-being-and-gdp.htm.
4. Boarini, R., & D'ercole, M. M. (2013). Going beyond GDP: An OECD Perspective. Journal of Applied Public Economics,vol. 34(3), pp. 289-314.
5. CASSE. (2009). GDP and Indicators of Economic Wellbeing. Briefing Papers.
6. Chaves, E. J. (2003). Toward a Center-Periphery Model of Global Accounting. Globalization: Critical Perspectives. New York: Nova Scince Publishers.
7. Conceição, P., & Bandura, R. (2008). Measuring Subjective Wellbeing: A Summary Review of the Literature. UNDP, pp. 1-24.
8. Costanza, R., Hart, M., Posner, S., & Talberth, J. (2009). Beyond GDP: The Need for New Measures of Progress. The Pardee Papers no.4, pp. 1-37.

9. Coyle, D. (2014). Is GDP still useful? http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/blog/is-gdp-still-useful.htm.
10. Durand, M. (2015). The OECD Better Life Initiative: How's Life? and the Measurement of Well-Being. The review of income and wealth, vol. 61(1), pp. 4-17.
11. Economist, T. (2016). Why GDP is a poor measure of progress. http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2016/05/economist-explains-1.
12. Hoskins, P., & May, D. (2014). OECD's Better Life Index For Canada and Provinces: Challenges and Results. https://www.mun.ca/care/topics/BLI_paper_Final_2014.pdf.
13. IMF. (2016). World Economic and Financial Surveys World Economic Outlook Database. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2016/01/weodata/index.aspx.
14. States of Jersey Statistics Unit. (2013). Jersey’s Better Life Index 2013. https://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20JerseysBetterLifeIndex%2020130322%20SU.pdf.
15. Kasparian, J., & Rolland, A. (2012). OECD’s Better Life Index: Can Any Country Be Well Ranked? Research Article, Journal of Applied Statistics, vol. 39(10), pp. 2223-2230.
16. Kendall-Bilicki, S. (2012). Beyond GDP: Better Ways to Measure Better Lives. http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/blog/the-better-life-index.htm.
17. Kerényi, Á. (2011). The Better Life Index of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Public Finance Quarterly, vol. 56(4), pp. 518-538.
18. Kettner, C., Köberl, K., Mayrhuber, C., Karmasin, S., Steininger, N., Haas, S., et al. (2012). Beyond GDP Measuring well-being and quality of life with the OECD Better Life Index in selected countries based on Austrian preferences. http://www.bmwfw.gv.at/Wirtschaftspolitik/Standortpolitik/Documents/Executive%20Summary%20in%20EN.pdf.
19. Kulesza, M., & Ucıeklak-Jez, P. (2012). Poland and Selected Countries in the Light of OECD’s Better Life Index. http://dlibra.bg.ajd.czest.pl:8080/Content/1114/Pragmata_6-183.pdf.
20. Kuznets, Simon. (1934). National Income, 1929-1932. 73rd US Congress, 2nd session, Senate document (pp. 1-12). New York: National Bureau of Economic Research.
21. Markovic, M., Zdravkovic, S., Mitrovic, M., & Radojicic, A. (2016). An Iterative Multivariate Post Hoc I-Distance Approach in Evaluating OECD Better Life Index. Social Indicators Research,vol. 126(1), pp. 1-19.
22. McGillivray, M., & Clarke, M. (2006). Human well-being: Concepts and measures. Understanding Human Well - being. United Nations University Press.
23. Mizobuchi, H. (2013). Measuring World Bett er Life Frontier: A Composite Indicator For OECD Better Life Index. Springer Science Business, pp. 987-1007.
24. Nikolaev, B. (2014). Economic Freedom and Quality of Life: Evidence from the OECD’s Your Better Life Index. The Journal of Private Enterprise, vol. 29(3), pp. 61-96.
25. OECD. (2011). How's Life? 2011 Measuring Well-Being. Paris: Oecd Publishing.
26. OECD. (2013). How's Life? 2013 Measuring Well-Being. Paris: OECD Publishing.
27. OECD. (2016). Better Life Index - Edition 2016. http://stats.oecd.org/.
28. OECD. (2016). OECD Better Life Index. http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/topics/.
29. Stiglitz, J., Sen, A., & Fitoussi, J.-P. (2009). Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress. http://www.insee.fr/fr/publications-et-services/dossiers_web/stiglitz/doc-commission/RAPPORT_anglais.pdf.
30. The Copenhagenize Index (2015). http://copenhagenize.eu/index/about.html.
31. Thomson, S. (2016). GDP a poor measure of progress, say Davos economists. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/gdp/.
32. TUİK. (2008). Satınalma Gücü Paritesi Sorularla Resmi İstatistikler Serisi - 4. Ankara: Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu.
33. Willage, A. (2016). More bikes than cars: this is the world’s most bike-friendly city. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/12/this-city-centre-now-has-more-bikes-than-cars/.