Buy term paper on Well-Being GDP: Its Historical Background and Its Future

To conduct the well-being GDP measurement and evaluation, it is necessary to refer to the experience of the US and to implement the HDI as one of the tools of the well-being GDP measurement and assessment. In fact, specialists argue that “one of the most well-known alternative measures of the level of social welfare is the HDI (human development index)” (Dipietro & Anoruo, 699).
The use of the HDI seems to be quite simple. Specialists state that the HDI is compiled by weighting equally life expectancy, an education index, and purchasing power parity GDP per capita. The education index component of the human capital index is obtained by combining the gross school enrollment ratio for primary, secondary and tertiary schools with the adult literacy rate. (Dipietro & Anoruo, 699).
However, the HDI alone is not enough to measure and evaluate the well-being GDP. In this regard, specialists argue that a more comprehensive measure of human living conditions is the Weighted Index of Social Progress (WISP) calculated by Richard Estes at the University of Pennsylvania for 163 countries and going back to 1970. This index tries to capture many dimensions of wellbeing, covering a range including income, education, health, role of women, environment, social peace, diversity and welfare – although data limitations admittedly lead to the inclusion of some peculiar measures (Deutche Bank Research, 6). At this point, it is important to lay emphasis on the fact that all of the aforementioned measurements should be accompanied by the measurement and evaluation of happiness as one of the key items in the measurement and evaluation of the well-being GDP. At the same time, the measurement of happiness may be quite subjective because in the course of researches, respondents can be asked quite subjective questions. For instance, it is possible to refer to one of the surveys measure of happiness: one of the questions is Taking all things together, would you say, you are very happy, quite happy, not very happy, or not at all happy?” (Dipietro & Anoruo, 700). Other measures of welfare used in the study were the personal quality of life index (PQLI70) and health expenditures as a percentage of GDP (HEALTH) (Dipietro & Anoruo, 700).
However, specialists (Heintz and Folbre, 184) argue that in the course of the measurement and evaluation of the well-being GDP a paradox, known as the Easterlin paradox arises. The Easterlin paradox is as follows: On average, wealthier countries (as a group) are happier than poor ones (as a group); happiness seems to rise with income up to a point, but not beyond it. Yet even among the less happy, poorer countries, there is not a clear relationship between average income and average happiness levels, suggesting that many other factors – including cultural traits – are at play. (Graham, 4). In such a way, the increase in wealth does not always lead to the increase in happiness. In addition, it is necessary to take into consideration many other factors affecting happiness. In fact, “individuals are remarkably adaptable, no doubt, and in the end can get used to most things, and in particular to income gains” (Graham, 5). Happiness surveys also facilitate the measurement of the effects of broader, non-income components of inequality, such as race, gender, and status, all of which seem to be highly significant (Graham and Felton, 98). Happiness surveys can be used to examine macro-policy arrangements; politics and public policies (Graham, 7-8).
At the same time, it is obvious that happiness surveys, happiness measurement and evaluation cannot lead to the objective measurement and evaluation of the well-being GDP. Instead, “happiness surveys can serve as an important complementary tool for public policy” (Graham, 8). In addition, happiness is vulnerable to the impact of multiple factors. In this respect, specialists distinguish three main reasons which explain the long-run stagnation of happiness and life satisfaction. First, people simply get used to the higher income, consumption or circumstances: driving that new car for the first time may make you really happy – but this effect evaporates over time (hedonic treadmill) (Deutche Bank Research, 8). Second, humans tend to aim ever higher: once the new house is completed, one may feel that it would be even better to have a house in a better or safer neighbourhood (the satisfactiontreadmill) (Deutche Bank Research, 8). Third, an individual’s satisfaction tends to be influenced by how well others are doing (Deutche Bank Research, 8). Therefore, all these factors should be taken into consideration in the course of the measurement and evaluation of the well-being GDP.
The basic framework for measurement of well-being GDP of South Koreabuy term paper
Thus, taking into account all above mentioned, it is possible to extrapolate the basic framework of the well-being GDP measurement and evaluation on the specific country but first it is important to refer to the GDP measurement and evaluation (See Appendices). The GDP analysis shows that South Korea performs well and the country has made a considerable progress in the GDP rate growth since the 1950s. On the other hand, the traditional GDP analysis does not show the well-being of Korean people. To measure and assess the well-being GRP of South Korea, it is necessary to conduct the happiness survey. After that, it is necessary to assess the HDI of South Korea. In addition, it is possible to use other measurements, such as the WISP and the PQLI71. In such a way, it will be possible to take into consideration multiple items that affect the well-being of Korean people and affect the development of the country not only in economic terms but also in terms of human capital and knowledge capital as well.
Conclusion
Thus, taking into account all above mentioned, it is important to lay emphasis on the fact that well-being GDP is an important tool to measure the well-being of the population and the overall development of countries. In fact, well-being GDP allows to measure not only material well-being of the population but also the happiness and satisfaction of the population. In such a way, well-being GDP proves to be more objective than conventional GDP that allows to measure the overall economic development of a country only. Therefore, well-being GDP can be used to measure the development of countries, standards of living and the well-being of people.

 
Works Cited
Deutche Bank Research. Measures of Well-Being. 2006.
Dipietro, W.R. & E. Anoruo. “GDP per capita and its challengers as measures of happiness.” International Journal of Social Economics, 33(10), 698-709, 2006.
Dow, S. and Hillard, J. (eds.). Keynes, Knowledge and Uncertainty. New York: Routledge, 1995.
Gitlow, H. S. The Deming guide to quality and competitive position. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1997.
Graham, C. The Economics of Happiness. The Brookings Institution. 2007.
Graham, C. and Felton, A. “Does Inequality Matter to Individual Welfare: An Exploration Based on Happiness Surveys in Latin America.” Center on Social and Economic Dynamics Working Papers 38. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. 2005.
Heilbroner, R. L. and W. Milberg. The Making of Economic Society. New York: New Press, 2000.
Heintz, J. and N. Folbre. The ultimate field guide to the US economy: A compact and irreverent guide to economic life in America. New York: Norton and Co., 2000.
Holcombe, R. Public Sector Economics: The Role of Government in the American Economy. New York: Allyson and Beacon, 2006.
Pine, J. and Gilmore, J. The Experience Economy. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1999.
Rajegopal, S. et al. Project Portfolio Management: Leading the Corporate Vision. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.
Stiglitz, J.E. Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress.