© Prof. Dr. Ulrich van Suntum1. Dezember 2004
Prof. Dr. Ulrich van Suntum
Beyond GDP
Impulsvortrag beim workshop
„Auslaufmodell Wirtschaftswachstum?“
Von BDI, IW und Price Waterhouse Coopers am
6.10.2010 in Berlin
© U.van Suntum, CAWM
Centrum für angewandte Wirtschaftsforschung´der Universität Münster (www.CAWM.de)
© Prof. Dr. Ulrich van Suntum1. Dezember 2004
Less resource consuming goods
(Education, environment, leisure, health…)
Less resource consuming production of traditional
goods(hybrid cars, recycling…)
Repair and compensation of environmental damages
© U.van Suntum, CAWM
Three ways towards a cleaner growth(Rothschild 1998)
© Prof. Dr. Ulrich van Suntum1. Dezember 2004
Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi-Commission (September
2009):
• subtract depreciation • subtract „defensive
consumption“ as intermediate goods
• Improve and differentiate price indices
• incorporate wealth data• incorporatedistribution data
(e.g. median income)• incorporate leisure and non-
market production• incorporate quality of life•Differentiate all this with
respect to distribution• regard sustainability
Report of the European Commission: GDP and
Beyond (August 2009):
• invent an environment index
• improve currentness of environment data
• improve distribution data• invent sustainability
indicators• incorporate distributional and ecological data in SNA
Recent kick offs of current political debate
© U.van Suntum, CAWM
© Prof. Dr. Ulrich van Suntum1. Dezember 2004
Alternative Measures of Welfare
Objective Indicators• Measure of Economic Welfare
(Nordhaus/Tobin1973)• Human Development Index (UN)
• Ecological Footprint (Rees/Wackernagel 1992/1994)
• Genuine Progres Indicator (Lawn/Talberth 2003/2007)
• Nationaler Wohlfahrtsindex (Diefenbacher/Zieschank 2010)
Subjective Indicators• Gross National Happyness (Di Tella
et al 2005)• Glücks-BIP (INSM/CAWM 2010)
• World Value Survey (Inglehart et al)• European Value Study
• Eurobarometer (EU 1973)• Social Wellbeing (Inglehart 2008)
Mixed objective and subjective indicators• Happy Years Index (Veenhoven 1996)
• Happy Planet Index
© U.van Suntum, CAWM
© Prof. Dr. Ulrich van Suntum1. Dezember 2004
Social Wellbeing = Life Satisfaction ./. 2.5 Happiness
Example I: Inglehart`s Social Wellbeing Indicator
Germany
Slovakia
Denmark
© U.van Suntum, CAWM
© Prof. Dr. Ulrich van Suntum1. Dezember 2004
HLE = Life Satisfaction * Life Expectancy
Example II: Verhooven`s Happy Life Years
Life Sat Life Exp HLY
Norway 8,1 79,8 64,6
Canada 8,0 80,3 64,0
Iceland 7,8 81,5 63,9
Ireland 8,1 78,4 63,8
Australia 7,9 80,9 63,7
Finland 8,0 78,9 63,3
Sweden 7,9 80,5 63,2
Denmark 8,1 77,9 62,9
Switzerland 7,7 81,3 62,6
New Zealand 7,8 79,8 62,3
Austria 7,8 79,4 61,9
Spain 7,6 80,5 61,2
United States 7,9 77,9 61,2
Netherlands 7,7 79,2 61,1
Luxembourg 7,7 78,4 60,1
Life Sat Life Exp HLY
Belgium 7,6 78,8 60,0
United Kingdom7,4 79,0 58,6
Mexico 7,7 75,6 58,3
Germany 7,2 79,1 56,8
France 7,1 80,2 56,6
Italy 6,9 80,3 55,7
Japan 6,8 82,3 55,6
Greece 6,8 78,9 54,0
Czech Republic6,9 75,9 52,0
South Korea 6,3 77,9 49,1
Poland 6,5 75,2 48,7
Portugal 5,9 77,7 45,5
Slovakia 6,1 74,2 45,1
Hungary 5,7 72,9 41,8
Turkey 5,5 71,4 39,4
© U.van Suntum, CAWM
© Prof. Dr. Ulrich van Suntum1. Dezember 2004
Example III: Happy Planet Index
Footprint Ecological
Years LifeHappy Index Planet Happy =
HLY EF HPI
Mexico 58,3 3,4 55,6
Netherlands 61,1 4,4 50,6
Germany 56,8 4,2 48,1
Switzerland 62,6 5,0 48,1
Sweden 63,2 5,1 48,0
Austria 61,9 5,0 47,7
Finland 63,3 5,2 47,2
Belgium 60,0 5,1 45,4
South Korea 49,1 3,7 44,4
Italy 55,7 4,8 44,0
France 56,6 4,9 43,9
Slovakia 45,1 3,3 43,5
United Kingdom58,6 5,3 43,3
Japan 55,6 4,9 43,3
Spain 61,2 5,7 43,2
HLY EF HPI
Poland 48,7 4,0 42,8
Ireland 63,8 6,3 42,6
Turkey 39,4 2,7 41,7
Norway 64,6 6,9 40,4
Canada 64,0 7,1 39,4
Hungary 41,8 3,5 38,9
Czech Republic52,0 5,4 38,3
Iceland 63,9 7,4 38,1
Greece 54,0 5,9 37,6
Portugal 45,5 4,4 37,5
Australia 63,7 7,8 36,6
New Zealand 62,3 7,7 36,2
Denmark 62,9 8,0 35,5
United States61,2 9,4 30,7
Luxembourg 60,1 10,2 28,5
© U.van Suntum, CAWM
© Prof. Dr. Ulrich van Suntum1. Dezember 2004
1. Norwegen 0.971 14. Österreich 0.955 27. Israel 0.935
2. Australien 0.970 15. Spanien 0.955 28. Andorra 0.934
3. Island 0.969 16. Dänemark 0.955 29. Slowenien 0.929
4. Kanada 0.966 17. Belgien 0.953 30. Brunei 0.920
5. Irland 0.965 18. Italien 0.951 31. Kuwait 0.916
6. Niederlande 19. Liechtenstein 0.951 32. Zypern 0.914
7. Schweden 0.963 20. Neuseeland 0.950 33. Katar 0.910
8. Frankreich 0.961 21. Großbritannien 0.947 34. Portugal 0.909
9. Schweiz 0.960 22. Deutschland 0.947 35. Vereinigte Arabische Emirate0.903
10. Japan 0.960 23. Singapur 0.944 ( 36. Tschechien 0.903
11. Luxemburg 0.960 24. Hongkong 0.944 37. Barbados 0.903
12. Finnland 0.959 25. Griechenland 0.942 38. Malta 0.902
13. Vereinigte Staaten 0.956 26. Südkorea 0.937
Example IV: Human Development Index(data for 2009)
HDI = 1/3 life expectancy + 1/3 eduation + 1/3 GDP
© U.van Suntum, CAWM
© Prof. Dr. Ulrich van Suntum1. Dezember 2004
Country Ranks are quite similarwith most of the indices
LS05 LS9902 Life Exp HLY EF HPI
Ireland 8,1 Netherlands 10,0 Japan 82,3 Norw ay 64,6 Turkey 2,7 Mexico 55,6
Norw ay 8,1 Iceland 9,6 Iceland 81,5 Canada 64,0 Slovakia 3,3 Netherlands 50,6
Denmark 8,1 Denmark 9,3 Sw itzerland 81,3 Iceland 63,9 Mexico 3,4 Germany 48,1
Finland 8,0 Ireland 9,3 Australia 80,9 Ireland 63,8 Hungary 3,5 Sw itzerland 48,1
Canada 8,0 Sw itzerland 9,2 Spain 80,5 Australia 63,7 South Korea 3,7 Sw eden 48,0
Australia 7,9 Finland 9,1 Sw eden 80,5 Finland 63,3 Poland 4,0 Austria 47,7
Sw eden 7,9 Austria 8,8 Canada 80,3 Sw eden 63,2 Germany 4,2 Finland 47,2
United States 7,9 Luxembourg 8,7 Italy 80,3 Denmark 62,9 Netherlands 4,4 Belgium 45,4
Iceland 7,8 Canada 8,5 France 80,2 Sw itzerland 62,6 Portugal 4,4 South Korea 44,4
New Zealand 7,8 New Zealand 8,5 New Zealand 79,8 New Zealand 62,3 Italy 4,8 Italy 44,0
Austria 7,8 Sw eden 8,3 Norw ay 79,8 Austria 61,9 Japan 4,9 France 43,9
Mexico 7,7 Mexico 8,3 Austria 79,4 Spain 61,2 France 4,9 Slovakia 43,5
Netherlands 7,7 Norw ay 8,2 Netherlands 79,2 United States 61,2 Austria 5,0 United Kingdom 43,3
Sw itzerland 7,7 United States 8,1 Germany 79,1 Netherlands 61,1 Sw itzerland 5,0 Japan 43,3
Luxembourg 7,7 Germany 8,1 United Kingdom 79,0 Luxembourg 60,1 Sw eden 5,1 Spain 43,2
Belgium 7,6 Belgium 8,1 Finland 78,9 Belgium 60,0 Belgium 5,1 Poland 42,8
Spain 7,6 Australia 7,9 Greece 78,9 United Kingdom 58,6 Finland 5,2 Ireland 42,6
United Kingdom 7,4 United Kingdom 7,2 Belgium 78,8 Mexico 58,3 United Kingdom 5,3 Turkey 41,7
Germany 7,2 Italy 6,6 Ireland 78,4 Germany 56,8 Czech Republic 5,4 Norw ay 40,4
France 7,1 Czech Republic 6,1 Luxembourg 78,4 France 56,6 Spain 5,7 Canada 39,4
Italy 6,9 France 5,9 Denmark 77,9 Italy 55,7 Greece 5,9 Hungary 38,9
Czech Republic 6,9 Spain 5,8 South Korea 77,9 Japan 55,6 Ireland 6,3 Czech Republic 38,3
Greece 6,8 Portugal 5,3 United States 77,9 Greece 54,0 Norw ay 6,9 Iceland 38,1
Japan 6,8 Greece 5,1 Portugal 77,7 Czech Republic 52,0 Canada 7,1 Greece 37,6
Poland 6,5 Japan 3,7 Czech Republic 75,9 South Korea 49,1 Iceland 7,4 Portugal 37,5
South Korea 6,3 Poland 3,3 Mexico 75,6 Poland 48,7 New Zealand 7,7 Australia 36,6
Slovakia 6,1 South Korea 2,8 Poland 75,2 Portugal 45,5 Australia 7,8 New Zealand 36,2
Portugal 5,9 Slovakia 2,7 Slovakia 74,2 Slovakia 45,1 Denmark 8,0 Denmark 35,5
Hungary 5,7 Turkey 1,3 Hungary 72,9 Hungary 41,8 United States 9,4 United States 30,7
Turkey 5,5 Hungary 1,0 Turkey 71,4 Turkey 39,4 Luxembourg 10,2 Luxembourg 28,5
© U.van Suntum, CAWM
© Prof. Dr. Ulrich van Suntum1. Dezember 2004© U.van Suntum, CAWM
Management Index Status Index I | Executive capacity I | Status of democracy
A | Steering capability:� preparing and formulating policies S1 | Electoral process B | Resource efficiency:� implementing policies S2 | Access to information C | International cooperation:� incorporating external reform impulses S3 | Civil rights D | Institutional learning:� structures of self-monitoring and -reform S4 | Rule of law
II | Executive accountability II | Economic and policy-specific performance E | Citizens:� evaluative and participatory competencies S5 | Basic socioeconomic parameters F | Parliament:� information and control resources A | Economy and employment G | Intermediary organizations:� professional and advisory capacities B | Social affairs
C | Security and integration D | Sustainability
Bertelsmann Foundation´s SGI: 149 single variables, grouped in various subindicators
© Prof. Dr. Ulrich van Suntum1. Dezember 2004© U.van Suntum, CAWM
0,00
2,00
4,00
6,00
8,00
10,00
12,00
Netherlands
Iceland
Denmark
Ireland
Switzerland
Finland
Austria
Luxembourg
Canada
New Zealand
Sweden
Mexico
Norway
United States
Germany
Belgium
Australia
United Kingdom
Italy
Czech Republic
France
Spain
Portugal
Greece
Japan
Poland
South Korea
Slovakia
Turkey
Hungary
LS9020 LS9902
Does good governance, measured by SGI,contribute to explaining life satisfaction?
© Prof. Dr. Ulrich van Suntum1. Dezember 2004© U.van Suntum, CAWM
At first glance economy and employment seemto be particularly important for life satisfaction
© Prof. Dr. Ulrich van Suntum1. Dezember 2004
High correlations of life satisfactionwith structural policy variables
© U.van Suntum, CAWM
© Prof. Dr. Ulrich van Suntum1. Dezember 2004
Environmental policy, education policy, government efficiency, and inequality
do all not matter a lot
© U.van Suntum, CAWM
© Prof. Dr. Ulrich van Suntum1. Dezember 2004
Law Media+parties Labor + employment Social policy Life Satisfaction
New Zealand 9,74 Sweden 10,00 Iceland 9,72 Denmark 9,68 Netherlands 10,00 Finland 9,63 Finland 9,36 Norway 8,83 Norway 9,55 Iceland 9,55 Norway 9,62 Netherlands 9,36 Sweden 8,48 Luxembourg 9,36 Denmark 9,30 Iceland 9,36 Norway 9,36 Switzerland 8,47 Sweden 9,36 Ireland 9,28 Sweden 9,32 Switzerland 9,36 New Zealand 8,43 Netherlands 8,91 Switzerland 9,19 Netherlands 9,04 New Zealand 9,25 Denmark 8,22 New Zealand 8,91 Finland 9,09 Denmark 8,85 United Kingdom 9,25 Canada 7,89 Switzerland 8,39 Austria 8,82 Germany 8,52 Belgium 8,61 United Kingdom 7,48 Finland 8,26 Luxembourg 8,70 Canada 8,43 Canada 8,61 United States 7,32 Austria 8,07 Canada 8,49 United Kingdom 8,29 Ireland 8,61 Netherlands 7,32 Belgium 8,07 New Zealand 8,46 Ireland 8,28 Luxembourg 8,61 Finland 7,28 Iceland 8,07 Sweden 8,29 Switzerland 8,27 Portugal 8,61 Australia 7,19 Canada 7,94 Mexico 8,27 Australia 8,22 Australia 8,50 Ireland 7,04 Australia 7,62 Norway 8,15 Luxembourg 7,62 Denmark 8,50 Japan 6,89 Germany 7,49 United States8,13 Austria 7,62 United States 8,07 Austria 6,52 Ireland 7,49 Germany 8,11 Belgium 7,29 Czech Republic 7,96 Germany 5,96 Czech Republic 7,17 Belgium 8,10 France 7,25 Germany 7,96 Spain 5,58 France 6,98 Australia 7,87 United States 7,18 Spain 7,86 Czech Republic 5,43 Japan 6,53 United Kingdom7,19 Spain 6,25 Austria 7,21 South Korea 5,42 United Kingdom 6,21 Italy 6,57 Portugal 6,03 Japan 6,46 Slovakia 5,38 Slovakia 6,08 Czech Republic6,07 Japan 5,96 Mexico 6,46 Luxembourg 5,28 South Korea 6,01 France 5,92 Czech Republic 5,87 Iceland 5,82 Portugal 5,13 United States 5,11 Spain 5,83 Hungary 5,79 France 5,18 Mexico 4,22 Spain 4,60 Portugal 5,34 Slovakia 5,18 Slovakia 5,18 Belgium 4,10 Italy 4,28 Greece 5,06 South Korea 4,54 Italy 5,07 France 3,99 Poland 4,21 Japan 3,74 Italy 4,30 Greece 4,43 Hungary 3,81 Portugal 4,15 Poland 3,30 Greece 3,96 Hungary 3,68 Italy 3,52 Hungary 4,02 South Korea 2,75 Poland 3,68 South Korea 3,25 Poland 3,26 Mexico 3,06 Slovakia 2,65 Mexico 2,55 Poland 2,93 Greece 3,04 Turkey 1,64 Turkey 1,26
Turkey 1,57 Turkey 2,39 Turkey 1,36 Greece 1,00 Hungary 1,00
High similarity of economicand political rankings
© U.van Suntum, CAWM
© Prof. Dr. Ulrich van Suntum1. Dezember 2004
SGI 2009: multiple regression results
© U.van Suntum, CAWM
R square adj.: 0.54 Coefficients
S 6.2 Employment Rate 0.48**
S 3.2 Non-discrimination 0.46**
S 12.2 Family spending 0.23*
R square adj.: 0.61 Coefficients
S 3.2 Non-discrimination 0.39**
S 6.2 Employment Rate 0.34*
SM 15.3b Association Relevance 0.29*
S 12.2 Family spending 0.22*
© Prof. Dr. Ulrich van Suntum1. Dezember 2004
SGI 2011 Data: Similar, but notidentical results
(Correlation with LS 2009 )
© U.van Suntum, CAWM
© Prof. Dr. Ulrich van Suntum1. Dezember 2004
SGI 2011: multiple regression results (V)(preliminary)
© U.van Suntum, CAWM
Regressions-Statistik
Multipler Korrelationskoeffizient 0,84723585Bestimmtheitsmaß 0,71780859Adjustiertes Bestimmtheitsmaß 0,61237992Standardfehler 1,35381952Beobachtungen 31
ANOVA
Freiheitsgrad
e (df)
Quadratsum
men (SS)
Mittlere
Quadratsum
me (MS)
Regression 5 125,878099 25,1756198Residue 27 49,486337 1,83282729Gesamt 32 175,364436
Koeffizienten
Standardfehle
r t-Statistik
Schnittpunkt -1,27245922 0,98188759 -1,29593167X Variable 1 0 0 65535X Variable 2 0 0 65535
93,02% S12.1 | Family Policy 0,30875599 0,16353533 1,8880079399,01% S6.6 | Employment Rate 0,4999465 0,18024835 2,773653790,21% S4.4 | Corruption Prevention 0,33165213 0,19341932 1,71467945
© Prof. Dr. Ulrich van Suntum1. Dezember 2004
SGI 2011 General conclusion:There are three reasons for
life satisfaction
© U.van Suntum, CAWM
� Freedom and the rule of law
� The economy (in particular employment)
� Social policy and consultation
Still no significant impact on life satisfaction was found for
− environment (even negative sign)− equality− quality and efficiency of politics
© Prof. Dr. Ulrich van Suntum1. Dezember 2004
1. Without growth, the rate of return in pay as you go pension systems is zero
2. Public debt can hardly be reduced without growth
3. Close relation between growth and employment
4. Poor countries need growth to catch up
5. Zero growth of world economy would mean negative growth in Europe
6. Growth mitigates distributional conflicts
7. People wish not only qualitative, but also quantitative growth
=> Growth is still essential, but can and must be cleaner and less resource consuming
Why do we need growth?
© U.van Suntum, CAWM
© Prof. Dr. Ulrich van Suntum1. Dezember 2004
%5
%3%60 =
Public debt ratio =Current deficit ratio
Growth rate
In the long run we have the „Maastricht-relation“:
Growth reduces public debt ratio
© U.van Suntum, CAWM
© Prof. Dr. Ulrich van Suntum1. Dezember 2004
Rate of return in paygo pension system(für ledige Männer, 45 Beitragsjahre, Durchschnittliches Einkommen,
ohne Bundeszuschuss)
Quelle: IWG Bonn
Unterstelltes Wachstum BIP Pro-Kopf:
1% – 1,5% 0,6% – 1% 0,1% – 0,4%
© U.van Suntum, CAWM
© Prof. Dr. Ulrich van Suntum1. Dezember 2004
Okun`s law: employment growth andgrowth in GDP in Germany
(up to 1991 West-Germany, from 1992 Germany)
© U.van Suntum, CAWM
© Prof. Dr. Ulrich van Suntum1. Dezember 2004
Verdoorns law: growth rate and productivity growth in Germany
(up to 1991 West-Germany, from 1992 Germany)
Quelle für Grundzahlen: Sachverständigenrat
© U.van Suntum, CAWM
© Prof. Dr. Ulrich van Suntum1. Dezember 2004
Produktivitätszuwachs und BIP-Zuwachs
(21 Industrieländer, 1986-2003)
R2 = 0,3358
0,0
0,5
1,0
1,5
2,0
2,5
3,0
3,5
0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0 6,0 7,0
Verdoorn`s law ininternational comparison
*) BIP/Erwerbstätigen
BIP/Erwerbstätigen
Wachstumsrate BIP
© U.van Suntum, CAWM
© Prof. Dr. Ulrich van Suntum1. Dezember 2004
Low GDP/capita goes along with high growth (Africa is an exception)
© U.van Suntum, CAWM