Social Indicators Research

, Volume 118, Issue 2, pp 911–918 | Cite as

On the Use of Shadow Prices for Sustainable Well-Being Measurement

  • Giuseppe Munda


This paper tries to answer the following research question: can multidimensional concepts like well-being or sustainability be measured by using a single metric such as shadow prices? The defence of shadow prices is generally based on the pragmatic argument that different dimensions (economic, social, environmental,…) cannot be aggregated when measured by means of different metrics, thus a common measurement rod has to be found, that is shadow prices have to be used. Here the following conclusions are drawn: (1) The choice of shadow prices is not neutral, in fact implicit assumptions such as that substitutability is always desirable need to be accepted. This means that the use of shadow prices is not consistent with a simple measurement objective but with a precise weltanschauung. (2) Shadow prices are primarily meant to implement efficiency, i.e. prices reflect conditions at the margin, and thus this is their natural objective. In the framework of sustainable well-being measurement, this may give rise to counterintuitive results, such as that the loss of an important well-being component is not perceived since its physical scarcity is compensated by its increase in monetary value. (3) The pragmatic measurement argument is not well grounded, since multidimensional measurement frameworks exist, such as multi-criteria evaluation. Since incommensurability between different metrics does not imply incomparability, there is no obvious reason for not using multidimensional techniques to measure multidimensional concepts.


Weak sustainability Commensurability Multi-criteria evaluation 


  1. Arrow, K. J., Dasgupta, P., Goulder, L. H., Mumford, K. J., & Oleson, K. (2012). Sustainability and the measurement of wealth. Environment and Development Economics, 17(03), 317–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cabeza Gutés, M. (1996). On the concept of weak sustainability. Ecological Economics, 17(3), 147–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chang, R. (Ed.). (1997). Incommensurability, incomparability, and practical reason. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Dasgupta, P. (2001). Valuing objects and evaluating policies in imperfect economies. Economic Journal, 111, C1–C29.Google Scholar
  5. Duclos, J. Y., Sahn, D. E., & Younger, S. D. (2006). Robust multidimensional poverty comparisons. Economic Journal, 116, 943–968.Google Scholar
  6. Easterlin, R. A. (1995). Will raising the incomes of all increase the happiness of all? Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 27, 35–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Easterlin, R. A. (2001). Income and happiness: Towards a unified theory. Economic Journal, 111, 465–484.Google Scholar
  8. Figueira, J., Greco, S., & Ehrgott, M. (Eds.). (2005). Multiple-criteria decision analysis: State of the art surveys. New York: Springer International Series in Operations Research and Management Science.Google Scholar
  9. Frey, B. S., & Stutzer, A. (2002). What can economists learn from happiness research? Journal of Economic Literature, 15, 402–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Frey, B. S. (1986). Economists favour the price system who else does? Kyklos, 39(4), 537–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hayek, F. A. (ed.) (1935) Collectivist economic planning. Reprinted Augustus M. Kelley, New York, 1970.Google Scholar
  12. Harcourt, G. C. (1972). Some Cambridge controversies in the theory of capital. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hartwick, J. M. (1977). Intergenerational equity and the investing of rents from exhaustible resources. American Economic Review, 67(5), 972–974.Google Scholar
  14. Hartwick, J. M. (1978). Substitution among exhaustible resources and inter-generational equity. Review of Economic Studies, 45, 347–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kantorovich, L.V. (1939) Mathematical Methods of Organizing and Planning Production, Leningrad University Press, published in English in Management Science, 6(4), 366–422 (1960).Google Scholar
  16. Karmiloff, G. (1963). Soviet economic models investment criteria and prices: An analytical review. Kyklos, 16(1), 83–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Michalos, A. C. (1980). Satisfaction and happiness. Social Indicators Research, 8(4), 385–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Michalos, A. C. (1997). Combining social, economic and environmental indicators to measure sustainable human well-being. Social Indicators Research, 40(1–2), 221–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Munda, G. (1997). Environmental economics, ecological economics and the concept of sustainable development. Environmental Values, 6(2), 213–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Munda, G. (2004). Social multi-criteria evaluation (SMCE): methodological foundations and operational consequences. European Journal of Operational Research, 158(3), 662–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Munda, G. (2005). Measuring sustainability: A multi-criterion framework. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 7(1), 117–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Munda, G., & Nardo, M. (2009). Non-compensatory/non-linear composite indicators for ranking countries: A defensible setting. Applied Economics, 41, 1513–1523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Munda, G., & Saisana, M. (2011). Methodological considerations on regional sustainability assessment based on multicriteria and sensitivity analysis. Regional Studies, 45(2), 261–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Munda, G. (2012a). Choosing aggregation rules for composite indicators. Social Indicators Research, 109(3), 337–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Munda, G. (2012b). Intensity of preference and related uncertainty in non-compensatory aggregation rules. Theory and Decision, 73(4), 649–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Munda, G. (forthcoming) Beyond GDP: An Overview of Measurement Issues in Redefining “Wealth”. Journal of Economic Surveys. Google Scholar
  27. Nardo, M., Saisana, M., Saltelli, A., Tarantola, S., Hoffman, A., & Giovannini, E. (2008). Handbook on constructing composite indicators: methodology and user guide. Paris: OECD Statistics Working Paper.Google Scholar
  28. Neurath, O. (1973). Empiricism and sociology. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pearce, D. W., & Turner, K. R. (1990). Economics of natural resources and the environment. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  30. Pearce, D. W., & Atkinson, G. D. (1993). Capital theory and the measurement of sustainable development: an indicator of “weak” sustainability. Ecological Economics, 8, 103–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rabinowicz, W. (2012). Value relations revisited. Economics and Philosophy, 28, 133–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Roy, B. (1996). Multicriteria methodology for decision analysis. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sen, A. (1979). Personal utilities and public judgment: Or what’s wrong with welfare economics? Economic Journal, 89(355), 537–558.Google Scholar
  34. Sen, A. (1985). Commodities and capabilities. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  35. Solow, R. M. (1974a). The economics of resources or the resources of economics. American Economic Review, 64, 1–14.Google Scholar
  36. Solow, R. M. (1974b). Intergenerational equity and exhaustible resources. Review of Economic Studies, 67, 29–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Solow, R. M. (1986). On the intergenerational allocation of natural resources. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 88(1), 141–149.Google Scholar
  38. Stiglitz, J., Sen A., & Fitoussi, J.P. (2009). Report by the Commission on the measurement of economic performance and social progress, available at
  39. Turner, R. K., Pearce, D. W., & Bateman, I. (1994). Environmental economics: An elementary introduction. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  40. Victor, P. A. (1991). Indicators of sustainable development: Some lessons from capital theory. Ecological Economics, 4, 191–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Von WeizsÄcker, C. C. (1974). Substitution along the time axis. Kyklos, 27(4), 732–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. World Bank. (2011). The changing wealth of nations: Measuring sustainable development in the new millennium. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economics and Economic History, Building BUniversitat Autonoma de BarcelonaBellaterra, BarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations