Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi-Report: Old Wine in New Skins? Views from a Social Indicators Perspective

  • Published:
Social Indicators Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The recently published report by the “Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress” is being discussed and commented from the point of view of social indicators research, which addresses issues of the measurement of well-being and social progress since the 1960s. Some of the recommendations made by the Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi—Report thus seem to be well known and all but new and innovative from a social indicators perspective. It is also argued that the report ignores some of the available approaches, instruments and ongoing activities to measure and monitor well-being and the quality of life, which go well beyond GDP, such as e.g. social reports. The Commission’s report is nevertheless considered a major step forward towards a considerably improved measurement of well-being and social progress.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Meanwhile the report is also available in a book version (Stiglitz et al. 2010).

  2. It seems to be noteworthy here, that the Australian Bureau of Statistics (2001) had already radically reorganized its social statistics 10 years ago by focusing its activities at the measurement of well-being.

  3. Easterlin (2010: 120) reminds us in his notes on this report "that a group of distinguished economists… would assert that in measuring social progress serious attention should be given to self-reports of subjective feelings comes close to economic heresy".

  4. Results from the Welfare Surveys 1978,1980 and 1984 have been published in English as a "German Social Report" in Social Indicators Research, 19 (1987) 5–171.

  5. See e.g. Biderman (1966) as well as Bertram M. Gross, who—in his preface to the first book on "Social Indicators" (Bauer 1966)—critizises the "economic Philistinism" and notes: "If we examine the President's major policy documents, particularly the Economic Report and the Budget Message, we find practically no information whatsoever on "social structures". We find that the major indicators deal not with how good but how much, not with the quality of our lives but rather with the quantity of goods and dollars" (Gross 1966: xiii). Ironically, he also refers to a 'National Commission on Technology, Automation and Economic Progress', which in its "final report points out that our ability to chart social change has lagged seriously behind our ability to measure economic change". (Gross 1966: xiv).

  6. See e.g. Henderson et al. 2000; Noll 2002; OECD 2009. The data from the European and German Systems of Social Indicators are accessible through the online information system "Social Indicators Monitor—SIMon" at www.gesis.org/SIMon.

  7. For information on major European social reports, see the following website: www.gesis.org/social-reporting-in-europe

  8. See the following observations on the composition of the Commission by Easterlin (2010: 119): "The 25-member group includes 22 scholars with advanced degrees in economics. Of the other three, two are leading contributors to behavioral economics, the third a pioneer in the study of social capital. Eight members were born in the United States, six in France, and three in Britain; four of the remainder are from developing countries: Only two members are female."

  9. See the following website of the German Federal Government (visited September 10, 2010): http://www.bundesregierung.de/Content/DE/Artikel/2010/02/2010-02-04-deutsch-franzoesische-agenda-2020.html.

References

  • Allardt, E., & The Research Group for Comparative Sociology. (1972). The Scandinavian welfare survey 1972. Data material. Tampere: Available at the Finnish Social Science Data Archive.

    Google Scholar 

  • Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2001). Measuring wellbeing: Frameworks for Australian social statistics. Canberra.

  • Bauer, R. A. (Ed.). (1966). Social indicators. Cambridge Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, R. (1984). Problemgruppen. In W. Glatzer & W. Zapf (Eds.), Lebensqualität in der Bundesrepublik. Objektive Lebensbedingungen und subjektives Wohlbefinden (pp. 264–285). Frankfurt/New York: Campus Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biderman, A. D. (1966). Social indicators and goals. In R. A. Bauer (Ed.), Social indicators (pp. 68–153). Cambridge Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, A., Converse, P., & Rodgers, W. L. (1976). The quality of American life: Perceptions, evaluations, and satisfactions. New York: Russel Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Health, Education, Welfare (Ed.). (1969). Toward a social report. Washington: US Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Easterlin, R. E. (2010). Well-being, front and center: A note on the Sarkozy report. Population and Development Review, 36(1), 119–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glatzer, W., & Zapf, W. (Eds.). (1984). Lebensqualität in der Bundesrepublik. Objektive Lebensbedingungen und subjektives Wohlbefinden. Frankfurt/New York: Campus Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gross, B. M. (1966). A historical note on social indicators. In R. A. Bauer (Ed.), Social indicators (pp. ix–xviii). Cambridge Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, H., Lickerman, J., & Flynn, P. (Eds.). (2000). Calvert-henderson quality of life indicators. A new tool for assessing national trends. Bethesda: Calvert Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noll, H.-H. (2002). Towards a European system of social indicators: Theoretical framework and system architecture. Social Indicators Research, 58(1–3), 47–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noll, H.-H. (2004). Social indicators and quality of life research: Background, achievements and current trends. In N. Genov (Ed.), Advances in sociological knowledge over half a century (pp. 185–212). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noll, H.-H., & Zapf, W. (1994). Social indicators research: Societal monitoring and social reporting. In I. Borg & P. Ph. Mohler (Eds.), Trends and perspectives in empirical social research (pp. 1–16). Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2009) Society at a Glance 2009—OECD social indicators. http://www.oecd.org/els/social/indicators/SAG.

  • Stiglitz, J. E., Sen, A., & Fitoussi, J.-P. (2009). Report by the commission on the measurement of economic performance and social progress. Paris. http://www.stiglitzsen-fitoussi.fr/en/index.htm.

  • Stiglitz, J. E., Sen, A., & Fitoussi, J.-P. (2010). Mismeasuring our lives: Why GDP Doesn’t add up. New York: The New Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. GESIS—Leibniz-Institute for the Social Sciences, Social Indicators Research Centre, Mannheim, Germany

    Heinz-Herbert Noll

Authors
  1. Heinz-Herbert Noll
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Heinz-Herbert Noll.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Noll, HH. The Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi-Report: Old Wine in New Skins? Views from a Social Indicators Perspective. Soc Indic Res 102, 111–116 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-010-9738-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-010-9738-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation