New measures of progress mean little without action
Discussions surrounding appropriate community progress measures have been going on in Australia, and world-wide, for decades. Discussion is good, but Charles Berger from the Australian Conservation Foundation, is frustrated that little has been done to translate that talk into action.
Australia is swimming in new and improved progress measures. We have the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ “measures of Australia’s progress”, a new set of national sustainability indicators in development, state and national “state of the environment” reports, a “genuine progress index”, a wellbeing index and many others.
I admire the people who have showed great ingenuity, and sometimes even courage, in developing these better indicators. They are worthy projects, giving a refreshingly different perspective on the direction our society is taking.
But are they making any discernable difference? So far, it’s hard to see how. After decades of state of the environment reports, for example, state and national governments continue to do (or allow) the things that cause environmental degradation. And “measures of Australia’s progress” is highly innovative, yet widely ignored by our political leaders.
The problem is that those who want better indicators of progress – myself included – spend too much time on the indicators themselves, and not nearly enough on who is using them, why, and how. As a result, the opinion leaders and decision makers are let off the hook for continuing to use the same narrow and flawed measures of success they’ve been using for decades.
It’s time to get tough. Those who want better measures of progress should stop coming up with new indicators in the abstract and start demanding that those in positions of power and influence actually use the better indicators we already have.
Let’s start with the Prime Minister and leader of the opposition. Nobody in either of those roles has ever referred to “measures of Australia’s progress” in any major speech. Instead, they tend to stick to a very narrow set of macroeconomic indicators, like growth in GDP, productivity and participation. These measures are flawed in important respects. Productivity, for instance, includes work done in the market sector, but excludes the productivity of people in non-market work (like parents and carers), as well as the productivity of our ecological systems.
At a minimum, the Prime Minister of Australia should present “measures of Australia’s progress” to the Australian people at least annually, perhaps as part of the budget, or an address to the National Press Club.
Next, our economic commentators. By and large, reporting on economic issues in Australia is short-term, narrow and generally lacking in diversity of thought or perspective. (Ross Gittins and John Quiggin are among the handful of exceptions here.) Too much effort is spent predicting or reporting on monthly or quarterly changes in a few indicators, like interest rates and unemployment figures, rather than grappling with larger and longer-term economic concerns. Why don’t our economists take a deeper interest in fundamental issues such as wealth distribution, sustainability, and the health and wellbeing of our communities?
Perhaps it’s time we started firing off letters to the editors of our major media outlets, criticising the narrow field of vision of economic reporting, and demanding better.
Finally, we can expect better of the public service, especially those charged with policy development and advice. The Australian Treasury has an encouraging “wellbeing framework”, but it does not appear to be used in any practical sense. Instead, much Treasury advice is based on economic models which confidently churn out predictions on economic growth and employment, but which ignore the array of other important indicators about the progress of our nation.
We already have good indicators of progress. The challenge is getting those in positions of power and influence to pay any attention to them.
Charles Berger is Director of Strategic Ideas at the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF). He leads ACF’s work on new research and outreach projects to address the underlying drivers of environmental degradation, including unsustainable consumption, growth in resource use and population pressures. Chuck’s work has included innovative projects in the areas of sustainable consumption, institutional reform, corporate responsibility, population dynamics, environmental taxation and sustainable economic transformation. Prior to his current role, Chuck was ACF’s Legal Adviser for four years, and has also worked as a corporate lawyer in private practice in New York and Brussels. He holds law degrees from Yale University and the University of Frankfurt, Germany.
