以财富为基础的可持续性指标所面临的挑战:批判性评估

IF 6.6 2区 经济学 Q1 ECOLOGY
Eoin McLaughlin , Cristián Ducoing , Nick Hanley
{"title":"以财富为基础的可持续性指标所面临的挑战:批判性评估","authors":"Eoin McLaughlin ,&nbsp;Cristián Ducoing ,&nbsp;Nick Hanley","doi":"10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108308","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>There has been widespread debate about whether the way in which we measure economic activity is fit for purpose in the twenty-first century. One aspect of this debate is to move away from measuring a nation’s income (GDP) towards monitoring a nation’s assets (their inclusive wealth), as a better indicator of sustainable economic development. We provide the first critical comparison of the approaches of leading international organisations – the World Bank and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) – to estimating changes in wealth. Our paper reveals important inconsistencies in how these organisations measure sustainability and the conflicting messages that policy makers receive, despite a common underlying conceptual framework linking changes in a nation’s wealth to future well-being. We attribute these differences to methodological (applied theory) choices made by researchers at the respective institutions. These choices matter. At the most extreme, countries that perform the worst according to the UNEP are shown to perform well according to the World Bank. This confusion in signals makes better policy making more difficult.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51021,"journal":{"name":"Ecological Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800924002052/pdfft?md5=79fe7be85f33f87d0309e9ca485179eb&pid=1-s2.0-S0921800924002052-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Challenges of wealth-based sustainability metrics: A critical appraisal\",\"authors\":\"Eoin McLaughlin ,&nbsp;Cristián Ducoing ,&nbsp;Nick Hanley\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108308\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>There has been widespread debate about whether the way in which we measure economic activity is fit for purpose in the twenty-first century. One aspect of this debate is to move away from measuring a nation’s income (GDP) towards monitoring a nation’s assets (their inclusive wealth), as a better indicator of sustainable economic development. We provide the first critical comparison of the approaches of leading international organisations – the World Bank and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) – to estimating changes in wealth. Our paper reveals important inconsistencies in how these organisations measure sustainability and the conflicting messages that policy makers receive, despite a common underlying conceptual framework linking changes in a nation’s wealth to future well-being. We attribute these differences to methodological (applied theory) choices made by researchers at the respective institutions. These choices matter. At the most extreme, countries that perform the worst according to the UNEP are shown to perform well according to the World Bank. This confusion in signals makes better policy making more difficult.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51021,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ecological Economics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800924002052/pdfft?md5=79fe7be85f33f87d0309e9ca485179eb&pid=1-s2.0-S0921800924002052-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ecological Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800924002052\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecological Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800924002052","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

关于我们衡量经济活动的方式是否适合二十一世纪的目的,一直存在着广泛的争论。这场辩论的一个方面是,从衡量一个国家的收入(国内生产总值)转向监测一个国家的资产(其包容性财富),以此作为可持续经济发展的更好指标。我们首次对主要国际组织--世界银行和联合国环境规划署(UNEP)--估算财富变化的方法进行了批判性比较。我们的论文揭示了这些组织在衡量可持续性方面的重要不一致之处,以及政策制定者收到的相互矛盾的信息,尽管有一个共同的基本概念框架将国家财富的变化与未来的福祉联系在一起。我们将这些差异归因于各机构研究人员在方法论(应用理论)上的选择。这些选择很重要。在最极端的情况下,联合国环境规划署认为表现最差的国家,在世界银行看来却表现良好。这种信号上的混淆使得制定更好的政策变得更加困难。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Challenges of wealth-based sustainability metrics: A critical appraisal

There has been widespread debate about whether the way in which we measure economic activity is fit for purpose in the twenty-first century. One aspect of this debate is to move away from measuring a nation’s income (GDP) towards monitoring a nation’s assets (their inclusive wealth), as a better indicator of sustainable economic development. We provide the first critical comparison of the approaches of leading international organisations – the World Bank and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) – to estimating changes in wealth. Our paper reveals important inconsistencies in how these organisations measure sustainability and the conflicting messages that policy makers receive, despite a common underlying conceptual framework linking changes in a nation’s wealth to future well-being. We attribute these differences to methodological (applied theory) choices made by researchers at the respective institutions. These choices matter. At the most extreme, countries that perform the worst according to the UNEP are shown to perform well according to the World Bank. This confusion in signals makes better policy making more difficult.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Ecological Economics
Ecological Economics 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
12.00
自引率
5.70%
发文量
313
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Ecological Economics is concerned with extending and integrating the understanding of the interfaces and interplay between "nature''s household" (ecosystems) and "humanity''s household" (the economy). Ecological economics is an interdisciplinary field defined by a set of concrete problems or challenges related to governing economic activity in a way that promotes human well-being, sustainability, and justice. The journal thus emphasizes critical work that draws on and integrates elements of ecological science, economics, and the analysis of values, behaviors, cultural practices, institutional structures, and societal dynamics. The journal is transdisciplinary in spirit and methodologically open, drawing on the insights offered by a variety of intellectual traditions, and appealing to a diverse readership. Specific research areas covered include: valuation of natural resources, sustainable agriculture and development, ecologically integrated technology, integrated ecologic-economic modelling at scales from local to regional to global, implications of thermodynamics for economics and ecology, renewable resource management and conservation, critical assessments of the basic assumptions underlying current economic and ecological paradigms and the implications of alternative assumptions, economic and ecological consequences of genetically engineered organisms, and gene pool inventory and management, alternative principles for valuing natural wealth, integrating natural resources and environmental services into national income and wealth accounts, methods of implementing efficient environmental policies, case studies of economic-ecologic conflict or harmony, etc. New issues in this area are rapidly emerging and will find a ready forum in Ecological Economics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信