Estimating the Genuine Progress Indicator before and during the COVID pandemic in Australia

Karatopouzis, A; Voinov, AA; Kubiszewski, I; Taghikhah, F; Costanza, R; Kenny, D

Estimating the Genuine Progress Indicator before and during the COVID pandemic in Australia

Karatopouzis, A

Voinov, AA Kubiszewski, I Taghikhah, F Costanza, R Kenny, D

Permalink

Publisher:: Elsevier
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Ecological Indicators, 2022, 141, pp. 109025
Issue Date:: 2022-08-01

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Adobe PDF

Download Published versionAdobe PDF (3.47 MB)

View on publisher's site

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Karatopouzis, A https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6678-9716
dc.contributor.author	Voinov, AA
dc.contributor.author	Kubiszewski, I
dc.contributor.author	Taghikhah, F
dc.contributor.author	Costanza, R
dc.contributor.author	Kenny, D
dc.date.accessioned	2023-04-11T03:49:41Z
dc.date.available	2023-04-11T03:49:41Z
dc.date.issued	2022-08-01
dc.identifier.citation	Ecological Indicators, 2022, 141, pp. 109025
dc.identifier.issn	1470-160X
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/169558
dc.description.abstract	In the efforts to ensure the health of the Australian population during the COVID pandemic, social, economic, and environmental aspects of people's life were impacted. In addressing the pandemic risks, a number of governments prioritized people's health and well-being over GDP growth. The Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) is used to account for factors that influence well-being. We used the GPI to assess the pandemic's impact on well-being and we examined our results in relation to the GDP. We estimated the GPI for the first 6 months of 2019 and the same period in 2020, during which the first stages of the COVID pandemic and the first nationwide lockdown in Australia took place. We examined two scenarios, in the first we found that in Q1 the GDP growth (1.4%) was accompanied by a significant GPI growth (5.3%), showing a positive relation to the GDP; but in Q2 the significant drop (-6.3%) in the GDP was not followed by the GPI, instead the GPI growth remained almost steady with even a relatively small increase (0.33%), indicating a negative relation to the GDP growth. Whereas in the second scenario, the GPI growths (7.12%) in Q1 and (-2.60%) Q2 were positively related to the GDP growths (4.6%) in Q1 and (−0.25%) Q2.We discuss the reasons for the divergence between the two indicators and one of the limitations of the GPI as a measure of well-being. Lastly, we discuss the behavioural and policy lessons of the lockdown and their relevance to what is proposed by degrowth economists.
dc.language	en
dc.publisher	Elsevier
dc.relation.ispartof	Ecological Indicators
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.109025
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.subject	03 Chemical Sciences, 05 Environmental Sciences, 06 Biological Sciences
dc.subject.classification	Ecology
dc.title	Estimating the Genuine Progress Indicator before and during the COVID pandemic in Australia
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	141
utslib.for	03 Chemical Sciences
utslib.for	05 Environmental Sciences
utslib.for	06 Biological Sciences
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology/School of Computer Science
utslib.copyright.status	open_access	*
dc.date.updated	2023-04-11T03:49:39Z
pubs.publication-status	Published
pubs.volume	141

Abstract:

In the efforts to ensure the health of the Australian population during the COVID pandemic, social, economic, and environmental aspects of people's life were impacted. In addressing the pandemic risks, a number of governments prioritized people's health and well-being over GDP growth. The Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) is used to account for factors that influence well-being. We used the GPI to assess the pandemic's impact on well-being and we examined our results in relation to the GDP. We estimated the GPI for the first 6 months of 2019 and the same period in 2020, during which the first stages of the COVID pandemic and the first nationwide lockdown in Australia took place. We examined two scenarios, in the first we found that in Q1 the GDP growth (1.4%) was accompanied by a significant GPI growth (5.3%), showing a positive relation to the GDP; but in Q2 the significant drop (-6.3%) in the GDP was not followed by the GPI, instead the GPI growth remained almost steady with even a relatively small increase (0.33%), indicating a negative relation to the GDP growth. Whereas in the second scenario, the GPI growths (7.12%) in Q1 and (-2.60%) Q2 were positively related to the GDP growths (4.6%) in Q1 and (−0.25%) Q2.We discuss the reasons for the divergence between the two indicators and one of the limitations of the GPI as a measure of well-being. Lastly, we discuss the behavioural and policy lessons of the lockdown and their relevance to what is proposed by degrowth economists.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/169558