How might GDP be expanded, for instance, to capture wellbeing?

GDP: represents the total monetary value of what was produced in the economy and within the country's borders meaning of goods and services, whether by citizens or others during a certain time period. This definition excludes what is due to the citizens of financial returns and cash transfers from abroad analog or aid them in investments abroad, as well as income citizens who reside abroad. Increasingly, this increase in production output

It captures at least the wellbeing that results from the production of goods and services. When statisticians quantify the goods and services produced, they take into account their utility to the consumer.

It may seem obvious that economic growth reduces poverty, however, this topic remains controversial. As some researchers have confirmed that economic growth does not eliminate poverty, but it is possible that exacerbates the problems of the poor (United Nations,1997). For example, each of Dries and Sen (1990) noted that economic growth does not result in yield improves well-being in many of the non-financial measures. The call for increased government spending (Squires1993) or to redistribute wealth (Todaro,1997) are the logical extension of the discussion on to say that economic growth does not guarantee the eradication of poverty.

  Simply put, the overall economic progress, "does not improve the levels of the very poor" (Todaro1997:155). In fact, some development economists confirmed that "the processes of growth," "usually flows up" to the middle classes and the "special and very rich layer" (Todaro1997:163).

 

Thank you for answers colleagues

Thanks for the invitation

Good question

Agreed with both answers given by

Mr.:Patel & Mr.:Assi as well too

I agree with the gentlemen concerning their answers.

agree with the answer

we can see the Japan and learn how they can get the fair value and make balance in your Ques.

Agree with all....

Thank you for the invitation. Very good question.

I agree with the

Answer added by: georgei assi And Answer added by: Divyesh Patel

It is inaccurate to say that GDP does not capture wellbeing. It captures at least the wellbeing that results from the production of goods and services. Indeed, when statisticians quantify the goods and services produced, they take into account their utility to the consumer. Nevertheless, it is true that there are other dimensions to wellbeing which GDP misses. And it is often said, sometimes cynically, that GDP increases when there are car accidents, or that while the terrible destruction of the recent tsunami in Asia undermined GDP by wiping out communities and their economic activities, it would at the same time lead to a boost in GDP, thanks to rebuilding, new investment and so on! However, this should not be held as a criticism of GDP, which is simply a measure of production.If you want a number which will capture the negative effects of accidents on wealth, use the national accounts system, which contains many different aggregates, of which GDP is only one. It provides a general measure of the stock of national assets: the nation’s “balance sheet”, so to speak. The trouble is, few countries compile one.On the other hand, neither GDP nor this balance sheet takes account of environmental degradation, insecurity or inequality. The main obstacle to overcome in deriving a single measure for all these dimensions is finding a convincing proxy price – or imputed price – for each and every component, on top of goods and services. Without such imputed prices, it is impossible to combine the various indicators that contribute to our wellbeing. The UN Human Development Indicator is a good attempt, and academics, such as William Nordhaus or Andrew Sharpe, have come up with some interesting possibilities. However, many statisticians, including me, are wary of adding too many imputations that could end up weakening the GDP indicator. We prefer instead to produce a suite of indicators.An example is the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ publication, Measuring Australia’s Progress, whose indicators cover health, education, environment, crime and social attachment. The OECD’s new publication, OECD Factbook2013 is essentially in the same mould, and allows the user to assess how countries are performing on several fronts. In addition, international organisations, like the OECD, have developed systems to account for the environment, such as the System of Economic Environmental Accounts (SEEA), but these are in addition to GDP, and are not incorporated within it. GDP is a beacon, but it is not the only one.