Comparing Victoria's Genuine Progress with that of the Rest-of-Australia

While a range of exogenous and endogenous factors affect the standard of  living of most Australians in a more-or-less uniform way, the different social and economic-policies of each state government are likely to affect the levels of sustainable well-being experienced across the various states. With this in mind, a Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) - a newly devised measure of sustainable well-being - is calculated for Victoria and the Rest- of- Australia (Australia minus Victoria) for the period 1986-2003. The GPI takes account of the various costs and benefits of economic activity in order to investigate the impact of a growing state or national economy on sustainable well-being. By analysing the GPI results and the policies undertaken by the Victorian government, it is possible to determine what the state of Victoria is doing differently to the Rest-of-Australia that might be beneficial or detrimental to sustainable well-being. While our study reveals that Victoria is performing better than the Rest-of-Australia, it also highlights flaws in the policy-making process that have resulted in Victoria's Gross State Product (GSP) overstating its genuine progress.

[1]  Philip A. Lawn.  Reconciling the policy goals of full employment and ecological sustainability , 2004 .

[2]  Silvia Tiezzi,et al.  The Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (Isew) for Italy , 1998 .

[3]  Engelbert Stockhammer,et al.  The index of sustainable economic welfare (ISEW) as an alternative to GDP in measuring economic welfare. The results of the Austrian (revised) ISEW calculation 1955-1992 , 1997 .

[4]  Philip Andrew Lawn,et al.  A theoretical foundation to support the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW), Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI), and other related indexes , 2003 .

[5]  Clive Hamilton,et al.  The genuine progress indicator methodological developments and results from Australia , 1999 .

[6]  Beatriz E Castañeda.  An index of sustainable economic welfare (ISEW) for Chile , 1999 .

[7]  Tim Jackson,et al.  Sustainable Economic Welfare in Sweden: A Pilot Index 1950-1992 , 1999 .

[8]  N. Lustig,et al.  World development report 2000/2001 : attacking poverty , 2001 .

[9]  Philip A. Lawn.  Ecological Tax Reform: Many Know Why But Few Know How , 2000 .

[10]  Michael Taylor.  Diversity of life , 1994, Nature.

[11]  Amartya Sen,et al.  Inequality, Unemployment and Contemporary Europe. , 1997 .

[12]  G. David Roodman.  The Natural Wealth of Nations: harnessing the market and the environment , 2000 .

[13]  Philip Andrew Lawn,et al.  Has Australia surpassed its optimal macroeconomic scale? Finding out with the aid of `benefit' and `cost' accounts and a sustainable net benefit index , 1999 .

[14]  Wilfred Beckerman,et al.  'Sustainable Development': Is it a Useful Concept? , 1994 .

[15]  Robert Costanza,et al.  Estimates of the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) for Vermont, Chittenden County and Burlington, from 1950 to 2000 , 2004 .

[16]  Eric Neumayer,et al.  The ISEW -- not an Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare , 1999 .

[17]  Thorvaldur Gylfason.  Principles of Economic Growth , 1999 .

[18]  M. Clarke.  Widening development prescriptions: Policy implications of an Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW) for Thailand , 2004 .

[19]  A. C. Pigou.  Economics of welfare , 1920 .

[20]  I. Moffatt,et al.  An Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare for Scotland, 1980-1991 , 1994 .