Every government claims to be doing well for its citizens, but how well are they doing?

In the aftermath of Margaret Thatcher's death we had a lot of discussion about the state in which she left the UK, and whether or not she had been beneficial.

I looked at some statistics from the time, and it was a little hard to say. Certainly unemployment was worse after her time, but was it as bad as it might have been if she hadn't become PM?

And do these statistics tell the whole story anyway? What is the link between low unemployment and national well-being, or economic growth and national well-being?

In a recent OLO article John Turner tried to link relgious belief with social justice relying on a piece of German research http://www.sgi-network.org/pdf/SGI11_Social_Justice_OECD.pdf which claimed that Australia, and the USA, do not perform well on the issue of social justice.

Today I came across this new index of Social Progress http://www.socialprogressimperative.org/data/spi which puts Sweden, followed by the UK, at the top, with Australia in 7th place.

So I'm interested in what else is out there, and what others rely on to measure national performance, and what criticisms you have of the various measures available.

With respect to the Social Progress Index, one criticism is that you'd get a similar result just relying on GDP http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2013/04/wealth-and-well-being.html.

Perhaps GDP is the best measure after all.

Hi Graham,

Here's a link that may be of interest:

http://www.theconversation.com/punching-above-our-weight-sizing-up-australias-economy-10153

Dear Grahamy,

After Australia being so much on the front foot in so many areas like voting rights for women, the aged pension, the eight hour day etc it is depressing to me that so many other countries are moving forward on gay marriage, including may I say the US, while we seemed mired in the mud. Those nations who have completed or who are going through the necessary legislative steps to bring this reform into law seem to be growing in number every week.

Perhaps it is just our current crop of pollies who are the problem.

The only shining lights are Gillard's disability insurance scheme and Abbott's maternal leave policy.

Graham, interesting question. We've touched on aspects of it previously.

I consider suicide and murder rates to be relevant (espcially over time within a nation) as an indicator. For global rankings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_death_rate, the downside for purposes of understanding national wellbeing is that both suicide rates and homicide rates are impacted by factors that may not reflect real well being. Strong religious or cultural taboos against suicide may give a lower suicide rate (or reporting of suicide) than would otherwise occur and improved trauma medical treatment may reduce the overall intentional death rates while the social conditions are still a mess. Difficult for governments to redefine death the way they may do with other measures.

Perhaps the measure could look at all deaths in different age brackets, greater proportions of people dying young is generally a clear sign that things are not going well.

R0bert

RObert,

"....two to three high school age students die by suicide every week..."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-25/schools-to-get-specialist-suicide-help/4333560

Bhutan measure their progress in GNH - Gross National Happiness :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_national_happiness

Cheers,

Tony

Thank you Tony, I was just about to mention Bhutan's GNH myself, but you were first!

As I am interested in spiritual wealth rather than material wealth, my preferred way to measure a nation's performance is by the number and quality of saints and sages which that nation produces and by the extent to which seekers of God in that country are able to pursue their religious practices without mundane interference.

Progress to some is increasing profits. To others it is the impossible full employment. Progress to many Australians is an extension of the urban life that is all they know and is what protects them from the fearful bush at the city limits (thank god for fast cars and freeways so it can be crossed quickly without looking).

We seem to be getting a lot of holes in the ground and clogged up arteries in cities and in people, but not much happiness.

If government is for the people and by the people, a ridiculous thought I know (sic), government should already be measuring its attainments against community's consensus of happiness.

Instead, politicians measure themselves against the number of new Bills they pass to control and limit citizens, and they measure 'progress' by the number of (often redundant and useless) widgets made and the tonnage of raw materials shipped overseas.

Ask an elderly person on his/her death bed what really matters and we should get some simple and practical measures of progress that are not superficial or merely excuses to line some pockets.

I think we've demonstrated that "progress" can be measured in many different ways, personally I don't believe in progress at all, I acknowledge true being as a neutral state because there are always ups and downs to every idea.
If I take Csteele's example of "Gay" marriage how can we demonstrate that it's a step forward? I don't think we can, to my mind the negatives and positive aspects of homosexual lifestyles are at this time balanced and neutral in terms of any effect on the other 99% of people but to implement all the demands of the "gay" lobby would cause harm.
The "Gay" agenda doesn't end at legal marriage, they want equality, or so they say, the only options for achieving marriage "equality" are barbaric, cloning or incest.Since a "gay" union can only produce a child with a biological relationship to one parent their union can never be equal without these unthinkable interventions, that is to say only a grandchild conceived via incest can be related to both "gay" parents, though even then, the reltionship is not truly equal to a heterosexual union.
The only other option is cloning, now is this progress? Every dystopian science fiction world seems to have cloning and eugenics and altered versions of humanity as it's darkest scenario or it's "Pandora's Box", somehow I don't think this is just a trivial cultural trope.
I'd go further and say that equality and egalitariansim are the biggest impediments to progress because they set impossible goals, philosophers have long aspired to higher states of being but never insisted that any but the adept had the right to ascend to those planes, the lumpen have no such right and attempts to drag them up to the level of the adept are merely roadblocks in the way of progress.

We, all of us, stand in the way of progress often.
We must one day, understand doing things the same old way is not the way.
Thatcher had in the end, no plan to lift her victims out of povity.
She as a minister, took free milk from schools.
Progress? both sides need to TRULY review welfare, find a better way.
Tax reform not just tampering.
And us, we need to understand the limits of the funds government has, to take the true change, not fight it without looking at other ways to fix problems.

Csteele,

What, gay marriage so that ever more gay couples may make their lives more exciting or 'fulfilling', or their relationship 'saved' from disaster, by accessing surrogacy or donor facilities so they may become a 'complete' family? This is a mirage, a fiction, a poor imitation of a genuine family, so the fewer the better.
Given the well-documented failure rate of gay relationships (and the infidelity), any child 'born' to, or adopted by, a gay couple has such a high possibility of having a difficult (if not traumatic) childhood, that the promotion of gay marriage, with its potential consequences, is certainly not 'progressive' (but in my view is highly regressive).

Progress: Low crime rate, productive, well-educated and happy youth, fulfilled seniors, sound economy, minimal need for 'welfare', great free healthcare and aged care, affordable housing and transportation, effective security, defense and policing, an effective legal system that actually punishes offenders in commensurate proportion to their misdeed(s), greater application of personal responsibility, responsible free press and media, and compulsory vaccination.
And we should add, preservation and fostering of a thriving environment.
Sound and progressive government would help us to achieve these.

progress can also be measured by the interfering in peoples' initiatives by Government policy i.e. permits & taxes upon taxes until peoples' initiative is seriously knocked on the head & most progress has slowed to a crawl.

Diseases are also said to 'progress'.

A fully secular parliament and society would herald true progress in any country.
Without the interference of religion in any decision made at an official level, our country can only improve.

For a crocodile, 'progress' consists of all animals (humans included) standing in line on the water-edge, asking to be eaten.

For a paedophile, 'progress' consists of all children standing in line in front of their doorstep with their pants down, plus government-payouts per molestation.

For Hitler, 'progress' consisted of cleansing the world of Jews, gypsies, homosexuals and the mentally-infirm.

For Pol Pot, 'progress' consisted of cleansing the world of city-dwellers and anyone who can read.

It seems that for some OLO members, 'progress' consists of the elimination of the people of God and the spiritual destruction of their offspring by forcefully contaminating their young minds with materialistic indoctrination and their young bodies with the injection of foreign materials into their blood-stream.

Yuyutsu,
Very valid points. I'd like to add that Australia could make huge progress if academics & bureaucrats were required to earn their keep rather than make careers out of exploiting the taxpayer.

Suseonline, "A fully secular parliament and society would herald true progress in any country"

Does that also apply to Bob Brown's and the Greens' nutty envirospiritualism? Their religious fervor for Gaia? One world government on that basis with Bob Brown as self-nominated President? LOL

Little green men inseminating women and then zooming off to another Galaxy somewhere to do the same dirty deed? Where oh where was the CSA when wonderful womyn wanted them?

Subjective preferences consist of ordinal data, whereas measurement consists of cardinal data. This means that the entire methodology of seeking to measure progress is fallacious.

You can't get a kilogram of happiness. Talk of gross national happiness is just confused nonsense.

Furthermore, statistics only show correlation, not causation.

Because the very methodology of measuring progress is fallacious, the result of any such discussion on measuring progress is just everyone piping in with their different incommensurate opinions, as we have just seen above: the fascists of all stripes eager to use government to force everyone else to do what they want, and point to whatever facile statistic they think will justify it.

As for the ultimate aim of measuring progress, namely the satisfaction of more important human wants, all we can logically say is that people place a higher value on wants the satisfaction of which they consider more urgent or important, and a lesser value on wants the satisfaction of which they consider less urgent or important.

But obviously it's nonsense to say people place a higher value on things they had to be forced into doing, and what else has government to offer but force? Everything else - all the knowledge, morality and resources - society already has.

Thus the highest moral and social value is freedom. Everything else is just people trying to use the State to force others to pay for their own preferences.

How about progress towards freedom?

JKJ,

>all the knowledge, morality and resources - society already has.<

And how did society come to this amenable situation, if not from provision by governments of or for most of the necessary tools - education, public infrastructure, welfare for the weak and disabled, clean air and water and environmental preservation, and the regulation of working conditions, construction, industry and mining, and the provision of affordable superannuation and healthcare, etc?

Or, freedom to make you own way, if you have the innate abilities and strong family support - and let the devil take the hindmost?

Dear Saltpetre,

<<and let the devil take the hindmost?>>

Why then not let God take the hindmost?

Having agreed that humans are resourceful, the question remains "what motivates us?".

Whatever motivates us, comes down in the final analysis to two sources: love or fear.

The state is structured on fear. The assumption behind the state is that people are bad in nature, that if left to their own devices they will harm rather than care for each other. The state exists to coerce people into complying and 'do good instead'. It is impossible, counter to natural and logical law to do good under coercion, yet this is what the state attempts.

Support of the state is a statement of non-confidence in love, thereby non-confidence in God, thereby confidence in the devil.

A milder excuse for having the state is that although people are good in nature, they are childish fools that need direction. That could perhaps have been justified by a benevolent and wise parent-figure heading the [nanny-]state, but that argument falls in democracy: if indeed we are childish fools, then we should not be allowed to vote, for what possibly could a majority of a bunch of childish fools vote for?

Personal and spiritual progress consists of making choices, at the bottom line, freely choosing love over fear. When the state 'does good on our behalf', without allowing us to progress through making the relevant choices ourselves, we are DENIED PROGRESS.

Admittedly, there may be tangible physical results: schools, hospitals, dams, construction, environment, etc., but none of those can change the rate of material progress:

While man can affect the rate of spiritual progress, no matter what man does, the rate of material progress will remain exactly one second per second, one minute per minute, one hour per hour and one day per day.

The hindmost should not selfishly ask for material support for no return, not even a 'thank-you', but should in exchange support the spiritual progress of those in front. One day they too will be in front and they too wouldn't like their spiritual efforts hindered.

Below are 10 quotes sourced from a piece by Andrew Kirrel who challenged his readers to determine which of them addressed interracial or gay unions. All are taken from either laws, politicians, court judgements or large NGOs. I will admit to only getting 6 out of the 10 right.

1. "They cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies" not allowing their marriage.

2. This relationship "is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results ... [Their children turn out] generally effeminate ... [their relationship is] productive of evil."

3. State legislators spoke out against such an "abominable" type of relationship, warning that it will eventually "pollute" America.

4. “It not only is a complete undermining of ... the hope of future generations, but it completely begins to see our society break down ... It literally is a threat to the nation’s survival in the long run.”

5. This type of marriage is not allowed "because natural instinct revolts at it as wrong."

6. This type of marriage is "regarded as unnatural and immoral."

7. This type of relationship is "distasteful to our people, and unfit to produce." Such marriages would lead to "a calamity full of the saddest and gloomiest portent to the generations that are to come after us."

8. "Although there is no verse in the Bible that dogmatically says [this marriage should not occur], the whole plan of God as He has dealt with [humanity] down through the ages indicates that [this] marriage is not best for man."

9. "A little-reported fact is that [these types of relationships] are far more violent than are [insert single-race or heterosexual] households."

10. "I believe that the tendency to classify all persons who oppose [this type of relationship] as 'prejudiced' is in itself a prejudice," a psychologist submitted to the court. "Nothing of any significance is gained by such a marriage."

There may well be some here who don't think the abolition of laws against interracial marriage was a progressive move. So be it but I think the vast majority of us would disagree.

Yuyutsu, sorry old chap, you've got that wrong. What motivates people is the desire to eat. First & foremost, this is our most driving need. Love hate only come along when we have food, shelter, & access to more food.

I spent a bit of time at an atoll that had only had one visitor in the 3 years since the plantation owner died. That was another yacht, without much to give or trade with them. They could not be bothered with making copra, so no trade boat came any more.

What did they want. Well mostly they wanted fish hooks, & some new line would be nice, but no use without hooks.

They would really like some rice. Rice was an easy meal, taro had to be dug & fetched.

Next they wanted batteries for their transistor radios & tape players.

Some petrol for their outboards would be nice, but only if I could make most of them go again.

Some cloth would be a nice replacement for coconut fond woven skirts, [no suitable grass to make grass skirts] but the only other things they wanted were tools to replace those lost. Axes, machetes & knives were the most wanted.

So sorry mate, other things become more important, once we don't have a government proving for the lazy & incompetent. A couple of boxes of fish hooks would have bought you every woman on the island, if you were that way inclined.

Dear Hasbeen,

<<What motivates people is the desire to eat. First & foremost, this is our most driving need.>>

This is why I wrote explicitly:

"Whatever motivates us, comes down IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS to two sources: love or fear."

One desires to eat either because they love eating, because they enjoy that sensation, or because they are afraid of the sensation of hunger and ultimately of dying.

That must be why no one pays any attention in academic research. Too much bull.

Hasbeen! go out in the garden mate, get some fresh air.
No one takes much notice of grumpy old men.

Hasbeen, the desire to eat is probably secondary to love, hate and the need for human contact if Harlows monkey study is anything to go by.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrNBEhzjg8I

Csteele, that's not really the point, bans on one or the other type of relationship were mostly ineffectual, the sheer number of mixed race people getting about gives lie to the idea that anti miscgenation laws had any real effect and "gay" marriage isn't "banned", it simply doesn't exist.
Look at it another way, "Gay" marriage is a technological step, it's painted as a moral or ethical proposition, but it isn't, it's a wholly scientific venture.
The invention of the atomic bomb or the advanced scientific methods employed in firebombing German cities can be seen in the same context, it's a scientific resolution to a problem which is sold as a humane solution and a necessary evil, in both cases to "end the war" more quickly.
We all know that "Gay" marriage will lead to controversial scientific methods being employed to solve their fertility issues and will be spun so as to inform the other 99% of the moral and ethical necessity for practice of this new form of Eugenics.
Were the scientific steps which led to the atomic bomb being deployed a step forward for humanity?
Do you think the current leaps in Eugenic technology being deployed in China, such as the research they're doing into heritability of intelligence and other traits are progressive?
Wealthy Western Homosexuals (and to be fair heterosexuals) have thus far shown no squeamishness about taking advantage of the reproductive options available in the third world and the pragmatic attitudes of it's scientists, if they are able to access cloning or to design the genome of their child they most certainly will.
Is this progress?

Saltpetre

"Government is the great fiction by which everyone tries to live at everyone else's expense."
Bastiat

Underlying your post is the idea that mere violence of itself creates social benefits, and is in fact, a higher form of sociality. It's not. It's easy to disprove your theory. Would killing be justified in order to achieve these alleged benefits of government?

All you're proving is that you believe the fiction and have never thought through the issues.

csteele
You are mistaken if you think gay marriage is illegal.

Should all different forms of sexual relationship have an equal right to governmental recognition, and if not why not?

Why should government be registering people's sexual relationships in the first place?

JKJ,

Do I need to point out that a system "..by which everyone tries to live at everyone else's expense" is merely a fictional fabrication? (Though SOME may indeed try their best to make it a reality - at least for themselves - and to hell with the rest!)

If this is how you see Government it is no wonder no-one on this Forum (or anyone else with half a brain) can take your ideas seriously.