On income, sustainability and the 'microfoundations' of the Genuine Progress Indicator Online publication date: Sun, 20-Apr-2008
by Michael Harris
International Journal of Environment, Workplace and Employment (IJEWE), Vol. 3, No. 2, 2007
Abstract: This paper contains a critical assessment of the use of the Fisherian income concept to underpin the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) and related measures. Comparisons in the recent GPI literature between Hicksian and Fisherian concepts of income are shown to be based on a modern misreading of Hicks (as presenting a production-based measure rather than a consumption-based one), and on a particular, and early, version of Fisher's conception of income which was subject to much controversy. Where Hicks' 'central criterion' of income articulated a clear thought experiment concerning sustainability (which can only ever be crudely approximated in practice), the thought experiment underpinning Fisher's concept says nothing at all about sustainability. The 'benefits vs. costs of growth' interpretation of the GPI is argued to confuse correlation and causation. Moreover, the literature connecting Fisher's concept to the GPI ignores the emphasis in much modern work on present value measures stemming from Samuelson and Weitzman.
Existing subscribers:
Go to Inderscience Online Journals to access the Full Text of this article.
If you are not a subscriber and you just want to read the full contents of this article, buy online access here.Complimentary Subscribers, Editors or Members of the Editorial Board of the International Journal of Environment, Workplace and Employment (IJEWE):
Login with your Inderscience username and password:
Want to subscribe?
A subscription gives you complete access to all articles in the current issue, as well as to all articles in the previous three years (where applicable). See our Orders page to subscribe.
If you still need assistance, please email subs@inderscience.com
Our Blog 
Follow us on Twitter 
Visit us on Facebook