trends and future of sustainable development - TransEco

From the compositions of ISEW and GPI it can also be concluded that GPI is more congruent with theecological viewpoint of sustainable development while the perspective of ISEW is more related to thesocial point of view of sustainable development.5. ConclusionsDespite the fact that the exploitation of natural resources and environment already exceeds the carryingcapacity of the global ecosystem, the current economic and political systems still foster extensiveeconomic growth. Although there have been numerous attempts to develop improved welfare indicatorspersuading to overcome the deficiencies of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and to comply theprerequisites of sustainable development, even today GDP remains the most important measure ofsocietal planning and decision-making. At the same time several studies show that economic growthdoes not increase the well-being of people in industrialised countries anymore. On the other handsustainable development requires us to define the sufficient level of natural resource consumption tomake people happy. To ensure the maximisation of the true sustainable well-being of people principlesof equity and happiness should be taken into account when discussing the sustainability.The indicators of sustainable economic welfare, like ISEW and GPI connect economic activities withquality of live and sustainable development dimensions to give a better picture of people’s actualdevelopment of welfare. Adoption of ISEW and GPI to Finnish data how that the economic growthmeasured by Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has not improved the economic well-being of people inFinland since mid-80’s. According to ISEW -measure the welfare has established although in 2000’s theISEW per capita has slightly rose as the environmental burden of the economy has not grown as fast asprivate consumption. The Finnish GPI-measure peaked in 1989 and has since decreased till recent years.In 2000’s the Finnish GPI has been on a the level that was last seen in the early 1970’s. The picture thatthese two measures give of the direction of Finnish economy is a very worrying one, and differs greatlyfrom the picture given by GDP. Results imply that GDP is today a poor policy steering indicator in postindustrialisedcountries. There exists a need to develop further economic welfare indicators for economicand social monitoring and policymaking.ReferencesBöckerman P., Ilmakunnas P. 2006. Elusive Effects of Unemployment on Happiness. Social IndicatorsResearch, 79; Springer. 159-169.Castaneda, B.E. 1999. An index of sustainable economic welfare (ISEW) for Chile. Ecological Economics,28, 231-244.Chambers, N., Simmons, C. Wackernagel M. 2000. Sharing Nature's Interest. Ecological Footprints asan Indicator of Sustainability. Earthscan.Cobb C., Goodman G.S, Wackelnagel M. 1999. Why Bigger Isn’t Better: The Genuine ProgressIndicators – 1999 Update. Redefining Progress. November.National Board of Customs 2008. Foreign trade,. The Finnish Trade in Figures. Helsinki.Daly, H. E., Cobb J. B. 1989. For the Common Good. Redirecting the Economy toward Community, theEnvironment and a Sustainable Future. Beacon Press. Boston.311