Introduction
The GDP means the Gross Domestic Product. It is a measure of the market goings-on and economic development of the country. Gross Domestic Progress began several years ago and was named as the paramount attainment of the 20th century. Gross Domestic Product measures total values of all national production. It deals with flows of economic and production. GDP per capital is used as an indicator of a resident’s living standard in a country.
GDP is calculated by a following formula: the actual cost of edible production is divided by the total populace of the country. GPI is used to describe economic growth by accounting the factors related to the quality of life and provide the measure to sustain it in the future (Anielski and Rowe 1).
The Gross Domestic Product only measures factors that are commonly quantified in dollar terms by the market place, while GPI quantifies other factors that are difficult to put a number on, which include; Family, Crime, population and Community involvement. GDP measures the overall investment in all production that ordinarily transacted in the market; the GPI is more concerned with the real utility of that production to humans for improving the quality of life (Anielski, M. & J. Rowe, 1).
The GPI includes non-market goods and services that have utility to human. GPI incorporates the notion of sustainability by combining natural resources and also setting “aside” enough resources to compensate for the environmental unsustainability of current production. In this current setup, GPI accounts for costs that are ordinarily to the market.
GDP is centered on production, while GPI is more centered on consumption because it can be more linked to human welfare. Consumption can be routinely adjusted up or down to simulate relative changes in income equality or inconsistency in due time.
GPI has increased the US per capital moderately since 1950, while GPD has triplicated because of the growth of development and industrialization effects such as pollution and commuting. Economic growth only improves human wellbeing to a certain level, and beyond that level; the benefits of additional growth are counterbalanced by the costs and impacts of that growth (Anielski, M. & J. Rowe, 1).
In October 2003, University of Vermont published an article which studied the growth of Vermont and the main conclusion of the paper was that “GPI is also all-inclusive approach to evaluating economic growth than GDP”. This is because it accounts for income spreading effects, cost of pollution, and reduction of social and natural capital.
GDP failure to observe non-market goods and service such as clean water and air, quality of life which can be relocated by happy family is a greater mistake. It took into account negative measure, such as less time with family and increasing pollution of environment without counter measure. Despite economic growth in the 1990s, and rise in GDP, people felt little cheerfulness. It is crucial to consider environmental and social concern in determining economic welfare of people (Anielski, M. & J. Rowe, 1).
Conclusion
GPI has a considerable concern in environmental and social welfare of people, and the economic indicator includes factors which affect daily lives and are not only market-based (Anielski, M. & J. Rowe, 1). Only the government can recognize any indicator program; finally, there is the importance of inclusiveness in police making since the economy is a large social context.
Works Cited
Anielski, Mark and Jonathan Rowe. 1999, The Genuine Progress Indicator – 1998 Update. Redefining Progress, San Francisco, CA. PDF file 5 Mar. 2012. <http://anielski.com/wp-content/documents/US%20GPI%20methodology%20handbook.pdf>