Many of these ‘headline indicators’ are meant to capture public attention, which
is more easily done with one number than with a dashboard. Amending or correcting GDP numbers with indicators has been an incredibly important step in
expressing the fact that capital substitutability accounting—the essence of weak
sustainability processes—fails to capture the real state of natural, social and human
capital and therefore the prospects of future development. The headline indicators
or indices are, however, not the right tools for the design of actual system innovation processes. For this we need disaggregated information about causalities and
correlations between the different elements measured and also sociopolitical
engagement with the questions of how to weight potential trade-offs between these
elements. If we do not dissect statistics and models in this way, their values and
information are difficult for non-experts to understand and they can become a
source of hegemonic power, rather than a telling insight for improved governance
capacity and consensus-building.
The actual design process of measurement schemes with which to monitor future
developments is therefore at least as important for democratic system innovation
governance as finding exactly the right numbers. The biggest challenge is apparently to dethrone the dominance of economic indicators over social and environmental aspects of development. This observation held for all countries in the UN
Synthesis of National Reports for Rio+20 on the implementation of sustainable
development strategies:
Today’s challenge is chiefly implementation.. .. This is largely due to integration, inclusion,
and coherence challenges.. .. Economic growth is still the chief priority for most governments, and although they increasingly integrate poverty alleviation and other social concerns into development planning, the integration of environmental considerations has
lagged. The review of national reports revealed little evidence that countries see sustainability as contributing to growth; at best, governments see sustainability as compatible, or at
least not interfering, with growth, but there is little indication that these countries see
environmental sustainability as necessary for long-term growth (UNDESA and UNDP
2012: 2).
The report lists five priorities for tackling this implementation roadblock and
brings new measurements of progress and improved democracy and empowerment
for bottom-up change to the forefront:
If national systems look only at economic performance, then people cannot hold their
leaders accountable when it comes to progress on social and environmental matters. New
and more tailored metrics as well as bolstered data collection systems and capacities are
needed in both public and private sectors. Such metrics will be critical to the post-2015
development agenda, in particular to the sustainable development goals (UNDESA and
UNDP 2012: 5).
Unfortunately, the SDGs only list the development of GDP-complementing
measurements for progress as the very final target (17.19) under SDG 17 on means
of implementation and global partnerships. This gives it much less prominence than
the multifarious targets on GDP growth scattered across the other 16 goals (UN
2015).
4.3 Pioneering Governments: Beyond GDP Measures as Development Frames
131
is more easily done with one number than with a dashboard. Amending or correcting GDP numbers with indicators has been an incredibly important step in
expressing the fact that capital substitutability accounting—the essence of weak
sustainability processes—fails to capture the real state of natural, social and human
capital and therefore the prospects of future development. The headline indicators
or indices are, however, not the right tools for the design of actual system innovation processes. For this we need disaggregated information about causalities and
correlations between the different elements measured and also sociopolitical
engagement with the questions of how to weight potential trade-offs between these
elements. If we do not dissect statistics and models in this way, their values and
information are difficult for non-experts to understand and they can become a
source of hegemonic power, rather than a telling insight for improved governance
capacity and consensus-building.
The actual design process of measurement schemes with which to monitor future
developments is therefore at least as important for democratic system innovation
governance as finding exactly the right numbers. The biggest challenge is apparently to dethrone the dominance of economic indicators over social and environmental aspects of development. This observation held for all countries in the UN
Synthesis of National Reports for Rio+20 on the implementation of sustainable
development strategies:
Today’s challenge is chiefly implementation.. .. This is largely due to integration, inclusion,
and coherence challenges.. .. Economic growth is still the chief priority for most governments, and although they increasingly integrate poverty alleviation and other social concerns into development planning, the integration of environmental considerations has
lagged. The review of national reports revealed little evidence that countries see sustainability as contributing to growth; at best, governments see sustainability as compatible, or at
least not interfering, with growth, but there is little indication that these countries see
environmental sustainability as necessary for long-term growth (UNDESA and UNDP
2012: 2).
The report lists five priorities for tackling this implementation roadblock and
brings new measurements of progress and improved democracy and empowerment
for bottom-up change to the forefront:
If national systems look only at economic performance, then people cannot hold their
leaders accountable when it comes to progress on social and environmental matters. New
and more tailored metrics as well as bolstered data collection systems and capacities are
needed in both public and private sectors. Such metrics will be critical to the post-2015
development agenda, in particular to the sustainable development goals (UNDESA and
UNDP 2012: 5).
Unfortunately, the SDGs only list the development of GDP-complementing
measurements for progress as the very final target (17.19) under SDG 17 on means
of implementation and global partnerships. This gives it much less prominence than
the multifarious targets on GDP growth scattered across the other 16 goals (UN
2015).
4.3 Pioneering Governments: Beyond GDP Measures as Development Frames
131