Academic Bibliography

 Search 200 years of publications by Ghent University researchers.
Advanced search
1 file | 639.82 KB
Add to list
  1. Search results
  2. A conceptual exploration and critical...

A conceptual exploration and critical inquiry into the theoretical foundation(s) of economic welfare measures

Jonas Van der Slycken (UGent) and Brent Bleys (UGent)
(2020) ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS. 176.
Author
Organization
Abstract
Economic welfare measures (EWM) such as the ISEW and the GPI are often argued to lack a sound theoretical foundation. However, we observe that the initial EWM were jointly inspired by Hicksian and Fisherian income. Welfare's experiential nature is Fisherian-inspired, whereas seeing the consumption of community capital (e.g. the ecosystem) as a cost is Hicksian-inspired. As most scholars do not recognize this double theoretical foundation, two distinct welfare interpretations with different time and boundary dimensions are often conflated. EWM can be seen as either capturing the benefits and costs experienced, or as reflecting the benefits and costs of present economic activities (BCPA). The former interpretation excludes future costs, costs shifted abroad and capital changes as they are not experienced in the present, while the latter includes them. Recent developments reveal that EWM are converging toward the ex post established experiential Fisherian foundation formulated by Lawn (2003). Yet, this is not the only way forward as the BCPA-view offers an alternative to account for, for instance, the costs of present activities shifted abroad or to the future, whether they are experienced or not. To avoid inconsistencies, EWM's standardization would greatly benefit from making explicit in future studies which interpretation is taken.
Keywords
Index of sustainable economic welfare (ISEW), Genuine progress indicator (GPI), Theoretical framework, Fisherian income, Hicksian income, Experiential welfare, Cost-benefit analysis, Cost-shifting, Accountability, Standardization, Beyond GDP, GENUINE PROGRESS, ISEW, INDEX, GROWTH, GDP, GPI, INDICATORS, SUSTAINABILITY, PARADOX, QUALITY

Downloads

  • Download
    (...).pdf
    • full text (Published version)
    • |
    • UGent only
    • |
    • PDF
    • |
    • 639.82 KB

Citation

Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:

MLA
Van der Slycken, Jonas, and Brent Bleys. “A Conceptual Exploration and Critical Inquiry into the Theoretical Foundation(s) of Economic Welfare Measures.” ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS, vol. 176, 2020, doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106753.
APA
Van der Slycken, J., & Bleys, B. (2020). A conceptual exploration and critical inquiry into the theoretical foundation(s) of economic welfare measures. ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS, 176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106753
Chicago author-date
Van der Slycken, Jonas, and Brent Bleys. 2020. “A Conceptual Exploration and Critical Inquiry into the Theoretical Foundation(s) of Economic Welfare Measures.” ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS 176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106753.
Chicago author-date (all authors)
Van der Slycken, Jonas, and Brent Bleys. 2020. “A Conceptual Exploration and Critical Inquiry into the Theoretical Foundation(s) of Economic Welfare Measures.” ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS 176. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106753.
Vancouver
1.
Van der Slycken J, Bleys B. A conceptual exploration and critical inquiry into the theoretical foundation(s) of economic welfare measures. ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS. 2020;176.
IEEE
[1]
J. Van der Slycken and B. Bleys, “A conceptual exploration and critical inquiry into the theoretical foundation(s) of economic welfare measures,” ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS, vol. 176, 2020.
@article{8667145,
  abstract     = {{Economic welfare measures (EWM) such as the ISEW and the GPI are often argued to lack a sound theoretical foundation. However, we observe that the initial EWM were jointly inspired by Hicksian and Fisherian income. Welfare's experiential nature is Fisherian-inspired, whereas seeing the consumption of community capital (e.g. the ecosystem) as a cost is Hicksian-inspired. As most scholars do not recognize this double theoretical foundation, two distinct welfare interpretations with different time and boundary dimensions are often conflated. EWM can be seen as either capturing the benefits and costs experienced, or as reflecting the benefits and costs of present economic activities (BCPA). The former interpretation excludes future costs, costs shifted abroad and capital changes as they are not experienced in the present, while the latter includes them. Recent developments reveal that EWM are converging toward the ex post established experiential Fisherian foundation formulated by Lawn (2003). Yet, this is not the only way forward as the BCPA-view offers an alternative to account for, for instance, the costs of present activities shifted abroad or to the future, whether they are experienced or not. To avoid inconsistencies, EWM's standardization would greatly benefit from making explicit in future studies which interpretation is taken.}},
  articleno    = {{106753}},
  author       = {{Van der Slycken, Jonas and Bleys, Brent}},
  issn         = {{0921-8009}},
  journal      = {{ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS}},
  keywords     = {{Index of sustainable economic welfare (ISEW),Genuine progress indicator (GPI),Theoretical framework,Fisherian income,Hicksian income,Experiential welfare,Cost-benefit analysis,Cost-shifting,Accountability,Standardization,Beyond GDP,GENUINE PROGRESS,ISEW,INDEX,GROWTH,GDP,GPI,INDICATORS,SUSTAINABILITY,PARADOX,QUALITY}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  pages        = {{10}},
  title        = {{A conceptual exploration and critical inquiry into the theoretical foundation(s) of economic welfare measures}},
  url          = {{http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106753}},
  volume       = {{176}},
  year         = {{2020}},
}
Altmetric
View in Altmetric
Web of Science
Times cited: