Man does not live by GDP alone. A new report urges statisticians to capture what people do live by

    HOW well off are Americans? Frenchmen? Indians? Ghanaians? An economist's simplest answer is the gross domestic product, or GDP, per person of each country. To help you compare the figures, he will convert them into dollars, either at market exchange rates or （better） at purchasing-power-parity rates, which allow for the cheapness of, say, haircuts and taxi rides in poorer parts of the world.

    To be sure, this will give you a fair guide to material standards of living: the Americans and the French, on average, are much richer than Indians and Ghanaians. But you may suspect, and the economist should know, that this is not the whole truth. America's GDP per head is higher than France's, but the French spend less time at work, so are they really worse off? An Indian may be desperately poor and yet say he is happy; an American may be well fed yet fed up. GDP was designed to measure only the value of goods and services produced in a country, and it does not even do that precisely. How well off people feel also depends on things GDP does not capture, such as their health or whether they have a job. Environmentalists have long complained that GDP treats the despoliation of the planet as a plus （via the resulting economic output） rather than a minus （forests destroyed）.

    In recent years economists have therefore been looking at other measures of well-being-even "happiness", a notion that it once seemed absurd to quantify. Among those convinced that official statisticians should join in is Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president. On September 14th a commission he appointed last year, comprising 25 prominent social scientists, five with Nobel prizes in economics, presented its findings*. Joseph Stiglitz, the group's chairman and one of the laureates, said the 292-page report was a call to abandon "GDP fetishism". France's national statistics agency, Mr Sarkozy declared, should broaden its purview.

    The commission divided its work into three parts. The first deals with familiar criticisms of GDP as a measure of well-being. It takes no account of the depreciation of capital goods, and so overstates the value of production. Moreover, the value of production is based on market prices, but not everything has a price. The list of such things includes more than the environment. The worth of services not supplied through markets, such as state health care or education, owner-occupied housing or unpaid child care by parents, is "imputed"-estimated, using often rickety assumptions-or left out, even though private health care and schooling, renting and child-minding are directly measured.

    The report also argues that official statisticians should concentrate on households' incomes, consumption and wealth rather than total production. All these adjustments make a difference. In 2005, the commission found, France's real GDP per person was 73% of America's. But once government services, household production and leisure are added in, the gap narrows: French households had 87% of the adjusted income of their American counterparts. No wonder Mr Sarkozy is so keen.

    Sizing up the good life

    Next the commission turns to measures of the "quality of life". These attempt to capture well-being beyond a mere command of economic resources. One approach quantifies people's subjective well-being-divided into an overall judgment about their lives （a "ladder of life" score） and moment-by-moment flows of positive and negative feelings. For many years researchers had been spurred on by an apparent paradox: that rising incomes did not make people happier in the long run. Recent studies suggest, though, that countries with higher GDP per person do tend to have higher ladder-of-life scores. Exactly what, beyond income, affects subjective well-being-from health, marital status and age to perceptions of corruption-is much pored over. The unemployed report lower scores, even allowing for their lower incomes. Joblessness hits more than your wallet.

    Third, the report examines the well-being of future generations. People alive today will pass on a stock of exhaustible and other natural resources as well as machines, buildings and social institutions. Their children's human capital （skills and so forth） will depend on investment in education and research today. Economic activity is sustainable if future generations can expect to be at least as well off as today's. Finding a single measure that captures all this, the report concludes, seems too ambitious. That sounds right. For one thing, statisticians would have to make assumptions about the relative value of, say, the environment and new buildings-not just today, but many years from now. It is probably wiser to look at a wide range of figures.

    Some members of the commission believe that the financial crisis and the recession have made a broadening of official statistics more urgent. They think there might have been less euphoria had financial markets and policymakers been less fixated on GDP. That seems far-fetched. Stockmarket indices, soaring house prices and low inflation surely did more to feed bankers' and borrowers' exaggerated sense of well-being.

    Broadening official statistics is a good idea in its own right. Some countries have already started-notably, tiny Bhutan. There are pitfalls, though. The report justifies wider measures of well-being partly by noting that the public must have trust in official statistics. Quite so; which makes it all the more important that the statisticians are independent of government. The thought of grinning politicians telling people how happy they are is truly Orwellian. Another risk is that a proliferation of measures could be a gift to interest groups, letting them pick numbers that amplify their misery in order to demand a bigger share of the national pie. But these are early days. Meanwhile, get measuring.

    人并不單單為了GDP而活。一項(xiàng)最新的報(bào)道強(qiáng)烈要求統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)家們抓住可以顯示人們生活指標(biāo)的數(shù)據(jù)。

    美國(guó)人、法國(guó)人、印度人和加納人有多富有呢？據(jù)一名經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家的最簡(jiǎn)單的回答，是平均到每個(gè)國(guó)家每個(gè)公民的國(guó)內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值，即GDP.為了便于你比較數(shù)據(jù)，他將它們統(tǒng)統(tǒng)轉(zhuǎn)化成美元形式，或市場(chǎng)交易比率，再或更精確一點(diǎn)，采用足夠世界上貧困地區(qū)的人們理發(fā)、打的的同等購(gòu)買(mǎi)力比率。

    可以確定一點(diǎn)，這將提供給你一個(gè)公平的指示物質(zhì)資料生活水平的導(dǎo)向：總體上來(lái)說(shuō)，美國(guó)人和法國(guó)人要比印度人和××人富裕很多。但是，你可能會(huì)疑問(wèn)，正如經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家必須知道的，這并不是全部的事實(shí)。美國(guó)的人均GDP比法國(guó)高，可是，法國(guó)人工作的時(shí)間要少一點(diǎn)，所以，法國(guó)人就真的要比美國(guó)人窮？一個(gè)印度人可能非常非常的窮困，但他會(huì)說(shuō)自己是快樂(lè)的；一個(gè)美國(guó)人或許足夠富裕但也足夠厭倦。GDP只是被設(shè)計(jì)用來(lái)衡量一個(gè)國(guó)家的商品和服務(wù)的價(jià)值，甚至，連這個(gè)它都沒(méi)法表示精確。一個(gè)人他感覺(jué)有多幸福還要依據(jù)一些GDP不能顯示的事情，比如他的健康或者他有沒(méi)有一份工作。長(zhǎng)久以來(lái)，環(huán)境學(xué)家一直在抱怨，他們認(rèn)為GDP視掠奪地球?yàn)橐坏兰臃�題（通過(guò)作為結(jié)果的貿(mào)易出口量）而不是一道減法題（如森林破壞）.

    正因如此，近幾年，經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家們一直在研究其他測(cè)量富裕的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，甚至說(shuō)幸福，它曾經(jīng)被視為在數(shù)量上很晦澀的一個(gè)概念。在眾多確信政府的統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)家們應(yīng)該加入到這一行列的人中就有法國(guó)總統(tǒng)尼古拉斯·薩科奇。去年9月14號(hào)的一次委員會(huì)上，他提出了自己的觀點(diǎn)，據(jù)會(huì)議的記錄顯示，這次的委員會(huì)有25名杰出的社會(huì)科學(xué)家組成，其中5人獲得過(guò)諾貝爾經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)獎(jiǎng)。這個(gè)團(tuán)隊(duì)的主席同時(shí)身為摘得桂冠的一員，約瑟夫·施蒂格利茲說(shuō)，這份292頁(yè)的報(bào)道是廢除"GDP崇拜"的信號(hào)。薩科奇宣稱(chēng)，法國(guó)國(guó)家統(tǒng)計(jì)局應(yīng)該擴(kuò)大自己的見(jiàn)識(shí)。

    委員會(huì)將它的工作劃分為三個(gè)部分。第一部分處理關(guān)于將GDP作為富有測(cè)量指標(biāo)的常見(jiàn)的批評(píng)。GDP無(wú)視資本商品的貶值，因此會(huì)高估產(chǎn)品的價(jià)值。而且，產(chǎn)品的價(jià)值是基于市場(chǎng)價(jià)格的，但是，并不是每樣?xùn)|西都有價(jià)格。這樣的一份清單所包含的東西要遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)超過(guò)市場(chǎng)里所真正有的數(shù)量。沒(méi)有通過(guò)市場(chǎng)途徑提供的服務(wù)的價(jià)值，諸如，國(guó)家健康保健、教育、家政服務(wù)以及不被付費(fèi)的家長(zhǎng)對(duì)孩子的教育，也被轉(zhuǎn)嫁了-- 采用經(jīng)常不確定的推測(cè)來(lái)估計(jì)--或者被省略，即使私人健康保健和辦學(xué)、房租以及孩子照顧被確切地測(cè)量過(guò)。

    報(bào)道還提到，政府統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)家們應(yīng)該關(guān)注家庭持有的收入、消費(fèi)和財(cái)富而不是整個(gè)的產(chǎn)量。所有的這些調(diào)整會(huì)產(chǎn)生一定的影響。委員會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)，2005年，法國(guó)真正的人均GDP是美國(guó)的73%.可是，一旦政府公共服務(wù)、家庭財(cái)產(chǎn)和空閑時(shí)間加進(jìn)去的話，差距就縮小了：法國(guó)的家庭財(cái)產(chǎn)是他們的對(duì)手美國(guó)家庭的可支配收入的87%.薩科奇會(huì)如此熱心也就不足為奇。

    緊跟高品質(zhì)生活

    第二部分，委員會(huì)轉(zhuǎn)向"生活質(zhì)量"的評(píng)判標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。這些標(biāo)準(zhǔn)試圖通過(guò)超越一項(xiàng)單一的經(jīng)濟(jì)資源的指令來(lái)抓住富有。其中一項(xiàng)為評(píng)定人們的主觀意義上的富有--它被劃分為對(duì)生活總體上的評(píng)價(jià)（一項(xiàng)"生活階梯"的得分）和時(shí)時(shí)刻刻積極和消極情緒的流動(dòng)。多年以來(lái)，研究人員因?yàn)橐粋�(gè)顯而易見(jiàn)的矛盾而鉆了牛角尖：持續(xù)增長(zhǎng)的收入并不會(huì)讓人們長(zhǎng)時(shí)間里感覺(jué)更幸福。實(shí)際上，超越收入，對(duì)主觀幸福感能起作用的因素，從健康、婚姻狀況和年齡到對(duì)腐化的洞察力受到了更多的研究。失業(yè)的人報(bào)出較低的得分，即使計(jì)算時(shí)包括了他們較低的收入。失業(yè)遠(yuǎn)比錢(qián)包對(duì)人的打擊嚴(yán)重。

    第三部分，報(bào)道測(cè)試了未來(lái)一代的富有感。當(dāng)今活著的人將要經(jīng)歷不可再利用和其他自然資源、機(jī)器、建筑物和社會(huì)機(jī)構(gòu)的一批貨物。他們孩子的人身資本（技能等等）將依靠今天在教育和研究上的投資。假如未來(lái)的一代能至少和今天的人一樣富有的話，經(jīng)濟(jì)互動(dòng)才能夠持續(xù)下去。想要找到單一的指標(biāo)來(lái)掌握?qǐng)?bào)道里囊括的全部這些似乎太過(guò)雄心勃勃了。那聽(tīng)起來(lái)不錯(cuò)。從一個(gè)方面來(lái)看，統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)家們不得不對(duì)環(huán)境和信的建筑物的相對(duì)價(jià)值進(jìn)行估算，而且，不僅僅是當(dāng)今的環(huán)境和建筑物，還應(yīng)該是多年以后的。可能，參照廣泛的數(shù)據(jù)是比較明智的。

    委員會(huì)的一些成員相信，經(jīng)濟(jì)危機(jī)和蕭條已使得越來(lái)越多的官方數(shù)據(jù)變得越發(fā)的急需。他們認(rèn)為，如果經(jīng)濟(jì)市場(chǎng)和決策領(lǐng)導(dǎo)層更少地被GDP 固定，還會(huì)有更少的欣快。那似乎很難達(dá)成。而股票市場(chǎng)索引、咆哮的房?jī)r(jià)以及低水平的通貨膨脹確實(shí)更多地滿足了銀行家們和借貸者們被夸大的富有感。

    就它自身的權(quán)利來(lái)講，擴(kuò)大官方數(shù)據(jù)是一個(gè)不錯(cuò)的想法。一些國(guó)家也已經(jīng)開(kāi)始實(shí)施--值得一提的，比如小小的不丹國(guó)。雖然，那頗有風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。報(bào)道通過(guò)強(qiáng)調(diào)公眾一定深信官方數(shù)據(jù)，為更廣闊的富有的指標(biāo)辯護(hù)。這是如此，統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)家們是獨(dú)立于政府這一事實(shí)使它變得更加重要。露齒微笑的政治家們告訴人們有多幸福的思想事實(shí)上是贊成嚴(yán)格統(tǒng)治而使人失去人性的。另外的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)是，指標(biāo)的增值可能會(huì)給利益團(tuán)隊(duì)帶去好處，促使他們挑選出擴(kuò)大他們的悲慘情況的數(shù)據(jù)，并以此分得國(guó)家餡餅中更大的一塊。但是，這些情況是剛開(kāi)始的階段會(huì)出現(xiàn)的。同時(shí)，已經(jīng)被考慮在內(nèi)。