THE measurement of Gross Domestic or Gross National Product is not an adequate indicator of a society's wealth and wellbeing, the Conference of Religious in Ireland has been told. It should be replaced by new indicators, which would include a Social Progress Index.
"The wealth of the country is growing at such a rate that we are coming close to the EU average," said Sister Brigid Reynolds, co director of CORI's justice office. "Yet the number of people living in poverty has not been reduced as a result of the nation's growing wealth.
"If Ireland is supposed to be doing so well then why are there so many problems?"
Sister Reynolds said that in Ireland, as elsewhere, there was an obsession with the measurement of GNP, and little attention was given to the measurement of poverty and income distribution. She suggested that either other indicators should be used, like the existing Human Development Index (HDI), or a number of different indices included.
Professor John Clarke, of St John's University, New York, also criticised GDP/GNP as indicator of progress. Many of the transactions measured in GDP did not reflect wellbeing, he said. "The break-up of families is one of the great contributors to GDP. Natural disasters are wonderful for GDP. If the growth of GDP is our goal we should promote the break-up families and natural disasters.
He pointed out that pollution contributed doubly to GDP, once when the polluting product was produced, and again when the pollution was cleaned up. "The problem is that GDP operates by adding expenses to income instead of subtracting them," he said. "It is therefore oblivious of the difference between costs and benefits, loss and gain, and is, thus not an indicator of progress.
Father Sean Healy, co-director of the justice office, said that because GDP was seen as the key to progress, there was little attention given to other areas of policy development.
For example, the report of the Expert Working Group on Integrating the Tax and Social Welfare Systems, published in June 1996, estimated that its recommendations would make £1,000 million available to the Exchequer, with an average gain in net income of about 6.6 per cent.
However, in all the "option packages" considered, the worst off benefited least and the highest most from the recommendations.
Father Healy also criticised access to decision-making and in particular the process for pre-Budget submissions, which militated against an integrated approach.
"The only groups who can make pre-Budget submissions directly to the Minister are the `social partners'. Everybody else must make them to the Dail Committee on Finance and General Affairs.
"They must be made in a standard format, under the same headings, on a floppy disk in Wordperfect for DOS! This is horrendous stuff and has demolished most groups.
"Then there are the `oral presentations'. We are not allowed to give an oral submission. We have to answer questions which will be designed by consultants and civil servants for members of the committee. The questions are not provided in advance. This has more the makings of a star chamber than progress in democracy.