Monday, May 18, 2009
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Monday, March 2, 2009
Institutional Learning and Practice: Some Preliminary Thoughts
The concept of learning organization is not a new one. It flourished in the 1990s, stimulated by Peter M. Senge’s The Fifth Discipline and countless other publications. The result was a compelling vision of an organization made up of individuals skilled at creating, acquiring, and transferring knowledge to their daily practices. These people could help their organizations cultivate tolerance, foster open discussion, and think holistically and systemically. Such learning organizations would be able to adapt to the unpredictable and changing environment more quickly, more effectively, and more efficiently than their competitors could.
Unpredictability is and will very much still be with us. However, the ideal of the learning organization has not yet been realized. Some factors have impeded progress:
• First, many of the early and current discussions about learning organizations were praises to a possible better world rather than implementable procedures and actions. They lacked a sense of pragmatism and the ability to translate them into concrete steps necessary for moving forward.
• Second, the concept was aimed at CEOs and senior executives rather than at an organization-wide culture and practice to which every and each individual could partake and contribute.
• Third, there has been a lack of process and outcome indicators and other tools by which change could be assessed overtime. Thus managers of smaller departments and units, where critical organizational work is done, had no way of assessing how their teams’ learning was contributing to the organization as a whole. Further, the lack of standards and tools for assessing lead to claim progress without delving into the particulars or comparing themselves accurately with others or with the set goals.
In the strategy of the organization where I work, we state that we intend to be “known for the quality of [its] work with children, which is rooted in a deep understanding of children’s experiences of deprivation, exclusion and vulnerability.” Such recognition [brand], we want to found on demonstrable and accurately assessed results of the impact of our work.
Our institution embraces as its core intent and primary objective a rich and complex task: the holistic growth and promotion of children to become agents of their own development, and – as they enter adulthood – to the development of their communities and future generations. Such an ambitious and demanding task requires a twofold approach:
• a continued, accurate and comprehensive assessment of the effectiveness and efficiencies of our deliverables in the field;
• which ought to be linked to an ongoing comprehensive organization-wide reflected learning and system analysis to increase our knowledge, understanding, efficiencies translated in very practical and usable ways.
The practical challenge we are facing seems to be as how best we can bring together facts and personal learning as primary information sources, in order to collectively make sense of what they mean and then translate the results into a greater capacity to be agile. In other words, how we can we transform information into organizational change in order to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of our deliverables in the field. In both the private and the non-profit sector, the term organizational learning has arguably become a metaphor for managing change – which may retain even greater relevance in our context given its nature and complexity.
Organizational research over the past two decades has revealed three broad factors that are essential for organizational learning and adaptability: a supportive learning environment, concrete learning processes and practices, and leadership behavior that provides reinforcement.
A supportive learning environment: some preliminary observations
To learn, individuals [as well as children or youth] cannot fear being judged or marginalized when they disagree with peers or authority figures, ask naive questions, own up to mistakes, or present a minority viewpoint. Instead, they must be comfortable expressing their thoughts about the work at hand.
Learning occurs when people become aware of opposing ideas. Recognizing the value of competing functional outlooks and alternative worldviews increases energy and motivation, sparks fresh thinking, and prevents lethargy and drift.
Learning is not simply about correcting mistakes and solving problems. It is also about crafting novel approaches. Employees should be encouraged to take risks and explore the untested and unknown.
Time for reflection. When people are too busy or overstressed by deadlines and scheduling pressures, however, their ability to think analytically and creatively is compromised. They become less able to diagnose problems and learn from their experiences. Supportive learning environments allow time for a pause in the action and encourage thoughtful review of the organization’s processes.
Concrete learning processes and practices: some preliminary observations
A learning organization is not cultivated effortlessly. It arises from a series of concrete steps and widely distributed activities, not unlike the workings of business processes such as logistics, billing, order fulfillment, and product development. Learning processes involve the generation, collection, interpretation, and dissemination of information and understanding. They include experimentation to develop and test new products and services; intelligence gathering to keep track of competitive, customer, and technological trends; disciplined analysis and interpretation to identify and solve problems; and education and training to develop both new and established employees.
Leadership that reinforces learning: some preliminary observations
Organizational learning is strongly influenced by the behavior of leaders at all levels. When leaders actively question and listen to colleagues—and thereby prompt dialogue and debate—people in the institution feel encouraged to learn. If leaders signal the importance of spending time on problem identification, knowledge transfer, and reflective post-audits, these activities are likely to flourish.
Organizations are not monolithic: some preliminary observations
Managers must be sensitive to differences among departmental processes and behaviors as they strive to build learning organizations. Groups may vary in their focus or learning maturity. Managers need to be especially sensitive to local cultures of learning, which can vary widely across units.
****************************************
Sources
Garvin, D.
1993 Building a Learning Organization. Harvard Business Review.
Garvin, D., Edmondson, A., Gino, F.
2008 Is Yours a Learning Organization? Harvard Business Review.
Herda, E.
1999 Research Conversations and Narrative: A Critical Hermeneutic Orientation in Participatory Inquiry. Wesport and London: Praeger.
Senge, P.
1990 The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of The Learning Organization. New York: Double Day.
2006 The Necessary Revolution: How individuals and organizations are working together to create a sustainable world. New York: Double Day.
Spear, S.
2004 Learning to Lead at Toyota. Harvard Business Review.
Unpredictability is and will very much still be with us. However, the ideal of the learning organization has not yet been realized. Some factors have impeded progress:
• First, many of the early and current discussions about learning organizations were praises to a possible better world rather than implementable procedures and actions. They lacked a sense of pragmatism and the ability to translate them into concrete steps necessary for moving forward.
• Second, the concept was aimed at CEOs and senior executives rather than at an organization-wide culture and practice to which every and each individual could partake and contribute.
• Third, there has been a lack of process and outcome indicators and other tools by which change could be assessed overtime. Thus managers of smaller departments and units, where critical organizational work is done, had no way of assessing how their teams’ learning was contributing to the organization as a whole. Further, the lack of standards and tools for assessing lead to claim progress without delving into the particulars or comparing themselves accurately with others or with the set goals.
In the strategy of the organization where I work, we state that we intend to be “known for the quality of [its] work with children, which is rooted in a deep understanding of children’s experiences of deprivation, exclusion and vulnerability.” Such recognition [brand], we want to found on demonstrable and accurately assessed results of the impact of our work.
Our institution embraces as its core intent and primary objective a rich and complex task: the holistic growth and promotion of children to become agents of their own development, and – as they enter adulthood – to the development of their communities and future generations. Such an ambitious and demanding task requires a twofold approach:
• a continued, accurate and comprehensive assessment of the effectiveness and efficiencies of our deliverables in the field;
• which ought to be linked to an ongoing comprehensive organization-wide reflected learning and system analysis to increase our knowledge, understanding, efficiencies translated in very practical and usable ways.
The practical challenge we are facing seems to be as how best we can bring together facts and personal learning as primary information sources, in order to collectively make sense of what they mean and then translate the results into a greater capacity to be agile. In other words, how we can we transform information into organizational change in order to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of our deliverables in the field. In both the private and the non-profit sector, the term organizational learning has arguably become a metaphor for managing change – which may retain even greater relevance in our context given its nature and complexity.
Organizational research over the past two decades has revealed three broad factors that are essential for organizational learning and adaptability: a supportive learning environment, concrete learning processes and practices, and leadership behavior that provides reinforcement.
A supportive learning environment: some preliminary observations
To learn, individuals [as well as children or youth] cannot fear being judged or marginalized when they disagree with peers or authority figures, ask naive questions, own up to mistakes, or present a minority viewpoint. Instead, they must be comfortable expressing their thoughts about the work at hand.
Learning occurs when people become aware of opposing ideas. Recognizing the value of competing functional outlooks and alternative worldviews increases energy and motivation, sparks fresh thinking, and prevents lethargy and drift.
Learning is not simply about correcting mistakes and solving problems. It is also about crafting novel approaches. Employees should be encouraged to take risks and explore the untested and unknown.
Time for reflection. When people are too busy or overstressed by deadlines and scheduling pressures, however, their ability to think analytically and creatively is compromised. They become less able to diagnose problems and learn from their experiences. Supportive learning environments allow time for a pause in the action and encourage thoughtful review of the organization’s processes.
Concrete learning processes and practices: some preliminary observations
A learning organization is not cultivated effortlessly. It arises from a series of concrete steps and widely distributed activities, not unlike the workings of business processes such as logistics, billing, order fulfillment, and product development. Learning processes involve the generation, collection, interpretation, and dissemination of information and understanding. They include experimentation to develop and test new products and services; intelligence gathering to keep track of competitive, customer, and technological trends; disciplined analysis and interpretation to identify and solve problems; and education and training to develop both new and established employees.
Leadership that reinforces learning: some preliminary observations
Organizational learning is strongly influenced by the behavior of leaders at all levels. When leaders actively question and listen to colleagues—and thereby prompt dialogue and debate—people in the institution feel encouraged to learn. If leaders signal the importance of spending time on problem identification, knowledge transfer, and reflective post-audits, these activities are likely to flourish.
Organizations are not monolithic: some preliminary observations
Managers must be sensitive to differences among departmental processes and behaviors as they strive to build learning organizations. Groups may vary in their focus or learning maturity. Managers need to be especially sensitive to local cultures of learning, which can vary widely across units.
****************************************
Sources
Garvin, D.
1993 Building a Learning Organization. Harvard Business Review.
Garvin, D., Edmondson, A., Gino, F.
2008 Is Yours a Learning Organization? Harvard Business Review.
Herda, E.
1999 Research Conversations and Narrative: A Critical Hermeneutic Orientation in Participatory Inquiry. Wesport and London: Praeger.
Senge, P.
1990 The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of The Learning Organization. New York: Double Day.
2006 The Necessary Revolution: How individuals and organizations are working together to create a sustainable world. New York: Double Day.
Spear, S.
2004 Learning to Lead at Toyota. Harvard Business Review.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Economic Environment and Cultural Values
Modernization theorists from Marx to Bell have argued that economic development brings pervasive cultural changes thus leading to a cultural homogenization and convergence as the result of economic development. On the other hand, others, from Weber to Huntington, have claimed that “cultural values have an enduring and autonomous influence on society” (Inglehart and Baker 2000: 20). In recent years, research and theory on socioeconomic development have given rise to two contending schools of thought. DiMaggio (1994: 56) suggests how "one school emphasizes the convergence of values as a result of modernization – viewed as an overwhelming flux of economic and political forces that drives political change. As a result traditional values decline and are replaced by modern values. The other school of thought emphasizes the persistence of traditional values despite economic and political changes. This school assumes that values are relatively independent of economic conditions. Consequently, it predicts that the convergence around some set of modern values is unlikely and that traditional values will continue to exert an independent influence on the cultural changes caused by economic development."
While substantial progress has been made, according to Vernon Ruttan (1998), within a partial equilibrium framework to analyze the sources and influence of technical and institutional change, little attention has been devoted by economists to the role of cultural endowments. To the extent that cultural traits – or cultural endowments – are considered at all by economists, they tend to be subsumed under the concept of tastes. In the post World War period, the first generation of development economists gave a prominent role, at least at a rhetorical level, to the role of cultural endowment in constraining or facilitating economic growth. Economists, such as Hagen (1962) and Rogers (1969), accepted the body of scholarship in history, philosophy, anthropology, sociology, and political science that insisted that cultural endowments exerted major influence on behavior and hence on the response in traditional societies to the opportunities associated with the modernization of community life and the possibilities of national economic development. In the next section, I take into consideration the major contribution on this topic offered in the last few decades.
Bert Hoselitz, from the University of Chicago, with his Non-Economic Barriers to Economic Development, played a particularly important role in the 1950s in urging economists to give greater consideration to the role of particular factors in economic development. Among the non-economic factors identified by Hoselitz (1952: 10) were the emergence of cultural minorities or classes that serve as the spearhead for both technical and institutional change; a social and political system that encourages a high degree of social mobility; social and cultural environment that facilitates the development of institutions capable of generating the technical and institutional knowledge necessary to operate a modern society; and the weakening of commitment to traditional methods of production and institutions.
This last consideration was particularly important in Hoselitz’s (1952: 15) view in that traditional "value systems offer special resistance to change … their change is facilitated if the material economic environment in which they can flourish is destroyed or weakened. […] Economic development plans which combine industrialization with an extension of traditional or near traditional forms of agriculture are thus creating a dilemma which in the long run may present serious repercussions in the speed or facility with which ultimate objects can be reached."
Another significant attempt to incorporate cultural variables into the analysis of economic development was that of Everett Hagen in his On the Theory of Social Change: How Economic Growth Begins. Hagen (1962: 4) argued that advances in the field of anthropology, sociology, psychology, and economics had “reached the point where a synthesis could be achieved to form a unified theory of society and social change.” Hagen’s (1962: 80) analysis led him to place primary emphasis on personality formation arguing that the “interrelations between personality formation and social structure are such that social change could not occur without prior or concurrent personality change.” Traditional societies were characterized, Hagen (1962: 83-84) contends, by authoritarian and unquestionable personalities,
the image of the world … includes a perception of uncontrollable forces. […] Each individual finds his place in the authoritarian hierarchy of human relationships.
In his historical studies, Hagen gave particular attention to the emergence of personality characteristics conducive to innovation, and argued that a disproportional share of entrepreneurs are drawn from social groups that were excluded from traditional elite roles. His work has been seen as the culmination of an effort to enrich the theory of development by drawing on anthropology, sociology, and psychology, rather than as the foundation for further advances.
While substantial progress has been made, according to Vernon Ruttan (1998), within a partial equilibrium framework to analyze the sources and influence of technical and institutional change, little attention has been devoted by economists to the role of cultural endowments. To the extent that cultural traits – or cultural endowments – are considered at all by economists, they tend to be subsumed under the concept of tastes. In the post World War period, the first generation of development economists gave a prominent role, at least at a rhetorical level, to the role of cultural endowment in constraining or facilitating economic growth. Economists, such as Hagen (1962) and Rogers (1969), accepted the body of scholarship in history, philosophy, anthropology, sociology, and political science that insisted that cultural endowments exerted major influence on behavior and hence on the response in traditional societies to the opportunities associated with the modernization of community life and the possibilities of national economic development. In the next section, I take into consideration the major contribution on this topic offered in the last few decades.
Bert Hoselitz, from the University of Chicago, with his Non-Economic Barriers to Economic Development, played a particularly important role in the 1950s in urging economists to give greater consideration to the role of particular factors in economic development. Among the non-economic factors identified by Hoselitz (1952: 10) were the emergence of cultural minorities or classes that serve as the spearhead for both technical and institutional change; a social and political system that encourages a high degree of social mobility; social and cultural environment that facilitates the development of institutions capable of generating the technical and institutional knowledge necessary to operate a modern society; and the weakening of commitment to traditional methods of production and institutions.
This last consideration was particularly important in Hoselitz’s (1952: 15) view in that traditional "value systems offer special resistance to change … their change is facilitated if the material economic environment in which they can flourish is destroyed or weakened. […] Economic development plans which combine industrialization with an extension of traditional or near traditional forms of agriculture are thus creating a dilemma which in the long run may present serious repercussions in the speed or facility with which ultimate objects can be reached."
Another significant attempt to incorporate cultural variables into the analysis of economic development was that of Everett Hagen in his On the Theory of Social Change: How Economic Growth Begins. Hagen (1962: 4) argued that advances in the field of anthropology, sociology, psychology, and economics had “reached the point where a synthesis could be achieved to form a unified theory of society and social change.” Hagen’s (1962: 80) analysis led him to place primary emphasis on personality formation arguing that the “interrelations between personality formation and social structure are such that social change could not occur without prior or concurrent personality change.” Traditional societies were characterized, Hagen (1962: 83-84) contends, by authoritarian and unquestionable personalities,
the image of the world … includes a perception of uncontrollable forces. […] Each individual finds his place in the authoritarian hierarchy of human relationships.
In his historical studies, Hagen gave particular attention to the emergence of personality characteristics conducive to innovation, and argued that a disproportional share of entrepreneurs are drawn from social groups that were excluded from traditional elite roles. His work has been seen as the culmination of an effort to enrich the theory of development by drawing on anthropology, sociology, and psychology, rather than as the foundation for further advances.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Cultural Matter
The anthropological and cultural heritage of a people greatly influences its approach to social and economic institutions, consumption, savings, entrepreneurship, individual determination and achievements that ultimately determine the nature and degree of economic development.
Samuel Huntington begins his edited collection of essays, titled Culture Matters (2000: xiii-xv), by briefly presenting the cases of Ghana and South Korea. He points out how in the early 1960s the two countries had very similar economies. “Thirty years later,” Huntington (2000: xiii) observes, “South Korea had become an industrial giant […] on its way to the consolidation of democratic institutions.” Moreover, he argues that “[u]ndoubtedly, many factors played a role, but it seemed … that culture had to be a large part of the explanation.”
Culture and its relevance in economic development have been a topic of scholarly debate for the last few decades. After a decline, in the 1960s and 1970s, interest in culture as an explanatory variable began to revive in the 1980s. In this revival, one major contribution was made by Lawrence Harrison, former USAID official, who in 1985 published Underdevelopment Is a State of Mind: The Latin American Case.
In the scholarly world, a discussion has been emerging between (i) those who see culture as a major – although not the only – influence on social, political, and economic actions; and (ii) those who adhere to universal explanations, such as material self-interest among the economists, or supporters of rational choice among political scientists.
From the camp of those who do not recognize a significant role to culture in explaining economic growth is Jeffrey Sachs. He points out, in Notes on a New Sociology of Economic Development (in Harrison and Huntington 2000: 30-31), how in neoclassical economics “development is really not much of a challenge. Market institutions are a given. […] Neoclassical economics … has an ingrained optimism about the prospects for economic convergence … [such an optimism] is sustained by the view that flawed economic institutions will be swept away by institutional competition or through public choice.” In this light, Sachs (2000: 42-43) contends that the cultural explanation of economic performances may be helpful in some instances, but “such explanation should also be tested against a framework that allows for other dimensions of society (geography, politics, economics) to play their role.” The argument expressed here is that controlling for such variables could sharply reduce “the scope for an important independent role of culture” (Sachs 2000: 43).
The debate among scholars engaged in the importance that culture has in development can accurately be summarized by the following questions: “To what extent do cultural factors shape economic and political development? If they do, how can cultural obstacles to economic and political development be removed or changed so as to facilitate progress?” (Harris and Huntington 2000: xiv). The underlining assumption – especially of the latter question – is an understanding of culture as a hindrance to a de-contextualized and a-historical development process, which should unfold itself universally over time.
One other possible way to view culture is as an element of long-term sustainability of economic development. In this light, a given economic order is not to be defined as an “abstract social mechanism,” but as an expression of a “concrete historical community” (Ricoeur 1991: 326). If there are indeed features of the homo economicus inherent in general human dynamics these are enriched by different cultural aspects. The larger scope of my research aims at demonstrating that culture is a sine qua non conditio to the long-term sustainability of economic development.
Moreover, making culture a legitimate dimension in development shifts the focus of the debate from economic growth to economic development. The close link between economic growth and economic development has been described by Amartya Sen (1999: 12) as being at the same time “a matter of importance as well as a source of considerable confusion.” Since an expansion of wealth will make a contribution to the standard of living of the people in question, “[i]t was [thus] entirely natural that the early writings in development economics … concentrated to a great extent on ways of achieving economic growth,” Sen (1999: 12) continues . The process of economic development cannot abstract from expanding the supply of food, clothing, housing, medical services, educational facilities, and from transforming the productive structure of the economy. These changes are matters of economic growth.
The importance of growth depends on the nature of the chosen variable – i.e. GDP or other related indicators – whose expansion is considered as growth. The crucial issue then becomes, as Sen (1999: 13) points out, not the “time-dimensional focus of growth, but the salience and reach of GNP … on which usual measures of growth concentrate.” In drawing a distinction between development and growth, several are the points of difference between the two domains.
First, insofar as economic development is concerned with GDP per capita, it leaves out the question of the distribution of wealth. Noting this type of possibility does not question the relevance of income considerations as such, but argues against taking only an aggregated view of incomes.
Second, another source of difference between growth and development relates to the question of externalities and non-marketability. The GDP captures only those means of well-being that are transacted in the market. This leaves out benefits and costs that are not marketable. The importance of what is left out has become increasingly recognized in terms, for instance, of natural environment, natural resources, and social environment (Dasgupta and Heal 1979; Dasgupta 1982; Hirschman 1958, 1971).
Third, even when markets do exist the valuation of commodities in the gross national product will reflect the biases that the markets may have and so causing problems in dealing with different relative prices in different parts of the world. Finally, Sen (1999: 15) posits that GDP, in fact, represents “a measure of the amount of the means of well-being that people have, and it does not tell us what the people involved are succeeding in getting out of these means, given their ends.”
Samuel Huntington begins his edited collection of essays, titled Culture Matters (2000: xiii-xv), by briefly presenting the cases of Ghana and South Korea. He points out how in the early 1960s the two countries had very similar economies. “Thirty years later,” Huntington (2000: xiii) observes, “South Korea had become an industrial giant […] on its way to the consolidation of democratic institutions.” Moreover, he argues that “[u]ndoubtedly, many factors played a role, but it seemed … that culture had to be a large part of the explanation.”
Culture and its relevance in economic development have been a topic of scholarly debate for the last few decades. After a decline, in the 1960s and 1970s, interest in culture as an explanatory variable began to revive in the 1980s. In this revival, one major contribution was made by Lawrence Harrison, former USAID official, who in 1985 published Underdevelopment Is a State of Mind: The Latin American Case.
In the scholarly world, a discussion has been emerging between (i) those who see culture as a major – although not the only – influence on social, political, and economic actions; and (ii) those who adhere to universal explanations, such as material self-interest among the economists, or supporters of rational choice among political scientists.
From the camp of those who do not recognize a significant role to culture in explaining economic growth is Jeffrey Sachs. He points out, in Notes on a New Sociology of Economic Development (in Harrison and Huntington 2000: 30-31), how in neoclassical economics “development is really not much of a challenge. Market institutions are a given. […] Neoclassical economics … has an ingrained optimism about the prospects for economic convergence … [such an optimism] is sustained by the view that flawed economic institutions will be swept away by institutional competition or through public choice.” In this light, Sachs (2000: 42-43) contends that the cultural explanation of economic performances may be helpful in some instances, but “such explanation should also be tested against a framework that allows for other dimensions of society (geography, politics, economics) to play their role.” The argument expressed here is that controlling for such variables could sharply reduce “the scope for an important independent role of culture” (Sachs 2000: 43).
The debate among scholars engaged in the importance that culture has in development can accurately be summarized by the following questions: “To what extent do cultural factors shape economic and political development? If they do, how can cultural obstacles to economic and political development be removed or changed so as to facilitate progress?” (Harris and Huntington 2000: xiv). The underlining assumption – especially of the latter question – is an understanding of culture as a hindrance to a de-contextualized and a-historical development process, which should unfold itself universally over time.
One other possible way to view culture is as an element of long-term sustainability of economic development. In this light, a given economic order is not to be defined as an “abstract social mechanism,” but as an expression of a “concrete historical community” (Ricoeur 1991: 326). If there are indeed features of the homo economicus inherent in general human dynamics these are enriched by different cultural aspects. The larger scope of my research aims at demonstrating that culture is a sine qua non conditio to the long-term sustainability of economic development.
Moreover, making culture a legitimate dimension in development shifts the focus of the debate from economic growth to economic development. The close link between economic growth and economic development has been described by Amartya Sen (1999: 12) as being at the same time “a matter of importance as well as a source of considerable confusion.” Since an expansion of wealth will make a contribution to the standard of living of the people in question, “[i]t was [thus] entirely natural that the early writings in development economics … concentrated to a great extent on ways of achieving economic growth,” Sen (1999: 12) continues . The process of economic development cannot abstract from expanding the supply of food, clothing, housing, medical services, educational facilities, and from transforming the productive structure of the economy. These changes are matters of economic growth.
The importance of growth depends on the nature of the chosen variable – i.e. GDP or other related indicators – whose expansion is considered as growth. The crucial issue then becomes, as Sen (1999: 13) points out, not the “time-dimensional focus of growth, but the salience and reach of GNP … on which usual measures of growth concentrate.” In drawing a distinction between development and growth, several are the points of difference between the two domains.
First, insofar as economic development is concerned with GDP per capita, it leaves out the question of the distribution of wealth. Noting this type of possibility does not question the relevance of income considerations as such, but argues against taking only an aggregated view of incomes.
Second, another source of difference between growth and development relates to the question of externalities and non-marketability. The GDP captures only those means of well-being that are transacted in the market. This leaves out benefits and costs that are not marketable. The importance of what is left out has become increasingly recognized in terms, for instance, of natural environment, natural resources, and social environment (Dasgupta and Heal 1979; Dasgupta 1982; Hirschman 1958, 1971).
Third, even when markets do exist the valuation of commodities in the gross national product will reflect the biases that the markets may have and so causing problems in dealing with different relative prices in different parts of the world. Finally, Sen (1999: 15) posits that GDP, in fact, represents “a measure of the amount of the means of well-being that people have, and it does not tell us what the people involved are succeeding in getting out of these means, given their ends.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)