KONTROWERSJE WOKÓŁ POMIARU DOBROBYTU SPOŁECZNEGO
Loading...
Date
2008
Authors
Advisor
Editor
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Wydział Prawa i Administracji UAM
Title alternative
CONTROVERSIES AROUND THE MEASUREMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE
Abstract
Measurements of social welfare reflect the system o f the values that prevail in the societies that
use them. Gross national product as a measurement o f the economic development and social welfare
may be considered as an extremely important feature of the second half of the 20th century. On the
one hand it provides the knowledge o f the state of economy and the level o f satisfaction o f the needs of
a contemporary man, or it may be viewed, on the other hand, as a manifestation of the last decades’
philosophy predominantly present among the inhabitants of Europe, North America and Australia.
Apart from that measurement, however, which from the orthodox economy perspective is the most
important, the achievements and failures of the man may be also measured and assessed by such
measurements as the life span, leisure time and related to it opportunities of self-realisation, the
degree of social inequalities, or level of exploitation of natural resources and environmental
degradation.
A review o f different approaches to the measurement o f social welfare leads to the conclusion that
creation of a synthetic performance probe, or measure, free from objections as to its partiality or
discretion, is very difficult, i f not impossible. This is because of the impossibility to take a completely
objective view of the values that are fundamental in the process of satisfying the needs of a man.
Comparing welfare in time and space and analysing the effects of an economic growth it should be
remembered that the described reality depends heavily on the choice of measurements used to
evaluate it. Thus, the research economist’s responsibility as well as that of a teacher calls for
accounting for a number of different measurements of welfare and social development.
Description
Sponsor
Keywords
Citation
Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny 70, 2008, z. 4, s. 91-108