A short time ago, Spain surpassed Japan in the longevity stakes. Spaniards now have a marginally longer lifespan than the Japanese. That’s a mark of success but does it say anything meaningful about the future?
On its own, the number speaks only about the past. The generations of Spaniards brought up in the relative austerity of circa 80 years ago have largely survived into advanced old age. But what of the generations that follow them? The number doesn’t tell us if they will live as long.
The secret of longevity could be a particular combination: the physical exercise and moderate eating habits due to austerity up to middle age, plus the healthcare that came with growing national affluence. For all we know, the next generation of Spaniards, raised in greater affluence, with more sedentary habits and higher rates of smoking, won’t live as long.
The number on its own is not enough. We need a cluster of numbers to get an indication of whether average lifespan (in this case) is a momentary achievement or a longer-term trend.
The same issue plagues the debate of this year’s Budget and those of the last few years. Government and Opposition argue over numbers and their meaning. Each accuses the other of missing the big picture. We could blame cynical partisanship. But that’s only part of the picture and, I suspect, the lesser part.
The fact is the numbers themselves, as given now according to long-standing custom, lend themselves to inconclusive dispute. It’s time we addressed the issue by including new numbers – clusters of numbers that enable us to compare different groups, the country over time, and the country against other countries.
Yes, of course some of our numbers do this already. What else do calculations of GDP and average incomes do? Those numbers are necessary but not enough. There was a time, when we were a much less economically developed country, when they packed more information. But they no longer do.
The structure of the economy has changed, so that the growth of affluence of the majority might also bring about a risk of poverty for some. Income does not measure insecurity of employment... or of the environment. Affluence might be a measure of basic nutrition but not of the right nutrition and health risks, as our obesity levels show.
We don’t have to make a fetish of numbers to see that some measurements allow for more adult debate
So we need new benchmarks adequate for the economic assessment of an affluent economy. We cannot make do with the benchmarks of an earlier time.
New-but-granular numbers will not be enough. They will simply increase the disputes. There will be more criteria to pit against each other – roads vs trees; conspicuous consumption vs health – without any resolution since, on their own, it would be like comparing apples and oranges. Such atomistic comparisons do not allow for comparisons of different kinds of tradeoffs.
What we need, therefore, are indices: clusters of numbers, scoreboards, that measure (however approximately) progress in a key area according to various criteria. Our national data are already used in a range of indices by us and by international organisations.
The Press Freedom Index and the Global Competitiveness Index are just two examples. They bring together considerations that, on their own, might appear incommensurate (say, effectiveness of the police force and rate of innovation). They record overall progress (or regress), at a global level, as well as keep tabs on the finer details. We know that our recent improvement in competitiveness would be even more impressive if trust in the police and the judiciary were not falling.
So what kind of new indices do we need to evaluate the Budget of an affluent society? We are talking, essentially, about indices of the quality of life, which means benchmarking welfare, dignity and security in an economically and environmentally unstable world.
Therefore, a first index, to replace income alone, should be a variant of the Human Development Index. Alongside income, this would include (at the least) educational attainment (including last adult educational training taken), housing and access to online communication.
It would be a measure not just of current status but also of life chances on the labour market and social inclusion. It would enable us to have a finer-grained view of differences between generations, genders and ethnicities.
A second index would be for health, which has a communal, infrastructural and economic dimension. The index we adopt (or adapt) should embrace the World Health Organisation’s definition of ‘Healthy City’, which is measured by the continual improvements in physical and social environments.
This index would include, among other criteria, the extent of pedestrianised and cycling spaces, what percentage of food served in public institutions (from day-care centres to homes for the elderly) is organic, etc.
This is the index that would enable us to decide the value of the trade-offs between roads and green areas.
At the moment, we’re counting the trees, without apparently seeing that where the trees are, in town or on the other side of the island, makes a difference for residents.
Finally, we need an index to measure our resilience, just as banks have stress tests. Such an index would measure our vulnerabilities – to climate change, environmental degradation, depleted resources and overstressed infrastructure. It would also factor in our adaptability – thanks to our governance structures, institutional strength, technical capacity, planning systems and funding structures.
Once more, the arguments between government and Opposition will be anchored in objective criteria. We don’t have to make a fetish of numbers to see that some measurements allow for more adult debate.
I have no doubt that any index that already exists will need to be made suitable for a small island state. Reliable indices will take time to develop. But that’s only an argument for the public and private sectors, commercial and research institutions, to begin working on them immediately.