Preview

Moscow University Economics Bulletin

Advanced search

Criticism of macroeconomic indicators of welfare and its alternative assessments

https://doi.org/10.55959/MSU0130-0105-6-60-1-2

Abstract

This article criticizes the macroeconomic indicators traditionally used to assess social and individual welfare and aims to identify indicators that can more fully and reliably measure not only objective but also subjective well-being. It was found that the impact of GDP on social welfare is controversial. This research demonstrates the weak points of monetary macroeconomic indicators that measure material well-being but do not provide information about the quality of people’s life or how individuals assess their well-being and quality of life. The inability of current indicators to fully reflect and assess ongoing economic and social changes is revealed in this paper. While human needs are increasing, levels of well-being and life satisfaction depend on nonmonetary factors, such as free time and greater opportunities for personal development. The methodology of the study is based on the economic theory of happiness. The conceptual approaches to the definitions of subjective well-being, happiness, and life satisfaction as well as possibilities of using subjective assessments of welfare are summarized in this article. A complex quality-of-life satisfaction index is proposed, including seven categories reflecting the objective aspects of the quality of life (material well-being, health, social connections, education, safe environment, work-life balance, ecology), and subjective assessments of life satisfaction. The index is estimated as the geometric mean of eight normalized variables. Estimates of the index for Russia based on official statistics and the RLMS-HSE for 2015–2022. Its dynamic showed an increase in the well-being of the population from 2015 to 2021 and a decrease in 2022

About the Authors

O. N. Antipina
Lomonosov Moscow State University
Russian Federation

Moscow 



N. A. Miklashevskaya
Lomonosov Moscow State University
Russian Federation

Moscow 



E. A. Orlova
Lomonosov Moscow State University
Russian Federation

Moscow 



References

1. Antipina, O. N. (2000). The Riddle of the "New Knowledge Economy" (the "Solow Paradox"). Moscow University Economics Bulletin, 6, 3–17.

2. Antipina, O.N. (2012). Economics of Happiness as an Academic Research Discipline. Voprosy Ekonomiki, 2, 94-107. https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2012-2-94-107

3. Coyle, D. (2016). GDP: A brief but Affectionate History. Translated from English. Izdatel'skij Dom Vysshej shkoly jekonomiki.

4. Decree on the national development goals of the Russian Federation for the period up to 2030 and in the perspective up to 2036. May 7, 2024. http://www.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/73986

5. Development of digital economy measuring. International trends and guidance. (2022). Analytical Report. Moscow.

6. Divik, N. H. (2024). Gender gap in labor income in OECD countries in 2022. Statista, from https://www.statista.com/statistics/934039/gender-pay-gap-select-countries/

7. Drobot, Е. V. & Makarov, I. N. (2021). Valuation of factors and stressors of the shadow economy: global experience. Tenevaya economica, 5 (1), 53–77.

8. Kozlov, А. (2023). Real income in OECD countries has recovered to 2021 levels. Vedomosti, August, 14, from https://www.vedomosti.ru/economics/articles/2023/08/14/989885-realnie-dohodi-v-stranah-oesr-vosstanovilis.

9. List of countries by GDP per capita. Date of inquiry 17.07.2024 In Wikipedia. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki.

10. Porohovsky, А. А. (2019). Digitalization and the productivity of labour. USA & Canada. Economy-Politics-Culturure, 8, 5–24. https://doi.org/

11. 31857/S032120680005964-4.

12. Rodionova, L.A. (2014). Easterlin paradox in Russia. Izvestiya of Saratov University. New Series. Series: Economics. Management. Law, 14(2-2), 386-393.

13. Romanets, I. G.Р & Verbovsky, G. D. (2021). Gig-economy as a new form of market relations. Innovacionnaja jekonomika: perspektivy razvitija i sovershenstvovanija, 1, 186–191. https://doi.org/10.47581/2021/FA-07/IE/51/01.029.

14. Roshchin, S. Y. & Emelina, N. К. (2022). Meta-analysis of the gender gap in salaries in Russia. Economic journal of High School of Economics, 26 (2), 213–235. https://doi.org/ 10.17323/1813-8691-2022-26-2-213-239

15. Stiglitz, J.E., Sen, A. & Fitoussi, J.-P. (2015). Mismeasuring our Lives: Why GDP doesn't Add Up: The Report. Gaidar Institute.

16. Trofimov, P. (2020). Shadow economy in EU countries. Mezhdunarodnyj aspekt, 1(2), 8–28.

17. Tumanyants, K., Arzhenovskiy, S., Arkova, O., Monastyryov, M. & Pichulina, I. (2023). Inequality and Economic Growth in Russia: Econometric Analysis. Russian Journal of Money and Finance, 82(2), pp. 52–77.

18. Vladimirova, N. (2022, August 11). What is gig-economy and how it works, from https://psblog.ru/chto-takoe-gig-ekonomika-i-kak-ona-rabotaet

19. Urbanisation as a negative trend in the society’s development. (2019, October, 15), from https://rsw-systems.com/news/urbanization-linear-city?lang=ru#:~:text

20. W WSchJe ozenili rasmer crednego klacca w Roccii w 2022 godu. (2023). RBK, 26, December, from https://www.rbc.ru/economics/26/12/2023/6585371b9a7947be054dabd4


Supplementary files

Review

For citations:


Antipina O.N., Miklashevskaya N.A., Orlova E.A. Criticism of macroeconomic indicators of welfare and its alternative assessments. Moscow University Economics Bulletin. 2025;(1):19-39. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.55959/MSU0130-0105-6-60-1-2

Views: 103


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 0130-0105 (Print)