Is GDP a better indicator of well being than the capability approach
GDP is a measure of economic development. To determine a country's economic well-being, the
government must use GDP. The essay asserts that a capability approach is not superior to measures
of GDP or happiness. This argument is supported by looking at the concepts of GDP and the
capability approach. This argument is further supported by reviewing the abilities of both methods to
measure the wellbeing of people in a country.
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is a measure of economic development and measures the goods and
services produced in a country in a specific period. GDP is synonymous with national output,
national income, and national spending. GDP may be a suitable indicator of power (Stanton,
2007:10). However, GDP per capita is a much better measure of wellbeing. A country must have
resources to improve the welfare of its citizens. GDP per capita dominates the comparisons between
countries and assessments of changes in well-being. However, the connection between GDP and the
quality of life is not certain (Stanton, 2007:12). GDP per capita further shows resources available to
enhance welfare. Standard of living rises along with GDP growth. GDP is not an effective indication
of a society's standard of living since it does not account for leisure, environmental quality, levels of
health and education, activities performed outside the market, changes in income disparity, or the
value that society may place on particular forms of output. GDP simply only registers monetary
exchanges and consequently ignores freedom and human rights (Stanton, 2007:11). GDP does not
account for gender injustices, nor does it account for compensation to those who receive it. Thus, the
capability approach is a more illuminating theory that offers reasons we should promote certain
capabilities (Berges, 2007:23).
Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum created the capability approach. This method yields a more
exact response to problems such as how to assess the quality of life and which policies will be more
beneficial to human growth. The capacity approach investigates what may be a more correct
indicator of what persons are capable of (Berges, 2007:16). This method supplies an option to
measuring income, spending, or satisfaction (Gasper, 2007:335). Sen's approach arose from his
unhappiness with subjective states and control over resources as well-being indicators. It contrasts
well with perspectives that emphasize "subjective" successes and is superior to viewpoints that
emphasize equality (Gasper, 2007:337). Non-economic variables such as family relationships,
friendships, beliefs, meaningful activity, exercise, and health all have an impact on a country's well-
being. As a result, economic inputs do not always have a large direct influence on well-being
(Gasper, 2007:338).
GDP is a measure of economic development. To determine a country's economic well-being, the
government must use GDP. The essay asserts that a capability approach is not superior to measures
of GDP or happiness. This argument is supported by looking at the concepts of GDP and the
capability approach. This argument is further supported by reviewing the abilities of both methods to
measure the wellbeing of people in a country.
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is a measure of economic development and measures the goods and
services produced in a country in a specific period. GDP is synonymous with national output,
national income, and national spending. GDP may be a suitable indicator of power (Stanton,
2007:10). However, GDP per capita is a much better measure of wellbeing. A country must have
resources to improve the welfare of its citizens. GDP per capita dominates the comparisons between
countries and assessments of changes in well-being. However, the connection between GDP and the
quality of life is not certain (Stanton, 2007:12). GDP per capita further shows resources available to
enhance welfare. Standard of living rises along with GDP growth. GDP is not an effective indication
of a society's standard of living since it does not account for leisure, environmental quality, levels of
health and education, activities performed outside the market, changes in income disparity, or the
value that society may place on particular forms of output. GDP simply only registers monetary
exchanges and consequently ignores freedom and human rights (Stanton, 2007:11). GDP does not
account for gender injustices, nor does it account for compensation to those who receive it. Thus, the
capability approach is a more illuminating theory that offers reasons we should promote certain
capabilities (Berges, 2007:23).
Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum created the capability approach. This method yields a more
exact response to problems such as how to assess the quality of life and which policies will be more
beneficial to human growth. The capacity approach investigates what may be a more correct
indicator of what persons are capable of (Berges, 2007:16). This method supplies an option to
measuring income, spending, or satisfaction (Gasper, 2007:335). Sen's approach arose from his
unhappiness with subjective states and control over resources as well-being indicators. It contrasts
well with perspectives that emphasize "subjective" successes and is superior to viewpoints that
emphasize equality (Gasper, 2007:337). Non-economic variables such as family relationships,
friendships, beliefs, meaningful activity, exercise, and health all have an impact on a country's well-
being. As a result, economic inputs do not always have a large direct influence on well-being
(Gasper, 2007:338).
