## kimball

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [kimball](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/fandd/article/2021/december/ar/kimball.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/files/publications/fandd/article/2021/december/ar/kimball.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/publications/fandd/article/2021/december/ar/kimball.pdf.json)

---

### Overview and motivation
- GDP per capita (إجمــالي النــاتج المحلــي نصيب الفــرد) is commonly used to measure national prosperity but has notable shortcomings in reflecting citizens' well‑being, especially during crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic (examples: changes between الربــع الرابع 2019 and الربــع الثاني 2021 are discussed).
- The article argues for a complementary national well‑being measure that captures multiple dimensions of welfare beyond market transactions and prices.

### Limitations of GDP as a welfare measure
- GDP overlooks human costs of pandemics, social and emotional disruptions, unemployment, and divisions—factors not priced in markets.
- Because GDP relies on market transaction data, it ignores nonmarket aspects important for individuals (e.g., أوقات الفراغ، العلاقات بالأسرة والأصدقاء، الخبرات الوجدانية مثل القلق وإدراك الغاية).
- Prices do not reflect that a dollar spent by a poor household may raise national welfare more than the same dollar spent by a billionaire.

### Human Development Index (HDI) — structure and limits
- The HDI (مؤشر التنمية البشرية) integrates عدة جوانب الرفاهيــة into a single annual measure: "عيــش حيــاة مديــدة وصحيــة، واكتســاب المعرفــة، والمســتوى المعيشــي اللائــق" and uses the geometric mean of adjusted indicators for these three dimensions.
- Sen’s capabilities approach underpins the HDI, emphasizing individual capabilities and freedoms (Amartya Sen; Martha Nussbaum referenced).
- Practical concerns with HDI:
  - Single‑number indices require weighting of components (الأوزان الترجيحية).
  - Choice of dimensions and weights can be arbitrary; tradeoffs in policymaking require explicit indicators for alternatives.
  - Data limitations historically constrained HDI to dimensions readily available across countries (reason HDI emphasized العمر، التعليم، والدخل when created in 1990).

### Survey‑based national well‑being index: methodology and challenges
- Proposal: build a national welfare index from aggregated citizen responses in surveys that cover multiple welfare aspects (مسوح التقييم وأسئلة المفاضلات).
- Two question types used: تقييمات (rating questions, 0–100 scale) and مفاضلات (pairwise policy tradeoffs between hypothetical national policies).
- Weights (الأوزان الترجيحية) for welfare components should be derived from declared preferences revealed in tradeoff questions; these weights represent relative marginal utilities (المنافع الحدية النسبية).
- Key methodological points from the authors’ work (Benjamin, Heffetz, Kimball, Szembrot, 2014; Benjamin et al. 2017):
  - Use calibration (معايرة) questions to adjust for individual differences in scale use (some use the 0–100 scale fully, others use a narrower portion).
  - Allow weights to vary with demographic and economic factors (age, education, wealth), but exploit repeated patterns to estimate accurate weights without enormous sample sizes.
  - Account for inequality aversion: do not simply average individual welfare indicators; apply inequality‑aversion parameters (معاملات النفور من عدم المساواة) before aggregation so societal preferences over distributional concerns are reflected.

### Empirical survey findings (selected results)
- A large survey asked respondents to choose between hypothetical policies to elicit tradeoffs across welfare aspects; the survey included up to 136 جوانب in its comprehensive list, with published results for 136 جوانب (subset of 18 is noted).
- Statistical results summarized:
  - Three dimensions received the highest weights overall.
  - Many important welfare aspects align with the capabilities concept (Sen).
  - Many national welfare measures, including HDI, ignore a substantial number of important welfare aspects.
  - Many aspects that attract significant attention receive much lower weights than top‑ranked items; example: "عدم الشعور بالقلق" is one of four aspects collected by the UK Office for National Statistics but receives a weight much less than a quarter of the top‑ranked aspect’s weight.
  - For HDI‑related components: "صحــة المواطنيــن" and "الأمان المالي للمواطنيــن" receive about ثلاثة أربــاع the weight of the top‑ranked aspect; "المعرفــة والمهــارات وتوافــر المعلومات، وفهم العالم المحيط، وطول العمر" receive about 5٤% of the top weight (as presented).

- Survey‑derived weighting table (selected items and exact reported weights; top item normalized so weight = 1):
  - التحــرر من الفســاد والظلــم وســوء اســتغلال الســلطة في بلــدك — 1.00
  - توافر العديد من الخيارات والإمكانات في حياة الفرد وحرية الاختيار فيما بينها — 0.90
  - المواطنون صالحون وعلى خلق ويعيشون حياتهم وفق قيمهم الشخصية — 0.90
  - شعور الفرد بقدرتــه على إحــداث فــارق في حيــاة الآخريــن... — 0.82
  - عدم تعرض الفرد للكذب أو الخداع أو الخيانة — 0.77
  - المجتمع يساعد الفقراء وغيرهم ممن يتعرضون للمعاناة — 0.77
  - صحة الفرد — 0.74
  - حرية التعبير وقدرة الفرد على المشاركة في العملية السياسية والحياة المجتمعية — 0.74
  - الأمان المالي للفرد — 0.72
  - مدى شعور الفرد بقيمة مختلف الأدوار التي يؤديها في الحياة — 0.62
  - مدى شعور الفرد بالسعادة — 0.59
  - حالة الحيوانات والطبيعة والبيئة في العالم — 0.56
  - معرفة الفرد ومهاراته وقدرته على الوصول إلى المعلومات — 0.54
  - فرصة الفرد في عيش حياة مديدة — 0.49
  - مدى رضا الفرد عن حياته — 0.46
  - متوسط دخل الفرد في بلدك — 0.44
  - شعور الفرد بقدرته على فهم العالم والأحداث المحيطة به — 0.38
  - عدم الشعور بالقلق — 0.23

### Policy implications and recommendations
- Complement GDP with a well‑constructed national welfare index that:
  - Incorporates multiple dimensions of welfare grounded in capabilities theory.
  - Derives component weights from citizens’ revealed tradeoffs (declared preferences) rather than arbitrary choices.
  - Uses calibration to adjust for individual differences in reporting scales.
  - Applies inequality‑aversion transformations before aggregating individual welfare indicators to reflect societal preferences over distribution.
- Invest in timely, low‑cost, repeatable surveys to overcome data lags (noting HDI data availability lags—we still lack HDI performance measures during the pandemic because latest data cited reach 2019).
- Recognize "what is measured matters": selecting and correctly weighting indicators will influence policy priorities and resource allocation.
- Policy note (Arabic): على صناع السياسات والعاملين في مجال التنمية تحري الدقة في اختيار المقاييس التي تخضع لمراقبتهم.

*Source: kimball - Section 1 (PDF).*

### Section 1

### kimball - Section 1

### Overview and motivation
- GDP per capita (إجمــالي النــاتج المحلــي نصيب الفــرد) is commonly used to measure national prosperity but has notable shortcomings in reflecting citizens' well-being, especially during crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic (examples: changes between الربــع الرابع 2019 and الربــع الثاني 2021 are discussed).
- The article argues for a complementary national well‑being measure that captures multiple dimensions of welfare beyond market transactions and prices.

### Limitations of GDP as a welfare measure
- GDP overlooks human costs of pandemics, social and emotional disruptions, unemployment, and divisions—factors not priced in markets.
- Because GDP relies on market transaction data, it ignores nonmarket aspects important for individuals (e.g., أوقات الفراغ، العلاقات بالأسرة والأصدقاء، الخبرات الوجدانية مثل القلق وإدراك الغاية).
- Prices do not reflect that a dollar spent by a poor household may raise national welfare more than the same dollar spent by a billionaire.

### Human Development Index (HDI) — structure and limits
- The HDI (مؤشر التنمية البشرية) integrates عدة جوانب الرفاهيــة into a single annual measure: "عيــش حيــاة مديــدة وصحيــة، واكتســاب المعرفــة، والمســتوى المعيشــي اللائــق" and uses the geometric mean of adjusted indicators for these three dimensions.
- Sen’s capabilities approach underpins the HDI, emphasizing individual capabilities and freedoms (Amartya Sen; Martha Nussbaum referenced).
- Practical concerns with HDI:
  - Single‑number indices require weighting of components (الأوزان الترجيحية).
  - Choice of dimensions and weights can be arbitrary; tradeoffs in policymaking require explicit indicators for alternatives.
  - Data limitations historically constrained HDI to dimensions readily available across countries (reason HDI emphasized العمر، التعليم، والدخل when created in 1990).

### Survey‑based national well‑being index: methodology and challenges
- Proposal: build a national welfare index from aggregated citizen responses in surveys that cover multiple welfare aspects (مسوح التقييم وأسئلة المفاضلات).
- Two question types used: تقييمات (rating questions, 0–100 scale) and مفاضلات (pairwise policy tradeoffs between hypothetical national policies).
- Weights (الأوزان الترجيحية) for welfare components should be derived from declared preferences revealed in tradeoff questions; these weights represent relative marginal utilities (المنافع الحدية النسبية).
- Key methodological points from the authors’ work (Benjamin, Heffetz, Kimball, Szembrot, 2014; Benjamin et al. 2017):
  - Use calibration (معايرة) questions to adjust for individual differences in scale use (some use the 0–100 scale fully, others use a narrower portion).
  - Allow weights to vary with demographic and economic factors (age, education, wealth), but exploit repeated patterns to estimate accurate weights without enormous sample sizes.
  - Account for inequality aversion: do not simply average individual welfare indicators; apply inequality‑aversion parameters (معاملات النفور من عدم المساواة) before aggregation so societal preferences over distributional concerns are reflected.

### Empirical survey findings (selected results)
- A large survey asked respondents to choose between hypothetical policies to elicit tradeoffs across welfare aspects; the survey included up to 136 جوانب in its comprehensive list, with published results for 136 جوانب (subset of 18 is noted).
- Statistical results summarized:
  - Three dimensions received the highest weights overall.
  - Many important welfare aspects align with the capabilities concept (Sen).
  - Many national welfare measures, including HDI, ignore a substantial number of important welfare aspects.
  - Many aspects that attract significant attention receive much lower weights than top‑ranked items; example: "عدم الشعور بالقلق" is one of four aspects collected by the UK Office for National Statistics but receives a weight much less than a quarter of the top‑ranked aspect’s weight.
  - For HDI‑related components: "صحــة المواطنيــن" and "الأمان المالي للمواطنيــن" receive about ثلاثة أربــاع the weight of the top‑ranked aspect; "المعرفــة والمهــارات وتوافــر المعلومات، وفهم العالم المحيط، وطول العمر" receive about 5٤% of the top weight (as presented).
- Survey‑derived weighting table (selected items and exact reported weights from the study):
  - التحــرر من الفســاد والظلــم وســوء اســتغلال الســلطة في بلــدك — 1.00 (weight adjusted so رأس القائمــة = 1)
  - توافر العديد من الخيارات والإمكانات في حياة الفرد وحرية الاختيار فيما بينها — 0.90
  - المواطنون صالحون وعلى خلق ويعيشون حياتهم وفق قيمهم الشخصية — 0.90
  - شعور الفرد بقدرتــه على إحــداث فــارق في حيــاة الآخريــن... — 0.82
  - عدم تعرض الفرد للكذب أو الخداع أو الخيانة — 0.77
  - المجتمع يساعد الفقراء وغيرهم ممن يتعرضون للمعاناة — 0.77
  - صحة الفرد — 0.74
  - حرية التعبير وقدرة الفرد على المشاركة في العملية السياسية والحياة المجتمعية — 0.74
  - الأمان المالي للفرد — 0.72
  - مدى شعور الفرد بقيمة مختلف الأدوار التي يؤديها في الحياة — 0.62
  - مدى شعور الفرد بالسعادة — 0.59
  - حالة الحيوانات والطبيعة والبيئة في العالم — 0.56
  - معرفة الفرد ومهاراته وقدرته على الوصول إلى المعلومات — 0.54
  - فرصة الفرد في عيش حياة مديدة — 0.49
  - مدى رضا الفرد عن حياته — 0.46
  - متوسط دخل الفرد في بلدك — 0.44
  - شعور الفرد بقدرته على فهم العالم والأحداث المحيطة به — 0.38
  - عدم الشعور بالقلق — 0.23
- Source of weights: Benjamin, Heffetz, Kimball, and Szembrot (2014) — weights derived from survey‑based declared preferences; the top list item normalized so its weight = 1.

### Policy implications and recommendations
- Complement GDP with a well‑constructed national welfare index that:
  - Incorporates multiple dimensions of welfare grounded in capabilities theory.
  - Derives component weights from citizens’ revealed tradeoffs (declared preferences) rather than arbitrary choices.
  - Uses calibration to adjust for individual differences in reporting scales.
  - Applies inequality‑aversion transformations before aggregating individual welfare indicators to reflect societal preferences over distribution.
- Invest in timely, low‑cost, repeatable surveys to overcome data lags (noting HDI data availability lags—we still lack HDI performance measures during the pandemic because latest data cited reach 2019).
- Recognize "what is measured matters": selecting and correctly weighting indicators will influence policy priorities and resource allocation.

*Source: kimball - Section 1 (PDF).*

### Section 2

### kimball - Section 2

### References
- Kimball, and Nichole Szembrot. 2014. 
“Beyond Happiness and Satisfaction: Toward Well-Being Indices Based on Stated 
Preference.” American Economic Review 104 (9): 2698–735.
- Fleurbaey, Marc, and Didier Blanchet. 2013. Beyond GDP: Measuring Welfare and 
Assessing Sustainability. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
- Nussbaum, Martha. 2011. Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach. 
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Sen, Amartya. 1985. Commodities and Capabilities. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

### Policy note (Arabic)
- على صناع السياسات والعاملين في مجال التنمية تحري 
الدقة في اختيار المقاييس التي تخضع لمراقبتهم.

*Content from kimball - Section 2*

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/fandd/article/2021/december/ar/kimball.pdf_