IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/soinre/v110y2013i1p31-54.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Resource-Infrastructure-Environment Index for Measuring Progress: An Application to Australia, Mexico and the US

Author

Listed:
  • Riccardo Natoli

    ()

  • Segu Zuhair

Abstract

The resource-infrastructure-environment (RIE) index was proposed as an alternative measure of progress which was then employed to: (1) compare the aggregate (single summary) index findings between Australia (mid-industrialised nation), Mexico (emerging economy), and the US (highly industrialised nation); and (2) compare the RIE index against the gross domestic product (GDP), human development index (HDI) and genuine savings (GS) measure. This paper builds on the previous work by assessing the seven themes and 21 dimensions which comprise the RIE index for the three aforementioned nations, as well as the associated policy implications. The results identified Australia’s strength in the human resource and infrastructure themes. For Mexico, strong contributions came from the natural and generated resource themes as well as the physical environment theme, while the US performed strongly in the infrastructure themes. The comparative results of the US and Mexico illustrated that it is possible to achieve high levels of progress without an excessive reliance on high levels of production and income. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2013

Suggested Citation

  • Riccardo Natoli & Segu Zuhair, 2013. "The Resource-Infrastructure-Environment Index for Measuring Progress: An Application to Australia, Mexico and the US," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 110(1), pages 31-54, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:soinre:v:110:y:2013:i:1:p:31-54 DOI: 10.1007/s11205-011-9914-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11205-011-9914-6
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Blanchflower, David G. & Oswald, Andrew J., 2004. "Well-being over time in Britain and the USA," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(7-8), pages 1359-1386, July.
    2. Frey, Bruno S & Stutzer, Alois, 2000. "Happiness, Economy and Institutions," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 110(466), pages 918-938, October.
    3. Oswald, Andrew J, 1997. "Happiness and Economic Performance," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 107(445), pages 1815-1831, November.
    4. Michela Nardo & Michaela Saisana & Andrea Saltelli & Stefano Tarantola & Anders Hoffman & Enrico Giovannini, 2005. "Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators: Methodology and User Guide," OECD Statistics Working Papers 2005/3, OECD Publishing.
    5. Riccardo Natoli & Segu Zuhair, 2010. "Establishing the RIE index: a review of the components critical to progress measurement," International Journal of Social Economics, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 37(8), pages 574-591, July.
    6. Easterlin, Richard A, 2001. "Income and Happiness: Towards an Unified Theory," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 111(473), pages 465-484, July.
    7. Maskell, Peter & Malmberg, Anders, 1999. "Localised Learning and Industrial Competitiveness," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(2), pages 167-185, March.
    8. Easterlin, Richard A., 1995. "Will raising the incomes of all increase the happiness of all?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 35-47, June.
    9. Mark McGillivray, 2005. "Measuring Non-Economic Well-Being Achievement," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 51(2), pages 337-364, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Measurement; Progress; Interdisciplinary; Weighting;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:soinre:v:110:y:2013:i:1:p:31-54. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla) or (Rebekah McClure). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.