> I notice that you do not mention the Margaret Waring's even more
> fundamental criticism of economic statistics (particularly
> GDP and GNP)
> that they don't place any value on Women's unpaid work!
A curious assertion. This particular 'fundamental criticism' of economic
statistics has been taught in first and second year economics courses for
many decades. The standard story, that I think comes from Pigou's writings
of the 1920s, used to illustrate the point was that when the professor
married his housekeeper national income thereby went down. The current
story may well be that the wife divorces the professor. National income
increases both because the wife takes paid employment, and because the
professor now has to pay for the domestic services formerly provided by his
wife.
But the important point is the proposed defining statement for radstats does
nothing to attract the interest of those generations of economists who are
perfectly familiar with this particular feature of economic statistics.
'Campaigns for progressive change', and 'progressive planning' are just not
phrases that are meaningful to most economists.
Current criticisms of economic statistics are much more wide ranging. I'm
very impressed by what I have read so far in an Australian book - Eckersley
(ed) (1998) 'Measuring Progress - Is Life Getting Better?', CSIRO Publishing
(website at <http://www.publish.csiro.au>). This seems to be the most
comprehensive attempt yet to assess economic statistics. (NB Radical
Statistics editors. Can we get a copy for review in the journal?)
The section on defining progress in the book starts by saying 'For all its
powerful and positive aura, the meaning of progress is strangely empty,
neither scientifically or semantically self-evident. .. What meaning it has
depends entirely on how we define the destinatation.` and goes on to say
'..for 150 years there has been a political struggle to to capture the
meaning of progress, to become its prophet and interpreter, and to link it
it paticular national and sectional interests.'
So can those who favour the repetitious use of the weasel word `progress` in
the proposed defining statement please say what they mean?? Progressive
to what?
I`d favour progressive to 'a more free, democratic, and egalitarian society'
- as stated inside the cover of Radical Statistics. That is what people
have actually signed up to. Not 'progressive change' or 'progressive
planning'. And the cover statement (that goes back at least to 1983 in the
Radstats annals) does not need the weasel-word `progress`.
Ray Thomas, Social Sciences, Open University
Tel: 01908 679081 Fax 01908 550401
Email: [log in to unmask]
35 Passmore, Milton Keynes MK6 3DY
******************************************************
Please think before you press the 'Reply' button! Note that if you press
the 'Reply' button your message will go the individual who posted this message
not to the list. With many mailers you will have a 'Reply-to-All' button that
will send automatically to the list address of <[log in to unmask]>. The
Radstats list is set up for public discussion so please be generous with your
thoughts and share them us all.
*******************************************************
|