Sez report

‘We see [today] a society and a Government whose primary objective is still the 
achievement of economic growth as conventionally understood and measured, with as 
much social justice and environmental protection as can be reconciled with that central 
goal. We envisage a society whose primary goal should be the wellbeing of society itself 
and of the planetary resources and environment that sustains us all, with economic 
objectives shaped to support that central goal rather than the other way around.’
Research shows that at any given level of income, a 20 per cent increase in wealth gives rise to only a 
2 per cent improvement in subjective life satisfaction. Indeed 
relative
income appears to be more 
important to us than 
absolute
income, as we compare ourselves to others and then actively consume as 
a way of addressing what philosopher Alain de Botton terms ‘status anxiety’. The extra monetary 
income needed to support increasing levels of consumption is won at the expense of activities more 
strongly correlated with wellbeing, such as time spent with one’s family, community activity, exercise 
and fulfilling leisure pursuits.
Such questions are not new to Conservatism. In 1757, Burke wrote in 
A Vindication of Natural 
Society 
that ’the great Error of our Nature is, not to know where to stop, not to be satisfied with any 
reasonable Acquirement; not to compound with our Condition; but to lose all we have gained by an 

---

21 
insatiable Pursuit after more.’ And in 1845 in 
Sybil, 
Disraeli observed that ‘Power has only one duty: 
to secure the social welfare of the people.’ 
David Cameron has signalled the crucial importance of work/life balance to wellbeing, and the need to 
tilt the balance back from ‘economy-friendly families to family-friendly economies’. He points to the 
irony that whilst modern society damages the environment in its desire continually to speed up and 
save time, people are often so busy saving time that they don’t get round to using it for the important 
things in life. Emphasising the deep satisfaction that comes from belonging to people and to place, he 
observes that if ‘so much of our modern globalised consumer culture ultimately seems unsatisfying 
then it is because it fails to satisfy this deep human need.’ Thus lifestyles become what Hayek called 
‘movement for movement’s sake’. From the slow food movement to the rise in ‘downshifting’, there is 
a growing thirst in society to slow things down, for the sake of our wellbeing.
We believe that growth and progress need to be redefined for a new century. ‘Growth’ should also 
encompass growth in the value and richness of society, of tolerance, diversity, and variety and of the 
strength and empowerment of family and community As a leading American economist, Herman 
Daly, has argued, economic growth is focused upon quantitative expansion and the notionally 
‘limitless transformation of natural capital into man-made capital’. Sustainable development, by 
contrast, is about 
qualitative 
improvement, promoting increased economic activity only insofar as it 
does not exceed the capacity of the eco-system. 
This is why higher standards of environmental protection should not be thought to entail a lower 
quality of life. Our central thesis is that quality of life in Britain can be improved for everyone, at the 
same time as radically reducing our impact on the global environment. Dealing with issues such as 
forest protection or reducing exposure to climate instability will cost money, but not at the expense of 
long-term prosperity. It is time to debunk the myth that we must choose between the environment and 
the economy. In truth there is no either/or between environmental protection, social stability and 
sustainable economic growth. The three can be achieved simultaneously – indeed, it is imperative that 
they are.
1.2.7. New measures 
The original architect of the concept of Gross National Product, Nobel Laureate Simon Kuznets, never 
intended it to be used as a measure of overall quality of life. In 1934, he urged the US Congress to 
remember that ‘the welfare of a nation can scarcely be inferred from a measurement of national 
income.’ David Cameron recently quoted Robert Kennedy, who said ‘GDP does not allow for the 
health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It does not include the 
beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the 
integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor 
our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, 
except that which makes life worthwhile.’ 
As well as being inadequate in itself to measure human wellbeing, GDP also, paradoxically, includes 
many economic activities that actually decrease it. Meeting the costs of cleaning up an oil spill, 
treating drug addiction or policing a crime wave will all add to a nation’s GDP. The Enron fraud in the 
USA has been calculated to have added upwards of $1bn to US GDP.
A future Conservative government should therefore utilise wider and broader measures of national 
progress. In this it would not be alone. In recent years, both the World Bank and the UN have begun 
initiatives to look beyond GDP. A number of countries around the world have begun to experiment 
with measures which incorporate environmental and human wellbeing issues into their definitions of 
national progress. Canada is tracking its ecosystem services and human capital by measuring GDP and 
the Consumer Price Index alongside forest cover, freshwater quality, air quality, greenhouse gas 

---

22 
emissions, extent of wetlands and educational attainment. Countries as varied as Australia, Bhutan, 
Thailand, and China are using an array of general wellbeing indicators such as the Index of Sustainable 
Economic Wellbeing (ISEW). 
In sustainability circles much is made of the ‘three pillars of sustainability’ and the fad of the ‘triple 
bottom line’ of environment, society, and economy. This is to confuse ends with means, objectives 
with tools. Environmental wellbeing and human wellbeing are two desirable endpoints. Economic 
wellbeing is a means to achieve those ends. Some of the things which make life most valuable cannot 
be expressed in monetary terms. What price clean drinking water, fresh air, access to countryside, 
tranquillity or a beautiful view? Just as we do not seek to calculate the value of different peoples’ lives 
in determining where to invest in health, so we cannot easily put a financial value on the enjoyment of 
29m annual visitors to the Peak District National Park. Some things, clearly, do not have a price. 
Nevertheless, many of the environmental goods and services of which we take advantage are currently 
not taken into consideration in conventional economic accounting. This leads to the degradation of the 
environment and often in a diminution of the welfare of our society as well – the two are intrinsically 
linked.
A measure of wellbeing that takes such environmental accounting into consideration needs to respect 
the four interdependent ‘securities’ of nature – energy security, water security, food security, and 
climate security. All overlap in complex ways. For example, if we put huge areas of fertile land over 
for production of biofuels to gain energy security or increase climate security, what will be the effects 
on food and water security? Failing to understand how these things mesh together ultimately damages 
us all. 
There are currently four broad groups of indicators of wellbeing being used or developed: 
x
physical quality of life indicator sets (such as the UK’s Sustainable Development 
Indicator set); 
x
composite quality of life and wellbeing measures (such as the UN’s Human 
Development Index); 
x
indicators of subjective wellbeing (such as the reported life-satisfaction indices derived 
from World Survey data); and 
x
adjusted measures of economic welfare (such as Nordhaus and Tobin’s Measure of 
Economic Welfare). 
Here in the UK, the HPI developed by the New Economics Foundation and Friends of the Earth, is an 
innovative new measure that shows the ‘ecological efficiency’ with which human wellbeing is 
delivered. It shows the relative efficiency with which nations convert the planet’s natural resources 
into long and happy lives for their citizens. The nations that score well show that achieving, long, 
happy lives without over-stretching the planet’s resources is possible. The HPI confirms that high 
levels of resource consumption do not reliably produce high levels of wellbeing, and that by contrast it 
is possible to produce high levels of wellbeing without excessive consumption of the Earth’s 
resources. The UK comes 108
th
out of 178 countries in the HPI – way ahead of the US (at 150) but 
also way behind Switzerland (65
th
), Italy (66
th
), Holland (70
th
) and many supposedly ‘less developed’ 
countries.
This Government has made some attempt to move towards a more realistic measure of genuine 
wellbeing. However, GDP-adjusted wellbeing measures seem to play little role in overall government 
policy and certainly no role in Treasury thinking. We are proposing that the Conservative Party makes 

---

23 
a simple reality out of what is now a confused side-issue and turn it into a measure of which we all 
take serious note. 
1.2.8. Greening growth