Mr. Living in Peru Michael Green: How we can make the world a better place by 20301 Comments by: Enrique Woll Battistini Uses and Limitations of Michael Greene’s Social Progress Index (CPI) for Development © Enrique Woll Battistini 2015 The Social Progress Index (SPI), to the extent that it would be a national average of the self-assessed index of satisfaction with personal well being by the man on the street, by people at large, a happiness index as it were, and really not a progress index but a status index, as its indicators would reflect states of personal wealth at points in time, would be highly achievable provided the goals for improvement were reasonable over time. GDP on the other hand is a national economic production index, not of wealth, and as such cannot be easily compared to the SPI, but rather with the change in SPI year to year, as SPI would greatly depend on, well, national wealth. There is a link between the GDP and the SPI to the extent that GDP reflects the value of consumption, grossly defined, as not all that is produced is consumed and not all that is consumed is produced locally. Moreover, this link or relationship depends on the level of utility derived from the consumption of goods and services that are locally produced and imported, and on the level of utility derived from local investment both domestic and FDI, where uitlity is defined as equivalent to satisfaction. The more utility derived from consumption and local investment, the greater the satisfaction and the greater the SPI, regardless of GDP. To the extent that satisfaction with personal well being regarding any specific issue is qualitative, at a personal level, it is subjective, and the SPI more loosely linked to the specific GDP, which is quantitative, with the nature of consumption and local investment being far more relevant to SPI than the specific GDP attained. Thus the SPI goal is more achievable than the GDP goal, though the greater the GDP, all else being equal, the greater the SPI will be. But, the notion that the fraction of humanity living in Poverty will be only 12% by year end 2015 is preposterous, and even if it were true, it would not suffice. Why? Because that indicator is likely based on the Leaders-of-The-World's (World Bank and the International Monetary Fund) statement in Lima, Peru, that the benchmark for escaping Poverty is USD 4 per person per day! Would you NOT consider yourself poor if your daily consumption level were four (4) dollars per day? I am relatively poor, and I spend USD 16 on a round trip taxi ride across town in Lima to lunch with an old aunt. If thePoverty indicator used in the Global 1 http://www.peruthisweek.com/blogs-michael-green-how-we-can-make-the- world-better-place-by-2030-107911? fb_action_ids=10206599709245179&fb_action_types=og.comments Goal for 2030 were the SPI, a new concept of Poverty would be introduced, different from wealth-based or consumption and investment-based indexes, but aligned with average national self-assessed satisfaction with personal well being. Useful? Yes, very. But it leaves out Direct consideration of the all-important concept of Relative Poverty, relative to the status of others that is, whether of domestic groups or foregn groups, as no comparison of Relative satisfaction stemming from consumption or local investment, let alone of wealth, is made. The importance of the concept of Relative Poverty can easily be grasped if one considers that it has been, and will likely always be, the Main Common Factor in the Origin of Wars. This consideration leads to the inescapable truth of the need the wealthy have, and that wealthy countries have, to invest in Comprehensive Global Development, and the advantages of doing so: Peace and Prosperity for all. SPI, however defined, and wherever determined, and the people it would apply to, will always benefit from Comprehensive Global Development, which would require an articulation of Private and Public institutions having or capable of having a positive impact on such Development. In The Americas, such positive impact would be had by implementing systems in the spirit of “A Partnership for Development with the United States of America”2 (Sociedad para el Desarrollo con los Estados Unidos de América). *** 2https://www.academia.edu/12823841/Mathematical_Model_and_Simulation_for_A_Partne rship_for_Development_with_the_United_States_of_America_-_December_1999 

Mr. Living in Peru Michael Green: How we can make the world a better place by 20301 Comments by: Enrique Woll Battistini Uses and Limitations of Michael Greene’s Social Progress Index (CPI) for Development © Enrique Woll Battistini 2015 If happiness, which I understand as the ultímate goal of social progress, were equivalent to personal well being, and personal well being were equivalent to personal wealth, and personal wealth were equivalent to social status, the Social Progress Index (SPI) would be highly relevant to the pursuit of social progress, provided it would measure changes in social status over time, which it does not. Were it thus, social progress would be achievable in terms of the SPI provided the goals for improvement were reasonable over time. All this, to the extent that the SPI were indeed a national average of the self-assessed index of satisfaction with personal well being by the man on the street, by people at large, a happiness index as it were, as the SPI indicators would seem to reflect states of personal wealth, but only at specific points in time. GDP on the other hand is a national economic production index, not of wealth, and as such cannot be easily compared to the SPI, but rather with the change in SPI year to year, as SPI would greatly depend on, well, national wealth. There is a link between the GDP and the SPI to the extent that GDP reflects the value of consumption, grossly defined, as not all that is produced is consumed and not all that is consumed is produced locally. Moreover, this link or relationship depends on the level of utility derived from the consumption of goods and services that are locally produced and imported, and on the level of utility derived from local investment both domestic and FDI, where uitlity is defined as equivalent to satisfaction. The more utility derived from consumption and local investment, the greater the satisfaction and the greater the SPI, regardless of GDP. To the extent that satisfaction with personal well being regarding any specific issue is qualitative, at a personal level, it is subjective, and the SPI more loosely linked to the specific GDP, which is quantitative, with the nature of consumption and local investment being far more relevant to SPI than the specific GDP attained. Thus the SPI goal is more achievable than the GDP goal, though the greater the GDP, all else being equal, the greater the SPI will be. 1 http://www.peruthisweek.com/blogs-michael-green-how-we-can-make-the- world-better-place-by-2030-107911? fb_action_ids=10206599709245179&fb_action_types=og.comments But, the notion that the fraction of humanity living in Poverty will be only 12% by year end 2015 is preposterous, and even if it were true, it would not suffice. Why? Because that indicator is likely based on the Leaders-of-The-World's (World Bank and the International Monetary Fund) statement in Lima, Peru, that the benchmark for escaping Poverty is USD 4 per person per day! Would you NOT consider yourself poor if your daily consumption level were four (4) dollars per day? I am relatively poor, and I spend USD 16 on a round trip taxi ride across town in Lima to lunch with an old aunt. If thePoverty indicator used in the Global Goal for 2030 were the SPI, a new concept of Poverty would be introduced, different from wealth-based or consumption and investment-based indexes, but aligned with average national self-assessed satisfaction with personal well being. Useful? Yes, very. But it leaves out Direct consideration of the all-important concept of Relative Poverty, relative to the wealth of others that is, whether of domestic groups or foregn groups, as no comparison of Relative satisfaction stemming from consumption or local investment, let alone of wealth, is made. The importance of the concept of Relative Poverty can easily be grasped if one considers that it has been, and will likely always be, the Main Common Factor in the Origin of Wars. This consideration leads to the inescapable truth of the need the wealthy have, and that wealthy countries have, to invest in Comprehensive Global Development, and the advantages of doing so: Peace and Prosperity for all. SPI, however defined, and wherever determined, and the people it would apply to, will always benefit from Comprehensive Global Development, which would require an articulation of Private and Public institutions having or capable of having a positive impact on such Development. In The Americas, such positive impact would be had by implementing systems in the spirit of “A Partnership for Development with the United States of America”2 (Sociedad para el Desarrollo con los Estados Unidos de América). *** 2https://www.academia.edu/12823841/Mathematical_Model_and_Simulation_for_A_Partne rship_for_Development_with_the_United_States_of_America_-_December_1999