Measuring Progress:

The Sustainable
Progress Index 2019

Sustainable
Progress Index

2019
This report is written by:
Prof. Charles M.A. Clark, St. John’s University, New York
Dr. Catherine Kavanagh, University College Cork
 Sustainable
Progress Index

2019

Measuring Progress:
The Sustainable
Progress Index 2019
This report is written by:

Prof. Charles M.A. Clark, St. John’s University, New York

Dr. Catherine Kavanagh, University College Cork

This Report was

undertaken for Social
Justice Ireland
First Published February 2019

Published by
Social Justice Ireland
Arena House
Arena Road
Sandyford
Dublin D18 V8P6
Ireland

www.socialjustice.ie

Tel: 01- 2130724

e-mail: secretary@socialjustice.ie

This work is part-funded by the European Commission’s DEAR project

‘Make Europe Sustainable For All.

The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of Social

Justice Ireland and can under no circumstances be taken as reflecting
This project is funded by
the European Union
the position of the European Union.

The work is partly supported by the Irish Department of Rural and

Community Development via the Scheme to Support National
Organisations and Pobal.

This study was made possible, in part, by support from the Society of
African Missions as part of its ongoing work on sustainability.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2. The What and Why of Economic Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

3. The Economist’s Model of Economic Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

3.1. A Broader View of Capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2. Growth and Outcomes in 21st Century Capitalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.3. The ‘Growth Mentality’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

4. Is there a Better Way? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

5. The Sustainable Progress Index 2019 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

5.1 Data Selection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.2 Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.3 The Economy Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
5.4 The Society Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
5.5 The Environment Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5.6 How Are We Doing Overall? - The Sustainable Development Index . . . . . . . 43

6. Conclusions and Future Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

8. Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
1
Introduction
A decade after the financial crisis of 2008 and subsequent Great Recession, the Irish economy
is approaching the pre-crisis level of 5% unemployment, which some regard as the full
employment level.1 In the third quarter of 2018, the number of people employed reached 2.27
million, almost equivalent to the peak reached in 2007. Having a paid job is how most adults
receive an income so that they can meet their material needs. The recent boost to employment
raises several interesting questions. Are we witnessing a return to the pre-crisis period? Or is
Ireland one shock away from another depression and high unemployment? Is full employment
enough to allow all Irish citizens to participate in the economy and society? Is full employment
sufficient for a just and fair society, or is it necessary but not sufficient? And if it is necessary,
is it also possible to have full employment as the norm, and not the exception to the norm?
Since 1983, Ireland has had full employment (5% or less) approx. only 22% of that time period.
When Ireland was last at full employment, the ‘at risk of poverty rate’ was over 14%. Should an
individual’s ability to live a decent life be determined by such changeable variables?

Economic growth is the primary way a society promotes high employment levels. Growth is
also the primary determinant of a country’s standard of living. It can provide the revenue which
can be used to achieve other goals. Economists will argue that any challenge - from poverty,
inequality and crime to climate change and international tensions – is caused in the main by
lack of economic growth. And more growth is the solution. In the economists’ world, almost
every challenge is a nail, and economic growth is the hammer. Yet many rich countries still have
high poverty rates, homelessness, inadequate housing, and communities where economic and

1
There is no official definition of full employment. At one end of the spectrum is the Keynesian view that full
employment is when job openings equal or exceed the number of people looking for a job (no cyclical
unemployment). At the other end of the spectrum are proponents of the concept of the ‘natural rate’ of
unemployment - the rate at which any reduction in unemployment will cause inflation. It is worth noting that
there is no evidence to support that there is a natural rate – a point that even Milton Friedman acknowledged.
We use the general ‘rule of thumb’ of a 5% unemployment rate corresponding to full employment.

5
 social well-being mirror that of the developing world. There are many problems that higher
GDP per capita does not appear to solve.

It is interesting to note that Harvard economist, Benjamin M. Friedman, has made a moral
case for economic growth. While noting the material benefits of economic growth, Friedman
suggests the urgency of these benefits eventually declines as a country reaches a certain
minimum standard of living:

“[t]he tangible improvements in the basics of life that make economic growth
so important whenever living standards are low- greater life expectancy, fewer
diseases, less infant mortality and malnutrition- have mostly played out long
before a country’s per capita income reaches the levels enjoyed in today’s advanced
industrialized economies. Americans are no healthier than Koreans or Portuguese,
for example, and we live no longer, despite an average income more than twice
what they have” (Friedman, 2005, p. 3).

Once a country has reached a certain level of income where it can afford to provide the basic
needs for all, it is no longer a question of ‘can we give all citizens adequate food, clothing and
healthcare’ but rather ‘do we have the political will to provide a decent standard of living for all’.
Friedman argues that economic growth is necessary for the conditions which will allow that
political will: “[e]conomic growth - meaning a rising standard of living for the clear majority
of citizens - more often than not fosters greater opportunity, tolerance of diversity, social
mobility, commitment to fairness, and dedication to democracy” (Ibid., p. 4). However, the
Irish experience with a high GDP per capita and high growth rates has not resulted in the level
of social protection and social supports that builds an inclusive society.

In earlier reports (Clark and Kavanagh, 1996; 2015; and 2017), we explored some of the problems
with the way economic activity, and economic growth, are measured. Although our arguments
were mostly outside of the mainstream of economic discourse in 1996, it is now widely accepted
that there are problems with measuring activity (SDSN, OECD, World Bank, EU, UN). For
example, even the manual that countries use to develop their national accounting systems -
the United Nations’ System of National Accounts update for 2008 - includes a list of reasons
why Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is an inadequate measure of social well-being (see Clark,
Kavanagh and Lenihan, 2018a, p. 11-12)2. The emphasis in this report is different - we focus
more on economic growth as a model of development rather than how it is measured.

2
See also: Reynolds, B. and S. Healy, (eds) (2009) Beyond GDP: What is prosperity and how should it be
measured?. Dublin: Social Justice Ireland.

6
While affluence affords the resources to address social, environmental and political concerns, the
evidence suggests that it is not enough. Some of the measures used to pursue economic growth
(policies and values) are often barriers to social progress and environmental sustainability.
Increasingly, policy analysts and international agencies are promoting a more direct approach
to address these issues rather than pursuing the old strategy of economic growth with the hope
that the benefits will trickle down to eradicate poverty, protect the environment and promote
social exclusion. It seems obvious that the rising tide has not lifted all boats. A rising tide
does not provide everyone with a boat (the foundation upon which to participate in society),
or repair the damage to some boats caused by social and economic exclusion. An important
message we should learn from the financial crisis and the Great Recession is that often a rising
tide is a tidal wave of artificially inflated economic growth (financial bubbles) that can drown
many individuals and communities. Further, in the era of climate change, the rising tide created
by affluence has led to higher sea levels, warmer ocean temperatures, stronger storms and other
more extreme weather patterns, and polluted waters that threaten the liveability of the planet in
many areas. Maybe, unlike Chief Brody in Jaws, we do not need a bigger boat! Maybe we need
a new social contract built for the realities of a 21st century economy.

Our primary argument is that such a narrow way of thinking about economic growth leads
to policies that only promote one aspect of what can be called sustainable social progress,
and either ignores or harms other aspects. We are not arguing against prosperity. Rather, we
are arguing for a view of prosperity that is inclusive of all and is socially and environmentally
sustainable. Driving up GDP leads to a false prosperity; temporary in its benefits, lasting in
its costs. According to the OECD, Ireland was 0.3% below its potential output in 2017, (some
commentators would argue this is near full employment). Yet Ireland still has 18.7% of its
children at-risk of poverty3 and a very visible homelessness problem (just two of the pressing
social problems). Focusing on GDP as a measure of social progress provides a very narrow view
of Ireland’s potential. Rather than try to indirectly improve social and environmental outcomes,
we recommend addressing them directly. We believe Ireland can do better. But different goals
require different ways of measuring progress towards those goals.

3
CSO (2017), Survey on Income and Living Conditions, 2017, Table 3.1.

7
2
The What and Why
of Economic Growth
The story of economic growth typically starts in the early 17th century with the Age of Exploration.
While there were periods of economic progress before then, they were always followed by
significant periods of decline (often caused by wars, plagues, or bad weather). The long march
to affluence began with profits from piracy (stealing gold) and the slave trade being reinvested
into expanded ship building and stronger navies, so more foreign lands could be conquered,
resources plundered, and the slave trade expanded further. Colonialism/mercantilism was the
main economic growth strategy and it was very successful, at least for kings and merchants.

Adam Smith changed how we think about economic progress. He argued that economic
growth is about increasing the output of goods and services that average people consume. In
the introduction to The Wealth of Nations (1976b, p. 10), Smith states that the standard of
living (ratio of total output to population) “must in every nation be regulated by two different
circumstances; first by the skill, dexterity, and judgement with which its labour is generally
applied; and, secondly, by the proportion between the number of those who are employed in
useful labour, and that of those who are not so employed.” While governments continued to
practice mercantilist policies, market forces forced technological progress on producers, leading
to the Industrial Revolution and increases in output that were previously unimaginable.

The first of Smith’s two circumstances is determined by the division of labour4. It is worth noting
that beside the benefits of increased output, Smith argued the division of labour can also have

4
Although the benefits of the division of labour was not a new insight (Plato had also written about it), Smith
linked it to a natural propensity to “truck, barter and exchange” (Ibid., p.25) and demonstrated that it is
regulated by market forces. In particular, it is limited by the extent of the market, so that expanding the
geographical range by which people trade will lead to greater labour productivity and higher living standard.
This is the primary case for ‘free-trade’ zones like the European Union.

8
significant negative effects (social and personal) as people work in jobs doing one or two simple
tasks repeatedly (e.g. assembly line production). Smith’s warning is noteworthy here (1976b, p.
782):

“The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations ….
generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to
become … incapable of relishing or bearing a part in any rational conversation. …
[I]n every improved and civilized society this is the state into which the labouring
poor, that is, the great body of the people, must necessarily fall, unless government
takes some pains to prevent it (Italics added).

The second way to increase economic growth is to move people from unproductive to productive
employment. Productive employment is defined as employment that creates a surplus (profits).
While Smith understood the need for some unproductive employment (police, army), the
movement of people into the for-profit sector of the economy was an important part of his
growth strategy. This move is evident in advanced economies over the past three generations;
for example, women with children moved out of homecare and into paid employment. Many
of the services previously performed by women at home were replaced by paid workers
(housekeepers, child minders etc.). These services are now regarded as productive because they
add to GDP and earn profits. The biases of paid work over homecare activities is one of the
most frequently noted problems with GDP as a measure of progress.

Just about every aspect of a modern capitalist society is designed to serve the goal of economic
growth, yet the need for higher levels of output is not to meet pressing basic material needs.
As John Kenneth Galbraith noted 60 years ago in his classic The Affluent Society (1976, p. 127):
“[p]roduction only fills a void that it itself created”. This emphasis on for-profit production over
every other type of activity (public sector, home activities, community engagement) leads to
a situation of social imbalance where countries have “private opulence and public squalor.”
Galbraith notes that “[t]he line which divides our area of wealth from our area of poverty is
roughly that which divides privately produced and marketed goods and services from publically
rendered services” (Ibid., p. 190). In the US, the military is a notable exception. He argues that
the affluent classes can avoid this public squalor by separating themselves from the public – e.g.
private schools, gated communities, zoning laws to keep out polluting industries. Surely people
are more than consumers; their well-being comes from more than just shopping!

9
3
The Economist’s
Model of Economic
Growth
Economic growth is the accumulation of capital; it is both cause and effect, alpha and omega.
Its ability to be both comes from the view of capital as both (i) productive assets and (ii) financial
title that gives the owner control over those assets. Private control over productive assets
is regarded as crucial to ensuring that they will be used efficiently (profitably); it is assumed
that private owners will use the assets in a manner that yields the highest profit rate. This is
why some hold the view that only business creates wealth; the underlying assumption is that
governments will use property for political purposes, rather than to earn profits. Earning
profits creates the surplus that is used to fund capital accumulation. Certainly, this is the case
if the definition of creating wealth is limited to earning profits. However, it is incorrect if the
concept of wealth consists of productive assets. The state provides roads and infrastructure,
which dramatically raise productivity (the original way to expand the size of a market), but it
does not typically earn a profit from these assets. Also important is the state’s spending on
education and research funding, both of which are key factors for raising a country’s standard
of living. Further, no economic activity would take place without the state’s provision of a legal
environment conducive to commerce (especially protecting property rights).

The economic theory of growth proposes that the process of the accumulation of capital is
limited by the rate of savings. Pro-growth policies are those that increase savings, which usually
means redistributing money upwards toward the already affluent (who can save and invest the
extra money). It is not a coincidence that so-called pro-growth policies also generate greater
income and wealth inequality. Policies like low top-rate taxes, low corporate tax rates, weak
labour or environmental protection regulation, and loose financial and banking rules, provide
more incentives to investors, with the hope that this will generate more economic growth.

10
There are numerous problems with this (neoclassical) economic growth model and the policies
it implies (both theoretical and empirical). Here, we limit the discussion to three issues that
encompass economic growth and sustainable progress:

• the problems with the narrow view of capital;

• the relationship between economic growth and social well-being outcomes

(specifically, the goals of equality, inclusion, stability and protecting the
environment); and

• the negative effect of the ‘growth mentality’ and related policies on social
values.

3.1. A Broader View of Capital

Economists have long struggled with the ‘dual’ nature of capital. Capital theory developed in
part to explain and justify the return on owning capital – to legitimate capitalism. But if our
goal is to understand how society’s achieve social progress, and grow in a way that promotes
well-being, then we need a broader understanding of capital – one that sees capital as assets that
contribute to economic and social progress (and not just profits)

It is easy to accept the definition of manufactured capital as ‘capital’ in the classic sense.
Whether it is flints and stone axes, or GPS and CAD/CAM milling machines, humans are
tool makers, and these tools make humans more productive.5 The problem with neoclassical
economics is its attempt to make owning the tools ‘productive’ (and hence worthy of earning
an income). Tools are taken out of their social context. All manufactured capital (from flints
to machine tools) is productive only in the correct social context; it is always an extension of
the community’s accumulated technical knowledge. A hammer is only a tool to someone who
knows how to use it. Outside of this context, it is no longer capital. All economic progress comes
from the community’s accumulated technological knowledge and the factors that produce the
most successful economies are those that promote the process of creating and disseminating
knowledge.

In The Accumulation of Capital, Joan Robinson (1969, p. 3) observed that when the robin finds
and eats a caterpillar, the act of production and consumption are “completely integrated.” Here,

5
Much of our history has been defined by the tools we used: the Stone Age, Bronze Age, Iron Age, Age of
Steam, etc.

11
 there is no capital. This is rarely the case for humans. Because manufactured capital is productive
into the future, it needs to be financed; resources today have to be set aside and directed to make
manufactured capital now so that people can use it in the future. For some manufactured capital,
such as a factory, it can be 20-30 years into the future. An apartment building could be used for
50-100 years, and at least one bridge in Turkey has been productive for 2,869 years! Money (and
the money instruments) that direct this investment is called finance capital. Money is able to
do this because it is institutionalized purchasing power, in most cases enforced by the sovereign
state. Prior to advanced capitalism, the process required someone to save (not consume) so that
those resources can be used towards the making of manufactured capital. However, the reality
of modern capitalism is that excess productive capacity is the norm and so investment spending
does not require previous savings (a reduction in current consumption). Investment spending
creates savings and not the reverse. The failure of neoclassical economics to understand this
important Keynesian insight is one of its greatest shortcomings. If one were to agree with this
evidence, then the idea that society needs to give money to the rich and then hope some of it
will be allowed to trickle down to everyone else must surely be seen for what it is; the use of
power to benefit the powerful.

In a capitalist economy, there is a need for a financial system to promote efficiency in the process
of turning finance capital into manufactured capital. This system also provides a means to
settle payments and debts and a system to allow for the spreading of risk (Clark and Zalewski,
2015). Because the future is unknowable (rational expectations and efficient financial markets
are really a myth) and the outcomes of the financial system are critically important to society,
financial markets need to be tightly regulated. Unregulated financial markets are impossible,
lightly regulated ones are a roller-coaster, and tightly regulated markets (for example, in Canada)
are stable. As Keynes (1936, p. 159) famously noted: “[w]hen the capital development of a
country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done.” Over
a decade after the financial crisis began, Ireland is still recovering from the gross misallocation
of its manufactured capital by the irresponsible use of financial capital.

Natural resources are now increasingly being viewed as natural capital. Certainly, natural
resources are important for human existence, and they are most often gathered today so that
they can be useful in the future. Many natural resources are traded like other capital goods in
commodity markets; the underlying view is that they are commodities which should be privately
owned so that they are used to generate the most profits. But like manufactured capital, natural
capital is socially created - the result of the community’s accumulated technological knowledge.
Value comes not from the natural resource itself, and certainly not from the act of ownership,
but from the social context. This broader understanding of natural capital easily includes issues

12
of sustainability and equity as these can be integral to society’s needs in accumulating and using
natural capital, and not as an artificial add-on to a market mentality6.

In recognition of the role that education and skill acquisition plays in explaining income levels
and income inequality, the category of human capital has also developed. Most economists treat
human capital as an individual trait; for example, the number of years of education a worker
has accumulated. But in our view, education and skill acquisition is very much an asset that
promotes social progress in the future, so it should be included as part of capital accumulation
that promotes social progress. Society’s investment in education is more important for
promoting material economic growth than either manufactured or finance capital. It is human
capital that deliberates and develops manufactured capital, directs finance capital, and turns
nature into natural capital. Healthy and educated citizens are the foundation of a prosperous
society. When the World Bank forced African countries to cut healthcare and education
spending in the past to allow them to pay their external debts, the Bank was in effect promoting
the opposite of progress. While education is a key variable in explaining relative wage rates, the
value of education goes well beyond the benefits to the individual. Education is not a private
good that needs to be exclusive to be valuable. It is a public good that increases benefits as it is
shared and spread.

In a 1997 study, Expanding the Measure of Wealth, the World Bank included human resources
and natural resources in an analysis of the factors that promote economic growth. With the
exception of the Middle East, all the regions derived between 60% and 79% (74% for Western
Europe) of their ‘wealth per capita’ from Human Resources (human capital), with Produced
Assets (manufactured capital) accounting for 15%-30% (23% for Western Europe) of growth.
The remainder was attributed to Natural Resource Wealth (natural capital)7.

Economic activity does not exist in a vacuum. And often, the distinction between ‘economic’,
‘social’ and ‘political’ is unclear. Because of the importance of institutions, some analysts are
adding social capital to their concept of capital. The World Bank argued that social capital could

6
At any given time each country has a stock of natural resources. Some are fixed and some are renewable.
Investment decisions to extract natural resources only measure the costs of getting the resource and
bringing it to market. They do not take into account the replacement costs, or the pollution costs unless
they are forced to include them by government regulation. Only costs connected to enforceable property
rights are rewarded in market transactions as only property has a market voice. The extraction industries are
extremely profitable partly because they can shift part of their costs onto the community as a whole. When
people breathe polluted air they are paying part of the cost of the activity that created the pollution. The free
market argument that all (or most) environmental problems can be fixed through assigning private property
rights is based on the assumption that free markets work. This is clearly not the case.
7
The World Bank appeared to have rediscovered what Adam Smith pointed out on the first page of The
Wealth of Nations.

13
 be the missing link in understanding why some countries are successful and others are less
so. Social capital consists of those aspects of social groups that promote relationships, shared
meanings, values, trust, cooperation and reciprocity. It is what allows groups to achieve more
than the sum of their individual parts. The World Bank notes that:

“[t]he process of producing economic growth requires the combination of different

types of capital. Social capital is one of them, but it has a unique feature in that it
also enhanced the efficiency of the combination process itself. … It is not just an
input into the production function, but it is also a shift factor (or exponent) of the
entire production function” (World Bank, 1997, p. 83).

Social capital, it is argued, like other forms of capital, is a stock variable that gets depleted when
used, and thus requires continual reinvestment to maintain the social bonds that hold groups
and society together8. There is growing evidence that social institutions are the key factors in
determining social progress9.

3.2. Growth and Outcomes in 21st Century Capitalism

Clark (1998) argued that 21st century capitalism faces three main challenges: rising inequality;
technological unemployment and threats to the environment. The lived experience of the past
20 years has taught us two key lessons:

• financial instability should be added to this list; and

• the interconnections between these issues is equally important.

Technological change that poses a threat to a future of good jobs is also a contributor to
rising inequality, as the early developers of new technologies use their new found monopoly
power to capture much of the gains created by the new technology. Rising inequality weakens
democratic systems of governance and polarizes the populace. This weakens the ability or desire
of governments to enact policies to help people who are displaced by the new technologies.
The financialization of the economy (which contributes to financial instability) shifts power
away from labour and towards capital. The result is increased inequality which distorts society’s

8
Social capital is more difficult to quantify and even more difficult to privatize its benefits. But the other three
aspects of capital also have significant measurement issues.
9
See for example, Acemoglu and Robinson (2012) Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity,
and Poverty.

14
investment decisions away from public needs and towards speculation for private gain.
Further, the main environmental challenges of climate change and loss of biodiversity creates
effects that often impact humans based on their socio-economic class. The poor have to pay a
disproportionate share of the costs of climate change and are simultaneously excluded from a
fair share of the benefits from the economic system that has caused human activity to change
the environment. As is often said, everything is interconnected.

These four challenges (inequality, technological unemployment, environmental destruction and

financial instability) are all not only interconnected with each other, they are connected to the
primacy of economic growth as capitalism’s principal motivating force. Financial instability
stems from the manner in which the capital stock of a society is funded and allocated, based
on the short term from betting on whether prices will go up or down. Both the inequality and
the instability caused by an economy dominated by the financial services industry are creating
significant strain on public institutions and fraying the social bond. Money manager capitalism
misdirects a country’s capital and is a barrier to social progress.

The accumulation of capital coincides with technological change, yet technological change is
never neutral. Technology is developed to be useful to those funding and controlling the process.
Often it has unintended consequences. The future is unknowable, as are the ramifications of our
present actions. In early time, capital goods (tools) were developed by the worker to enhance
their labour effort in the production process, but production for profit required the control of
workers, which entailed reducing the value of the workers by replacing their skill and expertise
with machines. In the early 19th century this led to the widespread replacing of skilled adult
male workers with lower paid women and children. Today, we see artificial intelligence (AI)
replacing bank tellers and accountants, and robotics replacing production line workers.

This model therefore implies that the way to increase economic growth (the purpose of which
is to create high employment) is often investment in labour replacing technology! This is not
a successful strategy for the long-run. It suggests that more and more spending is required
to keep employment levels high. Ireland, for example, needs spending increases (not inflated
GDP growth based on foreign owned companies avoiding taxes) of between 5-7% to keep
unemployment rates around 5%. Such high growth rates only occur usually when a country is
catching up with leader countries. But Ireland has already accomplished this catch-up.

Ireland’s unemployment rate is linked to aggregate demand10. Table 3.1 shows the Celtic Tiger
period (1995-2007) was driven by increases in private consumption, government consumption
and investment spending. Unemployment fell to almost a third of the average observed 1980 to

10
As argued by Keynes, the level of unemployment is a function of aggregate demand.

15
 1992. This is an example of ‘transformational growth’11 – a movement from one growth path
to another. This growth period ended before the financial crisis, when Ireland in effect caught
up with other advanced capitalist economies, yet it wasn’t fully exposed until the collapse of the
housing bubble. All elements of aggregate demand declined, particularly investment spending,
and unemployment more than doubled. Although consumption also fell, the decline was
more modest, given the depth and length of the recession. The effects of forced austerity on
government consumption and investment also had an effect. The export and investment led
recovery of 2014-18 however shows how fragile the Irish economy can be. A long term boom
in investment spending is unlikely in either the private sector (e.g. lack of expectations of future
profits) or the public sector (e.g. debt overhang from the bailout and lack of fiscal space due to
Ireland not having its’ own currency). Exports depend in part on the health of Ireland’s trading
partners, and are likely to slow as world growth stagnates in 2019 (made worse by the US’s likely
recession in next 12 months)12. Ireland, like most advanced capitalist economies, needs a stable
and sustainable growth strategy.

Table 3.1 A
 verage Changes in Aggregate Demand and Unemployment in Ireland, 1980-
2018
1980-92 1995-2007 2008-2013 2014-18

Real Private Consumption 1.7 6.3 -1.2 2.9

Real Public Consumption 0.9 10.5 -1.8 3.3

Total Gross Fixed Investment -0.4 9.0 -5.2 16.4

Total Domestic Demand 0.3 6.0 -2.5 6.2

Real Exports 8.3 10.7 2.0 14.3

Real Imports 3.9 10.9 -0.2 11.2

Unemployment Rate 14.6 5.3 13.1 8.5

Source: OECD Outlook (2018)

It cannot be assumed that economic growth will provide for its main goal, full employment.
Further, economic growth cannot provide all the social and environmental benefits it is supposed
to afford. In the recent past, the rise in the availability of social indicators, and measures of well-
being and happiness, provides us with further evidence that economic growth is not sufficient
to promote a sustainable and just society.

11
Transformational growth is a concept proposed by Edward J Nell in Transformational Growth and
Effective Demand (1992).
12
Nikiforos and Zezza, (2018), Strategic Analysis, Levy Economics Institute, April.

16
Figure 3.1 Social Progress and GDP, 2018

100.00 IRE
Social Progress Index

80.00
R² = 0.0388
60.00
R² = 0.6873
40.00

20.00
$0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000
GDP per Capita PPP

Above $30,000 Below $30,000

Source: Authors’ analysis.

Figure 3.1 shows the relationship between GDP per capita and the Social Progress Index13. As
expected, GDP per capita is closely correlated with social progress for low income countries.
For high income countries, the relationship is less obvious and the correlation is low (although
the trend line implies higher income levels lead to lower social progress).

The economics of happiness is an approach to understanding wellbeing that has grown rapidly
in the past decade, building on the seminal work by Richard Easterlin in the 1970s. Easterlin
examined the link between economic growth and happiness. Economists have long noted the
difference between social welfare (a subjective concept) and material or economic welfare (an
objective measure of output) and generally assumed there was such a high correlation between
the two. Promoting the latter, it was argued, would take care of the former. Easterlin’s (1974)
seminar paper challenged this assumption, showing that while there was a correlation between
happiness and GDP at a given point of time, there is considerable evidence that over time, increases
in income do not lead to corresponding increases in happiness. This ‘Easterlin Paradox’14 has
held up empirically in the subsequent four decades, although it remains controversial.

13
The Social Progress Index (SPI) is published by the non-profit Social Progress Imperative and measures the
extent to which countries provide for the social and environmental needs of their citizens. The index tracks
51 indicators along three broad themes: Basic Needs, Foundations of Well-Being; and Opportunity. The
SPI is based on both subjective and objective indicators. Social and environmental factors include wellness
(including health, shelter and sanitation), equality, inclusion, sustainability and personal freedom and safety.
14
At a point, in time happiness varies directly with income both among and within countries. However, over
time happiness does not trend upward as income continues to grow. Hence, the paradox. Although many
studies have been advanced over the years to explain the paradox, it remains an empirical generalization.

17
 Figure 3.2 shows the data Easterlin presented from surveys conducted around 1960. Particularly
shocking, at least in US, was the finding that Cuba and the US had a similar level of happiness,
yet the US was over 5 times richer15. Also surprising was the extent of the relationship between
changes in GDP and levels of happiness – approx. 25%16. So, although relationship does exist,
much of the factors that determine happiness are clearly not income related.

Figure 3.2 Happiness and GDP, 1960

7
Cuba USA
Happiness Score (0-10)

6
5
4
y = 0.6936ln(x) + 0.5246
3 R² = 0.2504
2
1
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Real GNP per capita

Source: Authors Analysis

The World Happiness Report (2018) presents data on 156 countries and identifies the factors that
promote happiness. Explicitly based on a social view of human nature, it attempts to measure
the social foundations of happiness. Figure 3.3 replicates the above relationship, this time for
all of the countries for which data is available in the report. We divide the countries into two
groups: (i) countries with per capita income below $30,000; and (ii) countries above $30,000 per
capita income. The figure shows a strong connection between the two variables for countries
below $30,000, but not for high income countries. This suggests that overall happiness is not
based on the ability to afford the happiness that comes from meeting all material basic needs, at
least for the rich countries.

15
A teacher at school in the US explained this to students as Cuba’s ‘revolutionary exhilaration’.
16
It is assumed causality runs from income to happiness, but there is also likely to be causation that runs from
happiness to income - happy workers might earn more money.

18
Figure 3.3 World Happiness Index and Real GDP per capita, 2018

10
R² = 0.005
World Hppiness Index 8

4
R² = 0.4277
2

0
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000

Real GDP per capita

Above $30,000 Below $30,000

Source: Authors’ Analysis.

A six factor explanatory framework is used in the report to measure the factors that contribute
to happiness: four represent the social foundations of well-being (social support, freedom to
make life choices, generosity and absence of corruption in government) and two factors are
“strongly affected by the social context” and long seen as goals of development (GDP per capita
and healthy life expectancy). Table 3.2 shows how each of the six factors contribute to the
difference between an average country and a hypothetical dystopia country (one that has the
lowest score for all six factors). The results are somewhat similar to Easterlin’s 1960 findings:
GDP per capita contributes approx. 26% to happiness. The top contributory factor is social
support which is somewhat similar to the concept of social capital mentioned previously (family,
friends, networks, etc. that are available when a person is in need).

Table 3.2 D
 ecomposing the Differences in Happiness between Average Country and
Hypothetical Dystopia, 2018

Social Support .35

GDP per cap .26

Healthy Life Expectancy .17

Freedom to Make Life Choices .13

Generosity .05

Perception of Corruption .03

Source: World Happiness Report ( 2018)

The World Happiness Report includes data that allows us explore changes in happiness overall
(the Life Ladder) and the factors that contribute to happiness in Ireland from 2006-2017. We
see in Figure 3.4 that both in periods of prosperity and recession, GDP per capita has remained

19
 relatively stable. Overall happiness declines steadily from the peak of 2008 and hovers in that
range thereafter. The role of generosity in happiness appears to be counter-cyclical. During the
economic crisis, we see generosity becoming very important and it declines when the economy
improves. The perception of corruption also increased during the same period, but has since
fallen.

Figure 3.4 C
 hanges in Happiness (Life Ladder) and Happiness Factors in Ireland,
2006-2017 (2006=100)

160

140

120

100

80

60
2006 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Life Ladder GDP Social Support
Healthy Life Expectancy Freedom to make life choices Generosity
Perception of Corruption

Source: Authors Analysis.

We welcome the development over the recent past of new measures of progress by various
organisations and agencies. Each index is usually focused on a different aspect of progress:
what is clear however is that some countries that perform very well on GDP per capita do not
perform well on many of these alternative measures of social progress and well-being17.

17
See Table A1 in Appendix A for a snapshot of how Ireland performs on various measures of progress in the
most recent year. Table A2 in Appendix B provides some further detail on the Social Progress Index (2018).

20
3.3. The ‘Growth Mentality’

Recognizing that there are many ‘capitals’ society needs to invest in to promote social progress
is an improvement over the ‘accumulate capital to produce economic growth so you can
accumulate more capital’ treadmill. It is an important step towards a new model for promoting
social progress. It is also a more effective means for promoting economic growth and raising
living standards - necessary but not sufficient. The trap, however, of calling everything that is
valuable for future production ‘capital’ is that it brings along with it the logic of ‘capital’ and
‘capital accumulation’. The temptation, especially for the economist, is to see them all as capital
goods to be efficiently allocated in a capital market, with a future Nobel Prize going to the
person who can simultaneously optimize all four in one grand general equilibrium model.

Another limitation of the current growth model is the impact this market mentality may have
if applied to non-market decision making. During the past three centuries, the laws, customs
and values of Western society have been moulded to serve the purpose of capital accumulation.
Keynes noted: “all kinds of social customs and economic practices, affecting the distribution
of wealth and of economic rewards and penalties … (are maintained) at all costs, however
distasteful and unjust they may be in themselves, because they are tremendously useful in
promoting the accumulation of capital” (2009, p. 199). Public policies increased the level of
inequality with the hope that a rise in inequality would augment society’s savings so as to fund
capital (only people who had incomes well above their material needs could save at sufficient
levels to fund investment). Political and social power, and status were transferred from the
ancient order, based on land ownership and inherited titles, to the industrialists and growing
business class. Even religious attitudes and values adjusted to be more compatible with capital
accumulation (prosperity gospel is an extreme example). David Bell’s (1996, p. 237) observation
is therefore difficult to disagree with: “[e]conomic growth has become the secular religion of
advancing industrial societies.”

At some point, the morals of accumulation begin to eat away at the social values that hold society
together. Social capital promotes economic growth, but economic growth does not necessarily
promote social capital. As Robert Heilbroner noted in The Nature and Logic of Capitalism (1985),
the drive to amass capital leads to capital expanding into all areas of life, eventually transforming
political, social and religious virtues into cost/benefit decision making. Adam Smith based his
“society of perfect liberty” on individuals being socialized so that they did not take advantage of
others. Ethics come first and ethics allows for economics. The cost of doing business goes up
when trust levels go down, and a decline in trust leads to unproductive defensive expenditures
- money is spent not so that the consumer gains, but so that they don’t lose. As economic life
becomes more and more anonymous, the social distance between economic traders increases
and the strength of the social bond gets weaker.

21
 It is difficult not to notice that the advanced capitalist societies are now more fractured
than they have been in recent memory. The winner-take-all economy that has left so many
behind is based on the singular goal of economic growth to accumulate capital. The broken
link between economic growth and social well-being (see Figure 3.1) suggests that we need
a new model. The changing moral values caused by the ‘economic growth alone mentality’
changes political priorities. After decades of pursuing economic growth so that poverty can be
eliminated (through the trickle-down effect), many advanced capitalist economies like Ireland
have currently high standards of living and high poverty rates. This is because they have not
enacted policies necessary to build the pathways towards participation for the poor. All social
and political effort has been focused on building and maintaining pathways for the rich to get
richer. Bringing everyone above the poverty line is seen almost as a betrayal of the secular
religion of economic growth, punishing the ‘makers’ and rewarding the ‘takers’.

22
4
Is there a Better
Way?
All social theory, including economics, begins with the question: what does it mean to be human?
In economics, this question was answered by a partial reading of Adam Smith; including only
the ‘self-interest’ human motivation in his Wealth of Nations (1976b) but excluding the role
of ‘empathy’ (he called it sympathy) in his Theory of Moral Sentiments (1976a). We should
remember that Smith, who argued that people should follow their own-self interest in their
market lives, also first wrote:

“How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in
his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness
necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing
it. … The greatest ruffian, the most hardened violator of the laws of society, is not
altogether without it” (Ibid., 7; 137). .

He also argued that each person needs a moral compass to teach

“the propriety of resigning the greatest interests of our own, for the yet greater
interests of others, and the deformity of doing the smallest injury to another, in
order to obtain the greatest benefit to ourselves” (Ibid., 7; 137).

However, instead of these insights, we are left with the more popular view, clearly espoused by
Francis Edgeworth (1967, p.16):

“[t]he first principle of Economics is that every agent is actuated only by self-
interest.”

23
 If one adopts the ‘rational economic man18’ model which views individuals as utility maximisers
with unlimited wants who act only in their own self-interest, and who can only rationally maximize
their utility in a market setting, then it follows that any notion of progress is obviously tied to
levels of consumption. Thus, GDP per capita becomes a proxy for how people are doing because
the only thing they are doing that matters is consuming. While it ignores the effect of income
inequality on consumption, if inequality is based on market forces and marginal productivities,
then any variations in actual consumption levels in the model can be explained away.

However, if human nature has an essential social aspect to it, such that human well-being and
happiness is not reduced to the autonomous individual, and if each person is not Robinson
Crusoe, but instead is a social being whose well-being is partly determined by the communities
and by their relative position in the community, then consumption levels will not tell the full
social progress story. Drawing on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, we would expect that for low
levels of income, there is a high correlation between well-being and income levels, as people are
not meeting all their basic material needs. But once the basic needs of adequate food, clothing,
shelter and security are met, the relationship between changes in well-being and GDP per capita
is likely to be less significant.

How one views human nature is important. Poverty is a good example - how it is explained
and measured. Further, reducing poverty is often given as a reason for promoting economic
growth. If one follows the neoclassical theory and the ‘rational economic man’ model, poverty
is understood as an individual outcome based on individual choices and endowments (with little
discussion of how these initial endowments actually came about). Markets generate incomes
based on supply and demand, and in the long run, a person’s income will be determined by
how much they contribute to the economy. This ‘marginal productivity theory of distribution’
was developed by John Bates Clark who said: “the distribution of the income of society is
controlled by a natural law, and … this law, if it worked without friction, would give every agent
of production the amount of wealth which that agent creates” (Clark 1965, p. v). So, people are
poor because:

(i) they cannot contribute due to age or disability (the deserving poor); or

(ii) some “friction” prevents the natural law from working fully (market failure to
be assumed away); or

(iii) they have not made the right choices that would allow them to be more
productive and thus earn more money (the non-deserving poor).

18
An important concept used in neo-classical economic theory is of rational economic man. The concept of
rational economic man allows economists to model, for example, how consumers and firms will respond to
different situations.

24
The approach suggests the solution to reducing poverty is to generate more economic growth
and provide the right incentives (market signals) to the poor so that they make better decisions.

Most sociologists and heterodox economists view poverty as a structural feature of an economy,
emphasizing the social and historical factors that play a role in explaining not only aggregate
poverty, but also the observation that specific groups have higher average poverty rates. The
approach proposes that patterns of property ownership, discrimination, bargaining power
(such as unionization rates), inequality and social protection systems are major determinants
of poverty. Further, poverty is viewed as more relative than absolute. Economic growth here is
not seen as sufficient for reducing poverty rates. Evidence from the US shows that changes in
economic growth greatly determined poverty rates in the past, but after the Reagan Revolution,
poverty was less influenced by positive economic growth rates. It is argued that the policies
pursued helped to shift the benefits of economic growth towards very high income earners, so
that very little ‘trickled down’ to the poor. Structural changes in the economy, many related to
globalization, seem to have shifted the balance of power away from labour and more strongly
towards capital, resulting in stagnant real wages, increases in the share of income going to
capital, declines in the spending power of the minimum wage, lower unionization rates and
anti-labour government policies. If economic growth is not enough to reduce poverty, if it is
not a means to this important end, then other means must be found.

Economist Amartya Sen proposed a ‘capabilities’ approach to understanding human

development. Sen argues that money or commodities do not provide for an individual’s well-
being, but instead they provide capabilities. “At the risk of oversimplification” Sen writes, “I
would like to say that poverty is an absolute notion in the space of capabilities but very often it
will take a relative form in the space of commodities or characteristics” (Sen, 1983, p.161). In
previous centuries, physical abilities were a major determinant to how successful one was in
the economy. Today, education and skills acquisition are of paramount importance. It is critical
that people have the capabilities to fully participate in a given society. How these capabilities are
met will differ from society to society, and change from year to year. Thus, there is an absolute
need for capabilities to allow for participation, yet how these capabilities are fulfilled is related
to historical and social context.

Sen’s work has led to changes in development theory and policy, much of it through the
UN. Beginning with the Human Development Index (which Sen helped develop), the UN
continues to promote alternative measures of progress. The aim was to move away from the
strategy of promoting economic growth and the hope that growth would provide for other
economic, social and environmental goals, to directly supporting these other goals as ends
in themselves. The expectation was that many of these ends would also end up promoting
economic growth. The ‘women’s rights are human rights’ agenda is an example. Barriers to
women participating in the economy is seen not just as a violation of human rights, but also as

25
 economically inefficient, because gender discrimination dramatically reduces the productivity
of half the potential workforce, lowering everyone’s income. The UN actively supports women’s
equality as an economic growth and development strategy. Recognizing that humans are more
than just ‘rational economic actors’, the UN has since developed other indicators of progress,
starting with the Millennium Development Goals, and leading to more recently, the Sustainable
Development Goals and its long list of indicators.

26
5
The Sustainable
Progress Index
2019
In 2015, the UN proposed and adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and
identified 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) based on 169 targets and over 230
indicators. In January 2016, the SDGs came into force. The SDGS are designed to refocus
efforts towards policies that directly help people and communities in the long run. They aim to
provide both a pathway out of poverty for about a billion people in the world, and a pathway
to a sustainable future for all countries and peoples. The World Bank, WHO, IMF, OECD and
Eurostat have all committed to data collection efforts to support the monitoring of the SDGs.

Since the adoption of the SDGS, there have been several attempts to track countries’ progress on
achievement of the goals (see Sachs et al, 2016. 2017 and 201819; Eurostat, 201720, OECD, 2017).
Incorporating 100 indicators, the Eurostat report concludes that the EU has made progress

19
The SDG Index and Dashboard report is published by Sachs et. al. on an annual basis
since 2016. It is produced by the Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN) and
the Bertelsmann Stiftung. Although not an official UN publication, the work by Sachs et. al. is
important. The latest report reports on 157 UN countries using official and non-official indicators
(data limitations prevent full coverage of all UN indicators and some countries had to be excluded
due to insufficient data availability ). The index provides a measure of absolute distance towards
the goals. Country specific dashboards provide guidelines to policymakers of areas of specific
challenges.
20
The European Union (EU) adopted the first statistical overview of trends relating to the SDGs in the EU in
2017. Eurostat published Sustainable development in the European Union – 2017 monitoring report of
the progress towards the SDGs in an EU context. Progress on 4 goals was unable to be calculated due
to incomplete data.

27
 towards the 17 SDGs over the past five years (see Figure 5.2)21. The improvement of goals has
occurred at different paces for each SDG, ranging from moderate to significant progress. The
goals are ranked in terms of significant progress made, (5 SDGs) and moderate progress (8
SDGs). It is important to emphasise that the report states that progress in a specific goal is not
necessarily satisfactory for the EU22.  

Figure 5.1 The 17 Sustainable Development Goals

Source: United Nations (UN)

The most recent report by Sachs et al concludes that Ireland performs relatively well on SDG1
(some of the indicators are more appropriate to the developing countries) but faces major
challenges with other SDGs (see Figure 5.3). The dashboard colour codes identify the progress
being made under each SDG. A green indicator rating implies achievement but all indicators
under the goal need to be also green for the SDG to get a green colour. Yellow, orange and
red indicate increasing distance from the SDG achievement (Sachs et al, 2018). Their analysis
suggests Ireland scores particularly poor on SDGs 12, 13, 14 and 17 (Figure 5.3).

21
The EU report does not produce an index. It examines the SDGs at indicator level and by key themes to
arrive at an overall assessment of progress.
22
In Clark, Kavanagh and Lenihan (2018b), we assess Ireland’s performance on the same EU indicator set
employed by Eurostat, for each SDG, relative to EU28. Eurostat argues in their report that their choice of
indicators for monitoring the SDGs better reflects EU policy and initiatives, while still reflecting the principles
of the official UN indicators incorporated in the SDGs. In our report (2018b), we monitor short-term trends in
each indictor and arrive at an assessment of how Ireland is doing in the context of the EU28. See Appendix
C for a summary table of our results.

28
Figure 5.2 EU Progress towards the 17 SDGs

EU progress towards the 17 SDGs

(past 5-year period)

Goals for which trends cannot be calculated (*)

moderate progress
progress

(*) Due to lack of time

series for more than
25% of the indicators

Source: Eurostat (2017)

Figure 5.3 Ireland’s Current SDG Dashboard

Source: Sachs et al (2018), http://sdgindex.org/dashboards/

The SDGs have become an essential part of scoring economic, social and environmental
progress. This is the third in a series of reports that examines Ireland’s performance in the
context of its peers in the EU. The main aim of our analyses (Clark and Kavanagh, 2017; Clark,
Kavanagh and Lenihan, 2018a, 2018b) is to complement the work being done by others by
specifically monitoring Ireland’s progress. We believe this is valuable, because as noted by Klaus
Schwab, Chairperson of the World Economic Forum, in his commentary on the SDGs: “[w]e
must continually measure progress on the ground, at local, national and international levels”
(Sachs et al, 2017, p. 4).

29
 5.1 Data Selection

Data collection for the analysis was far-ranging. As in our earlier reports, the starting point for
data selection is the UN Indicator Set (2017) and we attempt to align our indicator set as closely
as possible with this list.

We employ some simple rules to guide our choice of data.

• Relevance and applicability: the data must be directly related, similar, or relevant to
monitoring the SDG. For some SDGs, indicators are chosen because they are more
applicable to EU policies and initiatives (Eurostat, 2017).
• Quality: to ensure the best measures are used to capture the SDG, we only use official
published data from international sources such as OECD, WHO, UN, etc. and non-
governmental organisations such as Gallup and Transparency International.
• Coverage: data must be available for all 15 countries.
• Most recent available: all data must refer to the most recent year available.

The above criteria imply that for some SDGs, we replace the official indicators (e.g. prevalence
of undernourishment, prevalence of stunting, incidence of extreme poverty), with indicators
that better reflect high income countries in the EU. For example, the prevalence of obesity – a
major risk factor for a number of chronic diseases - is increasingly becoming a problem in high-
income countries (and also some low-middle income countries). Other indicators, although not
official UN indicators, are included to capture the theme of a particular SDG. The incidence of
low pay in the population is included to capture the theme of ‘decent’ work of SDG8. Household
debt is included in SDG10 as we argue the level of debt resulting from the financial crisis and
global recession has impacted on the ability of many EU households to lead decent lives23.

We have added several new indicators24 and dropped others25. Some data are not gathered
annually and only become available every few years. This implies that when estimating SDG
performance at a point in time, some data can be relatively old. We decide not to use data that

23
Sachs et al (2017, 2018) also focus on international spill-over effects in their reports. Although important, we
do not take account of these effects in our index.
24
For example, SDG6 includes measures of drinking water quality and sanitation that were not used in previous
reports. We emphasise that our analysis is based only on what can be measured. Because changes have
been made to the indicator set, the rankings in this report are not directly comparable to the earlier versions
of the index. Changes in country rankings over time can be influenced by both changes in data as well as
progress (or not) in achieving the SDGs.
25
We are also grateful for several comments on previous reports work and some additional data used in this
report reflects the decisions made following this useful consultation process.

30
is considered out-dated; for example, some official measures and EU indicators have not been
updated since 2012, and we deem them less relevant for monitoring the SDGs26.

We believe these changes provide a richer and more accurate assessment of Ireland’s SDG
performance. But some problems remain. Data coverage across the goals is unequal. For some
SDGs (SDG1, SDG17), because we only use official published data, only one indicator is available
for all countries to reflect the objectives of the goal. This is far from ideal. SDG13 is problematic
because it is difficult to get reliable data to reflect all the themes of climate mitigation, impact
and initiatives27. Notwithstanding these issues, our data selection criteria identify 65 indictors
across the 17 goals. The complete list of indicators used in the construction of the SDG measures
is provided in Appendix D.

5.2 Method

We still believe it is important to compare Ireland to its peers. Hence, the focus, as in previous
reports, is the EU15 countries. Comparing relative performance among countries from a
similar regional or income group is valuable. Sachs et al (2016) have emphasised the substantial
variations observed in small groups of similar regions should encourage policymakers to better
understand reasons for divergence and design strategies for achieving the SDGs by 2030.

Since the aim is to compare performance across all goals, the first step in constructing the index
is to make the data comparable across indicators. The data is highly heterogeneous and must be
rescaled. We use a similar method to Sachs et al (2016). The approach allows us to benchmark
Ireland against its peers, at individual indicator level, SDG level and aggregate index level.

We proceed as follows. A percentile rank is first assigned to each indicator. A percentile rank of
100 is assigned to the best performance, 0 to the worst performance. All indicators are expressed
in ascending order, so that a higher score on the indicator corresponds to a higher overall SDG
score. This allows for clarity and ease of interpretation.

Next, we aggregate the percentile rank of each indicator to compute the SDG score for each
country. Given that we have data on every SDG, this implies that every country has an SDG
score for each of the 17 goals.

26
However, for a small number of indicators, data relates to 2014 as it is the latest available and alternatives
do not exist.
27
We envisage that many more indicators will be added to the index, as SDG data improves over time.

31
 Finally, to arrive at the composite Sustainable Progress Index, SDG, we aggregate across all
goals. Equal weight is assigned to each SDG (and each indicator under each goal), as all goals
are equally important. This follows the UN’s (2015, paragraph 5) commitment to treat all SDGs
equally28:

“These are universal goals and targets which involve the entire world, developed
and developing countries alike. They are integrated and indivisible and balance the
three dimensions of sustainable development”.

The scores allow us to rank the countries on the aggregate measure, to identify the countries
that are making most progress in achieving the SDGs.

Agenda 2030 sets ambitious targets across the three dimensions of sustainable development:
economic development, social inclusion and environmental sustainability. Although we fully
recognise that all goals are interdependent and interconnected, we think there is value in
attempting to understand how countries are doing on the three aspects of progress. Hence,
using our judgement, we cluster the goals by these three dimensions: economic, social and
environment. We then present the results of the composite SDG index29.

5.3 The Economy Index

Table 5.1 shows the overall Economy Index score for Ireland, which includes SDG 8 and 930.
Ireland ranks 11th relative to its EU peers on this dimension31.

28
There is no agreement about assigning higher weights to some SDGs over others. The approach here has
the benefit of allowing for the addition of new indicators for a particular SDG without affecting the relative
weight of each SDG in the composite measure.
29
Statistical tests were conducted as part of the analysis. We assessed both collinearity between the goals
and between the indicators under each goal. Based on the Pearson’s pairwise correlation exercise for the
goals, there is no sign of collinearity (defined as > 0.9). We found little evidence of collinearity at indicator
level and retain the choice of indicators as they are directly related or relevant to the official UN list.
30
The score compares average performance across SDGs 8 and 9.
31
The arithmetic mean and the geomean averages were explored as two approaches to aggregating
the data. Both indices show a high degree of correlation (Pearson’s correlation coefficient of
0.97). For ease of interpretation, we settle on the arithmetic mean.

32
Table 5.1 The Economy SDG Index – Ranking by Country

Country Index Score Country Rank

Sweden 81.54 1

Denmark 79.25 2

Netherlands 72.74 3

Finland 65.11 4

Austria 64.53 5

Germany 63.51 6

Luxembourg 61.20 7

Belgium 57.14 8

United Kingdom 46.49 9

France 45.26 10

Ireland 40.16 11

Portugal 29.10 12

Italy 22.19 13

Spain 17.28 14

Greece 8.24 15

Source: Authors Analysis

SDG 8 ‘Decent work and economic growth’

SDG 8 appeals for providing opportunities for full and productive

employment and decent work for all while reducing child labour, and human
trafficking by promoting labour rights and secure working conditions.
4 indicators are used to compute this SDG. Real GDP per capita in Ireland
is high relative to the other EU15 countries, second only to Luxembourg.
Ireland also had the highest rate of growth in GDP. Ireland’s unemployment
rate shows good improvement, however, the NEET Rate (youths not in
employment, education or training) ranks Ireland 11th on this indicator.

We include the incidence of low pay in SDG8 to capture the idea of quality
work in the economy, although there is yet no agreed measure of decent
work developed for use in the SDGs. With approx. 22.5% of employees in
Ireland considered low-paid, Ireland scores at the bottom for this indicator.
The overall rank for Ireland on SDG 8 is 9.

SDG 8: Rank = 9

33
 SDG 9 ‘Industry, innovation and infrastructure’

Enhancing innovation, technological progress and entrepreneurship are

the aims of SDG 9. In doing so, the goal is to promote increased access to
financial services and information and communication technologies.

Expenditure on R&D (% of GDP) is the lowest in Ireland relative to the EU15,

based on the latest data.. Sweden, Austria, Denmark and Germany score
highest and all have expenditure greater than 3% of GDP. Ireland’s spend
was 1.05%, moving further away from Europe 2020 target of spending 3 %
of GDP on R&D by 2020. Ireland’s share of R&D researchers, both as % of
population and per 1000 workers employed has increased over the years, as
had the extent of patents (per million) although we are below the EU average
on this indicator. Internet use (% of population) is also less than the best
performing countries. Ireland’s overall score ranks Ireland 11 out of the 15.
There is therefore scope for improvement on this SDG.

SDG 9: Rank = 11

5.4 The Society Index

The Society Index32 score and country ranking are presented in Table 5.3. Ireland is in 10th place.

32
Our society index here consists of scores for SDGs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 16 and 17.

34
Table 5.2 The Society SDG Index – Ranking by Country

Country Index Score Country Rank

Sweden 74.20 1
Denmark 73.66 2
Finland 66.23 3
Netherlands 59.83 4
Austria 53.29 5
France 52.21 6
Germany 52.15 7
Belgium 50.93 8
United Kingdom 50.83 9
Ireland 49.04 10
Luxembourg 48.21 11
Italy 35.54 12
Spain 33.77 13
Portugal 31.85 14
Greece 19.67 15

Source: Authors Analysis

SDG 1 ‘No poverty’

SDG 1 pleads for an end to poverty in all its manifestations. According

to Eurostat, Ireland had 15.6% of its population at risk of income poverty
after social transfers in 2017, just below the EU average of 16.9%. As the
focus of our analysis is the EU15 countries (with broadly similar levels of
development), we exclude some of the less relevant UN indicators variables
that capture extreme poverty (such as the poverty headcount ratio at
$1.90/day, % population). One indicator is used to reflect SDG1: poverty
is measured as the share of the population whose incomes fall below half
the median disposable income for the entire population after taxes and
transfers. On this measure, using the latest available data, Ireland is ranked
7th. Denmark and Finland score the highest on this SDG.

SDG 1: Rank = 7

35
 SDG 2 ‘No hunger’
SDG 2 is concerned with food security and the eradication of hunger. Many
of the official indicators under this goal are more applicable to developing
countries. Food security, in terms of sufficiency and supply, may not be
considered a major concern for the EU15 countries, but malnutrition
problems are evident. Consumption patterns and lifestyles have changed
in the EU, including in Ireland, and obesity is on the rise with implications
for people’s quality of life and resourcing the health care system. SDG2 is
also concerned with ensuring long-term productivity and the sustainability
of agriculture. We use 5 indicators to capture the theme of SDG 2: obesity
rates capture the malnutrition aspect; and cereal yield efficiency, ammonia
emission from agricultural land, gross nutrient balance of land, and the
extent of organic farming reflect the sustainable agricultural aspect.

Obesity in Ireland is the one of the highest among the EU15, second only
to the UK. Over 25% of the population are categorised as obese. Ireland’s
organic farming share of the total utilised agricultural area (UAA) is well
below the EU average at just under 1.7%; it scores lowest of the EU15 on
this indicator. Ireland performs well compared to other countries on the
cereal yield indicator, although less well on ammonia emissions and nutrient
balance of agricultural land. The overall SDG score gives Ireland a score of
10 of 15 countries.

SDG 2: Rank = 10

SDG 3 ‘Good health and wellbeing’

Improving healthy lives and promoting wellbeing at all stages of life is the
focus of SDG 3. As well as being important to the individual in terms of
improving their quality of lives, good health is also valuable for social
and economic growth. 9 indicators are used to reflect this goal, including
indicators for alcohol and smoking consumption, deaths from chronic
diseases, and subjective wellbeing. Other indicators that are more relevant
to the developing countries are excluded.

Ireland’s score puts it in the middle of the ranking for this SDG. Sweden and
Netherlands perform the best on health and wellbeing with Portugal and
Greece at the bottom of the ranking.

SDG 3: Rank = 9

36
 SDG 4 ‘Quality education’

SDG 4 advocates inclusive and equitable quality education and promotes

lifelong learning opportunities for all. Education is seen as key in meeting
other SDGs; it aims at reducing poverty, inequality, gender inequality and
contributes to growth, employment, productivity, innovation, competiveness
and healthier lifestyles (Eurostat, 2017:89).

Ireland performs well on the indicator representing 3rd level tertiary

qualifications in the population. It ranks best of the EU15 on the early leavers
from education indicator. The PISA score is also impressive - Ireland is
ranked second to Finland and ranked 4th for expected years of schooling. We
include a new indicator – the expected employment rate of graduates and
Ireland is mid-way in the ranking on this indicator, based on Eurostat data.
The overall score puts Ireland at the top of the list of countries for this SDG,
second only to the UK33.

SDG 4: Rank = 2

SDG 5 ‘Gender equality’

SDG 5 aims at ending all forms of discrimination, violence and any harmful
practices against women and girls. It calls for equal rights, recognition and
equal opportunities of leadership at all levels of political and economic
decision making. We use 5 indicators in our construction of SDG 5.

Ireland scores at the top end for the indicator that captures female education
as a percentage of male education. Indicators for both the share of women in
national parliament and in senior management roles show Ireland well below
the EU average and in the bottom 3 countries for both indicators. The female
participation rate is also lower than the best performing countries. Ireland is
ranked 7th on the gender pay gap indicator, while Luxembourg and Belgium
score highest. Overall, Ireland is ranked 10 on this SDG indicating there
is scope for improvement. Sweden, Denmark and Finland are the highest
ranked countries.

SDG 5: Rank = 10

33
Of course, the NEET rate is also important but is considered under SDG 8, as per the UN Official Indicator
List.

37
 SDG 10 ‘Reduced inequalities’

SDG 10 aims at reducing disparities in terms of income, sex, age, disability,

race, class, ethnicity, and religion.

We use four indicators to capture the theme of this goal. The Palma Index,
(the ratio of the richest 10% of the population’s share of gross national income
divided by the poorest 40%’s share) shows Ireland is ranked 9th. While the
absolute debt level has declined over the years, it remains high. Ireland is
ranked 11th on this indicator. The Netherlands and Denmark are the worst
performing countries for household debt. Ireland’s performance on the
social justice indicator is poor at rank 11 while the Scandanavian countries
have the highest scores. Overall, Ireland’s rank of 11 shows there is a need for
greater progress on this SDG.

SDG 10: Rank = 11

SDG 16 ‘Peace, justice and strong institutions’

SDG 16 calls for peaceful and inclusive societies based on human rights,
protection of the most vulnerable, the rule of law and good governance.
The construction of this SDG uses different indicators to earlier reports in
an attempt to better reflect the theme of the goal. For example, we include
a measure of confidence in the judicial system (Eurostat)34. We retain the
measure of corruption and measures of homicides, crime, and feeling safe
walking home. Ireland’s corruption score ranks it in 10th place. Denmark,
Finland and Sweden are the top 3 ranked countries with Italy, and Greece at
the bottom.

The data indicate Ireland is a relatively safe society with a low number of
deaths due to homicide or assault, and the perceived occurrence of crime,
violence and vandalism. Overall, Ireland’s rank of 4 suggests Ireland is doing
relatively well on this SDG.

SDG 16: Rank = 4

34
We decide not to include a similar measure that captures population perceptions of the EU institutions
as all countries are in the EU and higher scores on this indicator may not actually reflect better country
performance.

38
SDG 17 ‘Partnership for the goals’

Goal 17 seeks to strengthen global partnerships to support and achieve the

targets of the 2030 Agenda, by bringing together national governments, the
international community, civil society, the private sector and other actors.
Despite advances in certain areas, more needs to be done to accelerate
progress.

Availability of published data for all EU countries is limited for this SDG.
The % of GNI devoted to Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) is
the exception and the latest data suggest that Ireland’s contribution of 0.3
is well below the EU average.  Ireland is ranked 11th on this indicator in
2017. Sweden, Luxembourg, and Denmark top with Portugal and Greece at
the bottom.  In Budget 2019 the Irish Government made a substantial move
towards increasing its ODA. However, that increase will not yet register on
these numbers.

As a member state of the EU, Ireland has a commitment to dedicate 0.7 % of

GNI to official development assistance by 2030. Clearly, much needs to be
done to accelerate progress on this SDG.

SDG 17: Rank = 11

39
 5.5 The Environment Index

Country scores and rankings for the Environment Index35 are shown in Table 5.4. Ireland’s score
puts it in 13th place on this dimension.

Table 5.3 The Environment SDG Index – Ranking by Country

Country Index Score Country Rank

Sweden 65.42 1

Austria 59.82 2

Finland 56.53 3

Denmark 54.91 4

Germany 51.99 5

United Kingdom 51.78 6

Netherlands 50.17 7

Portugal 48.49 8

Spain 46.69 9

Belgium 45.42 10

France 44.74 11

Italy 44.50 12

Ireland 43.98 13

Greece 43.44 14

Luxembourg 38.15 15

Source: Authors Analysis

35
SDGs 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 are combined to reflect our environment index.

40
SDG 6 ‘Clean Water and Sanitation’

SDG 6 calls for universal access to safe and affordable drinking water,
sanitation and hygiene. It aims at improving water quality, water use efficiency
and sustainable supply. Indicators for access to improved drinking water and
improved sanitation show further development is required on this goal. We
also include a measure of freshwater withdrawal as % total renewable water
resources and Ireland scores well on this indicator. Ireland’s overall rank on
this SDG is 5.

SDG 6: Rank = 5

SDG 7 ‘Affordable and Clean Energy’

SDG 7 emphasises improving energy efficiency, access to modern energy

services and increasing the share of renewable energy.

Final energy consumption in household per capita has fallen since 2000 but
it remains just above the EU average (2016 data, Eurostat). Ireland’s share of
renewable energy is poor relative to our EU peers. Ireland’s CO2 emissions
from energy fuels combustion/electricity output (MtCO2/TW) are one of
the highest in the sample, ranked 11th. The overall score on this SDG is 12,
and we argue this goal poses significant challenges for Ireland.

SDG 7: Rank = 12

SDG 11 ‘Sustainable cities and communities’

SDG 11 focuses on quality of life in cities and communities, sustainable

transport and adverse environmental impacts. It aims to make cities safe
and sustainable by ensuring access to safe and affordable housing, investing
in infrastructure, and improving planning and management in a way that is
both participatory and inclusive.

Some of the official indicators for this goal are more relevant to developing
countries. We use 3 indicators to reflect this goal. Ireland scores well (3rd
place) on the air pollution in urban areas indicator; Sweden and Finland have
the highest scores. We use updated data on the access to transport indicator
and include a measure of rent over-burden. Taken together, Ireland’s score
gives it a rank of 8 for quality of life in our cities and communities.

SDG 11: Rank = 8

41
 SDG 12 ‘Responsible consumption and production’

SDG 12 calls for sustainable consumption and production by the adoption

of sustainable practices and procedures for business and an increase in
environmentally friendly activity by consumers. Ireland’s performance on
this SDG is poor, based on the indicators used here. More waste is generated
than the EU average (kg per capita), the percentage of waste water not treated
is the lowest of the EU15 (based on 2016 data) and the recycling rate is the
lowest among the EU15. Significant improvement is required if Ireland is to
be on track to achieve this goal in the timescale proposed by Agenda 2030.

SDG 12: Rank = 14

SDG 13 ‘Climate Action’

Implementing the commitment to the UN Framework Convention on
Climate Change and operationalizing the Green Climate Fund are the key
aims of this SDG. Problems with data availability, for example, reliable and
comprehensive measures of mitigation, impacts and initiatives, make this
one of the SDGs that international agencies still find problematic when
attempting to determine important trends. A key indicator used by Eurostat
is GHG emissions. Ireland witnessed an increase in its GHG emissions from
1990 to 2001 (see Figure A2 in Appendix E) and although these emissions
have since fallen, they remain well above EU average. Given data limitations,
our SDG measure here focuses on just 2 indicators: CO2 emissions per capita
indicator, and the effective carbon tax rate. Ireland is ranked 10th.

SDG 13 Rank = 11

SDG 14 ‘Life below Water’

The conservation of the oceans by safeguarding and ensuring their

sustainable use is the aim of SDG 14. Lack of data in the past has meant it
was difficult to estimate how each country is contributing to ocean health.
More recently, different indicators have been used to capture sustainable
fishery and healthy oceans. Examples include protected marine sites, fish
stocks, extent of fish trawling, estimates of ocean health, including ocean
acidity, etc. But complete data remains a problem for accurately estimating
achievement on this SDG for most countries.

42
 We use 5 indicators36 based on data from the Ocean Health Index and Birdlife
International/IUCN to capture the SDG’s theme. The data suggests Ireland is
performing poorly in meeting its sustainable objectives in this area. Ireland
is ranked 9th of 13 countries37.

SDG 14 Rank = 9 (out of 13)

SDG 15 ‘Life on land’

SDG 15 seeks to protect, restore and promote the conservation and
sustainable use of terrestrial, inland water and mountain ecosystems. We
settle on five indicators to mirror this goal, drawing on data from BirdLife
International (2018) which estimates the share of protected terrestrial areas
and freshwater areas. Both of these indicators illustrate Ireland is doing well
and is ranked among the top two for both. The share of land dedicated for
forestry use, at just under 11%, is well below the EU average. The extent
of artificial land coverage per capita (used by Eurostat to reflect land
degradation per capita) also shows Ireland ranked low relative to our EU
peers. The overall rank on this SDG is 8.

SDG 15: Rank = 8

5.6 How Are We Doing Overall? - The Sustainable Development Index

The SDGs provide an ambitious, comprehensive plan of action for people, planet and prosperity.
The goal of the SDGs is to change the perspective of public policy and we have shown the scale
of the challenge facing Ireland under the headings of economy, society and environment. Table
5.4 provides a picture of how Ireland ranks on each SDG in each of the 3 dimensions; economy,
society and environment.

The composite Sustainable Progress Index (SPI) is presented in Table 5.5. It provides a simple
report card to track Ireland’s overall performance on the SDGs compared to its EU peers:
countries that have experienced similar levels of development. Sweden, Finland and Denmark
top the rankings. Ireland’s overall ranking is 11.

36
These indicators were not used in previous reports for estimating this SDG. Our choice of indicators is
influenced by ensuring complete coverage for all 13 countries. The EU have noted problems with this SDG
in particular, and were unable to estimate trends in SDG progress in their report (Eurostat, 2017).
37
Both Austria and Luxembourg are landlocked – hence no data for this goal.

43
 Table 5.4 Ireland’s Rank by Dimension and by SDG

Ireland Overall Rank on the SDGs 11

Economy 11

SDG 8: Good Jobs and Economic Growth 9

SDG 9 Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure 11

Society 10

SDG 1 No Poverty 7

SDG 2 Zero Hunger 10

SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being 9

SDG 4 Quality Education 2

SDG 5 Gender Equality 10

SDG 10 Reduced Inequality 11

SDG 16 Peace and Justice 4

SDG 17 Partnerships for the Goals 11

Environment 13

SDG 6 Clean Water and Sanitation 5

SDG 7 Affordable and Clean Energy 12

SDG 11 Sustainable Cities and Communities 8

SDG 12 Responsible Consumption and Production 14

SDG 13 Climate Action 11

SDG 14 Life Below Water 9

SDG 15 Life on Land 8

Source: Authors analysis

Table 5.5 The Sustainable Progress Index – Ranking by Country

Country Index Score Country Rank

Sweden 71.45 1

Denmark 66.60 2

Finland 62.11 3

Netherlands 57.37 4

Austria 57.14 5

Germany 53.42 6

United Kingdom 50.71 7

Belgium 49.39 8

France 48.32 9

44
Luxembourg 46.06 10

Ireland 45.91 11

Portugal 38.38 12

Italy 37.66 13

Spain 37.15 14

Greece 28.12 15

Source: Authors Analysis

Strengths: Ireland is in the top third for 3 SDGs. Our analysis suggests that Ireland does well on
SDGs relating to Quality Education (SDG 4); Peace and Justice (SDG 16) and Clean Water
and Sanitation (SDG6). Ireland has a good reputation internationally for quality education,
and skilled graduates are in high demand. Ireland is also regarded as a relatively safe place to live
with lower homicides and crime rates relative to other countries.

Weaknesses: 4 SDGs are in the bottom third: Partnerships for the Goals, (SDG 17); Affordable
and Clean Energy (SDG 7); Reduced Inequality (SDG10); and Responsible Consumption
and Production (SDG 12). Significant challenges lie ahead if Ireland is to achieve its objectives
on these goals.

In the Middle: 10 SDGS are in the middle of the rankings, implying there is still scope for
improvement. Going forward, it is important to continue to monitor all relevant indicators
under each to track progress towards goals.

45
6
Conclusions
and Future
Considerations
At the beginning of the Great Depression, John Maynard Keynes wrote an unusual article titled
“The Economic Possibilities of our Grandchildren”. In it, he argued that the economic hard
times the rich countries were facing at the time was just a temporary setback. The long-run
march to solving the economic problem - of providing sufficient material standard of living for
all - would continue. He further argued that this state should be reached within the following
100 years, in the lifetime of the grandchildren of the people living in the 1930s.

Adam Smith had earlier stated clearly that the provision of a decent standard of living for all was
crucial: “[n]o society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the
members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe and lodge
the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to
be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed and lodged” (1976b, p. 97).

Smith argued that the ‘invisible hand’ of the market would move us towards a society of perfect
liberty in which the benefits would be shared by workers (the lower class) provided people
were sufficiently ethical to control their self-interests (not take advantage of others) and that
the government was not used to benefit the rich classes (landlords and business owners). It
is worth noting that Smith also supported government regulations that supported workers38.

38
“Whenever the legislature attempts to regulate the differences between masters and their workmen, its
counsellors are always the masters. When the regulation, therefore, is in favour of the workmen, it is always
just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favour of the masters” (Smith, 1976b, p. 158).

46
However the drive to amass wealth in the form of capital accumulation became the dominant
strategy for the economy, with social morals and institutions adjusting to support this drive.
Periodic depressions and financial crises, which are a natural part of capitalism, showed the
pain and suffering that resulted from a lack of economic growth. The Great Depression not only
led to widespread unemployment, homelessness and hunger, it also contributed to the rise of
authoritarian governments, lost individual liberties, World War II, and the rise of communism
(USSR and China). It is little wonder that keeping capitalist economies growing and providing
high levels of employment became the primary public policy goal. Economic growth was a
national goal, becoming, as we noted above, “the secular religion of advanced industrial societies.”

Keynes noted that one of the benefits of solving the economic problem was that we can rid
ourselves of the glorification of these morals and direct our energy to higher purposes, to move
from affluent societies to just societies. Keynes (ibid., p. 199) stated that:

“[w]hen the accumulation of wealth is no longer of high social importance, there

will be great changes in the code of morals. We shall be able to rid ourselves of
many of the pseudo-moral principles which have hag-ridden us for two hundred
years, by which we have exalted some of the most distasteful of human qualities
into the position of the highest virtues. We shall be able to afford to dare to
assess the money-motive at its true value. The love of money as a possession - as
distinguished from the love of money as a means to the enjoyments and realities
of life - will be recognised for what it is, a somewhat disgusting morbidity, one of
those semi-criminal, semi-pathological propensities which one hands over with
a shudder to the specialists in mental disease. All kinds of social customs and
economic practices, affecting the distribution of wealth and of economic rewards
and penalties, which we now maintain at all costs, however distasteful and unjust
they may be in themselves, because they are tremendously useful in promoting the
accumulation of capital, we shall then be free, at last, to discard.”

The benefits of economic growth do not naturally flow to everyone. Without state intervention,
benefits remain at the top. The ‘trickle-down’ effect should be at best seen as a light mist
(spending by the rich does create some employment), but it is not enough of a shower to create
fertile conditions for full employment, or greater equality and social well-being. In all the rich
countries, a welfare state developed so that the state could provide a level of social protection
to all citizens (minimal in the English speaking countries, more comprehensive in Scandinavian
countries and northern Europe). However, since the 1980s, the revolt of the ‘haves’ has led to
limits on social protection measures and cuts to top tax rates so that even more wealth and
income is concentrated in the hands of the rich, all justified as pro-growth policies.

47
 It is clear in poor countries, that there is a connection between economic growth and many
social well-being indicators. In rich countries, the connection is often seen during periods of
economic hardship with increases in mortality rates and other social well-being measures, but
it is less clear when the economy is growing. Most of the connections are just correlations, and
correlation is not causation. The results change when other factors are considered and when
attempts are made at showing the direction of causality. This is very evident in the literature
on inequality and health outcomes. New research on economic growth and health outcomes
indicates that health contributes to economic growth, often more so than economic growth
contributes to health. So, for example, this implies that if a policy goal is to reduce infant
mortality, the most effective way to achieve this outcome is to increase female literacy rates.
While economic growth can provide resources to increase spending on education, perhaps
a more effective strategy is to directly target females and break down the barriers to females
acquiring education to achieve the policy goal.

Directly focusing on social and environmental goals, rather than waiting for economic growth
to trickle down and produce desirable outcomes, is what underpins the SDGs. It is also what
makes them revolutionary. The SDGs are a rejection of the paradigm of one way causality
of economic growth leading to everything else. Clearly the economy and economic growth
are important, but they exist in a context, and economic growth is as much an effect of social
progress as a potential contributor to social progress.

We are at a time when we can identify and measure what promotes integral human development,
for individual and communities. Promoting the development of the whole person and all
people leads to a healthier and more stable economy; it promotes an economy which puts
people first. We are also at a stage in human history where promoting an economic growth
model based on private profits and ignoring the environmental costs of human actions can
no longer be accepted. A disposable society that uses up and discards people and resources
with the single goal of ensuring the continuation of the process of capital accumulation is not
sustainable, socially or environmentally. The world needs a new model based on a broader
understanding of what it means to be human and how humans relate to one another and to
their common home. We hope that our report demonstrates that policy insights can be learned
by exploring a wider number of indicators. Critically, our message is that the SDGs are not just
another list of suggestions for poor countries; they can be a tool for all countries, informing
decision making and public policy. Our efforts over the years have always been to push this
conversation forward. We don’t believe there is a single policy solution to solve every problem;
in fact we doubt one exists. But the analysis in this report suggests that Ireland can improve
its performance in specific areas: we can learn from the other countries. Some countries have
discovered how to pursue growth while also reducing the impact on the environment. Others
can provide higher levels of public services. Of course, countries can also learn from what
Ireland does well. There are no natural advantages in promoting social well-being; it is a matter
of social choices.

48
Policy Considerations

1. Measuring progress by GDP and other traditional measures is seriously

problematic.

2. If a sustainable environment is to be developed, Ireland’s share of renewable

energy and Co2 emissions are a challenge – far greater action is required.

3. Economic growth alone will not solve the problem of poverty.

4. Ireland’s performance on gender equality is well below the EU average;

eliminating the gender pay gap should be a priority.

5. Balance is required in regional development.

6. Ireland’s performance on education is good, but there is an issue with those

not in education, employment or training (NEETs).

7. Ireland should strive to be a leader on the Corruption Index indicator

8. Increasing ODA as % of GNI would be a strong sign of our commitment on

partnership for the goals.

9. Ireland has an excellent opportunity to partner with developing countries

towards supporting their attaining of the SDGs

10. There is a need to gather evidence and track progress – on policies that
drive outcomes in order to implement the 2030 Agenda

11. It is critically important that Government integrate all 17 SDGS into all
policy-making processes - give them the priority that they require if they
are to be achieved by Ireland

12. There is an ongoing need to gather evidence especially on environmental

indicators – this is one of the most urgent issues as many indicators lack the
necessary data.

13. There is also an urgent need to focus on securing policy coherence – several
aspects of current Government policy are at odds with the SDGs e.g.

a. generating economic growth by increasing agricultural production

b. Prioritising job-creation via transnationals while Ireland’s infrastructure

(e.g. housing, public transport, rural broadband) and social services
(health, education, older people) are below SDG requirements

14. Develop Satellite National Accounts – GDP is not appropriate for 21st
century.

15. Badge all policy initiatives with the relevant SDG(s)

49
7
References
Acemoglu, D. and Robinson, J.A. (2012), Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power and Poverty,
London: Crown Publishing Group.
Akhmat, G., Zaman, K., Shukui, T., Javed, Y., and Khan, S.R. (2014), “Social Health Indicators
and Economic Growth: Evidence from East Asia and Pacific, Middle East and North
Africa, South Asia and Sub-Sharan Africa”, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 119, Issue 2;
(November) pp. 663-686.
Bell, D. (1996), The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism, New York: Basic Books.
BirdLife International, IUCN, UNEP-WCMC (2018), available at https://www.birdlife.org/
Clark, C.M.A. (1998), “The Future of Capitalism”, Doctrine & Life, Vol. 48, No. 5, May/June, pp.
258-277.
Clark, C.M.A. and Kavanagh, C. (1996), “Progress, Values and Economic Indicators” in Progress,
Values and Public Policy, edited by B. Reynolds and S. Healy, Dublin: CORI, pp. 60-92.
Clark, C.MA. and Kavanagh, C. (2015), “Social Progress in Ireland” in Measuring Up? Ireland’s
Progress: Past, Present and Future, edited by B. Reynolds and S. Healy, Dublin: Social
Justice Ireland, pp. 1-40.
Clark, C.M.A. and C. Kavanagh (2017) Sustainable Progress Index 2017, Dublin: Social Justice
Ireland.
Clark, C.M.A., Kavanagh, C. and Lenihan, N. (2018a), Measuring Progress: Economy, Society
and Environment in Ireland, Dublin: Social Justice Ireland.
Clark, C.M.A., Kavanagh, C. and Lenihan, N. (2018b), Ireland vs EU28: Monitoring Ireland’s
Performances towards Achieving the SDGs, Dublin: Social Justice Ireland.
Clark, C.M.A. and Zalewski, D.A. (2015), “Rethinking Finance in Light of Catholic Social
Thought”, Journal of Catholic Social Thought, Vol. 12, No., 1, pp. 19-44.
Clark, J. B. 1965 [1899], The Distribution of Wealth, New York: Augustus M. Kelley.
Dell, E.J (1992), Transformational Growth and Effective Demand: Economics after the Capital
Critique, London: Macmillan Academic and Professional Ltd.
Easterlin, R. A. (1974), “Does Economic Growth Improve the Human Lot? Some
Empirical Evidence” in Nations and Household in Economic Growth: Essays in Honor of
Moses Abramovitz, edited by R. David and R. Reder, New York: Academic Press.

50
Edgeworth, F. 1967 [1881], Mathematical Physics, New York: Augustus M. Kelley.
Eurostat (2017), Sustainable Development in the European Union: Overview of Progress Towards
the SDGs in and EU Context, Luxembourg: European Union.
Eurostat. Data accessed at http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database
Friedman, B.M. (2005), The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth, New York: Vantage
Books.
Galbraith, J. K. 1976 [1958], The Affluent Society, Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Gallup, (2018), Gallup World Poll, Gallup.
Gassert, F., Reig, P., Luo, T., and Maddocks, A. (2013), Aqueduct Country and River Basin
Rankings: a Weighted Aggregate of Spatially Distinct Hydrological Indicators, Working
Paper, Washington DC: World Resources Institute.
Helliwell, J., Layard, R., and Sachs, J. (2017), World Happiness Report, New York: Centre for
Sustainable Development.
Heilbroner, R. L. (1985), The Nature and Logic of Capitalism, New York: Norton.
ITU (2018), https://www.itu.int/en/ITUTELECOM/Pages/world2018.aspx
Keynes, J.M. (1936), The General Theory of Employment Interest and Money, London: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Keynes, J.M. 2009 [1930], “Economic Possibilities of our Grandchildren”, Essays in Persuasion,
Creative Space.
Kroll, C. (2015), Sustainable Development Goals: Are the Rich Countries Ready? Gutersloh:
Bertelsmann Foundation.
Nikiforos, M. and Zezza, G. (2018), “America First,: Fiscal Policy, and Financial Stability”,
Strategic Analysis, Annandale, New York: Levy Economics Institute of Bard College.
OECD Data accessed at https://data.oecd.org/
OECD (2017), Measuring Distance to the SDGs Targets: A Pilot Assessment of where OECD
Countries Stand, Paris: OECD.
OECD (2018), OECD Economic Outlook, Paris: OECD.
Robinson, J. (1969), The Accumulation of Capital, London: Macmillan.
Sachs, J. S. et al (2016), SDG Index and Dashboards Global Report, New York: Bertelsmann
Stiftung and Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN).
Sachs, J. S. et al (2017), SDG Index and Dashboards Global Report, New York: Bertelsmann
Stiftung and Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN).
Sachs, J. S. et al (2018), SDG Index and Dashboards Global Report, New York: Bertelsmann
Stiftung and Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN), available at http://
sdgindex.org/reports/2018/
Schraad-Tischeler, D. and Schiller, D, Heller, S.M. and Sieme, N. (2017), Social Justice in the
EU - Index Report 2017, Social Inclusion Monitor Europe, Berlin: Bertelsmann Stiftung.
Sustainable Development Solutions Network, (2016), Preliminary Sustainable Development
(SDG) Index and Dashboard, Working Paper, February 15: available at http://unsdsn.org/
resources/publications/sdg-index/

51
 Sen, A. (1983), “Poor, Relatively Speaking”, Oxford Economic Papers, New Series, Vol. 35, No. 2
(July), pp. 153-169.
Social Progress Imperative (2018), Social Progress Index 2018,available at https://www.
socialprogress.org
Smith, A. 1976a [1759], The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Smith, A. 1976b [1776], An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Transparency International (2018), Corruption Perception Index 2018, Berlin: Transparency
International.
UN, (2008), SNA, 2008, New York: United Nations. 
UNDP. Data accessed at http://hdr.undp.org/en/data
UN Statistics Division (2017), SDG Indicators and Targets, available at http://unstats.un.org/
sdgs/indicators/indicators-list/
UNU-IAS (2015), available athttps://ias.unu.edu/en/publications/
WHO. Data accessed at http://www.who.int/gho/database/en/
World Bank. Data accessed at http://data.worldbank.org/
World Bank, (1997). Expanding the Measure of Wealth: Indicators of Environmental Sustainable
Development, Washington, DC: World Bank.

52
 Table A1 Country Rankings on Various Progress Indices

GDP per capita, 2017, Social Progress Index Sustainable Develop- World Happiness Human Development Global Comp. Report
8
PPP 2018 ment Goal Index 2018 Report 2018 Report 2018 2018

Country Score Country Score Country Score Country Score Country Score Country Score

LUX $94,278 DNK 90.0 SWE 85.0 FIN 7.6 IRL 0.938 DEU 82.8

IRL $67,335 FIN 89.8 DNK 84.6 DNK 7.6 DEU 0.936 NLD 82.4

NLD $48,473 NLD 89.3 FIN 83.0 NLD 7.4 SWE 0.933 UK 82

SWE $46,949 LUX 89.3 DEU 82.3 SWE 7.3 NLD 0.931 SWE 81.7

DNK $46,683 DEU 89.2 FRA 81.2 AUT 7.1 DNK 0.929 DNK 80.6

AUT $45,437 SWE 89.0 AUT 80.0 IRE 7.0 UK 0.922 FIN 80.3

DEU $45,229 IRL 88.8 NLD 79.5 DEU 7.0 FIN 0.92 FRA 78

BEL $42,659 GBR 88.7 BEL 79.0 BEL 6.9 BEL 0.916 BEL 76.6

FIN $40,586 FRA 87.9 GBR 78.7 LUX 6.9 AUT 0.908 LUX 76.6

GBR $39,753 BEL 87.4 IRL 77.5 GBR 6.8 LUX 0.904 AUT 76.3

FRA $38,606 ESP 87.1 LUX 76.1 FRA 6.5 FRA 0.901 IRL 75.7
Appendices

ITA $35,220 AUT 86.8 ESP 75.4 ESP 6.3 ESP 0.891 ESP 74.2

ESP $34,272 ITA 86.0 ITA 74.2 ITA 6.0 ITA 0.880 ITA 70.8

PRT $27,937 PRT 85.4 PRT 74.0 PRT 5.4 GRE 0.870 PRT 70.2

GRC $24,574 GRC 82.6 GRC 70.6 GRC 5.4 PRT 0.847 GRC 62.1
Appendix A: Country Ranking on Alternative Measures of Progress

Source: Authors’ analysis

53
 Appendix B: Social Progress Index (2018) Results for EU15 Countries

Table A2 provides some further detail from the Social Progress Index (2018). Focusing on the
three broad categories in the index, we see that Ireland is ranked at the top for Opportunity,
7th for meeting Basic Needs, and 13th for Foundations of Well-Being.

Table A.2 Three Broad Categories of Social Progress, SPI 2018

Foundations of
Country Basic Needs Country Country Opportunity
Well-being

NLD 96.41 FIN 92.49 IRL 82.29

AUT 96.21 FRA 92.20 DNK 81.64

DNK 96.17 DNK 92.06 DEU 81.57

SWE 95.86 GBR 91.98 LUX 81.43

FIN 95.66 NLD 91.65 SWE 81.20

DEU 95.35 LUX 91.41 FIN 81.16

IRL 95.03 AUT 91.40 GBR 79.99

LUX 94.97 ESP 91.39 NLD 79.97

PRT 94.85 DEU 90.71 BEL 79.70

GBR 94.25 ITA 90.28 FRA 77.82

ESP 94.02 SWE 89.90 ITA 76.35

FRA 93.62 BEL 89.34 ESP 75.92

BEL 93.14 IRL 89.14 PRT 74.18

GRC 92.13 PRT 87.03 AUT 72.68

ITA 91.49 GRC 85.43 GRC 70.21

Source: Social Progress Index, 2018

Given the low ranking for the Foundations of Wellbeing dimension, Table A4 takes a closer
look at the ranking of each of the four categories that make up this index. While Ireland scores
well in Access to Basic Knowledge (5th place), it is ranked 10th in Access to Information and
Communication and second last on Health and Wellness and Environmental Quality. The
Health and Wellness is strongly influenced brought Ireland’s poor score on the access to Quality
Healthcare indicator, while the Environmental Quality score is low because of poor scores in
Wastewater Treatment; Greenhouse Gas and Biome Protection.

54
Table A.3 Four Elements of Foundations of Wellbeing, SPI 2018

Access to Basic Access to Information

Health and Wellness Environmental Quality
Knowledge and Communications
Country Index Country Index Country Index Country Index
DNK 98.01 GBR 97.01 FRA 87.26 FRA 94.21
FRA 97.55 NLD 96.56 FIN 86.68 ESP 94.08
LUX 97.52 FIN 95.02 SWE 86.50 DNK 93.29
ITA 96.89 DNK 94.57 ESP 86.44 ITA 93.20
IRL 96.65 AUT 92.79 NLD 85.35 SWE 93.06
NLD 96.38 DEU 91.86 AUT 85.27 FIN 92.94
GBR 95.84 LUX 90.17 LUX 85.12 AUT 92.93
DEU 95.79 FRA 89.78 ITA 84.92 LUX 92.82
ESP 95.58 ESP 89.47 BEL 83.68 GBR 92.77
FIN 95.32 IRL 89.39 DEU 83.13 PRT 92.22
AUT 94.59 BEL 88.00 DNK 82.38 DEU 92.05
GRC 94.42 SWE 87.96 GBR 82.28 BEL 91.63
BEL 94.02 ITA 86.11 PRT 81.38 GRC 89.80
PRT 93.47 PRT 81.06 IRL 81.11 IRL 89.42
SWE 92.09 GRC 76.45 GRC 81.06 NLD 88.30

Source: Social Progress Index, 2018

55
 Appendix C: Clark, Kavanagh and Linehan (2018) Summary Results

Table A2 replicates table 2 from Clark, Kavanagh and Linehan (2018b). It provides a summary
of Ireland’s performance on the SDG drawing on the EU Indicator set and the same method
used by Eurostat (2017).

Table A2 Classification of Ireland’s Progress on the SDGs over Time, Eurostat Indicator Set

Sustainable Overall Short Term

Progress Subthemes Directions
Development Goal progress Movement

1. Multidimensional poverty 
1 ‘No Poverty’ Moderate
2. Basic needs 

1. Malnutrition 
2 ‘Zero Hunger’ Moderate
2. S
 ustainable agricultural  
production
3. Adverse impacts ---

1. Health lives

3 ‘Good Health and 2. Health determinants 
Wellbeing’
Good
3. Causes of death 

4. Access to healthcare


1. Basic education 
4 ‘Quality Education’ Moderate 2. Tertiary education  
3. Adult education

---
1.Gender-based violence
2. Education 
5 ‘Gender Equality’ Moderate 
3. Employment 
4. Leadership positions


1. Sanitation
6 ‘Clean Water and
Good 2. Water quality 
Sanitation’
3. Water use efficiency
---

1. Energy consumption 
7 ‘Affordable and Clean 2. Energy Supply
Energy’
Moderate
3. Access to affordable
 
energy 
1. S
 ustainable economic 
8 ‘Decent Work and growth
Economic Growth’
Good
2. Employment 
3. Decent work 
9 ‘Industry, Innovation 1. R&D and innovation 
and Infrastructure’
Moderate
2. Sustainable transport



56
 1. Inequalities by countries

2. Inequalities within
10 ‘Reduced 
Inequalities’
Moderate countries 
3. Migration and social
inclusion ----

1. Quality of life in cities

and communities 
11 ‘Sustainable Cities
and Communities’
Good 2. Sustainable transport  
3. Adverse environmental

impacts

1. Decoupling environmental
12 ‘Responsible
impacts from economic 
growth
Consumption and Moderate
2. Energy consumption
 
Production’
3.Waste generation and 
management

1. Climate Mitigation 
13 ‘Climate Action’ Poor 2. Climate Impacts ---- 
3. Climate initiatives ----

1. Marine Conservation 
14 ‘Life below Water’ Poor 2. Sustainable fishery  
3. Ocean health ---

1. Ecosystem status 
15 ‘Life on Land’ Moderate 2. Land degradation ---- 
3. Biodiversity ----

1. Peace and personal 

16 ‘Peace, Justice and security
strong institutions’
Good
2. Access to justice  
3. Trust in institutions 
Global Partnership 
17 ‘Partnership for
the Goals’
Poor Financial governance within 
the EU 

Significant improvement towards SD objective 

Moderate improvement towards SD objective 
Moderate movement away from SD objective 
Significant movement away from SD objective 
Insufficient data to comment ---

Source: Clark, Kavanagh and Lenihan (2018b, pp. 46-48)

57
 Appendix D: L
 ist of Indicators Used in the Construction of the Sustainable
Progress Index

Table A.5 List of Indicators Used in the SDGs

SDG Indicator Source

1 Poverty rate after taxes and transfers; poverty line 50% (% of population) OECD
2 Prevalence of obesity, BMI>30 (% of adult population) WHO
2 Cereal yield (kg/ha) World Bank
2 Ammonia emissions from agriculture Eurostat (from EEA)
2 Gross nutrient balance on land on agricultural land Eurostat
2 Area under organic farming (% of UAA) Eurostat
3 Life expectancy at birth, total, years Eurostat
3 Adolescent fertility rate (births per 1000, age15-19) UNDP
3 Subjective wellbeing (average ladder score) Gallup (2018); from
Sachs et al (2018)
3 Daily smokers (%, aged 15+) Eurostat
3 Road traffic deaths (per 100,000) WHO
3 Self-reported unmet health needs (% of population) Eurostat
3 Deaths from NCDs (per 100,000) WHO
3 Suicide Rate OECD
3 Alcohol Consumption (litres per capita, age 15+) WHO
4 Population aged 25-64 with tertiary education (%) OECD
4 PISA Score OECD
4 Expected years of schooling UNESCO
4 Employment rate of recent graduates Eurostat
5 Proportion of seats held by women in national parliaments (%) Eurostat
5 Proportion of women in senior management positions (%) Eurostat
5 Gender Wage Gap (% of male median wages) OECD
5 Female labour for participation (% of males) World Bank
5 Female years of education (% of males) UN
6 Population using safely managed water services JMP (2018)
6 Population using safety managed sanitation services JMP (2018)
6 Freshwater withdrawal as % total renewable water resources FAO (2018)
7 Share of renewable energy in consumption (%) Eurostat
7 CO2 from fuels and electricity IEA
8 Unemployment Rate (%) OECD
8 Real DGP per capita OECD
8 Low Pay (the share of workers earning less than two-thirds of median wages, %) OECD
8 NEET rate (youths not in employment education or training (%) OECD

58
9 R&D expenditure, % of GDP OECD
9 Internet use (%) ITU
9 Patent applications (per 100,00) OECD
9 Number of R&D researchers (per 1000 employed) OECD
10 GINI index OECD
10 Household debt, % NDI OECD
10 Palma index OECD
10 EU Social Justice Index Social Inclusion Moni-
tor Report
11 Exposure to air pollution of PM2.5 in urban areas Eurostat
11 Difficulty in accessing public transport (% of population) Gallup (2018); Sachs
et al (2018)
11 Rent over-burden rate OECD, Sachs et al
(2018)
12 Municipal waste generated per capita OECD
12 Waste water treated (%) EPI (2018)
12 Recycling rate of waste, excluding major mineral waste (% of total waste recycled) Eurostat
12 E-waste generated (kg/capita) UNU-IAS (2015)
13 CO2 Emissions per capita (tCO2/capita) World Bank
13 Effective Tax Emissions OECD (2018); Sachs
et al, (2018)
14 Mean area that is protected in marinesites important to biodiversity (%) Birdlife International et
al. (2018)
14 Ocean Health Index Goal – Biodiversity Ocean Health Index
(2018)
14 Ocean Health Index Goal – Fisheries Ocean Health Index
(2018)
14 Ocean Health Index Goal – Clean Waters Ocean Health Index
(2018)
15 Mean area that is protected in terrestrial sites important to biodiversity (%) BirdLife International
(2018)
15 Mean area that is protected in freshwater sites important to biodiversity BirdLife International
(2018)
15 Artificial land coverage per capita Eurostat
15 Percentage of land covered by forestry OECD
15 Red List Index Bird Life International
(2018)
16 Corruption index Transparency Inter-
national
16 Homicides per 100,000 population Eurostat
16 Population reporting Occurrence of crime, violence or vandalism in their area (%) Eurostat
16 Perceived independence of the justice system (%) Eurostat
16 Feel safe walking at night (%) Gallup (2018)
17 Overseas Development Assistance (% of GNI) Eurostat

59
Social Justice Ireland
Arena House
Arena Road
Sandyford
Dublin D18 V8P6
Ireland
www.socialjustice.ie
Tel: 01- 2130724 €15
e-mail: secretary@socialjustice.ie