They also show the importance of social links

If efforts to revive the world economy while responding to climate change raises a thorny issue: the statistics are good indicators of what to do In a performance-oriented world, measuring instruments have gained increased importance: we measure affect our actions.

If the results are low, our efforts (for example to increase GDP) can contribute to deteriorate the level of life. We can also find us face false choice, wrongly believing that performance affects environmental protection. On the other hand, a better appreciation of economic performance could show that the measures taken to improve the environment are beneficial to the economy.

Eighteen months ago, French President Nicolas Sarkozy has created a Commission on the measurement of economic performance and social progress, because he was not satisfied - it was not the only the statistical apparatus of the time on the economy and society. The commission today published its long-awaited report.

The big question is whether GDP is a good tool to measure the level of life. In many cases, the statistics seem to suggest that the economy is performing better than what the citizens feel. In addition, the last in front of the GDP generates conflicts: it requires policy makers that they relate to its maximum, while the citizens also expect that they are attentive to the improvement of safety, to the reduction of noise pollution, air, water, etc. In short, everything which could undermine the growth of the GDP.

The fact that GDP may be a poor indicator of well-being, even markets activity, is allowed for a long time. But changes in society and the economy may also have had their influence at the same time where the progress in economic and statistical sciences offer better ways to measure.

GDP is intended to measure the value of the production of goods and services. However, in a key - public sector for example - we have no tools to do so. The production is often measured, very simply, the contribution. Therefore if the State spends more - even inefficiently - production increases. Over the past sixty years, the part of the public sector in GDP production increased by 21.4 to 38.6 in the United States, from 27.6 to 52.7 in France, from 34.2 to 47.6 30.4 to 42.0 in Germany and the United Kingdom. This is a minor problem initially became major. At the same time improving the quality (of better cars instead of much more cars) represents today a very important part of the increase of GDP. However, the improvement of the quality is not easily quantifiable. The health care system is a good example: the major portion is funded public manner while most advances are qualitative. To make comparisons between countries poses similar problems. The United States spends more than any other country for its health care system, but get less good results. The measurement system could explain, in part, the difference in GDP per capita in the United States and some European countries. Another significant change in number of companies is the increase of inequalities. There are in fact more differences between the average income and median income (that of a "typical" person whose income is in the range). If a few bankers get richer massively, the average income increases, even if the income of most individuals decline. Thus the GDP per capita statistics reflect exactly what actually happens to the population. Also, to assess the goods and services, we use the market prices. But now even those who believe more in markets questioned the validity of such a measure. The benefits of the banks before the crisisa third of the profits of companies - appear to have been a mirage. Awareness sheds a new light not only the measurement of the performance, but also what is inferred. Before the crisis, when the growth of the United States (based on the standard measure of GDP tools) seemed much stronger than that of Europe, many Europeans were in favour of American-style capitalism. Course, all those who wished could have seen the growing indebtedness of American households, which would show that the vision of success given by the measure of GDP was wrong. Recent advanced methodological have allowed us to better assess which contributes to the sense of well-being among citizens and to gather the data needed to conduct regularly. These analyses examine and quantify what should be obvious: the loss of a job implies a more significant impact than the loss of a single income. They also show the importance of social links. A good measure of well-being must also take into account durability. As a company must quantify the depreciation of its capital, national accounts must also reflect the decrease in natural resources and the degradation of the environment. Of course, statistics are intended to summarize what is happening in our complex societies in some interpretable figures easily. Obviously that can all reduce to a single statistics, GDP, should have hit us. The report of the Commission on the measurement of economic performance and social progress will lead, hopefully to a better understanding of the us and abuse of statistics. This report should also provide axes on which to base a wider range of tools reflecting more accurately both the wellness and sustainability. It should also provide a dynamic basis for improving the capacity of the GDP and the statistics to assess the performance of our economy and our society. Such reforms will help us to guide our efforts (and resources) in direction leading to the improvement of the two.