Rethinking 'Progress': an Evaluation of the Wellington Region Genuine Progress Index
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is widespread and long-running discontent with the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as a measure of progress for society. A number of alternative measures have been proposed, including the Genuine Progress Index (GPI).\nA GPI has been developed by local government in the Wellington region (New Zealand) to facilitate a rethinking of conventional notions of 'progress'.\nThe Wellington Region GPI (WRGPI) is modelled upon the Nova Scotia GPI, which is a pluralistic index consisting of environmental, social, economic and cultural indicators with either physical or monetary values. The study\nexplores a 'good practice' approach to public participation in the development of the GPI, and provides an overview of the context within which it fits. A synergistic link was found between the Nova Scotia GPI framework and the framework provided by the Local Government Act community outcomes process. Despite this synergy, and the commitment to the GPI on the part of local authorities, a number of challenges emerged from\nthe context. These include the poor integration of the existing community outcomes into institutional decision-making, a weak institutional\ncommitment to the economic valuation procedure of the GPI, and the desire on the part of the present local government minister to reduce the scope of local government. In light of these challenges, a 'good practice' approach has\nbeen developed with a normative component: deliberation, influence & inclusion, and a methodological component: purpose, process & context. Deliberation was stressed as a particularly important tool to facilitate\ninstitutional and social learning around the WRGPI and to build the value case and a constituency for the WRGPI across the local authorities and\ncommunity, and therefore increasing the likelihood that conventional notions of 'progress' will be replaced with more holistic ones. While this case study provides insights into the challenge of integrating a GPI into local governance, it is still too early to judge whether the initiative will emerge as a viable alternative to the GDP for the Wellington region.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".