Environment, Development and Sustainability

, Volume 12, Issue 1, pp 49–62 | Cite as

Sustainable nations: what do aggregate indexes tell us?

  • J. Ram Pillarisetti
  • Jeroen C. J. M. van den Bergh


What is a ‘sustainable nation’ and how can we identify and rank ‘sustainable nations?’ Are nations producing and consuming in a sustainable way? Although several aggregate indexes have been proposed to answer such questions, comprehensive and internationally comparable data are not available for most of these. This paper quantitatively compares three aggregate indexes of sustainability: the World Bank’s ‘Genuine Savings’ measure, the ‘Ecological Footprint,’ and the ‘Environmental Sustainability Index.’ These three indexes are available for a large number of countries and also seem to be the most influential among the aggregate indexes. This paper first discusses the main limitations and weaknesses of each of these indexes. Subsequently, it shows that rankings of sustainable nations and aggregate assessments of unsustainable world population and world GDP shares vary considerably among these indexes. This disagreement leads to suggestions for analysis and policy. One important insight is that climate change, arguable the most serious threat currently faced by humanity, is not or arbitrarily captured by the indexes.


Adjusted net savings Ecological debt Ecological Footprint Environmental Sustainability Index Genuine Savings Sustainability 


  1. Atkinson, G., Dubourg, R., Hamilton, K., Munasinghe, M., Pearce, D., & Young, C. (1997). Measuring sustainable development: Macroeconomics and the environment. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  2. Azar, C., & Holmberg, J. (1995). Defining the generational environmental debt. Ecological Economics, 14, 7–19. doi: 10.1016/0921-8009(95)00007-V.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Azqueta, D., & Sotelsek, D. (2007). Valuing nature: From environmental impacts to natural capital. Ecological Economics, 63(1), 22–30. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.02.029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bisbort, A. (2003). The environmental sustainability index: A new paradigm for global decision making. Environment: Yale—The Journal of the School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 2(1), 3–11.Google Scholar
  5. Centre for Health and the Global Environment. (2005). Climate change futures: Health, ecological and economic dimensions. Boston: Harvard Medical School.Google Scholar
  6. Daly, H. (1996). Beyond growth. Ypsilanti, USA: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  7. Den Elzen, M. G. J., Schaeffer, M., & Lucas, P. L. (2005). Differentiating future commitments on the basis of countries’ relative historical responsibility for climate change: Uncertainties in the ‘Brazilian proposal’ in the context of a policy implementation. Climatic Change, 71, 277–301. doi: 10.1007/s10584-005-5382-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ebert, U., & Welsch, H. (2004). Meaningful environmental indices: A social choice approach. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 47, 270–283. doi: 10.1016/j.jeem.2003.09.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gasparatos, A., El-Haram, M., & Horner, M. (2007). A critical review of reductionist approaches for assessing the progress towards sustainability. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2007.09.002.
  10. Gore, A. (2007). An inconvenient truth: The crisis of global warming. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
  11. Gowdy, J., & McDaniel, C. (1999). The physical destruction of Nauru: An example of weak sustainability. Land Economics, 75(2), 333–338. doi: 10.2307/3147015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grazi, F., van den Bergh, J. C. J. M., & Rietveld, P. (2007). Welfare economics versus ecological footprint: Modeling agglomeration, externalities and trade. Environmental and Resource Economics, 38(1), 135–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lawn, P. A. (2003). A theoretical foundation to support the index of sustainable economic welfare (ISEW), genuine progress indicator (GPI), and other related indexes. Ecological Economics, 44(1), 105–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lenzen, M., Borgstrom Hansson, C., & Bond, S. (2006). On the bioproductivity and land-disturbance metrics of the Ecological Footprint, ISA Research Paper 03/06, in collaboration with WWF (Sydney: University of Sydney).Google Scholar
  15. Martinez-Alier, J., Munda, G., & O’Neill, J. (1998). Weak comparability of values as a foundation for ecological economics. Ecological Economics, 26, 277–286. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(97)00120-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Muradian, R., & Martinez-Alier, J. (2001). Trade and the environment: From a ‘Southern’ perspective. Ecological Economics, 36, 281–297. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00229-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Neumayer, E. (2000). On the methodology of ISEW, GPI and related measures: Some constructive comments and some doubt on the threshold hypothesis. Ecological Economics, 34(3), 347–361. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00192-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pillarisetti, J. R. (2005). The World Bank’s ‘genuine savings’ measure and sustainability. Ecological Economics, 55, 599–609. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.01.018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sachs, J. (2005). Climate change and war. New York: Global Policy Forum.Google Scholar
  20. Schmidt-Bleek, F. (1993). MIPS—a universal ecological measure? Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 2(8), 306–311.Google Scholar
  21. Simms, A. (2005). Ecological debt: The health of the planet and the wealth of nations. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  22. Srinivasan, U. T., Carey, S. P., Hallstein, E., Higgins, P. A., Kerr, A. C., Koteen, L. E., et al. (2008). The debt of nations and the distribution of ecological impacts from human activities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(5), 1768–1773. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0709562104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Stiglitz, J. (2006). A new agenda for global warming. The Economists’ Voice, 3(7), 1–4.Google Scholar
  24. UNEP, Commission for Environmental Cooperation of the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (CEC), & International Institute of Sustainable Development and World Resources Institute. (2002). North America’s environment; A thirty-year state of environment and policy retrospective. Nairobi and Washington DC: UNEP.Google Scholar
  25. United Nations Development Programme. (2000–2006). The human development reports (New York: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  26. van den Bergh, J. C. J. M. (2007). Abolishing GDP. Tinbergen Institute discussion paper 07-019/3. (Amsterdam and Rotterdam: Tinbergen Institute).Google Scholar
  27. van den Bergh, J. C. J. M., & Verbruggen, H. (1999). Spatial sustainability, trade and indicators: An evaluation of the Ecological Footprint. Ecological Economics, 29, 61–72. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00032-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Vitousek, P. M., Ehrlich, P. R., Ehrlich, A. H., & Matson, P. A. (1986). Human appropriation of the products of photosynthesis. BioScience, 36, 368–373. doi: 10.2307/1310258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. (1996). Our ecological footprint: Reducing human impact on the earth. Gabriola Island, Canada: New Society Publishers.Google Scholar
  30. World Bank. (1997). Expanding the measure of wealth. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  31. World Bank. (2005–2007). World development indicators. (Washington, DC: World Bank).Google Scholar
  32. World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. World Resources Institute, United Nations Environment Programme, United Nations Development Programme, & World Bank. (2000). World resources 2000–2001, people and ecosystems: The fraying web of life. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.Google Scholar
  34. WWF, Zoological Society of London, & Global Footprint Network. (2006). Living planet report 2006. Gland, Switzerland: WWF.Google Scholar
  35. Yale Centre for Environmental Law and Policy, Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN), & The World Economic Forum. (2005). 2005 environmental sustainability index. New Haven: YCELP.Google Scholar
  36. Yale Centre for Environmental Law and Policy, Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN), The World Economic Forum, & Joint Research Centre of the European Commission. (2008). Environmental performance index 2008. New Haven: YCELP.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Ram Pillarisetti
    • 1
  • Jeroen C. J. M. van den Bergh
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • 6
  1. 1.Faculty of Business, Economics and Policy StudiesUniversity of Brunei DarussalamGadongBrunei Darussalam
  2. 2.ICREABarcelonaSpain
  3. 3.Institute of Environmental Science and TechnologyAutonomous University of BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain
  4. 4.Department of Economics and Economic HistoryAutonomous University of BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain
  5. 5.Faculty of Economics and Business AdministrationVrije UniversiteitAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  6. 6.Institute for Environmental StudiesVrije UniversiteitAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations