Can nations measure well-being?

MAP presents approximately 80 headline and supplementary indicators, in 17 dimensions, in a dashboard format. It's a very powerful visual tool that lets us assess the extent to which life in Australia is getting better (and therefore ranks quite highly on my fun-o-meter).

MAP measures economic performance, social wellbeing and the environment. The indices are constantly being developed and improved – the 2010 version, for example, includes for the first time an indicator of low income rental affordability.

On most indicators – health, education, work, income, wealth and economic well-being – things are improving. On some – crime, housing or productivity – there's been no significant movement over a decade. On others – biodiversity and atmospheric pollution – indicators suggest that things have become worse. On two indicators – family, community and social cohesion and democracy, governance and citizenship – there are at present no summary measures.

The truth is that the attempt to measure the quality of life over time and between nations is still in its infancy. Thorny problems bedevil the task. Is it appropriate for countries to envision that various indicators – such as economic and environmental – can be traded off? Should we balance statistics of current wellbeing (both economic and societal) with measures that might indicate future sustainability (such as levels of indebtedness or environmental degradation)? Can measures of democratic governance and freedom of speech, notably absent from the UN Millennium Development Goals, be incorporated?

One thing is clear. For nations, as for organisations, metrics is an increasingly important part of evaluation. Applied statistics, the driest of disciplines, is now placed firmly at the centre of debate on the quality of life enjoyed by citizens.