# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Robert F. Kennedy challenges Gross Domestic Product

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Forty years ago, Robert F. Kennedy challenged the basic way we measure progress and well-being in America. Today, the Glaser Progress Foundation is raising the same questions through a new medium. The Seattle-based foundation released a new web video marking the anniversary of a famous speech in which Kennedy said the Gross Domestic Product counts "everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
83A2 Macroeconomic objectives - unemployment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
82A2 Macroeconomic objectives - inflation - questions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
81A2 Macroeconomic objectives - economic growth - Questions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
UK industrial output grows strongly - artcle worksheet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Many of us fortunate souls take advantages like jobs, income, education, a clean living environment, and safety for granted. But now the facts, figures and rankings that can help inform us about the quality of life in countries all over the world have shed light on the harsh reality that in many countries these basic advantages aren't accessible to the great majority of people. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development - the go-to source for sociological research on how a country is doing - the 'less educated and low-income people' are far worse off than the better educated, richer population in that 'they are less healthy, they participate less in the community and they experience lower subjective well-being.'

Over the past two decades, the global landscape has changed dramatically: we've seen governments completely transform and the global economy grow stronger, and we've seen how unpredictable it can be. But the strongest countries have remained strong despite financial crises, and the poorer countries have unfortunately remained entrenched in poverty, with less-than-desirable living conditions and a lower level of subjective well-being.

Of course, even the best-off countries leave much to be desired. There's still quite a large gap between the rich and poor, most dramatic in the richest and most powerful countries. The variety of jobs available has increased, but inequality still exists when it comes to equal pay for women.

The countries who score lowest on the OECD 'better life' index, though, have other even more pressing problems. They have to be worry about not being able to access or afford healthcare, or proper education.

The 'better life index' determines a country's overall well-being based on four main categories which help determine the quality of life for each country: Economic, Environmental, Human and Social. Citizens are asked to report on things like housing, income, Jobs, Communication, Education, Civic Engagement, Health, Life Satisfaction, Safety and Work-Life Balance. All of these things, contributing to overall well-being, are then scored on a scale of 1-to-10.

For all those things many of us take for granted, there are citizens struggling to make ends meet, reporting dissatisfaction with their country of residence and frustration at the lack of opportunities, the inequality and the poor conditions in which they live. We've already looked at the countries which have been assessed as the best according to the OECD, but now we want to put that into context with a look at the five countries with the overall lowest level of well-being of all the OECD countries in the world. Their scores are assessed out of a possible total of 10, and are based on subjective self-reporting from citizens of the respective countries. Our results are based on the latest statistics released in 2013.

Russian Federation: 4.60

More commonly referred to as Russia, The Russian Federation offers one of the overall lowest standards of living in the world. With a population of over 142 million, the people of Russia are not as healthy as they should be. When it comes to health, they scored an extremely low 0.6 out of 10 and their life expectancy at birth is 70 years - which is shockingly low compared to the OECD average of 80 years. Total health spending is also quite low, with only 5.1% of the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) being employed for healthcare, compared to the 9.5% average. While obesity isn't a significant contributing factor in the Russian's low life expectancy, they do tend to drink and smoke a lot more than most other countries - factors which, as we all know, can negatively impact health. None of this looks good, but there is a silver lining for the Russians: Only 0.2% of Russians work very long hours, much less than the OECD average of 9%. Less time at the office means more time for family and a better work-life balance.

Necessities like food, clothing, healthcare and shelter all require money. But in Brazil, the vast majority of citizens don't make nearly enough. In fact, they failed to score at all on the income scale. The average annual household net-adjusted disposable income is just $10,225 USD - horribly low compared to the OECD average of $23,047 USD. When it comes to the average household net financial wealth - taking into account the worth of house and property - the average is $5,861 USD in Brazil. Again, shockingly lower than the OECD average of $40,516 USD. A subpar income makes it incredibly difficult to raise a family and maintain a good overall quality of life which is reflected in the poor levels of health, safety and education. Despite this, the Brazilians seem to be more satisfied than most. As a matter of fact, 82% of people feel they have more positive experiences than negative in a day - their life satisfaction is higher than any other category of well-being in the country, at over 6 / 10. It seems that for the optimistic Brazilians, money really doesn't buy happiness.

Chile is not the place to go if you want to enjoy fresh air. Extensively polluted, the Particulate Matter (PM10) - particle pollution that can be harmful if breathed into the lungs in large amounts over a long period of time - is at 53.3 micrograms per cubic meter in Chile. This is the highest level of air pollution of all the countries on the OECD list - and over double the average PM10 of 20.9mg. A redeeming factor of the environment, though, is that 77% of Chileans are happy with their water. Income, housing and education are all rated abysmally in the Chilean Better Life Index, too, making this one of the bottom 3 countries for overall well-being.

If safety and security are priorities for you and your family, you should think twice about settling in Mexico. The country is plagued by assaults and homicides - many linked to violent drug cartels - so much so that Mexico received a zero score in the safety category. In Mexico, 13% of people reported falling victim to assault over the past 12 months, which was over 300% higher than the OECD average. The homicide rate in Mexico is higher than in any of the other participating countries in the Better Life index. In a strange statistical paradox, despite indisputably high crime rates and off-putting facts and figures, 72% of Mexicans still feel safe walking at home at night - which is quite a bit higher than the average of 67%. Income and education are both below level 1 on the 10 point scale in Mexico, and life satisfaction sits at 3/10. A bleak view - here's hoping the government uses the scale for its intended purpose and targets improvements at these areas.

Turkey scored the lowest in a few categories, and received a zero score in community and work-life balance. In the education category, Turkey scored just 1.5 out of 10. Only 31% of adults aged 25-64 have earned the equivalent of a high-school degree, which is much lower over two times lower than OECD average, and the lowest education score of all the countries that participate in the OECD rankings. In a probable link with the low education level, it's also very difficult to find a job in Turkey. Only 48% of the working-age population aged 15 to 64 has a job. This is significantly lower than the OECD average of 66%, and - again - the lowest rate in the OECD. This is most likely due to the fact that a good part of the population doesn't have the education required for a job.When it came to housing, Turkey didn't do much better. The average home contains 0.9 rooms per person, which is less than the OECD average of 1.6 rooms per person and is one of the lowest on the list; and a cramped living space can negatively impact the overall mental health of family members. Even though Turkey didn't score very high in most of the categories, 68% of people reported having more positive experiences than negative in an average day. It's testament to the spirit of the Turkish people that despite the circumstances and enormous political unrest, they maintain a positive frame of mind.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5 Countries With the Lowest Standards of Living

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Many of us fortunate souls take advantages like jobs, income, education, a clean living environment, and safety for granted. But now the facts, figures and rankings that can help inform us about the quality of life in countries all over the world have shed light on the harsh reality that in many countries these basic advantages aren't accessible to the great majority of people.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
10 Flaws in GDP when measuring Living Standards I A Level and IB Economics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Using GDP alone to measure a nation's progress has its shortcomings. Dr Yeah Kim Leng shares 10 alternative GDP indicators.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
WOULD a feudal king swap places with a present-day insurance clerk? The king has many palaces and armies of servants. But he is also a martyr to toothache. News reaches him slowly. His food is often stale. And he is bored of his courtiers. He might willingly trade his kingdom for life as an office drone in the 21st-century, with its dentistry, refrigeration, Google and YouTube. The poser underlines the great material advances made in recent centuries. It also shows how tricky it is to compare living standards over time and across societies. Comparisons over recent decades are routinely made using GDP, but they are troublesome. Why is GDP a poor measure of progress?

Gross domestic product is a measure of output, income and spending all at the same time. In post-war Europe and America, the growth in living standards and in GDP were synonymous. GDP growth became a target for politicians and a scorecard by which they were judged by voters. Even so, it has always had critics. Environmentalists have long lamented that GDP treats the plunder of the planet as something that adds to income, rather than being treated as an expense. A repeated charge is that GDP is divorced from notions of spiritual well-being. Robert Kennedy once famously took aim at GDP which, he said, counted cigarette advertising and jails but did not include "the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages". Still, GDP growth was a decent, if rough, guide to material progress. The more output and income was generated (after adjusting for inflation), the better off we were.

Upgrade your inbox

That equation worked pretty well when the economy was still mostly farms and factories, producing things of similar quality that could easily be counted. But GDP is less suited to the task of measuring modern, service-led economies that are geared towards the quality of consumer experience, rather than consumption of greater quantities. It is far harder to identify the extent to which changes in price reflect a better service. When medical charges rise, it will generally count as inflation, even if the quality of health care is improving faster than prices are rising. And where consumers pay nothing, as is often now the case with digital services, they do not register in GDP. The consumer benefits from Google and Facebook are thus excluded. Previously paid-for things, such as maps, encyclopedias and music recordings, are now free. So they have dropped out of GDP. Online shopping, banking and travel-arranging is more convenient for consumers. To the extent that all this saves on buildings, it detracts from GDP. For the most part, the trickiness of measuring the output of services leads real GDP to be understated. But mis-measurement works the other way, too. For instance, if an airline squeezes more (and thus cheaper) seats on to a plane, it counts as extra output, even thought the quality of service falls. Perversely, the more risks bank take, the more they contribute to GDP, even as the quality of lending falls.

GDP is a creature of the industrial era of mass-produced, homogenous goods. It is a far less useful guide to affluent economies where the quality of services is prized over simply having more stuff. It is badly attuned to digital economies, where activities that were once paid for, such as contacting friends or finding information, no longer attract a charge. GDP is thus increasingly failing to fully capture gains in average living standards. It is tricky to compare the life of a medieval king to that of a modern-day worker. But it is almost as difficult to put a number on how much better is a consumer basket that includes smartphones and music streaming to one filled with fax machines and audio-cassettes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WOULD a feudal king swap places with a present-day insurance clerk? The king has many palaces and armies of servants. But he is also a martyr to toothache. News reaches him slowly. His food is often stale. And he is bored of his courtiers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Macroeconomic Objectives and the Circular Flow GB