The common welfare economy còpia

THE COMMON WELFARE ECONOMY
OUR PROPOSAL FOR
THE COMMON WELFARE PRODUCT
International Business Economics
Universitat Pompeu Fabra
Academic year 2012-2013
Natalia Campos Alemany
Mireia Reixach i Molet
Tutor: Xavier Cuadras Morató

3 Universitat Pompeu Fabra
We would like to thank Xavier Cuadras Morató for his willingness to guide us and for being so
generous with his time.
We would also like to express our gratitude to Professor Mercè Carreras-Solanas for her
knowledge, guidance and endless energy.
Our sincere thanks also go to the group of the seminar from Casa Elizalde, for their support and
contribution to the project with their opinions and ingenious ideas.

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we
expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.
Wealth of Nations, 1776; Adam Smith
It is from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our
daily dinner.
Common Welfare Economy, 2011

Abstract
The Common Welfare Economy is a new model proposed by Christian Felber that has been taking shape
during the last few years in response to the current capitalist crisis. It is a model that harmonises a market
economy with universal values such as trust, honesty and cooperation. It puts a special emphasis on the
importance of achieving a real, participative democracy in order to make this model just and
representative.
The aim of all economic activity is to satisfy needs, to guarantee a good quality of life and therefore, to
create common welfare. Felber suggests that success should be measured in terms of the production of
common welfare. At a micro level he proposes the Common Welfare Balance Sheet, which serves to
measure the utilities a company produces, and at a macro level, he talks about the concept of a Common
Welfare Product as an alternative or a complement to GDP.
The aim of our project is to make a small contribution to this model by suggesting how the Common
Welfare Product could be measured.
We propose 15 indicators that try to represent the degree of common welfare in a country and we join
them together into a matrix that shows how each indicator contributes to common welfare through
percentages.
Finally, we apply the theory to a practical example by measuring the Common Welfare Product of Spain.

Table of Contents
1. A summary of Christian Felber's book: The Common Welfare Economy ................................9
1.1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................9
1.2 Common Welfare Economy...............................................................................................10
1.3 Common Welfare Balance Sheet (appendix 1: matrix)......................................................11
1.4 Common Welfare Product..................................................................................................13
2. Controversy with the concept and measurement of the Common Welfare Product ................14
3. Common Welfare Product........................................................................................................15
3.1 Areas of focus and Indicators.................................................................................................16
3.1.1 Health Status ................................................................................................................16
3.1.2 Education .....................................................................................................................18
3.1.3 Material Living Standards............................................................................................22
3.1.4 Personal activities, including work..............................................................................23
3.1.5 Political voice and governance ....................................................................................24
3.1.6 Social connections .......................................................................................................25
3.1.7 Environmental conditions............................................................................................26
3.1.8 Insecurity......................................................................................................................26
3.1.9 General indicators ........................................................................................................28
4. Creating the Common Welfare Product matrix........................................................................29
4.1 Matrix for Common Welfare Product ................................................................................30
4.2 An example: Indicators for Spain.......................................................................................31
4.3 Matrix: Common Welfare Product for Spain .....................................................................39
4.4 Spain’s Common Welfare matrix: General Comment........................................................40
5. Conclusion................................................................................................................................43
Appendix ......................................................................................................................................44
Appendix 1: The Common Welfare Matrix .............................................................................44
Appendix 2: The quality of health status indicators.................................................................45
Appendix 3: The quality of work-life balance indicators.........................................................45
Bibliography and other sources....................................................................................................46

1. A summary of Christian Felber's book: The Common Welfare Economy
Christian Felber was born in Salzburg in 1972 and has studied Roman Philology, Political Sciences,
Socioclogy and Psychology in Vienna and Madrid. He is one of the founders of Attac, an international
movement campaigning for social, democratic and environmental justice in the current global economy.
Christian Felber is also a successful author, trained dancer, university lecturer and international speaker.
1.1 Introduction
The current financial crisis we are living today has had devastating worldwide effects such as increasing
inequality, insecurity and unemployment. In several years, the economy will hopefully start to recover
and people’s quality of life will improve, but this situation will be repeated every now and then due to
the cyclical nature of capitalist economies, where periods of growth and prosperity are followed by deep
recessions that further increase inequality.
In addition, the current financial crisis is not an isolated phenomenon. Societies are experiencing climate
change, increasing unemployment and inequality, excess consumerism leading to a crisis of values and
identity and most important of all, a crisis in democracy.
In short, we are experiencing a crisis in our current capitalist system. Should we have to put up with this
system or is there an alternative? Are people too afraid to propose changes or is there an elite who is not
so interested in fixing the real problems? Either way, it is clear that there is a general feeling of unease
and frustration. In Germany, for instance, 88% of the population answered they wanted a new economic
order in 2010.
Christian Felber has written several books in the past years where he claims that capitalism leads to ten
major crises: concentration and abuse of power, interruption of competition and the creation of cartels,
localisation of competition, inefficient pricing policy, social polarisation and fear, a lack of satisfaction
of basic needs and hunger, ecological destruction, loss of sense, value deterioration and the elimination
of democracy.
Christian Felber proposes a system that is both old and new at the same time. Inspired by many
constitutions, he suggests a new model whose aim is to serve the people, to contribute and maximise
common welfare. He proposes the Common Welfare Economy, a model that, slowly and steadily, seeks
to transform our current system into a more socially-oriented model.

1.2 Common Welfare Economy
The Common Welfare Economy is a new model that has been created by combining the most successful
features of previous economic models.
The main change from current capitalist economies is that the model redefines the rules of the game and
sets cooperation as the means to achieve the ultimate goal for all economic activity: common welfare.
Humans are naturally both competitive and cooperative, depending on the circumstances, but this model
seeks to incentivize and promote the cooperative side of the human being, basing its proposals on the
same values that allow our relationships to prosper, such as trust, generosity, empathy and responsibility.
The main idea conveyed by this model is that through cooperative behaviour and solidarity, we can
ensure that all activities contribute to common welfare.
The concept of Common Welfare represents social utilities that should be available to citizens, such as
food, clothing, housing, relationships, intact ecosystems, security, justice and freedom. The Common
Welfare Economy wants to find ways to measure these utilities in order to maximise their production
through trust and cooperation.
Economic success will no longer be measured through monetary indicators such as financial benefits and
GDP. Instead, success will be the achievement of the highest contribution to Common Welfare. Profits
will be considered a means to meet the end: Common Welfare.
Felber proposes the Common Welfare Product as a substitute for GDP and a Common Welfare Balance
Sheet to measure the real success of individual companies, leaving financial statements as a secondary
measure. Companies with good scores in the balance sheet will be compensated with legal benefits.
Since companies will not base their success on increasing profits, they will no longer have the pressure to
grow constantly and this will encourage them to reach and remain at their optimal size. Achieving
optimal growth will allow the co-existence of many small companies and will facilitate cooperation
between them.
The model also tries to achieve greater social equity by limiting the difference between the minimum and
the highest salary. This maximum difference should be decided democratically and should be enough to
reward the most challenging jobs. From the surveys done so far, it seems that 20 times the minimum
salary is what people are prepared to accept as maximum inequality.
The book also dedicates a chapter on property and argues that in important public institutions and big
companies with an exceeding number of employees, decision and property rights should partially and
progressively be transferred to employees and citizens.

The model proposes there should be democratic banks that work for common welfare, facilitating
transactions by only charging a small percentage to cover costs, not to make profits. It also suggests that
a global currency could be established, in parallel with national currencies, along with global fair trade
regulated by United Nations.
Concerning the labour market, the model proposes a reduction in working hours per week that would
have to be decided by majority. Surveys suggest people would be happy working 30 hours a week.
Felber also proposes that for every 10 years worked, individuals should take a year off, which would be
financed with an established and guaranteed minimum salary. This would reduce unemployment and
allow people to enjoy leisure by engaging in extra-curricular activities, travelling and simply having time
for themselves.
The book also mentions that Nature should be attributed its own value in all constitutions in order to
prevent it from being privately owned and it highlights the importance of reducing the Ecological
Footprint of individuals, companies and countries in order to reach a sustainable global situation.
An emphasis is also put in the importance of education as a means to transmit common welfare values to
children. Felber suggests there should be compulsory subjects that work on aspects such as the
development of emotions and communication, ethics, democracy and nature.
Finally, the book gives special importance to developing democracy by complementing current
representative democracy with direct and participative democracy.
The final aim of the Common Welfare Economy is to achieve a society that is more responsible,
empathic, just, participative and socially-competent.
1.3 Common Welfare Balance Sheet (appendix 1: matrix)
Up till now, economies have based their success on monetary indicators, which are very useful for
quantifying results but do not represent the utilities a society wants.
Through much debate, a Common Welfare Balance Sheet has been designed that is represented in a
matrix. The idea is that this matrix should be the main measure of success of a company since it will be
measuring the production of social utilities. The current financial statements will still be necessary but
they will become an intermediate or parallel measure in order to determine the economic viability of the
company, not the utilities.
The balance sheet is audited externally and it measures the effects a company’s activities have on its
stakeholders through five dimensions: human dignity, solidarity, social justice, environmental
sustainability and democracy.

The aim of the matrix is to measure the extent of contribution to these five dimensions through a points-
system with a maximum of 1,000 points: Those who achieve a higher score will be compensated through
various legal advantages such as tax benefits, subsidies and bank credits with better conditions. These
advantages will be financed by the revenue from the legal and financial obstacles imposed on firms that
do not contribute to society.
Eventually, the companies who start following the model will enjoy better benefits than the rest and will
be able to sell their goods and services at a lower price, obliging the other companies to choose between
closing down or following the Common Welfare model.
The practical implementation of this idea is for all products to be labelled with a colour representing a
specific level of common welfare contribution. There are a total of 5 levels ranging from red (0-200
points) till green (801-1,000 points.). The idea is that these labels will be able to be scanned with a phone
application which will show the matrix scores in the different dimensions.
If consumers are aware of the colour-labelling they should choose the products with the green colours,
since these goods will be contributing the most to society. Eventually, prices will be reliable in the
decision-making process because the cheapest products will also be the ones who have been produced
most ecologically, fairly and democratically.
This will be the case because the companies who score well in the matrix will receive many legal and
financial benefits and responsible consumers will be more likely to choose their products. At the same
time, companies with very low or negative scores will face legal and financial difficulties, such as higher
taxes and tariffs and higher interest for loans. Eventually these two effects will allow responsible
companies to produce cheaper than the others. In the case of a company obtaining financial profits, these
will be regulated and certain activities will be illegal, such as lobbying political parties and speculation.
An important remark is that within the Common Welfare Economy there will still be scope for
competition because it is based on a market economy with private companies. However, the more
competitive and aggressive a company is, the worst results they will have in the Welfare Matrix. This
will translate into higher legal obstacles which will increase their chance of bankruptcy. In addition, their
products will have red labels since their common welfare scores will be negative, creating consumer
distrust.
Instead, with increasing cooperation, a win-win situation can be achieved where collaboration between
companies is rewarded. The more common welfare produced, the higher legal benefits enjoyed and less
likely will bankruptcy be. Companies can collaborate with each other by sharing knowledge, lending
labour and offering interest-free loans.

1.4 Common Welfare Product
At the macro level, the model discusses the concept of Common Welfare Product (CWP) as a substitute
for the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The model wants to find a measure that represents the happiness
and well-being of a country, instead of its economic success. The aim of this measure is to show the real
conditions and quality of life of a country, such as its conflict level and social equity.
However, this concept has not been developed in the book yet so we decided we could try and propose
some indicators that could represent the Common Welfare Product of a country.

2. Controversy with the concept and measurement of the Common Welfare
Product
When we first decided we wanted to focus on the measurement of the ‘Common Welfare Product’, our
first doubt was what exactly the concept represented.
This concept still has to be discussed and elaborated democratically, but this is the reason why we chose
it, so we could give a small contribution to Christian Felber’s Common Welfare model. Since the
concept is still very vague, it led us to some confusion, especially because Felber seems to use two
concepts interchangeably: happiness and well-being.
In page 49 of The Common Welfare Economy, he explains that many economists have searched for a
measure of welfare and that he believes Bhutan has been the closest in achieving it through their National
Happiness Index. It is later stated that a survey with approximately 70 questions could give an accurate
representation of the happiness of a nation, and that to create an alternative to GDP, 15 to 25 indicators
would be enough to compose the Common Welfare Product (Felber 2012, p.50).
From this information it was not clear whether we should focus on measuring a country’s happiness level
or measuring its well-being from another perspective.
We read and discussed different essays and finally came to a conclusion. Our first goal was to understand
what ‘Common Welfare Product’ meant. We assumed that in order to achieve the maximum common
welfare, a country would have to maximise the objective well-being of its citizens.
Basing our study on this assumption, we discarded the idea that a happiness index could give us reliable
data on the current well-being of a country, because as Amartya Sen said in Development as Freedom,
‘we do not necessarily want to be a happy slave’.
The main aspect is what each individual is capable of doing, this is something that has to be measured
objectively and it must take into account the real opportunities available in different countries and for
different groups of society (Sen 1985).

3. Common Welfare Product
In order to measure what matters we will focus on what we are producing and ask ourselves: Is it
contributing to common welfare or is it not?
We must contribute as much as we can in order to maximize common welfare, that is, well-being. Just as
GDP represents the total monetary value of economic transactions, we need a measure that represents the
total level of utilities produced in a country (Felber 2012, p.48). This will be represented by the Common
Welfare Product (CWP), a welfare index. We need a non-monetary indicator whose goal will be to
achieve the greatest common welfare. The more common good produced, the more successful that
country will be.
The ultimate goal of the Common Welfare Economy is aligned with what has been written by Sen,
Stiglitz & Fitoussi in 2009: their goal is to achieve global responsibility and citizenship.
To measure the CWP we have decided to choose indexes that represent real opportunities and we will
organize them into different dimensions. The main areas of focus describe people’s states and the
freedom individuals have to choose what they value the most, these were identified by Sen, Stiglitz &
Fitoussi in 2009:
Health; it is the main component of capabilities as without a good life condition the others would not
have any value (Sen, A., Stiglitz, J. E., & Fitoussi, J.-P. 2009, p. 156).
Education; has intrinsic value and it is a means to acquire monetary and non-monetary outcomes that
matter for the well-being of an individual (Sen, A., Stiglitz, J. E., & Fitoussi, J.-P. 2009, p. 165).
Material Living Standards; income and wealth expand individuals’ consumption possibilities while
providing them with the resources to satisfy their needs as well as non-economic benefits such as
education and health status and the possibility of living in cleaner and safer locations (OECD, 2011a).
Personal activities including work; explain the quality of life as they affect people’s hedonic experiences
as well as their evaluative judgments (Sen, A., Stiglitz, J. E., & Fitoussi, J.-P. 2009, p. 170).
Political Voice and Governance; it has intrinsic value as it enables essential freedoms and capabilities, as
well as instrumental value as it can lead to corrections of the current situation of the country, affecting
the well-being.
Social Connections and Relationships: it is a powerful predictor of subjective well-being that could be
better measured through surveys (Sen, A., Stiglitz, J. E., & Fitoussi, J.-P. 2009, p. 182); instead, we will
use the concept of Social Equity with the aim to show income inequality through an objective indicator.
We will see how inequality can affect individual’s quality of life.

Environment (present and future conditions): it has immediate effects on people’s well-being through
human health, access to basic resources such as clean water and through climate variations and natural
disasters (Sen, A., Stiglitz, J. E., & Fitoussi, J.-P. 2009, p. 188).
Security at both economic and physical levels: fears and anxieties decrease quality of life; uncertainty
about the future decreases well-being for those risk-averse individuals (Sen, A., Stiglitz, J. E., & Fitoussi,
J.-P. 2009, p. 194)
3.1 Areas of focus and Indicators
3.1.1 Health Status
Brief description
None of the other areas of focus would be meaningful if we were not healthy enough to enjoy them.
Thus, health remains an essential component of the well-being and common welfare mainly through its
effects on the length of life and its quality (Sen, A., Stiglitz, J. E., & Fitoussi, J.-P. 2009, p. 156-157).
Health therefore has an intrinsic value for people, but it does also have instrumental value as health
enables more opportunities to participate in the labor market, in education programs and benefits good
social relationships (OECD, 2011a)
Our health status depends on our genetic makeup but also on other factors such as living, working and
environmental conditions. It might depend as well on the income, whether an individual spends more or
less on health-care and prevention. The latter areas (environment, work, etc) will be analyzed as well as
areas of focus that must be taken into account when measuring the Common Welfare Product.
Indicators
The question now is which health indicators we should choose in order to see the contribution that a
country’s health system makes on the common welfare of a country.
Our intention was to include the Perceived health status as an indicator of health status; most OECD
countries conduct regular surveys that allow respondents to report on their health. A commonly asked
question is “How is your health in general?” According to the well known annual report named Health at
a Glance undertaken by the OECD in 2011, this question has been found to be a good predictor of
people’s future health care use and mortality.
Nevertheless, we have decided not to include it in the Common Welfare Product because, for the
purposes of international comparison, cross-country differences in perceived health are difficult to
interpret mainly due to social and cultural factors, among other biases (OECD 2011b).

 Percentage of population using exclusively public coverage
First of all, there is a problem of information which explains why governments do take a role in licensing
doctors as well as regulate the drugs to be administered to patients: when we consume health, that is,
when we go to the doctor, we buy the doctor’s knowledge. The patient, due to the lack of medical
expertise, relies on the doctor’s judgment without even being able to assess and evaluate it. The patient
as a consumer might not even be able to notice whether the doctor is qualified.
However, one of the principal reasons for government action in health care remains on distributional
grounds and what is known as specific egalitarism: the idea that there are goods and services, for
instance health care, whose availability to individuals should not just depend on their income. Moreover,
another view is that everyone should have the right to a minimal level of health care (Stiglitz, J., 1999,
p.304-27).
It contributes to CWE if
- The percentage of population using exclusively public coverage is high and increases over
time (while decreases might signal that people are shifting to private insurance due to a
decrease in the quality of the public service).
 Life expectancy at birth
Measures how long on average a newborn can expect to live if current death rates do not change. If rates
are falling, actual life spans will be higher than life expectancy calculated using current death rates. It
reflects the overall mortality level of a population as well OECD (2011b).
Appendix 2: The quality of health status indicators, shows why life expectancy at birth is one of the best
indicators for health status.
- Life expectancy increases; the gain in longevity comes from rising living standards improved
lifestyles, greater access to quality health services and better education. Increases can also be
attributed to better nutrition, sanitation and housing, among other factors (OECD 2011b).
- Countries with better health status show higher average income and wealth, lower
unemployment rates, greater participation in political activities, higher social network support
and thus, higher overall life satisfaction (OECD, 2011a).

 Waiting times
The indicator measures the waiting times for specialist and elective surgery. It is the time comprised
between the patient is advised that they need care and the appointment.
The indicator relies on multi-country patient surveys by the Commonwealth Fund Surveys; thus, results
might differ from the administrative data. Moreover, they do rely on self-report and have limited sample
size. There is the future potential challenge to generate objective waiting times data.
There is not a universal definition of waiting time and thus data might not be fully comparable across
countries. Universal definition is a potential issue for future research in order to create comparable
indicators (OECD 2011b)
Waiting times contribute to CWE if
- Low waiting times.
High waiting times might indicate lack of medical equipment, no available hospital beds, short-
staffing or inefficiencies in the organization of the services (OECD 2011b)
Moreover, high waiting times can cause health problems as well as stress, anxiety or pain
(Sanmartin, 2003).
3.1.2 Education
Brief description
Education has an intrinsic value for individuals; better education translates into more freedoms and
opportunities for individuals. The deprivation of education will lead to economic and non-economic
consequences (Sen, A., Stiglitz, J. E., & Fitoussi, J.-P. 2009, p. 165).
That is what Adam Smith, the father of human capital said about education: “…there is another great loss
which attends the putting of boys too soon to work… when he is grown up he has no ideas with which he
can amuse himself.” (Smith 1776, p.256-7)
Education is also a means to achieve higher income, earnings, wealth as well as non-monetary benefits
such as better health and greater subjective well-being (Sen, A., Stiglitz, J. E., & Fitoussi, J.-P. 2009, p.
165-6)

Indicators
 Percentage of population in the public education system
Public education is provided on distributional grounds: it enables to integrate groups making the melting
pot work. Moreover, it provides opportunities to educate to those individuals lacking funds; they would
not have access to education without assistance of government. If public education system is provided,
then children access to education does not depend on parents’ financial ability or their sense of altruism
(Stiglitz, J., 1999, p.420-2).
- The percentage of population in the public education system is higher and increasing over time
(while decreases might signal that people are shifting to private education due to a decrease in
the quality of the public service).
 Program for International Student Assessment, PISA
Since 2000, PISA works as an international assessment which measures the performance of 15-year olds
in the following three different areas: reading, mathematics and science literacy. It is conducted every
three years; although all three areas are assessed, each PISA cycle assesses one of the three subject areas
more in depth, considering the other two as minor subject areas for that assessment year (Fleischman,
H.L., Hopstock, P.J., Pelczar, M.P., and Shelley, B.E. 2010)
Coordinated by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) since 1997, it
selects every three years a randomized group of 15-year-olds who take the tests in the previous stated
areas. Both the students and their respective school principals fill in background questionnaires to
provide information on the student’s family background and the way their school is run. There are some
countries and economies which choose to have parents fill in an additional questionnaire. To date, over
70 countries have participated in PISA (Fleischman, H.L., Hopstock, P.J., Pelczar, M.P., and Shelley,
B.E. 2010)
Its valuable features are the following (OECD 2010):
1. Its policy orientation; it analyses and extrapolates the results at a national level, showing how
effectively each country educates their children and in which position each country stands in
relation to other countries. It highlights the similarities and differences in performance patterns
and identifies features common to high performing students, schools and education systems by
linking data on learning results with data on student background and other key factors that shape
learning in and outside the school.

There is a really good video: “PISA – Measuring student success around the world” which
explains that analysts look at all the pieces of information available from the PISA survey and
try to determine the main characteristics of successful education systems such as whether
teachers in this system are paid more, whether individual schools get to decide what their
teachers teach, whether the curriculum is determined by a central government authority or
whether classes are generally smaller or larger.
Once a profile of a successful education system emerges, it can be used as a model by
governments and policy makers from other countries and economies. PISA does not make a
critique on the effects of the different policies implemented by governments. Otherwise, it shows
what it is possible to achieve and serves as a powerful tool for governments to re-think their
current education policies while motivating them to design new ones so as to improve their
student’s performance at schools. At the same time, PISA is useful for all parents, educators and
governments as it enables them to capture their country’s progress and establish a set of
benchmarks and national goals.
2. Innovative concept of “literacy”, which involves both the student’s capacity to apply knowledge
and skills in key subject areas and to their ability to analyze, reason, draw conclusions and
communicate effectively as they pose, interpret and solve problems in different situations.
Moreover, the video states that PISA’s tests are not directly linked to school curriculum and
through the background questionnaires they provide a context which helps analysts interpreting
the results. The main objective of PISA is to assess to what extent students at the end of
compulsory education can apply their acquired knowledge to real-life situations and problems
and, at the same time, be prepared for full participation in society.
For example, whether students are able to use the reading skills they have learned at school to
understand the information they may find in a book, a newspaper, on a government form or in an
instruction manual. It is not only reading but also about understanding what it is read, thinking
about it and drawing conclusions from it.
3. Relevance to lifelong learning, which goes beyond assessing students competencies in school
subjects by asking them about their learning motivations, their beliefs about themselves and their
learning strategies.
From PISA results we learn also that in all countries, students who enjoy reading the most
perform significantly better than students who enjoy reading the least.
4. Regularity; the repetition of PISA every three years enables countries to assess their progress in
meeting key learning objectives and standards.

5. Breadth of geographical coverage and collaborative nature, which in the last PISA carried out,
in 2009, encompassed 34 OECD member countries and 41 partner countries and economies.
6. Possibility to improve; the video “PISA – Measuring student success around the world” explains
that rankings are not definitive; PISA’s trends reveal the capacity for all countries to improve.
7. Apart from Quantity, it gives information on Quality; for example, OECD countries place at least
an equal or a larger number of teachers into socio-economically disadvantaged schools as they
do in advantaged schools. However, findings from PISA suggest that in disadvantaged schools,
the quantity of resources does not translate into quality of resources; in general, more advantaged
students attend schools that have higher proportion of full-time teachers who have an advanced
university degree.
An education system is successful and contributes to CWE if
- Students’ achieve high scores in PISA surveys.
- All students from all backgrounds perform well on tests; not just those who come from wealthier
or more intellectual or more culturally sophisticated families. And just as every student has the
potential to achieve, every country has the potential to raise the standards of its education system.
- Governments make education a priority; if they share the belief that skills can be learned and that
all students can achieve high levels. If they show that they value the teaching profession by
investing in it so that they can attract highly qualified candidates, train them appropriately and
retaining the best teachers among them.
- Students are given the best opportunities to achieve the best possible results.
Results from PISA show that successful school systems, those that perform above average and show
below-average socio-economic inequalities, provide all students, regardless of their socio-economic
backgrounds, with similar opportunities to learn.
 Early school leaving
According to the European Union, early school leavers are students between 18 and 24 years old who
have lower secondary education or less and are no longer in education or training. It includes students
who have dropped out of school before the end of compulsory education, students who have finished
compulsory education but have not acquired an upper secondary qualification, and those who have
followed pre-vocational or vocational courses which do not lead to a qualification that is equivalent to
upper secondary level.
It is a main concern faced by European societies. Early leaving school might be a result of both
psychological and social problems as well as a cause of continuous social insecurity. Students that leave

school early do not have the adequate skills for later life. One of the objectives of European agendas is to
reduce early school leaving to less than 10% by 2020 (European Comission, 2003).
Early school leaving rates contribute to CWE if:
1. The rates are low and decreasing over time.
3.1.3 Material Living Standards
Brief description
According to the Compendium of OECD well-being indicators undertaken by the Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in 2011, material standards are also referred as
economic well-being. They provide information on people’s consumption possibilities as well as their
command over resources.
Income and wealth expand consumption possibilities and are a means to obtain the resources to satisfy
individual’s needs. Besides the monetary benefits, income and wealth provide non-monetary benefits as
well; for instance, they might bring higher security, health status and education (OECD 2011c).
 Annual median household disposable income
Measures the income of a typical household, in the middle of the income distribution, and gives
information on how the middle class is faring.
The Common Welfare Product Matrix will compare the minimum wage with the annual median
household disposable income.
Contribution to CWE if
- The larger the gap between the minimum wage and the household income, the greater will be
the consumption possibilities of the household. Also, it would allow individuals to smooth
consumption over time while protecting them from unexpected events that could lead to
destitution and poverty (OECD 2011c).

3.1.4 Personal activities, including work
Brief introduction
Personal activities have effects on people’s hedonic experiences as well as on their evaluative judgments
(Sen, A., Stiglitz, J. E., & Fitoussi, J.-P. 2009, p. 170). Work, on the other hand, increases people’s
control over resources and enables individuals to develop skills and abilities and achieve their ambitions.
Employment makes individuals feel useful in society by enhancing their self-esteem (OECD 2011d)
 Employees working more than 50 hours per week
This indicator shows the proportion of employees who usually work for more than 50 hours per week. It
excludes self-employed workers who are likely to choose deliberately to work long hours.
Employees working more than 50 hours per week, assuming that they dedicate time to commuting,
unpaid work, eating and sleeping, are left with few hours to dedicate their time to other activities related
to leisure and personal care. Working long hours can lead to stress and health problems which, at the
same time, might affect family relations in a negative way (OECD 2011d). Policy makers thus play an
important role in this area when designing regulations limiting working time. It is interesting to see the
disaggregated results showing men and women separately so as to see whether there is equality between
them.
Appendix 3: The quality of work-life balance indicators shows the quality and relevance of the indicator.
Contributes to CWE if
- The indicator shows workers are left with a minimum of free hours per week.
- Small differences in the trends between women and men.
 Long-term unemployment rate
It measures the number of persons who have been unemployed for one year or more as a percentage of
the active labor force. It includes people of working age who, when surveyed were: without work (not in
paid employment or self-employed), available for work and actively seeking work or had taken specific
steps in previous four weeks to seek paid employment or self-employment.
Long-term unemployment rate affects peoples’ quality of life as it places people at risk of social
exclusion, poverty and deprivation while having a job limits the risk of poverty faced by households
(OECD 2011d).
It Contributes to CWE if
- The indicator shows low long-term unemployment rates.

3.1.5 Political voice and governance
Brief description
This dimension takes into account political voice, legislative guarantees and the rule of law, which are
essential in representing citizens’ freedom of opportunities (Sen, A., Stiglitz, J. E., & Fitoussi, J.-P. 2009,
p. 179).
If we want a country to be democratic, the actions taken by the government should represent the
preferences of the individuals it serves. To ensure this there must be transparency and accountability, as
well as a rule of law that guarantees the effective implementation of citizens’ rights.
A definition of Governance offered by the World Bank states that: ‘Governance consists of the traditions
and institutions by which authority in a country is exercised. This includes the process by which
governments are selected, monitored and replaced; the capacity of the government to effectively
formulate and implement sound policies; and the respect of citizens and the state for the institutions that
govern economic and social interactions among them.’ (World Bank Group, 2012)
Indicator
 Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI)
To measure Political voice and Governance we can use the Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI),
which consist of six aggregate indicators that represent six essential dimensions of governance (World
Bank Group, 2012):
1. Voice and Accountability
2. Political Stability and Absence of Violence
3. Government Effectiveness
4. Regulatory Quality
5. Rule of Law
6. Control of Corruption
Since we want to simplify the information added to the Common Welfare Product, we decided to only
select three indicators, those which seem more relevant in representing political voice and governance:
1. Voice and Accountability, which measures the extent to which citizens can participate in politics
and if they are correctly represented, it also captures free media, freedom of expression and
association.
2. Political Stability and Absence of Violence, which measures the probability of governments
being destabilized or overthrown by political and terrorist violence.

3. Control of Corruption, which intends to capture the extent of public power used for private gain
and the influence of bribery and vested interests in governmental decisions.
The indicators contribute to CWE if:
- High participation and accountability.
- Stable and pacific governance.
- Low levels of corruption.
3.1.6 Social connections
Brief description
This area relates to the quantity and quality between interactions of individuals. We thought this would
be better measured through surveys and have chosen to modify this dimension in order to make it more
relevant for the Common Welfare Product.
Instead, we will use the concept of Social Equity, which is more in line with the value of ‘Social Justice’
that we find in the Common Welfare Balance Sheet.
Social Equity is an important dimension because it focuses on the degree of inequality within a country,
an essential factor in determining the well-being of a country.
Some consequences of high inequality are the existence of monopolies, rent-seeking, cronyism and
influential vested interests. All these factors create social unrest and a decrease in equality of
opportunities and social mobility, which often lead to increased poverty and social exclusion (The
Economist, 2012).
Therefore, it is important to measure the degree of inequality of a country in order to determine if people
have equal opportunities.
Indicator
 GINI index
We believe the GINI index would be a good measure of social equity since it represents the degree of
inequality of a country. It is calculated from the Lorenz curve, which shows the cumulative fraction of a
country’s total income. A 45 degree line represents total equality, so you can determine a country’s
income distribution by seeing the degree of separation between the straight line and the Lorenz curve, the
more separation, the more inequality (Stiglitz, 2000).
The degree of the GINI index ranges from 0, which represents no inequality to 100, which represents
total inequality. If a country has a high GINI it will mean that a small percentage at the top of the curve
owns the large majority of income.

It contributes to CWE if:
- The GINI index is low, taking into account that current indexes range from 26 to 58.9. All
countries should try to approach an inequality of 26 or less.
3.1.7 Environmental conditions
Brief description
This dimension is very complex since scientific knowledge is still limited in assessing the interactions
and consequences of environmental conditions. The environment is considered natural capital, and
human capital depends entirely on this limited resource. Environmental conditions affect our health and
provide us with free, essential services like clean water (Sen, A., Stiglitz, J. E., & Fitoussi, J.-P. 2009,
p.292). It is therefore very important to think of the effect human activities have on the environment in
order to regulate them and reach a situation that is fair and sustainable in the long-term.
Indicator
 Ecological Footprint
We have decided to use the Ecological Footprint as a representative indicator in assessing the state of
environmental impact. The Ecological Footprint measures the impact of human activity on the
environment, that is, humanity’s demand on nature (National Footprints Accounts, 2011, p.1).
An important remark is that we will consider this measure with respect to global capacity in order to see
if a country’s activities are sustainable or not. This can be done by assessing if the average footprint of a
country’s citizen exceeds the number of global hectares allowed for each individual, 1.8 global hectares
per person (National Footprints Accounts, 2011, p.4).
1. The average Ecological Footprint of a country’s citizen is 1.8 hectares or less.
3.1.8 Insecurity
Brief description
A country is considered prosperous if it provides a safe place to live in regarding both economical
and physical security. War, crime, dictatorship and discrimination relating to gender, race and
religion all contribute to social fear and undermine the possibilities of individuals to achieve their

maximum capabilities (Sen, A., Stiglitz, J. E., & Fitoussi, J.-P. 2009, p.194). It is therefore essential
that a country provides the maximum security possible to allow a good quality of life.
Indicator
 Human Security Index (HSI)
We considered several indicators such as the rate of unemployment, and the Strategy Survey which
measures conflicts, but in the end we found a complete index that accurately represents the level of
security of a country. It is the Human Security Index (HSI), which takes into account the following
factors (Human Security Index, 2009):
1. Protection of, and benefiting from, diversity: this factor measures if people are at ease related
with their gender, age, place of origin, religion and other personal characteristics. It
represents the degree of tolerance and/or discrimination.
2. Peace: this is essential in determining the level of security; it measures how safe people feel
in their home, city and country.
3. Environmental protection: this factor analyses the extent to which environmental hazards
can put citizens in danger, it also measures if there is a sustainable use of resources or not.
4. Freedom from corruption: this measures the degree of corruption found in businesses and
governments, including bribery, fraud and lobbying.
5. Information empowerment: this final factor analyses if citizens have access to complete,
reliable and objective information through all different means.
- The index is high, there is more security, although this will make more sense if the results are
compared across several years in order to identify if there has been an improvement. When
assessing the index we must also take into account that the minimum and maximum scores are
26% and 86% respectively. This means that any scores larger than 80% will be considered a very
high contribution to a country’s well-being.

3.1.9 General indicators
Besides the social areas discussed above, we think it is important to include two other indicators in order
to determine the diffusion and success of the model:
 Number of companies following the Common Welfare Matrix in a country in %=
This indicator will be essential in keeping track of the expansion of the Common Welfare model,
since it will measure how many companies within a country have adopted the alternative balance
sheet.
 Average contribution to Common Welfare in a country =
This second indicator allows us to see the average score of the companies following the
Common Welfare balance sheet within a country. It will be helpful when assessing the success
of the model since it shows us how a country’s average contribution to common welfare expands
overtime.

4. Creating the Common Welfare Product matrix
Now that we have found several representative indexes to determine the CWP, we can create a matrix
that summarises the % of contribution to the Common Welfare of each index.
For instance, if we are looking at the World Governance Indicators of a specific country and they score a
total of 60% this will represent a contribution of 60% to Common Welfare.
In the case of the Ecological Footprint, we could also calculate the % of contribution:
We know that 1.8 global hectares per person are available world-wide, and that Europeans use 4.9 global
hectares per person (National Footprints Accounts, 2011).
If we want to find out the % of excess use of hectares in Europe we would compute the following
equation: - 0.632.
We know the optimal score is 1.8, and this will be represented by a 0 negative effect. Any consumption
that exceeds 1.8 will start having negative effects. In this case, Europe would have a negative % score in
the matrix of 63.2%.

4.1 Matrix for Common Welfare Product
Below is our suggested matrix to represent the Common Welfare Product, the contribution of a country to Common Welfare:

4.2 An example: Indicators for Spain
Health Status
 Percentage of population using exclusively public health coverage
Source: García Armesto, S., Abadía Taira, M.B., Durán, A., Hernández Quevedo, C., Bernal Delgado, E.
España: Análisis del sistema sanitario. Sistemas sanitarios en transición, 2011, 12(4):1–269.
The previous table shows that 85.1% of the population uses exclusively public health coverage. It is a
good result and we think it could be improved up to the level of Ceuta y Melilla (96%) or Navarra (94%).
 Life expectancy
Source: IndexMundi
The following calculations show that Spain has a really high life expectancy occupying the 15th
position
out of 220 countries with 81.27 years. However, its position with respect to Monaco, the country with the
highest life expectancy, points out that Spain can still improve up to 9 basic points.

Life expectancy at birth (years)
Spain 81,27
Mónaco
(Max) 89,68
Spain/Monaco 91%
 Waiting Time
We have not found reliable data related to waiting times so it is an issue for future research.
Education
 Percentage of population in the public education system
Early
Years
(0-5)
Primary
School
Special
Education
Secondary
School
Baccalaureate
Vocational
Trainning
Module
(mid level)
Vocational
Trainning
Module
(upper level)
University
64.2 % 67.3% 55.3% 65.8% 73.1% 75.4% 78.1% 87.5%
Source adapted from MEC, 2010
The previous table shows that there is a high percentage of the population that prefers to receive private
education, especially during early years, primary school and secondary school. For special education
parents rely much more on private institutions as well.
This might be due to the fact that the quality of public education is lower than the education received in
private institutions. The government should definitely invest resources in analyzing the causes of such
bad results so as to improve public education.
On the other hand, results for public universities are much better but they can be improved as well.
 Early school leaving
In 2010 the percentage of early school-leavers was 28.4% (MEC, 2011, p.106). It is quite a bad result so
the government should analyse the causes and design public policies to improve the results.
In the matrix we will consider this percentage as a negative contribution.

 PISA
33,33% 33,33% 33,33%
Reading Scale Mathematics Scale Science Scale
Spain 481 483 488
Max 556 600 575
Spain/Max 86,5108 80,5000 84,8696
Spain (average) 28,83 26,83 28,29 83,95
Source adapted from OECD 2010.
The grey line shows the scores of Spain (2009) in each area. The blue line shows the results of the best
country in each area; we take the latter data as the maximum and we compute the percentages. Finally,
we have assumed that each area counts the same (33.33%). With respect to the maximum scores, Spain
averages 83.95%, a result that could be improved.
Material living standards
 Annual median disposable household income
We found the following information for Spain:
Source: Idescat
By dividing the annual median disposable household income by 12 months we find the median
disposable income/month: /month
We compare the median disposable income/month with the minimum wage/month; the minimum wage
for Spain in 2012 is €641.40.
The gap between both numbers is quite small; the cost of living is high and it is hard to live with
€811.42/month: individuals have very low consumption possibilities and their wage does not enable
them to save or invest in order to protect themselves from future unexpected events. There is a risk of
destitution as well as poverty.

Personal activities including work
 Long-term unemployment
According to the Instituto Nacional de Estadística, the long-term unemployment represents 52.2% of
total unemployment in Spain in 2012 (25.02%); the calculation of the latter percentages shows that the
total long-term unemployment represents the 13.06% of the labor force.
The non accelerating inflation rate of unemployment (NAIRU) is approximately a synonym for the
natural rate of unemployment (Laurence Ball & N. Gregory Mankiw, 2002, p.115). It is used as a proxy
for long-term unemployment.
The idea behind the natural rate hypothesis is that any given labor market structure must involve a certain
amount of unemployment. NAIRU shows the steady state unemployment rate above which inflation
would fall and below which inflation would raise. In 2007, the NAIRU in Spain was around 5.5% (Luisa
Stock, Kurt Vogler-Ludwig, 2010, p.33). 5.5% is far below the current Spanish unemployment rate
(25.02%) and the long-term unemployment rate (13.06%).
The long-term unemployment rate for Spain is a really high percentage and it does not contribute at all to
common welfare. We will therefore show it as a negative contribution in the matrix: -13.06%
 Employees working more than 50 hours per week
Country
1995 or first
available year
2009 or latest
available year
NLD 0,92 0,62
SWE 1,51 1,24
DNK 4,81 1,85
ESP 5,54 6,91
OECD 9,23 8,46
Source: OECD 2011b
The previous table shows that 6.91% of workers in Spain work longer than 50 hours a week. It is relevant
to highlight the percentage of employees working more than 50 hours per week has increased in Spain
with respect to the year 1995, while the OECD average percentage has decreased over time.
In Spain there is nearly a 7% of the population that has really little free time, while in Netherlands,
Sweden and Denmark percentages are much lower and have decreased over time, showing that
population enjoys more free time.
Therefore, in the matrix, we will indicate that 6.91% is a negative contribution: -6.91%

Political Voice and Governance
We found the following information for Spain:
We will use the percentile rank in order to determine how well a country’s governance is doing and as
we stated before, we are choosing the three most relevant indicators: voice and accountability, political
stability and control of corruption.
In Spain in 2011, its rating for Voice and Accountability was 84%, quite a good percentile score. It also
had a good result for control of corruption with an 81%.
However, the Political Stability indicator did not score so well, with only a 50.9%, which could be due to
the terrorist group ETA.
In order to have a reference we compared Spain’s data to Sweden, since we found that it had one of the
best worldwide scores.

Below we can observe Sweden’s data:
All of Sweden’s results are in the highest percentile, whereas Spain’s results, are majorly in the second
highest percentile. This shows that, even though Spain has quite good scores for governance, there is still
room for improvement.
Social Equity
 GINI Index
The most recent GINI coefficient we found for Spain was for 2005, which equals to a degree of
inequality of 32 (CIA World Fact Book, 2012). This is quite a good score since the lowest GINI is 26
and the highest is 58.9. However, if we take into account the ranking of the country, Spain is number 105
out of 136 countries analysed in the CIA Factbook (country number 1 being the most unequal). This
means Spain is in ranking .

Ecological Footprint
In the following graph extracted from Footprintnetwork.org, we can see the increasing evolution of
Spain’s Ecological Footprint from 1960 to 2008. However, from 2010 to 2012, the footprint went from
5.42 to 4.74, a positive change. Although this is an improved result, the Factsheet explains that the
decrease was due to data revision.
Source: Footprintnetwork.org
If we use the formula explained before, we will obtain a % of excess use of hectares equal to:
- 0.62, a negative contribution of 62%.
Human Security
We found the HSI table for 2010:
Source: Human Security Index

According to the table, Spain scored a HSI of 70% in 2010. The lowest score is 29% and the highest 86%
so Spain’s relative security with respect to the rest of the countries is quite high (Human Security Index,
2009). Taking into account that 232 countries are analysed and ranked, Spain’s ranking is in position
. So Spain’s relative security with respect to the rest of the countries is higher than
the average but not optimal.

4.3 Matrix: Common Welfare Product for Spain

4.4 Spain’s Common Welfare matrix: General Comment
The Common Welfare matrix has the following areas of focus: health, education, material living
standards, personal activities, political voice and governance, social equity, environmental conditions and
insecurity. Within those areas there are several representative indicators that show a country’s
contribution to Common Welfare.
The Common Welfare matrix for Spain serves as an example on how our theory could be applied. The
matrix summarises Spain’s percentage contribution to common welfare for each indicator. Spain does
not yet have data related to the general indicators as the model of the Common Welfare Economy in
Spain is still in its early days. Results for Spain can be classified into two groups:
The first group contains the “good scores”, in which we clearly find the health system: Spanish citizens
have an average life expectancy at birth of 81.27 years, which is good if we compare it to Monaco, the
country with the highest life expectancy (89.68 years). With respect to the maximum, 89.68 years,
Spain’s contribution to Common Welfare is around 91%.
Moreover, the percentage of people using the public health system exclusively amounts to 85.1%, which
is a really positive result.
Concerning waiting times, there is not enough data available and even less for cross-country
comparisons. In addition, there is no agreement on a universal definition for ‘waiting time’. It therefore
remains a potential issue for future research as this indicator could provide useful information on the
quality of the health system.
Even though the current scores for health are good, they have been downgraded due to the current
economic crisis and the stringent public policies applied by governments. This means there is a potential
risk for public health services to decline in their level of contribution to Common Welfare.
As for education, there is a high percentage of population relying on public universities (87.5%). It might
indicate that people rely on public universities because of their good quality.
The GINI for Spain was 32 in 2005, which is quite good taking into account that Spain is number 105 out
of 136 countries, thus being 77.21 in the ranking. It would be interesting to see the evolution of the GINI
during the coming years to find out if it worsens due to the economic crisis and the public policies
applied by governments.
Spain shows good scores for Voice and Accountability (84%) and finally, the Human Security Index
contributes 70% to Common Welfare, which we think is a good contribution as from the 232 countries

analyzed, Spain’s ranking is in position 69.40; its relative security with respect to the rest of the countries
is higher than the average but still not optimal.
Finally, the data show that Spain has a good control of corruption with an 81% of contribution. However,
comparing this percentage with other countries such as Sweden, we can observe that Spain has great
room for improvement.
The second group contains Spain’s “bad scores”. In the current context of the crisis, Spain’s median
disposable household income as well as its minimum wage remain low taking into account the high cost
of living. The long-term unemployment is really high (13%) as well as the unemployment rate (25.02%).
It clearly does not contribute at all to the Common Welfare of a country and, in fact, it causes the
downgrade of some, if not all, the other indicators and their contributions to Common Welfare:
unemployment leads to a decrease in the median disposable household income and an increase in
insecurity; in the context of crisis, unemployment sometimes comes together with an increase of the
GINI coefficients: the gap between the rich and the poor broadens further. Long-term unemployment in
Spain has increased in the last few years due to the crisis and, surprisingly, those working seem to work
for longer hours: 6.91% of people work for more than 50 hours a week; this percentage has been
increasing since 1995.
Spain scores relatively badly in other dimensions such as in education: there is a really high percentage
of families that choose private education for their children, especially when it comes to early years,
primary and secondary education as well as special education. Taking into account the high
unemployment and the decrease of the median disposable household income, families will have less
money to spend on the education of their children and will have to rely on public education even if its
quality is not good. PISA results seem to be good at first sight, but if we analyze them in more detail and
compare them with other countries, we realize that Spain is not performing that well. Moreover, the early
school leaving rate is significantly high (28.4%).
The Political Stability indicator shows that Spain does not score well and that might be due in part to the
terrorist group ETA. It should therefore be a priority in the government’s agenda.
Finally, even though Spain has improved its Footprint score, it still shows a very negative contribution to
Common Welfare of -62% which should be improved urgently.
The matrix for Spain gives valuable, disaggregated information to the government and citizens regarding
the quantity and quality of the country’s contribution to Common Welfare. From our previous analysis
we also see that the matrix and data suggest which countries governments should look at as a reference
for future improvement.

Ideally, and if we had more time for this project, we would like to assign weightings to the different areas
or indicators so as to aggregate them into a unique number or percentage that could complement the
GDP.

5. Conclusion
Reflecting and contributing to Felber's Common Welfare model has been very inspiring for us. When we
first heard about the Common Welfare Economy it felt like a breath of fresh air, a new exciting
alternative to our current model. We have really enjoyed writing this project because the model is still
taking shape and everyone is encouraged to participate one way or another.
On the way, we have met and talked to many people who are currently working really hard on this
model. Moreover, we had the pleasure to talk and present our project to Christian Felber in a conference
he gave in the Cambra de Comerç in Barcelona. It has been really inspiring and encouraging to meet all
these people.
We chose an area within the model that has not yet been discussed so we could be creative and make a
small contribution. The Common Welfare Product is supposed to be decided democratically through
regional and then national majority voting. In order to try and simulate this, we proposed several
indicators to a group of 20 people who attend a weekly seminar on the Common Welfare Economy
taught by Professor Mercè Carreras-Solanas. Thanks to their help we chose the final indicators that are
presented in this project. We hope our proposal will be of some help to future research and debate.
Finally, we would like to emphasize the importance of clarifying what is understood by national common
welfare and how it should be measured. In this project we took a more objective approach when defining
national well-being because we assumed the results would be more clear and reliable. However, we think
subjective surveys related to the individuals’ opinion would be useful to find out how they feel in relation
to various issues. Their happiness should also be considered along with objective data in order to see if
there is a real correlation between high quality of life and happiness. We would hope there is.

Appendix
Appendix 1: The Common Welfare Matrix

Appendix 2: The quality of health status indicators
Source: OECD, 2011a
Appendix 3: The quality of work-life balance indicators
Source : (OECD 2011d)

Bibliography and other sources
Central Intelligence Agency, 2012. The World Factbook [online] Available at:
<https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sp.html>
[Accessed 12 November 2012].
European Comission, 2003., Council Conclusions of 5 May 2003 on reference levels of European
average performance in education and training (Benchmarks). [pdf] O.J. 2003, C 134/3. 245. Available
at: <http://www.cedefop.europa.eu/EN/Files/Benchmarks.pdf>
EDUcontact, 2011. PISA - Measuring student success around the world. [video online] Available at:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1I9tuScLUA> [Accessed 2 November 2012].
Felber, Christian., 2012. La Economía del bien común. 3rd
ed. Barcelona: Deusto.
Felber, C., Moreno, A., 20 November 2012. Conference: The Common Welfare Economy. Barcelona:
Cambra de Comerç.
Fleischman, H.L., Hopstock, P.J., Pelczar, M.P., and Shelley, B.E., 2010. Highlights From PISA 2009:
Performance of U.S. 15-YearOld Students in Reading, Mathematics, and Science Literacy in an
International Context. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
García Armesto, S., Abadía Taira, M.B., Durán, A., Hernández Quevedo, C., Bernal Delgado, 2011.
Análisis del sistema sanitario. Sistemas sanitarios en transición, España: 12(4):1–269.
Global Footprint Network, 2012. Footprint for Nations [pdf] Available at:
<http://www.footprintnetwork.org/images/trends/2012/pdf/2012_spain.pdf>
Index Mundi, 2012. Expectativa de vida al nacer [online] Available at:
<http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?c=sp&v=30&l=es> [Accessed 13 November 2012]
Instituto Nacional de Estadística, 2012. Instituto Nacional de Estadística [online] Available at:
<http://www.ine.es/> [Accessed 24 November 2012]
Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte, 2009-2010. La escolarización en el sistema educacivo. [pdf]
Available at:
<http://www.mecd.gob.es/dctm/ministerio/horizontales/estadisticas/indicadores-
publicaciones/cifras/2012/c1-la-escolarizacion-09-10-.pdf?documentId=0901e72b812375bd>
Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte, 2011. El Sistema Estatal de Indicadores de la Educación.
[pdf] Instituto de Evaluación. Available at: <http://www.mecd.gob.es/dctm/ievaluacion/indicadores-
educativos/seie-2011.pdf?documentId=0901e72b810b3cc3> [Accessed 3 November 2012].
Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte, 2012. Datos y Cifras [online] Available at:
<http://www.mecd.gob.es/dctm/ministerio/horizontales/prensa/documentos/2011/09/datos-y-cifras-2011-
2012?documentId=0901e72b80ea4d86> [Accessed 12 November 2012].

Nussbaum, M., Sen, A., 1993. The Quality of Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
OECD, 2004. Towards High-performing Health Systems. [pdf] Organization for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD) Publishing, Paris. Available at:
<http://www.oecd.org/health/healthpoliciesanddata/31785551.pdf>
OECD, 2008. Tertiary education for the knowledge society. Volume 1: Special features: Governance,
Funding, Quality. [pdf] Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Available
at: <http://www.oecd.org/edu/highereducationandadultlearning/41266690.pdf>
OECD, 2010. PISA 2009 Results: Executive Summary. [pdf] Organization for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD). Available at: <http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/46619703.pdf>
OECD, 2011a. How's Life?: Measuring well-being. [pdf] Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) Publishing. Available at:
<http://www.oecd.org/berlin/publikationen/howslifemeasuringwell-being.htm>
OECD, 2011b. Health at a Glance 2011: OECD Indicators. [pdf] Organization for Economic Co-
operation and Development (OECD) Publishing. Available at:
<http://www.oecd.org/health/healthpoliciesanddata/49105858.pdf>
OECD, 2011c. Compendium of OECD well-being indicators, [pdf] Organization for Economic Co-
operation and Development (OECD) Publishing, Paris. Available at:
<http://www.oecd.org/std/47917288.pdf> [Accessed 10 November 2012].
OECD, 2011d. Doing Better for Families. [online] Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) Publishing. Available at: <http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-
Management/oecd/social-issues-migration-health/doing-better-for-families_9789264098732-en>
Sanmartin, C. et al., 2003. Access to Health Care Services in Canada, Ottawa: Statistics Canada.
Sen, Amartya K., 1985. Commodities and Capabilities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sen, Amartya K., 2004. Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sen, A., Stiglitz, J. E., & Fitoussi, J.-P., 2009. Report by the Commission on the Measurement of
Economic Performance and Social Progress. Paris, France: The Commission on the Measurement of
Economic Performance and Social Progress.
Smith, A. 1896. Lectures on Justice, Police, Revenue and Arms, Delivered in the University of Glasgow
by Adam Smith, reported by a student in 1763, edited Edwin Cannan, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Stiglitz, J., 1999. Economics of the Public Sector, 3rd
ed., Norton.

The International Institute for Strategic Surveys, 2012. The International Institute for Strategic Surveys
[online] Available at: <http://www.iiss.org/> [Accessed 10 November 2012].
The World Bank, 2012. GINI Index [online] Available at:
<http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI> [Accessed 10 November 2012].
The World Bank Group, 2012. World Governance Indicators [online]
<http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/> [Accessed 10 November 2012].
WordPress, 2011. Human Secuirty Index [online] Available at:
<http://www.humansecurityindex.org/?page_id=28> [Accessed 13 November 2012].
World Health Organization, 2012. World Health Statistics 2011. [pdf] Available at:
<http://www.who.int/gho/publications/world_health_statistics/EN_WHS2012_Full.pdf>

The common welfare economy còpia

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (15)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (10)

Similar to The common welfare economy còpia

Similar to The common welfare economy còpia (20)

More from Mercè 梅尔瑟 Carreras-Solanas

More from Mercè 梅尔瑟 Carreras-Solanas (17)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

The common welfare economy còpia