Conclusion

According to the findings of this study, although leading countries of the OECD and G20 members achieved steady economic and social development from 1990 to 2008, there were noticeable differences in areas and patterns, and in the speed of development between countries. Examination by area showed that growth engine displayed continuous improvement throughout the entire period but the increase rates of indicators gradually decreased in the 2000s compared to the 1990s. On the contrary, social cohesion and environment recorded steady growth in the 2000s as well as over the past two decades.

Two explanations are possible for this noticeable global trend of "slowdown in growth engine and relative progress in social cohesion and environment." On the one hand, this global trend may have resulted from the series of global economic crises. Particularly, it can be pointed out that the two economic crises in the late 1990s and in the late 2000s weakened the driving force of growth engine. On the other hand, with an emergence of a diverse global agenda on environmental protection and social cohesion going beyond economic growth as international collaborative tasks, efforts by individual countries to improve the quality of life and achieve sustainable development offset their efforts to simply pursue economic growth.

This study also identified the global trend in the gap between countries by area of economic and social development over the past two decades. In the growth engine area, leading countries in growth engine such as Luxembourg and the United States showed a trend towards a slowdown in growth rate, while countries with low growth engines such as East European countries including Poland, Russia, and Hungary and Latin American countries

- 63 -

including Chile and Brazil, attained remarkable growth to increase the mean of their growth indicators and reduce the gap between countries.

In environment area, the gap between countries narrowed very rapidly in the 1990s and onwards. In particular, China and India, whose environmental indicators were at the lowest level, made striding progress in environment. This progress greatly contributed in increasing the mean of environmental indicators and reducing the gap. Therefore, the international community's increased interest in environment and individual countries' active responses to the emergence of a global agenda, including proliferation of environment-related treaties, may have caused the global trend.

In contrast to growth engine and environment, the difference in social cohesion between countries has continuously increased since the 1990s. This implies that a new " global social inequality" expanded. While some leading countries achieved growth as their increased social capabilities, such as individual freedom, life security and social tolerance, struck a balance with the government's role in supporting these capabilities, others failed to nurture such capabilities. A major component of sustainable social development is the shift towards a society in which the quality of individual life, empowerment, considerateness and tolerance expand. In this respect, the global social inequality should be analyzed in detail and resolved as a new transnational issue. There was a convergence in the economic area between the countries. In the environmental area, measures were prepared at the global level by setting an international agenda. However, there were insufficient international efforts to resolve the global imbalance in the social cohesion area. Therefore, further efforts should be made to seek ways for raising awareness of the issues in the international community and resolving the problem by identifying the present situation of the global social inequality and strengthening the analyses of its causes.

- 64 -

References

Statistics Korea (for each year), Korea's Social Indicators

Bergheim, Stefan (2007). "The happy variety of capitalism". Deutsche Bank Research. Current Issues. April 2007. Frankfurt am Main.

Cobb, C., T. Halstead, and J. Rowe, (1995). The Genuine Progress Indicator: Summary of Data and Methodology, Redefining Progress, San Francisco, 1995.

Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and social Progress (CMEPP) (2009). Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress.

Central Statistics Office (CSO) (2008). "Measuring Ireland's Progress 2007", Government of Ireland.

Diener, E. (1994). "Assessing subjective well-being: Progress and opportunities". Social Indicators Research. Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 103-157.

Easterlin, Richard A. (1974). "Does Economic Growth Improve the Human Lot?" in Paul A. David and Melvin W. Reder, eds., Nations and Households in Economic Growth:

Essays in Honor of Moses Abramovitz, New York: Academic Press, Inc.

Economist Intelligence Unit. (2005), "The Economist Intelligence Unit's quality-of-life index", EIU.

Economic Planning Agency. (2008), “People's Life Indicators”, National Life Council in Economic Planning Agency.

Fleurbaey, M., Gaulier G. (2009). "International Comparisons of Living Standards by Equivalent Incomes," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 111(3), pages 597-624.

Hall, Peter A. and David Soskice (2001). "Varieties of capitalism: the institutional foundations of comparative advantage". Oxford: Oxford University Press.

- 65 -

Henderson, Hazel (1991). "Paradigms in Progress: Life Beyond Economics".

Knowledge Systems Inc., Indianapolis, IN.

Kahneman, Daniel, Alan Krueger, David Schkade, Norbert Schwarz, Arthur A. Stone (2004), "A Survey Method for Characterizing Daily Life Experience: The Day Reconstruction Method", Science, Vol. 306, No. 5702.

Maddison, Angus (2010) “Statistics on World Population, GDP and GDP per capita, 1-2008 AD”. University of Groningen.

Nelson, Richard R. and Sidney G. Winter (1982). “An evolutionary theory of economic change”. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Nordhaus, W. D., Tobin, J. (1973). “Is growth obsolete?”. In: Moss, Milton, Editor, 1973. The Measurement of Economic and Social Performance, Studies in Income and Wealth Vol. 38, Columbia University Press, New York, pp. 509–532.

OECD (2009). “Society at a glance 2009: OECD Social Indicators”. Paris.

Osberg, L., Sharpe, A. (2002). “An index of Economic Well-being for selected OECD countries”, Review of Income and Wealth, Series 48, Number 3, pp. 291-316.

Osberg, L., Sharpe, A. (2005). “How should we measure the 'economic' aspects of well-being?”, Review of Income and Wealth, Series 51, Number 2, pp. 311-336.

Sen, Amartya (1998). “The Possibility of Social Choice: Nobel Prize Lecture to the memory of Alfred Nobel.”, The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences. December 8, 1998. pp. 178-215.

Sharpe, A. (2000). "A Survey of indicators of economic and social well-being".

Background Paper prepared for Canadian Policy Research Networks.

Stiglitz, Joseph (2008). "Progress, what progress?" OECD Observer, (http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php/aid/2793/Progress,_what_progress_.html).

World Economic Forum (WEF) (2008). "The Global Competitiveness Report 2008-2009".

<http://www.ggdc.net/maddison>

<http://www.heritage.org/Index>

<http://www.irtad.net>

- 66 -

<http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi>

<http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN>

<http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org>

<http://www.who.int>

<http://www.unodc.org>

<http://www.odakorea.go.kr>

<http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/governance>

<http://www.gpiatlantic.org/gpi.htm>

<http://www.ciw.ca/en/TheCanadianIndexOfWellbeing.aspx>

<http://www.happyplanetindex.org>

<http://www.freedomhouse.org>

<http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx>

<http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics>

- 67 -

[Appendix tables]

<Appendix table 1> Change in level by category 1

Growth engine (1990-2008)

Social

cohesion(1990-2008)

Environment(1990-2008)

Remarks

Argentina L-L M-M

Australia H-H M-M L-L

Austria M-M M-M H-H

Belgium M-M M-M M-M

Brazil L-L M-M

Canada H-H H-M M-M

Chile L-L M-M

China L-L

Czech Republic M-M M-L M-M

Denmark H-H H-H H-H

Finland M-M H-H M-H

France H-M M-M H-M

Germany M-M M-M M-H

Greece L-M L-L M-L

Hungary L-M L-L L-L

Iceland M-H H-H H-H

India L-L L-L

Indonesia M-L

Ireland M-M M-M M-H

Italy M-M L-L H-M

Japan H-M M-M M-M

Korea M-M L-L L-L

Luxembourg H-H M-H H-H

Mexico L-L L-L L-L

- 68 -

Netherlands H-H H-H M-M

New Zealand M-M H-H H-M

Norway H-H H-H H-H

Poland L-L L-L L-M

Portugal M-M L-L M-M

Russia M-L L-L

Saudi Arabia L-L

Slovak Republic M-M L-L L-H

Republic of South Africa L-L L-L

Spain M-M M-M M-M

Sweden H-H H-H H-H

Switzerland H-H M-H H-H

Turkey L-L L-L L-L

United Kingdom M-H M-M H-H

United States H-H H-M M-L

Note: H=High, M=Middle, L=Low

<Appendix table 2> Change in level by category 2

1990 2008 Growth engine Social cohesion Environment

High

High

Australia Canada Denmark Luxembourg Netherlands Norway Sweden Switzerland United States

Denmark Finland Iceland Netherlands New Zealand Norway Sweden

Austria Denmark Iceland Luxembourg Norway Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom

Middle France Japan

Canada United States

France Italy

New Zealand Low