Sag mir, was Du misst,

und ich sag Dir, ob man Deine Argumente anhören wird. FP2P präsentiert einen interessanten Einblick in die Frage, welche Bedingungen dazu führen, dass bestimmte Indikatoren medial und politisch erfolgreicher sind als andere.

Duncan Green hebt folgende Aspekte der dem Posting zugrunde liegende Studie "Review report on Beyond GDP indicators: categorisation, intentions and impacts" hervor:

Media analysis showed that single figure indicators get far more pick up than complex dashboards, as do those that enshrine ‘simple and meaningful concepts’ like the Human Development Index or Ecological Footprint (...).

In der Studie selbst heißt es darüber hinaus:

Indicators were successful when they had real relevance for policy makers. Crucially they need to measure something that policy makers believe they can influence. Subjective well-being indicators when used incorrectly can appear to fail this test, (...). Another factor here is cost. In the current climate, indicators that provide clues for low cost policies, or indeed those that can help save money, are of particular interest. (...)

Indicators need credibility and legitimacy. Aside from the requirement of quality data, the appearance of neutrality was seen as the best route to achieve this (...).
Developing the indicators with the audiences at whom they are targeted and/or encouraging participation (...) is also seen as a key success factor.

Der Beitrag ist besonders in Hinblick auf die Diskussion um mögliche Globale Nachhaltigkeitsziele interessant, die auf die Millennium-Entwicklungsziele folgen sollen.