Counting the Good Life: Between the Rock of ‘GDP’ and a Hard Place called ‘Irrelevance’

This paper studies the politics of numbers through the concept of controversial relevance, where the very fact of a quantification becoming relevant for someone or something is also a source of its controversiality. Focusing on controversies is a common theme in studies of how claims and descriptions become naturalized, as prominently expressed in Latour’s recommendation to study the controversies that reopen the ‘blackboxes’ of well entrenched facts (Latour 1987). This blackboxing view holds that the political usefulness of quantifications stems largely from the way it is taken for granted as neutral and objective information (Porter 1995). But many societally relevant indicators appear to function despite massive controversies. Although continuously debated and criticized, the OECD-PISA test clearly affects national educational politics (e.g. Grek 2009). When something matters, it matters in a way that some will contest. To explore this interplay between relevance and controversy I study recent Danish projects to measure well-being, focusing especially on the Regions of Southern Denmark’s work with ‘The Good Life’ as a regional development strategy since 2007, and Statistics Denmark’s present pilot project to produce quality of life indicators for Danish municipalities. As quantifications of well-being and quality of life, the indicators used in both projects relate to the international debate over the merits and defects of GDP, thus raising a number of potential controversies over societal priorities that the advocate and officials of the project must navigate. Presenting the indicators as an alternative to GDP brings potential relevance – but also put stress on the projects’ ability to manage controversy.