Soc Indic Res

DOI 10.1007/s11205-008-9302-z

Conceptions of Progress: How is Progress Perceived?

Mainstream Versus Alternative Conceptions of Progress
Anat Itay

Accepted: 11 August 2008

Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Abstract Progress is a powerful political concept, encompassing different and sometimes

contradictory conceptions. This paper examines the results of a survey on progress conducted at the OECD World Forum entitled Measuring and Fostering the Progress of
Societies held in Istanbul in June 2007. First, a distinction is drawn between the two
approaches to progress (skeptical and optimistic) and four theories of progress (Liberal,
Social Liberal, Green, and Conservative). Second, the survey results are examined in order
to find the prevailing conception among the participants. Findings show that while the
literature regards the Liberal, economically based theory of progress as sitting at the heart
of the mainstream conception of progress, it is notable that, in fact, there emerged among
the participants a different mainstream conception of progress: one that is optimistic in
approach, yet both Social Liberal and Green in its theory.
Keywords

Progress
OECD
Green theory
Growth

A belief in progress implies that things will in some sense get better in the future,
but it has never been limited to this simple idea of melioration. (Sidney Pollard, The
Idea of Progress)

1 Introduction
The question explored in this paper is whether the economically based Liberal theory of
progress is indeed at the heart of the mainstream conception of progress, as portrayed in the
literature. This question is discussed through examining the results of a survey conducted
by me at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) World
Forum in Istanbul in June 2007, devoted to Measuring and Fostering the Progress of
Societies.
A. Itay (&)
The Department of Political Science, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel
e-mail: itay.anat@gmail.com

123

A. Itay

Progress serves as a strong political concept, frequently used by politicians and leaders to
describe many different, and often contradicting, conceptions of improvement.1 It is
important for political scientists to grasp and define these conceptions, in order to offer a
better understanding of this popularly used but vague concept. Moreover, many societies are
becoming engaged in trying to measure progress, and nowadays do so mainly along the lines
of the Liberal theory, neglecting to fully explore alternative conceptions of progress.2 This
creates a contemporary need for defining progress and exploring its different conceptions.
In order to analyze the various conceptions of progress, I use the following distinctions:
each conception of progress encompasses an approach and a theory. Generally speaking,
there are two main approaches to progress, the optimistic and the skeptical, and each
comprises two theories of progress: the optimistic approach comprises the Liberal theory
and the Social Liberal theory, and the skeptical approach comprises the Green theory and
the Conservative theory. Each approach, combined with one of the theories it encompasses,
constructs a conception of progress. Among the theories of progress, the Liberal one,
focused on economic growth, is the dominant theory nowadays, both in literature and in
policymaking, and is considered to represent the mainstream conception.
This paper analyzes a survey taken by 96 delegates (from 42 countries) of a total of
1,200 registered participants in an international conference conducted by the OECD,
devoted to discussing and measuring progress. After presenting the OECD case study, this
paper offers a mapping of the approaches and theories of progress. Following this discussion, the survey is analyzed in order to examine whether the participants perceptions of
progress do indeed tie in with what is considered the mainstream conception of progress,
i.e., the Liberal one focused on growth. As a result, this paper examines what the prevailing
conception of progress is among this small sample; it may, of course, not represent the
views of all the participants.
Results, in a nutshell, show that these participants in the OECD World Forum, who are all
engaged in re-thinking and defining progress as a political ideal, seem to be holding on to the
optimistic approach of the mainstream conception of progress, but, at the same time, rejecting
what is thought of as its main theory: the Liberal theory. In other words, they are adhering to
alternative conceptions of progress. Furthermore, the results indicate a surprising synthesis of
conceptions of progress: it seems that while participants are clearly optimistic in approach,
when it comes to the theories of progress, they hold views of both the Social Liberal and the
Green theories of progress, although these theories stem from two contradicting approaches.
Thus, among the participants, a new mainstream conception of progress is identified.
2 The OECD World Forum as a Case Study
The challenge of defining progress has caught the interest of many different institutions
around the world since the beginning of the 21st century. In 2000, the UN initiated its
1

See, for example, the use of progress in speeches by Tony Blair: http://www.weforum.org/pdf/
AM_2007/blair.pdf; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5382590.stm; http://www.number10.gov.uk/
output/Page10037.asp; By George Bush: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/06/200506287.html and by Vladimir Putin: http://en.civilg8.ru/g8rus/publications1/917.php.

The one clear exception is Bhutan, which has declared its aim as growth of Gross Domestic Happiness
rather than Gross Domestic Product as other countries do. On the dominance of the Liberal theory see, for
example: and the barometer of progress became the GDP (Mathews 2006, p. 3); Despite these
cautions, GDP maintains its prominent role as a catchall for our collective well being. (Cobb et al. 2007,
p. 1); The prospect of a viable and progressive system alternative to capitalism seems to have disappeared
(Mishra 1999, p. 1).

123

Conceptions of Progress

Millennium Development Goals (MDG), defining what progress it hopes for the world to
achieve by 2015.3 States around the world are trying to define their national goals with
respect to well-being,4 and in 2004, the OECD launched its long-term project titled
Measuring and Fostering the Progress of Societies,5 aiming at finding out what states
measure as progress and how.6
All these interesting projects are involved in defining and dealing with progress, but
they each have a different focus. Since the OECD project is a global project, and the most
ambitious and politically sound attempt to date to define the political ideal of progress, in
what follows I shall focus on this project.
Announcing the project, the OECD declared that:
The OECD Global Project on Measuring the Progress of Societies in collaboration with other international and regional partners seeks to become the world
wide reference point for those who wish to measure, or assess, the progress of their
societies.
The project is being built around a series of World Forums and encompasses associated work within and outside of the OECD.7
The OECD launched the project in 2004; it was initially aimed at exploring the connection
between statistics and policy.8 After the first year, the focus shifted to what revealed itself
to be a more prominent challenge: measuring progress and discussing its meaning. The
OECD then organized several regional conferences to discuss how progress is measured,
followed by a global conference, convened in Istanbul in June 2007, to discuss what
progress is and how it is measured at a global level. As part of a global discussion of
current conceptions of progress, a debate titled What is Progress?a discussion on what
progress is and what it meant to the various participants of the Istanbul World Forum
took place at the general assembly. Delegates to the conference were presented with key
questions such as: What are the specific aspects that should be included when measuring
progress? What are the specific components that determine each of them? At what level
should progress be measured? Should we measure the progress of individuals, nations, or
the globe for example? What is progress for the world? What emphasis should be given to
the means to desired ends? What is the time period one wishes to consider progress over?
The main question discussed was: What are the key measures for global progress?
(emphasis in original).9

See http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/. The goals mainly refer to the developing world, and comprise
eight goals including: eradication of extreme poverty and hunger; achievement of universal primary education, and so on.

For example: The State of Victoria, Australia. http://acqol.deakin.edu.au/Publications/recent_reports/MS2

appen1.PDF.

http://www.oecd.org/site/0,3407,en_21571361_31938349_1_1_1_1_1,00.html.

The different terms (progress, development, well-being, quality of life, etc.) are often used interchangeably, as synonyms, even though they describe different objectives. In this paper, I use these terms in
the following senses, unless otherwise stated: progress for the theoretical concept; development for
progress in the developing world, and well-being and quality of life for progress in the developed
countries.

http://www.oecd.org/site/0,3407,en_21571361_31938349_1_1_1_1_1,00.html.

The first World Forum to be held as part of the global project was entitled: Statistics, Knowledge and
Policy. It was held in 2004.

All questions mentioned are quoted from: Itay (2007, p. 8).

123

A. Itay

During the conference, I conducted a survey among its participants.10 The survey
offered an opportunity to solicit answers from a unique audience: people who, on the one
hand, were involved in the prestigious project, but, on the other hand, were mostly
involved in the praxis of measuring progress rather than in contemplating the theoretical
aspects of progress. The conference attracted 1,200 participants from 130 countries, all
invited by the OECD. Most participants had been invited to represent their countries on the
subject of measuring progress, and thus were likely to represent a rather mainstream point
of view on the subject. They were mostly statisticians, public administrators and policymakers.11 In that sense, it was also a rare opportunity to explore the conceptions of
progress held by people who have a say in shaping its definition and measurement.12
However, before turning to examine which is the dominant conception of progress among
the participants, it is necessary to understand the theoretical difficulties regarding the concept
of progress, as well as the different approaches and theories to dealing with them.

3 Conceptualizing Progress: Approaches and Theories13

The idea of progress has captured human imagination since the beginning of known
history. There is historical evidence for progress being on humans minds for quite a long
time.14 In modern times, furthermore, scholars theorized about the idea of progress itself.15
As a political ideal, progress is a challenging and complex concept; it differs from mere
change in that its intended purpose is to lead to improvement. Generally speaking, it is
complex because it comprises many, often contradicting, aspects, and it involves personal
preferences in matters that often have global consequences. More specifically, progress has
10
See appendix for survey. The survey was given to participants to fill out during the general assembly on
What is Progress? during the first day of the World Forum, and was collected on the same day. Ninety-six
delegates took the survey, which amounted to about 65% of the delegates present at that discussion. It was
an anonymous survey.
11
To give a general idea, among the participants in the survey, according to their own accounts, 12 were
statisticians, 11 were connected to academia, and 10 were economists. Many of the participants hold high
positions, such as heads of bureaux of statistics, directors and chief economists. Age groups divided as
follows: 11 were under 29 years of age; 22 were 3039 years old, 27 were 4049 years old, 23 were
5059 years old, 9 were 6069 and 4 did not share this information. Seventy-one of the participants taking
the survey were from developed countries, 16 from the developing countries, and 9 did not include this
detail. Twenty-nine of the participants were women and 64 were men (3 did not state). No connection was
found between answers and gender, or between answers and whether participants come from a developed or
developing country.
12
It is a small survey, with very diverse answers, and so does not allow drawing of complex statistical
conclusions and connections. However, since it is pioneering research, all this survey needs to show are
associations and frequencies, in order to give us a good idea of what the participants perceive progress to be.
13

This section is based on an overview published in: Itay (2007).

14

From the Neanderthal trying to improve his hunting skills (aiming at hunting a herd of buffalo rather than
just one)see an excellent account of prehistoric human progress and its environmental consequences in
Wright (2004)to Aristotle wondering how the polis and public life could improve, and how to generate
inventions; to the Enlightenment philosophers deciphering the code for progress, believing it is human
education and knowledge that can lead humanity to a steadily growing better future, there are many
examples.
15

Examples include Bury (1920); Pollard (1968); Nisbet (1980); and others. Theorizing progress included,
for instance, a debate on whether progress is a modern idea. Bury and Nisbet represent this debate well, as
they disagree on whether a philosopher dealing implicitly with progress, such as Aristotle, is indeed a
progress philosopher. Consequently, they each write a very different history of the idea of progress, and
include different philosophers in their research.

123

Conceptions of Progress

different meanings for different people: what might appear to one person as progress may
seem the opposite to another. In addition, while we might, for example, welcome a growing
economy and deplore pollution, it is the relative weight we give to each aspect that determines
whether there has been overall progress or regression. Indeed, progress can also be broken
down to many different spheres: technological, medical, economic, environmental, scientific,
social, etc. Thus, for example, advanced embryo engineering might be seen as medical or
technological progress, leading also to financial benefits, but not everyone would regard it as
moral progress. Progress can be financial, moral, political, etc. Therefore, some aspects of
progress trade off against each other and others reinforce one another.
Defining progress requires reflecting on different aspects of progress: both in terms of
fundamental attitudes towards it, and in the choices regarding its content. Within the
different conceptions of progress, two general attitudes (hereby: fundamental approaches) to defining progress can be identified, as well as four current theories of progress,
describing the relationship of progress to other values.
The two fundamental approaches to progress are optimism and skepticism, which stand
at the heart of every debate about progress, even prior to the Enlightenment.16 The disagreement regarding progress focuses on whether human beings should or should not strive
for progress and human improvement. On the one hand, skepticsopponents of progress
see an aspiration for social progress as dangerous, since it seeks human perfection.17
Human perfection, they claim, cannot be achieved, and aspiring to it can be very costly.
Indeed, it is this aspiration that can lead to totalitarian regimes and genocide. These
skeptics believe that society should not try to achieve or direct progress; doing so hurts
those in society who do not share the same view of progress, and it can incur other
substantial costs, such as encouraging growth beyond the earths resources.18 On the other
hand, the optimistic proponents of progress believe that striving for progress keeps the
world from chaos, and allows conditions to improve. They maintain that without aspiring
to progress, there can only be change for changes sake, with no actual improvement.
Within these two fundamental approaches, four contemporary theories can be identified19:
The Liberal Theory of Progress: this theory relies heavily on economic indicators to
measure progress, and refers to economic growth, as both the generator of progress and as
the essence of what progress is. With the major technological discoveries of the last
century, and the growing dominance of the free market system, economic growth (as
measured by Gross Domestic Product, GDP) became widely accepted as the indicator for
progress of societies. Within the fields of progress, development and quality of life, it is the
dominant theory of progress today.20 Drawing from the Liberal theory, which highlights
16
This debate is also found within the progress discourse as a debate between progressivists and declinists
(see Nisbet 1980, p. x). This is simple to grasp by thinking along the lines of the debate within the
philosophy of history, focusing on how to perceive history and its movement (as linear, spiral, random, etc.).
17

See Passmore (1970).

18

One of the most explicit proponents of this approach is John Gray (see Gray 2004).

19

The term theory is used here to describe what should more accurately be referred to as a family of
theories. Each theory encompasses more than one coherent theory. However, since the focus here is on the
core values of each family of theories, each such family is referred to as one theory (see Freeden 1996, for
the use of core values in ideologies). This is the case for all theories mentioned in this paper.
20
See a European Commission publication for one of many examples: Key Figures of Europe in:
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat, as explained in a World Bank publication: In an ideal assessment of development, progress would be measured by human and environmental advances before considering
intermediate indicators, such as GDP. However, we lack good quality data to construct robust indicators of
human and environmental progress and consequently rely heavily on GDP (Vinod 2000, pp. 23).

123

A. Itay

neutrality and rights, this mainstream economic theory is used to both define and to pursue
progress. It perceives the free market as generating progress in all areas of life, and it grew
more popular as it became evident that economic growth does indeed bring with it an
increase in human well-being: a correlation is found between growth in GDP and other
aspects of human life such as life expectancy at birth, health, social cohesion, etc.21
However, this theory is controversial both in its demand for a particular form of capitalism, and in the costs this model of progress incurs, primarily costs in environmental and
social terms. Over the years, it became clear that not only was GDP growth not intended to
measure progress, but it also provides a very partial picture of progress, failing to take into
account transactions that are not money-basedactivities that are largely agreed upon as
central to human life but are unpaid (such as family life, housework and clean air to
breath). Similarly, GDP growth does not take into account environmental damage or social
costs, and, on the other hand, is positively influenced by what we consider as regression,
such as growth in crime. Indeed, in many countries around the world, environmental
indicators have been added to national accounts of well-being, and are also measured;
these include greenhouse emissions, carbon footprints, and social indicators such as
enrollment in education. Nevertheless, for many reasonsperhaps misconceptions or
perhaps for want of a convenient alternativeGDP remains the main indicator in the
literature and in politics, when regarding progress, and GDP growth remains the primary
goal of many of the worlds policymakers.22
The Social Liberal Theory of Progress: in general, this theory perceives progress as a
concept in which the social dimensions should be emphasised.23 Its different representatives might equate progress with an increase in social capabilities, relief of poverty, or
other notions of social justice.24 This theory puts greater emphasis on social indicators
rather than economic indicatorsto measure progress.25
The Green Theory of Progress: this theory regards progress as being necessarily in tune with
the earth, introducing notions of sustainability that emphasise the problems of limited resources
and the interests of future generations.26 There are two main views of progress within the Green
theory. One which I call the environmental view (or the soft view) works within mainstream
political system and presses for environmental costs to be more fully taken into account when
considering progress. The other, which I call the ecological view (or the radical view) maintains
that the search for growth and progress has been very costly. This view stresses the need for a
21

Boarini et al. (2006, p. 24).

22

Therefore, GDP is still the starting point for most methods of measuring progress, including the more
environmental and social ones, such as Genuine Progress Indicator (GPIan environmentally sensitive
calculation of an indicator, aimed at replacing the GDP), Human Development Index (HDI, influenced by
Amartya Sen), and others.
23
A prominent example is Amartya Sens work, which influenced the UN HDI and MDGs. For example:
Sen (1999).
24

Or other forms of an alternative social agenda. See for instance: Wolff and de-Shalit (2007).

25

Another field of research contributing greatly to this theory is the work on Quality of Life, aimed at
exploring and improving peoples quality of life and well-being. See the fascinating works of Michalos on
this subject (for instance: Michalos 2003) as well as: Nussbaum and Sen (1995). These works are also being
put into practice in policymaking through national and community participatory projects, asking citizens
what they perceive as progress and quality of life. See for instance: The Canadian Index of Wellbeing in:
http://www.atkinsonfoundation.ca/ciw.
26
Sustainability is defined as the effort to meet the needs of the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs. (The World Commission on Environment and
Development 1987, p. 43). For an account of the complexity of the term sustainability (see Jamieson 2002,
pp. 321335).

123

Conceptions of Progress

Conceptions of
Progress

The
Mainstream
Conception
of Progress

Optimistic Approach

Liberal Theory of
Progress

Social Liberal Theory

of Progress

Skeptical Approach

Green Theory of
Progress

Conservative Theory
of Progress

Fig. 1

methodological shift in the way history and progress are perceived: focusing on progress
prevents us from seeing the costs it involves, and moves us away from the good life in itself.27
The Conservative Theory of Progress: this theory opposes the pursuit of progress in the
social sphere. It perceives progress as possible within the technological and scientific
spheres alone. This theory does not regard knowledge in the social sphere as cumulative,
and consequently it suggests that political and social ideas should not aspire to progress.
Primarily, most Conservatives regard changes in the social sphere with suspicion. Moreover, they perceive human attempts to achieve progress in the social sphere as not only
damaging social structures and family values, but also as the cause for all major atrocities
in history.28 According to this view, the political sphere should deal with current affairs
without aspiring to progress, which can only occur in the natural sciences and technology.
When examining the components of different conceptions of progress, we find these
four theories fitting into the two fundamental approaches to progress, as shown in Fig. 1.
The Liberal and the Social Liberal theories are part of the optimistic approach to
progress. Both theories, though emphasising different goals and means for progress, hold
an optimistic approach, which assumes the possibility of planned progress leading to social
and personal improvement. The Liberal theory is perceived in the literature today as the
primary component of the mainstream conception of progress.
Both the Green and the Conservative theories are included in the skeptical approach to
progress. Although they differ in many ways, these two theories regard the possibility of
human-planned progress as highly unlikely and very dangerous. While Conservatives fear
hubris and the implications of trying to play God, regarding this danger as a threat to
humans, the Green point of view holds progress as dangerous mostly to other species, and
perceives the attempt to control all aspects of life as hubris towards nature.
The survey conducted in Istanbul offers answers to the question of which fundamental
approach and which theory was indeed dominant among the 96 representatives from 42 countries.
27

This relies on the traditional opposition to progress: the worldview that modern political ecologists
challenge is the one that grew out of the early Enlightenment (Dobson 1995, p. 10).

28
Following the political philosophy of Edmund Burke: Hume and Burkeloyal critics who would accept
much of what Enlightenment came to stand for but see themselves as putting a healthy brake on some of the
wilder claims that the age of Reason made for itself (McClelland 1996, p. 404). For more recent Conservative
views, see John Grays works. For example: An excess of moral zeal is fatal in politics, and the hope of
progress can take a terrible toll. In the twentieth century communist regimes committed to Enlightenment ideals
of progress wrought human and environmental havoc on a vast scale. Even the Nazis were driven by a perverse
and hideous idea of progress in seeking to create a new type of human being (Gray 2006, p. 345).

123

A. Itay

4 Survey Results
4.1 Mainstream Versus Alternative Conceptions of Progress
Based on the participants profiles and the projects, it is interesting to begin by examining
whether, as might be expected, participants held, in general, more mainstream or more
alternative conceptions of progress.
Participants were asked on the survey to list freely three measures they perceived as
progress for the world, their countries and themselves (a total of nine goals).29 Their answers
were analyzed according to a categorization examining whether goals for progress were
aligned with what is thought in the literature to be the mainstream conception of progress, i.e.
the Liberal theory of progress (based on the optimistic approach), or tied in with any of the
alternative theories of progress (i.e., Green, Conservative and Social Liberal, each based on
its matching approach). As a more operational definition, mainstream was defined to
include answers that associated with formal institutions and the Liberal theory, focused on
economic growth, whereas all views that seemed to commit to alternative issues (such as
feminism, ecology, pacifism, socialism, and so on) were defined as alternative.30
What we see in Fig. 2 is that most participants held a mainstream conception when
referring to the first and second goals they named at the global level, and the first on the
Mainstream / Alternative Conceptions of Progress
Mainstream

Alternative

Neither
60.4%

58.3%
53.1%

54.2%

52.1%

44.8%

44.8%

53.1%

43.8%

41.7%

39.6%
33.3%

5.2%
2.1%

Global
Progress (1st)

2.1%

3.1%

Global
Global
Progress (2nd) Progress(3rd)

6.3%

2.1%

National
Progress (1st)

National
National
Progress (2nd) Progress (3rd)

Fig. 2
29

See appendix for questions 13 in survey.

30

Some goals were categorized according to the level of commitment they seemed to require. For instance,
peace is a mainstream goal, since it is found in every formal definition of progress (such as the UN
MDGs), while abolition of all wars was defined as alternative, since it is less intuitive and declarative.

123

Conceptions of Progress

national level.31 They stated goals such as economic growth, greater wealth, reduction in
CO2 emission, peace and less poverty. However, when referring to the third global goal
and the second and third national goals, participants stated more alternative goals, which
included visions of progress such as greater equality, better public education, more public
health services, no air pollution, happiness, and so forth.
Interestingly, in cumulative numbers, an equal number of participants held mainstream
conceptions as alternative ones. Since the mainstream conception is based on the Liberal
theory, while alternative conceptions are based on other theories of progress, this seems to
show that an equal number leaned towards the Liberal goals as towards the alternative
onesi.e., Green, Conservative and Social Liberal.
However, the results actually show a preference for the mainstream conception over any of
the other conceptions: the results show that participants held a mainstream conception of
progress, i.e. took the optimistic approach and Liberal theory in equal numbers to participants
holding any of the alternative conceptions (and theories) combined. In other words, the results
show a clear preference for the mainstream conception over each of the alternative ones.
This seems to affirm the dominance (portrayed in the literature) of the Liberal theory of
progress as standing at the heart of the mainstream conception of progress, as it was chosen
by the participants over the alternative conceptions. However, this result should be tested
by analyzing more particularly which approach and which theory of progress the participants held.
4.2 Approaches to Progress: Optimism Prevails
Now we turn to examining which of the two fundamental approaches the participants held.
The examination of whether participants were more optimistic or more skeptical regarding
progress was done indirectly, by analyzing and interpreting the same three open answers
participants gave on the survey in the following way:32
One can choose whether to use positive or negative language to describe the goals for
progress, e.g., use no war or peace to describe the same goal. When analyzing the results,
all answers that included positive terms, such as to increase, to add, to have more of, etc.,
were categorized as positive and therefore as reflecting optimism.33 All answers including
to have less of, to decrease, to stop, to reverse, and so on, were categorized as negative,
indicating a more skeptical approach. Neither is a category including answers which seemed
neutral (technology, for instance), as well as non-answers.
Later on, in light of the results regarding the approach, it will be interesting to examine
the participants support or lack of it in what is perceived to be the currently dominant
theory of progress, i.e. the Liberal one, since optimism indicates that participants are
holding one of the two theories this approach includes: either the Liberal theory of progress, or the Social Liberal theory of progress. We shall return to this point later on.
Figure 3 shows the medium of each of the three sets of results within each level (global,
national, personal).
31
We see three results for each level as the participants were asked to name three goals at each level: the
global, national and personal. The personal level is not included in this analysis, since categorizing personal
progress in terms of mainstream versus alternative is not suitable.
32

See appendix for questions 13 in survey.

33

In Positive Psychology, optimism and positive terms are often tautological (see Seligman and
Csikszentmihalyi 2000, pp. 514). For the connection between positive and negative wording and thinking,
also see: Mook et al. (1992).

123

A. Itay

Positive / Negative Terms for Progress

Positive

Negative

Neither

74.6%

64.9%
63.2%

29.5%
27.7%
21.5%

7.3%

7.2%
3.1%

Global Progress

National Progress

Personal Progress

Fig. 3

The findings show that on all three levels, the dominant language used to describe goals
for progress was a positive one. This means that participants were optimistic when they
thought of progress, and so they did so in positive terms, rather than negative ones. Within
the different levels for progress, the participants were most optimistic regarding the personal level.
Before continuing to more results, let me discuss possible challenges regarding the
meanings of this finding. One possible challenge could be that using negative or
positive language does not indicate an approach, but instead, stems from common
discourse: one could argue that within the political sphere, negative language is often
used to discuss problems at the national and global levels (such as environmental
problems, poverty, and so on), which might explain why negative language was more
frequently used at those levels. However, this explanation is not sufficient because it
was found that both negative and positive language were used by different participants
to describe the same goals, meaning that there is no fixed format in discussing certain
goals.
An additional challenge could be that the use of negative or positive terms does not
indicate a participants approach, but is determined according to the probability of having
an impact. Put differently, the more one considers the relevant goal to be one she can make
an impact on, the more positive terms she will use to describe it. However, this does not
offer a sufficient explanation since, again, different participants used both positive and
negative language when speaking of the same goals (such as stopping war and achieving
peace), even though they were likely to have the same impact on achieving it. In addition,
if participants were to use positive or negative language according to the impact they might

123

Conceptions of Progress

have or not have, then results seem to suggest the unlikely conclusion that participants
think that they have a similar impact on global progress (such as global CO2 emissions)
and national progress (e.g., the local education system).
Another possible challenge offers an explanation related to how likely participants
perceive improvement to be. Indeed, people are often more optimistic regarding the
chances for improvement in their own lives (bear in mind the socioeconomic population
taking this survey) than with regard to politics, not to mention their country and the
planet.34 However, this is another aspect of optimism towards progress (how optimistic one
is regarding chances for improvement), and strengthens the initial explanation that positive
terminology implies optimism and negative implies skeptism.
In conclusion, participants were more optimistic than skeptical towards progress, and it
remains to be seen whether their optimism means that they are supportive of the Liberal
theory of progress, thus establishing what seems to be their choice of the mainstream
conception. Now we can turn to examine their answers on particular questions confronting
the different theories of progress, in order to find which theories prevail for the
participants.

4.3 Liberal Versus Green theory: Choosing Between Economic Growth

and the Environment
This section examines what participants perceived as progress when asked to choose
between Green, environmental goals (such as less air pollution, life in a village, economic
stability, a greener planet, better health and a simpler way of life) versus goals which are
components of the Liberal theory of progress (such as economic growth, cheaper flights,
better quality of life for developed countries and so on).35
The participants were presented with 25 pairs of options on a variety of topics. Within
each pair, they were asked to choose what, for them, seemed more like progress.36 Within
each pair, the choices were not necessarily opposites of each other, but they reflected a
choice between one of the two theories. For instance:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)

More Income per Person OR Greener Planet;

Life in a Metropolis OR Life in a Village;
Better Technology OR More Spiritual Life;
Economic Growth OR Economic Stability;

Figure 4a and b presents the choices participants made on the X axis, and these, in turn,
represent the more general choice between the two theories.
The results seen in Fig. 4a and b (parts 1 and 2), show strong tendency towards the
Green theory over the Liberal one.
It is seen from the figure that with the exception of two, the answers reflect a very clear
choice of Green, environmental goals, indicating a choice of the Green theory of progress
over the Liberal one.

34

See, for example, in: http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=165.

35

The survey did not specify the categories (e.g. Green versus Liberal), so participants chose without
context. Notwithstanding, since participants were not taking the survey as experts on the different theories,
they were presented with relatively simple-to-understand positions and choices for progress.
36

See appendix for question 7.

123

A. Itay
Green OR Liberal Views? Part One

Liberal

Green

Don't Know

80.2%
76.0%
70.8%

70.8%

57.3%

43.8%

32.3%

30.2%

24.0%
14.6%
12.5%

11.5%

Life in a
Metropolis OR
Life in a Village

15.2%
12.5%

Space Travel
OR Investment
in Repairing
Environmental
Damage

Cheaper
Flights OR
Less Air
Pollution

13.5%

15.6%
14.6%

Great Wealth More Income

OR Financial Per Person OR
Security
Greener Planet

Economic
Growth OR
Economic
Stability

Green OR Liberal Views? Part Two

b
Liberal

Green

Don't Know

75.0%

72.9%

51.0%

50.0%

35.4%

35.5%

13.5%

14.6%

16.7%

15.6%
11.5%

8.3%

Better Technology A more Technological

OR More Spiritual Life Way of Life OR a
Simpler Way of Life

Fig. 4

123

14.6%

Longer Life
Expectancy OR
Better Health

Increase in First
World Quality of Life
OR Assistance for
Third World Countries

Conceptions of Progress

4.4 Liberal Versus Social Liberal Theory: Choosing Between Economic Growth
and Social Goals
Within the pairs of choices participants were presented with, Fig. 5 reflects a choice
between a welfare state (promoted by the Social Liberal theory of progress) and capitalism
(promoted by the Liberal theory of progress).
As seen in the results, on almost all accounts, a welfare state is chosen over capitalism.
The only exception is work versus state assistance.
In order to cross-check these results, and examine whether, indeed, the Social Liberal
theory was chosen over the Liberal, answers to the open questions were analyzed also
according to topic.37
The most immediate finding seen from Fig. 6 is the dominance of social topics
named as goals for progress. Social goals for progress are by far dominant over economic ones. This may indicate that the Social Liberal theory of progress is more
prevalent than the Liberal one, but not necessarily. If, for example, within the category
social one finds many goals referring to topics included in the Liberal theory (which
is, of course, not only economic), then the finding that social is chosen over economic is not sufficient to argue that the Social Liberal theory is dominant among the
participants over the Liberal theory. Let us examine, then, what social encompasses
for the participants.
Figure 7 shows that social encapsulates a variety of topics, most dominantly peace,
education and equality. However, when calculated cumulatively, the one leading topic
within social progress is equality.38 Equality is a Social Liberal goal, and is highly preferred here over Liberal goals.
At this point, I want to meet another possible challenge. One can argue that the strength
of the Liberal theory lays in its offering the best means to achieve progress, and thus it is no
wonder that on questions referring to goals it is rated lower than other theories. If this is
indeed the case, then in questions regarding means, the Liberal theory should prevail.
However, when asked which were the best means for achieving goals they had stated
earlier, participants did not adhere to economic means (Fig. 8).39
While the current Liberal theory of progress refers to the economy as the most
important (or even imperative) means of achieving progress, most participants did not
accept the economy as either a dominant goal of progress or as an important means to
achieving it.40

37

This refers back to questions 13. See appendix.

38

Equality (78.1%); Education (57.2%); Peace (45.8%); Politics (31.2%); General (22%); Human Rights
(7.2%).
39
The question on the survey was What would be the most effective way to reach those goals? Choose
two of the following and grade according to importance (see appendix for question 5 on survey).
40
Another question (number 6, see appendix) examined how participants perceived progress philosophically: as a goal in itself or as a path towards goals. Results show that 58.3% saw progress as a never-ending
road (while 35.7% saw it as achieving goals). This implies that the means for progress are important to the
participants, since they saw progress as focused on the path rather than on achieving goals.

123

A. Itay

Liberal OR Alternative Liberal

76.0%

Capitalism

Welfare State

Don't Know

70.8%
64.6%
59.4%
57.3%

30.2%

21.9%

18.8%

15.6% 16.7%

15.6%
12.5%

18.8%

13.5%

8.3%

Expansion of the
free market OR
Increased Public
Services

Work OR State
Assistance

Economic Growth
OR Economic
Stability

Great Wealth OR
Financial Security

Highly Paid Jobs

OR More Leisure
Time

Fig. 5

Topics of Progress
60.00%

Economy
Environment
Social*
Poverty
Technology
Health
Spiritual
Well-being
Other

50.00%

40.00%

30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00%
Global Progress
(1st)

Fig. 6

123

Global Progress
(2nd)

Global Progress National Progress National Progress National Progress Personal Progress Personal Progress Personal Progress
(3rd)
(1st)
(2nd)
(3rd)
(1st)
(2nd)
(3rd)

Conceptions of Progress

Sub Topics for Social Progress

Social (Equality)

Social (Peace)

Social (Education)

Social (Politics)

Social (Human Rights)

Social (General)

18.8%

18.8%

15.6%
13.5%

13.5%
12.5% 12.5%
11.5%

11.5%

11.5%

10.4%

8.3%

8.3%

8.3%

8.3%

6.3%

6.3%

5.2% 5.2%

5.2%

5.2%
4.2%

2.1%
2.1% 2.1%

3.1%
2.1%

2.1%

2.1%

1.0%

2.1%
1.0%
0.0%
Global Progress
(1st)

1.0%
0.0%

Global Progress
(2nd)

0.0%

Global Progress National Progress National Progress National Progress

(3rd)
(1st)
(2nd)
(3rd)

Fig. 7

Means for Achieving Progress

Fig. 8

Other
2%

Don't Know
3%

Culture
6%
Religion
4%

Politics
31%

Education
43%
Economics
11%

123

A. Itay

5 What Do the Results Mean: Mainstream, Alternative Conception or a New Mix?

So far, we have two contradictory findings:
On the one hand, when participants were asked to freely define goals for progress, they
named mostly goals that belong to the mainstream conception of progress, which is based
on the optimistic approach and the Liberal theory of progress.
On the other hand, when asked to choose particularly between Liberal and alternative
(namely Green and Social Liberal) goals and means for progress, we find a clear choice of
alternative conceptions of progress.
Although this contradiction is possible to explain simply by accepting that participants
are inconsistent in their answers, I offer a different explanation.41
I suggest that in order to explain these results, we need to turn back to what constitutes
the conceptions of progress. Each conception of progress is constituted by an approach and
one of the theories of progress it encompasses. While the mainstream conception of
progress encompasses the optimistic approach and the Liberal theory of progress, the
alternative conceptions of progress encapsulate either the optimistic approach and Social
Liberal theory, or the skeptical approach and one of its two theories: Green or Conservative. However, and this is an important point, while the conception is the combination of
an approach and a theory, it is not merely the equal sum of the two. The explanation of the
results is based on this unique combination.
When participants named goals that are considered mainstream, they were choosing more on
the basis of their optimism than according to the Liberal theory. Some of the mainstream goals
(defined as Liberal and associated with formal institutions), especially those associated with
formal institutions such as peace and healthier planet, are mainstream in their optimistic
essence, but not as much so in their content; the mainstream conception aspires to achieve such
goals and is optimistic in thatbut in content, as in practice, it aims (often implicitly) to do so
through Liberal economic means. Consequently, participants (whom we have shown to be
mostly optimistic) named goals that are mainstream in their essence, which is for them more
optimistic than Liberal. Thus, the combination forming the mainstream conception for the
participants was strongly based on their optimistic approach and weakly on their Liberal theory
views. This explains why, when pressed harderon more particular questionsthey chose
goals that belong to the alternative theories. Indeed, this explanation coincides well with the
popularity of Social Liberal goals for progress on the survey: if the participants mainstream
answers relied more on their approach than on the theory, then it is reasonable to get results
throughout the survey indicating strong support of the approach (i.e., having an optimistic
approach), and weak support of the theory (in this case the Liberal theory), while supporting the
other theory sharing the same approach (i.e., the Social Liberal). If, on the other hand, participants held a mainstream conception based on their support of the theory, then we would have
seen, in addition to the support of the approach, a choice of this theory throughout the survey.
To sum up this point, it seems that participants held the mainstream conception as far as
their optimistic approach was concerned, while in terms of the theory they held, they were
more Social Liberal than Liberal.

41
Another explanation can be offered by arguing that participants bent the truth when answering, in an
attempt to appear more Green and social than in fact they were (not wanting to appear focused on economic
growth, for instance, rather than on eliminating poverty). However, this does not coincide with the answers
they gave throughout the survey. If participants were to lie to a great extent (thus making results invalid),
they would be expected to have done so throughout the survey. Since we see contradictory results, this
cannot be the case.

123

Conceptions of Progress

Conceptions of
Progress

Optimistic Approach

Skeptical Approach

A New
Mainstream
Conception?
Liberal Theory of
Progress

Social Liberal
Theory of Progress

Green Theory of
Progress

Conservative Theory
of Progress

Fig. 9

Now we can examine the meaning of the results. If indeed the mainstream conception
was preferred, since it is optimistic and not due to the Liberal theory it is thought to
encompass, then we should reconsider what constitutes mainstream according to this
survey. We know that for participants, optimism prevailed, and the Social Liberal theory of
progress was greatly preferred over the Liberal, in addition to an evident choice of Green
theory (although skeptical in approach). It seems that we are seeing a new synthesis of
optimism in approach while Social Liberal and Green in theory (Fig. 9).
In other words, the results of this survey are indicating a different mainstream conception than the one portrayed in both literature and practice; one which is being formed
from a synthesis of the optimistic approach with the Social Liberal theory and the Green
theory of progress. Although having a theory based on a skeptical approach (the Green
theory) seems inconsistent with the other (optimistic) components of this new conception,
this is the phenomenon the survey identifies. In order to fully explore these findings and
their meaning, further research is required.
This may have one immediate important implication. Since participants in this survey
were likely to hold the mainstream view of progress, as representatives of their countries to
a World Forum discussing progress, and yet it became clear that they held alternative
opinions, the results should raise immediate questions regarding the reasons and justifications for the dominance of the Liberal theory, both in literature and policymaking.

6 Conclusion
The survey presented here gives us a good idea of what some participants in the OECD
World Forum, who were assembled from around the world to discuss the measuring of
progress, perceived progress to be.
The results suggest that the mainstream conception of progress (the predominant view
expressed by the participants) is not based on the Liberal theory, but rather, is a new synthesis,
still based on an optimistic approach, yet combined with the Social Liberal theory of progress,
and the Green theory of progress. As such, these are noteworthy results, as they might indicate
that the Liberal theory of progress is dominant and leading policymaking all over the world
not because its goals and means are preferred, but due to other reasonsperhaps inertia,
misconceptions or possibly, due to an optimistic approach towards progress.

123

A. Itay

The results, challenging the existing discourse regarding progress, although referring
only to the small case study presented, demonstrate how necessary further research is in
order to clarify and define current conceptions of progress, as part of the quest to illuminate
and understand this important political ideal.
Acknowledgments I wish to thank the Leonard Davis Institute for International Relations for its generous
support of my research. In addition, I would like to thank the Max Kampelman Chair for its funding. This
research and paper benefited tremendously from help and comments from Jon Hall, Alex C. Michalos, Sara
Donetto, Andreea Udrea and Noam Hoffstater and to all of them I am very grateful. Special thanks are due
to Avner de-Shalit for his valuable comments on all versions of this paper.

123

Conceptions of Progress

Appendix
A Global Survey

What is Progress?
This is a brief survey, part of a PhD research project on the subject of progress.
Please take a few minutes to fill in the survey, giving your genuine opinion.

1.

Which three key measures would indicate for you that global progress had been achieved (in 50
years time)?

1. _________________________
2. _________________________
3. _________________________

2.

Which three key measures would indicate for you that your country had made progress (in 50
years time)?

1. ________________________
2. ________________________
3. ________________________

3.

Which three key measures would indicate for you that you had made progress as an individual
(in 50 years time)?

1. ________________________
2. ________________________
3. ________________________

4.

Which do you think are the most important goals for progress?
Please choose five and grade according to importance (1 for most important):
Advanced Technology
Longer, Healthier Life
Human Rights
Freedom / Equality
Wealth (Money)
Economic Growth
World Peace

123

A. Itay

Happiness
Healthy Ecological Environment
Many Education Possibilities
Empowerment of cultures
One Global Community
Religious Strengthening
Other __________________
5.

What would be the most effective way to reach those goals? Choose two of the following and
grade according to importance (1 for most important):
Politics (e.g. world leaders decisions; voting; )
Economics (e.g. market choice; economic growth)
Education
Religion
Culture
Other ____________________

6.

Which statement describes your opinion more accurately?

Progress, as I see it, is a never ending road.
Progress, as I see it, is about achieving goals.

7.

Which option would seem more like progress to you? Choose one out of each pair:
Increased Public Services / Expansion of the Free Market
Less Crime / More Freedom
Empowerment of Communities / One Global Community
Open Borders between Countries / Stronger Communities
Religious Education / General Spiritual Education
Social Inclusion / Education for Community Values
Work / States Assistance
Personal Freedom / Equality
Better Technology / More Spiritual Life
A Simpler Way of Life / A More Technological Way of Life
Life in a Village / Life in a Metropolis

123

Conceptions of Progress
Cheaper Flights / Less Air Pollution
Space Travel / Investment in Repairing Environmental Damage
Economic Growth / Economic Stability
Financial Security / Great Wealth
Investment in Arts / Investment in Technology
Longer Life Expectancy / Better Health
Safe Drinking Water / Biodiversity
Legalization of Drugs / More Law Enforcement
More Leisure Time / Highly Paid Jobs
Personal Happiness / Wealth of Future Generations
Greener Planet / More Income Per Person
Abolition of Nuclear Weapons / Peace Enforcement
Assistance for Third World Countries / Increase in First World Quality of Life
Having More Possibilities in Life / Living a Safe Life
8.

In your opinion, what are the three areas in which it is most important that progress is made?
Please grade according to importance (1 for most important)?
Economics
Ecology / Environment
Social
Spiritual
Science / Technology
Health
Education
Other _____________

9.

If you had to name just ONE GOAL for the world, what would it be?
_____________________________________

10. What is the time period in which you think global progress could be achieved?
10 years

50 years

100 years

other ______

11. Did you feel any important category was missing in this survey? Please comment.
________________________________________
________________________________________

123

A. Itay
Demographic Information
Initials: _________________________
Gender: Male / Female
Age Group:

29

Nationality:

_________________________

3039

4049

5059

6069

7079

80+

Position / Organization: __________________

Thank you for your cooperation!

References
Boarini, R., Johansson, A., & DErcole, M. M. (2006, January). Alternative measures of well-being. OECD:
Economics Department Working Paper No. 476. Retrieved from: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/13/
38/36165332.pdf.
Bury, J. B. (1920). The idea of progress: An inquiry into its origin and growth. New York: Dover
Publications.
Cobb, C., Talberth, J., & Slattery, N. (2007). The genuine progress indicator 2006. Oakland, CA: Redefining
Progress. February.
Dobson, A. (1995). Green political thought (2nd ed.). London and New York: Routledge.
Freeden, M. (1996). Ideology and political theory. Oxford: Clarendon.
Gray, J. (2004). Heresies: Against progress and other illusions. London: Granta Books.
Gray, J. (2006). Reply to critics. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 9(2), 345.
doi:10.1080/13698230600655107.
Itay, A. (2007, June). Analytical background: Progress. OECD, Paper prepared for the Istanbul World
Forum. Retrieved from: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/44/27/38774779.pdf?contentId=38774770.
Jamieson, D. (2002). Moralitys progress. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Mathews, E. (2006, June). Measuring well-being and societal progress: A brief history and the latest news.
OECD Working paper prepared for the joint OECD-JRC workshop. Retrieved from: http://crell.jrc.
ec.europa.eu/Well-being/papers/Matthews_Well-Being%20Measures_Milan_final.pdf.
McClelland, J. C. (1996). A history of western political thought. London and New York: Routledge.
Michalos, A. (2003). Essays on the quality of life. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Mishra, R. (1999). Globalization and the welfare state. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Mook, J., et al. (1992). Positively and negatively worded items in a self-report measure of dispositional
optimism. Psychological Reports, 71(1), 275278. doi:10.2466/PR0.71.5.275-278.
Nisbet, R. (1980). The history of the idea of progress. New York: Basic Books.
Nussbaum, M., & Sen, A. K. (Eds.). (1995). The quality of life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Passmore, J. (1970). The perfectibility of man. London: Duckworth.
Pollard, S. (1968). The idea of progress. London: C.A. Watts.
Seligman, M., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. The American
Psychologist, 55(1), 514. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.5.
Sen, A. K. (1999). Development as freedom. New York: A.A. Knopf.
Vinod, T., et al. (2000). The quality of growth. Published for the World Bank. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Wolff, J., & de-Shalit, A. (2007). Disadvantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wright, R. (2004). A short history of progress. Toronto: Anansi.

123