Game Session of ‘Made to Order’ at UWC Mahindra College, Pune

Four students stood in a large multimedia hall with masks tied around them and there were eight more students sitting down on the wooden floor. The walls of the hall were lined up with fans, cuboid black speakers, tube lights and switch boards and neatly hung flags of different countries. The participants were students of the Theatre, Gender, Identity and Film summer program at UWC Mahindra College in Pune, between 14-18 years of age. The participants had been initiated into the conversation about intersecting identities the previous day as part of their course and had pondered over the questions of class, race, gender, privilege and power. At 10 a.m. on a Friday morning, the Made to Order session commenced.

Made to Order is a game developed by Fields of View that looks at the intersections between caste, class and gender. The purpose of the game is to give the player an immersive understanding of the intricacies of these three aspects of one’s identity. The game is set in the garment industry in India. The game was first developed for Gender Bender 2017, a production of Sandbox Collective and Goethe Institut Bangalore. The game draws from real-life qualitative and quantitative data.

The game session involved 15 mins of briefing, 50 mins of game play and another 45 mins of debriefing.

People understand gender better than they understand caste

“My caste is Bestha, so does this apply to me?”asked one of the players. The game involves the players to make certain choices based on the profile that is given to them. These profiles are stated on the profile cards. While four players play the roles of garment factory workers, the others play the role of the upper management. The above-mentioned question is a common occurrence in a game of Made to Order. People more often that not are unaware of which caste is Scheduled and which is not. In the game those who play the role of garment factory workers have to achieve 5 goals. One player who managed to achieve all his 5 goals in the game, expressed happiness over the fact that he had made some good decisions during the game. He also however acknowledged the fact that his profile being that of a male, didn’t involve any of the impediments women had to face. His profile also entitled him to an SC/ST certificate because of which he could get free eye surgery for his parents. Sometimes your caste in the game held you back while sometimes it helped you move ahead.

Where some perceived caste and gender as labels affecting their movement in the game, for one of the players there seemed to be a disconnect between her perception of the profile she was playing and the life of that very person in the profile. While playing the role of a transgender person employed in the factory as a helper, she decided very consciously to apply for vocational training even though it required her to dress up as a man – “I had to get money for gender reaffirmation surgery and that was a lot. So I had to save and I couldn’t achieve a lot of goals because of it. I thought getting more money was more important for me than to dress up as a woman if I ever wanted to achieve that particular goal”. Would someone struggling to express their gender to the world actually go through with such a decision like that? How much would a person compromise in order to make their ends meet? Speaking from their own personal experiences, one of the participants talked about how gender and sexuality are not understood where he comes from and why he needs to hide his sexuality from his own family because of the trouble he might face if he discloses it.

Power as a process and not an event

During the debrief one of the participants said “As a woman I think it’s not just that instance when I feel threatened or violated, but I can do something about it after that instance has passed. And my caste and class support me in that.”For another player the act of making choices was just about survival as he pointed out. He was making the least amount of money as a sanitation worker, that combined with him playing as a woman who belongs to a scheduled caste, made it extremely difficult to achieve anything in the game. In the game the players are required to respond to certain questions and make choices. And the very labels of one’s caste, income and gender tend to weigh in on all these choices throughout.

Does Industry and development go hand in hand?

“We had no consequences whatsoever for ourselves. And there was nothing to stop us from making the choices we made. I think we had a lot of power in the game”.Turning to the participants playing upper management, there was a unanimity in how much power they felt in making the decisions they had to. On being asked about their choices as the management another one said “I made the decision of moving out the factory to a rural place. Because as the employee turnover is high in the city anyway and the workers are more likely to switch jobs in the city, I thought they could easily find a job even if the factory shut down here. Instead we could take it to a rural area and set up there. It would not only generate employment but also develop the area, schools etc would come up.”On questioning further, discussions emerged on whether such development models even function in the real world and how much do industries that are setup in rural parts of the country actually contribute to the education or overall growth of the people in the rural areas.

Claustrophobia and decision making

Some participants pointed out that “the game was mentally exhausting and having to constantly think about the decisions was tiring. I can only imagine having to face that on a day-to-day basis.”One of the girls playing the role of a transgender helper at the factory mentioned how restricted and stuffy the mask and the impediments made her feel in the game. “The impediments felt very real for me. It became more and more difficult to move. I am somewhat claustrophobic, so the masks were also a difficult thing for me.”

We wound up the session, thanked each other for their time and participation and left for the day to do other things. I saw those four students leave, the participants who played the roles of the workers, with smiles on their faces like the rest of their classmates. And here I was packing their very masks with labels defining the caste, gender and income stuck on them repeatedly. Those masks had managed to make them feel suffocated in this air-conditioned hall. The impediments had restricted their movement so much that even a 10 feet distance had become a struggle to tread. The questions and decisions in the game had drained them enough for that hour if not the rest of the day.

But I guess that’s how it is in real life, for some the claustrophobia lasts an hour and for some it is their lifetime.

 

 

 

City Game Session at Genwise

What do a bunch of adolescents between 12-14 years of age have in common? Capris, shorts and t-shirts when they don’t have to wear a uniform? Ask a lot of questions, are not afraid to say what they are thinking and have all seen the recent Black Panther movie. At least the group we conducted a City Game session for at the Genwise summer school had.

The City Game is designed to explore urban form and elicit a group/individual’s preferences about their city. The game also allows for its participants to reflect upon why we imagine our cities the way we do. The students in this group were a part of the course ‘Perspectives in Tackling Wicked Problems’ and they belonged to grades 7 to 9. As the ritual goes, we had a short round of introductions and then we proceeded to the session.

There were two parts to the session at Genwise. In the first part, the students were asked to silently reflect upon what they understood by a ‘smart city’.

The second part involved playing the City game.

“Do we build a democratic city? Are we placing social concepts or infrastructure?” asked one of the students. “It’s completely up to you”, I replied. “So then what kind of a city do we build?” “A city you want to live in”. With all the clarifications in place, the gameplay began.

Negotiations started early. The kids immediately jumped on to the blocks and started building roads, business parks, sewerage treatment plants, sports centre, foot over bridges, BRT corridors, a historic statue, airport and more. Some interesting highlights were that a jail was placed before a police station was conceived of. Road networks were placed around first in order to ensure easy mobility. A lot of blue, pink and yellow tape was ripped and stuck around to ensure that the BRT corridors don’t get confused by a highway or a metro line. Somewhere near the 5th round (or half time), one or two in the group began to panic as to whether the city has its basic infrastructure in place or not. As the group had started to break and move around and the energy seemed to dip a little, a list was put on the white board and a number of things were listed on them. “Now we can track what we are building and have something to reference in case we miss out”. Slowly fire stations, public toilets, schools, hospitals, a windmill field, a car showroom, five-star hotel, railway stations, a library, and even an orphanage showed up. By the 8thround, the city had been built and it was time for lunch.

“Would you like to live in this city?” “Yes!” said two, “No!”, said the others. “Why?” we asked. In the debrief session, the students reflected upon this city that was built. A city that despite being built around the roads and other transit systems, seemed congested. Where did the poor live in this city? Some expressed their disappointment that the city was not built for different kinds of people (especially the people they had listed on the post-its before the game). Some said that the city was too congested around the business park. One even said that the city is not the same as her home town Chennai, which is why she wouldn’t want to live in it. There were a lot of ways to move around in the city, but who all could move around was not clear.

Game Session of ‘Made to Order’ at City Scripts, Indian Institute for Human Settlements, Bangalore

 

Date: 17th February 2018

Duration: 75 minutes

Number of Participants: 14

 

Introduction to the Game

‘Made to Order’ is a physical, multiplayer game that can also accommodate spectators developed by Fields of View to explore the intersecting dimensions of caste, class and gender, and how intricately they are bound. The game was first developed for Gender Bender 2017, a production Sandbox Collective and Goethe Institut Bangalore. The game involves participants playing different roles set in the garment industry, drawing from real-life qualitative and quantitative data.

 

 

Overview of the Session

A modified version of the game was conducted at IIHS as part of City Scripts, an urban writings festival. In this version, the garment workers were divided as employees of two competing garment factories, who were represented by their upper managements.

The participants were conversant with English and in the age group 25-45. Some of them were working in research institutions, including IIHS. The game session lasted for 75 minutes, including 15 minutes of briefing and 60 minutes of gameplay. Four participants played the role of workers in two garment factories, while nine of them formed the upper management of those two factories. The remaining participants formed the spectators. Each worker, keeping in mind their gender, caste and class, had to make decisions based on different situations through the game.

 

Observations of Gameplay

  1. Three of the workers spent money on achieving at least two of their goals. One of them chose not to fulfil any. None of the workers interacted with each other during the game.
  2. During questions put to the upper management, they discussed with one another and gave unanimous decisions each time. When both groups had to decide on measures to improve their bid, they were competitive and mindful of the other group’s choices. There was no interaction across the groups.
  3. There were few comments during the game and they were limited to providing reasons for the choices made, such as “Even though it is costly, I will take the private transport service because I need more time to help my husband and children” and “I have to constantly keep shifting houses so there is no reason for me to get it repaired”.
  4. Questions raised were mostly clarificatory in nature and included “My caste is ‘Holeya’. Does it fall under the list of Scheduled Castes?”; “Can I reduce costs by buying a cycle to travel to work instead of subscribing to a private van service?”; “I know that there is little chance of being selected since I am a woman, but can I still apply for the vocational training programme?”; and “Can we choose the same measures to improve our bid as the other factory?”.

 

 

Reflections

  1. In previous sessions of the game, many participants who played the characters of the workers were visibly involved with their characters, reading their profiles slowly, pausing to think before deciding on their choices, and providing reasons on each occasion. In this session, the choice of decisions was much quicker and often without stating any reasons. One of the workers read out the narrative of all their choices rapidly and without pause, as though they were in a hurry to finish reading regardless of the content.
  2. The upper managements, when presented with a choice to either not pay workers’ wages for a certain period or to cut them from thereon, picked the latter each time. However, when they had to compete with the other factory to improve their bid, they chose to implement measures, such as contracting out employment, that could lead to a loss of wages entirely.
  3. A participant playing the role of a female sanitation worker whose husband had passed away a few years ago, stated that the question of her pregnancy was not applicable to her. We had not considered or observed this outcome – of limiting the possibility of pregnancy within wedlock – in previous sessions of the game.

Fields of View and IWI

In order to demonstrate the components and capabilities of the Inclusive Wealth Index (IWI), Fields of View is planning on using it in a game as a policy design exercise. This computer supported game will simulate different scenarios, and will enable physical interaction among the participants. The game looks at different aspects of the IWI: interconnectedness of parameters, relating qualitative and quantitative parameters, different indices, and possibilities of change for the future.

The target audience of the game are undergraduate students of economics and sustainability studies, in addition to policy-makers. It is assumed that the participants understand the mechanism of national budgets, and can perform basic mathematical operations.

This game has been designed to complement traditional teaching methods. The learning objectives of the game are as follows:

  • Understanding the components that are used to calculate the IWI, and how it compares other development indices such as GDP, HDI, etc
  • Learning how changes in national policies can alter different indices, and what advantages the IWI offers in understanding these changes
  • Encouraging players to develop a futures orientation, and apply the same to shape real-life sustainable economic policies

In this case, the players will be asked to prepare a national budget for a given country—using their judgment based on the national indices (IWI, GDP, etc.) they’re given. Based on these standard development indicators, the players will determine a fiscal budget plan and basic monetary policy.

The game is divided into a briefing, gameplay, and debrief session. In the briefing session, participants will be given a survey to determine their decision-making preferences—which will give them some information about the socio-political context of that country. As part of the gameplay session, the players set national targets (ex. levels of employment, sustainability, poverty levels), and use preferred strategies to achieve them. The game proceeds in multiple rounds, wherein each round simulates one year of operation. The country’s economic prosperity (after each round) will then be published to the participants, and will be calculated using indicators like GDP, HDI, and IWI. Finally, the debrief session looks at the advantages and disadvantages of using different development indicators, and examines the ability of the IWI to reflect upon a country’s economic health.

The system dynamic model of the game can also be used as an interactive way of engaging players with the IWI. For example, an online interactive visualization could be developed for policymakers and students to see the effects of different policies on the future economy. The inputs and interventions will be based on data from the Inclusive Wealth Reports, and from information generated by the game.

Eventually, the IWI could become a more appropriate and comprehensive indicator than GDP or HDI to measure the sustainable development of an economy. But we have realized that this requires serious involvement of different types of audience, such as students, policymakers, politicians, educators, economists, and other such groups.

To draw audiences from different backgrounds to understand the IWI and explore the implications of planning with IWI, we are in the process of building a game called Levers of Change. All the players will be responsible for a country’s well-being, and will plan for investing in different forms of capital, such as the human, natural, and produced capital. Players should be able to balance their economic growth with sustainable development to achieve sustainable goals. The game will challenge players to plan accordingly to ensure global sustainability.

The game design process relies on the functions and indicators in the IWR 2014 report. IWI accounts the wealth of all major socio-economic and environmental parameters and is represented as an index through incorporating several complex statistical models and mathematical formulas. We are triangulating data of quantity and price of produced crops, permanent cropland and pastureland from Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) to calculate wealth of agricultural land. Similarly, we triangulated statistics on forest area, and stock of timber for all listed countries from FAO. We are also validating data on production, and reserves of oil, coal, and natural gas from US Energy Information administration to calculate the wealth of fossil fuels. We apply the similar procedure for the data on production, reserve, and price of all minerals from US Geological Survey to measure the wealth of minerals.

The most interesting part of the study is to calculate wealth of natural capital. Mathematical functions to calculate the wealth of different natural resources involve multiple numbers of independent variables, such as quantities or natural stock of resources, real prices, and rental prices. The major challenges in calculating natural capital are to identify all independent variables for the model and to validate units of all variables.

Conclusion of IWR 2014

This post was authored by Richa Gupta during an internship at Fields of View.

(Please read the previous blog ‘The Inclusive Wealth Report 2014’ on Inclusive Wealth Index)

These two reports have led to the development of several recommendations for the included countries. These include the incorporation of Inclusive Wealth into planning post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and the evaluation of macroeconomic policies (such as monetary and fiscal policies) based on IWI rather than on GDP per capita—as this would ensure sustainable and long-term, rather than purely short-term, growth.

Additionally, nations experiencing diminishing returns (that is, the decrease in marginal output) of natural capital are encouraged to invest in reforestation, agricultural biodiversity, and renewable natural capital. Moreover, as said by Dr. Anantha Duraiappah, director of the UNESCO / Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Education for Peace and Sustainable Development, “The report is a tool for making macroeconomic decisions on what and where to invest”. And lastly, as written in the Inclusive Wealth Report 2014, “The inclusive wealth index is […] a complement to GDP, not its replacement. The shift to sustainability as a core development pillar demands an index that can quantify, measure, and track sustainability”.

However, although the IWI is a better indicator of economic growth and prosperity, it still has its own limitations. For example, it does not factor in happiness levels, suicide rates, life satisfaction, and the accessibility of housing. It also doesn’t take social capital of a country into account; social capital is a form of economic and cultural capital wherein goods and services are produced for a common good rather than for selfish interests, and transactions are characterised by trust, cooperation, and reciprocity.

In addition, natural capital is often difficult to accurately price. For example, the UN cannot include common access resources like clean air—since it is not directly owned by anyone, and is available for people to use without payment. Hence, when the Inclusive Wealth Index is computed, only natural capital with a market price can be included (such as petroleum, gas, metals, and timber). The Economist suggested another example: bees create honey, which can be sold on the market. But they also pollinate nearby apple trees, a useful service that is not purchased or priced. So, calculations of the Inclusive Wealth Index will invariably be rough, unless economists make a conscious effort to quantify the value of clean air, pollination, and the myriad of others.

But despite its limitations, the concept of Inclusive Wealth has been widely embraced, since it represents development based on concern for the environment and future generations. And it has been predicted by Professor Dasgupta that eventually, people will drop the adjective “inclusive”, and will only call it “wealth”—since, after all, economic wealth is not synonymous with solely income, but also with human capital, the environment, and sustainability.

 

The Inclusive Wealth Report 2014

This post was authored by Richa Gupta during an internship at Fields of View.

(Please read the previous blog ‘The Inclusive Wealth Report 2012’ on Inclusive Wealth Index)

The Inclusive Wealth Report of December 2014 covers information from 140 countries, and was released in New Delhi, India. It laid a special emphasis on human capital. The report concluded that 85 of the 140 countries were producing sustainably, in terms of inclusive wealth, while the consumption patterns of the 55 others were considered unsustainable.

The report also found the extent to which human capital and natural capital are huge indicators of wealth, as compared to only produced capital (which is accounted for by the Gross Domestic Product). For instance, while global GDP rose by 50% from 1992 to 2010, the IWI rose by a relatively paltry 6%. As said by Dr. Partha Dasgupta, chair of the 2014 Report’s science advisory group, “vast losses in natural capital (and small increases in human capital) largely explain the anaemic overall growth in Inclusive Wealth worldwide despite enormous gains in produced capital”.

Components of Global Inclusive Wealth, from 1990 – 2010

Type of Capital % of total Inclusive Wealth % change from 1990 to 2010
Produced Capital 20 + 50
Human Capital 57 + 8
Natural Capital 23 – 30

The following statistics also show the extent to which the Gross Domestic Product is an inadequate standard of a nation’s wealth and prosperity:

As can be extrapolated from the December 2014 report, in the US, India and China, wealth measured only by GDP (from 1990 to 2010) rose by 33%, 155% and 523% respectively.

However, when measures of the social values of natural, human and manufactured capital were considered, the USA’s Inclusive Wealth Index rose by 13%, India’s by 16%, and China’s by 47%—over the same span of time. These are gaping disparities, and provide an indication of the narrow scope of the Gross Domestic Product. The statistics of a few other countries have been tabulated below:

Country % change in GDP from 1990 to 2010 % change in Inclusive Wealth from 1990 to 2010
US +33 +13
India +155 +16
China +523 +47
Ecuador +37 –17
Guyana +97 –2
Qatar +85 –53
Tanzania +67 –37

 


 

The Inclusive Wealth Report 2012

This post was authored by Richa Gupta during an internship at Fields of View.

(Please read the previous blog ‘Measures of Wealth and Prosperity’ on Inclusive Wealth Index)

 Inclusive Wealth = (social value of manufactured capital) + (social value of human capital) + (social value of natural capital)

Natural capital encompasses the world’s stock of natural assets, such as fossil fuels (oil, coal, natural gas), minerals (bauxite, nickel, copper, iron, zinc, etc.), agricultural land (croplands, pasturelands), and forest resources (timber and non-timber forest resources). In the context of Inclusive Wealth, human capital comprises of education and health, and manufactured capital consists of equipment, roads, and machinery. Another variable used to compute IWI is its health capital, which includes health capital by age, and probability of dying by age.

So, rather than being ranked in terms of GDP, countries are ranked according to inclusive wealth. To take an example, USA’s inclusive wealth was almost $118 trillion in 2008 (with prices at those of the base year, 2000), whereas its GDP was only a fraction of that value. So, this observation implies that the USA is rich in either human capital or natural capital, or even both (in this case, it is human capital).

 

Country 2008 Inclusive Wealth ($ tr) 2008 Real GDP ($ tr)
United States 117.8 14.7
Japan 55.1 4.8
China 20.0 4.5
Germany 19.5 3.7
Britain 13.4 2.8
France 13.0 2.9
Canada 11.1 1.5
Brazil 7.4 1.7
India 6.2 1.2

Source: United Nations, World Bank

As written by the Inclusive Wealth Project, “The index measures an asset’s wider value to society, and not the price for which it could be bought or sold”. Professor Partha Dasgupta was one of the specialists who came up with the IWI; he criticised the GDP for neglecting the social value of natural ecosystems, and also observed that while the GDP and HDI indicators were rising for most of the third-world countries, their sustainable economic development (i.e., the approach that fosters economic growth while preserving environmental quality) was negative, except in the case of China. As said by Prof. Dasgupta, “Adam Smith did not write about the GDP of nations, nor the HDI of nations; he wrote about the ‘Wealth of nations’. […] Leading economics journals and textbooks take nature to be a fixed, indestructible factor of production. The problem with this assumption is that it is wrong: nature consists of degradable resources”.

The first Inclusive Wealth Report was released in 2012, and included statistical data from 20 countries. It is the first of a series of biennial reports, whose twenty included countries accounted for approximately 56% of the world’s global GDP, from 1990 to 2008. It was a core project by the UNU-IHDP (United Nations University’s International Human Dimensions Programme), in collaboration with the UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). Before and after the 2012 report was published, the following statistics were noted:

 

Country % growth in economy from 1990 to 2008, based on GDP % growth in economy from 1990 to 2008, based on IWI
China +422 +45
USA +37 +13
Brazil +31 +18
South Africa +24 -1

This implies that these four countries substantially depleted their stocks of fossil fuels, fisheries, and forests—while simultaneously raising their Gross Domestic Product. Moreover, while India was ranked second in GDP per capita, according to the IWI report (with a 4.3% per year increase in GDP per capita), it ranked 6th in the Inclusive Wealth Index per capita, with a positive growth of 0.9 % per annum.

The following diagram, as published by the Inclusive Wealth Index website, depicts the per capita growth rate of IWI of the 20 countries (according to 2012 IWR). As can be seen, Colombia, Nigeria, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Russia experienced negative IWI growth rates—and were hence deemed unsustainable.

Furthermore, it was observed that although 5 countries (Colombia, Nigeria, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela) portrayed positive GDP per capita and HDI, they had negative IWI per capita growth rates. This depicts the deficiencies of not only the GDP, but also of the Human Development Index Hence, this graph also illustrates the importance of measuring economic health based on the IWI.

Measures of Wealth and Prosperity

This post was authored by Richa Gupta during an internship with Fields of View.

 

The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has long been used to measure the prosperity and health of an economy. The GDP is defined as the market value of all final goods and services produced in a country’s economy, over a given time period (usually a year) [1]. It includes the four components of spending—spending by consumers, firms/businesses, the government, and foreigners (on exports).

 

According to the expenditure approach, GDP = Consumption + Gross Investment + Government Spending + (Exports – Imports)

 

There are other variations of GDP that are also in use, such as the NDP (Net Domestic Product), GNP (Gross National Product), and NNP (Net National Product). That said, all of them still factor in variables related to a country’s manufactured/produced output.

 

 

It is essentially the annual measure of a country’s output, but adjusted to account for depreciation (depreciation refers to reduction in the value of an asset, such as a car or house, over time).

 

  • Gross National Product = GDP + (net income inflow from abroad) – (net income outflow to foreign countries)

 

The GNP is the total value of a country’s output (final goods and services) produced by a country’s residents (domestically produced goods and services).

 

 

The NNP is the monetary value of domestically produced goods and services, minus depreciation.

 

Despite its variations, the Gross Domestic Product is largely used as a metric of a country’s prosperity and economic health. Nominal GDP (i.e. GDP evaluated at current market prices) is used to determine the economic performance of a country and to make international comparisons.

 

However, widely used as the GDP is, it has still come under criticism for not accounting for a range of factors; for example, it cannot accurately measure standards of living, such as levels of education, health, life expectancy, and quality of life. Furthermore, it does not look at negative environmental externalities caused by production, such as compromised air quality, water pollution, and land degradation. It also fails to look at the sustainability of capital stock used; capital stock is the total amount of a firm’s capital, represented by the value of its issued stock. All in all, the GDP of a country cannot give policy-makers an indication about the economy’s future; it’s all about the present. In fact, as said by Danish politician and former environmental minister, Ida Auken, “we need to move beyond GDP as soon as possible”.

 

Since GDP on its own cannot account for negative environmental externalities, a modification of the Gross Domestic Product was duly proposed, called the Green GDP. Green GDP is an index of economic growth that factors in environmental quality to the conventional GDP. It monetises the loss of biodiversity, and takes into consideration external costs caused by climate change. For example, if there is an oil spill in a country’s ocean, the money used to clean up the spill and to treat subsequent illnesses will invariably be included in the country’s GDP—thereby making it appear better off than it was before the spill. China was one of the first countries to measure its performance based on Green GDP; the first green GDP report for 2004 was consequently published in September 2006.

 

Green GDP = GDP – (value of environmental degradation) – (price of fixing environmental damage) [2]

 

However, Green GDP does not look at human capital. Moreover, as remarked by renowned economists Joseph Stiglitz, Jean-Paul Fitoussi, and Amartya Sen, “[Green GDP does not] characterize sustainability per se. Green GDP just charges GDP for the depletion of or damage to environmental resources”.

 

Another index was also decided upon—the Human Development Index, or HDI. The HDI not only takes a country’s value of output into consideration, but also looks at four important criteria: life expectancy at birth, mean years of schooling, expected years of schooling, and gross national income per capita.  So, the HDI is a much more comprehensive measure of a country’s development, since it includes a social aspect as well.

 

However, GDP, Green GDP, and HDI are insufficient when it comes to gauging environmental sustainability This observation has led to the inception of the Inclusive Wealth Index (IWI), which computes a country’s wealth by also taking the environmental and sustainability dimensions into account. It was launched by the United Nations at Rio+20 (a conference on sustainable development), in an attempt to develop a divergent way of gauging prosperity. A country’s Inclusive Wealth Index includes natural capital, in addition to produced/manufactured capital and human capital. Measuring sustainability of a country is critically important, since, as stated by the Sustainable Housing Foundation, “our global future depends on it”.

[1] Tragakes, E. (2012) Economics for the IB diploma [With CDROM]. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 

[2] Tragakes, E. (2012) Economics for the IB diploma [With CDROM]. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 

₹ubbish! at Goobe’s

In the year and a half that we have been playing ₹ubbish!, our game on Bangalore’s waste management, a lot of our sessions have been with researchers, field experts, students of sustainability studies, etc. We have had community engagement sessions as well, playing with a varied audience in the Hebbal ward, the Citizen Consumer and Civic Action Group in Chennai, amongst others. We are keen to have more sessions on the ground, sessions that reach out to neighbourhoods, communities and the general audiences.

On 23rd July, we played ₹ubbish! At Goobe’s, one of Bangalore’s favourite indie bookstores. If you’ve been there, you’d be familiar with the stairs leading you down to the basement space, the corridor walls lined with bookshelves, and the display of compost pots from Daily Dump. Ravi Menezes, the owner of the store, agreed to host the game session in a heartbeat.

Image credit – Goobe’s republic

The game was set up in a cosy corner and we had nine players, some in teams of two. We began with a briefing session, like we always do, where we spoke about the Mavallipura protests, Bangalore’s decentralised waste system, and the idea of a scientific landfill (where the ground water is protected with a layer of concrete and the waste is compressed in layers), source segregation and Dry Waste Collection Centres.

We then started playing, with everyone enthusiastically picking their wards and colours. The players started with buying only part of their waste, but once they saw the landfill filling up with blocks for their wards, they conscientiously started buying all the waste they could.  What ensued was whispers of certain strategies, ebbing and flowing depending on how full the landfill box was.

By the seventh round, there was  a consistent pattern of most of them buying all the waste their wards generated, irrespective of how much money they were making. However, the landfill was brimming by the eighth round, and we wound up the game by the ninth or tenth.

There was a lot of interesting feedback and insights about the game. We discussed ideas of including the pourakarmikas or waste experts again, adding a personal, human touch to the game. One of the players even spoke of playing the game in housing colonies and apartments, in a championship-style tournament! There was a palpable energy in the air, with all these exciting ideas and there seemed to be a reinforced resolve to segregate waste at the source.

We hope to conduct many more sessions to reach out to Bangalore’s citizens, neighbourhoods and communities. If you’re interested in hosting a session, please contact us by writing to info@fieldsofview.in

 

₹ubbish! goes to Hebbal

So far we have played ₹ubbish! board game with participants from Hasirudala, ELCITA, city planners and researchers. This time we wanted to take this game and play at a ward level, which could give us some valuable feedback.

We chose to play our first game at Hebbal ward, I invited a few students to play this game. Two students from NMIT, two students from M.S.Ramiah, and 1 from Florence High School. The idea was to have a mixed audience from same locality.

As you can see in the picture, the game started with people going after well known wards like Koramangala and Malleshwaram thinking it would generate more waste, but in reality areas like Chikpet, Yeshwanthpur generate more waste. Amount of waste generated is based on real data, which was collected by ₹ubbish! game designers at FoV. The game went on till 14 rounds, the players could only manage to build in 9 out of 18 wards. The game went on for about 40 mins.

RubbishHebbal

Interestingly, the two final semester mechanical students from NMIT, who had opted for solid waste management as their elective were aware of the present situation in Bangalore. In the first 4 rounds they spent most of the money on expensive wards thus making it hard for them to generate money.

At round 8, the landfill started to rise and the game dynamics changed. Players tried their best to adapt to the situation as quickly as possible, but it was too late.

Participants enjoyed the game and it was an exciting end to our first game session at ward level. Some of the participants were not aware about most of the garbage problems and also said it was good to know about landfills and about other garbage related issues.

We look forward to playing the game in more wards, to see what the feedback we get.