Economic welfare measures (EWM) such as the ISEW and the GPI are often argued to lack a sound theoretical foundation. However, we observe that the initial EWM were jointly inspired by Hicksian and Fisherian income. Welfare’s experiential nature is Fisherian-inspired, whereas seeing the consumption of community capital (e.g. the ecosystem) as a cost is Hicksian-inspired. As most scholars do not recognize this double theoretical foundation, two distinct welfare interpretations with different time and boundary dimensions are often conflated. EWM can be seen as either capturing the benefits and costs experienced, or as reflecting the benefits and costs of present economic activities (BCPA). The former interpretation excludes future costs, costs shifted abroad and capital changes as they are not experienced in the present, while the latter includes them. Recent developments reveal that EWM are converging toward the ex post established experiential Fisherian foundation formulated by Lawn (2003). Yet, this is not the only way forward as the BCPA-view offers an alternative to account for, for instance, the costs of present activities shifted abroad or to the future, whether they are experienced or not. To avoid inconsistencies, EWM’s standardization would greatly benefit from making explicit in future studies which interpretation is taken.

中文翻译：

---

经济福利措施理论基​​础的概念探索和批判性探究

诸如ISEW 和GPI 之类的经济福利措施(EWM) 经常被认为缺乏可靠的理论基础。然而，我们观察到最初的 EWM 受到希克斯和费雪收入的共同启发。福利的体验性质受费雪启发，而将社区资本（例如生态系统）的消耗视为成本则受希克斯启发。由于大多数学者不承认这种双重理论基础，因此常常将两种具有不同时间和边界维度的不同福利解释混为一谈。EWM 可以被视为捕获所经历的收益和成本，或者反映当前经济活动 (BCPA) 的收益和成本。前一种解释不包括未来成本、转移到国外的成本和资本变化，因为它们目前没有经历过，而后者包括他们。最近的发展表明，EWM 正在向 Lawn（2003 年）制定的事后建立的经验性费舍尔基金会趋同。然而，这并不是唯一的出路，因为 BCPA 的观点提供了一种替代方案来解释例如转移到国外或未来的当前活动的成本，无论它们是否有经验。为了避免不一致，EWM 的标准化将极大地受益于在未来的研究中明确采用哪种解释。无论他们是否有经验。为了避免不一致，EWM 的标准化将极大地受益于在未来的研究中明确采用哪种解释。无论他们是否有经验。为了避免不一致，EWM 的标准化将极大地受益于在未来的研究中明确采用哪种解释。