GREED INDEX MEASUREMENT: AN ALTERNATIVE TOOL TO PROMOTE SUSTAINABILITY AND ECO-JUSTICE

GREED INDEX MEASUREMENT: AN ALTERNATIVE TOOL TO PROMOTE

SUSTAINABILITY AND ECO-JUSTICE

LUCAS ANDRIANOS1

Institute of Theology and Ecology Orthodox Academy of Crete, Chania, Greece

E-mail: [email protected] http://greedline.webs.com

Abstract

Greed is the greatest of all plagues against justice, peace and

sustainability. The society of 21th century relies on unrestricted structural

greed and promotes it through unlimited growth, overconsumption and

individualistic competitive behaviour. This paper aims at analyzing greed

by offering an empirical tool to measure, monitor and control the root

causes and effects of greed on a global, national, institutional as well as

on an individual level. This holistic approach of greed is referred to as

structural greed.

The findings give answers to critical questions such as “what is

greed?”and “how can we measure and control it?” We have developed a

new model called GLIMS, which stands for Greed Lines and Indexes

Measurement System. It uses fuzzy logic reasoning and inputs from

statistical indicators of natural resources consumptions, financial

realities, economic performances, social welfare and ethical and political

facts. The outputs are concrete measures of three primary indexes of

ecological, economic and socio-political greed (ENV-GI, MON-GI, POW-

GI) and one overall multidimensional structural greed index (MSGI). The

results are greed index scores that are expressed in a scale of zero to one

hundred. A greed index score equal to 100 corresponds to the maximum

level of greed for the subject of analysis. In contrast to the poverty line, the

1 World Council of Churches, sustainability consultant for the Greed line group study

Greed Index Measurement 118

GLIMS model allows the formulation of discrete greed lines and the

computation of an overall multidimensional structural greed index

(MSGI). Greed measurement is necessary to control the effects of greed in

systemic and structural aspects. It is indispensable for policy making and

for raising awareness on structural as well as on individual standard.

Starting as a pilot project of the World Council of Churches in linking

poverty, wealth and ecology, it is the first time that crisp measurements of

greed are proposed, using a set of eleven greed indicators for selected

economies and individuals. The vision is to control structural greed by

offering training and practical tools for policy-making through time-series

and sensitivity-analysis of greed indexes for all economies, institutions,

churches and individuals.

1. Introduction

As a follow-up to the Alternative Globalization Addressing People and Earth (AGAPE) process, which concluded with the AGAPE Call presented at the 9th General Assembly of the World Council of Churches2 (WCC) in Porto Alegre in 2006, the WCC initiated a program focused on eradicating poverty, challenging wealth accumulation, and safeguarding ecological integrity based on the understanding that Poverty, Wealth, and Ecology (PWE) are integrally related. In this work, we analyze greed and its measurement, using fuzzy logic evaluation. The methodology is inspired from the SAFE3 model which was initially created by the same authors (Andriantiatsaholiniaina, 2001, Andriantiatsaholiniaina et al., 2004). The root causes of greed and its consequences for global crisis are examined from the perception of Christianity belief and the theological conception of the Trinitarian nature of creation as a whole. The conceptual description of structural greed is presented in correlation to the findings of the WCC greed line group study on poverty, wealth and ecology. In this paper, the first part will give an overview of the GLIMS model and describe the concept of structural greed. The following section will present the methodology for shaping greed lines using fuzzy logic reasoning and mathematical standardization of greed indicators in the GLIMS model. After the explanation of the set of greed indicators and the greed line

2 http://www.oikoumene.org/en/ 3 Sustainability Assessement by Fuzzy Evaluation (Andriantiatsaholiniaina, 2004); www.sustainability.tuc.gr

Lucas Andrianos 119

functions from empirical data, the next section will show sampling results from the GLIMS model using MATLAB on national and individual levels. This last section will answer critical questions such as “how greedy is a country or a person?”, and raise discussions and recommendations. The conclusion is the possibility to monitor and measure multidimensional greed indexes on global, societal, institutional and individual levels.

2. Brief Insight on Greed Assessment

Jesus Christ warned us to “take care to guard against all greed, for

though one may be rich, one’s life does not consist of possessions” (Luke 12:15), and Einstein once said “Three forces move the world: Stupidity,

fear and greed”. We will look at greed, initially through historical insights and then through wise sayings on greed measurements and temptations in the past. According to Greek mythology, King Midas was trapped by the greed for gold, and lost his “golden” daughter. Also Croesus, not hearing Solon and the virtue of moderation, but following the advice of the greedy priests of Apollo to attack Cyrus and accumulate more property, was duly punished. “The earth produces enough to satisfy human needs but not greed,” was once said, very well, by Gandhi. So what is this trait (congenital or acquired), so particularly evident in the human species, which emerges pervasively but is most intense at the beginning of civilization? Ziggurats, pyramids, empires, all indicate some form of greed in the promoters. Because the healthy mind (logic) regulates the measure, so with a sound spirit (wisdom) it is possible to get the optimal measure (index). What is the “optimal measure”? It is the mean between two opposite, avoiding extremes4. In Ancient Greek philosophical terms, there are many lessons which refer to greed and the necessity of its measurement and moderation, to preserve human happiness and to avoid mass destruction. Plato, (427-347 B.C.), urged the need for determining wealth limis and said: “The form of law

which I propose would be as follows: In a state which is desirous of being

saved from the greatest of all plagues (GREED)—not faction, but rather

distraction—there should exist among the citizens neither extreme poverty

nor, again, excessive wealth, for both are productive of great evil . . . Now

the legislator should determine what is to be the limit of poverty or of

4 Dictionary Tegopoulos Smith


wealth.” The “cup of justice” which was invented centuries ago by the wise Pythagoras, is also called greedy cup. The message it conveys is as crystal clear as is the water that we can drink from it: “You may drink little or more, even a little more, if you like. You may share with others and satisfy your needs. But do not wish to fill the cup to the rim (greed line), in order to drink more than the others. Because then you will lose it all! 5 . Respect for the “greed line” should be the rule in all dimensions of systemic decision-making on all levels; otherwise the consequence is catastrophic for human beings and for the Earth.

3. The Concept of Structural Greed

a. Descriptions of greed

There are many descriptions of greed according to subject: individual, institutional, national, corporal and global. One of the hallmarks of human behaviour is greed. In Greek the word “greedy” is ‘a-plistos’. “Aplistos” is derived from the privative “a” and “plistos” which means complete or full. Therefore “greedy” is having more, insatiable, through unfulfilled desire. The opposite of greed is the “plistos” which means “full-integrated” or theoretically defined as a standard value, because supposedly doing well with his or her situation. The wholeness of human being consists in the fulfillment of a balanced threefold need: material, mental and ethical or spiritual. Jesus Christ said, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread

alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God’ (Mathew 4:4; Deuteronomy 8:3). According to Ancient Greek philosophers, happiness can be reached if all needs are satisfied in moderation, avoiding extremes6; one of the seven sage of ancient Hellas stated “everything is best in

moderation” [* *]). b. What is greed?

(Raiser, 2011) Greed could be defined as the desire to have more than

one’s legitimate share of material goods and power (mental and psychological). In contrast to poverty which deals with needs that can be objectively defined and even quantified, greed is about desires which are “difficult to contain” and involve an “emotional energy that seeks to

5 http://greedline.webs.com/ (February 2013] 6 Cleobulus of Rhodes (6th cent. BC)

Lucas Andrianos 121

transgress or disregard limitations” and which are consequently difficult to circumscribe and measure. c. The concept of structural greed and its measurement

“In today’s complex economy where people often fail to recognize the

structural connections between their desire to improve their living

standards (status) and the poverty suffered by others (Raiser, 2011), Christian churches and ecumenical organizations have the task of making visible – and lifting up the voices of – those people who are in the socio-economic margins.” The systematic approach of greed focusing on the holistic interconnections between its potential causes and its effects upon global society or its manifestation in the Trinitarian nature of human being is attributed to structural greed (Andrianos, 2011). The development of multidimensional greed indicators (MGI), as a counterpart to the multidimensional poverty indicators first developed by Oxford University, was proposed by Michael Taylor (2011). The indicators could focus on categories of health, education, empowerment, relationships, environment and security and, in each case, would refer to the potential greed (status) of an individual and its consequences for others (desire/trends). The MGI basically would address the questions: Am I

greedy? How am I greedy? In summarising approaches to developing a greed line, a distinction between static and dynamic approaches has been made, with the latter showing changes – growing enrichment versus growing impoverishment – over a period of time (Goudzwaard, 2011). Moreover, choosing a particular approach would depend on “whom we like

to address” and the availability of data. Ideally, racial, gender and other forms of discrimination should be captured. Also it is recommended to develop a social ethical consumption function that factors in inequitable socio-economic conditions and ecological limits, and in deriving the greed line from said function (Larrea, 2012). Finally, it is suggested that defining a greed line using a fuzzy logic approach by computation using “linguistic values” and developing a multidimensional structural greed index by “fuzzy combination” (simulation with uncertainty) of the three pillars of society (ecological sustainability, economic-financial performance and socio-political justice) can give a solution for a practical monitoring of structural greed (Andrianos, 2012). Bible study has pointed out the Pauline teachings revealing that human

greed is a sin that has adverse consequences not only on our neighbors


(natural ecosystems and humankind), but also on Creation as a whole7.

With regard to individuals, structural greed ought to take into account the effects of greed on the balance of threefold human need: material, mental

and spiritual (Andrianos, 2012). And at a national level, it must include the effects of greed on the three basic pillars of society: ecological

sustainability (material overconsumption), monetary accumulation

(economic-financial) and power inequality (socio-political). The following figure (Fig.1) summarizes the methodology for greed index measurement using fuzzy evaluation.

Figure 1: Concept and dimensions of structural greed

d. Greed lines concept

If greed is “having too much” money, resources and power (in contrast to

describing poverty as “having too little”), when does one “have too

much”? (Peralta, 2011) It was proposed that the point or level when individuals or societies “have too much” is approached or describes a situation (status), first of all, when other individuals and societies have too

few resources to live by and, second of all, and when the accumulation of

wealth and power undermines the common good or threatens (in

7 [Rom. 8:20].

Lucas Andrianos 123

tendency) the global commons. While the poverty line is drawn at the point of personal consumption allowing for the satisfaction of basic needs, the greed line could be drawn at “the highest point of personal

consumption which can be obtained without negatively affecting the

welfare of society and that of future generations (Larrea, 2011).” Greed lines are the levels of resource consumption, money accumulation or power seizure over which societal or individual behaviours may harm human well-being and the integrity of Creation. These negative effects of behaviours transgressing greed lines could be expressed in term of relative poverty, or socio-economic injustice, or offences to human feelings, and/or environmental destruction. e. Towards a multidimensional structural greed index (MSGI)

The WCC group began to explore the possibility of identifying multi-

dimensional indicators of greed at the structural level which could be

further developed into a structural greed index. The indicators could have as its basis people’s economic, social and cultural rights enshrined in the United Nations human rights conventions, which essentially define the protective limits for maintaining human life and promoting human development8. As with the MGI proposed by Michael Taylor (2011), the indicators ought to be simple and manageable enough (amounting perhaps

to not more than 15), so as to be able to effectively communicate a message to a targeted audience of churches, policymakers, business establishments and citizens. Aside from raising awareness among the general public, the indicators are envisioned to eventually lead to the development and implementation of policies and measures (decision-

making) to avert structural greed.

4. Measuring a Multidimensional Structural Greed Index

(MSGI) using Fuzzy Logic Evaluation

a. Why a fuzzy logic approach for greed measurements?

The following two basic features justify the use of fuzzy logic reasoning. (a) Fuzzy logic has the ability to deal with complex and polymorphous

concepts, which are not amenable to a straightforward quantification and contain ambiguities. In addition, reasoning with such ambiguous concepts may not be clear and obvious, but rather fuzzy. (b) Fuzzy logic provides the mathematical tools to handle ambiguous concepts and reasoning,

and finally gives concrete answers (“crisp” as they are called) to

8 UNDP, Human Development Report, 2011. http://hdr.undp.org/en/


problems fraught with subjectivity. Greed is, indeed, quite subjective. What appears greedier for an environmentalist may be less greedy for an economist, and the ingredients signifying greed may differ for these specialists. Another important aspect of fuzzy logic is that it uses linguistic variables, thus performing computation with words. If a traditional mathematical approach towards greed assessment were adopted, such as cost-benefit analysis or algebraic formulas, then certain factors which are impossible to quantify would be left out. There exist, however, aspects of greed which cannot be quantified, and yet are very important as, for example, moral values and opinions. In this area of human thought fuzzy logic performs successfully9. Fuzzy logic is a scientific tool that permits simulation of the dynamics of

a system without a detailed mathematical description. Knowledge is represented by IF-THEN linguistic rules, which describe the logical evolution of the system according to the linguistic values of its principal characters that we call linguistic variables. Real values are transformed into linguistic values by an operation called “fuzzification”, and then fuzzy reasoning is applied in the form of IF-THEN rules. A final crisp value is obtained by “defuzzification”, which does the opposite to fuzzification. A simple example of IF-THEN fuzzy approximate reasoning is the assessment of human happiness based on popular feeling about the importance of health. Choosing money and health as the principal factors of happiness, the fuzzy rules might be:

- IF one has “much” money AND “good” health, THEN he is “very” happy, - IF one has “much” money AND “bad” health, THEN he is “insufficiently”

happy, and - IF one has “little” money AND “good” health, THEN he is “satisfactorily”

happy.

“Much” and “little” are linguistic values of the linguistic variable money; they correspond to the fuzzification of a fixed amount of money. (Good, bad), and (very good, satisfactorily, insufficiently) are, respectively, linguistic values of the state of health and happiness. b. Linguistic variables and dimensions of structural greed

Briefly, a linguistic variable is defined by four items: (a) The name of the variable (e.g. income), (b) Its linguistic values (e.g. “very little”, “little”, “sufficient”, “much” and very much”), (c) The membership functions of the linguistic values, and (d) The physical domain over which the variable

9 (Zimmermann, 1991; Zadeh, 1994).

Lucas Andrianos 125

takes its quantitative values. The membership function of a linguistic value gives the degree to which any quantitative value belongs to the linguistic value. For example, the membership functions of “much” and “little” could be exponential functions of the amount of income per month in dollars, and the range of income is the physical domain of the variable. Our assessment of greed is based on Christian teaching, which sheds light on the Trinitarian nature of human being (Andrianos, 2011). Greed is the desire for the fulfillment of the threefold needs of a human being: material (ecology), mental (economy) and spiritual (socio-political) needs. Therefore, greed assessment should have three simultaneous targets:

Ecological sustainability: Measure of natural resources consumption in supporting human needs and economical growth;

Economic financial performance: Quantification of money accumulation which is an assessment of mental achievement of a human being to secure standards of living; and

Socio-political justice: Evaluation of power inequality and ethical implications for the improvement of human happiness and survival now and for the generations to come.

The Multidimensional Structural Greed index (MSGI) of the system whose greed level we are asked to appraise has three major dimensions: environmental or ENV-GI (ecological sustainability), monetary or MON-GI (economic financial) and socio-political or POW-GI (power inequality) [Fig.2]. Analytically, the multidimensional structural greed index (MSGI) of a country/individual is a combination of three primary components of structural greed:

Environmental component (ENV-GI), referred as the ecological sustainability greed index,

Monetary component (MON-GI), measured as the economic financial greed index, and

Power greed component (POW-GI) that is the socio-political greed index.


Figure 2: Linguistic variables for the multidimensional structural greed index measurement

The physical dimensions of the three primary greed indexes comprise five secondary structural greed indexes, which are:

Ecological sustainability greed index (ESUS-GI),

Financial greed index (FINA-GI),

Economic greed index (ECON-GI),

Social greed index (SOCI-GI), and

Political greed index (POLI-GI).

Each secondary greed index is then assessed using the “Status-Desire/Trends” approach, which assumes that greed is computed by the assessment of the current achievement (status) of accumulation or consumption of goods, money or power and the “desire” to increase or to reinforce that situation (desire/trends). Therefore the five secondary greed indexes are the result of the combination of eleven tertiary variables of structural greed, called “greed indicators”.

o Ecological sustainability greed index (ESUS-GI) comprises only one greed indicator:

(1) The global ecological footprint (on national or individual

level), because it is an evaluation of both status and desire aspects of resource use including “land use”, “biodiversity use”, “water use”, “energy use” and CO2 emissions;

Lucas Andrianos 127

o Financial greed index (FINA-GI) comprises two tertiary components or financial greed indicators, which are:

(2) The bank assets ratio (national level of financial assets share) or personal financial assets (on institutional or individual level) as status indicator for money accumulation;

(3) The country real interest rate (national level) or financial

interests rates (on institutional or individual level) as desire/trends indicator for money speculation greed;

o Economic greed index (ECON-GI) comprises also two tertiary components or economic greed indicators, which are:

(4) The PPP GNI (purchase per parity gross national income) or annual revenue (on institutional or individual level) as status indicator for wealth sustainability;

(5) The governmental debt as percentage of GDP (national level) or households debts (on institutional or individual level) as desire/trends indicator for wealth production vs. consumption;

o Social greed index (SOCI-GI) comprises four tertiary components or social greed indicators, which are:

(6) The poverty ratio (national headcount percentage) or living

standard (on institutional or individual level) as status indicator for social greed with respect to human rights;

(7) The top 10% of national income (national level) or social class (on institutional or individual level) as desire/trends indicator for socio-economic inequality;

(8) The child mortality rate (national level) or life expectancy health standard (on institutional or individual level) as status indicator for healthcare and respect for human rights;

(9) The years of schooling indicator (national level) or education

level (on institutional or individual level) as desire/trends indicator for social solidarity.

o Political greed index (POLI-GI) comprises two tertiary components or political greed indicators, which are:

(10) The corruption perception index (national level) or morality

standard (on institutional or individual level) as status indicator for global ethic;

(11) The civil liberties indicator (national level) or personal

freedoms (on institutional or individual level) as desire/trends indicator for power seizure and dignity inequality;


To build the fuzzy rules within the GLIMS model, membership functions, greed line functions and greed index function should also be attributed to all greed variables of primary, secondary and tertiary greed indexes. c. Greed line functions and fuzzy rules

The greed line function could be a decreasing or increasing function of the values of indicators. It might be a decreasing function of environmental protection, incidence of democracy and morality and might be an increasing function of the ecological footprint, resource consumption, income per capita, poverty, inequalities and disrespects for human rights. The knowledge ruling the computation of MSGI of any system is represented by fuzzy rules whose general form is: “IF (PREMISE) THEN (CONCLUSION)”. The rules are expressions of the role of interdependencies among various dimensions of greed. They are combinations of IF-THEN rules operating on rule bases derived from expert knowledge of the system integrity. By their nature, such functions are highly non-linear. The term ‘integrity’ is defined as the degree to which each greed variable fulfills criteria of greed lines. Criteria of greed lines are recommended critical targets that each greed indicator should pass to reach a greedy status. These rules are the results of multidisciplinary analysis about greed and its polymorphous effects. Economists, ecologists, theologians and other experts agree that the three components of greed should be given identical weight in an overall measurement10. Knowledge acquisition methodologies, such as interviews or questionnaires, can also be used to build the rules11.

5. Empirical Results on Individual Levels:

How Greedy is One Person?

Illustrative explanation of the set of structural greed indicators at individual and institutional (churches and business) level are summarized in the following table 3.

10 (IUCN / IDRC, 1995). 11 (Zadeh, 1973; Ericsson and Simon, 1984).

Lu

cas

An

dri

ano

s 129

Tab

le 3

: E

xp

lan

ati

on

s fo

r th

e g

reed

in

dic

ato

rs a

t in

div

idu

al

lev

el.

Dim

en-

sions

of

gre

ed

Gre

ed i

ndic

ato

rs

Per

son

al /

inst

ituti

on

al d

ata

val

ues

Leg

itim

ate

targ

et

Gre

ed l

ine

inte

rval

G

reed

lin

e unit

In

dic

ato

r d

efin

itio

n a

nd

li

nk

to g

reed

Dat

a so

urc

es

ENVIRONMENTAL

1-P

ER

SO

NA

L

EC

OL

OG

ICA

L

FO

OT

PR

INT

Lo

wer

b

ette

r;

mo

der

atio

n

bet

wee

n

min

=0

.4 a

nd

m

ax=

10

.7

0.9

1

.1

1=

one

pla

net

E

arth

;

Worl

d

aver

age

is

3.1

hec

tare

s p

er p

erso

n

(20

11

)

Th

e ec

olo

gic

al

foo

tpri

nt

is t

he

amo

un

t o

f b

iolo

gic

ally

p

rod

uct

ive

lan

d

and

sea

are

a n

eces

sary

to

su

pply

the

reso

urc

es p

erso

n

/in

stit

uti

on

co

nsu

mes

, an

d t

o

assi

mil

ate

asso

ciat

ed w

aste

. R

ed l

igh

t w

hen

ra

tio i

s >

1

Pla

net

Ear

th.

Per

son

al e

colo

gic

al f

oo

tpri

nt

can

be

calc

ula

ted

at

htt

p:/

/ww

w.f

ootp

rintn

etw

ork

.org

Gre

ed I

ndex

Mea

sure

men

t 130 FINANCIAL

2-F

INA

NC

IAL

A

SS

ET

S

Lo

wer

bet

ter

80

100

Per

centa

ge

of

rev

enue

Fin

anci

al a

sset

s ar

e th

e am

ou

nt

of

mo

ney

that

an

ind

ivid

ual

or

an

inst

itu

tio

nal

has

in

the

finan

cial

m

arket

. It

is

val

ued

in

com

par

iso

n t

o

the

tota

l as

sets

or

to t

he

tota

l re

ven

ue

(%).

H

igh l

evel

of

shar

eho

lder

s co

rres

po

nd

s to

a

big

am

ou

nt

of

money

ac

cum

ula

tio

n

wh

ich

is

the

resu

lt o

f h

igher

g

reed

for

mo

ney

.

Red

lig

ht

wh

en

rati

o i

s >

10

0%

.

Qu

esti

on

nai

re.

Lu

cas

An

dri

ano

s 131

3-F

INA

NC

IAL

IN

TE

RE

ST

R

AT

E

Lo

wer

v

alu

es m

ean

less

gre

edy

in

stit

uti

on

or

ind

ivid

ual

0

5

Per

centa

ge

D

epen

din

g o

n

the

des

ire

for

mak

ing m

ore

m

oney

in a

short

ti

me,

a h

igh

er

inte

rest

rat

e is

co

nsi

der

ed t

o b

e re

sult

of

gre

edie

r p

erso

n o

r an

in

stit

uti

on

. A

p

osi

tiv

e in

tere

st

rate

is

a fo

rm o

f g

reed

so t

he

gre

ed l

ine

could

b

e se

t at

5%

(w

orl

d a

ver

age

inte

rest

rat

e)

Red

lig

ht

wh

en

rati

o i

s >

5%

Qu

esti

on

nai

re

Gre

ed I

ndex

Mea

sure

men

t 132 ECONOMIC

4-A

NN

UA

L

INC

OM

E

Hig

her

v

alu

es

exp

ress

h

igh

er

gre

edin

ess

for

wea

lth

su

stai

nab

ilit

y

(bet

wee

n

min

=530$

and

m

ax=

37

91

0)

30000

40000

Money

in

US

.$

b

ased

on

p

urc

has

ing

p

ow

er

par

ity

(P

PP

)/

cap

ita)

Per

son

al r

even

ue

is i

nco

me

con

ver

ted

to

inte

rnat

ional

d

oll

ars

usi

ng

pu

rch

asin

g

pow

er p

arit

y

rate

s. A

n

inte

rnat

ional

d

oll

ar h

as t

he

sam

e p

urc

has

ing

po

wer

ov

er G

NI

as a

U.S

. d

oll

ar

has

in

th

e U

nit

ed

Sta

tes.

To

tal

reven

ue

is t

he

val

ue

of

all

final

g

oo

ds

and

se

rvic

es

pro

duce

d b

y a

p

erso

n o

r an

in

stit

uti

on

Red

lig

ht

wh

en

rati

o i

s >

40

00

0

US

.$

/c

apit

a/y

ear

Qu

esti

on

nai

re

Lu

cas

An

dri

ano

s 133

5-

HO

US

EH

OL

DS

D

EB

T

Lo

wer

v

alu

es m

ean

less

gre

edy

in

stit

uti

on

or

ind

ivid

ual

80

100

Per

centa

ge

of

rev

enue

(in

stal

lmen

t v

s. i

nco

me

rati

o).

Deb

t in

clu

des

d

om

esti

c an

d

fore

ign

lia

bil

itie

s su

ch a

s cu

rren

cy

and m

oney

d

epo

sits

, se

curi

ties

oth

er

than

shar

es, an

d

loan

s. B

ecau

se

of

imb

alan

ced

beh

avio

r (p

rod

uct

ion v

s.

con

sum

pti

on

),

the

lim

it o

ver

w

hic

h a

per

son

or

an i

nst

ituti

on

is c

on

sid

ered

as

gre

edy

(pro

ne

to

cris

is)

can

be

set

to 1

00

%

Red

lig

ht

wh

en

rati

o i

s >

10

0%

Qu

esti

on

nai

re

Gre

ed I

ndex

Mea

sure

men

t 134 SOCIAL

6-L

IVIN

G

ST

AN

DA

RD

H

igh

er b

ette

r b

ut

mo

der

atio

n

(clo

se t

o

aver

age)

is

op

tim

um

;

0,6

0

,8

In a

sca

le

of

zero

to 1

A

cces

s to

adeq

uat

e li

vin

g s

tandar

d is

a fu

ndam

enta

l nee

d

for

hum

an r

ights

but lu

xury

liv

ing is

off

ensi

ve

and

bec

om

es a

form

of

gre

ed w

hen

in

exce

ss c

om

par

ed

to the

aver

age

stan

dar

d.

Red

lig

ht w

hen

ra

tio is

>0,8

Qu

esti

on

nai

re

7-S

OC

IAL

C

LA

SS

H

igh

er b

ette

r b

ut

mo

der

atio

n

(clo

se t

o

aver

age)

is

op

tim

um

;

0,6

0

,8

In a

sca

le

of

zero

to 1

A

deq

uat

e so

cio

- ec

on

om

ic

stan

dar

d i

s a

fundam

enta

l nee

d

for

hu

man

rig

hts

b

ut

exce

ssiv

ely

hig

h l

evel

of

wea

lth i

s a

form

o

f g

reed

wit

h

resp

ect

to

ineq

ual

ity

when

co

mp

ared

to t

he

aver

age

stan

dar

d.

Red

lig

ht

wh

en

rati

o i

s >

0,8

Qu

esti

on

nai

re

Lu

cas

An

dri

ano

s 135

8-S

HO

OL

ING

Y

EA

RS

H

igh

er b

ette

r b

ut

mo

der

atio

n

(clo

se t

o

aver

age)

is

op

tim

um

;

0,6

0

,8

In a

sca

le

of

zero

to 1

E

du

cati

on

a

fundam

enta

l nee

d

for

hu

man

rig

hts

but

it b

ecom

es a

fo

rm o

f g

reed

(s

oli

dar

ity

) w

hen

in

exce

ss

com

par

ed t

o t

he

aver

age

stan

dar

d.

Red

lig

ht

wh

en

rati

o i

s >

0,8

Qu

esti

on

nai

re

9-H

EA

LT

H

ST

AN

DA

RD

H

igh

er b

ette

r b

ut

mo

der

atio

n

(clo

se t

o

aver

age)

is

op

tim

um

;

0,6

0

,8

In a

sca

le

of

zero

to 1

A

deq

uat

e h

ealt

h

stan

dar

d i

s a

fundam

enta

l nee

d

for

the

fulf

illm

ent

of

hu

man

rig

hts

but

it b

ecom

es a

fo

rm o

f g

reed

(d

ignit

y)

when

in

exce

ss c

om

par

ed

to t

he

aver

age

stan

dar

d.

Red

lig

ht

wh

en

rati

o i

s >

0,8

Qu

esti

on

nai

re

Gre

ed I

ndex

Mea

sure

men

t 136 POLITICAL

10-P

ER

SO

NA

L

MO

RA

LIT

Y

Lo

wer

bet

ter.

H

igh

er

mora

lity

v

alu

es a

re

for

low

er

lev

el o

f g

reed

0

5

In a

sca

le

of

-10

to

+1

0

Mo

rali

ty i

nd

ex

inte

nd

s to

pro

vid

e a

tim

e-b

ase

mea

sure

of

the

mo

ral

beh

avio

r o

f in

div

idual

.

Th

e re

d l

igh

t is

0,

un

der

wh

ich t

he

bad

beh

avio

r is

th

reat

enin

g

hu

man

lif

e an

d

pea

ce.

Rig

hte

ou

snes

s is

to

war

d t

he

top

an

d e

vil

is

tow

ard

the

bott

om

. S

o

up

war

d t

ren

ds

are

go

od

, an

d

do

wn

war

d t

ren

ds

are

bad

. R

ed l

igh

t w

hen

rat

io i

s <

0

htt

p:/

/ww

w.m

ora

lity

ind

ex.c

om

/

Qu

esti

on

nai

re

Lu

cas

An

dri

ano

s 137

11-P

ER

SO

NA

L

FR

EE

DO

M

Hig

her

bet

ter

bu

t m

od

erat

ion

(c

lose

to

av

erag

e) i

s o

pti

mu

m;

0,6

0

,8

In a

sca

le

of

zero

to 1

A

deq

uat

e h

ealt

h

stan

dar

d i

s a

fundam

enta

l nee

d

for

the

fulf

illm

ent

of

hu

man

rig

ht

but

it b

ecom

es a

fo

rm o

f g

reed

(h

um

an r

igh

ts)

wh

en i

n e

xce

ss

com

par

ed t

o t

he

aver

age

stan

dar

d.

Red

lig

ht

wh

en

rati

o i

s >

0,8

Qu

esti

on

nai

re


a. Table of greed indexes measurements for selected individuals (5

persons)

To evaluate individual greed indexes, we apply the GLIMS model to five individuals (two men, two women and one youngster), which could be representative of individual behaviour trends. The results are compiled in the following table (Table 4) and charts:

Table 4: Values of greed indexes measurements for selected

individuals (2012 survey)

INDIVIDUAL GREED INDEXES

Person 1 N (Male)

Person 2 L (Male)

Person 3 A (Female)

Person 4 G (Female)

Person 5 S (Young)

ESUS-GI 40.26 41.28 55.29 50.41 44.28

ENV-GI 40.37

(E)

41.53

(E)

54.90

(G)

50.36 (G) 44.77

(E)

FINA-GI 20.37 22.80 56.91 20.37 20.37

ECON-GI 46.20 50.41 41.69 36.93 26.05

MON-GI 38.31

(F)

40.53

(E)

49.79

(E)

35.48 (F) 32.19

(F)

SOCI-GI 43.17 53.74 55.82 44.31 43..40

POLI-GI 37.29 32.08 59.21 37.28 28.63

POW-GI 44.33

(E)

45.43

(E)

51.88

(G)

44.69 (E) 41.04

(E)

Overall MSGI score 45.50

(E)

46.23

(E)

50.37

(G)

46.73 (E) 44.94

(E)

Linguistic values for greed indexes: L = Low; F = Fair; E = Enough; G =

Greedy; VG = Very Greedy; EG = Excessively greedy

In a scale of 0 to 100, the discrete values corresponding to linguistic scores for “Greed indexes” are the same as for the national level, as follows:

L = LOW for 0 < MSGI < 20

F = FAIR for 20 MSGI < 40

E = ENOUGH for 40 MSGI < 50

G = GREEDY for 50 MSGI < 60

VG = VERY GREEDY for 60 MSGI < 80

EG = EXCESSIVELY GREEDY for 80 MSGI 100 One individual is considered as greedy with respect to a specific aspect of greed when its greed index score is greater than 50. The greed line for MSGI measurements is then [50-60] and the red light is 40 (enough level). Data for the whole set of greed indicators for each person are obtained via

Lucas Andrianos 139

surveys (Annex 2) that are based on questions as follows (Box 1: Personal Greed Index Sample Questions).

For the case of person 1, it is shown that the environmental, economic and social greed levels need corrections for they have passed the red light level of “enough” [40]. Individual 1 should give first priority to controlling economic greed, then to solving social and environmental greed as next priorities.

6. Conclusions

Church leaders, policy makers and any believers would need a scientific tool to clarify the effects of greed and establish policies for an economy of life with more justice and sustainability.

Box 1. Personal Greed Index: 10 Sample Questions

1. How big is your ecological footprint (to calculate click on

http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/calc

ulators/)?

2. Do you have stock shares or savings capital in the bank? If

yes, how much?

3. How much is your annual income?

4. How much credit card debt do you have? How much is your

monthly installment vs. your monthly income?

5. How much do you spend on luxury goods in a year? How

many cars do you have? How big is your house?

6. Would you consider yourself to be part of the upper, middle or

lower income class? Do you aspire to a higher social class? If

so, which class?

7. What is the average life expectancy in your family? How

much do you spend on private healthcare per year?

8. What level of education do you have (in years of schooling)?

Did you go to a public or private school?

9. How much tolerance do you have for corruption?

10. How much do you value money and power over friendships,

ecological harmony, and wisdom?


We present a new model for greed assessment, called “Greed Lines and Indexes Measurements System” or GLIMS, in an attempt to provide an explicit and comprehensive description of the concept of structural greed. Using linguistic variables and fuzzy linguistic rules, the model gives quantitative measures of several greed indexes, which are then combined into an overall multidimensional structural greed index or MSGI. The model allows the measurement of greed indexes at national, corporate and individual level. Therefore it is helpful for anti-greed policy-making and ethical behaviour reflections. A sensitivity analysis of the model permits to determine the evolution of greed variables subject to perturbations in the values of greed indicators. Then, the problem of overcoming greed in policy-making becomes one of specifying priorities among critical greed indicators and designing appropriate policies that will guarantee more justice and development. To overcome greed, recommendations differ from economy to economy and corrections from individual to individual. More developed countries need to focus mostly on the effect of their environmental greed whereas less developed countries should strive to correct both the monetary and socio-political system. The greed index approach using fuzzy evaluation provides new insights of tackling greed at its roots. It may serve as a practical tool for decision-making and policy design at individual, communal or national levels. Such approaches are urgently needed nowadays if we want to attack the problems of justice, peace and sustainability systematically.

References

Andrianos, L. (2012), “Setting the greed line using biblical insights and sustainability ethics in order to avert ecological crisis”. In Ecological

Theology and Environmental Ethics Vol. 2 (ECOTHEE-11) OAC Publications, 2012. ISBN 978-960-86383-7-2.

—. (2011), Environmental ethics and sustainable development: a fuzzy approach. Latvian Christian Academy publication.

—. (2011), Structural Greed and Creation: A Theological Reflection. The Ecumenical Review, 63: 312–329.

Andriantiatsaholiniaina L. A., 2001. Sustainability Assessment using Fuzzy Evaluation. Technical University of Crete, Chania, Ph.D. Thesis.

Lucas Andrianos 141

Andriantiatsaholiniaina L. A., Kouikoglou V. S., and Phillis Y. A., (2004). “Evaluating strategies for sustainable development: Fuzzy logic reasoning and sensitivity analysis,” Ecological Economics, 48(2), 149-172.

Global Footprint Network (http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/ GFN/page/footprint_for_nations)

Goudzwaard, Bob (2011, unpublished), “Problems and Possibilities of Indicating Poverty, Wealth and Greed,” paper presented at the 2nd meeting of the Greed Line Study Group, March 2011, Crete

Larrea, Carlos (2011), “Inequality, Sustainability and the Greed Line: A Conceptual and Empirical Approach,” Ecumenical Review Vol. 63, Issue 3.

Mshana, Rogate (2007), Poverty, Wealth and Ecology: The Impact of Economic Globalisation, WCC: Geneva, retrieved from http://www.oikoumene.org/fileadmin/files/wcc-main/documents/p3/poverty_24p.pdf

Mshana, Rogate, ed. (2009), Poverty, Wealth and Ecology: Ecumenical Perspectives from Latin America and Caribbean, WCC: Geneva.

Mshana, Rogate, ed. (2012), Linking Poverty, Wealth and Ecology in Africa, WCC: Geneva.

Peralta, Athena, ed. (2010), Poverty, Wealth and Ecology in Asia and the Pacific: Ecumenical Perspectives, WCC, CCA and PCC: Geneva, Chiang Mai and Suva, retrieved from http://www.cca.org.hk/resource/books/olbooks/poverty_wealth_and_ecology_in_ap.pdf.

Phillis, Y.A. and Andriantiatsaholiniaina, L.A., 2001. Sustainability: an ill-defined concept and its assessment using fuzzy logic. Ecol. Econ., 37: 435-456.

Raiser, Konrad (2011), “Theological and Ethical Considerations regarding Wealth and the Call for Establishing a Greed Line,” Ecumenical Review Vol. 63, Issue 3.

Taylor, Michael (2011), “On Greed: Toward Concrete and Contemporary Guidance for Christians,” Ecumenical Review Vol. 63, Issue 3

The MathWorks Inc., 2012b. http://www.mathworks.com. UNDP, Human Development Report, 2011. http://hdr.undp.org/en/ World Council of Churches, http://www.oikoumene.org (visited February 2013) http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/ (visited February 2013) Zadeh, L.A., 1994. Fuzzy logic, neural networks and soft computing.

Commun. ACM, 37(3): 77- 84. Zimmermann, H.J., 1991. Fuzzy Set Theory and Its Applications. Kluwer,

Boston.

GREED INDEX MEASUREMENT: AN ALTERNATIVE TOOL TO PROMOTE SUSTAINABILITY AND ECO-JUSTICE

Documents