Defining Progress
Before we can study progress, we must first define it
This article is part of my ongoing series on Progress Studies. You can read more on the topic in the following posts:
Defining Progress (this article)
Today, I will talk about how we can create a useful definition for the concept of “Progress.” If someone were to ask me “What is Progress?”, I could give them a clear definition. You will see my definition later in this article.
However, if someone were to ask me “How does the Progress Studies movement define Progress?”, then I would do a lot of equivocating and then finally acknowledge that we do not have a clear definition. I would be forced to list a number of competing definitions and their relative utility.
This is a serious problem.
I get it. Definitions are difficult. Definitions are boring. No one really likes writing them. No one really likes thinking of them. When establishing definitions within a group, it is also easy to get bogged down in irrelevant academic arguments, so many people just skip defining their terms.
Nonetheless, not having a clear definition of “Progress” is a serious problem for the field of Progress Studies.
I believe that avoiding a clear definition of progress is a mistake because people already have a vague definition of that concept in their heads. They may not have thought about it too much. They may not be able to easily articulate that definition with a specificity that stands up to rigorous questioning. But the vague definition that they have in their heads has a real effect on:
how we conceive of problems
the assumptions we make, and
the actions we take.
We as a movement will have great difficulties communicating with each other if we cannot align on one definition of progress because it will mean that we actually are using completely different definitions. I do not believe the field can make real contributions to our understanding of Progress until we can first define it.
As I see it, there are a few definitions that people in the movement seem to acting upon:
Progress is the advancement of scientific knowledge
Progress is technological innovation
Progress is technological innovation on the leading edge.
Progress is human flourishing
Progress is the increase in the standard of living of people
Progress is increased per capita GDP
Progress is some combination of the above
Progress is “uh not sure, but why does it matter?”
I am sure that there are other definitions that a few people within the field have, but I would guess that the vast majority of people hold one or more of the above (or no definition at all). We really need to narrow it down to which one is the most useful definition of progress.
Criteria of a definition
Before we can come up with a working definition, we must first think about the criteria that a definition must meet. Then we can validate a potential definition by comparing it to the necessary criteria.
I strongly believe that a definition of progress must be:
Useful
Measurable
Falsifiable
Flexible enough to apply to many different times, places, societies, technologies, and industries
Specific enough that one can realize that the definition has been misapplied
Based on outputs, not inputs
Include a large enough group of people to be meaningful
Not be about a static, fixed point in time. It must enable us to compare time A with Time B using a long enough time period to be meaningful.
Ideally, a definition of progress should also be:
Easily communicated in informal settings
Understandable to normal people (i.e. not Progress Studies researchers)
Meaningful and relevant to normal people in their daily lives
Meaningful to those who implement progress in the real world (entrepreneurs, engineers, venture capitalists, skilled workers, scientists, economists, and public policy analysts).
Why I choose those criteria
By far the most important criterion of a potential definition of progress is that it is useful. Any definition that is not useful is, well… useless. We could come up with a fabulous definition that everyone loves, but if you cannot apply it in the real world to serve some function, then we should not use it.
Remember that Progress Studies is not just about understanding the world. It is also about changing the world for the better.
Probably the second most important criterion of a potential definition of progress is that it is measurable. To determine if progress is happening in a certain time and place it must be quantifiable in some way. Ideally, this should lead to a continuous variable, such as height, weight, or distance.
Concepts are vague, but if we can do what social scientists call “operationalize” that concept into a specific variable, then we can compare two or more groups to see if they have more or less progress. This is a little academic so let me give an example.
Intelligence is a concept that most people understand intuitively. Intelligence researchers operationalize the concept of intelligence with the Intelligence quotient (IQ). IQ is a continuous variable that is expressed as a number, where most people range between 80 and 120. This makes it possible to measure the level of intelligence in every human.
There is an important academic debate as to how well the variable IQ actually measures the concept of intelligence, but most researchers agree that it does a relatively good job of doing so. Or at least it does a better job than all other means. Intelligence research would be paralyzed without the metric of IQ, so it is used despite its lack of perfection.
Progress Studies researchers need to be able to do the same with progress. By the way, we also need to always keep clear the difference between a concept and a variable (or metric) as well as keep in mind that the variable may not adequately capture the concept. It is easy to get so lost in the numbers that one forgets the original concept.
Closely related to measurable is falsifiability. Falsifiability essentially means that any person can conduct an experiment, look at the results, and declare a hypothesis to be untrue. It is never possible to fully prove a theory, but if a theory survives hundreds of rounds of attempts by critics to falsify it using experimentation, then we can be fairly sure that it is viable.
Religions and ideologies are unfalsifiable. No amount of experimentation will be able to disprove either religions or ideologies.
We do not want Progress Studies to become like a religion or an ideology. We should aim to make it a respected social science. To do so Progress researchers must all be brave enough to accept that our great ideas are incorrect when the evidence is clear. To do so, we must make our ideas falsifiable. That starts with a solid definition.
A potential definition of progress must also be flexible enough to apply to many different times, places, societies, technologies, companies, and industries. I think that we should be able to apply the concept of progress to:
Hunter-gatherer tribes in Africa 100,000 years ago.
The origin of rice domestication in China.
Artificial intelligence research in Silicon Valley today.
Trade patterns in Ancient Athens.
The Japanese automotive industry in 1952.
The founding of the Ford Motor company in Detroit in 1903.
Patent law that is before Congress in 2024.
Analysis of the health care insurance systems in various nations today
Analysis of the trade policy or marginal tax rates in various nations today
Etc, etc
To be clear, I am not saying that all the above are examples of progress. I mean that we can apply the definition of progress as either a cause or effect to all the above to see if they were a cause of progress or were a result of progress.
A definition of progress should also be based on outputs, not inputs. Inputs are the steps that one takes toward achieving a goal. The outputs are the results of those inputs being applied. It is often the case that inputs do not achieve the desired goal or do so in a not very cost-effective way. Progress Studies should be about results, not attempts to get good results (or good intentions). That should be obvious, but it often gets lost in the discussion.
A definition of progress should also be based on a fairly large group of people to be meaningful. I do not think the concept of progress makes much sense for an individual or a very small group of people. When one talks about entire nations, ethnic groups, racial groups, or continents, then it makes much more sense. (Note: I use the term “Upward Mobility” for individuals).
A definition of progress should also be about change over time, not about a static situation. And that period should be long enough to be meaningful. This is important because people naturally tend to focus on short time frames, particularly this year. Researchers also often look at a fixed point in time and then look for differences between nations or people. This can lead to very distorted results.
For example, one might look at rank-order per capita GDP in 2020. One could do a very sophisticated statistical analysis to explain why certain nations are richer than others. The problem is that progress is change over time, so it can lead to incorrect conclusions. Many nations are richer because of the economic growth they experienced a century ago. That nation has changed greatly in the period since. In addition, many rapidly-growing nations are still poor in comparison to rich nations, so their current achievements might be completely missed.
It also makes no sense to use the term “progress” for very short time periods. One cannot judge if the United States is experiencing progress on Dec 27, 2023. Perhaps one might be able to measure progress between Jan 1, 2023, and Dec 31, 2023, but even that might be a short-term fluctuation that violates the long-term trends. All long-term trends have short-term variability. They are important to study, but not as important as the long-term trend. A more meaningful comparison might be between the United States in 2000 and the United States in 2020.
So progress should not be about periods as short as seconds, minutes, hours, or even days. It starts to get useful when talking about years, but it is particularly useful for decades, generations, centuries, and millennia. This does not necessarily have to be built into the definition, as long as progress is about change over time, not about a static situation.
The other criteria are “nice to haves”, but not necessarily essential. We should want a definition that Progress researchers can mention at parties or to strangers we meet that makes sense to them and they can immediately understand that it affects their lives. This is particularly true if changes to public policy are required. The definition should also make sense to the professionals who are creating progress in their daily work lives. If they smirk and roll their eyes when Progress researchers tell them our definition, it is not a good look, nor are they likely to embrace our suggested reforms. To be fair, the vast majority of social sciences and sciences cannot meet these criteria, but I think that we can rise to the challenge.
A working definition of progress
So now that I spent a long time dancing around the issue, let me get to the point.
In my From Poverty to Progress book series, I use the following definition:
“Progress is the sustained improvement in the material standard-of-living of a large group of people over a long period of time.“
I go on to state elsewhere:
“Advancement in scientific knowledge, technological innovation and institutional creation are important causes of that progress, but they are not progress itself. If new knowledge or an innovation does not promote humanity’s material standard-of-living, it cannot be called progress…
Progress is closely related to economic growth, but it is not fully expressed by the statistic of per capita GDP. Progress also includes improvements in food, education, energy, health, housing, literacy, water quality, air quality, sanitation, longevity, transportation, peace, security from violence, human rights, communication, and even entertainment. For this reason, I believe that per capita GDP understates the positive effects of progress. But economic growth creates the wealth that finances all the improvements in these other domains.”
The benefits of my definition
I believe that my definition is the one that should be adopted by the Progress Studies movement because it fulfills all the criteria, and I am skeptical whether anyone else will come up with another definition that can.
The definition is useful, measurable, and falsifiable because it ties directly into per capita GDP. Per capita GDP is one of the most widely-available and respected metrics available. One can find it in most nations going back generations, and some economic historians have created reasonable estimates that go back to the year 0!
In addition, there are dozens of metrics used by the World Bank and development economists that can measure all the factors that I list above in my quote. When used together, they can capture virtually any material effect that approximates the standard of living. And it is important to realize that all the metrics are very closely correlated with Per capita GDP. This in itself is compelling evidence that there is a real concept called progress that can be approximated by many different variables.
It is also important to state that changes to per capita GDP are not progress. It is a metric that gives us a high-order understanding of changes in the material standard of living. Like all matrics, though, it has flaws that do not perfectly capture the concept.
Economic growth is much closer to my definition of progress than the others. It is very difficult to achieve progress without economic growth. And most people see the relevance of economic growth to their lives. But as I mentioned earlier, it fails to capture many other improvements in people’s lives that progress creates for the material standard of living.
That is why I like to supplement economic growth with metrics that are commonly used in developing nations, such as literacy rates, number of years schooling, longevity, neonatal mortality, deaths from war, the percentage of people living in slums, the percentage of people with electricity, the percentage of people with flush toilets, and many more.
Whether using these metrics or others, this definition is extremely flexible. It can be used to conceptualize, measure, and potentially falsify hypotheses in all the domains that I mentioned above.
My definition also has comparing large groups of people over a long period of time built into the definition, so it fulfills all those criteria. And it is based on outputs, not inputs.
I believe that my definition is easy for all people to understand. I have yet to meet a person who does not understand what I mean with a few minutes (although they may not agree with me on my conclusions). Material standard of living is a concept that both normal people and professionals in highly specialized fields can grasp and have it feel relevant to their lives. And professionals can apply it to their own careers with the question “How will my work (or this decision) impact the material standard of living of my people or my country?”
The definition is relevant because people care deeply about their own and their family’s material standard of living. The vast majority of people do not care much about science or new technologies for their own sake. Scientific breakthroughs or technological innovations might capture attention for a brief period of time, but that is all.
Scientific advancement and technological innovation are not progress. They are a potential cause, and only two of the many causes, of progress. We should care about both, but not to the exclusion of everything else. If all this movement does is focus on science and technological innovation, the vast majority of people will not see any relevance in their lives. So they will never join.
The definition is relevant because people matter more than ideas, and because the vast majority of technological innovation leads to no gains in material standard of living. If an innovation remains as a unique prototype or failed product that never diffuses through society, it does not affect standard-of-living. It is only when the innovation delivers tangible benefits to the material standard of living that it matters.
Regardless of whether you agree with my definition, we need to come to an agreement on one quickly. It causes too much confusion when everyone is operating with different definitions of a concept that is so critical to our movement.
This article is part of my ongoing series on Progress Studies. You can read more on the topic in the following posts:
Defining Progress (this article)
In the comments, I would love to hear from other people who consider themselves to be Progress researchers. What do you think about my criteria and definition? Do you have another definition that fits all the criteria better?
Your definition has many good things going for it, as you point out above. Here are my concerns, though…
1). Improved material standard of living could show an increase even as we become more miserable. Divorce rates skyrocketing, children raised without father figures, huge numbers of people living off handouts with no gainful occupation or skill, substantial increases in substance abuse and mental health issues, fear of crime, fear of terrorism or war, drops in trustworthiness, loneliness, inability to meet friends or romantic interests, drops in intelligence, and so forth. I could go on for hours, but the point should be obvious that it is possible to see increases in material standard of living and decreases in health, happiness, spiritual well being, emotional well being, and many other things that really matter. This gets increasingly likely as incomes go up. Yes, a person living off a dollar a day is likely greatly improved by going to $50k per year, but I am not sure it matters as much going up the next $50k, and less for every increase afterward. Your measure is simply inadequate, and in a way reminds me of the person looking for their keys under the street light. Easy isn’t necessarily best.
2. Progress isn’t just about a large group over a long time, it is about humanity in total. If we break it down to smaller groups we run into the problem of zero sum actions between groups. If the Romans see a long term increase in material living standards and the Carthaginian’s see a drop (or are just exterminated), this isn’t progress. It is external exploitation, which is as far from progress as we can get. Granted, it can be useful to look at measures of progress at smaller groupings, but only when also monitoring that the growth in some didn’t come at the expense of others. This leads into the response I still owe you on "Coordination" which is IMO an essential part of progress, and the piece most often derailing it (with coordination a broader term than the more obvious, but too limited, cooperation).
3. I would suggest that a better (albeit less measurable) definition is simply "The longer term flourishing of humanity." This certainly includes GDP, but it also includes longevity, health, wealth, measures of emotional well being, intelligence, compassion, trust, happiness, peace, freedom from crime, opportunity, equality of opportunity, self actualization, environmental quality, and so on. Although this lacks in ease of measurement, it gains in that people can apply their own values to the measure. And any measure that doesn’t match up to our (often differing) values is suspect.
One last point, at the risk of detailing the conversation, is that I have come to find that it is useful for everyone involved if I break progress down into two types. First, or Type 1 Progress is progress in function or Knowldge. This is what we see sometimes (not always) in evolution, and what we see in technology. Progress in function/Knowldge thus can apply beyond humans, and it isn’t rare in our history. However, T1 Progress does not necessarily lead to Type 2 which is progress in outcome or welfare or well being. This is extremely rare, with the only species wide version ever occurring in last 250 years or so.
The benefit of dividing the two types is that people see technological and scientific knowledge progressing everywhere, but it doesn’t necessarily lead to improved welfare due to Malthusian forces, negative side effects and zero sum interactions (WWII).
> number of years schooling,
This is an input not an output. Anecdotally, high and possibly even middle school students in America from a century ago were better educated than college students today.