Rising employment, falling unemployment, rising wages, rising productivity to name but a few of the latest indicators. The vibes from July’s Local Government Annual Conference were just as positive with many areas, districts and regions reporting examples of initiatives, jobs and growth. This conference was indeed a welcome change from the usual “there’s a skill shortage … help” chorus that emanates from some industry and sector gatherings. But that’s an aside, I’ll return to later.

For now, I’d like to turn to thoughts arising from that Designing the 21st Century conference. My thoughts began with the four areas explicitly identified in the Local Government Act 2003 - cultural, social, environmental and economic. Similarly, grappling with the word well-being - which is also now well entrenched in officialdom - became a pre-requisite. The concept of capital - whether it was human, physical, natural, social and/or cultural - also made an appearance during the conference. The imperative of maintaining and indeed enhancing our stocks of such capital was also highlighted.

The problem from my cynical economist perspective is that notions of social and cultural well-being and capital seem vague, obtuse and, at worst, difficult to measure. Indeed, these aspects are referred by some economists, in a condescending manner, as soft. Similarly, the problem with feel-good anecdotes is that there are also likely to be many going the other way. Certainly, many national commentators are more than willing to highlight the clouds about to cast shadows on our recent (but lengthy) bout of sunshine.

So, do such soft issues (not to mention the feel-good anecdotes) have a role in economic development? Or, should local governments stick to their knitting - for example: footpaths, drainage and street lighting? One could pose the same question to central government. In tackling these I turn to identifying the role or roles of government (local and central) in the quest for well-being.

Forgive me if I go back to my common denominator - that of growth. To be more precise: economic growth and its link with capital. Not because growth is the end in and of itself. No, rather it is the primary means to the end - for I have absolutely no issue with well-being as the end or target. After-all economics’ fundamental theory rests on the assumption that individuals attempt to maximize their utility. But that’s just stirring more jargon into the pot.

Back to government’s role. From my economist’s perspective it is to provide the climate, regulatory framework and foundations to foster economic growth. It should come as no surprise to any economist, or business, that in whatever dimension lies your outlook, growth requires maintenance and enhancement of your assets. All right, call them capital if you must.

Back to the other three dimensions - cultural, social and environmental. What comprises our social capital, our cultural capital, our environmental capital? Social capital, for example, might include a community’s people, their attributes and skills, their knowledge and their health. Sounds like human capital to me and that’s inextricably linked to the economic dimension. Cultural capital might comprise people’s heritage, traditions, thoughts, heritage, innovative abilities, design skills and creative talents. Sounds suspiciously like some of those components that make up human capital.

Environmental capital probably includes land, animals, sights and sounds. Economists aren’t very imaginative, so we call these natural resources. Economic capital include buildings and physical equipment along with roads, energy and communication networks. Yes, these are usually viewed in the economic dimension. I find it difficult, however, to see how social and cultural well-being would be maintained and/or improved in their absence.

My point? Viewing any of these dimensions independently risks overlooking the inherent inter-dependence of the many facets of well-being. And those dismissing the social, cultural and environmental dimensions as soft or feel-good are likely to continue be-moaning the presence of skill shortages.

On the other hand, the role of government (central and local) is to foster the big-picture perspective. Admittedly, over-emphasis on the soft stuff or feel-good anecdotes is equally risky. But the perspectives of the private individual, organization, business, industry or sector need to be balanced by the overall outlook.

For example, wage rises are viewed by some as nothing more than negative. Note though, that wage rises are (or at least should be) one of the key indicators of improvements in economic well-being. Not to mention being a significant weapon in the battle against skill shortages. Looking beyond, wage rises need not always signal inflation ahead. Remember that labour productivity growth has averaged about 1 percent per annum for the past five years is a good indication of how much real (i.e. above consumer price inflation) wage growth we can afford.

On the demographic front, we need not always view an ageing population as a handicap. Those highlighting labour market issues could equally be viewing the challenges to ensure experience is translated into a growing workforce with increasing participation comprising more valuable contributions.

Another example is the view that environmental well-being is inherently in conflict with economic well-being. A wider perspective should see that both are at risk if one under-performs - failure to replenish, revitalise and/or enhance our land, animals, sights and sounds will no doubt undermine and jeopardise our ability to earn a crust. The mirror image being that failure to foster our economic well-being will no doubt undermine any ability to invest in our environmental capital.

Silos have to be punctured. Analysis beyond and across silos is imperative. Thus the Ministry of Health is much more than a Department of Hospitals; the Ministry of Education is far more than a Department of Schools; the Ministry of Economic Development more than a Department for Industry & Commerce and the Ministry of Social Development goes beyond a mere Department for Income Assistance.

But what of those charged with the housing, transport and energy portfolios? Which dimension should these be placed under? Or even the footpaths, drainage and street-lighting? Whether these comprise a part of our social or cultural capital assets is a moot point. I know they do enter into economists’ definition of capital stock. Furthermore, I wouldn’t think it very difficult for them to make their way into equations determining productivity, GDP growth, income and, yes, well-being.

Yes, it is difficult to view all dimensions simultaneously. So analysis is rightly specialised. But maintaining capital and promoting well-being requires vision across all silos. If memory serves me correctly there used to be something called the New Zealand Planning Council. It also had a Population Monitoring Group, an Economic Monitoring Group and a Social Monitoring Group. Food for thought indeed.