econ.GNJun 8, 2026

GAGI: A Gini-Adjusted GDP-per-Capita Index for Distribution-Aware Macroeconomic Welfare Monitoring

Authors: Sivasathivel Kandasamy

Organizations: Independent Researcher

Abstract

GDP per capita is the default lens through which governibng bodies track the economic prosperity and consequences of economic events , yet it is blind to two first-order determinants of lived prosperity: income/wealth distribution and inflation impact. Inequality-adjusted income measures are themselves not new but What is missing from the macroeconomic monitoring toolkit specifically is not a welfare concept but an operational monitoring trigger: a statistic minimal enough to compute annually from public data, transparent enough to audit without modelling assumptions, and normalised so that year-on-year, cross-country change ? the quantity a regulator needs to act on? is legible. We assemble such an instrument, the Gini- Adjusted GDP per Capita Index (GAGI): a reproducible, publicly computable formulation that rescales each country's GDP per capita by its inequality-adjustment factor (1-G) and its price level, normalised to a 2010 baseline. GAGI is a general-purpose welfare index, not inherently specific to AI automation, applicable wherever welfare-adjusted prosperity needs tracking. Applying GAGI to the G7 economies over 2010-2026, we show that welfare-adjusted prosperity has diverged persistently and increasingly from headline GDP growth, that the divergence widens sharply after 2022, temporally coincident with, though not, on this evidence alone, demonstrated to be caused by the after effects of COVID and the acceleration of generative-AI deployment. We argue that GAGI is a necessary complement to GDP-based monitoring: any macroeconomic monitoring instrument that tracks only aggregate output will systematically miss the distributional harm that automation can cause even while reported growth remains strong.

Explore similar work

CardsList
Aug 2, 2026cs.AI

A New Theory of Value for Post-AGI Economics

Artificial general intelligence (AGI) may weaken scarcities in labour, expertise, information, and productive capability that underpin established theories of economic value. If cognitive work becomes widely automatable, market price, labour input, revealed preference, profit, and gross output may diverge sharply from human and societal benefit. This paper develops Flourishing Value Theory (FVT) as a foundation for post-AGI economics. FVT defines value as the counterfactual, distribution-sensitive contribution of a system, institution, asset, or intervention to the durable capabilities of persons and communities to flourish within social and planetary constraints. It treats societal value as multidimensional, agency-preserving, regenerative, and non-compensatory at critical thresholds. Drawing on the economics of AI, welfare and capability theory, automation, digital valuation, and ecological economics, the paper distinguishes value creation from value capture and retains price, profit, productivity, and GDP as partial signals rather than final measures of progress. It develops the shifts from scarcity to governed abundance, transaction to transformation, and zero-sum rivalry to positive-sum and infinite-game dynamics, with collective expansion of consciousness as an agency-preserving form of regenerative value. Building on Flourishing Metrics and Return on Flourishing (RoF), it proposes a layered architecture for firms, governments, work transitions, AI governance, and national accounting. The central post-AGI economic problem is not how to maximise output, but how to convert abundant intelligence into durable, fairly distributed human, societal, and planetary flourishing.
Keyun Ruan
EconomiesValueArtificial Intelligence SystemsTheoretical FoundationsRegen
AskPDF
May 19, 2026econ.GN

The Economics of AI Inference: Inflation Dynamics, Welfare Costs, and Optimal Monetary Policy under the Inference-Cost Phillips Curve

We develop a unified microeconomic and monetary theory of artificial intelligence inference costs and their pass-through to inflation, welfare, and optimal monetary policy. We introduce the Inference-Cost Phillips Curve (ICPC), an augmented New Keynesian Phillips curve in which firm-level marginal costs of producing differentiated goods include a non-trivial AI inference component lambda-bar, and prove a closed-form structural slope kappa_inf = lambda-bar * kappa, where kappa is the standard Calvo-Yun slope. We derive a welfare-relevant Hicks-Kaldor decomposition of consumer welfare under inference-cost shocks, prove a generalized Taylor principle for the inference-augmented economy, and characterize the optimal monetary policy response coefficient psi_inf = (1 + phi*rho) * lambda-bar * kappa under commitment. A second-order welfare loss formula closes the model in closed form. We confront the theory with U.S. monthly data 2022:M01-2026:M04 using a two-step GMM estimator with Newey-West HAC standard errors and Hansen J-test, recovering an empirical slope kappa-hat_inf = 0.087 (HAC s.e. 0.021) which lies within one standard error of the structural prediction. A scaling regression over 50 rolling-window subwindows yields b-hat = 0.987 (R^2 = 0.998), consistent with a near-unit-elasticity pass-through. A G7 reduced-form panel with Driscoll-Kraay HAC standard errors yields b-hat^G7 = 0.094 (s.e. 0.026), and a Wald test fails to reject cross-country homogeneity (p = 0.78). The framework provides a single equilibrium scaffold for the joint study of AI inference cost dynamics, monetary policy under generative-AI shocks, and the welfare cost of inference-driven inflation.
Gustav Olaf Yunus Laitinen-Fredriksson Lundström-Imanov
EconomiesInference CostArtificial Intelligence Sovereignty
AskPDF
May 31, 2026econ.GN

Differing Roles of Leisure and Productivity in GDP - A Machine Learning based comparative analysis of Germany and USA

The GDP of a country is modelled as the relative interaction between two agents - working hours, reflecting the social choice of a population, and Total Factor Productivity, reflecting the collective investment in productivity enhancers. It is shown that a Random Forest model can accu- rately predict the GDP from these two factors. The differences in the choices made by Germany and USA are analysed though Gini importance, SHAP plots and partial dependency. It is shown that the differences in the social structure of the countries are reflected in the relative contribution of working hours and productivity to the GDP.
Achintya Ranjan, Uma Ranjan
EconomiesGermanRandom ForestDaily LivingComparisonMachine Learning
AskPDF