Using income per natural

Will Wilkinson asks us to "absorb this extremely important advance in economic methodology and basic intellectual rigor":

migration is one of the most important sources of poverty reduction for a large portion of the developing world. If economic development is defined as rising human well being, then a residence-neutral measure of well-being emphasizes that crossing international borders is not an alternative to economic development, it is economic development.

The paper measures the income levels of Americans rather than the income levels of people in America. I've not got my head around it yet (either it's claims or implications) but Will knows his stuff. Jim - any thoughts?

Comments

[Jim]

I've not read it in detail either, but it looks like a very useful advance, putting numbers on a concept which should be self-evident. Not sure if it represents a 'better' measure as Will does (it has the potential to obscure vital insights from economic geography, if misused), or if it really overturns 'economic nationalism' (measuring people by their country of birth seems fairly nationalist to me).