Diego is a researcher with the Belonging Research Lab who completed the MPhil in Development Studies at the University of Oxford. His research focuses on socio-environmental conflicts in Latin America, particularly around mining, nature valuation and community perspectives. He is currently working on a project with faith-based communities in Oxford.

Recently, I had the opportunity to attend a workshop at the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences called “New Narratives and Metrics for Development”. The event brought together scholars, practitioners and policy-oriented experts working on a shared challenge, how to measure human flourishing in ways that move beyond narrow economic indicators such as GDP, while remaining normatively grounded, methodologically robust and practically useful.

At its core, the workshop explored how development can be understood in a richer and more humane way. Rather than focusing only on income or growth, discussions centred on multidimensional wellbeing, human dignity, sustainability, poverty, freedom and the moral and spiritual dimensions of life. The workshop also examined how these concerns resonate with Catholic social teaching, the capability approach and global efforts to build measures that better reflect what wellbeing means across different dimensions. Across the sessions, one message stood out clearly to me. What we choose to measure shapes what we value and therefore shapes the kinds of future we try to build.

Although not part of the formal public programme, the first day was one of the most valuable moments of the whole experience for me. It served as a preparation day in which I observed researchers give feedback on one another’s presentations before the official workshop began. What struck me most was the extraordinary level of care behind the process. Every concept, slide and framing decision was examined closely, with particular attention to the exact choice of words, since language shapes how the data would be understood. Seeing this process up close gave me a deeper appreciation of how meticulous scholars are, especially when dealing with topics that have both technical and ethical significance and can influence decision-making.

The official workshop began with reflections on the meaning of integral human development and the challenge of measuring it. One major theme, introduced by Sister Helen Alford, was the tension between two ideas. On the one hand, public action depends on measurement (“it doesn’t count if it can’t be counted” or “we measure what we treasure”); on the other hand, some of the most important things in life can never be fully captured in numbers (“the things that count can’t be counted”). Rather than treating this as a contradiction, several presentations approached it as a productive tension. The task is not to reduce wellbeing to simple statistics, or to a definitive set of dimensions and indicators, nor to create a perfect framework from the start. Instead, the aim is to recognise and value life in all its dimensions, thereby shedding light on aspects of wellbeing that conventional economic measures, such as GDP, tend to overlook.

Presentations examined multidimensional wellbeing measures in different national contexts, as well as the methodological principles behind them. Speakers, methodologically, focused on counting-based approaches that identify whether people achieve sufficiency across a range of dimensions and indicators, rather than simply relying on dashboards or composite indices. There were also rich discussions about the normative decisions involved in building such measures, namely which dimensions should count, how they should be weighted and where thresholds of sufficiency should be set. These are not merely technical issues. They are fundamentally ethical and political questions.

Another particularly interesting thread concerned the place of subjective indicators in wellbeing measurement. Some presentations explored whether life satisfaction, feelings of safety, or self-perceived freedom should be included alongside more objective indicators. This opened important debate. Can subjective responses be compared across contexts? Do they capture something essential, or do they risk distortion through cultural bias and adaptive preferences? Related discussions also raised the challenge of measuring belonging, social connectedness, shame, humiliation and community life, all of which are deeply important but difficult to operationalise. One of the most fascinating sessions that day focused on Bhutan’s Gross National Happiness (GNH) Index. This offered an example of how a society can build public policy around a multidimensional vision of wellbeing. At the same time, discussion made clear that the GNH is not a simple template to copy. It must be understood within the country’s historical context and cultural practices and adapted carefully accordingly.

The workshop then turned even more clearly toward issues of policy uptake, data constraints and institutional feasibility. Presentations looked at multidimensional wellbeing efforts in countries such as Indonesia and Peru, as well as cross-country trials using existing survey data. These sessions made clear that there is now real momentum behind Beyond GDP conversations, but also major practical limitations. Good intentions, unfortunately, are not enough. Data availability, survey design, sample size, political demand and institutional capacity all shape what can actually be measured and used to inform policy. Hence, a central question across the final day was how to make these metrics meaningful beyond academic debate. How can they inform public policy, budget priorities and community reflection? How can they remain nationally specific while also allowing some degree of comparison? And how, if at all, can spiritual life, through faith, be approached within a measurement framework?

For me, this was a life-changing experience. It was intellectually enriching, deeply relevant to the work we do at the Belonging Forum, and it gave me a clearer sense of the kind of work I hope to pursue for the rest of my life. At the Belonging Research Lab, we work through the lens of the 4Ps of Belonging: People, Place, Power and Purpose. This workshop demonstrated how relevant these dimensions are to contemporary debates on development. As we understand it, belonging surfaced throughout the discussions in questions about the indicators used to measure wellbeing, including social connectedness, community, empowerment and meaning. Faith, which was also central to these conversations on wellbeing, cut across all four Ps in important ways. More than anything, the workshop reinforced for me that development is not only about what can be counted, but also about what we are prepared to notice, value and protect in the contexts where it matters most. Namely, what constitutes a valuable life in the context of developing countries such as Peru, where I come from. If we want measures that truly reflect human flourishing, statistics must remain attentive to the relational, moral and spiritual realities that shape people’s lives. That is the challenge I left with, and the hope that I carry forward in my work.