Urging The Department Of Business, Economic Development, And Tourism To Submit An Annual Hawaii Genuine Progress Indicator Report To The Legislature No Later Than Thirty Days Prior To The Convening Of Each Regular Session, Beginning With The Regular Session Of 2027.
SR181 is a Senate resolution urging the Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism (DBEDT) to provide the Legislature with an annual Hawaii Genuine Progress Indicator (HI GPI) report no later than 30 days before each regular session, beginning in 2027. The resolution explains that traditional measures like Gross Domestic Product do not fully reflect social well-being, environmental sustainability, or long-term welfare, and it identifies the HI GPI as a broader metric already developed and maintained by DBEDT.
The resolution specifies that the annual report should present transparent findings from the most recent HI GPI analysis, including trends in economic welfare, environmental conditions, and social conditions. It also directs the report to include an executive summary, indicator results and trends across economic, social, and environmental categories, a methodology overview, policy implications, and a data appendix with tables, charts, and source information. The report would also be made available electronically and transmitted to the relevant House and Senate committee chairs.
SR181 does not amend the Hawaii Revised Statutes or create a binding legal requirement; it is an advisory resolution that urges DBEDT to produce and distribute an annual HI GPI report. Its practical impact would be to formalize recurring legislative reporting on a broader well-being index and to increase the visibility of economic, social, and environmental indicators in policymaking. If followed, the resolution would affect DBEDT’s reporting practices and provide legislators with a regular analytical tool for budget, economic development, and environmental policy discussions.
The overall sentiment reflected in the resolution is strongly supportive of expanding the state’s policy lens beyond conventional economic statistics. The bill frames the HI GPI as a more meaningful and evidence-based measure of welfare, and the requested reporting is presented as a way to improve legislative understanding and decision-making. Because there is no recorded committee discussion or vote history in the provided context, there is no indication of opposition or divided sentiment in the available materials.
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided record, but the resolution’s emphasis on broader welfare metrics could raise practical questions about methodology, data availability, reporting burden, and how policymakers should weigh HI GPI results against more familiar economic indicators like GDP. Any debate would likely center on whether the report should remain an advisory planning tool or become a more formal part of legislative oversight, and on the extent to which DBEDT should be required to interpret policy implications rather than simply present data.