Having outlined in the first part of the paper the principles guiding the selection of indicators to measure development at the level of human beings, the authors proceed in this second and concluding part to present such indicators, without, however, making any claims to finality. The idea is to measure development by the size of the sufficiency group in society; that is, the proportion of the population that is enabled to satisfy its fundamental and almost fundamental needs.

The purpose of this article is to discuss how the old and rather technocratic idea of expressing the state of affairs in a society in numbers, by means of social indicatros, can be given a more radical content. One idea is to measure not only how good a society is to its own citizens, but also how good or bad it is to the rest of the world. A second idea is to avoid abstractions like GNP and averages and try to develop measures that reflect the state of affairs at the level of human beings. A third idea is to find ways of developing indicators that would give less power to experts and more to people themselves. The article starts by giving the outline of a basic discussion on indicators, proceeds with a discussion of the basic values guiding the selection of indicators and ends with a presentation of the indicators.

The figure of impeachment in the United States and that of muerte cruzada in Ecuador are two political figures created with a double purpose. The first, is to demonstrate that there is a clear division of powers in the governmental sphere; and second, to serve as a checks and balances mechanism that controls the actions of the public power, especially those of the president of the nation. As such, these figures have an important role because they seek to maintain democracy and political, social and economic stability of the countries involved. The problem that arises when trying to put these tools into practice is that they clash with the power of the strongest political parties. Thus, its effectiveness is put at risk and the doubt of its true usefulness arises. This article will focus on analyzing how effective these figures have been to remove presidents from office. To achieve that end, research will be conducted, first of all, to define both figures and find a useful meaning in their existence; later, it will analyze if there are cases in which these political figures have been tried to be applied and if they succeeded or failed and, finally, determine if the figures in these countries are truly political tools to control public power, or if they are only rhetorical figures that have no practical use since there are barriers to their real and effective application.