The link between economic growth and human well-being seems obvious. Indeed, as measured by GDP, economic growth is widely viewed as the ultimate development objective. However, it is time to rethink this approach.
In fact, there is a rising disconnect between countries’ per capita GDP and their citizens’ well-being, as rapid output growth exacerbates health challenges and erodes environmental conditions. Given this, people increasingly value non-material wealth just as highly as monetary wealth, if not more.
However, persuading policymakers and politicians of GDP’s limitations is no easy feat. After all, it is far simpler to defend a well-understood, long-accepted framework than it is to champion a new worldview.
To be sure, GDP provides valuable information about a country’s production, expenditure and income streams, as well as the flow of goods across borders. Moreover, it has provided crucial guidance to countries, helping them to track economic gains that have improved citizens’ quality of life considerably — in many cases lifting them out of destitution.
However, GDP fails to account for changes in a country’s stock of assets, making it difficult for policymakers to balance economic, social and environmental concerns. Without better measures of well-being — including health, education and the state of the natural environment — policymakers cannot gain the insights that they need to ensure the long-term health of the economy and the individuals who comprise it.
This imperative underpins the concept of “sustainable development,” which has gradually gained acceptance since its introduction in the mid-1980s. However, even as countries have recognized the need for a more comprehensive understanding of development, they have largely retained GDP growth as their central objective. This has to change.
Even US-based Nobel laureate Simon Kuznets, the Depression-era father of GDP, said in 1934: “The welfare of a nation can scarcely be inferred from a measure of national income.”
The good news is that a robust, simple and effective framework for measuring sustainability already exists. Developed by a group of leading economists, including the Nobel laureate Kenneth Arrow and Partha Dasgupta of the University of Cambridge, it assesses an economy’s income flows in the context of its stocks of assets, including human and natural capital. In other words, it accounts for the economy’s productive base, rather than just its monetary wealth.
Based on this framework, UN University and the UN Environment Program unveiled the Inclusive Wealth Report (IWR) at the 2012 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. By providing a long-term comparison between GDP and “inclusive wealth” for 20 countries, the report aimed to motivate policymakers to take a more comprehensive, longer-term view of their economies’ development.
In November, a second IWR is to be released, with many more countries represented and a stronger focus on human capital in national-account indicators. To this end, collaborating experts will convene in Malaysia this month for a series of meetings, culminating in a public symposium titled “Beyond Gross Domestic Product — Transitioning into Sustainability.”
Transforming the world’s understanding of economic development requires a dynamic approach. Experts in various fields — including economics, sociology, psychology and the natural sciences — must work together to develop an integrated suite of indicators that provides a comprehensive picture of humanity’s productive base, on which people’s ability to pursue their interpretation of success depends. While final decisions should rest with policymakers and citizens, the process must be guided by the best available science, without being compromised by political demands or vested interests.
Moreover, one fundamental truth must be recognized: The planet cannot accommodate high-income status for all 7 billion of its inhabitants. For every country to attain per capita GDP of US$13,000 (which, according to the World Bank, delineates high-income status), global GDP would need to rise from about US$72 trillion today to US$91 trillion. However, if we already use the equivalent of 1.5 Earths to provide the resources we consume and to absorb our waste, the planet can sustainably support a GDP of only between US$48 trillion and US$50 trillion.
If the planet already exceeds its sustainable carrying capacity, we should be reducing our demands on it — not adding new ones. Simply put, we can no longer depend on GDP growth and the limitless wealth accumulation that it implies, to solve our social and economic problems.
The world must align its value systems with this reality. We must learn to do more with less, decouple economic growth from resource consumption and nurture the social and spiritual aspects of our existence.
This shift will be impossible without fundamental changes to our education systems, political structures and institutions. It is a tall order, but our future depends on fulfilling it.
Zakri Abdul Hamid is a member of the UN secretary-general’s Scientific Advisory Board, science adviser to the prime minister of Malaysia and co-chair of MIGHT. Anantha Duraiappah is executive director of the International Human Dimensions Program on Global Environmental Change, hosted by UN University in Bonn.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under