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
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath