How did the world get so fixated on GDP?

The economic news grows daily more grim. Across the developed world, once-optimistic forecasts for growth are being revised downwards. Financial markets, sensing trouble ahead, are in a tailspin. Debates over the future centre on a single metric – that of GDP.

Gross domestic product was not always with us. Created in the 1930s, and despite the warnings of its pioneer, it rapidly assumed centre stage in economic policymaking. Growth could now be measured targeted through policy. For the right, it would be a simple gauge of national economic virility. For the left, it offered the more subtle appeal of an end to disputes over the distribution of wealth. By focusing not on the size of the slices, but on the size of the pie, an interminable conflict between capital and labour could seemingly be resolved. The case was put most forcefully in the Labour politician Anthony Crosland's influential book The Future of Socialism. Growth would deliver the public goods – secure employment and a functioning welfare state.

That consensus has now held for 50 years or more. Yet mounting evidence suggests that GDP growth does not register many of the things people actually care about. It is a record of some aspects of economic life, but it fails to capture wider social needs and demands. Health, quality of life and inequality play no part in its measurement.

There is a growing consensus that rising GDP since the mid-1970s in the US and the UK has become disconnected from reported measures of wellbeing. We know that falling GDP produces misery, as unemployment rises and incomes collapse. But the reverse does not apply. Higher output does not necessarily mean happier people.

Even growth's blunt promise of material prosperity is failing. GDP in the UK increased by 11% from 2003 to 2008. Over the same period, median real incomes stagnated. The economy boomed, but few shared in its rewards. Living standards were maintained through unsustainable debt. As we crawl back into recession, the majority will find those rewards still harder to come by – even if a minority continue to grow fat.

And environmental damage has no impact on GDP's progress. A few years of apparent prosperity can be bought at immense future cost. The tiny Pacific island of Nauru once enjoyed the highest per capita living standards of anywhere in the world. Its plentiful supplies of phosphate rock, in demand for fertiliser, had been strip-mined since the 1900s. But as the phosphate dwindled, so did incomes. Nauru has been reduced to providing a detention centre in return for Australian aid money. Environmental limits can and will bite. From declining fish stocks to the overwhelming threat of climate change, there are physical limits to our economic activities. GDP registers none of this.

We need to change how we think about the economy. Japan has now laboured through nearly two decades of flatlining GDP. A miracle of growth transformed it from defeated power in 1945 to the world's second-largest economy. Then, in the 1990s, the growth stopped, never to convincingly return. Yet living standards in Japan are among the highest in the world. Unemployment is half that of the US; life expectancy five years longer. Average real incomes are the same as Germany's, and inequality lower. Japan's environmental impact, particularly through the import of raw materials, remains high. But it is not simply the economic basket case it is often presented as.

The old consensus needs breaking. We need to fixate less on growth alone. The government recognises this much, aiming to create a national measure of wellbeing. But this accounting exercise is completely disconnected from economic practice. The coalition has a near-mystical belief in the power of the free market to deliver growth. It believes the national debt should be run down, clearing the way for a return to prosperity as the economy "rebalances". Purposeful government intervention is not needed.

The coalition's lack of success is a tribute to its lack of strategy. Rebalancing the economy away from debt-fuelled consumption and bloated financial services is a fine aim. It needs policies to match. Austerity does not just blight individual lives – Ireland has shown how it cripples whole economies as demand drains out of the system. So public spending, the bedrock of an economy in recession, must be held steady.

A genuine rebalancing, however, cannot come from maintaining status quo. The thinktank New Economics Foundation has begun an ambitious modelling exercise that seeks to show how a low-carbon economy can also deliver social justice. Action, though, is needed now. Economic policy must be broadened towards meaningful goals – creating secure, well-paid jobs; minimising environmental damage. Where private investment is failing, with business expenditure sliding again last quarter, government should be prepared to step in. A new industrial strategy could match social objectives with credible interventions, supporting the industries of the future. Or we will be left to chase a statistical chimera.

Origin
Source: Guardian