Living standards have risen all throughout the world as a result of economic expansion. Modern economies, on the other hand, have lost sight of the reality that the conventional metric of economic growth, gross domestic product (GDP), just measures the size of a country’s economy and does not reflect the welfare of that country. However, politicians and economists frequently use GDP, or GDP per capita in some situations, as an all-encompassing metric for measuring a country’s progress, combining economic success with societal well-being. As a result, measures that promote economic growth are perceived as positive for society.
We now understand that the reality is more complicated, and that focusing just on GDP and economic gain as a measure of development misses the negative consequences of economic expansion, such as climate change and income inequality. It’s past time to recognise GDP’s limitations and broaden our definition of development to include a society’s quality of life.
This is something that a number of countries are starting to do. In India, for example, where we both advise the government, an Ease of Living Index is being developed to gauge quality of life, economic ability, and sustainability.
Our policy interventions will become more aligned with the qualities of life that citizens actually value, and society will be better served, if our development measures go beyond an antagonistic concentration on increased productivity. But, before we try to improve the concept of GDP, it’s important to understand where it came from.
The origins of GDP
The contemporary idea of GDP, like many of the other omnipresent things that surround us, was born out of battle. While Simon Kuznets is frequently credited with inventing GDP (after attempting to quantify the US national income in 1932 in order to comprehend the full magnitude of the Great Depression), the present concept of GDP was defined by John Maynard Keynes during WWII.
Keynes, who was working in the UK Treasury at the time, released an essay in 1940, one year into the war with Germany, protesting about the insufficiency of economic statistics in calculating what the British economy might produce with the available resources. He stated that the lack of statistics made estimating Britain’s capacity for mobilization and combat problematic.
According to him, the sum of private consumption, investment, and government spending should be used to calculate national income. He rejected Kuznets’ version, in which the government’s income was represented but not its spending. Keynes observed that if the government’s wartime purchase was not factored into national income calculations, GDP would decline despite actual economic expansion. Even after the war, his approach of measuring GDP, which included government spending in a country’s income and was driven by wartime necessities, quickly gained favor around the world. It is still going on today.
How GDP falls short
However, a metric designed to judge a country’s manufacturing capability in times of conflict has clear limitations in times of peace. For starters, GDP is an aggregate measure of the value of goods and services generated in a certain country over a given time period. There is no consideration for the positive or negative consequences produced during the production and development process.
For example, GDP counts the number of cars we make but ignores the pollutants they emit; it adds the value of sugar-sweetened beverages we sell but ignores the health issues they cause; and it includes the cost of creating new cities but ignores the worth of the crucial forests they replace. “Itmeasures everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile,” said Robert Kennedy in his famous election speech in 1968.
The destruction of the environment is a substantial externality that the GDP measure has failed to reflect. The manufacturing of more things increases an economy’s GDP, regardless of the environmental damage it causes. So, even though Delhi’s winters are becoming packed with smog and Bengaluru’s lakes are more prone to burns, a country like India is regarded to be on the growth path based on GDP. To get a truer reflection of development, modern economies need a better measure of welfare that takes these externalities into account. Expanding the scope of evaluation to include externalities would aid in establishing a policy focus on their mitigation.
GDP also fails to account for the distribution of income across society, which is becoming increasingly important in today’s world as inequality levels rise in both the developed and developing worlds. It is unable to distinguish between an unequal and an egalitarian society if their economic sizes are identical. Policymakers will need to account for these challenges when measuring progress as rising inequality leads to increased societal discontent and division.
Another feature of modern economies that makes GDP obsolete is its disproportionate emphasis on output. From Amazon grocery buying to Uber cab bookings, today’s cultures are increasingly driven by the burgeoning service economy. The concept of GDP is increasingly falling out of favor as the quality of experience overtakes unrelenting production. We live in a society where social media provides vast amounts of free knowledge and entertainment, the value of which cannot be quantified in simple terms. In order to provide a more true picture of the modern economy, our measure of economic growth and development must likewise adjust to these changes.
How we’re redefining development in India
In order to have a more holistic view of development and assure informed policymaking that isn’t solely focused on economic growth, we need additional metrics to supplement GDP. Bhutan’s attempt to assess Gross National Happiness, which takes into account elements including equitable socioeconomic development and excellent governance, and the UNDP’s Human Development Index (HDI), which includes health and knowledge in addition to economic prosperity, are two examples.
India is also started to focus on the ease of living of its population as a step in this approach. Following India’s recent push toward ease of doing business, ease of living is the next step in the country’s growth strategy. The Ease of Living Index was created by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs to assess inhabitants’ quality of life in Indian cities, as well as their economic ability and sustainability. It’s also expected to become a measurement tool that can be used across districts. We feel that this more comprehensive metric will provide more accurate insights into the Indian economy’s current state of development.
The ultimate goal is to create a more just and equitable society that is prosperous and provides citizens with a meaningful quality of life. How we construct our policies will catch up with a shift in what we measure and perceive as a barometer of development. Economic development will just be another tool to drive an economy with well-being at its core in the path that society chooses. In such an economy, GDP percentage points, which are rarely linked to the lives of ordinary folks, will lose their prominence. Instead, the focus would shift to more desirable and genuine wellbeing determinants.
What are the four major flaws in GDP accuracy?
The most important takeaways Non-market transactions are excluded. The failure to account for or depict the extent of income disparity in society. Failure to indicate whether or not the country’s growth pace is sustainable.
What is the problem with GDP?
This is just beginning to change, with new definitions enacted in 2013 adding 3% to the size of the American economy overnight. Official statistics, however, continue to undercount much of the digital economy, since investment in “intangibles” now outnumbers investment in physical capital equipment and structures. Incorporating a comprehensive assessment of the digital economy’s growing importance would have a significant impact on how we think about economic growth.
In fact, there are four major issues with GDP: how to assess innovation, the proliferation of free internet services, the change away from mass manufacturing toward customization and variety, and the rise of specialization and extended production chains, particularly across national borders. There is no simple answer for any of these issues, but being aware of them can help us analyze today’s economic figures.
Innovation
The main tale of enormous rises in wealth is told by a chart depicting GDP per capita through time: relatively slow year-on-year growth gives way to an exponential increase in living standards in the long run “History’s hockey stick.” Market capitalism’s restless dynamism is manifested in the formation and expansion of enterprises that produce innovative products and services, create jobs, and reward both workers and shareholders. ‘The’ “Economic growth is fueled by the “free market innovation machine.”
What makes GDP such a flawed metric?
The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) measures both the economy’s entire income and its total expenditure on goods and services. As a result, GDP per person reveals the typical person’s income and expenditure in the economy. Because most people would prefer to have more money and spend it more, GDP per person appears to be a natural measure of the average person’s economic well-being.
However, some people question the accuracy of GDP as a measure of happiness. Senator Robert F. Kennedy, who ran for president in 1968, delivered a powerful condemnation of such economic policies:
does not allow for our children’s health, the quality of their education, or the enjoyment of their play. It excludes the beauty of our poetry, the solidity of our marriages, the wit of our public discourse, and the honesty of our elected officials. It doesn’t take into account our bravery, wisdom, or patriotism. It can tell us everything about America except why we are glad to be Americans, and it can measure everything but that which makes life meaningful.
The truth is that a high GDP does really assist us in leading happy lives. Our children’s health is not measured by GDP, yet countries with higher GDP can afford better healthcare for their children. The quality of their education is not measured by GDP, but countries with higher GDP may afford better educational institutions. The beauty of our poetry is not measured by GDP, but countries with higher GDP can afford to teach more of their inhabitants to read and love poetry. GDP does not take into consideration our intelligence, honesty, courage, knowledge, or patriotism, yet all of these admirable qualities are simpler to cultivate when people are less anxious about being able to purchase basic requirements. In other words, while GDP does not directly measure what makes life valuable, it does measure our ability to access many of the necessary inputs.
However, GDP is not a perfect indicator of happiness. Some factors that contribute to a happy existence are not included in GDP. The first is leisure. Consider what would happen if everyone in the economy suddenly began working every day of the week instead of relaxing on weekends. GDP would rise as more products and services were created. Despite the increase in GDP, we should not assume that everyone would benefit. The loss of leisure time would be countered by the gain from producing and consuming more goods and services.
Because GDP values commodities and services based on market prices, it ignores the value of practically all activity that occurs outside of markets. GDP, in particular, excludes the value of products and services generated in one’s own country. The value of a delicious meal prepared by a chef and sold at her restaurant is included in GDP. When the chef cooks the same meal for her family, however, the value she adds to the raw ingredients is not included in GDP. Child care supplied in daycare centers is also included in GDP, although child care provided by parents at home is not. Volunteer labor also contributes to people’s well-being, but these contributions are not reflected in GDP.
Another factor that GDP ignores is environmental quality. Consider what would happen if the government repealed all environmental rules. Firms might therefore generate goods and services without regard for the pollution they produce, resulting in an increase in GDP. However, happiness would most likely plummet. The gains from increased productivity would be more than outweighed by degradation in air and water quality.
GDP also has no bearing on income distribution. A society with 100 persons earning $50,000 per year has a GDP of $5 million and, predictably, a GDP per person of $50,000. So does a society in which ten people earn $500,000 and the other 90 live in poverty. Few people would consider those two scenarios to be comparable. The GDP per person informs us what occurs to the average person, yet there is a wide range of personal experiences behind the average.
Finally, we might conclude that GDP is a good measure of economic well-being for the majority of purposes but not all. It’s critical to remember what GDP covers and what it excludes.
What does GDP not account for?
In reality, “GDP counts everything but that which makes life meaningful,” as Senator Robert F. Kennedy memorably stated. Health, education, equality of opportunity, the state of the environment, and many other measures of quality of life are not included in the number. It does not even assess critical features of the economy, such as its long-term viability, or whether it is on the verge of collapsing. What we measure, however, is important because it directs our actions. The military’s emphasis on “body counts,” or the weekly calculation of the number of enemy soldiers killed, gave Americans a hint of this causal link during the Vietnam War. The US military’s reliance on this morbid statistic led them to conduct operations with no other goal than to increase the body count. The focus on corpse numbers, like a drunk seeking for his keys under a lamppost (because that’s where the light is), blinded us to the greater picture: the massacre was enticing more Vietnamese citizens to join the Viet Cong than American forces were killing.
Now, a different corpse count, COVID-19, is proving to be an alarmingly accurate indicator of society performance. There isn’t much of a link between it and GDP. With a GDP of more than $20 trillion in 2019, the United States is the world’s richest country, implying that we have a highly efficient economic engine, a race vehicle that can outperform any other. However, the United States has had almost 600,000 deaths, but Vietnam, with a GDP of $262 billion (and only 4% of the United States’ GDP per capita), has had less than 500 to far. This less fortunate country has easily defeated us in the fight to save lives.
In fact, the American economy resembles a car whose owner saved money by removing the spare tire, which worked fine until he got a flat. And what I call “GDP thinking”the mistaken belief that increasing GDP will improve well-being on its owngot us into this mess. In the near term, an economy that uses its resources more efficiently has a greater GDP in that quarter or year. At a microeconomic level, attempting to maximize that macroeconomic measure translates to each business decreasing costs in order to obtain the maximum possible short-term profits. However, such a myopic emphasis inevitably jeopardizes the economy’s and society’s long-term performance.
The health-care industry in the United States, for example, took pleasure in efficiently using hospital beds: no bed was left empty. As a result, when SARS-CoV-2 arrived in the United States, there were only 2.8 hospital beds per 1,000 people, significantly fewer than in other sophisticated countries, and the system was unable to cope with the rapid influx of patients. In the short run, doing without paid sick leave in meat-packing facilities improved earnings, which raised GDP. Workers, on the other hand, couldn’t afford to stay at home when they were sick, so they went to work and spread the sickness. Similarly, because China could produce protective masks at a lower cost than the US, importing them enhanced economic efficiency and GDP. However, when the epidemic struck and China required considerably more masks than usual, hospital professionals in the United States were unable to meet the demand. To summarize, the constant pursuit of short-term GDP maximization harmed health care, increased financial and physical insecurity, and weakened economic sustainability and resilience, making Americans more exposed to shocks than inhabitants of other countries.
In the 2000s, the shallowness of GDP thinking had already been apparent. Following the success of the United States in raising GDP in previous decades, European economists encouraged their leaders to adopt American-style economic strategies. However, as symptoms of trouble in the US banking system grew in 2007, France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy learned that any leader who was solely focused on increasing GDP at the expense of other indices of quality of life risked losing the public’s trust. He asked me to chair an international commission on measuring economic performance and social progress in January 2008. How can countries improve their metrics, according to a panel of experts? Sarkozy reasoned that determining what made life valuable was a necessary first step toward improving it.
Our first report, provocatively titled Mismeasuring Our Lives: Why GDP Doesn’t Add Up, was published in 2009, just after the global financial crisis highlighted the need to reassess economic orthodoxy’s key premises. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), a think tank that serves 38 advanced countries, decided to follow up with an expert panel after it received such excellent feedback. We confirmed and enlarged our original judgment after six years of dialogue and deliberation: GDP should be dethroned. Instead, each country should choose a “dashboard”a collection of criteria that will guide it toward the future that its citizens desire. The dashboard would include measures for health, sustainability, and any other values that the people of a nation aspired to, as well as inequality, insecurity, and other ills that they intended to reduce, in addition to GDP as a measure of market activity (and no more).
These publications have aided in the formation of a global movement toward improved social and economic indicators. The OECD has adopted the method in its Better Life Initiative, which recommends 11 indicators and gives individuals a way to assess them in relation to other countries to create an index that measures their performance on the issues that matter to them. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), both long-time proponents of GDP thinking, are now paying more attention to the environment, inequality, and the economy’s long-term viability.
This method has even been adopted into the policy-making frameworks of a few countries. In 2019, New Zealand, for example, incorporated “well-being” measures into the country’s budgeting process. “Success is about making New Zealand both a terrific location to make a livelihood and a fantastic place to create a life,” said Grant Robertson, the country’s finance minister. This focus on happiness may have contributed to the country’s victory over COVID-19, which appears to have been contained to around 3,000 cases and 26 deaths in a population of over five million people.
What impact does GDP have on the economy?
GDP is significant because it provides information on the size and performance of an economy. The pace of increase in real GDP is frequently used as a gauge of the economy’s overall health. An increase in real GDP is viewed as a sign that the economy is performing well in general.
What are the economic limitations?
In addition, the discipline of economics has a problem with non-replicability. It’s hard to accurately reproduce market conditions or forecast a conclusion based on how markets have responded in similar situations in the past. In contrast to the hard sciences, where researchers can isolate certain factors and determine direct cause-and-effect linkages, there is no method to totally isolate any variable in economics. Markets are simply too big, too interwoven, and too impacted by human behavior to behave in a completely predictable manner. In fact, there are so many variables at play that identifying all of them is nearly difficult in the first place.
What does GDP reveal about a country’s economy?
The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is not a measure of wealth “wealth” in any way. It is a monetary indicator. It’s a relic of the past “The value of products and services produced in a certain period in the past is measured by the “flow” metric. It says nothing about whether you’ll be able to produce the same quantity next year. You’ll need a balance sheet for that, which is a measure of wealth. Both balance sheets and income statements are used by businesses. Nations, however, do not.
Quiz: Why is GDP not a good indicator of economic well-being?
The use or depletion of our natural resources, such as oil, rainforests, wetlands, fish populations, and so on, has little effect on GDP. There is no indication of how the economy’s GDP is distributed across the various social and economic categories and people.
Why is GDP the best metric?
Because it represents a representation of economic activity and development, GDP is a crucial metric for economists and investors. Economic growth and production have a significant impact on practically everyone in a particular economy. When the economy is thriving, unemployment is normally lower, and salaries tend to rise as businesses recruit more workers to fulfill the economy’s expanding demand.