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.
Is GDP a good indicator of progress?
“Development can be viewed as a process of increasing people’s true liberties.” Sen, Amartya
The expansion of a country’s economy is measured by economic growth. Today, policymakers and scholars alike commonly quantify it by rising gross domestic product, or GDP. This metric calculates a country’s value added, which is the total value of all products and services produced minus the value of goods and services required to produce them. The GDP per capita is calculated by dividing this metric by a country’s population to determine how productive and developed an economy is.
A brief history of growth and GDP
Economic growth is derived from classical economics, where an increase in national income signifies an increase in a nation’s wealth the traditional metric of success. During the industrial revolution, when market economies blossomed, the concept of economic growth gained prominence. Simon Kuznets, a Nobel winner, wrote extensively about national statistics in the 1930s and promoted the use of GDP as a measure of the US national income. “The national income total is thus an amalgam of relatively accurate and only rough estimations rather than a unique, extremely precise measurement,” Kuznets stated, taking this measure with a grain of salt (Kuznets, 1934).
Governments were looking for analytical methods to raise taxes to fund the newly minted war machine against the backdrop of a brutal world war. GDP became the standard metric for measuring a country’s economy at the 1944 Bretton Woods conference. The concept of development has always been linked to economic expansion, i.e. the accumulation of wealth and the creation of products and services, from the classical through the neo-classical periods.
Finally, with the close of World War II, in 1945, the concept of emerging countries became a focal point of public policy. In his inauguration address in 1949, US President Harry Truman characterized “underdeveloped countries” as a bigger portion of the world, and stressed that growth should be based on “democratic fair-dealing” (Truman announces Point Four program).
The dominance of GDP as a measure of economic growth today is due in part to the fact that it is easier to quantify the production of goods and services than it is to measure other welfare outcomes with a multi-dimensional index. Because of this, GDP is not an appropriate indicator of a country’s development on its own. Development is a multi-dimensional notion that encompasses not only an economic but also social, environmental, and emotional aspects.
Towards inclusive and sustainable growth
One of GDP’s shortcomings is that it solely considers average income, which does not reflect how most people live or who benefits from economic growth. Thomas Piketty (2014) proposes a two-pronged hypothesis for how a society’s wealth grows more concentrated and why this is harmful to development:
- The first law states that when the rate of return on capital (profits, dividends, interests, and rents) exceeds the rate of economic growth, inequality rises.
- According to the second law, continuous rises in the capital-to-output ratio concentrate income in the hands of capital owners at the expense of employees (return of capital surpasses the return of labour, i.e. wages).
Piketty examines a large number of data sets, although they are all limited to industrialized countries. He contends that these principles explain capitalism’s fundamental market failings. These shortcomings should be addressed by government intervention in the form of:
Growing inequalities, if allowed unchecked, might not only stifle prosperity, but also create instability and disorder in society, jeopardizing the very foundations of free democracy. As the wealthy amass ever more capital and wealth, economic and, as a result, political power becomes increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few wealthy individuals. As a result, policy-making processes are skewed to favor the interests of these wealthy elites.
As a result, a rising GDP cannot be believed to automatically lead to long-term development. On the other hand, Piketty’s so-called “basic rules of capitalism” have been widely criticized due to miscalculations in savings and depreciation rates (Mankiw, 2015; Milanovic, 2016).
The Human Development Index
The Human Development Index (HDI), devised by the United Nations Development Programme, is one enlarged indicator that aims to quantify the multi-dimensional element of development (UNDP). The index was created by Mahbud ul Haq and Amartya Sen, and it is better suited to tracking the progress of both rich and poor countries.
The first HDI report was published in 1990. It takes into account the traditional method of assessing economic growth, as well as education and health, which are important factors in establishing a society’s level of development. This is derived by using the geometric mean of GDP per capita, life expectancy at birth, and the average of mean and predicted schooling years.
The Human Capital Index
The Human Capital Index was established by the World Bank on October 11th, 2018. (HCI). This newly established index rates 157 nations on a set of four health and education variables based on a calculation of the economic output lost as a result of poor social outcomes. The key advantage is that, like the Social Progress Index (SPI) and unlike GDP, it focuses on results rather than inputs. For example, educational quality is more correctly weighted against years of schooling when measured by actual adjusted learning. The main objection leveled about the HCI is that it risks overvaluing the pecuniary benefits of education and health care, so commoditizing people rather than their societal contributions and intrinsic status as basic human rights. Nonetheless, it is expected that the HCI will be used primarily by developing countries to quantify the outcomes of social sector investments, thereby increasing spending on human development (health, education, social security, and so on), which the World Bank claims has been overlooked in favor of infrastructure and institutional development.
The Social Progress Index
The SPI is a superior means of gauging societal growth, in my opinion. The SPI was created by the Social Progress Imperative, a non-profit organization. It’s one of the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress’s or simply Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi, after the commission’s leaders outcomes. The Commission’s major goal was to look at how countries’ wealth and social development may be quantified in ways other than the one-dimensional GDP measure. It is still a relatively new indicator, with data only going back four years, but it covers a large number of countries, totaling more than 130.
The SPI is a modification of the HDI in that it increases the number of composite indicators from four to fifty-four in a wide range of categories, such as basic human requirements, foundations of well-being, and possibilities for advancement. As a result, this index can synthesize the most important aspects that influence development. Access to water and sanitation, educational and health results, public criminality, housing, information access, and communication are only a few examples. Naturally, the SPI’s biggest flaw is its relative complexity and lack of applicability when used to advise policymaking.
Economic growth as freedom
Sen’s (2000) concept of economic growth as a successful way of extending personal and societal freedoms the impact it has on people’s lives lies at the heart of the SPI. Consider the following scenario:
- participation in commerce and manufacturing as well as access to economic opportunities.
As a result, development entails the abolition of restrictions on liberty that limit people’s choices and opportunities to express agency in their own lives.
2. A multi-dimensional approach to development
The SPI has a significant additional value in that it incorporates a variety of subjective indicators that are sometimes overlooked in economic debates. Political rights, freedom of expression, assembly, and religion, corruption, tolerance for minorities and immigration, and discrimination and violence against them are among them.
There isn’t a single factor of the index that degrades a country. Instead, a combination of variables provides more information on a country’s level of development. It is unsurprising that developed countries are at the top of the table; nonetheless, some of the world’s wealthiest countries still trail behind in certain developmental indicators. The United States, France, Italy, Russia, Brazil, and China all received low marks.
3. Development vs. economic growth
There are three key reasons why countries do poorly in comparison to their economic size:
The SPI does not capture the third reason, but it does capture the first two. Poverty and inequality are becoming widely contested in academic literature, not only because of their detrimental effects on human development, but also because they stifle GDP growth.
Economic growth: for whom?
Is the average worker’s situation improving? Economic growth, as measured by GDP, is a useful supplementary indication of development, but it is not sufficient on its own. Modern capitalism’s task is to strike a balance between its function as an efficient and successful method of production and its proclivity to concentrate income, money, and thus power. Indeed, social growth will lead to economic progress, and the SPI is a welcome addition to development measures in this regard.
GDP measurement may be strengthened if it included not only physical capital, but also natural and human capital. Economic development in its pure accounting format (GDP expansion) will always result in less inclusivity and a generalized sense of societal discontent, which is harmful in democratic countries when it is divorced from social progress.
As a result, when used to gauge development, the present measure of economic growth, GDP, has significant drawbacks. The SPI can be considered as a more appropriate indication given the multi-dimensional character of development.
References
L. Burman, J. Rohaly, and R. Shiller (2006). The Rising Tide Tax System: Indexing for Changes in Inequality (at Least Partially). http://www.econ.yale.edu//shiller/behmacro/2006-11/burman-rohaly-shiller.pdf is available.
N. G. Mankiw, N. G. Mankiw, N. G. Mankiw (2015). “Yes, r exceeds g. pp. 43-47 in American Economic Review, Vol. 105, No. 5.
E. Matthew (2008). Masters Dissertation, Singapore Management University, Stock Markets and Income Inequality: A Cross-Country Study.
B. Milanovic (2016). LIS Working Papers No. 663, LIS Cross-National Data Center in Luxembourg, Increasing Capital Income Share and its Effect on Personal Income Inequality.
L. Mishel, L. Mishel, L. Mishel, L. Mishel “Economic Policy Institute, “The Wedges Between Productivity and Median Compensation Growth,” Issue Brief #330.
T. Piketty, T. Piketty, T. Piketty, T (2014). Harvard University Press, Cambridge, USA, has published Capital in the Twenty-First Century, translated by Arthur Goldhammer.
T. Piketty and G. Zucman (2015). In the Long Run, Wealth and Inheritance, Handbook of Income Distribution, Vol. 2. Anthony B. Atkinson and Franois Bourguignon edited the book. Elsevier, Amsterdam, Chap. 15, pp. 13031368.
Why is GDP a good indicator of living standards?
Inflation and price rises are removed from real GDP per capita. Real GDP is a stronger indicator of living standards than nominal GDP. A country with a high level of production will be able to pay greater wages. As a result, its citizens will be able to purchase more of the abundant produce.
Is GDP a reliable indicator?
GDP is a good indicator of an economy’s size, and the GDP growth rate is perhaps the best indicator of economic growth, while GDP per capita has a strong link to the trend in living standards over time.
Is GDP a good indicator of a country’s economic health?
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 is the most accurate indicator of a country’s progress?
The expansion of a country’s economy is measured by economic growth. Today, policymakers and scholars alike commonly quantify it by rising gross domestic product, or GDP.
What impact does GDP have on quality of life?
Families with higher incomes can spend more on the things they value. They can afford groceries and rent without straining their finances, obtain the dental care they require, send their children to college, and perhaps even enjoy a family vacation. In the meanwhile, it implies that governments have more capacity to deliver public services like as education, health care, and other forms of social support. As a result, higher GDP per capita is frequently linked to favorable outcomes in a variety of sectors, including improved health, more education, and even higher life satisfaction.
GDP per capita is also a popular way to gauge prosperity because it’s simple to compare countries and compensate for differences in purchasing power from one to the next. For example, Canada’s purchasing power-adjusted GDP per capita is around USD$48,130, which is 268 percent more than the global average. At the same time, Canada trails well behind many sophisticated economies. Singapore’s GDP per capita is around USD$101,532, while the US’s is around USD$62,795.
Why is GDP a flawed metric?
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.
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.
What is the purpose of GDP?
Gross domestic product (GDP) is the total monetary value, or market value, of finished products and services produced inside a country over a given time period, usually a year or quarter. It’s a measure of domestic production in this sense, and it can be used to assess a country’s economic health.
Nominal GDP vs. Real GDP
Depending on how it’s computed, GDP is usually expressed in two ways: nominal GDP and real GDP.
Nominal GDP analyzes broad changes in an economy’s value over time by accounting for current market prices without taking deflation or inflation into consideration. Real GDP takes into account inflation and the overall growth in price levels, making it a more accurate measure of a country’s economic health.
Because it provides more value and insight, this paper will primarily focus on real GDP.