The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is a measure of a society’s standard of life.
, but it is only an approximate measure because it does not explicitly account for leisure, environmental quality, health and education levels, activities undertaken outside of the market, changes in wealth disparity, improvements in variety, increases in technology, or the…
Why is GDP such a poor indicator of economic growth?
GDP is the most often used metric of well-being and is a valuable indicator of a country’s economic performance. It does, however, have some significant drawbacks, including: Non-market transactions are excluded. The failure to account for or depict the extent of income disparity in society.
Why is GDP a poor indicator of economic performance?
- It ignores the underground economy: Because GDP is based on official data, it ignores the size of the underground sector, which might be large in some countries.
- In a globally open economy, it is geographically limited: Gross National Product (GNP), which quantifies the production of a nation’s population and businesses regardless of their location, is seen as a better measure of output than GDP in some situations. For example, GDP does not account for earnings made in a country by international enterprises and remitted to foreign investors. This has the potential to exaggerate a country’s actual economic production. In 2012, Ireland’s GDP was $210.3 billion and its GNP was $164.6 billion, with the difference of $45.7 billion (or 21.7 percent of GDP) owing mostly to profit repatriation by foreign corporations based in Ireland.
- It prioritizes economic output above economic well-being: GDP growth alone is insufficient to assess a country’s development or citizens’ well-being. For example, a country’s GDP growth may be high, but this may come at a large cost to society in terms of environmental effect and income imbalance.
Why is GDP not a good indicator of progress?
One alleged issue in GDP calculations is that valuing goods exclusively on the basis of price undervalues certain goods by discounting their contributions to overall productivity and living standards. Medical breakthroughs, for example, are judged entirely on the basis of the treatment’s cost, disregarding the benefits of shorter hospital stays and longer life expectancies. Similarly, as the Council of Economic Advisers reminds out, infrastructural upgrades such as indoor plumbing and electricity provide a public good well beyond their market prices, as these services enable substantial advances in both production capacities and quality of life.
What does GDP fail to capture?
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 are the four flaws in using GDP as a measure of happiness?
Putting it all together in a nutshell The majority of the flaws stem from the fact that the notion isn’t intended to assess happiness in the first place. As a result, GDP fails to take into account non-market activities, wealth distribution, externalities, and the sorts of commodities and services generated within the economy.
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.
Why is GNP not a good indicator of economic prosperity?
If we repeated this process for all of the products on our list, the total would be gross national disproduct. When the sum is compared to the aggregate of production as measured by GNP, it shows how far we’ve come in terms of social wellbeing. In fact, we’d have our wonderful “social” indication of what the country has accomplished if we could find a true “net” between disproduct and product.
The outcomes would almost certainly be disappointing. We’d probably discover that, while gratifying today’s human desires, we were also producing present and future desires to repair the damage caused by current manufacturing.
Conclusion:
GNP can only reflect the amount of money that society exchanges for commodities since it assesses the market value of final goods and services. As a result, many vital activities that have an impact on our standard of living are left out of the GNP calculation. We include benefits received from the government in GNP but not the expenditures of giving them, for example.
Another example is the social benefit of education but not the costs of obtaining it. As a result, one would be inclined to produce a more accurate assessment of economic output by include both negative and positive production contributions. However, the majority of economists disagree with this approach.
Is GDP a reliable indicator of economic well-being?
GDP has always been an indicator of output rather than welfare. It calculates the worth of goods and services generated for final consumption, both private and public, in the present and future, using current prices. (Future consumption is taken into account because GDP includes investment goods output.) It is feasible to calculate the increase of GDP over time or the disparities between countries across distance by converting to constant pricing.
Despite the fact that GDP is not a measure of human welfare, it can be viewed as a component of it. The quantity of products and services available to the typical person obviously adds to overall welfare, while it is by no means the only factor. So, among health, equality, and human rights, a social welfare function might include GDP as one of its components.
GDP is also a measure of human well-being. GDP per capita is highly associated with other characteristics that are crucial for welfare in cross-country statistics. It has a positive relationship with life expectancy and a negative relationship with infant mortality and inequality. Because parents are naturally saddened by the loss of their children, infant mortality could be viewed as a measure of happiness.
Figures 1-3 exhibit household consumption per capita (which closely tracks GDP per capita) against three indices of human welfare for large sampling of nations. They show that countries with higher incomes had longer life expectancies, reduced infant mortality, and lesser inequality. Of course, correlation does not imply causation, however there is compelling evidence that more GDP per capita leads to better health (Fogel 2004).
Figure 1: The link between a country’s per capita household consumption and its infant mortality rate.
Is GDP a reliable indicator of economic expansion?
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.