As we peer into the second quarter of the 21st century, it seems that the staying power of 20th century recipes is considerable. This year is only a few weeks old and already it has provided stark reminders of the challenges facing the world. Climate change has set LA alight. Older people in wealthy countries are dying of cold. Inequality divides communities and inflames politics.
In the face of this, politicians seem to offer tried – and proven inadequate – prescriptions.
In opposition, Sir Keir Starmer said he wanted the UK to have the highest growth in the G7. He reportedly said that if something helps with the mission of growth, then it will get a yes, but will be rejected if it doesn’t. Topping the government’s five missions is growth. Rachel Reeves has declared the government’s focus is “sustainable long-term growth”. And recently the Prime Minister has declared that AI is seen as a chance to “turbocharge growth”.
Beyond trickle down economics
Fortunately, it is not just any growth the Prime Minister wants, but “growth from the grassroots” and from “bottom up and middle out”. At least the conversation seems to have moved on from assumptions that economic wealth at the top trickles down to everyone else.
However, it is growth as measured by Gross Domestic Product, a metric which has no shortage of critics, including within the economics profession and, perhaps more quietly, in the corridors of government.
There is, of course, much in the new government’s programme with potential to make life better for many (for example, plans to enact the socio-economic duty and employment rights). There are measures to ramp up renewable energy, with making the UK a clean energy superpower coming in as mission two.
GDP? SMH
Beyond specific policy ideas (which are being scrutinised, praised and critiqued by others), what is interesting is the way the government is tying itself with such gusto to the GDP growth cart.
Framing growth as a goal for its own sake – with a raft of policies touted as taking the breaks off and increasing GDP growth – the message is clear: growth is good, always and ever, and the country needs more of it. Same old recipes, despite the very different times we live in.
There are three ways of analysing this mindset, each plotted on a gradient of increasing concern.
It seems to be staggeringly unsophisticated.
Even misguided.
And perhaps dangerous.
Let’s take a brief look at each.
Not all growth is equal
Firstly, unsophisticated because it confuses means and ends. It positions growth as the goal, when few people would say more GDP is the essence of life. As seen in the results of deliberative democracy exercises, people tend to point to a job with a sense of purpose, time with family, a healthy environment, health, and so on. These are the ends that governments should be striving to deliver.
Expansion of certain economic activities might support those ends, but that all depends on what is being expanded. For example, does the economic ecosystem comprise more worker cooperatives where the purpose of the business is to serve worker-owners or say, warehouses owned by global financial capital where driving down ‘staff costs’ results in increased work pressures and health and safety being compromised?
You get the point: not all growth is the same.
Money as a silver bullet?
Secondly, misguided because it assumes whatever the problem, growth is the answer. Actually, this is a generous reading given Starmer’s words cited above imply if something is good for growth, it’ll get the go-ahead. The sequence of priorities seems clear. The thinking ostensibly implied by this generous reading is that there is an automatic read-across from an increase in GDP to problems being solved, whether that problem is poverty or falling standards in education or mental health challenges.
Sadly, that is not how things always play out in reality. For example, the UK’s poverty rate has not changed much in recent years, regardless of whether GDP growth was high or low (what has changed is composition, for example, reductions in pensioner poverty). Mental health problems, while they have a range of causes, are linked to inequality, stressful lives, and relationship breakdown. All of which can rise (and have risen) during periods of GDP growth, depending on how growth is distributed and what was sacrificed in the name of growth.
“Move, move, move”
And finally, it is dangerous when scientists are pointing to links between economic expansion and climate change. Yes the UK is one of a handful of economies showing signs of decoupling GDP from carbon emissions, but the pace, extent, and scope is too limited (and risks the rebound effect of resource use actually increasing).
The point is to be neither pro-growth nor anti-growth, but to hold tight to the ultimate goal and ask what is needed to get there.
It might require more of certain things. Yes to growth of community gardens, local businesses, housing cooperatives, parks, work that provides a sense of fulfillment and autonomy, decent public transport, and so on. But these need to be nurtured and rolled out because they deliver what people and the planet need, not because they might happen to increase GDP (let alone attain the fastest growth in the G7).
Calling for “growth, growth, growth” is a bit like receiving an instruction to “move move move”. A bit pointless without stipulating why, in what way, when, and so on. It is a mantra from a previous time, yet ostensibly many politicians seem unable to break away from it.
Image credits: Alice in Wonderland – John Tenniel; Keir Starmer – Ian Forsyth/Getty; warehouse – Oli Scarff/Getty; LA fires – Apu Gomes/Getty
