This blog is by Alistair
Whitby, Senior Policy Officer at the World Future Council which works with 7 other partners on the BRAINPOol project.
It is something of a truism to note that recent decades have
seen gross domestic product (GDP) morph from an important measure of economic
growth to become the key driver of government decision-making seemingly across
all areas of policy.
Less often noted
are the increasing numbers of people suggesting that we need to look beyond
growth to determine the wellbeing of citizens and the progress of our
societies, a view which has become increasingly mainstream, even at times attracting
support from the likes of Nicholas Sarkozy and David Cameron.
But the
flourishing of these ideas and the emergence of a breathtaking array of ‘Beyond
GDP’ indicators which measure everything from subjective happiness to inequality
and food security has not produced much
evidence of a resulting impact on policy making. In fact, in these
latter years of the financial crisis it often appears that governments are
chasing growth to the exclusion of almost anything else; as an end in itself.
Thus numbers have become the objective to be reached (in the UK this equates to
0.4%=good, 0.8%=even better!) rather than as a means to achieving something
more profound such as higher levels of well-being or a more equal or prosperous
society.
It was this dilemma
that brought together a group forty indicator experts, economists,
statisticians, government officials, trade union representatives and policy
makers in Venice this week. Under the banner of the BRAINPOoL project, which was established by the European
Commission to shed some light on the relationship between alternative
indicators and policy making, participants engaged in two days of workshops,
simulation games and finally a round of commitments.
Early discussions
focused on the key question of what is preventing the adoption of more
integrated policy solutions that are guided by a broader range of indicators,
that would allow us, for example, to target ‘good growth’ as opposed to ‘bad
growth’, and in some instances even sacrifice elements of growth if it comes at
the expense of well-being or long-term sustainability. In essence, attempting to identify the key
obstacles to effectively going ‘Beyond GDP’.
First up, a
sizable challenge. It was noted that there is clearly an entrenched bias in
policy making towards striving for GDP growth which is exacerbated by the
commonly held belief that maximising growth defines economic competence, which in
turn is often a primary factor in winning elections (“it’s the economy
stupid”). Getting politicians and particularly Ministers to shift their gaze away
from the GDP figures is thus an immediate uphill struggle. It is unsurprising,
therefore, to find that the successes that have been achieved through
the use of alternative indicators at the national level tend to be outside the
economic sphere, in the realms of public health, prison reform or farmland
biodiversity.
Other barriers were suggested thick and fast. Making use of
Beyond GDP indicators often involves complex analysis which can limit their use
to specialists. They are often multi-disciplinary with all the resulting (but
necessary) difficulties of working across silos. They reveal long term trends
while the rest of world seems fixated on quarterly results and short term
election and news cycles. It was suggested that alternative indicators lack a
compelling alternative ‘model’ in
the way that the Keynesian growth model links with GDP which can lead to
perceptions of a lack of realism or even distrust of their ulterior motives.
Day two saw participants focus on how to overcome some of
the hurdles that had been identified and delineating the basis of a ‘roadmap’
for the better use of Beyond GDP indicators. Communication was identified as a
key feature. A strong Beyond GDP narrative needs to be developed and
opportunities to communicate it need to be fully embraced. Clarity around
Beyond GDP terminology needs to be improved and concepts like ‘well-being’,
‘welfare’ and ‘sustainable’ need consistency and a common standard. Indicators should
be better linked to the lifestyles and concerns of citizens, and the public should
be allowed to decide on the choice of important indicator domains through
greater civil society consultation. Science should also be fully utilised to
demonstrate the consequences of non-action.
Certain fundamentals also need to be rectified, not least in
the very education of future economists. It was pointed out that current
macro-economic textbooks devote only two pages to a basic summary of the entire
‘Beyond GDP’ field. It was thus cheering to hear the news that undergraduates at Manchester University have this week proposed an overhaul
of orthodox economic teachings to embrace alternative theories.
Other opportunities also abound. The world is in the midst
of a major policy debate about the objectives of public policy resulting from
the Rio+20 conference last year and which targets and indicators should be used
to define the world’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for the period
2015-2030.
Moving the focus
from measurement to action to the actual use of these alternative indicators in
the policy making process is going to take commitment, cooperation and years
of overcoming entrenched resistance. BRAINPOoL’s roadmap is not going to
achieve this on its own.
But the process should also not be insurmountable. Recent
polls show there is clear international public support for using health, social and environmental statistics as well as economic
statistics to measure societal progress and human well-being, and the positive
outcomes for society resulting from such a shift are becoming abundantly clear.
No comments:
Post a Comment