This blog, by Donato Speroni , looks at how two important conferences sum up
ten years of work in this area.
“We have to find a new narrative that goes beyond the Beyond GDP research”
This sentence by Enrico Giovannini, in his
key note speech at the “Moving beyond GDP in European
economic governance” expert conference in Brussels on 10 October,
summarises the state of the art. We have the well-being indicators, developed
at national and international level in the last ten years; we are in the midst
of a “statistical revolution” that will give us new instruments to measure
progress and compare it between nations; but all this formidable data sets will
be of limited use if it is not transferred into new political goals. Yes, but
which goals?
In theory,
we know what we want: that the economy continues to grow, but that growth
should be inclusive (leaving no one behind) and sustainable (without
compromising the ability of future generations to have a better future). But is
this really possible?
Two visions
clashed in the Brussels conference, captured in the strategic moment of the
passing of the baton between the old and the new European Commission. The first
view, more optimistic, believes in the effective possibility of promoting a
sustainable and inclusive growth to ensure the well-being of citizens.
The second,
more drastic view, thinks that in Europe the time for growth is over and
supports a more rapid and dramatic change in lifestyle and investments. Through
this discussion, the search for new statistical parameters has stimulated
political debate on the vital issue of the European contribution to a better
world.
It is clear that "to pursue a sustainable and inclusive growth"
or "to change the development model" involve alternative policy
priorities, different numerical targets and indicators. For example, if the
goal of sustainable growth can be achieved with a gradual change (along with
many other interventions) from fossil fuels to renewables, the alternative
strategy requires a faster innovation in the pattern of development and results
in accelerated efforts to change both the energy mix and the level of energy
consumption. Very briefly, on the one hand we have a gradual reformism, on the
other hand a revolution; it is clear that these processes cannot be measured
with the same parameters, because it is not just a problem of quantity
indicators, but also of different goals.
"Growth is structurally disappearing from the European Union?"
Even if we do not endorse Serge Latouche’s “Happy degrowth” theory, we
need to know which results are realistically achievable
in the situation we will have to face in the next few years.
Tony Long of WWF presented
at the Brussels conference an elaboration on the average growth in
France over the past decades, which shows increasingly poor results.
In his view, the new European Commission
should initiate long-term macro-economic analysis, to answer the
question: "Growth is structurally
disappearing from the European Union?"
The relationship between employment and technology
is another important question to
which we are unable to respond.
Co-President of the Club of Rome Anders Wijkman pointed
out that up to ten years ago
productivity and employment grew in parallel, but now the
productivity improvements have no longer
a positive impact on jobs.
For many people, however, "growth is like a
religion," said the Belgian
Philippe Lamberts (Member of
European Parliament, Green). "Many people
are not willing to accept the
facts (for instance about climate
change) because they live in
their own world". On the other hand, as pointed out the same
Wijkman, even those who are convinced
of the need for change are not in a position to express a narrative
of transition: there
is no comprehensive proposal on
how to move from the existing
mechanisms into a system actually more sustainable and inclusive: we have a collection of good intentions but few effective decisions and measurable effects.
The uncertain outcome of this process derives also from the fact
that the European economic crisis puts us in uncharted territory, as it become
evident in another conference - the Strategic
Forum 2014 on Intragenerational and Intergenerational Sustainability, organised by the International
Economic Association (IEA) and the International
Statistical Institute (ISI), together with the “High-Level Expert Group on the
Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress” (that is, the working group hosted by the OECD and commonly called "Stiglitz
2"), supported
by the Bank of Italy, the Einaudi Institute for Economics and Finance
(EIEF) and SAS, that was held in Rome on September
23 and 24.
Many of the documents, downloadable from the Forum
programme, can help us to understand what is happening in Europe. In a series
of very interesting slides, Martine Durand from OECD showed the long-term costs of the recession:
even in countries that, on the basis of 2013 data, seemed to have passed the
crisis, the conditions of households and the level of investment have not
returned to pre-crisis levels. Not to mention the social effects of the lack of
confidence in governments and the decrease in the level of satisfaction with
life, especially noticeable in the country’s most in need such as Greece and
Italy.
From the meeting emerged a stronger concern for
sustainability. The social one first, which reflects a situation perhaps even
more dangerous than environmental sustainability, for there are many signs that
we are heading towards an explosive world (the "perfect storm"). Not
only because of the conflicts that already afflict countries in Europe or those
geographically close to us, but for the internal contradictions in our economic
system: the lack of an adequate safeguard for human capital; the growth of
unemployment induced by new technologies that cannot be underestimated and that
shrinks the middle class; the frightening increase in inequality in our
systems: all issues that go beyond the everlasting controversy about the limits
of the public budgets.
It is not even enough to advocate greater
investments in schools, because we must first understand what types of schools
can prepare young people to find a satisfactory role in this new world, as
pointed out by the governor of the Bank of Italy, Ignazio Visco with a short
but effective intervention.
In conclusion, I think that the work done by
statisticians and economists in these ten years gave us the tools to build a
better world, with more inclusive and sustainable well-being for all. But now
we need a vision: we have to decide which world we want, to realistically
consider the limits of growth, and how we can build it.
Donato Speroni
@dospe
"there is no comprehensive proposal on how to move from the existing mechanisms into a system actually more sustainable and inclusive"
ReplyDeleteThis is the core issue. If we'd tackled this in 1972 with CoR and Stockholm then by 1973 we'd perhaps be setting up the comprehensive new mechanisms. Growth would never have become a decoy since the new system would provide for GDP growth, in contrast to the old mechanisms undermining potential for growth.
However his never happened. It was easier to talk about growth, targets and new indicators than to look for new mechanisms. It remains so today, except the decoy issue of growth became a blocking filter for proposals on mechanisms. Any proposed mechanism that enables growth gets ignored (including mine!) http://blindspot.org.uk/seven-policy-switches/