Opinion

Edward Hadas

China’s wisdom on GDP growth

By Edward Hadas
July 3, 2013

“We should no longer evaluate the performance of leaders simply by GDP growth. Instead, we should look at welfare improvement, social development and environmental indicators.” That is a fine piece of wisdom from Xi Jinping, China’s president. Leaders of developed economies can learn from it.

Xi was speaking to a domestic audience about the choice of leaders within the ruling Communist Party. The desire for people who are “devoted fighters for the socialism with Chinese characteristics” is distinctly local, but Xi identified a fact which transcends all Chinese characteristics: GDP is a poor measure of economic progress.

Actually, for China, GDP is modestly helpful. In a country still so poor, increases in output correlate well with genuine economic improvements: factories and farms producing more and better goods, enterprises offering more and better services, and so on. Still, Xi is right that China is ready to outgrow this crude indicator. The idea is all the more relevant in richer economies, where GDP growth is a terrible measure of economic progress.

Xi lists only three of the many things that GDP does not capture. He could have added investment, which is counted only indirectly; quality, which is reflected dimly in “hedonic adjustments”; and the economic good, which is totally ignored. But his list is damning enough.

The lack of “environmental indicators” in GDP, which includes only things that are sold, is a greater problem in China than in more developed countries with stronger institutions. American mayors might be just as willing as their Middle Kingdom peers to ignore emission standards to attract a new factory. But the Americans have to worry about emissions limits as well as GDP, while up to now Chinese officials could mostly focus solely on production.

The other two gaps identified by Xi – social development and welfare improvement – are certainly pertinent to China, but they are even more important for developed economies.

Economic inequality is a sure sign of poor social development. GDP, an aggregate measure, misses it. GDP increases by the same 1 million yuan whether the money purchases food for thousands of malnourished peasants or stuffs hunting trophies for a few plutocrats.

Unbalanced growth is a problem in China, but at least the country is growing fast. Since real GDP is increasing by 6 percent to 8 percent annually, the poor are almost certainly getting richer, even if the rich are getting wealthier faster. Beijing may only need to nudge future growth to favour the poor.

In the United States and other developed economies, however, the overall annual GDP growth rate is no higher than 2 percent per person. With so little additional production to share out, it is much more likely that the rich become so much richer that everyone else actually becomes poorer. By most measures, this is exactly what has happened in America. That is unjust and should be politically unacceptable.

Economists who emphasise GDP are ill-equipped to understand this problem. Politicians who hope that faster total GDP growth will solve it are missing the point, too. In mature, developed economies, GDP does not increase fast enough to reduce inequality substantially. A fairer allocation of resources requires hard choices, by politicians and society at large, on wages and taxes.

Employment is a good example of Xi’s economic welfare. In China, higher GDP still basically brings higher employment, because job-creating investment in new production outweighs job-destroying spending on increased automation. Build a new factory, open a new store or supply a new service, and jobs come along naturally.

In developed countries, where most economic desires are already satisfied, the balance is probably tilted the other way – increased productivity destroys more jobs than it creates. Higher GDP still correlates with increases in employment, but the prime causality is from new jobs to more recorded output, not the other way around.

Excessive focus on the single GDP measure leads policymakers in developed economies to see GDP-boosting monetary and fiscal policies as the best way to address high unemployment. The indirect approach is unlikely to succeed. If welfare were the explicit goal, as Xi suggests, they would ignore GDP and work on creating jobs directly.

Xi may struggle to get his way. It is hard to destroy traditions – almost icons – like GDP, even in a one-party state. It will be even harder in rich countries, if only because investors, who mostly love excessively simple ideas, have latched onto the measure. They would not be comfortable if policymakers used a dozen indicators, and a large dose of qualitative judgment, to set and evaluate policies.

However, the fight against GDP is worth the effort. After all, in almost every developed economy, inequality and excessive unemployment are far greater challenges than inadequate production. Under the circumstances, the use of GDP as the prime measure of economic success is scandalous.

Comments
5 comments so far | RSS Comments RSS

You almost had me “suckered”, like most people who read this article, but I knowing you and your viewpoint, there had to be a “catch” somewhere and here it is:

“However, the fight against GDP is worth the effort. After all, in almost every developed economy, inequality and excessive unemployment are far greater challenges than inadequate production. Under the circumstances, the use of GDP as the prime measure of economic success is scandalous.”

Nice try, but how, EXACTLY, would you fight “inequality and excessive unemployment” if you don’t track an “objective” measure of economic well-being.

What you are really saying is that now that the wealthy have nearly all the money — so much so that it is making everyone else poor by default — we should forget about GDP and focus on something else as a measure of succcess.

I have an idea that might be worth investigating instead.

Let’s, for example, think of the US economy as a huge game of “Monopoly”.

Anyone who has ever played the game knows that near the end only one person ends up with all the money and property, after which there is no point to continue playing the game.

The only “reasonable” solution is to start another game — in other words, redistribute ALL the money and property and begin over again.

How’s THAT for an idea?

Posted by EconCassandra | Report as abusive
 

Actually, your point about GDP does illustrate another point which I am sure you did not wish to convey.

You state “Under the circumstances, the use of GDP as the prime measure of economic success is scandalous.”

My interpretation of that sentence is that the use of GDP makes it crystal clear that the excesses of wealthy class in terms of what they term “economic success” IS “scandalous”, and they need to be stopped, preferably before they destroy what little is left of the US economy.

Posted by EconCassandra | Report as abusive
 

The problem is only that governments in western countries are not distributing the wealth properly due to corruption. Western companies have made tremendous profits by outsourcing labour to developing countries like China and India. A $20 tshirt that used to cost $10 to make now only costs 50c. The workers that were misplaced by the cheaper labour now won’t have the $10 income. Meanwhile the companies that benefited from the $19.50 profit, only distribute its gains via stock prices and rich CEO bonuses. This is the reason why stock prices are sky high even as the working class are struggling to make ends meet.

To make things worse, these same companies tend to hide their income in tax havens via shell companies, denying the government tax revenue that would of funded social obligations like medicare and pensions. And politicians don’t care as long they get “campaign contributions” from their favourite lobbyists. With a system like this its not surprising that there’s huge income disparity.

Posted by Arry | Report as abusive
 

A most excellent article.Unfortunately,corporate
power is not in a mood to listen or to compromise.Nothing short of a mass rebellion,the kind that will disrupt corporate operations, is going to bring enough sense to the boardroom to make change possible.

Posted by Biscayne | Report as abusive
 

Sounds like some kind of make-work unionist or commie idea. We do not have capitalism right now and maybe should get more focused on that idea in order to make needed changes. We need to get rid of corporate cronyism and welfare and especially bailouts and economic favoritism via QE programs and other distortions of capitalism.

Posted by keebo | Report as abusive
 

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
  •