Edward Hadas

In the labour market, there is a fine line between inefficiency and wastefulness. “This place is so inefficient,” it is said, often with justification, especially in rich economies. “We could do everything we’re supposed to with a third fewer people.” Factories can be streamlined, high quality new equipment can save on labour, and offices are prone to the incubation of worthless bureaucracy.

It also said, sometimes by the same people, that “The unemployment situation is terrible. My young friends can’t get jobs and lots of not-so-old people I know are retiring early.” Such statements are also accurate. In many countries, the Lesser Depression has sharply worsened a longstanding problem of inadequate job creation. Spain’s official unemployment rate is 24 percent. Almost half of the young adults in Greece are jobless. And the employed portion of the working age population in the United States has fallen by three percentage points over the last four years.

Politicians and other leaders have watched the job destruction with something like horror. They shouldn’t have been surprised. The unending fight against inefficiency leads to a natural employment asymmetry. As technology advances, businesses and governments usually find it easier to cut than to add jobs. Some businesses can progressively expand headcount, but in tough times there are more employers looking for ways to use less labour.

Most politicians and economists believe that GDP growth is the cure. It is considered not only the highest economic good but also the best way to create jobs. In search of higher output, governments run huge deficits, while central banks pass out money for free. The policymakers often invoke the name of John Maynard Keynes. But they twist the great economist’s ideas. As Pavlina Tcherneva points out in a recent article in the Review of Social Economy, Keynes thought “the real problem” governments should address during the Great Depression was “to provide employment for everyone”. In Keynes’s view, output follows jobs, not the other way around.

Keynes’s own preferred solution was for governments to organise projects with a high “elasticity of employment”. “There are things to be done; there are men to do them,” he said. “Why not put the two together? Why not put the men to work?” The best way for governments to create jobs quickly is still to hire people directly. A look at the dilapidated infrastructure of the United States suggests that Keynes’ prescription is still relevant.

Enthusiasts for small government might want to privatise such programmes, but they should still agree with the true Keynesian principle: it is better to pay people to work than to pay them not to. Programmes which protect the unemployed and disabled serve a valuable social purpose and payments for early retirement may be defensible, but programmes which create jobs are far preferable to either.

This Keynesian message has largely been lost in the current official policy mix, which aims at growth and hopes for jobs. Policies which support the financial system, put money in consumers’ hands and cut bloated government bureaucracies may eventually encourage job creation. Four years into the Lesser Depression, however, these highly indirect methods are at best working slowly.

Employment asymmetry should be attacked more directly. Governments are even better placed to lead the charge than in Keynes’s day because their economic role has expanded so much. An eight-year experiment in Germany shows the power of relatively minor tweaks to the rules on jobs and benefits. Little more than tougher conditions for unemployment benefits and more helpful employment agencies have cut the number of people unemployed for more than a year from 1.7 million, about 4 percent of the potential workforce, to 800,000.

The precise German recipe is not applicable everywhere, but the principle is. The prime goal of government economic policy should be to fight the natural employment asymmetry of industrial economies. Lower taxes on workers’ income would make new jobs cheaper for employers and more lucrative for employees. In many countries, more stringent limitations on benefits would also help. Almost everywhere, the desire to establish and expand enterprises should be encouraged. In the United States, it would be helpful to find a way to give the rich a smaller share of the nation’s income. The money they don’t receive could be paid out to workers in newly created jobs.

The employment problems of the Lesser Depression are not grave enough to require a major reconsideration of the economy’s goals. A combination of short-term programmes and more gradual shifts in regulation and taxation should do the trick. But as the economy becomes more efficient, the surplus of labour is likely to become a more pressing social challenge. Keynes wondered “how to organise material abundance to yield up the fruits of a good life.” The answer is certainly not found in frequent periods of wastefully high unemployment.

What’s the goal of development? A standard answer is higher gross domestic product. A few specialists prefer to talk about building capabilities. I have another idea: development should be about suzhi, a Chinese word usually translated as quality.

China has been worrying about development for a long time. Reformers in the 19th century wrestled with how to overcome the people’s backwardness without losing what was truly great and distinctive about the Middle Kingdom. They saw that development, as it’s now called, involved a major reworking of culture and society. It encompassed the economy, education, law, politics, the military, the arts and medicine.

Today’s international community has adopted a much narrower understanding. Leaders of poor countries and experts in the field pay often think of development as being centred on economic growth. Social and cultural changes are treated as little more than tools to help increase GDP.

A more sophisticated alternative is the “capabilities approach”. Amartya Sen, a philosophically minded economist, argues that the poor countries should develop whatever capabilities are needed for their residents to be free. His idea of freedom is multifaceted: it includes freedom from starvation, premature mortality, illiteracy, political disenfranchisement and censorship.

But the capabilities approach has some flaws. First, it assumes that the final goal of development is an individualistic, secular and democratic welfare state, as found in Europe and the United States.

That’s presumptuous; there could be other ways to be civilised in the modern world. Second, the emphasis on freedom misses the fact that it often takes a bit of coercion to overcome ignorance, superstition and squalor. Finally, it leaves no place to go once all of those capabilities have been reached.

That’s where Suzhi comes in, a word made up from characters meaning ’essential’ and ’nature’. Encompassing wealth, health, education, sophistication and nobility of character, it has become a key concept in Chinese discussions about society.

To have low suzhi is to be backwards – to think and behave like a peasant. The government has tried to raise China’s suzhi by limiting births and promoting breast feeding, healthy exercise and less exam-centred education. Individuals try to raise their own suzhi by doing well at exams, becoming modern consumers and seeking spiritual self-improvement. Having high suzhi is close to what Westerners would describe as “being a good person”.

The concept develops indefinitely as incomes increase and horizons broaden. Suzhi can always rise higher. In this fight against backwardness, prosperity is not the end goal, though it does provide the means to increase suzhi.

Andrew Kipnis of the Australian National University gives the example of Harvard Girl, Liu Yiting: A True Chronicle of Suzhi Cultivation. This Chinese best-seller – 2 million copies sold, according to the publisher – explains how one girl’s suzhi was so thoroughly cultivated that she was accepted as a Harvard undergraduate. Her suzhi-building exercises included memorising classic poems at age three, holding ice cubes for 15 minutes at a time and learning the right moral attitude.

Not everyone in China is keen on the quest for suzhi. Kipnis also mentions a book called I am Average but I am Happy. The government attempts to moderate the fanaticism of suzhi-seeking Chinese parents.

Meanwhile, some see the focus on suzhi as a Chinese trick for excusing authoritarianism. Popular blogger Han Han stirred up controversy with his argument that China’s suzhi is not yet high enough to support a successful and stable democracy.

Other observers complain that the emphasis on suzhi is shallow and materialist. It can be socially divisive if some people are thought to have higher suzhi by nature, or if the rich seem to have more opportunities to cultivate it.

But these aren’t really arguments against suzhi itself, more criticisms of how we measure it, or strive for it. And they don’t change the sense that suzhi is what China’s leaders and people want from development. It’s hard to think of another guiding principle that takes in material and social ambition, governmental guidance and individualistic spirit, confidence in self-improvement and a complex relationship with traditional values.

While suzhi has been specifically Chinese up to now, the basic idea – becoming a better person – is universally applicable. Each poor country should find its own suzhi. And even rich countries could do with a debate about values and aspirations. An Asian word seems appropriate for this global concept, as that region is likely to be centre of development for generations to come.

Economists might not be happy if suzhi were to became the centre of study. Their simple measure, GDP, would receive less attention. Besides, economists like to measure things, and suzhi is not a quantity but a changing collection of qualities. But then, development is far too important to be left to economists.

An American, a Frenchman and a physicist were talking about some unusual weather. “It was twice as hot this afternoon as this morning”, said the American, “the temperature went up from 40 to 80 degrees.” The Frenchman interjected: “That’s in Fahrenheit. In Celsius, it was six times hotter.” The physicist was scornful. “On the only really scientific measure, the Kelvin scale, the increase was a piffling 5 percent.”

Who’s right? Well, all the measures are accurate and it certainly was hotter. But no single ratio – whether twice, six times or 5 percent – captures just how much hotter it actually felt. The feeling of hotness, like the feelings of pain or anger, cannot be measured with genuine precision.

It is the same for the feeling of prosperity – any measure will be arbitrary and quite possibly misleading. Consider gross domestic product, the most common index of economic success. GDP is the sum of spending on everything in the economy, from shoes to shoe-shines, from cars to child care. In comparing countries with each other or over time, GDP is usually adjusted for inflation to calculate what is ambitiously called “real GDP”. It is then often divided by the population, creating “real GDP per person”. This is usually measured in “constant dollars” and, for 2011 in the United States, becomes $43,149 of 2005 dollars.

Economists recognise that GDP is far from perfect. In 2009, a French government commission suggested that it should be augmented by measures of the distribution of wealth, environmental sustainability and “quality of life”. The Human Development Index, which is widely used by the United Nations, combines GDP with life expectancy and years of schooling.

These modifications are welcome, but they fail to correct GDP’s main weakness – that is what might be called the fallacy of precision. The human meaning of prosperity simply cannot be reduced to numbers. Supposedly exact measures generally confuse more than they illuminate.

My rejection of quantification is anathema to most economists, who fancy themselves to be hard scientists. It also goes against utilitarianism, economists’ favourite philosophy, which claims all decisions can be reduced to numerical comparisons.

But consider an example: real GDP per person in the United States is up 103 percent since 1971. That sounds basically right: overall, Americans are substantially richer than they were four decades ago. The improvements include a 12 percent increase in life expectancy at birth, the shift from clunky black-and-white to sleek colour television and the introduction of the Internet into more than 70 percent of households. The gains far outweigh the losses, such as a 26 percent fall in the number of highway miles per resident.

The exact number, though, is a fiction. There is no way to assign a weight to each of the gains and losses, and no reason to assume that GDP, which measures the inflation-adjusted price of the various goods and services, is a particularly meaningful summation.

Happiness economists try to dodge the problem by looking for a measurable and meaningful number in people’s feelings. They claim subjective satisfaction can be counted up, simply by asking people to rate their happiness on a scale of, say, 1 to 5. The approach has many problems, one of which is that it doesn’t make any sense to say happiness has increased by, say, 12 percent.

Emotions just don’t work that way. George may love his current girlfriend more than his ex, but it’s only a figure of speech to say he loves her twice as much. Similarly, it makes no sense to say we are twice as happy as our parents or 12 percent happier than we were a half a decade ago.

GDP and similar measures can be quite helpful rough indicators, especially for poor countries. For example, the Chinese government aims at 8 percent annual real GDP increase – that rate creates jobs without putting excessive strain on society. But the authorities in Beijing should be careful, for the precision is spurious. Sometime soon, the right GDP growth number will be lower. And when China gets rich enough, no measure of wealth will provide much insight.

Look at the International Monetary Fund’s calculation that GDP per person was 27 percent lower in France than in the United States in 2011. The exactitude is ridiculous and the basic conclusion, that Americans are substantially richer than French people, is silly. The countries are both rich and modern, just in somewhat different, incommensurate ways. France has cheaper medical care, longer holidays and better mass transit and bakeries. The United States has bigger houses and more cars per person.

Numbers are seductive, so economists, politicians and pundits tend to fret over every tenth of a percentage point of GDP. But it is easy to exaggerate the importance of incremental changes in measures of this sort. It would be better to stop striving for precision. Or at least to cut back by 92.4 percent.

Another recession could be about to arrive, or even be here already. Some people fear it will be as bad as the last one, which reduced output in the U.S., euro zone and Japan by 5.1, 5.5 and 8.9 percent respectively. Those GDP declines are often described in cataclysmic terms: staggering, disastrous or traumatic. Such words are vast – and dangerous – exaggerations.

Even at the trough of the last recession in 2009, real GDP in most rich countries was as high as it had been five or six years earlier – when economic conditions were not considered particularly bad. And that comparison is too harsh on the 2009 consumer experience, which included iPhones and the Airbus A380 super jumbo jets, both better than the comparably valued goods available in 2003.

Americans and Europeans have little enough reason to moan about their recessions; citizens of the world have much less. For mankind as a whole, the small travails of the wealthy are much less important than the entry of the truly poor into the modern economy. Industrial production in emerging economies, a good measure of that development, has increased at a heartening 6 percent annual rate over the last decade, according to the most recent data from Dutch consultants CPB. The recession reversed two years’ progress, but only briefly.

Of course, production is only one part of the economy. The recession has been harder on other parts. It led to both increased unemployment and a decline in the relative position of the poor, especially in the U.S. Neither of those bad trends has been fully reversed. But the former was caused mostly by the end of an unsustainable excess of construction activity while the latter only amplified a decades’ old pattern.

The last decline is often compared to the Great Depression, but was nothing like the economic pains experienced during the two decades after the First World War. Then a series of crises, including a 25 percent reduction in U.S. GDP, helped lead the world into the most destructive war in history. The desire not to repeat the inter-War experience spurred on the potent official response to the 2008 financial crisis.

That response basically worked, but the scary headlines and wild assertions continue, as if fascist governments were once again coming into power and hungry mobs were breaking into food stores. In fact, the few rioters have had less noble objectives: the defense of unaffordable pensions in Greece and the acquisition of branded consumer goods in the UK.

What causes the wide gap between perception and reality? I have two suggestions.

First, too many people look at the economic world largely through financial glasses. The recession made only a slight dent in industrial prosperity but the financial crisis which preceded it really was cataclysmic. Several major institutions almost failed, central banks lent and governments borrowed as never before, and the cult of free financial markets was discredited. And unlike the economy, the financial system has not really recovered. If anything, the crisis has broadened – from banks to governments.

Still, financial insecurity cannot really explain the prevalence of tragic rhetoric. The fear and trembling reflects a more profound error – a mistaken understanding of the economic good. Many people judge economic success only by the pace of expansion. For them, it is not enough to have adequate or even abundant quantities of necessities, comforts and luxuries. They say that an economy is only good if it consistently provides more of all these things, and that the faster the pace of increase, the better the economy.

That approach to life has bad consequences, even ignoring the limited satisfaction provided by material things. For individuals, it is a recipe for discontent. Those who always covet more wealth will inevitably spend much of their life feeling that they do not have enough, with or without recessions. The irrational craving for GDP growth also distorts economic policy. It makes small, temporary and otherwise trivial setbacks in consumption – a few less days of holiday or a few more months with the old car – look like, yes, staggering disasters.

It is right for policymakers to respond strongly to genuine or possible disasters. But when economic times are good, financial conditions should be something like normal. That is not happening right now. Despite three years of stability in rich countries and strong growth in poor ones, monetary and fiscal conditions remain extreme and policymakers, worried about another recession, are reluctant to make big changes.

The combination of financial extremism and fear of any decline in GDP could lead to a truly painful decline in output, if the already weakened global financial system becomes totally dysfunctional. The irony would be painful. The foolish desire for constant and fast economic growth would have made those scary headlines – otherwise completely unmerited – come true.