Can we live the good life without economic growth?

December 8, 2014

RTX16SHX.jpg

Is the good life possible without economic growth?

Merely raising the question challenges the conventional contemporary wisdom that a society’s prime goal should be to boost its income continually. But it is one that the West, especially Western Europe, may have to confront. Europe is not just suffering the after-effects of a nasty cyclical downturn, it has probably entered an era of low growth.

The trend rate of GDP growth is likely to be lower than it was in the past. Part of the slowdown is due to the rapid ageing of the European population. Part may be due to increasing competition from developing countries: their growing prowess puts pressure on many Western businesses and workers. Part may also be down to environmental constraints: measures to slow down global warming, for example, are pushing up the cost of energy.

In countries where populations are ageing especially rapidly and entrepreneurialism is subdued – Italy is the prime example – the trend annual growth rate may now be practically zero. Even Britain, which is ageing less rapidly and enjoys a vibrant entrepreneurial culture, is probably looking at less than 2 percent.

It is easy to see how a low-growth economy could become a dystopia: high youth unemployment could lead to wasted generations; unsustainable government debt burdens could force further cuts in public services; sections of society could be trapped in poverty; politics could become increasingly embittered.

Is there a way of living with slower growth? The beginning of an answer is to recognise that the economy should serve society, rather than the other way around. What this means is that the economy’s social task is to provide the conditions in which people can lead good lives.

That raises the question: what is a good life? Here, it may be useful to go back to Aristotle, who thought a good life involved acting well in accordance with our nature. The Greek philosopher also thought that we have two natures – animal and human. One way of rephrasing Aristotle’s doctrine is to think of the good life as having two components: the life of the body, which we share with animals, and the life of the mind, which is distinctly human.

So a good life certainly requires a certain amount of physical stuff: most obviously food and shelter, but many other material things too, in particular health. Modern societies are paying increasing attention to doctors and fitness regimes. But we only have to look around and witness phenomena such as the obesity epidemic to realise that all is not well as far with the life of the body.

The life of the mind encompasses a broad array of human preoccupations: values, creativity, the appreciation of beauty, intellectual curiosity and the struggle to make sense of our lives. Consuming more stuff doesn’t necessarily help us do any of this. Indeed, studies by economists such as Richard Layard suggest that, beyond a certain point, additional income does nothing to promote happiness.

Economic growth in the West has been accompanied by growing loneliness and depression. This suggests that a materialistic-only philosophy is not in accord with human nature. In the relentless pursuit of growth, other precious things can get damaged. This includes our social environment – our communities and networks of friendship and family – as well as our physical environment.

One could imagine that the West’s rich societies ought to be able to create the conditions for a good life without much more growth. They would focus more on quality than quantity. They would still value economic dynamism, but not identify success primarily with making money. And they would take care of the social fabric.

But even with less growth-dependent values, there would still be vexed questions, such as how to deal with unemployment and public debt without GDP growth. One place to look for answers might be the Green movement, which has been advocating zero or negative growth for decades. But a recent volume of essays by Green House, the UK think-tank, does not provide compelling solutions.

For example, Green House advocates “sharing” work as a way of solving unemployment. The idea is that people who are overworked should cut their hours, making room for the unemployed to get jobs.

If only it were that simple. For a start, people working long hours may not want to work less. Even if they were forced to (and such compulsion would prima facie be contrary to the good life), that might not lead to more jobs for unemployed workers, many of whom lack the necessary skills. Rather than sharing work, the emphasis ought to be on training and education.

Meanwhile, the Green House solution to high public debt is to carry out an audit to determine whether it was incurred with the consent of the people and for their benefit. Debt that didn’t satisfy these criteria would be deemed “odious” and repudiated. Such proposals are echoed by left-wing populist parties such as Spain’s Podemos and Greece’s Syriza.

When a tyrant, such as Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, runs up debts, it is reasonable for his successors to repudiate them. But Western democracies are not remotely in this situation. Unilateral debt write-offs would cause economic mayhem and more unemployment. They are not the solution.

But even if the Green movement does not have the answers, one thing is clear: it won’t be possible to find them without a change of mindset that values the good life over economic growth for the sake of itself.

PHOTO: People shop ahead of Christmas at Gallerian mall in Stockholm, Dec. 23, 2013. REUTERS/Henrik Montgomery/TT News Agency

6 comments

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/

Perhaps there is a magical way for a population three times greater than that when I was born in 1945 to have healthy, mobile, educated lives with a reduction in energy throughput. Religions promise peace and truth, but all want larger flocks. Businesses seek growing markets and an oversupply of labor to control wages. Governments are in massive and growing debt from spending more than they ‘earn’ from taxes. These three main global institutions are addicted to growth. A reversal of population growth would crash the system. It will happen….someday.

Posted by S.B.K. | Report as abusive

The correlation between economic growth and employment is decreasing rapidly, and the correlation between economic growth and happiness drops off sharply once basic needs have been satisfied. Western economies are producing all the goods and services their population really needs with fewer and fewer employees. However, the “Green House” seems not to understand some basics. Job sharing might have worked fine for the overpaid factory jobs that are rapidly disappearing and may still work for low end service jobs, but the best jobs are increasingly knowledge based and require a full time (or more) effort to master and keep up with the subject matter. This certainly poses problems that economic growth will neither solve nor worsen.

Posted by QuietThinker | Report as abusive

Why don’t you go ask the 40 – 50 percent unemployed Europeans under the age of 30 if they don’t correlate economic growth with an opportunity to build a future. Without economic growth, all societies face stagnation and for those that have created a fiction of entitlements from cradle to grave, there is no one left to pay the bills as societies grow older and the next generation remains unemployed or emigrates ( as so many Spaniards, Italians, Greeks and even French have done)…..

Posted by WonderfulWorld | Report as abusive

The economies of Europe, China, Japan, Russia, Brazil are in deep trouble, probably irretrievably so. India is rated at Baa3 but with a “stable” outlook that I think is optimistic to the point of being silly.

The dice have been tossed and now there isn’t much to do or say from an economic perspective that will really matter until things begin to crumble again… so I, for one, welcome these occasional incursions into philosophy.

It is incumbent upon people in general and the intellgentsia in particular to pay close attention to what happens next, to evaluate whether the functions performed by the world’s current financial and political systems provides any real net value to the whole of society.

It is time now to thoughtfully consider the harm done by extreme concentrations of wealth and power. I am not opposed to the concept of profit, but the conduct of affairs that effect the entire world should be subject to some basic norms of legality and ethics.

We failed to do the right thing in response to the Collapse of 2008. Much of that red ink-tainted poison has been transformed and/or displaced into the future, but time goes on and those systems still behave wretchedly.

Adequate liquidity only exists at the pyramid’s pinnacle and precious little flows down from there. This concentration of liquidity precipitates more and more red ink which drowns genuinely healthy economic growth.

I expect that we will soon have another learning opportunity in the form widespread collapses. I hope we have the courage, this time, to do the right thing.

This time we should take legal action where appropriate and dole out lengthy prison sentences to those who broke laws or encouraged others to break laws in pursuit of wealth. Investors who weighed risk/benefit and chose poorly should be forced to take their losses no matter who they are. That would be in accordance with the true nature of free enterprise.

Financeers and politicians should not be afforded scoldings or fines when their conduct clearly demonstrates that they are little more than well-dressed, well-connected miscreants.

Financial thuggery and economic collapses disproportionately harm ordinary people. Ordinary people spend decades trying to recover from that kind of harm. In many cases, they die without ever recovering from their losses.

It makes a pipe dream of striving to achieve a good life.

Posted by breezinthru | Report as abusive

No good thing can grow forever. If your dog grew forever, your yard would be 8 feet deep in dog feces.

Best to find a good size and stick with that.

Posted by AlkalineState | Report as abusive

This may be the root cause that no one seems to want to talk about: never ending growth of both the population and automation translates into never ending unemployment growth.

Posted by euro-yank | Report as abusive