Rio heads for economics with meaning

 
Dead elephant being towed by digger Plantations produce wealth - GDP goes up - but it doesn't catch the costs of environmental damage

In 1968, with the war in Vietnam at its height and the US psyche in consequent turmoil, senator and presidential hopeful Robert F Kennedy mounted a coruscating attack on one of the sacred cows of economics.

"It counts napalm and the cost of a nuclear warhead, and armoured cars for police who fight riots in our streets," he told an audience at the University of Kansas.

"It counts Whitman's rifle and Speck's knife, and the television programmes which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children.

"Yet... it measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country.

"It measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile."

The target of the senator's ire was Gross National Product (GNP), the dominant indicator of US economic well-being.

Forty-four years later, little has changed. Politicians now generally use Gross Domestic Product (GDP) instead of GNP, but it's a technical difference.

If it goes up even by a fraction of a percent, we're supposed to rejoice - the economy is growing and all is right with our world. If it goes down, faces fall - the economy's shrinking - and the bells of doom start to clang.

Some economists have long questioned whether GDP is measuring anything meaningful. And in recent years, enough governments have listened that the issue is now on the agenda of the Rio+20 meeting.

The text in the draft agreement here - which may or may not be agreed, of course - reads:

Robert F Kennedy Robert Kennedy decried the indiscriminate nature of GDP just before his assassination

"We recognise the limitations of GDP as a measure of well-being and sustainable development.

"As a complement to GDP, we resolve to further develop science-based and rigorous methods of measuring sustainable development, natural wealth and social well-being, including the identification of appropriate indicators for measuring progress... [and] use them effectively in our national decision making systems to better inform policy decisions."

So what's wrong with this simple concept whose rise and fall has come to dominate our news headlines?

"GDP is quite simply a measure of all the money we spend on all the stuff we buy - every financial transaction that takes places in the economy, all that adds to growth," says Andrew Simms, a fellow of the New Economics Foundation (Nef) and author of several books on the subject.

And it is the indiscriminate nature of GDP that gives him, as well as Robert F Kennedy, a problem.

"Say you had a crime wave, and everybody felt insecure and rushed out to buy more locks for their windows and doors; that would look good on the balance sheet, but it wouldn't tell you the story that something bad was happening in society."

IN GDP-world, a society that drives is richer than one that cycles, as more money is spent.

The faster that mobile phones are traded in for new models, the richer we are; chopping down a forest adds to the national economy. The more alcohol, cigarettes and petrol that are sold, the better off we are.

Criticisms of GDP include:

  • it measures "bad stuff" as well as "good stuff"
  • it's a short-term balance sheet that pays no heed to longer-term factors such as a build-up of debt
  • it takes no account of "natural capital" - the goods and services that nature provides for free
  • it takes no account of social factors such as how happy people feel

Defenders of the status quo point out that it was never meant to measure environmental or social well-being.

Rio summit jargon buster
Use the dropdown for easy-to-understand explanations of key terms:
Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS)
Granting countries the right to gain financially from the exploitation of biological resources discovered on their territory. Aims to prevent biopiracy. Agreement made at the UN CBC meeting in Nagoya, Japan in 2010. Rio+20 will see further discussion particularly of resources from international waters.

But by dint of being measured constantly and referred to constantly by politicians, business leaders and newspaper editors, others would argue it has become society's weather vane - just about the only simple number in daily use that can be cited as evidence that things are getting better or worse.

Organisations such as Nef have developed composite indicators that they believe are more comprehensive and more valid.

The European Commission has put together a handy compendium, listing and explaining concepts such as the Genuine Progress Indicator, Environmentally Sustainable National Income and the Happy Planet Index.

The tiny South Asian nation of Bhutan famously uses the Gross National Happiness indicator, which combines issues such as children's health and educational status with measures of environmental protection, cultural values and good governance.

But many other countries are starting down the same road.

Oxford University economist Dieter Helm has just been appointed to lead the UK's Natural Capital Committee.

Its role is to assess the financial worth locked up in trees, clean water, insect pollinators and every other part of the ecological kingdom, and present this set of accounts to the Treasury - which should then be able to make better informed decisions.

It's worth recalling that the UN-backed Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (Teeb) project calculated the value of forest lost globally around the world at $2-5 trillion (£1.3-3.2 trillion) each year.

North Sea oil rig The costs of the UK not investing North Sea oil revenue were not captured in GDP figures

But Prof Helm also hopes to shine a light on other questions.

"If you peel back and ask 'how well have we been looking after our assets in the British economy?' rather than just saying 'has GDP gone up or down a bit?', we'd have to ask some difficult questions.

"Why did we use up all the North Sea oil and gas [revenue] for the benefit of just one generation? Why did we set nothing aside for future generations? Why haven't we been maintaining our roads and railways properly?"

The implication is that an indicator more sophisticated than GDP should catch such things.

Not everyone is convinced by the arguments for going "beyond GDP".

"Everybody knows that the GDP figures are not perfect," says Lord Lawson, Chancellor of the Exchequer under Margaret Thatcher.

"But nevertheless they are extremely useful, and anybody who tried to pretend they were not useful I think would be laughed at."

And he has little time for natural capital accounting.

"It is all a lot of nonsense, because there is no way that you can introduce objectivity into this and it is just used for political campaigning of one kind or another - you just make it add up to whatever you would like it to add up to."

So far, most governments are with Lord Lawson; GDP remains the economic indicator that makes newsreaders sound happy when it rises by half a percent and funereal when it falls. Bhutan is in the minority.

But ministers in Rio will be reminded of the words of Simon Kuznets, the economist who invented GNP 80 years ago: "The welfare of a nation can scarcely be inferred from a measure of national income".

 
Richard Black, Environment correspondent Article written by Richard Black Richard Black Former environment correspondent

Farewell and thanks for reading

This is my last entry for this page - I'm leaving the BBC to work, initially, on ocean conservation issues.

Read full article

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    -2

    Comment number 49.

    #47 Problem is that if you try and suggest any other power source (or even research into it) than the select few that have recieve the "greens" (as opposed to people who are concerned about the environment, a different category with some crossover) you're fighting a well coordinated media machine. Frankly at this point we should be synthesising out own oil and similar substances

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 48.

    #46.LawTalkingGuy
    "false dichotomy claptrap"

    Politicians and journalists are simple beings. They like being able to describe a complex situation with a simple number.
    They also like simple choices between black and white.

    In a world of complex numbers and infinite shades of grey, is it surprising that both are struggling to understand and respond to our impending difficulties

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 47.

    #44 Englishvote:
    "We have abundant resources and practically unlimited energy."

    That's just false. We don't have enough oil left to last my lifetime at current rates, much less power my childrens' cars. Flase premise, false conclusion.

    "The problems are solvable but answers are consistently blocked by “greens”..."
    The problems are caused people like you in denial. What answers have you got?

  • rate this
    +3

    Comment number 46.

    This is typical false dichotomy claptrap:

    ""Everybody knows that the GDP figures are not perfect," says Lord Lawson, Chancellor of the Exchequer under Margaret Thatcher.
    "But nevertheless they are extremely useful, and anybody who tried to pretend they were not useful I think would be laughed at.""

    No one says GDP isn't useful. The message is it's not the ONLY useful thing.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 45.

    #34 Can you give an example of how you could define the value of a small woodland as "natural capital" as opposed to the value of the resources contained therein?

  • rate this
    -1

    Comment number 44.

    People preach about sustainability without understanding the first thing about it.

    We have abundant resources and practically unlimited energy.

    Population levels are damaging the environment but are unfortunately easily sustainable.

    The problems are solvable but answers are consistently blocked by “greens” preaching hysteria.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 43.

    Eyeball economics works quite well.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 42.

    Unfortunately, those with the most power to make a change in world economic focus are also those with the mist invested in ensuring its continuance as is.

    Multi-billionaires and their politician puppets will not volunteer these changes. It would need revolution to overthrow the current system and I, for one, cant see that happening - there are too many inert, semi consious consumers around.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 41.

    Economics makes fools of us all.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 40.

    http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/2011/10/rethinking-economic-growth/
    Current money system needs GDP growth or the economy collapses - it must change. See Keen & the other Jubilee.
    Also, landvaluetax.org - Henry George - Progress & Poverty. Mason Gaffney explains why we are stuck with the NCE http://homepage.ntlworld.com/janusg/coe/!index.htm inter alia it mandates our complex ineffective taxcode

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 39.

    Climate change may be the least of our problems. A population crash due to resource depletion is looking more likely, even before the significant effects of climate change kick in.

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 38.

    #33 firemensaction
    "Its the Environment eh?"

    Here's one source linking more frequent forest fires with climate change.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/07/060710084004.htm

  • rate this
    +3

    Comment number 37.

    There are a lot of issues with GDP as a concept and furthermore how it is measured. For example it relies on trade figures which are often horribly inaccurate even after a period of many years. I have explained in detail its flaws in the article linked too below.

    http://bit.ly/KCC7p7

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 36.

    The only thing, and I mean the only thing, that GDP measures is activity. If I employ a man to dig holes in my garden and then fill them back in, I am increasing GDP, but has any actual wealth been created for society? no. Increasing GDP for the sake of increasing GDP, activity for the sake of activity, until we start talking about value instead of just activity, we will not solve our problems.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 35.

    GDP is the wrong financial measure for any target.

    Average disposable income and wealth minus debt per head are better starting points, along with the standard deviation of those values to tell us how fairly income and wealth are distributed.

    But measuring GDP boosts our position in the league tables and gives us a place at the top table.

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 34.

    @23 - I disagree. I studied environmental economics on a postgrad course back in 1989, and there were methods developed back then enabling one to consider natural capital in terms of conventional financial metrics. These weren't, and aren't, mainstream. Hence my statement about 'conventional economics'. It's not impossible, just not well understood. No more subjective than conventional accounting.

  • rate this
    -3

    Comment number 33.

    Its the Environment eh?
    On TVnews last night flash fires were reported all over theUSA.
    These fires are natural,and happen regularly.Also they regrow naturally and no one comments.
    Now we have yet another group of environmentalists creating yet another democracy-free body to save the planet!
    How many moreE taxes do they think the people can stand?
    Stop trips and forget it. we can`t afford you

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 32.

    9. 7Driver
    6 HOURS AGO
    GDP is responsible for a lot of the problems of over-indebtedness that we now face

    Agreed - by virtue of it being "the measure", it's what politicians try to increase to look successful.

    And in the absence of an alternative, they sadly must if they are to avoid being held to account (with no comeback) by the opposition, for a sound decision which lowers GDP.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 31.

    Measuring average median income per person that would include both wage and investment income would be useful. This would be far more revelant to the average person that GDP, would exclude debt fuelled spending and would not be skewed by the very high incomes of a few people.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 30.

    My understanding is that GDP is supposed to measure the net added value that's PRODUCED.

    So a house that you own outright is producing you accommodation every day; looking after your own children is producing childcare; etc. Likewise cutting down trees is removing health and happiness, and so on.

    A short-sighted "pragmatic" approach of only counting money-backed txns misses the point.

 

Page 1 of 3

 

Features

  • Nigel Farage (left) and Douglas CarswellWho's next?

    The Tory MPs being tipped to follow Carswell to UKIP


  • A painting of the White House on fire by Tom FreemanFinders keepers

    The odd objects looted by the British from Washington in 1814


  • President Barack Obama pauses during a press conference on 28 August.'No strategy'

    Obama's gaffe on Islamic State reveals political truth


  • Chris and Regina Catrambone with their daughter Maria LuisaSOS

    The millionaires who rescue people at sea


  • Plane7 days quiz

    What unusual offence got a Frenchman thrown off a plane?


BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.