Skip to main content

Economic growth is good, but is it sustainable?

UK Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is estimated by the Office of National Statistics to have grown by 0.6 % in the second quarter of 2013. Good news for the economy? I hope so; but is it enough and is it the 'right sort of growth'? The problem is that there is no sign that this growth represents any fundamental change in the structure of the economy.

I make this point not to be churlish. If growth leads to recovery then that must be good, but only if it is sustainable. This is not simply a left wing  point. It is also the caveat voiced by the right-wing think tank, The Centre for Policy Studies. As their Ryan Bourne comments:

"Only by raising the productive growth path of the economy with a proper supply-side agenda (to increase expected returns to businesses when planning investments) and re-aligning policies over the coming years towards more of a savings culture will we able to generate the kind of long-term sustainable prosperity which policymakers pay lip service to. The alternative is continuing to live beyond our means – relying on cheap money, government borrowing and an inflated housing market to create the mirage of prosperity before an eventual adjustment."

In other words, the fear is that the recovery will have all the hallmarks of previous growth fuelled by unsustainable debt levels.  There really isn't anything in the government strategy to avoid this. Nor is there anything so far from Labour  that they have answers to this conundrum, how to get sustainable supply side driven growth. 

One problem is political. A strategy for sustainable growth doesn't work with the electoral cycle. It requires a long term structural change  and solid investment. It also requires policies to ensure that such growth is shared through the economy and the regions. Distorted, asymmetric growth will still leave many regions struggling with high levels of unemployment. A long term strategy would seek to build new skill levels in hard-pressed regions to help businesses grow. It is a strategy for at least a decade and not the five year election cycle. Structural change is often painful as there are winners and losers. We would need a strategy to help those badly affected  by such change. Structural changes in  the past have ignored this side of the strategy. This was true in the Thatcher period and the consequences were dire with regional decline. 


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services.

It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared.

Utilitarian ethics considers the balan…

Keir Starmer has a lot to offer

The Labour Party is in the process of making a decision that will decide whether it can recover from the defeat in 2019 General Election.  All the candidates have much to offer and are making their case well.

No doubt for some the decision will be difficult.  Others may well have made up their minds on the simple binary of Left-wing-Right-wing.

The choice should be whoever is best placed to pull the party together.  Someone who can form a front bench of all talents and across the spectrum in the party.

That is what Harold Wilson did in the 1960s.  His government included Roy Jenkins on the right and Barbar Castle on the left; it included Crossman and Crossland, and Tony Benn with Jim Callaghan.  It presented a formidable team.

Keir Starmer brings to the top table a formidable career outside politics, having been a human rights lawyer and then Director of Public Prosecutions.   He is a man of integrity and commitment who believes in a fairer society where opportunities are more widel…

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.  We don't a…