Skip to main content

Busting the myth that economic growth is always good

The International  Monitory Fund (IMF) have adjusted estimates for economic growth. Whilst growth worldwide is projected to fall, the IMF now predict UK growth to rise faster than its previous forecast.

The IMF says it expects the world’s economy to grow by 2.9 percent this year—below the 3.2 percent recorded last year. Growth is likely to be driven by advanced economies, while the performance of emerging markets will be weaker than expected.

Osborne has seized on these new projections as further evidence that the UK is on the right track, and as a justification of the governments austerity programme. But is 'growth' the best measure of social and economic well being? Isn't it time we learnt the lesson that the answer to that question is that it is not?

Economic growth is 'good' because it leads to increased jobs and wealth. But distorted growth can lead to greater economic inequality and increased social injustice.

There is an argument that if the wealthiest get richer then the poor benefit from some kind of trickle down effect. It was an argument deployed in Thatcher's time. Look after the rich and somehow the poor will benefit. It doesn't work. The poor simply get relatively poorer.

In a sense this is obvious. Consider housing. There is more to be had from building houses for the richer middle classes than providing decent housing at low cost for the poor. As the middle get richer, house prices rise and push homes out of reach of the poorest. This is why we need more social housing.

I should make it clear that I am not advocating an equality of poverty; that we should all be equally poor. But the wealth of the few based on the poverty of the many should not be justified. The headline figure for economic growth will be good for the coalition in the UK, but their austerity programme has been divisive and ethically questionable. The poorest and most vulnerable have been made to pay the most for the sins of the banking crisis.

Lessons not learned

There is little in the economic statistics to suggest the lessons of the banking crisis have been learned and acted on by the government. We seem once again to be on course for a boom and bust approach. Little has been done to readjust the economy. As before, growth will be predicated on increased demand fostered by increased personal debt.

Social Justice as an economic goal

We need a strategy for growth that puts social justice  as its prime objective. This is signally lacking in a government approach that seeks to drive the poorest from their homes with a 'bedroom tax'.  The austerity approach has been indiscriminate and hits the poorest and most vulnerable.

Growth in employment has been achieved largely with more people working part time for wages that are often below the minimum. This is what drives 'welfare dependency', not a feckless work shy culture as the government would have us believe.

Growth must also be sustainable environmentally.  The government's message on the environment is mixed at best with the apparent abandonment of 'green' targets for energy. And this leads me to the greatest warning about 'growth'.

Good growth has to be sustainable and environmentally sound. Yet forecasts suggest a looming energy crisis with the energy supply regulator Ofgem predicting energy shortages by the middle of the decade. This is not the stuff of sustainable growth.



As energy prices are set to rise, the government will have difficulty persuading consumers of the benefits of forecasts for growth.

Figures issued by Ofgem (see diagram) show the increasing gap between wholesale energy prices and the price to the consumer.  The energy companies are ripping off their customers. Since 2010 fuel bills have risen disproportionately to the wholesale costs. So much for the benefits of growth for hard pressed families!


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 ba

Prioritising people in nursing care.

There has been in recent years concern that care in the NHS has not been sufficiently 'patient centred', or responsive to the needs of the patient on a case basis. It has been felt in care that it as been the patient who has had to adapt to the regime of care, rather than the other way around. Putting patients at the centre of care means being responsive to their needs and supporting them through the process of health care delivery.  Patients should not become identikit sausages in a production line. The nurses body, the Nursing and Midwifery Council has responded to this challenge with a revised code of practice reflection get changes in health and social care since the previous code was published in 2008. The Code describes the professional standards of practice and behaviour for nurses and midwives. Four themes describe what nurses and midwives are expected to do: prioritise people practise effectively preserve safety, and promote professionalism and trust. The

When Finance Drives Destruction

Tackling climate change means stopping the funding of rainforest destruction, says a significant study commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund.  The UK's financial services have provided directly over £8.7 billion to 167 different traders, processors, and buyers of forest-risk commodities (cocoa, rubber, timber, soy, beef, palm oil, pulp & paper) from 2013 to 2021.   With direct and indirect investment,  the figure rises to a staggering £200 bn.  Whilst not all that investment is in destructive projects,  the study concludes there is little transparency on the risk.  Finance is the oil in the economic machine.  But it also drives decisions. We all know the importance of money. We borrow to invest. So much depends on it, such as company pensions.  Do we really know what our pension pots are doing? We invest for the future. But what kind of future? Is all investment good?  Much investment is bad. Investment drives the nature of our economy. It drives our decisions as individuals,