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

The secret life of Giant Pandas

Giant pandas, Ailuropoda melanoleuca , have usually been regarded as solitary creatures, coming together only to mate; but recent studies have begun to reveal a secret social life for these enigmatic bears.  GPS tracking shows they cross each others path more often than previously thought, and spend time together.  What we don't know is what they are doing when together.  Photo by  Sid Balachandran  on  Unsplash For such large mammals, pandas have relatively small home ranges. Perhaps this is no surprise. Pandas feed almost exclusively on bamboo. The only real threat to pandas has come from humans. No wonder then that the panda is the symbol of the WWF.  Pandas communicate with one another through vocalization and scent marking. They spray urine, claw tree trunks and rub against objects to mark their paths, yet they do not appear to be territorial as individuals.  Pandas are 99% vegetarian, but, oddly, their digestive system is more typical of a carnivore. For the 1% of their diet

Work Capability Assessments cause suffering for the mentally ill

People suffering from mental health problems are often the most vulnerable when seeking help. Mental health can have a major impact on work, housing, relationships and finances. The Work Capability Assessments (WCA) thus present a particular challenge to those suffering mental illness.  The mentally ill also are often the least able to present their case. Staff involved in assessments lack sufficient expertise or training to understand mental health issues and how they affect capability. Because of  concerns that Work Capability Assessments will have a particularly detrimental effect on the mentally ill,  an  e-petition  on the government web site calls on the Department of Work and Pensions to exclude people with complex mental health problems such as paranoid schizophrenia and personality disorders. Problems with the WCA  have been highlighted in general by the fact that up to 78% of 'fit to work' decisions are  being overturned on appeal. It is all to the good that they