Reconsidering growth: is it really all we need?
A week ago, Metro Vancouver assembled a group of economic commentators for its “Future of the Region” series. The analysts were to “explore the challenges and opportunities for regional sustainability during this period of economic turmoil.”
It was interesting – but not in the way I’d hoped. The commentators – Bernie Magnan of the Vancouver Board of Trade, Marc Lee, of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, Jock Finlayson of the BC Business Council, and Michael Levy, of CKNW – ably analyzed our situation during this recession. According to their politics, they touched on the credit crunch, affordable housing, our dependency on the US, global warming.
And they all talked about confidence, that intangible spirit that blows life into the economy, and when, or whether, it will rebound.
But there was an elephant in the room, sitting unaddressed – until the questions started.
“The myth of economic growth has failed spectacularly,” said a member of the audience, referring to a report called Prosperity Without Growth?, released by the UK’s Sustainable Development Commission last month. “Not only in social and environmental terms, but even on its own terms, in delivering security and stability.
“So waiting for growth before we get around to addressing our problems is delusional.”
That’s the elephant, suddenly crashing the boundaries of what was until then a pretty inside-the-box conversation. Step back and give it some wide-angle consideration: given our finite planet, given the disparity (and destabilizing potential) of global wealth distribution, given our interdependence and our children’s basic future needs – what are we really trying to accomplish in the world of business, economic policy, and trade? For a few generations, we’ve defined it as growth – because it is argued that growth is how you deliver more goods to more people, and therefore more quality of life. Growth is shorthand for “good.”
There are a few problems with this. First, growth is measured by GDP, a flawed measure because it captures activity, but not the nature or ramifications of that activity. The Exxon Valdez – a catastrophic oil spill – improved GDP with all its cleanup expenditures. Increasing cancer rates drive up GDP, because of the treatment services and products required. These are not “good.” Meanwhile, GDP does nothing to assess its own future prospects. The very last tree harvested on the planet will show as positive GDP – never mind that forestry would be dead the next day.
Second, growth measures economic activity – not quality of life. In developing countries, a rise in the first can still be directly linked to a rise in the second, as the basics of survival are improved. But in developed economies, in general, this is no longer true. Tim Jackson, author of the report mentioned above, says, “our debt-driven consumption has created an unstable system which has put jobs and livelihoods at risk, as well as damaging us psychologically and socially.” A decade ago, perhaps this was dismissed as a fringe mantra from the yoga and beansprout set. Today, with credit greed literally bankrupting us despite our already adequate material wealth, it is moving into mainstream discussion.
Or it should. That’s where – with respect – I was disappointed by the Metro Vancouver panelists. It’s true that it’s hard to change the debate in just one corner of a much larger system (although look up little Bhutan and its measure of “Gross National Happiness” to prove it can be done). And certainly the economic pain of people out of jobs is real and can’t be trivialized. Still, if it is true that you can’t solve a problem with the same thinking that got you there, then it’s time to start challenging ourselves to a new conversation with a new vocabulary, one more likely to take us to a better future.
If we don’t, we remain in a destructive dichotomy: negative growth (recession) is bad, painful, alarming. But positive growth – represented monochromatically by GDP – has us in a position of overshoot, using the world’s resources to depletion while not improving lives (in developed economies). Neither scenario works. Growth alone is too simplistic a measure to tell us if we are headed in a good direction.
Worse, we inform “confidence” with this outmoded framing. If the rising popularity of “simple living” and “low-consumption” topics is any indication, confidence is not going to rebound as long as we only offer it single-issue, self-destructive indicators as a proxy for value. (One panelist actually said, “without growth, you won’t have people wanting to go out and excel, and better themselves – and that’s a problem.” Really? ‘Better ourselves’ how?)
Here is the challenge: if you are in a leadership position – such as those invited to stimulate dialogue about our region’s future – you must seek a broader way to frame this discussion. Unpack the old shorthand, question the fundamentals. What is likely to deliver real, lasting, shared prosperity? What builds true value today and tomorrow? How do we measure what we want to get done?
This is not a discussion that will be solved at expert tables far away. This elephant is sitting in every management meeting and every boardroom today. As players in the system, we all have to step back and figure this out. And then start growing in a smarter way.
Nina Winham (nina@newclimate.ca) is principal of New Climate Strategies, specializing in helping clients build value through a shift to sustainability. www.newclimate.ca
