An emergent definition of economic progress

Even as economists predict doomsday scenarios of global depression and stagnant growth, the alternative view, that slow growth is not necessarily a bad thing, is gathering strength. The global lockdown has made us aware of Planet Earth as never before. The customary grey haze over our cities has lifted, bird calls are no longer drowned out by screeching automobiles and wildlife is peeking into temporarily vacated urban spaces.

We have been forced to stop and take a breath.

For the first time in two-and-a-half centuries, Homo Faber (the man who makes) is not running around frenetically, tinkering with the natural world. Willy-nilly, we find ourselves liberated from the rat race, rediscovering the joys of working with our hands. We are consuming less than we thought possible, enjoying a timeout from frenetic socialising and generally experiencing an improved quality of life. Even ideologies are no longer to die for.

Given our deleterious impact on the world, is our unwholesome obsession with economic growth pointless? We are so deeply invested in the idea of continual growth that the very thought of a slowdown terrorises investors. Making India a 5-trillion dollar economy sounds like a worthwhile enterprise, but what does it mean? More jobs and higher incomes for some, but what about the rest?

Economists have pointed out that lately, at least in the developed world, the correlation between GDP growth and positive outcomes in terms of median incomes and better access to healthcare and education is much weaker.

But economic growth is the tiger we cannot seem to get off, regardless of its adverse impact on the planet and therefore, on our species (and every other species). We may achieve our 5-trilliondollar target, but then what? There is no answer to that question. We are on a treadmill, chasing ever-increasing returns on investment, higher profits and bigger markets.

The question we need to ask ourselves is: who are we doing it for? The answer in most cases will be 'our children, so that they can have better lives than we did'. Driven by the Darwinian survivalof-the-fittest impulse, we want to make sure our progeny have the best chance of survival. The irony is that we are, in fact, sabotaging their survival. Generation Z's primary concern is not higher salaries, but a cleaner planet.

The growth fallacy is self-evident: our planetary resources are finite, so how can growth be infinite? The American Dream, famously expressed in Herbert Hoover's 1928 presidential election campaign slogan “A chicken in every pot and two cars in every garage”, has permeated the world and convinced humanity as a whole that growth can be endless.

Growth comes with a hefty price tag, best described by ecologist Devinder

Sharma's parable of the tree. Left to itself, it provides shelter, fruits and shade, increases soil fertility and attracts rain clouds. But it does not contribute to GDP, until it is cut down and turned into matchsticks.

Back in 1972, a team of MIT researchers brought out a book, The Limits to Growth, which stated unequivocally that the existing consumptionbased economic system was running out of time. Technology had extended the lifespan of the industrial revolution, the book observed, but it could not do so for more than another 100 years. Trashed by the western media, because it had appeared at a time of economic crisis when optimism was the need of the hour, the book is now being rediscovered. It is increasingly relevant in our times, when consumption, fuelled by population growth and manufactured needs, has caused runaway pollution and threatened our habitat.

This coronavirus pandemic is the first occasion when business as usual has come to a grinding halt. For economists, the potential after-effects are of as much concern as the death toll. The cost in terms of human suffering will be incalculable, they say. The world will have to get back on track as soon as possible. But should it be the same track?

Even within the consumption-oriented framework, a recession may have the advantage of forcing greater efficiency in production processes. The less wastage of natural resources, the better it is for the planet. Behaviour in terms of consumption patterns and lifestyles may change. People may take the environment more seriously than ever before.

Economists like Joseph Stiglitz have already questioned GDP growth as an indicator of economic and social progress. Maybe Bhutan, inventor of 'Gross National Happiness' as the ultimate measure of good governance (and with 71 per cent forest cover) has the right idea.

Ecologist Devinder Sharma's parable of the tree: Left to itself, a tree provides shelter, fruits and shade, increases soil fertility and attracts rain clouds. But it does not contribute to GDP, until it is cut down and turned into matchsticks.