Are We Measuring Economic Performance Correctly? The Case of GDP vs Well-Being
Are We Measuring Economic Performance Correctly? The Case of GDP vs Well-Being
Economic performance has traditionally been measured using Gross Domestic Product (GDP), a metric that quantifies the total value of goods and services produced within a country over a specific period. While GDP has served as a cornerstone of economic growth and output analysis for decades, growing criticism suggests that it may not fully capture the complexities of modern economies or the true well-being of their citizens.
This has led to a vibrant debate: Should we continue to rely on GDP, or shift toward broader measures of well-being?
GDP is widely used because it is –
- Quantifiable and standardized which allows for comparison across countries and time.
- Correlated with employment and investment which makes it a useful tool for policymakers.
- A comprehensive measure of economic activity and serves as a broad proxy for economic performance; and
- Responsive to economic shocks, helping governments track recessions and recoveries.
Despite its strengths, GDP as a measure of economic performance has some limitations, namely:
- It ignores income inequality with the implication that GDP often masks growing disparities.
- It does not account for environmental degradation which often accompanies economic growth.
- It excludes unpaid work such as caregiving and volunteer work which are vital to societal functioning.
- It does not measure happiness, health, and social cohesion, which are central to human well-being; and
- It emphasizes current production and consumption, but it fails to show whether growth is sustainable in the long run.
Well-being metrics aim to provide a more holistic view of economic performance. These include inter alia the Human Development Index (HDI) which combines income, education, and life expectancy, the OECD Better Life Index which measures housing, income, jobs, community, education, environment, governance, health, life satisfaction, safety, and work-life balance, the Gross National Happiness (GNH) of Bhutan which includes psychological well-being, cultural diversity, and ecological resilience, and finally the Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) which measures poverty as a combination of deprivations in health, education, and living standards, over and above just low income.
There are various advantages of well-being indicators, namely they reflect quality of life and not just quantity of output, they encourage sustainable development, they promote inclusive policies, and they reflect people’s real experiences ensuring that measurement aligns more closely with how people feel about their lives, not just economic statistics. There are, however, some disadvantages associated with such measures as well, namely they are subjective, very complex, there are data limitations because not all countries collect comprehensive well-being data, and there is a lack of standardisation across countries.
Rather than choosing one over the other, many economists advocate for a complementary approach. The reason for this is that GDP can contribute in part to understanding societal well-being better, while well-being measures provide an indication of the level of inclusivity associated with GDP growth. Another way in which these measures can be used conjointly is to use GDP growth measures for short-term economic analysis and tracking market activity, while using well-being indicators for long-term planning, social policy and sustainability purposes.
We welcome your comments and invite you to share your views on our Facebook page.