TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 9 °C Sunday 26 May, 2013

Column: We believe economic growth can save us… but can it?

Our blind faith in growing the economy may be ignoring some important facts, writes Dermot McNally.

Dermot McNally

THERE IS MUCH debate in Ireland on how we should get out of this painful economic paralysis and contraction. However, the main political parties agree that it will hinge on creating growth. And if I park my innate cynicism, this agreement puzzles me.

The broad consensus of political and economic commentary goes a little like this:

We have to slowly correct the deficit and rebuild confidence. Gradually, spending by individuals and organisations will increase. This further increases confidence, investment and spending. Profits will follow as will further jobs, investment and innovation. Technological improvements and the wealth generated will gradually trickle down to all members of society, even the weakest and poorest. And so little by little, the global economic engine will push forward once again and all of humankind can eventually expect to live blissfully in a utopian world of ever-rising standards in health, education and working conditions.

Economic growth as the panacea for all human problems has been the consensus solution in Western nations for generations, despite regular boom-bust cycles. But larger, unavoidable concerns have arisen.

Firstly prioritising the creation and maintenance of growth is to sidestep a myriad of challenging global structural reforms which are needed. These include the badly needed reform of the financial and banking industry; reform of world trade rules; reform of environmental legislation and targets; improvements in the employment and living conditions of workers in so called low cost countries; and on and on.

Chicken and egg

Prioritising the encouragement of growth, investment and spending prior to implementing global structural reform is akin to saying of a house with inadequate foundations that if we plaster over the cracks and put a pump in the basement to remove the seeping water that all will be fine – the real repair can wait.

Of course the pro-growth pundits will put forward the chicken and egg argument – rising economic and investment tides will improve the cause of environmental sustainability and living/working standards, as well as solving numerous other related issues. The same advocates of rising-tide economics will also purport reassuringly that future growth must be ‘sustainable’. I used to accept this.

However to accept these clichéd answers and the promise of solutions tomorrow is to whitewash the immediate and undeniable immorality of accepting that slave labour and toxic environmental practices are pivotal in providing many of the unnecessary consumer goods for our insatiable appetites. There is no simple way to butter this up – the West sits comfortably on the backs of the worlds poor.

Lip service

So while some progress may be in train, we are at best playing lip service to dealing seriously with the global issues mentioned. Clearly, economic growth comes first in the list of all priorities. For now let’s not lose further time on such trivial matters as access to adequate food, shelter and sanitation. (Bah – my cynicism has reappeared to spite me – down you dog!)

Secondly and most crucially, the consensus to prioritise growth makes a colossal assumption – that the economic growth required to achieve the utopian world aforementioned is actually possible within the resources of the planet.

This assumption is quite startling no matter which way you re-state it: that economies can continue to grow without risking humankinds’ ability to live on the planet. As little as we do know, we can say for certain that growing economies require increasing amounts of fuel/energy sources to power their engines. The fuel conundrum increases as every economy grows bigger and hungrier.

Therefore to assume economic growth can be increased, or merely sustained, is (1) to take for granted our ability to create infinite amounts of energy sources to replace those running out; (2) to assume that these new energy sources will not undermine our ability to live within the resources of the planet; and (3) to dismiss the scientists who say that severe environmental deterioration is already happening at existing levels of economic activity.

Quality of life

To broaden the debate, can economies across the world grow and thrive indefinitely, giving all workers on the planet the quality of life we enjoy in the West, while simultaneously reaching environmental equilibrium? We’ll need more forests producing more timber, more clean drinking water (a scare commodity in some of the wettest parts of Ireland at times) and we’ll need more food and more of everything else – can Mother Earth provide all in increasing volumes?

Then again, if economic growth is in fact not expected to be infinite within the resources of the biosphere, then why is this not evident within the broader political debate? From my observation neither Government nor existing Opposition will countenance an economic world without growth. Indeed, the current economic, political and social commentary suggests that if we attach a few ultra-improved carbon reducers on our dirty engines then all will be fine.

I truly hope that it works out as simply as this. Otherwise things will be getting a lot warmer in Ireland. In the meantime, cast my pessimism aside and get on board the non-stop train to GrowthVille!

Dermot McNally is the owner of a long-established family furniture business in Monaghan, Ireland. Their website is furniturefair.ie.

Read next:

Comments (35 Comments)

  • I cannot agree more. The world economy is a giant Ponzi scheme that is heading for a potentially catastrophic environmental bust. Unfortunately the arrogant and not so intelligent human race will be thought a painful lesson on the limits of growth. You would have thought the we would understand that the financial bust and impending environmental bust follow the same principles.

    Reply
    • mattoid 28/11/12 #

      Absolutely right Anthony – the giant elephant in the room is that the western economic model, with its emphasis on consumerism and lending/borrowing with interest, by its very nature depends on continual growth to work. As you quite rightly point out this makes it nothing more than a giant pyramid scheme which will inevitably collapse at some point.

      Reply
    • mattoid 28/11/12 #

      apologies, Andrew not Anthony…

      Reply
  • How about seeing how happy people are as a guide to how well we are doing as are society, rather than “economic growth”

    Reply
  • “the quality of life we enjoy in the West,”…..you are materialistically speaking I presume,,do you think emerging economies and its people desire what we have??…..burden of debt , daily worry/harrasment/ corrupt officials/hopelessness, they value much more than there status!!!

    Reply
    • “their”

      Reply
    • do you think emerging economies and its people desire what we have??.,,,,,,,Yes, look at China with their ( totally unnatural) dairy diet and McDonald’s outlets. They would be better off without both but the Western lifestyle is apparently what the world wants, God help them.

      Reply
    • Only here would you get 5 idiots to red thumb a typo correction. Class! :-) :-/

      Reply
    • Hi John. Interesting point – the people in the poor countries i have visited do aspire to more material wealth – in the first instance it is to ensure access to health and education for their families. But once they reach this, the inevitable pattern of economic growth is that populations seem to move towards full blown consumerism with all that that entails.

      Unfortunately the poor of the world, despite their material poverty, are often living in systems involving corrupt officials (lining their own pockets), personal debt (small by our standards but huge relative to their meager earnings) etc etc. Despite our immense problems, they fade into insignificance when compared with those of the hungry and economically marginalised throughout vast areas of the world.

      Reply
  • iBob101 28/11/12 #

    The above article is basically right but it draws the wrong conclusion. Endless global growth will eventually consume so many resources that it cannot continue, in the meantime doing terrible environmental damage. But in the short term of an election cycle or a lifespan the problem is not so obvious and the benefits (compared to abandoning the growth model) are very obvious. So it is unlikely that the growth model will be abandoned anytime soon. In the meantime we can only continue to hope that technological improvements can help avoid some of the problems (e.g. carbon capture to reduce global warming, asteroid mining to extend resources).

    Reply
    • Ok. So in essence you saying that political parties and the voting public are too short sighted to really do anything concrete (to deal with the issues) and that our best hope is to keep our fingers crossed?

      I’d like to think that we all have a little bit of influence and that by getting on the right path sooner, rather than later, Ireland could get itself into a prime position to protect its people and resources…..valuing happiness and true quality of life over material wealth.

      Reply
    • “So in essence you saying that political parties and the voting public are too short sighted to really do anything concrete”

      The evidence would support that Dermot although I would put the voting public at the root of the problem. 2007 in Ireland was a perfect example. There were a number of economists warning that we were in an unsustainable position and that we need to adjust our spending and taxation policies but the public didn’t want to hear that. They wanted to be told the the boom was never-ending. The result that was all the mainstream parties had manifestos that promised expansion of public spending, reduction of taxation and other expansionary policies. No political party that wanted to do well at that time would have suggested increases in tax or cutting spending.

      Political parties for all their faults, which are many and varied, reflect the society they are part of. In other words we do get the politicians we deserve. Until the Irish public (and by extension the world public) accept that we are living in an unsustainable model of consumption the policies of the political parties will not change either.

      Reply
    • Jim – you are spot on in the argument that the parties reflect the society. I wonder how many of the people crying out for a “real alternative” want the reality of what we are taking about…..

      Reply
  • The inference from this is that we need to cut our budget deficit to zero, as running the country on a permanent deficit is based on the optimistic premise of indefinite growth.

    Reply
  • Nothing much you can do.
    The Human race is a big engine running on a lean mixture of greed and the need for information. Pushing itself forward to new horizons every day and one day finally to extinction.
    Make the best of your tiny and mainly insignificant part.

    Reply
  • rubot 28/11/12 #

    Totally agree, and sadly, the same arguement has been made for over 40 years. People like E.F. Shumacher have been arguing the same since the 70s and no one listened then. The answer has to be a fundamental change in how we live our lives, and the key to this is convincing people that they can be happy and content without consuming near as much. Do that, and you might just turn the tide.

    Reply
    • Rubot. Agreed the argument is an old one and mainstream politicians (nor the public) have taken interest.

      Rubot, do you think there a room for a new party with these principles at their core? Or maybe i’ve missed some truely “sustainable” party that advocates an anti “wanton consumerist” society?

      Reply
    • rubot 28/11/12 #

      I think there is room for a movement (greater than a party) towards this. I genuinely believe this idea could be popular if it was explained as both a matter of urgency but also as a lifestyle which is entirely enjoyable.

      I think circumstance will force us into it eventually, but we can definitely live on this globe in a sustainable way, and enjoy our lives, if we change our perspective on consuming and happiness.

      Great piece, by the way.

      Reply
    • Maria 29/11/12 #

      Dermot: it’s called the Green Party.

      Reply
  • Tim Congdon used to be rather entertaining on this. He suggests that economic indicators oscillate around a line (adjusted for natural inflation and what have you, we aren’t going back to a 3 bed semi costing 20 grand), so for the last few years before the bust we were well over that line, all of us globally.

    Now, inevitably, we are below that line. Being below the line is a natural conclusion from having been above it, the longer we were above it the longer we’ll stay below it. But we will rise to above the line again, that too is inevitable. We can encourage ourselves up to the line again but we shouldn’t let ourselves get too far over it again or again inevitably, slump.

    In fact being below the line is in fact a good thing. It may not feel like it but it is. It sorts the wheat from the chaff. Children who grow up in the below the line years often have a greater appreciation of what matters when they get above the line in later life.

    Reply
  • Good stuff Dermot. As you probably know, economic growth is only the panacea for banks as without growth only capital can be repaid, interest never – unless robbed from your neighbour. But what about population growth. If we keep growing as now population will double approx every 50 years which is also obviously not sustainable.? Keep up the writings. Looking forward to your next missive.

    Reply
  • Good article. We need to, as much as possible, reduce the amount we consume, in spite of what the mavens of business and government preach.

    Reply
  • A programme of austerity = recession not economic growth. When will our government wake up?

    Reply
  • No economic growth above the population growth level equals no improvement in standard of living. It’s that simple. No economic growth to match population growth equals deterioration of standard of living. No population growth equalling workforce replacement level equals less workforce to support your retirements. Only a fool can dispute that mathematical fact.

    Reply
    • Dom – without doubt there is a link between standards of living and economic growth but I’m not sure any fool actually stated anything to the contrary here!? The core issue was: is growth sustainable (or do we blindly grow till the planet implodes)? But since you mention it – do you think we are measuring the standard of living correctly? And does this method actually reflect quality of life?

      Reply
  • A remember reading a book a few years ago talking about population booms all over the world. Arguably in the book they suggested the worlds natural resources can realistically provide without resource degradation, for 4 to 4.5 billion people. 7 billion on the planet now. Birth rates on the planet are approx 133 million a year whereas death rate is approx 65 million.. Enough said I think.

    Reply
    • This though precludes advances in technology and food production which are constantly increasing the ability of the planet to produce more for less.

      For example in the 1960s-70s advances made by people like Norman Borlaung (who came up with dwarf wheat) greatly increased food production in places like India, Pakistan and Mexico. World population growth is expected to slow rapidly over the next fifty years peaking at around 9 billion in 2050 as developing nations birth and death rates fall.

      By the way I’m not saying that we don’t need to readjust our lifestyles. But there was a time when it was though that 1 billion people was too many on the planet. Figures like these keep being readjusted as time goes by.

      Reply
    • Agreed, that advancements in technology have increased food production but, it will never be enough for the amount of people on this planet. In 1974 the population of earth was 4 billion… Not even 40 years later and we are at 7 billion.. Us humans will strip bare this planet long before global warming will ( which we are also responsible for ) and as for talk of economies booming and busting… Well to be fair they won’t matter when all is said and done.

      Reply
    • The rate of population growth is reducing all the time. It will reverse in a few decades.

      Reply
  • bignazza 28/11/12 #

    A country has never gotten out of a recession from high taxes, unfortunately the only way is to borrow money and many won’t accept that but it’s the truth.

    Reply
  • Michael 28/11/12 #

    No-one seems to have raised the question: is “growth” actually a good thing? Really think about it.

    Reply

Add New Comment