To solve our societal and environmental problems, we mustn't slow economic growth, but rather speed it up. A plea against frugality.
If someone had to assess humanity’s progress over the past two centuries, he or she would have to sift through a mass of seemingly contradictory evidence. Truly staggering achievements would have to be set against the enormous challenges remaining.
In many respects, we have been so successful that the good news is too often taken for granted. Perhaps the most striking single indicator is the increase in global life expectancy from about 30 years old in the year 1800 to 67 by 2000. The average human being lives more than twice as long as was the case two centuries ago. This is largely the result of a slump in infant mortality. It has become mercifully rare, particularly in the developed world, for parents to go through the pain of witnessing the death of their children.
There are many other examples of human advancement. Individually we have become taller, healthier, more intelligent (at least as measured by IQ) and better educated than ever before. We have also created a host of amazing inventions, including aircraft, antibiotics, cars, computers, phones, railways and vaccinations. To accompany these, we have had to build a network of facilities to transform the environment, including airports, factories, hospitals, power stations, roads and telecommunications networks. Even our relatively recent ancestors would be stunned if they could be reincarnated to see such marvels.
But that does not mean that humanity faces no further challenges. On the contrary, the statistics on human poverty remain bleak. According to World Bank figures, about 1.4 billion people live on less than $1.25 a day, with about 2.5 billion living on less than $2 a day. About a billion people go hungry every year while 900 million people lack access to clean drinking water. Some 500,000 women die from causes related to pregnancy and childbirth every year, while nearly 4 million newborns die within the first 28 days of life. Misery still exists on a massive scale.
Even the developed countries could benefit from the additional resources economic growth brings. Pockets of poverty continue to exist, to a greater or lesser extent, in Western nations. Then there are challenges such as climate change and an aging population, which are both likely to prove costly to resolve.
The question becomes how to build on the enormous gains of humanity while at the same time moving to eliminate the scourge of scarcity. To find the answer, it is necessary to look more closely at the central role of economic growth in the whole process. The main mystery is why there is so much anxiety about increased prosperity when, judging by the historical record, it can prove so beneficial.
Most commentators, including many Greens, would accept that, historically, economic growth has played a key role in human advancement since the Industrial Revolution. They generally agree that economies experienced relatively little growth until the late 18th century. After that, the world started to see concerted expansion even if growth was often uneven and there were many crises along the way.
This increasing prosperity was central to human progress. Not only did it fuel enormous improvements in living standards, but it was closely linked to developments in science and technology. It has transformed developed societies and led to significant changes in poorer nations, even though they still have a long way to go to catch up. The incredible improvements in human welfare would not have come about without economic growth.
Given these spectacular gains, few—except the deepest of deep Greens—would want to return to a poorer world. However, there is a pervasive anxiety about rising prosperity that could most accurately be called “growth skepticism.” This generally takes the form of rhetorical support for growth, co-existing with the argument that it must be subject to limits: environmental, social and moral.
One of the most important ways the notion of limits is expressed is sustainability. In this respect, the 1987 Brundtland Report, a landmark publication from the UN prepared by former Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland, is instructive. It defines sustainability in the following terms: “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It contains within it two key concepts: the concept of ‘needs,’ in particular the essential needs of the world’s poor, to which the overriding priority should be given; and the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the environment’s ability to meet present and future needs.”
Several elements of this definition are important to note. First, its conception of “future generations” suggests that the best thing we can do for our children and grandchildren is to hold back in the present. It also draws the idea of needs incredibly narrowly. The emphasis is on the essential needs of the poor rather than supporting a broader notion of progress. Finally, it embodies the notion of environmental limits.
So, far from being a neutral document, it embodies a very particular notion of sustainability. It ignores the possibility of broader social progress and confines itself to the essential needs of the poor, and it argues that, for the sake of future generations, we should accept environmental limits.
This is probably the most common form of the skeptic’s argument. Growth might be good in the abstract but it has to be set against environmental limits now or in the future. To really go for growth, in this view, is simply not sustainable.
But is this notion of environmental limits really true? It is certainly the case that, say, building a factory can lead to pollution. However, it is also true that economic growth can generate the resources to clean up the environment and mold it to benefit human beings. That is why, as a general rule, developed countries are less polluted and cleaner than developing ones.
Typically, countries experience an environmental transition as they develop. In the early stages, cities may be grossly unsanitary and factories might billow filthy smoke. But as they become richer, these cities clean things up. In London, my hometown, cholera was widespread in the mid-19th century as raw human waste flowed into the Thames River. Then the authorities built an extensive sewage system, a pioneering civil engineering project at the time, and the problem was solved.
If anything, today’s developing countries potentially have it easier. They do not need to reinvent sewage systems or modern medicine. Instead, they just need to generate the resources to be able to afford the type of infrastructure already available in the West. [...]
We should never forget that economic progress has already improved our lives beyond recognition. The fact that many problems remain is an argument for more growth, not less. Restraining growth means accepting that many millions, even billions, of people will continue to live in dire poverty. Accelerating growth, in contrast, is an essential foundation for overcoming the remaining challenges facing humanity. The choice should be simple.
