Governments Should Focus on the Well-Being of Their Populations Rather Than Economic Growth - Essay Example

Governments should focus on the well-being of their populations rather than economic growth. To what extent do you agree with this statement? It is difficult to separate well-being of a population from economic growth. It is popularly believed that economic growth perpetuates and promotes well-being among the population. However, the manner in which economic growth is fostered can come at an expense to the long-term well-being of the population. In other words, a government should by all means give equal weight to the population’s well-being and economic growth. Ideally, the government, when focusing on economic growth should turn attention to the long-term well-being of the population. This paper is therefore designed to illustrate why and how proper balances of population well-being and economic growth should be facilitated by governments. This will be illustrated by first examining how economic growth policies can be detrimental to a population’s well-being. Secondly, this paper will examine trends in satisfaction and how well-being and economic growth perform in those trends. Speth (2008) informs that the belief that fast and abundant economic growth often comes at the price of the environment (p. 24). This approach to economic growth, while attending to the immediate well-being of the population does not take into account the well-being of future generations who will ultimately have to deal with a “perilous state environmentally” (Speth 2008, p. 24). Far too often economic policies do not take account of the sacrifices to the environment. Governments in a desire to advance economic growth place far too much emphasis on technology and far too little emphasis on the cost to the environment (Speth 2008, p. 24). Acknowledging that economic growth and modern technology are necessarily intertwined in an increasingly global economy, but at the potential cost to the environment, there must be a proper balance. This is particularly important when one takes account of the concept that economic growth and well-being are entirely interconnected. However, the well-being achieved at the cost of the environment is merely superficial and bound to eventually create unpleasant consequences. There is obviously a difference between environment exploitation and sustainable development. The latter implies a responsible use of the earth’s resources for economic development. By taking this approach, the government is not only ensuring economic wealth, but looking ahead to ensure that the population’s well-being and economic growth both equally protected. Norberg (2010) also takes the position that economic growth policies have focused far too much on “simply maximising production” (p. 2). Like Speth (2008), Norberg (2010) argues that this approach to government policies does not take account of the environmental costs. As a result, warnings about environmental issues, particularly global warning are changing the way that populations perceive wealth. This together with the recent global financial crisis has cultivated a lack of confidence in how well economic growth and more especially GDPs measure the well-being of populations (Norberg 2010, p.2). Norberg (2010) demonstrates why a proper balance is required to be made between economic growth and the population’s well-being. If one take the position that the environment is just as important to the population’s well-being as economic growth, it will serve no purpose to trade one for the other. For example, Norberg (2010) argues that the Happy Planet Index (HPI) introduced by the New Economics Foundations in 2006 indicates that populations in the wealthiest Western nations rank lower on the HPI than countries in Asia and Latin America (Norberg 2010, p. 5). The obvious difference here is the greater degree of development in the Western countries which necessarily correlates with greater modernization and the corresponding damages to the environment. Countries in Asia and Latin America are obviously not as developed and therefore have safer environments and better climate conditions. However, Norberg (2010) warns that it is unrealistic to accept that countries that do not use their natural resources for economic growth are effectively safeguarding the well-being of their respective populations. Norberg (2010) puts it as follows: The most environmentally sustainable countries on the planet are Malawi, Haiti, Afghanistan and the Republic of Congo. It is true that they do not produce or consume much. That is why their people are starving and dying from trivial causes (p. 6). It therefore follows that there is a case for sustainable development as countries that go from one extreme (irresponsible exploitation of the environment) to the other extreme (overly protective of the environment) are least likely to foster economic growth and population well-being. In other words, well-being and economic growth require equal attention and equal weight in governmental policies. Stevenson and Wolfers (2008) argue however that there is a definite correlation between economic well-being and increase in happiness. The authors came to conclusion by analysing a number of datasets for a long period of time. With recent to more recent datasets covering a large number of countries, Stevenson and Wolfers (2008) conclude that they were able to establish an unequivocal correlation between personal well-being and GDP on a per capital basis in countries and that they were not able to find any a cut-off point where countries with relatively greater wealth do not continue to experience a rise in personal well-being. Ultimately, Stevenson and Wolfers confined well-being to happiness. This is indicated by the conclusion that they found a definite link between economic growth and “rising happiness” (Stevenson and Wolfers 2008). Moreover, the emphasis is on subjective well-being. In other words, there is a correlation between individual happiness and well-being and economic growth. However, when one takes account of the population as a whole these findings are misleading. Immediate happiness as a result of economic growth do not take account of future populations and the price they pay when the environment is depleted to meet current economic growth and needs. Stevenson and Wolfers (2008) findings contradict the findings of the HPI reported by Norberg (2010) and Speth’s contention about exploitation of the environment for the sake of immediate economic growth. Similarly, Stokes (2007) report contradict the findings of Norberg and the theoretical assumptions offered by Speth (2008). Stokes (2007) relying on Pew Global Attitudes survey maintains that there is direct correlation between economic growth and personal happiness. Again, the emphasis is on personal happiness, which does not reveal much about collective well-being, particularly those of future populations. Moreover, Norberg (2010) cautions that many of the surveys conducted to measure happiness and satisfaction in terms of economic growth are generated by agendas which are determined to find a link between the two so as to justify governmental policies. Whether Norberg’s (2010) assumption is correct or not, in that surveys seeking to determine a link between happiness and economic growth, one thing is obvious. The populations’ well-being is at risk if the planet is destroyed in furtherance of economic growth. While the current population may report feeling satisfied and happy as a result of economic success, that happiness is bound to disappear if current trends toward environmental exploitation are not contained. It therefore follows that since we can only predict the effect that continued environmental damages will have on future populations we must be content with the belief that the population’s well-being must be taken into account just as aggressively as economic factors and policies. Bibliography Norberg, J. “GDP and Its Enemies: The Questionable Search for a Happiness Index”. CES Centre for European Studies, (September 2010) 1-12. http://www.growthintransition.eu/wp-content/uploads/GDPanditsenemies.pdf (Retrieved 28 Feb. 2011). Speth, D. “Trends in Life Satisfaction and Happiness versus Per Capita Income in Affluent Societies.” Environment: Yale. (Spring 2008): 23-28. Stevenson, B. and Wolfers, J. “Measuring Satisfaction”. The New York Times, 14 April 2008. Insert website here (Retrieved 28 February, 2011). Stokes, B. “Happiness Is Increasing in Many Countries – But Why?” Pew Research Center (24 July, 2007) http://pewglobal.org/2007/07/24/happiness-is-increasing-in-many-countries-but-why/ (Retrieved 28 February 2011). Read More