Benje Patterson on looking beyond GDP, being pro-wellbeing and pro GDP growth, measuring things in a brave new world, the woolly wellbeing Budget and wellbeing budgeting coming to a council near you!

Benje Patterson on looking beyond GDP, being pro-wellbeing and pro GDP growth, measuring things in a brave new world, the woolly wellbeing Budget and wellbeing budgeting coming to a council near you!

This week’s Top 5 comes from economist Benje Patterson.

As always, we welcome your additions in the comments below or via email to david.chaston@interest.co.nz.

And if you're interested in contributing the occasional Top 5 yourself, contact gareth.vaughan@interest.co.nz.

The buzzword wellbeing is being bandied about left, right and centre. Politicians have woken up to society’s demand to measure economic progress in a more socially inclusive and sustainable manner. But what is often overlooked in the well-intentioned political hype, is how do we put this new theory into practice and what will it mean for our regions. This Top 5 explores why wellbeing matters, and how you can use wellbeing ideals in an applied policy setting.

1. Why we need to look beyond GDP for inclusively measuring progress?

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is often misused as a headline measure of the wellbeing of people in New Zealand and around the globe, even though such conclusions go beyond what GDP was originally designed for.

The modern concept of GDP was a by-product of the Great Depression, when people wanted a yardstick for valuing how much an economy could produce. Because what is produced can be sold or traded, GDP is often also thought of as an income flow that is able to fund consumption and investment.

It is from this logic that some people then make the heroic assumption that GDP can be used as a proxy of wellbeing in a region, presumably on the basis that a higher level of consumption indicates more people satisfying their lifestyle demands. At face value, this logic may make sense, but if we back up a couple of steps, it’s not hard to unpick some shortcomings in this approach.

Here are some limitations of GDP:

“GDP does not include non-market transactions (like when you dogsit for your neighbour), and it does not count the benefit of leisure (because simple pleasures like enjoying relaxing in front of the fire are not a market transaction). In a similar vein, factors such as how content people are feeling and their physical state of health can also not be captured using market transactions.

Another limitation of GDP is that it only considers a one-time flow of activity over a fixed time period, and does not take a broader look at the underlying wealth and resources at an area’s disposal.  Surely any assessment of how well off an area is must look at the land, capital, labour, and other accumulations of resources that can be used to generate future economic activity, support healthy lifestyles, and provide for the next generation.

GDP also does not distinguish between how the activity has been funded and where productive capacity is being targeted.  This matters as failing to consider debt financing and what it is being used to produce, invest in, or consume is asking for trouble.  If you have any doubt, consider all the money Greece borrowed for frivolous consumption and where that got them.

Also even if GDP goes up, that doesn’t mean everyone will benefit. The capital owners may be the ones that have benefited from growth, with very little flowing through into the back pockets of workers. A lack of awareness of this issue is what led to the Occupy Wall Street movement.”

2. You can be pro-wellbeing and pro-GDP growth.

The World Economic Forum (WEF) released a report back in 2015 that considered inclusive growth (wellbeing) and development across the world. One of the key findings of the report was that incorporating wellbeing into decision-making is also good for business. You can be a top performing economy and care about people as well:

“There is no inherent trade-off in economic policymaking between the promotion of social inclusion and that of economic growth and competitiveness; it is possible to be pro-equity and pro-growth at the same time. Several of the strongest performers in the Forum’s Global Competitiveness Index (GCI) also have a relatively strong inclusive growth and development profile.”

Gemma Corrigan, an economist at the WEF, pushed the point even stronger in an article penned for the Huffpost around the same time:

“The realization among business and political leaders that economic growth is only sustainable if it is inclusive, and not restricted to a small elite, may have taken too long, but at last the message is being received loud and clear: you can be pro-growth and pro-equity — and you must be pro-equity to be pro-growth.”

3. How you can measure things in a brave new world?

Ever since the Government decided to release its Wellbeing Budget, the Treasury has had a fire under their bum to create an evidence-base from which policymakers can make decisions. The result has been the Treasury’s Living Standards Framework (LSF) Dashboard and a cost benefit analysis tool that splices wellbeing ideals together with traditional economics. The work itself is rather pioneering in an applied setting, and the Treasury has absolved itself of some responsibility with disclaimers such as:

“It is important to note that neither the LSF nor the LSF Dashboard report on the performance of Government. Nor do they prioritise Government spending on wellbeing outcomes – the Government makes those decisions, informed by advice from the Treasury.”

I realise that Treasury is an advisor, rather than a decision-maker, but I still find this position a cop-out. More concerningly, the Treasury provides only broad guidance, rather than more prescriptive criteria for choosing to focus on certain areas of wellbeing over others in decision-making. Such standardised guidance is pretty important given their wellbeing cost benefit analysis tool allows for you to measure anything from the value of a new qualification (Bachelor’s degree to postgraduate degree is worth $13,033) to how much a new friendship is worth ($592). NZ Initiative’s Chief Economist Eric Crampton fears:

“…they introduce "woolly thinking" into government departments deciding on policies and expenditure.

"My worry is that the large number of indicators gives analysts in government departments the freedom to choose the ones they prefer and ignore robust cost benefit analyses," Crampton said.”

4. Wellbeing Budget was a black box.

Woolly thinking was apparent to me in the Wellbeing Budget. At face value, the Budget looked great – borrow a little more, spend it on the vulnerable, and don’t worry about the books because strong forecasted growth will keep taxes growing and surpluses entrenched. By all accounts an inclusive and balanced budget.

But frankly these details were secondary to me while reading the Budget. I was more interested to learn about how the Government weighted various aspects of wellbeing in its decision-making processes. These details were missing, and I was left with the feeling that Wellbeing Budgets year-to-year will be left to the “vibe” in the room, rather than a replicable, standardised process. In a recent article, I wrote that my concern is:

“The actual decision as to which policies ultimately make the cut, and which policies are out, is then left to horse-trading between Ministers. Apparently this process is more collaborative than in the past – though it is not immediately obvious what collaboration means in practice beyond trying to break down silos across government.

The real frustration for me surrounding this part of the process lies with the lack of structured guidance regarding how Ministers objectively compared the different potential policies around the Cabinet table. 

A magic wand was waved, and the Budget merely states that consideration was given to impacts assessed by the Living Standards Framework.

This part of the process is a black box and the absence of a clear framework for weighing up policy options leaves too much room for subjectivity.

And this level of subjectivity scares me because it removes an element of transparency and could ultimately lead to inconsistent assessments of policy options.

When allocating scarce resources, you need to be consistent, and remove temptations to cherry pick pet projects. Otherwise you perversely run the risk of undermining efforts to improve wellbeing.”

5. Wellbeing budgeting coming to a council near you!

Incorporating wellbeing into decision-making is not only for central government. The Local Government Act was recently amended to force local councils to consider the social, economic, environmental and cultural wellbeing implications of what they do. The upshot is that local authorities’ next Long Term Plans will be the local government equivalent of the Wellbeing Budget.

Local Government has been given no real guidance as to how they should implement this statutory requirement to consider wellbeing in decision-making processes. At least though, this all is a case of dejavu as wellbeing used to be in the Local Government Act until it was removed in 2012.

To get a headstart on what to think about, I have been advising councils to take a look at their 2009 Long Term Plans – as those were the last time they had to comprehensively think about wellbeing when making decisions. These historic frameworks can then be adapted to ensure that they are consistent with the current state of thinking by central government.

This view is consistent with the Minister of Local Government Hon Nanaia Mahuta, who recently said:

“This legislation aligns with the Government’s wider wellbeing agenda and is a critical step in enabling councils and communities to make decisions about the services and facilities that will enhance their sense of place and the quality of their lives.

“We are determined to work alongside local government to empower communities and give them a stronger voice and role in lifting their own well-being,’’ says Hon Nanaia Mahuta.

 

We welcome your help to improve our coverage of this issue. Any examples or experiences to relate? Any links to other news, data or research to shed more light on this? Any insight or views on what might happen next or what should happen next? Any errors to correct?

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

6 Comments

Comment Filter

Highlight new comments in the last hr(s).

5) Why do government ministers not get that taxing developers means their constituency has to pay more for houses?

“Restoring development contributions recognises the role of councils in building communities and helps to remove barriers to growth,” says Minister Mahuta.

That'll make building affordable houses cheaper. NOT.

The end consumer pays for everything. Extra costs in constructing housing, homelessness, and the social damage from all the stress of people feeling like they are just working to survive (a large proportion of the population are).

Do the development contributions result in more housing and more affordable housing?

Benje you just need to correct your spelling mistake "woolly", which should be corrected to "Wolly" then we should be set !
Wolly Wellbeing budget, Year of Under delivery all on target and "they introduce 'wolly thinking' into government departments."

The net effect of TLA 'Four Well-beings' as the Purpose of LG is quite simple, and very discernable in Council LTP's and Annual Plans.

Soft spend - on stuff alleged to assist 'social and cultural well-being' - increases much faster than 'hard spend' - on the unattractive yet vital 3 waters, roads, bridges, waste collection, recycling and parks/reserves maintenance.

Why? Because soft spend needs only soft skills - event management, hospo, invention of Yet Another Festival, and jobs for the girlz and boyz galore. So the sky's the limit: any and every human activity under the sun can be shoe-horned into 'Social' or 'Cultural' well-being and thus funded by the compulsorily extracted, and ever-capacious, Ratepayer's Modest Bill..

Whereas Hard Spend needs solid, expensive and scarce engineering talent, superb PM, and the unwavering support of Elected Buffoons Fine Upstanding Citoyen around that distant table. Not exactly electoral gold, this type of spend.

So the quite inevitable result is that the Infrastructure Deficit widens.

But, hey, there's Yet Another Diversity Festival next month. Your Well-being will be Increased! But in the meantime, the Boil Water notice remains in force.....

The real problem is we don't understand real human wellbeing, we have lost sight of intrinsic values and have been blinded by the extrinsic values of our egos and subconscious emotions and conditioning. We have further worsened this by attempting to measure value in $$ and monetary wealth. In short our collective values are back asswards and upside down.

It's funny though. There is a mass of evidence that points to our current way of living, our economic system, the monetisation of Life, Nature and human relationships, is detrimental to overall wellbeing.

We literally have to rethink and relearn our concepts of wealth, prosperity, growth, productivity and "rational self interest".

GDP fails to track the depletion of finite resources, the overuse of renewable resources, and the too-fast filling if 'sinks'.

It therefore lies to us.

Which means that those who quote it and champion it, must be lying too, or if we're being kind, they must be strenuously avoiding.... If well-being equates to 'being able to live', we need to monitor the physical world and live within limits. This means that the 'human rights' brigade have to address population, and it means the 'growth forever' brigade are simply wrong.