Book of the Month: The Poverty of Growth

I picked this up because it intrigued me when I saw it in the half price section of my favourite bookshop - and when better to buy a book on economics than when it's half price?

The author, Olivier de Schutter, is the United Nations Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights. If you don't know what that means, neither did I. Basically, it means the UN Human Rights Council regard him as an independent expert on a given topic. He has previously been a special rapporteur on the right to food and also worked for the International Federation for Human Rights.

This book persuasively attacks the pervading political obsession with "growth" as the only economic metric that matters. Olivier says that still may be the case for nations with undeveloped infrastructures and economies, but for the developed world it is disastrous on many levels and leading swiftly to irreversible damage to the environment. 

'Growthism' is the belief that growing GDP is the way to reduce poverty. However, this belief seems misguided, based on the evidence of what is actually happening in the world. 

Instead, Olivier mainly takes aim at wealth inequality, which he regards as the main cause for poverty in the developed world, and is mainly due to the doctrine of growthism. Deregulated economic growth in the developing world is also fueling wealth inequity and actively contributing to extreme poverty in many countries.

Equity is an alternative metric for measuring economic "success". 'Growth' doesn't deliver better lives for the majority of people, unless it is very carefully directed in ways designed to limit extreme wealth and make sure all the benefits of growth are shared equally. Otherwise people just end up working harder, for less money in real terms, and in less stable employment.

A 'post-growth' approach is outlined focusing on key friction points in the economy such as energy use and food. Olivier is quite clear - inequity leads to poverty, inefficiency and environmental degradation. 

It's a compelling case and hard to argue against. It certainly made me think differently about 'the economy' and how it's talked about in the media.