Alev Ozkan

Superintendencia de Bancos de la Republica Dominicana

This conversation is closed.

Should we assess the quality of economic growth? If so, do you think we should use this as an additinal indicator to economic growth?

Klaus Schwab, founder and president of the World Economic Forum, finally (after 40 years) mentioned that "we should not only by focusing on growth rates and market penetration, but also, equally — if not more importantly — by assessing the quality of economic growth". I do believe the quality of economic growth is more important than the quantity. The growth focuses on narrow economic variables. I also believe that economic good growth should reduce poverty, create less inequality and create jobs. In many countries, especially in the developing countries, we see growth but the effectioveness of the growth is usually very low. So, do we need another indicator i.e quality of economic growth? If so,what should we include in the assesement criterias? I have some like: income distrubution, education quality, health quality, gender equality, crime rate, child mortality etc..

  • Feb 21 2012: Economic growth should be measured in terms of reduction. We ought to concentrate on reducing economic growth. Last time I checked, infinite growth on a finite planet didn't add up. Isn't it apparent by now that this paradigm is a dead end street? All we are doing is simply consuming every inch of the planet for the sake of growth. We are no longer living on the planet but using it. If we're using it are we living at all?
  • thumb
    Feb 11 2012: Sorry but I have no idea what you are tallking.
  • thumb
    Feb 10 2012: This is already changing though quite silently. The quality of growth is increasingly being judged by its inclusion and impact of maximum number. The demise of Wall street trading as the epitome of income and growth is dying only because it is about growth within a small group,
    Societal impact and benefit, green behavior is now starting to command economic premium in products and even share valuation. Once this becomes the norm then there will surely be a NEW AUDIT which seeks to evaluate the "quality of economic growth" as a means for valuation. However the dominance of the "individual over society" in our modern interpretation of democracy and free markets could delay the process; not avoid its arrival. I hope the delay is not as bad as my horrible failed forecast in 1995 that in 10 years property will be valued by taking into account the CAPITAL value of trees. ( The economic calculation of its value in producing oxygen and absorbing Co2 is mathematically possible). That could easily create economic valuation for "old" green cover and forests and we would all be willing contributors to preserve it and pay the people who protect it through taxes or even a a trade able title whose value is created by preservation and NOT exploiting it for minerals or oil. BUT while carbon credits are now freely traded and quoted "forest areas" are not traded ( no sale deed just maintenance to preserve its production value) and no such thing in sight.
  • Feb 1 2012: One thing that might work as indicator of the quality of economic growth is the welath disparity beween richest and the poorest. From our current debates here in the US, and from reading about the issue in other countries, I think the more balanced the growth is the more stable the economic system.
  • thumb
    Jan 30 2012: someday we might give up the impossible task to measure the happiness of 7 billion people.
  • Jan 30 2012: I think Gross National Happiness is taking similar approach:

    However it is much more difficult to agree on what effective growth is and how to measure it?
    • thumb
      Jan 30 2012: Yes indeed but somehow I am not very confortable with the word happiness since it is defined as mental state of well-being and characterized by emotions. I am trying to add another indicator along with the growth of GDP to asses the quality of it. It is like correction factor ..