Grandstand. The confusion between growth and development is very old. As proof the famous little book by Walt Rostow (1916-2003), The Stages of Economic Growth (1961), in which the famous ultra-liberal American economist explains that all countries should follow the same steps leading, in the end, to mass consumption. Committing a similar error, Marxist economists have been able to estimate that all developing countries should end up in… communism.
There are therefore few economists who have distinguished between growth and development and who have understood, refuting linear schemas, that each society takes specific and original paths to produce its future.
An identical GDP
Inspired by both François Perroux (1903-1987) and Amartya Sen, Nobel Prize winner in economics (1998), the French economist René Passet is right to question himself in the following terms: “Can growth that is accompanied by the degradation of natural environments (and the deterioration of the conditions of human life) be qualified as development? “. And to consider that development must “respect the regulatory mechanisms of the human and natural spheres in which it takes place” (Rene Passet, Last Chance Bioeconomy, The Links that Liberate, 2012).
The notion of development sends back-to-back those for whom without growth there is no salvation to ensure purchasing power, employment and the repayment of State debts… and those who believe, on the contrary , that growth is incompatible with the survival of a planet faced with the unreasonableness of human activity. An impossible dialogue, especially since both sides have solid arguments to put forward their point of view.
What does the notion of development suggest to us? That one can develop without growing. The gross domestic product (GDP) of a nation can increase by the quality of the services offered, but also if the value – and therefore the price of industrial goods – increases… which is the case for durable goods.
A sustainable washing machine will be produced in smaller quantities, because it is sustainable. It’s a safe bet, however, that its value being higher, its price will be as well. Not producing more washing machines but producing more durable, and therefore more expensive, machines would result in the same GDP.
Reconcile the irreconcilable
But this GDP in value would be more desirable than that obtained with a higher production volume which is not destined to last. Both because achieving greater production implies a higher levy on nature and because throwing away your washing machine after 4 to 5 years involves a negative externality: considerable pollution or a significant cost of recycling. .
You have 33.71% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.