Skip to main content

If only democracy was good for GDP

Perhaps, if democratic practices boosted GDP growth, we'd invest more time in understanding and
refining the practices themselves. Alas, this is not the case.

Democratic institutions are decidedly ineffective, inefficient, and, from an economic growth mindset, not helpful. 

For proof, look no further than the response from some business communities in the face of uncertain election results, hung parliaments, minority governments, proportional representation, or calls for democratic reforms. The business community laments the instability and uncertainty that could slow economic investment, such as here in BC, and in response to requests for democratic reforms in Hong Kong,

The thing is, although this narrative is true, it is only true if economic growth is understood in conventional terms. From the standpoint of short term growth in GDP, or the unsustainable economic rents that drive profits to a shrinking number of people, authentic democracy is an outright disaster. Far better to drive forward capital intensive projects as quickly as possible, and capture the benefits of favorable market conditions, than to set up projects that will derive slower profits for more people over the long term. Democracy is much too slow for the sort of profits that drive so much investment in our economies.

Luckily, not everyone understands economic growth in this way. This article makes the point that the stability provided by democratic institutions boosts GDP growth over the long term. Others have realized that GDP growth is a terrible indicator of economic prosperity, preferring instead to focus on measures such as Gross National Income (GNI) or the Human Development Index.

Aside from adjusting our perspective on what economic prosperity actually looks like, there is another story to tell when it comes to the connection between the economy and community governance. Throughout history, calls for democratic reforms have often come from oppressed and impoverished populations, going right back to Athens. The expansion of rights to larger portions of the population to participate in Athenian popular assemblies came in response to protests from the poor. Fast forward a bunch of years, and aristocrats in England demand the power to hold the monarchy to account, and to participate in decision-making. More recently, the Arab Spring; populations looking for both democratic reform as well as improved economic equity. Even more explicit; this article emphasizing how increased economic inequality poses a direct threat to democratic stability.

Centralized control over economies, and efficient decision-making, are good for a certain type of business, and a certain type of economic growth. Democratic reforms, institutions, and practices reinforce an entirely different economic paradigm: Growth patterns that are slower, that benefit more people, and that could even provide prosperity over the long term. But we have to trust the process, and put democracy, and each other, first.

What does democratic participation in the economy look like? Participatory budgeting? Local community investment councils? Cooperatives? Decentralized decision-making?

Let us know what you think, and follow along to find out more. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Who gets to decide when it comes to Community Amenity Contributions?

This week we're approaching candidates in the upcoming Vancouver municipal election to get their feedback on the city's approach to Community Amenity Contributions (CACs). The Evoke team undertook a case study and research project in this area, and believes these could be better approached. Candidate responses will be posted on this site, meanwhile, here's some background on our perspective. 
The City of Vancouver has a Community Amenity Contribution (CAC) policy, officially established in 2004 with their Financing Growth strategy, where all new development and rezoning applications contribute, financially or in-kind, to community amenities. The CACs are extracted from new development and spent upon Council approval in a number of valuable areas such as: affordable housing, child care, amenities, green spaces, community infrastructure and other public goods.
Our research focuses on a key dimension related to CACs; although they are derived from value created within a neighb…

Does an efficient public service destroy community accountability?

New Public Management is an approach to running public service organizations (government services), and civil service generally, focused on service delivery that is efficient, business-like, and that incorporates market based principles. It includes management techniques and practices drawn from the private sector, allowing public servants to contract out services through competitive contracting, and focused on the professionalized delivery of public services.

The problem is...this approach may result in a loss to democratic accountability.

In a previous post we outlined two key dimensions to accountability; 1) understanding and monitoring decisions that are made, and 2) access to trustworthy information. Public administration, and the notion of public service, was traditionally focused on accountability to constituents via centralized control, and reporting to, defined government ministries and departments. This model is far from perfect; centralized bureaucracies are problematic in …

Where do the candidates stand on CAC's?

After the release of our research paper Who's Counting the Dollars?concerning Community Amenity Contributions, we have asked candidates in this year's municipal election for their thoughts on our recommendations.
We will post responses here as they are received.

OneCity Vancouver, Christine Boyle
One of the big ideas that OneCity Vancouver is bringing to this election is our Windfall Power Land Value Capture proposal (sometimes called a land value tax, or land lift tax). You can read more about it in this Vancouver Sun Op-Ed, and more will be released with our platform soon. 

A land value capture wouldn't entirely replace the CAC system, but it would dramatically scale it back by creating a more transparent system for measuring the impact that upzoning or nearby public infrastructure investments have on land value, and then capturing a portion of that 'lift' in value to spend on community priorities (like affordable housing and more robust public transit). In addition…