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. 


Popular posts from this blog

Including rational thought in decision-making: novel idea?

The post last week brought up the idea that we need to think about what concepts and ideas are put forward in the public realm. From pop music to sports to local community events, our approach to decision-making is influenced by commonly understood cultural practices. Meaningful democratic decision-making requires that we think about the practices, ideas, and values that percolate throughout society. More specifically, when it comes to engaging a group of people to get together and go through a democratic decision-making process, practitioners need to think about how participants are being, or have been, educated. By definition, democratic decision-making is not limited to specialists. "Rule by the people" means everyone gets to participate in decision-making, even about issues where we are not experts. This does not mean, however, that democratic decision-making should be approached from a place of ignorance.  Robert Dahl  emphasized the importance of  enlight

Running for office: no experience necessary

There are moments when I hear people question the qualifications and experience of those who are running for, or hold, positions in office. Shouldn't there be some minimum, established, standard or criteria for holding a public position of power? Some minimum level of education? The short answer is no. If we start looking to impose minimum standards or benchmarks other than: 1) residency, 2) adulthood* we've missed the whole point of democracy, and a critical part of what democracy means. A fundamental democratic principle is equality of voice, or equality of voting. Every person has decision-making power. This principle is based on the concept that not a single one of us is more qualified, or has any right, to impose decision-making or power over others, any more than they also have a right to impose decision-making or power over us. By contrast, in other spheres of life, we want trained experts to hold some degree of decision-making power. For example, Doctors should pr

Democracy doesn't mean you get your way - Part 1

Open Houses and Public Hearings:  Public Deliberation, not Delegated Decision-Making Unfortunately, and contrary to popular belief, showing up at an open house or public hearing does not mean you get to veto issues that are going forward to council. Quite often, participants in municipal consultation events are frustrated and disheartened that their feedback does not lead to obvious and explicit policy change. "But I live in the neighbourhood! I should be able to say what gets built, and what doesn't!" These sentiments are common, especially at the municipal level when rezoning applications are put forward, or communities are reviewing their Official Community Plans (OCP's) to accommodate new and different developments. Which begs the question - why bother holding open houses or public hearings at all? Making decisions democratically is not always straight forward. Once we get beyond foundational elements of a democratic society (rule of law, freedom