The Broker

Image by Joriel Jimenez

The problem is not measurement, the problem is accountability

Dean Baker | 06 September 2011

A debate over measurements and alternatives to GDP is likely to prove a distraction to the more fundamental issue, which is the corruption of the economic profession. The fact is that economists are doing horribly even by their own measure: GDP growth in most wealthy countries has been abysmal for the past three years. However, few if any economists are held responsible for the policy failures that led to this economic disaster. This is due to the fact that the economics profession is largely unaccountable to the general public.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the policies pursued by most major central banks in the wake of the downturn. If it is possible for events in the world to discredit a theory, then the inflation targeting that was the guidepost of policy for most central banks prior to the collapse has been discredited. The idea that if central banks focus on maintaining a low and stable inflation rate it would lead to the maximization of employment and growth, looks about as accurate as claims that the earth is flat. Yet the European Central Bank, the Federal Reserve Board and most other major central banks continue to claim that they are following a policy of targeting 2.0 percent inflation.

This point is relevant to this debate over economic measures, because if the economics profession is not honest in discussions of its pursuit of growth, then there is zero reason to believe that it would be any more honest in its pursuit of any other measure. The fundamental problem is a lack of accountability to the public as a whole, not the fact that they are using the wrong measure.

As a practical matter, no serious economist would argue that economic growth is a comprehensive measure of wellbeing. It is a useful measure in the same way that weight is a useful measure in determining whether someone is healthy. If a person has a near ideal weight, it doesn’t mean that they are not suffering from cancer or some other fatal disease. However, if they are 50 pounds underweight or overweight then it is likely that they have some serious health issues.

A physician assessing the health of her patient would want to know her weight; however, no physician in their right mind would end the examination there. In the same way, any reasonable economist would go beyond a measure of GDP or per capita GDP to look at distribution, the state of the environment, the quality of health care and education and other measures of wellbeing to assess an economy’s health. The problem is not measurement, the problem is accountability.

Photo credit main picture: Image by Joriel Jimenez

Comments

Your comment will not be automatically posted but first reviewed by the editor. If the editor has questions with respect to the content of your comment, you will be contacted.

 

Measurement and accountability

This is absolutely true - but two comments.
1. While of course weight is not a comprehensive measure of health any more than GDP is of welfare, some people do get obsessed with their weight....
2. The next question is who is to hold economists to account and how? New forms of measurement are in essence accountability mechanisms, part of their function is to give politicians (and the public) the tools and the confidence to challenge the professionals.

So yes - the issue is accountability, but measurement is part (but not all) of that.
Charles Seaford | September 14, 2011 | Respond

Proxy indicators, outputs and management

I agree with the headline but I wish you'd have gone further.

I recently wrote a similar blog post about evaluation and metrics (okay, this summer). The point was that evaluation is not enough. We need the political or business will to move and address failure and success. I think you are talking about the same thing, but you don't really go there, and I wonder why. Maybe I am missing something, but do you mean by "accountable to the public", "somebody needs to get fired"? There is no incentive to change policy if there are no personal consequences for poor policy performance.

"In the same way, any reasonable economist would go beyond a measure of GDP or per capita GDP to look at distribution, the state of the environment, the quality of health care and education and other measures of wellbeing to assess an economy’s health. The problem is not measurement, the problem is accountability."

The second statement here doesn't really follow from the first, which is really a recommendation for more measurement. Measurement of social good, to be sure, but as a matter of fact, we have that data as well. Thanks to the CIA, the World Bank, the UN, and numerous other government and non-governmental agencies, anyone with an Internet connection can get that data for nearly anywhere in the world.

But we aren't using it, and when we do, we lack the management capacity to solve the problem. Either we aren't willing--such as in the case of disrupting society to rectify gross injustice like institutionalized racism or sexism--or it isn't economically expedient in the short term.

Thanks for the opportunity to participate in the debate.
Elizabeth Kronoff, Insaan Group | September 09, 2011 | Respond