We all know what a myth is. We're used to hearing about Greek or Roman mythology as a means of explaining how the world works in supernatural ways. Most indigenous cultures have their own mythologies.

One of the mythologies of Western cultures is of a modern variety. The idea that growth is good, growth is inevitable, everyone benefits from growth. We hear this, it is broadcast far and wide, and people who are not convinced that any kind of growth is good are criticized or branded as ignorant of the ways the world works. Growth has led to the prosperity we enjoy, right? And now growth has become global in scope. And as the pie gets bigger, everyone's pieces supposedly get bigger.

Is this true, or is this a myth? And if it's a myth, who perpetuates it as truth?

We're often told, by government and through the media, that economic growth is the route to increased standards of living. This usually means two main things: more jobs and more productivity. And according to economic statistics, we've had growth in the size and scope of the world's economy. Since 1950, there has been a five-fold increase in global economic output. In the U.S., economy has tripled in size in about that same time (actually, since about 1960, some 45 years).

Economic growth is supposed to mean more jobs, and higher levels of productivity. Productivity as opposed to production, which is total output. Productivity means greater output per person--people are more 'productive.'

Closer scrutiny of the economic picture suggests a few things:

• The highest growth has been in a few industries:
  • Petroleum/petrochemical
  • mining
  • chemical intensive agriculture
  • metals
  • road-building, transportation
• Growth in many areas of the economy, according to David Korten, is really drawing down 'natural capital,' though. It may not be economic production after a certain point. In fact, it may be a cost . . . how is this?
• Growth can actually lead to bad outcomes--pollution, for instance, has accompanied the Industrial Revolution, from which millions of people have benefited and billions if not trillions of dollars of wealth created. But what about the pollution? Well, the way we measure growth, even pollution can count.

Korten also states that many extractive or heavily polluting industries contribute more to the economy than alternatives that may be less harmful to the environment. For example, driving a mile in a car versus riding a bicycle--the bicyclist isn't doing much for the economy. Sure, every once in a while she has a flat tire, needs a new pedal, buys a helmet and some gear, maybe even replaces her bicycle after a few years. But look at the car and all the support systems in place to sustain a car economy--dealers (new and used), financers, mechanics, auto parts, lubricants, fuels and gas stations, advertising, mineral production, energy and power producers, road-building, the parking industry (yes, it's a huge industry), detailing, auto-body, insurance, electronics, etc. Take the example of turning on the air conditioner in the summer, vs opening a window. You should be getting the point.

So, the GNP, or gross national product, which we use to measure economic growth, according to Korten, may less measure total economic output than it does the rate of resource to waste. That's not what we learn in textbooks or on TV or from politicians or industry, though. Hmmmmm . . . wonder why . . . what's reality, and what's myth? Who's presenting the problem to us? Think about corporate media and advertising . . .

Growth and distribution

The results of growth? Increases in average incomes, yes. Perhaps even increases in jobs. Perhaps (or perhaps more jobs in the formal sector of the economy where they can be counted). But with that comes greater inequality, and a higher standard of living for fewer and fewer people. In other words, growth doesn't imply equal distribution. Economic growth is no guarantee that more people are benefiting, and it may not even be a very good measure of how well an economy is really doing. Take a recent example from the Bush Administration--they're trying to re-classify fast food jobs as manufacturing jobs. The logic? "When a fast-food restaurant sells a hamburger, for example, is it providing a 'service' or is it combining inputs to 'manufacture' a product?" So do more fast food jobs mean growth in the manufacturing sector? No, but it would appear in statistics that the U.S. isn't losing lots of manufacturing jobs, which are being replaced by unskilled service sector jobs that pay less and offer less security. We'll just redefine 'service' to mean 'manufacturing,' and call it economic growth! Of course, it all falls apart if you include wages, because then the new growth in manufacturing would be of the low-wage variety. But as the expression goes, 75.3% of all statistics are made up!

Now, back to inequality. Could this be because the 'fewer and fewer' (who are becoming more wealthy) are having less children? Is that why they're fewer and fewer? Think back to Hardin's argument about population growth. Or is it because the fewer and fewer have more wealth and are able to use up more resources, and the rest who've been affected by 'economic growth' (we're not necessarily counting agrarian societies and farming populations here) are mainly engaged in producing stuff for them?

Another question Korten asks is if some of the growth being measured isn't really just a shifting of work to the money economy where it can be measured more accurately? Yes, there have been huge productivity increases (think McDonaldization, automation). When production and consumption are global, do you have a choice but to mass produce and consume? Think how different our lives might be if we could only find food in the markets that was grown locally . . . We'd have to have ways to store food at harvest time to last through the winter. We couldn't have our table grapes from Chile in January, or our Braeburn apples from New Zealand in May.

Even in U.S., we're working harder to maintain standards of living. Two income earning families are now a necessity for many. Keep in mind--the U.S. economy has tripled in size since 1960. Yet the number of poor has remained relatively unchanged--between now over 35 million (and most professionals who study this believe that the antiquated definition of poverty provides an extremely conservative count of the number of poor). Yes, there are more people now than in 1960. The point is that the benefits of economic growth have not gone to the many, but to the few. Income and wealth inequality in the U.S. has increased dramatically in the last 20 years.

How much growth is unsustainable (borrowing from future generations)?

Growth above a certain level may actually be a COST. In a sense, we're using up resources that future generations would have needed to maintain current standards of living. The way economic output gets measured, things like the Exxon Valdez cleanup in Alaska, gets counted as economic production, rather than an environmental cost. The more oil spills, the larger the economy looks. Yes, it produced some jobs and some benefited, but the damage to the coastline and the industries there was greater than the benefits. We've talked in class about the use of non-renewable resources, such as minerals, petroleum, etc. Even tropical timber--whether it's used sustainably, or whether it's mined, it all counts as production and growth.

And how about the rest of the world? According to the World Bank, many subsist on $1 / day .Two dollars would be a doubling of income! Over 1 billion people suffer from chronic hunger, that means they go to bed hungry, every night. They are more susceptible to disease, likely don't have access to the most basic of needs, such as clean water. Clean water access for all of the world's people would likely decrease mortality rates dramatically. But where are we going with respect to supplying the world's poor with clean water? The trend is toward privatization (as the rise of the multinational corporation embodies). There is immense profit in privatizing water supplies. The poor can't afford it in some cases, and have to turn to whatever resources are available, often unsanitary and unsafe. The privatization of water supplies is being endorsed by the World Bank, which often assists countries willing to try it. It is a hugely profitable industry as well.

Private property in general is good for industry, and often looks like it leads to higher productivity, but displaces millions engaged in subsistence livelihoods. For example, gold mining in Amazon, Philippines uses cyanide to separate the ore, poisoning watersheds and rendering the areas uninhabitable or at least extremely toxic for human habitation. The profits are in the billions, but so are the costs. Is this economic growth? You bet, the way it's currently counted. Hilltop mining in Appalachia is a good example. Companies blast the tops off of mountains to get to the coal, and dump the rock into the valleys. Their claim is that this is 'good for economic development,' because it lessens the topography.

Timber companies get consignments from governments (where people live … )-water quality, soil erosion, grass invades, etc. and a way of life may be destroyed Who benefits? Us (we get our cheap tropical teakwood tables and chairs), corporations like Weyerhauser.

Will globalization increase average incomes? It might, but what do averages tell us? IN some ways, growth is like Greek mythology. It's never really closely examined, doesn't necessarily hold up under scrutiny, but makes for a nice story. Keeping the myths alive is important to the way the economy functions . . .

Should we care? Is our fate connected to the plight of the rest of the world? Or are theirs connected to ours?