Benefits that are associated with good growth - Essay Example

?Running Head: Critical Review Introduction There are several benefits that are associated with good growth. These benefits may enhance a wide range of social virtues such as tolerance of diversity, dedication to democracy, commitment to fairness, and social mobility. Arrow et al. (2005) suggests that, once the living standards decline or stagnate, there is little or no progress at all in most societies toward any of the aforementioned goals, this leads to retrogression in many instances. The importance of good economic growth cannot therefore be overlooked as it ensures standards of living are improved as well as the well being of the economy itself. The impacts of economic growth should not necessary be negative towards the environment. It has been argued by some economist that economic growth can ultimately lead to environmental improvement, notwithstanding the increase in environmental degradation in the past associated with economic growth. Discussion As Robert Reich (2010) puts it, economic growth does not necessarily mean production of a lot of stuff, but rather, it is all about the nation’s ability to produce everything that the inhabitants of that nation want and need, which include improvement of public health, schools, as well as effective management of environment. This statement is validated by the argument advanced by Friedman to states that even though there is a wide belief that a bigger GDP ( availability of more services and goods) show the way to more satisfied and happier citizens, the proposition is more complicated than it seem. According to him, most individuals do judge their well being through weighing themselves against other people (Reich, 2010). For this reason, in the event that the average income of a given country increases the expectations of the people also go up. Consequently, the levels of GDP taken alone per individual in a particular nation, does not essentially give a clear reflection of the level of happiness among the citizens. The absence of a direct connection between the levels of GDP per individual in a given country and individual satisfaction seems to challenge the purely economic point of view in support of growth. This raises the question as to the veracity of people having to go through all the turmoil of economic restructuring as well as technological change while, the availability of bigger homes and more gadgets are not going to make people happier It has been the contention of other economist economic growth is good and important as people get to see their own earning increasing, and they do not have to worry about comparing themselves with others. Eventually, that state generates a more conducive environment for both social and political advancement in a given country. As pointed out earlier, economic growth does not necessarily have to go hand in hand with environmental degradation; as a matter of fact growth can be a very vital tool in controlling and managing environmental degradation as pointed out by Robert Reich. According to Dinda (2005), contrary to most people beliefs, continues economic growth can be the best means through which environmental degradation can be addressed. This can only be done by developing a mechanism that defines the relationship between income generated and environmental degradation. As Dinda (2005) puts it, when a particular country attains a satisfactorily high living standard, the citizens of such countries attach more importance to environmental facilities around them. To put it more simply, the more people become wealthier, the more time they will have to consider other things as opposed to the poor people who only think about basic survival. The wealthy on the other hand, will have more time to think about being more richer and environmental conditions. Since they do have significant influence, they are capable of influencing the local and national government to look into the issue of environmental improvement. Study shows that, even though during the early stages of economic growth there is an increase in environmental degradation, it is equally true that continuous economic growth to a particular stage (at some income level) can substantially reduce the levels of environmental degradation (Arrow et al., 2005). The assertion of Robert Reich is therefore accurate when he states that poorer countries experience more environmental degradation than their developed counterparts. These may be so because while the poorer countries are struggling to meet the basic needs of their people, the developed countries have already supposed that level and it has other things to consider such as improving the environment. More often the developed and rich countries have used their powers to extort resources from the poorer nations. This has been going on since colonial times when the imperial government would obtain cheep and often free resources from their colonies for the benefit of the imperial master. After independence there is not much that has changed, the poorer countries have continued to be poor and the rich one have retained their status quo hence enabling them to continue extracting resources from the poorer countries irresponsibly. The condition is propagated by the Achilles' heel of the current international law, which does not adequately safeguards the interest of the weaker nations (Arrow et al., 2005). This law is about who is mightier than who, and the ability to justify a particular action by a state. It therefore gives the richer countries an upper hand over the poorer nations. Even though a nation may indeed decide on how to utilize its productive capacity, that is how to define its wants and needs; there are other factors that may not allow them to voluntarily choose especially in poorer countries which have slower growth. The decision on how to use their productive capacity is therefore driven by circumstances and not necessary own choice. Conclusion It is indeed true to say that in instances where there is more rapidly growth, there is a bigger possibility to achieve more equal opportunity as well as a wider allotment of the benefits that accrues from the growth. Through continues economic growth a country is capable of addressing the issue of environmental degradation more effectively as the income obtained from the growth may be used to improve on the environmental amenities (Dinda 2005). The impacts of slower growth are far reaching since the little benefits obtained from the growth are not be enough for equal distribution let alone addressing the issue of environmental degradation which is quite high at this stage. In such instances the poor are left poorer and the middle class are added more burden of taxes. References Arrow, K. et al. 2005, ‘Economic growth, carrying capacity and the environment’, Ecological Economics, 15: 91-95. Dinda, S. 2005, ‘A theoretical basis for the Environmental Kuznets Curve’, Ecological Economics, 53, 3: 403-413. Reich, R. 2010. Why Growth is Good, viewed 29 February 2012, . Read More