A Post‐GDP World? Rethinking International Politics in the 21st Century
| Author | Lorenzo Fioramonti |
| Published date | 01 February 2016 |
| Date | 01 February 2016 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12269 |
A Post-GDP World? Rethinking International
Politics in the 21
st
Century
Lorenzo Fioramonti
University of Pretoria
Abstract
In contemporary politics, the power and status of a country are intimately connected with its economic wealth. In particular,
GDP has become the benchmark by which the global pecking order is defined. Initially designed as a mere survey of a
nation’s income, GDP has become an ordering principle in international governance. Yet the convergence of socioeconomic,
environmental and energy crises currently questions the sustainability of GDP maximization and its political relevance,
strengthened by a growing consensus among policy makers and experts that GDP is an inadequate metric of economic suc-
cess. As countries move beyond GDP and new indicators are introduced, the overall international political order may also
change. In particular, some non-G7 countries may emerge as global leaders in wellbeing, prosperity and sustainable develop-
ment. We may be witnessing a gradual shift to a new Bretton Woods, possibly leading to a profound restructuring of global-
ization with the emergence of new forms of supranational regionalism in which more equitable and sustainable economies
will play a leading role.
Policy Implications
•GDP is not just a number, but a powerful ordering principle in international governance.
•GDP has become increasingly unfit to guide global policy and misleading in defining governance structures.
•Moving beyond GDP is a key imperative for governance in the 21st century.
•A post-GDP world will see different global leaders emerging, with more relevance to countries that have been able to
marry economic performance with social and ecological wellbeing.
•A post-GDP world will question the current system of economic globalization: new, more comprehensive metrics will
reveal the ‘hidden’costs of international trade and conventional energy systems. A form of sustainable regionalism is likely
to replace economic globalization as the key paradigm of global governance in the 21st century.
In contemporary international politics and global governance,
power and status are intimately connected with the size of
a country’s economy. In his influential book The Rise and Fall
of the Great Powers, Yale historian Paul Kennedy concludes
that economic wealth is arguably more significant than mili-
tary strength when it comes to determining a country’s glo-
bal status (Kennedy, 1989). In particular, GDP has become
the key parameter to assess a nation’s global status. For
instance, membership of the G7 is based on a country’s
GDP. The current definitions of ‘superpower’,‘middle power’
or ‘emerging power’are all determined by GDP. The com-
monplace distinction between ‘developed’and ‘developing’
world, which has defined international aid, finance and
trade policies in the 20th century, is also a result of GDP
(Rist, 2010). When allegedly ‘poor’nations reach a certain
level of GDP, they are automatically relabelled as middle-in-
come or developed countries. This opens access to the most
important global governance institutions. For instance, Mex-
ico and South Korea became members of the Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in 1994
and 1996, respectively, after years of major GDP growth –
the first two hitherto ‘developing’nations to do so. Brazil,
China, India, Mexico and South Africa were invited to join
the G7 in 2007 through the so-called Outreach 5 arrange-
ment. Later they transitioned seamlessly into the G20. All
these countries owe their fame and prestige to either their
aggregate GDP or their GDP growth rates. This applies to
new global clubs too. The acronym BRIC (later expanded to
BRICS) was introduced to the international political debate
by a 2001 report published by Goldman Sachs to describe
what were then the fastest growing economies: Brazil, Rus-
sia, India and China (and now South Africa) (O’Neill, 2001).
Their analysis was based on estimates of GDP growth,
according to which the economic output of these econo-
mies would surpass that of the G7 by 2050 and thus create
a new planetary leadership. More recently, the same logic
was applied to another group of emerging economies, once
again through a GDP-based acronym (MINT), alerting the
investment community that the real leaders of the future
may very well be Mexico, Indonesia, Nigeria and Turkey
(O’Neill, 2013).
Global economic policies are also driven by GDP, predomi-
nantly through the intermediation of institutions such as the
International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank,
Global Policy (2016) 7:1 doi: 10.1111/1758-5899.12269 ©2015 University of Durham and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Global Policy Volume 7 . Issue 1 . February 2016 15
Research Article
To continue reading
Request your trial