Time to think beyond the economy – is GDP the right target?

Policy should focus on wellbeing, opportunity and sustainability.

This week David Cameron launched the Big Society bank and sparked a new round of debate on whether "money makes the world go round" or "the best things in life are free". The Big Society is seen by some as a political cover story for cuts to public services but the idea behind it questions whether there is more to society than just the bottom line? Whether the pursuit of happiness is about more than money? Whether doing you bit, gives your life its meaning, rather than the job you do or the things your own?

Given Britain’s gloomy economic climate, the worst unemployment since 1995 and further cuts to public spending in the pipeline, our ‘age of austerity’ seems all encompassing. But back in 1968, Robert Kennedy famously questions whether GDP was the right measure of a healthy economy and of a good society:

The Gross National Product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages; the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage; neither our wisdom nor our learning; neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.

More than forty years on, politicians are still asking those questions.  A new report published by IPPR today report suggests policy should focus directly on wellbeing and range of the opportunities that people have. It concludes that every effort to rethink economic policy should be motivated by a consideration not only of "what works" but also of "to what ends".

Clearly there are reasons why GDP has remained for so long the primary measure of economic success. Governments have long taken the view that by promoting GDP growth they help a majority of the population achieve better lives. Historically a strong correlation existed between GDP, disposable income and employment. This provided greater access to material wealth; more desirable cars, houses, clothes, and the latest household and personal gadgets. But despite the advances brought about by GDP growth, there is a growing consensus among politicians that GDP on its own is no longer sufficient and our wellbeing does not just come from income, but from a wide range of sources.

On the other side of the pond, significant headway in measuring national wellbeing has been made in Canada with the Canadian Index of Wellbeing. It is an attempt to capture the quality of life experienced by Canadians. Here in the UK, the ONS launched a consultation exercise to find out what really matters to people from the people themselves. This found that family, friends, health, financial security, equality and fairness are fundamental in determining wellbeing. These initiatives should be encouraged and continued so we can identify what matters to people and how best we can directly support these areas.

By targeting wellbeing and opportunity we speak to the wider concerns of the population. We ask how people are doing before we ask how the economy doing? We recognise that there is "life beyond the bottom line" and that worthwhile lives extend beyond what we earn and consume. The big question that remains, is how to conclude a political consensus around wellbeing, opportunity and sustainability?

Amna Silim is a Researcher at IPPR

David Cameron launches The Big Society Capital fund at The London Stock Exchange. Photograph: Getty Images.
Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

In focusing on the famous few, we risk doing a disservice to all victims of child sexual abuse

There is a danger that we make it harder, not easier, for victims to come forward in future. 

Back in the 1970s when relations between journalists and police were somewhat different to today a simple ritual would be carried out around the country at various times throughout the week.

Reporters, eager for information for their regional newspaper, would take a trip to the local station and there would be met by a desk sergeant who would helpfully skim through details in the crime Incident Book.

Among the entries about petty thefts, burglaries and road accidents there would occasionally be a reference to an allegation of incest. And at this point the sergeant and journalist might well screw-up their faces, shake their heads and swiftly move on to the next log. The subject was basically taboo, seen as something ‘a bit mucky,’ not what was wanted in a family newspaper.

And that’s really the way things stayed until 1986 when ChildLine was set up by Dame Esther Rantzen in the wake of a BBC programme about child abuse. For the first time children felt able to speak out about being sexually assaulted by the very adults whose role in life was to protect them.

And for the first time the picture became clear about what incest really meant in many cases. It wasn’t simply a low level crime to be swept under the carpet in case it scratched people’s sensitivities. It frequently involved children being abused by members of their close family, repeatedly, over many years.

Slowly but surely as the years rolled on the NSPCC continued to press the message about the prevalence of child sexual abuse, while encouraging victims to come forward. During this time the corrosive effects of this most insidious crime have been painfully detailed by many of those whose lives have been derailed by it. And of course the details of the hundreds of opportunistic sexual assaults committed by Jimmy Savile have been indelibly branded onto the nation’s consciousness.

It’s been a long road - particularly for those who were raped or otherwise abused as children and are now well into their later years - to bring society around to accepting that this is not to be treated as a dark secret that we really don’t want to expose to daylight. Many of those who called our helpline during the early days of the Savile investigation had never told anyone about the traumatic events of their childhoods despite the fact they had reached retirement age.

So, having buried the taboo, we seem to be in danger of giving it the kiss of life with the way some cases of alleged abuse are now being perceived.

It’s quite right that all claims of sexual assault should be investigated, tested and, where there is a case, pursued through the judicial system. No one is above the law, whether a ‘celebrity’ or a lord.

But we seem to have lost a sense of perspective when it comes to these crimes with vast resources being allocated to a handful of cases while many thousands of reported incidents are virtually on hold.

The police should never have to apologise for investigating crimes and following leads. However, if allegations are false or cannot be substantiated they should say so. This would be a strength not a weakness.

It is, of course, difficult that in many of the high-profile cases of recent times the identities of those under investigation have not been officially released by the police but have come to light through other means. Yet we have to deal with the world as it is not as we wish it would be and once names are common knowledge the results of the investigations centring on them should be made public.

When it emerges that someone in the public eye is being investigated for non-recent child abuse it obviously stirs the interest of the media whose appetite can be insatiable. This puts pressure on the police who don’t want to repeat the mistakes of the past by allowing offenders to slip through their hands.  And so there is a danger, as has been seen in recent cases, that officers lack confidence in declaring there is a lack of evidence or the allegations are not true. 

The disproportionate weight of media attention given to say, Sir Edward Heath, as opposed to the Bradford grooming gang sentenced this week, shows there is a danger the pendulum is swinging too far the other way. This threatens the painstaking work invested in ensuring the public and our institutions recognise child abuse as a very real danger. 

Whilst high profile cases have helped the cause there is now a real risk that the all-encompassing focus on them does both victims of abuse and those advocating on their behalf a fundamental disservice.

As the public watches high -profile cases collapsing amidst a media fanfare genuine convictions made across the country week in week out go virtually unannounced. If this trend continues they may start to believe that child sexual abuse isn’t the prolific problem we know it to be.

So, while detectives peer into the mists of time, searching for long lost clues, we have to face the unpalatable possibility that offences being committed today will in turn only be investigated fully in years or decades' time because there is not the manpower to deal with them right now.

So, now the Goddard Inquiry is in full swing, taking evidence about allegations of child sex crimes involving ‘well known people’ as well as institutional abuse, how do we ensure we don’t fail today’s victims?

If they start to think their stories are going to be diminished by the continuing furore over how some senior public figures have been treated by the police they will stay silent. Therefore we have to continue to encourage them to come forward, to give them the confidence of knowing they will be listened to.

If we don’t we will find ourselves back in those incestuous days where people conspired to say and do nothing to prevent child abuse.

Peter Wanless is Chief Executive of the NSPCC.