Under the current leadership of Robert Habeck (Greens), the Federal Ministry of Economics relies on a hodgepodge of prosperity indicators.
(Photo: dpa)
Managers know the problem: If too many goals are defined when the target agreement is reached, it is difficult to assess the employees at the end of the year. Even if important goals are not achieved, you end up with a satisfactory result.
The bonus payments are correspondingly even. From the point of view of the employees who perform less well, this is a pleasing result, which is why they will continue to push for as many goals as possible in the future. What is annoying in the human resources area is highly problematic on a macroeconomic level.
Despite weaknesses, gross domestic product (GDP) is the best indicator of a country’s performance. If it rises, incomes and thus productivity grow. If it falls, prosperity falls and society can afford less.
The development of GDP must therefore be at the top of the hierarchy of objectives. It forms the basis and source of financing for everything else: a functioning welfare state, investments to ensure future prosperity and also climate protection measures.
Top jobs of the day
Find the best jobs now and
be notified by email.
It is worrying that the Federal Ministry of Economics, under the current leadership of Robert Habeck (Greens), is relying on a hodgepodge of prosperity indicators. After the cut, 33 goals made it into the annual economic report – from nitrate pollution to educational mobility. Considered in isolation, the goals may be worth striving for. They are out of place as figures in the annual economic report.
>> Read here: No academic dry swimming” – How Economics Minister Habeck redefines prosperity
Daniel Stelter is the founder of the discussion forum beyond the obvious, which specializes in strategy and macroeconomics, as well as a management consultant and author. Every Sunday his podcast goes online at www.think-bto.com.
(Photo: Robert Recker/ Berlin)
The danger is obvious: In the future, politicians will not only counter the lack of GDP growth by achieving other goals, but will also prioritize these other goals and thus claim success.
Once goals beyond the GDP have gained overriding importance, the question of the material costs and benefits of the measures to achieve the goal is no longer asked. This eliminates a central social discussion about what we can and want to afford.
What is even more serious is that behind the expansion of the target lies a deep-seated skepticism about growth on the part of the leading players. The climate can only be saved with less economic output and falling consumption.
Apart from the fact that the opposite is the case, because you have to be able to afford climate protection, it does not correspond to empirical evidence. Economic development has been decoupled from resource consumption for years.
As with excessive target agreements in human resources, politics will also suffer shipwreck in the end. “Climate-friendly prosperity” can be anything, just not less prosperity. Because there is not a single case in the world where a sustained decline in gross domestic product went hand in hand with greater satisfaction among the population.
More: Reader debate – how should we measure prosperity in the future?