Prof Diane Coyle is interviewed on Times Radio about measuring economic growth and whether GDP is still fit for purpose.
On Sunday 16 February 2025, Times Radio host Alexis Conran interviewed the Bennett Institute’s Prof Diane Coyle about whether GDP is really the best way to measure the economy.
Said Prof Diane Coyle, Bennett Professor of Public Policy:
“I really wish we could get away from the focus on those monthly or quarterly GDP figures alone when they come out. And you know, the politicians and the media and the statisticians all feel compelled to do that, but it doesn’t really give us very much information about whether people are feeling better off or not. So let’s not worry about the 0.1% or the 0.2% but think more about are we investing for the future? Are the benefits being shared? What’s happening to their natural environment and all of the things that really matter for people’s quality of life.”
Diane discussed the limitations of GDP as a measure of economic health, noting that it does not account for income distribution or future consumption impacts. She highlighted that while the UK avoided recession with 0.1% GDP growth in 2024’s final months, this growth may not benefit most people. Coyle emphasized the importance of considering who benefits from GDP growth and the broader impact on quality of life, including leisure time and environmental factors. She argued for a more holistic approach to economic indicators that goes beyond GDP alone to better reflect public perception and wellbeing.
Diane explained that its important to explore alternative measures of economic and social progress beyond just GDP. She recommended a more holistic approach to evaluating the health of the economy that considers the distribution of benefits, investment, and environmental factors. Finally, Diane encouraged policymakers and the media to move away from the sole focus on GDP figures and instead consider a wider range of indicators.
Listen on Times radio (Starts 45 mins)
The views and opinions expressed in this post are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the Bennett Institute for Public Policy.
