Introduction
GDP growth has become a modern ritual of power, yet it increasingly diverges from the lived experiences of citizens. Joseph Stiglitz warns: this disconnect is not a technical glitch, but a source of eroding trust in the state. This article exposes the illusion that production indicators automatically translate into a better quality of life. You will learn why traditional statistics are blind to the ultra-wealthy, how social trust impacts economic efficiency, and why EU institutions avoid measuring subjective happiness.
GDP and DINA Methodology: Why Production Statistics Ignore Quality of Life?
GDP measures market production, not well-being. It is blind to domestic labor, ecological health, and distributive justice. Traditional metrics, such as the Gini coefficient, mask critical horizontal inequalities (between ethnic groups or genders) and the lack of social mobility. Statistics also suffer from the "missing rich" phenomenon—surveys fail to capture billionaires whose wealth is hidden in capital gains and tax havens.
The solution lies in Distributional National Accounts (DINA). This methodology integrates tax data with macroeconomic figures, forcing them to "speak" the same language. Thanks to DINA, we know that the bottom half of society in the US barely participates in growth, while in France, the fruits of development are shared more equitably. This tool unmasks averaged statistics and allows for the management of systemic risk.
Trust and Economic Security as Foundations of Development
Trust is the "lubricant" of the system, drastically reducing transaction costs. Stiglitz distinguishes rational trust (based on institutions) from moral trust (social norms). A lack of trust in courts or the police creates a vacuum filled by mafia structures. Equally important is economic security, measured by financial buffers. Many middle-class families live in a state of "fragile stability," lacking the savings to survive a single quarter without income.
The model "GDP implies prosperity" is logically flawed. An increase in production (P) does not automatically mean an increase in median income (Q) or stable inequality (R). Global business is beginning to realize this, incorporating distributional measures into ESG reporting. Trust and security indicators are becoming hard financial parameters, determining political risk premiums and demand stability.
Eudaimonia and the Growth Paradox: Beyond Hard Data
The Stiglitz report deconstructs the concept of happiness into three dimensions: life evaluation (a reflective judgment of one’s biography), experiential well-being (emotions in the here and now), and eudaimonia (a sense of meaning and purpose). It turns out that economic growth has a negligible impact on daily moods, and eudaimonia can remain high even in difficult conditions if an individual is pursuing meaningful goals.
Why do EU institutions and the media avoid these metrics? A technocratic market paradigm dominates, where "soft" data about emotions is politically inconvenient. Cherry-picking macroeconomic indicators allows the social costs of reforms to be hidden. The media, chasing simplification, prefers to report a 3% GDP increase rather than a complex decline in social trust, deepening the rift between the official narrative of success and the real sense of uncertainty felt by citizens.
Summary
In a world where statistics diverge from life stories and economic growth often masks inequality, can we find a language that captures the complexity of the human experience? We must create a system of measurement that not only records progress but also measures its price. The truth about our well-being lies not in dry numbers, but in stories of trust, security, and meaning—elements so easily lost in the labyrinth of production indicators.
📄 Full analysis available in PDF