Trade-offs of Growth

The question of whether or not economic growth should be central to international economic policies is a flawed one, I believe. Economic growth is inherently the main driving factor behind economic policy, and always will be, because growth is the reason for the policies in the first place. The distinction is instead made between focusing on pure economic growth at all costs vs. economic growth as a side effect of a larger socio-economic improvement. This argument of mine can be reflected in what we went over in class, essentially the difference between neoclassicalism and multidimensionalism. The former was the nexus designed almost entirely around the idea of GDP growth, while the latter still used economic growth/decline as the standard measure of economic success and guideline of policy, but still had a strong emphasis on social policies and a wholesome approach. I think this multidimensionalism is ideal in terms of international economic policy.

Something else to keep in mind when thinking about economics internationally is that policy is much harder to enact multilaterally to make a concrete social difference on global issues than simply ratifying domestic economic regulations or issuing executive orders. Since silly things like sovereignty exist in which several entities with different circumstances, resources and abilities must come together to implement solutions (usually), there has to be a central driver of policy that can at least in some ways ensure a collective good. The identity of international cooperation forces economic growth to be central to policy in technicality, even if socio-economic issues are approached more holistically by individual countries, NGOs or other supranational organizations.