Growth is a means; an economy should be judged by whether people can live well

Gross domestic product, the total value of goods and services produced, is a useful measure of economic activity. It was never designed to measure whether people are flourishing. Yet in political debate it is often treated as the score.

We think an economy should be judged by whether people can meet their needs, work with dignity, stay healthy, learn, and do so without wrecking the planet that sustains them. Kate Raworth's talk "A healthy economy should be designed to thrive, not grow" makes a related argument: that we should aim to meet everyone's needs within ecological limits, whether or not that means more growth.

The strongest objection is that growth has historically been the main way poverty has fallen, and that, for poorer countries, more growth is essential. We agree, and would add that the aim is not less growth for those who need it, but better measures of what growth is for.

What would change our mind: evidence that GDP growth reliably tracks improvements in the outcomes people care about, once income levels are taken into account.