Why GDP is the GOAT of economic statistics

It is an odd confession to make about a statistic, I realise, but then again I am an economist, so I am just going to go ahead: I love GDP. There. I said it. GDP — for gross domestic product, the total market value of all final goods and services produced within a county’s borders — is in many ways the ideal economic statistic, both for what it measures and what it represents. It is a single number that captures so much information, with a scope and history unmatched by almost any other measure. I am unapologetic in my desire to see it grow.

And yet GDP has so many haters, many of them on the left. They want more emphasis placed on any negative externalities from growth, or more value put on equality. Some make the point that there is more to life than income, which is certainly true but in no way invalidates GDP. And now Vice President JD Vance is hating on GDP, too. In his latest book, he has a long riff on the weaknesses of the statistic and writes, half-jokingly, that “maybe economics is just fake.”

No surprise there. As economic populism becomes a force in both parties, expect more GDP haters. It is their worst enemy — because it holds them accountable. Any statistical estimate is by definition imperfect and incomplete. What it includes and how it measures, for example, are both choices. And some statistics are better than others. Obviously, a statistic needs to tell you something useful, but it’s also important that it can be estimated consistently, is transparent and can be replicated.

By these standards, GDP may be the best statistic we’ve got. It does not capture everything that matters in an economy, but it is highly correlated with about 90% of the things that do: health, employment, life expectancy, sanitation, opportunity and education. It can be compared to that of other countries and across time. Used this way, it shows the stunning increase in GDP in countries that offer their citizens a higher quality of life.

GDP does not, as Vance points out, capture the fact that strawberries are prettier in Japan or that peaches taste better in France. It is merely a measure of economic output within a country’s borders — but that reveals a lot. There are adjustments for new technology and product quality, though they don’t capture everything and require some human judgment. GDP also does not capture inequality, the worth of leisure, or the value of unpaid housework.

To address some of those weaknesses, the UN recently convened a commission to come up with something better. The commission proposed “a dashboard of 31 indicators structured around four components,” which was almost immediately criticised for being a waste of time. For one, 31 metrics don’t deliver the single objective statistic that we need. This approach would also let countries and politicians pick how they are judged. The exercise proves why GDP can’t be beaten, even if it’s not perfect and doesn’t capture everything everyone cares about.

In fact, GDP sceptics have never come up with anything better. And while they make some valid points, occasionally their aversion to GDP reflects an underlying scepticism of economic growth itself. French economist Thomas Piketty, another GDP critic, recently admitted that, yes, less growth is the point.

Expect more scepticism from politicians, too. The US, like a lot of other nations, faces many economic challenges: a large debt, an aging population, and a major technological transformation. How it manages these tests will show up in GDP. It can tell us not only how much the economy is growing, but what the nation can afford and if it really is more productive. It also can show how the US compares to other countries — making it easier for Americans to hold their leaders accountable for the choices they make.

Many European countries, for example, have stagnant GDP growth. Their politicians might argue this doesn’t matter, because they have other priorities, such as maximising leisure time or reducing carbon emissions. These may be legitimate objectives, but they come with trade-offs in terms of lower living standards. Low GDP growth forces Europe’s elected officials to reckon with that.