Economic growth has long been, and continues to be, the subject of extensive debate among economists worldwide, not only about its importance, but also its limitations as a measure of economic performance and the success of public policies.

 

Despite the heavy reliance on gross domestic product growth as a principal indicator of economic progress, GDP growth alone does not reveal how the benefits of growth are distributed, the quality of the jobs it creates, or its actual impact on living standards and economic and social rights.

 

There is no doubt that economic growth is necessary to expand available resources, increase productive capacity, and create new economic opportunities.

 

However, higher GDP does not automatically improve the lives of most of the population, particularly in countries facing high levels of unemployment, poverty, and inequality.

 

The economy may grow while real wages decline, income gaps widen, the costs of education, healthcare, housing, and transportation increase, and opportunities for decent work remain limited.

 

In this context, the report issued in June 2026 by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights provides further evidence in support of this line of thinking.

 

The report makes clear that higher rates of economic growth do not necessarily translate into poverty reduction or improved enjoyment of rights unless they are accompanied by policies that ensure a fairer distribution of resources, promote decent work, improve public services, and expand social protection.

 

Macroeconomic figures can hide significant disparities in the distribution of the returns generated by economic activity, Growth may be concentrated in capital-intensive sectors or sectors with limited employment-generating capacity and therefore may fail to create sufficient numbers of jobs.

 

A large share of the returns from growth may also accrue to a limited number of companies and social groups, while low- and middle-income households continue to face rising prices, weak wages, and declining public service quality.

 

For this reason, economic performance cannot be assessed solely through the GDP growth rate.

 

A more accurate evaluation requires a broader set of indicators, including unemployment and poverty rates, real wage levels, the coverage and adequacy of social protection, and the quality of education, healthcare, housing, and transportation services. It should also measure economic and social disparities across different groups and regions.

 

The quality of growth is no less important than its rate. Growth based on low wages, informal employment, weak social and labour protection, and the depletion of natural resources may produce temporary gains in statistical terms, but it also accumulates economic and social imbalances that are difficult to address over the long term.

 

Sustainable and equitable growth, by contrast, should be based on developing productive, value-added sectors, creating decent work opportunities, building a fairer tax system, strengthening public services, and expanding social protection.

 

The issue, therefore, is not to diminish the importance of economic growth or to call for abandoning it, but rather to redefine its place within a broader framework of economic and social objectives.

 

Growth should not be treated as an end, but as a means of improving people’s lives, expanding their choices, and strengthening their economic and social security.

 

Accordingly, successful economic policy should be measured by its ability to translate growth into higher incomes, more stable jobs, better-quality public services, broader social protection, and lower levels of poverty and inequality.

 

An increase in GDP that is not accompanied by a tangible improvement in the lives of the majority of the population remains little more than a numerical achievement with limited economic and social significance.