At the recent Global Inclusive Growth summit hosted by the Mastercard Centre for Inclusive Growth, we heard how gender inequality is bad for growth and leaves ‘trillions on the table instead of catapulting gross domestic product (GDP) growth.’ This was further evidenced with data from the African Development Bank which noted that bridging the $42 billon spending gap for female entrepreneurs in Africa would unlock $300 billion of extra GDP.  

These are mind-boggling amounts of money but what is also baffling is how growth or even, inclusive growth (described by UN Women as ‘decent work and productive employment opportunities for women and men’) is going to create gender equality within the confines of a macroeconomic framework built on, and dependent on extractivism and exploitation.

While many economists note the moral imperative for gender equality, this often goes hand in hand with an economic argument consisting of stark warnings of stalled growth and progress. As noted by IMF Chief Economist, Gita Gopinath at the inaugural Dr Hansa Mehta lecture in March 2021:

‘…countries around the world struggle to grow their economies – grappling with aging populations, and buffeted by trade shocks, social unrest, weather-related disasters and now, the worst peacetime crisis in a century – tapping into the huge potential of women is unambiguously a win-win for both women’s empowerment and inclusive global economic growth.’

‘GDP is a crude instrument to measure a callous system which as Marilyn Waring reminds us ‘counts oil spills and wars as contributors to economic growth, while child-rearing and housekeeping are deemed valueless.’

This fails to acknowledge the (many) elephants in the room, and as AWID and other feminist economists have noted, ‘integrating’ women deeper into the system simply offers temporary respite and a means for survival. It never allows genuine change and always ignores the care economy, which is disproportionality borne by women.

Jason Hickel in Less is More (2020) talks about the cult of growth, and describes growth as a propaganda term used to disguise a process of ‘extraction, enclosure and commodification which quite often harms human communities and living ecosystems,’ he goes on to say in this interview that ‘we are not served by this language [and] it is an obstacle to thought.’

As Aude Lorde told us in 2018, ‘the master’s tool will never dismantle the master’s house’ and for the avoidance of any doubt, the current understanding of GDP was adopted at the 1944 Bretton Woods conference as the main measure of a country’s economy. As the birthplace of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, Barry Knight , Secretary to Centris trustees and author of Rethinking Poverty, has previously observed that Bretton Woods displayed ‘immense confidence that the world could be ruled from the top down through a combination of goodwill, international cooperation, and new financial institutions.’

This clearly shows that GDP is a key tool in the master’s toolkit. Given its origins and use, Anam Parvez Butt rightly describes it as ‘not just a metric, but a patriarchal, neocolonial value system imposed on the world.’ In the end, GDP is a crude instrument to measure a callous system which as Marilyn Waring reminds us ‘counts oil spills and wars as contributors to economic growth, while child-rearing and housekeeping are deemed valueless.’

Given the barrage of criticism, coupled with the succinct and much shared GDP takedown by New Zealand MP, Chlöe Swarbrick, has the time come to finally ditch GDP? Are we able to radically reimagine and look beyond our current system which reinforces power and vested interests, predominately at the expense of women and other marginalised communities, people in the majority world, and our planet? Participants at last December’s Shift the Power summit in Bogotá think so.

Data analysed by Barry Knight on participant responses to the world they wanted pointed to ‘the end of patriarchy and a revolution in seeing universal wellbeing, rather than economic growth, for all as the superordinate value.’  This is a clarion call for the feminisation of our economic system and of our entire way of being, doing and deciding. To be clear, it’s not about more women political leaders or more women entrepreneurs. It’s about making our world, governance and economies more feminist, by thinking horizontally and intersectionally, and by acknowledging our inherent interdependence and interconnectedness.

The dominant economic system thrives when we are disconnected from each other and the world around us. The vulturism and exploitation of people and planet requires us to think nature is external to our wellbeing, while the individualism perpetuated by the neo-liberal capitalist system hampers moving from the egocentric ‘self’ to the interdependent ‘we’. This helps keep us small, believing we are cogs in an inevitable system.

This is not true. Aspirations, behaviours and commitments from the gathering in Bogotá indicate that people see themselves first and foremost as agents of transformation rather than job titles and representatives of brands and organisations. This is a critical first step, and as Karen O’Brien tells us in You Matter More Than You Think: Quantum Social Change for a Thriving World (2021) ‘…you matter more than you think. Literally. This is because individual change is collective change.’

Mary Ann Clements talks more about this in her Alliance article, ‘We can’t hashtag our way to change,’ but let’s leave the final words to Arundhati Roy who in War Talk (2003) reminded us:

‘The corporate revolution will collapse if we refuse to buy what they are selling – their ideas, their vision of history, their wars, their weapons, their notion of inevitability. Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day I can hear her breathing.’

Rebecca Hanshaw is an independent consultant and philanthropy advisor, working with the H&S Davidson Trust to support collective efforts on Reforming International Development #RID