Even considered only as a measure of aggregate economic output, GDP is problematic because, of necessity, it includes many arbitrary, politically charged and ideological assumptions and conventions that undermine its usefulness. For example, housing services are estimated and included in GDP, but in-home work is not. Similarly, government spending on goods and services is included as a final good at cost, not as an intermediate good. Early on, when they were creating the aggregate income accounts, there was a debate about whether government spending on goods and services should be considered an intermediate good or a final good. Possibly, in part because of a desire of some of those designing the measure to make it politically easier to increase government spending, the decision was made to include government spending on goods and services as a final output at cost, not as an intermediate good. This decision meant that increases in government spending on goods and services increases GDP directly, whereas had the other decision been made, increases in government spending would not have increased GDP; instead they would have lowered productivity. To design an accounting measure choices had to be made. If the GDP measure was used as the rough gauge for the economic component of social welfare that it was meant to be, it would have been fine. But when that rough gauge becomes a carefully watched statistic, and tenths of a percentage point differences are represented as implying something important has happened, as is currently the case, then the measure is being misused. To the degree that the new gross output measure undermines the misuse of GDP figures, it is something to be applauded.
Read full abstract