public goods of general interest again in state hands?

Of course, it is undeniable that aspects such as comprehensive and high-quality healthcare, access to sanitation, the development of a functioning education system and reasonable and fair salaries for the population in any case require considerable financial resources. Without sufficient financial resources, these fundamentalhardly realize needs. In this context, economic growth is of great advantage in most cases, as it provides the financial resources to finance the social goods mentioned. Especially in poorer countries, growth is even of enormous urgency because it offers the chance to build basic social infrastructure, improve the quality of lifeimprove and reduce poverty. But – and here lies the crucial point – the measures that are actually of central importance when it comes to the sustainable improvement of the social well-being of the population are not necessarily based on a high gross domestic product (GDP) level. It is not the pure growth of GDP that progresses on social issuesbut rather the way resources are distributed and invested in public goods.

The saturation curve of the relationship between GDP and prosperity

The relationship between the gross domestic product (GDP) and social prosperity follows a so-called saturation curve. This means that the returns on economic growth will rise sharply with increasing GDP, but from a certain point – which has long been exceeded in wealthy countries – growth will decrease significantly. In other words: from a certain levelIf higher GDP contributes only marginally to the improvement of important social indicators. This knowledge has already changed significantly and is now proven by numerous empirical studies. There are many countries that manage to achieve surprisingly high social standards with comparatively low GDP per capita. These countries are often called “special cases”considered, but they illustrate exactly the thesis that researchers such as Szreter and other health scientists have formulated: It is actually a distribution problem. The core is the investment in public goods. At this point, the real challenge becomes clear.

Examples of social indicators despite low income

Take life expectancy, for example. The United States has a GDP of $59,500 per capita, making it one of the world’s most prosperous nations. Nevertheless, people in the USA can expect an average of 78.7 years of life expectancy, which is just about catapulting them into the top 20 percent of the global ranking. surprisinglyMany other countries outperform the US in this crucial indicator, although they only earn a fraction of their income. Japan, for example, has 35 percent less income than the USA, but has a life expectancy of 84 years – the highest number in the world. South Korea has 50 percent less income and a life expectancy of 82 years. Portugal, at 65 percentLess income, achieves a life expectancy of 81.1 years. These examples are not isolated cases: The entire European Union, which has an average of 36 percent less income than the USA, exceeds the USA not only in terms of life expectancy, but also in almost all other indicators of social well-being.

Costa Rica: The impressive example of efficiency

A particularly impressive example is Costa Rica. This Central American country with its lush rainforests and a stable democracy is surpassing the US in terms of life expectancy, although it only generates 20 percent of American income. Costa Rica is now considered one of the most ecologically efficient economies in the world because it manages to achieve high standards of livingto combine minimal environmental impact. Even more amazing things are seen when looking at longer periods of time: In the 1980s, Costa Rica was able to make remarkable progress in increasing life expectancy while at the same time increasing the GDP per capita level – which was only a seventh of the American at the time – hardly or not at all. So it’s not justThe life expectancy shown by this pattern. The same applies to the education sector.

Highly qualified investment as the key to success

Finland is widely known for its excellent education system, although its GDP per capita is about 25 percent below the US. Estonia, which ranks very high in the international rankings of the education systems, also has a comparable educational power with 66 percent less income. Poland even performs better than the US, although it has 77 percent less income. BelarusIn the education index, even exceeds countries like Austria, Spain, Italy or Hong Kong, although it has a per capita GDP per capita, 90 percent below that of the USA. These impressive results can be explained above all by targeted investments in highly qualified systems for general health care and education. When it comes to a long, healthy and fulfilling lifeTo enable all people, such investments are crucial. The good news is: These measures are by no means expensive. Public services provided by the government are often significantly more cost-effective than private alternatives.

Example Spain: High-quality care at lower costs

An example of this is Spain. The country is investing only around $2,300 per person in high-quality healthcare that is considered a fundamental right for everyone. Despite this comparatively low expenditure, Spain is reaching a life expectancy of 83.5 years – a top position worldwide. This puts Spain five years ahead of the USA, which averages $9,500 per personspend on the health system, but have a significantly lower life expectancy of 78 years. Similar developments are evident in different countries in the Global South. States such as Sri Lanka, Rwanda, Thailand, China, Cuba, Bangladesh and the Indian state of Kerala are investing in public health and education systems and are now showing significantAdvances in life expectancy and other social indicators. Despite a comparatively low GDP per capita, they improve rapidly and prove that it is possible to achieve social development without high prosperity.

Empirical evidence of the connection between public investment and prosperity

Several studies and empirical data confirm that countries with well-developed public supply systems are able to achieve better social results than those who rely on private care – regardless of the level of development at hand. It is important to emphasize again and again: These data clearly show that it is quite possible to have a high degree of humanto achieve development without the GDP skyrocket. The United Nations has published that states with a GDP of just $8,000 (measured in purchasing power parity) are able to achieve one of the highest life expectancy and achieve very high educational indices within a short time. Countries can even at several social levels – health,Education, employment, nutrition, social support, democracy and quality of life – reach peak values per capita at less than $10,000 per capita while operating within planetary boundaries. These facts prove: It is possible to achieve social goals with significantly lower resources if the focus is on sustainable, public goods andfair income distribution.

GDP limits and alternative progress indicators

In other words: Theoretically, we could all achieve our social goals in the world without requiring the current high GDP level. If we take more account of well-being, social justice and the environment in the production and distribution of goods, we could get to a much lower economic basis and still be a highrealize in social development. It is also evident that, above a certain threshold of the total GDP volume, the negative effects of growth begin to become overhand. That is, growth is becoming increasingly “uneconomic” because it causes more damage than benefits. This finding is supported by alternative indicators of progress, such as theso-called “Genuine Progress Indicator” (GPI). This begins with personal consumption expenditure – the starting point of GDP – and is then adjusted for factors such as income inequality as well as social and ecological costs.

The GPI as a balanced benchmark for real progress

The GPI provides a much more balanced view of actual development. If you display the data graphically over longer periods of time, you will see: Until the 1970s, the GPI grew parallel to the GDP. Since then, it has stagnated or even decreased because the social and ecological costs of growth are now so high that they are resuming profits. The ecologist Herman DalyDescribes this point as the time when growth is becoming increasingly “uneconomic”. A “bad” instead of prosperity arises because the damage to the environment and society exceeds the short-term benefits. These developments can be observed on several levels: The steady striving for growth in rich countries is increasing social inequality, leads topolitical tensions and contributes to a variety of health problems, including stress, depression, environmental diseases and heart disease.

The critical view of the growth ideal

There is an enormous power in these findings because they enable us to fundamentally question our previous view of growth. It is clear that the high GDP level, which is particularly prevalent in countries such as the United States, Great Britain or Germany, does not reflect the essentials that are necessary for a good life. oneThought experiment makes this clear: When Portugal has higher values than the US for social indicators such as health and quality of life, although the US has less GDP per capita at only $38,000, it can be concluded that US $38,000 per capita is effectively “wasted” per capita. This corresponds to about 13 trillion US dollars per year, which is in production, consumption andEcological stresses flow without really contributing to the social well-being. It is damage without actual benefit.

A sustainable approach to social progress

Theoretically, the US economy could be reduced by around 65 percent of its current size – while the population has remained the same – if income was distributed more fairly and increased in public goods. Of course, part of the additional income and consumption in affluent countries can be expected to improve subjective happiness andwell-being, which, however, is hardly recorded in the classic measurements. But the question remains: Do subjective indicators such as satisfaction, happiness or quality of life also increase with increasing GDP? The answer to that is not clear. The so-called Easterlin paradox – named after the economist Richard Easterlin – shows that in the USA the luck and satisfaction values in the1950s reached their peak with a comparatively low GDP per capita, around 15,000 US dollars. Since then, income has quadrupled, but people’s satisfaction has hardly improved or even worsened.

Inequality as a key factor for subjective well-being

Similar trends are evident in the UK and many other countries. The explanation is simple: Not pure income, but the distribution of income within society is crucial for subjective well-being. Inequality leads to a feeling of injustice, destroys trust and social cohesion. It undermines solidarity and leads topoorer health, higher crime and less social mobility. People in unequal societies tend to be more frustrated, anxious and dissatisfied. They often suffer from depression, addictive behavior and social withdrawal.

Social comparison processes and consumer spirals

This pattern can also be observed in everyday behaviour: when someone receives a salary increase, they are initially happy. But when he realizes that colleagues are getting twice as much, the joy quickly disappears and makes way for frustration and envy. As a result, people in unequal societies are much more likely to buy luxury items in order to maintain their own statusregardless of whether they really need it. This urge for more and more is a result of social comparison and the constant shift in the benchmark for a good life by influencers and media. A tiring spiral of overconsumption arises, in which material goods are purchased again and again in order to create a short-term feeling of happiness, but which is notsustainable.

Wellbeing Beyond GDP: The Role of Welfare States

If income is not all that constitutes human well-being, what then? Research shows that the expansion of stable and generous welfare states has a decisive influence on subjective happiness. Countries with comprehensive welfare systems that provide all citizens with access to health care, unemployment benefits, pensions, paid leave, sick days andaffordable housing are demonstrably much happier. In such societies, people do not have to worry about basic needs, which strengthens social bonding and promotes social cohesion. These findings explain why countries such as Germany, Austria, Sweden, the Netherlands, Australia, Finland, Canada or Denmarkhuman well-being often has significantly better values than the US – even with significantly lower GDP per capita.

Costa Rica and other examples: Success through social care

This is particularly clear in the example of Costa Rica. The country achieves similar levels of social welfare indicators as the US, despite having only one-fifth of American income. Costa Rica is a role model in many ways: it relies on a strong public health system, invests in education and social support, and lives in an environmentally sustainable way.People’s satisfaction is significantly higher here than in countries with comparable economic growth, which shows that social investment and environmental sustainability are the real keys to a good life.

Social investment is more sustainable than pure growth

These findings are far from new, but they are confirmed again and again: it is possible to achieve a high level of human development without GDP growing endlessly. The data show that even with comparatively low GDP per capita, a society can achieve high values in areas such as health, education, quality of life and social cohesion.to shift the focus away from pure growth and instead focus on social and environmental sustainability. By investing in public goods, making distribution more equitable and limiting resource consumption to the bare essentials, we can create a future worth living for all – regardless of how high GDP is.