Critical Review on Work of Joseph Stiglitz “the Ethical Economist. Growth May Be Everything, but It’s Not the only Thing”

Critical review on work of Joseph Stiglitz “The Ethical Economist. Growth May Be Everything, but It’s Not the Only Thing”

The main argument of article “The Ethical Economist” is that economic growth is not solely a positive phenomenon, but rather a trend that poses its own challenges. Economic growth in developed countries compared to developing countries surely poses more benefits to developed ones because instead of choosing between funding AIDS drugs or drugs for tuberculosis, developed economies get to decide whether to allocate its resources to poor countries or to help refugees. Yet, the author of the article argues that societies of developed countries will still need help because social justice, better functioning democracy, fewer environmental problems or greater equality are not a guarantee of economic growth.

The author argues, economic growth solves certain problems but brings others, such as although inequality fell in USA after the Great Depression but it has been continually raising for past 30 years. The median household income in US decreased, while the richest men received huge tax cuts. Furthermore, while it is true that economic growth solved environmental problems, nut it added new ones – greenhouse emission has drastically increased. Yet, the cost of these environmental issues is not a burden to Americans but rather to poor nearby islands that will likely pay the price in the future.

The strongest point the author makes is that to reduce poverty in reality, not just mere statistics of GDP, which is not indicator of wealth of citizens, the author believes, governments must do more than brining economic growth. They must invest in public policies. Because as Stiglitz notes, the question is not whether to integrate ones economies with other (because this case might bring more poverty), but whether to reduce barriers to markets or not. Because the latter decision will directly influence lives of millions (while this case might reduce poverty).

The main question of the article is whether economic growth is long-term that is sustainable. The author does a good job in elaborating this point. For example, whether economic growth will sustain not only in the present but also in the future, whether next generation will enjoy that growth too. Moreover, growth must be ‘grown’ in a way that others won’t bear the burden. In other words, today, the rich in USA get tax cuts, while more people is drowning in poverty. Such growth is not just, believes the author.

Furthermore, to make his argument even better, the author brings up the case of bombing Iraq. If the government of Bush justified this decision by a desire to bring democracy to Iraqis, they could have invested in their institutions not in bombing their infrastructure. The method used to achieve certain goals is crucial, believes the author.

All in all, the author is clear in his