Economic growth is measured by the increase in GDP rather than national wealth.
the verdict
INSUFFICIENT LEANING
refutedsupported
the weight of evidence
2 sources for · 0 against
Available literature confirms that Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is the standard metric utilized globally to measure economic growth and progress, but the retrieved sources do not specifically evaluate or contrast this standard usage against national wealth as asserted in the claim.
The gross domestic product is usually the indicator used to measure economic progress worldwide. However, GDP growth does not necessarily reflect the well-being of a nation, since there are cases of countries where there is economic growth measured by GDP; But, there is poverty, unemployment and inequality. For this reason, we Calculated the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW) using the information of Ecuador a Latin American developing country for the period 2001–2015. Additionally, we compared (ISEW) with the GDP as progress indicators, emphasizing the difference between welfare and economic growth. The results show that from the positive components, personal consumption is the one that contributes the most to the increase of ISEW, while the degradation of natural capital affects negatively, in a greater proportion, Ecuadorians welfare; the existence of the gap between the ISEW and the GDP is confirmed, so it’s deduced that welfare in Ecuador is overestimated, demanding analysis and institutional reform.
According to theory, innovative activity gives a chance to increase a competitiveness and economic growth of nation. The purpose of this paper is validation of that assumption using the latest data available for EU countries. Data set of indicators include: global innovation index, (GII), European Summary Innovative Index (SII), Ranking of Competitiveness of Nations (in a form of summary as well as subsidiary data ) and set of macro economy data (GDP, labor productivity, export, export of high-tech, R&D expenditure as [as % of GDP] etc as measures of economic growth. Various regression models: liner, curvilinear, planar or spatial with one or two dependent variables will be calculated and explained. In addition the appropriate 2 D and 3 D-graphs will be used and presented to strengthen verbal arguments and explanation. The main result of this paper is relationship between innovative activity, competitive ability and growth measured as GDP per capita. Such relationship is shown as fairy good linear span of countries. Only two of them: Luxemburg and Norway due to higher than average growth value are outliers. The valuable outcome of this paper is classification of nation into groups: highly innovative- highly competitive, highly competitive-non innovative, highly innovative- non competitive and non innovative – non competitive. The last group of nations fall into trap of low competitiveness.
Everything we examined (2)
This check searched the claim as stated. It did not run a separate search for evidence against it.