Interview with Meinhard Miegel

The German government has commissioned a new Enquete Commission on the subject of "growth, prosperity, and quality of life". Why are we having to re-evaluate our perception of prosperity and growth?

Miegel: Because prosperity and growth have long been used as synonyms and measured largely on the basis of material considerations only. Both of these assumptions have proved false. All sorts of things can grow without there being a corresponding rise in prosperity. Prosperity can even fall if, for instance, finite resources are used up or the environment is damaged. What's more, it has been shown that material considerations are not the only, and certainly not the primary, factor to influence most people's perception of prosperity. Other factors such as health, an intact family, friends and leisure are just as, if not more, important. We have to take account of these findings in future. Otherwise, the indicators we use won't reflect reality.

Where do you see the ecological and social boundaries of growth and is there still scope to grow within these confines?

Miegel: The boundaries will have been reached when nature, the environment, individuals, and society can't go on any further or, to be more precise, when they all show signs of exhaustion. The cost of repairing the damage done is a relatively accurate gage of this. If this is constantly on the rise, it's time for a change of direction. Calculations show that a large proportion of growth is already used to rectify the damage caused by the growth itself – if this is even possible in the first place. This is no way to run things. Conversely, it is possible to achieve growth while respecting the physical and psychological limits of depletion. But this must be a different type of growth and not the one practiced since the beginning of industrialization.

Prosperity is mostly measured in terms of material wealth in industrialized countries today. You envisage certain options for a future prosperity model. What roles do the ability to be frugal and the ability to innovate and change play in your new model?

Miegel: Both play key roles. Without groundbreaking innovations and the ability to adapt comprehensively to fundamental changes in living conditions, seven billion people – soon to be nine billion – will be living in inadequate conditions if they survive at all. Humankind has a lot of work to do. And even if it is successful, which I hope it is, the wealthier nations, including us Germans, will have to accept reductions in their material standard of living. Our current lifestyle is neither generalizable nor sustainable. It's much too costly for that.

Are people and society ready for a wide-ranging debate on these issues and what general impetus do you expect the Enquete Commission to give in this respect?

Miegel: No, the majority of people are not ready for a wide-ranging debate. However, the willing minority is growing faster than I ever dared hope. For example, having announced at the beginning of this legislative period that growth is the key to everything, the German Chancellor now admits that "putting growth above all else" was "one of the gravest errors". This is a remarkable development and one that gives reason for hope. I think the work of the Enquete Commission will continue in this direction.

Since GDP is now considered an unsuitable measure of prosperity and societal advancement, the European Commission wants to devise new measurement indicators for prosperity by 2012. France submitted its proposals at the end of 2009. Where should Germany's focus lie?

Miegel: The German efforts are embedded in a large number of activities. That's why the Enquete Commission first of all prescribed a thorough study of all existing material. And there's mountains of it. It will, however, devote particular attention to the opportunities and limitations of decoupling the consumption of resources from technological progress and the matter of how to bring about the changes deemed necessary within the regulatory framework of a social market economy. The latter issue, in particular, could become the trademark of German input.