GDP Growth as Ideological Tool

GDP growth has been a hallmark representation of societal "welfare" since the end of the Second World War. GDP's almost mystical role in evaluating welfare is not entirely dissimilar to Anderson's argument about rationality. In short, it seems that both metrics are extraordinarily simplified means to measure exceptionally complex things. Indeed, GDP growth is actually more prone to Anderson's "practicality argument" in terms of collective action, especially on an international level. 

It is uncontroversial to say that East Asian cultures tend to be more collectivized, homogenous, and most importantly, communitarian than Western cultures. Even in liberal democracies such as Japan or South Korea, the signs of "collective action" and "collective duty" could be seen in all aspects of society. One could point to the region's unusual political stability and cleanliness as evidence. However, what is notable about all of these nations is the relentless pursuit of an "ideal" state, that is, a state of perpetual GDP growth. This is self-evident in countries such as China and many of the Tiger economies, given the need for economic development. However, this is also the case for nations whose economies are not growing. For example, Japan's economy has remained stagnant for decades now and is stuck in a liquidity trap, yet the people of Japan are working harder than ever. This is notably divergent from cases in Europe, like Greece and Spain, where low GDP growth could be directly associated with irresponsible fiscal spending and a general lack of willingness of the population to work extremely hard. Indeed, the people of Japan are united behind the need to grow the economy. 

This points to interesting phenomena. If we are to buy Anderson's argument that the only universalizable principles would be the "various principles of committed action", then one could make the case that GDP growth in East Asia is indeed the principle of committed action that those societies have agreed to. Indeed, in such countries (especially ones as large as China), without an emphasis on GDP growth as a principle, the people will soon lose their collective sense of identity and they would revert to viewing themselves as an isolated individual. This relentless pursuit of GDP growth actually trickles down to the micro-level as well. The province needs to report stellar economic growth to the central government, which leads to the province pressuring and giving rewards to local factories to increase production. These factories, in a bid to maximize output, take advantage of lax labor laws and overwork the employees. The employees, in a bid to ensure food on the table and that their kids go to school, work the extra hours. The entire system is structured to feed the system of GDP growth. This use of GDP growth and economic development as an ideological tool for ensuring a complacent populace ought not to be ignored. While Anderson does mention the plight of women, I think Anderson misses out a lot when she doesn't explicitly touch on the issue of communitarian principles as ideology. Communitarian principles, though many times productive, have a "poison pill" that makes one exceptionally prone to authoritarianism and oppression on a societal and national level.