Going for Growth

Going for Growth
Title	Going for Growth
Publisher	Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
First published	2005
Subject	Macroeconomics, Public policy, Structural reform
Languages	English language, French language
Website	OECD

Going for Growth is a policy report series published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development that assesses structural reform priorities across member and partner countries to promote long-term economic growth. The series synthesizes country-specific diagnostics, cross-country indicators, and reform recommendations drawing on comparisons with European Union members, United States, Japan, China, and other major economies. It has informed debates among policymakers in capitals such as London, Paris, Berlin, Rome, Madrid, Ottawa, Canberra, Wellington, and Washington, D.C..

Background and Origins

The initiative was launched amid debates following the early-2000s growth slowdown and responses to globalisation, financial integration, and demographic change that also engaged institutions like the International Monetary Fund, World Bank Group, European Commission, and Group of Twenty. Influences include policy frameworks from the Lisbon Strategy, Bretton Woods Conference legacies, and reform agendas seen in cases such as Ireland's economic transformation and Sweden's fiscal consolidation. Key OECD officials and directors collaborated with national ministries, central banks like the Bank of England, European Central Bank, and reserve institutions including the Federal Reserve System to design methodologies for cross-country benchmarking.

Objectives and Policy Framework

Going for Growth aims to identify priority reforms to raise potential output through labour market, product market, and human capital changes while considering constraints highlighted by actors such as the European Central Bank, International Labour Organization, and United Nations. The framework integrates indicators from programmes linked to the Programme for International Student Assessment and tax-policy work influenced by rulings and debates involving the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's Base erosion and profit shifting project, and references structural experiences of economies like Germany, South Korea, Singapore, Netherlands, and Switzerland. The report structures recommendations around measurable targets used by institutions including the World Trade Organization, International Monetary Fund surveillance, and national statistical offices.

Country Analyses and Indicators

Country chapters provide granular diagnostics for nations ranging from France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Greece to OECD partners such as Mexico, Chile, Turkey, Israel, and South Africa. Each analysis uses indicators comparable to datasets maintained by the OECD, Eurostat, UNESCO, and the World Bank, contrasting outcomes seen in high-performing jurisdictions like Norway, Denmark, Finland, Luxembourg, and Iceland. Indicators cover labour force participation referencing institutions such as the European Labour Authority and pension reforms mirroring debates in Japan and Canada. The methodology cross-references productivity patterns observed in sectors prominent in China, India, Brazil, and Indonesia.

Major Reforms and Recommendations

Typical recommendations emphasize labour market activation policies informed by studies from the International Labour Organization and European Commission, regulatory simplification echoing reforms in New Zealand and Australia, and competition-enhancing measures aligned with rulings from the European Court of Justice and guidance from the World Trade Organization. Fiscal and tax suggestions draw on precedent from fiscal councils like the United Kingdom's Office for Budget Responsibility and international frameworks such as the Fiscal Compact. Human capital proposals reference initiatives in Finland's education system, vocational reforms in Germany and Switzerland, and lifelong learning programmes in Singapore and South Korea.

Impact, Criticism, and Reception

Reception among finance ministries, central banks, and international organisations has been mixed. Supporters in institutions like the International Monetary Fund and some European Commission directorates praised the evidence-based prioritisation and benchmarking against peers such as Sweden and Norway. Critics including academics from universities like Harvard University, London School of Economics, University of Oxford, and Sciences Po argued that the report underweights distributional effects debated in forums like the United Nations Human Rights Council and social partners such as the European Trade Union Confederation and BusinessEurope. Others drew on case literature concerning the Great Recession and sovereign-debt crises in Greece and Spain to question implementation capacity. Think tanks including the Brookings Institution, Chatham House, and Peterson Institute for International Economics have produced competing analyses.

Implementation and Follow-up Measures

Implementation relies on national policy choices, parliamentary approval in legislatures such as the Seimas, Bundestag, Assemblée nationale, and Congress of the United States, and engagement with actors like subnational governments in California and Bavaria. The OECD has followed up through subsequent reports, peer reviews, and indicators feeding into surveillance by the International Monetary Fund and policy coordination in the G20. Complementary initiatives include capacity-building with agencies like OECD Development Centre and collaboration with multilateral lenders such as the European Investment Bank and Asian Development Bank to support investment and structural change.

Category:Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development publications