Amaury Goguel: “GDP is no longer enough. We need to rethink what economic development means”

Your study starts from a topical question: is China still a developing country? Why does this debate reveal the limits of traditional economic indicators?

This debate shows that our traditional analytical frameworks, based on criteria that are too rigid, are now outdated. If we look only at GDP per capita, China still has the standard of living of a developing country, three times lower than that of the United States. But if we measure its technological complexity, it stands at the level of the world’s most advanced economies.

GDP per capita is based on an arithmetic average that hides the reality of inequality

China explodes the traditional categories. Its status is hybrid and requires a contextual reading that traditional tools cannot provide.

GDP remains the global benchmark for measuring development. Why do you believe it is no longer enough to describe the economic reality of the 21st century?

GDP per capita is based on an arithmetic average that hides the reality of inequality and income distribution. It creates the illusion of a representative average, while missing part of the social and economic reality. GDP also has many blind spots. It cannot capture production externalities or a country’s capacity to withstand shocks. Nor does it reflect major financial vulnerabilities, such as hidden debt, the growth of shadow banking or demographic crises.

Development is, in reality, a dynamic combination of economic maturity and financial, social, political or commercial resilience. It is a ridge line, a path and a trajectory shaped by multiple constraints.

In your report, you propose a new indicator based on ten economic, financial and commercial criteria. What does it reveal that GDP does not?

Our indicator provides a diagnostic view of internal imbalances. It does not seek only to measure a level of wealth, but to understand development trajectories, areas of strength and fragility, growth balances under constraint and resilience capacities.

What sets it apart from existing approaches is that it moves beyond a binary reading of development. Traditional methods still tend to lock countries into rigid categories, between “developed” and “developing” economies, by adding together isolated economic indicators. Our multifactorial approach analyses the economy as a global and dynamic system.

It does not stop at absolute wealth levels. It assesses a country’s trajectory through a combination of several dimensions: its capacity to produce, finance, stabilise and add complexity to its economic model.

This approach helps capture blind spots. It sheds light on the real resilience of a model when faced with long-term shocks, as well as the internal coherence of its macroeconomic choices. It makes it possible to identify trade-offs and hidden vulnerabilities that traditional indicators fail to show.

The application of this indicator to China, France and the United States reveals three distinct economic profiles. What are the main lessons from this comparison?

The United States can be seen as an innovation economy on life support. It benefits from exceptional technological leadership and the “exorbitant privilege” of the dollar, but remains weakened by recurrent macroeconomic overheating and record public debt.

France is closer to a conversion model. Its growth is modest and exposed to external shocks, but the country stands out for its capacity to convert economic wealth into high levels of human and social development.

China appears as an asymmetric colossus. It is a sophisticated industrial and export power, but remains held back by weak domestic demand, structural demographic decline and massive corporate debt.

Does your work suggest that the distinction between developed and developing countries has become obsolete?

The binary view has had its day. Setting two blocs of countries against each other no longer reflects the reality of global trade or value chains. China sits precisely on the frontier. It has the financial power and political autonomy of a developed country, while still facing the fragilities and average income level of a country in transition.

We therefore need to change perspective. The challenge is no longer to attach a fixed label to a country, but to measure its institutional maturity, its innovation trajectory and its resilience in the face of the risks of our century, marked by the convergence of tensions and the accumulation of risks.

You also mention an “exclusion triangle” between social protection, economic sovereignty and economic efficiency. What does this concept mean?

The exclusion triangle refers to a simple tension: a country cannot strengthen social protection, economic sovereignty and economic efficiency to the same degree without creating imbalances. Each model therefore depends on choices.

More social protection can weigh on competitiveness. More sovereignty can reduce certain efficiency gains. More efficiency can weaken the social compromise. The point is not to designate a perfect model, but to understand the tensions running through each economy.

Ever more social protection, more economic sovereignty or more efficiency: choices have to be made. A country can display a very high standard of living while concealing a critical lack of savings, as in the United States. Conversely, an industrial hyperpower can hide financial immaturity, as in China.

The value of this approach lies in revealing where an economic model may become fragile. It does not show only what works, but also the possible breaking points.

Read the SKEMA Publika report