The VVD wants 'radical economic growth': a good idea?

In its latest election manifesto, the VVD presents growth as the universal lubricant for all political woes: more defense, better healthcare, clean energy, lower taxes – all possible as long as the economy grows.

A kind of political black box : throw "radical growth" into the machine on one side, and out the other, surprisingly, comes affordable housing, good education, and a livable climate. The only problem: such a machine doesn't exist.

The VVD classically confuses means and ends. Growth is not a goal—it can be a consequence of policies aimed at productivity growth, innovation, knowledge, and labor participation. But in the VVD platform, growth has become a holy grail, a political fetish to which all other values are subordinate. "Radical growth" is, in fact, the VVD's turbocharged version of an old recipe that has led for decades to stagnant public services, unsustainable ecological pressure, and structural inequality.

It's a radicalization that occurred in slow motion. In 1981, the VVD still believed growth was necessary, but "with the environment and human health as the limits." In 2002, growth became a goal in itself, to be achieved through the privatization of healthcare, education, and housing. And in 2012, growth was simply called "urgently necessary," with technology as a panacea—convenient, because it was exportable.

And now? Growth is now even a prerequisite for maintaining those now-stripped-down public services. Environmental issues are barely a concern; basic industry must remain. It's like pouring extra kerosene into an overheated engine.

And once again, that old fable: if entrepreneurs just make money, everyone benefits. That's why the VVD wants tax relief, fewer regulations, fewer obligations. As if economic growth will naturally "leak through." But if those at the top contribute less and those at the bottom pay more, that's not a trickle-down but a drain. It's appalling that the VVD still clings to these kinds of outdated economic theories.

What we need isn't a growth plan, but a compass. A new course in which we don't sacrifice everything for yet another percent of GDP, but invest in the true engines of a healthy society: people, nature, and public infrastructure. Growth is allowed, as a byproduct. That would be radical, and much more realistic, for the VVD. But above all: fairer.

Lex Hoogduin Radical green growth is a false promise

I wrote earlier in NRC that by excluding the PVV, the VVD turned left and left the playing field wide open for a classical liberal policy.

The recently presented election manifesto pleasantly surprised me. The party expresses a preference for a right-wing liberal cabinet. Bolkestein is cited several times, and the manifesto clearly distances itself from the prevailing view in Dutch politics that there is a need for greater government control.

Bravo, because the Dutch economy and society aren't locked down by too little government intervention, but by too much . While the government increasingly wants to regulate, citizens and businesses lose more and more freedom and the ability to live their own lives. More and more people are becoming dependent on the decisions made by a small group in The Hague and Brussels.

Yet, this positive shift by the VVD is certainly not complete. There remains considerable room for further refinement in a classically liberal direction. The first of the five missions formulated by the VVD illustrates this: radical economic growth. A truly classically liberal economic policy is purely about creating conditions. These elements are certainly present in the election manifesto. But it also contains quite a few measures that assume the government can "create" growth.

True classical liberal policy would not formulate a goal for economic growth, even with qualifications like "green" or "radical." The essence of classical liberal policy is giving people the freedom to choose. For example, if many people would prefer to have more free time and work less, there's nothing wrong with that, even if it leads to lower economic growth – provided the consequence of this choice (lower income) isn't mitigated by government compensation.

Furthermore, maintaining the climate and nitrogen targets is incompatible with purely enabling policies. This gives the impression that radical growth and achieving these targets will be the outcome of the VVD's program: radical green growth as a false promise.

Lex Hoogduin

Barbara Baarsma We cannot do without growth

Without economic growth, it will be difficult to absorb the costs of an aging population. There will simply be insufficient financial leeway for strategic investments, such as a modern armed forces, a climate-resilient Netherlands, or expanding our overcrowded electricity grid.

The focus on growth is therefore understandable. Not because growth is the end goal, but because it's a necessary means. The lower the growth, the emptier the treasury. But that growth must be green and within the Earth's capacity. Otherwise, future generations will pay the price without having a voice on October 29th.

The Dutch economy's potential for growth is under pressure. The only growth engine that can still power our aging country – labor productivity – is faltering. At the same time, the economy is facing increasingly stringent capacity limits: labor, land, nitrogen storage, and clean water are scarce. Roads, rail, and the power grid are overloaded. Without intervention, stagnation threatens.

Anyone who wants to stimulate economic growth must therefore be willing to make choices. Choices about which activities require adjustment, scaling down, or relocation, because they place a heavy burden on scarce production factors but generate relatively little value. Such decisions are uncomfortable, but unavoidable.

The pursuit of strategic autonomy should not be a reason to postpone these choices. On the contrary, it underscores the need for European coordination and shared priorities.

The VVD's election manifesto doesn't make these choices. While it acknowledges the scarcity, how the government actively manages the reallocation of low- to high-productivity activities remains unclear. The necessary instruments are available – they're just not being used.

A selection from the toolkit. First, use spatial planning policy to foster an economy that requires less space and creates more value. This means abandoning some land-intensive activities. Maintaining the Climate Act, enforcing environmental standards, and pricing pollution will accelerate the transition to sustainable and innovative businesses.

Raise the minimum wage: This stimulates productivity and discourages low-productivity jobs that only pay off at low wages. Monitoring underpayment prevents a shadow market of cheap labor that undermines productivity incentives.

Without clear choices and strong leadership, green growth will remain nothing more than a paper promise.