In 21st century and a globalized world, is economic growth still the metric by which to measure a state's success? Economic growth as a yardstick for a government's success is relatively new on a human historical scale. In my thinking it has arisen out of an expansion of the expected function of a state. States at a minimum are expected to uphold the rule of law and protect its people and its interests. Economic growth arose out of the need to implement not just criminal justice but also social justice. Now with globalisation and the breakneck speed with which developing countries are growing economically, economic growth is so deeply entrenched. However, it is possibly unsustainable and as things stand culturally and environmentally harmful.

Are there ways to either 
- eschew growth in favour of something better


constrain and direct growth in a way that is culturally and environmentally sensitive?
Depends on what you mean by "success".

Economic growth is simply change in gross output expressed in market prices. Prices tell you what citizens want and how much of it they have. Equating marginal utility with price is a useful abstraction in this case.

Economic growth is trivially desirable: it's about people making things they need.

When "success" is defined in some progressive terms, it's no longer trivially desirable. Zero employment policies — like those in the Soviet Union — hurt productivity. Premature investments in clean tech worsen intertemporal tradeoffs. You actually get back to GDP to measure these successes.

Still, measurements of economic growth can get better. Like Stiglitz et al's suggestion to use net disposable income instead of GDP per capita (see Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress, Mismeasuring Our Lives). Adjusting per-capita metrics for inequality would also be a good idea.