
Does Azerbaijan's GDP growth mean people are better off?
Pro-government and state media regularly run headlines about GDP growth to suggest that Azerbaijan's economy is developing. But what does GDP actually tell us?
Is it really a measure of economic development? Does it reflect people's living standards?Gross domestic product (GDP) is the market value of goods and services produced within a country over a set period of time, usually a year. In other words, GDP measures the total output of goods and services produced in a country and legally sold.
It is calculated as the sum of consumer spending, investment, government expenditure, and the trade balance (exports minus imports). For example: GDP = household consumption + investment + government spending + (exports – imports).
GDP provides a macro-level measure of economic activity and offers a rough indication of economic growth.
However, economists stress that GDP has many limitations as a measure of wellbeing. As Joseph Stiglitz put it:
'GDP measures everything, except that which makes life worthwhile.'
For example, GDP does not account for environmental quality, healthcare, education, aspects of social welfare such as inequality, or the long-term sustainability of the economy.
An IMF study notes that GDP captures only market transactions and monetary exchanges, overlooking factors such as pollution, depletion of natural resources, and environmental degradation. It also excludes the informal economy and unpaid household labour.
Ultimately, relying on GDP alone can be misleading: economic growth does not necessarily mean an improvement in people's living standards.
Economist Toghrul Mashalli wrote on his Telegram channel:
'We shouldn't stop at saying that GDP has grown. When we present this, we should also refer to other indicators.'
According to him, looking at additional indicators makes it possible to understand whether GDP growth is actually positive or negative.
The value of alternative indicators
That is why additional measures have been developed alongside GDP, such as happiness indexes, environmental indicators, and others. The OECD's Better Life Initiative, the UN Human Development Index and similar projects aim to assess social wellbeing beyond GDP.
The conclusion is that GDP shows the volume of economic activity as a primary indicator but does not reflect a society's true wellbeing.
Economists therefore recommend going beyond the headline 'GDP has grown' and looking at the structure of that growth, income distribution and other social indicators.
As Stiglitz notes, what we choose to measure shapes the choices we make, and focusing solely on GDP can lead to negative long-term outcomes.
Comparing indicators in the South Caucasus
The experience of countries in the region also shows that high GDP figures alone do not necessarily mean social development.
In 2024, Azerbaijan's GDP stood at $74.3bn, placing it 86th in the world. However, its per capita income – about $7,268 nominally (€6,717) – is lower than in Georgia and Armenia.
At the same time, Azerbaijan's score in the UN Human Development Index (HDI) for 2022 was 0.760, putting it in the 'high human development' category.
This suggests that, unlike its neighbours, Azerbaijan has a high industrial and construction share in GDP, while other social factors lag behind.
For comparison, Georgia's HDI in 2022 was 0.814 (ranking 58th), and Armenia's was 0.786 (76th).
GDP growth in Azerbaijan: structure and sustainability
Toghrul Mashalli | Photo: Meydan TV
'Whether it's needed or not, construction goes ahead. The private sector may not be very active, but state bodies will always find the money.
As a result of this policy, the debt of local governments in China rose from 42% to 70% of their GDP in just seven years. In the past, 1% GDP growth in China led to 0.8% growth in household consumption. Between 2011 and 2019, that figure fell to just 0.06%.
We haven't faced the same situation only because, here, debt is issued solely by the central government. If local authorities could borrow, it would be the same story.
In countries like Azerbaijan, there's a limit to this – if you don't take on debt, your ability to invest is restricted, and that automatically limits GDP.
For now, growth is being maintained. But what happens tomorrow?' – asks Toghrul Mashalli.
As economist Toghrul Mashalli notes, in recent years the main driver of GDP growth in Azerbaijan has been state-led investment, particularly in construction.
According to 2023 statistics, large-scale construction and infrastructure projects were under way in post-war Karabakh and Eastern Zangezur. Analyses show that the construction sector's contribution to GDP in 2023 grew by 13% in real terms and 18% in nominal terms.
Since 2021, the region has seen the building of two airports, railways, tunnels and housing, with spending rising each year. However, as these investments relied heavily on imported machinery and materials, the economic activity did not come from within but from imports. As a result, while construction spending is counted in GDP, its impact on the national economy remains limited.
Public debt and investment
Over the same period, local government debt also rose sharply. According to some estimates, the ratio of public debt to GDP increased from 20% to 35% between 2017 and 2024, mainly as a result of borrowing to finance state spending and investment.
With high debt levels, financial resources available to the private sector have shrunk. As the central bank has noted, this has driven up imports and negatively affected the trade balance. Rising public debt has also meant relatively less spending on education and healthcare, with the budget's main priority shifting towards construction projects.
Oil dependence and diversification
Azerbaijan's economy remains reliant on oil and gas revenues. When oil prices and production fall, GDP growth slows.
In 2023, for example, GDP grew by only about 1%, reflecting lower prices and reduced energy output on global markets.
Alongside oil, construction and infrastructure investment has created temporary growth, but competition and innovation in the real sector remain weak. As Stiglitz notes, sustainable growth in wellbeing depends on a combination of income, education, healthcare and environmental sustainability.
In Azerbaijan, GDP growth figures alone say little about people's wellbeing; only by looking at other social and economic indicators can their real impact be understood.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Scottish Sun
10 hours ago
- Scottish Sun
Trump-Putin latest: Don vows full peace deal not ‘mere ceasefire' after Alaska summit as Zelensky to head to White House
Scroll down to see our live coverage of the fallout from the crunch meeting 'END THIS WAR' Trump-Putin latest: Don vows full peace deal not 'mere ceasefire' after Alaska summit as Zelensky to head to White House DONALD Trump has said Russia and Ukraine both believe a full peace deal is "the best way" to end the war in Ukraine instead of a ceasefire. The US President is set to discuss the terms of an agreement with Volodymyr Zelensky on Monday when he travels to the White House following the Alaskan summit. 4 Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin shake hands after holding a peace summit in Alaska Credit: Reuters 4 Volodymyr Zelensky will speak to Trump in Washington on Monday Credit: Telegram 4 Vladimir Putin jetted off back to Moscow flagged by US F-22 fighter jets Credit: AFP 4 Trump waves after stepping off Air Force One following phone calls with Volodymyr Zelensky and Nato leaders Credit: AFP Trump hailed his talks with Vladimir Putin as "great and very successful" as he detailed the next steps in securing peace in Ukraine. The US delegation left Alaska in Air Force One after a long day and landed back in Washington shortly after 7am. Trump held a lengthy phone call with Zelensky during the flight and invited the Ukrainian President to Washington in just 48 hours. Zelensky later posted on Telegram accepting the invitation as he added: "We discussed positive signals from the American side regarding participation in guaranteeing security for Ukraine." Nato leaders were also updated on the summit in a separate call with Trump. The US President revealed on Truth Social that he informed the European side and Zelensky of Putin's main wish for a complete end to the war instead of a ceasefire. Trump then confirmed: "It was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement." The latest update came hours after the US President rated his talks with Putin as "10 out of 10' but admitted we "haven't quite got there". He added: "There's no deal until there's a deal." Trump followed this up by insisting it's now up to Zelensky to "get it done" and secure a deal over Ukraine's future. Putin himself also claimed he was "sincerely interested" in ending the war. But back home, his troops continued their savage bombardment with over 85 attack drones and a ballistic missile fired overnight, according to Kyiv's Air Force. Read our live blog for the latest on the Trump and Putin peace talks...


North Wales Chronicle
a day ago
- North Wales Chronicle
UN plastic pollution talks fail again with negotiators rejecting draft treaties
Delegates were seeking to complete a legally binding international agreement on Thursday after a 10-day conference in Geneva, Switzerland. But the INC5.2 talks ended in overtime on Friday morning without a deal after negotiators struggled to break a deadlock over key issues. 'We did not get where we wanted, but people want a deal. This work will not stop, because plastic pollution will not stop.' UNEP Executive Director @andersen_inger at the close of the second part of #INC5 in Geneva. Watch the full media stakeout: — UN Environment Programme (@UNEP) August 15, 2025 The biggest sticking point has been whether the treaty should impose caps on producing new plastic or focus instead on things such as better design, recycling and reuse. Over the past few days, Luis Vayas Valdivieso, the chair of the negotiating committee, gathered views from the representatives of 184 countries before writing two drafts of treaty text. But countries ultimately rejected both as the basis for negotiations after they failed to bridge major rifts between different groups of countries. The so-called 'high ambition coalition', including the UK, have been calling for binding obligations on reducing production and consumption, sustainable product design, environmentally sound management of plastic waste and clean-up of pollution. But a smaller number of powerful oil and gas producing nations including Saudi Arabia and Kuwait oppose production limits, which they consider outside the scope of the treaty. Environment campaigners and a coalition of businesses praised the high ambition countries for holding the line for a strong deal and said no treaty was better than a weak one but warned of the urgency to tackle the growing crisis. Every year, the world makes more than 400 million tonnes of new plastic, and that could grow by about 70% by 2040 without policy changes. About 100 countries want to limit production. Many have said it is also essential to address toxic chemicals used to make plastics. Once in the environment, plastic waste can entangle, choke or be eaten by wildlife and livestock, clog up waterways and litter beaches, while bigger items break down into microplastics, entering food chains. And producing plastic, primarily from fossil fuel oil, has a climate impact, with the World in Data and OECD saying 3.3% of global emissions is down to the production and management of global plastics. The best way to manage waste is to generate less or none in the first place. It's time to act! Let's ban single-use plastic & #SaveOurOcean 🌊 — United Nations Geneva (@UNGeneva) August 14, 2025 Since talks began in 2022, countries have taken part in several rounds of negotiations to reach consensus on tackling the issue. The Geneva talks were arranged after what was originally meant to be the final round of talks in Busan, South Korea, also ended without an agreement in November. It is understood that another round of negotiations will be organised when the location and money for it is found. The Business Coalition for a Global Plastics Treaty, which represents 200 companies including Nestle, PepsiCo Walmart, Tetra Pak and Unilever, said it was 'disappointed' by the lack of an agreement, but said there is 'cause for optimism'. Rebecca Marmot, chief sustainability and corporate affairs officer at Unilever, said: 'The strong alignment among governments, business and civil society groups calling for a treaty with harmonised regulations across the full lifecycle of plastics is encouraging. 'Harmonised regulations are essential to reduce business complexity and cost, whilst also increasing confidence to invest in solutions.' Jodie Roussell, global public affairs lead for packaging and sustainability at Nestle, said: 'Voluntary efforts are not enough, and the current fragmented regulatory landscape results in increased costs and complexity for business.' Graham Forbes, Greenpeace's head of delegation at the talks, said: 'The inability to reach an agreement in Geneva must be a wake-up call for the world: ending plastic pollution means confronting fossil fuel interests head-on. 'The vast majority of governments want a strong agreement, yet a handful of bad actors were allowed to use process to drive such ambition into the ground. 'We cannot continue to do the same thing and expect a different result. The time for hesitation is over.' Christina Dixon, Ocean Campaign at the Environmental Investigation Agency, said: 'The supposedly final round of negotiations for a new global plastics treaty exposed deep geopolitical divides and a troubling resistance to confronting the real drivers of plastic pollution. 'No deal is better than a toothless treaty that locks us into further inaction, but without urgent course correction, efforts to secure a plastics treaty risks becoming a shield for polluters, not a solution to the plastics crisis.' Sian Sutherland, co-founder of A Plastic Planet at the Plastic Health Council: 'The high ambition coalition and civil society built extraordinary solidarity over these negotiations — a unity that transcended traditional boundaries. 'The fact that this could not overcome a process so fundamentally compromised by the narrow interests of the tiny fraction reaping massive financial rewards reveals the urgent need to reform how we make planetary decisions.'


South Wales Guardian
a day ago
- South Wales Guardian
UN plastic pollution talks fail again with negotiators rejecting draft treaties
Delegates were seeking to complete a legally binding international agreement on Thursday after a 10-day conference in Geneva, Switzerland. But the INC5.2 talks ended in overtime on Friday morning without a deal after negotiators struggled to break a deadlock over key issues. 'We did not get where we wanted, but people want a deal. This work will not stop, because plastic pollution will not stop.' UNEP Executive Director @andersen_inger at the close of the second part of #INC5 in Geneva. Watch the full media stakeout: — UN Environment Programme (@UNEP) August 15, 2025 The biggest sticking point has been whether the treaty should impose caps on producing new plastic or focus instead on things such as better design, recycling and reuse. Over the past few days, Luis Vayas Valdivieso, the chair of the negotiating committee, gathered views from the representatives of 184 countries before writing two drafts of treaty text. But countries ultimately rejected both as the basis for negotiations after they failed to bridge major rifts between different groups of countries. The so-called 'high ambition coalition', including the UK, have been calling for binding obligations on reducing production and consumption, sustainable product design, environmentally sound management of plastic waste and clean-up of pollution. But a smaller number of powerful oil and gas producing nations including Saudi Arabia and Kuwait oppose production limits, which they consider outside the scope of the treaty. Environment campaigners and a coalition of businesses praised the high ambition countries for holding the line for a strong deal and said no treaty was better than a weak one but warned of the urgency to tackle the growing crisis. Every year, the world makes more than 400 million tonnes of new plastic, and that could grow by about 70% by 2040 without policy changes. About 100 countries want to limit production. Many have said it is also essential to address toxic chemicals used to make plastics. Once in the environment, plastic waste can entangle, choke or be eaten by wildlife and livestock, clog up waterways and litter beaches, while bigger items break down into microplastics, entering food chains. And producing plastic, primarily from fossil fuel oil, has a climate impact, with the World in Data and OECD saying 3.3% of global emissions is down to the production and management of global plastics. The best way to manage waste is to generate less or none in the first place. It's time to act! Let's ban single-use plastic & #SaveOurOcean 🌊 — United Nations Geneva (@UNGeneva) August 14, 2025 Since talks began in 2022, countries have taken part in several rounds of negotiations to reach consensus on tackling the issue. The Geneva talks were arranged after what was originally meant to be the final round of talks in Busan, South Korea, also ended without an agreement in November. It is understood that another round of negotiations will be organised when the location and money for it is found. The Business Coalition for a Global Plastics Treaty, which represents 200 companies including Nestle, PepsiCo Walmart, Tetra Pak and Unilever, said it was 'disappointed' by the lack of an agreement, but said there is 'cause for optimism'. Rebecca Marmot, chief sustainability and corporate affairs officer at Unilever, said: 'The strong alignment among governments, business and civil society groups calling for a treaty with harmonised regulations across the full lifecycle of plastics is encouraging. 'Harmonised regulations are essential to reduce business complexity and cost, whilst also increasing confidence to invest in solutions.' Jodie Roussell, global public affairs lead for packaging and sustainability at Nestle, said: 'Voluntary efforts are not enough, and the current fragmented regulatory landscape results in increased costs and complexity for business.' Graham Forbes, Greenpeace's head of delegation at the talks, said: 'The inability to reach an agreement in Geneva must be a wake-up call for the world: ending plastic pollution means confronting fossil fuel interests head-on. 'The vast majority of governments want a strong agreement, yet a handful of bad actors were allowed to use process to drive such ambition into the ground. 'We cannot continue to do the same thing and expect a different result. The time for hesitation is over.' Christina Dixon, Ocean Campaign at the Environmental Investigation Agency, said: 'The supposedly final round of negotiations for a new global plastics treaty exposed deep geopolitical divides and a troubling resistance to confronting the real drivers of plastic pollution. 'No deal is better than a toothless treaty that locks us into further inaction, but without urgent course correction, efforts to secure a plastics treaty risks becoming a shield for polluters, not a solution to the plastics crisis.' Sian Sutherland, co-founder of A Plastic Planet at the Plastic Health Council: 'The high ambition coalition and civil society built extraordinary solidarity over these negotiations — a unity that transcended traditional boundaries. 'The fact that this could not overcome a process so fundamentally compromised by the narrow interests of the tiny fraction reaping massive financial rewards reveals the urgent need to reform how we make planetary decisions.'