According to these calculations, bicycling has about the same economic impact in the state as recreational hunting, a point bicycle advocates like to make, especially regarding government funding for things like trails and bicycle infrastructure. It does make sound economic sense, particularly at a local level, to fund such projects, just as it does to purchase land for wildlife areas benefiting hunters or anyone else who cares to venture into these wild places. These projects clearly augment local economies.
At times, however, arguing the merits of a project solely on economic grounds does not make sense. If we use this line of reasoning, Hurricane Katrina was a good thing since it pumped billions of dollars into Louisiana, and the total destruction of that part of the Gulf was a poignant example of disaster capitalism. The recent BP oil rig fiasco, while having devastating environmental consequences, will also boost the economy by providing jobs but also eat up even more resources.
Traditional economists are fond of looking at gross domestic product (GDP), wherein all goods and services produced in a given year in a given country are measured to create total output. They say this number tells us how well (or not so well, lately) this nation’s economy is doing. Economists add up the board feet of lumber sawed, the number of cars or bicycles manufactured and the bushels of tomatoes grown, and they come up with a number, a big number. However, this model also factors in many arguably detrimental things – nuclear arms, jails and cancer treatment – because they also pump money into the national economy. If I murder my wife, then get cancer while serving my life sentence a state penitentiary, that would be good for the economy. Not so good for my wife or me, for that matter, but good for the economy. Murder and cancer, like Hurricane Katrina, enhance the GDP.
At first, it seems like the bicycle industry, although small compared to the auto or petroleum industries, should only help the economy. But if huge numbers of Americans suddenly stopped driving and started bicycling, this could potentially have a major impact on the economy – in a downward direction. We would log fewer miles on our cars, taking longer to wear them out and putting off the need to buy new motor vehicles. We would burn less gasoline, make fewer trips to the convenience store, hurting petroleum sales – not to mention decreasing the sale of Mountain Dew and Nutty Bars. Gas taxes used to build roads and bridges would decline, so construction of this infrastructure would, in turn, drop off. On and on in a vicious cycle.
In the U.S. for the past 50 years or so, drivers have steadily been driving more and more miles each year. That is until November 2007 when, for the first time in decades, our driving started to decrease. This decrease is blamed mostly on rising gasoline prices and a depressed economy. In short, Americans cannot afford to drive as much as we used to, and this has hurt the auto industry, which the federal government continues to prop up. Clearly, less driving has had disastrous effects on the economy. Now if we voluntarily and radically reduced our driving even more – sell the second car, move closer to our jobs and began bike commuting – that would further depress the GDP and lead to more traditional economists wringing their hands and gnashing their teeth.
Health care would no doubt take a hit, too, because riding bicycles is surely bad for that business. Fractures and lacerations from the increased number of accidents from the increased numbers of commuters would go up, but heart disease, stroke and issues related to diabetes would drop, perhaps dramatically, resulting in fewer dollars for the health care industry. I assume the decrease in hospital visits would come as a blow to the insurance industry as well, but maybe not since those who sell us our policies seem to make their money rain or shine, in sickness and in health. One would think that more people riding bikes would also make us more mentally sound with potentially fewer trips to see therapists. I rarely see a bicycle parked outside a local therapist’s office.
In the end, though, using economics to justify behavior and spending doesn’t work for me since I don’t believe a rising GDP makes us a whit happier. For one, most Americans rarely see the gains, and even though it’s taken a while, I’ve learned that having more stuff does not necessarily make us happy.
If I were a model citizen trying to do my part, buying $100 bicycles at Wal-Mart would seem to help the GDP most. My purchases would satisfy traditional economists because I would wear out those cheap bikes quickly. Since they really aren’t worth fixing, I would be locked into an endless cycle of breaking and buying bikes, and that would really boost the GDP. Besides, we know that what’s good for Wal-Mart is good for us.
But those who know me know I am no model citizen, especially if that means darkening the doors of a big box store.
On the other hand, I do feel immense loyalty to the Badger State and our local economies. I am proud to ride around on bikes made in Waterloo, Wisconsin, just as I like to drink beer from Stevens Point or New Glarus or eat cheese from Marathon City.
If keeping my car in the driveway is bad for the GDP and globalization, then so be it. Doing so is clearly good for both my personal economy and the local economy. What’s more, I utterly enjoy pedaling my made-in-Wisconsin bike downtown for a growler of local brew. The economic consequence of this activity is the last thing on my mind.
Mark Parman lives in Wausau, Wisconsin, where he teaches English and journalism at the University of Wisconsin-Marathon County.
top of page
Visitor Comments »
top of page