Category Archives: Fiscal Policy

Still waiting.

Posted on December 18, 2012 | Leave a comment

Progress is to the UK economy as words have been to my blog. Lacking. News on economic fundamentals, and the associated policy discourse, have consistently underwhelmed. Government concern remains fixed on the same, narrow goal of fiscal consolidation, with inadequate regard of how this consolidation is achieved. 2012 bears evidence to the claim that this concern is misdirected and that the derivative economic strategy is self-defeating. December has born witness to yet another downgrade in UK growth prospects and the rise of measured government debt has only been slowed by the inclusion of projected departmental underspends and the proceeds from the 4G license sales to projections. This post is a summary piece on the the state of the UK recovery and outlines the economics behind why the policies pursued to date have been unhelpful (at best).

The economy, ….

The underlying picture remains much as it has been for the past two years: one of persistent weakness. Fifty shades of grey minus anything remotely stimulating if you will. The economy performed less strongly in 2012 than anticipated. The OBR cut its growth forecast to predict a 0.1% fall in output this year, followed by growth of 1.2% in 2013. Output is thus at roughly the same level as 2 years ago, 4% below that in 2008. This recession by now far exceeds the “Great Depression” in length. The graph below from the NIESR illustrates the point nicely.

It is unclear whether below par growth this year derives from “cyclical” (temporary) or “structural” (permanent) weaknesses. Cyclical weakness sits on the “demand side” of the economy– people and businesses just aren’t buying enough stuff–, whilst structural weakness is more pernicious and difficult to tackle, the result of a “supply side” contraction — we can’t make as much stuff. The two are related as cyclical weaknesses can be locked into structural ones via a process called “hysteresis” — see this post for more. There is disagreement as to how much of our current troubles to attribute to one or the other but, regardless, the OBR now forecasts systematically weaker economic growth for the coming years than it previously predicted in March.

Difficulties (understatement) in the Eurozone have continued to depress net exports and confidence. However, our lacklustre performance is by no means implied by the economic woes that plague Europe and other Western countries. Growth in the US and Germany has consistently dominated that achieved on these shores, and the UK pales in comparison to a host of countries in any ranking of capital investment.

And what of the lauded deficit reduction strategy? Despite (because of?) Plan A(usterity), good news isn’t forthcoming in this domain either. The size of the of the public finance hole is of a similar magnitude to that of 2011. However, even this underwhelming achievement is sullied by the knowledge that without the inclusion of funds from the one-off 4G licensing auction and the predicted “underspends” by certain government departments, the funding shortfall facing the government would have grown this year.

… stupid.

In his Autumn statement, Osborne upped the dosage of existing prescriptions to cure the UK economy and added a few new measures to the mix. However, don’t expect a return to health soon. Policy remains inadequate and misdirected. There continues to be insufficient concern about the ends that sustainable public finances are supposed to advance. This has contributed to a lack of attention surrounding the composition of the policy mix conjured up on order to coax fiscal sustainability back to UK shores.

Just to remind ourselves, what is a budget deficit? When people talk about the deficit they are referring to the gap between what’s coming into the government coffers through taxes/other revenue sources (call this amount “T”) and what’s being spent (amount “G”).

Budget deficit = G – T

We care about the size of the budget deficit because of the impact that unsustainable public finances have on the economic prosperity of a country and the wellbeing of its citizens. It is not of value in and of itself to pursue low government borrowing (see this post for more on the cost of a deficit). Therefore, the obsession with fiscal consolidation is misguided and has resulted in a misdirected, overly narrow economic strategy. The size of the budget deficit is not the most salient economic ill plaguing the UK at present. If financial markets were overly concerned with the sustainability of the UK fiscal position, we would see interest rates rising with market risk. We have not witnessed this, the opposite in fact, suggesting that indebtedness is not the primary concern in financial markets (see this piece by Adam Posen, former MPC member, for more evidence on why reducing the debt should not be the top priority right now).

A blinding focus simply on the extent of the debt reduction required, without much regard to the how’s and why’s, has promoted a self-defeating economic strategy. The experience of the last 12 months is testament to this. Given that what we actually care about is general prosperity and wellbeing, we should aim for a deficit reduction strategy that protects these ends as far as possible. This demands a detailed analysis of the composition of spending and taxation changes, rather than just a pure focus on levels. This is because the austerity-growth dichotomy often presented in the media and by politicians is a false one. By reallocating government resources to activities with a high “fiscal multiplier” (to be explained!), growth can be supported whilst the budget deficit is reduced.

The Fiscal Multiplier

What does it mean to reallocate spending to activities with a “high multiplier”? The fiscal multiplier gives the impact that changes in government spending have on overall demand in the economy. With a multiplier of 1, an extra pound of government spending raises total demand in the economy just by a pound. However, we generally expect the size of the multiplier to be greater than 1. Imagine government spending is increased by £1. This additional £1 then represents income for someone that can be spent. Let households spend a fraction c of their income. c is defined as the “marginal propensity to consume”. This extra c of spending then represents income for someone else…..who spends c of it….and so on. Thus, one can think of the total increase in demand leading from the £1 of government spending as

1 + c + c²+ c³ + …

Therefore, there can be a more than proportionate increase in demand for an increase in government spending.

The actual size of fiscal multipliers is difficult to measure but a moment’s thought suggests they will vary across government activities. The introduction above was clearly overly simplified; there is not one fiscal multiplier but a set of them associated with different government programmes. Resources should be shifted to high multiplier activities and the burden of cuts should be disproportionately concentrated on those with low propensities to consume. To illustrate, imagine a balanced budget policy, that simply takes income from one group in society and transfers it to another. Although fiscally neutral, the policy will boost growth if spending rises by more among the recipients than it falls among the funders. This will be the case if the marginal propensity to consume is higher among the recipients. This helps to highlight that through redesigning the austerity strategy to shift resources to high multiplier groups and activities, growth can be stimulated, and output protected, without a need to increase the debt burden.

The Autumn statement flirted with this principle by earmarking funds for capital spending and investment. These are potentially “high multiplier” activities given the employment and productive projects they facilitate. However, the scale of proposed new capital spending is insufficient. £5bn over the next two years. An amount that, at best, is expected to add 0.1% to GDP. Not exactly pushing the boat out… Secondly, and more importantly, the funding source for the proposed investments has the potential to undermine their (already small) impact. Cuts to welfare and tax credits will be used to fund these measures. However, such cuts will have a significant negative impact on demand in the economy given that they fall on those at the lower end of the income distribution. Such households tend to have a high marginal propensity to consume and little way of smoothing their spending. Therefore, the policy is largely funded by those who’s incomes the government should really be trying to protect if it is to be true to a multiplier guided philosophy. (Note that this is before any equity based arguments are even considered.)

A new voice

“For last year’s words belong to last year’s language

And next year’s words await another voice.

And to make an end is to make a beginning.”

— T. S. Eliot

In the next few weeks, I will write a number of more targeted posts on specific policy proposals and Eurozone developments. However, hopefully this post will have equipped you with some background knowledge on the economy and convinced you that a significant shift in economic strategy and dialogue is required in the UK. The singular focus on austerity has been self-defeating and has contributed to the prolonging the country’s economic woes. We’re long overdue a change in vision and vocabulary. The Autumn statement highlighted some appreciation of the arguments laid out here. In 2013, the government must go further to nurse the economy back to health.

Austerity v Growth: A False Dichotomy

Posted on February 26, 2012 | Leave a comment

Politicians’ commentary on the state of the UK economy remains frustratingly tendentious and unsophisticated. The rhetoric of both the “austerity” and “growth” camps is overly simplified and needlessly polarized. Action is needed to stimulate growth. However, this fact doesn’t necessitate adding to the debt burden. The economics of the fiscal multiplier implies greater concern should be given to the composition of spending cuts and tax rises. By designing our austerity strategy to reallocate resources to “high multiplier” activities, growth can be initiated during fiscal consolidation. Elucidating this common ground between the camps is required to move the debate forward and set the stage for the development of a credible and equitable austerity strategy.

Recession? Depression?

More than two years since the UK entered recession, the much anticipated recovery is yet to make its appearance. This week the ONS confirmed that the economy contracted by 0.2% in the last quarter of 2011, a consequence of chronically weak business investment and manufacturing. GDP remains almost 4% below pre-crisis peak. Comparing the current recovery to those following past recessions is chilling. The graph below, taken from Jonathan Portes’ blog, shows that output has already been depressed for longer than that experienced during the Great Depression, and looks set to remain so for the foreseeable future.

The current malaise is the product of weak demand, causing the economy to operate approximately 3% below its potential, and of reduced potential supply. Households and the government are set on consolidating their balance sheets and the Eurozone crisis has effectively foreclosed an export led recovery. There is thus little incentive for investment. The latest negative growth figures therefore come as no surprise.

Ongoing weak demand and reductions in supply capacity are linked, a phenomenon economists call “hysteresis”. If demand for a firm’s output is depressed for a prolonged period, machinery is scrapped and planned investments go unimplemented. Workplace skills and the likelihood of returning to work altogether decline in the length of an unemployment spell, reducing the stock of “human capital” in the economy. Not only has unemployment continued to rise in the UK, but it is increasingly long term and concentrated among the young. Youth unemployment has especially pernicious consequences, affecting the individual and economy for far longer than the spell of joblessness itself. Those experiencing spells of unemployment while young face significant wage penalties and a higher risk of future joblessness compared to their peers for decades, even after controlling for a wide array of individual and family characteristics (see, for example, Gregg and Tominey (2005) and Mroz and Savage (2006)). Thus, the fact that 18% of 16-24year olds are ‘NEETs’ (Not in Employment, Education or Training) should be sending alarm bells ringing through Whitehall. Their current idleness is not just an awful waste of their talents at this particular moment but makes it more likely for them to become trapped in dead-end areas of the labour market for much of their adult life. This is unfair, they did not choose to be born at a time dictating they join the workforce during the worst post-war recession, as well as being highly damaging to the wider economy.

Poor growth prospects ultimately make it harder to finance those dreaded debts. Low economic activity implies lower tax revenues, acting to undermine the UK’s fiscal credibility. In November, the OBR announced that £15bn of tightening is required in addition to what was initially anticipated to meet the deficit reduction targets. Moody’s, the rating agency, put the UK’s AAA credit rating on negative outlook, citing weak growth prospects and Eurozone exposure as justification.

Austerity v. Growth: A False Dichotomy

It seems like an impossible situation. Low growth undermines our fiscal credibility but, so we are told, raising government spending is off the cards as it will add to the national debt, spooking the markets, creating financial turmoil. With both austerity and growth strategies, it seems to be a case of damned if we do, damned if we don’t.

However, all is not lost. First, the downside risks of slowing the pace of fiscal consolidation are overblown and small relative to the costs of continued deficient demand but, leaving this to one side, the situation is not as hopeless as presented. We are not, in fact, faced with the choice of austerity or growth. This dichotomy is false and damaging. Rather than seeing this as a one-or-the-other problem, we should focus on the design of austerity strategy and how fiscal consolidation can be achieved with the lowest impact on growth and demand. It isn’t just a case of “tighten or not” but also “how to tighten”. By reallocating government resources to activities with a high fiscal multiplier, growth can be supported while the budget deficit is reduced. Enacting this principle also implies equitable policy reforms, dictating a transfer of resources from the richest to the poorest in society.

The Fiscal Multiplier

The fiscal multiplier gives the impact that changes in government spending have on overall demand in the economy. With a multiplier of 1, an extra pound of government spending raises total demand in the economy just by a pound. However, we generally expect the size of the multiplier to be greater than 1. Imagine government spending is increased by 1. This additional £1 then represents income which is spent. Let households spend a fraction c of their income. c is defined as the “marginal propensity to consume”. This extra c of spending then represents income for someone else…..who spends c of it….and so on. Thus, one can think of the total increase in demand leading from the £1 of government spending as

1 + c + c²+ c³ + …

Therefore, there can be a more than proportionate increase in demand with increase in government spending.

The actual size of fiscal multipliers is difficult to measure but a moment’s thought suggests they will vary across government activities. Resources should be shifted to high multiplier activities and the burden of cuts should be disproportionately concentrated on those with low propensities to consume. Imagine a balanced budget policy, taking income from one group and transferring it to another. Although fiscally neutral, the policy will boost growth if spending rises by more among the recipients than it falls among the funders. This will be the case if the marginal propensity to consume is higher among the recipients. By redesigning our austerity strategy to shift resources to high multiplier groups and activities, growth can be stimulated without a need to increase the debt burden.

What could this look like?

The analysis above suggests that cuts should be targeted at those with a low marginal propensity to consume, while those with higher MPCs should be protected. We shall also see that enacting this thinking implies equitable policy changes, dictating transfers of wealth to low income groups in society.

Exploiting variation in fiscal multipliers lies behind the Social Market Foundation’s suggestion of cutting high rate income tax relief on pension savings and capping ISA contributions. Such a policy would extract more tax revenue from those in a relatively secure financial position, who are better able to smooth the impact of cuts and tax rises, thereby minimising the impact of consolidation on overall demand. The SMF calculates that halving higher rate tax relief on pension contributions would save £6.7bn annually, while an ISA cap of £15,000 would generate an additional £1bn each year. Tightening should also be done through greater targeting of benefits rather than a reduction in their general level. Families at the bottom of the income distribution, without a savings safety net, are likely to have much higher marginal propensities to consume. Their income levels should thus be protected as far as possible on efficiency, as well as equity, grounds. Therefore, greater means testing of benefits should be enacted. Making child benefit and subsidies such as winter fuel payments and bus passes only available to the most disadvantaged in society will save huge sums but protect those who need it most.

Funds from savings created by efficient, equitable redesigns of the welfare system should be used to instigate a public works programme to facilitate a transition to a new industrial economy and restore the productive capacity of the economy. There are plenty of private sector projects in the pipeline that could be quickly undertaken given government funding. For example, as mentioned by Gerald Holtham, there is a private consortium willing to build the Severn barrage, a multi-billion pound scheme to supply 5 per cent of the UK’s electricity needs, given some guarantee on electricity prices. Investment spending could be rapidly deployed on schemes such as toll roads, that produce a revenue stream, and to support the UK’s broken housing market. We face a chronic shortage of housing in this country. The number of people waiting for social housing rose by 4.5% in 2010/2011, with 1.84million on the list in April 2011. Supporting investment in the housing stock would have huge social value and give a boost to the construction industry.

Further, funds could provide an initial capital injection to a small business bank or increase the scale of the coalition’s green investment bank. A new small business bank could make use of existing agencies to allocate and dispense the loans, offering them to small businesses at low rates, potentially concentrating funds in areas of especially afflicted by unemployment. The focus on small businesses should prove especially affective at job creation given research funded by the Kauffman Foundation showing that all net new private-sector jobs in America were created by companies less than five years old.

A middle ground exists

We need to move beyond the unnecessarily polarised austerity-growth debate. Casting these aims as mutually exclusive is misleading and unhelpful, contributing to policy inertia and unnecessarily limiting debate on how we achieve fiscal consolidation. Action must be taken to improve the UK’s growth prospects. The fact that we simultaneously want to get the public finances under control does not imply nothing can be done. The government’s hands are not fully tied, it must use them.

Desperately Seeking Stimulus

Posted on September 20, 2011 | 3 comments

Plan B is for Bankruptcy? Bullshit. Bold, government backed programmes are needed to kick-start the economy and stem the jobs crisis.

No, we are not out of the woods. The green shoots of recovery still remain smothered by a thick layer of mud. UK unemployment rose to 2.51million people in July. That’s 7.9% of the workforce. A fifth of UK youths are now jobless. These dismal figures are a consequence of hefty falls in public sector employment and pathetic rates of private sector job creation, much lower than that expected by the Treasury and OBR. Furthermore, the UK ranked a pitiful 25^th out of 27 countries for growth over the past year, only Romania and Portugal did worse. The Institute for Fiscal Studies shovels more gloom into the mix with the news that median net household income suffered its largest one-year drop since 1981 in the last financial year, battered by the real falls in earnings, benefits and tax credits.

These are not transient troubles. Martin Weale and co authors estimate that the current recession will be the longest since the war, highly likely to lead to a greater cumulative loss of value than the Great Depression. Martin Wolf in the FT argues that it is probable for the depression to last 72 months, making it 50% longer than its longest predecessor in a century. Furthermore, the singular focus on austerity across Europe will act to black out any light at the end of the tunnel. Cameron’s description of the current figures as “disappointing” is, therefore, a gross understatement.

You would think that the continued flow of feeble figures would trigger a revaluation of the current macroeconomic strategy. But no, “Plan B is for BANKRUPTCY” we are told, “The UK will be able to ‘weather the storm’”. Little convincing evidence has been supplied to support these claims. Despite all signals pointing towards a need for change, Osborne insists that no amendments will be made to Britain’s deficit reduction programme. Although Britain does need to make credible its promise to get the public finances in better shape, such policy inflexibility is reckless. We need to slow down austerity implementation to ensure that the scars this recession leaves on the economy are not deeper than need be.

The slowdown began with a collapse in economic demand. However, it is looking more and more likely that this will get locked in by a contraction of supply. A contraction in supply means that we will find it harder to produce ‘stuff’ at the same rate as before. That a fall in demand can feed into a permanent downgrade to our growth prospects is a phenomenon known as hysteresis by economists. If demand for a firm’s output is depressed for a prolonged period, machinery may be scrapped and businesses could decide not to follow through on planned investments. The chaos in the financial sector has resulted in credit being allocated inefficiently at the wrong cost. Others note that a worker’s productivity can be harmed by unemployment. If one is out of a job for a long time, workplace skills start to fade and you become less employable. In addition, the longer someone is out of a job, the more likely it is for them to drop out of the labour market altogether. For example, women may decide to stay at home, early retirement may become an option or that back pain that’s always plagued you may become a reason to seek different types of benefits.

All of this acts to depress the trend rate of growth that the economy can sustainably achieve and will ultimately make it harder to pay those dreaded debts. With slower growth, tax revenues will remain depressed for longer than the Treasury and OBR expected when making their budget projections. Preventing the temporary blemishes associated with recession from becoming permanent scars is of upmost importance.

Unemployment of all ilks is associated with economic and social ills but the current concentration of joblessness among the young and low skilled is something of particular concern. Youth unemployment has especially pernicious consequences, affecting the individual and economy for far longer than the spell of joblessness itself. Those experiencing spells of unemployment while young face significant wage penalties and a higher risk of future joblessness compared to their peers for decades, even after controlling for a wide array of individual and family characteristics. For example, see the evidence in Gregg and Tominey (2005) for the UK and Mroz and Savage (2006) for the US. Thus, the fact that 18% of 16-24year olds are ‘NEETs’ (Not in Employment, Education or Training) should be sending alarm bells ringing through Whitehall. Their current idleness is not just an awful waste of their talents at this particular moment but makes it more likely for them to become trapped in dead-end areas of the labour market for much of their adult life. This is unfair for them, it’s not their fault that their birth date dictated they join the workforce during the worst post-war recession, as well as being highly damaging to the wider economy.

Furthermore, as the riots bought to attention earlier in the summer, unemployed youths facing a dearth of opportunity are not guaranteed to sit quietly. Unsurprisingly, increases in youth unemployment are associated with a range of social ills. For example, Carmichael and Ward (2001) found youth unemployment is associated with a statistically significant increase in burglary, fraud and forgery, theft and total crime rates. A third of NEETs agree with the statement that their life has ‘no purpose’. The social consequences of a large number of marginalised youths, who are assess their lives as purposeless, are scary to think about.

Some argue that government led job creation is a misnomer. They are wrong. The government has a role in supporting employment through this recession. Bold, innovative programmes are required to help ease the jobs crisis. Given the uncertainty and pessimism that currently clouds private sector vision and judgement, government involvement and financial backing are required to get them started. Technological change and globalisation imply that we also need to shift are thinking on how best to deal with the current labour market woes. Public works programmes represent one strategy to be explored but they are expensive and will create far fewer jobs today than they did in the past. Quoted in The Economist, the major of New York, Michael Bloomberg, notes that new government sponsored construction works will not solve the problem. “The technology is different. If you built the Hoover dam today, you would do it with far fewer people… The average worker standing in line for benefits tends not to be muscular.”

One new idea which I find particularly attractive is the creation of a small business bank. It could either be created through an initial injection of government capital or bonds funded by the Monetary Policy Committee and make use of existing agencies to allocate and dispense the loans. Credit allocation is currently a total mess. Banks aren’t lending to solvent businesses which need cash to invest and grow. If such a bank was set up, it could offer loans to small businesses at low rates, potentially concentrating funds in areas of especially afflicted by unemployment. This strategy has a number of attractions. Easing the funding restrictions on entrepreneurs and small businesses should help to kick-start innovation and growth while supporting employment. The focus on small businesses should prove especially affective at job creation. Research funded by the Kauffman Foundation shows that all net new private-sector jobs in America were created by companies less than five years old. Further, no one can turn round and say, “Oh, think of the benefits culture you’re creating”. This strategy is positive; it’s about supporting new ideas and existing businesses to thrive. In this way, the roots of the problem, as well as its consequences, are targeted.

Over the last few decades, a polarisation of the labour market into ‘lousy’ and ‘lovely’ jobs with little in between has been noted. Many routine manual jobs can now be coded up and performed by computers and machines. Other jobs are now able to be performed by individuals on the other side of the world. These hard facts need to be acknowledged by policymakers and reflected in the design of new labour market policy. Training and education systems need to be overhauled to reflect the new set of skills needed by employers. However, we also need to sit back and think through the consequences that these developments have for our vision of the modern job market. What can be done to best prepare individuals for the new world of work? How can we make the distribution of work more equitable?

These are hard questions but a few things are self evident with little deep thought. Slowing the pace of public sector redundancies will slow the rise in unemployment. Creation of something like a small business bank would not have to add to the public sector debt and could help propel the recovery forward. The government cannot afford to be complacent. A slower recovery adds to the cost of fixing their finances and creates long term hardship for many in society. The UK economy is Desperately Seeking Stimulus. Plan B is for Bankruptcy? Bullshit.

3 Comments

Posted in Fiscal Policy, UK Current Affairs, UK Economy

Tagged deficit, economy, jobs crisis, uk economy, unemployment

Cameron & Osborne: Pursuers of Contradictory, Superficial, Inadequate Policy

Posted on August 15, 2011 | 5 comments

Or A Rant: “Why The Tories Make Me Mad”

This morning David Cameron gave a speech on the Tory perception of, and reaction to, the riots of last week. On Sunday, George Osborne in an interview stated his intent to remove the 50p top rate of income tax. Cameron explicitly denied a link between the riots and issues of poverty and social deprivation. Therefore, his policy proposals fall short of the mark and fail to engage with the deeper underlying issues. Osborne’s interview confirms that the Tories have not got their head around the fact that economic policy must reflect equity, as well as efficiency. Neither have recognised that their positions are inconsistent. On the one hand, Cameron pushes the importance of work to the fore, while Osborne continues to pursue policies which are sure to intensify and prolong our unemployment problem. Neither of their contradictory positions adequately engages with the real problems in UK society and judging recovery by reference to bond yields rather than the employment prospects and living conditions of normal people reveals a lack of concern for, and understanding of, the problems faced by many social groups in Britain.

Since the rioting and looting died down toward the end of last week, we have seen a flurry of explanations put forward for the chaos. I argued that it is lazy to blame the riots on The Cuts. I stand by this but don’t think I made it clear why this position is ‘lazy’. Blaming the chaos on current austerity measures deflects attention from the bigger, deeper problems which need to be dealt with.

A multiplicity of problems were ignited by opportunism and mob psychology to bring about the riots. Yet many of these problems have deprivation and lack of opportunity as a root cause. Cameron explicitly denied a link between the riots and poverty, “these riots were not about poverty”, preferring instead to put the focus on moral degradation. Although the riots may not have been intentionally bought about to express grievances about one’s material position, deprivation and lack of access to opportunity, combined with a society which places excessive value on material goods and wealth cannot be ignored as a salient contributory factor.

Cameron argues that linking the riots to poverty “insults the millions of people who, whatever the hardship, would never dream of making people suffer like this”. To say poverty, deprivation and lack of social mobility are relevant causal factors does not have to imply a one-to-one correspondence between them and looting. It also does not justify violent behaviour or have to ascribe a lack of agency to disadvantaged socioeconomic groups. Rather, it provides a context for the behaviour we have witnessed.

By failing to engage with these deeper seated problems which require us to seriously challenge the distribution of opportunity in society, Cameron’s policies will not fundamentally change Britain. They are cheap sticky plasters: inevitable to come unstuck, without even doing a good job in the first place. I quote from his speech today: “First and foremost, we need a security fight-back”. This prescription does not tackle the underlying problems. Why is there a need for such prominent policing? Why the sense of frustration and alienation? One cannot ignore the resentment created by being marginalised from real opportunity or the issues which arise when a good assessment of your life prospects is “Nil/Poor” or “Going Nowhere”. Cameron asks: “Is it any wonder that many people don’t feel they have a stake in their community?” but then goes on to explain this phenomenon by referring to Big Government and Health and Safety. Are you serious?

Cameron’s focus on welfare reform and the community provides an opportunity to link his remarks to the remarks and economic policy pursued by his Chancellor. “I want us to look at toughening up the conditions for those who are out of work and receiving benefits and speeding up our efforts to get all those who can work, back to work. Work is at the heart of a responsible society.” I agree with him that work and employment are central. But the language used to describe those on benefits is patronising and demeaning. The majority of people who are unemployed and on benefits do not want to be. Most people want to work. A major problem we have at present is that of job creation. So, surely economic policy which promotes growth and reduces unemployment should be a no-brainer for the Tories at the moment? Wait, NO?

Our economic recovery continues to be underwhelming. The Bank of England and OBR have continued to downgrade predictions of growth and unemployment remains stubbornly high. A moderation of the current austerity strategy is needed and tightening needs to involve more tax rises and gentler, more targeted spending cuts as I have argued previously. Therefore, I was open-mouthed at the news that George Osborne described the government’s debt reduction plan as “on track” and also intends to abolish the 50p tax rate amid claims that charging this higher rate of tax is not raising much in revenue and “there’s not much point in having taxes which are economically inefficient”. The recovery is on track? A tax cut….for the most advantaged in society now …NOW?

Osborne describes the recovery as on track because in his eyes the UK is currently a haven for international finance. Really? This is not clear. Only today Bloomberg commented that “Britain’s allure as a haven is crumbling as global investors desert sterling amid the lowest inflation adjusted bond yields on record and a faltering economy.” Doesn’t sound too rosy to me. Secondly, his comments illuminate a larger problem. Why is the success of policy not being judged according to its impact on unemployment? On people? Sure, interest rates and financial stability are VERY important but not as ends in themselves. We should care about them because we care about people. Our recovery should be judged according to unemployment, job creation and living conditions. If concern with these figures was at the heart of current macroeconomic policy, the government would see the urgency of a policy rethink.

Not only do we need a more gradualist approach. We also need to reduce the reliance on spending cuts and shift the pain towards those who can bear it. For economic and equity reasons. The 50p tax may not bring in a whole lot of revenue but that doesn’t mean abolishing it should top the policy agenda. Just quickly, why does a higher tax rate not necessarily lead to higher revenues? A rise in tax rates will not lead to a large rise in tax revenue if they are associated with a large substitution effect. Raising tax rates reduces our incentive to work. We get less so taking time off in favour of sweet leisure time becomes less costly. With the 50p tax rate what we’re actually worried about is people leaving the country to tax havens. If these incentives are very strong then not much extra tax revenue will be raked in because people will be working so much less.

However, I do not believe that abolishing the 50p tax rate is going to lead us to take in more revenue and the fact that this is at the top of the policy agenda sends an awful message to the majority of the UK’s population. Research suggests that the amount people work once they are actually working is not very sensitive to changing tax rates and this seems to be especially true for those affected by the 50p rate, assuming they stay in the country, considering the kind of ‘service contracts’ that characterise employment relations at the top. For those that decided to leave the country in response to the change in rates, I would be extremely surprised if they decided to come back to the UK in vast swathes in response to the policy reversal especially given the poor growth prospects that lie ahead. Furthermore, the fact that the Chancellor is even talking about this serves to further distance him and the government’s economic strategy from the UK public and those who need to be re-engaged with society. Why the lack of focus on improving job prospects and income for the many at the bottom?

So there, my rant on Why The Tories Make Me Mad. An unwillingness to address wider issues which require a more concerted effort to open up channels of opportunity and address economic inequality. Judging policy success according to the welfare of financiers. Policy inflexibility that will contribute to a more protracted recession. Mad.

5 Comments

Posted in Debt Crisis, Fiscal Policy, UK Current Affairs, UK Economy

Tagged austerity, cuts, David Cameron, George Osborne, gradualism, riots, uk economic policy, uk government

Deficit Bias: Why We Need to Tie Politicians’ Hands….. Loosely

Posted on August 11, 2011 | 3 comments

A couple of people contacted me about the problem of the (lack of) credibility of government promises to cut the debt in the future. I didn’t give this issue enough space. This post should rectify that.

There are good reasons for a government to intervene in the economy during hard times to play a stabilising role. In fact, I don’t know of a theory in which one can cut government spending and raise taxes during a recession and leave output and employment unaffected. Keynes argued that market economies find it difficult to escape deep recessions and that monetary policy could only provide limited push in helping get the economy back on track. For Keynesian economists, a fiscal stimulus in the form of either higher government spending or lower taxes is a good idea during a bad recession. Actually, they’d probably say it was more than just a good idea. In fact, until the whole ‘Greek debacle’ the US and UK governments and even the IMF at times suggested that governments should play a role in recovery.

So lets just accept for the moment that there are good reasons for the government to run a budget deficit during a recession to help smooth out the dip. Then why is it that all we’re hearing at the moment is ‘Cut Cut Cut’? Why the switch from the presumption in favour of fiscal stabilisation to ‘austerity is the ONLY way’? Especially when we hear institutions like the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) saying that the austerity measures in the emergency budget last year would increase the risk of a double dip recession. To understand this we need to explore the concept of deficit bias. This discussion will also illuminate the motivation for creating the Office for Budget Responsibility and why both Gordon Brown and the coalition set themselves some rules over fiscal policy.

Deficit bias is basically the idea that it is difficult and painful for the government to reduce debt levels but very easy for them to say that they will in the future. In a recession a government should want to run a budget deficit to help buffer the economy against the storm. Then when times are ‘good’, the government should act to reduce the deficit. The stabilising has been done then. However, in these good times, tax rises and spending cuts are going to remain unpopular. Politicians don’t want to turn round with a smile to their voters and say “Right now everyone, its time for those taxes rises!”. Much easier to just ignore the whole debt problem. This leads to rising debt to GDP ratios. We observe this in reality. For example, among OECD countries levels of debt relative to GDP roughly doubled in the 30 years leading up to the recession for no good reason.

From my first post, you should (hopefully!) know that very high debt levels are to be avoided. There are costs. Investors start getting hot under the collar. This is why there are calls for austerity measures now. If the government could promise to put in place measures to bring debt levels down once the economy is out of the woods then we wouldn’t see the same budget as was presented earlier this year. The government faces a commitment problem. It would be best for everyone if Os-terity Osborne committed to reducing the deficit in the future. But this commitment isn’t deemed credible. So, they say, we must reduce the deficit now. In the middle of the deepest recession since the 1930s. Brilliant. We need someway of tying the government’s hands so they do actually cut the debt in the future, thereby allowing them to help us out now.

Luckily for us there are ways to mitigate this commitment problem, allowing for less cut throat austerity measures right now. I believe that the UK government needs to slow down in its mission to reduce the deficit. I am basically calling for the government to put its hands up and say ‘look guys, I’m going to mainly cut later….only a bit now’. Setting up the OBR and putting in place the new fiscal rules helps the UK government solve its commitment problem, making a promise to get the debt under control when things get less crazy more believable.

The OBR is an independent forecasting body, giving predictions of future growth and employment, assessing the plausibility of the figures which lie behind the government’s plans and evaluating the likelihood of the government meeting its self-imposed targets. Although not under its mandate at the moment, there have been calls for the OBR to also comment on the desirability of plans for deficit reduction and the like. Setting the OBR up in itself sends quite a clear message to investors that the government is serious about fiscal discipline. I mean, its called the Office for Budget Responsibility! The government could use the fact that the OBR forecasts and figures are independently calculated to build a bit of wiggle room into policy. Austerity measures could be staggered and implemented conditional on the speed of recovery and there could be no worry that figures were cooked to let the government off the hook.

Further, the government set itself two fiscal targets when it came into power: (1) to balance the budget 5 years ahead and (2) to have net debt falling by 2015-16. As we saw with the last Labour government, the fact that rules are stated doesn’t mean that they will be followed (that credibility problem again) but the fact that the OBR independently assesses the likelihood of these targets being reached reduces that risk.

Therefore, it seems to me a little odd that we are following the ‘Only-Way-Is-Austerity’ strategy at the same time as setting up an independent body that should allow us to slow the pace of cuts.

Let me ask you now, have I missed something?!

3 Comments

Posted in 101, Debt Crisis, Fiscal Policy

Tagged austerity, cuts, debt, deficit, fiscal policy, keynesian, OBR, uk economic policy, uk government

The Cuts and The Riots: Not the Cause, Definitely Not Part of the Solution

Posted on August 10, 2011 | Leave a comment

Its plain lazy to blame the riots on The Cuts but they still present issues for the government’s austerity strategy.

The last few days have seen an unprecedented level of violence, looting and chaos on the streets of many UK cities. Trouble started on Saturday night when a peaceful protest against the police shooting of Mark Duggan turned violent after demonstrators were ignored and left outside the police station on Tottenham High Road. Since then looting, clashes with police and general violence has broken out across London and other UK cities. So far 768 people have been arrested in the capital, with hundreds more arrests being made around the country.

Links have been made between the violence and the austerity measures being implemented to bring down the UK budget deficit. For example, Ken Livingstone, the former London major, described the riots as a “revolt” against the cuts: “If you’re making massive cuts, there’s always the potential for this sort of revolt against that”. Internationally, commentary has also ascribed political motivations to the rioters, suggesting the violence and frustration can be understood as part of wider government resentment and anti-austerity feeling. See Ravi Somaiya in the New York Times as an example.

Blaming the riots on the cuts to public services and anti-austerity feeling is at best lazy. The factors leading to the chaos are many with complex interconnections and seeds sown far back in the past. Even citing the recent closures of local services, it seems unlikely that those kids looting JD Sports are also the one’s you’d find taking actively part in local youth programs. Rather than political riots, these are better described as some fucked up version of Supermarket Sweep.

But this doesn’t mean that the riots have nothing to tell us about modern Britain and the austerity strategy going forward. Although the riots themselves have not been undertaken to prove a particular political point, the behaviour witnessed over the last few days is that of the marginalised and disenfranchised. As criminologist, Professor John Pitts has said in the Guardian, “There is a social question to be asked about young people with nothing to lose.”

I agree that measures must be taken to close the deficit but this point alone does not justify the speed of the current tightenings nor the reliance on spending cuts. As I touch on in my first post, the economics points to the conclusion that the optimal UK strategy would involve more gradualism and a stonger focus on tax rises than the current coalition plans. I believe that current plans could slow the economic recovery, ultimately making it harder to get our finances in order, and create an environment for greater social unrest and unease. The government should revaluate its plans in the light of the riots and the UK’s continued lacklustre economic performance.

We need to slow down. The main argument for a ‘cold turkey’ approach to deficit reduction is to allay bond market concerns over the solvency of the economy, allowing interest rates to fall, stimulating the economy back to growth and prosperity. But interest rates have no where to fall right now and given all the craziness in the world at the moment, Keynesian warnings of the “paradox of thrift” appear justified. Today the Bank of England cut its UK growth forecast for 2011 down to 1.5% and UK output still remains below its level pre-crisis. I think it is unlikely and foolishly optimistic to expect the oft alluded to (less oft seen when its needed) efficient, lean, dynamic private sector to fill the gap left by cuts and thus expect that growth is going to remain slow and unemployment high for some while to come. You aren’t exactly going to create happy, healthy neighbourhoods in a climate of high unemployment, few prospects, limited social mobility with a government who doesn’t seem to care. Slowing the pace of cuts to better support the economy and stimulate job creation seems sensible to put it lightly.

Second, we need a more balanced strategy. Current plans are much more reliant on spending cuts than tax rises. Just considering the short run, economics suggests this isn’t the best as cuts are more likely to generate a large reduction in overall demand as tax rises may be smoothed to some extent (again see the end of my previous post). BUT this isn’t the only thing. The UK is an unequal society with limited social mobility. It is likely that many of those participating in the riots are marginalised from mainstream society and opportunity and are unlikely to have gained much in the boom years. However, low income groups will be hit hard by the welfare reform and cuts to public services which go along with deficit reduction. I’m not going to get into banker bashing (I don’t think that’s really helpful or appropriate) but an economic strategy which shifts pain towards those best able to take it is both fair and makes economic sense. The government can’t go on behaving as if its tagline is “Greed is good if and only if you’re in the top quintile of the income distribution”. Greed is a vice which brings out bad in each one of us and which capitalism doesn’t always channel into good outcomes. Greed played a role in sparking a whole host of deep underlying problems with UK society into the riots and its curtailment should play a key role in reducing the national debt.

UK Deficit 101: Explaining the Malady and Medicine

Posted on August 10, 2011

Oh hearing those fateful words: “Wait, you’re an economist! So what’s the deal on…..”. I shudder at the memories. This blog is in response to a couple of people who’ve recently asked me to explain the background to some of … Continue reading →

10 Comments