The link below is to an article by Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft. He argues that per-capita GDP is a poor indicator of development, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa.
The problems with using GDP as an indicator of the level of development of a country are well known and several alternative measures are in common use. Perhaps the best known is the United Nations Development Programme’s Human Development Index (HDI), where countries are given an HDI of between 0 and 1. HDI is the average of three indices based on three sets of variables: (i) life expectancy at birth, (ii) education (a weighted average of (a) the mean years that a 25-year-old person or older has spent in school and (b) the number of years of schooling that a 5-year-old child is expected to have over their lifetime) and (iii) real gross national income (GNY) per capita, measured in US dollars at purchasing-power parity exchange rates (see Box 27.1 in Economics 8th edition for more details).
But although indicators such as this capture more elements of development than simple per-capita GNP or GNY, there are still serious shortcomings. A major problem is the lack of and inaccuracy of statistics, especially when applied to the rural subsistence and informal urban sectors. The problem is recognised and some countries are trying to address the problem (see the second article below), but the problem is huge. As Gates says:
It is clear to me that we need to devote greater resources to getting basic GDP numbers right. … National statistics offices across Africa need more support so that they can obtain and report timelier and more accurate data. Donor governments and international organisations such as the World Bank need to do more to help African authorities produce a clearer picture of their economies. And African policymakers need to be more consistent about demanding better statistics and using them to inform decisions.
Another problem is how you convert data into internationally comparable forms. For example, how are inflation, exchange rates, income distribution, the quality of health provision and education, etc. taken into account?
By accessing the Human Development Index site, identify which countries have a much higher ranking by HDP than by per capita gross national income. Explain why.
Why is expressing GNY in purchasing-power parity (PPP) terms likely to increase the GNY figures for the poorest countries?
Explain the following quote from the Gates article: ‘I have long believed that GDP understates growth even in rich countries, where its measurement is quite sophisticated, because it is very difficult to compare the value of baskets of goods across different time periods’.
Why is GNY per capita, even when expressed in PPP terms, likely to understate the level of development in subsistence economies?
Explain whether the rate of growth of GNY per capita is likely to understate or overstate the rate of economic development of sub-Saharan African countries?
Why are the challenges of calculating GDP or GNY particularly acute in sub-Saharan Africa?
Many rich countries have made repeated commitments to the United Nations to give at least 0.7% of their gross national income (GNY) as international aid – or ‘official development assistance (ODA)’ as it is known. The first such commitments were made in 1970. Despite this, many of these countries’ aid to developing countries falls well short of the target.
In fact the average amount given in aid in 2011 by the 23 donor countries which are members of the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee (DAC) was a mere 0.31% of GNY, with the USA, the biggest donor in absolute terms, giving only 0.2% of GNY. (Click here for a PowerPoint of the chart.) Since 2003, the DAC average has been 0.29% as compared with 0.30% between 1970 and 2002.
In 2005, at the Gleneagles G8 summit, the 15 members of the EU which are Development Assistance Committee members committed themselves to reaching an ODA target of 0.51% of GNY in 2010 and to reach the 0.7% target by 2015. In 2011, the UK’s ODA/GNY ratio stood at 0.56% and so was above the EU target.
Section 18 of the Coalition agreement pledges that the UK government will meet the 0.7% target by 2013 – a pledge initially made by the Labour government. So far, the government has stuck to this pledge and the aid budget has escaped cuts.
But with other parts of government expenditure facing cuts, pressure is mounting on the government to reduce the aid budget. There are two main parts to the argument. The first is that aid should face its ‘fair share’ of the cuts. The second is that aid is often an inefficient way of tackling poverty in developing countries and, when discussing aid, the focus should be on getting value for money rather than on the simple total amount of aid.
The following articles look at arguments for and against meeting aid targets and examine ways of making aid ‘smarter’.
Many developing Asian countries have experienced rapid and yet relatively stable economic growth over a number of years. In other words, this has not been a short-term unsustainable boom associated with the expansionary phase of the business cycle – with aggregate demand expanding more rapidly than aggregate supply. Rather it is the result of a rapid growth in aggregate supply.
Over the period from 2000 to 2011, several Asian countries experienced average annual growth rates of over 4% and some, such as China and India, much more than that, as the following table shows. The table also shows forecasts for the period from 2012 to 2017. The high forecast growth rates are based on a continuing rapid growth in aggregate supply as the countries invest in infrastructure and adopt technologies, many of which have already been developed elsewhere.
But for aggregate supply to continue growing rapidly there must also be a stable growth in aggregate demand. With the recession in the developed world, some of the more open economies of Asia, such as South Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia and Singapore themselves suffered a slowdown or recession as demand for their exports fell. The Malaysian economy, for example, contracted by 1.5% in 2009.
Given the continuing macroeconomic problems in the developed world, many Asian countries are seeing the need to rebalance their economies away from a heavy reliance on exports. China, for example, is putting more emphasis on domestic-led demand growth. Others, such as Indonesia, have already embarked on this route. As The Economist article states:
Household consumption contributed half of the growth of just over 6% Indonesia enjoyed in the year to the third quarter (its eighth consecutive quarter of growth at that pace). Exports have fallen from about 35% of GDP ten years ago to less than a quarter in 2011. Developing Asia’s combined current-account surplus, which reflects its dependence on foreign demand, more than halved from 2008 to 2011 and is expected to fall further this year.
The continuing success story of many developing Asian economies thus lies in a balance of supply-side policies that foster continuing rapid investment and demand-side policies that create a stable monetary and fiscal environment. A crucial question here is whether they can emulate the ‘Great Moderation’ experienced by the Western economies from the mid-1990s to 2007, without creating the conditions for a crash in a few years time – a crash caused by excessive credit and an excessively deregulated financial system that was building up greater and greater systemic risk.
Original post Starbucks’ UK sales in 2011 were worth £398m. Costa’s UK sales were worth £377m. But while Costa paid £15m in corporation tax in 2011/12, Starbucks paid nothing! In fact since opening its first coffee shop in the UK in 1998 it has paid just £8.6m in taxes on UK sales of £3bn.
How is this possible? Let’s look at Starbuck’s 2011 UK sales. Even though these were worth £398 million, its costs were recorded as £426.2m, giving a loss of £28.2m. Costa, by contrast, reported a taxable profit of £49.7m.
So is Starbucks a commercial failure in the UK, recording year after year of losses? Not at all. Starbucks regards the UK as a highly profitable part of its business. As the Independent article below states:
…in its briefings to stock market investors and analysts during the past 12 years, Seattle-based Starbucks has consistently stated that its UK unit is “profitable” and three years ago even promoted its UK head, Cliff Burrows, to run its vastly larger US operation.
So how can reported UK losses be reconciled with a profitable UK operation? The answer lies in transfer pricing.
Transfer pricing refers to the prices a company charges itself when goods or services are transferred within the company but from one country to another. By varying the transfer prices, a company can choose where to make its profits. Thus if Starbucks’ US operation charges high prices to its UK operation for various services, such as royalties for the use of branding or for management services, or lends money to its UK operation at high interest rates, Starbucks’ profits will rise in the USA and fall in the UK.
Companies employ tax advisers (see for example) and ‘transfer pricing managers’ to help them move their profits from high tax countries to low tax countries. In Starbuck’s case, by charging its UK operation high prices for such things as ‘use of its logo’ it has chosen to move all its profits out of the UK and thus avoid UK corporation tax.
Apart from denying the UK government tax revenues, the practice by Starbucks distorts competition as competing UK companies, such as Costa, AMT, Caffè Ritazza and the many small independents, do not have the same opportunity for transfer pricing and do pay UK corporation tax. As the Guardian article by Richard Murphy below states:
We do have homegrown coffee shops in the UK. A lot of them. And they have to pay their taxes in full here in the UK. They can’t make payments to offshore entities for the use of their logos or advice on how to add hot water to coffee just to avoid tax: they have to pay in full on what they earn in this country. What Starbucks is doing may be legal, but what it also shows is that business does not operate on a level playing field in the UK.
And, as some of the articles below demonstrate, it’s not just Starbucks. Amazon, Facebook and Google have also been accused of avoiding taxes in the UK by engaging in forms of transfer pricing.
Update On 12 November senior executives from Starbucks, Google and Amazon appeared before the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee to give evidence on their non-payment of corporation tax and their apparent lack of profits in the UK. As you will see from the videos, the MPs were unimpressed by the answers they received.
At the G20 finance ministers meeting in Mexico the previous week, George Osborne, the UK Chancellor, and Wolfgang Schäuble, the German Finance Minister, called for “concerted international co-operation to strengthen international tax standards that at the minute may mean international companies can pay less tax than they would otherwise owe”.
There seems to be mounting international pressure on multinationals to cease using transfer pricing as a means of avoiding paying taxes. Whether it will be successful remains to be seen.
Explain how a multinational company can use transfer pricing as a means of reducing its overall tax liability.
Why may transfer pricing lead to an inefficient allocation of resources?
What policies can governments adopt to clamp down on the use of transfer pricing to limit their tax liability in their country?
What insights are shed by game theory in explaining why it may be very difficult to reach international agreement to clamp down on tax avoidance?
Is it immoral for companies to seek to minimise their tax liability? What are the limits of economics as a discipline in establishing an answer to this question?
For some people, a pint of beer is a regular thing each week. Add all your pints of beer together, then add your friend’s pints, their friends’ pints and … you get the idea. Once you’ve done that for the entire population, you have an estimate of total beer consumption in the UK. This can then be compared with total consumption of beer in other countries and between continents.
Prior to 2007, Europe and the Americas were the biggest beer drinking continents, but since then, Asia has emerged as the leader of pints of beer consumed, drinking 67bn litres of beer compared with the Americas’ 57bn and Europe’s 51bn in 2011. In per capita terms, Asia is still some way off, with Japan leading the way as the highest Asian country in 41st place, consuming 64 litres of beer per year per capita of the population. So how is this relevant to economics and business?
Consumption of anything provides jobs – bar workers, manufacturers and in the case of beer, probably law enforcement! It probably also increases utility – after all, why consume it if it’s not going to give you some degree of satisfaction!
We can analyse the demand for beer and see how it varies with changes in price and income. Minimum prices for alcohol have been proposed as a means of reducing consumption, and tax and excise duties are always linked to alcoholic beverages and clearly have an effect on demand. In this case, however, we can also consider the emergence of Asia and how tastes have changed. It is the fastest growing beer market in the world; so what can we deduce from that? As the BBC News article states, it is ‘a sign of a young, upwardly mobile, and increasingly hedonistic population.’
Experts also say that the increased consumption of beer in Asian countries is closely correlated with growing incomes and prosperity. A consumer research analyst from Standard Chartered, Nirgunan Tiruchelvam, said:
“Beer has a clearer correlation with strong economic growth … People tend to drink beer in times of growth. They drink spirits when times are good and when times are bad.”
Data suggest that when a certain level of prosperity is reached in a nation, beer sales begin to rise. As many Asian economies begin to develop rapidly, beer sales have taken off. This could be regarded as a good thing for Europe. With stagnant Western economies, beer producers within Europe may be grateful for a growing demand in Asia. Indeed, many of the world’s biggest breweries are expanding rapidly, providing jobs and income. Consumers in Europe will also be happy to see that beer production remains profitable in other parts of the world. With unemployment still high and recession ongoing, a pint of beer will be a much needed pick-me-up for many people. At least, that’s what the evidence from the Great Depression of the 1930s suggested!!
It’s not good news for everyone, however. Beer production has also increased in Asian countries, most notably in China, which now leads the world as the largest beer producer. This clearly reduces the export potential for European beer producers.
Also, many argue that the growing consumption of beer in Asia is simply an illustration of growing Western influence and it is likely to create severe medical problems in the future. Binge drinking and under-age consumption is already a big problem in Western countries and this could soon begin to extend across the world. The following articles consider the growth in consumption of beer.
Use a supply and demand diagram to analyse recent trends in beer consumption across the world.
Which factors have caused demand in emerging markets to increase? Based on your answer to the previous question, how might that have affected equilibrium prices?
How has growth in beer consumption throughout Asia benefited Western producers?
What would you expect the price and income elasticities of demand to be for a product such as beer? Explain your answer.
To what extent do you think this trend in beer production is a sign of globalisation?
Evaluate the extent to which the growth in consumption and production of beer in Asia is a good thing. You should consider everyone who and everything might be affected!
World leaders have been meeting in Rio de Janeiro at a United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development. The conference, dubbed ‘Rio+20′, refers back to the first UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio 20 years ago in June 1992.
The 1992 conference adopted an Agenda 21. It was “comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.”
The 2012 conference has looked at progress, or lack of it, on sustainability and what needs to be done. It has focused on two major themes: “how to build a green economy to achieve sustainable development and lift people out of poverty, including support for developing countries that will allow them to find a green path for development; and how to improve international coordination for sustainable development.” Issues examined have included decent jobs, energy, sustainable cities, food security and sustainable agriculture, water, oceans and disaster readiness.
But just what is meant by sustainable development? The conference defines sustainable development as that which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. “Seen as the guiding principle for long-term global development, sustainable development consists of three pillars: economic development, social development and environmental protection.”
The articles below look at prospects for national and global sustainability. They also look at a new measure of national wealth, the Inclusive Wealth Index (IWI). This index has been developed under the auspices of the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change (IHDP) and published in its Inclusive Wealth Report 2012 (see report links below).
The IWR 2012 was developed on the notion that current economic production indicators such as gross domestic product (GDP) and the Human Development Index (HDI) are insufficient, as they fail to reflect the state of natural resources or ecological conditions, and focus exclusively on the short term, without indicating whether national policies are sustainable.
The IWR 2012 features an index that measures the wealth of nations by looking into a country’s capital assets, including manufactured, human and natural capital, and its corresponding values: the Inclusive Wealth Index (IWI). Results show changes in inclusive wealth from 1990 to 2008, and include a long-term comparison to GDP for an initial group of 20 countries worldwide, which represent 72% of the world GDP and 56% of the global population. (Click on chart for a larger version.)
So will growth in IWI per capita be a better measure of sustainable development than growth in GDP per capita? The articles also consider this issue.
What progress has been made towards sustainable development over the past 20 years?
What are the limitations of conferences such as Rio+20 in trying to achieve global action?
With the current challenges faced by the eurozone and the global economy more generally, is this a good time to be discussing long-term issues of sustainable development?
Explain how IWI is derived and measured?
Looking at the chart above, explain the very different positions of countries in the three columns.
What are the strengths and weaknesses of using growth in IWI compared with using growth in GDP as measures of (a) economic development; (b) economic wellbeing?
With the fall of communism in eastern Europe between 1989 and 1991, many hailed this as the victory of capitalism.
Even China, which is still governed by the Chinese Communist Party, has embraced the market and accepted growing levels of private ownership of capital. It is only one or two countries, such as North Korea and Cuba, that could be described as communist in the way the term was used to describe the centrally planned economies of eastern Europe before 1990.
But whilst market capitalism seemed to have emerged as the superior system in the 1990s, may are now questioning whether the market capitalism we have today is fit for the 21st century. Today much of the world’s capital in the hands of big business, with financial institutions holding a large proportion of shares in such companies. And the gap between rich and poor is ever widening
The market system of today, is very different from that of 100 years ago. In fact, as John Kay agues in his article “Let’s talk about the market economy” below, it would be wrong to describe it as ‘capitalism’ in the sense the term was used in the debates of the 19th and early 20th centuries. Nonetheless, the term is still used and generally refers to the market system we now have. And it is a market system that many see as failing and unfit for purpose. It is a system that coincided with the bubble of the 1990s and early 2000s, the credit crunch of 2007–9 and the recession of 2008/9, now seeming to return as a double-dip recession
With the political and business leaders of the world meeting at the World Economic Forum at Davos in Switzerland on 25–29 January 2012, a central theme of the forum has been the future of capitalism and whether it’s fit for the 21st century.
Is there a fairer and more compassionate capitalism that can be fostered? This has been a stated objective of all three political parties in the UK recently. Can we avoid another crisis of capitalism as seen in the late 2000s and which still continues today? What is the role of government in regulating the market system? Does the whole capitalist system need restructuring?
It’s becoming increasingly clear that we need to talk about capitalism. The following webcasts and articles do just that.
How has the nature of capitalism changed over recent decades?
Can capitalism be made more ‘caring’ and, if so, how?
What do you understand by the term a ‘fair allocation of resources’? Is capitalism fair? Can it be made fairer and, if so, what are the costs of making it so?
Can greed ever be good?
How does the ‘Anglo-Saxon’ model of capitalism differ from the European model?
What do you understand by the term ‘crony capitalism’? Is crony capitalism on the increase?
John Kay states that “Modern titans derive their authority and influence from their position in a hierarchy, not their ownership of capital.” Explain what this means and what its implications are for making capitalism meet social goals.
In what ways can governments control markets? Have these instruments and their effectiveness changed in effectiveness over time?
What are the costs and benefits to society of the increasing globalisation of capital?
To what extent was the financial crisis and credit crunch the result of a flawed capitalist system and to what extent was it a failure of government intervention?
Why is it important for the success of capitalism that companies should be allowed to fail? Consider whether this should also apply to banks. How is the concept of moral hazard relevant to your answer?
Divided we stand is the title of a new report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Its sub-title is “Why inequality keeps rising”. The report shows how the gulf between rich and poor has widened in most countries, both developed and developing. As the introduction states:
In the three decades prior to the recent economic downturn, wage gaps widened and household income inequality increased in a large majority of OECD countries. This occurred even when countries were going through a period of sustained economic and employment growth.
The report analyses the major underlying forces behind these developments. Its conclusion is that inequality looks set to continue widening, especially with the worldwide economic slowdown and rise in unemployment. However, the report says that “there is nothing inevitable about growing inequalities. Globalisation and technological changes offer opportunities but also raise challenges that can be tackled with effective and well-targeted policies.”
So just what is the extent of inequality? How has it changed over time? And what can be done to reduce inequality? The webcast produced by the OECD to accompany the report looks at the problem, and the report and articles look at what can be done about it.
Why may inequality be seen as a ‘bad thing’ for society as a whole and not just the poor?
Does it matter for the poor if rich people’s incomes grow at a greater rate than those of the poor so long as the incomes of the poor do indeed grow?
Explain what is meant by the Gini coefficient. What has happened to the Gini coefficient over the past few years across the world?
Are there any common explanatory features in the economies of those countries where income inequality is growing rapidly? Similarly, are there any common explanatory features in the economies of those countries where income inequality is not growing, or growing only very slowly?
What are the causes of rising inequality?
Identify policies that can be adopted to tackle growing inequality.
What problems arise from policies to reduce inequality by (a) reducing inequalities in disposable income; (b) providing more free services to all, such as healthcare and education? How might these problems be mitigated?
The International Monetary Fund consists of 187 countries and is concerned with its members’ economic health. It promotes co-operation, economic stability and is also there to lend to those countries facing difficulties. The role of the IMF as a lender has come into question, as critics argue that the conditions placed on loans to countries can cause more problems than they solve, as the cause of the problems is not always identified. However, despite the criticisms and the current charges facing the former IMF Chief, the International Monetary Fund continues to play an important role in the global economic environment.
Many countries have used IMF credit and over the past two decades it has predominantly been the transition and the emerging market economies that have demanded the IMF’s resources. Whilst its lending did drop off in the mid 2000s, the global financial crisis of 2008/09 saw an increase in the demand for IMF funds from emerging economies to some $60 billion. In May 2010, we saw the IMF together with the EU put together a rescue package for Greece and it is now the turn of Egypt. The uprisings in Egypt put the stability of the economy in jeopardy, as investment declined, tax revenues decreased and the usually buoyant tourist industry started to struggle. Despite the efforts of the government to stabilise the economy, it remains short of cash and the IMF looks set to agree a loan deal of $3 billion (£1.8 billion). Egypt would have five years to repay the loan at an interest rate of 1.5%, after a three year ‘grace period’.
Other countries to receive loans include Ireland, Belarus, the Ukraine and Iceland, the latter of which owes the IMF $2,828.67 per person of its population. The UK has used the IMF back in 1976 and it may be something to look out for, depending on how our recovery continues. The following articles look at the IMF and its role in promoting global financial stability.
What is the role of the IMF and how is it financed?
What are the objectives of the loans to countries such as Greece, Iceland and Egypt?
What other countries has the IMF lent to and what are the conditions that have been placed on these loans?
What has been the impact on the Egyptian economy of the uprisings? Think about all the industries that have been affected and the wider impacts.
Can you find any examples of circumstances in which the conditions of an IMF loan have made problems worse for the recipient?
Why are the conditions of the IMF loan to Egypt favourable and how will the loan help the economy?
Look at the trend in IMF lending. What factors explain the peak and troughs? In particular, what is the explanation for the incresae in lending during the financial crisis?
The Greek economy is suffering. In April 2010, a €45 billion bailout package was agreed between Greece and the IMF and the EU. This was increased to €110 billion in May 2011. (The bailout loans expire in 2013.) In return for the loans, Greece agreed to tough austerity measures, involving tax increases, clamping down on tax evasion and government expenditure cuts. These measures have succeeded in cutting the deficit by 5 percentage points, but it still stood at 10.5% of GDP in 2010. Public-sector debt rose from 127% of GDP in 2009 to 143% in 2010. The market cost of borrowing on two-year government bonds currently stands at 23% per annum – a sign of a serious lack of confidence by investors in Greece’s ability to repay the loans.
The austerity measures have brought great hardship. Unemployment has soared. In February 2011, it reached 15.9%; in February last year it was 12.1%. According to the IMF’s World Economic Outlook (Table A2), Greek real GDP fell by 2.0% in 2009, by 4.5% in 2010 and is forecast to fall by 3.0% in 2011. But with GDP falling, this brings automatic fiscal stabilisers into play: lower incomes mean lower income tax revenues; lower expenditure means lower VAT revenue; higher unemployment means that more people claim unemployment-related benefits. This all makes it harder to meet the deficit reduction targets through discretionary tax rises and government expenditure cuts and makes it even more important to cut down on tax evasion. But, of course, the more taxes rise and the more government expenditure is cut, the more this suppresses aggregate demand. The austerity measures have thus worsened the recession.
On May 9, the ratings agency Standard & Poor’s downgraded Greece’s rating to B (15 points below the top rating of AAA and 6 points into ‘junk’ territory). It now has the lowest rating in Europe along with Belarus.
Worries have been growing that Greece might be forced to default on some its debt, or choose to do so. This would probably mean an extension of repayment periods. In other words, bondholders would be paid back in full but at a later date. This has been referred to as ‘debt re-profiling’. This could cause a renewed loss of confidence, not only in the Greek economy, but also in banks that are major lenders to Greece and which would be exposed in the case of default or restructuring.
The IMF and the ECB have been quick to stress that Greece can continue to manage its debt and that, if necessary, another loan might be negotiated. Anticipations are that Greece could indeed ask for a further bailout. But is this the answer? Or would it be better if Greece sought a restructuring of its debt? The following webcasts and podcasts consider the issue.
What are the arguments for and against tough austerity measures for Greece and other eurozone countries with high deficits, such as Portugal and Ireland?
Should Greece seek a restructuring of its debts?
What is a ‘haircut’ and is this a suitable form of restructuring?
What are the arguments for and against a default, or partical default, by the Greek government on its debt?
Is it in the intesests of European banks to offer a further bailout to Greece?
What should be the role of the IMF in the current situation in Greece?
Subscribe
The link below is to an article by Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft. He argues that per-capita GDP is a poor indicator of development, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa.
But although indicators such as this capture more elements of development than simple per-capita GNP or GNY, there are still serious shortcomings. A major problem is the lack of and inaccuracy of statistics, especially when applied to the rural subsistence and informal urban sectors. The problem is recognised and some countries are trying to address the problem (see the second article below), but the problem is huge. As Gates says:
