A common practice of international investors is to take part in the so-called ‘carry trade’. This involves taking advantage of nominal interest rate differences between countries. For example, assume that interest rates are low in Japan and high in the USA. It is thus profitable to borrow yen in Japan at the low interest rate, exchange it into US dollars and deposit the money at the higher interest rate available in the USA. If there is no change in the exchange rate between the dollar and the yen, the investor makes a profit equal to the difference in the interest rates.
Rather than depositing the money in a US bank account, an alternative is to purchase US bonds or other assets in the USA, where the return is again higher than that in Japan.
If, however, interest-rate differentials narrow, there is the possibility of the carry trade ‘unwinding’. Not only may the carry trade prove unprofitable (or less so), but investors may withdraw their deposits and pay back the loans. This, as we shall, can have adverse consequences on exchange rates.
The problem of an unwinding of the carry trade is not new. It worsened the underlying problems of the financial crisis in 2008. The question today is whether history is about to repeat itself with a new round of unwinding of the carry trade threatening economic growth and recovery around the world.
We start by looking at what happened in 2008.
The carry trade and the 2008 financial crisis
Prior to the financial crisis of 2008, current account deficit countries, such as the UK, USA and Australia, typically had relatively high interest rates, while current account surplus countries such as Japan and Switzerland had relatively low ones. Figure 1 shows central bank interest rates from 2005 to the current day (click here for a PowerPoint).
The carry trade saw investors borrowing money in Japan and Switzerland, exchanging it on the foreign exchange market, with the currency then deposited in the UK, USA and Australia. Hundreds of billions worth of dollars were involved in this carry trade.
If, however, the higher interest rates in the UK and other deficit countries were simply to compensate investors for the risk of currency depreciation, then there would be no excessive inflow of finance. The benefit of the higher interest rate would be offset by a depreciating currency. But the carry trade had the effect of making deficit currencies appreciate, thereby further boosting the carry trade by speculation of further exchange rate rises.
Thus the currencies of deficit countries appreciated, making their goods less competitive and worsening their current account deficit. Between 1996 and 2006, the average current account deficits as a percentage of GDP for Australia, the USA and the UK were close to 4½, 4 and 2, respectively. Between January 1996 and December 2006, the broad-based real exchange rate index of the Australian dollar appreciated by 17%, of the US dollar by 4% and of sterling by some 23%.
Currencies of surplus countries depreciated, making their goods more competitive and further boosting their current account surpluses. For example, between 2004 and 2006 the average current account surpluses as a percentage of GDP for Japan and Switzerland were 3½ and 13, respectively. Their short-term interest rates averaged a mere 0.1% and 1.0% respectively (compared with 3.4%, 4.7% and 5.7% for the USA, the UK and Australia). Yet between January 2004 and December 2006, the real exchange rate index of the yen depreciated by 21%, while that of the Swiss franc depreciated by 6%.
With the credit crunch of 2007/8, the carry trade unwound. Much of the money deposited in the USA had been in highly risky assets, such as sub-prime mortgages. Investors scrambled to sell their assets in the USA, UK and the EU. Loans from Japan and Switzerland were repaid and these countries, seen as ‘safe havens’, attracted deposits. The currencies of deficit countries, such as the UK and USA, began to depreciate and those of surplus countries, such as Japan and Switzerland, began to appreciate. Between September 2007 and September 2008, the real exchange rate indices of the US dollar and sterling depreciated by 2% and 13% respectively; the yen and the Swiss franc appreciated by 3% and 2¾%.
This represented a ‘double whammy’ for Japanese exporters. Not only did its currency appreciate, making its exports more expensive in dollars, euros, pounds, etc., but the global recession saw consumers around the world buying less. As a result, the Japanese economy suffered the worst recession of the G7 economies.
The carry trade in recent months
Since 2016, there has been a re-emergence of the carry trade as the Fed began raising interest rates while the Bank of Japan kept rates at the ultra low level of –0.1% (see Figure 1). The process slowed down when the USA lowered interest rates in 2020 in response to the pandemic and fears of recession. But when the USA, the EU and the UK began raising rates at the beginning of 2022 in response to global inflationary pressures, while Japan kept its main rate at –0.1%, so the carry trade resumed in earnest. Cross-border loans originating in Japan (not all of it from the carry trade) had risen to ¥157tn ($1tn) by March 2024 – a rise of 21% from 2021.
The process boosted US stock markets and contributed to the dollar appreciating against the yen (see Figure 2: click here for a PowerPoint).
Although this depreciation of the yen helped Japanese exports, it also led to rising prices. Japanese inflation rose steadily throughout 2022. In the 12 months to January 2022 the inflation rate was 0.5% (having been negative from October 2020 to August 2021). By January 2023, the annual rate had risen to 4.3% – a rate not seen since 1981. The Bank of Japan was cautious about raising interest rates to suppress this inflation, however, for fear of damaging growth and causing the exchange rate to appreciate and thereby damaging exports. Indeed, quarterly economic growth fell from 1.3% in 2023 Q1 to –1.0% in 2023 Q3.
But then, with growth rebounding and the yen depreciating further, in March 2024 the Bank of Japan decided to raise its key rate from –0.1% to 0.1%. This initially had the effect of stabilising the exchange rate. But then with the yen depreciating further and inflation rising from 2.5% to 2.8% in May and staying at this level in June, the Bank of Japan increased the key rate again at the end of July – this time to 0.25% – and there were expectations that there would be another rise before the end of the year.
At the same time, there were expectations that the Fed would soon lower its main rate (the Federal Funds Rate) from its level of 5.33%. The ECB and the Bank of England had already begun lowering their main rates in response to lower inflation. The carry trade rapidly unwound. Investors sold US, EU and UK assets and began repaying yen loans.
The result was a rapid appreciation of the yen as Figure 3 shows (click here for a PowerPoint). Between 31 July (the date the Bank of Japan raised interest rates the second time) and 5 August, the dollar depreciated against the yen from ¥150.4 to ¥142.7. In other words, the value of 100 yen appreciated from $0.66 to $0.70 – an appreciation of the yen of 6.1%.
Fears about the unwinding of the carry trade led to falls in stock markets around the world. Not only were investors selling shares to pay back the loans, but fears of the continuing process put further downward pressure on shares. From 31 July to 5 August, the US S&P 500 fell by 6.1% and the tech-heavy Nasdaq by 8.0%.
As far as the Tokyo stock market was concerned, the appreciation of the yen sparked fears that the large Japanese export sector would be damaged. Investors rushed to sell shares. Between 31 July and 5 August, the Nikkei 225 (the main Japanese stock market index) fell by 19.5% – its biggest short-term fall ever (see Figure 4: click here for a PowerPoint).
Although the yen has since depreciated slightly (a rise in the yen/dollar rate) and stock markets have recovered somewhat, expectations of many investors are that the unwinding of the yen carry trade has some way to go. This could result in a further appreciation of the yen from current levels of around ¥100 = $0.67 to around $0.86 in a couple of years’ time.
There are also fears about the carry trade in the Chinese currency, the yuan. Some $500 billion of foreign currency holdings have been acquired with yuan since 2022. As with the Japanese carry trade, this has been encouraged by low Chinese interest rates and a depreciating yuan. Not only are Chinese companies investing abroad, but foreign companies operating in China have been using their yuan earnings from their Chinese operations to invest abroad rather than in China. The Chinese carry trade, however, has been restricted by the limited convertibility of the yuan. If the Chinese carry trade begins to unwind when the Chinese economy begins to recover and interest rates begin to rise, the effect will probably be more limited than with the yen.
Articles
- A popular trading strategy just blew up in investors’ faces
CNN, Allison Morrow (7/8/24)
- The big ‘carry trade’ unwind is far from over, strategists warn
CNBC, Sam Meredith (13/8/24)
- Unwinding of yen ‘carry trade’ still threatens markets, say analysts
Financial Times, Leo Lewis and David Keohane (7/8/24)
- The yen carry trade sell-off marks a step change in the business cycle
Financial Times, John Plender (10/8/24)
- Forbes Money Markets Global Markets React To The Japanese Yen Carry Trade Unwind
Forbes, Frank Holmes (12/8/24)
- 7 unwinding carry trades that crashed the markets
Alt21 (26/1/23)
- A carry crash also kicked off the global financial crisis 17 years ago — here’s why it’s unlikely to get as bad this time
The Conversation, Charles Read (9/8/24)
- What is the Chinese yuan carry trade and how is it different from the yen’s?
Reuters, Winni Zhou and Summer Zhen (13/8/24)
- Carry Trade That Blew Up Markets Is Attracting Hedge Funds Again
Yahoo Finance/Bloomberg, David Finnerty and Ruth Carson (16/8/24)
- Currency Carry Trades 101
Investopedia, Kathy Lien (9/8/24)
- Carry Trades Torpedoed The Market. They’re Still Everywhere.
Finimize, Stéphane Renevier (13/8/24)
Questions
- What factors drive the currency carry trade?
- Is the carry trade a form of arbitrage?
- Find out and explain what has happened to the Japanese yen since this blog was written.
- Find out and explain some other examples of carry trades.
- Why are expectations so important in determining the extent and timing of the unwinding of carry trades?
In the first of a series of updated blogs focusing on the importance of the distinction between nominal and real values we look at the issue of earnings. Here we update the blog Getting Real with Pay written back in February 2019. Then, we noted how the macroeconomic environment since the financial crisis of the late 2000s had continued to affect people’s pay. Specifically, we observed that there had been no growth in real or inflation-adjusted pay. In other words, people were no better off in 2019 than in 2008.
In this updated blog, we consider to what extent the picture has changed five years down the line. While we do not consider the distributional impact on pay, the aggregate picture nonetheless continues to paint a very stark picture, with consequences for living standards and financial wellbeing.
While the distinction between nominal and real values is perhaps best known in relation to GDP and economic growth, the distinction is also applied frequently to analyse the movement of one price relative to prices in general. One example is that of movements in pay (earnings) relative to consumer prices.
Pay reflects the price of labour. The value of our actual pay is our nominal pay. If our pay rises more quickly than consumer prices, then our real pay increases. This means that our purchasing power rises and so the volume of goods and services we can afford increases. On the other hand, if our actual pay rises less quickly than consumer prices then our real pay falls. When real pay falls, purchasing power falls and the volume of goods and services we can afford falls.
Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that in January 2000 regular weekly pay (excluding bonuses and before taxes and other deductions from pay) was £293. By April 2024 this had risen to £640. This is an increase of 118 per cent. Over the same period, the consumer prices index known as the CPIH, which, unlike the better-known CPI, includes owner-occupied housing costs and council tax, rose by 82 per cent. Therefore, the figures are consistent with a rise both in nominal and real pay between January 2000 to April 2024. However, this masks a rather different picture that has emerged since the global financial crisis of the late 2000s.
Chart 1 shows the annual percentage changes in actual (nominal) regular weekly pay and the CPIH since January 2001. Each value is simply the percentage change from 12 months earlier. The period up to June 2008 saw the annual growth of weekly pay outstrip the growth of consumer prices – the blue line in the chart is above the red dashed line. Therefore, the real value of pay rose. However, from June 2008 to August 2014 pay growth consistently fell short of the rate of consumer price inflation – the blue line is below the red dashed line. The result was that average real weekly pay fell. (Click here to download a PowerPoint copy of the chart.)
Chart 2 show the average levels of nominal and real weekly pay. The real series is adjusted for inflation. It is calculated by deflating the nominal pay values by the CPIH. Since the CPIH is a price index whose value averages 100 across 2015, the real pay values are at constant 2015 consumer prices. From the chart, we can see that the real value of weekly pay peaked in April 2008 at £473 at 2015 prices. The subsequent period saw rates of pay increases that were lower than rates of consumer price inflation. This meant that by March 2014 the real value of weekly pay had fallen by 6.3 per cent to £443 at 2015 prices. (Click here to download a PowerPoint copy of the chart.)
Although real (inflation-adjusted) pay recovered a little after 2014, 2017 again saw consumer price inflation rates greater than those of pay inflation (see Chart 1). This meant that at the start of 2018 real earnings were 3.2 per cent lower than their 2008-peak (see Chart 2). Real earnings then began to recover, buoyed by the economic rebound following the relaxation of COVID lockdown measures and increasing staffing pressures. Real earnings finally passed their 2008-peak in August 2020. By April 2021 regular weekly pay reached £491 at 2015 prices which was 3.8 per cent above the pre-global financial crisis peak.
However, the boost to real wages was to be short-lived as inflationary pressures rose markedly. While some of this was attributable to the same pressures that were driving up wages, inflationary pressures were fuelled further by the commodity price shock arising from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and, in particular, its impact on energy prices. This saw the CPIH inflation rate rise to 9.6 per cent in October 2022 (while the CPI inflation rate peaked in the same month at 11.1 per cent). The result was that real weekly earnings fell by 2.7 per cent between January and October 2022 to stand at £471 at 2015 consumer prices. Consequently, average pay was once again below its pre-global financial crisis level.
Although inflationary pressures have recently weakened and real earnings have begun to recover, real regular weekly earnings in April 20024 (£486 at 2015 prices) were a mere 2.7 per cent higher than back in the first half of 2008. This compares to a nominal increase of around 58 per cent over the same period thereby demonstrating the importance of the distinction between nominal and real values in understanding what developments in pay mean for the purchasing power of households.
Chart 3 reinforces the importance of the nominal-real distinction. It shows nicely the sustained period of real pay deflation (negative rates of pay inflation) that followed the financial crisis, and the significant rates of real pay deflation associated with the recent inflation shock.
The result is that since June 2008 the average annual rate of growth of real regular weekly pay has been 0.1 per cent, despite nominal pay increasing at an annual rate of 2.9 per cent. In contrast, the period from January 2001 to May 2008 saw real regular weekly pay grow at an annual rate of 2.1 per cent with nominal pay growing at an annual rate of 4.0 per cent. (Click here to download a PowerPoint copy of the chart.)
If we think about the growth of nominal earnings, we can identify two important determinants.
The first is the expected rate of inflation. Workers will understandably want wage growth at least to match the growth in prices so as to maintain their purchasing power.
The second factor is the growth in labour productivity. Firms will be more willing to grant pay increases if workers are more productive, since productivity helps to offset pay increases and maintain firms’ profit margins. Consequently, since over time the actual rate of inflation will tend to mirror the expected rate, the growth of real pay is closely related to the growth of labour productivity. This is significant because, as John discusses in his blog The Productivity Puzzle (14 April 2024), labour productivity growth in the UK, as measured by national output per worker hour, has stalled since the global financial crisis.
Understanding the stagnation of real earnings therefore nicely highlights the interconnectedness of economic variables. In this case, it highlights the connections between productivity, levels of investment and people’s purchasing power. It is not surprising, therefore, that the stagnation of both real earnings and productivity growth since the global financial crisis have become two of the most keenly debated macroeconomic issues of recent times. Indeed, it is likely that their behaviour will continue to shape macroeconomic debates and broader conversations around government policy for some time.
Articles
Questions
- Using the examples of both GDP and earnings, explain how the distinction between nominal and real relates to the distinction between values and volumes.
- In what circumstances would an increase in actual pay translate into a reduction in real pay?
- In what circumstances would a decrease in actual pay translate into an increase in real pay?
- What factors might explain the reduction in real rates of pay seen in the UK following the financial crisis of 2007–8?
- Of what importance might the growth in real rates of pay be for consumption and aggregate demand?
- Why is the growth of real pay an indicator of financial well-being? What other indicators might be included in measuring financial well-being?
- Assume that you have been asked to undertake a distributional analysis of real earnings since the financial crisis. What might be the focus of your analysis? What information would you therefore need to collect?
On 12 February, it was announced that The Body Shop UK was entering administration. With 199 shops across the country, if this leads to the collapse of the business, some 2000 jobs will be lost. The business has been struggling since 2020 and poor sales this last Christmas led the new owners, the pan-European alternative investment firm, Aurelius, to appoint administrators.
This could potentially begin an insolvency process that could result in the closure of some or all of the shops. This would spell the end of an iconic brand that, since its founding in 1976, has been associated with natural, ethically sourced and environmentally friendly products. Aurelius has already sold The Body Shop business in most of mainland Europe and in parts of Asia to an unnamed buyer. It is unclear what will happen to the approximately 2800 stores and 8000 employees in 70 countries outside the UK.
Origins of The Body Shop1
The Body Shop was founded in 1976 and shot to fame in the 1980s. It stood for environmental awareness and an ethical approach to business. But its success had as much to do with what it sold as what it stood for. It sold natural cosmetics – Raspberry Ripple Bathing Bubbles and Camomile Shampoo – products that proved immensely popular with consumers.
Its profits increased from a little over £1m in 1985 (€1.7m) to approximately £65m (€77.5m) in 2012. Although profits then slipped, falling to €65.3m in 2014 and €54.8m in 2015, its profit growth in new markets over that same period was 12.4%.
Sales revenue, meanwhile, grew even more dramatically, from £4.9m in 1985 to approximately €967.2m in 2015. By 2015, Body Shop International had over 3100 stores, operating in 61 countries.
What made this success so remarkable is that The Body Shop did virtually no advertising. Its promotion stemmed largely from the activities and environmental campaigning of its founder, Anita Roddick, and the company’s uncompromising claim that it sold only ‘green’ products and conducted its business operations with high ethical standards. It actively supported green causes such as saving whales and protecting rainforests, and it refused to allow its products to be tested on animals. Perhaps most surprising in the world of big business at the time was its high-profile initiative ‘trade not aid’, whereby it claimed to pay ‘fair’ prices for its ingredients, especially those supplied by people in developing countries who were open to exploitation by large companies.
The growth strategy of The Body Shop focused upon developing a distinctive and highly innovative product range, and at the same time identifying these products with major social issues of the day, such as the environment and animal rights.
Its initial expansion was based on a process of franchising, where individuals opened Body Shops which were then supplied by the company with its range of just 19 products. Then, in 1984 the company went public. Following its flotation, the share price rose from just 5p to a high of 370p in 1992.
In the 1990s, however, sales growth was less rapid. By 1998, earnings had collapsed by 90% and the share price fell to 117p. Shareholders forced Anita Roddick to step down as Chief Executive, but for a while she and her husband remained as co-chairs. In 2002, they stepped down as co-chairs, by which time profits had fallen to £20.4m. In 2003 she was awarded in knighthood and became Dame Anita Roddick. Sales then grew rapidly from 2004 to 2006 from €553m to €709m.
Acquisition of The Body Shop by L’Oréal
A dramatic event, however, occurred in 2006 when The Body Shop was sold to the French cosmetics giant, L’Oréal, which was 26% owned by Nestlé, The event resulted in the magazine Ethical Consumer downgrading The Body Shop’s ethical rating from 11 out of 20 to a mere 2.5 and calling for a boycott of the company. Three weeks after the sale, the daily BrandIndex recorded an 11 point drop in The Body Shop’s consumer satisfaction rating from 25 to 14.
There were several reasons for this. L’Oréal’s animal-testing policies conflicted with those of The Body Shop and L’Oréal was accused of being involved in price-fixing with other French perfume houses. L’Oréal’s part-owner, Nestlé, was also subject to various criticisms for ethical misconduct, including promoting formula milk rather than breast milk to mothers with babies in developing countries and using slave labour in cocoa farms in West Africa.
Anita Roddick, however, believed that, by taking over The Body Shop, L’Oréal would develop a more ethical approach to business. Indeed, it did publicly recognise that it needed to develop its ethical and environmental policies.
L’Oréal adopted a new Code of Business Ethics in 2007 and gained some external accreditation for its approach to sustainability and ethics. It was ranked as one of the world’s 100 most ethical companies by Ethisphere in 2007 and, in 2016, it was again part of this list for the seventh time.
L’Oréal set itself three targets as part of its environmental strategy (2005–15), including a 50% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, water consumption and waste per finished product unit. It made a donation of $1.2m to the US Environment Protection Agency to help bring an end to animal testing and, in March 2013, it announced a ‘total ban on the sale in Europe of any cosmetic product that was tested on animals or containing an ingredient that was tested on animals after this date.’ It also promised that ‘By 2020, we will innovate so that 100% of products have an environmental or social benefit.’
Sadly, Anita Roddick died in 2007 and so was not able to witness these changes.
L’Oréal also looked to inject greater finance into the company aimed at improving the marketing of products. In autumn 2006 a transactional website was launched and there have been larger press marketing campaigns. Profits continued to rise in 2006 and 2007, but fell back quite dramatically from €64m in 2007 to €36m in 2008 as recession hit the high streets. They fell by a further 8% in 2009, but significant growth was seen in the following three years: 2010, up 20.3% to €65.3m; 2011, up 4.3% to €68.1m; 2012, up 13.8% to €77.5m.
From L’Oréal to Natura to Aurelius to ?
From 2013, the financial performance of The Body Shop deteriorated. Profits fell by 38% in 2016 to just €34m, with sales falling by 5%. In June 2017, L’Oréal announced that it had agreed to sell The Body Shop for €1bn (£877m) to Natura Cosmeticos, the largest Brazilian cosmetics business. Natura was awarded ‘B Corp’ status in 2014 as it met certain standards for environmental performance, accountability and transparency. In 2019, The Body Shop was separately certified as a B Corp.
Initial indications for The Body Shop under its new owners seemed good, with net revenue rising by 36% in 2018 and 6.3% in 2019. 2020 saw strong growth in sales, with a rise in online sales more than offsetting the effect of store closures during the pandemic. Its market share peaked in 2020 at 1.4%. However, with the cost-of-living crisis following the pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, many consumers switched to cheaper brands and cheaper outlets, such as Boots and Superdrug, sacrificing environmental and ethical concerns in favour of value for money. As a result, The Body Shop’s market share fell, dropping to 0.8% in 2022 and not picking up in 2023.
This prompted Natura to sell the business to Aurelius. Aurelius hoped to revitalise The Body Shop by promoting its core values and through partnerships or concessions with major retailers, such as John Lewis or Next. However, as we saw above, after a poor Christmas and a weaker capital base and higher cost commitments than initially thought by Aurelius, the new owner filed to put The Body Shop into administration.
What will come of the administration process remains to be seen. Perhaps some of the more profitable stores will be saved; perhaps there will be an expansion of the online business; perhaps partnerships will be sought with major retailers. We shall see.
1 Some of this section is based on Case Study 9.3 from Economics (11th edition).
Videos
Articles
- Aurelius Acquires Iconic Global Beauty Brand and Retailer, The Body Shop
Aurelius news (14/11/23)
- Back to the future? What’s next for the Body Shop brand
Marketing Week, Niamh Carroll (14/11/23)
- The Body Shop appoints administrators for UK business
Financial Times, Laura Onita and Will Louch (13/2/24)
- The Body Shop set to appoint administrators for UK arm
Financial Times, Laura Onita (10/2/24)
- The Body Shop collapses into administration in UK
The Guardian, Sarah Butler and Rob Davies (13/2/24)
- The Body Shop UK in administration – what went wrong?
Sky News, James Sillars (13/2/24)
- Body Shop UK jobs and stores at risk in race to save firm
BBC News (13/2/24)
- From cult status to closure fears — what happened to The Body Shop?
CBC News, Natalie Stechyson (12/2/24)
- Headed for administration, why did The Body Shop fail?
Startups, Richard Parris (12/2/24)
- Comment: The Body Shop’s woes hit just as it should be at its most relevant
TheIndustry.beauty, Lauretta Roberts (13/2/24)
- The collapse of The Body Shop shows that ‘ethical’ branding is not a free pass to commercial success
The Conversation, Kokho Jason Sit (15/2/24)
Questions
- What assumptions did The Body Shop made about the ‘rational consumer’?
- How would you describe the aims of The Body Shop (a) in the early days under Anita Roddick; (b) under L’Oréal; (c) under Aurelius?
- How has The Body Shop’s economic performance been affected by its attitudes towards ethical issues?
- What has Lush done right that The Body Shop has not?
- What will the administrators seek to do?
- Find out what has happened to The Body Shop outlets in mainland Europe?
Since 2019, UK personal taxes (income tax and national insurance) have been increasing as a proportion of incomes and total tax revenues have been increasing as a proportion of GDP. However, in his Autumn Statement of 22 November, the Chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, announced a 2 percentage point cut in the national insurance rate for employees from 12% to 10%. The government hailed this as a significant tax cut. But, despite this, taxes are set to continue increasing. According to the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), from 2019/20 to 2028/29, taxes will have increased by 4.5 per cent of GDP (see chart below), raising an extra £44.6 billion per year by 2028/29. One third of this is the result of ‘fiscal drag’ from the freezing of tax thresholds.
According to the OBR
Fiscal drag is the process by which faster growth in earnings than in income tax thresholds results in more people being subject to income tax and more of their income being subject to higher tax rates, both of which raise the average tax rate on total incomes.
Income tax thresholds have been unchanged for the past three years and the current plan is that they will remain frozen until at least 2027/28. This is illustrated in the following table.
If there were no inflation, fiscal drag would still apply if real incomes rose. In other words, people would be paying a higher average rate of tax. Part of the reason is that some people on low incomes would be dragged into paying tax for the first time and more people would be paying taxes at higher rates. Even in the case of people whose income rise did not pull them into a higher tax bracket (i.e. they were paying the same marginal rate of tax), they would still be paying a higher average rate of tax as the personal allowance would account for a smaller proportion of their income.
Inflation compounds this effect. Tax bands are in nominal not real terms. Assume that real incomes stay the same and that tax bands are frozen. Nominal incomes will rise by the rate of inflation and thus fiscal drag will occur: the real value of the personal allowance will fall and a higher proportion of incomes will be paid at higher rates. Since 2021, some 2.2 million workers, who previously paid no income taxes as their incomes were below the personal allowance, are now paying tax on some of their wages at the 20% rate. A further 1.6 million workers have moved to the higher tax bracket with a marginal rate of 40%.
The net effect is that, although national insurance rates have been cut by 2 percentage points, the tax burden will continue rising. The OBR estimates that by 2027/28, tax revenues will be 37.4% of GDP; they were 33.1% in 2019/20. This is illustrated in the chart (click here for a PowerPoint).
Much of this rise will be the result of fiscal drag. According to the OBR, fiscal drag from freezing personal allowances, even after the cut in national insurance rates, will raise an extra £42.9 billion per year by 2027/28. This would be equivalent of the amount raised by a rise in national insurance rates of 10 percentage points. By comparison, the total cost to the government of the furlough scheme during the pandemic was £70 billion. For further analysis by the OBR of the magnitude of fiscal drag, see Box 3.1 (p 69) in the November 2023 edition of its Economic and fiscal outlook.
Political choices
Support measures during the pandemic and its aftermath and subsidies for energy bills have led to a rise in government debt. This has put a burden on public finances, compounded by sluggish growth and higher interest rates increasing the cost of servicing government debt. This leaves the government (and future governments) in a dilemma. It must either allow fiscal drag to take place by not raising allowances or even raise tax rates, cut government expenditure or increase borrowing; or it must try to stimulate economic growth to provide a larger tax base; or it must do some combination of all of these. These are not easy choices. Higher economic growth would be the best solution for the government, but it is difficult for governments to achieve. Spending on infrastructure, which would support growth, is planned to be cut in an attempt to reduce borrowing. According to the OBR, under current government plans, public-sector net investment is set to decline from 2.6% of GDP in 2023/24 to 1.8% by 2028/29.
The government is attempting to achieve growth by market-orientated supply-side measures, such as making permanent the current 100% corporation tax allowance for investment. Other measures include streamlining the planning system for commercial projects, a business rates support package for small businesses and targeted government support for specific sectors, such as digital technology. Critics argue that this will not be sufficient to offset the decline in public investment and renew crumbling infrastructure.
To support public finances, the government is using a combination of higher taxation, largely through fiscal drag, and cuts in government expenditure (from 44.8% of GDP in 2023/24 to a planned 42.7% by 2028/29). If the government succeeds in doing this, the OBR forecasts that public-sector net borrowing will fall from 4.5% of GDP in 2023/24 to 1.1% by 2028/29. But higher taxes and squeezed public expenditure will make many people feel worse off, especially those that rely on public services.
Videos
Fiscal dragSky News Politics Hub on X, Sophy Ridge (22/11/23)
- Fiscal drag
Sky News Politics Hub on X, Beth Rigby (22/11/23)
Articles
- Autumn Statement 2023 response
IFS, Stuart Adam, Bee Boileau, Isaac Delestre, Carl Emmerson, Paul Johnson, Robert Joyce, Martin Mikloš, Helen Miller, David Phillips, Sam Ray-Chaudhuri, Isabel Stockton Tom Waters, Tom Wernham and Ben Zaranko (22/11/23)
- Autumn Statement: Jeremy Hunt cuts National Insurance but tax burden still rises
BBC News, Brian Wheeler (23/11/23)
- The hidden tax rise in the Autumn Statement
BBC News, Michael Race (23/11/23)
- How is National Insurance changing and what is income tax?
BBC News (23/11/23)
- UK income tax: how fiscal drag leads to people falling into higher rates
The Guardian, Antonio Voce and Ashley Kirk (22/11/23)
- Will I be pulled into a higher tax band? How ‘fiscal drag’ affects your pay
i News, Alex Dakers (23/11/23)
- Fiscal drag could cost high earners £4,000 by 2027
MoneyWeek, Marc Shoffman (16/11/23)
- Why the UK government’s tax cuts still leave workers worse off
CNBC, Elliot Smith (23/11/23)
- National insurance cuts swamped by stealth tax rise, says fiscal watchdog
Financial Times, Emma Agyemang (22/11/23)
- Frozen income tax bands eat into benefits of NI cut, say experts
FT Adviser, Tara O’Connor (23/11/23)
- Jeremy Hunt’s fiscal fudge
Financial Times editorial (22/11/23)
Report and data from the OBR
Questions
- Would fiscal drag occur with frozen nominal tax bands if there were zero real growth in incomes? Explain.
- Examine the arguments for continuing to borrow to fund a Budget deficit over a number of years.
- When interest rates rise, how much does this affect the cost of servicing public-sector debt? Why is the effect likely to be greater in the long run than in the short run?
- If the government decides that it wishes to increase tax revenues as a proportion of GDP (for example, to fund increased government expenditure on infrastructure and socially desirable projects and benefits), examine the arguments for increasing personal allowances and tax bands in line with inflation but raising the rates of income tax in order to raise sufficient revenue?
- Distinguish between market-orientated and interventionist supply-side policies? Why do political parties differ in their approaches to supply-side policy?
Have you ever wondered how your job affects your happiness? We all know that not all jobs are created equal. Some are awesome, while others … not so much. Well, it turns out that employment status and the type of work you do can have a big impact on how you feel – especially in developing countries where labour markets are usually tighter and switching between jobs can be more difficult.
A recent study by Carmichael, Darko and Vasilakos (2021) uses survey data from Ethiopia, Peru, India and Vietnam to answer this very question. The study found that the quality of work is a big deal when it comes to how young people feel. Not all jobs are ‘good jobs’ that automatically make you feel great. Although your wellbeing is likely to be higher when you’re in employment than when you’re not, there are certain job attributes that can push that ‘employment premium’ up or down. This is especially important to understand in countries like many in sub-Saharan Africa, where there aren’t many formal jobs, and people often end up overqualified for what they do.
What job attributes lead to higher wellbeing?
What then are the job attributes that are correlated with higher levels of wellbeing? The first is money: Okay, we know money can’t buy happiness, but it can certainly make life easier. We were therefore hardly surprised to find a positive and statistically significant association between hourly earnings and wellbeing.
We were also not surprised to find that a ‘poor working environment’ has a strong and highly significant negative effect on wellbeing.
Finally, feeling proud of your work is also found to be a strongly significant determinant of your wellbeing. After all, people tend to excel in things they like doing, which is probably part of the ‘transmission mechanism’ between ‘work pride’ and ‘subjective wellbeing’.
Which one of these attributes did you think had the greatest effect on wellbeing? Let me guess, many of you will say ‘earnings’. But then you would be wrong. Earnings were indeed positively associated with wellbeing and statistically significant at just about the 10% level, whereas work pride was very strongly statistically significant at the 1% level and had an effect on wellbeing that was four times greater than hourly earnings.
Putting yourself in a poor working environment on the other hand would reduce your wellbeing by almost twice as much as the earnings coefficient.
Policy implications
What does all this mean for policy-makers? If we want to make life better for young people in low-income countries, we need to tackle the problems from multiple angles.
First, young people need to be helped to get the skills they need for the job market. This can be done through things like training programmes and apprenticeships. However, not all of these programmes are created equal. Some have great results, and others not so much.
But that’s not the whole story. In many countries, there’s a massive informal job market. It’s a place where people work but often don’t have the rights or protections that formal employees do. So, even if young people get trained, they might not find the ‘good’ jobs they’re hoping for.
Changes also need to be made on a much bigger scale. This often includes decentralising public investment to include rural areas, improving infrastructure, and encouraging private investment. Strengthening labour market rules and social protection can help too, by making sure that work is safe and fair.
In a nutshell, where you work and what kind of work you do can make a big difference to how you feel.
Conclusions
If policy-makers want to help young people in low-income countries, they need both to give them the skills they require and to create better job opportunities. But policy-makers also need to make bigger changes to the way things work, like boosting production and making sure jobs are safe and fair.
In the end, it’s about making life better for young people around the world. Let’s keep working on it!
Articles
- Well-being and employment of young people in Ethiopia, India, Peru and Vietnam: Is work enough?
Development Policy Review, Fiona Carmichael, Christian K. Darko and Nicholas Vasilakos (18/5/21)
- The search for ‘meaning’ at work
BBC Worklife, Kate Morgan (7/9/22)
- Job Satisfaction Is Rising: What’s Behind The Surprising Tend
Forbes, Tracy Brower (4/6/23)
- Young workers are embracing AI, job satisfaction rising: 2023 Young Generation in Tech report
Silicon Canals (4/10/23)
- ‘These jobs can be respectable too’: Why youths in China are abandoning white-collar jobs for ‘light labor’
CNBC, Goh Chiew Tong (6/6/23)
- Does Work Make You Happy? Evidence from the World Happiness Report
Harvard Business Review, Jan-Emmanuel De Neve and George Ward (20/3/17)
- Worker well-being is in demand as organizational culture shifts
American Psychological Association, Monitor on Psychology, Heather Stringer (1/1/23)
- Understanding children’s work and youth employment outcomes in Indonesia
Understanding Children’s Work (UCW) Programme, Villa Aldobrandini and V. Panisperna (June 2012)
- Where are We with Young People’s Wellbeing? Evidence from Nigerian Demographic and Health Surveys 2003–2013
Social Indicators Research, pp.803–33, Boniface Ayanbekongshie Ushie and Ekerette Emmanuel Udoh (November 2016)
- Employment Status and Well-Being Among Young Individuals. Why Do We Observe Cross-Country Differences?
Social Indicators Research, Dominik Buttler (29/6/22)
- Employment Mismatches Drive Expectational Earnings Errors among Mozambican Graduates
The World Bank Economic Review, Sam Jones, Ricardo Santos and Gimelgo Xirinda (27/7/23)
- Youth Employment and Skills Development in The Gambia
World Bank Working Paper 217, Nathalie Lahire, Richard Johanson and Ryoko Tomita Wilcox (2011)
Questions
- How does the quality of work impact the happiness and wellbeing of young people in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), and why is this significant in the context of job opportunities in sub-Saharan Africa?
- What are some potential solutions and strategies discussed in the article for improving the wellbeing of young people in LMICs, particularly in the context of employment and job opportunities?
- Have you ever experienced a job that significantly (positively or negatively) impacted your wellbeing or happiness? Reflect on your experience and how it influenced your overall life satisfaction?
- How is AI likely to affect the wellbeing of young professional workers?
- How is the pandemic likely to have affected job satisfaction?