There is a new craze sweeping across nations. We might call it the Consolidation Conga! Across the world, and, in particular Europe, government after government seems to be announcing plans to cut its budget deficit. But, with so much focus on governments’ plans for fiscal consolidation it would be all too easy to ignore evidence of consolidation in other sectors too. In the UK, the household sector continues to show a zest for the consolidation of its own finances.
Figures from the Bank of England show that during April net unsecured lending, i.e. lending through credit cards, overdrafts and personal loans less repayments, was again in negative territory, this time to the tune of £136 million. This means that the repayment of unsecured debt exceeded new unsecured lending by £136 million. When an allowance is made for unsecured debt ‘written off’ by financial institutions, we find that the stock of unsecured debt fell by £827 million.
April’s fall in the stock of unsecured debt means that the household sector’s stock of unsecured debt has now fallen for 11 months in a row. Over this period the stock of unsecured debt has fallen by £11.47 billion or by 4.9%. Some of this fall is clearly attributable to the ‘writing off’ of bad debts since net unsecured lending has been negative in only 6 of these 11 months. However, this should not detract from our central message of a consolidation by households of their finances. Indeed, the sum of net unsecured lending over these 11 months is -£459 million. In other words, over the period from June 2009 to April 2010 the household sector made a net repayment of unsecured debt of some £459 million.
While the stock of unsecured debt has fallen by £11.47 billion since last June to stand at £220.77 billion in April 2010, the household sector’s overall stock of debt has fallen too, although only by £178 million to £1,459.5 billion. The much smaller decrease in total debt reflects an increase in the stock of mortgage debt by £11.291 billion over the same period. But, there are two points to make here. Firstly, it is difficult to over-play the fact that the overall stock of household debt has fallen. If we look at the Bank of England’s monthly series which goes back to April 1993, the first monthly fall in the total stock of debt did not occur until October 2008. In other words, the norm has simply been for total household debt to increase.
The second point to make is that the growth in secured debt has slowed markedly. The stock of secured debt in April was only 0.9% higher than a year earlier. But, more than this, the Bank of England’s Housing Equity Withdrawal numbers show that since the second quarter of 2008 the household sector’s stock of secured borrowing has increased by less than we would have expected given the additional housing investment, i.e. money spent on moving costs, the purchase of newly built properties or expenditure on major home improvements. This has resulted in what we know as negative Housing Equity Withdrawal (HEW). This again is evidence that households too are consolidating.
The desire for the household sector to consolidate and to reduce its exposure to debt is pretty understandable, especially given these uncertain times. But, as we discuss in Has the tide turned for Keynesianism?, there are dangers for national and global aggregate demand of mass consolidation. It remains to be seen if we can really afford for so many to be dancing the Consolidation Conga!
Articles
Housing market on a knife edge with no sign of sustained recovery in lending Independent, David Prosser (3/6/10)
UK mortgage lending edges higher BBC News (2/6/10)
Mortgage data raise housing recovery fears Financial Times, Norma Cohen (2/6/10)
Mixed lending data point to stagnant housing markets Reuters (2/6/10)
Mortgage approvals slightly higher Press Association (3/6/10)
Data
Lending to individuals Bank of England
Monetary and Financial Statistics (Bankstats) Bank of England (See Tables A5.1 to A5.7, in particular)
Housing equity withdrawal (HEW) statistical releases Bank of England
Questions
- What does a negative net lending figure indicate?
- If net lending is negative does this mean that the stock of debt is falling?
- What factors might be driving households to consolidate their finances?
- Discuss the potential economic benefits and dangers of households consolidating their finances.
- Of what significance is the extent of the household sector’s consolidation of its finances for: (i) the government and (ii) the Bank of England?
The second estimate of UK output for Q1 2010 from the Office for National Statistics reports that the economy grew by 0.3%. The first estimate, based on limited data, put growth in Q1 at 0.2%. But, it appears that more recently available data picked up evidence of stronger growth in the latter stages of the quarter, particularly in the production industries, such as manufacturing, as well as in capital spending by firms.
When analysed in terms of the composition of demand for our firms’ goods and services, there has been something of a rebound in investment expenditure. This follows a marked collapse during 2008 and the first half of 2009. In 2010 Q1 investment volumes increased by 4.2% on the back of a 2.4% rise in the last quarter of 2009.
This rebound in the investment figures across the last two quarters has partly been driven by firms running down their stockpiles of finished goods at a considerably slower rate. When firms build up their stocks of inventories for sales in future periods they are deemed to be engaging in investment. When firms then ‘tap into’ these inventories, as they have been since Q4 2008, they are disinvesting. It is now the case that the pace of disinvestment through running down inventories is slowing. This reflects a pick up in the demand for firms’ goods and services and, hopefully, an expectation of stronger future demand.
More encouragingly, the rebound in investment volumes in Q1 also reflected an increase in gross fixed capital formation, i.e. an increase in the purchase of non-financial fixed assets used in production, such as machinery. Gross fixed capital formation increased in Q1 by 1.5%. This was the first quarter since Q2 2008 in which there has been an increase in the volume of capital purchases by firms. Again, this is likely to reflect increased optimism about future demand since these assets are purchased to do one thing – to produce goods and services!
The improvement in the investment numbers is such that the volume of investment in Q1 2010 was 0.6% higher than it was in Q1 2009. This is largely the impact of a slower rate of disinvestment by firms through running down inventories since despite the rise in gross capital formation in Q1 2010 it still came in 5.7% lower than in Q1 2009. Nonetheless, it will be interesting to see whether the recent improvement in the UK’s investment numbers is maintained as we go forward.
Of particular concern is whether the volume of capital purchases can continue to grow. Can these purchases help to both boost growth now and our economy’s potential output in the medium term? Some of the key issues in determining the answer to this are likely to include: (i) the extent to which aggregate demand grows; (ii) the impact of fiscal consolidation measures on both firms and consumers; (iii) sentiment (confidence) across firms – especially of their own medium-term prospects; and (iv) the ability of firms to access credit from financial institutions. One can undoubtedly add many other issues to this list. One thing is for sure, these are very uncertain times indeed!
Articles
The economy: GDP growth revised up The Times, Grainne Gilmore (26/5/10)
Manufacturing pushes up economic growth The Independent, Sarah Arnott (26/5/10)
UK economic growth revised up to 0.3% BBC News (25/5/10) )
Economy tracker: GDP BBC News (25/5/10)
Boost for UK as GDP growth revised up Telegraph, Edmund Conway (25/5/10)
UK GDP growth revised upwards to 0.3% Financial Times, Daniel Pimlott (25/5/10)
UK first-quarter GDP revised higher Wall Street Journal, Natasha Brereton (25/5/10)
Data
Latest on GDP growth Office for National Statistics (25/5/10)
UK output, income and expenditure, Statistical Bulletin, 1st Quarter 2010 Office for National Statistics (25/5/10)
UK Output, Income and Expenditure, Time Series Data Office for National Statistics
For macroeconomic data for EU countries and other OECD countries, such as the USA, Canada, Japan, Australia and Korea, see:
AMECO online European Commission
Questions
- Why do the National Accounts record a positive change in inventories as investment and a negative change in inventories as disinvestment?
- What factors might explain the running down of inventories across firms in the UK since Q4 2008? Why didn’t this start in Q2 2008 when the UK economy went into recession?
- In Q1 2010 the running down of inventories was worth, at 2005 prices, some £1.347 billion. This was considerably less than the £4.883 billion in Q3 2009 and the £2.596 billion in Q4 2009 (again at 2005 prices). Why might the pace of disinvestment be slowing?
- Of what importance do you think, firstly, the change in inventories and, secondly, gross capital fixed formation are for an economy’s potential output?
- What arguments do you think there are for distinguishing between different types of investment goods and services when considering our future economic growth?
On the 24th May the new collation government released details of its plan to make £6.2 billion of savings (see HM Treasury press release). As part of this package, The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) – headed by Business Secretary, Vince Cable – will make savings of £836 million, equivalent to 3.9% of its budget. One of the areas identified by BIS for ‘savings’ is the higher education budget, which will lose £200 million. Also targeted are the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) in England. These are the strategic drivers of economic development in the English regions. They will lose £74 million from BIS as well as a further £196 million from other government departments.
So what is the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills charged with doing? Well, according to the BIS website it is charged with
…building a dynamic and competitive UK economy by: creating the conditions for business success; promoting innovation, enterprise and science; and giving everyone the skills and opportunities to succeed. To achieve this it will foster world-class universities and promote an open global economy.
In describing what BIS does, BIS states that it
…brings all of the levers of the economy together in one place. Our policy areas – from skills and higher education to innovation and science to business and trade – can all help to drive growth.
In other words, the BIS is intended to be a key player in affecting the UK’s long-term rate of economic growth. Since 1948 the average annual rate of growth of the UK economy, as measured by constant-price GDP (real GDP), is 2.4%. Of course, a key question is how we might do better. But, there is a significant disagreement amongst economists about the role that government should play in advancing long-term economic growth. This debate largely centres both on how activist a government should be and on the types of policy that a government should pursue.
The ’case for industrial activism’ is made in the leading article of The Independent on 25 May. It nicely encapsulates some of the policy issues surrounding long-term growth and, in reflecting on the cuts to BIS, identifies the role it believes BIS should play.
…we need to think clearly about the proper role for the state in the private sector. There is no future in a return to the heavy-handed statism of the 1970s or the discredited policy of trying to “pick winners”. The guiding principle as far as industrial policy is concerned is that government should do what the free market will not, or cannot. The function of the DBIS should be to increase Britain’s long-term growth potential.
This means supporting industries that cannot get funding from the capital markets and funding important research that would otherwise go unperformed. Most of all, it means education. Britain cannot compete successfully with the rising economic powers of China and India, which have access to a vast pool of cheap workers, on labour costs. Our only hope for advantage lies in our human capital. That makes the case for intensive vocational and advanced skills training.
Therefore, industrial activism, as envisaged by The Independent is about correcting for market failures and ensuring that there is sufficient investment in education and training.
The Confederation of British Industry, which describes itself as the ‘UK’s top business lobbying organisation’, in its press release of 19 May identified the following as ‘essential’ for delivering growth:
• Establishing competitive business taxes
• Developing a strong banking system
• Skilling students for the future and strengthening apprenticeships
• Attracting and cultivating enterprise and industry
• Prioritising energy security
• Working towards a low-carbon economy
• Developing the infrastructure for economic growth
The CBI too identifies the significance of skills. But, it believes that in the previous decade growth was driven too much by government spending (as well as by unsustainable growth in the financial sector). It argues that the private sector, along with trade, needs to be ‘the growth engine for the future’.
What is interesting about the proposed cuts to BIS is that they very visibly draw attention to the differences that exist among commentators, industrialists and economists as to industrial policy. In particular, they ignite the debate about the most effective role that a government can play in promoting long-term growth. Don’t expect too much agreement any time soon!
Press Releases
Government announces £6.2 billion of savings in 2010-11 HM Treasury (24/5/10)
Private sector growth and public sector reform needed to restore economy CBI (19/5/10)
Articles
The case for industrial activism Independent (25/5/10)
Public sector deficit cuts: Higher education and RDAs hit hard in BIS efficiency savings plan eGov Monitor (25/5/10)
George Osborne outlines details of £6.2 billion spending cuts BBC News (24/5/10)
Government axes £836 billion from business budget Growing Business (24/5/10)
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills hit hard by spending cuts Training Journal, Martin Kornacki (24/5/10)
Business department hammered as Osborne swings the axe Management Today (24/5/10)
Big cuts signal end to activism Financial Times, Jean Eaglesham, Andrew Bounds and Clive Cookson (24/5/10)
Businesses take a pounding as coalition cuts hit home London Evening Standard, Hugo Duncan (24/5/10)
Vince Cable explains spending cuts u-turn Newsnight (24/5/10)
Questions
- What do you understand by long-term growth? How does this differ from short-run growth?
- Evaluate the argument advanced by The Independent for industrial activism? What sort of policies might fall under this description?
- In considering the CBI’s list of influences on long-term economic growth outline what role you think government could play and what policies it could enact.
- Do you think the savings being made by BIS signal a new policy approach to delivering long-term economic growth in the UK?
Research from the Halifax estimates that the total wealth of UK households at the end of 2009 was £6.316 trillion. Putting this into context, it means that the average UK household has a stock of wealth of £236,998. In real terms, so stripping out the effects of consumer price inflation, the total wealth of households has grown five-fold since 1959 while the average wealth per household has grown three-fold while. The growth in wealth per household is a little less because of the increase in the number of households from 6.6 million to 26.6 million. For those that like their numbers, total household wealth in 1959 was estimated at £1.251 trillion (at 2009 prices) while the average amount per household was £72,719 (at 2009 prices).
But, do changes in household wealth matter? Well, yes, but not necessarily in a consistent and predictable manner. That’s why so many of us love economics! For now, consider the prices of two possible types of assets: share prices and house prices. The prices of both these assets are notoriously volatile and it is this volatility that has the potential to affect the growth of consumer spending.
It might be, for instance, that you are someone who keeps a keen eye on the FTSE-100 because you use shares as a vehicle for saving. A fall in share prices, by reducing the value of the stock of financial assets, may make some people less inclined to spend. Housing too can be used as a vehicle for saving. Changes in house prices will, of course, affect the capital that can be realised from selling property, but also affect the collateral that can be used to support additional borrowing and, more generally, affect how wealthy or secure we feel.
The Halifax estimates that the household sector’s stock of housing wealth was £3.755 trillion at the end of 2009 while its stock of financial assets (such as savings, pensions and shares) was £4.024 trillion. In real terms, housing wealth has grown on average by 5% per year since 1959 while financial assets have grown by 2.8% per year. Of course, while households can have financial and housing assets they are likely to have financial liabilities too! We would expect households’ exposure to these liabilities – and their perception of this exposure – to offer another mechanism by which household spending could be affected. For instance, changes in interest rates impact on variable rate mortgages rates, affecting the costs of servicing debt and, in turn, disposable incomes.
The Halifax reports that the stock of mortgage loans was £1.235 trillion at the end of 2009, which, when subtracted from residential housing wealth, means that the UK household sector had net housing equity of £2.519 trillion. It estimates that the stock of mortgage loans has increased on average by 6.5% per year in real terms since 1959 while net housing equity has grown by 4.5%. The stock of households’ unsecured debt, also known as consumer credit, was £227 billon at the end of 2009. In real terms it has grown by 5.3% per year since 1959.
The recent patterns in household wealth are particularly interesting. Between 2007 and 2008 downward trends in share prices and house prices contributed to a 15% real fall in household wealth. The Halifax note that some of this was ‘recouped’ in 2009 as a result of a rebound in both share prices and house prices. More precisely, household wealth increased by 9% in real terms in 2009, but, nonetheless, was still 8% below its 2007 peak.
Given the recent patterns in household wealth, including the volatility in the components that go to comprise this stock of wealth, we shouldn’t be overly surprised by the 3.2% real fall that occurred in household spending last year. Further, we must not forget that 2009 was also the year, amongst other things, that the economy shrunk by 4.9%, that unemployment rose from 1.8 million to 2.5 million and that growing concerns about the size of the government’s deficit highlighted the need for fiscal consolidation at some point in the future. All of these ingredients created a sense of uncertainty. This is an uncertainty that probably remains today and that is likely to continue to moderate consumer spending in 2010. So, it’s unlikely to be a time for care-free shopping, more a time for window shopping!
Halifax Press Release
UK household wealth increases five-fold in the past 50 years Halifax (part of the Lloyds Banking Group) (15/5/10)
Articles
Household wealth ‘up five-fold’ UK Press Association (15/5/10)
We’ve never had it so good: Families five times richer than in 1959 Daily Mail, Steve Doughty (15/5/10)
Household wealth grows five-fold in past 50 years BBC News (16/5/10)
Average household wealth jumps £150,000 Telegraph, Myra Butterworth (15/5/10)
Questions
- Draw up a list of the ways in which you think consumer spending may be affected by: (i) the stock of household wealth; and (ii) the composition of household wealth.
- What factors do you think lie behind the annual 5% real term increase in the value of residential properties since 1959?.
- How might the sensitivity of consumer spending to changes in interest rates be affected by the types of mortgage product available?
- Why do you think consumer spending fell by 3.2% in real terms in 2009 despite real disposable income increasing by 3.2%?
- What would you predict for consumption growth in 2010? Explain your answer.
It was the 12th May 2010 and George Osborne’s first day as the UK’s new Chancellor of the Exchequer. His arrival at HM Treasury coincided with the latest ONS labour market release. Just in case you were rather distracted by political events, we take the opportunity here to trawl through some of the latest labour market numbers, focusing, in particular, on those that may pose real challenges for George Osborne and the new coalition government.
From the ONS release we observe that in the three months to March the total number of economically active individuals in the UK was 31.340 million. Of these, 28.829 million were employed while 2.510 million were unemployed (but actively seeking work). The number of people employed fell by 76,000 over the quarter (and by 341,000 over the year) while the number unemployed rose by 53,000 (279,000 over the year).
Now we consider the rate of unemployment. The unemployment rate expresses the total number unemployed as a percentage of those economically active. Over the first quarter of 2010 the unemployment rate rose to 8.0%, a rise of 0.2 percentage points on the previous quarter and a rise of 0.9 percentage points from a year earlier. It is the highest quarterly unemployment rate since the 8.1% recorded in Q3 1996.
Next, consider unemployment and gender. Of those unemployed in the first quarter of the year, 61.6% were male and 38.4% were female. The increase in the male unemployment rate during the economic slowdown has been especially marked. The male unemployment rate in Q1 2010 rose to 9.2%, up from 7.9% a year ago and 5.6% two years ago. The female unemployment rate has increased to 6.7% in Q1 2010 from 6.1% in Q1 2009 and 4.8% in Q1 2008. Therefore, over the past two years the male unemployment rate has risen by 3.6 percentage points while the female rate has increased by 2.1 percentage points.
Another troubling issue is unemployment amongst the young. The unemployment rate amongst those aged 18-24 is considerably higher than the overall rate. In the three months to March the unemployment rate for this age group was 17.9% compared with the overall rate of 8%. But, more than this, the current rate of unemployment amongst those aged 18-24 is actually higher than during the early 1990s when it peaked at 17.8% in Q1 1993. The male unemployment rate amongst this age group is especially high having risen to 20.7% in the first quarter of the year, up 2 percentage points on the year and up from 14.2% in Q1 2008. The female rate amongst this age group is 14.6%, up 1.3 percentage points on the year and up from 9.8% in Q1 2008.
Another issue that emerges out of the statistics is the rise in long-term unemployment. The number of people unemployed for more than one year rose to 757,000 in the first quarter, up from 509,000 a year ago and 397,000 two years ago. Perhaps, it is easier to see the magnitude of this problem when we note that 30.2% of those unemployed have been unemployed for at least one year – this is up from 24.5% in Q1 2008. Amongst females, 25% of those unemployed have been without work for at least one year, but amongst males this rises to 33.4%. In other words, one-quarter of unemployed females and one-third of unemployed males are now regarded as being long-term unemployed.
As troubling as these numbers are, the issue of long-term unemployment is one that, over the past two decades, has never really gone away. On average since 1992, 29.4% of those unemployed have been without work for at least one year (34.2% amongst men and 21.6% amongst women).
And now to our final observation: the historically high number of economically inactive individuals of working age. In the first quarter of 2010, 8.166 million of those of working age were economically inactive, up by 86,000 over the year. As a proportion of the working population, this equates to 21.5%, which is not in itself a record high – during 1983 it reached 23.2% – but it is, nonetheless, up from 20.7% a year ago. The inactivity rate amongst those of working age is highest amongst females at 25.9% (up from 25.7% a year ago) compared with 17.4% amongst men (up from 16.1% a year ago).
One factor that helps to explain the overall rise in inactivity is the 43,000 increase in the number of students who have become economically inactive over the past year. But, we also note upward pressures on inactivity over the past year from the increase of 37,000 in the number of people who are ‘long-term sick’ and from the 13,000 increase in the number who feel ‘discouraged’ from seeking work. These pressures highlight some of the many costs that arise from unemployment and potentially raise some tricky policy challenges for the new government.
Articles
UK unemployment rises in first quarter Investment Week, Hannah Smith (12/5/10)
UK unemployment climbs to a 16-year high Irish Independent, Svenja O’Donnell Brian Groom (13/5/10)
UK unemployment increases to 2.51 million BBC News (12/5/10)
Unemployment: what the experts say Guardian (12/5/10)
UK unemployment hits highest since 1994 The Times, Robert Lindsay (12/5/10)
Jobs recovery still fragile, ‘dire’ data shows Financial Times, Brian Groom (12/5/10)
Scottish unemployment rises by 10,000 in three months BBC News (12/5/10)
Unemployment rises to highest level since 1994, ONS says inthenews.co.uk, Sarah Garrod (12/5/10)
Data
Latest on employment and unemployment Office for National Statistics (12/5/10)
Labour Market Statistics, May 2010 Office for National Statistics (12/5/10)
Labour market statistics page Office for National Statistics
For macroeconomic data for EU countries and other OECD countries, such as the USA, Canada, Japan, Australia and Korea, see:
AMECO online European Commission
Questions
- What is meant by somebody being economically active? Do they have to be in a job to be economically active?
- Using the figures in the commentary, calculate the number of economically active people in Q1 2009 and so the change up to Q1 2010.
- If the number of people unemployed rises does this mean the rate of unemployment rises? Explain your answer.
- What factors might explain the persistent problem of long-term unemployment? What policy prescriptions would you offer the new coalition government in attempting to tackle this problem?
- Looking back through the commentary, pick out some of the notable gender differences. What factors might help to explain these?
- Are there any factors identified in the commentary that may be affecting the economy’s potential output?