The large bonuses received by bankers, often amounting to more than a million pounds, have been contentious for many years. With the banking crisis and subsequent recession, and with both public and government outrage at the size of the bonuses, many thought that the days of such bonuses were over. But such is not the case. “There has been public disquiet that leading banks – which have been seen as a major cause of the financial crisis – have been receiving taxpayer funds, but are not prepared to change their traditional culture of awarding big bonuses to key staff.”
The following articles look at what has been happening to senior bankers’ remuneration in recent months. But what are the market conditions that allow such rewards to continue? Are they a reflection of the marginal productivity of bankers or of their market power, or what?
RBS to keep paying bonuses despite 1bn first-half loss Telegraph (7/8/09)
Lloyds chief plans bonuses for ‘spectacular job’ in making £4bn loss Telegraph (6/8/09)
CS toxic bonuses are up 17%, but gains can’t be realised for four years eFinancial Careers (7/8/09)
Banks: Look, don’t touch Guardian (8/8/09)
Analysis: The plan’s the thing Times Online (7/8/09)
Cutting our bonuses would hit the taxpayer, says RBS Citywire (7/8/09)
France targets bankers’ bonuses BBC News (7/8/09)
Sarkozy weighs into debate over banker bonuses after BNP Paribas compensation sparks anger Los Angeles Times (7/8/09)
Knotting the purse-strings The Economist (6/8/09)
Pay and politics The Economist (6/8/09)
Questions
- Explain why many senior bankers have continued to receive huge bonuses. To what extent is oligopoly theory relevant to your explanation?
- To what extent do the size of the bonuses reflect senior bankers’ contributions to (a) the productivity and (b) the profits of their bank?
- If bankers are to be paid bonuses, what is the best form for these bonuses to take? Consider the incentive effects in your answer.
- Should bankers’ bonuses be regulated and, if so, what criteria should regulators use for determining the acceptable size of bonuses?
In the light of the continuing recession that, according to the Bank of England, “appears to have been deeper than previously thought”, the Monetary Policy Committee has decided to increase narrow money through an additional £50 billion of ‘quantitative easing’. This will involve extending “its programme of purchases of government and corporate debt to a total of £175 billion, financed by the issuance of central bank reserves. The Committee expects the announced programme to take another three months to complete. The scale of the programme will be kept under review.”
This decision took markets by surprise. Does this mean that the outlook for the economy is bleaker than most people expect? Why does the MPC feel that the original £125 billion of quantitative easing is insufficient? What will determine the effectiveness of the additional £50 billion increase in narrow money? The articles below look at the issues.
Bank of England Maintains Bank Rate at 0.5% and Increases Size of Asset Purchase Programme by £50 Billion to £175 Billion Bank of England News Release (6/8/09)
Bank pumps in another £50bn to aid green shoots of recovery Guardian (6/8/09)
Quantitative easing: questions and answers Guardian (6/8/09)
How much money has been pumped into the British economy? Guardian (6/8/09)
Bank of England pumps another £50 billion into economy ITN News (YouTube) (6/8/09)
Bank pumps £50bn into economy BBC News (video) (6/8/09)
Bank policy ‘not fully effective’ BBC Today Programme (audio) (6/8/09)
Are the banks lending enough? BBC News (video) (4/8/09)
Is quantitative easing working? BBC News (6/8/09)
QE: More to do? Stephanomics: BBC blog (6/8/09)
What RBS’s results say about QE Peston’s picks: BBC blog (7/8/09)
Bank wants extra £50bn for ‘fragile’ economy Independent (7/8/09)
David Prosser: Have MPC members lost their nerve? Independent (7/8/09)
The Bank of England thinks the credit crunch is far from over: Edmund Conway Telegraph (6/8/09)
Bank split over money injection BBC News (19/8/09)
Questions
- Why did the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee feel that it was necessary to increase the money supply further through the purchase of an additional £50 billion of assets?
- With the use of a diagram, explain how the effect of the increase in money supply will depend on the nature of the demand for money?
- What will determine the size of the money multiplier effect resulting from the increased asset purchases?
With recession biting, many people are cutting back on spending. This has not been even across products, however. People have tended to shift from more luxurious products, such as foreign holidays and branded products, to holidays at home and supermarkets’ own-brand products (see Shoppers opt for supermarket brands Financial Times (4/8/09)). There has also been a decline in spending on consumer durables, such as cars, furniture and kitchen appliances.
One sector that has fared better than most, however, is the teenage market. “So far it seems teenagers have not cut back on their shopping. Teen-targeted retailers such as Primark, New Look, H&M, Asos and Hot Topic are all weathering the recession better than rivals aimed at an older demographic.” This is a quote from the first of the two linked articles below, which look at this market and its future prospects.
Teenage spenders struggle to learn BBC News (4/8/09)
Hollister: the shop that smells like teen spirit Times Online (5/8/09)
Questions
- How is spending on particular products during a recession related to their income elasticity of demand? How does the income elasticity of demand depend on the length of the time period under consideration?
- Why has the teenage market been less susceptible to the recession than many other markets?
- To what extent will being ‘bargain savvy’ be enough for teenagers to survive the recession without having to make substantial changes in spending patterns? Consider the concept of price elasticity of demand in your answer.
Whilst some economists predicted the banking crisis of 2007/8 and the subsequent global recession, many did not. Was this a failure of macroeconomics, or at least of certain macroeconomic schools of thought, such as New Classical economics? Or was it a failure to apply the subject with sufficient wisdom? Should the subject be radically rethought, or can it simply be amended to take into account aspects of behavioural economics and a better understanding of systemic risk?
The four linked articles below from The Economist look at the debate and at the whole state of macroeconomics. The other articles pick up some of the issues.
Will the ‘crisis in macroeconomics’ lead to a stronger subject, more able to explain economies in crisis and not just when they are working well? Will a new consensus emerge or will economists remain divided, not only about the correct analysis of how economies work at a macro level, but also about how to tackle crises such as the present recession?
What went wrong with economics The Economist (16/7/09)
The other-worldly philosophers The Economist (16/7/09)
Efficiency and beyond The Economist (16/7/09)
In defence of the dismal science The Economist (6/8/09)
How to rebuild a shamed subject Financial Times (5/8/09)
What is the point of economists? Financial Times – Arena (28/7/09)
Macroeconomic Models Wall Street Pit (23/7/09)
Macroeconomics: Economics is in crisis – it is time for a profound revamp Business Day (27/7/09)
Questions
- Distinguish between ‘freshwater’, ‘saltwater’ and ‘brackish’ macroeconomics.
- Explain why economists differ over the efficacy of fiscal policy in times of recession. To what extent does the debate hinge on the size of the multiplier?
- Why is the potential for macroeconomics higher now than prior to the recession?
- What is meant by the ‘efficient market hypothesis’? How did inefficiencies in financial markets contribute to the banking crisis and recession?
- Should economists predict the future, or should they confine themselves to explaining the present and past?
The current recession has seen the re-emergence of many of the intellectual battles fought amongst economists between the two worlds wars and again from the 1960s to the 1980s. The current debate has hinged around the appropriate policy response to the current recession. Is the solution a Keynesian one of stimulating aggregate demand; or is it a new classical one of keeping public spending under control to make room for private spending and to allow the market to function to best effect? And what about banking reform? What are the arguments here? The following articles by Lord Skidelsky examine the debate.
Robert Skidelsky, Economists clash on shifting sands Financial Times (9/6/09)
Robert Skidelsky, Economic reform needs a dose of reality Guardian (27/7/09)
See also the following video:
Robert Skidelsky, The financial challenge of our times Guardian (2/3/09)
Questions
- Explain the ways in which economics is (a) similar to and (b) different from the natural sciences.
- For what reasons would new classical economists criticise the fiscal stimulus packages pursued by many countries in the past few months?
- Under what circumstances would a fiscal stimulus crowd out private spending? Do these circumstances apply (a) today; (b) over the next two years?
- Why may crowding out in practice depend on issues of confidence?
- What ‘Keynesian lessons’ have been learned from the banking crisis and recession?