Preliminary figures for Quarter 2 UK GDP suggest that the UK economy has been declining faster than many had expected. Does this mean that the recession in the UK will be more prolonged, or can we expect a return to growth by the end of the year? How much does the outcome depend on policy decisions taken now and what should be done in terms of quantitative easing and other policy measures?
The answers to these questions depend to some extent on the reliability of the figures, which, after all, are only preliminary estimates. Past estimates have tended to understate the level of output and growth, but could the latest estimates understate the depth of the recession? The following articles look at the figures and their implications for policy. The two articles from The Economist look at the global context.
UK economy continues to contract BBC News (24/7/09)
Recession Britain Guardian (24/7/09)
‘Shocking’ GDP figures raise fears of long road to recovery Herald (25/7/09)
Hopes of early end to recession dashed Independent (25/7/09)
Treasury defiant on growth despite gloom over GDP Times Online (26/7/09)
UK GDP: What the economists say Guardian (24/7/09)
Hamish McRae: The GDP figures were profoundly gloomy … but they were wrong Independent (26/7/09)
The shrinking economy BBC News, Stephanomics (24/7/09)
Here comes August, the cruellest month of all Observer (26/7/09)
Rebalancing global growth: a long way to go Economist (23/7/09)
Unpredictable tides Economist (23/7/09)
Gross domestic product, Preliminary estimate, 2nd quarter 2009 Office for National Statistics, Statistical Bulletin (24/7/09)
Gross domestic product, Preliminary estimate, 4th quarter 2008 Office for National Statistics, Statistical Bulletin (24/7/09)
Questions
- What factors will determine whether the UK economy starts to growth again by the end of 2009?
- Plot the quarterly growth rate of GDP from 2007 Q1. Plot two lines on the same graph: one from the 2008 Q4 estimates and one from the 2009 Q2 estimates (see last two links above). How would you explain the discrepancies between the figures?
- What policy measures would you recommend to the Bank of England and the government in the light of the GDP estimates?
- ’The deeper and longer the recession, the more will potential (as well as actual) output fall.’ Do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer.
- Referring to the two Economist articles, what conditions are necessary for sustained long-term economic growth?
On July 8 the UK government published its long-awaited White Paper on reform of the system of banking regulation. Several commentators had called for the abolition of the ‘tripartite’ system of regulation, whereby responsibility for ensuring the stability and security of the banking system is shared between the Financial Services Authority (FSA), the Bank of England and the Treasury. Some have advocated a considerable strengthening of the role of the Bank of England and even abolishing the FSA. What is generally agreed is that there needs to be ‘macro-prudential’ regulation that looks at the whole banking system and at questions of systemic risk and not just at individual banks. Several of the articles below debate this issue.
The government’s White Paper proposes keeping the tripartite system but also strengthening various aspects of regulation. Amongst other things, it proposes giving the FSA powers to ‘penalise banks if their pay policies create unnecessary risks and are not focused on the long-term strength of their institutions’. It also proposes setting up a ‘new Council for Financial Stability – made up of the FSA, the Bank of England and the Treasury – to meet regularly and report on the systemic risks to financial stability’. Banks would also be required to increase their capital adequacy ratios. The first two articles below give an outline of the proposals. The detailed proposals are contained in the third link, to the Treasury site.
Chancellor moves to rein in ‘risky’ banks Independent (9/7/09)
Banks to face tougher regulation BBC News (8/7/09)
Reforming financial markets HM Treasury (8/7/09)
Treasury sees devil in the detail Financial Times (7/7/09)
How to police the banking system Independent (8/7/09)
City regulation: a quick guide Telegraph (8/7/09)
Treasury White Paper: what it means for the financial services industry Telegraph (8/7/09)
Key issues: Financial regulation BBC News (8/7/09)
Alistair Darling accuses banks of ‘kamikaze’ attitude to loans Telegraph (5/7/09)
HSBC boss on banking reform BBC News video (3/7/09)
Bankers ‘want to be proud of what they do’ BBC Today Programme, Radio 4 (7/7/09)
Divisions on display at Mansion House BBC Newsnight video (18/6/09)
Who should supervise the banks? BBC Newsnight video (18/6/09)
Governor wants more bank powers BBC News video (17/6/09)
King puts spotlight on banks too big to fail Times Online (21/6/09)
Mervyn King: Banks cannot be too big to fail Edmund Conway blog, Telegraph (17/6/09)
The City doesn’t need any more rules Telegraph (6/7/09)
Treasury admits ‘intellectual failure’ behind credit crisis Telegraph (8/7/09)
Bankers to face draconian pay veto Times Online (8/7/09)
Questions
- What do you understand by macro-prudential regulation? What would be the difficulties of applying regulation at this level?
- Why may liquidity ratios and capital adequacy ratios that are deemed appropriate by individual banks be inappropriate for the banking system as a whole?
- If banks are too big to fail, why does this create a moral hazard?
- Examine the case for splitting universal banks into retail banks and investment banks.
- Examine the arguments for and against regulating the level and nature of remuneration of senior bank executives.
The output gap is defined as ‘the difference between actual and potential output.’ When actual output exceeds potential output, the gap is positive. When actual output is less than potential output, the gap is negative. The size of the output gap traces the course of the business cycle. In the current recession, the output gap is negative in all major economies. The worry in recent months has been that a persistent large negative gap could lead to a downward deflationary spiral. Evidence is emerging, however, that the recession may be bottoming out and the danger of deflation easing. But just how big is the current negative output gap? As the article below from The Economist states, “Estimating how big the output gap is, and how much of a deflationary threat it still poses, is not easy.”
So how is the output gap measured in practice? How do we measure ‘potential output’? The two articles consider this issue of measurement and the relationship between the output gap and the rate of inflation. The last two links are to data sources giving estimates of the output gap. The first is from the European Commission and the second is from the OECD. As you will see, there are differences in their estimates.
Put out: Uncertainty over the size of the output gap complicates the task of central banks The Economist (2/7/09)
How big is the output gap? FRBSF Economic Letter (12/6/09)
See also:
Box 1.3.2 on page 31 and Table 13 on page 140 of European Economy: Economic Forecast, Spring 2009 European Commission, Economic and Financial Affairs (From the above link, click on the little ‘en’ symbol.)
and: Table 10 from OECD Economic Outlook No. 85, June 2009 OECD (From the above link, click on ‘Demand and output’. The first 10 tables then download as an Excel file.)
Questions
- Why is it difficult to measure potential output? (See both The Economist article and Box 1.3.2 from the European Economy: Economic Forecast, Spring 2009.)
- What is meant by the ‘NAIRU’? Why may it have risen during the recession? How would you set about estimating the value of the NAIRU?
- How might you infer the size of the output gap from the behaviour of inflation?
- Plot the output gap for two countries of your choice using data from both the European Economy and the OECD Economic Outlook for the years 2004 to 2010. Discuss the differences between (a) the two plots for each country and (b) the two countries.
The east coast mainline from London to Edinburgh is a ‘premium route’. This means that it is one of the lines in the UK that is profitable. When the franchises come up for renewal on such lines, potential operators bid to pay the government for the franchise. National Express won the eight-year franchise in 2007 for a total of £1.4 billion, paid in annual rising instalments.
Although the east coast mainline is still profitable, the recession has meant that passenger numbers have been insufficient for National Express to make its annual payments to the Department for Transport and still be left with a profit. As a result, the government will take the franchise into public ownership later this year. This specially created nationalised company will then operate trains on the route until a new franchise is awarded to a private company at the end of 2010.
So why has this proved necessary? Is it all down do the depth of the recession? Or was the £1.4 billion cost of the franchise unrealistically expensive? Would the answer be for National Express to merge with another operator, such as the First Group? Or should the government be prepared to waive, or at least reduce, the franchise payments until passenger numbers are growing fast enough? Or is it time to rethink the whole UK model of rail privatisation and perhaps return to a nationalised rail system? The articles below consider the issues.
National Express loses East Coast line Independent (2/7/09)
National Express goes off the rails on east coast line Times Online (4/7/09)
Q&A: the future of National Express and the east coast mainline rail service Guardian (1/7/09)
East Coast main line: Q&A Telegraph (2/7/09)
Runaway train: The crisis in the rail sector Scotsman (5/7/09)
First Group sets sights on East Coast Business7 (3/7/09)
National Express’s decision to quit East Coast franchise is a lose-lose for nearly everyone Telegraph (4/7/09)
Focus turns to rail franchise system Financial Times (2/7/09)
Rail network: red signals ahead Guardian (2/7/09)
Have we reached the end of the line for privatisation? Observer (5/7/09)
Privatisation has been a train wreck: Ken Livingstone Guardian (2/7/09)
New Capitalism: Old Capitalism except taxpayer money is at risk: Iain Macwhirter Sunday Herald (5/7/09)
Questions
- Consider the relative merits of temporary nationalisation of the east coast mainline services with providing temporary support for National Express.
- Should profitable rail franchises be awarded to the highest bidder? Similarly, should loss-making franchises be awarded to companies bidding for the lowest subsidy?
- Discuss the arguments for and against a complete re-nationalisation of the railways.
- With reference to the final article above, explain what is meant by a Special Purpose Vehicle and whether it was an appropriate means for National Express to fund its £1.4 billion franchise. What dangers are associated with this and other new forms of ‘no-risk capitalism’? Is there a ‘moral hazard’ in this form of capitalism?
In an attempt to revive the fortunes of the French restaurant industry, where demand has been flagging during the recession, the French government slashed VAT on restaurant meals from the standard 19.6 per cent to 5.5 per cent from 1 July 2009. But how much of the tax cut will be passed on to customers; will there be an equal percentage price cut for all items on any particular restaurant’s menu; what will be the impact on consumer demand; and what will be the impact on the government’s tax revenue? The following articles look at the issues.
VAT cut paves way for cheaper restaurant bills France 24 (1/7/09)
Restaurants’ VAT cut from today The Connexion (1/7/09)
French diners feast on benefits after generous cut in restaurant tax Guardian (1/7/09)
France Whacks Food Tax The Wall Street Journal (2/7/09)
Questions
- Using a demand and supply diagram, demonstrate the effect of a VAT cut on the price of a particular item on a menu.
- Examine the factors that will determine (a) the average percentage price cut made by a particular restaurant and (b) the percentage price cut on a particular item on the menu.
- “One third of the VAT cut is supposed to help pay for price cuts with another third going to increase staffing. The final third should go to improving restaurant facilities.” Consider the likelihood of this occurring.
- “The measure will cost the French state 2.38 billion euros a year.” How, do you think, this figure was arrived at and how accurate is the figure likely to be? Are there any circumstance under which the tax cut could increase tax revenues?