Author: John Sloman

Posted on

The Chancellor’s fiscal dilemma

The UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, will present her annual Budget in late autumn. It will involve some hard economic and political choices. The government would like to spend more money on improving public services but has pledged not to raise taxes ‘on working people’, which is interpreted as not raising the rates of income tax, national insurance for employees and the self-employed, and VAT. What is more, government borrowing is forecast by the OBR to be £118 billion, or nearly 4.0% of GDP, for the the year 2025/26. This is a fall from the 5.1% in 2024/25 and is well below the 15.0% in 2020/21 during the pandemic. But it is significantly above the 2.1% in 2018/19.

The government has pledged to stick to its two fiscal rules. The first is that the day-to-day, or ‘current’, budget (i.e. excluding investment) should be in surplus or in deficit of no more than 0.5 per cent of GDP by 2029/30 (or the third year of the rolling forecast period from the 2026/27 Budget). This allows investment to be funded by borrowing. The second rule is that public-sector net debt, which includes public-sector debt plus pension liabilities minus equity, loans and other financial assets, should be falling by 2029/30 (or the third year of the rolling forecast period from the 2026/27 Budget). The current budget deficit (i.e. excluding borrowing for investment) was forecast by the OBR in March to be 1.2% of GDP for 2025/26 (see Chart 1) and to be a surplus of 0.3% in 2029/30 (£9.9 billion). (Click here for a PowerPoint of the chart.)

The OBR’s March forecasts, therefore, were that the rules would be met with current policies and that the average rate of economic growth would be 1.8% over the next four years.

However, there would be very little room for manoeuvre, and with global political and economic uncertainty, including the effects of tariffs, climate change on harvests and the continuing war in Ukraine, the rate of economic growth might be well below 1.8%.

The March forecasts were based on the assumption that inflation would fall and hence that the Bank of England would reduce interest rates. Global pressure on inflation, however, might result in inflation continuing to be above the Bank of England’s target of 2%. This would mean that interest rates would be slow to fall – if at all. This would dampen growth and make it more expensive for the government to service the public-sector debt, thus making it harder to reduce the public-sector deficit.

A forecast earlier this month by the National Institute for Economic and Social Research (NIESR) (see link below and Chart 2) reflects these problems and paints a gloomier picture than the OBR’s March forecast. The NIESR forecasts that GDP will grow by only 1.3 per cent in 2025, 1.2 per cent in 2026, 1.1% in 2027 and 1.0% in 2028, with the average for 2025 to 2023 being 1.13%. This is the result of high levels of business uncertainty and the effects of tariffs on exports. With no change in policy, the current deficit would be £41.2 billion in the 2029/30 financial year. Inflation would fall somewhat, but would stick at around 2.7% from 2028 to 2030. Net debt would be rising in 2029/30 &ndash but only slightly, from 98.7% to 99.0%. (Click here for a PowerPoint of the chart.)

So what are the policy options open to the government for dealing with a forecast current budget deficit of £41.2 billion (1.17% of GDP)? There are only three broad options.

Increase borrowing

One approach would be to scrap the fiscal rules and accept increased borrowing – at least temporarily. This would avoid tax increases or expenditure cuts. By running a larger budget deficit, this Keynesian approach would also have the effect of increasing aggregate demand and, other things being equal, could lead to a multiplied rise in national income. This in turn would lead to higher tax revenues and thereby result in a smaller increase in borrowing.

There are two big problems with this approach, however.

The first is that it would, over time, increase the public-sector debt and would involve having to spend more each year on servicing that debt. This would leave less tax revenue for current spending or investment. It would also involve having to pay higher interest rates to encourage people to buy the additional new government bonds necessary to finance the increased deficit.

The second problem is that the Chancellor has said that she will stick to the fiscal rules. If she scraps them, if only temporarily, she runs the risk of losing the confidence of investors. This could lead to a run on the pound and even higher interest rates. This was a problem under the short-lived Liz Truss government when the ‘mini’ Budget of September 2022 made unfunded pledges to cut taxes. There was a run on the pound and the Bank of England had to make emergency gilt purchases.

One possibility that might be more acceptable to markets would be to rewrite the investment rule. There could be a requirement on government to invest a certain proportion of GDP (say, 3%) and fund it by borrowing. The supply-side benefits could be faster growth in potential output and higher tax revenue over the longer term, allowing the current deficit rule to be met.

Cut government expenditure

Politicians, especially in opposition, frequently claim that the solution is to cut out public-sector waste. This would allow public expenditure to be cut without cutting services. This, however, is harder than it might seem. There have been frequent efficiency drives in the public sector, but from 1919 to 2023 public-sector productivity fell by an average of 0.97% per year.

Causes include: chronic underinvestment in capital, resulting in outdated equipment and IT systems and crumbling estates; decades of underfunding that have left public services with crumbling estates, outdated equipment and insufficient IT systems; inconsistent, short-term government policy, with frequent changes in government priorities; bureaucratic systems relying on multiple legacy IT systems; workforce challenges, especially in health and social care, with high staff turnover, recruitment difficulties, and a lack of experienced staff.

The current government has launched a Public Sector Productivity Programme. This is a a cross-government initiative to improve productivity across public services. Departments are required to develop productivity plans to invest in schemes designed to achieve cost savings and improve outcomes in areas such as the NHS, police, and justice system. A £1.8 billion fund was announced in March 2024, to support public-sector productivity improvements and digital transformation. Part of this is to be invested in digital services and AI to improve efficiency. According to the ONS, total public-service productivity in the UK grew by 1.0% in the year to Q1 2025; healthcare productivity grew 2.7% over the same period. It remains to be seen whether this growth in productivity will be maintained. Pressure from the public, however, will mean that any gains are likely to be in terms of improved services rather than reduced government expenditure.

Increase taxes

This is always a controversial area. People want better public services but also reduced taxes – at least for themselves! Nevertheless, it is an option seriously being considered by the government. However, if it wants to avoid raising the rates of income tax, national insurance for employees and the self-employed, and VAT, its options are limited. It has also to consider the political ramifications of taking unpopular tax-raising measures. The following are possibilities:

Continue the freeze on income tax bands. They are currently frozen until April 2028. The extra revenue from extending the freeze until April 2030 would be around £7 billion. Although this may be politically more palatable than raising the rate of income tax, the revenue raised will be well short of the amount required and thus other measures will be required. Although some £40 billion will have been raised up to 2028 (which has already been factored in), as inflation falls, so the fiscal drag effect will fall: nominal incomes will need to rise less to achieve any given rise in real incomes.

Cutting tax relief for pensions. Currently, people get income tax relief at their marginal rate on pension contributions made by themselves and their employer up to £60 000 per year or 100% of their earnings, whichever is smaller. When people draw on their pension savings, they pay income tax at their marginal rate, even if the size of their savings has grown from capital gains, interest or dividends. Reducing the limits or restricting relief to the basic rate of tax could make a substantial contribution to increasing government revenue. In 2023/24, pension contribution relief cost the government £52 billion. Restricting relief to the basic rate or cutting the annual limit would make the relief less regressive. In such a case, when people draw on their pension savings, the income tax rate could be limited to the basic rate to avoid double taxation.

Raising the rate of inheritance tax (IHT) or reducing the threshold. Currently, estates worth more than £325 000 are taxed at a marginal rate of 40%. The threshold is frozen until 2029/30 and thus additional revenue will be received by the government as asset prices increase. If the rate is raised above 40%, perhaps in bands, or the threshold were lowered, then this will earn additional revenue. However, the amount will be relatively small compared to the predicted current deficit in 2029/30 of £41 billion. Total IHT revenue in 2022/23 was only 6.7 billion. Also, it is politically dangerous as people could claim that the government was penalising people who had saved in order to help the next generation, who are struggling with high rents or mortgages.

Increased taxes on business. The main rate of corporation tax was raised from 19% to 25% in April 2023 and the employers’ national insurance rate was raised from 13.8% to 15% and the threshold reduced from £9100 to £5000 per year in April 2025. There is little or no scope for raising business taxes without having significant disincentive effects on investment and employment. Also, there is the danger that raising rates might prompt companies to relocate abroad.

Raise fuel and/or other duties. Fuel duties raise approximately £24 billion. They are set to decline gradually with the shift to EVs and more fuel-efficient internal combustion engines. Fuel duty remained unchanged at 57.95p per litre from 2011 to 2022 and then was ‘temporarily’ cut to 52.95p. The rate of 52.95p is set to remain until at least 2026. There is clearly scope here to raise it, if only by the rate of inflation each year. Again, the main problem is a political one that drivers and the motor lobby generally will complain. Other duties include alcohol, tobacco/cigarettes/vaping, high-sugar beverages and gambling. Again, there is scope for raising these. There are two problems here. The first is that these duties are regressive, falling more heavily on poorer people. The second is that high duties can encourage illegal trade in these products.

Raising one of the three major taxes: income tax, employees’ national insurance and VAT. This will involve reneging on the government’s election promises. But perhaps it’s better to bite the bullet and do it sooner rather than later. Six European countries have VAT rates of 21%, three of 22%, three of 23%, two of 24%, four of 25%, one of 25.5% and one of 27%. Each one percentage point rise would raise about 9 billion. A one percentage point rise across all UK income tax rates would raise around £5.8 billion. As far as employees’ national insurance rates are concerned, the Conservative government reduced the main rate twice from 12% to 10% in January 2024 and from 10% to 8% in April 2024. The government could argue that raising it back to, say, 10% would still leave it lower than previously. A rise to 10% would raise around £11 billion.

Conclusion

The choices for the Chancellor are not easy. As the NIESR’s Economic Outlook puts it:

Simply put, the Chancellor cannot simultaneously meet her fiscal rules, fulfil spending commitments, and uphold manifesto promises to avoid tax rises for working people. At least one of these will need to be dropped – she faces an impossible trilemma.

Articles

Data

Questions

  1. Which of the options would you choose and why?
  2. Should the government introduce a wealth tax on people with wealth above, say, £2 million? If so, should it be a once-only tax or an annual tax?
  3. Research another country’s fiscal position and assess the choices their finance minister took.
  4. Look at a previous UK Budget from a few years ago and the forecasts on which the Budget decisions were made (search Budget [year] on the GOV.UK website). How accurate did the forecasts turn out to be? If the Chancellor then had known what would actually happen in the future, would their decisions have been any different and, if so, in what ways?
  5. Should fiscal decisions be based on forecasts for three of four years hence when those forecasts are likely to be unreliable?
  6. Should fiscal and monetary policy decisions be made totally separately from each other?
Posted on

Rising global uncertainty and its effects

In a blog in October 2024, we looked at global uncertainty and how it can be captured in a World Uncertainty Index. The blog stated that ‘We continue to live through incredibly turbulent times. In the past decade or so we have experienced a global financial crisis, a global health emergency, seen the UK’s departure from the European Union, and witnessed increasing levels of geopolitical tension and conflict’.

Since then, Donald Trump has been elected for a second term and has introduced sweeping tariffs. What is more, the tariffs announced on so-called ‘Liberation Day‘ have not remained fixed, but have fluctuated with negotiations and threatened retaliation. The resulting uncertainty makes it very hard for businesses to plan and many have been unwilling to commit to investment decisions. The uncertainty has been compounded by geopolitical events, such as the continuing war in Ukraine, the war in Gaza and the June 13 Israeli attack on Iran.

The World Uncertainty Index (WUI) tracks uncertainty around the world by applying a form of text mining known as ‘term frequency’ to the country reports produced by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU). The words searched for are ‘uncertain’, ‘uncertainty’ and ‘uncertainties’ and the number of times they occur as percentage of the total words is recorded. To produce the WUI this figure is then multiplied by 1m. A higher WUI number indicates a greater level of uncertainty.

The monthly global average WUI is shown in Chart 1 (click here for a PowerPoint). It is based on 71 countries. Since 2008 the WUI has averaged a little over 23 000: i.e. 2.3 per cent of the text in EIU reports contains the word ‘uncertainty’ or a close variant. In May 2025, it was almost 79 000 – the highest since the index was first complied in 2008. The previous highest was in March 2020, at the start of the COVID-19 outbreak, when the index rose to just over 56 000.

The second chart shows the World Trade Uncertainty Index (WTUI), published on the same site as the WUI (click here for a PowerPoint). The method adopted in its construction therefore mirrors that for the WUI but counts the number of times in EIU country reports ‘uncertainty’ is mentioned within proximity to a word related to trade, such as ‘protectionism’, ‘NAFTA’, ‘tariff’, ‘trade’, ‘UNCTAD’ or ‘WTO.’

The chart shows that in May 2025, the WTUI had risen to just over 23 000 – the second highest since December 2019, when President Trump imposed a new round of tariffs on Chinese imports and announced that he would restore steel tariffs on Brazil and Argentina. Since 2008, the WTUI has averaged just 2228.

It remains to be seen whether more stability in trade relations and geopolitics will allow WUI and WUTI to decline once more, or whether greater instability will simply lead to greater uncertainty, with damaging consequences for investment and also for consumption and employment.

Articles

Uncertainty Indices

Questions

  1. Explain what is meant by ‘text mining’. What are its strengths and weaknesses in assessing business, consumer and trade uncertainty?
  2. Explain how the UK Monthly EPU Index is derived.
  3. Why has uncertainty increased so dramatically since the start of 2025?
  4. Compare indices based on text mining with confidence indices.
  5. Plot consumer and business/industry confidence indicators for the past 24 months, using EC data. Do they correspond with the WUI?
  6. How may uncertainty affect consumers’ decisions?
Posted on

New UK trade deals

The UK signed three trade deals in May – one with the USA, one with India and one with the EU. It is hoped by the government that these trade deals will provide a welcome boost to the UK economy.

The deal with the USA reduced tariffs on UK car exports to the USA from 27.5% to 10%, and on steel and aluminium exports from 25% to 0%. Pharmaceutical exports would also get more favourable treatment and there would be ‘reciprocal market access on beef’ (but with no lowering of food standards). Nevertheless, President Trump’s baseline tariff of 10% on most goods remains, as with other countries. However, a ruling by the US Court of International Trade has found that the Trump’s use of emergency powers to justify the sweeping use of tariffs is wrong. The Trump administration is appealing against the ruling and until the appeal is heard, the tariffs have been reinstated. Also, on May 30, the Trump administration announced that tariffs on steel and aluminium imports would rise from 25% to 50%. It remained to be seen whether this would affect the deal to reduce the rate to zero for British steel and aluminium imports.

The deal with India involves a reduction in tariffs on UK exports – some to zero – and simplified trade rules, faster customs clearance, less paperwork and the freedom for UK businesses to provide telecommunications and construction services. In return, tariffs will be reduced to zero on 99% of Indian exports to the UK. The UK government estimates that deal will result in trade between the two countries increasing by over 30%, with the UK’s GDP expanding by around 0.1 percentage points per year.

UK-EU trade

Perhaps the most significant new trade deal, however, is with the EU. This is a major advance on the current post-Brexit Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA). Under the TCA, there are no tariffs or quotas on UK goods exports to the EU or EU goods exports to the UK. However, to ensure that it is EU and UK business that benefits from these ‘trade preferences’, firms must show that their products fulfil ‘rules of origin’ requirements.

Under rules of origin requirements, when a good is imported into the UK from outside the EU and then has value added to it by processing, packaging, cleaning, remixing, preserving, refashioning, etc., it can only count as a UK good if sufficient value or weight is added. The proportions vary by product, but generally goods must have approximately 50 per cent UK content (or 80 per cent of the weight of foodstuffs) to qualify for tariff-free access to the EU. As a result, many goods exported to the EU with a proportion of imported components face tariffs.

Also, the TCA does not include free trade in services. The UK is a major exporter of services, including legal, financial, accounting, IT and engineering. It has a positive trade in services balance with the EU, unlike its negative trade in goods balance. Although some of the barriers which apply to other non-EU countries have been reduced for the UK in the TCA, UK service providers still face barriers which impose costs. For example, some EU countries limit the time that businesspeople providing services can stay in their countries to six months in any twelve. Also, since Brexit, UK artists and musicians have faced restrictions when touring and working in the EU. They can only work up to 90 out of every 180 days. This causes problems for longer tours and for musicians and crew who work in multiple bands or orchestras.

Perhaps the greatest barrier to trade under the TCA has been the large range of non-tariff measures (NTMs), such as customs checks, rules-of-origin and other paperwork, meeting various regulations and standards, and sanitary and phytosanitary checks on foodstuffs, plants and animals. Both the OBR and the Bank of England estimate that these post-Brexit trade restrictions are reducing UK GDP by around 4% and will continue to do so unless trade with the EU becomes freer.

The new UK-EU trade deal

The deal struck in mid-May reduces many of the administrative barriers to trade. Perhaps the most significant are the border checks on food, animal and plant shipments to and from the EU. Many of these checks will be scrapped. The new sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) agreement allows many UK food products to be exported that previously were banned or proved too administratively costly. To achieve this free movement, the UK will generally follow EU standards, or similar standards so as to avoids harming EU trade. UK food exporters have generally welcomed the deal.

British steel exports to the EU will be protected from new EU rules and tariffs. This should save UK steel some £25m per year. Also, the EU has agreed to recognise UK carbon emissions caps, meaning that UK exports to the EU will avoid around £800m of carbon border taxes.

The post-Brexit fishing deal between the UK and EU, which saw a reduction of 25% in EU fishing quotas in UK waters, will be extended for another 12 years. Many UK fishers, however, had hoped for scrapping EU access to UK waters. The deal also allows various sea foods, including certain shellfish, to be exported to the EU for the first time since Brexit.

Other elements of the deal include a new security and defence partnership, the use of e-gates for UK travellers to the EU and an agreement to work towards a young person’s mobility scheme, allowing young people from the UK/EU to work and travel freely in the EU/UK again for a period of time.

The elements of the deal concerned with trade represent freer trade, but not totally free trade. The UK is not rejoining the customs union or single market. Nevertheless, strong supporters of Brexit have criticised the deal as a movement towards greater alignment of standards and thus a dilution of UK sovereignty. Supporters of greater alignment, on the other hand, argue that the deal does not go far enough and that even freer trade and less red tape would bring greater benefits to the UK.

Articles

UK-US trade deal

UK-India trade deal

UK-EU trade deal

Questions

  1. Outline the main elements of (a) the UK-US trade deal, (b) the UK-India trade deal and (c) the UK-EU trade deal. How much is it claimed that each deal will add to UK GDP?
  2. What trade barriers remain in each of the three deals?
  3. What elements are missing from the UK-EU trade deal that campaigners have been pushing for?
  4. Under what circumstances do free trade deals lead to (a) trade creation; (b) trade diversion?
  5. Would you expect the UK-EU trade deal on balance to lead to trade creation or trade diversion? Explain why.
Posted on

President Reagan on tariffs

In a 1987 address to the US nation, Republican President Ronald Reagan discussed the question of tariffs. His message was clear.

You see, at first, when someone says, ‘Let’s impose tariffs on foreign imports,’ it looks like they’re doing the patriotic thing by protecting American products and jobs. And sometimes for a short while it works – but only for a short time. What eventually occurs is:

First, homegrown industries start relying on government protection in the form of high tariffs. They stop competing and stop making the innovative management and technological changes they need to succeed in world markets.
 
And then, while all this is going on, something even worse occurs: high tariffs inevitably lead to retaliation by foreign countries and the triggering of fierce trade wars. The result is more and more tariffs, higher and higher trade barriers, and less and less competition. So, soon, because of the prices made artificially high by tariffs that subsidise inefficiency and poor management, people stop buying.
 
Then the worst happens: markets shrink and collapse; businesses and industries shut down; and millions of people lose their jobs.
 
The memory of all this occurring back in the thirties made me determined when I came to Washington to spare the American people the protectionist legislation that destroys prosperity.
 
Now, it hasn’t always been easy. There are those in this Congress, just as there were back in the ’30s, who want to go for the quick political advantage, who will risk America’s prosperity for the sake of a short-term appeal to some special interest group, who forget that more than five million American jobs are directly tied to the foreign export business and additional millions are tied to imports.
 
For those of us who lived through the Great Depression, the memory of the suffering it caused is deep and searing. And today, many economic analysts and historians argue that high tariff legislation, passed back in that period called the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, greatly deepened the Depression and prevented economic recovery.

He returned to the topic of tariffs in November 1988, when he reflected on the benefits of free and fair trade and the dangers of protectionism.

Here in America, as we reflect on the many things we have to be grateful for, we should take a moment to recognize that one of the key factors behind our nation’s great prosperity is the open trade policy that allows the American people to freely exchange goods and services with free people around the world. The freedom to trade is not a new issue for America.

In 1776 our Founding Fathers signed the Declaration of Independence, charging the British with a number of offenses, among them, and I quote, ‘cutting off our trade with all parts of the world’.
 
And that same year, a Scottish economist named Adam Smith launched another revolution with a book entitled ‘The Wealth of Nations’, which exposed for all time the folly of protectionism. Over the past 200 years, not only has the argument against tariffs and trade barriers won nearly universal agreement among economists but it has also proven itself in the real world, where we have seen free-trading nations prosper while protectionist countries fall behind.
 
America’s most recent experiment with protectionism was a disaster for the working men and women of this country. When Congress passed the Smoot-Hawley tariff in 1930, we were told that it would protect America from foreign competition and save jobs in this country – the same line we hear today. The actual result was the Great Depression, the worst economic catastrophe in our history; one out of four Americans were thrown out of work. Two years later, when I cast my first ballot for President, I voted for Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who opposed protectionism and called for the repeal of that disastrous tariff.
 
Ever since that time, the American people have stayed true to our heritage by rejecting the siren song of protectionism. In recent years, the trade deficit led some misguided politicians to call for protectionism, warning that otherwise we would lose jobs. But they were wrong again. In fact, the United States not only didn’t lose jobs, we created more jobs than all the countries of Western Europe, Canada, and Japan combined. The record is clear that when America’s total trade has increased, American jobs have also increased. And when our total trade has declined, so have the number of jobs.
 
Part of the difficulty in accepting the good news about trade is in our words. We too often talk about trade while using the vocabulary of war. In war, for one side to win, the other must lose. But commerce is not warfare. Trade is an economic alliance that benefits both countries. There are no losers, only winners. And trade helps strengthen the free world.
 
Yet today protectionism is being used by some American politicians as a cheap form of nationalism, a fig leaf for those unwilling to maintain America’s military strength and who lack the resolve to stand up to real enemies – countries that would use violence against us or our allies. Our peaceful trading partners are not our enemies; they are our allies.
 
We should beware of the demagogs who are ready to declare a trade war against our friends – weakening our economy, our national security, and the entire free world – all while cynically waving the American flag. The expansion of the international economy is not a foreign invasion; it is an American triumph, one we worked hard to achieve, and something central to our vision of a peaceful and prosperous world of freedom.
 
After the Second World War, America led the way to dismantle trade barriers and create a world trading system that set the stage for decades of unparalleled economic growth. And in one week, when important multilateral trade talks are held in Montreal, we will be in the forefront of efforts to improve this system. We want to open more markets for our products, to see to it that all nations play by the rules, and to seek improvement in such areas as dispute resolution and agriculture. We also want to bring the benefits of free trade to new areas, including services, investment, and the protection of intellectual property. Our negotiators will be working hard for all of us.
 
Yes, back in 1776, our Founding Fathers believed that free trade was worth fighting for. And we can celebrate their victory because today trade is at the core of the alliance that secure the peace and guarantee our freedom; it is the source of our prosperity and the path to an even brighter future for America.

The questions below address whether these radio addresses by President Reagan are relevant in today’s context of the imposition of tariffs by President Trump.

Videos of Radio Addresses

Articles and postings

Questions

  1. Summarise Ronald Reagan’s arguments.
  2. How would Donald Trump reply to these arguments?
  3. Can tariffs ever be justified on efficiency grounds?
  4. Can tariffs be justified as a bargaining ploy? Can they be used as a means of achieving freer and fairer trade?
  5. Find out why the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was introduced in 1930 and what were its consequences.
  6. How does the World Trade Organization seek to promote freer and fairer trade? How does it resolve trade disputes?
Posted on

‘Liberation day’: or start of a Trump slump?

On April 2nd, Donald Trump announced sweeping new ‘reciprocal’ tariffs. These would be in addition to 25% tariffs on imports of cars, steel and aluminium already announced and any other tariffs in place on individual countries, such as China. The new tariffs would apply to US imports from every country, except for Canada and Mexico where tariffs had already been imposed.

The new tariffs would depend on the size of the country’s trade in goods surplus with the USA (i.e. the USA’s trade in goods deficit with that country). The bigger the percentage surplus, the bigger the tariff. But, no matter how small a country’s surplus or even if it runs a deficit (i.e. imports more goods from the USA than it sells), it would still face a minimum 10% ‘baseline’ tariff.

President Trump stated that these tariffs are to counter what he claims as unfair trade practices inflicted on the USA. People had been expecting that these tariffs would reflect the tariffs applied by other countries on US goods and possibly also non-tariff barriers, such as the ban on chlorine-washed chicken or hormone-injected beef in the EU and UK. But, by basing them on the size of a country’s trade surplus, this meant imposing them on many countries with which the USA has a free-trade deal with no tariffs at all.

The table gives some examples of the new tariff rates. The largest rates would apply to China and south-east Asian countries, which supply low-priced products, such as clothing, footwear and electronics to the US market. In China’s case, it would a reciprocal tariff rate of 34% plus the previously imposed tariff rate of 20%, giving a massive 54%.

What is more, the ‘de minimis’ exemption will be scrapped for packages sent by private couriers. This had exempted goods of $800 or less sent direct to consumers from China and other countries from companies such as Temu and Alibaba. It is also intended to cut back on packages of synthetic opioids sent from these countries.

Since ‘liberation day’, President Trump has made several changes to these tariff rates. On 9 April he ‘paused’ the implementation of the tariffs above the 10% rate pending trade discussions with individual countries. However, in the case of China, there have been tit-for-tat tariff increases, so that by the end of April, the US tariff rate on Chinese imports was a massive 145% and the Chinese rate on US imports was 125%. The two countries seemed locked in a high-stakes game of chicken.

The US formula for reciprocal tariffs

As we have seen, the proposed (and then paused) reciprocal tariffs do not reflect countries’ tariff rates on the USA. Instead, rates for countries running a trade in goods surplus with the USA (a US trade deficit with these countries) are designed to reflect the size of that surplus as a percentage of their total imports from the USA. The White House has published the following formula.


where:

When the two elasticities are multiplied together this gives 1 and so can be ignored. As there was no previous ‘reciprocal’ tariff, the rise in the reciprocal tariff rate is the actual reciprocal tariff rate. The formula for the reciprocal tariff rate thus becomes the percentage trade surplus of that country with the USA: (exports – imports) / imports, expressed as a percentage. This is then rounded up to the nearest whole number.

President Trump also stated that countries would be given a discount to show US goodwill. This involves halving the rate from the above formula and then rounding up to the nearest whole number.

Take the case of China. China’s exports of goods to the USA in 2024 were $439bn, while its imports of goods from the USA were $144bn, giving China a trade surplus with the USA of $295bn. Expressing this as a percentage of exports gives ($295/$439 × 100)/2 = 33.6%, rounded up to 34%. For the EU, the formula gives ($227bn/$584bn × 100)/2 = 19.4%, rounded up to 20%.

Questioning the value of φ. Even if you accept the formula itself as the basis for imposing tariffs, the value of the second term in the denominator, φ, is likely to be seriously undervalued. The term represents the elasticity of import prices with respect to tariff changes. It shows the proportion of a tariff rise that is passed on to consumers, which is assumed to be just one quarter, with producers bearing the remaining three quarters. In reality, it is highly likely that most of the tariff will get passed on, as it was with the tariffs applied in Donald Trump’s first presidency.

If the value for φ were 1 (i.e. all the tariff passed on to the consumer), the formula would give a ‘reciprocal tariff’ of just one quarter of that with a value of φ of 0.25. The figures in the table above would look very different. If the rates were then still halved, all countries with a tariff below 40% (such as the EU, Japan or India) would instead face just the baseline tariff of 10%. What is more, China’s rate would be reduced from 54% to 30% (the original 20% plus the baseline of 10%). Cambodia’s would be reduced to 13%. Even if the halving discount were no longer applied, the rates would still be only half of those shown in the table (and 37% for China).

Are the tariffs justified?

Even if a correct value of φ were used, a percentage trade surplus is a poor way of measuring the protection used by a country. Many countries running a trade surplus with the USA are low-income countries with low labour costs. They have a comparative advantage in labour-intensive goods. That allows such goods to be purchased at low cost by Americans. Their trade surplus may not be a reflection of protection at all.

Also, if protection is to be used to reflect the trade imbalance with each country, then why impose a 10% baseline on countries, like the UK, with which the USA has a trade surplus? By the Trump administration’s logic, it ought to be subsidising UK imports or accepting of UK tariffs on imports of US goods.

But President Trump also wants to address the USA’s overall trade deficit. The US balance of trade in goods deficit was $1063bn in 2023 (the latest year for a full set of figures). But the overall balance of payments must balance. There were thus surpluses elsewhere on the balance of payments account (and some other deficits). There was a surplus on the services account of $278bn and on the financial account of $924bn. In other words, inward investment to the USA (both direct and portfolio) and the acquisition of dollars by other countries as a reserve asset were very large and helped to drive up the exchange rate. This made US goods less competitive and imports relatively cheaper.

The USA has a large national debt of some $36 trillion of which some $9 trillion is owed to foreign investors (people, institutions or countries). Servicing the debt pushes up US interest rates. This helps to maintain a high exchange rate, thereby making imports cheaper and worsening the trade deficit. The fiscal burden of servicing the debt also crowds out US government expenditure on items such as defence, education, law and order and infrastructure. President Trump hopes that tariffs will bring in additional revenue to help finance the deficit.

Effects on the USA

If the tariffs reduce spending on imports and if other countries do not retaliate, then the US balance of trade should improve. However, a tariff is effectively a tax on imported goods. It is charged to the importing company not to the manufacturer abroad. As we saw in the context of the false value for φ, most of the tariff will be passed on to American consumers. Theoretically the incidence of the tariff is shared between the supplier and the purchaser, but in practice, most of the higher cost to the importer will be passed on to the consumer. As with other taxes, the effect is to transfer money from the consumer to the government, making people poorer but giving the government extra revenue. This revenue will be dollars, not foreign currency.

As some of the biggest price rises will be for cheap manufactured products, such as imports from China, and various staple foodstuffs, the effects could be felt disproportionately by the poor. Higher import prices will allow domestic producers competing with these imports to raise their prices too. The tariffs are thus likely to be inflationary. But because the inflation would be the result of higher costs, not higher demand, this could lead to recession as real incomes fell.

American resources will be diverted by the tariffs from sectors in which the USA has a comparative advantage, such as advanced manufactured goods and services, to more basic products. Tariffs on cheap imports will make domestic versions of these products more profitable: even though they are more costly to produce, they will be sold at a higher price.

The tariffs will also directly affect goods produced by US companies. The reason is that many use complex supply chains involving parts produced abroad. Take the case of Apple. Even though it is an American company which designs its products in California, the company sources parts from several Asian countries and has factories in Vietnam, China, India, and Thailand. These components will face tariffs and thus directly affect the price of iPhones, iPads, MacBooks, etc. Similarly affected are other US tech hardware manufacturers, US car manufactures, clothing and footwear producers, such as The Gap and Nike, and home goods producers.

Monetary policy response. How the Fed would respond is not clear. Higher inflation and lower growth, or even a recession, produces what is known as ‘stagflation’: inflation combined with stagnation. Many countries experienced stagflation following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, when higher commodity prices led to soaring inflation and economic slowdown. There was a cost-of-living crisis.

If a central bank has a simple mandate of keeping inflation to a target, higher inflation would be likely to lead to higher interest rates, making recession even more likely. It is the inflation of the two elements of stagflation (inflation and stagnation) that is addressed. The recession is thus likely to be deepened by monetary policy. But as the Fed has a dual mandate of controlling inflation but also of maximising employment, it may choose not to raise interest rates, or even to lower them, to get the optimum balance between these two targets.

If other countries retaliate by themselves raising tariffs on US exports and/or if consumers boycott American goods and services, this will further reduce incomes in the USA. Just two days after ‘liberation day’, China retaliated against America’s 34% additional tariff on Chinese imports by imposing its own 34% tariff on US imports to China.

A trade war will make the world poorer, especially the USA. Investors know this. In the two days following ‘liberation day’, stock markets around the world fell sharply and especially in the USA. The Dow Jones was down 9.3% and the tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite was down 11.4%.

Effects on the rest of the world

The effects of the tariffs on other countries will obviously depend on the tariff rate. The countries facing the largest tariffs are some of the poorest countries which supply the USA with simple labour-intensive products, such as garments, footwear, food and minerals. This could have a severe effect on their economies and cause rapidly increasing poverty and hardship.

If countries retaliate, then this will raise prices of their imports from the USA and hurt their own domestic consumers. This will fuel inflation and push the more seriously affected countries into recession.

If the USA retaliates to this retaliation, thereby further escalating the trade war, the effects could be very serious. The world could be pushed into a deep recession. The benefits of trade, where all countries can gain by specialising in producing goods with low opportunity costs and importing those with high domestic opportunity costs, would be seriously eroded.

What President Trump hopes is that the tariffs will put him in a strong negotiating position. He could offer to reduce or scrap the tariffs on a particular country in exchange for something he wants. An example would be the offer to scrap or reduce the baseline 10% tariff on UK exports and/or the 25% tariff on UK exports of cars, steel and aluminium. This could be in exchange for the UK allowing the importation of US chlorinated chicken or abolishing the digital services tax. This was introduced in 2020 and is a 2% levy on tech firms, including big US firms such as Amazon, Alphabet (Google), Meta and X.

It will be fascinating but worrying to see how the politics of the trade war play out.

Videos

Articles

White House publications

Questions

  1. What is the law of comparative advantage? Does this imply that free trade is always the best alternative for countries?
  2. From a US perspective, what are the arguments for and against the tariffs announced by President Trump on 2 April 2025?
  3. What response to the tariffs is in the UK’s best interests and why?
  4. Should the UK align with the EU in responding to the tariffs?
  5. What is meant by a negative sum game? Explain whether a trade war is a negative sum game. Can a specific ‘player’ gain in a negative sum game?
  6. What happened to stock markets directly following President Trump’s announcement and what has happened since? Explain you findings.