The UK’s poor record on productivity since the 2008 financial crisis is well documented, not least in this blog series. Output per worker has flatlined over the 17 years since the crisis. As was noted in the blog, The UK’s poor productivity record, low UK productivity is caused by a number of factors, including the lack of investment in training, the poor motivation of many workers and the feeling of being overworked, short-termism among politicians and management, and generally poor management practices.
One of the most significant issues identified by analysts and commentators is the lack of investment in physical capital, both by private companies and by the government in infrastructure. Gross fixed capital formation (a measure of investment) has been much lower in the UK compared to international competitors.
From Figure 1 it can be observed that, since the mid-1990s, the UK has consistently had lower investment as a percentage of GDP compared to other significant developed market economies. The cumulative effect of this gap has contributed to lower productivity and lower economic growth.
Interestingly, since the financial crisis, UK firms have had high profitability and associated high cash holdings. This suggests that firms have had a lot of financial resources to reinvest. However, data from the OECD suggests that reinvestment rates in the UK, typically 40–50% of profit, are much lower than in many other OECD countries. In the USA the rate is 50%, in Germany 60–70% and in Japan 70%+. There is much greater emphasis in the UK on returning funds to shareholders through dividends and share buybacks. However, the reinvestment of much of this cash within firms could have gone some way to addressing the UK’s investment gap – but, it hasn’t been done.
Analysis by the OECD suggest that, while the cost of financing investment has declined since the financial crisis, the gap between this and the hurdle rate used to appraise investments has widened. Between 2010 and 2021 the difference nearly doubled to 4%. This increase in the hurdle rate can be related to increases in the expected rate of return by UK companies and their investors.
In this blog we will analyse (re)investment decisions by firms, discussing how increases in the expected rate of return in the UK raise the hurdle rate used to appraise investments. This reduces the incentive to engage in long-term investment. We also discuss policy prescriptions to improve reinvestment rates in the UK.
Investment and the expected rate of return
Investment involves the commitment of funds today to reap rewards in the future. This includes spending on tangible and intangible resources to improve the productive capacity of firms. Firms must decide whether the commitment of funds is worthwhile. To do so, economic theory suggests that they need to consider the compensation required by their provider of finance – namely, investors.
What rewards do investors require to keep their funds invested with the firm?
When conducting investment appraisal, firms compare the estimated rate of return from an investment with the minimum return investors are prepared to receive (termed the ‘expected return’). Normally this is expressed as a percentage of the initial outlay. Firms have to offer returns to investors which are equal to or greater than the minimum expected return – the return that is sufficient to keep funds invested in the firm. Therefore, returns above this minimum expected level are termed ‘excess returns’.
When firms conduct appraisals of potential investments, be it in tangible or intangible capital, they need to take into account the fact that net benefits, expressed as cash flows, will accrue over the life of the investment, not all at once. To do this, they use discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis. This converts future values of the net benefits to their present value. This is expressed as follows:
Where:
NPV = Net present value (discounted net cash flows);
K = Capital outlay (incurred at the present time);
C = Net cash flows (occur through the life of the investment project);
r = Minimum expected rate of return.
In this scenario, the investment involves an initial cash outlay (K), followed in subsequent periods by net cash inflows each period over the life of the investment, which in this case is 25 years. All the cash flows are discounted back to the present so that they can be compared at the same point in time.
The discount rate (r) used in appraisals to determine the present value of net cash flows is determined by the minimum expected return demanded by investors. If at that hurdle rate there are positive net cash flows (+NPV), the investment is worthwhile and should be pursued. Conversely, if at that hurdle rate there are negative net cash flows (–NPV), the investment is not worthwhile and should not be pursued.
According to economic theory, if a firm cannot find any investment projects that produce a positive NPV, and therefore satisfy the minimum expected return, it should return funds to shareholders through dividends or share buybacks so that they can invest the finance more productively.
Firm-level data from the OECD suggest that UK firms have had higher profits and this has been associated with increased cash holdings. But, due to the higher hurdle rate, less investment is perceived to be viable and thus firms distribute more of their profits through dividends and share buybacks. These payouts represent lost potential investment and cumulatively produce a significant dent in the potential output of the UK economy.
Why are expected rates of return higher in the UK?
This higher minimum rate of expected return can be explained by factors influencing its determinants; opportunity cost and risk/uncertainty.
Higher opportunity cost. Opportunity cost relates to the rate of return offered by alternatives. Investors and, by implication firms, will have to consider the rate of return offered by alternative investment opportunities. Typically, investors have focused on interest rates as a measure of opportunity cost. Higher interest rates raise the opportunity cost of an investment and increase the minimum expected rate of return (and vice versa with lower interest rates).
However, it is not interest rates that have increased the opportunity cost, and hence the minimum expected rate of return associated with investment, in the UK since the financial crisis. For most of the period since 2008, interest rates have been extremely low, sitting at below 1%, only rising significantly during the post-pandemic inflationary surge in 2022. This indicates that this source of opportunity cost for the commitment of business investment has been extremely low.
However, there may be alternative sources of opportunity cost which are pushing up the expected rate of return. UK investors are not restricted to investing in the UK and can move their funds between international markets determined by the rate of return offered. The following table illustrates the returns (in terms of percentage stock market index gain) from investing in a sample of UK, US, French and German stock markets between August 2010 and August 2025.
When expressed in sterling, returns offered by UK-listed companies are lower across the whole period and in most of the five-yearly sub-periods. Indeed, the annual equivalent rate of return (AER) for the FTSE 100 index across the whole period is less than half that of the S&P 500. The index offered a paltry annual return of 2.57% between 2015 and 2020, while the US index offered a return of 16.48%. Both the French and German indices offered higher rates of return, in the latter part of the period particularly. This represents a higher opportunity cost for UK investors and may have increased their expectations about the return they require for UK investments.
Greater perceived risk/uncertainty. Expected rates of return are also determined by perceptions of risk and uncertainty – the compensation investors need to bear the perceived risk associated with an investment. Investors are risk averse. They demand higher expected return as compensation for higher perceived risk. Higher levels of risk aversion increase the expected rate of return and related investment hurdle rates.
There has been much discussion of increased uncertainty and risk aversion among global investors and firms (see the blogs Rising global uncertainty and its effects, World Uncertainty Index, The Chancellor’s fiscal dilemma and Investment set to fall as business is baffled by Trump). The COVID-19 pandemic, inflation shocks, the war in Ukraine, events across the Middle East and the trade policies adopted by the USA in 2025 have combined to produce a very uncertain business environment.
While these have been relatively recent factors influencing world-wide business uncertainty, perceptions of risk and uncertainty concerning the UK economy seem to be longer established. To measure policy-related economic uncertainty in the UK, Baker, Bloom and Davis at www.PolicyUncertainty.com construct an index based on the content analysis of newspaper articles mentioning terms reflecting policy uncertainty.
Figure 2 illustrates the monthly index from 1998 to July 2025. The series is normalised to standard deviation 1 prior to 2011 and then summed across papers, by month. Then, the series is normalised to mean 100 prior to 2011.
Some of the notable spikes in uncertainty in the UK since 2008 have been labelled. Beginning with the global financial crisis, investors and firms became much more uncertain. This was exacerbated by a series of economic shocks that hit the economy, one of which, the narrow vote to leave the European Union in 2016, was specific to the UK. This led to political turmoil and protracted negotiations over the terms of the trade deal after the UK left. This uncertainty has been exacerbated recently by the series of global shocks highlighted above and also the budget uncertainty of Liz Truss’s short-lived premiership and now the growing pressure to reduce government borrowing.
While spikes in uncertainty occurred before the financial crises, the average level of uncertainty, as measured by the index, has been much higher since the crisis. From 1998 to 2008, the average value was 89. Since 2008, the average value has been 163. Since the Brexit vote, the average value has been 185. This indicates a much higher perception of risk and uncertainty over the past 15 year and this translates into higher minimum expected return as compensation. Consequently, this makes many long-term investment projects less viable because of higher hurdle rates. This produces less productive investment in capital, contributing significantly to lower productivity.
Policy proposals
There has been much debate in the UK about promoting greater long-term investment. Reforms have been proposed to improve public participation in long-term investment through the stock market. To boost investment, this would require the investing public to be prepared to accept lower expected returns for a given level of risk or accept higher risk for a given level of returns.
Evidence suggests that the appetite for this may be very low. UK savers tend to favour less risky and more liquid cash deposits. It may be difficult to encourage them to accept higher levels of risk. In any case, even if they did, many may invest outside the UK where the risk-return trade-off is more favourable.
Over the past 10 years, policy uncertainty has played a significant role in deterring investment. So, if there is greater continuity, this may then promote higher levels of investment.
The Labour government has proposed policies which aim to share or reduce the risk/uncertainty around long-term investment for UK businesses. For instance, a National Wealth Fund (NWF) has been established to finance strategic investment in areas such as clean energy, gigafactories and carbon capture. Unfortunately, the Fund is financed by borrowing through financial markets and the amount expected to be committed over the life of the current Parliament is only £29 billion, assuming that private capital matches public commitments in the ratio expected. It is questionable whether the Fund’s commitment will be sufficient to attract private capital.
Alternatively, Invest 2035 is a proposal to create a stable, long-term policy environment for business investment. It aims to establish an Industrial Strategy Council for policy continuity and to tackle issues like improving infrastructure, reducing energy costs and addressing skills gaps. Unfortunately, even if there is some attempt at domestic policy stability, the benefits may be more than offset by perceptions around global uncertainty, which may mean that UK investors’ minimum expected rates of return remain high and long-term investment low for the foreseeable future.
Articles
Data
Questions
- Use the marginal efficiency of capital framework to illustrate the ‘lost’ investment spending in the UK due to the investment hurdle rate being higher than the cost of capital.
- Explain the arbitrage process which produces the differences in valuations of UK securities and foreign ones due to differences in the expected rate of return.
- Sketch an indifference curve for a risk-averse investor, treating expected return and risk as two characteristics of a financial instrument.
- How does higher uncertainty affect the slope of an indifference curve for such an investor? How does this affect their investment hurdle rate?
- Analyse the extent to which the proposed polices can reduce the investment hurdle rate for UK companies and encourage greater levels of investment.
The Digital Markets Act (DMA) outlines a new regulatory approach that the European Commission (EC) is taking to address concerns over the lack of competition in digital platform markets. The DMA complements existing European Union competition law and officially came into force on 1st November 2022.
In the first stage of this new regulatory approach, the EC identified ten core platform services (CPS). Examples include search engines, online social networking services, video sharing services, cloud computing services, web browsers and operating systems. These services act as important gateways for large numbers of businesses and consumers to interact with one another. They also have some important economic characteristics, such as large economies of scale and very strong network effects.
The next stage of the regulatory process was to assess which of the large established businesses should be designated as ‘gatekeepers’ of these CPS. To be judged as a gatekeeper, a business had to meet three qualitative criteria. Using quantitative thresholds as a guide to see if these qualitative criteria had been met, the following six companies were designated as gatekeepers by the EC in September 2023: Alphabet (Google’s parent company), Amazon, Apple, ByteDance (owner of TikTok), Meta (owner of Facebook) and Microsoft. Individual companies can be gatekeeper for more than one CPS. For example, Apple was judged to be a gatekeeper for both web browsers (Safari) and operating systems (iOS and iPadOS).
Rules and compliance
Once a business has been designated as a gatekeeper for one or more CPS, the DMA imposes a set of rules on its future conduct. Some of these rules refer to conduct that the business must follow, while others refer to types of behaviour that are prohibited. The EC sometimes refer to these rules as a list of “do’s” and “don’ts”.
One of the rules refers to interoperability. This is the degree to which different (a) software, (b) devices and (c) other applications can work seamlessly together (i.e. share functionality/data) without requiring any actions by the user (i.e. how compatible they are with one another).
For example, consider the degree of interoperability between the operating system of a gatekeeper, such as Apple, and other hardware/software services. One of the requirements of the DMA is for the gatekeeper to provide the same degree of interoperability for the hardware/software services provided by rival businesses as they do for similar hardware/software services they supply. This is sometimes referred to as the interoperability obligation.
Once a business is designated as a gatekeeper, it has 6 months to submit a compliance report to the EC that demonstrates how it is meeting the rules set out in the DMA. This should include descriptions of any changes the company has had to make to its conduct to meet the new requirements. Further compliance reports must then be submitted on an annual basis.
If, after assessing a compliance report, the EC suspects that a gatekeeper is still acting in ways that do not comply with the DMA, then it can launch either a non-compliance or specification procedure.
The case of Apple
Apple submitted its first compliance report on 7 March 2024. It was far less extensive than those completed by other designated gatekeepers and adopted a very different tone: it directly challenged the EC’s view that the DMA rules would have a positive impact on consumer welfare.
In September 2024, the EC launched its first two specification proceedings that focused on Apple’s compliance with the interoperability obligation.
The first of these proceedings opened a formal discussion with Apple over the interoperability between the iPhone operating system (iOS) and connected devices such as smartwatches and headphones. The proceeding identified nine features that gave the iOS greater functional compatibility with connected devices produced by Apple than with those made by other businesses. For example:
- Only users of connected devices produced by Apple can (a) receive iOS notifications that contain images or other attachments and (b) select the iOS notifications they want to appear on the device.
- Only users of Apple’s wireless headphones have intelligent audio switching functionality that allows them to switch automatically to the device playing the most relevant audio.
- The Airdrop function, which enables users to share files wirelessly between devices, only works if they are both produced by Apple.
- Only connected devices made by Apple have the functionality for high-bandwidth data transfer from an iPhone without having to rely on network or cellular connection. This is useful for gaming and AI services.
The second specification proceeding focused on the process developed by Apple to deal with requests from other businesses that wanted to develop hardware or software services that are compatible with the iOS.
On 18th December 2024, the EC informed Apple of its preliminary specification decisions and opened a consultation exercise with other interested parties about the suitability of its proposals. Once this process was completed, the EC informed Apple of its final specification decisions on 19 March 2025.
The EC’s decisions
The first decision included a set of measures that Apple must take to improve the interoperability of connected devices produced by other businesses with the iOS. The EC stated that:
The interoperability solutions for third parties will have to be equally effective to those available to Apple and must not require more cumbersome system setting or additional user friction.
The second decision outlined measures that Apple had to take to improve the process of dealing with requests for greater compatibility with the iOS. For example, it should provide outside businesses with more (a) access to technical documentation, (b) predictable timelines for the reviews and (c) timely updates.
Apple argued that being forced to introduce these measures will (a) create significant additional costs, (b) limit its ability to develop products that work seamlessly with one another and (c) lead to its having to share sensitive customer information with its rivals.
On 30th May 2025, Apple filed an appeal against the EC’s specification decisions to the General Court of the European Union. It will be interesting to see what judgment is made on this case by the General Court and the implications this has for the enforcement of the DMA.
Video
Articles
- The EU Digital Markets Act – The Holy Grail of Big Tech Regulation?
Morrison & Foerster, Andreas Grünwald, Christoph Nüßing and Theresa Oehm (19/7/22)
- Commission starts first proceedings to specify Apple’s interoperability obligations under the Digital Markets Act
EC Press Release (19/9/24)
- Apple hits out at Meta’s numerous interoperability requests
Reuters, Foo Yun Chee (19/12/24)
- 1st Anniversary of the Digital Markets Act (DMA): Lessons learned and road ahead
Hausfeld Competition Bulletin, Ann-Christin Richter and René Galle (28/3/25)
- EU accuses Google and Apple of breaking its rules, risking Trump clash
The Guardian, Rob Davies and Dan Milmo (19/3/25)
- Brussels takes action against Google and Apple despite Trump threat
Financial Times, Barbara Moens (19/3/25)
- Brussels Takes Action Against Google And Apple Despite Trump Threat
GNC (19/3/25)
- Commission provides guidance under Digital Markets Act to facilitate development of innovative products on Apple’s platforms
EC Press Release (19/3/25)
- European Commission Fines Both Apple, Meta For DMA Breaches
Silicon UK, Tom Jowitt (23/4/25)
- Apple Appeals European Commission Order on Interoperability With Competitors’ Products
PYMNTS (2/6/25)
- https://dig.watch/updates/apple-sues-european-commission-over-dma-interoperability-ruling
The Digital Watch (6/6/25)
- Meta, Apple Launch Legal Challenges to EU DMA Rulings
PYMNTS (3/6/25)
Questions
- Identifying core platform services is similar to defining relevant markets in standard competition policy but takes a more legalistic approach. Discuss some of the problems of defining a relevant market for a digital platform.
- Outline the three qualitative criteria and the quantitative thresholds that are used by the EC to designate a digital platform as a gatekeeper of a core platform service.
- Find an example of a digital platform that met the quantitative thresholds but did not meet the qualitative criteria and so was not designated as a gatekeeper.
- Find an example of a digital platform that did not meet the quantitative thresholds but did meet the qualitative criteria and so was designated as a gatekeeper.
- Interoperability is a type of conduct that is sometimes referred to as self-preferencing: i.e. behaviour by a digital platform that gives its own products/services preferential treatment over those provided by other firms that use the same platform. What other types of conduct are possible examples of self-preferencing?
- What is the difference between a non-compliance procedure and a specification procedure? Find some recent examples of non-compliance procedures that have been undertaken by the EC to enforce the DMA.
- What are the potential advantages and disadvantages for consumer welfare of the specification decisions made by the EC?
The enforcement of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) by the European Commission (EC) tends to focus on exclusionary abuses by firms with significant market power. Exclusionary abuses are actions that limit or prevent competition, as opposed to exploitative abuses that directly harm the consumer, such as charging high prices.
The treatment of exclusionary abuses has evolved over time. Initially, the approach towards enforcement was form-based (i.e. the nature of the abuses), but this changed when the EC produced new guidelines in 2009 which signalled a move to a more effects-based approach.
The EC plans to produce a new set of guidelines in 2025 and published a draft version in August 2024 as part of the consultation process with businesses and other stakeholders. These draft guidelines indicate a partial shift back to a form-based approach. Any moves in this direction made by the EC are likely to influence both national-level competition authorities and the courts.
The form-based approach to policy enforcement
A form-based approach to the enforcement of Article 102 assumes that certain types of business conduct are inherently anti-competitive except in very exceptional circumstances. In other words, there is a presumption that the characteristics or form of the behaviour mean that it must have a negative impact on competition and consumer welfare in virtually all real-world cases.
With a form-based approach to enforcement there is no requirement for the authorities to carry out detailed case-specific analyses of business conduct as part of an investigation. This had been the approach adopted by the EC before 2009. It is possible, however, that the same form of business conduct could have anti-competitive effects in some market situations but pro-competitive effects in others. The EC was criticised for not making enough allowance for the chances of this happening.
The effects-based approach to policy enforcement
In response to this criticism the European Union published a new set of guidelines in 2009 which signalled that the enforcement of Article 102 was moving to a more effects-based approach. The effects-based approach uses economic analysis to assess the impact of a dominant firm’s conduct on a case-by-case basis. Context-specific evidence is examined by the competition authorities to see if the behaviour effectively excludes rival businesses from the market that are just as efficient as the dominant firm.
The use of economics in this effects-based approach gradually increased over time. Initially, the analysis was predominately based on theoretical arguments, but increasingly cases included sophisticated analysis of market-specific evidence using econometric models and market simulations. This, however, led to the following issues.
- The increasing use of complex economic analysis makes it more difficult to meet the evidentiary standards of the courts and prove a case. As the effects-based approach places a greater burden on the competition authorities to meet these evidentiary standards (i.e. provide evidence of case-specific anti-competitive effects of the conduct) it disproportionality affects their ability to prove cases.
- Businesses with significant market power are more likely to make large profits and so have access to greater resources than government-funded competition authorities. Therefore, they will be able to employ more economic consultants with the relevant technical expertise to (a) carry out the analysis and (b) communicate the findings effectively in a court case
This led to concerns that the competition authorities were losing cases where there was strong evidence of exclusionary conduct by the dominant firm.
In response to these concerns, the EC announced in 2023 that it would be revising its 2009 guidelines to improve enforcement of Article 102.
The draft guidelines
The draft guidelines published in August 2024 split different types of potentially anti-competitive conduct by dominant firms into three categories.
The first category includes types of conduct where there is a strong presumption of anti-competitive effects: i.e. the sole purpose of the business behaviour is to restrict competition. These types of conduct are referred to as a ‘naked restriction’ and the documentation provides the following three examples:
- making payments to customers (typically other businesses) on the condition that they cancel or postpone the launch of a product that uses inputs produced by the dominant firm’s rivals;
- threatening to withdraw discounts offered to suppliers unless they agree to supply the dominant firm’s product in place of a similar product produced by a rival firm;
- actively dismantling infrastructure used by a rival firm.
The guidelines indicate a form-based approach will be taken when investigating these types of conduct as the EC will not have to provide any case-specific evidence of anti-competitive effects. A business under investigation can challenge the presumption of anti-competitive effects with appropriate evidence, but the guidelines make it clear that this would only succeed in exceptional circumstances. In other words, it is highly unlikely that the conduct could ever be justified on pro-competitive grounds.
The second category of anti-competitive conduct includes actions that are also presumed to have a negative impact on competition. The presumption, however, is not as strong as with naked restrictions, so firms have a better chance of proving pro-competitive effects.
There is a form-based element towards this second category of conduct as the EC will not have to provide any initial case specific evidence of anti-competitive effects. But, if a business under investigation does submit evidence to challenge the presumption of anti-competitive effects, the EC must demonstrate that (a) it has fully assessed this evidence and (b) the evidence is insufficient to prove that the conduct does have pro-competitive effects. As part of this process, the EC can provide its own case-specific evidence. Therefore, for this second category of conduct, the initial burden of proof effectively shifts from the competition authority to the firm under investigation, making it more of a form-based approach. However, if the firm uses relevant evidence to appeal its case, the burden shifts back to the competition authority and becomes a more effects-based approach.
The third category includes types of conduct where the EC must initially provide case-specific evidence that it reduces competition. For this category of conduct, the approach towards enforcement remains the same as in the 2009 guidelines and an effects-based approach is adopted.
It will be interesting to see the extent to which the final guidelines (a) follow the approach outlined in the draft guidance and (b) influence the enforcement of Article 102 by the EC and other national-level competition authorities.
Articles
Questions
- What exactly does it mean if a firm has ‘significant’ market power?
- What methods do competitions authorities use to assess whether a firm has a dominant market position?
- Explain the difference between conduct by dominant firm that is (a) an exploitative abuse of its market power and (b) an exclusionary abuse of its market power.
- Explain why a form-based approach towards the enforcement of competition policy is more likely to lead to Type 1 errors (false positives), whereas an effects-based approach is more likely to lead to Type 2 errors (false negatives).
- Provide some examples of exclusionary abuses that are not considered to be naked restrictions.
- Competition policy guidance documents commonly refer to ‘competition on the merits’. What is the precise meaning of this term?
In a blog from March 2023 (reproduced below), we saw how there has been growing pressure around the world for employers to move to a four-day week. Increasing numbers of companies have adopted the model of 80% of the hours for 100% of the pay.
As we see below, the model adopted has varied across companies, depending on what was seen as most suitable for them. Some give everyone Friday off; others let staff choose which day to have off; others let staff work 80% of the hours on a flexible basis. Firms adopting the model have generally found that productivity and revenue have increased, as has employee well-being. To date, over 200 employers in the UK, employing more than 5000 people, have adopted a permanent four-day week.
This concept of 100-80-100, namely 100% of pay for 80% of hours, but 100% of output, has been trialled in several countries. In Germany, after trials over 2024, 73% of the companies involved plan to continue with the new model, with the remaining 27% either making minor tweaks or yet to decide. Generally hourly productivity rose, and in many cases total output also rose. As the fourth article below states:
The primary causal factor for this intriguing revelation was simple – efficiency became the priority. Reports from the trial showed that the frequency and duration of meetings was reduced by 60%, which makes sense to anyone who works in an office – many meetings could have been a simple email. 25% of companies tested introduced new digitised ways of managing their workflow to optimise efficiency.
Original post
In two previous posts, one at the end of 2019 and one in July 2021, we looked at moves around the world to introduce a four-day working week, with no increase in hours on the days worked and no reduction in weekly pay. Firms would gain if increased worker energy and motivation resulted in a gain in output. They would also gain if fewer hours resulted in lower costs.
Workers would be likely to gain from less stress and burnout and a better work–life balance. What is more, firms’ and workers’ carbon footprint could be reduced as less time was spent at work and in commuting.
If the same output could be produced with fewer hours worked, this would represent an increase in labour productivity measured in output per hour.
The UK’s poor productivity record since 2008
Since the financial crisis of 2007–8, the growth in UK productivity has been sluggish. This is illustrated in the chart, which looks at the production industries: i.e. it excludes services, where average productivity growth tends to be slower. The chart has been updated to 2024 Q2 – the latest data available. (Click here for a PowerPoint of the chart.)
Prior to the crisis, from 1998 to 2006, UK productivity in the production industries grew at an annual rate of 6.9%. From 2007 to the start of the pandemic in 2020, the average annual productivity growth rate in these industries was a mere 0.2%.
It grew rapidly for a short time at the start of the pandemic, but this was because many businesses temporarily shut down or went to part-time working, and many of these temporary job cuts were low-wage/low productivity jobs. If you take services, the effect was even stronger as sectors such as hospitality, leisure and retail were particularly affected and labour productivity in these sectors tends to be low. As industries opened up and took on more workers, so average productivity rapidly fell back. Since then productivity has flatlined.
If you project the average productivity growth rate from 1998 to 2007 of 6.9% forwards (see grey dashed line), then by 2024 Q3, output per hour in the production industries would have been 3.26 times higher than it actually was: a gap of 226%. This is a huge productivity gap.
Productivity in the UK is lower than in many other competitor countries. According to the ONS, output per hour in the UK in 2021 was $59.14 in the UK. This compares with an average of $64.93 for the G7 countries, $66.75 in France, £68.30 in Germany, $74.84 in the USA, $84.46 in Norway and $128.21 in Ireland. It is lower, however, in Italy ($54.59), Canada ($53.97) and Japan ($47.28).
As we saw in the blog, The UK’s poor productivity record, low UK productivity is caused by a number of factors, not least the lack of investment in physical capital, both by private companies and in public infrastructure, and the lack of investment in training. Other factors include short-termist attitudes of both politicians and management and generally poor management practices. But one cause is the poor motivation of many workers and the feeling of being overworked. One solution to this is the four-day week.
Latest evidence on the four-day week
Results have just been released of a pilot programme involving 61 companies and non-profit organisations in the UK and nearly 3000 workers. They took part in a six-month trial of a four-day week, with no increase in hours on the days worked and no loss in pay for employees – in other words, 100% of the pay for 80% of the time. The trial was a success, with 91% of organisations planning to continue with the four-day week and a further 4% leaning towards doing so.
The model adopted varied across companies, depending on what was seen as most suitable for them. Some gave everyone Friday off; others let staff choose which day to have off; others let staff work 80% of the hours on a flexible basis.
There was little difference in outcomes across different types of businesses. Compared with the same period last year, revenues rose by an average of 35%; sick days fell by two-thirds and 57% fewer staff left the firms. There were significant increases in well-being, with 39% saying they were less stressed, 40% that they were sleeping better; 75% that they had reduced levels of burnout and 54% that it was easier to achieve a good work–life balance. There were also positive environmental outcomes, with average commuting time falling by half an hour per week.
There is growing pressure around the world for employers to move to a four-day week and this pilot provides evidence that it significantly increases productivity and well-being.
Additional articles
Original set of articles
- Results from world’s largest 4 day week trial bring good news for the future of work
4 Day Week Global, Charlotte Lockhart (21/2/23)
- Four-day week: ‘major breakthrough’ as most UK firms in trial extend changes
The Guardian, Heather Stewart (21/2/23)
- Senedd committee backs four-day working week trial in Wales
The Guardian, Steven Morris (24/1/23)
- ‘Major breakthrough’: Most firms say they’ll stick with a four-day working week after successful trial
Sky News, Alice Porter (21/2/23)
- Major four-day week trial shows most companies see massive staff mental health benefits and profit increase
Independent, Anna Wise (21/2/23)
- Four-day week: Which countries have embraced it and how’s it going so far?
euronews, Josephine Joly and Luke Hurst (23/2/23)
- Firms stick to four-day week after trial ends
BBC News, Simon Read, Lucy Hooker & Emma Simpson (21/2/23)
- The climate benefits of a four-day workweek
BBC Future Planet, Giada Ferraglioni and Sergio Colombo (21/2/23)
- Four-day working week: why UK businesses and workers will continue with new work pattern, plus pros and cons
National World, Rochelle Barrand (22/2/23)
- Most companies in UK four-day week trial to continue with flexible working
Financial Times, Daniel Thomas and Emma Jacobs (21/2/23)
- The pros and cons of a four-day working week
Financial Times, Editorial (13/2/23)
- Explaining the UK’s productivity slowdown: Views of leading economists
VoxEU, Ethan Ilzetzki (11/3/20)
- Why the promised fourth industrial revolution hasn’t happened yet
The Conversation, Richard Markoff and Ralf Seifert (27/2/23)
Questions
- What are the possible advantages of moving to a four-day week?
- What are the possible disadvantages of moving to a four-day week?
- What types of companies or organisations are (a) most likely, (b) least likely to gain from a four-day week?
- Why has the UK’s productivity growth been lower than that of many of its major competitors?
- Why, if you use a log scale on the vertical axis, is a constant rate of growth shown as a straight line? What would a constant rate of growth line look like if you used a normal arithmetical scale for the vertical axis?
- Find out what is meant by the ‘fourth industrial revolution’. Does this hold out the hope of significant productivity improvements in the near future? (See, for example, last link above.)
In September 2023, UK mobile phone network operators Vodafone and Three (owned by CK Hutchinson) announced their intention to merge. At the time, in terms of total revenue from the supply of mobile phone services to consumers, Vodafone and Three had market shares of 23% and 12%, respectively.
In addition to Vodaphone and Three, there are two other major network operators – the BT Group (BT & EE) and Virgin-media 02, with market shares of around 31% and 23%, respectively, with other operators having a combined market share of 12%. As we shall see below, these other operators use one of the four major networks. Therefore, the merged entity of Vodafone-Three would become the market leader with a share of around 35% and there would only be three major network operators competing in the UK.
Not surprisingly, the UK competition agency, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), decided to conduct a detailed investigation into whether the merger would harm competition. However, in early December 2024 the CMA announced its decision to allow the merger to go ahead, subject to several important commitments by the merging parties.
CMA’s phase 1 findings
The CMAs phase 1 investigation raised several concerns with the merger (see fifth CMA link below).
First, it was worried that retail and business customers would have to pay higher prices for mobile services after the merger.
Second, in addition to the four mobile network operators, the UK market is served by a number of mobile ‘virtual’ network operators (MVNOs), for example Sky Mobile and Lyca Mobile. As we saw above, these suppliers account for around 12% of the consumer retail market. The MVNOs do not own their own networks and instead agree wholesale terms with one of the network operators to access their network and supply their own retail mobile services. The CMA was concerned that since the merger would reduce the number of networks competing to host these MVNOs from four to three, it would result in MVNOs paying higher wholesale access prices.
Vodafone and Three did not offer any remedies to the CMA to address these competition concerns. Consequently, the CMA referred the case to phase 2 for a more thorough investigation.
CMA’s phase 2 findings
The CMA’s analysis in phase 2 confirmed its earlier concerns (see linked report below). It was still worried that because the merged entity would become the largest network operator, retail customers would face higher prices or get a poorer service – for example, a reduced data allowance in their contract. In addition, the CMA remained concerned that the MVNOs would be negatively impacted and that this would lessen their ability to offer the best deals to retail customers.
However, during the phase 2 investigation, the merging parties put forward various efficiency justifications for the merger. They argued that the merger would provide them with much needed scale and investment capacity to improve their network and roll-out 5G technology. The CMA recognised these claims but questioned the merging parties’ incentives to go through with the investment once the merger was approved. Furthermore, it was concerned that if they did invest, this would be funded by raising the prices charged to consumers.
As a result, the CMA only agreed to allow the merger once Vodafone and Three accepted remedies that would address these concerns.
The remedies necessary for the merger to proceed
First, the merged entity must cap a range of tariffs and data plans it offers in the retail market for three years.
Second, again for three years, it must commit to maintain the wholesale contract terms it offers to MNVOs.
Finally, over the next eight years, the merged entity must deliver the network upgrade plans that it claimed the merger would allow. The CMA believes that in the long run this network development would significantly boost competition between the three remaining mobile network operators.
The acceptance of remedies of this nature was unusual for the CMA. Typically, like other competition agencies, the CMA has favoured divestment remedies in which the merging parties are required to sell-off some of the assets or capacity acquired. In contrast, the remedies in the Vodafone-Three deal impact on the merging parties’ behaviour.
One clear disadvantage of such remedies is that they require the merged firm’s actions to be monitored, in this case for eight years, to make sure it adheres to the agreed behaviour. One reason why the CMA may have been willing to accept this is that the communications industries regulator, OFCOM, will be able to assist with this monitoring.
It was also surprising that the CMA was willing to allow the number of network operators to decrease to three. Previously, there had been a perception that it was important to maintain four networks. This was certainly the view in 2016 when Three’s attempted merger with O2 was prohibited. This decision was made by the European Commission (EC). However, the CMA raised serious concerns to the EC and when the merging parties offered behavioural remedies argued that these were:
materially deficient as they will not lead to the creation of a fourth Mobile Network Operator (MNO) capable of competing effectively and in the long-term with the remaining three MNOs such that it would stem the loss of competition caused by the merger.
Why has the authorities’ attitude towards the merger changed?
So why has there been a change of stance in this latest attempted merger in the mobile phone sector?
One explanation is that the market has fundamentally changed over time. The margins for network operators have declined, network usage has grown and there has been a lack of investment in expensive 5G technology. This would certainly fit with the CMA’s desire to use the remedies to facilitate network investment.
A second possible explanation is that the CMA has recently faced criticism from UK Prime Minister, Keir Starmer (see third Guardian article below). In a speech at the International Investment Summit in London in October 2024, he said that
We will rip out the bureaucracy that blocks investment and we will make sure that every regulator in this country take growth as seriously as this room does.
In response to this, the CMA has indicated that in 2025 it will review its approach to mergers, ensuring that only truly problematic mergers don’t proceed, and reconsider when behavioural remedies may be appropriate (see final CMA link below).
The CMA’s decision in the Vodafone-Three case certainly demonstrates that it is now willing to accept behavioural remedies when there is a regulator in place to support the subsequent monitoring.
It will be interesting to see how this merger affects competition in the mobile phone market and, more generally, whether the CMA starts to implement behavioural remedies more widely, especially in markets where it would have to do all the subsequent monitoring.
Articles
CMA reports, etc
Questions
- Why is it beneficial to have MVNOs in the market for mobile phone services?
- Why is it important that MVNOs have a choice of mobile networks to supply their retail mobile services?
- How do you think the other mobile network operators will react to the Vodafone-Three merger?
- Compare the relative benefits of blocking a merger with requiring merging companies to adopt certain remedies.
