The latest inflation numbers are a joy for headline writers! With the falling price of toys, we can perhaps speak of ‘inflation toying with us’, while the fall in the cost of gas might allow us to say that ‘gas takes the fuel out of inflation’. More generally, the latest inflation figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show the annual rate of CPI inflation falling from 3.5% in January to 3% in February. In other words, the weighted price of a representative basket of consumer goods and services rose by 3% in the 12 months to February as compared with 3.5% over the 12 months to January.
In compiling the Consumer Price Index (CPI), the ONS collects something in the range of 180,000 price quotations over 650 representative goods and services. These goods and services fall into 12 broad product groups. The items to be selected for these groups are reviewed once a year so that, in the face of changing tastes and preferences and changes in the goods and services available to us, the ‘CPI shopping basket’ remains representative. A price index and a rate of price inflation are available for each of these 12 broad groups as well as for goods and services within these groups. So, for instance, we can obtain a price for ‘transport’, then, within this group, we can obtain a price for the purchase of ‘vehicles’ and, finally, a price for ‘new cars’ and for ‘second-hand cars’. This level of detail also means that individuals can calculate their own personal inflation rates using the ONS personal inflation calculator.
So what of the latest fall in the rate of CPI inflation? Well, the ONS reports ‘widespread’ downward pressures. This phrase needs some careful unpicking. Downward pressure is reported from ‘recreation and culture’ because its average price was static in February, but rose a year earlier. Within this group, the average price of games, toys and hobbies fell this year, but increased a year ago and, so, our possible headline ‘inflation is toying with us’. Similarly, downward pressure is reported from ‘housing and household services’ where a fall in its average price this year follows static prices a year ago. A major driver of this change was a reduction in average gas bills and so our other possible headline, ‘gas takes the fuel out of inflation’.
The latest price numbers from the ONS show that some product groups are experiencing long-term price deflation. For instance, while the average price of ‘clothing and footwear’ actually rose in February, when we analyse annual rates of price inflation for this product group, one has to go back to March 1992 to find the last time it was positive! Indeed, within the slightly narrower product group of ‘clothing’, the average annual rate of price deflation over the past ten years has been 6.1%. A similar longer-term trend of price deflation can be found in the product group ‘audio-visual, photo and data processing’. Here there has been an average annual rate of price deflation of 9.9% over the past ten years. So, smile for the camera!
Articles
Rates set to remain at record low as inflation falls back sharply heraldscotland, Ian McConnell (23/3/10)
Inflation data boosts government before budget AFP (23/3/10)
UK inflation rate falls to 3% in February BBC News (23/3/10) )
Inflation slows more than expected Reuters UK, David Milliken and Christina Fincher (23/3/10)
UK inflation falls sharply to 3% Financial Times, Daniel Pimlott (23/3/10)
Inflation rate fell to 3 per cent in February Independent. James Moore (24/3/10)
Inflation falls back to 3% Guardian, Philip Inman (23/3/10)
How soon before we scrap the Bank’s inflation target? Telegraph, Edmund Conway (23/3/10)
Data
Latest on inflation Office for National Statistics (23/3/10)
Consumer Price Indices, Statistical Bulletin, March 2010 Office for National Statistics (23/3/10)
Consumer Price Indices, Time Series Data Office for National Statistics
For CPI (Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices) data for EU countries, see:
HICP European Central Bank
Questions
- Explain the difference between an increase in the level of prices and an increase in the rate of price inflation.
- The annual rate of price inflation for clothing in February was -3.9%. If the average price of clothing was cheaper, year-on-year, how could it have exerted ‘upward’ pressure on the overall rate of CPI inflation?
- What factors might help to explain why, over the past 10 years, the average annual rate of price inflation for audio-visual, photo and data processing equipment has been -9.9%?
- What factors might help to explain why, over the past 10 years, the average annual rate of price inflation for clothing and footwear has been -5.7%?
- What factors might help to explain why the annual rate of ‘new car’ price inflation was 5.4% in February 2010 compared with -0.2% in February 2009?
- What factors might help to explain why the annual rate of ‘second-hand’ car price inflation was 19.0% in February 2010 compared with -15.1% in February 2009? And, are you surprised at the difference in the rates of ‘new’ and ‘second-hand’ car price inflation?
It is often said of statistics that you can make of them whatever you want to. Well, this appears especially true of the latest labour market figures from the Office for National Statistics. Firstly, the good news: unemployment fell. But, secondly, the not so good news: the number of economically inactive individuals rose to an all-time high. So what are we supposed to make of the latest figures? And, are there any other little gems to be uncovered in the latest set of labour market numbers?
At its most simple, an economically active individual is somebody 16 or over who is either in employment or is unemployed but actively seeking work. In the three months to January 2010, the total number of economically active individuals in the UK stood at 31.309 million, of which 28.860 million were employed and 2.449 million were unemployed. The number unemployed in the previous three months had been at 2.482 million. When expressed as a percentage of those economically active, the unemployment rate has fallen from 7.9% in the previous three months to 7.8% in the three months to January.
The total number of economically inactive individuals of working age, i.e. those aged 16 to 59 (women) or 64 (men), stood at 8.157 million in the three months to January, which, as well being an historic high, was a rise from 8.009 million in the previous three months. This converts into an inactivity rate amongst those of working age of some 21.5%, the highest since the three months to October 2004. A key point though is that inactivity rates do tend to rise either during periods of rising unemployment and/or following prolonged periods of relatively high unemployment. For instance, following the early 1990s downturn the rate of inactivity peaked at 22.1% in the three months to January 1995. In comparison, following the boom of the late 1980s the rate, the inactivity rate began the 1990s at only 19.3% – a record low. A large contributing factor to the rise in inactivity in the three months to January has been the rise in the number of students not in the labour market to 2.13 million, an increase of some 98,000 over the three months. Again, parallels can be drawn with the early 1990s because this is the highest number of students not in the labour market since comparable figures began in 1993.
In part, it appears that inactivity levels reflect perceptions amongst individuals of the probability of finding employment. So, while unemployment has fallen by 33,000 over the latest three months we do have to keep in mind that inactivity has increased by 149,000. Therefore, this may be a case of a ‘jobless’ decrease in unemployment!
Some commentators, however, are more optimistic about the current trend in unemployment, pointing to the fact that unemployment levels have not hit the levels predicted, despite the economy contracting by 5% in 2009. They point to the flexible labour market. Of course, time will tell if this is truly a ‘benefit’ of a more flexible labour market. But, what is clear is that one manifestation of a changing structure to the UK labour market is the growth in part-time work. In the three months to January, 26.69% of those employed were employed part-time: this was another record high which seems to have been largely lost in the mass of statistics.
Articles
Unemployment falls as ‘economic inactive hits record’ Telegraph, Harry Wallop (17/3/10)
Unemployment plunge boost economy hopes thisismoney, Ed Monk (17/3/10)
UK unemployment records further fall BBC News (17/3/10) )
Gordon Brown given unexpected boost by fall in unemployment Guardian, Kathryn Hopkins and Julia Kollewe (17/3/10)
Not lagging, but not leading either BBC News blogs: Stephanomics, Stephanie Flanders (17/3/10)
Data
Latest on employment and unemployment Office for National Statistics (17/3/10)
Labour market statistics, March 2010 Office for National Statistics (17/3/10)
Labour Market Statistics page Office for National Statistics
For macroeconomic data for EU countries and other OECD countries, such as the USA, Canada, Japan, Australia and Korea, see:
AMECO online European Commission
Questions
- What factors do you think could affect labour market inactivity rates?
- How might inactivity rates affect an economy’s potential output?
- What factors do you think will have contributed to the growth in part-time employment in the UK?
- The UK economy came out of recession in the last quarter of 2009. Does this mean that unemployment will continue to fall from now on?
On February 14, the Sunday Times published a letter by 20 eminent economists calling on the next government to cut the public-sector deficit more rapidly than that planned in last December’s pre-Budget report.
In order to minimise this risk and support a sustainable recovery, the next government should set out a detailed plan to reduce the structural budget deficit more quickly than set out in the 2009 pre-Budget report.
The exact timing of measures should be sensitive to developments in the economy, particularly the fragility of the recovery. However, in order to be credible, the government’s goal should be to eliminate the structural current budget deficit over the course of a parliament, and there is a compelling case, all else being equal, for the first measures beginning to take effect in the 2010-11 fiscal year.
Then on 18 February the Financial Times published two letters, between them from more than 60 economists, backing Alistair Darling’s policy of delaying cuts until the recovery is firmly established. They openly disagreed with the 20 economists who wrote to the Sunday Times.
… while unemployment is still high, it would be dangerous to reduce the government’s contribution to aggregate demand beyond the cuts already planned for 2010-11 (which amount to 1 per cent of gross domestic product). Further immediate cuts – even supposing they are practicable – would not produce an offsetting increase in private sector aggregate demand, and could easily reduce it. History is littered with examples of premature withdrawal of the government stimulus, from the US in 1937 to Japan in 1997. With people’s livelihoods at stake, a responsible government should avoid reckless actions.
… A sharp shock now would not remove the need for a sustained medium-term programme of deficit reduction. But it would be positively dangerous. If next year the government spent less and saved more than it currently plans, this would not “make a sustainable recovery more likely”. The weight of evidence points in the opposite direction.
So why do such eminent economists have apparently such divergent views on tackling the public-sector deficit? Is there any common ground between them? What does the disagreement imply about the state of macroeconomics? Read the letters and articles and then try answering the questions.
Tories right on cuts, say economists Sunday Times, David Smith (14/2/10)
Letter: UK economy cries out for credible rescue plan Sunday Times, 20 economists (14/2/10)
Economists reject calls for budget cuts Financial Times, Jean Eaglesham and Daniel Pimlott (18/2/10)
Letter: First priority must be to restore robust growth Financial Times, Lord Skidelsky and others (18/2/10)
Letter: Sharp shock now would be dangerous Financial Times, Lord Layard and others (18/2/10)
Economists urge swift action to reduce budget deficit BBC News (14/2/10)
Economists back delay on government spending cuts BBC News (19/2/10)
Economists back delay on government spending cuts BBC News (19/2/10)
Men of letters III BBC News blogs: Stephanomics, Stephanie Flanders (19/2/10)
Daily View: When to cut spending? (including podcast) BBC News blogs, Clare Spencer (19/2/10)
Cautious economists and cutters battle it out in print Guardian (20/2/10)
The great economics rift reopens Guardian, Gavyn Davies (19/2/10)
Focus on growth. Don’t argue about cuts Times Online, Eamonn Butler (20/2/10)
Recession’s ruins hide plenty of spare capacity Sunday Times, David Smith (14/2/10)
Questions
- To what extent is the disagreement between the two sets of economists largely one of the timing of the cuts?
- Is the disagreement the result of (a) different analysis, (b) different objectives or (c) different interpretation of forecasts of the robustness of the recovery and how markets are likely to respond to alternative policies? Or is it a combination of two of them or all three? Explain your answer.
- How would new classical economists respond to the Keynesian argument that it is necessary to focus on aggregate demand if the economy is to experience a sustained recovery?
- How would Keynesian economists respond to the argument that rapid cuts will reassure markets and allow private-sector recovery to more than compensate for reduced public-sector activity?
- Why is the effect of the recession on the supply-side of the economy crucial in determining the sustainability of a demand-led recovery?
- Distinguish between the cyclical and structural deficits. How would the policies advocated by the two groups of economists impact on the structural deficit?
Over the past week, Greece has been hogging the headlines when it comes to debt crisis. However, there is concern that there are a number of other countries ‘where credit defaults swaps are unusually high, suggesting there is risk in terms of default’. Greece’s deficit stands at 12.7% (£259bn), which is over 4 times higher than EU rules allow and its debt levels are expected to reach 120% of GDP this year if help is not given. Furthermore, if Greece’s debt problems are not tackled, there is a worry that other countries with big deficits, such as Portugal and Spain will become vulnerable. Public spending in Greece had been rising for some time but the tax revenue hadn’t increased to match this. As government spending rose and tax revenues fell, the growing debt was inevitable.
What is just as concerning is the cost of servicing this debt. This is costing Greece about 11.6% of GDP and the Greek government has estimated that it will need to borrow €53bn this year to cover budget shortfalls. Strikes by public-sector workers have also affected the country, as figures show that the unemployment rate has increased to 10.6%.
However, there are now reports that an agreement has been reached at the EU summit to rescue Greece and help it tackle its debt problems. Herman Van Rompuy, the European Union’s President, said that an agreement had been reached. The news was immediately welcomed by jittery markets, with the euro regaining some of its losses. Initially, it was thought that British taxpayers would be a part of any bailout package, but Alistair Darling, said there was no plan to use UK taxpayers’ money to support Greece. When asked about the comparison of the UK with Greece, Alistair Darling commented that:
“I don’t think you can compare the UK with Greece. We have different policies. We have a very good track record and, most importantly, the maturity of UK debt is much longer.”
The EU summit was officially meant to cover medium-term European economic strategy, but it was dominated by the Greek crisis. Germany and France are likely to stand together and pledge to come to Athens’s aid by guaranteeing Greek solvency, but only time will tell whether this will happen or will work.
EU leaders reach deal to rescue Greece from debt crisis, President Barroso says Telegraph, Bruno Waterfield (11/2/10)
Mervyn King on Greece, Britain’s deficit and a hung Parliament Telegraph (10/2/10)
FTSE rises amid Greece rescue hopes The Press Association (11/2/10)
Greece’s unemployment rate hits 10% BBC News (11/2/10)
Debt crisis: Experts see more skeletons tumbling News Center (11/2/10)
EU deal ‘agreed’ on Greece debt woes BBC News (11/2/10)
Greek bailout deal reached at EU summit Guardian, Ian Traynor and Graeme Wearden (11/2/10)
Greek bailout would hurt Eurozone – Germany’s Issing Reuters (29/1/10)
Greece must meet deficit target to get aid Reuters (11/2/10)
Could bailout be on the cards for Greece BBC News (10/2/10)
Germans must start buying to save Europe’s stragglers Financial Times, Martin Wolf (10/2/10)
Thinking the unthinkable BBC News Blogs, Stephanomics, Stephanie Flanders (11/2/10)
Angela Merkel dashes Greek hopes of rescue bid Guardian, Ian Traynor (11/2/10)
Greece faces devaluation, default or deflation. Next stop the IMF Guardian, Larry Elliott (11/2/10)
Germany demands austerity, not bailout, for spendthrift Athens Guardian, Ian Traynor (11/2/10)
See also the Guardian podcast in the news item, Debt and the euro
See too the news item from October 2008, The eurozone – our economic saviour?
Questions
- What is the cause of Greece’s debt problems?
- According to the European Central Bank chief economist Otmar Issing, a Greek bailout would weaken the euro and hurt the reputation and image of the eurozone. How can we explain this?
- What do we mean by servicing a debt?
- How could Greece’s debt problems cause problems for other countries with large debts, such as Ireland, Portugal and Spain?
- Which country is better off: the UK or Greece?
- Who will be the loser from a bailout?
- Are the EU rules about debt and deficit levels a good thing or are they too restrictive to be helpful?
- What are the arguments for and against the ECB increasing its target rate of inflation, say to 4%, as a means of stimulating recovery?
Since March 2009, the Bank of England has engaged in a process of quantitative easing (QE). Over the period to January 2010 the Bank of England injected £200 billion of new money into the economy by purchasing assets from the private sector, mainly government bonds. The assets were purchased with new money, which enters the economy as credits to the accounts of those selling the assets to the Bank of England. This increase in narrow money (the monetary base) is then able to form the basis of credit creation, allowing broad money (M4) to increase by a multiple of the increased monetary base. In other words, injecting £200 billion allows M4 to increase by considerably more.
But just how much more will M4 rise? How big is the money multiplier? This depends on the demand for loans from banks, which in turn depends on the confidence of business and households. With the recovery only just beginning, demand is still very dampened. Credit creation also depends on the willingess of banks to lend. But this too has been dampened by banks’ desire to increase liquidity and expand their capital base in the wake of the credit crunch.
Not surprisingly, the growth in M4 has been sluggish. Between March and Decmber 2009, narrow money (notes, coin and banks’ reserve balances in the Bank of England) grew from £91bn to £203bn (an increase of 123%). M4, however, grew from £2011bn to £2048bn: an increase of only 1.8%. In fact, in December it fell back from £2069bn in November.
Despite the continued sluggishness of the economy, at its February meeting the Bank of England announced an end to further quantitiative easing – at least for the time being. Although Bank Rate would be kept on hold at 0.5%, there would be no further injections of money. Part of the reason for this is that there is still considerable scope for a growth in broad money on the basis of the narrow money already created. If QE were to continue, there could be excessive broad money in a few months’ time and that could push inflation well above target. As it is, rising costs have already pushed inflation above the 2% target (see Too much of a push from costs but no pull from demand).
So will this be an end to quantitative easing? The following articles explore the question.
Bank of England halts quantitative easing Guardian, Ashley Seager (4/2/10)
Bank calls time on quantitative easing (including video) Telegraph, Edmund Conway (5/2/10)
Bank of England’s time-out for quantitative easing plan BBC News (4/2/10)
Shifting goalposts keep final score in question Financial Times, Chris Giles and Jessica Winch (5/2/10)
Bank halts QE at £200bn despite ‘sluggish’ recovery Independent, Sean O’Grady (5/2/10)
Easy does it: No further QE BBC News blogs, Stephanomics, Stephanie Flanders (4/2/10)
Leading article: Easing off – but only for now Independent (5/2/10)
Not easy Times Online (5/2/10)
Quantitative easing: What the economists say Guardian (4/2/10)
Questions
- Explain how quantitative easing works?
- What determines the rate of growth of M4?
- Why has the Bank of England decided to call a halt to quantiative easing – at least for the time being?
- What is the transmission mechanism whereby an increase in the monetary base affects real GDP?
- What role does the exchange rate play in the transmission mechanism?
- Why is it difficult to predict the effect of an increase in the monetary base on real GDP?
- What will determine whether or not the Bank of England will raise interest rates in a few months’ time?