According to political business cycle theory, incoming governments tend to take harsh measures at first, when they can blame the cuts on the ‘mess they’ve inherited’ from their predecessors. And then two or three years later, as an election looms, they can start spending more and/or cutting taxes, hoping that the good will this creates will help them win the election.
So are we seeing the start of a new political business cycle with the start of the new Coalition government? The following two articles look at the issue.
Coalition will inflict cuts now and spend later to win a second term Guardian, Larry Elliott (17/5/10)
If you get all the bad news out at once, the only way left to go will be up. Or will it? Independent, Sean O’Grady (18/5/10)
Questions
- Explain what is meant by the ‘political business cycle’.
- Would the existence of a political dimension to the business cycle amplify or dampen the cycle, or could it do either depending on the circumstances? Explain.
- Does the existence of an independent central bank eliminate the political business cycle?
- Will the new Office for Budget Responsibility (see Nipping it in the Budd: Enhancing fiscal credibility?) help to eliminate the political business cycle? Explain your answer.
On 21st April the IMF published its latest World Economic Outlook. It forecasts that the output of the world economy will grow by 4.2% in 2010, following last year’s 0.6% contraction, and by a further 4.3% in 2011. However, the Foreword to the report identifies considerable economic uncertainties. In particular, it identifies ‘fiscal fragilities’ and, hence, a ‘pressing need’ for fiscal consolidation. But, it also points to the need for policies ‘to buttress lasting financial stability’.
The IMF notes that Europe has come out of the recession slower than other parts of the world. For the EU-27 it is predicting growth of 1.0% this year, following a contraction of 4.1% last year, but with growth remaining at 1% in 2011. The UK is forecast to grow by 1.3% this year, following a contraction of 4.9% last year, and by a further 2.5% in 2011. Therefore, economic growth in the UK is forecast to be stronger than that across the European Union in both 2010 and, in particular, in 2011.
If we look at the expected growth in some of the principal components of the UK’s aggregate demand we see signs of a ‘rebalancing’. Firstly, household spending, which contracted by 3.2% last year is expected to rise by 0.2% in 2010 and by 1.4% in 2011. Secondly, general government current expenditure, which grew by 2.2% last year, is forecast to grow by 1.3% this year but, as the expected fiscal consolidation kicks in, will fall by 1% in 2011. Thirdly, gross fixed capital formation (capital expenditures) which fell by some 14.9% in 2009 is forecast to fall this year by a further 2.6%, before growing by 4.7% in 2011.
Report
World Economic Outlook, April 2010 IMF
Articles
IMF Raises 2010 Growth Outlook, Says Government Debt Poses Risk Bloomberg Businessweek, Sandrine Rastello (22/4/10)
GDP figures: what the experts say Guardian (23/4/10)
IMF cuts UK forecast in blow to Gordon Brown The Telegraph, Angela Monaghan (22/4/10)
IMF maintains U.K. 2010 forecast at 1.3 per cent Bloomberg, Svenja O’Donnell (21/4/10)
Global recovery faster than expected, says IMF BBC News (21/4/10) )
IMF nudges up world GDP view; fiscal fears mount Reuters, Lesley Wroughton and Emily Kaiser (21/4/10)
Data
World Economic Outlook Reports IMF
World Economic Outlook Databases IMF
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 economic uncertainties do you think might affect the forecasts of economic growth for both the world and UK economies? Would you expect these uncertainties to be less or more significant in the UK?
- What do you understand by the term ‘fiscal consolidation’? Why do you think the IMF are highlighting this as a concern?
- Why do you think growth across Europe has been lagging behind other parts of the world? What might explain why growth in the UK is expected to be above that across Europe over the next two years?
In the midst of the election campaign we can well imagine that economic data are analysed in minute detail by politicians looking to make political capital. Of particular interest are likely to be the labour market numbers. So here we ‘digest’ a few of the latest numbers from the latest ONS labour market release.
The ONS reports that in the three months to February 2010 the number unemployed in the UK rose above the 2½ million mark to stand at 2.502 million. Of these, 61.2% were male and 38.8% female. The rise of 43,000 on the previous three months (i.e. the three months to November) took unemployment to its highest level since the three months to December 1994.
While unemployment rose, employment fell by 90,000 over the same period to 28.824 million. Of those in employment, 53.2% were male and 46.8% female. Employment levels are now at their lowest since the three months to December 2005. The latest unemployment and employment numbers mean that the number of economically active individuals in the three months to February stood at 31.326 million (53.9% male and 46.1% female), down by 47,000 on the previous three months. Therefore the unemployment rate, which is expressed as a percentage of those economically active, has now edged up to 8% (9.1% amongst males and 6.7% amongst females); it was 6.8% a year ago (7.6% amongst males and 5.9% amongst females) and 5.2% two years ago (5.6% amongst males and 4.8% amongst females).
If we look at the number who have been unemployed for at least one year we see a rather worrying trend with a rise of 89,000 over the past three months to some 726,000. This compares with 486,000 in the same period a year ago and 390,000 two years ago. Another potentially problematic trend is the rise in inactivity rates. The proportion of individuals of working age who are now inactive, so neither employed or actively seeking work, rose to 21.5% in the three months to February (17.5% amongst men and 25.8% amongst females), up from 20.7% in the same period last year (16.2% amongst men and 25.7% amongst females).
Finally, part-time employment fell by 30,000 in the three months to February to 7.671 million. However, it rose by 6000 amongst men to 1.880 million. We now observe that 12.2% of men in employment are employed part-time compared with 43.0% of females in employment. Further, of all part-time workers 24.5% – that’s effectively one-quarter – are male, double the share back in 1984 when these numbers were first recorded.
Articles
UK Unemployment hits 2.5 million mark The Wall Street Journal, Nicholas Winning and Ilona Billington (21/4/10)
UK unemployment at 16-year high Financial Times, Brian Groom (21/4/10)
UK unemployment increases to 2.5 million BBC News (21/4/10) )
Unemployment breaks through 2.5 million Guardian, Graeme Wearden (21/4/10)
UK unemployment surges to 15-year high The Times, Grainne Gilmore (21/4/10)
Data
Latest on employment and unemployment Office for National Statistics (21/4/10)
Labour Market Statistics, April 2010 Office for National Statistics (21/4/10)
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
- The current rate of unemployment is 8%. During the downturn of the early 1990s it peaked at 10.7%. What might explain this difference? Do you think the current rate may have now peaked?
- What might explain the rise in inactivity rates? Does this rise have any implications for potential output?
- Does the rise in the number of those unemployed for over a year have implications for our potential output?
- Go back through the commentary: are there any notable gender differences in the figures? What factors might help to explain these?
- In 1984 part-time employment stood at 4.985 million while currently the figure is 7.671 million. Is it possible to explain this growth in part-time employment in the UK?
The consumer prices index (CPI) is used by the government and the Bank of England for measuring the rate of inflation, and in the 12 months to March 2010 it rose by 3.4%. This figure was above the expected rate of 3.1% and well above the Bank of England’s target of 2%. The other major measure of consumer prices, the retail prices index (RPI) rose by even more – by 4.4%.
In order to recover from the recession, the UK economy needs to grow, but as demand begins to rise, this could put further upward pressure on inflation. There are a number of influencing factors that have caused the recent rise in inflation (see Too much of a push from costs but no pull from demand). Large rises in housing, fuel, transport, many household services and food were contributing factors. Many of these factors, however, are thought to be temporary, so it may not be too much of a problem.
And anyway, at least if inflation does continue to rise, it won’t be unexpected!
Articles
UK inflation rate rises to 3.4% BBC News (21/4/10)
A surprise? Definitely. A problem? Possibly. BBC News blogs, Stephanomics, Stephanie Flanders (20/4/10)
Transport costs push UK inflation above 3pc Telegraph, Edmund Conway (21/4/10)
Data
Latest Inflation data National Statistics Online
Consumer Price Indices portal National Statistics Online
Consumer Price Indices, Statistical Bulletin Office for National Statistics
Consumer Price Indices, time series data National Statistics Online
Retail Prices Index: 1948–2010 National Statistics Online
Questions
- Why might the Monetary Policy Committee have to restrict growth to keep inflation manageable?
- What are some of the causes of rising inflation? Why are expectations so important?
- How is the CPI calculated to measure inflation?
- Normally, during a recession, we would expect economic growth to be poor, but inflation to be low and stable. How can we explain both poor growth and rising inflation?
- “Investors know that the UK government has more to gain from an unexpected bout of inflation than almost any other economy.” Why is this?
’The steepest and longest recession of any developed country since World War II.’ This has been the case for Ireland, which has seen national income fall by 20% since 2007. Many countries across the globe have experienced pretty bad recessions, but what makes Ireland stand out is how it has been dealt with.
In the UK, the government has continued spending in a bid to stimulate the economy and to use Gordon Brown’s phrase from 2008, we have aimed to ‘spend our way out of recession’. Ireland, however, did not have that option. With too much borrowing, Ireland was unable to stimulate the economy and needed to cut its debts in order to maintain its credibility in the eurozone. Last year, significant cuts in government spending were accompanied by tax rises equal to 5% of GDP. Similar action is to be expected in the UK following the election, where popular benefits may have to be reduced, as transfer payments do account for the majority of government spending. Whoever is in government following the election will have some hard decisions to make and everyone will be affected. Read the article below and listen to the interview and think about what the UK can learn from Ireland.
Irish lessons for the UK (including interview) BBC Stephanomics (9/4/10)
Questions
- In the interview, Brian Lenihan said that the UK was expecting too much from the falling value of sterling. What was the UK expecting following significant depreciations in the value of sterling and why has that not happened?
- What is a deflationary spiral? Why has it caused Ireland’s public debt to rise so much?
- Why does Brian Lenihan argue that there are limits to how much taxes can be increased? What are diminishing returns to taxation?
- Would the UK be any better off had we joined the euro? What about other countries: would they have benefited had we joined the euro?