According to GDP figures released on 15 August, China overtook Japan in the second quarter of 2010 to become the world’s second largest economy. This raises two questions: just what do the GDP figures mean and why has this happened?
The GDP figures are total figures measured in US dollars at current exchange rates. According to these nominal figures, Japan’s GDP was $1.286 trillion in the second quarter of 2010; China’s was $1.335 trillion. This follows several years when Chinese growth rates have massively exceeded Japanese ones.
As far as explanations are concerned, economists look to a number of different factors, including investment policies, relative exchange rates, confidence, deflation in Japan and the scope for catching up in China.
The following podcasts and webcasts look at these questions, as do the articles.
Podcasts and webcasts
China eyes Japan’s slowing GDP growth BBC News, Roland Buerk (16/8/10)
Japan’s economic strategy ‘not happening’ BBC Today Programme Interview with Dr Seijiro Takeshita of Mizuho International banks (16/8/10)
China’s growth rate slows to 10.3% as lending tightens BBC News, Chris Hogg (15/7/10)
China exports jump in May BBC News, Chris Hogg (10/6/10)
China Overtakes Japan in 2Q As No. 2 Economy Associated Press on YouTube (16/8/10)
China’s economy takes over Japan’s AsianCorrespondent on YouTube (16/8/10)
Articles
China overtakes Japan to become world’s second-biggest economy Telegraph, Roland Gribben (17/8/10)
Chinese economy eclipses Japan’s Financial Times, Lindsay Whipp and Jamil Anderlini (16/8/10)
Decoding China’s modesty Financial Times blogs, Jamil Anderlini (17/8/10)
China ‘overtakes Japan in economic prowess’ asiaone news (17/8/10)
China overtakes Japan to become second largest economy in world Irish Times, Clifford Coonan (17/8/10)
China Passes Japan As Second-Largest Economy Huffington Post, Joe McDonald (16/8/10)
Data
World Economic Outlook July 2010 Update IMF (7/7/10)
China Economic Statistics and Indicators EconomyWatch
Japan Economic Statistics and Indicators EconomyWatch
Questions
- Why may simple GDP figures be a poor indicator of the relative size of the Chinese and Japanese economies?
- If purchasing-power parity figures were used, how would this affect the relative sizes of the two economies? Explain why purchasing-power parity exchange rates are so different from nominal exchange rates in the two countries.
- What impact have the relative exchange rates of the two countries had on economic growth?
- Why are simple GDP figures a poor indicator of living standards?
- What factors will determine whether income inequality is likely to widen or narrow in China over the coming years?
- What factors explain Japan’s low rate of economic growth since the early 1990s? How likely is it that these factors will apply in China in the future?
One of the key issues tackled during Labour’s term was poverty. In 1997, the UK had one of the worst child poverty rates in Europe (20% of the population) and so Labour made a concerted effort to move more people out of poverty than ever before. Low income was defined as income below 60 per cent of median income. As Chapter 1 from the first “Data and reports” link below states:
Over the period 1994/95 to 2008/09, the percentage of the population below 60 per cent and 70 per cent thresholds of contemporary median income showed slight falls on both Before Housing Costs and After Housing Costs bases. …The proportion and number of the population below low-income thresholds … fell substantially over the same period – with proportions falling by around one half.
Over the period 1994/95 to 2008/09, there was a marked fall in the proportion of children below low income thresholds held constant in real terms. 2008/09 has shown a fall compared to 2007/08.
Despite these improvements, there is a high concentration of people just above the 60% of median income level. And, although poverty rates have fallen since 1997, income inequality remains stubbornly high, with a post-tax-and-benefit Gini co-efficient hovering around 0.38 since 1992, compared with around 0.30 in the late 1970s/early 1980s.
As recession set in, there were concerns about the effect it would have on poverty figures. However, according to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), throughout 2008 and 2009 both children and pensioners saw their position improve, as hundreds of thousands were lifted out of poverty. According to the DWP’s annual Households Below Average Income report, mean take-home incomes grew for the seventh consecutive year – by 1% in 2008/9.
Whilst the most vulnerable seem to have survived the first test, the next will come with the substantial budget cuts the UK will see, as the government attempts to reduce the budget deficit. Poverty campaigners have warned that attempts to reduce the deficit must not be detrimental to poverty figures, by taking benefits away from those who need them. As Michelle Mitchell, the charity director at Age UK said: “Clearly there are huge challenges ahead for the new government, but now is the time to renew the fight against pensioner poverty and commit to eradicating it once and for all.”
Articles
Campaigners warn Coalition not to jeopardise falling poverty rates Guardian, Katie Allen (20/5/10)
Child poverty ‘historically high’ The Press Association (20/5/10)
Labour kept poverty in check, says IFS Financial Times, Nicholas Timmins (22/5/10)
Child poverty in Scotland increases by 10,000 in year Scotsman, Gareth Rose (21/5/10)
What the poverty figures show Guardian (20/5/10)
The untold story of poverty in working households Guardian, Peter Kenway (21/5/10)
UK pledges to reduce poverty Financial Times, Daniel Pimlott (21/5/10)
Don’t scrap child benefits, charities warn Guardian (20/5/10)
Data and reports
Households Below Average Income (HBAI) 1994/95-2008/09 Department for Work and Pensions (19/5/10)
Households Below Average Income (pdf file) National Statistics, First Release (20/5/10)
Effects of taxes and benefits on household income Office for National Statistics (see also, especially Tables 26 and 27)
Poverty and inequality in the UK: 2010 Institute for Fiscal Studies
A range of poverty data The Poverty Site
Previous blog
See also The poverty of poverty reduction policies
Questions
- What are the main causes of a) poverty and b) inequality?
- What is the difference between poverty and inequality? Can you think of any policies that might improve one of these objectives, but worsen the other?
- Explain how and why the recessions of the early 1980s, the early 1990s and between 2008 and 2009 could have led to poverty being reduced.
- The Financial Times article talks about different levels of poverty across the country. What can explain these regional disparities?
- The Coalition government has pledged to lift the income tax threshold to £10,000. What effect could this have on unemployment and poverty? How might this effect the poverty trap?
- The Guardian article ‘What the poverty figures show’ says that high levels of child poverty will cost the country at least £25bn a year. Why is this?
Throughout 2009/10, a new millionaire was created in Brazil every 10 minutes – not bad for a developing country! Despite the global recession, Brazil has managed growth of almost 5% and is set to overtake both the UK and France to become the world’s 5th largest economy. Brazil will hold the next World Cup and the Olympic games after London, bringing it further recognition as a global power. It has the third largest aircraft manufacturing industry in the world and is even doing its bit to tackle climate change, with 50% of its cars running on bio-fuels. It exports more meat than any other country and is looking to become an energy power. With falling unemployment, a buoyant economy, growing confidence, fantastic beaches and 6 millionaires created every hour, Brazil looks like the perfect place to live.
However, that is just one side of the story. Brazil is still a country with deep poverty – approximately 60 million people. The slums, or favelas, are home to 1 million people in Rio alone, where unemployment is high and drug wars common. There has been a concerted effort to reduce the drug trafficking business, but this has only created more unemployment. There is little sanitation, poor electricity and minimal chance of escape. Neighbourhoods need rebuilding, and despite high growth and arguably the most popular president in the world (Lula da Silva), there are calls for political, social, taxation and labour market reforms. This cycle of poverty and the equality gap needs addressing before the Brazilian economy can really be considered a global power.
Webcasts and podcasts
Will Brazil’s economy keep growing? BBC News, Matt Frei (27/5/10)
Brazil’s bid to be ‘world’s breadbasket’ BBC World News America, Paulo Cabral (26/5/10)
Tackling Brazil’s poverty BBC World News America, Gary Duffy (28/5/10)
Brazil’s development spurs economic quality hopes BBC World News America, Matt Frei (27/5/10)
Brazil’s air industry takes off BBC World News America, Paolo Cabral (24/5/10)
‘Our growth quality is better than China’ BBC World News America, Marcelo Neri (25/5/10)
Brazilian economy poised to overtake UK’s BBC News Today, Matt Frei (27/5/10)
Data
Economic data Banco Central do Brasil
Brazil Economy EconomyWatch
Brazil CIA World Factbook
Brazil Geognos
Brazil data World Bank
Questions
- What are the main causes of (a) inequality and (b) poverty in an economy? What is the difference between these concepts?
- How does the government subsidised housing programme aim to help low income households. Use a diagram to illustrate the effect.
- What policies can be used to reduce the equality gap?
- Are those living in the favelas in absolute poverty? How do we distinguish between absolute and relative poverty? Is it the same across the world?
- What are the adverse effects of fast growth in Brazil?
On the 24th May the new collation government released details of its plan to make £6.2 billion of savings (see HM Treasury press release). As part of this package, The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) – headed by Business Secretary, Vince Cable – will make savings of £836 million, equivalent to 3.9% of its budget. One of the areas identified by BIS for ‘savings’ is the higher education budget, which will lose £200 million. Also targeted are the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) in England. These are the strategic drivers of economic development in the English regions. They will lose £74 million from BIS as well as a further £196 million from other government departments.
So what is the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills charged with doing? Well, according to the BIS website it is charged with
…building a dynamic and competitive UK economy by: creating the conditions for business success; promoting innovation, enterprise and science; and giving everyone the skills and opportunities to succeed. To achieve this it will foster world-class universities and promote an open global economy.
In describing what BIS does, BIS states that it
…brings all of the levers of the economy together in one place. Our policy areas – from skills and higher education to innovation and science to business and trade – can all help to drive growth.
In other words, the BIS is intended to be a key player in affecting the UK’s long-term rate of economic growth. Since 1948 the average annual rate of growth of the UK economy, as measured by constant-price GDP (real GDP), is 2.4%. Of course, a key question is how we might do better. But, there is a significant disagreement amongst economists about the role that government should play in advancing long-term economic growth. This debate largely centres both on how activist a government should be and on the types of policy that a government should pursue.
The ’case for industrial activism’ is made in the leading article of The Independent on 25 May. It nicely encapsulates some of the policy issues surrounding long-term growth and, in reflecting on the cuts to BIS, identifies the role it believes BIS should play.
…we need to think clearly about the proper role for the state in the private sector. There is no future in a return to the heavy-handed statism of the 1970s or the discredited policy of trying to “pick winners”. The guiding principle as far as industrial policy is concerned is that government should do what the free market will not, or cannot. The function of the DBIS should be to increase Britain’s long-term growth potential.
This means supporting industries that cannot get funding from the capital markets and funding important research that would otherwise go unperformed. Most of all, it means education. Britain cannot compete successfully with the rising economic powers of China and India, which have access to a vast pool of cheap workers, on labour costs. Our only hope for advantage lies in our human capital. That makes the case for intensive vocational and advanced skills training.
Therefore, industrial activism, as envisaged by The Independent is about correcting for market failures and ensuring that there is sufficient investment in education and training.
The Confederation of British Industry, which describes itself as the ‘UK’s top business lobbying organisation’, in its press release of 19 May identified the following as ‘essential’ for delivering growth:
• Establishing competitive business taxes
• Developing a strong banking system
• Skilling students for the future and strengthening apprenticeships
• Attracting and cultivating enterprise and industry
• Prioritising energy security
• Working towards a low-carbon economy
• Developing the infrastructure for economic growth
The CBI too identifies the significance of skills. But, it believes that in the previous decade growth was driven too much by government spending (as well as by unsustainable growth in the financial sector). It argues that the private sector, along with trade, needs to be ‘the growth engine for the future’.
What is interesting about the proposed cuts to BIS is that they very visibly draw attention to the differences that exist among commentators, industrialists and economists as to industrial policy. In particular, they ignite the debate about the most effective role that a government can play in promoting long-term growth. Don’t expect too much agreement any time soon!
Press Releases
Government announces £6.2 billion of savings in 2010-11 HM Treasury (24/5/10)
Private sector growth and public sector reform needed to restore economy CBI (19/5/10)
Articles
The case for industrial activism Independent (25/5/10)
Public sector deficit cuts: Higher education and RDAs hit hard in BIS efficiency savings plan eGov Monitor (25/5/10)
George Osborne outlines details of £6.2 billion spending cuts BBC News (24/5/10)
Government axes £836 billion from business budget Growing Business (24/5/10)
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills hit hard by spending cuts Training Journal, Martin Kornacki (24/5/10)
Business department hammered as Osborne swings the axe Management Today (24/5/10)
Big cuts signal end to activism Financial Times, Jean Eaglesham, Andrew Bounds and Clive Cookson (24/5/10)
Businesses take a pounding as coalition cuts hit home London Evening Standard, Hugo Duncan (24/5/10)
Vince Cable explains spending cuts u-turn Newsnight (24/5/10)
Questions
- What do you understand by long-term growth? How does this differ from short-run growth?
- Evaluate the argument advanced by The Independent for industrial activism? What sort of policies might fall under this description?
- In considering the CBI’s list of influences on long-term economic growth outline what role you think government could play and what policies it could enact.
- Do you think the savings being made by BIS signal a new policy approach to delivering long-term economic growth in the UK?
For some time now, education has been a top priority for the government. They have been tackling standards in schools and have a target of a 50% participation rate in higher education. Most people agree that school education should be free, but opinion is divided when it comes to higher education. Is the return to the individual greater than that to society or vice versa? Is it the same for all degrees? This is one of the questions that affects funding. Should the individual pay? Or the government? Or should there be a mixture of funding?
The question of university education has become even more of an issue in the current recession, with many seeing a university education as a way of avoiding, what could be, inevitable unemployment. With this increase in demand, there is increasing pressure on the funding: it is simply not fiscally feasible to fund everyone’s university education. As such, business leaders have advised a rise in tuition fees. Students could be charged thousands more and made to face a higher interest rate on any loans. This highly contentious issue is considered in the articles below.
Charge students more, say bosses BBC News (21/9/09)
Middle class university students ‘should pay more’ Telegraph (21/9/09)
Elite universities plan to cut UK student numbers amid funding drop Telegraph (20/9/09)
Fee rise must aid poor students BBC News (27/7/09)
Loans delay for 150,000 students continues Daily Mail (19/9/09)
‘No fee degrees’ university plan BBC News (8/7/09)
‘New market’ in education (podcast) BBC Today Programme (8/7/09)
Bring back tuition fees for middle class students Scotsman (11/9/09)
CBI advises raising university fees to £5,000 a year to tackle funding crisis Guardian (21/9/09)
University ‘way out of recession’ BBC News (8/9/09)
Schools secretary Ed Balls under fire over education cuts Mirror (21/9/09)
Students should pay more – CBI (video) BBC News (21/9/09)
Questions
- Why is education described as a merit good? Explain the characteristics and why it constitutes a market failure.
- Identify any externalities involved in higher education. Do they imply that the free market would led to a level of higher education that is above or below the social optimum?
- List the costs to society of a university education. (Think about opportunity cost).
- What are the arguments for (a) only the individual funding their university education (b) the government funding university education (c) a combination of both?
- Is it a reasonable policy to increase university fees? If so, should students receive loans to cover this increase? If not, what do you think is an alternative option to help this funding crisis?