With the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats now in power in the UK and with the Labour Party, having lost the election, being now in the midst of a leadership campaign, politicians from across the political spectrum are balming Gordon Brown for the ‘mess the country’s in’. The UK has a record budget deficit and debt, and is just emerging from a deep recession, when only a few years ago, Gordon Brown was claiming the end of boom and bust. But is the condition of the UK economy Mr Brown’s fault? Would it have been any better if others had been in charge, or if there had been even greater independence for the Bank of England of if there had been an Office of Budget Responsibility (see)?
The following podcast by Martin Wolf, chief economics commentator of the Financial Times, considers this question. He argues that:
Everybody would like to blame Gordon Brown for the financial crisis. But he was only acting in line with the national consensus on economic policy.
The economic legacy of Mr Brown FT podcasts, Martin Wolf (13/5/10)
The economic legacy of Mr Brown Financial Times, Martin Wolf (13/5/10)
Questions
- Explain what is meant by ‘the great moderation’.
- Should regulation of the banks be handed back to the Bank of England?
- Why may controlling inflation not necessarily result in stable economic growth? Is this a case of Goodhart’s Law?
- Why was the UK economy especially fragile during the banking crisis and its aftermath?
- What, according to Martin Wolf, was Mr Brown’s biggest mistake?
- Could a mistake be now being made by following the conventional wisdom that cutting the deficit is the solution to achieving sustained recovery?
It was the 12th May 2010 and George Osborne’s first day as the UK’s new Chancellor of the Exchequer. His arrival at HM Treasury coincided with the latest ONS labour market release. Just in case you were rather distracted by political events, we take the opportunity here to trawl through some of the latest labour market numbers, focusing, in particular, on those that may pose real challenges for George Osborne and the new coalition government.
From the ONS release we observe that in the three months to March the total number of economically active individuals in the UK was 31.340 million. Of these, 28.829 million were employed while 2.510 million were unemployed (but actively seeking work). The number of people employed fell by 76,000 over the quarter (and by 341,000 over the year) while the number unemployed rose by 53,000 (279,000 over the year).
Now we consider the rate of unemployment. The unemployment rate expresses the total number unemployed as a percentage of those economically active. Over the first quarter of 2010 the unemployment rate rose to 8.0%, a rise of 0.2 percentage points on the previous quarter and a rise of 0.9 percentage points from a year earlier. It is the highest quarterly unemployment rate since the 8.1% recorded in Q3 1996.
Next, consider unemployment and gender. Of those unemployed in the first quarter of the year, 61.6% were male and 38.4% were female. The increase in the male unemployment rate during the economic slowdown has been especially marked. The male unemployment rate in Q1 2010 rose to 9.2%, up from 7.9% a year ago and 5.6% two years ago. The female unemployment rate has increased to 6.7% in Q1 2010 from 6.1% in Q1 2009 and 4.8% in Q1 2008. Therefore, over the past two years the male unemployment rate has risen by 3.6 percentage points while the female rate has increased by 2.1 percentage points.
Another troubling issue is unemployment amongst the young. The unemployment rate amongst those aged 18-24 is considerably higher than the overall rate. In the three months to March the unemployment rate for this age group was 17.9% compared with the overall rate of 8%. But, more than this, the current rate of unemployment amongst those aged 18-24 is actually higher than during the early 1990s when it peaked at 17.8% in Q1 1993. The male unemployment rate amongst this age group is especially high having risen to 20.7% in the first quarter of the year, up 2 percentage points on the year and up from 14.2% in Q1 2008. The female rate amongst this age group is 14.6%, up 1.3 percentage points on the year and up from 9.8% in Q1 2008.
Another issue that emerges out of the statistics is the rise in long-term unemployment. The number of people unemployed for more than one year rose to 757,000 in the first quarter, up from 509,000 a year ago and 397,000 two years ago. Perhaps, it is easier to see the magnitude of this problem when we note that 30.2% of those unemployed have been unemployed for at least one year – this is up from 24.5% in Q1 2008. Amongst females, 25% of those unemployed have been without work for at least one year, but amongst males this rises to 33.4%. In other words, one-quarter of unemployed females and one-third of unemployed males are now regarded as being long-term unemployed.
As troubling as these numbers are, the issue of long-term unemployment is one that, over the past two decades, has never really gone away. On average since 1992, 29.4% of those unemployed have been without work for at least one year (34.2% amongst men and 21.6% amongst women).
And now to our final observation: the historically high number of economically inactive individuals of working age. In the first quarter of 2010, 8.166 million of those of working age were economically inactive, up by 86,000 over the year. As a proportion of the working population, this equates to 21.5%, which is not in itself a record high – during 1983 it reached 23.2% – but it is, nonetheless, up from 20.7% a year ago. The inactivity rate amongst those of working age is highest amongst females at 25.9% (up from 25.7% a year ago) compared with 17.4% amongst men (up from 16.1% a year ago).
One factor that helps to explain the overall rise in inactivity is the 43,000 increase in the number of students who have become economically inactive over the past year. But, we also note upward pressures on inactivity over the past year from the increase of 37,000 in the number of people who are ‘long-term sick’ and from the 13,000 increase in the number who feel ‘discouraged’ from seeking work. These pressures highlight some of the many costs that arise from unemployment and potentially raise some tricky policy challenges for the new government.
Articles
UK unemployment rises in first quarter Investment Week, Hannah Smith (12/5/10)
UK unemployment climbs to a 16-year high Irish Independent, Svenja O’Donnell Brian Groom (13/5/10)
UK unemployment increases to 2.51 million BBC News (12/5/10)
Unemployment: what the experts say Guardian (12/5/10)
UK unemployment hits highest since 1994 The Times, Robert Lindsay (12/5/10)
Jobs recovery still fragile, ‘dire’ data shows Financial Times, Brian Groom (12/5/10)
Scottish unemployment rises by 10,000 in three months BBC News (12/5/10)
Unemployment rises to highest level since 1994, ONS says inthenews.co.uk, Sarah Garrod (12/5/10)
Data
Latest on employment and unemployment Office for National Statistics (12/5/10)
Labour Market Statistics, May 2010 Office for National Statistics (12/5/10)
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 is meant by somebody being economically active? Do they have to be in a job to be economically active?
- Using the figures in the commentary, calculate the number of economically active people in Q1 2009 and so the change up to Q1 2010.
- If the number of people unemployed rises does this mean the rate of unemployment rises? Explain your answer.
- What factors might explain the persistent problem of long-term unemployment? What policy prescriptions would you offer the new coalition government in attempting to tackle this problem?
- Looking back through the commentary, pick out some of the notable gender differences. What factors might help to explain these?
- Are there any factors identified in the commentary that may be affecting the economy’s potential output?
The latest inflation release from the Office for National Statistics shows the annual rate of CPI inflation for April at 3.7%, up from 3.4% in March. In other words, the average price of a basket of consumer goods – the Consumer Price Index – was 3.7% higher in April than in the same month last year. In three of the last four months, the rate of inflation has been in letter-writing territory, i.e. more than 1 percentage point away from the government’s central inflation rate target of 2%. Of course, this time it was George Osborne, the new Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was the recipient of the obligatory explanatory letter from Mervyn King, the Governor of the Bank of England.
Over the past six months the average annual rate of rate of consumer price inflation in the UK has been 3.1%. It is, therefore, no surprise that there is considerable debate amongst commentators about the need for the Bank to raise interest rates. Part of the debate concerns the extent to which the Bank is right to argue that the current inflationary pressures are essentially short term and, according to May’s letter from the Governor to the Chancellor ‘are masking the downward pressure on inflation from the substantial margin of spare capacity in the economy’.
The Bank points to the impact on the inflation figures of what we might term ‘one-off effects’. These include, for instance, the restoration in January of the standard rate of VAT to 17½% and the raising in the Budget in March of certain excise duties (commodity taxes), such as those on alcoholic beverages and on petrol. The Bank also points to the effects from the weakening of Sterling, specifically on the prices of imports, and from the increase over the past year in the price of oil because of higher demand on the back of the global economic recovery. Again, the Bank continues to argue that these pressures should weaken over the next 12 months.
As you might expect of the economics profession, there are others who argue that the Bank is being somewhat complacent over the prospects for inflation. Of course, these are incredibly uncertain times. In effect, the Bank is having to assess, on the one hand, the significance of cost pressures, such as those emanating from oil and other commodity prices, and, on the other hand, the future strength of aggregate demand, particularly in response to the likely fiscal tightening, not only in the UK, but in many other parts of the world too.
While economists will always hold divergent views on the prospects for inflation and, more generally, the economy, we may see another debate reignited in the months ahead: the debate over the extent to which the government’s powers over both fiscal and monetary policy are constrained.
Since 1997, the Bank of England has had a clear mandate to target the rate of inflation. But, to what extent might this mandate cause tensions between fiscal and monetary policy in the months ahead given the government’s plans for fiscal consolidation? In particular, with a tightening of fiscal policy, so as to reduce the size of the government’s budget deficit, will the Bank of England be able to maintain low interest rates and thereby help to sustain aggregate demand? This will, of course, depend on the path of inflation and, importantly, the sources of inflation. Nonetheless, it will be interesting to see whether the clear, if limited, remit of the Bank of England places pressure on the UK’s macroeconomic policy framework in these difficult economic times.
Articles
UK inflation hits 17 month-high BBC News (18/5/10)
A tale of two zones BBC News blogs: Stephanomics, Stephanie Flanders (18/5/10)
Shock rise in inflation risks higher rates and unemployment Independent, Sean O’Grady (19/5/10)
Q&A: Unpleasant surprise for Threadneedle St Financial Times, Chris Giles (18/5/10)
Inflation rise see King rebuked Financial Times, Chris Giles (19/5/10)
UK inflation fears Financial Times (18/5/10)
Inflation: mercury rising Guardian (19/5/10)
The elephant in the room just got bigger Times Online, David Wighton (19/5/10)
Weak pound and tax rises lift inflation to a 17-month high (including video) Times Online, Grainne Gilmore (19/5/10)
Data
Latest on inflation Office for National Statistics (18/5/10)
Consumer Price Indices, Statistical Bulletin, April 2010 Office for National Statistics (18/5/10)
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
- What do you understand by cost-push and demand-pull inflation? To what extent are each of these significant in explaining the current rise in the rate of inflation?
- Outline the potential advantages and disadvantages of granting the Bank of England independence to set interest rates in meeting an inflation rate target.
- If the Bank of England’s remit were relaxed, say to include targeting output growth too, how might this affect its response to rising cost-push inflation? What about rising demand-pull inflation?
- Distinguish between a rise in the level of consumer prices and a rise in the rate of consumer price inflation.
- Describe the likely impact of an increase in the standard rate of VAT on the average consumer price level and on the annual rate of consumer price inflation both in the short term and in the longer term.
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.
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?