The Quarterly National Accounts from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) reveal that the output of the UK economy grew by 0.4% in the fourth quarter of 2009. This is another upward revision to the growth number for Q4; the first estimate put growth at 0.1% and the second estimate at 0.3%.
The ONS release also reported the value of the UK economy’s output in calendar year 2009. In the release, GDP in 2009 is estimated at £1.396 trillion. Now, this is what economists call the nominal estimate because it measures the economy’s output using the prevailing prices, e.g. in the case of output in 2009, the prices of 2009. Of course, the problem arises when we compare nominal GDP – or GDP at current prices – over time. If prices are changing how can we know whether the volume of output is actually rising or falling? Therefore, constant-price or real estimates are reported which aim to show what GDP would have been if prices had remained at their levels in some chosen year (the base year). The base year currently used in the UK is 2005.
If we look at nominal GDP estimates for the UK from 1948 up to 2008 we find that they rise each year. So, regardless of the fact that in some of these years output volumes fell, price rises (inflation) have been sufficient to cause nominal or current-price GDP to rise. But, this was not true in 2009!
But, why did nominal GDP fall in 2009? Well, firstly, the average price of the economy’s output, which is measured by the GDP deflator, rose by only 1.36% in 2009. This was the lowest rate of economy-wide inflation since 1999 (although real GDP or output rose by 3.9% in 1999). And, secondly, in 2009 output fell by 4.9%. The extent of the fall in output meant that price increases were not sufficient for nominal GDP to rise. In fact, the actual value of GDP in 2008 was £1.448 trillion as compared with £1.396 trillion in 2009. This means that nominal GDP fell by 3.6% in 2009. The next lowest recorded change, since comparable figures began in 1948, was actually in 2008 when nominal GDP rose by 3.5% (real GDP rose too in 2009, albeit by only 0.5%).
So, in short, the decline in both nominal and real GDP in 2009 indicates just how deep the economic downturn has been.
Articles
Britain’s economic growth revised up to 0.4% The Times, Gary Parkinson and Grainne Gilmore (30/3/10)
UK pulls out of recession faster than thought Reuters, Matt Falloon and Christina Fincher (30/3/10)
UK growth unexpectedly revised up to 0.4% BBC News (30/3/10) )
UK Q4 growth revised upward again to 0.4 pct Associated Press (AP), Jane Wardell (30/3/10)
Instant view – Q4 final GDP revised up to 0.4 per cent Reuters UK (30/3/10)
Data
Latest on GDP growth Office for National Statistics (30/3/10)
Quarterly National Accounts, Statistical Bulletin, March 2010 Office for National Statistics (30/3/10)
United Kingdom Economic Accounts, Time Series Data 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
- Explain what you understand by the terms ‘nominal GDP’ and ‘real GDP’. Can you think of other examples of where economists might distinguish between nominal and real variables?
- Explain under what circumstances nominal GDP could rise despite the output of the economy falling.
- The average annual change in nominal GDP since 1948 is 8.2% while that for real GDP is 2.4%. What do you think we can learn from each of these figures about long-term economic growth in the UK?
- What do you understand to be the difference between short-term and long-run economic growth? Where, in the commentary above, is there reference to short-term growth?
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?
The pound is regarded as an international currency, but its value has been declining throughout the financial crisis. Indeed, this downward trend is one of the factors that has prevented the recession in the UK from getting worse. As the exchange rate changes, the relative competitiveness of a country’s products changes and this therefore affects exports and imports.
However, despite a declining pound, exports from the UK have fallen and this has contributed to an unexpected global goods trade deficit in January of nearly £8 billion – the largest level since August 2008 and well above the forecast of £7 billion. This is putting further pressure on the pound. A key to the UK’s economic recovery was argued to be growth in exports, but this now appears to be a somewhat forlorn hope. The figures released show that exports slumped 6.9% to £19.5 billion in January, whilst imports only fell by 1.6%. A contributing factor might be the bad weather that hit the UK in January, but the long-term decline of manufacturing in Britain has also been put forward as a reason.
The following articles consider the UK’s trade deficit and the possibility of an export-led recovery.
Articles
January trade deficit widens as exports fall Guardian, Kathryn Hopkins (9/3/10)
UK trade gap widens to worst in 17 months BBC News (9/3/10)
Exports plunge heaps pressure on pound Independent (9/3/10)
Pound slides back against dollar and euro Guardian, Ashley Seager (21/9/09)
Trade gap widens despite weak pound Financial Times (9/3/10)
UK exports plunge by £1.4 billionThe Press Association (9/3/10)
Pound falls again on deficit fears Guardian (9/3/10)
UK trade gap widens as exports sink Wall Street Journal, Nicholas Winning (9/3/10)
Rebalancing, deferred BBC News blogs, Stephanomics Stephanie Flanders (9/3/10)
Global recovery is helping UK, says Bank of England’s Sentance Guardian, Larry Elliott (18/3/10)
Pound Declines as Investors Bet Bank of England Will Hold Rates BusinessWeek, Lukanyo Mnyanda (20/3/10)
Data
For UK balance of trade data, see UK Trade (Office for National Statstics)
For exchange rate data, see Statistical Interactive Database (Bank of England)
Questions
- How is the value of the pound determined?
- Illustrate a depreciation of the pound on a diagram. What are the factors that could cause this?
- When the value of the pound falls, why should UK goods become more competitive?
- Explain why an export-led recovery was a possibility for the UK economy. How can we use the transmission mechanisms to help explain this?
- Despite a weak pound, exports have fallen. What are the explanations for this?
- What are the consequences of a widening trade deficit and how can it be tackled?
From the end of January to the beginning of March, the sterling exchange rate index fell by over 6% – from 81.7 to 76.5. Against the dollar, the fall has been even more dramatic, falling from $1.62 to $1.49 (a fall of 8%). What are the reason for this? And is the depreciation likely to continue? The following clip looks at what has been going on and whether the reasons are political, or whether there are other economic fundamentals that have contributed to sterling’s fall.
Stephanie Flanders on the pound BBC Politics Show, Jo Coburn and Stephanie Flanders (2/3/10)
Articles
One-way bet? BBC News blogs: Stephanomics, Stephanie Flanders (1/3/10)
Euro drops to lowest level in 10 months against dollar BBC News (2/3/10)
Fiscal and political fears hit sterling Financial Times, Peter Garnham (1/3/10)
Sterling’s slide is not just about polls Financial Times (2/3/10)
Sterling rout is more than a wobble over political uncertainty Guardian, Larry Elliott (1/3/10)
The pound is weighed down Guardian, Howard Davies (2/3/10)
Sterling jitters The Economist (1/3/10)
Sterling crisis might break Britain’s political and economic paralysis Telegraph, Jeremy Warner (3/3/10)
Questions
- What are the reasons for the depreciation of sterling between January and March 2010?
- Why was selling sterling a ‘one-way bet’ for speculators?
- Why might there have been ‘overshooting’ of the sterling exchange rate?
- Who gain and who lose from a depreciation of sterling?
- What is the likely effect of a depreciation of sterling on (a) inflation; (b) economic growth; (c) interest rates? Explain your answers.
- How do problems of government debt affect countries’ exchange rates?