It doesn’t seem that long ago when Greece was in the news regarding its deficit and need for bailing out. Back then, countries such as Spain, Portugal and Ireland were being mentioned as the next countries which might require financial assistance from the EU. It is now the Irish economy that is in trouble, even though the Irish government has not yet requested any financial help. The EU, however, is ‘ready to act’.
The Irish economy experienced an extremely strong boom, but they also suffered from the biggest recession in the developed world, with national income falling by over 20% since 2007. Savers are withdrawing their money; property prices continue to collapse; and banks needed bailing out. Austerity measures have already been implemented – tax rises and spending cuts equal to 5% of GDP took place, but it has still not been enough to stabilise the economy’s finances. All of these problems have contributed to a large and unsustainable budget deficit and a significant lack of funding and that’s where the EU and possibly the IMF come in.
If the Irish economy continues to decline and experiences a financial crisis, the UK would probably be one of the first to step in and offer finance. As our closest neighbour and an important trading partner, the collapse of the Irish economy would adversely affect the UK. A significant proportion of our exports go to the Irish economy and, with Irish taxpayers facing troubled times, UK exporting companies may be the ones to suffer.
One thing that this crisis has done is to provide eurosceptics with an opportunity to argue their case and blame the euro for the collapse of Ireland. With one monetary policy, the Irish economy is tied in to the interest rates set by the ECB and low interest rates fuelled the then booming economy. The common currency also increased capital flows from central European countries, such as Germany, to peripheral countries, such as Ireland, Spain and Portugal. In themselves, capital flows aren’t a problem, but when they are used to fund property bubbles and not productive investments, adverse effects are inevitable, as Ireland found to its detriment.
As prices collapsed and banks simply ran out of money, the government stepped in and rescued not only the depositors of Irish banks, but also their bondholders. Unable to devalue their currency, as it’s the euro, the Irish economy was unable to boost exports and hence aggregate demand and in turn economic growth. Although, the Irish government has not requested any financial help, as the French Finance Minister commented about a potential bailout: “Is it six months or a few days away? I’d say it’s closer to days.” The following articles look at this developing situation in Europe.
EU plays down Irish republic bail-out talks BBC News (17/11/10)
Ireland bailout: the European politicians who will decide Telegraph, Phillip Aldrick (17/11/10)
Don’t blame the Euro for Ireland’s mess Financial Times, Phillipe Legrain (17/11/10)
Britain signals intention to help Ireland in debt crisis New York Times, James Kanter and Steven Erlanger (17/11/10)
Ireland will take aid if ‘bank issue is too big’ Irish Times, Jason Michael (17/11/10)
Irish junior party says partnership strained Reuters (17/11/10)
Ireland resists humiliating bail-out as UK pledges £7 billion Telegraph, Bruno Waterfield (17/11/10)
Markets stable as Ireland bailout looms Associated Press (17/11/10)
The implausible in pursuit of the indefensible? BBC News blogs, Stephanomics, Stephanie Flanders (16/11/10)
Ireland bailout worth ‘tens of billions’ of euros, says central bank governor Guardian, Julia Kollewe and Lisa O’Carroll (18/11/10)
The stages of Ireland’s grief BBC News blogs, Stephanomics, Stephanie Flanders (18/11/10)
Q&A: Irish Republic finances BBC News (19/11/10)
Could Spain and Portugal be next to accept bail-outs? BBC News, Gavin Hewitt (19/11/10)
Questions
- Why will the UK be affected by the collapse of the Irish economy?
- If Ireland were not a member of the eurozone, would the country be any better off? How might a floating exchange rate boost growth?
- The Financial Times article talks about the euro not being to blame for the Irish problems, saying that ‘tight fiscal policy’ should have been used. What does this mean?
- Why is the housing market so important to any nation?
- What are the arguments (a) for and (b) against the euro? Would Ireland benefit from leaving the euro?
- Should the UK government intervene to help Ireland? What are the key factors that will influence this decision? What about the EU – should Ireland ask for help? Should the EU give help?
- Austerity measures have already been implemented, but what other actions could the Irish economy take to increase competitiveness?
The issue of the state of the public finances has dominated much economic-thinking in 2010. This is not just a UK issue, it is a global issue; deteriorating public finances have led to governments around the world making some often very difficult fiscal policy choices. For instance, here in the UK we are continuing to debate the issues arising from the Comprehensive Spending Review which presents the government’s spending plans for the next few financial years. Over in Ireland concerns have resurfaced about the ability of the Irish to finance its burgeoning stock of public debt (see articles below). The fragility of the Irish banking system has meant that interventions by government have been needed to support financial institutions which, some estimate, will see net borrowing by the Irish government this year rise to the equivalent of over 30% of Ireland’s Gross Domestic Product.
The International Monetary Fund’s World Economic Outlook Database is a rich source of information for anybody looking to make international comparisons of public finances. Being able to extract key messages from data and to make economic sense of them is a crucial skill for an economist. But, in doing so it is important that we have an understanding of some of the terms being used by those presenting the data. In this case, to help you undertake your own study of the size of government expenditures, revenues, deficits and debt for countries around the world, we provide a short overview of some of the terms relevant to understanding public finances and illustrate them with reference to a sample of countries.
The IMF’s public finance figures relate not to the whole of the public sector but to general government and thereby exclude public corporations. The general government’s budget balance is presented in both national currency and relative to its Gross Domestic Product. The latter is very useful when making comparisons across countries. A negative figure indicates net borrowing, i.e. expenditures exceed receipts, while a positive figure means that government is a net lender, i.e. receipts exceed expenditures. Forecasts are available for 2010, but, naturally, can be rather unreliable, given that the fluidity of economic events means that they are subject to sizeable revision – Ireland being a case in point.
If we look at the period from 1995–2009 as a whole, the UK was a net borrower with a deficit equivalent to around 2¾ of GDP. Ireland, in contrast, averaged close to a balanced budget with some sizeable surpluses, such as in 2006 when it ran a budget surplus equivalent to 5.2% of GDP. Some countries, such as Australia (0.5% of GDP), averaged budget surpluses over this period. But, the UK’s deficit was not especially large by international standards. From 1995–1999, the USA ran a deficit equivalent to 4.5% of GDP, Greece 5.7% of GDP and in Japan, where several fiscal stimuli have been attempted to reinvigorate the economy, 5.9% of GDP. Nonetheless, the UK’s predicted deficit for 2010 of in excess of 10% of GDP does place it towards the higher end of the deficit-scale, though by no means at the very top!
Another budget balance measure is the structural balance. This attempts to model government expenditures and receipts so as to be able to predict what the budget balance would be if the economy was at its potential output, i.e. that output level when the economy’s resources are being used at normal levels of capacity utilisation. At the moment, for instance, many countries are experiencing a negative output gap, with output below its potential. This puts upward pressure on expenditures, largely welfare expenditures, but also depresses receipts, such as those from taxes on income or spending. The UK is estimated to have run a structural budget deficit equivalent to 2.6% of potential GDP from 1995–2009. With the fiscal measures to support the economy this is forecast to be as high as 7.9% in 2010. Japan is estimated to have run a structural deficit over the period from 1995–2009 equivalent to 5.4% of potential GDP, while in Greece it is estimated at 6.1%.
Another commonly referred to budget balance measure is the primary balance. The primary balance excludes any interest received on financial assets held by government, and, more significantly, interest payments made by the government on its stock of debt. This measure gives us a sense of whether governments are able to afford today’s spending programmes. The UK ran a primary deficit between 1995 and 2009 equivalent to 1% of GDP, while in America and Japan respectively the primary deficit averaged 2.6% and 4.8% of GDP. Interestingly, because of the size of debt stocks in many countries the exclusion of interest makes a notable difference to this fiscal indicator. For instance, Greece typically ran a primary surplus equivalent to 0.9% of GDP.
Budget balances are flows, whereas debt is a stock concept. In other words, budget deficits and surpluses can add to or reduce the stock of debt. Figures are available both on gross debt and net debt. The latter is net of financial assets, including gold and currency reserves. The UK’s average stock of gross debt to GDP between 1995 and 2009 was 45.2% of GDP, but this has risen to over 75% in 2010. In fact, by international standards our public-debt to GDP ratio remains favourable. In Greece, gross public-debt to GDP is predicted to be around 130% of GDP this year, but as high as 225% in Japan.
Finally, consider an interesting case: Sweden. By international standards its public expenditure to GDP share is high, averaging 54% between 1995 and 2009. But, it ‘balances the books’ with a small average budget surplus of 0.2% of GDP and a primary surplus of 0.8% of GDP. Its stock of debt has been falling even in recent times and stands at only a little over 40% of GDP. In 2010, despite the prediction of a small overall budget deficit of 2.2% of GDP, it will continue to run a structural surplus of 0.4% of potential GDP. Hence, Sweden demonstrates nicely the danger of assuming that, in some way, public expenditure necessarily translates into government deficits and, in turn, stocks of public debt.
IMF World Economic Outlook Database
World Economic Outlook Database International Monetary Fund
Articles
Ireland warns jump in borrowing costs very serious Telegraph (12/11/10)
Ireland’s cost of borrowing soars after dramatic sell-off Telegraph, James Hall, (11/11/10)
Imperative Budget is passed – Lenihan RTE News (12/11/10)
Lenihan welcomes EU move to calm markets RTE News (12/11/10)
Irish crisis demands new EU response Financial Times , Mohamed El-Erian (12/11/10)
Britain backs EU rescue missions for debt-ridden Ireland Guardian , Phillip Inman and Patrick Wintour (12/11/10)
Questions
- The IMF’s figures relate to general government. What do you understand by the term general government and how does this differ from the public sector?
- What does net borrowing indicate about the government’s budget balance? What if it was described as a net lender?
- What do you understand by the term structural budget balance? How is this concept related to the business cycle?
- What is measured by the primary balance? Would you expect this to be higher or lower than its budget balance? Explain your answer.
- How does gross debt differ from net debt?
- What factors do you think affect investor confidence in buying government debt?
- Japan’s stock of gross debt is about 225% of GDP while that in Greece is 130%. Does this mean that Japan should have greater problems in financing its debt? Explain your answer.
In the wake of the credit crunch, the Federal Reserve Bank (the Fed) reduced interest rates to virtually zero in December 2008 and embarked on a huge round of quantitative easing over the following 15 months, ending in March 2010. This involved the purchase of some $1.7 trillion of assets, mainly government bonds and mortgage-backed securities. There was also a large planned fiscal stimulus, with President Obama announcing a package of government expenditure increases and tax cuts worth $787 billion in January 2009.
By late 2009, the US economy was recovering and real GDP growth in the final quarter of 2009 was 5.0% (at an annual rate). However, the fiscal stimulus turned out not to be as much as was planned (see and also) and the increased money supply from quantitative easing was not having sufficient effect on aggregate demand. By the second quarter of 2010 annual growth had slowed to 1.7% and there were growing fears of a double-dip recession. What was to be done?
The solution adopted by the Fed was to embark on a second round of quantitative easing – or “QE2”, as it has been dubbed. This will involve purchasing an additional $600 billion of US government bonds by the end of quarter 2 2011, at a rate of around $75 billion per month.
But will it work to stimulate the US economy? What will be the knock-on effects on exchange rates and on other countries? And what will be the effects on prices: commodity prices, stock market prices and prices generally? The following articles look at the issues. They also look at reactions around the world. So far it looks as if other countries will not follow with their own quantitative easing. For example, the Bank of England announced on 4 November that it would not engage in any further quantitative easing. It seems, then, that the USA is the only one on board the QE2.
Articles
QE2 – What is the Fed Doing? Will it Work? Kansas City Star, William B. Greiner (5/11/10)
The ‘Wall Of Money’: A guide to QE2 BBC News blogs: Idle Scrawl, Paul Mason (2/11/10)
Federal Reserve to pump $600bn into US economy BBC News (4/11/10)
Beggar my neighbour – or merely browbeat him? BBC News blogs: Stephanomics, Stephanie Flanders (4/11/10)
Too much cash, bubbles and hot potatoes Financial Times (5/11/10)
Bernanke Invokes Friedman’s Inflation-Fighting Legacy to Defend Stimulus Bloomberg, Scott Lanman and Steve Matthews (7/11/10)
The QE backlash The Economist (5/11/10)
Former Fed Chairman Volcker says bond buying plan won’t do much to boost US economy Chicago Tribune, Kelly Olsen (5/11/10)
Ben Bernanke’s QE2 is misguided Guardian, Chris Payne (6/11/10)
Effects on commodity prices and stock markets
Gold hits record high, oil rallies on Fed stimulus Taipei Times (7/11/10)
Analysis: Fed’s QE2 raises alarm of commodity bubble Reuters, Barbara Lewis and Nick Trevethan (5/11/10)
Fed’s Bernanke defends new economic recovery plan BBC News (7/11/10)
Sit back and enjoy the ride that QE2 has set in motion Financial Times, Neil Hume (5/11/10)
US accused of forcing up world food prices Guardian, Phillip Inman (5/11/10)
Effects on other countries
The rest of the world goes West when America prints more money Telegraph, Liam Halligan (6/11/10)
Backlash against Fed’s $600bn easing Financial Times, Alan Beattie, Kevin Brown and Jennifer Hughes (4/11/10)
China, Germany and South Africa criticise US stimulus BBC News (5/11/10)
G20 beset with fresh crisis over currency International Business Times, Nagesh Narayana (5/11/10)
European Central Bank Keeps Rates at Record Lows New York Times, Julia Werdigier and Jack Ewing (4/11/10)
Official statements by central banks
FOMC press release Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (3/11/10)
News release: Bank of England Maintains Bank Rate at 0.5% and the Size of the Asset Purchase Programme at £200 Billion Bank of England (4/11/10)
ECB Press Conference ECB, Jean-Claude Trichet, President of the ECB, Vítor Constâncio, Vice-President of the ECB (4/11/10)
Questions
- How has the Fed justified the additional $600 billion of quantitative easing?
- What will determine the size of the effect of this quantitative easing on US aggregate demand?
- How will QE2 influence the exchange rate of the dollar?
- Why have other countries been critical of the effects of the US policy?
- What will be the effect of the policy on commodity prices?
If you are lucky enough to have piles of money earning interest in a bank account, one thing you don’t want to be doing is facing the dreaded tax bill on the interest earned. It is for this reason that many wealthy people put their savings into bank accounts in Switzerland and other countries with strict secrecy laws. Countries, such as Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Andorra, Liberia and the Principality of Monaco have previously had laws in place to prevent the effective exchange of information. This had meant that you could keep your money in an account there and the UK authorities would be unable to obtain any information for their tax records.
However, as part of an ongoing OECD initiative against harmful tax practices, more and more countries have been opening up to the exchange of information. In recent developments, Switzerland and the UK have signed an agreement, which will see them begin to negotiate on improving information exchange. In particular, the UK will be looking at the possibility of the Swiss authorities imposing a tax on any interest earned in their accounts by UK residents. This tax would be on behalf of HM Revenue and Customs. One concern, however, with this attempted crack down on tax evasion is that ‘innocent’ taxpayers could be the ones to suffer.
The following articles consider this recent development. It is also a good idea to look at the following link, which takes you to the OECD to view some recent agreements between the UK and other countries with regard to tax policy and the exchange of information. (The OECD)
Articles
UK in talks over taxing Britons’ Swiss bank accounts BBC News (26/10/10)
Doubts on plans to tackle tax evasion Telegraph, Myra Butterworth (21/10/10)
HMRC letters target taxpayers with Swiss bank accounts BBC News (25/10/10)
Spending Review: Can the taxman fix the system? BBC News, Kevin Peachey (22/10/10)
Britain, Switzerland agree to begin tax talks AFP (26/10/10)
Treasury to get £1 billion windfall in Swiss deal over secret bank accounts Guardian, Phillip Inman (26/10/10)
Swiss to help UK tax secret accounts Reuters (25/10/10)
Reports
The OECD’s Project on Hamful Tax Practices, 2006 Update on Progress in Member Countries The OECD, Centre for Tax Policy and Administration 2006
A Progress Report on the Jurisdictions surveyed by the OECD global forum in implementing the internationally agreed tax standard The OECD, Centre for Tax Policy and Administration (19/10/10)
Questions
- Is there a difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion?
- If there is crack down on tax evasion, what might be the impact on higher earners? How could this potential policy change adversely affect the performance of the UK economy?
- If tax evasion is reduced, what are the likely positive effects on everyday households?
- Is clamping down on tax evasion cost effective?
- What might be the impact on people’s willingness to work, especially of those on higher wages, if there is no longer a ‘haven’ where they can save their money?
- How could tax reform help the UK reduce its budget deficit?
It looks like being a busy time for economic commentators for many, many months as they keep an eye on how the economy is progressing in light of the squeeze in public spending and impending tax increases. Inevitably these commentators – including us here on the Sloman News Site – will be watching to see how the private sector responds and whether or not, as is hoped, private sector activity will begin filling the void left by the public sector.
Of course, the largest group of purchasers in the economy is the household sector. So, in the short term at least, they will be crucial in supporting the total level of aggregate demand. The effects of any rebalancing of aggregate demand as the public sector’s role is reduced will be more painful should the real growth in household spending slow or even go into reverse. As consumers we are well aware that our spending depends on more than just our current income. For instance, it is affected by our expectations of our future incomes and by our general financial position. In essence the latter reflects our holdings of financial assets and liabilities (debt) and any wealth we may be lucky enough to hold in valuables such as housing.
So, do we have any clues as to how the financial position of households might be impacting on our spending? Well, the latest numbers from the Bank of England on Housing Equity Withdrawal (HEW) offer us an important insight in to the extent of the fragility felt by households as to their financial position. These numbers show that households increased their stake in housing by some £6.2 billion in the second quarter of 2010. At least two questions probably spring to mind at this point! Firstly, what is HEW and, secondly, what has this got to do with spending?
Let’s begin by defining Housing equity withdrawal (HEW). HEW occurs when new lending secured on dwellings (net lending) increases by more than the investment in the housing stock. Housing investment relates largely to the purchase of brand new homes and to major home improvements, but also includes house moving costs, such as legal fees. When HEW is negative, new secured lending is less than the level of housing investment. In other words, given the level of investment in housing, we would have expected new mortgage debt to have been greater. This means that households are increasing their housing equity.
This brings us to answering our second question – the ‘so what question’. As with all the choices we make, there is an opportunity cost – a sacrifice. By increasing our equity in property and using housing as a vehicle for saving we are using money that cannot be used to fund current consumption or to purchase financial assets.
As we have already noted, the Housing Equity Withdrawal (HEW) figures for Q2 2010 show that households increased their stake in housing by some £6.2 billion. This is equivalent to a little over 2½% of disposable income in the period and income that, as we have also said, could have helped to boost aggregate demand through spending. And, there is another concern for those hoping that households will help support aggregate demand in the short term: negative HEW is not new. In fact, HEW has been negative since the second quarter of 2008, the exact same quarter that the UK entered recession. The magnitude of negative HEW over these past 9 quarters is equivalent to £44.2 billion or 2.1% of disposable income.
Of course, these latest HEW figures are figures from the past. What we are ultimately interested in, of course, is future behaviour. But, it might be that the prolonged period over which British households have been consolidating their own financial position – just as the public sector is looking to do – suggests that households are in cautious mood. So the question for you to debate is how cautious you think the household sector will remain and, therefore, how much households will help support aggregate demand in the months ahead.
Articles
Mortgage equity still increasing, Bank of England says BBC News (1/10/10)
Homeowners pay down loans Independent (2/10/10)
Paying off mortgages is a priority Telegraph, Philip Aldrick (3/10/10)
Homeowners pay off £6.2 billion in mortgage debt Guardian, Phillip Inman (1/10/10)
Families pay off £6bn mortgages Express, Sarah O’Grady (2/10/10)
Data
Housing equity withdrawal (HEW) statistical releases Bank of England
Questions
- What do you understand by aggregate demand? And what do you think a ‘rebalancing’ of aggregate demand might refer to?
- What do you understand by the term housing equity withdrawal?
- What is the opportunity cost of positive housing equity withdrawal (HEW)? What about the opportunity cost of negative HEW?
- What factors might help to explain the nine consecutive quarters of negative HEW?
- List those items that you might included under: (i) household financial assets; (ii) household financial liabilities; and (iii) household physical assets. Using this information, how would you calculate the net worth of a household?
- Let’s think about the spending of households. Draw up a list of factors that you think would affect a household’s current spending plans. Given your list, what conclusion would you draw about the strength of household spending in the months ahead?