Artificial Intelligence (AI) is transforming the way we live and work, with many of us knowingly or unknowingly using some form of AI daily. Businesses are also adopting AI in increasingly innovative ways. One example of this is the use of pricing algorithms, which use large datasets on market conditions to set prices.
While these tools can drive innovation and efficiency, they can also raise significant competition concerns. Subsequently, competition authorities around the world are dedicating efforts to understanding how businesses are using AI and, importantly, the potential risks its use may pose to competition.
How AI pricing tools can enhance competition
The use of AI pricing tools offers some clear potential efficiencies for firms, with the potential to reduce costs that can potentially translate into lower prices for consumers.
Take, for instance, industries with highly fluctuating demand, such as airlines or hotels. Algorithms can enable businesses to monitor demand and supply in real time and respond more quickly, which could help firms to respond more effectively to changing consumer preferences. Similarly, in industries which have extensive product ranges, like supermarkets, algorithms can significantly reduce costs and save resources that are usually required to manage pricing strategies across a large range of products.
Furthermore, as pricing algorithms can monitor competitors’ prices, firms can more quickly respond to their rivals. This could promote competition by helping prices to reach the competitive level more quickly, to the benefit of consumers.
How AI pricing tools can undermine competition
However, some of the very features that make algorithms effective can also facilitate anti-competitive behaviour that can harm consumers. In economic terms, collusion occurs when firms co-ordinate their actions to reduce competition, often leading to higher prices. This can happen both explicitly or implicitly. Explicit collusion, commonly referred to as illegal cartels, involves firms agreeing to co-ordinate their prices instead of competing. On the other hand, tacit collusion occurs when firms’ pricing strategies are aligned without a formal agreement.
The ability for these algorithms to monitor competitors’ prices and react to changes quickly could work to facilitate collusion, by learning to avoid price wars to maximise long-term profits. This could result in harm to consumers through sustained higher prices.
Furthermore, there may be additional risks if competitors use the same algorithmic software to set prices. This can facilitate the sharing of confidential information (such as pricing strategies) and, as the algorithms may be able to predict the response of their competitors, can facilitate co-ordination to achieve higher prices to the detriment of consumers.
This situation may resemble what is known as a ‘hub and spoke’ cartel, in which competing firms (the ‘spokes’) use the assistance of another firm at a different level of the supply chain (e.g. a buyer or supplier that acts as a ‘hub’) to help them co-ordinate their actions. In this case, a shared artificial pricing tool can act as the ‘hub’ to enable co-ordination amongst the firms, even without any direct communication between the firms.
In 2015 the CMA investigated a cartel involving two companies, Trod Limited and GB Eye Limited, which were selling posters and frames through Amazon (see linked CMA Press release below). These firms used pricing algorithms, similar to those described above, to monitor and adjust their prices, ensuring that neither undercut the other. In this case, there was also an explicit agreement between the two firms to carry out this strategy.
What does this mean for competition policy?
Detecting collusion has always been a significant challenge for the competition authorities, especially when no formal agreement exists between firms. The adoption of algorithmic pricing adds another layer of complexity to detection of cartels and could raise questions about accountability when algorithms inadvertently facilitate collusion.
In the posters and frames case, the CMA was able to act because one of the firms involved reported the cartel itself. Authorities like the CMA depend heavily on the firms involved to ‘whistle blow’ and report cartel involvement. They incentivise firms to do this through leniency policies that can offer firms reduced penalties or even complete immunity if they provide evidence and co-operate with the investigation. For example, GB eye reported the cartel to the CMA and therefore, under the CMA’s leniency policy, was not fined.
But it’s not all doom and gloom for competition authorities. Developments in Artificial Intelligence could also open doors to improved detection tools, which may have come a long way since the discussion in a blog on this topic several years ago. Competition Authorities around the world are working diligently to expand their understanding of AI and develop effective regulations for these rapidly evolving markets.
Articles
Questions
- In what types of markets might it be more likely that artificial intelligence can facilitate collusion?
- How could AI pricing tools impact the factors that make collusion more or less sustainable in a market?
- What can competition authorities do to prevent AI-assisted collusion taking place?
In this blog we show how we can apply fiscal metrics to assess the UK government’s fiscal stance. This captures the extent to which fiscal policy contributes to the level of economic activity in the economy.
Changes in the fiscal stance can then be used to estimate the extent to which discretionary fiscal policy measures represent a tightening or loosening of policy. We can measure the size and direction of fiscal impulses arising from changes in the government’s budgetary position.
Such an analysis is timely given the Autumn Budget presented by Rachel Reeves on 30 October 2024. This was the first Labour budget in 14 years and the first ever to be presented by a female Chancellor of the Exchequer.
We conclude by considering the forecast profile of expenditures and revenues for the next few years and the new fiscal rules announced by the Chancellor.
The fiscal stance
At its most simple, the fiscal stance measures the extent to which fiscal policy increases or decreases demand, thereby influencing growth and inflation (see Box 1.F, page 28, Autumn Budget 2024: see link below).
The fiscal stance is commonly estimated by measures of pubic-sector borrowing. To understand this, we can refer to the circular flow of income model. In this model, excesses of government spending (an injection) over taxation receipts (a withdrawal or leakage) represent a net injection into the circular flow and hence positively affect the level of aggregate demand for national output, all other things being equal.
A commonly used measure of borrowing in assessing the fiscal stance of the is the primary deficit. Unlike public-sector net borrowing, which is simply the excess of the sector’s spending over its receipts (largely taxation), the primary deficit subtracts net interest costs. It therefore excludes the interest payments on outstanding public-sector debts (and interest income earned on financial assets). The primary deficit can therefore be written as public-sector borrowing less net interest payments.
As discussed in our blog Fiscal impulses in November 2023, the primary deficit captures whether the public sector is able to afford its present fiscal choices by abstracting from debt-serving costs that reflect past fiscal choices. In this way, the primary deficit is a preferable measure to net borrowing both in assessing the impact on economic activity, i.e. the fiscal stance, and in assessing whether today’s fiscal choices will require government to issue additional debt.
Chart 1 shows public-sector net borrowing and the primary balance as shares of GDP for the UK since financial year 1975/76 (click here for a PowerPoint). The data are from the latest Public Finances Databank published by the Office for Budget Responsibility, published on the day of the Autumn Budget in October (see Data links below).
Over the period 1975/6 to 2023/24, public-sector net borrowing and the primary deficit had averaged 3.8% and 1.3% of GDP respectively. In the financial year 2023/24, they were 4.5% and 1.5% (they had been as high as 15.1% and 14.1% in 2020/21 as a result of COVID support measures). In 2024/25 net borrowing and the primary deficit are forecast to be 4.5% and 1.6% respectively. By 2027/28, while net borrowing is forecast to be 2.3% of GDP, there is forecast to be a primary surplus of 0.7% of GDP.
The Autumn Budget lays out plans for higher tax revenues to contribute two-thirds of the overall reduction in the primary deficit over the forecast period (up to 2029/30), while spending decisions contribute the remaining third.
The largest tax-raising measure is an increase in the employer rate of National Insurance Contributions (NICs) by 1.2 percentage points to 15% from April 2025. This will be levied on employee wages above a Secondary Threshold of £5000, reduced from £9100, which will increase in line with CPI inflation each year from April 2028. (See John’s blog, Raising the minimum wage: its effects on poverty and employment, for an analysis on the effects of this change.) This measure, allowing for other changes to the operation of employer NICs, is expected to raise £122 billion over the forecast period. This amounts to over two-thirds of the additional tax take from the taxation measures taken in the Budget.
Chart 2 shows both net borrowing and the primary deficit after being cyclically-adjusted (click here for a PowerPoint). This process adjusts these fiscal indicators to account for those parts of spending and taxation that are affected by the position of the economy in the business cycle. These are those parts that act as automatic stabilisers helping, as the name suggests, to stabilise the economy.
The process of cyclical adjustment leads to estimates of receipts and expenditures as if the economy were operating at its potential output level and hence with no output gap. The act of cyclically adjusting the primary deficit, which is our preferred measure of the fiscal stance, allows us to assess better the public sector’s fiscal stance.
Over the period from 1975/6 up to and including 2023/24, the cyclically-adjusted primary deficit (CAPD) averaged 1.1% of potential GDP. In 2024/25 the CAPD is forecast to be 1.5% of potential GDP. It then moves to a surplus of 0.5% by 2027/28. It therefore mirrors the path of the unadjusted primary deficit.
Measuring the fiscal impulse
To assess even more clearly the extent to which the fiscal stance is changing, we can use the cyclically-adjusted primary deficit to measure a fiscal impulse. This captures the magnitude of change in discretionary fiscal policy.
The term should not be confused with fiscal multipliers which measure the impact of fiscal changes on outcomes, such as real GDP and employment. Instead, we are interested in the size of the impulse that the economy is being subject to. Specifically, we are measuring discretionary fiscal policy changes that result in structural changes in the government budget and which, therefore, allow an assessment of how much, if at all, a country’s fiscal stance has tightened or loosened.
The size of the fiscal impulse is measured by the year-on-year percentage point change in the cyclically-adjusted public-sector primary deficit (CAPD) as a percentage of potential GDP. A larger deficit or a smaller surplus indicates a fiscal loosening. This is consistent with a positive fiscal impulse. On the other hand, a smaller deficit or a larger surplus indicates a fiscal tightening. This is consistent with a negative fiscal impulse.
Chart 3 shows the magnitude of UK fiscal impulses since the mid-1970s (Click here for a PowerPoint file). The scale of the fiscal interventions in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which included the COVID-19 Business Interruption Loan Scheme (CBILS) and Job Retention Scheme (‘furlough’), stand out sharply. In 2020 the CAPD to potential output ratio rose from 1.7 to 14.4%. This represents a positive fiscal impulse of 12.4% of GDP.
This was followed in 2021 by a tightening of the fiscal stance, with a negative fiscal impulse of 10.1% of GDP as the CAPD to potential output fell back to 4.0%. Subsequent tightening was tempered by policy measures to limit the impact on the private sector of the cost-of-living crisis, including the Energy Price Guarantee and Energy Bills Support Scheme.
For comparison, the fiscal response to the global financial crisis from 2007 to 2009 saw a cumulative positive fiscal impulse of 5.6% of GDP. While smaller in comparison to the discretionary fiscal responses to the COVID-19 pandemic, it nonetheless represented a sizeable loosening of the fiscal stance.
Chart 4 focuses on the implied fiscal impulse for the forecast period up to 2029/30 (click here for a PowerPoint). The period is notable for a negative fiscal impulse each year. Across the period as a whole, this there is a cumulative negative fiscal impulse of 2.6% of GDP. Most of the ‘heavy-lifting’ of the fiscal consolidation occurs in the three financial years from 2025/26 during which there is a cumulative negative impulse of 2.0% of GDP.
Looking forward
To conclude, we consider the implications for the projected profiles of public-sector spending, receipts and liabilities over the forecast period up to 2029/30.
Chart 5 plots data since the mid-1950s (click here for a PowerPoint). It shows the size of total public-sector spending (also known as ‘total managed expenditures’), taxation receipts (sometimes referred as the ‘tax burden’) and total public-sector receipts as shares of GDP. This last one includes additional receipts, such as interest payments on financial assets and income generated by public corporations, as well as taxation receipts.
The OBR forecasts that in real terms (i.e. after adjustment for inflation), public-sector spending will increase on average over the period from 2025/26 to 2029/30 by 1.4% per year, but with total receipts due to rise more quickly at 2.5% per year and taxation receipts by 2.8% per year. The implications of this, as discussed in the OBR’s October 1014 Economic and Fiscal Outlook (see link below), are that:
the size of the state is forecast to settle at 44% of GDP by the end of the decade, almost 5 percentage points higher than before the pandemic” while additional tax revenues will “push the tax take to a historic high of 38% of GDP by 2029-30
Finally, the government has committed to two key rules: a stability rule and an investment rule.
The stability rule. This states that the current budget must be in surplus by 2029/30 or, once 2029/30 becomes the third year of the forecast period, it will be in balance or surplus every third year of the rolling forecast period thereafter. The current budget refers to the difference between receipts and expenditures other than capital expenditures. In effect, it captures the ability of government to meet day-to-day spending and is intended to ensure that over the medium term any borrowing is solely for investment. It is important to note that ‘balance’ is defined in a range of between a deficit and surplus of no more than 0.5% of GDP.
The stability rule replaces the borrowing rule of the previous government that public net borrowing, therefore inclusive of investment expenditures, was not to exceed 3% of GDP by the fifth year of the rolling forecast period.
The investment rule. The government is planning to increase investment. In order to do this in a financially sustainable way, the investment rule states that public-sector net financial liabilities (PSNFL) or net financial debt for short, is falling as a share GDP by 2029/30, until 2029/30 becomes the third year of the forecast period. PSNFL should then fall by the third year of the rolling forecast period. PSNFL is a broader measure of the sector’s balance sheet than public-sector net debt (PSND), which was targeted under the previous government and which was required to fall by the fifth year of the rolling forecast period.
The new target, as well as now extending to the Bank of England, ‘nets off’ not just liquid liabilities (i.e. cash in the bank and foreign exchange reserves) but also financial assets such as shares and money owed to it, including expected student loan repayments. While liabilities are broader too, including for example, the local government pension scheme, the impact is expected to reduce the new liabilities target by £236 billion or 8.2 percentage points of GDP in 2024/25. The hope is that both rules can support what the Budget Report labels a ‘step change in investment’.
As Chart 6 shows, public investment as a share of GDP has not exceeded 6% this century and during the 2010s averaged only 4.4% (click here for a PowerPoint). The forecast has it rising above 5% for a time, but easing to 4.8% by end of the period.
This suggests more progress will be needed if the UK is to experience a significant and enduring increase in public investment. Of course, this needs to be set in the context of the wider public finances and is illustrative of the choices facing fiscal policymakers across the globe after the often violent shocks that have rocked economies and impacted on the state of the public finances in recent years.
Articles
Official documents
Data
Questions
- Explain what is meant by the following fiscal terms:
(a) Structural deficit,
(b) Automatic stabilisers,
(c) Discretionary fiscal policy,
(d) Public-sector net borrowing,
(e) Primary deficit,
(f) Current budget balance,
(g) Public-sector net financial liabilities (PSNFL).
- Explain the difference between a fiscal impulse and a fiscal multiplier.
- In designing fiscal rules what issues might policymakers need to consider?
- What are key differences between the fiscal rules of the previous Conservative government and the new Labour government in the UK? What economic arguments would you make for and against the ‘old’ and ‘new’ fiscal rules?
- What is meant by the ‘sustainability’ of the public finances? What factors might impact on their sustainability?
In an interview with Joe Rogan for his podcast, The Joe Rogan Experience, just before the US election, Donald Trump stated that, “To me, the most beautiful word – and I’ve said this for the last couple of weeks – in the dictionary today and any is the word ‘tariff’. It’s more beautiful than love; it’s more beautiful than anything. It’s the most beautiful word. This country can become rich with the use, the proper use of tariffs.”
President-elect Trump has stated that he will impose tariffs on imports of 10% or 20%, with 60% and 100% tariffs on imports from China and Mexico, respectively. This protection for US industries, combined with lighter regulation, will, he claims, provide a stimulus to the economy and help create jobs. The revenues will also help to reduce America’s budget deficit.
But it is not that straightforward.
Problems with tariffs for the USA
Imposing tariffs is likely to reduce international trade. But international trade brings net benefits, which are distributed between the participants according to the terms of trade. This is the law of comparative advantage.
In the simple two-country case, the law states that, provided the opportunity costs of producing various goods differ between the two countries, both of them can gain from mutual trade if they specialise in producing (and exporting) those goods that have relatively low opportunity costs compared with the other country. The total production and consumption of the two countries will be higher.
So if the USA has a comparative advantage in various manufactured products and a trading partner has a comparative advantage in tropical food products, such as coffee or bananas, both can gain by specialisation and trade.
If tariffs are imposed and trade is thereby reduced between the USA and its trading partners, there will be a net loss, as production will switch from lower-cost production to higher-cost production. The higher costs of less efficient production in the USA will lead to higher prices for those goods than if they were imported.
At the same time, goods that are still imported will be more expensive as the price will include the tariff. Some of this may be borne by the importer, meaning that only part of the tariff is passed on to the consumer. The incidence of the tariff between consumer and importer will depend on price elasticities of demand and supply. Nevertheless, imports will still be more expensive, allowing the domestically-produced substitutes to rise in price too, albeit probably by not so much. According to work by Kimberly Clausing and Mary E Lovely for the Peterson Institute (see link in Articles below), Trump’s proposals to raise tariffs would cost the typical American household over $2600 a year.
The net effect will be a rise in inflation – at least temporarily. Yet one of Donald Trump’s pledges is to reduce inflation. Higher inflation will, in turn, encourage the Fed to raise interest rates, which will dampen investment and economic growth.
Donald Trump tends to behave transactionally rather than ideologically. He is probably hoping that a rapid introduction of tariffs will then give the USA a strong bargaining position with foreign countries to trade more fairly. He is also hoping that protecting US industries by the use of tariffs, especially when coupled with deregulation, will encourage greater investment and thereby faster growth.
Much will depend on how other countries respond. If they respond by raising tariffs on US exports, any gain to industries from protection from imports will be offset by a loss to exporters.
A trade war, with higher tariffs, will lead to a net loss in global GDP. It is a negative sum game. In such a ‘game’, it is possible for one ‘player’ (country) to gain, but the loss to the other players (countries) will be greater than that gain.
Donald Trump is hoping that by ‘winning’ such a game, the USA could still come out better off. But the gain from higher investment, output and employment in the protected industries would have to outweigh the losses to exporting industries and from higher import prices.
The first Trump administration (2017–21), as part of its ‘America First’ programme, imposed large-scale tariffs on Chinese imports and on steel and aluminium from across the world. There was wide-scale retaliation by other countries with tariffs imposed on a range of US exports. There was a net loss to world income, including US GDP.
Problems with US tariffs for the rest of the world
The imposition of tariffs by the USA will have considerable effects on other countries. The higher the tariffs and the more that countries rely on exports to the USA, the bigger will the effect be. China and Mexico are likely to be the biggest losers as they face the highest tariffs and the USA is a major customer. In 2023, US imports from China were worth $427bn, while US exports to China were worth just $148bn – only 34.6% of the value of imports. The percentage is estimated to be even lower for 2024 at around 32%. In 2023, China’s exports to the USA accounted for 12.6% of its total exports; Mexico’s exports to the USA accounted for 82.7% of its total exports.
It is possible that higher tariffs could be extended beyond China to other Asian countries, such as Vietnam, South Korea, Taiwan, India and Indonesia. These countries typically run trade surpluses with the USA. Also, many of the products from these countries include Chinese components.
As far as the UK is concerned, the proposed tariffs would cause significant falls in trade. According to research by Nicolò Tamberi at the University of Sussex (see link below in Articles):
The UK’s exports to the world could fall by £22 billion (–2.6%) and imports by £1.4 (–0.16%), with significant variations across sectors. Some sectors, like fishing and petroleum, are particularly hard-hit due to their high sensitivity to tariff changes, while others, such as textiles, benefit from trade diversion as the US shifts demand away from China.
Other badly affected sectors would include mining, pharmaceuticals, finance and insurance, and business services. The overall effect, according to the research, would be to reduce UK output by just under 1%.
Countries are likely to respond to US tariffs by imposing their own tariffs on US imports. World Trade Organization rules permit the use of retaliatory tariffs equivalent to those imposed by the USA. The more aggressive the resulting trade war, the bigger would be the fall in world trade and GDP.
The EU is planning to negotiate with Trump to avoid a trade war, but officials are preparing the details of retaliatory measures should the future Trump administration impose the threatened tariffs. The EU response is likely to be strong.
Articles
The Most Beautiful Word In The Dictionary: TariffsYouTube, Joe Rogan and Donald Trump
- The exact thing that helped Trump win could become a big problem for his presidency
CNN, Matt Egan (7/11/24)
- Trump’s New Trade War With China Is Coming
Newsweek, Micah McCartney (9/11/24)
- Trump tariff threat looms large on several Asian countries – not just China – says Goldman Sachs
CNBC, Lee Ying Shan (11/11/24)
- Trump’s bigger tariff proposals would cost the typical American household over $2,600 a year
Peterson Institute for International Economics, Kimberly Clausing and Mary E Lovely (21/8/24)
- More tariffs, less red tape: what Trump will mean for key global industries
The Guardian, Jasper Jolly, Dan Milmo, Jillian Ambrose and Jack Simpson (7/11/24)
- Trump tariffs would halve UK growth and push up prices, says thinktank
The Guardian, Larry Elliott (6/11/24)
- China is trying to fix its economy – Trump could derail those plans
BBC News, João da Silva (8/11/24)
- Trump tariffs could cost UK £22bn of exports
BBC News, Faisal Islam & Tom Espiner (8/11/24)
- Trump to target EU over UK in trade war as he wants to see ‘successful Brexit’, former staffer claims
Independent, Millie Cooke (11/11/24)
- EU’s trade war nightmare gets real as Trump triumphs
Politico, Camille Gijs (6/11/24)
- Will Trump impose his tariffs? They could reduce the UK’s exports by £22 billion.
Centre for Inclusive Trade Policy, University of Sussex, Nicolò Tamberi (8/11/24)
Questions
- Explain why, according to the law of comparative advantage, all countries can gain from trade.
- In what ways may the imposition of tariffs benefit particular sections of an economy?
- Is it in countries’ interests to retaliate if the USA imposes tariffs on their exports to the USA?
- Why is a trade war a ‘negative sum game’?
- Should the UK align with the EU in resisting President-elect Trump’s trade policy or should it seek independently to make a free-trade deal with the USA? is it possible to do both?
- What should China do in response to US threats to impose tariffs of 60% or more on Chinese imports to the USA?
On 25 October 2024, Moody’s, one of the major credit ratings agencies, announced that it was downgrading France’s economic outlook to negative. This was its first downgrading of France since 2012. It followed a similar revision by Fitch’s, another ratings agency, on 11 October.
While Fitch’s announcement did not have a significant impact on the yields of French government bonds, expectations around Moody’s did. In the week preceding the announcement, the net increases in the yield on generic 10-year government debt was approximately 9 basis points (0.09 percentage points). On the day itself, the yield rose by approximately 5.6 basis points (0.056 percentage points).
The yield rose further throughout the rest of October, finishing nearly 0.25 percentage points above its level at the start of the month. However, as Figure 1 illustrates, these increases are part of a longer-term trend of rising yields for French government debt (click here for a PowerPoint).
The yield on 10-year French government debt began 2024 at 2.56% and had an upward trend for the first half of the year. The yield peaked at 3.34% on 1 July. It then fell back below 3% for a while. The negative economic outlook then pushed yields back above 3% and they finished October at 3.12%, half a percentage point above the level at the start of the year. This represents a significant increase in borrowing costs for the French government.
In this blog, we will explain why the changes in France’s economic outlook translate into increases in yields for French government bonds. We will also analyse why yields have increased and examine the prospects for the markets in French government bonds.
Pricing signals of bond yields
A bond is a tradable debt instrument issued by governments to finance budget deficits – the difference between tax receipts and spending. Like any financial instruments, investment in bonds involves a commitment of funds today in anticipation of interest payments through time as compensation, with a repayment of its redemption value on the date the bond matures.
Since the cash flows associated with holding a bond occur at different points in time, discounted cash flow analysis is used to determine its value. This gives the present value of the cash flows discounted at the appropriate expected rate of return. In equilibrium this will be equal to the bond’s market price, as the following equation shows.
Where:
P = the equilibrium price of the bond
C = cash coupon payments
M = redemption value at maturity
r = yield (expected rate of return in equilibrium.
Interest payments tend to be fixed at the time a bond is issued and reflect investors’ expected rate of return, expressed as the yield in bond markets. This is determined by prevailing interest rates and perceived risk. Over time, changes in interest rates and perceptions of risk will change the expected rate of return (yield), which will, in turn, change the present value of the cash flows, and hence fundamental value.
Prices move in response to changes in fundamental value and since this happens frequently, this means that prices change a lot. For bonds, as the coupon payments (C each year and the redemption price () are fixed, the only factor that can change is the expected rate of return (yield). This is reflected in the observed yield at each price.
If the expected rate of return rises, this increases the discount rate applied to future cash flows and reduces their present value. At the current price, the fixed coupon is not sufficient to compensate investors. So, investors sell the bonds and price falls until it reaches a point where the yield offered is equal to that required. The reverse happens if the expected rate of return falls.
The significant risk associated with bonds is credit default risk – the risk that the debt will not be repaid. The potential for credit default is a significant influence of the compensation investors require for holding debt instruments like bonds (ceteris paribus). An increase in expected credit default risk will increase the expected return (compensation). This will be reflected in a lower price and higher yield.
Normally, with the bonds issued by high-income countries, such as those in Europe and North America, the risk of default is extremely low. However, if a country’s annual deficits or accumulated debt increase to what markets consider to be unsustainable levels, the perceived risk of default may rise. Countries’ levels of risk are rated by international ratings agencies, such as Moody’s and Fitch. Investors pay a lot of attention to the information provided by such agencies.
Moody’s downgrade in its economic outlook for France from ‘stable’ to ‘negative’ indicated weak economic performance and higher credit default risk. This revision rippled through bond markets as investors adjusted their views of the country’s economic risk. The rise in yields observed is a signal that bond investors perceive higher credit default risk associated with French government debt and are demanding a higher rates of return as compensation.
Why has France’s credit default risk premium risen now?
As we have seen, credit default risk is not normally considered a significant issue for sovereign borrowers like France. Some of the issue around perceived credit default risk for the French government relate to the size of the French government’s deficit and the projections for it. Following a spike in borrowing associated with the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, the annual government budget deficit and the overall level of debt as percentages of GDP have remained high. The annual deficit is projected to be 6% for 2024 and still 5% for 2025. The ratio of outstanding French government debt to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) ballooned to 123% in 2020 and is still expected to be 115% by the end of 2025. France has been put on notice to reduce its debt towards the Eurozone limit of 60% of GDP.
Governments in France last achieved a balanced budget in 1974. They have run deficits ever since. Figure 2 illustrates the French government budget deficits from 1990 to 2023 (click here for a PowerPoint). The figure shows that France experienced deficits in the past similar to today’s. These, however, did not tend to worry bond markets too much.
So why are investors currently worried? This stems from France’s debt mountain and from concerns that the government will not be able to deal with it. Investors are concerned that both weak growth and increasingly volatile politics will thwart efforts to reduce debt levels.
Let’s take growth. Even by contemporary European standards, France’s growth prospects are anaemic. GDP is expected to grow by just 1.1% for 2024 and 1% for 2025. Both consumer and business confidence are low. None of this suggests a growth spurt soon which will boost the tax revenues of the French government sufficiently to address the deficit.
Further, political instability has grown due to the inconclusive parliamentary elections which Emmanuel Macron surprisingly called in July. No single political grouping has a majority and the President has appointed a Centrist Prime Minister, Michel Barnier (the former EU Brexit negotiator). His government is trying to pass a budget through the Assemblée Nationale involving a mixture of spending cuts and tax hikes which amount to savings of €60 billion ($66 billion). This is equivalent to 2% of GDP.
The parliamentary path of the budget bill is set to be torturous with both the left and right wing blocs in the Assemblée opposing most of the provisions. Debate in the Assemblée Nationale and Senate are expected to drag on into December, with the real prospect that the government may have to use presidential decree to pass the budget. Commentators argue that this will fuel further political chaos.
France looks more like Southern Europe
In the past, bond investors were more tolerant of France’s budget deficits. French government bonds were attractive options for investors wanting to hold euro-denominated bonds while avoiding riskier Southern European countries such as Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain. Since France has run persistent government deficits for a long time, it offered bond investors a more liquid market than more fiscally-parsimonious Northern European neighbours, such as Germany and the Netherlands. Consequently, France’s debt instruments offered a slight risk premium on the yields for those countries.
However, that has changed. France’s credit default risk premium is rising to levels comparable to its Southern neighbours. On 26 September 2024, the yield on generic French government 10-year debt rose above its Spanish equivalent for the first time since 2008.
As Figure 3 illustrates, this was the culmination of a trend evident throughout 2024, with the difference in yields between the two declining steadily (click here for a PowerPoint). At the start of the year, the yield on Spanish debt offered a 40 basis points premium over the French equivalent. By October, the yield on Spanish debt was consistently below that of French debt. All of this is due to bond investors’ rising expectations about France’s credit default risk. Now, France’s borrowing costs are not only above Spain, but also closer to those of Greece and Italy than of Germany.
Strikingly, Spain’s budget deficit was 3.5% in 2023 and is expected to narrow to 2.6% by 2025. The percentage of total debt to GDP is 104% and falling. Moreover, following Spain’s inconclusive election in 2023, the caretaker government put forward budgetary plans involving fiscal tightening without the need for legislation. This avoided the political wrangling France is facing.
For France, these developments raise the prospect of yields rising further as bond investors now see alternatives to French government debt in the form of Spain’s. This country have already undertaken the painful fiscal adjustments that France seems incapable of completing.
Articles
Data
Questions
- What is credit default risk?
- Explain why higher credit default risk is associated with higher yields on France’s government debt.
- Why would low economic growth worsen the government’s budget deficit?
- Why would political instability increase credit default risk?
- What has happened to investors’ perceptions of the risk associated with French government debt relative to Spain’s?
- How has this manifested itself in the relative yields of the two countries’ government debt?
The first Budget of the new UK Labour government was announced on 30 October 2024. It contained a number of measures that will help to tackle inequality. These include extra spending on health and education. This will benefit households on lower incomes the most as a percentage of net income. Increases in tax, by contrast, will be paid predominantly by those on higher incomes. The Chart opposite (taken from the Budget Report) illustrates this. It shows that the poorest 10% will benefit from the largest percentage gain, while the richest 10% will be the only decile that loses.
But one of the major ways of tackling inequality and poverty was raising the minimum wage. The so-called ‘National Living Wage (NLW)’, paid to those aged 21 and over, will rise in April by 6.7% – from £11.44 to £12.41 per hour. The minimum wage paid to those aged 18 to 20 will rise 16.3% from £8.60 to £10.00 and for 16 and 17 year-olds and apprentices it will rise £18% from £6.40 to £7.55.
It has been an objective of governments for several years to relate the minimum wage to the median wage. In 2015, the Conservative Government set a target of raising the minimum wage rate to 60 per cent of median hourly earnings by 2020. When that target was hit a new one was set to reach two-thirds of median hourly earnings by 2024.
The Labour government has set a new remit for the minimum wage (NLW). There are two floors. The first is the previously agreed one, that the NLW should be at least two-thirds of median hourly earnings; the second is that it should fully compensate for cost of living rises and for expected inflation up to March 2026. The new rate of £12.41 will meet both criteria. According to the Low Pay Commission, ‘Wages have risen faster than inflation over the past 12 months, and are forecast to continue to do so up to March 2026’. This makes the first floor the dominant one: meeting the first floor automatically meets the second.
How effective is the minimum wage in reducing poverty and inequality?
Figure 1 shows the growth in minimum wage rates since their introduction in 1999. The figures are real figures (i.e. after taking into account CPI inflation) and are expressed as an index, with 1999 = 100. The chart also shows the growth in real median hourly pay. (Click here for a Powerpoint.)
As you can see, the growth in real minimum wage rates has considerably exceeded the growth in real median hourly pay. This has had a substantial effect on raising the incomes of the poorest workers and thereby has helped to reduce poverty and inequality.
The UK minimum wage compares relatively favourably with other high-income economies. Figure 2 shows minimum wage rates in 12 high-income countries in 2023 – the latest year for which data are available. (Click here for a PowerPoint.) The red bars (striped) show hourly minimum wage rates in US dollars at purchasing-power parity (PPP) rates. PPP rates correct current exchange rates to reflect the purchasing power of each country’s currency. The blue bars (plain) show minimum wage rates as a percentage of the median wage rate. In 2023 the UK had the fourth highest minimum wage of the 12 countries on this measure (59.6%). As we have seen above, the 2025 rate is expected to be 2/3 of the median rate.
Minimum wages are just one mechanism for reducing poverty and inequality. Others include the use of the tax and benefit system to redistribute incomes. The direct provision of services, such as health, education and housing at affordable rents can make a significant difference and, as we have seen, have been a major focus of the October 2024 Budget.
The government has been criticised, however, for not removing the two-child limit to extra benefits in Universal Credit (introduced in 2017). The cap clearly disadvantages poor families with more than two children. What is more, for workers on Universal Credit, more than half of the gains from the higher minimum wages will lost because they will result in lower benefit entitlement. Also the freeze in (nominal) personal income tax allowances will mean more poor people will pay tax even with no rise in real incomes.
Effects on employment: analysis
A worry about raising the minimum wage rate is that it could reduce employment in firms already paying the minimum wage and thus facing a wage rise.
In the case of a firm operating in competitive labour and goods markets, the demand for low-skilled workers is relatively wage sensitive. Any rise in wage rates, and hence prices, by this firm alone would lead to a large fall in sales and hence in employment.
This is illustrated in Figure 3 (click here for a PowerPoint). Assume that the minimum wage is initially the equilibrium wage rate We. Now assume that the minimum wage is raised to Wmin. This will cause a surplus of labour (i.e. unemployment) of Q3 – Q2. Labour supply rises from Q1 to Q3 and the demand for labour falls from Q1 to Q2.
But, given that all firms face the minimum wage, individual employers are more able to pass on higher wages in higher prices, knowing that their competitors are doing the same. The quantity of labour demanded in any given market will not fall so much – the demand is less wage elastic; and the quantity of labour supplied in any given market will rise less – the supply is less wage elastic. Any unemployment will be less than that illustrated in Figure 3. If, at the same time, the economy expands so that the demand-for-labour curve shifts to the right, there may be no unemployment at all.
When employers have a degree of monopsony power, it is not even certain that they would want to reduce employment. This is illustrated in Figure 4: click here for a PowerPoint (you can skip this section if you are not familiar with the analysis).
Assume initially that there is no minimum wage. The supply of labour to the monopsony employer is given by curve SL1, which is also the average cost of labour ACL1. A higher employment by the firm will drive up the wage; a lower employment will drive it down. This gives a marginal cost of labour curve of MCL1. Profit-maximising employment will be Q1, where the marginal cost of labour equals the marginal revenue product of labour (MRPL). The wage, given by the SL1 (=ACL1) line will be W1.
Now assume that there is a minimum wage. Assume also that the initial minimum wage is at or below W1. The profit-maximising employment is thus Q1 at a wage rate of W1.
The minimum wage can be be raised as high as W2 and the firm will still want to employ as many workers as at W1. The point is that the firm can no longer drive down the wage rate by employing fewer workers, and so the ACL1 curve becomes horizontal at the new minimum wage and hence will be the same as the MCL curve (MCL2 = ACL2). Profit-maximising employment will be where the MRPL curve equals this horizontal MCL curve. The incentive to cut its workforce, therefore, has been removed.
Again, if we extend the analysis to the whole economy, a rise in the minimum wage will be partly passed on in higher prices or stimulate employers to increase labour productivity. The effect will be to shift the (MRPL) curve upwards to the right, thereby allowing the firm to pass on higher wages and reducing any incentive to reduce employment.
Effects on employment: evidence
There is little evidence that raising the minimum wage in stages will create unemployment, although it may cause some redeployment. In the Low Pay Commission’s 2019 report, 20 years of the National Minimum Wage (see link below), it stated that since 2000 it had commissioned more than 30 research projects looking at the NMW’s effects on hours and employment and had found no strong evidence of negative effects. Employers had adjusted to minimum wages in various ways. These included reducing profits, increasing prices and restructuring their business and workforce.
Along with our commissioned work, other economists have examined the employment effects of the NMW in the UK and have for the most part found no impact. This is consistent with international evidence suggesting that carefully set minimum wages do not have noticeable employment effects. While some jobs may be lost following a minimum wage increase, increasing employment elsewhere offsets this. (p.20)
There is general agreement, however, that a very large increase in minimum wages will impact on employment. This, however, should not be relevant to the rise in the NLW from £11.44 to £12.41 per hour in April 2025, which represents a real rise of around 4.5%. This at worst should have only a modest effect on employment and could be offset by economic growth.
What, however, has concerned commentators more is the rise in employers’ National Insurance contributions (NICs) that were announced in the Budget. In April 2025, the rate will increase from 13.8% to 15%. Employers’ NICs are paid for each employee on all wages above a certain annual threshold. This threshold will fall in April from £9100 to £5000. So the cost to an employer of an employee earning £38 000 per annum in 2024/25 would be £38 000 + ((£38 000 – £9100) × 0.138) = £41 988.20. For the year 2025/26 it will rise to £38 000 + ((£38 000 – £5000) × 0.15) = £42 950. This is a rise of 2.29%. (Note that £38 000 will be approximately the median wage in 2025/26.)
However, for employees on the new minimum wage, the percentage rise in employer NICs will be somewhat higher. A person on the new NLW of £12.41, working 40 hours per week and 52 weeks per year (assuming paid holidays), will earn an annual wage of £25 812.80. Under the old employer NIC rates, the employer would have paid (£25 812.80 + (£25 812.80 – £9100) × 0.138) = £28 119.17. For the year 2025/26, it will rise to £25 812.80 + ((£25 812.80 – £5000) × 0.15) = £28 934.72. This is a rise of 2.90%.
This larger percentage rise in employers’ wage costs for people on minimum wages than those on median wages, when combined with the rise in the NLW, could have an impact on the employment of those on minimum wages. Whether it does or not will depend on how rapid growth is and how much employers can absorb the extra costs through greater productivity and/or passing on the costs to their customers.
Articles
- National Living Wage to increase to £12.21 in April 2025
Low Pay Commission, Press Release (29/10/24)
- Rachel Reeves hands low-paid a £1,400 boost as minimum wage to rise by 6.7%
Independent, Archie Mitchell and Millie Cooke (31/10/24)
- Minimum wage to rise to £12.21 an hour next year
BBC News, Michael Race (29/10/24)
- What Labour’s first budget means for wages, taxes, business, the NHS and plans to grow the economy – experts explain
The Conversation, Rachel Scarfe et al. (30/10/24)
- The two-child limit: poverty, incentives and cost
Institute for Fiscal Studies, Eduin Latimer and Tom Waters (17/6/24)
UK Government reports and information
Data
Questions
- How is the October 2024 Budget likely to affect the distribution of income?
- What are the benefits and limitations of statutory minimum wages in reducing (a) poverty and (b) inequality?
- Under what circumstances will a rise in the minimum wage lead or not lead to an increase in unemployment?
- Find out what is meant by the UK Real Living Wage (RLW) and distinguish it from the UK National Living Wage (NLW). Why is the RLW higher?
- Why is the median wage rather than the mean wage used in setting the NLW?