From early January to late February 2013, the average pump price of petrol in the UK rose by over 6p per litre – a rise of 4.7% in just seven weeks. There have also been substantial rises in the price of diesel.
The higher prices reflect a rise in the dollar wholesale price of oil and a depreciation in the pound. From 2 January to 21 February the pound fell from $1.63 to $1.53 – a depreciation of 6.1% (see). Crude oil prices (in dollars) rose by just under 7% over this period. With oil imports priced in dollars, a weaker pound pushes up the price of oil in the UK. The price has then been pushed up even higher by speculation, fuelled by the belief that prices have further to rise.
The higher price of road fuel, plus the general squeeze on living standards from the recession, with prices rising faster than wages, has caused a reduction in the consumption of road fuel. Petrol sales have fallen to their lowest level for 23 years. Sales in January 2013 were 99m litres down on the previous month’s sales of 1564m litres (a fall of 6.3%).
Not surprisingly motorists’ groups have called for a reduction in fuel taxes to ease the burden on motorists. They also argue that this will help to drive recovery in the economy by leaving people with more money in their pockets.
Equally not surprisingly, those concerned about the environment have welcomed the reduction in traffic, as have some motorists who like the quieter roads, allowing journey times to be cut, with resulting reductions in fuel consumption per mile.
The following videos and articles discuss the causes of the most recent fuel price rises and also examine the responsiveness of demand to these higher prices and to the reductions in real incomes.
Is it possible to calculate the price elasticity of demand for petrol from the data given? Try making the calculation.
How important is the ceteris paribus (other things being equal) assumption when calculating the price elasticity of demand for petrol?
Why is the long-run price elasticity of demand for road fuel likely to different from the short-run price elasticity?
If wholesale oil prices go up by x%, will prices at the pumps go up by approximately x% or by more or less then x%? Similarly, if the pound depreciates by y% would you expect prices at the pumps go up by approximately y% or by more or less then y%? Explain.
How has speculation affected fuel prices? Is this effect likely to persist? Explain.
Under what circumstances would a reduction in road fuel taxes help to drive the recovery? Are such circumstances likely?
Which groups in society suffer most from higher fuel prices? Is this reflected in their price elasticity of demand and if so why?
Is a rise in fuel prices above inflation likely to increase or decrease inequality in living standards? Explain.
Should externalities from fuel consumption and production be taken into account when setting the duty on petrol and diesel and, if so, what would be the implication for prices?
Ministers are considering introducing a minimum price of 45p per unit of alcohol on all drinks sold in England and Wales. The Scottish government has already passed legislation for a minimum price of 50p per unit in Scotland. This, however, is being challenged in the Scottish courts and is being examined by the European Commission.
As we saw in a previous blog, Alcohol minimum price, the aim is to prevent the sale of really cheap drinks in supermarkets and other outlets. Sometimes supermarkets sell alcoholic drinks at less than average cost as a ‘loss leader’ in order to encourage people to shop there. Two-litre bottles of strong cider can be sold for as little as £2. Sometimes they offer multibuys which are heavily discounted. The idea of minimum pricing is to stop these practices without affecting ‘normal’ prices.
The effect of a 45p minimum price per unit would give the following typical minimum prices (depending on strength):
Strength
Size
Minimum price
Wine
12.5%
750ml
£4.22
Beer/lager (normal)
4.5%
pint (568ml)
£1.15
Beer/lager (strong)
7.5%
pint (568ml)
£1.92
Beer/lager (normal)
4.5%
2 litres
£4.05
Beer/lager (strong)
7.5%
2 litres
£6.75
Cider (normal)
5%
pint (568ml)
£1.28
Cider (strong)
8%
pint (568ml)
£2.04
Cider (normal)
5%
2 litres
£4.50
Cider (strong)
8%
2 litres
£7.20
Whisky
40%
700ml
£12.60
Vodka
37.5%
700ml
£11.81
The hope is that by preventing the sale of really cheap drinks in supermarkets, people will no longer be encouraged to ‘pre-load’ so that when they go out for the evening they are already drunk.
But how successful will such a policy be in cutting down drunkenness and the associated anti-social behaviour in many towns and cities, especially on Friday and Saturday nights? The following articles discuss the issue and look at some of the evidence on price elasticity of demand.
Draw a diagram to illustrate the effect of a minimum price per unit of alcohol on (a) cheap cider; (b) good quality wine.
How is the price elasticity of demand for alcoholic drinks relevant to determining the success of minimum pricing?
Compare the effects of imposing a minimum unit price of alcohol with raising the duty on alcoholic drinks? What are the revenue implications of the two policies for the government?
What externalities are involved in the consumption of alcohol? How could a socially efficient price for alcohol be determined?
Is imposing a minimum price for alcohol fair? How will it effect the distribution of income?
Increases in the cost of living over the past few years have put many families under financial pressure. One of the main factors that has been hurting households is the price of petrol and diesel. Road fuel duty was due to be increased last August, but the Chancellor delayed it in June. However, a planned 3p rise in duty by the Coalition, which has faced rebellion from numerous MPs may now be delayed further, following a hint from the Treasury.
The government has said that it will do everything it can to support struggling families with the cost of living and this has led many to conclude that in the Autumn Statement, the Chancellor will delay the planned 3p rise. Labour was defeated in its efforts to force a delay of the proposed 3p duty rise, as Tory bankbenchers were given this hint that the Treasury would decide to delay the increase anyway. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury said that fuel duty is part of the government’s strategy to help cut the cost of living. He commented that fuel duty was 20% lower in real terms compared to March 2000, when it was at its peak.
If we had continued with the policies of the previous government, quite simply prices would be higher, fuel would be 10p more expensive per litre. I know some will call for a further freeze in fuel duty today. I can assure them this government understands the financial pressures hard-working families are facing. Subject to the constraints of the public finances, this government is determined to help families with the cost of living.
A key economic question to consider is why is fuel one of the products that is frequently taxed? When a tax is imposed on a product, its price will rise and as the law of demand tells us, this will cause people to purchase less of it. But, what is so special about petrol? Why do people continue to purchase petrol even when its price rises? The following articles consider the concerns surrounding the 3p fuel duty rise.
The problem of obesity and healthy eating is a growing problem in many countries and governments have long been looking into designing policy to tackle this issue.
Some have gone for healthy eating campaigns and policies to encourage pregnant women to eat better, but one government took it a step further and introduced a Fat Tax. In October 2011, the Danish government introduced a tax on foods that are high in saturated fat in a bid to reduce consumption of these goods. However, this policy is now to be abolished.
The Fat Tax introduced by the government imposed a surcharge on foods that contained more than 2.3% saturated fat. Numerous products were affected, including meats, dairy and as expected – processed foods. The policy was criticised by scientists who said that saturated fat was the wrong target and perhaps they were proved right, but the government’s u-turn, which will now see the tax being abolished. The tax had gradually increased food prices throughout the country and authorities said that it had even put Danish jobs at risk.
With food prices much higher in Denmark with the tax, consumers switched from buying domestically produced goods to crossing the border into Germany and purchasing their cheaper food. This undoubtedly had an adverse effect on the Danish economy, as it represented a cut in consumer expenditure. Perhaps it also helps to explain Germany’s strong economy – it was feeding 2 nations! The Danish tax ministry said:
‘The fat tax and the extension of the chocolate tax — the so-called sugar tax — has been criticised for increasing prices for consumers, increasing companies’ administrative costs and putting Danish jobs at risk … At the same time it is believed that the fat tax has, to a lesser extent, contributed to Danes travelling across the border to make purchases … Against this background, the government and the (far-left) Red Green Party have agreed to abolish the fat tax and cancel the planned sugar tax’
Once the tax is abolished, other policies will need implementing to tackle the problem of obesity and encourage healthy eating, as it continues to be a big problem in this and many other countries. The following articles consider this problem.
Illustrate the effect of a tax being imposed on a diagram. What happens to equilibrium price and quantity?
According to Danish authorities, consumers didn’t change their consumption habits with the tax. What does this suggest about the PED of these products?
How does the amount of tax revenue generated vary with the price elasticity of demand and supply?
What other policies could be implemented to encourage healthy eating?
Why did this fat tax lead to higher food prices?
Explain the way in which such a tax could adversely affect the Danish economy. Does this justify its removal?
European wine producers have seen one of the worst grape harvests for decades. With exceptionally wet weather in the northern European growing areas and exceptionally hot and dry weather in the southern ones, yields are well down in most countries.
In France, the world’s largest wine producer, wine production is forecast to be 19% down on the previous year. In Italy and Spain, Europe’s second and third largest producers, production is forecast to be 3% and 6% down respectively. Production in the EU as a whole, which produces some 57% of world output, is expected to be 9% down and at a historically low level. What is more, the past five years in the EU have all seen modest harvests.
And the poor harvests are not confined to Europe. Argentina’s production is some 24% down on 2011, with New Zealand’s 17% down. And despite a few countries expecting an increase, including the USA and Chile, overall world production is expected to be 6% down on 2011 and more than 7% down on the average for 2008–11.
So is this good news or bad? At first sight it would seem to be bad, especially for the countries with large falls in output. It would also seem to be bad news for the consumer, with prices set to rise.
But for some it’s good news. If prices rise, then producers experiencing an increase in output will have a double gain. And a fall in output is only part of the story. For some producers, the smaller yield has been accompanied by an increase in quality. And then there’s the question of stocks. For several years, global production of wine has exceeded consumption. Indeed the gap widened after the financial crisis and recession of 2007–9 as consumption of wine fell. This year’s poor global harvest should help to slow down the increase in stocks or may even lead to a reduction in stocks, depending on the extent to which demand recovers.
Illustrate the effect of the global wine harvest on a demand and supply diagram.
Will a fall in grape production of x per cent lead to a rise in the price of wine of more or less than x percent? How is the price elasticity of demand relevant to your answer?
What elements are there in the supply chain from planting vines to consuming wine?
How does the holding of stocks affect (a) the profitability of wine production; (b) the price volatility of wine?
The Greek grape harvest is predicted to be higher in 2012 than in 2011. How will this affect the prices of Greek wines in (a) Greece; (b) outside Greece?
How is the fallacy of composition relevant in assessing the benefits to owners of vineyards of a good grape harvest?