One of the key issues tackled during Labour’s term was poverty. In 1997, the UK had one of the worst child poverty rates in Europe (20% of the population) and so Labour made a concerted effort to move more people out of poverty than ever before. Low income was defined as income below 60 per cent of median income. As Chapter 1 from the first “Data and reports” link below states:
Over the period 1994/95 to 2008/09, the percentage of the population below 60 per cent and 70 per cent thresholds of contemporary median income showed slight falls on both Before Housing Costs and After Housing Costs bases. …The proportion and number of the population below low-income thresholds … fell substantially over the same period – with proportions falling by around one half.
Over the period 1994/95 to 2008/09, there was a marked fall in the proportion of children below low income thresholds held constant in real terms. 2008/09 has shown a fall compared to 2007/08.
Despite these improvements, there is a high concentration of people just above the 60% of median income level. And, although poverty rates have fallen since 1997, income inequality remains stubbornly high, with a post-tax-and-benefit Gini co-efficient hovering around 0.38 since 1992, compared with around 0.30 in the late 1970s/early 1980s.
As recession set in, there were concerns about the effect it would have on poverty figures. However, according to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), throughout 2008 and 2009 both children and pensioners saw their position improve, as hundreds of thousands were lifted out of poverty. According to the DWP’s annual Households Below Average Income report, mean take-home incomes grew for the seventh consecutive year – by 1% in 2008/9.
Whilst the most vulnerable seem to have survived the first test, the next will come with the substantial budget cuts the UK will see, as the government attempts to reduce the budget deficit. Poverty campaigners have warned that attempts to reduce the deficit must not be detrimental to poverty figures, by taking benefits away from those who need them. As Michelle Mitchell, the charity director at Age UK said: “Clearly there are huge challenges ahead for the new government, but now is the time to renew the fight against pensioner poverty and commit to eradicating it once and for all.”
Articles
Campaigners warn Coalition not to jeopardise falling poverty rates Guardian, Katie Allen (20/5/10)
Child poverty ‘historically high’ The Press Association (20/5/10)
Labour kept poverty in check, says IFS Financial Times, Nicholas Timmins (22/5/10)
Child poverty in Scotland increases by 10,000 in year Scotsman, Gareth Rose (21/5/10)
What the poverty figures show Guardian (20/5/10)
The untold story of poverty in working households Guardian, Peter Kenway (21/5/10)
UK pledges to reduce poverty Financial Times, Daniel Pimlott (21/5/10)
Don’t scrap child benefits, charities warn Guardian (20/5/10)
Data and reports
Households Below Average Income (HBAI) 1994/95-2008/09 Department for Work and Pensions (19/5/10)
Households Below Average Income (pdf file) National Statistics, First Release (20/5/10)
Effects of taxes and benefits on household income Office for National Statistics (see also, especially Tables 26 and 27)
Poverty and inequality in the UK: 2010 Institute for Fiscal Studies
A range of poverty data The Poverty Site
Previous blog
See also The poverty of poverty reduction policies
Questions
- What are the main causes of a) poverty and b) inequality?
- What is the difference between poverty and inequality? Can you think of any policies that might improve one of these objectives, but worsen the other?
- Explain how and why the recessions of the early 1980s, the early 1990s and between 2008 and 2009 could have led to poverty being reduced.
- The Financial Times article talks about different levels of poverty across the country. What can explain these regional disparities?
- The Coalition government has pledged to lift the income tax threshold to £10,000. What effect could this have on unemployment and poverty? How might this effect the poverty trap?
- The Guardian article ‘What the poverty figures show’ says that high levels of child poverty will cost the country at least £25bn a year. Why is this?
In the UK, we have an inflation target of 2% and it’s the Bank of England’s job to use monetary policy, in particular interest rates, to keep inflation within 1 percentage point of its target. However, with rising commodity prices and the onset of recession back in 2008, interest rates had another objective: to prevent or at least lessen the recession. Bank Rate fell to 0.5% and there it has remained in a bid to encourage investment, discourage saving and increase consumption, as a means of stimulating the economy.
However, at such a low rate, interest rates are not acting as a brake on inflation, which is now well above target. This rise in inflation, has been largely brought about by cost-push factors, such as the restoration of the 17.5% VAT (up from the temporary 15%), higher oil and commodity prices, and a fall in the exchange rate. But part of the reason might be found in the increase in money supply that resulted from quantitative easing.
There are concerns that the UK may lose its credibility on inflation if action isn’t taken. The OECD has advised the Bank of England to raise Bank Rate to 3.5% by the end of 2011. The following articles consider this issue.
Articles
Time to worry about inflation? BBC News blogs, Stephanomics, Stephanie Flanders (28/5/10)
UK must not fall for the false promise of higher inflation Telegraph, Charles Bean, Deputy Governor of the Bank of England (4/6/10)
Reports and documents
General Assessment of the Macroeconomic Situation OECD Economic Outlook, No. 87 Chapter 1 (see especially pages 53–4) (May 2010)
United Kingdom – Country Summary OECD Economic Outlook, No. 87 (May 2010)
Statistical Annex OECD Economic Outlook, No. 87 (available 10/6/10)
Inflation Report portal Bank of England (see May 2010)
Questions
- Explain the relationship between interest rates and inflation. Why have such low interest rates caused inflation to increase?
- In 2008, the UK moved into recession, but was also suffering from inflation. This was unusual, as AD/AS analysis suggests that when aggregate demand falls, growth will fall, but so will prices. What can explain the low growth and inflation we saw in 2008?
- What is the difference between real and nominal GDP?
- What are the causes of the current high inflation and what solutions are available and viable?
- Why are expectations of inflation so important and how might they influence the Bank of England’s plans for interest rates?
- Do you think the OECD should have advised the Bank of England? Will there be any adverse effects internationally if the UK doesn’t heed the OECD’s advice?
- Is the OECD’s assessment of the UK in the above Country Summary consistent with its view on UK interest rates contained in pages 53 and 54 in the first OECD link?
Whenever a sporting event comes around, there is mad frenzy from countries across the world to enter a bid – this was entirely evident with the 2018 World Cup bids! And it’s not really surprising with the attention that the World Cup and the Olympics receive. Hundreds of thousands of spectators, billions of pounds worth of investment in infrastructure, thousands of jobs created and television deals in every country of the world.
However, why is it that every sporting event of this magnitude fails to come in on budget? The costs are always underestimated. The Athens Olympics was supposed to cost £1.5 billion, but ended up costing over 10 times as much. It is also suggested that it may have played a part in the current Greek financial crisis. The 2002 Japanese World Cup had little effect on the struggling Japanese economy. The London 2012 Olympics was estimated to cost £2.35 billion, but suggestions say it will now cost taxpayers some £20 billion, although budget cuts are inevitable. What about South Africa? Costs of $300 million were estimated for stadiums and infrastructure, with a boost to GDP of $2.9 billion. However, $300 million was not even sufficient to renovate Soccer City (where the first and final game will be held). Add on to this over $1 billion to rebuild the rest of the stadiums and then take into account rising inflation, which has caused inevitable cost over-runs.
On top of this, every country says ‘look at the benefits’ when they enter their bid. However, economists have suggested that there are actually minimal employment benefits in the long term. Obviously there is substantial investment in infrastructure leading up to the World Cup, which will benefit locals, but the overall boost to GDP is not expected to be significant. A similar thing can be seen with the London Olympics. In the study by PriceWaterhouseCoopers in 2005, there were estimates of a direct gain to London’s GDP of £5900 million between 2005 and 2016. However, UK GDP would only rise by £1936 million. Some of the costly stadiums that were built for the Portuguese European Championships were simply knocked down after the event.
So, what can we expect from South Africa? There have been many criticisms of poor ticket sales and that this World Cup is only for the rich. Street sellers have been booted out of their normal selling ground, as they do not have the necessary permits to sell and cannot afford to buy the permits anyway. Whilst transport has been improved, there are still concerns about the distance that has to be travelled between stadiums and this has put off many potential spectators. However, the Super 14 Southern Hemisphere Rugby tournament was staged in South Africa, with the final at the end of May and the event was successful. Transport worked perfectly, spectators arrived by the thousand and it is hoped that this is a positive omen for the fast approaching World Cup!
Articles
Saved by the Ball Times Online (5/6/10)
South Africa World Cup just for the rich BBC News (10/5/10)
Footing South Africa’s World Cup bill BBC News (4/6/10)
Will South Africa reap rewards from hosting the tournament? Peace FM Online (5/6/10)
Did 2004 Olympics spark Greek financial crisis The Associated Press (4/6/10)
Cost of 2012 Olympic pool triples BBC News (8/4/08)
Watchdog attcks ‘astonishing’ £5bn rise in cost of 2012 games Times Online (22/4/08)
South Africa World Cup costs above budget Reuters (13/8/08)
Reports and papers
Olympic game impact Study PriceWaterhouseCoopers December 2005
A Cost-Benefit Analysis of an Olympic Games Queen’s Economics Department Working Paper No. 1097, Darren McHugh, Queen’s University (Canada) (August 2006)
Questions
- Why do costs tend to be under-estimated and benefits over-estimated?
- What technique could be used to determine whether a sporting event, such as the World Cup, should go ahead? Can you apply this to the London 2012 Olympics?
- How is the multiplier effect relevant to a sporting event, such as the World Cup or the 2012 Olympics?
- To what extent do you think the Athens Olympics contributed to the Greek Financial Crisis? Could the same thing happen with London?
- What might happen to the South African exchange rate during the South African World cup and the sterling exchange rate during the London 2012 Olympics?
- How has inflation affected the budget of South Africa?
As the news from the Gulf of Mexico goes from very bad to even worse, so BP is increasingly coming under the international spotlight for its approach to risk management and safety. Was it sufficiently cautious? Could the accident on April 20 that killed 11 men and has been gushing some 800,000 gallons per day of crude oil into the sea have been averted? When the consequences of a pipe rupture are so catastrophic, is ‘catastrophic risk’ appropriately priced? As Tony Hayward, BP’s Chief Executive, told the Financial Times (see links below): “It was ‘an entirely fair criticism’ to say the company had not been fully prepared for a deep-water oil leak.”
One insight into BP’s approach to risk has come to light with the leaking of a 2002 memo from BP on how human life ought to be valued in any cost–benefit analysis of a project. As the Chicagoist summarises the memo:
A two page document prepared by risk managers in 2002 titled “Cost benefit analysis of three little pigs” shows the type of thinking BP put into risk assessment. The memo shows, in cartoonish fashion, that blast resistant trailers for BP’s workers weren’t necessary, because the cost was too high. In 2005, a refinery caught fire, killing 15 and injuring 170 people.
So how should catastrophic risk be taken into account? What does a company do when the probability of a disaster is extremely low and yet the costs of such a disaster, were it to occur, are extremely high?
BP’s Shocking Memo The Daily Beast, Rick Outzen (25/5/10)
Old BP document calculates worth of human life with “Three Little Pigs” diagram Yahoo News, Brett Michael Dykes (25/5/10)
Industry can cut accident risks, says BP chief Financial Times, Ed Crooks and Edward Luce (2/6/10)
BP ‘not prepared’ for deep-water spill Financial Times, Ed Crooks (2/6/10)
The BP Oil Spill’s Lessons for Regulation Project Syndicate, Kenneth Rogoff (1/6/10)
US oil firms ‘unprepared’ for major offshore disaster BBC News (15/6/10)
Questions
- What is meant by catastrophic risk?
- Why is it difficult to put an accurate valuation on outcomes with a very low probability of occurrence?
- Explain the table entitled “Cost benefit analysis of three little pigs” in the Rick Outzen blog.
- How should human life be valued?
- What value should be put on a serious injury (of a particular type)?
- Should BP (or any other company, for that matter) ever conduct operations that risk human life? Explain your answer.
- On what basis should BP have decided whether or not to install a $500,000 acoustic trigger that could have shut off the well when the blowout protector failed?
- How is the existence of environmental externalities relevant to BP’s decisions on safety?
The second estimate of UK output for Q1 2010 from the Office for National Statistics reports that the economy grew by 0.3%. The first estimate, based on limited data, put growth in Q1 at 0.2%. But, it appears that more recently available data picked up evidence of stronger growth in the latter stages of the quarter, particularly in the production industries, such as manufacturing, as well as in capital spending by firms.
When analysed in terms of the composition of demand for our firms’ goods and services, there has been something of a rebound in investment expenditure. This follows a marked collapse during 2008 and the first half of 2009. In 2010 Q1 investment volumes increased by 4.2% on the back of a 2.4% rise in the last quarter of 2009.
This rebound in the investment figures across the last two quarters has partly been driven by firms running down their stockpiles of finished goods at a considerably slower rate. When firms build up their stocks of inventories for sales in future periods they are deemed to be engaging in investment. When firms then ‘tap into’ these inventories, as they have been since Q4 2008, they are disinvesting. It is now the case that the pace of disinvestment through running down inventories is slowing. This reflects a pick up in the demand for firms’ goods and services and, hopefully, an expectation of stronger future demand.
More encouragingly, the rebound in investment volumes in Q1 also reflected an increase in gross fixed capital formation, i.e. an increase in the purchase of non-financial fixed assets used in production, such as machinery. Gross fixed capital formation increased in Q1 by 1.5%. This was the first quarter since Q2 2008 in which there has been an increase in the volume of capital purchases by firms. Again, this is likely to reflect increased optimism about future demand since these assets are purchased to do one thing – to produce goods and services!
The improvement in the investment numbers is such that the volume of investment in Q1 2010 was 0.6% higher than it was in Q1 2009. This is largely the impact of a slower rate of disinvestment by firms through running down inventories since despite the rise in gross capital formation in Q1 2010 it still came in 5.7% lower than in Q1 2009. Nonetheless, it will be interesting to see whether the recent improvement in the UK’s investment numbers is maintained as we go forward.
Of particular concern is whether the volume of capital purchases can continue to grow. Can these purchases help to both boost growth now and our economy’s potential output in the medium term? Some of the key issues in determining the answer to this are likely to include: (i) the extent to which aggregate demand grows; (ii) the impact of fiscal consolidation measures on both firms and consumers; (iii) sentiment (confidence) across firms – especially of their own medium-term prospects; and (iv) the ability of firms to access credit from financial institutions. One can undoubtedly add many other issues to this list. One thing is for sure, these are very uncertain times indeed!
Articles
The economy: GDP growth revised up The Times, Grainne Gilmore (26/5/10)
Manufacturing pushes up economic growth The Independent, Sarah Arnott (26/5/10)
UK economic growth revised up to 0.3% BBC News (25/5/10) )
Economy tracker: GDP BBC News (25/5/10)
Boost for UK as GDP growth revised up Telegraph, Edmund Conway (25/5/10)
UK GDP growth revised upwards to 0.3% Financial Times, Daniel Pimlott (25/5/10)
UK first-quarter GDP revised higher Wall Street Journal, Natasha Brereton (25/5/10)
Data
Latest on GDP growth Office for National Statistics (25/5/10)
UK output, income and expenditure, Statistical Bulletin, 1st Quarter 2010 Office for National Statistics (25/5/10)
UK Output, Income and Expenditure, 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
- Why do the National Accounts record a positive change in inventories as investment and a negative change in inventories as disinvestment?
- What factors might explain the running down of inventories across firms in the UK since Q4 2008? Why didn’t this start in Q2 2008 when the UK economy went into recession?
- In Q1 2010 the running down of inventories was worth, at 2005 prices, some £1.347 billion. This was considerably less than the £4.883 billion in Q3 2009 and the £2.596 billion in Q4 2009 (again at 2005 prices). Why might the pace of disinvestment be slowing?
- Of what importance do you think, firstly, the change in inventories and, secondly, gross capital fixed formation are for an economy’s potential output?
- What arguments do you think there are for distinguishing between different types of investment goods and services when considering our future economic growth?