From the end of January to the beginning of March, the sterling exchange rate index fell by over 6% – from 81.7 to 76.5. Against the dollar, the fall has been even more dramatic, falling from $1.62 to $1.49 (a fall of 8%). What are the reason for this? And is the depreciation likely to continue? The following clip looks at what has been going on and whether the reasons are political, or whether there are other economic fundamentals that have contributed to sterling’s fall.
Stephanie Flanders on the pound BBC Politics Show, Jo Coburn and Stephanie Flanders (2/3/10)
Articles
One-way bet? BBC News blogs: Stephanomics, Stephanie Flanders (1/3/10)
Euro drops to lowest level in 10 months against dollar BBC News (2/3/10)
Fiscal and political fears hit sterling Financial Times, Peter Garnham (1/3/10)
Sterling’s slide is not just about polls Financial Times (2/3/10)
Sterling rout is more than a wobble over political uncertainty Guardian, Larry Elliott (1/3/10)
The pound is weighed down Guardian, Howard Davies (2/3/10)
Sterling jitters The Economist (1/3/10)
Sterling crisis might break Britain’s political and economic paralysis Telegraph, Jeremy Warner (3/3/10)
Questions
- What are the reasons for the depreciation of sterling between January and March 2010?
- Why was selling sterling a ‘one-way bet’ for speculators?
- Why might there have been ‘overshooting’ of the sterling exchange rate?
- Who gain and who lose from a depreciation of sterling?
- What is the likely effect of a depreciation of sterling on (a) inflation; (b) economic growth; (c) interest rates? Explain your answers.
- How do problems of government debt affect countries’ exchange rates?
As the news item, A Greek tragedy reported, the level of debt in Greece and also in Portugal, Spain, Ireland and Italy, has caused worries, not just for their creditors, but also for the whole eurozone. Here we give you the opportunity to listen to a podcast from the Guardian in which some of the paper’s main economic columnists, along with Observer commentator, William Keegan, discuss the effects of this debt on the euro. To quote the introduction to the podcast:
“In Brussels, European leaders have pledged ‘determined and co-ordinated’ action to help Greece – they won’t let it fail. Our Europe editor Ian Traynor says the announcement of a deal was designed to keep the markets happy.
But leaders of wealthier euro nations like Germany are hoping they won’t have to ask their voters to bail Greece out. Kate Connolly, our Berlin correspondent, explains why Germans are so reluctant to provide financial assistance.
It’s being seen as a defining moment for the euro. Economics editor Larry Elliott says not signing Britain up to the single currency was the best decision Gordon Brown ever made.”
The debt crisis facing the Euro Guardian daily podcast (12/2/10)
Questions
- To what extent is Greece’s debt a problem for the whole eurozone?
- Consider the arguments for and against bailing Greece out (a) by stronger eurozone countries, such as Germany and France; (b) by the IMF.
- What support for Greece would minimise the problem of moral hazard?
- How would you set about establishing whether the current eurozone is an optimal currency area?
- How do the current problems of debt affect the arguments about whether Britain should adopt the euro?
In several of the posts in recent months we’ve considered the possible use of a Tobin tax as a means of reducing speculation in financial markets and possibly raising substantial amounts in tax revenue. See, for example: Tobin or not Tobin: the tax proposal that keeps reappearing and A Tobin tax – to be or not to be?. Although James Tobin’s original proposals referred to a tax on foreign exchange transactions, recent proposals have been to impose such a tax on a whole range of financial transactions.
Added impetus has been given to the move to adopt Tobin taxes by the publication of a video from an organisation known as the Robin Hood Tax Campaign. To quote the site “The Robin Hood Tax is a tiny tax on bankers that would raise billions to tackle poverty and climate change, at home and abroad. By taking an average of 0.05% from speculative banking transactions, hundreds of billions of pounds would be raised every year. That’s easily enough to stop cuts in crucial public services in the UK, and to help fight global poverty and climate change.”
So would this version of a Tobin tax work? The following videos and articles examine the proposal.
Actor Nighy backs Robin Hood banking tax campaign BBC Breakfast News (10/2/10)
Robin Hood banking tax ‘would raise billions’ (includes article) BBC Breakfast News (10/2/10)
Robin Hood tax on banks ‘would raise billions’ BBC News, Richard Westcott (10/2/10)
Celebrities launch ‘Robin Hood’ tax campaign BBC News, Hugh Pym (10/2/10)
Richard Curtis and Bill Nighy team up in new film urging Tobin tax on bankers (includes article) Guardian, Nick Mathiason (9/2/10)
Articles
Robin Hood tax offers a way to deal with our pressing problems Guardian letters (10/2/10)
Call for ‘Robin Hood tax’ on banking transactions Independent, James Thompson (10/2/10)
Joseph Stiglitz calls for Tobin tax on all financial trading transactions Telegraph, Edmund Conway (5/10/09)
I’m happy to play my part in the great Robin Hood Tax Telegraph, Bill Nighy (9/2/10)
The world’s greatest bank job! Ethiopian Review, Ian Sullivan (10/2/10)
Robin Hood tax could shrink currency markets by 14% ShareCast (10/2/10)
Don’t leave Greece to face the speculators alone Guardian, Larry Elliott (9/2/10)
Global support for a tax on banks is growing, says Gordon Brown Guardian, Helen Pidd (11/2/10)
Global bank tax near, says Brown Financial TImes, George Parker and Lionel Barber (10/2/10)
Get behind Robin Hood Guardian, Austen Ivereigh (19/2/10)
Questions
- Explain how a ‘Robin Hood tax’ would work.
- How would such a tax differ from Tobin’s original proposals?
- What would determine its effectiveness in stabilising financial markets?
- Would it be effective in raising tax revenue?
- Compare this tax with other methods of stabilising financial markets.
- What considerations would need to be taken into account in setting the rate for a Tobin tax on financial transactions?
The health of an economy is generally measured in terms of the growth rate in GDP. A healthy economy is portrayed as one that is growing. Declining GDP, by contrast, is seen as a sign of economic malaise; not surprisingly, people don’t want rising unemployment and falling consumption. The recession of 2008/9 has generally been seen as bad news.
But is GDP a good indicator of human well-being? The problem is that GDP measures the production of goods and services for exchange. True, such goods and services are a vital ingredient in determining human well-being. But they are not the only one. Our lives are not just about consumption. What is more, many of our objectives may go beyond human well-being. For example, the state of the environment – the flora and fauna and the planet itself.
Then there is the question of the capital required to produce goods and maintain a healthy and sustainable environment. Capital production is included in GDP and the depreciation of capital is deducted from GDP to arrive at a net measure. But again, things are left out of these calculations. We include manufactured capital, such as factories and machinery, but ignore natural capital, such as rain forests, coral reefs and sustainable ecosystems generally. But the state of the natural environment has a crucial impact on the well-being, not only of the current generation, but of future generations too.
In the video podcast below, Professor Sir Partha Dasgupta, from the Faculty of Economics at the University of Cambridge and also from the University of Manchester, argues that the well-being of future generations requires an increase in the stock of capital per head, and that, in measuring this capital stock, we must take into account natural capital. In the paper to which the podcast refers, he argues “that a country’s comprehensive wealth per capita can decline even while gross domestic product (GDP) per capita increases and the UN Human Development Index records an improvement.”
Nature’s role in sustaining economic development (video podcast) The Royal Society, Partha Dasgupta
Nature’s role in sustaining economic development Philisophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, vol 365, no. 1537, pp 5–11, Partha Dasgupta (12/1/10)
GDP is misleading measure of wealth, says top economist University of Manchester news item (21/12/09)
Economics and the environment: Down to earth index Guardian (28/12/09)
Questions
- Why might a rise in GDP result in a decline in human well-being?
- In what sense is nature ‘over exploited’?
- What is meant by ‘comprehensive wealth’ and why might comprehensive wealth per capita decline even though the stocks of both manufactured capital and human capital are increasing?
- What is meant by ‘shadow prices’ in the context of natural capital?
- How might economists go about measuring the shadow prices of capital?
- What factors should determine the rate of discount chosen for projects that impact on the future state of the environment?
At the end of two weeks of often acrimonious wrangling between representatives from 193 countries, an agreement – of sorts – was reached at the climate change summit in Copenhagen. What was this agreement? It was an ‘accord’ brokered by the USA, China, India, Brazil and South Africa.
This Copenhagen Accord contains three elements. The first is a recognition of the need to prevent global temperatures rising by more than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. The second is a commitment by developed countries to give $30bn of aid between 2010 and 2012 to developing countries for investment in green technology and to mitigate the effects of climate change. In addition, a goal was set of providing $100bn a year by 2020. The third is for rich countries to give pledges on emissions reductions and for developing countries to give pledges on reducing emissions increases. Developed countries’ pledges will be scrutinised by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, while developing countries will merely be required to submit reports on their progress in meeting their pledges.
But this is only an accord. It has no legal status and was merely ‘recognised’ by the countries at the conference. What is more, the target of limiting temperature rises to 2C does not contain a date by which temperature rises should peak. Also, as countries are not required to submit targets for emissions until February 2010, it is not clear how these targets will be kept low enough to meet the temperature target and there is no identification of penalites that would apply to countries not meeting their pledges.
Not surprisingly, reactions around the world have been mixed. The following podcasts and articles look at these reactions and at the economic mechanisms that will be required to meet the 2C limit
Podcasts and videos
Recriminations after Copenhagen summit (video) BBC News, David Loyn (21/12/09)
Copenhagen special: Climate change talks end in failure Guardian podcast (19/12/09)
Where do we go after Copenhagen? BBC Today Programme (21/12/09)
Articles
What was agreed and left unfinished in U.N. climate deal Reuters of India Factbox (20/12/09)
Copenhagen deal: Key points BBC News (19/12/09)
Copenhagen deal reaction in quotes BBC News (19/12/09)
Copenhagen climate summit fails green investors BBC News, Damian Kahya (22/12/09)
Why did Copenhagen fail to deliver a climate deal? BBC News (22/12/09)
Copenhagen climate accord: Key issues BBC News (19/12/09)
Harrabin’s Notes: After Copenhagen BBC News, Roger Harrabin (19/12/09)
Copenhagen climate conference: Who is going to save the planet now? Telegraph, Louise Gray (21/12/09)
Copenhagen’s One Real Accomplishment: Getting Some Money Flowing New York Times, James Kanter (20/12/09)
Copenhagen climate summit: plan for EU to police countries’ emissions (including video) Telegraph, James Kirkup, and Louise Gray (19/12/09)
The road from Copenhagen Guardian, Ed Miliband (UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change) (20/12/09)
Carbon Prices Tumble After ‘Modest’ Climate Deal Bloomberg, Mathew Carr and Ewa Krukowska (21/12/09)
Copenhagen deal causes EU carbon price fall BBC News (21/12/09)
Have the hopes of environmentalists been dashed? Financial Times, Clive Cookson (21/12/09)
EU reflects on climate ‘disaster’ Financial Times, Joshua Chaffinin (22/12/09)
China not to blame on climate China Daily, Zhang Jin (23/12/09)
Selling a low-carbon life just got harder Times Online, Jonathon Porritt (21/12/09)
Better than nothing The Economist (19/12/09)
Copenhagen has given us the chance to face climate change with honesty Observer, James Hansen (27/12/09)
Questions
- What incentives exist for countries to agree to tough pledges to reduce emissions?
- Was the very limited nature of the Copenhagen Accord a Nash equilibrium? Explain.
- Is the carbon price a good indicator of the effectiveness of measures to curb emissions?
- Must any agreement have verifiable targets for each country of the world if it is to be successful in curbing carbon emissions?
- Is a cap-and-trade system the best means of achieving emissions reductions? Explain.