Most of us will have milk in our fridges – it’s a basic product consumed by the majority of people on a daily basis and hence a common feature of most shopping trolleys. As we saw in the post Got milk?, the low price of milk has been causing problems for farmers. This has caused one Morrisons store to take a different approach.
In the increasingly globalised world, British dairy farmers are no longer competing against each other. The global market place means that they are now facing growing competition from abroad and in this global world, supply exceeds demand. Even in the EU, the member states in 2015 are exceeding the milk production levels from 2014. In many markets, we wouldn’t be so concerned about production (or supply) rising, as demand can keep pace. However, in the market for milk, it’s not a product that you consume (that much) more of as your income rises. So, as the world gets richer, demand for milk is not increasing at the same pace as supply – demand in China has collapsed. This means that prices are being forced down. Adding to this global market place, we saw the European Union remove its quotas on milk production, thus boosting supply and Russian bans on imports.
The farmers themselves are in a tricky situation. They are often the small players in the supply chain, with prices being forced down by customers, supermarkets and milk processors. AHDB Dairy, the trade body, says that the average price of milk has decreased to just 23.66p per litre. According to leading industry experts this is well below the costs of production, suggested to be closer to 30p per litre. If these figures are even close to being accurate, then clearly dairy farmers’ costs of production per litre are no longer covered by the price they receive. Every litre of milk produced represents a loss.
The price that supermarkets pay to farmers for milk does vary, with some such as Marks and Spencer and Tesco ensuring that they pay farmers a price above cost. However, Morrisons in Bradford has adopted a new strategy and brand. 
Their new milk brand ‘Morrisons Milk for Farmers’ has been launched at a 23p price rise for every four pint bottle. The catch: they will become the first UK retailer where the 23p price hike goes directly to farmers. This represents 10 pence per litre of milk going directly back to the farmers that produce it. This is a bold strategy, but data and surveys do suggest a willingness to pay more from customers, if it means that dairy farmers get a fairer deal. The protests we have seen across the country have certainly helped to generate interest and created awareness of the difficulties that many farmers are facing. Rob Harrison from the NFU said:
“We are pleased that Morrisons has acknowledged the desperate situation that many dairy farmers still find themselves in and recognise that retailers have a big role to play in, helping customers to support the UK dairy sector…
…Research from Mintel revealed over half of people who drink cows milk, would be prepared to pay more than £1 for a four-pint bottle of milk, as long as it is dairy farmers that benefit. This new initiative will enable them to do just that. The 10p a litre extra will go directly back into the dairy sector will make a difference on farm.”
The interesting thing will be to observe the impact on sales following this 23p price rise. We would normally expect customers to look for the cheaper substitutes, but evidence does suggest that British consumers are willing to pay the price premium if it means helping British farmers. A similar strategy adopted for British Cheddar Cheese proved fruitful and over the coming weeks, we will see if the average consumer is willing to pay directly the dairy farmers. The following articles consider this topic.
Morrisons milk for farmers brand goes nationwide at £1.12 for four pints The Grocer, Carina Perkins (12/10/15)
Morrisons to create new milk brand for farmers BBC News (11/10/15)
Milk price row: farming union leaders meet Morrisons bosses The Guardian, Graham Ruddick (11/10/15)
Morrisons to sell new ‘Milk for farmers’ brand to support British dairy producers Independent, Loulla-Mae Eleftheriou-Smith (11/8/15)
Government to give one-off milk payment for dairy farmers as Morrisons launches premium milk brand City A.M., Catherine Neilan (12/10/15)
New Morrisons milk brand pays farmers more The Yorkshire Post (12/10/15)
Questions
- Using demand and supply analysis, explain which factors have caused the price of milk to fall.
- When incomes rise, the demand for milk does not really change. What does this suggest about the income elasticity of demand for milk and the type of product that it is?
- If prices rise and sales also rise, does this suggest that British milk has an upward sloping demand curve?
- If we do see little effect on the demand for milk following Morrisons 23p price rise, what conclusion can we come to about the price elasticity of demand?
- Why do supermarkets and milk processors have the power to force down prices paid to dairy farmers?
- What type of market structure do you think dairy farmers compete in?
- If dairy farmers are unable to sell a litre of milk for a higher price than it costs to produce, is it a sensible strategy for them to remain in the market?
German Engineering has dominated for decades and is seen as the pinnacle of quality and the key to manufacturing long-lasting products. But are long-lasting products a good strategy for a company? If products break quickly, customers need to replace them and this encourages more spending. But does this encourage customers to switch to other suppliers? Instead, do high quality products that don’t require replacement but demand a higher price offset this lack of repeat custom?
Markus Miele is the Chief Executive of Miele, the German domestic appliance manufacturer and he takes a personal interest in his products and customers. Typical appliances from Miele can cost up to twice as much as similar appliances from other companies and yet this company is going from strength to strength. Rather than selling products that need frequent replacements, Miele is proud of its strategy to retain customers by selling products at a very high price, knowing that they will last for years. Customers appear equally willing to pay this high price for big consumer durables and their long-lasting nature is clearly encouraging its customers to buy other products too. This strategy has been so successful that other big companies are now targeting these customers. Anthony Williams, from GfK said:
“Evidence suggests manufacturers are putting in money to ensure good build quality…There are so many standards that now have to be adhered to, particularly for hi-tech products, by the nature of the product they have to make sure the [manufacturing] environment is very carefully monitored.”
The following article from BBC News considers the market for domestic appliances and the role of durability.
Can you charge double and still keep your customers coming back? BBC News, Lucy Hooker (2/10/15)
Questions
- How important is the concept of price elasticity of demand in determining a company’s strategy?
- If other firms are targeting a similar strategy to that of Miele, what might this mean for prices?
- How does the brand ‘made in Germany’ affect the demand for a product? Is there imperfect information here?
- With increase competition, companies such as Miele may be pressured into moving into cheaper production markets. How would this affect the company?
- Will the recent scandal at VW have a negative impact on companies such as Miele who rely on the ‘brand Germany’?
The 2015 Rugby World Cup is now well under-way, with record crowds, surprising results and some heartbreak. But what about the economic impact of the Rugby World Cup? Big sporting events bring in spectators (estimated to be 466,000), athletes and crucially they all spend money. But what happens when the host country doesn’t make it through? Unfortunately for all England fans out there, this is a very relevant question.
Go to the area surrounding a stadium on the day of a rugby world cup match and you will barely find a pub with any room to move. Spending on drinks and food in local pubs and restaurants on match days is extremely high and many hotels are at breaking point with reservations. Predictions were that there would be an increase in direct expenditure by international visitors of £869 million. A report by Ernst and Young looked at the Economic Impact of the Rugby World Cup 2015 and it provides detailed analysis of how such sporting events can generate benefits to the host nation. The highlights are:
- £2.2 billion of output into the economy
- £982 million of value added to national GDP
- £85 million in infrastructure
- 41,000 jobs across the country
- £1 billion of added value
But, what happens when you take out the host team? Suddenly we see less interest in the daily matches and the feel good spirit takes a dive. Of course, the other home teams are still around and English fans are being encouraged to support them, but commentators suggested that this early exit will have a significant economic impact. Alex Edmans from the London Business School suggests that when a host nation exits a rugby sporting event at an early stage, the pessimism can wipe 0.15% of the stock market the following day. This translates to around £3 billion for the UK. He noted:
A defeat makes investors more negative about life in general. If England were to lose, they wouldn’t just be negative about the England rugby team but also about economic outcomes in general.
Advertising revenues may also be hit, with a significant impact on ITV, who are showing all matches. With England out, the value of advertising slots has fallen and the advertising impact on some of the key England sponsors, such as O2, may be significant. However, English ticket holders may use this as an opportunity to make money, selling on their tickets to fans of surviving teams! The following articles and report from Ernst and Young consider this latest major sporting event that has come to the UK.
Articles
The Economic Impact of Rugby World Cup 2015 Ernst and Young 2014
An England Rugby World Cup exit could have knock-on effect for our stock market The Guardian, Sean Farrell (1/10/15)
Brands cheer on Rugby World Cup in face of England’s exit Financial Times, Malcolm Moore (4/10/15)
Rugby World Cup 2015: Early England exit could cost country £3bn International Business Times, Alfred Joyner (6/10/15)
Rugby World Cup brands play down commercial losses of England’s ‘lacklustre’ exit The Drum, Seb Joseph (5/10/15)
Questions
- What is an Economic Impact Analysis?
- How would you estimate the size of the multiplier effect of a sporting event, such as the Rugby World Cup?
- Following England’s exit, what happened to the stock market?
- How will media companies be affected by the Rugby World Cup and by England’s exit?
- Why do emotions affect the stock market?
- Do you think England’s exit will lead to greater spending in other parts of the country, such as Scotland and Wales, as England fans defect?
Governments of twelve Pacific rim nations, including the USA, Canada, Japan and Australia have just agreed to a trade deal – the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). This represents the most significant trade deal since the completion of the Uruguay Round and the creation of the World Trade Organisation in 1994. Together these countries account for some 40% of global GDP. The deal must still be signed by the leaders of the TPP countries, however, and, more importantly, ratified by their legislatures, where, to put it mildly, agreement is not universal.
The deal is hailed as a move towards freer trade in a number of areas, including agriculture and services. But it also provides greater protection for owners of intellectual property. Proponents of the deal argue that it will to lead large-scale reductions in tariffs and other trade restrictions. As the Economist article states:
For American exporters alone, 18,000 individual tariffs will be reduced to zero. Much the same will be true for firms in the other 11 members. Even agricultural barriers, usually among the most heavily defended, will start to come down. Foreigners will gain a toehold in Canada’s dairy sector and a bigger share of Japan’s beef market, for example.
But despite this being the biggest trade deal for some 20 years, it has been highly criticised by various groups. Freer trade threatens industries that will face competition from other countries in the TPP. This unites both corporations and unions in trying to protect their own specific interests. However, the agreement gives ground to many special industries by retaining protection in a number of areas, at least for several years.
It has also been criticised by environmentalists who worry about the removal of various environmental safeguards. In answer to these concerns, there are several provisions in the agreement that provide some measure of environmental protection so as to slow things such as deforestation, overfishing and carbon emissions. But environmentalists argue that these provisions do not go far enough.
Others are concerned that the agreement will allow corporations to challenge governments and undermine the ability of governments to regulate them.
The articles look at some of the details of the agreement and at the arguments for and against ratifying it. Some of these arguments go to the heart of the age-old free trade versus protection debate.
US, Japan and 10 countries strike Pacific trade deal Financial Times, Shawn Donnan and Demetri Sevastopulo (5/10/15)
What Trade-Deal Critics Are Missing Wall Street Journal, Zachary Karabell (8/10/15)
The Trans-Pacific Partnership: Weighing anchor The Economist (10/10/15)
A trade deal is no excuse to milk taxpayers Globe and Mail (Canada), Yuen Pau Woo (7/10/15)
What Is the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP)? Electronic Frontier Foundation
Wikileaks release of TPP deal text stokes ‘freedom of expression’ fears The Guardian, Sam Thielman (9/10/15)
TPP’s clauses that let Australia be sued are weapons of legal destruction, says lawyer The Guardian, Jess Hill (10/11/15)
Questions
- Who are likely to benefit from the TPP?
- Why are American republicans generally opposed to the agreement?
- What are the objections to the TPP’s provisions for the protection of intellectual property rights?
- Would the current twelve members of the TPP gain if China joined?
- What are the objections of environmentalists to TPP?
- What effect will the TPP on European countries?
- Other than a reduction in tariffs, what other types of measures are included in the TPP?
- What is the Investor-State Dispute Settlement mechanism and what criticisms have been made of it? Are they justified?
The International Monetary Fund has just published its six-monthly World Economic Outlook (WEO). The publication assesses the state of the global economy and forecasts economic growth and other indicators over the next few years. So what is this latest edition predicting?
Well, once again the IMF had to adjust its global economic growth forecasts down from those made six months ago, which in turn were lower than those made a year ago. As Larry Elliott comments in the Guardian article linked below:
Every year, economists at the fund predict that recovery is about to move up a gear, and every year they are disappointed. The IMF has over-estimated global growth by one percentage point a year on average for the past four years.
In this latest edition, the IMF is predicting that growth in 2015 will be slightly higher in developed countries than in 2014 (2.0% compared with 1.8%), but will continue to slow for the fifth year in emerging market and developing countries (4.0% in 2015 compared with 4.6% in 2014 and 7.5% in 2010).
In an environment of declining commodity prices, reduced capital flows to emerging markets and pressure on their currencies, and increasing financial market volatility, downside risks to the outlook have risen, particularly for emerging market and developing economies.
So what is the cause of this sluggish growth in developed countries and lower growth in developing countries? Is lower long-term growth the new norm? Or is this a cyclical effect – albeit protracted – with the world economy set to resume its pre-financial-crisis growth rates eventually?
To achieve faster economic growth in the longer term, potential national output must grow more rapidly. This can be achieved by a combination of more rapid technological progress and higher investment in both physical and human capital. But in the short term, aggregate demand must expand sufficiently rapidly. Higher short-term growth will encourage higher investment, which in turn will encourage faster growth in potential national output.
But aggregate demand remains subdued. Many countries are battling to cut budget deficits, and lending to the private sector is being constrained by banks still seeking to repair their balance sheets. Slowing growth in China and other emerging economies is dampening demand for raw materials and this is impacting on primary exporting countries, which are faced with lower exports and lower commodity prices.
Quantitative easing and rock bottom interest rates have helped somewhat to offset these adverse effects on aggregate demand, but as the USA and UK come closer to raising interest rates, so this could dampen global demand further and cause capital to flow from developing countries to the USA in search of higher interest rates. This will put downward pressure on developing countries’ exchange rates, which, while making their exports more competitive, will make it harder for them to finance dollar-denominated debt.
As we have seen, long-term growth depends on growth in potential output, but productivity growth has been slower since the financial crisis. As the Foreword to the report states:
The ongoing experience of slow productivity growth suggests that long-run potential output growth may have fallen broadly across economies. 
Persistently low investment helps explain limited labour productivity and wage gains, although the joint productivity of all factors of production, not just labour, has also been slow. Low aggregate demand is one factor that discourages investment, as the last World Economic Outlook report showed. Slow expected potential growth itself dampens aggregate demand, further limiting investment, in a vicious circle.
But is this lower growth in potential output entirely the result of lower demand? And will the effect be permanent? Is it a form of hysteresis, with the effect persisting even when the initial causes have disappeared? Or will advances in technology, especially in the fields of robotics, nanotechnology and bioengineering, allow potential growth to resume once confidence returns?
Which brings us back to the short and medium terms. What can be done by governments to stimulate sustained recovery? The IMF proposes a focus on productive infrastructure investment, which will increase both aggregate demand and aggregate supply, and also structural reforms. At the same time, loose monetary policy should continue for some time – certainly as long as the current era of falling commodity prices, low inflation and sluggish growth in demand persists.
Articles
Uncertainty, Complex Forces Weigh on Global Growth IMF Survey Magazine (6/10/15)
A worried IMF is starting to scratch its head The Guardian, Larry Elliott (6/10/15)
Storm clouds gather over global economy as world struggles to shake off crisis The Telegraph, Szu Ping Chan (6/10/15)
Five charts that explain what’s going on in a miserable global economy right now The Telegraph, Mehreen Khan (6/10/15)
IMF warns on worst global growth since financial crisis Financial Times, Chris Giles (6/10/15)
Global economic slowdown in six steps Financial Times, Chris Giles (6/10/15)
IMF Downgrades Global Economic Outlook Again Wall Street Journal, Ian Talley (6/10/15)
WEO publications
World Economic Outlook, October 2015: Adjusting to Lower Commodity Prices IMF (6/10/15)
Global Growth Slows Further, IMF’s latest World Economic Outlook IMF Podcast, Maurice Obstfeld (6/10/15)
Transcript of the World Economic Outlook Press Conference IMF (6/10/15)
World Economic Outlook Database IMF (October 2015 edition)
Questions
- Look at the forecasts made in the WEO October editions of 2007, 2010 and 2012 for economic growth two years ahead and compare them with the actual growth experienced. How do you explain the differences?
- Why is forecasting even two years ahead fraught with difficulties?
- What factors would cause a rise in (a) potential output; (b) potential growth?
- What is the relationship between actual and potential economic growth?
- Explain what is meant by hysteresis. Why may recessions have a permanent negative effect, not only on trend productivity levels, but on trend productivity growth?
- What are the current downside risks to the global economy?
- Why have commodity prices fallen? Who gains and who loses from lower commodity prices? Does it matter if falling commodity prices in commodity importing countries result in negative inflation?
- To what extent can exchange rate depreciation help commodity exporting countries?
- What is meant by the output gap? How have IMF estimates of the size of the output gap changed and what is the implication of this for actual and potential economic growth?
Most of us will have milk in our fridges – it’s a basic product consumed by the majority of people on a daily basis and hence a common feature of most shopping trolleys. As we saw in the post Got milk?, the low price of milk has been causing problems for farmers. This has caused one Morrisons store to take a different approach.
Their new milk brand ‘Morrisons Milk for Farmers’ has been launched at a 23p price rise for every four pint bottle. The catch: they will become the first UK retailer where the 23p price hike goes directly to farmers. This represents 10 pence per litre of milk going directly back to the farmers that produce it. This is a bold strategy, but data and surveys do suggest a willingness to pay more from customers, if it means that dairy farmers get a fairer deal. The protests we have seen across the country have certainly helped to generate interest and created awareness of the difficulties that many farmers are facing. Rob Harrison from the NFU said:
