One of the biggest consequences of the recession has been a rise in unemployment. As the economy fell deeper into recession, unemployment began to soar and some believe that it could reach 3.5 million and remain high for the next decade.
But while many employees have lost their jobs or had they pay frozen, some of the biggest earners have received substantial pay rises! The bosses of the FTSE 100 companies have seen their average pay increase by 10% and have shared pay rises of more than £1 billion in the past year.
So as the economy plunged into recession and companies lost much of their value, we still saw an increase in the pay gap in the UK. The following articles look at the pay situation of some of the top bosses.
10% pay rise for the top bosses This is Money, Ryan Kisiel (14/9/09)
Guardian Executive Pay Survey 2009: Should pay be capped? Guardian (14/9/09)
What they make: The highest paid Chief Executives in Digital Media Guardian (20/3/09)
Executive pay jumps despite recession: Report Associated Press (14/9/09)
Unemployment could reach 3.5m and remain high for a decade, CIPD warns Telegraph, Martin Beckford (14/9/09
Questions
- How are wages determined in the labour market?
- Why do different people receive different wages? What should happen if two people receive different wages for doing the same job?
- What are the different (a) types (b) causes of inequality?
- Would a maximum price work if it was applied to wages?
- Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of different wages. If everyone was paid the same, would everyone be better off?
“100 leading progressive figures from across the centre-left, civil society and from all corners of the UK, have today called on the government to establish a High Pay Commission to curb excessive pay.” So begins the press release from the pressure group, Compass. Calls for restraint on high pay are hardly surprising at a time of recession and falling profits. Many banks are still paying large bonuses to top executives, despite some of the banks having to be rescued by the government. Other firms too are still rewarding their senior executives with huge bonuses despite poor performance.
But are the members of Compass right to say that “the unjust rewards of a few hundred ‘masters of the universe’ exacerbated the risks we were all exposed to many times over” and that “a High Pay Commission is needed to deliver a fairer, more stable and sustainable economy for the future”? The following linked articles look at the issues.
Coalition calls on government to regulate high pay Guardian (17/8/09)
Think tank Compass says ‘masters of universe’ must be reigned in Telegraph (17/8/09)
The Big Question: Should there be a commission into high pay, and how would it operate? Independent (18/8/09)
Darling dismisses pay commission BBC news (17/8/09) (see also video)
Demands for ‘high commission’ to cut pay and bonuses of executives Scotsman (18/8/09)
It is time for action on excessive pay Guardian (17/8/09)
Top executives pocket huge bonuses despite recession Independent (518/8/09)
Investor group ABI wants guaranteed bonuses stopped Guardian (17/8/09)
It’s an unequal struggle to rein in those with the most The Herald (18/8/09)
Would a High Pay Commission solve inequality? Management Today (17/8/09)
Bankers’ pay: Coining it in Guardian (18/8/09)
Will Britain’s second dose of anti-bonus fever have a useful payoff? Telegraph (17/8/09)
Merit Pay Times Online (17/8/09)
Questions
- What are the arguments for and against establishing a High Pay Commission?
- To what extent are the rewards of senior executives a reflection of their marginal productivity?
- Discuss the extent to which the bonus system could be redesigned to align the incentives of such a system to the long-term performance of the company.
The large bonuses received by bankers, often amounting to more than a million pounds, have been contentious for many years. With the banking crisis and subsequent recession, and with both public and government outrage at the size of the bonuses, many thought that the days of such bonuses were over. But such is not the case. “There has been public disquiet that leading banks – which have been seen as a major cause of the financial crisis – have been receiving taxpayer funds, but are not prepared to change their traditional culture of awarding big bonuses to key staff.”
The following articles look at what has been happening to senior bankers’ remuneration in recent months. But what are the market conditions that allow such rewards to continue? Are they a reflection of the marginal productivity of bankers or of their market power, or what?
RBS to keep paying bonuses despite 1bn first-half loss Telegraph (7/8/09)
Lloyds chief plans bonuses for ‘spectacular job’ in making £4bn loss Telegraph (6/8/09)
CS toxic bonuses are up 17%, but gains can’t be realised for four years eFinancial Careers (7/8/09)
Banks: Look, don’t touch Guardian (8/8/09)
Analysis: The plan’s the thing Times Online (7/8/09)
Cutting our bonuses would hit the taxpayer, says RBS Citywire (7/8/09)
France targets bankers’ bonuses BBC News (7/8/09)
Sarkozy weighs into debate over banker bonuses after BNP Paribas compensation sparks anger Los Angeles Times (7/8/09)
Knotting the purse-strings The Economist (6/8/09)
Pay and politics The Economist (6/8/09)
Questions
- Explain why many senior bankers have continued to receive huge bonuses. To what extent is oligopoly theory relevant to your explanation?
- To what extent do the size of the bonuses reflect senior bankers’ contributions to (a) the productivity and (b) the profits of their bank?
- If bankers are to be paid bonuses, what is the best form for these bonuses to take? Consider the incentive effects in your answer.
- Should bankers’ bonuses be regulated and, if so, what criteria should regulators use for determining the acceptable size of bonuses?
On July 8 the UK government published its long-awaited White Paper on reform of the system of banking regulation. Several commentators had called for the abolition of the ‘tripartite’ system of regulation, whereby responsibility for ensuring the stability and security of the banking system is shared between the Financial Services Authority (FSA), the Bank of England and the Treasury. Some have advocated a considerable strengthening of the role of the Bank of England and even abolishing the FSA. What is generally agreed is that there needs to be ‘macro-prudential’ regulation that looks at the whole banking system and at questions of systemic risk and not just at individual banks. Several of the articles below debate this issue.
The government’s White Paper proposes keeping the tripartite system but also strengthening various aspects of regulation. Amongst other things, it proposes giving the FSA powers to ‘penalise banks if their pay policies create unnecessary risks and are not focused on the long-term strength of their institutions’. It also proposes setting up a ‘new Council for Financial Stability – made up of the FSA, the Bank of England and the Treasury – to meet regularly and report on the systemic risks to financial stability’. Banks would also be required to increase their capital adequacy ratios. The first two articles below give an outline of the proposals. The detailed proposals are contained in the third link, to the Treasury site.
Chancellor moves to rein in ‘risky’ banks Independent (9/7/09)
Banks to face tougher regulation BBC News (8/7/09)
Reforming financial markets HM Treasury (8/7/09)
Treasury sees devil in the detail Financial Times (7/7/09)
How to police the banking system Independent (8/7/09)
City regulation: a quick guide Telegraph (8/7/09)
Treasury White Paper: what it means for the financial services industry Telegraph (8/7/09)
Key issues: Financial regulation BBC News (8/7/09)
Alistair Darling accuses banks of ‘kamikaze’ attitude to loans Telegraph (5/7/09)
HSBC boss on banking reform BBC News video (3/7/09)
Bankers ‘want to be proud of what they do’ BBC Today Programme, Radio 4 (7/7/09)
Divisions on display at Mansion House BBC Newsnight video (18/6/09)
Who should supervise the banks? BBC Newsnight video (18/6/09)
Governor wants more bank powers BBC News video (17/6/09)
King puts spotlight on banks too big to fail Times Online (21/6/09)
Mervyn King: Banks cannot be too big to fail Edmund Conway blog, Telegraph (17/6/09)
The City doesn’t need any more rules Telegraph (6/7/09)
Treasury admits ‘intellectual failure’ behind credit crisis Telegraph (8/7/09)
Bankers to face draconian pay veto Times Online (8/7/09)
Questions
- What do you understand by macro-prudential regulation? What would be the difficulties of applying regulation at this level?
- Why may liquidity ratios and capital adequacy ratios that are deemed appropriate by individual banks be inappropriate for the banking system as a whole?
- If banks are too big to fail, why does this create a moral hazard?
- Examine the case for splitting universal banks into retail banks and investment banks.
- Examine the arguments for and against regulating the level and nature of remuneration of senior bank executives.
“As the global economic crisis forces everyone to downsize, the self-sufficient worker once again has a chance, whether as a farmer growing vegetables for local consumption or as an open-source software developer who makes a living in his basement office.” So argues the first article linked to below. Does this mean that economies of scale are over-exaggerated? Should developing countries provide more support to small-scale production as a growth and development strategy? And does small-scale production provide benefits beyond those of production and profit? Does it meet broader human and social needs? The articles explore the issues: the first two in the context of the developed world and the other four in the context of developing countries.
The Return to Yeomanry New America Foundation (22/6/09)
Entrée: Small-scale farmers on the forefront of a greens revolution The Vancouver Sun (19/6/09)
Extracts – the future of small-scale farming Oxfam International
Malawi’s fertile plan Mail & Guardian Online (25/6/09)
Development: Investment in small farmers crucial in Africa Bizcommunity.com (24/6/09)
Toward Agricultural Sustainability Philippines Business Mirror (24/6/09)
Questions
- What are the benefits of ‘a return to yeomanry’ (a) to the individuals themselves; (b) to society and the environment?
- Why might it prove a risky strategy for those embarking on small-scale production? How could governments help to reduce the risks for the producers? Should they?
- Discuss whether fostering small-scale farming is an appropriate development strategy for developing countries. What specific policy measures should governments adopt?
- Is land reform (a) a necessary condition; (b) a sufficient condition if small-scale farming is to flourish in developing countries? What pitfalls are there from a policy of land reform?