Tag: inflation

Posted on

The Chancellor’s fiscal dilemma

The UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, will present her annual Budget in late autumn. It will involve some hard economic and political choices. The government would like to spend more money on improving public services but has pledged not to raise taxes ‘on working people’, which is interpreted as not raising the rates of income tax, national insurance for employees and the self-employed, and VAT. What is more, government borrowing is forecast by the OBR to be £118 billion, or nearly 4.0% of GDP, for the the year 2025/26. This is a fall from the 5.1% in 2024/25 and is well below the 15.0% in 2020/21 during the pandemic. But it is significantly above the 2.1% in 2018/19.

The government has pledged to stick to its two fiscal rules. The first is that the day-to-day, or ‘current’, budget (i.e. excluding investment) should be in surplus or in deficit of no more than 0.5 per cent of GDP by 2029/30 (or the third year of the rolling forecast period from the 2026/27 Budget). This allows investment to be funded by borrowing. The second rule is that public-sector net debt, which includes public-sector debt plus pension liabilities minus equity, loans and other financial assets, should be falling by 2029/30 (or the third year of the rolling forecast period from the 2026/27 Budget). The current budget deficit (i.e. excluding borrowing for investment) was forecast by the OBR in March to be 1.2% of GDP for 2025/26 (see Chart 1) and to be a surplus of 0.3% in 2029/30 (£9.9 billion). (Click here for a PowerPoint of the chart.)

The OBR’s March forecasts, therefore, were that the rules would be met with current policies and that the average rate of economic growth would be 1.8% over the next four years.

However, there would be very little room for manoeuvre, and with global political and economic uncertainty, including the effects of tariffs, climate change on harvests and the continuing war in Ukraine, the rate of economic growth might be well below 1.8%.

The March forecasts were based on the assumption that inflation would fall and hence that the Bank of England would reduce interest rates. Global pressure on inflation, however, might result in inflation continuing to be above the Bank of England’s target of 2%. This would mean that interest rates would be slow to fall – if at all. This would dampen growth and make it more expensive for the government to service the public-sector debt, thus making it harder to reduce the public-sector deficit.

A forecast earlier this month by the National Institute for Economic and Social Research (NIESR) (see link below and Chart 2) reflects these problems and paints a gloomier picture than the OBR’s March forecast. The NIESR forecasts that GDP will grow by only 1.3 per cent in 2025, 1.2 per cent in 2026, 1.1% in 2027 and 1.0% in 2028, with the average for 2025 to 2023 being 1.13%. This is the result of high levels of business uncertainty and the effects of tariffs on exports. With no change in policy, the current deficit would be £41.2 billion in the 2029/30 financial year. Inflation would fall somewhat, but would stick at around 2.7% from 2028 to 2030. Net debt would be rising in 2029/30 &ndash but only slightly, from 98.7% to 99.0%. (Click here for a PowerPoint of the chart.)

So what are the policy options open to the government for dealing with a forecast current budget deficit of £41.2 billion (1.17% of GDP)? There are only three broad options.

Increase borrowing

One approach would be to scrap the fiscal rules and accept increased borrowing – at least temporarily. This would avoid tax increases or expenditure cuts. By running a larger budget deficit, this Keynesian approach would also have the effect of increasing aggregate demand and, other things being equal, could lead to a multiplied rise in national income. This in turn would lead to higher tax revenues and thereby result in a smaller increase in borrowing.

There are two big problems with this approach, however.

The first is that it would, over time, increase the public-sector debt and would involve having to spend more each year on servicing that debt. This would leave less tax revenue for current spending or investment. It would also involve having to pay higher interest rates to encourage people to buy the additional new government bonds necessary to finance the increased deficit.

The second problem is that the Chancellor has said that she will stick to the fiscal rules. If she scraps them, if only temporarily, she runs the risk of losing the confidence of investors. This could lead to a run on the pound and even higher interest rates. This was a problem under the short-lived Liz Truss government when the ‘mini’ Budget of September 2022 made unfunded pledges to cut taxes. There was a run on the pound and the Bank of England had to make emergency gilt purchases.

One possibility that might be more acceptable to markets would be to rewrite the investment rule. There could be a requirement on government to invest a certain proportion of GDP (say, 3%) and fund it by borrowing. The supply-side benefits could be faster growth in potential output and higher tax revenue over the longer term, allowing the current deficit rule to be met.

Cut government expenditure

Politicians, especially in opposition, frequently claim that the solution is to cut out public-sector waste. This would allow public expenditure to be cut without cutting services. This, however, is harder than it might seem. There have been frequent efficiency drives in the public sector, but from 1919 to 2023 public-sector productivity fell by an average of 0.97% per year.

Causes include: chronic underinvestment in capital, resulting in outdated equipment and IT systems and crumbling estates; decades of underfunding that have left public services with crumbling estates, outdated equipment and insufficient IT systems; inconsistent, short-term government policy, with frequent changes in government priorities; bureaucratic systems relying on multiple legacy IT systems; workforce challenges, especially in health and social care, with high staff turnover, recruitment difficulties, and a lack of experienced staff.

The current government has launched a Public Sector Productivity Programme. This is a a cross-government initiative to improve productivity across public services. Departments are required to develop productivity plans to invest in schemes designed to achieve cost savings and improve outcomes in areas such as the NHS, police, and justice system. A £1.8 billion fund was announced in March 2024, to support public-sector productivity improvements and digital transformation. Part of this is to be invested in digital services and AI to improve efficiency. According to the ONS, total public-service productivity in the UK grew by 1.0% in the year to Q1 2025; healthcare productivity grew 2.7% over the same period. It remains to be seen whether this growth in productivity will be maintained. Pressure from the public, however, will mean that any gains are likely to be in terms of improved services rather than reduced government expenditure.

Increase taxes

This is always a controversial area. People want better public services but also reduced taxes – at least for themselves! Nevertheless, it is an option seriously being considered by the government. However, if it wants to avoid raising the rates of income tax, national insurance for employees and the self-employed, and VAT, its options are limited. It has also to consider the political ramifications of taking unpopular tax-raising measures. The following are possibilities:

Continue the freeze on income tax bands. They are currently frozen until April 2028. The extra revenue from extending the freeze until April 2030 would be around £7 billion. Although this may be politically more palatable than raising the rate of income tax, the revenue raised will be well short of the amount required and thus other measures will be required. Although some £40 billion will have been raised up to 2028 (which has already been factored in), as inflation falls, so the fiscal drag effect will fall: nominal incomes will need to rise less to achieve any given rise in real incomes.

Cutting tax relief for pensions. Currently, people get income tax relief at their marginal rate on pension contributions made by themselves and their employer up to £60 000 per year or 100% of their earnings, whichever is smaller. When people draw on their pension savings, they pay income tax at their marginal rate, even if the size of their savings has grown from capital gains, interest or dividends. Reducing the limits or restricting relief to the basic rate of tax could make a substantial contribution to increasing government revenue. In 2023/24, pension contribution relief cost the government £52 billion. Restricting relief to the basic rate or cutting the annual limit would make the relief less regressive. In such a case, when people draw on their pension savings, the income tax rate could be limited to the basic rate to avoid double taxation.

Raising the rate of inheritance tax (IHT) or reducing the threshold. Currently, estates worth more than £325 000 are taxed at a marginal rate of 40%. The threshold is frozen until 2029/30 and thus additional revenue will be received by the government as asset prices increase. If the rate is raised above 40%, perhaps in bands, or the threshold were lowered, then this will earn additional revenue. However, the amount will be relatively small compared to the predicted current deficit in 2029/30 of £41 billion. Total IHT revenue in 2022/23 was only 6.7 billion. Also, it is politically dangerous as people could claim that the government was penalising people who had saved in order to help the next generation, who are struggling with high rents or mortgages.

Increased taxes on business. The main rate of corporation tax was raised from 19% to 25% in April 2023 and the employers’ national insurance rate was raised from 13.8% to 15% and the threshold reduced from £9100 to £5000 per year in April 2025. There is little or no scope for raising business taxes without having significant disincentive effects on investment and employment. Also, there is the danger that raising rates might prompt companies to relocate abroad.

Raise fuel and/or other duties. Fuel duties raise approximately £24 billion. They are set to decline gradually with the shift to EVs and more fuel-efficient internal combustion engines. Fuel duty remained unchanged at 57.95p per litre from 2011 to 2022 and then was ‘temporarily’ cut to 52.95p. The rate of 52.95p is set to remain until at least 2026. There is clearly scope here to raise it, if only by the rate of inflation each year. Again, the main problem is a political one that drivers and the motor lobby generally will complain. Other duties include alcohol, tobacco/cigarettes/vaping, high-sugar beverages and gambling. Again, there is scope for raising these. There are two problems here. The first is that these duties are regressive, falling more heavily on poorer people. The second is that high duties can encourage illegal trade in these products.

Raising one of the three major taxes: income tax, employees’ national insurance and VAT. This will involve reneging on the government’s election promises. But perhaps it’s better to bite the bullet and do it sooner rather than later. Six European countries have VAT rates of 21%, three of 22%, three of 23%, two of 24%, four of 25%, one of 25.5% and one of 27%. Each one percentage point rise would raise about 9 billion. A one percentage point rise across all UK income tax rates would raise around £5.8 billion. As far as employees’ national insurance rates are concerned, the Conservative government reduced the main rate twice from 12% to 10% in January 2024 and from 10% to 8% in April 2024. The government could argue that raising it back to, say, 10% would still leave it lower than previously. A rise to 10% would raise around £11 billion.

Conclusion

The choices for the Chancellor are not easy. As the NIESR’s Economic Outlook puts it:

Simply put, the Chancellor cannot simultaneously meet her fiscal rules, fulfil spending commitments, and uphold manifesto promises to avoid tax rises for working people. At least one of these will need to be dropped – she faces an impossible trilemma.

Articles

Data

Questions

  1. Which of the options would you choose and why?
  2. Should the government introduce a wealth tax on people with wealth above, say, £2 million? If so, should it be a once-only tax or an annual tax?
  3. Research another country’s fiscal position and assess the choices their finance minister took.
  4. Look at a previous UK Budget from a few years ago and the forecasts on which the Budget decisions were made (search Budget [year] on the GOV.UK website). How accurate did the forecasts turn out to be? If the Chancellor then had known what would actually happen in the future, would their decisions have been any different and, if so, in what ways?
  5. Should fiscal decisions be based on forecasts for three of four years hence when those forecasts are likely to be unreliable?
  6. Should fiscal and monetary policy decisions be made totally separately from each other?
Posted on

‘Liberation day’: or start of a Trump slump?

On April 2nd, Donald Trump announced sweeping new ‘reciprocal’ tariffs. These would be in addition to 25% tariffs on imports of cars, steel and aluminium already announced and any other tariffs in place on individual countries, such as China. The new tariffs would apply to US imports from every country, except for Canada and Mexico where tariffs had already been imposed.

The new tariffs would depend on the size of the country’s trade in goods surplus with the USA (i.e. the USA’s trade in goods deficit with that country). The bigger the percentage surplus, the bigger the tariff. But, no matter how small a country’s surplus or even if it runs a deficit (i.e. imports more goods from the USA than it sells), it would still face a minimum 10% ‘baseline’ tariff.

President Trump stated that these tariffs are to counter what he claims as unfair trade practices inflicted on the USA. People had been expecting that these tariffs would reflect the tariffs applied by other countries on US goods and possibly also non-tariff barriers, such as the ban on chlorine-washed chicken or hormone-injected beef in the EU and UK. But, by basing them on the size of a country’s trade surplus, this meant imposing them on many countries with which the USA has a free-trade deal with no tariffs at all.

The table gives some examples of the new tariff rates. The largest rates would apply to China and south-east Asian countries, which supply low-priced products, such as clothing, footwear and electronics to the US market. In China’s case, it would a reciprocal tariff rate of 34% plus the previously imposed tariff rate of 20%, giving a massive 54%.

What is more, the ‘de minimis’ exemption will be scrapped for packages sent by private couriers. This had exempted goods of $800 or less sent direct to consumers from China and other countries from companies such as Temu and Alibaba. It is also intended to cut back on packages of synthetic opioids sent from these countries.

Since ‘liberation day’, President Trump has made several changes to these tariff rates. On 9 April he ‘paused’ the implementation of the tariffs above the 10% rate pending trade discussions with individual countries. However, in the case of China, there have been tit-for-tat tariff increases, so that by the end of April, the US tariff rate on Chinese imports was a massive 145% and the Chinese rate on US imports was 125%. The two countries seemed locked in a high-stakes game of chicken.

The US formula for reciprocal tariffs

As we have seen, the proposed (and then paused) reciprocal tariffs do not reflect countries’ tariff rates on the USA. Instead, rates for countries running a trade in goods surplus with the USA (a US trade deficit with these countries) are designed to reflect the size of that surplus as a percentage of their total imports from the USA. The White House has published the following formula.


where:

When the two elasticities are multiplied together this gives 1 and so can be ignored. As there was no previous ‘reciprocal’ tariff, the rise in the reciprocal tariff rate is the actual reciprocal tariff rate. The formula for the reciprocal tariff rate thus becomes the percentage trade surplus of that country with the USA: (exports – imports) / imports, expressed as a percentage. This is then rounded up to the nearest whole number.

President Trump also stated that countries would be given a discount to show US goodwill. This involves halving the rate from the above formula and then rounding up to the nearest whole number.

Take the case of China. China’s exports of goods to the USA in 2024 were $439bn, while its imports of goods from the USA were $144bn, giving China a trade surplus with the USA of $295bn. Expressing this as a percentage of exports gives ($295/$439 × 100)/2 = 33.6%, rounded up to 34%. For the EU, the formula gives ($227bn/$584bn × 100)/2 = 19.4%, rounded up to 20%.

Questioning the value of φ. Even if you accept the formula itself as the basis for imposing tariffs, the value of the second term in the denominator, φ, is likely to be seriously undervalued. The term represents the elasticity of import prices with respect to tariff changes. It shows the proportion of a tariff rise that is passed on to consumers, which is assumed to be just one quarter, with producers bearing the remaining three quarters. In reality, it is highly likely that most of the tariff will get passed on, as it was with the tariffs applied in Donald Trump’s first presidency.

If the value for φ were 1 (i.e. all the tariff passed on to the consumer), the formula would give a ‘reciprocal tariff’ of just one quarter of that with a value of φ of 0.25. The figures in the table above would look very different. If the rates were then still halved, all countries with a tariff below 40% (such as the EU, Japan or India) would instead face just the baseline tariff of 10%. What is more, China’s rate would be reduced from 54% to 30% (the original 20% plus the baseline of 10%). Cambodia’s would be reduced to 13%. Even if the halving discount were no longer applied, the rates would still be only half of those shown in the table (and 37% for China).

Are the tariffs justified?

Even if a correct value of φ were used, a percentage trade surplus is a poor way of measuring the protection used by a country. Many countries running a trade surplus with the USA are low-income countries with low labour costs. They have a comparative advantage in labour-intensive goods. That allows such goods to be purchased at low cost by Americans. Their trade surplus may not be a reflection of protection at all.

Also, if protection is to be used to reflect the trade imbalance with each country, then why impose a 10% baseline on countries, like the UK, with which the USA has a trade surplus? By the Trump administration’s logic, it ought to be subsidising UK imports or accepting of UK tariffs on imports of US goods.

But President Trump also wants to address the USA’s overall trade deficit. The US balance of trade in goods deficit was $1063bn in 2023 (the latest year for a full set of figures). But the overall balance of payments must balance. There were thus surpluses elsewhere on the balance of payments account (and some other deficits). There was a surplus on the services account of $278bn and on the financial account of $924bn. In other words, inward investment to the USA (both direct and portfolio) and the acquisition of dollars by other countries as a reserve asset were very large and helped to drive up the exchange rate. This made US goods less competitive and imports relatively cheaper.

The USA has a large national debt of some $36 trillion of which some $9 trillion is owed to foreign investors (people, institutions or countries). Servicing the debt pushes up US interest rates. This helps to maintain a high exchange rate, thereby making imports cheaper and worsening the trade deficit. The fiscal burden of servicing the debt also crowds out US government expenditure on items such as defence, education, law and order and infrastructure. President Trump hopes that tariffs will bring in additional revenue to help finance the deficit.

Effects on the USA

If the tariffs reduce spending on imports and if other countries do not retaliate, then the US balance of trade should improve. However, a tariff is effectively a tax on imported goods. It is charged to the importing company not to the manufacturer abroad. As we saw in the context of the false value for φ, most of the tariff will be passed on to American consumers. Theoretically the incidence of the tariff is shared between the supplier and the purchaser, but in practice, most of the higher cost to the importer will be passed on to the consumer. As with other taxes, the effect is to transfer money from the consumer to the government, making people poorer but giving the government extra revenue. This revenue will be dollars, not foreign currency.

As some of the biggest price rises will be for cheap manufactured products, such as imports from China, and various staple foodstuffs, the effects could be felt disproportionately by the poor. Higher import prices will allow domestic producers competing with these imports to raise their prices too. The tariffs are thus likely to be inflationary. But because the inflation would be the result of higher costs, not higher demand, this could lead to recession as real incomes fell.

American resources will be diverted by the tariffs from sectors in which the USA has a comparative advantage, such as advanced manufactured goods and services, to more basic products. Tariffs on cheap imports will make domestic versions of these products more profitable: even though they are more costly to produce, they will be sold at a higher price.

The tariffs will also directly affect goods produced by US companies. The reason is that many use complex supply chains involving parts produced abroad. Take the case of Apple. Even though it is an American company which designs its products in California, the company sources parts from several Asian countries and has factories in Vietnam, China, India, and Thailand. These components will face tariffs and thus directly affect the price of iPhones, iPads, MacBooks, etc. Similarly affected are other US tech hardware manufacturers, US car manufactures, clothing and footwear producers, such as The Gap and Nike, and home goods producers.

Monetary policy response. How the Fed would respond is not clear. Higher inflation and lower growth, or even a recession, produces what is known as ‘stagflation’: inflation combined with stagnation. Many countries experienced stagflation following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, when higher commodity prices led to soaring inflation and economic slowdown. There was a cost-of-living crisis.

If a central bank has a simple mandate of keeping inflation to a target, higher inflation would be likely to lead to higher interest rates, making recession even more likely. It is the inflation of the two elements of stagflation (inflation and stagnation) that is addressed. The recession is thus likely to be deepened by monetary policy. But as the Fed has a dual mandate of controlling inflation but also of maximising employment, it may choose not to raise interest rates, or even to lower them, to get the optimum balance between these two targets.

If other countries retaliate by themselves raising tariffs on US exports and/or if consumers boycott American goods and services, this will further reduce incomes in the USA. Just two days after ‘liberation day’, China retaliated against America’s 34% additional tariff on Chinese imports by imposing its own 34% tariff on US imports to China.

A trade war will make the world poorer, especially the USA. Investors know this. In the two days following ‘liberation day’, stock markets around the world fell sharply and especially in the USA. The Dow Jones was down 9.3% and the tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite was down 11.4%.

Effects on the rest of the world

The effects of the tariffs on other countries will obviously depend on the tariff rate. The countries facing the largest tariffs are some of the poorest countries which supply the USA with simple labour-intensive products, such as garments, footwear, food and minerals. This could have a severe effect on their economies and cause rapidly increasing poverty and hardship.

If countries retaliate, then this will raise prices of their imports from the USA and hurt their own domestic consumers. This will fuel inflation and push the more seriously affected countries into recession.

If the USA retaliates to this retaliation, thereby further escalating the trade war, the effects could be very serious. The world could be pushed into a deep recession. The benefits of trade, where all countries can gain by specialising in producing goods with low opportunity costs and importing those with high domestic opportunity costs, would be seriously eroded.

What President Trump hopes is that the tariffs will put him in a strong negotiating position. He could offer to reduce or scrap the tariffs on a particular country in exchange for something he wants. An example would be the offer to scrap or reduce the baseline 10% tariff on UK exports and/or the 25% tariff on UK exports of cars, steel and aluminium. This could be in exchange for the UK allowing the importation of US chlorinated chicken or abolishing the digital services tax. This was introduced in 2020 and is a 2% levy on tech firms, including big US firms such as Amazon, Alphabet (Google), Meta and X.

It will be fascinating but worrying to see how the politics of the trade war play out.

Videos

Articles

White House publications

Questions

  1. What is the law of comparative advantage? Does this imply that free trade is always the best alternative for countries?
  2. From a US perspective, what are the arguments for and against the tariffs announced by President Trump on 2 April 2025?
  3. What response to the tariffs is in the UK’s best interests and why?
  4. Should the UK align with the EU in responding to the tariffs?
  5. What is meant by a negative sum game? Explain whether a trade war is a negative sum game. Can a specific ‘player’ gain in a negative sum game?
  6. What happened to stock markets directly following President Trump’s announcement and what has happened since? Explain you findings.
Posted on

Crude oil – a volatile market

The market for crude oil is usually a volatile one. Indeed, in the last few months, the market has seen prices rise and fall due to various supply and demand influences. Crude oil is coined the ‘King of Commodities’ due to the impact it has on consumers, producers and both the micro and macro economy. The price of crude oil affects everything from the cost of producing plastics, transportation, and food at the supermarket.

This makes the market for crude oil an economic powerhouse which is closely watched by businesses, traders, and governments. To gain a full understanding of the movements in this market, it is important to identify how demand and supply affect the price of crude oil.

What influences the demand and supply of crude oil?

The law of demand and supply states that if demand increases, prices will rise, and if supply increases, prices will fall. This is exactly what happens in the market for crude oil. The consumer side of the market consists of various companies and hundreds of millions of people. The producer side of the market is made up of oil-producing countries. Collectively, both consumers and producers influence the market price.

However, the demand and supply of crude oil, and therefore the price, is also affected by global economic conditions and geopolitical tensions. What happens in the world impacts the price of oil, especially since a large proportion of the world’s biggest oil producers are in politically unstable areas.

Over the past five years, global events have had a major impact on the price of oil. The economic conditions created by the impact of the COVID pandemic saw prices plummet from around $55 per barrel just before the pandemic in February 2020 to around $15 per barrel in April 2020. By mid-2021 they had recovered to around $75 per barrel. Then, in the aftermath of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the price surged to reach $133 in June 2022. More recently, geopolitical tensions in the Middle East and concerns about China’s economic outlook have intensified concerns about the future direction of the market. (Click here for a PowerPoint of the chart.)

Geopolitical tensions

In the first week of October 2024, the price of crude oil rose by almost 10% to around $78 per barrel as the conflict in the Middle East intensified. It unfortunately comes at a time when many countries are starting to recover from the rise in oil prices caused by the pandemic and the war in Ukraine. Any increase in prices will affect the price that consumers pay to fill up their vehicles with fuel, just when prices of diesel and petrol had reached their lowest level for three years.

The Governor of the Bank of England, Andrew Bailey, has said that the Bank is monitoring developments in the Middle East ‘extremely closely’, as the conflict has the potential to have serious impacts in the UK. The Bank of England will therefore be watching for any movement in oil prices that could fuel inflation.

The main concerns stem from further escalation in the conflict between Israel and the Iran-backed armed group, Hezbollah, in Lebanon. If Israel decides to attack Iran’s oil sector, this is likely to cause a sharp rise in the price of oil. Iran is the world’s seventh largest oil exporter and exports over half of its production to China. If the oilfields of a medium-sized supplier, like Iran, were attacked, this could threaten general inflation in the UK, which could in turn influence any decision by the Bank of England to lower interest rates next month.

Supply deficits

This week (2nd week of October 2024) saw the price of crude oil surge above $81 per barrel to hit its highest level since August. This rise means that prices increased by 12% in a week. However, this surge in price also means that prices rose by almost 21% between the start September and the start of October alone. Yet it was only in early September when crude oil hit a year-to-date low, highlighting the volatility in the market.

As the Middle-East war enters a new and more energy-related phase, the loss of Iranian oil would leave the market in a supply deficit. The law of supply implies that such a deficit would lead to an increase in prices. This also comes at a time when the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve has also been depleted, causing further concerns about global oil supply.

However, the biggest and most significant impact would be a disruption to flows through the Strait of Hormuz. This is a relatively narrow channel at the east end of the Persian Gulf through which a huge amount of oil tanker traffic passes – about a third of total seaborne-traded oil. It is therefore known as the world’s most important oil transit chokepoint. The risk that escalation could block the Strait of Hormuz could technically see a halt in about a fifth of the world’s oil supply. This would include exports from big Gulf producers, including Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait and Iraq. In a worst-case scenario of a full closure of the Strait, a barrel of oil could very quickly rise to well above $100.

Disruption to shipments would also lead to higher gas prices and therefore lead to a rise in household gas and electricity bills. As with oil, gas prices filter down supply chains, affecting the cost of virtually all goods, resulting in a further rise in the cost of living. With energy bills in the UK having already risen by 10% for this winter, an escalation to the conflict could see prices rise further still.

China’s economic outlook


Despite the concern for the future supply of oil, there is also a need to consider how the demand for oil could impact price changes in the market. The price of oil declined on 14 October 2024 in light of concerns over China’s struggling economy. As China is the world’s largest importer of crude oil, there are emerging fears about the potential limits on fuel demand. This fall in price reversed increases made the previous week as investors become concerned about worsening deflationary pressures in China.

Any reduced demand from China could indicate an oversupply of crude oil and therefore potential price declines. Official data from China reveal a sharp year-on-year drop in the producer price index of 2.8% – the fastest decline in six months. These disappointing results have stirred uncertainty about the Chinese government’s economic stimulus plans. Prices could fall further if there are continuing doubts about the government’s ability to implement effective fiscal measures to promote consumer spending and, in turn, economic growth.

As a result of the 2% price fall in oil prices on 14 October, OPEC (the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) has lowered its 2024 and 2025 global oil demand growth. This negative news outweighed market concerns over the possibility that an Israeli response to Iran’s missile attack could disrupt oil production.

What is the future for oil prices?

It is expected that the market for oil will remain a volatile one. Indeed, the current uncertainties around the globe only highlight this. It is never a simple task to predict what will happen in a market that is influenced by so many global factors, and the current global landscape only adds to the complexity.

There’s a wide spectrum of predictions about what could come next in the market for crude oil. Given the changes in the first two weeks of October alone, supply and demand factors from separate parts of the globe have made the future of oil prices particularly uncertain. Callum Macpherson, head of commodities at Investec, stated in early October that ‘there is really no way of telling where we will be this time next week’ (see the first BBC News article linked below).

Despite the predominately negative outlook, this is all based on potential scenarios. Caroline Bain, chief commodities economist at Capital Economics suggests that if the ‘worst-case scenario’ of further escalation in the Middle East conflict does not materialise, oil prices are likely to ‘ease back quite quickly’. Even if Iran’s supplies were disrupted, China could turn to Russia for its oil. Bain says that there is ‘more than enough capacity’ globally to cover the gap if Iranian production is lost. However, this does then raise the question of where the loyalty of Saudi Arabia, the world’s second largest oil producer, lies and whether it will increase or restrict further production.

What is certain is that the market for crude oil will continue to be a market that is closely observed. It doesn’t take much change in global activity for prices to move. Therefore, in the current political and macroeconomic environment, the coming weeks and months will be critical in determining oil prices and, in turn, their economic effects.

Articles

Questions

  1. Use a demand and supply diagram to illustrate what has happened to oil prices in the main two scenarios:
    (a) Conflict in the Middle East;
    (b) Concerns about China’s economic performance.
  2. How are the price elasticities of demand and supply relevant to the size of any oil price change?
  3. What policy options do the governments have to deal with the potential of increasing energy prices?
  4. What are oil futures? What determines oil future prices?
  5. How does speculation affect oil prices?
Posted on

Getting real with retail sales

In the third of our series on the distinction between nominal and real values we show its importance when analysing retail sales data. In the UK, such data are available from the Office for National Statistics. This blog revisits an earlier one, Nominal and real retail sales figures: interpreting the data, written in October 2023. We find that inflation-adjusted retail sales data reveal some stark patterns in the sector. They help contextualise some of the challenges faced by high streets up and down the UK.

The Retail Sales Index

Retail sales relate to spending on items such as food, clothing, footwear and household goods. They involve sales by retailers directly to final consumers, whether in store or online. Spending on services such as holidays, air fares and train tickets, insurance, banking, hotels and restaurants are not included, as are sales of motor vehicles. The Retail Sales Index for Great Britain is based on a monthly survey of around 5000 retailers across England, Scotland and Wales and is thought to capture around three-quarters of turnover in the retail industry.

Estimates of retail sales are published in index form. There are two indices published by the ONS: a value and volume measure. The value index reflects the total turnover of business, while the volume index adjusts the value index for price changes. Hence, the value estimates are nominal, while the volume estimates are real. The key point here is that the nominal estimates reflect both price and volume changes, whereas the real estimates adjust for price movements to capture only volume changes.

The headline ONS figures for May 2024 showed a rise by 2.9 per cent in the volume of retail sales, following a 1.8 per cent fall in April. In value terms, May saw a 3.3 per cent rise in retail sales following a 2.3 fall in March. Monthly changes can be quite volatile, even after seasonal adjustment, and sensitive to peculiar factors. For example, the poor weather in April 2024 helped to depress retail spending. It is, therefore, sensible to take a longer-term view when looking for clearer patterns in spending behaviour.

Growth of retail sales

Chart 1 plots the monthly value and volume of retail sales in Great Britain since 1996. (Click here to download a PowerPoint of the chart). In value terms, monthly spending in the retail sector has increased by 169 per cent since January 1996, whereas in volume terms, spending has increased by 77 per cent. Another way of thinking about this is in terms of the average annual rate of increase. This shows that the value of spending has risen at an annual rate of 3.5 per cent while the volume of spending has risen at an annual rate of 2.0 per cent. This difference is to be expected in the presence of rising prices, since nominal growth, as we have just noted, reflects both price and volume changes.

Chart 1 helps to identify two periods where the volume of retail spending ceased to grow. The first of these is following the global financial crisis of the late 2000s. The period from 2008 to 2013 saw the volume of retail sales stagnate and flatline, with a recovery in volumes only really starting to take hold in 2014. Yet in nominal terms retail sales grew by around 14 per cent.

The second of the two periods is from 2021. Chart 2 helps to demonstrates the extent of the struggles of the retail sector in this period. It shows a significant divergence between the volume and value of retail sales. Indeed, between April 2021 and October 2023, while the value of retail sales increased by 8.0 per cent the volume of retail sales fell by 11.0 per cent.

The recent value-volume divergence reflects the inflation shock that began to emerge in 2021. This saw consumer prices, as measured by the Consumer Prices Index (CPI), rise across 2022 and 2023 by 9.1 per cent and 7.3 per cent respectively, with the annual rate of CPI inflation hitting 11.1 per cent in October 2022. Hence, while inflation was a drag on the volume of spending it nonetheless meant that the value of spending continued to rise. Once more this demonstrates why understanding the distinction between nominal and real is important. (Click here to download a PowerPoint of the chart).

To illustrate the longer-term trend in the volume of retail spending alongside its volatility, Chart 3 plots yearly retail sales volumes and also their percentage change on the previous year.

The chart nicely captures the prolonged halt to retail sales growth following the global financial crisis, the fluctuations caused by COVID and then the sharp falls in the volume of retail spending in 2022 and 2023 as the effects of the inflationary shock on peoples’ finances bit sharply. This cost-of-living crisis significantly affected many people’s disposable income. (Click here to download a PowerPoint of the chart).

Categories of retail sales

We conclude by considering categories of retail spending. Chart 4 shows volumes of retail sales by four broad categories since 1996. (Click here to download a PowerPoint of the chart). These are food stores, predominantly non-food stores, non-store retail and automotive fuel (i.e. sales of petrol and diesel “at the pumps”).

Whilst all categories have seen an increase in their spending volumes over the period as a whole, there are stark differences in this rate of growth. Perhaps not surprisingly, the most rapid growth is in non-store retail. This includes online retailing, as well as market stalls and catalogues.

The volume of retail spending in the non-store sector has grown at an average annual rate over this period of 6.3 per cent, compared with 2.6 per cent for non-food stores, 1.2 per cent for predominantly food stores and 1.0 per cent for automotive fuels. The growth of non-store retail has been even more rapid since 2010, when the average annual rate of growth in the volume of purchases has been 10.2 per cent, compared to 1.8 per cent for non-food stores, 1.0 per cent for automotive fuels and zero growth for food stores.

If we focus on the most recent patterns in the categories of retail sales, we see that the monthly volume of spending in all categories except non-store retail is now lower than the average in 2019. Specifically, when compared to 2019 levels, the volume of spending in non-food stores in May 2024 was 2.6 per cent lower, while that in food stores was 4.4 per cent lower, and the volume of spending on automotive fuels was 10.8 per cent lower. In contrast, spending in non-store retail was 21.2 per cent higher. Yet this is not to imply that this sector has been immune to the pressures faced by their high-street counterparts. Although it is difficult to disentangle fully the effects of the pandemic and lockdowns on non-store retail sales data, the downward trajectory in the volume of retail sales in the sector that occurred as the economy ‘reopened’ in 2021 and 2022 continued into 2023 when purchases fell by 3.5 per cent.

Final thoughts

The retail sector is an incredibly important part of the economy. A recent research briefing from the House of Commons Library reports that there were 2.7 million jobs in the UK retail sector in 2022, equivalent to 8.6 per cent of the country’s jobs with 314 040 retail businesses as of January 2023. Yet the importance of the retail sector cannot be captured by these statistics alone. Some would argue that the very fabric and wellbeing of our towns and cities is affected by the wellbeing of the sector and, importantly, by structural changes that affect how people interact with retail.

Articles

Research Briefing

Statistical bulletin

Data

Questions

  1. Which of the following is/are not counted in the UK retail sales data: (i) purchase of furniture from a department store; (ii) weekly grocery shop online; (iii) a stay at a hotel on holiday; (iv) a meal at your favourite café or restaurant?
  2. Why does an increase in the value of retail sales not necessarily mean that their volume has increased?
  3. In the presence of deflation, which will be higher: nominal or real growth rates?
  4. Discuss the factors that could explain the patterns in the volume of spending observed in the different categories of retail sales in Chart 4.
  5. Discuss what types of retail products might be more or less sensitive to changes in the macroeconomic environment.
  6. Conduct a survey of recent media reports to prepare a briefing discussing examples of retailers who have struggled or thrived in the recent economic environment.
  7. What do you understand by the concepts of ‘consumer confidence’ and ‘economic uncertainty’? How might these affect the volume of retail spending?
  8. Discuss the proposition that the retail sales data cast doubt on whether people are ‘forward-looking consumption smoothers’.
Posted on

The perplexing rally in gold prices

Gold has always held an allure and with the price of gold on international markets trending upwards since October 2022 (see Figure 1: click here for a PowerPoint), people seem to be attracted to it once again. The price reached successively higher peaks throughout 2023 before surging to above $2300 per oz in 2024 and peaking at $2425.31 per oz on 20 May 2024.

While gold tends to become attractive during wartime, economic uncertainty and bouts of inflation, all of which have characterised the last few years, the sustained price rise has perplexed market analysts and economists. The rally had been expected to peter out over the past 20 months. But, as the price of gold rose to sustained higher levels, with no significant reversals, some analysts have speculated that it is not the typical short-term factors which are driving the increased demand for and price of gold but more fundamental changes in the global economic system.

This blog will first discuss the typical short-term factors which influence gold prices before discussing the potential longer-term forces that may be at work.

Short-term factors

So, what are the typical short-term economic forces which drive the demand for gold?

The most significant are the real rates of interest on financial assets. These rates represent the opportunity cost of holding an asset such as gold which offers no income stream. When the real return from financial assets like debt and equity instruments is low, the demand for and price of gold tends to be high. In contrast, when the real return from such assets is high, the price of gold tends to be lower. An explanation for this is that real rates of return are strongly related to inflation rates and investors perceive gold as a hedge against inflation since its price is positively correlated with a general rise in prices. Higher unexpected inflation reduces the real rate of return of securities like debt and equity whose value is derived from cash flows anticipated in the future. In such circumstances, gold become an attractive alternative investment. As inflationary expectations decline, real returns from financial assets should rise, and the demand for gold should fall.

The relationship between real returns, proxied by the yield on US 10-year TIPS (Treasury inflation-protected securities), and gold prices can be used to examine this explanation. Real returns rose steadily in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet the price of gold, which rose during the early stages of the pandemic in 2020, has not fallen. Instead, it has remained at elevated levels for much of that time (see Figure 2: click here for a PowerPoint).

There have been short periods when changes in real returns seemed to have a high correlation with changes in gold prices. In late 2022, for example, falling real rates coincided with rising gold prices. The same pattern was repeated between October and December 2023. However, when real returns rose again in the New Year of 2024, in response to stubbornly higher expected inflation and the expectation of ‘higher-for-longer’ interest rates, particularly in the USA, gold prices continued to rise. Indeed, across the 5-year period the correlation coefficient between the two series is actually positive at 0.268, showing little evidence supporting this explanation for the pattern for the gold price.

Real returns in the USA, however, may not be the correct ones to consider when seeking explanations for the pattern of gold’s price. Much of the recent demand is from China. Analysts suggest that Chinese investors are looking for a safe asset to hold as their economy stagnates and real returns from alternatives, like domestic property and equity, have decreased. Further, there are some concerns that the Chinese currency, the renminbi, may be undervalued in response to the sluggish growth. Holding gold is a good hedge against inflation (currency depreciation produces inflationary pressure). Consequently, the Chinese market may be exerting pricing power in relation to real returns in a way not seen before (see the Dempsey and Leng FT article linked below).

However, some analysts suggest that the rise in price is disproportionate to these short-term factors and point to potential long-term structural changes in the global financial order which may produce significant changes in the market for gold.

Long-term factors

Since 2018, there have been bouts of gold purchasing by central banks around the world. In contrast to the 1990s and 2000s, central banks have been net purchasers since 2010. The purchasing fell back during the coronavirus pandemic but has surged again, with over 1000 metric tonnes purchased in both 2022 and 2023 (see Figure 3: click here for a PowerPoint).

Analysts have pointed to similarities between the recent pattern and central bank purchases of gold during the late 1960s and early 1970s (see The Conversation article linked below). Then, central banks sought to diversify themselves from dollar-denominated assets due to concerns about higher inflation in the USA and its impact on the value of the US dollar. Under the Bretton Woods fixed exchange rate system, central banks could redeem dollars for gold from the US Federal Reserve at a fixed rate. The pressure on the USA to redeem the gold led to the collapse of the Bretton Woods fixed exchange rate system.

While the current period of central bank purchases does not appear to be related to expected inflation, some commentators suggest it could signal a regime change in the global financial system as significant as the collapse of Bretton Woods. The rise of Chinese political power and the resurgence of US isolationist tendencies portend an increasingly multipolar geopolitical scene. Such concerns may cause central bankers to diversify away from dollar denominated assets to avoid being caught out by geopolitical tensions. Gold may be perceived as an asset through which investors can hedge that risk better.

Indeed, the rise in demand among Chinese investors may indicate a reluctance to hold US assets due to their risk of seizure during heightened geopolitical tensions between China and the USA. Chinese holdings of US financial assets as a percentage of GDP are back to the level they were  when the country joined the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in 2001 (see the Rana Foroohar FT article linked below). Allied to this is an increasing tendency to repatriate gold bullion from centres such as London and New York.

Added to these worries about geopolitical risk are concerns about traditional safe-haven assets – government debt securities. US government budget deficits and debt levels continue to rise. Similar patterns are observed across many developed market economies (DMEs). Analysts are concerned such debts are reaching unsustainable levels (economist.com). The view is that at some point, perhaps soon, a tipping point will be reached where investors recognise this. They will demand higher rates of return on these government debt securities, pushing yields up and prices down (bond yields and prices have a negative relationship).

In expectation of this, investors may be wary of holding such government debt securities and move to hold gold as an alternative safe-haven asset to avoid potential capital losses. However, there has been no sign of this behaviour in bond prices and yields yet.

Finally, there are economists who argue that the increased demand for gold is caused by a different regime-change in the global economy. This is not one driven by geopolitics, but by changing inflationary expectations – from a low-inflation, low-interest-rate environment to a higher-inflation, higher-interest-rate environment.

Some of the anticipation relating to inflation is derived from the persistent fiscal stimulus, evidenced by the higher government debt levels described above, coupled with the long period of monetary stimulus (quantitative easing) in developed market economies during the 2010s.

Further, some economists highlight the substantial capital investment needed for the green transition and reindustrialisation. While the financing for this capital investment may absorb some of the excess money flowing around financial markets, the scale involved will create a great demand for resources, fuelling inflation and raising the cost of capital as borrowers compete for resources.

Finally, the demographic forces from an aging population will also cause inflationary pressures. Rising dependency ratios across many developed market economics will create shortages, particularly of labour. This persistent scarcity of labour will continually drive up wages and prices, fuelling inflation and the demand for gold.

Conclusion

The recent surge in the price of gold has led to great interest by investors, financial market analysts and economists. At first, there was a perception that the price increase was similar to recent history and driven by short-term decreases in the real rate of return from financial assets, which reduced the opportunity cost of holding gold.

However, as the upward trend in the price of gold has persisted and does not seem to be explained by changes in real interest rates, economists have considered other reasons that might signal longer-term significant changes in the global financial system. These relate to changing geopolitical risk derived from an increasingly multipolar environment, concerns about the sustainability of government debt levels and expectations of persistently higher inflation in the world economy.

Only time will tell whether these explanations prove correct. If inflationary pressures subside, particularly in the USA, and if real returns from financial assets rebound, a decrease in the demand for and price of gold will suggest that the previous rise was driven by short-term forces.

If prices don’t fall back, it will only fuel the debate that it is a sign of significant changes in the global financial order.

Articles

Speech

Data

  • Gold

    • Trading Economics

Questions

  1. Explain the relationship between real returns and inflation for financial securities like debt and equity.
  2. Why is gold perceived to be an effective hedge against inflation?
  3. Contrast the factors which influenced the demand for gold in the period which preceded the end of Bretton Woods with those influencing demand now?
  4. What has happened to the price of gold since this blog was published? Is there any evidence for the profound changes in the global economic order suggested or was it the short-term forces driving demand after all?