In an attempt to kick start the UK housing industry, the government has proposed a series of measures to reduce regulations.
These include relaxing planning restrictions on building extensions to existing homes, shops and offices; relaxing current rules that all new housing developments should include affordable housing (which often makes little or no profit for the builders); an extra £280m for the FirstBuy scheme that provides loans to first-time buyers to raise money for a deposit; and a new “major infrastructure fast track” scheme, whereby developers of large commercial and residential projects currently stalled at local authority planning level can have their applications ‘fast tracked’ by the national Planning Inspectorate.
The government maintains that the measures will increase the flow of new houses coming onto the market by reducing ‘red tape’.
Critics maintain that the problem of the slump in house building has little to do with a lack of availability of new houses or new plots for building. Rather, it is a reflection of the recession in the economy as a whole. The solution, claim critics, is to stimulate the economy and then the new-build property market will recover along with other sectors.
The articles look at the likely success of these latest policy proposals for the property market.
Articles
David Cameron and Nick Clegg unveil plans to kick-start Britain’s ailing house building industry Independent, Oliver Wright (6/9/12)
Planning rules on extensions to be relaxed ‘to boost economy’ BBC News (6/9/12)
Q&A: Housing and planning shake-up BBC News (6/9/12)
Government plans are recipe for planning blight, says LGA BBC News (6/9/12)
Scepticism greets home improvements plan Financial Times, George Parker and Gill Plimmer (6/9/12)
Extensions and loft conversions could add nearly a quarter to the value of homes Independent, Alex Johnson (10/9/12)
Green groups condemn relaxation of house-building planning rules GreenWise (6/9/12)
Construction figures deal blow to government housebuilding plans Guardian, Philip Inman (4/9/12)
House builders sitting on 400,000 undeveloped plots of land with planning permission The Telegraph (5/9/12)
Weak demand hits building sector Independent, Jamie Grierson (4/9/12)
Free up green-belt land for new housing, says Policy Exchange Guardian, Nicholas Watt (13/9/12)
Relaxing Planning Laws Will Damage British Housing Huffington Post, Martin Roberts (7/9/12)
Will David Cameron’s planning reforms create jobs and growth? Guardian, Juliette Jowit (6/9/12)
Data
Economic Data freely available online (see site 30 for links to housing market data) Economics Network
Lending to individuals Bank of England
Questions
- Distinguish between supply-side and demand-side policy and the different types of each.
- How would you classify the types of policy proposals announced on freeing up the new-build property market in terms of your answer to question 1?
- What will determine the success of the policy measures in stimulating (a) the new-build property market; (b) the economy generally?
- What externalities are involved in relaxing the regulations on home extensions?
- If you were in power, how would you go about stimulating the property market? Would there be any downsides of your proposals?
Rail companies will be permitted to raise average regulated rail fares next year by 6.2%. Not surprisingly, this has been met with dismay and anger by rail travellers, especially long-distance commuters, who could see their annual season tickets going up by several hundred pounds.
Some fares, such as advance tickets, are unregulated. Others, such as anytime, off-peak and season tickets, are regulated by the government. The formula for working out permitted price rises for regulated fares is RPI plus 3%, where RPI is the July annual inflation rate based on the retail price index.
The RPI figure was announced by the ONS on 14 August and was a surprisingly high 3.2% – up from 2.8% in June: see Table 21 in the ONS’s CPI And RPI Reference Tables, July 2012. (Click here for a PowerPoint of the chart on the left.) Hence average fares can rise by 3.2% + 3% = 6.2%.
Rail travellers are angry on three counts:
First, the RPI measure of inflation is generally around 0.5% higher than the CPI measure (which is used for working out public-sector pay increases and the uprating of pensions and benefits). The July figure for CPI inflation was 2.6%.
Second, the extra 3% added on top of RPI means that that rail fares are going up more rapidly than other prices, and incomes too. The reason given for this is to shift the burden of funding the railways from the taxpayer to the traveller.
Third, the formula applies to average fares. Rail companies can raise particular regulated fares by up to 5 percentage points more than the formula provided they raise other fares by less than the formula. Thus some fares are set to rise by 11.2% – including some of the most expensive season tickets.
The government justified the increases by arguing that the higher fares will allow more investment by the rail companies, which could result in lower costs in the future. Nevertheless, two thirds of the revenue from the above-inflation increases will go to the government and only one third to the rail companies.
Webcasts
Inflation shock as rail fares set to soar Channel 4 News, Ciaran Jenkins (14/8/12)
Protests as rail fare price rises announced The Telegraph (14/8/12)
How do our rail fares compare with the rest of Europe? BBC News (14/8/12)
Rail fare increase will make life better, says minister BBC News (14/8/12)
Passenger Focus: Train companies ‘using dark arts’ BBC News, David Sidebottom (14/8/12)
Articles
Rail fares set to increase by 6.2% Financial Times, Mark Odell (14/8/12)
Rail fares set to rise by 6.2% in January Guardian, Gwyn Topham (14/8/12)
Rail fare hike of 6.2% sparks angry reaction BBC News (14/8/12)
Soaring rail fares will do nothing for the recovery The Telegraph (14/8/12)
Commuters plead with Osborne to prevent 10 per cent rise in rail fares Independent, Oliver Wright (15/8/12)
Rail fare rises: how to keep your ticket prices as low as possible Guardian, Mark King (14/8/12)
Documents and information
Fares Review Conclusions 2003 Strategic Rail Authority (June 2003)
Fares Office of Rail Regulation
Fares on National Rail Association of Train Operating Companies
Questions
- What are the arguments for and against the general principle of using an RPI+X formula for regulating rail fares?
- What are the arguments for and against allowing train operating companies to raise regulated rail fares by an average of RPI plus 3%, with 2 of the 3 percent above RPI inflation going to the government?
- In what ways are travellers likely to respond to the higher prices?
- Why are some travellers likely to have a much lower price elasticity of demand for rail travel than others? What determines this price elasticity of demand?
- What externalities exist in rail transport? How should this impact on the government’s rail pricing strategy?
- How is infrastructure development funded for (a) rail, (b) roads and (c) airports? Does this lead to an efficient allocation of transport investment?
- How does rail pricing in the UK compare with that in other European countries? Should other European countries follow the UK’s policy of above inflation fare increases to fund rail investment?
Paul Volcker was Chair of the US Federal Reserve from 1979 to 1987. He was also Chair of the Economic Recovery Advisory Board under President Barack Obama from February 2009 to January 2011. In the webcast and articles below, he reflects on the current state of the world financial system – from regulation, to the euro crisis, to world imbalances, to the system of floating exchange rates.
He argues that global financial systems are vulnerable to breakdowns. What is needed is reform to the system, and for that there needs to be consensus by politicians, regulators and central banks.
But, in the absence of international consensus on some key points, reform will be greatly weakened, if not aborted. The freedom of money, financial markets and people to move – and thus to escape regulation and taxation – might be an acceptable, even constructive, brake on excessive official intervention, but not if a deregulatory race to the bottom prevents adoption of needed ethical and prudential standards.
Perhaps most important is a coherent, consistent approach to dealing with the imminent failure of “systemically important” institutions. Taxpayers and governments alike are tired of bailing out creditors for fear of the destructive contagious effects of failure – even as bailouts encourage excessive risk-taking.
According to Volcker, countries must be prepared to surrender some sovereignty. Policies must be co-ordinated internationally and there must be stronger regulation by international bodies, such as the IMF and stronger concerted action by global organisations, such as the G20.
Left to their own devices, in an era of floating exchange rates, countries may pursue policies that exacerbate global imbalances.
Not so long ago, we were comforted by theorising that floating exchange rates would mediate international adjustments in a timely and orderly way. But, in the real world, many countries, particularly but not limited to small, open economies, simply find it impractical or undesirable to permit their currency to float.
We are left with the certainty, however awkward, that active participation in an open world economy requires some surrender of economic sovereignty. Or, to put the point more positively, it requires a willingness to co-ordinate policies more effectively.
Webcast
Volcker Urges Global Monetary System Overhaul BloombergBusinessweek (31/5/12)
Articles
Is global financial reform possible? Guardian, Paul Volcker (6/6/12)
Volcker Urges Global Financial System Overhaul After Crisis BloombergBusinessweek, Robyn Meredith and Shamim Adam (31/5/12)
Questions
- What reforms, according to Volcker, need to be implemented in order for the euro to function effectively without crises?
- What can the USA do to ease the euro crisis?
- What are Volcker’s views on the regulation of the US banking system?
- How are incentive structures in banks related to speculative activities?
- Should banks be allowed to fail?
- What financial imbalances exist between countries?
- What international monetary reforms are required?
- What light can game theory shed on the difficulty of achieving global policy co-ordination?
- Is an international system of floating exchange rates appropriate given the size of international financial flows?
EDF, one of the big six energy retailers in the UK, has agreed to pay out a record £4.5m. £1m of this will go to funding an energy advice centre; the rest will go to providing £50 each to 70,000 ‘vulnerable customers’ who struggle to pay their bills and who receive the government’s warm home discount.
The agreement was made with Ofgem after an investigation into mis-selling, both on the doorstep and over the phone. Customers were persuaded to switch energy suppliers with the promise of savings on their bills. As the FT articles states:
Ofgem found that EDF’s sales force did not always provide complete information to customers on some contract terms, or on the way in which their monthly direct debits had been calculated. In some cases, telesales agents claimed savings without knowing whether they were accurate for the specific customer on the call, the regulator said.
Ofgem did not accuse the company of directly sanctioning such practices, but rather of weak monitoring and control of its sales force’s actions.
The £4.5m payment is in lieu of a fine. Consumer groups have welcomed this, preferring the company to pay compensation to a fine, which would have simply increased Treasury funding.
It is the first settlement in a broader investigation into mis-selling, involving four of the six major suppliers.
Articles
EDF to pay out £4.5m in mis-selling case Financial Times, Guy Chazan and Hannah Kuchler (9/3/12)
EDF agrees to pay £4.5m misleading sales ‘fine’ Guardian, Lisa Bachelor (9/3/12)
Is it a fine? Is it a penalty? No, it’s EDF’s mystery Ofgem payment Management Today, Rebecca Burn-Callander (9/3/12)
‘Misleading claims’ cost EDF a £4.5m payout from watchdog , Independent, Tom Bawden (10/3/12)
EDF Energy agrees to pay a £4.5m ‘fine’ BBC News (9/3/12)
EDF Energy agrees to pay a £4.5m ‘fine’ BBC News, John Moylan (9/3/12)
More energy payouts could follow EDF’s £4.5m The Telegraph, Kara Gammell (9/3/12)
Ofgem ruling
EDF energy agrees to invest £4.5 million to help vulnerable customers following Ofgem investigation Ofgem
Questions
- What types of market failure are present in the energy supply industry?
- What are the arguments for and against fines being paid directly to victims of crime rather than to the government?
- In what ways could the energy industry be made more competitive?
- Why do the utilities, such as gas, electricity and water, require their own regulator rather than simply being subject to competition law?
Petrol prices have been a bone of contention for some time. With household incomes remaining low and the cost of living rising, the fact that average petrol prices have reached their highest level of more than 1.37p per litre on average will undoubtedly put growing pressure on the approaching budget.
There have already been calls for the Chancellor to reduce fuel duty and with this latest data, the pressure will only mount. The problem is, if fuel duty does fall, so will tax revenues and as one of the Coalition’s key objectives has been to cut the budget deficit, this could pose further problems. Even the calls to cut VAT on fuel will also put a dent in the budget deficit.
Although everyone is undoubtedly feeling the effects of these higher prices, the key thing with petrol is its elasticity of demand. Whether the price of petrol was 0.90p or 1.37p per litre, I continue to buy the same amount. Therefore, for me, the price elasticity of demand for petrol is highly inelastic – at least between those prices. After all, if the price increase above say £3 per litre, I might think twice about driving to work!
So what has been driving this increase in prices? Petrol prices are hugely dependent on the cost of oil and on the demand for any product that uses fuel. With growing demand from countries like India and China, as they continue to develop and grow very quickly; the continuing concerns with Iran’s nuclear programme and the political problems in the Middle East, oil prices have been forced up. The future trend in prices will depend on many factors, not least whether or not there is any change in fuel duty in the 2012 budget and whether something like a regulator is introduced to monitor increases in fuel prices. This is definitely an area to pay close attention to in the coming months.
Petrol prices reach record high Independent, Peter Woodman (3/3/12)
Petrol prices hit record high with further rises expected Guardian, Hilary Osborne (2/3/12)
Appeak to regulate petrol prices This is South Wales (3/3/12)
Plea to slash duty as fuel costs soar to record high Scotsman, Alastair Dalton (3/3/12)
Petrol prices hit record high The Telegraph, David Millward (2/3/12)
Diesel prices predicted to reach 150p as petrol hits new record Guardian, Terry Macalister and Hilary Osborne (2/3/12)
Questions
- Which are the factors on the demand side that have pushed up the price of oil and hence petrol and diesel?
- What are the supply-side factors that are causing the rising price of fuel?
- Use a demand and supply diagram to illustrate the effects you have explained in the first two questions.
- In the blog, I mention that my price elasticity of demand is relatively inelastic between 2 given prices. What does this suggest about the shape of my demand curve for petrol? How does this shape affect prices following any change in demand or supply?
- Why is petrol a relatively price inelastic product?
- There have been calls for the government to cut VAT or reduce fuel duty. What are the arguments for and against these policies?
- How effective do you think a petrol price regulator would be?
In an attempt to kick start the UK housing industry, the government has proposed a series of measures to reduce regulations.
