This blog discusses economic issues in the news and relates these news items to key economic concepts and theories. Links are given to a range of articles and other relevant material and each blog post finishes with a set of discussion questions.
The Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS) has just published its annual Green Budget. This is, in effect, a pre-Budget report (or a substitute for a government Green Paper) and is published ahead of the governments actual Budget.
The Green Budget examines the state of the UK economy, likely economic developments and the implications for macroeconomic policy. This latest Green Budget is written in the context of Brexit and the growing likelihood of a hard Brexit (i.e. a no-deal Brexit). It argues that the outlook for the public finances has deteriorated substantially and that the economy is facing recession if the UK leaves the EU without a deal.
Government borrowing is set to be over 50 billion next year (2.3% of national income), more than double what the OBR forecast in March. This results mainly from a combination of spending increases, a (welcome) change in the accounting treatment of student loans, a correction to corporation tax revenues and a weakening economy. Borrowing of this level would breach the 2% of national income ceiling imposed by the governments own fiscal mandate, with which the Chancellor has said he is complying.
A no-deal Brexit would worsen this scenario. The IFS predicts that annual government borrowing would approach 100 billion or 4% of GDP.National debt (public-sector debt)would rise to around 90% of GDP, the highest for over 50 years. This would leave very little scope for the use of fiscal policy to combat the likely recession.
The Chancellor, Sajid Javid, pledged to increase public spending by 13.4bn for 2020/21 in Septembers Spending Review. This was to meet the Prime Ministers pledges on increased spending on police and schools. This should go some way to offset the dampening effect on aggregate demand of a no-deal Brexit. The government has also stated that it wishes to cut various taxes, such asincreasing the thresholdat which people start paying the 40% rate of income tax from 50000 to 80000. But even with a substantial fiscal boost, the IFS expects little or no growth for the two years following Brexit.
But can fiscal policy be used over the longer term to offset the downward shock of Brexit, and especially a no-deal Brexit? The problem is that, if the government wishes to prevent government borrowing from soaring, it would then have to start reining in public spending again. Another period of austerity would be likely.
There are many uncertainties in the IFS predictions. The nature of Brexit is the obvious one: deal, no deal, a referendum and a remain outcome these are all possibilities. But other major uncertainties include business and consumer sentiment. They also include the state of the global economy, which may see a decline in growth if trade wars increase or if monetary easing is ineffective (see the blog:Is looser monetary policy enough to stave off global recession?).
IFS Press Release, Carl Emmerson, Christine Farquharson and Paul Johnson (8/10/19)
Institute for Fiscal Studies, eds. Carl Emmerson, Christine Farquharson and Paul Johnson (8/10/19)
Why would a hard Brexit reduce UK economic growth?
To what extent can expansionary fiscal policy stave off the effects of a hard Brexit?
Does it matter if national debt (public-sector debt) rises to 90% or even 100% of GDP? Explain.
Find out the levels of national debt as a percentage of GDP of the G7 countries. How has Japan managed to sustain such a high national debt as a percentage of GDP?
How can an expansionary monetary policy make it easier to finance the public-sector debt?
How has investment in the UK been affected by the Brexit vote in 2016? Explain.
aggregate demandausterityBrexiteconomic growthfiscalFiscal mandatefiscal rulesgovernment borrowingGreen Budgethard BrexitIFSnational debtno-deal Brexitrecessiontax cuts
Economics 10e: Ch 18Economics 10e: Ch 22Economics 10e: Ch 24Economics for Business: 8e Ch 25, 7e Ch 25Economics for Business: 8e Ch 28, 7e Ch 28Economics for Business: 8e Ch 30, 7e Ch 30Essential Economics for Business: Ch 11Essential Economics for Business: Ch 12Essentials of Economics: 8e Ch 11, 7e Ch 10Essentials of Economics: 8e Ch 13, 7e Ch 12Essentials of Economics: 8e Ch 14, 7e Ch 13
Is looser monetary policy enough to stave off global recession?
With the prospects of weaker global economic growth and continuing worries about trade wars, central banks have been loosening monetary policy. The US central bank, the Federal Reserve,lowered its target Federal Funds ratein both July and September. Each time it reduced the rate by a quarter of a percentage point, so that it now stands at between 1.75% and 2%.
The ECB has also cut rates. In September it reduced theovernight deposit ratefor banks from 0.4% to 0.5%, leaving themain rateat 0%. It also introduceda further round of quantitative easing, with asset purchases of €20 billion per month from 1 November and lasting until the ECB starts raising interest rates.
The Australian Reserve Bank has cut its cash rate three times this year and it now stands at an historically low level of 0.75%. Analysts are predicting that it may be forced tointroduce quantitative easingif lower interest rates fail to stimulate growth.
Japan continues with itsprogramme of quantitative easing (QE)and other central banks are considering lowering interest rates and/or (further) QE.
But there are two key issues with looser monetary policy.
The first is whether it will be sufficient to provide the desired stimulus. With interest rates already at or near historic lows (although slightly above in the case of the USA), there is little scope for further reductions. QE may help, but without a rise in confidence, the main effect of the extra money may simply be a rise in the price of assets, such as property and shares. It may result in very little extra spending on consumption and investment in other words, very little extra aggregate demand.
The second is the effect on inequality. By inflating asset prices, QE rewards asset owners. The wealthier people are, the more they will gain.
Many economists and commentators are thus calling for the looser monetary policy to be backed up by expansionary fiscal policy. The boost to aggregate demand, they argue, should come from higher public spending, with governments able to borrow at very low interest rates because of the loose monetary policy. Targeted spending on infrastructure would have a supply-side benefit as well as a demand-side one.
Social Europe, Jens vant Klooster (25/9/19)
Institute for Policy Research. Policy Brief, Chris Martin and Costas Milas
Explain what is meant by quantitative easing.
What determines the effectiveness of quantitative easing?
Why is President Trump keen for the Federal Reserve to pursue more aggressive interest rate cuts?
What is the Bank of Englands current attitude towards changing interest rates and/or further quantitative easing?
What are the current advantages and disadvantages of governments pursuing a more expansionary fiscal policy?
Compare the relative merits of quantitative easing through asset purchases and the use of helicopter money.
aggregate demandaggregate supplyasset purchasescentral banksECBeuropean central bankFederal Reserve Bankfiscal policyhelicopter moneyinequality of wealthinterest ratesMario Draghimonetary policynegative interest ratesquantitative easingReserve Bank of Australia
Economics 10e: Ch 22Economics for Business: 8e Ch 30, 7e Ch 30Essential Economics for Business: Ch 11Essentials of Economics: 8e Ch 13, 7e Ch 12Podcasts and Webcasts
There is increasing recognition that the world is facing a climate emergency. Concerns are growing about the damaging effects of global warming on weather patterns, with increasing droughts, forest fires, floods and hurricanes. Ice sheets are melting and glaciers retreating, with consequent rising sea levels. Habitats and livelihoods are being destroyed. And many of the effects seem to be occurring more rapidly than had previously been expected.
Extinction Rebellion has staged protests in many countries; the period from 20 to 27 September saw aworldwide climate strikesee also), with millions of people marching and children leaving school to protest; aClimate Action Summittook place at the United Nations, with arousing speech by Greta Thunberg, the 16 year-old Swedish activist; the UNs Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has justreleased a reportwith evidence showing that the melting of ice sheets and rising sea levels is more rapid than previously thought; at its annual party conference in Brighton, the Labour Party pledged that, in government, it would bring forward the UKs target for zero net carbon emissions from 2050 to 2030.
Increasingly attention is focusing on what can be done. At first sight, it might seem as if the answer lies solely with climate scientists, environmentalists, technologists, politicians and industry. When the matter is discussed in the media, it is often the environment correspondent, the science correspondent, the political correspondent or the business correspondent who reports on developments in policy. But economics has an absolutely central role to play in both the analysis of the problem and in examining the effectiveness of alternative solutions.
One of the key things that economists do is to examine incentives and how they impact on human behaviour. Indeed, understanding thedesign and effectiveness of incentivesis one of the15 Threshold Conceptswe identify in the Sloman books.
One of the most influential studies of the impact of climate change and means of addressing it was the study back in 2006,The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review, led by the economistSir Nicholas Stern. The Review reflected economists arguments that climate change represents a massive failure of markets and of governments too. Firms and individuals can emit greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at no charge to themselves, even though it imposes costs on others. These external costs are possible because the atmosphere is a public good, which is free to exploit.
Part of the solution is to internalise these externalities by imposing charges on people and firms for their emissions, such as imposing higher taxes on cars with high exhaust emissions or on coal-fired power stations. This can be done through the tax system, with green taxes and charges. Economists study the effectiveness of these and how much they are likely to change peoples behaviour.
Another part of the solution is to subsidise green alternatives, such as solar and wind power, that provide positive environmental externalities. But again, just how responsive will demand be? This again is something that economists study.
Of course, changing human behaviour is not just about raising the prices of activities that create negative environmental externalities and lowering the prices of those that create positive ones. Part of the solution lies in education to make people aware of the environmental impacts of their activities and what can be done about it. The problem here is that there is a lack of information a classic market failure. Making people aware of the consequences of their actions can play a key part in the economic decisions they make. Economists study the extent that imperfect information distorts decision making and how informed decision making can improve outcomes.
Another part of the solution may be direct government investment in green technologies or the use of legislation to prevent or restrict activities that contribute to global warming. But in each case, economists are well placed to examine the efficacy and the costs and benefits of alternative policies. Economists have the tools to make costbenefit appraisals.
Economists also study the motivations of people and how they affect their decisions, including decisions about whether or not to take part in activities with high emissions, such air travel, and decisions on green activities, such as eating less meat and more vegetables.
If you are starting out on an economics degree, you will soon see that economists are at the centre of the analysis of some of the biggest issues of the day, such as climate change and the environment generally, inequality and poverty, working conditions, the worklife balance, the price of accommodation, the effects of populism and the retreat from global responsibility and, in the UK especially, the effects of Brexit, of whatever form.
World Economic Forum, Ben Riensche and Ajay Vir Jakhar (20/9/19)
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
Explain what is meant by environmental externalities.
Compare the relative merits of carbon taxes and legislation as means of reducing carbon emissions.
If there is a climate emergency, why are most governments unwilling to take the necessary measures to make their countries net carbon neutral within the next few years?
In what ways would you suggest incentivising (a) individuals and (b) firms to reduce carbon emissions? Explain your reasoning.
For what reasons are the burdens of climate changed shared unequally between people across the globe?
carbon taxesclimate changeclimate policyconsumer behavioureducationemissionsenvironmental externalitiesexternalitiesglobal warmingimperfect informationlegislationpublic goodssubsidiestragedy of the commons
Economics 10e: Ch 01Economics 10e: Ch 12Economics 10e: Ch 13Economics for Business: 8e Ch 02, 7e Ch 02Economics for Business: 8e Ch 20, 7e Ch 20Economics for Business: 8e Ch 22, 7e Ch 22Essential Economics for Business: Ch 01Essential Economics for Business: Ch 09Essentials of Economics: 8e Ch 01, 7e Ch 01Essentials of Economics: 8e Ch 08, 7e Ch 07Podcasts and Webcasts
Many of you may have heard of nudge the idea that governments can help people make better decisions by carefully designing the way a policy is structured and presented. Have you heard of sludge?
The most widely cited example of a nudge is changing a default option. The default option is what happens if you do nothing. For example, when you start a new job, are you automatically enrolled into the pension scheme or do you have to do something (i.e. fill-in an on-line form) to opt-in to the scheme. Changing the default option to one of being automatically enrolled in a scheme seems to have a big impact on the choices people make.
Recently, policy makers have started referring to sludge. Sludge is the opposite of nudge: i.e. characteristics about design and presentation that make it moredifficultfor people to make good decisions. Some businesses may use sludge to encourage consumers to spend more on their goods than they ever intended.
One interesting application of sludge is in the design of websites referred to as Dark Patterns. The following are a number of different categories of dark pattern:
The last example, Forced Continuity, refers to the use of free trial periods and automatic renewal of contracts. Many people sign up for a free trial or special offer with the full intention of cancelling before the account automatically switches to the standard price.
How often do people simply forget or never quite get around to cancelling these deals when the time comes? Some recent evidence comes from a YouGov Survey. Forty-seven percent of respondents to this survey reported having accidently signed up for an annual subscription because they either forgot or were unable to cancel their account. The estimated total cost of unwanted subscriptions per year was 837 million. The same YouGov survey found that one in eight people kept paying for over four months before finally getting around to cancelling.
One business has recently seen an opportunity to help people deal with this problem. Free Trial Surfing is a new App developed by the company, Do Not Pay. It became available via Apples App store in September but is not yet compatible with Android devices. It works in the following way.
When customers download the app, they receive a new credit card number and a false name. Although Do Not Pay register the card details to their own business, the customer can use the information to sign up for a free trial of a good or service. In effect, Do Not Pay acts as an intermediary between the firm offering the promotion and the user. Once the free trial period ends, the app automatically cancels the subscription. Importantly, the new credit card details only work when someone signs up for a free trial. Consumers cannot use it to purchase any other products. Obviously one major drawback to the app is that a consumer would have to sign up again with their own personal credit card if they wanted to continue to use the service after the free trial ends. Businesses may also try to block the use of Do Not Pay credit card numbers for their services.
It will be interesting to see if other businesses come up with interesting ways of helping us to deal with sludge.
The Conversation, Edwin Ip, Alexander Saeri and Morgan Tear (28/8/18)
What policies do government typically use to change peoples behaviour? How do these traditional approaches differ from nudge?
Identify some biases from behavioural economics that might help to explain why so many people fail to cancel subscriptions once a free trial period ends.
Choose two other types of dark pattern and explain how they might prevent people from making decisions that maximise their own welfare.
behavioural economicsconsumer biasesdark patternsdefault optionshidden costsinformation asymmetryirrational exuberancenudgeopt-inopt-outsludge
Economics 10e: Ch 05Economics for Business: 8e Ch 07, 7e n/aEssential Economics for Business: Ch 03Essentials of Economics: 8e Ch 04
Withuniversity fees for home students in Englandof 9250 per year and with many students receiving maintenance loans of around 9000 per year, many students are graduating with debts in excess of 50000.Loans are repaidat a marginal rate of 9% on incomes over 25716.
Many students also study for a masters degree. The average fee for a taught, classroom-based masters (MA) is 7392 and for a laboratory-based masters (MSc) is 8167 but can be considerably higher at some prestigious universities where demand is high.Government loansof up to 10906 are available to contribute towards fees and maintenance. These are paid back at a marginal rate of 6% for people earning over 21000, giving a combined marginal rate of 15% for first and masters degrees.
For high earners on the 40% income tax rate, the combined marginal rate of payment out of income is 40% tax, plus 2% national insurance, plus 15% for those with undergraduate and masters loans. This gives a combined marginal rate of 57%.
Average student debt in England is higher even than in the USA, where the average is $37000. US university courses are more expensive than in the UK, costing an average of $34000 per year in tuition alone. But undergraduates can borrow less. They can borrow between $5500 and $12500 per year in federal loans towards both fees and maintenance, and some private loans are also available. Most students do some paid work during their studies to make up the difference or rely on parents contributing. Parental contributions mean that students from poor families end up owing more. According toa
Race is a huge factor. Black students owe an average of $7400 more than white students when they graduate, the Brookings Institution found. After graduation, the debt gap continues to widen. Four years after graduation, black graduates owe an average of nearly $53000 nearly double that of white graduates.
Student debt looks to become one of the key issues in the 2020 US presidential election.
Most of the Democratic candidates are promising to address student fees and debt. Student debt, they claim, places an unfair burden on the younger generation and makes it hard for people to buy a house, or car or other major consumer durables. This also has a dampening effect on aggregate demand.
The most radical proposalcomes from Bernie Sanders. He has vowed, if elected, to abolish student fees and to cancel all undergraduate and graduate debt of all Americans. Other candidates are promising to cut fees and/or debt.
Although most politicians and commentators agree that the USA has a serious problem of student debt, there is little agreement on what, if anything, to do about it. There are alreadya number of waysin which student debt can be written off or reduced. For example, if you work in the public sector for more than 10 years, remaining debt will be cancelled. However, none of the existing schemes is as radical as that being proposed by many Democrats.
Criticisms of the Democrats plans are mainly of two types.
The first is the sheer cost. Overall debt is around $1.6tn. What is more, making student tuition free would place a huge ongoing burden on government finances. Bernie Sanders proposes introducing afinancial transactions taxon stock trading. This would be similar to a Tobin tax (sometimes dubbed a Robin Hood tax) and would include a 0.5% tax on stock transactions, a 0.1% tax on bond trades and a 0.005% tax on transactions in derivatives. He argues that the public bailed out the financial sector in 2008 and that it is now the turn of the financial sector to come to the aid of students and graduates.
The other type of criticism concerns the incentive effects of the proposal. The core of the criticism is that loan forgiveness involves moral hazard.
The argument is that cancelling debt, or the promise to do so, encourages people to take on more debt. Generally, moral hazard occurs when people are protected from the consequences of their actions and are thus encouraged to make riskier decisions. For example, if you are ensured against theft, you may be less careful with your belongings. As theOrange County Registerarticle linked below states:
If the taxpayers pay the debts of everyone with outstanding student loans, how will that affect the decisions made by current students thinking about their choices for financing higher education? Whats the message? Borrow as much as you can and wait for the debt to be canceled during the next presidential primary campaign?
Not only would more students be encouraged to go to college, but they would be encouraged to apply for more costly courses if they were free.
Universities would be encouraged to exaggerate their costs to warrant higher fees charged to the government. The government (federal, state or local) would have to be very careful in auditing courses to ensure costs were genuine. Universities could end up being squeezed for finance as government may try to cut payments by claiming that courses were overpriced.
Even if fees were not abolished, cancelling debts would encourage students to take on larger debt, if that was to be cleared at some point in the future. What is more, students (or their parents) who could afford to pay, would choose to borrow the money instead.
But many countries do have free or highly subsidised higher education. Universities are given grants which are designed to reflect fair costs.
Bloomberg, Laura Litvan and Shahien Nasiripour (24/6/19)
CBSN on YouTube, Mark Strassman with Seth Frotman (1/5/19)
Assess the arguments for abolishing or substantially reducing student fees.
Assess the arguments against abolishing or substantially reducing student fees.
Assess the arguments for writing off or substantially reducing student debt.
Assess the arguments against writing off or substantially reducing student debt.
If it were decided to cancel student debt, would it be fair to pay students back for any debt they had already paid off?
Does tackling the problem of student debt necessarily lead to a redistribution of wealth/income?
If student fees were abolished, would there be any problem of adverse selection? If so, how could this be overcome?
Find out what the main UK parties are advocating about student fees and debt in the nations of the UK for home and non-home students. Provide a critique of each of their policies.
aggregate demandAmerican education systemBernie Sandersdebt forgivenessDemocratsequityfinancial transactions taxfunding higher educationincentivesmoral hazardRobin Hood taxstudent debtstudent feesstudent loansTobin taxUSA
Economics 10e: Ch 05Economics 10e: Ch 09Economics 10e: Ch 12Economics 10e: Ch 18Economics for Business: 8e Ch 06, 7e Ch 06Economics for Business: 8e Ch 19, 7e Ch 19Economics for Business: 8e Ch 20, 7e Ch 20Economics for Business: 8e Ch 32, 7e Ch 32Essential Economics for Business: Ch 03Essentials of Economics: 8e Ch 04Essentials of Economics: 8e Ch 09, 7e Ch 08Essentials of Economics: 8e Ch 11, 7e Ch 10Podcasts and Webcasts