UKs drama

FT.com / Columnists / Martin Wolf - Britain’s dismal choice: sharing the losses

Britain’s dismal choice: sharing the losses

By Martin Wolf

Published: December 15 2009 22:11 | Last updated: December 15 2009 22:11

The UK is poorer than it thought it was. This is the most important fact about the crisis. The struggle over the distribution of the losses is going to be brutal. It will be made more so by the second most important fact about the crisis: it has had a huge effect on the public finances. The deficits are unmatched in peacetime.

Happily, the general election would appear to offer a golden opportunity for a debate. Is that not the discussion the country ought to have? Yes. Is it the discussion it is going to have? No. What the government would do if re-elected remains, even after the pre-Budget report, “a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma”, as Churchill said of Stalin’s Russia.

On the Treasury’s current forecasts, the economy will regain 2008 levels of economic activity in 2012. Four years of expected growth would have vanished. In last week’s pre-Budget report, the Treasury forecast growth of 1.25 per cent next year, 3.5 per cent in 2011 and 2012, then 3.25 per cent in 2013 and 2014. Suppose that growth were to continue at 3.25 per cent a year thereafter. It would still take until 2031 before the economy was as big as it would have been if the 1998-2007 trend had continued. The cumulative loss of output would be 160 per cent of 2007 gross domestic product. If growth after 2014 were at the pre-2008 trend rate, lost GDP would be almost three times 2007 GDP by 2030 (see chart). It is easy to imagine worse possibilities.

These losses in output have had a severe impact on the public finances. Indeed, the fiscal deterioration in the UK has been far bigger than in any other member of the Group of Seven leading high-income countries.

  The proximate explanation has been the collapse in government revenues. Between the 2008 Budget and the 2009 pre-Budget report, the forecast of total spending for this financial year has risen by just 4.4 per cent. The forecast of nominal GDP has indeed fallen by 9.1 per cent. But the forecast of revenue has collapsed by 18.1 per cent.

Yet the UK’s recession has not been more severe than that of other high-income countries. As Alistair Darling, the chancellor of the exchequer, noted in his speech on the pre-Budget report, the cumulative contraction in this recession, up to the third quarter of 2009, has been 3.2 per cent in the US, 5.6 per cent in Germany, 5.9 per cent in Italy, 7.7 per cent in Japan and only 4.75 per cent in the UK. The reason this not particularly dramatic decline in output, by the standards of this “Great Recession”, has had an exceptionally big impact on revenues is that, in the UK, the financial sector played a huge role in supporting consumer expenditure, property transactions and corporate profits. No less than a quarter of corporate taxation came from the financial sector alone. Receipts from corporate taxes fell by 26 per cent between the 12 months to October 2008 and the 12 months to October 2009. Receipts from value added tax fell by 17 per cent over the same period. Over and above the general effect of the recession, this is, to a significant extent, a result of the vulnerability of the UK economy to the disruption in credit and collapse in profits of financial businesses.

What does this imply for the UK’s future? A good way of thinking about this question is that the UK has not only had a financial crisis, with the usual severe impact on output and the public finances, but that the UK has also been a “monocrop” economy, with finance itself acting as the “crop”.

Countries that depend heavily on output and exports of commodities whose markets are volatile are all too familiar with the cycles these can create. In booms, export revenues and government revenues are buoyant, the real exchange rate appreciates and marginal producers of tradeable goods and services are squeezed out – a fate sometimes known as the “Dutch disease” after the impact of discoveries of natural gas on the economy of the Netherlands. Often, both government and the private sector borrow heavily in these good times. Then comes the crash: exports and government revenues collapse, fiscal deficits explode, the exchange rate falls and, quite often, inflation surges and the government defaults.

The biggest mistake one can make in macroeconomics is to confuse the cycle with the trend. In monocrop economies, the danger is particularly big, because cycles can be so large. This, in retrospect, is the mistake the UK made. Thus, the Treasury has decided that the UK’s potential output suddenly fell by 5 per cent during this crisis. This is nonsense, as Robert Chote, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, has suggested. What the Treasury used to consider sustainable output was, instead, the product of the bubble in the UK’s monocrop financial sector, spread, directly and indirectly, to the economy and the public finances.

If this view is right, it has three painful implications: first, properly measured fiscal policy was far looser than was thought during much of Gordon Brown’s period as chancellor; second, it is likely that the UK will suffer not only from a permanent loss of output, but also a permanent decline in the trend rate of economic growth; and, third, a huge fiscal tightening cannot be avoided.

At present, the government envisages a structural fiscal tightening of 5.4 per cent of GDP over two parliamentary terms, much of it unspecified (see chart). It now expects that a third of this will be achieved through higher taxes and two-thirds through cuts in spending. To make this credible, it envisages a fiscal consolidation plan that would, in some incomprehensible manner, be legally binding. Would a defaulting chancellor be taken to the Tower of London? But the problem with the plans is not only that they are barely credible, but also that the envisaged tightening is probably too little and the final level of public sector net debt, at around 60 per cent of GDP, too high for comfort, given the likelihood of further adverse shocks. Even so, cuts in spending are larger than in similar episodes in the postwar period.

While the chancellor has presented overall numbers, he has shied away from exploring the full implications and, still more, the nature of the choices the country faces. This is the debate the UK must have. It must start from a realisation: the country is poorer than was thought. So how should these losses be shared in ways that minimise both the harm done to vulnerable people now and to the country’s economic prospects for the longer term? Those are the big questions in UK politics. Serious politicians must not duck them.

Powered by ScribeFire.