Posted on

Holy Mackerel! Soaring fish prices


The prices of many species of fish have risen in recent months. Coastal pelagic fish, such as mackerel, herring and sardines have risen especially rapidly. Mackerel, once seen as a cheap source of protein, is no longer quite such a ‘bargain’.

From January 2023 to May 2026, the international price index of pelagic fish rose by 69%. In 2025, UK supermarket fresh, chilled smoked and tinned mackerel prices rose by an average of 25%; and over the first part of 2026, some tinned mackerel product lines have increased by as much 55%. In February 2026, Waitrose announced that it would suspend sales of fresh and chilled mackerel and tinned mackerel once current stocks had been cleared. It cited overfishing and sustainability concerns.

Supply and demand

But why have mackerel prices risen so much? The price of fish is determined by demand and supply. So what has changed? The main changes have been on the supply side.

Supply.  Most of the world’s supply of mackerel comes from the Northeast Atlantic. These waters have been overfished for many years, thereby depleting the stock of the fish and reducing the amount of mackerel caught.

To arrest the decline and allow stocks to rebuild, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) recommended a quota of 174,357 tonnes for 2026. This would represent a 70% cut from 2025. The main fishing countries – Norway, the UK, the Faroe Islands and Iceland – eventually agreed to a quota of 299,010 tonnes: a cut of 48%. After a series of bilateral agreements between the four countries over access to each other’s waters, this resulted in the following quota shares: UK 30.55%, Norway 26.4%, Faroes 12% and Iceland 10.5%. The remaining 20.55% would be for the EU, Greenland and Russia.

Despite these other countries not being part of the deal, in May 2026 the EU agreed to reduce its catch by 48% too. Russia, however, set its own quota of 67,548 tonnes, which is 22.6% of the total 299,010 quota, above the 20.55% set aside for the EU, Russia and Greenland combined and almost almost five times Russia’s historic quota share! The UK, EU and Iceland responded by agreeing to bar Russian vessels carrying mackerel from entering their ports.

The quotas have added to the decline in supply, even though the aim is to increase supply in the future as stocks are rebuilt. In May this year, the Norwegian catch was down nearly 85% – well below the 48% reduction in the quota.

Demand.  Despite higher prices, demand has remained strong. Part of the reason is that demand is relatively inelastic. This is because, despite its increase in price, mackerel remains a relatively cheap fish and thus there is little option to switch to cheaper alternative fish. Indeed, with other fish going up in price, and meat too, some people may even switch to mackerel.

Another reason for strong demand is the growing market outside Europe, especially in southeast Asia, China, South Korea and Japan. In some of these countries, mackerel is seen as a luxury fish and people are prepared to pay higher prices, making demand relatively inelastic but at the other end of the market. In 2025, imports of frozen whole mackerel into the region rose by nearly 9%, despite rising prices.

However, Norwegian exports to the region have been falling, reflecting lower quotas in 2025 and lower still in 2026. This has further exacerbated the rise in price and intensified competition between Asian importers. For example, in July 2026, Korea sent a ‘mackerel envoy’ to Norway and other major exporters to seek to secure additional supplies.

The future

With supply restricted by declining stocks and tighter quotas, and with a price inelastic and growing demand, the high prices of mackerel in all forms look set to last – at least until stocks rebuild and quotas can be relaxed. But, with total quotas well above the level suggested by the ICES, rebuilding could take a long time.

Articles

Data

  • Dashboards

    • European Market Observatory for Fisheries and Aquaculture Products (EUMOFA)

Questions

  1. Draw a supply and demand diagram to illustrate what has happened to mackerel prices.
  2. What is the effective price elasticity of supply of mackerel?
  3. Why is demand for mackerel relatively price inelastic in the UK, except when prices rise above a certain level?
  4. Why is demand for mackerel relatively price inelastic in certain Asian countries, such as Japan and South Korea?
  5. In which country is demand for mackerel likely to be more income elastic: the UK or Japan?
  6. Under what circumstances might the price of mackerel in five years’ time be (a) higher than now; (b) lower than now? What will determine which is more likely?
  7. Should other supermarkets follow Waitrose’s lead in stopping the sale of mackerel?
  8. What is the ‘tragedy of the commons’? Why is a common resource such as fish in the open seas likely to result in the tragedy?
Posted on

Manchesterism: will greater devolution boost economic growth and help tackle inequality?


Andy Burnham is set to become UK Prime Minister on 20 July if no-one else stands to replace Keir Starmer. In a speech on 29 June, he outlined his economic vision. Central to this is devolution, where a greater number of economic decisions would be taken locally rather than by central government. This approach has been dubbed ‘Manchesterism’, in reference to his time as Mayor of Greater Manchester from 2017 to earlier this year. Under his mayoralty, Greater Manchester (GM) achieved faster economic growth than other regions or cities in the UK. From 2017 to 2023, GM’s gross value added grew by an average of 6.6% per annum and the city of Manchester’s by 8.4% – the highest of any city in the UK. The UK average was 4.9% and London’s was 4.6%.

The UK, especially England, is one of the least devolved of the OECD countries. One aspect of this is taxation. The chart shows local taxes and, in the case of federal countries, state/regional/provincial taxes too. (Click here for a PowerPoint.)

Only 4.9% of UK tax revenue is in the form of local taxes (council tax and 50% of business rates) and the amount that can be raised in council tax is capped by the central government. The remainder of UK tax revenue goes to central government in the form of income taxes, social security taxes (national insurance), VAT, excise duties, etc. This compares with an average of 7.1% local taxes and 24.5% local plus regional taxes across the 17 OECD countries shown in the chart.

Andy Burnham plans to shift some of the spending and tax-raising powers from Whitehall to metro mayors and local councils. The aim is to stimulate productivity and economic growth at a regional and local level by tailoring support and incentives to local needs and strengths. Local leaders will be best positioned to understand these needs and strengths and will be able to customise spending and support appropriately.

Examples of the types of greater autonomy over decision making would include:

  • Control over adult education budgets to allow them to be tailored to provide training and apprenticeships to meet the skills requirements of existing and emerging industries in the area;
  • Forming partnerships with local universities to support research and development that complements regional economic growth;
  • Providing greater funding for and control over local transport infrastructure, including roads, buses, trams, trains, etc., with local consultation to make them fit for the local population and businesses;
  • Tailoring business incentives to local needs and to the needs of the businesses themselves so as to attract an increase in investment;
  • Greatly expanding council house building, which has virtually dried up in recent years, with mayors and/or local authorities empowered to develop local housing strategies, including affordable housing programmes, and to direct housing investment funding to particular housing developments in areas of greatest need.

Andy Burnham has pledged to stick to the government’s two existing fiscal rules:
a) The Stability Rule (Fiscal Mandate): the current (day-to-day) budget must be in balance or surplus. In other words the provision of salaries, public services, state pensions, welfare, etc. must be covered by government revenues (largely taxation). The government should borrow only to fund long-term investment.
b) The Debt Rule (Stock Mandate): each year, public-sector net financial liabilities (PSNFL) must be forecast by the OBR to be falling as a share of GDP compared to the previous year in three years’ time. This acts as a break on the amount of borrowing for long-term investment.

It is likely, therefore, that there will be little extra government money for investment. Rather, the policy involves a redistribution of public-sector investment from central government to mayoral/local authorities.

In theory, such a policy of devolution need not see a redistribution from richer to poorer regions, but that might be part of the policy when the details are published. The UK has a bigger gap in productivity (GDP per worker) between its capital city and other large cities than in do other countries. Birmingham, Sheffield, Leeds, Newcastle, etc., as well as Cardiff, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Belfast, lag further behind London in output per head and economic growth than do other European countries lag behind their capital city. Thus the gap between Paris and Lyon, Toulouse and Marseille is narrower; as is that between Belin and Munich, Hamburg and Frankfurt. It is a similar picture in Spain and Italy. In the USA, some cities, such as San Francisco, outperform Washington DC and New York. A redistribution of government funding from London to the regions could see their incomes rise faster without having too much impact on London, which would still continue to attract large amounts of private investment.

Overall, there would be little increase in government funding. ‘Manchesterism’ is not, therefore, a demand-side policy. It is a supply-side policy – directing funds to areas where, combined with local incentives and local knowledge, the funding could yield greater returns and thereby increase potential GDP.

But this is not to say that there is no effect on aggregate demand. The hope is that devolution along the lines outlined by Andy Burnham will attract increased private investment, thereby increasing actual GDP as well as further increasing potential GDP.

We wait to see the details over the coming weeks.

Articles

Videos

Data

Questions

  1. Use an aggregate demand and supply diagram (simple or dynamic) to illustrate the effects on real GDP of a successful devolution strategy.
  2. Find out the details of the last Conservative government’s ‘levelling up’ policy. Was it similar in aims to that of ‘Manchesterism’?
  3. How could a policy of devolution as outlined by Andy Burnham affect income distribution within regions?
  4. Find out about the approach to regional policy in the EU. Is it similar to that being advocated by Andy Burnham?
  5. What is meant by ‘regional multipliers’? Why might they differ from the national multiplier?
Posted on

Brexit 10 years on: the economic impacts

It is 10 years since the Brexit referendum. From an electorate of 46,501,251 people, 17,410,742 (37.4%) voted to leave, 16,141,241 (34.7%) voted to remain and 12,949,258 (27.8%) did not vote. The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020 at 11:00 pm, but remained in the single market and customs union during a transition period lasting for a further 11 months until December 31 2020.

To mark the 10th anniversary of the vote a number of articles have been written assessing the effects of Brexit. Here we look at the economic effects, as do the articles linked below. This blog updates the analysis of an earlier one, The costs of Brexit: a clearer picture.

Trade

After the referendum, extensive negotiations took place on the trading arrangements between the UK and EU that would exist once Brexit was finalised.

One possibility was ‘The Norwegian model’, which would have seen the UK join the European Economic Area (EEA), giving it access to the single market, but removing regulation in some key areas, such as fisheries and home affairs. This was ruled out in favour of a bilateral trade agreement. Three main types were available:

  • Swiss model, where the UK would negotiate a series of bilateral agreements with the EU, including selective or general access to the single market.
  • Canadian model, where the UK would form a comprehensive trade agreement with the EU to lower customs tariffs and other barriers to trade.
  • Turkish model, where the UK would form a customs union with the EU. In Turkey’s case the agreement relates principally to manufactured goods.

The agreement reached, the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) was a version of the Canadian model. The UK would leave the single market and customs union, but there would be tariff-free and quota-free trade in goods between the UK and the EU. However, to ensure that it was EU and UK business that would benefit from these ‘trade preferences’, businesses must show that their products fulfil ‘rules of origin’ requirements.

Rules of origin. Under rules of origin requirements, when a good is imported into the UK from outside the EU and then has value added to it by processing, packaging, cleaning, remixing, preserving, refashioning, etc., it can only count as a UK good if sufficient value or weight is added. The proportions vary by product, but generally goods must have approximately 50% UK content (or 80% of the weight of foodstuffs) to qualify for tariff-free access to the EU. For example, in the case of a petrol car, 55% of its value must have been created in either the EU or UK.

Meeting rules of origin has created a large amount of paperwork for businesses and this has created a significant barrier to trade. What is more, exporters are required to complete import/export declarations. Also, agri-food goods are subject to strict physical border controls. These barriers have increased the costs of trade and reduced its volume.

Services. Free trade in services is not provided by the TCA. Instead, services exporters face various barriers, such as certain professional qualifications no longer being recognised in EU countries and a loss of ‘passporting’ rights that previously allowed cross-border financial operations with minimal extra permissions.

Brexit impact. Despite new barriers to trade in services, they are generally less significant than the barriers for trade in goods, particularly in a digital age. Indeed, UK services exports have held up well. Although they fell in 2020, they have grown significantly since. According to House of Commons Library Statistics on UK-EU trade (see link below):

In 2025, UK exports of services to the EU were 28% above their 2019 level in real terms. Exports to non-EU countries were 26% above their 2019 level.

UK exports of goods to the EU, however, have fared less well. In 2025 they were 14% below their 2019 level in real terms. This is partly the effect of COVID and the Ukraine war, but exports to non-EU countries were only 8% lower than 2019. According to research by economists John Springford and Anton Spisak for the Centre for European Reform (see link below), Brexit has depressed UK goods exports to the EU by 16%. According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, (see link below) both exports and imports in the long run will be around 15% lower than they would have been if the UK had remained in the EU. What is more, the growth of goods trade (exports plus imports) has fallen well behind the average of the rest of the G7. And according to British Chambers of Commerce research (see link below), 54% of UK exporters think the TCA is making it harder to export and the need for change is urgent.

The new barriers reduce market access, while lower export volumes reduce competition and economies of scale. There is less competition too from imports, with many EU firms no longer exporting to the UK because of the costs. The barriers lead to a misallocation of resources, with highly productive UK firms exporting less, with less productive firms in the UK and EU focusing purely on their domestic markets. The barriers thus impose an impediment to the exploitation of comparative advantage

Investment

Both domestic and foreign direct investment (FDI) in the UK have been adversely affected by Brexit. Bloom et al., in their paper for the NBER (see link below), estimate that by 2025, investment was 12–18% lower than it would have been without Brexit.

In the early years after the referendum, lower capital investment was mainly the result of uncertainty and devoting significant resources to administrative Brexit preparations. Later it was largely the result of the trade barriers themselves. Not surprisingly, firms in the UK with high exposure to EU markets experienced a sharper decline in investment than less-exposed ones.

The end of the single market and customs union reduced the attractiveness of the UK as a hub for FDI relative to competitor countries. And UK firms were encouraged to invest in the EU to create hubs for selling within the EU, thereby allowing them to avoid the trade barriers.

According to the Bloom et al. analysis, the effect of lower investment and less competition has been a fall in UK productivity of around 3% to 4% compared to remaining in the EU. The Office For Budget Responsibility argues that the post-Brexit trading relationship will reduce long-run productivity by 4% relative to remaining in the EU.

Growth in GDP

Lower investment, lower productivity and trade barriers have had a negative impact on economic growth. According to analysis by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) (see link below), by the end of 2023, UK real GDP was some 2–3% lower solely as a result of Brexit – in other words, after having taken into account the effects of COVID-19 and the Russia-Ukraine war. This corresponds to a per capita income loss of approximately £850. The NIESR analysis predicts that this will rise to some 5–6% of GDP, or about £2,300 per capita, by 2035.

Bank of England data, based on surveys of chief financial officers of over 2000 firms (small, medium and large), suggest that the UK economy is some 6% smaller than it would have been without Brexit. The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that Brexit has caused a long-run reduction in GDP of 4% as a result of a similar percentage reduction in productivity.

The growth of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) has been disproportionately dampened by the compliance costs of trade with the EU. Some SMEs, especially in the food and drink sector, have ceased exporting to the EU altogether.

Labour supply and migration

Halting the right of EU workers to move freely to the UK for work created acute labour shortages in specific sectors such as hospitality, health and social care, logistics, construction and agriculture. However, while immigration from the EU fell dramatically, this was more than offset by increased immigration from non-EU countries. But this was unable to fill shortfalls in some sectors.

The loss of free movement of labour means that UK workers now face restrictions on working in the EU. These include obtaining a work visa, which requires a formal job offer, sponsorship and meeting strict salary thresholds. While business trips for meetings, conferences, trade fairs, etc. are generally exempt, if the work involves remuneration, then normally a work visa will be required. The terms of work visas vary between member states. This has created a considerable barrier for touring bands and other artists. Short-term self-employed or freelance work is highly restricted, with virtually no work permit options available for visiting UK nationals.

Because employing UK nationals now imposes extra administrative and time-consuming burdens on local EU employers, many now prioritize applicants from EU nations who can start immediately.

Articles

Videos

Reports, Research, Analysis and Data

Questions

  1. Summarise the negative effects of Brexit on the UK economy.
  2. Why is it difficult to quantify these effects?
  3. How have UK firms attempted to reduce the costs of exporting to the EU?
  4. Why have goods exports been worse affected by Brexit than services exports?
  5. What difficulties would lie in the way of the UK negotiating a Turkish or Swiss model of trading relations with the EU?
  6. Have there been any economic benefits from Brexit and, if so, what?
Posted on

Inequality: the ‘defining issue of our day’?

Wes Streeting and Andy Burnham are seeking to become UK Prime Minister in a challenge to Keir Starmer. They have both responded to an essay by Tony Blair, former Labour Prime Minister, where he argued that current Labour policies were holding back business. But the essay never mentioned inequality. According to Burnham and Streeting, inequality and the related issue of poverty are fundamental to the crises facing society in western democracies. Countries’ economic success is typically measured in terms of growth in GDP. But when the benefits of growth go largely to those at the top of the income scale, while people on lower incomes struggle to make ends meet, this feeds resentment. Populist politicians stoke such resentment and offer simplistic solutions, such as protectionism, blaming outsiders and promising a return to better times.

But just what has happened to inequality over recent years and has poverty deepened? How are inequality and poverty affecting people’s lives and what is the impact on the economy? And what policies should governments follow to tackle the problem?

Income inequality

The chart shows UK inequality as given by the Gini coefficient, where 1 represents complete inequality, with one person earning the whole of national income and 0 represents perfect equality, with everyone earning the same. The higher the figure, therefore, the greater the inequality. As you can see, inequality is greatest when looking at original income – that is, income before taxes and benefits. Gross income includes benefits, and disposable income is income after both benefits and taxes. You can see that both benefits and taxes reduce inequality. When we take housing costs into account with the disposable income measure, however, inequality increases.

The chart shows that income inequality rose until the early 2000s, since when there have been only slight changes, although there has been a small decline recently.

The UK has higher income inequality than most high-income countries, although it is not as high as in the USA. It is sixth most unequal of the 38 OECD countries and the most unequal OECD member in Europe.

Globally, in 2025, the top 10% of the world’s population earned 53% of global income, while the bottom half earned just 8%. The reports listed below provide data and analysis on UK and global inequality.

Wealth inequality

When we turn to wealth, inequality in the UK is even greater. The richest 10% of households hold around 41% of wealth, while the poorest 50% hold just under 10%. The Gini coefficient is around 0.6. This has been drive by a rise in property and share prices and the system of inheritance whereby family wealth can accumulate over the generations.

Globally, the top 10% of the world’s population held 75% of global wealth in 2025, whereas the bottom 50% held just 2%. And a tiny group of people – the top 0.001% of the adult population (about 56,000 individuals) – held about 6% of global wealth, up from 4% in 1995. Such extreme wealth inequality has thus increased.

Inequality and poverty

There is no single measure of poverty. It could be measured in terms of basic needs. Here poverty would be where a person is unable to afford basic food, shelter, heating and lighting, clothing, footwear and basic toiletries. Normally, however, it is measured in relative terms. A typical measure, and one used by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, is based on a proportion of median income. Poverty is defined as income below 60% of the median income, with deep poverty below 50% and very deep poverty below 40%.

In 2023/24, 14.2 million people were in poverty (20% of the population), of whom around 4.5 million were children. Of the 14.2 million, 6.8 million people (nearly half) were in very deep poverty,

Causes of poverty include one or more of the following: low skills or education, low pay, unemployment, inadequate benefits or a benefit system that is confusing or difficult to access, chronic sickness, disability, unavailability or cost of suitable housing, discrimination, a breakdown of personal relationships, substance abuse, abuse from others, a criminal record. Once in poverty, it becomes difficult to escape as people become deskilled, demotivated and judged by society.

But even if people are not earning less than 60% of median income, they can still struggle to escape inequality. Many people have low skills; many routine jobs are being replaced by automation or AI; many graduates face high debts; people struggle to get on the housing ladder; the rising cost of basic items dampens real incomes, especially of the low paid; people may face discrimination of various sorts; people do not have an option of joining a union in their workplace; people may have a large number of dependants.

The policy agenda

If inequality rises up the political agenda in the UK, especially with a potential leadership race in the Labour party, what might politicians focus on? The government has already done the following:

  • It has raised the minimum wage (the ‘National Living Wage’) substantially from £10.42 in 2023/24 to £11.44 in 2024/25, to £12.21 in 2025/26 and lowered the age limit from 23 to 21. There have been larger percentage rises for 18–20 year-olds and those under 18.
  • The two-child limit to the child benefit element in Universal Credit has been scrapped and so now parents are eligible for benefits for all children.
  • The Employment Rights Act has ended exploitative zero-hour contracts by providing rights to guaranteed hours.
  • It has expanded free school meal entitlements.
  • It has capped Universal Credit debt deductions at 15% of increased incomes (down from 25%) to help the poorest households retain more of their monthly income.
  • It has expanded free school meals and made more money available for free nursery place.
  • Landlords can no longer evict tenants for no reason; they must have a valid reason such as wanting to sell the property or severe rent arrears.
  • Landlords cannot increase rents more than once per year and tenants can appeal excessive or above-market rent increases to an independent tribunal.

But despite these policy measures, many claim that they will do too little to tackle inequality and poverty. Some on the left argue that taxes on property and other forms of wealth will be required to tackle wealth inequality. Others argue that more emphasis on education and training is necessary to provide workers with the skills to earn more in the labour market. Others argue for greater expenditure on public services.

Generally, however, measures to tackle inequality and poverty require government expenditure, which must be funded. This is why many on the centre left argue that economic growth is a necessary condition for any significant redistribution. It is, they argue, the best way of providing the tax revenue to fund redistribution.

Incentives and disincentives

Many on the right argue that redistributing incomes through higher taxes and benefits will act as a disincentive to work and to invest. As we argue in Essentials of Economics, higher income taxes could discourage people from working and investing; higher wealth taxes could discourage people from saving and investing.

The key to analysing these arguments is to distinguish between the income effect and the substitution effect of raising taxes. Raising income tax does two things.

  • It reduces disposable incomes. People therefore are encouraged to work more in an attempt to maintain their consumption of goods and services. This is the income effect. ‘I have to work more to make up for the higher taxes’, a person might say.
  • It reduces the opportunity cost of leisure. Since higher income taxes reduce take-home pay, an extra hour taken in leisure now involves a smaller sacrifice in consumption. Thus people may substitute leisure for consumption, and work less. This is called the substitution effect. ‘What is the point of doing overtime’, another person might say, ‘if so much of the overtime pay is going in taxes?’

The relative size of the income and substitution effects is likely to differ for different types of people. For example, the income effect is likely to dominate for those people with a substantial proportion of long-term commitments, such as those with families, with mortgages and other debts. They may feel forced to work more to maintain their disposable income. Clearly for such people, higher taxes are not a disincentive to work. The income effect is also likely to be relatively large for people on higher incomes, for whom an increase in tax rates represents a substantial cut in income.

The substitution effect is likely to dominate for those with few commitments: those whose families have left home, the single, and second income earners in families where that second income is not relied on for ‘essential’ consumption. A rise in tax rates for these people is likely to encourage them to work less.

Although high income earners may work more when there is a tax rise, they may still be discouraged by a steeply progressive tax structure. If they have to pay very high marginal rates of tax, it may simply not be worth their while seeking promotion or working harder.

What those on the centre and left argue is that tackling inequality and poverty requires more than just changing the tax and benefits system. What is required is policies that encourage greater upward social mobility, greater social cohesion and greater expenditure on infrastructure that will support the poor, such as greater expenditure on education and training, on support for very young children, on preventative healthcare, on social housing and on local public transport.

Articles

Reports

Data

Questions

  1. Is the UK becoming more or less equal? Does the answer depend on how inequality is measured?
  2. Is the world becoming more or less equal?
  3. Summarise the arguments against redistributing incomes from the rich to the poor.
  4. Summarise the arguments in favour of redistributing incomes from the rich to the poor.
  5. Explain the income and substitution effects of making income tax more progressive.
  6. How is the greater adoption of AI likely to affect income distribution?
  7. How does social mobility affect income distribution? What measures can be adopted to increase social mobility?
  8. Compare the relative merits and problems of raising income taxes, wealth taxes and expenditure taxes as means of redistributing incomes more equally.
Posted on

Supply shocks – long-term gain from the short-term pain?

The world has suffered from a number of adverse supply shocks in recent years. First there was the credit supply shock of 2007–9 that led to a default on mortgages, a collapse in confidence in the banking system, the drying up of the inter-bank market, the freezing of lending and a global economic contraction. Then there was the COVID-19 pandemic. This shock to the the global economy led to a a fall in output and breaks in supply chains. As recovery took place, supply-side difficulties led to a surge in inflation.

Then there was the Russian invasion of Ukraine. This shock to energy and grain supplies led to rises in fuel and food prices: a cost-push inflationary shock. More recently, the closing of the Strait of Hormuz has cut off an important supply route and again sent fuel and other other prices rising.

These supply-side shocks create a dilemma for central banks. They push up inflation, but push output and employment down – a situation of ‘stagflation’.

This can be illustrated with a simple aggregate demand and supply diagram. The shock shifts the aggregate supply curve upwards to the left, illustrated by the move from SRAS1 to SRAS2. The price level rises to P2 and GDP falls to Y2.

But central bank policy is designed to affect aggregate demand, not aggregate supply. If it raises interest rates, aggregate demand will shift to the left. The price level will fall (or at least the rate of inflation will fall), but output will fall further. If it cuts interest rates, aggregate demand will shift to the right. This will help to curtail, or even reverse, the fall in GDP, but will lead to even higher prices.

For countries where their central bank has a simple inflation mandate (e.g. keeping inflation close to 2%), sticking to this target in the short term would result in higher interest rates, lower economic growth and higher unemployment – and possibly even a recession. In such cases, central banks tend to project forward beyond the short-term shock and set interest rates to target inflation in a few months’ time. Indeed, many central banks do explicitly target inflation in the medium term (1 or 2 years) rather than the short term.

Central banks, such as the US Federal Reserve Bank, which have a dual mandate of targeting inflation but also maximising employment, the trade-off between these two objectives can be stark. Getting the inflation down requires a higher rate of interest; maximising employment in the face of an adverse supply shock requires a lower rate of interest.

The short-term economic costs, let alone the human costs if the shock involves a war, can be great. People may suffer extreme hardship. The cost to the US Treasury of the first six weeks of the Iran war were estimated by the Pentagon to be some $29bn1 – which translates into higher taxes for US residents, lower government spending on non-war related items, higher government borrowing or some combination of the three. Other estimates put the cost to the US taxpayer as much higher – up to $1 trillion over the longer term.2 Then there are the costs to consumers of higher fuel and other prices, estimated at around $410 per month.3

The costs to Iranian citizens will be much higher in terms of war damage and loss of livelihood, let alone the suffering and loss of life. Then there are the costs to the rest of the world from higher prices of fuel, fertilisers and various industrial materials that are normally shipped through the Strait of Hormuz.

Long-term economic gain?

Supply shocks often expose economic vulnerabilities that can later be addressed, making supply chains more diverse and more resilient. They can give a boost to alternative technologies, such as a switch from fossil-fuels to green energy.

After the 2007–9 financial crisis, banking systems were made more robust under the Basel III system. Capital and liquidity requirements were increased and bank leverage was decreased. Many countries, such as the UK, introduced ‘ringfencing’ to separate retail banking from the riskier investment banking. This increased confidence in the banking system.

The COVID-19 pandemic gave a boost to working remotely and the establishment of more flexible work patterns. What was a necessity during lockdowns, was seen as an effective model by many companies. Fully remote or hybrid working became commonplace for many jobs that were previously done in the office. Time has allowed employers to find the best balance of in-office and remote working, with the optimum balance often varying by type of job being performed.

The rising price of oil and gas following the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, saw many countries that had been reliant on imports from Russia, accelerating their efforts to switch to renewable energy. Supply chains were re-examined and there was a move towards ‘re-shoring’, ‘near-shoring’, or ‘friend-shoring’: that is, obtaining supplies from countries that are nearer and/or more reliable as trading partners.

This approach was further boosted by the extensive tariffs imposed by the Trump second administration. One of the responses to the higher tariffs was to seek markets, both for exports and imports, away from the USA. To the extent that there is ‘re-shoring’ (substituting exports and imports for production and consumption within the country), then this amounts to deglobalisation. If this represents a move from low-cost to high-cost production and is contrary to the law of comparative advantage, then there will be a net economic loss. If, however, the reduction in risk of disruption and the boost to domestic industries allows a reduction in costs, there could be a net gain.

The most recent example of the Iran war has led many countries to reconsider sources of supply and to make their supply chains more robust and less risky. Gulf countries are considering expanding their pipeline network to avoid the Strait of Hormuz. For other countries, it is providing a further boost to green energy. Increased investment in the renewable sector will help to bring down costs and make countries less vulnerable to future conflicts involving oil-producing countries or sea passages.

To summarise: if initially adverse supply-side shocks cause a diversification and strengthening of supply chains, a diversification of energy sources, accelerated technological innovation and the adoption of new more efficient techniques, the long-term supply-side effects could be positive. Pain today for gain tomorrow?

But the short run comes before the long run and today’s costs are real and mounting. A shock may stimulate a positive response, but the current shock is persisting, and forecasts are getting more dire by the day. And even when the Iran war is over, there may be more shocks around the corner – ‘unknown unknowns’. As Keynes said: ‘In the long run we’re all dead’.

References

  1. Pentagon’s estimate for Iran war grows to $29B

    2. Politico, Mark Sweney (12/5/26)

  2. World Politics The Iran war could cost the American taxpayer $1 trillion, says Harvard academic

    3. CNBC, Joseph Wilkins (14/4/26)

  3. The Economic Costs of the Iran War

    4. American Enterprise Institute, Roger Pielke Jr. (2/4/26)

Articles

Questions

  1. What policies have central banks pursued during the Iran war?
  2. Paint an optimistic scenario for the global economy five years hence.
  3. Paint a pessimistic scenario for the global economy five years hence.
  4. Compare the sources of supply of oil and gas for Europe directly prior to the Iran war with those directly prior to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
  5. Compare the relative merits of globalisation and deglobalisation. Does this depend on the nature of globalisation and deglobalisation?