So how are you feeling? Is now a good time to shop? Or, is it perhaps time to put money aside for that rainy day? Well, these types of questions capture the essence of what we might label as ‘sentiment’ or ‘confidence’. Polling organisations each month undertake surveys to try to measure sentiment amongst consumers and businesses. In doing so, they ask questions relating to, amongst other things, perceptions as to the current and future states of the economy, the labour market and finances. The responses to these individual questions are then combined to give an overall indicator which, it is then hoped, can be used to track sentiment over time. Two widely reported surveys of sentiment are the EU economic sentiment indicator and the Nationwide Building Society consumer confidence indicator.
The Nationwide’s indicator focuses solely on households. Its sentiment figure for March suggests that the gains in confidence amongst households enjoyed in the first couple of months of this year have been lost. In other words, the decline in March was significant enough not only to wipe out the effect of the typical ‘January bounce’ seen in most measures of sentiment but also the further rise that occurred in February. Nonetheless, consumer sentiment remains above the levels seen through much of 2008 and 2009 amidst the economic downturn.
The European Union’s economic sentiment index measures sentiment across both households and firms, although separate indicators are available for households and for different sectors of industry. Figures are also available for each individual EU country as well as across the EU. 2009 saw a record low score in the UK for the economic sentiment index – a series which goes back to 1985. But in March 2010 the sentiment index was, perhaps surprisingly, above its long-term average. Interestingly, this reflects further strengthening in sentiment amongst businesses, while sentiment amongst consumers fell slightly in March after recent gains.
So what should we read into these sentiment indices? Well, firstly, consider the patterns in the sentiment scores. The sentiment indices rose markedly in the second half of last year and into the beginning of this year, although sentiment amongst households may have now weakened while continuing to rise amongst firms. Now, secondly, consider these patterns alongside evidence which shows that economic sentiment indices tend to track the direction of economic growth. So last year, the rise in both the EU and Nationwide sentiment indices was indeed mirrored by improvements in the rate of economic growth with initially smaller contractions followed by positive growth in the final quarter.
One of the advantages of these sentiment measures is their timeliness. The first provisional estimate of growth in Q1 2010 is not available until the end of this month and, of course, is then subject to revision. But, if we reflect on the sentiment measures, the fact that sentiment appears no weaker across the first quarter of this year as a whole and, when measured across both households and firms, may actually be higher, indicates that the growth number for the first quarter of this year may not be too different from the 0.4% growth recorded in Q4 2009. Stay cheerful!
Articles
Consumer confidence has sharpest fall this recession The Times, Grainne Gilmore (15/4/10)
U.K. consumer confidence fell in March The Wall Street Journal, Paul Hannon (15/4/10)
Election drives down consumer confidence Sky News, Adam Arnold (15/4/10) )
Consumer morale suffers biggest fall since July 2008 Reuters UK (15/4/10)
Data
Business and Consumer Surveys The Directorate General for Economic and Financial Affairs, European Commission
Consumer Confidence Nationwide Building Society
Questions
- What factors do you think might influence sentiment or confidence amongst households?
- What factors might affect sentiment or confidence amongst businesses?
- In what ways do you think sentiment and economic activity might be connected?
- Some commentators are arguing that the general election might be impacting on consumer confidence. Why do you think this might be the case?
- If you were going to assess the economic sentiment of consumers or businesses, what sorts of questions do you think you might ask?
’The steepest and longest recession of any developed country since World War II.’ This has been the case for Ireland, which has seen national income fall by 20% since 2007. Many countries across the globe have experienced pretty bad recessions, but what makes Ireland stand out is how it has been dealt with.
In the UK, the government has continued spending in a bid to stimulate the economy and to use Gordon Brown’s phrase from 2008, we have aimed to ‘spend our way out of recession’. Ireland, however, did not have that option. With too much borrowing, Ireland was unable to stimulate the economy and needed to cut its debts in order to maintain its credibility in the eurozone. Last year, significant cuts in government spending were accompanied by tax rises equal to 5% of GDP. Similar action is to be expected in the UK following the election, where popular benefits may have to be reduced, as transfer payments do account for the majority of government spending. Whoever is in government following the election will have some hard decisions to make and everyone will be affected. Read the article below and listen to the interview and think about what the UK can learn from Ireland.
Irish lessons for the UK (including interview) BBC Stephanomics (9/4/10)
Questions
- In the interview, Brian Lenihan said that the UK was expecting too much from the falling value of sterling. What was the UK expecting following significant depreciations in the value of sterling and why has that not happened?
- What is a deflationary spiral? Why has it caused Ireland’s public debt to rise so much?
- Why does Brian Lenihan argue that there are limits to how much taxes can be increased? What are diminishing returns to taxation?
- Would the UK be any better off had we joined the euro? What about other countries: would they have benefited had we joined the euro?
The OECD published its latest interim assessment of the world economy on April 7. This showed a world gradually bouncing back from recession, with growing GDP (albeit at variable speeds in different countries), rising industrial production, increasing business confidence, a stabilising of financial markets, an easing of credit conditions and yet continuing low inflation.
The UK is forecast to have an annualised rate of growth of GDP in quarter 2 of 3.1%. This is the second highest of the G7 countries, behind only Canada. This would seem like good news – an economic spring for the UK.
Despite continuing growth in the OECD countries, in most of them recovery is fragile. The OECD thus recommends caution in removing the stimulus measures adopted in most countries and hence caution in embarking on measures to cut public-sector deficits. As the report states:
Despite some encouraging signs on activity, the fragility of the recovery, a frail labour market and possible headwinds coming from financial markets underscore the need for caution in the removal of policy support. Central banks have already begun to rein in the exceptional liquidity stimulus injected during the recession. Further action in this area will need to be guided by financial conditions. The normalisation of policy interest rates should be carried out at a pace that will be contingent on the strength of the recovery in individual countries and the outlook for inflation beyond the near-term projection horizon. As for fiscal policy, the sharp increase in government indebtedness in the OECD area during the downturn calls for ambitious, clearly communicated medium-term consolidation programmes in many countries. Consolidation should start in 2011, or earlier where needed, and progress gradually so as not to undermine the incipient recovery.
The following webcast from the OECD presents the report.
Webcast
Interim Assessment OECD, Pier Carlo Padoan, OECD Chief Economist (7/4/10)
Report
Portal to report and webcast OECD
What is the economic outlook for OECD countries? An interim assessment OECD, Pier Carlo Padoan (7/4/10)
Articles
Economy set to speed up and beat UK’s rivals, says OECD Independent, Sean O’Grady (8/4/10)
Economy poised for rapid expansion Financial Times, Norma Cohen and Daniel Pimlot (8/4/10)
OECD sees slower growth in US, Europe, Japan Sydney Morning Herald (8/4/10)
UK business confidence ‘hits four-year high’ BBC News (12/4/10)
British companies confident of recovery but need investment, BDO warns Telegraph, Angela Monaghan (12/4/10)
Questions
- What are the main findings in the report?
- What are the policy implications of the findings?
- What are the implications of developments in financial markets? What are the possible ‘headwinds’?
- What factors could threaten the recovery of the UK economy?
The Quarterly National Accounts from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) reveal that the output of the UK economy grew by 0.4% in the fourth quarter of 2009. This is another upward revision to the growth number for Q4; the first estimate put growth at 0.1% and the second estimate at 0.3%.
The ONS release also reported the value of the UK economy’s output in calendar year 2009. In the release, GDP in 2009 is estimated at £1.396 trillion. Now, this is what economists call the nominal estimate because it measures the economy’s output using the prevailing prices, e.g. in the case of output in 2009, the prices of 2009. Of course, the problem arises when we compare nominal GDP – or GDP at current prices – over time. If prices are changing how can we know whether the volume of output is actually rising or falling? Therefore, constant-price or real estimates are reported which aim to show what GDP would have been if prices had remained at their levels in some chosen year (the base year). The base year currently used in the UK is 2005.
If we look at nominal GDP estimates for the UK from 1948 up to 2008 we find that they rise each year. So, regardless of the fact that in some of these years output volumes fell, price rises (inflation) have been sufficient to cause nominal or current-price GDP to rise. But, this was not true in 2009!
But, why did nominal GDP fall in 2009? Well, firstly, the average price of the economy’s output, which is measured by the GDP deflator, rose by only 1.36% in 2009. This was the lowest rate of economy-wide inflation since 1999 (although real GDP or output rose by 3.9% in 1999). And, secondly, in 2009 output fell by 4.9%. The extent of the fall in output meant that price increases were not sufficient for nominal GDP to rise. In fact, the actual value of GDP in 2008 was £1.448 trillion as compared with £1.396 trillion in 2009. This means that nominal GDP fell by 3.6% in 2009. The next lowest recorded change, since comparable figures began in 1948, was actually in 2008 when nominal GDP rose by 3.5% (real GDP rose too in 2009, albeit by only 0.5%).
So, in short, the decline in both nominal and real GDP in 2009 indicates just how deep the economic downturn has been.
Articles
Britain’s economic growth revised up to 0.4% The Times, Gary Parkinson and Grainne Gilmore (30/3/10)
UK pulls out of recession faster than thought Reuters, Matt Falloon and Christina Fincher (30/3/10)
UK growth unexpectedly revised up to 0.4% BBC News (30/3/10) )
UK Q4 growth revised upward again to 0.4 pct Associated Press (AP), Jane Wardell (30/3/10)
Instant view – Q4 final GDP revised up to 0.4 per cent Reuters UK (30/3/10)
Data
Latest on GDP growth Office for National Statistics (30/3/10)
Quarterly National Accounts, Statistical Bulletin, March 2010 Office for National Statistics (30/3/10)
United Kingdom Economic Accounts, Time Series Data Office for National Statistics
For macroeconomic data for EU countries and other OECD countries, such as the USA, Canada, Japan, Australia and Korea, see:
AMECO online European Commission
Questions
- Explain what you understand by the terms ‘nominal GDP’ and ‘real GDP’. Can you think of other examples of where economists might distinguish between nominal and real variables?
- Explain under what circumstances nominal GDP could rise despite the output of the economy falling.
- The average annual change in nominal GDP since 1948 is 8.2% while that for real GDP is 2.4%. What do you think we can learn from each of these figures about long-term economic growth in the UK?
- What do you understand to be the difference between short-term and long-run economic growth? Where, in the commentary above, is there reference to short-term growth?
With an election approaching, there is much debate about recovery and cuts and about the relationships between the two. Will rapid cuts stimulate confidence in the UK by business and bankers and thereby stimulate investment and recovery, or will they drive the economy back into recession? The debate is not just between politicians vying for your vote; economists too are debating the issue. Many are taking to letter writing.
In the February 2010 news blog, A clash of ideas – what to do about the deficit, we considered three letters written by economists (linked to again below). There has now been a fourth – and doubtless not the last. This latest letter, in the wake of the Budget and the debates about the speed of the cuts, takes a Keynesian line and looks at the sustainability of the recovery – including social and environmental sustainability. It is signed by 34 people, mainly economists.
Letter: Better routes to economic recovery Guardian (27/3/10)
Letter: UK economy cries out for credible rescue plan Sunday Times, 20 economists (14/2/10)
Letter: First priority must be to restore robust growth Financial Times, Lord Skidelsky and others (18/2/10)
Letter: Sharp shock now would be dangerous Financial Times, Lord Layard and others (18/2/10)
Questions
- Summarise the arguments for making rapid cuts in the deficit.
- Summarise the arguments for making gradual cuts in the deficit in line with the recovery in private-sector demand.
- Under what conditions would the current high deficit crowd out private expenditure?
- What do you understand by a ‘Green New Deal’? How realistic is such a New Deal and would there be any downsides?
- Is the disagreement between the economists the result of (a) different analysis, (b) different objectives or (c) different interpretation of forecasts of the robustness of the recovery and how markets are likely to respond to alternative policies? Or is it a combination of two of them or all three? Explain your answer.
- Why is the effect of the recession on the supply-side of the economy crucial in determining the sustainability of a demand-led recovery?