The debts of many countries in the eurozone are becoming increasingly difficult to service. With negative growth in some countries (Greece’s GDP is set to decline by over 5% this year) and falling growth rates in others, the outlook is becoming worse: tax revenues are likely to fall and benefit payments are likely to increase as automatic fiscal stabilisers take effect. In the light of these difficulties, market rates of interest on sovereign debt in these countries have been increasing.
Talk of default has got louder. If Greece cannot service its public-sector debt, currently standing at around 150% of GDP (way above the 60% ceiling set in the Stability and Growth Pact), then simply lending it more will merely delay the problem. Ultimately, if it cannot grow its way out of the debt, then either it must receive a fiscal transfer from the rest of the eurozone, or part of its debts must be cancelled or radically rescheduled.
But Greece is a small country, and relative to the size of the whole eurozone’s GDP, its debt is tiny. Italy is another matter. It’s public-sector debt to GDP ratio, at around 120% is lower than Greece’s, but the level of debt is much higher: $2 trillion compared with Greece’s $480 billion. Increasingly banks are becoming worried about their exposure to Italian debt – both public- and private-sector debt.
As we saw in the news item “The brutal face of supply and demand”, stock markets have been plummeting because of the growing fears about debts in the eurozone. And these fears have been particularly focused on banks with high levels of exposure to these debts. French banks are particularly vulnerable. Indeed, Credit Agricole and Société Générale, France’s second and third largest banks, had their creidit ratings cut by Moody’s rating agency. They have both seen their share prices fall dramatically this year: 46% and 55% respectively.
Central banks have been becoming increasingly concerned that the sovereign debt crisis in various eurozone countries will turn into a new banking crisis. In an attempt to calm markets and help ease the problem for banks, five central banks – the Federal Reserve, the ECB, the Bank of England, the Bank of Japan and the Swiss National Bank – announced on 15 September that they would co-operate to offer three-month US dollar loans to commercial banks. They would provide as much liquidity as was necessary to ease any funding difficulties.
The effect of this action calmed the markets and share prices in Europe and around the world rose substantially. But was this enough to stave off a new banking crisis? And did it do anything to ease the sovereign debt crisis and the problems of the eurozone? The following articles explore these questions.
Articles
Central banks expand dollar operations Reuters, Sakari Suoninen and Marc Jones (15/9/11)
Europe’s debt crisis prompts central banks to provide dollar liquidity Guardian, Larry Elliott and Dominic Rushe (15/9/11)
From euro zone to battle zone Sydney Morning Herald, Michael Evans (17/9/11)
Global shares rise on central banks’ loan move BBC News (16/9/11)
Geithner warns EU against infighting over Greece BBC News (16/9/11)
How The European Debt Crisis Could Spread npr (USA), Marilyn Geewax (15/9/11)
No Marshall Plan for Europe National Post (Canada) (16/9/11)
Central banks act to help Europe lenders Financial Times, Ralph Atkins, Richard Milne and Alex Barker (15/9/11)
Central Banks Seeking Quick Fix Push Dollar Cost to August Lows Bloomberg Businesweek, John Glover and Ben Martin (15/9/11)
Central banks act to provide euro zone dollar liquidity Irish Times (15/9/11)
Central banks pump money into market: what the analysts say The Telegraph (15/9/11)
Central banks and the ‘spirit of 2008’ BBC News, Stephanie Flanders (15/9/11)
Central Bank statements
News Release: Additional US dollar liquidity-providing operations over year-end Bank of England (15/9/11)
Press Release: ECB announces additional US dollar liquidity-providing operations over year-end ECB (15/9/11)
Additional schedule for U.S. Dollar Funds-Supplying Operations Bank of Japan (15/9/11)
Central banks to extend provision of US dollar liquidity Swiss National Bank (15/9/11)
Questions
- Explain what is meant by debt servicing.
- How may the concerted actions of the five central banks help the banking sector?
- Distinguish between liquidity and capital. Is supplying extra liquidity a suitable means of coping with the difficulties of countries in servicing their debts?
- If Greece cannot service its debts, what options are open to (a) Greece itself; (b) international institutions and governments?
- In what ways are the eurozone countries collectively in a better economic and financial state than the USA?
- Is the best solution to the eurozone crisis to achieve greater fiscal harmonisation?
- What are the weaknesses of the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) as currently constituted? Should it be turned into a bank or special credit institution taking the role of a ‘European Monetary Fund’?
- Should countries in the eurozone be able to issue eurobonds?
Cutting the budget deficit is a key government objective, but at the moment it seems to be in conflict with another objective, namely economic growth and thereby avoiding a double-dip recession. In order to raise tax revenue and meet the cries for more equity, the 50% tax rate above £150,000 was imposed, affecting some 310,000 people. However, in a recent letter from some top economists to the Financial Times, they called for the scrapping of the top rate of tax. They argue that it is hindering entrepreneurship and encouraging potential top rate tax payers to leave the UK, thereby hindering the economic situation. George Osborne has asked HMRC to evaluate just how effective the top rate of tax has been at generating government revenue.
In contrast to these calls for scrapping this top rate of tax, some of the richest people in the world have said that they would be happy to pay this rate of tax. In the words of Sir Stuart Rose, the ex-boss of Marks and Spencer:
“How would I explain to my secretary that I would pay less tax on my income, which is palpably bigger than hers, when her tax is not going down.”
Those against scrapping the tax argue that it will be ‘monstrously unfair’ and ‘phenomenally immoral’. This, combined with official figure that suggest by 2015/16 the top rate tax will bring in an extra £3.2bn more revenue than had the tax remained at 40%, certainly adds weight to their argument. In total, over the five year period, it is predicted to bring in an extra £12.6bn.
The policy to increase the tax threshold to £10,000 will meet with the critics’ approval, but less so, if it is accompanied by a scrapping of this top rate tax. Furthermore, the government’s coffers will take a significant beating if both of the above occur!
Another option to replace the 50% tax rate is a higher tax on high value homes – the so-called ‘mansion tax’. Whatever happens with taxation, one thing is clear: the government needs to find a way to generate tax revenue, without putting the economy back into recession. If the 50% tax rate encourages people to leave the UK to avoid the tax or to forego entrepreneurship, it will directly be acting as a disincentive. Fewer jobs will be created due to a lack of entrepreneurship, output may be lower and hence growth will not reach its potential. Crucially, the international competitiveness of the UK economy is being badly affected, as it becomes a less attractive place for investment and talented workers. The following articles consider the 50% tax rate and the controversy surrounding it, despite it only being a temporary policy.
Stuart Rose ‘would pay more tax’ BBC News (9/9/11)
Lawson: ‘dangerous’ and ‘foolish’ to keep 50p tax rate Telegraph, Louisa Peacock (10/9/11)
Rose calls 50p tax rate ‘only fair’ Financial Times, Elizabeth Rigby (9/9/11)
Top 50p tax rate damages economy, say economists BBC News (7/9/11)
George Osborne loses nerve on plan to cut 50p top tax rate Independent, Nigel Morris (8/9/11)
Top tax rate will raise £12.6bn more in revenue, official figures reveal Guardian, Polly Curtis (7/9/11)
Laffer curves and the logic of the 50p tax Financial Times, Tim Harford (9/9/11)
Row over ending of 50p tax rate threatens to spark Tory rebellion Guardian, Patrick Wintour and Polly Curtis (7/9/11)
I’d happily pay more tax, says former M&S boss Sir Stuart Rose Independent, Andy McSmith (10/9/11)
Questions
- What are the main arguments in favour of keeping the 50p tax rate?
- What are the main arguments in favour of scrapping the 50p tax rate?
- What does the Laffer curve show? Is it relevant in the case of the 50p top rate of tax? What does it suggest about the ability of the tax to generate income?
- How does the top rate of tax affect the international competitiveness of the UK economy?
- Why is there a trade-off between raising tax revenue and boosting economic growth through the use of the 50p tax rate?
- Why is there concern about the highest rate of tax actually causing tax revenue to fall?
- What are the equity arguments concerning the scrapping of the 50p tax and raising the tax threshold? Is there an equity argument in favour of the 50p tax rate?
The Brazilian economy is an emerging superpower (see A tale of two cities), but even its growth slowed in the second quarter of the year, although the economy still appears to be growing above capacity. In reaction to that latest economic data, the central bank slashed interest rates by 50 basis points to 12%. The Central Bank said:
‘Reviewing the international scenario, the monetary policy committee considers that there has been a substantial deterioration, backed up, for example, by large and widespread reductions to the growth forecasts of the main economic regions.’
Rates had previously been hiked up 5 times in the year to tackle rising inflation, which has been some way above its inflation target. Such tightening policies have become commonplace in many emerging economies to prevent overheating. However, following this reversal of policy, questions have been raised about the independence of the central bank, as some politicians have recently been calling for a cut in rates, including President Rousseff himself. As Tony Volpon at Nomura Securities said:
‘They gave in to political pressure. The costs will likely be much higher inflation and a deterioration of central bank credibility…It has damaged the inflation-targeting regime.’
Many believe the rate cut is premature and the last thing the economy needs given the inflationary pressures it’s been facing. Huge spending cuts have been announced to bring inflation back under control, together with the previous rate rises, so this cut in interest rates to stimulate growth is likely to put more pressure on costs and prices. Only time will tell exactly how effective or problematic this new direction of monetary policy will be.
Brazil’s growth slows despite resilient consumers Reuters, Brian Ellsworth and Brad Haynes (2/9/11)
Brail in surprise interest rate cut to 12% BBC News (1/9/11)
Rousseffl’s ‘Risky’ rate cut means boosting Brazil GDP outweighs inflation Bloomberg, Arnaldo Galvao and Alexander Ragir (2/9/11)
Brazil makes unexpected interest rate cut Financial Times, Samantha Pearson (1/9/11)
Brazil rate cut stirs inflation, political concerns Reuters (1/9/11)
Questions
- What is the relationship between the macroeconomic objectives of inflation and economic growth?
- Why are there concerns that the recent reduction in the interest rate may worsen inflation? Do you think that a decision has been made to sacrifice Brazil’s inflation-targeting regime to protect its economic growth?
- Why are there questions over the independence of the central bank and how will this affect its credibility? What are the arguments for central bank independence?
- Growth in Brazil, although lower this year, still remains very strong. Why has the Brazilian economy been able to continue its strong growth, despite worsening economic conditions worldwide?
- What type of inflation are emerging economies experiencing? Explain how continuous hikes in interest rates have aimed to bring it back under control.
- What is meant by overheating? How will the central bank’s past and current policies contribute towards it?
I found myself singing this morning which I have to admit is not the most pleasant experience for those in ear-shot. I was singing to the tune of ‘love is all around us’. But rather than the words of the song performed by the Troggs in the late 1960s and by Wet Wet Wet in the 1990s, I found myself singing ‘debt is all around us’. It could easily have been the sub-conscious effect of the headlines relating to government debt (also known as national debt). But, actually it was the effect of having looked at my latest credit card statement and noting the impact that my summer holiday had had on my financial position! Relaxation, so it seems, doesn’t come cheap. With this in mind, I have just taken a look at the latest bank of England figures on British household debt. You can do the same by going to the Bank of England’s statistical release lending to individuals.
The latest figures reveal that at the end of June 2011 households in Britain had a stock of debt of £1.451 trillion. Now this is a big number – not far short of the economy’s annual Gross Domestic Product. But, interestingly, this is its lowest level in three years. Indeed, over the past twelve months the stock of household debt has fallen by £6 billion. This is the result of the sector’s repayment of unsecured debt, such as credit card debt and overdrafts. The stock of unsecured debt has fallen by £8.2 billion or 3.8% over the past year to stand at £209.7 billion.
The remaining £1.241 trillion of household debt is secured debt which is debt secured against property. The stock of secured debt has risen by £2.16 billion over the last 12 months, but this equates to a rise of less than 0.2%. In fact, further evidence from the Bank of England reveals that households are not only looking to reduce their exposure to unsecured debt but to pay off mortgage debt too. You might wonder how this might be occurring given that the stock of mortgage debt has risen, albeit only slightly. The answer lies in the growth of housing investment relative to that of mortgage debt. Housing investment relates, in the main, to the purchase of brand new homes and to major home improvements. As our population grows and the housing stock expands and as we spend money on improving our existing housing stock we acquire more mortgage debt. Bank of England figures show that housing investment has been greater than new secured lending. Consequently, the additions to the stock of lending have been less than housing investment. This gives rise to negative housing equity withdrawal, i.e. negative HEW.
The Bank of England estimates that in Q1 of 2011 there was an increase in housing equity of £5.8 billion. Negative housing equity withdrawal (HEW), an injection of housing equity, has occurred every quarter since Q2 2008. Since then, the UK household sector has injected some £63.7 billion of housing equity. The opportunity cost of this injection is that by increasing equity in property households are using money that could have been used for consumption or for purchasing financial assets. The extent of this negative HEW over the past 12 quarters has been the equivalent to 2.2% of disposable income.
While my credit card may have ballooned this month, it would appear that the household sector is looking to reduce its debt exposure. I will be looking to do likewise!
Articles
Housing injection goes on BBC News (4/7/11)
Personal insolvencies rise Independent, Philip Whiterow (5/8/11)
Mortgage boom as homeowners cash in an try reduce debts Independent, Simeon Read (5/7/11)
Homeowners inject £5.8 billion of equity into property in first quarter Telegraph, Emma Rowley (5/7/11)
Housing equity injection continues Guardian, Hilary Osborne (4/7/11)
Data
Lending to individuals statistical release Bank of England
Housing equity withdrawal (HEW) statistical release Bank of England
Questions
- Illustrate with examples what is meant by secured and unsecured debt.
- What factors might help to explain the longer-term growth in secured and unsecured debt over recent decades?
- What factors might help to explain the more recent patterns in secured and unsecured debt?
- What do you understand by the term housing equity withdrawal?
- What is meant by negative HEW?
- What factors might help to explain the negative HEW observed for the past twelve quarters?
- What implications might there be for economic growth of negative housing equity withdrawal (HEW)?
The quarter 2 UK GDP growth figures were published at the end of July. They show that real GDP grew by a mere 0.2% over the quarter, or 0.7% over 12 months. These low growth figures follow 2010Q4 and 2011Q1 growth rates of –0.5 and 0.5 respectively, giving an approximately zero growth over those six months. The recovery that seemed to be gathering pace in early 2010, now seems to have petered out, or at best slowed right down. According to an average of 27 forecasts, collated by the Treasury, GDP is expected to grow by just 1.3% in 2011 – below the potential rate of economic growth and thus resulting in a widening of the output gap.
With such a slow pace of recovery, current forecasts suggest that it will be 2013 before the economy returns to the pre-recession level of output: just over five years after the start of the recession in 2008. This chart from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research compares the current recession with previous ones and shows how the recovery is likely to be the slowest of the five recessions since the 1930s.
The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) in its latest Economic Forecast says that the economic outlook has become more challenging.
The intensification of euro area sovereign debt pressures has added to the downside risks facing the UK economy – although the agreement reached at the recent summit appears to represent an initial step towards resolving the issues.
Meanwhile the global economy is going through a soft patch, partly as a result of the previous surge in commodity prices, which has put pressure on household budgets and raised costs for businesses.
Against this backdrop confidence appears to have wilted somewhat.
The opposition blames the slow pace of recovery on the austerity measures imposed by the government. The depressing of aggregate demand by cutting government expenditure and raising taxes has depressed output growth. The problem has been compounded by a lack of consumer spending as real household incomes have been squeezed by inflation and as consumers fear impending tax rises and cuts in benefits. And export growth, which was hoped to lead the country’s recovery, has been hit by weak demand in Europe and elsewhere.
With weak growth, the danger is that automatic fiscal stabilisers (i.e. more people claiming benefits and lack of growth in tax revenues) will mean that the government deficit is not cut. This may then force the Chancellor into further austerity, which would compound the problem of low demand. The opposition has thus been calling for a (temporary) cut in VAT to stimulate the economy.
The government argues that rebalancing the budget is absolutely crucial to maintaining international confidence and Britain’s AAA rating by the credit rating agencies, Moody’s, Fitch and Standard and Poor’s (S&P). Any sign that the government is slacking in its resolve, could undermine this confidence. According to George Osborne, while other countries (including the USA and many eurozone countries) are facing a lot of instability, “Britain is a safe haven. We have convinced the world that we can deal with our debts, bring our deficit down, and that’s meant that interest rates, for British families, for British businesses, are lower than they would otherwise be; it means that our country’s credit rating has been affirmed … and it means that we have that crucial ingredient of any recovery – economic stability.”
What is more, the government claims that the essence of the UK’s problem of low growth lies on the supply side. The focus of growth policy, it maintains, should be on cutting red tape, improving efficiency and, ultimately, in reducing taxes.
What we are witnessing is a debate that echoes the Keynesian/new classical debates of the 1980s and earlier: a debate between those who blame the current problem on lack of aggregate demand and those who blame it on supply-side weaknesses, including weaknesses of the banking sector.
So what should be done? Is it time for a (modest) fiscal expansion, or at least a reining in of the fiscal tightening? Should the Bank of England embark on another round of quantitative easing (QE2)? Or does the solution lie on the supply side? Or should policy combine elements of both?
Articles
UK economy grows by 0.2% BBC News (26/7/11)
Economic growth stalls – and slump will carry on until 2013 Independent, Sean O’Grady (27/7/11)
GDP figures mean Britain will miss its economic growth targets Guardian, Julia Kollewe (26/7/11)
UK GDP figures show slower growth of 0.2% BBC News (26/7/11)
UK growth forecast looks unrealistic after GDP fall Independent, Sean O’Grady (27/7/11)
UK set for low growth as the mood ‘darkens’ Independent, Sean O’Grady (1/8/11)
No sign of a U-turn – but there may be a minor course change Scotsman, John McLaren (27/7/11)
George Osborne vows to stick with ‘plan A’ despite UK GDP growth slowdown The Telegraph, John McLaren (27/7/11)
Weak growth may force Chancellor into further austerity The Telegraph, Jeremy Warner (26/7/11)
UK households squeezed harder than US or Europe The Telegraph, Philip Aldrick, and Emma Rowley (30/7/11)
UK Government will have to act if growth remains weak, warns CBI The Telegraph, Philip Aldrick (1/8/11)
UK economy GDP figures: what the experts say Guardian, Claire French (26/7/11)
My plan B for the economy Guardian, Ed Balls, Ruth Lea, Jonathan Portes, Digby Jones and Stephanie Blankenburg (27/7/11)
Not much of a squeeze The Economist, Buttonwood’s notebook (26/7/11)
Some safe haven The Economist (30/7/11)
UK growth – anything to be done? BBC News, Stephanie Flanders (26/7/11)
IMF report on UK: main points The Telegraph, Sarah Rainey (2/8/11)
Families to be £1,500 a year worse off, IMF warns The Telegraph, Philip Aldrick (2/8/11)
IMF casts doubt on UK deficit plan, Financial Times, Chris Giles (1/8/11)
Data and reports
GDP Growth (reliminary estimate) ONS
Gross domestic product preliminary estimate: 2nd Quarter 2011 ONS (26/7/11)
World Economic Outlook Update IMF
OECD Economic Outlook No. 89 Annex Tables OECD (see Table 1)
United Kingdom: IMF Country Report No. 11/220 IMF (2/8/11)
Prospects for the UK economy National Institute of Economic and Social Research (3/8/11)
Questions
- What special ‘one-off’ factors help to explain why the underlying growth in 2011Q2 may have been higher than 0.2%?
- Why is the output gap rising? How may supply-side changes affect the size of the output gap?
- Why is the recovery from recession in the UK slower than in most other countries? Why is it slower than the recovery from previous recessions?
- How may automatic fiscal stabilisers affect (a) economic growth and (b) the size of the public-sector deficit if the output gap widens?
- Distinguish between demand-side and supply-side causes of the slow rate of economic growth in the UK.
- Compare the likely effectiveness of demand-side and supply-side policy measures to stimulate economic growth, referring to both magnitude and timing.
