In 2010/11, government funding for UK universities will be 7 per cent less (£518m) than in 2009/10. This has led to calls for substantial increases in student fees in order to stave off a serious funding crisis for many universities. One such call has come from David Blanchflower. As the first article below states:
“A leading economist has called for students from well-off families to be charged the ‘market rate’ of up to £30,000 a year to go to university. David ‘Danny’ Blanchflower, a former member of the Bank of England’s monetary policy committee, said the “poor have been subsidising the rich” for too many years.”
But just what are the arguments for and against a substantial rise in fees and who should pay any rise in fees? Should it be only students of very well-off parents or should it include middle-income parents too? Or if student loans are available to cover higher fees, why should not the same fees apply to all students? Then there is the question of who benefits from a university education? How much should external benefits be taken into account?
Call for universities to charge well-off students £30,000 a year Observer, Anushka Asthana and Ian Tucker (27/12/09)
A rise in fees would make university education fairer Observer (27/12/09)
Who wants a two-year degree? Independent on Sunday, Richard Garner (27/12/09)
Briefing: University funding Sunday Times, Georgia Warren (27/12/09)
Universities face £500m cut in funding Financial Times, Nicholas Timmins (22/12/09)
The nightmare before Christmas: grant letter announces £135m cut Times Higher Education, John Morgan (27/12/09)
Fast-track degrees proposed to cut higher education costs Guardian, Polly Curtis (22/12/09)
Questions
- Why is the government planning to make substantial cuts to university funding?
- What are the arguments for and against the university sector bearing a larger percentage cut than most other areas of government expenditure?
- Should any rise in fees be born by parents or by students from future income?
- Identify the external benefits from higher education? How does the existence of such externalities affect the arguments about the appropriate charges for higher education?
- What are the economic arguments for and against moving towards more two-year degrees.
- Discuss the case for and against increasing the participation rate in higher education to 50 per cent of young people.
- Is higher education a ‘merit good’ and, if so, what are the implications for charging for higher education?
Well no-one can say that Gordon Brown has had an easy ride: the war in Iraq, MPs’ expenses, flooding, strikes, unemployment, and of course a recession. Will the banking crisis and its knock-on effects prove to be the straw that broke the camel’s back? Only time will tell.
The UK economy will be voting within the next few months and the elected party will play a crucial role in our economic recovery. Public debt reached £829.7 billion at the end of October (59.2% of GDP) and with falling tax revenue and rising government spending, it could get considerably higher. “State borrowing grew by £16.1 billion last month (August) – almost twice the entire budget for the 2012 Olympics.”
The outcome of the election will not only play a role in determining how the UK fares over the next few years in terms of our economic recovery, but it will also indicate the likely direction that policy will take towards areas such as education, healthcare, poverty, pensions, etc. The housing market is also likely to be significantly affected and not just by the election. With the end of the stamp duty holiday approaching, demand for housing may begin to fall in the new year, which could spell a fall in house prices.
No matter what happens, it will be interesting to see the direction of government policy over the next few years, given the spending cuts we are likely to experience.
Public debt hits £800 billion – the highest on record Times Online, Patrick Hosking (19/9/09)
Labour polls fuel talk of early election date Mirror News, James Lyons (14/12/09)
Pre-election politics dictate the Bank of England’s economic policy The Independent, Stephen King (14/12/09)
David Cameron and Labour ready for ‘snap election’ BBC News (13/12/09)
So who said what to whom? The truth about the cuts debate Independent, Steve Richards (15/12/09)
Is UK government debt really that high? BBC News, Richard Anderson (22/12/09)
For data on public-sector finances, see:
Public Sector National Statistics Office for National Statistics
For a lighthearted look at the relationship between elections and the economy (in the context of the Philippines), see:
Election and other economic boosters Manilla Bulletin Publishing Corporation, Fred Lobo (14/12/09)
Questions
- How are economics and politics related? Think about how the up-coming election is likely to affect government policy and why.
- What are the main economic policies proposed by the Labour government? How do these aim to help the UK economy recover?
- What are the main economic policies proposed by the Conservative government? Will these policies be any more effective than Labour’s?
- The Conservative party is ahead in the polls at the moment: why do you think this is? To what extent has Labour’s popularity been affected by the way the government has dealt with the banking crisis?
There has been much in the news recently about the attempts of governments around the world to tackle two problems: (a) soaring deficits and debt and (b) a slow recovery and a possible slide back into recession. As the previous news item, Over stimulation? Trying to prevent a double dip as Japan’s debt soars, reported, Japan’s approach has been to tackle the second problem first and to give a massive fiscal boost to the economy. Its debt can be tackled later as the economy, hopefully, recovers.
The Irish government, by contrast, in its Budget on 9 December announced sweeping cuts in government expenditure. This included substantial pay cuts for public-sector employees. Getting the public-sector deficit down (projected to be 11.6% of GDP in 2010) was the government’s major priority.
Greece too is under tremendous pressure to cut its public-sector deficit and debt. Forecast to be 125% of GDP in 2010, its public-sector debt is the highest in the eurozone. There are serious worries as to whether Greece will be able to fund the debt.
Meanwhile in the UK, Alistair Darling presented the government’s pre-Budget report. This took a mid-course between the two objectives. He announced modest increases in tax, including a 1% increase in national insurance contributions from 2010, and modest increases in benefits. The overall effect was pretty neutral, leaving the projected public-sector deficit at around 12.6% of GDP in 2010/11, hopefully falling to around 4.4% by 2014/15 as economic growth increases tax revenues. So was this the best compromise: not too tough so as to stifle recovery and not too expansionary so as to cause a soaring of debt and difficulty in funding the necessary borrowing?
So what is the correct balance? Are the situations very different in the four countries or have they merely chosen to prioritise them differently? Should countries make cuts early in order to get their deficits down and avoid a collapse in confidence, but risk falling back into recession? Or should they get growth firmly established before tightening fiscal policy? The following articles look at the issues.
The UK
Key points: The pre-Budget report at-a-glance BBC News (9/12/09)
Alistair Darling to borrow more this year (including video) BBC News (9/12/09)
Walking the line BBC News, Stephanomics, Stephanie Flanders’ blog (10/12/09)
Larry Elliott’s analysis on the pre-budget report (video) Guardian, Larry Elliott and Mustafa Khalili (9/12/09)
Pre-budget report: All boxed in Guardian (10/12/09)
Tax and mend Economist (9/12/09)
Darling defends economic forecasts (including video) Financial Times, Chris Giles and George Parker (9/12/09)
Prevarication and Newspeak will not fix our finances Financial Times, Willem Buiter (9/12/09)
Is UK government debt really that high? BBC News, Richard Anderson (22/12/09)
The measures announced in the pre-Budget report along with a video of the speech, press releases and the full report as a PDF document can be found at the Treasury’s Pre-Budget Report 2009 site.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has a part of its site dedicated to the pre-Budget report. This contains briefings and analysis. See Pre-Budget Report 2009
Greece
Why Greece Could Be the Next Dubai Time, Adam Smith (9/12/09)
Greece’s debt crisis signals problems for the European Central Bank Guardian, Nils Pratley (8/12/09)
Greek stocks fall 6% on fears over the country’s debt BBC News (8/12/09)
Greek stocks fall 6% on fears over the country’s debt (video) BBC News (8/12/09)
Greece threatens bankruptcy, and the eurozone The Atlantic, Megan McArdle (8/12/09)
Greece Struggles to Stay Afloat as Debts Pile On New York Times, Rachel Donadio and Niki Kitsantonis (11/12/09)
Greece ‘worthy’ of eurozone place BBC News (14/12/09)
Greek PM to unveil steps to allay deficit fears Forbes, Dina Kyriakidou (14/12/09)
Default lines The Economist (3/12/09)
Greeks denying gifts BBC News blogs, Stephanomics, Stephanie Flanders (29/1/10)
Davos 2010: Greece denies a bail-out is needed BBC News (28/1/10)
Ireland
Ireland suffers harshest budget in decades Financial Times, John Murray Brown (9/12/09)
Strong medicine fails to soothe Irish Financial Times, John Murray Brown (9/12/09)
Irish Wince as a Budget Proposal Cuts to the Bone New York Times, Sarah Lyall (9/12/09)
A time to grin and bear it Irish Times (10/12/09)
Germany
German government heads for record debt BBC News (29/12/09)
German minister warns of fiscal crackdown Financial Times, Bertrand Benoit (17/12/09)
Goverment’s draft budget includes record debt levels Deutsche Welle (16/12/09)
General
The banking crisis: Till debt us do part Times Online, David Smith and Jenny Davey (13/12/09)
Sovereign debt burdens keep traders on red alert Fiinancial Times, David Oakley (12/12/09)
Questions
- Are the objectives of tackling recession and getting the public-sector deficit and debt down contradictory aims, or is it merely a question of sequencing?
- To what extent are the situations in the UK, Japan and Ireland similar? Should they be following similar macroeconomic policies?
- Why does it matter if a country has a rising public-sector debt as a proportion of GDP?
- Distinguish between a cyclical deficit and a structural deficit. Why has the UK’s structural deficit got worse? Will it fall as the economy recovers, or will it be only the cyclical deficit that falls?
- Why does Greece’s debt crisis signal problems for the European Central Bank?
- What determines a country’s sovereign credit rating?
Latest figures suggest that Japan could be entering a ‘double-dip’ or ‘W-shaped’ recession. In the second quarter of 2009, Japan managed to achieve a modest 0.9% growth after four quarters of contraction. Growth then accelerated to 1.2% in the third quarter. It now seems likely, however, that the fourth quarter could see a contraction of the economy again – or at best a slow-down in growth. Prices are falling as demand remains stagnant, and this deflation could encourage people to hold back from spending as they wait for prices to fall further.
As the British government announces planned spending cuts to tackle the rapidly mounting public-sector deficit and debt, so Japan has just announced a massive further fiscal stimulus of ¥7.2 trillion (£50 billion) or 1.5% of GDP. Although Japan’s public-sector deficit is no longer the highest of the G7 countries – 7.4% of GDP, compared with 12.6% for the UK, 11.4% for the USA and 8.2% for France (see OECD Economic Outlook November 2009, summary of projections – its debt, currently at 190% of GDP, is by far the highest of the G7 countries (this compares with 115% for Italy, 76% for France, 73% for Germany, 69% for the UK and 65% for the USA).
More than half of the fiscal stimulus will go on increases in government expenditure, especially on public works. However, much of the spending is in the form of a transfer to regional governments, which would otherwise be forced to make spending cuts because of falling tax revenues. So is the stimulus too much, too little, or of little relevance? Read the linked articles below, which consider the issues.
Japan growth estimate slashed Sydney Morning Herald (9/12/09)
Double dip could be taking shape for Japanese economy Market Watch, Lisa Twaronite (9/12/09)
Japan to boost recovery with giant stimulus plan Sydney Morning Herald, Kyoko Hasegawa (8/12/09)
Japan steps up stimulus spending Sydney Morning Herald (8/12/09)
Japan public debt to hit record this fiscal year AsiaOne News (Singapore) (8/12/09)
Japan govt unveils $81 bln economic stimulus Economic Times of India (8/12/09)
Japan’s economic growth figure lowered BBC News (9/12/09)
Japan agrees $81bn stimulus package BBC News (8/12/09)
Japan unveils $80bn of direct spending in $274bn stimulus package Telegraph (8/12/09)
It is Japan we should be worrying about, not America Telegraph (1/11/09)
Japan keeps pouring money into its ailing economy Times Online, Leo Lewis (9/12/09)
Japan’s Leader Promotes $81 Billion Stimulus Plan New York Times, Hiroko Tabuchi (8/12/09)
Japan sets out $81bn stimulus plan Financial Times, Mure Dickie (8/12/09)
Fiscal challenges ahead The Asahi Shimbun (Japan) (8/12/09)
Bond jitters as Japan launches yet another stimulus plan Telegraph, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard (8/12/09)
New Stimulus Won’t Save Japan From Deflation, Soaring Deficit Money Morning, Jason Simpkins (8/12/09)
Questions
- Use the threshold concepts of stocks and flows to explain the difference between public-sector deficits and public-sector debt.
- Why might an economy go into a ‘double-dip’ or ‘W-shaped’ recession?
- For what reasons might this latest stimulus package be regarded as (a) too large and (b) too small to tackle Japan’s macroeconomic problems?
- Discuss the proposed policy of banning firms from hiring temporary workers.
- Why does deflation (in the sense of falling prices) create a problem for governments?
- What are the implications for the market for Japanese government bonds of the latest stimulus package?
Life must be very hard for bankers in the UK. Not only are they being partly blamed for the current financial crisis, but they may now have to survive on just their salary. Imagine trying to have a happy Christmas when you’ve only earned £200,000 over the past year: it really will be a cold and hard Christmas for them. Unless of course, the government does call the bluff of the RBS directors who have threatened to quit if an estimated £1.5bn bonus pool for staff at the investment arm of the bank is blocked. Let’s not forget that RBS is largely owned by the public: 70% or an investment of £53.5bn. It’s our taxes that will be used to pay these bonuses giving 20,000 RBS bankers a salary that is at least 3 times greater than the national average.
RBS directors have threatened a mass walkout if the government does withhold the ‘competitive bonus package’. Given that many blame bank directors for plunging us into the credit crunch, some may laugh at their argument that if the bonus package is withheld, then ‘top talent will leave the bank’. However, it is a serious threat: pay out or we leave and you’ll see the profitability of the bank decline, making it less likely that taxpayers will see a ‘return’ on their investment. RBS needs to make profits to repay the taxpayer, but is the taxpayer willing to pay out? RBS directors argue that if its bankers do not receive bonuses, then RBS will lose out in recruiting the best talent. Why would a banker choose to work for a bank that doesn’t pay out bonuses?
Lord Mandelson said: “I understand the point that RBS directors are expressing – they say they have to remain competitive in the market in recruiting senior executives, and this is why it’s important that all the banks are equally restrained, and RBS is not singled out.” One solution here would be a one-off windfall tax on bonuses, or even a permanently higher rate of tax (a ‘supertax’) on bonuses.
Over the past year or so, not a day has gone by when banks are not in the news and the next few days look to be no exception. This is another issue that affects everyone, so read the articles below and make up your mind! The government has an important decision to make, especially given than it’s the taxpayers who will decide on the next government.
‘Bankers need to join the real world’ minister says BBC News (3/12/09)
UK seeks to calm fears of RBS walk-out over bonuses Reuters, (3/12/09)
RBS chief Stephen Hester set to walkout over bonus row Scotsman, Nathalie Thomas (3/12/09)
RBS directors threaten to quit over bonuses Big On News (3/12/09)
Thousands of Bankers paid £1m in bonuses Sky News (3/11/09)
Barclays bankers to get 150pc pay rise Telegraph, Jonathan Sibun and Philip Aldrick (3/12/09)
PM reacts to RBS Director’s threat ITN (3/12/09)
Banks criticise plans for windfall tax on bonuses BBC News (7/12/09)
Will biffing bankers also biff Britain? BBC News, Peston’s Picks, Robert Peston (3/12/09)
Roger Bootle: Bank reform hasn’t gone far enough (video) BBC News (25/12/09)
Questions
- How are wages determined in the labour market? Use a diagram to illustrate this.
- Why do bankers receive such a high salary? (Think about elasticity.)
- What are the main arguments for paying out bonuses to bankers?
- If bonuses were blocked, and the RBS directors did walk out, what do you think would be the likely repercussions? Who would suffer?
- One argument for paying bonuses is that bankers need an incentive. Excluding monetary benefits, are there any other methods that could be used to increase their productivity?
- When we consider the labour market, we look at economic power. Who do you think has the power in this case and what do you think will be the outcome?