Stop worrying about inflation

It will go away but the danger of deflation remains.

It still looks a little early to me for the majority to swing and it would bring down a torrent of criticism on the Bank's head. But if not this week, then May, when the Bank will have the benefit of first-quarter GDP figures as well as other data, is beginning to look like a racing certainty.

A rate increase in May, when the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee produces its next inflation report, is looking like a given, says David Smith* in the above quote from his Sunday Times column (£).

For that to happen, there would have to be a major turnaround in the economy, which does not look likely, to say the least. The problem is that consumer and business confidence has collapsed, net trade is still negative, unemployment is rising, youth unemployment is on course to hit the million mark along with falling house prices and growth was negative in the fourth quarter.

I agree with Smith, though, that there will not be a rate increase this week.

With the economy in its current state, such a move would be a disaster and would likely have to be quickly reversed, perhaps even by the Chancellor with his powers under the Bank of England Act. Far from enhancing the MPC's inflation-fighting credibility, as the MPC members Martin Weale and Andrew Sentance have claimed, there is every possibility that such a move would be a death sentence for the MPC.

Keeping rates down as low as possible and hoping and praying and crossing all of his fingers and his toes that the MPC will do more quantative easing is Osborne's only plan B. A rate increase would mean he -- and probably the coalition -- would be finished. (May, by the way, is Sentance's last meeting and Osborne is unlikely to renew him or replace him with another hawk.)

The Bank of England governor, Mervyn King, has it right. The MPC needs to focus on the inflation that it is able to impact. Contrary to what Sentance has been foolishly claiming for months, inflation today or next week or in six months time is completely irrelevant for this week's MPC decision because it takes interest-rate adjustments about 18 months to feed their way through. The current inflation forecast of the MPC is overly optimistic and may well get revised down this month in light of the bad GDP numbers. Even with that forecast, inflation is well below target. Any rate increase would, in all likelihood, push the economy to deflation. The MPC's new inflation forecast, out next week, will show that inflation will be below target at the forecast horizon.

I have considerable sympathy with Professors Arestis and Sawyer, who argued, in a letter to the Financial Times last week, that the inflation we are experiencing has not been caused by excessive demand and that it would be nonsensical to reduce demand to "solve" it. They wrote: "It has long been recognised that, at best, interest rates by pushing down demand could address demand-push inflation and that they would be helpless in the face of cost-push inflation. At the present time, demand is still low in the UK and clearly significantly below capacity. The pressures on inflation are coming from higher world oil and food prices, value added tax and other tax increases and delayed effects of depreciated exchange rate. It is then clear that raising interest rates has no role to play in bringing down inflation." "No role" may be a bit strong but they make a good point.

I would go one step further and argue that the whole idea of targeting CPI inflation has failed. At the very least, the MPC's mandate should be extended to include growth and employment. The inflation measure should include house prices or could just simply be raised to 4 per cent. As I have said many times, happiness research shows that unemployment hurts people much more than inflation, especially now.

Inflation is going to collapse in 2012 when the impact of the one-off increase in VAT, oil and commodity prices and the exchange-rate depreciation mechanically drop out of the inflation calculations. As Mervyn noted in his recent speech, these three items alone account for 3 per cent of the current 3.7 per cent CPI inflation rate.

Inflation is going to go away because of the big output gap in the economy, simple as that. The danger of deflation, however, remains. Unemployment is rising and unless things improve quickly, any increase in rates would send the economy into a downward spiral as the effects of the VAT increase and spending cuts hit home. In all likelihood, Adam Posen is going to prevail and, by the summer, the MPC will be forced to do more QE. David Smith's racing certainty is likely to fall at the first fence.

*By the way, David, what ever happened to your building skip index? Presumably there aren't many around since the house price crash and the lack of availability of credit.

David Blanchflower is economics editor of the New Statesman and professor of economics at Dartmouth College, New Hampshire

Show Hide image

Calum Kerr on Governing the Digital Economy

With the publication of the UK Digital Strategy we’ve seen another instalment in the UK Government’s ongoing effort to emphasise its digital credentials.

As the SNP’s Digital Spokesperson, there are moves here that are clearly welcome, especially in the area of skills and a recognition of the need for large scale investment in fibre infrastructure.

But for a government that wants Britain to become the “leading country for people to use digital” it should be doing far more to lead on the field that underpins so much of a prosperous digital economy: personal data.

If you want a picture of how government should not approach personal data, just look at the Concentrix scandal.

Last year my constituency office, like countless others across the country, was inundated by cases from distressed Tax Credit claimants, who found their payments had been stopped for spurious reasons.

This scandal had its roots in the UK’s current patchwork approach to personal data. As a private contractor, Concentrix had bought data on a commercial basis and then used it to try and find undeclared partners living with claimants.

In one particularly absurd case, a woman who lived in housing provided by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation had to resort to using a foodbank during the appeals process in order to prove that she did not live with Joseph Rowntree: the Quaker philanthropist who died in 1925.

In total some 45,000 claimants were affected and 86 per cent of the resulting appeals saw the initial decision overturned.

This shows just how badly things can go wrong if the right regulatory regimes are not in place.

In part this problem is a structural one. Just as the corporate world has elevated IT to board level and is beginning to re-configure the interface between digital skills and the wider workforce, government needs to emulate practices that put technology and innovation right at the heart of the operation.

To fully leverage the benefits of tech in government and to get a world-class data regime in place, we need to establish a set of foundational values about data rights and citizenship.

Sitting on the committee of the Digital Economy Bill, I couldn’t help but notice how the elements relating to data sharing, including with private companies, were rushed through.

The lack of informed consent within the Bill will almost certainly have to be looked at again as the Government moves towards implementing the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation.

This is an example of why we need democratic oversight and an open conversation, starting from first principles, about how a citizen’s data can be accessed.

Personally, I’d like Scotland and the UK to follow the example of the Republic of Estonia, by placing transparency and the rights of the citizen at the heart of the matter, so that anyone can access the data the government holds on them with ease.

This contrasts with the mentality exposed by the Concentrix scandal: all too often people who come into contact with the state are treated as service users or customers, rather than as citizens.

This paternalistic approach needs to change.  As we begin to move towards the transformative implementation of the internet of things and 5G, trust will be paramount.

Once we have that foundation, we can start to grapple with some of the most pressing and fascinating questions that the information age presents.

We’ll need that trust if we want smart cities that make urban living sustainable using big data, if the potential of AI is to be truly tapped into and if the benefits of digital healthcare are really going to be maximised.

Clearly getting accepted ethical codes of practice in place is of immense significance, but there’s a whole lot more that government could be doing to be proactive in this space.

Last month Denmark appointed the world’s first Digital Ambassador and I think there is a compelling case for an independent Department of Technology working across all government departments.

This kind of levelling-up really needs to be seen as a necessity, because one thing that we can all agree on is that that we’ve only just scratched the surface when it comes to developing the link between government and the data driven digital economy. 

In January, Hewlett Packard Enterprise and the New Statesman convened a discussion on this topic with parliamentarians from each of the three main political parties and other experts.  This article is one of a series from three of the MPs who took part, with an  introduction from James Johns of HPE, Labour MP, Angela Eagle’s view and Conservative MP, Matt Warman’s view

Calum Kerr is SNP Westminster Spokesperson for Digital