Our over-reliance on imports is harming the recovery

It is new markets, not existing ones, that are key to securing long-term economic growth for the UK

For all the disagreement about how to fix the UK economy, there are a few truths about the roots of the present slump that most people accept. In the good years leading up to the crisis, Britain lived beyond its collective means, and built an economy that couldn’t last. Part of this excess was fuelled by cheap, irresponsible credit; part of it was built on the UK’s huge and long-standing trade gap. Since 1997, the UK has consistently imported far more than it exported, creating a serious imbalance that paved the way for the financial crash.

Our research, published today, provides new insights into how the UK economy became so unbalanced. Over the last 15 years, the UK has performed extremely poorly by not providing the products which consumers increasingly want to buy. Consumers appetites for certain products has proved insatiable; in 2009 we bought over eight times more consumer electronics and twice as much clothing as we did in 1997. The problem is that most of this growth was met through an increase in imports, and not domestic production.

Many observers see patterns such as these and assume they are driven by well-established economic arguments about international competitiveness, with the high cost of production in the UK preventing more manufacturing taking place here. Whilst this is undoubtedly true of some low cost products - clothing springs to mind - this line of reasoning often falls down, even for low-tech industries. Recent research showed that the UK now imports more than half of its bacon from the Netherlands and Denmark, where wages in meat processing are twice the level here. Even more concerning is our performance in high-tech sectors such as consumer electronics, where the high value of the goods produced tends to override cost concerns. The UK is an anomaly amongst other advanced economies in being extremely weak in these markets.

What is most worrying, however, is the sheer scale of this shift, and the fact that increases in our imports of consumer products have not been compensated by a large enough rise in exports. Take clothing, consumer electronics and vehicles. Together our poor trade performance in these product markets accounts for more than 40 per cent of our goods deficit. This suggests our difficulty in providing consumers with enough of the things they want to buy, even in just a few key markets, can and is acting as a large drag on the UK economy. We have some outstanding consumer facing businesses in the UK, such as Unilever and Dyson. The problem is we don’t have enough of them to reverse the persistent UK trade problem.

So what should the government be doing to put this right? Part of the response should be to try and increase exports of those things that we are good at, including business services like consultancy and architecture. But that will only take us so far - we also need a greater emphasis on trying to foster the emerging consumer markets of the future, and on making the UK a world leader in these areas. This isn’t just about inventing more technologies – it is about how we use them. The UK’s world-class science base is excellent at generating new ideas, but businesses need far more support to overcome the barriers they face in turning these technologies into high-growth markets.

Take 3D printing as an example. The ability to print personalised goods on demand has real potential for the UK economy in the future, but there are many state-controlled levers that need to be co-ordinated to make it actually work in real life. Without the right regulations to foster consumer and business confidence, without standards to make software and materials compatible with each other, without the necessary physical and electronic infrastructure, 3D printing will remain a niche market in the UK, and will probably take off in another country first. We need to get these things right, and quickly, if the UK wants to be a world-leader in 3D printing – and these principles will apply to many other emerging technologies over the next decade.

Policymakers already lay out and co-ordinate their long-term strategy for many established sectors. Just yesterday the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills published their strategic vision for UK aerospace, for instance. But we want to see this approach applied to those new and innovative markets that have the greatest potential for exports and domestic demand. We would argue that it is the new markets, not the existing ones, that are key to securing long-term economic growth for the UK.

A port in Hamburg. Britain must cut back on its import addiction, according to a new report from the Work Foundation. Photograph: Getty Images

Spencer Thompson is economic analyst at IPPR

Getty
Show Hide image

Find the EU renegotiation demands dull? Me too – but they are important

It's an old trick: smother anything in enough jargon and you can avoid being held accountable for it.

I don’t know about you, but I found the details of Britain’s European Union renegotiation demands quite hard to read. Literally. My eye kept gliding past them, in an endless quest for something more interesting in the paragraph ahead. It was as if the word “subsidiarity” had been smeared in grease. I haven’t felt tedium quite like this since I read The Lord of the Rings and found I slid straight past anything written in italics, reasoning that it was probably another interminable Elvish poem. (“The wind was in his flowing hair/The foam about him shone;/Afar they saw him strong and fair/Go riding like a swan.”)

Anyone who writes about politics encounters this; I call it Subclause Syndrome. Smother anything in enough jargon, whirr enough footnotes into the air, and you have a very effective shield for protecting yourself from accountability – better even than gutting the Freedom of Information laws, although the government seems quite keen on that, too. No wonder so much of our political conversation ends up being about personality: if we can’t hope to master all the technicalities, the next best thing is to trust the person to whom we have delegated that job.

Anyway, after 15 cups of coffee, three ice-bucket challenges and a bottle of poppers I borrowed from a Tory MP, I finally made it through. I didn’t feel much more enlightened, though, because there were notable omissions – no mention, thankfully, of rolling back employment protections – and elsewhere there was a touching faith in the power of adding “language” to official documents.

One thing did stand out, however. For months, we have been told that it is a terrible problem that migrants from Europe are sending child benefit to their families back home. In future, the amount that can be claimed will start at zero and it will reach full whack only after four years of working in Britain. Even better, to reduce the alleged “pull factor” of our generous in-work benefits regime, the child benefit rate will be paid on a ratio calculated according to average wages in the home country.

What a waste of time. At the moment, only £30m in child benefit is sent out of the country each year: quite a large sum if you’re doing a whip round for a retirement gift for a colleague, but basically a rounding error in the Department for Work and Pensions budget.

Only 20,000 workers, and 34,000 children, are involved. And yet, apparently, this makes it worth introducing 28 different rates of child benefit to be administered by the DWP. We are given to understand that Iain Duncan Smith thinks this is barmy – and this is a man optimistic enough about his department’s computer systems to predict in 2013 that 4.46 million people would be claiming Universal Credit by now*.

David Cameron’s renegotiation package was comprised exclusively of what Doctor Who fans call handwavium – a magic substance with no obvious physical attributes, which nonetheless helpfully advances the plot. In this case, the renegotiation covers up the fact that the Prime Minister always wanted to argue to stay in Europe, but needed a handy fig leaf to do so.

Brace yourself for a sentence you might not read again in the New Statesman, but this makes me feel sorry for Chris Grayling. He and other Outers in the cabinet have to wait at least two weeks for Cameron to get the demands signed off; all the while, Cameron can subtly make the case for staying in Europe, while they are bound to keep quiet because of collective responsibility.

When that stricture lifts, the high-ranking Eurosceptics will at last be free to make the case they have been sitting on for years. I have three strong beliefs about what will happen next. First, that everyone confidently predicting a paralysing civil war in the Tory ranks is doing so more in hope than expectation. Some on the left feel that if Labour is going to be divided over Trident, it is only fair that the Tories be split down the middle, too. They forget that power, and patronage, are strong solvents: there has already been much muttering about low-level blackmail from the high command, with MPs warned about the dire influence of disloyalty on their career prospects.

Second, the Europe campaign will feature large doses of both sides solemnly advising the other that they need to make “a positive case”. This will be roundly ignored. The Remain team will run a fear campaign based on job losses, access to the single market and “losing our seat at the table”; Leave will run a fear campaign based on the steady advance of whatever collective noun for migrants sounds just the right side of racist. (Current favourite: “hordes”.)

Third, the number of Britons making a decision based on a complete understanding of the renegotiation, and the future terms of our membership, will be vanishingly small. It is simply impossible to read about subsidiarity for more than an hour without lapsing into a coma.

Yet, funnily enough, this isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Just as the absurd complexity of policy frees us to talk instead about character, so the onset of Subclause Syndrome in the EU debate will allow us to ask ourselves a more profound, defining question: what kind of country do we want Britain to be? Polling suggests that very few of us see ourselves as “European” rather than Scottish, or British, but are we a country that feels open and looks outwards, or one that thinks this is the best it’s going to get, and we need to protect what we have? That’s more vital than any subclause. l

* For those of you keeping score at home, Universal Credit is now allegedly going to be implemented by 2021. Incidentally, George Osborne has recently discovered that it’s a great source of handwavium; tax credit cuts have been postponed because UC will render such huge savings that they aren’t needed.

Helen Lewis is deputy editor of the New Statesman. She has presented BBC Radio 4’s Week in Westminster and is a regular panellist on BBC1’s Sunday Politics.

This article first appeared in the 11 February 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The legacy of Europe's worst battle