George Osborne must ignore the siren calls – and take steps to raise potential growth

The CPS' Ryan Bourne gives its hitlist for the 2013 budget.

Over the past few weeks, we’ve heard from advocates of more government spending to attempt to stimulate the economy, advocates of shock-and-awe tax cuts to stimulate the economy, people suggesting the Government needs more interventionist long-term planning for the economy, and calls from back-bench Conservative MPs that this should be a‘cost-of-living’ budget.

Following more than £500 billion of deficit spending, £375 billion of QE, interest rates at their lowest level in the history of the Bank of England, a sharp fall in sterling, and with inflation continuously above target, it is difficult not to agree with Sir Mervyn King that most of our economic problems are structural. Years of a stagnant economy despite extraordinary monetary and fiscal policies suggest that in the wake of the crisis we are now suffering from a sustained fall in potential growth on unchanged supply-side policies – which, even if you do believe that stimulus spending policies work, cannot be solved by more short-term borrowing or money printing. Those convinced the economy just needs a kick-start to push it into a new equilibrium of self-sustaining recovery should look at Japan’s recent economic history.

Nor would increasing the structural deficit by borrowing significantly more for tax cuts be sensible. With public sector net borrowing still over 8% of GDP and debts already above the level known to permanently retard growth for two decades, adding to the deficit significantly, two years before the uncertainty of another general election, poses significant risks in bond markets (and even if we print to hold yields down, merely transfers to a problem for sterling).

The Budget then needs to recognise that the UK has a medium-term growth problem. It should therefore contain policies to raise our medium-term growth rate. This is the main insight which drives the 20 recommendations which we set out in Take the Long View, ahead of next week’s Budget. We suggest a three-pronged approach addressing fiscal strategy, supply-side reform and a robust pro-competition agenda in certain oligopolistic industries.

Support is waning for the Government’s fiscal agenda, but in truth cuts to investment expenditure and tax hikes were front-loaded and cuts to current expenditure were back-loaded. For a developed country like the UK, evidence suggests that cutting the latter not only has a far smaller impact on short-term growth, but also enhances medium-term growth. Abandoning the overall plan now, just as it about to start cutting in the right areas, would be madness. In fact, if anything the level of current spending cuts are inadequate. Because of ring-fencing of several large items, current spending overall is actually forecast to increase in real-terms over the course of this Parliament by 0.7%. But this assumes growth will generate large increases in tax revenues to close the deficit. As we mentioned above, we do not believe this will happen on unchanged policies. So further cuts to current spending, in part used for enterprise inducing tax cuts, should be implemented to enhance the economy’s medium-term growth rate.

To decide where these cuts fall the next spending review should examine all spending without any ring-fencing, particularly focusing on areas which have the smallest effects on short-term growth, like pensioner benefits, retirement ages, and eligibility for a host of other transfers. A failure to re-open spending in this way risks some budgets being savaged to protect areas of which have seen significant largesse over the past decade.

On the tax side, the spending review should be supplemented by better resourcing of the Office for Tax Simplification and giving it a more strategic role over efforts to simplify and restore trust in our tax system. Substantial pro-growth tax reform, along the lines of broadening bases and lowering rates, is an area which the Coalition has so far done little.

On the supply-side, the key aim is to raise the productive potential of the economy. A Small Business Incentive Scheme, which includes significant exemptions from regulation for small businesses, should be introduced. Though less sexy, a framework for ‘sunset clauses’ for new regulations should be rolled out and Michael Fallon’s ambitions for deregulation utilised by widening the scope of the ‘One-in, Two-out’ framework further. And the Government should look again at the case for abolishing national pay bargaining, which could substantially enhance public sector efficiency and counter regional inequalities in the medium-term.

Finally, the only sustainable way to address rising living costs for the UK public requires an aggressive pro-market agenda in many oligopolistic industries to enhance innovation and productivity, and to lower costs. Banking, energy, water, rail and education are all necessity industries or state run services where there is scope for much more competition, and there would be much more beneficial long-term effects of removing barriers to entry for new providers, and providing a level playing field for existing market participants, in these than dealing with the symptoms of our current cost-of-living problems through fiddling with changes to certain taxes or subsidies.

20 recommendations for the budget

On fiscal strategy

  1. Announce the remit of the 2013/14 spending review. This should include:
    • plans to cut government current expenditure substantially over the next five years with no ring-fences;
    • a programme of reducing entitlement eligibility;
    • a plan to raise retirement ages more rapidly than currently planned.
  2. Widen the remit of the Office for Tax Simplification to establish tax reforms for the rest of this Parliament along the principles of base-broadening and lowering rates.
  3. Pledge no new taxes or further net tax rate rises for the 2013/14 spending review period.
  4. Set out a path to raise the threshold for the basic rate of Income Tax to the equivalent of the gross income of a full-time earner on the minimum wage.
  5. Cut Capital Gains Tax immediately, as it is above the revenue maximising rate.
  6. Commit to further reductions in Corporation Tax.
  7. Re-open negotiations on public sector pensions.
  8. Supply-side reform
    Announce a Small Business Incentive Scheme to include a package of exemptions from regulations for very small businesses. This should include exemptions from: minimum wage legislation for those under 21; requests for time off for training; and pension auto-enrolment.
  9. Adopt sunset clauses for all regulations with a post-implementation audit three years after enactment of each regulation; and bring more regulation into the scope of 'One-In Two-Out'.
  10. Adopt a Consolidated Planning Act and repeal all existing legislation with a single rationalised Act.
  11. Encourage neighbouring local councils to co-operate in identifying sites for new Garden Cities.
  12. Abolish national pay bargaining in the public sector.
  13. Ensure that the recommendations of the Davies Review of airport capacity can be implemented swiftly.
  14. An agenda for competition
    Adopt the "Fair Shares" scheme for the re-privatisation of Lloyds and RBS.
  15. Reduce the regulatory burden on new banks.
  16. Give the Financial Conduct Authority a competition mandate.
  17. Require the legal separation of retail and supply arms of water companies, paving the way for the extension of retail competition.
  18. Encourage far greater competition between operators on the rail network.
  19. Lift the bar on profit-making companies running academies and free schools.
  20. Abandon the planned unilateral carbon price floor and phase out subsidies for renewable energies.
Photograph: Getty Images

Ryan Bourne is the head of economic research at the Centre for Policy Studies.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The Future of the Left: A new start requires a new economy

Creating a "sharing economy" can get the left out of its post-crunch malaise, says Stewart Lansley.

Despite the opportunity created by the 2008 crisis, British social democracy is today largely directionless. Post-2010 governments have filled this political void by imposing policies – from austerity to a shrinking state - that have been as economically damaging as they have been socially divisive.

Excessive freedom for markets has brought a society ever more divided between super-affluence and impoverishment, but also an increasingly fragile economy, and too often, as in housing, complete dysfunction.   Productivity is stagnating, undermined by a model of capitalism that can make big money for its owners and managers without the wealth creation essential for future economic health. The lessons of the meltdown have too often been ignored, with the balance of power – economic and political – even more entrenched in favour of a small, unaccountable and self-serving financial elite.

In response, the left should be building an alliance for a new political economy, with new goals and instruments that provide an alternative to austerity, that tackle the root causes of ever-growing inequality and poverty and strengthen a weakening productive base. Central to this strategy should be the idea of a “sharing economy”, one that disperses capital ownership, power and wealth, and ensures that the fruits of growth are more equally divided. This is not just a matter of fairness, it is an economic imperative. The evidence is clear: allowing the fruits of growth to be colonised by the few has weakened growth and made the economy much more prone to crisis.

To deliver a new sharing political economy, major shifts in direction are needed. First, with measures that tackle, directly, the over-dominance of private capital. This could best be achieved by the creation of one or more social wealth funds, collectively held financial funds, created from the pooling of existing resources and fully owned by the public. Such funds are a potentially powerful new tool in the progressive policy armoury and would ensure that a higher proportion of the national wealth is held in common and used for public benefit and not for the interests of the few.

Britain’s first social wealth fund should be created by pooling all publicly owned assets,  including land and property , estimated to be worth some £1.2 trillion, into a single ring-fenced fund to form a giant pool of commonly held wealth. This move - offering a compromise between nationalisation and privatization - would bring an end to today’s politically expedient sell-off of public assets, preserve what remains of the family silver and ensure that the revenue from the better management of such assets is used to boost essential economic and social investment.

A new book, A Sharing Economy, shows how such funds could reduce inequality, tackle austerity and, by strengthening the public asset base, rebalance the public finances.

Secondly, we need a new fail safe system of social security with a guaranteed income floor in an age of deepening economic and job insecurity. A universal basic income, a guaranteed weekly, unconditional income for all as a right of citizenship, would replace much of the existing and increasingly means-tested, punitive and authoritarian model of income support. . By restoring universality as a core principle, such a scheme would offer much greater security in what is set to become an increasingly fragile labour market. A basic income, buttressed by a social wealth fund, would be key instruments for ensuring that the potential productivity gains from the gathering automation revolution, with machines displacing jobs, are shared by all.  

Thirdly, a new political economy needs a radical shift in wider economic management. The mix of monetary expansion and fiscal contraction has proved a blunderbuss strategy that has missed its target while benefitting the rich and affluent at the expense of the poor. By failing to tackle the central problem  – a gaping deficit of demand (one inflamed by the long wage squeeze and sliding investment)  - the strategy has slowed recovery.  The mass printing of money (quantitative easing) may have helped prevent a second great depression, but has also  created new and unsustainable asset bubbles, while austerity has added to the drag on the economy. Meanwhile, record low interest rates have failed to boost private investment and productivity, but by hiking house prices, have handed a great bonanza to home owners at the expense of renters.

Building economic resilience will require a more central role for the state in boosting and steering investment programmes, in part through the creation of a state investment bank (which could be partially financed from the proposed new social wealth fund) aimed at steering more resources into the wealth creating activities private capital has failed to fund.

With too much private credit used for financial speculation and property, and too little to small companies and infrastructure, government needs to play a much more direct role in creating credit, while restricting the almost total freedom currently handed to private banks.  Tackling the next downturn, widely predicted to land within the next 2-3 years, will need a very different approach, including a more active fiscal policy. To ensure a speedier recovery from recessions, future rounds of quantitative easing should, within clear constraints, boost the economy directly by financing public investment programmes and cash handouts (‘helicopter money’).  Such a police mix – on investment, credit and stimulus - would be more effective in boosting the real economic base, and would be much less pro-rich and anti-poor in its consequences.

These core changes would greatly reform the existing Anglo-Saxon model of capitalism and provide the foundations for building support for a new direction for progressive politics. They would pioneer new tools for building a fairer, more dynamic and more stable economy. They could draw on experience elsewhere such as the Alaskan annual citizen’s dividend (financed by a sovereign wealth fund) and the pilot basic income schemes launching in the Netherlands, Finland and France.  Even mainstream economists, including Adair Turner, former chairman of the Financial Services Authority, are now talking up the principle of ‘helicopter money’. For these reasons, parts of the package are likely to prove publicly popular and command support across the political divide. Together they would contribute to a more stable economy, less inequality, and a more even balance of power and opportunity.

 

Stewart Lansley is the author of A Sharing Economy, published in March by Policy Press and of Breadline Britain, The Rise of Mass Impoverishment (with Joanna Mack).