Britain is not bust. It is rich and could get even richer – here’s how
We are not doomed to slow growth or indefinite fiscal austerity.
By Jonathan Portes Published 25 July 2012
When the government published its spending review in 2010, the promise was of an early return to healthy growth. The forecast then was that the UK would grow by about 3.5 per cent over 2011 and the first half of 2012. Since then, the economy has shrunk. The latest estimates from the Office for National Statistics show that the UK economy contracted by 0.7 per cent in the second quarter of 2012 – a third consecutive fall – while the year-on-year drop in GDP of 0.8 per cent was the steepest since the end of 2009.
This continued gloom fits a convenient narrative for analysts on all sides. It vindicates the arguments of those who, like me in these pages a year ago, argued that the government’s misguided macroeconomic policies would choke off recovery. But it also supplies ammunition to those who want yet more spending cuts beyond those already planned. They can continue to point to high deficits – higher than were forecast before the government’s plan was announced – as justification. There may be no economic logic to this position but rhetorically it is a powerful point. Despite the present gloom, we are not doomed to slow growth or indefinite fiscal austerity. There are three overlapping varieties of economic pessimism but there is little evidence to support any of them.
Glass half-empty
First, there are the “supply-side pessimists”, who think that, even in the short term, the economy isn’t capable of generating much growth. The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) claims that although output is about 4 per cent below its peak, we haven’t got much room to grow. It thinks that spare capacity in the economy is only about 2.5 per cent. Looking a little deeper, this is very difficult to believe. The OBR’s estimates imply that firms have no spare capacity at all, given the levels of employment. That is, that everyone in work is pretty much fully occupied. Even the International Monetary Fund finds this implausibly gloomy.
Second, there are the “permanent austerians”, who argue that the deficit is so large and the fiscal forecasts so dismal that we will have to keep on cutting, not just until 2015, as per the original plan, but until 2020, as the Prime Minister has suggested. Yet recent history suggests thata proper recovery would quickly render these forecasts obsolete. In 1993-94, the budget deficit was only slightly lower than it was last year. In sharp contrast to the current administration, the then government adopted the sensible policy of not trying to cut the deficit until recovery was established. The result was strong growth and rapidly falling deficits. In four years, the deficit had been almost eliminated and only three years after that we had the largest surplus in modern times.
Both these arguments are used by those who want to stick with current economic policy despite the dismal results; they argue that changing course wouldn’t make things much better. This is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If we set fiscal and monetary policy on the basis that we are doomed to low growth, that is exactly what we will get. Moreover, as the long-term unemployed drift away from the labour market and new firms find it difficult to start or expand, long-term growth really will be damaged. But the underlying health of the UK economy is much better than the OBR forecasts suggest. Over the past two decades – up to and including the recession – GDP per capita grew faster in the UK than in all our major comparator economies, as the chart below shows.
Nor was this an unsustainable boom. The chart shows GDP per capita, so the growth wasn’t driven by immigration pushing up the population and GDP without raising overall prosperity. There is no obvious bubble in 2006 and 2007 but consistent good performance throughout the period. While a small part of that reflects the growth of the financial sector, some (but not all) of it illusory, the vast majority was because of improvements in the UK labour market, a more skilled workforce and a more competitive economy. None of those has gone away. In the short term, “growth pessimism” is self-fulfilling; sensible macroeconomic policy, both here and in the eurozone, could make things much better quite quickly.
How the UK economy has grown
GDP per capita (1995=100)

Long-term government borrowing is as cheap as it has been in living memory. We have unemployed workers and plenty of spare capacity. The UK is suffering from creaking infrastructure and a chronic lack of housing supply. So there is ample scope for investment and growth. The third and more substantive argument is made by those who point out that there is a serious question as to the sustainability of present policies in the long term. The OBR’s long-run fiscal sustainability report points to a substantial gap between projected tax revenues and public spending. As the books have to balance in the long run, something must give; policy must change.
Reasons to be cheerful
As a matter of arithmetic, this is correct – but to translate this into “Britain is bust” is absurd. The truth is the opposite. Britain is rich and will get richer. The same OBR report says that income per head in 2060 will be substantially more than double what it is today. As countries grow richer, people want more and better health and education and spend less of their increased income on necessities such as food. That is both inevitable and desirable.
It so happens that the British want good-quality health and education, largely provided free at the point of use by the public sector; decent state pensions and social care, and for old people to be able to leave their houses to their children, not to have to sell them; and they don’t want to pay the taxes necessary to fund all this. This combination doesn’t add up and poses a significant political challenge; but that doesn’t make us any poorer, let alone bust. These are the problems of success in a rich, ageing, developed economy. There is plenty to worry about. We are still stuck in the longest period of stagnation in recorded economic history, thanks to damaging and unnecessary policy failures, both here and globally. But things could and should be better, if policymakers would only act. Over the longer term, there are – from a purely economic perspective, at least – reasons to be cheerful.
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists


38 comments
XvvtUXYA zjwoANWaf ohiemdubgo GJBuMwamp xyyfzg BauYVLOAtuq BvhaAEPR vjsvTNOla KmydJRAQ fxzmJIWey
I have a clear intuition that, yes, you are doomed to slow growth a-n-d (not o-r) indefinite fiscal austerity. Indefinite? What am I saying! In-fi-ni-te austerity, is what I meant. We have come to the end of the totally abnormal and outrageous growth period which ran from 1950 to, ehh, just about now. It is completely inconceivable that the likes of China and India will achieve anything quite like the West has done during that short period of metastisizing growth sometimes called the Industrial Age. Time's up!
Ahem... the books don't have to balance. We're a country, not a business or a family budget. Unlike them, we can create money as we need it. The trick is to create it without devaluing it. It's not rocket science though, just create it in suitable amounts for things we need, productive purposes, in other words. Create money to buy everyone a new hat, it devalues the currency. Create money to build a hat factory, build and run it, and the money reaches the economy without being devalued. Lots of the people working there might choose to buy a new hat. Others might spend elsewhere, with the cafe owner, the sandwich girl, the butcher, baker and candlestick maker, many of whom might consider buying a new hat. And so forth and so on. But balancing books? Dearie me...
The chronic housing shortage presents any Government, that wishes to remain "in power" (as politicians seem to like to see it), a bit of a problem.
Let's imagine that we embark upon a huge (affordable) house building programme over the next five years and manage to ease the shortage to a large degree. What then? Well, the elephant in the room is that everyone who has a current mortgage, and those who have recently paid theirs off, is going to face negative equity, since the supply and demand equation will have been changed dramatically.
Which politician is going to want that as their legacy?
There's another problem in the form of NIMBYism. By and large, existing residents don't like substantial new housing being built as (a) it ruins their view (so potentially devaluing their home), (b) it diminishes the size of gaps between adjacent settlements, and (c) it places extra demand on existing infrastructure (e.g. roads - arterial routes within town boundaries often get congested at rush hour, and would likely do so even more with a new block of housing) and services (e.g. schools - if several hundred homes are being built, that'll provide a significant chunk of school-age children who'll probably have to be fitted into existing schools).
Creating new settlements away from existing ones is also considered a no-no as they'll presumably be in Greenbelt land, have little or no existing public transport provision, and unless big enough to warrant a town centre will also increase demands on infrastructure.
So generally Local Plans are drawn up with the minimum level of new housing the local authorities believe the government will accept, presumably the theory being that other local authorities will pick up the demand...
Never mind that developers often try to bargain to reduce the amount of "affordable" housing in a new development, as it doesn't generate them anywhere near as much profit as a 3-4 bedroom 3-storey townhouse without a drive or front garden, a tiny back garden, and a communal parking area around the back - although to be fair, squeezing as many family houses onto as small an area as possible isn't just about profits - it's also about Planning Policy Guidance, which recommends a minimum 30 homes per hectare, typically 45-60 in urban areas and in town centres up to 140 - no doubt there are other policies responsible for narrow pavements, narrow roads (so if there are cars parked on the road, you have to proceed at walking pace to avoid hitting either them or the opposite kerb), speed humps everywhere (particularly on the main road through the estate) and kerb-height platforms at junctions...
Which politician? I'll tell you.
The politician who would rather have as their legacy the securing of the futures of our children and ensuring they can afford decent living standards rather than bail out a greedy, hubristic and selfish generation who care more about their own comfortable retirement than their children's ability to live decent lives and raise families out of poverty.
The politician who is willing to sacrifice BTL investors to help the next generation buy a home.
The politician who is prepared to remind a generation who saw property as an investment and not a home that the value of investments can go up as well as down, and that past performance is not an indication of future performance.
The politician who is brave enough to protect those who work hard and save for their own future over those who spend spend spend then expect to be forgiven their debts immediately so they can start spending again.
That's who. Anyone seen one yet? Let us know when you find him or her.
Tory financial management is based on dogma rather than evidence. couponhostgator.com
I'd rather the dogma of George Osborne than the arrogant stupidity of Gordon "I've abolished the laws of economics" Brown who drilled holes in the roof while the sun was shining. The only reason Labour hates ideology so much is because theirs was so thoroughly dismantled in the 1980s, leaving them with nothing but individual egos like Blairs and Browns.
And I love the way that Labour supporters spent fifteen years lauding Brown as the greatest chancellor in history and now insist that New Labour were really right-wing Tories and Now Labour are our socialist saviours. Two big problems:
1. Not even the dumbest of Labour supporters really thinks Brown was right wing.
2. Take a look at the major Labour figures of the last decade. See them? Now, look at the shadow front bench and big names in the upper house.
Oops.
Tory financial management is based on dogma rather than evidence. couponhostgator.com
"We are still stuck in the longest period of stagnation in recorded economic history, thanks to damaging and unnecessary policy failures". That's it! Just a couple of silly policies. The built in failure of a system that creates something from nothing and then multiplies it by (pick a number), has nothing to do with this accelerating pattern of failure and jury-rigged policy responses that produce exponentially greater and exponentially sooner collapse. Don't feel alone, you and all the fools who run banks, governments and newspapers actually believe that those $700 trillion worth of IOUs out there represent something solid, meaningful, reliable and comforting. The problem is, you can't keep making cream when there is no milk.