Economics in Action

Here is a personal take on the situation in Iceland and the rest of Europe by our new contributor Harry Simmons:

Iceland has been the world’s whipping boy for the last few years.  The collapse of its banking system uncovered huge international systemic failures leading to the economic crisis.  The snowy nation has had a rough time of it.  But as we begin 2011, I ask the question, are they really still in that much trouble?  Figures released by the International Monetary Fund in December 2010 showed that Iceland’s GDP grew by 1.2% in the third quarter, ending the recession caused by the actions of those in its banking sector.  What about those European countries still in economic strife?

In direct contrast to the actions taken by almost all other western countries and most significantly Ireland, Iceland let its banks fail.  It was able to do so because the international risk of contagion is comparably lower than many of the European countries currently receiving bail-outs.  This forced foreign creditors and the banks themselves to foot the bill of failure, rather than the taxpayer.  Essentially, Iceland stuck to free market principles.  Those institutions that operated in an economically viable manner were able to survive; those that chose to take on too many liabilities in foreign currency must face the consequences.  In a system such as banking where when times are good, the mechanisms of capitalism and free market economics define the actions of agents in market, why should those mechanisms not also define what happens when it goes wrong?  In addition to the economic reasoning, there is also the moral issue of the taxpayer having to pay for the mistakes of a small elite.  The actions of many other governments in bailing out the banks served as an attempt to prop up an already unsustainable bubble.  These actions have exacerbated existing public finance problems further, the implications of which are to be felt by those who have not caused the problem.

During the recession Iceland’s economy shrank 11 – 15% depending on your source, but it did so with inflation peaking at 18%, which devalued its debt.  The soaring inflation was furthermore caused by the Icelandic central bank’s decision to halve the value of its currency, the Kroner.  The difference in terms of inflation between Iceland and those euro-zone countries thought to be in the worst economics position, the PIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain), is quite stark.  Iceland’s inflation soared whilst Ireland, for example, is still going through through a sustained period of deflation

Iceland’s inflation is now down to a respectable 3%, hence interest rates are now at 4.5% from an 18% peak.  These inflation rates are, however, higher than the PIGS.  Iceland’s debt situation is also looking up.  Forecasts for 2011 predict a deficit of 6.3% which will soon turn to surplus approaching the mid-point of the decade.  The IMF said Iceland has turned a corner and that its economic performance “compares favourably against other countries hard hit by the crisis”.

Iceland’s current account balance suffered greatly at the beginning of the crisis with the nation running a 26% of GDP trade deficit with the rest of the world, which is much greater than any of the PIGS.  However, due to the high inflation rates and devaluation of its currency, the trade deficit in 2010 fell to just 0.9% of GDP, with a surplus forecasted in 2011.  Comparably, the PIGS are still running significant deficits approaching and exceeding 10% of GDP.  The long-term effects of these deficits are yet to be seen.  One thing is clear, the PIGS do not have the monetary sovereignty of Iceland and hence cannot devalue their debt, they must in effect, toe the economic line of the European Monetary Union and European Central Bank.

Many have portrayed the path chosen by Iceland and subsequent recovery as a model for other beleaguered economies, such as the PIGS group in the EU.  However, such comparisons must be contextualised.  Iceland’s economy is comparably tiny and would have little chance of bringing the entire world economy down if it walked away from its liabilities compared to the aforementioned PIGS.  Defaulting in one of those economies would risk contagion throughout the euro zone and possibly beyond.

Iceland’s monetary independence from the European Monetary Union has been sighted by many as a possible reason for its recent good performance.  Having experienced the worst financial crisis in memory, the country has emerged ahead of many of its contemporaries having endured less punishment than many EU member states.  Greece and Ireland have already been forced to accept bail-outs, and it appears Portugal will soon follow with an €80bn rescue package mooted.

But how sustainable is this recovery?  Iceland’s public debt has reached in excess of 115% of GDP, over four times what it was in 2007.  Furthermore, Government bonds issued in foreign currency are becoming more and more expensive to repay due to the devaluation of the kroner.  Domestic austerity was aided by this devaluation and the subsequent increase in inflation; however, many commentators have indicated this had little to do with the recent return to positive growth.  The turnaround is attributed to the return to current account surplus from deficit.  Moreover, the aforementioned debt burden is not only applicable to government finance; house prices have plummeted in the crisis leaving many homeowners in negative equity.  By no means is Iceland out of the woods, its current account turnaround from deficit to surplus has been accredited to falling imports rather than a surge in exports.  More tough times are ahead.

The implications of bail-outs on the PIGS are also uncertain.  What is obvious is the political motivation behind their economic choices; the European Union needs the single currency.  It is those with vested interests in the Union that have the most to lose; there is an unnerving air of inevitability in what is happening.  Interest rates are remaining low, aimed at a sluggish Germany, whilst those euro-zone countries experiencing increasing inflation desperately need interest rates to rise.  Where the European project falls down is, in throwing hugely different nation economies under a single monetary policy, it lacked the complete supranational economic governance and social mobility required.

On balance, Iceland has taken a radical path of devaluation which saw violent shifts in economic measures, which all looked terrible whilst it was happening.  It may however appear preferable to the long-term damage that may be seen in those countries which have chosen austerity, debt deflation and bail-outs, but like driving a car using only the rear-view mirror, we will not know until it has happened.

About the author: Harry is a fist year undergraduate studying Politics and Economics (BA) at the University of Leicester.

As part of my course, I do quite a lot of reading on Adam Smith at the moment. One thing that I came across is the notion of self-interest, which is completely different from the selfishness that people tend to think about when they read Smith.

According to Adam Smith, people have different motives for their actions, one of which is self-interest or self-love. It is important to note that Smith did provide a distinction between them. People are selfish if they act purely to gain for themselves. This involves the taking of more than one’s ‘fair share’. Smith actively condemned this behaviour in his writing:

‘…all for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.’

On the other hand, self-interested people do have other people’s interests in their mind. Self-interest is the interest in the well-being of the self. It is only a part of what people consider when they decide whether or not to act. Therefore, Smith thinks it is not logical to condemn this behaviour. It is not wrong if an individual wants to buy a new shirt for himself. He clearly acts upon his self-interest, but he is not selfish unless he stole the money in order to purchase the shirt.

Smith wrote that we benefit from the self-interest of the butcher, brewer and baker, and it is clear from his writing as a whole that, because they are self-interested, the butcher, brewer and baker look out for themselves; however, because they are not selfish, they also care for their customers. It is this kind of self-interest (not selfishness) that leads to social improvement.

Recently, the Centre for Economic Performance (CEP) celebrated its 21^st Birthday by holding a series of lectures at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE). The chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, Olivier Blanchard, gave the first lecture on the state of the world economy. Last Tuesday, the second lecture of the series was given by Professor John Van Reenen on the topic of restoring economic growth.

The Economics Network received an invitation to attend both lectures, and as a new guy on the job, I was appointed to go. However, being a second year student with a very busy schedule means I could only attend one of the lectures. Since I was doing economic growth as part of my macro course, I decided to go to the latter lecture.

I arrived in London quite late, but managed to quickly find my way to the lecture theatre in the LSE’s Old Building where the talk was held. The CEP has reserved a front row seat for me, so not only did I have the best view; I also managed to take many photos. There was a brief introduction of John Van Reenen by Stuart Corbridge before the lecture started.

John divided the lecture into three sections: the problems we currently face, the sources of growth and the policies we need. He started by saying the beginning of the current recession was a lot worse than the Great Depression; however, the government has not made the same mistakes it did in the 20s. Bank capitalisation, loose monetary policy and stimulus packages instead of spending cuts and tax raises have resulted in a much faster recovery for the UK. He also stressed that accelerated budget cuts proposed by the current coalition government will harm the economy in both short and long terms.

The three main sources of growth identified by John in his lecture were: technological innovation, management practices and microeconomic structural reforms. The main accent was made on the link between productivity and management. John argues that productivity growth is what matters, not absolute growth of GDP. Increases in productivity will drive real wages and consumption up, which in turn can
facilitate distribution. He also made a very interesting point about happiness. Current economic theory focuses on maximising income and consumption, but John thinks that after a certain level, addition to growth will not lead to more happiness. In my opinion, this is definitely something economists could focus more on.

He went on to analyse productivity in the UK. According to the findings, the UK’s relative productivity has improved compared to France and Germany. However, there is still a big gap relative to the US. John argues that this is all down to management practices. His data shows that the US has very few badly managed firms, hence, it has high productivity. On the other hand, in developing countries where there are many family businesses, management is much worse. John thinks that competition in the labour market ultimately leads to better selection of managers, which has a great impact on how firms’ productivity.

So what can we do to restore growth? The lecture concludes that structural reforms and macro policies should do the trick. Things like competition policy, public sector planning and better human capital management at the low end (apprenticeship scheme) are going to improve productivity in the long run. Finally, John argues that the austerity measures proposed by the current government will affect long-term employment as private sector cannot speedily adjust to the fiscal shock.

Here are the links to the webcasts of the two lectures if you want more:

Lecture 1: The State of The World Economy (Olivier Blanchard)

Lecture 2: Restoring Growth (John Van Reenen)

About the CEP

The CEP is an interdisciplinary research centre at the LSE Research Laboratory. It was established by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) in 1990 and is now one of the leading economic research groups in Europe. Its current Director is Professor John Van Reenen.

The CEP studies the determinants of economic performance at the level of the company, the nation and the global economy by focusing on the major links between globalisation, technology and institutions (above all the educational system and the labour market) and their impact on productivity, inequality, employment, stability and wellbeing. Its researches have affected numerous Labour policies, in particular the apprenticeship scheme.

There is a very interesting article on BBC News that my colleague Inna has referred me to. It talks about how the small bottled water industry has managed to grow in the last 40 years. This looks nothing special unless you think about the fact that water is essentially free. You can quite easily drink tap water and will not feel any difference from the bottled water. However, people still spend billions of pounds each year on this natural beverage. So here is the irony, we are paying for things we can get for free. Is economic theory about rationality failing here? It is not according to the article.

So, where does the trick lie? Apparently, it is all about branding and marketing (although some bottles water executives disagree). Apart from the convenient packaging, people are supposedly buying trendy brands. I guess in the end we do derive different types of utility from the same resource. Marketing in this case plays a huge role in the market growth.

This paradox does not completely ruin our perception of Economics, but it does make us realise that there are still many things we do not understand.

Game theory is one of the most exciting fields in modern Economics. Yesterday, we started the lecture on Game theory by watching a clip from the Oscar-winning A Beautiful Mind. In the scene, Russell Crowe’s Nash proves that the First Welfare Theorem of Economics does not always hold, and there are circumstances when competition does not lead to a Pareto efficient outcome.

‘Adam Smith is wrong,’ proclaims Nash after deducing that if everyone competes for the attention of the blonde girl, no one will end up with that girl. The ‘invisible hand’ does not work in this situation. So, he advised his friends to go for the brunettes. This result is not, however, one of the Nash equilibria, which predict that one guy will eventually end up with the blonde, while the others will be with the brunettes.

This example shows the power of Economics, and how simple ideas can affect our lives in every single way, be it politics or love. This is why studying Economics is so interesting, and at the same time, so useful for you.

A Beautiful Blonde!

Here is the first article we received from Josh Taylor – our new contributor.

As a student of Economics and a political neutral, the recession has been particularly interesting, with the revelations of how much debt we as a country are in. This is not just governmental overspending revenue incomes, but the public and the culture of buying now paying later on credit. For proof you only have to watch TV for an hour or so and you’ll be amazed at how many advertisements (ok not BBC) there are for quick-money, consolidating your debt etc. The conservatives and now the newly-informed liberal-democrats are for reducing the debt of the nation, by limiting the size of governmental spending i.e. “The Cuts”, I don’t intend to get into any sort of political debate as to whether we need to cut or not, but the nation’s majority have decided democratically that this is the way that we are going to get out of this “crisis”.

But, I can’t but help see the contradiction in raising university fee’s at this moment in time, here it’s not so much a cut but an increase in revenue, which hypothecates the budget reduction. With the clear aim of reducing debt, what the coalition here is effectively doing is lowering governmental debt in the short-term, 5 years let’s say, in exchange for a higher student debt. This is completely counterproductive, and I do realise that there is no debt till graduation or drop-out, but this then has to be paid back which reduces the spending power of those graduates who will be lucky enough to have walked into a job straight after their graduation. This coupled with the aim of 50% of school leavers moving into higher education as well as international intellectuals, equates to a more competitive job market giving lower wages and increased uncertainties over employment, means that we are highly likely to have an even more indebted student population. This in fact, will make our nation’s debt and future less sustainable.

Students can feel more aggrieved depending on what subject they study, those on engineering, chemistry, physics, medicine are actually getting a cut-price deal for their education, which is actually compensated by degrees which cost their respective universities a lot less such as geography, mathematics, languages, politics, media studies, music, history etc. So broadly speaking on the whole students are proportionally paying more than what they are actually receiving from their education anyway. Therefore this increase in fees, like any other increase to those yet to enter the professional job ladder, is most unwelcome.

About the author: Josh Taylor is a first year undergraduate at the University of Manchester studying Economics and Economic & Social History (BAEcon). In the past, he has blogged on the economics of football, faith and religion, music, law amongst others.

As part of the ongoing development of Why Study Economics and Studying Economics, we are now looking for student contributors. Because the websites are aimed at Economics applicants and students respectively, we think it is very important for us to have students’ views reflected in our content.

The content provided can be in any format about anything related to Economics: current affairs and politics to day-to-day activities, such as analysis of economic concepts in movies and music. We also encourage entries about the social life of Economics students. Most entries will go to Economics in Action blog, but there is a possibility to write a material for other sections of the websites.

Being a contributor for us will be beneficial for you in many ways. Firstly, if you want to pursue journalism, this is a great way to start. The websites are very popular with lecturers and students, so you will have an audience. If you become a frequent contributor, we will make sure your name appears on the websites, and this will look great on your CVs. Finally, writing something contemporary and interesting will widen your views about Economics as well as distract you from all the maths you have to do for your course.

If you are interested, please email Anh with your details and a possible entry. We can also discuss what sort of material you would want to write or feel comfortable writing.

The inevitable has finally come!

In his Spending Review yesterday, George Osborne announced a 40% cut in the teaching budget for universities. This is part of the coalition’s plan to tackle the UK’s historical deficit. Universities now have no other option than increase tuition fees in order to fill the new gap in funding. This will be possible if Browne plan is implemented. Essentially, the implementation of this proposal will create a free market for higher education in the UK, very similar to what already exists in the US. However, this also signals the end to a great education system that used to be free and available to everyone. So, what do we take from this?

The cost of teaching a degree is estimated to be around £7,000. Under the current system, universities are allowed to charge students up to £3,290, which most of them do. The remaining cost is then subsidised by the government. If the cap on tuition fees is removed, we can expect most elite universities to raise their fees without facing a decrease in demand for places (demand for places at big universities is indeed very inelastic). This will enable them to invest more in researches and compete with big American universities.

However, there is also a downside to this. Firstly, creating a market place for higher education will benefit only a certain group of universities. As in any other competitive market, smaller and less prestigious universities will struggle to compete and shut down eventually. This will increase unemployment level in the public sector (not every lecturer can go and work for a private company), which in turn will have a wider adverse effect on our newly recovered economy. Furthermore, bright students from poor families will no longer be able to go to places like Oxford or Cambridge simply because they cannot afford them.

In the end, higher education is a public good that will always be under provided in a market system. This is why government provision of education is so vital. However, a market for higher education now means it is money that gets you into the best universities, not your real academic potential.

Please comment below to let us know what you think.

Nowadays, environment and sustainability is on everyone’s mind. The idea of not having clean water to drink or clean air to breathe is terrifying, yet we are not doing enough to make significant changes. Governments of the world are still fighting with each other instead of working together on the issue. Perhaps it is time we took the matter in our hands and started acting. Luckily, there is an organisation dedicated to this cause.

Oikos is an international student organisation for sustainable economics and management. They have local chapters located at universities in Europe and beyond, counting more than 50’000 students of Economics and Management. In addition Oikos is working with PhD Students and Faculty from across the globe and welcomes a growing Alumni community.

Visit their website to find out how you can get involved.

Sheila C. Bair, who chairs the US Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), has another string to her bow: she’s the author of Isabel’s car wash, a children’s book in which little Isabel borrows money and washes cars so she can buy a doll.

It’s not every day you see a children’s book taken apart for its assumptions about consumer behaviour and the private sector, but that’s just what reviewer Glenn Fleishman does, with tongue somewhat in cheek. Fleishman seems exasperated that plenty of adults’ understanding of money and markets is no more sophisticated than Isabel’s Car Wash, and that some of those adults have responsible jobs.