Tax and Fiscal Policy

Ditch the structural deficit: Why Osborne has struggled to hit this moving target


SUGGESTED ARTICLES

Tax and Fiscal Policy
Fall-out from the Autumn Statement next week is likely to focus heavily on the slowdown in deficit reduction. Borrowing has been £3.7 billion higher this year so far compared with last, and it looks unlikely that George Osborne will hit his fiscal target for 2014-15. But the key number the media will focus on is the Office for Budget Responsibility’s (OBR) estimate of the ‘structural deficit’ – that is, how much of the deficit will remain even if the economy continues to grow. This number will determine what the OBR estimates is needed in tax rises or spending cuts in the next Parliament.

In 2010, Osborne laid out spending plans he forecast would reduce the overall ‘structural deficit’ to 0.8 per cent of GDP by 2014-15. But the UK grew more slowly than expected and, in 2011, the OBR revised up how much of the deficit it thought was structural – the implication being that more spending cuts would be needed to eliminate it. By this year’s Budget, the forecast for the 2014-15 structural deficit was 4.5 per cent of GDP.

Now, some commentators have calculated that weaker-than-expected tax receipts and shrinking spare capacity in the economy show the structural deficit is higher still – meaning even more spending restraint will be needed. In other words, Osborne’s target is a moving one that keeps getting more difficult to achieve.

But perhaps we should discard this target altogether. The ‘structural deficit’ is dependent on a host of variables which economists pretend to know more about than they actually do. First, there is the actual current level of economic activity, which is subject to huge revisions and uncertainty. Second, there is the so-called ‘output gap’ – how far the economy is from its potential – which is a highly contested calculation, and a particularly difficult one as the economy has shifted away from physical outputs and towards often low-marginal-cost services. Finally, it also depends on how responsive government spending and tax revenues are to moving back to our potential. Recent evidence suggests that the former has been somewhat over-estimated and the latter vastly over-estimated.

In principle, there are two ways (which may well be complementary) of dealing with a structural deficit – taking steps to improve the productive potential of the economy, and reducing spending. Arguably, the coalition hasn’t done enough of either during this Parliament. However, from a practical perspective, it would surely be more sensible to move towards a way of budgeting that was more robust in the face of inevitable uncertainty than the OBR’s current approach.

What might this entail? One obvious way of doing this would be to take a more disaggregated approach and break down tax and spending items into smaller chunks. Then we should think separately about how individual events or trends might throw us off course, or how these trends might affect items of spending and taxation in the future. Not everything could be considered, but the effect, for instance, of a 1 per cent increase in employment on tax receipts is possibly very different from the effect of a 1 per cent rise in labour productivity and different again from the effect of a 1 per cent increase in total factor productivity. This is better than focusing on some vague notion of the economy moving back to its supposed potential.

There is more and more evidence that the deficit is stubborn in the face of recovery, but we should be very sceptical about the numbers the OBR churns out for us.

This article was originally published by City AM.

Academic and Research Director, IEA

Philip Booth is Senior Academic Fellow at the Institute of Economic Affairs. He is also Director of the Vinson Centre and Professor of Economics at the University of Buckingham and Professor of Finance, Public Policy and Ethics at St. Mary’s University, Twickenham. He also holds the position of (interim) Director of Catholic Mission at St. Mary’s having previously been Director of Research and Public Engagement and Dean of the Faculty of Education, Humanities and Social Sciences. From 2002-2016, Philip was Academic and Research Director (previously, Editorial and Programme Director) at the IEA. From 2002-2015 he was Professor of Insurance and Risk Management at Cass Business School. He is a Senior Research Fellow in the Centre for Federal Studies at the University of Kent and Adjunct Professor in the School of Law, University of Notre Dame, Australia. Previously, Philip Booth worked for the Bank of England as an adviser on financial stability issues and he was also Associate Dean of Cass Business School and held various other academic positions at City University. He has written widely, including a number of books, on investment, finance, social insurance and pensions as well as on the relationship between Catholic social teaching and economics. He is Deputy Editor of Economic Affairs. Philip is a Fellow of the Royal Statistical Society, a Fellow of the Institute of Actuaries and an honorary member of the Society of Actuaries of Poland. He has previously worked in the investment department of Axa Equity and Law and was been involved in a number of projects to help develop actuarial professions and actuarial, finance and investment professional teaching programmes in Central and Eastern Europe. Philip has a BA in Economics from the University of Durham and a PhD from City University.


Head of Public Policy and Director, Paragon Initiative

Ryan Bourne is Head of Public Policy at the IEA and Director of The Paragon Initiative. Ryan was educated at Magdalene College, Cambridge where he achieved a double-first in Economics at undergraduate level and later an MPhil qualification. Prior to joining the IEA, Ryan worked for a year at the economic consultancy firm Frontier Economics on competition and public policy issues. After leaving Frontier in 2010, Ryan joined the Centre for Policy Studies think tank in Westminster, first as an Economics Researcher and subsequently as Head of Economic Research. There, he was responsible for writing, editing and commissioning economic reports across a broad range of areas, as well as organisation of economic-themed events and roundtables. Ryan appears regularly in the national media, including writing for The Times, the Daily Telegraph, ConservativeHome and Spectator Coffee House, and appearing on broadcast, including BBC News, Newsnight, Sky News, Jeff Randall Live, Reuters and LBC radio. He is currently a weekly columnist for CityAM.


2 thoughts on “Ditch the structural deficit: Why Osborne has struggled to hit this moving target”

  1. Posted 25/11/2014 at 15:44 | Permalink

    I suspect one reason why governments rather like dealing in Keynesian aggregates is that it leaves them a good deal more wriggle room. If you express your objectives in more specific disaggregated form, it becomes more difficult to ‘explain away’ failures to achieve your stated aims. The other thing we have to remember about parliamentarians is that they are, above all, talkers. Indeed, one almost gets the impression sometimes that merely announcing a target is pretty much the same as actually achieving it. I doubt if our leaders have much of an idea what’s really going on, let alone having any notion of what to do about it.

  2. Posted 25/11/2014 at 18:27 | Permalink

    The problem is that Westminster believes there is no problem and a deficit is really nothing to worry about.

    Look what has happened so far: a huge government debt and a market still willing to lend at these derisory interest rates, a vast current account deficit and still the pound strengthens, a so called bubble free growth rate which outpaces the rest of Europe and a massive monetary expansion with almost no inflation.

    So long as this continues we can expect more of the same.

Comments are closed.


SIGN UP FOR IEA EMAILS