SMPC call for a rise in interest rates for the first time since September 2011
4 February 2013
SUGGESTED
Press Release
Governments should not dictate development priorities
1 February 2013
Monetary Policy
Reforms should make bank failure safe without relying on the taxpayer
4 February 2013
Tax and Fiscal Policy
19 November 2024
SMPC votes 6-3 to raise rate by 1/4%
On a vote of six to three, the IEA Shadow Monetary Policy Committee has recommended a rise in Bank Rate in February. This is the first recommendation of a rate rise since September 2011.
The recommendation was partially a response to a realisation that fiscal policy seems even further off course than was previously believed, and thus risks damaging the credibility of all UK policy making. Another reason for the recommendation is that the lull in the storms engulfing the euro zone provides an opportunity to raise the Bank Rate while the markets are still reasonably calm.
However, there are noticeable differences between the SMPC majority, who wanted a rate rise, and the approach more commonly favoured by the MPC, other UK policy makers and the financial media. In particular, it was believed that the almost unprecedented degree of government intervention in the UK economy in recent years was leading to major supply-side problems preventing the re-allocation of resources from zombie sectors to those with genuine growth potential. It was also feared that sustained artificially low interest rates were leading to a growth-destroying misallocation of capital. Furthermore, SMPC members were concerned that the authorities should not be using lax monetary policy as a substitute for addressing the supply side problems that are leading to low growth.
There was disagreement as to the extent to which rates should rise. Whilst two members wanted rates to rise by ½% – which would have been the traditional policy response in the past, when rates came down in quarters but rose in halves – four called for rates to rise by ¼%. The main reason for limiting the recommended rise to a ¼% was to avoid an undue shock to the financial markets after such a long period of stasis.
All those who voted to raise rates expressed a bias to raise rates further. The minority of three SMPC members believed that there was a genuine demand shortfall, which would be alleviated by additional monetary stimulus. Most SMPC members thought that there should be no additional Quantitative Easing (QE) for the timebeing, however.
Notes to Editors:
To arrange an interview with an IEA spokesperson, please contact Stephanie Lis, Director of Communications: 020 7799 8909, slis@iea.org.uk
What is the SMPC?
The Shadow Monetary Policy Committee (SMPC) is a group of independent economists drawn from academia, the City and elsewhere, which meets physically for two hours once a quarter at the Institute for Economic Affairs (IEA) in Westminster, to discuss the state of the international and British economies, monitor the Bank of England’s interest rate decisions, and to make rate recommendations of its own. The inaugural meeting of the SMPC was held in July 1997, and the Committee has met regularly since then. The present note summarises the results of the latest monthly poll, conducted by the SMPC in conjunction with the Sunday Times newspaper.
Current SMPC membership:
The Secretary of the SMPC is Kent Matthews of Cardiff Business School, Cardiff University, and its Chairman is David B Smith (University of Derby and Beacon Economic Forecasting). Other members of the Committee include: Roger Bootle (Capital Economics Ltd), Tim Congdon (International Monetary Research Ltd.), Jamie Dannhauser (Lombard Street Research), Anthony J Evans (ESCP Europe Business School), John Greenwood (Invesco Asset Management), Graeme Leach (Institute of Directors) Andrew Lilico (Europe Economics), Patrick Minford (Cardiff Business School, Cardiff University), Akos Valentinyi (Cardiff Business School, Cardiff University), Peter Warburton (Economic Perspectives Ltd), Mike Wickens (University of York and Cardiff Business School) and Trevor Williams (Lloyds Bank Wholesale Markets). Philip Booth (Cass Business School and IEA) is technically a non-voting IEA observer but is awarded a vote on occasion to ensure that exactly nine votes are always cast.
The mission of the Institute of Economic Affairs is to improve understanding of the fundamental institutions of a free society by analysing and expounding the role of markets in solving economic and social problems.
The IEA is a registered educational charity and independent of all political parties.
The recommendation was partially a response to a realisation that fiscal policy seems even further off course than was previously believed, and thus risks damaging the credibility of all UK policy making. Another reason for the recommendation is that the lull in the storms engulfing the euro zone provides an opportunity to raise the Bank Rate while the markets are still reasonably calm.
However, there are noticeable differences between the SMPC majority, who wanted a rate rise, and the approach more commonly favoured by the MPC, other UK policy makers and the financial media. In particular, it was believed that the almost unprecedented degree of government intervention in the UK economy in recent years was leading to major supply-side problems preventing the re-allocation of resources from zombie sectors to those with genuine growth potential. It was also feared that sustained artificially low interest rates were leading to a growth-destroying misallocation of capital. Furthermore, SMPC members were concerned that the authorities should not be using lax monetary policy as a substitute for addressing the supply side problems that are leading to low growth.
There was disagreement as to the extent to which rates should rise. Whilst two members wanted rates to rise by ½% – which would have been the traditional policy response in the past, when rates came down in quarters but rose in halves – four called for rates to rise by ¼%. The main reason for limiting the recommended rise to a ¼% was to avoid an undue shock to the financial markets after such a long period of stasis.
All those who voted to raise rates expressed a bias to raise rates further. The minority of three SMPC members believed that there was a genuine demand shortfall, which would be alleviated by additional monetary stimulus. Most SMPC members thought that there should be no additional Quantitative Easing (QE) for the timebeing, however.
Notes to Editors:
To arrange an interview with an IEA spokesperson, please contact Stephanie Lis, Director of Communications: 020 7799 8909, slis@iea.org.uk
What is the SMPC?
The Shadow Monetary Policy Committee (SMPC) is a group of independent economists drawn from academia, the City and elsewhere, which meets physically for two hours once a quarter at the Institute for Economic Affairs (IEA) in Westminster, to discuss the state of the international and British economies, monitor the Bank of England’s interest rate decisions, and to make rate recommendations of its own. The inaugural meeting of the SMPC was held in July 1997, and the Committee has met regularly since then. The present note summarises the results of the latest monthly poll, conducted by the SMPC in conjunction with the Sunday Times newspaper.
Current SMPC membership:
The Secretary of the SMPC is Kent Matthews of Cardiff Business School, Cardiff University, and its Chairman is David B Smith (University of Derby and Beacon Economic Forecasting). Other members of the Committee include: Roger Bootle (Capital Economics Ltd), Tim Congdon (International Monetary Research Ltd.), Jamie Dannhauser (Lombard Street Research), Anthony J Evans (ESCP Europe Business School), John Greenwood (Invesco Asset Management), Graeme Leach (Institute of Directors) Andrew Lilico (Europe Economics), Patrick Minford (Cardiff Business School, Cardiff University), Akos Valentinyi (Cardiff Business School, Cardiff University), Peter Warburton (Economic Perspectives Ltd), Mike Wickens (University of York and Cardiff Business School) and Trevor Williams (Lloyds Bank Wholesale Markets). Philip Booth (Cass Business School and IEA) is technically a non-voting IEA observer but is awarded a vote on occasion to ensure that exactly nine votes are always cast.
The mission of the Institute of Economic Affairs is to improve understanding of the fundamental institutions of a free society by analysing and expounding the role of markets in solving economic and social problems.
The IEA is a registered educational charity and independent of all political parties.
SHARE
