The macroeconomic implications of the parties' fiscal plans - NIESR
The macroeconomic implications of the parties' fiscal plans
As we approach the UK’s General Election this May, the economy, and in particular the path and pace of fiscal consolidation over the next Parliament, will dominate the political debate. While it is clear that the next parliamentary term will be one of considerable fiscal consolidation, there is nevertheless ample scope to deviate from the Coalition's plans.
Understanding the implications of the political parties’ fiscal policy proposals should therefore be an important feature of the political debate. Discussion has so far focused on what the major parties’ announcements mean for public sector borrowing and the possible impacts for public services, tax and welfare spending. These are vitally important topics, but fiscal policy is first and foremost a macroeconomic policy instrument – it is designed to influence the future path of the economy as a whole.
New analysis out recently by Simon Kirby, a Principal Research Fellow at NIESR, looks at the impact of alternative fiscal paths on the wider economy via macroeconomic variables such as economic growth, interest rates and unemployment. We examine these through a series of illustrative simulations using NIESR’s global econometric model, NiGEM. This enables us to simulate the dynamic process of the economy, and allows for feedback to the public finances.
NIESR's latest forecasts for the UK and global economies, which takes the Coalition Government's fiscal plans as given, are used as the baseline. We then illustrate how fiscal plans could vary in line with the announced policies of fiscal targets of each party:
- The Conservative party has announced its ambition to reach an absolute surplus. We have introduced two scenarios for the Conservative party, since they also have a stated aim to reduce welfare spending by an additional £12 billion.
- The Labour party has announced that it will target a surplus on the public sector's current budget in the next parliament.
- The Liberal Democrats’ ambition is to run a cyclically-adjusted current budget that is in balance.
Under both the Labour and Liberal Democrat fiscal targets, public sector borrowing would be used to fund investment. The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) forecasts a closing of the negative output gap by 2019-20; that implies that the cyclically-adjusted current balance and the actual current balance will be the same, leaving no difference between the stated fiscal targets of the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties by the end of the next parliament. The scenarios we run for them are therefore identical.
The table below shows the impact of each parties' plans compared to the forecast baseline.
NIESR’s analysis highlights the near-term positive effects to GDP growth, real consumer wages and unemployment that stem from the implied alternative plans to the current Coalition government’s. These alternatives are funded via greater borrowing/smaller surpluses than implied by the Coalition’s plans. At the same time, we would expect the Bank of England to respond by raising interest rates, thereby dampening some of the positive macroeconomic effects. The positive effects on the level of GDP are only temporary; in each scenario, in the longer-run the GDP is unchanged from its baseline level.
Undoubtedly, the parties themselves will disagree with aspects of our analysis. On one level they are correct: each will have a different set of priorities if elected, and the precise tax and spending decisions introduced will reflect those. However, given announcements to date, it is our view that this is a fair reflection of the potential macroeconomic impacts of their different approaches.
The next government should expand the remit of the OBR to include responsibility for the auditing of all parties’ manifestos. If given the appropriate resources and authority by Parliament, the OBR could help to improve significantly the quality of information on parties’ tax and spending plans in the run-up to future general elections.
Notes for Editors:
- This press release is based on an article entitled “The macroeconomic implications of the parties' fiscal plans”, written by Simon Kirby, and contained in the National Institute Economic Review No. 231 February 2015. This is a quarterly, peer reviewed, economic and social sciences journal. The full Review was published last night Tuesday 10 February.
- For a copy of the article, or to organise an interview, please contact Brooke Hollingshead in the NIESR press office on 020 7654 1923 /email@example.com
- To discuss the article please contact:
For further information:
National Institute of Economic and Social Research
2 Dean Trench Street
London, SW1P 3HE
Switchboard Telephone Number: +44 (0) 207 222 7665
Latest News from
It is time to scrap stamp duty altogether, says IEA expert25/02/2021 11:35:00
Julian Jessop Economics Fellow at free market think tank the Institute of Economic Affairs, commented on reports that the Chancellor will extend the stamp duty holiday until June
IFS - Nurses more likely to leave NHS hospitals where costs of living have increased quickly25/02/2021 10:35:00
Improving the retention of NHS staff has been a long-term policy challenge, and will be of even greater importance in the aftermath of the Covid-19 pandemic.
In a free society there should be “no right not to be offended”, says IEA expert25/02/2021 09:35:00
Marc Glendening, Head of Cultural Affairs at free market think tank the Institute of Economic Affairs, commented on Merseyside Police’s decision to apologise for claiming “being offensive is an offence” as part of a campaign to encourage people to report hate crime
“Boris Johnson’s sluggish timetable will do unnecessary damage to businesses and livelihoods”, says IEA expert23/02/2021 11:35:00
Christopher Snowdon, Head of Lifestyle Economics at free market think tank the Institute of Economic Affairs, responded to Boris Johnson’s roadmap to lift lockdown measures in England
King's Fund - New report calls on London’s health and care leaders to ignite efforts to tackle health inequalities23/02/2021 10:35:00
Yesterday’s report from The King’s Fund, Integrated care systems in London: Challenges and opportunities ahead, finds that health and care organisations across London have worked together more closely than ever before to improve and join up services in response to the Covid-19 pandemic.
IEA - Back to school and beyond: Time to fix longstanding problems in education, says new research23/02/2021 09:35:00
Uber ruling will raise prices and cut off earning opportunities for thousands, says IEA expert19/02/2021 16:20:00
Professor Len Shackleton, Editorial and Research Fellow at free market think tank the Institute of Economic Affairs, responded to the UK’s Supreme Court ruling that Uber must classify its drivers as workers rather than self-employed
JRF - Chancellor must act to tackle rent debt crisis19/02/2021 15:20:00
Joint statement by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the Big Issue, Ride Out Recession Alliance, Crisis, Citizens Advice, Money Advice Trust, The Mortgage Works, National Residential Landlords Association, Nationwide Building Society, Propertymark, StepChange Debt Charity and Shelter
IEA responds to Sir Keir Starmer’s speech on the economy19/02/2021 14:20:00
Mark Littlewood, Director General at free market think tank the Institute of Economic Affairs, responded to Sir Keir Starmer’s speech on the economy
Return to school must come soon – with additional support for poorer pupils a priority19/02/2021 13:20:00
The emerging consensus to prioritise school reopenings is welcome. But how the return to school is managed is just as important as when. An optional return risks widening the gaps between disadvantaged students and their better-off peers. And even if the return to school is compulsory and soon, we will still need substantial additional support for poorer pupils.