Britain’s strength is its weakness

By Anatole Kaletsky
February 14, 2013

Mirror, mirror on the wall, who’s the weakest of them all? As G20 finance ministers warn of the threat of a “global currency war” at their meeting in Moscow this weekend, two odd features of this looming financial conflict tend to be overlooked.

The first is that every country’s objective in this war is to “lose” by making its currency weaker. This is because a weak currency tends to support exports, employment and economic growth (if all other things are equal, which they never quite are). The second oddity is that the clear winner in this global currency war has not been Japan, Switzerland, China or any of the other usual suspects, but a country rarely accused of financial aggression: Britain.

Since the global financial crisis started in mid-2007, the pound sterling has been, by a wide margin, the weakest major currency. The Bank of England’s trade-weighted sterling index fell by a record 30 percent in early 2009 and, despite a modest rebound in 2010-12, it remains 24 percent below its level of mid-2007. Japan, by contrast, has endured a rise in its trade-weighted exchange rate of 60 percent from July 2007 to late last year, when Prime Minister Shinzo Abe committed his new government to a more competitive rate. Japan is therefore fully entitled to resent other countries’ accusations of currency warfare, when it has in fact been a long-suffering pacifist, exposing its export companies to the full burden of other countries’ post-crisis currency adjustments.

But let us return to the biggest “winner” in the post-crisis currency wars, Britain. Sterling’s devaluation has clearly been no panacea; Britain has done worse on most measures of economic performance since 2008 than any G7 country apart from Italy. That, however, may have been inevitable. London’s dominant role in international finance made Britain more vulnerable than any other major economy to the greatest banking crisis in history. And once that was over, Prime Minister David Cameron imposed on his country the toughest budgetary austerity in the G7. Whether this policy was wise is an interesting question, discussed in several previous columns. A more important issue today is what may happen next to Britain.

Recent events in the foreign exchange market suggest a possible answer. Since the end of last year the pound has weakened dramatically against all other major currencies, apart from the yen. The British and Japanese currencies seem to be falling for similar reasons. Those countries’ economies have experienced almost no growth since 2009, and their governments are becoming increasingly desperate to end this long-term stagnation.

As a result, both the Bank of England and the Bank of Japan are undergoing radical management changes. Previously unthinkable concepts in monetary and fiscal policy are suddenly open for debate, as demonstrated by Shinzo Abe’s suggestions that the Bank of Japan’s monetary expansion should directly finance record-breaking new public investment programs, and by the speech on “helicopter money” delivered by Adair Turner, chairman of Britain’s Financial Services Authority last week. All these political and monetary upheavals are occurring in Britain and Japan just when political uncertainties are subsiding in the U.S., China and the euro zone.

Japan, of course, is used to policy uncertainty and political upheavals, having dealt with six prime ministers in the past five years. But for investors and businesses in Britain, the new unpredictability of politics and economic policy may come as a rude shock.

Starting with monetary policy, there are three reasons to expect Mark Carney, the next governor of the Bank of England, to experiment with new and potentially more aggressive versions of monetary policy when he takes over in July. First, Carney, currently head of the Bank of Canada, has repeatedly said that monetary policy could do more for growth in Britain, in sharp contrast to Mervyn King, the present governor, who believes the effectiveness of monetary stimulus has been exhausted. Second, Cameron presumably took the unprecedented decision to appoint a foreign citizen to the BoE for a reason, most likely to have the option of blaming the BoE ancien regime for the economy’s disappointing performance. For such a charge to stick, the new BoE management would have to adopt a discernibly different monetary policy. Finally, Carney himself is known to be interested in a political career in Canada. His chances of success would be greatly enhanced if he could return to Ottawa as the British economy’s radical savior, not just an anonymous central banker.

Regarding fiscal policy, it is now almost impossible for the British government to hit its budgetary targets, and the political risks of imposing any further tax hikes or spending cuts are overwhelming as the election approaches. The path of fiscal policy is now more uncertain in Britain than in the U.S. or most of the euro zone – and most market analysts expect Britain to lose its triple-A credit rating sometime this year.

Finally, political uncertainty is bound to intensify in Britain, even as it subsides in the rest of Europe and the U.S. In the three years since Cameron’s election in May 2010, Britain has had the most stable and predictable government in Europe. This will change as the election approaches, the present Conservative-Liberal coalition splinters and the many permutations of Conservative, Labour or coalition governments with their myriad of policy agendas come into view.

In short, Britain is in the process of transformation from a haven of political and economic stability into one of the world’s most unpredictable economies. Small wonder, then, that the pound has again started falling after its modest rebound since 2010. That points to at least one consolation from all the new uncertainties: Britain could again become a quiet winner in the global weak-currency war.

PHOTO: Britain’s Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne (C) laughs with Treasury Secretary Danny Alexander (L) and Prime Minister David Cameron after delivering his autumn budget in parliament in London REUTERS/UK Parliament

2 comments

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

Not very well written.

The main culprit is China. She is the one who faces the very real economic war cloud. She has lost her mind, and her soul, in doing business with the West. The only people who have benefited from this madness are the same greedy people that Cameron sucks up to.

The employment situation in GB is abysmal, and yet its MARGINALLY better than the rest of Europe. Many Greeks and Spaniards and Poles find some work in England. Europe is ripe for serious revolt, Mr Kaletsky.

This author should start writing fiction.

Posted by krimsonpage | Report as abusive

I read with interest the column article by Anatole Kaletsky on the UK and the GBP published today (Feb 14).

I agree with the general view that Mr. Kaletsky espouses. There are additional risks to the economic future of the UK that merit attention as well.

Regarding the “recession” in the UK, on the socio-political front I’m sure that the UK government has issued an edict to its members to never utter the word “depression” so as not to panic the masses. The fact remains that the UK is in the longest depression in its lengthy history, and is expected to remain so until at least 2015. This seven year (or possibly longer?) period would make the Great Depression of 1930-34 seem like a short-lived dip in the road. (see http://www.niesr.ac.uk/pdf/070213_150917 .pdf )

A further concern adding to the economic uncertainty is the possible breakup of the UK if Scotland separates, which it very well might do. I have observed this type of regional, unique-culture based separatist fervour in Quebec, which once voted by a narrow 51% to stay in Canada. The risk of this cast a pall over investment and economic growth in Canada for years. Scotland appears to share several traits with the Quebec sovereignist psyche.

The second item of concern is a referendum on remaining in the EU. Once the UKIP make it widely known by UK taxpayers that they pay approximately GBP 217 million per week (net of rebates, and rising) to run yet another level of government in Brussels, that not only does answer to them but often irritates them, the referendum vote might be a very loud NAY.

When viewing these matters in conjunction with the issues raised by Mr. Kaletsky, the outlook for the UK economy, and the GBP, looks grim.

John Heaven

Posted by jledbet | Report as abusive