Opinion

Anatole Kaletsky

Learning budget lessons from Japan and Britain

By Anatole Kaletsky
October 10, 2013

While the world is transfixed by the U.S. budget paralysis, fiscal policies have been moving in several other countries, most notably in Japan and Britain, with lessons for Washington and for other governments all over the world.

Let’s start with the bad news: Shinzo Abe’s decision to increase consumption taxes from 5 to 8 percent next April. This massive tax hike, to be followed by another increase in 2015, threatens to strangle Japan’s consumer-led growth from next year onwards, since Abe looks unlikely to offset this massive fiscal tightening with stimulative measures that would maintain consumers’ spending power. Even if Abe delivers on his vague promise to compensate with business tax reductions, these will only aggravate the over-investment and corporate cash hoarding that have long distorted the Japanese economy. Meanwhile, the government’s willingness to risk economic recovery in the cause of fiscal discipline implies that those of us who believed Abe was making an unconditional commitment to do whatever it takes to achieve economic recovery were simply wrong. Now that the forces of budgetary austerity have reasserted themselves, Japan’s probability of ending its decades of stagnation is much reduced.

Now for the good news: a change of attitude to debt and borrowing is transforming Britain from the second-weakest G7 economy (after Italy) into a world champion of growth. As recently as last April, the British government was attacked by the International Monetary Fund’s chief economist for “playing with fire” by trying too hard to reduce its budget deficits. This week the IMF World Economic Outlook praised Britain’s rapidly improving economy and upgraded 2013 growth projections by 0.5 percentage points, to 1.4 percent. That may not sound like much, but this improvement comes when almost every economy is being downgraded — and compared with last year’s miserable 0.2 percent growth rate, it feels almost like a boom.

Does this experience prove that David Cameron was right to persist with his unprecedented program of spending cuts, tax hikes and fiscal austerity? The answer is no, for two reasons.

First, the British government, despite its tough fiscal rhetoric, has actually relaxed its efforts at deficit reduction and has effectively abandoned its commitment to balanced budgets. In 2010 and 2011 Britain’s structural deficit was slashed by 4.3 percent of GDP, by far the biggest fiscal tightening in any major economy. In the next two years, 2012 and 2013, the pace of deficit reduction has halved to just 2 percent, and according to the IMF’s latest analysis there will be no further tightening at all in 2014. So instead of a near-balanced budget, Britain will next year still have the biggest budget deficit among the advanced Western economies: 5.8 percent of GDP, against 4.6 percent in the U.S., 3.5 percent in France and 2.1 percent in Italy. Thus Britain’s better growth performance, far from demonstrating the wisdom of relentless budget cuts, has actually reflected an easing of fiscal austerity and a belated acceptance of much wider deficits than European and U.S. politicians seem willing to tolerate.

Secondly and more importantly, this year’s revival of growth in Britain has resulted directly from an audacious government policy to promote huge increases in highly-leveraged mortgage debt. This mortgage-support plan is equivalent, from a macroeconomic standpoint, to a huge expansion of government borrowing. When George Osborne, Britain’s finance minister, announced last March that the Treasury would provide unprecedented guarantees to support the reintroduction of 95 percent mortgages — which had been eliminated by prudential bank regulation — he immediately transformed Britain’s economic prospects, as explained here at the time.

This announcement meant that Osborne was finally accepting the fundamental principle of Keynesian economics: a country emerging from recession must increase, not reduce, its borrowings, until the point is reached where the economy’s excess savings are fully employed. Whether the additional borrowing is undertaken by the government or the private sector is of secondary importance. If additional government borrowing is unacceptable for political reasons, while large-scale business borrowing is unlikely because of weak demand, then a boom in household borrowing will do almost as well.

Bizarrely, the government’s plan to create a property and mortgage boom attracted little attention among economists, even though Osborne described it clearly last March, promising to create £130 billion of new debt over three years, a credit stimulus worth 4 percent of GDP annually. Although the proposed credit stimulus was roughly three times the size of this year’s fiscal tightening, many economists ignored it. They simply dismissed the possibility that the Cameron government would actively encourage a massive buildup of highly-leveraged consumer borrowing, while continually reiterating its slogan that “you cannot cure debt with more debt.”

As recently as last month, the IMF, the Financial Times and several business lobbies, responding to the rapid increase in house prices that started within days of Osborne’s March announcement, called on Cameron to reduce the maximum borrowing of ÂŁ600,000 permitted under the guarantee scheme, to postpone the scheme’s expansion from newly built homes to existing properties or maybe even to cancel it altogether. Cameron responded to these critics by doing the opposite — bringing the scheme’s expansion forward to this week, instead of waiting until January.

Cameron probably made this decision for political reasons — he wants the property and mortgage boom to be in full swing by the time of the 2015 general election. But in doing so, he showed a better understanding of economics than many economists. Recessions are caused by excess savings and this means that higher borrowing, whether by the government through fiscal policy or by the private sector through the housing market, is a necessary condition for economic recovery. Nations that try simultaneously to reduce their public and private debts are doomed to stagnation, with monetary policy almost powerless to help when interest rates are near zero. Britain now understands this, while Japan apparently does not. Could someone please explain it to the budget warriors in Washington?

PHOTO: Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe arrives for the family photo at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Summit in Nusa Dua, on the Indonesian resort island of Bali October 8, 2013. REUTERS/Murdani Usman

Comments
7 comments so far | RSS Comments RSS

We cannot make a comparison between institutionally modern and functional states with the institutional system in the United States. The latter is the state of “stasis.” The warriors are playing their inside-Beltway games, which only appear to be about the debt ceiling and the Obamacare funding.
In fact, it is the institutional crisis.
Not exactly a popular topic. But if SCOTUS makes the political system “on sale,” we may have an interesting discussion in the nearest future.
Sorry for not saying a word about Mr. Abe and Mr. Cameron.

Posted by OUTPOST2012.NET | Report as abusive
 

Lovely jubbly, and things will only get better, now that the Red Cross is back in Britain, for the first time since the Second Big One.

Posted by satori23 | Report as abusive
 
 

here we are again: every 6 months the UK economy booms. August data have already dismissed the claim but nevermind. Sub-prime Osborne is reinflating the property bubble in view of the next elections whilst the budget deficit is much higher than on the Continent. Wake-up and smell the coffee: nobody believes the Uk miracles anymore

Posted by phoen2011 | Report as abusive
 

Britain’s scheme looks like Fannie & Freddie.

Sure, austerity ending was a condition for recovery, but this is the very worst way to do it.

Cameron and Osbourne got themselves into a hole by talking austerity, that is why they can’t relax fiscal policy directly.

Posted by Urban_Guerilla | Report as abusive
 

The only problem with credit expansion is that where is the limit? 10x GDP or 100x?

Posted by wooppp | Report as abusive
 

“China’s official news agency has called for the creation of a “de-Americanised world”, saying the destinies of people should not be left in the hands of a hypocritical nation with a dysfunctional government.”

Our political parties are seriously hurting the country now. Both of them. We need a referendum vote on Term limits for congress and SCOUS and campaign finance reform. Nothing more or it will be turned into a never ending argument and well get nothing. Just those two things and all things can be achieved after just one or two election cycles. DEMAND IT!

Posted by tmc | Report as abusive
 

Post Your Comment

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/
  •