Quote of the day

“I find economics increasingly satisfactory, and I think I am rather good at it.”– John Maynard Keynes
Showing posts with label political economy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label political economy. Show all posts

Saturday, 27 July 2019

Must-read article for aspiring economists

This article covers so many areas you need to have an understanding of, and be able to bring into essays, that it is critical you read and re-read it, until you have grasped its import; you can always email me (or bring up in September) about any bits that are unclear. CapX is an excellent source of commentary, and you should subscribe to it (it is free):

Rebalancing Britain: The northern city on the south coast

Today CapX launches a major new project with the Joseph Rowntree Foundation focusing on how the next Prime Minister should tackle the longstanding imbalances in the British economy. The project will focus not only on the well-documented North/South divide, but on the way smaller towns and cities are often left behind in national policy debates.
To kick off the series, CapX’s Acting Editor John Ashmore visited Portsmouth to find out the challenges facing the ‘northern city on the south coast’ – and the policies that can help address them.
On first inspection, Portsmouth might seem an unusual place to report on the challenges of rebalancing the British economy.
My first impression stepping off the train at Portsmouth Harbour is of confident prosperity.
Tourists converge on the HMS Victory and the Mary Rose, while the Emirates-sponsored Spinnaker Tower looms on the water’s edge. Bestriding the waterfront is Gunwharf Quays, once a key defensive bastion for the home of the Royal Navy, but now a 33-acre development of upmarket shops, offices and upmarket flats.
Look the other way, though, and you are greeted by the tower blocks of Portsea, an area that was once home to thousands of local dockers.
Those grey 60s buildings crop up all over the island city and are a reminder that while it might have world-class attractions, and it might be in affluent Hampshire, this city is also home to some of the most deprived places in the country.
HMS Warrior docked alongside the city’s historic dockyard (Photo: Gareth Milner / CapX)
It is often referred to as “the northern city on the south coast”. That’s partly an aesthetic observation – long Victorian terraces certainly make you feel more as though you’re in south Wales or the industrial north than the Home Counties. And like those areas, Portsmouth has suffered from the slow drawdown of traditional industry. Where once the local dockyard employed 40,000 people, now there are only a quarter of that number.
Though the city is medium-sized, with about 215,000 inhabitants, it is part of a much wider Solent economic area that is home to 1.3 million people, taking in Southampton, the New Forest and the Isle of Wight.
Wage levels and the unemployment rate in Portsmouth are average by national standards, but they lag behind the rest of the south-east.
Donna Jones, who led the local council between 2014 and 2018 and is now the Conservative PPC for Portsmouth South, says her home town stands out in the comfortable affluence of the wider region.
“Our average house prices, average employment, average education is much lower than the remainder of the south-east, the demographics of cities are often more challenging than the demographics of the countryside around.
“Portsmouth and Southampton are both very working class, elbows out, they’ve got a bit of an edge to them.”
Unlike some now down-at-heel former industrial towns, though, Portsmouth’s is not a story of steep decline from a heady era of shared prosperity. Parts of the city have always been poor, with a large working class population sustained by working at the docks. Conversely, areas such as Old Portsmouth and Southsea have been rich for a long time.
That disparity is reflected in the huge variation in house prices – a four-bed end of terrace in Buckland might set you back £200,000, while a similar-sized property in Old Portsmouth is on the market for just shy of £1.4 million.
Old Portsmouth is packed with high end housing and tourist attractions such as the Spinnaker Tower (top left) and the Royal Garrison Church (Photo: Gareth Milner / CapX)
After the Second World War, when Portsmouth suffered sustained bombing, huge slums were cleared and made way for council estates in the central areas of Buckland, Landport and Somerstown, as well as Paulsgrove, which is north of the island but still thought of as part of Portsmouth.
Back in 2014 David Cameron’s government was moved to create a Minister for Portsmouth when BAE announced the end of shipbuilding operations and the loss of almost 1,800 jobs – a role filled variously by Michael Fallon, Matt Hancock and Mark Francois. Several hundred more followed at the end of 2017.
Those job losses were a big blow to a city which includes neighbourhoods which rank in the bottom 10 per cent of the UK using the government’s Indices of Multiple Deprivation. [see Figure 1].
The disparity in affluence is clear in health outcomes. A resident of affluent Drayton in the north-east corner of the island can expect to live fully 10 years longer than someone just a few miles away in Charles Dickens ward (named for the novelist’s birthplace).
Figure 1 – How Portsmouth compares to the nation on the Index of Multiple Deprivation
Nor are the poorer parts of town tucked away or relegated to the margins: Portsmouth is the UK’s most densely populated city and its poorest areas rub right up against much more affluent ones.
As I walk around central areas such as Somerstown and Fratton, the contrast is quite striking.
While the waterfront has been lavished with care and cash to reel in the tourist pound, further inland boarded up shops and neglected buildings speak to some of the deep-seated economic challenges facing the city.
Despite these kinds of differences, Portsmouth also feels like a place with a strong sense of itself and its long history. Flick Drummond, who represented Portsmouth South between 2015 and 2017 describes a cohesive, tight-knit community.
“It’s not a divided community because we all work together. We all live on top of each other so we all know how the other half lives and there’s a community spirit,” she says.
Politics
Politically the city is a real mixed bag. Labour won Portsmouth South for the first time ever in 2017, while Defence Secretary Penny Mordaunt holds a 10,000-odd majority in Portsmouth North.
No party has overall control of the council, which is led by the Liberal Democrats’ Gerald Vernon-Jackson with Labour support. His predecessor, Donna Jones, is now the prospective parliamentary candidate for Portsmouth South, as well as leading the opposition group.
Portsmouth South is exactly the kind of seat the next Conservative leader will have to win back in a future election if they are to have any hope of a Tory a majority.
And if they are to win, the Tories must focus on the concerns of those on low incomes, whose votes are very much up for grabs. New research from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and academic Matthew Goodwin shows that Britain’s least affluent people are more engaged in politics and less loyal to particular parties than ever before.
Ten years on from the financial crisis, these voters are still feeling the pinch. Goodwin’s research found that those in low income households are as likely to say they are struggling financially as they were after the recessions of 1992 and 2008.
Long rows of Victorian terraces give Portsmouth the look of cities much further north (Photo: Blom UK via Getty Images)
Struggling to get by
One person who sees that belt-tightening up close on a daily basis is Sandy O’Neill, the chief executive of Portsmouth’s Citizens’ Advice Bureau.
Last year the charity’s Money Advice Team helped over 2,500 local residents, primarily with debt problems. Solutions range from formal measures – declaring bankruptcy, Individual Voluntary Arrangements or Debt Relief Orders – to simply asking creditors to relent.
The causes of financial trouble are familiar: high housing costs and rising utility bills and an increase in transient, short-term work have all contributed. O’Neill says her clients are more likely to be living in the private rented sector than in social housing.
The constant struggle to make ends also has a profound psychological impact, O’Neill says.
“In some areas people feel powerless. They feel that’s their lot and there’s nothing they can do about it and nobody’s listening to them.
“It’s born out of having battled for such a long time and nothing’s changed, they just feel like it’s pointless.”
Something has clearly gone badly wrong when people living in a relatively job-rich city in one of the country’s most affluent regions feel they have no way of improving their lives.
Frustrations dealing with government can add to the energy-sapping financial difficulties. For instance, some clients wait weeks just to get through to a Department for Work and Pensions adviser on the phone.
Being in arrears on Council Tax may also invite an extra charge if a client is taken to the magistrates court, something O’Neill describes as a postcode lottery.
“Charges in Portsmouth are very expensive, so when someone fails to pay Council Tax the local authority can take them to Magistrates and they charge approx £95, in London it’s £110.  When you look at Fareham it’s £45, in Havant it’s £60.
“We believe it only costs £25 to the local authority so they’re passing on a cost to the resident…to be charging on a profit basis just seems to be ludicrous.”
Council leader Gerald Vernon-Jackson agrees that there is a “large group who feel disenfranchised by the system”, something which was partly reflected in a 58-42 split in favour of Brexit.
He too identifies housing as a major issue. He points to the experience of one local woman who has had to move flat 17 times in the space of nine years, despite holding down the same job for seven years.
But, as the presence of affluent areas alongside the poorer ones suggests, the economy here has a great deal going for it. The Royal Navy has contributed to a thriving ecosystem of small, specialised engineering firms. While some service the defence sector directly, there are also firms working with Formula 1, pharmaceuticals and precision engineering.
In terms of  bigger employers, IBM did at one time have their European headquarters in Portsmouth, but have been gradually scaling down their presence. The likes of Airbus, Rolls Royce and BAE Systems are here too.
SMEs
The problem, Vernon-Jackson argues, is attracting companies in between the big conglomerates and the smaller outfits.
“We’ve got a few big companies and we’ve got lots of little ones – what we don’t have is as many medium companies as we should have and that’s the area where we need to grow the economy of the city.”
Attracting medium-sized companies is one thing, but the city also needs to do more to make sure they are bringing the kind of highly-skilled jobs that boost productivity and wages. In the Centre for Cities ranking of urban areas based on their share of knowledge-intensive service jobs, Portsmouth came 50th in a list of 62.
“In the context of other cities it hasn’t done well in attracting these kind of jobs. That has implications in terms of jobs, wages and career progression,” says Paul Swinney, the Centre’s policy director.
Swinney says the issue is not so much skills – where Portsmouth performs reasonably well – but the poor condition of the city centre. In that respect, it’s a challenge shared by many similar-sized towns and cities in the post-industrial north of England.
The Centre for Cities advocates using a portion of the £31bn National Infrastructure Fund specifically for city centres, which areas like Portsmouth would then be able to apply for.
However Vernon-Jackson says that even if bids are successful, the whole model of local government bidding for slices of Whitehall’s cash is an exhausting, counter-productive process.
“We waste such huge quantities of money bidding for stuff, setting stuff up and then when the money finishes three years later winding it all down again and the money would be much better spent if we could just put it in the base budget and we knew what we were spending it on.”
Another concern is an over-reliance on public sector employment, which means vulnerability to cuts in central government. At the moment the biggest employers are the Queen Alexandra hospital north of the island, the Navy base and the council itself, which between them have nearing 30,000 staff – this in an area with a working-age population of about 145,000.
Retail woes
That parts of the private sector are struggling is evident in areas such as North End, where many of the shops on the main thoroughfare, London Road, are boarded up or in a state of disrepair.
Caroline Collings, who chaired the city’s branch of the Federation of Small Business for 15 years, points the finger squarely at the tax system.
“The business rates are ridiculously high for retail and have decimated our high street so at one point the business rates were higher than the rents being charged.
“London Road is classed as a ‘high street’ so it was being charged exorbitant rates. It has a main road going through it, but that doesn’t make it a high street.”
Disused shopfronts, including a former snooker hall on London Road (Photo: Gareth Milner / CapX)
The demise of some retailers and the fact many shopfronts are left more or less abandoned creates a vicious circle. The kind of high-wage middle-sized companies the council wants to attract are not keen to locate in a city centre that is not the most attractive and lacks high-quality office space.
In an attempt to rectify that, the council has recently given the green light to spending £100m to buy up a 120-acre site in the north of the city. It’s not a move that’s been met with unanimous approval, to say the least. Morgan, the local Labour MP, has described it as a “very risky gamble”. On the Tory side, Donna Jones is concerned that one of Lakeside’s biggest tenants, IBM, is dialling down its operations at the site.
Infrastructure
Inadequate infrastructure is also holding Portsmouth’s economy back. It’s a challenge the city shares with swathes of the country waiting for a better bus service, a road to be dualled or a train line to be electrified. Smaller towns in particular are often forgotten in a national transport debate that has in recent years become fixated with mega-projects like Crossrail and HS2.
The train from London takes an hour and 40 minutes on the “fast” service and a little over two hours on the stopping one. It may be in the south-east, but in terms of transport to the capital, Portsmouth might as well be in the Midlands – except that it’s actually much quicker to travel the 120-odd miles to Birmingham.
Although getting to the country’s economic powerhouse quickly is clearly desirable, of much greater importance to most Portsmuthians is transport within the city and the wider Solent region
It’s an issue that will only become more important given the paucity of land available to build new houses on the island, which means new housing is liable to be north of the island. Local buses are not terrible but could be improved. Ideas for a tram or a light-rail system have been floated in the past, only to wither and die on the vine of tight budgets.
In terms of what economists call ‘agglomeration benefits’, the Solent region could be doing a lot better too. The train between Portsmouth and Southampton takes about an hour to crawl just 20 miles along the cost. That means people in both cities are forced into their cars.
“Lots of people work in Southampton, so the motorway is busy every day, it’s like a carpark in the morning because the motorway is so overcrowded,” Donna Jones observes.
There’s little love lost between the two cities – especially when it comes to football – but closer, quicker links between the two would clearly benefit the whole of Hampshire’s economy.
Local government
The way services are provided is also clearly a source of frustration. A common theme talking to local politicians was a feeling that the council could administer many services more efficiently and responsively than Whitehall departments, some of which have competing and sometimes actively contradictory policies.
Gerald Vernon-Jackson cites skills as a prime example. “Government has 42 different agencies delivering skills stuff and the transactional cost between all those organisations is enormous and the waste of public money and all their stuff is done on a national basis and different places have different needs for different skills,” he says.
Bus services are another area he would like to see brought under local control – and one where improvements could have a marked impact for those on low incomes.  As the Local Government Association has pointed out, there are some 5 billion bus journeys a year in the UK – three times more than made by train.
Policy solutions
Where do we go from here? The ‘rebalancing’ debate in the UK often seems to boil down to a crude regionalism, with projects such as the Northern Powerhouse dominating the conversation. Although redressing the investment imbalance between the north and south is certainly a necessary condition for improving the UK’s economic performance, it is far from sufficient.
There are other equally pressing imbalances – between coastal communities and those further inland, between big cities and small cities, and between built-up areas and the countryside.
And just as the north is far from uniformly deprived, so too the south of England is far from universally affluent. As a city like Portsmouth amply demonstrates, some of the most deeply ingrained poverty can be found in places that appear to be doing alright.
As Matthew Goodwin’s recent research demonstrates, addressing the needs of low income voters is a political imperative for the next Prime Minister.
The next Chancellor, whoever he or she may be, will also have the chance to shape longer term priorities with the Spending Review, which will conclude at the same time as the Budget in the autumn.
The good news is there are a great many pro-market, conservative policies that the next occupant of 10 Downing St can put in place to deal with people’s concerns and revitalise the parts of the country that might need a helping hand.
  • Among the biggest priorities will be coming up with a post-Brexit regional development policy to replace the EU structural funds on which some areas have relied heavily.  Millions of voters who backed a campaign based on taking back control want to see that reflected in concrete plans – and money – for their local areas.
  • Reforming taxes to help the poorest is crucial. One of the policies put forward by CapX’s parent organisation, the Centre for Policy Studies, is making sure people on the lowest incomes no longer have to pay national insurance, a step which would significantly boost disposable incomes for the least well off workers.
  • The CPS has also called for a reduction in the taper rate for Universal Credit, as recommended in the CPS’ Making Work Pay report, would significantly boost the incomes of the working poor and ensure people are always better off in work.
  • Dealing with concerns over housing by both liberalising the planning system to increase supply, while also offering more secure tenancies for those in the private rented sector.
  • Small businesses, often the lifeblood of our town centres, also have an unnecessarily hard time – and their struggles have serious knock-on effects that must be taken into account. While it’s encouraging that reform is now high on the political agenda, the next Prime Minister must be bold and really tackle what has become the scourge of small retailers, replacing a system that is both complex and iniquitous with one that is simple and fair.
  • A simpler, flatter funding system for local government would be welcome, too, so that councils do not have to waste their time and limited resources bidding for central government money and can concentrate on actually getting things done.
  • The next Prime Minister must also continue the decentralisation agenda which begun with the introduction of Metro Mayors, and recognise that local government is often much better placed than Whitehall departments to deliver services.
Over the coming weeks CapX will be publishing a series of responses from MPs and commentators as part of the Rebalancing Britain series, beginning on Monday with a piece from Mansfield MP Ben Bradley. 

Tuesday, 4 April 2017

Enrichment reading on political economy

Some very useful material for essays, particularly to avoid those "lame" conclusions; you will have to go through the whole thing, but you can skip the detail and just note down material you might use - here's a snippet:

"One estimate is that 88 percent of job losses in US manufacturing are because of automation, not foreign competition."


In defence of Neoliberalism


We should judge economic systems by their results. When judging the much-maligned “neoliberal era” from the late 1970s to 2016, what matters is whether it made people’s lives better or not.
This era, I believe, has seen enormous progress in terms of wealth creation and improvements in the wellbeing of both Britain’s and the world’s poor. Opening markets up and exposing incumbent firms to competition led to a massive increase in wealth that ended up in the pockets of the many, not the few.
This system is now under threat from people who want to undo the reforms of this era from both the left and the right. Anybody who prefers prosperity and growth to stagnation must now make the preservation of the global liberal order their main priority.
The global picture
Everyone used to be poor. The default for mankind is poverty – the question isn’t why people are poor, but how anyone has become rich.
Before the industrial revolution, even the richest kings enjoyed a standard of living and a life expectancy below that of the average person in the West today. This began to change in the 19th and 20th Centuries, but improvements in people’s lives were concentrated in the Western world and Japan.
But, since the mid-1970s, that has begun to change. Global absolute poverty has been in free fall since the current era of globalisation began, and China and other developing countries began to adopt more trade- and market-friendly policies. Trade and market liberalisation seems to have been the major driving force behind this uplift in incomes and living standards.
The figure above shows global trade as a percentage of GDP since 1960 – that is, how much of what countries produced was meant for export, and how much was meant for domestic consumption. This very large rise demonstrates the growth of global trade during this period, and the deepening economic integration that took place across the world.
 
We can look at a whole range of measures based to their levels in 1990 to see whether this rise in global trade coincided with improvements in people’s living standards. The figure above, based on World Bank data, demonstrates substantial improvements in things like literacy, pollution control, and hunger reduction.
These lines on the screen represent real people, with real lives. Falling hunger means fewer children going to bed hungry, or growing up stunted because they’ve been so badly malnourished as children, or even dying of starvation or disease. If vitamin-fortified GM crops like Golden Rice could be bought and sold freely, things would be even better.
People who are no longer in extreme poverty still have grindingly difficult lives, but slight improvements in people’s incomes can still make them much better off. Recent evidence from Bangladesh shows that women and girls who lived in villages close enough to work in sweatshops instead of subsistence farming were able to marry later, delay childbirth, and were much more likely to stay in school for longer – effects that were all strongest in 12-18 year old girls.
The figure below shows how unusual the global poverty reductions since the 1970s are, by historical standards. For most of human history we’ve been in a Malthusian trap where only a lucky minority could live in anything more than absolute poverty. We’ve been living through an unprecedentedly good period in human history.
The largest driver of this effect, of course, was China. Beginning in 1978 with agricultural reforms that disbanded communal farms and permitted rural non-farm enterprises, through the decentralisation of control to the state-owned enterprises in the later 1980s, until the full invigoration of the private sector from 1992 with reforms to taxation, property rights, banking and foreign trade and investment, China’s growth has been truly remarkable. Whether the growth was primarily export-led or not is the subject of some debate, but trade was unquestionably a major driver of China’s growth – at least one third of its growth per annum.
Even if we exclude China from the global data, though, the share of people living in extreme poverty still fell from 29% in 1981 to 12% in 2013. Allowing people to move from subsistence farming into factory work has given them higher incomes and a chance to make a better life for their children, mirroring the move that Britain made in the 17th and 18th centuries, and other developed countries made in the 19th century. Countries like the USSR and Maoist China that have tried to strong-arm the switch towards industrialisation have had mass death, famine, and failure.
The global picture between 1988 and 2008 is represented in the figure below, with the horizontal x-axis representing different income percentiles and the vertical y-axis representing how much richer that percentile was at the end of the period compared to the beginning.
This “elephant chart”, originally published by economist Branko Milanovic and named for its supposedly elephant-like shape, showed very strong real-terms growth among the “global middle” and the people at the very top of the global income distribution, but relatively poor or even negative growth among people in the 70th to 95th percentiles (as well as people at the very bottom).
This, it was thought, told the story of Brexit, Trump and Le Pen: a dissatisfied Western working class that had been “left behind” by globalisation. Paul Krugman described it as showing “recent history in one chart”.
But all is not as it seems. Adam Corlett, an economist at the Resolution Foundation, realised that, in Britain at least, the national figures told a different story. Decomposing the data showed that many mature economies had experienced very strong growth – the UK in particular, where every income group experienced nearly 100% real-terms growth in disposable incomes. The bottom 10% saw their incomes rise by over 160%!
What Milanovic’s original chart concealed, Corlett found, was that population shrinkage in Japan and catastrophes in many post-Soviet economies were skewing the data. When those countries were removed from the data set, the world’s developed countries showed decent (if not stellar) growth of between 45% and 60% across the board in this period – with high variations, suggesting that there is nothing inevitable about stagnant incomes for the developed world’s lower middle classes.
The British case
Britain’s growth during this period has been remarkable. Not only have incomes doubled in real terms, the UK has done very well relative to its neighbours in continental Europe. The figure below shows the GDP per capita in the major European economies as a percentage of the USA’s. We use the US as a benchmark to represent the technological frontier – a proxy for the richest a large and diverse economy could be.
What we see is that, from around 1980 (marked by the red vertical line), the UK began to converge with the US and improve relative to Germany, France and Italy. (Note that the German numbers are distorted by including the former East Germany from 1991 onwards, making it less useful as a comparison after that.) This is likely to be a combination of the pro-market Thatcher reforms and the increased openness to trade and competition caused by EU membership. The opposite set of policies saw us fall from being the very richest country in Europe 1800-1950 to being mid-ranking by 1973.
This is useful to bear in mind when considering arguments like this one that the Thatcher reforms were a failure because trend growth after 1980 was slower in Britain than trend growth before 1980. If growth across the developed world happened along these lines, but Britain’s post-1980 growth was unusually strong relative to the others, then we have what looks like quite a strong case that Thatcherism and EU membership were good for Britain’s economy.
Income inequality (the figure above) did rise during this period, but only early on, and it has not risen since. Indeed the ONS recently showedthat income inequality was at its lowest level in thirty years.
Similarly, the wealth shares of the top 10%, top 5%, top 1% and so on have all stayed static since 1980 in Britain, and at historically low levels (the figure below). It should be noted that wealth shares had been falling for the century prior to this, and some may view the levelling-off of this trend as a bad thing, but it cannot be argued that the post-1980 reforms made this worseI doubt whether inequality is worth focusing on at all, as opposed to the absolute wellbeing of the poor, but in any case the data does not show a big problem here.
The British experience since the crisis has been unpleasant, but much less bad than most other countries. I suspect a large part of this is explainable by our having an independent central bank that eased policy substantially when it needed to (as the US Federal Reserve also did but, catastrophically, the European Central Bank did not), and the labour market reforms that weakened trade union power, making it easier to fire workers and cheaper to hire them.
It’s interesting that, since the crisis, the bottom 20% have done best compared to where they were in 2008. This is not to diminish the importance of raising their incomes more – they are still a lot poorer than the average UK household – but it points to a resilience in the British system that has shielded our worst-off households from economic harm in ways that other countries have had less success at doing.
What’s next
The evidence above does not prove that unregulated markets are always and everywhere a good thing. But it does tell us that the “neoliberal” era of rising international trade and domestic deregulation coincided with astonishing improvements in people’s wellbeing both in Britain and in the world’s poorest countries. Those who want to undo what has been achieved should face extreme scepticism by the rest of us.
The populists and nationalists who are gaining support in many Western countries are doing so after a period of low or zero median income growth since the Great Recession. Though their support falls along cultural lines, their rise cannot be held separately from economic factors.
Trade probably cannot be blamed for the bulk of the decline in manufacturing jobs, which some people hold to be uniquely important. Manufacturing jobs have declined for the most part because automation, not foreign workers, can do the same thing for less. One estimate is that 88 percent of job losses in US manufacturing are because of automation, not foreign competition.
Of course things could be better. But mostly those improvements will come by doing more opening-up of markets to competition, not by closing up competitive ones.
Take the use of land, for example. It’s not obvious to people that there are huge second-order effects that restrictions on land-use create.
These restrictions on what you can build do not just raise the cost of housing – they stop people from moving to where the jobs are, and hold back economic progress in general.
A computer programmer has fewer opportunities to get a high-productivity job or to meet someone she can create a brilliant new iPhone app with in Spokane, WA, than in Silicon Valley. But if San Fransisco rents are so high that she cannot afford to move to where the other programmers are, the wealth she might have created is just gone. In the UK, how many people would like to move to somewhere like London or Cambridge to find better-paid, more productive work – but are prevented by housing costs?
The cost of this effect across the economy can be enormous. Economists Chang-Tai Hseih and Enrico Moretti have estimated that restraints on building new homes in high productivity cities like New York and San Fransisco could be making the US 13.5% poorer than it needs to be, and simply reducing building regulations down to the level of the median US city could increase US GDP by 9.5%, permanently. Britain’s restraints may be even worse.
Here, as with trade, incumbents protected by regulation may be worse off if it is removed, at least in the short term. But the crucial point is that there is not a fixed amount of stuff to be made, or a fixed amount of houses to be allocated. In both cases, allowing new players to compete against incumbents does not just drive down prices, it allows for potentially much greater gains by reorganising what people do in a more efficient and innovative way. There are so many other parts of the economy where this is also the case – we focus on the “seen” winners and losers and forget the longer-run, unseen effects.
Summing up
The case for free markets is that they do a better job of creating wealth than anything else we’ve tried. It does not require us to believe in inviolable property rights or that taxation is theft, or indeed that government always and everywhere is a bad thing.
It does not even ask that we treat human beings’ interests as being roughly equal in importance. If we do, the case becomes a lot more urgent because the lives of the global poor matter to us as well as those of our countrymen. But the nationalistic, selfish case for free trade and free markets stands by itself.
The “neoliberal era” has made Britain rich and has made unprecedented steps forward in improving the lives of the world’s poor. Those people who now threaten to undo it should not just be opposed by free marketeers, but by anyone who wants tomorrow to be better than today.