Even before Covid-19 there were calls for governments to write off some or all of mounting personal debt, on grounds of social justice and the impacts of debt on the poorest in society.
Some governments have now taken measures to guarantee existing or new corporate and/or personal borrowing to prevent defaults. There are two main drawbacks: firstly, the guaranteeing of loans transfers risk from private banks to the state without imposing costs on the former. Secondly, it can create moral hazard by failing to differentiate between more and less creditworthy borrowers. Guaranteeing borrowing may be a less effective measure than other approaches, such as converting corporate loans to equity.
The flip side of reducing debt is to increase incomes. Many governments have already introduced such measures temporarily – for example, the UK’s coronavirus furlough scheme. More broadly, campaigns and proposals for a universal basic income or similar argue for a permanent floor on incomes. One key issue with income support is that unless high outgoings are reduced, much of it will accrue in practice to banks, landlords and other rentiers.
Economist Johnna Montgomerie proposes a cancellation of a significant portion of the UK’s household debt in a blog for Sheffield Political Economy Research Institute, starting with those most harmful to poorer people.
The End the Debt Trap coalition - which includes the New Economics Foundation, Toynbee Hall, Jubilee Debt Campaign and others - call for the cost of credit, including on credit cards or overdrafts, to be capped. The government has already done something similar by capping payday loan rates.
At the start of the coronavirus outbreak Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, writing for Economics for Inclusive Prosperity, set out the rationale for government becoming a payer-of-last-resort by guaranteeing incomes.
Analysis from the IPPR suggests that the government's emergency responses to the Covid-19 pandemic will exacerbate inequalities by insulating creditors and asset-owners from the worst effects of the pandemic while driving many of the most financially vulnerable deeper into debt.
Social housebuilding has declined sharply in recent decades. The 'right to buy' policies of the 1980s and 1990s led to greatly reduced income for local authorities, whose ability to borrow in order to build homes was capped until 2018. Today there are widespread calls for a major new programme of council-led social housing. Housing charity Shelter proposes that 3.1 million homes should be build over the next 20 years. While local authorities now have the power to borrow, the reality of their funding situation means they will need support from national government to deliver on that kind of ambition.
Around 20% of UK homes are privately rented, up from 10% in 1996-97. In 2018 it was estimated that 16% of millennials will end up privately renting 'from cradle to grave'. The booming private rental market includes some of the worst quality housing stock and many renters have insecure housing tenures.
Proposals for tackling this include giving renters legal protection from sharp price increases, maintaining and regulating a central register of private landlords, and bringing in controls on the rents that can be charged. Giving renters indefinite leases – as is currently the norm in Scotland – would allow evictions to be banned except for specified reasons such as the sale of the property.
In its review of the future of social housing, Shelter calls for a 'decisive and generational shift in housing policy'. Its proposed programme of investment and reform includes a new housing regulator, a renewal of public housebuilding in mixed communities, with all homes sold being replaced, and the creation of permanent tenancies as a legal minimum for all private renters. .
CLES is working with the London Borough of Newham to create a municipally owned property and redevelopment company, using a 'community wealth building' approach to embark on a municipal housebuilding programme to create affordable homes for the borough’s residents.
Shelter proposes a programme of New Civic Housebuilding, combining land market reform with public investment to channel private competition into raising the quality and affordability of homes.
In its review of the private rental market, IPPR calls for a range of reforms, including the establishment of a national landlord register and a 'property MOT', a new specialist housing court to deal with landlord-tenant housing disputes, mandatory open-ended tenancies, limiting rent increases to the consumer price index, and changes to Universal Credit to better support renters.
IPPR call for an affordable housebuilding programme in England's rural areas to close the 'affordability gap' between house prices and average incomes.
Climate talks are in practice matters of intense geopolitics and economics and are as influenced by discussions at G7 finance meetings as the climate talks themselves.
The UK’s position as COP host will be critical; it has pledged to double its international climate aid to £11.6 billion by 2026.
The COP26 Universities Network urges the UK as COP president to instigate a “Sustainable Recovery Alliance” as part of its green recovery plans, encouraging nations to share best practice on how best to channel stimulus spending.
This E3G brief warns that the geopolitics of climate change are “on a knife edge” and that failing to support action will have the same consequences as actively blocking it.
Women in full-time employment in the UK are paid 7% less on average per hour than their male counterparts. Among employees as a whole, women earn on average 15% less than men per hour. This is largely because women are over-represented in part-time employment, which is less well paid.
One factor behind the gender pay gap is illegal pay discrimination - unequal pay for equal work. Another is the uneven burden of unpaid care work. A key issue is the 'maternity penalty', the economic cost to mothers of taking on more unpaid child-rearing than men, which slows their career progression and leads many women to take on more flexible, less senior and less well-paid roles. Encouraging men to take on more childcare, for example by increasing paternity leave, could help redress this imbalance.
The introduction of mandatory gender pay gap reporting in large employers has generally been recognised as incentivising pay equality. But the pay gap is proportionately much greater among higher-paid jobs than lower-paid, a consequence of the fact that in many sectors senior positions are still dominated by men.
A report by the Women's Budget Group, the University of Nottingham and the University of Warwick found that the largest economic burden of the pandemic has been experienced by working class women, and called for sick pay to match the National Living Wage.
In its The State of Pay report IPPR provides an overview and explanation of the drivers of the gender pay gap in the UK, and how these might be redressed.
Examining the history and causes of the gender pay gap, Linda Scott of the Said Business School at Oxford argues that it is the result of entrenched biases in institutions run by men.
The final report of the Commission on a Gender-Equal Economy shows how unpaid and undervalued care work contribute to the gender pay gap and proposes a series of measures to invest in social care and childcare which would enhance women's pay both directly and indirectly by enabling more women to continue in paid work.
The Fawcett Society has conducted a comparative study of the gender pay gap indifferent countries. It finds that the UK approach is more light touch than elsewhere, resulting in fewer incentives on organisations to improve women's pay.
One of the most common arguments in the growth debate is about the value of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as a measure of economic progress. This was not what GDP, which measures national income and output, was originally designed for. But economic policy and analysis has generally used it as such: GDP growth is the primary (though not only) economic goal of most governments.
The argument against GDP is that it does not measure environmental degradation or the depletion of ‘natural capital’; it ignores productive activity (such as childcare and housework) that occurs outside market transactions; it cannot take into account intangible but important public goods such as social cohesion and trust; it does not reflect subjective happiness or life satisfaction; and does not measure the distribution of income or wealth.
Many attempts have therefore been made to construct alternative metrics of economic and social progress, with the aim of ‘dethroning’ GDP from its paramount position. Some seek to adjust GDP in various ways. Others have compiled an index of various measures.
The most common approach is to use a ‘dashboard’ of multiple economic, environmental and social indicators. These more complex datasets have the ability to track a breadth of concerns, but make it harder to track overall progress and tell a clear narrative story.
The Centre for the Understanding of Sustainable Prosperity explores the four main approaches to measuring economic and social progress, finding a clear distinction between indicators of use to policy makers, and those designed to tell a public story.
The OECD has taken a lead in devising and publishing alternative indicators. Updating a landmark 2009 report on the limitations of GDP by Joseph Stiglitz, Amartya Sen and Jean-Paul Fitoussi, its ‘Beyond GDP’ report argues that good policy needs better measures. The OECD’s Better Life Index published dashboards of economic, environmental and social indicators for 36 high income countries.
National-level examples of alternative indicator sets include the UK Office for National Statistics’ Measurement of National Wellbeing dashboard, and New Zealand’s Living Standards Framework.
In a paper for the ILO surveying a range of approaches to devising alternative indicators, Günseli Berik argues that the Genuine Progress Indicator, a composite indicator which makes roughly 25 adjustments to GDP, is the most useful in comparing countries and conveying a simple narrative of progress.
The UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, are an internationally accepted measure of national progress. They divide 17 domains of human life into 169 targets for 2030. While broadly welcomed at the level of ambition, their value in driving policy in practice remains a subject of some debate.
The Covid-19 pandemic was not an unexpected event, viral outbreaks of this kind have been predicted by medical and environmental scientists for many years.
The risk of global contagion is increasing as the world becomes more densely populated and interconnected. These risks can be minimised if governments make better preparations for pandemics, both within and between nations.
Cooperation over the production and distribution of vaccines is essential. There are wider factors at play as pandemic risk is intertwined with wider social, environmental and economic challenges.
The Global Preparedness Monitoring Board sets out why the risks of pandemics are rising and explores the actions that governments can take to prevent pandemics and reduce their impacts.
The United Nations Environment Programme’s major Preventing the Next Pandemic report explores the causes of, and how to reduce, pandemic transmission. These include the need for better food systems and greater support for poorer nations suffering an outbreak.
The complex connections between disease, ecosystems and wellbeing are demonstrated by the Disease Scenarios Africa project. Its interactive models explore how factors including population growth, climate change and food prices interact with social change, conflict, and land use to determine pandemic risk.
In the decade before the pandemic, public services saw the longest sustained reduction in public spending on record. In 2019-20 day-to-day spending per person on public services was 7% lower in real terms than a decade before. Outside of health, real-terms public service spending was cut by 20% (25% per person).
Even without any change in policy, the UK's ageing population will require higher spending on health and social care and other services to maintain service quality. There are also widespread demands for better services and higher spending in areas such as schools and further education, childcare, public transport, policing, justice and legal aid and local services such as libraries and youth provision.
The UK spends less on public services (including social security and defence) than most other higher income (OECD) countries. The UK also raises less in tax as a proportion of national income than most others, though government plans are for this to rise in the next few years.
A higher level of spending on public services could be supported by an increase in borrowing (see our pages on 'Stimulating economic recovery'), but a sustained increase is likely to require a higher overall level of taxation. This could be achieved by raising the rates of existing taxes, or by tax reforms which sought to raise more revenue from other sources, such as from asset wealth or multinational companies. Our pages on taxation provide more information.
Analysing the March 2021 Budget, the Institute of Fiscal Studies notes that the government plans to cut public services by £16bn a year compared to pre=-pandemic levels. IFS Director Paul Johnson called the Chancellor’s medium-term spending plans “implausibly low”.
Bringing together evidence on underinvestment in the NHS, social care and public health prior to the pandemic, Anita Charlesworth of the Health Foundation argues that this, along with overly centralised decision-making and a reliance on non-competitive outsourcing, lies behind the UK’s high Covid-19 death toll.
A July 2020 survey by the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) found majority support for increasing tax and spending on health, education and social benefits, as there has been since 2017.
A four-year commission of inquiry on the future of the NHS led by the London School of Economics and the Lancet argues that increases in public spending of at least 4% in real terms are needed for health, social care and public health over the next decade.
The Women’s Budget Group calls for spending on key public services (health, care, education) to be seen as investment in social infrastructure. It argues that a focus only on physical infrastructure reflects a gender bias in economic policymaking and leads to underspending on vital public goods.
A growing number of voices, including Tax Justice UK, IPPR, the Resolution Foundation and others, have called for wealth to be taxed more highly to pay for public services. This would include equalising tax rates on income from wealth and labour, reform of inheritance tax and reform of property taxes.
A key part of the green finance equation is ending government support for fossil fuels. This has been described as one of most important measures to deter high carbon investment.
There are a number of ways in which government funding supports the continued use of fossil fuels. UK Export Finance has been criticised for giving loans and guarantees to companies who invest in fossil fuel projects overseas.
While many subsidies exist to encourage the production of fossil fuels – such as tax relief for North Sea oil producers – many exist ostensibly to keep energy prices low for consumers. The pandemic’s impact on oil prices may create a window to reduce subsidies.
The Overseas Development Institute catalogues fossil fuel subsidies across the G20. One of its major findings is that the G20 spends almost half a trillion dollars annually subsiding oil, coal and gas production.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) called for an immediate end to new fossil fuel developments in its report Net Zero by 2050: A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector. The report marks the first time the world’s most influential voice on agency has modelled a pathway consistent with the Paris Agreement goal of 1.5C of warming, and underlines the benefits of clean energy in terms of jobs, energy costs and energy access for poorer households.
Oil Change International, Platform and Friends of the Earth Scotland argue for a phase out of North Sea oil and gas extraction. They advocate for subsidies to be redirected to support a just transition for workers. IPPR's Net Zero North Sea outlines ‘A managed transition for oil and gas in Scotland and the UK after Covid-19’.
With unemployment likely to rise when the furlough scheme is ended, many organisations have urged the government to introduce a further fiscal stimulus package to create jobs and meet pressing social needs.
Many of these argue for higher government spending on infrastructure, particularly on ‘green’ and low-carbon projects. Since physical infrastructure spending tends to lead to male employment, others have argued for an equal emphasis on ‘social infrastructure’: sectors such as health, education, social care and childcare which are also necessary for the economy to function and have high levels of female and black and minority ethnic employment.
Increasing the minimum wage, giving public sector workers (especially key workers) a pay rise, and raising benefit levels, would all mitigate the unequal impacts of the pandemic and give a boost to consumer demand.
The government’s youth employment scheme, Kickstart, supports 6-month job placements for those aged 16-24. With youth unemployment known to have a long-term scarring effect on life chances, some have argued that this should be much more ambitious, with a stronger emphasis on skills training.
IPPR argues for a £190bn fiscal stimulus package in 2021-22 to put the economy back on its pre-pandemic track and ensure no permanent economic scarring. Comparable to the size of President Biden's stimulus proposals, this should focus on green investment, increased welfare spending, a reversal of post-2010 public spending cuts, and support for training and worksharing.
The New Economics Foundation’s Winter Plan for Jobs, Incomes and Communities proposes a ‘living income’ that guarantees at least £227 a week to those that need it, greater protection for furloughed workers and investment to create over a million new low-carbon jobs.
The TUC’s Better Recovery plan proposes a raft of measures to create a fairer and more sustainable economy, including a government ‘job guarantee’ to prevent long-term unemployment, a greater role for unions in the economy, and an economic stimulus for a ‘just transition’ to a net zero carbon economy. A more detailed plan for jobs shows how investment in broadband, green technologies, transport and housing could deliver a 1.24 million jobs boost.
The Women's Budget Group explain the concept of social infrastructure, and the economic benefits of public investment in it.
Robert Skidelsky and Will Hutton for the Progressive Economy Forum propose a guarantee of work or training for all young people as part of a plan for economic recovery and reform.
A core principle of the UN framework is the transfer of money from richer to less wealthy nations, in recognition of the large injustices at the heart of the climate problem. Stopping the worst outcomes will cost a lot of money, however much of it will also lead to benefits. Wealthier nations have also disproportionately caused a problem that will fall hardest on those least responsible and more vulnerable.
Rich nations had pledged to deliver $100 billion a year by 2020 from both public and private sources but are currently falling short and there is some ambiguity over what counts as legitimate financial support.
The International Institute for Environment and Development warns that only 10% of climate finance is reaching communities on the ground where the need is greatest. It calls for a new focus on prioritising locally-relevant finance.
Lawyer and organiser Harpreet Kaur Paul made the case for “reparative climate justice” in her report for Common Wealth based on a “fair share" analysis. Recommended reparative mechanisms cover climate financing, debt cancellation, trade and company reform, and needs assessments.
The Climate Policy Initiative analyses the current global landscape for all climate-related investment, which is still far short of what is needed.