Blog

There has been a lot of speculation about where the Conservatives’ headline £12bn of welfare savings should come from. I suspect that the party’s unwillingness to provide any details on this is not just explained by the proximity to the election. Had there been an election in, say, 2012, the governing parties (and perhaps the opposition parties as well) would probably have been a lot more open about their spending plans than they are now. But something in the political dynamics of welfare savings has changed since the coalition’s early years.

In their first budgets and autumn statements, as well as in the comprehensive spending review, the coalition was able to make a few sizeable savings simply by playing around with the formulas by which transfer rates are set. A change from RPI-uprating to CPI-uprating, a few temporary freezes, a change in some reference value, and Bob was their uncle.

As long they can hide behind formulas, politicians can afford to be relatively open about ‘where the axe should fall’. Of course, the axe still has to hit somebody, regardless of whether transfers are cut explicitly or through a fiscal sleight of hand. But in the former case, the connection between the blow of the axe and the wound is immediately visible to everybody, while it the latter case, we have to rely on organisations like the Institute for Fiscal Studies to work out what those announcements mean in practice. Now that the scope for fiscal trickery has narrowed, politicians can no longer promise welfare savings without also saying who they want to make worse off. My guess is therefore that over the next parliament, whoever forms the next government, we will see a combination of politicians beating around the bush ('Let me be absolutely clear about this'), accusations of secret plans and broken promises, poorly executed savings measures that cause unnecessary hardship, and last but not least, stalled progress on fiscal consolidation.

But there is an alternative. A sensible welfare policy would, where appropriate, start on the demand side rather than the supply side; it would start by asking what drives reliance on a particular transfer, and whether something could be done to reduce that reliance.[1]

The most clear-cut case here is Housing Benefit. Spending on HB currently stands at £24.5bn, and is forecast to rise further, despite all the fiddling with the rate-setting formula.[2] As recently as in the early 1990s, despite a recession and a temporary surge in unemployment, the HB bill was only around £11bn in today’s prices. The increase in HB spending since then has been wholly driven by the increase in housing costs. Cutting HB further while ignoring its driver will hit those who have been priced out of the regular housing market, without really delivering commensurate benefits in terms of cost savings.

Alternatively, we could bring back housing costs (in real terms) to where they stood in the early 1990s, because HB expenditure would then automatically follow, and fall back to somewhere around that level as well. Unrealistic? Absolutely not. The early 1990s were by no means a golden age of housing affordability. By that time, house prices in the UK had already doubled in real terms compared to 1970, the largest increase in any OECD country. But in the early 1990s, the worst was yet to come, so moving back to that level would only mean undoing the worst. Hardly an overambitious goal.

In order to do achieve this, politicians would have to overcome their irrational fear of the anti-development brigade. Politicians seem to believe that the level of Nimby outrage is a function of the level of housebuilding, which leads them to believe that by continuing to suppress development, they can contain the wrath of the Nimby lobby. Politicians should have realised by now that that is not the way it works. Rather, there is a fixed amount of Nimby outrage to go round, which is independent of whether we build 400,000, 40,000 or 4,000 homes per year. Suppressing the housing numbers only increases the ratio of outrage per housing unit.

At the outset of the Great Recession, housebuilding in Britain almost ground to a halt, and is only very slowly recovering now. If I were an anti-development campaigner, I would be playing the old 2 Unlimited song ‘Jump for Joy’ at full volume every day. But that is the opposite of what those campaigners are actually doing. The same people who have always been whining that the countryside was disappearing under concrete are still doing precisely that, and the same newspapers which have always amplified that scaremongering are still doing precisely that as well. The conclusion I would draw is that if the anti-housing brigade is constantly whining anyway, even at a time when we’re not even building anything – why not give them something to whine about, by actually getting the houses built? That would be the way to cut billions - much more than just a measly £12bn - out of the welfare budget, and without making the recipients worse off.



[1] The qualification ‘where appropriate’ has to be added here, because welfare spending also contains a lot of ‘supply-induced demand’. There are transfers which people ‘rely’ on simply because they are there.

[2] HB rates used to be set equal to local median rents, which has been reduced to rents at the 30th percentile of the local rent distribution. They have also been capped in absolute terms, and the £26,000 welfare cap is, in effect, also just another HB cap (since it would be almost impossible to qualify for benefit payments in excess of £26,000 except through HB). 

 

Comments (1)
You're right to pick Housing Landlord Benefit as a potential area of significant welfare budget savings. However, your diagnosis of how to achieve truly affordable housing - the homes we have now at the prices we used to pay for them - is lacking. There is no link between house building and house prices or rents: https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/1825/1263/original.jpg There is a link between house prices and the size of mortgages being granted (both as LTV, and absolutely) and also with the amount of mortgage funding pumping up prices: https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/1810/8174/original.jpg You could have added a sensible energy policy to your list: energy at sensible prices would allow benefits to be reduced in cash terms at no loss in real terms.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Type the characters you see in this picture. (verify using audio)
Type the characters you see in the picture above; if you can't read them, submit the form and a new image will be generated. Not case sensitive.

As in all IEA publications, the views expressed in this blog are those of the authors and not those of the Institute (which has no corporate view), its managing trustees, Academic Advisory Council or senior staff.

Previous blog posts

Search

Vicente Lopez-Ibor Mayor
27 March 2015
comments

Ed Miliband’s pledge last week that a Labour government would press ahead with the party’s energy price freeze ‘within months’ may prove popular with the electorate. But my...
Tom Packer
26 March 2015
1 comment

In all the sound and fury of the coming election, it’s important not to forget the areas where the parties agree. This includes support for much greater “localism” and devolution of...
Diego Zuluaga Laguna
25 March 2015
comments

In my previous post, I have argued that the case for ‘net neutrality’ regulation is based on a flawed understanding of the way innovation takes place, and of the role of economic...
Andrew Lilico
24 March 2015
1 comment

Dr Andrew Lilico, member of the IEA’s Academic Advisory Council, writes for CapX:   Paul Krugman once did something or other quite good on the economics of trade, winning him the Nobel...
Fernando Herrera-González
24 March 2015
comments

Economic theory is the science which tries to explain economic phenomena. Just as Newton observed an apple falling from a tree and started searching for an explanation to the phenomenon, which...
John Burton
23 March 2015
comments

The question of whether the BBC is institutionally biased to the left and/or anti-capitalism (not necessarily quite the same) might provoke, in some quarters, the counter-query ‘Is the Pope a...
Diego Zuluaga Laguna
20 March 2015
comments

For over two decades since its inception, the internet has remained largely free of state regulation and control. In the U.S., where the majority of global digital innovation has originated, the...
Kristian Niemietz
19 March 2015
2 comments

Given the proximity to the election, most commentators predicted a 'Budget of giveaways', full of populist gimmicks. Judged against that expectation, the actual Budget was relatively sensible...
Philip Booth
18 March 2015
2 comments

Whenever we approach a General Election or Budget, the competition for the daftest tax policy idea is always intense. The current front-runner is probably the proposal to largely exempt houses from...
Ryan Bourne
17 March 2015
comments

It's a well-known saying that “turkeys don’t vote for Christmas”. So calling for George Osborne to take to the despatch box tomorrow and announce that he’s abolishing...
Markus C. Kerber
16 March 2015
comments

In recent years, euroscepticism has been growing in the UK and elsewhere. This is largely due to concerns about a perceived overreach of EU institutions, coupled with insufficient accountability to...
Diego Zuluaga Laguna
13 March 2015
comments

A report from the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee released today called for stricter environmental protections to be included in the free-trade deal currently being negotiated by the...
David Starkie
13 March 2015
comments

Government spending on infrastructure is a subject on which Keynesians and Neoclassicists tend to agree. The former are interested in the short-term stimulus effect, while the latter see it as a way...
Kristian Niemietz
12 March 2015
comments

Economists are a notoriously quarrelsome bunch, who disagree on almost everything. Ask three economists, and you’ll get four opinions. The reason is that in economics, empirical literature is...
Eamonn Butler
11 March 2015
comments

Policy people from across the political spectrum, and from public and private sectors, are mourning the death of Matthew Young, former Press Secretary to two Labour Prime Ministers, project leader...
Ryan Bourne
11 March 2015
1 comment

We should have called 2010 ‘The Phoney Election’. Right up until polling day, our wannabe political leaders were debating the desirability of £6 billion worth of ‘efficiency...
Ryan Bourne
10 March 2015
1 comment

The battle for the soul of the Conservative party post-election has already begun. This week, commentator and conservative activist Tim Montgomerie will officially launch his new agenda –...
David S. D'Amato
9 March 2015
comments

Earlier this month American Banker’s Mayra Rodríguez Valladares reported on what she regarded as “a bleak winter for financial reformers in the United States.” Hopeful for...
David Henderson
6 March 2015
1 comment

In two previous posts, I criticised a number of recent commentators in the Financial Times (FT) for routinely quoting figures that were much too low for the GDP of poorer countries. I made the point...