Blog

There is no shortage of concern about the UK’s large balance of payments deficit. Many in the government are trying to solve it by cajoling British companies to export more with lots of new fancy schemes and initiatives. Speaking before the opening of the Commonwealth Games, for example, David Cameron said this should be a golden era for UK exports, with his government ‘unashamedly activist’ in helping British firms sell abroad. But it is unlikely that a structural trade deficit is caused by our companies somehow being unable to export as well as Chinese companies or German companies. Why should British companies be unusually bad at exporting?

Others suggest that Britain’s high exchange rate is the key problem. John Mills, who has founded the Exchange Rate Reform Group, is one of many advocates of a weaker pound.

But would a depreciation of sterling make any difference? The argument seems enticing. A lower exchange rate would raise the prices of imports and lower the prices of exports. It would reduce our standard of living, but it may help us import less and export more, thus helping to close the trade deficit.

However, depreciation is not the magic bullet some believe. Whether a fall in the value of sterling would help reduce our trade deficit depends, among other things, on the cause of the high exchange rate.

It is possible that speculation is driving up the value of the pound. This might be short-term speculation or it may involve rational, medium-term portfolio decisions based on the view that sterling is a safe bet compared with the euro. The Bank of England could try to reduce the value of sterling in these circumstances by loosening monetary policy. However, this is likely to give rise to an unsustainable boom in asset prices and/or inflation, and to nullify the benefits of any devaluation pretty quickly. Alternatively, Bank governor Mark Carney could try to ‘talk down’ the value of sterling: after all, he seems to have opinions on almost everything else, so why not on the value of the pound?

The effect of talking down the pound will probably be short term unless it is also backed by action on the monetary policy front – for example, some sort of target to lower sterling which is pursued by more QE. But this, as noted, would be a dangerous policy.

Perhaps we should stop treating symptoms and look more carefully for causes. Consider Miss Profligate. Miss Profligate spends 105 per cent of her income on consumption, and borrows 5 per cent of her income from the bank. In effect, she has a trade deficit – she buys a greater value of goods than people buy from her (or more than they pay her to make). Now consider Miss Prudent. She has the same income, spends 95 per cent on consumption and saves 5 per cent. She has a trade surplus equal to Miss Profligate’s deficit. She earns more than she spends, and people are willing to pay her, to make goods and services, an amount of money that is greater than the amount she spends on other people’s goods.

In short, Britain is Miss Profligate and Germany is Miss Prudent. Our government is borrowing about 6 per cent of national income and Germany’s government is borrowing nothing. The British private sector is saving about 4 per cent of national income and the Germans 10 per cent – though there are definitional differences in the savings data. There are also differences in investment levels between the two countries but, very basically, these figures explain our balance of payments position. We are spending more than we are earning and the Germans are earning more than they are spending. The superior efficiency of our investment probably means that we could get away with lower private saving than Germany if only our government were not, literally, consuming the equivalent of every penny that our citizens save (and more).

How does this translate into a higher exchange rate? Borrowing by British consumers and by the government leads to an inflow of capital to finance that borrowing: 40 per cent of UK government bonds are owned by overseas investors. This pushes up the exchange rate. This is inevitable and it helps – along with other forces – to create the conditions that lead to the balance of payments deficit which is the counterpart to the UK being a net borrower.

Of course, there are other factors involved as well. But we cannot ignore the fact that, if our government is going to borrow on its current scale then, without huge levels of private saving, we will run a balance of payments deficit. Reducing the budget deficit will not necessarily eliminate the balance of payments deficit – the private sector might just borrow more instead. However, it is up to the private sector to look after itself. For the present, the government is doing our exporters no favours by not getting its borrowing under control.

This article was originally published by City AM.

Comments (3)
Why do trade deficits even matter? When I pay money to the supermarket in exchange for goods, nobody says that there is a 'trade deficit' between me and the supermarket. Similarly, if one country is importing goods from another but not exporting any to it, why is this a 'trade deficit'? The fact that I am unable to grow my own food, and so instead have to buy it in the supermarket, is not necessarily a disastrous thing. Similaly, if a country is rich enough to be able to buy everything it needs from other countries, and does not make any of those goods itself, why is that such a disastrous thing?
Adam - I agree. It is unsustainable borrowing by governments that is the problem
Try initiating a consumer led recovery and you do not stimulate production; you empty warehouses first and then a considerable proportion of the resulting demand will be satisfied by imports. Production anticipates consumer demand but is never driven by it so, QE and freely available credit at super low interest rates have resulted in a vast BOP deficit. What a surprise! Lets hope the fruits of fracking are not long coming.

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

Kristian Niemietz
30 July 2014
1 comment

One of the standard arguments against allowing private providers into the health sector is that these would cherry-pick the healthiest, easiest-to-treat patients, leaving behind a sicker patient...
Ryan Bourne
29 July 2014
1 comment

‘The UK is becoming a low-skilled, low-pay economy, and ordinary workers aren’t sharing in the proceeds of growth.’ How often do we hear this? Those who articulate these views,...
Colin Robinson
28 July 2014
2 comments

Friends of the IEA will be saddened to hear of the death last month of Marjorie Seldon. Marjorie, who was 94, was the wife of Arthur Seldon, who was the first Editorial Director of the IEA for about...
Ryan Bourne
25 July 2014
4 comments

Don’t you miss Jeremy Paxman already? On Newsnight he would ask persistently the question that politicians were trying to obfuscate on, to try to obtain a straight answer. This clarity helped...
Carlo Stagnaro
24 July 2014
1 comment

The UK - once a champion of competition in electricity and natural gas markets - is about to take another move towards greater centralisation and state control. On 16 July 2014, Energy Secretary Ed...
Steve Davies
23 July 2014
52 comments

With the passing yesterday of John Blundell, the movement for freedom and economic liberty on both sides of the Atlantic has lost one of its leading figures. John was for many years at the centre of...
Razeen Sally
22 July 2014
comments

It is commonplace to think, as Adam Smith did, of the wealth of nations. Now we should also focus on ‘cities and the wealth of nations’. More than ever, cities are the lifeblood of the...
Len Shackleton
21 July 2014
comments

A few years ago, a Civitas report estimated that around 73 per cent of the population have ‘protected’ status, in that they may be able to claim that they are discriminated against in...
Ryan Bourne
18 July 2014
17 comments

As the discussion regarding the future of the BBC licence fee rumbles on ahead of the 2016 Charter Review, the BBC’s Director of Policy James Heath has helpfully laid out in two separate blog...
Stephen Michael MacLean
17 July 2014
1 comment

During Prime Minister’s Questions this week, David Cameron batted back Labour criticism of the government’s economic policy by quoting the Shadow Deputy Prime Minister: ‘I think...
Christopher Snowdon
16 July 2014
2 comments

Recently, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation released an updated version of its Minimum Income Standard (MIS) which looks at what modern Britons need to achieve an ‘acceptable standard of living...
Ryan Bourne
15 July 2014
3 comments

The row between former chancellor Lord Lawson and the BBC has escalated over the past week. In a letter to a green activist, the head of the BBC’s Editorial Complaints Unit, Fraser Steel, has...
Stefan Kolev
14 July 2014
comments

Does liberty need a constitution? Or, what might at first glance sound even more paradoxical, does it need a framework of rules for a free society to be established and to flourish? F. A. Hayek...
Kristian Niemietz
11 July 2014
5 comments

Commentators who celebrated the Commonwealth Fund’s health system rankings, in which the NHS came out as the best system in the world, did not fail to point out that most other countries in the...
Philip Booth
10 July 2014
5 comments

  Scott Sumner produced an excellent blog post on Piketty recently. It begins by quoting Piketty: ‘In my view, there is absolutely no doubt that the increase of inequality in United States...
Ryan Bourne
9 July 2014
1 comment

You can often tell where someone is coming from in public policy debates by their use of language. In Capital in the Twenty-First Century, for example, Thomas Piketty uses the word ‘claimed...
Ryan Bourne
8 July 2014
comments

With Monty Python at the O2 arena and ongoing coverage of the NHS, I was reminded last week of the Python sketch showing a lady giving birth. Unfortunately for her, the doctors played by John Cleese...
Philip Booth
7 July 2014
comments

This book[1] has some interesting conclusions. Like all work in political economy, they are debatable. What is unique about this book is the way in which the author has such intellectual confidence...
Kristian Niemietz
4 July 2014
5 comments

A lot of nonsense is being written about the UK’s housing crisis. But Danny Dorling’s book ‘All that is solid. The great housing disaster’ is easily the worst contribution so...