The Changing Shape of UK Trade
- Extra Reading
One of the consequences of the move in the terms of trade against the UK is that we will have to export much more and to places much further away to pay for our essential imports. This lecture explains the likely scale of these shifts and puts them into international context. It also examines some of the consequences of a much higher ratio of traded exports to GDP than has traditionally been the case.
15 January 2014 The Changing Shape of UK Trade Professor Douglas McWilliams We are now into the closing laps of my Gresham Professorship and I am starting to try to pull the threads together in my last 3 lectures of my main series. I will be stepping down at the end of the current academic year because of pressure of work – it is actually quite difficult if you have a serious day job and are not a professional academic to put in the hours that you need to put in to provide 7 decent Gresham professorial lectures a year. The final lecture – on whether the relative economic strength of the UK and Australian economies is the cause of the relative performance in the Ashes – was intended to be a bit of light relief. Given the results this winter I’m not sure that that remains the appropriate phrase…. though I did say at the start of this academic year that the improving UK economy and the deteriorating Aussie economy meant that England might be in for a surprise. I also want in this lecture somehow to incorporate a wider discussion about whether it is possible to have democracy if you don’t play cricket… Today’s lecture shows how the UK will have to rely much more than hitherto on trade to make the books balance in this new world where the bulk of the world economy has industrialised. By comparison, volume growth in consumer spending will be much less. I am very grateful to the Royal Navy who have supported part of this work on the outlook for UK trade. And part of today’s talk is based on my keynote address to the NATO Supreme Maritime Commanders’ meeting in London a couple of months ago on the outlook for world trade and its impact on the requirements for naval protection. The first part of the lecture will look at how the growth of the emerging economies affects economic structure. The next part will reprise my second lecture back in October 2012 on how the terms of trade were likely to be affected. And the final part will look at the direct impact on the economic structure of the UK, though the results can be generalised to other Western economies. Impact of globalisation on economic structure I started this lecture series with a comparison with other major economic changes – the so-called discovery of the Americas, the industrial revolution, the emergence of Japan and the emergence of off-shore manufacturing in South East Asia. What that showed was both the scale of the latest phase of globalisation and its speed. Because it was happening so quickly attitudes didn’t have time to catch up. Because people can remember poverty in the emerging economies, they tend not to want to put it at risk by losing their aggressive edge. So they work harder – in Singapore and Hong Kong which have already become rich they still work the equivalent of 4 months more a year than we do in the UK (and much more comparatively than is the norm in continental Europe). Also they keep government spending down and hence taxation – the top rate of tax in Hong Kong is 15%. And by the way they still manage to have better health systems and hence more longevity, better education systems and better infrastructure. If we assume that China and the other emerging economies are going the same way, then their effects are going to be extremely disruptive. The five big shifts The five big shifts that we have covered in this lecture series are: Shift from West to East Shift from labour to capital Shift from consumption to savings Shift from unskilled to skilled Shift from finished goods and services to primary products The shift from West to East is obvious and I will illustrate it shortly with the latest findings from Cebr’s World Economic League Table. In my last lecture last month we covered the shift from labour to capital – though we suggested that much of it had already happened and the pace was now likely to slow. In my fifth lecture of February 2013 we looked at the impact of the Chinese savings glut and how this was affecting the world’s supply and demand for capital and why interest rates were likely to be historically low for a long time. In my first lecture of the current academic year in September 2013 we looked at the impact on the distribution of income worldwide and how the most skilled employees were getting an advantage compared with those who did not have differentiated skills. And in the second lecture from the first year, in October 2012, we looked at the impact of the development of the emerging economies and how they affected the prices of primary products and hence the terms of trade. I gave this lecture with Thras Moriatis, the then commercial director of Xstrata and with Michael McWilliams, who is my brother, who is the director of renewable energy for the engineering consultants Mott MacDonald. What it showed was that there was a reasonable expectation that – provided world growth held at around its historic rate of a bit over 3% - there would be adequate supplies of food, other soft commodities and energy at real prices not too far away from current levels. Water would probably become more expensive while minerals were likely to become notably more expensive as a result of very low levels of recent investment. Of course, changing relative prices will provoke substitution and more economical use in the longer term so any conclusions have to be tentative. But the conclusions of my expert colleagues was that on balance it was a) likely that world growth would be constrained and b) that taking primary products as a whole, the terms of trade would move further in their favour. Although I think there is a wide margin of uncertainty, I would not disagree with that conclusion even now, nearly eighteen months on. Impact on the terms of trade of the developed economies that do not produce primary products How does this feed through to the Western economies? Obviously the higher prices of primary products affect the terms of trade. But in addition to this, the supercompetitive nature of the emerging economies means that we will have to devalue in real terms to compete with these economies. Devaluing in real terms can come through either a lower exchange rate or else by having lower inflation. Either further worsen the terms of trade. So the terms of trade are likely to suffer a further impact. Our rough and ready calculations are that they will have to worsen by about 20% in real terms for the UK over the next 40 years or so to allow reasonable economic growth and a rough balance of payments balance. Does the balance of payments current account have to balance? When I learned my economics in the 1960s, the news was dominated by the balance of payments current account position. Indeed it is rumoured that Harold Wilson lost the 1970 election because of erratic balance of payments statistics that emerged just before the election. Mind you it is also rumoured that he lost because of the England defeat in the soccer World Cup just 4 days before the same election… this is at least more plausible than the claim often made that he won the 1966 general election because of England’s victory in that year’s World Cup despite the World Cup victory happening a full 17 weeks AFTER the general election! Those who studied economics in the late 1960s and early 1970s were exposed to very detailed analysis of the impact of the balance of payments. This was because under the Bretton Woods arrangements of fixed exchange rates, devaluations were an economic defeat. And because governments tried to avoid them, speculation against currencies caused by balance of payments problems tended to be resisted by attempts at deflation which affected people’s spending power or public services. There are some similarities with the current situation in the Eurozone. During the period of flexible exchange rates that we have had for most of the past 40 years, discussion of the balance of payments has been deemphasised. This is for two reasons – first exchange rates have been flexible and have been able to adjust to accommodate balance of payments imbalances and second international capital flows have been on such a scale that they have dominated current account imbalances. But (as I pointed out in my third lecture in November 2012) the scale of adjustment posed by the supercompetitiveness of the emerging economies is such that the devaluations required to correct balance of payments imbalances are likely to be non-marginal and may not be manageable within a reasonable inflation constraint. In addition, although the depth of the international capital market certainly alters the time period over which the balance of payment must balance, it is hard to see why the international markets would forever keep shifting their portfolio preferences in favour of holding increasing proportions of a deficit currency like sterling. There might be some ability for a reserve currency like the dollar to break this rule, since in the end it is the base of the system. But when there are multiple potential reserve currencies, investors have a choice and it is hard to see why they should hold increasing proportions of their assets in a currency which all the laws of economics say will ultimately not only lose value but lose value on a scale that will greatly offset any reasonable interest rate differential. So the changing nature of the world economy means that the balance of payments current account (or more precisely the current account plus the long term capital account, since countries with high rates of persistent inward investment might need to run current account deficits for the physical imports likely to be necessary to match this inward investment) must balance in the long term. The world economic league table Let me turn now to our economic prospects. Every year on Boxing Day we release our World Economic League Table (WELT). As the economist who started it was Tim Ohlenberg, who was German, we called it Die Welt until we realised that if we kept on doing this we would end up being sued. What we do is give the scoreline for world GDP in dollar terms by country for the year that is ending and forecast up to 15 years ahead. We use current dollar GDP, not because it is the only way of making comparisons – there is a range of different ways and for many comparisons it is better to use purchasing power parities, but because it is less ambiguous. Most purchasing power parity calculations are pretty ropey and rely on many more assumptions than seem reasonable for sensible international comparisons. But they have their purposes. For the forecasts, we have to look at three things. First the growth of real GDP, second relative inflation and third the movements of exchange rates. The first two are relatively easy to predict by economists standard. But exchange rates seem to have almost a wish to defy any economists’ predictions. I don’t know anyone who is good at forecasting exchange rates. I think I’m pretty good at economic forecasting but my track record on exchange rates is pretty lousy – and I suspect I’m better than or at least no worse than anyone else. What this means is that we get to revise the WELT quite substantially every year as we update our exchange rate forecasts! Having said this, there is a bit of a tendency for the changes in the international perceptions of economies to reflect whether their economic policies are likely to help their economies or not. So the impact of the WELT is generally positive in encouraging governments to do things that help their economies and avoid populist gestures that are economically immiserating. The league table for 2012 showed the developed countries still doing pretty well. The US was still well in the lead with a GDP about twice that of China. The UK had overtaken Brazil again, after Brazil had just crept ahead in 2011. For 2013, the big news has been the collapse of some emerging market currencies in response to the threat (and at the end of the year the actuality) of tapering of monetary policy in the US. There have been some minor movements in the top half of the table – Russia gets ahead of Italy in response to the Italian economic travails; Canada overtakes India because of the collapse of the rupee. Lower down there are some bigger movements. The collapse of the Rand means that South Africa leaves the table altogether while Iran drops 9 places as sanctions bite. For 2018 – and this of course is a forecast – we see sharp declines in the positions of some of the European economies. Our forecast is that the Euro will weaken against both the dollar and sterling (more against the dollar) as interest rates rise in both the US and the US while they stay low in the Eurozone. This in turn means that the UK goes decisively ahead of France while other European economies slip down the table. Meanwhile the emerging economies are starting to move up: Russia is up to a high point of 6th; India 9th, Mexico 12th, Korea 13th and Turkey 17th. Thailand (provided that political stability returns) gets into the top 30 at 27th. By 2023 India and Brazil are on the march. India is up to 4th, Brazil to 5th. Taiwan breaks into the top 20 at 19th. By 2028 the league table is being reordered. China has moved to No 1; India to No 3. Mexico is in the top ten at No 9. Korea and Turkey are 11th and 12th and have overtaken France. As symbols of the new world order, Nigeria, Egypt, Iraq and the Philippines break into the top 30. All the latter group depend on maintaining or in some cases regaining political stability. Meanwhile what of the UK? On the face of it we appear to be holding our position rather well. Indeed the forecasts suggest that round about 2030 the UK will be the largest economy in Western Europe, overtaking Germany. But this is misleading. First, the UK would be unlikely to overtake Germany if Germany had its own exchange rate rather than being held back by the Euro. Second, the UK forecast assumes that the UK continues to cover the same countries of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. This is not a done deal as the referendum this September highlights. Third, it assumes that the UK stays in the EU. Although I believe that one can make a very good economic case for the UK leaving the EU if it does not reform itself in the long run, it is undoubtedly the case that the initial impact on international investment into the UK would be negative and the pound would probably have to fall somewhat to offset this. Moreover, if you graph the UK share of world GDP using the WELT numbers you can see how we are gradually becoming a smaller proportion of the world economy. In 1998 the UK was 4.8% of the world economy. By 2028 we are forecast to be 2.6% of the world economy. Our rough estimate for 2050 is 1.5%. So we should not pat ourselves too much on the back for becoming the largest economy in Western Europe – it’s more like winning the Football Conference League than winning the Premiership. The changing shape of world trade World trade today is about $20 trillion about 27% of world GDP. More than three quarters are trade in goods although trade in services is fast growing. Of the trade in goods, the bulk, 64%, is trade in manufactured goods with minerals and energy accounting for 23% and agricultural products for 9%. But manufactured products are the slowest growing element of world trade, growing by an annual 7% against 9% for agricultural products and for services and 16% for energy and minerals. In addition two factors are changing the shape of trade: the increasing importance of minerals – which have to be traded from wherever they are extracted – often some distance away from the consumer and the location of the emerging economies which tend to be some distance from their markets. As a result trade distances have risen – meaning that the tonne kms of trade grow 2-3% faster than the tonnes themselves. This might change a bit in future if the Northwest Passage becomes regularly open in the summer at least, though there are limitations caused by the shallowness of the water. And even the melting of the ice cap seems not quite to have gone in line with predictions – at least we now know that Al Gore’s famous prediction in 2009 that the polar ice caps would have disappeared in five years is looking improbable. What is also interesting – and this is why Navies around the world are interested in my predictions for trade – is that many of the sea routes of increased importance are in historically dangerous waters – not just off Somalia but also off West Africa now, in the Straits of Malacca and the Straits of Hormuz. The impact on UK trade The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, which is what used to be the Department of Trade and Industry is called this month, issues a booklet which is called a competitiveness indicator and allegedly shows the UK’s openness to trade. It adds imports and exports together and expresses the sum as a share of GDP. This share has risen from 53% in 2004 to 65% in 2012. This is a partial indicator of the adjustment forced on the UK by globalisation. But given that it looks as though there was a current account deficit of about £60 billions (c 4% of GDP) for 2013 and given our discussion before that suggests that the balance of payments must balance, there will have to be further adjustment in the terms of trade to close the gap. The Department of Energy and Climate Change have carried out a study looking at the economic implications of further terms of trade deterioration. This study, carried out by the consultants Oxford Economics, shows UK exports as a share of GDP at constant 2012 prices rising to 50% by 2050. Cebr’s own work on the subject not only takes into account the likely changes in volumes but also in relative price. This shows exports as a share of GDP rising to 50% by 2037 and to 60% by 2050 from the current position of 31.4%. So to pay for the increased cost of imports plus the extra imports that will be attracted in by international specialisation and to pay for the costs of the declining terms of trade, the UK will roughly have to double its exports as a share of GDP over the next 40 years. This is a daunting task. But it is doable provided that its importance is understood and that official policy takes the requirement into account. Impact on the structure of the economy The UK will have to make the books balance in some way – this can either be done painfully through austerity or more easily through trading success. Cebr simulations show how the structure of the UK economy might change over the next 40 years to take into account the need to export more. The slide compares the actual position in 2012 with the simulated position in 2050, both expressed as percentages of GDP of the time. We have set out what is called the supply and use balances for the economy. For 2012, the supply column for the economy is GDP. GDP is of course 100% of GDP, imports are 33%. So the total supply for the economy, which is GDP plus imports, is 133% of GDP. The uses column for 2012 is made up of consumption (c 65% of GDP) government consumption and investment (25% of GDP – this does not comprise the total of Government spending, which also includes transfers such as benefits and which amounts to 48% of GDP in 2012) fixed investment which is about 15% of GDP and finally exports which as we saw earlier are 31.4% of GDP. For 2050, the supply column is GDP which of course is still 100% of GDP plus imports, which are likely to rise to 60% of GDP. So the total supply for the economy is 160% of GDP compared with the 133% of GDP in 2012. The likely uses are: exports will have to equal imports for the current account to balance so they will be also 60% of GDP; investment is likely to need to rise to 20% because the export industries tend to be more capital intensive than the domestic industries that the investment has supported hitherto, we are assuming that government remains about the same share at 25% (though the appropriate policy for government will be discussed in my March Gresham lecture). This leaves 55% for consumers spending – down from 65% in 2012. So the picture emerges – we will need to depend much more on our international trading position and slightly less on consumption. We should be careful not to exaggerate the shift away from consumption – it merely means that consumer spending grows about ¼% more slowly than GDP each year – though it contrasts with past periods when consumer spending has typically grown faster than GDP until 2007. Implications So to sum up, globalisation has implications for the structure of our economy. Traditionally the UK has had a strong consumer focus. This is shifting a bit, though it is not transforming completely. But the importance of exports has to change dramatically. In cash terms over the next 40 years exports have to double as a share of GDP, and the exchange rate will need to adjust to help make this happen. At the same time economic policy will need to be highly focussed on ensuring the UK’s international trading success. Besides the April lecture on the economy and cricket, the last two lectures of this series are: Wed 12 February – the Euro; and Wed 19 March – public spending. We will then have covered the subject that I intended to cover at the beginning of my lecture series of how the Western economies respond to the world’s greatest ever economic event, the industrialisation of the emerging economies. © Professor Douglas McWilliams, 2014
Gresham College has offered an outstanding education to the public free of charge for over 400 years. Today, Gresham plays an important role in fostering a love of learning and a greater understanding of ourselves and the world around us. Your donation will help to widen our reach and to broaden our audience, allowing more people to benefit from a high-quality education from some of the brightest minds.