Category: Politics UK

My latest Substack tries to take a step back from the chatter around the next budget, and look at the fundamentals of fiscal policy, which the current debate muddles. I suggest that a bolder approach to tax reform might present a stronger narrative than the desperate scramble to comply with self-imposed fiscal rules. Perhaps personnel changes at the Treasury and the Prime Minister’s office will aid this?

My most recent Substack is now a little old but as salient as when written. Labour backbenchers were doing their job but have exposed the government’s lack of strategy.

In the 1837 the British government passed the Slavery Compensation Act, whereby slave owners were paid compensation following the emancipation of slaves in the British Empire. Recently I started to think about this given the repeated claims that governments can’t afford to do things: such things as extra defence spending, investing in the green transition, compensating WASPI women, and so on. The slavery compensation was substantial, but government finances weren’t derailed. Surely the question of affordability shouldn’t be reduced to the level of household budgeting? Sometimes it is quite safe for governments to spend freely without raising taxes. I did some gentle internet research. I was a bit shocked.

What shocked me was that nobody seemed very interested in how the British government was able to afford the compensation, or what the economic consequences of the scheme were. Instead they focus on political questions. More recently this has turned on the injustice of slave owners being compensated for an immoral practice, while the slaves received no monetary compensation at all. This, then, inevitably, gets tangled in the question of modern demands for slavery compensation, promoted by Caribbean governments in particular. You would have thought that the economic questions would have interested writers considering these issues, but apparently not.

The amount of compensation was £20 million. That was about 5% of GDP, by modern estimates (such things weren’t measured at the time). It was, apparently 40% of the Treasury budget – an oft-quoted figure though it isn’t explained whether that is the budget before or after the compensation. Overall government receipts at this point were about 10% of GDP. At the time government debt was about 150% of GDP, a legacy of the Napoleonic wars. There was no income tax, with government revenue primarily drawn from excise duties on imports (notably foodstuffs, including, notoriously, imported corn) and alcohol. So this was a substantial sum, paid when government revenues were highly constrained, and debt at very high levels. Much of it was paid through annuities (only finally bought out in 2015). This would have greatly softened the impact on government finances – but for the most part the receivers of compensation sold their annuities for cash, so the impact would have been significant on the economy as a whole. 

What about this impact? I have seen two things mentioned. A television documentary I saw on the topic a while ago suggested that much of the funding was invested in industrial infrastructure, and railways in particular, and so helped promote the industrial transformation of Britain. The Wikipedia article I have linked above suggests that it contributed to a banking crisis – though since the main ones in Britain were in 1825 and 1866, it could not have been all that serious. I have been unable follow the reference to the article that suggested this. 

A general survey of historic government finances by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) fails to mention the episode. Income tax was introduced (or re-introduced, as it had been used in the Napoleonic Wars) in 1841, following the abolition of the Corn Laws, which reduced excise revenues. Government debt steadily fell until it was 40% of GDP at the outbreak of the First World War in 1914. This was primarily due to economic growth – the level of government revenue fell to about 6-7% until the Boer War in 1900, when it returned to 10%. This era saw little inflation – attributed to strict adherence to the Gold Standard.

A further modern article on the topic of how the compensation was afforded suggests that the debt for compensation was paid off by taxes from the freed slaves – with the author getting appropriately worked up about the injustice. It is very hard to see how that could have been the case. This looks like yet another example of economic illiteracy amongst commentators and historians. And that is as far as I was able to get. There seems to be no generally available study of the economic impact of slavery compensation. It appears to have been shrugged off at the time as well as later.

It occurs to me that ignorance about economic history is widespread and almost wilful. An example is the belief that Britain lived off its empire – that the relative wealth of British people was at the expense of poverty in the colonies. Economists that have tried to substantiate this idea have failed. Indeed the loss of Empire in the later 20th Century coincided with a period of significant growth. The economics of slavery is doubtless mired in similar ignorance. In this case though the impact of wealth made in the sugar and cotton trades, dominated by slavery in the West Indies and America, is very visible in such places as Bristol, Glasgow and Liverpool. Still, I doubt that anybody has attempted to construct counterfactuals with the use of free labour or alternative sources of trade. It remains a very influential political narrative – that British economic success was built on the slave trade. This is not wholly implausible (unlike the story of ex-slaves paying off the compensation debt), but surely the picture is far more complex. Germany had no slave trade but built an economy that became just as powerful as Britain’s in the 19th Century.

I was hoping to use the episode as example of how governments can make substantial financial commitments without having to raise taxes. That is hard to pin down as the financial system was very different. The government was able to make the settlement using perpetual debt – which is the easiest form of debt to service, though still requiring interest payments. That would not be done today. On the other hand, since most recipients appear to have sold their bonds, there would have a substantial cash injection into the economy. What was the impact?

The first thing to remember is that money is just a social convention: it’s not for real. It’s a lubricant and not a fuel. Overall what matters is how we use real resources – labour, infrastructure, and so on. Slavery compensation created a financial windfall without directly adding to resources – potentially boosting demand without any corresponding boost to the supply side. In a modern economy that could lead to inflation. In Victorian times it could cause financial dislocation – so linking it to a banking crisis is plausible, even if it is hard to pin down what the crisis actually amounted to. 

If a financial windfall is not spent immediately, however, but simply banked or invested, then the impact on the balance of supply and demand is limited. If this translates into immediate investment spending, however, such as building railway lines, then the same problems may arise – depending on the exact circumstances. It is usually reckoned that a surge in investment spending is easier to accommodate and consumption, however – and it should, after all, lead to an increase in productive capacity. The idea of the windfall helping to propel industrial capacity and growth is therefore quite plausible. If the money is directed abroad, then it won’t impact the domestic economy either. The Wikipedia article suggests that this might have been the case for slavery compensation. But I find myself in a fact-free zone.

What of modern times? Government is much larger, with revenue at about 40% of GDP, and debt smaller, at about 100%. The currency is freely floating, but under domestic control – unlike the days of the Gold Standard. Inflation is a constant threat now in a way that it wasn’t then. There are two particular problems with large government spending commitments. The first is that the impact could be inflationary, if the recipients quickly add to overall economic demand without any corresponding supply boost. The most effective counter to this is to raise taxes to reduce demand by a corresponding amount – or “funding” the spending. But not all taxes are created equal here: capital taxes, or taxes restricted to the very wealthy, affect demand by much less. Alas very few people in the current political debate have grasped this – instead thinking of this as an analogous to household budgeting. A recent example of this debate is the green investment splurge initiated by President Joe Biden’s administration. This is alleged by Republicans to have caused an inflationary surge. And yet the increase in American inflation was hardly different to other countries that were managed much more conservatively.

The second problem with government spending splurges is on the capital markets. The government may need to fund the spending through raising debt. The capacity of the market to do so is limited, though nobody is sure by how much. The government can fund the debt through the creation of money too – but this creates problems of its own (leading straight back to the inflation problem). Also if a country, like Britain, needs to sell the debt to foreign investors there may be constraints. Ultimately the government may have to borrow in foreign currency to bring such investors in – something that adds hugely to the financial risks. Britain has never been forced to do this – but is that because the Treasury is run so conservatively? It was the financial markets that undid Liz Truss in 2023. But Ms Truss was particularly inept – and we should be careful about using this as a general warning about increasing government debt. There are solutions, other than raising taxes on income and consumption – capital taxes can be used to balance the books, or the markets can be convinced that the government will continue to have the capacity to honour the debt. This would be the case if the finance was to be used for capital projects with a good return – including boosting economic growth and tax receipts.

So let’s think about three examples where people are advocating the government boost spending: defence, green investment and the WASPI women. Defence is the most straightforward. Expenditure is likely to be fed back fairly directly into demand, without a corresponding increase in productive capacity. Economic resources are to be repurposed, from things like healthcare and consumption, to armed forces and munitions. This is likely to be inflationary if not supported by tax rises – and these need to be on income tax, national insurance or VAT to work properly. Or else by reducing public spending elsewhere. This is why it is such a political challenge for the current government. I have heard more than one commentator suggest that defence spending can boost growth – but alas that is more economic illiteracy. This is only the case if it is used to soak up spare capacity in the economy (which was the case in the 1930s, for example). This is doubtful now, unless there is a way of bringing back lots of people from sick leave and retirement. It is sometimes said that war spending has boosted the Russian economy – but inflation is growing there, so this growth is illusory. There is a lot of activity but people generally aren’t better off.

The green transition is another matter. Here the funding is being used on capital projects that boost infrastructure. For the most part these projects have clear economic benefits – especially when used to boost solar power, whose economic benefits could be substantial. Carbon capture and storage, used to prolong the use of fossil fuels, is an exception here: this looks like deadweight loss. The Labour Party suggested that it would raise £80 billion a year for a hugely ambitious programme – but then they lost their nerve and scaled back drastically. The number was a bit of a nonsense, admittedly, but the idea that the government could fund substantial green energy projects through borrowing is perfectly plausible. Of course to the extent that energy is a profitable business, a lot of this could be done through the private sector – but a lot of the infrastructure probably is best done through public ownership, and in particular the electricity grid. The government is being too cautious.

How about the WASPI women? This case is closest to slave compensation. The WASPI women were those adversely affected by in an increase on pension age, equalising it with men. They claim that they weren’t informed of the change in time to do anything about it. I haven’t been following the debate in detail, though I am instinctively sceptical of the merits of their case. Still, many politicians, including those leading the current government, have expressed support for compensation in the past. I see that an amount of a bout £60 billion has been suggested – or about 2.5% of GDP. As a one-off cost this does not have the same implications as increasing defence spending, for example. In particular it is unlikely to have a huge immediate effect on demand. A lot of the money will be saved and invested. The people concerned are retired, and doubtless want to improve their lifestyle, but they are also likely to be conservative about it, and save much of it initially. It is unlikely to do much for economic growth, however, though to the extent that the funds are used for investment, there might be some benefit; if people use it to stop working, however, there would be a negative impact. The whole thing is probably much more affordable than it looks – not unlike the slavery compensation.

Alas we will not have a sensible debate on this. Doubtless the government fears that if it gave ground on the WASPI women, it would give a boost to many other aggrieved parties (those in leasehold flats, for example). Still the costs of economic illiteracy are great indeed if governments are needlessly constrained.