IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/ieadps/313925.html

How should Britain's government spending and tax burdens be measured? A historic perspective on the 2009 budget forecasts

Author

Listed:
  • Smith, David B.

Abstract

In the 24th IEA Discussion Paper, David B. Smith takes an historical perspective on the 2009 Budget forecasts. His analysis concludes that the budget deficit will reach levels that are unprecedented in peacetime.The government's preferred market-price GDP measure overstates national output because it is reported gross of indirect taxes and subsidies. Factor-cost GDP, which excludes all indirect taxes and subsidies, is a far better measure for analysing the government spending burden.Using this better measure of national income, the 2009 Budget projections imply that the ratio of general government expenditure to national income will rise to 53.4% in 2010, the highest ratio since World War II and 6.9% above the peak recorded in World War I. The ratio of public expenditure to private spending, which was 92.4% in 2008, will rise to 107% in 2009 and 114.5% in 2010 - the highest burden since 1945.Also using the factor-cost measure, public sector net borrowing is projected to increase from 8% of national income in 2008-09, to 14.1% in 2009-10, and 13.5% in 2011-12.There must be serious doubt whether deficits on this scale can be financed in a non-inflationary manner, without very large capital inflows from abroad. It is hard to see why such inflows should be forthcoming now that the British economy has become so highly taxed by international standards.The deficit can only partly be explained by the onset of severe recession. The ratio of government spending to GDP rose from 41.8% in 1999 to 45.8% in 2007 before the downturn commenced.The rise in non-productive spending as a share of GDP since 2000 is likely to have cut the UK's sustainable growth rate by some 1.0 to 1.7% per annum. Such a drop in productive potential will have reduced investment returns, which may have lead to a reduction in the supply of capital and contributed to the current crisis.Britain's current profligate fiscal policies are more likely to lead to 1970s-style stagflation than cure the recession.When Keynes wrote his General Theory in 1936 the ratio of general government expenditure to national output was only slightly over one half of the figure officially projected for next year. His correspondence after World War II suggests that Keynes would not have advocated further increases in the government spending ratio from such a high starting point.

Suggested Citation

  • Smith, David B., 2009. "How should Britain's government spending and tax burdens be measured? A historic perspective on the 2009 budget forecasts," IEA Discussion Papers 24, Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA).
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:ieadps:313925
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/313925/1/iea-dp024.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tanzi,Vito & Schuknecht,Ludger, 2000. "Public Spending in the 20th Century," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521662918, Enero-Abr.
    2. Pak Hung Mo, 2007. "Government Expenditures and Economic Growth: The Supply and Demand Sides," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 28(4), pages 497-522, December.
    3. Afonso, António & Furceri, Davide, 2010. "Government size, composition, volatility and economic growth," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 517-532, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Islam, Muhammed N., 2015. "Economic growth, repression, and state expenditure in non-democratic regimes," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 68-85.
    2. Susana Martins & Francisco Veiga, 2014. "Government size, composition of public expenditure, and economic development," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 21(4), pages 578-597, August.
    3. Sefa Awaworyi Churchill & Mehmet Ugur & Siew Ling Yew, 2017. "Does Government Size Affect Per-Capita Income Growth? A Hierarchical Meta-Regression Analysis," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 93(300), pages 142-171, March.
    4. Diana Cook & Carsten Schousboe & David Law, 2011. "Government and economic growth: Does size matter?," Treasury Papers Series tp11/01, New Zealand Treasury.
    5. Facchini, François & Melki, Mickaël, 2013. "Efficient government size: France in the 20th century," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 1-14.
    6. Awaworyi Churchill, S. & Yew, S.L., 2017. "Are government transfers harmful to economic growth? A meta-analysis," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 270-287.
    7. Jason Sorens, 2014. "Fiscal federalism, jurisdictional competition, and the size of government," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 25(4), pages 354-375, December.
    8. Sefa Awaworyi & Siew Ling Yew, 2014. "Government Transfers and Growth: Is there Evidence of Genuine Effect?," Monash Economics Working Papers 40-14, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    9. Saima Nawaz & M. Idrees Khawaja, 2016. "Fiscal Policy, Institutions And Growth: New Insights," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 64(05), pages 1251-1278, December.
    10. Diego Enrique Pinilla Rodríguez & Juan de Dios Jiménez Aguilera & Roberto Montero Granados, 2013. "Gasto público y crecimiento económico. Un estudio empírico para América Latina," Revista Cuadernos de Economia, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, FCE, CID.
    11. repec:rim:rimwps:18-01 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Andersen, Torben M., 2006. "The public sector and international integration," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 93(2), pages 202-209, November.
    13. Canavire-Bacarreza, Gustavo & Martínez-Vázquez, Jorge & Vulovic, Violeta, 2013. "Taxation and Economic Growth in Latin America," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 4583, Inter-American Development Bank.
    14. Photis Lysandrou, 2016. "The colonization of the future: An alternative view of financialization and its portents," Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(4), pages 444-472, October.
    15. Torsten Persson & Guido Tabellini, "undated". "Political Institutions and Policy Outcomes: What are the Stylized Facts?," Working Papers 189, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.
    16. Sangyup Choi & Davide Furceri & João Tovar Jalles, 2022. "Heterogeneous gains from countercyclical fiscal policy: new evidence from international industry-level data [Optimal investment with costly reversibility]," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 74(3), pages 773-804.
    17. Joël Cariolle & Michaël Goujon, 2015. "Measuring Macroeconomic Instability: A Critical Survey Illustrated With Exports Series," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(1), pages 1-26, February.
    18. Vojtěch Roženský, 2012. "Mandatorní výdaje a flexibilita fiskální politiky v ČR [Mandatory Expenditure and the Flexibility of Fiscal Policy in the Czech Republic]," Politická ekonomie, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2012(1), pages 40-57.
    19. Dan Anderberg, 2007. "Inefficient households and the mix of government spending," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 131(1), pages 127-140, April.
    20. Shin-Chyang Lee & Shang-Fen Wu & Cheng-Te Lee, 2017. "Government Size and Stochastic Growth," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(3), pages 219-227, September.
    21. Sabrina Auci & Laura Castellucci & Manuela Coromaldi, 2021. "How does public spending affect technical efficiency? Some evidence from 15 European countries," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(1), pages 108-130, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:ieadps:313925. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ieaaauk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.