Prospects for the UK economy.
Kirby, Simon ; Carreras, Oriol ; Meaning, Jack 等
Introduction
The turn of the year has brought with it wild gyrations across
global equity markets. The price of oil has declined to lows last seen
in the first five years of this century and the prices of oil companies
have led many bourses downward. Supply conditions certainly have a role
to play in weighing on the oil price, however, there is also heightened
discussion of a renewed global economic downturn. Certainly emerging
market economic growth has slowed noticeably, be it the moderation in
rate of growth in China or outright recession in Brazil and Russia.
Conversely, there is an uptick in the growth of advanced economies; we
estimate the economic growth of OECD economies accelerated from 1.8 per
cent in 2014 to 2.1 per cent in 2015. This compares with growth, on
average, of 114 per cent in 2012 and 2013.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
At present the moderation in emerging market growth dominates,
albeit marginally, suggesting an overall softening in the world GDP
growth outlook (on a PPP adjusted basis). While there are clearly
significant risks to the downside for the global economy, our modal
forecast is for world GDP growth of 3.2 per cent in 2016, increasing to
3.8 per cent in 2017, the latter year supported by the return of growth
to Brazil and Russia, but also through the continued increases in demand
in advanced economies.
These developments matter for a small open economy such as the UK.
Crucially, the distribution of growth throughout the global economy is
important. While global growth remains subdued, growth in demand from
the UK's major export markets is expected to accelerate over the
next few years, most noticeably in the Euro Area. Despite robust growth
in the volume of exports to emerging markets in recent years, they still
account for approximately 20 per cent of total UK exports and so the
UK's exposure to an emerging market slowdown is limited. This does
not preclude the possibility of second round effects as other trade
partners could be affected, especially in an era of fragmented supply
chains.
Focusing solely on the trade channel when discussing the
propagation of a shock, such as an emerging market slowdown, misses the
importance of the financial sector transmission mechanism. The financial
market linkages and exposure through the banking system are very
relevant, especially for a country with a large financial sector, such
as the UK. Figure 1 shows that this is relatively limited when compared
to the assets of the banking sector as a whole, even when aggregated.
However, the size of the UK's banking sector means, relative to
annual GDP, these exposures are rather large. Bank of England (2015a)
highlights these exposures relative to common equity Tier 1 capital.
Even here we should put concerns over the exposure of the financial
system to emerging markets in an appropriate context.
Importantly though, the distribution of this exposure is not
uniform, nor the individual institution vulnerabilities. The Bank of
England's recent stress test exercise included a sizeable slowdown
in China and other emerging market economies (see Bank of England,
2015b). All UK banks involved in the exercise passed, including Standard
Chartered and HSBC, both of whom have significant exposures to
counterparties in Asia. While this is not a guarantee that tensions in
emerging markets will not translate into difficulties for the UK banking
sector, it does highlight the more resilient position the sector finds
itself in.
Our modal GDP growth forecasts for this year and next are largely
unchanged from those published just three months ago (figure 2).The
global developments discussed have led to a softening of the outlook for
UK export growth over the near term. Indeed, we expect export growth to
ease from 5.4 per cent in 2015 to around 4 per cent this year.
Offsetting this is the significant support generated by further falls in
the oil price and easing of domestic policy. Domestic demand growth is
expected to accelerate from 2.4 per cent in 2015 to 3.3 per cent this
year, with consumer spending growth, the key driver, bolstered by the
improved purchasing power from lower oil prices. Overall we expect GDP
growth to remain at about the same rate as last year, expanding by 2.3
per cent per annum. The rapid pickup in GDP growth in 2017, to 2.7 per
cent per annum, occurs through a combination of buoyant domestic demand,
but most importantly a rapid pickup in export volumes due to further
improvements in demand from advanced economies.
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
There are also a number of domestic risk factors. Abstracting from
the debate over the long-run impact of the EU on the UK's economic
performance, the referendum and its aftermath, in the event of a vote to
exit, pose short- to medium-term downside risks. It is largely expected
that the referendum on EU membership will take place this summer. As we
approach this date, there is likely to be an increase in uncertainty
leading firms to delay investment plans until the result in known (see
Box A, UK chapter in the August 2015 Review). Our baseline projections
assume that the status quo is maintained; we therefore have a more muted
path for investment in the lead up to the referendum and an increase
thereafter as firms implement their delayed investment plans. In the
case of exit from EU membership, amongst other effects, this increased
uncertainty is likely to remain throughout the two-year negotiation
period set out in Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. This would lead to a
longer period of subdued investment and remains a key downside risk to
our forecast, irrespective of one's belief about the economic
impact of EU membership (for a fuller analysis see Bank of England,
2015).
One potential danger that is not captured by our model is that the
recent focus on downside risks generates a degree of pessimism among
economic agents which weighs on growth via the confidence channel and
becomes self-fulfilling. This need not be based in any change in the
fundamental outlook, but nonetheless could have significant consequences
for how the economy subsequently evolves.
[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]
Productivity growth is the key domestic judgement in determining
the economy's outlook. Rising living standards hinge on a workforce
delivering outputs more efficiently. It is a concern, then, that the
economics trade has not converged on a clear ordereing of the reasons
behind the 'productivity puzzle'. The future productivity
performance poses the most acute of domestic risks to the forecast.
Changes in assumptions about future productivity performance have the
ability to dramatically change our view of the appropriate stance of
macroeconomic policies.
Output per hour worked increased by 0.8 and 0.6 per cent per
quarter in the second and third quarters of 2015, respectively.
Speculation as to whether this indicated the start of a sustained
improvement in the UK's productivity performance was rife. However,
we have experienced a couple of quarters of reasonable sequential
productivity growth in this lukewarm recovery before (the first half of
2013 and during 2011, for example). Available data suggest the final
quarter of this year disappointed. But as figure 3 shows, we expect this
drop to be a 'blip' as sustained productivity growth resumes.
[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]
Viewed from the perspective of the labour market, the past few
years have seen a sharp decline in the unemployment rate. We estimate
the rate of unemployment reached 5 per cent at the end of last year, its
lowest level since 2005. Looking ahead, our forecast is little changed
(figure 4). We expect the unemployment rate to hover around the 5 per
cent mark over the next couple of years as the rapid pace of employment
growth, that has been the corollary of weak productivity growth, eases.
Consistent with poor productivity performance, however, is that
employees' real consumer wages are currently only at the level they
were in 2005. With a sustained period of growth and acceleration in
productivity growth, as we assume in this forecast, it will still take
approximately five years for real consumer wages to return to the recent
peak level of 2007.
The Autumn Statement\Comprehensive Spending Review set the spending
plans for the next five years across government departments. The
surprise from this was the significant increases in government
consumption planned, relative to that presented in the Summer Budget and
most starkly, the last Budget of the coalition government. The Autumn
Statement, building on the Summer Budget has presented a loosening of
fiscal policy relative to coalition plans, something that was expected
(see Kirby, 2015). The official forecasts suggest the government will
hit their primary fiscal target of an absolute surplus in 2019-20 with a
marginal degree of room to spare, despite the fiscal loosening
introduced. As we discuss in the public finances section, this is
predicated on a more accommodating macroeconomic outlook as viewed by
the OBR, which is based on a combination of corrections to models
underpinning key tax revenues forecasts, and their assumption about the
path for Bank Rate, which provides significant fiscal space within the
constraints of the Fiscal Mandate.
[FIGURE 5 OMITTED]
We have made neither these revenue forecast adjustments nor do we
impose the mean of market expectations for interest rates on our
forecasts. As such our forecast suggests the public sector will continue
to borrow, albeit a modest 600 million [pounds sterling], in 2019-20,
before reaching absolute surplus in 2020-21. Given the uncertainties
around the outlook, such sums do not warrant too much focus; as a per
cent of GDP, the public finances are in balance. However, it does
highlight the inflexibility of the new Fiscal Mandate. Were the OBR to
present this projection to the Chancellor in the run-up to any future
fiscal statement, he would be left with little choice but to announce a
tightening of policy, even though an absolute surplus would be achieved
in the subsequent year.
Monetary conditions
We have moved our central projection for Bank Rate back so that it
now remains at Vi per cent until August 2016. (1) By the end of this
year Bank Rate is expected to reach 1 per cent and over the medium term
it rises gradually to 1 1/2 per cent by the end of 2017 and just 2% per
cent by the end of 2020. From November 2016 onwards, this is a near
identical path for Bank Rate to what we had assumed in our forecast
published three months ago.
[FIGURE 6 OMITTED]
The change in the first rate rise, from February to August 2016,
has been motivated by a number of factors, not least a recent series of
speeches by members of the MPC, see for instance Shafik (2015a), Vlieghe
(2016) and Carney (2016). While the central outlook for the economy
appears little changed compared to three months ago, there has been an
increased focus on the risks around it, with sentiment becoming more
cautious following volatility in financial markets and also a number of
UK data releases that disappointed relative to market expectations. The
MPC's more recent communication would seem to be driven more by
this uncertainty than a fundamental shift in its modal view.
Market expectations for Bank Rate derived from the forward OIS
curve have fallen back even further since November 2015 and now price in
a first interest rate rise in early 2018 (figure 6). As discussed by
Shafik (2015b) there may be additional market features which mean these
rates are not currently an accurate reflection of expectations, but at
around 25 months ahead, this represents the most extreme market view on
the distance from the turning point in the monetary policy cycle to
date. Survey measures of expectations place the turning point closer to
our own view (see for instance Financial Times, 2016a).
As we illustrated with simulations in November's Review, the
decision to push back the timing of the first interest rate rise has
little material effect on our forecast for GDP growth or inflation. The
key is rather that the subsequent pace of tightening remains slow and
gradual (see also the OECD, 2015, for a similar exercise on the US
economy). However, there remain a number of factors which indicate that
commencing with interest rate rises soon would not be inconsistent with
meeting the MPC's remit over the medium term.
According to the Bank of England's November 2015 Inflation
Report, the spare capacity in the economy is likely to have been fully
absorbed sometime in 2016. Given a forecast for GDP growth at or
marginally in excess of that of potential output over the next couple of
years, and inflation expected to be close to 2 per cent at the 2-year
horizon, this would be consistent with a real interest rate currently
equal to the natural rate. (2) The implication would then seem to be
that the natural rate is currently close to zero. But, as the inflation
rate accelerates, were policy to remain unchanged, this would represent
a lowering of the real interest rate. Implicitly what the MPC is then
advocating is an endogenous loosening of policy, or that the natural
rate itself will fall over the forecast horizon. Crucially, even if the
policy rate were to rise, if inflation were to rise by more, then the
stance of policy would, in fact, be looser.
[FIGURE 7 OMITTED]
Box A. Key forecast developments since November 2015
by Simon Kirby and Jack Meaning
Since the publication of our previous forecast in November 2015's
Review a number of the variables at the heart of our forecast have
undergone notable shifts which have potentially significant
consequences for inflation and output.
Dollar oil prices have fallen by more than 15 per cent since the
start of the year and are forecast to be over 35 per cent lower
this year than previously was the case. However, in 2017 they are
now projected to increase more sharply. To quantify the impact of
this change, we impose the updated path for oil prices on to the
November forecast baseline in our in-house model, NiGEM. The
resultant shock can then be traced through all variables in the
model.
[FIGURE A1 OMITTED]
The first column of Table I shows that oil price developments
since November have lowered the average rate of consumer
price inflation in 2016 by almost 60 basis points and 30 basis
points in 2017. By 2018 the impact is zero, and from 2019
onwards inflation is actually higher than the counterfactual.
Monetary policy expectations are another key determinant of our
forecast and since November we have seen shifts in expectations
across the UK and her two major trading partners; the United States
and the Euro Area. As with the oil price shock, we can impose the
new expected paths for policy rates in these three economies on to
our previous baseline to see what the shifts imply for inflation.
Table I shows little impact this year as markets' expectations of
policy in the near term were already extremely flat. From 2017
onwards though, the looser view of policy in the UK relative to the
other two economies adds 10-14 basis points to the average
inflation rate.
The third factor we analyse is the opening up of a risk premium on
sterling, possibly due to uncertainty surrounding the impending
referendum on the UK's membership of the European Union. By
matching the observed exchange rate movements over the last 3
months to those the uncovered interest rate parity condition in our
model would predict given economic fundamentals, we can isolate the
unexplained element of sterling's recent depreciation. We then use
this to calibrate a shock to the nominal sterling exchange rate.
This widens the risk premium until the middle of 2016, (2) and then
decays at a rate of 30 per cent per quarter from the third quarter
of 2016 onwards. The outcome is a depreciation of the sterling
effective exchange rate of around 2 1/2 per cent on impact. This
generates additional inflationary pressure in 2016, raising
consumer price inflation by an average of 0.2 percentage point, the
implied pass-through multiplier being -0.08 in this case. (1)
Combining the shocks
Looked at in isolation, these shocks, whilst interesting, provide
only a partial picture of the implications for the rate of consumer
price inflation. In reality these factors will interact through the
numerous transmission mechanisms within the economy, which we try
and capture within NiGEM. Therefore we run a final simulation in
which all three sets of shocks are applied simultaneously. The
results for inflation can be seen in the final columns of Table A1
and in Figure A1.
What we see is that the defining developments in the last 3 months
combine, all else equal, to lower consumer price inflation by
around 40 basis points this year. This intensifies to 50 basis
points in 2017 as oil prices changes continue to feed through. It
is noteworthy that the combined effect is less severe in 2016 than
the isolated oil price shock as the depreciation of sterling and
looser monetary policy offset the dollar oil price revisions.
In 2018 the implication is that, again all else equal, inflation
should be marginally higher than we forecast back in November. This
is of particular importance when thinking about the appropriate
setting of monetary policy, which is concerned with inflation at
around the two-year horizon. This exercise suggests that, over the
past three months, little has changed for the inflation outlook 2
years ahead, and the extent to which it has, it has added
inflationary pressure to what was already forecast to be a mild
overshoot of the 2 per cent inflation target.
Looking at GDR the simulation suggests a significant upward
revision to the near-term outlook for GDP growth. The growth rate is
boosted by around 45 basis points in 2016 and 10 basis points in
2017. This acceleration is unsurprising as, unlike with inflation,
where some factors were acting as offsets to others, in this case
all factors are working in the same direction. Weaker sterling
boosts the competitiveness of UK exporters, lower oil prices reduce
production costs and boost consumer purchasing power and looser
policy expectations decrease the interest burden on debtors and
spur investment. The intertemporal substitution inherent in some of
these actions leads to a minor weakening of growth from 2018
onwards, but it should be noted that the level of GDP is
permanently higher in this simulation.
It is likely that this represents an upper bound on estimates of
the output gain from recent macroeconomic developments as we do not
take account for the negative influence on investment and
consumption that might occur as a result of the EU referendum, and
which drives the risk premium shock on the exchange rate.
Additionally, equity price falls will depress consumer spending
through a negative wealth effect. This would be more pronounced if
we were to assume that this also changed economic agents'
expectations about the future. In the absence of such an effect,
the impact from the fall in equity prices is expected to be
fleeting. However, it does still serve to highlight that, although
a number of risks have increased in prominence, the last 3 months
have not been a period of consequential downgrading for the
prospects for the UK economy.
NOTE
(1) See Kirby and Meaning (2014) for more on the sensitivity of
short and medium term exchange rate pass-through and the associated
multipliers, to the nature of the shock to exchange rates in NiGEM.
(2) At the time of writing this is when it is most widely believed
the referendum will take place.
REFERENCE
Kirby, S. and Meaning, J. (2014),'Exchange rate pass-through: a
view from a global structural model', National Institute Economic
Review, 230, F59-564.
Table A1. Impact of economic developments on UK
inflation and GDP growth
Individual shocks Simultaneous
(effect on inflation rate) shocks
Oil Monetary Exchange Inflation GDP
changes policy rate risk rate growth
changes premium
changes
2015 -0.03 -0.01 0.05 0.05 0.04
2016 -0.57 0.01 0.18 -0.37 0.43
2017 -0.33 0.10 -0.07 -0.45 0.06
2018 -0.02 0.13 -0.02 0.13 -0.04
2019 0.02 0.14 0.08 0.26 -0.06
2020 0.09 0.12 0.08 0.26 -0.08
Note: Table values denote basis points difference with
respect to the November 2015 forecast baseline.
Many MPC members have commented on their desire to see sustained
wage growth before they feel secure enough in moving policy. However,
real average weekly earnings are growing at 2 per cent. Accounting for
very weak near-term inflation expectations, nominal wage settlements of
around 2 per cent seem consistent with the forward-looking decision
making process in a tightening labour market. Thus, one would expect
nominal wages to begin to rise with inflation as temporary factors weigh
down on the headline figure less, generating additional inflationary
pressure. Inflation expectations at the two-year horizon have dropped by
less than shorter-term variants, indicating the MPC's commitment to
2 per cent inflation two years ahead is seen as credible.
A key indicator of the underlying inflationary pressure is core
inflation. This has accelerated in recent months from 0.8 per cent in
June to 1.4 per cent in December, equal to the average between January
2001 and January 2008.
Given this outlook, it would seem implausible that Bank Rate should
stay at its current level for a further 25 months, as such a course of
action would push up on inflation and increase the risk of the MPC
overshooting its mandated target (figure 7).
The argument for delaying monetary tightening hangs predominantly
on heightened uncertainty. It is evident that there exist a number of
large downside risks to the economic outlook, and were one or more of
these to materialise then the ability of policy to respond effectively
may be limited. In this sense the decision of the MPC to "wait and
see" rather than begin tightening is justified. The balancing act
facing the committee members is how much they can let underlying
inflationary pressure build in order to give themselves time to see how
these risks play out, especially given the transmission lags inherent
once tightening begins.
Once they have delayed beyond the first quarter of 2016, the
picture is complicated by the timing of the UK's referendum on
membership of the European Union. (3) The large uncertainty around even
near-term forecasts given the wide range of possible outcomes should be
more than enough to stay the hand of the MPC until the result is known.
Hence our updated view that rates will not rise until the second half of
2016. The possibility that the referendum is held later, or that the
result is detrimental to the UK's economic performance in the
medium term, represent significant downside risks to our forecast.
[FIGURE 8 OMITTED]
An often overlooked risk is that the MPC's caution and
hesitancy serves to 'talk down' markets and the economy more
broadly, leading to a self-fulfilling dynamic which ultimately validates
holding rates lower. Such causality would be almost impossible to
disentangle from other factors, but the point highlights the complex and
endogenous nature of modern policy communication.
The Bank of England's other monetary policy instrument, the
Asset Purchase Facility, continues to be held at 375bn [pounds
sterling]. This represents a reduction in the publicly available supply
of UK government securities of around 25 per cent. The MPC's
clarification in November that it does not envisage unwinding the APF
until Bank Rate has reached roughly 2 per cent implies on our forecast
that they will not begin to reduce the size of their balance sheet until
at least the second quarter of 2019. Over this period some 110bn [pounds
sterling] of gilts on the Bank of England's balance sheet will
mature, requiring them to re-invest the principal received, along with
additional funds, and purchase new gilts. (4) This represents a sizeable
ongoing intervention in UK government debt markets. In fact, the current
Parliament would withdraw a sum equal to more than 75 per cent of the
197bn [pounds sterling] of gilts the Debt Management Office expects to
issue, reducing the net issuance to the private sector considerably,
figure 8.
Prices and earnings
Twelve-month consumer price inflation has remained weak in the past
three months, reaching just 0.2 per cent in December following rates of
0.1 per cent in November and -0.1 in October. The outlook has been
further complicated by the renewed falls in global commodity prices,
movements in sterling and increasing uncertainty around prospects for
world output and trade growth. The recent external developments are
behind much of the downward revision to our inflation forecast for 2016.
We expect the rate of CPI inflation to reach only 0.3 per cent, rising
to just 1.3 per cent in 2017. Further out, the rate of inflation is
expected to be marginally above target as temporary disinflationary
effects dissipate.
[FIGURE 9 OMITTED]
Dollar oil prices have fallen significantly since the start of the
year with Brent crude dropping below $30 a barrel. The latest price
projections from the Energy Information Administration, which form the
basis of our own forecast, show oil prices falling by almost 30 per cent
this year, compared to an 8 per cent increase underpinning the forecast
published in November 2015. (5) However, the profile for 2017 is for a
more aggressive snap back in prices than was previously expected, with a
25 per cent rather than 3 per cent rise, although the net effect is a
permanently lower level of the oil price than we had factored into our
last forecast (figure 10).
As a consequence, the inflationary effect stemming from recovering
oil prices is delayed, weighing down more on consumer prices this year
and in the first half of 2017, but contributing more in the second half
of 2017 and through 2018.
[FIGURE 10 OMITTED]
In foreign exchange markets, sterling depreciated against a
trade-weighted basket of currencies by roughly Vi per cent in the final
quarter of 2015 and is expected to fall by approximately 3 per cent more
in the first quarter of 2016. This leaves the effective exchange rate
lower than in our November forecast as diverging monetary policy paths
and building uncertainty around the UK's referendum on exiting the
European Union weigh on the attractiveness of the currency.
Sterling is forecast to fall 5.5 per cent against the dollar this
year compared to a modest appreciation in our last baseline. This has
the consequence of offsetting some of the disinflationary impact of
recent oil price moves, as in sterling terms they have moved by less
than the dollar price would suggest (figure 11). Against the euro,
sterling is expected to fall 3Vi per cent this year as expectations of
monetary tightening in the UK fall back by more than markets' views
on ECB loosening. The ECB's December move widely disappointed
markets, undoing some of the depreciation that had been built in prior
to the policy announcement. However, recent communications have
suggested that further loosening may be imminent and markets have begun
to price this back in. Were this to materialise it would lessen the
forecast depreciation of sterling and remove some inflationary impetus
in our baseline at around the 18-month horizon.
Abstracting from the effects of oil prices, core inflation, which
excludes energy and other volatile components such as alcohol and
tobacco, has strengthened, rising from 0.8 per cent in the middle of
2015 to 1.4 per cent in December. This most recent outturn was boosted
by a large increase in air fares, but even without that, core price
growth since October 2015 has averaged the same as it did through the
2001-7 period when the economy was in the upswing of the economic cycle.
This suggests that underlying inflationary pressure remains strong. A
risk to our forecast is that this underlying pressure builds, masked in
the headline number by temporary factors, and policy fails to respond
appropriately so that when the temporary factors wash out, inflation
accelerates more aggressively than on our current baseline.
[FIGURE 11 OMITTED]
The picture for earnings has become more uncertain in recent
months. On the one hand, nominal earnings growth, as measured by the
ONS' regular average weekly earnings series, has fallen back
slightly to 2.1 per cent in November from 2.9 per cent in July 2015. (6)
However, with a lowering of one year ahead inflation expectations in
recent months, this does not necessarily indicate a lessening of wage
pressure. Real average weekly earnings grew 2 per cent in the year to
November, and adjusting current wage growth for our one-year ahead
inflation forecast shows a much more modest fall in the final quarter of
2015 than the nominal data would suggest. Looking at 2-year inflation
expectations, they have fallen by much less and so we expect nominal
wage growth to pick up over that horizon as workers and firms negotiate
nominal contracts based on these higher expected inflation values. We
think it is likely that the recent softening is due to a combination of
this changing expectations effect and simple volatility in earnings
data, with average earnings growth forecast to pick up to 2.3 per cent
in 2016. Should this judgement prove wrong, and the softening prove more
persistent, or even to be a retrenchment of earnings growth, then this
would have significantly disinflationary consequences for our current
forecast.
The nexus of earnings and price developments is the unit labour
cost; the labour portion of the cost of producing one unit of output. If
wages increase faster than the productivity of workers then the labour
input for a given level of output becomes more expensive. This either
hits the profitability of firms as they reduce their margins to absorb
the additional cost, or is passed on to consumers via higher prices,
stoking inflation. Weak productivity growth has seen unit labour cost
growth picking up since early 2014, even with relatively anaemic wage
growth. In the third quarter of 2015 unit labour costs increased by 2
per cent compared with twelve months earlier. At the heart of our
forecast is a view that productivity growth returns at a pace marginally
below that of nominal wages so that unit labour cost growth moderates
but continues to exert inflationary pressure over the medium term.
Components of demand
Recent revisions to the components of GDP left the 2014 annual
average unchanged, but led to a reduction in the rate of growth in the
second and third quarters of 2015, largely due to changes to the pattern
of consumer spending through the year. The ONS' preliminary
estimate for the final quarter of 2015 gives a rate of growth of 0.5 per
cent per quarter (figure 12), broadly consistent with our previous
forecast, published in the November 2015 Review. Nonetheless, the
revisions to estimates earlier within 2015 mean the 2.2 per cent growth
outturn for 2015 is slightly lower than we had previously expected
(figure 2) .
[FIGURE 12 OMITTED]
Domestic demand is expected to be the primary driver of economic
growth over this year and next. Consumption and investment are expected
to contribute 2.3 and 1.0 percentage points towards overall growth in
2016, respectively. As we note in the Household Sector section of this
chapter, the purchasing power of households improved throughout the
course of last year due to a temporary fall in the rate of consumer
price inflation. These temporary factors (energy price movements in
particular) will continue to weigh on the rate of inflation this year,
allowing household real disposable incomes to rise, even though nominal
wage growth is only expected to be marginally above 2 per cent per
annum. We have left our forecast for 2016 unchanged at 2.3 per cent and
revised up marginally to 2.7 per cent per annum next year from 2.6.
The most significant change to our forecast for the domestic sector
is as a result of November's Autumn Statement/Comprehensive
Spending Review where it was announced that the government would be
increasing total managed expenditure across the five years to 4tn
[pounds sterling], up from 3.85tn [pounds sterling] from the Summer
Budget. This implies a faster expansion of government consumption in
real terms, which we now expect to grow by an average of 0.4 per cent
per annum for 2016 to 2019, compared with 0.3 per cent from the Summer
Budget. However, the overall contribution to growth remains historically
small, adding just 0.1 percentage point to GDP between 2016 and 2019,
compared with an average contribution of 0.6 percentage points in the
pre-crisis years 1998 to 2007.
[FIGURE 13 OMITTED]
The external sector has continued to subtract from GDP throughout
2015 with growth in the volume of imports continuing to outpace those of
exports. Exports accelerated in the final quarter of 2014 and robust
growth continued throughout 2015; in the third quarter exports grew 6.4
per cent on a year-on-year basis. We estimate the final quarter to be
somewhat softer with growth of 2.7 per cent year-on-year, due to weaker
growth in goods exports, especially to EU countries. This weakness is
the reverse of the recent trend which has seen a pickup in goods
exports. However, we expect that the forecast softening in the fourth
quarter will persist through this year and we have therefore revised
down our expectation of the contribution of exports to overall GDP
growth for 2016 to 1.2 percentage points from 1.8. This in turn
moderates the negative contribution from imports to 2.2 percentage
points, down from 3.2, and implies that net trade will subtract 1
percentage point from GDP in 2016.
[FIGURE 14 OMITTED]
The trade balance widened further in the third quarter of 2015 to
1.9 per cent of GDP from 1 per cent in the previous quarter. To indicate
the general trend of the trade balance, which is a notoriously volatile
series, figure 14 shows the moving average of the quarterly value. From
the late 1990s there was deterioration in the trade balance from surplus
to deficit, which reached its nadir in 2008. From then onwards the trade
deficit began to shrink. And the general trend since 2011 has been
stability at around pre-crisis levels. From the late 1990s the UK saw
the proportion of the value of oil within total imports increase from
around 2 per cent in 1998 to 10 per cent in 2012. Since the sharp
decreases in oil prices which began at the end of 2014 and have recurred
more recently, this share has reduced to 5 per cent, the lowest since
the first quarter of 2005. As the UK is a net importer of oil this
should help to reduce the trade deficit all else equal although it is
likely to be partially offset by the depreciation of sterling against
the dollar. We expect the trade deficit to reach 3.3 and 3.7 as a
percentage of GDP in 2016 and 2017 respectively.
Since 2013, the UK real effective exchange rate has appreciated by
15 per cent, which may have reduced the price competitiveness of UK
firms and added downward pressure to export volumes. However, this is
far from the whole story. Figure 15 plots the difference between the
effective exchange rate and the relative price of UK exports compared to
her competitors. It shows that the onset of the global financial crisis
led to a depreciation of around 25 per cent between 2007 and 2009. Less
than half of this was passed through to relative price competitiveness;
slightly less than suggested by benchmark estimates from IMF (2015), who
find that around 60 per cent of real effective exchange rate movements
are passed through to export prices in the first year, falling to around
half in the long run. One cause of this result could be that exporters
took advantage of the depreciation to build up their margins, especially
given the large economic uncertainty associated with that period. As
sterling has regained some of the ground it lost in 2007-9, the reverse
looks to have happened and firms have been able to reduce their expanded
margins, insulating them to some extent from the competitiveness loss a
strengthening pound would have inflicted otherwise. It should be noted
that sterling remains around 10 per cent below its pre-depreciation
level and many of the UK's current exporting firms existed and
operated profitably at that price for sterling.
[FIGURE 15 OMITTED]
Household sector
Despite a weaker data outturn for the third quarter of 2015 than we
had pencilled in three months ago, real personal disposable income of UK
households (real income henceforth) is projected to grow at 3.3 per
cent, the fastest rate since 2001. As figure 16 shows, the pickup in
growth has been fuelled by a moderation in the rate of consumer price
inflation, due to a fall in oil prices, and by higher growth rate in
nominal incomes, explained by strong employment growth--now back at
pre-crisis growth rates--and a resumption of real wage growth, which had
been declining since 2010. This year, we expect real income growth to
moderate slightly, despite the renewed fall in oil prices, (7) as labour
market slack dissipates and the recent sterling depreciation decreases
the purchasing power of UK households. From 2017 onwards we expect real
income to grow at around 2 1/4 per cent as consumer price inflation
gradually returns to the Bank of England's target of 2 per cent.
Together with our population projections, our forecast implies real per
capita income growth of 1 3/4 per cent between 2017 and 2021.
[FIGURE 16 OMITTED]
According to our preferred measure of house prices, a seasonally
adjusted version of the ONS mix-adjusted index, house price inflation
has recently picked up, with annual growth rates of 7 and 7.7 per cent
in October and November of last year up from a 16-month low of 5.5 per
cent in July 2015. The Halifax and Nationwide house price indices, which
act as leading indicators for the ONS measure as they are derived
earlier in the house purchase process, provide a similar picture: in the
twelve months to December, house prices increased by 4.5 per cent
according to Nationwide, up from a two-year low of 3.2 per cent in
August 2015, and by 10 per cent according to Halifax, up from 8.5 per
cent in September 2015.
We expect house prices to accelerate in the coming months as demand
is brought forward in response to the announcement in November
2015's Autumn Statement that stamp duty tax rates for buy-to-let
property will increase in April 2016. From 2017 onwards we expect a
moderation in house price inflation as demand becomes more subdued
following increases in Bank Rate. The underlying assumption in our
forecast is that there will not be any drastic changes in supply. This
view is supported by various measures such as the average house stock
per surveyor, reported by RICS, which has been declining since April
2015 and hit in December a 37-year low of 44 1/2, down from its peak of
196 in 1990.
[FIGURE 17 OMITTED]
Despite the recent pickup in house price inflation over the past
two years, activity in the housing market remains subdued from a
historical perspective. Data on mortgage approvals from the November
2015 Money and Credit report produced by the Bank of England shows that
we stand at around one third of activity when compared to the 2002-7
period. After reaching a two-decade low of 90,000 in June 2012,
approvals have been gradually increasing to around 120,000 in August
2015 and stayed around this level throughout the remainder of that year.
Given the likely increases in Bank Rate this year and the introduction
of the new stamp duty tax, we maintain a view of subdued activity, which
limits the potential for credit growth of UK households. In fact, while
recently gross mortgages to households have increased at a faster rate
than increases in capital repayments, the gap between the two flows
remains small from a historical perspective (figure 17).
Households' debt-to-income ratio has remained stable at around
141 per cent since the second half of 2013 after a period of
deleveraging that brought down the ratio from a peak of almost 170 per
cent in early 2008. Despite the deleveraging process, the UK's
household debt-to-income ratio is second only to Canada within the G-7
group of countries.
High levels of indebtedness pose a risk. Sudden increases in
interest rates can weigh on consumption decisions of households as
income gearing--the share of income diverted to interest
repayments--rises. Income gearing has been historically low thanks to
low Bank Rate (see figure A5 in the appendix). Although income gearing
is bound to rise, our view is that the risk this poses via weaker than
expected consumption growth or households resorting to debt
restructuring, is contained as Bank Rate is expected to increase in a
very gradual fashion. In addition, as a recent survey commissioned by
the Bank of England (Bunn et al., 2015) shows, the balance sheet
position of UK families has been improving over the past few years: the
share of individuals that should take action (8) in case of a sudden
rise in Bank Rate of 2 percentage points has decreased over the past two
years from 44 to 31 per cent. We expect household indebtedness to remain
stable at the current level given the moderate pace of credit expansion
and the pick-up in nominal income growth.
As has generally been the case for the past two years, private
consumption was strong, with a quarter on quarter growth rate of 0.8 per
cent in the third quarter of 2015. Consumption growth has been supported
by the pickup in real incomes, wealth effects stemming from house price
inflation and the appreciation of sterling which increases the
purchasing power of UK households. Data on retail sales until December
2015, which constitute a timely monthly indicator of consumer spending
and represents around a third of the total, increased 1.1 per cent
during the fourth quarter of last year, a rate of growth very similar to
the previous three quarters, suggesting that consumer spending will
remain strong in the current quarter. We expect consumer spending to
peak in 2016 and to moderate thereafter, as house price inflation
moderates, consumer price inflation returns to the Bank of England
target of 2 per cent and income gearing increases following the
tightening of Bank Rate.
The saving ratio, that which includes the adjustment for changes in
net equity of households in pension funds, has reached a historical low
of 4.4 per cent on the third quarter of 2015. Although the adjustment
has been making negative contributions to the saving rate of households
for the past year, perhaps unsurprisingly given the recent turmoil in
equity markets, it is dwarfed by the negative contribution coming from
the rise in consumption expenditure of households. In addition, it does
not appear that households are running down assets given that net
financial wealth in 2015 (given data up to the third quarter) has
registered the highest growth rate since 2010. Our view is that the
recent favourable dynamics of the labour market, with unemployment rate
close to equilibrium, has spurred consumers to implement consumption
plans that might otherwise have been delayed. In addition, given the
expectation of a Bank Rate rise this year, there is an incentive to
delay saving and bring consumption forward.
Supply conditions
The working age population employment rate reached a record high of
74.2 per cent in the three months to November 2015 with the level of
employment of those aged 65 and over showing a particularly large
increase of 7.3 per cent in the year ending November 2015. Unemployment
fell to 5.1 per cent in the three months to November 2015, its lowest
level since 2005. Labour market participation and average hours worked
are approaching their equilibrium levels and rising wages are a further
indicator of a tightening labour market. Real producer hourly wages
increased by 2.7 per cent in the third quarter of 2015 compared to the
same quarter one year earlier.
However, all is not well in the UK labour market. Signs of
underemployment persist. The Bell-Blanchflower underemployment index (9)
measures the excess supply of hours in the economy. It sums the hours
that the unemployed would work if they could find a job and the change
in hours that those already in work would prefer. This is then expressed
as a percentage of the sum of hours worked and surplus hours to give the
underemployment rate. Although this measure has declined in recent
years, it remains about 0.9 percentage point above the 2007 average.
This is partly related to the proportion of part-time workers who say
they would like but are unable to find a full-time job, which fell to 15
per cent in November 2015, down from a peak of 18.5 per cent in 2015.
This is still much higher than the average of the ten years to 2007 of
9.1 (figures 18 and 19).
[FIGURE 18 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 19 OMITTED]
The self-employed tend to be less productive than employees due to
reduced access to capital. High levels of self-employment may be an
indicator of spare capacity if there are many temporarily self-employed
workers who are seeking jobs in firms, thus it is important to
differentiate cyclical changes from long-term trends. Self-employment as
a proportion of total employment has been growing since the onset of the
recession and is currently around 15 per cent, compared to 13.1 per cent
in 2007, although the proportion has fallen slightly in the past
eighteen months. The increase in self-employment since 2008 mostly
reflects longer-term trends such as an ageing workforce and
technological changes, however it is likely to be in part a response to
the recession. Tatomir (2015) reports that growth in self-employment
accounted for around a third of the 1.9 million increase in the number
of workers in employment since 2010, much of which occurred during
periods of subdued economic growth. In the third quarter of 2015, the
number of employees increased by 1.7 per cent compared to the same
quarter one year earlier, while the number of self-employed increased by
only 0.8 per cent over the same period.
Population growth is expected to continue to boost labour supply as
the UK population is projected to increase by 9.7 million over the next
25 years. These figures have been revised upwards compared to the
2012-based projections due to assumed longer life expectancies and
higher rates of net international migration. Fifty-one per cent of the
increase is due to net migration, with the remaining 49 per cent due to
the birth rate exceeding the death rate. The effect on the size of the
labour force will be partially offset by the continued ageing of the
population, with the average age projected to rise from 40 in 2014 to
42.9 in 2039. Overall, our forecast is for the UK labour force to grow
by around 0.7 per cent per year, on average, between 2016 and 2022.
Business investment volumes remain buoyant, rising by 5.8 per cent
year-on-year in the third quarter of 2015 compared with an average
growth rate of 4.9 per cent per year in the five years since its recent
trough of -16.1 per cent. Data from the Deloitte CFO Survey for the
fourth quarter of 2015 show that new credit for corporates has been
increasing in availability and decreasing in cost since 2009 with 86 per
cent of respondents reporting finding credit fairly or very cheap and 78
per cent of respondents finding credit somewhat or easily available in
the final quarter of 2015. According to the Bank of England's
Credit Conditions Survey 2015Q4, the availability of credit to the
corporate sector was unchanged in the quarter and the credit environment
remains relatively benign.
Methodological changes by the ONS to the estimation of capital
stocks and consumption of fixed capital have resulted in small level
increases in the capital stock data, while growth rates remain broadly
similar, see ONS (2015) for further details. Our forecast for the growth
rate of capital stock has been revised downwards since our November
Review due to an increase in the rate of capital consumption. This rate
decreased significantly in 2008 reflecting an increase in the average
life of assets. As the economy has picked up it seems that assets are
being replaced sooner, resulting in increased consumption of fixed
capital. As a corollary, our business investment forecast has been
revised upwards but not enough to offset this increased consumption. Our
forecast is for capital stock growth of 1.9 per cent this year and then
2.3 per cent per year on average between 2017 and 2022.
The capital-labour ratio increased sharply at the onset of the
crisis as firms reduced the size of their workforces. As capital stock
depreciation exceeded investment, this ratio flattened before falling
between 2011 and 2014. This is consistent with the hypothesis that firms
were hoarding labour while wages were low instead of increasing their
capital stocks, thus limiting productivity growth. The apparent recent
tightening in the labour market seems to coincide with an increase in
the capital-labour ratio, back to the pre-recession trend, which we
expect to continue over the next few years (figure 20).
[FIGURE 20 OMITTED]
Public finances
The Autumn Statement 2015 introduced a significant increase in
discretionary taxation to boost revenues over the forecast period. From
2017-18 to 2020-21 the OBR estimates tax policy changes will boost
revenues by close to 5 billion [pounds sterling] a year, nearly half of
which is expected to be generated by the apprenticeship levy, a payroll
tax imposed on firms with wage bills over 3 million [pounds sterling].
Over the same period, nominal government consumption plans have been
increased by 6.5 billion [pounds sterling], 9.3 billion [pounds
sterling] and 8.3 billion [pounds sterling] in 2017-18, 2018-19 and
2019-20, respectively. Capital and welfare spending have also been
increased by significant amounts over the forecast period. The
government has been able to introduce this fiscal loosening without
exposing itself to a less than even chance of hitting its primary fiscal
target through forecasting changes made by the OBR.
The OBR has a 'bottom-up' approach to its forecasts for
tax revenues, relying on the inputs from models maintained and run by
government departments. Since the Summer Budget, OBR staff have
identified a number of errors in the models and assumptions used by HMRC
to project future revenues. Overall, correcting these assumptions boosts
projected revenues by 4.2 billion [pounds sterling] in 2016-17, rising
to 9 billion [pounds sterling] by 2020-21. By 2020-21, the changes to
revenue modelling and assumptions are expected to generate nearly twice
the revenues from the discretionary tax policy changes announced by the
Chancellor.
The OBR uses market expectations of the future path of Bank Rate to
inform its forecast for interest rates over the forecast period, and the
point at which the Bank of England starts to allow its balance sheet to
shrink. With the yield curve flattening quite significantly since the
Summer Budget, the path for interest rates underpinning the OBR forecast
was lowered, and the point at which the Bank of England allows its
holdings of maturing gilts to 'roll-off' was pushed back. This
lowers government interest payments by between 4 [pounds sterling] and 5
billion [pounds sterling] per annum, half of which is through higher
payments from the APF to HM Treasury as the APF remains at 375 [pounds
sterling] billion, funded at Bank Rate for the whole of the forecast
period.
These two sets of forecast changes allow the government to increase
discretionary tax policy only marginally, but government spending
substantially, without the OBR concluding that the government is no
longer expected to hit the primary target of its Fiscal Mandate. We have
noted in a number of previous forecasts that the government's
fiscal consolidation plan for this parliamentary term was unnecessarily
tight given its fiscal ambitions and that the spending plans of the
previous coalition government would be difficult to achieve. The
government would appear to have used the recent forecasting adjustments
to address this issue.
This is not to say spending cuts are not planned for the rest of
this parliamentary term. In volume terms government consumption is not
expected to keep pace with population growth, suggesting reductions in
the volume of per capita spending, while government investment as a per
cent of GDP, though planned to rise, increases only modestly from a low
level.
We build these spending assumptions into our forecast and then
allow the components of expenditure, most notably social transfers to
households and government interest payments to be endogenously
determined by the model. With our assumption for the first increase in
Bank Rate pushed back to the third quarter of 2016, the profile for
government interest payments, has eased, but only by around 1 billion
[pounds sterling] per annum.
Tax revenues in our global econometric model, NiGEM, are
endogenously determined by the speed and composition of nominal demand
growth. We introduce any discretionary policy change as an adjustment to
the appropriate effective tax rate. As such the tax policy, but not tax
modelling changes, are factored into our fiscal forecasts.
The minor weakening in the fiscal outlook is due to a combination
of the higher government consumption planned and a weaker outlook for
nominal demand, given, mainly external, disinflationary forces. We
expect public sector net borrowing to ease from 90.5 billion [pounds
sterling] (4.9 per cent of GDP) in 2014-15 to 61 1/2 billion [pounds
sterling] in 2016-17 (3.2 per cent of GDP). By 2019-20, the public
sector is expected to borrow less than 1 billion [pounds sterling],
rather than be in an absolute surplus, as dictated by the current Fiscal
Mandate. Such a modest amount of borrowing, compared to expected total
managed expenditure of close to 800 billion [pounds sterling], is well
within the margins of forecast error. If this were to be the forecast
presented by the OBR to the Chancellor, it would, in all likelihood,
induce a modest policy change to ensure the target is projected to be
met. With the absolute surplus achieved the following year, announcing
additional tightening, even if modest, is probably sub-optimal. However,
it does help to highlight the inflexibility of the current fiscal rule.
[FIGURE 21 OMITTED]
With borrowing, as a per cent of GDP, below the growth rate of
nominal demand from 2016-17 onwards, we expect public sector net debt as
a per cent of GDP to decline in every fiscal year of the forecast. At
present we expect a marginal increase in the year 2015-16, from 2014-15.
This marginal increase has little economic meaning, and there is a
reasonable chance 2015-16 will see net debt falling, as a per cent of
GDP. But such a change has been made more difficult by the downward
revisions to GDP growth last year, and, at the time of writing, the
decision to postpone a sale of a tranche of Lloyds shares.
Interventions in the operation of housing associations announced in
the Summer Budget caused a re-evaluation of their classification as
private sector entities. The ONS concluded that the government's
ability to intervene in their governance was enough to warrant a
reclassification of housing associations to the public sector, at a
stroke adding to both public sector net borrowing and debt stock. The
forecasts presented here do not include the balance sheets and borrowing
position of the housing association sector, since they have yet to be
introduced to either the public sector finance statistics or the
quarterly national accounts.
We use the recent forecasts of the OBR to provide an illustration
of what the inclusion of housing associations might do to our forecast.
(10) Table 2 provides the historical data and forecasts for public
sector borrowing and net debt, both as a per cent of GDP, including and
excluding housing associations. The target of debt, falling as a per
cent of GDP, is still expected to be met since the increased borrowing
due to housing associations is modest. But modest increases in borrowing
of around 0.1 per cent of GDP, still lower the probability of the
government meeting the primary target of its Fiscal Mandate further.
A key part of the fiscal framework is the government's ability
to issue debt via auctions conducted by the Debt Management Office. On
20th January 2016, one such auction was reported as being close to
failure as it received bids only marginally in excess of the quantity
being issued (see Financial Times, 2016b). However, looking at this
particular auction in context, it would seem that fears that the DMO
will regularly struggle to find demand for its auctions may be
overstated. An 8-auction moving average of bid-cover ratios on gilt
auctions shows that, whilst recent auctions have seen marginally less
demand relative to supply than the historical average, bid-cover ratios
remain robust and significantly distanced from unity, the point of
failure (figure 21).
It should also be noted that this has remained the case despite net
gilt issuance reaching historically high levels over the period since
2008, implying a sizeable pickup in demand in absolute terms. What is
more, this increased demand has been achieved with yields at average
accepted prices well below historic averages.
Looking forward, as net gilt issuance diminishes, demand for safe
securities is likely to persist and so we do not expect to see any
sustained fall in bid-cover ratios which would impair the ability of the
DMO to fulfil its obligations. This is not to say that no auction will
fail in the future. Twice since the turn of the century gilt auctions
have failed, both due to one-off and short-lived factors and neither
having any significant repercussions.
They serve as reminders of the occasionally inexplicable and
inconsequential volatility in financial markets. The most recent episode
would appear to be another case in point.
Saving and investment
In table A9 we decompose saving and investment positions for three
broad sectors; household, corporate and government. For each of these
sectors, if investment is greater than saving, then that sector is a net
borrower and must finance the excess from the rest of the economy. The
balance of payments on the current account is the summation of the net
positions of these three sectors. Total capital formation greater than
saving results in a deficit which must be externally financed. No
optimality about the levels of investment and saving can be drawn from
these sectoral figures or the position of the current account, rather
just the immediate financing needs of the economy.
In the first quarter of 2008, immediately preceding the global
financial crisis, household saving had reached its lowest level since
1964 of 3 per cent of GDP, after which it steadily increased and reached
a peak of 8.8 per cent of GDP in the third quarter of 2010. Since then,
as the economy has recovered, household saving has continued to fall,
with the exception of a short period of retrenchment in the first three
quarters of 2012 as a result of increased uncertainty surrounding
spillovers from the sovereign debt crisis. In the third quarter of 2015
household saving fell to 3 per cent of GDP; we forecast that household
saving will continue to decline in the near term, primarily due to a
slight reduction in real consumer wage growth in comparison to our
November forecast which reduces the growth of real personal disposable
income in 2017 and 2018. We therefore predict that household saving will
fall to an historic low of around 2Vi per cent of GDP in 2016 and 2017.
Increases in the average propensity to consume are expected to be only
temporary, and in the long run consumer spending growth will moderate as
households improve balance sheet positions that manifest as an increase
in the saving ratio. By 2020 we expect that household saving will have
reached 3.3 per cent of GDP, equivalent to the same proportion of GDP as
in 2014.
Household investment for 2015 has remained broadly flat at 5.2 per
cent of GDP when compared with 2014. Our profile remains unchanged from
our November forecast with household investment increasing throughout
our forecast period, and we expect that by 2020 it will be around 7 per
cent of GDP. This implies that households will remain net borrowers from
the rest of the economy, requiring the funding equivalent of between 3
and 3 1/2 per cent of GDP in 2016 and 2017, respectively, to deliver
these investments, given the magnitude of consumer spending we expect.
Through to the end of our forecast period, the gap between saving and
investment reduces gradually and by 2020 the household sector is
expected to borrow 2 to 2 1/2 per cent of GDP to fund its investment
plans.
Since 2003, the corporate sector has been a net lender to the rest
of the economy. Compared to our November forecast we now view that
corporate net lending to the rest of the economy has increased to 1.8
per cent of GDP in 2015 compared with 1.3 per cent in our November
forecast. This increase has primarily been driven by weaker investment,
which is now expected to be 9.8 per cent of GDP as opposed to the 10.4
per cent forecast back in November, while corporate saving has remained
broadly the same at 11.6 per cent of GDP. We expect for this year
increases in both saving and investment; however, given the recent rise
in the number of firms issuing profit warnings, especially amongst oil
producers and retailers, we believe the proportion will be weighted
towards saving. We forecast that the saving rate will peak at 12.3 per
cent of GDP this year and subsequently fall gradually, while investment
increases to just over 10 per cent and will steadily increase over our
forecast period. This implies a widening of the net lending position to
2 1/2 per cent of GDP in 2016, before excess saving reduces. We now
expect the corporate sector to become a net borrower from the rest of
the economy by 2019. By 2020 we forecast that the corporate sector will
borrow between 3/4 and 1 per cent of GDP from the rest of the economy.
Our fiscal policy forecasts for government consumption and
investment are based on the spending envelopes and discretionary policy
changes outlined in the Autumn Statement/Comprehensive Spending Review.
The policy prescriptions in the Autumn Statement imply a looser path for
fiscal policy than in the Summer Budget, primarily through increases in
government consumption and investment funded through tax and welfare
changes but imply an increase of 3.5bn [pounds sterling] in borrowing
over the parliament. The new planned path of fiscal policy leaves
government investment only marginally unchanged from our previous
forecast of on average 2.3 per cent of GDP between 2016 and 2019,
however government saving is lower throughout our forecast period. We
expect government saving to be -1/2 and 1/2 per cent of GDP in 2016 and
2017, compared with -0.2 and 1 as a percentage of GDP from our November
forecast. Given this we expect that the government will become a net
lender to the rest of the economy by late 2019 rather than the middle of
2018 as we had previously suggested. By 2020 we expect the general
government sector to lend around 1/2 per cent of GDP to the rest of the
economy.
[FIGURE 22 OMITTED]
In 2015, 4.1 per cent of GDP was required to finance domestic
investment plans from the rest of the world compared with the average
for 1998-2007 of 1.9 per cent of GDP. The expected relative paths for
the three sectors, imply that the economy will remain a net borrower
from the rest of the world throughout our forecast period, requiring 4
per cent of GDP in 2016 which will increase to 4.7 per cent in 2017.
After this, net borrowing will gradually reduce; by 2020 we predict that
3 1/2 per cent of GDP will be required to finance investment plans.
In previous editions of the Review we have stressed that a key risk
surrounding the current account is the recent sharp deterioration of the
balance of the primary income account, and to what extent this is a
temporary or permanent phenomenon. Lane (2015) suggests this could be a
consequence of financial engineering, where UK firms relocate their
headquarters to a foreign country. If this hypothesis is correct, it
poses less of a concern for the recent deterioration in the current
account as it flags up the inability of the framework for balance of
payment statistics to cope with how modern economies operate. After all,
the redomiciling of a company's headquarters does not require a
shift in economic activity across international boundaries. While, the
underlying cause of this deterioration remains unclear, we assume that
this is transitory, and that the balance of net factor incomes returns
to surplus in 2016 of just over 1/2 per cent of GDP.
Medium term projections
Table A10 presents our projections for the medium term. This period
will be dominated by the transition of the economy back towards its
equilibrium. The current business cycle has been abnormally long.
Massmann and Mitchell (2002) find the average length of a UK business
cycle to be around 4-5 years since the post war period. Currently we
find ourselves entering the 8th year after the most recent trough. It is
therefore understandable that the assessment of the size of the current
disequilibrium will differ between forecasters. In the November
Inflation Report, the Bank of England suggested that spare capacity will
be eliminated over the course of this year. Our view is that the
negative output gap is larger and will take a number of years of above
potential growth to close. The growth rates reported in table A10,
therefore, do not represent our view of the potential growth rate of the
economy; a rate that our estimates suggest is closer to 2 per cent per
annum, on average.
We understand that the economy will not evolve exactly as we have
forecast, shocks which are by nature unpredictable will move the economy
away from our modal path. We chose to depict this uncertainty using fan
charts. Figure 22 shows that there is a 10 per cent chance that GDP
growth could be greater than 4 per cent by 2020 and a one in five chance
that it could be less than 0.4 per cent.
A key assumption that underpins our economic projections is the
return of meaningful productivity growth. This determines long-run
growth in real consumer wages and therefore the associated improvements
in living standard. We estimate whole economy productivity growth to
average 1 per cent in 2015, up from 0.1 per cent in 2014, and then to
increase slightly this year before growing at around 2 per cent per
annum from 2017 onwards.
From 2012 to 2014 the labour input grew on average by 2.1 per cent
on an annualised basis. This was driven by both increases in employment
and hours supplied. We believe that 2014 represented the peak growth of
the labour input and predict that it slowed to 1.1 per cent in 2015. We
expect this declining trend to continue as unemployment approaches its
long-run level of around 5V2 per cent and the demand for hours
stabilises. We forecast that the labour input will grow by 0.3 per cent
per year on average between 2021-25. This is conditional on the
assumption that the rate of increase in the participation rate of 65+
slows as the state pension ages of men and women are gradually
equalised. Without this we would expect growth of the labour force to be
more modest and a greater softening in the labour input.
In 2015 unemployment was 5.4 per cent, which we view to be close to
its long-run level. In the near term we expect there to be some amount
of overshooting, spurred by the robust growth in the economy. From
2021-25 we project that this will have returned back to its long-run
level of 5 1/2 per cent.
Announced in the Autumn Statement/Comprehensive Spending Review was
a looser path of fiscal policy and more borrowing over the life of the
parliament when compared with the July Budget. As a result our forecasts
for the decline in public sector net borrowing are more gradual than in
our November forecast. The government is expected to borrow 3.4 per cent
of GDP in 2016 which reduces throughout our forecast period. In the
second half of 2019 the government is expected to be a net lender to the
rest of the economy. On average between 2021 and 2025 the government
budget is expected to be broadly in balance. This implies that public
sector net debt will also decrease throughout our sample period, from a
peak in 2015 of 81.3 per cent of GDP. Between 2021 and 2025 we predict
public sector net debt to average around 65 per cent of GDP.
In the near term consumer price growth is expected to remain weak
with annual inflation of 0.3 and 1.3 per cent in 2016 and 2017
respectively. This is primarily a result of the sharp falls in global
commodity prices; we expect that as the effects dissipate, inflation
will return to a rate consistent with the Bank of England's target.
We expect consumer price inflation to average 2.1 per cent between
2021-25. While this may suggest that there could be a marginally tighter
stance for monetary policy: figure 8 illustrates that the target remains
well within the bounds of the most probable outcomes.
Compared with our November forecast, we have pushed back the timing
of the first increase in Bank Rate to August from February but also
expect interest rates to increase more rapidly in 2016. This implies
that the path over the medium term remains broadly unchanged and that
interest rates will gradually normalise over our forecast period. On
average we expect interest rates to be 3 1/2 per cent over the years
2021-25.
Exchange rates in our forecast are determined by interest rate
differentials globally, given our projections for monetary policy
internationally; this suggests that, in general, the sterling effective
exchange rate will remain flat throughout our forecast period. The
deficit on the current account is expected to reduce gradually over the
years 2021-25, from 4.1 per cent of GDP in 2015 to around 3 per cent.
The key risk around this projection remains the underlying cause of the
deficit in net factor income and whether this is permanent or
transitory, perhaps as a result of financial engineering (see Lane,
2015). Our underlying assumption is that this phenomenon is transitory,
however if this is not the case we should expect a larger current
account deficit.
NOTES
(1) We had assumed the first rate rise would occur in February 2016
in each forecast from February 2015 to November 2015.
(2) Millard (2016) discusses the link, or not, between the output
gap and inflation.
(3) At the time of writing, commentators have interpreted recent
statements by the Prime Minister as implying the referendum will be held
in June or July 2016. The Prime Minister has publicly committed to
holding the referendum before the end of 2017.
(4) This number is based on the nominal value of the bonds
maturing. The quantity of purchases required to maintain the balance
sheet at 375bn [pounds sterling] will be more than this as the bonds
held were bought at above par value.
(5) We use EIA short-term forecast published 12 January 2016. In
the November 2015 Review the EIA forecast published on 8 October 2015
was used.
(6) For a comprehensive discussion of the UK labour market and
various earnings measures, see Forbes (2016).
(7) While significant percentage-wise, the recent fall in oil
prices has been, in absolute terms, significantly weaker than the one
that occurred late 2014.
(8) A household needs to "take action" if the additional
mortgage payments from higher interest rates exceed the income available
to meet such payments.
(9) Available at:
http://www.theworkfoundation.com/Datalab/TheBellBlanchflower-Underemployment-Index
(10) We highlighted this issue in August 2015.
REFERENCES
Bank of England (2015), 'EU membership and the Bank of
England', found at http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/
Documents/speeches/2015/euboe211015.pdf.
--(2015a), Financial Stability Report, December 2015.
--(2015b), Stress testing the UK banking system: 2015 results.
Bunn, P., Drapper, L., Rowe, J. and Shah, SK. (2015), 'The
potential impact of higher interest rates and further fiscal
consolidation on households: evidence from the 2015 NMG Consulting
survey', Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin, 55, 4, pp. 357-368.
Carney, M. (2016),'The turn of the year', speech at the
Peston Lecture, Queen Mary University of London.
Deloitte CFO Survey: 2015 Q4 available at http://www2.deloitte.
com/uk/en/pages/finance/articles/deloitte-cfo-survey.html.
Financial Times (2016a),'Economists forecasts: interest rates
to stay low', http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a6611ff8-afa3-11e5-b955-1
a1d298b6250.html#axzz3yFHCW7dj.
--(2016b),'UK dodges a failed gilt auction ... just', 20
January 2016 http://www.ft.com/fastft/2016/01
/20/uk-dodges-a-failed-giltauction-just/.
Forbes, K. (2016), 'A tale of two labour markets', speech
at the Henry Jackson Society.
IMF (2015), World Economic Outlook, October 2015.
Kirby, S. (2015),'The macroeconomic implications of the
parties' fiscal plans', National Institute Economic Review,
231, F4-F11.
Lane, P. (2015),'A financial perspective on the UK current
account deficit', National Institute Economic Review, 234,
November, F67-71.
Massmann, M. and Mitchell, J. (2002),'Have UK and Eurozone
business cycles become more correlated?', National Institute
Economic Review, 182, October, pp. 58-71.
Millard, S. (2016),'Potential supply, the output gap and
inflation', posted on Bank Underground http://bankunderground.
co.uk/2016/01/25/potential-supply-the-output-gap-andinflation/.
OECD (2015), Interim Economic Outlook, September 2015.
ONS (2015), Capital Stocks, Consumption of Fixed Capital, 2015,
available at: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp 171778_426067.pdf.
Shafik, M. (2015a),'Treading carefully', speech at the
Institute of Directors.
--(2015b),'Interpreting the yield curve: warning or
opportunity?', speech at the Association of Corporate Treasurers
Annual Conference, Manchester.
Tatomir, S. (2015),'Self-employment: what can we learn from
recent developments?' Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin, 55, 1,
pp. 56-66.
Vlieghe, G. (2016),'Debt, demographics and the distribution of
income: new challenges for monetary policy', speech at the London
School of Economics.
Appendix--Forecast details
[FIGURE A1 OMITTED]
[FIGURE A2 OMITTED]
[FIGURE A3 OMITTED]
[FIGURE A4 OMITTED]
[FIGURE A5 OMITTED]
[FIGURE A6 OMITTED]
[FIGURE A7 OMITTED]
[FIGURE A8 OMITTED]
[FIGURE A9 OMITTED]
[FIGURE A10 OMITTED]
Table A1. Exchange rates and interest rates
UK exchange rate FTSE
All-share
Effective Dollar Euro index
2011 = 100
2010 100.19 1.55 1.17 2472.7
2011 100.00 1.60 1.15 2587.6
2012 104.17 1.59 1.23 2617.7
2013 102.91 1.56 1.18 3006.2
2014 110.94 1.65 1.24 3136.6
2015 118.22 1.53 1.38 3146.5
2016 115.90 1.44 1.33 2909.8
2017 115.71 1.45 1.32 2966.2
2018 115.58 1.46 1.31 3050.7
2019 115.59 1.47 1.29 3168.4
2020 115.61 1.49 1.28 3316.0
2015 Q1 115.02 1.51 1.34 3207.6
2015 Q2 117.69 1.53 1.39 3294.6
2015 Q3 120.41 1.55 1.39 3075.5
2015 Q4 119.76 1.52 1.39 3008.3
2016 Q1 116.01 1.45 1.33 2909.3
2016 Q2 115.88 1.44 1.33 2905.4
2016 Q3 115.86 1.44 1.33 2903.3
2016 Q4 115.85 1.44 1.33 2921.2
2017 Q1 115.79 1.44 1.33 2938.5
2017 Q2 115.74 1.45 1.32 2957.9
2017 Q3 115.68 1.45 1.32 2976.9
2017 Q4 115.63 1.45 1.31 2991.7
Percentage changes
2010/2009 -0.4 -1.2 3.8 21.2
2011/2010 -0.2 3.7 -1.2 4.6
2012/2011 4.2 -1.1 7.0 1.2
2013/2012 -1.2 -1.3 -4.5 14.8
2014/2013 7.8 5.3 5.4 4.3
2015/2014 6.6 -7.2 11.0 0.3
2016/2015 -2.0 -5.5 -3.5 -7.5
2017/2016 -0.2 0.2 -0.7 1.9
2018/2017 -0.1 0.7 -1.1 2.8
2019/2018 0.0 1.1 -1.1 3.9
2020/2019 0.0 1.0 -1.1 4.7
2015Q4/14Q4 7.1 -4.2 9.3 -1.9
2016Q4/15Q4 -3.3 -4.7 -4.1 -2.9
2017Q4/16Q4 -0.2 0.4 -1.0 2.4
Interest rates
3-month Mortgage 10-year World(a) Bank
rates interest gilts Rate(b)
2010 0.7 4.0 3.6 1.4 0.50
2011 0.9 4.1 3.1 1.6 0.50
2012 0.8 4.2 1.8 1.4 0.50
2013 0.5 4.4 2.4 1.1 0.50
2014 0.5 4.4 2.5 0.9 0.50
2015 0.6 4.5 1.8 0.7 0.50
2016 0.8 4.6 2.1 0.9 1.00
2017 1.4 4.8 2.7 1.4 1.50
2018 1.9 5.0 3.1 2.0 1.75
2019 2.3 5.2 3.4 2.5 2.25
2020 2.7 5.5 3.7 2.8 2.75
2015 Q1 0.6 4.5 1.6 0.7 0.50
2015 Q2 0.6 4.5 1.9 0.7 0.50
2015 Q3 0.6 4.5 1.9 0.7 0.50
2015 Q4 0.6 4.5 1.9 0.7 0.50
2016 Q1 0.6 4.5 1.8 0.8 0.50
2016 Q2 0.6 4.5 2.0 0.8 0.50
2016 Q3 0.8 4.6 2.2 0.9 0.75
2016 Q4 1.1 4.7 2.3 1.0 1.00
2017 Q1 1.2 4.8 2.5 1.2 1.00
2017 Q2 1.3 4.8 2.6 1.3 1.25
2017 Q3 1.4 4.8 2.7 1.4 1.25
20/7 Q4 1.6 4.9 2.8 1.6 1.50
Percentage changes
2010/2009
2011/2010
2012/2011
2013/2012
2014/2013
2015/2014
201612015
201712016
2018/2017
201912018
2020/2019
2015Q4/14Q4
2016Q4/15Q4
2017Q4/16Q4
Notes: We assume that bilateral exchange rates for the first
quarter of this year are the average of information
available to 13 January 2016. We then assume that bilateral
rates remain constant for the following two quarters before
moving in line with the path implied by the backward-looking
uncovered interest rate parity condition based on
interest rate differentials relative to the US. (a) Weighted
average of central bank intervention rates in OECD
economies, (b) End of period.
Table A2. Price indices
2012=100
Unit Imports Exports Whole- World
labour deflator deflator sale price oil price
costs index(a) ($)(b)
2010 99.4 94.1 94.4 96.2 78.8
2011 98.9 100.5 99.8 98.9 108.5
2012 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 110.4
2013 100.6 100.9 102.6 100.8 107.1
2014 99.5 97.2 100.0 101.7 97.8
20/5 101.2 91.6 94.5 101.9 51.8
2016 102.2 91.3 92.4 101.5 36.8
2017 102.8 95.6 94.7 102.5 45.8
2018 104.2 99.7 97.3 105.3 52.7
2019 105.9 102.0 99.4 108.6 53.7
2020 107.5 103.9 101.3 111.3 54.8
Percentage changes
2010/2009 1.5 3.9 5.4 1.5 27.6
2011/2010 -0.5 6.8 5.7 2.8 37.6
2012/2011 1.1 -0.5 0.2 1.1 1.8
2013/2012 0.6 0.9 2.6 0.8 -3.0
2014/2013 -1.0 -3.6 -2.6 0.9 -8.7
2015/2014 1.7 -5.7 -5.5 0.2 -47.0
2016/2015 1.0 -0.4 -2.2 -0.3 -29.1
2017/2016 0.6 4.8 2.5 1.0 24.6
2018/2017 1.4 4.2 2.8 2.7 15.0
2019/2018 1.6 2.3 2.1 3.1 2.0
2020/2019 1.5 1.9 1.9 2.5 2.0
2015Q4/14Q4 2.0 -6.1 -6.4 0.1 -43.7
2016Q4/15Q4 0.2 2.4 1.0 -0.1 -8.9
2017Q4/16Q4 1.0 5.6 3.3 1.8 34.6
Retail price index
GDP
Consump- deflator All Excluding Consumer
tion (market items mortgage prices
deflator prices) interest index
2010 94.7 96.4 92.1 92.0 93.1
2011 98.2 98.4 96.9 96.9 97.3
2012 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2013 102.3 102.0 103.0 103.1 102.6
2014 104.0 103.9 105.5 105.6 104.0
20/5 104.2 104.3 106.5 106.7 104.1
2016 104.8 104.5 108.1 107.9 104.4
2017 106.2 105.0 111.3 110.1 105.8
2018 108.4 106.7 115.0 113.0 108.0
2019 110.9 109.0 118.7 116.1 110.4
2020 113.2 111.3 122.8 119.2 112.6
Percentage changes
2010/2009 4.6 3.1 4.6 4.8 3.3
2011/2010 3.7 2.1 5.2 5.3 4.5
2012/2011 1.8 1.6 3.2 3.2 2.8
2013/2012 2.3 2.0 3.0 3.1 2.6
2014/2013 1.7 1.8 2.4 2.4 1.4
2015/2014 0.2 0.4 1.0 1.0 0.1
2016/2015 0.6 0.2 1.5 1.2 0.3
2017/2016 1.3 0.5 2.9 2.0 1.3
2018/2017 2.1 1.6 3.3 2.7 2.1
2019/2018 2.2 2.2 3.2 2.8 2.2
2020/2019 2.1 2.1 3.5 2.6 2.0
2015Q4/14Q4 -0.1 0.7 1.0 1.1 0.1
2016Q4/15Q4 0.4 -0.1 1.9 1.2 0.4
2017Q4/16Q4 1.8 0.9 3.4 2.4 1.8
Notes: (a) Excluding food, beverages, tobacco and petroleum
products, (b) Per barrel, average of Dubai and Brent spot
prices.
Table A3. Gross domestic product and components of expenditure
[pounds sterling] billion, 2012 prices
Final consumption Gross capital
expenditure formation
Households General Gross Changes in
& NPISH(a) govt. fixed in- inventories(b)
vestment
2010 1062.3 339.4 259.2 4.8
2011 1063.3 339.7 264.3 -5.6
2012 1082.6 346.0 268.2 2.4
2013 1103.0 347.6 275.1 18.1
2014 1130.3 356.2 295.1 17.7
2015 1162.8 361.3 308.6 10.4
2016 1204.7 361.9 327.2 10.6
2017 1227.0 364.1 346.3 10.9
2018 1242.9 365.8 362.0 10.9
2019 1261.8 367.6 375.4 10.9
2020 1285.7 371.8 388.6 10.9
Percentage changes
2010/2009 0.0 0.2 5.0
2011/2010 0.1 0.1 2.0
2012/2011 1.8 1.8 1.5
2013/2012 1.9 0.5 2.6
2014/2013 2.5 2.5 7.3
2015/2014 2.9 1.4 4.6
2016/2015 3.6 0.2 6.0
2017/2016 1.8 0.6 5.9
2018/2017 1.3 0.5 4.5
2019/2018 1.5 0.5 3.7
2020/2019 1.9 1.1 3.5
Decomposition of growth in GDP(d)
2010 0.0 0.0 0.8 1.4
2011 0.1 0.0 0.3 -0.6
2012 1.2 0.4 0.2 0.5
2013 1.2 0.1 0.4 0.9
2014 1.6 0.5 1.2 0.0
2015 1.9 0.3 0.8 -0.4
2016 2.3 0.0 1.0 0.0
2017 1.2 0.1 1.0 0.0
2018 0.8 0.1 0.8 0.0
2019 1.0 0.1 0.7 0.0
2020 1.2 0.2 0.7 0.0
Domestic Total Total
demand exports(c) final
expendi-
ture
2010 1660.3 470.5 2131.2
2011 1668.0 498.0 2166.0
2012 1699.1 501.7 2200.8
2013 1743.8 507.8 2251.6
2014 1799.3 513.8 2313.1
2015 1843.1 541.3 2384.4
2016 1904.4 563.4 2467.8
2017 1948.3 604.4 2552.7
2018 1981.6 631.2 2612.8
2019 2015.6 654.1 2669.7
2020 2057.0 676.6 2733.6
Percentage changes
2010/2009 2.3 5.8 3.1
2011/2010 0.5 5.8 1.6
2012/2011 1.9 0.7 1.6
2013/2012 2.6 1.2 2.3
2014/2013 3.2 1.2 2.7
2015/2014 2.4 5.4 3.1
2016/2015 3.3 4.1 3.5
2017/2016 2.3 7.3 3.4
2018/2017 1.7 4.4 2.4
2019/2018 1.7 3.6 2.2
2020/2019 2.1 3.4 2.4
Decomposition of growth in GDP(d)
2010 2.4 1.6 4.0
2011 0.5 1.7 2.2
2012 1.9 0.2 2.1
2013 2.7 0.4 3.1
2014 3.3 0.3 3.6
2015 2.5 1.6 4.1
2016 3.4 1.2 4.7
2017 2.4 2.2 4.6
2018 1.8 1.4 3.2
2019 1.8 1.2 3.0
2020 2.1 1.1 3.2
Total Net GDP
imports(c) trade at
market
prices
2010 517.5 -47.0 1614.0
2011 520.4 -22.4 1645.8
2012 535.6 -33.9 1665.2
2013 550.4 -42.6 1701.2
2014 563.6 -49.9 1749.7
2015 597.0 -55.7 1787.8
2016 640.5 -77.1 1828.3
2017 675.2 -70.7 1878.6
2018 684.5 -53.3 1929.3
2019 693.4 -39.3 1977.3
2020 710.2 -33.6 2024.4
Percentage changes
2010/2009 8.3 1.5
2011/2010 0.6 2.0
2012/2011 2.9 1.2
2013/2012 2.8 2.2
2014/2013 2.4 2.9
2015/2014 5.9 2.2
2016/2015 7.3 2.3
2017/2016 5.4 2.7
2018/2017 1.4 2.7
2019/2018 1.3 2.5
2020/2019 2.4 2.4
Decomposition of growth in GDP(d)
2010 -2.5 -0.9 1.5
2011 -0.2 1.5 2.0
2012 -0.9 -0.7 1.2
2013 -0.9 -0.5 2.2
2014 -0.8 -0.4 2.9
2015 -1.9 -0.3 2.2
2016 -2.4 -1.2 2.3
2017 -1.9 0.3 2.7
2018 -0.5 0.9 2.7
2019 -0.5 0.7 2.5
2020 -0.8 0.3 2.4
Notes: (a) Non-profit institutions serving households, (b)
Including acquisitions less disposals of valuables and
quarterly alignment adjustment.
(c) Includes Missing Trader Intra-Community Fraud, (d)
Components may not add up to total GDP growth due to
rounding and the statistical discrepancy included in GDP.
Table A4. External sector
Exports Imports Net
of goods(a) of goods(a) trade in
goods(a)
[pounds sterling] billion,
2012 prices(b)
2010 287.4 396.5 -109.1
2011 306.8 401.1 -94.3
2012 304.3 410.8 -106.5
2013 302.5 420.6 -118.1
2014 302.6 434.9 -132.3
2015 323.6 461.2 -137.6
2016 343.8 497.9 -154.1
2017 375.4 527.0 -151.6
2018 392.0 533.9 -141.9
2019 405.6 540.0 -134.4
2020 419.4 552.8 -133.4
Percentage changes
2010/2009 11.3 11.6
2011/2010 6.8 1.2
2012/2011 -0.8 2.4
2013/2012 -0.6 2.4
2014/2013 0.0 3.4
2015/2014 6.9 6.0
2016/2015 6.3 8.0
2017/2016 9.2 5.8
2018/2017 4.4 1.3
2019/2018 3.5 1.1
2020/2019 3.4 2.4
Exports Imports Net
of of trade in
services services services
[pounds sterling] billion,
2012 prices(b)
2010 183.0 120.9 62.1
2011 191.1 119.3 71.9
2012 197.4 124.8 72.6
2013 205.3 129.9 75.4
2014 211.1 128.7 82.5
2015 217.7 135.9 81.8
2016 219.6 142.6 77.0
2017 229.0 148.1 80.9
2018 239.2 150.6 88.6
2019 248.5 153.4 95.1
2020 257.2 157.4 99.8
Percentage changes
2010/2009 -1.7 -0.7
2011/2010 4.4 -1.3
2012/2011 3.3 4.6
2013/2012 4.0 4.0
2014/2013 2.8 -0.9
2015/2014 3.1 5.6
2016/2015 0.9 4.9
2017/2016 4.3 3.9
2018/2017 4.4 1.7
2019/2018 3.9 1.9
2020/2019 3.5 2.6
Export World Terms Current
price trade(d) of traded) balance
competitive
ness(c)
2012=100 % of GDP
2010 94.1 92.7 100.3 -2.8
2011 98.1 98.0 99.3 -1.7
2012 100.0 100.0 100.0 -3.3
2013 100.4 102.5 101.7 -4.5
2014 103.9 106.5 102.8 -5.1
2015 102.7 110.9 103.1 -4.1
2016 96.2 116.5 101.2 -4.1
2017 96.2 123.2 99.0 -4.7
2018 96.4 128.1 97.7 -4.6
2019 96.4 133.0 97.4 -4.0
2020 96.1 138.1 97.5 -3.5
Percentage changes
2010/2009 2.2 10.3 1.4
2011/2010 4.2 5.7 -1.0
2012/2011 1.9 2.0 0.7
2013/2012 0.4 2.5 1.7
2014/2013 3.5 3.9 1.1
2015/2014 -1.1 4.1 0.3
2016/2015 -6.4 5.1 -1.9
2017/2016 0.0 5.7 -2.2
2018/2017 0.2 4.0 -1.4
2019/2018 0.0 3.8 -0.2
2020/2019 -0.2 3.9 0.1
Notes: (a) Includes Missing Trader Intra-Community Fraud,
(b) Balance of payments basis, (c) A rise denotes a loss in
UK competitiveness.
(d) Weighted by import shares in UK export markets, (e)
Ratio of average value of exports to imports.
Table A5. Household sector
Average(a) Compen- Total Gross
earnings sation of personal disposable
employees income income
[pounds sterling] billion,
2012=100 current prices
2010 97.1 819.2 1373.1 1062.3
2011 98.1 830.9 1400.1 1079.4
2012 100.0 850.1 1448.6 1127.9
2013 101.5 873.2 1476.0 1145.7
2014 101.6 888.8 1510.8 1172.1
2015 103.6 923.6 1569.2 1212.5
2016 106.0 954.1 1626.8 1252.4
2017 108.7 986.2 1686.6 1295.2
2018 112.0 1026.5 1764.2 1350.8
2019 115.7 1069.4 1853.4 1414.0
2020 119.5 1111.0 1950.0 1483.9
Percentage changes
2010/2009 3.3 3.0 4.4 5.2
2011/2010 1.0 1.4 2.0 1.6
2012/2011 1.9 2.3 3.5 4.5
2013/2012 1.5 2.7 1.9 1.6
2014/2013 0.1 1.8 2.4 2.3
2015/2014 1.9 3.9 3.9 3.4
2016/2015 2.3 3.3 3.7 3.3
201712016 2.5 3.4 3.7 3.4
2018/2017 3.1 4.1 4.6 4.3
2019/2018 3.3 4.2 5.1 4.7
2020/2019 3.3 3.9 5.2 4.9
Final consumption
Real expenditure
disposable
income(b) Total Durable
[pounds sterling]
billion, 2012 prices
2010 1122.1 1062.3 88.2
2011 1099.3 1063.3 89.6
2012 1127.9 1082.6 95.2
2013 1120.2 1103.0 99.2
2014 1127.4 1130.3 107.9
2015 1164.1 1162.8 115.9
2016 1195.3 1204.7 122.6
2017 1219.8 1227.0 125.8
2018 1245.6 1242.9 128.5
2019 1275.3 1261.8 131.2
2020 1311.0 1285.7 134.3
Percentage changes
2010/2009 0.6 0.0 -2.6
2011/2010 -2.0 0.1 1.6
2012/2011 2.6 1.8 6.3
2013/2012 -0.7 1.9 4.2
2014/2013 0.6 2.5 8.7
2015/2014 3.3 2.9 7.4
2016/2015 2.7 3.6 5.8
201712016 2.0 1.8 2.6
2018/2017 2.1 1.3 2.1
2019/2018 2.4 1.5 2.2
2020/2019 2.8 1.9 2.3
Saving House Net
ratio(c) prices(d) worth to
income
per cent 2012=100 ratio(e)
2010 11.6 99.3 6.3
2011 9.1 98.4 6.5
2012 8.7 100.0 6.6
2013 6.3 103.5 6.6
2014 5.4 113.9 7.2
2015 4.5 121.6 7.4
2016 3.6 130.9 7.5
2017 3.9 135.5 7.4
2018 4.9 138.0 7.2
2019 5.8 140.7 7.1
2020 6.6 143.5 7.0
Percentage changes
2010/2009 7.2
2011/2010 -1.0
2012/2011 1.6
2013/2012 3.5
2014/2013 10.0
2015/2014 6.7
2016/2015 7.6
201712016 3.5
2018/2017 1.8
2019/2018 1.9
2020/2019 2.0
Notes: (a) Average earnings equals total labour compensation
divided by the number of employees, (b) Deflated by
consumers' expenditure deflator, (c) Includes adjustment for
change in net equity of households in pension funds, (d)
Office for National Statistics, mix-adjusted, (e) Net worth
is defined as housing wealth plus net financial assets.
Table A6. Fixed investment and capital
[pounds sterling] billion, 2012 prices
Gross fixed investment
Business Private General Total
investment housing(a) government
2010 140.4 63.2 55.7 259.2
2011 147.3 64.4 52.6 264.3
2012 154.8 64.5 48.9 268.2
2013 158.4 70.2 46.5 275.1
2014 165.8 80.0 49.2 295.1
2015 176.7 80.7 51.2 308.6
2016 187.6 87.1 52.5 327.2
2017 197.9 95.7 52.7 346.3
2018 206.4 103.5 52.1 362.0
2019 212.4 110.0 53.0 375.4
2020 215.8 115.0 57.8 388.6
Percentage changes
2010/2009 6.0 5.4 2.3 5.0
2011/2010 4.9 1.9 -5.4 2.0
2012/2011 5.1 0.2 -7.1 1.5
2013/2012 2.3 8.9 -4.9 2.6
2014/2013 4.7 14.0 5.8 7.3
2015/2014 6.6 0.9 4.1 4.6
2016/2015 6.1 7.9 2.6 6.0
2017/2016 5.5 9.9 0.4 5.9
2018/2017 4.3 8.1 -1.1 4.5
2019/2018 2.9 6.3 1.7 3.7
2020/2019 1.6 4.6 9.1 3.5
User Corporate
cost profit Capital stock
of share of
capital (%) GDP (%) Private Public(c)
2010 15.4 23.4 3059.5 853.9
2011 14.9 24.4 3074.1 853.3
2012 13.4 23.9 3093.0 900.3
2013 12.4 25.1 3109.0 882.0
2014 12.4 25.8 3135.2 926.3
2015 13.3 24.9 3169.6 968.3
2016 13.2 24.4 3218.1 1001.2
2017 13.6 24.8 3281.4 1026.9
2018 14.0 25.5 3355.8 1049.3
2019 14.4 26.3 3436.9 1072.0
2020 14.6 27.1 3520.5 1098.7
Percentage changes
2010/2009 0.3 4.1
2011/2010 0.5 -0.1
2012/2011 0.6 5.5
2013/2012 0.5 -2.0
2014/2013 0.8 5.0
2015/2014 1.1 4.5
2016/2015 1.5 3.4
2017/2016 2.0 2.6
2018/2017 2.3 2.2
2019/2018 2.4 2.2
2020/2019 2.4 2.5
Notes: (a) Includes private sector transfer costs of non-produced
assets, (b) Including public sector non-financial
corporations.
Table A7. Productivity and the labour market
Thousands
Employment
ILO Population
Employees Total (a) unemploy- Labour of
ment force(b) working
age(c)
2010 25017 29229 2497 31725 40683
2011 25117 29376 2593 31969 40944
2012 25214 29697 2572 32268 40880
2013 25516 30043 2476 32519 40915
2014 25939 30726 2027 32753 41037
2015 26438 31192 1768 32959 41252
2016 26692 31522 1691 33213 41408
2017 26911 31767 1703 33470 41538
2018 27176 32066 1672 33738 41632
2019 27413 32340 1660 34000 41718
2020 27580 32542 1697 34239 41823
Percentage changes
2010/2009 -0.3 0.2 3.9 0.5 0.6
2011/2010 0.4 0.5 3.8 0.8 0.6
2012/2011 0.4 1.1 -0.8 0.9 -0.2
2013/2012 1.2 1.2 -3.7 0.8 0.1
2014/2013 1.7 2.3 -18.1 0.7 0.3
2015/2014 1.9 1.5 -12.8 0.6 0.5
2016/2015 1.0 1.1 -4.4 0.8 0.4
2017/2016 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.3
2018/2017 1.0 0.9 -1.8 0.8 0.2
2019/2018 0.9 0.9 -0.7 0.8 0.2
2020/2019 0.6 0.6 2.2 0.7 0.3
Productivity Unemployment, %
(2012)
Claimant ILO unem-
Per hour Manufact- rate ployment
uring rate
2010 99.4 99.4 4.6 7.9
2011 100.9 102.2 4.7 8.1
2012 100.0 100.0 4.7 8.0
2013 100.4 99.4 4.3 7.6
2014 100.4 100.3 3.0 6.2
2015 101.5 98.5 2.3 5.4
2016 102.7 99.6 2.4 5.1
2017 104.8 102.1 2.5 5.1
2018 106.8 104.1 2.4 5.0
2019 108.7 106.5 2.3 4.9
2020 110.6 109.5 2.4 5.0
Percentage changes
2010/2009 1.2 7.9
2011/2010 1.5 2.7
2012/2011 -0.8 -2.1
2013/2012 0.4 -0.6
2014/2013 0.1 0.9
2015/2014 1.0 -1.9
2016/2015 1.2 1.2
2017/2016 2.1 2.5
2018/2017 1.9 1.9
2019/2018 1.7 2.3
2020/2019 1.8 2.8
Notes: (a) Includes self-employed, government-supported
trainees and unpaid family members, (b) Employment plus ILO
unemployment, (c) Population projections are based on annual
rates of growth from 2014-based population projections by
the ONS.
Table A8. Public sector financial balance and borrowing
requirement
[pounds sterling] billion, fiscal years
2013-14 2014-15
Current receipts: Taxes on income 375.9 390.3
Taxes on expenditure 222.5 230.4
Other current receipts 24.6 25.0
Total 623.0 645.8
(as a % of GDP) 35.5 35.2
Current expenditure: Goods and services 352.0 358.9
Net social benefits paid 222.8 228.7
Debt interest 36.9 33.3
Other current expenditure 51.3 50.1
Total 663.0 671.0
(as a % of GDP) 37.8 36.6
Depreciation 36.0 37.0
Surplus on public sector current budget (a) -75.9 -62.2
(as a % of GDP) -4.3 -3.4
Gross investment 63.2 65.3
Net investment 27.2 28.3
(as a % of GDP) 1.5 1.5
Total managed expenditure 726.2 736.3
(as a % of GDP) 41.3 40.2
Public sector net borrowing 103.1 90.5
(as a % of GDP) 5.9 4.9
Financial transactions 28.4 8.2
Public sector net cash requirement 74.8 82.4
(as a % of GDP) 4.2 4.5
Public sector net debt (% of GDP) 78.5 80.6
GDP deflator at market prices (2012=100) 102.5 104.0
Money GDP 1755.9 1831.9
Financial balance under Maastricht (% of GDP)(b) -5.7 -5.7
Gross debt under Maastricht (% of GDP)(b) 86.2 88.2
2015-16 2016-17
Current receipts: Taxes on income 403.9 426.5
Taxes on expenditure 238.0 247.7
Other current receipts 20.4 21.0
Total 662.3 695.2
(as a % of GDP) 35.3 36.1
Current expenditure: Goods and services 361.4 365.2
Net social benefits paid 227.9 228.8
Debt interest 34.2 37.0
Other current expenditure 52.9 54.8
Total 676.4 685.7
(as a % of GDP) 36.0 35.6
Depreciation 38.3 40.9
Surplus on public sector current budget (a) -52.4 -31.5
(as a % of GDP) -2.8 -1.6
Gross investment 65.4 70.9
Net investment 27.1 30.0
(as a % of GDP) 1.4 1.6
Total managed expenditure 741.8 756.6
(as a % of GDP) 39.5 39.3
Public sector net borrowing 79.6 61.4
(as a % of GDP) 4.2 3.2
Financial transactions 32.5 -9.9
Public sector net cash requirement 47.0 71.3
(as a % of GDP) 2.5 3.7
Public sector net debt (% of GDP) 80.7 80.4
GDP deflator at market prices (2012=100) 104.4 104.6
Money GDP 1876.7 1924.7
Financial balance under Maastricht (% of GDP)(b) -4.2 -3.5
Gross debt under Maastricht (% of GDP)(b) 89.3 89.2
2017-18 2018-19
Current receipts: Taxes on income 448.9 473.4
Taxes on expenditure 255.9 264.9
Other current receipts 20.6 20.5
Total 725.4 758.8
(as a % of GDP) 36.4 36.4
Current expenditure: Goods and services 371.9 377.0
Net social benefits paid 229.1 233.1
Debt interest 37.8 38.3
Other current expenditure 56.3 58.3
Total 695.1 706.7
(as a % of GDP) 34.9 33.9
Depreciation 43.0 45.1
Surplus on public sector current budget (a) -12.7 7.0
(as a % of GDP) -0.6 0.3
Gross investment 71.2 70.5
Net investment 28.2 25.4
(as a % of GDP) 1.4 1.2
Total managed expenditure 766.3 777.2
(as a % of GDP) 38.5 37.3
Public sector net borrowing 40.9 18.4
(as a % of GDP) 2.1 0.9
Financial transactions -8.4 -4.1
Public sector net cash requirement 49.3 22.5
(as a % of GDP) 2.5 1.1
Public sector net debt (% of GDP) 79.8 77.3
GDP deflator at market prices (2012=100) 105.4 107.3
Money GDP 1992.8 2083.1
Financial balance under Maastricht (% of GDP)(b) -2.5 -1.3
Gross debt under Maastricht (% of GDP)(b) 88.7 86.1
2019-20 2020-21
Current receipts: Taxes on income 500.8 531.1
Taxes on expenditure 275.4 286.7
Other current receipts 21.4 22.4
Total 797.7 840.1
(as a % of GDP) 36.6 36.9
Current expenditure: Goods and services 383.8 399.2
Net social benefits paid 240.6 252.5
Debt interest 38.8 39.1
Other current expenditure 60.7 63.0
Total 723.9 753.8
(as a % of GDP) 33.2 33.1
Depreciation 47.0 48.8
Surplus on public sector current budget (a) 26.8 37.5
(as a % of GDP) 1.2 1.6
Gross investment 74.4 84.1
Net investment 27.4 35.3
(as a % of GDP) 1.3 1.5
Total managed expenditure 798.3 837.9
(as a % of GDP) 36.6 36.8
Public sector net borrowing 0.6 -2.2
(as a % of GDP) 0.0 -0.1
Financial transactions -7.2 -19.8
Public sector net cash requirement 7.8 17.6
(as a % of GDP) 0.4 0.8
Public sector net debt (% of GDP) 74.2 71.8
GDP deflator at market prices (2012=100) 109.6 11 1.9
Money GDP 2180.3 2278.6
Financial balance under Maastricht (% of GDP)(b) -0.3 0.0
Gross debt under Maastricht (% of GDP)(b) 82.3 78.6
Notes: These data are constructed from seasonally adjusted
national accounts data. This results in differences between
the figures here and unadjusted fiscal year data. Data
exclude the impact of financial sector interventions, but
include flows from the Asset Purchase Facility of the Bank
of England.
Housing associations are not currently classified as public
sector in these data, (a) Public sector current budget
surplus is total current receipts less total current
expenditure and depreciation, (b) Calendar year.
Table A9. Saving and investment
As a percentage of GDP
Households Companies General government
Saving Invest- Saving Invest- Saving Invest-
ment ment ment
2010 8.5 4.3 10.7 8.9 -5.6 3.2
2011 6.4 4.3 12.2 8.9 -4.2 2.9
2012 6.2 4.4 11.2 9.2 -4.5 2.7
2013 4.4 4.7 10.8 9.6 -2.8 2.5
2014 3.7 5.1 11.4 9.8 -2.7 2.6
2015 3.1 5.2 11.6 9.8 -1.3 2.5
2016 2.5 5.6 12.3 10.3 -0.5 2.4
2017 2.7 6.1 11.3 10.8 0.5 2.3
2018 3.4 6.5 10.2 11.0 1.5 2.2
2019 4.0 6.7 9.4 11.0 2.5 2.2
2020 4.6 6.9 9.1 10.9 2.9 2.3
Whole economy Finance from abroad(a)
Net
Saving Invest- Total Net factor national
ment income saving
2010 13.6 16.4 2.8 -1.3 0.2
2011 14.5 16.1 1.7 -1.3 1.2
2012 12.9 16.2 3.3 -0.1 -0.4
2013 12.4 16.9 4.5 0.9 -0.9
2014 12.4 17.5 5.1 1.7 -0.9
2015 13.4 17.5 4.1 0.9 0.4
2016 14.3 18.4 4.1 -0.7 1.3
2017 14.5 19.2 4.7 -0.4 1.4
2018 15.1 19.7 4.6 -0.1 2.0
2019 15.9 19.9 4.0 0.0 2.9
2020 16.6 20.1 3.5 -0.2 3.6
Notes: Saving and investment data are gross of depreciation
unless otherwise stated, (a) Negative sign indicates a
surplus for the UK.
Table A10. Medium and long-term projections
All figures percentage change unless otherwise stated
2012 2013 2014 2015
GDP (market prices) 1.2 2.2 2.9 2.2
Average earnings 1.9 1.5 0.1 1.9
GDP deflator (market prices) 1.6 2.0 1.8 0.4
Consumer Prices Index 2.8 2.6 1.4 0.1
Per capita GDP 0.5 1.5 2.1 1.4
Whole economy productivity (a) -0.8 0.4 0.1 1.0
Labour input(b) 1.9 1.8 2.7 1.1
ILO unemployment rate (%) 8.0 7.6 6.2 5.4
Current account (% of GDP) -3.3 -4.5 -5.1 -4.1
Total managed expenditure
(% of GDP) 44.1 41.1 40.7 39.6
Public sector net borrowing
(% of GDP) 8.2 5.5 5.6 4.3
Public sector net debt (% of GDP) 74.2 77.4 79.5 81.3
Effective exchange rate
(201 1 = 100) 104.2 102.9 110.9 118.2
Bank Rate (%) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
3 month interest rates (%) 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.6
10 year interest rates (%) 1.8 2.4 2.5 1.8
2016 2017 2018 2019
GDP (market prices) 2.3 2.7 2.7 2.5
Average earnings 2.3 2.5 3.1 3.3
GDP deflator (market prices) 0.2 0.5 1.6 2.2
Consumer Prices Index 0.3 1.3 2.1 2.2
Per capita GDP 1.5 2.0 2.0 1.8
Whole economy productivity (a) 1.2 2.1 1.9 1.7
Labour input(b) 0.9 0.7 0.9 0.8
ILO unemployment rate (%) 5.1 5.1 5.0 4.9
Current account (% of GDP) -4.1 -4.7 -4.6 -4.0
Total managed expenditure
(% of GDP) 39.4 38.7 37.6 36.7
Public sector net borrowing
(% of GDP) 3.4 2.4 1.2 0.2
Public sector net debt (% of GDP) 80.7 80.3 78.9 76.1
Effective exchange rate
(201 1 = 100) 115.9 115.7 115.6 115.6
Bank Rate (%) 0.6 1.2 1.7 2.1
3 month interest rates (%) 0.8 1.4 1.9 2.3
10 year interest rates (%) 2.1 2.7 3.1 3.4
2020 2021-25
GDP (market prices) 2.4 2.1
Average earnings 3.3 3.3
GDP deflator (market prices) 2.1 2.0
Consumer Prices Index 2.0 2.1
Per capita GDP 1.7 1.5
Whole economy productivity (a) 1.8 1.8
Labour input(b) 0.6 0.3
ILO unemployment rate (%) 5.0 5.3
Current account (% of GDP) -3.5 -3.0
Total managed expenditure
(% of GDP) 36.7 37.2
Public sector net borrowing
(% of GDP) -0.1 0.2
Public sector net debt (% of GDP) 73.3 65.4
Effective exchange rate
(201 1 = 100) 115.6 115.2
Bank Rate (%) 2.5 3.6
3 month interest rates (%) 2.7 3.8
10 year interest rates (%) 3.7 4.1
Notes: (a) Per hour, (b) Total hours worked.
Simon Kirby *, with Oriol Carreras **, Jack Meaning **, Rebecca
Piggott ** and James Warren **
The production of this forecast is supported by the
Institute's Corporate Members: Bank of England, HM Treasury, Mizuho
Research Institute Ltd, Office for National Statistics, Santander (UK)
pic and by the members of the NiGEM users group.
* NIESR and Centre for Macroeconomics. E-mail: s.kirby@niesr.ac.uk.
** NIESR. Thanks to Jessica Baker for helpful comments and suggestions.
Unless otherwise stated, the source of all data reported in the figures
and tables is the NiGEM database and forecast baseline. The UK forecast
was completed on 28 January 2016.
Table 1. Summary of the forecast
Percentage change
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
GDP 1.2 2.2 2.9 2.2 2.3
Per capita GDP 0.5 1.5 2.1 1.4 1.5
CPI Inflation 2.8 2.6 1.4 0.1 0.3
RPIX Inflation 3.2 3.1 2.4 1.0 1.2
RPDI 2.6 -0.7 0.6 3.3 2.7
Unemployment, % 8.0 7.6 6.2 5.4 5.1
Bank Rate, % 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6
Long Rates, % 1.8 2.4 2.5 1.8 2.1
Effective exchange rate 4.2 -1.2 7.8 6.6 -2.0
Current account as % of GDP -3.3 -4.5 -5.1 -4.1 -4.1
PSNB as % of GDPOO 7.4 5.9 4.9 4.2 3.2
PSND as % of GDPOO 76.4 78.5 80.6 80.7 80.4
2017 2018 2019 2020
GDP 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.4
Per capita GDP 2.0 2.0 1.8 1.7
CPI Inflation 1.3 2.1 2.2 2.0
RPIX Inflation 2.0 2.7 2.8 2.6
RPDI 2.0 2.1 2.4 2.8
Unemployment, % 5.1 5.0 4.9 5.0
Bank Rate, % 1.2 1.7 2.1 2.5
Long Rates, % 2.7 3.1 3.4 3.7
Effective exchange rate -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.0
Current account as % of GDP -4.7 -4.6 -4.0 -3.5
PSNB as % of GDPOO 2.1 0.9 0.0 -0.1
PSND as % of GDPOO 79.8 77.3 74.2 71.8
Notes: RPDI is real personal disposable income. PSNB is
public sector net borrowing. PSND is public sector net debt,
(a) Fiscal year, excludes the impact of financial sector
interventions, but includes the flows from the Asset
Purchase Facility of the Bank of England. Housing
associations are not currently classified as public sector
in these data.
Table 2. The impact of the reclassification of housing
associations on the public finances (as a % of GDP)
2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
Surplus on Excluding Housing -3.4 -2.8 -1.6 -0.6
current Assns
budget
Including Housing -3.5 -2.9 -1.7 -0.7
Assns
Public Excluding Housing 4.9 4.2 3.2 2.1
sector net Assns
borrowing
Including Housing 5.1 4.4 3.4 2.2
Assns
Public Excluding Housing 80.6 80.7 80.4 79.8
sector net Assns
debt
Including Housing 83.8 84.0 83.7 83.1
Assns
2018-19 2019-20 2020-21
Surplus on Excluding Housing 0.3 1.2 1.6
current Assns
budget
Including Housing 0.2 1.2 1.6
Assns
Public Excluding Housing 0.9 0.0 -0.1
sector net Assns
borrowing
Including Housing 1.0 0.1 0.0
Assns
Public Excluding Housing 77.3 74.2 71.8
sector net Assns
debt
Including Housing 80.5 77.4 75.0
Assns
Source: NIESR, OBR, EFO November 2015.
Note: We have added the OBR projection for housing
association borrowing and debt to our projection reported
in table A8.