Premium
Summer Budget: calculated risk or reckless gamble?
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
economic outlook
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.1
H-Index - 8
eISSN - 1468-0319
pISSN - 0140-489X
DOI - 10.1111/1468-0319.12163
Subject(s) - mandate , economics , fiscal policy , welfare , government (linguistics) , wage , federal budget , economic policy , monetary economics , finance , fiscal year , labour economics , political science , market economy , law , linguistics , philosophy
The Chancellor had created the expectation that his Summer Budget would be radical and he did not disappoint. The ‘rabbit from the hat’ was a compulsory ‘living wage’, expected to reach £9 per hour in 2020, which Mr Osborne hopes will help to compensate the lower paid for the slashing of in‐work benefits. This has effectively transferred responsibility for supporting low‐income households from the government to employers. The OBR expects this to have a relatively muted impact on employment, but this view looks pretty optimistic and the policy represents a major gamble. The reduction in welfare spending, plus an easing of the near‐term fiscal squeeze, has helped to smooth the public spending ‘rollercoaster’. But with a plethora of giveaways failing to disguise a net increase in the tax burden, the Budget is likely to weigh on growth prospects, even if the Chancellor's big gamble pays off. Alongside the Budget the Chancellor announced a new fiscal mandate, which will require governments to run a budget surplus in “normal times”. But meeting this mandate will require a fiscal stance very far from the historical norm and it will also force other sectors to move into deficit to compensate. It will also mean a looser monetary policy than would otherwise be the case. So a policy presented as creating room for fiscal policy to respond to future economic shocks could potentially narrow the scope for the more potent weapon of interest rate cuts.