Challenge yourself by reading Oliver Lewis' praise for his now-departed boss Lord Frost conservativehome.com/platform/2021/… and you find a link to Frost's lecture from February. Frost makes a particular claim about trade 1/
Attacking the (multiple, almost unanimous) studies saying Brexit makes us poorer, Frost says this, and in particular questions whether the decline in trade will really hurt productivity so badly. 2/
(He calls it "unproven" decline in trade, but the OBR can pretty much refute him - see charts).
Anyway, I have long read that lower trade lowers productivity, and it stands to reason. Trade and comparative advantage, the essence of what the market does - who questions that ? 3/
But it turns out that if you visit the OBR's immediate post-referendum forecasts (the EFO), obr.uk/efo/economic-a… you see a decided ambivalence and caution: 4/
HOWEVER, by last November, the OBR in analysing the risk of an impending No Deal Brexit appears to have abandoned its ambivalence 5/
When we emerge WITH a deal, something for the OBR to get its teeth into, it finds plenty of reason to continue to assume a 4% hit to productivity - notably, the loss of trade in services that will come 6/
When I try to find out what are the theoretical drivers for this, some excellent papers pop out of the footnotes, such as this 2017 one from the World Bank which nailed the likely drop in trade 7/ openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/hand…
I have no reason to doubt these findings - nor does Frost, imho. But I don't understand the journey the OBR has been on, from ambivalence and caution to nailed-on certainty. It may have encouraged sceptics?
9/
In my view, Brexit damages productivity for reasons any freemarketeer would struggle to evade. But the state of the literature is not as definitive as I expected to find on setting out, so anyone with anything better, show me! 10/10
PS Frost's complaint about these studies is also weak in pretending they try to "predict the micro-detail". No they don't, and see this tweet
Reflection on yesterday's big moment from Reeves: this far, there's a pattern of the new government doing what was widely predicted, but still somehow managing to surprise on the upside in their delivery.
We all expected a "shocked face what a mess" moment...1/
It was visible from a distance that the Tories had set aside far too little spending to keep the public realm in a decent state, let alone deliver goodies like extra hospitals.
But the details, the vitriol and clear accusation of dishonesty were 🔥 2/
If the anger wasn't real, she's one helluva actor. The OBR's promised investigation into the circumstances of the last Budget means another big hit from this dishonesty accusation. It might build all summer, that narrative. They want it to land like 1992, like Truss...3/
When I saw that @IPPR (@GeorgeDibb and @carsjung specifically) had written a report eviscerating the UK's investment record, my first reaction was a shrug and "huh, yeah we know that". But it is well worth your time: 1/ ippr-org.files.svdcdn.com/production/Dow…
To start cheekily: it praises the Sunak/criticizes Labour's plans!
"The government’s plans for ‘full expensing’ capital allowances are a step in the right direction"
"a Starmer-led government would cut public investment more than the 2010-24 Conservative administration"
2/
Two: it is salutory to be reminded of how deep-seated is the UK's failure to invest.
If you are looking for culprits behind our growth failures, *you need to find big things*. This is a big one - £1.9tn cummulatively. Had that been invested, GDP would be much higher ... 3/
They share the Johnsonian Cakeist position that Green Growth is a three-fer - you win at growth, regional balance and environmental policy by going for it.
Most of us are reasonably convinced that Truss's economic programme (fwiw) was proven to have failed within a month. The market verdict was brutal.
But most policy isn't that clear.
I read a LOT of centre left pamphlet-speak calling for industrial policy ... 1/
which you could machine-write: "the UK needs a green innovative industrial strategy that invests in sectors of the future and cuts pollution while creating green jobs and rebalancing the economy/levelling up. It should borrow to do this/tax the rich".
What I seldom read... 2/
... is anything like a statement of what failure would look like. Give it 50 times longer than Truss - 5 years, say. What would force you to concede "this hasn't worked"? What metrics would count for evidence? Or is that too short?
"Budget blowouts and delays: why the UK struggles with infrastructure"
OK, this is a vitally important and *difficult* topic, and it plays directly into a subject I've been trying to force myself to think about: when markets or planning are better 1/on.ft.com/3S5WnbK
This observation crudely suggests to me that the UK has opted for the ever-more-market approach to doing stuff. Issue a tender, that gets sub-contracted and so on in an attempt to stimulate competitive dynamics that somehow produce the best outcome. But it hasn't worked! 2/
In my amateur estimation, we've been trying to exploit the insights of Hayek's Use of Knowledge in Society which emphasises the supreme knowledge difficulty of planning. But he understands that the right answer depends on circumstances! 3/ econlib.org/library/Essays…