Can anyone help with a conundrum
that has been bothering me?
We are, notoriously, living
through an extended period of low or no growth as measured in terms of GDP.
Commentators are falling over themselves to debate whether we are now in a
depression rather than simply a recession and there is on-going speculation
about a triple dip and a sense that as a country we will remain well below the
trend rate of growth for many years.
On the other hand, when one looks
at the figures for the growth in GVA at local authority level right across the
country the picture looks very different. Growth rates of 7% or more over the
last two years are not uncommon.
Can these both be right? And if
they are, what is the explanation for the apparent difference between a flat
lining national economy and what would seem to be significant growth rates in
the value of goods and services in local economies across the country?
In simple terms the relationship
between the two is that GDP is equal to GVA plus taxes on products (such
as VAT or excise duties) less subsidies on products. GDP can only be
calculated at national level given these adjustments. There are also some
important measurement issues to consider; for example GVA is estimated on a
nominal basis (so there is no adjustment for the price of goods and services
across the country) and GDP is at market prices. However, nominal prices would
serve to explain differences between different parts of the country not to
explain differences between GVA and GDP when the tax and subsidy adjustments
are taken into account.
My initial hypothesis, however, picking
up the last point, was that the difference between aggregate GVA and GDP might
be explained by movements in those taxes and subsidies. For example, taxes may
be down due to the recession (although GDP does not include business taxes such
as corporation tax which we know has seen a substantial drop over the last
year). Subsidies on products may have increased. In that scenario the
combination of reduced tax and higher subsidy might explain the wider
difference.
Another possibility is that the
explanation lies in shifts in terms of the performance of different sectors. However, all other things being equal one might expect that such differential performance would be reflected in both measures although there will be a different balance between production,
taxes and subsidies for each.
Yet enquiries to the ONS
suggest that the movement in taxes and subsidies is not generally considered to
have a significant effect although there have been increases in tax rates (most notably VAT) which would have an impact at the time at which the changes
took place. An increase in rates does not translate automatically into an increase in tax take but the trend on VAT take has been upwards since 2009 and is forecast to rise further.
The ONS has also suggested that
the significantly greater GVA growth compared to GDP is not a consistent
phenomenon and that ‘since the beginning of 2008 GDP growth has been higher in
four quarters, GVA in five quarters and level in the remainder’. I will admit
to finding those figures quite surprising.
So can someone settle this once
and for all and provide an explanation for the apparent divergence which
otherwise seems to suggest relatively healthy growth in many parts of the
country but a flat lining economy when considered nationally; they can’t both
be right, can they?
I now prepare to be embarrassed
by a statement of blinding simplicity which will put me to shame and send me
scurrying away with my tail between my legs.