Two huge developments on Brexit this week.
Two huge developments on Brexit this week.
Discussions of military intervention often focus on the U.S. invasion of Iraq. This is entirely understandable: the war in Iraq was a catastrophic foreign policy choice that is still reshaping the political landscape of the Middle East today.
Yet the Iraq war is unusual in many ways. There was no existing civil war or humanitarian crisis, a factor which has driven many of America’s other post-Cold War interventions in Bosnia, Somalia, Kosovo and Libya. The United States also undertook the invasion of Iraq largely alone and against the wishes of other countries; unable to gain support from the majority of its NATO allies, the Iraq invasion relied on the so-called “coalition of the willing,” a small ad-hoc group of countries persuaded by the Bush administration.
In my newly published article in the Canadian Foreign Policy Journal, I attempt to move past the Iraq War case to examine the broader range of U.S. military interventions. I look at the two recent civil war cases where intervention was possible – Syria and Libya during the Arab spring – to explore the role played by allies and security partners in decision-making about whether to intervene.
Logic suggests that smaller states do have a strong incentive to seek the help of a major power ally like the United States for their interventions. As I note in the article:
“Put more simply, small states can benefit substantially from the intervention of a major power ally, particularly if they lack the capacity or manpower to carry out an effective campaign alone. African Union peacekeeping forces, for example, typically lack military assets required for their missions; training, logistical support and equipment are often provided by the United States to overcome this deficiency (Williams 2011)…. pressure from allies to join an intervention is likely to be highest when A is larger (i.e., relatively more capable in military terms) than B, and has the potential to tip the balance toward B’s intervention objectives.”
For an economist, it’s rare that events occur enabling us to directly test our economic theories and assess them against outcomes. Britain’s Brexit vote last year was one such moment. As the formal Article 50 process for EU withdrawal begins today, it’s worth re-examining the consensus view on what a “Leave” vote would mean. Those warning of impending doom today are many of the same people who predicted a decision to exit would bring immediate economic slowdown.
The Economists for Brexit group of which I was a founding member was busy refuting anti-Brexit reports pre-referendum. Britain’s Treasury led the way, claiming GDP would be 6.2 per cent smaller after 15 years if Britain exited the EU and single market (replaced with an EU-UK bilateral trade deal, as Prime Minister Theresa May now desires). Importantly, they forecast the mere act of voting to leave would trigger an immediate 4-quarter recession with 500,000 people losing jobs, higher inflation and lower house prices. There would be a “profound economic shock.” The IMF warned that a path towards leaving the single market would mean a recession in 2017. The OECD predicted a “major negative shock.” An Economists for Remain letter signed by 12 Nobel Laureates likewise said “a recession causing job losses will become significantly more likely.”
Yet the UK economy has proven robust. Immediate financial market turbulence following the unexpected vote quickly subsided. Far from contracting at the Treasury’s forecast 0.4 per cent annualized rate, the economy is currently growing at 2.8 per cent per year. The employment rate for 16 to 64 year olds is at its highest ever level, 74.6 percent, with unemployment at just 4.7 percent. House prices are currently increasing at 6.2 per cent per year. Annual broad money growth was 6.6 percent in January – suggesting robust nominal GDP growth through 2017. Even after Theresa May pledged to leave the single market and customs union, forecasters were revising growth estimates upwards for 2017.
The economic consensus did forecast correctly the pound’s fall on a trade-weighted index (around 13 percent decline), as did the Economists for Brexit analysis. This will raise the UK inflation rate. But even the recent uptick in inflation to 2.3 percent is in part driven by increasing commodity prices affecting U.S. and German inflation rates too. The flipside has been strong export order books, highlighted by the Confederation of British Industry’s buoyant survey last week. What happens to the pound in the longer term of course depends on the economic fundamentals, but what is clear is that so far the doom-mongers have been wrong on the macroeconomic impact overall.
If Republicans succeed in slashing the federal corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent or less, the tax base will expand as investment increases and tax avoidance falls. There is no need for a legislated expansion in the tax base, as the GOP is proposing with its “border adjustment” scheme. The tax base will broaden automatically over time to offset the government’s revenue loss from the rate cut.
In September, the UK government gave the green light for the construction of the Hinkley Point power plant through a French-Chinese consortium. The project—which has received wide international attention after being very nearly relegated to the protectionist dustbin—has been agreed to after much hemming and hawing. It has been mired in controversy mainly over security concerns related to foreign ownership, viewed by some as smacking of protectionism.
It is no secret that there has been a worrying trend toward protectionism in the global markets. The appetite for international trade agreements and foreign investment has been consistently listless. In the United States, and globally, some politicians have been banking on this by flaunting protectionist rhetoric in an effort to garner support. But while protectionism may win votes in the short-term, domestic economic growth will lose out in the long-term. Ultimately, politicizing the global economic rut will only make matters worse.
With the death of Margaret Thatcher, and the ensuing profusion of commentary on her legacy, it is worth looking back at an overlooked chapter in the Thatcher story. I am referring to her 1981 showdown with the Keynesian establishment—a showdown that the Iron Lady won handily. Before getting caught up with the phony “austerity vs. fiscal stimulus” debate, the chattering classes should take note of how Mrs. Thatcher debunked the Keynesian “fiscal factoid.”
U.K. Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne has resumed his saber-rattling over raising capital requirements for British banks. Most recently, Osborne has fixated on alleged problems with banks’ risk-weighting metrics that, according to him, have left banks undercapitalized. Regardless of Osborne’s rationale, this is just the latest wave in a five-year assault on the U.K. banking system – one which has had disastrous effects on the country’s money supply.