The 50p Tax Rate and Writing Letters

The Daily Telegraph inferred on Monday Feb 27th that the 50p tax rate was bringing in less than expected since income tax receipts are not rising alongside other taxes. This is potential confirmation of the proposition I and others made last summer in a letter to the Financial Times. In the letter, we argued that such a tax would do more harm than good, damaging innovation and entrepreneurship and deterring mobile workers.

I was involved in canvassing economists to sign the letter and indeed appeared on various radio and television shows to support the argument. Now it appears that the evidence on our forward looking argument may well have been right.

Nonetheless the tax exists so what was the point of such a letter? Certainly not simply so that we could say ‘I told you so’ later. Rather we hoped to influence the terms of the public debate on these matters and make it possible to defend lower tax rates. Who knows, it might even be possible to defend bonuses!

Not everyone agrees that economists should write letters to the papers. Alan Manning, professor of economics at the London School of Economics, thinks that such letters are all about how many signatories a letter has rather than its content. So he thinks there should be few signatories, and that a letter must provide ‘serious evidence’. This seems to mean waiting until the damage has been done, rather than warning of potential for damage.

It is true of course that economists can hold themselves above the fray, never coming to a conclusion until the evidence is overwhelming – although I have never encountered an economic proposition with which reasonable economists all agreed. On the other hand, if an economics background and training is useful, it should be useful in the policy debate. And if a group of economists draw attention to a concern that they share, this seems to me to be a useful thing to do.

Professor Manning thinks that such letters undermine the reputation of economists. I’m not sure with what constituency since most people think our reputation is pretty low anyway. Perhaps engaging sensibly with sensible debates on which opinions can vary and evidence be ambiguous might be a way to raise it.

Bridget Rosewell, Managing Partner Volterra

Post-Crisis Economics

A conference last week brought together a variety of economists from academia and policy to discuss what changes the discipline should produce post the financial crisis and what changes should be made to degree studies.


There was probably a consensus that micro economics had made more progress than macro in recent years and that students should be taught more economic history (and possibly the history of economic thought), but beyond this there was perhaps insufficient willingness to engage in setting out the principles of the subject. John Sutton suggested that we would only be able to say we had a proper subject discipline when we could say that 95% of a textbook was true – when I asked the audience later to say whether they thought even 50% was true, no hand at all went up. I hesitated to try and find out whether there was any percentage a majority would have signed up to! I did wonder whether we should run an auction to decide the agreed proportion – an area where there is probably a consensus that progress has been made – but didn’t have any rules to hand.

If teachers and practitioners are unclear what truth there is in basic teaching, what can the subject be about? One teacher suggested it was about ‘thinking like an economist’ which I defined as considering incentives, balancing costs and benefits, asking about market failures. This is certainly how the distinction feels in public policy. Of course, this has nothing to say about whether equilibrium is a useful concept, or whether maximisation is possible.

John Kay stressed that different problems would need different approaches and modelling techniques and that economics was too often a technique in search of a problem. Andy Haldane drew attention to the importance of networks in many markets and how standard economics made no allowance for the impact of one market participant on another. But the group did not really focus on these approaches, and I think largely prefers to consider how adjustments can be made to the existing approaches to maintain as much as possible of the canon – even though it is not true!

Hardly anyone referred to learning from other disciplines, whether anthropology, biology, psychology, philosophy or history, although many of these are making contributions to how economies work. A particular contribution comes from physics as Paul Ormerod pointed out.

Of course there are circumstances in which the standard model of independent market participants, able on average to build a good model of the market, in a rational way, will be a sensible approach. But there are many circumstances when these conditions will not hold. It was noteworthy that innovation, growth, and disruption got little coverage at the conference. What is the model for considering large scale investment which will change connectivity between markets for example? What about technical innovation which disrupts markets? These are the sorts of changes which have been a distinguishing feature of capitalism and which have made possible the standard of living, health and longevity we now enjoy. We didn’t discuss these and we must.

I think that the conference showed that economics continues to have good problems, and it has some good skills. But it still lacks a set of good theories and quite often lacks good data as well.

Bridget Rosewell, Managing Partner, Volterra

Co-operation and Competition

Ed Mayo, ex-head of the New Economics Foundation and now of Co-ops UK, has an interesting blog (read here) on the importance of co-operation in our economic system rather than competition. This is a really challenging and difficult topic.


Co-operation is extremely important to the successful functioning of the market-oriented economies of the West. But this is not because of co-operation as an organisational structure. The dominant form of corporate structure for over 100 years has been the shareholder-based joint stock company, and not organisations based on co-operative lines. But nevertheless, co-operation between firms is essential.

The most important reason for this is very simple. Complex economic systems contain many linkages between the different component parts. In an evolutionary context, we can think of a competitive relationship between two firms being expressed by a negative connection between them. If one does well, the other is likely to lose out, and its fitness is reduced. In contrast, a co=-operative relationship is positive. If one does well, the fitness of the other is increased, and vice versa.

Economic theory focuses exclusively on the competitive links. But these are dominated by the co-oerative ones. The structure of production is the reason why. Most economic activity does not involve the final consumer, the individual. It is business to business. So if a firm learns to produce something more efficiently, or if it innovates successfully, the companies to which it supplies benefit.

More generally, co-operation is needed to agree institutional structures in which economic activity can take place. And it is the basis of most contractual agreements. It is impossible to specify in complete detail most business-to-business contractual relationships – look at the massive difficulties caused by Brownite thinking on this in terms of the relationships between regulators and the regulated in the relevant sectors of the UK economy. A strong element of trust is required.

But all this co-operation, which pervades successful capitalist economies, has nothing to do with the organisational form of companies. It can, and indeed has, shown itself in a system dominated not by co-operative but by joint stock firms.

I have been interested in this for some time, and here is a very technical paper which examines what happens in an evolutionary system when most of the linkages are competitive and not co-operative.

Paul Ormerod, Managing Partner Volterra