On the Economy of the United Kingdom

7/31/2019 On the Economy of the United Kingdom

1/51

Amit Patel

December 13, 2009

Professor Steven Husted

On the Economy of the United Kingdom

I: Introduction

The United Kingdom consists of the four countries Wales, England, Scotland,

and Northern Ireland (Countries within a Country). Though each country operates with

various degrees of independence, the Bank of England is the reigning monetary

authority in all four countries. Furthermore, the United Kingdom government

implements fiscal policy affecting all four countries. Section I discusses various

measures of the economic performance of the United Kingdom and the efficacy of its

economic policies from 1990 through 2008.

Throughout the same period, the various pieces of the United Kingdoms balance

of payments have undergone changes that reflect the impact of international trade on its

economy. Though the United Kingdom is a net importer of goods and has been one


2/51

Furthermore, the United Kingdoms economy is currently suffering a recession

from the effects of the global financial crisis that began in 2007. Section IV elaborates

on the both the effects of and the policy responses to the current recession.

II: The Economic Performance of the United Kingdom

Fiscal policy, as of the Finance Act 1998, centers on supporting monetary policy

by maintaining a golden rule and a sustainable investment rule. The golden rule states,

Over the economic cycle, the Government would borrow only to invest and not to fund

current spending. The investment rule states, public sector net debt as a proportion of

GDP would be held over the economic cycle at a stable and prudent level. Other things

being equal, net debt would be maintained below 40 per cent of GDP over the economic

cycle (Fiscal Policy).

Fiscal policy has achieved its goal of adhering to these two rules in the economic

cycle from 1997-1998 to 2006-2007 (Fiscal Policy). However, it should be noted that

this is only true because the Treasury revised the beginning of the economic cycle from

1999 back to 1997 (FactCheck). It is apparent in Table C that the beginning of the


3/51

components of GDP). From Table A, each components average share of GDP from

1990 to 2008 can be calculated. Household consumption has accounted for 64.5% of

GDP on average over the course of the period. Investment expenditures have

accounted for 17.4% of GDP on average, and government spending has averaged

20.1% of GDP. The fact that the proportions of each component have remained stable

means that those three components have grown at approximately the same rate over

the years from 1990 through 2008. However, though net exports are small compared to

the other components of GDP, it is noteworthy that imports have increased more quickly

than exports over the time period. In fact, there has not been a single year since 1997

during which the United Kingdom was a net exporter; moreover, net imports have

steadily increased over the decade spanning 1998 through 2008. As of 2005, the

United Kingdom became a net importer of energy, a driver of import growth throughout

the period (The World Factbook).


4/51

Figure A:


5/51

However, GDP growth itself has not been so stable. Figure B shows that after

the recession of the early nineties, the real GDP growth rate peaked around 4% and

then fluctuated throughout the past two decades, until it fell to a new low of .7% in 2008.

The slowdown in growth in 2008 was due to global economic slowdown, tight credit,

and falling home prices[that] pushed Britain back into recession in the latter half of

2008. Up until the recession hit in 2008, from 1992 onwards the United Kingdom

experienced its longest period of economic growth in recorded history (The World

Factbook). As far as per capita GDP is concerned, growth has occurred at a pace

slightly less than real GDP growth in each year. Population growth over the period has

occurred at a rate of about .4% (can be calculated from Table B), which is much slower

than the real GDP growth rate over the same period. This means that a tiny fraction of

real GDP growth is due to population growth. Furthermore, though per capita GDP is a

dubious indicator of standard of living across the population (because it does not take

into account income distribution), the per capita GDP growth over the period most likely

indicates an increase in the standard of living in the United Kingdom since per capita


6/51

The consistent real GDP growth in the United Kingdom has coincided with a

largely consistent decline in the unemployment rate over the period spanning from 1993

(after the early nineties recession) to 2004, as can be seen in Figure C. The consistent


7/51

Figure C:

An important thing to note is where all of the new job growth that was outpacing

labor force growth was coming from Manufacturing jobs have been decreasing over


8/51

have been expected. Some economists believed that increasing labor productivity

(because of technology) and an increasing labor force kept labor costs from rising,

thereby stifling inflation. This reasoning makes sense according to the Aggregate

Supply and Aggregate Demand model, since an increase in labor supply drives down

factor costs, increases aggregate supply and thereby the full employment level of

output; the rise in aggregate supply counteracts the inflationary effects of increasing

aggregate demand (which equals real GDP). There was also debate as to whether the

low inflation and decreasing unemployment status quo could be maintained though, as

is apparent in Figure C, time has indicated that it could not and that inflation rose along

with the unemployment rate in the later years of the 1990 to 2008 time period

(Analysis: Low Unemployment).

Though over the 1990-2008 period the unemployment rate has had a generally

decreasing trend, it did increase slightly in 2002 and 2004 and then sharply in 2006

from 4.8% to 5.4%. Furthermore, after 2004 there has been an increasing trend in

unemployment rate. There are several factors that can explain the 2006 unemployment


9/51

indicating that the United Kingdom was suffering from cost-push inflation. After real

GDP growth resumed in 1992, the inflation rate oscillated between two and three

percent until 2003 when the growth rate stabilized around three percent and then

increased to four percent in 2007.2

Increases in domestic energy costs and weather-induced food price increases

caused higher than target inflation in 2007 (Letter to Gordon Brown). Also, large

increases in food and energy prices accounted for about 3.3% of CPI inflation when it

reached its high in September 2008, accounting for the higher than target inflation in

2008. Furthermore, even though the economy slipped into recession in the second half

of 2008, driving CPI inflation down 1.1%, Figure C shows that CPI inflation remained

near four percent for the year overall. The fact that prices of other goods and services

rose around two percent, or at the target rate, affirms the notion that food and energy

prices drove CPI inflation (Letter to Alistair Darling).

The recession that began in the second half of 2008 is characterized by falling

price levels, which could result in inflation undershooting the target of two percent in the


10/51

prop up the price level. However, if money velocity continues to decrease, there is only

so far the bank rate can be decreased.

Money supply growth could also partially explain the high inflation in the last few

years of the period. Fueled in part by historically low nominal interest rates (the money

market rate was well below the 6.3% average over the period calculated from Table B in

the last nine years), money supply, in particular M4, has grown at a rate of higher than

ten percent per annum starting in 2005, which is higher than at any other point in time

over the 1990 through 2008 period (see Figure D).3 This coincides with the 2005 to

2008 period over which the CPI has increased by more than three percent annually (see

Figure C). Furthermore, although money supply growth was historically high at 12.6%

in 2005, well over the 8.2% average of the period, the Bank of England did not begin to

significantly ratchet up the official bank rate until August 2006 (Monetary Policy

Committee Decisions). Some economists have attributed the inflation rate being higher

than three percent to this failure (Shaikh).

Figure D:


11/51

The economy of the United Kingdom has been characterized largely by steady

growth, controlled inflation, and a dropping unemployment rate over the 1990 to 2008

timeframe. Though in the early part of the time period the economy was in recession, it

came out and grew steadily until 2008, when the global financial crisis hit.


12/51

In the United Kingdom, net direct investment over the 1990 through 2008 period

experienced two large oscillations: one in the 1998 through 2000 and the other in the

2005 through 2006 time period. From 1998 through 2000, net direct investment

dropped primarily as a result of a rise in direct investment abroad and fell to its lowest

level of -$124.1 billion according to Table D. From 2005 through 2006, net direct

investment rose mostly because of a large increase in direct investment into the United

Kingdom, peaking at $96.6 billion. Interestingly, throughout the 1990 through 2008

period, net direct investment was only positive in 1990, 2005, and 2006, meaning that in

every other year there was more investment from the United Kingdom into other

countries than there was investment from foreign countries into the United Kingdom.

Furthermore, trends in the current account balance have shifted at various times

over the period spanning from 1990 through 2008, which can be seen in Figure E. In

particular, the current account deficit was shrinking from 1990 through 1997, when it

reached its lowest point over the whole 1990 through 2008 period of $1.403 billion.

From 1998 through 2006, the current account deficit grew to its peak over the whole


13/51

billion, a negative current account balance throughout the whole period would indicate

that the United Kingdom has been a net debtor country from 1990 through 2008.

However as is evident in Table D, as of the end of 2008, the United Kingdoms foreign

assets exceed its foreign liabilities, making its net foreign assets 135.5 billion (making

the United Kingdom a net lender). 2008 was the first year during which the United

Kingdom was a net lender since 1994. The reason for the divergence of the net foreign

assets figure from what would be expected from the current account balance numbers

is that net foreign assets reflect changes from valuation effects.

Figure E:


14/51

Changes in exchange rates can explain some of the changes in current account

balance. According to the elasticities model, appreciation in the home currency should

result in the reduction of a current account surplus or an increase in a current account

deficit, and, similarly, depreciation in the home currency should lead to an increase in a


15/51

pounds corresponds with a dip in the graph in order to trace the movement of the

current account balance in response to exchange rate changes more easily. It is clear

from Figure G that the elasticities model appears to hold in the case of the United

Kingdom for the period 1990 through 1998 (ignoring small fluctuations in the exchange

rate). In particular, the steep appreciation of the pound (corresponding to a dip in the

graph of the inverse of REER) in 1997 appears to have caused an increase in the

current account deficit in 1999. After 1998, though the exchange rate remained largely

unchanged until 2008, the current account deficit climbed until it peaked in 2006 and

began to shrink thereafter, meaning that there must have been some other variables

driving the current account deficit higher, since the elasticities model would predict that

the current account balance should have stayed about the same over the period

spanning from 2001 to 2007.

Figure G:


16/51

With regards to the income effect on the current account balance, according to

the elasticities model, if income growth in a country outpaces income growth in the


17/51

2003 to 2006. Furthermore, the convergence of the growth rates from 2006 to 2008

could explain the decrease in the current account deficit over the same time period. It

should be noted that the euro area is far from a perfect economic entity to use as the

complementary economy in the elasticities model application to the United Kingdom,

since not all of the international trade from the United Kingdom is done with the euro

area countries, and the proportion of the United Kingdoms international trade being with

the euro area countries is most assuredly not constant.

Figure H:


18/51

indicative of a world interest rate that is lower than the equilibrium rate for the United

Kingdom. This means that funds are available internationally for less than they would

be if the United Kingdom were a closed economy, so investment funds will come from

abroad. Along the same vein, saving will be less in the United Kingdom than if it were a

closed economy because they will receive less than the equilibrium rate. So, because

borrowing is higher than the equilibrium level and saving is less than the equilibrium

level, the current account balance is in deficit. Furthermore, interest rate movements

along the national savings curve and the investment expenditures curve dictate the size

and sign of the current account balance.

Figure E can be used to analyze the impact of changes in national saving and

investment expenditure behaviors on the current account balance (following the

intertemporal model). From 1991 through 1998, because national saving grew faster

than investment expenditures, the current account deficit shrank, hitting its low of -

$1.403 billion in 1997. After 1998, during which interest rates reached their highest

point since 1992 of 7.2% (presumably driving up national saving along the way, since


19/51

.3% in 2003, increasing the current account deficit to its peak of $80.9 billion in 2006.

Throughout this time, investment had continued to rise steadily, probably because it

was being driven up by decreasing interest rates (and investment expenditures are

inversely related to interest rates). From 2006 to 2008, saving rose once again,

coinciding with the 2007 spike in interest rates, and investment expenditures finally

decreased in 2008. As a result, between 2006 and 2008, the current account deficit

was drastically reduced from its 2006 peak. Furthermore, the decrease in investment

expenditures in 2008 coincided with the coming of the global financial crisis, during

which Britain got pushed into recession (The World Factbook).

The balance of payments of the United Kingdom has been characterized by a

current account deficit driven by a trade deficit. Throughout the 1990 to 2008 period,

there were a few moments during which the current account deficit grew to high levels

with respect to the nominal GDP. Factors that led to these levels included interest

rates, incomes, and price levels; all of which are closely related

IV: Exchange Rate Movements of the Pound Sterling


20/51

Kingdom decided to let its currency float (removing itself from the Exchange Rate

Mechanism), which resulted in a sharp depreciation (Monetary Policy in the UK).

Figure I:


21/51

an exchange rate in compliance with the Exchange Rate Mechanism, the Bank of

England was forced to keep interest rates higher than would be healthy for the United

Kingdom economy. This policy was the only thing keeping the pound overvalued. This

led investors to trade away pounds for other currencies, since they did not believe that

the Bank of England could maintain the high interest rates in the face of slow growth

and low inflation. This forced the United Kingdom to withdraw from the European

Exchange Rate Mechanism, resulting in the sharp depreciation of the pound in the

fourth quarter of 1992, which coincided with a sharp decline in interest rates as the

uncovered interest rate parity condition would predict (Monetary Policy in the UK). Both

declines are evident in Table E.

Figure J:


22/51

From the fourth quarter of 1992 onward, the United Kingdom has had a floating

exchange rate policy (Monetary Policy in the UK). Figure I compares the market

exchange rate of pounds for dollars to the theoretical exchange rate according to

purchasing power parity (PPP). The first quarter of 1995 was chosen as the period

during which purchasing power parity held, since it was the quarter after exchange rates

were allowed to float during which the trade balance come closest to zero (it was -

$1.582 billion). Throughout the period from the fourth quarter of 1992 through 2008, the

PPP exchange rate held fairly constant with around an average of0.633 per dollar with

an annual volatility of .0151 though the pound has been appreciating since the first

quarter of 2001. This implies that inflation rates in the United States and the United

Kingdom have been approximately equal in each quarter over the same time horizon,

with inflation in the United Kingdom slightly outpacing inflation in the United States

starting in the first quarter of 2001 (resulting in the PPP pound price for dollars

increasing). Relative PPP theory indicates that the expected movement in the market

exchange rate should be a depreciation of the pound in the long run, which, according


23/51

Figure K:

From the fourth quarter of 1992 through the third quarter of 1996, the market


24/51

did reverse its trend of appreciation at the end of 1998. Over the same period, GDP

growth in the United States outpaced GDP growth in the United Kingdom in most

quarters. Though the appreciation of the pound during the first part of the period

disagreed with the Monetary Approach to Exchange Rate determination, the pound did

eventually depreciate with respect to the dollar, agreeing with the theory in the long run.

Then, from the first quarter of 2000 through the first quarter of 2003, the pound price for

dollars remained above the PPP exchange rate following a steep depreciation of the

pound. In the four years leading up to the steep depreciation of the pound that began in

the first quarter of 2000, GDP growth in the United States had outpaced GDP growth in

the United Kingdom in thirteen of sixteen quarters, which, according to the Monetary

Approach to Exchange Rate determination, would lead to a depreciation of the pound

with respect to the dollar in the long run. This means that the depreciation of the pound

agreed with the theory for the period spanning from the first quarter of 2000 through the

first quarter of 2003. From the second quarter of 2003 through the third quarter of 2008,

the pound almost continuously appreciated until it reached its peak value of0.489 per


25/51

was followed by a sharp depreciation of the pound that brought the exchange rate back

to 0.636 per pound in the fourth quarter of 2008, which was very close to the PPP

exchange rate. The pound depreciation in 2008 was due to expectations of extended

stagnation in the United Kingdoms economy (Wearden and Seager). However, United

States GDP contracted along with United Kingdom GDP, indicating there must have

been some other short run expectations causing the depreciation of the pound.

In the short run, according to the theory of uncovered interest rate parity,

exchanges rates are responsive to news and interest rate changes. According to the

theory, holding expectations constant, an increase in the interest rate of the dollar

should lead to a short term increase in the pound price of dollars due to an increase in

demand for dollars, assuming that the risk premium for pound denominated assets does

not change. Also, an increase in the interest rate of the pound should lead to a short

term decrease in the pound price of dollars due to an increase in demand for pounds.

Because both of these interest rates may be changing at any given moment, it helps to

look at the movements in the difference of the interest rates. According to Figure L, as


26/51

direction as uncovered interest rate parity predicted (increase). From the first quarter of

1999 through the fourth quarter of 2000 the difference between the interest rates

dropped to about negative one percent as the exchange rate rose to 0.692 per dollar, a

rise of about sixteen percent, which is in the same direction as uncovered interest rate

parity predicted. Then from the fourth quarter of 2000 through the second quarter of

2004 the difference in interest rates rose from negative one percent to three percentage

points as the pound price of a dollar fell to 0.554 per dollar, a fall of about twenty

percent, also in the same direction as uncovered interest rate parity predicted. From

the second quarter of 2004 through the third quarter of 2006 the difference in interest

rates dropped to -0.407%, but the exchange rate continued to rise, which, according to

uncovered interest rate parity theory, means that expectations changed in favor of a

stronger pound (or a weaker dollar) or the risk premium for pound-denominated assets

decreased. This movement also agrees with the Monetary Approach to Exchange Rate

determination, since the interest rate in the United States rose 4.2% while the interest

rate in the United Kingdom rose .6%, indicating a rise in inflation expectations in the


27/51

One of the predictions of the Monetary Approach to Exchange Rate

determination is that if United States income growth increases, then the dollar price of


28/51


29/51

central banks (led by the Federal Reserve) in hopes of forestalling credit tightening.

This move was in response to rate cuts having failed to reduce the interbank rates,

reflective of the fact that banks were unwilling to lend to each other (Central Banks

Act).

In October 2008, the United Kingdoms government unveiled a rescue plan to

provide support for the banking system and help return liquidity to the money markets.

The plan required banks to increase their capital by at least 25 billion (using

government loans if necessary), 25 billion in capital were made available in exchange

for preferred shares, 100 billion in short-term loans were made available from the Bank

of England on top of the existing 100 billion, and 250 billion in commercial bank loan

guarantees were provided to encourage interbank lending (Rescue Plan for UK

Banks).

In spite of the recessions hitting large economies worldwide (like in the United

States), the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England remained more

concerned with the impact that the high commodity prices of early 2008 would have on


30/51

weakened (Blanchflower). A main driver of the reduced inflation rate were falling crude

oil prices in the second half of 2008 that propagated through to fueling stations,

resulting in reduced gasoline and diesel prices (Inflation).

With regards to employment, the employment rate has been falling in the United

Kingdom since early 2008. Unemployment rose 30,000 to 2.46 million in the third

quarter of 2009, but that was the smallest increase in unemployment since the first

quarter of 2008. That the increase was relatively small is indicative that the worst of

unemployment increases may be over. However, many labor market experts believe

that unemployment will reach 3 million. Moreover, one fifth of all young workers (a

record high) are still unemployed (Allen, Mead and Wearden).

In response to the falling economic output, the central government adopted a

fiscal stimulus measure amounting to 20 billion. The bulk of the package (12.5

billion) was allocated to a 2.5% decrease on the Value-Added Tax on most goods and

services, bringing it down to 15%. The decrease lasted from December 1, 2008 through

January 1, 2010. Around 3 billion of the stimulus plan was allocated to infrastructure


31/51

5.1% (Quarterly National Accounts 1stQuarter 2009). The initial bank rate reductions

have been followed up by even more reductions, bringing the bank rate to an all-time

low of half of a percent in April of 2009. As of November 2009, the bank rate has been

around 1.5%. These measures were necessary since the Monetary Policy Committee

aims to keep inflation between one and three percent. Otherwise, the inflation target

would have been higher than the actual inflation rate.

The combination of the two facts 1) that the bank rate does not have much more

room to fall and 2) that the reductions in the bank rate have not been completely

successful at stimulating lending have led the Bank of England to pursue

unconventional monetary policies. A reason that the low bank rate has not stimulated

lending to the desired level is because lending standards have become more restrictive

as a result of the financial sector deleveraging (Blanchflower). Additionally, the Bank of

England has not specifically put pressure on lenders to lend.

Moreover, one particular unconventional policy that the Bank of England has

utilized is called quantitative easing. Its purpose is to inject more liquidity into the


32/51

pounds because of inflation fears. With regards to fiscal policy measures the central

government is essentially tapped out, as the budget deficit has grown to twelve percent

of the gross domestic product as of November 2009 (Oxford Analytica).

Additionally, the United Kingdoms government, in hopes of boosting demand in

the housing market, temporarily suspended the stamp duty on property purchases

costing less than 175,000. This raised the threshold for incurring the one percent duty

by 50,000. The suspension was projected to cost the Treasury about 600 billion,

preventing about half of all housing transactions from incurring the duty (Stamp Duty

Axed). It appears that the combination of policies making homes and money cheaper

have resulted in a turnaround in the plummeting housing market of the United Kingdom.

The number of mortgages granted for house purchases fell starting in December 2007

to their lowest point during the recession of 23,000 mortgages, which occurred in the

month of January 2009. However, the trend seems to have reversed, with the number

of mortgages granted in October 2009 reaching 55,300, their highest point since

December 2007 (Osborne). Furthermore, although house prices fell twenty three


33/51

March 2010 (Milmo and Webb). In September, the government decided to provide an

additional 100 billion in funding and reduced the age requirement on vans to eight

years (Scrappage Scheme to Be Extended). It may be possible that the scrappage

program had an effect on the manufacturing sector, since in the third quarter of 2009,

manufacturing output fell .1%, which was less than the expected .2% (UK Economy

Shrinks Less Than Thought).

Despite various policy measures, the United Kingdoms economy has lagged

behind the economies of the United States, Germany, and Japan (among others) in

returning to economic growth. While those countries and others appear to have exited

the recession, economic output contracted .3% in the third quarter, which makes the

third quarter of 2009 the sixth consecutive quarter of economic contraction in the United

Kingdom. This is the longest stretch of economic contraction that the United Kingdom

has experienced since 1955. (UK Economy Shrinks Less Than Thought). A main

reason for the United Kingdom being slow to exit the recession is because its

consumers were more dependent on debt and preoccupied with property ownership


34/51

VI: CONCLUDING REMARKS

The United Kingdoms economic policies target steady growth with low inflation,

and the policies have been largely successful except for in the most recent recession.

Its balance of payments shows that its economy is deeply intertwined with the

economies of the rest of the world, and the inflation-targeting policies have contributed

to a fairly steady pound value for most of the 1990 through 2008 period. Though the

current recession is the worst that the United Kingdom has seen in a very long time,

signs of recovery are finally becoming visible, and the United Kingdoms economy will

eventually return to low inflation growth once more. In the future, the lessons of the

financial crisis ought to make policymakers more alert to asset price inflation (bubble

formation) instead of only consumer price inflation.


35/51

Works Cited

Allen, Paddy, Nick Mead, and Graeme Wearden. "Rising UK Unemployment."

Guardian.co.uk. Guardian News and Media, 11 Nov. 2009. Web. 13 Dec. 2009.

"Analysis: Low Unemployment." BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation, 18 Oct.

2000. Web. 28 Sept. 2009. .

Blanchflower, David. "Macroeconomic Policy Responses in the UK." Lecture. Bank of

England. Bank of England, 29 Jan. 2009. Web. 13 Dec. 2009.

"Central Banks Act on Credit Fears." BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation, 13

Dec. 2007. Web. 13 Dec. 2009.

"Countries within a Country." Number 10. Prime Minister's Office, 10 Jan. 2003. Web.

28 Sept. 2009.

"Explanatory Notes - M0." Bank of England. Bank of England. Web. 28 Sept. 2009.

"Explanatory Notes - M4." Bank of England. Bank of England. Web. 28 Sept. 2009.

"FactCheck: Has Gordon Brown Met His Golden Rule?" Channel 4. Channel 4, 7 Jan.

2008. Web. 28 Sept. 2009.


36/51

Housing Prices up for Fifth Month in a Row. BBC News. British Broadcasting

Corporation, 8 Dec. 2009. Web. 13 Dec. 2009.

International Monetary Fund. International Financial Statistics. Web. 21 Sept. 2009.

Israel. Bank of Israel. Monetary Department. Inflation Risk Premium Derived from

Foreign Exchange Options. By Eddy Azoulay, Menachem Brenner, and Yoram

Landskroner. Bank of Israel, Mar. 2007. Web. 24 Nov. 2009.

King, Mervyn A. "CPI Letter." Letter to Alistair Darling. 15 Dec. 2008. Bank of England.

Bank of England, 15 Dec. 2008. Web. 28 Sept. 2009.

King, Mervyn A. "CPI Letter." Letter to Gordon Brown. 16 Apr. 2007. Bank of England.

Bank of England, 16 Apr. 2007. Web. 28 Sept. 2009.

Loney, Nick. "Managers and Professionals Dominate UK Job Growth." Management

Today. Haymarket Media Group, 16 Dec. 2006. Web. 28 Sept. 2009.

Milmo, Dan, and Tim Webb. "Buget 2009: Car Industry Welcomes Scrappage Scheme."

Guardian.co.uk. Guardian News and Media, 22 Apr. 2009. Web. 13 Dec. 2009.

"Monetary Policy Committee Decisions." Bank of England. Bank of England. Web. 28


37/51

Oxford Analytica. "U.K. Copes With Recession." Forbes.com. Forbes.com, 10 Nov.

2009. Web. 13 Dec. 2009. .

"Q&A: Why Is the UK Still Stuck in Recession?" BBC News. British Broadcasting

Corporation, 13 Nov. 2009. Web. 13 Dec. 2009.

"Quantitative Easing Explained." Bank of England. Bank of England. Web. 13 Dec.

2009.

"Rescue Plan for UK Banks Unveiled." BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation, 8

Oct. 2008. Web. 13 Dec. 2009.

"Scottish Economic Report December 2006." The Scottish Government. Scottish

Government, 19 Dec. 2006. Web. 28 Sept. 2009.

.

"Scrappage Scheme to Be Extended." BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation, 28

Sept. 2009. Web. 13 Dec. 2009.

Seager, Ashley. "Pound Rises to 14-Year High as Cheap Japanese Credit Floods in."


38/51

"UK Economy Shrinks Less Than Thought." BBC News. British Broadcasting

Corporation, 25 Nov. 2009. Web. 13 Dec. 2009.

United Kingdom. UK Statistics Authority. Office for National Statistics. Export and import

trade with EU and non-EU countries, 2002: Regional Trends 38. 2002. Web. 27

Oct. 2009.

United Kingdom. UK Statistics Authority. Office for National Statistics. Inflation. 17 Nov.

2009. Web. 13 Dec. 2009.

United Kingdom. UK Statistics Authority. Office for National Statistics. Quarterly

Statistical Bulletin 1st Quarter 2009. 30 June 2009. Web. 13 Dec. 2009.

United Kingdom. UK Statistics Authority. Office for National Statistics. UK Government

Debt & Deficit. 31 Mar. 2009. Web. 28 Sept. 2009.

Watts, William L. "U.K. Unveils $30 Billion Stimulus Plan." MarketWatch. Dow Jones

and Company, 24 Nov. 2008. Web. 13 Dec. 2009.

Wearden, Graeme, and Ashley Seager. "Pound Falls to Five-Year Low as Bank Head

Admits Recession Is Here" Guardian.co.uk. Guardian News and Media, 22 Oct.


39/51

Table A: Components of United Kingdom GDPYear

HouseholdConsumption(billions of)

FixedCapitalFormation(billionsof )

Changes inInventories(billions of)

GovernmentExpenditures(billions of)

Exports ofGoods andServices(billions of)

Imports ofGoods andServices(billions of)

NominalGDP(billions of)

1990

354.764 116.900 -1.800 112.483 136.583 148.647 570.283

1991

375.920 107.741 -4.927 123.841 138.662 142.573 598.664

1992

395.152 103.930 -1.937 131.632 145.480 152.177 622.080

1993

421.010 103.968 0.329 133.781 165.834 170.726 654.196

1994

442.230 111.736 3.708 138.278 183.215 186.180 692.987

1995

465.337 121.364 4.391 143.032 207.147 208.005 733.266

1996

500.412 130.346 1.611 148.767 229.047 228.457 781.726

1997

532.082 138.307 4.594 150.652 237.478 233.019 830.094

1998

567.970 155.997 5.455 156.490 233.284 240.094 879.102

1999

604.556 161.722 6.289 169.652 242.691 256.180 928.730

200

0

640.089 167.172 5.274 181.972 269.819 287.793 976.533

2001

672.889 171.782 6.585 194.584 276.866 300.878 1021.830

200 707 386 180 551 3 123 212 577 280 536 308 609 1075 560


40/51

1990

65.699 69.030 57.237 n.a. n.a. 15124.441

199

1

69.545 68.069 57.395 n.a. n.a. 14872.787

1992

72.141 68.169 57.556 n.a. n.a. 14852.928

1993

73.269 69.684 57.719 28.2338 10.400 15140.125

1994

75.084 72.666 57.881 28.1818 9.525 15743.966

1995

77.645 74.877 58.042 28.2552 8.650 16178.005

1996

79.546 77.033 58.201 28.357 8.125 16598.341

1997

82.038 79.581 58.358 28.5133 7.000 17101.142

1998

84.842 82.450 58.522 28.5838 6.275 17668.120

1999

86.161 85.314 58.703 28.8948 5.975 18225.410

200

0

88.683 88.654 58.907 29.07 5.450 18873.340

2001

90.298 90.836 59.138 29.1993 5.075 19262.432

2002

91.774 92.741 59.392 29.45 5.175 19582.187

2003

94.448 95.354 59.667 29.676 5.025 20041.210

2004

97.248 97.984 59.958 29.911 4.750 20493.961

2005

100.000 100.000 60.261 30.2422 4.825 20810.474

2006

103.195 102.838 60.575 30.7002 5.425 21290.140


41/51

1999 10.741 32.768 816.601 5.2042000 14.897 34.566 884.873 5.7672001 11.072 37.319 942.594 5.075

2002 -15.293 39.540 1008.750 3.8872003 -31.011 42.317 1081.300 3.5912004 -31.027 44.462 1179.190 4.2882005 -45.339 47.090 1328.320 4.6982006 -24.166 n.a. 1498.920 4.7722007 -26.671 n.a. 1675.410 5.6742008 -54.652 n.a. 1955.32 4.649Source: IMF


42/51

YEAR 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

GOODS EXPORTS: F.O.B.182.80

4183.50

6189.36

6183.31

3207.18

8242.31

8261.24

7281.53

7271.72

3268.88

4

GOODS IMPORTS: F.O.B

-215.35

3

-201.67

4

-212.69

8

-202.96

1

-224.13

5

-261.32

4

-282.47

5

-301.73

9

-307.85

1

-315.89

6

TRADE BALANCE-

32.549-

18.168-

23.332 -19.648-

16.947-

19.006-

21.228-

20.203-

36.127-

47.012

SERVICES: CREDIT 56.422 56.278 64.227 62.377 69.925 79.796 90.584101.64

2112.59

6119.06

8

SERVICES: DEBIT-

48.737-

49.000-

54.523 -52.307-

59.959-

65.677-

73.018-

78.542-

88.299-

97.054

BALANCE ON GOODS ANDSERVICES

-24.863

-10.890

-13.628 -9.578 -6.981 -4.887 -3.663 2.898

-11.831

-24.998

INCOME: CREDIT

139.83

7

133.69

0

117.27

0

109.38

2

113.97

5

138.97

9

144.17

9

157.89

9

172.64

6

165.68

9

INCOME: DEBIT

-144.99

1

-139.63

4

-116.99

5

-109.66

6

-108.86

4

-135.58

6

-143.41

5

-152.52

5

-152.21

1

-164.24

5

BALANCE ON GOODS, SERV. &INC.

-30.017

-16.833

-13.353 -9.862 -1.870 -1.493 -2.899 8.272 8.605

-23.554

CURRENT TRANSFERS, N.I.E. :CRE 16.870 25.085 22.164 18.664 17.809 19.808 31.201 21.400 20.471 19.517

CURRENT TRANSFERS: DEB-

25.664-

27.273-

32.016 -26.523-

25.964-

31.751-

38.631-

31.075-

34.349-

31.371

NET TRANSFERS -8.794 -2.189 -9.851 -7.860 -8.156

-

11.943 -7.429 -9.675

-

13.878

-

11.853

CURRENT ACCOUNT, N.I.E.-

38.811-

19.022-

23.204 -17.721-

10.026-

13.436-

10.329 -1.403 -5.273-

35.407

CAPITAL ACCOUNT, N.I.E. 0.888 0.504 0.746 0.460 0.046 0.841 1.966 1.571 0.815 1.205CAPITAL ACCOUNT, N.I.E.:CREDIT 2.071 1.907 2.162 1.669 1.931 1.835 3.006 3.062 2.507 2.632

CAPITAL ACCOUNT: DEBIT -1.184 -1.403 -1.416 -1.209 -1.884 -0.994 -1.040 -1.491 -1.692 -1.427

Table D: United Kin dom Balance of Pa ments


43/51

FINANCIAL ACCOUNT, N.I.E. 26.495 14.830 1.980 22.668 4.728 3.669 3.987-

18.467 16.321 46.650

DIRECT INVESTMENT ABROAD-

20.124-

16.754-

19.699 -27.254-

34.897-

49.111-

36.692-

60.892

-122.80

9

-202.50

3

DIR. INVEST. IN REP. ECON.,N.I.E. 33.504 16.452 16.559 16.518 10.725 21.732 27.391 37.505 74.652 89.337

NET DIRECT INVESTMENT 13.380 -0.302 -3.140 -10.736-

24.171-

27.380 -9.302-

23.387-

48.157

-113.16

6

PORTFOLIO INVESTMENTASSETS

-29.952

-56.901

-49.270

-133.55

1 31.474-

61.691-

93.371-

85.001-

53.230-

34.318

PI EQUITY SECURITIES ASSETS -1.096-

24.465 7.435 -11.923 -1.473-

13.145-

16.423 7.013 -4.954-

23.873

PI DEBT SECURITIES ASSETS-

28.856-

32.436-

56.705

-121.628 32.947

-48.546

-76.949

-92.013

-48.275

-10.445

PORTFOLIO INVESTMENTLIAB., N.I.E. 23.756 18.221 16.192 43.635 47.006 58.786 67.999 43.654 35.156

171.332

PI EQUITY SECURITIES LIAB 3.436 4.676 18.262 26.117 7.350 8.070 9.399 7.849 63.173103.35

3

PI DEBT SECURITIES LIAB 20.321 13.544 -2.070 17.518 39.656 50.716 58.600 35.805-

28.016 67.979

OTHER INVESTMENT ASSETS-

94.789 35.292-

60.506 -68.460-

42.449-

74.902

-

214.679

-

277.850

-22.864

-68.700

OI GEN GOVT ASSETS -1.610 -1.201 -0.705 -0.713 -0.688 -0.742 -2.973 -0.199 0.122 -0.613

OI BANKS ASSETS-

68.337 52.692-

34.863 7.244-

73.108-

36.687

-102.09

8

-241.01

0-

31.227 19.753

OTHER INVESTMENT LIAB.,N.I.E.

114.100 18.521 96.458

191.411

-10.798

106.222

251.822

322.219

110.483 87.091

OI MON AUTH LIAB 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000


44/51

OI GEN GOVT LIAB -0.461 -1.356 -0.441 0.333 0.858 0.589 -1.056 -1.739 0.419 0.535

OI BANKS LIAB 93.697-

16.762 55.952 59.494 76.620 41.952111.44

7243.12

3 84.786 10.844

OI OTHER SECTORS LIAB 20.864 36.639 40.947131.58

4-

88.276 63.680141.43

1 80.835 25.278 75.712

FINAN DERIVATIVES: NET n.a. n.a.2.2456

1

0.3675

73

3.6654

9

2.6341

9 1.518

1.8974

3

-

5.0670

4

4.4101

7

FINAN DERIVATIVES: LIABIL n.a. n.a. 2.246 0.368 3.665 2.634 1.518 1.897 -5.067 4.410

NET ERRORS AND OMISSIONS 11.470 8.389 13.882 0.021 6.752 8.073 3.722 14.395-

12.120-

13.484OVERALL BALANCE 0.042 4.701 -6.596 5.428 1.500 -0.853 -0.653 -3.904 -0.257 -1.036

FINANCING -0.042 -4.701 6.596 -5.428 -1.500 0.853 0.653 3.904 0.257 1.036

RESEREVE ASSETS -0.131 -4.656 2.432 -1.265 -1.484 0.896 0.653 3.904 0.257 1.036EXCEPTIONAL FINANCING 0.089 -0.045 4.165 -4.163 -0.017 -0.043 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

MARKET RATE 1.928 1.871 1.512 1.481 1.563 1.550 1.698 1.654 1.664 1.616

MARKET RATE 1.785 1.769 1.766 1.502 1.532 1.578 1.562 1.638 1.656 1.618

NEER FROM ULC 96.142 96.886 93.482 85.743 86.277 82.551 83.705 96.793100.30

2100.04

6

REER BASED ON RNULC78.581

6

82.505

6

80.737

8

74.535

1

76.578

8

74.535

1

77.212

3

91.375

4

97.087

7

98.211

7

GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCTSA

570.28

3

598.66

4

622.08

0

654.19

6

692.98

7

733.26

6

781.72

6

830.09

4

879.10

2

928.73

0

INVESTMENT EXPENDITURES 115.1

102.81

4

101.99

3

104.29

7

115.44

4

125.75

5

131.95

7

142.90

1

161.45

2

168.01

1

NATIONAL SAVINGS 76.289 83.792 78.789 86.576105.41

8112.31

9121.62

8141.49

8156.17

9132.60

4

NET FOREIGN ASSETS-

24.340 -4.840-

19.330 46.470 38.040-

20.200-

94.200-

90.610

-194.07

0

-304.18

0


45/51

YEAR 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

GOODS EXPORTS: F.O.B.284.37

8272.27

9279.86

6307.79

9349.65

2384.31

8447.58

9442.27

9466.34

4

GOODS IMPORTS: F.O.B

-334.22

8

-331.56

7

-351.63

6

-387.25

4-

461.14

-509.04

4

-588.24

7

-622.01

8

-639.32

2

TRADE BALANCE

-49.850

3

-59.288

1 -71.77

-79.454

9

-111.48

8

-124.72

6

-140.65

8-

179.74

-172.97

8

SERVICES: CREDIT120.39

7120.97

8135.30

8158.61

5 197.73207.67

4237.39

9284.80

4286.85

7

SERVICES: DEBIT

-99.747

3

-100.19

3

-110.02

3 -127.25

-149.90

1 -162.83

-175.21

1

-201.61

2

-203.61

3

BALANCE ON GOODS ANDSERVICES

-29.2006

-38.5032

-46.4842

-48.0898

-63.659

-79.8825

-78.4699

-96.5483

-89.7335

INCOME: CREDIT201.55

6200.92

7184.54

7203.10

8254.37

3338.70

3437.94

7584.30

7500.60

8

INCOME: DEBIT

-196.39

9

-183.32

7

-152.66

2 -169.02

-217.30

6

-296.59

3

-418.52

7

-535.38

5

-430.86

7

BALANCE ON GOODS, SERV. &INC.

-24.044

1

-20.902

6

-14.599

3

-14.001

3

-26.592

6

-37.772

7

-59.049

8

-47.626

8

-19.992

5

CURRENT TRANSFERS, N.I.E. :CRE

15.9449

20.0366

18.4098

19.6999

25.2173

31.6605

34.0051

28.1327

28.3979

CURRENT TRANSFERS: DEB

-30.701

1

-29.414

8

-31.668

6

-35.700

6

-44.039

6

-53.293

8

-55.836

6

-55.234

6

-54.075

8

NET TRANSFERS

-14.756

2 -9.3782

-13.258

8

-16.000

7

-18.822

3

-21.633

3

-21.831

5

-27.101

9

-25.677

9


46/51

CURRENT ACCOUNT, N.I.E.

-38.800

3

-30.280

8

-27.858

2 -30.002

-45.414

9 -59.406

-80.881

3

-74.728

6

-45.670

4

CAPITAL ACCOUNT, N.I.E.2.5694

91.8903

81.4200

62.4247

23.7787

62.8252

61.8058

15.1725

76.3350

9

CAPITAL ACCOUNT, N.I.E.:CREDIT

3.94261

4.79282

3.50724

4.59148

6.59599

7.85349

7.40365

9.22372

10.4066

CAPITAL ACCOUNT: DEBIT

-1.3731

2

-2.9024

4

-2.0871

8

-2.1667

6

-2.8172

3

-5.0282

3

-5.5978

4

-4.0511

5

-4.0714

7

FINANCIAL ACCOUNT, N.I.E.39.705

534.316

236.263

234.809

1 53.82352.618

369.537

4 66.184 27.737

DIRECT INVESTMENT ABROAD

-246.26

5 -61.816

-50.329

1

-65.636

8

-93.946

1 -80.79

-85.623

2

-275.50

2

-139.32

7DIR. INVEST. IN REP. ECON.,N.I.E.

122.157

53.8421

25.5318

27.6122

57.3337

177.405 154.12

197.766

97.5357

NET DIRECT INVESTMENT

-124.10

8 -7.9739

-24.797

3

-38.024

6

-36.612

4 96.61568.496

8-

77.736

-41.791

3

PORTFOLIO INVESTMENTASSETS -97.188

-124.73

41.2196

6

-58.423

7

-259.44

9

-273.41

1

-256.99

4

-179.56

2 210.18

PI EQUITY SECURITIES ASSETS

-28.461

7

-63.632

9 7.4071 -29.793

-102.96

1

-108.42

3

-35.433

6

-55.290

2

111.74

3

PI DEBT SECURITIES ASSETS

-68.726

3 -61.101

-6.1874

3

-28.630

7

-156.48

8

-164.98

8-

221.56

-124.27

198.437

3

PORTFOLIO INVESTMENTLIAB., N.I.E. 268.1

59.0572

74.3237

172.789

178.295

237.035

285.538

406.668

456.034

PI EQUITY SECURITIES LIAB 191.7422.567

62.3186

7 32.6093.5941

412.452

4

-18.343

425.241

181.419

1


47/51

PI DEBT SECURITIES LIAB76.359

536.489

6 72.005 140.18174.70

1224.58

3303.88

2381.42

7374.61

5

OTHER INVESTMENT ASSETS

-374.43

2

-250.84

4

-108.53

6 -420.93

-595.88

2

-926.19

4

-708.25

8

-1484.2

9933.42

4

OI GEN GOVT ASSETS -0.3564

-0.0613

8

-0.8247

7

-0.4933

7

-1.6615

1 -1.4792

-1.9442

7

-2.1928

4

-5.6257

4

OI BANKS ASSETS

-282.15

5

-125.67

7

-110.38

8

-259.34

5

-400.91

7

-541.60

4

-532.49

1-

1197.6416.04

9

OTHER INVESTMENT LIAB.,N.I.E.

365.071

346.628

92.7022

387.893

781.743

902.048

666.274

1439.17

-1554.0

7OI MON AUTH LIAB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

OI GEN GOVT LIAB0.0002

860.3966

95

-1.00703

0.827733

-0.76909

0.261965

1.52585

-0.09878

0.316361

OI BANKS LIAB308.61

8178.25

1139.84

5280.43

9529.72

2517.25

5598.88

21370.7

7

-949.81

3

OI OTHER SECTORS LIAB56.453

4 167.98

-46.135

3106.62

6 252.79384.53

165.866

568.501

4

-604.57

6

FINAN DERIVATIVES: NET

2.2627

4

12.182

7

1.3506

7

-8.4943

5

-14.271

9

16.525

2 14.48

-

38.075

23.961

6

FINAN DERIVATIVES: LIABIL2.2627

412.182

71.3506

7

-8.4943

5

-14.271

916.525

2 14.48-

38.07523.961

6

NET ERRORS AND OMISSIONS1.8257

1

-10.382

2

-10.459

8

-9.8237

7 -11.785.6943

98.2367

65.9417

38.5246

7


48/51

OVERALL BALANCE5.3004

3

-4.4564

7

-0.6346

6

-2.5918

80.4068

3 1.7319

-1.3013

52.5696

8

-3.0735

5

FINANCING

-5.3004

3

4.4564

7

0.6346

63

2.5918

8

-0.4068

3 -1.7319

1.3013

5

-2.5696

8

3.0735

5

RESEREVE ASSETS

-5.3004

34.4564

70.6346

632.5918

8

-0.4068

3 -1.73191.3013

5

-2.5696

83.0735

5EXCEPTIONAL FINANCING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n.a.

MARKET RATE 1.4922 1.4504 1.6118 1.7847 1.9314 1.7219 1.963 2.0034 1.4578

MARKET RATE1.5161

11.4399

61.5012

61.6343

7 1.8318 1.82041.8426

32.0016

81.8532

4

NEER FROM ULC103.29

5101.53

1101.96

596.880

5100.84

2 100100.90

1103.00

189.786

7

REER BASED ON RNULC 102.187 101.461 101.308 95.7388 100.347 100 102.483 104.353 90.0777GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCTSA

976.533

1021.83

1075.56

1139.75

1202.96

1254.06 1325.8

1398.88

1442.92

INVESTMENT EXPENDITURES172.44

6178.36

7183.67

4190.64

6205.26

4213.85

3232.66

3256.12

6242.75

8

NATIONAL SAVINGS133.64

6148.08

6155.81

6160.64

4159.84

9154.44

7151.78

2181.39

7197.08

8

NET FOREIGN ASSETS

-143.51

0

-198.01

0

-193.37

0

-209.07

0

-426.28

0

-434.28

0

-692.10

0

-566.00

0135.50

0


49/51

Table E: United Kingdom and United States Exchange Rate, GDP, Interest Rate, and Inflation Data

Quarter

UKOvernightInterbank

MinimumRate

UK

ConsumerPrices

Market

ExchangeRate

US FederalFunds Rate

US

ConsumerPrices UK NEER

UKREER

UK GDPVolume

US GDPVolume

Q1 14.773 62.699 0.6031 8.250 65.560 92.924 74.426 69.268 63.715Q2 15.043 65.634 0.5974 8.243 66.226 93.162 75.767 69.634 63.878Q3 14.960 66.710 0.5371 8.160 67.369 99.205 81.887 68.806 63.882Q4 14.147 67.752 0.5141 7.743 68.462 99.277 82.408 68.412 63.399Q1 13.333 68.151 0.5236 6.427 69.025 98.977 83.667 68.350 63.077Q2 11.627 69.575 0.5855 5.863 69.435 96.602 82.235 68.123 63.486Q3 10.920 69.888 0.5935 5.643 69.981 95.868 81.856 67.865 63.792Q4 10.440 70.565 0.5637 4.817 70.510 96.095 82.439 67.937 64.092Q1 10.587 70.947 0.5647 4.023 71.005 95.734 83.125 68.029 64.756

Q2 10.253 72.475 0.5534 3.770 71.585 97.459 83.708 67.866 65.380Q3 9.293 72.423 0.5249 3.257 72.149 96.095 83.063 68.202 66.021Q4 7.333 72.718 0.6333 3.037 72.661 84.640 73.229 68.578 66.748Q1 6.083 72.232 0.677 3.040 73.275 83.349 72.359 68.998 66.829Q2 5.627 73.395 0.651 3.000 73.838 85.652 74.181 69.312 67.168Q3 6.543 73.603 0.6649 3.060 74.128 87.160 75.992 69.911 67.513Q4 5.377 73.846 0.6707 2.990 74.641 86.809 75.798 70.514 68.421Q1 4.877 73.951 0.6725 3.213 75.118 87.481 76.678 71.270 69.117Q2 4.753 75.288 0.6653 3.940 75.596 86.066 75.869 72.285 70.018Q3 4.920 75.305 0.6452 4.487 76.262 85.219 76.207 73.289 70.410Q4 4.960 75.791 0.6309 5.167 76.620 86.344 77.752 73.821 71.236Q1 5.127 76.468 0.6321 5.810 77.252 84.764 76.258 74.074 71.411Q2 5.960 77.857 0.6262 6.020 77.935 82.120 73.956 74.476 71.565Q3 6.523 78.066 0.6353 5.797 78.276 82.027 74.416 75.316 72.167Q4 6.710 78.187 0.6406 5.720 78.652 81.293 73.700 75.643 72.670Q1 6.127 78.587 0.6532 5.363 79.369 81.200 74.242 76.341 73.168Q2 6.000 79.611 0.6562 5.243 80.154 82.233 75.573 76.695 74.432Q3 5.793 79.750 0.6435 5.307 80.580 82.977 76.821 77.228 75.080Q4 5.917 80.236 0.6105 5.280 81.161 88.410 82.449 77.868 75.900


50/51

Q1 6.003 80.705 0.6135 5.277 81.707 93.410 86.921 78.464 76.483Q2 6.233 81.729 0.6116 5.523 82.031 95.941 90.288 79.106 77.617Q3 6.980 82.528 0.6154 5.533 82.356 98.523 93.481 79.899 78.591Q4 7.230 83.188 0.6024 5.507 82.680 99.298 95.149 80.854 79.194Q1 7.417 83.448 0.6079 5.520 82.902 101.518 97.932 81.513 79.942

Q2 7.357 84.994 0.605 5.500 83.345 101.580 98.526 82.018 80.661Q3 7.313 85.272 0.6053 5.533 83.670 100.785 98.076 82.704 81.726Q4 6.753 85.654 0.5967 4.860 83.960 97.325 94.248 83.566 83.140Q1 5.920 85.289 0.6124 4.733 84.284 97.614 95.395 84.044 83.881Q2 5.167 86.192 0.6223 4.747 85.104 100.351 98.618 84.703 84.537Q3 5.083 86.261 0.6246 5.093 85.633 100.103 98.649 85.778 85.612Q4 4.647 86.904 0.6131 5.307 86.162 102.118 100.65 86.729 87.149Q1 6.000 87.251 0.6223 5.677 87.015 104.380 103.16 87.692 87.377Q2 5.770 88.883 0.6523 6.273 87.937 103.522 102.40 88.543 89.082Q3 5.773 89.022 0.6766 6.520 88.637 102.118 101.20 88.986 89.156Q4 5.523 89.578 0.6916 6.473 89.115 103.161 102.55 89.394 89.684

Q1 5.983 89.474 0.6854 5.593 89.968 100.424 100.27 90.374 89.388Q2 5.317 90.585 0.7042 4.327 90.907 102.014 102.26 90.597 89.974Q3 4.957 90.619 0.6954 3.497 91.026 101.818 102.10 91.017 89.727Q4 4.043 90.515 0.6935 2.133 90.770 101.870 101.87 91.357 90.044Q1 3.563 90.567 0.7013 1.733 91.095 102.582 102.33 92.002 90.818Q2 4.000 91.696 0.6835 1.750 92.085 101.260 100.89 92.367 91.300Q3 3.960 92.009 0.646 1.740 92.477 101.797 101.25 93.007 91.756Q4 4.023 92.825 0.6378 1.443 92.767 102.221 101.46 93.587 91.775Q1 3.880 93.346 0.6238 1.250 93.706 98.884 97.851 94.107 92.147Q2 3.667 94.457 0.6177 1.247 94.047 95.786 94.525 94.991 92.882Q3 3.460 94.700 0.6211 1.017 94.508 95.930 94.719 95.707 94.438

Q4 3.357 95.290 0.5865 0.997 94.525 96.922 96.039 96.613 95.288Q1 3.607 95.759 0.5438 1.003 95.379 100.795 100.30 97.043 95.959Q2 4.230 97.061 0.554 1.013 96.744 101.870 101.66 97.954 96.641Q3 4.543 97.634 0.5501 1.440 97.086 101.446 101.39 98.144 97.351Q4 4.770 98.537 0.5362 1.947 97.666 99.256 99.191 98.794 98.195Q1 4.817 98.798 0.5285 2.473 98.280 99.773 99.56 99.208 99.175Q2 4.783 99.978 0.5385 2.940 99.595 101.043 100.71 99.827 99.598Q3 4.583 100.343 0.5605 3.460 100.806 99.535 99.488 100.23 100.35Q4 4.607 100.881 0.5721 3.973 101.319 99.649 100.24 100.72 100.87


51/51

Q1 4.593 101.159 0.5705 4.457 101.865 99.081 100.49 101.87 102.19Q2 4.540 102.913 0.5473 4.900 103.589 99.876 101.97 102.55 102.56Q3 4.843 103.798 0.5336 5.250 104.169 101.580 103.88 103.02 102.59Q4 5.110 104.909 0.5216 5.247 103.281 103.068 105.08 103.90 103.34Q1 5.317 105.760 0.5115 5.257 104.334 104.121 105.87 104.77 103.65

Q2 5.613 107.462 0.5035 5.250 106.334 103.636 105.31 105.58 104.47Q3 5.910 107.896 0.495 5.073 106.628 103.615 105.10 106.24 105.40Q4 5.857 109.302 0.4888 4.497 107.386 100.630 101.84 107.18 105.95Q1 5.380 109.962 0.5053 3.177 108.607 94.556 95.425 107.51 105.76Q2 5.047 112.150 0.5076 2.087 110.991 91.396 92.018 107.48 106.14Q3 5.003 113.227 0.5285 1.940 112.282 90.528 91.004 106.71 105.43Q4 3.167 112.272 0.6361 0.507 109.106 82.667 83.074 105.06 103.98

Source: IMF

Documents

On the Economy of the United Kingdom