The Green Transition: Reeves's secret weapon
The Green Transition: Reeves's secret weapon
Weekly analysis of the shift towards a new economy.
Dear Readers,
Happy Friday from the Spotlight team.
We are back, after a short August holiday hiatus, with another essential guest contribution from Steve Coulter of the Green Alliance think tank.
If you have managed to peel yourself away from Oasis-mania, you might have noticed the Prime Minister telling us “What’s the Story”: things are going to get worse before they get better. Cheery stuff. If we don’t “Live Forever”, then what are the chances that our younger generations will see a prolonged period of prosperity again? Well, Definitely Maybe. [Enough of this – Ed]
But through all the doom and gloom, punctured only by a burst of Gallagher-fuelled 1990s nostalgia, there was news from the Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR) that you could be forgiven for missing: a new discussion paper has suggested tweaking the way the organisation measures the multipliers and returns on public investment. This rather technical adjustment by the experts that provide the government with economic forecasts could have big implications. It ups the value and estimated extra revenues generated by spending on public assets and infrastructure, and on increasing the productive capacity of the economy, in a way that could provide the Chancellor with some wiggle room when it comes to long-term investment decisions on Budget day.
Much more detail on that below…
But as usual, before we get to that, I am once again plugging our £2-for-two-months subscription offer for the New Statesman. Who could beat eight magazines delivered to your door for eight weeks, plus all the online articles you can handle, for just two of your English pounds? Subscribe now.
Let’s get right into it.
Reeves's secret weapon
The Chancellor sounded furious as she told the House of Commons what Treasury officials had found in an audit of public spending. Running through commitments the previous government made, she said over and over, “If we cannot afford it, we cannot do it.”
The challenge for Rachel Reeves is that we cannot afford not to increase investment in the UK economy, particularly in the green industries of the future. The UK is in last place compared with its economic peers on levels of public and private investment in 2024, and the last time it met the G7 average was in 1990. The result is an economy held back by poor transport links and crumbling infrastructure.
Nearly a decade ago, the then head of the UK Government Economic Service Nicholas Stern described spending on curbing climate change as a highly productive investment. Since then, we have found specific evidence of why green investment is a good idea. The Climate Change Committee points to the UK’s peculiar dependence on imported oil and gas, which lets value leak out of the economy. By contrast, expanding renewable energy sparks innovation, and as the cost of electricity drops, the economy benefits.
But the key argument in favour of green investment is that in some parts of the UK economy, there is too much capital and labour that isn’t used productively. Reeves herself has lamented the previous government’s failure to invest in the UK economy when “historically low interest rates and slack in the economy” offered a “unique opportunity” to do so after the 2008-09 financial crisis.
Public investment in green industries can be particularly productive for three reasons. First, the private sector might not invest there at all without public-sector support: so public money is more likely to persuade new private capital, not divert investment from elsewhere in the economy. With a zero-emissions vehicle mandate in place, for example, private investors have a stronger case for investing in the EV supply chain, from batteries to charging points.
Second, these industries could grow on a sufficient scale to provide employment and boost investor confidence. Low-carbon infrastructure needs workers, and generates low-risk returns as people pay to use it in the decades after it’s built. Third, there is the potential for sustained market growth. Smart technologies not only help people to do energy-intensive things when cheap, renewable power is available. They support a global market in the underlying technologies expected to be worth $130bn in 2028.
Yet Reeves has committed to a set of hard fiscal rules, including a “sustainable debt” rule that puts a ceiling on how much extra investment the government can generate. This signals a responsible approach to financial institutions and markets; and it provides the political contrast with the previous government that Reeves underlined repeatedly as she presented her spending audit.
Yet some market actors think Reeves could cut herself some slack. An investor at Abrdn told the Financial Times, “fiscal rules change all the time”, which is particularly true in the UK. Mohamed El-Erian, the former head of the world’s sixth-largest asset management firm, is more explicit: without a review of the fiscal rules in line with Labour’s growth plan, they risk “getting in the way of economic wellbeing”.
The Chancellor can, however, already invest more without breaking her fiscal rules. As I previously argued in the Green Transition, she plans to nudge the UK’s fiscal policy institutions to treat the impact on growth of investment spending more positively. There could also be a shift away from the traditional focus on public-sector liabilities – that is, borrowing and debt – towards maintaining and improving the value of its assets. In particular, she wants the OBR to “report on the long-term impact of capital spending decisions”.
We now have a greater sense of how the OBR plans to think differently about investment, thanks to a new discussion paper, just published. Its analysis suggests that a 1 per cent increase in public investment can increase output by half a percentage over five years, but the long run (50 years) effect is five times greater at 2.5 per cent. The long lag between the initial investment and its full effect may further give pause for thought over the rather short time horizons (typically a maximum of five years) over which the economic benefits of extra investment are typically assessed.
Chancellors are traditionally incentivised to focus on the national debt and the budget deficit – these are what generate embarrassing headlines and opposition zingers on Budget day. But Reeves wants to tell the country how she’s grown the public-sector balance sheet through good investments. And because the OBR will presumably take a more positive view of the output multipliers of investment, investment in the productive capacity of the economy will be scored against a more positive assessment of how it’ll contribute to future growth.
The Chancellor’s first major appearance in office, when she excoriated her predecessors for reckless spending and unfunded commitments, borrowed heavily from George Osborne. But she’s also shown that she thinks quite differently to David Cameron’s austerity architect about how to make the economy grow, and signalled that she wants to bring the UK’s institutions around to her point of view. Chancellors often come up with surprises on Budget day – but Rachel Reeves is starting early.
To enjoy our latest analysis of politics, news and events, in addition to world-class literary and cultural reviews, click here to subscribe to the New Statesman. You'll enjoy all of the New Statesman's online content, ad-free podcasts and invitations to NS events.
***For more on how our advertising services can support your organisation, please visit our page on Spotlight Marketing Solutions
or contact us at client.solutions@newstatesman.co.uk***
The Green Transition is produced by Spotlight, the New Statesman's online policy section and print supplement. Spotlight reports on policy for the people who shape it and the business leaders it affects. Explore our in-depth reporting and analysis here.
Thank you for reading.
Please send any news or comments to: jonathan.ball@newstatesman.co.uk