The trouble is that this is an analysis which only goes so far. When these private sector organisations hit a brick wall, they will, in turn, hurt other private sector companies that provide goods and services for them. And then there is the withdrawal of the money from the economy as many of these workers, both directly and indirectly employed by the government, move from having employment income to unemployment income. In other words, the cuts in government expenditure will ripple out through the wider economy."We are concerned that the levels of business distress will increase again, potentially from the first half of 2011, once the full effects of the coalition government's fiscal tightening measures impact the economy and particularly amongst those private sector businesses most dependant on public sector contracts," said Ric Traynor, executive chairman of Begbies Traynor.
"It will not be until after the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review in October that we will know for certain the allocation of spending cuts, but there is a growing risk that, even if the UK avoids a double dip recession, it could develop a twin track economy, with public-sector dependent industries facing higher levels of financial distress than sectors which are less directly linked to government spending cuts."
Those sectors most heavily dependent on public sector spending include construction, IT, recruitment, advertising and business services.
Is this a reason not to cut?
Some might argue that the knock on effects presents an argument not to cut. Better to keep on spending, as the consequences that ripple through the economy are too hard to contemplate. The problem with this view is that, somehow, somewhere, all of the activity of the people working for the government, and the businesses that service the government, must have an origin in productive output from the private sector.
This is not an easy concept to deal with, as the interaction of the public and private sector results in complex relationships. For example, a nurse working in the NHS represents a consumption of resources, but has a real output in terms of health outcomes for patients. This output is real, and might mean a worker being able to work and originate more added value within the economy. However, if we imagine that the nurse was not employed in the NHS, and instead worked in the private sector in another role, then that nurse would be creating an output that might be an origin of the added value that might pay for other nurses.
However, life is not that simple. We do not think of nurses just as adding value in the economy, but performing a role that is rooted in a sense of justice. i.e. many of us think that all people should have access to health care. As such, we do not restrict the activity of nursing to just help people who might go on to add value within the economy. In light of this, the NHS represents a net consumption of added value generated elsewhere in the economy. In order to pay for this, we must be generating sufficient added value elsewhere. Each nurse, for example, will consume goods and services from their pay, and those goods and services may originate from within the economy, or from an external economy.
When the nurse does her shopping, she may buy an avocado imported from another country, and that must be paid for from goods and services exported from the economy. Likewise, when the nurse drives to work in her car, that car may may be imported and somebody somewhere must be providing goods and services to allow for that import. If the nurse buys a domestic good, it may well be that the manufacturer of that good needs to import raw materials, and those must also be paid for from the export of goods and services. There are very few economies that even start to have the potential for autarky and, in the UK, autarky is an impossibility (if the UK is to maintain a reasonable standard of living/quality of life for the people).
Within this nurse example there is a balance at which there will be the 'right number' of nurses to ensure that there is the maximum value creation in the economy to pay for the health services. If there are too many nurses, there will not be enough creators of value to pay for the nurses...of course, it is the aggregate of all people employed in government consumption of value added in the economy that matters, and that is the question of priorities (e.g. the choice between one nurse versus one policeman).
The point that I am making here is that, overall, government is a net consumer, and is entirely reliant upon the added value that is generated within the private sector to fund this consumption. The amount that a government might sustainably consume is entirely dependent upon the amount of added value that is created in the private sector, and this is an unavoidable reality. The problem that arises in government consumption is that, in order to consume, there is an opportunity cost. If worker 'x' is employed in government activity, they are not employed in potential added value creation in the private sector. Likewise, if a company is utilised in supporting government consumption, the workers in that company are involved in that net consumption, rather than the creation of added value which might pay for that government consumption.
Somebody, somewhere, somehow, must be producing goods and services for export (and internal use) in order to support an economy, unless that economy is autarkic. That means that they must have an output which not only provides for domestic needs, but also a surplus to sell at a profit to other countries. Furthermore, the more added value that these enterprises create per unit of labour, the more goods and services that will be available for consumption within the economy, and the more available for export.
It is here that we meet the relationship between government net consumption and the wider economy. Government consumption must not reach a point at which they are consuming so much that there is insufficient surplus to pay for the imports of the country, as the country is not autarkic. If a country is autarkic, the amount consumed by the government is a splitting of resource between private and government consumption, and that is a political question. In the case of a country that needs/wants to import, it is a question of economic necessity that the country produces sufficient surplus of added value which is available to pay for the imports. The greater the consumption of the government, the less surplus is available for export.
We can see this in taxation. If a government is over-consuming relative to the private sector output, there will be higher taxation (or government borrowing). Taxation is the removal of added value in the economy into the hands of the government for government consumption of that added value, meaning that the added value is not available for export. The situation is somewhat confused by the fact that, for example, government employees are taxed, but the origins of the added value is in the private sector. In the case of government borrowing, this just means a deferral of the removal of that added value for consumption now.
What we have is a basic reality that the extent of government consumption is, in the long term, going to be constrained by the opportunity cost of employing 'x' number of people in servicing that government consumption. The principle is simple. If a person is employed as a result of net consumption of the government, they are not employed in creating the added value for the government to consume. In practical terms, this is the constraint upon government; that constraint is, in the end, determined by the absolute numbers of the workforce creating added value in the private sector, and the productivity of those workers.
If an economy is exceptionally productive, it is possible for the private sector to give an absolute greater amount of their added value to the government, and still be able to succeed in competition with others, but the total added value taken from the private sector must be determined by the relative productivity of the total number of workers within the private sector (excluding those supporting government consumption). The question for each economy is how productive the private sector is - or how much added value each worker produces. Fantastically productive workers, in relation to other countries, will allow for a larger public sector than those other workers (whether a large public sector is ever a 'good thing' is debatable, and not the subject of this post).
We can now return to those private sector workers who are (potentially) going to lose their jobs as a result of cuts in government expenditure. As they lose their jobs, some will still be in receipt of government money, in the form of unemployment benefits, but their net consumption from the economy overall will be reduced. They will be consuming less, and will therefore overall contribute to a lessening of the proportion of government consumption within the economy. They are being paid less, and all of the other expenses that surround each employee's activity disappear.
Furthermore, the skills and experience of that employee will become available to the private sector where they might contribute added value that might support government spending overall. Indeed, some employees made redundant will make this transition without any recourse to further government expenditure of overall resource. They will switch into new jobs straight away.
Buried within this scenario, of course, are the personal consequences for those that do lose their jobs. For some, this will be a major problem, and will be distressing. They will be angry at the government that has made the cuts. However, I would argue that this is a misplaced anger. The anger should be directed at a government that created an unsustainable job in the first place or, put another way, a government that sought to consume more overall than the economy could sustain. In over-consuming the resource of the country, they structured the economy in a way which was unbalanced, encouraging workers into sectors and activities that could not be sustained.
For the individuals who took work that was rooted in over consumption by the government, they had no way of knowing that their position could not be sustained over the long term. It really is not their fault that they lose their jobs, but the fault of a government that created an unsupportable structure. This is cold comfort for those workers. Likewise, the businesses that will go bust structured themselves to support the over-consumption, and it is not the fault of the proprietors that they have gone bust. They were incentivised by the government to direct their resources to unsustainable government consumption. Again, this is cold comfort when the axe falls upon their head.
The problem of austerity is that, whatever happens, the shift from government consumption of resource means that those employed in activities to support that consumption are going to be hurt, whether now or later. Someone must be hurt by a transition back to a sustainable path. That this is not their own 'fault' does not alter the absolute necessity of change. The best that can be done is to try to ameliorate the effects. We can all agree on the fact that this is unfair for the businesses and individuals involved, but to place blame on the 'cutters' is to place the blame on the wrong people. It was those that distorted the economy onto an unsustainable path that shoulder the responsibility.
I will end this post with a quote from an interview with the Chief Executive of HSBC, who seems to grasp the point:
"The reality is that is may be good to have full employment, but if that employment is driven by public employment it's telling you something very clearly... something is not functioning in your society."In this quote, he is grasping the essential reality. Something is wrong when government consumption exceeds the ability for the economy to pay for the consumption.
Note: Over consumption in the private sphere offers similar problems, but the purpose of this post is to discuss government austerity measures.
