Facts and figures about UK taxes, benefits and public spending.
Income distribution, poverty and inequality.
Analysing government fiscal forecasts and tax and spending.
Analysis of the fiscal choices an independent Scotland would face.
Case studies that give a flavour of the areas where IFS research has an impact on society.
Reforming the tax system for the 21st century.
A peer-reviewed quarterly journal publishing articles by academics and practitioners.
|
Type: Observations Authors: Haroon Chowdry and Luke Sibieta
The coalition government has announced ambitious plans for a new generation of schools inspired by the Swedish model of "free schools", set up and managed by parents and other non-state providers. Creating these new schools will clearly involve a capital cost: acquiring land, building the facilities, and so on. However, under the previous Labour Government's budget plans, net capital investment was due to be halved in real terms across the public sector between 2010-11 and 2014-15, so the coalition already faces tough choices on investment in school buildings - existing or otherwise. Unless the new schools programme is to be very modest, these plans for overall capital spending will have to be revised upwards or the cuts to investment spending elsewhere will be extremely deep. According to the most recent statistics, the previous government planned to spend £6.5 billion on investment in school buildings in 2009-10, across various programmes including Building Schools for the Future (BSF) and the Primary Capital Programme. This was set to fall to £5.8 billion in 2010-11 as the fiscal stimulus was withdrawn. Labour did not announce departmental spending plans beyond April 2011, but as part of its strategy to reduce the deficit, it did announce a planned reduction in overall investment spending. This reduction, from 2.7% to 1.3% of national income between 2010-11 and 2014-15, represents a cut of roughly 50% in real terms. Although the coalition government has yet to say whether it will adhere to these plans, neither the Conservatives nor the Liberal Democrats stated that they would accelerate or reduce the planned cuts to capital spending in their election manifestos. To avoid such large cuts to capital spending would require difficult decisions elsewhere, such as new tax-raising measures or even larger cuts to non-capital spending (which are already likely to be significant). The planned reduction over the next four years may therefore be difficult to avoid. How the eventual burden would be shared across departments is unknown, but most departments will come under pressure to make significant cuts to capital spending, education included. The coalition's plans for new schools therefore seem to add further pressure onto what is likely to be a tight schools capital budget. These plans were put forward by the Conservatives in the run up to May's general election, but neither the coalition programme for government nor the Conservative manifesto explained how many new schools would be created or how the capital costs would be met. A Conservative Party policy paper from 2008 suggested that 220,000 new school places would be created using 15% of the BSF fund. However, this paper was written before the financial crisis in late 2008 and subsequent rise in the deficit; it was also written before the previous government announced plans to cut capital spending over the next four years. If the coalition was to keep to these plans, then 15% of the BSF budget from April 2011 is highly unlikely to be sufficient to create 220,000 new school places.In response to such funding challenges, the government is likely to try to keep the capital costs of these new schools down. For instance, many of the Swedish free schools used refurbished office blocks and commercial premises, and the coalition government could choose to do likewise. However, while such a move would reduce capital costs, converted premises may struggle to offer the same breadth and quality of facilities as a newly built school. Alternatively, the government could limit capital costs by establishing free schools on the site of the small number of schools that would otherwise have closed, or it could replace existing schools, though the latter would clearly not add any new capacity to the system. Therefore, the coalition government will probably need to be very modest in its plans for new schools, or use an even greater proportion of the shrinking schools capital budget to fund them, or increase schools capital spending at the expense of other departments already facing a tight squeeze. We will need to wait for further details in the spending review due in the autumn, or the upcoming Budget, to see how the coalition government plans to respond to these challenges.
Search |
View all Observations in the series
Recent Observations
Cutting the deficit: three years down, five to go?
The UK is in the fourth year of a planned eight-year fiscal tightening. Following further announcements made in Budget 2013, this fiscal consolidation is now forecast to total £143 billion by 2017–18. The UK is intending the fourth largest fiscal consolidation among the 29 advanced economies for which comparable data are available. By the end of this financial year, half of the total consolidation is expected to have been implemented. However, within this tax increases and cuts to investment spending have been relatively front-loaded, while cuts to welfare spending and other non-investment spending have been relatively back-loaded.
Deficit unchanged
The March Budget forecast that borrowing would fall by £0.1 billion from £121.0 billion in 2011–12 to £120.9 billion in 2012–13. On Tuesday, the Office for National Statistics is due to release its first estimate of public sector net borrowing in March 2013 and, therefore, for the whole of 2012–13. Borrowing could easily end up being higher or lower than it was in the previous year, either due to backwards revisions, the uncertainty inherent in forecasting borrowing even a month in advance, or both. However, whether borrowing is slightly up or down in cash terms is economically irrelevant. Either way, the bigger picture is that having fallen by roughly a quarter between 2009–10 and 2011–12, borrowing is forecast to be broadly constant through to 2013–14.
Women working in their sixties: why have employment rates been rising?
Employment rates through the recession have been remarkably robust, with today’s ONS figures showing employment remaining close to 30 million. The young have experienced historically low employment rates and high unemployment rates but the employment rate of women aged 60 to 64 has increased as fast since 2010 as it did during the 2000s. An important explanation is the gradual increase in the state pension age for women since 2010, which has led to more older women being in paid work. Without this policy change, the employment rate for 60 to 64 year women would have been broadly flat since 2010.
|


