Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T05:09:27.834Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ASSESSING LONG-RUN GROWTH PROSPECTS FOR THE UK’S REGIONS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 November 2020

George Verikios ,
Ian Hurst  and
Garry Young
George Verikios*
Affiliation:
KPMG and Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia. E-mail: gverikios@kpmg.com.au.
Ian Hurst*
Affiliation:
NIESR. E-mails: i.hurst@niesr.ac.uk, g.young@niesr.ac.uk.
Garry Young*
Affiliation:
NIESR. E-mails: i.hurst@niesr.ac.uk, g.young@niesr.ac.uk.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The UK faces a number of economic challenges in the short to medium term. Prior to COVID-19, renegotiation of trading arrangements with the European Union was the most prominent of these. We build on existing macroeconomic analysis by assessing prospects for the UK’s regions generated by combining a global macroeconometric model and a regional computable general equilibrium of the UK. A central macroeconomic scenario shows a national average annual GDP growth rate of 1.7 per cent to 2044. When the macroeconomic scenario is applied across regions, growth rates range from 1.6 per cent for Cambridge to 2.2 per cent for Pembrokeshire; the standard deviation is low at 0.07 per cent and the coefficient of variation is 0.04 per cent. In contrast, much wider variation is observed in the standard deviation for exports (0.36 per cent), investment (0.11 per cent) and consumption (0.14 per cent). The country results favour Scotland, which grows at an annual rate of 1.8 per cent, whereas Wales is the slowest growing of the countries at 1.7 per cent. Consistent with the macroeconomic analysis, international trade is the most important contributor to the regional variation in growth rates. We also analyse the effects of higher government consumption relative to the forecasts and find most regions are predicted to experience lower economic activity except the handful in which government consumption is a much higher share of GDP than average.

Keywords

computable general equilibriumgovernment consumption shockeconomic growthmacroeconometric modeltrade shocksregional analysisE27E37O11R11
Type
Research Article
Information
National Institute Economic Review , Volume 254 , November 2020 , pp. R12 - R27
Copyright
© National Institute of Economic and Social Research, 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The views expressed here are the authors’ and do not necessarily reflect those of KPMG, Griffith University or the National Institute of Economic and Social Research. We thank Kevin Hanslow, Brendan Rynne and an anonymous referee for helpful comments on the paper.

References

REFERENCES

Auerbach, A.J. (1982), ‘The theory of excess burden and optimal taxation’, Working paper 1025, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Massachussetts.Google Scholar
Bargain, O., Orsini, K. and Peichl, A. (2011), ‘Labour supply elasticities in Europe and the US’, IZA Discussion Paper 5820, Bonn, June.Google Scholar
Behrens, K. and Mion, G. (2017), ‘Estimating the costs and gains of TTIP and BREXIT for EU countries’, PRONTO Research Network Working Papers.Google Scholar
Douch, M., Edwards, T. H. and Soegaard, C. (2018), ‘The trade effects of the Brexit announcement shock’, Warwick Economics Research Papers, 1176.Google Scholar
Hanoch, G. (1971), ‘CRESH production functions’, Econometrica, 39, 5, pp. 695–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hantzsche, A., Kara, A. and Young, G. (2018), ‘Prospects for the UK economy’, National Institute Economic Review, 246 (November), pp. F4–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hantzsche, A., Kara, A. and Young, G. (2019), ‘The economic effects of the UK government’s proposed Brexit deal’, The World Economy, 42, 1, pp. 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horridge, M. (2011), ‘The TERM model and its data base’, General Paper G-219, Centre of Policy Studies, July.Google Scholar
Jones, C., Coombes, M. and Wong, C. (2010), ‘Geography of housing market areas’, Department for Communities and Local Government.Google Scholar
Miller, R.E. and Blair, P.D. (2009), Input-output Analysis: Foundations and Extensions (second edition), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ONS (Office for National Statitics) (2010), Standard Occupational Classification, Volume 1 Structure and descriptions of unit groups, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
ONS (Office for National Statitics) (2016), Input-Output Analytical Tables, 2013, London.Google Scholar
ONS (Office for National Statitics) (2019), Eurostat, An overview of the 3 NUTS and 2 LAU layers in the UK, https://www.ons.gov.uk/methodology/geography/ ukgeographies/ eurostat.Google Scholar
Stone, R. (1954), ‘Linear expenditure systems and demand analysis: an application to the pattern of British demand’, The Economic Journal, 64, 255, pp. 511–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vincent, D.P., Dixon, P.B. and Powell, A.A. (1980), ‘The estimation of supply response in Australian agriculture: The CRESH/ CRETH production system’, International Economic Review, 21, 1, pp. 221–42.Google Scholar
West, G.R. (1990), ‘Regional trade estimation: a hybrid approach’, International Regional Science Review, 13, pp. 103–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Verikios et al. supplementary material

Verikios et al. supplementary material

Download Verikios et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 80.1 KB