Treasury is one of the few UK winners from the surge in oil prices
By Roger Bootle
Last Updated: 12:43am BST 23/06/2008
The rise in international commodity and oil prices is evidently having a serious impact on our economy. But unlike corn or rice, we are substantial producers of oil. Given this, why aren't we made better off by higher oil prices? And if the country as a whole is made better off, then given that most of us are clearly worse off, who are the gainers?
Over the past three-and-a-half decades, the UK's oil position has gone through a transformation. When the first oil shock occurred in 1973, the UK produced virtually no oil. But by the time of the second oil shock, which roughly coincided with Mrs Thatcher's election in 1979 (although, so far as I can tell, there was no causal connection) production had soared. At the peak, oil production was worth about 20bn per annum, or roughly 6pc of GDP. Moreover, the UK became a substantial net exporter of oil, with the oil surplus worth 8bn, or more than 2pc of GDP.
And oil had a major impact on the public finances. At the peak, the tax revenues from the North Sea amounted to 12bn, or 3.5pc of GDP and 8pc of overall tax revenues.
But the steady decline in North Sea production, set against the continued rise in UK demand for oil, has caused the position to change dramatically. Oil production is still worth about 20bn a year but this amounts to only about 1.5pc of our current GDP. And, as our chart shows, we are no longer net exporters of oil. Last year we were net importers to the tune of about 3bn, or 0.2pc of GDP. The Treasury still gains from tax on North Sea oil and again the nominal revenues are not far off what they were at the peak, but as a share of GDP they are only 0.6pc, and as a share of total tax revenues they are less than 2pc.
The net export position is critical. If a country is a net exporter of oil then, at least in a narrow, direct sense, it will be a net gainer from higher oil prices. This was the UK's position until 2005. Even in the days of high oil surpluses, however, there were adverse indirect effects. For a start, higher oil prices, at least for a time, increase the inflation rate, and if this threatens to become ingrained it could require higher interest rates to restrain it. This would have the effect of reducing output in the non-oil economy.
Second, the fact that a country is a net beneficiary from higher oil prices may tend to strengthen its currency, thereby worsening the country's non-oil trade performance. Moreover, this could be of much greater long-run significance, as the oil will some day run out.
Third, if you trade with other countries which will be made worse off by higher oil prices, then your exports to those countries may suffer.
Fourth, higher oil prices will make some production uneconomic. Offsetting this by shifting resources into other areas takes time and involves heavy costs.
Accordingly, it was never clear, even in the halcyon days of North Sea oil, that the UK was a net gainer from higher oil prices. And some have even argued that we would have been better off without the stuff.
More on oil
Whether that is true is not easy to establish because it demands an analysis of the counter-factual. The advent of North Sea oil was one of the factors which propelled the pound to ludicrous heights in 1979-81. This, in turn, was a major factor in the collapse of British manufacturing. On the other hand, though, much of manufacturing had to go anyway, and the economy derived some benefit from the shock treatment. This also helped inflation to come down quickly.
But where did the oil money go? Some countries have established reserve funds where the oil money is effectively stored. This is what Norway, Russia and some of the oil sheikhdoms have done. But not us. Since 1978, just totting the money up without allowance for inflation or interest, total Treasury revenues from the North Sea have amounted to 130bn. Where is it? It got lost in the general pot.
Yet given that we are still a substantial producer of oil and our trade is roughly in balance, isn't there a case for us pricing our oil more cheaply and thereby avoiding the adverse effects of higher international oil prices? No. While we are on the subject of liquids, because the French produce Chateauneuf-du-Pape, does that mean that they should sell it more cheaply internally than they charge for export? Of course not. It is more beneficial to France to sell much of its fine wine abroad and then use the proceeds to buy the output of other countries - even the liquid bits, for example Guinness. Mind you, we go to the opposite extreme and charge our motorists much more through the imposition of high petrol taxes. But this is a subject for another day.
Suppose, for a moment, that if the effect of higher oil prices on the economy overall were just about neutral, given that most of us lose from higher oil prices, who are the gainers? The answer is partly the UK Treasury, which means all of us at one remove - assuming that it does not just squander the money (pigs might fly).
The result of higher oil revenues is lower taxes, higher spending or lower borrowing than there would otherwise be. The problem is that it is impossible to perceive this benefit because the money gets lost in the general fund.
And, in any case, the amounts are now not huge. This year, North Sea taxes are officially forecast to bring in 10bn, some 2.2bn more than last year. That does not even quite pay for the bail-out of the losers from the abolition of the 10p tax band.
Other gainers are the international oil companies, some of which are UK-owned and hence pay dividends to UK owners, including pension funds. And then there are all those people employed directly and indirectly in the UK oil industry. They will tend to be better off as the demand for their services rises. It is no accident that Aberdeen is the boom town of the UK.
The end result is that, although higher oil prices undoubtedly do make the economy overall worse off, they are not quite the unalloyed disaster for the UK that they are for some countries. The biggest threat from them comes from the danger that what could be a temporary burst of higher inflation gets embedded because of the passage of inflationary pay claims.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/06/23/ccom123.xml