No longer over a barrel?

Sunday, May 11, 2008
by Geoff Riley

David Smith turns his attention to oil prices in today’s Sunday Times and asks why the spiraling cost of crude has not hit global economic growth and inflation as much as in past oil shocks. Most of the recessions and major slowdowns in the global economy have been pre-dated by spikes in international commodity prices. Has oil now lost the power to shock?

David quotes a new report from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research which mentions the long term decline in oil dependency for the UK economy and the effects of a flexible labour market on wage bargaining power. There are two excellent evaluation points for any essay on oil in the exams this summer.

“Ray Barrell, an economist with the institute, said the big change is that economies are less directly sensitive to oil prices than they used to be. The “energy intensity” of growth – the amount of oil, coal and gas needed to produce an increase in gross domestic product – has halved since the 1970s, reflecting greater energy efficiency and the shift away from heavy manufacturing. Labour markets have also become more flexible, said Barrell, so workers accept temporary reductions in real wages when energy prices rise, while in the past they would have demanded compensation. The wage-price spiral used to mean expensive oil led to inflation, unemployment or both. Central banks now are under less pressure to act to head off the “second round” inflationary effects of dearer oil.”

The rest of David Smith’s article can be read here:

Print Digg it Del.icio.us My Yahoo RSS

Comments

i thought you might recommend that from the sunday papers! - as ever, smith makes this topical subject very accessible for A level students; i liked his defence of his $40 as a ‘stable’ price for oil.

Posted by  on  05/12  at  01:51 AM

Are these the two potential evaluation points you mentioned: the fact economies are less sensitive to oil prices than in the past due to the decresing energy intensity needed to produce an increase in GDP; the flexibility of labour markets that will accept a temporary decrease in wages? Cheers

Posted by Henry  on  05/12  at  07:43 AM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


Latest entries

Categories

Monthly Archives

Tags

inflation, recession, confidence, competition, housing, price, prices, demand, dollar, slowdown, property, credit crunch, expectations, food, china, incentives, sterling, unemployment, profit, consumption, euro, supply, usa, trade, environment, gdp, risk, externalities, mortgage, emissions, debt, investment, wealth, economist, globalisation, supermarkets, commodities, costs, deflation, taxes, downturn, environmental, exports, inequality, productivity, welfare, retailers, economic cycle, employment, saving, monopsony, macroeconomics, evaluation, behavioural economics, tim harford, pollution, airlines, interest rates, efficiency, happiness, manufacturing, waste, competitiveness, poverty, innovation, oil, carbon trading, economics, management, stocks, copper, climate change, regulation, newsnight, price discrimination, imports, migrants, profits, population, sub-prime, monetary policy, survey, india, crude oil, rationality, landfill, uk economy, federal reserve, economies of scale, lse, balance of payments, aviation, agflation, us economy, contestable, cpi, currencies, taxation, labour market, information failure,

Syndicate