赤字及逆差拖累英國失去AAA評級
報道 2013年02月25日
倫敦——周五，穆迪(Moody's)決定降低英國的信用評級，此舉背後的根本原因是一個重要的經濟現實：在降低財政預算赤字、努力吸引外國人購買其出口商品方面，英國已經開始落後於其他歐洲國家，甚至包括那些接受救援的歐元區經濟體。
戴維·卡梅倫(David Cameron)及其領導下的愈發緊張不安的聯合政府，已將減少赤字和債務列為具有決定意的國家要務。12月，位高權重的財政大臣喬治·奧斯本 (George Osborne)警告稱，一項已導致公共部門減少數萬個工作崗位的緊縮計劃將不得不延期一年，到2018年才能終止。但該緊縮計劃也在一定程度上造成了長 期的經濟不景。
周五，穆迪將英國的信用評級下調至Aa1，成為了第一個剝奪該國珍視的AAA投資評級的信用評級機構。穆迪在報告中稱，這一決定所依據的核心因素之一是英國的經濟復蘇太過緩慢。
此後，奧斯本說，穆迪的決定“令人失望”，但他承諾稱，政府不會因降級放棄縮減赤字的計劃。
周五，歐洲委員會(European Commission)發佈了一份不出眾人預料的關於歐盟(European Union)經濟前景的預測報告，報告中的兩個數據突顯了卡梅倫和奧斯本在扭轉英國經濟、改變財政及貿易落後地位等方面所面臨的挑戰。
首先，儘管英國正在執行歐洲時間最長、調子最高的緊縮計劃之一，政府今年的基本赤字——這是衡量一個國家政府支出超過稅收收入數額的最簡單標準—— 仍將佔到國內生產總值（gross domestic product，簡稱GDP）的4.3%。這是迄今為止歐洲出現的最高基本赤字率，在全世界的發達國家中也只低於負債纍纍的日本。
其次，自金融危機開始後，英鎊兌其他主要貨幣的貶值幅度已達到三分之一，儘管如此，英國今年的經常賬戶赤字仍將佔到GDP的3.1%，成為世界上唯一一個經常賬戶赤字較2009年有所上升的發達國家。
經常賬戶赤字是衡量一個國家出口能力的最廣義標準。經常賬戶赤字越高，一個國家就需要借更多的債。在其他因素都一樣的情況下，低幣值將有利於吸引外國人購買本國商品或投資本國資產。德國和中國等出口大國都擁有高額的經常賬戶盈餘。
卡梅倫已經向人們推銷了不受歐元桎梏的彈性貨幣機制的益處，英國甚至可能會就是否繼續維持歐盟成員國身份舉行公投。不過，就連西班牙、希臘和葡萄牙 這樣的歐元區國家也在經常賬戶方面取得了引人注目的改善，儘管三年之前，這些國家被龐大的賬戶赤字逼到了崩潰的邊緣。歐盟委員會甚至認為，西班牙今年有可 能實現經常賬戶盈餘。
英國不斷惡化的持續貿易逆差顯示了英國無力增加出口的困境，儘管政府已經把增加出口作為政策重點。即將就任英格蘭銀行(Bank of England)行長的馬克·J·卡尼(Mark J. Carney)在議會發表第一次演講時指出，自2000年以來，英國在全球出口中的份額已經降低了約50%，降幅居全球20個最大經濟體之首。
英國在減少貿易赤字及提高貿易競爭力方面的表現令人失望，原因之一是金融危機開始後，英國的生產力出現了令人驚異的下滑。
經濟陷入衰退之後，西班牙、葡萄牙和愛爾蘭等國就通過削減勞動力來提高了經濟的競爭力。這樣一來，它們就為本國經濟在衰退結束後實現更加強勁的反彈搭好了舞台。
然而，英國的狀況卻與此相反：儘管經濟增長停滯不前，英國的失業率依然維持在將近8%的較低水平。換句話說，英國要為同樣數量的產品付出更多的勞動力。
上周五，穆迪已經強調指出了英國生產力問題的本質，當時，穆迪表示，英國今年的預計經濟增長率僅為1%，遠低於2%到2.5%的長期經濟增長趨勢。
經濟停滯讓政府削減赤字的行動更加困難，原因是稅入的增長沒有達到預期。奧斯本於去年12月延展了財政緊縮計劃，原因是政府沒能完成自身提出的赤字削減目標之一。
英國的財政緊縮政策既包括增加稅收，也包括削減預算。不過，卡梅倫領導下的政府不願意仿效狀態不佳的歐元區各國的政府，後者大刀闊斧地削減了公務員工資、養老金及其他福利支出。
最近的1月份公共財政數據顯示，主要受社會福利支出的驅動，英國的公共支出仍在上升。在過去十個月里，這些支出已經上升了6%，其中大部分增長來源於養老金支出及失業福利。
美國於2011年8月喪失了AAA評級，法國於2012年11月步其後塵。證券市場對此普遍反應平淡。不過，英國評級降低正值英鎊持續下跌之時。過去兩周，英鎊兌歐元已經下跌了2%以上，兌美元則下跌了近4%。
鑒於對沖基金和其他主要投資人紛紛加大看空英鎊的賭注，債券投資人將更有動力售出手中的債券，如果進一步的降級處於醞釀之中的話，情況就更是如此。
“這樣的局面無法維持，”經濟學家兼企業家約翰·米爾斯(John Mills)說。長期以來，他堅持認為，為了改善英國的貿易地位，英國必須強力促使英鎊貶值。
“英國在全球沒有什麼競爭力，”米爾斯說。“英鎊遲早會出問題，市場將會土崩瓦解。”
戴維·卡梅倫(David Cameron)及其領導下的愈發緊張不安的聯合政府，已將減少赤字和債務列為具有決定意的國家要務。12月，位高權重的財政大臣喬治·奧斯本 (George Osborne)警告稱，一項已導致公共部門減少數萬個工作崗位的緊縮計劃將不得不延期一年，到2018年才能終止。但該緊縮計劃也在一定程度上造成了長 期的經濟不景。
周五，穆迪將英國的信用評級下調至Aa1，成為了第一個剝奪該國珍視的AAA投資評級的信用評級機構。穆迪在報告中稱，這一決定所依據的核心因素之一是英國的經濟復蘇太過緩慢。
此後，奧斯本說，穆迪的決定“令人失望”，但他承諾稱，政府不會因降級放棄縮減赤字的計劃。
周五，歐洲委員會(European Commission)發佈了一份不出眾人預料的關於歐盟(European Union)經濟前景的預測報告，報告中的兩個數據突顯了卡梅倫和奧斯本在扭轉英國經濟、改變財政及貿易落後地位等方面所面臨的挑戰。
首先，儘管英國正在執行歐洲時間最長、調子最高的緊縮計劃之一，政府今年的基本赤字——這是衡量一個國家政府支出超過稅收收入數額的最簡單標準—— 仍將佔到國內生產總值（gross domestic product，簡稱GDP）的4.3%。這是迄今為止歐洲出現的最高基本赤字率，在全世界的發達國家中也只低於負債纍纍的日本。
其次，自金融危機開始後，英鎊兌其他主要貨幣的貶值幅度已達到三分之一，儘管如此，英國今年的經常賬戶赤字仍將佔到GDP的3.1%，成為世界上唯一一個經常賬戶赤字較2009年有所上升的發達國家。
經常賬戶赤字是衡量一個國家出口能力的最廣義標準。經常賬戶赤字越高，一個國家就需要借更多的債。在其他因素都一樣的情況下，低幣值將有利於吸引外國人購買本國商品或投資本國資產。德國和中國等出口大國都擁有高額的經常賬戶盈餘。
卡梅倫已經向人們推銷了不受歐元桎梏的彈性貨幣機制的益處，英國甚至可能會就是否繼續維持歐盟成員國身份舉行公投。不過，就連西班牙、希臘和葡萄牙 這樣的歐元區國家也在經常賬戶方面取得了引人注目的改善，儘管三年之前，這些國家被龐大的賬戶赤字逼到了崩潰的邊緣。歐盟委員會甚至認為，西班牙今年有可 能實現經常賬戶盈餘。
英國不斷惡化的持續貿易逆差顯示了英國無力增加出口的困境，儘管政府已經把增加出口作為政策重點。即將就任英格蘭銀行(Bank of England)行長的馬克·J·卡尼(Mark J. Carney)在議會發表第一次演講時指出，自2000年以來，英國在全球出口中的份額已經降低了約50%，降幅居全球20個最大經濟體之首。
英國在減少貿易赤字及提高貿易競爭力方面的表現令人失望，原因之一是金融危機開始後，英國的生產力出現了令人驚異的下滑。
經濟陷入衰退之後，西班牙、葡萄牙和愛爾蘭等國就通過削減勞動力來提高了經濟的競爭力。這樣一來，它們就為本國經濟在衰退結束後實現更加強勁的反彈搭好了舞台。
然而，英國的狀況卻與此相反：儘管經濟增長停滯不前，英國的失業率依然維持在將近8%的較低水平。換句話說，英國要為同樣數量的產品付出更多的勞動力。
上周五，穆迪已經強調指出了英國生產力問題的本質，當時，穆迪表示，英國今年的預計經濟增長率僅為1%，遠低於2%到2.5%的長期經濟增長趨勢。
經濟停滯讓政府削減赤字的行動更加困難，原因是稅入的增長沒有達到預期。奧斯本於去年12月延展了財政緊縮計劃，原因是政府沒能完成自身提出的赤字削減目標之一。
英國的財政緊縮政策既包括增加稅收，也包括削減預算。不過，卡梅倫領導下的政府不願意仿效狀態不佳的歐元區各國的政府，後者大刀闊斧地削減了公務員工資、養老金及其他福利支出。
最近的1月份公共財政數據顯示，主要受社會福利支出的驅動，英國的公共支出仍在上升。在過去十個月里，這些支出已經上升了6%，其中大部分增長來源於養老金支出及失業福利。
美國於2011年8月喪失了AAA評級，法國於2012年11月步其後塵。證券市場對此普遍反應平淡。不過，英國評級降低正值英鎊持續下跌之時。過去兩周，英鎊兌歐元已經下跌了2%以上，兌美元則下跌了近4%。
鑒於對沖基金和其他主要投資人紛紛加大看空英鎊的賭注，債券投資人將更有動力售出手中的債券，如果進一步的降級處於醞釀之中的話，情況就更是如此。
“這樣的局面無法維持，”經濟學家兼企業家約翰·米爾斯(John Mills)說。長期以來，他堅持認為，為了改善英國的貿易地位，英國必須強力促使英鎊貶值。
“英國在全球沒有什麼競爭力，”米爾斯說。“英鎊遲早會出問題，市場將會土崩瓦解。”
Britain
Jobs in jail
A by-election in Northern Ireland
The public finances
The 4G spectrum auction
The horse-meat scandal
Opposition leaders
Renewable energy in Scotland
Bagehot
Articles flagged with this icon are printed only in the British edition of The Economist Remunerative justice
The government wants prisoners to be more productive, before their release as well as after it
In a second workshop prisoners are making furniture for the government and for Amaryllis, another private company. Here, the emphasis is on getting vocational qualifications as well as on the products. A lifer has graduated from dovecotes to dolls’ houses, and hopes to convert his own garage into a workshop when he eventually gets out, as many supposed “lifers” do.
Turning Britain’s prisons into what the coalition government calls “industrious places of productive work” lies at the heart of its plans for penal reform. Work behind bars isn’t new. Like those in many other countries, British prisoners have long been expected to perform chores such as cooking and gardening. From time to time, amid bursts of enthusiasm for prison industries, the authorities have tried to put them on a commercial footing. But overcrowding and outdated facilities have hampered serious work programmes. Only around 10,000 of the 84,000 prisoners in England and Wales are currently employed in industrial workshops. The government wants to double that figure in a decade, and extend working hours from an average of a little over 20 a week to 40. And it aims to lure more private outfits into prisons to set up and run units themselves.
Two factors have persuaded the coalition to embrace prison industries now. The first is stubbornly high reoffending rates, especially among the many ex-cons who are unemployed. According to a survey by the Ministry of Justice, almost three-quarters of prisoners who fail to find jobs and accommodation on release are reconvicted within a year—compared with only two-fifths of those who do. Yet less than 40% of offenders manage to find work after completing custodial or community sentences. Holding down a job inside, in something approaching a real-world workplace, learning good work habits and emerging with an employer’s reference, would make that transition easier, the thinking goes.
Captive markets
The second, related spur is financial. The prison budget is being cut
dramatically, mainly by reducing staff and putting administration out
to competitive tender. The squeeze makes addressing expensive recidivism
an urgent priority. In theory prison industries could turn a modest
profit—even if, at the moment, many actually burden the taxpayer, mainly
because of the extra security involved. Prisoners’ wages are already
docked to provide support for victims of crime; the hope is that more
productive employment will boost those contributions, too.Ranby is one place that needs little encouragement. With almost 1,100 inmates it is one of the biggest “Category C” (moderate-security) male prisons. Under its newish governor, Neil Richards, it is keenly embracing the government’s agenda.
Of its 14 workshops, one already operates around the clock, producing chair parts and light fittings as well as cutlery and plates for the prison service. Ranby plans to upgrade its laundry facilities; it has secured a share of one outside contract and is looking for more. Some 280-300 prisoners are employed full-time in the workshops now. Another 100 will find work in the laundry and 20, to start with, in a new manufacturing venture. Mr Richards hopes to get 500 prisoners working full-time by 2015.
What can Ranby, and other prisons with similar ambitions, offer employers? Its workforce won’t strike and may be less likely to pinch materials. It has plenty of space and some costly machinery already installed. Businesses, for their part, are chary of saying just what they pay to produce in prisons (though the inmates earn little, companies pay a bigger sum to the institution for the space, utilities and security); but the costs are unlikely to be higher than they are for labour at liberty.
True, adapting the prison regime to the demands of commerce can be tricky. Prisons’ main job is holding people securely—but businesses need employees to be available for a normal working week, and to respond flexibly to demand. At Ranby, Mr Richards is trying to oblige, with brief lunchtime breaks in the workplace itself. Firms may also need access for lorries at odd times of the day or night; separate entrances for business traffic might help, too. “Combining security with full-time commercial working is a challenge,” says Paul McDowell, a former governor of Coldingley prison and now head of Nacro, a charity that works with offenders, “but it can definitely be done.”
For some employers, hiring offenders is a moral mission, or a way to demonstrate social responsibility. Timpson, a family-owned shoe-repair chain, runs three training academies and three workshops in prisons, and employs prisoners allowed out during the day on temporary licence. Many are offered permanent jobs after they have served their sentences. The alternative labour pool can also help ease skill shortages. Railtrack, for example, provides long-term jobs to inmates, whom it trains in prison to lay railway tracks.
Evidence from the field supports the government’s finding that jobs help prevent reoffending. National Grid, a power company, leads a scheme involving around 80 firms, which trains offenders allowed out on temporary licence during the final year of their sentence, and employs them on their release. Mary Harris, who runs it, thinks around 2,000 prisoners have been helped over ten years, and that the reconviction rate among those who complete the programme is about 6%.
Not everyone shares the government’s zeal, however. Inmates toil for piddling rates, often at jobs that offer little stimulation or chance for advancement; a protesting group of current and former prisoners calls itself the Campaign Against Prison Slavery. The name echoes criticisms of some such programmes in America, where the use of prisoners to work on farms or make clothing is often decried as exploitative and ineffective.
Giving paid work to offenders when some of the law-abiding jobless are looking for it also raises hackles. Employers and officials insist, not entirely convincingly, that they look only to commission work that would otherwise have been done abroad, or by machines.
Andrew Neilson of the Howard League for Penal Reform, a pressure group that set up a prison industry at Coldingley in 2005 which has since closed, thinks the scheme should be more radical. Businesses should be given far more control over the workplace behind bars. Prisoners should sign contracts, get the minimum wage, pay taxes and enjoy employment rights as far as possible. This would prepare them better for life on the outside, he thinks.
No one knows how far the government will go. But several recent prison privatisations have been aimed in part at encouraging work inside. And the coalition has been more radical in criminal-justice matters than in almost any other. There is no reason to think it will stop here.
英國的多重困境
英
國
一下子成為了全球焦點。該國政府面對堆積如山的債務束手無策，英國央行(Bank of
England)又對居高不下的通貨膨脹“視而不見”，這讓市場日益緊張起來。英鎊跌至1.53美元，今年以來已貶值5.6%，10年期英國國債收益率目
前已經攀升至2012年4月份以來最高水平2.21%。英國承受不起失去海外投資者信任的代價：根據施羅德投資(Schroders)統 計，他們持有的英國國債共計佔到市場總量的30%左右，高於英國保險公司和退休基金的持有比例。英國債務管理局(Debt Management Office)的數據顯示，自2008年開年以來，海外投資者持有的英國國債規模翻了一倍多，於2012年9月份達到3,980億英鎊。鑒於未來三個財政 年度每年國債發行規模都定將高於1,500億英鎊，英國不能放過任何一個買家。
低增長、高通脹是人們擔心的主要問題。在通脹率連續38個 月保持在2%的目標水平上方後，英國央行上週預計未來兩年多時間內通脹率都將居高不下，但排除了採取相關控制措施的可能性。甚至，英國央行2月份政策會議 紀要意外顯示，包括行長默文•金(Mervyn King)在內，有三人投票支持將英國國債購買計劃擴大250億英鎊。
受英國央行的偏寬 鬆言論影響，英鎊兌美元週三下跌了逾1美分，這不難理解；但更加令人擔心的是，儘管購債計劃擴大的可能性增強，但較長期英國國債收益率卻有所上升。市場主 要擔心英鎊匯率的下跌可能進一步推高通脹，這意味著投資者會要求英國國債提供更高的風險回報，因而推動收益率上升。同時，與目前3,750億英鎊的計劃規 模相比，僅增加250億英鎊的購買量似乎力度不大。
此外，去年在剛剛發現不妙的跡象 時，英國財政大臣奧斯本(George Osborne)就放棄了債務目標，而且該國似乎可能丟掉AAA評級。英國用了各種各樣的一次性措施來減少舉債，但稅收情況一直令人失望。英國週三通過拍 賣4G無線頻譜僅籌到了23億英鎊，低於政府預期的35億英鎊。
迄今為止，英國國債需求一直都非常堅挺。但是不要理所當然地以為海外投資 者會堅守陣地，尤其是在10年期英國國債目前實際回報率為負值之際。現在歐元區危機已經有所緩和，投資者對財富這樣縮水的容忍度可能有所下降。對於英國能 否保持其公信力，定於3月20日公佈的2013年預算以及將於7月份就職的新任英國央行行長馬克•卡尼(Mark Carney)所奠定的基調都至關重要。
Richard Barley
（Richard Barley是《股聞天下》欄目作者﹐自1998年以來一直從不同的角度報導歐洲債券市場。）
The public finances
Off target
Despite a good month, George Osborne is far from balancing the budget
JANUARY is always a bumper month for the public purse. Government
receipts spike as workers scramble to meet self-assessment tax
deadlines, pushing public income far above spending. The month provides a
fleeting glimpse of a budget surplus, but it also, by contrast, is a
striking reminder of how distant that goal remains.
The latest data, released by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) on 21st February, showed a January surplus of £15 billion ($23 billion). That allowed £11 billion of borrowing to be repaid, nudging public-sector debt down to £1.16 trillion or 74% of GDP. But over the course of recent years the reverse has been true: spending has been higher than receipts, meaning more borrowing and a growing pile of debt.
The coalition’s austerity plan proposes to close this gap by raising income and cutting spending. Much of the early push focused on taxes: the first budget set out by George Osborne, the chancellor of the exchequer, in June 2010, included a VAT increase and higher capital gains tax. Because the tax changes were front-loaded, they are almost complete: the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), a think-tank, reckons four-fifths have been made. In part, this pace was possible because the aims are modest: to raise receipts from 37% to 38% of GDP and hold them there (see chart).
But even this humble target now looks tough. Income tax has brought in less than expected, as has VAT: consumer spending is held back by flatlining wages. On top of this the sale of 4G spectrum, supposed to raise £3.5 billion, netted just £2.3 billion (see article).
This bad news means that a new income stream, appearing for the first time in January, is very welcome. Since March 2009 the Bank of England has been buying government debt, attempting to stimulate the economy through quantitative easing. Because its holdings are so large the interest it receives is chunky, too (by July 2012, the bank had earned £24 billion on its bond-holdings, which currently stand at £375 billion). This cash will be returned to the government, with a first payment of £3.8 billion, further boosting January’s income. Future payments will help put revenue plans back on track.
But the biggest test of austerity is spending cuts. Here plans are more ambitious: the savings account for 85% of planned deficit reduction, according to the IFS. And they have only just started: only a third of cuts to benefits and a fifth of those to departmental spending will be in place by the end of the financial year. Over the next five years, reductions in benefits, investment and government consumption will deepen year on year, cumulatively cutting expenditure from 42% to 37% of GDP.
It is early days, but the signs are not good. In December, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), a fiscal watchdog, forecast that government departments would make extra cuts allowing a £4.5 billion underspend this year. But this week’s data confirm that spending on public services is actually likely to rise this year, so that forecast now looks optimistic. Overall, Britain looks set to borrow slightly more this year than it did last year. The long road to a balanced budget is getting longer.
The latest data, released by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) on 21st February, showed a January surplus of £15 billion ($23 billion). That allowed £11 billion of borrowing to be repaid, nudging public-sector debt down to £1.16 trillion or 74% of GDP. But over the course of recent years the reverse has been true: spending has been higher than receipts, meaning more borrowing and a growing pile of debt.
The coalition’s austerity plan proposes to close this gap by raising income and cutting spending. Much of the early push focused on taxes: the first budget set out by George Osborne, the chancellor of the exchequer, in June 2010, included a VAT increase and higher capital gains tax. Because the tax changes were front-loaded, they are almost complete: the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), a think-tank, reckons four-fifths have been made. In part, this pace was possible because the aims are modest: to raise receipts from 37% to 38% of GDP and hold them there (see chart).
But even this humble target now looks tough. Income tax has brought in less than expected, as has VAT: consumer spending is held back by flatlining wages. On top of this the sale of 4G spectrum, supposed to raise £3.5 billion, netted just £2.3 billion (see article).
This bad news means that a new income stream, appearing for the first time in January, is very welcome. Since March 2009 the Bank of England has been buying government debt, attempting to stimulate the economy through quantitative easing. Because its holdings are so large the interest it receives is chunky, too (by July 2012, the bank had earned £24 billion on its bond-holdings, which currently stand at £375 billion). This cash will be returned to the government, with a first payment of £3.8 billion, further boosting January’s income. Future payments will help put revenue plans back on track.
But the biggest test of austerity is spending cuts. Here plans are more ambitious: the savings account for 85% of planned deficit reduction, according to the IFS. And they have only just started: only a third of cuts to benefits and a fifth of those to departmental spending will be in place by the end of the financial year. Over the next five years, reductions in benefits, investment and government consumption will deepen year on year, cumulatively cutting expenditure from 42% to 37% of GDP.
It is early days, but the signs are not good. In December, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), a fiscal watchdog, forecast that government departments would make extra cuts allowing a £4.5 billion underspend this year. But this week’s data confirm that spending on public services is actually likely to rise this year, so that forecast now looks optimistic. Overall, Britain looks set to borrow slightly more this year than it did last year. The long road to a balanced budget is getting longer.
沒有留言:
張貼留言