A UK austerity surprise

 

What have been the big lessons of three years of "austerity"? Everyone will have their own view. But here's one that's surprised politicians on both sides of the debate: you can cut council budgets by a quarter, in real terms, and the majority of people won't really notice the difference.

I know readers will be jumping to correct me. In a recent poll by Ipsos Mori, 48% of people agreed with the statement that "budget cuts have gone too far and threaten social unrest."

But here's the funny thing; the same poll asked people whether they had personally noticed a change in the quality of their local services. 65% said they had not.

That fits with the anecdotal evidence I've been getting, travelling around the UK. Nearly every council leader I speak to - Labour or Conservative - says they're worried about future cuts, but they also say they've managed to protect the bulk of services so far.

The level of satisfaction with some councils is even going up: 74% of people now say they are satisfied with the services delivered by Hackney Council, for example. That compares with 23% in 2001 and 53% in 2006. (Thanks to Ben Page of Ipsos Mori for drawing my attention to these numbers.)

Graph showing % of Hackney residents satisfied with Hackney Council 74% of Hackney residents now say they are satisfied with the Council

That is quite impressive, when you consider that the average local council will have seen its budget cut by more than 25%, after inflation, by the end of next year. The number of people working in local government has also fallen dramatically, as I've discussed before.

Human nature

Why have these cuts caused so much less bother than many expected, when they were announced?

One answer - favoured by the right - would be that there was even more fat to cut in local government than people thought. Councils had too much money in the good years, and were spending it badly.

Another - which politicians on the left might go for - is that councils, and the government generally, have been good at concentrating cuts on a relatively small share of the population. On this view, the pain is there, it's just being not being felt by the people most likely to vote or write to their MPs.

Probably, it's a mixture of both. Poll after poll shows that one part of the population HAS very much noticed the effects of austerity: disabled people. Maybe George Osborne should not have been surprised by the reception he got at last year's Paralympics.

Likewise, many of the planned cuts to the welfare bill - like the benefit 'cap' for families- will be felt keenly by only a small number of households.

But, that's the welfare cuts. The fact that council leaders believe they have protected the front line so far suggests that there was also a lot of 'spare capacity" out there, ready to cut.

We know from experience that when money is flowing freely into a public service, civil servants tend to get less efficient at spending it. We then get more value for money out of them again, when budgets are cut. It's human nature.

You can't cut spending forever without hitting the quality of services, but after a period of rising spending, you can certainly have a period of getting the same for less. Indeed, the likes of Hackney actually seem to be delivering more.

For all the complaints, we may also be seeing this in the NHS. Calculating productivity in the public sector is notoriously dicey, but the latest data - see chart below - show productivity in the NHS grew more slowly than in the rest of the economy from 2001 onwards, when money was flowing in.

UK Labour Productivity for the healthcare sector and the economy as a whole UK Labour Productivity for the healthcare sector and the economy as a whole (1995=100)

Since the financial crisis that pattern has gone into reverse, with productivity in the NHS outpacing the rest of the economy. (Though, health warning: the figures only go up to 2010, and we know productivity in the rest of the economy has been nothing to write home about.)

Austerity lessons

And the lesson of all this?

Mr Osborne's critics on the right would see a clear lesson: far from cutting government too much, he hasn't cut it nearly enough.

No doubt his Labour critics would see it differently: as a reflection, perhaps, of the way that even Labour councils have concentrated cuts on people who are less able to make a fuss.

But we economists might come away with a more positive thought: if there was this much hidden capacity lurking in local government - who knows, maybe we're seriously underestimating the rest of the economy's potential as well.

 
Stephanie Flanders, Economics editor Article written by Stephanie Flanders Stephanie Flanders Former economics editor

So it's goodbye from me

After 11 years at the BBC, I'm leaving for a new role in the City.

Read full article

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 288.

    . A Belligerent Minority
    Or, to put it another way, the councils in question decided that their counciltaxpayers deserved a proper service provision, with priorities determined locally, funded disproportionately by those more able to pay!
    =
    Paternalism and we waste almost a quarter if not more of our working lives paying for it! Truly they have stolen 25% & more of my day, Slavery by another name

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 287.

    Feed back from most posts complain about potholes. Is 25% of council budgets spent on road maintenance?

    Councils were stuffed with staff that ratepayers cannot afford. And we are still liable for the pensions.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 286.

    @284. Its a statement of fact. Civil servants are paid more than the PM.

    To answer your question. Sharon Shoesmith

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 285.

    Two comments.

    Hackney is fast becoming gentrified.The increase ib satisfaction for public services reflects the rapidly changing class composition fhe area as white working class and lower paid ethnics move out

    Is declining NHS productivity based on the NHS study on which Lansley based his reforms? Dr Black,Lancet 2012,reported rising productivity as mortality rates fell by 30% in,10yrs

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 284.

    Whirlygig, you are putting forward a Straw Man argument. If reward should be decided against responsibility, the ONLY people ever held responsible for disasters in how Public Money is spent in this country are the politicians. When was the last Public Servant sacked and lost his pension for a bad or incompetent decision? I would say probably never! Their peers protect them (and themselves)!

 

Comments 5 of 288

 

Features

  • chocolate cake and strawberriesTrick your tongue

    Would this dessert taste different on a black plate?


  • Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince George leaving New Zealand'Great ambassadors'

    How New Zealand reacted to William, Kate - and George


  • Major Power Failure ident on BBC2Going live

    Why BBC Two's launch was not all right on the night


  • Front display of radio Strange echoes

    What are the mysterious sequences of numbers read out on shortwave radio?


  • A letter from a Somali refugee to a Syrian child'Be a star'

    Children's uplifting letters of hope to homeless Syrians


BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.