GEORGE FEIGER

Jul 27, 2022

5 min

Inflation: Simple Causes But a Complicated Cure



 JULY 2022


We face a wave of strikes, intended to restore the purchasing power of wages in face of inflation. But strikes cannot succeed in restoring everyone’s purchasing power. In the near term, inflation’s impact on living standards can be significantly mitigated only by importing more and so increasing our trade deficit, financed by foreign borrowing. Unwillingness to do that means we are likely to prolong the wave of strikes and so suffer a bruising recession created by restrictive monetary policy. This will cause yet more damage to living standards.


However, debt-funded importing of consumption items in order to maintain living standards is poor policy longer-term. It can’t stop the harmful redistribution effects of inflation that are already emerging. Most important, it doesn’t address the longstanding source of our lagging living standards – too little economic growth and economic resilience due to our failure to grow productivity. Without increased productivity, debt-funded consumption repair will cumulate to tomorrow’s fiscal crisis.


Therefore, we face a very difficult policy challenge. We must act to support living standards over the next year or two, mitigate the social problems that inflation is already causing and, simultaneously, divert our priorities (and our continuing borrowing) to foster much improved productivity growth.


Causes



This is a simple story. Today’s inflation demonstrates that we are poorer than we were three years ago. The value of what we, collectively, produce and earn, has shrunk, relative to the cost of the things that we seek to consume. Inflation constricts our consumption options to what we can now afford.


We are poorer for two reasons. First, because we produce and earn less domestically, and second, because the things that we don’t produce but import have become scarcer, forcing us to pay more to get them.


• Brexit caused an immediate and seemingly permanent devaluation of Sterling, raising the costs of everything that we import. It also seemingly permanently reduced our exports to the EU, our largest trading partner. No new trade possibilities are similar in scale, so there is a long-term loss of income. Moreover, increased non-tariff barriers have raised the cost of imports from the EU beyond the exchange rate effect.


• The pandemic has reduced the worldwide supply of all sorts of goods, therefore raising their prices. This is due to supply chain problems, the zero-Covid China lockdown, the reduction in UK output because a significant portion of the population is out with Covid at any time. Crops are left rotting in the fields because there aren’t enough domestic agricultural workers and, of course, no more EU farm workers.


• The war in Ukraine has escalated the costs of energy and food grains. In the future it will propel redirection of domestic resources to the production of war material, which is not edible.


Consequences



Inflation not only makes us, collectively, poorer, it differentially distributes the pain.


• Everyone in the UK could go on strike to try to raise their wages enough to maintain their real consumption. But as the pie has shrunk, that is impossible. The extra money people get will simply chase the same, smaller amount available and the prices of goods and services will rise further. If the ensuing price rises provoke further wage increases, we chase our tails. This is the wage/price spiral that the Bank of England fears.


• Some groups have more wage bargaining power than others. Perhaps the railway unions can indeed hold the country to ransom and regain their purchasing power. But then others, less empowered than railway workers, will become greater losers.


• Inflation causes a flight to real assets – houses, commodities – whose values float up with the price level. Because ownership of real assets is very unequally distributed, the asset-rich minority is likely to come out better than before while the asset-poor majority lose even more. The purchasing power of people living on fixed-return assets such as retirement annuities would be devastated by a wage/price spiral. Similarly, as interest rates rise with the price level (or even faster if the Bank of England has its way), debtors on floating rate loans will be hit hard.


• Different geographic areas have different mixes of people who would be gainers and losers from a wage/price spiral, exacerbating our substantial regional inequalities.


Cure Part 1: Near-Term Mitigation



How is it possible to offset the fall in current consumption which is provoking the wage/price spiral? People can consume more than they earn only by borrowing. The key is how that borrowing is undertaken. Households could borrow from private UK lenders, or the state could sell bonds to UK citizens and give the proceeds to other UK citizens to spend. But if all they can spend it on is the total value of UK output, that pie is shrinking. More money from borrowing would only raise prices, that is, add to inflation.


Total UK consumption can exceed the value of UK output only if the extra is imported. Because the imports are paid for in another currency, borrowing to pay for those imports must be borrowing from foreign sources. The debt (public and private) that the UK owes others must rise by the value of the excess consumption.


However, consuming more today by adding to our overseas debt isn’t a miracle cure.


• Not everything can be imported. Domestic services of all types are provided, well, domestically. GP visits and houses and hotel rooms and haircuts will cost more as a result of wage inflation, no matter the amount of net foreign borrowing. These price increases will continue to provide some impetus to a wage/price spiral and make it more likely that the Bank of England will end up pushing the economy into recession to stop it.


• The problem with debt is that you have to pay it back, and in the meantime, you pay interest on it. More consumption today means surrendering a greater amount of potential consumption in the future. Only if there is strong UK productivity growth will this foreign debt repayment not cause significant future trouble. Sadly, the UK has lagged in productivity growth among advanced economies for many years.


Cure Part 2: A More Productive Economy



The policy most likely to maintain social cohesion in the near term, and greater prosperity in the longer term, is a tricky two-step. We need to borrow to defend most people’s consumption in the next year or two, but then switch the budget to support growth and productivity-enhancing investment. Unless we do this, our debt repayment obligations will grow to unmanageable levels and meanwhile our level of consumption will continue to shrink relative to that of our peers.


Our political system has not been good at tricky two-steps. It can manage short-term stimulus, funded by debt. But for decades the UK has failed to invest sufficiently in physical, technological and human capital to create productivity comparable to our peers. The inflation crisis is a call to action. Not only to mitigate current deterioration in living standards but to build a modern economy that sustains rising living standards into the future.

Powered by

You might also like...

Check out some other posts from Aston University

Major trial shows increasing bone density fails to cut fracture risk in brittle bone disease featured image

3 min

Major trial shows increasing bone density fails to cut fracture risk in brittle bone disease

An international clinical trial involving Aston University researchers has challenged long held assumptions about how brittle bone disease is treated in adults, after finding that substantially increasing bone density did not reduce the risk of fractures. The study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), examined whether a two stage treatment using the bone building drug teriparatide followed by the bone preserving drug zoledronic acid could reduce fractures in adults with osteogenesis imperfecta, often referred to as brittle bone disease, a rare genetic condition that causes bones to break easily throughout life. Researchers followed 349 adults treated at 27 specialist centres across the UK and Europe. While the treatment led to clear increases in bone density in the spine and hip, fracture rates were no lower than among patients receiving standard care, suggesting that bone quality may matter more than bone density alone in preventing fractures in people with the condition. The findings underline a key distinction between brittle bone disease and more common bone conditions such as osteoporosis, where increasing bone density is known to reduce fracture risk. In osteogenesis imperfecta, the study suggests that bones can become denser without becoming less likely to break, indicating that the underlying quality and structure of bone tissue may play a greater role in fracture risk than density alone. Dr Zaki Hassan Smith, an endocrinologist at Aston Medical School who contributed to the research, said: “This study shows that in osteogenesis imperfecta, simply increasing bone density doesn’t necessarily translate into fewer fractures. That’s important, because it tells us that the disease is more complex than what we see on a scan. The findings help shift the focus towards understanding bone quality and how bones behave in real life, which is essential if we are to develop more effective treatments that genuinely reduce harm for patients.” Osteogenesis imperfecta is a genetic condition that affects collagen, leaving bones fragile and prone to fracture throughout life. There is currently no licensed treatment specifically approved to prevent fractures in adults with the condition, and patients often experience repeated fractures, chronic pain and long term disability. The trial tested a sequential treatment strategy commonly used in osteoporosis, where a bone building drug is followed by a treatment designed to preserve gains in bone strength. Although this approach successfully increased bone density in people with osteogenesis imperfecta, it did not reduce fracture rates, suggesting that treatment strategies effective in osteoporosis may not directly translate to rare bone diseases. Researchers did observe improvements in some quality of life measures among participants receiving the treatment, including reduced pain interference and improved mobility. However, fracture prevention remained unchanged, reinforcing the need for new approaches that target the fundamental properties of bone in osteogenesis imperfecta rather than density alone. The study was led by the University of Edinburgh and funded by the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Aston University contributed clinical and academic expertise through Aston Medical School as part of the large international collaboration, which involved specialist centres across the UK and Europe. The study was led by the University of Edinburgh, with Aston University contributing clinical and academic expertise as part of a wider international collaboration involving multiple specialist centres across the UK and Europe. The research was funded by the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Researchers say the findings provide important guidance for future research, helping to steer efforts towards treatments that focus on bone quality, strength and resilience in everyday life. They also highlight the value of large scale clinical trials in rare diseases, where learning what does not reduce harm is an essential step towards better care. The paper, Teriparatide Plus Zoledronic Acid for Osteogenesis Imperfecta, is published in JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2026.6889

Why disaster recovery in the Himalayas needs a rethink featured image

3 min

Why disaster recovery in the Himalayas needs a rethink

After five weeks of fieldwork across Nepal, Bhutan and Northwest India, Aston University researcher Dr Komal Raj Aryal is calling for a more locally grounded approach to resilience and post-disaster recovery in one of the world’s most hazard-prone regions. What happens after the headlines fade from a disaster? That question sits at the heart of new field research led by Dr Komal Raj Aryal, Lecturer in Crisis and Disaster Management at Aston Business School. After returning from a five-week research visit across Nepal, Bhutan and Northwest India, Dr Aryal says the evidence points to a troubling reality: many communities remain highly vulnerable long after major recovery programmes are supposed to have helped them rebuild. The trip brought together field visits, stakeholder consultations and community observations linked to ongoing UKRI, NERC and ISPF-supported research on earthquake risk, disaster governance, resilience and post-disaster recovery in the Himalayan region. The aim was not only to understand current conditions, but to ask why repeated losses continue despite years of international development assistance, scientific research and investment. Across the region, the research found that resilience is being undermined by a combination of persistent governance challenges, fragmented institutions, weak local preparedness systems, livelihood insecurity and mounting environmental pressures. In other words, recovery is not simply about rebuilding infrastructure; it is about whether communities are genuinely better equipped to cope with the next shock. This challenge is especially striking in places still living with the legacy of the 2015 Nepal earthquakes, where long-term vulnerabilities remain visible despite the scale of international support directed towards recovery and reconstruction. Reflecting on his findings, Dr Aryal said: “One of the most striking observations from the field is that many communities affected by the 2015 Nepal Earthquakes continue to face similar vulnerabilities today, despite significant international support allocated for recovery and reconstruction. This raises important questions about how disaster recovery is planned, implemented, and sustained over time.” The fieldwork also highlighted the growing complexity of future disaster risks in the Himalayas. Large-scale earthquakes do not exist in isolation; they interact with environmental degradation, cascading hazards, climate-related stresses and rapid urbanisation in fragile mountain settings. He added: “The Himalayan region is entering a period of growing uncertainty where environmental change, socio-economic inequality, weak governance systems, and seismic risks are becoming increasingly interconnected. There is an urgent need to rethink conventional development approaches and invest more seriously in locally grounded, community-centred resilience strategies.” For Aston University, this work reflects a broader commitment to international research on disaster risk reduction, resilience governance and humanitarian response across South Asia. Aston researchers are working with government agencies, local authorities, universities, emergency responders and humanitarian organisations to strengthen evidence-based approaches to preparedness and recovery. The findings feed into wider international debates about sustainable development, climate resilience, risk communication and the future of disaster governance in vulnerable mountain regions. They also underline the importance of moving beyond short-term recovery models towards approaches that are participatory, practical and rooted in local knowledge. Dr Aryal’s research emphasises the value of integrating community knowledge, participatory governance, youth engagement and long-term livelihood security into resilience planning. As future collaborations and policy discussions develop, these themes are likely to be central to how the region prepares for the risks ahead. The recent fieldwork is expected to inform future international research partnerships, policy dialogue and resilience-focused initiatives between the UK and South Asian partners.

Aston University economists say Prime Minister can reduce UK trade vulnerability with China visit featured image

2 min

Aston University economists say Prime Minister can reduce UK trade vulnerability with China visit

Greenland episode exposed UK’s lack of effective response to economic coercion from allies Research shows tariff retaliation would have cost the average UK household up to £324 per year Economists say China visit is “portfolio risk management” – diversification reduces vulnerability. The Prime Minister’s visit to China – the first by a British PM since 2018 – is an opportunity to reduce the UK’s vulnerability to economic coercion, according to new research from Aston University. A policy paper from Aston Business School’s Centre for Business Prosperity analyses the January 2026 Greenland tariff episode, when President Trump threatened and then withdrew tariffs on eight European countries. The researchers found that the UK had no good options: retaliation would have made Britain worse off, while absorbing the tariffs left Europe without credible deterrence. Director of the centre for business prosperity, Professor Jun Du, said: “The Greenland episode was a wake-up call. When your principal security ally threatens economic coercion, the old assumptions about who is safe and who is dangerous no longer hold. “The PM’s China visit should be framed as portfolio risk management – building diversified trading relationships that reduce the UK’s exposure to any single partner. Just as investors don’t put all their money in one stock, countries shouldn’t put all their trade into one basket. A UK with multiple strong partnerships is harder to pressure, whether the pressure comes from Washington or Beijing.” The research found that coordinated UK–EU tariff retaliation would have cost British households up to £324 per year – the worst outcome modelled. But the authors argue that Europe has untapped leverage elsewhere: the US runs a €148 billion annual services surplus with the EU, and mutual investment exceeds €5.3 trillion. Associate professor of economics and co-author, Dr Oleksandr Shepotylo, said: “Tariff retaliation fails because it hurts consumers and distorts the economy – the retaliator suffers similarly to the target. But Europe has cards it isn’t playing. Services, investment screening, and regulatory access are pressure points where Europe can respond effectively.” UK exports to China fell by 10.4% in the year to Q2 2025, with goods exports down 23.1% – the sharpest decline among major trading partners. The researchers argue that this closes off the UK’s largest alternative market at precisely the moment US reliability is in question. The paper identifies three priorities for UK policy: Recognise the permanent incentives behind US tariffs. US tariff revenue hit $264 billion in 2025. Trade negotiations alone cannot resolve revenue-driven policy. Build UK–EU coordination on non-tariff instruments. Services, investment, procurement, and regulation offer leverage that tariffs do not. Treat China engagement as portfolio risk management. Concentration in any single market creates vulnerability. Diversification is not about picking sides – it’s about resilience. Professor Du added: “The question for the Prime Minister is whether to use this breathing space to build resilience – or wait for the next Greenland.” To read the policy paper in full, click on this link:

View all posts