It was all over for Liz Truss’s war on economic orthodoxy the moment she decided to summon Kwasi Kwarteng back from the annual meeting of the International Monetary Fund in Washington.

If the sacking of the Treasury’s top mandarin, Sir Tom Scholar, marked the beginning of the campaign against Whitehall beancounters, then the end came when Jeremy Hunt became the fourth chancellor of the exchequer of 2022.

The breathing space Truss secured by sacking Kwarteng proved to be short-lived and her replacement, Rishi Sunak, quickly drew a line under her economic experiments.

What Truss meant by the orthodoxy was the Treasury’s long-held aversion to running budget deficits and its belief that solid public finances are the bedrock of a successful economy. But for a more detailed look at the orthodoxy, here are the seven pillars of “wisdom” that differentiate the conventional from the maverick.

Pillar 1: Bank of England independence

The Bank has been free to set interest rates since granted independence by Gordon Brown in 1997, and the conviction that this makes for better policy decisions is widespread. Indeed, it was not just tax cuts that troubled the financial markets while Truss was prime minister: it was also her attacks on Threadneedle Street’s handling of monetary policy and the fear that she intended to exert stronger political control.

The case for: politicians can’t be trusted to set interest rates and the Bank (until recently at least) has done a good job in hitting the government’s 2% inflation target.

The case against: The decisions made by the Bank are deeply political even if made by technocrats. It got lucky in the early years of independence thanks to the impact of globalisation on holding back inflation.

Pillar 2: macro-economic policy is principally about control of inflation

It was not always this way. In the three decades after the second world war, the aim of policymakers was to sustain full employment through the use of interest rates, taxes and public spending. If inflation started to become a problem, it was dealt with through supply-side interventions. This all changed with the stagflation of the 1970s. Thereafter, macro policy was about keeping inflation low, while supply side policies were about raising growth rates.

The case for: Inflation is bad for growth and there is no trade-off that allows policymakers to choose a bit more growth at the expense of slightly higher inflation.

The case against: Growth, investment and improvements in productivity were all higher when full employment was the goal.

Pillar 3: growth is good

Despite the increased focus on the climate emergency, the idea that a successful economic policy requires faster growth remains an article of faith. Sunak and the Labour leader, Keir Starmer, vie with each other to come up with the most growth-friendly policies, with the only nod to alternative thinking being the caveat that growth should be “sustainable” and consistent with the UK’s climate change goals.

The case for: growth has brought great benefits over the past 250 years and is needed to fund improvements in public services.

The case against: growth is killing the planet.

Pillar 4: free movement of goods, people and money

To be truly economically orthodox means opposing trade barriers, curbs on immigration and capital controls, because all these restrictions put up barriers to economic efficiency. Most of the fast-growing countries of east Asia have used protectionism to support economic development, but most economists support the idea that trade should be liberalised, investors allowed to move their money from country to country, and migrant labour should be used to tackle skills shortages.

The case for: Protectionism means slower growth.

The case against: Without a degree of protectionism there will be no meaningful renaissance of manufacturing.

Pillar five: the state should not be in the business of picking winners

As with the shift from full employment to low inflation, this dates from Britain’s experience in the 1970s, when large amounts of public money were spent on subsidies to state-owned companies. The struggles of the car industry and the shipyards led to a strong conviction that civil servants were hopeless at deciding which sectors to support and that matters were better left to market forces. To an extent, the idea of picking winners was always a myth, since industrial policy in the 1970s was about backing losers, but the belief in a hands-off approach is ingrained.

The case for: Remember British Leyland.

The case against: Other countries – including the US – have found smart ways to nurture growth sectors of the economy through industrial policy.

Pillar six: Brexit is bad

Not all economists voted remain in the 2016 referendum but most of them did, on the grounds that it would mean weaker trade, less inward investment and a hit to productivity. Although both the Conservatives and Labour are committed to making Brexit a success, there is no doubt that the policy establishment believes the decision to leave the European Union was a mistake. This is true of domestic bodies such as the Office for Budget Responsibility and international organisations such as the International Monetary Fund.

The case for: Growth is bound to suffer if the UK cuts itself off from its main trading partner.

The case against: Brexit provides an opportunity to do things differently and rethink a failing economic model.

Pillar seven: modern monetary theory is bunk

MMT represents a real challenge to the orthodoxy because it says that budget constraints don’t really exist for countries that issue their own currency. Put simply, MMT says governments can print as much money as they need to spend because there is no risk of them going broke. This runs counter to the belief – strongly held in both the Treasury and the Bank of England – that governments should finance spending through taxation and keep a wary eye on the level of borrowing.

The case for: governments have a nerve to say MMT is dangerous, given their willingness to turn on the electronic printing presses during the global financial crisis and the pandemic.

The case against: MMT is dangerous and will lead to hyper-inflation.

The irony of Truss’s brief premiership is that challenging the economic status quo is now harder than it was before she took office. Indeed, her political epitaph is likely to be: I fought the orthodoxy and the orthodoxy won.


Larry Elliott Economics editor

The GuardianTramp

Related Content

Article image
OBR forecasts likely to show £60bn-£70bn hole after Kwarteng’s mini-budget
Predictions handed to chancellor expected to paint gloomy picture for UK economy amid sweeping tax cuts

Richard Partington Economics correspondent

07, Oct, 2022 @5:20 PM

Article image
Cliff edge looms for UK’s financial system
BoE’s move to end bond buying is a big gamble given the magnitude of the bind Britain is in

Richard Partington

12, Oct, 2022 @6:55 PM

Article image
Pound falls below $1.09 for first time since 1985 following mini-budget
Sell-off as investors take fright at prospect of surge in government borrowing to cover huge tax cuts

Richard Partington and Angela Monaghan

23, Sep, 2022 @2:03 PM

Article image
Rating agency Fitch downgrades UK credit outlook
Lack of independent forecasts at mini-budget and clash with Bank of England’s inflation strategy prompts cut

Guardian staff and agency

06, Oct, 2022 @7:06 AM

Article image
The mini-budget that broke Britain – and Liz Truss
From soaring mortgage costs to a sterling slump, the fiscal event set off a chain of chaos that led to PM’s downfall

Richard Partington Economics correspondent

20, Oct, 2022 @4:22 PM

Article image
Bank of England left in the dark ahead of new interest rate decision
With fiscal statement deferred and mixed government messaging on tax and spending the BoE has little to go on

Phillip Inman

26, Oct, 2022 @2:09 PM

Article image
Bank of England poised to raise UK interest rates to 5.25%
Fears remain over stubborn inflation but slowing economy likely to fuel more cautious approach from rate-setters, say analysts

Phillip Inman

03, Aug, 2023 @4:00 AM

Article image
Fast-rising borrowing costs putting UK public finances at great risk, warns OBR
Gloomy report says national debt could exceed 300% of GDP within next 50 years

Richard Partington and Phillip Inman

13, Jul, 2023 @11:47 AM

Article image
Five charts that will shape Jeremy Hunt’s budget
From cooling inflation to easing staff shortages, we look at the factors behind the chancellor’s spending choices

Richard Partington Economics correspondent

15, Mar, 2023 @6:00 AM

Article image
Mark Carney accuses Truss government of undermining Bank of England
Former governor’s comments come after central bank forced into £65bn intervention to avert financial crisis

Kalyeena Makortoff Banking correspondent

29, Sep, 2022 @10:31 AM