Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T15:50:36.410Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The UK Economy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 March 2020

Extract

The latest set of official statistics and survey evidence suggests that activity remained subdued in the first half of this year, with the optimism apparent in post-election business and consumer sentiment proving to be ephemeral. However it is not unusual for there to be some delay before movements in survey responses are reflected in measured expenditure. On balance it does appear as if output has begun to stabilise and we expect a modest recovery over the second half of this year, although it is difficult to be confident about the pace at which the recovery will proceed. Any potential recovery is unlikely to prove sufficient to prevent a further year-on year fall in the level of GDP and the aftermath of the recession, in the form of rising unemployment, repossessions and business failures, can be expected to persist into 1993.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © 1992 National Institute of Economic and Social Research

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The forecast draws on the work of the whole team engaged in macroeconomic analysis at the Institute. I am grateful to Andrew Britton, Ray Barrell, Paul Gregg, David Mayes and Garry Young for helpful comments and discussions and to Helen Finnegan for preparing the charts. The forecast was completed on August 6, 1992.

References

Flemming, J.S., Price, L.D.D. and Byers, S.A. (1976),‘The cost of capital, finance and investment’, Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin, 16(2), 193205.Google Scholar
Young, Garry (1992), ‘Industrial Investment and Economic Policy’, in Andrew Britton (ed), Industrial Investment as a Policy Objective’, National Institute of Economic and Social Research, Report Series No. 3.Google Scholar