% annual growth rate:
|1949 – 2017||8.4||7.9|
|1961 – 1970||6.2||7.3|
|1971 – 1980||15.2||16.1|
|1981 – 1990||15.9||10.8|
|1991 – 2000||6.7||5.3|
|2001 – 2010||7.1||4.1|
|Seven years to 2017||3.8||3.6|
Sources: M4/M4X from Bank of England website and nominal GDP from IMF database, as at October 2018.
The medium-term relationship between money and nominal GDP growth in the UK, 1964-2017
Five-year moving averages of annual % changes, with 1966 being the start of the first five-year period
Comment on monetary trends in the UK
Inflation was the top political problem in the UK in the 30 years to the introduction of inflation targeting in 1992. Initially British governments tried to combat inflation by ‘incomes policies’, which involved direct administrative controls on the rate of increase in prices and wages, and led to much negotiation between government, business and trade unions. Only in the 1980s, following the advance of ‘monetarist’ ideas in the public debate, was it accepted that monetary policy – and in particular control over the rate of growth of the quantity of money – should be used to control inflation.
The table shows an obvious link between the growth of money and nominal GDP. High money growth in the 1970s and 1980s was accompanied by the highest rates of increase in nominal GDP in the five decades under examination. By contrast, the years since the Great Recession (which include the last four years) have seen both modest growth of money and the lowest rates of increase in nominal GDP. Nevertheless, claims of a link between money and expenditure, and also between money and the price level, are highly controversial in the UK. Part of the explanation is that the defeat of inflation was top priority for the Thatcher government of 1979 – 90, which is sometimes regarded as extreme in its commitment to free markets and sound money. But the main element in the official answer to the Great Recession – so-called ‘quantitative easing’ (i.e., deliberate action to boost the quantity of money), starting in March 2009 – made sense only if money was indeed related to incomes and expenditure.