UK Economic Crisis through Trade relations

Our world has undergone a multitude of changes in the last three years. Changes that no expert, researcher, or academician could ever predict. This has caused many inconveniences to people all over the world. Especially to people in certain geographical areas i.e. Europe with the Russia-Ukraine war, Asia with China’s turbulent stance regarding Taiwan, and the US in North America trying to make sense of how it fits in this entire picture and how to proceed further considering their own financial and economic conditions. Trying to make sense of how this smorgasbord of geopolitical events will unveil the future of our world economy is something people all over the world are trying to find the answer to.

But the main concern for this article is how the Queen’s country has fared in all of this. The story begins when a certain country decided to reclaim that which it alleged to be its own. Vladimir Putin, President of Russia attacked Ukraine to take control of Donbas, a Russian-majority colony in Eastern Ukraine. This was an attack that was met by appropriate action at that time. Governments all across the world, especially the US and the UK began placing sanctions on the warring country.

Russia’s quintessential strength is the products that it exports. Crude oil and food grains. Both these products have a large market in the European economies. Almost all of Europe’s crude oil services are rendered by Russia. Due to this inescapable fact, Europe cannot take severe action against Russia as it needs crude oil.

From the above image, we can make an inference about the crude oil and gas situation in European countries.

The Nordstream I is an engineering marvel that cost €8.8 billion. Owned by a Russian conglomerate, Gazprom it transports gas to Germany from where it gets transported to the rest of the continent. The second major producer of oil and gas in Europe is Norway. But comparing Russia’s distribution network and volume of natural resources to Norway’s, it is peanuts.

Let us understand the situation that has happened. When Russia attacked Ukraine, the West along with Europe placed sanctions on the aggressor. MNCs started pulling out of the country in response to this. This caused a financial breakdown leading to a sharp decline in the Ruble.

But Russia was not weakened by this. In response to these sanctions, Russia reduced the gas supply in the pipelines by 75%. This was leverage as now Europe was thrown into a crisis. With lesser gas being pumped from Russia, a supply-demand mismatch had been created. There is a high demand in the market for the goods, but the supply is being underutilized or cannot keep up with demand. Due to this other oil-producing nations like Saudi Arabia, America and OPEC+ have increased the price of oil.

As we can see from the above picture prices in January 2022 were at $79 per barrel, but after the war struck, they hit a high of $110 per barrel. This was damaging to the world economy as now countries that import oil had to do so at that price. Currently, the price sits at $95 per barrel.

Moreover, when this reduction in oil was done Russia forced the European countries to buy oil in Rubles which made it skyrocket in the currency market.

The above figure shows us the gas consumption in Europe. As we can see from the figure that gas consumption starts increasing in the months of September and October. It moves from 30,000 million cubic meters to almost double. Since in those months winter starts setting in. Citizens increase their use of heating devices to survive the winter. But now with decreased supply and increased prices of gas and crude oil, this winter will be the most difficult.

Due to inflated oil and gas prices electricity prices have risen drastically. To offset these prices the Chancellor of the UK government introduced the “mini-budget” on 23rd September 2022.

In the mini-budget, it was stated that the cap for electricity costs would be increased by a whopping 175%. According to the above graph, the cap before the supply cuts were at £280/MWh since average consumption would be only up to £189/MWh. But after the cuts, the cost is expected to grow to £400/MWh. Hence why the cap is at £520/MWh. This means that even if the cost of electricity were to increase to say £1000/MWh consumers would only have to pay £520. Furthermore, the loss that electricity companies would bear will be borne by the government through bonds.

This is a terrible situation for two reasons:

The above figure shows the energy expenditure of people in the low and high-income percentile. According to NIESR, a poor person who spends about £2750 on energy spends 8% of his income. But a rich person who spends £5000 on energy spends only 3% of his income.

This means that a rich person who can afford to pay £1000/MWh for energy would only have to pay £520/MWh no matter how much energy he consumes. Moreover, unlike India, the UK does not have a variable slab system that could mitigate this problem.

Now comes the second problem that snowballs into the larger issue which encompasses the UK’s entire economic crisis. To begin with, the UK has a debt of $3 trillion that it must pay. So where are they planning to finance these expenses from?

To explain the above figure, imagine a situation of bond issue:

01-09-2022£100 per bond3%
15-09-2022£90 per bond3.33%
30-09-2022£60 per bond5%

When the government first introduced bonds, the share price was £100 per bond, where the buyers were receiving £3 as interest. But if the government gets no takers then it would reduce the price to £90 per bond. But since the buyer must get the same amount of interest the percentage would increase to 3.33%. So on and so forth. This is a bad situation for any government. Giving lesser prices of bonds at a higher rate of interest is detrimental to the economy of the country.

This is exactly what the above image conveys. Borrowing costs for the government have risen by 300% in a span of 9 months. This is where the problem starts snowballing.

Currency Carry Trade

What is a currency carry trade?

Imagine there is a trader in London. He takes a loan of $1,000,000 from the Bank of America where the interest is 2%. He converts this into Pounds (£) [Exchange Rate =2, Hence £500,00] and then buys government bonds which give an interest of 4%. At maturity, he would get £520,000 which would convert to $1.04 million. Since the interest he would have to pay would be $200,000, the trader would make a profit of $200,000.

Now let’s take the situation of the UK.

As we can see the pound has fallen by almost 21.4% from January. So all traders who engaged in a currency carry trade would make huge amounts of losses.

Thus, we can see that the investors are now quitting the UK market which is further depreciating the Pound value.

This is now devolved into a debt trap. Taking all factors into consideration the energy crisis is not going to rise just because of Russia or the increased consumption in winter but also the falling pound. Therefore, The UK is now in hot waters for the winter.

But India has also been affected by this. But beneficially.

Since Russia has decreased its food grain exports, Indian exports have boomed because of this. Moreover, Russia to offset its decrease in oil and gas supply began selling to India for normal prices. This would in turn just increase prices for the UK.

This is a reason why the world economies have an issue with India since it considers trading with Russia as supporting the war.

When all is said and done UK needs to batten the hatches because it is going to be a rough ride this winter for the Englishmen and women. Alternatives for Britain and most of Europe are quite lacking. One of the alternatives could be a Nordstream II. But the first one itself took six to seven years and a humongous amount of money to build.

In the short term, the UK has a few solutions. Build a trade union with Saudi Arabia, which is taking huge advantage of the oil crisis to sell less oil and gas at higher prices. It could also bow down to Russia’s bullying and give in to its demands.

These are all the options that portray the UK in a weaker light. Yet it’s not without power. The United Kingdom controls nearly 95% of all shipping insurance companies. Shipping companies need insurance to survive as one single oil spill, one terrible storm could ruin and set back entire companies. Russian exports could be severely impacted if the UK were to use this weapon. Moreover, Indian imports of oil could also be affected by this.

The UK must play this game of chess that it has been thrust into along with the rest of Europe against Russia. Right now, the UK is in a bad state and losing. A good leader and an effective government are needed to survive. A government that brings out unconventional policies to bring Europe out of this crisis. Maybe an Indian-origin Finance Minister?

-Denver Roberts
Junior Editor, TJEF


The Washington Consensus: Steps to build an economy?

Imagine being in charge of a country which has undergone a rapid change for the worse in terms of an economic standpoint. It is definitely difficult to get the country back on track. Because of the help of the IMF and the World Bank you can now start afresh. However, it is still confusing about what has to be done to build your economy from scratch. Thankfully there are a set of rules to help you in this endeavor in setting up a self-sufficient economy known as the Washington Consensus. So let us find out what it is and how it functions.

What is the Washington Consensus?

John Williamson, an economist, first used the term “Washington Consensus” in 1989. He was discussing a set of measures that had gained acceptance among Latin American politicians in reaction to the early to mid-1980s macroeconomic unrest and debt crisis. In order to aid in the recovery from the debt crisis, these measures were also supported by specialists in Washington’s international institutions, particularly the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank as well as the US Treasury.

A note of caution, these rules are only meant to be descriptive and not prescriptive, which means that these rules do not guarantee the economy to be a success. Definitely there will have to be some considerations taken in place depending on the scenario of the country and what can actually be done depending on the ability of the government.

Maintaining fiscal restraint, reallocating public spending priorities (from subsidies to health and education spending), reforming tax law, letting the market determine interest rates, upholding a competitive exchange rate, liberalising trade, allowing inward foreign investment, privatising state enterprises, removing barriers to entry and exit, and protecting property rights are among the main Washington Consensus policies. Williamson pointed out that these policies went against what was believed to be true in developing nations, many of which adopted state-dominated systems in the 1950s.

The 10 rules of the Washington Consensus

  • Reduce national budget deficits

Large budget deficits lead to high variable tax rates. To counteract this, it was suggested to observe fiscal discipline either by raising tax revenues or by reducing domestic spending to reduce the amount of spending done by the government.

  • Redirect spending from politically popular areas toward neglected fields with high economic returns

Some aspects of public spending, such as subsidies to state-owned businesses or for the purchase of food or fuel, caused economic distortions and favored wealthier urban people over the impoverished in rural areas. Reducing subsidies for politically connected economic sectors may cost some people money, but it frees up funds for expenditure on infrastructure, education, and fundamental social services.

  • Reform the tax system

Reforms should enlarge the tax base and eliminate the exclusions that exempt some people and organizations with political ties from paying taxes. Taxation that is more inclusive and straightforward can boost productivity, increase tax revenue, and lessen tax evasion.

  • Liberalize the financial sector with the goal of market-determined interest rates

Government interest rate regulations typically penalize savers, deter investment, and stifle financial progress; restricting credit typically encourages corruption and benefits political insiders. Market-based interest rates encourage saving and ensuring that banks or the financial sector, not politicians in the government, decide how much credit is given out.

  • Adopt a competitive single exchange rate

A competitive, market-driven exchange rate can encourage export-led economic growth and alleviate balance of payments issues; avoid inflated exchange rates that deter exports and cause currency rationing.

  • Reduce trade restrictions

Trade barriers that support particular interests should be eased generally. Tariffs are better to quotas and other arbitrary trade restrictions that stifle trade since they allow for progressive reduction, local enterprises to adapt, and produce money for the government as opposed to quota rents for special interests.

  • Abolish barriers to foreign direct investment

Foreign investment that is prohibited or restricted at home gives monopolies to native companies and lessens competition. A country can increase its capital, create jobs, and develop its workforce through foreign investment, but also increasing competition for native businesses. Domestic businesses that attract FDI can encourage intellectual property breakthroughs that advance development.

  • Privatize state-owned enterprises

State-owned businesses frequently operate inefficiently and rely on subsidies from the government, which increase countries’ fiscal deficits. While some unemployment may result from privatization, these changes are more likely to boost firm productivity and profitability.

  • Abolish policies that restrict competition

Removing regulations and obstacles that prevent new firms from entering the marketplace can stimulate competition, efficiency, and economic growth.

  • Provide secure, affordable property rights

Investment and individual liberty are encouraged by a legal system that awards and preserves property rights, including the rights of those who hold land without legal documentation and work undocumented jobs in the informal sector. Owners can obtain financing thanks to private assets, which grows the economy and the revenue base of the government.

Effects of the Washington Consensus

By the middle of the 1990s, the benefits had mainly fallen short of expectations, especially in Latin America, where reforms had been pursued with particular zeal. The Washington Consensus was expanded to prescribe a longer list of adjustments in response, which is evident in the increasing number of terms and conditions associated with IMF and World Bank loans.

However, sluggish development, recurrent fiscal crises, and widening inequality cast doubt on the success of the entire project, severely harming the Washington Consensus’ political reputation. A new wave of leftist governments appeared in Latin America in the 2000s, many of which ran on platforms promising to reverse these regulations.

Major Criticisms

  1. Free trade is not necessarily advantageous for emerging economies, according to some economists. To ensure long-term prosperity, several strategic and young industries must first be preserved. These businesses can also need protection from imports in the form of subsidies or taxes.
  2. Government assistance has allowed Chinese businesses to make significant investments in Asia, Latin America, and Africa’s developing nations. These businesses frequently make infrastructural investments, opening doors for long-term trade and growth.
  3. Privatization can boost output and raise the standard of the good or service. Privatization, however, frequently causes businesses to disregard specific low-income segments or the social demands of a rising economy.


There can never be a fixed set of rules that even by theory can help to build a self-sufficient economy, the short-term impacts of these rules did not help the targeted economies, however it helped them build a strong base on which these economies can stay stable and thus helped the long-term growth of these economies. Any sets of rules can only be descriptive and not prescriptive for an economy, as each economy in itself is unique and all require different solutions for them to get through their problems. Sure, these rules could be taken as an outline, but definitely not the guidebook to build an economy.

Abishek Jeremy Lobo

Editor, TJEF



Coal Crisis in India

India has been battling a severe coal supply shortage for the past few months. The situation was critical when India saw a massive power supply shortage in October’21. It was due to a scarcity of coal, which had reached the point where 135 thermal plants in the country didn’t even have a four-day supply.

So what is fuelling this coal shortage?

Let us first understand the source of India’s coal supply. India is the second-largest consumer of coal after China. Coal accounts for 70% of India’s electricity generation. Though India is the fifth-largest holder of coal reserves which is close to 10% of the world’s share, it still imports 25% of its coal consumption. India imports 80% of its import coal requirement from Indonesia, Australia, and South-Africa. Coal India Ltd. (CIL) and Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. (SCCL), both being government-owned corporations are the major contributors to the production and dispatch of coal in India.

Causes of the Coal crisis

Global factors

Prices of coal are rising globally, seeing a gain of 160% in the last few months. This could be attributed to the reviving economy and increasing demand for electricity. The year 2020 experienced a sharp decline in demand for coal as production was halted in various industries because of the pandemic. But the reviving economy is demanding both, an increase in production as well as consumption of coal. Therefore, the imports had to be substantially curbed due to the rise in global rates building a gap between the demand and supply and leading to the supply crunch. High imports of coal by China is one of the reasons inflating the coal prices.

Source-RBI portal

High imports of coal by China is one of the reasons inflating the coal prices. Along with India, China has also been facing a energy crisis due to flooding in one of its key sources of coal. Also, it has been taking steps to reduce coal consumption to reach its carbon neutrality goals, which is not practical currently as its economy is reviving and the industries are heavily reliant on coal-sourced power.

Indonesia, being one of biggest exporters of coal has currently announced a ban on coal exports for a month due to not meeting domestic production targets. This has led to a disruption in market causing rise in price.

Rising demand for electricity

As the economy revived in 2021, India saw a 13.2% increase in demand for power and reached its all-time peak in the month of July.  As the electricity generation increased rapidly, energy crisis was unfolding as most of the thermal plants were running out of coal stock reaching critical and semi-critical inventory levels. According to Central Electricity authority, power demand in April-August 2021 was 203014 MW which was significantly higher compared to 171510 MW in the same period last year. The mismatch of demand and supply has created a disequilibrium in the market leading to increase in price of coal.

Domestic Coal production

Domestic coal production has been stagnated since 2018. Due to water logging in coal-bearing areas caused by severe rains in September and early October’21, dispatches from coal mines were hampered, resulting in lower-than-normal stock accumulation by thermal power plants in October.

Coal India Ltd. has monopoly over the coal supply as it supplies over 80% of the total supply. As per the data below, CIL has been failing to expand and instead the production is seeing a decline since 2018. Though India has the fifth-largest share of coal reserves, it is yet to ramp up its coal production.

Following data shows the production of coal during the last 10 years. The data points out the decline in production in 2020-21 which is also the first ever decline in production in the span of last 10 years.

Source -Ministry of Coal

Let us now examine the causes for India’s failure to increase coal production.

Delayed payments to coal miners and distributors

One of the major reasons for the slowing down production and supply of coal, is the high amount of dues which are yet to received by the coal mining and producing companies like CIL and SCCL

Source -Praapti portal

De-allocation decision in 2014

In 2014, government after being blamed for illegal allocation of mines, had to re-allocate as per the decision of Supreme court.  The government took this opportunity to bring in new players and actively promoted by introducing stimulus packages to attract new players in this market. It failed to work as it is a tough industry and it is very difficult to compete against an established corporation like CIL. Also CIL’s prices have always been significantly lower than the global prices and majority of thermal plants rely on CIL. Not only competing with prices would be an entry barrier, but the bureaucratic and political hurdles to pass through would be very difficult compared to CIL. Therefore, CIL continued to have the monopoly but has been the backbone of the entire coal industry.

I would like to talk about the criticality of this crisis on our economic recovery. If we think about it, Indian sources 70% of its electricity through coal, therefore it is an extremely critical issue to look into as it hampers the recovery as well as the future growth of the economy.

As we saw, there are multiple reasons why this industry has stagnated in the last few years. But one of the reasons which surprised me the most is the fact that though CIL has been always given the complete monopoly over mining and distribution, it has not improved its production. Majority of its shares is owned by the government, and it also receives tariff support from the government which allows them to keep the prices low. It was predictable that the power demand and consumption is going to rise as government designed many booster packages for the economy for its post-covid revival but government owned CIL did not prepare well for the upcoming demand. Government had also decided to curb imports, but it was practically not possible when the domestic production could not keep up with the rising demand.

The issue of delayed payments by DISCOMS might not be highlighted as much as the other causes, but it is one of the major reasons behind delayed production of coal. Operating inefficiency on part of DISCOMS leading to higher costs have delayed payments, especially state-owned DISCOMs.

As many other government-owned and controlled industries are now permitting private entrants, could coal industry too benefit from this trend? But this could only be possible if government gives them a fair chance by supporting these companies. It needs to provide support if they have to compete against prices of CIL. These new enterprises would also require significant capital, and if they are unable to attract coal consumers owing to price disparities, they will be unable to survive.

Therefore, the coal crisis being a substantial obstacle to our economic prosperity, it must be addressed at all levels.


Shilpa Jain

Editor, TJEF