The early 1980s recession was a severe economic downturn that hit most of the world between the beginning of 1980 and the beginning of 1983. It is largely regarded as the worst economic downturn since World War II. The 1979 energy crisis, which was mostly caused by the Iranian Revolution, which disrupted global oil supplies and caused dramatic increases in oil prices in 1979 and early 1980, was a major factor in the recession. The sharp increase in oil prices pushed already high inflation rates in several major advanced countries to new double-digit highs, prompting countries like the United States, Canada, West Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, and Japan to tighten their monetary policies by raising interest rates to keep inflation under control. These G7 countries all experienced “double-dip” recessions, with small periods of economic contraction in 1980, followed by a brief period of expansion, and then a steeper, lengthier period of economic contraction beginning in 1981 and concluding in the final half of 1982 or early 1983. The majority of these countries experienced stagflation, which is defined as a condition in which interest rates and unemployment rates are both high.
While some countries had economic downturns in 1980 and/or 1981, the world’s broadest and sharpest decrease in economic activity, as well as the highest increase in unemployment, occurred in 1982, which the World Bank dubbed the “global recession of 1982.”
Even after big economies like the United States and Japan emerged from the recession relatively quickly, several countries remained in recession until 1983, and high unemployment afflicted most OECD countries until at least 1985. Long-term consequences of the early 1980s recession included the Latin American debt crisis, long-term slowdowns in the Caribbean and Sub-Saharan African countries, the US savings and loans crisis, and the widespread adoption of neoliberal economic policies throughout the 1990s.
Was there a lot of inflation in the 1980s?
SNELL: So, Scott, the last time inflation was this high, Ronald Reagan was in the White House, Olivia Newton-John was everywhere on the radio, and the cool new computer was the Commodore 64, which was named after its 64 kilobytes of capacity. Oh, and a new soft drink was set to hit the market.
(Singing) Introducing Diet Coke, UNIDENTIFIED PERSON. You’ll drink it only for the sake of tasting it.
SNELL: Before Diet Coke, there was a period. And, while it feels like a long time ago, Scott, how close are we to having to go through it all again?
HORSLEY: Kelsey, you have to keep in mind that inflation was really decreasing in 1982. It had been significantly higher, nearly twice as high as it was in 1980, when annual inflation reached 14.6 percent…
HORSLEY:…Nearly twice as much as it is now. And inflation had been high for the greater part of a decade at the time. High inflation plagued Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and Jimmy Carter. And by the time Reagan took office, Americans had grown accustomed to price increases that seemed to go on forever.
REAGAN, RONALD: Now we’ve had two years of double-digit inflation in a row: 13.3% in 1979 and 12.4 percent last year. This happened only once before, during World War I.
HORSLEY: So, in comparison to the inflation rates of the 1970s and early 1980s, today’s inflation rate doesn’t appear to be all that severe.
SO IT WAS COMING DOWN. SNELL: How did policymakers keep inflation under control back then?
HORSLEY: Well, the Federal Reserve provided some fairly unpleasant medication. Paul Volcker, then-Federal Reserve Chairman, was determined to break the back of inflation, and he was willing to raise interest rates to absurdly high levels to do it. To give you an example, mortgage rates reached 18 percent in 1981. As you may expect, that did not go down well. On the backs of wooden planks, enraged homebuilders wrote protest notes to Volcker. The Fed chairman, on the other hand, stuck to his guns. Volcker was interviewed on “The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour.”
PAUL VOLCKER: This dam is going to burst at some point, and the mentality is going to shift.
HORSLEY: Now, some people may believe we’re in for a rerun when they hear the Fed is prepared to hike interest rates once more to keep inflation in check.
HORSLEY: The rate rises we’re talking about now, though, are nothing like Volcker’s severe actions. Keep in mind that interest rates were near zero throughout the pandemic. Even if the Fed raised rates seven times this year, to 2% or something, as some experts currently predict, credit would still be extremely inexpensive by historical standards. The Fed isn’t talking about taking away the punchbowl, just substituting some of the extremely sugary punch with something closer to Diet Coke. The cheap money party has been going on for a long time, and the Fed isn’t talking about stopping it.
SNELL: (laughter) OK, so there are certainly some significant distinctions between today’s inflation and the inflation experienced by the United States in 1982. Is there, however, anything we can learn from that era?
HORSLEY: One thing to remember is that inflation is still a terrible experience. Rising prices have a significant impact on people’s perceptions of the economy, and politicians ignore this at their peril. The growing cost of rent, energy, and groceries – you know, the stuff that most of us can’t live without – were some of the major drivers of inflation last month. Abdul Ture, who works at a store outside of Washington, says his money doesn’t stretch as far as it used to, so he has to shop in smaller, more frequent increments.
ABDUL TURE: Oh no, the costs have increased. Everything has gone to hell on the inside. I now just buy a couple of items that I can utilize for two or three days. I used to be able to buy for a week. But no longer.
HORSLEY: This has an impact on people’s attitudes. Price gains are expected to ease throughout the course of the year, but inflation has already shown to be larger and more persistent than many analysts anticipated.
SNELL: However, a great deal has changed in the last 40 years. Take, for example, my cell phone. It has 100,000 times the memory of the Commodore computer we discussed earlier. Is this to say that inflation isn’t as dangerous as it once was?
HORSLEY: For the most part, it appeared as if the inflation dragon had been slain for the last few decades. Workers, for example, were assumed to have less negotiating leverage in a global economy, limiting their ability to demand greater compensation. Because the economy is no longer as reliant on oil as it was in the 1970s, oil shocks do not have the same impact. However, additional types of supply shocks occurred throughout the pandemic. And when you combine shortages of computer chips, truck drivers, and other personnel with extremely high demand, you’ve got a recipe for price increases.
SNELL: You should know that both Congress and the Federal Reserve injected trillions of dollars into the economy during the pandemic. It was an attempt to defuse the situation. So, how much of that contributed to the current level of inflation?
HORSLEY: That’s something economists will be debating for a long time. Those trillions of dollars did contribute to a fairly quick recovery. Unemployment has dropped from over 15% at the start of the pandemic to 4% presently. Could we have had a faster recovery without the huge inflationary consequences? Jason Furman, a former Obama administration economic adviser, believes that the $1.9 trillion stimulus package passed by Congress this spring went too far, even if it helped to speed up the recovery and put more people back to work.
FURMAN, JASON: I’d rather have high unemployment and low inflation than the other way around. I believe there were probably better options than either of those. I believe that if the stimulus package had been half as large, we would today have nearly the same amount of jobs and much lower inflation. Who knows, though.
HORSLEY: Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell was also questioned about whether the Fed went too far. He claims that historians will have to decide on the wisdom of the central bank’s policies in years to come. In retrospect, his cigar-chomping predecessor, Paul Volcker, looks a lot better. Look out if Powell shows up to his next press appearance with a cigar in his mouth.
OLIVIA NEWTON-JOHN: Let’s get physical, let’s get physical, let’s get physical, let’s get physical, let’s get physical, let’s get physical, let’s get physical, let’ I’d like to engage in some physical activity. Let’s get down to business. Allow me to hear your body language, body language.
In the 1970s and 1980s, why did inflation soar?
- Rapid inflation occurs when the prices of goods and services in an economy grow rapidly, reducing savings’ buying power.
- In the 1970s, the United States had some of the highest rates of inflation in recent history, with interest rates increasing to nearly 20%.
- This decade of high inflation was fueled by central bank policy, the removal of the gold window, Keynesian economic policies, and market psychology.
In the 1980s, why were interest rates so high?
When discussing the current inflationary economy, it’s simple to draw parallels with recent past. The Federal Reserve of the United States tightened monetary policy in 1979 to combat inflation that had been raging since the late 1960s. The inflation rate had risen to 7.7% year over year in 1979, which is close to the figures we are seeing now. It was the Fed’s second attempt that decade to control inflation by hiking interest rates. When unemployment rates soared in 1973, the board decided to abandon its attempts to limit the money supply.
Find: Despite January’s Inflation Report, the Fed Isn’t Ready to Raise Interest Rates Right Away
However, in 1981 and 1982, Paul Volcker, the then-Chairman of the Federal Reserve, took dramatic measures to combat inflation, which had reached 11.6 percent, by raising interest rates to as high as 19 percent. While the program served to reduce inflation, it also resulted in a recession.
When economists say “This isn’t 1980,” they’re referring to the fact that current US Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell is more likely to take gradual actions to reduce inflation.
Periods ofInflation in UK
Following the inflation of the First World War, the United Kingdom experienced deflation (lower prices) throughout the 1920s and early 1930s. The tight monetary and fiscal policies, as well as an overvalued currency rate, were to blame for the deflation (Gold Standard).
In the postwar decades, the UK economy grew rapidly but inflation remained low.
Inflation, on the other hand, skyrocketed in the 1970s, hitting double digits and exceeding 25%.
The rise in oil costs was the cause of this inflation (oil prices tripled in the 1970s). Inflation was also a result of increased salaries. Unions were quite dominant at the time, and they were negotiating for greater pay to keep up with rising living costs, resulting in a wage-inflationary spiral.
The United Kingdom witnessed tremendous economic development around the end of the 1980s. This annual growth rate of 4-5 percent was much higher than the UK’s long-term trend rate. Demand-pull inflation of 8% resulted from the excessive economic growth. Take a look at the Lawson craze.
Periods of Inflation In UK
Inflation hasn’t always been a problem in the United Kingdom. There was a long period of deflation throughout the 1920s and 1930s (falling prices). Money’s worth increased as a result of this. The 1920s and 1930s were characterized by sluggish economic development and widespread unemployment.
Inflation peaked during peacetime in the 1970s, when wage and oil price pressures pushed up prices. See also: 1970s Economy
Between 2008 and 2013, the United Kingdom faced cost-push inflation. Rising oil prices, the depreciation of the pound, and higher taxes all contributed to this inflation. Cost-push inflation can be found here.
Inflation in the 1980s: what happened?
The Great Inflation was the defining macroeconomic event of the twentieth century’s second half. After the roughly two decades it lasted, the worldwide monetary system built during World War II was abandoned, four economic recessions occurred, two catastrophic energy shortages occurred, and wage and price restrictions were implemented for the first time in peacetime. It was “the worst failure of American macroeconomic policy in the postwar century,” according to one eminent economist (Siegel 1994).
However, that failure ushered in a paradigm shift in macroeconomic theory and, ultimately, the laws that now govern the Federal Reserve and other central banks across the world. If the Great Inflation was the result of a major blunder in American macroeconomic policy, its defeat should be celebrated.
Forensics of the Great Inflation
Inflation was a bit over 1% per year in 1964. It had been in the area for the last six years. Inflation began to rise in the mid-1960s, reaching a high of more than 14% in 1980. In the second half of the 1980s, it had dropped to an average of barely 3.5 percent.
While economists dispute the relative importance of the causes that have spurred and sustained inflation for more than a decade, there is little disagreement about where it comes from. The actions of the Federal Reserve, which allowed for an excessive expansion in the quantity of money, were at the root of the Great Inflation.
It would be helpful to describe the story in three distinct but related parts to comprehend this phase of particularly terrible policy, particularly monetary policy. This is a kind of forensic examination into the motive, means, and opportunity for the Great Inflation to happen.
The Motive: The Phillips Curve and the Pursuit of Full Employment
The first section of the story, the motivation behind the Great Inflation, takes place in the immediate aftermath of the Great Depression, a period in macroeconomic theory and policy that was similarly momentous. Following World War II, Congress focused on programs that it anticipated would foster better economic stability. The Employment Act of 1946 was the most prominent of the new legislation. The act, among other things, stated that the federal government’s role is to “advance maximum employment, production, and purchasing power” and called for more coordination between fiscal and monetary policy. 1 The Federal Reserve’s current twin mandate to “maintain long-run expansion of the monetary and credit aggregates…in order to achieve effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates” is based on this legislation (Steelman 2011).
The orthodoxy that guided policy in the postwar era was Keynesian stabilization policy, which was driven in part by the painful memory of the unprecedented high unemployment in the United States and around the world during the 1930s. The fundamental focus of these policies was the regulation of aggregate expenditure (demand) through the fiscal authority’s spending and taxation policies, as well as the central bank’s monetary policies. The notion that monetary policy can and should be used to manage aggregate spending and stabilize economic activity remains a widely held belief that governs the Federal Reserve’s and other central banks’ operations today. However, one crucial and incorrect assumption in the implementation of stabilization policy in the 1960s and 1970s was that unemployment and inflation had a stable, exploitable relationship. In particular, it was widely assumed that permanently lower unemployment rates could be “purchased” with somewhat higher inflation rates.
The idea that the “Phillips curve” indicated a longer-term trade-off between unemployment, which was very destructive to economic well-being, and inflation, which was sometimes seen as more of a nuisance, was an appealing assumption for policymakers who sought to enforce the Employment Act’s requirements.
2
But the Phillips curve’s stability was a dangerous assumption, as economists Edmund Phelps (1967) and Milton Friedman (1968) cautioned. “If the statical’optimum’ is chosen,” Phelps says, “it is logical to assume that participants in product and labor markets will learn to expect inflation…and that, as a result of their rational, anticipatory behavior, the Phillips Curve will progressively shift upward…” Friedman (1968) and Phelps (1967). In other words, the authorities’ desired trade-off between reduced unemployment and higher inflation would almost certainly be a false bargain, requiring ever higher inflation to maintain.
The Means: The Collapse of Bretton Woods
If the Federal Reserve’s policies were well-anchored, chasing the Phillips curve in search of lower unemployment would not have been possible. Through the Bretton Woods agreement in the 1960s, the US dollar was tied if shakily to gold. As a result, the collapse of the Bretton Woods system and the severance of the US dollar from its last link to gold play a part in the story of the Great Inflation.
During World War II, the world’s industrial nations agreed to a worldwide monetary system, which they thought would promote global trade and offer more economic stability and peace. The Bretton Woods system, hammered out by forty-four nations in New Hampshire in July 1944, established a fixed rate of exchange between the world’s currencies and the US dollar, with the latter linked to gold.3
The Bretton Woods system, on the other hand, had a number of faults in its implementation, the most serious of which was the attempt to maintain constant parity across world currencies, which was incompatible with their domestic economic goals. Many countries were pursuing monetary policies that claimed to move up the Phillips curve, resulting in a more favorable unemployment-inflation nexus.
The US dollar faced an additional challenge as the world’s reserve currency. The need for US dollar reserves expanded in tandem with global trade. For a period, an expanding balance of payments deficit met the demand for US dollars, and foreign central banks accumulated ever-increasing dollar reserves. The amount of dollar reserves held overseas eventually exceeded the US gold stock, meaning that the US could not sustain total convertibility at the current gold pricea fact that foreign governments and currency speculators were quick to note.
As inflation rose in the second half of the 1960s, more US dollars were changed to gold, and in the summer of 1971, President Richard Nixon put a stop to foreign central banks exchanging dollars for gold. The short-lived Smithsonian Agreement attempted to save the global monetary system during the next two years, but the new arrangement performed no better than Bretton Woods and quickly fell apart. The worldwide monetary system that had existed since World War II had come to an end.
Most of the world’s currencies, including the US dollar, were now entirely unanchored after the last link to gold was destroyed. Except during times of global crisis, this was the first time in history that the industrialized world’s currencies were based on an irredeemable paper money standard.
The Opportunity: Fiscal Imbalances, Energy Shortages, and Bad Data
The US economy was in a state of flux throughout the late 1960s and early 1970s. At a time when the US economic situation was already stressed by the Vietnam War, President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society Act ushered in large spending programs across a broad range of social initiatives. The monetary policy was complicated by the developing budgetary imbalances.
The Federal Reserve used a “even-keel” policy approach to avoid monetary policy actions that would conflict with the Treasury’s funding plans. In practice, this meant that the central bank would not change policy and would maintain interest rates at their current levels during the time between the announcement of a Treasury issuance and its market sale. Treasury difficulties were rare under normal circumstances, and the Fed’s even-keeled policies didn’t obstruct monetary policy implementation considerably. The Federal Reserve’s adherence to the even-keel principle, however, became progressively limited as debt difficulties became more prominent (Meltzer 2005).
The periodic energy crises, which raised oil prices and stifled US GDP, were a more disruptive force. The first crisis was a five-month-long Arab oil embargo that began in October 1973. Crude oil prices quadrupled at this time, reaching a plateau that lasted until 1979, when the Iranian revolution triggered a second energy crisis. The price of oil tripled during the second crisis.
In the 1970s, economists and policymakers began to classify increases in aggregate prices into various inflation kinds. Macroeconomic policy, particularly monetary policy, had a direct influence on “demand-pull” inflation. It was caused by policies that resulted in expenditure levels that were higher than what the economy could produce without pushing the economy beyond its normal productive capacity and requiring the use of more expensive resources. However, supply interruptions, particularly in the food and energy industries, might push inflation higher (Gordon 1975). 4 This “cost-push” inflation was also passed on to consumers in the form of higher retail prices.
Inflation driven by the growing price of oil was mainly beyond the control of monetary policy, according to the central bank. However, the increase in unemployment that occurred as a result of the increase in oil prices was not.
The Federal Reserve accommodated huge and rising budget imbalances and leaned against the headwinds created by energy costs, motivated by a duty to generate full employment with little or no anchor for reserve management. These policies hastened the money supply expansion and increased overall prices without reducing unemployment.
Policymakers were also hampered by faulty data (or, at the very least, a lack of understanding of the facts). Looking back at the data available to policymakers in the run-up to and during the Great Inflation, economist Athanasios Orphanides found that the real-time estimate of potential output was significantly overstated, while the estimate of the unemployment rate consistent with full employment was significantly understated. To put it another way, officials were probably underestimating the inflationary effects of their measures as well. In reality, they couldn’t continue on their current policy path without rising inflation (Orphanides 1997; Orphanides 2002).
To make matters worse, the Phillips curve began to fluctuate, indicating that the Federal Reserve’s policy actions were being influenced by its stability.
From High Inflation to Inflation TargetingThe Conquest of US Inflation
Friedman and Phelps were correct. The previously stable inflation-unemployment trade-off has become unstable. Policymakers’ power to regulate any “real” variable was fleeting. This included the unemployment rate, which fluctuated about its “natural” level. The trade-off that policymakers were hoping to take advantage of didn’t exist.
As businesses and families began to appreciate, if not anticipate, rising prices, any trade-off between inflation and unemployment became a less favorable trade-off until both inflation and unemployment reached unacceptably high levels. This became known as the “stagflationary age.” When this narrative began in 1964, inflation was at 1% and unemployment was at 5%. Inflation would be over 12% and unemployment would be over 7% ten years later. Inflation was near 14.5 percent in the summer of 1980, while unemployment was over 7.5 percent.
Officials at the Federal Reserve were not ignorant to the escalating inflation, and they were fully aware of the dual mandate, which required monetary policy to be calibrated to achieve full employment and price stability. Indeed, the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act, more generally known as the Humphrey-Hawkins Act after the bill’s authors, re-codified the Employment Act of 1946 in 1978. Humphrey-Hawkins tasked the Federal Reserve with pursuing full employment and price stability, as well as requiring the central bank to set growth targets for several monetary aggregates and submit a semiannual Monetary Policy Report to Congress. 5 When full employment and inflation collided, however, the employment part of the mandate appeared to have the upper hand. Full employment was the foremost objective in the minds of the people and the government, if not also at the Federal Reserve, as Fed Chairman Arthur Burns would later declare (Meltzer 2005). However, there was a general consensus that confronting the inflation problem head-on would be too costly to the economy and jobs.
Attempts to reduce inflation without the costly side effect of increasing unemployment had been made in the past. Between 1971 and 1974, the Nixon government implemented wage and price controls in three stages. These measures only delayed the rise in prices for a short time while aggravating shortages, particularly in food and energy. The Ford administration did not fare any better. Following his declaration of inflation as “enemy number one,” President Gerald Ford initiated the Whip Inflation Now (WIN) initiative in 1974, which included voluntary steps to encourage increased thrift. It was a colossal flop.
By the late 1970s, the public had come to anticipate monetary policy to be inflationary. They were also becoming increasingly dissatisfied with inflation. In the latter half of the 1970s, survey after survey revealed a deterioration in popular confidence in the economy and government policy. Inflation was frequently singled out as a particular scourge. Since 1965, interest rates have appeared to be on the rise, and as the 1970s drew to a conclusion, they jumped even higher. Business investment stagnated, productivity fell, and the country’s trade balance with the rest of the globe worsened during this time. Inflation was largely seen as either a substantial contributing factor or the primary cause of the economic downturn.
However, once the country was in the midst of unacceptably high inflation and unemployment, officials were confronted with a difficult choice. Combating high unemployment would almost surely drive inflation even higher, while combating inflation would almost certainly cause unemployment to rise much more.
Paul Volcker, formerly of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, was elected chairman of the Federal Reserve Board in 1979. Year-over-year inflation was above 11 percent when he assumed office in August, and national unemployment was slightly under 6 percent. By this time, it was widely understood that lowering inflation necessitated tighter control over the pace of increase of reserves in particular, as well as broad money in general. As mandated by the Humphrey-Hawkins Act, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) had already began setting targets for monetary aggregates. However, it was evident that with the new chairman, attitude was shifting and that greater measures to restrict the expansion of the money supply were needed. The FOMC announced in October 1979 that instead of using the fed funds rate as a policy tool, it would target reserve growth.
Fighting inflation was now considered as important to meet both of the dual mandate’s goals, even if it temporarily disrupted economic activity and resulted in a greater rate of unemployment. “My core idea is that over time we have no choice but to deal with the inflationary situation since inflation and the unemployment rate go together,” Volcker declared in early 1980. Isn’t that what the 1970s taught us?” (Meltzer, 1034, 2009).
While not perfect, better control of reserve and money expansion over time resulted in a desired slowdown of inflation. The establishment of credit limits in early 1980, as well as the Monetary Control Act, aided this stricter reserve management. Interest rates surged, decreased for a short time, and then spiked again in 1980. Between January and July, lending activity decreased, unemployment increased, and the economy experienced a temporary recession. Even as the economy improved in the second half of 1980, inflation declined but remained high.
The Volcker Fed, on the other hand, kept up the pressure on rising inflation by raising interest rates and slowing reserve growth. In July 1981, the economy suffered another recession, this time more severe and long-lasting, lasting until November 1982. Unemployment peaked at over 11%, but inflation continued to fall, and by the conclusion of the recession, year-over-year inflation had dropped below 5%. As the Fed’s commitment to low inflation gained traction, unemployment fell and the economy entered a period of steady growth and stability. The Great Inflation had come to an end.
Macroeconomic theory had undergone a metamorphosis by this time, influenced in large part by the economic lessons of the day. In macroeconomic models, the importance of public expectations in the interaction between economic policy and economic performance has become standard. The need of time-consistent policy choicespolicies that do not sacrifice long-term prosperity for short-term gainsas well as policy credibility became widely recognized as essential for excellent macroeconomic outcomes.
Today’s central banks recognize that price stability is critical to sound monetary policy, and several, like the Federal Reserve, have set specific numerical inflation targets. These numerical inflation targets have reinstated an anchor to monetary policy to the extent that they are credible. As a result, they have improved the transparency of monetary policy decisions and reduced uncertainty, both of which are now recognized as critical preconditions for achieving long-term growth and maximum employment.
In the 1980s, what happened to the economy?
The American economy was in the throes of a deep recession in the early 1980s. In comparison to prior years, the number of business bankruptcies increased dramatically. Farmers were also hurt by a drop in agricultural exports, lower crop prices, and higher lending rates. However, by 1983, the economy had recovered and enjoyed a period of continuous development, with annual inflation remaining below 5% for the rest of the 1980s and into the 1990s.
Why was unemployment so high in the United Kingdom in the 1980s?
The 1980s were a time of economic upheaval. In 1981, the government attempted to control inflation by causing a significant recession. Manufacturing was particularly hard struck by the recession, with almost 3 million people losing their jobs. Unemployment did not diminish until the mid- to late-1980s, when the economy surged during the “Yuppie-years” with rising earnings, soaring property prices, and a booming stock market. However, the “Lawson Boom” was short-lived, with inflation rebounding and finally leading to the 1991/92 recession.
The 1980s were also a time of ideological shifts and a rupture from the “postwar consensus.” The Conservative Party was influenced by free-market economists such as Milton Friedman and sought a kind of monetarism. Privatization, trade union power reduction, deregulation, and reduced income tax rates were among the supply-side reforms implemented.
Supporters of the “Thatcherite Revolution” claim that the 1980s allowed the United Kingdom to address long-standing issues such as inflation, bad labor relations, and economic decline. Critics say, however, that the 1981 recession was excessively harsh, and that supply-side policies increased inequality without improving the long-run trend rate of economic development.
UK Inflation
Inflation was a major issue in the UK (and other nations) during the start of 1980. Inflation in the United Kingdom peaked at around 20% in the late 1970s. The following factors contributed to this:
Inflation was fiercely combated by the UK government. The government has taken steps to combat inflation.
- Monetarist policies of seeking to control and meet money supply targets were pursued.
However, the tightening of fiscal and monetary policy (coupled with the high value of the Pound Sterling) resulted in a considerable drop in aggregate demand, causing the economy to enter a recession.
UK Unemployment in 1980s
Unemployment reached 3 million as a result of the severe recession, and it remained high throughout the 1980s. Unemployment was especially high in the north’s former manufacturing heartlands, Wales, and Scotland.
Unemployment was at its greatest level since the Great Depression, prompting riots in numerous inner cities during the summer of 1981.
Economic Growth and Lawson Boom
Following its recovery from the recession of 1981, the United Kingdom had a long period of economic expansion. Toward the end of the 1980s, the growth rate surpassed previous postwar highs (over 2% quarterly increase equivalent to 8% 12-month growth).
The government claimed a’supply side miracle’ had occurred as a result of numerous supply-side policies such as privatization, deregulation, and reduced trade union influence. The expectation was that the UK could now grow more quickly while avoiding inflationary pressures.
Another concern from the late 1980s was chancellor Nigel Lawson’s unofficial policy of’shadowing the D-Mark.’ By keeping an eye on the value of the pound, he was able to maintain interest rates lower than they should have been given the rate of economic development.
As GDP accelerated to 4% on an annualized basis, there were symptoms of overheating. Inflationary pressures developed as enterprises struggled to keep up with demand; inflation began to creep up. In addition, the current account deficit widened (as consumers bought more imports).
This economic expansion was followed by yet another downturn. The following factors contributed to the 1991 recession:
- In order to keep inflation under control, interest rates have risen sharply (and keep Pound at same level in ERM)
- Consumer debt levels have soared, and they were strongly affected by higher interest rates, as the economy had been overextended during the boom years.
- Following the euphoria of the boom years, there was a significant turnaround in consumer and business confidence.
UK house prices
Nominal house prices nearly tripled during the 1980s. In the south-east and London, the growth was significantly higher. The following factors contributed to the housing boom:
- Banking deregulation has enabled more mortgages to be made available, resulting in growth in the mortgage business.
However, house price rise was extremely erratic, and after the late 1980s boom, house prices plummeted in 1990-92 as a result of increased interest rates and the 1991-92 recession.
House prices rose by 30% per year at their peak in the late 1980s, but then plummeted in 1990-92.
The recession of 1981 had a significant impact on UK industrial output. This was due to deflationary fiscal and monetary policies, as well as a strong Pound, which reduced the competitiveness of exports. In the latter half of the 1980s, industrial production increased. Consumer spending was affected just as hard as industrial output during the 1991 recession.
Traditional heavy industries such as coal, steel, and shipbuilding also declined in the 1980s as UK corporations lost their comparative edge. (For more information, see Coal Industry Decline.)
UK current account in 1980s
The recession of 1980, combined with a drop in consumer expenditure, resulted in an unusual current account surplus. The UK current account, on the other hand, had risen to a deficit of over 4% of GDP by the late 1980s. This was reflected in:
- The savings ratio is declining, and the economy is unbalanced, favoring consumer spending.
- Because of London’s position as a financial center, the United Kingdom is attracting greater capital flows. These capital inflows contribute to the financing of a growing deficit.
Budget deficit
During the 1980s, government borrowing declined as a result of robust economic development and North Sea oil income.
During the boom years, the household saving ratio plummeted. However, after an interest rate boost in the late 1980s, it skyrocketed.
Why is inflation in 2021 so high?
As fractured supply chains combined with increased consumer demand for secondhand vehicles and construction materials, 2021 saw the fastest annual price rise since the early 1980s.
In the 1980s, how high did interest rates rise?
According to Freddie Mac data, interest rates reached their highest peak in modern history in 1981, when the annual average was 16.63 percent. Fixed rates began to fall after that, but by the end of the decade, they were hovering around 10%. Borrowing money in the 1980s was expensive.