Surging US imports and lower tariffs to lift global growth, IMF predicts
Global growth is forecast to be 3% in 2025 and 3.1% in 2026, according to the International Monetary Fund's (IMF) latest World Economic Outlook.
This is higher than the respective 2.8% and 3% forecast in the previous report in April.
UK gross domestic product (GDP) is predicted to be 1.2% this year, and 1.4% in 2026, unchanged from revised forecasts set out in May.
The upgrade to the world outlook reflects factors including a strong degree of trade 'front-loading' in recent months – referring to a rush of imports into the US.
This has happened as businesses and households tried to get ahead of planned increases to US tariff rates, following Mr Trump's 'liberation day' announcements in April, according to the report.
The IMF said front-loading had 'shaped economic activity in the first half of the year', adding that it was 'creating exposures that could amplify the impact of any potential negative shocks'.
For example, firms could end up having too much stock, therefore pushing down future imports, or it could lead to additional holding costs or the risk of items becoming obsolete.
Meanwhile, the growth upgrade since April was also driven by US tariffs being lowered since higher rates were first announced by Mr Trump, alongside improved conditions in the financial markets.
This came after the US struck new trade deals, including with the UK and, most recently, the EU.
The introduction of some higher tariff rates have also been paused until August, notably between China and the US, helping diffuse escalating trade tensions and open the door to negotiations.
However, the IMF warned that a 'rebound in effective tariff rates could lead to weaker growth' and weigh on wider sentiment.
'Elevated uncertainty could start weighing more heavily on activity, also as deadlines for additional tariffs expire without progress on substantial, permanent agreements,' the report said.
Furthermore, the IMF flagged conflict in the Middle East creating potential risks to global shipping and trade, which could further raise commodity prices like oil.
On the other hand, the report found that global growth could be lifted if trade negotiations lead to lower tariffs, ease tensions, and create more certainty and predictability.
The IMF also highlighted technological advancements, including the use of artificial intelligence (AI), as a way to further boost growth around the world.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves said: 'The IMF's forecasts show that the UK remains the fastest growing European economy in the G7 despite the global economic challenges we are facing.
'However, I am determined to unlock Britain's full potential, which is why we are investing billions of pounds through our plan for change – in jobs through better city region transport, record funding for affordable homes, as well as backing major projects like Sizewell C to drive economic growth and put more money into people's pockets.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
26 minutes ago
- Reuters
Trump's labor firing, Fed resignation, Russia-US and Witkoff in Gaza
Follow on Apple or Spotify. Listen on the Reuters app. U.S. President Donald Trump fires a Labor Department official over jobs data he disputes. Fed Governor Adriana Kugler has unexpectedly resigned, giving Trump an early chance to reshape the Federal Reserve. Trump orders U.S. nuclear submarines to be repositioned after a war of words with former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. And envoy Steve Witkoff visits a controversial U.S.-backed aid site in Gaza. Sign up for the Reuters Econ World newsletter here. Listen to the Reuters Econ World podcast here. Find the Recommended Listen, our new On Assignment podcast, here. Visit the Thomson Reuters Privacy Statement for information on our privacy and data protection practices. You may also visit to opt out of targeted advertising. Recommended listen: On Assignment ICE raids Further Reading Trump fires US labor official over data and gets earlier than expected chance to reshape Fed Trump orders nuclear submarines moved after Russian 'provocative statements' US envoy Witkoff visits the Gaza aid operation that the UN calls unsafe
Telegraph
26 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Reeves must break her manifesto pledge to save Britain from ruin
UK business leaders are perennially a gloomy lot, but it takes a special kind of disenchantment to make them quite as gloomy as they are now. According to the latest survey by the Institute of Directors, they are gloomier than they were even after the Brexit referendum, the onset of the pandemic, and the debacle of Liz Truss's mini-Budget. The main cause of that gloom is easily diagnosed; above all it is the near certainty of further tax rises in the autumn Budget three months from now. This hangs like a sword of Damocles over all gainful activity, with consumers already tightening their belts and firms delaying investment decisions until they know just what's coming down the road at them. Granted, you wouldn't think this on reading the International Monetary Fund's (IMF) latest assessment of the UK economy, published a week ago. This said that economic recovery was already well under way, with growth projected at 1.2pc for 2025 before gaining further momentum next year. Moreover, said the IMF, the Government's 'fiscal plans strike a good balance between supporting growth and safeguarding fiscal sustainability'. This they most certainly do not, as anyone with half an eye on what's really going on in the UK economy would know. The IMF has a habit of being overly generous to key member states, and this would appear to be a case in point. Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, might have written the report herself. The reality is a great deal different. The Chancellor's tears in the House of Commons just days after the Prime Minister pulled the rug from under her by abandoning £5bn of welfare cuts told their own story of the pressure she's under, whatever the ultimate cause. Sadly, the Labour leadership has no one to blame but itself. There have been two key errors in policy. First was the manifesto commitment not to raise any of the main sources of taxation, including value added tax, income tax and National Insurance. Second was a set of fiscal rules which though they initially allowed a considerable loosening in borrowing constraints now act like a pro-cyclical straitjacket which is forcing the Government into growth destructive measures. The Chancellor calls herself an economist, but it is clear that she doesn't properly understand the often pernicious way in which public policy interacts with commercial and consumer behaviour – or if she does, she seems to have decided to deliberately ignore it. The root of the problem is the rule that obliges the Government to balance the books on day-to-day spending in five years' time. Nobody knows what the situation might look like five years from now; your guess is as good as mine. But the rules nevertheless require the Office for Budget Responsibility to project five years into the future and adjudicate on whether the rule is met or not. The last time the OBR passed judgment, Reeves was given the thumbs-up, but only by the narrowest of margins. Things have deteriorated a lot since then, making it highly likely that the rule will be broken when the OBR next adjudicates. The obvious solution is for the Government to grit its teeth and make meaningful cuts in public spending. Sadly, this does not seem to be an option with the present lot. Despite a huge majority, Downing Street repeatedly caves at the first sign of rebellion. Large scale cuts in spending might in any case further entrench today's economic stagnation. With the big sources of taxation ruled out, Reeves is instead left casting around in the foothills of the tax system for revenue that might fill the gap. Her problem is that virtually all such options tend to evoke strong behavioural responses and therefore end up raising far less money than static costing suggests. Many of them also tend to be growth destructive, witness the exodus of non-doms and millionaires since the last tax-raising Budget. Reeves says she is strongly focused on growth in all she does, yet she has locked herself into a set of fiscal rules which oblige her to do the exact opposite. I imagine that she will continue trying to paper over the cracks in the autumn Budget with lots of itsy-bitsy revenue-raising measures which further discourage wealth creation. Her rules are non-negotiable, she insists, making it hard to see how she can credibly wriggle out of them. Presumably it would be a resigning issue. One of the unfortunate consequences of the Truss debacle is that it has made her successors almost completely beholden to the bond markets. Their terror is in some respects justified; lack of progress towards meeting the balanced budget rule is already causing distress in the gilts in the market, where yields have risen sharply and are now the highest in the G7 – higher even than the US, where fiscal profligacy has run riot, and higher than both France and Italy, both of which have larger debt burdens than the UK. Credit risk is becoming a real issue for investors in UK gilts, adding further to the Government's already crushing debt servicing costs. These are forecast to be more than 8pc of all public spending this financial year, making them bigger than the Government's entire capital spending budget. The Bank of England might mitigate the consequent waste of public money by discontinuing its ruinous programme of quantitative tightening. To be still selling off the stockpile of gilts accumulated during the era of quantitative easing looks hard to justify in current circumstances. But it wouldn't be enough to make any more than a marginal difference. When it comes to fiscal consolidation, the Government has shown itself incapable of sticking to its guns on at least three occasions now – once with the winter fuel allowance and then twice with welfare cuts. This has undermined confidence in Downing Street's commitment to almost any form of fiscal correction, with announced initiatives quickly reversed in the face of backbench pressure. The sensible thing for Reeves to do would be to abandon the current mishmash of fiscal rules, and replace them with a single, easily understood commitment to limiting the rise in overall spending to less than the rate of economic growth, subject to the operation of automatic stabilisers at times of economic contraction. She should also break the manifesto commitment not to raise any of the main sources of taxation. Cuts to National Insurance by the last government were always unaffordable given the already perilous state of the books. This could still be used as political cover for reversing them or raising one of the other big sources of tax. These two measures combined would give the markets greater confidence in fiscal sustainability, and thereby take the pressure off bond yields. This would in turn reduce debt-servicing costs, and once wealth creators were certain they are no longer a target, potentially create a virtuous circle of growth and improvement in the public finances. Will the Chancellor take my advice? Don't hold your breath.
Scotsman
35 minutes ago
- Scotsman
Why Labour's Ed Miliband is moving too quickly towards end of North Sea oil and gas
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... In the days before he was Secretary of State for Energy, Ed Miliband once described me to a group of people as his 'lift buddy'. As his office was then directly above mine, it was where we bumped into each other. Our conversations were generally about energy, and while we agreed on the need for change, we tended to differ on how, and how quickly. For me, energy security and employment, never mind keeping the lights on, are key. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad I think it's fair to describe the Energy Secretary as favouring a speedier end to all oil production. In recent days, the topic has begun to dominate the airwaves as golf course entrepreneur and US President Donald Trump, and then environment charities, threw scorn on developments of offshore wind farms. Unlikely bedfellows, and although their reasons are very different, they reflect a growing unease. READ MORE: Chancellor Rachel Reeves defends windfall tax on oil and gas giants on visit to Scotland Ed Miliband tours Balltech Engineering Solutions, which specialises in offshore wind as well as oil and gas engineering, in Morecambe (Picture: Christopher Furlong) | Getty Images For Trump there is the dual scourge of spoiling the view from his controversial golf developments on a previous Site of Special Scientific Interest on the Aberdeenshire coast, and going against his 'drill baby drill' philosophy. For his former environmental opponents, it is about protecting wildlife. While I have a lot of sympathy with the latter, I also agree with those pointing to the irony of our growing dependence on gas imports rather than using our own. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Add that to the concerns that Chinese involvement in, and control of, windfarm facilities might threaten our energy security and it seems the future picture is far from universally agreed. Oil and gas supporters have long warned that premature shutdown of the North Sea would mean importing carbon fuels from countries with fewer safeguards and damaging our carbon footprint in the process. This week their argument has been given fresh impetus as government figures show UK gas imports grew by 20 per cent between January and March this year. With damaging price increases caused by our dependence on Russian gas supplies at the outbreak of war in Ukraine still fresh in the public memory, reliance on any foreign source feels risky and even unnecessary. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Will this autumn's Budget signal a change of direction from Downing Street? The Climate Change Committee has estimated that between 13 and 15 billion barrels of oil and gas could still be needed while we work towards net zero. Experts reckon that our domestic production could only fulfil about one third of that. If it could be doubled, it would not only reduce our foreign dependence, but industry lobby group Offshore Energy UK claim it could raise more than £160 billion of useful revenue. There is no simple or cheap solution. Shutting down the North Sea now might seem on the surface like the best way to ensure net zero, but it brings a host of other obstacles to overcome. Conversely, continuing to depend too heavily on a naturally declining basin would not only delay net zero but wouldn't guarantee cheaper energy. Getting the balance right will be the key and right now I am not sure that we have it right, either to protect the climate or help the Exchequer stabilise our economy and create growth. Once the UK Parliament returns, I will be looking to my lift buddy to navigate the best route forward.
