logo
How the British Broke Their Own Economy

How the British Broke Their Own Economy

Yahoo03-03-2025

What's the matter with the United Kingdom? Great Britain is the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution, which ushered in an era of energy super-production and launched an epoch of productivity advancements that made many life essentials, such as clothes and food, more affordable. Today, the country suffers from the converse of these achievements: a profound energy shortage and a deep affordability crisis. In February, the Bank of England reported an ongoing productivity slump so mysterious that its own economists 'cannot account fully' for it. Real wages have barely grown for 16 years. British politics seems stuck in a cycle of disappointment followed by dramatic promises of growth, followed by yet more disappointment.
A new report, titled 'Foundations,' captures the country's economic malaise in detail. The U.K. desperately needs more houses, more energy, and more transportation infrastructure. 'No system can be fixed by people who do not know why it is broken,' write the report's authors, Sam Bowman, Samuel Hughes, and Ben Southwood. They argue that the source of the country's woes as well as 'the most important economic fact about modern Britain [is] that it is difficult to build almost anything, anywhere.' The nation is gripped by laws and customs that make essentials unacceptably scarce and drive up the cost of construction across the board.
Housing is an especially alarming case in point. The homeownership rate for the typical British worker aged 25 to 34 declined by more than half from the 1990s to the 2010s. In that same time, average housing prices more than doubled, even after adjusting for inflation, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies.
[Read: How the U.K. became one of the poorest countries in Western Europe]
The housing shortage traces back to the postwar period, when a frenzy of nationalization swept the country. The U.K. created the National Health Service, brought hundreds of coal mines under state control, and centralized many of the country's railways and trucking and electricity providers. In 1947, the U.K. passed the Town and Country Planning Act, which forms the basis of modern housing policy. The TCPA effectively prohibited new development without special permission from the state; 'green belts' were established to restrict sprawl into the countryside. Rates of private-home building never returned to their typical prewar levels. With some spikes and troughs, new homes built as a share of the total housing stock have generally declined over the past 60 years.
The TCPA was considered reasonable and even wise at the time. Postwar Britain had been swept up by the theory that nationalization created economies of scale that gave citizens better outcomes than pure capitalism. 'There was an idea that if we could rationalize the planning system … then we could build things in the right way—considered, and planned, and environmentally friendly,' Bowman told me.
But the costs of nationalization became clear within a few decades. With more choke points for permitting, construction languished from the 1950s through the '70s. Under Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, the Conservatives rolled back nationalization in several areas, such as electricity and gas production. But their efforts to loosen housing policy from the grip of government control was a tremendous failure, especially once it was revealed that Thatcher's head of housing policy himself opposed new housing developments near his home.
Housing is, as I've written, the quantum field of urban policy, touching every station of urban life. Broken housing policies have a ripple effect. In London, Bowman said, the most common options are subsidized flats for the low-income and luxury units for the rich, creating a dearth of middle-class housing. As a result, the city is bifurcated between the über-wealthy and the subsidized poor. 'I think housing policy is a major driver of a lot of anti-foreigner, white-supremacist, anti-Black, anti-Muslim attitudes among young people who are frustrated that so-called these people get free houses while they have to live in a bedsit or move somewhere an hour outside the city and commute in,' Bowman said.
[Read: The urban family exodus is a warning for progressives]
Constrictive housing policy in Britain has also arguably prevented other great cities from being born. If the University of Cambridge's breakthroughs in biotech had happened in the 19th century, Bowman said, the city of Cambridge might have bloomed to accommodate new companies and residents, the same way Glasgow grew by an order of magnitude around shipbuilding in the 1800s. Instead Cambridge remains a small city of fewer than 150,000 people, its potential stymied by rules all but prohibiting its growth.
The story for transit and energy is similar: Rules and attitudes that make it difficult to build things in the world have made life worse for the British. 'On a per-mile basis, Britain now faces some of the highest railway costs in the world,' Bowman, Hughes, and Southwood write. 'This has led to some profoundly dissatisfying outcomes. Leeds is now the largest city in Europe without a metro system.' Despite Thatcher's embrace of North Sea gas, and more recent attempts to loosen fracking regulations, Britain's energy markets are still an omnishambles. Per capita electricity generation in the U.K. is now roughly one-third that of the United States, and energy use per unit of GDP is the lowest in the G7. By these measures, at least, Britain may be the most energy-starved nation in the developed world.
Scarcity is a policy choice. This is as true in energy as it is in housing. In the 1960s, Britain was home to about half of the world's entire fleet of nuclear reactors. Today, the U.K. has extraordinarily high nuclear-construction costs compared with Asia, and it's behind much of Europe in the share of its electricity generated from nuclear power—not only France but also Finland, Switzerland, Sweden, Spain, and Romania.
What happened to British nuclear power? After North Sea oil and gas production ramped up in the 1970s and '80s, Britain redirected its energy production away from nuclear power. Even this shift has had its own complications. In the past few years, the U.K. has passed several measures to reduce shale-gas extraction, citing earthquake risks, environmental costs, and public opposition. As a result, gas production in the U.K. has declined 70 percent since 2000. Although the country's renewable-energy market has grown, solar and wind power haven't increased nearly enough to make up the gap.
The comparison with France makes clear Britain's policy error: In 2003, very large businesses in both countries paid about the same price for electricity. But by 2024, after decades of self-imposed scarcity and the supply shock of the war in Ukraine, electricity in the U.K. was more than twice as expensive as in France.
There is an inconvenient subcurrent to the U.K.'s scarcity crisis—and ours. Sixty years ago, the environmentalist revolution transformed the way governments, courts, and individuals thought about their relationship to the natural world. This revolution was not only successful but, in many ways, enormously beneficial. In the U.S., the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act brought about exactly that. But over time, American environmental rules, such as those in the National Environmental Policy Act and the California Environmental Quality Act, have been used to stop new housing developments and, ironically, even clean-energy additions. Similarly, in the U.K., any individual who sues to stop a new project on environmental grounds—say, to oppose a new road or airport—generally has their legal damages capped at £5,000, if they lose in court. 'Once you've done that,' Bowman said, 'you've created a one-way system, where people have little incentive to not bring spurious cases to challenge any new development.' Last year, Britain's high-speed-rail initiative was compelled to spend an additional £100 million on a shield to protect bats in the woods of Buckinghamshire. Finding private investment is generally difficult for infrastructure developers when the path to completion is strewn with nine-figure surprise fees.
Some of Britain's problems echo across the European continent, including slow growth and high energy prices. More than a decade ago, Germany began to phase out nuclear power while failing to ramp up other energy production. The result has been catastrophic for citizens and for the ruling government. In the first half of 2024, Germans paid the highest electricity prices in the European Union. This month, Social Democrats were punished at the polls with their worst defeat since World War II. Bowman offered a droll summary: 'Europe has an energy problem; the Anglosphere has a housing problem; Britain has both.'
These problems are obvious to many British politicians. Leaders in the Conservative and Labour Parties often comment on expensive energy and scarce housing. But their goals haven't been translated into priorities and policies that lead to growth. 'Few leaders in the U.K. have thought seriously about the scale of change that we need,' Bowman said. Comprehensive reform is necessary to unlock private investment in housing and energy—including overhauling the TCPA, reducing incentives for anti-growth lawsuits, and directly encouraging nuclear and gas production to build a bridge to a low-carbon-energy economy.
Effective 21st-century governance requires something more than the ability to win elections by decrying the establishment and bemoaning sclerotic institutions. Progress requires a positive vision of the future, a deep understanding of the bottlenecks in the way of building that future, and a plan to add or remove policies to overcome those blockages. In a U.S. context, that might mean making it easier to build advanced semiconductors, or removing bureaucratic kludge for scientists while adding staff at the FDA to accelerate drug approval.
[Read: A simple plan to solve all of America's problems]
In the U.K., the bottlenecks are all too clear: Decades-old rules make it too easy for the state to block housing developments or for frivolous lawsuits to freeze out energy and infrastructure investment. In their conclusion, Bowman and his co-authors strike a similar tone. 'Britain can enjoy such a renewal once more,' they write. 'To do so, it need simply remove the barriers that stop the private sector from doing what it already wants to do.'
Article originally published at The Atlantic

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Multiple journalists injured by police nonlethal rounds while covering LA protests
Multiple journalists injured by police nonlethal rounds while covering LA protests

USA Today

time27 minutes ago

  • USA Today

Multiple journalists injured by police nonlethal rounds while covering LA protests

Multiple journalists injured by police nonlethal rounds while covering LA protests Show Caption Hide Caption Australian journalist shot with a rubber bullet in Los Angeles Australian journalist from 9News, Lauren Tomasi, was shot with a rubber bullet while reporting from the protests in Los Angeles. Multiple members of the media have been injured by nonlethal rounds fired by law enforcement while covering dayslong protests over the Trump administration's immigration crackdown in Los Angeles, prompting the Committee to Protect Journalists to sound an alarm about the intimidation of reporters. Authorities braced for a fifth day of demonstrations on June 10, with President Donald Trump ordering the National Guard and members of the U.S. Marine Corps in a show of force against unrest. The administration's stepping in has also ignited a clash between local leaders, including California Gov. Gavin Newsom, and the federal government. As officers use force against protesters, some journalists reporting on the melee have been caught by nonlethal rubber rounds and other projectiles. Adam Rose, the secretary of the Los Angeles Press Club, has documented more than 30 incidents of reporters, photographers and other media professionals impacted by police actions that range from searching a journalist's bag to firing tear gas or rubber bullets at them. In one viral video, an officer appears to aim and take fire at Australian reporter Lauren Tomasi, who yelped in pain when she was hit in the leg. More: Australian journalist shot with nonlethal bullet while reporting on LA protests The committee, which advocates for press freedom and documents cases of journalists who are killed, imprisoned or missing, said it was "greatly concerned" by the reports of officers' shooting nonlethal rounds at reporters on the ground. "Any attempt to discourage or silence media coverage by intimidating or injuring journalists should not be tolerated,' Katherine Jacobsen, program coordinator for the Committee to Protect Journalists in the U.S., Canada and the Caribbean, said in a statement. 'It is incumbent upon authorities to respect the media's role of documenting issues of public interest.' The Los Angeles Police Department and the California Highway Patrol didn't immediately respond to a USA TODAY inquiry on the injured journalists. The department told the Committee to Protect Journalists it will investigate the incidents. LA protest updates: Newsom calls Trump's Marine deployment a 'blatant abuse of power' Journalists injured by rubber bullets, other nonlethal rounds Tomasi, the Australian reporter, was sore after being hit by the rubber bullet but otherwise unharmed, her employer Australia's 9News said. British freelance photographer Nick Stern had to undergo emergency surgery after also being hit in the leg with a nonlethal round, he told the BBC. Stern said he was covering the protests in Los Angeles on June 8 when he was hit by a 3-inch "plastic bullet," BBC reported. He said he was wearing his press credentials and wearing a big camera around his neck. "There was something hard sticking out of the back of my leg and my leg was getting wet from blood," he told the outlet. Stern told BBC protesters helped carry him away from the "danger area" and a medic applied a tourniquet. "I intend, as soon as I am well enough, to get back out there," he told BBC. "This is too important and it needs documenting." A New York Post photographer was also hit with a rubber bullet in the head, the outlet reported. Toby Canham was standing just off the 101 freeway in Los Angeles the evening of June 8 "when a California Highway Patrol (CHP) officer suddenly turned his weapon toward him and fired from about 100 yards away," the Post reported. He went to the hospital for whiplash and neck pain and had a bruise on his forehead. 'It's a real shame. I completely understand being in the position where you could get injured, but at the same time, there was no justification for even aiming the rifle at me and pulling the trigger, so I'm a bit pissed off about that, to be honest,' Canham said. Officers also shot Ryanne Mena, a reporter with the Southern California News Group, with pepper ball bullets, which contain a chemical akin to pepper spray, she said in a post on social media. Police briefly detained CNN correspondent Jason Carroll while he was on the air covering protests on June 9. In-studio anchors briefly lost contact with Carroll, who could be seen being led away by LAPD officers with hands behind his back. An officer can be heard telling Carroll: "We're letting you go. You can't come back. If you come back, you will be arrested." "You take a lot of risks as press. This is low on that scale of risks, but it is something that I wasn't expecting, simply because we've been out here all day," Carroll said. "I've covered any number of protests, and normally the officers realize that the press is there doing a job." What's happening in LA protests Protests began on June 6 in response to the Trump administration's crackdown with immigration raids in Southern California. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is carrying out a directive from Trump to find immigrants living in the United States without legal status. Protests have sprung up against the sweeps the agency is carrying out in various neighborhoods. The protests began largely peacefully after U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement sweeps near Los Angeles resulted in more than 40 arrests, but flared up when heavily armed, masked agents raided Los Angeles businesses. For several days, the demonstrations have grown and turned chaotic and sometimes violent, with police and protesters clashing in the streets. A tense standoff unfolded between the administration and California authorities, who say the use of the National Guard and U.S. Marines is an unlawful subversion of Newsom's authority. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass called Trump's escalation of military presence a "deliberate attempt to create disorder and chaos in our city." On Monday, LAPD said protesters threw objects at officers near the federal courthouse, prompting use of gas canisters and other munitions. Bass said over 100 people were arrested Monday night, blaming "fringe groups" for violence. Contributing: Thao Nguyen, John Bacon, Greta Cross and Taijuan Moorman, USA TODAY

Jillian Sackler, philanthropist who defended husband's legacy, dies at 84
Jillian Sackler, philanthropist who defended husband's legacy, dies at 84

Boston Globe

time32 minutes ago

  • Boston Globe

Jillian Sackler, philanthropist who defended husband's legacy, dies at 84

Arthur Sackler died in 1987 — nine years before the opioid OxyContin was marketed by the company as a powerful painkiller. Shortly after his death, his estate sold his share of the company to his billionaire brothers, Raymond and Mortimer, for $22.4 million. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The company's misleading advertising claim that OxyContin was nonaddictive prompted doctors to overprescribe it beginning in the 1990s. The proliferation of the medication ruined countless lives of people who became dependent on it. Advertisement In 2021, the company proposed a bankruptcy settlement in which members of the Sackler family agreed to pay $4.2 billion over nine years to resolve civil claims related to the opioid crisis. In return, they sought immunity from future lawsuits. In 2024, the US Supreme Court struck down that deal. A revised settlement was reached in 2025, with the Sacklers and Purdue agreeing to pay $7.4 billion without receiving immunity. The first payment, within three years, included $1.5 billion from the Sacklers and nearly $900 million from Purdue. Advertisement But the backlash from the crisis prompted universities and cultural institutions — including the Louvre and the Metropolitan Museum of Art — to obliterate the Sackler name from programs, buildings, and galleries, and to declare that they would no longer accept any philanthropy from the family. Jillian Sackler — a British native who was made a dame by Queen Elizabeth II in 2005 for her philanthropic work — mounted a concerted publicity campaign to absolve her husband of any complicity or culpability, repeatedly reminding the public that he had died long before the scandal erupted. While she stopped short of saying that the drug was the 'root cause' of the opioid crisis, she accused the company of misleading advertising. She told The Guardian that the other members of the family 'have a moral duty to help make this right and to atone for any mistakes made.' As for Arthur, she added: 'I think he would not have approved of the widespread sale of OxyContin.' The couple were avid art collectors and patrons. One art scholar described Arthur Sackler as 'a modern Medici.' The couple was associated with major cultural and academic institutions like the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery at the Smithsonian Institution; the Sackler Wing at the Metropolitan Museum; the Arthur M. Sackler Museum at Harvard University (now part of the Harvard Art Museums); the Arthur M. Sackler Sciences Center at Clark University; and the Arthur M. Sackler Center for Health Communications and the Sackler School of Graduate Biomedical Sciences, both at Tufts University. After Arthur Sackler died, his wife continued his philanthropic agenda. Donations from his estate and insurance benefits helped finance the Jillian and Arthur M. Sackler Wing of Galleries at the Royal Academy of Arts in London, the Arthur M. Sackler Museum of Art and Archaeology at Peking University, the Arthur M. Sackler Colloquia at the National Academy of Sciences, and Studio International, an art magazine. Their name was removed from some, but not all, of those institutions. Advertisement Gillian Lesley Tully was born on Nov. 17, 1940, in Stoke-on-Trent, in central England south of Manchester. She changed the spelling of her first name when she moved to the United States to be with Arthur Sackler, whom she met in 1967 when he was visiting London; they married in 1980. Her father, Kenneth Tully, worked at Midland Bank (now HSBC UK). He married a colleague, Doris Queenie-Gillman Smith. Ms. Sackler had a younger brother, Brian Tully, who died in 2019, leaving her no immediate survivors except for Arthur Sackler's children from an earlier marriage. Among them is Elizabeth Sackler, a philanthropist who has described the estimated $13 billion amassed by her aunts and cousins during the opioid crisis as 'morally abhorrent.' Jillian Sackler attended New York University. The couple moved into a home on Park Avenue in Manhattan, where she continued to live after her husband's death. In her role as president and CEO of the Dame Jillian and Dr. Arthur M. Sackler Foundation for the Arts, Sciences and Humanities, Sackler referred to the other branches of her husband's family as the 'OxySacklers.' In an opinion piece in The Washington Post in 2019, she wrote that her husband had been smeared through 'guilt by association.' Advertisement 'Neither Arthur nor his heirs had anything to do with the manufacture or marketing of OxyContin,' she asserted. 'Suggestions that his philanthropy is now somehow tainted are simply false.' She added: 'Arthur is not here to answer back, but I can tell you that blaming him for OxyContin's marketing, or for any other wrongdoing by the pharmaceutical industry, is as ludicrous as blaming the inventor of the mimeograph for email spam.' This article originally appeared in

Donald Trump is front and center for Army's big DC birthday parade
Donald Trump is front and center for Army's big DC birthday parade

USA Today

time32 minutes ago

  • USA Today

Donald Trump is front and center for Army's big DC birthday parade

Donald Trump is front and center for Army's big DC birthday parade Trump is poised to be president during the 250th anniversary of the nation's founding, the FIFA World Cup in 2026 and the LA Summer Olympics in 2028. Show Caption Hide Caption Military equipment headed to DC ahead of Trump's birthday parade Battle tanks, fighting vehicles and infantry carriers departed Texas for D.C. for President Trump's military parade. The June 14 parade reflects the president's vision of his role and of the nation's power. Some predict an inspiring moment of patriotism; others see an alarming echo of authoritarianism. WASHINGTON − Donald Trump loves a parade. Also palace-in-the-sky planes, gold decor in the Oval Office, the adulation of huge rallies, the company of kings (British, Saudi), and the general aura that surrounds power, wealth and royalty. The president's determination to stage a procession of America's troops and its military hardware, with 28 Abrams tanks thundering up Constitution Avenue in the nation's capital and 50 military helicopters thumping overhead, reflects his vision of his role and the nation he leads. Asserting sweeping and sometimes unprecedented powers for the presidency, he is commanding a go-it-alone United States, ready and willing to flex its muscle in the world. The last big national event, Trump's inauguration on Jan. 20, was a demonstration of tradition and shared powers: The incoming president stood on the Capitol steps, the chief justice gave the oath, members of Congress and former presidents witnessed the peaceful transition of authority. Five months later, the celebration on June 14 marking the 250th anniversary of the founding of the U.S. Army will put Trump alone front and center. Also: The parade just happens to be taking place on his 79th birthday. Trump is the happy beneficiary of the calendar. He is poised to be president not only during the 250th anniversary of the nation's founding but also the FIFA World Cup in 2026 (co-hosted with Canada and Mexico) and the Summer Olympics in Los Angeles in 2028. The confluence of events is no coincidence, he suggests. "I have everything," he boasted at a Memorial Day event at Arlington Cemetery. "Amazing the way things work out. God did that." The good fortune of Trump's 2020 defeat Whether or not it was a case of divine intervention, Trump's electoral defeat in 2020 has, with the benefit of hindsight, turned out to be serendipitous for him. The four-year interregnum not only put him in a position to preside during historic and high-profile celebrations, but it also gave him a Democratic predecessor as a whipping boy when things go wrong. It also provided the opportunity for him to solidify control of the Republican Party and for supporters to create ambitious blueprints like Project 2025 to tap when he landed a second term. It even opened the door for the parade he had set his heart on when he watched French tanks roll down the Champs-Élysées in Paris on Bastille Day in 2017. "One of the greatest parades I've ever seen," he marveled, telling French President Emmanuel Macron he wanted to "top" it. During Trump's first term, though, the Pentagon resisted. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, a retired Marine Corps four-star general, objected to the idea as a politicization of the military. In 2020, when Trump pushed again despite concerns about the coronavirus pandemic, Mattis' successor, Mark Esper, arranged instead for an array of warplanes to fly down the East Coast in an "air parade." Now, Pete Hegseth, a Trump loyalist and former Fox News host, is leading the Defense Department. The Army's plans for a low-key birthday celebration of festivals, fun runs and a commemorative stamp have now been dramatically expanded to include what the White House might call a big, beautiful parade. The sight of more than 100 combat vehicles on the ground and dozens of vintage and modern warplanes in the air should be staggering. The troops plus 34 horses, two mules, a dog named Doc Holliday and some of the vehicles will start at the Pentagon in Virginia, cross Arlington Memorial Bridge, then head to the parade route along the National Mall, joined there by the tanks. Trump will be watching from a reviewing stand just south of the White House that is now being constructed for the occasion. Paratroopers from the Army's Golden Knights are set to parachute in, land on the Eclipse and present Trump with an American flag. The president will then preside over the enlistment and reenlistment of 250 soldiers. There will be fireworks. Is it inspiring or alarming? The United States has staged military parades before, of course. At the end of the Civil War, the bloodiest conflict in American history, the Grand Review of the Armies lasted two days and featured 145,000 soldiers from the victorious Union forces marching through Washington and sometimes breaking into song. President Andrew Johnson, who had been sworn in after Abraham Lincoln's assassination a month earlier, presided. During the Cold War, President Dwight D. Eisenhower, a retired five-star general and hero of World War II, had troops, tanks and warplanes in his inaugural parade. His successor, John F. Kennedy, included troops in his inaugural parade in 1961. The last major military parade in the capital was in 1991 to mark the end of the first Gulf War, when George H.W. Bush was president. But there is not much precedent in the United States for such a massive military parade in peacetime. Like many things involving Trump, reactions clash between those who predict a stirring moment of patriotism and those who see it as an alarming echo of authoritarianism. The ritualized display of armaments and troops is more routine in places like Russia, China and North Korea, where strongmen show their force to their own citizens and the world. In the USA, liberal and pro-democracy groups have declared a "No Kings" day of protests on June 14, with anti-Trump demonstrations planned in more than 1,500 communities across the country. Trump has never been shy about demanding attention and claiming credit for his presidential record, putting himself in the top rank of the 45 men who have held the job. In his State of the Union address in March, he said that "many" believed he had just recorded the most successful first month of any presidency − with George Washington in second place. Last month, on the facade of the Agriculture Department that faces the Mall, a huge banner of Trump's face was draped between the columns alongside one of Lincoln. By the way, that's the building where thousands of the troops who will be marching in the parade will bivouac, sleeping on cots and bringing their own sleeping bags. Agriculture employees have been directed to work from home for the first three weeks of the month to clear the way for them. $45 million? 'Peanuts,' Trump says The parade's price tag? The Army has estimated the cost at $30 million to $45 million, in addition to the promise to help the D.C. government deal with the aftermath. Huge steel plates are being embedded at some intersections to protect the asphalt, but at 140,000 pounds each, the Abrams battle tanks are expected to, well, leave an impression. That could add as much as an estimated $16 million. "Peanuts," Trump said of the cost on NBC's "Meet the Press" last month, "compared to the value of doing it."

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store