Regulation at a glance

The Bank for International Settlements, the central bankers’ organisation, produced its annual report this week. It has already been criticised by some for its recommendations  but it’s still worth reading. You may not agree with the conclusions its authors come to but some of the data is interesting nevertheless.

This little chart caught my eye: regulation in a nutshell.

Screen Shot 2013-06-25 at 17.39.47

It’s based on some of the OECD data I have referred to before but it neatly shows just how low the UK’s business and employment regulation is, not only compared to other advanced economies but also to the emerging ones.

The BIS says that there is a correlation between growth and low regulation especially for those countries with highly regulated economies. It claims that if countries at the high end were to reduce their level of regulation down to the UK’s, they could increase growth by 0.25 percent annually. Alas, it doesn’t say anything about what to do when you already have one of the lowest levels of regulation in the world and your growth is still crap.

So here, then, is the UK economy. One of the lowest levels of protection for permanent employees, among the weakest protection for temporary workers and the lowest barriers to entrepreneurship of all. Despite that, many of the more heavily regulated countries, even among the lower-growth advanced economies, are still outperforming us.

Next time someone tells you the UK is over-regulated, show them this chart. Whatever hare-brained deregulation schemes the government brings in, be it Beecroft, Bastardised Beecroft, Backdoor Beecroft or plain Barmy Beecroft, none of it will make a scrap of difference to the UK’s growth or competitiveness. Britain is already a low-regulation economy. Almost everyone else has more red-tape than we do. Whatever is holding our economy back, it’s not regulation.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Regulation at a glance

  1. Pingback: Regulation at a glance - Rick - Member Blogs - HR Blogs - HR Space from Personnel Today and Xpert HR

  2. John D says:

    One thing I noticed in the OECD graphs that seemed odd: the use of ZA to represent South Africa. That would have made sense in the old days of apartheid South Africa as ZA stood for the Afrikaans term Zuid Afrika – or something like that.
    Why, I wonder, does the OECD and, presumably, the present South African government continue to use an out-of-date colonial set of initials to represent present-day South Africa?

  3. Pingback: Worth Reading 111: Unlucky in England | What You Can Get Away With - Nick Barlow's blog

  4. John D says:

    A to E: Thank you for the clarification.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s