The world has suffered from a number of adverse supply shocks in recent years. First there was the credit supply shock of 2007–9 that led to a default on mortgages, a collapse in confidence in the banking system, the drying up of the inter-bank market, the freezing of lending and a global economic contraction. Then there was the COVID-19 pandemic. This shock to the the global economy led to a a fall in output and breaks in supply chains. As recovery took place, supply-side difficulties led to a surge in inflation.
Then there was the Russian invasion of Ukraine. This shock to energy and grain supplies led to rises in fuel and food prices: a cost-push inflationary shock. More recently, the closing of the Strait of Hormuz has cut off an important supply route and again sent fuel and other other prices rising.
These supply-side shocks create a dilemma for central banks. They push up inflation, but push output and employment down – a situation of ‘stagflation’.
This can be illustrated with a simple aggregate demand and supply diagram. The shock shifts the aggregate supply curve upwards to the left, illustrated by the move from SRAS1 to SRAS2. The price level rises to P2 and GDP falls to Y2.
But central bank policy is designed to affect aggregate demand, not aggregate supply. If it raises interest rates, aggregate demand will shift to the left. The price level will fall (or at least the rate of inflation will fall), but output will fall further. If it cuts interest rates, aggregate demand will shift to the right. This will help to curtail, or even reverse, the fall in GDP, but will lead to even higher prices.
For countries where their central bank has a simple inflation mandate (e.g. keeping inflation close to 2%), sticking to this target in the short term would result in higher interest rates, lower economic growth and higher unemployment – and possibly even a recession. In such cases, central banks tend to project forward beyond the short-term shock and set interest rates to target inflation in a few months’ time. Indeed, many central banks do explicitly target inflation in the medium term (1 or 2 years) rather than the short term.
Central banks, such as the US Federal Reserve Bank, which have a dual mandate of targeting inflation but also maximising employment, the trade-off between these two objectives can be stark. Getting the inflation down requires a higher rate of interest; maximising employment in the face of an adverse supply shock requires a lower rate of interest.
The short-term economic costs, let alone the human costs if the shock involves a war, can be great. People may suffer extreme hardship. The cost to the US Treasury of the first six weeks of the Iran war were estimated by the Pentagon to be some $29bn1 – which translates into higher taxes for US residents, lower government spending on non-war related items, higher government borrowing or some combination of the three. Other estimates put the cost to the US taxpayer as much higher – up to $1 trillion over the longer term.2 Then there are the costs to consumers of higher fuel and other prices, estimated at around $410 per month.3
The costs to Iranian citizens will be much higher in terms of war damage and loss of livelihood, let alone the suffering and loss of life. Then there are the costs to the rest of the world from higher prices of fuel, fertilisers and various industrial materials that are normally shipped through the Strait of Hormuz.
Long-term economic gain?
Supply shocks often expose economic vulnerabilities that can later be addressed, making supply chains more diverse and more resilient. They can give a boost to alternative technologies, such as a switch from fossil-fuels to green energy.
After the 2007–9 financial crisis, banking systems were made more robust under the Basel III system. Capital and liquidity requirements were increased and bank leverage was decreased. Many countries, such as the UK, introduced ‘ringfencing’ to separate retail banking from the riskier investment banking. This increased confidence in the banking system.
The COVID-19 pandemic gave a boost to working remotely and the establishment of more flexible work patterns. What was a necessity during lockdowns, was seen as an effective model by many companies. Fully remote or hybrid working became commonplace for many jobs that were previously done in the office. Time has allowed employers to find the best balance of in-office and remote working, with the optimum balance often varying by type of job being performed.
The rising price of oil and gas following the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, saw many countries that had been reliant on imports from Russia, accelerating their efforts to switch to renewable energy. Supply chains were re-examined and there was a move towards ‘re-shoring’, ‘near-shoring’, or ‘friend-shoring’: that is, obtaining supplies from countries that are nearer and/or more reliable as trading partners.
This approach was further boosted by the extensive tariffs imposed by the Trump second administration. One of the responses to the higher tariffs was to seek markets, both for exports and imports, away from the USA. To the extent that there is ‘re-shoring’ (substituting exports and imports for production and consumption within the country), then this amounts to deglobalisation. If this represents a move from low-cost to high-cost production and is contrary to the law of comparative advantage, then there will be a net economic loss. If, however, the reduction in risk of disruption and the boost to domestic industries allows a reduction in costs, there could be a net gain.
The most recent example of the Iran war has led many countries to reconsider sources of supply and to make their supply chains more robust and less risky. Gulf countries are considering expanding their pipeline network to avoid the Strait of Hormuz. For other countries, it is providing a further boost to green energy. Increased investment in the renewable sector will help to bring down costs and make countries less vulnerable to future conflicts involving oil-producing countries or sea passages.
To summarise: if initially adverse supply-side shocks cause a diversification and strengthening of supply chains, a diversification of energy sources, accelerated technological innovation and the adoption of new more efficient techniques, the long-term supply-side effects could be positive. Pain today for gain tomorrow?
But the short run comes before the long run and today’s costs are real and mounting. A shock may stimulate a positive response, but the current shock is persisting, and forecasts are getting more dire by the day. And even when the Iran war is over, there may be more shocks around the corner – ‘unknown unknowns’. As Keynes said: ‘In the long run we’re all dead’.
References
- Pentagon’s estimate for Iran war grows to $29B
Politico, Mark Sweney (12/5/26)
- World Politics The Iran war could cost the American taxpayer $1 trillion, says Harvard academic
CNBC, Joseph Wilkins (14/4/26)
- The Economic Costs of the Iran War
American Enterprise Institute, Roger Pielke Jr. (2/4/26)
Articles
Questions
- What policies have central banks pursued during the Iran war?
- Paint an optimistic scenario for the global economy five years hence.
- Paint a pessimistic scenario for the global economy five years hence.
- Compare the sources of supply of oil and gas for Europe directly prior to the Iran war with those directly prior to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
- Compare the relative merits of globalisation and deglobalisation. Does this depend on the nature of globalisation and deglobalisation?
The UK’s poor record on productivity since the 2008 financial crisis is well documented, not least in this blog series. Output per worker has flatlined over the 17 years since the crisis. As was noted in the blog, The UK’s poor productivity record, low UK productivity is caused by a number of factors, including the lack of investment in training, the poor motivation of many workers and the feeling of being overworked, short-termism among politicians and management, and generally poor management practices.
One of the most significant issues identified by analysts and commentators is the lack of investment in physical capital, both by private companies and by the government in infrastructure. Gross fixed capital formation (a measure of investment) has been much lower in the UK compared to international competitors.
From Figure 1 it can be observed that, since the mid-1990s, the UK has consistently had lower investment as a percentage of GDP compared to other significant developed market economies. The cumulative effect of this gap has contributed to lower productivity and lower economic growth.
Interestingly, since the financial crisis, UK firms have had high profitability and associated high cash holdings. This suggests that firms have had a lot of financial resources to reinvest. However, data from the OECD suggests that reinvestment rates in the UK, typically 40–50% of profit, are much lower than in many other OECD countries. In the USA the rate is 50%, in Germany 60–70% and in Japan 70%+. There is much greater emphasis in the UK on returning funds to shareholders through dividends and share buybacks. However, the reinvestment of much of this cash within firms could have gone some way to addressing the UK’s investment gap – but, it hasn’t been done.
Analysis by the OECD suggest that, while the cost of financing investment has declined since the financial crisis, the gap between this and the hurdle rate used to appraise investments has widened. Between 2010 and 2021 the difference nearly doubled to 4%. This increase in the hurdle rate can be related to increases in the expected rate of return by UK companies and their investors.
In this blog we will analyse (re)investment decisions by firms, discussing how increases in the expected rate of return in the UK raise the hurdle rate used to appraise investments. This reduces the incentive to engage in long-term investment. We also discuss policy prescriptions to improve reinvestment rates in the UK.
Investment and the expected rate of return
Investment involves the commitment of funds today to reap rewards in the future. This includes spending on tangible and intangible resources to improve the productive capacity of firms. Firms must decide whether the commitment of funds is worthwhile. To do so, economic theory suggests that they need to consider the compensation required by their provider of finance – namely, investors.
What rewards do investors require to keep their funds invested with the firm?
When conducting investment appraisal, firms compare the estimated rate of return from an investment with the minimum return investors are prepared to receive (termed the ‘expected return’). Normally this is expressed as a percentage of the initial outlay. Firms have to offer returns to investors which are equal to or greater than the minimum expected return – the return that is sufficient to keep funds invested in the firm. Therefore, returns above this minimum expected level are termed ‘excess returns’.
When firms conduct appraisals of potential investments, be it in tangible or intangible capital, they need to take into account the fact that net benefits, expressed as cash flows, will accrue over the life of the investment, not all at once. To do this, they use discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis. This converts future values of the net benefits to their present value. This is expressed as follows:
Where:
NPV = Net present value (discounted net cash flows);
K = Capital outlay (incurred at the present time);
C = Net cash flows (occur through the life of the investment project);
r = Minimum expected rate of return.
In this scenario, the investment involves an initial cash outlay (K), followed in subsequent periods by net cash inflows each period over the life of the investment, which in this case is 25 years. All the cash flows are discounted back to the present so that they can be compared at the same point in time.
The discount rate (r) used in appraisals to determine the present value of net cash flows is determined by the minimum expected return demanded by investors. If at that hurdle rate there are positive net cash flows (+NPV), the investment is worthwhile and should be pursued. Conversely, if at that hurdle rate there are negative net cash flows (–NPV), the investment is not worthwhile and should not be pursued.
According to economic theory, if a firm cannot find any investment projects that produce a positive NPV, and therefore satisfy the minimum expected return, it should return funds to shareholders through dividends or share buybacks so that they can invest the finance more productively.
Firm-level data from the OECD suggest that UK firms have had higher profits and this has been associated with increased cash holdings. But, due to the higher hurdle rate, less investment is perceived to be viable and thus firms distribute more of their profits through dividends and share buybacks. These payouts represent lost potential investment and cumulatively produce a significant dent in the potential output of the UK economy.
Why are expected rates of return higher in the UK?
This higher minimum rate of expected return can be explained by factors influencing its determinants; opportunity cost and risk/uncertainty.
Higher opportunity cost. Opportunity cost relates to the rate of return offered by alternatives. Investors and, by implication firms, will have to consider the rate of return offered by alternative investment opportunities. Typically, investors have focused on interest rates as a measure of opportunity cost. Higher interest rates raise the opportunity cost of an investment and increase the minimum expected rate of return (and vice versa with lower interest rates).
However, it is not interest rates that have increased the opportunity cost, and hence the minimum expected rate of return associated with investment, in the UK since the financial crisis. For most of the period since 2008, interest rates have been extremely low, sitting at below 1%, only rising significantly during the post-pandemic inflationary surge in 2022. This indicates that this source of opportunity cost for the commitment of business investment has been extremely low.
However, there may be alternative sources of opportunity cost which are pushing up the expected rate of return. UK investors are not restricted to investing in the UK and can move their funds between international markets determined by the rate of return offered. The following table illustrates the returns (in terms of percentage stock market index gain) from investing in a sample of UK, US, French and German stock markets between August 2010 and August 2025.
When expressed in sterling, returns offered by UK-listed companies are lower across the whole period and in most of the five-yearly sub-periods. Indeed, the annual equivalent rate of return (AER) for the FTSE 100 index across the whole period is less than half that of the S&P 500. The index offered a paltry annual return of 2.57% between 2015 and 2020, while the US index offered a return of 16.48%. Both the French and German indices offered higher rates of return, in the latter part of the period particularly. This represents a higher opportunity cost for UK investors and may have increased their expectations about the return they require for UK investments.
Greater perceived risk/uncertainty. Expected rates of return are also determined by perceptions of risk and uncertainty – the compensation investors need to bear the perceived risk associated with an investment. Investors are risk averse. They demand higher expected return as compensation for higher perceived risk. Higher levels of risk aversion increase the expected rate of return and related investment hurdle rates.
There has been much discussion of increased uncertainty and risk aversion among global investors and firms (see the blogs Rising global uncertainty and its effects, World Uncertainty Index, The Chancellor’s fiscal dilemma and Investment set to fall as business is baffled by Trump). The COVID-19 pandemic, inflation shocks, the war in Ukraine, events across the Middle East and the trade policies adopted by the USA in 2025 have combined to produce a very uncertain business environment.
While these have been relatively recent factors influencing world-wide business uncertainty, perceptions of risk and uncertainty concerning the UK economy seem to be longer established. To measure policy-related economic uncertainty in the UK, Baker, Bloom and Davis at www.PolicyUncertainty.com construct an index based on the content analysis of newspaper articles mentioning terms reflecting policy uncertainty.
Figure 2 illustrates the monthly index from 1998 to July 2025. The series is normalised to standard deviation 1 prior to 2011 and then summed across papers, by month. Then, the series is normalised to mean 100 prior to 2011.
Some of the notable spikes in uncertainty in the UK since 2008 have been labelled. Beginning with the global financial crisis, investors and firms became much more uncertain. This was exacerbated by a series of economic shocks that hit the economy, one of which, the narrow vote to leave the European Union in 2016, was specific to the UK. This led to political turmoil and protracted negotiations over the terms of the trade deal after the UK left. This uncertainty has been exacerbated recently by the series of global shocks highlighted above and also the budget uncertainty of Liz Truss’s short-lived premiership and now the growing pressure to reduce government borrowing.
While spikes in uncertainty occurred before the financial crises, the average level of uncertainty, as measured by the index, has been much higher since the crisis. From 1998 to 2008, the average value was 89. Since 2008, the average value has been 163. Since the Brexit vote, the average value has been 185. This indicates a much higher perception of risk and uncertainty over the past 15 year and this translates into higher minimum expected return as compensation. Consequently, this makes many long-term investment projects less viable because of higher hurdle rates. This produces less productive investment in capital, contributing significantly to lower productivity.
Policy proposals
There has been much debate in the UK about promoting greater long-term investment. Reforms have been proposed to improve public participation in long-term investment through the stock market. To boost investment, this would require the investing public to be prepared to accept lower expected returns for a given level of risk or accept higher risk for a given level of returns.
Evidence suggests that the appetite for this may be very low. UK savers tend to favour less risky and more liquid cash deposits. It may be difficult to encourage them to accept higher levels of risk. In any case, even if they did, many may invest outside the UK where the risk-return trade-off is more favourable.
Over the past 10 years, policy uncertainty has played a significant role in deterring investment. So, if there is greater continuity, this may then promote higher levels of investment.
The Labour government has proposed policies which aim to share or reduce the risk/uncertainty around long-term investment for UK businesses. For instance, a National Wealth Fund (NWF) has been established to finance strategic investment in areas such as clean energy, gigafactories and carbon capture. Unfortunately, the Fund is financed by borrowing through financial markets and the amount expected to be committed over the life of the current Parliament is only £29 billion, assuming that private capital matches public commitments in the ratio expected. It is questionable whether the Fund’s commitment will be sufficient to attract private capital.
Alternatively, Invest 2035 is a proposal to create a stable, long-term policy environment for business investment. It aims to establish an Industrial Strategy Council for policy continuity and to tackle issues like improving infrastructure, reducing energy costs and addressing skills gaps. Unfortunately, even if there is some attempt at domestic policy stability, the benefits may be more than offset by perceptions around global uncertainty, which may mean that UK investors’ minimum expected rates of return remain high and long-term investment low for the foreseeable future.
Articles
Data
Questions
- Use the marginal efficiency of capital framework to illustrate the ‘lost’ investment spending in the UK due to the investment hurdle rate being higher than the cost of capital.
- Explain the arbitrage process which produces the differences in valuations of UK securities and foreign ones due to differences in the expected rate of return.
- Sketch an indifference curve for a risk-averse investor, treating expected return and risk as two characteristics of a financial instrument.
- How does higher uncertainty affect the slope of an indifference curve for such an investor? How does this affect their investment hurdle rate?
- Analyse the extent to which the proposed polices can reduce the investment hurdle rate for UK companies and encourage greater levels of investment.
We have examined inflation in several blogs in recent months. With inflation at levels not seen for 40 years, this is hardly surprising. One question we’ve examined is whether the policy response has been correct. For example, in July, we asked whether the Bank of England had raised interest rates too much, too late. In judging policy, one useful distinction is between demand-pull inflation and cost-push inflation. Do they require the same policy response? Is raising interest rates to get inflation down to the target rate equally applicable to inflation caused by excessive demand and inflation caused by rising costs, where those rising costs are not caused by rising demand?
In terms of aggregate demand and supply, demand-pull inflation is shown by continuing rightward shifts in aggregate demand (AD); cost-push inflation is shown by continuing leftward/upward shifts in short-run aggregate supply (SRAS). This is illustrated in the following diagram, which shows a single shift in aggregate demand or short-run aggregate supply. For inflation to continue, rather than being a single rise in prices, the curves must continue to shift.
As you can see, the effects on real GDP (Y) are quite different. A rise in aggregate demand will tend to increase GDP (as long as capacity constraints allow). A rise in costs, and hence an upward shift in short-run aggregate supply, will lead to a fall in GDP as firms cut output in the face of rising costs and as consumers consume less as the cost of living rises.
The inflation experienced by the UK and other countries in recent months has been largely of the cost-push variety. Causes include: supply-chain bottlenecks as economies opened up after COVID-19; the war in Ukraine and its effects on oil and gas supplies and various grains; and avian flu and poor harvests from droughts and floods associated with global warming resulting in a fall in food supplies. These all led to a rise in prices. In the UK’s case, this was compounded by Brexit, which added to firms’ administrative costs and, according to the Bank of England, was estimated to cause a long-term fall in productivity of around 3 to 4 per cent.
The rise in costs had the effect of shifting short-run aggregate supply upwards to the left. As well as leading to a rise in prices and a cost-of-living squeeze, the rising costs dampened expenditure.
This was compounded by a tightening of fiscal policy as governments attempted to tackle public-sector deficits and debt, which had soared with the support measures during the pandemic. It was also compounded by rising interest rates as central banks attempted to bring inflation back to target.
Monetary policy response
Central banks are generally charged with keeping inflation in the medium term at a target rate set by the government or the central bank itself. For most developed countries, this is 2% (see table in the blog, Should central bank targets be changed?). So is raising interest rates the correct policy response to cost-push inflation?
One argument is that monetary policy is inappropriate in the face of supply shocks. The supply shocks themselves have the effect of dampening demand. Raising interest rates will compound this effect, resulting in lower growth or even a recession. If the supply shocks are temporary, such as supply-chain disruptions caused by lockdowns during the pandemic, then it might be better to ride out the problem and not raise interest rates or raise them by only a small amount. Already cost pressures are easing in some areas as supplies have risen.
If, however, the fall in aggregate supply is more persistent, such as from climate-related declines in harvests or the Ukraine war dragging on, or new disruptions to supply associated with the Israel–Gaza war, or, in the UK’s case, with Brexit, then real aggregate demand may need to be reduced in order to match the lower aggregate supply. Or, at the very least, the growth in aggregate demand may need to be slowed to match the slower growth in aggregate supply.
Huw Pill, the Chief Economist at the Bank of England, in a podcast from the Columbia Law School (see links below), argued that people should recognise that the rise in costs has made them poorer. If they respond to the rising costs by seeking higher wages, or in the case of businesses, by putting up prices, this will simply stoke inflation. In these circumstances, raising interest rates to cool aggregate demand may reduce people’s ability to gain higher wages or put up prices.
Another argument for raising interest rates in the face of cost-push inflation is when those cost increases are felt more than in other countries. The USA has suffered less from cost pressures than the UK. On the other hand, its growth rate is higher, suggesting that its inflation, albeit lower than in the UK, is more of the demand-pull variety. Despite its inflation rate being lower than in the UK, the problem of excess demand has led the Fed to adopt an aggressive interest rate policy. Its target rate is 5.25% to 5.50%, while the Bank of England’s is 5.25%. In order to prevent short-term capital outflows and a resulting depreciation in the pound, further stoking inflation, the Bank of England has been under pressure to mirror interest rate rises in the USA, the eurozone and elsewhere.
Articles
Blogs on this site
Information and data
Questions
- How may monetary policy affect inflationary expectations?
- If cost-push inflation makes people generally poorer, what role does the government have in making the distribution of a cut in real income a fair one?
- In the context of cost-push inflation, how might the authorities prevent a wage–price spiral?
- With reference to the second article above, explain the ‘monetary policy conundrum’ faced by the Bank of Japan.
- If central banks have a single policy instrument, namely changes in interest rates, how may conflicts arise when there is more than one macroeconomic objective?
- Is Russia’s rise in inflation the result of cost or demand pressures, or a mixture of the two (see articles above)?
World politicians, business leaders, charities and pressure groups are meeting in Davos at the 2022 World Economic Forum. Normally this event takes place in January each year, but it was postponed to this May because of Covid-19 and is the first face-to-face meeting since January 2020.
The meeting takes place amid a series of crises facing the world economy. The IMF’s Managing Director, Kristalina Georgieva, described the current situation as a ‘confluence of calamities’. Problems include:
- Continuing hangovers from Covid have caused economic difficulties in many countries.
- The bounceback from Covid has led to demand outpacing supply. The world is suffering from a range of supply-chain problems and shortages of key materials and components, such as computer chips.
- The war in Ukraine has not only caused suffering in Ukraine itself, but has led to huge energy and food price increases as a result of sanctions and the difficulties in exporting wheat, sunflower oil and other foodstuffs.
- Supply shocks have led to rising global inflation. This will feed into higher inflationary expectations, which will compound the problem if they result in higher prices and wages in response to higher costs.
- Central banks have responded by raising interest rates. These dampen an already weakened global economy and could push the world into recession.
- Global inequality is rising rapidly, both within countries and between countries, as Covid disruptions and higher food and energy prices hit the poor disproportionately. Poor people and countries also have a higher proportion of debt and are thus hit especially hard by higher interest rates.
- Global warming is having increasing effects, with a growing incidence of floods, droughts and hurricanes. These lead to crop failures and the displacement of people.
- Countries are increasingly resorting to trade restrictions as they seek to protect their own economies. These slow economic growth.
World leaders at Davos will be debating what can be done. One approach is to use fiscal policy. Indeed, Kristalina Georgieva said that her ‘main message is to recognise that the world must spend the billions necessary to contain Covid in order to gain trillions in output as a result’. But unless the increased expenditure is aimed specifically at tackling supply shortages and bottlenecks, it could simply add to rising inflation. Increasing aggregate demand in the context of supply shortages is not the solution.
In the long run, supply bottlenecks can be overcome with appropriate investment. This may require both greater globalisation and greater localisation, with investment in supply chains that use both local and international sources.
International sources can be widened with greater investment in manufacturing in some of the poorer developing countries. This would also help to tackle global inequality. Greater localisation for some inputs, especially heavier or more bulky ones, would help to reduce transport costs and the consumption of fuel.
With severe supply shocks, there are no simple solutions. With less supply, the world produces less and becomes poorer – at least temporarily until supply can increase again.
Articles
Discussion (video)
Report
Questions
- Draw an aggregate demand and supply diagram (AD/AS or DAD/DAS) to illustrate the effect of a supply shock on output and prices.
- Give some examples of supply-side policies that could help in the current situation.
- What are the arguments for and against countries using protectionist policies at the current time?
- What policies could countries adopt to alleviate rapid rises in the cost of living for people on low incomes? What problems do these policies pose?
- What are the arguments for and against imposing a windfall tax on energy companies and using the money to support poor people?
- If the world slips into recession, should central banks and governments use expansionary monetary and fiscal policies?
Global oil prices (Brent crude) reached $128 per barrel on 9 March, a level not seen for 10 years and surpassed only in the run up to the financial crisis in 2008. Oil prices are determined by global demand and supply, and the current surge in prices is no exception.
A rise in demand and/or a fall in supply will lead to a rise in the price. Given that both demand and supply are relatively price inelastic, such shifts can cause large rises in oil prices. Similarly, a fall in demand or rise in supply can lead to a large fall in oil prices.
These changes are then amplified by speculation. Traders try to get ahead of price changes. If people anticipate that oil prices will rise, they will buy now, or make a contract to buy more in the future at prices quoted today by buying on the oil futures market. This then pushes up both spot (current) prices and futures prices. If demand or supply conditions change, speculation will amplify the reaction to such a change.
What has happened since 2019?
In 2019, oil was typically trading at around $60 to $70 per barrel. It then fell dramatically in early 2020 as the onset of COVID-19 led to a collapse in demand, for both transport and industry. The price fell below $20 in late April (see charts: click here for a PowerPoint).
Oil prices then rose rapidly as demand recovered somewhat but supply chains, especially shipping, were suffering disruptions. By mid-2021, oil was once more trading at around $60 to $70 per barrel. But then demand grew more strongly as economic recovery from COVID accelerated. But supply could not grow so quickly. By January 2022, Brent crude had risen above $80 per barrel.
Then worries began to grow about Russian intentions over Ukraine as Russia embarked on large-scale military exercises close to the border with Ukraine. People increasingly disbelieved Russia’s declarations that it had no intention to invade. Russia is the world’s second biggest producer of oil and people feared that deliberate disruptions to supply by Russia or other countries banning imports of Russian oil would cause supply shortages. Speculation thus drove up the oil price. By 23 February, the day before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Brent crude had risen to $95.
With the Russian invasion, moves were made by the EU the USA and other countries to ban or limit the purchase of Russian oil. This increased the demand for non-Russian oil.
On 8 March, the USA announced that it was banning the import of Russian oil with immediate effect. The same day, the UK announced that it would phase out the import of Russian oil and oil products by the end of 2022.
The EU is much more dependent on Russian oil imports, which account for around 27% of EU oil consumption and 2/3 of extra-EU oil imports. Nevertheless, it announced that it would accelerate the move away from Russian oil and gas and towards green alternatives. By 8 March, Brent crude had risen to $128 per barrel.
The question was then whether other sources of supply would help to fill the gap. Initially it seemed that OPEC+ (excluding Russia) would not increase production beyond the quotas previously agreed by the cartel to meet recovery in world demand. But then, on 9 March, the UAE Ambassador to Washington announced that the county favoured production increases and would encourage other OPEC members to follow suit. With the announcement, the oil price fell by 11% to £111. But the next day, it rose again somewhat as the UAE seemed to backtrack, but then fell back slightly as OPEC said there was no shortage of oil.
This is obviously an unfolding story with the suffering of the Ukrainian people at its heart. But the concepts of supply and demand and their price elasticity and the role of speculation are central to understanding what will happen to oil prices in the coming months with all the consequences for poverty and economic hardship.
Articles
Data
Questions
- Use a demand and supply diagram to illustrate what has happened to oil prices over the past two years. How has the size of the effects been dependent on the price elasticity of demand for oil and the price elasticity of supply of oil?
- Use a demand and supply diagram to show what has been happening to the price of natural gas over the past two years. Are the determinants similar to those in the oil market? How do they differ (if at all)?
- What policy options are open to governments to deal with soaring energy prices?
- What are the distributional consequences of the rise in energy prices? (see the blog: Rise in the cost of living.)
- Under what circumstances are oil prices over the next six months likely (a) fall; (b) continue rising?
