BAA - should it ever have been privatised?

Heathrow: stranded planes

One of the more frustrating aspects of evaluating whether certain industries should be privatised or operated under public ownership is that at first glance the basic economic analysis of the advantages of both is very similar. Proponents of both argue that both a nationalised and a privatised industry will be run more efficiently and  provide lower prices, more choice and better quality services for consumers. Those anti-to either both argue that they lead to organisations having no incentive to be any of the above. So, privatisation or nationalisation? As with many economic concepts, it depends.

Since the main argument for privatisation is to introduce competition into a market in order to force organisations to operate more efficiently, the areas in which it makes the least sense to release an industry from public ownership are those in which a natural monopoly operates. This is where there is really only room for one firm in a market. The privatisation of the railways - where only one company can operate on a particular line, is an example of this. The privatisation of water supply is another as it's not possible for a competitor to come in and lay more pipes. This is probably why rail maintenance had to be re-nationalised earlier this decade and why the regulation of water companies has been so controversial.

But in the news recently has been another great example of an industry which should perhaps have never been privatised, and in particular, the effects that privatisation with no chance of competition has on the behaviour of firms. This is BAA limited - privatised in 1986 and responsible for operating many British Airports - including Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted.

You'll notice immediately that BAA had a virtual monopoly of London Airports. The massive start up costs of airports and the economies of scale to be gained as they grow are enormous barriers to entry into that market, so much so that Gatwick had to be forcibly sold in 2009 - which was a first admission that privatisation hadn't worked in this industry.

You'll also notice that BAA is a private limited company. It was the British Airport Authority until 1986, then BAA plc until 2006 when it was taken over by a consortium led by a Spanish company called Ferrovial and delisted from the stock exchange. This means that those who run an industry as vital to the UK's economic health as its main airports answer to no-one. Not the government, and not the shareholders, no-one.

Hence, when last year BAA were charged with making sure there wasn't a repeat of the chaos that ensued during a tough winter in which many planes were grounded, they spent a very small amount (about £600k) on equipment that, as we have just seen, was insufficient for clearing the snow and ice that again formed on the runways at Heathrow. This grounded thousands of passengers, wrecking holidays and their travel plans.

You'd have thought it would hurt BAA too. But they ALSO operate the retail locations within the airports, in which so many passengers were stranded for so long. These locations charge a premium price, for they are also a local monopoly. They would have made a killing over the past two weeks. I am not saying BAA deliberately did this. I am talking about the difficulty they must have with incentives.

BAA lack the incentive to make long-term investments to ensure that conditions at their airports are conducive to planes arriving and leaving, because they make serious money from passengers having long stays at their airport. Furthermore, even though BAA provide a vital service to the UK, there is absolutely nothing the government can do when they don't provide that service, as they are a privately run company. Hence we have had Phillip Hammond, the Secretary of State for Transport, standing around looking sadly impotent. He offered resources to BAA to clear the runways, but BAA allegedly refused (because, he said, there is equipment (e.g. lights) embedded in the runway which needs to be protected so there is a level of expertise needed for clearing the snow and ice from a runway).

One of the main advantages of having a vital industry with long-term capital investment needs in public ownership is that those long-term capital investments can be made without worrying about short-term profits to shareholders. Even though BAA is not a public company, the consortium that bought it may have incurred debts to do so which need servicing so those profits are important. In this country, the water companies have negotiated to be allowed to raise their prices to take account of the long-term capital investment needed to maintain the country's antiquated piping system. Public ownership would mean that would not be an issue.

The point is not that Heathrow airport in particular would have been able to operate all planes under public ownership. I don't need to go into the problems that lack of competition causes in public ownership. BUT since in public ownership an industry is judged by its ability to run a service for consumers, not for its profits, there would have been more incentive over the past year to have made the long-term investment (short-term rise in costs) that would have meant this year's winter problems would not have been so serious.

Even the Daily Telegraph has raised this question...so it must be a pertinent one. After all, in the last year Manchester Airport made some large investments in airfield de-icer and other equipment, enabling it to allow UK-bound flights that couldn't land in less-snowy London to land there and some Heathrow flights to have passengers bussed up to be flown out from there.

The difference between Manchester airport and the others I've mentioned? Manchester Airport is publicly owned. Profits go to Manchester Council, not to shareholders. Can I rest my case?

"I have declared war on Mr Murdoch" - Vince Cable at his best and worst

Vince Cable

The most explosive thing that Coalition Government Business Secretary Vince Cable said to the two undercover Daily Telegraph reporters in the recent sting operation was actually not immediately printed by the paper for quite an obvious reason. When asked what battles he has been fighting with the Tories he said that he has been "picking his fights" and when pressed for an example he said "I don't know if you have been following what has been happening with the Murdoch press, where I have declared war on Mr Murdoch and I think we are going to win".

Rupert Murdoch is attempting to buy the remainder of BskyB at the moment. The EU Competition Commission has said today they see no problem with this on competition grounds, so the decision on whether it can happen falls to...the Business Secretary (Cable), who can refer the case to the Competition Commission but then acts on their advice. As a Government Minister, the Business Secretary should remain above having opinions on decisions like this. But Cable says he has "declared war on Mr Murdoch" and "we are going to win" - so he obviously feels he isn't above having opinions.

Why didn't the Daily Telegraph publish these comments at first (eventually, after Robert Peston of the BBC released the comments having been passed them by a Telegraph Whistleblower, they published them at 3pm)? Well, the Daily Telegraph doesn't want Murdoch to be able to acquire BSkyB, but knew that these comments by Cable would prejudice the inquiry, and lead to News International (Murdoch's company) having immediate grounds for appeal against any decision he makes. Why doesn't the Telegraph (a newspaper group) want News International to buy BSkyB (a satelitte television company)? Well, this is where the media world is about to become really very interesting, and to explain we need to go back to an announcement by James Murdoch, son of Rupert, who was BSkyB CEO back in 2004.

James Murdoch

Having taken over from Tony Ball and observed the crumbling infrastructure around the company, both in housing employees and serving customers, James Murdoch announced that there would need to be a massive amount of investment in upgrading the ability of Sky to serve their end of 2010 customer target of 10 million, a number which seemed like pie in the sky (no pun intended) at the time. In a portent of the short-term thinking that precipitated the recent financial crisis, banking analysts said that this was absolutely the best strategy for Sky to undertake long-term, but since short-term profits would be affected, investors should sell. Sure enough, Sky shares halved in value, but now, here we are, at the end of 2010, and BSkyB have 10 million subscribers.

This means they can change their business model from acquiring customers to retaining customers, which essentially means their costs could be cut by about 80% and the profits will start to really roll in.

The issue that the other major newspaper groups have is that News International, should they acquire 100% of BSkyB, will have access to 100% of those massive profits, and COULD use them to cross-subsidise a massive price cut at the newspapers that they own (The Sun, News of the World, The Times, The Sunday Times), which account for 26% of the British Newspaper industry. This could effectively put their competitors out of business.

Rupert Murdoch

It also creates a hugh media empire, with an annual turnover of £7.5 billion, compared with £4.8 billion for the BBC. This  creates a media dominance, granting Rupert Murdoch huge power, leading to a continuance of his already enormous influence on British politics, and is why the BBC, joined with the owners of the Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail, The Guardian and the Mirror write to Vince Cable in October urging him to block the deal.

The European Commission gave the green light to the deal yesterday - although they did solely focus on competition issues, and left the way open for the UK to decide whether or not to take appropriate measures to protect media plurality (power in the media is shared by many). Ofcom, the media regulator, will advise Jeremy Hunt (the Culture Secretary who yesterday had this lumped into his intray) on what to do about any public interest issues.

The European Commission's officials have already looked into many of the issues being investigated by Ofcom. In particular the possible "bundling" of cut-price combined subscriptions to its papers and Sky Channels. They argued that "price is only one, and not the main factor in determining readers' choice of and loyalty to a newspaper." If you want to see what this means, go up to a Guardian reader (cost: £1) and offer them the Daily Telegraph for 20p instead....it's just not going to happen!

Ultimately, the case against the full takeover of BSkyB rests upon what Rupert Murdoch and News International MIGHT do once they have it. News International's entire legal defence against this could be "but we won't do that" and the Government could extract legal commitments that they won't bundle newspapers and pay-TV subscriptions and won't use predatory pricing to force others out of business. Of course, then we get into the whole issue of whether THAT is in the public interest. What if you are a Sky subscriber and a Sun or Times reader? Are you not allowed access to lower prices then?

There is also the issue of Murdoch's political influence. There is no doubt that the courting of News International's support has been one of the main strategies of political parties, certainly this year and 1997, and when that support does change it does have a huge influence on voters.

Others cite what they say is the pernicious effect on US politics of Murdoch's Fox News Channel's one-sided coverage of it. Here is a great example of where two countries are divided by a common language. In this country BBC1, BBC2 and BBC News have a 73.5% share of broadcast news viewers and Sky News has 6.3%. In this country we have proper public television stations, with a commitment to neutrality. The US don't, which is why their politics is so partisan, and this is fuelled by the extremism of both Fox News on the right and MSNBC on the left. Fox News is the result of privatising news, meaning business people use it to chase profits, and right-wing views mean money over there. So there is little here to justify the regulator turning down this deal.

As for the Business Secretary himself there are some issues here.  Once again it suggests that Cable was very comfortable in a protest party but far less comfortable in a party which shares government responsibility. It also shows him to be very aware of his own value to the success of the coalition (given he commented that he could always resign and bring the government down if he really didn't like what was happening). In fairness, it also shows Vince Cable doing what he does that made him popular, speaking candidly and openly in answers to questions. It is an unfortunate fact for Cable that the collective responsibility ethos of being a Cabinet Minister means he probably needs to stop doing that so much...especially during what he thought was a normal constituency surgery meeting.

Why "Climate change agreement" may be an oxymoron

At the end of a lesson on environmental politics last summer a student slammed her textbook on the table and wearily commented that "the study of global politics is basically learning why nothing will ever get better". To be fair to her, we had just covered poverty and global warming, both topics rather doom-laden, but in some ways she was right.

Look at the attempts to claim that the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) in Cancun that finished this weekend was a success: If you had told activists two years ago that they would claim that a 2010 agreement that covered adaptation financing (which accepts climate change is happening and prepares countries for it) and technology transfer (sharing the knowledge and skills to make production greener) but doesn't commit anyone to a monitored reduction in emissions they would have thought you mad. But the car crash that was Copenhagen has refocused expectations - and it has left the simple fact that the UN is actually capable of facing in the right direction on climate change as a sign of real progress.

So why is it that we can't get a global agreement on such an important issue as how to stop climate change?

1) The question of the science - despite the sheer weight of science available to prove that climate change is happening and that it has been caused and can be reduced by human behaviour there are many who are sceptical about the science. The science community itself hasn't helped itself by seeming so unwilling to discuss and publish any sceptical studies and there has also been the "climate-gate" scandal of last year involving the alleged hiding of data which suggests there was something to hide. Something to think about is this: If climate change IS happening and we DON'T do anything about it, the results could be catastrophic for all. If climate change ISN'T happening and we DO something about it, the result could be slower economic growth for many countries. Which is worse?

2) The tragedy of the Commons - the term was coined by Garret Hardin in 1968, who said that  - "where there is unrestricted access to a resource owned by no-one, there will be an incentive for individuals to grab as much as they can, and if the resource is finite there will come a time when it is ruined by over-exploitation as the short-term interests of individual users overwhelm the longer-run collective interests" - The resource in this case is our atmosphere and the pollution caused by emissions is the problem. Hardin's solution was to 'privatise' the resource - as if someone owns something they will be incentivised to look after it long-term, and then have central world government regulate their use.  BUT the emissions causing climate change are a 'transboundary' problem - in that it crosses national borders AND it is physically impossible to enclose the area which is being polluted AND there is no effective global governance available, mainly because so many countries will not allow their sovereignty to be infringed by global governance. Many will point to the way that the 'Montreal Protocol' solved the problem of the hole in the ozone layer 20 years ago. But this was a "point-source issue" - we managed to isolate the cause of those (CFCs from aerosols and fridges) and resolve the problem. With global warming there is debate over the causes and the sources and so it is much more difficult to know what will resolve the problem.

3) Sovereignty and the national interest - the three principles of sovereignty are that nation states are responsible for their subjects' security, liberty and prosperity. During a recession in the USA is it really possible to tell senators from "rustbelt" states dependent on coal mining, steel manufacturing and heavy manufacturing that they must sign up to action on climate change which could cost many thousands of jobs? Are UK citizens going to sign up to electricity bills rising by 25% and be happy to see the economy shrink by 1% by 2020 in order to achieve emissions targets (as Lord Turner - the government's climate change adviser has admitted)?Are China's government ever going to be persuaded to allow international monitoring of their emissions, given they won't allow even internal monitoring of their actions?

4) Will governments take on consumers? - Western democracies value choice. Will consumers REALLY accept having their choices dictated by government - which is ultimately what will need to happen in order to persuade companies to change production techniques enough make the necessary emissions reductions? Given numerous surveys still put climate change as low on voters' priorities, wouldn't the restrictions on energy use required not be politically unpalatable? Will banks accept being directed to lend money for green infrastructure projects without government guarantees? Terry Leahy of Tesco says that given they operate in such a competitive market they need to give customers what they want - so he needs customers to change first. Will they do so without government coercion? Will they accept that coercion?

5) Common but differentiated responsibities - the 1992 UNFCCC ('Rio Summit') developed the key principle that although all nations had to accept responsibility for the world's climate, it was developed nations that were immediately responsible as they had benefitted from the industrialisation which was regarded as the cause of the excess CO2 emissions which had caused the climate change. The USA emits around 25% of the global total but has only 4.5% of the world's population. Chinese figures are 14% and over 20% of the world's population. The 35 least developed nations emit under 1% yet account for over 10% of the world's population. So it would have to be the developed countries that lead the way in making reductions. The Kyoto Protocol in 1997 then committed only developed countries to make reductions. This led to the US Senate passing the Byrd-Hagel resolution making it clear it would not ratify any agreement where developing nations - many of whom were already economic competitors to the US, did not also have to make emissions reductions. They have said that they want China and India to commit to emission reductions - leading to an Indian Foreign Minister saying this was like "Guys with gross obesity telling guys just emerging from emiaction to go on a major diet". Common but differentiated responsibilities sounds ok in theory but will it happen in practice?

6) The primacy of economic development - As I mentioned in an earlier article on them, China has 200m inhabitants still living in absolute poverty. The priority of their government is to remove them from that poverty. The UK once had many inhabitants in absolute poverty. They solved it by industrialising on a massive scale, regardless of the emissions that result. So did the USA. So did most of the West. Now we're expecting countries like China and India to introduce costly energy saving measures at the same time as they need to grow to take their population out of poverty. We are now at the situation where the USA won't adhere to a climate change regime without China and India signing up to it but they don't see why they should, and have a strong argument that it is not in the best interests of their population to do so.

At the end of the day we are trying to create a regime that will deal with climate change. These problems above have put us at an impasse. Any ideas?

Clegg to decide - third party of protest or coalition partner?

The vote on tuition fees on Thursday is a chance to find out whether the Lib Dems in the coalition government really understand the choice that they made to share power. The decision they need to make is not about the moral issue of charging for university education, but about whether they would prefer to be the third party of protest or a legitimate, responsible member of the executive.

The debate on whether tuition fees should be charged at all is something I have addressed already. There is an argument against tuition fees being charged full-stop on economic and moral grounds. There is an argument that tuition fees should be nominal, so that students who benefit from university education contribute towards it, but the burden is shared with the state. There is also an argument that students should pay for their entire education, as they benefit from it, and in our current financial situation we need to ask them to do so. There are therefore legitimate grounds to oppose, abstain or vote for the rise in tuition fees. Where there is a difference is in the responsibilities of the three main parties.

Labour MPs can vote for or against and not many would bat an eyelid. It has been conveniently forgotten by many that Labour introduced tuition fees in 2002 having expressly committed in their 2001 election manifesto not to do. This, perhaps, is why they have been relatively quiet on the implications of Nick Clegg committing to oppose tuition fees then vote for them in government. Also, the rise has been suggested by Lord Browne of Madingly's commission, which was set up by the previous Labour government. However, as we know now, Labour is the party of opposition, and oppose they probably will, whether they believe it to be right or wrong.

Conservative MPs will vote for, and I imagine will be whipped into doing so, as they are the majority party in government and there should be a certain amount of discipline installed into them. They didn't make any rash promises on this issue before the election and there are few grounds of principle involved on which they can vote against or abstain.

Then there are the Lib Dems. They made their pledge to oppose tuition fees before the election. That is true, but it was the type of pledge you make when you are a third party and may never need to actually have the responsibility of government. It was an economically-irresponsible pledge considering the deficit, but it has been hung around them like a noose.  Which Lib Dem MPs vote for or against or abstain, depends on what their role is in our new political landscape. To understand what they might do, and what they should do, relies upon the clearing up of two major fallacies that many protesters are either not getting, or ignoring.

1) The Lib Dems are in government. They are in the coalition. If they hadn't joined the Conservatives in a coalition then there would be no effective government, given that minority rule in a time of economic problems is not advisable. When you join a coalition, you have to negotiate and compromise. This means you get to keep some of your promises to the electorate, you have to drop some of your promises and some of your promises will be amended. The Lib Dems secured an agreement that they could abstain in the vote on tuition fees, and Nick Clegg has offered that to his MPs, on the basis that they ALL do so. However, some Lib Dem MPs have said they will honour their pre-election pledge and vote against, thereby breaking the coalition agreement. This means Clegg cannot abstain and has a responsibility to vote for the legislation. As does every other Lib Dem government minister, and there are quite a few of them. Those Lib Dems voting against are saying that they are not prepared to be in power, and that's fine, but they must live with that decision.

2) The actual legislation being voted upon has the hallmarks of Lib Dem intervention, particularly on some of the provisions made to make it more progressive. Because you don't pay until you earn £21,000 you pay nothing unless you are in the top 60% of earners in the country - so you at that point are NOT poor. Because the interest rate charge rises as income rises there is a progressive nature to the payments, with those on higher incomes paying a higher proportion of those incomes. The Lib Dems HAVE had their influence here, and it is therefore a coalition policy, and members of the coalition government need to vote for it or shouldn't be in government. Vince Cable, for instance, should he not want to vote for the policy, needs to resign from the government payroll.

The fact is that Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems are socially liberal but economically conservative. Many who suggested they were a natural coalition party for Labour understood little about their politics. Clegg has managed to pull the Conservative party towards the centre, and should be applauded for that.

I completely understand the anger of students. I have students at school who want to protest and if there is anything they should protest about it is this as they are being asked to pay for the debts dropped on them by older generations.

However, they are also being asked to pay for a university system aimed at 50% of the population. If you want services like that you need money to be spent. If you want money to be spent you have to collect it in taxes. Those taxes could be paid by everyone or by those who directly benefit from the service. It has been decided that those who benefit will pay and there may be no going back on it. They need to receive a service worth paying for and £3000 a year wasn't doing that.

So, many reasons to vote against, although I would hope some of those people voting against could be bothered to understand the actual legislation. Maybe doing so would go against their "narrative". They want to call this a Thatcherite policy (which is interesting as it was a Labour policy, and Thatcher was all for investments in the supply-side of the economy - which university education is).

Let's hope the education they want us to pay for is not wasted on this quoted protester.

"There are no jobs and yet I'm being asked to take on massive debts. At £9,000 a year that's £21,000 of debt"

1) If you don't get a job after university you don't have to pay back anything
2) Do the Maths!

Should we tax fat?

BBC's 'Panorama' programme this week raised the prospect of a "fat tax" being applied to junk foods that contribute to obesity in the UK. This is a fascinating debate which brings forth arguments about the justification for and effectiveness of government intervention on this issue as well as the fairness of a particular tax.

The economic justification for government intervention in this instance is that obesity has 'social costs'. This means that the cost of obesity is greater to society than the 'private cost' to the person who carries the weight. The difference between the two is the 'external cost'. Those external costs might be the extra burden on the NHS from treating obesity but also possibly sick days through related illnesses down to something as simple as the difficulties someone who is overweight may have playing a constructive role in many of society's activities.

2007: Plenty of fat to tax!

A 'fat tax' would suggest that the government feel that fatty foods are overconsumed and this is causing obesity. If the government can find a way to reduce the amount consumed then that would be better for society. If they can raise revenue from a tax to cover those external costs of overconsumption then that makes sense too.

So far, so economically rational. But does a tax on fatty foods actually solve the problem? And is there a chance it will create other problems?

I must declare an interest here because two years ago I would have been a 'target' for this tax. I am 6 foot tall and used to weigh 17 stones (107 kilogrames). I am now 14 stone (88 kilogrammes). How did I do it? By eating less calories and doing more exercise. Why did I do it? Because I was fed up of looking at a fat bloke in the mirror, because my daughter was starting to run around and I couldn't keep up with her, and because there's only so many times you can put up with being drawn as a

2009: calories in < calories out

big blob by a four year old child when on holiday with your friends' families.

Did eating less cost me less? No it didn't. It is a sad fact that eating healthily in this country is more expensive. Also, I spent a lot of money on getting the right clothes and shoes and equipment for exercise as well as gym membership.

Furthermore, I read a lot of magazines and websites about how to get fit and eat properly and I kept a daily diary of everything I ate and did exercise wise.

Put all that together and it worked. Took me 9 months to lose 3 stone and I ran a half-marathon comfortably at the end of those 9 months having not run for 18 years.

The point of this story? For people to lose weight and get fit, they need to have money, and they need to have the right information. A 'fat tax' would give them neither.

If you put a tax on fatty foods you will make them more expensive which should mean that people will swap to more healthy foods. But the difference in cost is large enough that it would have to be a large tax.  That would leave BOTH cheap fatty foods and healthier foods more expensive. Food is a need, so by making all types of food more expensive you are lowering living standards.

And this is where we get to 'fairness'. I hate to generalise, but obesity is more of a problem in this country for people on low incomes than those on high incomes. So a 'fat tax' will hit the poor harder, and is therefore regressive. The consequences of that could be uncomfortable for a government attempting to present themselves as fair and progressive.

What's more, many fatty foods are rather addictive, and quite frankly rather nice. Translated into economic terms - the quantity demanded of them would not go down anywhere near as much as the tax would take their price up. In other words, demand for fatty foods is 'inelastic'. The way tax works in this country, firms collect tax for the government - which means that taxes affect the supply of a good first, UNLESS they can pass on the entire tax to consumers - which in the case of fatty foods, they can, as demand won't fall by as much as the tax applied. So the quantity of fatty food eaten won't drop much.  What will happen is that government will get a lot of tax revenue.

Therefore, government intervention to solve the problem of obesity solely by way of a tax on fatty foods would not be effective and could result in further problems.

However, many say that the tax would be like a 'nudge' in a particular direction. Well, why not give consumers a nudge away from fatty foods and a further nudge towards healthy ones. The government could subsidise healthy foods, based upon the argument that they will gain that back through less cost to the NHS and less sick days from employees.

Also, as I said, it was information that really helped me. Government could make sure that everyone who wants to lose weight has access to the right information presented in accessible ways to help them. Much of this is already out there. But there is a lot about healthy eating, but is there really enough about the benefits of what really made a difference for me, exercise. So they can provide a lot of information about that too.

So, they could also subsidise gym membership, although the problem with that would be that people would still have to go to the gym once they are members - which has always been a problem. They could subsidise running clothes and shoes, although again the key is getting people out running.

Point is, it all goes back to each and every individual. Every time I bring up a solution I seem to be bringing up an argument against it. This is why we have ended up back at the 'fat tax', because if we can't get people to lose weight, let's at least try and raise the money from them to pay for the problems their weight causes, right?

The proof, on this issue, will be in the (gluten and sugar-free) pudding (yuk!)