Food Banks: A Bailout Too Far?

Food banks are somewhat provocative. The outcry of emotion usually triggers off related discussions, often about how austerity has pushed some members of society to use them and also how much food supermarkets and food stores throw away. Their individual usage has been increasing dramatically over the last five years and they have become a sensitive subject relating to the government’s austerity measures; you could even suggest their increase in use is one of the staples of the Conservative government.

But is their usage beneficial in both the short and long run?

Austerity has been covered in some depth on this blog, pieces here and here discuss some of the consequences of a government determined to slash public sector expenditure by the highest historical levels. The discussion here is aimed at the ramifications of such actions, particularly at the exponential increase of food bank supply and usage.

The Independent.

Moral hazard is a useful economic term, meaning when two parties engage into an agreement both can act independent from one another, contrary to the principles of the agreement itself. If you think of a car, a car has seat belts to prevent fatal and other injuries. But before cars had seat belts cars and the roads were safer because people drove slower. By driving slower there were less accidents. Of course you should wear a seat belt when driving, but it is an interesting argument and one that should make you think. If you drive slower you are less likely yo crash.

Another example is a salesperson with zero commission, the person receives a flat wage. Without the incentive of commission his or her business activity may relate to the flatness of the wage because there is no incentive to increase the variable i.e. the selling of more goods and services. A Salesperson is meant to sell as much as they can, without commission a worker that sells one unit receives the same wage as a worker that sells one hundred units. This is moral hazard. Clearly food banks enter into this discussion because as a means to equip oneself with emergency relief food is vital to survival; man’s basic requirements of food, shelter and clothing are the basic necessities required regardless of culture, belief, demographic etc.

The Trussell Trust are the largest food bank group in the UK. They actually began in 1994 and usually work as an intermediary between different social groups as a gap to help vulnerable members of society. This means that people are advised to go to a bank where they will usually be given three days’ worth of food, a person to talk to and advice to help them along what is usually a difficult journey. This is honorable and noble work.

Ultimately Food Banks present society with a huge dilemma. The graph below illustrates the dramatic increase from the market leading food bank.

The Trussell Trust

In 2011 some 128,697 adults used the Trussell Trust’s facilities, there were also ninety six facilities nationwide and these banks would open two to three days a week. In 2015 there are now four hundred and fourteen banks opening seven days a week. This is an increase of over four times the amount in just four years, equating to around a 100% increase every year. This is a huge increase in supply. The growing problem of food bank usage is the poverty consciousness it has instilled into our public psyche. Of course the mass media’s coverage of the economy is usually one of “tough” economic times and buzzwords such as “debt” and “difficulty” also shapes our collective thought and thus helps shape the societal narrative if you will.

This increasing form of dependency represents a complex moral hazard: should some food banks close in order to promote self-sufficiency?

This is one of the problems with strict economic analysis, it can be rather limiting when discussing sensitive issues, such as charity. However, a benefit for this form of analysis is the fact that when we do look at the facts, as crude as that can be sometimes, we can narrow down at what is vital and what is not. If more food banks closed people would be forced to find food elsewhere, agencies such as schools, sometimes police, social services and even GPs in small areas are all responsible for sending members of the public to food banks. The dependency the food bank increase has caused has maybe prompted an over reliance upon their use. And an over reliance on charitable handouts only prolongs the problem; without self-evaluation to confront the larger issue at hand the user will be going around in a slow circle.

The evidence presented does show that the increase in food banks supply from the market leader (ninety six in 2011 to four hundred and fourteen in 2015) a proportionate increase in demand. The users and social agencies utilizing food banks could not send people to food banks if their number was capped or they did not exist, they would be forced to seek nutrition from another means and self-sufficiency is the only cure for people who rely on charity. Another unfortunate problem is the fact that many of the main users of foods banks are children. According to Barnardo’s 33% of all children in the UK live in poverty. Not only does this mean they are immediately more susceptible to health concerns, monetary issues and their educational achievement but they are more likely to be recommended by their schools and social services for food bank usage. From 82,679 children in 2011 to 687,607 in 2015. What kind of future does a child have if they become so used to charitable handouts as a means of provision?

Food banks are a fantastic one off stop to help people in desperate times; a buffer to enable a person or people to get back onto their feet. When they were incepted they probably had this idea. The increase in food banks and thus their usage is an unfortunate concern as an over dependency creates problems and this can only prolong the negativity that the food is trying alleviate. The increase in usage is partly down to an increase in supply of facilities themselves, the mass media coverage and austerity policies. The government could impose a cap on how many banks are allowed to operate but this is unlikely due to the laissez faire attitude from the government.

An increase in charitable handouts is a sad consequence that has no direct route or origin, but austerity has certainly played a part.

Privatisation is Justified… Only if it results in competition.

There is very limited choice in many of the privatised industries including rail.

Privatisation in the UK during Margret Thatcher’s premiership was intended to shift the economic burden away from taxpayers into private hands. It was intended to erode the natural state monopoly and establish market-based competition. Economic theory suggests that privatisation eradicates the state owned monopoly and creates competition in the market, which should lead to better services and a lower cost. Government led businesses are said to be inefficient at providing services that a private led firm can do, so the appeal is certainly there.

Nationalised industries tend to provide goods and services with high social value, goods such utilities, agriculture and transport tend to be provided by the state because these derived demanded goods are viewed as essential. Unlike firms, the state’s intention is not to maximise profits, so there are no shareholders to appease, nor answer to. This has its advantages and disadvantages because constantly operating at a loss will impose a burden on the taxpayer, who may feel their taxes would be best utilised elsewhere, where there taxes are not being wasted.

This was central when Thatcher and her government suggested that a wave of privatisations across various sectors such as transport, telecommunications and utilities were the best way to reduce the burden on taxation and the optimal way for consumers to be provided with essential goods and services. The state was viewed as a natural monopoly and the highest consumer satisfaction and utility is gained through competition, it is competition that yields the greatest efficiency and the lowest possible prices. Therefore, establishing competition through several competing firms was central to this proposal. Economists Todaro and Smith suggest,

“Proponents [of privatisation] suggest that it curbs government expenditure, raises cash to reduce internal and external debt and promotes individual initiative while rewarding entrepreneurship”  

Clearly the benefits of privatisation are clear, the eradication of the natural monopoly is perhaps the strongest because it opens the market and allow more firms to compete. However, in the UK this unfortunately has not been the case. The wave of sell offs during the 1980s continues to have a significant effect on life in the UK today. Services such as gas were privatised, so was telecommunications and parts of the rail industry. Some twenty years later after firms such as British Telecom (BT), British Gas and regulatory bodies such as Network Rail not only stifle competition, but they appear to have replaced the very monopoly it was created to replace.

John Moore was the Minister in charge of initiating the wave of privatisations. He said in 1983

“The long term success of the privatisation programme will stand or fall by the extent to which it maximises competition. If competition cannot be achieved, an historic opportunity will have been lost.”

He said at the 1983 Conservative Party conference:

“Our aim is that BT should become a private sector company…[but] merely to replace state monopolies by private ones would be to waste a historic opportunity. We shall continue our programme to expose state owned industries to competition.”

Moore explicitly states if privatisation cannot lead to a competitive market “an historic opportunity will be lost.” I could not agree more because had the privatisation initiatives been applied appropriately, with legislation implemented to prohibit cartels forming in the case of the rail industry or outright monopoly, like BT in the telecommunications market then these formerly stated owned industries would have created far more jobs on the sheer fact that the market would be significantly larger, they also would have lower prices. And they would have lower prices because there would be ten or more firms each competing to try and get customers, so lowering prices in order to attract custom. If however there are two or three firms, then they are more likely to collude, whether it is explicit or tacit, the outcome is the same and it is near impossible to detect.

Commentator John Gamble stating in 1994

“When BT, BG and the water industry were divested, the Conservatives failed to liberlise their markets meaningfully and as a result, were forced to create regulatory mechanisms and institutions to prevent the utilities from abusing their positions.” 

I mentioned in my piece about regulation and the above inflation gas price increases and how regulators in many instances interfere with business activity and can actually do little to prevent firms from these price changes. It should be noted that the way a customer will have low prices is through competition. That was the reason why Mrs. Thatcher sold off many state controlled firms, but we are seeing today that the state monopolies have been replaced by cartels and monopolies in some cases. Moreover, this is conflicting to what was proposed. One could even suggest that a return to state operated firms were better, because at least they are accountable to the public. Private cooperations are accountable to shareholders are not obliged to disclose information to stakeholders.

Privatisation in the UK does appear to have shifted from natural monopolies to private monopolies in the case of BT and oligopolies in the case of Network Rail, British Gas and so on. Clearly, this is the oligopolistic market structure is not competitive and fails to provide sufficient customer choice. Customers are therefore left to demand essential goods from limited suppliers, resulting in high prices. Unless privatisation leads to a highly competitive market, with several competing firms, it is merely replacing the very entity is supposed to be replacing.

The High Price Of Low Competition.

How competition is the only way to drive prices down.

Consumer choice will always lead to lower prices. This is basic microeconomics and in competition theory the more competitive the market, the lower the prices. This unfortunately does not appear to be apparent in several markets in the UK and it is especially true in markets where demand is derived. Derived demand is basically when you demand a good or service not for its own sake, but for the goods or service derived from it. Transport is an example where customers don’t especially want to sit (or probably stand) on a train to get work because they enjoy the journey, rather, they demand this service because they know it is vital for them to get to work. It is in these markets, transport, utilities, telecommunication networks, supermarkets and the like where there is little competition and thus high prices as a result. Consumers have very little choice but to pay the competitive rate for these services due to the market structure.

The industries mentioned resemble an oligopoly, and market structure with a few firms. It has very high barriers to entry, which means it is usually very difficult for a new entrant or entrants to enter the market because there are usually very high financing costs or even legal parameters preventing new entrants. The problem with oligopolies is that because there is such little competition as a customer you end up paying more or less the same for your goods or services, so firms usually have to rely on non-price competition in order to increase their share of the market.

The global economic crisis has led to a sharp increase in the rate of unemployment and in particular in the UK. This has in turn placed a huge burden on households up and down the country and when you consider inflation is stubbornly high in recent years which reduces spending power, the price you pay for goods and services that are essential has a huge impact on your disposable income. If you look at inflation for a moment (currently 2.2%), if the rate of inflation is higher than your pay rise then your pay has not actually increased because all goods and services around you have increased in proportion, so your nominal wage may have increased, but your real wage (inflation adjusted) has not.

Now if we look at the oligopolies again, take energy for example. There are six major suppliers in the UK. They are EDF, E.ON, N Power, British Gas, Scottish Power and SSE. An important feature of this market structure is collusion. Whether it is deliberate or tacit it does not matter because if one firm reduces its prices then others are likely to follow suit because they know they are selling the same good, so there is nothing stopping a customer from going elsewhere for a cheaper price. Collusion will occur in an oligopoly regardless of the good or service. Energy firms advice customers to shop around for the best rates, the savings will be marginal at best and they only work because majority of people pay above what they actually should, so it balances out.

Five of the six major UK energy suppliers will increase their prices

Even David Cameron weighed in on the debate, exclaiming that he would “force” energy firms to offer their customers lower rates. Ofgem later published a document demonstrated that the simplification of retail energy tariffs would be complicated. Moreover, whilst his intentions may have been good, it has proved futile; customers are going to face high prices regardless.

John Kay in Financial Times last Wednesday alluded to the fact that regulation may actually hamper business activity, not aide or regulate it. Regulation is a surrogate form of competition, it can never and will never guarantee low prices or optimal consumer choice because there is nothing a regulator can do about tacit or overt collusion in a market. If the government wanted lower prices for energy they could break down some the legal barriers preventing newer entrants into the market. If for example there were ten to fifteen energy suppliers firms are likely to lower prices in order to increase market share because consumers would usually go for a firm offering the same good or service at a lower price. As it remains however, the six major firms can effectively charge what they want because they know that consumers cannot go without heat or electricity so they are forced to pay.

• SSE: 15 October, gas and electricity up 9%
• British Gas: 16 November, Gas and electricity up 6%
• Npower: 26 November, Gas up 8.8%, electricity up 9.1%
• Scottish Power: 3 December, gas and electricity up 7%
• EDF: 7 December, gas and electricity up 10.8%
• E.On: No price rise before the end of 2012

The energy sector is not the only market that has squeezed incomes and thus reduced spending power; mobile phone networks are also high on the list. There was a time in which a twelve-month contract was readily available. Again, in a market where there is such little competition the realization that you are more or less going to pay the same rate is again apparent in this market. The fact that T-Mobile and Orange have merged into Everything Everywhere makes matters worse for the consumer because it has reduced its competitiveness even more.

I personally feel that the government needs to make it far easier for new entrants to break into what appears to be closed off markets. There are legal barriers preventing new firms entering transport, so the same firms dominate the market, to the detriment of the consumer. This was the whole point of privatisation, to remove state ownership and open it up to the market, but state ownership has been replaced by private ownership and it is very much closed off. This issue is especially poignant as we see the standard of living continue to fall as a result of high inflation and sluggish economic growth. The fact that essential goods are rising accordingly only squeezes more out of the pockets of those who struggle to keep up with the price increases. Moreover, more competition ensures lower prices, regardless of regulation.