Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-03T15:26:59.914Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Commentary and UK Policy Implications

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 March 2020

Martin Weale  and
Garry Young
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Articles
Information
National Institute Economic Review , Volume 164 , April 1998 , pp. 4 - 6
Copyright
Copyright © 1998 National Institute of Economic and Social Research

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

(1) This is because the budget includes an increase in government consumption, which offsets the tax rises on consumption. The extent to which the budget reduces consumption would be higher if this element- carry-over of the underspend were not regarded as a budget measure. See The 1998 Budget, The Treasury Committee, pp. 22 and 40.

(2) HM Treasury argues that since the ERM now has bands much wider than when the Maastricht Treaty was signed there is no requirement to reach this rate two years in advance of membership. The European Commission seem to disagree.