Unlock the editor’s digestion for free

FT editor Rula Khalf, selects his favorite stories in this weekly newspaper.

The author is the upcoming director of the Fiscal Studies Institute

The cloud of Rachel Reeves’ spending made the big trade-bounds unclear. The Chancellor clashed with an investment competition in many departments, associated with the name check for the constituencies, which would benefit from specific projects and reminders of all jobs that will be supported.

We knew that the government would increase investment. This was always an important part of how labor intended to fulfill its number one mission to increase economic growth. We did not know that such a large part – more than 60 percent – will protect the additional expenses and go to pure zero.

Increased attention on these areas can increase. But it is a mistake to think that a permanent high growth rate – not only a large economy but one that grows up each year – is an indispensable result. Creating only a stock of weapons will not increase. And supporting houses to switch to heat pumps means that we already produce (warm houses) in a cleaner, and perhaps more expensive, the way.

It is also a mistake to think that investment is compatible with development just because they create employment. Outside a recession, more jobs in one area means less jobs elsewhere. Instead of focusing on how much work needs to be done to produce something, we should focus on how much each worker can make output. We have a productivity problem, not the problem of jobs.

The industrial strategy released last week has determined investments that are aimed at the UK as a leader, which is a leader in areas known as high-development capacity including defense and clean energy. Target investment – especially those who encourage innovation – have the ability to develop more producing areas and improve workers. But if the government did not want much defense capacity, will investing in weapons and nuclear submarines, even innovative, would be the best way to promote economic growth? it’s unlikely.

The government may be more confident that investing in infrastructure and R&D will increase. Britain has long reduced transport in infrastructure relative to other developed economies. Connecting better people and places and encouraging more innovation is a route for high productivity.

The Department of Science, Innovation and Technology will get an increase of £ 3.8bn in its annual capital budget by the end of Parliament, which should spend outpase inflation. But the Transport Department gets only £ 1.8bn. Falling on HS2 will free resources for other projects, but the overall transport budget is getting real-period cuts. Both settlements are going to the additional £ 14bn defense and going to the department for energy security and net zero by £ 9BN.

We should beware of a legend that makes it a sound as if no business is closed. More investment for defense and clean energy means less. As the industrial strategy only accepts, development is not the only goal. Sir Kir Stmper also has other priorities, and they do not come cheap.

After choosing the path he wants to follow, the government should now draw its attention to ensure that all development-friendly projects are distributed on time and budget. This is actually a highest priority.

The government is eager to trump the cumulative £ 113bn of additional investment on this Parliament, (when compared with plans made by conservatives in early 2024). They are not advertising £ 140BN in addition to £ 140BN borrowings in addition to forecast in the same period. Increased government investment is more likely to increase high growth. High loans and interest payments make development more essential.