Economics A-Z terms beginning with C

The amount a company or an economy can produce using its current equipment, workers, CAPITAL and other resources at full tilt. Judging how close an economy is to operating at full capacity is an important ingredient of MONETARY POLICY, for if there is not enough spare capacity to absorb an increase in DEMAND, PRICES are likely to rise instead. Measuring an economy's OUTPUT GAP - how far current OUTPUT is above or below what it would be at full capacity - is difficult, if not impossible, which is why even the best-intentioned CENTRAL BANK can struggle to keep down INFLATION. When there is too much spare capacity, however, the result can be DEFLATION, as FIRMS and employees cut their prices and wage demands to compete for whatever demand there may be.

The ratio of a BANK’s CAPITAL to its total ASSETS, required by regulators to be above a minimum (“adequate”) level so that there is little RISK of the bank going bust. How high this minimum level is may vary according to how risky a bank’s activities are.

government-imposed restrictions on the ability of CAPITAL to move in or out of a country. Examples include limits on foreign INVESTMENT in a country's FINANCIAL MARKETS, on direct investment by foreigners in businesses or property, and on domestic residents' investments abroad. Until the 20th century capital controls were uncommon, but many countries then imposed them. Following the end of the second world war only Switzerland, Canada and the United States adopted open capital regimes. Other rich countries maintained strict controls and many made them tougher during the 1960s and 1970s. This changed in the 1980s and early 1990s, when most developed countries scrapped their capital controls.

The pattern was more mixed in developing countries. Latin American countries imposed lots of them during the debt crisis of the 1980s then scrapped most of them from the late 1980s onwards. Asian countries began to loosen their widespread capital controls in the 1980s and did so more rapidly during the 1990s.

In developed countries, there were two main reasons why capital controls were lifted: free markets became more fashionable and financiers became adept at finding ways around the controls. Developing countries later discovered that foreign capital could play a part in financing domestic investment, from roads in Thailand to telecoms systems in Mexico, and, furthermore, that financial capital often brought with it valuable HUMAN CAPITAL. They also found that capital controls did not work and had unwanted side-effects. Latin America's controls in the 1980s failed to keep much money at home and also deterred foreign investment.

The Asian economic crisis and CAPITAL FLIGHT of the late 1990s revived interest in capital controls, as some Asian governments wondered whether lifting the controls had left them vulnerable to the whims of international speculators, whose money could flow out of a country as fast as it once flowed in. There was also discussion of a 'Tobin tax' on short-term capital movements, proposed by James TOBIN, a winner of the NOBEL PRIZE FOR ECONOMICS. Even so, they mostly considered only limited controls on short-term capital movements, particularly movements out of a country, and did not reverse the broader 20-year-old process of global financial and economic LIBERALISATION.

The PROFIT from the sale of a capital ASSET, such as a SHARE or a property. Capital gains are subject to TAXATION in most countries. Some economists argue that capital gains should be taxed lightly (if at all) compared with other sources of INCOME. They argue that the less tax is levied on capital gains, the greater is the incentive to put capital to productive use. Put another way, capital gains tax is effectively a tax on CAPITALISM. However, if capital gains are given too friendly a treatment by the tax authorities, accountants will no doubt invent all sorts of creative ways to disguise other income as capital gains.

Markets in SECURITIES such as BONDS and SHARES. Governments and companies use them to raise longer-term CAPITAL from investors, although few of the millions of capital-market transactions every day involve the issuer of the security. Most trades are in the SECONDARY MARKETS, between investors who have bought the securities and other investors who want to buy them. Contrast with MONEY MARKETS, where short-term capital is raised.

The winner, at least for now, of the battle of economic 'isms'. Capitalism is a free-market system built on private ownership, in particular, the idea that owners of CAPITAL have PROPERTY RIGHTS that entitle them to earn a PROFIT as a reward for putting their capital at RISK in some form of economic activity. Opinion (and practice) differs considerably among capitalist countries about what role the state should play in the economy. But everyone agrees that, at the very least, for capitalism to work the state must be strong enough to guarantee property rights. According to Karl MARX, capitalism contains the seeds of its own destruction, but so far this has proved a more accurate description of Marx's progeny, COMMUNISM.

An agreement among two or more FIRMS in the same industry to co-operate in fixing PRICES and/or carving up the market and restricting the amount of OUTPUT they produce. It is particularly common when there is an OLIGOPOLY. The aim of such collusion is to increase PROFIT by reducing COMPETITION. Identifying and breaking up cartels is an important part of the competition policy overseen by ANTITRUST watchdogs in most countries, although proving the existence of a cartel is rarely easy, as firms are usually not so careless as to put agreements to collude on paper. The desire to form cartels is strong. As Adam SMITH put it, 'People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public or in some contrivance to raise prices.'

A guardian of the monetary system. A central bank sets short-term INTEREST RATES and oversees the health of the FINANCIAL SYSTEM, including by acting as LENDER OF LAST RESORT to commercial banks that get into financial difficulties. The Federal Reserve, the central bank of the United States, was founded in 1913. The Bank of England, known affectionately as the 'Old Lady of Threadneedle Street', was established in 1694, 26 years after the creation of the world's first central bank in Sweden. With the birth of the EURO in 1999, the MONETARY POLICY powers of the central banks of 11 European countries were transferred to a new EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK, based in Frankfurt.

During the 1990s there was a trend to make central banks independent from political intervention in their day-to-day operations and allow them to set interest rates. Independent central banks should be able to concentrate on the long-term needs of an economy, whereas political intervention may be guided by the short-term needs of the GOVERNMENT. In theory, an independent central bank should reduce the risk of INFLATION. Some central banks are legally requried to set interest rates so as to hit an explicit inflation target. Politicians are often tempted to exploit a possible short-term trade-off between inflation and UNEMPLOYMENT, even though the long-term consequence of easing policy in this way is (most economists say) that the unemployment rate returns to what you started with and inflation is higher. An independent central bank, because it does not have to worry about persuading an electorate to vote for it, is more likely to act in the best long-run interests of the economy.

“Bah! Humbug”, was Scrooge’s opinion of charitable giving. Some economists reckon charity goes against economic rationality. Some have argued that the popularity of charitable giving is proof that people are not economically rational. Others argue that it shows that ALTRUISM is something that people get pleasure (UTILITY) from, and so are willing to spend some of their INCOME on it. An interesting question is the extent to which the state is competing with private charity when it redistributes money from rich to poor or spends more on health care and whether this is inefficient.

See MONETARY NEUTRALITY.

An economy that does not take part in inter­national trade; the opposite of an OPEN ECONOMY. At the turn of the century about the only notable example left of a closed economy is North Korea (see AUTARKY).

An ASSET pledged by a borrower that may be seized by a lender to recover the value of a loan if the borrower fails to meet the required INTEREST charges or repayments.

When a GOVERNMENT controls all aspects of economic activity (see, for example, COMMUNISM).

A comparatively homogeneous product that can typically be bought in bulk. It usually refers to a raw material - oil, cotton, cocoa, silver - but can also describe a manufactured product used to make other things, for example, microchips used in personal computers. Commodities are often traded on commodity exchanges. On AVERAGE, the PRICE of natural commodities has fallen steadily in REAL TERMS in defiance of some predictions that growing CONSUMPTION of non-renewables such as copper would force prices up. At times the oil price has risen sharply in real terms, most notably during the 1970s, but this was due not to the exhaustion of limited supplies but to rationing by the OPEC CARTEL, or war, or fear of it, particularly in the oil-rich Middle East.

The enemy of CAPITALISM and now nearly extinct. Invented by KARL MARX, who predicted that feudalism and capitalism would be succeeded by the 'dictatorship of the proletariat', during which the state would 'wither away' and economic life would be organised to achieve 'from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs'. The Soviet Union was the most prominent attempt to put communism into practice and the result was conspicuous failure, although some modern followers of Marx reckon that the Soviets missed the point.

The more competition there is, the more likely are FIRMS to be efficient and PRICES to be low. Economists have identified several different sorts of competition. PERFECT COMPETITION is the most competitive market imaginable in which everybody is a price taker. Firms earn only normal profits, the bare minimum PROFIT necessary to keep them in business. If firms earn more than this (excess profits) other firms will enter the market and drive the price level down until there are only normal profits to be made.

Most markets exhibit some form of imperfect or MONOPOLISTIC COMPETITION. There are fewer firms than in a perfectly competitive market and each can to some degree create BARRIERS TO ENTRY. Thus firms can earn some excess profits without a new entrant being able to compete to bring prices down.

The least competitive market is a MONOPOLY, dominated by a single firm that can earn substantial excess profits by controlling either the amount of OUTPUT in the market or the price (but not both). In this sense it is a price setter. When there are few firms in a market (OLIGOPOLY) they have the opportunity to behave as a monopolist through some form of collusion (see CARTEL). A market dominated by a single firm does not necessarily have monopoly power if it is a CONTESTABLE MARKET. In such a market, a single firm can dominate only if it produces as efficiently as possible and does not earn excess profits. If it becomes inefficient or earns excess profits, another more efficient or less profitable firm will enter the market and dominate it instead.

'Real economists don't talk about competitiveness,' said Paul Krugman, a much-respected contemporary economist. Real businessmen and real politicians talk about it all the time, however. Many FIRMS have undergone savage downsizing to remain competitive, and governments have set up numerous committees to examine how to sharpen their countries' economic performance.

Mr Krugman's objection was not to the use of the term competitiveness by companies, which often do have competitors that they must beat, but to applying it to countries. At best, it is a meaningless word when applied to national economies; at worst, it encourages PROTECTIONISM. Countries, he claimed, do not compete in the same way as companies. When two companies compete, one's gain is the other's loss, whereas international trade, Mr Krugman argued, is not a ZERO-SUM GAME: when two countries compete through trade they both win.

Yet measures of national competitiveness are not complete nonsense. A country's future prosperity depends on its GROWTH in PRODUCTIVITY, which GOVERNMENT policies can influence. Countries do compete in that they choose policies to promote higher living standards. Even so, conceptual and measurement difficulties mean that the growing number of indices purporting to compare the competitiveness of different countries should probably be taken with a large pinch of salt.

If a deposit account of $100 earns an INTEREST RATE of 10% a year, then at the end of the year the account will contain $110. If all of that money is left in the account, then the 10% interest will be paid on the $110, so at the end of the second year $11 of interest will be added, making $121 in all. This is known as compound interest. By contrast, SIMPLE INTEREST pays the 10% only on the original sum in the account.

When there are strings attached, for example, to INTERNATIONAL AID or loans from the IMF or WORLD BANK. The delivery of the MONEY may be made subject to the GOVERNMENT of the country implementing economic or political reforms desired by the donor or lender.

What people are usually thinking of when they worry about INFLATION. The PRICES paid by whoever finally consumes goods or SERVICES, as opposed to prices paid by FIRMS at various stages of the production process (see, for example, FACTORY PRICES).

What consumers do. Within an economy, this can be broken down into private and public consumption (see PUBLIC SPENDING). The more resources a society consumes, the less it has to save or invest, although, paradoxically, higher consumption may encourage higher INVESTMENT. The LIFE-CYCLE HYPOTHESIS suggests that at certain stages of life individuals are more likely to be saving than consuming, and at other stages they are more likely to be heavy consumers. Some economists argue that consumption taxes are a more efficient form of TAXATION than taxes on wealth, CAPITAL, property or INCOME.

A market in which an inefficient firm, or one earning excess profits, is likely to be driven out by a more efficient or less profitable rival. A market can be contestable even if it is dominated by a single firm, which appears to enjoy a MONOPOLY with MARKET POWER, and the new entrant exists only as potential COMPETITION (see ANTITRUST).

Being corrupt is not just bad for the soul, it also harms the economy. Research has found that in countries with a lot of corruption, less of their GDP goes into INVESTMENT and they have lower GROWTH rates. Corrupt countries invest less in education, a sector of the economy that pays big economic dividends but small bribes, than do clean countries, thereby reducing their HUMAN CAPITAL. They also attract less FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT.

There is no such thing as good corruption, but some sorts of corruption are less bad than others. Some economists point to similarities between bribery and paying taxes or buying a licence to operate. Where it is predictable - where the briber knows what to pay and can be sure of getting what it pays for--corruption harms the economy far less than where it is capricious.

The absence of corruption has huge economic benefits, however, by allowing the development of institutions that enable a market economy to function efficiently. In many of the world's more corrupt countries, the distinction between private interest and public duty is still unfamiliar. Countries that have made graft the exception rather than the rule in the conduct of public affairs have been helped to grow by the emergence of institutions such as an independent judiciary, a free press, a well-paid civil service and, perhaps crucially, an economy in which FIRMS have to compete for customers and CAPITAL.

A method of reaching economic decisions by comparing the costs of doing something with its benefits. It sounds simple and common-sensical, but, in practice, it can easily become complicated and is much abused. With careful selection of the assumptions used in cost-benefit analysis it can be made to support, or oppose, almost anything. This is particularly so when the decision being con templated involves some cost or benefit for which there is no market PRICE or which, because of an EXTERNALITY, is not fully reflected in the market price. Typical examples would be a project to build a hydroelectric dam in an area of outstanding natural beauty or a law to require factories to limit emissions of gases that may cause ill-health. (See SHADOW PRICE.)

A loan extended or (sometimes) taken by, for example, delayed payment of an invoice.

When BANKS suddenly stop lending, or BOND market LIQUIDITY evaporates, usually because creditors have become extremely RISK AVERSE.

An approach to business based on looking after yourself by looking out for your own. At least until the crisis of the late 1990s, some Asian companies, and even governments, were notable for awarding contracts only to family and friends. This was often a form of CORRUPTION, resulting in economic inefficiency.

A means by which some countries try to defend their currency from speculative attack. A country that introduces a currency board commits itself to converting its domestic currency on demand at a fixed EXCHANGE RATE. To make this commit ment credible, the currency board holds RESERVES of foreign currency (or GOLD or some other liquid ASSET) equal at the fixed rate of exchange to at least 100% of the value of the domestic currency that is issued.

Unlike a conventional CENTRAL BANK, which can print MONEY at will, a currency board can issue domestic notes and coins only when there are enough foreign exchange reserves to back it. Under a strict currency board regime, INTEREST RATES adjust automatically. If investors want to switch out of domestic currency into, say, US dollars, then the SUPPLY of domestic currency will automatically shrink. This will cause domestic interest rates to rise, until eventually it becomes attractive for investors to hold local currency again.

Like any fixed exchange rate system, a currency board offers the prospect of a stable exchange rate and its strict discipline also brings benefits that ordinary exchange rate pegs lack. Profligate governments, for instance, cannot use the central bank's printing presses to fund large deficits. Hence currency boards are more credible than fixed exchange rates. The downside is that, like other fixed exchange rate systems, currency boards prevent governments from setting their own interest rates.

If local inflation remains higher than that of the country to which the currency is pegged, the currencies of countries with currency boards can become overvalued and uncompetitive. Governments cannot use the exchange rate to help the economy adjust to an outside SHOCK, such as a fall in export prices or sharp shifts in capital flows. Instead, domestic WAGES and prices must adjust, which may not happen for many years, if ever.

A currency board can also put pressure on banks and other financial institutions if interest rates rise sharply as investors dump local currency. For emerging markets with fragile banking systems, this can be a dangerous drawback. Furthermore, a classic currency board, unlike a central bank, cannot act as a LENDER OF LAST RESORT. A conventional central bank can stem a potential banking panic by lending money freely to banks that are feeling the pinch. A classic currency board cannot, although in practice some currency boards have more freedom than the classic description implies. The danger is that if they use this freedom, governments may cause currency speculators and others to doubt the government's commitment to living within the strict disciplines imposed by the currency board.

Argentina's decision to devalue the peso amid economic and political crisis in January 2002, a decade after it adopted a currency board, showed that adopting a currency board is neither a panacea nor a guarantee that an exchange rate backed by one will remain fixed come what may.