How the UK Is Blocking Its Own Growth (And How to Fix It) | Shanker Singham | IEA Podcast

In this conversation, Reem Ibrahim sits down with Shanker Singham, one of the world’s leading international trade and competition lawyers, to discuss his newly published book “International Trade Regulation, the Global Economy, and the Impact of Anti-Competitive Market Distortions.” Shanker reveals groundbreaking research showing that a 15% improvement in domestic competition and regulation could increase GDP per capita by 8-11% - nearly double the impact of trade liberalisation alone. He challenges the prevailing narrative around tariffs and protectionism, demonstrating why fixing market distortions at home matters more than reciprocal trade barriers.Shanker explains the concept of “anti-competitive market distortions”, a term he coined 25 years ago, covering everything from regulatory barriers and state subsidies to intellectual property violations. Drawing on econometric analysis of 120 countries over 13 years, he breaks down the three pillars that drive economic growth: trade policy, domestic competition, and property rights protection. Perhaps most provocatively, his research suggests domestic regulatory reform is twice as powerful as trade liberalisation for boosting prosperity. He also discusses his innovative work applying quantum mechanics principles to model the probability of voluntary exchange in markets.From Brexit negotiations to Trump’s tariffs, China’s state capitalism to the UK’s growth stagnation, this conversation covers the most pressing issues in international trade and competition policy. Shanker serves as CEO of Competere and Chairman of the Growth Commission, and is a fellow at the IEA where he previously directed the International Trade and Competition Unit. Whether you’re interested in trade policy, economic modeling, or practical solutions to boost growth, this episode offers crucial insights for understanding how governments distort markets - and how to fix them.\The Institute of Economic Affairs is a registered educational charity. It does not endorse or give support for any political party in the UK or elsewhere. Our mission is to improve understanding of the fundamental institutions of a free society by analysing and expounding the role of markets in solving economic and social problems.The views represented here are those of the speakers alone, not those of the Institute, its Managing Trustees, Academic Advisory Council members or senior staff. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insider.iea.org.uk/subscribe

Professor Patrick Minford explains why Britain has barely grown richer since 2007, with average incomes only 4% higher in real terms over 18 years—an unprecedented period of stagnation. Drawing on decades of research, Minford traces the UK’s economic transformation from the “sick man of Europe” in the 1970s through the Thatcher-era liberalization that saw Britain overtake France and Germany in living standards, to today’s return to high regulation and taxation. He presents a causal model showing how entrepreneurial incentives, tax rates, and labor market regulation drive growth—and warns that current government policies are doing precisely the opposite of what the evidence suggests works.In this wide-ranging conversation with Kristian Niemietz, Minford discusses his econometric analysis of UK growth from 1970-2010, explains why rich entrepreneurs are crucial for economic dynamism, and critiques the wealth tax proposals that he argues would harm rather than help growth. He also addresses Brexit’s economic impact, compares Britain’s regulatory environment to France’s, and offers a stark assessment of Labour’s current economic policies. With over 50 years of experience analyzing UK economic policy, including collaboration with the IEA since the 1970s, Minford provides a provocative challenge to conventional thinking about inequality and growth.This is essential viewing for anyone interested in understanding Britain’s productivity puzzle and the policy choices that could reverse decades of stagnation, or make it worse.The Institute of Economic Affairs is a registered educational charity. It does not endorse or give support for any political party in the UK or elsewhere. Our mission is to improve understanding of the fundamental institutions of a free society by analysing and expounding the role of markets in solving economic and social problems.The views represented here are those of the speakers alone, not those of the Institute, its Managing Trustees, Academic Advisory Council members or senior staff. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insider.iea.org.uk/subscribe

In this special Christmas edition Institute of Economic Affairs briefing, Head of Media Reem Ibrahim interviews Dr. Christopher Snowdon, Head of Lifestyle Economics. The conversation examines how government regulations and taxes affect traditional Christmas foods and drinks, from mince pies to mulled wine, exploring the expanding scope of nanny state restrictions.Dr. Snowdon explains the impact of recent regulations including display bans in supermarkets, advertising restrictions before 9pm, and promotional deal prohibitions on foods deemed high in fat, sugar, and salt. They discuss the ultra-processed food debate, calorie labelling requirements, and how items like mince pies and chocolates face similar regulatory treatment to tobacco products. The briefing also covers alcohol duties, the upcoming disposable vape ban, and cigarette taxation where over 80% of the price is tax.The discussion concludes by questioning whether these interventions actually improve public health outcomes, with Dr. Snowdon pointing to economic growth and prosperity as stronger determinants of health than regulatory restrictions. They examine the nanny state index findings showing no correlation between regulatory intensity and health outcomes, while highlighting the connection between GDP per capita and life expectancy. The message: stop taxing and regulating Christmas festivities and instead focus on policies that deliver economic growth.The Institute of Economic Affairs is a registered educational charity. It does not endorse or give support for any political party in the UK or elsewhere. Our mission is to improve understanding of the fundamental institutions of a free society by analysing and expounding the role of markets in solving economic and social problems.The views represented here are those of the speakers alone, not those of the Institute, its Managing Trustees, Academic Advisory Council members or senior staff. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insider.iea.org.uk/subscribe

In this Institute of Economic Affairs podcast, IEA Director of Communications Callum Price interviews Morgan Wild, Chief Policy Adviser at Labour Together. Morgan explains how Labour Together operates as a private company that exists purely to help the Labour Party govern and win elections, combining deep public opinion research with policy expertise to provide political solutions rather than purely technocratic answers. The conversation covers Labour’s pivot from post-financial crisis demand-side economics to a supply-side growth agenda focused on policy stability, land use regulation, and public investment.Morgan discusses Britain’s fundamental problems - the lack of ability to build anything and weak growth in second cities - and assesses Labour’s performance on planning reform and infrastructure. He argues that markets generate enormous wealth and are the best mechanism for allocating scarce resources, a view he suggests most in the Labour Party share. The discussion covers the political calculations behind economic policy decisions, with Morgan explaining why some technically sound reforms like VAT base-broadening may not be worth the political pain despite their economic benefits.The interview concludes with debates on wealth taxation, stamp duty reform, and the triple lock pension. Morgan dismisses popular wealth tax proposals as unworkable because capital is mobile, instead advocating for property and land value taxation reforms. He acknowledges the triple lock as an incredible long-term liability that any government will ultimately have to reform, and endorses proposals for gradual stamp duty replacement with annual property taxes over a ten-year transition period.The Institute of Economic Affairs is a registered educational charity. It does not endorse or give support for any political party in the UK or elsewhere. Our mission is to improve understanding of the fundamental institutions of a free society by analysing and expounding the role of markets in solving economic and social problems.The views represented here are those of the speakers alone, not those of the Institute, its Managing Trustees, Academic Advisory Council members or senior staff. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insider.iea.org.uk/subscribe

In this Institute of Economic Affairs Christmas special podcast, Director of Communications Callum Price is joined by Managing Editor Daniel Freeman and Editorial Director Kristian Niemietz for a year-in-review discussion covering the highs and lows of 2025. The conversation examines nuclear regulation reform, the John Fingleton review’s recommendations to reduce the UK’s status as the most expensive place in the world to build nuclear projects, and how overregulation has weakened Britain’s competitiveness. They also discuss the Hinkley Point fish protection system that cost £700 million to save several hundred salmon, working out at roughly £250,000 per fish saved.The discussion moves to economic policy frustrations including Rachel Reeves’ budget, the inheritance tax changes affecting farmers, and the broader tax burden reaching its highest levels since World War Two. They examine Labour’s growth strategy contradictions, the productivity gap between the UK and other developed nations, and why Britain continues to struggle with infrastructure delivery costs. The hosts also debate the perverse incentives in the benefits system that discourage work, with particular focus on housing benefit traps and the political challenges of meaningful welfare reform.The podcast concludes with reflections on Trump’s tariff policies and their impact on global trade, Brexit’s unexpected benefit in securing better US trade terms than the EU, and concerns about the long-term political economy of protectionism. They discuss how tariff policies become entrenched as domestic industries adapt, making future liberalisation politically difficult. The hosts praise the UK government for resisting retaliatory tariffs despite political pressure, maintaining a commitment to free trade principles.The Institute of Economic Affairs is a registered educational charity. It does not endorse or give support for any political party in the UK or elsewhere. Our mission is to improve understanding of the fundamental institutions of a free society by analysing and expounding the role of markets in solving economic and social problems.The views represented here are those of the speakers alone, not those of the Institute, its Managing Trustees, Academic Advisory Council members or senior staff. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insider.iea.org.uk/subscribe

In this Institute of Economic Affairs podcast, IEA Director of Communications Callum Price speaks with Kristian Niemietz, IEA Editorial Director, about the surprising history of wealth taxes. The conversation explores Niemietz’s recent article questioning whether wealth taxes are actually a left-wing idea, revealing that historically, support for wealth taxes came from across the political spectrum, including reactionary conservatives, Prussian aristocrats, and even proto-Thatcherites in the 1960s and 70s.Niemietz explains how the old Prussian wealth tax of the 1890s was introduced by ultra-right-wing conservatives, and how Winston Churchill supported a post-World War One “capital levy” as a pragmatic measure to prevent social unrest and signal shared sacrifice. The discussion examines modern contradictions in wealth tax arguments, with proponents like Gary Stevenson and Zach Polanski simultaneously claiming it will raise massive revenue, reduce inequality, and shift the tax burden from workers to wealth owners - goals that cannot all be achieved at once. Niemietz contrasts these claims with Switzerland’s wealth tax, which raises only about 1% of GDP, far less than transformational.The conversation concludes with a classical liberal perspective on wealth taxation, distinguishing between ideological opposition and practical objections. Niemietz argues that wealth taxes are not inherently worse than income or consumption taxes from a liberal standpoint, and explores how land value taxes could represent a less distortionary alternative. The key insight is that Switzerland’s wealth tax works because it substitutes for other taxes in a generally light tax system, rather than being added on top of existing burdens. The podcast reveals how historical supporters like proto-Thatcherites favored wealth taxes to encourage “popular capitalism” and prod lazy inherited wealth into more productive investment, though Niemietz ultimately finds these arguments unconvincing due to practical implementation problems.The Institute of Economic Affairs is a registered educational charity. It does not endorse or give support for any political party in the UK or elsewhere. Our mission is to improve understanding of the fundamental institutions of a free society by analysing and expounding the role of markets in solving economic and social problems.The views represented here are those of the speakers alone, not those of the Institute, its Managing Trustees, Academic Advisory Council members or senior staff. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insider.iea.org.uk/subscribe

In this Institute of Economic Affairs podcast, IEA Director of Communications Callum Price interviews Joe Mayes, UK political correspondent for Bloomberg and author of “Can You Run the Economy?” - an interactive choose-your-own-adventure book where readers take on the role of chancellor. The conversation examines Rachel Reeves’ November budget, exploring how she prioritised fiscal headroom and bond market stability over immediate public approval, increasing fiscal room from £9.9 billion to over £20 billion. They discuss the trade-offs between economic stability and political popularity, analysing why Reeves opted for a smorgasbord of tax rises rather than a bold income tax increase.Mayes explains the constant pressures facing chancellors, particularly the threat of financial markets inflicting higher borrowing costs at any moment. The discussion covers why the UK currently has the highest borrowing costs in the G7 and how this forces chancellors to prioritise bond markets over voters who can’t hurt them until the next election. They explore whether Britain is permanently in a “Mexican standoff” with financial markets given current debt-to-GDP levels, and examine the political risks of a leftward shift that could trigger negative market reactions.The interview concludes by looking ahead to the challenges facing Reeves before the next budget, including potential leadership threats, international geopolitical risks, and the critical question of whether the government’s domestic growth plan will deliver results. They discuss the difficulty of making economic growth a public totem that resonates with voters in the same way fiscal headroom matters to markets, and whether technological revolution rather than policy will ultimately drive the growth Britain needs.The Institute of Economic Affairs is a registered educational charity. It does not endorse or give support for any political party in the UK or elsewhere. Our mission is to improve understanding of the fundamental institutions of a free society by analysing and expounding the role of markets in solving economic and social problems.The views represented here are those of the speakers alone, not those of the Institute, its Managing Trustees, Academic Advisory Council members or senior staff. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insider.iea.org.uk/subscribe

In this Institute of Economic Affairs podcast, Director of Communications Callum Price is joined by Managing Editor Daniel Freeman and Economics Fellow Julian Jessop to discuss Trump’s recent criticism of Europe, the renewed customs union debate in Parliament, and Kemi Badenoch’s welfare speech. The conversation examines Trump’s characterization of Europe as “a decaying group of nations with weak leaders” and his criticism of European energy policy and defense spending, questioning whether European politicians are still acting as if growth happens automatically while relying on the US for security.The discussion then shifts to the tied parliamentary vote on rejoining the customs union. Julian explains why the economic benefits would be limited given the UK’s existing trade agreement with the EU, while the costs include losing independence on trade policy and disrupting new deals with countries like the US and India. The panel analyzes polling showing support for rejoining the EU, arguing it reflects general economic dissatisfaction rather than genuine support once people understand what EU membership actually entails.The podcast concludes with Kemi Badenoch’s welfare reform speech and her “Benefits Street” framing of Labour’s budget. Julian and Daniel welcome her challenge to relative poverty measures and her emphasis on getting people into work rather than simply redistributing income, though they note the glaring omission of any discussion about pension spending, which represents the largest and fastest-growing component of the welfare budget. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insider.iea.org.uk/subscribe

In this Institute of Economic Affairs interview, IEA Editorial Director Kristian Niemietz speaks with Professor Peter Boettke, professor of economics at George Mason University. The conversation explores artificial intelligence and what it means for both capitalism and socialism, starting with a deep dive into the original socialist calculation debate of the 1920s and 1930s between Ludwig von Mises and socialist economists.Professor Boettke explains how Mises demonstrated that without private property and market prices, socialist planners cannot make rational economic calculations to distinguish between technologically feasible and economically viable projects. This fundamental inability to “produce more with less” meant socialism could never achieve its promised burst of productivity, instead leading to economic deprivation and political tyranny. The discussion covers the historical figures involved, from Marx’s critique of capitalism to Bukharin’s New Economic Policy, and why the economic calculation problem wasn’t about bad leaders but inherent systemic flaws.The conversation then turns to modern concerns about “techno-socialism” and whether AI changes the calculation debate. Professor Boettke argues that while AI improves data processing, it doesn’t solve the fundamental problem of needing market-generated prices to guide resource allocation. He contrasts invention with innovation, emphasising that innovation requires the creative powers of a free society rather than committee-based planning. The interview concludes with thoughts on AI in education, the difference between human capital building and signalling, and why technological advancement depends on allowing dissenters and outsiders to innovate freely. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insider.iea.org.uk/subscribe

In this Institute of Economic Affairs podcast, IEA Head of Media Reem Ibrahim is joined by Editorial Director Kristian Niemietz and Managing Editor Daniel Freeman. The conversation covers Labour’s recent budget announcements, particularly the decision to spend £48 million over three years hiring 350 additional town and country planners. They examine whether throwing more money and more bureaucrats at the planning system will actually solve Britain’s housing crisis, or whether the fundamental problem lies with the regulatory framework itself.Kristian discusses research by Mark Pennington showing that between 1960 and 1990, spending on planning officers increased sevenfold while housing applications only increased by 28%, with a striking correlation showing that every 1% increase in planning expenditure resulted in a 1% decrease in housing output. The panel argues that Labour has become a last-minute convert to YIMByism without understanding the underlying issues, comparing their approach to Gorbachev’s attempts to fix the Soviet system by hiring more bureaucrats rather than addressing the fundamental regulatory problems.The discussion then shifts to Kristian’s recent debate experience on wealth inequality, where he challenged the prevailing narrative that inequality is dramatically increasing. The panel examines the flawed methodology behind wealth inequality statistics, discusses Britain’s flat income inequality since the early 1990s despite having one of the most progressive tax systems in the OECD, and argues that what matters for the poor is economic growth and employment opportunities rather than the size of the gap between rich and poor. They also debunk myths about second home ownership in Britain, noting that only 3% of the population owns a second home compared to much higher rates in France and even the former Soviet Union.Timestamps: 0:00 Introduction 0:47 Labour’s Planning Budget: Hiring 350 More Planners 4:07 Mark Pennington’s Research: 600% Cost Increase, 28% Housing Output 7:19 The 1930s Built Faster: When Planning Took 3 Days 8:04 The Gorbachev Approach: Why More Bureaucrats Won’t Work 10:34 Absurd Planning Cases: Disabled Child’s Bedroom Rejected 13:26 The Employment Rights Bill: Ditching the £118,000 Cap 16:29 European vs British Labour Markets: Flexibility Matters 17:21 700,000 Vacancies Disappeared: The Impact of Labour’s Policies 27:49 The Wealth Tax Debate: Conflicting Visions for Spending 31:01 Gary Stevenson’s Data Problem: Lived Experience vs Statistics 33:30 Why Wealth Inequality Data Isn’t Useless (The Weather Forecast Analogy) 35:00 Debunking Wealth Inequality: The Data Problems36:17 Britain’s Progressive Tax System & Flat Inequality 37:23 China’s Billionaires & Poverty Decline: Growth vs Gaps 39:38 The Second Homes Myth: Britain vs France & Russia This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insider.iea.org.uk/subscribe