#australia – Martin Wheatcroft

ICAEW chart of the week: Commonwealth of Australia balance sheet

My chart for ICAEW this week heads down under for some warmer weather and to take a look at the Australian federal government balance sheet in its recently published consolidated financial statements for the year ended 30 June 2024.

Column chart illustrating the Commonwealth of Australia balance sheet. Assets of A$989bn in the left hand column and liabilities of (A$1,557bn) in the right hand column.

19 Dec 2024. Chart by Martin Wheatcroft FCA. Design by Sunday. Source: Commonwealth of Australia, 'Consolidated financial statements 2023/24'.

The Commonwealth of Australia consolidated financial statements for the year ended 30 June 2024 were published on 12 December, bringing together the results and financial position of 199 audited financial statements for entities within the federal government system, public financial corporations (such as the Reserve Bank of Australia and Export Finance Australia), and public non-financial corporations (including Australia Post and Snowy Hydro for example). However, this does not include state and territory governments or local authorities in each state and territory.

As my chart this week illustrates, the balance sheet reports negative net worth of $568bn (21% of GDP or £284bn at the current exchange rate of approximately A$1 = £0.50), comprising assets of A$989bn (37% of GDP or £495bn) less liabilities of A$1,557bn (58% of GDP or £779bn).

Assets consisted of investments and cash of A$527bn (£264bn), receivables and other financial assets of A$162bn (£81bn) and non-financial assets of A$300bn (£150bn), while liabilities comprised debt of A$1,044bn (£522bn), payables and provisions of A$205bn (£103bn), and superannuation liabilities of A$308bn (£154bn).

Investments and cash of A$527bn consisted of investments, loans and placements of A$417bn, equity investments of A$102bn, and cash of A$8bn. Investments include $225bn invested in the Australia Future Fund, a sovereign wealth fund established in 2006 to strengthen the Australian government’s long-term financial position, together with $A$44bn in a series of other sovereign wealth funds established over the last decade.

Receivables and other financial assets of A$162bn comprised tax receivables and accrued taxation of A$59bn, other receivables and accrued revenue of A$26bn, student loans of A$54bn, and other advances of A$23bn.

Non-financial assets of A$300bn comprised A$89bn of military equipment, A$88bn of other plant, equipment and infrastructure, A$74bn in land and buildings, A$17bn in intangibles, $A13bn in heritage and cultural assets, and A$19bn of inventories and other non-financial assets.

Debt of A$1,044bn consisted of interest-bearing liabilities of A$943bn (A$611bn in government securities, A$227bn in central bank deposit liabilities, A$32bn for leases, and A$73bn in loans and other interest-bearing liabilities) and A$101bn in Australian currency in circulation.

Payables and provisions of A$205bn included A$90bn in provisions, A$63bn in non-pension employee liabilities, A$26bn in supplier payables and A$26bn in other payables.

The net pension obligation of A$308bn includes A$276bn for partially funded defined benefit schemes (obligations of $323bn less scheme assets of $A47bn) and A$32bn for one unfunded scheme. These schemes are now all closed to new members and so the liability is gradually reducing over time.

Not shown in the chart is the operating statement, which reported revenue of A$728bn (27.2% of GDP or £364bn), expenses of A$718bn (26.9% of GDP or £359bn) and net capital investment of A$12bn (0.5% of GDP or £6bn) to result in an operating surplus of A$10bn (0.4% of GDP or £5bn) and a fiscal deficit (on an accounting basis) of A$2bn (0.1% of GDP or £1bn).

Although the reported net worth in the financial statements is negative, Australia’s public finances are in a much stronger position than for many other countries. Australia’s general government net debt (including 13% for state and territory governments) was 32% of GDP on 30 June 2024, in contrast with the equivalent of 91% of GDP for the UK on the same date. This also doesn’t take account of the UK’s much larger public sector pension liabilities that are not included within net debt.

As a result there are more reasons than just the warmer weather to be thinking about enjoying a Christmas barbie on the beach on the other side of the world at this time of the year.

This is the last chart of the week for 2024 and so we would like to wish our readers all the best for the holiday season and for a healthy and prosperous 2025. We return in January.

This chart was originally published by ICAEW.

ICAEW chart of the week: Prime Minister’s salary

My chart for ICAEW this week illustrates how PM Keir Starmer’s £172,153 official salary entitlement would have been £305,770 if prime ministerial pay had kept pace with inflation since 2009.

Column chart showing the Prime Minister's actual salary, official salary and official salary extrapolated in line with inflation on 1 April between 2009 and 2024. See text for numbers.

26 Sep 2024. Chart by Martin Wheatcroft FCA. Design by Sunday. Sources: House of Commons research briefings; ICAEW calculations. (c) ICAEW 2024.

Prime ministerial pay has been in the news quite a lot in recent weeks for a range of reasons, leading our chart of the week to look at how the prime minister’s salary has evolved over the last 15 years.

As the chart illustrates, former PM Gordon Brown was entitled to a salary of £197,689 and had an actual salary of £193,885 on 1 April 2009, significantly higher than today’s current official salary of £172,153 or the actual salary of £166,786 taken by current PM Keir Starmer. This is despite cumulative inflation of 55% (3.0% a year on average) or an increase in MP base pay of 41% (2.3% a year) over the past 15 years.

The reasons for these reductions in prime ministerial salary are primarily the result of a voluntary pay cut to £150,000 taken by Gordon Brown in the run up to the May 2010 election, and a further cut of 5% to £142,500 adopted by incoming PM David Cameron.

Cameron maintained his pay at this level for the duration of his first term in office, converting his voluntary decision into a permanent change in 2012 (backdated to 2011) in how much he and his successors have been entitled to receive. The chart shows how Cameron accepted a pay rise following the 2015 general election, taking him from a salary of £142,500 on 1 April 2012 out of an official entitlement of £142,545 to £150,402 on 1 April 2016 out of £152,532.

Subsequent prime ministers have also exercised pay restraint by restricting increases in ministerial pay, or in not taking all of the increases to which they were entitled. As a consequence, Theresa May concluded her period as prime minister in 2019 on a salary of £154,908 out of an official salary of £158,754, while Boris Johnson and Liz Truss were on annual salaries of £159,584 in 2022, short of their full entitlement of £164,951.

Rishi Sunak concluded his period as prime minister on an official salary of £172,153 from 1 April 2024 onwards, being the amount to which Sir Keir Starmer is entitled to claim if he wanted. However, the politics of accepting pay rises is difficult – perhaps now more than ever – and so Keir Starmer has stuck with the £166,786 actual salary that his predecessor was on before the 2024 general election.

Our chart illustrates how the prime minister’s official salary has eroded in value over the last 15 years by calculating how it would have risen to £219,800 on 1 April 2012, £232,000 on 1 April 2016, £247,720 on 1 April 2019, £266,020 on 1 April 2022 and £305,770 this year if it had increased in line consumer price inflation instead.

There are arguments for using other indexes for this comparison, such as public sector pay, which if used would have led to an official salary of £299,060 on 1 April 2024 ; average GDP per capita, perhaps a better measure of national economic performance, would have resulted in an official salary of £301,530. Linking to overall average pay would have led to an official salary of £311,990 today, while maintaining its value in comparison with pay in the private sector would have delivered a potential pay packet for the PM of £334,360.

The requirement for successive prime ministers to approve their own pay has led to the opposite of what you might think would happen. Instead of raising their salary ever higher because they have the power to do so, political choices and pressures have led them instead to cut or freeze their pay at different points over the last 15 years, resulting in a significant erosion in prime ministerial pay in that time.

These choices have led to the UK paying its head of government substantially less than comparable leaders such as Australian PM Anthony Albanese’s annual salary of A$607,500 (£311,500), German Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s €348,300 (£290,250) or Canadian PM Justin Trudeau’s C$408,200 (£226,800).

Ironically, it might be the prime minister (and his successors) who could benefit most of all of our public servants by taking the power to set his own pay away and giving it to an independent pay review body instead.

This chart was originally published by ICAEW.

ICAEW chart of the week: IMF Fiscal Monitor

Our chart this week finds that the UK is ranking highly in the IMF’s latest five-year forecasts for general government net debt.

Bar chart

General government net debt/GDP: 2029 forecast

Emerging and developing economies (green bars)
World (purple bar)
Advanced economies (blue bar)
UK (red bar)

Kazakhstan (green) 8%
Canada (blue) 13%
Saudi Arabia (green) 22%
Iran (green) 23%
Australia (blue) 24%
South Korea (blue) 29%
Türkiye (green) 30%
Indonesia (green) 37%
Germany (blue) 43%
Netherlands (blue) 43%
Nigeria (green) 47%
Mexico (green) 51%
Poland (green) 55%
Egypt (green) 56%
Pakistan (green) 61%
Brazil (green) 70%
World (purple) 79%
South Africa (green) 84%
Spain (blue) 92%
UK (red) 98%
France (blue) 107%
US (blue) 108%
Italy (blue) 136%
Japan (blue) 153%

18 Apr 2024.
Chart by Martin Wheatcroft FCA. Design by Sunday.
Source: IMF Fiscal Monitor: 17 Apr 2024.

©️ ICAEW 2024

The International Money Fund (IMF) released its latest IMF Fiscal Monitor on 17 April 2024, highlighting how public debts and deficits are higher than before the pandemic and public debts are expected to remain high. The IMF says: “Amid mounting debt, now is the time to bring back sustainable public finances”, commenting that as prospects for a global economic soft landing have improved, it is time for action to bring government finances back under control.

Our chart this week illustrates how the UK is one of the ‘leading’ nations in government borrowing, with general government net debt projected by the IMF to reach 98% of GDP by 2029, compared with 92.5% in 2023. (Note: general government net debt is different to the public sector net debt measure used in the UK public finances – the latter includes the Bank of England and other public corporations.)

The chart illustrates how the major countries with the largest debt burdens tend to be advanced economies, with Spain (92% of GDP), the UK (98%), France (107%), US (108%), Italy (136%) and Japan (153%) having debt levels close to, or exceeding, the sizes of their economies.

Some countries are in much better fiscal positions, with Germany expected to bring its general government net debt down to 43% of GDP by 2029, while the Netherlands (43%), South Korea (29%), Australia (24%) and Canada (13%) also have relatively low levels of public debt compared with other advanced economies.

Emerging market ‘middle-income’ and ‘low-income’ developing countries often have much lower levels of public debt than advanced countries, often simply because it is more difficult for them to borrow to the same extent as well as not having the same scale of welfare provision as richer countries to finance. Examples include Kazakhstan (projected to have a general government debt of 8% of GDP in 2029), Saudi Arabia (22%), Iran (23%), Türkiye (30%) and Indonesia (37%). However, that does not stop some emerging and developing countries borrowing more, such as Nigeria (47%), Mexico (51%), Poland (55%), Egypt (56%), Pakistan (61%), Brazil (70%) and South Africa (84%).

Not shown in the chart are China and India for which no net debt numbers are available. The IMF projects them to have general government gross debt in 2029 of 110% and 78% of GDP respectively, indicating how their public debts have grown substantially in recent years. However, without knowing their levels of cash holdings it is less clear where they stand in the rankings.

Also not shown is Norway, the only country with negative general government net debt reported by the IMF. Norway’s general government net cash is projected to reach 139% of GDP in 2029, up from 99% in 2023.

As with all metrics, there are some issues in comparing the circumstances of individual countries. Many countries will also have investments, other public assets, or natural resource rights that are not netted off against debt, while many will also have other liabilities or financial commitments that aren’t counted within debt. For example, the UK has significant liabilities for unfunded public sector pensions as well as even larger financial commitments to the state pension, either of which, if included, would move the UK above the US in the rankings.

The IMF believes that as the world recovers from the pandemic and inflation is brought under control, it is important for countries to start tackling the deficits in the public finances and start bringing down the level of public debt.

This may be difficult for countries such as the UK where significant pressures on the public finances mean public debt is expected to increase over the medium term rather than fall.

This chart was originally published by ICAEW.

ICAEW chart of the week: IMF World Economic Outlook Update

My chart for ICAEW this week illustrates how countries rank in the IMF’s latest forecasts for economic growth over 2024 and 2025.

IMF World Economic Outlook Update
ICAEW chart of the week

(Horizontal bar chart)

Legend:

Emerging markets and developing economies (green)
World (purple)
Advanced economies (blue)
UK (red)

Projected annualised real GDP growth 2024 and 2025

Bars in green except where noted.

India: +6.5%
Philippines: +6.0%
Indonesia: +5.0%
Kazakhstan: +4.4%
China: +4.3%
Malaysia: +4.3%
Saudi Arabia: +4.3%
Egypt: +3.8%
Iran: +3.4%
Thailand: +3.2%
Türkiye: +3.1%
World Output: +3.1% (purple)
Nigeria: +3.0%
Poland: +3.0%
Pakistan: +2.7%
World Growth: +2.6% (purple)
South Korea: +2.3% (blue)
Mexico: +2.1%
United States: +1.9% (blue)
Canada: +1.8% (blue)
Russia: +1.8%
Brazil: +1.8%
Spain: +1.8% (blue)
Australia: +1.7% (blue)
France: +1.3% (blue)
South Africa: +1.1%
United Kingdom: +1.1% (red)
Germany: +1.0% (blue)
Argentina: +1.0%
Netherlands: +1.0% (blue)
Italy: +0.9% (blue)
Japan: +0.8% (blue)

8 Feb 2024.
Chart by Martin Wheatcroft FCA. Design by Sunday.
Source: IMF World Economic Outlook Update, 30 Jan 2024.

(c) ICAEW 2024

Each January, the International Money Fund (IMF) traditionally releases an update to its World Economic Outlook forecasts for the global economy. This year it says that it expects the global economy to grow by an average of 2.6% over the course of 2024 and 2025 at market exchange rates, or by 3.1% when using the economists-preferred method of converting currencies at purchasing power parity (PPP).

The chart shows how the 30 countries tracked by the IMF fit between emerging market and developing economies, most of which are growing faster than the global averages, and advanced economies, which tend to grow less quickly.

The biggest drivers of the global forecast are the US, China and the EU, with both the US and China expected by the IMF to grow less strongly on average over the next two years than in 2023. This contrasts with an improvement over 2023 (which involved a shrinking economy in Germany) by the advanced national economies in the EU over the next two years – apart from Spain, which is expected to fall back from a strong recovery in 2023.

Growth in emerging and developing countries is expected to average 4.1% over the two years, led by India (now the world’s fifth largest national economy after the US, China, Germany and Japan), followed by the Philippines, Indonesia, Kazakhstan growing faster than China, followed by Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, Thailand and Türkiye.

Nigeria, Poland and Pakistan are expected to grow slightly less than world economic output, followed by Mexico.

Russia, Brazil and South Africa are expected to grow less strongly, while Argentina is expected to grow the least, with a forecast contraction in 2024 expected to be followed by a strong recovery in 2025.

The strongest-growing of the advanced economies in the IMF analysis continues to be South Korea, followed by the US, Canada, Spain, Australia, France, the UK, Germany, the Netherlands and Italy, with Japan expected to have the lowest average growth. Overall, the advanced economies are expected to grow by an average of 1.6% over the next two years.

For the UK, forecast average growth of 1.0% over the next two years is expected to be faster than the 0.5% estimated for 2023, but at 0.6% in 2024 and 1.6% in 2025 we may not feel that much better off in the current year.

Of course, forecasts are forecasts, which means they are almost certainly wrong. However, they do provide some insight into the state of the world economy and how it appears to be recovering the pandemic.

For further information, read the IMF World Economic Outlook Update.

More data

Not shown in the chart are the estimate for 2023 and the breakdown in 2024 and 2025, so for those who are interested, the forecast percentage growth numbers are as follows:

Emerging market and developing countries:

Country	Average over 2024 and 2025	2023 Estimate	2024 Forecast	2025 Forecast
India	6.5%	6.7%	6.5%	6.5%
Philippines	6.0%	5.3%	6.0%	6.1%
Indonesia	5.0%	5.0%	5.0%	5.0%
Kazakhstan	4.4%	4.8%	3.1%	5.7%
China	4.3%	5.2%	4.6%	4.1%
Malaysia	4.3%	4.0%	4.3%	4.4%
Saudi Arabia	4.1%	-1.1%	2.7%	5.5%
Egypt	3.8%	3.8%	3.0%	4.7%
Iran	3.4%	5.4%	3.7%	3.2%
Thailand	3.2%	2.5%	4.4%	2.0%
Türkiye	3.1%	4.0%	3.1%	3.2%
Nigeria	3.0%	2.8%	3.0%	3.1%
Poland	3.0%	0.6%	2.8%	3.2%
Pakistan	2.7%	-0.2%	2.0%	3.5%
Mexico	2.1%	3.4%	2.7%	1.5%
Russia	1.8%	3.0%	2.6%	1.1%
Brazil	1.8%	3.0%	2.6%	1.1%
South Africa	1.1%	0.6%	1.0%	1.3%
Argentina	1.0%	-1.1%	-2.8%	5.0%

Advanced economies (including the UK):

Country	Average over 2024 and 2025	2023 Estimate	2024 Forecast	2025 Forecast
South Korea	2.3%	1.4%	2.3%	2.3%
USA	1.9%	2.5%	2.1%	1.7%
Canada	1.8%	1.1%	1.4%	2.3%
Spain	1.8%	1.1%	1.4%	2.3%
Australia	1.7%	1.8%	1.4%	2.1%
France	1.3%	0.8%	1.0%	1.7%
UK	1.1%	0.5%	0.6%	1.6%
Germany	1.0%	-0.3%	0.5%	1.6%
Netherlands	1.0%	0.2%	0.7%	1.3%
Italy	0.9%	0.7%	0.7%	1.1%
Japan	0.8%	1.9%	0.9%	0.8%

This chart was originally published by ICAEW.

ICAEW chart of the week: Coronavirus

My chart this week looks at one of the big questions being looked at by the UK COVID-19 Inquiry: why did the UK experience one of the highest death rates in the developed world?

Coronavirus

Column chart showing deaths per million population, with each column broken into 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023 (to 2 Nov) components.

Year components only labelled for the UK

Japan - 603 (28 in 2020, 120 in 2021, 316 in 2022, 139 in 2023 up to 2 Nov)
Australia - 893 (35, 58, 587, 212)
Canada - 1,395 (397, 382, 498, 118)
Ireland - 1,848 (451, 761, 480, 156)
Germany - 2,099 (564, 848, 576, 111)
France - 2,599 (983, 938, 580, 98)
Italy - 3,259 (1,247, 1,078, 805, 129)
USA - 3,365 (1,041, 1,381, 786, 157)
UK - 3,421 (1,382, 1237, 583, 219)
Greece - 3,635 (451, 1,524, 1,393, 267)

9 Nov 2023.
Chart by Martin Wheatcroft FCA. Design by Sunday.

Source: Our World In Data, ‘COVID-19 data explorer’ / WHO, ‘Covid-19 dashboard’.

My chart for ICAEW this week is on the coronavirus pandemic and how, according to World Health Organisation (WHO) data as summarised by Our World in Data’s Covid-19 Data Explorer, the UK suffered one of the highest death rates in the developed world.

According to the official statistics, there were 3,421 deaths per million population attributed to COVID-19 in the UK between 1 January 2020 and 2 November 2023. This compares with 603 deaths per million in Japan, 893 in Australia, 1,395 in Canada, 1,848 in Ireland, 2,099 in Germany, 2,599 in France, 3,259 in Italy, 3,365 in the US and 3,635 in Greece.

Not shown in the chart are the total number of cumulative deaths attributed to COVID-19 (ie before dividing by the population) of 74,694 in Japan, 23,289 in Australia, 53,297 in Canada, 9,281 in Ireland, 174,979 in Germany, 167,985 in France, 192,406 in Italy, 1.14m in the USA, 230,974 in the UK, and 37,738 in Greece.

Both Our World In Data and the WHO give warnings about the data, especially given difficulties in identifying which deaths were caused by the coronavirus (especially in 2020 before testing was widely available), whether deaths are recorded when they happened or when they were reported, and differences in how countries attribute deaths to causes.

Despite those factors, these statistics give an overall impression of how badly the coronavirus affected different countries, especially when combined with other data, such as excess mortality (also not shown in the chart). According to Our World In Data, the cumulative difference between total deaths reported from all causes and projected deaths (based on an extrapolation from the years prior to the pandemic) changes the rankings for the countries in our chart, improving the UK’s position to an extent with the US has more excess deaths proportionately than the UK, and Italy more than Greece. Australia has the lowest level of excess deaths for these countries, below Japan, while France is between Canada and Ireland.

The chart also illustrates the deaths per million of population by year, highlighting how for the UK this was 1,382 in 2020, 1,237 in 2021, 583 in 2022, and 219 in 2023, up to 2 November 2023.

The UK COVID-19 Inquiry is looking at much more than the number of deaths as it considers how coronavirus affected all of us over the past few years, how people were affected, including short- and long-term impacts on health and how people died, as well as the impact on the economy and our lives more generally of COVID-19 – and the UK Government’s response to it.

This chart was originally published by ICAEW.

ICAEW chart of the week: BRICS+

The ICAEW chart of the week returns from its summer holidays to look at the planned expansion of BRICS from five to 11 countries.

Venn diagram showing the G20, G7, BRICS, and BRICS+:

G20 in green, encompassing G7 in teal with USA, Japan, Canada and UK plus in blue with dotted line around Germany, France, Italy and the European Union (the EU members of the G7).

Then five countries in G20, but not in the G7, BRICS or BRICS+, being Korea, Australia, Mexico, Indonesia and Türkiye.

Tne BRICS+ in purple with Argentina and Saudi Arabia followed by BRICS in orange with Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. Still in the BRICS+ purple, but outside the G20 green are Ethiopia, Iran, Egypt and UAE.

Sources: G20, G7, BRICS.

Footnote gives share of global GDP: G20 86%. G7 52% (USA 26%, EU 17%), KAMIT 7%, BRICS 25%, BRICS+ 28%.

“The BRICs” was originally coined by Jim O’Neill in 2001 as an abbreviation for Brazil, Russia, India and China, four fast-growing economies that he predicted would come to dominate the world economy.

This investment shorthand evolved into something more substantive in 2006 when ministers from the four countries got together on the sidelines of a meeting at the UN. Leader summits started in 2009, followed by the addition of South Africa in 2011, which resulted in the capitalisation of the final ‘s’ to form BRICS.

BRICS has developed over time to become a counterweight to the G7, providing an alternative forum for leaders of these five major nations to discuss common concerns such as economic development, currency stability, climate change, and tackling drug trafficking and organised crime. BRICS has been increasingly important to Russia since its ejection from the G7 (then the G8) following its invasion of Crimea in 2014 and to China as relations with the G7 have deteriorated over the last decade.

The most recent summit (the 15th) was on 22-24 August 2023, at which it was announced that six additional countries would be joining on 1 January 2024 to bring the number of members to 11.

Our chart this week takes the form a Venn diagram to illustrate how BRICS, and the expanded “BRICS+” grouping (pending a new official name), fit with two other major intergovernmental organisations where leaders meet on a regular basis – the G7 and the G20.

It starts with the G20, a grouping of 19 nations and the European Union that together represent 86% of the global economy. Within this sit the eight members of the G7 group of advanced economies, representing 52% of the global economy: the USA (26%), Japan (4%), the UK (3%), Canada (2%), Germany (4%), France (3%), Italy (2%) and the European Union (17% including Germany, France and Italy). The five BRICS nations represent 25% of the global economy comprising: Brazil (2%), Russia (1.7%), India (4%), China (17%) and South Africa (0.4%).

The diagram is complicated by the expanded BRICS+ as although invitees Argentina (0.6%) and Saudi Arabia (1.0%) are also members of the G20, the other four new members – Ethiopia (0.2%), Iran (0.3%), Egypt (0.3%) and the United Arab Emirates (0.5%) – are outside the G20. These new members together represent 3% of the global economy, taking the expanded BRICS+ to 28%.

Squeezed between the G7 and BRICS+ are five G20 members that together make up around 7% of the global economy that are not in either grouping, being (South) Korea (1.6%), Australia (1.6%), Mexico (1.8%), Indonesia (1.4%) and Türkiye (0.8%). As yet there is no sign of an intergovernmental organisation for these “KAMIT” nations to complement the G7 and BRICS, although in practice they are often invited as guests to G7 summits in addition to their participation in meetings of the G20.

The attraction of intergovernmental forums such as the G7, BRICS and the G20 is that they enable national leaders to engage directly with their counterparts on a wide range of topics, in contrast to the often narrower focus and more formal diplomatic structures of treaty-based international organisations such as the Organisation for Economic and Co-operation Development (OECD), the World Bank or the Organisation of American States (OAS) for example.

Their informal nature gives national leaders more flexibility to (for example) change their memberships without lengthy treaty negotiations or to work together on pressing issues of mutual concern. However, that informality also makes it difficult to create binding resolutions, which is perhaps why the global alternative reserve currency proposed at the first BRICS summit in 2009 had still not been implemented by the time of the 15th summit this August.

ICAEW chart of the week: Australia federal deficit

Our chart heads down under this week to take a look at how the reported financial position of Australia’s federal government has changed over the last decade.

Australia Day on 26 January provides an opportunity to take a look at the federal balance sheet for Australia. This is included in the audited consolidated financial statements of the Commonwealth of Australia that are prepared in accordance with Australian Accounting Standards, which generally align with International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), although AASB 1049 Whole of Government and General Government Sector Financial Reporting diverges from IFRS in some aspects. They encompass the federal level of government in Australia, excluding states, territories and local authorities.

Our chart shows how the balance sheet has grown over the last 10 years, from net liabilities of A$256bn at 30 June 2012 (£147bn at the current exchange rate of A$1.77:£1.00) to A$607bn at 30 June 2022 (£348bn).

At 30 June 2012, the balance sheet comprised non-financial assets of A$123bn and financial assets of A$268bn, less interest-bearing liabilities of A$288bn, and provisions and payables of A$359bn to give a negative net worth of $256bn. These balances had grown to non-financial assets of A$266bn and financial assets of A$788bn at 30 June 2022, less interest bearing liabilities of A$1,109bn, and provisions and payables of A$552bn.

Non-financial asset balances grew over the 10 years from 2012 to 2022 with land and buildings increasing from A$35bn to A$66bn, military equipment A$40bn to A$81bn, other plant, equipment and infrastructure $19bn to A$72bn, intangibles A$7bn to A$15bn, heritage and cultural assets A$10bn to A$13bn, and other from A$12bn to A$19bn.

Financial assets also grew, with investments and loan balances increasing from A$197bn to A$640bn, advances from A$27bn to A$70bn, receivables and accrued revenue from A$39bn to A$69bn, and cash from A$5bn to A$9bn. A substantial proportion of this growth relates to the Australia Future Fund, a sovereign wealth fund that was established in 2006 primarily to cover the costs of paying for unfunded pension obligations, together with a series of smaller funds intended to support infrastructure investment, disability insurance, medical research, indigenous communities and natural disasters.

Interest-bearing liabilities increased significantly as a consequence of the pandemic, with government securities increasing from A$268bn to A$577bn over the 10 years to June 2022, central bank and other deposits from A$3bn to A$426bn, and loans, leases and other interest bearing liabilities from A$17bn to A$106bn.

Provisions and payables grew by a lesser extent, with superannuation and other employee liabilities increasing from A$252bn to A$359bn, Australian currency on issue from A$54bn to A$102bn, payables from A$23bn to A$27bn, and provisions from A$30bn to A$64bn.

While negative net worth has increased from 17% of GDP to 24% of GDP over the 10 years, principally as a consequence of the pandemic in the last couple of years, the establishment of the Australia Future Fund, the move of federal employees from defined benefit to defined contribution pension arrangements, and active management of the balance sheet means that Australia is in a much healthier fiscal position than many other developed countries.

For the Australian Department of the Treasury at least, this should make for a happy Australia Day.

This chart was originally published by ICAEW.

ICAEW chart of the week: Global population

The ICAEW chart of the week looks at how the estimated global population of almost 8bn people is distributed around the world.

Bubble chart showing estimated global population of 7,995m in 2022: South Asia 1,894m, East Asia 1,671m, South East Asia 682m, Pacific 43m, Africa 1,419, Europe 592m, Middle East 357m, Eurasia 246m, North America 511m, South America 443m and Central America & Caribbean 97m.

UN projections show that the planetary population will reach approximately 7,955m in June this year, a 1.0% increase over the 7,875m estimate for June 2021.

The largest region on our chart is South Asia, which has 1,894m inhabitants, including 1,411m in India, 216m in Pakistan, 173m in Bangladesh, 40m in Afghanistan and 31m in Nepal. This is followed in size by the 1,671m people living in East Asia, including 1,432m in mainland China (currently the most populous country in the world), 126m in Japan, 52m in South Korea and 26m in North Korea.

Africa is the third largest region with 1,419m inhabitants, with 482m living in Eastern Africa (including Ethiopia 118m, Tanzania 67m, Kenya 56m, Uganda 50m, Mozambique 34m and Madagascar 29m), 424m in Western Africa (including Nigeria 217m, Ghana 32m, Côte d’Ivoire 27m and Niger 26m), 254m in Northern Africa (including Egypt 106m, Sudan 46m, Algeria 45m and Morocco 38m), 190m in Middle Africa (including the Democratic Republic of the Congo 95m, Angola 35m and Cameroon 27m), and 69m in Southern Africa (of which 60m are in South Africa).

Excluding Russia and Belarus, Europe has 592m people, including 444m in the 27 countries of the EU (including Germany 83m, France 66m, Italy 59m, Spain 46m and Poland 38m), 68m in the UK and 43m in Ukraine, although these numbers are all before taking account of the several million Ukrainians who have been forced to flee the war and are living temporarily in other countries.

Eurasia, comprising the Commonwealth of Independent States of Russia, Belarus and the ‘stans’ of central Asia, has 246m inhabitants (including Russia 143m and Uzbekistan 34m), while the Middle East has an estimated 357m people (including Turkey 85m, Iran 85m, Iraq 44m, Saudi Arabia 36m and Yemen 32m.

North America has 511m inhabitants (USA 336m, Mexico 137m, Canada 38m), while 97m live in Central America (52m) and the Caribbean (45m), and 443m live in South America (including Brazil 217m, Colombia 51m, Argentina 46m, Peru 34m and Venezuela 34m).

South East Asia has 682m inhabitants, including 277m in Indonesia, 113m in the Philippines, 100m in Vietnam, 70m in Thailand, 56m in Myanmar and 34m in Malaysia. A further 43m people live in the Pacific region, of which 26m are in Australia.

Although the rate of global population growth was projected to slow significantly in recent years, from 1.3% a year in 2000 when the population was 6.1bn, to 1.0% a year currently and to a forecast of around 0.7% in 20 years’ time, that still means that the number of people on the planet is expected to grow to around 9.8bn in 2050, placing even greater demands on natural resources than today.

This highlights just how important achieving net zero and environmental sustainability is to the lives and wellbeing of future generations.

This chart was originally published by ICAEW.

ICAEW chart of the week: Government borrowing rates

Our first chart of 2022 highlights how the cost of government borrowing remains extremely low for most of the 21 largest economies in the world, despite the huge expansion in public debt driven by the pandemic.

Government 10-year bond yields: Germany -0.13%, Switzerland -0.07%, Netherlands 0.00%, Japan 0.09%, France 0.23%, Spain 0.60%, UK 1.08%, Italy 1.23%, Canada 1.59%, USA 1.65%, Australia 1.79%, South Korea 2.38%, China 2.82%, Poland 3.87%, Indonesia 6.38%, India 6.51%, Mexico 8.03%, Russia 8.38%, Brazil 10.73%, Turkey 24.21%.

Our chart of the week illustrates how borrowing costs are still at historically low rates for most of the 21 largest national economies in the world, with negative yields on 10-year government bonds on 5 January 2022 for Germany (-0.13%) and Switzerland (-0.07%), approximately zero for the Netherlands, and yields of sub-2.5% for Japan (0.09%), France (0.23%), Spain (0.60%), the UK (1.08%), Italy (1.23%), Canada (1.59%), the USA (1.65%), Australia (1.79%) and South Korea (2.38%).

This is despite the trillions added to public debt burdens across the world over the past couple of years as a consequence of the pandemic, including the $5trn added to US government debt since March 2020 (up from $17.6trn to $22.6trn owed to external parties) and the more than £500bn borrowed by the UK government (public sector net debt up from £1.8trn to £2.3trn) for example.

Yields in developing economies are higher, although China (2.82%) and Poland (3.87%) can borrow at much lower rates than Indonesia (6.38%), India (6.51%), Mexico (8.03%), Russia (8.37%) and Brazil (10.73%). The outlier is Turkey (24.21%), which is experiencing some difficult economic conditions at the moment. Data was not available for Saudi Arabia, the 19th or 20th largest economy in the world, which has net cash reserves.

With inflation higher than it has been for several years, real borrowing rates are negative for most developed countries, meaning that in theory it would make sense for most countries to continue to borrow as much as they can while funding is so cheap. However, in practice fiscal discipline appears to be reasserting itself, with Germany, for example, planning on returning to a fully balanced budget by the start of next year and the UK targeting a current budget surplus within three years.

For many policymakers, the concern is not so much about how easy it is to borrow today, but the prospect of higher interest rates multiplied by much higher levels of debt eating into spending budgets just as they are looking to invest to grow their economies over the rest of the decade. Despite that, with the pandemic still raging and an emerging cost of living crisis, there may well be a temptation to borrow ‘just one more time’ to support struggling households over what is likely to be a difficult start to 2022.

This chart was originally published by ICAEW.

ICAEW chart of the week: G7 economies

Our chart this week illustrates how in representing more than half of the world economy, decisions taken by the G7 can have a significant impact on the entire planet.

The G7 summit hasn’t formally started yet, but Group of Seven (G7) ministers and their guests have already started to meet ahead of the main event next month, albeit subject to quarantine restrictions.

The #icaewchartoftheweek illustrates how important this gathering is by highlighting how the seven major democratic nations and the European Union that together comprise the G7 represent more than half the global economy – and even more than that, once four invited guest nations are included.

Circular 'sunburst' chart showing G7 nations (USA, Japan, Germany, UK, France, Italy and Canada plus remaining EU nations), G7 guest nations (India, South Korea, Australia and a spoke for South Africa) and the rest of the world (China, Russia and Brazil followed by all the rest).

Overall, the G7 economies are forecast by the IMF to generate £35.9tn of economic activity in 2021 at current prices, 54% of forecast global GDP of £66.8tn. This comprises the economies of seven individual member nations: the USA (£16.3tn), Japan (£3.8tn), Germany (£3.1tn), the UK (£2.2tn), France (£2.1tn), Italy (£1.5tn) and Canada (£1.3tn), together with the 24 other EU member states (£5.6tn).

The guests invited to the 47th G7 summit in Cornwall are expected to generate a further £4.9tn or 7% of global GDP in 2021, bringing the total economic activity represented at the summit to £40.8tn or 61% of the total. They are India (£2.2tn), South Korea (£1.3tn), Australia (£1.2tn) and South Africa (£0.2tn).

Not represented at the G7 are China (£12.2tn), Russia (£1.2tn) and Brazil (£1.1tn) and around 160 other nations across the globe (£11.5tn in total).

The G7 summit presents an opportunity for the 11 national leaders and 2 EU representatives involved to shape the direction for much of the world, with discussions expected to range from saving the planet through to transparency in financial and non-financial reporting.

This chart was originally published by ICAEW.