The plot of the morality play set in motion by the UK’s announcement of a 50 percent tax on bankers’ bonuses has now taken form. And it is a play that holds an important lesson about how politicians are managing — or mismanaging — demands for financial reform.
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, once at odds over Sarkozy’s criticism of Anglo-Saxon capitalism, have reconciled: predictably, France followed Britain with a bonus tax of its own. Equally predictably, the UK banking community responded by playing the “we’ll take our marbles and go home” card (“home” meaning New York, Hong Kong, Zurich — anywhere but London). A Bank of England executive then responded with the “good riddance” card, saying that, “given the costs of carrying that financial system around, it may be a price worth paying.”
Now that the story is clear, it is useful to take a step back and view the events from a strategic perspective. For, if the players in this drama are not currently acting strategically, they will end up doing so, and it is useful to see where that will lead.
Consider first the structure of the British bonus tax. It is levied on the banks, which are free to pay both bonuses and the resulting tax. Moreover, it is a one-time tax, expiring in April. In essence, the UK has imposed less a tax than a fine for the banks’ arrogance in ignoring public anger.
That is not a bad strategy for a Labour government facing an election that everyone expects them to lose. In finance terms, Brown holds a deeply “out of the money” option. In that case, the right strategy is to increase the risk: maybe the public will be angry enough to back Labour.
So what happens after the UK election? Realistically, the Conservatives will win, and David Cameron, the new prime minister, need do nothing. The tax expires on its own, and, the fine having been paid, London becomes as inviting to bankers as it was before. Precisely because all of this can be expected, banks will bristle, but no major shifts away from London will take place.
But what about France? The most likely result is that France will retain the bonus tax, continuing the effort to shift European policy away from Anglo-Saxon-style capital markets. It is hard to imagine Sarkozy following the lead of a Tory prime minister in reducing taxes on large financial institutions.
So, when the smoke finally clears, London will remain an inviting location for banks, France will still be taxing bankers’ bonuses and perhaps European Central Bank president Jean-Claude Trichet’s recent tirade against a “bonus culture” will induce other EU countries to follow. At that point, the plot shifts direction, and bankers threaten to move to, rather than from, London.
And what of Brown? He will most likely be out of office, but, by playing the populist in the run-up to the election, he may have spared Labour a larger defeat, while simultaneously improving the competitive position of the City of London. Perhaps this was not what he or Sarkozy had in mind when the curtain went up, but the denouement should favor the UK.
Ronald Gilson is a professor of law and business at Columbia University and Stanford University.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under