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
The FBI on Sunday arrested Wanying “Heather” Chang (張婉瑩) on suspicion of surveiling the family of the son of President William Lai (賴清德) on behalf of China, an example of “transnational repression” to suppress dissent in Taiwan and abroad. Zhang, a 34-year old realtor in California, was arrested on charges of working as an unregistered agent for China. She and an accomplice were accused of taking photos and videos of Lai’s son and his family, and sending information about their whereabouts and license plates to Chinese officials. “The information could be used by China to gain leverage over the Taiwanese president
Taiwan might just give up. That’s the argument Simon Shuster made in The Atlantic’s October issue. The US is unreliable, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) leadership is aligned with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and Taiwan does not have the military capability to defend itself in a prolonged war without help. What hope does Taiwan have? Quite a bit more, in fact, than Shuster lets on. Shuster points to genuine problems. The first Donald Trump administration had a mostly positive record on Taiwan policy. It regularized the arms sales process, enhanced the military-to-military relationship, and treated Taiwan more like a normal
On Oct. 10, 1911, gunfire in Wuchang (武昌) shattered the stillness of late-Qing China. What began as a regional uprising quickly ignited a chain reaction across the empire, toppling a dynastic order that had endured for more than two millennia and ushering in one of Asia’s first republics — the Republic of China (ROC). From that moment, the 10th day of the 10th month became a date of epochal significance, not merely in Chinese history, but in the broader arc of Asia’s encounter with modernity. Yet today, as Taiwan marks Double Ten National Day, the holiday’s meaning has undergone a transformation
A few days ago, we left our breakfast midway to catch a glimpse of the fighter jets in formation. It was a spectacular sight. We knew it was part of practice drills for Double Ten National Day celebrations and reminded us of the Annual Republic day celebration in India. While channel surfing, I came across a news debate about immigration laws, where an academic asked a fellow panelist: “Why should we be interested in your point of view when you don’t even belong here?” That got me thinking. Was our enthusiasm about the upcoming Double Ten celebrations unwarranted? Was this