Everyday Economics
Speech given by
Andrew G Haldane
Chief Economist
Bank of England
Nishkam High School, Birmingham
27 November 2017
The views expressed here are not necessarily those of the Bank of England or the Monetary Policy
Committee. I would like to thank Guy Brett-Robertson, Shiv Chowla, Raakhi Odedra,
Jasmine Stenning, Philippa Wall and Ann Whittaker for their help in preparing the text. I would like to
thank Ben Broadbent, Claire Crawford, Neil M. Davies, Jonathan Fullwood, Richard Harrison,
Ian McCafferty, Sandra Newton, Alice Pugh, Michael Saunders, Emma Sinclair, Sarah Smith and
Arthur Turrell for their comments and contributions.
Not the "everyday" bit - that's fine. It is the word "economics". For most people, this is
Terrible title, right?
an instant turn-off. "Economics" just sounds too conceptual, too academic, too impersonal, too dismal.
Stephen Hawking was once told that every equation he included in a book would halve its readership.1 The
word "economics"
probably has a similar effect.
If I'd taken media studies rather than economics, I'd have gone about things differently. I'd have drawn you
in with a "hook", such as people or children or dogs. Had my title been "Economics for the People", I'd have
doubled my readership. Had it been "Economics for the Kids", I'd have quadrupled it. And if I'd opted for "A
Fluffy Labrador Puppy Explains the Economy", the Bank's
website would have crashed.2
It is too late now. And having decimated my readership in the first line I am now going to argue that having
done so was a terrible mistake. If economics or economic policy is elitist and inaccessible to most people, it
is not doing its job. That is because the economy and economic policy affects most people's lives, every day
of their lives. More than that, an improved understanding of the economy and economic policy would
probably help many people when making everyday decisions, big and small.
You do not have to take my word for it. As it turns out, most people agree. Although many find economics
difficult to fathom, they fully accept its importance to them personally and societally. Indeed, most people
say they would like to know more about the economy to help them when making everyday decisions about
jobs and money and voting. There is a demand for better public understanding of the economy from the
public themselves.
What about the supply of this public understanding? The Bank of England is owned by, and run for the
-
benefit of, the public. It is a public institution supplying public goods goods such as stable money and safe
has been the Bank's role for the whole of its almost
banks. Indeed, this 325-year life. Another of those
public goods is public understanding of the economy, the financial system and economic and financial policy.
In what follows, I wish to say a little about why an improved understanding of the economy and economic
policy matters, for the general public when making everyday decisions and for the Bank of England when
making policy decisions. I want to say a word, too, about what the Bank is doing to support public
engagement, public understanding and thus public policy, with a focus on engaging children in schools.
The Twin Deficits
Economists often talk, with some trepidation, about economies which face a "Twin Deficit" problem. For
example, the UK currently faces both fiscal and current account deficits running to several percentage points
1
Hawking (1988).
2
(2015) show that Google searches in the US for the word 'puppies' far exceed searches for macroeconomic variables,
Kumar et al
such as GDP, inflation and unemployment.
of GDP. In economist circles, such Twin Deficits are usually the prompt for a pursing of lips, a sucking of
teeth and a sharp intake of breathe.
its own "Twin Deficit"
Yet economics may be facing problem. These twin deficits are not unique to, but are
probably more acute in, economics. With the public at large, there is an understanding deficit and a trust
deficit in economics. Because a lack of trust inhibits understanding, and because a lack of understanding
contaminates trust, these Twin Deficits are inextricably entwined.
Starting with the understanding deficit, the most compelling evidence comes from the public themselves. A
survey in 2011 asked about the meaning of the words "inflation" and "GDP", the two central concepts in
3
macroeconomics. Only 16% of the public could clearly define inflation, while only 10% could define GDP.
Other surveys have reached similar conclusions, sometimes with slightly higher fractions.4
This unfamiliarity with economic concepts extends to a lack of understanding of these concepts in practice.
For example, the Bank of England regularly surveys the general public to gauge their views on inflation.
When given a small number of options, less than a quarter of the public typically identify the correct range
within which the current inflation rate lies. More than 40% simply say that they do not know.5
If we turn from economics to finance, the picture is no better. In a recent survey, the UK's Financial Conduct
"low knowledge" of financial matters.6
Authority (FCA) found that almost half the public believed they had
Some surveys put the fraction of the public who are financially capable at only around 60%.7 Fully two-thirds
of the public say they are confused when making decisions about money.8 And the UK consistently performs
poorly in international league tables of financial literacy.9
This understanding deficit appears to extend to economic and financial policy. For example, fewer than one
in ten people know that the interest rate in the UK is set by the Bank's Monetary Policy Committee (MPC).10
Only around a quarter understand "quantitative easing" and fewer still "forward guidance".11,12
My own
experience is that the Bank is believed by many to be either an arm of government or a high-street bank.
If we turn from understanding to trust, much the same picture emerges. A survey of trust in the professions
earlier this year ranked economists second bottom, with only politicians lower.13 Doctors and nurses ranked
3
Quoted in Thompson (2016).
4
YouGov / Post Crash Economics Society Survey (2015).
5
Bank of England / TNS Inflation Attitudes Survey (2017).
6
Financial Conduct Authority (2017).
7
Money Advice Service (2015).
8
FLY Project (2015).
9
For example, see OECD/INFE International Survey of Adult Financial Literacy Competencies.
10
Bank of England / TNS Inflation Attitudes Survey (2017). It is worth noting that 29% cite the Bank of England in their response to this
question, so appear aware of the institution responsible for setting monetary policy.
11
YouGov / Post Crash Economics Society Survey (2015).
12
Bank of England (2014).
13
YouGov (2017).
top. In surveys of the public, slightly more people tend to mistrust than trust the opinions of economists,
even on economic matters.14 In other words, there is a trust deficit to match the understanding deficit.
That trust deficit also affects those setting economic policy, including central banks. Measured trust or
satisfaction in the European Central Bank, the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England fell after the global
financial crisis. It has yet to recover. This mirrors the fall in trust in institutions and experts generally.
Tellingly, the UK and US have suffered a greater erosion of institutional trust than most other countries.15
If the Twin Deficits in economics are wide, and possibly widening, what have been the root causes? They
seem to be two-sided. In part, the deficits reflect the how well (or, rather, badly) economic material is
conveyed to the general public. And in part they reflect how well (badly) the public are able to digest this
material. The public's own views make clear the
two-sided nature of the Twin Deficits problem.
A survey last year found that a significant majority of the public think that economics is inaccessible to them,
even when it is intermediated by the media or politicians.16 Only 12% believed the opposite. Inaccessibility
problems are particularly acute when it comes to financial products. There are over 12 million people in the
UK who feel they do not have the information they need to choose wisely between insurance products.17
This inaccessibility problem extends to public bodies charged with safeguarding the economy and financial
system, like central banks. One way to gauge this is by studying the way these public bodies communicate
in public. By measuring the complexity of their public communications, we can infer how easy it is for the
public to make sense of what these public bodies are saying to them.
published regularly by the Bank's
Central banks are one such body. The minutes and Inflation Report
Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) are pitched at a linguistic level which means they are readily accessible
to only around 5% and 12%, respectively, of the UK population.18 Minutes of the meetings of the United
States FOMC are pitched at a level which makes them accessible to only around 2-3% of the US population.
To some extent, this inaccessibility problem applies to all technical disciplines. Economics appears,
however, to have a particularly acute case. On many measures, economics is the most tribal of the social
sciences, judged by cross-disciplinary collaboration and citation. There are signs recently of improvement,
but from a low base.19 Economics ranks high on the tribalism scale even by comparison with most natural
sciences.20 Only theoretical physicists (with the probable exception of Stephen Hawking) come close.
14
Network Survey of the Public's Understanding of Economics (2017).
ING-Economics
15
Edelman (2017).
16
YouGov / Rethinking Economics Survey (2016).
17
Financial Conduct Authority (2017).
18
for an analysis of the Bank of England's Inflation Attitudes
Haldane (2017). See also Jost (2017) Survey.
19
Angrist, Azoulay, Ellison, Hill and Lu (2017).
20
As measured, for example, by the degree of cross-citations (Haldane and Turrell (2017)).
The other side of this coin is the public's level of understanding of economic
and financial issues. This, by
the public's own admission, is not as they would wish. Around two-thirds of the public say they have never
had any formal education and training in economics.21 In practice, that fraction may be higher still. And
almost half of all people never discuss economic and financial matters, or do so no more than once a
month.22
Why This Matters
If economists are a remote and mistrusted tribe, and if the public feel their understanding of this tribe is
inadequate, does this matter? Yes. The reason we know this is because the general public say so.
In a recent UK survey, over 80% of people said that economics was relevant, or very relevant, to their
everyday lives.23 Respondents expressed a clear desire to improve their understanding of economics, to
help them when managing money, voting or understanding the economy. Like economists, the general
public also think that the Twin Deficits are reason to purse lips, suck teeth and take sharp intakes of breath.
It is not difficult to see why. Imagine that, instead of economists plumbing the depths of the trust league
table, it was high-flying doctors. A loss of public trust and understanding in our health services would impose
significant costs on society. Fewer sick people would seek expert medical advice. Non-expert, alternative
medicine would rise in popularity. And there would be an increased risk of medical scare stories taking root.
There is plenty of evidence to suggest these costs can be considerable. Fifty years ago, there were almost
half a million suspected cases annually of measles in England and Wales. In the following year, a
vaccination for Measles, Mumps and Rubella (MMR) was introduced in the UK. Cases of measles fell
dramatically, by the mid-1990s reaching fewer than 10,000 per year.
The Lancet
In 1998, a widely-publicised article appeared in linking the MMR vaccine to autism and bowel
disease.24 News of these findings spread as contagiously as measles itself. In response, rates of MMR
vaccination, which had peaked at over 90%, fell to 80% by 2004.25 The scare had socially, as well as
clinically, contagious consequences for public health, causing lower rates of vaccination against un-related
diseases. Only recently have rates of MMR vaccination returned to their late-1990s highs.
The 1998 MMR study has since been comprehensively discredited and the lead author struck off as a doctor.
Yet the costs of this episode are still being felt. Rates of measles infection began rising in the UK from the
21
ING-Economics Network Survey of the Public's Understanding of Economics (2017).
22
YouGov / Post Crash Economics Society Survey (2015).
23
Network Survey of the Public's Understanding of Economics (2017).
ING-Economics
24
Wakefield et al (1998). The article has since been retracted.
25
Public Health England, The National Archives.
early 2000s and only recently have cases peaked. In 2016, there were over 500 confirmed cases of
measles, five times higher than at the turn of the century.
If we turn from public health to economic and financial health, the costs of a lack of public trust and
understanding are in many respects quite similar: expert advice and services may not be taken-up, worse
alternatives may be sought out and contagious scare stories may be allowed to proliferate. Each of these
has societal costs which may be significant.
Financial exclusion (people excluded from access to core financial services and advice) remains pervasive in
the UK. There are almost 2 million people in the UK without a bank account.26 In the most deprived parts
(including parts of London, Manchester, Middlesbrough, Liverpool, Bradford, Birmingham and Glasgow),
over a third of people do not have access to a bank account.27 While not all of these problems can be
blamed on a misunderstanding and mistrust of finance, these are still depressing statistics.
Many more people suffer the consequences, not of financial exclusion, but financial illiteracy. Studies have
identified a range of ways in which this can adversely affect people's
financial health. Financial illiteracy is a
key contributor to excessive indebtedness.28 It is associated with an increased incidence of default, including
in the run-up to the sub-prime crisis.29 And illiteracy causes people to seek out high-cost, non-standard
sources of credit, the financial equivalent of alternative medicine.30
-
Debt, default and dependency on high-cost credit are also a recipe for another d depression. Debt and
financial illiteracy affect physical and mental health.31 Adults in debt are three times more likely than those
without to have a common mental health disorder.32 Financial stress is associated with high levels of
personal anxiety, depression and alcohol-dependency - problems that tend to felt more acutely by people
with low levels of financial literacy.33
The link between debt, financial illiteracy and mental health is clearly two-way. In a survey by mental health
charity MIND, over 90% said that financial problems had worsened existing mental health problems, while
around two-thirds said mental health problems had contributed to their financial difficulties.34 There is a
debt-cum-depression spiral. These statistics are, in every sense of the word, depressing.
A lack of trust or understanding of finance and the economy can have wider societal costs. Economic
mistrust and misunderstanding can spread contagiously across societies, much as happened after the MMR
26
House of Lords Select Committee on Financial Exclusion (2017).
27
Resolution Foundation (2014).
28
Lusardi and Tufano (2009).
29
Gerardi, Goette and Meier (2010).
30
Disney and Gathergood (2013), for example, find that borrowers with poor financial literacy hold higher shares of high cost credit.
31
et al
Richardson (2017).
32
Earwicker (2016).
33
Earwicker (2016).
34
As quoted in Earwicker (2016).
vaccine scare. As then, this causes people to seek safety in ways which in fact increase risk, for them
individually and for societies collectively. The flames of this epidemiological fire are increasingly being
fanned by social media.
The most visible manifestation of these failures occurs at times of financial crisis, such as during a bank run.
These are contagious losses of trust. While it may seem individually rational to run, bank runs can be
collectively calamitous for societies as a whole, as during the global financial crisis and MMR episodes. As
"Popular narratives"
in those episodes, contagion is often spread by social as well as financial channels.
emerge in crisis that propagate panic, tipping economies into recession.35
Robert Shiller has recently shown how past recessions and depressions have often generated pessimistic
popular narratives about the economy or financial system.36 Economic expectations, like measles, can
follow epidemiological dynamics as pessimism spreads contagiously. This tipping point in expectations
provides a plausible account of the cliff-edge fall in GDP at the time of the Great Recession, the Great
Depression and several episodes in between.
These epidemics in expectations can be potent even during tranquil times. Sociologists have shown that
individuals' everyday decisions are often shaped by friends' and associates' views and behaviours,
irrespective of fundamental factors. It is not just extreme optimism and pessimism, exuberance and
depression, fear and hubris that are contagious. So too are dieting, exercise and gym membership.37
That appears to be true of financial market dynamics too. Recent research using Facebook data has shown
change peoples' views of
that the views of (economically and geographically-distant) friends can materially
the housing market, independently of local factors and conditions.38 This is a concrete example of social
media fanning economic and financial flames, even when the fire itself is small.
There are other, distinct, costs that arise from a loss of trust in the economy, financial system and the
institutions charged with safeguarding them. All businesses and policy institutions exist courtesy of a social
contract with society. That contract is maintained not by law but by trust. A loss of trust in institutions is
important because it is a breach of that social contract and signals an erosion of social capital.
That puts the loss of trust in institutions over recent years into sobering context. The associated breach of
social contract explains why the legitimacy of businesses and public institutions has been called into
35
Akerlof and Shiller (2009).
36
Shiller (2017).
37
For example, Aral and Nicolaides (2017) find evidence that exercise is socially contagious. Christakis and Fowler (2007) find that
social networks can allow obesity to spread.
38
Bailey et al (forthcoming).
question.39 The accompanying loss of social capital could carry significant societal costs. The absence of
institutions endowed with such social capital has, historically at least, been the reason Why Nations Fail.40
Recently, the Bank hosted a conference to mark 20 years of operational independence in monetary policy.41
Central bank independence is also part of a social contract with the public. The conference made clear that
there is nothing inviolable about that contract. Like any social contract, central bank independence needs to
be adapted and improved in response to shifting social norms and economic circumstance.
Correcting the Deficits
Engaging wider society is part of the process through which central banks can renew and strengthen that
social contract, in the face of new social norms and changed economic circumstance. How might that best
be achieved? Let me discuss three areas where the Bank of England has made progress recently and is
seeking to make further progress in the period ahead: communication; conversation; and education.
(a) Communication
When I first arrived at the Bank of England, I was told I would need to learn a new language. It was not one I
had come across previously. There was no book from which to learn, nor any recorded tapes. It seemed to
put those of us from a state school at an instant disadvantage. You didn't
involve quite a bit of Latin, which
have to wear a top hat and a tailcoat when writing it, but it helped. The language was called "Bankese".
Despite its obscurity, the semantic principles of Bankese were easy to detect. The language was ruthlessly
consistent in tone and content, for fear of giving mixed messages. It was free from personal judgement, for
fear of calling into question the Bank's judgement. It was free from emotion, for fear of
questioning the
Bank's objectivity. And it was free from split infinitives, for fear of the wrath of the Bank's wordsworths.
This reign of semantic terror is, fortunately, now long gone. In its communications, the Bank no longer backs
a single horse, notable for its consistency, lack of emotion and technical prowess. Instead it has invested in
a diverse stable of styles and publications. The messages they deliver are now deliberately mixed, in tone
and content, to meet the mixed needs of a mixed audience. Let me give three recent examples.
the Bank's staff blog. Bank Underground
The first is Bank Underground, has levels of linguistic complexity
up to 4 years lower than the Inflation Report, making it accessible to up to 11 million more people, or around
a fifth of the adult population. Perhaps reflecting that, it recently exceeded 1 million hits. That is around 6 or
7 times the number of readers of the Inflation Report over the same period.
39
Haldane (2015).
40
Acemoglu and Robinson (2012).
41
See http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/research/Pages/conferences/2017/28290917.aspx
A second is KnowledgeBank. This is an attempt to explain the economy and central bank policies using a
combination of simple prose, cartoons, videos, games and competitions. It draws on different messaging
conveyed through different media. Its level of linguistic complexity is 5 years lower than the Inflation Report,
making it accessible to around 14 million more people, or around a quarter of the adult population.
A third example is the Bank's flagship publication, the Inflation
Report. In November, the Bank for the first
in three layers: Layer 3 was the usual "50 page, 50 chart" version; Layer 2 was
time published the Report
the chart" version; and Layer 1 was the "1 line, 1 chart" version.
"1-2 page, 1-2 With a level of complexity
more than 6 years below Layer 3, Layers 1 and 2 in principle could reach an extra 21 million people.
Early evidence suggests this layering has helped in reaching a broader audience. Website hits on the
November Inflation Report were double the average from earlier quarters. These extra hits were entirely
accounted for by Layers 1 and 2, while Layer 3 hits were essentially unchanged. This suggests that layering
has enabled the MPC to reach a new, wider audience without cannibalising its existing audience.42
Producing simplified material, like layering, is neither a short cut nor an easy option. Nor is it simply an act of
communication. Message simplification is an act of policy. As such, simplified messages need to be agreed
- the Layer 1 and 2 messages in the Bank's November Inflation
and signed-off by policy committees as were
Report. They are another example of the Marshall McLuhan maxim of the medium becoming the message.43
If one feature of more effective communication with the general public is simplification, a second is
story-telling. For most people, stories stick in a way facts and figures simply cannot. Recent experimental
evidence has explored whether media narratives are able to stick in a way that can reshape public discourse,
public opinion and public behaviour.44 It finds compelling evidence that stories do just that.
Some stories are, of course, more adhesive than others. I recently attended a conference on the merits of
"Odyssean" and "Delphic" forward guidance. The use of Greek mythology is an
example of story-telling. But
are these stories sticky with the public? For most people, fictional goings-on in Ancient Greece several
millennia ago are not especially sticky. Even modern-day citizens of Delphi might find them a stretch.
in creating not just narratives but "popular narratives", to use the language of George Akerlof and
The trick is
stories that link to people's
Robert Shiller.45 One effective way of doing so is draw on personal, local or
recent experience. This helps people to visualise the story which, in turn, helps make it stick, in much the
same way visualising a list of random items helps them stick in your memory.
42
The MPC's decision to
raise Bank Rate in November may also of course have had a role to play in generating extra hits.
43
MuLuhan (1964).
44
King, Schneer and White (2017).
45
See Shiller (2017).
MPC's policy actions in "taking foot off the accelerator"
The November were described as its to hold the car
within its "speed limit". This was intended to convey the sense of monetary policy slowing the economy
slightly, towards its lower potential growth rate, while still propelling it forward overall. It was a visual
narrative. Because most people (from Derry to Doncaster, Dunfermline to Dunvant, Delphi to Delhi) drive
cars, it was a local and personal narrative too. The car metaphor was used extensively by UK media.
There is a balance to be struck here, of course, a point beyond which simplification and story-telling morphs
into dumbing-down and trivialisation. We need to recognise those limits. Equally, most of the policymaking
world is at present some distance from these limits. In the transition, I'd be comfortable erring on the side of
over-simplifying, rather than over-complicating, if policymakers and the public are to begin to forge a link.
Let me give a concrete example: Quantitative Easing or QE. When QE was first introduced in 2009, the
Bank made strenuous efforts to explain this new policy to the wider world. It published speeches and
articles. It even did a Townhall tour of the UK to explain its actions. The conversations with the public about
QE typically took the following form:
Q: "Is QE please?"
money-printing? And, if so, can I have some
Bank: "No. And
no."
Q: "Why not?"
Bank: "QE is not printing money. It is the Bank of England, through its operations in financial markets,
purchasing government securities of a given duration, typically from non-bank financial institutions such as
life insurance and pension funds, whose accounts are credited with the proceeds such that the asset
purchases are financed through the creation of central bank reserves held on the accounts of commercial
banks at the Bank of England".
And that explanation, it was hoped, would provide the general public with the confidence needed to
encourage them to spend. You can be the jury in deciding how well this might have been achieved.
There was a different explanation, and conversation, with the public that could have been had. It might have
gone something like this:
Q: "Andy, is QE
money-printing?"
Andy: "Yes. And when you get some, make sure you spend
it."
I fully accept that this would be the wrong side of the over-simplifying line for some people. But if doing so
delivers the desired policy outcome - building public confidence to support spending - that may be the better
side of the line on which to err. Just saying.
(b) Conversation
At the Bank's first Open Forum in 2015, Gillian
Guy, Chief Executive of Citizens Advice, said something that
has stuck with me. In a panel discussion on the role of finance in society, all panellists agreed on the need
for improved public understanding of finance. Gillian added a crucial qualifier: improved understanding of
the public by those in finance was every bit as important as improved public understanding of finance.
I think this is bang on and not just in the field of finance. Listening is every bit as important as talking when it
-
comes to public policy. The most important reason for this is the most obvious as policymakers, we stand
to learn something. Indeed, because the voices of non-experts are rarely heard and are likely to convey
different information than that available from experts, we potentially stand to learn a lot.
This is not just conjecture. Statistical studies, drawn from a great many different environments and involving
very different decisions, show it to be the case. Expert opinion is an essential starting point for good
decision-making. But only a starting point. The judgements of experts can be improved materially by
46
drawing on the views of non-experts. Doing so is the key to what Philip Tetlock calls "super-forecasting."
More fundamentally, non-experts are us. By numbers, if not salaries, they represent almost all of society.
Non-experts do most of the spending and saving in the economy, shaping its growth. It is their wage and
inflation expectations that determine whether central banks meet their inflation targets. And it is their trust
that needs to be nurtured, and recaptured, if policy institutions are to maintain their legitimacy.
Yet extracting views on the economy from non-experts is not easy. It takes extra effort to engage with those
with whom you may be unfamiliar. Often they speak a different language and have different starting points.
Sometimes, for understandable reasons, economic matters are not especially interesting for them. The thing
that makes these views worth listening to is the very thing that makes them sometimes difficult to hear.
One way of listening to the public is through structured surveys of households. Central banks, including the
-
Bank of England, make extensive and increasing use of such surveys for example, when gauging
households' indebtedness, spending and confidence. They play an important diagnostic role when setting
policy. Surveys are not, however, without problems.
46
Tetlock and Gardner (2016).
be "framed" by
One of the most important is that they use pre-determined sets of questions which may
experts' views. If so, survey responses are likely to offer a restricted, often distorted, window on the
non-expert world. Framed questions make for answers which conceal more than they reveal. One of the
reasons experts have been surprised by how non-experts have behaved recently is because they have been
asking closed questions or, worst of all, dismissing answers that do not fit their own view.
experts'
Avoiding this risk requires you to ask questions which are as open and unpolluted as possible by
priors and prejudices. This comes from listening, rather than just hearing. It comes from engaging in
two-way conversation, from genuine dialogue not monologue. It comes from drawing on social skills every
bit as much as cognitive skills.
Other professions offer an object lesson here. Why are doctors top of the trust league table? Studies show
that what matters for doctors' patient satisfaction
scores is not just their clinical competence. Indeed, their
patients'
knowledge of the latest Lancet article is irrelevant. What matters every bit as much, or more, to
trust in their doctor is their social skills, their listening skills, their personal touch, their bedside manner.47
Few people would want an economist at their bedside. An economist with strong social skills is one who
stares at your shoes, rather than their own, when engaged in polite conversation. And conversation does
not appear to come easily to the economics profession. A recent study of Twitter behaviour found that
economists were the least likely discipline to engage in general conversation, on topics such as Fluffy
Labradors.48 Their conversations are technical in nature and narrow in reach.
The Bank has recently re-oriented fundamentally its outreach programme to improve its engagement with
The Bank's
non-expert audiences, with a less technical focus and a longer reach. Agents around the UK
have for many years collected intelligence on the economy and financial system, largely from companies.
Recently, the Bank's Agents have placed greater emphasis on meeting charities, community and faith
groups and trade unions, widening its non-expert contacts and expanding its intelligence pool.
Over a number of years now, I have been reorienting my own regional visits towards these groups. Earlier
this year, I augmented these regional visits with a "Townhall Tour", partnering with charities, citizen and faith
groups to engage with new sets of people across the whole of the UK. These are, by design, listening
events. The main messages are captured in my blog and animations and photos from each of the events.49
The Townhalls have made clear to me the benefits of asking ope