National Competitions Students’ Work

This year’s creative work section reaches out to various different subjects within the school, showing individual/group excellence within them. It is our hope that all readers will find something to interest them within this section containing illustrations from the Art exhibition and works from English, Geography and Economics. It is, unfortunately, as ever, impossible to include works from every subject that submitted pieces, but, with the continued presence of the new school journals, including the Olavian Academic Journal under the patronage of Mr Budds, we remain sure that such articles will not be lost to people as a result of not being printed here.

Self-Similarish

By Fintan Calpin

Each of us has in a moment been a love that sticks string-and-wax-fixed wings on our own backs in solar winds lived in hoar-frosted dream rooms like urban foxes curled round pale fires of phone screens to keep cosy or seen with superstitious eyes a dead friend’s Facebook page comforted by the remnants when we die outliving our bodies or souls. walking to your house on Soundlessness Street I listen for the rip of your seams, for 18 years sealed in an envelope, unopened SMS rustling in your pocket like leaves split in spilt arctic breeze.

Each - in a moment of 6 days! - built a house of worries, walls painted with woes in fractals and the rest of the week unbuilt it again.

I can touch four walls in here while I am standing still.

A War Without End

By Mehmood Ali

On the battle fields hate and rage brews, Savagery and anger surface inside. We fight against others but one side must lose, By the end thousands, millions will have died. Pain never subsides when through trenches we crawl, Mud and wounds feel like a stab to the heart. Together we wait for that final call, That says we have won and played our own part. Until then we try to escape with broken bones, Killing and murdering to try and gain peace. Listening to those bombs and gunfire alone, Hoping, wishing, wanting the war to cease. But I must come to terms with the cold truth, A war being fought by all our youth.

Compare the ways in which Owen portrays the impact of war on soldiers in ‘Conscious’ and ‘The Letter’

Owen explores the impact of war on soldiers in two different situations, which are in many ways similar. Both are overwhelming situations for the personas, but their environment and physical conditions are contrasting. In both poems, Owen presents examples of the stoicism of the soldiers fighting in the First World War within the personas’ internal monologues.

Owen portrays the effect that war has on soldiers’ minds in two different, yet somewhat similar, situations. One soldier is conscious, alert to his surroundings and interacting openly with others. The other is struggling to regain consciousness and is completely locked in, scarcely able to communicate with others and fighting an intense internal battle. This second persona is isolated in a hospital ward which feebly attempts to mimic a homely environment, but in reality is suffocating. When the persona wakes, his fingers “flutter” up the hospital bed; this delicate motion alone seems out of place in this context and a stark contrast to the ongoing war. He frantically begins to take in his surroundings, incapable of keeping on one train of thought for too long. It is these non sequiturs that make up most of the first stanza, and reflect the confusion and disorientation of war. In the space of four lines, the persona moves from noticing the sound of the drawling blind-cord, to commenting on “what a smooth floor the ward has”, to glancing at the “three flies… creeping round the shiny jug”. This is the impact the war has had on this man – he is still the observant, attentive soldier he once was, but he is now rather weak and feeble. The fact that he notices how the “blind-cord drawls across the window-sill” shows how isolated he is – this near-inaudible sound is all he has to focus on. The drawling sound is also quite slow and subdued, which lends to the clouded, almost unconscious feel of the poem. The odd notion of the soldier noticing “what a smooth floor the ward has” shows what war has done to his mind as well. The smooth, clean floor of the hospital so contrasts the boggy, muddy and often corpsestrewn trench floor, that the soldier seems entertained by such a minor detail. The theme of disjointed ideas is also present in ‘The Letter’. When the bomb hits the trench, the persona’s world is thrown into chaos, which is emphasised by the disjointed nature of the lines, broken up with punctuation: “Guh! Christ! I’m hit. Take ‘old. Aye, bad”. The soldier tries to run through the drill that he has practised so many times, getting his fellow soldiers to “give’s a hand with pack on”, not realising that he has been hit. This further accentuates the disorientation of war.

The fragmented structure of the lines near the end of ‘The Letter’ reflects the separation of war – something the soldier is experiencing first hand, being separated from his wife. The fact that he tells his wife his “mother might spare [her] half a sov” shows that the image of well-looked-after families back home during the war is completely false. The separation in ‘Conscious’ is expressed through the persona’s complete isolation. His only attempt at interaction with the hospital staff is shot down with a strict, matronly “Yes, all right, all right”. This once again shows how the field hospitals were wellordered, but suffocating. Order is very much imposed on these men. At the beginning of the second stanza, it is said that “sudden evening blurs and fogs the air”. The “fog” in the evening air represents the soldier’s clouded mind and the “sudden” aspect of this line emphasises how quickly the man’s health begins to deteriorate as he slowly falls unconscious once more. As the soldier slips back out of consciousness, perhaps dying in the hospital bed where he lies, he struggles to hold on to the only human contact he can, but there is “no light to see the voices by”. This line highlights the persona’s confusion and disorientation, as voices are not things that can be seen. In such a confusing situation, it is odd that the alternate rhyming pattern throughout the poem is so regular – the structure and order are never broken. This reflects the order which is imposed on the men and their constraints and restrictions as soldiers; they are forced to follow a pattern.

Owen accentuates in both poems the stoicism of the soldiers at war, but emphasises that this is just a front, and the soldiers are bearing their hardships internally. In ‘Conscious’ the persona opens his eyes after a period of unconsciousness with “a pull of will, Helped by the yellow mayflowers by his head”. The may-flowers and their colour symbolise the optimism that still lingers somewhere within the persona’s mind, and the “pull of will” with which he opens his eyes once again shows the stoic nature of the soldiers, and their unwillingness to give up. However, we discover that the normality in the hospital does little to restrain the images of the battlefield that permeate the persona’s thoughts. “Music and roses burst through crimson slaughter” suggests that the normality within the hospital only occasionally infiltrates through the tormenting flashbacks the persona is experiencing. The harsh plosive sound of “burst” along with the emotive “slaughter” reinforces the traumatising effect the war has had on the soldier. The vivid image of “crimson slaughter” makes this even more tangible to the reader. The tolerance of the men is also reflected in the language the persona uses in ‘The Letter’. The soldier clearly puts on a brave face when writing home to his wife, choosing not to complain about the poor conditions or his injury, instead convincing her that he is “out of harm’s way” in a nice, hospitable environment. The euphemistic approach he takes when writing home, the charming manner and colloquial language (“square‘eaded ‘Uns”), is contrasting to his reality, in which he is half starving and by no means out of danger. Not only is the soldier limited as to what he can tell his wife by censorship laws, he also takes matters into his own hands, including a certain amount of self-censorship in his letter. Owen makes this no clearer than when the persona writes “We’re out in rest now. Never fear”, which is immediately followed by the sound of a bomb dropping not far from where the persona is situated. The comforting reassurance the soldier offers his wife is starkly juxtaposed with the onomatopoeic “VRACH!” sound of the bomb hitting. The harsh interruption of “VRACH!” in the poem, the capitals and the nature of the word, reflects the unexpected explosion of the bomb in the trench.

The structures of the poems are vastly different, and are designed to portray the impact of war in two differing situations. In ‘Conscious’, the second stanza marks a change in the poem – the situation is suddenly different. The “sudden evening” represents the darkness in the persona’s vision as he loses consciousness and shows how his perception is being distorted. ‘The Letter’ on the other hand, was written as one large stanza, which represents the rushed, dynamic situation the man is in. Owen could have written the letter to the soldier’s wife as one stanza, and another stanza at the front line, but the concurrent narrative is more realistic in representing the confusion that war brings. The structure of ‘The Letter’ lends an empathetic opportunity for the reader in this regard –they too are confused at first, by the brackets and the two simultaneous narratives.

The main impacts of war that Owen hopes to portray in ‘Conscious’ and ‘The Letter’ are confusion, disorientation and separation. He conveys these ideas in different ways in the two poems, but the same resounding message can be seen in both: the men are ultimately constrained by the expectations of the soldier, and both end up losing their grasp on reality.

Raymond Carver’s Little Things is a short story focusing on the breakdown of a relationship, incorporating the themes of miscommunication, possession and destruction. A motif of light changing to dark also runs through the story, reflecting its dark and deteriorating narrative. With the addition of Carver’s trademark minimalist style, dictating the action through dialogue and only using sparse description, Little Things is a gripping and disturbing piece to read, with no distractions from its blunt and hard hitting storyline.

The light motif is present throughout, used primarily to represent the couple’s failing relationship, as well as the oncoming darkness that is about to consume their household and family life. The idea of it becoming “dark on the inside” foreshadows a rising tension and darkening tone, and in a literal sense is very visually suited to the kind of gritty domestic drama being played out, creating a claustrophobic atmosphere that closes in around the action. The couple no longer have any hope, or light, in their relationship, and have instead become isolated in their own, darkening relationship. This gathering darkness and tension can also be seen in the “snow... melting into dirty water” outside, another environmental representation of the failing relationship. What was once pure and special has now dissolved into a commonplace substance that nobody wants – but physical traces of what once was still exist, similar to the baby’s existence as evidence of the couple’s past love for each other, however brief and broken.

A lack of communication is a recurring theme in many of Carver’s works like One More Thing in which the family can only shout or speak in secluded groups. This theme is included in Little Things, where the action in the scene is mainly told through the dialogue, devoid of speech marks, making the piece seem almost closer to a play – dialogue driven, and often without authorial voice - consequently leaving large sections of the story open to interpretation, for example: “Let go of him he said. Get away, get away! she cried” In this case the extended use of dialogue almost provokes misunderstanding from the reader, leaving the sequence of events and emotions half-unexplained. As the action is muddled and uncertain anyway, the lack of clear description enhances the sense that domestic dramas -especially one as dark and entangled as this - are confusing and unsure, with no one person taking the blame. The sparse speech gives the dialogue importance and physicality, and makes each statement seem more weighted, like an action or description of one, with even simple statements such as “Get out of here!” having stronger force. This is further accentuated by the space on the page, with line breaks frequent to space out both the dialogue and action. The distance between the characters is mirrored in the space between their interactions on the page, evoking a sense of separation between them physically, and accentuating the idea of mental barrier.

Objects also make a frequent appearance in Carver’s short stories, often to symbolise a relationship or theme within the piece – a good example in Little Things being the “baby’s picture on the bed” which begins the entire argument. The use of this photograph initiates questions about the history of the couple, and influences our view on the upcoming events. The woman is seen to have aggravated the man into action, as her desperation at the situation has driven her to provoke him “she noticed the baby’s picture on the bed and picked it up”. Yet this by no means prevents sympathy also being invoked on her part – in fact she can easily be interpreted as the more loving character, being more family orientated and thinking about the child first, “she uncovered the blanket from around his head”, demonstrating concern about his welfare over the fear induced by her husband, as well as shifting focus towards the baby who is now no longer seen as only an object. The new character of the baby adds another layer of tension to the story, as the child has changed from being a stationary image in the picture to a vulnerable character; twined with the darkening light motif the tension is raised even further.

Carver represents the breakdown of a relationship in One More Thing, another short story centring around the breakdown in a couple’s relationship and the effects on their child; it is easy to draw parallels between One More Thing’s jar of pickles being “pitched through the kitchen window” and when in Little Things, a “flowerpot that hung behind the stove” is “knocked down”. In both stories, the destruction signals the shattering of any remaining hope in the household, and any normality that came with it. It is also to some extent a catalyst for later events, a final act of violence and disregard for safety sending the relationship crashing over the edge. In Little Things, after the flowerpot is broken far more obviously violent words like “tightened” and “screaming” are used, to foreshadow the oncoming wave of violence and the rising tension in the scene.

The terse sentences with next to no punctuation create a faster narrative pace to engage with, and it is this quickened pace that suggests a rising climax to the scene. The woman, after initially provoking the man into action, having “picked up” the baby’s picture and then “stared at him” before leaving, becomes more flustered in her dialogue; she “cried” out, exclaiming “For God’s sake!” Her actions, once bold and daring have now been undone by the fear and tension evoked by the quickening narrative, these feeling will be emulated by the reader, as the story seems to be reaching a climax. The man’s tone remains monosyllabic and unflinching throughout; his dialogue is brief and determined, “I want the baby.” and, “Let go of him.” the persistent nature of the speech creates a dangerous tone, and the narrative seems more climactic and terse.

The climax in question happens when all the created tension is suddenly and sharply undone and the man “[pulls] back very hard” – on his own baby. The final line of “the issue” being “decided” seems almost inappropriate given the horrible image that preceded it – the reader is left with no idea of who ‘won’ the argument, what even happened to the baby, all serving to create an ending of anti-climactic horror and ambiguity. The tragedy of the preceding events is almost accentuated by their not even leading to a tangible conclusion.

In brief, Little Things is made to be an effective short story through its tightly packed content and literary technique, the themes are represented well, and the surrounding motifs and style of writing help support them in their success.

Was the Emperor Augustus a Keynesian?

“It is astonishing what foolish things one can temporarily believe if one thinks too long alone, particularly in economics.” – John Maynard Keynes

“He could boast that he inherited it brick and left it marble.” -

Suetonius

1,819 years mark the time between the death of Imperator Caesar Divi Augustus – the first true Emperor of Rome - and the birth of John Maynard Keynes – the single most influential economist of the 20th Century. Those centuries saw the fall of the Ancient world, the rise of the old world and the meteoric ascension of the new. Some would argue that any mutual examination of these two men is rendered null and void by the epochs that yawn cavernously between them. However, I would argue that the chronological distance between these two men lends itself to a sense of detachment when comparing their ideas, actions and words; allowing for a purer distillation of their beliefs unsullied by the smears of their contemporaries.

Before we ask if Augustus himself was a Keynesian; and define what we mean by ‘Keynesian economics’ we must first establish whether the Roman economy was sufficiently developed such that we can apply 20th Century models and theories to its functions and politics. For the sake of ease, I intend to examine the economy of Rome through the lens of Polanyi’s three part definition – reciprocity, redistribution and exchange. These definitions identify three separate solutions to the economic problem – a feudal system of social obligation, a centrist system of redistribution and a free market system of exchange. It is evident that a ruler in an economy confined to any single one of these systems could not be described as a Keynesian; as the interaction between market forces and state intervention is a fundamental aspect of Keynesian economics. Whilst some would argue that Rome only really fulfils one of these criteria, I’d argue that the Roman economy was a sufficient enough blend of all three, such that it was developed enough to be labelled with a term from a patently more advanced economy and economist.

The Roman Economy

The often overlooked fact about the Roman economy is its immense size and complexity. In his dissection of the Roman economy, Goldsmith estimates the population of the empire in 14 AD to have been roughly 55 million –whilst other studies range around this figure, as high as 100 million, Goldsmith’s estimates remain somewhere in the middle ground of more extreme estimates. These 55 million people living under the cosh of Rome were involved in a huge range of economic activities –industrial, agricultural and manufacturing with extensive evidence of mechanisation through primarily hydraulic means. For example water sluicing in Iberian mines allowed the Roman economy to produce a raw tonnage of ore unmatched until the industrial revolution. In demographic terms, approximately 5% of the Roman population were enslaved – a major component of the spoils of war which drove growth massively from 200BC onwards. A very striking aspect of demography of the early empire was the enormous wealth inequality – contributed to by the omnipresence of slavery. This had an immense impact on the plebeian lower classes, who rarely owned land; whereas senator’s estates – manned primarily by slaves rather than tenant farmers, sprawled for hundreds of acres across the Italian countryside. These immensely wealthy senators represented a cadre of society that paid at private expense for the majority of public buildings in the late republic, and arguably formed the basis for the Keynesian actions of Augustus in the early Empire.

On the surface, the Roman economy may appear to fit more in the model of social reciprocity than any other; the oligarchs of the senate, in a system technically democratic in nature – but closer to feudal fealty in reality, funded and supported myriad projects for the betterment of the Roman people. Triumphant generals would regularly fund the maintenance of infrastructure such as roads from their personal wealth, under the direction of the senate – thus increasing aggregate demand in the Roman economy. Furthermore, the annona, or grain dole for Roman citizens provided 84,000 tonnes of corn for 200,000 people per annum in the city – this massive state led injection into the circular flow of income is plentiful evidence for the centralised manipulation of aggregate demand in the late Roman republic. These acts evidently show an economic model with both redistribution and reciprocity; to the extent that a central authority – either the senate or an autocratic Principate, would have enough established authority to actively manipulate the level of aggregate demand within the economy; thus conforming to a Keynesian model of economic control.

However, for reasons that will be discussed imminently, a purely reciprocal and redistributive economic model would not fulfil the criteria required for the Keynesian model. Therefore, in order to label Augustus a Keynesian, we must establish the presence of market forces in the Ancient Roman World and prove that the Mediterranean market for goods and services was sufficiently developed for interplay between state manipulation of demand and natural commercial activity – an uneven dominance of one over the other would prohibit us from describing Augustus’ policies as Keynesian. There is a wealth of evidence for private enterprise and private sector transactions which show the genuine presence of a developed economy in the ancient world. Firstly the shipping trade was dominated by private firms competing and fulfilling sophisticated contracts including insurance frameworks, letters of credit and a quality assurance scheme for transported grain. Furthermore, large firms concentrated in specific provinces of the empire were able to cut administrative costs through mass production of goods – such as the large number of metallurgy workshops concentrated in Iberia. The fact that these economic transactions took place outside of the auspices of centralised governmental control clearly shows that there was a genuine free market economy in the Ancient Mediterranean – fulfilling Polanyi’s three separate economic descriptors and thus allowing us to view the actions of Augustus as the political ruler of a developed economy, who can feasibly be described as a Keynesian.

Keynesian Economics

In order to truly understand whether Augustus was a Keynesian, we need to understand what is meant by Keynesian economics. Keynes set out the core of his economic beliefs in his magnum opus The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money; they can be summarised thusly:

Demand is the most crucial aspect of the economy; demand not only determines output, but also plays the primary role in the cycle of boom and bust.

Manipulation of aggregate demand by the state is a vital tool in any developed economy; government spending is the best response to take in the face of recession

A successful economy will have significant input from both the private and public sectors – breaking away from the laissez faire consensus that triumphed throughout the 19th Century.

Given the constraint of Polanyi’s three stratified answers to the economic problem, it is clear that Keynesian economics relies on a mixed economy – with a strong ‘exchange’ based private sector which drives investment and a large proportion of ordinary transactions. However in a Keynesian system, the State must also act in the ‘redistributive’ or ‘reciprocal’ modes – for the provision of public goods in times of prosperity and the artificial increase of Aggregate demand in response to recession in order to drive the recovery. It is evident that the Roman economy combines Polanyi’s three categories enough for Keynesian fiscal policy to be employed in the Ancient World.

As Keynes was primarily writing in the aftermath of the Wall Street Crash and Great Depression, it is a fair assertion that Keynes primarily believed in using public spending to alleviate the damage of the boom and bust cycle. This is far and away the most compelling similarity between Keynes and Augustus’s doctrines as the first Emperor inherited a nation torn apart by more than fifty years of warring, desolation and genocide. His response, over a 41 year reign, was to spend enormous amounts of his own wealth and public money – thus restoring the output of the economy to its previous high, through expansionary fiscal policy; to this end Augustus was a textbook Keynesian.

Bust and Boom

The Roman Civil Wars of 49 BC to 30 BC quinquimated the population of Rome – with twenty percent of the adult male population dying in the conflicts. These wars were particularly costly to Rome as since the fall of both Carthage and Corinth in 146 BC, Rome was the undisputed ruler of the Mediterranean. This meant that casualties or damage on either side of the campaign would both equally damage the strength and capacity of Rome and its economy – unsurprisingly, come Augustus’ ascension in 27 BC, Rome was in a worse position than it been since the sack of Italy at the hands of the Gauls in 390 BC. Augustus sought to repair the damage done by the wars through an extensive program of spending and infrastructure development; this action inadvertently helped the recovery even further – with government spending feeding back into the wider economy thanks to the multiplier effect, leading to a greater than proportional increase in aggregate demand at a time when political instability and conflict had left consumer and business confidence in the future of Rome at an all time low. Expansionary fiscal actions included the repair of dilapidated roads across the empire, done at the expense of the senate and the building of aqueducts with public money. Augustus – who offered the public coffers more than 150,000,000 sesterces (0.75% of contemporaneous GDP) personally claimed responsibility for the building and repair of 82 temples across the Empire. The sheer quantity of materials and labour this required would have been of enormous benefit to firms operating around the Mediterranean and thus represents a Keynesian injection of public spending into the circular flow – similar to the building of Hoover dam or the Autobahn projects of 1930s America and Germany. Whilst Augustus himself would have had no awareness of Keynesian theory, aggregate demand or the multiplier effect, his actions are pre eminently Keynesian in nature – he sought to actively repair and replenish the economy through lavish public spending; simultaneously winning popularity and founding a dynasty that would last for centuries- passing its name on to the royal families of Germany and Russia centuries later. Furthermore, the Keynesian approach genuinely worked – the period following his rule saw peace, prosperity and a HDI figure unparalleled until the 1700s.

However, it could be argued that Augustus was not genuinely a Keynesian. The primary argument in favour of this is that Augustus didn’t take any public debt during his rule – in traditional Keynesian theory the shortfall from spending and tax cuts is recouped through debt; however due to the huge amounts of money flooding into Rome from the provinces, there was no such shortfall. Similarly, the growth experienced throughout this period was due to an influx of wealth from newly conquered provinces such as Egypt. The injection of this income was inevitable as the Romans expand their borders and due to the hierarchical Roman system, this wealth went straight into the hands of the ruling elite –the senatorial oligarchy. While it’s a nuanced distinction to draw, it is clear that there is a difference between Keynesian public spending and the socially obligated actions of the money grabbing patricians. However this argument is null and void as regardless of the mechanism or intention of the spending, Augustus’s actions still had a prominently Keynesian bent and effect. A much more compelling argument against Augustus’s position as a Keynesian is his lack of alternatives – whilst there was a prominent private banking sector in Ancient Rome, the principate and senate had no authority to regulate these bankers beyond a legal maximum lending rate. This was never utilised and remained at 12% for the entirety of Augustus’ reign – therefore Augustus was not a Keynesian by choice but by necessity as monetarism was entirely outside of his options as Emperor.

Overall, the actions of Augustus were genuinely Keynesian in nature; but more than that – they were highly successful in transforming the Empire from a war ravaged ailing state into an unparalleled superpower. The Julio-Claudian dynasty and its successors ruled the Mediterranean unequivocally into the 3rd Century AD – this strength was thanks to the enormous successes of Augustus in founding a prosperous Empire on the back of proto-Keynesian economics.

Why is engineering the key to a strong economic future in the UK?

Engineering is the application of scientific and mathematical principles to real world challenges. While the necessity and importance of engineering has rocketed in the UK in recent years, with the development of new technologies and the widespread demand for a greater quality of life, the engineering sector has largely stagnated with the economy shifting increasingly towards services, as Figure 1 shows. While in 1970, the engineering sector accounted for 32% of the UK’s GDP, double the contribution of 16% from services, services now contribute three times more to GDP than engineering (ONS Blue Book, 2009).

This clear and continuing trend is, for the reasons detailed below, a cause for great concern for the UK government. Engineering is a sector where the UK has the potential to surge ahead of the competition and, particularly as new technologies emerge and new engineering opportunities arise, it will indeed be the key to a strong economic future in the UK. It would be greatly beneficial for the UK to embark upon a programme of supply-side policies in order to inspire and equip young people to lead the industry into the next generation.

A first reason why engineering is so vital to the future of the UK is that the government must strive to achieve balanced economic growth. Aggregate demand in the UK is, at the moment, heavily biased towards and dependent upon consumption. Such dependency, with investment and exports lagging, makes the UK economy fragile and vulnerable. A shock to consumption, which could be caused for instance by a rise in interest rates incentivising saving and increasing the cost of borrowing, could cause economic collapse and disaster for the UK, with no other components of AD to fall back on. Consequently, it is imperative that the UK acts now to stimulate investment and exports. The Director General of the Confederation of British Industry John Cridland endorses this view, arguing that ‘the key to the UK getting back on track is growth, founded on a rebalanced economy geared much more towards manufacturing and export’. The latter is especially applicable to engineering. The root cause of the UK’s modest exports is the fact that, as a nation, we do not manufacture nearly enough consumer goods. With the regulation and costs which come with production in the UK, it would be foolish to suggest that the UK should dedicate its resources to the manufacturing of low quality goods, as businesses would find it impossible to compete with such economies as China. However, the opportunity for the UK lies in the engineering and development of higher quality goods, which it can then export to the rest of the world. The UK has the infrastructure, the capital and, if effective training schemes are introduced, the human resources required to truly lead the world in the manufacture of high quality goods. While we cannot compete at the bottom end of the market due to our high costs of production, we can compete at the top end where emerging economies lack the resources that the UK possesses. This is our niche area where our exports can compete and it is imperative that we exploit it so to avoid economic stagnation and being overtaken by the BRIC countries. The challenge therefore is how to seize this opportunity and produce these high quality goods, which require research, innovation and human skills, all of which come under the category of engineering. UK gross investment in Research and Development was modest at 1.8% in 2010 compared with 3.2% in the USA and 2.8% in Germany. There are a lower percentage of firms deemed ‘innovation active’ in the UK than the entire developed world at just 36% (Statistics from ‘Jobs and growth – the importance of engineering skills to the UK economy’). However, the turnover from this limited innovation is often the best in Europe. This portrays perfectly the unfulfilled potential which exists in the engineering sector. If the government invests in engineering research, innovation and skills, the UK can greatly strengthen its exports and in doing so, rebalance what is currently a frail and susceptible economy. However, it should be stressed that such an approach would take years to implement – it is a long term solution. For instance, changes made to school curriculums to develop more engineering skills will take a generation to impact upon the economy. The dependence on consumption in the UK economy is an immediate threat and not one that can be left unaddressed for such a period. Hence, it could be argued that developing engineering is not the ideal solution to the imbalance in the makeup of UK aggregate demand, and that other measures with lesser time lags should be pursued.

Another reason why engineering provides the key to a strong economic future in the UK is the growth and development of technology, which provides new engineering opportunities. The services sector has served the UK well in recent years as London particularly has surged ahead of its foreign opponents in areas such as finance, law and management consultancy. However, emerging economies have begun to diversify and are now beginning to compete in the international services sector. Activity in India’s services sector grew at its ‘fastest pace in well over a year in June, as new business poured in’, according to Reuters which also refers to the ‘broadening’ of the Chinese economy into services. Consequently, opportunities for services in the UK are declining as business is leaked to emerging economies. However, opportunities are ever increasing in the engineering sector as new innovation provides potential new routes to economic growth. An example of this is the biomedical engineering sector which, through the development of new technological capabilities, has emerged as an area in which the UK can dominate the world market. According to Design News Magazine, the biomedical engineering sector is set to grow 62% by 2020. This is an encouraging example for the UK and it is vital that the use of new technology is extended to other, somewhat stagnant, engineering sectors. Aerospace and chemical engineering are both forecast to grow by less than 10% by 2020 yet, if these industries can embrace innovation and apply it to their fields; there is great potential for them to move forward. In this way, the application of new technology in engineering is an exciting chance for the UK to dominate an international market, diversify its economy and bring sustained economic growth. It is thus imperative that steps are taken so that the engineering skills and infrastructure are in place to apply and use technology in the sector. However, developing technology in engineering is a risky sector for the government to invest in. While the UK may be able to develop new products, it is relatively easy for these to be copied my other countries’ businesses. In such cases, the UK pays the cost of research and development, but other economies reap much of the reward. A similar example on a national scale was when Samsung allegedly copied Apple’s iPhones in the way in which they designed their Galaxy smartphones. As such, while the UK may be able to develop innovative products, they may not be the sole benefactors from them and so developing technology in engineering may not be such an economically attractive prospect.

A final reason why engineering is integral to a strong economic future in the UK is the positive impact that engineering can have on so many sectors of the economy. Investment in engineering creates a positive multiplier effect as the skills acquired by trained engineers and the goods they produce can be utilised all over the economy. Figure 2 below shows how, while many thousands of workers in Science, Engineering and Technology are employed in the manufacturing and construction sectors, over 800,000 work in either Business Services or Computing. Engineering qualifications are numerically challenging and give students a wide range of transferrable skills which are greatly valued by employers in various sectors across the UK. This is demonstrated by the fact that engineering graduates are the second highest earners, according to a recent Telegraph study.

In a similar way to engineering skills, new products developed by engineers can also bring greater efficiency and greater profit to businesses in other sectors, and greater growth overall in the economy. For instance, the mechanisation of a factory by an engineering firm may increase the efficiency of a retailer’s production line, cut costs and increase profit. In such a way, engineered products can have a beneficial effect on almost every industry in the UK. More investment is thus required in inspiring and educating engineers, which would create growth not only in manufacturing, but also across the economy as a whole. This multiplier effect is yet another reason why engineering is so important to the UK’s economic future. However, the impact of innovative engineering can occasionally have negative impacts on the economy. Returning to the factory example above, mechanisation may improve efficiency, cut costs and improve profit margins, but it will likely put many people out of jobs, meaning the income and purchasing power of the population falls. In this way and others, engineering in other sectors can sometimes lead to economic problems as well as benefits.

To conclude, engineering provides an opportunity for the UK to dominate a world market and rebalance its economy, while also taking advantage of new technological innovation. The engineering sector has somewhat stagnated over the past 40 years as the UK economy has become increasingly geared towards services. Now is the time for the government to intervene and reverse this trend. The engineering of high quality products provides an ideal chance for the UK to boost its struggling exports and address the reliance of aggregate demand on consumption, an immediate threat to the economic recovery. While competition in services will intensify greatly in the coming years with the diversification of emerging economies, the UK has the infrastructure and potential to set itself apart from the world market in engineering. It would thus be advisable for the UK government to increase its investment in supply-side policies to establish a more prominent engineering sector with more skilled workers, to lead the UK into a strong economic future.