The beleaguered president of the World Bank, Paul Wolfowitz, is to resign following allegations that he arranged preferential employment terms for his partner. In a deal reached to secure his resignation, the board of directors of the bank have announced that they accept that he acted 'ethically and in good faith'.

Corruption is undoubtedly a major cause of economic hardship in many countries in which the World Bank is engaged. The head of the organisation not only has to be squeaky clean in order to be effective in combatting such corruption - he or she has to be seen to be squeaky clean. Mr Wolfowitz may have been caught up in a labyrinth of World Bank regulations, he may have suffered by receiving ambiguous advice, and he may have done what he thought was right at the time. None of that matters. His moral authority to lead an organisation that is battling against corruption evaporated, and so he had to go.

The Foundation for the Economics of Sustainability proposes an innovative cap-and-share scheme to reduce CO2 pollution. It works like this. The government sets an overall target for emissions, and allocates certificates to each adult in the country based on their share of these emissions. They can then take these to the bank (or presumably to somewhere like eBay) and sell them at the market rate. Firms that introduce polluting goods (that is, the producers or importers of coal, gas etc.) must then buy enough certificates from the bank (eBay, wherever) to cover their output, and their behaviour will be audited by government inspectors. Since these producers must pay for certificates, the cost of these certificates will be embedded in the costs of the polluters that use the coal, gas or whatever.

In many respects this is a similar scheme to existing emissions trading schemes. One difference is that the permits are allocated first to individuals, not to firms. Another is that it is the producers rather than the users of the polluting agents that pay - though of course they shift the incidence of this payment on to the users.

A neat feature of the proposal is that consumers are automatically compensated for higher energy prices. They receive payment for selling certificates. In terms of basic economics, there are two counterbalancing effects - an income effect and a substitution effect. Consumers' income rises (making them better off), and the price of energy increases (making them worse off). But because the relative price of energy rises (energy prices are higher but other prices stay the same), it is likely that less energy will be demanded.

Another neat feature is that the scheme introduces a limit to supply (like rationing), but does not impose the disbenefits of rationing on any individual. Individuals can consume what they want to consume, firms can produce what they want to produce - they might just have to pay a bit more to do so if it involves pollution. But the freedom to choose is preserved.

An intriguing feature of the scheme is the implication for secondary markets. If, at the end of a year, there is a shortage of certificates, petrol and other energy prices will rise. So there is likely to emerge a futures market for consumer purchases of fuel, as consumers try to insure themselves against such price hikes. What form this would take is the subject of fascinating speculation.

Are there any clear disadvantages? Sure. Compared with existing schemes, it will be bureaucratic. Relatively few firms are covered by emissions permit schemes; allocating certificates to 60 million individuals in the UK would necessarily be costly, given the need to ensure that the scheme is not compromised by forgery and other corruption.

So overall my judgement would be that this is an idea that has promise - but also it is one that requires more development before it is ready to be put into action. In particular, the benefit of allocating the certificates to individuals rather than to companies needs to be quite considerable in order to offset the likely costs.

Interest rates have risen again in the UK, to 5.5%. In view of the latest figures on inflation, this is quite modest, and one might have thought an increase to 5.75% would be more likely to provide the short sharp shock needed to bring down expectations of inflation. Perhaps the Monetary Policy Committee is hoping that today's will be the last increase needed. That would certainly be a favourable outcome - but it is one that relies on a measure of restraint on the part of wage negotiators.

Energy Watch is calling for discounts to be offered by electricity and gas companies to poorer households. The sentiment behind the call is laudable, of course. Whether this is the best way to achieve the social objectives that underpin the organisation's concern is, however, altogether another matter.

As a result of collecting data for tax purposes, the government is in a unique position to know which households are relatively well off and which require support. Power companies do not have this information, and are not in a position to collect it.

Moreover - and this is the key point - it is not at all clear that poorer households, if they are to be helped in some way, should be helped by cutting energy prices. For doing so distorts the signals that the price mechanism is designed to give. It artificially reduces the price of energy in relation to that of other goods, and that artificially boosts the amount of energy demanded. Such an artificial distortion is not desirable in its own right because it corrupts the allocation of resources in the economy. What's more, it is not a very environmentally friendly solution.

A much better solution exists. That is to give such households an income supplement through the tax or benefit system - then they can choose how they spend the extra resource.

The annual rate of price inflation has risen to 3.1%, and wages are rising at well over 4% per year. These statistics, released this week, suggest that another interest rate hike may well be on the cards. This is in spite of unemployment figures that confirm an increase in the rate of joblessness.

Meanwhile the exchange rate has moved to strengthen the pound against the dollar, with £1 now being worth more than $2 for the first time in many years. This reflects a flow of capital into the UK as investors anticipate that higher interest rates are on the way.

The good news is that the strengthening pound will reinforce the effect of higher interest rates in dampening inflation.

Gordon Brown has given what is probably his last budget speech, and it is in many ways a typical politically astute Brown budget.

The basic rate of income tax is to fall to 20% (though this will almost all be offset by scrapping the bottom rate of 10%). This is a headline grabbing move, but it should not disguise the fact that, while the budget appears to be very mildly expansionary over the coming year, it has implications that are more deflationary over the medium term. The changes to road tax and to the treatment of empty properties, due to kick in during the 2008-09 financial year, will raise the tax take quite significantly. To the extent that people see the higher taxes coming, and start saving now in order to pay them later, the budget should help take some of the heat out of the UK economy.

There are numerous green twiddles - taxing gas guzzlers more, taxing fuel-efficient cars less, scrapping stamp duty on new carbon-neutral houses etc. These capture both the spirit of the times and the ground of Brown's political opponents.

There is more money for education. Good. Education is an investment. But the government's experience in giving money for health without adequate conditions should provide it with a lesson. There is still a lot of work to be done in reforming our education system.

Over the longer period, Mr Brown has succeeded - despite some scares along the way - in satisfying his own 'golden rule': that on average over the business cycle the government should achieve a surplus on its current budget. He's taxed and spent: that has implications for efficiency at the microeconomic level that may represent chickens that have yet to come to roost. But as a steward of the macroeconomy, Mr Brown has earned his reputation for financial responsibility rather well.

The government has proposed the introduction of legally binding targets for the reduction of carbon emissions. A carbon budget would be set every five years, with the government being legally accountable for the meeting of this target.

The proposal has been welcomed cautiously by most commentators. The caution relates to the five years period. While five years is the maximum lifetime of a parliament, typically general elections are called after about four years. So one government could blame a failure to meet the target on a previous regime.

An obvious way around this problem would be to set a target for the lifetime of a parliament. A target, achievable within five years, could be set. If the target is not met by the time a general election is called (whether that is after five years or sooner), the government could be made liable. This might encourage governments to buy electoral flexibility by meeting targets sooner rather than later.

The government has published a report by David Freud which argues in favour of allowing private companies to offer (at the government's expense) one to one support to long term unemployed people to help them get back to work. This will, no doubt, be regarded by some as a privatisation of JobCentres. It is to be welcomed.

The incentives that would be offered such firms are clear. The incentives facing public sector JobCentres are (by way of contrast, and probably inevitably) blunt. So this would seem to be an idea well worth trying out.

The world's stock markets have been in a state of some turbulence over the last couple of days. The trigger was a widespread belief that the Chinese government was about to start taxing speculative gains on the markets. Share values tumbled across the world.

Some stability has returned, in some quarters at least, following an announcement from China that no such new policy is in the works. But prices have continued to fall in the UK today. Meanwhile, prices appear to be bouncing back in the New York exchanges - which of course open later in the day - so there is cause for optimism that some stability should be restored to the market soon.

Nevertheless, this episode betrays some nervousness in the world's stock markets. While there is no strong evidence to suggest that shares are overpriced, policy changes in key parts of the world can clearly have dramatic effects. It used to be the case that if America sneezed, Britain would catch a cold. Such has been the impact of globalisation, and such has been the growth of the Asian economies, that it is now the case that if China sneezes the rest of the world catches a cold.

The headline inflation rate is up to 3%, a full percentage point above the target rate. It is now easy enough to understand the interest rate hikes of recent months. While much of the underlying activity suggests that this is a blip - oil prices have fallen back since they hit their peak, there has been a slowdown in industrial prices - the Monetary Policy Committee has been right to be cautious. (And with hindsight I now think that I, along with the minority of MPC members who did not vote for the interest rate hike in November, was wrong to want to hold the interest rate at 4.75% at that stage).

Will there be further increases in the interest rate? Possibly. The MPC will need to watch very carefully for signs of inflation feeding through into higher wage increases. The first signs, earlier this month, were that such a feed-through is indeed happening, but these settlements were in the idiosyncratic pharmaceuticals industry. A clear message from the Bank of England now, to the effect that further increases will become inevitable if there is no wage restraint, could do much to help.

Today's interest rate rise, to 5.25%, follows the news earlier this week about high wage deals being struck in the last few days. As I have written before, it is far from clear that these recent deals are symptomatic of a general trend for higher wage settlements, but it is clear that the Monetary Policy Committee has seen enough to persuade them that they need to pursue an aggressive stance. Hopefully by hiking rates now, the need for further increases can be avoided.

Today's report by Income Data Services suggests that pay inflation is starting to cause a problem for the UK economy. In January so far, the median level of pay awards has been of the order of 4%, well above the rate of price inflation.

Firms can finance pay increases in a number of ways. Productivity gains are the most attractive. If a firm awards a wage increase in excess of the rate of productivity growth, however, it must find some other way of funding the hike - price increases, which themselves fuel inflation, are an obvious option.

The recent data suggest that negotiators are starting to build inflation into their pay awards, and if this is true then the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee will need to consider further interest rate hikes in order to bring inflation back down to target levels.

So far, the evidence is little more than anecdotal. The pay awards have been led by pharmaceutical firms where productivity gains over the last couple of years have been substantial. New drugs such as Abilify and Viagra have generated new markets for these employers, and have therefore allowed them to make pay awards which, in themselves, may not be inflationary. For several years now, the chemical industry (of which pharmaceuticals is a part) has been a strong performer in the UK in productivity terms. What is key now is how other employers respond.

It seems likely that the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England will raise interest rates today. This has been widely predicted since the last hike two months ago. But there are some very recent signs that the economy's buoyancy may not be sufficient to warrant such an increase. Manufacturing output has fallen for the first time in months, growth in industrial production has slowed almost to a standstill, sales on the high street have slowed down, oil prices have fallen, the trade deficit has shrunk, and business confidence is down. It is rare for the MPC to confound the commentators in the press, so I expect interest rates to go up - whether that is a good thing or not is another question.

Nick Stern's review of the economic implications of enviromental change, published today, sounds a stark warning. Unless investment, amounting to 1% of the world's gross domestic product, is undertaken to stave off the detrimental effects of global warming, global gross domestic product will be between 5 and 20 per cent lower than it would otherwise be by 2050. At the more pessimistic end of that scale, that is tantamount to a catastrophic recession. At either end of the scale, it makes investment now seem a good option.

A large part of the policy debate on the environment takes the form of discussion on taxes. This has been dreadfully timid so far. New taxes are never the way to an electorate's heart. A braver approach would be to switch on a large scale between existing forms of taxation and environmental taxes. Seriously slash income tax and replace it with much higher taxes on petrol and air travel.

This would have a beneficial side-effect - it would make the payment of taxes more optional, in the sense that it would be largely the consumption of pollutants that determined one's tax bill. Of course, some income tax (and taxes on other things) would still be necessary, if only for redistributive purposes. But the brave course of action for any political party now would be a promise a full review and reform of the structure of our tax system in an eco-friendly way, keeping all options open.

The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) has warned that inflation targeting using the interest rate may, in the near future, prove insufficient to guarantee macroeconomic stability. Such targeting has served us well over the last 10 years or so, giving a long period of sustained growth with low inflation and low unemployment.

But now the macroeconomy is facing new challenges. Fuel price increases threaten to push up inflation (unless people's expectations of future price rises can be held in check). At the same time higher production costs feed through into higher prices for goods and services generally, and so the demand for real output falls, threatening employment. Meanwhile, (more controversially) the BIS contends that globalisation necessitates speedier and more drastic adjustments that could make it more difficult to achieve economic stability.

If a repeat of the 1970s stagflation is on the cards - and I'm sceptical about this, but if it is - then clearly more than one policy instrument will be needed to control the macroeconomy. As Tinbergen pointed out, we need as many controls as we have objectives. If we have an employment objective as well as an inflation objective, we must have (at least) two controls. The BIS seems to be appealing for more policy power to be given to the central banks.

Traditionally the policy controls used to pursue macroeconomic objectives were monetary and fiscal policies. Monetary policy is already typically determined by the central bank. Fiscal policy remains in the control of politicians. We have done well under a system where macroeconomic policy has been separated from political influence, but it would make no sense to delegate fiscal policy to the monetary authorities.

The policy implications of a new stagflation are not, therefore, very attractive. The best option for politicians now is to do all they can to stamp out any inflationary pressure by aggressively seeking to reduce people's expectations of inflation. Wage demands must be talked down, and union militancy resisted. Although I do not share the pessimism of the BIS, the stakes are high.

Inflation has risen to 2.2%, slightly above the Bank of England target figure of 2%. This is causing a little discomfort and uncertainty about the way interest rate policy should go in the coming months, not least because unemployment has also been rising over the most recent period.

The authorities should certainly not accommodate inflation by relaxing monetary policy in a repeat of the mistakes of the mid-70s. That said, while the smart money continues to be on an interest rate hike over the summer months, it is not altogether clear that that is the way to go either. The interest rate increases in the Eurozone and the US appear to be having an effect in dampening demand, and that - migrated into the UK through foreign trade - might be enough to take the heat out of the domestic economy.

The signals are clear enough that we can rule out an imminent cut in rates. Whether the interest rate needs to rise or not then depends on wage pressures. If expectations of wage increases build up, then the one-shot blip of inflation due to the rise in energy prices will threated to turn into sustained inflation. An interest rate hike would be needed to fix that. If the authorities can manipulate expectations successfully so that union pressure for increased wages does not mount up, then increased interest rates may not be needed after all.

Spin gets a bad press. But, now more than ever, outcomes in the real economy depend on how convincing the politicians can be in urging wage restraint.

The recent announcement of the loss of 900 jobs at the Vauxhall car production facility at Ellesmere Port has raised issues about the UK's competitiveness. For sure, much manufacturing capacity in the vehicle production industry is being transferred to countries such as the Czech Republic and the eastern part of Germany where labour costs are lower than in the UK. But this is not the only issue being debated.

Union leaders have claimed that job losses in the UK are particularly severe because labour laws in this country are less tough than elsewhere, making it relatively easy for firms to lay workers off. While doubtless this does explain in part why the 900 jobs at Ellesmere Port have gone (or, at least, why they've gone now rather than later), the claim of the union leaders tells at most only part of the story. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that tighter labour market regulation leads to firms hiring less labour. The harder it is to fire workers, the less likely firms are to hire them.

So while job losses may be due in part to slack labour market legislation, many of these jobs may not have existed in the first place if it weren't for that same slackness. Britain's recent record of employment growth compares very favourably to that of our European partners, and our institutional and legal framework has to take a good bit of the credit for that. At the level of the individual, of course any job loss is terrible news. But that doesn't mean that our labour laws aren't performing well across the piece. The evidence suggests that they are.

Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, has been speaking out against protectionism. He is right to do so. While many interest groups see protection against foreign competition as desirable, it is in fact a thoroughly discredited policy; indeed it is as doomed to failure as Knut's efforts to hold back the tide.

Some things are better produced in some places than others. Climate, natural resources, skills are all unevenly distributed across countries. It is therefore efficient for countries to specialise, concentrating on producing the things that (relative to other countries) they are best at. This principle, known to economists as 'comparative advantage', is closely related to the division of labour; the advantages of specialisation are so strong that they constitute the strongest of market forces. While workers in heavy manufacturing industries in Britain or America may want to protect their jobs by lobbying for restrictions on the level of imports, such policies can offer only short term relief, making the inevitable outcome more sudden and unmanageable when it comes.

If producers in other countries can produce certain types of goods more cheaply than we can, then let them. Let's enjoy the cheap imports. And let's concentrate our resources on producing the things that producers elsewhere are not so efficient at producing. That way they can enjoy our cheap exports. Everyone gains. This freedom of trade is something that the European Union and other trading blocs were created to foster, and we should ensure that it is a freedom that applies not only within but also between blocs. It means we have to have a flexibile labour market, with people willing to retrain as they progress through their careers. The alternative is sclerosis.

Free trade does, of course, mean that goods need to be moved around the planet more than would be the case if we did not trade freely. But efficient movement of goods is cheap and - with the exception of a very few highly perishable goods such as cut flowers - involves a negligible environmental cost. On the flip side of the coin, the damage done by not trading freely is measured by the poverty to which rich countries - by imposing protectionist tariffs, quotas and regulations - condemn people in the developing world. That is appalling.

Good call, Mr Brown.

A fascinating and very instructive new article by Nicholas Bloom and John van Reenen compares productivity and managerial competence across four countries. They find that managerial competence is a key determinant of productivity (and of other key performance indicators for firms). Managerial competence in the UK lags behind that in Germany and the US.

The authors argue that a major reason underpinning this is the system of primo geniture, under which family firms are passed down generation to generation, with management of the firms being carried out by people who are chosen for who they are rather than what they can do.

If the authors are right - and their study is indeed a very careful one - then there are obvious implications for policy, ranging from inheritance tax, through support for business schools, to a requirement that senior appointments in privately owned businesses should be advertised and demonstrably made on the basis of merit.

Which way now for UK interest rates? Interest rates have risen of late in other major markets, including the Eurozone and the US. Oil prices have risen dramatically, and the fear is that this reflects a rise in fundamentals, not just a blip. This leads some observers to worry about a rise in inflation; although the oil price hike will surely affect prices in a one-off manner, if people start to build price rises into their expectations of inflation this could lead to a prolonged inflationary episode similar to the experience of the 1970s. So that makes a case for a hike in interest rates in order to defuse inflationary pressure.

Other observers are more cautious, citing levels of business confidence that are still low. Indeed some are calling for a cut in interest rates.

The clever betting has to be on interest rates remaining constant when the Monetary Policy Committee makes its decision later today. But, given the signs of economic renaissence in the UK's trading partners, I would suspect that the next move in interest rates - if there is to be one anytime over the next six months - is more likely to be up than down.