Shaping a Fairer Future is an update from the Women and Work Commission about progress in securing gender equality in the UK. The crude gender pay gap has risen slightly since 2007, to 23 per cent - while this is an unsatisfactory measure in that it makes no allowance for differences in experience or other characteristics, the direction of change remains a source of concern.

The report points to gender stereotyping at early ages and failures to secure a satisfactory work-life balance as two major areas where change is needed. It notes some areas of progress since the Commission's earlier report three years ago, but at the same time laments the fact that recommendations made at that time have not been followed up.

While much of the new report is to be commended, some of its recommendations appear underdeveloped. For example, recommendation 34 urges the Department for Children Schools and Families to consider 'what more can be done to increase the wages of childcare workers, many of whom receive low/minimum wage, while ensuring that childcare costs remain affordable'. This is very worthy, but wages are of course determined primarily by the forces of demand and supply - as indeed are childcare costs. If this recommendation is a veiled call for subsidies, perhaps, in the current economic climate, the Commission should apply a rather brutal reality check.

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) continues to fall keeping the economy in recession. The latest figures show that GDP fell by 0.8% in the second quarter of 2009 - suggesting that the optimistic monthly estimates for April and May that had been produced by NIESR (and discussed earlier on this blog) were biased up. This is the fifth quarter of the recession. While the decline in output in the second quarter is certainly more modest than in the first quarter of this year, it still looks as though it will be the end of this year before the recession ends. And it will be many (18-24, possibly more) months later before unemployment starts to ease.

On the not-so-dismal side, retail sales have bounced back over the last month or so, and the housing market continues to show some signs of recovery with increased sales (albeit at depressed prices).

We may be past the trough, but there is still some way to go before we can say that output is rising and the recovery is properly under way.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced plans to reform the regulation of the banking system in the wake of the financial crisis. The plans involve:

(i) capital asset requirements for banks, in the form of minimum required ratios that will vary according to the riskiness of activity
(ii) an enhanced regulatory role for the Financial Services Authority (FSA), and special focus on the activities of key banks
(iii) curbing the tendency for banks to take excessive risks, by devising a code that will regulate banks' remuneration practices
(iv) improved systems of corporate governance

As far as they go, the plans are good. One might quibble about whether certain functions are better carried out by the FSA or the Bank of England - but that is a secondary quibble. A more major concern, however, is that these reforms fail to tackle the problem that was at the very heart of the crisis - that of hidden information. Capital assets ratios can be enforced if the regulator knows all about a bank's transactions; risk-taking can be curbed if the regulator knows all about the risks that are being taken. But if there is latent information, the fundamental problems remain.

The economic theory of principal and agent shows that it is possible to design incentive schemes that ensure that agents (in this case, banks) behave in a way that is compatible with the interests of the principal (in this case, the regulator) even when the agents have information that is not revealed to the principal. Smart reform of the banking system should focus more on the design of such incentives, and be less trusting about the extent to which banks will be prepared to reveal all.

In a nutshell, the proposals are a good start, but they betray a naivete that, in the wake of the events of the last two years, is a little surprising. The plans should go further.

The National Institute for Economic and Social Research (NIESR) has released its latest estimates of monthly GDP for the UK. These suggest that GDP has grown in each of the last two months, and that the trough of the recession was in March of this year.

NIESR has a good track record, and its estimates deserve to be taken seriously. This being the case, the news is very encouraging. Indeed, it would mean that the recession has been unusually short, in spite of the severity of the downturn in the last quarter of 2008 and first quarter of 2009.

My expectation has been that we would start to see a recovery in the last quarter of this year or the first quarter of next. It would be nice to be proved wrong if it were to mean that recovery comes sooner than I expected. But there is still room for caution. Recessions do usually last longer than three or four quarters. And in any event, the recovery in output growth typically leads recovery in the labour market by up to two years. So, unfortunately, unemployment is still set to rise for a while to come.

Barry Eichengreen and Kevin O'Rourke have recently provided comparisons of the current state of the global economy and that which prevailed in 1929. Their early comparisons generated some alarm in that the pattern of the Great Depression seemed to be replicated in the current data. The most recent update suggests that there is now room for cautious optimism. Over the last couple of months, the decline in world economic output has slowed, suggesting the possibility that we may be near a turning point. Stock markets have also recovered somewhat over that period.

There is further reason for this optimism. The policy response has been much more aggressive this time around. Using a 7 country average, Eichengreen and O'Rourke show that interest rates are now close to zero, while in the 1929 crisis they remained at around 4 per cent.

While the overall outlook is starting to improve, there are some countries where the immediate prospects still look very bleak. Output is still falling rapidly in Italy and France, for example. It is still some weeks before we shall see the official UK data for the second quarter of 2009 - we shall all await those with interest.

The OECD's leading indicators have been published this week, and show a little bit of encouraging news. The series, which were plummeting downwards after falling off a cliff in the early part of last year, have shown some signs of recovery in several countries. In the UK, there is indication that the bottom of the trough in the series may have been passed. It is still early days.

Today's budget presents the Chancellor, Alistair Darling, with a tough challenge. The immediate prospects for the economy remain poor, and further stimulus would be welcome - so long as it can be concentrated in areas where the impact will be instantaneous. The recession, alongside the bailouts of the banks, is taking a toll on the public finances, though - tax revenues fall as the national income is reduced, while at the same time government spending on benefits increases. The scale of the hit on the public purse is such that the markets need reassurance that plans are in place for the government to repay what it is borrowing. The problem for the Chancellor is that the more reassurance he gives, the more likely people are to curtail their current spending in anticipation of future tax rises and spending cuts, and so the harder it will be to ensure a healthy recovery. That's a difficult tightrope to walk.

Things have been made easier for the Chancellor - but not necessarily for the country as a whole - by the failure of the G20 to agree a coordinated fiscal stimulus. It makes little sense for the UK to go it alone on this (any more than it has done so already). Much of any extra spending would likely spill out of the domestic economy. Hence, for example, the much mooted deal for the car industry - giving discounts on new cars to people who scrap old ones - would involve the British taxpayer in subsidising foreign car manufacturers; while the policy would no doubt help car dealers, parts manufacturers, and other firms in this country, it still does not look like smart policy. Proposals to stimulate construction (which does not involve such leakages out of the domestic economy) look like a better bet. But they need to be implemented quickly.

There are mixed signals about the state of the housing market this week, in reports from the Nationwide and Halifax. Nationwide shows a slight increase in house prices during March, while Halifax indicates that prices continued to fall.

A graph of the two series of statistics together appears to show that the downturn in house price inflation - as measured year on year - is bottoming out. But while the curve lies below zero, prices remain lower than at the same time last year.

Other recent statistics, released by the Bank of England, show that the number of mortgage approvals for house purchases increased quite sharply in February, albeit from horribly low levels. It is probably too early to talk of green shoots, but in the housing market the dead leaves are now falling less thickly.

The G20 London summit has closed. The world leaders have achieved agreement on some, but not all, of the issues on the agenda.

The summit subscribed to sound principles for the reform of the banking system, broadening the scope of regulation to include the credit rating agencies and hedge funds, removing conflicts of interest, adopting international standards, and regulating bonuses. The leaders also committed to a common global approach to tackling the problem of toxic assets.

Over $1000 billion will be committed by the G20 to support international agencies such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank. In turn, the IMF will increase its allocation of Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) to its members by up to $250 billion. SDRs were created in the late 1960s as an alternative asset to gold and the US dollar. This is the first time an increased allocation of SDRs has been made since 1981, and it represents a means of increasing liquidity at an international level in much the same way as quantitative easing increases liquidity in a domestic economy. This relaxation by the IMF is likely to be particularly helpful to middle income countries that are big enough to have reserves at the IMF yet not so big that they have been able to put major quantitative easing programmes of their own in place.

The rhetoric is anti-protectionist. Good - protectionism would be hugely damaging to the efficiency of the global economy, and would throw into reverse the fantastic gains that have been made in alleviating poverty, particularly in the developing world, over the last 20 years. But, here at least, we know that the reality is diverging from the rhetoric - a recent VOX publication demonstrates that trade has collapsed dramatically in the wake of increased insidious protectionism. The rhetoric needs to win out, and the moves toward back-door protectionism strongly resisted. The summit resolved to support trade by injecting $250 billion of trade finance to be made available through the development banks, the World Bank, and other international agencies. It also resolved to ask the IMF to use the proceeds of gold sales to help the poorest countries.

There has been no agreement to co-ordinate a further fiscal stimulus, though there was an anodyne statement that the governments would 'do what it takes to restore global growth' and that a global stimulus of $5000 billion has already taken place. In the absence of this, any major further unilateral stimulus from the UK government is now unlikely, especially in the form of further tax cuts - the benefits of these would too readily leak out of the domestic economy. This news is a mixed blessing - the public finances are weak, but a coordinated stimulus would have been very welcome. There has been mention of investment in green projects, and this seems to be an area where countries will each work things out their own way. Let's wait and see what happens in the budget later this month.

The summit represents a political as well as an economic watershed in that some rapidly developing countries - notably China - will contribute more to international agencies, and so will gain considerably more voice. At the same time, the international agencies will increase their surveillance of the world economy.

Overall this represents a mixed outcome. The G20 will meet again later this year. By then it may be clearer where the world economy is headed, and we will know more about how desirable an extra fiscal stimulus might have been. The extent to which, amongst the countries that make up the G20, the response is as coordinated as the rhetoric will also, by then, be clearer.

The plot is straightforward. Britain and the US want a coordinated fiscal stimulus package. Meanwhile France and Germany want reform of the regulatory system for the financial sector. In truth no-one would disagree with them, but they are promoting the idea of regulation as a smokescreen that can hide their opposition to what they brand as the 'Anglo-Saxon' calls for further fiscal expansion.

The reality is that the world needs both regulatory reform and fiscal stimulus. The G20 summit in London is likely to provide the first, and we need to wait and see whether it will deliver on the second. Sarkozy and Merkel need to act tough to impress their domestic audiences, and it is not clear how closely matched their rhetoric will be to their actions. The hype is that the crisis started, and so needs to be solved, in countries other than their own. But they must surely know that, in an integrated world, blame is really irrelevant to the solution. And solution, now more than ever, requires co-ordinated response.

Lord Turner, chair of the Financial Services Authority (FSA), has today published his review of bank regulation. He was asked to produce this review by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the wake of the banking crisis.

He recommends that banks should be required to hold more of their assets in the form of reserves, building up these reserves during prosperous times, so that they are not engaging in excessive lending that can result in cash flow problems. The recent policy has been to allow banks to make their own judgements about their levels of reserves - and many, seduced by the returns that are available from more profitable investments, have been caught out by allowing their reserves to fall too low. So this proposal is really about protecting banks from themselves. The proposal goes much further than stipulating a reserve assets ratio, as it drills down into the detail of banks' balance sheets.

Lord Turner raises the possibility that, to promote cautious lending, limits (dependent on the borrower's income) should be placed on the amounts that can be offered as mortgage loans. He also recommends that banks should be required to publish data on the risks that they are undertaking when making investments. It is difficult to see how this can be operationalised other than through a reliance on credit ratings - which are themselves now largely discredited and in need of reform. The Turner report proposes such reforms.

The report also states that, while the FSA has, in the past, taken the view that the market is right and that decisions made by banks in response to market forces are good decisions, it will in future question that view; in so doing it will become a more challenging regulator for the banks to work with. This has to be a good thing.

The report addresses also the bonus culture that has existed in financial institutions, and makes a sound recommendation that payment of bonuses should be deferred in order to ensure that workers' behaviour serves the long term interests of the bank.

Throughout the report, the emphasis is on securing international agreement and adherence to the reforms wherever possible.

But the key to the success of all of the above proposals is the quality of information that banks are required to provide. Auditing of this information will need to be robust, with severe penalties for misrepresentation. We have learned a lot about the power of hidden information over the last couple of years, and we have learned about how easily information can be concealed from view. Now we need to learn about how to flush it out. Lord Turner's report is a very welcome step in the right direction.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has revised downwards its growth forecasts for the UK economy over the next couple of years, and now expects overall negative growth in 2010 as well as 2009. While there is certainly a possibility of deflation and prolonged recession, my judgement would be that this remains a possibility rather than a likelihood. In particular, the introduction of quantitative easing should make falling prices less likely. The IMF forecasts therefore look pessimistic. It is perhaps worth noting that the IMF will not publish these forecasts until the end of April, as part of their World Economic Outlook series. Much can change between now and then.

Unemployment in the UK has risen above 2 million as the recession continues to bite. News on this front will get worse, probably much worse, before it starts to get better. Recessions tend to be fairly short lived affairs, and so growth should resume within the next year or so. But it takes more than a little growth to stem the rise in unemployment. Owing to the impact of technological change on productivity, the growth rate of real output in the UK needs to be about 2.5% per year in order to keep unemployment from rising. So we can expect the unemployment rate to rise for quite a while yet. Indeed, while the typical duration of a recession as measured by the period over which GDP growth is negative is about 18 months, it is typically the case that the unemployment rate rises for a further 2 or 3 years after the recession ends.

A new debate has opened about university tuition fees in the UK. A survey of vice chancellors indicates that most are in favour of a substantial rise in the upper limit on tuition fees, currently set at £3145 per year for UK domiciled undergraduates.

This might appear to be quite a simple question of striking a balance between public and private contributions to the cost of higher education. The reality is somewhat more subtle. Current practice is for the government to bundle student loans together and sells the debt to private sector investors - this debt is sold at a discount in order to reflect the fact that not all of the amount owed by students will be repaid. For example, if a graduate has any debt outstanding 25 years after graduating, then that debt is written off. As things stand, the discount is not huge, but raising tuition fees would inevitably lead to an increase in the debt that is not repaid - and hence would require the government to sell this debt off at a more substantial discount.

Put simply, raising tuition fees would raise the government's own commitment to spend on higher education. Removing the cap on tuition fees altogether would require the government to sign a blank cheque.

There are several potential fixes to this dilemma, none of them very pleasant. The rate of repayment of the loan could be raised above the current level (which is 9% of all income above a disregard). The interest rate subsidy on loans could be reduced or scrapped altogether. Loans to cover tuition fees could be limited to (say) £3145, and students would have to fund the gap between this and actual tuition fees - perhaps by taking out commercial bank loans or by way of parental donations. Another alternative would be to convert the current system into a fully fledged graduate tax, whereby graduates pay a higher rate of income tax than other workers, with no upper limit on the amount of repayment of the cost of higher education.

It is inevitable that universities, nervous about their prospects for continued government funding once the economic crisis is over, should wish to explore other avenues. The problem is that any attempt to shift more of the costs onto graduates would have to be very cleverly engineered in order to avoid imposing substantially greater costs also on the taxpayer.

The Bank of England has once again cut its interest rate, this time to 0.5%. Significantly, the cut has been accompanied by an announcement that the Bank will engage in quantitative easing (QE) in order to render less likely the chances of inflation turning negative later this year. Such deflation would be extremely harmful to the prospects of economic recovery, since demand would collapse as people postpone nonessential purchases in order to take advantage of falling prices.

QE is likely, initially at least, to operate via the Bank's usual mechanisms - the new money will be released into the economy as the Bank purchases bonds and other securities from the commercial banks. The commercial banks would then hold more of their assets in the form of money, which they would then be able to lend to businesses or prospective house purchasers and consumers.

On 22 April, the budget will be announced. By then, it may become clear that QE could be used in order to finance a fiscal expansion. This, so long as it is concentrated on 'shovel-ready', quick win projects is also desirable under the present circumstances.

Some other recent announcements also give cause to think that we are now moving in the right direction. Yesterday it was announced that BT would invest £1.5 billion in fibre optic cabling. The company had been holding back on this investment in the fear that regulation would prevent it from reaping the rewards of its investment. But the regulator, Ofcom, has now guaranteed that there will be no regulatory intervention for superfast broadband, thereby clearing the way for this substantial private sector investment project to be kick-started.

Another recent announcement guarantees the future of Private Finance Initiative (PFI) projects that had been put under threat because of difficulties faced by private sector firms in securing funding from the financial institutions. The government is prepared to make direct loans in these circumstances. This is a vitally important decision because many such projects are already underway, and offer some of the most 'shovel-ready' opportunities for investment.

In this context, it is perhaps surprising to see that the opportunity for a significant capital investment in the further education sector has been pushed back. Hopefully this missed opportunity can be recovered at the time of the budget.

Northern Rock is to offer £5 billion of new mortgage loans this year, with a further £9 billion to come over period to 2011. The funding for this move comes partly from government (though much comes from repayments and deposits that have come in to the bank). It had originally been intended that the bank would not issue new mortgages, so this represents a major attempt to inject new resource into the housing market. As such the move is very welcome.

The housing market is not the only one in which credit has been constrained, though. Businesses need loans too, and action is still needed to ensure that they have access to funds. Many of the finer details of the second banking bailout will be published later this week, and hopefully there will be some relief for businesses there.

Casey Mulligan has produced a provocative article which suggests that the recession in the US is driven by supply side factors. I have repeated his exercise for the UK, and find that the recession in this country is very much driven by demand factors. Between the last quarter of 2007 and the last quarter of 2008, the fall in employment was very marginal - just 0.1%. The fall in productivity over this period was relatively large, however, at 0.7%. Unsurprisingly in the context of global slowdown, the demand curve for labour has shifted down.

Recent movements in the three month London Inter-Bank Official Rate (LIBOR) give renewed cause for concern that things are not improving in the banking market.

In normal times, the LIBOR settles at around 0.1 or 0.2 percentage points above the base rate, but in the first half of last year it has rose well above that, indicating high levels of fear in the banking sector. At its peak, the gap amounted to a massive 1.3 percentage points.

From the middle of last year till January of this year, the gap narrowed, albeit at a sluggish pace. Before the January change in the base rate, LIBOR had fallen to less than 0.6 percentage points of the base rate. It seemed that, slowly but surely, normality was returning. Since then, however, the gap has widened again, and little of the most recent cut in base rate has fed through into cuts in LIBOR. The LIBOR currently stands at 2.06%, more than 1 percentage point above the central bank's base rate. And yesterday, the LIBOR actually rose slightly, indicating that any significant further convergence with the base rate is unlikely at least in the short term.

Recovery from recession cannot begin until the financial markets are operating at something approaching normality. The evidence provided by the recent behaviour of LIBOR suggests that there is still, even after the bailouts, a considerable amount of anxiety in these markets. In the presence of that anxiety, the banks will remain reluctant to lend, and investment cannot therefore be relied upon to provide the economy with the stimulus it needs. The situation is perhaps exacerbated by the revelation of the extent of losses at HBOS, and the impact that this has on the merged Lloyds/HBOS group. The sooner we can establish what further help this group needs from the public purse, and the sooner that that help is guaranteed, the better.

The Confederation for British Industry has published its latest set of forecasts for the UK economy. They make gloomy reading, with GDP expected to fall by 3.3% over the course of 2009. The recession is expected to end in the first quarter of next year, but with growth in 2010 being extremely slow. Over the 6 quarters of recession, the CBI expect output to fall by a total of 4.5% - this would put the severity of the recession somewhere between the recessions of the early 1980s and the early 1990s.

These forecasts look about right. By the middle of this year, the benefits of reduced interest rate, the fall in the value of sterling, and the dramatic decrease in fuel costs will all have started to take hold. In addition, any fiscal stimulus aimed at shovel-ready projects should be in place. While being very plausible, the global nature of the current recession means that what happens in the UK depends crucially on what happens elsewhere, and, this being the case, any forecasts must be made in a very uncertain environment.

A striking feature of the CBI forecast is the prediction that the rate of inflation, as measured by the consumer price index, will dip slightly below zero in the third quarter of this year. The CBI expects this deflation to be very mild and temporary, not least because VAT is due to rise back to its previous level of 17.5% in the fourth quarter.

An interesting angle on the debate about whether the Bank of England should now engage in 'quantitative easing' (QE) - in effect printing money - is provided by a comparison with experience in Japan.

One of the difficulties with QE is that releasing more money into the economy does not necessarily mean that that money will be used. At a time of very low inflation, people might wait for the real prices of goods and services to drop before spending. So the extra balances of money just lie idle, and fail to stimulate economic activity. In 1999, Japan tried to finesse this problem by way of an innovative form of QE - they issued time-limited shopping vouchers to members of the public (children and some old people). The fact that these vouchers carried an end-date meant that people could not wait long before spending them - and so the economy should experience an instantaneous stimulus.

In a fascinating paper, Masahiro Hori and co-authors find that this experiment did indeed lead to an increase in economic activity in the short run. Over a longer period, the vouchers displaced other spending that would have taken place, though, so that the longer term impact of the scheme was limited. In effect, the scheme encouraged people to prepone their consumption.

There is much that can be learned about QE from this experience. A crucial issue concerns the way in which it is phased - if QE has an immediate impact, but one which wears off quickly, achieving a more sustained impact over the duration of the recession will likely require a sequence of voucher (or new money) issues.