Imperial Business School co-hosted the inaugural London Macro Policy Forum on 24 September 2026, bringing together some of the most influential voices in economic policy for a full day of debate at Imperial's South Kensington Campus. 

Organised by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR), Imperial Business School and Santander Corporate & Investment Banking, the Forum drew a full house of policymakers, academics, market participants and commentators. The programme ran from the immediate pressures of an energy price shock to the much longer arc of how artificial intelligence (AI) could reshape the economy over the coming decades. 

The timing was sharp. With energy prices pushing inflation higher and gilt yields climbing, central banks on both sides of the Atlantic are weighing difficult choices. Alongside those near-term pressures, a more fundamental question is emerging: whether AI is already beginning to change how the economy grows, and how policymakers should prepare for what comes next. 

Central bankers on uncertain ground 

The day opened with an introduction from Professor David Aikman, Director of NIESR, and Krishna Murali of Santander, followed by a fireside chat between John Williams, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and Sir Charles Bean of the London School of Economics. Their conversation explored how central banks can communicate their intentions when the economic outlook is so uncertain, and the limits of forward guidance in a volatile world. 

That theme ran through the day. The Monetary Policy Outlook panel, chaired by Victoria Clarke of Santander, brought together Rob Burrows (M&G), Professor Swati Dhingra (London School of Economics; external member, Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee) and Gertjan Vlieghe (Millennium). The discussion centred on the current energy price shock and the path of inflation, and on what the Bank of England can realistically do in response. Panelists also weighed how two powerful forces, rising energy costs and a surge in AI investment, pull in different directions on how restrictive monetary policy needs to be. 

In the afternoon, Sarah Breeden, Deputy Governor for Financial Stability at the Bank of England, returned to the same challenge in conversation with Professor Aikman. She said: “The larger and longer the shock, the more likely it is that we'll see the material second-round effects that policy needs to respond [to].” 

Public finances under pressure 

Two sessions turned the spotlight on the UK's public finances. The Gilt Markets, Quantitative Tightening and the Public Finances panel, chaired by Philip Aldrick of Bloomberg, heard from Freya Beamish (TS Lombard), Adam Dent (Santander) and Professor Paul Fisher (King's College London). 

After lunch came what organisers affectionately described as the ‘doom-and-gloom’ session. The Fiscal Sustainability panel, chaired by Sam Fleming of the Financial Times, featured Peder Beck-Friis (PIMCO), Helen Miller (Institute for Fiscal Studies) and Professor David Miles, a member of the Budget Responsibility Committee at the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) and Professor at Imperial. 

Panellists broadly agreed that a fiscal framework so sensitive to individual forecasts makes little sense. Professor Miles warned that relying on a future productivity boom to ease pressure on the public finances was a risky strategy. He said: “Getting lucky isn't a plan.” 

The macroeconomics of AI 

The Forum closed with its most forward-looking session. Chaired by Professor Jonathan Haskel, Professor of Economics at Imperial Business School and Chair of the Office for Budget Responsibility, The Macroeconomics of AI panel brought together four perspectives on the technology: Kanishka Narayan MP, Minister for Artificial Intelligence; Professor Dame Diane Coyle, Bennett Professor of Public Policy at the University of Cambridge; James Benford, Deputy National Statistician at the Office for National Statistics (ONS); and Adam Cohen, Head of Economic Policy at OpenAI. 

Between them, the panellists represented government, academia, official statistics and one of the companies building the technology, a combination that allowed the discussion to move between big-picture ambition and what the evidence shows today. 

Mr Benford set out the view from the data. There are tentative signs of AI in the UK's growth figures, he said, with information and communications technology accounting for 40% of the 0.4% growth in the three months to July. Investment in digital infrastructure is running at around £11 billion a year, broadly matching the peak of the dotcom boom. Adoption remains at an early stage, however. Around a third of companies say they use AI, rising to 60% of large firms, but only 10% of those use it extensively. Public attitudes are cautious, with 38% of people believing the risks of AI outweigh the benefits, compared with 13% who see a net benefit. 

He also highlighted how difficult it is to measure AI's impact on the labour market, which is being shaped at the same time by tax changes and monetary policy. The ONS has now published the first edition of a thematic account of AI to help build a clearer picture. 

Questions from the floor pushed the panel further, including on whether the gains from AI will be shared fairly and what the technology could mean for inequality. 

“That is what makes AI different” 

Speaking after the panel, Professor Jonathan Haskel said he was optimistic about the scale of change ahead, and pointed to Imperial itself as evidence. 

He said: “If you walk into almost any department at Imperial, whether that's biology, maths or chemistry, you can see how AI has revolutionised the progress of science itself. That is what makes AI different, and it's why I'm an optimist. I think AI will reshape the economy very profoundly over the next 10 years.” 

The challenge for policymakers is to stay close to how the technology is being used in practice. He said: “Central banking is an all-consuming job, and it's hard to make time to get out into the world. But when you see how firms are working with AI, and what the AI producers themselves are doing, it really opens your eyes. My advice to central bankers, and I'd give myself the same advice, is to get out and spend more time with the people using and producing AI.” 

He added that universities have a vital role to play on both sides of the technology, from improving the algorithms themselves to studying how firms are putting AI to work and how that can unlock prosperity. For students, understanding the technology is only part of the picture: they will also need to understand the organisational changes firms must make to turn AI into new processes and products. 
 

The questions nobody is asking yet 

Asked which policy question is being overlooked, Jonathan offered a striking provocation. There is a chance, he suggested, that AI-driven discoveries in health could make real progress against conditions such as cancer and the diseases of ageing. If society suddenly became much healthier and longer-lived, how would people spend that extra time, and what would it mean for families and communities? That, he said, is something policymakers should start thinking hard about. 

Professor Coyle pointed to a more immediate gap: clarity over who is responsible when AI goes wrong. As AI agents take on more tasks, she argued, the legal framework must be clear about liability when poorly safeguarded systems make mistakes or cause harm. 

She was frank about the range of possible futures. One scenario sees AI destroying jobs; another sees it becoming one of the most important technologies ever invented. The truth may lie somewhere in between. 

For young people, she said, this is an exciting moment, because AI is a general-purpose technology that will shape the whole economy for decades. Her advice was clear: learn to use it well, but hold on to the skill it most threatens to erode. She said: “Don't let it do your thinking for you, because that's going to be your advantage over the technology.” 

Convening the conversation 

Reflecting on the day, Professor Haskel said the Forum showed the value of bringing different communities into the same room. He said: “What's special about the kind of forum Imperial can convene is that we can bring together not only academics but people working in central banks, in government and in business at the sharp end. The questions and discussion today were very wide ranging, and that reflects the range of people Imperial can bring together.” 

As the UK navigates an energy shock, stretched public finances and a technology that could transform how the economy grows, the inaugural London Macro Policy Forum put Imperial Business School at the centre of the conversation, connecting rigorous research with the people making decisions that shape the economy.