Category: Economics

Categories
Economics

[3020] Our surpluses are a bargaining chip we should use to address the energy supply crisis

The Malaysian government has stirred after a short period of complacency. While the charge of complacency is warranted (and the measures appear milder than it should have been in light of the severity of the problem we face), a slower-than-promptly approach does have its benefits. One of the benefits is the avoidance of knee-jerk reactions that generally arise during a panicky state. Yet another is that we get to learn from others’ successes and mistakes before carrying out our own measures.

Here, I am glad Malaysia has largely steered away from export-restrictive measures. Multiple economies have done so to prolong supply in the domestic economies. After all, shunning the export doors is a quick-and-easy solution. And looking at the domestic use chart below (produced earlier to highlight the crisis at hand), exporting might look unnecessary given the rising stress at home.

Yet, export ban is beggar-thy-neighbor policy that would make everybody worse off. This is especially so the most manufacturing products are complex involving inputs that could only be obtained through external trade. We could be a net exporter of oil and gas, but we would be a net importer of various chemicals. If we restrict our exports that other needs for their economies, it would be likely others would do the same too. This would result to a whole chain dying off in the short term (while investing takes years) and exacerbating the ongoing energy and chemical-based supply disruption.

Rather than resorting to restrictive trade measures, we should (and appear have) capitalized on our exports in return for guarantee for imported supply. Australia and Singapore have done exactly this recently where Australia promises to continue to supply Singapore with LNG and in return, the latter guarantees diesel supply for the former.[1] Malaysia appears to have the similar arrangement with Australia.

That is the way forward. Malaysia should use our surpluses in various industries as a bargaining tool to ensure our own supply security whenever possible: our surpluses are both the carrot and the stick we must use. The key is to strengthen our trade ties instead of cutting it.

[1] — In this context, we reaffirm our commitment to strengthen energy security, to support the flow of essential goods including petroleum oils, such as diesel, and liquefied natural gas between our two countries, and to notify and consult each other on any disruptions with ramifications on the trade of energy. [Joint Statement on Energy Security. Lawrence Wong. Anthony Albanese. March 23 2026.]

Categories
Conflict & disaster Economics Politics & government

[3019] Tracing the Middle East energy flows disruption throughout the Malaysian economy

I am worried at the way the Malaysian government is handling the supply crisis emanating from the latest war in the Middle East.

Complacency

While neighboring economies have quickly engaged in some kind of mitigating measures, Malaysia appears to be carrying on with business as usual. The latest business-as-usual approach the government has taken is to provide and finance highway toll discounts for the upcoming Eid holidays, which will work to raise petrol and diesel consumption above what it would have been without discount. The subsidy regime has also left unchanged, taking any possible adaptive saving measure out of the equation. Decision on work-from-home arrangement would only be taken after Eid.

It seems the government is complacent. After all, the official communication designed to comfort Malaysians is that Malaysia is a net energy exporter and that the country has two-month’s worth of supply of petroleum products at home. Adding to this is the fact that Malaysia is one of the better prepared economies to weather the supply disruption storm.

Negative effects are unavoidable

Yet, the negative effects are a matter of when, not if.

This is so because many of the industrial (indeed petroleum) products used within Malaysia are exposed to international trade. At the very least, domestic prices are affected by global prices, even if the country is self-sufficient in one specific sector or the other. That is one of the fundamental facts for a small open economy such as Malaysia. Within context of the latest supply disruption, it means domestic prices should go up tracking global prices. This has not taken into account the problem with smuggling, which is really a feature (and not a bug as some would think) of the way Malaysia set prices for its petroleum products.

Qualitatively tracing the disruption ripples with an IO table

To understand the seriousness of the supply disruption, the ripples throughout the domestic economy could be traced through the input-output table. The table links every sector with each other by accounting for all output for all sectors as well as its input from domestic and foreign sources. The latest IO table Malaysia has is from 2021, with the next one due to be published likely this year.

O&G disruption

The clearest channel to trace that disruption is to trace the industrial linkage between oil and gas to chemicals and from there on, to other downstream sectors that use energy and chemical inputs. The chart below is a graphical representation of that linkage within the context of domestic output use (with international trade taken into account).

Here, the output of oil and gas has been traced down by five levels, i.e. from oil and gas, to refined petroleum, to basic chemicals, to special chemicals and then to the next stream user sectors that among others include pharmaceuticals (as listed in the chart).[1]

While five levels may appear deep, it is possible to drill down deeper and trace all the IO table and hence, the whole economy. For instance, a sector located downstream of pharmaceuticals includes the healthcare sector and healthcare output would be used by other services, like banking or even electricity manufacturing. Or for electricity, it could go down to land transport and then to other activities dependent on land transport.

I do only five because these five levels to me appear to be the among the sectors likely to feel the heat early on, either by the consumers, the producers or the government that may subsidize either consumption or production of certain goods. The numbers even tracing it only 5 levels already suggest a huge portion of of the economy should be affected.

That is not at all comforting.

Fertilizer disruption

O&G and is not the only source of the disruption. Fertilizer manufacturing, which uses natural gas as input, is also a major point of trouble in its own right. The chart below traces fertilizer’s immediate users.

Quantitative tracing

These charts are drawn to scale. For laypersons, that means it is more than possible to trace the expected quantitative effects on all industries using the underlying data. How would one ringgit change in output price of oil and gas affect the change in prices of other downstream sectors? How would one unit of volume change in oil and gas affect change in other sectors?

That will be some further calculations I will do in private.

[1] — for crude oil & natural gas, coke & refined petroleum, basic chemicals and specialty chemicals, the corresponding rectangles represent total output and imports of the respective sectors. For the rest sitting at the end nodes (to the most right of the chart), they instead represent sum of input from the supplying upstream sectors. For instance, while basic chemicals node represents all of its output and imports, plastic products node only represents the sum of inputs used from basic chemicals and specialty chemicals. For the end node (right most), only sectors using at least 1% of its supplier output are listed. Anything below that is aggregated under the label others. This is done for simplicity’s sake

Categories
Books, essays and others Economics

[3018] Piketty and Sandel on creating a sense of belonging through progressive tax

During the GST debate in Malaysia, there was a strong push to cut personal and corporate income taxes. Indeed, the government of the day did cut income tax across multiple income band and lowered the rate for those in the top income tax bracket. There were at least four supporting reasons behind the proposal.

One was that it would soften the GST blows faced by households and companies. Second, related to the first, it would the GST more politically palatable. Third, there was a sense that it was fairer (and easier) to tax consumption instead of income. And finally, there was an idea that it was fairer to have flatter tax rates.

It is the fourth point that came across my mind as I read Equality: What It Means and Why It Matters recently. The book records a conversation on economic, political and social equalities between economist Thomas Piketty and philosopher Michael Sandel.

Within the context of flatter taxes, both parties highlight the importance of the middle class in forming any social compact. The middle class is important because in most settings if not all, it is the middle class who would fund the arrangements the most. Such compacts involve the financing of public institutions and infrastructure that in theory would introduce positive externalities that no private endeavor could bring. 

But the middle class needs to be to convinced to come on board and pay up. It is not enough for them to become the beneficiaries of any institution generating positive externalities. This is especially so when they know the poor would not be paying as much as they do, if at all. Jealousy and a perverse kind of envy when it comes to taxation (or lack of) are something that need to be kept in mind.

This could be addressed by having a progressive taxation regime, where members of the upper class are required to pay more through steeper tax rates.

As Piketty states it in the book:

It’s also what contributed to building a new social contract where the middle class would accept contributing to the social state. They knew that they would benefit from it, but also that people at the very top were going to pay a lot more than they would. Whereas today, of course, there’s a big suspicion by the middle class—more than suspicion—that people at the top are not paying their fair share. It makes them say, “Okay, then I’m not going to pay for people who are poorer than me.” [Page 17. Equality: What It Means and Why It Matters. Thomas Piketty. Michael Sandel]

Of course, the tax monies received by the authorities have to be put to good use and that means for the betterment of society. That betterment at the very least is the various effective functioning public institutions, which are central to the creation of sense of community and belonging, but also long-term public investment in a myriad of fields.

That sense of community and belonging achieved through some social compact financed by progressive taxation is a profound point at a time when far right extremists are championing identity politics and driving a plural society, like the one in Malaysia, apart.

From here, Piketty (and Sandel) are presenting progressive taxation is a tool to fight off the far right. It is a tool to create institutions that inculcate that sense of civic community and belonging to rival whatever the far right is offering.

Piketty and Sandel had the conversation (which has been edited into a book format) from the standpoint of the political left. I would not classify myself as a leftist. Yet, the ideas are useful for a person like me, who believes in civic nationalism with a dose of liberalism.

Categories
Books, essays and others Economics Society

[3014] Michael Sandel’s What Money Can’t Buy and the limits of the market

There is a feeling that traffic offenses in Malaysia are generally not taken seriously by road users or the authorities, unless somebody dies or gets hurt. The fines are low and if you wait long enough, it will get discounted generously. It also gets discounted heavily if you pay it quickly. There are threats of court action or towing in cases of illegal parking of course but this almost always never happens due to the hassle it involves. For the authorities, offering discounts to offenders is far simpler and cheaper. But there is a terrible cost to this approach. That cost comes in the form of changing expectations and the cementing of the wrong behavior.

These traffic fines are meant to discourage behaviors that affect the public space negatively (for instance, parking at the junction is illegal because it may cause collision between other road users). But today, these effective fines are too low that instead of functioning as deterrent, they are now an enabler of bad behavior. The fines become fees.

What this means is that instead of a person paying fines to make amends, now that person pays fees to allow him to commit wrongdoing. So, people now are paying fees for the permission to break the law.

Fine as fee is among the subjects of Michael Joseph Sandel’s What Money Can’t Buy. The subtitle is more descriptive: The Moral Limits of Markets. Sandel is a political philosopher who is perhaps best known for his Justice lecture series.

Fine as fee is only a specific example of a general set of cases where incentives designed to discourage certain behavior end up encouraging it instead. More precisely, (some) market-based incentives have the capacity of corrupting individual behavior by making previously frown-upon actions acceptable, which in the end makes the experience of public space sharing less desirable. There is a hint of the tragedy of the commons here.

There is one real world example I would like to cite from the book. It revolved around child-care centers in Israel that had difficulties with parents who were always late in picking up their kids. To discourage late pickups, the centers introduced a fine. In theory, this should encourage parents to pick up their children on time. But it became a perverse incentive, a concept undergraduates learned in their introductory microeconomics classes. Instead, it changed parents’ behavior for the worse, who now see the fine as a payment for late pick-up service. Incidence of late pick-ups rose afterward, as parents were more than happy to pay for the convenience. The lesson here is that that fine (a market-based solution) changed the expectations about late pickups: from something that reflects irresponsibility to just another non-judgmental service.

But this example and more are not a Freakonomics kind of entertaining read that opens up the world of economics to lay readers. Sandel attempts to convince us that market-based incentives change norms, unlike the typical economics assumption that these incentives itself are valueless and only reflects preexisting preferences.

Sandel’s ultimate thesis is that we have evolved from having a market economy to becoming a market society, where market mechanism has pervaded throughout all aspects of our life. He is worried that such proliferation is crowding out non-market norms and that the outcome is for the worse. Some of these norms are the egalitarianism (for example, lining up as opposed to express lanes where you pay to get ahead), the sacredness of human life (as opposed to paying for human organs or babies), honesty (as opposed to paying for friendship or dates), empathy (as opposed to auctioning immigration rights to refugees), civic mindedness (as opposed to paying to pollute or simply be a litterbug) or in general, the inculcating of the public spirit or civic duties which the market more often erode.

What Money Can’t Buy can be seen as an anti-market work but I think that is an unhelpful way of looking at it. Instead, it should be seen as a warning that not all realms of life should be opened to market mechanism or solutions. We should not bribe our kids with cash so that they eat their greens or clean their rooms or get an A at school. Sometimes should be encouraged through non-market means. There are social and moral limits to markets and there is wisdom in acknowledging those limits, even if one is—especially if one is—as I am, generally a pro-market person.

This brings back to our Malaysian case of traffic offences and fines as fees where people pay to commit offences. The possible solutions (apart from the market ones that involve more severe non-discountable punitive pecuniary penalties) appear to be a non-market one: towing, driving license suspension, lengthy court cases and even jailing.

Yet, most of these non-market solutions require government enforcement and enforcement requires funding, i.e. tax revenue. This goes back to the contributory factor behind the proliferation of market mechanism in our life: shortage of public funding means a retreat of public service, and that empty space gets filled up by private enterprises.

And yet, non-market norms where it exists can be cheaper than market norms. As Sandel writes, and I agree with this:

“[f]rom an economic point of view, social norms such as civic virtues and public-spiritedness are great bargains. They motive social useful behavior that would otherwise cost a lot to buy. If you had to rely on financial incentives to get communities to accept nuclear waste, you’d have to pay a lot more than if you could rely instead of the residents’ sense of civic obligation. If you had hire schoolchildren to collect charitable donations, you’d have to pay more than a 10 percent commission to get the same result that public spirit produces for free.”[1]

[1] — The mentions of nuclear waste and donation refer to an earlier real world examples in the book.

On nuclear waste: Switzerland needed a site to store nuclear waste. In a survey, when residents of a village were asked whether their would accept the government constructing a nuclear waste site at their location, 51% said yes out of sense of civic duty and the common good. But when the same question was asked with cash compensation added in, the result changed. Now, only 25% would agree, with the rest felling offended that they were being bribed.

On donation: two economists did an experiment involving high schoolchildren going door-to-door solicitating donations for certain cause. These children were divided into 3 groups. The first group was given a motivational speech about the worthiness of the cause, the second was given the same speech while getting to keep 1% of any donation collected and the third was also given the same speech while getting to getting to keep 10% of donation collected. The result? The first group collected 55% more donation than the second group. Meanwhile, the third group did better than the second, but worse than the first. Lesson: doing it for free out of civic duties leads to better results, but if you want to pay, it has be to a lot.

Categories
Books, essays and others Economics Politics & government Society

[3010] Reviewing Abundance and thinking about the abundance agenda

One of the central themes of The End of the Nineteen-Nineties (by yours truly) is that a robust and widely shared economic growth is a prerequisite to Malaysia’s civic nationalism that comes in the form of Bangsa Malaysia. I argue that the loss of growth momentum caused by the late 1990s Asian Financial Crisis is the primary reason behind why civic nationalism is struggling to have itself centered in Malaysian politics. If you sympathize with the argument, then it is natural to buy into the overall abundance agenda.

Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson are two champions that have popularized the idea of abundance through their recent 2025 book Abundance.

However, Abundance is a US-centric work. Some parts of the book sound like a boosterism for the Biden agenda: build, build, build. The support for the CHIPS Act is apparent throughout the book.

If you are living and working in Asia, problems raised by Klein and Thompson such as reluctance to build more housing, slow renewable energy progress and the general weakness in infrastructure spending might sound like an alien concept. In this part of the world, infrastructure spending is something we have learned to take for granted. Oversupply and overcapacity are more the buzzwords than scarcity is.

Nothing highlights this more by the differing reactions to a recent clip of the US President convoy driving along a Malaysian highway during the recently concluded Asean Summit in Kuala Lumpur: some US audience were amazed by various aspects of the highway while the Malaysian reactions included pride (thank you for noticing!), indifference (what’s the so special about the stretch road?) and smugness (welcome to the first world…). And this is just Malaysia, not China with its ultramodern out-of-this-world infrastructure and industrial might that is just hitting the ball out of the park.

Yet, the implications of Abundance have relevance to this part of the world too.

For one, policy priorities do change but change does not come easy. In fact, policy momentum often come in the way of new challenges. The authors go some length to explain why it is hard to build in the US: there was a time during the 1960s-1980s when development went too far that other concerns such as pollution, health and road safety were ignored. Since then, public pressures and court cases have put in place various legislations and bureaucracies to address these issues. These restrictions were relevant then, but they are now in the way of addressing new challenges. Example includes laws that used to restrict pollutions and preserve the environment are now preventing progress towards clean energy deployment that is necessary to combat climate change.

This can be true for Malaysia too in multiple areas. One area I can think of is Malaysia’s set of incentives, which a majority of them are geared towards the industries of the 1990s but not of the 2020s. Many of these incentives are now irrelevant but continued to be given by the government for various reasons, which is now taking resources for emerging concerns. Another policy is simply the petrol subsidy: we would like to push the country towards greater electrification but the subsidy is clearly in the way.

Another important lesson is that scarcity, oftentimes, is a choice. Sure, the physical world can only serves us so much but policies in many cases are the cause behind scarcity. Bringing the idea closer to home in Malaysia, our collective reluctance to raise taxes is the reason behind capacity and quality challenges we face in the health and education sectors. We choose the scarcity, and then we fight among ourselves to win stupid prize in that stupid games we created.

The greatest lesson perhaps is this: growth is not the only thing that matters but do not take it for granted. In fact, to put it more strongly, degrowth is not the way. This should be obvious with the various social pressures caused by deindustrialization faced by not just the US, but especially Europe. In Malaysia, for those still holding on to the idea of Bangsa Malaysia, growth is a must.