Category: Economics

Categories
Economics

[2901] We are incentivizing the wrong people to save

Who does not love big dividends that could be gained through low-risk instruments?

For many Malaysians capable of saving, either voluntarily or otherwise, low-risk investment with high returns of 5%-8% yearly or even more for some, is something that has been taken for granted. This is thanks to years of expectation settings made by a set of institutions the government has put in place to encourage saving.

So much so that in the case of Tabung Haji when the fund could not even pay its depositors high dividend anymore, the previous administration felt compelled to manipulate its accounts so that it could sustain its dividend level and avoid the political backlash from its base. In fact when ASB under PNB announced a reasonable dividend of 5.5% for 2019, enough Malaysians expressed unhappiness how that was unacceptably low and how that it would remove arbitrage opportunity that existed through low-cost borrowing to invest in higher yielding but low-risk investment, like those provided by PNB.

I for one believe the way and quantum these dividends are given need to change.

The reason: the state is encouraging the wrong people to save. Specifically, the existing system encourages those that do not need to save more to save further. This in turn places a downward bias on consumption growth and the size of funds available for productive investment (not the financial ones). I have a suspicion that if we stop encouraging the wrong (and rich) people to save, we could bump consumption growth and possibly funds for productive investment up, and boost economic activities on the ground. I am suggesting the economy could grow faster if we correct this flawed incentives.

What do I mean by encouraging the wrong people to save?

This is plain to see from the distribution of wealth in two big funds in Malaysia.

Based on the latest annual report from the EPF, that is the 2018 publication, the top 10% biggest depositors owned approximately half of all of EPF fund. And EPF is the biggest fund in Malaysia, and one of the biggest in the world.

It is worse in Tabung Haji. Based on data contained within the TH Recovery and Restructuring Working Plan document, about 1% of depositors owned half of the fund. A particular news report went on to cite that one depositor (likely the top depositor) had RM190 million saved in Tabung Haji. He or she could afford to live in Mecca luxuriously just on the Tabung Haji dividends alone!

With so much money, it is a no-brainer to put excess cash into these relatively high-returns low-risk funds. And dividend rates do spike up when it comes to election times previously, which indicates that the government do have a say in determining the dividend rate if it wants to through various means.

I am arguing that the high dividend for low-risk instruments is unhealthy to the wider economy. The relatively high-returns low-risk fund creates artificial incentive to save, which leads to excessive saving behavior by the rich. That artificial incentive to save translates into artificial disincentive to spend and invest in actual economic activities beyond financial instruments.

If we could rationalize and structure the dividend in a more reasonable way – such as reducing the dividend rate progressively the higher the size of savings is or capping the amount of savings at a reasonably high but not too high level – I think we can correct this, and unleash more money for spending by the rich, or encourage them to be more adventurous with their money by investing in real economic activities, like productive start-ups and new businesses, instead of things like the stale old and safe banking and other GLC stocks.

And after all, the financial-type people are complaining that Malaysian stocks are overpriced. Is it a wonder why that is so when the size of EPF funds is outgrowing the size of assets available for investment in Malaysia?

We could still encourage people to save. But let us incentivize the right people to save. My favorite way of doing so is to raise the dividend rate for the bottom and mid-savers, and progressively cut for the top ones (after passing beyond a certain level).

Categories
Economics Science & technology

[2897] Two-tier regulations to enhance ridesharing as a shock absorber in the Malaysian labor market

The gig economy can be many things but within the realm of ridesharing, I see it primarily as a shock absorber in the labor market. That means ridesharing is a temporary fall back plan if you have trouble in the formal market or in between jobs.

Here is an example of ridesharing as a shock absorber: if someone lost an income through job loss, he or she would not suffer 100% immediately because he or she could go to ridesharing without much cost. This shock absorber can be a minor alternative to unemployment benefits, except it comes as no cost to the government.

Because of this, I prefer to have flexibility in the ridesharing sector. Regulations could reduce the flexibility and reduce the effectively of the ridesharing sector as a shock absorber.

Yet it is quite clear that there is a need for labor protection. Regulations do have a role, especially since there is an asymmetry of bargaining power between those driving and the owner of the platform, driving by technology. In the case of food delivery, which is also a part of the gig economy, Foodpanda has market power over its food delivery workers and that market power was only matched with its deliverers’ union-like organizing successes.

When it comes to ridesharing, it does seem current regulations are reducing such flexibility and hurting the role of the sector as a labor market shock absorber. This inflexibility is caused by the need to register with the government if a person wants to participate in the ridesharing economy by driving.

Grab certainly blamed the new ridesharing regulations for reduced number of drivers on the road. This seems to be backed by complaints made by passengers over longer waiting time and higher fares. I personally I have suffered longer waiting time and higher fares, compared to before the regulations came into place. Talking to former drivers have also convinced that there are those who chose to cease becoming participants in the ridesharing sector. These point towards greater barrier to entry and hence, reduced flexibility.

I think as a compromise between the need for regulations and flexibility, perhaps there should be a two-tiers regulation:

  • For those earning below a certain threshold per month over x months, they could be exempted (partially?) from registration.
  • For those surpassing that threshold, they should be covered by current regulations fully .

The threshold is there to differentiate those doing ridesharing as a part time job and those doing it full time (or simply heavy participate of the gig economy). The shock absorber factor is more relevant to the part-timers than to the full-timers.

Admittedly, this will make implementation more complex and open the grounds for some non-compliance. There will be grey areas but I think in making the gig economy as a shock absorber, we should be tolerant of such non-compliance within some margins.

Implementation issues aside, theoretically this should be improve the role of ridesharing as a shock absorber in the labor market. It allows part-timers to join the gig economy without much cost, and making ridesharing sector as a temporary fallback.

Categories
Economics

[2896] September import figures settled some questions about the health of domestic demand

September was not a pretty month for Malaysian exports.

Exports for the month fell 6.8% from a year ago. When seasonally-adjusted, it still dropped 3.6% month-on-month. The decline was definitely caused by lower export volume, which points towards weaker global demand. But we know this already: trade war is bad for Malaysia. Once it gets bad enough, no trade diversion will be good enough to fight off reduction in global trade volume.

But what is more interesting to me is the import data and by proxy, domestic demand. September imports rose 2.4% year-on-year. Seasonally-adjusted imports were also marginally up. Imports are a proxy of domestic demand and import growth suggests a growing domestic demand. This is a good news.

There had been concerns over the health of domestic demand recently. Why? Because imports had been falling badly starting from June until August, while seasonally-adjusted figures had been giving mixed signals. From here alone, it was difficult to decide whether the June-August import decline was due to weakened domestic demand or just due to high base effect created by tax-free period. As a backgrounder, the GST was zerorized beginning June 1 and was finally replaced by the SST on September 1.

The September 2019 numbers have now given us the answer: it was largely due to the tax-free period and the high base effect it created.

If the June-August import decline was truly largely about weakened domestic demand, that decline would have persisted into September. But it did not. In fact, there was a significant break: capital, intermediate and consumption imports all had big jumps in September. This is typical of base effect that riddles year-on-year calculation every time there are big changes.

Imports are not the only proxy to domestic demand of course. Inflation is doing just fine.

Categories
Economics Politics & government Society

[2895] Lim Teck Ghee is exaggerating, but Pakatan has no choice but to do better

It was a hobby of sort of mine to attend public forums (fora?) a long time ago when I had time to kill. The late 2000s was a period of flourishing of civil society, and there were plenty of forums going on all around KL, from the most mundane to the most seditious.

At one of them, I remember a lawmaker admitting to exaggerating while making political claims, though he claimed not by much. He reasoned such exaggeration was meant to jolt people into action. A dry statement of fact alone would not inspire, with many surrendering to nonchalance on big issues.

I do see many exaggerations out there today. One of them is about how Vietnam is overtaking Malaysia.

Such event is a possibility. After all, history is filled with instances of countries falling from grace. Myanmar was once among the richest colonial economies in Southeast Asia and today, it is far behind multiple other countries that used to do worse. Malaya used to be at par with South Korea in terms of economic wellbeing but now, Malaysia is far behind the East Asian country, though we are doing not so bad.

But reasonable projections based on existing economic growth, population growth and several other factors point towards how Vietnam-overtaking-Malaysia scenario is possible but unlikely. Already having one of the oldest demography in the region – specifically 31 years old versus Malaysia’s 29 – with nominal GDP per capita at a quarter that of Malaysia, it is highly likely Vietnam would take quite some time with great difficulty to converge with Malaysia’s level, much less pass it.

I think Vietnam belongs to the same group as Thailand (and China): countries that will grow old first before they grow rich. The situation in Thailand is far worse: median age is 39 years old with nominal GDP per capita about seven tenths of Malaysia. Both Vietnam and Thailand are handicapped by with a quickly ageing population, leaving them with not much time for hastened growth. This is orthodox growth economics of course. Behind many of the leading growth models, beyond capital accumulation, tech progress and human capital, is population growth. Unfavorable demography usually leads to slower growth.

But again, it is not impossible for Vietnam to overtake Malaysia. Low likelihood, but still possible. There could be one event or two disrupting Malaysia’s and Vietnam’s growth path. It is hard to predict those events from happening compared to growth projection based on current scenario. But this is where exaggeration can help: it brings up fresh possibilities to take us out of our boring model forming our reasonable basis. It spices things up, opening up room for creative scenario planning.

Lim Teck Ghee claimed that Pakatan Harapan was “an unmitigated disaster for reform from whichever aspect or way you look at” at a public forum. He listed down his disappointments to back it up. “Education, governance, race relations, religious relations, the debacles of Icerd, Zakir Naik, the Melayu Dignity Congress and more. The list of political disappointments and failures keeps growing.”

Yes, there have been disappointments and I share them too. But I am never that naïve to believe all changes will take place from Day One, especially given the way Pakatan Harapan achieved the mandate to rule in the last general election. It is inevitable for democratic compromises to take place frequently, no matter how much one wants to stand one’s ground. This is not a technocratic dictatorship. It is a democracy, and increasingly less flawed at that.

But calling Pakatan Harapan as an unmitigated disaster, I would argue strongly, is an exaggeration given the reforms that have been carried out so far.

I can list those reforms. My favorite is the wider implementation of open tender throughout the public sector: democratic compromise has led to even contracts reserved for Bumiputras being given out via open tender and no longer given out directly most of the times. There are exceptions, but I feel many of them can be explained well. Indeed, for a monster organization unused to open tender system, implementation problems were aplenty and starting totally afresh was not always possible. But by and large, there are more and more adoption of open tender, creating a new culture that makes everybody afraid of dishing out direct contracts. Remember, just less than two years ago, nobody in the public sector would bat an eyelid for giving out direct contract. Direct negotiation was the norm.

Other examples of executed reform include fairer broadband internet market, more independent Parliament with all of its new Select Committees, more independent anti-corruption commission, freer press and even in education, the move away from exams towards a more liberal education.

And there are many more coming our way with good progress made: greater transparency in the public sector in the form of the shift towards accrual accounting and the establishment of the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) within the 5-year mandate.

Almost none of the reforms that have happened or expected to happen would take place under the previous administration riddled with corruption led by a shockingly and outrageously dishonest leader, trapping the country’s institutions in a sticky thick morass that would scare any institutionalist away. To me, a disaster would have been a complete no-change scenario.

There clearly has been substantial change since May 9 2018. Only a blind man would deny that.

I cannot know his true intention, but from the perspective I have shared, perhaps Lim Teck Ghee’s exaggeration is needed to jolt us out into action. There are disappointments. And that means we have to work harder to overcome all those barriers to change.

Pakatan Harapan voters had high hopes – they still have great hopes – that Pakatan Harapan would achieve great things and completely change Malaysia for the better. Pakatan Harapan is better than Barisan Nasional, but Pakatan has no choice but to do better to match those great expectations.

Categories
Economics Politics & government Science & technology

[2894] Free Breakfast Program: Welfare aid, targeting, social status and social stigma

As technology progresses with information becoming richer and more accessible, it is easier and easier to do targeted policy. Governments, especially those with conservative economic leanings compromising with democratic pressures, love targeting because in theory, it is cheaper and it avoids wastage. In fact, going back to basic microeconomics, it might even eliminate deadweight loss. I also love targeting, up to a point.

But just because we are able to do targeted policy does not mean we should do it. There are other considerations to be taken into account.

Targeting can create social stigma and that can be damaging in other ways. It does so through signaling, which means it lets other people know that a person is being targeted for some policy. This is something policymakers need to be mindful of, beyond the dollars and cents.

In a society where social status does matter, assistance could lower a person social status.

This is why government cash assistance program via automatic bank transfer is good, among other things. It keeps transactions private, and therefore gives no signaling to other people. So, it has minimal effect on social status if any.

But not all assistance policy can be private. Many do necessarily give out signaling affecting social status. The Free Breakfast Program for students to be introduced by the Ministry of Education in 2020 is one of such un-private assistance policy.

As a result, a program like the FBP cannot be targeted. This is especially so when it comes to kids who may take signaling from targeting wrongly, leading to bullying and social estrangement. At schools, we need to make learning as easy as possible, not harder for whatever reasons. Giving free breakfast for certain groups, which are the neediest, send signals to other better-off students that the beneficiaries are of a certain social class.

Schools at the elementary level are grounds for inculcating values. Some of the values we should inculcate is egalitarianism. And this makes signaling something to be thought of in designing policy relevant to the education system.

Our country is already divided in so many dimensions. We probably do not want to impress on our younglings of social divisions through yet another dimension. Targeting at this cost is not worth it.

In our specific FBP case, a blanket policy is better than a targeted policy. It muzzles the signalling, and fights the creation of social stigma that is the seed for future division in our society.