Categories
Economics

[2110] Of flawed institutions may be holding Malaysia back

Growth of six per cent of gross domestic product  per capita per year for the next eleven years. That, according to the Prime Minister, is the rate of growth that Malaysia requires in order for the country to achieve the much coveted developed status. There is no doubt economic growth is very much needed. Whether that rate is achievable is dependent on a number of factors and of them involves public institutions.[Erratum]

In the realm of growth, mainstream economic theory suggests that poorer countries can be expected to grow faster than richer countries and at some point, join the club of the rich. This phenomenon is called convergence and this is achieved through, largely technological progress and capital accumulation.

This theory has its shares of successes and failures. Japan, South Korean, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore are proofs of the validity of this theory. To some extent, Malaysia and other so-called tiger economies that grew at magnificent rate in the 1980s and 1990s are proofs of how this growth theory may be true. Growth of China and India further lends credence to the theory.

Failure of this model comes in its incapability to explain why a majority of African countries and some others have yet to grow as fast as predicted by the model.

A number of explanations on why the theory fails to describe lack of further convergence and in fact, divergence among countries, have been put forth to supplement it. The one that I think is relevant for Malaysia at the moment is the stress on public institutions as one of the factors of growth.

When looking at countries that are failing to converge with richer countries, one of the noticeable factors is the lack of trustworthy institutions in these poor countries. The judiciary suffers from manipulation and is powerless to ensure application of rule of laws with equal weight to all of its citizens. With powerless judiciary and even meaningless enforcement system, abuse of power runs rampart. Individual rights, including rights to private property, meanwhile are frequently violated. A system that ensures smooth and peaceful transition of political power — which typically means free and fair elections — is largely absent.

Without trustworthy institutions, technological progress and capital accumulation are likely not to happen. Furthermore, the only likely source of economic growth — on aggregate and not in terms of per capita of course — is population growth.

None of such woefully inadequate institutions describes Malaysia thankfully. This Southeast Asian country certainly has much better institutions than countries that are still battling mass famine, witnessing extreme poverty and experiencing very unstable political environment that includes gunfights. Yet, it is not hard to hypothesize how the imperfection that scars public institutions in Malaysia is relevant in discussions involving economic growth.

While perhaps things have gotten slightly better, the general feeling in the past few years is that public institutions in Malaysia, be it the police, the courts or the civil service, do not command the confidence of many people. The separation of powers between the executive and the legislative arms of government, as seen in Perak for instance, is really non-existence. The V.K. Lingam case suggests that the separation between the executive and the judiciary is blurry. Even if that case is considered as a case of a lawyer that sounded like somebody, looked like somebody but it is not that somebody boasting and speaking only to himself and thus, of no consequence, the issues relating to the 1988 constitutional crisis still haunt Malaysia.

The flaws in Malaysian institutions put a natural limit in how much economic growth is possible. It would take more and more effort to maintain a certain rate of GDP per capita growth the higher the level of development of the country, given the level of institutional capacity of Malaysia. At some point, it becomes really expensive and hard to maintain that rate regardless how forceful the free market or the state runs the economic engine of growth, if the country’s institutions remain at a level not befitting of a developed country.

I suspect that this is the main reason why Malaysia is stuck in the so-called middle-income trap. Institutions matter. It may be imperfect institutions that prevent Malaysia from converging with richer countries like Singapore and South Korea or even western European countries, just as how really bad institutions prevent poor countries from moving forward at all.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

A version of this article was first published in The Malaysian Insider on November 10 2009

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

Erratum — I made a mistake by stating the Prime Minister said six per cent growth of GDP, instead of six per cent growth GDP per capita in the original article. I should not have relied on Bernama, which was sloppy in its reporting. It used growth of GDP and growth of GDP per capita as if the two concepts are synonymous and I simply relied on Bernama without corroborating it with the primary source, or by diversifying my sources:

PUTRAJAYA, Nov 9 (Bernama) — The government needs to redouble its efforts, identify new growth areas and ensure the nation maintains a six per cent annual Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth from now to 2020 in order to achieve a developed status in 11 years, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak said here Monday. [Najib: Six Pct Annual GDP Growth Needed To Achieve Developed Nation Status. Bernama. November 9 2009]

Yet another article by Bernama

PUTRAJAYA: The government must redouble its efforts, identify new growth areas and ensure the nation maintains 6% annual GDP growth from now to 2020 in order to achieve a developed status in 11 years, said Datuk Seri Najib Razak.

The Prime Minister said on Monday, Nov 9 that measures to redouble the government’s efforts and identify new growth areas would be spelled out in the new economic model, expected to be launched by end of the year.

“The new economic model would provide a clear guideline on what needs to be done and obviously information, communications and TECHNOLOGY [] [ICT] would play a greater role in this,” he said after chairing the 21st Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC) Malaysia Implementation Council Meeting. This was the first meeting to be chaired by Najib after becoming the prime minister. [Najib: GDP must grow 6% yearly to be developed nation in 2020. Bernama via The Edge. November 9 2009]

My apologies.

Nevertheless, the idea on institutions is still valid. Hence, the removal of the following paragraphs. They were originally placed between the first and the second paragraph of the corrected version:

Yet, as a measurement of success, growth of six per cent of GDP per year and the application of industrial policy to achieve that in many ways are unsatisfying.

First off, the proper metric should be growth of GDP per capita. Malaysians who care for their own welfare should be more interested in improving their average standard of living rather than seeing the economy simply growing on aggregate. While it is true that having a large economy on aggregate makes a country more influential in terms of international diplomacy even when the wide population themselves in generally is poor — observe China and India — GDP growth alone is not particularly meaningful in measuring average well-being of individual Malaysians. To make concrete out of words, consider the following simple example: growth rate of GDP on aggregate could grow at a rate lower than population growth rate to make change of rate of GDP per capita negative; in even simpler terms, the economy could grow on aggregate but each person on average could be worse-off.

If aggregate GDP growth rate is the measure of success, and if I were the Prime Minister, my industrial policy would include encouraging Malaysians to multiply like rabbits by any means necessary and adopt a very, very liberal immigration policy, one which would solve the problem illegal immigrants that the Rudd government in Australia faces. Never mind the Malthusian scenario that may come, this policy would hit six percent growth of aggregate GDP sooner rather than later and then boldly go where no man has gone.

But I am no prime minister and I am not that crazy. I do not accept the aggregate GDP growth rate as a good metric. On top of that, I am a libertarian: I do not like industrial policy because it calls upon central planning policy that essentially runs on the assumption that government knows best.

Notwithstanding criticism leveled at the concept of GDP itself…

Categories
Economics

[2107] Of if you want your bonus, you should lose your job first

CUEPACS, labor union for civil servants in Malaysia, given current environment of large fiscal deficit and economic uncertainty, has the audacity to demand for bonus.[1] The demand is not met, as evident by absence of such bonus in the proposed federal government budget tabled nearly two weeks ago. Today, the Prime Minister rightly admonished — admonished awfully understates the situation since the PM said demand is “morally wrong” — the union in the process.[2]

As a taxpayer staring at the possibility of higher tax in the future, that demand clearly is impossible to meet. The large fiscal deficit due to combination of structural and cyclical factors must be tackled and at the moment, I would probably be grudgingly willing to suffer increased taxes if government spending sees reduction at the same. I however would like to see those who fail to pay their taxes be brought to book first before having to suffer from a tax hike, although that is a different issue that I will not delve farther here.

Returning to my point, granting such bonus will only increase the likelihood of tax increase without a reduction of government size, which is already bloated.

You know what?

If they really want their bonus, I can be amenable to that but only on one condition: a lot of civil servants need to lose their job. This means badly performing civil servants have to go through the door. I will not mind having high quality and productive civil servants, which definitely will mean smaller workforce, being paid good bonus.

The union is a vote bank. That is probably why it has the audacity to do this. In this case, its audacity comes at the expense of taxpayers. That is intolerable.

Money does not grow on tree, mate.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

[1] — KUALA LUMPUR: Cuepacs wants the Government to pay the 1.2 million civil servants a two-month bonus this year.

It hopes the Government will include the bonus in Budget 2010 plus a similar incentive for 400,000 pensioners, said the umbrella body’s president Omar Osman. [Cuepacs seeks bonus of two months for govt staff. The Star. October 18 2009]

[2] — KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 4 — It is morally wrong to ask for bonuses while the country is still struggling to sail out of the economic downturn and people in the private sector are being retrenched, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak said today.

”It’s morally wrong to ask for bonus when the economy has not recovered. I keep telling Cuepacs (president Omar Osman) that it cannot be just like a trade union, shout for bonus every time (there is budget) because you want to (remain) popular among your members,” he said. [Najib slams Cuepacs as ”˜immoral’ to demand bonus. Bernama. October 18 2009]

Categories
Economics Politics & government

[2106] Of thumbs up for MP from Bukit Bendera on GST

With respect to the proposed implementation of the goods and services tax, MP Liew Chin Tong said:

“This is a huge sum for a study. The Finance Ministry should explain what kind of study this is, who is conducting it and which consultancy firm is handling the study.

“The idea of implementing this kind of study needs serious national debate.

“When Australia implemented the GST in 1998, it was decided based on a referendum.

We need to debate whether we need the GST or whether the Government should cut down its spending instead” [Parliament: Why RM22m for GST study? Zulkifli Abd Rahman. The Star. November 3 2009]

Indeed.

Categories
Economics

[2104] Of the government continues to expand under the 2010 federal budget

As a libertarian that I am, I can only sigh after reading the 2010 federal budget speech delivered by the Finance Minister.

I begin from a point deep in the realm of skepticism. I never actually believe any government in Malaysia — now or in the near future, neither Barisan Nasional nor Pakatan Rakyat — would largely retreat from the marketplace to leave the market to its own device in most cases. There are simply too many political considerations that go against the notion of free market here in Malaysia.

Firstly, businesses are politically-connected to make the government pro-business. In fact, the government itself is involved in businesses through its oligopolies to crowd out private initiatives. This has not even considered the erased line between the government and Barisan Nasional, where public properties are used for personal and political gain. For the government to touch itself openly is inevitable. That is the likely result in the case of conflict of interest, which is hardly surprising at all. There is no decency anymore these days.

Secondly is the developing entitlement mentality. Fuel subsidy is a right. Free highway is a right. Scholarship to universities abroad is a right. Bonus is a right. With such mentality and with both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat racing on this front, government expansion is the only logical way forward. We have seen how the Islamization race between UMNO and PAS ended. It does not take a leap in imagination to picture the end result of the race between Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat to the left.

Early in the speech, the Finance Minister mentioned the scope of government intervention and it is wide. In his own words, the government ”will transform Malaysia through a comprehensive innovation process, comprising innovation in public and private sector governance, societal innovation, urban innovation, rural innovation, corporate innovation, industrial innovation, education innovation, healthcare innovation, transport innovation, social safety net innovation and branding innovation.”

That is a mighty goal, especially given that many governments perform poorly in the area of innovation when put head to head with the free market.

No matter. The government knows best and god saves us all.

Regardless of the budget, a new industrial policy that necessarily calls upon government intervention appears imminent. The talk of a so-called new economic model or really, a central planning exercise with new emphases has been going on for months now. Different goals, same paradigm.

The best symbol of paternalism available in the budget that a layperson can identify with is the proposal to charge an annual lump sum fee on credit cards. The Finance Minister claims that this is done to promote prudent spending. It is, as if, all individuals are doomed to spend all of their money dry.

Never mind that the government itself is spending imprudently. I wonder if an individual with his or her own money would buy a laptop priced at RM42,320. Whatever the answer, we know that some government institution has done that. Open up the auditor report. Year in and year out, it is the same old story. Yet, individuals have to suffer paternalistic attitude from a hypocritical government, which is convinced that individuals cannot manage their finance.

On the contrary, the government should really worry about its own financial status first rather than trying to tweak individual behavior, from savings to spending. Its revenue is going down and its expenditure is growing, the abnormal spending caused by the stimulus package notwithstanding.

The government seems to be addressing that problem by introducing goods and services tax later in hope to increase its revenue; not in 2010 but maybe in 2011. I personally like such consumption tax, but only if it neutralizes amount of theoretical loss due to income tax. To have both is to reduce welfare of individuals. Other than that, the government is even preparing to rents out some of its premises to the public, among other things.

The reform effort at the fuel subsidy regime is likely to help but it is unclear how that would be effective in rectifying government finance in light of expanding roles of government in the country.

The size of government expenditure — regardless whether it is caused by corruption, incompetence or by simply misguided conscience to help — needs curbing, if the problem of government finance is to be effectively addressed.

With a little luck, such retreat will give the private sector more space to flourish and contribute to government coffer, in the long run.

Yes, in the long run, we are all dead as Keynes wrote. Remember however that we are here now because of quick fixes — get the government to do it.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

First published in The Malaysian Insider on October 27 2009.

Categories
Economics Politics & government

[2101] Of the economic story, so far

The Najib administration faces challenges from multiple directions. On economic front, two major factors drive changes in the federal government’s economic policy. One is the global economic turmoil. The other is electoral pressure applied against affirmative action policy favoring the Bumiputra, or mostly, the Muslim Malays.

Both challenges began before the new administration came to power. Najib Razak had the opportunity to address a challenge before he assumed the office on the fifth floor of Perdana Putra in Putrajaya. He assumed the responsibility of Finance Minister early and was credited for launching both stimulus packages announced in November 2008 and later in March 2009.

The stimulus packages have been ineffective so far. Government admitted that spending was slow and further shared that the effect of the stimulus would only be felt in the third quarter of 2009, approximately seven months after the first stimulus was tabled in the Dewan Rakyat.

Nobody is quite sure when the economy would turnaround but signs of improvement are already visible. For instance, demands for electronics are already up, with factories reportedly having trouble fulfilling their orders. There is a good chance that the economy may improve earlier than the estimated period the stimulus packages are estimated to become effective. If that happens, the stimulus may prove to be irrelevant in smoothening fluctuation in economic growth and may really only contribute in creating structural fiscal deficit.

Malaysian federal government has been running on deficit since the Asian Financial Crisis hit the country in the late 1990s. The Najib administration began its era by enlarging the hole in an unprecedented manner: a stimulus totaling RM67 billion comprising of RM21 billion worth of government spending spread over 2009 and 2010.

If the Najib administration is concerned with the size of fiscal deficit and the level of national debt, the government will suffer from severe constraint in its finance and inevitably, its plans.

The deficit will definitely affect the implementation of the so-called new economic model — or more appropriately, a new industrial policy — currently being drafted by the Najib administration. Any respectable industrial policy will require manipulation of tax and tariff structure. This in turn affects government revenue, at least in the short term if the industrial policy is successful. Not all industrial policies have been successful implemented: the clearest failure is the industrial policy on biotechnology.

The impetus for the new industrial policy, from the point of view of the government, is definitely the drawbacks of export-driven model. The export-driven model advocates for reliance on exports as the engine of economic growth. For countries, like Malaysia, which have chosen that path, their economic health is susceptible to economic fluctuations of their trading partners. In the case of Malaysia, mostly, it is the United States of America, the source of recessions in many other economies. It is from this approach in economic development that gives the cliché ”when America sneezes, the world catches cold” its truth.

Impetus asides, the exact details of the new industrial policy are not available publicly currently. The government indicates that actual plan will only be ready later in the year.

The administration has given out some hints however. Key ideas leaked so far are the strengthening of domestic demand vis-à-vis external demand, creating high-skilled based economy, improving the quality of wages of local jobs and reversing — or at least reducing — the rate of brain drain that Malaysia suffers from.

Along with the main ideas, on the sidelines seem to be the rejection of export-driven model and the lessening of reliance on cheap low-skilled foreign labor.

This may implicitly suggest a quest for some kind of independence from the fluctuation of world economic system that one cannot hope of achieving without jeopardizing Malaysia’s future. In a sense, the idea of economic independence is a continuation of the Abdullah administration. The previous immediate administration emphasized on achieving self-sufficiency in food production, signaling the government’s failure in understanding the basic economic concept of comparative advantage. It is a fact that it is cheaper to trade for food — and achieves security of food supply while at it — than to achieve self-sufficiency in food production.

Yet, really, there is nothing wrong in trying to create a local economy with stronger domestic demand manned by high-skilled workers. Those goals can be achieved and indeed, it is desirable to achieve it, without rejecting export-driven model and being excessively hostile to the role that cheap low-skilled labor plays in Malaysia economy.

Full ejection of export-driven model is unwise despite popular current advocating its abandonment. Malaysia has only a small population while there are much larger markets abroad. There is no way on earth domestic demand can absorb the size of external demand, if total demand is to be at least maintained at its current level, unless the real wealth of Malaysians goes up in a very dramatic manner.

It will be all the more impossible to improve domestic demand if Malaysia adopts unwelcoming stance toward foreign workers. These foreign workers do help sustain domestic demand, apart from providing their services. The administration has not shown that it understand that.

Under the stimulus package, the government did plan to impose restriction on hire of foreign workers, which increased the cost of doing business in Malaysia, in times when demands were falling precipitously. That action was postponed indefinitely only after manufacturers lobbied against restriction. If the restricted saw implementation, it would have been a disaster for the manufacturing industry. Malaysian economy could have gone into steeper recession than it would have without the restriction.

Whether the new industrial policy will take cognizance of that is something Malaysians will only know after the government shared the full plan.

Despite that, it is already clear that policy will work hand in hand with liberalization of the economy from instruments relating to affirmative action closely identified with the New Economic Policy, a policy that officially ended in 1990. The frequently debated quota requirement of 30% for Bumiputra in all public listed companies has seen a dismantling along with the very pro-affirmative action Foreign Investment Committee.

The liberalization is partly caused by the realization that affirmative action as practiced in Malaysia is adversely affecting Malaysia’s potential in times when there are other comparable if not better investment destinations, partly by the current economic recession and partly political since Pakatan Rakyat successfully campaigned against the policy.

Of all that Najib has done as either Prime Minister or Finance Minister, the liberalization of the 30% quota reserved for Bumiputra is the boldest of all. The conservative Malay base is likely rattled by the liberalization effort. The courage for that may have come from realization that Barisan Nasional — UMNO in particular — has more to gain by moving to the center rather than appealing to the Malay far right clusters in UMNO. After all, these far right groups have nowhere to go but UMNO. They have no choice.

In this sense, the liberalization of affirmative action is Barisan Nasional under Najib Razak is flanking Pakatan Rakyat. During the election campaign, Pakatan Rakyat more or less advocated the same kind of liberalization. Barisan Nasional is now adopting it. Continuous liberalization of the policy by Barisan Nasional may bring it more votes from the non-Malay groups in the future, at the expense of Pakatan Rakyat.

Regardless of political implication, the good effects of liberalization are unlikely to be felt so soon. As much as the economic downturn seen in Malaysia is caused by drop in external demand, recovery will be driven by external demand too. The sheer size of external demand makes improvement in domestic demand incapable of driving recovery in the local economy. This probably limits what the Najib administration can do in the short run. Such is the curse of a small open economy such as Malaysia.

When the economy does finally rebound however, Malaysia has good chance to capitalize on its new liberalized market environment.

All in all, perhaps there is one term that can describe the economic policy of the Najib administration: pragmatist. When governments all around the world spend, so does the administration. When everybody talks about the end of export-led model, here comes a new industrial policy. And when the voters expressed hostility against affirmative action as called for by the NEP, the government liberalizes the affirmative action. The government bends to whichever direction the wind blows.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

First published in Oon Yeoh’s Najib’s First 100 Days: No Honeymoon.