Categories
Economics

[2026] Of a step forward with thousands to go

Liberalization is on the move. Yet, the move hardly deserves to be called a liberalization effort.

Notwithstanding how truly free the local economy is, the federal government led by Barisan Nasional is finally addressing the shortcomings of affirmative action as practiced in the country. The past few weeks have seen the kind of market liberalization that one cannot imagine to be even possible before 2008. The much debated equity ownership quota imposed on public companies is now finished.

It is likely that the BN federal government was forced to address the issue. More than anything else, the Najib administration is a pragmatist concerned with its survival. One cannot be deluded into believing that the administration is doing this out of conviction to the idea of liberty.

Affirmative action was one of several major contentious issues in the 2008 general election. Both its basis and implementation suffered from relentless heavy attacks during the election campaign.

The result of the last general election suggests that the attacks were successful. Those attacks eroded popular support for the policy, even among the groups that it was supposed to benefit.

That and coupled with existing market forces that are always ready to rebel against top-down approaches, liberalization seems inevitable in retrospect. The unpopular centrally planned policy based on ethno-nationalism is now indefensible in a concrete sense. The anti-affirmative action movement has done a remarkably good job at demonstrating why it is indefensible.

As a result, no longer are the weaknesses of the affirmative action an abstraction appreciated by the critical-minded and the well-read individuals only. Many among the masses are convinced that the policy is morally and economically unacceptable. So strong is the anti-affirmative action current that BN cannot support the policy, or at least in its present form, any longer if it is concerned with its chances in the next general election, which must  be held before 2013.

Individuals belonging to the tradition of classical liberalism are generally hostile to the policy. Malaysian affirmative action is a case of government intervention. The policy spreads the tentacles of the government across the landscape to limit essential freedom that individuals and firms require to maximize their welfare. It is one more constraint to adhere to, increasing the cost of doing business.

The quota-based policy worked in the past because other factors outside of Malaysia compensated for its cost. Not too many countries had a good transportation and communication system along with a sufficiently educated workforce previously, especially before the 1990s. Some others like China meanwhile were excessively hostile to the concept of private property despite the fact that right to private property is the non-negotiable basis for a prosperous society. Options for investment in an increasingly globalizing world were limited.

That is no longer true today. Factors that made others unattractive for investment purpose are largely gone. This reduces, if not eliminates, many advantages that Malaysia had over others in the past. With a more competitive environment, the policy of affirmative action stands out as one of several major structural barriers that are handicapping Malaysia vis-à-vis other economies.

For Malaysia to move forward, it is exactly the kind of structural reforms like the recent liberalization on equity that is required.

Classical liberals — libertarians — are savoring this moment after years of living through suffocating government intervention. In times when many governments all around the world are enforcing their influence in the market, it is refreshing to see the government in Malaysia retreating.

Still, one has to be mindful that the recent effort at liberalization is largely confined to restrictions traditionally associated with Bumiputra policy. The government has its hands in too many aspects not just in the market but also in the lives of private citizens.

The recent fiscal stimuli based on government spending are proof that the dream for a free market is still far in the distance.

Even as the 30 per cent Bumiputra quota is liberalized, another quota, albeit less restrictive, is set in place.

In the background, the availability of government-linked companies continues to crowd the market. These entities utilize unfair advantages that no true private businesses can have. These GLCs are monopolies. With excessive market power, it kills entrepreneurship, one of the factors that keep the free market as a system superior to any other.

Meanwhile, prices and supply control regimes are still in place to distort signals in the market in the name of welfare, discouraging the development of an adaptive culture in favor of a static one.

There are other examples that affirm the illiberalness of the Malaysian market.

Hence, there is no time to rest. The pressure for greater freedom has to be applied continually. The Najib administration is one point up but it will have to suffer more criticism.

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 July 3 2009.

Categories
Economics

[2024] Of stimulus may be hurting recovery

I am holding the view that the RM67 billion government spending-based fiscal stimulus as announced will not be helpful. The market will show a swing independently of spending.

The swing is already happening in spite the fact that government spending has been insignificant so far. Furthermore, the magnitude of government spending is pale in comparison to the drop of external demand. If there is to be any recovery, it will be driven by external demand, just as the recession has been caused by external demand. All this makes the government spending-based stimulus irrelevant.

Due to temporal issue between the effectiveness of the spending and market cycle, when proper recovery takes places, private firms will suffer from crowding out effect since the stimulus is financed through local sources. Interest will have to go up higher when compared to a situation where there the size of government spending is absent.

Well, I might be wrong. My position is too kind. There is a piece yesterday that may indicate that the stimulus is hurting recovery:

GEORGE TOWN: Penang’s electronics industry is facing a shortage of production workers after orders started to pick up early last month, according to a job outsourcing company.

The problem is compounded by local workers who prefer to enrol instead in the government’s retraining scheme where they are paid more, said Inter Resources Consulting Global Search (M) Sdn Bhd managing director Michael Heah.

He said locals were not keen to work long hours in factories for RM500 to RM600 a month, preferring the retraining scheme for unemployed graduates and retrenched workers where they were taught new skills and received a monthly allowance of between RM500 and RM800. [Penang electronics firms unable to cope with demand. The Star. July 2 2009]

Firms are actually competing — gasp! — with the stimulus package for labor, making them incapable of meeting demand in the short run.

How is that for a stimulus?

Worse:

Heah said the electronics industry started to recover last month with the semiconductor and consumer electronics sector stepping up their recruitment drive to get more locals to fill vacancies.

”To make matters worse, the intake of foreign workers has been frozen. We appeal to the Government to lift the freeze in the sector,” he said. [Penang electronics firms unable to cope with demand. The Star. July 2 2009]

Unless productive firms can find individuals that are not enrolled in the retraining program, they will need to raise wages.

I am a fan of raising wages only to accommodate inflation, to compensate improvement in productive for the labor factor of production or competition from firms for labor.

I see none of those here. That potential raise of wages may be caused by distortion created by the government, more than anything else.

Categories
Economics

[2020] Of something to smile about

The Coincident Index (CI), that measures the current economic activity, rose by 0.9% in April 2009 registered at 113.7 points. The increase of the index were contributed by real gross imports (0.7%), real sales in manufacturing sector (0.4%), Index of Industrial Production (0.2%) and real contributions in EPF (0.2%). The six-month smoothed growth rate of CI in April 2009 showed an improvement to -7.1% from -9.7% in March 2009.

The Leading Index (LI) which monitor the economic performance in advance also increased in April 2009. The index grew by 2.0% to 162.5 points from 159.4 points recorded in the previous month. Main components that have contributed to the increase of index were real total trade of eight major trading partners (0.6%), real money supply, M1 (0.5%) and Bursa Malaysia industrial index (0.3%). The six-month smoothed growth rate of LI improved 4.3% in April 2009 compared to 0.6% in the previous month. [Malaysia Economic Indicators – Leading, Coincident And Lagging Indices April 2009. Department of Statistics. Accessed June 26 2009]

Categories
ASEAN Economics

[2018] Of with ceasation of supply, protectionist will be proven wrong

Wages in Malaysia are generally depressed.

Protectionists blame foreign labor as the main cause of that depression. According to them, if we are less dependent on foreign labor — low-skilled mostly — wages will go up. So, they want to kick out as many foreign labor as possible. Even all, for the extremists.

They make that assertion without considering foreign labor are active in sectors mostly different from the ones locals are participating in; there simply not enough locals wanting to participate in the sectors filled with foreign labor.

Removal of these foreigners will no doubt increase wages up as the law of supply and demand demands it, but that is largely true only in those sectors. The problem of wage depression in the larger economy will not be addressed or significantly affected with the absence of foreign labor.

In front of our eyes is a natural experiment to prove that. Indonesia has decided to stop the flow of maid into Malaysia:

JAKARTA, June 25 (Bernama) – Beginning today, Indonesia will halt temporarily sending maids to Malaysia until there are discussions on the review of the memorandum of understanding (MoU) on the matter. [Indonesian Maids To Malaysia Halted Temporarily. Bernama. June 25 2009]

I am confident that while wages for maids will rise, wages in other sectors will remain largely unaffected.

In fact, Malaysian productivity might fall because Malaysians who face high opportunity cost between housework and professional job might not be able to do what Adam Smith wrote in The Wealth of Nations: specialization.

And in economics, besides supply and demand, productivity is a major component in the determination of wages.

Categories
Economics Politics & government

[2013] Of regretfully, fiscal deficit is a non-issue

The consistent fiscal deficit the federal government currently experiences is an issue far removed from everyday life. For many, it is an abstraction without concrete consequences. Hence, it is highly unlikely that the issue will be able to capture public attention and directly become a determinant in any election. This gives the federal government too much free hand in managing its fiscal position.

Despite the lag in effect, the persistent fiscal deficit presents real challenges to the economy and perhaps, more tangibly, to all taxpayers. It is so because the idea of scarcity is not something that is only valid within the theoretical world of economics.

It is because of scarcity that the concept of deficit exists. It is also because of scarcity that any deficit requires financing.

As far as the fiscal deficit of the Malaysian government is concerned, it is being financed through borrowings. The government issues debts in which market participants — be they individuals living within Malaysia or financial firms based abroad — purchase in return for greater payoff in the future.

So far, the federal government is fulfilling its existing debt obligations by issuing more debts. The situation on the ground at the moment allows that to happen but it does not take a leap in imagination to understand how a snowball may cause an avalanche. Argentina in 2001, for instance, defaulted from fulfilling its debt payments; it borrowed to finance its deficit for the longest time until its repayment requirement became too big for it to comply.

Malaysia still has a long way to go before that happens. Nevertheless, eventually, our deficit has to be attended. There are at least three ways to address the deficit: increase revenue, decrease government spending or default.

For any self-respecting government, defaulting is not much of a choice. The Argentine economy was in ruinous state after it defaulted on its payment; capital fled and dried up, bringing the economy to a screeching halt. Regardless of preference, the current local scenario that includes the maintenance of strong foreign reserves by Malaysia makes the likelihood of default very small.

Decreasing government spending is the policy path that libertarians favor because it necessarily reduces the size of government. Unfortunately, this will not occur anytime soon. Even during the Abdullah administration when the fiscal deficit finally saw relaxation, government spending continued to rise. Keynesian thinking meanwhile reigns supreme in the Najib administration; the government has expressed its intention to spend to stimulate the economy. The two factors set the momentum for the federal government’s fiscal position in the near future.

The third way is to increase revenue. This can happen by having enough growth in either non-tax revenue, tax revenue or both. With a healthy economy, those items can help in balancing the fiscal position. Without a sufficiently healthy economy, however, taxes simply have to increase to meet the gap eventually.

A tax increase is the clearest credible solution because it is increasingly clear that the fiscal deficit is structural in nature, and not cyclical. It is structural because it is arguable that we may have seen or are seeing the completion of a business cycle. In that cycle, the federal government has been running on a persistent fiscal deficit. Year 2009 will be the 12th consecutive year that the government has either failed or refused to close the gap and there is no reason to believe why year 2010 will not be registered in red ink.

A tax hike, however, is an unpopular policy, even when it is a potent tool in arresting the runaway fiscal deficit. Under the current political atmosphere where the Barisan Nasional-led federal government faces a considerable number of hostile voters, raising taxes is committing harakiri. The political situation demands spending.

In fact, the pressure is on Barisan Nasional to continue to spend in order to keep the economy going. More importantly, it has to keep voters happy by shoring up the economy in the short term to push its expiry date farther into the future.

Government spending is not necessarily bad or undesirable even in times of deficit. Yet, unless the government spends the money for the purpose of investment, spending for the sake of spending — as the two fiscal stimulus packages are doing — will further widen the difference between revenue and expenditure. For deficit hawks, the situation is gloomy because between investment and spending, the effect of the latter comes quicker than the former. Naturally, political expediency favors quick wins; quick wins mean the deficit will continue to take a hit.

Given the situation of a structural fiscal deficit, weak economic environment and political unpopularity, the only palatable short-term option is to continue to borrow to finance the deficit.

As a result, the present generation will be free from the burden of increased taxes and so too subsequent generations that are lucky enough to live during times when the economic situation allows the government to keep borrowing to finance its deficit. With the problem being out of sight and out of mind among the current generations, regretfully, there is no pressure to address the issue of fiscal deficit.

Somebody, however, eventually will have to pay those debts. By the time that happens, it is likely that the problem will become too big to handle.

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 June 15 2009.