Categories
Economics

[1684] Of we must face economic reality

After years of plugging a pinky into a hole of an imperfect dike, the rising tide behind it has grown sufficiently large that the dike can no longer withstand the pressure on the other side. The dike was not supposed to be there in the first place and now reality looms. In reaction to the recent removal of fuel subsidy, already there are voices on the street blaming the Abdullah administration of mismanaging the economy. This is a most unfair assessment. On the contrary, the subsidy reduction will benefit our society in the long run.

This accusation has history that goes well past June 5. Higher cost of living was one of the reasons cited why the Barisan Nasional lost significant votes to the Pakatan Rakyat candidates on March 8. In convincing voters to vote for the Pakatan candidates, Anwar Ibrahim had proposed to reduce retail prices of fuel to a level seen in 1990s.

Despite rhetoric, I absolutely doubt a Pakatan government could increase the size of fuel subsidy without hurting the economy in times when real crude oil prices are at record levels. In short, Pakatan’s argument against any kind of subsidy reduction is grounded on populism and not economic reality.

Malaysians so far have been lucky, from a certain point of view, that we are shielded from the harsh reality outside. That shield of subsidy, however, is costly and is definitely an inferior way of spending precious resources.

Instead of artificially fuelling consumption, these resources could be better spent to build capabilities, especially in education and research. More efforts need to be channeled to areas which could structurally improve the economy. A subsidy does nothing of this and it in fact only delays the inevitable march to move beyond petroleum at a very costly manner.

While lucky, I do not think we are learning from the past. We have been at this juncture before and there are lessons to be learned. In the 1970s and the early 1980s, high crude oil prices encouraged greater fuel efficiency. As demand fell with respect to supply due to increased awareness and requirement for conservation, prices dropped significantly and continued to stay low until around 2003.

I am confident that with the right policies in place, the structural changes that brought upon low energy prices in the past can happen again. The key phrase here is the right policies and one of such policies is elimination of the fuel subsidy.

The subsidy we have been enjoying masks the actual cost of consumption and the associated problems like pollution and over-consumption.

With everything masked, it is really hard to rectify any problem in the economy. It is like a noisy generator placed behind a blast door, operating at its breaking point where we do not have to hear the insufferable noise it produced. Despite the state of the generator, it continues to deliver power to us and it gives the perception that everything is fine and dandy when in fact, it is not.

We get the benefit but we are not paying for the cost. Thus, there is a grave disconnect in our cost and benefit model. By the time we find out that something is wrong, it would already be too late to do anything. A subsidy is that blast door and it prevents a signal of impending disaster from reaching us.

Truth be told, Malaysia is not the only country phasing out its fuel subsidy policy. Indonesia is on the same path as Malaysia’s while India and Taiwan are another two. It cannot be that all four different countries conspire to make the life of its own citizens harder. It cannot be that all four different countries are mismanaging their economy. The truth is that a lot of governments in the world are realizing the cost of fuel subsidy regime.

One argument puts forth that since Malaysia is an oil producer country, we should not be paying astronomical retail fuel prices. A tempting point but it fails to grasp the idea of trade-off. Pray tell, with fuel prices much higher, should we consume the fuel as if it is dirt cheap, or sell it to the world market and buy more education, more infrastructure that offer some guarantees of actual economic growth and if we could, buy a more sustainable economy?

The rise of fuel prices is a global phenomenon and the Abdullah administration has no power to dictate world prices. Whether we believe it or not, governments around the world are at the mercy of the invisible hand.

Blaming the Abdullah administration as the cause of higher fuel prices ignores the reality out there. An honest person is not interested in finding scapegoat but rather, is more interested in searching for the best policy fit given the current world scenario.

Higher global fuel prices require the structural transformation of our economy and the first step in transforming the economy is by accepting the fact that crude oil is no longer as cheap as it was in the early 1990s.

A continual upholding of subsidy policy delays the inevitable transformation required and the sooner we realize this, the better will we be prepared for the future. It is time for us to take the bull by its horn rather than sweeping the dust under the carpet by continuing to adopt a policy burdened with a huge deadweight loss, as if the world has not changed.

In Malaysia, there is always a cynical saying about how we have first world infrastructure but third world mentality. Well, this crisis is a great opportunity for us to ditch third world policy for a first world and superior policy.

Besides, the Malaysian government is running on a budget deficit. That means you and I and a lot of Malaysians out there owe somebody money. We should be thinking on how to repay these debts.

By supporting fuel subsidy, however, we are basically swiping our credit cards liberally to finance our expenditure on food, fuel and none on investment for the future. How are we going to pay for these debts if we keep spending our resources so recklessly? Do we pass these debts to our children?

I vehemently say no. We are certainly more responsible than that. We must be more responsible than that.

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

p/s — a version of this article was first published in The Malaysian Insider.

By Hafiz Noor Shams

For more about me, please read this.

12 replies on “[1684] Of we must face economic reality”

Dear Mahagraha,

Thanks for the reply. Now I would say that whatever policy the govt chooses needs to be based on an open discussion rather than a closed one such as this one. THis is because fuel subsidies fall under the category og welfare goods, and as such a consensus needs to obtained from the people before making changes in the allocation of such goods.

I agree with your criticism about how the subsidy was removed but that does not negate the reason for removal.

Rajan – shore up the ringgit. That is another form of distortion. I am suprised why Hafiz did not criticise your idea.

Yikes. I’m admonishing Rajan now. Bad Rajan, bad!

And I am doubly surprised why Hafiz did not say anything about Rajan’s suggestion to give cash out. Such a suggestion if done wrongly can contribute to higher inflation – you know give cash without corresponding productivity increases…

On cash, it is favorable in comparison to fuel subsidy because it works better in economics. Wealth redistribution of course is frowned upon but again, I think it is helpful to take baby steps toward better policy fits instead of one giant leap.

Furthermore, cash handouts as a replacement policy to fuel subsidy is different from production of cash from by the central bank. It is the increase of money supply (i.e. cash from the central bank) that increases inflation, not redistribution of existing cash. They are two different ideas which I think you’ve got mixed up.

So, the best way to shore up ringgit is to ensure (or encourage) productivity (defined as producing goods and services that the ‘global’ market wants). This can be done by strengthening institutions that support market capitalism. Ask Hafiz to explain!

Any strengthening of the MYR has a tendency to hurt export. I will not agree to any effort to artificially strengthen the ringgit just because we want cheaper fuel. I’m actually happy with dearer fuel!

Tax,, corporate tax … that is a rather short term solution… a better more lasting solution is to produce globally adept workers via the education sytem… and this goes back to the institutions that support market capitalism… I suppose all social institutions needs to be subordinated to the dictates of free market capitalism eh?

Hmm, I am content to say that lower taxes and better education system are not two mutually exclusive policies. Both could be done at the same time. I’m sure Rajan agrees with this. But I’ll let Rajan to defend himself.

And one more thing: Hafiz, you keep saying that fuel subsidy is inefficient and you seem to have this one track aproach i.e. stop fuel subsidies. And so I wonder why do those farmers in the U.S. and Europe have received sooooooo much subsidies until now… There are bloody inefficient aren’t they?

Those farmers deserve the criticism and I am not here to defend US policy. I myself disagree with those policies. In any case, two wrongs do not make a right.

Thanks for the reply. Now I would say that whatever policy the govt chooses needs to be based on an open discussion rather than a closed one such as this one. THis is because fuel subsidies fall under the category og welfare goods, and as such a consensus needs to obtained from the people before making changes in the allocation of such goods.

Rajan – shore up the ringgit. That is another form of distortion. I am suprised why Hafiz did not criticise your idea.

And I am doubly surprised why Hafiz did not say anything about Rajan’s suggestion to give cash out. Such a suggestion if done wrongly can contribute to higher inflation – you know give cash without corresponding productivity increases…

So, the best way to shore up ringgit is to ensure (or encourage) productivity (defined as producing goods and services that the ‘global’ market wants). This can be done by strengthening institutions that support market capitalism. Ask Hafiz to explain!

Tax,, corporate tax … that is a rather short term solution…. a better more lasting solution is to produce globally adept workers via the education sytem…and this goes back to the institutions that support market capitalism… I suppose all social institutions needs to be subordinated to the dictates of free market capitalism eh?

And one more thing: Hafiz, you keep saying that fuel subsidy is inefficient and you seem to have this one track aproach i.e. stop fuel subsidies. And so I wonder why do those farmers in the U.S. and Europe have received sooooooo much subsidies until now… There are bloody inefficient aren’t they?

that’s an awfully odd thing to say especially when the MYR is strengthening against the USD and the fact that oil prices are quoted in USD.

That is not even counting how bad an idea it is to play around with the foreign exchange rate.

Jed Yoong, mahaguru: The reason why wages have not gone up is because of the significant role the government plays in the economy. Money spent on subsidies, for one, could have been spent shoring up our ringgit (which used to be on par with the Singaporean dollar), lower taxes (we have amongst the highest corporate tax in SE Asia), etc.

On corruption, it’s not wise to consider it an evitable trade off with subsidies. Yes, government projects generally tend to be particularly corrupt, but it doesn’t have to be.

In any case, even if corruption is an inevitable part of life here, the better solution is direct transfer payments to citizens (i.e. giving us the money) rather than indirectly doing so via subsidies.

Mahagraha,

The problem with the current setup is that it helps the rich more than the poor. As an example who gets to enjoy more subsidy, a driver of Hummer or kapchai motorcycle? If we want to help the poor, there are better ways.

And I think it is unhelpful to not implement efficient policy just because there exists inefficiency at other places. The solution is to have efficient policy here and there too, not not to do it at all.

Saying that we should not make an area efficient because another area is not efficient would mean we would make no effort at all to make anything efficient.

Or, in parallel: Saying that we should not fight corruption in one area because there’s corruption in another area would mean we would make no effort at all to fight corruption.

I agree with Hafiz on this issue, but…

Is it fair to spew out efficient market economics for the middle class, the poor and the downtrodden whilst the top rungs of society are relatively immune from the vagaries of “efficient markets” ?

And I kind of like what Jed Yoong said. What JY said in economic terms is that Malaysia still lacks proper functioning market, governmental and social institutions to ensure that the “sacrifice” made by foregoing subsidies are “efficiently” channelled into welfare increasing public projects.

Particularly the market for information in Malaysia is heavily distorted by the Printing Presses and Publications Act and other impediments.

And what about the markets for political and governmental positions in Malaysia. Do you think that those markets are “efficient”?

I would say that – Let us not burden the middle class, the poor and the downtrodden on the need to live in an “efficient”, “un-distorted” market economy. The same has to apply to every one and every aspect of society…

Hey Jed,

1. I strongly think that we should stop depending on the government. I would like to see the role of the government shrunken and allow business to grow more healthily with other laws conscious of externality presence. And I agree with you on the matter of investment.

2. Then the solution is to fight the corruption. Reverting to subsidy policy because of fear the money could be misused otherwise is not a step forward. Besides, how do we know there is no corruption in the subsidy scheme?

Hi Hafiz,

Good one.

But I think we also have to consider

1. The failure of the govt to raise the per capita income for the majority after half a century. According to Stanley Koh in Malaysiakini, about 40 per cent of the population will feel the pinch. You are right that money should be poured in education. But let’s pray/hope/positive-think/etc that the ministry will truly invest in teachers and not big empty buildings.

2. You are right that the fuel subsidy is an inefficient and even wasteful use of scarce resources. But how “efficiently” will the money be used now by the corrupt cronies? For instance, RM4bil will go to Taib to turn Sarawak into a rice bowl. The state is unsuitable for industrial paddy cultivation.

Tks.

Leave a Reply to IHSANCancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.