Categories
Economics

[2658] Quick reaction to Malaysia’s December economic figures

Export and import numbers for December 2012 do not look good. Export contracted by 5.8% while imports decreased by 6.5% from a year ago. Despite the bad numbers, industrial production index grew by 3.7% from a year ago.

I find this curious. Import contracted and that means the domestic economy might have slowed down. Exports contracted too and that means external demand did not do too well either. So, industrial index should take a hit but it grew anyway, albeit slower than the 7.1% growth in November versus a year ago. It is possible that there is a lag between the index and trade figures but strong index number last month did not reflect in this month’s trade figures.

Maybe the inventory went up. The fourth quarter GDP figures will be released later this month. We will see what happened to the inventory soon.

Categories
Economics

[2172] Of did we need the stimulus package?

The fourth quarter of 2009 saw Malaysian economy recorded strong recovery on year-on-year basis.[1] So strong it was that the monetary authority of Malaysia went for a rate hike, making Malaysia the second country after Australia to adopt a hawkish monetary policy.[2] The question that should be asked now is, did we need the big stimulus?

The question is particularly relevant because the main driver of recovery has been external demand. This is something I have been stressing from the very beginning and it is the thrust of my opposition to economic stimulus, especially in the fashion of fiscal expansion, given the effect of the expansion on fiscal deficit, effect on future taxpayers as well as its potential adverse effect on private borrowers and therefore the economy sans the public sector.

Growth for external demand for domestic goods almost doubled the growth of domestic demand for goods.[3][4] Add the fact that external demand makes up a very large part of Malaysian GDP, in fact approximately 100% in terms of exports-to-GDP ratio,[5] the stimulus seems unnecessary.

Without the stimulus, recovery might have been less impressive than what was registered recently; it would be a recovery nonetheless. This however assumes that the government spending has no affect on interest rate and thus, the exchange rate. This is possible if the monetary authority, which is the Bank Negara, colludes with the executive branch of the government.

But expansion of fiscal policy does affect interest rate and the exchange rate assuming independence of the monetary authority, at least within the typical IS-LM model under open economy.

With that model with that particular settings, recovery without stimulus could have been just as impressive. If the extraordinary fiscal expansion were absent — the factor inhibiting exports that is higher exchange rate due to fiscal expansion would be absent — external demand for domestic goods could have increased much more than the already impressive level we saw at the end of 2009.

Remember, a lot of people were pleasantly surprised by the fourth quarter growth.

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

[1] — Malaysia’s economy expanded 4.5 percent in the final three months of 2009 from a year earlier, Prime Minister Najib Razak said yesterday. Economists expected a 3.2 percent expansion, a Bloomberg survey showed. Gross domestic product fell in the preceding three quarters as exports slumped amid the global financial crisis. [Malaysia May Beat Korea, India to Asia Rate Increase. David Yong. Bloomberg. February 25 2010]

[2] — March 3 (Bloomberg) — Malaysia may be the next Asian country to pull back monetary stimulus as its recovery strengthens, moving to raise borrowing costs or reduce excess cash in the economy ahead of neighboring Indonesia. [Malaysia May Pull Monetary Stimulus Before Indonesia . Shamim. David Yong. Bloomberg. March 3 2010]

[3] — The external sector performed favourably with both Exports and Imports turned over by 7.3 per cent and 6.9 per cent respectively. The improved demand for the products of Electrical & Electronics, Animal & Vegetables Oils & Fats and Chemicals have contributed to the increase in Exports. Meanwhile, the growth in Imports was due to the higher demand for intermediate goods and capital goods. [National Product and Expenditure Accounts Fourth Quarter 2009. Department of Statistics of Malaysia. February 24 2010]

[4] — Malaysia’s real GDP, population 29,992,577 in 2008 according to the World Bank, grew 4.5% compared to the same period one year ago. The impetus behind headline number was domestic demand (GDP minus net exports), +3.9% Y/Y and external demand (exports), +7,3%. [A tale of two recoveries: Malaysia vs. Germany. Rebecca Wilder. News N Economics. February 25 2010]

[5] — See trade profile of Malaysia at World Trade Organization. Accessed March 5 2010.

Categories
Economics

[2143] Of stimulus may bite back in 2010

Economics has been labeled as some sort of a discipline that predicts the future. The application of various models and efforts at testing its various hypotheses that sometimes result in the affirmative may have contributed to that reputation but it is not about predicting the future. Rather, it is about finding lessons from the past, learning from it and applying it for future endeavors. More humbly perhaps, it serves as a cautionary tale.

In this spirit, what one may expect in 2010 in terms of the national economy?

Many things obviously, and it is beyond me to list it in an exhaustive manner. Given my mischievous agenda against the state in general, I will focus on only a few. That, and based on standard economic theory, two parts of the economy may deserve some attention in light of what happened last year. Two components of Malaysia’s gross domestic product are investment — specifically private sector investment — and net exports or really, exports.

Why?

Economic theory suggests that increased government spending adversely affects net exports and ambiguously affects overall investment after some time. For those who keep tabs on the local economy, the fact that the government launched two massive measures to stimulate the economy should be common knowledge. In promoting it, the government touted it as unprecedented. It is exactly because the size is unprecedented that the concern is legitimate, possibly in a way that is unprecedented too.

The same theory highlights that government spending places upward pressure on interest rate and the exchange rate.

With additional government spending on top of normal spending, it is reasonable to hold the position that the current interest rate is higher than would under a situation without such spending. Higher interest rate means higher cost of borrowing and that itself is a disincentive to invest, especially for the private sector, even if the effect on overall investment is ambiguous. The fact that the government financed its additional spending by borrowing locally further strengthens the phenomenon of crowding out the private sector. With the government expounding on the idea of having the private sector as the driver of Malaysia’s economy, the divergence between the government’s past actions as well as its theoretical consequences and the government’s words creates a noticeable dissonance — but the sun always rises in the east and so, what is new, eh?

The same effect on interest rate is applicable to the exchange rate. In doing so, it makes Malaysian exports more expensive compared to a situation without the stimulus and foreign goods cheaper. It depresses exports, given all else the same. The likelihood of depressed exports is even more worrying given the economy of Malaysia’s trading partners.

For instance, in the United States, which is a major destination for Malaysian exports and really, the world, there is fear that once its stimulus spending runs out some time in the second half of 2010, its recovering economy would go to the other direction, possibly reflecting the artificial nature of economic recovery based on government spending. Should the US economy take a nosedive again, Malaysia’s exports will take a hit, as it had earlier. It would be a double whammy for the exports component.

The importance of the exports component to the Malaysian economy cannot be overemphasized. Despite rhetoric heard these days of the need to move away from the export-driven model, there is no realistic way to make contribution of domestic demand to Malaysian economy a close rival to foreign demand for domestic goods without devastating the local economy. The chasm between the two is just too great to close. This is not to say that improvement of domestic demand is unwanted but Malaysian consumers are simply unable to consume as much as the export markets, even if Malaysia would suddenly become a high-income country tomorrow. Anybody who harbors a dream to remove the centrality of exports and trade at large to the Malaysian economy vis-à-vis domestic demand must be fast asleep.

If the US economy contracts again this year, the political pressure on the Najib administration for yet another fiscal stimulus would be great as Malaysia’s own ongoing fiscal stimulus measures expire. Already there are calls for a third stimulus in Malaysia. Needless to say, further government spending will exacerbate issues associated with the investment and exports components.

This may further discourage investment by the private sector and there may be an urge for the government to take a more active role in the economy.

Granted, at the moment, there is an effort to liberalize the economy. Yet, the reduction and the expansion of government happen in different parts of the economy, bringing about unclear net government intervention in the market as a whole. Economic theory suggests that the government of the economy portion will expand. Further involvement through stimulus spending will tilt the arrow towards the appropriate side.

Critics of this line of reasoning tend to point out that there is excess capacity during an economic downturn and hence, the negative impact of increased government spending is only a theoretical worry to be shrugged off. They forget that, as with most economic policies, there is a lag between implementation and effect. In the very short term, the impact of crowding out caused by government spending is non-existence. Notwithstanding other arguments against fiscal stimulus such as the relative ineffectiveness of fiscal stimulus for a small open economy such as Malaysia, they can hold on to their criticism in the heat of the crisis. In 2010 and farther into the near future however, the lag will catch up to make the issue less theoretical and more real as each day passes.

How the Najib administration will address that lagged impact will be an interesting economic problem. If the global economy — really the US economy — continues to improve, it will give a boost to Malaysia’s exports component. In doing so, it may solve the problem associated with the lagged adverse impact of the economic stimulus measures. Out of prudence, however, that is a bet deserving of hedging.

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 January 1 2010.

Categories
Economics

[2068] Of o stimulus, where art thou?

Apparently, the second quarter GDP results came out way better than expected.

Aug. 27 (Bloomberg) — Malaysia’s economy is expected to resume growth this year after slipping into its first recession in a decade last quarter, mirroring recoveries across Asia.

Gross domestic product shrank a less-than-expected 3.9 percent in the three months ended June from a year earlier, after a 6.2 percent contraction in the first quarter, the central bank said yesterday. Economists, who were expecting a 5 percent decline, are raising their GDP forecasts for Southeast Asia’s third-largest economy.

Asian economies are reporting better second-quarter GDP numbers as the global slowdown eases after fiscal and monetary stimulus around the world. Malaysian central bank Governor Zeti Akhtar Aziz said yesterday that the government will revise its GDP forecast for a 5 percent contraction this year in the budget to reflect the nation’s economic improvement. [Malaysia’s Economy May Resume Growth This Year on Higher Demand. Shamin Adam. Bloomberg. August 27 2009]

Now, first of all, this dismisses concerns from some quarters that there was a need for a third stimulus package. These alarmists should be shot. No, I am not kidding. I really mean shot. I almost had a heart attack when I read about the suggestion months ago.

Secondly, we will only notice the stimulus money in full action only after recovery has taken place. I have taken this position from early one and I am being proven right. In fact, signs for recovery began as early as February, way before any stimulus has any impact. Since February, various indicators have shown general improvement independent of stimulus.[0A] The good news is that exports also improved;[0B] I have also maintained that recovery will be export-driven.

The official line is that the stimulus package helped cushion the fall. It may help by a tiny bit but changes in exports is more significant than increase in public spending, which more or less. a proxy of the stimulus package. Imports too went up but it is unclear if it was due to domestic consumption or instead, correspond to the increase in exports. Given that the make-up of the economy is that many of imported goods are intermediary goods which are used for exports, I am more inclined to favor the exports answer.

On top of that, in contrary to the celebrated increase in private consumption as announced by the Governor, in real terms, it fell to further gives credence to the exports explanation.

The same could be said about the increase in for capital formation. It is probably due to increased exports more than it could be about stimulus spending.

Furthermore, it appears that Malaysia may not have any need for a stimulus in the first place, or at the very least, the kind of outrageous size that we saw earlier. Proponents of stimulus, especially ones who advocated greater government spending as the base of that stimulus, were merely panicking more than anything else when they decided to unveil a large stimulus package, as I have accused them of.

As an aside, the much hyped Rangsangan Ekonomi website[1] which was announced as a site to make the stimulus spending transparent is especially a great cheat. For the second stimulus, it does not give actual progress. Rather, it only gives distribution of money. The whole thing is a big fat lie.

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

[0A] — See The Coincident, Leading and Lagging Indicators, and Growth Rates, 2005-2009 table by the Department of Statistics.

[0B] — See Gross National Income (GNI) by Expenditure Components in Constant Prices (2000=100) and Current Prices table by the Bank Negara Malaysia.

[1] — To see it, go to http://www.rangsanganekonomi.treasury.gov.my/. Information for the first stimulus package however is respectably shared, unlike the second and much larger one. Accessed on August 27 2009.

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

p/s — I am delighted to discover that the BNM website has been upgraded. Kudos to BNM.

Categories
Economics

[2009] Of stronger currency is the way to go?

The Economist reviews economist Dani Rodrik’s latest work:

The financial crisis of the past nine months is stirring a new export fatalism in the minds of some economists. Even after the global economy recovers, developing countries may find it harder to pursue a policy of ”export-led growth”, which served countries like South Korea so well.

[…]

This strategy is one reason why the developing world’s current-account surplus exceeded $700 billion in 2008, as measured by the IMF. In the past, these surpluses were offset by American deficits. But America may now rethink the bargain. This imbalance, whereby foreigners sell their goods to America in exchange for its assets, was one potential cause of the country’s financial crisis.

[…]

If this global bargain does come unstuck, how should developing countries respond? In a new paper, Dani Rodrik of Harvard University offers a novel suggestion. He argues that developing countries should continue to promote exportables, but no longer promote exports. What’s the difference? An exportable is a good that could be traded across borders, but need not be. Mr Rodrik’s recommended policies would help countries make more of these exportables, without selling quite so many abroad.

[…]

As countries industrialise and diversify, their exports grow, which sometimes results in a trade surplus. These three things tend to go together. But in a statistical ”horse race” between the three—industrialisation, exports and exports minus imports—Mr Rodrik finds that it is the growth of tradable, industrial goods, as a share of GDP, that does most of the work.

[…]

Policymakers need a different set of tools, Mr Rodrik argues. They should set aside their exchange-rate policies in favour of industrial policy, subsidising promising new industries directly. These sops would expand the production of tradable goods above what the market would dictate. But the subsidy would not discourage their consumption. Indeed, policymakers should allow the country’s exchange rate to strengthen naturally, eliminating any trade surplus. The stronger currency would cost favoured industries some foreign customers. But these firms would still do better overall than under a policy of laissez-faire. [Fatalism v. Fetishism. The Economist. June 11 2009]

Rodrik suggests that stronger currency will help the expansion of exportable or tradable. That will be especially true if that tradable has a lot of foreign input.

Within Malaysian context, the following question requires answering: is there a large demand for such tradable locally?

I think the lack of such large demand will continue to fuel export-led model.