Tag: liberalization

Categories
Economics Politics & government

[2375] Reducing the political cost of liberalization

A price-control mechanism has its economic cost, on top of that associated with the current subsidy regime in place in Malaysia. There are also some political costs to the control. In tight times when commodities are becoming dearer, any government that dares to reset retail prices upwards invites public wrath.

There was talk of an early general election, but the rumor machines now suggest that the election will be held only later. The Barisan Nasional-led federal government needs room to maneuver before renewing its mandate.

The prime minister is under pressure to seek a mandate of his own. One has to remember that Najib Razak is running on the 2008 mandate secured by the highly unpopular Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. Not only that, the prime minister also needs Barisan Nasional to do better than it did in the last general election. He must get the two-thirds majority in Parliament to prove that his government is better than the one led by his predecessor.

That is one of the ways the political cost matters. The political cost can affect cold but rational economic calculations. This is especially relevant for those whose conviction is measured by their appetite for adventure, or lack of adventure rather. That makes it important to reduce the political cost of liberalization lest the liberalization agenda, however disappointingly incomplete it is in its current form, be left high and dry.

The local political cost that exists is unfortunate because global economic reality largely ignores local political reality. In many cases, the increase in retail prices is inevitable amid rising world prices of various commodities.

The factors fuelling the hike are real: growing population, growing affluence and therefore growing demand. That is the current long-term trend. Mere business cycles neither erase nor change long-term trends by much.

There are some institutional issues affecting local retail prices as well. Without hurting the trustworthiness of the government, these problems have to be solved.

Liberalize the market instead of granting monopoly power to specific firms. Make the market open instead of having deals made in the shadows. Stop signing contracts that are grossly lopsided at the expense of public money. All that can lessen the degree of the hikes in the long run.

Yet, local issues just like short-term fluctuations are unlikely to drown out long-term trends. Until new technology, new culture and new alternatives prevail over old ones — or if total world population drops — prices will generally go up to clear the markets.

Because of the dissonance between local political and global economic realities, the political cost should be reduced so that both run parallel to each other. The political cost is a disincentive to good economic policy.

Democracy coupled with entitlement culture is a recipe for irresponsible populism. This is especially true for the fuel subsidy regime where the subsidy fixes the price ceiling and in effect subsidizes everything between retail prices and world prices. Under this arrangement, the government risks hypothetically unlimited expenditure. The higher the world prices, the larger the subsidy bill.

So, how does one reduce the political cost?

The government can stop being the fall guy. To do so, the government needs to stop managing prices. Relax the control. Let prices float. Let the market take charge instead. Let those closest to the ground — the actual buyers and sellers — determine the prices.

Using the fuel subsidy as an example, the relaxation can exist together with fixed per unit subsidy regime rather than the current unfixed per unit subsidy. In this way, the subsidy burden shouldered by the government will remain constant given a consumption level. Any increase or decrease in retail prices will be due to market forces only.

This particular arrangement will reduce the political cost faced by a liberalizing government by making the link between prices and primary market participants clearer. Prices will no longer be linked to the government. With the government out of the way, then perhaps the government will receive less flak.

The question of subsidy reduction itself will not even surface because increase in world prices will not increase the subsidy bill given the level of consumption. Indeed, a typical model will suggest that an increase in world prices might actually decrease the total subsidy bill due to decreased consumption.

In the end with less flak, perhaps the liberalization agenda can go farther down the road without unnecessary undue erosion of political capital.

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 2 2011.

Categories
Economics Politics & government

[2373] Speak plainly about the price hikes

Subsidy reduction has its pros and cons, even as on the net in the long run, it is beneficial to the economy as a whole. There is no need to soften the negative aspects by putting them in a little colorful box with ribbon on top.

The series of subsidy reduction leads to price hike and in the immediate time frame, it is burdensome. It is painful. With all the lags that exist, it is an intertemporal problem. The pain comes early, the benefits come only later.

A price hike is a price hike. It hurts in one way or another. Nobody likes to pay more no matter how small the increase is, even if the increase is justified. I myself do grudge a little about having to pay more than I used to, despite largely supportive of the subsidy reduction initiative, or some call it as the rationalization program in the spirit of euphemism.

Yet, we have apparatchiks and their agents writing and suggesting that the series of price hikes currently undertaken by the Najib administration will not burden the consumers.

These consumers are not kids. They are not kids visiting the family doctor, about to face the needle. The story of how the needle only stings like an ant is not for the mature audience.

Instead of trying to convince these consumers that the pain they feel is an illusion, those in the government and their supporters should really stick to the plainly true traditional rationale: it is wasteful. It is inefficient. It is distortionary.

Break the message down to bits and pieces that laypersons can understand (What we have instead is that these messengers misunderstand those very economic concepts themselves! They use big economic jargons without understanding the basic concepts. And these people fancy themselves as the economic planners of the country. Pfft!).

Just speak plainly.

I think the majority will appreciate it, even if it angers them.

To manipulate words and then say things that the consumers can affirmatively see, feel and conclusively disprove will compound the anger. I mean, something must have gone absolutely wrong when I, a supporter of liberalization, become angry reading these manipulated messages in the media.

Worst, these untruths will only erode any support for liberalization. These apparatchiks will have themselves to blame when everything fails.

Categories
Economics

[2368] Subsidy is not the only thing

Subsidy reduction will allow market forces to allocate resources more efficiently. Prime Minister Najib Razak was reported saying so recently to justify his administration’s commitment to subsidy reduction in the long run. By doing so, the Najib administration claims to be an advocate of free market. A claim that is not necessarily true, however. At best, that claim reveals a selective belief in the free market.

The truth is that market forces are restricted not only through price mechanism. The restriction also comes in form of quantity control, among others. This is especially relevant in Malaysia where the government has introduced various regulations and institutions to control the price and supply of various items. Among those items are flour, diesel and sugar.

In fact, the government has wide discretionary power over this matter. Proof: the new Price Control and Anti-Profiteering Act grants the government the power to fix the price of any goods and services in the country. Yes, that is any goods and services. The net has been cast widely.

Despite the various channels where market forces are prevented from distributing resources efficiently, for some reason the price mechanism is receiving all the attention while the quantity side remains relatively untouched. As an example, look no further than the domestic sugar industry.

The government recently reduced sugar subsidy and effectively raised the retail price of sugar. All the liberal benefits of reduction have been thrown out in the open: fiscal deficit reduction, efficient resource allocation, investment over consumption, etc. You just need to name it.

At the same time and less discussed is the existence of the illiberal import quota system. The government through a quota system controls the importation of sugar. The government also grants the quotas only to several refineries ultimately owned by Felda and Tradewinds, which themselves are closely connected with each other.

It is not an understatement that the two companies control the sugar industry with a clear government sanction. As a side note, it will be interesting to see how the two companies will be subjected — if ever — to the new Competition Act, which has a highly questionable purpose.

If the government gets one point for liberalization due to subsidy reduction, then the government must lose a point from the import quota policy. Given how the import quota policy has created two related monopolistic companies — one being the favored entrepreneur of the government of the day and the other being a government-linked company — and that prices are controlled, the government must lose more than a point.

However one wants to keep the score, the inevitable conclusion is that this liberalization done through subsidy reduction is merely a half-hearted liberalization.

Whatever market forces are mentioned to justify the reduction in subsidy, it is stated insincerely. The liberal argument is just something convenient that the administration grabbed out of the air just because it fits its agenda of day. When one does not derive an argument from the first principle, one cannot expect anything less than inconsistency; the Gods of Inconsistency are staring straight into the eyes of the Najib administration.

The government can prove its credential as an honest advocate by deriving its policy from the first principle. That is, the whole industry must be liberalized. The removal of subsidy and price control must happen together with the loosening of the import quota system.

This goes not just for the sugar industry, but also for the relevant others.

It is only then that the prime minister can state that subsidy reduction will enable market forces to allocate resources more efficiently with a clear conscience.

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 May 23 2011.

Categories
Economics Liberty Politics & government

[2235] Of hitting the brakes of subsidy liberalization

I am generally in favor of subsidy cuts in Malaysia. Yet, I hesitate to support the recent liberalization.

The economic rationale for liberalization is clear. Public discourse on this front has seen enough progress that liberalization is a popular position to take in Malaysia.

Let us recap the most commonly cited arguments.

Firstly, the subsidy program has an opportunity cost, as with all policies. If a government spends on one particular program, it necessarily means not spending money on others. Moreover, blanket consumption subsidy is probably the worst of all policies in terms of opportunity cost.

Secondly, there are better policies — cash transfer or tradable quotas for the needy are two examples — compared to outright subsidy. These alternative policies can address welfare concerns more efficiently.

Thirdly, the subsidy program has to be financed. That means taxation. While taxation is required to maintain a government, the level of taxation can be controlled to accommodate other concerns. There are various reasons why a low-tax environment is favorable. A bloated subsidy program does not help in this aspect.

Finally, together with a subsidy program, multiple suffocating supply and demand control regimes typically exist to support the program. As a result, the market becomes inflexible as more and more controls are set in place. The inflexibility causes hardship to more individuals than necessary.

The subsidy cut appeals to these arguments. If these were the only concerns, I would wholly support the liberalization exercise.

But it is not.

Two pillars form the basis for my support for liberalization. One is economic concerns. The other involves concern for freedom. Specifically, it is the idea of small government.

The weight I put on these two factors changes from time to time according to situation and the situation has changed since the last time subsidy liberalization took place. The size of subsidies and the drag these place on government finance are less of an issue today compared to a year or two ago. That convinces me to place more weight for freedom vis-à-vis economic concern, although the two concerns are not mutually exclusive most of the time.

While liberalization satisfies the economic side of the balance, the desire to see a reduction in government size is unmet.

Take the Prime Minister’s Department, for instance. Member of Parliament for Bukit Bendera Liew Chin Tong shared recently that the size of the department has more than doubled in less than a decade. The statistics regarding the size of the civil service and the government as a whole are more harrowing. All this contributes to the structural fiscal deficit that Malaysia suffers from.

The deficit caused by rocketing expenditure is an indictment of a fat old man called the government. The current government has announced its intention to reduce it, presumably by reducing government expenditure. Whether the plan will be successful is another matter altogether.

Amid the liberalization and other government initiatives that include the formation of new government-linked companies, I have a disturbing narrative at the back of my mind: Effort to free up resources is aimed at merely funding government expansion in other areas.

It is hard to predict the net effect but experience does not encourage much hope. One possible outcome is a scenario where the areas of expansion require a more active government hand compared to the one where the government retreats.

Already, government supporters are using the opportunity cost argument eagerly to justify the recent cuts. They say the government will put the money in good use. Good use or not, they are setting the ground to use the retreat as a justification to expand the other sides of government.

The opportunity cost argument is not exclusively used by government supporters. Opposition sympathizers and others do have ideas on how to spend the money. Politics may create a trade-off between economic concern and freedom in the end.

I fear that, and that fear is holding me back from supporting the recent liberalization.

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 August 4 2010.

Categories
Economics

[1169] Of market liberalization or government intervention?

There has been noticeable liberalization in the Malaysian economy. Statement by the Managing Director of Khazanah Nasional Berhad, Azman Mokhtar further affirms the trend of an increasingly liberal economy:

KUALA LUMPUR, March 28 (Bernama) — Khazanah Nasional Bhd is prepared to cut its stakes in government-linked companies (GLCs) in line with the government’s aspiration to reduce its stake in state-controlled companies.

Its managing director, Datuk Azman Mokhtar, said the government investment arm was committed to reducing its GLC stakes in a gradual and orderly manner. [Khazanah Ready To Cut Stakes In GLCs. Bernama. March 28 2007]

This is in line with sentiment expressed by the chairman of Khazanah, the Prime Minister himself:

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi recently announced that the government would reduce its stakes in GLCs that had high concentration of government linked ownership. [Khazanah Ready To Cut Stakes In GLCs. Bernama. March 28 2007]

However, there might more than market liberalization going on at the moment. I suspect so after reading several sources that seem to suggest that the government might be intervening with the market under the guise of liberalization.

At Bernama today:

KUALA LUMPUR, April 10 (Bernama) — The government will increasingly float the shares of government-linked companies (GLCs) to make the stock market more attractive and competitive, generating interest among foreign equity investors.

“The foreign investors are looking for liquidity and big companies in the market,” Deputy Finance Minister Datuk Dr Awang Adek Hussin said, Tuesday. [Govt To Increasingly Float Shares Of GLCs On Local Bourse. Bernama. April 10 2007]

How could the government intervene in the market through the floating of GLCs’ shares?

A short visit to how a central bank operates might shed some light on the matter.

The central bank to some extent could influence the prevailing interest rate. It does that by buying or selling money. Keep in mind that money comes in many forms and does not necessarily comes in cash.

In order to raise the interest rate, the central bank buys, or perhaps more precisely, hoards money in the market. Once that is done, the quantity of money in the market is reduced and hence, the interest rate goes up. If the central bank would like to decrease rate, it just floods the market with money by selling it. This is a rough explanation but for our discussion, it suffices.

If that is clear, let us consider the equity market. If the government wishes to increase activity, it increases liquidity by releasing its shares to the market. If it would like to curb activity in the market for whatsoever reasons, it buys shares. Instead of a central bank, we have Khanazah, the investment arm of the government.

If that is clear too, it is time to put all that to perspective.

Not too long ago, the Prime Minister said confidently the Kuala Lumpur Composite Index might hit the now famous and magical 1,350 mark. A few days after he shared his opinion, through sheer luck perhaps, the market plunged spectacularly. While the fall was temporary, that was all it took to make the Prime Minister looked bad.

Now, consider the Prime Minister’s expectation and the recent statement on floating GLC’s shares.

If I were the Prime Minister, it would be tempting to act towards the 1,350 goal. One easy way to achieve that goal is by increasing the market liquidity by selling GLC’s shares. Or, more eloquently, in Liar’s Poker:

One trader remembers that “Lewie would say he thought the market was going up, and buy a hundred million [dollar-worth of] bonds. The market would start to go down. So Lewie would buy two billion more bonds, and of course the market would then go up. After he had driven the market up, Lewie would turn to me and say, ‘See I told you it was going up’…” [Liar’s Poker. Michael Lewis]

Hence, the possibility of government interference in the market. Of course, it is not intervention if the reduction of government influence in GLCs is done genuinely for the sake of liberalization.

But the question remains: are we seeing real liberalization or is it just a convenient cover to self-fulfill a Notradamus-style prophecy (oops, I mean expectation…)?