Tag: government spending

Categories
Economics Politics & government

[2672] If nobody could default, why would anybody go bankrupt?

Let us take for granted the assertion that a government cannot default on its debt obligation if all of its debts are denominated in the local currency. For the more macroeconomic inclined, if a country controls both its fiscal and monetary policies, it can never default on its debts.

Taking the axiomatic approach notwithstanding the concerns which I put up earlier this week, there is an important political implication on the political rhetoric employed with respect to discussion regarding government finance.

These days, it is all too common for one side of the political aisle to accuse that the other side’s proposed or current policy will bankrupt the country.

Supporters of Pakatan Rakyat will accuse the cash transfer program BR1M and the likes are irresponsible populist spending. Add those leakage and outright corruption and the country is well on its way to bankruptcy. Given the current size of government debt, they said, bankruptcy can be far off over the horizon.

Against Pakatan Rakyat’s accusation of bankruptcy, supporters of Barisan Nasional can certainly use the no-default assertion. The assertion immediately blunt attack on the size of debt the government maintains at the moment.

What becomes problematic is when the supporters of Barisan Nasional in turn say free education and higher fuel subsidy as proposed by Pakatan Rakyat are unrealistic spending and that it will bankrupt the country in no time.

If you believe in the no-default axiom, then how can Pakatan Rakyat or in fact anybody bankrupt the countries with irresponsible or corrupt policy?

Now, I am not defending the policy of Pakatan Rakyat as proposed in its manifesto. I disagree with a good number of its economic promises. But there has to be consistency in the rhetoric used.

I can understand that it is hard to keep consistent rhetoric throughout since nobody truly works inside a hive colony with the queen controlling everyone’s mind. Each person can be independent to the whole political organization and its official mouthpiece. Each person can try to defend his or her side of the divide on their own. With insufficient coordination, contradictory rhetoric can happen. It does happen.

However, that does not make the no-default and bankruptcy arguments any more consistent with each other.

Categories
Economics

[2670] Be careful with the no-default narrative

There is a narrative going around in Malaysia that a government which has a majority of its debts denominated in a local currency can never default on its borrowings. For the purpose of clarity, it is the case where a national government has control over both its fiscal and monetary policy.

I have trouble with that narrative. In case of locally-denominated government bonds, it does certainly make default less likely than the case of foreign-denominated borrowings. But, that is of no guarantee of no-default.

A government for instance can certainly refuse to service its debts even if it is more than capable of fulfilling its obligation. Outright refusal happens very rarely and this is world, it is probably an absolutely disastrously crazy thing to do but I only highlight it to show that a government can default at any time and in this case, voluntarily. The debate about the debt ceiling the United States is an example of voluntary default; without further borrowings, the United States may have to default on its loans payment although it definitely can close down some of its government services before having to resort to defaulting.

Notwithstanding voluntary default, in the case of locally denominated government bonds as a sufficient condition for the outcome of no-default is dependent on the ability of the government to raise more debts to service its preexisting financial obligation when there is revenue shortfall. It depends on several matters. That includes the willingness of the central bank to monetize government debts, its willingness to commit seigniorage or the willingness of the private sector or anybody else which includes foreigners to purchase the government debts.

The most relevant factors to consider are the willingness of the central bank to monetize government debt or to commit seigniorage (money printing).

A fiercely independent central bank can easily refuse to do both, especially when the central bank has a commitment to price stability. In normal times, debt monetization and seigniorage do contribute to inflation in a big way. Without the central bank and without the power of a monetary authority, the government will default.

So, the truth is that a government cannot default of its locally-denominated debts if the central bank cooperates with the government. And if the central bank does decide to cooperate, there is cost to that cooperation.

In talking about that no-default guarantee especially within Malaysian context which both sides of the political divide do misrepresent and wrongly contextualize economic issues in supporting convenient political positions, the cost of the no-default scenario is not discussed.

Categories
Economics

[2605] How well does the government project its expenditure?

After reading a number of commentaries in the market, in the Malaysian econosphere and various research houses’ research papers, I became curious of the accuracy if government projection with respect to its finance. I was also curious at how serious I should take the government’s plan to cut its expenditure.

So, here is part of the answer.

Below is the percentage deviation of actual total expenditure from budgeted expenditure all the way back to 2000. I obtained the budget data from various Economic Reports published by the Ministry of Finance and the actual expenditure from BNM Monthly Statistiscal Bulletin.

On average, the government underestimates its own expenditure by 8.6%. From the graph, it is quite clear that there is a unrandom negative bias in the projection. Even if you remove 2008 (which is an outlier, and potentially 2009 too), the average does not change by much.

Categories
Economics

[2601] A thought, or two, about federated and unitary states finance, and consolidated public sector finance

I have been doing some preparatory work for a report on the 2013 federal government budget. The budget will be tabled at the Parliament this Friday.

In the course of doing so, I have come to wonder if the comparison of budget deficit (as typically understood) across governments of the world is really fair. Specifically, I do not think it is fair to compare the fiscal balance of a federated state with that of an unitary state, especially if one is concerned with the health of the overall economy and not just the financial health of the government.

This suspicion came after I read the consolidated public sector account for Malaysia.

One reason for the suspicion is this: one way to measure the solvency of the government is to see if the government can finance its operating expenditure and pay all of its borrowings interest purely by its revenue. This is called the primary surplus/deficit or the primary balance.

The reason is that through this, the government can fulfill all financial claims against it without embarking on new investments that require further financing while providing essential services to citizens and others largely unimpeded. To put it in another way, for government finance to be sustainable, it should be able to purely finance its consumption through its revenue only, and not by borrowing further (this comes with the assumption the interest rate is above zero. If the rate is zero and below, well, borrow away).

Looking at the federal government, most of the times there were no problem. According to the latest Bank Negara Malaysia’s Monthly Statistical Bulletin, most quarters registered a surplus as far as the primary balance is concerned. On yearly basis, there have been surpluses since 1981 (the earliest data available in the bulletin) with the exception of 1987 and 1986.

But according to the consolidated account (the Treasury identified it as consolidated public sector account which includes the finances of the federal government, all state governments, various statutory bodies and all local governments), then there is a huge deficit to contend with. In fact, it is estimated that there was a RM35 billion primary deficit for the first half of 2012. In 2011, it was estimated to be RM30 billion.

A little word of warning: the numbers for the federal government revenue from the Treasury significantly differ from the ones produced in the BNM Monthly Statistical Bulletin. So, the comparison is somewhat off.

Even so, if the Treasury numbers are right, then the consolidated public sector account tells a very different story than the one we used to. This may suggest that the wider public sector may have a problem balancing its primary balance.

As far as comparing federated and unitary states is concerned, maybe only the federal and the state government accounts should be combined to allow for a truer comparison. Without the necessary adjustment, a federation may have better financial health than a unitary state only artificially.

Another thing about the consolidated account is that it tells us that in 2011, the public sector suffered from 9.9% deficit to nominal GDP. This is much higher than the federal government’s 4.8% deficit to GDP.

On the 9.9% deficit to GDP, the point of comparing the deficit to nominal GDP is to incorporate the idea that a growing economy allows for more fund raising by the government. More generally, it informs whether there is space in the economy to raise more money through borrowing. The deficit derived from the consolidated account suggests that there is less room compared to what is suggested by the federal government finance.

Categories
Economics Personal Politics & government

[2572] The bitterness of a financial conservative

I handle my finances conservatively. I spend very little for someone my age and my profile. In fact, I impose a sort of limit on my spending. I am conscious of it and get mildly nervous if my total spending grows too fast even when I can more than afford it.

I probably do buy too much insurance and I do save or invest a large part of my earnings. My credit card service provider probably hates me for having to finance me without getting the chance to charge me interest too often too much.

I can afford to save a lot partly because I do not have too many financial responsibilities.

The other factor behind my saving habit has a lot to do with my upbringing and education.

As a very young school kid, I never really needed to spend too much. Canteen food was clearly subsidized. I rarely asked my parents for expensive items.

The more important thing was that my parents did not give me a generous allowance when I was in primary school. My pocket money was very little. Not that I needed too much anyway but at that age, the limited pocket money effectively curbed any spending impulse I might have then. I was always mindful of my limits. It trained me to be financially prudent.

The same was true as I attended a boarding school in Kuala Kangsar; I rarely had expensive lunches or dinners. Meals were again subsidized and there was rarely a need to spend lavishly in a small rural royal town in Perak. While my allowance did increase, it was definitely less than that of my more well-off peers. I lived spartanly then. This continued during my undergraduate years in America. Formal lessons in economics further solidified my attitude towards personal finance.

During my time living abroad, I did learn to enjoy the finer things in life, but I rarely, if ever, overspent. I rarely overspend still.

So, I can say with certainty that I live by the morality of a financial conservative very strictly.

I think I can say without too much pretension that I am an economist. I understand the various reasons for fiscal deficits. Some of the causes for deficit are justifiable, and some are not. I do understand how the government is not a household in a way that the government can do certain things beyond typical household economics, the point which many defenders of the roles of government in society rush to in deflecting criticism against many facets of government spending. After six years of education in economics, I do not think I need too much schooling in that matter excessively.

Rather, put the economics aside and understand the psychology instead. Understand the worldview of a financially conservative taxpayer.

The state of federal government finance does not impress a person like me. Deep inside, I do feel something along the lines of ”if I can do it, why can’t Putrajaya?” It is a dismissive attitude towards the federal government. It is a damning judgment against a failure to adhere to certain brands of secular morality.

It is a kind of sentiment that is almost always in the background. It is the ever-present demand for financial discipline. Putrajaya violates this conservative morality so blatantly. Each violation accumulates further moral condemnation.

What further justifies the dismissive attitude is the inevitability that the indiscipline — add in the irresponsible economic populism that has happened throughout the year and earlier — will one day, one way or another, result in higher tax on the conservative, and everybody else, sooner or later. Whether I like it or not, I, will have to finance the fiscal indiscipline of Putrajaya.

That fuels my bitterness towards Putrajaya.

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 26 2012.