Categories
Economics

[1976] Of it is just as crowded over there

Read the mainstream press and it is hard to miss that the Economic Planning Unit and the Ministry of Finance are trying to market a new economic model to replace old ones. I fear that this new model is misguided and will lead Malaysia down the wrong path.

Read the mainstream press and one will find that it is popular these days to state that Malaysia needs to go up the economic value chain. Almost always accompanying that is rhetoric calling for Malaysia to graduate from its addiction to low-wage, low-skilled workers which, by and large, refers to dependency on cheap foreign labor.

Policy-wise, this has been translated into restriction on recruitment of cheap foreign labor. As proof, an astronomical levy on recruitment of foreign workers was imposed as part of the second stimulus package.

In time of economic slowdown, that particular action does not make sense and luckily, the Najib administration understands this and has decided to postpone it indefinitely. But even without a slowdown, that is no way to move forward due to uncertainty of any country’s development path.

Nonetheless, it is true that Malaysia needs to move up the value chain. We have been benefiting massively from early adoption of a liberal economy but other recently liberalized economies like India and China are finally catching up with Malaysia, and at an amazing pace.

Rapid reduction of poverty and continuous registration of high economic growth are testaments of how fast these countries are catching up after abandoning flawed economic models that ignore the importance of private property as a basis of a society.

Not only are they catching up rapidly thanks to liberalization, with their overwhelmingly larger and cheaper supply of labor, they are crowding out Malaysia and its peers like Thailand and the Philippines from the low-wage, low-skilled and labor-intensive niche. Penang, for instance, is already seeing multinational corporations migrating out from the state to Vietnam and China. This trend occurs because, among other reasons, of the availability of cheaper and larger supply of labor.

From this perspective, Malaysia is indeed losing its competitiveness; Malaysia is unable to compete in a low-wage model. If Malaysia fails to react, challenges from these low-cost countries have the potential to wreak havoc on the Malaysian economy. Fearing being pushed to the margin in the global market, Malaysia seems to be left with nowhere to go but up in the value chain.

Going up does not automatically mean actively restricting recruitment of cheap foreign labor, though. Cheap foreign labor still has roles in the Malaysian economy, even as its importance continue to diminish and even as other countries are able to excel at low-wage, low-skilled industry better than Malaysia.

This point is all the more tenable since in the long run, price equalization will happen to bring some kind of equilibrium between Malaysia and other competing countries.

The new equilibrium for low-wage, low skilled industry — perhaps especially for manufacturing — for Malaysia may be below its current level but the requirement for such industry will still exist since it provides goods or services which are hard if not impossible to trade. Somebody will have to do it.

Restriction on recruitment of cheap foreign labor is doubly unhelpful if the locals themselves refuse to take up low-wage low-skilled jobs. The restriction will create upward pressure on prices which include wages, pushing up the cost of living unnecessarily high when access to a large source of cheap labor to stabilize prices is available in the region.

In an open economy, that pressure will attract cheap supply of labor to act as a counterbalance. If that source is unavailable locally at the right prices, it will come from abroad.

That is already happening in Malaysia and the same trend is observable in the United Kingdom, where Eastern Europeans are taking up low paying jobs which the locals are reluctant to do as cheaply as the immigrants are willing. The same is true in the United States but instead of Eastern Europeans, they are from Mexico or other parts of Latin America.

A restriction on foreign labor will prevent that from happening, forcing prices and wages to go up. I feel this point must be stressed and hence, I repeat, that will inevitably cause the cost of doing business to increase.

The upward pressure on wages has been suggested as a tool to attract talents into Malaysia as an effort to take Malaysia forward beyond low-wage low-skilled economy into the realm of new economy.

This, however, confuses an increase in nominal wealth with an increase in real wealth. What is the point of being paid higher wages when the cost of living goes up accordingly, or higher?

In other words, the restriction which drives nominal wages up really makes no difference in real terms.

It must be noted that any increase in real wealth is largely due to productivity. This is not a mere opinion. Rather, it is an economic fact.

If one is less willing to believe mainstream economic theory due to the unfavorable popular reputation that economists currently suffer, then do refer to any econometric model on the matter; the correlation is strong and the causal relationship is enticing. Any effort at moving up the value chain must take this into account.

By moving up the value chain, it inevitably means greater application of science and innovation to increase productivity. A highly educated workforce will be required if the economy is to enjoy higher productivity.

In light of this, the question is not whether our addiction to cheap labor is a barrier to take the economy to a higher plane.

Instead, the questions that demand answers are: does Malaysia have a highly educated workforce; does Malaysia have the talents to fulfill the prerequisite of a high-value economy?

With a minority of its population holding a graduate degree and with an education system that seeks to brainwash its students rather than encourage critical thinking, it is a stretch to answer the questions in the positive.

That, by no means, is a reason to throw in the towel but it can help to refocus our energy from wrongfully vilifying low-skilled foreign labor to educating Malaysians better.

What is needed is an education system that demands the biggest effort from all. Schools, colleges and universities need to be liberalized to encourage development of competitive, thinking and open minded workforce, not yet more groups to be goaded for political purposes.

While these workforce is being developed, foreign talents should be welcomed and even offered citizenship.

Furthermore, just as the argument that low-cost giants are crowding Malaysia out from the low-wage, low-skilled niche, what actually guarantees that Malaysia can break into the high-value, high-skilled niche already filled with countries that with highly educated workforce?

Somehow, the rhetoric and the central planning action by the government which lead to curbs on foreign labor seems to suggest there is heavy competition in low-skilled industry but not in high-skilled industry.

”It’s crowded here, let’s move over there. Simple.” Well, it is not. While the pay off from a high-value economy is huge, it is naïve to think that there will be no competition.

Just imagine how much resources will be required to reverse the serious brain drain Malaysia has been experiencing for so long. Malaysia is way behind the curve in competition for talents. Compounding the issue is unfair practices by the government that make certain groups of Malaysia unappreciated.

If restriction of employment of cheap foreign labor is used as a stick to force Malaysia up the value chain, the danger is that Malaysia might fail to break into the high-skill niche and then finding itself with a largely dismantled low-skill industry.

With a serious lack of talent in the local economy, Malaysia might not only find itself entrenched in the middle-income trap, it might fall behind in comparison with its peers.

Unnecessary hostile position against cheap foreign labor might cause Malaysia to not have a fallback position if there is an error of judgment.

It is therefore, in my humble opinion, imperative that we ensure the ledge on the other side of the gully is properly secured before we make the jump across rather than chipping off the ledge we are still on. If we find ourselves in mid air only to realize that the ledge on the other side cannot support us, the next place we will be is at the bottom of the gully.

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 4 2009.

Categories
Economics

[1703] Of comparative advantage versus food sovereignty

Just one of those articles which try to point out that the idea of food sovereignty is flawed.

One relates directly to trade: Is it best to specialize in whatever food grows best in a country’s soil, and trade it for all other food needs — or even, perhaps, specialize in services or manufacturing, and trade those for food?

Or is it best to seek self-sufficiency in every type of food that will, weather permitting, grow within a country’s borders? [Hoarding Nations Drive Food Costs Ever Higher. Keith Bradsher. Andrew Martin. New York Times. June 30 2008]

I have been skeptical to the idea of food sovereignty from the beginning. Food sovereignty in its essence is protectionism, hurts trade and subsequently makes us all poorer (on average, of course).

Categories
Economics

[1638] Of revisiting minimum wage and food sovereignty

One of the tragedies of humanity is that of Sisyphus’. The boulder keeps rolling down the hill each time it has been pushed up.

From time to time, the same issues resurface, rejuvenating familiar debates once held in the past. Two of the issues which of great public concern at the moment, yet again, is minimum wage (no thanks to the Labor Day celebration) and food sovereignty. I have penned my opinion on both issues and in the spirit of recycling, they are:

  1. [1282] Of questioning the morality of minimum wage
  2. [1099] Of food sovereignty and comparative advantage

In the first entry, I oppose minimum wage while in the second entry, I appeal for an appeal to comparative advantage and not to food sovereignty.

Categories
Economics

[1633] Of rice is up but not vegetable

A sudden realization of a global food crisis among the public, or rather, prices increase of rice, has prompted several questions relating to supply chain and economics. One interesting economic question that I was requested to answer was why prices of fresh produce are not treading the path of rice prices?

To be honest, I have not seen the relevant data for fresh product — which by the way generally means vegetable — but the increase in rice prices is painted all over the news. But if we take the implicit assumptions of the question as true, why indeed do we not see the same pattern that dominates the rice market in the fresh produce market?

When I read the question, price effect, elasticity of demand and the Engel’s Law came to mind.

The Engel’s Law is an economic observation first expressed by statistician Ernst Engel[1] in the 19th century which states that a proportion of income dedicated to food, mostly starches, is larger the poorer a person is. I believe the Engel’s Law does answer the question to some extent.

Allow me to explain. Take a deep breath too.

An individual has some amount of income and a fraction of that income is dedicated to food. That fraction is further distribution among various kinds of food and we shall make a simple model which consists of staple food and luxury foodstuffs. We assume expenditure on other items as constant. Or, to make it easier, let us assume that we live to eat.

When price of staple food goes up, the person will have less purchasing power; that means he could buy less staple food for the same amount of money compared to before the price increase. If he wants to consume the same amount of luxury foodstuff, he will have to cut his consumption of staple food. The issue here is that it is staple food and staple food translates into low elasticity of demand. In simple English, changes in price do not affect quantity demanded by too much.

Therefore, cutting back on staple food consumption may not be the most preferred option. Thus, he cuts back on luxury foodstuffs while trying to maintain his current rice consumption level. As a result, demand for rice stays put, or falls only slightly while demand for other foodstuff falls dramatically.

This predicts a fall in prices for fresh produce demand while rice prices would stay constant, if everything else is the same.

With the background of increasing population size across the world, demand in general may be on the rise, causing a general upward pressure on prices of all goods. It has to be noted that a majority of those in a society is mostly made up of lower and middle class individuals and this is the relevance of Engel’s Law. What this explanation may lead to is this: while prices for both goods may increase, rice prices grow faster than luxury foodstuffs by virtue of constant demand for rice of an individual and decreased demand for luxury foodstuff of an individual with increasing population size.

Finally, a possible anomaly happening at the demand curve: the curve is most likely to be a vertical line perpendicular to the quantity axis or something close to that. I wish I had Matlab or something with me. I would love to run a model with the associated indifference curves.

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

[1] — Gregory Clark in Chapter 3, of his famed A Farewell to Alms insists that the statistician Engel is “not to be confused with his rabble-rousing contemporary Friedrich Engels”. Yes communists worldwide, Mr. Clark took a cheap shot at you.

Categories
Economics

[1631] Of a silver lining behind the food crisis

Fair use.The Doha Round is a trade negotiation on a global scale which seeks to lower trade barriers with the ultimate goal of promoting free trade among members of the World Trade Organization. The birth of the Round was difficult and development surrounding the Round is riddled with seemingly insurmountable challenges. In Cancun, Mexico for instance, a trade talk famously collapsed only after 4 days of negotiation.[1] There are several major hurdles all WTO members have to overcome but with the current buzzword being the “food crisis”,[2] farm subsidies enjoyed by farmers in the US and EU are of special interest and it has been associated with developmental issues in Africa.

The agricultural subsidy distorts the market by bringing the cost of production artificially down, artificially increases supply from the developed world and artificially drives prices down.[3] Some quantity of the artificially low-priced food is then exported to impoverished countries where it will compete with locally grown food which is more expensive than imported food.[4] Along with cheap food being flooded in the local market by aid groups which further depresses local food prices,[5] it simply does not make sense for farmers in the countries to be involved in food production. African farmers are unable to utilize their possible comparative advantage under free market while farmers in the developed world are investing in sectors which they do not have comparative advantage. Thus, African countries have little incentive to build their capacity in sectors which they are best positioned to take thrive under free market.

A solution to this problem is the removal of farm subsidies in the developed world. The removal will see the agriculture industry in the developed world to decline in importance. The vacuum will then be taken over by farmers in poorer countries with comparative advantage in agriculture. These poor countries could build up its food production capacity while creating the much needed employment opportunities for the local. Through this, poor African countries have a chance of pulling themselves up rather than relying on aids that bring limited opportunity for economic growth.

The issue with this solution is that while on a very big picture narrative, it allows greater efficiency in resources utilization, the move will increase food prices paid by Africans, possibly beyond the means of the poor despite giving local producers the signal they need to seriously invest in food production industry. With the agricultural subsidy in the developed world gone, prices will immediately go up to free market prices of food produced in the developed world. Quantity of food produced will also drop until replacement farms are up and running. And even if changes occur immediately — where the agriculture industry in the developed world would die off immediately and instantaneously replaced by new farms in Africa — cost of food produced could possibly still be higher than the ones subsidized though it would still be cheaper than food originating from unsubsidized farms in the developed world, with everything else constant.

Yet, the pain suffered is only short term in nature; capability building will slowly bare fruits that will fuel the economy, setting the stage for a brighter future.

Price is an important signal in decision-making processes. Higher crude oil prices have encouraged energy companies to conduct explorations for the black gold in remote places all over the world. Similar to the trend seen in the oil and gas sector, higher biofuel prices have encouraged expansion of palm oil plantation in Indonesia and sugar cane in Brazil. The same trend is applicable to the food sector.

Food prices have been steadily increasing for the past couple of years due to several factors. The increase has proven to be sufficiently high that the IMF has cautioned the world community that we are facing a food crisis. Riots related to food availability have occurred at a number of places across the world. It is clear that food supply needs to increase or else, Malthus would have a day in the sun.

It is unclear how much food would be produced however if the relevant farms migrated from the developed world to African countries as well as to countries with agriculture as their comparative advantage. Four factors are crucial in answering that question on quantity: labor, land, capital and technology. A free market world is the one with free flow of capital and labor but that is an idealistic world. Our world, for now, is characterized with capital flowing more freely than labor though labor, especially in the more globalized part of the world, is increasingly becoming more mobile. The developed world has plenty of capital and high technology related to farming but they lack the labor and in many places, land. The third world such as African countries has plenty of labor and land but most definitely lacking the capital and the know-how. Given difference in endowment, which should go where?

I am in the opinion that the more mobile factors should move and that means relocation of farms from the developed world to the third world. Labor and land do not go around easily but the contrary is true for capital and technology. With all four factors concentrating at a focus point, it is possible for food production to increase on the net with full utilization of comparative advantage.

As a recap, higher priced food should attract more players into the agriculture industry, including in Africa. If there is enough pressure on market prices to increase higher than production cost, poor farmers suffering from developed countries’ agricultural subsidy policy should be able to begin to build their capacity in food production. Now, these local farmers could compete with foreign subsidized competitors.

If that is so, perhaps the removal of food subsidy might not be so central in the issue of African development anymore. This however does not justify agricultural subsidy policy in the developed countries. What this means instead is that the farmers in Africa may bow have an avenue to pull themselves out of poverty in spite of market distorting subsidy enjoyed by farmers in the developed world. A respect for comparative advantage and the market meanwhile should increase food production until a point where all four factors meet the ultimate point of diminishing returns to scale.

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

[1] — See Doha Development Round at Wikipedia.

[2] — WASHINGTON (AFP) — Rising food prices and their threat to political stability and development gains captured the attention of world economic leaders meeting here, with a call to arms launched by the World Bank. [Food crisis moves up global agenda at IMF, WBank meets. AFP via Google News. April 14 2008]

[3] — See Agricultural subsidy at Wikipedia.

[4] — Further complicating aid programs is a debate at the World Trade Organization over concerns that the United States has used food aid to dump surplus commodities in foreign countries where the supply has undercut local farmers’ earnings. [U.S. Cutting Food Aid Aimed at Self-Sufficiency. New York Times. December 22 2004]

[5] — The delivery of food aid to developing countries seems like an uncontroversial policy — a straightforward effort that helps the poor and underscores the generosity of donor nations. Yet, economists have long debated the merits of food aid. By increasing the local supply of food, such aid may depress prices and thus undercut the income of rural farmers in the recipient nations, for example; it also may discourage local production. And, since the poor often are concentrated in rural areas, food aid in fact may disproportionately hurt the poor. [Does International Food Aid Harm the Poor?. Carlos Lozada. National Bureau of Economic Research. Extracted April 26 2008]