Friday, January 14, 2011

Nepal’s growth prospects in 2012

According to the latest Global Economic Prospects 2011,in 2012, Nepal is expected to have a nominal GDP of US$ 21.6 billion (2005 current prices), population of 31 million, GDP per capita of US$ 697.3, and real per capita GDP growth of 2.1%. Here is an earlier blog post about GEP 2011.

Real GDP growth is expected to be 3.7% and 4% in 2011 and 2012. Exports growth will initially decline to 5.6% and then rise to 7.3% in 2012. Meanwhile, imports growth will decline to 6.3% and then increase to 6.9% in 2012.

Private consumption is expected to contribute 3.3% to GDP growth in 2012, but government consumption is expected to contribute just 0.6%. Fixed investment and net exports are expected to contribute 1.2% of GDP growth and 1.3% of GDP growth in 2012.

As a share of GDP, private consumption is expected to be 75.3% and 74.4% in 2011 and 2012, respectively. Similarly, government consumption as a share of GDP is expected to be 11.1% in 2012; fixed investment 20.6%; change in stocks 7.2%; and total investment 27.9%.

Both exports and imports (as a share of GDP) are expected to decline in 2012. Exports are expected to be 11% of GDP and 9.9% of GDP in 2011 and 2012, respectively. The figures for imports for the same period are 26.1% and 23.7%. It means that trade deficit is expected to increase further. Exchange rate is expected to appreciate, probably due to weak dollar.

Nepali Macroeconomic Forecasts, 2008-2012
Indicator 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Real Expenditure Growth
GDP at market prices 5.3 4.7 3.3 3.7 4
Private consumption 4.9 4.5 3.8 4 4.1
Government consumption 6.8 19.3 5.5 5.8 6
Fixed investment 6 5.9 4 5 5.5
Exports, GNFS -3.4 38.4 6.4 5.6 7.3
Imports, GNFS 7.5 20.2 6.8 6.3 6.9
Contribution to GDP Growth
Private consumption 3.9 3.6 3 3.2 3.3
Government consumption 0.6 1.7 0.6 0.6 0.6
Fixed investment 1.3 1.3 0.9 1.1 1.2
Net exports -0.5 4.8 1 0.9 1.3
Price Deflators
GDP at market prices -6.7 8.2 18.7 25.1 3.3
Private consumption -8.9 11.3 14.5 22.2 2
Exports, GNFS -5.8 6.4 -5 4 -9.4
Imports, GNFS -4.6 7.9 -5.4 3.5 -8.9
Share of GDP
Private consumption 77.1 79.2 76.8 75.3 74.4
Government consumption 10 11.1 11.1 11 11.1
Fixed investment 21.1 21.2 20.8 20.6 20.6
Change in stocks 12.1 8.4 7.9 7.4 7.2
Total investment 33.2 29.6 28.7 28 27.9
Exports, GNFS 12.1 15.7 12.9 11 9.9
Imports, GNFS 32.7 37.4 30.8 26.1 23.7
Overall
Nominal GDP (USD billions) 11.2 12.6 15.5 20.1 21.6
Population (millions) 28.8 29.3 29.9 30.4 31
GDP per capita, current USD 388.1 431.1 518.9 661.1 697.3
Real per capita GDP growth 3.3 2.7 1.4 1.8 2.1
USD Fx rate 73.3 76 73.6 65 67.6

Source: Global Economic Prospects 2011; 2011 and 2012 are forecasts

Developing countries leading global recovery

According to the latest Global Economic Prospects 2011, global GDP (measured at 2005 market prices and exchange rates), which expanded by 3.9% in 2010, will slow to 3.3% in 2011, before it reaches 3.6% in 2012. Developing countries are expected to grow 7% in 2010, 6% in 2011 and 6.1% in 2012. They will continue to outstrip growth in high-income countries, which is projected at 2.8% in 2010, 2.4% in 2011 and 2.7% in 2012. The report notes that strong developing country domestic demand is leading the world economy but persistent financial sector problems in some high-income countries might threaten growth.

It notes that foreign direct investment (FDI) to developing countries  rose a more modest  16% in 2010, reaching  $410 billion after falling 40% in 2009. An important part of the rebound is due to rising South-South investments, particularly originating in Asia.

In many economies, dollar depreciation, improved local conditions, and rising prices for goods and services means that the real price of food has not risen as much as the U.S. dollar price of internationally traded food commodities. But, the report cautions that double-digit price increases of key staples in the past few months are pressuring households in  countries with an already-existing high burden of poverty and malnutrition. And, if global food prices rise further along with other key commodities, a repeat of the conditions in 2008 cannot be excluded.

The main short-term risks to the global economy include:

  • the possibility of further market turmoil and contagion in Euro area sovereign debt markets;
  • the possibility that very low interest rates in high-income countries induce a second boom-bust cycle among one or more developing countries; and
  • the possibility that rising commodity prices threaten the recovery and or poverty reduction in developing countries.

About South Asia’s growth prospects, the report notes:

“The South Asia region is projected to post GDP growth of 7.9% on average over the 2011-2012 fiscal years, buoyed by vibrant growth in India. This compares with estimated growth of 8.7% in fiscal year 2010. The region benefited from aggressive demand stimulus measures, a revival in investor and consumer sentiment, and a resumption of capital inflows. A recent move toward tighter policy will likely need to be pursued further, given the region‟s high fiscal deficits (the largest among developing regions), high inflation and deteriorating current accounts.”

South Asia’s real GDP growth accelerated to an estimated 8.7 percent in FY2010-11 from 7.0 percent in FY2009-10, buoyed by very strong growth in India, which represents 80 percent of regional GDP. Excluding India, regional GDP growth (on a fiscal year basis) firmed, but to a more modest 5.1 percent from 4.3 percent the year before. On a calendar year basis, GDP for the region as a whole is estimated to have expanded 8.4 percent in 2010 after 5.3 percent in 2009, and to 4.8 percent in 2010 from 3.8 percent in 2009 if India is excluded.

In 2012, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh are  expected to grow at 8.7%, 3.8%, and 6.3%, respectively. Nepal is expected to grow at 4% in 2012.

Forecast summary, 2010-2012
Indicator 2010 2011 2012
South Asia
Real GDP 8.7 7.7 8.1
Real GDP (PPP) 8.7 7.7 8.1
Exports 7.4 8.8 10.3
Imports 6.2 9.4 10.3
Current account (%GDP) -3.4 -2.9 -2.9
Developing Countries
Real GDP 7 6 6.1
Real GDP (PPP) 7.1 6.2 6.4
Exports 19.9 9.1 10.6
Imports 22 9.3 10
Current account (%GDP) 1.3 1 0.9
Nepal
Real GDP 3.3 3.7 4
Exports 6.4 5.6 7.3
Imports 6.8 6.3 6.9
Annual percentage change, unless indicated otherwise; 2011 and 2012 are estimates; table sourced on 2011-01-14

Thursday, January 13, 2011

Rising food prices—update

After reaching peak in 2008, food prices were coming down due to good harvests for most basic food items. But, severe weather in some of the world’s biggest food exporting countries damaged harvests and led to another spike in December 2010. Flooding in Pakistan, Australia, and Canada, and drought and fires in Russia have affected crops in 2010 and even in 2011. Wheat production is going to come down this year. It will push prices even higher. Speculators are also helping to jack up prices.

Wheat Production and Consumption

Year Global Production Global Consumption Stockpiles (end of period)

MILLIONS OF TONNES SOURCE: US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

2006-07

596

616

131

2007-08

611

617

125

2008-09

683

643

166

2009-10

680

652

187

2010-11

646

665

175

However, prices of some crops are falling, especially if they do not depend on disaster hit countries for supplies. Countries like Mexico, Kenya and Uganda are seeing drop in prices of major crops. Meanwhile, others like India, Thailand, and El Salvador are seeing rising prices.

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Trade facilitation & exports: Hard & soft infrastructures

Trade facilitation—which basically is aimed at reducing export and import costs—measures such as investment in physical infrastructure and regulatory reform to improve the business environment improve the export performance of developing countries, shows a paper by Portugal-Perez & Wilson (2010). The authors compute illustrative exports growth for developing countries and ad-valorem equivalents of improving each indicator halfway to the level of the top perform in the region. For instance, they compare if improving quality of infrastructure or cutting tariffs faced by exporters would increase exports the most.

The authors construct four new aggregate indicators related to trade facilitation from 20 indicators of different sources: Doing Business (DB), World Economic Forum (WEF), World Development Indicators (WDI) and Transparency International (TI). Here is their trade facilitation indicators dataset (unfortunately, they don’t have figures for Nepal).The database contains four new indicators related to trade facilitation covering 112 countries over 2004-2007. The indicators are scaled on a range of 0 (lowest performer) to 1 (top performer) and are obtained using factor analysis (PCA), a statistical modeling technique that explains the correlation among a set of observed variables through an unobserved “common factor”. It circumvents multicolinearity to reduce the dimension of data by aggregating highly correlated indicators into a single indicator.

They group trade facilitation indicators in two broad dimensions: (i) hard infrastructure (physical infrastructure-- the level of development and quality of ports, airports, roads, and rail infrastructure; and ICT—the extent to which an economy uses information and communications technology to improve efficiency, and productivity as well as to reduce transaction costs. It contains indicators on the availability, use, absorption, and government prioritization of ICT.); (ii) soft infrastructure (Border and transport efficiency—quantification of the level of efficiency of customs and domestic transport that is reflected in the time, cost, and number of documents necessary for export and import procedures; and Business and regulatory environment—the level of development of regulations and transparency. It is built on indicators of irregular payments, favoritism, government transparency, and measures to combat corruption.). They assess the impact of different aspects related to trade facilitation on export performance by estimating a gravity model.

Among others, the results show that:


South Asia appears to receive better returns to investment in the business environment. The results show that Bangladesh, the country with the lowest value for the business environment index, would experience the highest export growth after improvement in this indicator halfway to that of India. The increase in trade (38.4 percent) due to improvement in the business environment would be equivalent to a 26.3 percent reduction in the value of current tariffs on goods from Bangladesh.

If Bangladesh were to improve its level of infrastructure quality to half the level of India, exports would increase by 17.6 percent. This increase in exports would be equivalent to a reduction of 12.1 percent in the value of import tariffs.


Overall, they show that improvement in infrastructure quality would bring the greatest benefits in terms of export growth. Furthermore, among the four indicators, physical infrastructure has the greatest impact on exports in almost all specifications and samples. The impact of physical infrastructure decreases with the income level, but the richer the country, the greater its marginal impact on export performance from ICT. So, least developed countries (LDCs) are relatively better off focusing on physical infrastructure to promote trade. That said, due to the large costs associated with physical infrastructure, developing countries are also better off improving soft infrastructure such as border and transport efficiency.

Meanwhile, here is a paper by Vela, Aadot, and Wilson (2010), who find that private inspection of international shipments positively and significantly affect trade facilitation, with a rise in import volumes for countries using them by approx 2-10 percent.

Oh, the Nepali economy! Still in troubled waters

[Adapted from Prem Khanal’s article published in The Week, Republica daily, January 7, 2010, p.1. A good rundown of the major macroeconomic issues in the Nepali economy.]

Oh, the economy! yet more jitters

Prem Khanal

As the realty sector slips deeper into financial distress and the law and order situation weakens further in a highly fluid political landscape, a new threat of painful economic slump is gathering force in the Nepali economy, indicating gloomy days ahead.

Like 2010, which was marked as a year when the Nepali economy was confronted with two unfamiliar headwinds – hefty deficit in the balance of payment, and an alarming rise in banks’ exposure to risky loans – the half-yearly indications give little convincing hope that the sluggish economy will make a headway to growth and expansion in 2011.

Grim economic data coming from such previously promising sectors as the financial sector has also deepened fears that the Nepali economy is heading to a crisis more rapidly than many were expecting. Weakening governance, worsening lawlessness, deepening power shortage, and shrinking realty sector are the four deadly toxics that will be the major ills of Nepal’s economic sickness in 2011.

Weak governance, which is breeding corruption in almost every segment of the society, is the foremost challenge that the country is facing since of late. As a result, along with the monetary corruption that has been Nepal’s chronic problem since long, policy level corruption has also lately become rampant, according to government officials familiar with the development. In fact, the deadly coexistence of weak governance and lawlessness is the single biggest barrier to the country’s economic development.

Further impacts of weakening governance have been directly reflected on the worsening law and order situation, thanks to the weak morals of law enforcement agencies wracked by long-running political maneuverings. Organized extortion in tie-ups with political cadres and personnel of law enforcement agencies is rampant, which is fuelling prices of goods and services, thus weakening investor confidence and polluting business environment. The shrinking flow of fresh loans to the private sector and sliding share market – the two quick barometers to gauge investor confidence – clearly reflects what a bad business climate Nepal has at present.

Likewise, power shortage, which is expected to reach a climax of 14-hour cuts a day in the summer, though less than last year’s horrible 16-hour load shedding, will continue to slice off productivity and efficiency of Nepal’s industrial and service sectors. As a result, few entrepreneurs have been able to install expensive diesel power plants of their own while leaving many others, mainly medium- and small-scale electricity-dependent businesses, to no other option than to limit their productive activities during power-on hours. In either case, the cost of production unnaturally swells, due to which many domestic products, which are doing pretty well at least in the internal market, are fast losing their market share to cheep Chinese imports, forcing Nepali entrepreneurs in turn to squeeze their production and cut labor force.

Seriously, too, the lethal coexistence of politically mollycoddled militant laborers and power cuts will further drag the Nepali industrial sector, whose contribution to the national economic pie has shrunk to 6.25% from 9% in 2001/02 and even more painful downturns are to be expected in the days to come.

The obvious impacts of a shattered private sector will be more distinctly visible in the economy. There will be no expansion of the existing productive capacity, let alone prospects of new ventures coming in, thereby resulting in further squeezing of the job market. So there will be a further weakening of much-needed competition in the job market for labor due to which laborers are unlikely to see their pay being raised. This, in turn, will instigate migration of unskilled and semi-skilled as well as highly skilled manpower that are the most essential factors to bring momentum to Nepal’s long-stalled development. As it is, the trend of mass exodus of unskilled and semi-skilled laborers to Malaysia and the Gulf States and highly skilled manpower to the US will continue to accelerate.

The current recession in the construction sector that is not only a major job provider after agriculture and industry but also the sector with the strongest backward and forward linkages, is adding many new challenges to the yawning economy. The side effects of the realty slump will emerge. First, loss of jobs will shrink the disposable income of laborers, weakening overall effective demand, while lack of cash-rich buyers will bring a prospect of ready-to-move apartments being remained unsold for months, if not years. Secondly, the downturn of construction industry will bring a spillover effect to construction-dependent sectors, ranging from cement factories to steel rolling mills to sanitary fittings to paint industry and other suppliers.

In both cases, banks will face extreme heat as they will face great difficulties in recovering their loans from the borrowing sectors. This will fuel loan defaults and expose the non-performing aspects of the banking system which will not only put new strains on banking health but also lower the banks’ profitability. These will as well add jitters to an already shrinking stock market. Though it may be a little earlier to say, but many familiar with the inside stories of Nepal’s banking system believe that a time bomb has already started ticking.

The shrink in consumption due to the looming economic slowdown will ease imports, which will be a good development for the central bank that is fighting hard against the deficits seen in the balance of payment – the balance between inflow and outflow of foreign currency – as a decline in imports will help lower trade deficit and the whopping current account deficit.

However, lower imports, particularly of durables goods and vehicles, will have a negative impact on the government’s target of notching revenues up by 20% to Rs 216 billion. Predictions show that slowing vehicle imports and other durable household goods, due mainly to rising lending rates together with squeezing consumption, will make the government’s task of achieving its revenue target indeed difficult for the first time in recent years.

So, how to deal with the situation?

One of the tools widely prescribed and practiced to deal with such a situation is to bring a stimulus package to pump huge amount of money into the economy through expansionary fiscal and monetary policy, so as to generate jobs and raise effective demands.

However, there are many constraints to such measures to improvise the Nepali economy. The first challenge is inflation, which is already close to 9%. Undoubtedly, it will soon jump to double digits when the economy fully realizes the impacts of the recent fuel price hikes along with rising prices of staples in India, from where Nepal imports these increasingly priced goods in the coming weeks. In such a scenario, any additional pumping of money into the economy will fuel inflation, thereby sprouting many economic as well as social ills.
Another risk is, as the domestic industrial base is extremely weak to immediately respond to rise in demand, such a measure will fuel imports and end up in bringing some additional revenue to the government’s coffer rather than creating jobs at the domestic front. Likewise, a stimulus policy will flare up budget deficit, which is already on the borderline, bringing devastating effects to fiscal balance.

Like in other countries, the stimulus fund can be used in infrastructure development which can immediately generate a large number of jobs. But Nepal’s implementation capacity is so weak, lengthy and complicated that it may take years to initiate a project launched to fight looming recession on the doorstep.

Yet behind the grim outlook, some faint hopes flicker on the horizon. Undoubtedly, remittances – the backbone Nepal’s present economy – will continue to grow as worker-hosting countries recuperate from the past year’s painful global economic recession. In fact, there will be a huge demand for labor, among other hosts, from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) when it starts its major constructions for the 2018 Olympics.

Good news has also emerged from the nastily erratic agriculture sector. Reports that paddy production, which alone contributes 7.5% to Nepal’s GDP, has increased by an encouraging 11% this year, along with the healthy growth in maize and millet production also means that the agro-based rural income will grow this year, along with overall agricultural yield that is estimated to hover around 2% against last year’s 1.1%.

So, the combined effects of the rise in disposable income among rural farmers along with the continuing, albeit moderate, growth in remittance economy, most of which is used in consumption, will help float an overall demand. But it will certainly be weaker than what the economy saw last year. Despite some slackness in the wholesale and retail business and financial intermediation sectors, the non-agricultural sector is expected to maintain a moderate growth of 3.5-4.5%, thanks to a healthy growth expected from the hospitality and tourism sector as well as transport and communication sectors.

So the overall economic growth is expected to remain at around 3.5% – almost at the same level as of last year’s. So, be ready for yet another “glorious year” to be marked in Nepal which, after all, is the slowest growing economy in South Asia.

Tuesday, January 11, 2011

The World in 2050–PwC Jan 2011 update

PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) has published an updated version of its earlier projections of the world economy and has ranked countries based on the size of their economy. The new update takes into account the economic shift that has occurred after the global financial crisis, which has further accelerated the shift in global economic power to the emerging economies. It compares between the seven fastest emerging economies (E7)-- China, India, Brazil, Russia, Indonesia, Mexico and Turkey-- and the G8 economies.

Measured by GDP in purchasing power parity (PPP) terms, which adjusts for price level differences across countries, the largest E7 emerging economies seem likely to be bigger than the current G7 economies by 2020, and China seems likely to have overtaken the US by that date. India could also overtake the US by 2050 on this PPP basis. GDP at PPPs is a better indicator of average living standards or volumes of outputs or inputs, because it corrects for price differences across countries at different levels of development.

The World in 2050 -- GDP at PPPs Rankings
PPP 2009 Rank Country GDP at PPP(constant 2009 US$bn) PPP 2050 Rank Country  Projected GDP at PPP(constant 2009 US$bn)
1 US 14256 1 China 59475
2 China 8888 2 India 43180
3 Japan 4138 3 US 37876
4 India 3752 4 Brazil 9762
5 Germany 2984 5 Japan 7664
6 Russia 2687 6 Russia 7559
7 UK 2257 7 Mexico 6682
8 France 2172 8 Indonesia 6205
9 Brazil 2020 9 Germany 5707
10 Italy 1922 10 UK 5628
11 Mexico 1540 11 France 5344
12 Spain 1496 12 Turkey 5298
13 South Korea 1324 13 Nigeria 4530
14 Canada 1280 14 Vietnam 3939
15 Turkey 1040 15 Italy 3798
16 Indonesia 967 16 Canada 3322
17 Australia 858 17 South Korea 3258
18 Saudi Arabia 595 18 Spain 3195
19 Argentina 586 19 Saudi Arabia 3039
20 South Africa 508 20 Argentina 2549

However, John Hawksworth and Anmol Tiwari, the authors of the report, also rank countries based on  GDP at market exchange rates (MERs), which does not correct for price differences across economies but may be more relevant for practical business purposes. Ranking with MERs show that the E7 overtaking process is slower but equally inexorable. The Chinese economy would still be likely to be larger than that of the US before 2035 and the E7 would overtake the G7 before 2040. India would be clearly the third largest economy in the world by 2050, well ahead of Japan and not too far behind the US on this MER basis. In 2009, India’s share of world GDP at MERs was just 2%. By 2050, this share could grow to around 13%. MERs factor in the likely rise in real market exchange rates in emerging economies towards their PPP rates. This could occur either through relatively higher domestic price inflation in these emerging economies, or through nominal exchange rate appreciation, or (most likely) some combination of both of these effects.

The World in 2050 -- GDP at MER Rankings
PPP 2009 Rank Country GDP at MER(constant 2009 US$bn) PPP 2050 Rank Country  Projected GDP at MER (constant 2009 US$bn)
1 US 14256 1 China 51180
2 Japan 5068 2 US 37876
3 China 4909 3 India 31313
4 Germany 3347 4 Brazil 9235
5 France 2649 5 Japan 7664
6 UK 2175 6 Russia 6112
7 Italy 2113 7 Mexico 5800
8 Brazil 1572 8 Germany 5707
9 Spain 1460 9 UK 5628
10 Canada 1336 10 Indonesia 5358
11 India 1296 11 France 5344
12 Russia 1231 12 Turkey 4659
13 Australia 925 13 Italy 3798
14 Mexico 875 14 Nigeria 3795
15 South Korea 833 15 Canada 3322
16 Turkey 617 16 Spain 3195
17 Indonesia 540 17 South Korea 2914
18 Saudi Arabia 369 18 Vietnam 2892
19 Argentina 309 19 Saudi Arabia 2708
20 South Africa 286 20 Australia 2486

This well could be a return to the historical norm:


In many ways this renewed dominance of China and India, with their much larger populations, is a return to the historical norm prior to the Industrial Revolution of the late 18th and 19th centuries that caused a shift in global economic power to Western Europe and the US – this temporary shift in power is now going into reverse. This changing world order poses both challenges and opportunities for businesses in the current advanced economies. On the one hand, competition from emerging market multinationals will increase steadily over time and the latter will move up the value chain in manufacturing and some services (including financial services given the weakness of the Western banking system after the crisis).


The report notes that India’s trend growth is expected to overtake China’s trend growth at some point during the coming decade due to India having a significantly younger and faster growing working age population than China and due to it having more potential for growth as it is starting from a lower level of economic development than China and so has more catch-up potential. However, India will only fully realize this great potential if it continues to pursue the growth-friendly economic policies of the last two decades.The authors argue that particular priorities should be in maintaining a prudent fiscal policy stance, further extending its openness to foreign trade and investment, significantly increased investment in transport and energy infrastructure, and improved educational standards, particularly for women and those in rural areas of India.

The model’s assumption is that long-term trend growth is driven by the following four factors:

  • Growth in the labor force of working age (latest UN population projections)
  • Increase in human capita (average education levels across the adult population)
  • Growth in the physical capital stock (capital investment net of depreciation)
  • TFP growth (technological progress and catching up)

In terms of per capita income, the US will still lead the way.