Wednesday, April 9, 2014

An interesting theory on inequality: Wealth gap (including inherited) will be the main issue in the long run

An interesting review of Thomas Piketty's Capital in the 21st Century by Matt Yglesias at Vox.

The main point is that: Wealth to income ratio & rate of return on capital to GDP growth ratio are increasing = Top very few already wealthy are getting wealthier and wealthier = Widening inequality

Matt summarizes:

[1] The ratio of wealth to income is rising in all developed countries.
[2] Absent extraordinary interventions, we should expect that trend to continue.
[3] If it continues, the future will look like the 19th century, where economic elites have predominantly inherited their wealth rather than working for it.
[4] The best solution would be a globally coordinated effort to tax wealth.
Highly concentrated income was in the hands not just of the top 10 or 20 percent of households but the top 1, 0.1, or even 0.01 percent. [...]The dynamic towards wealth inequality is built into capitalism rather than any one country's economic policies. [...]In the long run the economic inequality that matters won't be the gap between people who earn high salaries and those who earn low ones, it will be the gap between people who inherit large sums of money and those who don't. [...]Piketty says we are headed for a world of patrimonial capitalism where the Forbes 400 list will be dominated not by the founders of new companies but by the grandchildren of today's super-elite.

Basically, inherited wealth + higher retention of income from the use of factors of production make wealthy folks even wealthier. Looks like an accumulative process that kick-starts entrepreneurship up to a certain threshold but then widens income inequality after that threshold is breached. Finding a fine balance/non-static equilibrium may be the trick now (= at least some form of progressive redistribution without stymieing entrepreneurship). Piketty advocates a global wealth tax.

Thursday, April 3, 2014

Infrastructure gap in South Asia: Between 6.6% and 9.9% of GDP per year

A latest World Bank report argues that South Asia faces infrastructure gap (transport, electricity, water supply and sanitation, solid waste, telecommunications and irrigation) of between US$1.7 trillion and US$2.5 trillion (at current prices) until 2020 [US$1.4 and US$2.1 trillion at 2010 prices]. 

In terms of GDP, it amounts to between 6.6% and 9.9% per year (spread evenly over the years until 2020). Overall, infrastructure investment in South Asia was 6.9% of GDP in 2009. Infrastructure investment in India accounts for, on average, 79% of total investment in South Asia. Nepal’s share is just 1%, second lowest to Bhutan’s 0.2%. To close the infrastructure gap, the report suggests going for a mix of investment in infrastructure stock and implementation of supportive reforms.


NEPAL

In terms of access to infrastructure services in Nepal, 47 per 100 people had telecom access (2011), 75% of population had electricity access (2010), 35% of population had access to improved sanitation (2011), 88% of population had access to improved water (2011), total road network was 0.8 km per 1000 people (2008), and 54% of roads were paved (2008). Nepal’s telecom access per 100 people was the lowest in South Asia. These provide an indication of how large the unmet infrastructure demand is.

The report shows that Nepal faces a financing need of between 8.24% and 11.75% of GDP per year until 2020 (at 2010 prices). The cumulative investment requirement over 2011-2020 (at 2010 prices) is estimated between US$13 billion and US$18 billion. 

Specifically, the financing needs to bridge the infrastructure gap are as follows:
  • Transport: 2.32% to 3.49% of GDP
  • Electricity: 3.34% to 4.46% of GDP
  • Water supply and sanitation: 1.08% to 1.62% of GDP
  • Solid waste: 0.24% to 0.30% of GDP
  • Telecom: 0.27% to 0.40% of GDP
  • Irrigation: 0.99% to 1.48% of GDP
  • Total: 8.24% to 11.25% of GDP

A 2010 ADBI study showed national investment need of about US$1.3 billion per year until 2020. As a share of GDP, it amounts to around 8.48% of GDP. Sector-wise investment need was 1.65% GDP for transport, 0.59% GDP for electricity, 5.14% of GDP for ITC and 1.10% of GDP for water and sanitation.

Nepal’s existing infrastructure investment hovers around 5% of GDP. There is a need to scale up investments especially in electricity and transport as the inadequate supply of these are the most binding constraints on growth.

Some of the policy recommendations proposed by the study are as follows:
  • Rehabilitate and maintain existing assets
  • Reform service providers and ensure financial/operational sustainability (no political interference and appropriate incentives to perform efficiently)
  • Establish solid legal, policy and regulatory frameworks (including PPPs)
  • Decentralize service provision
The report assesses the infrastructure gap using a four-step process: (i) where a country is today (infrastructure investment as a share of GDP); (ii) where a country would like to be at a given point in time; (iii) financing and policy options available at present to march towards the goal; and (iv) the remaining financial gap that will be needed to be bridged.

Wednesday, April 2, 2014

Nepal's economic outlook for FY2014 and FY2015

[This blog post is adapted from Nepal country chapter of Asian Development Outlook 2014.]


A significant drop in agriculture and delay in introducing a full budget dragged down GDP growth. Inflation remained high, and the current account surplus contracted as remittance inflows decelerated. Growth is expected to pick up with a favorable monsoon, the timely adoption of a full budget, and political stability following the successful Constituent Assembly election in November 2013. 

Economic performance 

GDP growth decelerated to 3.6% in FY2013 (ended 15 July 2013) because of an unfavorable monsoon, a shortage of chemical fertilizers, and the delay in introducing a full FY2013 budget. Agricultural output growth slowed sharply to 1.3%, the lowest rate in the past 5 years, while services grew by 6% on improvements in wholesale and retail trade and in hotels and restaurants. Industry continued to languish, growing by a mere 1.6% as persistent electricity shortages, labor disputes, and political uncertainty soured the investment climate. 


Inflation crept up to average 9.9% in FY2013, even as prices for food and for other goods and services moderated from highs at the beginning of the year, to bring overall inflation to 7.7% in the 12 months to the end of the fiscal year. Subsequently, the low agricultural harvest and high prices for agricultural imports from India pushed up food inflation sharply to bring overall inflation to 9.7% in the month of January 2014. 

The delayed presentation of a full budget, which was introduced only in the 9th month of FY2013, combined with weak implementation capacity in the government sharply curtailed total expenditure growth to 3.6%. Importantly, only 81% of the budget allocation for capital expenditure was actually spent, coming to a mere 3.1% of GDP. Strengthened revenue administration, a broadened tax base, and a boost in imports propelled tax revenue 22.6% higher, to bring total revenue including grants up to 19.8% of GDP, exceeding 18.6% a year earlier. As a result, the overall budget balance turned from deficits in recent years to a surplus equal to 0.4% of GDP.


Reflecting the central bank’s push to increase credit to productive sectors, lending to agriculture, industry, and energy picked up, and credit to the private sector grew by 20.2%, accelerating from 11.3% in the previous year. Construction, wholesale and retail trade, services, and mines saw the largest increases in lending. The increases in lending to construction, at 16.4%, and to retail and wholesale trade, at 22.9%, indicate recovery in these sectors from a slowdown in the previous year. The annual average weighted lending rate remained stable at around 12%.


The current account surplus narrowed to 3.4% of GDP, mainly on deceleration of remittance inflows and a surge in the trade deficit . Exports declined by 2.9% as demand slowed and supply-side constraints hurt competitiveness. Merchandise imports grew by 10.8%—largely because reliance on imports to meet domestic demand continued to intensify despite the weakening of Nepalese rupee, and demand for petroleum products rose—pushing the trade deficit up to 27.1% of GDP. Growth of remittance inflows eased to 11.3% after the large 26.6% expansion in the previous year, yet remittances still amounted to 25.6% of GDP. The overall balance of payments surplus moderated to $786.5 million, and foreign exchange reserves increased to $5.6 billion, equivalent to 8.9 months of imports of goods and services.


Economic prospects

The economic outlook is more optimistic than in FY2013, considering the successful second Constituent Assembly election in November 2013 (following an 18-month hiatus from the end of the first assembly), the favorable monsoon, and expected  strengthening in remittance inflows. The successful political transition to a new government has boosted business and investor confidence. The Constituent Assembly is expected to pass legislation that will promote investment in key sectors and mandate structural reforms. However, there is a downside risk of political instability arising from continued disagreement among the major political parties over unsettled constitutional and governance issues, especially those of federalism and the nature of parliament and the executive. These issues have the potential to create hurdles to drafting a new constitution like those that stymied the earlier Constituent Assembly.

Selected economic indicators (%)

2014
2015
GDP growth
4.5
4.7
Inflation
10.0
9.5
Current account balance (share of GDP)
3.6
3.7
Source: ADB estimates

Taking into account the favorable monsoon, more rapid growth of remittance inflows, and the timely introduction of a full budget—and assuming political stability—GDP is projected to grow by 4.5% in FY2014, somewhat less than the government’s target of 5.5%. Normal monsoon rains and adequate supplies of chemical fertilizers have allowed full paddy planting in most of the country. The budget—with a sharp 41.1% boost planned for expenditure and underpinned by positive political developments and clearer government direction—has strengthened business and investor confidence, and so prospects for a boost to industrial activity and exports. Higher remittance-backed consumer demand and an uptick in tourism will support services growth at around 5%. More than half of growth will come from services, and the balance largely from agriculture.

GDP growth is expected to pick up to 4.7% in FY2015, assuming a normal monsoon, a timely budget, continued strong remittance inflows, a revival in real estate and housing, and the better growth outlook in India.

Despite the improved agricultural harvest, numerous factors—wage pressures, upward adjustment of administered fuel prices, the continued weakening of the currency and high inflation in India, and persistent power shortages and other supply-side constraints—are expected to drive inflation up to 10%, well above the central bank’s targeted improvement to 8.5%. Notably, the FY2014 budget increased the civil service salary scale by 18% and provided an additional NRs1,000/month allowance for all government employees. Moreover, the minimum wage for workers outside of agriculture was raised by 29% in June 2013. Inflation is projected to ease only slightly to 9.5% in FY2015, even assuming a good harvest, an appreciable reduction of inflation in India, cautious monetary and fiscal policies, and subsiding domestic wage pressures.

The balance of payments is expected to remain strong in FY2014. Exports are projected to increase by 3.0%, reflecting improving external demand and the gain in cost competitiveness owing to currency depreciation. Imports are projected to grow by 15% on the back of an upturn in domestic demand. Despite the widening trade deficit, higher growth in remittance inflows and increased tourism will sustain a current account surplus at 3.6% of GDP, slightly improved from a year earlier. The increase in the number of migrant workers going abroad, higher pay packages, and stronger incentives to remit money as the home currency depreciates underpin a favorable outlook for remittance inflows. Assuming a further pickup in export growth, some  moderation in import demand, and a sustained advance in remittances, the current account surplus is expected to increase marginally in FY2015 to 3.7% of GDP. 

Even with a timely full budget for FY2014, capital expenditure may not be fully spent because of delays (some of them election related) affecting procurement, budget release, and the implementation of approved projects. No major tax changes have been made, and gains from ongoing revenue administration reform may not be sufficient to meet the revenue target of 19.9% set in the budget, especially if imports underperform budget forecasts. Nevertheless, with some shortfall in expenditure, the budget deficit is expected to be around 2.4% of GDP, as envisioned in the budget. 

The financial sector is stabilizing after the earlier excessive credit expansion and the subsequent break in the real estate boom in FY2011. FY2013 saw banks and other financial institutions consolidate further. The average capital adequacy ratio stands at 13.2%, well above the 10% threshold (plus 1% capital buffer), and real estate exposure continued to abate and is now well below the cap of 25% of loan portfolio that had been imposed by the central bank. Moreover, nonperforming loans declined to 3.8% of all loans. Nevertheless, banks and other financial institutions need to enhance their operational efficiency and explore further opportunities for consolidation. Credit and savings cooperatives, which fall outside of the purview of the central bank, need to be closely monitored, regulated, and supervised to ensure the soundness of the financial sector.

Sunday, March 30, 2014

Electricity shortages and productivity in India

Here is an interesting study about the impact of electricity shortages on firm productivity in India. As expected, productivity is hit negatively, but in much less intensity than revenue. This is due to the adjustments done at the firm level when there is advance knowledge of periodic outages. The main findings of the study are as follows:
  1. First, electricity shortages are a large drag on Indian manufacturing, on the order of five percent of revenue. 
  2. Second, however, electricity shortages affect productivity much less than revenue, and shortages alone certainly do not explain much of the productivity gap between firms in developing vs. developed countries. 
  3. Third, shortages have heterogeneous effects across plants with vs. without generators and with high vs. low electric intensity. Relatedly, because of economies of scale in self-generation, small plants are less likely to own generators, meaning that shortages have much stronger negative effects on small plants.

The authors conclude with the following recommendations:

Even if it is infeasible to sufficiently increase generation capacity or to raise electricity prices during periods of scarcity, our analysis suggests that two policy changes could reduce losses from shortages. First, our textile case study illustrates how advance knowledge of outages through planned power holidays can mitigate TFP losses by making additional inputs storable. Second, given that 54 percent of manufacturing plants use generators, this “distributed generation” provides production capacity that would optimally be exploited during times of scarcity. Currently, there are plants that have generators but don’t use them because they receive grid power, while other nearby plants without generators simultaneously experience outages. Mechanisms such as interruptible contracts allow plants that have lower costs of outages to reveal this to the distribution company. This allows shortages to be “targeted” at firms that can more easily accommodate them.

Here is another study on the quality of electricity supply and income growth. Chakravorty and Pelli (2013), show that 16% increase in households connected to the grid led to an increase in non-agricultural income of about 9%, and 32% increase in quality of electricity supply (decrease in the number of blackouts, or equivalently an increase in the average number of hours per day during which electricity is available) resulted in an increase in income by 28.6%.

Monday, March 24, 2014

Nepal is one of the top 10 low-income performers on the 2014 Logistics Performance Index

Nepal has made remarkable progress on logistics performance in the last two years, leading to improvement in Logistics Performance Index (LPI) 2014 rankings from 151 (out of 155 countries) in 2012 to 105 (out of 160 countries) in 2014. In fact, Nepal is one of the top 10 low-income performers on the 2014 LPI. The report also notes that Nepal and Burundi are the only two low-income countries with statistically significant changes in LPI score. In South Asia, Nepal’s ranked 5th, up from last position in 2012 and 2010.


In 2007 Nepal’s ranking was 130 (out of 150 countries) with a score of 2.14 and in 2010 its ranking was 147 (out of 155 countries) with a score of 2.2. In 2014, Nepal’s score was 2.59 with a ranking of 105 out of 160 countries.


Nepal showed improvements on all the indicators. The ranking on customs improved by 2 positions, 27 positions up on infrastructure, 47 positions up on international shipments, 39 positions up on logistics competence, 62 positions up on tracking & tracing, and 61 positions up on timeliness. It is quite remarkable that Nepal has improved its infrastructure ranking from one of the worst to 122 (out of 160 countries) in 2014.

That said, still much more needs to be done to make Nepal's supply chain efficient. Nepal not only needs to improve its infrastructure logistics (roads, rails, warehouses, telecommunications), but also efficient border management including customs clearances, administration, quality of brokers and agents, transparency, and payment systems.

Logistics Performance Index

Countries
160
155
155
150
Year
2014
2012
2010
2007
LPI
Rank
105
151
147
130
Score
2.59
2.04
2.2
2.14
Customs
Rank
123
125
130
141
Score
2.31
2.2
2.07
1.83
Infrastructure
Rank
122
149
143
144
Score
2.26
1.87
1.8
1.77
International shipments
Rank
104
151
143
131
Score
2.64
1.86
2.21
2.09
Logistics competence
Rank
107
146
143
124
Score
2.5
2.12
2.07
2.08
Tracking & tracing
Rank
87
149
140
102
Score
2.72
1.95
2.26
2.33
Timeliness
Rank
92
153
139
110
Score
3.06
2.21
2.74
2.75

The LPI is based on a worldwide survey of operators on the ground (global freight forwarders and express carriers), providing feedback on the logistics “friendliness” of the countries in which they operate and those with which they trade. The ratings are based on 6,000 individual country assessments by nearly 1,000 international freight forwarders, who rated the eight foreign countries their company serves most frequently. It is the weighted average of the country scores on the six key dimensions:
  • Efficiency of the clearance process (i.e., speed, simplicity and predictability of formalities) by border control agencies, including customs
  • Quality of trade and transport related infrastructure (e.g., ports, railroads, roads, information technology)
  • Ease of arranging competitively priced shipments
  • Competence and quality of logistics services (e.g., transport operators, customs brokers)
  • Ability to track and trace consignments
  • Timeliness of shipments in reaching destination within the scheduled or expected delivery time.