Showing posts with label Asian Development Bank. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Asian Development Bank. Show all posts

Friday, February 19, 2016

Foreign Aid 17, ADB's costly e-tricycles loan

Update on the ADB-DOE more electric tricycles, more public debt racket. Why is it a racket?
(1) 100,000 more tricycles, we need less tricycles, not more.
(2) Capex of $300 M loan, Filipino taxpayers will pay, not the ADB, DOE, DENR or LGU officials, nor the e-trike beneficiaries fully; 
(3) Opex daily electricity charging, via municipal/city hall charging stations, ultimately the taxpayers.
(4) Political clientelism, cronyism and rent-seeking, we need less of it, not more.

If those e-trikes are really cute, really financially viable, why not leave it to the market and see if operators will take on that business even without taxpayers' subsidy? Chances are beneficiaries and recipients of those e-tricycles will never get that expensive investment. P250,000 per unit alone, the  cost of battery, getting a new one as such battery won't last long, not included yet. http://www.interaksyon.com/.../fat-free-economics-foreign...

I read this story first time in August 2010. The original plan was a $280 M (P12.7 B) ADB loan, which later moved upwards to $300 M loan. With due respect to my friends who work at the ADB, but I think this is among those lousy, debt-pusher (no different from drug-pusher) attitude of the ADB in riding the climate alarmism movement.

Instead of adding 100,000 more tricycles, we should cull and remove 100,000 tricycles from the roads, encourage tricycle operators and drivers to drive instead even a 2nd-hand car or taxi. More e-trikes to "save the planet"? http://funwithgovernment.blogspot.com/.../foreign-aid-14...
  
n 2012, Greenpeace and FDC attacked this e-tricycle loan by the ADB, for a different reason. They did not want e-trike cronyism, they wanted solar power cronyism, http://www.gmanetwork.com/.../groups-protest-adb-funding...

In 2014, the estimated price of each e-trike is P250,000. Wow ADB, being the debt-pusher of this program, you really want more money from us taxpayers to pay for this expensive and lousy program ha?

And that P250k per tricycle does not include yet the daily cost of electricity charging. I doubt that the favored pol. supporters of LGUs who will receive these e-trikes will charge at home, no. They will charge at city/municipal hall. http://www.mb.com.ph/300-m-adb-loan-dims-on-higher-e.../


If ADB would lend $300 M say for double-decker buses, or the train-like bus rapid transit (BRT), or electric buses, it would have been more justified. But more tricycles? 100,000 new tricycles? P250k each? daily electricity charging at taxpayers account? ADB naman, panloloko na yan.

I hope that the next administration will cut and discontinue this lousy debt-pushing project by the ADB.
--------------

See also:

Saturday, March 21, 2015

Foreign Aid 16: ADB on OFW Remittances

A news report last Wednesday, March 18, 2015. I think the ADB President, Takehiko Nakao, is wrong here. OFW remittances are private funds, 100% of it, not PH government or ADB fund. Why would he suggest that remittances "be intermediated for public investments such as infrastructure"? 

Remittances by Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs), some $25 B last year, are several times larger, and sevveral times more useful, than foreign aid money, WB + ADB + USAID, etc. combined. Foreign aid is government to government. That is why foreign aid is often tainted with corruption and wastes. Remittances, like trade, is people to people, direct. Thus, its use is more prudent, less wasteful, more productive.

When an OFW sends money to repair their old house, or build a new, bigger house, it is "for development" as it creates lots of jobs at the grassroots, at the barangay and municipal levels. Construction workers, hardwares, furniture shops, local foremen and architects, etc. Money is received and used/consumed by the people, direct. No middlemen like bureaucracies that appropriate, disburse, monitor the money.
  
Five economist friends made good comments and reactions.

1. Jun: the very tight (BSP) regulations on banks like adopting of basel 3, stringnet KYC, AMLA, FATCA rules which appear to be motivated by protectionism that our OFWs end up remitting through undercapitalized couriers, Pawnshops and other similar entities instead of safe, well capitalized and more efficient financial institutions in the private sector. Relatives of OFs claim their money from couriers located in malls end as (mall) spending (instead of saving).

2. Joey: It depends Noy on what is "intermediated" re private funds. If it is designed like PPP where remittances are invested voluntarily, then it is still a private decision and a private fund. The process and outcome how this will come out is debatable. I'm just referring to remittance as private funds.

3. Patrick: A few bitcoin companies are realizing the PH remittance market and started to offer bitcoin remittance. Check rebit.ph, rebittance.ph and coins.ph. Completely bypasses BSP. coins.ph offers bitcoin conversion into cash via ATMs.

4. Adora: hold your horses, Noy. re-read the article. no mention of OFW remittances being treated as public funds. these will remain private. intermediation is to be done through financial inclusion (i.e., developing investment products where OFWs could invest on). it had been tried in the past through diaspora bonds but not many OFWs were able to invest (i.e., not financially inclusive enough) due to low financial literacy, among others.

5. Teresa: Noy, if the remittances are deposited in the financial system, then they can very well be intermediated. Ikaw naman - Econ 121 yan. Money and Banking.

I thanked them all for their good points. My rejoinders:

(1) It is a valid observation by Jun. More banking and financial regulations by the government (BSP in this case) make the regulated players to pass the cost of additional bureaucracy to the public -- in the form of more papers to fill up, higher bank charges. The less regulated but undercapitalized players like money couriers can act guerilla type and have many outlets, like public markets and malls. So many OFWs send their money to these couriers (LBC, Cebuana, Palawan, Western Union, etc.). The temptation for instant spending is higher if one is inside malls or public markets. And even if we assume that it is a "non-productive" spending, to eat and buy at malls, it is still the households who benefit. It may just be a once a month treat at Jollibee or McDo.

(2) On "Spending these "expended" dollars in consumables will be inflationary, but spending in development infra maybe not." may not be true. During barrio or city fiesta for instance, local and micro entrepreneurs anticipate high consumption of pork, chicken, cattle, etc. so they produce these farm products with target harvest period on those 2 or 3-days of fiesta. High household spending fueled by OFW remittances do not create permanent inflationary pressure because local supply of consumables also rise. High supply meets high demand, the price remains at its old equilibrium point.

(3) It is another proof that as government regulates more, the cost of regulations and bureaucracies are ultimately passed to the public. So other players sprout to evade regulations while offering more ease, less cost to the public.

(4) and (5) There is something wrong if ADB chief thinks that current spending by OFWs and their families are not "for development" and that "remittances should be channeled to funds that would contribute to economic development".

a. Most spending by OFWs currently are "for development" already. Like having a new, bigger house, buying a new agri or residential land, or a new tricycle or jeepney, or sending kids to more prestigious schools.

b. Most of OFW remittances are channeled to the formal banking system already. "Cash remittances Filipinos coursed through banks grew to $1.814 billion in January from $1.804 billion a year earlier."

So what is that something new that the ADB head suggests, at least from that news report? It seems nothing. Now if he suggested that PH income taxes should drastically be cut from 32 percent down to 22 or 12 percent, that is really new. Many Filipino professionals leave partly because their take home pay here is small, only 68 percent is left and from that, various consumption-based taxes and fees are further collected -- VAT, excise tax, property tax, vehicle registration tax, etc.

So Mr. Nakao is barking at the wrong tree. If the goal is "more development" for the country and OFWs and their families here, the bigger problem is not with remittances and how they are sent or spent here. The bigger problem are PH government policies, which are partly supported by foreign aid like ADB, like high personal and corporate income taxes, multiple business taxes and permits, from national down to local governments.
-------------

See also: 

Saturday, October 25, 2014

China Watch 19: The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB)

A good friend, Aiken T. alerted me to a new development in China and Asia, she wrote today,
China is initiating the formation of ASIAN INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT BANK (AIIB) to cater to roads, railways, power plants, telecoms in Asia. We don't love China but this competition to WB, ADB, IMF gives us better prospects, I believe. AIIB will prioritize hiring Chinese professionals, of course, but still it's able to increase demand effectively.

I thanked Aiken for such heads up. I googled AIIB and here are some interesting news.

(1) From the NYT, October 24, 2014,

"China and 20 other countries signed a memor-andum on Friday agreeing to create an international development bank that Beijing hopes will rival organizations like the World Bank....

Japan, Australia, South Korea and Indonesia were not represented at the signing ceremony for the bank, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, in Beijing. India joined the bank, along with Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam and the Philippines,..."

(2) From RT, October 24, 2014

China and India are backing a 21 country $100 billion Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) to challenge to the World Bank and Asian Development Bank.

Memorandum of understanding were signed with 21 Asian countries in Beijing Friday. Australia, Indonesia and South Korea were absent following hidden pressure from Washington.

The development bank was proposed a year ago by Chinese President Xi Jinping, and is to offer financing for infrastructure projects in underdeveloped Asian countries.

The bank will initially be capitalized with $50 billion, most of it contributed by China. The country is planning to increase authorized capital to $100 billion. With that amount the AIIB would be two-thirds the size of the $175 billion Asian Development Bank.

The Australian Financial Review said US Secretary of State John Kerry had personally asked Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott to “steer clear” from joining AIIB.

"Australia has been under pressure from the US for some time to not become a founding member of the bank and it is understood Mr. Kerry put the case directly to the prime minister when the pair met in Jakarta on Monday following the inauguration of Indonesian President Joko Widodo," the paper said.

(3) From Reuters, October 24, 2014

The memorandum of understanding signed on Friday said authorised capital of the bank would be $100 billion and that the AIIB would be formally established by the end of 2015 with its headquarters in Beijing, state news agency Xinhua said….

The ADB, created in 1966, offers grants and below-market interest rates on loans to lower to middle-income countries. At the end of 2013, its lending amounted to $21.02 billion, including co-financing with other development partners.

China has a 6.5 percent stake in the ADB, while the United States and Japan have about 15.6 percent each.

Conceptualized in October 2013, signed in October 2014, only one year preparation and the AIIB became a reality? Wow.  And it will be formally established by end-2015, same date as the materialization  of the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC). 

For me, these signal two things:

(1) The doves in the China Communist Party (CCP) are grappling, if not winning over the hawks. Befriending Asian governments, not alienating or fighting them.

(2) Instead of RCEP, China is using AIIB in countering US initiatives at US-Asia trade integration via the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). AIIB can be a back-door or side-door China-other Asians trade integration.

I am not a fan of the CCP and the corruption and  dictatorship  that they practice, but I think this is a better development. More trade, commerce, loans, not more jet fighters, battle ships, submarines. Let business, trade, money and foreign diplomacy do the talking, never the jet fighters and the Generals.

Aiken think this AIIB is scary because it will deepen the politics behind loans, TAs, aids. China will be able to gather more allies through AIIB.  I don't think it is scary because it is just an extension of the politics of foreign aid All foreign aid bodies (WB, ADB, IMF, etc.) are politics driven, no exception. That is why  the WB is always headed by an American, IMF is always headed by a European, ADB is always headed by a Japanese. So this AIIB will always be headed by a Chinese. 

Foreign aid by nature is government to government, so politics is 100 percent part of the equation. Thus, the AIIB can be the big Asian-government-bribery department of Beijing. All loans will have strings of course, like using Chinese consultants, engineers, suppliers, etc. 

I think it is part of the internal debate or conflict within the CCP. The dovish say, "Let us be rich via trade, commerce and AIIB" while the hawkish say, "Let us be rich via territorial occupation, get those natural gas and petroleum deposits in offshore East Asia." Both camps are corrupt of course, but still, we will have distance from the China war mongerers, including PH war freaks here who want Filipino taxpayers to send them billions of $ for the jet fighters, battle ships, submarines that they are pushing to the PH government.

I dislike BIG government, communist or democratic. But between corruption and bribery via foreign aid (whether WB or ADB or AIIB loans) and corruption and large scale defense spending via militarization and territorial grabbing/defense, the former is preferable. Choosing a lesser evil.
-------------

See also:
China Watch 15: FTA, ASEAN and UNCLOS, August 01, 2011
China Watch 16: Scarborough Shoal, Spratlys and Citizens Action, May 01, 2012
China Watch 17: Using Drones Over Scarborough, SCS, May 14, 2012

China Watch 18: Martin Jacques' Manila Lecture, November 20, 2012

Thursday, January 02, 2014

Fat Free Econ 52: Optimism in 2014

* This is my article in interaksyon.com last December 31, 2013.
---------

Another tumultuous year has passed. 2013 can be remembered as the year of huge disasters, with Typhoon 'Yolanda' (international name: Haiyan) causing death and massive destruction across several provinces in central Philippines in early December. A month before that, a big earthquake also devastated the central provinces of Bohol and Cebu.

On top of natural calamities, the Philippines also endured a political storm in the second half of this year, with the pork barrel scandal tarnishing the image of the Legislative and Executive branches of the government.

Against that backdrop, what can we expect for the Philippine economy in the coming year? Several big global institutions have produced their own economic forecast for 2013 and 2014. In a poll of some of the world's biggest private banks and securities companies, the Economist magazine came up with the following estimates:

Table 1. GDP Growth and Unemployment


Source: The Economist, December 21, 2013

Pessimism about the economic prospects of the Euro area remains this year, with Greece, Italy, Netherlands and Spain all seen to contract. In 2014, they are projected to have modest growth.
Both developed and emerging markets of Asia are seen to grow faster than the Euro area and North America. Expected to have the fastest growth in 2013 and 2014 are China (7.7 and 7.3 percent, respectively), the Philippines (7 and 6.7 percent), India (4.9 and 6 percent), Indonesia (5.6 and 5.5 percent) and Vietnam (5.5 and 5.6 percent).

All fast-growers in Asia have big populations upward of 90 million. The banks polled recognize that a larger population means more entrepreneurs and workers, more producers and consumers.

Next, we check projections by the global vanguard of macroeconomic and external account stabilization, the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Its most recent and most comprehensive report is the World Economic Outlook (WEO) released last October. We arranged the grouping of countries to be similar as that by The Economist for easier comparison of projections.

Table 2. GDP Growth in Percent (2012-2014 are projections, with growth of less than 0.1 percent marked in red)




Belgium, Italy, Netherlands and Spain are among Europe's biggest economies, and they are either crawling or backsliding. The US and Canada are performing better than those in Europe but their expansion not fast enough to compensate for sluggish growth on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean.
Asian economies -- led by China, Japan, India and South Korea, plus the other tiger and emerging markets of the continent -- continue to hum and push the world economy to modest growth. The Philippines is projected to be second to China in pace of growth this year and next year.

Next, we check the projections of the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the continent’s biggest financial institution backed up by taxpayers of many countries worldwide. The figures for 2010-2012 are from its Asian Development Outlook (ADO) released last April, while projections for 2013-2014 are from the October update.

Table 3. GDP Growth of Developing Asia




Within six months between the regular and update reports, ADB made some drastic changes in its growth projections, generally a downgrade. For this year, the lender cut its forecast for China from 8.2 to 7.6 percent; Taiwan, from 3.5 to 2.3 percent; India, from 6 to 4.7 percent; Indonesia, from 6.4 to 5.7 percent; Malaysia, from 5.3 to 4.3 percent; and Thailand, from 4.9 to 3.8 percent.
Only two countries were given an optimistic view: Bangladesh, up from 5.7 to 6.0 percent, and the Philippines, from 6.0 to 7.0 percent.

We note the same trend of downgrades for 2014, except for the Philippines. But with the destruction in property and decline in productivity brought about by Yolanda, it is not clear if the ADB and other institutions will retain their forecasts made two or three months ago.

We now look at the Philippines’ recent growth performance. From the first to third quarters this year, GDP growth stood at 7.4 percent, higher than last year's 6.7 percent. Growth for the entire 2012 stood at 6.6 percent.

The table below describes this performance, starting with the aggregate growth, then broken down into the supply side -- agriculture, industry and services -- and finally, the demand side -- household consumption (HFCE), government consumption (GFCE), investments (construction, durable equipment, etc) and net exports (exports minus imports of goods and services).

Table 4. Philippines GDP Growth, 1st to 3rd quarters of 2013



On the demand side, the industry sector this year grew rather fast compared to last year, but growth in agriculture and services slowed from last year. On the supply side, investments -- through construction and durable equipment acquisitions -- grew very fast, but there was a slowdown in both household and government consumption.

The trend for the first three quarters of the year is often assumed to represent the full-year growth as well. In 2012, for instance, growth for the first three quarters stood at 6.7 and full-year growth at 6.6 percent. With the devastation this quarter, an allowance for modest decline is to be made. My rough estimate is between 7-7.4, for a full-year expansion of 7.2 percent.

If we average the three forecasts above and the three-quarter performance, here is how the Philippines’ growth forecasts in the short term would look like. My own projection is made using actual growth data for the first three quarters of 2013.

Table 5. Philippines Growth Forecasts, 2013 and 2014

ave

A growth rate of six percent or higher will make many countries around the world salivate with envy. Aside from having a low economic base -- which tend to allow for higher growth compared to those with a higher base -- the Philippines is doing something good recently that may have been overlooked by those who tend to self-flagellate and focus on the negative too much.

Aside from ensuring solid infrastructure like reliable and cheaper electricity, more expressways to transport people and goods, dredged rivers and lakes to minimize frequent flooding in a period of global cooling, there is also a need to focus on freeing the entrepreneurial spirit of our people. Less bureaucracy, less politics, less regulation and restrictions will greatly help our people -- from ordinary workers to micro- and big entrepreneurs -- produce more goods and services. More output means more stable prices, more jobs created, and less poverty.

Hoping for a more prosperous new year.
------------- 

See also: 
Fat Free Econ 48: Jobs, Taxes and the World Bank, September 15, 2013
Fat Free Econ 49: Growth Amid Storms, December 03, 2013