Showing posts with label International Monetary Fund. Show all posts
Showing posts with label International Monetary Fund. Show all posts

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 

Thursday, March 21, 2013

Foreign Aid 15: Shrink the IMF

I forwarded my article in interaksyon, Why the IMF is irrelevant in thePhilippines, to Dr. Josef “Jop” Yap, the President of the Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS) because it was the PIDS that sponsored the forum where the IMF regional officer, Dr. Anoop Singh, spoke. Jop replied that he shared my article with the PIDS staff, thanks Jop.

He added that the IMF need not be dismantled, that it only has to refocus and should have been done in the past, but the Fund has no clout over the major country credits including the US.

I replied to Jop saying that when the IMF is into solving inequality and ensuring inclusive growth, it is simply feeling hollow and shallow and tries to step into WB and ADB forte just to make itself feel relevant in countries that do not need it. IMF should make its presence be felt strongly in Europe and North America where current account and BOP problems are annual if not daily realities.

When an economy is bleeding in its current account and overall BOP, its monetary and fiscal authorities panic and engage in heavy currency, interest rates, and capital account manipulations, plus tinkering with their taxpayers' level of patience or anger.

So I think the IMF is abolishable, or at least shrinkable. Say, dismantle their country offices even temporarily, in countries like the Philippines and many Asian economies where they are not needed now and in the short term. 

Europe and even North America are staring them in the face point blank. The bank run in tiny Cyprus and public anger over the bailout conditions, a high tax on bank deposits, is challenging the IMF to address problems on huge BOP imbalances. Uncertainty in that tiny European economy (1 million people and now needing $10 B bailout money from ECB and IMF) even has negative repercussions in the PH stockmarket. 

It is simply lousy for the IMF to announce its migration of function to solving inequality and "non-inclusive" growth, when many European economies are wobbly precisely because of their very expensive welfare system to solve inequality and non-inclusive growth there.

In the said interaksyon article, some comments were posted. I am reposting the more substantial comments and my reply to them.

Saturday, March 16, 2013

Fat-Free Econ 40: IMF Irrelevance

* This is my article today in interaksyon.com.
-------

In a forum last Wednesday at the Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS), the International Monetary Fund (IMF) director for Asia and Pacific Department, Dr. Anoop Singh, revealed a little known shift in the multilateral lender's "new" role.

According to him, their main concerns now are (a)  the rising inequality in the Philippines and other Asian economies that have been growing rather fast recently, (b) unstable macroeconomic fundamentals that can restrict potential growth, and (c) raising public finance to develop human capital and public infrastructures.

Here is one of the charts Singh showed in his talk. While inequality has stabilized in sub-Saharan Africa, or declined in the Middle East and North Africa, as well as in Latin America, inequality in the Philippines and other Asian economies has increased.


Another slide he showed pertains to the difficulty of doing business in the country -- with the Philippines ranking in the 140s globally -- and the low level of public investment in infrastructure as seen from the country's low infrastructure score.


During the open forum, I asked Singh two questions. The first is: Has the IMF become irrelevant to many Asian economies? Its focus on solving inequality and inadequate public spending on education and healthcare betrays a shift away from the lender's original mandate of helping countries suffering from balance of payments (BOP) difficulties.

The IMF was organized in 1945 to “promote international monetary cooperation… facilitate the expansion and balanced growth of international trade… promote exchange stability and avoid competitive exchange depreciation… assist in the establishment of a multilateral system of payments… and in the elimination of foreign exchange restrictions which hamper the growth of world trade… give confidence to members by making the general resources of the Fund temporarily available to them under adequate safeguards… (and) shorten the duration and lessen the degree of disequilibrium in the international balances of payments of members.” This is contained in the Articles of Agreement of the IMF, Article I.

There is hardly any BOP difficulty in Asia these days , making the region the envy of the US and the EU. In fact, in the wake of the Asian financial crisis of 1997-1998, the Asean and its three biggest neighbors -- China, Japan and Korea -- organized the Chiang Mai Initiative,  which pooled money that any signatory to the agreement can draw from in case of BOP problems.

In the case of the Philippines, it no longer owes the IMF, having graduated from the lender's fiscal and macroeconomic tutelage a few years back. On the contrary, the Philippines lent $1 billion last year to the IMF to help the EU address its fiscal difficulties.

So if the problem is back in the US and the EU -- the so-called developed regions that organized the IMF and two other institutions at Bretton Woods after the Great Depression -- the million-dollar question is why the IMF persists in sending "experts" to countries like the Philippines to pontificate about issues we already know about and the solutions to which have been discussed ad naseum?

In the same vein, is it wise for the Philippines to lend money to the IMF so it could maintain a representative in the country? Why pay so much for a bureacrat, especially when talking can be done more efficiently, if not effectively, over the Internet?

In his reply to my query, Singh said addressing social inequality can help economies sustain their growth through a more productive labor force. Sounds like someone from the World Bank or the Asian Development Bank (ADB), right?

This betrays more than just irrelevance on the part of the IMF in so far as countries like the Philippines are concerned. If you check the IMF website, then you'd discover that the lender has adopted the same line as that of the World Bank and ADB: "To foster global monetary cooperation, secure financial stability, facilitate international trade, promote high employment and sustainable economic growth, and reduce poverty around the world.”

Now this raises the issue of redundancy, which was the second question I raised during last Wednesday's forum. The IMF's fellow Bretton Woods institution, theWorld Bank was organized precisely for that: “Our work is challenging, but our mission is simple: Help reduce poverty.”

As for the ADB: “The ADB aims for an Asia and Pacific free from poverty… alleviate poverty and help create a world in which everyone can share in the benefits of sustained and inclusive growth.”

Perhaps it's time to dismantle the IMF? Enough said.
------------

See also:
Foreign Aid 2: Circuitous and Leaky Process, November 03, 2005
Foreign Aid 6: IMF is Engineerable and Abolishable, September 05, 2006
Foreign Aid 8: Abolish the IMF, August 08, 2007
IMF socialism, January 04, 2009
IMF dinosaur, let it fade away, June 16, 2009

Fiscal Irresponsibility 26: On the $1 B Philippine Loan to the IMF, June 27, 2012
Fat-Free Econ 15: IMF and Freedom From Debt, July 01, 2012