By Dr Parvez Hasan
THE deepening foreign exchange crisis is all too visible. The sharp deterioration in world economic prospects, much slower growth of output and trade and likely disruption of private capital inflows from western markets add to Pakistans difficulties.
Despite some measures to improve the macroeconomic situation over the last six months, the grave underlying disequilibrium in the balance of payments persists. A comprehensive plan to deal with the situation has yet to be announced by the government, though a distinguished group of economists, led by Dr Hafiz Pasha has finalised a report for the Planning Commission. Meanwhile, urgent efforts to raise large sums of money from friendly countries and international institutions have met with only limited success as yet.
How big is the balance of payments crisis? What are its causes? What can be done to bring down the large macroeconomic imbalances and arrange necessary financing without hurting economic growth too much?
The current account balance of payments deficit during 2007-08 totalled $14 billion or over nine per cent of GDP, surpassing all records. The SBP data for the first two months of current fiscal indicates that the deficit was moving at an annual rate of over $15 billion.
The large current account balance of payments also denotes a sharp worsening of the saving investment balance. In 2007-08 nearly 45 per cent of investment was financed from foreign savings, another record.
There is little doubt that the present government inherited a very difficult economic situation. The previous regime ignored the need to adjust to severe external shocks notably the rise in international oil prices. The rise in the oil import bill from $4.7 billion in 2004-05 to $11.4 billion in 2007-08 alone has meant a loss of nearly five per cent of GDP over the last three years. Though the average GDP growth rate during 2005-08 was 6.5 per cent per annum, the national income growth adjusted for the terms of trade loss was only 4.5 per cent per annum.
The proper response to this evaporation of economic gains should have been speedy energy price adjustments, a change in the expansionary fiscal stance, a tightening monetary policy, and selective restraint on new public investments. This was not done. Growth in both consumption and investment far outstripped the availability of domestic resources. Nearly 40 per cent of the increase in consumption and investment over 2006-08 was financed from external resources including sale of assets to foreigners.
The new government is scrambling to mobilise financial resources to fill the large balance of payments gap without a further catastrophic drop in foreign exchange reserves. But short-term efforts cannot succeed unless both the international community and citizens are convinced that the government has a clear plan for restoring financial stability in the medium-term.
The attitude of citizens is important because unless their confidence is restored capital flight may continue.
The current account balance of payments needs to be brought down to a sustainable level of four per cent of GDP in 2-3 years and the reliance on external resources to finance investments should be gradually reduced to less than 20 per cent. An urgent goal of economic policy should be to reduce the deficit in 2008-09 to $ 8-9 billion or 5.5- 6 per cent of GDP. This might appear an impossible goal because it would mean cutting the deficit almost into half in the remaining part of the year from the level in the first quarter. Fortunately, the recent decline in international oil prices combined with domestic energy price adjustments could help cut the annual oil bill by as much as $2- 3 billion. Still a great restraint on both public spending and private consumption is necessary.
Despite large energy price adjustments during the last six months, public spending has not been brought under control. Though fiscal deficit figures for recent months are not available, the SBP data indicates that net government borrowing from the banking system was Rs131 billion during July-September 2008. In addition, credit to public sector enterprises increased by Rs55 billion. Thus public sector bank borrowing is running at the annual rate of over Rs700 billion or well over six per cent of GDP. The fiscal deficit obviously must be larger despite the reported improvement in government revenues last quarter.
Government borrowing from the State Bank in July-September reached record levels, much above the annual rate in 2007-08, as the government retired scheduled bank debt. While inflation caused by the rise in international commodity prices is likely to be reversed, monetary expansion has become a real threat for future inflation.
Expansion of public expenditure in critical areas such as recently announced income support programme for the poorest households and food grain subsidies for the low-income household are essential, the income support programme as announced would cost less than 0.4 of GDP. All other public expenditure requires careful scrutiny, consolidation and cutbacks.
After no growth in the 1990s, the real non-interest public spending increased by around 70 per cent over 2004-08. After such a period of rapid growth, it should be possible to eliminate waste and prune low priority expenditures without adversely effecting economic and social goals. All current expenditure (including defence) and development spending should be subject to review. Development spending should give priority to job creating short -gestation period projects.
Expenditure curtailment efforts must be combined with the renewed efforts to tax the well-to-do who have been the main beneficiaries of the recent economic boom. So far neither the governing elite nor the government has shown much appetite for mobilising larger revenues from taxation on high income earners and much under-valued property and closing the loopholes provided by absence of taxation on agriculture and capital gains. The present financial crisis must be used not only to mobilise additional revenue equal to at least two per cent of GDP over 2-3 years but also to ensure that basic unfairness of the system in which the rich substantially escape the tax net, is at least partly rectified.
A supplementary budget might be needed to implement new taxation and expenditure decisions.
Resistance to additional taxation would be strong; large increases in food and energy prices are cited as causing severe hardship. The government and the society have an obligation to help the poor who have been hurt the most. The income support programme should be even larger. However, the government cannot protect everybody in a situation where the gap between domestic spending exceeds resources by nearly 10 per cent.
Restraining consumption is always painful. But it must be recognised that during the last two years, average real private consumption grew by 10 per cent per head and as a large segment of the population apparently did not share in this increase, the gains for the top 10-20 per cent of the households must have been very sizable. This is the group that can afford belt tightening the most. Monetary incentives for increased saving by all can and should be strengthened by ensuring that depositors and savers receive positive real interest rates.
Even with very strong economic adjustment, $12-15 billion for net resource inflow will be needed for 2008-09 not only to finance the current account deficit but to restore the foreign exchange reserves at least to the end June 2008 level and preferably to the February 2008 level of $14 billion. For the subsequent two years, another $12 billion annually is likely to be needed.
It is hard to see how such a large package can be put together without the help of the IMF. There should not be any loss of prestige in going to the IMF provided the essential economic policy package is strong and home grown and the IMF agreement ensures a revival of the growth rate from say four per cent this year to six per cent in a couple of years.
Despite a dismal financial situation, Pakistan can restore high growth by focusing on agriculture, small and medium industries and exports. The exchange rate depreciation has strengthened competitiveness as recent export recovery suggests. Even though the international trade conditions would be tough especially for textiles and clothing, there remain tremendous opportunities in exports of other manufactured goods in which the country has virtually no world presence. Meanwhile, opportunities for import substitution in both agriculture and manufacturing have grown.
However, the fundamental solutions to our longer-term economic problems continue to lie in better governance, greater equity in public policies, higher productivity through investment in human capital, and last but not the least a culture that rewards, hard work, savings, and merit and punishes wrong doing.
The writer is a former chief economist of the World Bank.