Share This

Showing posts with label World Bank. Show all posts
Showing posts with label World Bank. Show all posts

Saturday 4 February 2012

Malaysia's nothing ventured, nothing gained

Institut Pendidikan Guru Malaysia Kampus Tun A...

Nothing ventured, nothing gained

ON YOUR OWN By TAN THIAM HOCK

I had a weird start to 2012. For the first time, I joined the unemployment line. Voluntarily of course. I started working two weeks after my final examination in University Malaya back in Feb 1983 and I have never stopped working since.

Had a good month's break from writing this column and I have to admit that writing is much much more difficult than selling lipsticks! Mighty pleased that I am not making a living out of this writing profession ... or my family will be starving at this moment. No holidays. No iPhones and no I want this and I want that.

To some concerned readers, no, I was not banned from writing nor was I terminated by Star Publications (M) Bhd CEO. I did receive some formal complaints from some sensitive officials from government agencies and sovereign funds but no RM100mil defamation suits ... yet. As such, I do not have to apologise in public to anybody. So far, so good. No shame.

Writing this column forces me to recall snippets of historical events that had pass me by. Looking back, an event that happened 31 years ago could have changed Malaysian history. And your current cost of living.

In 1981, I was in AIESEC, University Malaya involved in organising the Heavy Industries seminar, at a time when our Dr M decided to launch the national car project. Our economics professor, Dr Chee Peng Lim was adamantly against the car project, arguing that Malaysia should concentrate her resources on modernising agriculture, invest in infrastructure and resource-based manufacturing.



He further argued that unlike Japan and South Korea, Malaysia has a small domestic market and we will not achieve the economy of scale that will help make us cost competitive for the export market. It would be an extremely inefficient allocation of economic resources if we were to proceed with the car project.

It was rumoured then that Dr Chee had to leave the country and he subsequently joined the World Bank. No opportunity to confirm this rumour but what a great story!

Commodity prices are at its highest in years. Felda pioneer settlers are all millionaires. Malaysian rubber gloves dominate the world market. And Proton is still in a poor state of affairs. Proton still needs the protection of the Government to compete in the local market. It has never been able to compete in the world market. With or without Lotus. It never will. Dr Chee was right.

To be fair, Proton did generate some economic benefits. It spawned many entrepreneurs with investments in car parts, logistics, etc and it created jobs. Billionaire entrepreneurs were also created ... from papers. That's right. From AP papers that costs a few cents to print. So, why bother to sell cars when it is more lucrative to sell a piece of paper? In the meantime, the poor rakyat has to pay some of the highest car prices in the world.

There is no better place in the world for entrepreneurship to flourish than Malaysia. The best projects are privatisation projects. Buy an airline from the Government with maximum loans from our GLC banks. If you manage it well, then you are a successful entrepreneur. If not, no worries. The Government will buy it back from you at the same price. So, you wasted your precious time but hey ... nothing ventured, nothing gained, right? You will never ever suffer personal losses. Only occasional lawsuits.

Back in the good old days before LRT, we had a haphazard public transport system of mini-buses and many bus companies. But it worked. In true entrepreneurship spirit, supply meets demand. And the mass could travel everywhere by bus. Many choices and on time arrivals.

Then the Government decided to upgrade the public transport system by centralising and privatising. All the old Omnibus companies folded. Tong Fong Omnibus, Klang Omnibus and Ah Hock Omnibus. Conservative entrepreneurs who toil over long hours and small margins. Good riddance though to those crazy and dangerous mini-bus drivers.

Brilliant entrepreneurs were roped in to invest in modern air-conditioned buses. Easy loans were arranged. Modern management techniques were employed. Monopolistic routes were divided and spread among these entrepreneurs. But still they lose money? Now they claim that they are providing a social service to the rakyat. “Compensate us for the losses or we will stop running the buses.” The rakyat was held to ransom.

With election looming, neither the opposition state government nor the federal government could afford the backlash from the rakyat. The rakyat's money was used again to pay inefficient and hopeless entrepreneurs. No shame. No shame.

Entrepreneurs invest in business knowing that the risk of failure is ever present. So you work hard and you work smart. You try your best. If it works, great. If you fail, just swallow your pride and walk away. Don't go begging for help especially if it is the rakyat's money. And don't you dare hold the rakyat to ransom again.

In the ETP seminar, Datuk Seri Idris Jala said inefficient entrepreneurs should be eliminated in a free enterprise economy. I agree. The politicians and the bureaucrats should manage the rakyat's money as if it's their own or the rakyat will hold them accountable in the polls.

Dr Chee, wherever you are, thank you for the invaluable lecture.

On Your Own The writer is an entrepreneur who hopes to shares his experience and insights with readers who want to take that giant leap into business but are not sure if they should. Email him at thtan@alliancecosmetics.com

Saturday 28 January 2012

Yuan or not to Yuan? Yuan way to new monetary order

  A 'grown-up' yuan means a more stable world economy

WHAT ARE WE TO DO By TAN SRI LIN SEE-YAN

CHINESE New Year has come and will soon go. The eurozone debt crisis is well past two years. Yet uncertainty persists. The World Bank's January 2012 Global Economic Prospects reports:
:
:

World economy has entered a very difficult phase characterised by significant downside risks and fragility and as a result, forecasts have been significantly downgraded. However, even achieving these much weaker outturns is very uncertain Overall, global economic conditions are fragile.”

This week's IMF World Economic Outlook says more of the same: “The global recovery is threatened by intensifying strains in the euro area and fragilities elsewhere.” China, India, South Africa and Brazil have entered a slowing phase.

No country and no region can escape the consequences of a serious downturn. Nevertheless, growth in the East Asia and Pacific region (excluding Japan) is expected to slowdown to about 7.8% in 2012 (8.4% in 2011) and stabilise in 2013.

This reflects continuing strong domestic demand (evident in third quarter or 3Q 2011 GDP) while exports will slow to about 2% due to Europe heading towards recession and sluggish rich “Organisation For Economic Coercion And Direction (OECD)” demand.

The middle-income nations are, I think, in a good position to weather the global slowdown, with significant space available for fiscal relaxation, adequate room for interest rate easing, ample high reserves and rather strong underpinning for domestic demand to rise.

I see the modest easing in China's growth being counterbalanced by a pick-up in GDP gains in 2013 over the rest of the region. Outside China, growth has slackened sharply to 4.8% in 2011 (6.9% in 2010), but is expected to strengthen in 2012, reaching 5.8% in 2013.

China

GDP growth in China, which accounts for 80% of the region, had eased to about 9.1% in 2011 (10.4% in 2010) and is expected to slacken further to a still robust 8.2%-8.4% in 2012.

The World Bank projections point to growth moderating at 8.3% in 2013, in line with its longer-term potential GDP. Expansion is expected to emanate from domestic demand, with private spending and fixed capital outlays contributing most of the growth in 2012.

For China, the health of the global economy and high-income Europe in particular, represents the key risk at this time. Domestic risks include property overheating, local government indebtedness, and bloating bank balance sheets.

The 4Q 2011 growth of 8.9% annoy investors who are looking for indications either weak enough to justify further policy easing or strong enough to allay fears of a hard landing. Bear in mind the forecast growth for 2012 will be the weakest in a decade, and may cool further as exports slump.

The Chinese economy is buffeted by two very different forces: (i) slow global growth will hurt Chinese exports (especially to its largest trading partner, European Union) which rose by 7% in December, and exporters foresee more trouble ahead; however, (ii) analysts point to strong retail sales (up 18% in December) reflecting rising wages and domestic spending which represented about 52% of GDP in the first quarter, higher than in 2009-11.

China is counting on its massive effort to build low-income “social housing” to provide enough demand to keep the real-estate market from collapsing.

It is unclear whether China can accelerate this program to build 36 million subsidised housing by 2015enough to house all of Germany's households. But financial markets are anticipating worse news ahead. After all, the Shanghai Composite Index fell 21% in 2011. As the adage goes, stock analysts did forecast 10 of the past 3 recessions!



The yuan

Appreciation of the yuan (renmimbiRMB) against the US dollar in 2012 is expected to slow to about 3%, from +4.7% in 2011. The yuan closed at 6.3190 at end 2011, up about 8% compared with June 10 (when China effectively ended its 2-year long peg to the US dollar and has gained 30% since mid-2005 when it was last revalued.

The slowdown reflects growing demand for the US dollar amid uncertainty, lower growth, diminishing trade surplus, and growing US military presence in Asia, according to China's Centre for Forecasting Science (of the Chinese Academy of Sciences) which reports directly to the State Council, China's Cabinet.

Much of it will be in the latter year as China is likely to keep the yuan relatively stable in the first half to allow time to assess the impact of goings-on in the euro-zone. Dollars are pumped in via state banks, providing markets with a clear signal it will not allow the yuan to depreciate, while not in a hurry to let it appreciate either. The yuan has since moved sideways.

Off-shore yuan

To make the yuan a true reserve currency, China begun to liberalise currency controls and encourage an offshore yuan market in Hong Kong, creating an outlet for moving the currency across borders. However, foreign investors in China have been slow in using the yuan.

In practice, it is still difficult to buy & sell yuan because of paperwork & bureaucracy. It is still easier to settle in US dollar as it is the universal practice. Its convenience outweighs the potential costs of any unfavourable move in the US dollar-yuan rate. Nonetheless, China is encouraging more businesses to use the yuan and more US banks to step-up their yuan-settlement business.

This market will grow as China diligently moves to internationalise its currency. Encouraged by the authorities, a vibrant offshore yuan market has blossomed in Hong Kong. Beijing still controls the currency and how the yuan bought in Hong Kong can be brought back to China.

Yuan deposits in Hong Kong rose more than 4 times to 622.2b yuan (nearly US$100bil) at end September 2011 from a year earlier according to the Hong Kong Monetary Authority, and now account for 10.4% of bank deposits.

Growth in offshore yuan stalled in late 2011 as China slowed its currency appreciation against the dollar. Given Beijing's gradualist approach to reform, the market will soon revive.

An audience poll at the recent 2012 Asian Financial Forum in London indicated 63% believes full yuan convertibility is more than 5-years away.

The very fact that London wants to be a yuan-trading centre now says a lot. Only 10% of China's international trade is settled in yuan, rising to 15% in 2012. It's still a small market in the global context.

The yuan is used for just 0.29% of all global payments in November 2011 according to financial messaging network Swift. By comparison, the euro's share is about 40%.

Dim-sum bonds

A booming business in dim-sum bonds (offshore yuan denominated bonds) followed, with companies including Caterpillar and McDonalds issuing such bonds. In September 2011, a spurt of capital flight towards “safe haven” assets in the US tied to the worsening debt crisis in Europe caused currencies of emerging nations to depreciate against the US dollar.

In East Asia, modest declines were recorded compared with South Africa (the rand fell 22%) and Brazil (the real dropped 18%). Only the Indonesia rupiah (down 5.8%) and the Malaysia ringgit (fell 5.4%) come under some pressure.

This event slowed the appreciation of the yuan and with it, trading in dim-sum bonds eased as investors were no longer in a hurry to invest. Over the medium-term, most analysts expect this yuan market to grow in the face of its massive US$3.18 trillion in reserves, as China moves to build its international status.

When dim-sum bonds started to hit the market in 2010, investors were enthusiastic, bidding up prices and driving down yields. But in the second half of 2011, the average price of investment grade dim-sum bonds fell 3.3%, amid a broad flight towards quality spooked by euro-zone turmoil and Chinese accounting scandals.

Bankers hope new entrants (private banks, commercial banks, mutual funds & life insurers) will give the market more stability this year. They would add depth & breath to the market, which tripled to 185b yuan (US$30bil) in dim-sum bonds issued in 2011. Expectations are for such bond issuance to reach 240 billion yuan this year, as new issuers (including more foreign companies) join early adopters such as government entities & state run banks.

This offshore bond market has developed well over the past year. Investor diversification in both types & geographics is still evolving, which is key to the healthy growth of the market. Equally important, investors look to the continuing appreciation of the yuan.

In addition, its average yield has risen to 3.8% (from 2.35% since mid 2011) and most now trade at higher yields than comparable US dollar bonds.

This rise in yields reflects expectation for (i) slower yuan appreciation; (ii) increase in supply; and (iii) investors desire for a higher liquidity premium during market downturns. Overall, the dim-sum market is turning into a buyer's market.

Bilateral arrangements

China is forging ahead in laying the groundwork to internationalise the yuan via bilateral arrangements with foreign companies, nations & financial centers, particularly Hong Kong (mainly because it can fully control the terms of the market). More mainland-based financial institutions will be able to issue yuan denominated bonds in Hong Kong.

This is part of a broader effort, first started in July 2009 when it encouraged enterprises in Shanghai & Guangzhou province to use the yuan when settling trade with Hong Kong, Macau and some foreign companies (see my column “China: RMB Flexibility Not Enough” of July 3, 2010).

The post-X'mas direct yuan-yen trade deal forms part of a wide-ranging currency arrangement between China & Japan to give the use of the yuan a big boost. After all, China is Japan's largest trading partner with 26.5 trillion yen in 2-way transactions last year. Encouraging direct settlement in bypassing the US dollar would reduce currency risks and trading costs. Also, Japan will buy up to US$10bil in yuan bonds for its reserves even though it represents no more than 1% of Japan's US$1.3 trillion reserves. And, it is now easier for companies to convert Chinese and Japanese funds directly into each other without an intermediate conversion to US dollar. About 60% of China-Japan trade is settled in US dollar, a well-established practice.

The package allows Japan backed institutions to sell yuan bonds in the mainland (instead of Hong Kong) helping to open China's capital market.

In recent weeks, China has taken new steps to promote the use of yuan overseas, including allowing foreign firms to invest yuan accumulated overseas in mainland China; widening the People's Bank of China (its central bank) network of currency swaps with other central banks to enable their banks to supply yuan to their customers, including with Thailand, South Korea and New Zealand totalling 1.2 trillion yuan.

It already has completed arrangements with the big Asean counterparts. Berry Eichengreen (University of California at Berkeley) observed: “Japan appears to be acknowledging implicitly that there will be a single dominant Asian currency in the future and it won't be the yen.”

But Harvard's Jeffrey Frankel is more down to earth: “This hastens a multicurrency world, but this is just one of 100 steps along the way.”

China still has a way to go in: (i) getting the yuan fully convertible (ii) reducing exchange rate interventions (iii) liberalising interest rates, and (iv) reforming the banking system. In all, so the yuan can really trade freely.

What to do?

The China-Japan deal points the way, nudging the yuan towards the inevitable becoming a reserve currency alongside now discredited US dollar and the euro. This is to be welcomed by all.

China must realise a fully internationalised yuan should be free to float (and to appreciate) part of its overall reform. Over the longer term, though, avoiding huge imbalances is good for everyone, not least China. While it is understandable for its Prime Minister to label China today as “unstable, unbalanced, uncoordinated and ultimately unsustainable,” opportunities to take advantage of new openings don't come often.

Alexander Gerschenkron, my professor at Harvard (in my view, the best economic historian of his time) points to economies like China as having “advantages in backwardness,” including China's ability to weather shocks: high reserves, robust fiscal situation and comfortable external position.

Shakespeare's Hamlet sums it up best: “If it be not now, yet it will come - the readiness is all.” A grown-up yuan is good for China's welfare.

It also means a more stable world economy which benefits the United States. For China, there will never be enough cushion. Politicians need to seize the moment and act boldly.

Former banker, Dr Lin is a Harvard educated economist and a British Chartered Scientist who now spends time writing, teaching & promoting the public interest. Feedback is most welcome; email: starbizweek@thestar.com.my


To Yuan or not to Yuan, that is the question

The government of Zimbabwe is considering using China's Yuan as their national currency.

China has reportedly been offered mining rights by Mugabe, despite protests [EPA]
Bulawayo, Zimbabwe - From downtown shops that stock cheap clothing and shoes that fall apart after one wear, to mining concessions in platinum, gold and diamonds - the Chinese finger is now in virtually every Zimbabwean pie.

From city sidewalks to low-income suburbs, the Chinese have become part of the local population, and if some senior government bureaucrats have their way, the country could soon find itself adopting the Chinese Yuan as its official currency.

For some influential monetary policy czars, the massive assailing of the Zimbabwean economy by the Chinese now only requires the Yuan to strengthen these economic reconstruction efforts.

Invited by President Robert Mugabe as part of his infamous 2004 "Look East" policy to help drive the economy and employment creation, after relations with former traditional investment partners the European Union and United States soured, China has been able to create its own little sphere of influence and establish an ubiquitous presence in Zimbabwe.




Zimbabwe looks to China for economic revival
This is despite being unpopular with Zimbabwe's industrial and commercial players - and general members of the public who accuse the Chinese of poor labour practices and shoddy goods and services.

Late in 2011, Reserve Bank governor Gideon Gono, seen by many as a close ally of Mugabe, announced he was in favour of having the Chinese Yuan as the country's official currency. After the Zimbabwean dollar was suspended in 2008, the country has been using a multi-currency regime, which includes the use of the US dollar, the South African rand and the Botswana pula.

According to Gono, the Chinese Yuan would be introduced alongside the Zimbabwean dollar. Mugabe's political supporters have been calling for currency reforms to bring back the Zimbabwean dollar.

"With the continuous firming of the Chinese Yuan, the US dollar is fast ceasing to be the world's reserve currency and the eurozone debt crisis has made things even worse," Gono told state media in November.
"As a country, we still have the opportunity to avoid being caught napping, by adopting the Chinese Yuan as part of consolidating the country's 'Look East' policy.

"It's only recently when we had the startling revelations, with Angola offering to bail out her former colonial master Portugal from her debt crisis. This can also happen with Zimbabwe if we choose the right path," Gono added.

He continued: "If we continue with our 'Look East' policy, it will not be long [until] we will also be volunteering to bail out Britain from her debt crisis, and I will not wait for my creator's day before this happens. There is no doubt that the Yuan, with its ascendancy, will be the 21st century's world reserve currency."

'Handing over' the country?

Officials from Mugabe's Zimbabwe African National Union - Patriotic Front see huge potential in using the Yuan, citing the growth of the Chinese economy under BRICS, which brings together emerging global economic powerhouses Brazil, India, China and South Africa.

But not everyone is as upbeat about such prospects.

There are concerns that this could mean "handing over" the country to the Chinese, who already have been offered huge mining rights by Mugabe - despite protests from his coalition government partners. The country's finance minister, Tendai Biti, has said that Mugabe was forfeiting state resources to China, whom critics are calling "Africa's new coloniser".

Economist Eric Bloch said "it is not practical" for Zimbabwe to adopt the Chinese Yuan.

"Zimbabwe won't have any interaction with international markets, as the US dollar remains the standard currency in international trade," Bloch explained.

With China increasingly being touted to overtake the US as the world's largest economy, the temptation to embrace all things Chinese has proven too much to resist for poor economies across the globe, contends Tafara Zivanayi, an economics lecturer at the University of Zimbabwe.

"There has been false hope given to Chinese economic growth, with many African countries imagining they can transfer this growth to their own economies," Zivanayi said.

"Such decisions (to adopt a foreign currency) as usually based on international trade indices and monetary policies of the country where the currency is domiciled. Even if there have been projections that the Chinese economy will surpass the US economy, this won't happen overnight," Zivanayi said.

"There are still concerns about Chinese penetration of international, especially low income, markets and creating wealth for itself and not host countries," Zivanayi said.

Even traders who have long ridiculed cheap Chinese products and have no grasp of international trade intricacies find themselves offering opinions about the prospects of adopting the Chinese Yuan.

"As long as things have worked fine for us using the American dollar, why change that formula?" asked Thabani Moyo, a commuter omnibus driver. His colleagues, who are struggling to handle giving change in the basket of currencies they receive, nodded in agreement.

Gono and other opponents of US currency cited this lack of change in coins as a reason why Zimbabwe needed to adopt a single currency or revert to its own, previously useless, dollar.

However, during the presentation of the national budget for the 2012 fiscal year, Biti told parliament that Zimbabwe would continue using US currency until the economy stabilised.

Not everyone supports the introduction of the Chinese Yuan. "We want real money, not zhing-zhong," taxi driver Jourbet Buthelezi said, referring to the pejorative term Zimbabweans use for sub-standard Chinese goods.

A version of this article was first published on Inter Press Service.
Source:
IPS

Thursday 19 January 2012

World Bank warning of another global recession; Mier: Worse to come!

The World Development Report 2011
Image via Wikipedia
(Shanghai Daily)
 
THE World Bank is warning developing countries to prepare for the "real" risk that an escalation in the eurozone debt crisis could tip the world into a slump on a par with the global downturn in 2008/09.

In a report sharply cutting its world economic growth expectations, the World Bank said Europe was probably already in recession. If the debt crisis deepened, global economic forecasts would be significantly lower.

"The sovereign debt crisis in the eurozone appears to be contained," Justin Lin, chief economist for the World Bank, said in Beijing yesterday. "However, the risk of a global freezing-up of the markets as well as a global crisis similar to what happened in September 2008 is real."

The World Bank predicted world economic growth of 2.5 percent in 2012 and 3.1 percent in 2013, well below the 3.6 percent growth for each year projected in June.



"We think it is now important to think through not only slower growth but sharp deteriorations, as a prudent measure," said Hans Timmer, the bank's director of development prospects.

The report said if the eurozone debt crisis escalates, global growth would be about 4 percentage points lower. It forecast that high-income economies would expand just 1.4 percent in 2012 as the eurozone shrinks 0.3 percent, sharp revisions from growth forecasts last June of 2.7 percent and 1.8 percent respectively.

It cut its forecast for growth in developing economies to 5.4 percent for 2012 from its previous forecast of 6.2 percent.

It saw a slight pick up in growth in developing economies in 2013 to 6 percent. But the report said threats to growth were rising.

It cited failure so far to resolve high debts and deficits in Japan and the United States and slow growth in other high-income countries.

On top of that, political tensions in the Middle East and North Africa could disrupt oil supplies and add another blow to global prospects.

China's growth - forecast in the report at 8.4 percent - could help bolster imports and gives it "big fiscal space" to respond to changing conditions, Lin said.

But the World Bank report added: "No country and no region will escape the consequences of a serious downturn." 

Newscribe : get free news in real time  

Mier: Worse to come

By LEONG HUNG YEE  hungyee@thestar.com.my

Eurozone crisis, slower China growth likely to hurt economy

KUALA LUMPUR: The Malaysian Institute of Economic Research (MIER) expects gross domestic product (GDP) for 2011 to be 4.9% but to decelerate to 3.7% in 2012.

MIER executive director Dr Za-kariah Abdul Rashid said this year would not be as bad as 2008 or 2009 but might not be as good as 2011, pulled down by the eurozone crisis as well as slower growth in China's economy.

He said if the eurozone crisis turned worse, the country's economy might be affected and the GDP could reach the 2008/2009 level.

“There's some avenue if the Government wants to spur the economy by spending on development. It will depend on the private sector whether our economy turns out to be strong this year,” Zakariah said at a briefing to present Malaysia's economic outlook.

Zakariah: ‘The private sector has done a lot for the economy.’

“However, the private sector has done a lot for the economy. We can't expect much more from the private sector.”

He said MIER had previously forecast 2011 GDP growth to be 4.6% but revised it upwards after looking at the latest numbers and the crisis in the eurozone.

“Growth in the last quarter of 2011 is expected to be much lower on account of external developments. The latest monthly economic indicators are already suggesting that,” MIER said in a report.

It added that economic growth would likely get “bumpier” in the months ahead.

Meanwhile, Zakariah said that there was “room for 25 to 50 basis-point downward revision” in the overnight policy rate (OPR). However, he said the revision would depend on the situation and had to be done vigilantly.

Based on MIER's Business Conditions Index (BCI), the business sentiment had worsened from the second quarter of last year. The BCI fell to 96.6 in the fourth quarter of 2011, the first time it had dipped below the 100 threshold since the fourth quarter of 2010.

“It usually shows a contraction mode when the index sinks below 100. The BCI had been dropping since the second quarter of 2011,” Zakariah said.

Sales, local and foreign orders, as well as capacity utilisation were significantly lower in the fourth quarter of 2011, with companies expecting to scale back production over the next three months as inventory builds up.

Concurrently, consumer sentiment also fell to a two-year low of 106.3 on the Consumer Sentiments Index as household incomes lost momentum, and finances and job became a growing concern.

Zakariah said the index pointed out that consumers were also holding on to purchasing big tickets items as spending plans took a backseat.

Separately, Zakariah said it would be better for the Government to call for general elections early as uncertainty over the nation's political future would hurt the economy.

He said private investors were currently holding back investments on concerns that government policies could change due to the political climate here.

“If you ask me as an economist, I would rather see the problem solved once and for all. The earlier they settle the political matters, the better, we can focus on the economy.

“Right now everything is still hanging. People are postponing because of the elections. So if they settle it once and for all and immediately, it would be better,” Zakariah said.  

Saturday 3 December 2011

We need to talk about capitalism, say CEOs



Simon Mann

Professors from the Harvard Businees School have identified ten major threats to capitalism. Professors from the Harvard Businees School, above, have identified ten major threats to capitalism. Photo: Greg Newington

Three professors from the world's pre-eminent business school have co-written a study that at first blush looks to fall more into the genre of horror story than business text.

But in identifying 10 powerful forces that threaten the existence of the capitalist system - the most successful engine of economic growth the world has known - the dons of the Harvard Business School appear to have drawn a line connecting the fears of the boardroom and those of the protesters of the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Income disparity, resource depletion and potentially cataclysmic climate change were recognised by CEOs in a series of conversations conducted by Harvard as among the potential ''disruptors'' of global prosperity. The financial meltdown of 2008 and the Occupy movement are clear manifestations of those fears.



''And we would expect more [of the same],'' says co-author Joseph Bower. ''Because people really feel outraged.''

Professor Bower and his colleagues note in their study the broad concerns of the 46 business thinkers brought together in forums on three continents, but by far the most widely held was ''the tendency of capitalism, as it currently functions, to produce extreme disparities of income and wealth''.

Said one unidentified Asian business leader: ''Herein lies a major challenge, because the world has become very much more prosperous as a result of market capitalism. The rich have become richer. The poor in most cases have become richer. But the gap between the rich and the poor has grown wider … There is the growing sense of being left out, even as people are getting better off.''

One European executive said: ''What was the good of capitalism? Was it the fact that we were building a very large, very well off - not wealthy but well off - middle class? We are not doing this any more.''

The Harvard project coincided with the Business School's centenary. What better way to celebrate it than to examine the state of the system that had nurtured its own rise to prominence? By then, it had conferred nearly 56,000 MBAs on men and women, many of whom went on to head prominent companies in the US and around the world.

The school brought together chief executives and business leaders in 2007 and early 2008 for its series of discussions. They included Australia's David Murray, the former Commonwealth Bank boss who is now chairman of the Future Fund.

Using its famous case-method approach to inquiry, it took as a starting point the then most recent World Bank growth projections and batted around the issues. Capitalism at Risk: Rethinking the role of business, just published, is the result.

Joining in the talks were executives such as Jeffrey Immelt of General Electric, John Elkann of Fiat and Bertrand Collomb of Lafarge.

That capitalism has delivered for billions is not at issue: in the last decades of the 20th century, 97 per cent of countries enjoyed increased wealth, according to the World Bank. But the executives cited as potential threats the powerful forces within financial markets, environmental degradation and political populism, terrorism and war, migration and pandemics.

''History tells us that when an awful lot of people are disenfranchised, they have no incentive to play by the rules, and given today's communications availability, weaponry … that's an issue we have to really think about,'' one said.

Unsurprisingly, they back business, not government, to ameliorate strains on the system through innovation and activism. ''Good government is crucial, to be sure,'' write the Harvard professors. ''But government … needs the support and engagement of business to function effectively.''

In the US, the argument for higher taxes on the wealthy has coalesced around billionaire investor Warren Buffett, who has become a poster boy for the Obama's administration's campaign to raise revenues, resisted by Republicans.

''Finding a way to mobilise the entire relevant business community - and others - to help support the needed taxes simply makes sense,'' the Harvard dons conclude.

Monday 14 November 2011

Is the U.S. Worsening as a Place to Start a Business?



By Scott Shane, Contributor from Forbes

While the United States remains a great place to do business, it’s been slipping as a place to start a business, according to the World Bank’s annual “Doing Business” publication.

In 2012, the U.S. was the fourth best country in the world to do business in, coming in behind Singapore, Hong Kong and New Zealand.  That’s only slightly worse than we were five years ago before the Great Recession hit.

As a place to start a business, things aren’t as good.  It now costs twice as much to start a company as five years ago – 1.4 percent of per capita income versus 0.7 percent.

We are also slipping in how easy it is to start a business as compared to other nations.  As the chart below shows, we were fourth in this category in 2007.  This year we were number 13.

Source: Created from Data from the World Bank’s “Doing Business” reports, various



The World Bank measures 184 countries, so we don’t need to get out the worry beads yet.  Scoring worse than Macedonia, Georgia, Rwanda, Belarus, Saudi Arabia and Armenia might be embarrassing, but few entrepreneurs will choose those countries over the United States. And few American entrepreneurs are moving elsewhere to start companies.

But remaining behind New Zealand, Australia, and Canada year after year should cause those in Washington to take notice.  Policies to bring more foreign entrepreneurs to the United States won’t work very well if those entrepreneurs find it easier and cheaper to start their businesses in countries like Australia and Canada.

 Newscribe : get free news in real time 

Saturday 29 October 2011

Towards a multi-polar international monetary system

IMF nations

THINK ASIAN By ANDREW SHANG

IMF cannot create sufficient credit to help resolve growing financial crises 

MOST people think of the international monetary system as an architecturally designed system made in Bretton Woods at the end of the Second World War. This may be true for the international financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund or the World Bank, but the existing system is a messy legacy of rules, regulations and foreign exchange systems and institutions that facilitate trade and payments between countries.

Unlike a national monetary system, where there is one currency issued by the national central bank and national agencies responsible for financial stability, there is currently no global central bank, no global financial regulator and no global finance ministry. In short, we have global financial markets, but no global mechanism to deal with periodic crises, except through the (sporadic) consensus views of national policy-makers.

This was not a problem when the United States was the dominant power in the 1950s and 1960s. But this changed when the United States dropped the link to gold in 1971. From then on, the international monetary system was largely driven by decisions between the United States and Europe, which collectively owned the majority of the voting power in the IMF. Needless to say, the emerging markets had little say, since they were the major beneficiaries of aid and funding from the IMF and the World Bank.

In 1975, the Group of Six (G6) formally came into being, comprising the United States, UK, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, with Canada being added to form G7 the next year. Basically G7 leaders met regularly and decided most of the decisions for the international monetary system. The G7 accounted for roughly half of world GDP, but essentially ran the global financial system.

The grouping was only widened in 1997 when the heads of the United Nations, World Bank, IMF and WTO were invited to join the regular G7 meetings. In 1998, Russia was added to form G8, but with the outbreak of the Asian crisis, the need for more global representation let to the formation of G20 in 1999. The G20 collectively account for 80% of world GDP and two-thirds of the world population.



The reason why the international monetary system is not functioning smoothly is that decision-making lies in the hands of sovereign nations, not the global institutions. A unipolar system is alright as long as the dominant power is stable. This is not necessarily true in a multipolar system, because even obvious decisions cannot have consensus, because of different national interests.

If we keep on thinking about reforming the international monetary system in national terms, can we arrive at a more effective system in promoting global trade and payments and maintaining global financial stability?
For example, the debate over the role of the US dollar and the emergence of the renminbi is seen as threats to the status quo. This is understandable, but money and finance are not ends in themselves, but means to an end of global prosperity and stability.

The real question is what is the global financial system supposed to do, and what is the best way to achieve it?

In the immediate post-war period, there was a shortage of US dollars. Hence, the IMF was created to provide liquidity and foreign exchange reserves for the post-war reconstruction. The United States ran current account surpluses, held most of the world's gold reserves and everyone wanted dollars. Today, because of the Triffin Dilemma, the continuous US current account deficits gave rise to the Global Imbalance, thought to be the cause of the current crisis.

One theory goes something like this. East Asia went into crisis in the 1990s, built up large foreign exchange reserves and current account surpluses and these surplus savings reduced global interest rates and caused the advanced markets to lose monetary control. However, that is not the complete story. There is increasing awareness that the global shadow banking credit was pumping out leveraged liquidity that may have caused national monetary policies to lose effectiveness.

In other words, instead of shortage of global liquidity, we have too much liquidity sloshing around global financial markets, so much so that most central banks are debating how to prevent such liquidity creating asset bubbles, banking crises or over-appreciation of the exchange rate that haunted Japan and East Asia. You either deal with this through self-insurance, building up large exchange reserves, or you allow the IMF to become the provider of liquidity when you need it.

Most countries do not like IMF imposing stiff conditions and they discovered quickly that the IMF has no teeth when you are not a borrower.

This is the real dilemma of the current international monetary system. Do we seriously want a global institution to re-balance the global economy through carrots and sticks? If so, each nation would have to give up sovereign power to the IMF.

Currently, the IMF cannot fulfill the disciplinary role against the large shareholders nor can it create credit sufficiently to help resolve the growing financial crises. IMF resources are roughly US$400bil and it would have to be increased by a factor of five, before you have enough resources to deal with the European debt crisis. No single country nor group of countries can deal with such exponential growth of the global financial system, last measured as US$250 trillion in conventional financial assets and US$600 trillion in nominal value of derivatives.

In sum, there are structural issues on the global system to be thought through, before you consider the technical question whether surplus country currencies like the renminbi should be included into the SDR basket of currencies as the global reserve currency.

The reality is that no country will forever be in surplus, and sooner or later, deficit countries will have to borrow from the international pool of savings.

In the absence of a coherent global consensus on what to do, muddling through from crisis to crisis seems to be the likely way forward.

In short, don't expect the dollar dominated system to change a lot unless there is another systems crash.
Andrew Sheng is president of the Fung Global Institute.

Monday 3 October 2011

Euro fallout is bad news for world economy

Eurozone map in 2009 Category:Maps of the EurozoneImage via Wikipedia


Global Trends By Martin Khor

The IMF-World Bank meetings last week confirmed the global economy has entered the ‘danger zone’ of a new downturn and possibly recession. This time it could be more serious and prolonged than the 2008-2009 recession. 

THE last two weeks have seen a clear downward shift in expectations on the global economy. The dominant view now is that the world has slipped into stagnation that may well become a recession.

Warnings that the economy had entered a “danger zone” generated the gloomy mood at the annual Washington gathering of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, as well as the G20 finance ministers’ meeting.

Prominent economists are predicting the new crisis will be more serious and prolonged than the 2008-09 recession.

If the United States and its sub-prime mortgage mess was the immediate cause of the last recession, the epicentre this time is the European debt crisis.

The eurozone’s GNP grew by only 0.2% in the second quarter, and the European Commission predicts the rates will be 0.2% and 0.1% in the third and fourth quarters.

As the domino effect of contagion hit one European country after another (rather like how Asian countries were affected in 1998-99), European leaders have scrambled for a solution.

But none has worked so far.

In the Greek debt tragedy, the government has had to announce one painful austerity measure after another, but its economic condition continues to worsen and the social protests and strikes indicate the approach of the political breaking point.



The costs of austerity are already being seen (by the public at least) to outweigh the benefits.

Several British newspapers last week reported a set of big measures to tackle the European crisis was reportedly being worked on by unnamed European officials.

The centrepiece is a Greek debt default with creditors repaid only 50%, and two measures to cushion that shock – an injection of fresh capital into European banks that would suffer big losses from the default, and the boosting of the European bailout fund from 400-plus billion euros to almost two trillion euros to enable hundreds of billions of euros in new credit to countries like Italy and Spain to prevent them from becoming new debt-crisis economies.

However, this leaked news of a big Plan B was not confirmed by any policy maker, so its status or even existence is unknown.

Instead, the news out of Washington last week was of continued paralysis in European policy.

Greece this week is facing a new crunch time – waiting to see if the European institutions and IMF will approve the next bailout instalment of US$8 billion to service loans that are coming due, and what would happen if they do not. Would it be time then to declare a default?

Meanwhile, the US has its own budget deficit tug-of-war between the President and Congress and between Republicans and Democrats.

What this means is that Europe and the US are not able to make use of the policies (massive increases in government spending, interest rate cuts and pumping of money into the economy) that pulled them quickly out from the last recession.

Moreover, the coordination of policy actions among developed countries (and several developing countries as well, that also undertook fiscal stimulus policies) that fought the last recession no longer seems to exist, at least for now.

Thus the new global slowdown or recession is likely to last longer than the short 2008-09 recession.

The developing countries should thus prepare to face serious problems that will soon land on them.

We can expect a sharp fall in their exports as demand declines in the major economies.

Commodity prices are expected to climb down; they have already started to do so.

There may be a reversal of capital flows, as foreign funds return to their countries of origin.

The currencies of several developing countries are already declining and it may be the start of sharper falls.

It’s beginning to look like 2008 all over again.

But this time the developing countries are starting this downturn in a weaker state than in 2008, since they have not yet fully recovered from the last shock.

And as the downturn proceeds, there will be fewer cushions to blunt the effects or to enable a rapid recovery.

It is also clear that there is an absence of a global economic governance system, in which the developing countries can also participate in.

All countries are affected when the global economy goes into a tail spin.

Once again, the developing countries are not responsible for the new downturn, but they will have to absorb the ill effects.

Yet there is no forum in which they can put forward their views on how to lessen the effects of the crisis on them and what the developed countries should do.

As the new crisis unfolds, there will be renewed calls for reforms to the international financial and economic system.

This time there should be a more serious reform process, otherwise more crises can only be expected in the future.

Saturday 27 August 2011

Dark clouds over US and Europe !





WHAT ARE WE TO DO By TAN SRI LIN SEE-YAN

Within the past couple of weeks, the world has changed. From a world so used to the United States playing a key leadership role in shaping global economic affairs to one going through a multi-speed recovery, with the emerging nations providing the source of growth and opportunity. This is a very rapid change indeed in historical time. What happened? First, the convergence of a series of events in Europe (contagion of the open ended debt crisis jolted France and spread to Italy and Spain, forcing the European Central Bank or ECB to buy their bonds) and in the US (last minute lifting of the debt ceiling exposed the dysfunctional US political system, and the Standard & Poor's downgrade of the US credit rating) have led to a loss of confidence by markets across the Atlantic in the effectiveness of the political leadership in resolving key problems confronting the developed world. Second, these events combined with the coming together of poor economic outcomes involving the fragilities of recovery have pushed the world into what the president of the World Bank called “a new danger zone,” with no fresh solutions in sight. Growth in leading world economies slowed for the fourth consecutive quarter, gaining just 0.2% in 2Q'11 (0.3% in 1Q'11) according to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. The slowdown was marked in the euro area. Germany slackened to 0.3% in 2Q'11 (1.3% in 1Q'1) and France stalled at zero after 0.9% in 1Q'11. The US picked up to 0.3% (0.1% in 1Q'11), while Japan contracted 0.3% in 2Q'11 (-0.9% in 1Q'11).

US construction
A construction worker guides a beam into place in Philadelphia. Picture: AFP Source: AFP
IT’S not always sunny in Philadelphia. The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia has reported severe dark clouds over the area’s factory sector. 

The US slides

Recent data disclosures and revisions showed that the 2008 recession was deeper than first thought, and the subsequent recovery flatter. The outcome: Gross domestic product (GDP) has yet to regain its pre-recession peak. Worse, the feeble recovery appears to be petering out. Over the past year, output has grown a mere 1.6%, well below what most economists consider to be the US's underlying growth rate, a pace that has been in the past almost always followed by a recession. Over the past six-months, the US has managed to eke out an annualised growth of only 0.8%. This was completely unexpected. For months, the Federal Reserve had dismissed the economy's poor performance as a transitory reaction to Japan's natural disaster and oil price increases driven by turmoil in the Middle East. They now admit much stiffer headwinds are restraining the recovery, enough to keep growth painfully slow. Recent sentiment surveys and business activity indicators are consistent with expectations of a marked slowdown in US growth. Fiscal austerity will now prove to be a drag on growth for years. Housing isn't coming back quickly. Households are still trying to rid themselves of debt in the face of eroding wealth. Old relationships that used to drive recoveries seem unlikely to have the pull they used to have. Historically, consumers' confidence had tended to rebound after unemployment peaked. This time, it didn't happen. Unemployment peaked in Oct 2009 at 10.1% but confidence kept on sinking. The University of Michigan's index fell in early August to its lowest level since 1980. Thrown in is concern about the impact of the wild stock market on consumer spending. Indeed, equity volatility is having a negative impact on consumer psychology at a time of already weakening spending.

US growth revised down to 1pc in second quarter. Traders in the oil options pit of the New York Mercantile Exchange - the oil price slipped as US growth was revised down in the second quarter.
Traders in the oil options pit of the New York Mercantile Exchange – the oil price slipped as US growth was revised down in the second quarter. Photo: AP
Three main reasons underlie why the Fed made the recent commitment to keep short-term interest rates near zero through mid-2013: (i) cuts all round to US growth forecasts for 2H11 and 2012; (ii) drop in oil and commodity prices plus lower expectations on the pace of recovery led to growing confidence inflation will stabilise; and (iii) rise in downside risks to growth in the face of deep concern about Europe's ability to resolve its sovereign debt problems. The Fed's intention is at least to keep financial conditions easy for the next 18 months. Also, it helps to ensure the slowly growing economy would not lapse into recession, even though it's already too close to the line; any shock could knock it into negative territory.

The critical key

Productivity in the US has been weakening. In 2Q11, non-farm business labour productivity fell 0.3%, the second straight quarterly drop. It rose only 0.8% from 2Q10. Over the past year, hourly wages have risen faster than productivity. This keeps the labour market sluggish and threatens potential recovery. It also means an erosion of living standards over the long haul. But, these numbers overstate productivity growth because of four factors: (a) upward bias in the data - eg the US spends the most on health care per capita in the world, yet without superior outcomes; (b) government spending on military and domestic security have risen sharply, yet they don't deliver useful goods and services that raise living standards; (c) labour force participation has fallen for years. Taking lower-paying jobs out of the mix raises productivity but does not create higher value-added jobs; and (d) off-shoring by US companies to China for example, but they don't enhance American productivity. Overall, they just overstate productivity. So, the US, like Europe, needs to actually raise productivity at the ground level if they are to really grow and reduce debt over the long-term. The next wave of innovation will probably rely on the world's current pool of scientific leaders - most of whom is still US-based.



US deficit is too large

The US budget deficit is now 9.1% of GDP. That's high by any standard. According to the impartial US Congressional Budget Office (CBO), even after returning to full employment, the deficit will remain so large its debt to GDP will rise to 190% by 2035! What happened? This deficit was 3.2% in 2008; rose to 8.9% in 2010, pushing the debt/GDP ratio from 40% to 62% in 2010. This “5.7% of GDP” rise in the deficit came about because of (i) a fall of “2.6% of GDP” in revenue (from 17.5% to 14.9% of GDP), and (ii) a rise of “3.1% of GDP” in spending (from 20.7% to 23.8% of GDP). According to the CBO, less than one-half of the rise in deficit was caused by the downturn of 2008-2010. Because of this cyclical decline, revenue collections were lower and outlays, higher (due to higher unemployment benefits and transfers to help those adversely affected). They in turn raise total demand and thus, help to stabilise the economy. These are called “automatic stabilisers.” In addition, the budget deficit also worsened because, even at full-employment, revenues would still fall and spending rise. So, the great recession did its damage.

Looking ahead, the Obama administration's budget proposals would add (according to CBO) US$3.8 trillion to the national debt between 2010 and 2020. This would raise the debt/GDP ratio to 90% reflecting limited higher spending, weaker revenues from middle and lower income taxpayers, offset in part by higher taxes on the rich. Even so, these are based on conservative assumptions regarding military spending, no new programmes and lower discretionary spending in “real” terms. No doubt, actual fiscal consolidation would imply much more spending cuts and higher revenues. According to Harvard's Prof M. Feldstein, increased revenues can only come about, without raising marginal tax rates, through what he calls cuts in “tax expenditures,” that is, reforming tax deductions (eg cutting farm subsidies, eliminating deductions for ethanol production, etc). Such a “balanced approach” to resolve the growing fiscal deficit will be hard to come-by given the political paralysis in Washington. Worse, the poisonous politics of the past two months have created a new sort of uncertainty. The tea partiers' refusal to compromise can, at worse, kill off the recovery. The only institution with power to avert danger is the Fed. But printing money can be counter-productive. Fiscal measures are the preferred way to go at this time. Even so, the US fiscal problems will mount beyond 2020 because of the rising cost of social security and medicare benefits. No doubt, fundamental reform is still needed for the long-term health of the US economy.

Eurozone stumbles

Looming large as a risk factor is Europe's long running sovereign debt saga, which is pummelling US and European financial markets and business confidence. So far, Europe's woes and the market turmoil it stirred are worrisome. The S&P 500 fell close to 5% last week extending losses of 15.4% over the previous three weeks, its worse streak of that length in 2 years, and down 17.6% from its 2011 high. The situation in Europe has been dictating much of the global markets' recent movements. The eurozone's dominant service sector was effectively stagnant in August after two years of growth, while manufacturing activity, which drove much of the recovery in the bloc shrank for the first time since September 2009. Latest indicators add to signs the slowdown is spreading beyond the periphery and taking root in its core members, including Germany. The Flash Markit Eurozone Services Purchasing Managers' Index (PMI) fell to 51.5 in August (51.6 in July), its lowest level since September 2009. The PMI, which measures activity ranging from restaurants to banks, is still above “50”, the mark dividing growth from contraction. However, PMI for manufacturing slid to 49.7 the first sub-50 reading since September 2009. Both services and manufacturing are struggling.

Going forward, poor data show neither Germany nor France (together making- up one-half the bloc's GDP) is going to be the locomotive. Indeed, the risks of “pushing” the region over the edge are significant. Germany faces an obvious slowdown and a possible lengthy stagnation.

European financial markets just came off a turbulent two weeks, with investors fearing the debt crisis could spread further if Europe's policy makers fail to implement institutional change and new structural supports for the currency bloc's finances. In the interim, the ECB has been picking up Italian and Spanish bonds to keep borrowing costs from soaring. The action has worked so far, but the ECB is only buying time and can't support markets indefinitely. So far, the rescue bill included 365 billion euros in official loans to Greece, Portugal and Ireland; the creation of a 440 billion euros rescue fund; and 96 billion euros in bond buying by the ECB. Despite this, market volatility and uncertainty prevail. Europe is being forced into an end-game with three possible outcomes: (a) disorderly break-up - possible if the peripherals fail in their fiscal reform or can no longer withstand stagnation arising from austerity; (b) greater fiscal union in return for strict national fiscal discipline; and (c) creation of a more compact and more economically coherent eurozone against contagion; this implies some weaker members will take “sabbatical” from the euro. My own sense is that the end-game will be neither simple nor orderly. Politicians will likely opt for a weak variant of fiscal union. After more pain, a smaller and more robust euro could emerge and avoid the euro's demise. Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman gives a “50% chance Greece would leave and a 10% odds of Italy following.”

Leaderless world

The crisis we now face is one of confidence. Starting with the markets across both sides of the Atlantic and in Japan. This lack of confidence reflected an accumulation of discouraging news, including feeble economic data in the US and Europe, and signs European banks are not so stable. The global rout seems to have its roots in free-floating anxiety about US dysfunctional politics and about euroland's economic and financial stability. Confidence is indeed shaky, already spreading to businesses and consumers, raising risks any fresh shock could be enough to push the US and European economies into recession. Business optimism, at best, is “softish.” Consumers are still deleveraging. Unfortunately, this general lack of confidence in global economic prospects could become a self-fulfilling prophecy. In the end, it's all about politics. The French philosopher Blaise Pascal contends politics have incentives that economics cannot understand. To act, politicians need consensus, which often does not emerge until the costs of inaction become highly visible. By then, it is often too late to avoid a much worse outcome. So, the demand for global leadership has never been greater. But, none is forthcoming not for the US, not from Europe; certainly not from Germany and France, or Britain.

The world is adrift. Unfortunately, it will continue to drift in the coming months, even years. Voters on both sides of the Atlantic need to demand more from their leaders than “continued austerity on autopilot.” After all, in politics, leadership is the art of making the impossible possible.

Former banker, Dr Lin is a Harvard educated economist and a British Chartered Scientist who now spends time writing, teaching and promoting the public interest. Feedback is most welcome; email: starbizweek@thestar.com.my.

Wednesday 6 July 2011

Trends in US, Europe will affect the Malaysian Economy





Economist: Trends in US, Europe will affect M’sia

By LIZ LEE lizlee@thestar.com.my

KUALA LUMPUR: Malaysia should keep an eye on political trends and unemployment rates in the United States and European countries as these factors will affect the local economy, says UBS Investment Bank managing director and global economist Paul Donovan.

Due to persistent long-term unemployment in the United States and Europe, governments in these countries would want to protect their local jobs and therefore limit international trade, he said at a roundtable session with the media yesterday.

As a result, Donovan said, politicians would try to run economies, which meant rising political risk in the global economy.

Donovan: I believe we will now see a period of relative stability.
 


Saturday 30 April 2011

How can Malaysia stem the tide of talent migration?



Migration of talent – how can Malaysia stem the tide? 
By THEAN LEE CHENG and FINTAN NG starbiz@thestar.com.my

Brain drain stands in the way of a high-income Malaysia, a World Bank report says. But the solutions are not easy.

FOR over 25 years, Malaysia was one of the few Asian countries blessed with an annual growth of 7% and up. The country's growth spurt occurred between 1967 and 1997, which paved the way for the shift from low-income to middle-income. Among developing countries, Malaysia made tremendous progress in poverty reduction. In the 1970s and 1980s, income inequality was reduced dramatically while a Malay middle-class emerged.

World Bank’s Philip Schellekens ... ‘Whatever we present here we can stand by.’
These are laudable achievements no doubt. Nevertheless, in today's fiercely competitive global landscape and Malaysia's eye-popping data of escalating brain drain, the challenges for the country to move forward are far, far more complex.

Last year, Malaysia had recorded a strong recovery but the momentum appeared to have tapered off with jittery growth in the last two quarters. While business sentiment has improved in the first quarter of this year, consumer confidence has weakened on concerns of rising inflation.

Growth is expected at 5.3% this year and 5.5% in 2012. The three key risks in the near term are:
  • A weaker-than expected global recovery, which will dampen growth momentum,
  • A further strengthening of inflationary pressures, which may undermine consumer spending, and
  • Weak fiscal consolidation.
Over the medium term, various government initiatives are being put in place to boost economic growth. But over and above the Economic Transformation Programmes and New Economic Models, the heart of Malaysia's transformation hinges on two fundamentals productivity, which requires a revamp of the education system, and policies of inclusiveness. Discontent with Malaysia's inclusiveness policies is a key factor, particularly among the non-bumiputras who make up the bulk of the diaspora.

Human capital is, after all, the bedrock of a high-income economy or for any economy for that matter. Sustained and skill-intensive growth needs talent going forward. Malaysia needs to develop, attract and retain talent.

Brain drain does not square with this objective. Malaysia needs talent, but talent seems to be leaving.

Brain drain the migration of talent across borders has long been a subject of debate and controversy. Of late, it has been openly discussed in the media, which is to be viewed positively. At least there is that openness today which was not there 10 years ago. The creation of Talent Corp Malaysia Bhd to bring back our own, and to attract new talent, is also a tacit acknowlegement by the Government that we need to manage our human capital carefully and diligently.

Brain drain is by no means something unique to Malaysia. It is something faced by many others. Taiwan saw many of its talented leave for Silicon Valley; the former Irish president Mary Robinson, during her presidency, did much to engage the Irish diaspora.

Within Asia, the brain drain is most pronounced in South-East Asia, according to the Malaysia Economic Monitor: Brain Drain released on Thursday (www.worldbank.org/my). The report says emigration rates are the highest in middle-income countries, which have both the incentive and the means to migrate. The incentive would be less strong for high-income countries. For low-income countries, financial and human capital constraints may make emigration less likely. Malaysia falls into the middle-income category.

The World Bank's Bangkok-based senior economist Philip Schellekens, who produced the report after an online survey among 200 respondents from the 1 million Malaysian diaspora around the world acknowledges that this number is small.

Click on image for actual size.
 
“But the World Bank, in the first place, does not wish to present this as a definite conclusion. Instead, it wishes to convey a qualitative feel of what is going on. The study can be seen as the first step towards understanding what has been driving brain drain in Malaysia and how policymakers can address it.”

The report measures the size of the Malaysian diaspora and brain drain, its key characteristics and its evolution over the past 30 years. It gives an updated picture on the basis of the most recent information available, including Singapore's census results which were released early this year.

“We've avoided at all costs to use anecdotal sources for such a sensitive topic. So, whatever we present here we can stand by. We also document our sources of information so that other people, as part of this process, can continue the work, refer to our study, look at the numbers and update or improve them.”

It is an extension of previous reports on Malaysia, Growth through Innovation and Inclusive Growth. 

Why do people leave?

Brain drain is a symptom, not a problem in itself. It is the outcome of underlying factors as all of us respond to push and pull factors. While not every person leaving Malaysia constitute a brain drain, about a third of them do. Seen from the long lens of emigration and its effect years from today, Malaysia is not only losing talent today, it is also losing talent tomorrow, because children who leave with their parents, and who spend their formative years abroad, are less likely to return.

The report removes the veil of doubt and uncertainty over some numbers. Some of the key highlights are:

● The Malaysian diaspora is large and expanding, with a conservative estimate of about 1 million worldwide last year. The diaspora has quadrupled over the last 30 years, and is geographically concentrated and ethnically skewed.

● Singapore alone absorbs 57% of the entire diaspora, with the rest residing in Australia, Brunei, Britain and the United States. - Malaysia's brain drain is intense relative to its narrow skill base. - The brain drain is aggravated by a lack of compensating inflow. While many Singaporeans leave the city-state for greener pastures, many highly skilled expatriates also enter the republic.

The situation is different in Malaysia. While Malaysia receives many, most who come have low skills. Coupled with this dire situation, Malaysia's high-skilled expatriate base has shrunk by a quarter since 2004.

● The number of skilled Malaysians leaving for Singapore has increased from 10% in 1990, 23% in 2000 to 35% last year. This is defined by those who have tertiary education. About 47% of all skilled foreign-born residents in Singapore were born in Malaysia.

Malaysia is not on the brink of a crisis, but it can do better as it has a lot of potential. Brain drain, says Schellekens, should not be viewed as potentially negative. It has its positive potential, as when it aspires a young person to pursue tertiary education, as when it allows those who remain to leverage on those who have succeeded abroad.

“There is an increased openness in Malaysia to discuss these issues and this is a welcome development,” he says.

The report goes beyond stating numbers and facts. It also identifies two areas the government needs to seriously look into the need to improve productivity and to strengthen Malaysia's policies of inclusiveness.

Talent Corp CEO Johan Mahmood Merican says the report is not something new. “It lends credence to what the Government already knows and we have taken action even before the World Bank report was released. There is a lot of work-in-progress which supports the direction that we have initiated.

“What is important is there is an urgency for us to change the business model if we are to advance. It is not a case of whether we stand still or we advance. If we stand still, we are effectively regressing. Vietnam and Indonesia are getting their act together and recording high growth. In that sense, it is consistent.”

Johan says the usefulness of such a report is that while it highlights the potentially negative effects of brain drain, it also highlights the flip side, its positive effects.

“Malaysia has been spared from the detrimental part of it in the sense that our industries have not come to a halt, as in some other countries. At the same time, it has not been as beneficial to us as a country, as it has to some other countries. So at this point in time, it is neutral. The question is, how do we make it net positive? This is where Talent Corp comes in. We are beginning to engage with Malaysians abroad and with the private sector,” Johan says.



Courting talent back

Four months after its establishment, Talent Corp is primarily focused on facilitating initiatives to attract, nurture, engage and retain talent to support human capital needs of the Economic Transformation Programme (ETP). This has resulted in the Residence Pass that enables top foreign talent, especially those in the ETP, to continue working in Malaysia for a longer tenure and fewer restrictions. There has also been revisions to the Returning Expert Programme to encourage more Malayisan professionals working overseas to come home and help drive the nation's economic transformation, especially in the ETP. Because of Malaysia's base in manufacturing, parcticularly in electrical & electronics, an industry-led initiative to address the sector's talent requirements, with an emphasis on nurturing local talent was launched last week. Similar groups in other key economic sectors are currently in the pipeline.

“This is clearly a long-term project. We are looking at small starting steps this year to ease the mobility of talent and to establish a baseline for future work,” says Johan. Other initiatives in the works will be announced later this year in due course.

Johan also brings up the success story of Pua Khien Seng, the Malaysian who invented the pen drive, and who has been residing in Taiwan for 16 years. Pua is now president and co-founder of Phison Electronics Corp, a listed technology company in Taiwan with a market capitalisation of almost NT$40bil (RM4.3bil).

“His business will always be in Taiwan. So how do we leverage on that? How can we facilitate that engagement with Pua, and other Malaysians, who are residing abroad?”

The larger question is: Can targeted measures such as talent management and diaspora engagement substitute more comprehensive reforms?

Schellekens thinks not. “Our observation is that the targeted measures developed by Talent Corp are helpful. These are first steps in the right direction but if the underlying deterrents are not addressed comprehensively, then these measures will only have a marginal impact.”

The fundamental issues, or underlying factors why people leave relate to economic incentives, which can be captured under the umbrella of low productivity, and social disincentives which reflect discontentment among the non-bumiputras with Malaysia's inclusiveness policies.

“If you want to tackle the brain drain in a comprehensive fashion, it is not through reversing it or trying artificially to stop it. Tackle the fundamentals and things will happen automatically; people will feel incentivised not to leave the country, or to return if they have left,” Schellekens, the lead author of the report says.

The report highlights the progress made by South Korea. It was a third poorer than Malaysia in the 1970s in terms of average income but nowadays it's three times richer. One remarkable aspect of South Korea's development path has been its attention to investment in quality education. As with Singapore, Hong Kong, China and Japan, the bedrock of any country's progress is its human capital.

A statement from RAM Ratings Services Bhd says: “While we may be comforted by the report's finding that the brain drain has not reduced significantly the country's stock of educated workforce, it highlights the disconcerting fact that the country has a narrow skills base and that its skilled human capital base continues to slide, exacerbated by the brain drain. We need to actionalise inclusiveness under the clarion call of 1Malaysia and sharpen the focus on competitiveness, meritocracy, good governance and productivity in both the government and private sector. Only by unleashing private sector dynamism, entrepreneurialship and innovativeness can we sustain the virtuous circle of high investment-growth-productivity increases.”

Its chief economist Dr Yeah Kim Leng adds: “It would be difficult to achieve the high income target by 2020. Productivity growth would slow as the labour market would be more confined to lower-skilled sets. The country's industrial and technological upgrading and its shift up the value chain would be hampered by skills shortages, higher cost of foreign skilled manpower and deficiencies in innovation and entrepreneurship.”

While our challenge is to tap into our potential and we are blessed with an abundance in myriad areas and sectors this has become more difficult than a decade or two ago because competition in the region for trade, talent, and foreign direct investment has intensified. While we bicker among ourselves, other countries are forging ahead very quickly.

As Malaysia climbs up the income ladder, new challenges in form of innovation will come our way.
Says Schellekens: “Malaysia aspires to base its future growth on innovation. This means that growth will become more skills-intensive, creating a demand for skilled people as well as leading to rising wage levels for the skilled. This may accentuate the income disparity between the skilled and the unskilled, leading also to social challenges between the city and countryside.

Another challenge is the need for more internal competition. Iron sharpens iron.

“There is a sense of urgency for Malaysia to implement the structural reform agenda more quickly as well as comprehensively, else the underlying momentum of growth will deteriorate through an erosion of competitiveness. We are concerned that some of these trends may be happening already, as with the parts and components trade within the electrical and electronics of Malaysia,” he adds.

Malaysia Economic Monitor, April 2011

Click on a thumbnail to access the higher resolution version (you may want to enlarge the resulting browser window to get the largest view possible). To save a copy, right-click on the hi-res image and choose "save as" or "save image as".

 The Brain Drain Challenge in Pictures
Malaysia Economic Monitor - April 2011, Brain Drain fig 1Malaysia Economic Monitor - April 2011, Brain Drain fig 2Malaysia Economic Monitor - April 2011, Brain Drain fig 3
The Malaysian diaspora in 2010 is estimated at 1 million, a third representing brain drainThe diaspora is geographically concentratedThe pace is brain drain is elevated

Malaysia Economic Monitor - April 2011, Brain Drain fig 4Malaysia Economic Monitor - April 2011, Brain Drain fig 5Malaysia Economic Monitor - April 2011, Brain Drain fig 6
Relative to narrow skill base, brain drain is intenseBrain drain is a symptom driven by productivity and inclusiveness concernsBoosting productivity will require up-skilling through education and innovation policies

Malaysia Economic Monitor - April 2011, Brain Drain fig 7Malaysia Economic Monitor - April 2011, Brain Drain fig 8
Reducing the ethnic skew in the diaspora will require updating inclusiveness policiesTargeted policies to tap into global talent and engage with the diaspora would complement

Related Stories:

Reversing the brain drain, innovate to compete!

 The big picture on skilled labour market
Can Malaysia reform fast enough to meet challenges?
Talent Corp CEO: Need to change business model
The vicious cycle' of brain drain