Welcome on Board

This blog is for students, managers and those lay people who are interested to contribute to, comment on or simply share their workplace problems and are keen to learn about issues relating to public finance, corporate finance and macro-economic management affecting their lives.

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Who is the real beneficiary of POL price decision, ruling party or the masses?

The government has reversed the decision of increase in the petroleum prices. It is said that this has been done under the pressure of opposition parties and the allies in order to provide relief to inflation-hit people. Those who know the fact think that this is not a correct statement. As a matter of fact, the decision has been taken to save the government because the ruling party had lost the majority in the house and a moral right to continue in power. But will this decision provide any relief to the poor masses?

The answer is no. Any decision which is taken to sail through the current of present crisis will not help, rather it will have devastating effects on the economy and the people. The shortfall created by POL subsidy will be met through deficit financing i.e. printing of currency which will be more harmful for the economy as the governor of the central bank has already been saying very loudly. There is only one way to provide relief to the masses; mobilization of resources and making the rich to pay their share now.  Eminent economist Dr Ashfaque H Khan, in his article which appeared in the News International says that by backtracking on the fuel prices, the government has attracted severe criticism from all those who have interest in Pakistan’s economy. In so doing, the government has exposed itself as being a lame-duck government, desiring to stick to power at any cost and willing to be driven by the opposition’s agenda. It has also lost its credibility in the eyes of the international financial institutions.

The article accuses the economic team of having failed to draw the line between profligacy and discipline, between bad and good economics, between reforms and status quo, and between expenditures of political and economic priorities. The economic team did not take any stand when the cabinet approved a 50-per-cent increase in the salaries of government servants, at a time when the country was facing severe financial difficulties. They just kept quiet and became party to this profligacy.

The also accuses the economic team of actively accommodating the Multan and Larkana Packages in the PSDP, but took no time in cutting the budget of higher education. In the process, they lost respect in the eyes of most educated members of the society. Despite the bad financial health of the Banks of Punjab and Khyber before us, the economic team, including the governor of the State Bank of Pakistan, gave the license to the government of Sindh to set up Sindh Bank, with Rs10 billion’s capital. At a time when bank mergers are taking place in Pakistan, the setting up of yet another public-sector bank was a bad decision. The new bank’s fate will not be different from the fates of the banks mentioned above. A bailout from budgetary resources cannot be ruled out.
The article has enumerated the following economic consequences of withdrawing the fuel price hike:

  • At the current international price of oil, the revenue shortfall will be Rs5 billion per month. The government has a collection target of Rs110 billion on this account in the 2010-11 budget. The government has thus far collected Rs35 billion and the remaining Rs75 billion is to be collected in the next six months. Under the assumption that the international price of oil remains at the current level, there would be a Rs30 billion shortfall in PDL.
  • The slippages on both the revenue and expenditure side are likely to take the current year’s budget deficit in the range of 7.5-8.0 per cent of GDP. In other words, Pakistan would need at least Rs1,300 billion to finance its fiscal deficit this year. With dwindling external inflows, the reliance for financing of deficit would be on the domestic side—more so on direct borrowing from the SBP. Thus, the printing machine of the SBP will keep on pumping money into the economy, with all the inflationary consequences of such an action.  
  • The government thought that by withdrawing the fuel price hike it provided relief to the people. But through printing more money it will fuel inflationary pressure with serious consequences for the same people.
  • There are indications that oil prices are likely to rise further in 2011 on account of the stronger than anticipated recovery of the world economy, including the United States’. The lame-duck government will not be able to pass on the high cost of energy to domestic consumers. This will be a replay of 2007-08, when the-then government, including the caretakers, did not pass on the high price of oil, and the country had to pay a high price for its inaction. The nation should therefore be ready for action replay.  
  • The agenda of tax reform, including the RGST, is dead, and as such, Pakistan’s relations with the international financial institutions, including the IMF, appear to have become strained. In such an environment, external inflows to keep the economy afloat are likely to be affected. A lame-duck government and its economic team are very damaging for the economy. They have lost the capacity to take difficult decisions. Time is not on our side.

No comments:

Post a Comment