Showing posts with label Irish Exports. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Irish Exports. Show all posts

Friday, June 13, 2014

13/6/2014: January-April Trade in Goods: Ireland


Some quick stats on trade in goods data out today:

First up: aggregates:


Core points:

  1. Aggregate exports are down once again in 2014: off 1.8% for the period January-April
  2. Much of this is down to pharma and organic chemicals, but declines overall were registered in 4 out of 9 categories, while four categories posted increases in exports.
  3. Trade surplus declined again, this time by 11.1%. Trade surplus dropped y/y in 6 out of 9 categories.
  4. Trade surplus dropped by a total of EUR1.357 billion, while exports declined by EUR527 million.
  5. The summary of sectoral contributions is provided below




    Geographic breakdown of changes in exports and trade surplus is provided in the table below:


    The above shows geographically wide-ranging declines in exports and trade surplus.

    Thursday, March 20, 2014

    20/3/2014: Trade in Goods & Trade Balance Dynamics for Ireland: January 2014

    As noted in the earlier post, CSO released new data on Irish merchandise trade, covering January 2014. I discussed the validity of the argument that improved competitiveness is a driver of Irish exports here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2014/03/1932014-competitiveness-might-have.html and as promised, now will discuss top-level data on trade flows.

    Starting from the top:

    Based on unadjusted (seasonally) data:

    • Total imports into Ireland (goods only) amounted to EUR4.528 billion in January 2014, which is up 1.93% y/y. This is shallower rate of increase in imports than the one recorded in December 2013 (+16.9% y/y).
    • 3mo cumulated imports for the period November 2013-January 2014 were up 8.2% on the same period of 2012-2013.
    • January 2014 marks the highest level of monthly imports since March 2012 and the busiest imports January since 2008.
    • Total exports from Ireland (goods only) stood at EUR7.0306 billion in January 2014, up 4.48% y/y, which is a shallower increase than 13.41% rise recorded in 12 months through December 2013.
    • 3mo cumulated exports for the period November 2013-January 2014 were up 2.05% on the same period of 2012-2013.
    • January 2014 levels of exports are not remarkable by any means possible, representing only the second highest level of January exporting activity since January 2008.
    • Trade balance in January 2014 stood at EUR2.5026 billion, up 9.42% y/y which is an improvement on December 2013 annual rise of 7.18%.
    • 3mo cumulated trade balance for the period November 2013-January 2014 was down 6.64% on the same period of 2012-2013.
    Three charts to illustrate:



    In the chart above, notice disappointing performance in exports relative to trend (red line) and to 6mo MA (black line). Also note poor performance of trade balance relative to trend and the seeming breaking out of trade balance away from the trend line down.

    The same is confirmed in the seasonally-adjusted series plotted below:


    So exports have risen y/y, primarily due to a truly abysmal January 2012. But exports are still trending below an already virtually flat trend. You might think of this as being a story of some short term improvement, amidst ongoing long term weakness.

    Wednesday, March 19, 2014

    19/3/2014: Competitiveness might have improved... but It has little to do with trade...


    In light of today's data on trade in goods (January - see next post for details on this), there has been a lot of claims flying around, including one Ministerial press release extolling the virtues of our 'improved competitiveness' as the driver of growth in exports.

    So that improved competitiveness, then... Here are the charts showing Irish Harmonised Competitiveness Indicator based on unit labour costs which are designed to capture relative competitiveness in the euro area economies.

    Lower values imply higher competitiveness.


    Chart above shows two things:

    1. Our competitiveness did improve since the peak in HCI at Q2 2008, but it has deteriorated again in 2013 as the HCI rose from the crisis period low in Q4 2012.
    2. Our competitiveness is still lagging that of the Euro area average (black line). We would have to decrease HCI by some 10% more to hit Euro area average, which is about 3 years worth of further wages and costs austerity, if we are to get there.
    But forget the average and look at all euro area countries:


    As chart above shows, we are smack in the middle of the euro area distribution. In fact in 2012-2013 we consistently ranked 10th from the top in terms of competitiveness, which is an improvement on 13-134h from the top in 2010-2011, 16th in 2007-2009 etc, etc... Still, we are 10th... which is not exactly a dreamy place to be in, right?..

    Here's our distance to the best performer index reading (again, higher values = worse performance in competitiveness terms):


    So two things worth noting:
    1. As I noted earlier, things improved, but the improvement is not that spectacular and we seemed to have lost the momentum there.
    2. More importantly, there seems to be only weak correlation between the overall competitiveness changes and exports performance...
    To see the above point (2), here is a chart:


    As above shows, there is statistically no correlation between improving competitiveness (negative values on horizontal axis) and growth in exports of services. There is some statistical link between improved competitiveness and growth in exports of goods (as blue line indicates). But that link is not particularly strong. And this effect is driven by a handful of 'extreme' events such as dot.com bubble of 1999-2000 and the bursting of the property bubble in 2008. Absent these, the explanatory power of HCI changes drops from 26.7% to 14% and the slope of the relationship becomes as flat as that for the services exports.

    In other words, sorry Minister, competitiveness gains might be all good and positive (I think they are), but these hardly explain much in terms of our exports performance.

    Thursday, March 6, 2014

    6/3/2014: A 'New Normal' of Ireland's economy


    This is an unedited version of my Sunday Times article from February 23, 2014.


    Jobs, domestic investment, exports-led recovery and sustainable long-term growth are the four meme that have captured the current Coalition, setting the early corner stones for the next election’s promises. Resembling the ages-old "Whatever you like, we’ll have it" approach to policymaking, this strategy is dictated by the PR and politics first, and economics last. For a good reason: no matter how much we all would like to have hundreds of thousands new jobs based on solid global demand for goods and services we produce, given the current structure of the Irish economy, these fine objectives are largely unattainable and mutually contradictory.

    Firstly, restoring jobs lost in the crisis requires restarting the domestic economy and investment both of which call for an entirely different use of resources than the ones needed to sustain exports-led growth. Secondly, domestic and externally trading economies are currently undergoing long-term consolidation. Expansion or growth will have to wait until these processes are completed. Thirdly, replacing lost jobs with new ones will not lead to a significant decrease in our unemployment. Majority of current unemployed lack skills necessary to fill positions that can be created in a sustainable economy of the future.

    Torn between these conflicting calls on our resources, Irish economy is now at a risk of slipping into a ‘new normal’. This long-term re-arrangement of the economy can be best described as splitting the society into the stagnant debt-ridden domestic core and slowly growing external sectors increasingly captured by the aggressively tax optimising multinationals. Only a major effort at reforming our policymaking and tax regimes can hold the promise of escaping such a predicament.


    In simple terms, Ireland's main problem is that we lack new long-term sources for growth.

    Let's face the uncomfortable truth: apart from a historically brief period of economic catching up with the rest of the advanced economies, known as the Celtic Tiger from 1992 through 1999, our modern economic history is littered with pursuits of economic fads. In the 1980s the belief was that funding elections purchases via state borrowing delivers income growth. The late 1990s were the age of dot.com ‘entrepreneurship', and property and public 'investment'. From the end of the 1990s through today, correlation between real GDP per capita growth and the growth rates in inflation-adjusted real exports of goods collapsed, compared to the levels recorded in the period from 1960 through 1989. In the early 2000s dot.coms fad faded and domestic lending bubble filled the void. Since the onset of the 2010s, the new promise of salvation came in the form of yet another fad - ICT services.

    Decades of growth based on tax arbitrage and the lack of sustained indigenous comparative advantage and expertise left our economy in a vulnerable position. Ireland today has strong notional productivity and competitiveness in a handful of high value-added sectors dominated by multinationals. As past experience shows, these activities can be volatile. As the recent data attests, they are also starting to show strains.

    Last week, the Central Statistics Office published the preliminary data on merchandise trade for 2013. The results were far from pretty. Year on year, total value of Irish goods exports fell to EUR86.9 billion from EUR91.7 billion in 2012, and trade surplus in goods shrunk by EUR5.25 billion. Overall, 2013 was the worst year for Irish goods exports since the crisis-peak 2009.

    This poor performance is due to two core drivers: the pharmaceuticals patent cliff and stagnant growth in exports across other sectors, namely in traditional and modern manufacturing.

    The data clearly shows that we are struggling to find a viable replacement for pharmaceuticals sector. If in 2012, trade balance in chemicals and related products category accounted for 105 percent of our trade surplus, in 2013 this figure rose to over 106 percent. Just as our exports in this category are falling, our trade balance becomes more dependent on them.

    The strategy is to replace traditional pharma activity with biopharma and other sectors that are more research-intensive than traditional pharma. Alas, our latest data on patenting activity shows that Ireland remains stuck in the pattern of low R&D output with declining indigenous patent filings. Institutionally, we have some distance to travel before we can become a world-class competitor in R&D and innovation. The latest Global Intellectual Property Index published this week, ranks Ireland 12th in the world in Intellectual Property environment. Beyond this lies the problem that much of the innovation-linked revenues booked by the MNCs into Ireland relate to activity outside of this country and are channeled out of Ireland with little actual economic activity imprint left here.

    From the point of view of our indigenous workforce, it is critical that Irish indigenous exporters aggressively grow in new markets. Yet, Irish exports to BRICS economies and to Asia-Pacific have fallen in 2013. Our trade deficit with these countries has widened by 87 percent to EUR858 million last year.

    So far, the short-term support for falling goods exports has been provided by relatively rapidly rising exports of services. This process, however, is also showing signs of stress. While we do not have figures for trade in services for 2013, the IMF most recent assessment of the Irish economy shows that our share of the world exports of services remains stagnant. And the IMF projects growth in Irish trade balance on services side to slow down significantly after 2015.


    While exports engine is still running, albeit in a lower gear, domestic side of the economy remains comatose under the huge weight of our combined public and private debt overhang.  Total government and domestically-held private sectors debts stood at 189 percent of our GDP in 2007. At the end of 2013 it was 252 percent. This does not include debts held outside our official domestic banking system or loans extended to Irish companies abroad. The good news is the cost of funding this debt is relatively low. The bad news is – it will rise in the longer term.

    And, in the long run, the wealth distribution in Ireland is skewed in favour of the older generations. This leaves more indebted working age households out in the cold when it comes to saving for future retirement and funding current investment in entrepreneurship and business development.

    Irish economy is heading for a major split. Across the demographic divide the generation of current 30-45 year-olds will go on struggling to sustain debts accumulated during the period of the Celtic Tiger. They will continue facing high unemployment rates for those who used to work in the domestic economy. A stark choice for these workers will be either re-skilling for MNCs-dominated exports-focused services sectors, emigrating or facing permanently reduced incomes. Even those, likely to gain a foothold in the new ICT-led economy will have to stay alert hoping that the footloose sector does not generate significant jobs volatility.

    All in, the unemployment rates in the economy are likely to remain stuck at the ‘new normal’ of around 8-8.5 percent through the beginning of the next decade, contrasting the 5 percent full employment rate of joblessness in the first decade of the century.


    At this point in time, it is hard to see the sources of growth that can propel Ireland to the growth rates recorded over the two decades prior to the crisis. Back then, Irish real GDP per capita grew at an annualised rate of some 4.7 percent. The latest trends suggest that our income is likely to grow at around 1 percent per annum over 2010-2025 period - the rate of growth that has more in common with Belgium and below that expected for Germany. Aptly, the IMF puts our current output gap – the distance to full-employment level of economic activity – at around 1.2 percent of GDP, which ranks our growth potential as only thirteenth in the euro area. This clearly shows the shallow growth potential for this economy even in current conditions.

    Slow recovery in employment and continued deleveraging of the households mean that Ireland will be staying just below the Euro area average in terms of income and consumption, and above the EU average in terms of unemployment. In that sense, the economic mismanagement of the naughties will be reversed by not one, but two or more lost decades.

    Ireland has some serious potential in a handful of domestic sectors, namely food and drink, and agrifood, as well as in the areas where our ability to create and attract high quality human capital can offer future opportunities for growth. We have a handful of truly excellent, globally competitive enterprises, such as CRH, Ryanair and Glanbia. But beyond this, we are not a serious player in the high value-added game of modern economic production. In sectors where we allegedly have strong expertise: pharma, biotech, ICT, and finance, Ireland has no globally recognised large-scale indigenous players.

    Ending the lost decades on a note of rebirth of the Celtic Tiger will take much more than setting political agendas for ‘kitchen sink’ growth agendas. It will take big-ticket reforms of the domestic economy, tax system, and political governance. Good news is that we can deliver such reforms. Bad news is that they are yet to be formulated by our leaders.






    Box-out: 

    Recent research note from Kamakura Corporation provided yet more evidence of the damaging effects of the EU's knee-jerk reaction policies in the wake of the global financial crisis. Specifically, Kamakura study published last week focused on the July 2012-issued blanket ban on short selling in the European Credit Default Swaps (CDS) markets. CDS are de facto insurance contracts on sovereign bonds, actively used by professional and institutional investors for risk management and hedging. The study found that as the result of the EU ban, trading activity declined for eighteen out of 26 EU member states' CDS. Put in more simple terms, as the result of the EU decision, risk hedging in the sovereign debt markets for the majority of the EU member states' bonds was significantly undermined, leading to increased risk exposures for investors. At the same time, liquidity in the CDS markets fell, implying further shifting of risk onto investors in sovereign bonds. Kamakura analysis strongly suggests that investors holding sovereign debts of euro area ‘peripheral’ countries like Spain and Italy are currently forced to pay an excessive liquidity risk premium in CDS markets. At the same time, the EU regulators, having banned short selling can claim a Pyrrhic victory in public by asserting that they have reacted to the crisis by introducing tougher new regulations. In Europe, every political capital gain made has an associated financial, social or economic cost. This is true for economic decisions and financial markets regulations alike. Too bad that those who benefit from the former gains rarely face any of the latter costs.

    Friday, January 17, 2014

    17/1/2014: Goods Exports: A Story of Irish Tax Arbitrage Mode of Growth?


    I covered monthly and annual trends in Irish Trade in Goods statistics yesterday (http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2014/01/1612014-trade-in-goods-november-2013.html), noting that

    1. Irish exports of goods are continuing to shrink - not grow at a slower rate, but grow at a negative rate - over 2013
    2. Irish trade surplus in goods is now in negative growth territory for the third year in a row.
    3. Past resilience of Irish trade in goods statistics was predominantly down to the collapse in imports.
    In the past, I have argued that we are likely to witness further deterioration in external balance for Ireland once the domestic economy moves back into growth cycle (imports of consumer goods and capital goods will all rise). Given the overall problematic situation with domestic disposable after-tax income, this implies that we can lose the only pillar supporting our debt sustainability (external balance) if capex ramps up, while employment creation and wages growth is lagging. In other words, a jobless recovery on foot of capex expansion can end up being a pyrrhic victory for Ireland.

    To see this, consider imports/exports ratio in the economy (to remove monthly volatility, we use half-yearly aggregates):


    Following a large jump in the ratio of exports to imports on foot a significant decline in imports, we are now running below the historical trend. This suggests that our exports of goods are becoming less, rather than more, tax-efficient (which, of course, is consistent with pharma sector decline in our exports of goods). Good news is that this means our exports are also potentially becoming better anchored to real value added carried out in this economy, and less tax arbitrage-driven. But the bad news is that at the same time, exports growth rates are collapsing:


    And the decade-averages, shown in the chart above are telling this story.

    This is worrying... doubly so because what is taking place of our good exports is the 'success' story of our ICT services sector, which is growing on foot of tax arbitrage. We are replaying the same 'advantage' as before - instead of developing successful, value-added based exporting model we are just switching from one tax arbitrage play to another. ICT manufacturing tax arbitrage of the 1990s gave way to Pharma tax arbitrage play of the 2000s, which is now giving way to ICT services tax arbitrage play of the 2010s... 

    Thursday, January 16, 2014

    16/1/2014: Trade in Goods: November 2013


    Ireland's seasonally adjusted trade surplus for trade in goods only (excluding services) was down 15% in November compared to October.

    Per CSO, there was "a decrease in seasonally adjusted exports of €327 million (-5%) to €7,009 million" in November 2013 compared to October. Seasonally
    adjusted imports rose by €132 million (+3%) to €4,472 million. Thus, seasonally adjusted trade surplus fell to €2,538 million - "the lowest seasonally adjusted trade surplus since August 2008."

    Year on year, "the value of exports decreased by €607 million (-7%) to €7,710 million. The main drivers were decreases of €572 million (-25%) in the exports of Medical and pharmaceutical products and €158 million (-8%) in the exports of Organic chemicals. … Comparing November 2013 with November 2012, the value of imports rose by €335 million (+8%) to €4,377 million. Imports of Machinery specialised for particular industries increased by €121 million (+175%)."

    With 11 months of data in, we can provide a reasonable approximation for H2 2013 data and full year outlook. Caveat - these are simple extrapolations from 11 months data.

    The first chart shows annual data for exports. Based on January-November data:

    - Annual imports are set to rise by ca 0.4% y/y, after having posted a 1.76% rise in 2012 and 5.55% rise in 2011. On a cumulative basis, imports rose by EUR3.582bn over 2011-2013 period.
    - Annual exports of goods are set to post a contraction of approximately 4.3% y/y against 2012 annual growth of 0.5% and 2011 annual expansion of 1.70%. Cumulatively from January 2011 through the end of 2013, exports of goods are set to shrink by EUR1.975bn.
    - Note that in all three years: 2011, 2012 and 2013 exports growth under performed imports growth and this is before any significant uptick in domestic consumption demand for imports or domestic capes demand for imported capital goods.
    - Trade surplus for 2013 is expected to decline by around 9.8% on 2012 levels, after having posted a decline o 0.9% in 2012 and a decline of 2.3% in 2011. Cumulatively over the last 3 years, the decline in trade surplus amounted to EUR5.557bn.


    The next chart plots annual rates of growth and 10-year growth rates averages. This shows that the current decade is the worst in the history of the state with exception of the 1930s, with the decade of 2000-2009 being the third worst.



    This puts into perspective the problem with the assumed debt sustainability framework based on growth in exports. The chart above shows exports of goods only, omitting exports of services. Two points, however:
    1) In the 1990s, recovery was led by exports which were predominantly on the goods side, so the average rates in the chart for the decade of the 1990s are closely correlated with total exports growth rates. Today, growth in services exports outpacing growth in goods services has much lower impact on the economy overall, since exports of services are less anchored to the domestic economy and are more reflective of the aggressive tax optimisation strategies of the MNCs operating in the ICT and IFS services areas.
    2)Services exports growth is slowing so far as well. This was covered here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2013/12/20122013-how-real-is-that-gdp-and-gnp.html

    Finally, the last chart plots exports of goods adjusted for prices changes and exchange rates using Trade Price Index for Exports, expressed in 2006 euros.



    The upward correction in 2009 and 2010 period now is almost fully erased by declines since 2010. And the decline seems to be accelerating.

    Most of the above declines in exports in the last two-three years has been driven by the pharmaceuticals sector. I will be covering this topic when dealing with more detailed composition of exports once we have data for December 2013. In the mean time, you can see CSO data for January-November 2013 y/y comparatives in Table 3 here: http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/externaltrade/2013/gei_nov2013.pdf

    Sunday, December 1, 2013

    1/12/2013: The Age of Great Stagnation: Sunday Times, 24/11/2013

    This is an unedited version of my Sunday Times column from November 24, 2013.


    In recent months, the hope-filled choir of Irish politicians raised to a crescendo the catchy tune of the return of our economic fortunes. Their views are often echoed by some European leaders, themselves eager to declare the euro crisis to be over. Earlier this year, as the euro area remained mired in official recession, the perpetually optimistic Economics Commissioner, Olli Rehn, summarised the economic environment as follows: “…we have disappointing hard data from the end of last year, some more encouraging soft data in the recent past and growing investor confidence in the future.”

    Since then, we had ever-disappointing hard data through September this year, un-interpretable volatile soft data, and an ever-booming confidence in the future. This pattern of rising expectations amidst non-improving reality has been with us for over two years.

    Which raises two questions. Firstly, is the fabled recovery we are allegedly experiencing sustainable? Second, are we betting our economic house on a right horse in the long run?


    In our leaders’ imagination, this country’s prospects for a recovery remain tied to those of the euro area. The official theory suggests that growth in our major trading partners will trickle down to our exports, which, in turn, will drive domestic economy via improving investment and consumer spending. This theory rest on the fundamental belief that things have hit their bottom in Ireland and the only way from here is up.

    These are the two core theories behind the short-term projections that underpinned Budget 2014. And, taken with risk caveats highlighted this week by the Fiscal Council assessment of the Department of Finance projections, the views from the Merrion Street represent a rather optimistic, but reasonably feasible forecast for 2014.

    Alas, in the longer run, a lot is amiss with the above two theories. The most obvious point of contention is that we've heard them before. And so far, both turned out to be wrong.

    Over 2009-2013, cumulative real GDP across the euro area shrunk by 2.1 percent, and expanded by 3.5 percent across the G7 countries. In Ireland, over the same period, GDP fell by 4.7 percent. The tail of Ireland was wagging the dog of the EU on the way down into the Great Recession.

    The converse is true on the way up. Unlike in the early 1990s, the improving economic fortunes abroad are not doing much good for Ireland’s exports either. Over the last four years, volumes of imports of goods by the euro area countries grew by almost 15 percent and for G7 these went up 21 percent. Irish exports of goods over the same period of time rose just 2.2 percent. Global trade, having shrunk in 2008 and 2009 has been growing since then. Again, Ireland missed that momentum.

    Over the crisis period, growth in our exports of goods and services did not translate into strong growth in our GDP and was completely irrelevant to the dynamics of our GNP or national income. The reason for this paradox is that our goods exports have shrunk 3.57 percent in 2012, having posted declining rate of growth 2011 compared to 2010. The rate of their decline is now accelerating. In January-September this year our exports of goods fell 6.7 percent compared to the same period a year ago. Goods trade is the core employer of Irish workers amongst all exporting sectors and the main contributor to the economy at large.

    Instead of goods trade, our external balance expansion became dependent solely on ICT services and a massive collapse in imports.

    Much of the former represent transfer pricing and have little real effect on the ground. As the result, our exports growth came with virtually zero growth in employment, domestic demand or investment. We don't need to dig deep into the statistics to see this: over the period of our fabled exports-led recovery, Irish private sector prices and domestic demand both followed a downward path.

    The latter, however, presents a serious risk to the sustainability of our debts. To fund our liabilities, we need long-term current account surpluses to average above 4 percent of GDP over the next decade or so. We also need economic growth of some 3-3.5 percent in GDP and GNP terms to start reducing massive unemployment and reversing emigration. Yet, to drive real growth in the economy we need domestic investment and demand uplifts. These require an increase in imports of real capital and consumption goods. Should our exports of goods continue down the current trajectory, any sustained improvement in the domestic economy will be associated with rising imports and, as a corollary, deterioration in our trade balance.

    This, in turn, will put pressures on our economy’s capacity to fund debt servicing. And given the levels of debt we carry, the tipping point is not that far off the radar.

    In H1 2013 Ireland's external real debt (excluding monetary authorities, banks and FDI) stood at almost USD1.32 trillion - the highest level ever recorded in history. Large share of this debt is down to the IFSC and MNCs sector. However, overall debt levels in the Irish system are still sky high. More importantly, the debt levels are not declining, despite the claims to the aggressive deleveraging of our households and banks. At the end of H1 2013, total real economic debt in Ireland - debt of Irish Government, excluding Nama, Irish-resident corporates and households - stood at over EUR492 billion - down just EUR8.5 billion on absolute peak attained in H3 2012. In other words, our current debt levels are basically flat on the peak and are above the highs attained before the crisis.


    With all the talk about positive forecasts for the economy and the world around us, we are desperately seeking to escape three basic truths. One: we are facing the risk that neither exports growth nor the reversals of our foreign trade partners' fortunes are likely to do much for our real economy. Two: the real break on our growth is the gargantuan burden of combined household, government and corporate debts. And three: we have no plan to deal with either the former risk or the latter reality.

    Instead of charting our own course toward achieving sustainable long-term competitiveness in our economy, we remain attached at the hip to the slowest horse in the pack of global economies – the euro area. This engine of Irish growth is now seized by a Japanese-styled long-term stagnation with no growth in new investment and consumption, and glacially moving deleveraging of its banks and sovereigns.

    Governments across the EU are pursuing cost-cutting and re-orienting their purchasing of goods and services toward domestic suppliers. In this zero-sum competition, small players like Ireland are risking being crushed by the weight of financial repressions and domestic protectionism in the larger economies.

    These forces are not going to disappear overnight even if growth returns to Europe. According to the global survey by Markit, released this week, one third of companies worldwide expect their business to rise over the next 12 months. By itself - a low number, but a slight rise on 30 percent at the end of Q2 2013. Crucially, however, improving sentiment does not translate into improving economic conditions: only 14 percent of companies expect to add new employees in 2014.

    As per financial repression, euro area banks remain sick with as much as EUR 1 trillion in required deleveraging yet to take place and some EUR350-400 billion worth of assets to be written down. Should the banks stress tests uncover any big problems there is no designated funding to plug the shortfalls. According to the Standard Bank analysts' research note, published this week: "Increasingly, European governments are resorting to tricks to resolve the problems of their banking systems, including inadequate stress tests, overly optimistic growth and asset price forecasts, and some unusual accounting stratagems."

    Which foreign government or private economy is going to start importing Irish goods and services or investing here at an increasing rate when their own populations are struggling to find jobs and their banks are fighting for survival.


    Meanwhile, we remain on a slow path to entering new markets, despite having spent good part of the last 6 years talking about the need to 'break' into BRICS and the emerging and middle-income economies. In January-September 2012, Irish exports to BRICS totaled EUR2.78 billion. A year later, these are down EUR240 million. Controlling for exchange rates valuations, our exports to the key developing and middle-income markets around the world are flat since 2010.

    We are also missing the most crucial element of the growth puzzle: structural reforms that can make us competitive not just in terms of crude unit labor costs, but across the entire economic system. Since 2008 there has been virtually no changes made to the way we do business domestically, especially when it comes to protected professions and state-controlled sectors. Legal reforms, restructuring of semi-state companies’ and the sectors where they play dominant roles, such as health, transport and energy, changes to the costs and efficiencies in our financial services – these are just a handful of areas where promised reforms have not been delivered.

    Political cycle is now turning against the prospect of accelerating such reforms with European and local elections on the horizon. Reforms fatigue sets in. The relative calm of the last 9-12 months has pushed all euro area governments into a false sense of security.

    The good news is that the collapse phase of the Great Recession is over. The bad news is that with growth of around 1.5 percent per annum on GDP we are nowhere near the moment when the economy starts returning to long-term health. I warned about this scenario playing out over the next decade in these very pages back in 2008-2009. Given the latest projections from the Department of Finance and the IMF, we are firmly on the course to deliver on my prediction.

    Welcome to the age of the Great Stagnation.




    Box-out:

    Recent research paper from the European Commission, titled The Gap between Public and Private Wages: New Evidence for the EU assessed the differences between public sector and private sector earnings across the 27 member states over the period of 2006-2010. The findings are far from encouraging for Ireland. In 2010, Irish public wages were found to be some 21.2 percent higher than the comparable wages paid in the private sector. The study controlled for a number of factors impacting wages differentials, including gender, age, tenure in the job, education and job grades. Strikingly, the study found that wages premium in the public sector was higher for women, for younger workers and for less skilled employees. A positive public wage premium was also observed at all levels of educational attainment with the largest premium paid to workers with low education and the lowest to workers with medium levels of education. If in 2006 Irish public sector wage premium stood on average at 20.5 percent, making our public sector wage premium second highest in the EU27, by 2010 we had the highest premium at 21.2 percent. It is worth noting that in all Nordic countries of Europe, the wage premium to public sector workers was found to be negative in 2010.

    Monday, October 7, 2013

    7/10/2013: Taking an Easy Road Out of Budget 2014? Sunday Times, September 22

    This is an unedited version of my Sunday Times column from September 22, 2013.


    The upcoming Budget 2014 will be one of the toughest since the beginning of the crisis in terms of the overall levels of cuts and tax increases. It also promises to cut across the psychological barrier of austerity fatigue. The latter aspect of Budget 2014 is more pernicious. Two other factors will add to the national distress, comes October 15th. Reinforcing our national sense of exhaustion with endless austerity, this week, the IMF published a staff research paper on fiscal adjustments undertaken during the current Great Recession. According to some, the IMF study reinforces the argument that Ireland should have been allowed to spread the austerity over a longer period time. In addition to this, Ireland’s planned 2014 cuts are set to be well in excess of the deficit reduction targets for any other euro area country.

    The superficial reading of the IMF statement, the nascent sense of social distress brewing underneath the surface of public calm, and the tangible and very real pain felt by many in the society suggest that the Government should take it easier in 2014-2015. The policy option, consistent with such a choice would be to cut less than committed to under the multi-annual fiscal plans agreed with the Troika. This is being proposed by a number of senior Ministers and TDs, the Opposition and the Unions.

    Alas, Ministers Noonan and Howlin have little choice when it comes to the actual volumes of fiscal adjustments they will have to implement next year. Like it or not, we will need to stick very close to the EUR3.1 billion deficit reduction targets irrespective of the IMF working papers conclusions, or the volume of outcries coming from the Government backbenchers and the opposition ranks.

    Here's how the brutal logic of our budgetary position stacks up against an idea of easing on deficit reductions.

    If everything goes according to the plan, Ireland will end 2013 with a second or a third highest deficit in the EU, depending on how we account for the one-off spending measures across the peripheral states. We will also have the second highest primary deficit (that is deficit excluding cost of interest payments on Government debt) in the euro area. In 2014 this abysmal performance will replay once again, assuming we meet the targets. Greece and Italy are set to finish 2013 with a primary surplus. Portugal is expected to post a primary deficit of less than one half that of Ireland's. Should Ireland deliver on the targets for 2014, our gap between the Government revenues and spending will still stand at around 4.3-4.6 percent of GDP at the end of December 2014. Not a great position to be in, especially for a country that claims to be different from the rest of the euro periphery.

    In this environment, talking about any change in the course on austerity or attempting to enact a fiscal stimulus will be equivalent to accelerating into a blind corner on a one-lane road.

    In order to stabilise government debt, Ireland will require cumulative deficits cuts of 11.6% of GDP between January 2013 and December 2018 with quarter of these cuts scheduled for 2014-2015. This is the largest volume of cuts for any economy in the euro area - more than 20 percent greater than the one to be undertaken by Greece and more than 50 percent in excess of Spain’s requirement.

    Any delay in cuts today will only multiply pain tomorrow with higher debt to deflate in 2016-2018. As things stand under the agreed plans, Ireland will be spending 4.9 percent of its GDP annually on funding debt interest payments from through 2018. This is more than one and a half times greater than what we will be allocating to gross public investment. The interest bill, over the next five years, will be at least EUR46 billion. Lowering 2014 adjustment target by EUR1 billion can result in the above cost rising to over EUR50 billion, based on my estimates using the IMF forecast models.

    The reason for this is that any departure from the committed fiscal adjustment path is likely to have consequences.

    Firstly, with the ongoing sell-offs of bonds in the global investment markets, it is highly likely that the cost of funding Government debt for Ireland will rise over the medium term even absent any delays in fiscal adjustments. The long-term interest rates are already showing sharper rising of yields on longer maturity bonds compared to short-dated bonds. Year to date, German 10-year yields are up 64 basis points, UK are up 105 bps and the US ones are up 111 bps. The effects of these changes on Irish debt and deficit dynamics are not yet fully priced in the latest IMF forecasts. A mild steepening of the maturity curve for Ireland can significantly increase our interest bill. This risk becomes even more pronounced if we are to delay the Troika programme.

    Secondly, failure to fulfill our commitments is unlikely to help us in our transition from Troika funding. Ireland will require a precautionary standby arrangement of at least EUR10 billion in cheaply priced funds. The European Stability Mechanism (ESM) funds to cover this come on foot of good will of our EU 'partners'. These partners, in turn, are seeking to redraft EU tax policies, as well as banking, financial and ICT services regulations. In virtually all of these proposals, Ireland is at odds with the European consensus. Good will of Paris and Berlin is a hard commodity, requiring hard currency of appeasement. Whether we like it or not, by stepping into the euro system, we committed ourselves to this position.

    The long run financial arithmetic also presents a major problem for those who misread the latest IMF research on austerity as a sign that the Fund is advocating easing of the 2014-2015 adjustments for Ireland. The IMF clearly shows that Ireland has already delayed required fiscal cuts more than any other euro area economy. In all euro area peripheral economies, other than Ireland, fiscal adjustments for 2014-2015 are set at less than one fifth of the total adjustment required for 2010-2015 period. In Ireland they are set at one third. Which means that, having taken more medicine upfront, Italy, Greece, Portugal and Iceland can now afford to ease on cutting future primary imbalances.


    With this in mind, there is not a snowballs chance in hell that we can substantively deviate from the plan to cut EUR3.1 billion, gross, from 2014 deficit without facing steep bill for doing so. Which leaves us with the only pertinent question to be asked: how such an adjustment should be spread across three areas of fiscal policy: Government revenues, current expenditure and capital expenditure.

    This year, through August, Government finances have been running ahead of both 2012 levels and we are perfuming well relative to what was planned in the budget 2013 profile. However, the headline numbers conceal some worrying sub-currents.

    This year's current primary expenditure in 8 months through August stood at over EUR36.6 billion, more than targeted in the 2013 profile and ahead on the same period last year. This deterioration was caused by the one off payment made on winding down the IBRC, plus the increase in contributions to the EU budget. Nonetheless, while tax and Government revenues increases in the 8 moths of 2013 were running at almost EUR3.4 billion compared to the same period of 2012, spending reductions are down only EUR823 million.

    To-date, only 17 percent of the entire annual adjustment came via current voted spending cuts and over 57 percent came from increases in Government revenues. The balance of savings was achieved by slashing further already decimated capital investment programmes.  Given the overall capital investment profile from 1994 through forecast 2013 levels, as provided by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, this year's net capital spending is likely to come below the amount required to cover amortisation and depreciation of the current stock of Government capital. Put simply, we are just about keeping the windows on our public buildings and doors on our public schools in working order.

    In this environment, Labour Party and opposition calls for undoing 'the savage cuts to our frontline services' - or current spending side of the Government balance sheet - are about as good as Doctor Nick Rivera's cheerfully internecine surgical exploits in the Simpsons.

    The adjustments to be taken over the next two years will have to fall heavily on current spending side. This is a very painful task. To-date, much of the savings achieved on the expenditure side involved either transforming public spending into private sector fees, which can be called a hidden form of taxation, or by achieving short term temporary savings.

    The former is best exemplified by continued hikes of hospitals' charges which have all but decimated the markets for health insurance. The result is a simultaneous reduction in health insurance coverage, an increase in demand for public health services and costly emergency treatments. The 'savings' achieved are most likely costing us more than they bring in.

    The latter is exemplified by temporary pay moderation agreements and staff reductions in the public sector. This presents a problem to be faced comes 2015-2016: with growth picking up, many savings delivered by staff reductions and pay moderation measures will be the first to be reversed under the pressure from the unions.

    In short, the Government has no choice, but to largely follow the prescribed course of action. Like it or not, it also has no choice but to cut deeper into current spending. This is going to be an ugly budget by all measures possible, but the real cause of the pain it will inflict rests not with the Troika insistence on austerity. Instead, the real drivers for Ireland’s deep cuts in public spending are the internal imbalances in our public expenditure and the lack of deeper reforms in the earlier years of the crisis.


    Via @IMF

    Box-out: 

    Recent data from the CSO on Irish goods exports painted a picture of significant gains in one indigenous economy sector: agri-food exports. The exports of Food and live animals increased by EUR101 million or 15 percent in July 2013, compared to July 2012. In seven months from January 2013, agri-food exports rose to EUR4,911 million, up 8.8 percent. Most of the increases related to exports of animals-related products, live animals, eggs and milk. The new data caused a small avalanche of press releases from various representative bodies extolling the virtues of agri-food sector in Ireland and posting claims that the sector is poised to drive Ireland out of the recession. Alas, the data on agricultural prices, also covering the period through July 2013, released just three days after the publication of exports statistics, poured some cold water over the hot coals of agri-food sector egos. From January through July 2013, the main driver for improved exports performance of our agriculture and food sectors was not some indigenous productivity growth or innovation, but the price inflation in the globally-set agricultural output prices. On an annual basis, the agricultural output prices rose 10.7 percent in July 2013. Over the same period of time, the agricultural input price index was up 5.2 percent in July 2013. This means that Irish exports uptick in 2013 to-date was built on the pain of consumers elsewhere. So good news is that our agri-food exports were up. Bad news is that we have preciously little, if anything, to do with causing this rise.

    Monday, September 16, 2013

    16/9/2013: Don't chill that champagne, yet... Irish Agri-food Exports

    Here's one of the core reasons as to why agricultural exports are booming in Ireland:


    Or more precisely, implied profit margins on sales:

    So in basic terms: global food inflation is driving Ireland's agri-food exports since ca Q1 2010, while profitability improvements are contributing to the same since ca Q4 2011. The former is obviously not due to our competitiveness gains or efficiency improvements or great business strategies or policies. The latter is, err... not that much either, as costs continued to inflate since Q4 2011, albeit slower than output prices. In other words, our improved profit margin in the agri-food sector are also due to someone, somewhere on the Planet having to pay more for food.

    Thursday, August 15, 2013

    16/8/2013: H1 2013 Trade in Goods & Balance Dynamics for Ireland

    On foot of my post detailing Irish cumulated figures for trade in goods for H1 2013, some asked me to post on the relationship between exports and trade balance. Here are few charts, taking snapshot from H12000 through H1 2013:

    First, two charts showing levels of exports and trade balance for trade in goods:



    Note that in the first chart, there is barely any difference between the 2000-2013 average level of exports (at EUR44.145bn) and 2009-2013 period average (at EUR45.077bn). The gap is only 2.1% of EUR932mln. At the same time, the second chart shows that there is a massive gap between the average trade balance over the period of 2000-2013 (EUR17.184bn) and for the period of 2009-2013 (EUR20.728bn) -  a gap of 20.6% or EUR3,544 mln. The core reason for this is that much of the 2009-2013 'stellar' performance in our trade surplus was driven by collapse in imports, rather than a rise in exports. 

    To see this, let us plot exports against trade balance:


    The last chart clearly shows that in 2009-2013, on average, exports were tracking changes in trade balance, but they were not doing so 1:1.

    More interestingly, the chart shows that trade in goods in Ireland is in trouble. In 2009-2013 period, Irish Government policy has been to rely solely on exports (of goods and services) in driving the economy toward recovery and debt sustainability. This hope rests on growth in exports and simultaneously positive trade balance and growing trade balance as the key parameters for consideration when it comes to both economic growth and debt sustainability.

    Alas, in years 2010, 2012 and 2013 (in other words in 3 out of 5 years), measured by H1 figures alone, Irish goods traded operated in the 'pain spot' region - the region of shrinking exports and shrinking trade surpluses.

    In other words, in terms of levels our merchandise trade is performing well. But in terms of growth it is performing poorly. And this is despite a huge drop-off in imports, something that is not likely to last when the economy goes back to capital investment (imports of capital goods will rise) and/or consumption recovery (imports of consumption goods will rise).

    15/8/2013: H1 2013 Trade in Goods data for Ireland


    Latest data for Merchandise trade for June 2013 allows us to make some comparatives for the first half of the year. Here are some stats, all covering only merchandise trade:

    • Total Imports rose in H1 2013 by 3.12% on H2 2012 and were down 2.39% on H1 2012. Imports were up 3.11% in H1 2013 compared to the 6 months cumulative averages over the three years from H1 2010 through H2 2012. H1 2013 levels of imports were 23.2 below their peak for any 6 months period since H1 2000.
    • Total Exports fell in H1 2013 by 4.35% on H2 2012 and were down 6.55% on H1 2012. Exports declined, in absolute terms by EUR3.045 billion year-on-year. This marked the largest 6-mo cumulative drop in exports since H1 2003, marking the H1 2013 the worst year-on-year 6 months period since then.
    • Exports were down 4.48% in H1 2013 compared to the 6 months cumulative averages over the three years from H1 2010 through H2 2012. H1 2013 levels of exports were 12.43% below their peak for any 6 months period since H1 2000.
    • Trade Surplus fell 12.62% on H2 2012 and was down 11.47% in H1 2013 compared to H1 2012. In level terms, trade surplus was down EUR2.442 billion in H1 2013 compared to H1 2012, marking the worst 6 months period since H1 2005.
    Charts below illustrate the trends:


    Good news, per chart above, Trade Surplus is still running above 2000-present average, although Exports are now running below their 2000-present average. Bad news, the above chart does not adjust for inflation.

    Not-too-good news is, exports are now in the negative territory in terms of y/y changes. Remember, we need positive growth in total (merchandise and services) exports of ca 5% per annum to maintain any semblance of sustainability. Here's the tricky bit:


    As chart above shows, we really need rapid, very rapid growth in services exports to return our total exports and trade balance to where we need them to be to maintain economic activity at the levels that will be consistent with long-term gradual reduction of public debt.  Over the last 5 years, merchandise exports in Ireland grew on average at 0.59% y/y and over the last 10 years this growth was 0.94%. Owing to the recent collapse in our imports, our trade balance grew on average at 11.73% in the last 5 years. However, over the last 10 years the growth in our trade balance was much less dramatic 3.18%.

    Friday, August 9, 2013

    9/8/2013: Irish ICT Services: Geniuses & Jobs Creators?..

    The latest annual services inquiry for Ireland, published yesterday by the CSO and available here: http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/asi/annualservicesinquiry2011/#.UgTpe2QmlF8 offers a fascinating read into the workings in the bizarrely-distorted world of MNCs-led exporting services in the country.

    Here is one interesting set of facts, not shown by the CSO.


    As chart above shows, in 2008-2011, Gross Value Added in ICT Services sector in Ireland (the sector heavily dominated by the likes of Google and other tax transfer-driven MNCs) has boomed, rising 30%. This growth, as the Government et al love reminding us, is allegedly translating into jobs, jobs and more jobs.

    Alas, the facts speak for themselves:

    • Over 2008-2011 wages and salaries paid out in the sector rose just 8.2% or a tiny fraction of growth in value added.
    • GVA per person engaged in the sector rose 29.9% an
    • d GVA per full time employee rose 31.1% - both by far the fastest rates of growth of any sector in the economy.
    • The numbers engaged in the sector dropped (not rose) in 2008-2011 by 5.0% while numbers of full-time employees in the sector dropped 5.9%.
    Can someone explain these miracles to me, please? By anything other than ongoing substitution of activity away from actual production of services toward more tax optimisation?.. Anyone?..

    While at it, here is another illustrative chart to consider:


    The above shows that Irish ICT Services workers constitute a truly miraculous breed of employees - so vastly more productive than any other type of human being in Ireland. Next time, walking down the Barrow Street, do marvel at all the geniuses walking about.

    Tuesday, July 2, 2013

    2/7/2013: Sunday Times June 23, 2013: G8 and Ireland


    This is an unedited version of my Sunday Times article from June 23, 2013


    As G8 summits go, the latest one turned out to be as predictable as its predecessors – an event full of reaffirmations of well-known conflicts and pre-announced news. In terms of the former, the Lough Erne meeting delivered some fireworks on Syria. On the latter, there was a re-announcement of the previously widely publicized Free Trade pact between the US and Europe. Another pre-announced item involved the EU, UK and US push for corporate tax reforms.

    The two economic themes of the Logh Erne Summit agenda are tied at the hip in the case of our small open economy heavily reliant on FDI attracted here by the opportunities for tax arbitrage. As such, the G8 meeting agreement poses a significant threat for Ireland's model of economic development. Although it will take five to ten years for the shock waves to be felt in Dublin, make no mistake, the winds of uncomfortable change are rising.


    The trade agreement, first announced by the Taoiseach months before the G8 summit, promises to deliver some EUR120 billion in net benefits for the EU economy. Roughly 90% of these are expected to go to the Big 5 economies of the EU, leaving little for the smaller economies to compete over. Behind these net gains there are also some regional re-allocations of trade that will take place within the EU itself.

    In the short term, Ireland is well-positioned to see an increase in exports by the US multinationals operating from here and to some domestic exporters. The uplift in trade flows between Europe and the US may even help attracting new, smaller and more opportunistic US firms' investments. While tens of billions in trade for Ireland, bandied around by various Irish ministers, are unlikely to materialize, a small boost will probably take place.

    However, over time, the impact of the EU-US trade and investment liberalisation can lead to sizeable reductions in MNCs activity here. Under the free trade arrangements, longer-term investment and production decisions will be based on such factors as cost considerations, as well as concerns relating to access to the global markets, and taxes.


    Consider these three drivers for future trade and economic activity in Ireland in the context of the G8 summit and other recent news.

    On the cost competitiveness side, we have had some gains in terms of official metrics of labour productivity and unit labour costs. Major share of these gains came from destruction of less productive jobs in construction and domestic services. Increase in revenues transferred via Ireland by some services exporters since 2004-2007 period further contributed to improved competitiveness figures.

    Once when we control for these temporary or tax-linked 'gains' Ireland is still a high cost destination for investors compared to the majority of our peers.  As reflected in Purchasing Managers Indices, since the beginning of the crisis, Irish producers of goods and services have faced rampant cost inflation when it comes to prices of inputs. Earnings and wages data for 2009-2012, released this week, show labour costs rising across the exports-oriented sectors. Lack of new capital, R&D and technological investments further underlines the fact that much of our productivity gains are related to jobs destruction and transfer pricing by the MNCs.

    When the tariffs and other barriers to EU-US trade come down, some multinationals trading into Europe will have fewer incentives to locate their production in Ireland. This effect is likely to be felt stronger for those MNCs which trade increasingly outside the EU, focusing more on growth opportunities around the world. Based on experiences with other free trade areas, such as NAFTA and the EU, this can lead to increased on-shoring of FDI back into the US and into core European states, away from smaller economies that pre-trade liberalization acted as entrepots to Europe.


    The tax dimension of the G8 agreement will be the most significant driver for change in years to come.

    The G8 clearly outlined the reasons for urgency in dealing with the issues of both tax evasion (something that does not apply in Ireland's case) and tax avoidance (something that does have a direct impact on us). These are structural and will not dissipate even when the G8 economies recover.

    All of the G8 economies are struggling with heavy public and private debt loads and/or high domestic taxation levels. All are stuck in a demographic, social security and pensions costs whirlpools pulling them into structural insolvency. In other words, not a single G8 nation can afford to lose corporate revenues to various tax havens.

    In line with the longer-term nature of the drivers for tax reforms, G8-proposed agenda can also be seen in the context of quick, easier to implement changes and longer-term structural realignment of tax systems.

    The first wave of tax reforms outlined in principle by the G8 Summit will focus on tightening some of the more egregious loopholes, usually involving officially recognised tax havens. On the European side, this will spell trouble for the likes of Gurnsey and Jersey. The first round will also target easy-to-spot idiosyncratic tax arrangements, such as the Double Irish scheme and similar structures in Holland. Shutting down Double Irish will impact around a quarter of our trade in services, or roughly EUR13-15 billion worth of exports – much more than the EU-US Free Trade Agreement promises to unlock. The cut can be quick, as much of this trade involves electronic transactions - easy to shift and costless to re-domicile.

    Over time, as changes in tax systems bite deeper into the structure of European tax regimes, losses of exports and FDI are likely to mount. To raise substantive new tax revenues, the EU members of G8 will have to severely cut back tax advantages accorded to countries like Ireland by their competitive tax rates.

    Free Trade zones are notorious for amplifying the role of comparative advantage in determining where companies choose to domicile. Thus, to achieve a level the playing field for trade-related investments within the EU, either the effective tax rates will have to be brought much closer to parity across the block, or the basis for taxation must be redistributed more evenly across producers and consumers of goods and services.

    Forcing all EU countries to harmonise the rates of tax would be politically difficult. Instead, there is a ready-to-use solution to the problem of redistributing tax revenues available since 2009 - the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB).

    Under this mechanism companies selling goods and services from Ireland into European markets will report separate profits by each country of sales. These profits will then be reassigned back to the countries where each company has operations on the basis of a complex formula taking into the account company sales, employment levels and capital structure on the ground. The re-allocated profits will then be subject to a national tax rate. The end game from the CCCTB for Ireland will be effective end to the transfer pricing that goes along with the current system.

    The EU Commission analysis claimed that with full cooperation, the enhanced CCCTB implementation will lead to an 8% rise in tax revenues across the EU. The main beneficiaries of these gains will be the Big 5 member states. The total net impact of CCCTB on all EU member states is expected to be nearly zero.

    This suggests some sizeable reallocations of economic activity and tax revenues away from the smaller member states, like Ireland, in favour of the larger member states. January 2011, study by Ernst & Young for the Department of Finance concluded that Ireland can sustain one of the largest drops in tax revenues in the euro area due to CCCTB implementation. The estimates range up to 5.7% Government revenue decline, with our effective corporate tax rate rising to 23%, GDP falling by 1.6%-1.8%, and employment declining by 1.5%-1.6%.

    The Ernst & Young report was compiled based using data for 2005. Since then, Irish economy's reliance on services exports grew from EUR 49.5 billion or under 31% of GDP to EUR90.7 billion or close to 56% of GDP. With services exports being a prime example of a tax-sensitive sector in the economy, we can safely assume that the above estimates of the adverse impact of CCCTB on Irish economy are conservative.

    The CCCTB matches nearly perfectly the G8 Action plans relating to the issues of tax avoidance. It also fits the objectives of the OECD plan on addressing taxation base erosion and profit shifting which the OECD is preparing for the Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors of the G20 in July.

    While much of the impact of this week's G8 summit remains the matter for the future, there is no doubt that the G8 push toward curtailing aggressively competitive tax regimes is real.  In my view, Ireland has, approximately between five and ten years before our competitive advantage is severely eroded by the EU and the US efforts to coordinate the effective rates of taxation and consolidate reporting and payment bases for corporate profits. We must use these years wisely to build up our technological capabilities and develop a skills-based high-value added and highly competitive economy.



    Box-out:

    The latest data on the duration of working life (a measure of the number of years a person aged 15 is expected to be active in the labour market over their lifetime) shows that in 2000-2002, on average, European workers spent 32.9 years in employment or searching for jobs. This number rose to 34.7 years by 2011. In Ireland, the same increase in duration of working life took Irish workers from spending on average 33.3 years in labour market activities in 2000-2002 to 34.0 years in 2011. The increase in years worked in the case of Ireland was the third lowest in the euro area. In 2011, duration of working life ranged between 39.1 and 44.4 years in the Nordic countries and Switzerland – countries with much more sustainable pensions costs paths than Ireland. The significance of this is that given our pensions, housing and investment crises, Irish workers can look forward to spending some four-to-five years more working to fund their future retirement. Aside from a dramatic greying of our working population this means that even after the economic recovery takes hold, there might be no jobs for today's younger unemployed, as the older generations hold onto their careers for longer.

    Friday, June 28, 2013

    28/6/2013: Exports-led recovery: Q1 2013

    I covered the headline numbers and trends for the GDP and GNP in previous two posts: here and here. Now, onto some more detailed analysis.

    Remember, from the very beginning of the crisis, Irish and Troika leaders have been incessantly talking about the 'exports-led recovery'. Position on this blog concerning this thesis consistently remained that:

    1. Exports growth is great, but
    2. Exports growth is unlikely to be sufficient to lift the entire economy, and
    3. Exports growth projections were unrealistic, while
    4. Exports re-orientation toward services, away from goods was less conducive to delivering real growth in the economy.
    Q1 2013 data continues to confirm my analysis.

    In Q1 2013, based on real valuations (expressed in constant market prices),
    • Exports of Goods & Services shrunk 6.47% q/q and fell 4.09% y/y. This compares to +1.19% q/q growth in Q4 2012 and +1.28% expansion y/y. Compared to Q1 2011, when the current coalition took over the reigns in the Leinster House, total exports of goods and services are down 0.88% in real, inflation-adjusted terms. Troika sustainability projections envisioned growth of over 6% over the same period of time.
    • Imports of Goods and Services showed pretty much the same dynamics as exports in both Q4 2012 and Q1 2013, but owing to sharper contractions in 2011-2012 these are now down 4.34% compared to Q1 2011.
    • Exports of Goods fell in Q1 2013 by 3.83% q/q and 9.37% y/y, while there were declines of 2.68% q/q and 2.33% y/y in Q4 2012.
    • Exports of Services were down 8.75% q/q but up 1.27% y/y in Q1 2013, and these were up 4.77% q/q and 4.63% y/y in Q4 2012.


    • Trade Balance in Goods and Services fell 4.96% q/q and was down 3.63% y/y in Q1 2013, with Q4 2012 respective changes at -15.91% q/q and +0.98% y/y. Compared to Q1 2011, trade balance is up 15.91%
    • Trade Balance in Goods was down 6.63% q/q in Q4 2012 and this deteriorated to -10.73% growth in Q1 2013. Y/y, trade balance in goods contracted 0.05% in Q4 2012 and shrunk 10.59% in Q1 2013. On Q1 2011, trade balance in goods is down 14.04%.
    • Trade Balance in Services fell from EUR1,130mln in Q3 2012 to EUR132mln in Q4 2012 before improving to EUR601mln in Q1 2013. In Q1 2012 the balance stood at EUR28 million.


    Friday, April 26, 2013

    26/4/2013: Exports-led Recovery Mythology

    An excellent blogpost on the UK failure to drive 'exports-led recovery': http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jeremywarner/100024274/the-killing-of-britains-economic-salvation-an-export-led-recovery/

    And it has a handy chart:

    What's telling about the chart? Recall that every country in Europe is angling to get that 'exports-led recovery' going, including Ireland. which raises two questions

    1. As commonly asked: who will be importing all these exports from Europe? Traditional answer is: China or Asia, but the problem is - save for some luxury goods, China and Asia can manufacture all that Europe can export.
    2. What about Ireland? Well, see the chart above: apparently, our exports-led recovery is more robust than just two countries in the sample: the UK and Denmark.
    Oh, and a note: Japan has been having an 'exports-led recovery' at record rates, and it is still nowhere near any real recovery.


    Sunday, April 21, 2013

    21/4/2014: Exports-led recovery? Not that promising so far...

    Regular readers of this blog know that since the beginning of the crisis, I have been sceptical about the Government-pushed proposition that exports led recovery can be sufficient to lift Ireland out of the current crises-induced stagnation.

    Over the recent years I have put forward a number of arguments as to why this proposition is faulty, including:

    1. A weakening link between our GDP, GNP and national income,
    2. A worrisome demographic trend that is structurally leading to lower labour markets participation, alongside the renewed emigration,
    3. Structural weaknesses in the economy left ravaged by some 15 years if not more of bubbles-driven growth,
    4. Taxation and state policy structures that favor old modes of economic development and which are incompatible with high value-added entrepreneurship, employment creation and growth, 
    5. Substitution away from more real economy-linked goods exports in favor of the superficially inflated exports of services in the ICT and international financial services sectors, etc
    But the dynamics of our exports are also not encouraging. 

    Here's a summary of some trends in Irish exports since 1930s, all expressed in relation to nominal value of merchandise trade (omitting effects of inflation). Based on 5-year cumulative trade volumes (summing up annual trade volumes over 5 year periods):
    • Irish exports grew 147.8% in 1980-1984 and 86.7% in 1985-1989 - during the 1980s recession. This did not lift Irish economy out of the crisis, then.
    • Irish exports grew 56.3% in 1990-1994 period and 56.4% in 1995-1999 period. Thus, slower  rate of growth in exports during the 1990s than in the 1980s accompanied growth in the 1990s. This hardly presents a strong case for an 'exports-led recovery'.
    • Irish exports expanded cumulatively 148.0% in 2000-2004, before shrinking by 0.4% in 2005-2009 period and is expected to grow at 4.6% cumulatively in 2010-2014 (using 2010-2012 data available to project trend to 2014). 
    The last point above presents a problem for the Government thesis on exports-led recovery: the rates of growth in merchandise exports currently expected to prevail over 2010-2014 period are nowhere near either the 1980s crisis-period rates of growth or 1990s Celtic Tiger period rates of growth.

    Ok, but what about trade surplus? Recall, trade surplus feeds directly into current account which, some believe almost religious, is the only thing that matters in determining the economy's ability to recover from debt-linked crises. Again, here are the facts:
    • During the 1980-1984 Ireland run trade deficit that on a cumulative basis amounted to EUR5,969mln. This gave way to a cumulated surplus of EUR8,938mln in 1985-1989 period. So attaining a relatively strong trade surplus did not lift Irish economy from the crisis of the 1980s.
    • In Celtic Tiger era, during 1990-1994 period, cumulated surpluses rose at a robust rate of 155.7% on previous 5 year period, and this increase was followed by a further improvement of 113.9% in 1995-1999 period. 
    • During Celtic Garfield stage, in 2000-2004 period Irish trade surplus increased by a cumulative 245.4%. However, in 2005-2009 period trade surplus shrunk 10.9% cumulatively on previous 5 years. Based on data through 2012, projected cumulated growth in trade surplus (recall, this is merchandise trade only) grew by 43.6%.
    Again, trade surplus growth is strong, currently, but it is nowhere near being as strong as in the 1990s. Worse, current rate of growth in trade surplus is well below the rate of growth attained in the 1980s.

    Charts to illustrate:


    Oh, and do note in the above chart the inverse relationship between the ratio of merchandise exports to imports (that kept rising during the Celtic Tiger and Garfield periods as per trend) and the downward trend in exports growth.