20/6/16: Creating Fiscal Space. Or Money Growing on Trees

You might excuse an average punter for thinking things are going the beleaguered Irish Health Services ways with some EUR500 ml added to the spending bin (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/eu-ruling-means-extra-540m-for-health-fbpnqcqb8?shareToken=699206929a359223e8662e8ae88a18d2). After all, even the good folks of The Times bought into the positive story.

But, such a conjecture is wrong. What really is happening, thus? In simple terms, the Eurostat reclassification of the Government conversion of AIB preference shares into ordinary shares generates several implications:

1. Preference shares represent a preferred (or senior) claim on AIB assets in the case of default or dilution compared to ordinary shares. That is the basics corporate finance and as such implies that State conversion of shares adds new risk to the State holdings, as well as reduces the value of that holding. It does create a marginal improvement in the AIB’s outlook for selling shares in the markets, however.
2. The conversion also raises official State deficit and spending volume for 2015, which has no direct material impact on 2015 spending, except via two channels: Channel 1 is the impact that added spending has on future (2016) spending; and Channel 2 is the GDP effect - as AIB transaction added some EUR500 million to State official spending, that EUR500 million is now an addition to 2015 GDP.
3. Because State spending for 2015 is now EUR500 million higher, and because our 2015 deficit was still below the approved (by the EU) target, the State is allowed - by the EU rules - to spend extra cash this year.
4. Although Ireland has funds ‘available’ for such increased spending, the funding will come from borrowing. The reason for this is simple: Ireland is still running a general deficit. Not a general surplus. If the State were to spend EUR500 million of ‘added fiscal space’ on activities for which it is borrowing funds under pre-existent budgetary commitments, the deficit would have dropped - in 2016 - by, roughly, that amount. However, if Ireland were to spend it on a new spending line or to increase spending above previously planned, the funding will come via borrowing from some other activity, such as repaying Government debt.

In simple terms, there is no free lunch. Irish State does not have extra EUR500 million floating around that it did not have before. No matter what you classify things as, basic accounting means: unless you got paid by someone EUR500 million, you have to borrow EUR 500 million in order to spend it.

Simples. But not for Irish media that keeps confusing deficit financing via debt for resources.

12/8/2013: Sunday Times August 4, 2013: Troika Programme Exit vs Fiscal Reforms

This is an unedited version of my article for Sunday Times August 4, 2013.


Irish political leaders are not exactly known for making logically consistent policy pronouncements. The current budgetary debates are case-in-point. On the one hand, minister after minister from both sides of the coalition benches are repeating ad nausea the tired cliches about their successes in managing the economy. On the other hand, the very same ministers are talking tough about the need for more pain, more adjustments, and more 'reforms' to secure the said recovery and deliver us from the clutches of the Troika. Only to turn around and start praising Troika support as the source of our recovery.

In reality, there are good, if only rarely voiced, reasons for these exhortations: seven hard budgets down, we are not really close to shaking off past legacy of wasteful fiscal practices. The state is still insolvent. The structure of the state policies formation is still dysfunctional. The legacy of pork barrel party politics continues unreformed.

Nothing exemplifies this better than the stalled structural reforms of social welfare and the resulting temporary, risk-loaded nature of much of our fiscal adjustments to-date.


Take a look at the top-line data coming from the Merrion Street.

In the first six months of 2013 tax revenues collected by the Government were EUR3.17 billion ahead of the same period three years ago, while the total voted current expenditure by the Exchequer was up EUR391 million. In other words, the only difference between the current budgetary approach and that practiced by Bertie Ahearn is that today's tax collections are starting from the low levels. Aside from that, current spending continues to ride well ahead of our economy’s capacity to fund it. The 'boom is not getting “boomier”, but the two main current spending lines: social protection and health, are still running at 65.2 percent of the total voted current expenditure, up more than 4 percentage points on 2010.

Things have changed, over the years, to be fair. There have been reductions in current expenditure during the crisis, overshadowed by tax hikes and dramatic cuts to capital spending. Thanks to tax hikes, in H1 2013, Ireland marked the first half-year period when the current spending by the Super-3 Departments: Education and Skills, Health and Social Protection, combined, was below the total tax revenue collected by the State. A significant milestone, but hardly a salvation, as three departments' current expenditure in January-June 2013 still counted for 95 percent of total tax receipts. Thus, even with all the cuts to-date, shutting down all current voted expenditure, excluding the Super-3, will only half our Exchequer deficit from EUR6.59 billion to EUR3.31 billion.

Which exposes once again the five-years-old policy dilemma: to balance the books, Ireland will require at least a EUR2.7 billion worth of further cuts on the spending side on top of what is being planned for 2014-2015. Most, if not all of these will have to come from the Social Protection and Health

Sustainability of savings achieved to-date presents a further risk. So far, cuts to the Exchequer spending that dominated the last five years were heavily concentrated on the sides of capital expenditure and public payrolls. Both are at a risk of reversal in the future.

Any return to growth will require heavier capital investment in public infrastructure, schools, medical equipment and facilities and so on. In other words, capital savings are an illusion on the longer time scale.

Meanwhile, much of the current spending cuts fell onto the shoulders of temporary and contract staff, leaving permanent and more expensive staff protected. This protection came at a cost of increased demands on their productivity. With staff feeling the bite of higher taxes and pensions contributions, while being forced to work more and outside their comfort zone of life-long assignments, public sector unions are already itching to get a new wave of wages increases going.

Back in December 2012, the Troika has pointed out that the savings delivered in public sector pay bills under the Croke Park Agreement cannot be deemed sustainable in the long run. The Haddington Road Agreement for 2013-2016 further confirms this assessment. The insolvent state is now fully committed to more rounds of increments payments, no matter what happens to the economy or exchequer finances. Virtually all ‘savings’ to be delivered under the Haddington Road Agreement are to be automatically reversed at the end of the agreement term or earlier.

The risks of policies reversals on capital and public sector pay, relating to the above measures, are non-trivial. IMF forecasts through 2021 showed the current path of fiscal adjustments taking us to a debt to GDP ratio of just over 95 percent in 2021 from the peak of 2013. Using IMF assumptions, my own estimates suggests that reversing budgetary policies to 2013 levels after 2015 can result in our Government debt to GDP ratio stuck at 108 percent in 2021.


All of which points to a simple but uncomfortable fact: to achieve long-term sustainability of our fiscal policies, Ireland requires a longer term reduction in public spending well in excess of what can be delivered without significantly cutting into current health and social welfare expenditures. Given the fact that health spending is already stretched, the above cuts will have to happen on welfare side.

The reforms, to be undertaken across a period of, say 2015-2016 will have to be sweeping and permanent, building in part on some of the piecemeal changes already in place.

To reduce the risk of replay of the devastating 2008-2010 effects of unemployment shocks on exchequer and economy at large, we need to separate unemployment benefits from other welfare supports.

Unemployment Insurance (UI) should provide a temporary, but generous safety net, sufficient to sustain reasonable family commitments to mortgages and children- and health-related expenditures. Thus, UI should be paid as a percentage of the end-of-employment salary, starting with 2/3rds of the salary up to a maximum of the median wage, with payments declining with duration of unemployment. Payments should terminate after 9 months.

Social welfare payments (SWP) to able-bodied adults can kick in following the expiration of the UI scheme on a means-tested basis. A low monthly personal SWP rate should be supplemented with access to childcare and healthcare, as well as educational grants for children, but only in the cases where recipients engage in training and/or active job searching. A recipient cannot turn down a reasonable offer of a job without facing a financial penalty. All benefits should be subject to a life-time cap of 6-7 years to prevent formation of permanent welfare dependency, while providing a broadly sufficient safety net..

All benefits payments above the monthly personal SWP rate, benchmarked for provision under the scheme, such as health, public services and transport allowance, should be cashless to reduce potential misuse of funds. To encourage better health attitudes and more careful utilisation of public services, a share of unused allowances, say 10-20 percent, accumulated in the account at the end of each year can be paid out as an annual bonus.

We also need to reform our state pensions. Given the fallout from the property bust, large numbers of Irish families are facing the prospect of pension-less retirement. They will require significant state supports - something we cannot afford while carrying the burden of unfunded state pensions.

All statutory state pensions should be means-tested to generate immediate savings and remove absurd subsidisation of the better-off at the expense of those in genuine need. Ditto for age-linked medical cards.

Automatic benchmarking of legacy public sector pensions should end and all current public employees’ pensions should be converted into defined contribution schemes. This will require a legislative decision to alter employment contracts. It will also require recapitalization of the public pensions fund, which can be done gradually over the period of, say, 10 years.

Savings to be targeted in the above measures should apply gradually, over 2014-2017, to generate new substitutes for temporary measures adopted in previous budgets.

However, even with gradual improvements in the labour markets and economy from 2014 on, implementing the above reforms will be nearly impossible. Current political system, with policy decisions based on consensus of the interest groups, is subject to stalling on big reforms and the risk of future reversals by governments seeking popular mandates. This means that we need to take a National Unity approach to structuring and enacting the new legislation dealing with reforms of the social welfare and pensions. Such a consensus is feasible, once all political parties in the Dail realise that Ireland will continue to face subdued economic recovery, elevated unemployment and anemic asset markets well into 2020-2021. With these headwinds, the pressure to carry on with prudent fiscal policies will remain. Thus, the only way of avoiding the contagion from the current long-term economic crisis to the political and state balance of power is to enact irreversible, legislatively protected structural reforms of the social welfare on the basis of bi-partisan legislative engagement.

Box-out:

A note from Davy Research on Mortgages Arrears, published this week, represents a good summary of the current crisis and draws some sensible and well-argued policy conclusions on the subject. Alas, the report commits one common, unnecessary and unfortunate error. Strategic non-payment of mortgages debt is cited in the report eighteen times. Yet, there is no direct evidence presented in the report, or in any study cited in the report, as to the true extent of the problem in Ireland. Instead, like all other analysts, Davy team references unsubstantiated statements by the banks and banking authorities, and simplistic extrapolations of other countries’ studies to the case of Ireland as evidence that "mortgage delinquency has continued to grow despite better-than-expected labour market  conditions” and that “strategic default is now a problem." Like other researchers, Davy team cites increases in employment in Q1 2013 as the evidence of a 'growing problem' with strategic non-payments.  Alas, in Q1 2013, seasonally-adjusted full-time employment (jobs that can sustain payment of mortgages) dropped 4,500 year on year. Broader measures of unemployment reported by CSO also posted increases. This hardly constitutes a material improvement on households' ability to fund mortgages repayments and it certainly does not support the thesis of significant and growing strategic defaults. Of course, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; the employment data cited above does not prove that there are no strategic defaults in Ireland. It simply shows that absent real, direct evidence, one should take care not to fall into the trap of convincing oneself that an oft-repeated conjecture must invariably be true.

21/1/2013: An Uncomfortable Question

Let's ask our Government an uncomfortable question: 

The Government claims (legitimately, to some extent) that 

1. The economy has stabilised & fiscal situation has improved significantly and
2. The Croke Park agreement 1.0 delivered what it required in terms of savings. 

Thus, by (1) & (2) things are going according to the MOU-sealed plan (signed within the confines of the Croke Park 1.0) and there are no new urgent pressures or shocks arising. 

In that case, why does the Government need Croke Park 2.0 with another round of EUR1bn 'savings'?

The idea that we need structural reforms in the public sector is not exactly hot on the Government's agenda. Furthermore, that idea was already, allegedly, reflected in the Croke Park 1.0 which was a 'success' per Government official accounts. Lastly, all structural reforms were supposed to deliver on targets set within the MOUs and these are consistent with the Croke Park 1.0.

So which side of the Government is talking porkies? The side that claims Croke Park 1.0 has delivered on reforms and changes and savings needed or the side that claims we need Croke Park 2.0?

22/10/2012: Is Ireland a 'Special Case' in the Euro area periphery?

Since the disastrously vacuous summit last Thursday and Friday, there has been a barrage of 'Ireland is special' statements from Merkel and other political leaders. The alleged 'special' nature of Ireland compared to Greece, Portugal and Spain is, supposedly, reflected in Irish banks being successfully repaired and Irish fiscal crisis corrected to a stronger health position than that of the other peripheral countries.

I am not going to make a comment on the banking system's functionality in Ireland compared to other states. But on the fiscal front, let's take a look. Per IMF:

• In 2012 we expect to post a Government deficit of 8.30% of GDP against Greece's deficit of 7.52%, Portugal's 4.99% and Spain's 6.99%. We are 'special' in so far as we will have the highest deficit of all peripheral countries.
• In 2013, Ireland is forecast to post a Government deficit of 7.52% of GDP against Greece's 4.67%, Portugal's 4.48% and Spain's 5.67%. Once again, 'special' allegedly means the 'worst performing'.
• In 2012, Ireland's structural deficit would have fallen from 9.31% of potential GDP in 2010 to 6.15% - a decline of 3.16 ppt. For Greece, the same numbers are 12.12% to 4.53% - a decline of 7.59 ppt or more than double the rate of austerity than in Ireland. For Portugal, these numbers are  8.96% to 4.09% - a decline of 4.87 ppt of more than 50% deeper reduction than in Ireland. For Spain: 7.32% to 5.39% - a drop of 1.93 ppt or shallower than that for Ireland.
• In 2013 in terms of structural deficit, Ireland (5.38% of potential GDP deficit) will be worse off than Greece (-1.06% of potential GDP), Portugal (2.28%) and Spain (3.52%)

Now, run by me what is so 'special' about Ireland's fiscal adjustment case?

Can it be that we are 'lighter' than other peripherals on debt?

• 2010 Government debt in Ireland stood at 92.175% of GDP and this year it will be around 117.743% - up 25.255% of GDP. For Greece this was respectively 144.55% of GDP in 2010 and 170.731% in 2012 - a rise of 26.181%, marginally faster than that for Ireland. For Portugal, gross Government debt was 93.32% of GDP in 2010 and that rose to 119.066% in 2012, an increase of 25.746%. Again, not far from Ireland's. And for Spain, these numbers were 61.316% to 90.693% - a rise of 29.377%. So while Spain is clearly the worst performer in the class, Ireland, Greece and Portugal are not that far off from each other.

Wait, what about economic reforms and internal devaluations? Surely here Ireland, with its exports-focused economy is a 'special' case?

• In 2012, Ireland is expected to post a current account surplus of 1.813% of GDP, against deficits of between 0.148% and 2.909% for the other three peripheral countries. This, of course, is not the legacy of Irish reforms, but of the MNCs operating from here.
• However, in terms of current account dynamics, Ireland is not that special. Between 2010 and 2012, Greece will reduce its current account deficit by 4.294 ppt, Ireland will improve its external balance by 0.674 ppt, Portugal by 7.105 ppt and Spain by 2.278 ppt. So Ireland is the worst performing country of four in terms of current account dynamics, while the best performing in terms of current account balance.

Now, do run by me what can it possibly mean for Ireland to be a 'special' case compared to Greece, Portugal and Spain?

20/12/2011: IMF IV Review of Ireland Programme: part 3

In the previous two posts I covered the IMF analysis of mortgages arrears and budgetary dynamics. Here, let's focus on IMF forward-looking analysis for 2012.

"Given the strong growth in the first half, real GDP growth has been revised up to 1.1 percent
in 2011 from 0.4 percent in the most recent WEO projection. However, nominal GDP would
be essentially flat in 2011 given a projected 1 percent decline in the GDP deflator owing to a
deterioration in the terms of trade." [You can read this as follows: we repay debt out of nominal GDP. Which is flat. Thus our capacity to repay our debts in 2011 remains identical to that in 2010. Another year, and not any closer to the elusive - and utterly unattainable, of course - goal of paying down our total debts.]

"Further deceleration in external trade prevents any growth pick-up in the baseline in 2012. Growth projected for key trading partners—the euro area, the U.S. and the U.K. account for 80 percent of exports—has been revised down from 2 percent at the Third Review to 1½ percent currently (export-weighted). The non-cyclicality of pharmaceutical exports and recent improvements in competitiveness help mitigate the impact of lower demand, nonetheless, projected Irish export growth in 2012 has been revised down from 5¼ percent to 3¾ percent. Domestic demand will continue to contract, leaving GDP growth at 1 percent in 2012, down from 1.9 percent at the previous review. Low growth allows only a small reduction in unemployment in 2012. Inflation would remain low at about 1 percent in 2012, as higher indirect tax rates broadly offset the impact of weaker international price pressures." [So, in a summary: if pharma exports remain as they are - no patent cliff effects etc - we will grow at 1% in 2012, unemployment will decline slightly solely due to exits from the labor force and emigration, and high taxes will hammer domestic demand, thus driving down inflation. Did I hear 'stagnation' said anywhere?]

"Overall, growth is expected to average 2¾ percent over 2013–15, but the unemployment rate may remain in double-digits through 2016, risking the development of sizeable structural unemployment." [In other words, the growth rate IMF builds in assumes 2012 growth of 1.0%, 2013 growth of 2.3%, 2014 of 2.7% and 2015 of 3%. Department of Finance projects growth of 1.3-1.6% for 2012 (+0.3-0.6% on IMF), 2.4% in 2013 (+0.1% on IMF), and 3% in 2014 and 2015. Cumulative departure over 2012-2015 between IMF forecasts and DofF/Budget 2012 forecasts is, therefore, at 0.75-1.08 percent. If anything, were the IMF to be correct in their assumptions, Ireland will need some additional cuts of 0.02-0.03% of 2015 GDP - €172-204mln. If, however, the IMF itself is over-optimistic and Irish GDP growth were to come in at 2.5% average for the 2013-2015 period instead of 2.75%, the shortfall on targets will be as high as €293mln. And that's just the growth estimates effects.]

Importantly, the IMF revised its previous forecasts for 2015 deficit of 2.9% in line with the Government plans. However, debt/GDP ratio remains projected to peak at 118.1% in 2013 and this reflects adjustments for the €3.72bn 'Cardiff error'.

"Debt-to-GDP is projected to peak at 118 percent in 2013, in line with the previous review. The debt path is lowered by a correction to the end-2010 general government debt level and the reduced interest rate on EU loans, but this is offset by lower projections for nominal GDP. Potential privatization receipts could lower debt prospects, while outlays to restructure the credit union sector could raise debt prospects, but such outlays are expected to be manageable. External developments affecting growth and the prospective interest rates on market financing are the key sources of risk to debt sustainability."[The assumption is that projected cost of credit unions losses covers will be €500-1,000mln only.]

But don't worry - Government revenues are going to be very transparent. Per IMF analysis, in effect, the entire revenue adjustment forward will be carried through income taxes:

Perhaps a telling thing about the report is that the entire 'growth policies' section of the review is given less space than the reforms of the credit unions. What is given, however, is bizarrely thin on ideas and impact.

Most of the 'measures' referenced reflect focus on Employment Regulation Orders (EROs) or Registered Employment Agreements (REA) review - a measure that is likely to produce some labour cost reductions in the construction sector and perhaps some other labor intensive, lower-wage sectors. However, it is simply naive to believe that labor costs hold back jobs creation in retail, hospitality and construction. Instead, market structure, lack of consumer demand, Nama - for construction, banks credit availability and, above all, devastated personal incomes of those still working (via taxes hits and earnings declines) are the main drivers for lack of jobs creation in these sector. Review of wage setting mechanisms might be a high enough priority, but it is not the highest by any possible means.

Apart from that, IMF Megaminds have nothing else to say about jobs creation.

In the next post, I will focus on the IMF review of risks with respect to fiscal consolidation and growth.

5/12/2011: Sunday Times, December 4, 2011

For those of you who missed it - here is an unedited version of my article for Sunday Times, December 4, 2011.


Comes Monday and Tuesday, the Government will announce yet another one of the series of its austerity budgets. Loaded with direct and indirect taxation measures and cuts to middle class benefits, Budget 2012 is unlikely to deliver the reforms required to restore Irish public finances to a sustainable path. Nor will Budget 2012 usher a new area of improved Irish economic competitiveness. Instead, the new Budget is simply going to be a continuation of the failed hit-and-run policies of the past, with no real structural reforms in sight.

Structural reforms, however, are a must, if Ireland were to achieve sustainable growth and stabilize, if not reverse, our massive insolvency problem. And these reforms must be launched through the budgetary process that puts forward an agenda for leadership.

Firstly, Budgetary arithmetic must be based on realistic economic growth assumptions, not the make-believe numbers plucked out of the thin air by the Department for Finance. Secondly, budgetary strategy should aim for hard targets for institutional and systemic improvements in Irish economic competitiveness, not the artificial targets for debt/deficit dynamics.

Let’s take a look at the macroeconomic parameters framing the Budget. The latest ESRI projections for growth – released this week – envision GDP growth of 0.9% and GNP decline of -0.3% in 2012. Exports growth is projected at 4.7% in 2012, consumption to fall 1.5% and investment by 2.3%. Domestic drivers of the economy are forecast to fall much less in 2012 than in 2011 due to unknown supportive forces. This is despite the fact that the ESRI projects deepening contraction in government expenditure from -3% in 2011 to -4% in 2012. ESRI numbers are virtually identical to those from the latest OECD forecasts, which show GDP growing by 1.0% in 2012, but exports of goods and services expanding by 3.3%. OECD is rather less pessimistic on domestic consumption, projecting 2012 decline of just 0.5%, but more pessimistic on investment, predicting gross fixed capital formation to shrink 2.7%.

In my view, both forecasts are erring on optimistic side. Looking at the trends in external demand, my expectation is for exports growing at 2.9-3.2% in 2012, and imports expanding at the same rate. The reason for this is that I expect significant slowdown in public sector purchasing across Europe, impacting adversely ICT, capital goods, and pharmaceutical and medical devices sectors. On consumption and investment side, declines of -1.5-1.75% and -4-4.5% are more likely. Households hit by twin forces of declining disposable incomes, rising VAT and better retail margins North of the border are likely to cut back even more on buying larger ticket items in the Republic. All in, my forecast in the more stressed scenario is for GDP to contract at ca 0.6% and GNP to fall by 1.7% in 2012. Even under most benign forecast assumptions, GDP is unlikely to grow by more that 0.3% next year, with GNP contracting by 0.5%.

Under the four-year plan Troika agreement, the projected average rate of growth for GDP between 2012 and 2015 was assumed to be 3.1% per annum. Under the latest pre-Budget Department of Finance projections, the same rate of growth is assumed to average 2.5% per annum. My forecasts suggest closer to 1.5% annual average growth rate – the same forecast I suggested for the period of 2010-2015 in these same pages back in May 2010.

Using my most benign scenario, 2015 general government deficit is likely to come in at just above 4.0%, assuming the Government sticks to its spending and taxation targets. Meanwhile, General Government Debt to GDP ratio will rise to closer to 120% of GDP in 2015 and including NAMA liabilities still expected to be outstanding at the time, to ca 130% of GDP.

In brief, even short-term forecast changes have a dramatic effect on sustainability of our fiscal path.

Yes, the Irish economy is deteriorating in all short-term growth indicators. The latest retail figures for October, released this week show that relative to pre-crisis peak, core retail sales are now down 16% in volume terms and 21% in value terms. In the first half 2011, nominal gross fixed capital formation in the Irish economy fell 15% on H1 2010 levels and is now down 38% on pre-crisis peak in H1 2007. And exports, though still growing, are slowing down relative to imports. Ireland’s trade balance expanded 5% in H1 2011 on H1 2010, less than one fifth of the rate of growth achieved a year before. More ominously, using data through August this year, Ireland’s exports growth was outpaced by that of Greece and Spain. Ireland’s exporting performance is not as much of a miracle as the EU Commissioners and our own Government paint it to be.

However, longer-term budgetary sustainability rests upon just one thing – a long-term future growth based on comparative advantages in skills, institutions and specialization, as well as entrepreneurship and accumulation of human and physical capital. Sadly, the years of economic policy of hit-and-run budgetary measures are taking their toll when it comes to our institutional competitiveness.

This year, Ireland sunk to a 25^th place in Economic Freedom of the World rankings, down from the average 5-7^th place rankings achieved in 1995-2007. In particular, Ireland ranks poorly in terms of the size of Government in overall economy, and the quality of our legal systems, property rights and regulatory environments. The index is widely used by multinational companies and institutional investors in determining which countries can be the best hosts for FDI and equity investments.

In World Bank Ease of Doing Business rankings, we score on par with African countries in getting access to electricity (90^th place in the world), registering property (81^st in the world), and enforcing contracts (62^nd in the world). We rank 27^th in dealing with construction permits and 21^st ease of trading across borders. Even in the area of entrepreneurship, Ireland is ranked 13^th in the world, down from 9^th last year. This ranking is still the highest in the euro area, but, according to the World Bank data, it takes on average 13 times longer in Ireland to register a functional business than in New Zealand. The cost of registering business here amounts to ca 0.4% of income per capita; in Denmark it is zero. In the majority of the categories surveyed in the World Bank rankings, Ireland shows no institutional quality improvements since 2008, despite the fact that many such improvements can reduce costs to the state.

I wrote on numerous occasions before that despite all the talk about fiscal austerity, Irish Exchequer voted current expenditure continues to rise year on year. Given that this segment of public spending, unlike capital expenditure, exerts a negative drag on future growth potential in the economy, it is clear that Government’s propensity to preserve current expenditure allocations is a strategy that bleeds our economy’s future to pay for short-term benefits and public sector wages and pensions.

Similarly, the new tax policy approach – enacted since the Budget 2009 – amounts to a wholesale destruction of any comparative advantage Ireland had before the crisis in terms of attracting, retaining and incentivising domestic investment in human capital. Continuously rising income taxes on middle class and higher earners, along with escalating cost of living, especially in the areas where the Irish State has control over prices, and a host of complicated charges and levies are now actively contributing to the erosion of our competitiveness. Improvements in labour costs competitiveness are now running into the brick wall of tax-induced deterioration in the households’ ability to pay for basic mortgages and costs of living in Ireland. Year on year, average hourly earnings are now up in Financial, Insurance and Real Estate services (+3.1%) primarily due to IFSC skills crunch, unchanged in Industry, and Information and Communications, and down just 2.6% in Professional, Scientific and Technical categories. In some areas, such as software engineering and development, and biotechnology and high-tech research and consulting, unfilled positions remain open or being filled by foreign workers as skills shortages continue.

By all indications to-date Budget 2012 will be another failed opportunity to start addressing the rapidly widening policy reforms gap. Institutional capital and physical investment neglect is likely to continue for another year, absent serious reforms. In the light of some five years of the Governments sitting on their hands when it comes to improving Ireland’s institutional environments for competitiveness, it is the Coalition set serious targets for 2012-2013 to achieve gains in Ireland’s international rankings in areas relating to entrepreneurship, economic freedom and quality of business regulation.

Box-out:

Amidst the calls for the ECB to become a lender of last resort for the imploding euro zone, it is worth taking some stock as to what ECB balance sheet currently looks like on the assets side. As of this week, ECB’s Securities Market Programme under which the Central Bank buys sovereign bonds in the primary and secondary markets holds some €200 billion worth of sovereign debt from across the euro area. Banks lending is running at €265 billion under the Main Refinancing Operations and €397 billion under the Long-Term Refinancing Operations facilities. Covered Bonds Purchasing Programmes 1 and 2 are now ramped up to €60 billion and climbing. All in, the ECB holds some €922 billion worth of assets – the level of lending into the euro area economy that, combined with EFSF and IMF lending to peripheral states takes emergency funding to the euro system well in excess of €1.5 trillion. Clearly, this level of intervention has not been enough to stop euro monetary system from crumbling. This puts into perspective the task at hand. Based on recently announced emergency IMF lending programmes aimed at euro area member states, IMF capacity to lend to the euro area periphery is capped at around €210 billion. The EFSF agreement, assuming the fund is able to raise cash in the current markets, is likely to see additional €400-450 billion in firepower made available to the governments. That means the last four months of robust haggling over the crisis resolutions measures between all euro zone partners has produced an uplift on the common currency block ‘firepower’ that is less than a half of what already has been deployed by the ECB and IMF. Somewhere, somehow, someone will have to default big time to make the latest numbers work as an effective crisis resolution tool.