26/7/2013: Forfas Report 2012: A Handy Guide to 'Egg-Face' Collision

Ireland has been described as a 'Knowledge Economy", a science and R&D intensive economy, and island of Scholars (yes, while ago we also allegedly had saints). We have enough science development policy 'platforms' to fill TCD's Long Room. And we do spend some dish on funding science.

One of the organisations, responsible for shaping policy and assessing effectiveness of all of these and other 'platforms' is Forfas - a state body in charge of economic policy supports. You can read all the glorious descriptions of what Forfas does here: http://static.rasset.ie/documents/news/forfas-annual-report-2012.pdf

And this week, RTE reported the following nice stats about this beacon of knowledge and research (full article here: http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0724/464489-forfas-pension/?goback=%2Egde_2825341_member_260797418)

• "The pension scheme at State enterprise body Forfas has a net deficit of almost €1.2 billion" (to be more precise: €1,187,674,000 - up 22% from €972,389,000 in 2011). Note: "Forfas administers the pensions of a number of agencies including Forfas, Enterprise Ireland, IDA Ireland, Science Foundation Ireland and the predecessors of those agencies."
• "The report also states that 78% of last year's €51.4m Oireachtas grant to Forfas went to pay pensions - with just 22% spent on policy activities, corporate and shared services."
• "The cost of payments to pensioners rose from by over 23% from €35.3m in 2011 to just under €43.5m last year."
• But wait, there's more: "'non-effective expenditure' of €1.4m relating to rents for unoccupied office space.

On top of the figures highlighted in the RTE article, here are the actual breakdowns from the annual report:

• EUR79.052mln was total income received by Forfas from all sources in 2012, down on EUR79.229mln in 2011.
• Pensions spending was EUR61.372mln in 2012 or 77.63% of total income. In 2011 the same was EUR60.424 or 76.27%.

So: EUR43.5m on pensions, EUR1.4m on wasted rent, our of EUR51.4m grant means that Forfas has managed to spend ca EUR44.9m from EUR51.4m on… err… being a well-housed pension administrator. Less than 12.65% of the organisation grant went to fund its activities.

Seriously, folks, this does not give one much confidence in getting 'value for money'…

Updated: A comment from a senior science body head in Ireland: "I was gobsmacked to see this figure. I wonder how much of the country's so-called €500m 'science' budget goes on pensions? This is not to begrudge retired public servants their entitlements, but we should be transparent about what we spend on science & what we spend on other things."

29/8/2012: Some facts about Irish average earnings: Q2 2012

Q2 2012 earnings and working hours data for Ireland has been released today by the CSO. Here are top changes and trends:

• Average hourly earnings were €21.91 in Q2 2012 compared with €21.90 in Q1 2011, representing no real change over the year. [Note: either CSO has not heard of inflation, or there was no inflation in Ireland Q2 2011-Q2 2012]
• Average weekly paid hours were 31.4 in Q2 2012, which was the same as those recorded in Q2 2011.
• Public sector numbers were 380,800 in Q2 2012, a fall of 25,800 (-6.3%) from Q2 2011 when the total was 406,600 (including temporary Census field staff).

The above are straight from CSO analysis. Excluding census workers, public sector (including semi-states) employment stood at 380,800 in Q2 2012 down on 401,300 in Q2 2011 and on 421,400 in Q2 2008 - a decline of 20,500 y/y of which 17,600 came from outside semi-state bodies.

Table below lists changes in earnings in broad sectors:

However, on aggregate, year on year to Q2 2012, per CSO:

• Weekly earnings in the private sector fell by 0.5% annually, compared with an increase of 2.8% in the public sector (including semi-state organisations) over the year, bringing, average weekly earnings in Q2 2012 to €611.66 and €918.99 respectively. 
• In the three years to Q2 2012 public sector earnings have fallen by €27.10 (-2.9%). This compares with a decrease of €24.95 (-3.9%) in private sector average weekly earnings in the four years since Q2 2008.

Here's the chart showing decomposition / breakdown of declines in public sector employment:

In Q2 2009, the peak year for average weekly earnings in the public sector, the gap between private sector average weekly earnings (€618.08) and public sector average weekly earnings (€946.09) was 53.07% in favour of the latter. In Q2 2012 the gap was 50.3% - slightly smaller, but not significantly so and factoring in that between 2009 and 2012 many more senior (higher paid and more experienced) public sector employees have retired (including via incentivized early retirement schemes), leaving the workforce in the public sector less skilled and experienced than it was in 2009, the gap has probably increased, like-for-like. Also, the same is exacerbated by the heavy younger workers losses of jobs in the private sector, which has left private sector workforce on average probably more experienced and senior in tenure than prior to the crisis.

In Q2 2008, the gap was 46.2% which was lower than what we are observing today.

Remember, we are being told that everyone should take proportional 'pain'...

16/6/2012: IMF Report on Ireland: Public Sector Pay Reforms

Continuing with analysis of the IMF Article IV report on Ireland, the first post dealt with headline assessments of economic performance and risks, the second post dealt with mortgages distress. In the present post, I am focusing on the IMF analysis of our public sector pay and pensions.

Box 5 on page 25 of the report [ as usual - emphasis and comments are mine]:

"Ireland’s compensation for public employees rose by 3.5 percentage points of GDP (and GNP) in the pre-crisis boom." [In other words, public sector compensation costs rose faster than GDP and GNP growth during the boom.]

"During 2000–08, the gross exchequer pay bill rose 118 percent in nominal terms, driven by staff numbers rising 35 percent and average pay increases of 61 percent. In ESA95 terms, by end-2008, compensation had risen to 11.2 (13) percent of GDP (GNP) and one-third of primary current spending, above European levels, especially the original 11 Euro Area economies." [Not only our public sector remuneration rose above that of the EA11 average, but it has done so during the period when public services delivered to the population actually contracted due to previous privatizations and the expansion of private services substitutes (e.g in education and health, as well as transport etc). The cost of maintaining diminished public services provision also rose despite the fact that we had progressively lower proportion of old age population that requires more extensive and more expensive public services.]

"The authorities’ immediate crisis response included pay cuts and a hiring moratorium, followed by a multi-year agreement with unions on staffing reductions and efficiency-enhancing reforms. After a breakdown of the tripartite Social Partnership Agreement in early 2009, public wages were cut by 13.5 percent, on average, over two years." [The IMF does not distinguish between cuts and pensions levy, although, as I pointed out on a number of occasions before, pensions levy is in effect a cut as well, since it is not ring-fenced.]

"The cuts were progressive, with those earning over €100,000 facing net pay reductions of up to 30 percent. In March 2010, the government struck a new multi-year deal (Croke Park Agreement (CPA)) with public sector unions, protecting workers against layoffs and further wage cuts, in exchange for a validation of the 2009–10 pay cuts and cooperation on voluntary retirements, redeployments and other efficiency measures (such as reform of non-core-pay entitlements) to help achieve targeted pay bill savings. Other measures since adopted or in progress include: for new entrants, a 10 percent additional reduction in salaries and a unified (less generous) public service pension scheme; for public service pensioners, a 4 percent average levy; and a €200,000 salary cap." [IMF fails to point out that the salary cap does not hold. However, IMF is correct in pointing out the progressivity of pay cuts. IMF also fails to note that at least some of the reductions have been achieved by effectively undercutting new staff and temporary staff pay and employment.]

"By end-2011, these measures had delivered net annual savings of €1.7 billion. Lower pay rates and staffing levels have helped reduce the net exchequer pay bill by €2.5 billion, but there has been a €0.8 billion increase [emphasis is from IMF] in the net pensions bill, the latter driven by a 53 percent rise in pensioner numbers since 2008 (mostly reflecting demographic trends, but also the

impact of early retirements). With additional net pay and pensions savings of €0.2 billion projected for

2012 and €0.6 billion over 2013–15, the ultimate annual savings by 2015 are €2.5 billion (or 0.7

percentage points of GDP). Nonetheless, as a share of GNP, the net exchequer pay and pensions outlay in 2015 is projected to be 0.4 percentage points below the 2008 level, representing a relatively modest decline." [It is clear that the IMF is not impressed by the dynamics in either pay or pensions savings. I would like to see a more detailed assessment of the 'demographics' trend that could have resulted in a 53% increase in the number of pensioners since 2008, but my suspicion is that it is completely imaginary.]

On the positive side: "The authorities’ approach, thus far, has helped keep industrial peace, protect frontline services, raise public sector productivity, and deliver agreed savings in a durable way. The cuts in employment have been strategic rather than across-the-board, focusing on the health sector while protecting teacher numbers given the rising number of school-going children. A similar targeted approach is being adopted on the pay side: by reining in hospital and police overtime costs (through smarter rostering) and sick pay. The authorities are also currently reviewing options in relation to out-of date allowances." [The focus on healthcare cuts relative to education is also consistent with IMF-favored, and I must agree with them here, adjustment path that stresses the need for skills retainment and investment during structural adjustments. It is also reflective of our younger demographics. Alas, the real issue, ignored by the IMF, is the currently inadequate healthcare system in Ireland, as well as the fact that majority of health costs cuts took shape via increases in involuntary private health substitution and costs. Shifting burden of healthcare onto those who cannot pay it (the middle class) while pretending that they are the 'wealthy who can afford private insurance' is a false 'saving' as it simply reduces the overall private spending and investment in the economy already starved of both, while faking non-tax 'revenues' increases and health sector balancesheet improvements.]

7/1/2012: Irish Exchequer Results 2011 - Capital v Current Spending Trends

In the previous posts we considered Exchequer results for 2011 for tax receipts and headline expenditure items. In this post we look at the capital and current spending composition breakdown for total spending.

One core assertion that was made in the previous posts is that capital spending carried the main load of Exchequer spending adjustments in 2011. Overall, year on year, total net cumulative voted spending by the Irish state declined 1.6% or €721 million. At the same time, current expenditure went up by 2.2% or €903 million. Capital expenditure dropped 27.4% year on year in 2011 or €1,623 million.

Table below highlights the yearly changes over the crisis period:

The table above clearly shows that while during the crisis Net Voted Current Spending went up by €663 million, capital spending has declined by €4,265 mln on aggregate. The table also shows that despite all the austerity discourse, our Net Current expenditure was rising in 2010 and 2011, while our capital expenditure was declining to compensate for these increases.

In addition, the table highlights the trend that shows current expenditure rising at accelerating rate in 2010 and 2011 and capital expenditure falling at accelerating rate in 2011 relative to 2010.

If capital spending by the state constitutes either a 'Keynesian' stimulus (as claimed by the Governments over the years) or an investment in future productive capacity of our economy (as also claimed by the Governments in the past), we are now into a third consecutive year of bleeding the economy dry.

And the dynamics are best illustrated by referencing to the longer time horizons:

So current expenditure share of total spending by the Government now stands at 90.6%, up from 2010 level of 87.3% and 1998-2002 average share of 82.3%. On the other hand, capital investment share of total Government spending has dropped from 21.7% average for 1998-2002 period to 21.0% in 2008 and to 14.6% in 2010. In 2011 this share declined to below 10.4%.

 Between 2000 and 2010, Irish State invested in new capital stock some €66.26 billion of funds. Assuming 8% combined amortization and depreciation on this stock implies the need for continued gross investment of ca €5.3 billion annually. This means that 2011 Net Capital Spending fell some €1.01 billion short of covering the depletion of the state-financed capital stock.

The above, of course, is a rather crude calculation, since amortization and depreciation are at least in part covered from the current spending and since we use net voted capital spending figure for the capital stock measurements, but it does clearly suggest that current rates of capital investment cannot be sustained in the long term. And hence, much of the savings that have driven our Exchequer deficit improvements to-date are not sustainable either.

7/1/2012: Irish Exchequer Results 2011 - Expenditure

In the previous post I looked at the tax revenues side of the Exchequer figures for 2011. The core conclusions emerging from that analysis was that:

Irish Exchequer tax receipts did not perform well in 2011 compared to both 2010 and the target, with most of the improvement (some 80%) accounted for by reclassification of the Health Levy as tax revenue and addition of the temporary, extra-Budget 2011 Pensions Levy.

Irish Exchequer tax revenues for 2011 cannot be interpreted as being indicative of any serious improvement. Factoring in Pensions Levy and delayed receipts (Corporation Tax receipts for December carried over into 2012), overall Exchequer revenue fell 3.1% short of the target set in Budget 2011, not 2.5% claimed by the Department of Finance.

The above shortfall amounts to 0.66% of the expected 2011 GDP and 0.81% of our expected GNP and comes after significant increases in taxation burden passed in the Budget 2011, suggesting that the economy’s capacity to generate tax revenues based on the current structure of taxation is exhausted.

Subsequent posts on the topic of Exchequer balance will focus on overall balance, capital spending dynamics and relative distribution of tax burdens. This post focuses on the expenditure side of the Exchequer balance.

In general, there are good reasons as to why discussion of the expenditure side of the Exchequer balance is a largely useless exercise, rendered such by:

-       Constant re-alignment and renaming of departments, and

-        Changes in the departmental revenues (as in the case with the Health Levy reclassification) impacting the Net Voted Expenditure on Health

Here’s a good post on the above caveats from Dr Seamus Coffey which is worth a read.

So let’s consider some of the higher level figures.

Overall Net Voted Expenditure for 2011 came in at €45.711 billion, or €723 million (-1.56%) below 2010 levels and with a savings of €3.602 billion (-7.3%) on 2008. The target for 2011 expenditure was set at €46.022 billion and the end outrun implies that the Government has under-spent the target by €311 million. Note: I am referencing the original Budget 2011 target, as referenced, for example, in End-June 2011 - Analysis of Net Voted Expenditure. The Department for Finance reference figure for the annual 2011 target is €46.151 billion or €129 million ahead of the original estimate. This discrepancy is reflected in part in the capital carryover figures for 2010-2011 and 2011-2012.

Year on year, 2011 marks the third year of declining cuts. In 2009 yoy spending fell €2.150 billion, in 2010 it declined by €0.730 billion and in 2011 the drop was €0.723 billion. In proportional terms, expenditure declined 4.56% in 2009, 1.57% in 2010 and 1.58% in 2011. Cumulated net expenditure ‘savings’ since 2008 are now standing at a miserly €3.602 billion. Given that over the same period we accumulated €81.017 billion of deficits clearly shows the inadequate extent of cost reductions in the public services. Whichever way you spin it, to cover just ½ of already accumulated deficits out of cost savings achieved so far would take decades, and that before we factor in interest payments and the fact that much of the ‘savings’ delivered to-date comes out of temporary cuts to capital spending. More on this in the forthcoming analysis of capital and current spending.

Now, since we cannot clearly de-alienate actual spending, let us at the very least consider the spending priorities. These have changed over the years and changed in the direction that, while inevitable in the current crisis, is worrisome nonetheless.

Please keep in mind that although I did try to adjust as much as possible for changes in departments compositions, the data below is not fully reflective of these. Nonetheless, it does present some interesting changes in the overall spending dynamics.

As shown above,

-       Agriculture, Food and the Marine net voted spending constituted 3.36% of the total spending in 2008. This now has fallen to 2.28%.

-       Tourism, Culture and Sport accounted for 1.43% of the total spending in 2008 and is now down to 0.60%.

-       Communications, Energy and Natural Resources share actually rose from 0.54% in 2008 to 0.55% in 2011.

-       Defence saw a relatively shallow decline from 2.16% in 2008 to 1.93% in 2011.

-       Education and Skills – the third highest spending department in 2008 and 2011 – remained relatively static with 18.31% of total spending in 2008 and 18.07% in 2011.

-       Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation share of total spending fell from 2.94% in 2008 to 1.73% in 2011.

-       Environment, Community and Local Government spending fell from 6.41% in 2008 to 3.39% in 2011 – the drop that largely reflects changes in the departmental composition.

-       Finance share of spending declined from 2.83% in 2008 to 0.75% in 2011 – a dramatic fall.

-       Foreign affairs and Trade, despite gaining a new function of Trade have seen their share of spending decline from 1.99% in 2008 to 1.51% in 2011.

-       Health – the largest spender in 2008 at 27.45% dropped to the second place in spending distribution with 28.25% in 2011 despite having lost a number of functions. Adding back Children function to the DofH, the department spending share rose to 28.7% in 2011.

-       Justice and Equality accounted for 5.25% in 2008 and this dropped to 4.84% in 2011.

-       Social Protection rose from being the second highest spending department in 2008 with 19.06% (virtually identical share to that of Education) to the first highest spending department in 2011 with 29.16%.

-       Public Expenditure and Reform – a new department that, at least in my opinion is failing to show much value for money so far – has managed to rake in spending amounting to 1.71% of total net voted expenditure in 2011 – higher spending priority than Foreign Affairs and Trade, almost identical priority to Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, more than double the spending priority of the Department of Finance. Let us presume - for a moment - that the Department has two important, related, but not fully coincident functions: bring down current spending (since bringing down capital spending is no-brainer) and produce longer-term reforms of public services (which is not all about cuts, of course). Given the numbers achieved to-date - see forthcoming post on capital and current expenditure reductions - one should have serious questions about the new department value for money.

-       Taoiseach group saw its spending priority virtually unchanged over the years, declining marginally from 0.38% in 2008 to 0.37% in 2011.

-       Transport – the department with significant compositional changes – has seen its spending share decline from 6.47% in 2008 to 4.18% in 2011.

So overall, top 3 departments accounted for 64.83% of total net voted spending in 2008 and this figure rose to 75.48% in 2011. The rate of increase in these expenditure shares has accelerated over the years. Year on year, share of the three top spending departments in overall expenditure rose 2.97 percentage points in 2008-2009, 3.80 percentage points in 2009-2010 and 3.89 percentage points in 2010-2011. Once Children function is added back to Health, the rate of increase in 2010-2011 jumps to 4.34 percentage points.

Top 4^th and 5^th ranked departments (Justice and Equality and Transport) saw their combined share of spending declining from 11.71% in 2008 to 9.02% in 2011. This largely reflects changes in composition of the Department of Transport.

Together, Social Protection, Health and Children accounted for 46.51% of the spending in 2008 and this now is up at 57.88% in 2011. In other words, almost €6 per every €10 spent by the state goes to finance the two functions that constitute in traditional nomenclature social welfare benefits and social benefits (note that private spending on health is netted out via departmental receipts in the net expenditure figures). Education accounts for roughly the same share – ca 18% of total spend – in 2011 as in 2008. Economic sectors departments (other than Transport) used to account for 6.84% of the total spend in 2008 and this is now down to 4.56% in 2011.

In short, the priority of the Government spending over the years of the crisis has shifted firmly away from supporting economy’s productive capacity and delivering structural subsidies to ‘social and environmental pillars’, to serving social welfare functions and preserving as much as possible public health spending. It is worth noting that the latter, of course, has been achieved by shifting more costs burden onto the shoulders of health insurance purchasers.

12/12/2011: QNHS Q3 2011 - Take 2

Another quick note on the QNHS latest data:

• Total labour force is now down 147,600 on peak levels
• Total employment is down 346,800 on peak levels
• The demographic dividend is bust.

Table of sectoral changes to summarize latest data (note, public sector data is from the main QNHS, so it is less accurate than data reported in previous post):

Notable differences arise in terms of part-time and ful-time employment changes. relative to pre-crisis levels, full-time employment is down 21.5% while part-time employment is up 9.6%. Thus, overall quality of employment is deteriorating rapidly. But while yoy full-time employment is being displaced by part-time employment -3.69% to +1.76%, qoq both part-time and full-time employment is shrinking.

Relative to pre-crisis levels, employment is down in all sectors except Transportation & Storage (+3.28%),  ICT (+9.35%),  Education (+3.02%), and Human Health and Social Work Activities (+9.46%).

Overall number in employment is down 15.82% on pre-crisis levels. Meanwhile, of sectors that posted declines in employment over the same period:

• Largest declines were recorded in the collapsed Construction (-59.53%), in the allegedly-booming Agriculture, forestry and fishing (-28.9%) and Industry (-23.25%). 
• In addition, Administrative and support services (-20.25%) and Accommodation and food service activities (-18.01%) posted deeper than average cuts.
• Shallow cuts were recorded in Financial, insurance and real estate activities (-6.12%) and Public administration and defence; compulsory social security (-5.45%)

12/12/2011: QNHS Q3 2011

Headline unemployment number out of QNHS for Q3 2011 is at 14.4% up on 14.2% in Q2. This is bad, but not as bad as two other core labour market performance parameters.

On a seasonally adjusted basis, Irish employment fell by 20,500 (-1.1%) in Q3 2011. This follows on from a seasonally adjusted fall in employment of 4,100 (-0.2%) in Q2 2011 - an acceleration of 5-fold!

Unemployment increased by 15,700 (+5.3%) in the year to Q3 2011 and the total number of persons unemployed now stands at 314,700.

Meanwhile, the long-term unemployment rate increased from 6.5% to 8.4% over the year to Q3 2011. Long-term unemployment accounted for 56.3% of total unemployment in Q3 2011 compared with 47.0% a year earlier and 25.5% in the third quarter of 2009.

The total number of persons in the labour force in the third quarter of 2011 was 2,120,300, representing a decrease of 30,200 (-1.4%) over the year. This compares with a labour force decrease of 51,800 (-2.4%) in the year to Q3 2010.

Charts to illustrate the above:

Adding to this emigration, the above chart paints the picture of mass-exodus from the labour force, most likely due to twin effects: layoffs and tax increases.

Now, updating figures for public v private sector employment:

 CSO provides more accurate, by their own admission, figures for public sector employment in the Table A3 of the QNHS release. Here is the summary, excluding temporary Census 2011 staff:

• Civil service employment in Q3 2011 stood at 39,900, up on Q1 2011 39,500 reading and unchanged on Q3 2010. In Q3 2008 the same number stood at 43,000 so net reductions on pre-crisis level are 3,100 or 7.2%.
• Total public sector excluding Semi-State bodies stood at 339,900 in Q3 2011, down 8,400 on Q3 2010 and 5.6% lower than in Q3 2008.
• Total public sector employment including Semi-State bodies is now at 392,900, down from 399,000 in Q1 2011 and down 8,200 on Q3 2010. Compared to Q3 2008, public sector total employment is down 24,000 or 5.8%.
• Total private sector employment is at 1,123,600, down from 1,147,800 (-2.1%) year on year and down 194,800 on pre-crisis levels or -14.8%.

So to summarize - public sector employment is down 5.8% relative to pre-crisis levels, while private sector employment is down 14.8%.

28/11/2011: Employment in Irish economy: Q3/Q2 2011

The previous post (here) focused on the latest data for earnings across Irish economy, covering data through Q3 2011. Here, I provide the latest stats on employment numbers. Please note, CSO reports these only for Q2 2011 the latest, but sub-division of data for public sector is provided through Q3 2011.

Here are the core data points for Q2 2011

• In Q2 2011, there were 195,900 employed in Industry, down 1.36% yoy and up 0.82% qoq. The number is down 14.49% on Q3 2008 (third steepest rate of decline) despite the fact that industry is experiencing a pronounced exports boom.
• Construction sector employment is at 65,600 in Q2 2011, up 1.55% qoq, down 10.63% yoy and down 51.44% on Q3 2011 (the steepest drop of all series, and also the sharpest decline yoy).
• Wholesale & retail; repairs to vehicles and motorcycles sector employment stood at 276,600 in Q2 2011, down 1.18% yoy, up 2.29% qoq and down 11.71% on Q3 2008.
• Transportation and storage employment was at 65,700 in Q2 2011, up 0.77% qoq, up 6.31% yoy and down 5.06% on Q3 2008.
• Accommodation & food services employment was at 113,600, up 4.60% qoq,. down 9.84% yoy and down 24.06% on Q3 2011 (second sharpest contraction of all sectors on 2008 and also the second sharpest decline in yoy terms).
• Information & communication employed 53,400 in Q2 2011, up 5.12% qoq, down 2.73% yoy and down 10.40% on Q3 2008.
• Financial, insurance & real estate employment is at 91,000, up 3.88% qoq, down 1.09% yoy and down just 5.01% on Q3 2008, presumably they are selling more homes and financing more loans (of course, IFSC continues to perform strongly, in contrast to domestic services that are running excessive employment against continued business losses, to appease their largest shareholder - the Government).
• Professional, scientific & technical services are employing 72,100 in Q2 2011, dow 2.44% qoq, down 1.37% yoy and down 12.92% on Q3 2011.
• Administrative & support services employed 79,200 in Q2 2011, up 5.18% qoq, up 7.03% yoy and down 12% on Q3 2008.
• Public administration & defence employment stood at 112,100 in Q2 2011, down 5.72% qoq, down 6.74% yoy and down 6.97% on Q3 2008. This category posted the third sharpest decline yoy. It is also worth noting that figures for public sector reported here include census employees., although this distorts Q2 2011 data, but not Q3 2011 (as reported below).
• Education employment stood at 131,400 in Q2 2011, down 1.35% qoq, down 2.23% yoy and up 1.94% on Q3 2008.
• Human health and social work sector employment was 219,400 in Q2 2011, up 1.95% yoy, up 3.49% qoq and up 5.43% on Q3 2008.

Charts below illustrate:

Chart below summarizes Q2 2011 differences by two core sectors:

• Public sector employment rose to 404,300 in Q2 2011 up 0.02%qoq and up 0.55% yoy, but down 2.11% on Q3 2008.
• Private sector employment stood at 1,118,300 in Q2 2011, up 1.60% qoq, but down 2.60% yoy and down 15.43% on Q3 2008.
• Ratio of private sector workers to public sector wrokers has egnerally declined during the last 3 years, but improved slightly qoq in Q2 2011.

Chart below summarizes changes in employment for Q2 2011 compared to Q3 2008 listed above

CSO provides Q3 2011 data for employment in subsectors of the public sector and these are shown below compared to Q3 2008. This data is netted out for temporary census jobs that were recorded in Q2 2011, so no distortion there.

 On thing that stands out in the above. Ex-semi-states (-5.74%) and with semi-states (-5.78%) jobs losses in the public sector have been shallower in Q3 2011 than in private sector (for which we only have Q2 2011 data so far showing decline of 15.43% on Q3 2008). Even in the worst impacted Regional Bodies category, employment losses at -12.08% have been less severe than those in the private sector.

17/09/2011: QNHS 2Q 2011 - public sector v private sector trends

This is the second post on the data from QNHS for 2Q 2011.

Table below summarises data from QNHS results, showing changes for specific sectors of the economy as well as core figures for overall employment, labor force and unemployment.
Using the data from core QNHS we can compute decomposition of employment pool into three broadly defined subsectors, as shown below. The core trends here are the following:
Ratio of private sector employees to those employed in public sector now stands at ca 2.76 private sector workers per 1 public sector employee. Sacred yet? That ratio rose from 2.73 in (an improvement, in fact) qoq between 1Q 2011 and 2Q 2011, but is down from 2.78 in 2Q 2010 and 3.00 in 2Q 2009. In other words, there are fewer private sector employees now per each public sector employee than in either 2010 or 2009 or indeed in 2008 and so on.

The same is true across the specific sectors. There are more people in employment in education per private sector worker now than 2007-2010, there are more people employed in public administration per private sector worker now than in 2007-2010, there are more people employed in healthcare per person employed in private sector today than in any moment since 1Q 2004. This, after the allegedly savage cuts in numbers in public sector employment.

QNHS also now reports EHECS-based public sector employment estimates. Table 1.1 below (reproduced from QNHS release) shows the estimates of public sector employment broken down by the different high level areas within the public sector. I've added the red line below showing proportional allocation of employment - the number of private sector workers per each public sector worker. This only slightly differs from the same metric I derived above based solely on QNHS. Again, there are, broadly speaking, 2.82 persons working in private sector per each 1 person in public sector. A year ago, there were 2.86, 2 years ago, there were 2.85... savage cuts folks? Not exactly. Looks more like continued steady burden on private sector from supporting public sector employment.
That's a tough thing to swallow, folks. Per CSO: "The number of employees in the public sector showed no change over the year to Q2 2011. However, the employment figures for this quarter include 5,300 additional temporary Census field staff who were employed during the periods covering Q1 and Q2 2011. When these staff are excluded there was a fall of 1.3% in employment over the year to Q2 2011." Give it a thought, folks - a fall of 1.3% when unemployment rose 3.93% and underemployment went up 20.89% and employment fell 2.1% and private sector employment declined 2.4%.

"The number of employees in the public sector has continued to fall over the last three years with a total decrease of 24,600 up to Q2 2011 when excluding census field staff." Drama unfolds? Let's check that table above. Since 4Q 2008 through 2Q 2011:

• Private sector employment is down 12.9%
• Civil service employment is down 7.5%
• Semi-states employment is down 8.5%
• Total public sector ex-semi-states employment is down 5.5%
• Total public sector employment is down 5.9%
  

Draw your own conclusions as to whether the Croke Park is delivering or not.

Economics 7/10/10: Irish Government Spending habit

Our leadership - from the Minister for Finance to the heads of the Central Bank and various quangoes, to the affiliated leading business figures are keen on pointing the finger for Ireland's troubles at the banks. While the banks are certainly responsible for much of the problems we face, there are other troubles, of an equally pressing nature, that besiege our economy courtesy of the direct decisions taken by the Government.

Exchequer problems ex-banks are a good starting point for taking a closer look at our grave condition.

Irish Exchequer is expected (by the DofF) to bring in some €32 billion in Tax Revenues this year. The Government is expected to spend some €19 billion or 59.4% of the total tax take on its Wages and Pensions bill.

Imagine a household that is paying almost 60 percent of wages earned by those of its members working to purchase household services. Alternatively, imagine a household with a single earner where a person working earns, say €50,000pa and has a spouse who is engaged in full time household work. The implicit cost of such household work (labour alone) to this family, using our Government's metrics, would be €30,000 net of tax.

What would any household do in these circumstances? Of course - send the spouse into workforce and hire substitute services (childcare, cleaning, cooking etc)... What does the Irish state do? It signs a multi-annual agreement with the unions that ensures that the taxpayers will see no reprieve on wages and pensions bills they pay for Public Sector.

Now, let's put things into perspective. 2003 Exchequer Tax Revenues were at the same (nominal) level as the expected revenues this year - €32 billion. Exchequer Pay and Pensions bill was €13 billion or 40.6% of the total tax take.

So between 2003 and today, Irish Exchequer has managed to increase its exposure to public sector pay and pensions costs by a massive 46.2%. In the mean time, due to increased private sector competition (despite such competition being retarded by our regulatory regimes) and continuously improving demographics (younger population and a rising share of population with access to superior foreign public services, such as health - aka the immigrants), the overall public sector responsibilities in terms of services provision have actually declined.

Back to household analogy here - we've got a houseworker in the family who is now armed with newer technology, reducing time and effort input into work, as the cost of such houseworker to the family is rising by almost 50%.

Recap the top-line figures: pay and pensions bills of our sovereign are up 46%. Ex-exports, our domestic economy income is down 34.4% (see here). A country where 1.4 million private sector workers are forced to living beyond our means to pay the wages and pensions for some 470,000 public sector employees?

Mad stuff, but then again, Irish Public Sector is more like a WAG in its expectations of pay and performance, than a Cinderella.

Economics 12/05/2010: How not to do austerity...

How not to do austerity? Well, Ireland is a good example.

For all the tough talk about reforms and changes to spending habits of the public sector, the new employment in civil service document released two weeks ago, drawn up by the Department of Finance envisions that staffing levels will fall from 37,376 estimated for the end of 2010 to 36,594 at the end of 2012. That’s a whooping (or in terms of SIPTU/ICTU savage) drop of 782 workers, or less than 2.1%. The resultant savings, assuming jobs cut will be at the media level of pay for the civil service, will total a massive €39.41 million per annum. Translated into our public sector’s spending habits, that’s about 16 hours and 20 minutes of our deficit financing for the first 4 months of this year. Not counting the banks costs.

The Government has told the nation before that the new public service pay and reform deal negotiated with unions at Croke Park last month will "substantially" reduce the number of State employees over the coming years. Hmm... guess 2.1% is philosophically ‘substantial’, even if not economically substantive.

But wait, these are gross savings, pathetic as they might be. To get to the net figure, we must factor in early retirement incentives doled out to civil servants by Brian Cowen in Supplementary Budget 2009 and golden handshakes for voluntarily leaving staff.

So take a rule of thumb - the cost of laying off civil service workers ranges around 15-20% of their total annual salary per year of service – once the value of pensions and redundancy payments are factored in. This is very, very much conservative, given the one-off payments and other perks accruing to retiring public sector workers and given that their tax liabilities collapse upon the retirement, especially over the first year. Take 15% on the lower end and assume that average tenure of the workers leaving the service is around 15 years (lower-end assumption as those taking early retirement would more likely to be more senior than that).

What do you have? The cost – and not all of this obviously will hit the taxpayers at one single shot, but most will – will be around €133,400 per worker reduced. And that’s at the lower end.

Savings of €50,294 per annum, at a cost of €133,400 means that given our Government’s innate inability to manage its own workforce, the first time we, the taxpayers, will see positive net savings on the deal (assuming opportunity cost of funds at 5% and automatic stabilizers on the salary payments to public sector workers at 30% - income tax, levies, etc - none of which are going to apply under voluntary retirement) September 2015!

I am not kidding you – September 2015! By which time, of course, the Unions would have forced the Government to get a new Benchmarking going…

Folks, we are now truly turning the corner!

Economics 18/12/2009: Public Sector Earnings & Employment

Per CSO release today: is the Government is losing the fight to keep this economy afloat?

"Average weekly earnings in the Public Sector (ex Health) rose by 2.5% in the year to September 2009 from €945.18 to €969.11 per week. This compares to a rise of 3.2% in the year to June 2009."

Weekly earnings for

• the Regional Bodies rose by 4.6% (from €815.58 to €852.71)
  
• the Education Sector by 3.0%, from €944.49 to €973.10.
  
• An Garda Síochána, inclusive of overtime, fell by 0.8% from €1,196.19 to €1,186.37 per week. Their weekly earnings excluding overtime decreased slightly by 0.1% from €1,077.55 to €1,076.22 for the same period.
  

Over the four year period from September 2005 to September 2009, average weekly earnings in the Public Sector (excluding Health) rose by 14.2% from €848.94 to €969.11:

• Regional Bodies’ earnings rose by 15.3% (from €739.27 to €852.71),
  
• Semi State by 17.2% (from €902.95 to €1,058.46),
• An Garda Síochána, inclusive of overtime, rose by 8.8%,
• Education Sector rose by 11.5% in this period,
  
• Civil Service and the Defence Sector rose by approximately 18% (from €797.37 to €933.03 and €691.28 to €815.58 per week respectively).

Natural attrition with recruitment bans has produced a decline in PS employment from 369,100 in September 2008 to 360,900 in September 2009 - a decline of 8,200 or 2.22% - way too small compared to the declines in private sector employment and labor force. But the natural reduction rate is accelerating - there was a decrease of just 2,700 in a year to June 2009.

Nonetheless at this rate, it will take Ireland about 20 years before we reach the reasonable levels of public sector employment, comparable to other countries, which stands, given our size of labor force and lack of functional military sector, at around 250,000.

In the year to September 2009 employment in Regional Bodies fell from 40,400 to 37,000, a decrease of 3,400. In the same period there were 1,200 fewer people employed in the Civil Service where numbers dropped to 38,100 in September 2009. Employment in the Health Sector fell to 110,200 in the year to September 2009, a drop of 600. Employment in An Garda Síochána rose by 500 from 14,200 in September 2008 to 14,700 in September 2009.

In the four years to September 2009, employment in the Public Sector rose by 17,300 to 360,900

• Education Sector from 84,700 to 97,200, an increase of 12,500
• An Garda Síochána rose by 2,400 from 12,300 to 14,700,
  
• Health Sector from 101,500 to 110,200, an increase of 8,700,
• Regional Bodies employment decreased from 38,200 to 37,000, a drop of 1,200.

Updated charts as always (note, data goes back to Q1 2005, unlike CSO's latest release).

Employment numbers first.

Earnings last:
With two details: earnings by category within and outside 1 standard deviation of the mean:showing the lack of overall volatility in the public sector earnings, which shows that the argument offered by the unions that some occupations in PS earn less than others is simply statistically not true. They all earn pretty much the same:
Not a single sub-sector of the PS falls outside 2 standard deviations from the PS mean. Of course, homogeneity is the sign of the lack of proper pricing relative productivity. Then again, it is public sector we are talking about.

Economics 27/10/2009: Recessions, Busts and Crunches

I am back from a very enjoyable (as always) trip to Paris and some 150km beyond. Superb retrospective of Pierre Soulages' work in Pompidou - a real master of true dynamism. A mouthwatering Hans Hartung print (some examples here) and two lovely Soulages' prints as well - all in my favorite gallery Paul Proute SA - were hard to resist, but given we are in a depression, while the French art market seems to be only in a recession, judging by prices, resistance was a-must.

One telling tale - at a lovely dinner with a small group of friends in the countryside, conversation took a quick turn to corrupt politics. Our French hosts were lamenting about the state of their country politics by pointing to a scandal surrounding Nicolas Sarkozy's plans to appoint his failed-lawyer son to head the Epad, the development corporation of La Défense (see a note here). Epad is a state-sponsored body and the French nation was literally lifted to its feet when nepotist Sarko tried to push his baby-faced offspring into the CEO seat. In return, I recalled for our friends the story of Bertie Ahearne arrogantly telling the nation that he gave state jobs to his cronies not because they provided him with money but because they were his friends. My French hosts couldn't believe that such a statement did not cost Bertie his job leading to years of public investigations and pursuits through courts. Nor could they believe that Bertie's friends are still, mostly, in their places of power.


Now, a couple quick notes relating our own troubles.

Stijn Claessens, M. Ayhan Kose and Marco E. Terro have published their excellent paper "What Happens During Recessions, Crunches and Busts?" (I wrote on it before based on the working paper version here) in Economic Policy, Vol. 24, Issue 60, pp. 653-700, October 2009. Here are couple interesting illustrations:
So per above, combined duration of contractionary segment of the credit crunch and housing price bust can be expected (on average) to last approximately 30 quarters (timing the current Irish crisis to last from Q1 2008 through Q2 2015 if the rate of house price bust and credit contraction here in Ireland was close to an average of the countries surveyed by the paper).

The latter 'if' is a serious assumption to make. Claessens, Kose and Terro show that the average bust/contraction is associated with a roughly 18% fall in credit supply and 29% decline in house prices. Of course, in Ireland, we are already seeing a 70% decline in credit supply and a 40-50% decline in house prices. So make a small adjustment - back of the envelope - to account for these and you get expected the current contraction/bust crisis to last more than 52 quarters, taking us well into the beginning of 2020 before the recovery truly takes hold.

And this dynamic is seemingly also in line with Claessens, Kose and Terro data on the impact of crises on GDP. 2008-2010 Irish GDP is expected to fall by some 13.5-15%. This is approximately 2.5 times the depth of the average adjustment associated with credit crisis and house price bust per Claessens, Kose and Terro, as illustrated in their chart reproduced below:
Oh, and for those 'advisers' who are telling Minister Lenihan that Ireland will recover from this crisis along the same trajectory as the 'average' OECD economy (the same advisers who are talking of 8-year cycles in property prices), here is how average Irish crisis is compared to the rest of the modern world history:
Only 4 countries so far have experienced a combination of Asset Price Bust + House Price Bust + Credit Crunch.


My second note of the day is about the effectiveness of fiscal spending as 'get-us-out-of-recession' stimulus. Given that the Government is now pre-committing itself to not cutting public sector pay, it is worth quickly mentioning that the Unions-supported idea that cutting public expenditure is only going to make our recession worse is simply untrue. A recent (July 2009) note by Fabrizio Perri of University of Minnesota, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis titled "Comment on: Planning to cheat: EU fiscal policy in real time by Roel Beetsma, Massimo Giuliodori and Peter Wierts" provides an estimate of the fiscal expenditure multiplier for European economies. The number is 0.85... or, significantly less than 1. This suggests that cutting public spending will lead to a proportionately smaller reduction in GDP than the savings to be generated.

Here is an additional (excellent) note on the whole mess of fiscal multipliers. Adding to this, one has to recognise that Irish public spending is far less effective as a stimulus to the economy, as it is accounted for (to the tune of 70% of the total expenditure) by social welfare and wages - i.e. non-productive components. Thus, one can expect the above 0.85 multiplier estimated for Europe as a whole to be around 0.26-0.0.29. Which, in turn, means that any fiscal contraction in today's Ireland will likely result in a medium-term expansion of our economy. Then again, we already know this much from the 1980s experiences, don't we?

In reality, of course, taxing private economy amidst credit and asst price crises to continue wasting money on the current public expenditure is a sure way to extend and to deepen the recession, as:

• Our public expenditure level was not sustainable for this economy even at the times of growth, let alone at the time of a severe recession;
• Ireland is now likely to be on a path of permanently lower post-crisis potential GDP/GNP growth, so the cuts in public spending will have to take place no matter what delay in public expenditure adjustment the unions will force onto this Government;
• We are facing the fastest and the longest increase in public debt (ex-Nama) in the OECD over the next 5 years and an additional open ended liability under Nama, both of which make it virtually certain that Ireland will emerge from this crisis as a fully insolvent nation.