Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Economics 15/07/2009: Bonds Spreads: ECB Model

As promised earlier (here), I have re-done the ECB model estimated for Belgium, Ireland, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Austria, Portugal and Finland for the specific parameterisation for Ireland. Taking the path for our debt, deficit and bond issuances through 2013 under three different assumptions:
Assumption 1: NAMA bonds are off the public balance sheet and have no adverse impact on pricing, plus our liquidity conditions are in line with those of Germany (this corresponds to the dream scenario);
Assumption 2: NAMA bonds are on the public balance sheet, implying some adverse pricing effects, but out liquidity remains in line with German (this corresponds to 'markets are asleep' scenario); and
Assumption 3: NAMA bonds impact our balance sheet and yield shut down of the international borrowing markets for NAMA bonds (this is ECB buys NAMA scenario).

Chart below shows the resulting spreads over German 10y Bund:
One quick explanation is also due: 2009 levels are the fundamentals-implied levels of spreads under the ECB model. This is what the spread should be, were the markets pricing our bonds in line with what ECB says they are doing. ECB Monthly Bulletin does not report residuals, so I can't tell the accuracy of the pricing model.

Nonetheless, three things stand out:
  1. We are facing potential upward pressure on yield in 2009, should we go to the markets instead of the ECB;
  2. NAMA is posing serious risk of destroying our balance sheet in years to come as the cost of debt financing can soar not only for NAMA-own bonds, but also for all the bonds rolled over by the Government.
  3. It is relatively clear that any auction since January 2009 below 6.2% yield would have flopped, were it not for the ECB lending window circus.
And notice the term structure emerging in the chart below... Someone is not quite ready to buy Brian Lenihan (or for that matter ESRI's) story that we are getting serious about controlling our spending into the medium term future...

Sunday, July 12, 2009

Economics 12/07/2009: Travel figures

As an added bonus to Irish Times eager attack on my article in Sunday Times couple of weeks ago here is last week's press release from Ryanair:

"Ryanair, the World’s favourite airline, today (10th July 09) called on the Irish Government to stop ripping-off travellers after CSO figures confirmed that all Government controlled/regulated bus (up 11%), rail (up 9%) and taxi fares (up 8%) increased in the past year while unregulated airfares fell (14%) thanks to Ryanair. The Irish Government is now targeting air passengers with a self defeating revenue negative €10 tourist tax. The Irish Government’s €10 tourist tax is an effective 100% price increase on many of Ryanair’s winter fares to/from Dublin, Cork and Shannon. Ryanair called on the Irish Government to stop taxing tourists and follow the example of the Belgian, Dutch, Greek and Spanish governments who have all scrapped tourist taxes and/or reduced airport charges to zero to stimulate tourism. "Traffic at the DAA Monopoly run Dublin Airport fell 14% in June to 1.9 million as the Irish Government rips off passengers with a silly €10 tourist tax."

Disclosure (for Irish Times sake): I do not own any shares in Aer Lingus, Ryanair. I have zero allocation to Irish equities at this time, but I feel honoured to be attacked alongside Michael O'Leary...

Saturday, July 11, 2009

Economics 11/07/2009: Public Servants earn more than their employers

Time to get outraged, folks. Per latest CSO annual National Employment Survey, public sector pay is completely beyond any reasonable comparatives with the private sector. Here is a table (courtesy of Davy - yes, credit is due to Davy for an excellent note on this):"Median earnings were 52% higher in the public jobs", said Davy. "or the equivalent occupation, education level or experience, the smallest gap is 25% and the largest is 76%. The gap between public and private pay cannot be justified by saying that public sector employees are more
experienced, better educated or do different jobs. For example, how can we explain the fact that security personnel in the public sector get paid 46% more than their private sector peers?"

The Unions love babbling about the bulls***t poor low-paid entry jobs in the public sector. Table above shows that younger age cohorts and lower experience cohorts are earning vastly greater wages in the public sector than in the private sector.

Workers with 20-29 years of experience achieve a wage that is 36% higher in the public service
than in the private service. What does this mean? It means that the actual gap for those with greater tenure is even wider than that because workers in the private sector in this category of experience have to save 25-30% of their disposable income in pensions, while their counterparts in the public sector are enjoying lavish retirement plans benefits.

Davy note: "In February, the first attempt was made to rectify the imbalance. But the public pension levy only matched the wage cuts in the private sector, so the gap has probably
not closed. The public pay bill of €20bn in 2009 amounts to more than one-third of voted public expenditure. Further pay cuts of at least 10% are justified by these data." Oh, dear - can't we actually have some ambition? These figures show that public pay bill should be cut by ca40-45% through an equal measure of reduced wages (-25-30%) and reduced numbers employed (-20%). This will still produce a public sector employment premium, but it will at the very least force them to work more productively.

Davy concluded the note with the following statement: "Hourly earnings are 48% on average higher in the public sector. But average annual earnings are 32% higher because public employees work fewer hours. But it is not the case that bonuses are much higher in the private sector. In 2002, bonuses (and benefit-in-kind) in the private sector amounted to €1565 (or 5% of average annual earnings) versus only €149 in the public service. Five years on in 2007, bonuses in the public service had almost caught up at €1,807 versus €2,211."

Another interesting fact is the distribution of various grades in private and public sector. Notice the relative proportions of managerial and admin staff vs professional staff. This is not a sign of the public sector depth of expertise (high ratio of professionals), but of inflation in terminology. When an elementary school teacher or a basic nurse are considered professional grade employees, academics should be called demi-gods...
What all of us are forgetting is that as taxpayers - we employ them, not the other way around. It is time to start issuing pink slips. And by the way - if you hear once again anyone talking about 'not creating a conflict between the two sectors' - guess what: by granting themselves these gratuitous increases in wages, they - the public sector - have taken hard earned money from all of us, rich and poor. It was an involuntary transaction that enriched them alone. The state has presided over this system of wealth transfer under the guise of Social Partnership. We have every right to demand our money back. It is conflict time!

Friday, July 10, 2009

Friday Evening Economics

Oh no, I am not kidding - this one is for real. They've found a way to beat the property market blues down in Laois (hat tip to JH):Imagine having HIM as a neighbor!

Happy Friday all!

Economics 10/07/2009: Don't panic, ECB is... errr... backing down

On a light-hearted side of the blog:As they say in one famous commercial: for serious press, there's Mastercard, for BJs, there's Mayo Advertiser. (Hat tip: JH)



As the Bank of New York Mellon, one of the world’s largest and, in my view lowest counterparty risk custodian banks says the markets are now seriously disenchanted with European financials.

Per FT report today, concerns about the European banking sector are at their highest level since March. Euro might be sliding.BoNYM said its data showed net outflows from German bunds for the first time since mid-March. This is at the time when our own clowns are claiming that there is now a clarity in the borrowing markets for Irish debt. Hmmm... Clarity about what? An impeding disaster that is named NAMA?

BoNY Mellon also tracks outflows from Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Belgian and Greek bonds. Emerging European markets lead, with APIIGS, plus France, Belgium, Germany and Sweden are at the forefront of the new pressure. By the end of this round - the acronym of 'troubled' or 'exposed' states will have 27 letters in it. Per FT report, Austria, Italy, France, Belgium, Germany and Sweden, which together accounted for 84% of the exposure to Eastern Europe. FT quotes BoNYM head of currency research saying that the euro area has lost its safe haven status, and is increasingly seen as a high-risk region among international investors. Thank god someone is being realistic...

But not in the marbled halls of the ECB. Those guys are simply out to lunch. Per their latest assessment (here): "Despite the financial turmoil, the global landscape of international currencies and - within that - the share of the euro remained steady. Specifically, between end-2007 and end-2008, the share of euro-denominated instruments increased by around 1 percentage point for outstanding debt securities, around 2 percentage points for outstanding cross-border loans and deposits, and around 1 percentage point for global foreign exchange reserve holdings... The review also shows that the international role of the euro maintains a strong regional pattern. Its international use continues to be most pronounced in countries with close geographical and institutional links with the euro area."

But the ECB's rosy take on the Euro is only half a problem. ECB's Monthly Bulletin (see here: scroll to 09/07/2009) is already on the path of plotting 'exit strategies' from the current active support policies - despite giving a rather gloomy outlook for the Euro zone for 2009-2010... Go figure. A companion paper to the bulletin has another re-print of the already trite table that was first floated by the OECD back in January 2009 and then slightly updated by the Article IV paper by the IMF last month. This is:
Enjoy - our Government's contingent liabilities relating to the banking crisis are ten times greater than those of the second most-screwed up banking sector in the euro area - Belgium. Oh, we are having some fun...

But not enough, I hear you say? Here is another good one from the ECB:
Now, California is considered to be bunkrupt, given its state deficit is only $24bn through next 12-18 months (depending on the budgetary framework taken), relative to a GDP of $1.8trillion a year - less than 0.008-0.013% of GDP. Ireland? Well - depends on whether you count NAMA or not, we are pushing for some 12-30% of GDP... Spot the difference? Ok, another chart then:We are facing worse deficit than Greece, but our spreads are lower... What gives? The market is not pricing in NAMA as a state liability. Not yet.

Here is what ECB used to assess the bond spreads:
"The following empirical model is used to explain the ten-year government bond yield spreads of
ten euro area countries (inc Ireland) over Germany (spread):
spreadit=α+ρ spreadit-1+β1 ANNit+β2FISCit+β3IntlRiskt+β4LIQit+εit

In this model, ANN denotes the announcements of bank rescue packages made by individual euro area governments (this variable takes the value 1 after the date of the announcement and the value 0 before); FISC denotes the expected general government budget balance and/or gross debt as a share of GDP, relative to Germany, over the next two years, as released biannually by the European Commission; IntlRisk is a proxy for international investor risk aversion, as measured by the difference between the ten-year AAA-rated corporate bond yield in the United States and the US ten-year Treasury bond yield; LIQ is a proxy for the degree of liquidity of euro area government bond markets, measured by the size of a government’s gross debt issuance relative to Germany; εit is the unexplained residual."

For the lack of time right now, I can't re-parameterize the model to derive the values of the fundamentals-justified spread for Ireland. I shall do this over the weekend, but here are the main results for the group of 10 countries:
Good luck.

Thursday, July 9, 2009

Economics 09/07/2009: Green Shoots to Brown Manure

Inflation figures are out - more significant deflation in works than was anticipated by the analysts (-0.3% in June relative to May, with annual rate off -5.4% in June against 4.7% in May). We are also diverging from the Eurozone, though no one should really care about that. Mortgage costs reductions (down 5.7% on average in June relative to May) were the largest factor. Public sectors and state-controlled prices are still in inflationary territory, so no surprise here either. My prediction for the annual inflation rate to hit -5.8-6% in Q4 2009 and reach -4.1-4.3% in a year as a whole. Public sector v private sector price differentials should widen by ca 5.5-6%, so the rip-off that is our State controlled economy will continue into 2010.

A decent note on inflation was from the Davy's this time around (sadly, my usual favorite Ulster Bank note was a bit less advanced than customary). Davy: "The good news is that Ireland has closed the gap further with the euro area price level. HICP in the euro area was up 0.2% mom, according to the “flash estimate”, versus no change (+0.0%) here in June. Ireland's price level is slowly but surely re-adjusting towards the euro area-16 level. Note that the gap was a massive 22% in 2008 on average according to Eurostat. It has closed by more than two percentage points since the peak last year and will be below 20% on average at end-2009. We do not think the price levels should necessarily converge (productivity and, hence, income disparities justify a premium), but Ireland's exporting sector – particularly the indigenous part – needs the gap to tighten significantly yet."

Now, not to overplay these trends, one has to be aware of the fact that this is exactly what we are missing in terms of devaluation. Competitiveness, normally restored via dropping one's currency value, would imply the value of the Irish Euro traveling south of the current 20% price gap with the EU and would require a devaluation to the tune of 30%. Why? I don't frankly believe in our superior productivity, so any income differential between Ireland, and say, Germany, should be nominal. We can't do that currency adjustment. Which means that with price deflation taking, say, 6-10% of the Eurozone-Ireland gap away, this leaves a 20-24% decline in wages to take up the slack. Awesome price to pay for the Euro membership.


Production in manufacturing figures for May 2009 are out as well:
Turnover index is down on renewed pressure - sales are stalling again, but production index is up, so is overcapacity looming again?
The two series crossed over in May, so expect production to turn down in summer months and turnover index to stagnate, setting stage for new layoffs should things fail to improve in September. Margins tighten, so workers must be next.

As manufacturing records -1.3% fall in January-May 2009 in annual terms, the rate of decline has indeed slowed, but this can easily be a technical correction before a renewed pressure down. Of course, 18.7% increase in pharma output obscured the reality somewhat. Significantly, other modern sectors posted a 22% drop in output, while domestic sectors recorded 13.8% contraction in 2009 to June 1. Now, recall that Davy eagles have spotted the end of economy-wide recession by pointing to agriculture turn-around. Inclusive of massive subsidies boost to pork producers, food sector output was down 0.4% in the first five months of 2009.

In seasonally adjusted index terms, manufacturing industries now stand at 97.6 - a reading that is bang-on in line with December 2008 (97.4) and February (97.5), marking the third lowest point for the sector since 2005. Turnover indices have hit new spells of deterioration in Manufacturing, Chemicals and Chemical Products, Basic Pharma Products & Preparations, Computer, electronic & Optical Products and Other Manufacturing - in other all sectors but Food Products. Capital goods production index is at the second lowest point since January 2008, Intermediate Goods index is no turning negative again.

In case you need an illustrative proof:
Slightly more interesting day for the US economy.

First, a great salvo from Warren Buffett, who said that as unemployment can hit 11%, the US economy might need a second round of stimulus. To those still looking for those 'green shoots', Buffett's analysis is clear: "We're not in a freefall, but we're not in a recovery either," he told ABC's "Good Morning America. We were in a freefall really in the last quarter of last year, starting in the financial markets and spreading to the economy, and we had this huge change in behaviour." Buffett compared the 2009 $787 billion stimulus passed by Congress to "half a tablet of Viagra and then having also a bunch of candy mixed in --- it doesn't have really quite the wallop."

Second, US first-time claims for state unemployment benefits fell 52,000 to 565,000 in the latest weekly data, after seasonal adjustment, while continuing claims hit a record high, as the Labor Department reported. The four-week average of initial claims was down 10,000 to 606,000. The monthly moving average of continuing claims rose 12,000 to a record 6.77mln.

Nouriel Roubini has a superb article in Forbes (here): "The June employment report suggests that the alleged green shoots are mostly yellow weeds that may eventually turn into brown manure." A priceless openning salvo. As Brian Cowen is waiting for the US to pull us out of the depression.

Tuesday, July 7, 2009

Economics 08/07/2009: We are not in a recession! Davy

Per Davy morning note last: "Whole economy no longer in recession, but employment-intensive sectors shrinking: Last week's national accounts figures for Ireland made a lot of intuitive sense. The output side of the accounts gets little attention but perhaps provided the best snapshot of what was going on in the economy. Construction (for a seventh quarter out of eight) and services declined (sixth out of seven) in size, but (multinational) industry and agriculture actually emerged from recession and grew quarter-on-quarter. Extrapolating ahead to the second quarter, those trends continued, except that construction and services contracted at a slower pace."

All is great, then, folks. No need to panic.

Forgive me for not repeating the trifle-stuff about unemployment rising, personal disposable incomes shrinking (unless you are a truffle-stuffed senior public sector manager), consumers staying off the high street and more businesses going into liquidation. But what on earth are they eating there in their offices on Dawson Street?

To be fair to Davy, the note does say that: "The problem is that the two parts of the economy that have improved account for less than one-third of output and a much smaller share again of employment. Multinational industry grew again thanks in part to its defensive nature: it is dominated by pharma and software (which has held up). But the rest of it also got a lift from cyclical improvement abroad. Agriculture returned to growth due to the lift in commodity prices from growth in the global economy in Q2."

But what does this mean? Gibberish, my friends.

Kick out to touch the 'return of' agriculture bollocks - how can anyone measure real output in a sector so vastly dependent on public transfers defies my understanding of economics.

Now, Pharma is not a pro-cyclical sector because recession or not, people need drugs and drugs purchasing is governed heavily by very long-term and sticky price agreements.

And when it comes to software - this is a sector also relatively better off in a recession: if demand for new hardware collapses, businesses and consumers are more likely to upgrade software then invest in new machines.

But at any rate, how important are these sectors to what matters most - our disposable incomes? Not hellishly important - total MNCs count for less than 12% of the national disposable income, when you consider their average earnings and share of employment.

Now, I am not saying these sectors can be forgotten. I am simply stating the bleating obvious. Recession is not a concept of the external economy. It is a concept of the domestic one. In other words, does any care about net exports if these are not leaving much of an impact in your and my pockets?

Take a closer look at the real data that Davy didn't bother to show in their note. Here is what CSO had to say:
  • "Consumer spending (personal consumption of goods and services) in volume terms was 9.1 per cent lower in Q1 2009 compared with the same period of the previous year." Yeah, recession is not over for consumers (some 3/4 of this economy);
  • "Capital investment, in constant prices, declined by 34.1 per cent in Q1 2009 compared with Q1 2008." Oh, it ain't over for investment either.
  • "Net Exports (exports minus imports) in constant prices were €2,814 million higher in Q1 2009 compared with Q1 2008." But, hold on, they also improved in Q4 2008 - by €1,768 million. Was it the end of the recession then? Well, actually, errrr... this is not really true once you adjust for changes in the exchange rates, changes in prices and, crucially, seasonality. See charts below for the real picture.
  • "The volume of output of Industry (incl. Construction) decreased by 10.5 per cent in Q1 2009 compared with Q1 2008. Within this the output of the Construction sector fell by 31.4 per cent over the same period. Output of Distribution, Transport and Communications was down 10.9 per cent while Output of Other Services was 3.5 per cent lower in the first quarter of 2009 compared with the same period of last year." So no end of a recession in sight in these sectors...
Here are few charts.To start with - seasonally adjusted, constant prices expenditure on GNP - the stuff we are made off sans transfer pricing. The main chart shows Q1 2003-Q1 2009 quarterly data and the insert blows up the current recession period. Not a single variable, save for Gov Expenditure, shows the end of this recession (not one variable is above the zero line for even the last quarter, let alone for two consecutive quarters - a standard timeline for calling recessions).

Couple more charts:
This takes a knife to the Davy-babble about our trade sector doing so spectacularly well...

I agree with Davy's note that Pfizer, Dell, Intel, and the rest of our illustrious MNCs pack are probably close to coming out of the recession. Hell, they might have never slid into one for all I know. But this is about as comforting to us all as a discovery of another mega crater on the Moon's dark side - we can't see it, we can't feel it, and worse of all - we don't really give a damn. Brian Cowen's hand in our pocket comes the tax day will be far more important.

But then again, Davy wouldn't have anything to say about that, would they?

PS: Oh, the would... Here is a comment on Irish tax policy given in 2008: "I would be surprised if Lenihan increased taxes," said White, economist with Davy. "Income tax, corporation tax and capital gains tax are unlikely to change. It would go against Fianna Fail's economic thinking. Given that business conditions are more difficult, I don't think Lenihan will go the stealth tax route." White said the Government was more likely to cut back on public spending than to cut taxes. "The first thing Lenihan will make sure to do is to limit future liabilities in current spending by keeping pay deals pretty tight. The Government will have to look at wages in the public sector." That was June 8 last year...

Monday, July 6, 2009

Economics 07/07/2009: Daft.ie data - s***t is still hitting the fan in housing markets

Latest daft.ie data is out today (hat tip to RL). And I am bringing you these ahead of the media pack... (Gotta get myself a pat on the back, since no one else will)

Things are not looking good, folks. Here are charts - you know I love charts, and I blame Britten's Simple Symphony for that withdrawal from words - that explain the trends:
Note the black arrow behind the red one on the right? Well, that shows how much faster rents are falling now relative to asking prices... Now, do the thinking here - if rents are falling faster than prices, what will happen to yields on rental property? Aha, collapse is the word you've been searching. And this has two interesting implications:
  1. There will be renewed pressure on asking prices; and
  2. The only reason rents are falling is (given that first time buyers are now opting almost exclusively to rent) because the foreigners are leaving the country... in droves... and that means that the oversupply of rental properties is not going to fall - it is only going to rise over the next few months (especially if the rest of the world starts picking up, while Cowen/Lenihan/Coughlan continue to tax this economy deeper and deeper into a recession).
The stuff I said about rates of decline are evident above and below:
So here are my forecasts for both markets
A Frolicsome Finale, indeed, is not in sight, unlike in Britten...

Economics 06/07/2009: Irish Economy Exclusive

I've crunched through some Eurostat data on GDP/GNP and here are some interesting illustrations of where we are at and where we are heading next.
First off, chart above shows where we are at in terms of GDP and GNP per capita, prices-adjusted, relative to the Euroarea and EU27 averages. The GNP line clearly breaches EU15 and Euro area average line in 2009, so by 2010 we will be income-poor of the bunch. A bit more countries to compare against below:
Again, the number of our advanced peers that will surpass our income per capita in GNP terms is frightening. The same holds for major OECD economies - puts that international crisis into perspective...
And the US dynamic is worth a story here as well - all the EU convergence myth is clearly visible. But remember the hype that the Irish Times loves selling us: "Ireland as the wealthiest economy..." stuff that is designed to make us feel somehow better when parting with our taxes...
To me the above chart is really telling. This is the gap between what we are made believe and where we really are.

Two more charts. First, GDP and GNP forward using Eurostat projections:
And now the GAP: Anyone needs a better illustration of the 19th century domestic economy pitted against a 21st century MNCs-led economy? They don't tell you this in investor presentations, do they?


And here is a good post from a student of economics on the topic...

Sunday, July 5, 2009

Economics 05/07/2009: EU Report on Euro area... Ireland's Banking obligations

The EU Commission has published its quarterly report on the Euro area economic performance. There is really very little new in the report relative to Q1 report, but some things worth highlighting (available here).

The Commission report providers two tables worth considering in more details. Table 3 below is not new - it has featured in January report by the IMF and then subsequently in other IMF/OECD/EU commission reports since.
But Table 4 is now published alongside Table 3 (if only a handful pages below), which provides for an interesting comparison. Suppose we take as a measure of affordability of banking measures, the projected overall health of the real economy, as reflected in the expected growth rate in real GDP. We compare this against the total level of liabilities assumed by the states in respect to the banking crisis... we plot the two things:
Oh yes, you've got it right - the country that is least able to pick up the tab takes upon itself the greatest level of liabilities... And, in case you wonder who is that lingering in the +/+ quadrant (combining economic growth and no bailouts):Yeps, that low tax export-oriented economy, called Slovakia and Financial Services exporting powerhouse of Luxembourg. Ever wondered if there is any proof that, contrary to Messrs Cowen, Lenihan and Mrs Coughlan's assertions, our failure is neither in our exposure to Global Finance, nor to Low Tax. Our failure is in our policies exposure to the likes of Messrs Cowen, Lenihan and Mrs Coughlan...

Interesting Research: Happiness on Venus is Falling Relative to Mars

Brilliant paper titled The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness by Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers (UofPennsylvania) (see here) is tackling a paradoxical development of the last 35 years, whereby although "objective measures of lives of women in the US have improved... measures of subjective well-being indicate that women's happiness has declined both absolutely and relative to men." If you think this stuff is esoteric (albeit very exciting) research, you are wrong. Remember - academics flash out paradoxes, but politicians devise pork-laden policies aiming at 'addressing' such paradoxes. Hence, authors' claim that: "The paradox of women's declining relative well-being is found across various data sets, measures of subjective well-being, and is pervasive across demographic groups and industrialized countries. Relative declines in female happiness have eroded a gender gap in happiness in which women in the 1970s typically reported higher subjective well-being than did men. These declines have continued and a new gender gap is emerging - one with higher subjective well-being for me." So that will be a new round of subsidies for closing an emerging new gender gap, then? Women are now relatively poor in terms of happiness than men... someone, quick, call the CORI!

Fair Trade: Implicit Ethical Investment Opportunity Space?

I am a skeptic when it comes to the idea of Fair Trade - an idea that on its surface suggests that we should use our preferences biases in the West to determine winners and losers in the trade game vis-a-vis the rest of the world.

However, for some time now, I am hearing various noises about evidence on superior returns to fair trade-affiliated enterprises. Again, taking this with a grain of salt suggests that some of this effect, if true, can be attributed to the artificially increased market share of the fair trade-affiliated producer: I buy Fair Trade, so I discriminate against non-affiliated producer, thereby increasing the market share of a Fair Trade-affiliated one. On the other hand, some theory might suggest that FT-affiliated producers can benefit from higher productivity of better paid and better incentivize employees or coop-members.

Is Fair Trade Honey Sweeter? An Empirical Analysis on the Effect of Affiliation on Productivity is a recent (July 1, 2009) study from Leonardo Becchetti and Stefano Castriota (UofRome II) published by CEIS Tor Vergata, Research paper 141, Vol 7 Issue 1 (available here). The study evaluates the impact of FT affiliation on Chilean honey producers. "Evidence from standard regressions ...shows that affiliated farmers have higher productivity (income from honey per worked hour) than the control sample. Additional results on the effects of affiliation on training, cooperation and advances on payments suggest that affiliation contributed both to, and independently from, the economies of scale effect. Therefore, we show that the productivity effect is partially explained by the superior capacity of affiliated workers to exploit economies of scale."

In other words, what they do find is that FT link to productivity is a mixed bag. One issue - the beggar thy competitor effect of FT (scale) is certainly contributive to 'higher' productivity. As FT spreads over more and more producers, this effect will diminish. The paper controls for this effect.

Another issue is the price effect of FT - members of FT programmes receive higher prices for their products because we, consumers, are willing to pay that premium. This implies that per fixed number of units revenue of FT-affiliated producers is artificially inflated by our preferences. Again, should FT spread, this effect will also be driven down to nil. Interestingly, the authors report that in the case of Chilean honey producers, "The (wholesale) price of honey sold to the FT affiliated cooperative is obviously lower than the retail price, but surprisingly is also lower than the price paid by local, traditional and international intermediaries. Beyond the myth of higher prices, the most valuable services provided by FT organizations are price and demand stabilization, training courses, technical assistance (in this case, lab tests on honey chemical properties) and zero interest advance payments. The local retail price is lower for Apicoop’s members, thus there are no positive externalities of FT affiliation on their bargaining power with local buyers."

But the most interesting issue from my point of view is what is left as a 'residual' once the above two factors are accounted for. Controlling for selection bias, authors estimate the following relationship relating to output productivity:
and obtain the following results:This is really exciting evidence from my point of view (and do recall - I am a skeptic): authors' "analysis on Chilean honey producers in a period of high market prices highlights that, beyond the fair price myth, non price conditions are much more important... More specifically, ...FT affiliation, in spite of an insignificant price differential in times of rising market prices, has helped local farmers to improve their productive skills across years. In this process more favorable financial conditions (advances on payments at 0% interest rate), internalization of Marshallian externalities via interactions among local producers and training courses are the distinguishing features with respect to a control sample of non affiliated producers which seem to have paid an important role."

Great stuff... but... "On the overall, our findings show that affiliation years significantly contribute to increase producers’ productivity by moving farmers above the inverse U-shaped average product curve in the sample. These results, together with those on similar projects lead us to believe that Fair Trade identifies the right path of action to promote inclusion of marginalized farmers in LDCs (even though not all projects have the same degree of effectiveness and depend crucially on management abilities of the local cooperatives). This is because they correctly identify that the problem at stake is not just one of underproduction but,
mainly one of market power, market access and capacity building. FT by definition offers a diversification of marketing channels, aims to address part of the premium to innovation and part to social needs and has the goal to strengthen local producer organizations and their market power in the value chain with respect to local transportation intermediaries."

What the hell does this mean? Well, it means that FTs greatest benefits are real, but some of these are also predatory vis-a-vis non-FT producers because:
  • FTs gain from preferential access to finance (so they pocket risk premium);
  • FTs gain from preferential access to the markets (so free trade would eliminate their advantage); and
  • FTs gain from marketing premium generated by FT retailers.
On the net, the picture therefore is mixed. But I find it very interesting...