Why the IMF therapy is not working in Portugal

The IMF repeats in Portugal the ostrich policy of not recognizing what is fundamentally wrong with its adjustment approach in the Euro Area. In its 5th review of the Portuguese program it states that “authorities have made good progress in reducing macroeconomic imbalances … But after a strong start, the program has entered a more challenging phase … a large and durable fiscal gap has emerged due to a shift in the composition of output from domestic demand to less-taxed net-exports”.

Despite the initial Portuguese external disequilibrium being milder than the Greek or Irish, I anticipated that the program was likely to fail because it had been undertaken reluctantly, too late, with too little and it was too soft. Moreover, its management was weak, incompetent and erratic partly because the Troika was desperate to have a success story and it had in Portugal a Finance Minister – Victor Gaspar – that was seen as one of their men. So, all tough measures (e.g. reducing the number of municipalities and monopolistic rents) were abandoned or reversed. For instance, fiscal consolidation which was to be implemented by 2/3 of expenditure cuts and 1/3 of revenue measures failed completely with the expenditure hardly slowing down and the revenue collapsing.

By now the IMF had to agree to extend its program for one more year and to grant some waivers, while it is already busy working on another package that will inevitably result on more time and more money. This will only raise the Portuguese external debt to new heights without any visible improvement in its economic growth.

Just as a reminder, note that the Greek debt path under IMF management, which started in May 2010 with a general government debt equivalent to 115% of GDP and was supposed to peak in 2012 at 149%, at the start of the second IMF bailout in June 2012 had already reached 165% and is expected to peak at 171% in 2014. For comparison, in Greece the total net external debt rose from 87 to 107% of GDP between 2009 and 2012 while in Portugal (external debt, excluding FDI and reserves) rose only from 98 to 99% of GDP. However, the portion owed by the government increased from 64 to 95% of GDP, degenerating into a sovereign debt crisis.

In a recent post we called the current IMF (Troika) adjustment program for Portugal a pyrrhic victory because, when compared to previous programs, it had doubled the cost of external adjustment in terms of output loss. We identified as the main culprit a weak foreign trade multiplier. So, the key question is why isn´t the trade multiplier working now as it did in past programs? As we calculated the multiplier effect by assuming a constant income elasticity of demand for imports the explanation must be accounted for by a sluggish international economic growth and or changes in relative prices (terms of trade).

In fact, the growth of the world economy accounts for a small portion of the reduced multiplier effect, since the OECD was growing at 6% during the first two programs but recently it has been growing at only 4.3%. So, the majority (71%) of the blame for the smaller multiplier effect lies in a weak export performance because of lower price elasticities and adverse changes in the terms of trade. Since recent estimates show that the export price elasticity remains low (0.42) and statistically is not significantly different from zero, the core explanation must lie in the terms of trade.

The Portuguese terms of trade did not deteriorate enough to drive a higher level of economic activity because of an irresponsible fiscal policy of indirect tax increases that caused a futile destruction of businesses in the non-tradable goods sector and the failure to confront the powerful lobbies in the energy and transport sectors that hamper the tradable goods sector. This trend in the terms of trade is clearly visible in the following chart.

The persistence of domestic inflationary forces despite an increase of 3.5 percentage points in the unemployment rate which reached 15.5% can only be the result of market rigidities compounded by fiscal mistakes.

The program of fiscal consolidation was not only inefficient, but foolish and poorly sequenced. Instead of targeting the preservation or a small rise in revenue, through the broadening of the tax base and selective competitive tax cuts, combined with substantial cuts in subsidies and other wasteful forms of spending it did the reverse. In terms of sequencing, instead of beginning with spending cuts, followed by a broadening of the income tax base and cuts in corporate taxes it did the reverse. It raised indirect taxes first at the expense of external competitiveness and is now promising a massive increase in income and corporate taxes for 2013 to be followed by spending cuts in 2014, thus perpetuating unnecessarily the current recession for at least another two years.

In conclusion, the program left untouched all the cancers blocking the growth of the Portuguese economy listed in this blog long ago as being: irresponsible recourse to PPP financing, large rent-seeking privatized monopolies, extensive subsidization of energy, environment, technological and other self-serving mafias, too many, too inefficient and too indebted State enterprises for the exclusive benefit of their managers, unions and bankers, a financial sector who suckles on public financing, the uncontrollable spending of the health and social security sectors, the destruction of a professionally independent public service, dysfunctional fiscal and judicial systems and generalized recourse to off-budget operations and creative accounting. Indeed, it made things worse through mismanagement. So, without changing course, Portugal is condemned to more than a decade of slow growth and unbearable indebtedness and sooner or later it will have to default or ask for debt forgiveness for the first time since 1892.

As a Portuguese I am saddened to see my beloved country ravaged by an incompetent government in collusion with useless international organizations at the mercy of an unholy alliance of heartless Teutonic European mandarins, predatory Chinese and Angolan dictators and dubious Latin American business interests. This is the end result of 80 years of state capitalism in Portugal.

The IMF/EU/ECB bailout of Portugal: Fiscal Stabilization

In our preliminary reaction to the IMF/EU/ECB €78 billion bailout for Portugal we thought it looked like too little, too late and too soft. We promised then a full verdict once the details of the program were known. This is the first part covering fiscal consolidation.

In contrast with Greece, at the outset, the Portuguese program has only two criteria of quantitative performance – a General Government deficit of €10.3 billion in 2011 to be reduced to €7.6 billion in 2012 and a ceiling on the overall stock of General Government debt of €175.9 billion in 2011 and €189.4 billion in 2012. With nominal GDP forecasted to decline by 1.1% it will be only €170.6 billion in 2011.
MJMDV6UTZD32
Under the IMF projections the program of fiscal stabilization will cut the deficit from an average of 9.6% of GDP (€16.5 billion) in 2009-2010 to 3% in 2013. This is achieved through a projected growth of revenues equivalent to 0.8% of GDP and a reduction in spending equal to 5.4% of GDP. The increased revenue target of €2 billion will be achieved mostly through VAT rises and reductions in tax benefits. The bulk of the €9 billion in expenditure cuts will be achieved by freezing the nominal wages of civil servants until 2013, an average cut of 3% on pensions above €1500 (a similar cut was already made to civil servants wages), downsizing the central government, saving in healthcare and education, cutting public sector investment and reducing transfers for loss making state-owned enterprises.

The program of fiscal consolidation must be judged on three fronts – compliance probability, future sustainability, burden sharing and macro-economic impact.

The targets seem to have been set deliberately low so that they can be met. We have estimated that only to roll back the excess spending of the Socialist Governments Portugal needs cuts amounting to at least 8% of GDP. Yet, there are still some uncertainties that are worth noting. On the revenue side the fiscal neutrality of the cut in payroll taxes is not certain. However, it is on the expenditure side that the resistance is going to be greater. In particular, in terms of downsizing the government, controlling health costs and reducing transfers to state-owned enterprises.

In terms of future sustainability the targets are not only timid but uncertain. For instance, the program of privatizations is targeted at raising only €5.5 billion. So, the IMF forecasts still assume a significant rise in public debt to 115% of GDP in 2014 in an economy that is not expected to grow at more than 2% in the post-recession period. In the context of continuing speculation against the weak links in the Euro Area this will not allow Portugal’s return to the market at reasonable interest rates. Moreover, three of the major public finance problems (unknown payment arrears, off-balance sheet debt and guarantees to banks and PPPs and the need for a full fiscal reform) are only left for further study.

In what concerns the fairness of burden distribution, the program is clearly biased against the lower and upper middle classes and the civil servants. Moreover, it barely touches the subsidization of privatized monopolies and other special interest groups. Again, these are only left for further study.

Finally, the macro-economic consequences of the fiscal adjustment point to a negative contribution to growth of 1.4% in 2011 and 1% in 2012. This seems a little optimistic especially when compared to a 2.9% negative contribution of private consumption (which includes civil servants and pensioners). The IMF attempt to avoid a sharper recession is reasonable, but it is unlikely to succeed given the foreseeable slowdown in the global economy and the generalized lack of confidence in the long term growth prospects of the country.

In conclusion, a timid program of fiscal consolidation in a context of global uncertainty might allow the country to get by in the next two years. Whether it will be enough to avoid the need for another future bailout and or debt restructuring is doubtful.