The Irish Economy

The latest edition of the Economic and Social Review has been published. The edition contains two policy papers by staff from the ESRI, one by Tim Callan, Claire Keane and John Walsh on property taxes and the other by David Duffy on negative equity. The Irish Independent have “seen Duffy’s report” presumably because they have access to the Internet. Now you can read it too.

Jeffrey Sachs joins forces with George Osborne to make the case for a frugal fiscal policy in this FT article.

I return to the case for a new fiscal framework in today’s Irish Times: you can read the column here.

Daniel Kanda has written a new IMF working paper on this topic: you can download it here.

Summary: Asset booms and sectoral changes can distort traditional estimates of structural fiscal revenue, and could lead to serious fiscal policy errors. This paper extends the estimation of structural revenues to take account of asset prices and sectoral changes, and applies this to the case of Ireland, where a property bust has revealed a large hole in the public finances. It is shown that excluding these factors led to a substantial bias in the estimation of structural revenues, and the structural balance prior to the crisis was much larger than earlier estimated.

The Economist provides an analysis of the difficulties in reducing fiscal deficits: you can read the article here.

The German municipality of Niederzimmern does not have the money to fix potholes. They are now selling the right to fix the road to anyone. In return, the owner of the fixed pothole can put on the road a text of her choice.

(from today’s Volkskrant)

Here’s a link to the exchequer returns for February and here’s the release comparing tax outcomes to the targets set out in the budget. (Here are the full set of targets for the year.) Tax revenues are 1.3% behind target for the year.

If replicated over the year, that would imply a shortfall for the year of €310 million which isn’t such a big deal. That said—and I don’t claim to be an expert on the month-to-month stuff and I know lots of this stuff is really noisy—income tax receipts being down 6% relative to target seem like bad news, More generally, I’m starting to get worried at how we keep falling short of targets.

The GDP and unemployment statistics from last year showed the really steep declines in activity ended in the second quarter. I’m looking for an unwinding of the huge year-over-year declines by April or so. If that doesn’t happen, we could end up pretty far off target.

A number of stories on roads funding have been in the media over the last few weeks.

Firstly, Frank McDonald in a piece in the Irish Times had a go at the motorway building programme of the NRA. In particular he criticises the plans for the Slane bypass (N2 Dublin to Derry). That story was also picked up in Today FM’s Last Word (Matt Cooper) last Thursday.

The rationale for the bypass project involving a new bridge over the river Boyne is straightforward. Currently a significant volume of traffic of which about a quarter is HGVs (some 1600 per day) negotiate the steep valley on both sides of the river which is crossed via a narrow bridge. The nature of the roads has been blamed for a number of serious accidents involving HGVs, and hence the bypass is to be built to reduce accidents.

But why are there so many HGVs on a road connecting Ashbourne (population 6500) with Ardee (population 4000)? The answer is simple once on considers that the N2 runs almost parallel to the tolled M1, which is both quicker and safer. In other words the HGVs are on the N2 to avoid the toll, and now the tax payer is going to help them avoid the toll by building a new expensive bridge and dual carriageway. The simple, cheap and obvious solution to the problem of HGVs going through Slane is to ban them from doing so, as I argued in May 2009. This would also avoid all the hassle of forcing a major construction project through an area rich in archaeological sites and historic significance. I wonder is this a case for the Comptroller and Auditor General?

Secondly, on the 22^nd of February Minister for Transport Noel Dempsey announced €411.408 million for 2010 Regional & Local Roads Programme. Of course the Minister did not announce any extra resources, rather he is reprofiling expenditure that was to go to road improvement. Given the damage to many roads due to the flooding in the autumn and the frost over the winter most people will welcome these resources.

But is this money going to be well spent? When it comes to potholes it is curious how they always appear in the same places, and often they are back soon after they were filled. Likewise, the same stretches of road (surprisingly many for a country where rain is not uncommon) are also subject to flooding on a regular basis, with consequent road damage. It is also peculiar that our road surfaces melt at the first sign of the sun (even over recent poor summers), again leading to significant damage.

In that context engineering and material standards should be reviewed in order to minimise future damage and costs before spending €400 million on repairing roads.

I am not against spending money on roads – anyone who has read my work on public investment will know that – but we should make sure we use the scarce resources we put into roads to best use.

Following on from his recent Vox column, which Philip linked to previously, Andrew Scott has some more sensible things to say about deficits and debts in the long run here.

Here are the slides from a talk the Minister for Finance gave at the Irish Taxation Institute on Friday. Lots of useful material in it, most of which I agree with. Slide 11 is great. It actually says Iceland! (Less fun is the repetition of the de-listing argument as a serious point.)

Writing in the Irish Times, Pat McArdle reckons that criticism of the roll back of the cuts to higher civil servant pay is misplaced. Pat’s key argument is as follows:

The Minister appears to have been influenced by a novel aspect of the review process. For the first time, comparison was made not just with the private sector but also with six other European countries. (Of these, only Britain had any kind of bonus scheme.)

Uniquely, the assistant secretaries were found not to be paid more than in the other countries. This was taken into account by the Minister but not by the Review Body.

Here’s the relevant section of the Review Body report:

4.11 The salary for Assistant Secretary places the Irish post behind the equivalent position in the UK, the latter being 10% ahead of its Irish comparator. The salary for the role in the remaining countries is somewhat lower than that of the Irish post. The rate for the equivalent post in Finland, with which the Irish post is banded, is 74% of the Irish rate.

4.12 When the comparison is made on an adjusted income basis, it is found that the Irish post is behind that of four other countries, viz. the UK, which is 102% ahead, Germany, which is 29% ahead, Belgium, which is 6% ahead and the Netherlands, which is 1% ahead. The adjusted income value of the role in Finland is 97% of that for the Irish position.

It is open to question whether the Irish government should be factoring in high local prices levels when setting civil servant pay, particularly since we are aiming to reduce these levels to restore competitiveness.

The report doesn’t explicitly state how much weight it placed on the adjusted versus unadjusted salaries when arriving at its conclusions. It does, however, note that other considerations were taken into account including the economic environment and the current value in Ireland of the security of tenure:

Tim Besley and Andrew Scott advocate the establishment of independent fiscal committees to improve the quality of fiscal policy formation: you can read the Vox article here.

On Tuesday night near the end of his TV3 show, Vincent Browne returned to one his favourite themes, the taxation of those on higher incomes. He put the following statement to Fianna Fail TD, Timmy Dooley

In June of last year, the Department of Finance showed that in spite of efforts to close off tax loopholes in the 2007 and 2008 budgets, people earning over a half a million still pay only 20 percent of their income in tax. Now why weren’t they targeted rather than people on social welfare?

Dooley told Browne that the budget had seen an increase in the effective tax rate for these individuals to 30 percent, to which Mister Browne responded, “Not true, It’s just not true.” Later, after Mister Dooley discussed other steps taken to stabilise the public finances, Browne asserted that “You could have achieved the same thing by targeting people earning half a million and you didn’t bother.”

On the same theme, in his column in Wednesday’s Irish Times, Browne stated

How come there was no crisis when a report by the Department of Finance last June disclosed that, in spite of the alleged attempt to close tax loopholes, the average effective tax rate for people earning over €500,000 was just 20 per cent?

I’d like to address three aspects of the TV exchange and this column.

(more…)

This FT article reports on two letters it publishes today (the article provides links to the letters) which argue against a more aggressive approach to fiscal consolidation.

In this letter to the Sunday Times,  a group of economists call for a credible medium-term fiscal consolidation plan for the UK. 

The signatories are listed below:

Tim Besley, Sir Howard Davies, Charles Goodhart, Albert Marcet, Christopher Pissarides and Danny Quah, London School of Economics;
Meghnad Desai and Andrew Turnbull, House of Lords;
Orazio Attanasio and Costas Meghir, University College London;
Sir John Vickers, Oxford University;
John Muellbauer, Nuffield College, Oxford;
David Newbery and Hashem Pesaran, Cambridge University;
Ken Rogoff, Harvard University;
Thomas Sargent, New York University;
Anne Sibert, Birkbeck College, University of London;
Michael Wickens, University of York and Cardiff Business School;
Roger Bootle, Capital Economics;
Bridget Rosewell, GLA and Volterra Consulting

With all the talk about debt crises last weeek, it is easy to forget that there is a real economic crisis afflicting Europe as well. The 4th quarter GDP numbers were disappointing, and the fact that Eurozone industrial output fell 1.7% in December is alarming. Unemployment is still rising, and the real Eurozone economy is not out of the woods yet. A primary focus of economic policy still needs to be the avoidance of a double dip.

The fact that little Ireland is having to cut expenditure and raise taxes at a time like this will further worsen our own economic problems, but is of no broader consequence. How many Irish people have even noticed what is happening in Latvia? The same could be said of Greece. But if the entire periphery found itself having to fight market panic by cutting in an excessive fashion, simultaneously, that could be very dangerous — especially if Spain, or, God forbid, Italy, became involved as well.

Martin Wolf is very good on this, while those of you of a more temperamental disposition may enjoy Simon Johnson’s latest piece, with Peter Boone. The core Eurozone countries don’t just have to ward off self-fulfilling market panics focussed on the PIIGS, but continue to support aggregate demand in the Eurozone. I understand concerns about government debt, but people focussed on that problem should remember three things. First, deficits will continue to rise if the real economy worsens, and a lack of aggregate demand is still a problem for the real economy. Second, the more the ECB does to loosen monetary policy, the less is the burden which fiscal policy has to shoulder. And third, if we experience another year like 2008-2009 any time soon, the probability of a wave of defaults will rise sharply.

There is an extensive interview with Olivier Blanchard on the IMF website, and a link to his recent paper on the future of macroeconomic policy making (co-authored with Giovanni Dell’Ariccia and Paolo Mairo), here. I can see this one ending up on lots of undergraduate reading lists.

Update: Krugman likes the paper, which makes sense. He alo cites a completely different argument in favour of moderate levels of inflation, which made quite a splash a few years ago: given that it is hard to cut nominal wages, inflation can be very useful in lowering real wages, when that is what is required.

Real wage reductions are required in Ireland, but nominal wage reductions remain elusive here, despite the spin. Can anyone doubt that Irish real wage adjustment would be easier if we could rely on higher inflation rates to do the bulk of the work?

I’ve been following the news stories on the proposed potential Greek bailout. However, reading articles like this, I’m struggling to find a good rationale for the agreement that’s been reached. The following questions come to mind:

1. Greece needs to address its huge fiscal problems. To do this will require putting through highly unpopular measures. How does the EU’s offer of a potential bailout help get this achieved? How does the Greek government convince its people that harsh measures are required to reduce its deficit and keep open its access to sovereign debt markets when they now know that the EU tooth fairy is waiting by to help?
2. Even if the senior figures in the leading EU countries have ultimately decided to intervene to prevent the disruptions associated with a Greek failure to roll over its debt, why not wait until that failure has happened?
3. Why would the EU wish to be associated in the Greek public’s minds with the harsh expenditure cuts and tax increases that would still have to follow even after a bailout deal?
4. Do those who advocate this policy really believe that the current Greek crisis is sui generis or are they planning to put in place a safety net for the whole Euro zone? If the latter, can such a policy really be credible?
5. Is the long-run macroeconomic stability of the Euro area better served by avoiding the dislocations associated with one its constituent members going through a sovereign debt default or should we be more concerned about the problems created by the new bailout mechanism that lets governments know that the EU will intervene if they choose not to tackle their fiscal crises?

I feel that in asking these questions, I’ve clearly been missing something. Hopefully those who thrashed out this deal have thought these issues through. My concern is that in the somewhat fevered quasi-crisis atmosphere of this week, precedents may be getting set that we will live to regret.

Update: To be honest, I probably should have linked to this hand-wringing Times editorial as a better illustration of what I’m confused about. The editorial worries about “depressing the value of the euro” (which would in fact be a good thing for the Euro area economy) and discusses how this “raises major doubts about the future of the single currency” without explaining why this is the case.  The piece ends with the dramatic note of “The European Union remains on alert and on financial standby.”  It does make one wonder a little whether this issue is being hijacked somewhat by those who see “Europe” as the solution to most ills.

You can find this paper (presented to SSISI this evening)  here.

You can find the slides for the talk here.

Niall Ferguson is worried about the impact of high public debt on interest rates around the world - you can read his article here.

A couple of reminders:

• (Self Promotion) “A New Fiscal Framework for Ireland” by Philip Lane (SSISI event at Royal Irish Academy at 6pm; abstract of talk is here.)
• CSO Administrative Data Seminar on February 22nd at Dublin Castle: details here.

This story is the best explanation we’ve got so far as to how the higher civil servant pay U-turn occurred and the justification used.

THE GOVERNMENT’S controversial U-turn on pay cuts for top public servants followed strong lobbying by their staff association that any cuts should take account of money lost as a result of the abolition of a bonus scheme which averaged 10 per cent of salary.

Official Department of Finance files show the Association of Assistant Secretaries and Higher Grades said it had legal opinion that the performance-related bonus scheme, which the Government initially suspended for 2008 and later scrapped permanently, formed an integral part of members’ remuneration packages.

The key argument put forward:

The association had earlier argued in correspondence with the Department of Finance that “while receipt of the performance-related element of pay is obviously not guaranteed to any individual, the scheme is part of our members’ basic remuneration package and amounts to an arrangement whereby part of that remuneration is simply deferred pending an independent assessment of performance”.

I’m not sure what this is supposed to mean. The fact that the bonuses did not count as pensionable pay and were not eligible for PRSI suggests that they were not part of basic pay. If the legal opinion was an implicit threat that the civil servants could have sued to reverse their pay cuts, I find it pretty hard to imagine such a case being successful.

In any case, it’s still not clear why the U-turn occurred. Minister Lenihan announced the ending of bonuses in February, so he was well aware of what he was doing when he announced the pay cuts in the budget concluding with “These are permanent reductions which will be reflected in future pension entitlements.”

It would be interesting to have heard the speech that Brian Lenihan gave on this issue at the Fianna Fail parliamentary party on Tuesday night for which he reportedly received a round of applause from the faithful.

In relation to this, I appeared on the radio on Tuesday night just after this meeting (link here) and heard Fianna Fail TD Michael Mulcahy suggest that the U-turn came from following the recommendations of the Review Body report and that the U-turn occurred because the report wasn’t released until after the budget. In truth, the U-turn runs counter to the report’s recommendations and the Minister had access to the report before the budget (he mentioned it in his speech.) These didn’t seem to be very satisfactory talking points on this issue from someone who had just received a full explanation from the Minister.

If the government thinks that misleading spin is the way to make this issue go away, I suspect they’re wrong. The fact that the usually-supportive Stephen Collins has taken up the issue also suggests that the government isn’t winning people over on this one.

One of the major issues that I think needs to be addressed this year is the role played by tax expenditures in our budgetary system. Reports such as this one by TASC have pointed to closing off tax expenditures as having an important role to play in closing the budget deficit. Chapter 8 of the Commission on Taxation report does a pretty good job of listing many of these tax reliefs and recommends shutting many of them off. There are serious discussions worth having in relation to many of these reliefs, such as those for pensions, but I don’t have the time to get into these issues now.

Interestingly, one particularly controversial type of relief that the Commission report does not examine is property incentive schemes; the report argued that since the decision had been taken to close off these schemes on their completion, they should not be examined. Information on the cost of these schemes was, however, reported to the Dail by Minister Lenihan last November in response to a parliamentary question from Joan Burton. The link to this answer is here but I know not to trust links to the Oireachtas website so I’ve also put up the answer as a Word document here.

The total amount of tax revenue lost from these schemes in 2007 was €435 million. I suspect this is smaller than some people might have expected, given the widespread nature of claims that the very richest in society are managing to pay almost no tax through their extensive use of these schemes.

Still, it is a decent amount of money. It would be interesting to know what these schemes are expected to cost this year and next and whether they can legally be closed. I suspect they can. Another interesting question is whether many of the individuals that availed of these schemes are now bankrupt and wouldn’t be able to pay any tax.

The news that the government has negotiated a 40% reduction in prices with the Irish Pharmaceutical Healthcare Association for 300 off-patent drugs (announcements here and here) got the warm fuzzy feel-good treatment on last night’s RTE News at 9 (the word patent did not make its way into the two-minute report). 

This is, of course, undoubtedly good news, particularly for those with regular prescriptions for these drugs. Being a dismal scientist, however, I’m always looking for the catch: Is asking nicely for price reductions the way to tackle our budget deficit or are these cuts just an indication that we’ve been paying too much for drugs all along?

The Irish Times newspaper piece by Eithne Donnellan reports about the negotiations between the Minister and the IPHA and then poses a pointed question:

Very quickly the IPHA – which represents all the major drug firms such as Pfizer, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline and Merck Sharp & Dohme – agreed to cut prices of its off patent drugs by 40 per cent if the State didn’t touch the cost of their proprietary or branded drugs for another 18 months. The new deal takes the IPHA up to March 2012, replacing the one due to expire this September.

But if prices could be reduced this much, were the manufacturers of 90 per cent of the drugs on the Irish market just ripping us off all along?

Indeed, this deal comes after another deal struck in 2006 to reduce the prices of these drugs by 35%.  So another version of this story is that these deals expose how much money the state has been losing over the years by paying high prices for branded off-patent drugs instead of purchasing generics.

I don’t claim to be an expert in this area, so I’d like to hear from those who know it better. Is this the best we can do or could the state find further savings in this area?

In this new IIIS Discussion Paper, I discuss the potential role of fiscal policy in stabilising the external account.  The main focus is on the management of imbalances within the euro area; I pay particular attention to the Irish situation.

You can download the paper here.

I noted a few days ago that the government’s justification for the U-turn on pay cuts for senior civil servants was to cite the international benchmarking carried out for the Review Body report that recommended the cuts in the first place. This seemed an unsatisfactory defence of this controversial decision.

Yesterday in the Dail, the Tanaiste put forward a new justification for the decision (link to Dail transcript here). The Tanaiste said “With regard to the pay and conditions of assistant secretaries, the review body on higher level pay indicated that the bonus was indicatively part of their salary.”

If I understand the argument correctly, the Tanaiste is saying that the Review Body’s report indicated that the salary that it was recommending be cut included the bonuses, in which case the government was not actually implementing the report’s recommendations in the first place but that policy was now consistent with the report because of the U-turn.

Well, here’s the Review Body’s report. It’s not that long and I’ve read it a couple of times. And as far as I can see, the Tanaiste’s claim is, well (… looking for polite term for it) not correct. I can’t find anywhere in the report where it says that the bonus was explicitly, implicitly, or, indeed, indicatively included in the baseline salary recommended to be cut.

In fact, there’s pretty solid evidence that the Review Body was explicitly excluding bonuses from the salaries being considered: The “current rate” salaries cited on page 5 of the report are base salaries excluding bonuses. This doesn’t seem to leave much room for the idea that the Review Body was including bonuses as part of the salary to be cut, whether indicatively or otherwise.

Is it really too much to ask for a for a simple and honest explanation for this decision, i.e. one that doesn’t rely on misrepresenting the report that recommended the cuts in the first place?

The Business&Finance website carries an interview with Brian Lenihan (conducted yesterday): you can read it here.

Carmen Reinhart and Ken Rogoff have an interesting op-ed in today’s FT: you can read it here.

The government is still keen on introducing water meters and water charges, as reported in the Irish Times. I agree in principle, but not in detail. I’m glad that the government seems to have abandoned a poll tax. The current announcement, however, foresees a bilinear tax: The first N cubic metres of water are free, the rest is paid for.

Bilinear taxes are rarely optimal. In this case, a substantial share of water is untaxed so that there is no incentive to preserve water below the free allowance.

Much better, therefore, to charge for all water use — and rather than give people a benefit in kind (free water), give those on benefits a “water allowance” and those on wages a “water tax credit”.

The year’s first week of Dail sittings came and went without much attention being paid to the government’s U-turn on its decision to cut the pay of Assistant Secretaries by 12 percent and the pay of Deputy Secretaries by 15 percent.

The lack of attention to this U-turn—the only cut in the budget that has been rolled back, as far as I know—could reflect a lack of interest from the public, who perhaps think that senior civil servants were being unfairly treated by the budget proposals. Alternatively, the lack of interest may reflect the original timing of the announcement—just before Christmas Eve and three weeks before the next meeting of the Dail, by which time other issues (such as banking inquiries) had arrived along to distract the public.

Credit then, to RTE’s Rachel English for putting a question about this U-turn to junior minister Dara Calleary on her Saturday View program. Mr Calleary’s response was “There’s a U-turn in relation to 160 people whose salaries are benchmarked against a European level unlike most others in the service.” This follows a similar line used by the Minister for Finance. The Irish Times reported:

Mr Lenihan said the pay of workers at this particular grade had been benchmarked against their counterparts in other European countries and they were not paid more than those at equivalent positions.

The benchmarking exercise that Ministers Calleary and Lenihan were referring to (the report of the Review Body on Higher Remuneration in the Public Sector) is here.

It discusses international comparisons and then recommends exactly the type of pay cuts that the government introduced in its budget. So the government’s defense of this U-turn is to use the same report that it used to justify introducing these pay cuts to now justify rolling back the pay cuts. This is hardly a satisfactory explanation.