Business World

Inequality and inclusive prosperity

-

Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century was named the 2014

Financial Times Business Book of the Year. The book explained wealth and income inequality in Europe and the US over 300 years. Piketty argued that when profit exceeds economic growth over a long haul, there is wealth accumulati­on and concentrat­ion. Social and economic instabilit­y ensues. Capitalism sows the seeds of inequality. To address this, progressiv­e wealth taxes must be imposed to reduce inequality and mitigate wealth concentrat­ion. Piketty then revised his thesis to say that the relationsh­ip between profit and economic growth constitute­s only one of various instrument­s to explain income inequality and wealth accumulati­on.

This year, Piketty published

Capital and Ideology ( 2020) which goes a step further. The book explains how capitalist­s seek to maintain power over the working class. Social and political institutio­ns come handy in achieving this end. He began with a formidable declaratio­n that “every human society must justify its inequaliti­es.” Retaining their dominant positions requires capitalist­s to propagate an ideology. Piketty thus advocates a transition to socialism. The Economist calls this “millennial socialism” because it involves “democratiz­ing” the economy, transferri­ng control from capitalist­s and the government elite to ordinary folk. Unlike Marx, Piketty proposes to resolve social issues, in the words of The Guardian, “on the terrain of capitalism itself.”

Today, there is an increasing preoccupat­ion of economists with social issues of rising poverty and inequality. It is no longer enough to produce growth. It is imperative to ensure that growth does not lead to more inequality and concentrat­ion of wealth. Growth must be more inclusive and self-sustaining. It is not just the distributi­on of income and wealth that is problemati­c, it is capitalist production that is the fundamenta­l challenge.

Inclusive growth is more urgent today because of the debilitati­ng pandemic. As Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz recently wrote, “while the pandemic has revealed the enormous cleavages across the countries of the world, the pandemic itself is likely to increase disparitie­s.”

Based on the IMF’s latest estimate, with lives and livelihood­s destroyed, government­s have undertaken fiscal interventi­ons costing some $12 trillion, to provide lifelines. With business and consumer sentiment remaining low, tax revenues continue to decline while public debt is bound to rise close to the global output. This is also being experience­d in the Philippine­s.

This is a wake-up call. It is a call to action. With a deep recession, unemployme­nt is in double digits. In the Philippine­s, the numbers are staggering. In April, the jobless rate stood at 17.7%. This translates to more than seven million without work. In July, it somewhat moderated to 10% with nearly five million jobless. Social assistance and small business support are bound to continue but government­s have budget constraint­s, and their access to the debt market is not exactly limitless.

Fiscal space is fast eroding. Poverty could worsen.

Atif Mian and Amir Sufi’s book House of Debt (2014) becomes illuminati­ng. In a recent interview with IMF’s Hyun- Sung Khang, Mian, a professor from Princeton, argues that excessive borrowing is proof that the economic system has become distorted by rising income inequality. He observed that “it’s almost as though the modern economy has become addicted to credit.”

Their thesis about the Great Financial Crisis offered a fresh perspectiv­e on where government­s should focus. Supported by a vast amount of data, House of Debt posited that the dramatic increase in household debt among borrowers — the NINJA

(no income, no jobs, and no assets) or the subprimes — who are least able to pay back helped cause the modern- day Great Depression. Therefore, policymake­rs committed a grave error by unduly focusing on the banking system and in bailing out banks instead of the borrowers themselves. Former US Treasury Secretary Larry Summers praised Mian and Sufi saying it “could be the most important book to come out of the 2008 Financial Crisis and subsequent Great Recession.” He agreed that more considerat­ion should have been given by policymake­rs to households’ balance sheets during the Great Recession. While conceding part of the authors’ arguments, Summers defended the policymake­rs of the day, including himself. He highlighte­d the need for academic economists to understand that some policy choices are found outside simple econometri­c models.

To Mian, Summers’ position was no less than “political timidity,” an error in itself for not appreciati­ng the seriousnes­s of the situation. Bailouts for indebted households, rather than banks, could have made a lot of difference, then and perhaps even now in the face of the global pandemic.

In the Philippine­s alone, household debt rose from P357 billion in July 2014 all the way to P887 billion by July 2020 with a six-year average of 19%. Household debt, comprised of auto loans, housing loans, and credit card receivable­s, accounted for 10% of the total loans outstandin­g of the banking system. It looks like the thesis of House of Debt scarcely applies because the numbers do not look daunting. But if we consider informal loans as well as the ubiquitous cash remittance­s from overseas now at around $30 billion or P1.5 trillion, it is not unreasonab­le to say formal household debt with banks is on the low side. Households are borrowing from relatives and friends, as well as from the informal lenders. The propensity to borrow is also tempered by regular remittance­s of overseas family members. Without these safety valves, Mian and Sufi are spot on.

The simple measure of poverty incidence in the Philippine­s from 2012 to 2015 to 2018 tells us, some progress has been made. Eight years ago, 25.2% of the population were considered poor. Three years later, this declined to 23.3%. Three years after in 2018, we saw a more dramatic decline to 16.6%. Per capita poverty and per capita food thresholds also confirm this. The percentage­s of households with savings and those with savings in banks also point to good progress.

Two points.

One, relative to other countries in ASEAN, while we have sustained 21 years of uninterrup­ted economic growth, the pace of mitigating poverty and the state of our infrastruc­ture pale in comparison. There are more miles to go before we can afford to sleep.

Two, as the latest research made by Jose Ramon G. Albert, Michael Ralph M. Abrigo, Francis Mark A. Quimba and Jana Flor V. Vizmanos (“Poverty, the Middle Class, and Income Distributi­on amid COVID- 19,” September 2020) of the Philippine Institute for Developmen­t Studies shows, COVID-19 has increased the vulnerabil­ity of the lower income class on account of the economic lockdown. Unless the government sustains its social ameliorati­on support — perhaps even help small businesses employing lower-income workers — we are bound to see an exacerbati­on of income distributi­on and poverty.

We draw from Mian’s arguments that due to ultra-easy monetary policy driving interest rates down, some kind of a liquidity trap is created to motivate loans. To Mian, this credit “supercycle” is about to end. One cannot generate sufficient demand for growth by creating credit after credit.

Monetary and supervisor­y policies should involve central banks and treasuries consulting with banks. Banks could be reminded that the benefits of cheaper money and regulatory relief must be devolved to their household and corporate clients. Mandating moratorium may also be considered. After all, no one is strong enough to be buying bad loans that have accumulate­d since the economic lockdown.

Short of these considerat­ions, we are bound to see rising inequality, public discontent and in some jurisdicti­ons, angry populism.

In the midst of these urgent and troubling times, the congressio­nal intramural in the Philippine­s that has interrupte­d needed budget deliberati­ons only serves to exacerbate our helplessne­ss in the fight against the pandemic. The politickin­g will produce disturbing social implicatio­ns in its selfish and shameless aftermath.

 ??  ??
 ??  ?? DIWA C. GUINIGUNDO is the former Deputy Governor for the Monetary and Economics Sector, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP). He served the BSP for 41 years. In 20012003, he was Alternate
Executive Director at the Internatio­nal Monetary Fund in Washington, DC. He is the senior pastor of the Fullness of Christ Internatio­nal Ministries in Mandaluyon­g.
DIWA C. GUINIGUNDO is the former Deputy Governor for the Monetary and Economics Sector, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP). He served the BSP for 41 years. In 20012003, he was Alternate Executive Director at the Internatio­nal Monetary Fund in Washington, DC. He is the senior pastor of the Fullness of Christ Internatio­nal Ministries in Mandaluyon­g.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Philippines