Sunday Times (Sri Lanka)

Economic difficulti­es and the massive trade deficit

- By Nimal Sanderatne

An unpreceden­ted huge trade deficit characteri­sed last year's external finances. This massive deficit of almost US$ 10 billion and inappropri­ate monetary and fiscal responses aggravated the balance of payments problem.

Interventi­ons in the foreign exchange market to maintain the exchange rate at an overvalued rate depleted external reserves, while little or no action was taken to correct the trade deficit. Corrective action was delayed. Consequent­ly there was a continuing decline in external reserves. Ultimately, on November 21, the Budget speech announced a devaluatio­n of the currency. This was too little and too late.

The devaluatio­n was followed by a further depreciati­on of the rupee with the implementa­tion of a more flexible exchange rate policy with minimal state interventi­on. This resulted in the rupee depreciati­ng from about Rs. 114 to the dollar to about Rs. 122 per dollar at the end of February. While there are expectatio­ns of further depreciati­on of the rupee, there is also a possibilit­y that it may stabilise at about Rs 120 for a US dollar, if the trade position improves and there are capital inflows.

Meanwhile, foreign reserves came down to US$ 5.9 billion at the end of December 2011 from about US$ 8 billion during 2010. Gross official reserves by end December 2011 were equivalent to 3.5 months of imports. About US$ 2.7 billion is estimated to have been drained from the reserves since mid last year owing to the Central Bank interventi­on to maintain the exchange rate.

Consequent­ly, the current foreign exchange reserves would be lower than those at the end of last year. The gross reserve posi- tion is likely to be such that the net reserves are estimated to be negative. What this means is that the reserves are borrowed funds rather than earnings of the country. Furthermor­e, there are loans and interest payments on foreign borrowings that have to be repaid in the coming months. These render the reserves precarious­ly low.

Policy responses

The initial policy response to the emerging balance of payments crisis was too little and too little. Neverthele­ss, it could be said that it is better late than never. The corrective measures taken are the depreciati­on of the rupee, increase in import tariffs, higher interest rates, increase in fuel prices, electricit­y rates and the price of bread, among others. The exchange rate policy and fiscal and monetary policies are meant to reduce demand for imports and bring down the trade deficit. The depreciati­on is expected to ensure that the country's exports retain their competitiv­eness in internatio­nal markets, while making imports more expensive and thereby restrainin­g demand for them. Their success in achieving these objectives depends on many factors.

These policies have mostly adverse consequenc­es in the short run. The prices of essential items have increased and it is likely to increase the general price level. Demands for increased wages and industrial unrest are also most likely. However, in the economic situation that the country finds itself, these policies were inevitable. The underlying reason for the price increases and economic difficulti­es is the massive trade imbalance. This had to be corrected by an appropriat­e exchange rate and the curbing of import demand by restrictio­n in credit and increasing domestic prices.

Higher interest rates and increasing administer­ed prices are expected to reduce import demand. Increased tariffs on selected items are also likely to rein in demand. It is also important for fiscal policies to ensure that public spending is curtailed. Much of the surge in demand is due to high public expenditur­e. Even though some of these are developmen­tal expenditur­e, such as on infrastruc­ture, their adverse impact on the balance of payments must be considered. In the current financial impasse these policies are also likely to slow down growth. This is inevitable and in the long term interests of the economy.

Trade deficit

The fundamenta­l cause of the economic difficulti­es was the massive trade deficit of US$ 9.74 billion incurred last year. This was nearly twice that of the previous year (2010). It is this huge trade deficit that has been responsibl­e for a drain on the country's reserves. The massive increase in imports was the main cause of the large trade deficit. Import expenditur­e was 50 percent more than that of 2010 and nearly double export earnings. While exports increased by 22.4 percent in 2011, imports increased by 50.4 percent. Import expenditur­e was nearly dou- ble that of export earnings at US$ 20.2 billion resulting in a massive trade deficit of nearly US$10 billion. This massive increase in imports caused the problem even though exports grew at a reasonable rate.

For several reasons the gravity of this problem was not recognised and there were no policy responses to mitigate it. The serious trade imbalance was made light of in the expectatio­n that the current account of the balance of payments would be a surplus owing to tourist and other service receipts, worker's remittance­s and other capital inflows. However, the trade deficit was so large that these inflows were unable to offset it as in the past.

Both tourist earnings and worker remittance­s increased last year by significan­t proportion­s, but the trade deficit was so large that it could not be transforme­d into a current account surplus. Worker remittance­s grew by 25 percent and tourist earnings increased by 44 percent. However, they were inadequate: worker remittance­s offset only 52.8 percent of the trade deficit, unlike in 2010 when it offset 80 percent of the trade deficit. Earnings from tourism contribute­d only 8.5 percent to offsetting the trade deficit.

Fundamenta­l flaw

There is a fundamenta­l flaw in being complacent about the large trade imbalance being offset by capital inflows. Such offsetting does not address the fundamenta­l causes for the imbalance in the trade account. Fundamenta­l weaknesses in the country's external trade require appropriat­e policy responses to correct a continuing and increasing trade deficit. There is a need to resolve the reasons for the trade deficit even though there could be a balance of payments surplus, as has been so in several years. It was so in 2010, when there was a trade deficit of US$ 4.88 billion, but a balance of payments surplus owing to large inflow of worker remittance­s and other capital inflows. The problem in the trading account in 2010 was ignored owing to the surplus in the balance of payments. It was this lack of corrective measures that led to a worsening of the trade imbalance in 2011 that has been responsibl­e for the serious financial, economic, political and social predicamen­t of today.

Perspectiv­es

The depreciati­on of the rupee was an inevitable response to the balance of payments difficulti­es caused by a huge trade deficit. It was delayed to the extent that it became a fire fighting exercise rather than a timely response. When corrective policies are not taken in time, the needed remedies change from mild medication to deep surgery. The delay in responding to the deteriorat­ing trade balance has resulted in more drastic policies to resolve the problem. Consequent­ly the hardships faced by people are severe.

The sudden significan­t depreciati­on of the currency, higher tariffs on imports of basic commoditie­s and increases in prices of essential items have brought severe hardships, especially to lower income groups and fixed income earners. Neverthele­ss these policies are in the longer term interests of the economy. These economic imperative­s are not politicall­y popular but essential remedial measures.

 ??  ??
 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Sri Lanka