Economic liberalization encompasses the processes, including government
policies, that promote free trade, deregulation, elimination of subsidies,
price
controls and rationing systems, and, often, the downsizing or privatization of
public services (Woodward, 1992). Economic liberalization has been central
to adjustment policies introduced in developing countries since the late 1970s,
mostly in the context of the conditions for lending set by international financial
institutions. Thus, government policies were redirected to follow a
non-interventionist,
or laissez-faire, approach to economic activity, relying on market
forces for the allocation of resources. It was argued that market-oriented
policy reforms would spur growth and accelerate poverty reduction.
From this perspective, government intervention in markets is seen as both
inefficient and distortionary. It is argued that even if an interventionist
State
acts with good intentions, it does not have the competence to manage the
economy well. By moving scarce resources into less productive economic
activities,
the State is thought to reduce overall economic growth, with adverse
consequences for poverty reduction.
Additionally, for public choice theory, rational, self-interested individuals
maximize their economic benefits and overall economic welfare. In civic life,
politicians, bureaucrats and citizens are all considered to act solely out of
selfinterest
in the political arena. Politicians and State bureaucrats, acting from
self-interest, use their power and the authority of the Government to engage in
rent-seeking behaviour, which distorts the allocation of resources and results
in
disincentives for private investment and entrepreneurship (Buchanan, 1980).
Therefore, the power of the State and political actors, including the ability
to
intervene in the economy, should be limited.
Within this framework, the State creates enabling conditions in the form
of macroeconomic stability, guaranteeing property rights, and maintaining
law and order for rapid economic growth driven by private sector (both domestic
and foreign) investment. As economic growth rises, poverty will fall (Dollar
and Kraay, 2002). Distribution and social justice benefit from the trickle-down
principle, as economic growth will eventually benefit all members of society.
The free market, based on comparative advantage, will thus bring about economic
expansion through labour-intensive export activities, which will create
employment and hence improve the general well-being of the entire society.
The present chapter critically evaluates the growth, employment and poverty
impacts of three major elements of recent economic liberalization—trade
liberalization, financial liberalization and privatization.
98 Rethinking Poverty
Trade liberalization
Trade and economic growth: the theory
Proponents of trade liberalization expect that removing trade barriers will
lead
to short-run or static welfare gains (or higher income levels) and in turn
reduce
poverty.1 The gains from trade result from the fact that different countries
are
endowed with different resources (natural and acquired); hence, the opportunity
cost of producing products varies from country to country. Opportunity
cost is measured by the sacrifice (for example, in the production of one good)
to produce one extra unit of another good, given that resources are scarce.
Under trade protection, resources are concentrated in inefficient production
in economic sectors that have high trade barriers. When barriers are removed,
resources shift away from those inefficient sectors in which that country has
no comparative advantage to the efficient sectors in which it does have a
comparative
advantage.
Gains from trade may not be distributed equitably and are determined
by several factors, including the international rate of exchange between two
goods, what happens to the terms of trade, and whether the full employment
of resources is maintained as they are reallocated when countries specialize
(see
box VI.1). The closer the international rate of exchange is to a country’s own
internal rate of exchange, the less it will benefit from specialization and the
more the other country will benefit. As Bhagwati (1958) has shown, in extreme
circumstances, one country may become absolutely worse off if real resource
gains from trade are offset by the decline in the terms of trade, a phenomenon
that he called “immiserizing growth” (Bhagwati, 1958).
The problem for many developing countries is that the type of goods in
which they will specialize under a free trade regime—namely, primary
commodities—
is likely to cause the terms of trade to deteriorate and may lead to
an underutilization of their resources. First, primary commodities generally
1 Neoclassical economic theory has long contended that trade enhances welfare
and growth.
In his An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776),
Adam Smith
stressed the importance of trade as a vent for surplus production and as a
means of widening
the market, thereby improving the division of labour and the level of
productivity.
Smith maintained the following:
Between whatever places foreign trade is carried on, they all of them derive
two
distinct benefits from it. It carries the surplus part of the produce of their
land and
labour for which there is no demand among them, and brings back in return
something
else for which there is a demand. It gives value to their superfluities, by
exchanging
them for something else, which may satisfy part of their wants and increase
their enjoyments. By means of it, the narrowness of the home market does not
hinder
the division of labour in any particular branch of art or manufacture from
being
carried to the highest perfection. By opening a more extensive market for
whatever
part of the produce of their labour may exceed the home consumption, it
encourages
them to improve its productive powers and to augment its annual produce to the
utmost, and thereby to increase the real revenue of wealth and society.
Economic liberalization and poverty reduction 99
Box VI.1
Trade liberalization and exports in Africa
According to proponents of trade liberalization, increased exports following
trade liberalization
will ensure higher rates of economic growth, beneficial for the poor. However,
Africa’s export
performance following trade liberalization does not support such claims. While
greater market
access may well have led to the achievement of the expected results, trade
liberalization
resulted in the loss of tariff revenues, eroding fiscal space, and undermined
existing productive
capacities and capabilities.
Most African countries have liberalized their trade regimes. Trade
liberalization occurred
principally from the late 1980s and in the 1990s, and involved the
“tariffication” of non-tariff
barriers, cuts in the number and value of tariffs, exchange-rate liberalization
and removal of
export barriers. Overall, export performance in African countries following
trade liberalization
has been disappointing. Indeed, although trade liberalization has increased
exports expressed
as a percentage of GDP, this effect has been weak, and trade balances in
African countries have
deteriorated since liberalization with greatly increased imports.
Analysis of values and volumes of exports from Africa show that, following liberalization,
African exports continued to grow at slower rates in volume terms than in other
regions. Only
the rising prices of fuels, minerals and other primary commodities since 2002
have maintained
African export value growth at levels comparable with that in other developing
regions.
Export diversification is very low in Africa, an outcome consistent with the
theory of
comparative advantage. African countries remain principally primary commodity
exporters, as
dictated by their resource endowments. Thus, the dependence of most African
countries on a
small number of export products has increased following liberalization. Many
countries in the
region are now less able than before liberalization to withstand price
collapses for a few key
commodities.
The main destinations for African exports do not appear to have been strongly
affected
by African countries’ efforts to liberalize trade. Although there has been some
diversification in
the destinations of African exports, the declining importance of European countries
as export
markets seems to be part of longer-term trends in growth and demand, unrelated
to trade
liberalization. The greater importance of Asia as a market for African exports
reflects strong
growth in that region requiring African primary commodities, especially
minerals. Recent
changes in the share of African exports going to North America, meanwhile, have
been driven
mainly by determined United States efforts to diversify oil supplies and
corporate investment
in sub-Saharan Africa.
Source: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (2008).
have low prices and the demand for them does not rise as fast as income (low
income elasticity of demand). As a result, when their supply increases, prices
can drop dramatically, since demand grows only slowly with income growth.
Secondly, primary commodity production is land-based and subject to diminishing
returns,2 and there is a limit to employment in activities subject to
diminishing returns at a reasonable living wage.
By contrast, in manufacturing, no fixed factors of production are involved,
and production may be subject to increasing returns. Thus, what is often ob-
2 When all inputs are increased proportionately, output does not increase by
the same proportion.
This happens in land-based activities as the availability of better-quality
land
diminishes. On the other hand, when output increases more than proportionately
with
proportionate increases of all inputs, this is described as increasing returns
to scale.
100 Rethinking Poverty
served is a secular deterioration of the terms of trade for countries producing
primary commodities vis-à-vis countries specializing in manufacturing
(Ocampo and Parra, 2003). Therefore, in practice, for countries specializing
in activities subject to diminishing returns, the real resource gains from
specialization
may be offset by the real income losses from unemployment.
Empirical studies do not point to significant employment generation due
to trade liberalization.3 Furthermore, according to a World Bank study, more
than 70 per cent of gains from complete trade liberalization will accrue to
rich
countries, and more than two thirds of static gains to developing countries
from complying with the outcomes of the Doha Round will go to big countries
such as Argentina, Brazil and India in the case of agriculture and to China and
Viet Nam in the case of textiles and garments (Anderson and Martin, 2005).
According to proponents of trade liberalization, the major reason for the
rapid growth arising from trade liberalization is the dynamic gains from trade.
The dynamic gains accrue from augmenting the availability of resources for
production by increasing the quantity and productivity of resources. One of the
major dynamic benefits of trade is that it widens the market for a country’s
producers.
If production is subject to increasing returns, export growth becomes a
source of continued productivity growth since there is also a close connection
between increasing returns and capital accumulation. For a small country with
no trade, there is very little scope for large-scale investment in advanced
capital
equipment, and specialization is limited by the extent of the market. Other
important sources of dynamic benefits from trade include: stimulus to
competition,
acquisition of new knowledge and ideas and dissemination of technical
knowledge, more FDI, and changes in attitudes and institutions.
Trade can raise productivity, however, if increasing returns to scale are
dominant in the export sectors. If, instead, scale economies are more
widespread
in import-competing sectors which contract after liberalization, productivity
gains will be limited. Another possibility is that protection increases
inefficiency by drawing too many firms into sectors shielded from foreign
competition.
Liberalization brings about rationalization and increased productivity.
This will occur, however, only if there is ease of entry and exit into markets.
In reality, firms may remain in an industry for a long while after protection
is
lifted, thus limiting increases in productivity. Finally, if competition for
export
markets is intense, uncertainty may make firms reluctant to undertake new
productivity-enhancing investments.
Empirical evidence
The high-performing Asian economies have provided the main reference point
for the resurgence of claims about trade liberalization. The economies of
Japan;
3 See chapters by G. Andrea Cornia, Eddy Lee, and Bernard Hoekman and L. Alan
Winters
in Ocampo, Jomo and Khan, eds. (2006).
Economic liberalization and poverty reduction 101
Box VI.2
Did trade liberalization reduce rural poverty in China?
China’s success in reducing poverty with the reforms of 1978 is undeniable. The
1980s and 1990s
saw a significant fall in rural poverty. However, as Ravallion and Chen (2004)
argue, this had very
little to do with trade liberalization. Several other factors were at work.
The specifics of the situation in China at the outset of reform should not be
forgotten.
The Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution had not helped reduce rural
poverty in
the period from the 1960s to the mid-1970s. Most of the rural population,
forced into collective
farming, had weak incentives to work and produce productively. Hence, there
were some
relatively easy gains from de-collectivizing agriculture and shifting the
responsibility for farming
to households. This brought a huge gain to the country’s poorest, but a
one-time gain.
In China, the Government operated an extensive food grain procurement system
which
effectively taxed farmers by setting quotas and fixing procurement prices below
market
levels. By raising the procurement prices, the Government of China brought both
poverty and
inequality down in the mid-1990s. When so many of a country’s poor are to be
found in its rural
areas, it is not surprising that agricultural growth plays an important role in
poverty reduction.
China’s experience is consistent with the view that agriculture and rural
development are crucial
to pro-poor growth in low-income developing countries.
Why did agricultural growth have strong poverty-reducing effects in China?
Relatively
equitable land allocation was achieved by breaking up collective farms. Most
farmers, therefore,
had efficiently sized plots. Farmers who owned small plots of land and lacked
incentives to invest
in new technology were not common, though they were common in many other
developing
countries.
Source: Ravallion and Chen (2004).
the Republic of Korea; Taiwan Province of China; Singapore; Hong Kong
Special Administrative Region, China; Malaysia; Indonesia; and Thailand
have recorded some of the highest GDP growth rates in the world—averaging
approximately 6 per cent per annum from 1965 until 1990—and also some
of the highest rates of export growth, averaging more than 10 per cent per
annum. Thus, quite often, their spectacular economic success has been linked
to exports or outward orientation, notwithstanding the 1997-1998 economic
crises in East Asia.4 However, this success has hardly been based on free trade
or laissez-faire (see box VI.2). For example, the Governments of Japan and the
Republic of Korea have been highly interventionist, pursuing export promotion
on the basis of import substitution (Amsden, 1989; Chang, 2006). The
World Bank (1993) has acknowledged that what is important for growth is not
whether the free market rules or the Government intervenes, but rather getting
the fundamentals for growth right, including government control of financial
markets in order to lower the cost of capital, and policies to promote exports
and protect domestic industry.
4 Brahmbhatt and Dadush (1996) found that, among 93 developing countries
studied, the
rapidly growing East Asian exporting countries were integrating fastest into
the global
economy, while low-income countries of sub-Saharan Africa and some
middle-income
countries in Latin America were integrating less or more slowly.
102 Rethinking Poverty
A later study by the World Bank (2002) of both economic growth and
equality in developing countries from 1977 to 1997 found that the more
globalized
countries (as measured by trade relative to GDP) enjoyed faster economic
growth, but did not experience significant changes in income inequality.
However, as Rodrik (2001, p. 1) points out, “the countries that integrated
into the world economy most rapidly were not necessarily those that adopted
the most pro-trade policies”. According to Rodrik, “the Bank is acknowledging
that trade liberalization may not be an effective instrument, not just
for stimulating growth, but even for integration in world markets”. Rodrik
concludes that “rapid integration into global markets is a consequence, not
of trade liberalization or adherence to World Trade Organization strictures
per se, but of successful growth strategies with often highly idiosyncratic
characteristics”.5
Thus, both the 1993 and 2002 studies of the World Bank recognize that
high growth was not necessarily due to trade liberalization or export
orientation.
What matters most is the successful growth strategies based on countries’
own historical and socio-economic circumstances. The empirical work claiming
a positive causal relationship between trade liberalization and growth suffers
from serious methodological flaws. After careful evaluation of the major
cross-country empirical work, one study states that “[w]hen we ask whether the
results are informative for the practice of trade policy, we conclude that the
answer is ‘no’ ” (Hallak and Levinsohn, 2004, p. 3).6 A later study (Andersen
and Babula, 2008) which addresses some flaws of earlier ones finds likely
positive
links between trade and economic growth, but doubts the ability of developing
countries to achieve productivity growth through trade liberalization.
To do so, it may well be necessary to invest enough in appropriate education
and training facilities. However, by removing an important source of revenue
through tariff reductions—which is not compensated for by other sources of
revenue—trade liberalization further restricts Governments’ fiscal space for
such productivity-enhancing investment (see box VI.3).
Summarizing lessons from a decade of reforms in the 1990s, the World
Bank (2005, p. 134) notes:
The distributive effects of trade liberalization are diverse, and not always
pro-poor. … evidence from the 1990s suggests that even in instances where
trade policy has reduced poverty, there are still distributive issues … Global
markets are the most hostile to the products produced by the world’s
poor—such as agricultural products and textiles and apparel.
5 The admission in question comes when the report describes its sample of “more
globalized”
countries: “We label the top third ‘more globalized’ without in any sense
implying that
they adopted pro-trade policies. The rise in trade may have been due to other
policies or
even to pure chance” (World Bank, 2002, p. 34).
6 For a similar conclusion, see Rodríguez (2007).
Economic liberalization and poverty reduction 103
Box VI.3
Fiscal impact of trade liberalization
Although there are large differences among countries, income from trade taxes
represents, on
average, one third of total tax revenues in developing countries. In some very
open and small
least developed economies, import-related taxes constitute as much as 65 per
cent of total
revenue (see Gupta, 2007). Laird and de Córdoba (2006) show that developing
countries obtain
about $156 billion in tariff revenues annually, but this base would fall by 41
per cent under the
ambitious “Swiss formula” proposal of tariff cuts for non-agricultural
products. The study also
shows tariff losses of at least $63 billion for developing countries due to
non-agricultural market
access (NAMA) alone, against projected welfare gains of less than $16 billion
(0.2 per cent of
developing-country national income) from the Doha Round.
With promises of $4 billion against such high fiscal losses due to trade
liberalization, Aid
for Trade may not be of much help for developing-country Governments. For some
countries,
the fiscal loss from trade liberalization could be as high as 10 per cent of
GDP, which is more than
their public expenditure on health, education and other social priorities
combined.
Between 1970 and 1998, 84 low- and middle-income countries surveyed experienced
lower fiscal revenue as a result of falling trade-related tariffs (see
International Monetary
Fund, 2002). IMF recommends replacing the trade-related revenues with
value-added and
sales taxes. However, the proposed substitution raises questions of feasibility
and equity. In
terms of feasibility, the capacity of low-income countries to recover income
losses is limited.
Implementing indirect taxes (value-added and sales taxes) demands increased
administrative
capacity which many countries do not have; and for every dollar lost in
tariffs, poor and middleincome
countries have been able to recover, at best, 30 cents from other sources (see
Baunsgaard
and Keen, 2005). Thus, while the consumption-based indirect taxes fail to
compensate for the
lost tariff revenues, they are also found to be regressive, and
disproportionately affect low- and
middle-income households.
The IMF Trade Integration Mechanism (TIM) did not contemplate the loss of
fiscal revenues
from the outset. This was only explicitly added in a recent reformulation of
the mechanism in the
context of the Aid for Trade discussion. As the Fund facilities are not
concessional, this means
that a rate similar, or very close, to the market interest rate must be paid on
the borrowed
funds. Hence, the Mechanism basically increases debt in order to compensate for
an ostensibly
temporary adjustment of the balance of payments.
Financial liberalization
The arguments for financial liberalization also rest on the supposed link
between
financial development and economic growth, and hence poverty reduction.
There are two dimensions of financial liberalization: (a) domestic financial
sector deregulation and (b) opening of the capital account.
The rationale for financial deregulation, including international financial
liberalization, was provided back in the early 1970s by McKinnon (1973) and
Shaw (1973). They claimed that one of the reasons for the poor growth
performance
of many developing countries had been administratively determined
very low (in some cases, negative) real interest rates which discouraged
savings
and encouraged inefficient use of capital. Thus, financial
liberalization—primarily
involving deregulation of interest rates—would lead to higher levels of
savings. Liberalization would also channel funds to finance more productive
projects. Therefore, an increase in real interest rates following
liberalization
104 Rethinking Poverty
should encourage saving and expand the supply of credit available to domestic
investors, thereby enabling the economy to grow more quickly. This
growthpromoting
effect of domestic financial sector deregulation should be enhanced
by opening the capital account of the balance of payments, which would allow
more foreign capital to flow into the country, attracted by higher domestic
real
interest rates.
While increases in real interest rates have often been the outcome of
liberalization episodes, their impact on domestic saving and investment has
been mixed (Reinhart and Ioannis, 2008; Galbis, 1993). McKinnon himself
has acknowledged that financial liberalization may lead to episodes of
“over-borrowing”.
This over-borrowing syndrome may be magnified when domestic
liberalization is coupled with capital account liberalization (McKinnon and
Pill, 1999). Additionally, if the rising levels of debt are denominated in a
foreign
currency, this will increase a country’s vulnerability to exchange-rate
fluctuations.
Banking crises are often preceded by financial liberalization; indeed,
liberalization often leads to crisis (Kaminsky and Reinhart, 1999). A World
Bank study of 53 countries for the period 1980-1995 found that banking crises
were more likely to occur in liberalized financial systems (Demirgüç-Kunt and
Detragiache, 1999; see also box VI.4). One reason why China, India and Viet
Nam remained relatively unaffected by the contagion from the Asian financial
crisis was their tight controls on short-term capital flows.
Box VI.4
Financial crises and poverty
Financial liberalization has increased the frequency and intensity of financial
and banking crises,
especially in emerging economies. Liberalization of the capital account
increases the inflow of
foreign capital but also threatens the stability of financial institutions by
increasing exchangerate
and domestic lending risks.
A conspicuous feature of capital account liberalization in developing countries
is so-called
liability dollarization. This occurs when the private sector acquires
liabilities in foreign currency,
although assets are denominated in local currency. This makes the balance sheet
of the private
sector highly sensitive to shifts in the exchange rate. Significant
exchange-rate depreciations
can lead to large and negative wealth effects as liabilities increase in value
relative to assets.
Such wealth effects often cannot offset the positive impact on competitiveness
engendered by
exchange-rate depreciations.
Developing countries often experience sharp changes in capital flows. The most
damaging
in terms of impact on real output, employment and wages are so-called sudden
stops, when
there is an unanticipated cessation of capital flows that is not linked to any
systematic policy
errors committed by developing-country Governments. These sudden stops reflect
failures
and shortcomings in international capital markets. Under normal circumstances,
Governments
would seek to mitigate the impact of a capital account crisis on the real
economy by engaging
in counter-cyclical policies.
Unfortunately, the presence of liability dollarization—as well as the lack of
preparedness—
acts as a binding constraint on policy space. Monetary authorities develop a
“fear of floating” and
thus are reluctant to allow the depreciation of the exchange rate and engage in
expansionary
policies because of the rather large negative wealth effect stemming from
liability dollarization.
Economic liberalization and poverty reduction 105
Cline (2002) has tracked the path of per capita income growth before, during and
after the year
of a financial crisis triggered by sudden large outflows of foreign capital for
each of eight major
cases. In every case, there was a decline in per capita growth in the crisis
year, most dramatically
a decline by 15 per cent in the case of Indonesia. The financial crises between
1994 and 2002
impoverished at least 40 million–60 million people, and possibly almost as many
as 100 million,
out of a total of 800 million people in the economies concerned. By far the
largest adverse
impact occurred in Indonesia, owing to the country’s large income decline and
large share of
population in poverty.
Box VI.5
Financial liberalization and growth
There exists a large body of empirical research on financial liberalization and
growth, but
the results have been largely inconclusive. Nevertheless, support for the claim
that financial
liberalization inevitably boosts growth is slim. Kose, Prasad and Terrones
(2006) have shown
that capital account openness did not increase access to international finance
for domestic
investments. The same authors (2003) showed that capital account liberalization
increased
consumption volatility relative to output volatility in emerging economies.
Prasad, Rajan and
Subramanian (2007) also show no positive link between foreign capital and
economic growth;
instead, fast-growing developing countries relied less on foreign capital.
Rodrik and Subramanian (2008) argue that the case for financial globalization
and
capital account liberalization is based on the misguided premise that developing
countries are
savings-constrained and that the inflow of foreign capital eases this
constraint. In their view, the
unavailability of foreign capital is not a binding constraint on growth in
these countries. They
are much more likely to be investment-constrained, with low levels of
investment resulting from
low expectations of profitability and returns. Consequently, increasing access
to foreign capital
flows would have little positive effect on raising growth-promoting
investments.
For the vast majority of countries surveyed, their investment rates fell when
United
States interest rates were low and external liquidity was plentiful. This
should not have
happened with countries that were savings-constrained. Low interest rates
should raise
borrowing and, with it, investment. Among the countries surveyed, the only two
exceptions
were China and India, which had shielded themselves from financial
globalization (see Rodrik
and Subramanian, 2008).
Thus, by the end of the last decade, financial liberalization had become the
single most controversial policy prescription. After the currency crises in
East
Asia and the Russian Federation, the focus of the debate shifted from when to
liberalize the capital account to whether to liberalize it at all. Rodrik (1998),
for example, argues that there is no evidence in the data that countries
without
capital controls have grown faster, invested more or experienced lower
inflation.
Significantly, Aizenman (2005) found no evidence of a “growth bonus”
associated with increasing the foreign financing share. In fact, the evidence
suggests just the opposite: throughout the 1990s, countries and regions with
higher self-financing ratios grew significantly faster than countries and
regions
with lower self-financing ratios (see box VI.5). The positive and economically
significant effect of self-financing ratios on real per capita GDP growth has
been confirmed for 1970-2000.
106 Rethinking Poverty
In contrast, capital account openness has seen capital flowing out of
developing
countries to the rich countries, especially the United States, funding
its unsustainable consumption boom and asset price bubbles in recent years.
Capital account liberalization has also not resulted in any significant decline
in the cost of finance. Instead, the cost of finance has behaved “perversely”,
rising
sharply during economic downturns (forcing real interest rates to rise) and
falling during booms (yielding low real interest rates). Regarding the current
crisis, even the World Bank (2009d, pp. 47-48) recently noted:
Capital restrictions might be unavoidable as a last resort to prevent or
mitigate
the crisis effects. A few emerging countries have introduced capital
controls and other measures to better monitor and, in some cases, limit the
conversion of domestic currency into foreign exchange … capital controls
might need to be imposed as a last resort to help mitigate a financial crisis
and stabilize macroeconomic developments.
As a result, macroeconomic policies have become pro-cyclical. For example,
during the current global economic and financial crisis, private capital
flows to developing countries have dropped sharply, and risk premiums for
external
financing have surged. Net private capital inflows to developing economies
declined by more than 50 per cent during 2008, dropping from the peak
of more than $1 trillion registered in 2007 to less than $500 billion. Another
significant decline of 50 per cent is expected for 2009. The risk premium on
lending to emerging and developing countries soared, on average, from 250
to about 800 basis points within the space of a few weeks in the third quarter
of 2008.
In light of the disappointing experience, authorities should institute
mechanisms
to restrict large and sudden flows of short-term capital or “hot money”
(Epstein, Grabel and Jomo, 2003). By employing diverse capital management
techniques during the 1990s, Chile, Colombia, Taiwan Province of China,
India, China, Singapore and Malaysia were able to achieve critical
macroeconomic
objectives. These techniques included the prevention of maturity and
locational mismatches; attraction of desired foreign investments; reduction of
overall financial fragility, currency risk, and speculative pressures;
insulation
from the contagion effects of financial crises; and enhancement of the autonomy
of economic and social policy.
Finally, financial sector deregulation led to the privatization of Stateowned
financial institutions and, in most cases, the abandonment of specialized
financial institutions established to subsidize and direct credit to small
and medium-sized enterprises, agriculture and other development priorities.
As a result, in many developing countries, financial deregulation has adversely
affected rural banking. Unprofitable rural branches of commercial banks have
closed, making access to credit more difficult for farmers and other people
living
in rural areas (Deraniyagala, 2003; Chowdhury, 2002; see also box VI.6).
Privatization has also reduced the developmental role of Governments,
resultEconomic
liberalization and poverty reduction 107
Box VI.6
Financial deregulation, inequality and poverty
Developing countries need to invest in both agriculture and manufacturing in
order to diversify
their economies as well as to reduce poverty through employment creation and
food price
stabilization. However, despite much higher social returns to agricultural and
manufacturing
investment, following financial sector deregulation, banks and financial
institutions have
increasingly financed collateralized stock market and real estate investments.
Private
commercial banks discriminate against employment-intensive sectors such as
agriculture and
small-scale enterprises owing to the higher transaction costs of lending to a
larger number of
small borrowers and the lack of collateralizable assets of small farmers and
owners of small and
medium-sized enterprises. Ghosh (2008b) maintains that “[t]he agrarian crisis
in most parts
of the developing world is at least partly, and often substantially, related to
the decline in
the access of peasant farmers to institutional finance, which is the direct
result of financial
liberalization”.
The situation has been made worse by the closing of Government-run specialized
financial institutions for agriculture and small and medium-sized enterprises
as part of
financial deregulation. Furthermore, previously Government-owned privatized
banks have
closed rural branches deemed not to be profitable, as there is no longer any
requirement to
ensure rural banking services. These measures have reduced credit availability
for farmers and
small producers, and have contributed to the rising costs of needed working
capital, thereby
exacerbating rural distress. In rural India, for example, there is strong
evidence that the deep
crisis in farming communities—resulting in farmer suicides, mass migration and
even deaths
from hunger—has been related to the decline of institutional credit, forcing
farmers to turn to
usurious private moneylenders. A study by the Inter-American Development Bank
(2007) of 17
Latin American countries for the period 1977-2000 found that financial
liberalization has had a
significant effect on increasing inequality and poverty.
In sum, financial deregulation has undermined important social functions of
finance
by making it less inclusive. It has also destroyed an important industrial
policy instrument
historically utilized by most successful late industrializers. Most late
industrializing countries, at
least since the twentieth century, have created well-regulated financial
markets and often Statecontrolled
financial institutions designed to mobilize savings to support priority
investments.
They used directed credit policies and differential interest rates to support
nascent industries
with the potential to expand into export markets. They also created development
banks with
the mandate to provide long-term credit on attractive terms. These financial
sector policies
contributed significantly to rapid economic transformation and poverty declines
in those
countries.
ing in the poor performance of small and medium-sized enterprises and
agriculture
as well as deindustrialization, with adverse impacts for employment
and poverty reduction.
Privatization
The privatization of State-owned enterprises, including utilities, is another
central
component of adjustment policies for developing countries. Privatization is
often a crucial requirement for securing aid funding, and is a key policy of
the
Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs), with the World Bank continuing
to link privatization to poverty reduction.
108 Rethinking Poverty
How can privatization reduce poverty?
The rationale for privatization is rooted in public choice theory which
predicts
that privatization will spur development of the private sector. Privatization
is
supposed to improve the efficiency of enterprises by focusing on financial
performance.
Through better resource allocation and improved efficiency (due to
the absence of rent-seeking), privatization is expected to spur economic growth
and hence reduce poverty. Proponents of privatization also project fiscal
benefits,
occurring from the one-time revenue gains for the government that “sells”
presumably failing State-owned enterprises and is relieved of the burden of
financing investment (Campbell-White and Bhatia, 1998). This phenomenon
is expected to allow Governments to spend more on services for the poor.
But how does privatization actually help develop the private sector? This
remains unclear. It could increase private investment in a sector, but whether
this leads to output and welfare benefits will depend on competition, among
other factors. It could signal government support for the private sector.
However,
for many developing countries (for example, countries in sub-Saharan Africa),
lack of investor interest has been a common feature of privatization, with
Governments offering increasing concessions to entice investors to acquire
their assets—often to meet the requirements of donors and creditors (Bayliss,
2003). Privatization can also create an environment where the private sector
attempts to stifle competition and flout regulations in order to enhance
profits.
In the absence of effective regulation, where Governments have recourse
to valid sanctions against private firms, the State will be powerless to
prevent
market abuses. In such a situation, it is not privatization that will develop
the
private sector, but rather effective Government regulation.
Private firms will invest only when and where they expect to make a
profitable return. Therefore, they will want to invest only in profitable
activities
and will not buy losing enterprises. Thus, the Government will not only
be left with losing enterprises, but also lose a regular source of revenue from
enterprises sold to the private sector. For example, in their study of
privatization
in Africa, Campbell-White and Bhatia (1998) found that the enterprises
sold had not been financially draining government resources. In the case of
profit-making units, the fiscal effect of privatization is almost invariably
negative.
If the Government sells an asset that provides an income flow (profits,
etc.) equal to or greater than that based on the prevailing interest rate on
Government securities, then the Government would lose a future income
stream by selling it.
Additionally, if revenue from privatized enterprises becomes uncertain,
firms may back out of investment projects. In Zimbabwe in 1999, the United
Kingdom firm Biwater withdrew from a proposed private water project because
the project’s intended beneficiaries (consumers) were too poor to pay
a tariff to ensure the profit margin that Biwater was seeking (Bayliss, 2002).
They may also seek guarantees from Governments to ensure revenue flows
Economic liberalization and poverty reduction 109
rather than take the risks. In infrastructure, private companies will ensure
that
their investments are recouped with profit. In power generation projects,
private
investors often will not invest without a power purchase agreement (PPA)
in place under which the publicly owned utilities agree to purchase the output
of the plant at a fixed price often cited in foreign exchange for a period of
20-30
years. Such agreements can be crippling for Governments. In the case of the
Enron-owned Dabhol power project in India, the terms of the power purchase
agreement became so onerous for the government of Maharashtra State—owing
to currency devaluation and the high cost of fuel—that it defaulted on
payments (Bayliss and Hall, 2000).
There is also no clear evidence that the private sector performs better than
the public sector. While private ownership may bring better management skills
and incentives, this is by no means inevitable.
There are numerous examples of utility privatization failures. For example,
in Puerto Rico, four years after a subsidiary of the French multinational
Vivendi took over management of the water authority, its financial situation
deteriorated to such a degree that the State had to provide subsidies (Bayliss,
2002). Private investment in infrastructure, for example, in a water supply
programme in a developing country, is not normally a very attractive
proposition
because it involves a large upfront investment and a long-term pay-off. For
this reason, privatization projects are often designed in such a way as to
enable
private firms acquiring interests in service delivery to make quick profits,
leaving the longer-term, more expensive investments to the Government. For
example, in Guinea and Côte d’Ivoire, private operators were given
responsibility
for billing consumers for water, while the Governments committed to
invest in infrastructure. The fact that the private firm made a profit while
the
State-owned enterprise continued to accumulate losses was due not so much
to the difference in ownership as to the type of business each party engaged
in.
Further, given the private firm’s interest in increasing revenue, the focus was
on installing water meters, increasing billing and bill collection, rather than
on
improving access to water (Brook Cowen, 1996). This can impact negatively
on the poor, who have limited access to basic infrastructure.
Private firms are also sometimes guaranteed rates of return which allow
for price or user charge increases. In the Plurinational State of Bolivia, the
privatized water company raised prices sharply in the late 1990s to enable it
to earn such rates of return, provoking widespread popular protests (Lobina,
2000). Case studies of African countries have also shown that water prices
rose substantially after privatization—to the point where water became
inaccessible
to the poor (Magdahl and others, 2006). In addition, developingcountry
Governments often have weak regulatory capacity to monitor price
increases by privatized firms. Whether privatization-related price hikes
increase
poverty will depend on the extent to which the poor are consumers
in these sectors, the extent of the price increases and their ability to cope.
Extensive privatization in Mongolia since the early 1990s has led to sharp
110 Rethinking Poverty
price hikes in essential utilities, with negative effects on the real incomes
of
the poor (box VI.7; see also Nixson and Walters, 2006).
One common immediate effect of most privatizations is reduced employment.
This occurs not only because there tends to be substantial overstaffing
in public enterprises, but also because the new owners typically prefer to
begin
with fewer employees than they need in order to allow for greater flexibility.
In addition, there are the linkage and multiplier effects of
privatization-related
changes. Employment conditions can be adversely affected in upstream and
downstream activities, as well as in the local community through the
indirectdemand
effects of workers’ incomes. A study by Van der Hoeven and Sziráczki
(1998) showed that utility privatization in developing countries has significant
employment-reducing effects, sometimes impacting up to 50 per cent of the
workforce.
A study by Macarov (2003) on the effects on the poor of cutbacks in government
spending in areas such as medical services, education and social welfare
found that they often resulted in the formation of a system with two tiers,
one for the rich and the other for the poor. After reviewing the distributional
impact of privatization activities involving utilities in a wide range of
developing
economies, principally in Africa and Latin America, Bayliss (2002) con-
Box VI.7
Privatization in Mongolia
Privatization has been a major part of Mongolia’s transition to capitalism. Its
move to a market
economy has been accompanied by increases in poverty and income inequality.
More than 10
years after it began its transition, Mongolia remains one of the poorest
countries in the world.
Privatization continues to be a central part of economic reform in Mongolia, as
in other
transition economies. The goal has been to increase private sector
participation in the economy,
to which successive Governments have remained committed. Previously, Mongolia’s
economy
had been narrowly based on the export of copper, cashmere wool and gold, as
well as on a large
amount of donor aid from the former Soviet Union. In 1991, after the collapse
of the Soviet
Union and the demise of its trading arrangements, privatization in Mongolia
exemplified a
”shock therapy” approach to transition. The overall effect was a significant
decline in standards
of living, with dramatic rises, in the early period of transition, in levels of
poverty and inequality,
which have remained at very high levels.
The Government, which owned 75 per cent of all property, adopted a voucher
system
of privatization. In the first phase, each person was issued three red vouchers
which could be
used to buy shares in small State and cooperative businesses. Shortly
afterwards, each person
was issued one blue voucher, with which he or she could bid for ownership of
the larger State
enterprises. Mongolia’s Stock Exchange was also established to allow trading in
shares.
Privatization was undertaken without any analysis or consideration of the
impact on
poverty and income distribution. In an evaluation of this experience, Nixson
and Walters
(2006) found that privatization had affected poverty adversely in Mongolia by
2000. They also
concluded that, among other consequences, the Government had ignored the role
of agencies
that provided poor people with collective goods and services; reduced available
livelihood
options, making poorer families more vulnerable to economic shocks; and allowed
utility prices
and service charges to be increased after privatization.
Economic liberalization and poverty reduction 111
cluded that privatization had demonstrably harmed the poor, either through
loss of employment and income, or through exclusion from, or reduced access
to, basic services, as the result of private firms’ principal concern with
profits,
prices and costs. At the same time, weak governance and regulatory capacity
in many developing countries led to poor control of market abuses by private
utility companies.
The way forward
The empirical evidence derived from the outcomes of economic liberalization
indicates that excessive reliance on markets and the private sector carries
high
risks. The World Bank (2005, p. 133) has noted:
There are many possible ways to open an economy. The challenge for
policymakers
is to identify which best suits their country’s political economy,
institutional constraints, and initial conditions. As these vary from
country to country, it is not surprising that there is a striking heterogeneity
in country experiences regarding the timing and pace of reforms.
A much more nuanced approach, based on lessons from history, is needed.
Clearly, economic growth and structural change are necessary for sustained
poverty reduction. Wholesale trade liberalization, however, is not the best
strategy for this. To enhance the poverty-reducing effects of growth and
structural
change, the economic transformation process must challenge inequality
and the exclusion of poor and disadvantaged groups. For sustained reductions
in poverty, the focus should also extend to productivity growth and employment
creation. Developing countries should therefore consider, selectively, the
formulation of trade and industry policies to augment the development of new
potentially viable production capacities and capabilities.
Not only should financial policy in developing countries be concerned
with ensuring financial stability, but it must also be counter-cyclical,
developmental
and inclusive. In many developing countries, this will require explicitly
addressing the needs of food agriculture through rural banking and
other inclusive finance initiatives. Governments should consider reintroducing
specialized development banks, especially to promote employment-intensive
small and medium-sized enterprises and agriculture. This may involve directed
and subsidized credit as well as other proactive financial policy initiatives.
Undoubtedly,
directed credit programmes create “distortions” in the financial
market and may be vulnerable to rent-seeking. However, the possible cost of
such distortions must be weighed against the “cost” of financial market
imperfections
that discriminate against small borrowers.7
7 Beginning in 1984, Ecuador had eliminated or scaled down directed credit
programmes
and removed administrative controls on interest rates as part of financial
sector liberalization
programmes. Since then, the supply of credit has declined drastically, with the
contraction
of Government-provided loanable funds, and reached a figure as low as 9 per
cent
112 Rethinking Poverty
Private commercial banks can be compelled to comply with requirements
to serve rural and other disadvantaged regions, agriculture and small and
medium-
sized enterprises as well as disadvantaged social groups. Governments
can consider a range of policy options and instruments needed to achieve such
objectives. For example, in India, all banks (public and private) are required
to lend at least 40 per cent of net credit to “priority sectors”. If banks fail
to
meet this requirement, they are instead obligated to lend money to specified
Government agencies at very low interest rates.8
Alternatively, the central banks can combine India’s type of penalties for
failure with incentives, such as asset-based reserve requirements, support for
pooling and underwriting small loans, and support of employment-generating
investments through use of the discount window. Asset-based reserve
requirements
can be an effective tool for creating incentives for banks to invest in
socially
productive assets (see Pollin, 1998; Epstein, 2002). Also, based on known
employment
elasticities, the central banks could list a set of employment-
generating
investments; lower reserve requirements would then apply for loans for such
investments than for speculation or for buying stocks and shares.
Central banks can also take steps to create liquidity and risk-sharing
institutions for loans to small businesses that show promise for generating
employment but that do not have adequate access to the credit market. For
example, central banks can provide financial and administrative support for
asset-backed securities, through which loans would be made to small businesses
and other employment-intensive activities, bundle these investments,
and then sell them as securities on the open market. Finally, central banks
can open a special discount window facility to offer credit, guarantee or
discount
facilities to institutions that on-lend to firms and cooperatives engaged
in employment-intensive activities.
After the uncritical and often blind embrace of privatization during the
1980s and 1990s, a more cautious, if not critical, approach has emerged in
recent years for at least two reasons (Bayliss and Fine, 2007). First, the
revenue
flows from State-owned enterprises are essential for maintaining and enhancof
GDP in 1990. The firm-level debt structure data show that, together with the
decline
in total credit, the share of long-term loans as a share of total debt fell
from 12 per cent in
the early 1980s to 8 per cent in 1992. The growth rate of real long-term credit
was negative
for most years. The firm-level data also show that the percentage of directed
credit was
much higher for longer-term maturities prior to liberalization reforms. This
proportion of
directed long-term credit relative to total long-term credit declined from 59.3
per cent in
1985 to 35.9 per cent in 1990. The proportion of directed short-term credit
relative to total
short-term credit declined from 31.1 per cent in 1985 to 3.3 per cent in 1992.
The decline
in the access to long-term credit negatively affected firms’ performance,
especially in terms
of productivity. In particular, the lack of access to long-term credit
adversely affected firms’
ability to acquire improved technology (see Schiantarelli and Jaramillo
(1996)).
8 Studies by Banerjee and Duflo (2004) found that most banks complied with the
regulation
and the programme contributed significantly to the expansion of agriculture and
small-scale industries.
Economic liberalization and poverty reduction 113
ing Governments’ fiscal space. Second, State-owned enterprises can be important
instruments for poverty reduction efforts.
The performance of State-owned enterprises should not be evaluated solely
based on bookkeeping “bottom lines”, as they often have other objectives,
such as employment creation or social protection. Employment in State-owned
enterprises may represent a better way of providing social security than social
security payments themselves from the point of view of self-esteem, learning
by doing and reciprocal obligations. Privatization must not ignore employment
conditions and likely job losses, as they affect poverty, especially of the working
poor. There should be adequate protection of employment conditions as well
as active labour-market programmes in place. Similarly, provision of utilities
must remain inclusive regardless of ownership. Public utilities, if privatized,
must stipulate mandatory adequate service provisions to disadvantaged groups
and areas
پسورد فایل: www.downloadha.com
لینک های دانلود : 
توجه: از این پس ، فایل های فشرده با حجمی بیش از ۱۰۰ مگابایت دارای ۵%
ریکاوری هستند. این ویژگی باعث می شود تا مشکل در اکسترکت کردن فایل ها ،
کاملا به صفر برسد. برای استفاده از این ویژگی ، اگر فایلی را دانلود کردید
و با مشکل اکسترکت مواجه شدید ، نرم افزار 
به VEM خوش آمدید: