Reflecting on the economic outlook, it hasn’t been the best of weeks.
Across the Tasman, a large chunk of Australia – key market/source of exports, imports, investment etc – is locked down again for six weeks. It is a reminder, including to anyone contemplating investment decisions, how easily things can be blown off track again. And that is in a country with a death rate still (slightly) lower than New Zealand’s. The coronavirus situation in much of the rest of the world doesn’t look that great either, and with it the outlook for the world economy. Perhaps, at the margin, that troubled world economy contributed to the decision announced this morning to close Comalco.
Closer to home, the NZIER QSBO results were out. ANZ’s commentary summed it up succinctly but bleakly under the heading “Worrying”. Of course the June quarter outcomes will have been dreadful, but the forward-looking indicators weren’t really much better. These sorts of surveys don’t always have much predictive power – more unexpected stuff happens – but they paint a pretty bleak picture of how businesses were seeing things just a couple of weeks ago. Again from the ANZ
Today’s data will be worrying for the RBNZ and Government; firms are reportedly hunkering down, shedding workers, and cutting prices. But more monetary stimulus is needed, and an aggressive, front-loaded approach is warranted.
And all that is despite the massive fiscal spend over the last four months, which has for now replaced a fair chunk of the lost private sector income during that period, even as it saddles us – and future governments – with much more severe constraints on fiscal freedom of action in the years to come. All that income support (in one form or another) will have helped keep private spending quite a bit higher than otherwise. All the talk was about “tiding over”, but to what, to when? It has always had the feel of a policy approach dreamed up back in late February/early March when the government (and Reserve Bank) were still refusing to take very seriously that economic shock that was already engulfing the world.
In that context, it was interesting to have confirmation from the Prime Minister that the wage subsidy scheme will not be extended further – and given that firms get it as a lump sum, presumably the bulk of what will ever be paid out even under the extended scheme will already have been paid out. Ending the scheme seems appropriate – extending it the first time was probably more about politics than economics. Anything else would have looked like a bizarre attempt to freeze chunks of the economy as they were six months ago, refusing to face the reality of a changed world. But the scheme was putting large amounts of cash in the pockets of people in the private sector, supporting spending and holding GDP higher than otherwise. And what comes after it?
Part of the answer, of course, is the higher-than-otherwise benefit paid to those who’ve lost their jobs as a result of Covid. But it is only for 12 weeks, is still mostly about income replacement (buying time) rather than supporting a self-sustaining recovery in underlying economic activity, and of course many people just won’t be eligible for it. Perhaps the government will decide to extend this scheme, but even if that were to happen it has its own problems (deterring the search for a new job).
One might, perhaps, have hoped for signs of a serious, rigorous, well-thought-out strategy from the Prime Minister. As it happens, she gave a pre-election speech to her party’s Congress on Sunday. As her party is odds-on favourite to dominate the next government I read it, twice actually. In the speech the Prime Minister purported to offer a plan – a five-point plan even.
Today I am announcing our 5 point plan for our economic recovery.
It’s about investing in our people, it’s about jobs, preparing for our future, supporting our small businesses, entrepreneurs and job creators and positioning ourselves globally.
Sadly, she showed no sign of actually understanding how economies work or prosperity arises. Anyone, what of the five points?
Which brings me to point one of our plan – investing in our people.
Whence follows a list of handouts, which might (or might not) individually make sense, but by no stretch of the imagination or language can be called investments. Income support is fine, but it is no basis for recovery.
Perhaps this was a little closer to “investment”
That’s why we made a $1.6 billion investment in trades and apprenticeships training, which includes making all apprenticeships free.
We’ve also made those areas of vocational training where we need people the most like building and construction and mental health support workers – all free. The potential impact of these policies is huge.
Except that this is the government that had already introduced the fees-free policy, only for it be revealed that it was mostly income support too (transfers to people who would already have been undertaking tertiary education anyway). And the new measures could have a feel of measures designed more to keep headline unemployment down than to actually revive the economy.
Even the Prime Minister recognises that training isn’t much use if there are no jobs.
But retraining isn’t enough if there aren’t jobs to go into at the end of it.
And this is where the second part of our plan kicks in, what I like to simply call, jobs, jobs, jobs.
She proceeds to run through some government initiatives.
First is the Big New Zealand Upgrade Programme designed to tackle our core infrastructure deficit. We announced it at the beginning of the year, and it amounts to $12 billion of road, rail, public transport, school and health capital funding. It could not have come at a better time.
That programme may or may not have merit, but as she says it was announced in January, judged appropriate/necessary then – pre-Covid. It was factored into economic forecasts, including those of the Reserve Bank, then. On to some other spending.
As part of our COVID response we have committed funding to providing an additional 8000 public houses, bring the total number of state and transitional houses to be built by this Government to over 18,000 by 2024 – thank you Megan Woods and Kainga Ora.
It is the largest house building programme of any Government in decades, and I’m proud of it.
But when we’re talking about infrastructure, it’s not just about the projects we in the government are responsible for, we also have the opportunity to partner with communities, with iwi and local government.
That’s what the $2.6 billion worth of shovel ready projects we announced earlier this week were all about.
Things like Home Ground, a project by the Auckland City Mission that will provide 80 apartments with wrap-around support and care, or the Poverty Bay Rugby Park Grandstand, least Kiri Allen stage a sit-in, right through to the Invercargill inner-city development.
It would take someone closer to the detailed data than I am to unpick quite how much of this is really new spending, and how much is just putting details to spending programmes (like the PGF) already allowed for. Nor is there any sense of (a) displacement (lots more state houses will, almost certainly, mean fewer private houses being built) or (b) value-for-money (what is the taxpayer doing funding the Invercargill city redevelopment, throwing more money at KiwiRail or – wonder of wonders – tens of millions at the Wanganui port.
And then at the end of the “jobs, jobs, jobs” section we get this
Collectively these projects are estimated to create over 20,000 jobs in the next five years.
No analysis to support that number (and we’ve seen before how PGF job estimates are concocted) but even if it is correct, total employment in New Zealand is about 2.8 million people. “Jobs, jobs, jobs”, even on the PM’s numbers, looks tiny.
She goes on to list a few environmental jobs projects. Perhaps they are worthwhile, but they certainly aren’t a private sector led recovery.
But moving along
That brings me to the third plank of our plan – preparing for the future.
The whole of that plank is here
Restoring our environment is one thing, decarbonising it is another.
Investments in waste management and improving energy generation will be key- and this is where I am signalling there is more to come.
Preparing for the future also means supporting our businesses to innovate, especially as we go through a period of digital transformation.
There will be few among us who haven’t changed our routines and habits as a result of COVID-19. By the end of lockdown I can confirm that Damien O’Connor did indeed discover the unmute button on zoom.
We want to support our small businesses through this digital transition, which is why we established a $10 million fund to incentivise e-commerce and train more digital advisors.
It’s also why we will keep encouraging innovation in all forms. So we’ve created a $150 million fund to provide loans to R&D-intensive businesses.
Well, okay. If you are of the left, you might find that appealing, but even then you’d have to concede there wasn’t much to it, not much that will help generate a rapid and strong economic recovery.
But there is, it appears, a role for the private sector.
All of this builds to the fourth part of our plan, supporting our small businesses, our entrepreneurs and our job creators
Which sounds good, until you read the text and realise that all she has to offer is the wage subsidy scheme, and the small business interest-free loan scheme, which was extended for a few months. Income support etc has its place, but it isn’t the foundation for a strong robust economy or a rapid return to full employment.
And what of the final plank?
And the final plank of our five-point plan is to continue to position New Zealand globally as a place to trade with, to invest in, and eventually to visit again.
This has been an export-led lockdown, and so too will it be an export-led recovery.
Sounds good as an aspiration, but frankly seems unlikely. What does Labour have to offer specifically?
That’s why a few months ago we provided $200m to help exporters re-engage with international markets, and support firms looking to export for the first time.
It’s also why we continue to expand our trade relationships. The limitations of the last few months didn’t stop us launching our free trade agreement talks with the UK …
We are investing $400 million in tourism because we know it is part of our future, and because open borders will be again too. It is not a matter of if, but when it is safe.
And on that, we already have work underway.
We are progressing with all the checks and balances needed for a trans-Tasman bubble, and also on reconnecting with our Pacific neighbours. We have a framework in place that will help Cabinet make a decision on when quarantine free travel with these parts of the world should resume.
All pretty small beer really. No one supposes that a UK preferential trade agreement is going to matter very much, and in recent weeks we’ve heard David Parker fulminating about the frustrations of the EU’s position on trade negotiations with them. And, of course, this is the economy that – for all the talk of trade agreements – has had foreign trade shares (exports and imports) falling as a share of GDP this century, the high point of this wave of globalisation. There is also no sense of recognising that the real exchange rate remains very high – not down at all, despite the big hit to one of our main tradables sectors. And all this was nicely complemented by the government’s primary industries strategy announced early in the week and now championed as Labour Party policy, which (as the economist Cameron Bagrie pointed out) involved primary exports falling as a share of GDP over the next decade, even as that sector was supposedly going to help lead the recovery.
And that was it. That, apparently, was the government’s economic recovery plan.
Typically we look to monetary policy at the main counter-cyclical stabilisation tool. Ideally, it might be complemented by good pro-productivity structural reforms – of that sort successive New Zealand governments have lost interest in – but they take time to design well and implement – whereas monetary policy can be deployed very quickly.
Of course, in the context of the Covid shock it would have made sense to have deployed fiscal policy and monetary policy together. Even if monetary policy can be deployed very quickly, it does not put money in the pockets of households instantly (and in the context of a “lockdown” and the immediate (quite rational) fear-induced drop in economic activity, there was a place for immediate income support. But if monetary policy does not work instantly that is why it should be being deployed aggressively and early. Had monetary policy been used aggressively and early – starting back in February when the first OCR cut should have been done – by now we would be seeing quite a lot of the fruits (the full effects of monetary policy adjustments typically take 12-18 months), providing a stimulus to demand and activity as the fiscal support is wound back (as it is being, on announced government policy).
As it is, we have had almost nothing from monetary policy. The OCR was cut belatedly, then an irrational floor was put on the OCR by a Monetary Policy Committee that was still struggling to comprehend the severity of what they were facing. And because the Reserve Bank reacted only slowly and to a very limited extent, we’ve ended up with hardly any fall in real interest rates at all (inflation expectations have fallen almost as much as the OCR). The exchange rate hasn’t fallen at all. The Reserve Bank likes to make great play of their LSAP programme, but it mostly works – if at all – by lowering interest rates and underpinning inflation expectations. And since we know expectations have fallen, and real interest rates have barely fallen, at the very best the LSAP programme can only have stopped things tightening. In the Prime Minister’s words, this is a really severe global economic downturn……and yet monetary policy has done almost nothing; none of that necessary support is now in place even as the fiscal income support winds back and the domestic and world economies remain deeply troubled.
Of course, the failure of the Reserve Bank to do anything much useful rests initially with the Governor and his committee (the one he so dominates that we’ve never heard a word from any of the three external members, the one he ensured had no one with serious ongoing expertise in monetary policy appointed to it). But they are officials, ultimately accountable to the elected government. In fact, ever since the Parliament made the Bank operationally autonomous in 1989, the Act has always recognised that officials could get things wrong, and allowed for the Minister of Finance to directly override (transparently) the Bank. The current government carried those provisions into its reform of the Reserve Bank, but now – in a really severe economic downturn, in which the Reserve Bank is simply not doing its job – they seem too conservative, too scared, to use well-established statutory powers. They are happy to put in place limited zero-interest loan schemes for small businesses, but unwilling to ensure that – amid the bleak economic outlook – market prices for business and household credit are anywhere near that low. In effect, that means they prefer to let more businesses fail, more people end up languishing on the dole, more “scarring” (a point the PM made in her speech) as if wishful thinking and idle hope was a substitute for serious policy.
Right from the start of the coronavirus, this government’s approach has been – in essence – to provide lots of income support and hope that the world gets back to normal pretty quickly. It was a dangerous and deluded approach from the start, something that becomes more evident with each passing month. All the more so as other countries’ governments are similarly failing to do much that might support a robust recovery elsewhere. The current New Zealand government seems to have no ideas, no plan, to be unwilling to use the (low cost) powers they do have to help get relative prices better attuned to supporting recovery. There is a growing risk that we are drifting into another of those periods – perhaps worse this time – as we saw after 2008, when it took 10 years to get the unemployment rate back to something like normal (with little or no productivity growth), and no one much among the political elites (either side) seemed to really care.
Of course, if Labour’s approach is bad, at least (being the government) it is on the table. It is now less than two months until voting starts and we have no idea what National’s approach might be, but no reason to suppose it would be materially different or better.