Tuesday, July 07, 2009
LOWER CORPORATE TAX RATE IN ONTARIO
Chris Edwards, an economist at the Cato Institute, reports that Tim Horton's (Canada's "Starbucks") is moving its headquarters to Ontario, as the provincial policymakers are cutting the federal-provincial corporate tax rate down to 25 percent (link). That is 15 percentage points lower than the federal corporate tax rate in the U.S.
GLOBAL ENABLING TRADE REPORT 2009
World Economic Forum recently published its annual report on enabling trade around the world (link).
The report estimated broader openness to trade after taking all indicators, regulatory and administrative factors into account. Notably, among these are the ease of market access, customs administration, difficulty of export and import procedures, quality of transport infrastructure, the availibility of transport services and the use of ICT. The report found a positive and moderate correlation between the GDP per capita and enabling trade index. Thus, it implies that countries with higher GDP per capita, on average, tend to be more trade-friendly.
There are, of course, some other factors, aside from GDP per capita, that affect broader openness to trade. The research by the WEF found that the customs regulations, quality of regulatory and business environment and the quality of transport infrastructure and services significantly explain country's openness to trade flows fairly well.
Countries with the highest Enabling Trade Index (ETI) are Singapore, Hong Kong, Switzerland, Denmark and Sweden, followed by Canada, Norway, Finland, Austria and the Netherlands. In spite of robust growth of trade volume before the economic crisis, Russia ranks 109th out of 121 countries in the report, accompanied by countries such as Syria and Nepal. This suggests that Russia's growth of trade volume before the crisis can be assigned to its factor-driven economic growth. WEF's report reveals that Russia's score poorly in terms of border administration, market access and the business environment while performing modestly in terms of quality of transport infrastructure. Index of Economic Freedom noted that Russia's trade freedom is inhibited by the inefficient arbitrary customs administration. The latter restrains trade and is a popular protectionist policy measure. The least trade-friendly countries, according to the report, are: Chad, Cote d'Ivoire, Venezuela, Zimbabwe and Nigeria.
The report estimated broader openness to trade after taking all indicators, regulatory and administrative factors into account. Notably, among these are the ease of market access, customs administration, difficulty of export and import procedures, quality of transport infrastructure, the availibility of transport services and the use of ICT. The report found a positive and moderate correlation between the GDP per capita and enabling trade index. Thus, it implies that countries with higher GDP per capita, on average, tend to be more trade-friendly.
There are, of course, some other factors, aside from GDP per capita, that affect broader openness to trade. The research by the WEF found that the customs regulations, quality of regulatory and business environment and the quality of transport infrastructure and services significantly explain country's openness to trade flows fairly well.
Countries with the highest Enabling Trade Index (ETI) are Singapore, Hong Kong, Switzerland, Denmark and Sweden, followed by Canada, Norway, Finland, Austria and the Netherlands. In spite of robust growth of trade volume before the economic crisis, Russia ranks 109th out of 121 countries in the report, accompanied by countries such as Syria and Nepal. This suggests that Russia's growth of trade volume before the crisis can be assigned to its factor-driven economic growth. WEF's report reveals that Russia's score poorly in terms of border administration, market access and the business environment while performing modestly in terms of quality of transport infrastructure. Index of Economic Freedom noted that Russia's trade freedom is inhibited by the inefficient arbitrary customs administration. The latter restrains trade and is a popular protectionist policy measure. The least trade-friendly countries, according to the report, are: Chad, Cote d'Ivoire, Venezuela, Zimbabwe and Nigeria.
Monday, July 06, 2009
CALIFORNIA'S DISMAL FISCAL LEGACY
At Bloomberg, Kevin Hassett wrote an article (link), discussing the shortcomings of California's fiscal crisis. According to the official estimates, California's annual budget deficit is likely to hit $26 billion. Dan Mitchell recently debated California's spending disease on CNBC (link). In addition, high government spending has deteriorated California's economic growth prospects. California has become a textbook case of gradual economic stagnation. Back in 1960, California's GDP per capita stood 24.5 percent above the U.S average. In 2008, it stood 7.4 percent above the U.S average. In recent decade, California has pursued an economic policy based largely on government's meddling into economic affairs.
The data from California's Department of Finance (link) reveal the outcome of economic mismanagement. In California, minimum wage has been growing steadily with a fascinating rate. In 1957, the minimum wage rate stood at $1.0 per hour. In 2008, the minimum wage rate was $8.0 per hour. That is 800 percent increase. In 2008, the minimum wage rate in California was 10.35 percent above the U.S average. The economics of minimum wage is simple: as unions set the minimum wage above the non-union rate, the employment drops and union members enjoy a wage premium and more employment protection. Larry Summers, the chairman of National Economic Council, nicely summarized how minimum wages, welfare payments and unemployment insurance spur long-term unemployment (link).
The macroeconomic outlook of California is not favorable. Seasonally-adjusted unemployment rate in May 2009 stood at 11.5 percent compared to 9.4 percent of the U.S average. Second, California's record-breaking budget deficit is largely a result of high tax burden and high government spending. In 2009, California's government spending is projected to reach $417.3 billion or almost 25 percent of California's gross state product (GSP). The share of government spending in the GSP is likely to climb higher when the 2009 GDP data will be released. Time-series data on fiscal policy (link) show that California's gross public debt in 2009 is set to hit $367.7 billion or 21.63 percent of state's gross product. A study conducted by Arthur Laffer & Moore Econometrics (link) showed that California's 10.3 percent top personal income tax rate is the second highest in the U.S, just behind the state of New York.
Not surprisingly, the overall employment grew only by 1.4 percent. In Texas, one of the most vibrant and highest-growing economies in the U.S, the overall employment grew by 2.9 percent. That is 107 percent difference. California's tax policy has also taxed dividends and capital gains by 10.3 percent tax rate, thus discouraging capital formation.
If California were an independent state, it would be the 8th largest economy in the world. However, tax and spending fine-tuning left a disastrous fiscal legacy of high public debt, deep budget deficits and stagnation of employment, productivity and income growth. To stabilize California's public finance and boost state's economic growth, the remedy of fiscal policy would include a drastic reduction of government spending, the ending of budget deficit and the creation of surplus. In addition, tax rates that penalize savings, work and investment should be slashed radically. It should not be neglected that entitlement spending is a hampering burden to the economy and is ought to be anchored by an official fiscal target. If California's public finances and fiscal policy continue the status quo, then, in a couple of years, California's economy will resemble France more closely than ever before.
The data from California's Department of Finance (link) reveal the outcome of economic mismanagement. In California, minimum wage has been growing steadily with a fascinating rate. In 1957, the minimum wage rate stood at $1.0 per hour. In 2008, the minimum wage rate was $8.0 per hour. That is 800 percent increase. In 2008, the minimum wage rate in California was 10.35 percent above the U.S average. The economics of minimum wage is simple: as unions set the minimum wage above the non-union rate, the employment drops and union members enjoy a wage premium and more employment protection. Larry Summers, the chairman of National Economic Council, nicely summarized how minimum wages, welfare payments and unemployment insurance spur long-term unemployment (link).
The macroeconomic outlook of California is not favorable. Seasonally-adjusted unemployment rate in May 2009 stood at 11.5 percent compared to 9.4 percent of the U.S average. Second, California's record-breaking budget deficit is largely a result of high tax burden and high government spending. In 2009, California's government spending is projected to reach $417.3 billion or almost 25 percent of California's gross state product (GSP). The share of government spending in the GSP is likely to climb higher when the 2009 GDP data will be released. Time-series data on fiscal policy (link) show that California's gross public debt in 2009 is set to hit $367.7 billion or 21.63 percent of state's gross product. A study conducted by Arthur Laffer & Moore Econometrics (link) showed that California's 10.3 percent top personal income tax rate is the second highest in the U.S, just behind the state of New York.
Not surprisingly, the overall employment grew only by 1.4 percent. In Texas, one of the most vibrant and highest-growing economies in the U.S, the overall employment grew by 2.9 percent. That is 107 percent difference. California's tax policy has also taxed dividends and capital gains by 10.3 percent tax rate, thus discouraging capital formation.
If California were an independent state, it would be the 8th largest economy in the world. However, tax and spending fine-tuning left a disastrous fiscal legacy of high public debt, deep budget deficits and stagnation of employment, productivity and income growth. To stabilize California's public finance and boost state's economic growth, the remedy of fiscal policy would include a drastic reduction of government spending, the ending of budget deficit and the creation of surplus. In addition, tax rates that penalize savings, work and investment should be slashed radically. It should not be neglected that entitlement spending is a hampering burden to the economy and is ought to be anchored by an official fiscal target. If California's public finances and fiscal policy continue the status quo, then, in a couple of years, California's economy will resemble France more closely than ever before.
Saturday, July 04, 2009
4TH OF JULY 2009
"The ground of liberty is to be gained by inches, and we must be contented to secure what we can get from time to time and eternally press forward for what is yet to get. It takes time to persuade men to do even what is for their own good."
Thomas Jefferson
Happy Independence Day!
Happy Independence Day!
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Friday, June 19, 2009
INTERVIEW WITH PAUL A. SAMUELSON
Saturday, June 13, 2009
IS ASIA THE NEW CENTER OF WORLD ECONOMY?
Gary Becker (link) and Richard Posner (link) discuss whether the gravity of world economy is moving from the US and the EU to emerging Asian economies.
Rapid economic growth and steady institutional transformation are the key drivers of Asia's economic rise in the global economy. While the United States and the EU will likely suffer from this year's recession and pursue a U-shaped recovery, India, China, Indonesia and Vietnam will continue to grow in 2009 with favorable midterm growth projections. Even minor short-run differences in economic growth can lead to a profound impact on long-run income per capita. For example, if China and India's long-run economic growth rate is about 5 percent, it would take 14 years to double its income per capita.
If the growth rate were 6 percent, which is more likely after taking the productivity shocks into account, it would take 12 years for income per capita to double. The medium-term forecasts by the IMF suggest that the U.S and Europe will grow between 2.5 and 3 percent. Similarly, that would take 29 years and 24 years to double the income per capita. The gap can be further estimated by the empirics of real convergence.
Rapid economic growth in Asian tigers will also induce their bargaining power in institutions such as WTO, IMF and World Bank. In particular, Asia's fast growing economies play a stronger role in world trade. Thus, the bargaining power of India and China in negotiating regional and multilateral trade agreements is growing. The central challenge, however, is whether Asian tigers will recognize that free trade promotes economic growth, welfare and peace. The rise of trade protectionism in the U.S (link) and Europe is a significant concern from a countervailing perspective. Even the area of climate change policy is a potential source of conflict between the US and the EU on one side and China and India on the other side.
Of course, I disagree with pessimistic arguments that the U.S will lose its leadership in innovation, technology and human capital. Indeed, top U.S universities will still remain world's top-notch sources of human capital and the U.S high-tech firms are unlikely to lose their world leadership. However, rapid economic growth in Asia will induce China, India, Indonesia and Vietnam to pursue free-market policies alongside economic, civil and political liberties to give up the authoritarian political climate. In fact, the transformation to free-market economy with independent economic and political institutions will, in the long run, determine the scope of Asia's economic rise in the world.
Rapid economic growth and steady institutional transformation are the key drivers of Asia's economic rise in the global economy. While the United States and the EU will likely suffer from this year's recession and pursue a U-shaped recovery, India, China, Indonesia and Vietnam will continue to grow in 2009 with favorable midterm growth projections. Even minor short-run differences in economic growth can lead to a profound impact on long-run income per capita. For example, if China and India's long-run economic growth rate is about 5 percent, it would take 14 years to double its income per capita.
If the growth rate were 6 percent, which is more likely after taking the productivity shocks into account, it would take 12 years for income per capita to double. The medium-term forecasts by the IMF suggest that the U.S and Europe will grow between 2.5 and 3 percent. Similarly, that would take 29 years and 24 years to double the income per capita. The gap can be further estimated by the empirics of real convergence.
Rapid economic growth in Asian tigers will also induce their bargaining power in institutions such as WTO, IMF and World Bank. In particular, Asia's fast growing economies play a stronger role in world trade. Thus, the bargaining power of India and China in negotiating regional and multilateral trade agreements is growing. The central challenge, however, is whether Asian tigers will recognize that free trade promotes economic growth, welfare and peace. The rise of trade protectionism in the U.S (link) and Europe is a significant concern from a countervailing perspective. Even the area of climate change policy is a potential source of conflict between the US and the EU on one side and China and India on the other side.
Of course, I disagree with pessimistic arguments that the U.S will lose its leadership in innovation, technology and human capital. Indeed, top U.S universities will still remain world's top-notch sources of human capital and the U.S high-tech firms are unlikely to lose their world leadership. However, rapid economic growth in Asia will induce China, India, Indonesia and Vietnam to pursue free-market policies alongside economic, civil and political liberties to give up the authoritarian political climate. In fact, the transformation to free-market economy with independent economic and political institutions will, in the long run, determine the scope of Asia's economic rise in the world.
Friday, June 12, 2009
LABOR PROTECTIONISM IN THE U.S
Daniel Griswold, trade economist at CATO Institute, describes (link) how American labor unions oppose the free-trade agreement between the U.S and Columbia although the U.S International Trade Commission's estimates show that the free trade agreement between the two countries would boost U.S exports by about $1 billion annually. The AFL complains that Columbia is an unworthy of an agreement because of violence levied on union members (link). This may sound politically feasible, but the background is certainly much different from what AFL complains. In fact, Daniel Griswold showed that Columbian unions are as safe as American unions against political violence (link).
Recall the basics of international trade, H-O-S theorem (link) explains that international trade occurs because of the differences in relative factor abundance, i.e. differences between labor/capital ratio. Thus, a country with relative abundance in labor shall export labor-intensive products while the second country shall export capital-intensive products and services. Consequently, relative wages in labor-abundant country are lower compared to those in capital-abudant country. Why? Because in a more developed capital-abundant country, labor is scarce and, hence, relative wage is higher.
The complete liberalization of trade between the U.S and Columbia would reward the relatively abundant factor in the U.S (capital) and reduce the real reward to less abundant factor (labor). Thus, in the short run, relative wages may decline. Note that the Columbian level of productivity is less than half of the U.S level. In the long run, however, relative wages shall not decline given a staggering difference in productivity between the U.S and Columbia.
As a interest group, AFL is protecting labor againist the short-run decline in relative wages. The hindrance of free trade, in fact, harms everyone. The U.S exporters would suffer the loss of one the key Latin American markets while the Columbian exporters wouldn't absorb the benefits of free trade. On the other hand, the greatest victims of protectionist trade policy are consumers. The consumers in the U.S would be denied the freedom of choice of Columbian imports while Columbian consumers would lose the variety of choices from the U.S at a lower price, following the abolition of tariff protection.
Recall the basics of international trade, H-O-S theorem (link) explains that international trade occurs because of the differences in relative factor abundance, i.e. differences between labor/capital ratio. Thus, a country with relative abundance in labor shall export labor-intensive products while the second country shall export capital-intensive products and services. Consequently, relative wages in labor-abundant country are lower compared to those in capital-abudant country. Why? Because in a more developed capital-abundant country, labor is scarce and, hence, relative wage is higher.
The complete liberalization of trade between the U.S and Columbia would reward the relatively abundant factor in the U.S (capital) and reduce the real reward to less abundant factor (labor). Thus, in the short run, relative wages may decline. Note that the Columbian level of productivity is less than half of the U.S level. In the long run, however, relative wages shall not decline given a staggering difference in productivity between the U.S and Columbia.
As a interest group, AFL is protecting labor againist the short-run decline in relative wages. The hindrance of free trade, in fact, harms everyone. The U.S exporters would suffer the loss of one the key Latin American markets while the Columbian exporters wouldn't absorb the benefits of free trade. On the other hand, the greatest victims of protectionist trade policy are consumers. The consumers in the U.S would be denied the freedom of choice of Columbian imports while Columbian consumers would lose the variety of choices from the U.S at a lower price, following the abolition of tariff protection.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
