Showing posts with label Norway. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Norway. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Thriving Norway Provides an Economics Lesson

The matter of Norway's approach to managing its oil wealth is worth re-visiting. I have made 3 previous posts on this matter here. In it's 13th May article by Landon Thomas Jr., The New York Times featured Norway's economic management.

My continuing fascination with Norway stems from their having been able to manage their oil wealth in a meaningful and socio-economically fair and egalitarian manner. They have managed to avert the temptation of abusing this wealth for short-term gain such as instituting consumption subsidies. Instead, Norway has socio-economic programmes such as free education up to tertiary levels. Public amenities are properly run. It's oil wealth is placed into a sovereign wealth fund. Okay, enough editorialising. Read on.

Espen Rasmussen for The New York Times
The promenade for the new opera house in Oslo, which is transforming a seaside area into a business and residential community.

When capitalism seemed on the verge of collapse last fall, Kristin Halvorsen, Norway’s Socialist finance minister and a longtime free market skeptic, did more than crow.

As investors the world over sold in a panic, she bucked the tide, authorizing Norway’s $300 billion sovereign wealth fund to ramp up its stock buying program by $60 billion — or about 23 percent of Norway ’s economic output.

“The timing was not that bad,” Ms. Halvorsen said, smiling with satisfaction over the broad worldwide market rally that began in early March.

Sea of PlentyGraphic

Sea of Plenty

The global financial crisis has brought low the economies of just about every country on earth. But not Norway.

With a quirky contrariness as deeply etched in the national character as the fjords carved into its rugged landscape, Norway has thrived by going its own way. When others splurged, it saved. When others sought to limit the role of government, Norway strengthened its cradle-to-grave welfare state.

And in the midst of the worst global downturn since the Depression, Norway’s economy grew last year by just under 3 percent. The government enjoys a budget surplus of 11 percent.

By comparison, the United States is expected to chalk up a fiscal deficit this year equal to 12.9 percent of its gross domestic product and push its total debt to $11 trillion, or 65 percent of the size of its economy.

Norway is a relatively small country with a largely homogeneous population of 4.6 million and the advantages of being a major oil exporter. It counted $68 billion in oil revenue last year as prices soared to record levels. Even though prices have sharply declined, the government is not particularly worried. That is because Norway avoided the usual trap that plagues many energy-rich countries.

Instead of spending its riches lavishly, it passed legislation ensuring that oil revenue went straight into its sovereign wealth fund, state money that is used to make investments around the world. Now its sovereign wealth fund is close to being the largest in the world, despite losing 23 percent last year because of investments that declined.

Norway’s relative frugality stands in stark contrast to Britain, which spent most of its North Sea oil revenue — and more — during the boom years. Government spending rose to 47 percent of G.D.P., from 42 percent in 2003. By comparison, public spending in Norway fell to 40 percent from 48 percent of G.D.P.

“The U.S. and the U.K. have no sense of guilt,” said Anders Aslund, an expert on Scandinavia at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington. “But in Norway, there is instead a sense of virtue. If you are given a lot, you have a responsibility.”

Eirik Wekre, an economist who writes thrillers in his spare time, describes Norwegians’ feelings about debt this way: “We cannot spend this money now; it would be stealing from future generations.”

Mr. Wekre, who paid for his house and car with cash, attributes this broad consensus to as the country’s iconoclasm. “The strongest man is he who stands alone in the world,” he said, quoting Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen.

Still, even Ibsen might concede that it is easier to stand alone when your nation has benefited from oil reserves that make it the third-largest exporter in the world. The money flowing from that black gold since the early 1970s has prompted even the flintiest of Norwegians to relax and enjoy their good fortune. The country’s G.D.P. per person is $52,000, behind only Luxembourg among industrial democracies.

As in much of the rest of the world home prices have soared here, tripling this decade. But there has been no real estate crash in Norway because there were few mortgage lending excesses. After a 15 percent correction, prices are again on the rise.

Unlike Dublin or Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, where work has stopped on half-built skyscrapers and stilled cranes dot the skylines, Oslo retains a feeling of modesty reminiscent of a fishing village rather than a Western capital, with the recently opened $800 million Opera House one of the few signs of opulence.

Norwegian banks, said Arne J. Isachsen, an economist at the Norwegian School of Management, remain largely healthy and prudent in their lending. Banks represent just 2 percent of the economy and tight public oversight over their lending practices have kept Norwegian banks from taking on the risk that brought down their Icelandic counterparts. But they certainly have not closed their doors to borrowers. Mr. Isachsen, like many in Norway, has a second home and an open credit line from his bank, which he recently used to buy a new boat.

Some here worry that while a cabin in the woods and a boat may not approach the excesses seen in New York or London, oil wealth and the state largesse have corrupted Norway’s once-sturdy work ethic.

“This is an oil-for-leisure program,” said Knut Anton Mork, an economist at Handelsbanken in Oslo. A recent study, he pointed out, found that Norwegians work the fewest hours of the citizens of any industrial democracy.

“We have become complacent,” Mr. Mork added. “More and more vacation houses are being built. We have more holidays than most countries and extremely generous benefits and sick leave policies. Some day the dream will end.”

But that day is far off. For now, the air is clear, work is plentiful and the government’s helping hand is omnipresent — even for those on the margins.

Just around the corner from Norway’s central bank, for instance, Paul Bruum takes a needle full of amphetamines and jabs it into his muscular arm. His scabs and sores betray many years as a heroin addict. He says that the $1,500 he gets from the government each month is enough to keep him well-fed and supplied with drugs.

Mr. Bruum, 32, says he has never had a job, and he admits he is no position to find one. “I don’t blame anyone,” he said. “The Norwegian government has provided for me the best they can.”

To Ms. Halvorsen, the finance minister, even the underside of the Norwegian dream looks pretty good compared to the economic nightmares elsewhere.

“As a socialist, I have always said that the market can’t regulate itself,” she said. “But even I was surprised how strong the failure was.”

Friday, June 13, 2008

Managing Malaysia's Common Wealth 2: Learning from Norway's experience

Letters displayed by Malaysiakini under the title caption High time Petronas answer to Parliament  (see http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/84416) rekindles the need to examine Malaysia's economic and natural resource management weaknesses. That is, of course to put things mildly.
-
One kind commentator of my earlier entry on this subject, Nilesh, has given me an excellent reference to Professor Thorvaldur Gylfason's explanation of the Norwegian economic and natural resource wealth management experience. It is a recommended read for all interested persons. I invite you to read this.

Thursday, June 12, 2008

Petronas: Managing Malaysia's Common Wealth

Guan Eng is right (see http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/84325) the wealth of Petronas needs to be made transparent. It's the rakyat's money.
-
On how to manage this Common Wealth just take a look at Norway's policy on its oil bounty (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway). In 2006, oil and gas accounted for 58% of exports. To reduce over-heating from oil money and the uncertainty from the oil income volatility, and to save money for an aging population, the Norwegian state started in 1995 to save petroleum income (taxes, dividends, licensing, sales) in a sovereign wealth fund.
-
The fund invests in developed financial markets outside Norway. The budgetary rule ("Handlingsregelen") is to spend no more than 4% of the fund each year (assumed to be the normal yield from the fund ). By January 2006, the pension fund had reached a value of USD 200 billion. During the first half of 2007, the pension fund became the largest fund in Europe, with assets totalling about USD 300 billion, equivalent to over USD 62,000 per capita.
-
As such, the Norwegian state has savings equal to 100% of the Norwegian GDP. Norway has the largest capital reserve per capita of any nation (April 2007). Projections indicate that the Norwegian pension fund may become the largest capital fund in the world.
-
It is the second largest state-owned sovereign wealth fund in the world, second only to the sovereign wealth fund of Abu-Dhabi. Conservative estimates tell that the fund may reach USD 800-900 billion by 2017. Other natural resource-based economies in countries like Russia and Chile are trying to learn from Norway by establishing similar funds.
-
Why can't we do the same thing in Malaysia? It's not as if we need to re-invent the wheel. No need for lawatan sambil belajar. Just call the Norwegian embassy to invite their experts to come over to help us set it up!

Friday, June 6, 2008

Ensuring our oil bounty is not a curse

This entry by M Bakri Musa in Malaysiakini is another well-written analysis and it warrants consideration.

With Malaysia forced to end or at least reduce its petroleum subsidy, it is circumspect to learn from the experiences of other oil-producing countries.
-
There are enough lessons in the world today on how we should manage our precious God-given oil bounty. Prudently done, as in Alberta (Canada) and Norway, it would bring peace and prosperity. Anything less and it would be a curse; the new wealth would breed corruption and tear the socioeconomic fabric of society, as seen in today’s Iraq and Nigeria.
-
I would rather that Malaysia emulates and builds from the Albertan and Norwegian models.Remove all subsidies on petroleum products. This would encourage conservation. It would also prod Malaysians into the global economic reality instead of being insulated from it.In order for this giant step to be accepted, the government must divert the savings into a separate trust fund for use by future generations when our oil would run out, with a small portion devoted for current use in subsidising cooking gas for the poor, and users of public transportation.
-
Norway, with a land mass slightly larger than Malaysia and a population only twice that of Perak, ‘sterilises’ its oil revenue by diverting it into a separate trust fund for use by future generations.The wisdom of that initiative is that the new wealth did not disrupt the social and economic fabric of Norwegian society. There was no runaway inflation as in Nigeria, and the Norwegians did not become lazy profligate consumers dependent on their new oil wealth, as with the Arabs.
-
The Norwegians pay the same world price at the pump for their petroleum, currently at about seven ringgit per litre, nearly three times the new Malaysian price. One consequence is that while they have one of the highest per-capita incomes, car ownership among Norwegians is one of the lowest in Europe. To them, a car is simply a means of transportation, not for ostentation. Everybody knows that they are already wealthy; they do not need to flaunt it. Further, the cars on the streets of Oslo are mostly fuel efficient brands like Volkswagen rather than luxurious Mercedes. In fact there is a stiff tax for gas-guzzlers.
-
Among the many positive consequences are that their roads are not congested and their air less polluted.Today the Norwegian Petroleum Trust is the world’s second largest sovereign fund, and fast expanding. It may have already exceeded half a trillion (500 billion) US dollars. When the oil wells run dry, as they inevitably will, the Norwegians could still enjoy their present lifestyles as the Trust Fund’s income could cover the country’s budget till perpetuity.Like everyone else, the Norwegians do not like paying high prices for petrol, or anything else for that matter. However, they willingly do so because they see the direct and tangible benefits of such an enlightened policy.
-
The Albertans too pay world price for their energy, with their government diverting the extra bounty into a separate Heritage Fund. Unlike the Norwegians who invest in global stock markets, the Albertans invest in their schools, universities, and hospitals. Consequently, as noted in the Economist and also from my firsthand knowledge, Alberta is the only place where the rich send their children to public schools! The University of Alberta (which happens to be my alma mater) is now regarded as one of the finest, thanks to generous funding from the Heritage Fund. Malaysian Petroleum Trust Fund Malaysia can improve on the Norwegian and Albertan models. We must commit to remove all subsidies on energy, and do so in a phased and predictable manner, perhaps over a couple of years. This must be coupled with a properly thought out plan to protect the poor.
-
For example, there must be subsidized cooking gas for the poor, and only for them. We can easily estimate the energy needs for the typical poor family, and limit the subsidy or even direct grants only for that amount, and nothing more. It should be fairly easy to devise such a poverty-ameliorating program with minimal leakage. We could model it after America’s 'food stamps' programme.
-
Likewise, we should subsidise and thus encourage public transportation. In British Columbia, season pass holders (rich and poor) for public transit get a rebate from the government. There is a public good in this; for by not using their cars for commuting, the air is less polluted and streets less congested, and thus require less maintenance.
-
The money saved from removing the subsidies should be diverted to a special Petroleum Heritage Fund. The corpus (or principal) would be invested locally in a broadly diversified portfolio to include stocks, bonds, real estate, and venture capital. The fund should be passive investor, concerned only with profit making.
-
The Norwegians limit their holding in any company to no more than five percent, meaning, they are in it purely for the profit potential and not to seek control or management. It is for this reason that unlike other sovereign funds (Singapore’s Temasek and China’s many funds), the Norwegians are the most sought after investors.Local use onlyLike the Alberta Heritage Fund, the income from the Petroleum Fund should be used to improve our schools and universities, as well as providing affordable housing and better health care. Just as the corpus must be invested locally, the income too must be spent locally.
-
Thus no scholarships to send students abroad, instead the money should be spent to improve local universities so as to benefit the greatest number of students.The country now has many such trust funds, from Tabong Haji to Employees Provident Fund. All too often they serve as nothing more than as sources of cheap funds for the politically well connected. They are also not well managed.To sell this idea, the Petroleum Fund must be professionally managed and free of political interference. This is a very high but achievable order. Its governing board must have wide representations, including nominees of the opposition political parties and NGOs. Anything less and it would be hard to sell the policy.
-
Pakatan Rakyat’s leader Anwar Ibrahim rightly expressed the public fear and mistrust that the funds saved from reducing or abolishing the subsidy would be used to benefit Abdullah’s political cronies and family members. Anwar and Malaysians generally have good reasons for this suspicion.I am not impressed with Abdullah’s proposal to provide tax rebates for car owners. If they can afford to buy a car, then they do not need any subsidy or rebate from the government.Abdullah must also spend the petroleum dollars locally to benefit especially the residents of the oil-producing states. It is morally indefensible and politically foolish to see residents of the three states where oil is produced (Trengganu, Sabah, and Sarawak) among the poorest in Malaysia.
-
If Abdullah does not handle this petroleum subsidy issue wisely, it could prove to be the final straw to his downfall. On the other hand, if he could learn (a big if) from the Norwegians and the Albertans, he could not only salvage his political future but more importantly, leave a significant legacy.