ChrisRam.net

Introduction

In detailing the government’s capital expenditure budget of $43 billion in 2008 the Budget Speech gave a troubling indication of how vast sums are expended year after year with scarce regard for basic principles of economic and financial investment decisions. Capital expenditure is distinguished from recurrent expenditure which includes the normal operating annual expenses such as wages and salaries and maintenance of roads, bridges and buildings while capital expenditure would include the cost of constructing those roads, bridges and buildings. By principle, convention and practice, capital expenditure is expenditure the benefit of which accrues to one or more future periods while recurrent or operating expenditure is consumed in and benefits one period only.

Of the budgeted expenditure of $119 billion dollars announced by the Minister of Finance in his 2008 Budget Speech, capital expenditure accounts for $40.9 billion, roughly US$205 million dollars. This compares with a budget of $37 billion in 2007 which was overspent by some $6 billion, in commenting on which the Minister indicated that this was a 21% increase in the public sector investment programme.

Individuals, companies and governments invest in capital expenditure for many reasons including enhancing their earning capacity by expanding the income potential or reducing expenditure.

Capital expenditure and growth

The table below shows the capital expenditure and growth in the economy for the past five years. During that period, the government spent close to G$160 billion or US$800M in capital expenditure while the economy has on a simple average grown by 1.54% per annum - a poor return on investment by any measure. Why with all the investment expenditure by government (and we must not ignore recurrent expenses like wages and salaries which by putting money into consumers’ hands should also stimulate economic growth) has growth been so anaemic? The explanation is not straightforward but with a rational approach by the decision-makers in selecting investments there would certainly be a better chance of higher economic growth.

Capital Expenditure for past five years and budget 2008:

Source: Budget Speeches

The drivers of government capital expenditure may be obvious in certain cases such as the expenditure on sea-defences or to mitigate the consequences of natural disaster. In other cases the decision may be made entirely on social considerations such as whether an area should have a supply of electricity or water. These still, however, leave a considerable amount of capital expenditure which do not fall in such categories and should therefore be subject to more careful analysis. And even with respect to social expenditure not generally considered susceptible to the economist’s or accountant’s return on investment criteria, and using electricity to a hinterland community as an example, the issue is not whether the community should have electricity but what is best of a range of options to provide that service. The decision-maker would have to consider whether it is better to build a generating plant and transmission and distribution system requiring on-going fuel, maintenance and technical support which would be difficult to deliver to those communities or to encourage the use of solar power by fiscal initiatives and financial support to householders to enable them to make their own arrangements?

A dollar is a dollar

Of recent investments, only the Berbice Bridge and to a lesser extent the Guysuco Skeldon Modernisation Project were subject to any independent analysis. We all recall the process that preceded the final decision on the Berbice Bridge, the studies and analyses that were conducted and the debate generated for and against the investment. It may be argued that this was because that is largely privately funded which is not entirely correct since the government had to invest heavily in related infrastructure necessary to support the Bridge investment.

Now if such a process was necessary for the Bridge how come it does not apply to fully publicly-funded expenditure or the decision, literally out of the blue, to spend over one hundred million dollars mainly to build two airstrips on the islands of Essequibo and Wakenaam? A dollar is a dollar and public investment in the final analysis comes from the people of the country. Taxpayers’ money is no less important than shareholders’ money and therefore warrants the same level of care in how it is spent.

I do not recall any Minister of Finance of the PPP-C Finance Ministers, including the incumbent ever giving an indication of any criteria for investment decisions undertaken let alone any rigorous analysis of specific investment. Indeed so often the nation is treated to expenditure decisions being taken literally on the road. This is dangerously improper from a governance perspective and irresponsible and unprofessional from a capital investment decision perspective. Under the Constitution only Parliament has the authority to approve expenditure and a responsible Finance Minister would surely want to justify any request he takes to Parliament for money for capital expenditure. Just think of the crisis we would be in if after the unbudgeted expenditure of substantial sums by the executive, the Parliament voted against any request for supplementary funds.

Cost-added rather than value-added expenditure

The decision to host the World Cup brought with it a commitment to provide hotel rooms which in one particular case were partly financed by a loan to the investor, the payback of which is now being financed by using the very rooms which may not have been chosen had we not made an irrational decision in the first place. The 2008 Budget includes $300 million for CARIFESTA-related expenditure, a decision that was largely made without any regard for cost implications. Given the tendency and history of overspending there is no guarantee that we will not repeat our questionable experience of instead of having value-added expenditure having cost-added expenditure.

The other side of VAT

VAT has been more than a fortuitous break for the government in 2007, not only allowing it to spend far more than Parliament had approved in the 2007 Budget but to absorb significant declines in the performance of public enterprises. From a surplus of $3.4 billion in 2006, those enterprises declined to a deficit of $415 million, mainly from Guysuco which had a decline of $2.7 billion and GPL, $802 million. Interestingly while both corporations had the same chairman, he was removed from the corporation which performed relatively better and from all appearances for reasons unrelated to financial performance.

In fact those very corporations received substantial capital injections in 2007 during which $3 billion dollars was put into GPL for improvement in the unserved and underserved areas while Guysuco received $863 million for its Skeldon Power Plant and $2.9 billion to accelerate completion of the factory, preparations of land to facilitate mechanical harvesting and infrastructure to support and promote private cane farming.

A new Justice Improvement Programme involving US$10.2 million began with the setting up of a Justice Sector Reform Steering Committee and the setting up of a Secretariat. But what about the truly fundamental changes that require not large sums but decisions such as the setting up of the Law Reform Commission to update the laws last done in 1973 or the introduction of new Rules of Court which have been in circulation for years now. New Rules were introduced for the Commercial Court with considerable success, and revised Rules for the other courts have been in circulation for several years. These new Rules embody what is called Case Management and introduce court-driven processes replacing the current system which in practice is largely directed by the lawyers, their time-wasting practices and endless demands for adjournments. As this column has pointed out before Guyana is the only CARICOM country not to have adopted the new Rules.

Next week we look at some of the other capital expenditure in 2007 and those proposed for 2008.

Introduction

The announcement by the Minister of Finance in his 2008 Budget speech that the government was embarking on consultations on making the country into an off-shore financial centre must have taken those with whom he did not consult with considerable surprise. The Minister in his speech did recognise the country’s earlier experience with the concept, an experience that saw the advocate of the measure ending up in jail abroad. It is perhaps significant that at that time Guyana’s economy was in dire straits and the introduction of legislation to facilitate off-shore banking was at best no more than an experiment.

With debt write-offs and a change from a managed to a mainly market economy and the graduation from a Highly Indebted Poor Country (HIPC) to a lower-middle income country, much is new. But the announcement has been surprising nonetheless, being perhaps the only policy change in the entire budget speech. Although the Minister has announced consultations, Business Page today addresses the concept, the opportunities and the challenges, since from all accounts not many people have been consulted so far.

Origin

The ‘off-shore’ in the concept derives its name from the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, just off the shores of England from which the wealthy sought to export their assets from the high-tax regime prevailing in the seventies on the mainland. While these islands continue to earn most of their income from the business, the major centre remains Switzerland, where bank secrecy was considered as sacred and impenetrable as the Da Vinci Code.

In the typical off-shore centre, operators with nothing but a member of staff or two and dealing mainly electronically, whether in opening accounts or in carrying out transactions all of which are designated in foreign currency, carry on the business often from a couple of rooms attached with modern telecommunication. The attraction of such centres, usually lies in:

1. low tax rates,

2. strict secrecy,

3. non-invasive legal, tax and oversight regulations,

4. protection of deposits and

5. insulation from the domestic political, social and economic conditions.

Those conditions by themselves in the post-9/11 world are hard to guarantee and the US in particular has been pressing with some success for a tightening of regulations and the relaxation of the secrecy rules. The result is that money of more dubious origin has been moving from the better regulated centres to the more questionable ones.

Caribbean centres

Despite the risks of being branded, many Caribbean countries have gone this route with varying degrees of success. Barbados and The Bahamas are perhaps the two most successful off-shore financial centres among Caricom countries, but competing with the US Virgin Islands and the Cayman Islands. At the lower level there are Antigua, Belize, Dominica, Montserrat, St Kitts-Nevis and St Vincent, all of which have off-shore banking legislation and which depend on the sector in varying degrees.

For Guyana to compete against its regional partners and the international giants of the industry however, it will have to overcome some uncomfortable truths at home and a negative image abroad. Some of the considerations associated with off-shore banking are embedded in the Guyana economic and social fabric. Off-shore banking is associated with tax evasion, the underground economy, money laundering, narco-trading and the Mafia.

With brutal frankness, the website of the US Embassy in Georgetown begins a 2007 report, “Guyana is a trans-shipment point for cocaine destined for North America, Europe, and the Caribbean,” pointing out that it has been ten years since there were any large domestic seizures, the last being in 1998 when a joint Guyanese/US operation confiscated 3,154 kilograms (kegs) of cocaine from a ship docked in Georgetown. The GOG announced no new drug policy initiatives in 2006. The 2008 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report was released yesterday, and its conclusions indicate that nothing much has changed.

Challenges

Very directly the 2007 report noted that Guyana had not yet implemented its ambitious 2005-2009 National Drug Strategy Master Plan (NDSMP) launched in June 2005; the Financial Investigations Unit (FIU) remained handicapped by the lack of effective legislation to deal with money laundering. In this regard the Money Laundering (Prevention) Act, 2000 was never brought into operation and the draft of a new act has been circulated for comments.

Lax laws - among which must be the non-bank cambios legislation - are an invitation to international crime rings which have been growing in numbers and national origins and destinations. Where at one time the Mafia was thought of as Italian -Al Capone, Antonio Calderon and Salvatore Conterno - the fall of communism has unleashed a new brand of Mafia in Poland and the countries of Eastern Europe which are themselves dwarfed by the Russian Mafia which according to an article on the BBC website controls 40% of private business and 60% of state-owned enterprises through thousands of organised gangs. They now play a big role in Colombia and Israel and are suspected of being involved in the casino business in the Caribbean.

Self-interest?

The moves to clamp down on poorly-regulated centres became pronounced in 2000 when in the space of two months a number of centres were labelled as “non-cooperative” by the Financial Stability Forum (FSF) in the context of global financial stability. Then on June 22, as “non-cooperative” by the Financial Action Task Force in the context of money laundering, and on June 26, as “Tax Havens” by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in the context of tax competition. Among nine that were named twice in two months were three Caribbean countries - The Bahamas, St Kitts-Nevis, and St Vincent.

These led to calls for stricter controls of off-shore centres, which became more pronounced after the attack on the US in 2001. Defenders of off-shore banking see these as the work of the countries of the OECD which are concerned about competition rather than security and financial considerations.

Off-shore centres do have a number of advantages associated with the industry, not least of which is that there may be little else to choose from in terms of economic strategies as no doubt is the case with Niue and Nauru with populations of under 25,000 people. Whether these advantages translate into success is doubtful, just looking at some of the countries with which we are familiar.

Lawyers and accountants

Off-shore banking is also very attractive to lawyers and accountants who practically manage and make tons of money from the sector. From an employment perspective, however, it is even less than insignificant with business being largely conducted electronically. On the other hand their attraction to depositors may lie in the model where withholding tax is not charged on interest earned from deposits which can result in deposits being shifted from the commercial banks to their off-shore counterparts.

Guyana has double taxation treaties with Canada, the Caricom states and the UK, and a tax exchange information agreement with the USA, which all provide for the disclosure and sharing of information, and all of which may need to be reviewed in the proposed scheme of things. Given the US’s views of Guyana in relation to crime, that country may almost certainly want to ensure that there are sufficient safeguards in the regulation of off-shore businesses that may take away many of the advantages usually associated with the industry.

Conclusion

At present there is nothing to suggest that the Bank of Guyana is incapable of regulating the existing financial sector, although it has hardly done its job in relation to the New Building Society, and one wonders whether it is really in control of the non-bank cambios. It is likely that the off-shore business will come under its supervision requiring several changes to the Bank of Guyana Act and regulations. Again that may be seen as intrusive by potential operators. And can we hope to do all of this essentially with a minuscule Financial Intelligence Unit?

That this is the only policy issue identified by the Minister in his budget presentation must cause concern whether the government has any fresh ideas to deal with the challenges facing the major sectors of the economy or the taxpayers in the PAYE system and on whom the Budget now reveals has been placed additional tax burden.