Friday, June 20, 2003
It's strange, but our readers seem to get into everything. John from Canada recently sent this revealing mail:
I've just returned from an extended holiday in the UK with my family. In the middle of it I spent a week visiting my company's software development partners in Hungary and Bulgaria. Both groups of course mentioned the depreciation of their currencies against the dollar. I agree with your comments about the wisdom of Hungary's approach, but was most interested by your comments about Bulgaria. I spent three days there earlier this month and did find it significantly more expensive than last year, while still of course quite cheap compared to the West.
I wrote back explaining that he was pleased to see the observation about Hungary, but that he had misunderstood the situation in Bulgaria. The Bulgarian leva is pegged to the euro, and is inevtably rising. Hence the 'expensive' comment. What is even more preoccupying is the fact that this peg is being sponsored by the IMF and encouraged by the EU. All this sounds awfully reminiscent of Argentina to me. Why cannot they learn the simple message that it is not appropriate for a relatively small economy to have a fixed peg with a much larger neighbour (and this of course also applies to Spain Greece and Portugal who are inside the euro), especially when that neigbours currency may be subject to relatively violent fluctuations which will reflect no underlying fundamentals in the small neighbour. Now back to John's second mail:
I did not know that the leva/euro peg was an IMF requirement; that certainly explains some things. Bulgaria itself seems to be improving marginally, but the whole place smells, as before, of corruption.
And now let's go south a little, to Thessalonika where the EU is having a big meeting to decide on it's constitution, and Bulgaria is looking for an accession timetable, but things don't seem to be too promising. Incidentally, note the growing Spanish connection at the end, as I am trying to suggest, this may be more than mere coincidence. Solomon Passi is Bulgaria's foreign minister.
The three-day summit, where the accession of Balkan countries to the EU is a key item, ends on June 22. Bulgaria and Romania were not invited to join the EU in May 2004 along with 10 other eastern and southern European nations because of their slow economic progress, but hope to join in 2007.
Passi said that it would not be easy for the EU to recognise 2004 as the year to end negotiations, but this would create a positive precedent if it happened, Bulgarian National Radio said. "The other countries which joined the EU did not have any dates fixed in advance. I cannot promise at this time that we would be able to achieve this goal, but if we are not successful now, we will have to try again at the summit meeting in Rome at the end of the year", he told BNR in an interview.
Passi was speaking just a day after he returned from Brussels where he paid a working visit to EU headquarters. Statements by senior officials there were not very encouraging. The EU's Employment and Social Affairs Commissioner, Anna Diamantopoulou, told Passi that it was doubtful that Bulgaria would be given a fixed accession date in Thessaloniki. EU enlargement commissioner Guenther Verheugen was even more straightforward: "Bulgaria cannot expect to receive a set date for finalisation of the accession talks at thesummit in Thessaloniki," he said after meeting Passi in Brussels.
The regular report of the European Commission, which will make an objective assessment of Bulgaria's progress in negotiations and in meeting the criteria, is traditionally announced in October, Verheu-gen said. However, Verheugen assessed Bulgaria's political programme for finalising the talks in 2004 as realistic and attainable. Talks were proceeding smoothly, he said. Passi also met EU Foreign Policy and Common Security Commissioner Javier Solana, who noted Bulgaria's hard work towards joining the European institutions.
"The EU wants to maintain with Bulgaria the most intensive possible political dialogue," Solana told reporters on June 12. However, Bulgaria got a sign of support for its effort to determine 2004 as the year to end negotiations with EU. Spanish foreign minister Ana Palacio, who accompanied King Juan Carlos on a state visit to Bulgaria at the beginning of June, said that Madrid would back Sofia's efforts to conclude its negotiations on joining the EU next year. "We hope that at the Thessaloniki summit we can confirm Bulgaria's timetable for negotiations so that these can be concluded in 2004," Palacio said.
Source: Sofia Echo
LINK
Monday, June 02, 2003
This OECD booklet is full of interesting details. Especially the fact that the proportion of the population working in agriculture is rising Again OECD don't like cut and paste. I'll put something later.
LINK
Paper on the condition of refugess and displaced persons in Bulgaria:
The general contribution of the private sector in the gross value added is 64% as of 1998 which is a proof of the growing importance of the private initiative in the economy. In terms of the economic integration, the structural reform and the development of the private business, have created the same preconditions for refugees as for every Bulgarian citizen to develop their own private initiative. However the social cost of the transition has proved to be very high. The Bulgarian state is still unable to fulfil its social obligations and to guarantee the right to employment, education and health care, to provide equal access to job opportunities and a decent standard of living. The human development balance sheet of the transition is rather pessimistic. According to the 1999 UNDP Human Development Report for Central and Eastern Europe and the CIS, Bulgarian government expenditures on health care as of GDP fell from 4% in 1990 to 3,2% in 1996; infant mortality increased from 13,4 in 1988 to 15,6 in 1996, long term unemployment remains high -14,8%; the share of income spent on food increased from 46% in 1993 to 66% in 1997. According to the Bulgarian Centre for Economic Development, Bulgaria is rated 45-50th in the world regarding the level of socio-economic development in 1998. Due to the economic difficulties asylum seekers and recognised refugees in Bulgaria (although the latter legally are on equal terms with Bulgarian citizens) have limited access to employment and social security. It is important to point out that the labour bureaus only serve recognised refugees. Asylum seekers have no legal grounds to interact with the Labour Office and apply for jobs. That means that while the asylum seekers are undergoing the determination procedure the labour bureaus do not incur any costs serving them, nor finding jobs for them or enrolling them in training courses.
LINK
This one goes back to Feb 2002. You know I try to defend the IMF, I don't respect Stiglitz at all, Rogoff seems to be doing his best, but this beats me. I mean, where the hell do they drag this one up from: "this program offers good prospects for rapid sustained growth, sound external balances, and lower unemployment and poverty". Where the inspectors too busy out clubbing it to think? When will they ever learn.
The Executive Board of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) today approved a two-year stand-by credit for SDR 240 million (about US$299 million) in support of Bulgaria's comprehensive economic program. The decision will enable Bulgaria to draw SDR 32 million (about US$40 million) from the IMF immediately.
This arrangement will succeed a three-year, SDR 627.6 million (about US$781 million) credit under the Extended Fund Facility (see Press Release No. 98/44), which expired in September 2001.
Following the Executive Board discussion, Mr. Shigemitsu Sugisaki, Deputy Managing Director and Acting Chairman, stated:
"The Fund supports the Bulgarian authorities' economic program centered on the currency board arrangement, prudent and flexible fiscal policy, a strict incomes policy, and privatization and other structural reforms. This program offers good prospects for rapid sustained growth, sound external balances, and lower unemployment and poverty.
"Prospects for 2002 are generally favorable, with output growth expected to reach 4 percent.
The external current account deficit is projected to remain at around 6 percent of GDP, mostly financed by foreign direct investment. Nevertheless, it should be monitored closely, in light of the uncertainty surrounding the recovery in Western Europe. Inflation increased in January owing to administrative price hikes and other one-time effects, but should remain subdued in the remainder of the year. The banking sector is well supervised, highly capitalized, profitable, and resilient to foreign exchange and interest rate risks.
"The fiscal deficit target of below 1 percent of GDP in 2002 is appropriate, and the authorities' intent to reduce the fiscal deficit further over the medium term is welcome. To this end, expenditure pressures should be curbed through a continuation of fiscal and structural reforms, and revenue collection should be enhanced by improvements in tax and customs administration. These measures would create room to strengthen further the social safety net, and gradually lower direct tax rates.
"The incomes policy should be implemented strictly, and labor market flexibility should be improved to maintain competitiveness and enhance growth. In addition, the last two large public banks should be sold to well-qualified strategic investors, structural impediments to private sector credit growth eliminated, and the privatization of non-infrastructure enterprises finalized. Other priorities are to continue with the reforms in health care and education, restructure the transportation and energy sectors with a view to improving efficiency and reducing risks to the budget, liberalize trade further, and develop a public debt management strategy aimed at lowering the debt-to-GDP ratio and reducing portfolio and roll-over risk," Mr. Sugisaki stated.
LINK
No comment:
Dear Mr. Köhler:
The attached Supplementary Memorandum of Economic Policies (SMEP) describes our performance under the program supported by the stand-by arrangement (SBA) with the Fund and discusses the policies that the Government and the Bulgarian National Bank plan to implement in 2003. The core of our policy objectives remains as described in the Memorandum of Economic Policies (MEP) dated February 12, 2002 and the SMEP dated July 5, 2002. We will continue to strengthen macroeconomic stability in support of the currency board arrangement and promote sustainable economic growth.
Performance under our economic program has been strong. The macroeconomic situation has improved considerably in recent months, and we expect growth to remain robust and inflation subdued in 2003. All quantitative performance criteria through end-September were observed, as were most structural benchmarks through end-December. Given the delay in completing the second review, end-December performance criteria are legally controlling for the purchase associated with this review. In this context, we request a waiver of applicability for the end-December performance criteria on the general government fiscal deficit and on the wage bill of the 60 closely-monitored state-owned enterprises, both of which we fully expect to be met.
In support of this program, we request that the second review under the SBA be completed. In addition to analyzing economic policies and conditions in general, the third review will focus on measures to strengthen tax administration and on reforms in the financial sector, while the fourth review will focus on the 2004 budget and related reforms. We will continue to consult with the Fund on a regular basis regarding any additional measures that may become appropriate to ensure that program implementation remains on track. We agree to publish the SMEP after the IMF Board has approved the second review.
Sincerely yours
/s/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Milen Velchev
Minister of Finance
Ministry of Finance /s/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Svetoslav Gavriiski
Governor
Bulgarian National Bank
Attachment: Supplementary Memorandum of Economic Policies of the Government of Bulgaria and the Bulgarian National Bank
LINK
Small beer you might think. But in Bulgaria a little goes a long way. Margy earns 150 euros a month.
The Executive Board of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) today completed the second review of Bulgaria's economic performance under the stand-by credit. The decision will enable Bulgaria to draw SDR 26 million (about US$36 million) from the IMF after February 14.
The two-year Stand-By Arrangement was approved on February 27, 2002 (see Press Release No. 02/12) in a total amount of SDR 240 million (about US$330 million). So far, Bulgaria has drawn SDR 84 million (about US$115 million) under the stand-by credit from the IMF.
Following the Executive Board discussion, Anne Krueger, First Deputy Managing Director and Acting Chair, said:
"Macroeconomic performance has been impressive in Bulgaria since the first program review, despite weak economic conditions in its main trade partners. The authorities' economic program, supported by the Stand-By Arrangement, continues to be centered on the Currency Board, which has been supported by a prudent and flexible fiscal policy and a strict incomes policy. These policies have contributed to robust growth, decelerating inflation, and a stronger-than-programmed external position. Unemployment, while still high, declined significantly in 2002. The authorities have made progress in some critical structural reform areas, including key privatizations in the financial sector, the enactment of the bank bankruptcy law, and increases in household electricity and district heating prices toward cost recovery levels. However, progress has lagged in other important areas, and there have been delays in the completion of privatizations of the state-owned tobacco holding and telecommunication companies.
The authorities' 2003 budget deficit target is appropriate and necessary to maintain macroeconomic stability. However, achieving this target will present challenges. In this context, we welcome the authorities' decision to proceed cautiously with discretionary spending during the first three quarters of the year and to monitor revenue developments monthly. Over the medium term, fiscal policy continues to target a balanced budget, with a lower tax burden and increased social and EU-related spending to be offset by cuts in subsidies and other unproductive spending. To achieve these goals, it is critical that the National Revenue Agency be made operational and that other efforts to strengthen tax administration and collection be increased. On the expenditure side, the reform of municipal finances, and the hospital, railways, and heating sectors, continues to be key.
Structural measures to strengthen further the financial sector, enhance competitiveness, and sustain high quality growth are also important. The sharp rise in credit to the private sector from a low base has contributed to economic growth, but will require increased vigilance in banking supervision. Reforms to simplify business regulations and increase labor market flexibility will be necessary for attracting more investment and reducing unemployment. In the same vein, the authorities should move forward to complete their privatization programs," Ms. Krueger said.
LINK
As usual the IMF doesn't like cut & paste, so you'll have to download this and look yourselves. But despite an excessively rosy summary, there is some interesting detail buried in there. Try it and see.
LINK
For some reason the imf don't like cut & paste on this one. But it is interesting. Of course the theoretical model is up the spout, since they imagine that this is following a classic western european model. This is obviously wrong, and the pages of this blog will be to investigate why. What is the difference between deflation produced by state industry dismantling in China, and what is happening in Bulgaria, what is the development model we are using, and how much is path dependent? Watch out the hard peg in Bulgaria. The IMF don't know what they are doing here, nor what they are playing with. But look at this:
Reflecting emigration, a decline in the birth rate, an initial fall in life expectancy, populations declined in the decade of the 1990's by between 6 and 9 per cent in Latvia, Estonia and Bulgaria. Latvia and Bulgaria experienced particularly large net emigration of about 5% of population, primarily in the years of transition (which transition, edward?). While some of this may have been a response to worsening economic conditions, a majority of Latvians and Estonians emigrated to their countries of origin in the CIS, while more than half the Bulgarian emigrants were ethnic Turks who emigrated to Turkey. In Lithuania, in contrast, emigration was small, and the population declined only marginally.
In all four countries, labour force participation, and participation rates have declined substantially, helping at least to contain increases in unemployment (think Japan here, edward). In this, the experinece has been broadly similar to other transition economies. Labour force participation has been broadly similar to other transition economies. Labour force participation has declined by 11% in Bulgaria, about 15% in Latvia and Estonia, and 3% in Lithuania, where the population decline was far less dramatic (interesting detail: edward). As a result, participation rates in all four countries have declines as well (what does this mean: edward) and, at between 41 and 49% are low relative to western industrial countries.
The decline in participation rates has several causes. First pension systems - in particular loose rules for disability and early retirement - have increased the number of pensioners, serving as a de facto safety net for many older workers who may have lacked the skills required by the new private sector (construction workers, waiters? Edward). second some workers became discouraged in their attempts to find a job, and dropped out of the labour force altogether. According to labor force survet data, this reduced participation in 1997 in Latvia by 4.5%, and in Bulgaria by 6.5%.
LINK
Sunday, June 01, 2003
Neither especially recent, nor especially important, but it gets things going.
The spring 2001 Labour Force Survey provided the following estimates for the 96 million people living in private households in 11 of the 13 Candidate Countries. 43 million had a job during the reference week of the survey:
- The employment rate reached 57.8% of the population aged 15-64
compared to 63.9% in the EU. The rate was highest in Cyprus at 67.9% and
lowest in Bulgaria at 50.7%.
- 9.8% of employed persons declared themselves as working part-time
compared to 18% in the EU. Part-time employment represented 12% of
total female employment (from 13% in Cyprus to 3.8% in Slovak Republic).
- 31 million workers were employees (72.9% of total employment) and 8% of
them had a contract with limited duration (10% or more in Cyprus, Poland
and Slovenia).
- The average working hours were 41.3 hours a week for full time employees
and 23.8 hours for part-time employees (respectively 40.4 and 23.2 for
females). In the EU the average working hours were 40.1 hours a week for
full time employees and 19.8 hours for part-time employees.
6.4 million people were unemployed, which represented 13% of the overall
CC-11 labour force (13.4% for women). The EU unemployment rate was
7.3%.
- About 4 million of the unemployed in the CC-11 were looking for full time
employment with half of them looking for more than one year. Long term
unemployment unemployment (one year and more) represented 52.4% of
unemployment as a whole compared with 44% in the EU.
- 28.8% of the labour force aged 15-24 years old was unemployed compared
with 14% in the EU, ie. 10.9% of the total population of the same age in the
CC-11 and 6.6% in the EU.
36 million people aged 15 years and more were inactive.
LINK
The following report is interesting in that it gives some idea of the dimensions of the problem:
The last quarter of the twentieth century witnessed major political and economic changes in Eastern Europe and the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). The combination of political instability, ethnic conflicts, economic hardship and the opening of borders that followed the disintegration of communist regimes brought about a considerable amount of international migration among countries with economies in transition, as well as from these to countries with established market economies. The present report seeks to describe the main features of international migration to and from this region since 1980 using a large amount of empirical evidence gathered by sending and receiving countries. Overall, the group of countries with economies in transition constitutes a region of emigration. Up to 1987, international migration was erratic and tightly controlled by the countries of origin. From 1980 to 1987, countries with established market economies received an average net flow of 130,000 per year from this region. The most notable exceptions to the imposed low migration pattern were Poland, Romania and Yugoslavia. In the late 1980s, some countries started to soften the grip on the foreign travel of their citizens or became more lenient to the demands of certain ethnic groups to emigrate. At least 2 million people migrated outside the region between 1987 and 1989; more than 1 million of these migrantscame from Poland.
Link
The Bulgarian section is as follows, a lot of 'official speak'. Note the 'Bulgaria is striving to harmonize international migration policies' part. Comments welcome:
Owing to its geographic location and ethnic composition, international migration is an established trend in Bulgaria. Nonetheless, recent migration trends can only be traced indirectly, using information gathered by other sending and receiving countries. Bulgarian statistics register arrivals and departures, no matter what the length of stay in the country or abroad is, and the statistics published are highly
aggregated: flow data are grouped under tourism, personal reasons, business and employment. information gathered by other countries suggests that migration flows were only of small scale during the 1980s. However, these figures do not include the main migration flow from Bulgaria, namely, emigration to Turkey. Although a mass exodus of the Turkish population had followed Bulgaria’s liberation from the Ottoman rule, in the late nineteenth century, considerable numbers of Turks remained in the country. Migration to Turkey increased during the 1980s and reached a peak of 218,000 in 1989, partly as a consequence of the Bulgarian Government’s assimilation policies (Bobeva, 1996). From 1990 to 1992, flows to Turkey declined but still accounted for 80 per cent of all flows. Nevertheless, ethnic Turks still made for 9.7 per cent of the population in 1992 (Bobeva, 1996).
Migration to other countries, on the contrary, increased after passport regulations were liberalized in Bulgaria, in 1990. With the political changes of October 1992, ethnic minorities, particularly Turks, tried to emigrate by seeking asylum in Germany. Emigration was also influenced by the war in Croatia, in 1991, and the confrontation that began in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1992. Since 1994, countries with market economies and other countries in transition have recorded a stable number of about 15,000 entries from Bulgaria. According to table 24, Germany, followed by Greece, the United States and Italy, are the main countries of destination for Bulgarian migrants. Those who left for Germany and Austria in the early 1990s were, for the most part, asylum-seekers. Many of those who fled to Germany in 1992 and 1993 were rejected and returned to Bulgaria (UNHCR, 1997). Asylum flows from Bulgaria declined rapidly after 1993 and rose slightly again in the late 1990s, during the recent Kosovo crisis. A significant number of recent applications were submitted in Belgium. The recognition rate for Bulgarian applicants has been lower than 5 per cent since 1998 (UNHCR, 1999, 2000a and 2001).
Information on the stock of foreigners in Bulgaria, shown in table 26, suggests a moderate inflow of foreigners for permanent and long-term residence. Most permanent residents came originally from countries with economies in transition. Traditional economic and political ties with the region fostered mixed marriages and underpinned labour exchanges. Having increased continuously during the 1990s, the number of permanent migrants from this region declined in 1999. By contrast, the number of long-term permit holders from this region as well as from countries with established market economies has risen continuously. Long-term permits, valid for one year and renewable, are generally granted for employment purposes and to persons with sufficient funds to stay in the country. In recent years, Bulgaria has also become a country of asylum for nationals of Armenia, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq. Of the 1,750 decisions made in Bulgaria between 1995 and 1999, less than 600 resulted in the granting of refugee status and 290 in the granting of humanitarian status (UNHCR, 2000a).
Like other Eastern countries, Bulgaria has evolved from being a source of undocumented migrants toa country of transit. The number of foreigners living in Bulgaria illegally, which some estimates put at 10,000 in the late 1990s, is believed to be relatively low compared to other European countries (OECD, 2001a, p.140). However, a significant number of migrants do not stay in Bulgaria but proceed to other European countries. Between 1990 and 1998, Bulgaria received 8 million visitors per year. In average, 50 per cent of them were transit visitors (National Statistical Institute of Bulgaria, various years). The number of rejections of entry at the Bulgarian border was estimated at 22,000 in 1997; the number of migrants apprehended while attempting to cross the borders illegally has been close to 2,500 since 1995 (IOM, 1999b).
As one of the candidate countries for accession into the European Union after 2007, Bulgaria is striving to harmonize international migration policies and practices with those in the European Union and to combat illegal immigration. According to an assessment made by the European Commission in October 1999, Bulgaria had made substantial progress in implementing immigration and asylum regulations and border controls, even though its institutional capacity to manage migration remains weak (OECD, 2001b). Most regulations have been issued in the past two years. A Refugee Act was approved in August 1999. A new Foreigners Act is in force since January 2000. The new Act provides for different types of permits and visas: transit visas, short-term residence permits (up to 90 days) and longtert residence permits (12 months). The Act lays down specific criteria for denying the extension of a
residence permit and increases the penalties to be imposed on undocumented foreigners (OECD, 2001c).
