[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index
][Thread Index
]
THE BURMESE ECONOMY (r)
Continued from 1 August 1997.
BUDGET DEFICITS
===============
High fiscal deficits are the principal cause for high
inflation in Myanmar. They reflect the slow but persistent
break down of the state in Burma which has been at the root
of the political problems over the last ten years, if not
much longer.
Government revenue has been falling in real terms in every
year since 1968 with the exception of the first two years
of the SLORC. The reason is a continuous shrinking of the
revenue base. Tax income has fallen to less than 5 per cent
of GDP, lower than the budget deficit. Government grants
have literally ceased, due to the SLORC's human rights
record.
Expenditure has also fallen as a percentage of GDP, but the
government is visibly trying to resist this deterioration,
as manifested by the high deficit. Cuts have been more
pronounced in capital expenditure and public sector wages,
excluding military. The only category that has been
protected against cuts has been defence. Whose share of
total expenditure has risen to over 33 per cent.
The deficit has recently started to close, mainly because
of a reduction of public expenditures. But despite the
economic recovery, revenue shares have continued to shrink.
This points at an unsustainable trend in public finance,
for the breakdown of infrastructure is only too obvious to
anyone loving, working and traveling in Myanmar.
Monetary financing (printing money) has filled most of the
gap. Under Ne Win's socialism the domestic banking system
played literally no role in providing finance to the
government. After the establishment of the Myanmar
Investment and Commercial Bank in 1989, new bank laws in
1990 and new rules and procedures in 1991, the banking
system started to take greater prominence in financing the
public deficit.
Thus the dire public finances and the irresponsible way of
financing them are an essential element for explaining the
disastrous state of the Burmese economy. The also explain
the growing intensity of forced labour and human rights
abuses. The L\SLORC sets revenue collection targets for
each administrative district. At different levels (regions,
towns, tax and customs offices etc) the "administration"
(mainly the army) then has to raise the income by all
means. Alternatively, they may replace financial outlays by
forced labour. If targets are not met, the commander or
responsible person loses his job. This system also explains
why the problem of drug traffic is so intractable: in order
to raise the required revenue, "one closes one's eyes' to
all kinds of illicit activities.
The described "system" may not be alien to traditional
Asian societies of past millennia and to the earlier
"Burmese way to socialism". But it is incompatible with a
transition from the state oriented to a modern market
oriented economy. Given these circumstances, the only
attractive opportunity for foreign investment are projects
of very high short term profitability, normally linked to
the exploitation of natural resource rents (forests, oil
etc). The absence of a properly functioning monetary
economy creates the conquistador economy. The solution to
these problems will only be found in an acceptable
political settlement; Burma is to poor to buy its way out
of its troubles.
THE STRUCTURE OF THE BURMESE ECONOMY
Recent catch-up growth to long term trend levels has
extended to all sectors of the economy, although it has
been most rapid in the primary sectors, particularly
agriculture and forestry.; Within the industrial sectors;
mining and construction have grown faster. This reflects in
part an inflow of foreign investment into these activities.
Manufacturing growth has resumed but has remained variable
due to its links to agricultural performance (World Bank
1995).
The evolution of Burma's production sectors is at the
opposite end of those of high performing Asian economies.
Typically, as an economy develops, agriculture shares in
GDP decline and industry and services expand. In high
performing countries like Indonesia, Japan, Korea,
Malaysia, Thailand or Taiwan, this transition has been more
rapid than in other developing countries. In Myanmar,
however, the trend is for agriculture's share to grow at
the expense of services, while industry and manufacturing
have stagnated of declined since 1988. Thus, it is not
surprising that agriculture's contribution to growth (and
recession) is substantially higher than that of industry.
Part of this sector expansion has come from forestry, due
to increased timber extraction. Agricultural output has
grown as well, reflecting a timid response to
liberalization measures. But the production of many crops,
including paddy, has only just returned to mid-1980 levels.
Moreover, yields of all crops including paddy have remained
stagnant (World Bank, 1995). Despite this mediocre
performance, Myanmar has exported 1.2 million tons of rice
(valued at 100 to 130 million US dollars) in 1994-95 for
the first time in thirty years, which implies that domestic
consumption is still at low levels and a political
contingency.
To be continued.
Note- This article was covered in "The Other Side" July,
1997 issued by Samata Party in India.
News and Information Bureau, All Burma Students League
************************( End )****************************
+=====================================+
| A B S L |
+-------------------------------------+
| All Burma Students League |
| 3, Krishna Menon Marg |
| New Delhi - 110011 |
| Ph : 91-11-3017172/3016035 |
| Fx : 91-11-3793397 |
| Email : shar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
+=====================================+