Counting the cost: Rs5b monthly burden on public purse

Decision to reverse petrol price hike sends wrong signal to international donors, places additional Rs5b burden.


Shahbaz Rana January 07, 2011

ISLAMABAD: The government’s decision of reversing the increase in petroleum prices to cool political temperatures has not only sent a wrong signal to international donors,  but will also put an additional burden of Rs5 billion a month on the public purse in the wake of widening gap between income and spending.

Independent experts say the government has portrayed itself to be a “lame duck” giving a negative signal to donors that it cannot stand by its own decisions. Experts term the decision the “death of the economic reforms agenda”.

“The message international donors have received is that if the government cannot absorb the pressure on petrol prices then how can it take up major economic reforms,” said Dr Ashfaque Hasan Khan, Dean of Business School of NUST. He said the decision  will not help control inflation, as the benefit of reversing prices will be lost by borrowing money from the State Bank of Pakistan to give subsidies and cover revenue loss.

The government borrowed Rs327 billion from the central bank in six months to finance the budget deficit – a gap between income and spending. The provisional figures show that the budget deficit from July through December soared to 2.9 per cent of the total size of the economy or Rs496 billion. The central bank has labelled the government borrowing inflationary.

The reversal of decision comes at a time when the International Monetary Fund has extended the suspended $11.3 billion bailout programme for nine months till September 2011. The fund is currently discussing with Islamabad to send its team for negotiating parameters for a fifth review of the economy and release of $1.7 billion sixth loan tranche. The IMF team is likely to reach Islamabad in the last week of January. Under the IMF programme, Pakistan abolished the oil subsidy regime in 2009.

“The government is in minority and it is a political decision, not an economic one,” said Dr Hafiz Pasha, the former finance minister.

The Parliamentary Com­mittee will devise a strategy to pass on the increase to the end consumers within a week.  An official of the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority said the oil prices are like to surge further in the international market due to a rise in demand in China, Europe and America. He said the current trend cannot be solely termed “seasonal spike”, as China has started generating power by using diesel.

The decision may also delay the due 4.3 per cent increase in electricity prices. The government had earlier decided to increase electricity prices by 2 per cent a month aimed at gradually phasing out subsidy. It had enforced a 4 per cent increase in tariff while the third and fourth phase of these staggered spikes are overdue. Officials have estimated Rs224 billion annual subsidy, provided the government fails to phase out subsidy and take crucial decisions relating to the power sector. All this will lead to a soaring gap between the income and spending and a consequent borrowing to bridge it, which is inflationary.

Published in The Express Tribune, January 7th, 2011.

COMMENTS (11)

abdullah | 13 years ago | Reply this is a bad decision govt is not thinking in the interest of country rather they r thinking about what the man sitting in london says....v should increase the price ,internationaly the prices have gone up ......and should cut extra expenses and ministries
Syed Nadir El Edroos | 13 years ago | Reply Who exactly is going to invest in the State Bank of Pakistan's TFC's and Sukuks? Can you imagine the rate of return we would have to offer to secure investors? Who is going to pay that back? All they will do is print more money which cause more inflation! As for petrol prices. Today oil is at $91 per barrel. What happens when oil reaches $100 or $110? Will oil prices stay the same? As for the Rs. 5 billion, thats Rs. 5 billion per month. Thats hardly a petty amount as we spend much less on that on education each year. Subsidising consumption is poor solution. The same amount should have been invested in reducing inefficiencies. Has anyone stopped to question why our motorcycles or cars have the same efficiency of auto mobiles from 20 years ago? What off all those 40 year old Bedford trucks that populate our roads? Can you imagine what mileage they offer? How about encouraging better insulation and architectural design to reduce energy waste while heating or cooling homes to reduce power demand, thus helping to reduce demand for oil imports for thermal power stations? At the end of the day it comes down to the state heavily taxing petroleum sales to raise revenue, because in a land of patriotic Pakistanis only 1.9 million people file tax returns. One could argue that if people paid their direct taxes - then the state should withdraw indirect taxes off petroleum products in return. The rich import/buy the expensive cars, after dodging most of their tax obligations and then are also the heaviest consumers of petroleum products. Those are the people who will have the biggest smiles at the end of the day.
VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ