Syndicate content

Is Bangladesh Getting Public Investment Right?

Zahid Hussain's picture

Economic growth in Bangladesh began to decline since FY06 at roughly the same time that its public investment rate started falling. The decline in growth also appears to coincide with slowdown in growth of infrastructure capital in the hard infrastructure sectors; particularly energy, transport and communication. It is therefore tempting to think that the two may be correlated.

Indeed, economic theory suggests that the availability of economic and social infrastructures makes it conducive for the private sector to invest; higher public capital increases productivity and reduces production costs; and by increasing demand public investment gives rise to profit and sales expectations which in turn induce private investments. These are known as the crowding-in effects of public investment.

Crowding in, however, cannot be taken for granted. Public investment can also crowd out private investment if it is made in activities that compete with the private sector. In addition, the growth impact of increased public investment depends on how it is financed. If it is financed through higher public debt, which implies higher future taxation levels, private investments may get crowded out.

Thus, whether or not public investment contributes to growth is an empirical question. A recent publication by Dr. S. R. Osmani claims that “Bangladesh was able to sustain accelerated growth…by improving public investment that also had a stimulating effect on private investment.” This hypothesis is based on a comparison of public investment rate in Bangladesh during 1981-2005 with public investment rates in Sri Lanka, India and Pakistan.

The hypothesis is not robust to a more detailed scrutiny. I estimated the impact of public and private investment rates on GDP growth in Bangladesh by running some “naïve” regressions--naïve because no attempt is made to use fancy time series econometric tools to take care of likely statistical pitfalls. The idea is to simply see whether there is any prima facie relation. The following results are worth noting:

Public investment does not seem to matter. A one percentage point increase in public investment to GDP ratio contributes 0.33 percentage point to GDP growth with a one year lag. However, this estimate is so imprecise that it is not statistically significant.

Private investment does. A one percentage point increase in private investment to GDP ratio contributes 0.28 percentage point to GDP growth with a one year lag. This estimate is statistically highly significant.

While more sophisticated econometric modeling may come up with different answers, these results suggest the presence of neither crowding out nor crowding in effects of public investment. What to make of it? It is hard to believe that in an infrastructure starved country such as Bangladesh, public investment does not matter for growth. Recent surveys of the literature (Romp and de Haan 2007 and Straub 2008) on public investment-growth nexus find significant positive effects of public investment on growth. Surely the apparent absence of such effects in Bangladesh has to do with the lumping of good and bad investments in the aggregate public investment series. The relation between public investment and capital accumulation can break down in the presence of significant inefficiencies or waste.

The bottom line: The question is not whether public investment matter, the question is whether Bangladesh has been making the right kind of public investment in right amount at the right time? Chronic gas and power shortages, low quality public roads and bridges, severe congestion in cities (Dhaka in particular) and ports, inadequacy of infrastructure for expanding coverage of ICT services all suggest that the answer is a resounding no. The best way to ensure that the public investment program makes a significant contribution to growth is by getting its composition right through close attention to its rate of return and complementing with private investment. This in turn requires clear delineation of the roles of the public and private sectors as well as strengthening the institutional framework within which the public investment program is formulated and implemented.

Comments

Submitted by NEVILLE KISHORE BHASIN on
The available literature on how Investment decisions are generated,suggest that the most prominent driver is growth in demand.This factor is important in concluding whether investment per se will lead to economic growth.Yes investment in Transportation & Communication infrastructure correlates with Economic Growth but this investment in turn is an outcome of growth in aggregate demand.NEVILLE BHASIN

The public as well as private investment has been declined due to several reasons and one of those reasons are energy shortfall. The existing demand of the gas is about 2100 million cubic feet per day but supply is only about 1900 million per day.

Submitted by Rieta Rahman on
Public and private investment on growth ratios in terms of appropriate planning in time, amount, and the right, mismnagement in the energy sector or inefficient and inadequate infrastructures, on the face of significant inefficiencies and waste, could be very closely related to political stability of the country. In other words mature leadership to fight the challenges of 'infrastructure starved' country like Bangladesh where 'public investment and capital accumulation can break down in the presence of significant inefficiencies or waste', added with (too much??) politicisation (not to mention Partisanism of the power) deters the healthy and sustainable growth of econometrics, mostly what the writer is saying 'naivity' is to me actually lack of focus on priorities of the consequetive governments. The magic word could be the mature leadership and political stability in Bangladesh that can trigger healthy and sustainable economic growth/development for the country.

Dear Fellows and Friends: "Using the success of The Prince's Rainforests Project as a key example, The Prince advocated solutions based upon a public, private and NGO sector partnership. "I am convinced it is through these kinds of global partnerships – between Government, business, N.G.O.s, civil society and even individuals – that we can help provide the global solutions we need to secure our future." - HRH Prince of Wales. This defines the Type Two Partnership suggested in the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002 by former Chairman of the United Nations Kofe Annan. We are establishing for Western Africa the Sustainable Energy Center of Excellence (SECE) to address the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) of the UN. We believe that Biomass can be used but have harvested fruit, nuts and Oil Seed for additional benefits and fill in the forests areas that are appropriate for this. Anthropogenic caused CO2 can be sequestered and value added for the people in poverty. SECE supports Sustainable Rural Development.thus REDD gets a Plus, to become REDD+.

Add new comment