The OECD Has it All Wrong About Canada

The OECD came out with its Economic Survey of Canada last week and like so many other institutions and commentators before it, has got it all wrong. The report lauded Canada for its fiscal performance but gave it a failing grade for productivity growth. The report, amongst other things, criticizes Canada for its declining multifactor productivity, a measure of output denominated by an assortment of production inputs. The report asserts that multi factor productivity (MFP) has been declining since 2002 and seriously lagging that of the United States. The report adds that Canada’s factors of production mix is skewed heavily towards engineering structures to the detriment of machinery and equipement.

While MFP has been dropping in Canada since 2002, many would argue that looking at labour productivity is more important. Productivity per hour worked in Canada has grown from $156 to $183 from 1997 to 2011 an increase of 17% over the period, far from the alarming trend the OECD reports. Noteworthy however is the slowing growth of productivity growth during this period from a high of 2.61% in 1999 to the present growth of 0.75% in 2011

The error of the OECD report however is one of not looking into the underlying trends and the break down of productivity change by industry. If one breaks down the numbers to find out which industries contributed to the change in the overall economy a few truths become apparent. The slowing growth is mostly attributable to one sector: mining and oil & gas extraction. This sector registered the steepest loss in productivity since 1997 contributing -8.17% to overall per worker productivity in Canada. Virtually all other sectors contributed positively to productivity growth (with the exception of the public sector and its tangents). And since mining and oil & gas extraction is the fastest growing sector in Canada the loss in productivity weights down heavily on the numbers reported by the OECD.

MFP is weighted down even more heavily by the this sector, as much of new fixed capital formation originates from Alberta’s energy industry. So why isn’t this trend worrying? the answer lies in the basics of economics. Productivity in tangible assets tends to lagg investment by tangible assets. Basic macroeconomic models tend to assume a lagg of one year between investment in fixed assets and new production from those assets. But the oil sands development in Alberta is bucking that trend as the magnitude of those  investments is larger than ever before, and the huge oil sands mines of the Athabasca region are unparalleled in history.

Most of the mines under construction take between 5 and 10 years to reach capacity and since the oil sands developments are still relatively new, few if any of the largest mines are near capacity. Production in the oil sands is estimated to double within the next decade while employment will drop as temporary construction jobs in the sector are slated to be replaced by fewer permanent operating jobs.

These trends will lead to a complete reversal of the national productivity contribution of the sector, from the most negative to what will be the most positive contribution. Canada’s over investment in Engineering structures isn’t a fluke accident on the part of Canadian businesses. It is rather a sign that business leaders in the nation understand where Canada’s growth will come from in the future.

What is strange is that these developments are widely known, as the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers widely communicates them. That the OECD and the Bank of Canada before it, have not picked up on these trends is testament to the short term vision of macroeconomic study at some of the most important economic institutions. One hopes that policy makers don’t get wound up in the noise from these economist and continue to provide policy changes geared towards letting Canada shift economic activity to where the nation has a comparative advantage.

New Bridge Coming to

The most populous province of Canada Ontario does not share a land border with the United States. From the Angle Inglet flowing into the Lake of Woods all the way to the St-Lawrence River near Cornwall, Ontario is continually separated from the Northeast States by the water system of the Great Lakes. This border’s particularity is surely a vestige from the 1812 war pitting the British Colonies of which Ontario was part of, against the expanding American republic headed by James Madison. Since that time relations have warmed significantly to fraternal levels. Joint participation in two World Wars, the signing of the Auto Pact between  Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson and President Lyndon B. Johnson, the signing of NAFTA between Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and President Ronald Reagan served as a few, among many milestones, on the way to developing one of the most important bilateral trade relations the World has ever known.

Today, this commercial and economic partnership is anchored by a set of infrastructures reducing the historical and natural barriers separating the foes of old. Eight bridges, one tunnel and a plethora of train tracks and hydrodames help connect the millions of Canadians and Americans separated by the Great Lakes water system. This connection is particularly embodied by the Ambassador Bridge. That privately owned crossing is the route by which 25% of cross border trade volumes transits. Much of the automobiles assembled in Michigan source their parts from Ontario and vice-versa. This symbolic and economically vital route is now clogged, bogging down vital trade and hurting both jurisdictions were it hurts the most; their respective manufacturing industries.

It would seem that the relationship has outgrown the infrastructure underpinning it. There have been vocal campaigns (mostly from but not limited to the Canadian side) to build a second bridge. Previous efforts by the Republican Governor of Michigan and various levels of Canadian government have been stymied by  the owner of the Ambassador Bridge Manuel “Matty” Moroun’s lobbying efforts.

The Ambassador Bridge effectively holds a monopoly on commercial truck traffic. Efforts to stop the construction of a competing bridge is the definition of rent seeking behaviour and crony capitalism. Using his leverage and clout within the State Congress of Michigan to try and legislatively block such a construction, including through state constitutional amendments while rational, is the summum of selfish and amoral commercial behaviour.

An announcement by governments from both sides of the St-Mary’s River is expect Friday, where the Canadian government is thought to renew its pledge to pay for the American shares of construction costs. Let’s hope a new bridge is on its way as the beleaguered World economy can use every bit of trade increase in can get.

Here’s a Suggestion Mr Carney

The governor of the Bank of Canada Mark Carney has again continued to scold and give lessons to Canadians. He does this in his Monetary Policy Report of April 2012 where he reiterates some of the comments this blog criticized in a previous post. Those comments were that Canadian exporters needed to retool and refocus and that Canadian consumers needed to slow their pace of debt accumulation. The focus of the ‘retool, refocus and retrain’ mantra is largely advocated so as to increase Canadian firm’s ability to compete internationally and export. While this blog has already stated its objection to paternalistic economic communication from government institutions towards the private sector, this blog does accept Carney’s view that Canadian prosperity is underpinned by healthy trade numbers and international competitiveness. There is one criticism the Governor could have levelled that balances private sector independence and improved competitiveness, that critic should be less debt supply and it should be levelled at governments.

Talk of trade competitiveness unfortunately always boils down to currencies. In Canada manufacturers and commentators are always complain about the high Canadian dollar and how many jobs it kills. Leaving aside the fact that a high currency has as many benefits for a country as it has costs, a currency artificially above its equilibrium (or below it for that matter) is however  a concern. Let’s assume that the Canadian dollar is artificially overvalue, who might the culprit be for this imbalance? The Loonie isn’t a reserve currency so that can’t be it. Contrarily to McGuinty’s opinion oil isn’t to blame either. As the Central Bank report notes, Canadian oil is sold at a steep discount to certain international oil benchmarks, meaning that eastern Canada imports at high prices while the west exports at cheap prices, so the impact of higher oil prices only marginally affects the Canadian currency. In any case studies have refuted the claim of the Loonie being a petro-dollar. So who exactly is contributing to the Canadian dollar remaining above par with the US dollar?

To answer that question the certain economic facts need to be reviewed. Commentaries on trade and currencies often emphasize a restricted number of causes for currency fluctuations. Currency movements need to be understood in terms of foreign exchange market equilibrium. Every currency trade impacts the prevailing exchange rate but every trade does not just involve a quick speculation or an oil contract purchase. Much purchasing and selling of currencies involves savings diversification by institutional money managers. To give some colour to this point in 2007 before the crisis hit, foreigners shed roughly ~10 Billion of government paper while exporters sold just over 460 Billion dollars of exports. Since the beginning of the crisis over 400 Billion of Canadian government financial papers have been sold to foreigners. What does all this mean? Government budget surplus reduces the supply of government debt available to foreigners for purchase, a government deficit increases the supply. Since foreigners must buy Canadian dollars to purchase both export goods and government debt, Canadian governments’ profligacies are partially to blame for the high Canadian dollar. Part of their issuance of debt has been sold to foreigners increasing the demand for the Loonie and crowding out exports of goods and services.

Some might be tempted to point to Europe to refute these assertions. They would note Europe’s deficits have widened since 08 while the Euro has generally fallen. This is easily explained by sovereign risk. Canadian government debt is perceived to be a safe investment while much of the Euro area’s debts are considered very risky. Investors the World over generally prefer to buy Canadian debts than those from the PIIGS as they could be described as better quality products. Essentially Canada’s two most popular exports have now become oil and debt, small wonder manufacturing in Ontario can’t keep up. So if Mark Carney is so considered with the twin problem of profligacy and competitive weakness why isn’t he calling for Government austerity?

Debunking McGuintonomics

So last week Alison Redford the Premier of Alberta asked Ontario’s Premier Dalton McGuinty to show some public support for the Oil Sands, currently facing a heap of criticism from environmentalists. No one knows what Mrs. Redford was expecting as a response, in any case the answer sounded a little bit like “If Alberta didn’t exists Ontario would be better off”. His conclusion was based on the popular belief that the Canadian dollar had become a ‘PetroDollar’ and that it’s meteoric rise had crushed Ontario’s manufacturing base. Now because McGuinty and his family seem to be career politicians we will pardon his ignorance of economics and try to fill some of his knowledge gap.

So McGuinty thinks a high dollar is bad. First mistake. Very broadly speaking a relatively high currency is a mark of wealth. Basically the World wants to buy our stuff more than we want to buy the worlds stuff. Okay so foreigners recognize that we are a nice country worth investing in and who’s products look alright, but if you still believe a high currency is killing jobs in manufacturing well that would seem like a mightily expensive accolade. However Ontario is not innocent in this. Unfortunately the worlds appreciation of fiscal virtuousness is quite lagged to reality by a couple crises. So when Canada starts supplying the World with all our AAA rated (and less well rated but ‘made in Canada’ stamped debt) in an environment where some of the deepest debt markets are not nearly as risk free as they used to be, obviously foreign investors gobble it up our debt greedily. What is the effect of that? well essentially the world values our debt more than our goods and services, so when that appetite for financial assets inflates the Canadian dollar, our exports will suffer (see the US current account deficit/reserve currency status/trade deficit quagmire). Now since Alberta doesn’t have any debt and hasn’t issued some for a while they can’t be guilty on that front. So who is exactly contributing to our soaring Looney from a financial assets trade perspective? The feds are! Alright since much of the stimulus package was spent in Ontario (G8/G20 summit spending, carmakers bailouts etc, etc…) maybe McGuinty should move to accuse the second biggest  new Canadian debt emitter… oh wait a minute, that’s Ontario, oops. So McGuinty’s spending problem is partly to blame for a high Canadian dollar not Alberta. Okay in all fairness international financial assets trade is not the only contributing factor to currency mouvements so let’s move on.

The gist of McGuinty’s argument was that Albertan energy sales are increasing the value of the CAD to the detriment of manufacturing. So he is implying that their is a a negative correlation between manufacturing exports and energy exports. That data does not support this claim one bit! When looking at seasonally adjusted and 2002 chained dollars (inflation adjusted) Canadian total energy product sales have risen by 24% since 2000 and total manufacturing (sum of statscan’s industrial goods, manufacturing and equipment, automotive parts categories) have gone down by 14% over the same periode would imply the Premier is right, However when looking at proportions the increase in energy sales is only of 40 billion yearly versus a 125 billion drop for total manufacturing. So basically if there actually was a one-for-one tradeoff between energy and manufacturing exports energy would only be responsible for ~32% of the decline. However when one looks at balance of trade in those subcategories and asks what percentage of net energy exports accounts for the decline of net manufacturing exports the answer is a measly ~4.5%. So to reiterate if there even was causality (which is not proven) it would be weak at best. Now that we’ve lain waste to McGuinty’s foolish idea that Alberta is guilty for his province’s hard times, let’s bring up one more point.

Ontario is now a have-not province. Ontario received upwards of 3 Billion dollars last year from equalization transfers. Alberta paid in over 8 Billion into equalization. Bottom line Ontario got some money from Alberta to pay for its social services. Methinks McGuinty owes Redford and Albertans an apology, don’t you?