Croatia: On The Brink of What?

As Croatia enters the final stage of its EU membership talks, it is perhaps a fitting moment to review the other half of the picture, namely where the Croatian economy finds itself, and what the outlook might be for a continuing convergence with the requirements of Euro membership. Understandably, EU officials are fairly cautious about the likely shape and progress of the forthcoming talks (the Union has, after all got rather a lot on its plate at the moment), but Croatian Prime Minister Jadranka Kosor is decidedly more optimistic, since while she recognises that this last phase is likely to be "really difficult and demanding" she still believes that negotiations could be concluded by the end of the year, which would mean that membership in 2012 would become a possibility.

Whatever view you take on the likely progress of the talks, one topic on which it is hard to be optimistic in the short term is outlook for the Croation economy. Despite the fact that the country may not have too many difficulties complying with the original Maastricht Euro membership conditions, the newfound interest among those responsible for EuroGroup decisions for sustainability and longer term competitiveness mean that a country whose economy has as many structural distortions in it as Croatia’s does may well find a growing number of new obstacles thrown across its path.

Reeling Under The Shock

Unsurprisingly, the global economic and financial crisis have taken a significant toll on the Croatian economy. Given the background of a large current account deficit, a high level of external debt, and significant balance sheet exposures to interest and exchange rate risks, the pressure from reduced capital inflows was always going to cause problems, and it did: financial asset prices collapsed, sovereign spreads shot up, and the Zagreb stock market plunged.



As a result of the combined impact of the difficult external conditions which prevailed and the ending of the domestic credit boom Croatia’s GDP fell by some 5.8% in 2009, following a number of years of strong (if not sustainable) growth. Even though in the first three months of this year there were been some tentative signs of recovery the economy was still down by 2.5% on an annual basis.



Personal consumption fell by 4.1%, which was not surprising given that new credit has all but dried up, but more worryingly the drop in fixed capital investment accelerated to an annual 13.9% during the three month period. Government consumption fell for the third consecutive quarter and was down by 1.1%, and the only positive point was the net trade impact, since the export of goods and services rose by 3.6% (following five consecutive quarters of decline) goods and services imports fell by 4.8%.








Exports The Only Realistic Way To Pay Down The Debt

Given the high level of external indebtedness of the Croatian economy (net external debt is currently running at around 95% of GDP) and the sensitivity of the financial markets to fiscal deficits, there is likely to be little in the way of a revival in domestic demand, depending as it does on the availability of credit.

Which leaves exports to pull the cart. But this is where the high level of euroisation of the economy becomes a problem since obtaining export growth after many years where the country has run a substantial trade deficit is hardly going to be easy.






In fact financial euroization even increased during the crisis, and at the end of 2009 about 70 percent of the total bank credit and over 65 percent of bank deposits were either denominated in or indexed to foreign currency. As the IMF note in their latest report price and cost indicators suggest that competitiveness has been deteriorating in recent years and Croatia’s real effective exchange rate is surely overvalued. Yet all those Euro denominated loans make it very difficult for the authorities to contemplate outright devaluation of the kuna, while the prospect of having to manage an internal wage and price correction is hardly an attractive one, as we can see in the Latvian and other cases.

Croatia’s unit labor costs have risen significantly faster than those of its principal trading partners in recent years, due largely to the fact that wages in the private sector were pushed up by rapid wage growth in the public sector. As a result, the overall wage level is high relative to Croatia’s productivity following non-competitive wage setting in a public sector which employs around a quarter of the labor force, not counting public enterprises.

As the IMF note, rigidities in the Croatian economy are substantial, with strong labor regulations constraining labor market flexibility, resulting in high employment in the gray economy, a proliferation of temporary work contracts, both of which reduced employers’ incentives to expand employment during the boom years. The impact of the grey economy is clearly reflected in the disparity between the official unemployment rate (of around 19%) and the EU harmonised one accepted by Eurostat (which shows unemployment to be nearer 10%).




And Then There's Population Ageing To Worry About

Another factor to be taken into account is the rapid ageing of the Croatian population, following many years of very low fertility, and a steady increase of life expectancy. Croatia’s working age (16-65) population peaked in the early 1990s, and is now in long term decline, while the old age dependency ratio is set to rise and rise. Indeed about a quarter of Croatian population are now retired, a fact which also reflects the presence of relatively generous pension and social benefits conditions, benefits which were available during the years of increasing borrowing, but which are surely now hardly sustainable as the time comes to pay back some of the accumulated debt.







Looking ahead to the remainder of 2010 the contraction will most likely continue. The IMF forecast in April a miniscule 0.1% growth, but since that time optimism for the global expansion has waned, and in particular demand from many of Croatia’s trading partners is likely to be more muted than anticipated. Investment is unlikely to recover its earlier momentum, burdened as it is by an indebted private sector and a public sector looking to make cut-backs. Private consumption will also remain under the influence of the contraction in consumer credit. While exports should remain supportive, with imports continuing to remain low given the weak domestic demand, goods trade exports may not be as strong as some expect given the weaknesses in the European recovery, while tourism may well be affected by the high levels of unemployment which still exist in many of the relevant countries. Rising fiscal concerns will only add to the slowdown of the EU recovery (given the negative demand impact of the harsher fiscal policies) so a contraction of between 1% and 1.5% in 2010 does not seem unlikely.

In addition Croatia remains vulnerable to contagion risks from adverse market sentiment in the region. This contagion could take the form of tightening financial constraint such as a rise in borrowing costs, or a reduction in cross-border flows. On the other hand the absence of Greek banks in Croatia and the limited real sector linkages with Greece should minimize the risks of direct spillovers from that quarter. The real threat would come from a more generalised crisis across the EU’s Southern and Eastern periphery.


On The Brink Of What?

So, after living for many years on borrowed money and borrowed time, running a significant current account deficit and accumulating a large external debt, Croatians are now likely to be faced with the harsh reality of living in a rapidly ageing society at a time when external competiveness has been severely undermined.



In the short term the economy may have stabilised, but in the longer term the challenges are immense, and should not be underestimated. Like many economies across Eastern Europe, Croatia is going to have to straighten out the structural distortions and pay down its external debt at just the time the oncosts of societal ageing are going to start to bite deep.





In addition a rigid labour market and an overweight public sector pose serious problems for the transition to a dynamic and competitive economy. Many changes are needed, and most Croations are only all too well aware of this fact. But one factor which doesn’t seem to get the attention it deserves is the continuing threat to long term economic stability posed by having such a low (tfr 1.4 – or only two thirds of replacement) birth rate.






To make matters even worse, the wage differential with Croatia's West European neighbours means it is an attractive proposition for many young people to go abroad to work, and while the remittances all those migrant workers send back may be very welcome back home - especially given the difficulties Croatian industry has in selling abroad - a country with fertility well below the replacement rate should not be exporting labour to pay down a current account deficit. The way to settle the debts is to provide work in export industries so people will stay at home, and contribute to the maintenance of the health and pension systems.



Like most societies in Eastern and Southern Europe the Croatia needs to address this other imbalance, and it needs to start to do so soon, since the clock is ticking, and it won’t stop doing so. At this key moment in the country’s history it is hardly difficult to recognise that Croatia is effectively on the brink of something, but whether that something is going to be long term sustainability rather than something that it is better not to think about, well, the answer to that question can only be given by the Croatians themselves.

Too Soon To Cry "Victory" On Latvia?

"Doom-mongers" - the Economist tells us - "are licking their wounds". And why exactly are they licking their wounds? Well for two years now (apparently) they have been telling us that "the struggle to save the lat’s peg to the euro was bound to end in tears". As you could imagine right in the very forefront of these so called doom-mongers is to be found yours very truly (and here), and of course Nobel Economist Paul Krugman (and here).

But while I have never thought of myself as especially adverse to admitting defeat when faced with compelling reasons to do so, just why, we might ask ouselves, should we start to think about licking our wounds right now (and why our wounds, since it is poor old Latvia which has been subjected to all the blood-letting implied by this none-too-convincing "thought experiment" turned reality)?

Well, in the first place, given the dramatic current account correction, Latvia's outlook has been revised from negative to stable by Standard and Poor's rating agency, which means - when you get down to the nitty gritty - that they don't expect any further downward revisions in Latvia's sovereign credit rating in the next six months.

Standard & Poor’s, a rating agency, has raised its outlook on Latvia’s debt from negative to stable (ie, it no longer expects further downgrades). The current account, in deficit to the tune of 27% of GDP in late 2006, is in surplus. Exports are recovering. Interest rates have plunged and debt spreads over German bonds have narrowed (see chart). Fraught negotiations with the IMF and the European Union have kept a €7.5 billion ($10 billion) bail-out on track, in return for spending cuts and tax rises worth a tenth of GDP.

And anyway, Latvia is not as bad as Greece.

Even so, Latvia looks good when compared with Greece. It did not lie about its public finances or use accounting tricks. Strikes have been scanty. Protests are fought in the courts, not the streets. Both Greece and Latvia have had hard knocks, but Greeks became used to a good life that they are loth to give up. Latvians remain glad just to be on the map.

As evidence for just how much better Latvia is doing than Greece the Economist cite the movements in the respective bond spreads, and of course, the extra interest the Greek government has to pay to raise money (with respect to equivalent German bonds) is now marginally more than the extra interest Latvia has to pay, but then Greece has yet to go to the IMF.



But just in case both these arguments seem rather like clutching at straws when compared to the "gravitas" of the situation, there is a "clincher".

"despite a fall in GDP last year of 17.5%, Latvia seems to have achieved
something many thought impossible: an internal devaluation. This meant regaining competitiveness not by currency depreciation but by deep cuts in wages and public spending. In a recent discussion of Greece, Jörg Asmussen, a German minister, praised Latvia for its self-discipline".

Well, I'm sure that having a positive reference from a German minister in a discussion on Greece is a positive sign, but hang on a minute: just what internal devaluation is our author talking about here, and what deep cuts in wages and salaries? According to the latest available data from the Latvian Statistics Office, average wages in Latvia were down 10% in September 2009 over 2008, but since wages in September 2008 were up 6.5% over wages in September 2007, when the Latvian economy was already in deep trouble and wages and prices were already seriously out of line, then they have only actually fallen back some 4.15% over the two year period. I am sure these cuts are painful (a 20% unemployment rate, and young people emigrating is even more painful), but I would hardly call this a "deep cut" yet awhile.

The thing to remember here is the difficult characterists imposed by the presence of a peg. Latvian real wages (when adjusted for inflation) may well have fallen more, but this is to no avail (and simply makes the internal consumption problem worse), since what matters are the Euro equivalent prices of Latvian wages and exports. This is one of the reasons why in these circumstances a peg is such a horrible thing.

And if you're still not very convinced, let's try the Eurostat equivalent data for average hourly wage costs, which had in fact only fallen by 3.5% year on year in the third quarter of 2009.



Why the difference between average wages and average hourly labour costs? Well, given the depth of the recession people are obviously earning less, since they are working less, but this doesn't help overall competitiveness, since what matters here is the hourly cost of each unit of labour. I'm sorry if this is all fairly turgid economic data stuff (yawn, yawn, yawn) but if you want to cry victory, you really do need to check your facts a bit first.

In fact, as I said in my last post, additional evidence from the consumer price index suggests the "internal devaluation" is only working at a hellishly slow pace. Prices were only down by 3.3% in January 2010 over January 2009 according to the latest HICP data from Eurostat.



And while producer prices have fallen a little further - by 6.6% in January over January 2009 - there is still a long long way to go.


Basically there is no doubt that Latvia's great economic fall may be coming to an end, but as I explained in this post here, that is not the same thing at all as resuming growth. To get back to growth Latvia's internal devaluation needs to be driven hard enough and deep enough to generate a sufficient export surplus to drive headline economic growth at a sufficient speed to start creating jobs again. This is not about a fiscal adjustment, it never was, and it is little consolation for Latvia to be compared with Greece and told that they are doing just that little bit better. Cry Victory we are told, and unlease the jobs of war. Would that things were as easy done as said!

Estonia's Economy "Only" Contracts By 9.4% in Q4 2009

Hard on the heals of yesterday's Latvian GDP numbers we now have news that Estonia’s economy shrank at the slowest annual pace in a year at the end of 2009 as a modest recovery in exports and one-time stock-building helped offset the impact of the continuing decline in consumer spending. In fact gross domestic product fell 9.4 percent, which compares with a 15.6 percent drop in the third quarter, and a 16.1 percent decline in the second one. So the recession is evidently easing.



Indeed, startling as it may sound, the economy even grew during the quarter - by a seasonally adjusted 2.6 percent when compared with the third quarter. The news caused some surprise as even the Estonian Finance Ministry had been expecting worse results - an annual contraction of something in the region of 11 to 12 percent. The critical little detail is that the numbers were skewed, since they were affected by a one-off stock- building effect, according to the Finance Ministry, since companies built up their inventories in anticipation of a January tax increase on tobacco, alcohol and motor fuels. As the ministry also added, economic growth will thus see a “negative effect” in the first quarter of 2010 as inventories will inevitably be run down again.

"The alcohol, tobacco and motor fuel excises were applied in the beginning of the year, so the stocks of those products were increased, and that gave a positive move to the GDP in the fourth quarter, but will give a negative influence in the beginning of this year,” according to Andrus Sääsk Head of Macroeconomy at the Ministry of Finance.

No Sign Of Any Real Recovery




So, as we are seeing in the other Baltic States, the recession is gradually winding down, but there is no end to the agony in sight, since structural distortions in the economies produced by the earlier boom will impede any immediate recovery. If we look at retail sales the pattern is similar to what we are seeing elsewhere, and these are now down about 28% from their February 2008 peak.

A similar situation is to be observed in industrial output, which fell back again in December (by a seasonally adjusted 2.2% from November) according to statistics office data. Industrial output is now down 32.5% from the February 2008 peak.

And while exports have picked up slightly from the first quarter 2009 trough, momentum has not been strong enough yet to reverse the deadweight drag of domestic consumption.

The goods trade deficit has improved - indeed the 2009 deficit was the smallest since 1995 - but it is still a deficit, although the country does run a healthy services balance.

And the services balance is what makes the difference in turning the current account deficit into a surplus.

On the other hand unemployment continues to rise, and is the third highest in the European Union (after Latvia and Spain), hitting 15.2% in September - which is the last month for which the Eurostat has data at this point. Indeed statistics regularity and quality is one of the issues which Estonia will need to attend to as part of its general euro ambitions, as the ECB took the trouble to point out recently.



Demographic Issues Also Need To Be Addressed

Estonia's population fell again in 2009 - by 400 - and was estimated by the statistics office to be in the region of 1,340,000 at the end of the year. A falling death rate meant the population decline slowed down over the year, but the number of live births decreased for the first time in eight years (see chart below), raising issues about the longer term impact of the crisis. Some 15,807 live births were registered in total in 2009 - 221 birth less than in 2008.

While the situation is a lot less serious than the one Latvia faces, the downturn in Estonian births is a rather bitter blow for a country where fertility had rebounded substantially from earlier lows, and while the 1.6Tfr was still a long way from population replacement level, the improvement had been a welcome one.


Credit Rating Improvement

Estonia's credit rating outlook was raised this week by Standard & Poor’s, from negative to stable. More than the improvement, what is interesting is the reason given, since the agency cited improving prospects for euro adoption next year. This has both a positive and a negative reading. The positive reading is that S&Ps think Estonia will meet the eurozone membership criteria. The negative one is that the improvement is not due to any underlying change in the country's growth prospects, which are at the end of the day the main area of immediate concern.

Indeed S&Ps have an A- rating, the fourth-lowest investment grade, on Estonia and the move to stable from negative, means the rating is more likely to be left unchanged than raised or lowered. The rating was in fact cut from A last August, and evidently losing the A- rating would give a rather negative signal given that the ECB is about to return to at least one A- as the minimum collateral condition.

“Estonia has stabilized its public finances, which significantly increases its prospects for eurozone accession in 2011,” S&P’s Frankfurt-based Kai Stukenbrock and London-based Frank Gill said in a statement. The “outlook reflects our view of Estonia’s improving economic flexibility and the prospect of near-term eurozone accession against the challenges inherent in adapting the economy to lessen its reliance on external funds.”

Fitch currently has a BBB+ rating on Estonia, and the outlook on this was also raised to stable from negative on February 5. Moody’s Investors Service has an A1 rating on Estonia with a negative outlook.

Euro adoption terms require countries to maintain fiscal deficits below 3 percent of GDP, limit debt to 60 percent of GDP and ensure inflation isn’t more than 1.5 percentage points above the Eurozone average, and Estonia has met all the criteria, according to Prime Minister Ansip speaking yesterday. Whether Ansip's optimism is totally justified or not the EU Commission and the European Central Bank will publish their report assessing Estonia’s readiness to join sometime in May, and (assuming this is favourable) the Ecofin council of EU finance ministers will take the critical decision on entry on June 8.

But as Fitch pointed out when they raised their Estonia outlook, while eurozone membership looks increasingly possible it is not yet certain. Fitch warned in their report that even if Estonia meat all the formal Maastricht reference criteria for euro entry there is still a risk that the European authorities' interpretation of these same criteria could lead them to reject Estonia's application. According to Fitch, in Estonia's case uncertainty surrounded whether the idea of "sustainable price performance" was going to be consistent with the deflation which is to be expected from such a severe recession, after inflation had so recently been in the double digit range. The agency also added that one-off measures taken by the government to reduce the budget deficit in 2009 could also count against it in the EU authorities' judgment of whether the medium-term budget plans are credible.

The first point is an important one I think. If we go back to the 172 page EU Commission document leaked to the German magazine Der Spiegel last month, the EU Stability and Growth Pact is increasingly going to focus on issues surrounding competitiveness as well as on fiscal deficit ones. That is what the whole deabate over the Greek and Spanish economies which EU leaders are engaging in this week is all about. And any country which is not considered to be in completely good health under the SGP criteria is hardly likely to get the green light from the ECB and Ecofin.

It is obvious that the Estonian economy is still suffering from earlier structural distortions which have not yet been corrected. If we come to the consumer price index, this was only down about 2% in 2009, far short of the deflationary adjustment which will be needed to restore growth and competitiveness.



The producer price index has also not moved as far and as fast as will be needed, since it was only down some 3% on the year.



So the sad truth is that, whether from inside or outside the eurozone, despite some extensive and painful sacrifices made in not having government spending to fall back on during an extraordinarily deep recession - but then, as Krugman would say, Estonia's problems were never fiscal ones anyway, they were always competitiveness ones - there is still a long hard road out there in front. Whatever the advantages and disadvantages of the chosen path one thing is for sure, it will be absolutely impossible for the country to leave the job half done.