Simple Tools To Evaluate Political Projects (2)

In this post we look at the size of the cake which is the one of the two parts of the political project as we defined it in the first post in this series. We can have an idea of the economic cake that a government will generate if we analyse what politicians say, have in their electoral manifesto and have said and done before. We can also look at 5-year periods as it is the frequency at which the very interesting household budget survey (HBS) is carried out. This is done in the following chart.

The 8.5% led to the first 60-0. It's an interesting period where one cyclone wiped out two years of progress. Don't think voters were able to separate this from the skill level of the government they had at the time. The years 1982 to 1992 were free of major natural calamities, benefited from the great work done in earlier periods and happened in a very favourable international environment. That gave us the two biggest cakes of the thirty-five-year period.

The cake contracted by about 10 percentage points over the following ten years -- during which the second 60-0 happened -- and another 5 percentage points between 2002-07. The consolidation of our textile industry occurred in the latter period. Finally the last period is the first 5 years of the Sithanen flat tax. Pretty small numbers given the 8% growth that was promised to trickle down. 8% growth over five years is a cake that increases by 46.9%. This has contributed to a GDP gap of Rs269bn by the end of 2012. A cake smaller than expected of course translates into governments that get less done and increases the odds of getting booted out of power.

External Factors are Unfavourable Only When Berenger and Sithanen Are in Government, Right?

Wrong. Take sugar for example. It's one of Sithanen's Triple External Shocks and one of the reasons he's put the middle-class and the poor on a strict diet for almost four years now. But sugar was already a small sector back in 2005 -- 4.2% as the above table indicates and close to 2% this year -- so that the initial 5% reduction in the price we sell our sugar at would have reduced growth by about a fifth of a percent. Not a lot you will concur.

Compare that to 30 years ago when sugar represented close to 19% of our economy and was hit by a pretty little thing called Claudette. That led to a sharp contraction in our national production in 1980 with the sugar sector responsible for over three quarters of the 10% decline in output. That year also witnessed the second oil shock with the real price hitting a level that was to be surpassed only last year. And as if that was not enough a new chairman of the Federal Reserve by the name of Paul Volcker took office and stopped targeting interest rates. The latter of course were to go through the roof and plunge the world economy into a nasty recession.