| |
Ethos Issue 6, Jul 2009
Singapore’s Economic Growth Model:
Too Much or Too Little?
Linda Lim

IMPLICATIONS FOR SINGAPORE’S
GROWTH MODEL
These time-tested economic maxims
boil down to one prognosis for
Singapore’s economic model—you can’t
have everything, even without size and
resource constraints. Trying to achieve
comparative advantage in too many
sectors at once will only push up resource
costs, aggravate negative externalities
such as inflation and environmental
degradation, and result in reduced
competitiveness overall.3 Competitive
advantage based on economies of scale,
first-comer and agglomeration or cluster
advantages derived from government
policy, rather than geographical
resources, are probably unsustainable.
GLOBALISATION AND GROWTH
But doesn’t globalisation enable us to
increase our resource base by importing
labour, skills and capital; and to expand
our market to the world and thus benefit
from economies of scale, even though
we are small? Don’t globalisation and
technological innovation enable us both
to tap more resources, and to utilise
them more efficiently?
It is true that Singapore has benefited
enormously from globalisation, in
both factor and product markets. But
there are also constraints, diminishing
returns, and additional risks.
One risk was identified by Lee Tsao
Yuan,4 then Alwyn Young5,6 and Paul
Krugman in the 1990s.7 They showed
that Singapore’s economic growth
in the 1970s and 1980s had occurred
mainly through factor accumulation
(the addition of inputs of labour and capital) rather than increased factor
productivity (producing more with the
same labour and capital).
Since 1990, however, Singapore’s
growth has demonstrated increased
product ivity (to which global
competition and foreign inputs of
capital, skills and technology have
contributed). But the ready availability
of foreign inputs potentially or actually
deters better utilisation of domestic
resources—because of the temptation to
just add more input to get more output.
Imports of unskilled foreign labour may
artificially preserve the competitiveness
of labour-intensive activities (such as
construction), retarding the reallocation
of complementary resources to more
productive uses. Imports of skilled foreign
talent and foreign capital may have the
unintended consequence of "crowding
out" or even "chasing away" local talent,
capital and entrepreneurship, as would
an over-present role of the state in
the economy.8
Given Singapore’s land scarcity,
foreign labour and capital contribute
to domestic inf lationary pressures
that could undermine the cost-competitiveness
of various sectors.
Imports of capital also add to persistent
current account surpluses and large
foreign exchange reserves in putting
upward pressure on the exchange rate,
again undermining cost-competitiveness.
CHALLENGES IN
THE POST-CRISIS WORLD
Singapore’s small and open economy
is extremely vulnerable to global
contagion effects. As major markets in
the US, Europe and Japan have fallen
into recession, Singapore’s exports have
declined, particularly in the highly
capital-intensive, risky and volatile
electronics and pharmaceutical sectors
targeted by the state. Recessions also
usually produce global consolidations of
industry, with smaller, more peripheral
locations the most likely to be abandoned
first. Discretionary spending falls,
especially for luxury consumption, and
the global tourism sector—including the
casino industry—has been hit hard.
Since the 1997-98 Asian financial
crisis, the benefits of free capital flows
have been increasingly challenged
by academic research. Their costs
have been heightened by the 2008
crisis, which saw even well-managed
emerging market economies severely
hit by capital flight. Capital deleveraging
and increased risk-aversion
and regulation worldwide post-crisis
will shrink financial sectors and crossborder
capital flows, with some possible
retreat from globalisation toward
"localisation of finance". Increased
political risk and uncertainty will also
discourage investment in sectors where
government policy influences returns, such as pharmaceuticals and medical
tourism by American consumers,
with health-care reform under the
Obama administration.
I I |
|