What reconstruction spending does to an economy
Large inflows of reconstruction money are not simply good news for the receiving economy. Managing them badly produces inflation, an overvalued currency and a distorted labour market.
It is tempting to treat reconstruction financing as an unambiguous benefit. The historical record of large aid inflows says otherwise, and the difference between the good cases and the bad ones lies in management rather than in amount.
The three risks
Absorption. If money arrives faster than the construction sector can build, the effect is higher prices for the same output. Contractors raise bids because they can, and the aid buys less than its nominal value.
Exchange rate appreciation. Large foreign currency inflows push up the real exchange rate, which makes exports less competitive. A country rebuilding its housing can find it has damaged its manufacturing while doing so.
Labour reallocation. Construction wages rise and pull workers out of tradeable sectors, and those workers do not automatically return when the building stops.
What mitigates them
Sequencing: matching the pace of disbursement to demonstrated capacity rather than to political timetables.
Spending a substantial share on imports of equipment and materials, which absorbs foreign currency instead of converting it and relieves domestic capacity at the same time.
Investing in the supply side early, so that capacity grows ahead of the money.
And keeping a share of the inflow in reserves rather than spending all of it in the year received.
The uncomfortable implication
The right speed of reconstruction is not the maximum speed. A programme that spends more slowly and builds more is better than one that spends everything and builds less.
Why it should be said now
Because these decisions are made in the first year of a programme and are very hard to reverse afterwards.
The first effect of a large inflow shows up in price lists: concrete, haulage and the day rate for a fitter all rise in the same week. If money grows while capacity is fixed, the result is not more building but the same building costing more. That is why the speed of reconstruction will be set not by the size of the funds but by how fast capacity grows.
Share this analysis
Comments