 |
|
Big Distortion in the Iranian Economy! |
What is the main engine of destruction of production and household welfare
in Iran? Although experts have provided various answers to this question and
put it on the policymaking table, two prominent economists believe that a
major distortion is the main engine of destruction of resources,
productive activities and family wellbeing in the Iranian economy.
 |
Hashem Pesaran believes that the issue of price distortion is
the most important domestic issue
of the Iranian economy, because they determine how resources
are allocated in the economy of relative prices.
|
Professor Hashem Pesaran and Dr. Mousa Ghaninejad consider the most
important problem of Irans economy to be the distortion of relative prices.
According to this top economist, in the last five years, the distortion of
relative prices by the formula of pricing or subsidizing has caused both
producers and consumers to be misunderstood. Under these circumstances, both
the welfare of the household has been destroyed and the flow of investment
in production has shifted towards speculation in assets.
In a situation where relative prices are distorted, household consumption of
useful and essential goods decreases, but consumption of non-useful goods in
the household basket increases. Disturbances in relative prices also justify
resource degradation and speculation over productive investment.
Hashem Pesaran believes that the issue of price distortion is the most
important domestic issue of the Iranian economy, because they determine how
resources are allocated in the economy of relative prices. According to him,
although this is done in the name of supporting vulnerable groups, it is a
waste of resources with improper signaling. Mousa Ghaninejad also believes
that prices contain information about the scarcity and relative utility of
goods in the economy, on the basis of which economic actors, both consumers
and producers, make decisions; but it should be noted that in the open
market the price reflects real information without the intervention of the
government and it is based on this vital information about the relative
scarcity of resources that actors can make rational decisions about what
they want.
 |
Mousa Ghaninejad is another economist who emphasizes that price
distortion is the most important issue in Irans economy.
|
According to this economist, when the government arbitrarily sets the price
of a commodity regardless of the economic logic of the market (opportunity
cost), it is in fact misinforming economic actors about the scarcity of
valuable resources, which in turn leads them to a wrong course in decision
making in terms of public interest. To avoid wasting resources and moving in
the right direction, correcting relative prices according to the economic
logic of the market is the first necessary and inevitable measure.
An important issue concerning Irans economy
Hashem Pesaran points to the issue of price distortion as the most important
internal problem of the Iranian economy. He emphatically says:
From foreign perspective, the most important issue of Irans economy
is the sanctions, but today most of the domestic and foreign economists
agree that the issue of price distortion is the most important domestic
issue. According to Pesaran, people usually understand prices in monetary
terms, but what matters is how much these goods are priced relative to each
other. For example, it is important for the Iranian consumer what the prices
of meat, gasoline and poultry are, but for an economist it is important how
relative prices work in this economy. For example, what is the price of a
plane ticket compared to gasoline? The importance of this lies in the fact
that the determinants of how resources are allocated in the economy are
relative prices, because, for example, if the price of meat rises
significantly relative to the price of chicken, investors would invest more
to make more profit in producing or importing meat. According to Pesaran,
the problem with Irans economy is that these prices have been distorted.
When the prices of gasoline, water and electricity are kept too low compared
to the prices of other goods, the economy will face many problems; although
such a policy is aimed at helping the poor, it also benefits the wealthy. At
the same time, Iran is also facing problems in terms of water resources,
while we are exporting agricultural products to the Persian Gulf countries.
As another example, the low-priced electricity causes economic justification
for digging of deep wells and extraction of water, and use the water to
cultivate and export products that are not compatible with the arid climate
of Iran; here we can see how the distortion of electricity prices leads to
the inappropriate allocation of other economic resources. So for half a
century we have been distorting relative prices which in turn hurt the
economy as a whole.
Why are relative prices important?
Mousa Ghaninejad is another economist who emphasizes that price distortion
is the most important issue in Irans economy. According to him, the price
in the market is relative, so talking about the relative price is just a
reminder. Since the price in the market is always expressed in a certain
currency, the suspicion arises that the price of one commodity represents a
fact independent of the price of other commodities; while in reality this is
not the case. Prices primarily contain information about the scarcity and
relative utility of goods in the economy, on the basis of which economic
actors, both consumers and producers, make decisions, but it should be noted
that in the open market, prices provide real information without government
intervention. It is based on this data about the relative scarcity of
resources that actors can make rational decisions about what they want.
Ghaninejad cites an interesting example:
A friend recounted that during a trip to Baku in the late Soviet era, he
witnessed that the kitchen gas flame was never extinguished at home; because
the cost of buying matches was higher than using the gas, which was provided
to households almost free of charge.
This irrational and even dangerous behavior is the result of the reflection
of information far from the truth of distorted and manipulated prices that
we are witnessing in our country too. When the government arbitrarily sets
the price of a commodity regardless of the economic logic of the market
(opportunity cost), it is in fact misinforming economic actors about the
scarcity of valuable resources, which results in leading them to the wrong
decision in terms of public interest. To avoid wasting resources and moving
in the right direction, correcting relative prices according to the economic
logic of the market is the first necessary and inevitable step.
Finally, Ghaninejad underlines a key point: Monetary and fiscal
policies must be defined in a general and consistent manner in the context
of relative price reform. Subjecting price reforms to improve macroeconomic
conditions, such as reducing inflation, is virtually a suspension of making
total reforms impossible; Because one of the main causes of inflation is the
same government budget deficit caused by the unreasonable auction of
national resources, including petroleum products and foreign exchange
resources. A necessary and, of course, not sufficient condition for monetary
and financial discipline is the correction of relative prices according to
the economic logic of the market.
Two destructive effects of price distortion
Distortion of relative prices in the Iranian economy, in addition to
disrupting signaling to members of society, has caused two important harms;
first, it has reduced investment in production and increased the share of
unproductive investments in the economy. As a result, many households have
been struggling to reduce their calorie intake over the past decade.
In an economy, prices play a key role in the coordination between economic
resources, and any disturbance in these prices would confuse economic actors
and would lead to inefficient and incorrect allocation of economic
resources. Irans economy has witnessed widespread government interference
in the pricing of various goods and services for many years. Despite the
negative consequences of this action, the losses caused by these pricing
were mainly compensated by government resources derived from the sale of
oil, and it was possible to continue the policy of price control in spite of
all its losses.
Diversion of economic incentives
The behavior of economic actors in the country has led to a situation where
we see excessive investment and development of some activities and
insufficient investment in other sectors; A form of unbalanced development
among different sectors of the economy that has led to significant anomalies
and loss of capital. While government control of some prices has led to
better consumption of energy and energy-producing goods, a significant
decline in household welfare in the consumption of basic goods and housing
indicates the failure of these one-sided efforts with price control tools.
Comparison of relative prices in Iran and other countries
For the effect of price intervention, the prices of several goods in Iran
and other countries can be compared. For example, the ratio of the price of
one kilogram of meat to one liter of gasoline in most countries is about
10, while in our country this figure reaches 92; as another example,
studies show that the price per square meter of house to gasoline, in Iran
is very high compared to other countries. This shows that due to the
prescribed price of energy carriers and inflation turnover to food or
housing, this ratio in the Iranian economy is different compared to other
countries. This will send a destructive signal both on the household table
and in the industrial sector.
Consequence of playing with prices
Price control by the government has been the mainstay of the economy in
recent decades, where the government tries to control the prices of various
goods under the pretext of achieving various goals, from improving household
livelihoods to creating opportunities for domestic industries against
foreign competitors; an action that seems to be in the policymakers lack of
understanding of how prices work in the economy and causes them to never be
aware of the possible consequences of their action. The manipulation of
prices has had its effect both in the corporate and industrial sectors and
in the household table sector.
The reduction of investment in production and the inflow of capital into
unproductive activities, i.e. assets, is one of the main consequences.
Controlling energy prices has led to the expansion of energy-intensive
industries in the country, industries that do not see any economic
justification for improving technology and productivity due to low fuel
prices; and therefore over time, their profit margins depend on this cheap
energy. In addition to unprofitable production, this also makes new
investment irrelevant. This strengthens the incentive to invest in the
unproductive sector and speculative activities.
On the other hand, the consequences of this price control do not only affect
the industries but households also suffer from them, while due to low-priced
energy, household consumption of goods related to this sector increases,
while in terms of inexpensive use in other sectors it decreases
considerably. Because if we consider inflation as one of the main causes of
declining household welfare, the main cause of inflation is the same
government budget deficit resulting from the unreasonable auction of
government oil resources.
The problem is exacerbated by the fact that this production, based on cheap
energy and household consumption, exceeds the energy production capacity,
and we see that in the middle of summer, the country suffers from power
outages and gas supply to power plants is cut off. It is a rare occurrence
for a country that is one of the largest producers of oil and gas in the
world to cut off electricity and gas supply to its households and
industries. Now, if the level of energy consumption of enterprises and
households was balanced and the government could export its energy
resources, it would not suffer from budget deficits and inflation, and it
could invest these resources in the infrastructure sector. |
