Crikey



The real factor holding back productivity (hint: it’s not labour)

Last week was bank profit bonanza season, during which very senior bankers took their moment in the sun to declare that Australia needed to press forward with a reform agenda aimed at boosting national productivity. Ian Narev of the Commonwealth Bank, Mike Smith of ANZ and Brian Hartzer of Westpac all, in their own way, declared that as a nation we should get out of the way of markets and let creative destruction shift capital to its most productive uses.

It is an admirable sentiment that makes perfect sense in theory. Productivity growth is the key to national prosperity, never more so than in Australia right now as we struggle with failing competitiveness after the mining boom.

But Australia’s senior bankers should perhaps pause for a moment to reflect upon how productivity works. Capital efficiency is a key input into the equation and has been dragging the chain far more than labour for the past decade. Some of that is the result of a capital-intensive mining boom, yet to see its big returns, but another unexamined factor is also strongly at work. The price of land is a key input cost for most businesses. So when costs are inflated, it reduces the competitiveness of industry, making it harder for Australia to compete abroad. The associated higher housing cost also places upward pressure on wages.

For decades, the resource allocation governed by the banks has been channeled away from the tradable sector and infrastructure investment towards the financial sector, as home buyers have taken on ever-bigger mortgages and chased house prices higher. It should be no surprise that the finance and insurance industries — which are dominated by mortgage lending — have grown at more than twice the pace of the rest of the economy since financial markets were deregulated in the mid-1980s, due in part to the housing quango operated by the various levels of government (see below charts) …

finance

Australia’s housing obsession has also starved productive sectors of the economy of credit. In the early 1990s, Australia’s banks lent nearly two-thirds to businesses, with the balance split between housing and personal lending. However, after the mid-1990s explosion of housing values, these ratios have reversed, with housing lending dominating at the expense of businesses …

To add insult to injury, much of the boom in mortgage lending has been funded by heavy offshore borrowing by Australia’s banks, in turn driving up Australia’s net foreign debt.

At the heart of the problem are Australia’s unique mix of tax concessions, such as negative gearing, a constipated supply system, and major banks that use internal risk models that make mortgage lending their most profitable business. The end result is too much of the nation’s capital is tied-up in housing, which has choked-off productive areas of the economy.

At MacroBusiness we estimate that a considerable slice of Australia’s declining multi-factor productivity (MFP) has resulted from escalating land prices. My colleague Cameron Murray explains:

Page 1 of 2 | Next page

Tags: , , , , ,

Categories: Economy

9 Responses

Comments page: 1 |
  1. Reasonable argument supported by evidence, but too deep for electoral politics as practiced in this country so worker bashing will continue. Preconditions for change - housing bubble pops and oil price prunes back importers.

    by Liamj on Feb 17, 2014 at 11:40 am

  2. Looks like a good article, but your graphs are too small to read.

    by Najiv Private on Feb 17, 2014 at 12:13 pm

  3. An excellent piece Leith and a point I’ve tried to make on several occasions with the dolts at Business Spectator. I’m not sure where they got their economic credential, if they actually have any, but they’re certainly not using them. I wonder why? I eventually gave up reading ther crap and decided the argument must have some validity as they refused to publish any of my missives. Cest la vie.

    by Daniel Davids on Feb 17, 2014 at 1:04 pm

  4. Najiv, if the graphs are too small for your fancy, I suggest viewing through your browser. See the link at the top of the daily email version.

    If the display is still too small, type [CTRL+] to enlarge and [CTRL-] to reduce.

    Thanks, Leith, for demonstrating that economics needs not involve discussions with hundreds of parameters and vague conclusions.

    It will be interesting, indeed, to read the Murray Report when it is released. He may well use his special knowledge and understanding in the interests of our nation, as against those of his former shareholders, and call just as eloquently for changes to the tax rules which favour locking our nation’s capital away in real estate - which may eventually prove not to be quite as real was hoped.

    by JohnB on Feb 17, 2014 at 2:11 pm

  5. Bankers demand a reform agenda to boost productivity’
    They also demand tax payer bailouts, austerity measures, create housing bubbles and financial crises, shut down farms and businesses, central banks have got away with money laundering, price fixing, dealing with south american drug lords etc etc, and Hockey wants to deal with these people?

    by dazza on Feb 17, 2014 at 3:20 pm

  6. The RBA is off loading a residential property they own in Kirribilli Sydney. Are they selling with inside knowledge that the property market is a about to tank?
    Who knows as these are the people who sold 167 tonnes of our gold at the lowest possible price in 1997.

    by negativegearmiddleclasswelfarenow.com on Feb 17, 2014 at 3:20 pm

  7. @ negati… ..
    Hope Crikey keep this on their radar .. who will benefit?

    by dazza on Feb 17, 2014 at 5:09 pm

  8. negativegearmiddleclasswelfarenow.com “old 167 tonnes of our gold at the lowest possible price in 1997”

    Ahh - the genius of Peter Costello. The bugger keeps his snout in the public purse - given his previous record he should be forced to work for free.

    by bjb on Feb 17, 2014 at 7:08 pm

  9. So, if I understand what you are saying, house and land prices are too high, and banks are lending too much money to buy houses and land. I am not sure what you mean by “housing obsession”. People have to have a place to live. Is it an obsession with so-called investment properties, perhaps?

    You give as reasons tax concessions, “a constipated supply” system, and bank’s internal risk models. I see no mention of demand or of population. Why is this?

    A “constipated supply” system presumably refers either to the problem of developing virgin land fast enough, or to redeveloping existing suburbs to put up high rises. Could it be that the problem is not supply, but demand? Demand that comes from population growth through excessive immigration as well as foreign investment in housing attracted by rising prices.

    Damn! I mentioned population again. I must be a racist.

    by Scott Grant on Feb 18, 2014 at 5:10 pm

« | »