Glenn P. Jenkins Queen s University, Kingston, Canada and Eastern Mediterranean University, North Cyprus

Transcription

1 COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS FOR INVESTMENT DECISIONS, CHAPTER 1: ECONOMIC PRICES FOR TRADABLE GOODS AND SERVICES Glenn P. Jenkins Queen s University, Kingston, Canaa an Eastern Meiterranean University, North Cyprus Development Discussion Paper: ABSTRACT Chun-Yan Kuo Queen s University, Kingston, Canaa Arnol C. Harberger University of California, Los Angeles, USA In the integrate financial an economic analysis, there is a nee to choose a numeraire in which all costs an benefits are expresse. The most common practice has been to express all costs an benefits in terms of omestic currency at a omestic price level. This is the natural rule to follow for the construction of the financial cash flow statement of a project that inclues all the financial receipts an all the expenitures in each perio throughout the uration of the project. When this numeraire is chosen to carry out the economic appraisal of the project it is necessary, however, to ajust the values of the transactions in the financial cash flow that involve internationally traable goos because of istortions associate with the transactions of these goos an those that affect the market for foreign exchange. This chapter ientifies the key istinct characteristics between traable an non-traable goos an provies a metho for ajusting the financial values of traable goos so that they reflect their economic values. To Be Publishe As: Jenkins G. P, C. Y. K Kuo an A.C. Harberger, Economic Prices For Traable Goos An Services Chapter 1, Cost-Benefit Analysis for Investment Decisions. (211 manuscript) JEL coe(s): H43 Keywors: traable, non-traable, importables, exportables, imports, exports, economic costs, economic benefits.

2 CHAPTER 1 ECONOMIC PRICES FOR TRADABLE GOODS AND SERVICES 1.1 Introuction In the integrate financial an economic analysis, there is a nee to choose a numeraire in which all costs an benefits are expresse. The most common practice has been to express all costs an benefits in terms of omestic currency at a omestic price level. 1 This is the natural rule to follow for the construction of the financial cash flow statement of a project that inclues all the financial receipts an all the expenitures in each perio throughout the uration of the project. When this numeraire is chosen to carry out the economic appraisal of the project it is necessary, however, to ajust the values of the transactions in the financial cash flow that involve internationally traable goos because of istortions associate with the transactions of these goos an those that affect the market for foreign exchange. Traable goos or services can be either importable or exportable. In the case of importable goos that are transporte from the borer to the project site, it will unoubtely involve aitional non-traable service charges for the project such as hanling charges an transportation costs that are usually istorte in the market an thus the values must be ajuste in the economic evaluation. Likewise, for exportable goos where a project is consiering proucing their proucts to the export markets or using an exportable goo as a project input, the financial value of the prouct (at factory gate) presente in the financial cash flow statement is generally etermine in the worl market an then net of port charges an transportation costs from the port to the omestic market. The costs of these non-traable services are also istorte in the markets an ajustments must be mae in eriving the net economic value of the project output or 1 Some authors are concerne that oing the analysis in terms of omestic prices might not provie a soun evaluation of the projects. See Appenix 1A. 1

3 project input. The evaluation of these non-traable services from the project site to the borer will be ealt with in the following chapter. Section 1.2 ientifies the key economic characteristics of traable an non-traable goos. Section 1.3 escribes how to integrate the financial values an various istortions into the economic evaluation of traable goos. Section 1.4 provies a practical example how the economic values of various traable project outputs an inputs can be measure. Conclusions are mae in the last section. 1.2 Ientification of Traable Goos To begin, we nee to efine the relationship between importe an importable goos, between exporte an exportable goos, an between non-trae an potentially trae goos Importe an Importable Goos Importe goos are prouce in a foreign country but are sol omestically. Importable goos inclue imports plus all goos prouce an sol omestically that are close substitutes for either importe or potentially importe goos. The relationship between importable an importe goos can be seen in Figure 1.1 for the case of an item such as power han tools use as a project input. Suppose the items purchase by a project are manufacture locally. At the same time a significant quantity is also being importe. The emaner s willingness to pay for this item is shown by the eman curve AD while the omestic marginal cost of prouction is shown by the supply curve BS. If all imports were prohibite, then the equilibrium price woul be at P an the quantity emane an supplie woul be at Q. Because importe goos can be purchase abroa an sol in the omestic market at a price of P m which is equal to the cif price of imports converte into local currency by the 2

4 market exchange rate, plus any tariffs an taxes levie on imports. This price will place a ceiling on the amount omestic proucers can charge an thus will etermine both the quantity of omestic supply as well as the quantity emane by consumers. When the market price is P m, omestic proucers will maximize their profits if they prouce only S Q because at this level of output they will be equating the market price with their marginal costs. On the other han, emaners will want to purchase Q because it is at this quantity at which their eman price is just equal to the worl-market-etermine price P m. The country s imports of the goo measure by the amount ( Q - Q ) are equal to the ifference between what emaners eman an omestic proucers supply at a price of P m. S Price/unit Figure 1.1: Importe an Importable Goos -- The Case of Power Han Tools Use as Project Input -- C A S Domestic Supply of Importables P P m E F G Supply of Importe Goos B D 1 D Domestic Deman for Importables Q Q Q S Q 1 Quantity Supplie an Demane 3

5 If a project now purchases the item as an input, this can be shown as a shift in its eman from AD to CD 1. Unlike a situation where there are no imports, the increase in eman oes not cause the market price to rise. This is because a change in the eman for such a trae goo in one country will in virtually all cases not lea to a perceptible change in the worl price for the commoity. As long as the price of imports remains constant, the increase in the quantity emane leaves the omestic supply of the goo unaffecte at Q. The ultimate effect of an increase in the eman for the importable goo is to S increase the quantity of imports by the full amount ( Q -Q ). Thus, to evaluate the economic cost of an importable goo, we nee to only estimate the economic cost of the aitional imports. 1 Likewise, the value of the benefits erive from a project which increases the omestic prouction of an importable goo shoul be base entirely on the economic value of the resources save by the ecrease in purchases of imports. In Figure 1.2 we begin with the initial position shown by Figure 1.1 prior to the project s purchase of the item. A project to increase the omestic prouction of these goos will shift their omestic supply from BS to HS T. This increase in omestic supply oes not result in a fall in price, but rather a ecrease in imports, as people now switch their purchases from importe items to the omestically prouce ones. Unless the project is big enough to completely eliminate all imports of the item, the omestic price will be pegge to the price of imports an thus, the omestic eman for the input by other omestic consumers will not be change. Imports will fall from ( Q - Q) to ( Q -Q ), an amount equal to the output of the project ( Q-Q ). As omestic S S 1 prouction serves as a one-for-one substitute for importe goos, the economic value of the resources save by the reuction in the level of imports measures the economic value of the benefits generate by the project. S 1 S 4

6 Price / unit Figure 1.2 Importe an Importable Goos -- The Case of Power Han Tools Prouce Domestically -- A S S T = S + G P P M (cif+tariff) E J F B D H S Q S Q 1 Q Quantity of units per perio Exporte an Exportable Goos Exporte goos are prouce omestically but sol abroa. Exportable goos inclue both exporte goos as well as the omestic consumption of goos of the same type or close substitutes to the goos being exporte. The relationship between exportable an exporte goos is very similar to that of importable an importe goos. In Figure 1.3 the eman for an exportable goo is shown as KD an the omestic supply of the exportable goo is enote by LS. If the omestic prouction of timber in this country coul not be exporte, then omestic supply an eman (Q ) woul come into equilibrium at a price of P. However, the 5

7 commoity will be exportable so long as the omestic market price P x (i.e., the fob price times the market exchange rate less export taxes), which omestic suppliers receive when they export, is greater than P. If, for example, proucers receive a price of P x (see Figure 1.3), timber prouction will amount to S Q. At this price, omestic eman for timber is only Q, hence, a quantity equal to ( Q-Q ) will be exporte. S Price/unit Figure 1.3 Exporte an Exportable Goos -- The Case of Timber Use by Project -- M P x (fob-export tax) K N P R S Worl Deman for Exports P L D 1 D Q Q 1 Q S Q Quantity Supplie an Demane We now introuce a project, which requires timber as an input, shifting the eman for this exportable goo from KD to MD 1. Total omestic eman will now be equal to leaving only ( Q - Q ) available to be exporte. P x will remain constant so long as the S 1 worl price is not altere by the change in eman ue to the project. No changes in incentives have been create which woul lea to an increase or ecrease in omestic Q 1 6

8 supply. The measurement of the economic cost of this input to the project shoul be base on the economic value of the foreign exchange that is forgone when the ( Q -Q ) units of timber are no longer exporte. 1 As the market price is fixe by the worl price, the benefit of a project that prouces such an exportable goo shoul be measure by the value of the extra foreign exchange that is prouce when the project s output is reflecte in increase exports, while the costs entaile in a project s emaning more of the exportable will be measure by the economic opportunity cost (value) of the foreign exchange forgone. All importable an exportable goos shoul be classifie as traable goos. Although an input might be purchase from a omestic supplier for a project, as long as it is of a type similar to ones being importe it is an importable goo an shoul be classifie as traable. Likewise, goos if omestically prouce an use as project inputs, which are similar to exporte goos, 2 are exportable goos an are also inclue in traable goos. 1.3 Economic Values for Traable Goos an Services The Essential Features of an Economic Analysis The istinguishing feature of traable goos is that changes in their eman or supply en up being reflecte in the eman for or supply of foreign exchange. A project that prouces more of an importable goo will reuce the eman for (an therefore the amount of) imports of that goo; thus reucing the eman for foreign exchange. 2 It is reasonable to ask whether one shoul not also inclue an in-between category of semi-traables. These woul, by an large, be goos whose price is influence but not totally etermine by external worl-market forces. Prouct ifferentiation between imports an import substitutes, an between exports an export substitutes woul of course be the principal element efining the in-between category. It is our view that the insertion of a category of semi-traables woul further substantially complicate an analytical framework that is a aunting challenge to most countries (to evelop a large care of practitioners capable of seriously applying it in practice). Our preference is, therefore, to stick with a sharp istinction between traables an non-traables. The aim woul be to classify some semi-traables as full 7

9 Similarly, a project that prouces more of an exportable goo will ultimately a to the supply of exports an hence of foreign currency. Thus the principal benefit of either type of project is to make aitional foreign exchange available for general use. To value this foreign exchange, we use the concept of the economic opportunity cost of foreign exchange (EOCFX), which states, in terms of a omestic-currency numeraire, the real economic value (in a peso or rupee country) of an incremental real ollar of foreign exchange. We ealt with the precise measurement of EOCFX in Chapter 9. Here it is sufficient to note (a) that it is ifferent from the real exchange rate E m that is reflecte in the market foreign exchange, (b) that part of the ifference reflects the tariff an inirect tax revenue that is given up when aitional foreign exchange is extracte from the market, an (c) that another part of the ifference reflects the tax an tariff revenue that is given up when raising the pesos or rupees that are spent in acquiring that foreign exchange. For the present, we will operate uner the assumption that the EOCFX excees E m so that there is a positive premium on foreign exchange. Our present task is to inquire in what ways we shoul eal with tariffs, taxes, an other possible istortions that are in some sense specific to the project we are analyzing. A goo guie to thinking about this subject is to consier a case in which the project authority has borrowe rupees in the capital market, an then going into the foreign exchange market to buy ollars -- only to have those ollars incinerate by an acciental fire. The economy has lost, as a consequence of that accient, the economic opportunity cost of foreign exchange. This shoul be obvious. But from this example, we can learn something that is not so obvious. The EOCFX oes not inclue any item that has anything to o with the use or uses to which that foreign exchange may be put, (e.g., by importing goos with high, meium, low or zero import traables, thus committing errors in one irection, which one hopes woul ten to be substantially offset by classifying other semi-traables as non-traables, thus committing errors in the opposite irection. 8

10 uties) or with the specific istortions that might affect projects that en up generating foreign exchange (e.g., by proucing export goos subject to either export taxes or subsiies). If, then we use foreign exchange to buy an import goo M j that is subject to a tariff T j, we shoul consier the extra tariff revenue to be a project benefit (i.e., a financial but not an economic cost). It is also the same if we buy the same type of goo from a omestic proucer of it, because in the en our eman will lea to someboy else increasing imports of M j by a like amount. If our project generates foreign exchange by proucing an export goo X i, subject to an export tax T i, the extra tax revenue generate from these exports shoul be consiere as an economic benefit, on top of the economic premium on the foreign exchange that the project generates. Here again, the benefit calculation woul be the same if the project prouce an equivalent exportable goo, that happene to be sol to omestic emaners. For in this case, too, those emaners turning to our project to meet their eman implies that an equivalent amount that woul have been taken by these emaners in the scenario without our project will now be available for export. Import tariff rates applie to project inputs of importable goos, an export tax rates applie to the project outputs of exportable goos, are thus to be explicitly counte as project benefits. In the first case the financial cost is greater than the economic cost by the amount of the tariff, but the economic cost must be calculate inclusive of the cost of the foreign exchange premium. In the case of the exportable output, its economic value as reflecte by its fob price is greater than the financial price, by the amount of the tax. In this case the economic price must be calculate inclusive of the foreign exchange premium. The story is reverse when it comes to project inputs of exportable goos or project outputs of importable goos. For when an exportable goo is use by our project, less is exporte an the government loses the potential export tax. An when an 9

11 importable goo is prouce by our project, the natural consequence is that less of that goo will be importe, with a corresponing loss of tariff revenue. Another way of stating the same case is that when we use an import goo, we probably pay a omestic financial price equal to the worl price plus the tariff. But the tariff part is simply a transfer to the government, hence shoul be eliminate as a component of our cost. Likewise, when we prouce an export goo subject to export tax, financial accounts will incorporate our receipts net of tax, but the tax is not a cost from the stanpoint of the economy. As a whole, the import tariff or the export tax shoul be eliminate (as a cost) as we move from the financial to the economic cost-benefit exercise The Valuation of Traable Goos at the Borer an the Project Site The economic evaluation of trae outputs an inputs is one in a two stage process. First, the components of the financial cost of the import or export of the goo that represent resource costs or benefits are separate from the tariffs, taxes, subsiies, an other istortions that may exist in the market for the item. Secon, the financial value of the foreign exchange associate with the net change in the trae goos is ajuste to reflect its economic value an is expresse in terms of the general price level (our numeraire). 3 The evaluation of projects expresse in terms of the omestic level of prices is also for the comparability of the results between the financial an economic appraisal. 3 Alternatively, one coul use an international price level (P w ) as the numeraire. To o this one woul ajust the value of non-traable goos by the reciprocal of the same factor which is use to express the foreign exchange content of the project in terms of the general price level. Although some authors (see Little an Mirrlees, etc.) have avocate carrying out the full analysis of a project s costs an benefits in terms of foreign currency (e.g., US ollars or Euros), practitioners have foun it very awkwar to generate international prices for commonplace items like haircuts, taxi ries an gareners services. If two projects from ifferent countries (e.g., Argentina an Inia) have to be compare to each other, it is easy to bring them to common terms by taking the net present value of the Argentine project (in real pesos) an multiplying it by the real exchange rate measure (real ollars per real peso). Similarly, one woul correct the Inian project s net present value (in real rupees) into real ollars by multiplying it by a measure of real ollars per real rupee. Once both NPV are thus converte to real ollars, they are fully comparable. The nee, however, for such comparison is rare. It is insignificant as compare to the esirability of carrying 1

12 In the iscussion that follows we first unertake the analysis for a country where there is no premium on foreign exchange. The economic evaluation of traable goos is then carrie out for the case where there is a premium on foreign exchange. These ajustments are built into the calculation of economic value of the traable goos an services. Following these estimations, commoity specific conversion factors are constructe for transforming financial prices into economic values at the borer. Importable Goos The financial cost of an importable input for a project can be equate to the sum of four components of the cost of an importe goo, i.e., the cif price of the importe goo, tariffs/taxes an subsiies, the trae margins of importers, an the costs of freight an transportation costs from the port to the project. The sum of these four items will be approximately equal to the elivere price of the input to the project, both when the goo is actually irectly importe an when it is prouce by a local supplier. This can be illustrate in Figure 1.4. The ultimate effect of an increase in the eman for an importable goo by a project is to increase imports by ( Q -Q ). The omestic value of the foreign exchange require to purchase these goos is equal to the cif price (P 1 ) times the quantity ( Q1 -Q ) as enote by the shae area Q HIQ 1. This is part of the economic resource cost of the input because the country will have to give up real resources to the foreign supplier in orer to purchase the goo. 1 out the actual computations in real terms, in omestic currency, a proceure which is virtually require if a serious analysis of stakeholer interests is to be one. 11

13 Figure 1.4: Economic Cost of Importable Goos -- The Case of Power Han Tools Use by a Project -- Price/unit C S A (P 3 +local freight)=p 4 (P 2 +trae margin)=p 3 (P 1 +tariff)=p 2 E F L J G M K (cif)=p 1 B H I D 1 D S Q Q Q 1 Quantity Supplie an Demane Tariffs are often levie on the cif price of the importe goo by the importing country. These tariffs are a financial cost to the project but are not a cost to the economy, because they only involve a transfer of income from the emaners to the government. Therefore, tariffs an other inirect taxes levie on the importe goo shoul not be inclue in its economic price. The importer an perhaps the traers are involve in the process which brings the item from the foreign country to the final elivery at the project site. There are a number of tasks incluing hanling, istribution an storage for which the traers receive compensation. These are referre to as the traing margin. Over an above the trae 12

14 margin there are the freight costs incurre by the importer or traers to bring the item from the port or borer entry point to the project. The traing margins are part of the economic costs of the importe goo. The financial value of the trae margin may in some cases be larger than the economic cost of the resources expene. The most obvious case of this occurs when the privilege to import a goo is restricte to a few iniviuals through the selective issuing of import licenses. In this case the importer may be able to increase the price of the importe goo significantly above the costs he incurs in importing an istributing the item. These excess profits are not a part of the economic cost to the country of the importe goo as they represent only income transfers from the emaners of the imports to the privilege people who obtaine the import licenses. Therefore, while the financial traing margins of the traers are shown as the ifference in the prices (P 3 - P 2 ) or the area JLMK in Figure 1.4 the economic cost may be less than this by the proportion of the total trae margin which is mae up of monopoly profits. Because freight costs may vary greatly with the location of the project in the country, it is avisable to treat these costs as a separate input. Because this sector uses items that are often heavily taxe -- such as petroleum proucts an motor vehicles -- as inputs, its economic costs might be significantly less than its financial cost. 4 If we are to compare the economic cost of an importable input with its financial price, the former will consist of the cif price plus the economic cost of the traers services, plus the economic cost of the freight an transportation require to bring an importable goo from the port to the project. Table 1.1 shows the breakown of the financial cost of an importe car. In this case the economic cost of the car is $24,4, while its financial cost is $37,6. This same 4 It is more accurate to break the local freight costs own into ifferent component costs an then calculate their economic costs. 13

15 evaluation of the economic price of a car also hols if instea we wish to measure the economic benefit of proucing cars locally. Table 1.1 The Estimation of Economic Cost of Importable Input: The Case of Cars Financial Cost of Importe Car Economic Cost of Importe Car CIF Price $2,. $2,. Tariff (45% of cif) 9,. - Sales tax (1.% of cif) 2,. - Trae margin (3.%) 6,. (66.7% of financial cost) 4,. Freight 6. (66.7% of financial cost) Total 37,6. 24,4. We fin that the ultimate effect of increasing the omestic prouction of a trae input is to reuce imports. The economic benefit of such an eneavor is the economic resources save from the reuce imports. In the above example, we woul expect that a omestic proucer of cars will be able to charge a price for a car of $37,6 incluing taxes an freight. However, the economic resources save are equal to only $24,4. It is this amount which is equal to the economic value of a unit of omestic car prouction. Note that a omestically prouce car, with costs equal to, say, $3, woul be a smashing financial success, but in orer to make it economically avisable to prouce cars omestically, they shoul (in this example) have economic costs less than or equal to $24,4. If a car that was omestically prouce at the project site ha costs of $24,, it woul be able to compete with the importe moel, even if subject to an excise tax of 45% on its full economic cost of $24,, plus a sales tax of 1% on the same base. These together woul lea to a financial price of $37,2. This example shows how a protective tariff can lea to inefficient omestic prouction (the case of a car with economic costs of $3,), an how such inefficiency woul be avoie with an equivalent tax treatment of cars, regarless of where they are prouce. 14

16 The general rule is that before ajusting for the economic price of foreign exchange, the economic value of importable goo prouction at the factory site is equal to the cif price plus the economic cost of local freight from port to national market an then minus the economic cost of local freight from the project site to the market. By the way of comparison, the economic cost of importe inputs is calculate as the sum of the cif price at the port plus the economic cost of freight from port to the project site. Exportable Goos Exportable goos, which are use as inputs in a project, typically have a financial price that is mae up of the price pai to the proucer, taxes, freight an hanling costs. However, it is not these items which are ajuste to measure the economic cost of the item. It is the economic benefits foregone by reuce exports, which is the measure of economic cost for such an input. The country forgoes the worl price (fob at the port), when a new project buys items that woul otherwise be exporte. This part of the cost is not altere by the presence of export taxes or subsiies -- these simply create ifferences between the internal price an the fob price, omestic selling price at the port being higher than the fob price in the case of an export subsiy, an lower in the case of export tax. Ajustments shoul be mae however for freight an hanling charges. To obtain the economic benefit foregone by using an exportable goo omestically, we begin with the fob price an euct the economic costs of the freight an the port hanling charges, as these are save when the goos are no longer exporte, but we a the economic costs of freight an hanling charges incurre in transporting the goos to the project. This is illustrate in the case of timber in Table 1.2. As shown in Table 1.2, the financial cost of the timber to the project site is $495 which is mae up of a $5 proucer price (fob price of $4 plus export subsiy of $1) less 15

17 a financial cost ifferential for transportation of $5 ($125 save plus $75 newly incurre) plus a omestic sales tax of $45. Any use of this exportable timber as an input to a local project has an economic cost of $36 which is the fob price of $4 less the economic cost of the freight an hanling charges save of $1 on the forgone timber exports plus the economic costs of the freight an hanling in shipping the timber to the project site of $6. The assumption mae here is that economic cost of freight an hanling is 8% of its financial cost. Moreover, the economic prices for traable goos at the port shoul inclue ajustment for foreign exchange premium while at the project, they shoul also inclue the premium on outlays mae to non-trae goos an services such as hanling charges an transportation costs. Table 1.2 Economic Cost of Exportable Goo: -- The Case of Timber Use by a Project -- Financial Cost of Timber Economic Cost of Timber Fob price $4. Fob price $4. plus export subsiy 1. less economic cost of Proucer price 5. freight/hanling costs, 1. market to port less freight an hanling, plus economic cost of freight market to port an hanling, market to 6. plus freight an hanling, project market to project $45. plus omestic sales tax 1% 45. Total $36. Total Conversion Factors for Traable Goos at the Borer an the Project Site 16

18 The economic prices of traable goos account for the real resources consume or proucts prouce by a project an hence are not the same as the prices (gross of tariffs an sales taxes) pai by emaners, or the prices (gross of subsiies an net of export taxes) receive by suppliers. These latter pai or receive prices are what we esignate as financial prices. However, import tariffs an sales taxes or export taxes an subsiies associate with the importable or exportable goos are simply a transfer between the government an importers or exporters, they are not part of the economic cost or benefit. A conversion factor (CF) is efine as the ratio of a commoity s economic price to its financial price. The value of the conversion factor for the importable goo i (CF i ) at the port is the commoity s economic price (EP i ) at the port ivie by its financial price (FP i ) at the port. Suppose that there are tariffs an other inirect taxes such as VAT levie on the ith goo at the rates of t i an i, respectively. Also, the foreign exchange premium for the country in question is FEP. The CF i can then be calculate an expresse as: CF i = EP i /FP i = (1 + FEP)/[(1 + t i )(1 + i )] (1.1) A similar formula can also be use for exportable goos in which inirect taxes are usually exempt of exports. Thus, CF j for the jth exportable goo can be calculate as follows: CF j = EP j /FP j = (1 + FEP)/(1 + k j ) (1.2) where k j stans for the subsiy (or a negative value for export tax) rate of the fob price. The conversion factor has the feature of being convenient, in that these ratios can be applie irectly to convert a financial cash flow into an economic cost or benefit as we 17

19 move from a project s financial cash flow statement to its economic benefit an cost statement. It shoul be note that the above conversion factor oes not incorporate any location-specific omestic hanling an transportation costs from the port to the project site. When the ajustment for the impact on the economic costs of these non-traable services for the item is mae, one can obtain the economic value an the conversion factor for the traable goos at the project site, which will be easily incorporate as part of the total economic costs or benefits of the project. 1.4 An Illustrative Example There are four possible cases that can be applie to measuring the economic values of traable goos. They inclue: an importable goo is use as an input to a project, an importable goo is prouce by a omestic supplier, an exportable goo is prouce by a omestic supplier, an an exportable goo is use as an input by a project. Examples provie below illustrate how each of the economic values an the corresponing conversion factors of various output an inputs of an irrigation project in Visayas of the Philippines are estimate. 5 The goal of the project was to alleviate poverty while improving environmental sustainability of the region. The foreign exchange premium (FEP) was estimate at 24.6%. a) Project Uses an Importable Input (Pesticies) In orer to improve the farm s prouctivity, the project requires pesticies that are importable. The financial prices of pesticies at the borer inclue the cif cost of the importe item plus aitional costs levie on the item such as tariff. The cif borer price is US$ 166. per 1 liters that is equal to 4,38 pesos when converte by the market exchange rate. This plus tariff impose on the item upon arrival at the port of Manila etermines the financial prices. There is 5 percent tariff rate on importe pesticies. Thus, 5 Jenkins, Glenn P. Pastor, Lorenzo, an Therasa, Panuccio, Farmer Participation, a Key Input to Success: The Visayas Communal Irrigation Project, Harvar Institute for International Development, (December, 1994). 18

20 the financial cost in Manila will become 4,239 pesos at the port. However, the economic cost of this importe item will inclue only the cif cost that must be ajuste by the foreign exchange premium to reflect the true cost of this input. The tariff is consiere a transfer within the economy an o not represent the real economic resources use. The conversion factor (CF) for pesticies in this case is 1.19 at the port, which is calculate either by the ratio of the economic to the financial costs of the pesticies as presente in Table 1.3 or by equation (1.1). Table 1.3 Project Uses Importable Pesticies Financial Price Conversion Factor for Nontraable Services Value of FEP Economic Value CIF Worl Price per 1 liters of pesticies US Dollars 166. Local Currency 4, ,31.35 PLUS Tariff 21. Price at Port 4,239. 5,31.35 CF at the Port 1.19 PLUS Hanling/Transportation from Port to Manila Hanling Transportation PLUS Traers' Margin PLUS Hanling/Transportation from Manila to Farm Gate Hanling Transportation Price at the Farm Gate 6,54. 6, CF at the Project Site 1.12 In orer to fin the cost of pesticie elivere to the farm gate, farmers incur aitional costs of traing, hanling an transportation from the port to Manila, the main traing center, an from Manila to the local market an then to the project site. By aing all 19

21 these costs as presente in the secon column of Table 1.3, farmers will pay a total of 6,54 pesos for getting 1, liters of pesticies to their farm gate. The economic cost of each of the above omestic services iffers from its financial cost because of various istortions involve. Estimation of these non-traable services will be fully iscusse in Chapter 11. At present, the conversion factor is assume to be estimate at.7 for traers margins an.9 for hanling charges. In the case of transportation services, the conversion factor is assume for 1.2 ue to a subsiy provie to the transportation proucers. As a result, the economic cost for getting 1 liters of pesticies at the project site amounts to 6,767 pesos an the conversion factor is estimate at 1.12 for pesticies. This inicates that, at the farm gate, the true economic cost of pesticies is 12 percent greater than the financial price suggests. b) Project Prouces an Import-Substitute Output (Rice) Rice is one of the two major trae crops prouce uner the project for the consumption in the Philippines. The project s prouction is a substitute for importe rice. The price the farmers receive for its prouct epens on the worl rice price. Suppose that the cif price for rice is US$ per metric ton at Manila s port. Expresse in units of omestic currency it becomes 7,659 pesos per metric ton of rice. In this case, there is no import tariff or taxes levie on rice. Thus, the rice prouce by the farmer coul not be sol at the port for more than 7,659 pesos per metric ton while the economic value will be measure by the economic foreign exchange save at 9,543 pesos. Thus, the conversion factor for rice is The traers margins, hanling an transportation costs from the port to the market in Manila will be ae an the corresponing costs for the local prouction will be subtracte in orer to arrive at the farm gate price. Since rice is a substitute goo, merchants in Manila market woul not pay more for the rice prouce omestically from the farmers than what they pay for importe rice, which is 8,281 pesos. To fin the 2

22 financial price of pay the farmers prouce, they have to incur aitional expenses for milling, traing, hanling an transportation costs as shown in the secon column of Table 1.4. In aition, it shoul be note that pay is about 65% equivalent for rice. As a consequence, the financial price of pay at the farm gate will be 4,51 pesos. To erive the economic value of pay farmers prouce, the financial costs of the above services must be ajuste using the respective conversion factors estimate. After all these ajustments have been mae, the total economic value of pay will be 5,61 pesos per metric ton an the conversion factor import-substitute rice woul be Thus, the economic analysis inicates that at the farm gate, the true economic value of rice is worth about 24 percent more than the financial price suggests. Table 1.4 Project Supplies Domestically Importable Rice Financial Price Conversion Factor for Nontraable Services Value of FEP Economic Value CIF Worl Price per ton of Rice US Dollars Local Currency 7,659. 1, , CF at the Port 1.25 PLUS Transportation/Hanling Charges Port-Manila Hanling Transportation Traers' Margin Wholesale Price in Manila 8,281. 1,38.51 LESS Transportation from Rice Mill to Manila Ex-Mill Price of Rice 7,766. 9,42.51 LESS Milling Cost Pre Mille Value 7,421. 9,41.1 Pay Equivalent (65%) 4, , LESS Grain Dealer's Margin (4%) Hanling/Transport from Farm to Mill Hanling Transportation Price of Pay at Farm Gate 4,5.7 5,6.6 CF at the Project Site

23 c) An Exportable Goo (Sees) is Prouce by a Project Sees are prouce omestically at the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in Manila. Suppose that the Institute is consiering increasing their prouction of sees an exporte to the foreign markets. The financial price in omestic currency for sees will be etermine by the fob price of sees at Manila port that is the worl price of US$ 41, or 9,975 pesos per ton. If the government provies export subsiy on sees, its financial revenue of sees will increase by an equivalent amount. Suppose in this case there is an export subsiy of 1% of the sale price of those sees sol abroa. IRRI will not sell sees to omestic buyers for less than the fob price plus the subsiy of 998 pesos per ton or 1,973 pesos net of port charges an transportation cost from Manila port to the IRRI. The economic price of the exporte prouct is etermine by the fob price an augmente by the foreign exchange premium to reflect the true value of this output. Thus, the economic value of exportable sees equals 12,429 pesos at the borer. As a result, the conversion factor of the exportable sees at port is estimate at 1.13 as presente in Table Table 1.5 Project Supplies Exportable Sees (assuming export subsiy) Financial Price Conversion Factor for Nontraable Services Value of FEP Economic Value FOB Price per ton of Sees US Dollars 41. Local Currency 9,975. 2, ,429. PLUS Export Subsiy (1% of FOB Price) If the government instea levie an export tax on sees at 1% of the fob price, the omestic price at the port woul fall to 8,978 pesos. The conversion factor woul have become 1.38 accoring to equation (1.2). 22

24 Price at the Port 1, ,429. CF at the Port 1.13 LESS Hanling/Transportation Charges from IRRI to Port Hanling Transportation Price at IRRI Gate 1,83. 12,261. CF at the Project Site 1.14 Suppose that the output of the IRRI increases an the aitional output oes not affect the worl price of the sees, its economic price elivere to the port is measure by the fob price of the goo multiplie by the market exchange rate. The fob price will be equal to the price receive by the proucer plus the financial costs of hanling an transportation from the IRRI to the point of export. The economic price of sees at the IRRI will be the fob price minus the economic costs of hanling an transportation from the port to the IRRI. To arrive at the economic values of these costs, the transportation an hanling charges are ajuste for the istortions using the respecte conversion factors estimate. The total ajuste economic value of exportable sees at the factory gate of the IRRI is equal to 12,261 pesos an the conversion factor becomes ) Project Uses an Exportable Goo (Sees) as a Project Input Suppose that sees prouce omestically is an exportable goo an is purchase as an input to the project rather than exporte abroa. If sees can be sol for $ 41 a ton on the worl market, the financial price in omestic currency at the port will be 9,975 pesos per ton. Suppose in this case there is an export subsiy of 1% of the sale price of those sees sol abroa. In this case sees will not be sol to omestic buyers for less than 1,973 pesos. As the sees is use by the farmers, rather than exporte, the amount of foreign exchange gaine by exporting the sees is lost an thus the economic cost will be the cost of foreign exchange earnings forgone. The economic value must be ajuste for the foreign exchange premium to become 12,429 pesos, which results in a conversion factor of 1.13 as shown in Table

25 Sees can be sol on the worl market for a fob price of 9,975 pesos. However, the IRRI receives 1,83 pesos since it incurs 17 pesos for the transportation an hanling charges from the IRRI to the port an receives 998 pesos for export subsiy. The Institute will not sell rice farmers for less than this amount. In aition, it will have to pay the local ealer's margin (37 pesos), plus transportation costs from IRRI to their farm (635 pesos). There are no taxes levie on sees in the Philippines, so the total cost the farmers pay for their sees amounts to 11,88 pesos per ton at the farm gate. The total economic value of sees at the farm gate nees to be measure in cost of the resources use in hanling, transporting an marketing the goo. As these activities are nontraable services, the economic value must be ajuste from the financial cost using the respective conversion factor. The final economic cost of 13,282 pesos for exportable sees results in a conversion factor of Table 1.6 Project Uses Exportable Sees (assuming export subsiy of 1%) Financial Price Conversion Factor for Nontraable Services Value of FEP Economic Value FOB Price per ton of Sees US Dollars 41. Local Currency 9,975. 2, ,429. PLUS Export Subsiy (1% of FOB Price) 998. Price at the Port 1, ,429. CF at the Port 1.13 LESS Hanling/Transportation Charges from IRRI to Port Hanling Transportation PLUS Dealers' Margin PLUS Transportation Cost from IRRI to Farm Price at Farm Gate 11,88. 13,282. CF at the Project Site

26 Expressing the relationship between the economic an financial prices of an item in this way is convenient as long as the unerlying tariff, tax an subsiy istortions o not change in percentage terms, the value of the conversion factor will not be affecte by inflation. Similarly, if a series of project evaluations are carrie out, some of the conversion factors use for the analysis of one project may be irectly applicable to others. 1.5 Conclusion This chapter began with the ientification of the key istinct characteristics between traable an non-traable goos. It is important to point out that the funamental forces to etermine either their financial or economic prices are ifferent. In the case of traable goos, they are efine to inclue not only exporte or importe goos but also omestically consume or prouce goos so long as they are close substitutes for exporte or importe goos. The various istortions associate with traable goos were then ientifie such as import tariffs, non-tariff barriers, export taxes, subsiies, value ae tax an other inirect taxes. These istortions will have a consierable influence on the financial prices of the goos in the market. However, etermining the economic prices of traable goos an services is their worl price since the worl price reflects their economic opportunity cost or resources save by the economy. The economic prices of traable goos can be estimate from the corresponing financial prices shown in the financial cash flow statement multiplie by the applicable commoity-specific conversion factors. The magnitues of these conversion factors at the borer epen upon the size of various istortions associate with the goos in question as well as the foreign exchange premium. When the traable goos use or prouce by the project are locate away from the borer, non-traable services such as hanling an 25

27 transportation costs, traing margins, etc. are require by the project an their conversion factors must be estimate an incorporate in the analysis. Their financial an economic costs at the project site shoul be both properly assesse an estimate in the financial an economic appraisal of the project. 26

28 Appenix 1A Evaluating Projects Subject to Trae Protection One of the reasons why some authors (esp. Little, Little an Mirrlees) chose to recommen conucting the evaluation of evelopment projects in terms of foreign currency an at worl prices was their fear that oing the analysis in terms of omestic prices woul lea to the likely approval of projects that were economically unsoun, an that were mae financially viable only ue to protectionist measures. In this appenix we show, using numerical examples that our analytical framework is not subject to this criticism. It will catch unsoun projects without fail. Consier first a project to prouce an import substitute for men s shirts, whose external price is $2. The market exchange rate is 1 rupees to the ollar, an the foreign exchange premium is 1 percent. With a 3 percent tariff on men s shirts, the internal price of shirts will be Rs. 26. We here assume that our project is able to prouce equivalent shirts omestically for Rs. 24 (incluing a normal return to capital). The project is thus viable from a financial point of view. However, it oes not pass the test of an economic evaluation. Selling price = Rs. 26 Reuce by 3 percent tariff (lost revenue to government) - 6 Rs. 2 Augmente by 1% foreign Exchange premium +2 Equals economic benefit Rs. 22 Actual cost of omestic prouction Rs. 24 Net economic gain (+) or loss (-) -Rs. 2 Consier next the case of an item subject to a 3 percent export subsiy, uner the same conitions. 27

29 Worl price (= $2) at market exchange rate = Rs. 2 Selling price with 3% export subsiy = Rs. 26 Reuce by 3 percent export subsiy (extra outlay by government) -6 Rs 2 Augmente by 1% foreign exchange premium +2 Equals economic benefit Rs 22 Actual cost of omestic prouction Rs 24 Net economic gain (+) or loss (-) - Rs 2 The above are cases in which ill-avise protectionist measures create incentive for activities to be profitable financially, even though they represent net losses from an economic point of view. The following is an example of a project that is in fact worthwhile economically, but will not be unertaken because an unwise export tax has mae the financially unviable. Worl price (= $2) at market exchange rate = Rs. 2 Selling price net of 3% export tax (=financial return) Rs. 14 Assume financial cost Rs. 18 Net financial return - Rs Economic return Worl market price ($2) at market exchange rate Rs. 2 Augmente by foreign exchange premium + 2 Rs. 22 Actual cost of omestic prouction Rs. 18 Net economic gain (+) or loss (-) + Rs. 4 28

30 REFERENCES Boarman, A.E., Greenberg, D., Vining, A.R., an Weimer, D., Cost-Benefit Analysis, Concepts an Practice, Secon Eition, Prentice Hall, Inc., (21). Curry, S. an Weiss, J., Project Analysis in Developing Countries, Secon Eition, Palgrave Macmillan, (1999). Dinwiy, C. an Teal, F., Principles of Cost-Benefit Analysis for Developing Countries, Cambrige: Cambrige University Press, (1996), Chapter 6. Dreze, J. an Stern, N., Policy Reform, Shaow Prices, an Market Prices, Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 42, No. 1, (February 199), pp Harberger, A.C. an Jenkins, G.P., Introuction eite by Harberger, A.C. an Jenkins, G.P., Cost-Benefit Analysis, Cheltenham: Ewar Elgar Publishing Limite, (22). Jenkins, G.P. an El-Hifnawi, M.B., Economic Parameters for the Appraisal of Investment Projects: Banglaesh, Inonesia an the Philippines, report prepare for Economics an Development Resource Center, Asian Development, (December 1993). Jenkins, G.P., Pastor, L. an Therasa, P., Farmer Participation, a Key Input to Success: The Visayas Communal Irrigation Project, Harvar Institute for International Development, (December, 1994). Little, I.M.D. an Mirrlees, J.A., Project Appraisal an Planning for Developing Countries, Lonon: Heinemann Eucational Books, (1974). Little, I.M.D. an Mirrlees, J.A., Project Appraisal an Planning Twenty Years on, in Proceeing of the Worl Bank Annual Conference on Development Economics, 199, Washington, DC: Worl Bank, (1991). Mishan, E.J. an Quah, E., Cost-Benefit Analysis, Fifth Eition, Lonon an New York: Routlege, (27), Chapter 14. Overseas Development Aministration (ODA), Appraisal of Projects in Developing Countries: A Guie for Economists, Thir eition, Lonon: Stationery Office Books, (1988). 29

31 Unite Nations Inustrial Development Organization, Guielines for Project Evaluation, New York: Unite Nations, (1972). 3