Why Poverty is Winning

Because so much of it has been created over the past 10 years. Some people have been getting out of poverty for sure but a lot more have been falling into it. Of the pool of 126,200 poor people in 2012 a staggering 33,000 had joined it over the last decade. That's more than one in every four poor Mauritians. This has happened because our economy has not grown fast enough and whatever wealth was created has not been shared properly.

Massive Policy Failure

Which in turn has mostly been caused by dismal policy-making and the lack of dynamism of our economy. External events have certainly played a role but given that they were beyond our control we shouldn't have spent that much time crying over them. We should also acknowledge the fact that there has been a wide variation in the way poverty has expanded. Chart 1 captures that by looking at how it has progressed over a fifteen-year period. Which coincided roughly with three different governments and in one case with major policy changes.

Will the Budget Be a Non-event?

"On ne parachute pas au ministère des finances quelqu'un qui ne sait pas calculer la dette publique et qui ne connaît pas l'impact de la fiscalité sur la croissance...."

Rama Sithanen, 2009

Like last year's and most of the budgets since 2006? Well, it doesn't have to. It will essentially depend on a single decision. But first let us understand how we got into a deep mess for ten whole years.

Old Policy Crap in New Bottle

The last part of the quote above – emphasis mine – summarises pretty much the main economic story from Mauritius over the last decade. While tax rates definitely impact growth rates – and both of them drive government revenue – the relationship is far from being linear. And it depends to a great extent on the relative ability of our public and private sectors to create wealth or make things happen. In the 1980s for example, as Paul Krugman reminds us, American top tax rates were cut from 36.5% to 26.7% over nine years but they never got the growth rates that would have financed those cuts. What they did get though is a Federal debt ballooning all the way from less than a trillion dollars to four by 1992. And two decades later US politicians were trying to clinch a deal hours before Uncle Sam was scheduled to go into default. The Economist summed up the situation as essentially the product of two tax-cuts, two wars and one stimulus package.