This week I tried to take a deeper look into the composition of our import expenditure and export earnings.Import always dominates over export in our external trade. I am more interested in what constitutes the import and export items. In addition I tried to find link between illicit financial flow and our external sector.
I delved into the sententious stat given in the appendices of Bangladesh Bank annual report. I leafed through several annual reports starting from 2013-2014. I was befuddled when I had found that data were not easily tractable in subsequent reports. Data of many of the import items lack coherence in subsequent reports. For instance, I checked the data for food, edible oil, textiles, capital machinery and other import items for Fy2011, FY 2012 and FY 2013. To my dismay, I found that what was reported in the annual report of 2013-2014 was different from subsequent annual reports. If this is the case for immediate past year, then the data maybe provisional or revised, as often indicated by Bangladesh Bank. But for the report of 2013-14 this is not the case. And I remind you I am talking about here about three consecutive fiscal years: 2011,2012 and 2013. For the above mentioned items in 2013-14 report ,reported data are not identical in subsequent annual reports. By the way, data in the annual reports for 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2017-18 are similar. I got the PDF format of the reports from Bangladesh Bank website.
While decoding our investment for an earlier post, I also faced ordeal in gleaning information. To my horror I noticed that proposed investment figure in Tk published on Bangladesh Investment Authority website was deliberately swollen. Someone tempered the figure by putting an extra zero at the end of the figure. Luckily I had checked the data with the one reported in Bangladesh Economic Survey. I also endured similar problems while I collected data from Police websites. I think webmasters and persons responsible for running the government websites should be more scrupulous.
Now get back to the import data. To obviate the troubles in analysis, I depended on the most recent annual report and for data on earlier fiscal years (i.e.FY2008, FY 2009) I trusted the annual report for 2013-14.
Our import is composed of many items. Among them food grains, edible oil, POL,chemicals, fertilizer, plastic, raw cotton, yarn, textiles, iron & steel, capital machinery and other items constitute the biggest part of import spending. Others( other items) alone turns out to be the the biggest contributor to import spending, followed by textiles, capital machinery, iron and steel, POL and raw cotton. For instance, provisional estimates of 2018 shows that we spent $6.8 billions on textiles, $5.46 billion on capital machinery, $4.83 billion on iron,$3.65 billion on POL, $3.25 billion on raw cotton and $ 15.88 billion on other items.And our import spending on textiles, capital machinery, iron and steel , yarn and raw cotton has been increasing for many years. Many of these items are used as ingredients of manufactured goods and used in setting factories or implementing development and investment projects.
On the other hand , decomposition of our export items reveals that woven garments, knitwear, home textile , footwear and jute goods fetch more foreign currency for our economy. For instance in 2018, woven garments brought $15.43, knitwear, fetched $15.19, home textile earned $878.68 million , footwear accounted for $809.69 million and jute goods brought $869.87 million. Woven garments, knitwear and footwear registered consistent growth over the years. It is highly compatible with our growing external sector. Projection
made by Bangladesh Bank shows that both export and import will continue to grow in the
coming years.
Global Financial Integrity in its report on illicit financial flows claimed that between 2004 and 2013, a total of $55 billion was laundered abroad from Bangladesh. In January this year, in its new report GIF claimed that in 2014 $9 billion was drained out of Bangladesh. Moreover, in 2015 at least $5.9 billion was laundered abroad. Now many of the illicit transactions had taken place through trade misinvoicing, as reported by GFI. In export bill, export earnings are reported less than the true amount. In import bill, import spending is reported more than what it actually is. In addition, fake documents are created to do import and export by trading nothing or trading goods that value less or more than the true reported goods.
So the more our external sector grows, the more our hard earned currency launders abroad. According to GFI, gross trade misinvoicing in the period between 2004-2013 was $92.02 billion, of which $49.13 billion was trade misinvoicing outflows and $42.89 billion was trade misinvoicing inflows that means Bangladesh also witnessed illicit inflows of capital in the above mentioned period. If we break trade misinvoicing outflows further, we will see over invoicing of import bills accounts for $18.21 billion of the total outflows and under invoicing of export bills accounts for $30.92 billion of the total outflows. To be more precise, in the given period we loss on average $1.8 billion due to over invoicing import bills and $3 billion due to under invoicing export bills every year. In light of this we can say export sector is more responsible for illicit financial outflows than the import sector.
This thing is happening when we are having a current account deficit. We need to export more, import less and get more remittances in order to improve the current account situation. Government put forward lots of cash incentive packages to increase remittances and augment the export. Many economists opposed the move and pressed for depreciation of Tk. To them, it will augment the export, remittances and at the same time it will restraint the import.
Just bring the illicit financial flow into play. In this case any initiative to boost export has a caveat: chances of illegal capital flight have also gone up as per our earlier discussions. But the idea of depreciation of Taka instead of cash incentive appears to be reasonable here. By slowing down import for some period it will curb the clandestine capital flight associated with over invoicing of import bill. At the same time it will increase the risk of capital outflow through under invoicing of export bill. If the former outweighs the latter then we can say that this depreciation measure will be boon for the external sector. Another note of caution is that slow import will also stall the clandestine capital inflow through under invoicing of import bill, which was $42.9 in the given period. So curbing the money laundering and improvement of current account deficit put our policy makers in quandary.
Money laundering has been taking place for a long period of time. In a corrupt country these bad practices are deeply rooted in our society.We would stem the trade misinvoicing if we were able to device the means. Since we do not have that mechanism, depreciation of Taka appears to be an acceptable solution right now to improve the current account situation.