Oliver Hartwich looks deeper at the OECD Survey of New Zealand and finds a long list of previously ignored recommendations

Oliver Hartwich looks deeper at the OECD Survey of New Zealand and finds a long list of previously ignored recommendations

By Oliver Hartwich*

This week, the OECD released its economic survey of New Zealand.

Its 149 pages provide a comprehensive overview of the New Zealand economy, its strengths and weaknesses.

The tone of the OECD document is generally positive, and the bits the New Zealand media focussed on did not tell us anything we did not already know. Unless, of course, it is news to you that we are not building nearly enough dwellings and that especially Auckland faces a housing crisis.

A far more interesting part of the OECD’s survey is its Annex (pp. 61-68). It tracks New Zealand’s progress on structural reform by comparing the recommendations the organisation’s experts made in their last survey in 2013 to what the government has done with them.

Though on most issues, some measures have been implemented, in quite a few of the categories the summary of the past couple of years is “No action taken”. Let us have a look at some of them:

  • The OECD urged the government to remove all remaining tariffs and Zespri’s export monopoly on kiwifruit.
     
  • The OECD asked the government to reduce local government ownership of port assets to bring more market discipline to the sector.
     
  • The OECD wanted New Zealand to improve the transparency of the foreign direct investment screening regime.
     
  • The OECD argued that water rate subsidies to tenants paying market rents should be removed.
     
  • On health care, the OECD suggested capitation payments to better “follow the patient”, eliminating restrictions on access to such payments by individual physicians and practices.
     
  • The OECD previously called for wider private health insurance coverage.
     
  • The OECD urged the government to raise the pension eligibility age in line with longevity.
     
  • On tax, the OECD recommended to realign corporate, capital and top marginal income tax rates, or reduce capital income tax rates.

In all these cases, the verdict for the past couple of years was, “No action taken”.

On some issues, there may be good reasons to disagree with the OECD’s recommendations – they should not be followed slavishly anyway. In these instances, however, the OECD’s recommendations on economic policy are textbook economics advice. For example, it is a no-brainer to abolish the remaining tariffs.

Let’s hope that especially on this year’s top OECD recommendation to build more homes the 2017 review will not conclude that no action was taken.

-----------------------------------

*Oliver Hartwich is the executive director of the NZ Initiative.

We welcome your help to improve our coverage of this issue. Any examples or experiences to relate? Any links to other news, data or research to shed more light on this? Any insight or views on what might happen next or what should happen next? Any errors to correct?

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

2 Comments

Comment Filter

Highlight new comments in the last hr(s).

This seems a very selective list of recommendations, out of a 149 page report. I have read the key findings and recommendations sections, and not one of Mr Hartwich's points makes it into those lists. His priorities would seem to be very secondary to the OECD in other words. It is perhaps not a surprise that he has not focussed on some of the areas the OECD has, as their focus doesn't match a neo liberal agenda.
Their key recommendations, summarised as much as I can:
Watch government spending, but not at the expense of the most vulnerable.
Review inefficient and purely competition thwarting aspects of the RMA.
Introduce congestion charges on roads.
Tax windfall gains from land zone changes.
Roll out some quasi government labour matching programme based on a Canterbury model?
Update skill shortage immigration categories.
Introduce much stronger regulation and taxes for Greenhouse gas and water pollution.
Strengthen focus of social welfare on improving long term outcomes of disadvantaged.
Introduce more social housing and or social housing subsidy.
Address obesity in a serious manner.
Ensure quality early childhood education is available for and provided to 98%+ of children.

It's not obvious that Mr Hartwich has mentioned any of these, and it seems quite possible that the Act/ Libertarian parties would agree with pretty much none of them.

Looks mostly like a Green Party press release.
As if we are not trying.... We must need more Government.