sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Paul Conway says businesses don't appear motivated to make the investments needed to improve productivity in an isolated economy

Public Policy / news
Paul Conway says businesses don't appear motivated to make the investments needed to improve productivity in an isolated economy
RBNZ chief economist Paul Conway gives a speech in January 2024
RBNZ chief economist Paul Conway gives a speech in January 2024

Reserve Bank chief economist Paul Conway says economists have failed to make a strong case for what New Zealand could look like with a more productive economy. 

Productivity growth has averaged just 0.2% over the past decade, lagging behind other countries despite a global slowdown.

For many of those years, Conway was director of economic research at the now-defunct Productivity Commission and told RNZ he felt partly to blame for the lack of progress.

“That's been a vexing question for me, and I feel a little responsible. I think the economics community in New Zealand hasn't really sort of put forward a coherent vision of what a high productivity, high wage economy would look like,” he said.

Policy changes to improve competition, infrastructure, and capital markets would help, but much of the work needs to happen within private businesses. Firms need to invest in new technology, develop digital exports, and adopt better tools instead of simply hiring more workers.

Conway said the data suggests businesses didn’t seem sufficiently incentivised to lift productivity, despite frequent talk about it in Wellington policy circles.

“It's not solely the responsibility of the government and the public sector to fix this thing. Apart from state sector productivity, which is a huge issue in itself, lifting productivity is largely up to the private sector.”

He gave three key reasons for New Zealand’s weak productivity, all of which “flows back to our economic geography, the fact of being a small economy that's a long way from anywhere else”.

First, New Zealand is not well connected to the rest of the world. While it is often called a “small, open economy”, it has low export intensity relative to its peers, and many Kiwi businesses are not “outward looking”.

Second, the economy is labour-intensive and capital-shallow, meaning investment is spread thinly across the population. Many large firms are cooperatives or partly government-owned, which can also constrain investment.

Third, businesses tend not to invest in “knowledge based capital” such as staff education, organisational improvements, managerial capability, or research and development of new products or processes.

None of this is likely to change quickly, although the Government has introduced a tax incentive for business capital investment, which may support productivity growth.

Conway said the Reserve Bank expects it will boost investment, though likely not until uncertainty over Donald Trump’s trade policies subsides.

“In these interesting, somewhat troubled times globally, it is pretty natural for businesses to stand back,” he said.

“A short spike in uncertainty doesn't have much effect on the economy, but if you get a spike and it hangs on up there, it has a more negative effect. And that's very much where we are currently.” 

White gold 

Westpac NZ’s economics team used a series of recent customer presentations in Auckland, Wellington, and Hamilton to survey attendees on their views of the economy.

Respondents in Auckland and Wellington were “subdued”, while those in Hamilton were more upbeat—likely because its economy is more closely tied to the buoyant dairy sector.

Fonterra has announced its highest ever opening milk price forecast, projecting it will pay farmers between $8 and $11 per kilo of milk solids.

Conway said there is currently a wide gap between provincial and metropolitan economies, but it should start to close as lower interest rates take greater effect later this year.

Westpac NZ also asked clients about Investment Boost—a 20% tax rebate on capital assets—and found that firms already planning to invest were likely to bring spending forward.

“In Hamilton we can see the potential for increased on-farm investment this year. That makes sense given returns are very strong in the primary sector right now,” they said.

However, a large share of firms still didn’t expect to raise investment, as conditions remained tough.

Cameron Mitchell, head of geopolitical risk at ANZ Group, told the NZ Herald that businesses needed to become more comfortable investing during periods of global risk.

“I think it's less about dealing with the level of uncertainty and maybe tolerating the level of uncertainty, because I think we are at the end of a decades long pretty stable geopolitical order. Things are going to get less predictable,” he said.

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.

14 Comments

To much debt tied up in non productive assets, the cost of which is the engine of inflation in all areas. You now which ones...the ones that contribute nil taxation. 

Up
17

Lol - when you incentivise debt gambling on housing capital gains what do you expect?

Up
17

I raise your LOL. What incentives / solutions has Paul and his ilk contributed to productivity improvements and productive enterprise over the Ponzi? He's part of the problem where capital and money are created to allocate to risk-free, 'non-productive' assets. I'll even go as far to say that what he represents has contributed to the allocation of capital to 'non-risk-free' assets like rat poison. In fact, I was listening on the weekend to a financier speak about the trade-off when someone came to him for funding in a Swiss hotel when he could simply buy BTC and stand to make a far better ROI while the probability of capital investment loss is could be quite similar.     

Up
3

Not sure I’ll ever get my head around what happened in 2020 with RBNZ dropping LVRs and promoting an already very frothy property market to go to insane highs - basically encouraging bad lending, which as many of us on here warned at the time was a bad idea, and now some of that lending is in negative equity. 
 

Sure they could have dropped rates but to drop the LVRs simultaneously (with emergency rate cuts) was the most reckless bit of bank management I’ve witnessed in my lifetime. 

Up
9

Indeed, I couldn't believe it either at the time.

Up
3

Just my reckon, but they already know that the Ponzi falling out of bed is detrimental to the health of our SME ecosystem and overall economy. And at the end of the day, they're protecting their mates at the banks. In many ways, they're horribly conflicted: They have to ensure the economic paradigm for which they have created and nurtured, but through their own words understand that their Frankenstein creation has become too big and all-consuming to be dismantled or neutered accordingly.

So while I agree with you that their 2020 actions are part of the problem, it's much bigger than that (IMO). I'll concede that they were caught with their pants down and panicked. But as you say, manipulating the price of money was probably enough and an opportunity to pump their Frankenstein full of sedative.  

Up
3

Hard agree. There was no need for monetary stimulus at all - fiscal had it covered. Complete failure of coordination.

Up
2

Yeah completely over cooked it and then wanted to look through the transitory inflation and house prices going up 30% pa … comedy of errors. 

Up
1

Indeed, it was insane. I hope all the people on here that could see it was the stupidest of decisions submitted to the RBNZ.  The response I got was even more baffling (basically, we think we are right, you are wrong). My final two paragraphs summed it up well. Written just before the change, if anything it was prophetic on what was about to occur:

In summary, the removal of the LVR policy will be disastrous from multiple angles in New Zealand. It appears to be an ill thought out, ill informed, rushed change. There appears to be no modelling work or research papers to back up the change, it appears to simply be a policy to cater to banks who do not need the support (as evidenced by stress testing) and will lead to a less resilient financial system. It will also negatively affect housing equality, further heightening tensions in NZ society between land owners and renters, which could lead to social and political revolt.

It appears more that the RB is no longer acting in the best interests of the NZ public with such policy changes, but is working for the shareholders of banks and over leveraged property owners.  Such bias should not be tolerated by a government intent on resolving long term inequality and will not be tolerated by a public who is becoming increasingly disadvantaged as financial mistakes become socialised in the bad times, while profits are privatised in the good times. 

Up
3

Yes exactly 

Up
1

“That's been a vexing question for me, and I feel a little responsible. I think the economics community in New Zealand hasn't really sort of put forward a coherent vision of what a high productivity, high wage economy would look like,”

Maybe they're framing things the wrong way. I was thinking about the use of drones in Vietnamese rice farms. The productivity gains are freeing up time for the community and the hardworking souls. This also enables them to spend more time thinking and developing about other aspects of community life - including the development of other businesses outside rice. It's not about being able to afford the flash harry boat, aspirational home in the suburbs, and winter holidays to Fiji.  

Up
3

Very much related to productivity and technology, how on earth did we automate software engineers before REAs? It's almost like selling houses is the pinnacle of human endeavor that needs to be protected from the evil of technology. 

But I think the answer is clear: Open / free markets for labour get disrupted first. But special interests make it illegal to automate things like stevedoring, selling real estate, retail banking (debt lending), public sector bureaucracy. Therefore, they persist in excess.

Up
0

Cameron Mitchell, head of geopolitical risk at ANZ Group, told the NZ Herald that businesses needed to become more comfortable investing during periods of global risk.

Sounds like a great idea ANZ. Are you going to be there to provide some of the capital?

Up
5

Conway should indeed feel ashamed. 

As should others.

Productivity is energy-efficiency by any other name - as everyone here should know. 

And they run into the limits of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics - which is somewhat more immutable that any concoction 'economics' has ever proffered. 

Which is why real productivity will NEVER increase, not in a macro sense, anyway. 

Up
1