A question of timing and priorities

Dec 20, 2024 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

Peeping Tom…

Kaieteur News- The advent of significant oil discoveries has catapulted Guyana into the global spotlight. However, beneath the promising layers of black gold lies a central question of governance: how best should a government utilize its newfound wealth to serve its people?

Last week, an interesting issue arose during the Vice President’s Press Conference. It concerned whether to go for increased amortization of costs or impose a windfall tax. As with most economic conundrums, the devil resides in the details, and it is here that the government must tread carefully.

Proponents of increased amortization of costs argue from a position of fiscal prudence. In the context of a Production Sharing Agreement (PSA), where oil companies can claim up to 75% of revenues as cost recovery, accelerating the repayment of these costs can have tangible benefits. The quicker the costs are amortized, the sooner the nation can access the lion’s share of the profits.

Consider the mechanics: every dollar directed toward amortizing costs today translates to fewer deductions tomorrow. By reducing the cost-recovery pool, the government potentially accelerates its journey toward enjoying 50% of the profit oil. Over time, this could mean billions more in state coffers—funds that can be channelled into education, infrastructure, or healthcare.

On the other side of the ledger, advocates for a windfall tax appeal to immediacy and equity. They argue that windfall revenues—those extraordinary profits generated when oil prices soar beyond expectations—are a unique opportunity to address pressing social and economic needs. A windfall tax captures this surplus and redistributes it, often in ways that directly benefit citizens. In a country where inequality is a persistent problem, this approach carries undeniable appeal.

A windfall tax, in its essence, is a recognition of the finite nature of oil wealth. Oil is a depleting resource, and the revenues it generates are subject to the whims of global markets. Capturing excess profits during boom periods ensures that the nation can build buffers for the inevitable bust. Whether through sovereign wealth funds, social programs, or infrastructure projects, these revenues can transform lives in the here and now.

The ethical underpinning of a windfall tax cannot be ignored. When oil companies reap extraordinary profits, often due to geopolitical tensions or supply disruptions, the optics of allowing such gains to go untaxed are damaging. Citizens, who often bear the brunt of environmental and social costs associated with oil extraction, demand a fairer share of the pie.

At its core, the debate between amortization and windfall taxation is a question of timing and priorities. Should a government prioritize long-term financial stability or address immediate needs? The answer lies not in choosing one over the other but in finding a balance that respects the complexities of the issue.

To achieve this balance, governments must first ensure transparency and accountability in the management of oil revenues. Without a clear framework, both amortization and windfall taxation are susceptible to misuse. A robust sovereign wealth fund, for instance, can serve as a repository for windfall revenues while adhering to strict rules for withdrawals. Similarly, accelerated amortization can be accompanied by periodic audits to prevent inflated cost claims by oil companies.

In countries like Guyana where poverty is widespread, the case for windfall taxes becomes stronger. Immediate investments in social services, job creation, and infrastructure can lay the foundation for sustainable growth. Conversely, in countries with more advanced economies, where the emphasis might be on debt reduction and fiscal discipline, amortization could take precedence.

The debate between the choice of a windfall tax and that of amortization is not a peripheral issue. It is central to any strategy aimed at ensuring the best interests of the people. The way oil revenues are managed has a direct impact on a nation’s economic and social development, and its ability to weather future uncertainties.

Of importance to note is that neither the windfall tax nor higher amortization need to be a zero-sum game. It is possible to achieve a synergy that benefits all stakeholders. A hybrid approach, for instance, could allocate a portion of windfall revenues for immediate social investments while channeling the rest toward accelerated cost recovery.

Another nuanced approach could involve a sliding-scale mechanism, where the rate of cost recovery diminishes as oil prices rise. This can bridge the gap between amortization and windfall taxation. Such a mechanism can ensure that both the government and oil companies share in the risks and rewards of the industry. But selling such an approach to Jagdeo may be a no-goer.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of this newspaper.)

(A question of timing and priorities)