This paper documents the role of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) in Mozambique, discusses some important fiscal issues, and makes the case for improvements in governance and transparency. A first step is to enhance timely and regular collection of data that is easily accessible to better assess the performance of SOEs and raise awareness about associated fiscal costs and risks.
Seventeen in a series of annual reports comparing business regulation in 190 economies, Doing Business 2020 measures aspects of regulation affecting 10 areas of everyday business activity.
This Diagnostic Report on Transparency, Governance and Corruption for the Republic of Mozambique highlights that the economy is at a turning point, and efforts to address governance and corruption vulnerabilities can have a lasting positive impact. The current levels of public debt have caused us to take a hard look at our governance and anticorruption framework and have prompted various reforms to address the vulnerabilities exposed in this framework. The governance and anticorruption framework is not consistently or comprehensively enforced. The rule of law is undermined by the insufficient implementation of existing legislation and regulations, including, in some cases through the absence of necessary regulations and explanatory guidelines. Civil society, the private sector, and the development partners in Mozambique also have critical roles to play. In addition, issues related to poor governance and corruption cannot be effectively addressed unless similar attention is paid to their transnational aspects, which need to be handled at a regional and global level, in multilateral and other international fora.
Prior to the COVID-19 shock, the key challenge facing policymakers in the Middle East, North Africa, and Central Asia region was how to generate strong, sustainable, job-rich, inclusive growth. Post-COVID-19, this challenge has only grown given the additional reduction in fiscal space due to the crisis and the increased need to support the recovery. The sizable state-owned enterprise (SOE) footprint in the region, together with its cost to the government, call for revisiting the SOE sector to help open fiscal space and look for growth opportunities.
State-owned enterprises (SOEs) tend to be providers of essential public services, such as electric power companies, water utilities, ports, and transportation networks, but SOEs also engage in an array of commercial activities involving airlines, banks, basic commodity plantations, textile manufacturing, and vehicle assembly plants. Given this magnitude of SOE activity, during the immediate post-conflict period, especially that first 6 months when organizations such as Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) can be used for the initial screening, prioritization, and selection of SOE revitalization candidates, planners should not neglect the need for institution-building, which usually requires medium- and long-term expertise typically found in economic development agencies. The need is pertinent given that SOEs can be national in scope of operation and scale of resources, and the effective management of the SOEs and their operations can significantly affect national-level economic development. Therefore, agents engaged in stability operations should work with development planners to encourage mid- to long-term institutional capacity building that enhances the conflict-prone country's broader capacity for sustained growth. The intended end state of SOEs in stability operations should be functioning entities that can attract new investment, perhaps by privatization when and where appropriate. Although revitalizing SOEs can be complex and ambiguous, the task can be a useful, intermediate objective on the road to a post-conflict sustainable economy.
The thesis of this paper is a very simple one. Mozambique should not repay the loans which three of its state-owned enterprises took out in 2013-2014 in the context of a gigantic scheme of corruption. I will provide two types of reasons for this conclusion. The first type is rather legal and straightforward. Debts incurred due to corruption and in violation of the constitution do not need to be repaid. The second type is of a more contextual character. While the loans in question are void as a matter of law, they reveal certain characteristic traits of our current worldwide financial system, which I believe must be changed. An oversupply of liquidity in capital-rich countries may have devastating effects for capital-importing, developing countries. Not the interest of creditors, but the needs of borrowers should determine sovereign lending. The current legal order governing sovereign debts needs to be adjusted to this end.
