ISSN: 2222-6990
Open access
The aim of this study is to examine the impact of ending fuel subsidies on the 19 aggregated sectors in Malaysia. Two alternative complementary policies, including the extra savings’ reallocation on agricultural investment and direct cash transfer targeting the poor, were taken into account to mitigate the possible undesirable circumstances under the subsidy removal. To conduct this study, a computable general equilibrium (CGE) model was developed on the basics of the standardized Löfgren CGE model with some appropriate adjustments and assumptions. The empirical results show that the output growth differs considerably across sectors in response to the subsidy removal. On average, domestic outputs decrease. The sectors that consume large amounts of fuel product in their respective production processes, tend to be more vulnerable to this subsidy removal. Nonetheless, an overall improvement in the growth of production is reported by increasing investment on the agricultural sectors compared with the cash transfer. The expansion of agricultural activities demands for more raw materials from other sectors and supply its output as food or as raw material to non-agricultural sectors, bringing an overall economic development. The cash transfer scheme has minimal impact on domestic outputs.
Akinyemi, O., Alege, P.O., Ajayi, O.O., Adediran, O.S., & Urhie, E. (2017). A simulation of the removal of fuel subsidy and the performance of the agricultural sector in Nigeria using a dynamic Computable General Equilibrium Approach. Covenant Journal of Business and Social Sciences, 8(1), 60-70.
Anouti, Y.F., & Dahl, C.A. (2014, Febuary). Rationalizing transport fuel pricing policies and effects on global fuel consumption, emissions, government revenues and welfare (Working Paper No.2014-01). Colorado, US: Colorado School of Mines. Retrieved from http://econbus-papers.mines.edu/working-papers/wp201401.pdf
Barany, A., & Grigonyte, D. (2015). Measuring fossil fuel subsidies. ECFIN Economic Brief, 40, 1-13. doi:10.2765/85991
Clements, B., Jung, H.S., & Gupta, S. (2007). Real and distributive effects of petroleum price liberalization: The case of Indonesia. The Developing Economies, XLV-2, 220-237. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1049.2007.00040.x
Cooke, E.F.A., Hague, S., Tiberti, L., Cockburn, J., & El Lahga, A.R. (2015). Estimating the impact on poverty of Ghana’s fuel subsidy reform and a mitigating response. Journal of Development Effectiveness, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/19439342.2015.1064148 doi:10.1080/19439342.2015.1064148.
International Energy Agency, Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, & the World Bank. (2010). Analysis of the scope of energy subsidies and suggestions for the G-20 initiative. Prepared for submission to the G-20 Summit Meeting, Toronto, 26-27 June.
International Energy Agency. (2013). Southeast Asia Energy Outlook 2013. Paris: Author.
International Monetary Fund. (2015). Causes and consequences of income inequality: A global perspective (IMF Staff Discussion Note). Washington, DC: Author.
International Monetary Fund. (2017). Subsidy reform and implications for social protection: An analysis of IMF advice on food and fuel subsidies (IEO Background Paper BP/17-01/02). Washington, DC: Author.
Khalid, A. H., & Zakariah, A. R. (2012). Combodia’s electricity sector in the context of regional electricity market integration. In Wu, Y., X. Shi, and F. Kimura (Eds.), Energy market integration in East Asia: Theories, electricity sector and subsidies (ERIA Research Project Report 2011-17). Jakarta: Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA).
Kosmo, M. (1987). Money to burn? The high costs of energy subsidies. Washington, DC: World Resource Institute.
Maipita, I., Mohd Dan, J., Fitrawaty, & Narimo, S. (2012). The impact of diverting of fuel subsidy to agricultural sector on poverty. CMU Journal of Economics, 16(1), 84-100.
Malaysia’s Performance Management and Delivery Unit. (2010). Government transformation programme: The roadmap. Putrajaya: Prime Minister’s Department.
Ministry of Agriculture. (2000). Dasar Agromakanan Negara (2011-2020). Putrajaya: Author.
Ministry of Agriculture. (2000). Third National Agricultural Policy (1998-2010), Executive Summary. Putrajaya: Author.
Ministry of Finance. (2015). Economic Report 2014/2015. Putrajaya: Author.
National Economic Advisory Council. (2010). New Economic Model for Malaysia (Part 1). Kuala Lumpur: Author.
Nor Azam, A.R., Russayani, I., & Roslan, A.H. (2014). Is there a case for fuel subsidy removal in Malaysia? International Journal of Economics, 2(4), 1-13. http://dx.doi.org/10.18533/jefs.v2i03.54
Razak, A.R., Kamaruddin, R., & Khalili, J.M. (2013, April). Bantuan Rakyat Satu Malaysia (BR1M): Consumption pattern and the relationship between acceptances, perception towards government sincere incentives and political motives. Paper presented at 2nd International Islamic Business, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Rentschler, J. (2016). Incidence and impact: The regional variation of poverty effects due to fossil fuel subsidy reform. Energy Policy, 96, 491-503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.06.025
Rentschler, J., & Bazilian, M. (2017). Policy monitor- Principles
In-Text Citation: (Ying & Harun, 2019)
To Cite this Article: Ying, L. S., & Harun, M. (2019). The Impact of Removing Fuel Subsidies on Domestic Outputs in Malaysia. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 9(3), 641–653.
Copyright: © 2019 The Author(s)
Published by Human Resource Management Academic Research Society (www.hrmars.com)
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this license may be seen at: http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode