Gulf Cash Stabilizes Egypt, for Now

Gulf Cash Stabilizes Egypt, for Now

As Egypt’s political crisis deepens, its economy has been stabilized by a cash infusion from the oil-rich Persian Gulf. Economist Farouk Soussa outlines the limited options facing Egypt’s interim government.

July 31, 2013 1:52 pm (EST)

Interview
To help readers better understand the nuances of foreign policy, CFR staff writers and Consulting Editor Bernard Gwertzman conduct in-depth interviews with a wide range of international experts, as well as newsmakers.

Beyond the street battles and revolutionary fervor, Egypt’s economy has stagnated, and all the indicators paint a "picture [that] is pretty bleak," says Farouk Soussa, chief economist for the Middle East at Citigroup. Egypt’s interim government lacks the mandate to make the structural reforms necessary to end unsustainable subsidies, Soussa says, and its only option is to borrow and spend its way back to stability. If the interim government is able to spur growth, Soussa says a portion of the capital that fled the country—which he estimates at $60 billion, far more than what is regularly reported in the press—could return and build on the potential state-funded recovery.

Egyptian ProtestsProtestors demonstrate in Cairo’s Tahrir Square. (Photo: Suhaib Salem/Courtesy Reuters)
More From Our Experts

What’s your macro forecast for Egypt’s economy in 2013?

More on:

Egypt

Economic Crises

Growth is expected to be below 2 percent for the financial year, which in Egyptian terms is recession-type growth and is low compared to emerging markets. We’re expecting inflation to continue to creep upwards, breaking 10 percent by the end of the year. As for the budget deficit, we’ve got a number like 13 percent for the calendar year, but of course the latest budget figures that have come out imply something more like 15 percent. That’s the overall macro picture, but there’s a huge amount of uncertainty as this is a country that is extremely volatile.

When you look at these numbers, ignoring the political uncertainty, what does the data tell you about this economy?

The numbers paint a picture of an economy that is stagnating. And when you have a demographic like Egypt’s (PDF), which is very youth-heavy, you need to achieve growth of 6 percent in order to basically stand still on unemployment. Anything below 6 percent means higher unemployment, which also speaks to greater social frictions and decreasing standard of living. When inflation is above the growth rate, you’re looking at a contracting, eroding standard of living as well for the majority of people. The overall picture is pretty bleak.

More From Our Experts

Are there any bright spots that you see?

In the near term, the only real upside that we can see is from stabilization in the social unrest and on the political front. It’s necessary for Egypt to then start stabilizing on the economic front; in order for the country to progress from the kind of downward economic trajectory, it needs to embark on more sustained structural reforms. But that’s a medium- to long-term issue.

More on:

Egypt

Economic Crises

"The numbers paint a picture of an economy that is stagnating."

What would happen in the near term if we get stabilization on the social and political front? First, you’d have a pickup in domestic investment.

If you look at the key drivers of growth in Egypt, consumption is holding pretty steady. Growth in the consumer and food industries is in the double digits and has been for the last two or three years. It’s really investment that has collapsed, because of the deterioration of security and political uncertainty. And the political uncertainty isn’t simply people out on the street fighting each other. It’s also policy uncertainty, such as when taxes were suggested and then rescinded under the previous [Morsi] government. This and other uncertainties made the Egyptian business elite very uncomfortable about investing in the current environment.

In addition to domestic investment, you’ve got foreign direct investment, which has also completely collapsed since the January Revolution [2011]. And then you also have other sources of foreign income, such as tourism and portfolio investment, which we expect to bounce back if there is stabilization in the political and social areas.

Egypt has spent much of its reserves over the past two years defending its currency. What’s your outlook on the pound?

We are projecting a steady rate of decline. But again, there’s a lot of uncertainty there. Clearly, if there are sustained inflows into the country, then it is conceivable that you could see the pound stabilizing and perhaps even strengthening over the coming year. On the other hand, if you don’t see that, and there’s a limit to how much the [Persian] Gulf can actually give Egypt, then the currency could be devalued more significantly.

I think the government will be looking to find help with restoring social and political stability by providing more products, more subsidies, and easing some of the constraints and hardships the Egyptian people have been facing over the last six months or so.

"One way [to restore stability] is to return to heavy-handed policing and I expect the kind of violence that we’ve seen against the pro-Morsi supporters is going to get worse."

Qatar’s $5 billion investment in Egypt, in the form of bonds, will likely go out the window at some point in the next eighteen months and won’t be rolled over. The Saudis, Emiratis, and Kuwaitis have given $12 billion, $9 billion of which is actually money, and the rest is oil grants, but it’s fungible. It’s not a net number because you’re actually going to take away from that the amount of money the Qataris have given before.

The $12 billion package from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates seems to have stabilized the economy and currency. How much more will Egypt need over the six months or year to continue at this level?

In a static analysis, the reserve burden is about $1 billion a month, so they’ve just bought themselves a year before they’re back to the same situation that they were in in June.

But the situation isn’t static. The priority now for the government is to restore political and social stability, and they’re going to do that in two ways. One way is to return to heavy-handed policing, and I expect the kind of violence that we’ve seen against the pro-Morsi supporters is going to get worse. That’s the stick approach.

There’s also the carrot, in the form of pro-poor policies. Rationalization of subsidies is not an option: you can’t stop providing for the rich and give the poor more. The only way you can really do it is by providing more subsidies, food, gas, and electricity, and importantly, providing more jobs and trying to get projects up and running to create employment. Egypt has to go through a serious expansionary phase, which is going to have a negative impact on both the fiscal side—clearly because much of that is going to be coming through the government--and on reserves.

The upside, of course, is that if you do see any sort of stabilization, if this is successful in the political and social spheres, then at that point, you’d also start to expect some foreign direct investment, perhaps a slight increase in tourism, and portfolio inflows particularly in the equity market.

There is a significant amount of money out there. If you consider how much money left Egypt up until the period when Morsi took power, it’s a significant amount. Normally, people talk about reserves going from $36 billion to $14 billion. The reality is that reserves went from something close to $60 billion down to $14 billion. You also have to take away the money pumped in by the Qataris, Saudis, Turks, and Libyans, and you also have to subtract all the money they haven’t been paying the international oil companies. So actually, the amount of money that Egypt has hemorrhaged in the last three years is far more than what the press keeps talking about.

Talks with the IMF have been postponed by both sides. For a government that spends 20 percent of its budget on fuel subsidies, a quarter of its income on debt services, and another quarter on salaries, isn’t there a dire need for structural reform? Or will the interim government pass off these problems to its elected successors?

I don’t think the interim government has the political mandate to do structural reforms, and they recognize that. These guys are basically firefighters who have been dropped in to try and keep things going while Egypt enters a new phase in its transition.

I also don’t think it’s desirable that they should take these tough decisions. It could exacerbate the political and social stability, and any government that tries to implement these kinds of reforms needs to do so in an environment that has broad-based political support.

"The amount of money that Egypt has hemorrhaged in the last three years is far more than what the press keeps talking about.

Reforms wouldn’t make any difference for Egypt’s economic crisis in the near term. The economic crisis right now is really born out of political and social instability and lack of security. Tinkering with the subsidy system today isn’t going to make any difference. In the long term, they need to sort out their subsidies and rationalize government expenditures. Egypt, with an almost 50 percent gray economy, also has to improve revenue collection—from street vendors all the way up to steel magnates.

Is there any appetite from Gulf businesses to invest in Egyptian equities or businesses?

We’re seeing a lot of interest in the banking sector from Gulf countries, especially Qatar. There are very good opportunities for companies to expand into Egypt, but there are significant uncertainties starting with foreign exchange risks. The clients that we speak to are extremely wary of the FX risk, and there is also concern about the ability to repatriate profits.

If you look at a typical food and beverage company operating in Egypt, it’s growing in excess of 20 percent per year in Egyptian pounds. The market is doing extremely well. But the uncertainty is too high, and it’s very difficult to convince boards sitting in London or the United States that they need to invest more in Egypt.

So basically, everyone is waiting to see if the military rulers are able to bring back some stability to the streets and trigger some growth. And if they can’t do that, the uncertainty persists.

It’s a little bit boring because it’s obvious, but the reality of the situation is that nothing is actually going to be improved or changed on the economic front unless the political crisis is overcome.

Close

Top Stories on CFR

Iran

Despite the impressive advances in airpower since the 1950s—like the precision-guided munitions employed in Saturday’s attack—there is only so much airstrikes can accomplish. 

Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Sign up to receive CFR President Mike Froman’s analysis on the most important foreign policy story of the week, delivered to your inbox every Friday afternoon. Subscribe to The World This Week. In the Middle East, Israel and Iran are engaged in what could be the most consequential conflict in the region since the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. CFR’s experts continue to cover all aspects of the evolving conflict on CFR.org. While the situation evolves, including the potential for direct U.S. involvement, it is worth touching on another recent development in the region which could have far-reaching consequences: the diffusion of cutting-edge U.S. artificial intelligence (AI) technology to leading Gulf powers. The defining feature of President Donald Trump’s foreign policy is his willingness to question and, in many cases, reject the prevailing consensus on matters ranging from European security to trade. His approach to AI policy is no exception. Less than six months into his second term, Trump is set to fundamentally rewrite the United States’ international AI strategy in ways that could influence the balance of global power for decades to come. In February, at the Artificial Intelligence Action Summit in Paris, Vice President JD Vance delivered a rousing speech at the Grand Palais, and made it clear that the Trump administration planned to abandon the Biden administration’s safety-centric approach to AI governance in favor of a laissez-faire regulatory regime. “The AI future is not going to be won by hand-wringing about safety,” Vance said. “It will be won by building—from reliable power plants to the manufacturing facilities that can produce the chips of the future.” And as Trump’s AI czar David Sacks put it, “Washington wants to control things, the bureaucracy wants to control things. That’s not a winning formula for technology development. We’ve got to let the private sector cook.” The accelerationist thrust of Vance and Sacks’s remarks is manifesting on a global scale. Last month, during Trump’s tour of the Middle East, the United States announced a series of deals to permit the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Saudi Arabia to import huge quantities (potentially over one million units) of advanced AI chips to be housed in massive new data centers that will serve U.S. and Gulf AI firms that are training and operating cutting-edge models. These imports were made possible by the Trump administration’s decision to scrap a Biden administration executive order that capped chip exports to geopolitical swing states in the Gulf and beyond, and which represents the most significant proliferation of AI capabilities outside the United States and China to date. The recipe for building and operating cutting-edge AI models has a few key raw ingredients: training data, algorithms (the governing logic of AI models like ChatGPT), advanced chips like Graphics Processing Units (GPUs) or Tensor Processing Units (TPUs)—and massive, power-hungry data centers filled with advanced chips.  Today, the United States maintains a monopoly of only one of these inputs: advanced semiconductors, and more specifically, the design of advanced semiconductors—a field in which U.S. tech giants like Nvidia and AMD, remain far ahead of their global competitors. To weaponize this chokepoint, the first Trump administration and the Biden administration placed a series of ever-stricter export controls on the sale of advanced U.S.-designed AI chips to countries of concern, including China.  The semiconductor export control regime culminated in the final days of the Biden administration with the rollout of the Framework for Artificial Intelligence Diffusion, more commonly known as the AI diffusion rule—a comprehensive global framework for limiting the proliferation of advanced semiconductors. The rule sorted the world into three camps. Tier 1 countries, including core U.S. allies such as Australia, Japan, and the United Kingdom, were exempt from restrictions, whereas tier 3 countries, such as Russia, China, and Iran, were subject to the extremely stringent controls. The core controversy of the diffusion rule stemmed from the tier 2 bucket, which included some 150 countries including India, Mexico, Israel, Switzerland, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. Many tier 2 states, particularly Gulf powers with deep economic and military ties to the United States, were furious.  The rule wasn’t just a matter of how many chips could be imported and by whom. It refashioned how the United States could steer the distribution of computing resources, including the regulation and real-time monitoring of their deployment abroad and the terms by which the technologies can be shared with third parties. Proponents of the restrictions pointed to the need to limit geopolitical swing states’ access to leading AI capabilities and to prevent Chinese, Russian, and other adversarial actors from accessing powerful AI chips by contracting cloud service providers in these swing states.  However, critics of the rule, including leading AI model developers and cloud service providers, claimed that the constraints would stifle U.S. innovation and incentivize tier 2 countries to adopt Chinese AI infrastructure. Moreover, critics argued that with domestic capital expenditures on AI development and infrastructure running into the hundreds of billions of dollars in 2025 alone, fresh capital and scale-up opportunities in the Gulf and beyond represented the most viable option for expanding the U.S. AI ecosystem. This hypothesis is about to be tested in real time. In May, the Trump administration killed the diffusion rule, days before it would have been set into motion, in part to facilitate the export of these cutting-edge chips abroad to the Gulf powers. This represents a fundamental pivot for AI policy, but potentially also in the logic of U.S. grand strategy vis-à-vis China. The most recent era of great power competition, the Cold War, was fundamentally bipolar and the United States leaned heavily on the principle of non-proliferation, particularly in the nuclear domain, to limit the possibility of new entrants. We are now playing by a new set of rules where the diffusion of U.S. technology—and an effort to box out Chinese technology—is of paramount importance. Perhaps maintaining and expanding the United States’ global market share in key AI chokepoint technologies will deny China the scale it needs to outcompete the United States—but it also introduces the risk of U.S. chips falling into the wrong hands via transhipment, smuggling, and other means, or being co-opted by authoritarian regimes for malign purposes.  Such risks are not illusory: there is already ample evidence of Chinese firms using shell entities to access leading-edge U.S. chips through cloud service providers in Southeast Asia. And Chinese firms, including Huawei, were important vendors for leading Gulf AI firms, including the UAE’s G-42, until the U.S. government forced the firm to divest its Chinese hardware as a condition for receiving a strategic investment from Microsoft in 2024. In the United States, the ability to build new data centers is severely constrained by complex permitting processes and limited capacity to bring new power to the grid. What the Gulf countries lack in terms of semiconductor prowess and AI talent, they make up for with abundant capital, energy, and accommodating regulations. The Gulf countries are well-positioned for massive AI infrastructure buildouts. The question is simply, using whose technology—American or Chinese—and on what terms? In Saudi Arabia and the UAE, it will be American technology for now. The question remains whether the diffusion of the most powerful dual-use technologies of our day will bind foreign users to the United States and what impact it will have on the global balance of power.  We welcome your feedback on this column. Let me know what foreign policy issues you’d like me to address next by replying to [email protected].

RealEcon

The Global Fragility Act (GFA) serves as a blueprint for smart U.S. funding to prevent and end conflict, and bipartisan congressional leaders advocate reauthorization of the 2019 law.