metadata: authors: 0: author: Araar,Abdelkrim
1: author: Verme,Paolo
count: Middle East and North Africa
docna: 0: docna: A comparative analysis of subsidy reforms in
            the Middle East and North Africa Region
docty: Policy Research Working Paper
subtopic: Disability,Services & Transfers to Poor,Energy Policies & Economics,Economic Assistance,Access of Poor to Social Services,Energy Demand,Energy and Environment,Energy and Mining,Inequality
teratopic: Macroeconomics and Economic Growth,Public Sector Development,Energy,Governance,Industry,Social Protections and Labor,Poverty Reduction
abstracts: cdata!: The paper compares the distribution of
            energy and food subsidies across households and the impact
            of subsidy reforms on household welfare in the Middle East
            and North Africa region. The analysis uses a unified model
            and harmonized household data. The results show that the
            distribution of subsidies and the welfare effects of subsidy
            reforms are quite diverse across countries and products.
            Energy subsidies tend to be pro-rich in terms of absolute
            amounts, but tend to be more important for the poor in terms
            of expenditure shares. Instead, food subsidies are larger
            for the poor in absolute and relative terms. These findings
            do not apply everywhere, and the scale of these phenomena
            are different across countries and products. The welfare
            effect of a 30 percent reduction in subsidies can be
            important, especially considering the cumulated effect
            across products, but the cost of compensating the loss in
            welfare for the poor is generally low compared with the
            budget benefits of decreasing subsidies.
repnme: repnme: A comparative analysis of subsidy reforms
            in the Middle East and North Africa Region
display_title: A comparative analysis of subsidy
            reforms in the Middle East and North Africa Region
listing_relative_url: /research/2016/07/26584689/comparative-analysis-subsidy-reforms-middle-east-north-africa-region
topicv3: Food Subsidies m1326272 1626,Energy Subsidies m1326386 1627,Energy and Extractives m1326595 507,Poverty m1326687 695,Power and Electricity Sector m1327094 515
publishtoextweb_dt: 2016-07-20T00:00:00Z
historic_topic: Macroeconomics and Economic Growth,Public Sector Development,Energy,Governance,Industry,Social Protections and Labor,Poverty Reduction
no_of_pages: 34
author_keys: 0: author_key: 517267
1: author_key: 439872
model_extractions: WPS7755 Policy Research Working Paper 7755 A Comparative Analysis of Subsidy Reforms in the Middle East and North Africa Region _Abdelkrim Araar Paolo Verme_ Poverty and Equity Global Practice Group July 2016
Policy Research Working Paper 7755

# **Abstract**

The paper compares the distribution of energy and food subsidies across households and the impact of subsidy reforms on household welfare in the Middle East and North Africa region. The analysis uses a unified model and harmonized household data. The results show that the distribution of subsidies and the welfare effects of subsidy reforms are quite diverse across countries and products. Energy subsidies tend to be pro-rich in terms of absolute amounts, but tend to be more important for the poor in terms of expenditure shares.

Instead, food subsidies are larger for the poor in absolute and relative terms. These findings do not apply everywhere, and the scale of these phenomena are different across countries and products. The welfare effect of a 30 percent reduction in subsidies can be important, especially considering the cumulated effect across products, but the cost of compensating the loss in welfare for the poor is generally low compared with the budget benefits of decreasing subsidies.

This paper is a product of the Poverty and Equity Global Practice Group. It is part of a larger effort by the World Bank to provide open access to its research and make a contribution to development policy discussions around the world. Policy Research Working Papers are also posted on the Web at http://econ.worldbank.org. The authors may be contacted at Araar. Abdelkrim@ecn.ulaval.ca and pverme@worldbank.org.

_The Policy Research Working Paper Series disseminates the findings of work in progress to encourage the exchange of ideas about development issues. An objective of the series is to get the findings out quickly, even if the presentations are less than fully polished. The papers carry the names of the authors and should be cited accordingly. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank and its affiliated organizations, or those of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent._ Produced by the Research Support Team
A Comparative Analysis of Subsidy Reforms in the Middle East and North Africa Region _Abdelkrim Araar and Paolo Verme_

**JEL** : H2, H7, N7, O13, Q1, Q4

**Keywords** : North Africa, Middle East, Energy Subsidies, Food Subsidies.
# Introduction

Consumer subsidies in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region are widespread. All of the countries in the region administer energy subsidies, and most countries administer food subsidies on at least a few items. These subsidies are important for households in that they constitute a sizable part of household expenditure and represent an important share of governments’ expenditure or forgone revenues. Consumer subsidies are also larger in this part of the world compared to other regions (Clements _et al._ 2013; Sdralevich _et al._ 2014) and they are more heterogeneous in many respects. The initial origins, types, profile, administration, and cost and beneficiaries of subsidies vary significantly across the countries of the MENA region. This heterogeneity makes comparisons across countries more complex, but also provides an opportunity to derive lessons on subsidies and subsidy reforms.

This paper aims at comparing the distribution of subsidies and the impact of subsidy reforms on welfare across countries in the MENA region. Specifically, the paper does this offering a standardized analysis of consumer subsidies in 2014. We use household budget survey data for five selected case studies and standardize the key variables for the analysis, including expenditure per capita on individual products and a basic set of household characteristics. We also update all surveys to 2014 using information on production, prices, and population growth and transform all values in purchasing power parity (PPP) using the latest round of the PPP survey (2011). We then use a version of the microsimulation model “SUBSIM,” (www.subsim.org) which is designed to make comparisons across countries, to provide a comparative distributional analysis of subsidies and simulations of subsidy reforms. This version of the software is designed to compare individual products across countries and allows researchers to see how any two countries compare in the distribution of subsidies and in the outcomes of subsidy reforms. In this way, we are able to simulate the same subsidy reforms in different countries and compare the outcomes across countries in terms of household welfare and government revenues.

The countries considered are Libya, Morocco, and Tunisia for North Africa and Djibouti and the Islamic Republic of Iran for the Middle East. The combined populations of these countries is 130 million or about 34 percent of the population of the MENA region. The sample includes net oil exporters such as the Islamic Republic of Iran and Libya and net oil importers such as Morocco 2
and Tunisia. It also includes low-income countries (Djibouti), low-middle-income countries (Morocco and Tunisia), and middle-income countries such as the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The products we consider are those that are the most relevant in terms of subsidies and those that are most frequently subsidized in the countries considered. These products are gasoline, diesel, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), and electricity for energy products, and flour, bread, sugar, and vegetable oil for food products. The comparison of energy products could be done across all countries considered while the comparison of food products was possible only for selected countries. That is because for some countries like Tunisia it was not possible to gather all the necessary information while in other countries such as Djibouti some of the four food products considered were not subsidized.

The focus of the analysis is on direct effects only, as it was not possible to collect and standardize a sufficient number of input-output matrixes for a comparative analysis of indirect effects. The relative importance of indirect effects changes across products and income groups. It is high for products like gasoline and for richer quintiles and small for products like bread and for poorer quintiles. Therefore, results on welfare related to reforms on food products capture the greatest share of the total effect, but results on overall welfare related to energy products miss on an important share of the total impact of subsidy reforms.

Results show that the distribution and effects of subsidies are quite diverse across countries and products. Energy subsidies tend to be pro-rich in terms of absolute amounts (larger amounts accrue to richer households) but tend to be more important for the poor in terms of expenditure shares. Instead, food subsidies can be larger for the poor in absolute and relative terms. These findings do not apply everywhere, and the scale of these phenomena are different across countries and products. The welfare effect of a 30 percent reduction in subsidies can be important, especially if we consider the cumulated effect across products, but the cost of compensating the loss in welfare for the poor is generally low as compared to the budget benefits of the reform. This leaves governments with some fiscal space for compensation of other groups such as the middle class.

3
The paper is organized as follows. The next section illustrates the data and methods used for the analysis. The paper then provides a comparative distributional analysis of subsidies and simulates subsidy reforms comparing the outcomes across countries.

# Data and Analytical Approach

In the following sections, we describe the microdata used for the analysis and the baseline prices (subsidized products and unit subsidies) as of 2014, our baseline year. The updates were made using published IMF macroindicators for inflation and gross domestic product (GDP) per capita as well as population statistics (see Tables B.1 and B.2). The exercise that follows estimates the distribution of subsidies and provides new simulations of subsidy reforms using the primary data files for each country and transforming expenditure into U.S. dollars ($) at purchasing power parity (PPP). This allows comparing subsidies and the outcome of subsidy reforms using a common currency.

## Microdata

Table 1 shows the population statistics estimated directly from the surveys. These numbers are not identical to all country-specific population estimates, but they are very close. We can see that the sample of countries considered amounts to a total population of almost 130 million people, approximately 34 percent of the population in the MENA region in 2014. The total household expenditure for the countries considered is approximately $0.63 trillion-PPP per year, which amounts to $3,913-PPP per capita, per year, and $17,381-PPP per household, per year. This average hides differences across countries. The Islamic Republic of Iran is by far the country with the highest per capita expenditure ($7,477-PPP). Morocco, and Tunisia follow with approximately $4,000-PPP, and Libya and Djibouti come last with approximately $2,000-PPP. The sample of countries we have is representative of three groups of countries at different levels of economic development. We also have oil-producing countries and net exporters of oil, such as the Islamic Republic of Iran and Libya; non-oil-producing countries with some natural resources, such as Morocco; and non-oil-producing countries, such as Tunisia, which have little in the way of natural resources. Therefore, we have a certain diversity also in terms of natural endowments.

4
Table 1: Baseline Population and Expenditure Statistics, in US$ at PPP

|Country|Population|Number of<br>households|Total<br>expenditures|Per capita<br>expenditures|Household<br>expenditures|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Djibouti|939,000|166,966|1,856,869,376|1,977|11,121|
|Iran, Islamic<br>Rep.|77,969,000|21,909 116|582,976,929,792|7,477|26,609|
|Libya|6,213,000|991,549|1, 318,968,832|1,983|12,424|
|Morocco|33,179,000|7,070,798|138,34, 810,176|4,170|19,565|
|Tunisia|11,060,000|2,548,655|43,800,788,992|3,960|17,186|
|Total|129,360,000|10,777,968|628,634,588,160|3,913|17,381|

_Source:_ World Bank estimations from Household Budget Surveys.

_Note:_ PPP = purchasing power parity. Data on household expenditure per capita can be very different from data on GDP per capita and the cross-country ranking made according to these two criteria can be quite different. This is mostly explained by the fact that total household expenditure represents different shares of GDP across countries.

# Baseline Prices and Subsidies

As a reference period for the analysis, we use the very early part of 2014 when oil prices and subsidies peaked at their highest levels. A major wave of subsidy reforms occurred in the MENA region in 2014 but this paper focuses on the extraordinary situation faced by MENA countries before the reforms. We are interested in the prices and subsidies existing in the MENA countries just before the reforms.

Table 2 shows the baseline prices and unit subsidies for energy products. For LPG, prices are the lowest for Libya and the Islamic Republic of Iran in that order and the highest for Djibouti. The highest shares of subsidies as a percentage of the free market price are in Libya and the Islamic Republic of Iran, the two oil-producing countries, with Libya’s LPG subsidies reaching 90.4 percent of the full price. The percentage price increases that would be necessary to eliminate subsidies on LPG are remarkable. In Libya the price would have to be increased by 947 percent to eliminate subsidies and in the Islamic Republic of Iran by 500 percent.

It is interesting to see that in Djibouti, the poorest of the countries considered, the price of LPG is 15 times the price in the Islamic Republic of Iran, the richest country considered. This divergence is also striking because LPG is a product that is typically consumed by the poor and it 5
is the most important among the poor. The claim that consumers’ subsidies are a form of social protection schemes does not really hold if we observe data for LPG across countries.

Prices for electricity appear less diverse, but that can be explained by the way the prices are listed—in kilowatt hours (average across tariffs blocks). As a percentage of the free market price, electricity subsidies are the highest in Tunisia. The lowest subsidies are for Libya (30.6 percent) and Morocco (42.3 percent) but still high. To reach the market price, Libya would have to increase prices by 44 percent, an increase that would not go unnoticed by the population, and Tunisia would have to increase prices by 583 percent, a staggering figure.

Prices for gasoline and diesel are closer to the free market price for most countries except the Islamic Republic of Iran and Libya. The Islamic Republic of Iran and Libya in particular would have to raise prices of gasoline fivefold and more than sevenfold, respectively, to reach the free market price. For the Islamic Republic of Iran in 2014 this finding is remarkable given that this country went through a comprehensive reform of the subsidies system in 2010 that supposedly eliminated most subsidies and was costly in terms of cash transfers administered to the population in compensation of the removal of subsidies.

Table 2: Energy Unit Prices and Subsidies, in US$ at PPP (2014)

||Price|Subs.|Subs.<br>(%)|Increase<br>(%)|Price|Subs.|Subs.<br>(%)|Increase<br>(%)|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|||_LPG (1_|_3 kg) _|||_Electricity (_|_kWh, av.)_||
|Djibouti|28.3|2.8|9.1|10|||||
|Iran, Islamic Rep.|1.9|9.7|83.3|500|0.18|0.25|58.5|140.7|
|Libya|2.9|27.4|90.4|947|0.26|0.11|30.6|44|
|Morocco|10.4|20.7|66.6|199.8|0.21|0.15|42.3|73.2|
|Tunisia|9.8|20.9|68|212.7|0.11|0.63|85.4|583|
|||_Gasolin_|_e (L)_|||_Diese_|_l (L)_||
|Djibouti|3|-0.1|-2||2.1|0.3|11.1|12.5|
|Iran, Islamic Rep.|0.5|2.3|83.3|500|0.4|2.3|84.8|557.1|
|Libya|0.2|1.6|87.7|714.7|0.2|1.6|88.1|740|
|Morocco|3.1|0|0||2.4|0.2|7.5|8.1|
|Tunisia|2.5|0.2|9.1|10|2.1|0.4|17.4|21.1|

_Source:_ World Bank estimations from Household Budget Surveys.

_Note:_ PPP = purchasing power parity.

6
For food (Table 3), the items considered are few, but we can see that subsidies can also be quite high. For flour, subsidies represent 91.3 percent of the free market price in Libya and almost 60 percent in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Libya has also the highest subsidies for bread, sugar, and vegetable oil, and the Islamic Republic of Iran has large subsidies on bread. Therefore, the oilproducing countries seem to be those that maintained the highest food subsidies. However, subsidies are also high in Morocco for flour and sugar, and in this country these products are universally subsidized and not subject to quotas.

Table 3: Food Unit Prices and Subsidies, in US$ at PPP (2014)

|||Price|Subs.|Subs.(%)|Increase(%)|Price|Subs.|Subs.(%)|Increase(%)|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|||||_Flour(kg)_<br>||||_Bread(kg)_||
|Djibouti||0.759|0.053|6.5|7.0|n.a.|n.a.|n.a.|n.a.|
|Iran, Islamic Rep.||0.689|1.027|59.9|149.2|1.199|1.346|52.9|112.2|
|Libya||0.130|1.360|91.3|1,044.4|0.054|1.334|96.1|2,491.9|
|Morocco|_Flour1_|1.197|0.168|12.3|14.0 %|n.a.|n.a.|n.a.|n.a.|
||_Flour2_|0.479|0.342|41.7|71.5 %|||||
|||||_Sugar(kg)_|||_Veg _|_etable oil(l_|_iter)_|
|Djibouti||0.865|0.061|6.5|7.0|1.422|0.171|10.7|12.0|
|Iran, Islamic Rep.||n.a.|n.a.|n.a.|n.a.|n.a.|n.a.|n.a.|n.a.|
|Libya||0.362|1.545|81.0|427.2|0.868|4.054|82.4|467.0|
|Morocco|_Sugar1_|1.393|0.682|32.9|49.0|n.a.|n.a.|n.a.|n.a.|
||_Sugar2_|1.393|0.682|32.9|49.0|||||
||_Sugar3_|1.077|0.682|38.8|63.3|||||

_Source:_ World Bank estimations from Household Budget Surveys. _Note_ : Subsidized flour and sugar in Morocco have different prices depending on varieties and forms; kg = kilogram; PPP = purchasing power parity.

# A Distributional Analysis of Subsidies

As indicated in the introduction, we use the microsimulation model SUBSIM to provide a distributional analysis of subsidies and simulations of alternative subsidy reforms. The publicly available version of SUBSIM comes in two flavors, SUBSIM direct, which estimates direct effects using Household Budget Survey (HBS) data only, and SUBSIM indirect, which uses HBS data and input-output matrixes to estimate direct and indirect effects.

This paper uses a third version of SUBSIM, which is not yet publicly available and which is designed to provide comparative analyses of subsidies across countries. This version is similar to 7
the SUBSIM direct version in that it automatically provides a set of results in Excel tables and graphs that can be readily used for analysis. The difference is that this version provides results for individual products across countries instead of results for individual countries across products. As part of the distributional analysis, we look first at the importance of subsidies and subsidized products for households. We then determine who are the main beneficiaries of subsidies, as well as the potential dilemmas for reforming subsidies.

When we talk about the importance of subsidized products, we should distinguish between _absolute_ and _relative_ importance. For absolute importance, we refer to the monetary values of subsidies or subsidized products in USD at PPP values. For relative importance, we refer to subsidies or subsidized products as a share of total household expenditure.

# The Absolute Importance and Distribution of Subsidies

Table 4 compares the per capita expenditure of the four main energy and food products considered across countries in US$-PPP values. Looking at energy products and on average, households spend $19.7 per capita, per year on LPG, $85.5 on electricity, $54.2 on gasoline, and $9.5 on diesel. These amounts vary widely across countries. For example, Moroccans spend (in PPP values) the largest amount on LPG, electricity, and diesel. Libya has the lowest expenditure for electricity and one of the lowest for gasoline and diesel. As expected, because Libya has high subsidies and Morocco has low subsidies, it is clear that expenditures for crude oil products are partly driven by the level of subsidies. But other factors must be considered, including the desirability of these products and the exchange rate used in PPP values.

Subsidies on food are much less widespread in terms of countries and products. Libya has the largest variety of food subsidies, and a few other countries subsidize flour, bread, sugar, or vegetable oil, which are the four products that we analyze across countries. The largest subsidies go to flour and bread. The distinction between flour and bread is not always clear cut in the data. Some countries subsidize the price of flour for mills and then impose regulated prices on the sale of bread. What we observe in expenditure data are direct purchases of flour or bread on the part of households. Therefore, we need to estimate the flour subsidies received by households via the purchase of bread using conversion factors between these two products. As a consequence, the estimates on bread and flour should be taken with some caution. Sugar is also an important subsidized item in three countries, and vegetable oil remains subsidized in two countries.

8
Table 4 Per Capita Expenditure on Subsidized Products, in US$ at PPP/year

|||**Ene**<br>|**rgy**<br>||||**Food**<br>||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||LPG|Electricity|Gasoline|Diesel|Flour|Bread|Sugar|Vegetable oil|
|Djibouti|1.8|95.1|36.9|n.a.|35.8|n.a.|51|29.2|
|Iran, Islamic Rep|10.6|83|102.8|0.6|12.6|163.7|n.a.|n.a.|
|Libya|4.4|26.4|26.8|0.5|9|30.1|17.9|46.6|
|Morocco|42.6|114.9|19.9|26.6|56.7|n.a.|26.8|n.a.|
|Tunisia|38.9|108.1|84.7|10.3|n.a.|n.a.|n.a.|n.a.|
|Average across countries|19.66|85.5|54.22|9.5|28.525|96.9|31.9|37.9|

_Source:_ World Bank estimations from Household Budget Surveys.

The results on the distribution of subsidies across quintiles are very different depending on the product and the country (Figure 1). Consider LPG first. In one country, the Islamic Republic of Iran, subsidies on LPG are progressive, meaning that poorer households get the largest dollar amounts of subsidies. But for all the other countries, subsidies on LPG are clearly regressive, as richer households get the largest amounts. Subsidies for LPG vary between a few dollars for the poorest quintile in Morocco to almost $400 for the rich in Libya. These amounts are significant, particularly for the poorest countries. However, we should not take for granted that subsidies on LPG are always pro-rich, as shown for the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Electricity subsidies are the most important in dollar amounts and exceptionally important in the Islamic Republic of Iran, where subsidies can reach up to $1,000-PPP per capita, per year for the richest quintile. Subsidies are less important in other countries but still nonnegligible, varying between a few dollars and more than $300-PPP per capita, per year. In the case of electricity, subsidies invariably favor the rich in absolute terms, as the largest amounts in dollar equivalents are taken up by the richest quintiles with no exceptions across countries. Clearly, oil-producing countries are those that offer the largest subsidies via electricity, probably because the need to produce electricity with cheaper fuels is less of a priority.

Also in the case of gasoline and diesel, subsidies are invariably pro-rich, with the largest dollar amounts taken up by the richest. The dollar amounts of these two products are relevant only in a few countries - the Islamic Republic of Iran and Libya for gasoline - that are either oil producers or endowed with natural resources. In these countries and for these products, it is evident that the 9
dollar amounts across the distribution increase quickly as we move toward richer households, showing that the regressivity of these subsidies is steep and consistent across countries. Diesel is important only in Morocco and in Tunisia and only for the top quintile.

Figure 1: Distribution of Energy Subsidies, in US$ at PPP/capita/year <!-- Start of picture text --> Liquefied Petroleum Gas Electricity<br>400 1,000<br>350 900<br>300 800<br>250 700<br>200 600<br>150 500<br>100 400<br>300<br>50<br>200<br>0<br>Libya Iran, Islamic Djibouti Tunisia Morocco 100<br>Rep. 0<br>Iran, Islamic Rep. Libya Tunisia Morocco<br>Quintile 1 Quintile 2 Quintile 3 Quintile 4 Quintile 5 Quintile 1 Quintile 2 Quintile 3 Quintile 4 Quintile 5<br>Gasoline Diesel<br>1,200 140<br>1,000 120<br>100<br>800<br>80<br>600<br>60<br>400<br>40<br>200 20<br>0 0<br>Iran, Islamic Rep. Libya Tunisia Morocco Tunisia Iran, Islamic Rep. Libya<br>Quintile 1 Quintile 2 Quintile 3 Quintile 4 Quintile 5 Quintile 1 Quintile 2 Quintile 3 Quintile 4 Quintile 5<br>Energy subsidies, in US$ at PPP/capita/year Energy subsidies, in US$ at PPP/capita/year<br>PPP/capita/year PPP/capita/year<br>Energy subsidies, in US$ at Energy subsidies, in US$ at<br><!-- End of picture text --> _Source:_ World Bank estimations from Household Budget Surveys.

The variety and amounts of food subsidies are much smaller than energy subsidies (Figure 2). They are below $40-PPP for flour and oil and below $20-PPP for sugar. The only significant subsidies are for bread in Libya and the Islamic Republic of Iran where the amounts can reach $900-PPP and $200-PPP, respectively, for the richest quintile, and the pattern is regressive. In general, larger subsidies accrue to richer quintiles with monotonic increases across quintiles. This pattern holds for sugar, bread, and oil for all countries and for flour in Libya and Djibouti, but not for Morocco and the Islamic Republic of Iran, where for flour subsidies are larger for poorer quintiles. Therefore, exceptions to the pro-richness of subsidies may exist also for food products.

10
<!-- Start of picture text --> Flour Bread<br>40 2,000<br>B 35 & 300<br>oS eS HOO<br>3.=gfefS> 230 >g 2Ss-€5 70600<br>me 20 zea 500<br>Zs ZS w<br>ae) a=<br>B% 1c Be 50<br>Fy Fy 200<br>eS0 I tt *TM0 rT ii]<br>tran, Marnic Hep. Morece libya Datei libya Iran, blarnic Rep.<br>mqQunticl mQuntic2 mQuintic3 mQuintic4 mQuintics mqQuintiel mQuindle2 mQundic3 maunties mquinties<br>Sugar Oil<br>20 a5<br>Bo = 4<br>go. Bows<br>BS. 2a<br>©eu =2w<br>ee. gz<br>>=os =|BS a<br>228 Fay<br>ee 6 ee il<br>Ba= a 7]BS aw<br>& 2 S s<br>Libya Morocco Djibouti Ubya Djiboud<br>=Quintiel m= Quntie2 =Quintie} =Quintie’ mQuinties mQuindiel mQuntie2 =Quntie3 = Quintie’ mquintles<br><!-- End of picture text -->
quantities. In Morocco the hump-shaped distribution could be due to the particular combination of increasing block tariffs (IBT) and volume differentiated tariffs (VDT)<sup>1</sup> and the size of the interblocks price increases. For electricity, therefore, it would be wrong to assume that the share of household expenditure is invariably more important for the poor, particularly because the poor benefit from very low tariffs.

For gasoline and diesel the distributional picture is fairly consistent, but opposite to LPG. Gasoline and diesel are disproportionally consumed by richer households. In Morocco car ownership is concentrated among richer households, and the consumption of these products among poorer households is confined to small quantities used for motorcycles or nontransport purposes. We see the shares of household expenditure on gasoline and diesel growing with richer quintiles as shown in figure 1 for almost all countries. The exceptions for gasoline are Libya and the Islamic Republic of Iran, two oil-producing countries where subsidies are high, public transport is limited, and the use of private transport is almost universal. Indeed, we can see that the distribution in these two countries are hump-shaped, with the largest expenditure relative to total expenditure borne by the middle class.

The consumption of diesel is much smaller in all countries, and in Djibouti the Islamic Republic of Iran, and Libya is negligible. These are the countries where diesel cars are scarcely available or not permitted. In countries that do consume some amounts of diesel, the share of expenditure invariably grows with richer quintiles.

12
Figure 3: Expenditure Shares of Subsidized Energy Products across Countries and Quintiles <!-- Start of picture text --> Liquefied Petroleum Gas Electricity<br>2.5 4<br>3.5<br>2<br>3<br>1.5 2.5<br>2<br>1<br>1.5<br>0.5 1<br>0.5<br>0<br>Morocco Tunisia Libya Iran, Islamic Djibouti 0<br>Rep. Morocco Tunisia Libya Iran, Islamic Rep.<br>Quintile 1 Quintile 2 Quintile 3 Quintile 4 Quintile 5 Quintile 1 Quintile 2 Quintile 3 Quintile 4 Quintile 5<br>Gasoline Diesel<br>3.5 1.2<br>3 1<br>2.5<br>0.8<br>2<br>0.6<br>1.5<br>0.4<br>1<br>0.5 0.2<br>0 0<br>Tunisia Djibouti Iran, Islamic Libya Morocco Morocco Tunisia Libya Iran, Islamic Djibouti<br>Rep. Rep.<br>Quintile 1 Quintile 2 Quintile 3 Quintile 4 Quintile 5 Quintile 1 Quintile 2 Quintile 3 Quintile 4 Quintile 5<br>Expenditure share (in %)<br>Expenditure share (in %)<br>Expenditure share (in %) Expenditure share (in %)<br><!-- End of picture text --> _Source:_ World Bank estimations from Household Budget Surveys.

For food products (figure 4), the situation is much simpler. For all products and in all countries, the household budget shares of expenditure on subsidized products is higher for poorer households and progressively lower for richer households, as we should expect. The decrease between quintiles is also very steep in general, particularly for flour and sugar in Djibouti and bread in the Islamic Republic of Iran. These products are evidently very important for the poor in these countries, representing up to 8 percent of total expenditure for the poorest quintile.

13
Figure 4: Expenditure Shares of Subsidized Food Products across Countries and Quintiles <!-- Start of picture text --> Flour Bread<br>7 6<br>6<br>5<br>5<br>4<br>4<br>3<br>3<br>2<br>2<br>1 1<br>0 0<br>Djibouti Morocco Libya Iran, Islamic Rep. Iran, Islamic Rep. Libya<br>Quintile 1 Quintile 2 Quintile 3 Quintile 4 Quintile 5 Quintile 1 Quintile 2 Quintile 3 Quintile 4 Quintile 5<br>Sugar Vegetable Oil<br>9 4<br>8 3.5<br>7 3<br>6<br>2.5<br>5<br>2<br>4<br>1.5<br>3<br>2 1<br>1 0.5<br>0 0<br>Djibouti Libya Morocco Djibouti Libya<br>Quintile 1 Quintile 2 Quintile 3 Quintile 4 Quintile 5 Quintile 1 Quintile 2 Quintile 3 Quintile 4 Quintile 5<br>Expenditure share (in %) Expenditure share (in %)<br>Expenditure share (in %) Expenditure share (in %)<br><!-- End of picture text --> _Source:_ World Bank estimations from Household Budget Surveys.

# A Policy Dilemma

It should be clear by now that there is a certain trade-off between the share of expenditure on subsidized products in total household expenditure and the dollar amounts of subsidies received. To illustrate this trade-off, figure 5 plots these two dimensions across population percentiles for LPG in different countries. For most countries, the curves are negatively sloped for the expenditure shares, meaning that poorer households spend a larger share of total expenditure on subsidized products than richer households (figure 5, panel a). Also in most countries, richer households receive larger amounts of subsidies in per-capita terms (figure 5, panel b). This rule is not, however, always true. For example, the data for LPG in the Islamic Republic of Iran show a negative slope in both graphs, demonstrating not only that this product is more important for poorer households but also that these households receive a larger amount per capita in subsidies than richer households. This is less evident for food products, such as flour (figure 6). We can 14
see that although the share of expenditure is higher for poorer households as for energy products, the subsidies per capita are more pro-poor, particularly in the Islamic Republic of Iran. In Djibouti, however, subsidies on flour are pro-rich.

For most countries, this trade-off creates a dilemma. On the one hand, that subsidies are pro-rich would clearly speak in favor of eliminating subsidies with little consequences on welfare. On the other hand, these subsidized products can be relatively more important for the poor, even if subsidies are in place. The elimination of these subsidies would be felt more by the poor than by the rich with a likely effect on poverty. As we saw, the trade-off does not necessarily apply to all countries; instead, it varies across products, and the size of the trade-off may be different across products and countries.

We should also note the structural relation between the values on the y-axes of the two panels in figure 5. Let _p_ = unit free market price, _s_ = unit subsidies, _q_ = quantities, and _y_ = total income. The y-axis of the panel a is then ( _pq-sq_ )/ _y_ and the y-axis of panel b is _sq_ . Income and quantities being equal, the higher the unit subsidy, the lower the expenditure share. Subsidies and quantities being equal, the higher is income, the lower is the share of expenditure. Because the unit market price and subsidy are set by the government and equal for all, the shape of the lines largely depends on the distribution of incomes in each country. Therefore, knowledge of the household <u>income or expenditure distribution is an essential prerequisite to prepare subsidy reforms.</u> Figure 5: Expenditure Shares of LPG versus Subsidies per Capita <!-- Start of picture text --> .03 a. Expenditure share 150 b. Benefits per capita<br>Djibouti Iran Djibouti Iran<br>Libya Morocco Libya Morocco<br>Tunisia Tunisia<br>.02 100<br>.01 50<br>0 0<br>0 .19 .38 .57 .76 .95 0 .19 .38 .57 .76 .95<br>Percentiles of population Percentiles of population<br>US$-PPP<br>LPG expenditure share (in%)<br><!-- End of picture text --> _Source:_ World Bank estimations from Household Budget Surveys.

15
Figure 6: Expenditure Shares of Flour versus Subsidies per Capita <!-- Start of picture text --> 8 a. Expenditure share 50 b. Benefits per capita<br> Djibouti Djibouti<br> Iran, Islamic Rep. Iran, Islamic Rep.<br> Libya 40 Libya<br>6<br>30<br>4<br>20<br>2<br>10<br>0 0<br>0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9<br>Percentiles of population Percentiles of population<br>US$-PPP<br>Flour expenditure share (in %)<br><!-- End of picture text --> _Source:_ World Bank estimations from Household Budget Surveys.

# Simulations of Subsidy Reforms

In order to simulate comparable reforms across countries, we consider a flat reduction of unit subsidies by 30 percent across all products and all countries. We measure the impact of these reforms on household welfare, inequality, and the government budget in this order. We also consider the cost for the government of compensating the population to reach the pre-reform level of welfare. The implied changes in prices of the proposed simulations are large for most countries and products, which makes the standard linear approach to subsidies simulations inappropriate. We therefore model the demand function using Cobb-Douglas preferences.<sup>2</sup>

## Welfare

Figures 7 and 8 show the impact on household welfare (measured in terms of household expenditure per capita). For each product in the figures we have two panels. The top panel illustrates the welfare impact in annual per capita US$-PPP terms. The bottom panel illustrates the welfare impact in terms of share of total household expenditure. Therefore, the top part of the figures is the absolute welfare effect, and the bottom part is the relative welfare effect.

For LPG, the greatest impact of this reform would be in Morocco, with a per capita impact per year of about $20-PPP on average. The smallest impact is in Djibouti, the poorest of the countries considered. It is also instructive to see that the distributions of these impacts can be 16
regressive or progressive depending on the country. In the Islamic Republic of Iran, the impact is regressive all along the distribution, with the highest per capita impact for the poorest quintile and the lowest impact for the richest quintile whereas they are progressive in all other countries. As these are dollar values, it is evident that the relative impact on household welfare is much greater for the poor than for the rich, as can be seen in the bottom part of the LPG figure, where it is clear that the welfare impact in terms of share of total expenditure is regressive in all countries.

For electricity, the welfare impact is quite large in all countries, with the Islamic Republic of Iran having by far the highest impact followed by Libya. In the Islamic Republic of Iran, the impact on the richest quintile is very high, about $150-PPP per person, per year. But because the richest quintiles are affected the most in absolute terms, this impact is progressive in all countries. This result is due to the tariff systems in place, which typically include low tariffs for the first or the first two tariffs’ blocks and high tariffs for the last block. As the relation between electricity consumption and household welfare is quite linear in most countries, households in the richer quintiles are also the largest consumers of electricity. This finding is apparent in the difference between the bars for the fourth and fifth quintiles. As for LPG, the welfare impact is progressive in absolute terms, but regressive in relative terms (relatively to total expenditure). As shown in the lower part of the electricity figure, in all countries, the relative welfare impact is regressive.

Welfare impacts are also high for gasoline, especially for the oil-producing countries of Libya and the Islamic Republic of Iran. The average cost for households in the richest quintile in the Islamic Republic of Iran is about $200-PPP, a large amount even for a country that is the richest among those considered. For all countries, the welfare impacts are progressive because the poor do not own means of transport and therefore do not consume gasoline. The impacts on household welfare of diesel’s reforms are very small as compared to the impact of other products. They are around $1-PPP per person, per year. Also for diesel, the impact is progressive in all countries considered. Contrary to LPG and electricity, the relative welfare impact is not necessarily regressive but mostly progressive or hump-shaped.

17
<!-- Start of picture text --> Liquefied Petroleum Gas Electricity<br>Iran, tslamic tran, tstamicRep. Libya Tunisia Morocco<br>a<br>: Morocco Tunisia Rep. Libya Djibouti o “Buy “so § --s98<br>= LL) a u .<br>wv > a<br>5 -1s10 && -100<br>£m S<br>t 55 = -150<br>Bsd &<br>ba t<br>-35 E -200<br><!-- End of picture text --> <!-- Start of picture text --> p10==1<br>©200% = 400%<br>SQuintile1 8 Quintile2 &Quintile3 8 Quintile4 MS QuintileS SQuintile1 SQuintile2 Ss Quintile3 “Quintile4 & Quintiles<br>Gasoline Diesel<br>Iran, Islamic Iran, Isamic<br>Rep. Libya Tunisia Morocco Djibouti Morocco Tunisia Libya Rep. Djibouti<br>e o o "S58 7 o = —s ]<br>p. agg ee ie | he<br><!-- End of picture text -->

<!-- Start of picture text --> & Ba2<br>3 £2<br>ew& ta2<br>-250 —E3<br>fom 0.00% a 000% ———am ——— -<br>| TN” ;oon , oes ages<br>= 200% = 0.10%<br>= Quintile1 = Quintile2 SQuintile3 = Quintile4 = QuintileS = Quintile1 sQuintile2 Quintile3 «Quintile4 mQuintileS<br><!-- End of picture text -->
<!-- Start of picture text --> Flour Bread<br>Morocco Iran, Islamic Rep. Libya Djibouti Libya Iran, Islamic Rep.<br>° 0<br>me<br>75<br>=ian B -40<br>=. = 60<br>Es+aE§a -t0<br>-10 -100<br><!-- End of picture text --> <!-- Start of picture text --> =<br>ON a" ge°*"— ggee* ge" 0.00% —<br>t 70.20% &<br>& t 5.00%<br>E .0.40% =g -10.00%<br>mQuintile1 sQuintile2 sQuintile3 mQuintile4 mQuintileS<br>=Quintile1 Quintile2 Quintile3 SQuintile4 m= Quintiles<br>Sugar Oil<br>Morocco Libya Djibouti Libya Djibouti<br>& 46 "S58 & ° —— — =<br>><br><!-- End of picture text --> <!-- Start of picture text --> b=]ia 4<br>£3 3iS<br>gR- §<br>Esoa —oa 8<br>-6 -10<br>£ =<br>ty 70.20% 5 70.50%<br>E @<br> 0.40% E -1.00%<br>eQuintie1 mQuintile2 me Quintile3 me Quintile4 m Quintiles eqQuintile1 sQuintile2 sQuintie3 eQuintile4 wm QuintileS<br><!-- End of picture text -->
<!-- Start of picture text --> _, oz<br>= 015020<br>i O 1005<br>—_— 3<br>0.00 Pl So<br>‘Djibouti Iran, islamic bya ious |<br>Diesel Rep.<br>Gasoline -0.0000Cnet o03340.0003 rerQ.0041 0.1. 0 00059 0.0030.015 8<br>w Electricity 02103 O1255 0.0459 0.0802<br>mL 0.0000 00724 0.0343 0.1135 0.1385<br><!-- End of picture text -->

<!-- Start of picture text --> 0.90<br>0.80<br>= o70<br>Zé oso0.60<br>5 San—<br>5 a0 2 J<br>2 2 “J<br>Dabouti tran, tlamic Lira Momeco<br>Rep<br>Sugarcal a0 0 1? O03ae 03<br>m Bread 0.20 o73<br>flour 001 on4 vn] 3<br><!-- End of picture text -->
Libya, where the food subsidy program is very large. In this country and with a universal transfer designed to offset the poverty gap, the increase in per capita government revenue can be large but still below the overall gains in revenues determined by the reforms.

Figure 10: Governments’ Revenue Impact of a 30 Percent Reduction in Subsidies on Energy Products, in US$-PPP/capita/year <!-- Start of picture text --> Electricity<br>Liquefied petroleum gas<br>Tunisia<br>Tunisia<br>Morocco<br>Morocco<br>Libya Libya<br>Iran, Islamic Rep.<br>Iran, Islamic Rep.<br>Djibouti<br>Djibouti<br>0 10 20 30 40<br>Values in US$‐PPP 0 50 100Values in US$‐PPP150 200 250 300 350 400<br>Per capita equivalent transfer to offset the change in<br>the poverty gap Per capita equivalent transfer to offset the change in the poverty gap<br>Change in the per capita government revenue Change in the per capita government revenue<br><!-- End of picture text --> <!-- Start of picture text --> Gasoline Diesel<br>Tunisia Tunisia<br>Morocco Morocco<br>Libya<br>Libya<br>Iran, Islamic Rep.<br>Iran, Islamic Rep.<br>Djibouti<br>Djibouti<br>0 50 100 150 200 250 300<br>Values in US$‐PPP 0.0 0.5 Values in US$‐PPP1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0<br>Per capita equivalent transfer to offset the change in<br>the poverty gap<br>Per capita equivalent transfer to offset the change in the poverty gap<br>Change in the per capita government revenue<br>Change in the per capita government revenue<br><!-- End of picture text --> _Source:_ World Bank estimations from Household Budget Surveys.

21
# Conclusion

This paper has provided a comparative analysis of the distribution of subsidies across the MENA region and a comparative analysis of the welfare and budget effects of subsidy reforms considering a 30 percent reduction in subsidies. We used a special version of SUBSIM designed to make comparative analyses of subsidy reforms across countries in US$-PPP values. The purpose of the paper was not to provide exact estimates of the impacts of reforms but to compare outcomes across countries.

The population sample considered is large, almost 130 million people or 34 percent of the total population in the MENA region in 2014. All data were actualized to 2014, and all expenditures transformed into US$-PPP values using the latest 2011 PPP conversion factor. The total household expenditure considered is approximately $0.63 trillion-PPP or 3,913 US$-PPP per capita, per year on average. The sample of countries covered includes low-income countries, low-middle-income countries and middle-income countries. The sample also includes net oil exporters as well as net oil importers.

We found that the size of subsidies does not necessarily relate to the needs of a population. In Djibouti, for example, the poorest of the countries considered in this paper, the price of LPG is 15 times the price in the Islamic Republic of Iran, the richest country considered. Products such as LPG and electricity tend to have higher subsidies than gasoline. Food subsidies tend to be higher among net oil exporters, as the oil wealth is partly distributed to the population via food subsidies.

Subsidized products are quite important for the populations of the MENA region. LPG can account for more than 2 percent of total expenditure as for the poorest quintile in Tunisia, and electricity can reach 3.5 percent of expenditure as for the poorest quintile in Tunisia. And products such as sugar can reach up to 8 percent for the poorest people in Djibouti. The importance of LPG decreases with welfare, but it increases for gasoline.

The consumption pattern of subsidized products partly explains who benefits from subsidies, and it is clear that the main beneficiaries can be very different depending on the product and country considered. For example, in the Islamic Republic of Iran, subsidies are progressive for LPG but 22
regressive in all other countries, and electricity and gasoline subsidies are invariably regressive in that the majority of benefits in absolute terms accrue to richer households.

Comparing results on the importance of subsidized products and on the distribution of subsidies leads to an important policy dilemma. Subsidies may be very important for poor households, even though richer households receive the greatest share, which makes subsidy reforms complex from the perspective of public policies. A useful instrument to take decisions on subsidies is to compare the expenditure share curves by percentile of the expenditure distribution with the total subsidies per capita curves. Products and countries where both curves are positively sloped are the most promising for reforms because both the share of these products on household expenditure and the amount of subsidies are larger for the richer households.

Simulations of a 30 percent reduction in subsidies for all products showed that the welfare implications are important particularly for electricity and LPG where these reforms can reduce household welfare for the poorest quintiles by up to 2 percent for individual products and can reach 4 to 5 percent if we aggregate the impact for all products. Nevertheless, the impact on the poverty gap is small and the impact on inequality is negligible. Instead, the benefits to government budgets are quite large, even if countries decide to compensate households with a universal transfer that would offset the increase in the poverty gap. This result would suggest that countries have some fiscal space for compensating citizens beyond the poor.

23