The fuel subsidy bill: remove it or target it?
In this scenario, the government spends 600 billion FCFA a year on a fuel subsidy that keeps petrol and diesel prices below import cost. The finance ministry estimates that removing the subsidy would save 600 billion FCFA, but transport fares and food prices would rise. A study suggests that the poorest 40% of households receive only 15% of the subsidy's benefit because they use less fuel directly, while owners of vehicles and generators capture most. The government is considering replacing the subsidy with a cash transfer of 25,000 FCFA a month to 2 million registered poor households, costing 600 billion FCFA a year. Traders in Douala warn that fuel prices would raise transport costs by 20%, and that they would pass most of this on to consumers. The government has a budget deficit and a loan condition that requires reducing untargeted subsidies.
1. Explain the opportunity cost of the fuel subsidy. What could 600 billion FCFA buy?
Read the worked answer
The opportunity cost of the subsidy is the value of the government spending that is forgone because 600 billion FCFA is used to hold fuel prices down. With a budget deficit, the money could otherwise fund primary schools, health centres, rural roads, or a targeted cash transfer. If the subsidy is borrowed for, the opportunity cost also includes future interest payments.
The subsidy is not free simply because it appears as a lower pump price. The government must raise taxes, cut other spending, or borrow. The relevant comparison is therefore between the benefit of cheaper fuel and the benefit of the forgone alternatives. Because the study says the richest capture most of the benefit, the opportunity cost is likely to be high in equity terms: the state gives up broad public spending to subsidise mainly vehicle owners and generator users. A targeted transfer could achieve a similar protection for the poor at a lower equity cost, though it brings administrative costs of its own.
2. Using the benefit incidence data, assess whether the subsidy is progressive or regressive. Does the cash transfer improve targeting?
Read the worked answer
A progressive policy gives relatively more benefit to the poor; a regressive policy gives relatively more to the rich. The poorest 40% receive only 15% of the subsidy benefit, so the richest 60% receive 85%. Since the poor are the larger numerical group in need but get a small share, the fuel subsidy is regressive in its distribution. The reason is that direct fuel use rises with car ownership, generator use and higher consumption.
The proposed cash transfer is better targeted: 25,000 FCFA a month goes only to 2 million registered poor households. If registration is accurate, a larger share of the 600 billion FCFA reaches the poor. But targeting is not automatic. There may be exclusion errors, where poor households lack registration; inclusion errors, where non-poor households are registered; and administrative costs. The judgement is that the transfer is more progressive in design, but its actual progressivity depends on the quality of the register and on whether 25,000 FCFA compensates for the price rise.
3. Evaluate the likely effects of replacing the subsidy with the cash transfer on inflation, inequality and the government budget.
Read the worked answer
Removing the subsidy raises fuel prices, and traders warn that transport costs could rise by 20%. Because transport is an input into food and other goods, this is a cost-push pressure on inflation. The effect on inequality depends on the cash transfer. Without compensation, the poor would be hurt because food and transport take a large share of their budgets. With the transfer, poor households may be protected, but only if 25,000 FCFA covers the higher cost and if payment is timely.
The budget effect is roughly neutral: the subsidy saving of 600 billion FCFA finances the transfer of 25,000 × 2 million × 12 = 600 billion FCFA. The gain is not extra money but better allocation and less distortion. Risks include payment delays, fraud, and the political reaction to higher pump prices. The government should sequence the reform: announce the transfer first, pay it before removing the subsidy, monitor transport fares, and adjust the transfer if inflation rises. The judgement is that replacement is economically sounder than an untargeted subsidy, but only with credible compensation and monitoring.