US: an engine or a threat to the world economy? Unwise to write shortsighted rules!

Is the US an engine or a threat to the world economy?

According to the World Economic Outlook published by the World Bank, the international economy is forecast to grow by 3 percent in 2015 and 3.3 percent in 2016. The US and the UK will maintain their economy recovery while Japan and the eurozone will remain sluggish, with growth forecast at no more than 1.1 percent. The World Bank also predicted that the US economy will grow by 3.2 percent in 2015. Developing countries are facing lots of challenges in its economic development.

The US seems to be the only engine of the world economy. But the US Federal Reserve is likely to raise its interest rate from 0 to 0.25 percent. The World Bank worries that any such move will make it more difficult for emerging economies to raise money. The US has emerged from its financial crisis while other countries are still trapped in economic troubles. From this perspective it is hard to assess whether the US is an engine or a threat to the world economy.

There is still a worry that Greece will exit the eurozone. If this happens, the eurozone will be thrown into turmoil. In Japan, so-called "Abenomics" have failed to generate the anticipated results. Russia and Venezuela are each facing their own troubles and threats.

The US economy is closely linked to the whole. Only when other economies achieve sound development, can the US economy maintain sustainable development. The US can't just focus on its own development.

This article was edited and translated from 《美国是引擎还是威胁？》, source: People's Daily Overseas Edition, Author: Zhang Hong

It is unwise for the U.S. to write shortsighted rules

In the latest State of the Union Address, President Barack Obama mentioned China many times. He claimed that China wants to write the rules for the world's fastest-growing region (Asia-Pacific) but the U.S. should write those rules. He went on to urge Congress to give him the authority to promote trade with this region.

Obama is setting considerable store by the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership (TPP) Agreement (TPP) and Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). These trans-regional trade and investment agreements are designed to increase America's competitiveness and encourage its exports. Although Obama's government has tried hard to promote these agreements and to make his mark on presidential history in the U.S., parts of the bills of the two agreements are opposed by some of the negotiation partners, and it is not clear whether Congress will support the agreements.

The U.S. is avoiding queries over its strategic rebalancing toward the Asia-Pacific. The American government cannot give a clear answer to whether TPP targets any specific country. However Obama has now made his position clear: "We should write those rules. We should level the playing field. That’s why I’m asking both parties to give me trade promotion authority to protect American workers, with strong new trade deals from Asia to Europe that aren’t just free, but fair."

It is readily apparent that America is not satisfied with international trade rules set by the World Trade Organization (WTO). Some countries are trying to break rules while China is attempting to set rules for the world's fastest-growing region. However, China's efforts could undermine American interests. Obama hold the view that China is taking advantages of existing free trade rules and it is not fair to the U.S.

It is not wrong for America to benefit from reform of international trade rules. But from a country good at promoting global rules in the past to one now busy promoting trans-regional rules between Asia and Europe, America's leadership in international system gradually fades out. The U.S. thinks that it has suffered losses from past world trade rules and therefore wants to establish new trans-regional institutions that exclude China and other counties.

America is no longer a country positively promoting global financial trade rules. It now seems to be focused on short-term rules to suit itself and a few allies. Although these agreements will co-exist with the WTO, world trade may become more fragmentized due to trans-regional agreements. A conflict of interests is slowly developing between a group of developed countries, including America, and the developing countries. Trade interests between developing countries might also be damaged. In view of this situation, it is hard to say that the world will be freer or fairer.

Are the trade rules established by WTO really unfair? The U.S. thinks that the standards involving environmental protection, intellectual property protection, and markets are too low. However, America should always bear in mind that it too encountered these problems during its industrialization. Progress was achieved only after a long period. If America remains reluctant to cooperate with other countries to define international rules, it might lose international respect and miss out on new opportunities for development.

The article is edited and translated from 《美国切莫制定短视规则（望海楼）》, source: People's Daily Overseas Edition, author: Shen Dingli, Vice Dean and professor of Institute of International Studies, Fudan University

Related posts:

Don't worry about China slowdown !

Last evening, Beijing time, Premier Li gave the most anticipated speech at Davos. One day after China's GDP came in at 7.4 per...

West should end its hypocrisy on anti-terror war!

Chinese and Russian policemen attend a joint anti-terror drill in Manzhouli City, north China's Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, Oct ...

 

Will the lessons be learnt from the financial crisis in Cyprus?

This time, it is Cyprus’ turn to face a bitter financial crisis as bank depositors get hit and capital controls are imposed. 

Demonstrators in Athens. The roots of the eurozone crisis lie in its unwillingness to uphold fiscal discipline. Photograph: Louisa Gouliamaki/AFP/Getty Images

THE financial crisis in Cyprus has again shown that over-dependence on the financial sector and an unregulated and liberalised financial system can cause havoc to an economy.

The particular manner in which a financial crisis manifests itself may be different from country to country, depending on the ways the country became financially over-reliant or over-liberalised, and also on how ever-changing external conditions affect the country.

For the past two weeks, Cyprus hit the headlines because of the rapid twists and turns of its crisis, the terms of the bailout it negotiated with its European and IMF creditors, the hit that bank depositors are forced to take, and finally the “capital controls” that the government has imposed to prevent bank runs and capital flight out of the country.

Depositors with more than 100,000 (RM396,000) could lose more than half their savings.

Bank customers can only withdraw 300 (RM1,189) daily; cashing of cheques is prohibited; transfers of funds to accounts held abroad or in other credit institutions are prohibited; transfers due to trade transactions above 5,000 (RM19,832) a day require central bank permission; the use of credit cards overseas is restricted to 5,000 (RM19,832) per account a month; and travellers can only take out 1,000 (RM3,960) or equivalent in foreign currency per trip.

These capital controls, announced on March 28, were highlighted in the media as the first to be imposed by a country belonging to the European Union.

It was like the slaying of a “sacred cow”, because the freedom to move funds out of and into the European countries had been treated almost like a human right.

But it is this total freedom for the flow of funds that has contributed or even been ultimately responsible for so many financial crises in so many countries in the past few decades.

This liberalised system of capital flows enables residents to place their funds abroad or to purchase foreign assets like bonds and shares.

It also enables foreigners to bring in funds either for short-term speculation and investment or longer-term investment and savings.

After the Second World War, capital controls were the rule: flows of funds to and from abroad were mainly restricted to activities linked to the real economy of trade, direct investments and travel.

From the mid-1970s, the liberalisation of capital flows took place in the rich economies and gradually spread to many developing countries.

The finance ministers of Brazil and of other developing countries have been protesting against the easy-money policies in rich countries that have had adverse effects on emerging economies.

When the internal or external situation changes and investor perception changes with it, the inflow of funds turns into its opposite.

The sudden outflow of funds, and depreciation of the currency, can then cause an even more devastating effect on the economy.

In the 1997-99 crisis, East Asian countries that had over-liberalised their financial system found that local banks and companies had borrowed heavily in US dollars.

When their currencies depreciated, many of the borrowers could not service their loans.

The countries’ foreign reserves dropped to danger levels, forcing them to go to the IMF for bailout loans.

Malaysia fortunately had some control over the amount local companies could borrow from abroad, which prevented it from falling into an external debt crisis.

The imposition of capital controls over outflows in September 1998 enabled Malaysia to avoid a financial crisis requiring an IMF bailout.

The immediate response from the IMF and the Western establishment was that the capital controls would destroy the Malaysian economy.

Today, the economic orthodoxy has changed, and most analysts including at the IMF give credit to Malaysia for the capital controls.

The Malaysian controls included a temporary ban on foreigners transferring their ringgit denominated funds (for example in the stock market) abroad, a limit to the funds local travellers could take out of the country, and limits to overseas investments by local companies and individuals.

Today, the IMF itself has changed its position, saying that capital controls in certain situations are not only legitimate but may also be necessary.

It has partially recognised that unregulated capital flows can cause financial instability and economic damage.

In the case of Cyprus, analysts now conclude that its growth model was flawed because it was too reliant on a bloated financial sector, having become a haven for foreign savers, especially from Russia.

But a major factor in its recent crisis was that the country’s biggest banks invested in Greek government bonds.

In October 2011, a bailout package was arranged for Greece by the European Union and the IMF.

Part of the bailout terms was that holders of Greek government bonds would take a “haircut” or loss of about 50%.

This Greek debt restructuring meant a loss of 4bil (RM15.9bil) for banks in Cyprus, a huge amount in a country whose GNP is only 18bil (RM71.4bil).

Now, it is Cyprus’ turn to be reconfigured and re-created as part of a 10bil (RM39.7bil) bailout scheme. The two biggest banks, Bank of Cyprus and Laiki Bank are to be drastically restructured, with the latter to be closed.

The biggest innovation designed by the European Union and IMF creditors is that the bank depositors will have to take losses. Deposits less than 100,000 (RM396,000) are to be spared, after an original plan to also “tax” them by 6.75% was cancelled after a huge outcry and the fear of contagion, with bank runs in many European countries.

The final plan is for deposits over 100,000 (RM396,000) in the two banks to take losses not by the originally planned 9.9% but by much more.

The new European policy of getting bank depositors to take a big hit in bailouts of banks will have big ramifications for public confidence in banks.

The new perception is that money put as savings in banks is no longer safe.

The question remains: will the policymakers learn the real lessons from these crises?

GLOBALTRENDS BY MARTIN KHOR 

Related posts:

Financial crises a result of governance failures

Financial crises a result of governance failures

ROMAN emperor Julius Caesar was famously warned by a seer about the Ides of March, traditionally March 15.

On March 15 this year, banks in Cyprus were closed to allow politicians time to decide how to raise 5.8 billion euros so that the country could qualify for 10 billion euros in bailout funds from the rest of eurozone and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The solution suggested was to levy a tax on depositors, sparking a realisation that finally, the Europeans had decided to “bail-in” investors and depositors, rather than using public funds to “bail-out” everyone else.

The Cyprus crisis caused a stir in global financial markets, because it punctured expectations that the worst was over. Instead, it demonstrated another episode of muddling through.

Banks in Cyprus re-opened on Thursday with new capital controls on the amount depositors can take out. Larger depositors with over 100,000 euros would stand to lose up to 40% of their deposits. Of course, a significant portion of the deposits in Cyprus banks belong to Russians, who may suffer losses of 4 billion to 6 billion euros. For certain investors, this is the price of putting money in higher risk offshore financial centres. The price to Cyprus of operating as an offshore financial centre is likely to be a drop of GDP of more than 20% in the next couple of years.

The Cyprus outcome is not unexpected. If European governments are to be loaded with heavy debt burdens as a result of the crisis, they will be bound to start “taxing” offshore financial centres, where rich Europeans had been avoiding tax for years. If the eurozone banking union is to have any credibility, they will have to start controlling banking centres which operate largely on tax and regulatory arbitrage. Moreover, having banking assets seven to eight times GDP is no longer considered viable, whether for Cyprus or Iceland.

At the heart of such troubles lies the issue of governance. Financial crises are more governance failures than anything else.

Last week, The End of History philosopher and political scientist Francis Fukuyama published an important blog commentary on “What is governance?” This is the much-awaited part of his promised series on political governance, beginning with his 2011 book The Origins of Political Order. In that book, he looked at the three components of a modern political order a strong and capable state, the rule of law and accountability of the state to its citizens. Since the 2011 book stopped at the French Revolution, most readers would be curious to see how he handled the rise of China, which has a different political system from the West.

Fukuyama's new definition of governance is “a government's ability to make and enforce rules, and to deliver services, regardless of whether that government is democratic or not.” Notice that he has decided to remove any suggestion that democracy is automatically associated with good governance, appreciating that “an authoritarian regime can be well governed, just as a democracy can be mal-administered.”

Accordingly, he uses four approaches to evaluating the quality of governance: procedural measures, input measures, output measures and measures of bureaucratic autonomy. To put it into simple language governance should be measured according to how you govern (the processes); the efficiency of governance (how much tax or resources you need); the effectiveness (outcomes rather than objectives) and whether the bureaucracy is independent of politics or not (the autonomy question).

In dissecting governance into its different dimensions, Fukuyama has helped to clarify the methodology in thinking about the tradeoffs between the ability to have high discretion versus being bogged down by excessive rules, and high capacity to execute, versus low capacity to execute. Critics of that approach would argue that strong states with excessive discretion may not be sustainable. On the other hand, weak states with too many rules and no discretion may not be sustainable either.

Fukuyama is right to point out that the bureaucracy's interests may not be identical to those of the people. The bureaucracy is supposed to be agent of the people (the principal), but many bureaucracies serve their own interests, rather than the public to the extent that civil servants may be neither civil nor servants.

Indeed, the simplistic view that the state is deterministic versus the view of free market self-order misses the fundamental point that large bureaucracies also have self-order. Anyone familiar with working in large complex bureaucracies in China, India or the United States, with many layers of government, would recognise that it is not easy to implement policies from the centre. State or provincial governments have a mind of their own, with very different priorities from that of the centre.

Indeed, in the 21st century, many cities have become more effective instruments of state, and it is not surprising that effective mayors have become national leaders because they show a capacity to deliver close to the people.

The more interesting question about governance is: why are collective action traps so pervasive? In other words, it is understandable why ineffective and weak bureaucracies or political systems are unable to overcome gridlock in their systems, but it is common to see highly effective and capable bureaucracies also caught in gridlock.

These gridlocks are apparent in the resolution of the euro crisis, the stalemate in the Doha World Trade Organisation negotiations and the Durban climate change debates. In the first week of April, the Institute for New Economic Thinking, the Centre for International Governance Innovation and the Fung Global Institute will be hosting a major conference in Hong Kong on how creative and innovative thinking can open up new avenues of thinking on the solutions to global governance. As a respected member of the global economic community, Hong Kong should make its voice heard.

You can watch most of the podcasts on www.ineteconomics.org or www.fginstitute.org.

THINK ASIAN By ANDREW SHENG

Tan Sri Andrew Sheng is president of the Fung Global Institute. 

Related posts:
Euro zone economy shrinks, worst since 2009
 US fiscal deficit position is cheating American Children
IMF aid to Europeans stirrings of resentment 
Unemployment Fuels Debt Crisis