Syndicate content

Financial Sector

Austerity vs. Fiscal Stimulus: A False Dilemma?

Augusto Lopez-Claros's picture

The 2008-2009 global financial crisis led to a number of large–scale government interventions across the world. These included massive provisions of liquidity, the takeover of weak financial institutions, the extension of deposit insurance schemes, purchases by the government of troubled assets, bank recapitalization and, of course, packages of fiscal stimulus, sometimes of a scale not seen since World War II. Even the IMF, the world’s traditional guardian of sound public finance, came out strongly in favor of fiscal loosening, arguing through its managing director that “if there has ever been a time in modern economic history when fiscal policy and a fiscal stimulus should be used, it's now” and that it should take place “everywhere where it's possible. Everywhere where you have some room concerning debt sustainability. Everywhere where inflation is low enough not to risk having some kind of return of inflation, this effort has to be made".

Should Policy Makers in Emerging Markets be Concerned about “Tapering”?

Mathew Verghis's picture

 

City and traffic lights at sunset in JakartaThe US and European economies are showing some signs of recovery from the global financial crisis that began in 2008. As a result, the US Federal Reserve Bank is considering phasing out, or “tapering”, the extraordinary monetary policy measures through which it responded to the crisis. On May 22, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke testified before Congress that the Fed may begin to reduce the size of its bond buying program. There was an immediate withdrawal by investors from stocks and bonds in emerging markets. The World Bank's East Asia and Pacific regional update estimated that in East Asia alone $24 billion was withdrawn from equities and $35.2 billion from bonds. Share prices fell by 24 percent in Indonesia, 21 percent in Thailand, and 20 percent in the Philippines. Yields on 10 year local currency bonds increased by 273 basis points in Indonesia, 86 basis points in Thailand and 76 basis points in Malaysia. The exchange rate depreciated by 18 percent in Indonesia, and about 5 percent in the Philippines and Thailand. Financial markets largely recovered once the Fed decided to postpone tapering in September, but there is still nervousness. The Indonesian Rupiah and Indian Rupee both fell significantly in November, till Fed Chair nominee Janet Yellen signaled that she saw a continued need for the bond buying program.

At some point the Fed will indeed begin to taper. Investors should clearly be concerned as there is a risk of sudden and dramatic falls in asset prices. Should policy makers be concerned? Will there be an impact on growth, inflation or macroeconomic risk that requires a response from policy makers?
 

中国的三中全会:会带来诸多改变——对其他发展中经济体而言亦是如此

Manu Bhaskaran's picture
Also available in: English

CN142S09 World Bank 一些观察人士提醒人们三中全会后中国共产党提出的各项改革可能因为既得利益方的阻力或缺乏政治意愿而落空。而我认为这会给中国带来根本性变化,只因为一个简单的理由——政治。首先,中共领导层完全明白该党已经因为越来越严重的腐败问题和裙带之风、越来越招人怨恨的收入不均、对食品安全的巨大怀疑以及日益恶化的污染而丧失了人民的信任。第二,他们认识到现有的经济模式不能持续地提供足以换取民众对党的拥护的经济进步。中国共产党的领导者们知道需要对当下的经济模式作出根本性改变才能重新赢得人民的信任。正因为要生存下去就要进行重大变革,因此,中共领导层将全力以赴。
 
但是有没有进行改革的政治能力呢?且来看看习近平主席是如何亲自掌控监督经济改革的机制的。习近平将领导负责“全面深化改革”的小组,这个小组将具体实施规划的各项改革。此外,他还设立了一个将由他领导的“国家安全委员会”。原中国领导人江泽民曾试图设立这样一个国家安全委员会,但未能成功。显然,习近平的同事们准备给予他推进改革所需的政治权威,而即便是江泽民这样有影响力的人也缺乏这种权威。有了他个人的权威作为这些改革的后盾,习近平不太可能妥协或退让。
 
最开始变革将分阶段谨慎地展开,但累积起来后会在2020年前改变中国的经济格局。在经济领域内,市场力量将被赋予更大的影响力,国有企业将被迫按照更商业化的方式运作,私营部门将被给予更大的活动空间。农村土地市场将建立起来,同时对农村移民在城市地区生活的限制也将分阶段取消。中央、省和地方政府之间的关系将有所改变,后两级权力部门将能更公平地分享到税收收入,从而与它们承担的责任更一致。金融改革将消除诸如对储户的不公平待遇等诸多扭曲问题。如果一切都能按计划进行,中国将变成一个更高效的经济体,拥有比现在更具活力的私营部门,出现从能在环境和收入分配方面产生更好结果这个意义上来说质量更高的增长。
 
其他发展中国家应该留心中国发生的变化。如果中国能咬紧牙关,作出维持经济发展所需要的痛苦改变,其他大的发展中经济体——比如印度和印度尼西亚——为什么就不能同样做到呢?
 

China’s Third Plenum: Much will Change - for Other Developing Economies Too

Manu Bhaskaran's picture
Also available in: 中文

CN142S09 World Bank Some observers caution that the reforms proposed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) after the Third Plenary meeting of its Central Committee may fall short of promise because of resistance from vested interests or a lack of political will. My view is that it will bring about fundamental changes in China for one simple reason - politics. First, the CCP leadership fully understands that the party has lost the trust of the people because of rising corruption and cronyism, increasingly offensive income inequality, huge question marks over food safety, and worsening pollution. Second, they realize that the current economic model cannot sustainably deliver the economic progress that citizens expect in return for their allegiance to the CCP. The CCP leaders know that fundamental changes are needed to this economic model to regain the trust of the people. Since survival demands big changes, the leadership will pull out all the stops.

Convergence in the Ease of Doing Business

Augusto Lopez-Claros's picture

Overlooking the central Kumasi marketSuppose that one were to divide the countries included in the latest Doing Business report into two groups. Call the first group (made up of some 44 countries) the “worst quartile”—that is, the countries with the costliest and most complex procedures and the weakest institutions. Call the other group the “best three quartiles.” Then let’s ask ourselves: how many days did it take to establish a business in both groups in 2005? The answer is 113 days in the worst quartile and 29 days in the best three quartile countries, meaning that in 2005 there was a gap of 84 days between the two sets. Now, let’s repeat the exercise for 2013. The worst quartile is down to 49 days and the best three quartiles is down to 16; the gap between the two has narrowed to 33 days, which is still sizable but a lot less than 84. Repeat the same exercise for time to register property and time to export a container. For property registration, the gap in 2005 was 192 days and by 2013 it has narrowed to 63. For time to export, the gap in 2005 was 32 days and in 2013 it was down to 23. (The figures are presented in the charts below. Only a small subset of the indicators has been included here, for illustrative purposes).

Fiscal Strains in the Years Ahead

Augusto Lopez-Claros's picture

The world’s population by 2030 is projected to be 8.1 billion, 2 billion more than in 2000. A full 95 percent of the increase over this 30 year period will take place in the developing world, nearly all of it concentrated in urban areas. There is a relentless process of urbanization under way all over the world which, for instance, has transformed China’s landscape and has contributed to that country’s rapid pace of economic growth. Whereas in 1980 less than 20 percent of China’s total population of close to 1 billion was living in urban areas, by 2000 this share had risen to 33 percent. The urban population during this period expanded from about 190 million to over 420 million, and is projected to reach 1 billion by 2030. Well before 2030 China will have several megacities, with the population of Shanghai likely to exceed 25 million.
The Hai river and surrounding park and high-rise buildings