Global Economic Prospects 2014

Five years after the financial crisis, the world economy is showing signs of bouncing back. Read more ...

Development Prospects

Providing information, analysis, and advice on global trends in the world economy.  Find out more ...

Global Economic Monitor

Now free. Daily and monthly updates on global economic developments and relevant topical issues. Find out more ...

Syndicate content

Global Imbalances: Can Hegelian Philosophy Help?

Célestin Monga's picture

This is a guest post by Célestin Monga, a Lead Economist at the World Bank's Development Operations and Strategy group.

A mini-civil war has been going among macroeconomists in recent years over the issue of global imbalances (the existence of large, sustained current account deficits in some countries that are compensated by equally large and sustained external surplus in others). On one side, a prudent, if not pessimistic view considers large imbalances as evidence of problems with the international monetary and financial system, and symptoms of domestic distortions (mainly in the United States and China). On the other side, a relaxed, if not optimistic view suggests that global imbalances are not anomalies but simply the predictable outcome of a world with increasingly globalized financial flows in search of the right mix of risks and returns. The former view prescribes that the two largest countries in the world rebalance their economies to avoid the potentially painful cost of disruption and adjustment. The latter contends that global imbalances will be corrected through time by the normal functioning of market forces.

While these two opposing views often rely on some well-constructed theoretical and empirical underpinnings, they suggest a dichotomy that may not allow grasping fully the issues at hand. The main issue with large current account deficits (see figure) is obviously their sustainability, that is, whether they will be met by sufficient, timely and affordable inflows of foreign capital. In the case of the US for instance, it bears on the questions of (i) the size of the financial obligations that the deficit reflects, (ii) the availability of income payments and receipts that will eventually be paid out of the economy’s production—with the risk of reducing current consumption and investment, and (iii) the confidence in creditor nations or in the low probability of sudden swings in the mood of foreign investors.

Source: World Bank

The truth is that despite their rivalry, the US and China have become economically and financially so interdependent that one needs to go beyond the traditional narratives of external imbalances, which have focused on the analysis of national accounts, trade flows, and financial flows. Hegel’s dialectics of lordship and bondage (also known as master and slave), may be quite helpful in explaining the persistence of external imbalances in the US and China. A joke by comedian Jon Stewart on the TV program The Daily Show can help make the point. Poking fun at President Barack Obama for his decision to delay a meeting with the Tibetan leader Dalai Lama in favor of strengthening relations with China, Stewart said sarcastically: “We don’t want to upset China! Gosh!... Imagine what they would put in our toys and toothpaste if we upset them!...” Like most TV jokes on international economics, this one was quite tasteless. Still, it made a couple of interesting points: it highlighted the reliance by US on China as the source for a large fraction of consumer goods for its large domestic market. Perhaps more important, it conveyed the implicit acceptance (which almost rises to the level of addiction) by American households and firms of these cheap imports from a country often viewed with suspicion by politicians and located thousands miles away.

My new paper on Hegelian Macroeconomics offers a more nuanced view and argues that a more complete understanding of global imbalances requires a multidimensional perspective that more fully takes into account events beyond traditional macroeconomic variables. Global imbalances are neither just a temporary aberration that can be addressed through economic policy actions in the U.S. and China as suggested by proponents of the first view, nor are they only the result of globalization as implied by proponents of the second view. While agreeing with the need for the U.S. and China to take corrective action, it also suggests that eliminating global imbalances will require structural changes—some of them well beyond the realm of economics—that may take a long time to materialize.

Comments

Submitted by cosmas sikahala on
.....Global imbalances are neither just a temporary aberration that can be addressed through economic policy actions in the U.S. and China nor are they only the result of globalization as implied......couldn't agree more! There is a growing need to discuss the risks and implications of global imbalances especially because developed countries have continuously accumulated debt at unsustainable pace, including increased unemployment rates and significant trade imbalances leading to their diminished comparative advantage with emerging markets. The United States for example had previously been seen as an attractive place to invest, and that given the excess of savings (relative to investment) in the rest of the world, capital flows into the U.S. would reflect an efficient functioning of capital markets. However due to increased globalization the opposite is true today because many corporations in the U.S and other developed economies are rushing to invest in emerging developing economies where there is cheap labor and abundance of cheap raw materials. The developed nations are therefore realizing increased trade deficits as a result of diminished exports and more imports among others resulting in trade imbalances.

Submitted by Dr Shuresh Shah on
Cosmas, thanks for your insightful thought... May be i would add.... unfair/unchecked chinese competition, dumping cheap imports to the U.S. Do you think the U.S is partially to blame for all these imbalances? Are we somewhat enjoying the cheap imports? Can we really afford "made in America" goods? Is devaluing our currency a solution? Respectfully, Dr S Shuresh Shah

Submitted by Mike Morrison on
Cosmas touched on an issue most of political correct wingers avoid or outright brush aside "obliviously"! Question is when is the right time for the U.S to start channeling all their resources esp (financial) to empower its own internal/domestic economic structures? We can produce high quality goods, pay decent salaries for the American people to afford such goods and depend less on cheap imports...what do you all think? Is bad politics an anathema to U.S economic growth?

Submitted by cosmas sikahala on
.....Global imbalances are neither just a temporary aberration that can be addressed through economic policy actions in the U.S. and China nor are they only the result of globalization as implied......couldn't agree more! There is a growing need to discuss the risks and implications of global imbalances especially because developed countries have continuously accumulated debt at unsustainable pace, including increased unemployment rates and significant trade imbalances leading to their diminished comparative advantage with emerging markets. The United States for example had previously been seen as an attractive place to invest, and that given the excess of savings (relative to investment) in the rest of the world, capital flows into the U.S. would reflect an efficient functioning of capital markets. However due to increased globalization the opposite is true today because many corporations in the U.S and other developed economies are rushing to invest in emerging developing economies where there is cheap labor and abundance of cheap raw materials. The developed nations are therefore realizing increased trade deficits as a result of diminished exports and more imports among others resulting in trade imbalances.

Add new comment