Home » Opinion » Book review
Global game of passing the parcel
By Raghuram Rajan |
October 16, 2010, Saturday
|
Print Edition
Print Edition
GLOBAL capital is on the move. As ultra-low interest rates in industrial countries send capital around the world searching for higher yields, a number of emerging-market central banks are intervening heavily, buying the foreign-capital inflows and re-exporting them in order to keep their currencies from appreciating. Others have been imposing capital controls of one stripe or another. In recent weeks, Japan became the first large industrial economy to intervene directly in currency markets.
Why does no one want capital inflows? Which intervention policies are legitimate, and which are not? And where will all this intervention end if it continues unabated?
The portion of capital inflows that is not re-exported represents net capital inflows. This finances domestic spending on foreign goods. So, one reason countries do not like capital inflows is that it means more domestic demand leaks outside. Indeed, because capital inflows often cause the domestic exchange rate to appreciate, they encourage further spending on foreign goods as domestic producers become uncompetitive.
Another reason that countries do not like foreign capital inflows is that some of it might be "hot" (or dumb) money, eager to come in when foreign interest rates are low and local asset prices are rising, and quick to leave at the first sign of trouble or when opportunities back home beckon. Volatile capital flows induce volatility in the recipient economy, making booms and busts more pronounced than they would otherwise be.
But, as the saying goes, it takes two hands to clap. If countries could maintain discipline and limit spending by their households, firms, or governments, foreign capital would not be needed, and could be reexported easily, without much effect on the recipient economy. Problems arise when countries cannot or will not spend sensibly.
Countries can overspend for a variety of reasons. The stereotypical Latin American economies of yesteryear used to get into trouble through populist government spending, while the East Asian economies ran into difficulty because of excessive long-term investment. In the United States in the run up to the current crisis, easy credit, especially for housing, induced households to spend too much, while in Greece, the government borrowed its way into trouble.
Unfortunately, though, as long as some countries like China, Germany, Japan, and the oil exporters pump surplus goods into the world economy, not all countries can trim their spending to stay within their means. Since the world does not export to Mars, some countries have to absorb these goods, and accept the capital inflows that finance their consumption.
Beggar thy neighbor
In the medium term, over-spenders should trim their outlays and habitual exporters should increase theirs. In the short run, though, the world is engaged in a gigantic game of passing the parcel, with no country wanting to take the habitual exporters' goods and their capital surpluses.
This is what makes today's beggar-thy-neighbor policies so destructive: though some countries will eventually have to absorb the surpluses and capital, each country is trying to avoid them.
So which policy interventions are legitimate? Any policy of intervening in the exchange rate, or imposing import tariffs or capital controls, tends to force other countries to make greater adjustments.
Industrial countries, too, intervene substantially in markets. For example, while US monetary-policy intervention (yes, monetary policy is also intervention) has done little to boost domestic demand, it has spurred domestic capital to search for yield around the world.
All this creates distortions that delay adjustment - exchange rates are too low in emerging markets, slowing their move away from exports, while the ease with which the US government is being financed creates little incentive for US politicians to reduce spending over the medium term.
Rather than intervening to obtain a short-term increase in their share of slow-growing global demand, it makes sense for countries to make their economies more balanced and efficient over the medium term. That will allow them to contribute in a sustainable way to increasing global demand.
Unfortunately, all this will take time, and citizens impatient for jobs and growth are pressing their politicians. Countries around the world are embracing shortsighted policies that cater to the immediate needs of domestic constituencies.
(Raghuram Rajan, a former chief economist of the IMF, is pofessor of finance at the Booth School of Business, University of Chicago. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2010.)
Why does no one want capital inflows? Which intervention policies are legitimate, and which are not? And where will all this intervention end if it continues unabated?
The portion of capital inflows that is not re-exported represents net capital inflows. This finances domestic spending on foreign goods. So, one reason countries do not like capital inflows is that it means more domestic demand leaks outside. Indeed, because capital inflows often cause the domestic exchange rate to appreciate, they encourage further spending on foreign goods as domestic producers become uncompetitive.
Another reason that countries do not like foreign capital inflows is that some of it might be "hot" (or dumb) money, eager to come in when foreign interest rates are low and local asset prices are rising, and quick to leave at the first sign of trouble or when opportunities back home beckon. Volatile capital flows induce volatility in the recipient economy, making booms and busts more pronounced than they would otherwise be.
But, as the saying goes, it takes two hands to clap. If countries could maintain discipline and limit spending by their households, firms, or governments, foreign capital would not be needed, and could be reexported easily, without much effect on the recipient economy. Problems arise when countries cannot or will not spend sensibly.
Countries can overspend for a variety of reasons. The stereotypical Latin American economies of yesteryear used to get into trouble through populist government spending, while the East Asian economies ran into difficulty because of excessive long-term investment. In the United States in the run up to the current crisis, easy credit, especially for housing, induced households to spend too much, while in Greece, the government borrowed its way into trouble.
Unfortunately, though, as long as some countries like China, Germany, Japan, and the oil exporters pump surplus goods into the world economy, not all countries can trim their spending to stay within their means. Since the world does not export to Mars, some countries have to absorb these goods, and accept the capital inflows that finance their consumption.
Beggar thy neighbor
In the medium term, over-spenders should trim their outlays and habitual exporters should increase theirs. In the short run, though, the world is engaged in a gigantic game of passing the parcel, with no country wanting to take the habitual exporters' goods and their capital surpluses.
This is what makes today's beggar-thy-neighbor policies so destructive: though some countries will eventually have to absorb the surpluses and capital, each country is trying to avoid them.
So which policy interventions are legitimate? Any policy of intervening in the exchange rate, or imposing import tariffs or capital controls, tends to force other countries to make greater adjustments.
Industrial countries, too, intervene substantially in markets. For example, while US monetary-policy intervention (yes, monetary policy is also intervention) has done little to boost domestic demand, it has spurred domestic capital to search for yield around the world.
All this creates distortions that delay adjustment - exchange rates are too low in emerging markets, slowing their move away from exports, while the ease with which the US government is being financed creates little incentive for US politicians to reduce spending over the medium term.
Rather than intervening to obtain a short-term increase in their share of slow-growing global demand, it makes sense for countries to make their economies more balanced and efficient over the medium term. That will allow them to contribute in a sustainable way to increasing global demand.
Unfortunately, all this will take time, and citizens impatient for jobs and growth are pressing their politicians. Countries around the world are embracing shortsighted policies that cater to the immediate needs of domestic constituencies.
(Raghuram Rajan, a former chief economist of the IMF, is pofessor of finance at the Booth School of Business, University of Chicago. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2010.)
- About Us
- |
- Terms of Use
- |
-
RSS - |
- Privacy Policy
- |
- Contact Us
- |
- Shanghai Call Center: 962288
- |
- Tip-off hotline: 52920043
- 沪ICP证：沪ICP备05050403号-1
- |
- 互联网新闻信息服务许可证：31120180004
- |
- 网络视听许可证：0909346
- |
- 广播电视节目制作许可证：沪字第354号
- |
- 增值电信业务经营许可证：沪B2-20120012
Copyright © 1999- Shanghai Daily. All rights reserved.Preferably viewed with Internet Explorer 8 or newer browsers.
