Related News
Home » Opinion » Foreign Views
Question is not 'if' but 'how' we will shift from dollar reserves
By Joseph E. Stiglitz |
July 6, 2009, Monday
|
Print Edition
Print Edition
WHILE discussions about economic "green shoots" continue unabated in the United States, in many countries, and especially in the developing world, matters are getting worse.
The downturn in the US began with a failure in the financial system, which quickly was translated into a slowdown in the real economy.
But, in the developing world, it is just the opposite: a decline in exports, reduced remittances, lower foreign direct investment, and precipitous falls in capital flows have led to economic weakening.
As a result, even countries with good regulatory systems are now confronting problems in their financial sectors.
On June 23, a United Nations conference on the global economic crisis and its impact on developing countries reached a consensus both about the causes of the downturn and why it was affecting developing countries so badly.
The agreement was remarkable: in providing what in many ways was a clearer articulation of the crisis and what needs to be done than that offered by the G20, the UN showed that decision-making needn't be restricted to a self-selected club, largely dominated by those who had considerable responsibility for the crisis in the first place.
Innocent victims
While there was less American leadership than one would have hoped, many participants were simply relieved that America did not put up obstacles to reaching a global consensus, as would have been the case if George W. Bush were still president.
One might have hoped that America would be the first to offer large amounts of money to help the many innocent victims of the policies it had championed.
But it did not, and Obama had to fight hard to extract even limited amounts for the International Monetary Fund from a reluctant Congress.
But many developing countries have just emerged from being overburdened with debt; they do not want to go through that again. The implication is that they need grants, not loans.
The G20, which turned to the IMF to provide most of the money that the developing countries need to cope with the crisis, did not take sufficient note of this; the UN conference did.
The most sensitive issue touched upon by the UN conference was reform of the global reserve system.
The build-up of reserves contributes to global imbalances and insufficient global aggregate demand, as countries put aside hundreds of billions of dollars as a precaution against global volatility.
Not surprisingly, America, which benefits by getting trillions of dollars of loans from developing countries - now at almost no interest - was not enthusiastic about the discussion.
Dollar reserves
But, whether the US likes it or not, the dollar reserve system is fraying; the question is only whether we move from the current system to an alternative in a haphazard way, or in a more careful and structured way.
Those with large amounts of reserves know that holding dollars is a bad deal: no or low return and a high risk of inflation or currency depreciation, either of which would diminish their holdings' real value.
Since a country's currency can be a reserve currency only if others are willing to accept it as such, time may be running out for the dollar.
The US and other advanced industrial countries pushed globalization. But this crisis has shown that they have not managed globalization as well as they should have.
If globalization is to work for everyone, decisions about how to manage it must be made in a democratic and inclusive manner - with the participation of both the perpetrators and the victims of the mistakes.
(The author, professor of economics at Columbia University, chairs a Commission of Experts, appointed by the President of the UN General Assembly, on reforms of the international monetary and financial system. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2009.www.project-syndicate.org.)
The downturn in the US began with a failure in the financial system, which quickly was translated into a slowdown in the real economy.
But, in the developing world, it is just the opposite: a decline in exports, reduced remittances, lower foreign direct investment, and precipitous falls in capital flows have led to economic weakening.
As a result, even countries with good regulatory systems are now confronting problems in their financial sectors.
On June 23, a United Nations conference on the global economic crisis and its impact on developing countries reached a consensus both about the causes of the downturn and why it was affecting developing countries so badly.
The agreement was remarkable: in providing what in many ways was a clearer articulation of the crisis and what needs to be done than that offered by the G20, the UN showed that decision-making needn't be restricted to a self-selected club, largely dominated by those who had considerable responsibility for the crisis in the first place.
Innocent victims
While there was less American leadership than one would have hoped, many participants were simply relieved that America did not put up obstacles to reaching a global consensus, as would have been the case if George W. Bush were still president.
One might have hoped that America would be the first to offer large amounts of money to help the many innocent victims of the policies it had championed.
But it did not, and Obama had to fight hard to extract even limited amounts for the International Monetary Fund from a reluctant Congress.
But many developing countries have just emerged from being overburdened with debt; they do not want to go through that again. The implication is that they need grants, not loans.
The G20, which turned to the IMF to provide most of the money that the developing countries need to cope with the crisis, did not take sufficient note of this; the UN conference did.
The most sensitive issue touched upon by the UN conference was reform of the global reserve system.
The build-up of reserves contributes to global imbalances and insufficient global aggregate demand, as countries put aside hundreds of billions of dollars as a precaution against global volatility.
Not surprisingly, America, which benefits by getting trillions of dollars of loans from developing countries - now at almost no interest - was not enthusiastic about the discussion.
Dollar reserves
But, whether the US likes it or not, the dollar reserve system is fraying; the question is only whether we move from the current system to an alternative in a haphazard way, or in a more careful and structured way.
Those with large amounts of reserves know that holding dollars is a bad deal: no or low return and a high risk of inflation or currency depreciation, either of which would diminish their holdings' real value.
Since a country's currency can be a reserve currency only if others are willing to accept it as such, time may be running out for the dollar.
The US and other advanced industrial countries pushed globalization. But this crisis has shown that they have not managed globalization as well as they should have.
If globalization is to work for everyone, decisions about how to manage it must be made in a democratic and inclusive manner - with the participation of both the perpetrators and the victims of the mistakes.
(The author, professor of economics at Columbia University, chairs a Commission of Experts, appointed by the President of the UN General Assembly, on reforms of the international monetary and financial system. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2009.www.project-syndicate.org.)
- 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.
