Home » Opinion » Foreign Views
The case for taxing forex transactions
By Jose Antonio Ocampo |
November 20, 2010, Saturday
|
Print Edition
Print Edition
TODAY'S debates over currency wars reveal two paradoxical features of the global economy. The first is that there is no mechanism linking world trade rules to exchange-rate movements.
Countries spend years negotiating trade rules, but exchange-rate movements can, within days, have a greater impact on trade than those painstaking deals. Furthermore, exchange-rate movements are essentially determined by financial flows and may have no effects in terms of correcting global trade imbalances.
The second paradox is that monetary expansion may be largely ineffective in the country that undertakes it, but can generate large negative externalities on others. This is particularly true of the quantitative easing now underway in the United States, because the American dollar is the major global reserve currency.
So far during the financial crisis and ensuing recession, the US has been incapable of kick-starting credit growth, the major transmission mechanism by which monetary expansion feeds through to domestic economic activity. But it is inducing massive capital flows to emerging markets, where they are generating asset-price bubbles. If this leads to a weakening of the dollar, it would also have negative effects on trading partners. (The same can be said of recent Japanese monetary-policy decisions.)
Some proposals would resolve the first of these paradoxes by allowing countries to use the World Trade Organization's dispute-resolution mechanism in cases of exchange-rate manipulation. But this is the wrong way to go, for it might serve only to erode one of the few effective mechanisms in place to make multilateral agreements binding.
Unilateral countervailing duties against countries that are hypothetically manipulating their exchange rates are equally bad. This does not mean, of course, that China should take no action to correct the undervaluation of its currency, though some recognition should be given to the way in which it is already contributing to solving this problem by allowing domestic wages to rise.
A much better way forward is to rethink seriously the role of cross-border capital-account regulations. One of the major areas of agreement during the recent crisis has been that deregulated financial activities can be a source of major macroeconomic disruptions.
The G20, however, has largely focused on re-regulating domestic finance, whereas cross-border finance has been left entirely off its agenda, as if it required no regulation and, indeed, as if it were not part of global finance. A particular linguistic twist is also involved here: Domestic financial regulations are called by that name, but if they involve cross-border flows, they are called controls.
A serious discussion of global capital-account regulations would benefit both advanced and emerging-market economies. The effectiveness of monetary expansion could be enhanced in advanced countries by reducing the leakages generated by the carry trade and other short-term capital outflows.
For emerging markets, the best way forward is to correct the incentives for interest-rate arbitrage at the source of capital flows. Such a reform would also serve as a mechanism of coordination at the international level, since coordinated capital-account regulations by recipient countries would be difficult to achieve. In the absence of such coordination, the unilateral approaches now in place could generate further distortions.
This type of correction would also allow emerging markets to pursue more restrictive monetary policies, which they now need, given their greater macroeconomic strength.
Many regulations make sense, as the IMF has recognized in several cases.
In fact, a tax on foreign-exchange transactions - the so-called Tobin tax, advocated by the late Nobel laureate economist James Tobin - might be the simplest way to go.
(Jose Antonio Ocampo is Professor of Professional Practice in International and Public Affairs at Columbia University. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2010. www.project-syndicate.org)
Countries spend years negotiating trade rules, but exchange-rate movements can, within days, have a greater impact on trade than those painstaking deals. Furthermore, exchange-rate movements are essentially determined by financial flows and may have no effects in terms of correcting global trade imbalances.
The second paradox is that monetary expansion may be largely ineffective in the country that undertakes it, but can generate large negative externalities on others. This is particularly true of the quantitative easing now underway in the United States, because the American dollar is the major global reserve currency.
So far during the financial crisis and ensuing recession, the US has been incapable of kick-starting credit growth, the major transmission mechanism by which monetary expansion feeds through to domestic economic activity. But it is inducing massive capital flows to emerging markets, where they are generating asset-price bubbles. If this leads to a weakening of the dollar, it would also have negative effects on trading partners. (The same can be said of recent Japanese monetary-policy decisions.)
Some proposals would resolve the first of these paradoxes by allowing countries to use the World Trade Organization's dispute-resolution mechanism in cases of exchange-rate manipulation. But this is the wrong way to go, for it might serve only to erode one of the few effective mechanisms in place to make multilateral agreements binding.
Unilateral countervailing duties against countries that are hypothetically manipulating their exchange rates are equally bad. This does not mean, of course, that China should take no action to correct the undervaluation of its currency, though some recognition should be given to the way in which it is already contributing to solving this problem by allowing domestic wages to rise.
A much better way forward is to rethink seriously the role of cross-border capital-account regulations. One of the major areas of agreement during the recent crisis has been that deregulated financial activities can be a source of major macroeconomic disruptions.
The G20, however, has largely focused on re-regulating domestic finance, whereas cross-border finance has been left entirely off its agenda, as if it required no regulation and, indeed, as if it were not part of global finance. A particular linguistic twist is also involved here: Domestic financial regulations are called by that name, but if they involve cross-border flows, they are called controls.
A serious discussion of global capital-account regulations would benefit both advanced and emerging-market economies. The effectiveness of monetary expansion could be enhanced in advanced countries by reducing the leakages generated by the carry trade and other short-term capital outflows.
For emerging markets, the best way forward is to correct the incentives for interest-rate arbitrage at the source of capital flows. Such a reform would also serve as a mechanism of coordination at the international level, since coordinated capital-account regulations by recipient countries would be difficult to achieve. In the absence of such coordination, the unilateral approaches now in place could generate further distortions.
This type of correction would also allow emerging markets to pursue more restrictive monetary policies, which they now need, given their greater macroeconomic strength.
Many regulations make sense, as the IMF has recognized in several cases.
In fact, a tax on foreign-exchange transactions - the so-called Tobin tax, advocated by the late Nobel laureate economist James Tobin - might be the simplest way to go.
(Jose Antonio Ocampo is Professor of Professional Practice in International and Public Affairs at Columbia University. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2010. 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.
