Home 禄 Opinion 禄 Foreign Views
US reveals insecurities in AIIB opposition
Print Edition
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank are poised to hold their annual meetings, but the big news in global economic governance will not be made in Washington DC in the coming days. Indeed, that news was made last month, when the UK, Germany, France and Italy joined more than 30 other countries as founding members of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). The US$50 billion AIIB, launched by China, will help meet Asia鈥檚 enormous infrastructure needs, which are well beyond the capacity of today鈥檚 institutional arrangements to finance.
One would have thought that the AIIB鈥檚 launch, and the decision of so many governments to support it, would be a cause for universal celebration. And for the IMF, the World Bank and many others, it was. But, puzzlingly, wealthy European countries鈥 decision to join provoked the ire of American officials. Indeed, one unnamed American source accused the UK of constant accommodation of China. Covertly, the US put pressure on countries around the world to stay away.
In fact, America鈥檚 opposition to the AIIB is inconsistent with its stated economic priorities in Asia. Sadly, it seems to be another case of America鈥檚 insecurity about its global influence trumping its idealistic rhetoric, this time possibly undermining an important opportunity to strengthen Asia鈥檚 developing economies.
China itself is a testament to the extent to which infrastructure investment can contribute to development. Last month, I visited formerly remote areas of the country that are now prosperous as a result of the connectivity and thus the freer flow of people, goods, and ideas that such investments have delivered.
Many advantages
The AIIB would bring similar benefits to other parts of Asia, which deepens the irony of US opposition. President Barack Obama鈥檚 administration is championing the virtues of trade; but, in developing countries, lack of infrastructure is a far more serious barrier to trade than tariffs.
There is a further major global advantage to a fund like the AIIB: right now, the world suffers from insufficient aggregate demand. Financial markets have proven unequal to the task of recycling savings from places where incomes exceed consumption to places where investment is needed.
When he was Chair of the US Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke mistakenly described the problem as a global saving glut. But in a world with such huge infrastructure needs, the problem is not a surplus of savings or a deficiency of good investment opportunities. The problem is a financial system that has excelled at enabling market manipulation, speculation, and insider trading, but has failed at its core task: intermediating savings and investment on a global scale.
So we should welcome China鈥檚 initiative to multilateralize the flow of funds. Indeed, it replicates American policy in the period following World War II, when the World Bank was founded to multilaterize development funds that were overwhelmingly coming from the US (a move that also helped to create a cadre of first-class international civil servants and development professionals).
The World Bank鈥檚 assistance was sometimes overburdened by prevailing ideology; for example, the free-market Washington Consensus policies foisted on recipients actually led to deindustrialization and declining income in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Competitive pluralism
Nonetheless, US assistance was, overall, far more effective than it would have been had it not been multilateralized. Had these resources been channeled through America鈥檚 own aid agency, policymaking would have been subject to the vagaries of development thinking (or the absence of reflection) from one administration to another.
New attempts to multilateralize flows of assistance (including the BRICS countries鈥 launch of the New Development Bank last July) are similarly likely to contribute significantly to global development. Some years ago, the Asian Development Bank defended the virtues of competitive pluralism. The AIIB offers a chance to test that idea in development finance itself.
Perhaps America鈥檚 opposition to the AIIB is an example of an economic phenomenon that I have often observed: firms want greater competition everywhere except in their own industry. This position has already exacted a heavy price: had there been a more competitive marketplace of ideas, the flawed Washington Consensus might never have become a consensus at all.
America鈥檚 opposition to the AIIB is not unprecedented; in fact, it is akin to the successful US opposition to Japan鈥檚 generous New Miyazawa Initiative of the late 1990s, which offered US$80 billion to help countries in the East Asian crisis. Then, as now, it was not as if the US were offering an alternative source of funding. It simply wanted hegemony. In an increasingly multipolar world, it wanted to remain the G1.
The UK, France, Italy, Germany and the others who have decided to join the AIIB should be congratulated. One hopes that other countries, both in Europe and Asia, will join as well, helping to fulfill the ambition that infrastructure improvements can raise living standards in other parts of the region, as they have already done in China.
The author is a Nobel laureate in economics and a professor at Columbia University. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2015.
- About Us
- |
- Terms of Use
- |
-
RSS - |
- Privacy Policy
- |
- Contact Us
- |
- Shanghai Call Center: 962288
- |
- Tip-off hotline: 52920043
- 娌狪CP璇侊細娌狪CP澶05050403鍙-1
- |
- 浜掕仈缃戞柊闂讳俊鎭湇鍔¤鍙瘉锛31120180004
- |
- 缃戠粶瑙嗗惉璁稿彲璇侊細0909346
- |
- 骞挎挱鐢佃鑺傜洰鍒朵綔璁稿彲璇侊細娌瓧绗354鍙
- |
- 澧炲肩數淇′笟鍔＄粡钀ヨ鍙瘉锛氭勃B2-20120012
Copyright 漏 1999- Shanghai Daily. All rights reserved.Preferably viewed with Internet Explorer 8 or newer browsers.
