By: Manoj Pant
It is certain that a full blown global recession is now on.
The indicators are too stark. Stock markets, prices and outputs are down
everywhere without exception indicating a general global contraction of demand.
At the same time unemployment is up everywhere and rising. Even in the US where wages and prices tend to react quickly to demand and supply there is no respite
with unemployment levels crossing 8%: a level never reached after World War II.
So now it's not about just a sub-prime crisis or a financial
crisis of banks due to a faulty regulatory structure though this might have
helped things along. The world is contracting in real terms and it is time to
read John Maynard Keynes not Milton Friedman.
Some commentators have linked the recession to last year's
spurt in oil prices, like in the 1970s when a sharp rise in oil prices between
1971 and 1979 sent the economies of the OECD countries into a tailspin. A minor
recession did occur in the developed countries in the first few years of the '80s.
But at that time the world went through what we now know was a structural
adjustment. There was a transfer of purchasing power from the developed
countries to the oil producers.
But that time also saw a boom in all commodity prices (not
only oil) and some of the new liquidity of banks found its way to Latin
American countries. Today, commodity prices are also headed downward and banks
are lending to no one. Clearly, the only recent parallel to today can be found
in the Great Depression of the 1930s.
So the current crisis cannot be a developed country (DC) vs.
less developed country (LDC) issue. This was certainly relevant in the 1970s
and reflected in the trade negotiations of the Tokyo round of GATT. But this is
not where the answer lies today. A serious reading of Keynes (something I have
been arguing in the last few months in these columns) would indicate that all
countries must act together to tackle adverse expectations by 'pump priming'
world demand. Mere reform of the regulatory system in financial markets (though
essential) will not solve the present problem.
One good way to look for a Keynesian solution is to think of
the world as one single country faced with demand contraction. Then we have two
halves of this economy: the developed world with excess consumption (in
relation to incomes) and the developing world with excess saving. Presently
between the US, EU and China roughly about $2 trillion of pump priming is in
place (some having been undertaken by the former US administration). However,
much of this expenditure is based on domestic deficit financing which may
create problems in the future.
The solution also lies in trade. As elementary trade theory
tells us, the main reason why a country exports is to import. In other words,
exports are an expression of a countrys demand for products of other countries
which it cannot efficiently produce itself. In an ideal situation no country
should run trade surpluses (deficits). Hence trade surpluses constitute a
potential demand for future imports and withdrawal from current demand.
|
Rank |
Country/
Monetary Authority |
$billion
(end
of month) |
Change
in year 2007 |
|
1 |
People's
Republic of China |
1946
(Dec) |
+32.9% |
|
2 |
Japan |
1011 (Jan
2009) |
+8.7% |
|
- |
Eurozone |
430
(November) |
+16.6% |
|
3 |
Russia |
381.9 (26
Feb 2009) |
+53% |
|
4 |
Republic
of China |
292 (Jan
2009) |
+2.7% |
|
5 |
India |
249 (20
Feb 2009) |
+64.4% |
|
6 |
South
Korea |
201.54
(Feb 2009) |
+9.7% |
|
7 |
Brazil |
199 (Feb
2009) |
+105.9% |
|
8 |
Hong Kong |
182 (Jan
2009) |
+14.6% |
The accompanying table shows that developing
countries like China have been running huge trade surpluses and much of this
accretion to reserves has come in 2007 itself. Since these reserves are only a
potential demand, running them down provides a perfect Keynesian solution to
the present crisis. In fact, as the accompanying table indicates, China and Japan alone have a potential demand of almost $3 trillion. Running down these reserves
through expanded imports of these countries would create additional demand
without too much financial pain.