Can Asia escape global secular stagnation?

AS we settle down for the end of the year, the picture on the economic front seems to be a bit clearer, although on the political front, the Paris attacks, the downing of a Russian jet by Turkey and continuing refugee migration into Europe have escalated geopolitical risks.

Fed vice-chairman Stanley Fischer, one of the wisest and most experienced central bankers, gave a speech earlier this month in San Francisco on Emerging Asia in Transition. His view was surprisingly upbeat but clear-eyed, noting that a slowdown in Asia is not slow but still impressive. The pattern of growth in Asia has been quite consistent – a period of fast growth before deceleration to a moderate level, and when the economy reaches maturity, as in the case of Japan, a phase of slow growth or stagnation. Fischer explained the growth through two major drivers – trade and demographics.

Export drive: One of the reasons for the Asian success story was the export-driven manufacturing, creating he Asian global supply chain

One of the reasons for the Asian success story was the rise of export-driven manufacturing, creating the Asian global supply chain. But after the global financial crisis of 2007, imports from the advanced countries declined, which was compensated by China’s imports of commodities from the commodity producers.

But once the investment-led cycle in China turned, commodity prices declined sharply and today, demand from the emerging markets also came down. On top of weak demand in the advanced economies, this meant real weak aggregate demand in the world, facing a situation of huge excess capacity in manufacturing and commodity production.

Basically, despite massive monetary creation, the world is facing slower growth with very little inflation in sight, namely, secular stagnation. The second factor for the current situation is demographics. East Asia had a demographic dividend, as a flood-tide of young labour emerged even as global exports took off. But the advanced economies of East Asia are aging, just like the advanced countries of Europe. The 2015 UN World Population Projections show these trends starkly.

The two manufacturing powerhouses, Japan and Germany, have the highest median population age of 47 and 46, and by 2030, just under one in three persons will be over the age of 65. By that time, Korea, Hong Kong and Singapore population would have one in four over the age of 65.

China and the US share roughly the same population profile, with the median age of 37 and 38 respectively, but by 2030, 21% of the US population would be over the age of 65, still higher than the 17% in China.

On the other hand, the younger populations in India, Bangladesh, the Philippines, Indonesia and Malaysia still enjoy potential for high growth, with a median age of not more than 29 years and by 2030, less than 10% of the population would be more than 65. These large population countries, with the right infrastructure and policies, have the potential to grow above 5% per annum, with India leading the charge at 7.5%. We cannot underestimate power of these emerging population giants as new engines of grow.

India is today a US$2 trillion GDP economy, one fifth the size of China, with roughly the same population. When the Philippines and Vietnam (100 and 91 million population respectively) reach the same per capita income as Malaysia, their economy would be in the US$1 trillion class, roughly 3 times the size of either Singapore and Hong Kong today.

On the same basis, Indonesia would be a US$2.8 trillon economy, roughly the same size as France today. One of the factors weighing down markets is the trajectory of interest rates, which are still historically low. The Fed may be interested in raising them back to normal, but the European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan are still committed to quantitative easing.

Emerging market interest rates and corporate borrowing rates have already started rising worldwide and this is, in the short run, negative to growth recovery. However, getting these population giants to move beyond the middle-income trap require huge reforms in many areas, including the power to put in infrastructure, educate the labour force and deal with structural impediments.

Countries like the Philippines and Vietnam are using external pressure, such as signing up to the TransPacific Partnership, to push through reforms even as opportunities for more trade appear. But the headwinds against such reforms are not small. Each country faces its own set of internal obstacles. In some countries, it is antiquated labour and land laws, in others corruption, inefficient state-owned enterprises, and lack of much needed infrastructure. In many, the transaction costs of doing business remain too high to compete effectively. In others, domestic giants resist competition from foreign multinationals that can bring in new knowhow and markets.

At the same time, labour unions and fear for jobs resist the introduction of new robotics and labour and resource-saving technology. All these risk factors collectively produce a global secular stagnation trap, very much like the 1930s, when no single government was strong enough to pull the world out of the global depression.

The US today is no longer in the position to be the lead engine. Even though it is recovering, US consumers are spending less on hardware imports and more on domestic services. Hence, even if emerging markets cut exchange rates to defend their trade positions, the exorable rise in dollar exchange rates spell future trouble because there are limits to the growing size of US trade deficits.

What can Asian countries do to get out of the secular stagnation? The answer lies in the willingness to reform and to restructure the current overdependence on exports, debt and manufacturing/resource exploitation. The willingess to bite the bullet will produce a J-shaped recovery, rather than the current L-shaped stagnation.

But every leader knows that reform is politically unpopular because it hits various vested interests. So all pundits deplore the lack of leadership. Leadership in these times of transition requires guts and will. The only problem is that it often takes someone else’s guts and the need to write the reformer’s own political will.

By Andrew Sheng Think Asian

Tan Sri Andrew Sheng writes on Asian global issues.


Related posts:

Global growth retreats

US Dollar-euro parity in sight To raise or not to raise: the uS Federal reserve Building in Washington, DC. the probability of a rate-h.

If China killed commodities super cycle, Fed is about to bury it

height="360" "width="640" Has the Commodities Supercycle Run Its Course? bloomberg.com Gordon Johnson, A...

Global growth retreats

US Dollar-euro parity in sight

To raise or not to raise: the uS Federal reserve Building in Washington, DC. the probability of a rate-hike in December now exceeds 80% - delivering the first rise in borrowing costs

THERE we go again. Even before the ink is dry, global growth forecasts are downgraded once more.

Paris-based OECD’s (rich nations’ think tank) November Economic Outlook attributes a slump in the growth of world trade (brought about partly by China’s slowdown) as the major factor behind the sluggishness of the global economy.

It was only in October that IMF estimated world GDP will grow 3.1% in 2015 and 3.6% in 2016, in the face of slowing global trade at 2.8% this year (3.9% in 2016).

Now, OECD thinks global growth will ease to 2.9% (3.3% in 2014) and recover modestly to 3.3% in 2016.

Even these, I think, are optimistic. Bear in mind that growth in world trade had slackened in recent years (falling behind global GDP growth which is unusual and not a good sign) and has stagnated since late 2014. It is expected to grow only 2% this year against 3.4% in 2014 and a much faster rate in the early years of the decade: “World trade has been a bellwether for global output, and that global trade growth observed so far this year have in the past been associated with global recession.”

Meanwhile, further GDP slowdown in emerging market economies (EMEs) is weighing heavily on global economic activity. In addition, sluggish trade and subdued investment and low productivity growth are checking the momentum of recovery in the rich nations.

Indeed, there are already signs that many advanced economies are unlikely to reach anywhere near their potential output, despite continuing easy money. Over the medium term, the risks of recession and deflation have become more probable than indicated by the IMF.

Because of recent headwinds, the probability of recession in eurozone and Latin America has risen beyond 30% and 50% respectively, with Japan now in recession.

Simultaneously, the probability of deflation in eurozone and Latin America now exceeds 30%, while Japan is already experiencing significant deflationary tendencies.

This raises the spectre of secular stagnation (what Harvard’s Larry Summers refers to as the inability of an economy to grow to reach its full potential) at a time when policymakers are running out of firepower – fear that the policy tools available to combat deflating forces are becoming increasingly blunt.

The immediate risks

As I see it, many factors are shifting the global economy into a secular slowdown. Immediate risks include:

> Continuing deficient global demand in the face of excess capacity: The rich nations as a whole are in growth recession, with the US pulling-up the others which are struggling to jump start anaemic output. The eurozone is in extended stagnation; growth if any is low (in Germany) and uneven; indeed, the region is flirting with deflation.

Consumer prices have turned increasingly negative in Q3’15. Abenomics is faltering, moving Japan into recession (-0.7% in Q2’15 and -0.8% in Q3’15). IMF predicts the biggest contributors to global growth in 2015-2020 are the faster growing EMEs. Among the top 10, only two are rich nations (US & UK); heading the list are China (accounting for nearly 30%), India (15%) and US (10%); the remainder being (in descending order) Indonesia, Mexico, South Korea, Brazil, Nigeria, UK and Turkey.

> Falling commodity prices: Energy, food and metals prices have fallen significantly over the past year. As a whole, commodity prices are now down 51% from its peak on April 29, 2011. Oil price has fallen 61% since June 14 and is languishing very near US$40 a barrel last weekend. Gold price lost 9% so far in 2015, dropping to a 5-year low at below US$1,065 per troy ounce on Nov 18.

Already, weary investors have begun to sense an end to the raw materials rout, as prices for most dipped below production costs. But few expect a quick rebound. The historical record: after commodity prices tipped over in 1997, it took 21 months to correct the fall. In 2000-01, it was 13 months.

After collapsing in 2008, commodity prices hit bottom in just eight months. This time, the index has been falling for four years and still counting. Nothing preordains a turnaround. Studies of commodity prices dating back to the 19th century found that cycles have been known to last 30-40 years.

So, don’t raise your hopes. Off-setting these “cuts” are currency weaknesses in many commodity-exporting nations since most commodities are priced in US dollar - thus translating to higher revenues in local currency, at least for now.

> China slowing down; so are EMEs and BRICS: Latest data points to an Asia where growth is stabilising in the region of 5%, reflecting very low growth in the more advanced Asian nations as a whole, where growth was at 1.5% annually (with South Korea and Taiwan expanding about twice as fast).

Asian EMEs are decelerating from close to 8% in 2011 to 6.5% or less in 2015. China is down to 6.8% this year but India is doing well at 7.3%. Similarly, the Asean 5 (Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam) is also slowing down, from 6.2% in 2012 to 4.6% expected this year.

Within the region, performance is mixed: Thailand is doing rather badly at 2.5%; while growth in Vietnam will accelerate to 6.5%, with the Philippines not far behind at 6%.

Both Malaysia and Indonesia will each grow at around 4.5% this year and not much more next year. Expectation is that growth in Asean 5 will likely stabilise in 2016 at between 4.5%-5%.

The BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) will continue to slacken considerably, growing at less than 2%, dragged down by severe recession in Russia and Brazil and hardly any growth in South Africa. EMEs now face a host of problems constraining their ability to grow.

Plummeting commodity prices, BRICS’s slowdown and investor flight are exposing deep-rooted weaknesses requiring fundamental economic overhauls, but made difficult by domestic politics and corruption. China’s successful transition towards a slower, but a more sustainable growth path will benefit growth all round, despite disruptions generated by rebalancing reforms, notwithstanding China’s sizable buffers available for it to cope.

> Rising US interest rates: The spectre of Fed uncertainty over the rate uplift that has spooked world markets will soon end, hopefully. The probability of a rate-hike in December now exceeds 80% - delivering the first rise in borrowing costs for nearly a decade. Expectation is for a quarter of 1% rise, with gradual but orderly small bites over the coming year. No big deal really, considering that Federal funds rate is already close to zero (below 0.2%) today and the yield on 5-year US Treasuries is only 1.65% per annum.

> Strengthening US dollar: The consensus is for US dollar to continue to strengthen, reflecting its relatively strong economy and prospects of a near term rate-hike in the face of economic weaknesses world-wide. The US dollar index (against six of its peers) has tipped past 99.6 (up 10.3% so far this year) for the first time since April.

Odds are for euro to be at parity with the US dollar; it has already touched 1.05. Tge euro has depreciated 13% so far this year.

The Chinese yuan is stable since this summer’s policy change. It is now likely that the yuan will be included in the SDR basket of elite currencies before year-end – in practice, bestowing on it reserve currency status.

Against a basket of EME currencies, however, the JP Morgan US dollar index is up 13.7% over the year; the Brazilian real is down 30.1% so far this year (until December 10); Malaysian ringgit, -20.2%; Turkish lira, -18.6%; Mexican peso, -12.1%; and Indonesia rupiah, -9.9.

Most certainly, Malaysia’s strong economic fundamentals don’t deserve a near 30% currency downgrade over the past year – it’s over-depreciated by at least 10%-15% after discounting the “bad” politics.

US President Obama (in Malaysia recently) is right to emphasise the critical importance of accountability and transparency, and the need to root out corruption in government.

> Destabilising politics and conflict: G-20 continues to struggle to come up with workable viable steps to reshape an increasingly dour economic outlook. They also face a host of new troubles, from political problems to security crises, raising doubts about preventing the global economy from falling into a long-term funk. Now, the growing refugee crisis in Europe and renewed fears of widespread terrorism after the Paris, Sinai (Egypt) & Bamako (Mali) attacks are proving difficult to fix. Soon enough, these heinous acts will become a pressing economic and business issue, bringing with it far reaching pressures on recovery efforts on the global economy.

What then, are we to do

So it’s not surprising that global economic prospects are repeatedly marked down in recent years. Add to this calls to join-in the war to fight terrorism with its multi-faceted business implications.

What’s worrisome is the rising risk of a world economy persistently mired in sub-par growth – as though hysteresis (impact of past experience on subsequent performance) has taken hold, with the attendant unacceptably wide income disparities, serious security issues, and persistent unemployment.

There is also the need to address the “large-scale displacement of people” with far reaching humanitarian development dimensions. Given that the global economy is still faced with much economic slack and very low inflation (indeed, even deflation), the complex challenges ahead will require continued monetary accommodation and fiscal support, notwithstanding frequent disruptions arising from China’s and EMEs’ reform transition, in the face of financial market volatility emerging from the pending Fed rate lift-off and the prospective strengthening of the US dollar.

Warren Buffett is known to have said: only when the tide has receded can you see who has been swimming naked. Cheap QE money has spoiled EMEs. Traditionally, debt busts in EMEs are centred on their sovereign US dollar denominated bonds.

Today’s “naked” EMEs reside in the corporate sector, mostly exposed to local currency bonds.

Their total private debt now far exceeds 100% of GDP, even higher than it was among the rich nations on the brink of the 2008 financial crisis. In the face of a debt crunch, they can become unduly vulnerable, especially for EMEs with a difficult and uncertain future.

Clearly, tepid and uneven growth raises the risk that can tip an economy into recession. Easy times have come & gone. Much soul searching lies ahead.

By Lin See-Yan What are we to do? 

Former banker, Harvard educated economist and British Chartered Scientist Tan Sri Lin See-Yan is the author of ‘The Global Economy in Turbulent Times’ (Wiley, 2015). Feedback is most welcomed; email: starbiz@thestar.com.my.


Related post:

If China killed commodities super cycle, Fed is about to bury it

Has the Commodities Supercycle Run Its Course? bloomberg.com Gordon Johnson, A...

US Growing Unemployed: A Case of Benign Neglect

Photo: REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton

The political power of the working class has diminished in recent decades, and that helps to explain why US politicians have not paid enough attention to the unemployment problem.

The high unemployment rate ought to be a national emergency. There are millions of people in need of jobs. The lost income as a result of the recession totals hundreds of billions of dollars annually, and the longer the problem persists, the more permanent the damage becomes. Why doesn’t the unemployment problem get more attention? Why have other worries such as inflation and debt reduction dominated the conversation instead? As I noted at the end of my last column, the increased concentration of political power at the top of the income distribution provides much of the explanation.

Consider the Federal Reserve. Again and again we hear Federal Reserve officials say that an outbreak of inflation could undermine the Fed’s hard-earned credibility and threaten its independence from Congress. But why is the Fed only worried about inflation? Why aren’t officials at the Fed just as worried about Congress reducing the Fed’s independence because of high and persistent unemployment?

Similar questions can be asked about fiscal policy. Why is most of the discussion in Congress focused on the national debt rather than the unemployed? Is it because the wealthy fear that they will be the ones asked to pay for monetary and fiscal policies that mostly benefit others, and since they have the most political power their interests – keeping inflation low, cutting spending, and lowering tax burdens – dominate policy discussions?

There was, of course, a stimulus program at the beginning of Obama’s presidency, but it was much too small and relied far more on tax cuts than most people realize. The need to shape the package in a way that satisfied the politically powerful, especially the interests that have captured the Republican Party, made it far less effective than it might have been. In the end, it had no chance of fully meeting the challenge posed by such a severe recession, and when it became clear that additional help was needed, those same interests stood in the way of doing more.

Republican policymakers give us all sorts of excuses for blocking further action to help the unemployed. We are told the problem is structural – there is a geographical or talent mismatch between labor availability and labor needs – and nothing can be done to help. But something can be done. We can help workers move to where the jobs are, encourage firms to locate in areas where workers are readily available, and help with job retraining. If mismatches are really the problem, why aren’t Republicans leading the charge on these policies? If they care about the unemployed rather than the tax burden of the wealthy, then why are they allowing community colleges – one of the best ways we have of providing job training for new and displaced workers – to be gutted with budget cuts?

We are also told that the deficit is too large already, but there’s still plenty of room to do more for the unemployed, as long as we have a plan to address the long-run debt problem. But even if the deficit is a problem, why won’t Republicans support one of the many balanced budget approaches to stimulating the economy? Could it be that these policies invariably require higher income households to give something up so that we can help the less fortunate? Tax cuts for the wealthy are always welcome among Republicans no matter how it impacts the debt, but creating job opportunities through, say, investing in infrastructure?

Forget it. Even though the costs of many highly beneficial infrastructure projects are as low as they get, and even though investing in infrastructure now would save us from much larger costs down the road – it’s a budget saver, not a budget buster – Republicans leaders in the House are balking at even modest attempts to provide needed job opportunities for the unemployed.

The imbalance in political power, obstructionism from Republicans designed to improve their election chances, and attempts by Republicans to implement a small government ideology are a large part of the explanation for why the unemployed aren’t getting the help they deserve.

But Democrats aren’t completely off the hook either. Centrist Democrats beholden to big money interests are definitely a problem, and Democrats in general have utterly failed to bring enough attention to the unemployment problem. Would these things happen if workers had more political power?

When we talk about leveling the playing field, it is generally in terms of economic opportunity. However, leveling the political playing field is just as important, and in the past unions provided workers with a powerful voice in the political arena. But unions have largely faded from the scene, leaving workers with very little organized power. Correcting the political imbalance this has created through the renewed political empowerment of the working class must be part of any attempt to improve our response to serious recessions.

It also suggests a solution — renewed political empowerment of the working class — but that’s easier said than done.

By MARK THOMA, The Fiscal Times
Newscribe : get free news in real time