Economy

The Asian Square Dance – 1st part

Published

9 years ago

October 24, 2014

Goldman Sachs first coined the expression BRICs – Brazil, Russia, India and China – to identify the economic giants of the future that will reshape the world economic order. While Russia’s economy is linked to the prices of commodities, energy in particular, Brazil has not lived up to expectations. Of the four countries, China and India have shown the most impressive growth in recent years with, respectively, 10% and 8%. Excluding Brazil, the population of the BRIC represents 40% of the world’s inhabitants.

With Asia, reckoned to be today the most dynamic continent, accounting for 65% of the world’s population, and China and India together accounting for 40%, these two countries can potentially alter the fragile equilibrium of the world’s economy. It is forecast that by 2030 the East Asian economies will be the world’s largest economic bloc.

Due to diverging political ideologies and concerns, however, this bloc does not, in fact, exist other than in prose. Even worse, all the countries in the area have made significant investments in military equipment over the recent past thus sharply increasing the risk of conflict particularly as fears grow over China’s intentions.

The US’ dream, during the cold war, of creating an Asian equivalent to NATO was short lived. Today, Asia has five nuclear powers: Pakistan, India, China, North Korea and Russia. On the other hand, the US is constrained by budgetary problems.

Our argument in this series of articles is that the development of Asia, and its impact on the rest of the world, depends to a large extent on the relations between five countries: China, India, Japan, South Korea and the US. Depending on the structure of the type of relations that will develop, and choices made by Russia and the US, for instance on their energy policy, we may see a new world order developing, very different from that of the last four hundred years. Further, if the Chinese economy faces difficulties in the future, the US will be instrumental in determining Asia’s future. Conversely, if the US economy falters, China, if it so wishes, could assume the world’s economic leadership.

Since the end of the Second World War, the US’ role in the area has been a major influencing factor politically, militarily and economically and while it has declined recently, it remains, nevertheless, important. Asia is challenging the EU as the world’s most important trade bloc.

The US imports from Asia for over $2 trillion per year, thus making the US responsible for the creation of hundreds of thousands of jobs. A weakening of the US dollar could significantly diminish the US’ role in the region.

At issue here is what A F K Organski has termed ‘Power transition theory’ – i.e. the change of the guard of the dominant power where the dominant power occupies this position because of its control of resources, be they demographic, economic, geographic, natural or military.

According to the theory, the dominant power, or powers, must ensure the stability of the system failing what the system might be challenged by an emerging hegemon. These situations are conducive to confrontation, very often military.

The emerging hegemon is, no doubt, China, and the events in Eurasia, over the coming quarter century will witness an indirect confrontation between China and the US, a confrontation whose secondary actors are India and Russia.

Is China striving to attain the status of great power and challenge the US, at least regionally, and what role do the other regional powers, as well as Russia and the US play? Or is it just trying to reduce its feeling of being surrounded by enemies?

Asia has become a powerhouse with several countries showing economic strength and appearing to be rivals. A dangerous rivalry inasmuch as five countries in the area have a nuclear arsenal (China, India, North Korea, Pakistan and Russia), with two more (Japan and South Korea) able to produce a nuclear bomb in a relatively short time.

Monetary reserves in Asia are sufficient to allow the area to develop without much further foreign investments. Further, an increase in economic stability is heralded by the recent agreement between several Asian countries – the members of ASEAN, China, Japan and South Korea – to pool their financial resources in case of a speculative attack.

While the major trade partner of most of the countries in the area is Australia, the European Union and the United States, regional trade has increased considerably. Services such as tourism also cater increasingly to Asians.

There remains the question of whether the continent is able to develop its own technological base to compete with Europe and the US. There are diverging points of view on the issue.

The perception by the Asian countries of the effect of China’s domination of the continent evolved into an understanding that they only have two options – siding with China or with Japan and its US ally.

The financial difficulties originating in the US and which have spilled all over the world have affected Asia in its role of major exporter. As a reaction, China, Japan and South Korea are considering the creation of a community modelled on the European Union that would help them expand trade within their area and increase trade with the ASEAN countries, Russia, the Middle East and Europe. They are encouraged in this action as inter-Asian trade has been growing at twice the rate of global trade. Inter-Asian trade is more important as a percentage of total trade than inter-NAFTA trade.

The US should fear the creation of a trading block including China, Japan and South Korea as it would represent 43% of US’ foreign trade and holdings of over one trillion dollars in US Treasury paper.

Common problems
The countries in the area, with the notable exception of Russia, share two major problems: access to raw materials in general, and energy in particular, and an economy essentially geared to exports, and thus very dependent on the purchasing power of EU and US consumers. This last aspect is changing rapidly though with domestic markets starting to take shape and offering local producers a partial insulation from the American-led boom and bust cycles.

It is generally felt in the US that China has not been doing enough to stimulate internal demand – the number of consumers is no bigger than Italy while the population is 20 times that of the European country – and that the situation has been worsened by the decision of the Chinese government to peg the Yuan to the US dollar, thus effectively undertaking a devaluation.

Should China’s export drive remain as a major contributor the country’s economy, the accumulation of reserves by 2020 will be bigger than that of Germany, Japan and the Middle East countries put together. America’s response could be to return to a more isolationist policy by slapping import duties on Chinese products or getting China to open its doors to greater exports of US products.

Both China and India have to contend with an extremely large population. In fact, they are the only two countries with a population of over 1 billion persons. Economic development has brought, to both countries, an uneven distribution of wealth to the extent that social disruptions can be feared in the future.

China has become the world’s second largest oil consumer and it is likely that it will surpass the US to lead the world in energy use. Imports which represent 50% of consumption are likely to rise to reach 80% in another 10 – 15 years particularly considering the oil intensity of economic growth is particularly high, as in most developing countries. Thus, for each 1% growth in GDP, the country needs 1.2% additional oil.

In fact, China is the world’s fast-growing energy user, Russia is the most inefficient user of energy and he US is the country with the largest carbon footprint.

China is also the world’s largest consumer of several raw materials.
The country’s search for natural resources has been done in a predatory way, and there is fear that, backed by its staggering reserves, it could encourage suppliers to increase prices at levels beyond those acceptable to a large number of other users.

India’s energy requirements are expected to grow by 30% in the next 3 to 5 years and its imported crude oil dependency is expected to reach 95% by 2025.

India depends for 50% of its energy needs on coal and increasing its use would create major environmental problems.

Its gas suppliers are considered to be relatively unreliable and include Bangladesh, Iran, Myanmar and Turkmenistan.

This situation has encouraged India to pursue the road to nuclear power.
Such growth in raw material requirements is not sustainable and is strategically dangerous.

Both China and India have very large armies (in fact the largest in the world) and nuclear weapons.

Japan is also a major energy importer, relying entirely on imports for oil. Japan has an important stockpile of energy products, and it has encouraged other Asian countries, including China, to jointly plan the stocks and their administration.

Indeed, Asia’s energy needs are expected to double in the coming 20 years. In spite of this, OPEC countries do not seem to be prepared to invest in increasing production, in large part because of the massive funds required. They have been estimated by McKinsey to be of the order of $ 45 billion a year over the next three decades.

The countries in the area perceive themselves as rivals in securing energy sources and China, particularly, has shown an eagerness to develop partnerships, whether through limited investments, or through political support, in the United Nations, of countries like Iran.

Hydrocarbon reserves in the China Sea are claimed by several countries, and are a growing point of contention. Neighboring countries are fearful of China’s rising military power and have led them to develop closer relations with the US.

In an effort to temper their competition, India and China have made some joint bids to buy and share oil fields.

Japan too is dependent on energy imports and has recently been unlucky with their supply sources. Thus, they have had to curtail their investments in Iran, Kuwait, Russia and Saudi Arabia.

To counterbalance these losses, Japan has offered Saudi Arabia the possibility of building oil-storage facilities in Okinawa, provided Japan can have access to them in case of emergency.

A closer rapprochement between the two countries depends, however, on the US’ willingness for this to take place as the Saudi monarchy depends on the US military shield against the rising threat of Iran and of the djihadists, and there is no way Japan can replace the US in that role. This, in spite of the fact that Asia is today, by far, the largest buyer of both Saudi and more generally, Middle Eastern oil – up to 60% and 70% of their exports, respectively.

Reliance on Russia for energy is therefore extremely important. While a pipeline is being built from Siberia to the Pacific that could partly alleviate these escalating needs, a number of other pipeline projects have been proposed. All these projects require large investments ($ 1-2 million per kilometer of pipeline or around $ 12 billion for the pipeline that will link Russia and China), long delays in building and face substantial political and ecological problems. Further, the gas transmission systems in China and Japan are under-developed and therefore not suitable for the transport of large quantities of imported gas.

Russian industry has access to gas supplies at prices substantially below those practised on world markets and has therefore become a voracious user. The Russian government will be increasing prices for domestic consumption, including for private heating, and / or turning to alternative energy sources such as coal, hydro-electric or nuclear power.

Other possibilities have also been considered, but they all depend on Russia’s cooperation.

Thus, for instance, integrating the energy grids of Russia with those of China, Japan and the two Koreas has been proposed to enable the exchange of seasonal surplus.

This entails not only Russia’s cooperation, but also North Korea’s. It also requires large investments, although possibly not of the scale of building a pipeline network.

Another common point between the China, India, Japan and South Korea is that they constitute, jointly, the world’s largest weapons market and their suppliers are the European Union, Russia and the United States.

China and Japan also share the will to stop North Korea’s nuclear program.

The two countries are also large emitters of greenhouse gases.

Both China and Russia fear, perhaps rightly so, that the US is conducting an encirclement strategy due to their military presence in Central Asia as well as, in Japan, South Korea and Taiwan as far as China is concerned, and Russia is concerned with a possible NATO expansion in Europe.

Economy

Brick By Brick, BRICS Now a New Bridge for a New World

Published

2 days ago

May 30, 2023

Naseem Javed

Measuring BRICS in single decades, in 2001, BRIC started as an acronym for Brazil, Russia, India, and China; Goldman Sachs economist Jim O’Neill claimed that by 2050 the four BRIC economies would come to dominate the global economy. So South Africa was added to BRIC in 2010. The following countries are now expressing interest in joining: Afghanistan, Algeria, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Kazakhstan, Mexico, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sudan, Syria, the United Arab Emirates, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Uruguay, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe. Is this now the awakening of BRICS+ or BRICS power?

BRICS+ by 2030 will add dozen new members and carve new indices, and by 2040, it will lead to new intellectualism on geopolitics and socio-economies for the super complex 2050 age of smart living.

Historically, BRICS nations pushed on their people-power agenda over super-power titles. They made extreme value-creation economic models over focusing on powerful military-industrial complexes. They focused on nation-building and avoided special mandates to manage global affairs. They have been on a quest to upgrade them. They were feeding hungry mouths, as they were population rich, constantly up-skilling, and improving value creation as they were SME rich. They kept a steady watch to create multilateralism to uplift humankind.

They, too, made mistakes, as did the rest of the world

In the third decade of the third millennium, come 2020, three transformations erupted. First, futurism changed the rules on the ‘physicality of work’ and created a new imbalance with the ‘mentality of performance’; this has divided the workforce of world; the old system of over a billion commuting daily to the center of a complex maze to arrive daily at the sanctum of the company and create climate change. So now, in response, some 50% of the world’s workforce has chosen to stay away and work remotely in the surroundings of wide-open choices. Furthermore, technology uplifted micro-power-nations and exposed Western economies now stripped naked in bubble baths on slippery floors, they tippy-toe practicing conga-lines

Newly magnified economy: Behold, what microscopes exposed the magnified inner workings of the body. Similarly, the integrated networks have exposed the digital connectivity and working of millions of villages, cities, and nations with additional billions of people to interact, trade, improve grassroots prosperity and create a well-informed and opinionated citizenry. Some 100 years ago, if only 1% of the world’s population knew what was happening, today it is a dozen times more, and by 2030 double again. Why would these numbers change the global economic matrix when translated into micro-trading, micro-manufacturing, and micro-exporting? International opinion today is already strong enough to crush any national opinion of any nation still lingering under the illusion of a self-promoted victory.

When the SME sector already exists within each nation, the global markets are always hungry for good quality goods and services, and the rains of almost free digital technologies make such transformation a quick turnaround. Therefore, mindsets are critically essential; the need to define the difference between the job seeker mindset that builds the organizations and the job creator mindset that originates and creates that organization in the first place.

So what are the lessons, key features, and blueprints in sight?

Mistakes and new lessons: Last many decades, as the new world was rising, Western citizens felt like China experts, and their regular visits to local China towns restaurants in each city misguided them that Laundromat trained Chinese could only produce some chicken fried rice. Ever since the advent of the camera, the East was always projected as poor and dysfunctional; mesmerized by the media coverage during the last many decades, the West was equally convinced that India, a land of only snake charmers and fakirs, finally someday speak better English. The general perceptions about Asia, besides eating rice, if they could ever make cheaper products for the West. The rest is history, mistakes, and lessons.

After the big ding-dong nights of 2000 New Year’s Eve, today’s new story starts from the 20th chapter. Now China and India alone have created some 500 million new entrepreneurs, not by a magic pill or meta-crypto-wand but by National Mobilization of Entrepreneurialism, a slow, painful deployment of SMEs across the nation, and by creating mobilization protocols to identify, classify, and digitizing based on multiple factors from type and size to the evaluation of their “respectable” role in future communities and economic factors. This methodology was far more advanced in strategy and stern management over the globalization frenzy from the West, where sudden exporting of manufacturing of the industrial plants to kill manufacturing and destroying the middle class out of the West already declared globalization a great success.

The other mistake is to assume this is an economic or an academic study, at best, like an Oscar Slap on sleepy rotundas occupied with endless printing of money across the Western economies. Instead, this is an entrepreneurial response for the entrepreneurial nations to awaken hidden entrepreneurial talents in up-skilling SMEs and re-skilling manufacturers at national levels.

Recommendations and warnings: No airline can survive with only Flight Engineers and Frequent Flyers stuffed inside the cockpits; that space is only reserved for highly trained pilots. Henceforth, across the world, any economic development of any size, shape, or authority may find other more suitable alternate paths of occupation if they still cannot demonstrate any levels of understanding, applicable skills, or mobilization mastery on the National Mobilization of Entrepreneurialism to up-skill exporters and re-skill manufactures and uplift national SME sector as the most prominent economic contributor of the nation. Study the biggest error of economic thinking

Underestimating the hidden powers of early thinking and starting a tiny unknown SME is a mistake of mindsets; here, entrepreneurialism like a saga unfolds, like a voluminous piece of literature but demanding literacy, understanding the job seeker mindsets and the ability to differentiate with entrepreneurial job creator mindset is already winning half the battle. Study the Mindset Hypotheses

Nations failing to realize the power of the billion SME rising in Asia and still unable to declare a national agenda of national mobilization of SMEs now must acquire an understanding of the 4B Factor: a billion displaced due to the pandemic, a billion replaced due to technology, a billion misplaced in wrong jobs now a billion on starvation watch. Furthermore, this 4 billion ever digitally connected mass of people ever in the history of humankind is now the most significant force of global opinion. Notice nations are already intoxicated with joy over the popularity of their national public opinion while having just an opposite international opinion on the world stage.

Recommendation; everyone is born an entrepreneur; our system chips away at this talent. Nevertheless, 10% to 50% high potential SMEs of any nation once are identified, classified, and digitized within 100 days. The uplifting digital platforms of up-skilling exporters and re-skilling manufacturers will result in 10% to 50% quadrupling their performance, productivity, and profitability. Imagine how much-regimented efforts will activate a positive national economic revolution based on real value creation, uplifting grassroots prosperity. How soon is a nation ready for a significant change? The rest is easy.

Economy

Promoting Economic Security: Enhancing Stability and Well-being

Published

6 days ago

May 27, 2023

Ayesha Binat-E-Umar

The stability and well-being of people, communities, and countries are critically dependent on economic security. It covers a range of topics, such as access to necessities, work opportunities, stable incomes, and defense against economic shocks. The need of guaranteeing economic security has increased significantly in the modern world, which is characterized by technical developments, geopolitical shifts, and unexpected disasters. The importance of economic security is examined in this article, along with important tactics for promoting adaptability and preserving people’s quality of life.

The value of economic security to individuals, communities, and countries cannot be overstated. By fostering an atmosphere where people and families can achieve their basic needs without suffering undue stress, it promotes stability. Because of this stability, people can recuperate and start over after severe shocks like economic downturns, natural disasters, or health crises.

Furthermore, economic security contributes to social cohesion by reducing inequality and fostering inclusivity. When individuals feel economically secure, they are more likely to actively participate in society, contribute to their communities, and engage in productive endeavors. This sense of security leads to greater social harmony and a collective feeling of prosperity.

Moreover, economic security is vital for long-term sustainable development. It enables individuals and societies to invest in education, healthcare, infrastructure, and innovation. These investments drive economic growth, improve overall well-being, and create the foundation for a prosperous future. By ensuring economic security, countries can build resilient and sustainable economies that benefit their citizens and contribute to global progress.

To enhance economic security, several key strategies can be implemented. Firstly, governments and businesses should prioritize diversifying their economies by promoting sectors with growth potential and resilience. By reducing reliance on a single industry or market, countries can mitigate the impact of economic downturns and build a more robust and diversified economy.

Investing in education and skills development is another crucial strategy. Governments and organizations must focus on providing quality education, vocational training, and lifelong learning opportunities. Equipping individuals with the necessary tools and knowledge enables them to adapt to changing economic landscapes and remain competitive in the job market.

Strong social safety nets are necessary to protect people during times of economic upheaval. The most disadvantaged populations should be given priority in the design and implementation of comprehensive social welfare systems by the government. Creating a safety net for all citizens entails implementing programs for income support, healthcare coverage, and unemployment benefits.

Promoting entrepreneurship and innovation can create new opportunities for economic growth and job creation. Governments can support aspiring entrepreneurs by providing access to capital, mentorship programs, and favorable regulatory environments. Embracing technological advancements and fostering a culture of innovation further enhances economic security, particularly in an increasingly digital world.

International cooperation is essential since economic security is a global issue. Cooperation between nations is necessary to advance ethical business practices, lessen economic inequality, and improve financial stability. Initiating discourse, coordinating policy, and assisting nations in economic crises are all important functions of multilateral organizations.

Societies can improve their economic security and create a more secure and prosperous future by putting these strategies into practice: diversifying the economy, investing in education and skills, creating social safety nets, encouraging entrepreneurship and innovation, and fostering international cooperation.

Having economic security is crucial in a world that is uncertain and changing quickly. Governments, corporations, and individuals may all work together to create an environment that promotes economic security by putting a priority on stability, resilience, and inclusivity. We can create a more resilient and prosperous future for everybody through diversity, education, social safety nets, entrepreneurship, and international cooperation. By making investments in financial stability, we build a more just and sustainable world.

Economy

The Impact of Globalization on the South Asian Economy

Published

6 days ago

May 26, 2023

Karar Ali Shah

Globalization refers to the process by which economies, societies, and cultures from different countries become integrated with one another. The economies of the countries that make up South-East Asia, which include India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, and Sri Lanka, have been significantly impacted by the spread of globalization in recent decades. The effects of globalization on the economies of South Asian countries have been mixed, with some positive and some negative results.

Positive Impacts of Globalization on the South Asian Economy

The expansion of South-East Asia’s trade and investment opportunities is one of the aspects of globalization that has had the most positive impact on the region’s economy. Because of its large consumer base, low labor costs, and strategic location, the region has become an attractive destination for foreign investors. As a consequence of this, the level of foreign direct investment (FDI) in South Asia has significantly increased, which has led to the development of new industries and the production of new jobs.

The expansion of the service industry in Sout-East Asia can also be attributed to the effects of globalization. South Asian countries have emerged as a hub for the outsourcing of services such as information technology (IT) and business process outsourcing as a result of the emergence of new technologies and the increased availability of skilled labor (BPO). As a direct consequence of this, the area has benefited from an increase in both the number of available jobs and the amount of money it brings.

Last but not least, globalization has facilitated greater cultural interaction and integration throughout South-East Asia. The region possesses a significant cultural legacy, and the advent of globalization has made it possible for South Asian music, films, and cuisine to become popular all over the world. This has not only contributed to a greater awareness of the region’s cultural heritage, but it has also opened up new doors for the travel and hospitality industry.

Negative Impacts of Globalization on the South-East Asian Economy

Even though there have been some positive effects, there have also been some negative effects that globalization has had on the South Asian economy. The widening gap between rich and poor is one of the most pressing problems that we face today. The advantages brought about by globalization have accrued almost entirely to a relatively small number of people, which has contributed to a widening income gap. As a consequence of this, social unrest and a wider gap in incomes have emerged.

Another significant obstacle that has been presented is the displacement of workers and traditional industries. Due to the effects of globalization, many smaller businesses have been forced to shut down, and their employees have been relocated to larger companies that are more productive. As a consequence of this, there has been an increase in unemployment as well as social unrest, particularly in rural areas.

Globalization has contributed to the deterioration of the environment in South Asia. The region has seen a growth in industries such as the textile industry, both of which have had a significant impact on the environment as a result of their expansion. The population’s health and well-being have suffered as a direct result of environmental degradation, which can be traced back to the increased consumption of natural resources and the improper disposal of waste produced by industrial processes.

Conclusion

The economy of the South-East Asian region has been affected in both positive and negative ways by the phenomenon of globalization. While it has resulted in the growth of industries and increased cultural exchange, it has also resulted in the displacement of workers and the widening of income inequality. While it has contributed to the growth of industries and increased cultural exchange, it has also resulted in the displacement of workers. In order to address these challenges, policy interventions that foster inclusive growth, protect the environment, and create new opportunities for the population will be required. By acting in this manner, countries in South Asia will be able to take advantage of globalization’s positive aspects while mitigating some of its more damaging effects.