Connect with us

Economy

Side Effects of a Difficult Transition

Published

on

Since China’s rise to the rank of second world economy in 2014, there is no country or industry on the planet that is not affected, in one way or another, by the political and economic decisions taken behind the closed doors of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

A good example is new title that was bestowed upon Xi Jinping last week, who will now be known as the “core of the Chinese Communist party.” This highly symbolic title was granted during the 6th plenum of the 18th Central Committee of the CCP and effectively makes President Xi Jinping not just the first among equals, but the clear leader of his generation.

Newly invested with the title, we can expect Xi Jinping to intensify his zeal in the fight against corruption and economic reform. This move has been seen in China as a clear message for both local and provincial officials – now with more power than ever, the Chinese President will be able to stand up to rival groups and to those who seek to protect their vested interests, such the powerful state enterprises and their associated political patrons.

It is too early to tell if this new title will in fact help President Xi Jinping’s “supply-side reform”, which aims to transform the Chinese economy from a high growth export-based regime to an average growth model based on domestic consumption. But one thing is sure: the effects of this reform – described by Prime Minister Li Keqiang as “painful” – will continue to be felt throughout the world, even more so in the European and North American aluminum industry.

Overcapacity problem

While the slowdown in Chinese growth is making headlines in the Western press, it is worth recalling that China’s services sector is undergoing “explosive growth”, as described by macroeconomic research firm BCA. The real problem is that this tertiary growth is not yet strong enough to offset the hardships affecting heavy industry and large state companies – the real losers of the economic slow-down.

Indeed, China’s massive investment in heavy industry during the 90s have created problems of production overcapacity that are visible today, as well as becoming the main obstacle for the sector to reform itself and transit toward to a new growth regime. It is therefore not surprising that Xi Jinping’s supply-side reform has been greatly hampered by the inertia and conservatism of China’s heavy industry, among which figures prominently the aluminum industry.

President Xi finds itself prisoner of a precarious balance where he needs to reconcile its goal of economic reform with the entitlements of Chinese aluminum smelters. If Xi wants to go ahead with his reform, he has no other choice but to adopt mitigation measures, even though such measures may hurt the initial objectives of his reform. His recently upgraded title may change things, but for now, one does not go without the other.

This is how Beijing came to strongly encourage Chinese aluminum companies to look for solution abroad, i.e. solve overproduction through what most industry insiders do not hesitate to call dumping. The overproduction was therefore dumped on the world market, with the tacit approval of Beijing – always anxious to ensure social stability by reducing the discontent among its industrial giants.

While aluminum production in China has doubled since 2005 (totaling 54.4% of world production), its exports rose by 250% from 2.6 million tons in 2005 to 6.7 in 2015. This trend undeniably contributed to the 40% drop in prices of the light metal over the past five years, raising the ire of foreign producers.

The problem with encouraging large aluminum producers to clear their extra stocks by flooding foreign markets is that, although it can seem an attractive solution on the short term, it remains counter-productive in the long term and controversial abroad.

Unanimous condemnation

Given the sheer size of China’s aluminum industry, accounting for more than 50% of the world aluminum production, immediate and disastrous effects of such policy abroad were unavoidable.

In reaction, foreign political and industrial leaders have multiplied admonitions toward Beijing, insisting on two points: the damage created by aluminum dumping and the risk of a too rapid production restart.

This is precisely the message that US Treasury Secretary Jack Lew communicated to his Chinese counterparts during his visit to Beijing in June, calling for a substantial reduction of Chinese aluminum production to stabilize world markets.

“Excess capacity is not just a domestic issue in China,” the US Treasury Secretary said. “The question of excess capacity is one that literally has an enormous effect on global markets for things like steel and aluminum, and we’re seeing distortions in global markets because of excess capacity.”

Before that, in February, European authorities also made known their dissatisfaction, emphasizing that the problem is primarily of political nature.

Joerg Wuttke, President of EU Chamber of Commerce in China, explained that this is partly the result of the inability to Beijing to fully control some well-established industrial giants who are very jealous of their prerogatives. “Local protectionism is very strong,” he said, “and the current role of the Chinese government in the economy is part of the problem.”

“China has not followed through on the attempts it has made over the last decade to address overcapacity,” Joerg continued. “Overcapacity has been a blight on China’s industrial landscape for many years now, affecting dozens of industries and wreaking far-reaching damage on the global economy in general, and China’s economic growth in particular. ”

This comes at a time where new anti-dumping probes into Chinese steel imports are being launched, with EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmstroem warning: “We cannot allow unfair competition from artificially cheap imports to threaten our industry.”

These statements echo those of Russian aluminum giant UC Rusal last May, which warned Beijing against a too quick restart of production that could endanger the slight recovery seen in recent months, indicating that doing so would imperil global aluminum prices.

According to Oleg Mukhamedshin, UC Rusal’s Deputy Chief Executive, China’s smelters should exercise better control and have stricter discipline when it comes to their production to “ensure gradual improvement in prices and profitability.”

Chinese overproduction in the aluminum sector has thus managed to accomplish a feat at which many of the best diplomats have failed countless times – to reach unanimity in Moscow, Brussels and Washington.

A precarious balance

Despite difficulties, Aluminium Insider analyst Chistopher Clemence noted some signs pointing to positive developments. According to his information, Chinese banks are more and more recalcitrant to finance new projects in the aluminum sector, which is now increasingly known for its losses. This may very well calm the ardor of overly ambitious entrepreneurs wanting to build new smelters.

In addition, the aluminum domestic consumption is growing at a faster rate than expected – an increase of 9.9 million metric tons in the first quarter of 2016, a year-on-year increase of 8.1%.

But other signs point instead to a worsening of the situation, indicating that warnings coming from western capitals did not have the desired impact. Just a few weeks ago, Zhang Bo, CEO of China Hongqiao – one of the largest aluminum producers in the world – categorically denied fears of overproduction, while emphasizing that Chinese smelters had made significant progress in term of “self-discipline.”

This denial worries Paul Adkins, President of the consulting firm AZ China, who remains skeptical about the underlying desire of Beijing to genuinely proceed with economic reform. In view of the mantra of “supply-side economics” of the Chinese government, he asks, how can Beijing still allow restarts and capacity additions in the aluminum sector?

“Ultimately, the rhetoric on supply-side reform is nothing but empty words,” he wrote.

Adkins is also pessimistic about future price trend. He explained that China’s aluminum production record – 91,900 tons per day – was reached in June 2015, after which production began to slowly decline. With recent restarts and capacity additions, this production record may well be broken shortly (if it is not already the case). Once this psychological barrier has been broken, nothing will stop the pressure pushing down the price of the light metal to grow stronger and stronger.

Continue Reading
Comments

Economy

Pandemic Recovery: Whitehouse – Check-In or Check-Out Times

Naseem Javed

Published

on

Credit: Diego Rivera

Some 200 nations of the world are in serious economic pains of varying degrees; the images and narratives on social media makes the world appear small and spinning out of control, shrinking mental abilities to Tik-Tok tempo to fit small size screens. In reality, when global dialogues engage some 5000 languages, 2000 cultures, bouncing in 10,000 cities, 11,000 Chamber of Commerce, 100,000 trade associations and some five billion connected alpha dreamers extremely dynamic vibrancy appears. The world is immensely large, as only less than 5% its populace has ever travelled globally while 50% never went outside their own country. On social media, everyone is a certified global expert.

Nevertheless, some 200 nations are trying to change the world toward a better workable plateau, peaceful diversity, tolerance and some sort of balanced trade. The world is hungry seeking out untapped hidden talents of its local citizens, suppressed by the bad local policies. There are continents, oceans, jungles, animals and things, simply, so much, so large, so vast, a mind cannot fathom. Blessed are those who have open minds and souls. The rest self-imprisoned in their own minds, lost in the darkness of their own fears. The borderless world of commerce always needs colorfully smart; open to diversity to bounce in global space with national and global collaborations.  

Such doctrines lost during the last decades as economic disconnectivity blossomed under hologramic economies. Pandemic recovery, today, forces mobilization of the midsize business economy as a bold adventure on quality exportability based on upskilled citizenry. Occupationalism demands small and midsize manufacturing to uplift local grassroots prosperity. In the history of humankind, no other experiment of human endurance has ever been as successful as America; a century old, image supremacy of entrepreneurialism wasted when some 100,000 factories and Middle-Class America disappeared from the heartland. The manufacturing based economy laughed at over ‘information economy’ and hologramic adventuring. Deep study and new global age thinking is a perquisite.

Three types of new challenges

Nations without funding: It is almost a fact most governments from top to bottom are simply broke, and almost a fact most governments have already wasted their funds beyond their means. However, if we focus just on priorities, above programs are primarily not new funding dependent rather they are deployment hungry and execution starved. Any government anywhere in the world in the name of superior efficiencies can easily adopt digitization policy as a survival strategy and make all the processes highly affordable by bringing them on digital formats. The rain of free technologies is flooding the global markets. It is more about upskilling departmental leaderships to adapt to such opportunities, without fear.

Nations without infrastructure: Small percentages of nations have the infrastructure, rest assembling like Lego as they go. The internet connectivity or knowledge plug is almost everywhere. The lack of imagination and upskilling of the gatekeepers is a critical issue.

Nations without digitization: there are a majority of nations where mental attitudes are significant problems, fear of being replaced as redundant or fear of exposing lack of competence preclude any adventure on digitization. No nation will survive on economic progress without national digitization mandates.

Three types of new models: Start with the Marshall Plan thinking, the revolutionary models and national mobilization to catch up the last decade. Start with open debates and honestly frank analysis, no finger pointing. Start with a plastic award night, congratulate failures, and carry on as usual until the next pandemic.

When history becomes nothing, but agreed upon lies, culture as agreed upon fables, truth becomes taboo, dumb down narrative dominates, restless citizenry emerges.

Summary: Within next 50 days, the US Election will make global shock waves, no matter who wins…it will be the battles on acceptance and concession speech, the mail-order selection criteria my linger weeks or months in chaos… the Vaccines races may collide with bad results and delay the process to 2022. The economic recovery shaped W may bring reopening normalcy possibly in 2022. Tough and difficult times demanding critical thinking and mental endurance on all fronts. Study how national mobilization of mid size economy works in digital age.

Plan wisely and select right paths; but open bold and honest discussions, as masked and sealed lips are where most of the problems originally germinated. Move or get moved. 

Continue Reading

Economy

How India can get its growth back on track after the coronavirus pandemic

Published

on

The Covid-19 pandemic has led to exceptionally challenging times. World Bank projections suggest that the global economy will contract by 5.2% in the current year. India, too, is likely to be significantly impacted.

Covid-19 afflicted India when the economy was already decelerating. After growing at an average of 7% a year in the previous decade, growth decelerated to 6% in 2018-19, and fell further to 4.2% in 2019-20. Pre-Covid-19 slowdown was due to a number of factors: longstanding structural rigidities in key input markets, stressed balance sheets compounded by greater risk aversion among banks and corporates, and, more recently, growing vulnerabilities in thThe pandemic has rendered the outlook even more sombre. So is India’s growth story over?The pandemic has rendered the outlook even more sombre. So is India’s growth story over?

Two years ago, we analysed the long-term trends in India’s growth rates. Studying 50 years of data, we found that despite variations in the trend rate, growth accelerated steadily, with no prolonged reversals. Economic growth also became stable — both due to growth rates stabilising within each sector, and due to the economy’s transition toward the steadier services sector. Importantly, faster and more stable growth was evident across states without being concentrated, for the most part, in a few sectors or activities. Furthermore, periods of faster growth saw productivity gains and not just an increase in factor inputs. All these point to the long term resilience of India’s economy.

Several factors were instrumental in India’s growth story. First, India benefited from a growing working-age population. Second, its savings and investment rates continued to increase until the late 2000s. Third, the financial sector grew significantly, with a rising ratio of bank credit to GDP. Fourth, India was likely aided by its strong institutional base. Fifth, India’s trade-to-GDP ratio grew rapidly from the early 1990s, until world trade stalled due to the global financial crisis.

Finally, the macroeconomic policies, notably monetary and fiscal, were formulated under credible frameworks in the last decades, yielding impressive macroeconomic stability.

General State of Weakness

However, some of these factors have weakened in recent years. After the 2008-09 global financial crisis, specific weaknesses emerged in private investment, export performance and the banking sector. These have persisted for nearly a decade since. Investment rates and exports declined as a percentage of GDP. Worryingly, the vulnerability of the financial sector increased, resulting in anaemic credit growth.

Covid-19 has magnified these weaknesses. Disruption in economic activity has dented consumption, investment and exports. RBI’s financial stability report has cautioned that the financial sector is likely to bear a significant burden from the slowdown. What, then, is the short- and medium-term prognosis for India’s economy? How may the policy response be tailored?

As a response to Covid-19, extensive measures have been taken in the regulatory, fiscal and monetary policy areas. But there are limits to these relief and support measures, both in terms of their effectiveness and affordability. Recovery now will depend in equal measure upon unlocking the supply side, and on the containment of the virus itself.

Private investment in India is likely constrained by several factors, including financial sector inefficiencies, deleveraging, crowding out and regulatory policy framework. Removing these, and sector-specific constraints, and ensuring policy certainty will be important. While India has received healthy volumes of FDI, encouraging these further can spur both domestic investment and greater integration in global value chains (GVCs).

Exports were an important driver of growth prior to the global financial crisis. But its contribution has diminished since. The ratio of exports to GDP has been declining, with India’s share in global exports remaining stagnant, or even decreasing. India can improve its competitiveness in the world economy by boosting investment in infrastructure and bringing it at par with other global manufacturing hubs; further reforming land, labour and financial markets; upgrading the education system to equip its workforce with skills. Besides, a competitive exchange rate, deeper trade integration, and greater embedding into GVCs will assume significance.

In the financial sphere, Indian banks have seen subdued credit growth, and asset quality remains stressed. In the past few years, a number of measures have been announced — including the consolidation of banks, an asset quality review, timely resolution for specific institutions, strengthened oversight or forbearance (post-Covid-19) and equity infusions. These measures have improved the oversight of India’s financial sector and boosted financial inclusion. However, more needs to be done to improve the safety, depth and efficiency of financial intermediation.

Additional priorities include maintaining financial sector stability, undertaking specific reforms in the non-banking financial sector, deepening capital markets, enhancing the role of fintech and ensuring a more selective and strategic footprint for the public sector in the financial sphere.

Growth Rides on Reforms

There is nothing, however, that seems permanently broken in India’s growth model to warrant pessimism. Many of the deep-rooted structural factors that helped fuel the economy’s sustained growth during the past decades seem intact: demography, a large and diversified economy, still low-income levels that signify the potential to grow, a dynamic entrepreneurial class, political and geopolitical stability, a strong institutional base and credible policy frameworks.

With continued policy attention on reforms — which spur private investment, increase the economy’s competitiveness, promote greater integration into the global economy, and ensure an efficient financial sector — India can revert to the growth path of the past.

 Source: World Bank, The Economic Times

Continue Reading

Economy

COVID-19, major shifts and the relevance of Kondratief 6th Wave

Published

on

Covid-19 has changed the global strategic equations, it has impacted each part of human life so has it let us to ponder upon the Kondratieff cycles, as with Covid-19 there has started a new debate about sixth wave, which is about the importance of health sector, especially the biotechnology which is crucial for progress of society in future.

Henceforth, the countries that are working on these sectors know that the most important engine for our economic and social development will be health in the 21st century. For example we have USA that focused on these and now has created around 2/3rd of its jobs in health sectors along with that has invested about $3,500 billion on health sector back in 2017. Also a 2008 report said about 4,700 companies all across worked in  field of biotechnology whereby 42% were in North America, and 35% in Europe, which depicts these states long-term understanding of the emerging scenario as seen from the emergence of Coronavirus. But then the on the other side if we look into the health structure of underdeveloped states, we can easily conclude that these states will suffer the most if a global health issue emerges, and in the contemporary world it has emerged in the form of COVID-19.

COVID-19 has brought changes in the political and economic arrangement. It has not limited itself to the China from where it has been started but has impacted the whole world. The virus that is itself unseen has shaken the structure, with severe consequences for all states. No matter if it’s the USA that is the super power or any small states, the pandemic has divulged the capability and integrity of all in their response to the Covid-19. With some having the capabilities to deal with it, but most lacking in these sectors which resulted in huge loss not only of human life but also of resources. Time has come when the world is criticizing globalization at one hand because globalization is the reason for the spread of COVID-19. This has marked the end of one era with the emergence of a new one.

Mention below are some of the major shifts which Covid-19 has resulted in economic sectors in both the developed and the underdeveloped states, along with the major political shift that has led many to debate about the new structure of world after the crisis would be over.

The Covid-19 that was first reported in China, in November has changed the world completely and resulted in a lot of economic and political changes all across. For example the global economy due to Covid-19 crisis have a setback of $590 trillion. Apart from this many people lost their jobs, the household incomes have reduce, moreover World Bank report say nearly 49 million people will move into extreme poverty because of pandemic. Then World largest real estates are having economic problems, the Tourism industry has declined. An estimate showed the loss of about $1.2 to $3.3 trillion in this area of tourism all over world. Also report of International Air Transport Association predicted a loss of $63-$113billion. Moreover the oil sector also faced problem as it was for the first time that its price has gone negative. Henceforth, it can be predicted that once the pandemic is over the world will have a lot to calculate.

The impact of this crisis is seen in both core and periphery states. In core states like the US and china COVID-19 has brought huge economic impact but along with this also a question of who will act as the world saviour. As Chinese economy is expected to decline by 13% in February also the Belt and toad initiative is at halt, but still apart from the economic problem this pandemic has helped a core state like china to use the situation and move towards the status of Global power. Thus this struggle of Global saviour resulted in US and China at odds with each other. Indeed, COVID-19 has brought political repercussions along with economic consequences. When it comes to Europe the industrial production decline by 17%. Likewise USA is also effected by COVID-19 as by this pandemic about 39 million American have lost their jobs, also US economy seen to decline by 20% so US health sector has been in the eye of analyst for its failure to curtail the coronavirus. Then covid-19 has more devastating impact on peripheral states as there health care facility is not well developed. For example the GDP of Bangladesh fell by 1.1%, then many African states that look for tourism as a source of economy faced a loss of about $50 billion. Also 29 million in Latin America fell into poverty. Though they have been exploited in past but the need of the hour is that the world must help them.

Global dynamics are showing transformation amid coronavirus. The pandemic has shown how China is using its trump cards to transform the contemporary situation in its favour while bolstering its image as the “global saviour”. China’s emergence from the sick man of Asian to the positing of global saviour has opened the prospect of a tilt in the global status of Hegemon from US towards China. The question is that will the Chinese strategy amid COVID-19 will hinder the prestige of US who instead of acting as the global leader has shown a deterioration in its role in global governance.

The future of China’s pre-eminence in the global spectrum has been widened by the pandemic. All of this has been further bolstered by the broad rejection of Trump to engage in Europe and elsewhere. COVID-19 not only emerged as an impetus to shift the global dynamic but has helped China to strengthen its position. In response to the confident play by China, US hasn’t come up with any convincing tactics to prevent the increasing role of China in achieving its interest. Recently, a move by Trump administration to withhold US funds of around $400million will surely leave a gap, moreover will be an opportunity for china to bolster its position in WHO. Taking backseat in its global role amid pandemic, then the withdrawal from global treaties, and withholding of funds from WHO shows a pattern which will further create a vacuum for China to take advantage of the prevailing situation. 

The current international order set by US will be subject to testation as the changing shifts in the geopolitics have to be catalyzed by the COVID-19. For it is now the right time for us all to ponder the relevance of Kondratieff 6th wave in current scenario of Covid-19. As now the focus has diverted towards the health care system and biotechnology since the world has in current situation saw a blame game between states with few called corona virus as naturally occurring but some regarded it as ‘Chinese virus’. This has led to the realization that that warfare scenario has entered into discussion over biotechnology. So after the Covid-19 pandemic, the policy makers of both periphery and core state will work on new technological area which has the Medical technologies, Nanotechnologies, Biotechnologies etc. for the improvement in health sector will be crucial for the progress in future.

Conclusively, the current COVID-19 as a bioweapon has resulted in a clear impetus and will definitely bring a shift in the states attitude towards medical research and the multiple fields of technology in future, this is so because COVID-19 has created a ground for relevance of Kondratieff 6th wave.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Trending