In light of the termination of the US dollar convertibility to gold (end of the Breton Woods exchange rate system, 1971-73), there has been reported a considerable rise in the short-term volatility of the relative price between countries—a dramatic mean-reverting, fluctuating behaviour.
Detractors of the floating exchange rate regime—a regime in which the exchange rate fluctuates in response to foreign-exchange market mechanisms and it is not pegged to any measure of value—argue that its associated volatility is an important drawback for the international monetary system, which increases uncertainty about relative prices. They also state that it leads to restrict international investments and flows of goods and services, which brings negative real-effects to the economy. In parallel with detractors of the floating regimes, the Bretton Woods Commission (1994) urges political organisations to internationally coordinate policies to fight against exchange rate volatility by adopting stabilising measures that may help to avoid potential costs to the economy.
Furthermore, the implicit exchange rate volatility of floating regimes can be observed through a visual inspection of the graphs in (Fig. 1.1) for Japan, Canada and the UK. The floating exchange rate period (since 1971) seems to be systematically associated with a high volatility, in contrast to that of the fixed regime (before 1971). Interestingly, this increased volatility has been matched with a slowdown in international trade flows since 1973. For instance, the balance of trade of the US current account reached to around three hundred billion of US dollars in 1999, its highest mark in the post-war period so far (IMF, 1999). Because of this reason, research efforts over decades have centred on investigating this relationship through several approaches: from the lens of multilateral trade relationships to a more accurate perspective under bilateral approaches.
Exchange Rate Volatility of Japan, Canada and the UK
Source (Muñoz-Salido, 2016)
Notes to the table. Graph shows a PPI-based (2010=1) Real Exchange Rate (RER henceforth) for Japan (first graph), Canada (second graph) and the UK (third graph). Period covered is from 1960/1 to 2015/2, 661 monthly observations for each variable after log-transformations. Red spheres indicate fixed exchange rate periods.
After decades of research, ambiguous contributions have risen the interest of researchers in disentangling the true mechanics of the effect of the exchange rate volatility upon trade growth. Traditionally, the basic methodology for studying this effect has been to run panel data regressions through multilateral approaches. After the first divergences in the empirical literature, the methodologies have been modified and alternative models have been proposed in search of identifying the true underlying relationship between these two variables.
The empirical heritage points to the different exchange rate regimes and trade relationships between countries for explaining the divergence of directions of the aforesaid effect—particular features from different type of trade relationships may impede the true dynamics of this effect to robustly hold. Additionally, research efforts in disentangling such divergence were centred on studying either aggregate of disaggregate data, which did not substantially solve such ambiguity.
In parallel with the empirical literature, there is not consensus among theoretical predictions explaining this effect (i.e. Hooper and Kohlhagen’s, 1976; Newbery and Stiglitz, 1981; Caballero and Corbo’s, 1989). Indeed, this theoretical divergence does not arise from assumptions on the risk aversion of traders but from restrictions and assumptions imposed to the utility function of the theoretical models, which makes even more difficult to identify and correct the causes for this divergence.
By considering all of the aforementioned reflections, are we scientifically able to argue in favour or against free-floating exchange rate regimes for boosting or hindering international trade growth? Indeed, it seems as the empirical spectrum had sown the seeds of the ambiguity and the disrepute within the economic science—then, what else could be done? Is it that theoretical predictions for the macro-level are not as clear-cut as they are for the micro-level? Is it that the lack of empirical accuracy in the macro-level unhinges the theoretical discourse? Or does one has to think that economic science must succumb to Chaos Theory’s negative forces?
Assessing the trends of Globalization in the Covid Era
Coronavirus largely represents acceleration in existing globalization trends, rather than a full paradigm shift.
Globalization has ebbed and flowed over the years, but the event panelists agreed that the 2007-08 global financial crash marked a turning point and kicked off a trend “slowbalization”. Falling income, increasing unemployment and inequality proved fertile ground for the rise of nationalism and anti-immigration rhetoric. One of the most potential shifts towards domestic production, which is well underway before corona virus, can accelerate, as rising barriers to the free movement of goods, people and capital that underpin globalization. Technology is at the heart of this unilateralism. In the past two decades, we have seen a shift in the global economy, from a reliance on tangible to intangible assets such as software, which does not require complex supply chains. The rise of artificial intelligence could also displace cheap labor and drive restoring in advanced economies. COVID-19 lockdowns have only accelerated such digitization. Another rise in populism could be on the horizon as well, the whitepaper noted, as millions of people around the world are plunged into poverty. And the reputation of international organizations such as the World Health Organization has been weakened, which may further reduce global cooperation.
Compounding this is the deterioration in US-China relations and an escalating trade war. The resulting uncertainty is delaying companies’ investment decisions and curbing the global capital flows which are a key pillar of globalization.
It will categorize the globe in losers and winners. The most successful countries in the near future are likely to be those that can generate social consensus on policies; small economies that are protected by nearby large markets like China or Europe; and countries with strong public finances that can prop up their domestic economy, such as Switzerland. Exporting countries that cannot rely on domestic markets will be the big losers, such as India and many African nations. Oil exporting countries may also run into trouble because of growing sustainability concerns. So-called green policies will become a key differentiator for countries, as will taxation to finance the post-pandemic recovery.
Globalization has proved to be game changer for whole world in terms of mobility of people resources and capital; flow of people and resources has also made the flow of diseases especially viral diseases through global interconnectedness. Since the occurrence of Covid-19 on December 2019 in China, the world has totally changed and it has left strong impacts on global security as states have faced many challenges in health, domestic and economic sector. The Corona virus was reported in China initially and later due to free movement of people across borders and lack of availability of knowledge on its symptoms and causes it spread to almost all over the world and hit the states from highly developed states to least developed states and alarmed the Global Health and Security.
According to World Health Organization, the total number of covid cases registered is 162773940 and 3375573 people died due to Corona. The pandemic has also posed a great impact on health care systems and huge burden on world economy and social set-up and contributed to the shift in Globalization trends.
Although globalization has ensured economic and cultural growth in recent past but as mobility of people across borders become easier, the spread of diseases also became easier as the bubonic plague was transmitted from China to Europe through trade routes and influenza pandemic spread during WW1 due to movement of armies and Asian flu of 1957 was spread via land and sea travel. Hence, the phenomenon of globalization has amplified global transmission of diseases and there is link of how the close integration of people and flow of trade and commerce also causes disease transmission. The year 2019 proved to be fatal for whole world as novel coronavirus (SARS-Cov-2) observed in Wuhan city of China spread so rapidly that in March, 2020 WHO declared COVID-19 as pandemic and by October 2020, over 41 million confirmed cases and 1.13 million deaths have reported worldwide. The lockdown measures adopted by states to counter the spread of virus during the global pandemic in has not only impacted our livelihood but also affected economy in terms of supply and demand as market places were closed most of the time and decelerated the economic growth of affected countries which reduced trade and increased poverty. As with all forms of volatility, there are both losers and winners as discussed above, and the case of COVID-19 is no different. While globalization may be negatively impacted in the form of the trade of goods and certain services such as travel, other sectors may experience heightened demand. More remote forms of work will only spur on the cross-border flow of data and of dispersed but easily exchanged professional services. As such, not only the suppliers of these services but also the enablers such as Zoom and broadband providers will be the beneficiaries.
Moreover, the low and middle income countries like Pakistan have faced a collapse in health care systems. The lockdowns and restricted movement has put pressure on transportation systems resulting in loss of income, disruption of global trading and halt of tourism sector, decrease in production, consumption, employment and supply chain. Globally centralized supply chains in low labor-cost countries are also being challenged by the increased use of robotics and automation, allowing firms to keep production in relatively expensive countries. COVID-19 has highlighted the importance of automation, as the threat to operations posed by “non-essential” business closures is based on the need to keep people at home. As such, operations that leverage robotics will be less affected. Ironically, among those countries that have weathered this pandemic the best are many with high levels of robotics usage such as South Korea.
Moreover, unemployment has become major issue with 14% decline in jobs related to industry. Moreover, globally over 140 million people are estimated to face extreme poverty along with food insecurity. Along with economic system, countries with active corona cases are vulnerable like Ireland, UK, and Italy despite having good health care facilities. In African continent, the countries that are more vulnerable are South Africa and Egypt, In Europe, Germany, Russia and Italy are more vulnerable and in Asia and Oceania, Pakistan, India and Saudi Arabia and Turkey and in America Brazil, Chile, USA, Mexico and Peru. The Covid came in three different waves and posed more challenge for states like India where the whole health system collapsed and people were helpless.
In Addition to Health care system and economy, the education sector has been affected too mostly in developing and under-developing states. For example, initially when the schools, colleges and universities were closed the students as well as teachers couldn’t adapt immediately to online mode and that made it difficult to acquire quality education. Moreover, the states like Pakistan where internet availability is limited and there are many household that lack access to internet especially rural areas, education could not be provided through online mode. Although the studies at University level continued through online mode, but primary and secondary education sector were severely affected. And this is clear , that the learning acquired by attending institutions and learning at home through online mode are very different and the later requires self-regulation that is very less in today’s youth who have various other distractions in terms of electronic gadgets, social media and mobile phones.
COVID became a global issue in past two years and all the states and international organizations were active to cooperate and spread awareness and adopted measures that could halt its spread. It affected all states and posed challenges on economy, health, education and has exposed the urgent need to revisit disaster preparedness and health care systems as health care capacity of powerful nations have been tested during pandemic. The developed states like US have faced difficulties in controlling the spread of epidemic and less developed have been further unable to respond to and control the situation. The Covid has not only posed challenges to economic and health system but the trends of globalization have also shifted. The states adopted counter strategies where institutions were closed, lockdowns were implemented, travel banned and people have to restrict movement.
In short, Covid has been and still is a challenge that states are facing and all states and international organizations have cooperated to fight this evil through research on its causes and effects. The Global community has been successful to produce vaccine that will control the spread of Corona in future and generate immunity for Virus among people. The fight against corona is still there and future hold secrets of this Global Virus that has changed the whole global structure and posed challenge to developed and under developed sates equally as no one was prepared for this deadly outbreak.
We are shifting to a new model of globalization that is more localized, focused on services, less capital and energy intensive. Globalization will survive in the COVID-era, but it will look vastly different.
How has Russia’s economy fared in the pandemic era?
Authors: Apurva Sanghi, Samuel Freije-Rodriguez, Nithin Umapathi
COVID-19 continues to upturn our lives and disrupt economic activity across the world. The World Bank estimates that well over 100 million people would be pushed into extreme poverty by the end of this year alone. Global food insecurity is on the rise, and the pandemic is expected to leave long-term scars, world over. How has Russia’s economy fared in the global “pandemic-onium”? What about jobs, food prices, and poverty?
First, the economy. In our most recent World Bank Russia Economic Report, we examine how Russia’s GDP fell by 3% in 2020 compared to larger contractions of 3.8% in the world economy, 5.4% in advanced economies and 4.8% in most commodity-exporting economies. Several factors helped Russia perform relatively better. Well-known ones are Russia’s sizeable fiscal buffers and supportive monetary policy. This allowed for a substantial countercyclical fiscal response (about 4.5 percent of GDP, on par with benchmark countries). Lesser-known factors, perhaps, are a relatively small services sector and a large public sector that buffered against unemployment.
Russia’s pre-pandemic advances in digitization also paid off and enabled Russian society to operate reasonably effectively during lockdowns. And closer and growing ties to a relatively fast-growing China, stabilization in new COVID-19 cases, loosening of OPEC+ production cuts – all helped. Indeed, the economic recovery is gathering pace — and with all the caveats of uncertainty around the evolution of the pandemic – we now project Russia’s GDP to grow at 3.2% in 2021 and 2022.
Second, when it comes to jobs, although employment remains below pre-pandemic levels, the labor market is improving. The unemployment rate in March 2021 was 5.4%, down from 6.4% in last August. Interestingly, most jobs were created in the informal sector: about 828,000 in the 2nd half of 2020. Job losses have not been the same across economic activities. Total losses of 1.78 million jobs were concentrated in four sectors: manufacturing, construction, retail and hospitality, and health/social services.
Job losses in manufacturing, construction, and retail and hospitality can be explained by the lockdown measures and the difficulty of tele-work in these sectors. However, the fall of employment in health and social services during a pandemic, is more difficult to explain. It could be because of increased mental and physical fatigue of health workers, increased infections in this segment of the workforce, or the fall in employment in social care facilities (including the private ones), which were hit by the pandemic.
Third, turning to food prices, both cyclical and structural factors are behind the rise for items such as sugar and eggs. Higher global demand, global supply disruptions due to bad weather, and lower domestic harvest such as for sugar crops and oilseeds, along with the sizeable ruble depreciation last year, have contributed to this rise. Structural factors stem from the 2014 food embargo, which reduced competition in the domestic market, as domestic production has been unable to respond fully to demand.
At the same time, short-term (cyclical) policy responses to rising food prices have been geared towards export restrictions such as bans, quotas, tariffs, and price caps and subsidies. While politically attractive, and administratively easily implementable, these measures are economically distortive. A recent Higher School of Economics study found that consumer losses amounted to 2000 rubles per Russian citizens, each year, with the beneficiaries being Russian producers and non-sanctioned importers, such as Belarus. Moreover, it is the low-income families and poor who are disproportionately affected by food price increases, as they spend nearly half of their income on food. Therefore, a better approach to help those most affected by food insecurity would be to improve the targeting of Russia’s social safety nets in order to reduce food insecurity and poverty.
Finally, this brings us to poverty.
Russia has admirably contained additional spikes in the COVID-19 induced poverty rate. This success, in large part, is due to various compensatory social policies, such as the increase in unemployment benefits, child allowances, and support to single parent families. With the economic recovery now gathering pace, and assuming effective implementation of announced policies, we forecast Russia’s poverty rate by end-year 2021 to decline to 11.4 from the pre-pandemic poverty rate of 12.3%. However, double-digit poverty remains stubbornly high, and strong growth will play an important role in achieving Russia’s goal of halving it by 2030.
That being said, we believe that growth will not be enough – it will need to be complemented by a social safety net system that is more scalable and inclusive (the current welfare system transfers around only 10% of the total social assistance budget to the poor). Successful implementation of Russia’s strategic directive (Послание Президента Федеральному Собранию) will also require a safety net capable of addressing the complex financial, health, labor market and long-term care needs of the poor and vulnerable.
A concrete example of how a scalable and inclusive safety net could be weaved is through a national program, which aids people who fall below the poverty threshold. They would be provided with an income-gap-filling payment combined with incentives to graduate them out of poverty through labor activation support. With many caveats, such as excellent targeting, we estimate the lower-bound cost of such a program to be around 0.3% of GDP. As Russian policymakers tackle the goal of halving poverty, at least based on our analysis, accomplishing this laudable goal is within reach.
First appeared in the print version of the Kommersant newspaper via World Bank
Is Bangladesh falling into a China’s Debt-Trap Like Sri-Lanka?
Bangladesh is the second highest investment destination for China in South Asia. Referring to the incident of Sri Lanka, lease of Hambantota port by China, critics say that greater dependency of Bangladesh on China will make the country a victim of Chinese debt-trap. Is Bangladesh really going to be a victim of China’s debt-trap?
Bangladesh reached lower-middle-income country status in 2015. Bangladesh has met, for the second time, all the three criteria for graduating from the Least Developed Country (LDC) and if everything goes right, will finally be graduated in 2026.
Sri Lanka became middle income country in 1997. The country is facing economic downturn due to wrong economic policies. Recently, Bangladesh has agreed to lend $200 million to debt-ridden Sri Lanka which is struggling to maintain a moderate foreign exchange reserve. Undoubtedly, it is matter of pride for Bangladesh. At the same time, Bangladesh should take lessons from Sri Lanka for upcoming days to avoid unexpected economic crisis.
Bangladesh and Sri Lanka have similar economic weak point. In both countries, the Tax-GDP ratio is not at expected percentage. The economy of both countries depends on a single product, for example- Bangladesh’s economy is dependent on RMG and Sri Lankan economy is dependent on tourism industry. The good news for Bangladesh is that, though Sri Lanka is struggling with its economy but Bangladesh has enough time to confront the upcoming challenges.
The benefits, such as lowest interest rate; longer grace period, that Bangladesh receives as a LDC from different donor organizations like World Bank (WB), International Monetary Fund (IMF), Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) etc. will be available till 2027. Now donor agencies like WB, IMF etc. lend Bangladesh with 2% interest rate. These loans have very long tenure, 25-40 years, and the grace period is almost 10-12 years. After 2027, Bangladesh will have to pay higher interest rate.
As Sri Lanka is a middle-income country, it has to pay higher interest rate and gets lower grace period for the loan from donor agencies. Besides, Sri Lanka also borrows from international market through bonds with almost 6 percent interest rate. According to the Central Bank of Sri Lanka, the loan borrowed by Sri Lanka through Sovereign bond was almost 50% of its total external debt.
There are sharp differences between the loans from Donor agencies and loans through Sovereign bonds. Donor agencies offer loans with low interest rates and long tenure. They also come with flexible terms and conditions such as grace periods of around 10-12 years. When the grace period matures, the repayment takes place for next 30-40 years. On the other hand, loans through bonds come with high interest rates, short tenure and no grace periods. Generally, these loans have to be paid within 10 years and the interests are also payable from day one.
Bangladesh needs precise plans for its graduation journey from LDC to Developing country. Plans are also crucial for post-graduation phase for proper implementation of development projects. Otherwise, Bangladesh may also have to face economic crisis like Sri Lanka in near future.
There is a common misconception that Bangladesh is burdened with foreign loans. But the reality begs to differ. According to Economic Relations Department’s (ERD) ‘Flow of External Resources into Bangladesh’ report, in 2019-20 fiscal years, total external debt outstanding of Bangladesh was USD 4409.51 Crore which is equal to BDT 3,74,898.35 crore in local currency. According to this figure, the per capita loan is BDT 23,425 considering the total population as 16 crores.
According to IMF and World Bank’s Standard, it is only dangerous for an economy if its external debts exceed 40% of GDP. Currently, Bangladesh’s total external debts is less than 15% of GDP which is far from danger mark. Interestingly, USA has the world’s largest external debt which is almost 102% of its GDP. However, the country’s economy is still vibrant because of the strength of US dollar.
There is propaganda against Bangladesh that, it is burdened with Chinese soft loans and soon the consequences will be like Sri Lanka. External debts are mostly used in Bangladesh to cover the budget shortage. In current fiscal year, Bangladesh has taken 38% from World Bank, 24.5% from Asian Development Bank, 17% from Japan, 3% from China and 1% from India as external debt. Bangladesh has taken 80% of total external debt from WB, ADB and JICA.
In 2016, Bangladesh and China transformed their bilateral relations to ‘Strategic Partnership’. In the recent time, like other parts of Asia, Chinese funding is also rising rapidly in South Asia. This has created a good opportunity for fast growing economies like Bangladesh as Chinese Development Finances (DFIs) are offering alternative sources of loans. Chinese DFIs are also creating a competitive and sustainable alternative funding source for Bangladesh since now other countries like India and Japan are also focusing on providing flexible conditions while financing Bangladesh. Based on the analysis, it can be concluded that the propaganda that Bangladesh is going to fall in the Chinese debt-trap is nothing but a myth.
World Bank Supports Croatia’s Firms Hit by COVID-19 Pandemic
Tamara Perko, President of the Management Board of the Croatian Bank for Reconstruction and Development (HBOR) and Elisabetta Capannelli, World...
Assessing the trends of Globalization in the Covid Era
Coronavirus largely represents acceleration in existing globalization trends, rather than a full paradigm shift. Globalization has ebbed and flowed over...
Zimbabwe’s Economy is Set for Recovery, but Key Risks Remain
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth in Zimbabwe is projected to reach 3.9 percent in 2021, a significant improvement after a...
Carl Schmitt for the XXI Century
For decades, the scholars of international relations have confused the term “New World order” in the social, political, or economic...
Educating Women in Pakistan: A Necessity For National Development
Education is fundamental to the success of any nation. Almost every developed nation recognizes its importance and lays great emphasis...
How has Russia’s economy fared in the pandemic era?
Authors: Apurva Sanghi, Samuel Freije-Rodriguez, Nithin Umapathi COVID-19 continues to upturn our lives and disrupt economic activity across the world....
Incidents of Uranium Theft in India: Depleting Nuclear Safety and International Silence
In yet another incident of the capture of nuclear-related materials from unauthorized persons in India has made headlines in the...
Economy2 days ago
Is Bangladesh falling into a China’s Debt-Trap Like Sri-Lanka?
Economy3 days ago
Rare Earth Elements: Elements of the New trade war
Europe2 days ago
Failed Diplomacy: A hot tension between Spain and Morocco
New Social Compact2 days ago
Global Health Security: The need for collective action
East Asia2 days ago
Taiwan: The First and Oldest ‘Thorn’ between China and the West
Development3 days ago
The BRICS Foreign Ministers Meet To Review Progress
New Social Compact3 days ago
Optimal mental health
Middle East2 days ago
Powershift in Knesset: A Paradigm of Israel’s Political Instability