At the 1944 Bretton Woods Conference, the United States laid the foundation for the U.S.-centric international monetary system, thus ensuring the dollar’s status as the key reserve currency for the next 75 years. The fact that other countries accepted the dollar as the main currency of international payments, loans and investments allowed U.S. transnational corporations to dominate global markets in the post-war period quickly. However, if we are to proceed from the development patterns of the international monetary and financial system, then it follows that the dollar will eventually be replaced by the yuan, the currency of the new global economic and financial leader (China). Will Beijing manage to build its own system of global institutions, one that is capable of internationalizing the yuan and competing against the U.S. currency when it comes to servicing global flows of commodities and finance? In order to answer this question, we need to look at the trends of the global financial architecture as it stands today and identify the strengths and weaknesses of the U.S. and Chinese financial systems.
The Global Financial Architecture
The global financial architecture (GFA) is the combination of institutions involved in the regulation of global finance. It consists of a model for organizing international financial relations, institutional mechanisms for managing these relations, and the principles underlying the participation of countries in decision-making processes. The GFA model is based on the competitiveness and openness of global financial markets. The institutional mechanisms include fiat (intrinsically valueless) money, the free trans-border movement of capital and a system of floating exchange rates. The influence of individual countries on the development of the GFA depends on the size of their quotas and votes within the Bretton Woods institutions of the IMF and the World Bank.
One feature of the current transformational processes as applied to the GFA is the concentration, in individual countries, of financial assets that exceed the size of their economies by tens, hundreds and even thousands of times. For example, the financial assets controlled by Luxembourg exceed its GDP by 248 times, and those of the Cayman Islands exceed its GDP by 1861 times. These imbalances are caused by the fact that the modern GFA is formed not along the lines of the formal Bretton Woods institutions, but rather informally, via the offshore financial system.
It is in offshore jurisdictions, i.e. outside the national borders of the countries that issue international currencies, that the bulk of global monetary liquidity is generated. For example, in 2007–2008, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York opened temporary dollar swap lines for the central banks of 14 countries worth over $10 trillion to refinance the dollar liabilities of lending institutions operating out of those jurisdictions. The swap lines were discontinued in February 2010, but were reinstated three months later in a different format between the Federal Reserve System (FRS) and five key central banks that are closely linked to the United States: the European Central Bank, the Swiss National Bank, the Bank of England, the Bank of Japan and the Bank of Canada. These C6 swap lines were made permanent and unlimited in October 2013. It is thanks to these currency swap operations that the U.S. FRS can create euros, pounds and yen in offshore jurisdictions. The other countries involved can participate in the creation of offshore U.S. dollars. The massive swap agreements involving the most significant central banks undermine the importance of the Bretton Woods institutions as the providers of global liquidity and make it difficult to record and control global capital flows at the intergovernmental level.
The U.S. Financial System
The main strength of the U.S. economy is that it issues the key global currency, as well as the fact that it has created the world’s biggest stock market, in which more than half of all U.S. households participate. The United States has the most liquid bond market, which means that the dollar is the international benchmark for value and the main reserve asset for the rest of the world (its share in the international reserve portfolios of central banks exceeds 60 per cent). Over 50 per cent of all international deposits, loans and promissory notes are nominated in U.S. dollars. Washington is home to the headquarters of the Bretton Woods institutions, which are responsible for macroeconomic oversight and addressing structural imbalances in the 189 member nations. Three U.S. rating agencies account for 96 per cent of all credit ratings assigned in the world, U.S. investment holdings manage more than 50 per cent of global corporate assets. These and other factors explain the dominant role of the United States in the formation and development of the GFA.
The main weakness of the U.S. financial system is that the country’s economy is based on debt and is extremely dependent on bank lending terms and the dynamics of stock market operations. A sharp increase in interest rates or a decline in demand as a result of economic overheating leads to a nosedive in share prices, which, in turn, leads to a depression, as was the case in 1929 and 2008. One other vulnerability of the U.S. financial system is its dependence on external financing, which is due to the status of the dollar as the key reserve currency. Should the international demand for dollars decline, U.S. funding from external sources may also decrease.
China’s Place in the GFA
China leads the world in terms of monetary aggregates (in the dollar equivalent), purchasing power parity GDP, production and exports, and the labour force size. However, China’s economic growth continues to be largely dependent on imports of foreign investments and technologies.
China’s leading positions on a number of economic indicators still has a negligible effect on the country’s ability to influence international financial relations. As before, the head of the IMF is a European citizen and the head of the World Bank is an American. Unlike other international organizations within the UN system, which make decisions based on the “one vote per country” principle, the IMF and the World Bank are stock companies whose capital is owned by the member nations. Decisions on the most critical issues on the agenda of the Bretton Woods institutions are made by a qualified majority of 85 per cent. Following the reform of the IMF quota and voting system in 2010–2016, the BRICS countries failed to gain the minimum number of votes (15 per cent) to obtain veto power and assert the multipolar principle within the organization. Just like before the reform, the United States continues to be the only IMF member nation that has the power veto.
China certainly owes much of its global economic achievements to its membership of international financial and economic organizations that the United States was instrumental in founding and running. That said, in order for China to protect its economic interests in an effective manner and exert tangible influence on decision-making processes in the global economy, Beijing needs to participate in those international institutions in which its vote has a decisive role. In this sense, China has high hopes for its recent initiatives to create pan-Asian institutions for monetary policy, finance and economics, such as the BRICS Contingent Reserve Arrangement, the Chiang Mai Initiative Multilateralisation, the BRICS New Development Bank and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.
The opening of the Shanghai International Energy Exchange (where transactions are carried out in Chinese yuan) on March 26, 2018, was a particularly significant event. This was China’s first step towards the formation of a “petroyuan” pricing system on the global energy resources market. The Shanghai Futures Exchange has begun trading in new oil futures, known as INE, which are expected to compete against British Brent and U.S. WTI contracts. The pricing of oil in yuan is an important component of the drive to internationalize the Chinese currency and lessen the global economy’s dependence on the dollar.
By late 2017, the People’s Bank of China had signed 37 swap agreements with different countries worth more than 3 trillion yuan. The agreements were aimed at facilitating the use of the yuan in doing business with foreign banks and companies, so that the central banks receiving liquidity in yuan can act as lenders of last resort after the activation of currency swap lines. However, the agreements have not resulted in a significant increase in the global use of the yuan, which is what was originally expected. Since the 2008 initiation of the swap agreements, the share of the Chinese currency in the denomination of international promissory notes has stood at roughly 0.3 per cent, whereas the share of the U.S. dollar has grown from 47 per cent to 63 per cent.
In addition, currency transactions involving the yuan are mostly done via London, not Beijing. The United Kingdom accounts for 33.79 per cent of all global currency operations involving the yuan. Hong Kong remains the largest clearing centre for international transactions in yuan, serving 76.36 per cent of all such global operations (the United Kingdom is second with 6.18 per cent). Thus, most international transactions involving the yuan are performed outside continental China.
One more obstacle to the faster internationalization of the yuan is China’s preoccupation with domestic problems stemming from the rapid growth of debts (especially in the property market), the growth of the shadow banking system and the disproportionate allocation of loans to large and small businesses. In its attempts to conduct a softer monetary policy, the Chinese government is facing a difficult choice between supporting short-term growth and countering unfavourable external shocks. A monetary easing could increase the vulnerability of the Chinese economy, because continued lending growth is capable of slowing down or complicating the restoration of banks’ balance sheets and aggravating the existing imbalances in the allocation of loans.
University of California professor Barry Eichengreen, who is one of the most respected experts on the development of the international monetary system, says the yuan does not qualify as an international currency for three reasons: 1) the high costs of financial transactions involving the acquisition and distribution of information; 2) China’s great dependence on Hong Kong as a regional offshore centre; 3) China’s inability to exert political pressure on the other global economic centres, primarily the United States and the European Union. At the same time, according to Eichengreen, there are four factors indicating the growing status of the yuan as a regional currency: 1) the potential growth of incomes in Asian countries, which results in increased demand for Chinese commodities; 2) the implementation of multilateral projects as part of the Belt and Road initiative, which results in the growing use of the yuan in Central and Southeast Asia; 3) the development of the Asian bond market, which leads to the standardization of international promissory notes nominated in yuan; 4) the growing demand for yuan on the part of commercial banks and companies in swap transactions between central banks as part of the Chiang Mai Initiative.
Points of Conflict between the United States and China
Unlike the Cold War era, which was characterized by the polar confrontation between two systems, today the United States and China are members of the same international financial organizations, they both interact in the uniform global capitalist market and follow the same principles of competition, effectiveness and profit maximization. For this reason, the main point of conflict between the United States and China concerns mutual restrictions when it comes to allowing the other country’s finished products and services onto their national markets.
Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences recipient Joseph Stiglitz believes that the United States stands to lose more from its trade war with China than China does, as the Chinese authorities have far greater opportunities to restrict the operations of U.S. corporations working in China than the U.S. authorities do when it comes to Chinese goods imported into the United States as part of international trade. In addition, raising the prices of Chinese commodities on the U.S. market may cause dissatisfaction among end customers.
Another point of conflict between the two countries is connected to China’s limited ability to influence major international organizations. Despite the IMF reform, China did not secure a tangible increase in its influence within the organization, with its quota only growing from 4.0 per cent to 6.41% per cent. We should note here that when the IMF began operating in 1947, China’s quota was bigger than it is now, at 6.56 per cent (even though the country was the world’s fifth-largest economy at the time, not the second largest as it is today). The formal inclusion of the yuan in the special drawing rights (SDR) basket (the IMF’s cashless reserve asset) in 2016 was largely symbolic, because the use of SDRs has no effect on the actual balance of forces in the GFA. The value of the SDRs in circulation stands at $204.1 billion, or under 4 per cent of the international currency reserves calculated in dollars. The share of the yuan in the structure of international currency reserves and international transactions stands at approximately 2 per cent, which does not reflect China’s global role as the largest manufacturer and exporter.
One more potential point of conflict is the development of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies. In accordance with the Made in China 2025 plan to develop strategic technologies, the country expects to have assumed global dominance in the world in the field of AI by 2030. The financial sector has high hopes for AI in terms of its potential to increase effectiveness and profitability, much like the effect that the introduction of information technologies had on financial services. China has already outstripped Europe in the number of AI-related startups and is gaining ground on the global leader in AI, the United States.
Experts view pan-Asian financial institutions as an instrument used by China to establish its status as the leading Eurasian and global power. Chinese officials repeatedly stress that the newly established institutions aim to compete with the Bretton Woods institutions, not replace them. In other words, at the current stage in the development of the GFA, China has no intention of changing the neo-liberal principles of its functioning.
Despite the significant increase in China’s influence on the global economy and the addition of the yuan to the SDR basket, the dollar continues to play the key role in the global financial market and in servicing international trade in commodities and services. China’s growing influence on the GFA thus depends on strengthening the global role of Sino-centric financial institutions and on the broader use of the yuan in international payment systems and in transactions on the global financial market. At the same time, the active creation of offshore dollars that are not controlled by the U.S. regulators increases the risk of the dollar-centric currency system collapsing.
It is obvious that the current GFA configuration is not likely to undergo any significant changes in the foreseeable future (unless another global financial crisis breaks out) because the United States has a significant number of institutional instruments and mechanisms for influencing the global economy at its disposal. In the long run, however, any growth in China’s actual role in the international financial system will depend on the successful promotion of a conceptual alternative to the current GFA model for the purpose of overcoming global imbalances between the financial sector and real economy.
From our partner RIAC
WEF 2020: A Blank Check on Climate Change Costs
At the WEF Davos 2020, is there already a blank check issued from stakeholder capitalists to Greta Thunberg to go and fix global climate damages? If not, too bad…just relax full payment may be coming.
First some facts; big and small governments have no money, big businesses have no money, what disappears in heavenly bushes of the paradise-accounting always stays there. The world is basically broke to fix this monumental problem; broke it’s mentally and crushed morally, broke is also the global populace, exhausted and restless, unless their survival on sustenance, equality and social justice not addressed at much faster rate over populism mobs may appear.
The Blank Check: Enters the five million small medium businesses of the world; a super economic force to reckon with on platform economy.
In broader strokes, as a simple example, The United States Business Administration, the SBA has some 13 million small medium size enterprises as members. Now imagine, if five million of such enterprises, already doing USD$2-5 million in annual turnover were placed on national mobilization of entrepreneurialism to boost special skills on innovative excellence to produce exportable quality. Now imagine if each one added only one-million in additional revenue to their current operations what will happen, basic math. Five million small enterprises times one million new revenue each equals 5,000,000 x 1,000,000 = 1,000,000,000,000 or one trillion.
Now imagine, if there were 25 million such enterprises scattered across the world, each adding two million dollars as a base per year that will be 50 trillion dollars… or 10 five times the revenue of the world’s five largest and most powerful technology companies. This is a wake-up call to exhausted economies. These operations are less new funding dependant they are execution hungry and deployment starved.
There are some 100 million SME in such mix around the world; if mobilized on national entrepreneurial platforms would have enough strength to help and fix local community issues, as entrepreneurs by their DNA are cause centric and will take care of such global climate issues, unlike short term shareholders on money schemes. The lack of discussion on SME revival are main reason, such silence proves lack of vision and global-age knowledge on entrepreneurial transformation and most importantly about global consumption and how to create real value creation. The spotlight on hedge funded value manipulations take all the attention and systematically the entrepreneurial talent of SME suppressed for not being glamorous enough on talk shows over earth shattering robotic technologies.
Fact: The world can easily absorb unlimited exportable ideas in unlimited vertical markets. Fact: The well-designed innovative ideas are worthy of such quadrupled volumes. Fact: The entrepreneurial and dormant talents of a nation are capable of such tasks. Fact: The new global age skills, knowledge and execution are now the missing links
The world is changing fast; this is no longer a cliché, now a serious warning: You can always tryout a change and start with some 500 small and medium enterprises in your own local region on national mobilization of entrepreneurialism protocols and measure the impact of innovative excellence on the local grassroots prosperity. Currently there are already 11,000 Chamber of Commerce in the world with combined membership of 45 million, somewhere here in lack of digital platforms are 25 million enterprises eager and ready to boost their revenues by million each. The art and science of global showcasing of its members with global bounce is a solid start on export strategy. Bold and open debates will streamline the fears of missing skills at the top to tackle such large scale deployments.
The rest is easy
UNDP: Reshaping the Global Development Agenda
The establishment of United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) ushered a new era during the course of United Nations (UNs) exemplary journey. In September 2000 at the Millennium Summit the world leaders pledged to reduce poverty by 2015 focusing on the eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) . After all, the UNDP has been able to take the lead in accomplishing global impact on humanitarian priorities. As a result of this effort the UNDP played a pivotal role in taking a billion people out of extreme poverty by reducing global poverty by half over the last 30 years. This was closely related to the UNDP’s visionary leadership reshaped the future of the global sustainable development agenda in the shortest possible time. Over the years UNDP projects have had measurable success in protecting the environment. For example the UNDP allocated over US$ 5600 million supporting nearly 4600 new projects worldwide (UNDP, 2019). Of this the largest recipients in 2019 were Afghanistan, with an estimated total of US$ 530 million. The recent initiatives implemented by the UN development agency will begin to impact systematically and begin to grow in magnitude touching all aspects of human life over the coming decades.
One of the most important components of the UNDP journey was the Human Development Report (HDR) that paved the way to discuss the meanings and measurements of human development that can enlarge people’s choices. Speaking at the launch of 2019 Human Development Report on 11 December 2019 the current Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme Achim Steiner said, “In terms of productivity, the report shows that the growing market power of employers is linked to a declining income share for workers. It argues that anti-trust and other policies are key to address the imbalances of market power”. It is noteworthy to mention after more than five decades of global outreach the UN development agency seeks to adopt a strategy addressing inequality and social exclusion, preventing and mitigating conflicts and disasters, economic recovery, development planning and inclusive sustainable growth.
Globally climate change has been a concern in the recent years. Renewable energy is considered to be one of the alternatives that can combat global warming and stabilise the climate. Roughly US$2.5 billion has been provided to 140 countries for climate change initiatives and the UNDP was the largest implementer in combating climate change globally.
Another major area of worldwide concern was the displacement of people due to armed conflicts. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Global Trends report findings shows conflict and violence have forcibly displaced 65.3 million people globally. The adoption of conflict and development analysis (CDA) tools designed by the UNDP for building practitioners aims to strengthen peace and security in war and in post-war countries. However the UNDP remains committed to successfully strengthen democracy and good governance through transparent institutionalizing process in developing nations.. Infrastructures for Peace can be an important tool to prevent conflicts. By laying a solid foundation for Peace initiative designed by UNDP to strengthen the capacity and to manage conflict is one such successful programme. Today the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) plays a fundamental responsibility with worldwide communities to address global, regional and national challenges. Since its inception the United Nations development agency has made significant solutions to world’s most pressing problems.
China-Pakistan Economic Corridor: Promoting Perspectives from Pakistan
China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) is defined by the Government of Pakistan as “the growth axis and development belt featuring complementary advantage, collaboration, mutual benefits and common prosperity.” The mega-project is one of the largest bilateral investment (US$52 billion) underway anywhere in the world. Despite all the advantages, international media has shown weariness on CPEC on grounds of ‘debt trap and transparency,’ largely swayed by great power states who fear geopolitical repercussions. For a grandeur development program such as CPEC, it is natural to have opposition from states having vested interests of power. Therefore, in order to strengthen CPEC and make it inclusive, there is a need to strategically market CPEC at international platforms to address the apprehensions of regional and international partners.
A flagship project of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), CPEC is in tandem with President Xi Jinping’s vision of ‘Chinese dream’, which avows to commercially link China to Africa, Europe and the Persian Gulf by ways of land and maritime routes. CPEC infrastructure projects, similarly in recognition of the vision comprises of mega-network of highways, railways, and energy pipelines to link Western China to the Arabian Ocean via the Gwadar Port. Pakistan and China have an efficacious history of economic cooperation; developments as diverse as the Karakoram Highway, Thar Coal Power Project, Karachi-Gwadar Coastal Highway, Chashma Nuclear Power Plant, and a number of hydro-power projects was achieved as a result of the bilateral partnership.
Pakistan’s business environment has considerably improved in recent years, as result of CPEC investment and projects. It is now ranked by World Bank Ease of Doing Business as 108 among 190, a considerable improvement by 28 places. Moody’s International has also upgraded Pakistan rating outlook to ‘stable’ from ‘negative’. Foreign companies, such as Hong Kong based Hutchinson Port Holdings have invested $240 million for the up gradation of container terminal at Karachi Port, which recently made history by welcoming largest ever container vessel in the country. According to the Parliamentary Secretary for Planning Development and Reform, Pakistan has completed 13 projects worth around 11 billion dollars, while 13 projects worth 18 billion dollars are under underway, and another 21 billion dollar projects are in the pipeline. According to estimates by financial pundits, the success of CPEC can provide a growth rate of 10 to 15 percent by 2030 to Pakistan’s economy.
A number of initiatives have been taken by the public and private sector institutes in Pakistan, to raise awareness regarding CPEC prospects and opportunities. International CPEC Workshop (ICPECW), Obortunity, a 2.5 weeks international learning and networking platform is annually organized by National Defence University (NDU), Islamabad. The workshops is based on lecture-discussions from leading experts on CPEC and BRI, comprising of networking dinners, seminars and meeting with leaders of state institutions in China and Pakistan. The 1st ICPECW was held from 17th April to 3rd May 2019 at Gwadar, Beijing and Islamabad. The 2nd International CPEC Workshop (ICPECW) will similarly be held from 2nd March to 19th March 2020, as a dedicated CPEC platform to bridge the gap between private and government circles. An initiative was also taken by Higher Education Commission (HEC), which established CPEC Consortium of Universities in Islamabad to promote business-to-business linkages between China and Pakistan. The scope of the Consortium has recently been enhanced by adding 56 universities from the two countries, to cover all major areas of higher education.
Nevertheless, Pakistan needs to take similar initiatives at international level. Foreign Office along with various international trade missions maybe tasked to hold seminars, workshops and conferences to raise awareness regarding CPEC. Regional organizations including the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) and the Organization Islamic Cooperation (OIC) maybe taken into the loop for raising awareness regarding investment and growth opportunities of CPEC. It maybe added that strong economic ties has the prospective of pacifying antagonistic rivalry and lead to cooperation in other strategic areas.
The turn in global events have aggravated the Western anxieties regarding the BRI as consisting of ‘predatory initiatives’ and CPEC has unfortunately become part of the spectra. The fact nevertheless is that 90 percent of developing country’s debt, including that of Pakistan is outstanding to Western institutions and countries. It is also striking to note that China as a result of indigenous reforms was successfully able to pull over 800 million people out of poverty, whereas according to analysts Pakistan continues to be meshed in cycles of stagnated growth and debt trap, despite the assistance of IMF. A diplomatic effort to promote Pakistan’s discourse on CPEC in the long-run would help enhance the scope of the project and gain the confidence of global investors.
World’s Largest Companies Support Developing Core Set of Universal ESG Disclosures
On Tuesday, the chief executive officers of many of the world’s largest companies expressed support for aligning on a core...
The outcome of the Berlin Conference
Twelve countries and organizations have participated in the Berlin Conference on Libya, which has just ended. There have been all...
Global Leaders Unite Under the Food Action Alliance to Deliver a Better Future for People and Planet
The World Economic Forum, the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)and Rabobank, together with a growing roster of private and...
Fifteen Years to Save the Amazon Rainforest from Becoming Savannah
The pace of deforestation in the Amazon, coupled with last year’s devastating forest fires, has pushed the world’s largest rainforest...
Multistakeholder Mobilization to Reinforce Cyber Resilience in Global Aviation
The Fourth Industrial Revolution is transforming the way airlines and airports do business. The advancement of technologies such as artificial...
Sustainability Is Key if Financial Markets Are to Remain Buoyant
With the global economy back on a more stable footing, the focus of policy-makers is shifting towards creating a more...
The right to affordable housing: Europe’s neglected duty
Increasingly making the headlines, the scarcity of affordable housing in Europe is a serious and growing problem that pushes an...
Defense3 days ago
How the Withdrawal of US Troops in Syria Impacted Regional Politics and Security
Green Planet2 days ago
You never miss the water, till the well runs dry
Economy3 days ago
Chamber of Commerce: A new world of digital future
South Asia2 days ago
Genocide: Terrible and scaring ground situation in India
East Asia3 days ago
Neo Illustration of 2020 World: Distinct Dimensions
Newsdesk3 days ago
Vietnam Prepares for Success in 4IR with World Economic Forum
Economy2 days ago
Iran: Trade centers in regional countries to spur non-oil exports
Middle East2 days ago
Turkey’s Role in the Libyan Conflict