As the coronavirus pandemic advances worldwide coming to the fore is the ability of economies to hold out against an increasingly likely global recession.
Throughout the past year, a number of economists predicted a deterioration in international and country situation in 2020. However, at that moment, the researchers cited “classical” macroeconomic reasons for such a recession – the trade war, the slowdown in leading economies, the growing “bubbles” in stock markets, factors of cyclic nature. As for more radical forecasts, even their authors categorized them as “shocking” or “unbelievable.” No one could contemplate a global epidemic, capable of literally “putting on quarantine” billions of people.
“The fight against the pandemic came as a shock of a scope, if not the Great Depression of the 1930s, then at least the Great Recession of 2008–2009,” – says Oleg Shibanov, professor at the Russian Economic School, in Vedomosti. In the face of the coronavirus, there emerged a watershed between countries that have demonstrated the ability to quickly and effectively respond to the epidemic – “this is South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong”, along with one-party China, which mobilized a well-trained military and civilian state apparatus to fight against coronavirus, “and those Western countries that turned out to be unprepared, ” – says Pierre Lelouch, former French Secretary of State for European Affairs, in an interview with Le Figaro.
From the structural point of view, the closure of dozens of businesses and even the entire sectors of the economy in most countries of the world, combined with the fall of stock markets “during February and March” has caused a drop in demand in most countries of the world. Quarantine inevitably limits consumer access to the service sector, which is fraught with disaster for small and medium-sized businesses, which, for example, in South Korea, make up more than half of national economy. Also, it is completely unclear as to how the transportation industry, tourism industry, public catering can recover after the crisis. In addition, a major problem to be tackled with is the absence, for understandable reasons, of reliable epidemiological models that would allow governments to predict with high precision the development of a pandemic and its economic consequences.
For example, experts have information on the economic indicators of US metropolitan areas during the Spanish Flu pandemic in 1918-19. They show that the more drastic measures the authorities used to combat the epidemic, the higher their economic performance was after it ended. However, The Economist says, the age-related characteristics of coronavirus mortality are very different from the Spanish flu. Unlike then, when it was about an industrial economy, today it’s mainly about the economy of services. Therefore, the outcome may be different.
Economists have traditionally used the concept of “growth model” to describe the key characteristics of the economic systems of individual countries. They also use this model to predict the policies of the authorities in the context of economic crises. However, at present most leading economies or economic associations are characterized by a mixed model which requires the adoption of measures that contradict each other. And therein lies a huge problem.
Thus, the EU faced the pandemic in a situation where the chances for meeting the criteria for EU membership in case of an unfavorable turn of events in the global economic environment were very limited for most countries in the eurozone. The slowdown in European economies during the 2000s – 2010s led to an increase in budget deficits in many countries. The current crisis hit Europe, first of all, countries that are already burdened with high debt. For example, Italy’s public debt could reach 160 percent of GDP by the end of this year – which “could provoke panic in the state bond market.” As a result, one of the first “victims” of coronavirus was the EU Stability Pact.
The current crisis is different for Europe compared to the previous ones also because the pandemic is “unpredictable” and because “Europeanism” was weakened by other crises of the last decade. ”. The situation in the eurozone is“ much worse than in 2009 ”, because forecasters underestimate the “implosion of economic processes.” “The recession promises to be longer and deeper”. According to the ECB, the EU may require a package of fiscal measures of up to 1.5 trillion euro until the end of the year. Like during the euro crisis, Europe has split. Paris, Rome and Madrid, supported by a growing number of other countries, are demanding common “corona bonds” to share the burden of fighting the epidemic and its economic consequences. This is because countries that rely on consumption for growth combat the negative consequences of the epidemic, first of all, by supporting incomes at the highest possible level.
On the other hand, where export is the main driver of the economy, it is first necessary to support the sustainability of the current balance sheets of enterprises and keep jobs. That’s why Germany, which, they predict, will see a 10 percent economic decline in the first quarter, and Austria and the Netherlands, for the evening of April 8, strongly oppose the “uncontrolled printing of money.” Finally, it is not clear what long-term effect for the common market will come from the restoration of border controls and entry bans. “No less than the existence of the EU could be put at stake”,experts say.
The US growth model is highly questionable as well. While it leans on a fairly large service sector, significant exports, the main driver of the economy is consumer spending. According to critics, the American economy cannot survive a long period of national quarantine without catastrophic consequences. A total halt in economic activity will destroy the social fabric of society and bring the existing growth model down to its knees. However, a “reset” of the economy, which the Trump administration continues to dream about, “will turn the pandemic into a plague.”
Unlike the 2008 crisis, all the emergency measures taken by the FRS in recent weeks have not stabilized the markets. The more than two-trillion aid package, formally approved by the Congress, leaves the most burning question unanswered: who should be the recipients of this support, businesses or citizens? Usually, Washington chooses businesses. But in this case, the authorities face a dramatic upsurge in unemployment, which has not been observed for the past 60 years. Meanwhile, it is the employment factor that can become key in determining the winner in the upcoming presidential election. For the incumbent administration, Henry Kissinger points out, “public trust in American ability to manage the situation at home” is at stake.
A dual situation is observed in China. On the one hand, Beijing, according to official figures, has managed to at least put the epidemic under control. In economic terms, China is “in a strong position”, possessing the world’s largest reserves, significant liquid assets, and industrial capacities that can not only quickly compensate for the losses of recent months but give a new powerful impetus to Beijing’s greater economic presence throughout the world. At the same time, China is confronted with “the weakened and over-credited United States and Europe, which are threatened by a widespread financial crisis that will follow the collapse of their economies”.
On the other hand, the Chinese economy is heavily dependent on exports to other countries, which have declined sharply in recent months, and on imports, which suffer as well following closures of production facilities and ports around the world. In addition, China has reported an incessant slowdown over the past few years. The high debt of businesses and problems in the banking sector have worsened amid the “corona crisis”. In terms of global markets, China poses a threat to the US debt market if circumstances force Beijing to sell off dollar reserves. Finally, the slowdown, not to mention the decline of the Chinese economy, will play a major role in lowering commodity prices, since China holds the world’s second position in annual imports.
Lower-priced commodities can destabilize the economies of dozens of developing countries that depend on their exports. On March 30, UNCTAD published a report stating that “for developing countries, the consequences of the pandemic … proved worse than what they had to go through in 2008.” Devaluation hit particularly hard on Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia and South Africa. According to UNCTAD experts, the shortage of funds for developing countries to fulfill their financial obligations in 2020 and 2021 will amount to up to 2 trillion. dollars. “This could lead to a debt crisis in which many direct and indirect lenders in industrially developed countries will be dragged into.” Finally, in many developing countries, most people have no savings and governments do not have enough funds to support those who have lost their jobs. Even a relatively short nationwide quarantine can send the economies of such countries into decline. According to media reports, by April 6, “at least 85 states had turned to the IMF for assistance.”
According to pessimists, there is a good reason to believe that the longer the quarantine lasts, the greater structural damage it will cause to any economy. The professional skills of workers, as well as their social networks, will also be affected. According to optimists, “America and Europe will put the economic crisis out with money, while incomes lost due to the epidemic will be reimbursed from the budgets and all problems will be sent into the infinitely distant future.” And the economic models that demonstrated growth before the Covid-19 crisis will return to it within 2-3 years.
Finally, governments in many countries will surely resort to measures aimed at restoring or expanding national production in strategically important sectors, including the food and medical industries. Domestic market support policy is gaining popularity again. “This is in line with the strategy of Donald Trump in the USA, the strategy of Boris Johnson in the UK and Shinzo Abe in Japan. The goal is not so much as to limit international trade, but to create a sound domestic market, which will make it possible to reduce its dependence on conflicts and the blows of world trade ”.
In the aftermath of the pandemic, the authorities in most countries will have to spend “much more than they think.” The consequences of the pandemic in the form of rising government debt and spikes in inflation will not take long to present themsevles. Markets may find themselves “replaced by governments”; and people in most countries of the world “will want to restore national prerogatives, especially regarding … the health sector.”
Any strategy adopted by the authorities in the current conditions will entail significant social and economic damage. Therefore, a search for the best model for adapting the economy to the comprehensive challenge of the pandemic will most likely be conducted by trial and error. The errors, unfortunately, will cost human lives. In the end, countries that succeed in picking a more effective model will gain a tangible advantage in economic competition in the “post-virus” world.
From our partner International Affairs
China’s Financial Opening-Up Under the Covid-19 Pandemic
Authors: Chan Kung and Wei Hongxu*
As the Covid-19 pandemic continues to sweep across the world, globalization, trade and production activities are hit hard. Despite the pandemic’s presence, China continues to promote its financial opening-up. For starters, China is removing the restrictions on foreign financial institutions’ access to the Chinese market at a pre-pandemic pace, as well as opening-up various financial industries such as securities firms, asset management, and insurance. Then, China has relaxed the restrictions imposed on international capital entering the Chinese market. However, the turmoil in the international financial market caused by the pandemic is continuously affecting China’s financial system too. Due to the profound changes in the global economy and financial system caused by the pandemic, the act of reopening the financial world continues be questioned. Issues like the patterns that may crop up in the market’s opening-up in the future and the progress of the internationalization of RMB are some questions worth pondering about.
Comparing the situation to the time before the pandemic took place, the current international financial system and the global economic landscape have undergone great changes. The pandemic has caused global trading system to come to a standstill, disrupting personnel exchanges and logistics, thereby worsening the trend of counter-globalization. In particular, the pandemic has hugely impacted the global industrial and supply chains. Following the pandemic, the reconstruction of industrial and supply chains will show a more regional trend. Officials from international organizations said that the pre-crisis international trade frictions have led to a slowdown in globalization and will worsen further after the crisis. Barry Eichengreen, a professor of Economics and Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley, believes that globalization has begun slowing down. This is not only indicated through the slowdown of trades, but the increasing trade barriers and capital outflows from capital control countries too. Concurrently, global capital markets have been hit hard, and major central banks headed by the Federal Reserve have adopted a never-before-seen loose monetary policy, further reducing interest rate levels to maintain the bubble of financial assets. This caused the global financial system to experience turbulence and differentiation. In spite of that, the dollar ’s position in the international financial system has actually strengthened, and emerging markets have been seriously affected, bearing the pressure of capital outflows and exchange rate depreciation.
Due to the pandemic and the tremendous changes happening within the international economy and finance, China’s economy has also suffered. Particularly, its consumption, investment, and foreign trade all experienced substantial declines in the first quarter. Likewise, the nature of conflict between China and the United States has turned into a sociopolitical one, due to the countries’ differences in managing COVID-19. In fact, China is expected to face a harder time on the international level in the future. The important question now is, will China’s financial opening-up lead to further domestic financial risks and market turmoil? Follow up question, will it worsen China’s economy and social stability? This is perhaps China’s biggest financial concern as far as opening up is concerned. To ANBOUND’s researchers, the changes in the international politics and economic landscape signifies things are shifting away from globalization and into regionalization and geopolitics. Going by ANBOUND’s earlier discussions on the “Crisis Triangle”, in the future, be it economic or financial fields, we anticipate competition for market space to further intensify. Therefore, China’s reopened financial system needs to focus on improving the financial market system, either by opening the financial market and capital opening or internationalizing RMB.
China’s financial market has been relatively closed off in the past. Not only are its market rules and legal systems inadequate, its financial institutions generally lack competitiveness as well. It’s not surprising to see investors lack professionalism, which results in a “blockage” within the currency transmission mechanism, on top of poor efficiency in financial resource allocation. With that in mind, introducing specialized and highly competitive international institutions will have a “catfish effect” that enables local financial institutions’ to compete better, achieve market optimization options, and improve the overall financial system. Furthermore, it enables foreign financial institutions to better serve Chinese enterprises and improves the efficiency in allocating financial resource too.
Up to this point, many institutions and researchers continue to confuse China’s financial opening-up with RMB internationalization. In fact, looking at China’s history of financial reform and past opening-up(s), its financial opening has been an ongoing journey, yet it was never once in sync with the level of RMB internationalization. The RMB internalization is more related to the changes in the exchange rate. When the RMB exchange rate saw a depreciation beginning 2015, it joined the SDR currency basket too. China and many other countries have signed currency swap agreements, though the offshore RMB is still shrinking. The situation has not changed with the opening-up of China’s bond and A-share market represented by the expansion of the Shanghai-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Stock Connect. While foreign investment in China’s financial market is still increasing, the overseas use of the RMB as a trading and investment tool has not changed significantly. Not long ago, Yi Gang, governor of the People’s Bank of China, mentioned the internationalization of the RMB is dependent on the market. The central bank’s focus is to provide infrastructure, reduce restrictions on the use of RMB, while the market decides which currency to use. Therefore, the internationalization of the RMB is closely related to China’s geo-influence in the international economy and trade scene.
Given the current turmoil in the international financial market, adhering to the opening-up of the financial market through system construction and upgrading should be China’s focus in its financial opening-up, meaning the country should continuously deepen the capacity and improve its financial market‘s attractiveness. Done well, it will attract the entry of international financial institutions, even with restricted capital flows; and international capital will too value the return on Chinese assets and risk diversification. That said, China needs to be cautious in opening-up the capital account to avoid the impact of U.S. dollar capital. For a long time, the U.S. dollar has and will continue to occupy the top position in the international financial system. China’s capital liberalization and RMB internationalization need to be promoted gradually in the form of regional trade settlement and bilateral financial cooperation. This means that China should adopt the means of “geo-development”, as the outcome will depend on China’s political and economic geo-influence.
Final analysis conclusion:
In the presence of the Covid-19 pandemic, China should give a little more forethought pertaining its financial opening-up. On one hand, it should emphasize and accelerate the construction of the financial system to promote the opening of its domestic financial markets. On the other, a more cautious geo-approach is required to implement capital account opening and RMB internationalization.
*Wei Hongxu, graduated from the School of Mathematics of Peking University with a Ph.D. in Economics from the University of Birmingham, UK in 2010 and is a researcher at Anbound Consulting, an independent think tank with headquarters in Beijing. Established in 1993, Anbound
COVID-19 Hits Hard, But Challenges BRICS
By and large, the coronavirus pandemic has taken a huge toll on Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS). The pandemic, declared late January by the World Health Organization (WHO), allegedly originated (yet to be proved) from Wuhan city in China. However, the World Health Assembly on May 18-19 by a resolution agreed to launch an investigation into the origin of the disease, whose unyielding march across the globe since last year and has already left more than 320,000 dead.
Statistics made available as at May 20, showed that Brazil (310,087) in South America, Russia (317,554) in Eastern Europe or compared to, say in the former Soviet region, India (118,447) and China (84,507) both in Asian region, and South Africa (19,137) in Africa. It means South Africa, with a population 57 million, has one-fifth of the total confirmed COVID-19 cases in Africa.
Further, assessing BRICS countries population in relation to the number of infections, Russia seems the worst spot among BRICS, and has taken the second highest in the world and that was followed in the third position by Brazil. Under a “pessimistic scenario”, the number of active cases could peak again when the expected “second wave of coronavirus” sets in and if strict precautions are not observed.
The COVID-19 has shattered nearly all economies. But at the same time, just as the COVID-19 has offered opportunities, so it also presents significant challenges. In the world including BRICS countries, the outlook remains bleak. BRICS is interested in both, taking advantage of the emerging opportunities and dealing with the challenges.
Experts have argued that BRICS members meet to discuss various global issues, and plan its joint collaborative projects on the global landscape. Comparatively, Russia, India and China, all these three still respond individually to varying opportunities and pursue different investment in the world.
As experts noted, China and India lead in the pursuit of economic spheres of influence worldwide. Geography of investment largely explains why China and India seem to be leading, followed by Russia, among the five. With regard to coronavirus and the operations of WHO, Chinese President Xi Jinping, delivering a speech via video link at the opening of the World Health Assembly, pledges $2 billion to deal with COVID-19.
According to an executive decree published in April on the official website of Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Russia contributed $1 million to the World Health Organization (WHO) to fight the coronavirus. Figures unavailable for Brazil, India and South Africa.
Still put them together, BRICS is an upcoming and developing force to reckon with. Thus on May 7, Russia’s Health Ministry held a meeting of BRICS countries via videoconference focusing, particularly, on the issue of the novel coronavirus pandemic discussed joint efforts needed by BRICS countries. It was held within the framework of Russia’s BRICS chair-ship.
Participants from Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa discussed at the meeting all aspects, including measures on liquidation of the novel coronavirus infection, and submitted report to BRICS Health Ministries. “It is planned that the online platform will provide partners with an opportunity to share BRICS countries’ experience and develop joint steps towards reaching a better understanding of the ways to liquidate the COVID-19 outbreak,” according to the report.
The participating officials agreed that it is important to strengthen international cooperation, within the framework of which there has to be a transparent and timely exchange of information.
During the discussions, the countries also agreed to continue providing mutual support in activities to prevent and treat the novel coronavirus infection COVID-19, as well as to create favorable conditions for the supply of deliveries of medications and diagnostic materials, immune-biological preparations and medical equipment.
Under an “optimistic scenario”, the BRICS meeting by Health Ministers of BRICS countries pledged to adopt further collaborative steps as their collective contributions toward the eradication of the global pandemic.
It is worth to say that BRICS has to accelerate the implementation of some of its earlier initiatives. Over the years, the BRICS has wanted to expand cooperation in the fight against infections and the joint production and use of vaccines. Cooperation on countering infectious diseases has long been a priority for BRICS. For instance, the final declaration of the 2015 BRICS summit in Ufa, Russia, contains instructions by the leaders to work on managing the risk of disease outbreaks.
That declaration stated: “we commend the efforts made by the BRICS countries to contribute to enhanced international cooperation to support the efforts of countries to achieve their health goals, including the implementation of universal and equitable access to health services, and ensure affordable, good-quality service delivery while taking into account different national circumstances, policies, priorities and capabilities.”
Last month for instance, BRICS Ministers of Foreign Affairs /International Relations held a video conference chaired by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. Brazilian Foreign Affairs Minister Ernesto Araújo, Indian External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi and South African Minister of International Relations Grace Naledi Pandor took part in the meeting.
China and Russia have strong working relationship and both are members of BRICS. Russia objects to attempts by the United States to turn the World Health Organization (WHO) into a forum for settling political scores, Minister Lavrov said with colleagues during the video conference of BRICS Foreign Ministers held late April. Russia has been working closely together with China, and Russia has no reason to oppose China, according to Minister Lavrov.
Key Highlights from that meeting included:
• The BRICS nations agreed to allocate $15 billion to the New Development Bank (NDB) so that it could set up a special loan instrument to support the revival of economies and help meet the emergency expenses incurred for responding to the coronavirus pandemic.
The BRICS nations further held discussions on ways to step up cooperation within the bloc to contain coronavirus pandemic, as well as to revive the economies that have received a major blow due to the travel restrictions and lockdown imposed in most countries to curb the spread of coronavirus.
• The meeting underlined the need for reforms in the multilateral systems and stated that this was the way forward. The bloc reiterated its support towards the World Health Organization, stating that it is a very important and unique platform, which employs the best professionals from around the world, including from the United States.
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi called on all the BRICS members to firmly stand by multilateralism, by the international system centered around the United Nations and by the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter.
Throughout 2020, – under the theme “BRICS Partnership for Global Stability, Shared Security and Innovative Growth” – Russia holds the BRICS pro tempore presidency.
The emphasis of the Russian presidency is on promoting science, technology and innovation and digital economy and health, and strengthening cooperation in the fight against transnational crimes. In addition to those, dozens of academic, sporting, cultural and artistic events planned for the year, culminates with the final BRICS Summit on July 21−23 in St Petersburg, chosen as the venue in accordance with the Presidential Executive Order No. 380 of 15 August 2019.
BRICS is the group composed by the five major emerging countries – Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, – which together represent about 42% of the population, 23% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), 30% of the territory and 18% of the global trade.
Possibility of companies shifting from China
US President Donald Trump made perhaps the strongest statement with regard to China, when he stated that US could totally snap ties with China. The US President also stated that the US could save 500 Billion USD, while referring to annual US imports from China (in 2018, US trade deficit vis-à-vis China reached 419.5 Billion USD)
In addition to adopting a strong stance against China by imposition of tariffs, and more recently on the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic, the Trump administration has initiated some strong measures against telecommunication giant Huawei. In 2019, the US Huawei, along with 114 of its overseas-related affiliates, had been added to the “entity list,” citing national security concerns (as a result of being designated on the ‘entity list’, Huawei needs an export license requirement on all exports, reexports, and transfers of items subject to the US Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to Huawei and its listed affiliates)
On May 15, 2020, The Bureau of Security and Industry (BIS), US Department of Commerce announced new rules, with the clear objective of restricting Huawei’s ability to use U.S. technology and software and to design and manufacture its semiconductors overseas. According to the rules, Foreign semiconductor makers using American software and equipment need to obtain licenses for selling to Huawei.
US measures to reduce dependence upon China and change supply chains
There are also strong indicators, that the US is thinking of coming up with some measures which incentivize US companies to relocate from China (Trump ever since taking over the US Presidency has been pitching for the same) and to shift supply chains. There was talk of a ‘reshoring’ fund to the tune of 25 Billion USD. It is not just the Republican Party, but there is bipartisan support for re-thinking economic ties with China in a post-covid world (China made products accounted for, 18%, nearly 1/5th of US imports).
There is an especially strong consensus on the point, that dependence for essential commodities on China needs to be reduced (one bill passed by a Democrat and Republican seeks to set up a panel, which can reduce drug supply reliance on China). Peter Navarro, Director of the White House Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy, had also been pushing for the country’s medical supply chains to be U.S.-based. Navarro had even suggested an executive order according to which Federal Agencies were required to buy US-made medical supplies and pharmaceuticals.
With the aim of reducing dependence upon medical supplies from China, an important step was the recent decision of the U.S Department of Health and Human Services to award a four-year, $354 million contract to a private US company –Phlow Corp — to make Covid-19 drugs (this contract can be extended upto 812 Million USD over a period of 10 years).
Greater cooperation within Five Eye intelligence network to reduce dependence upon China
According to a report published by Henry Jackson Society all members of the five eyes intelligence network (Australia, UK, US, New Zealand and Canada) are dependent upon China for crucial imports. In the case of the US, it is dependent upon China for 424 categories of goods out of these 114 are linked to national infrastructure. Australia is the most dependent upon China – it imports 595 categories of goods from China, and 167 of these have applications in critical national infrastructure. The report also sought greater cooperation within the network for reducing dependence upon China.
It would be pertinent to point out, that not just US, but Japan has earmarked over 2 Billion USD (2.2 Billion) for facilitating Japanese companies from China back to Japan, and other countries. The bulk of this package (2 Billion USD) is targeted towards getting Japanese companies to relocate to Japan, the remaining amount is meant to be used for helping Japanese companies to shift to other countries such as Vietnam.
Possibility of companies shifting from China and likely beneficiaries
In the midst of the US-China trade wars, a number of companies shifted their base from China to Vietnam. According to a study out of 56 firms which shifted their base from China, almost half (26) shifted to Vietnam due to the investor friendly environment
Even in the aftermath of the coronavirus pandemic, some firms (including Google and Microsoft) had expressed their keenness to shift production of hardware from China to Vietnam
Recently, TSMC (Taiwan Semi Conductor Manufacturing Company), the world’s largest contract chip maker also announced that it would build a 12 Billion plant in Arizona, US (the plant would be operational in 2024). While the US Secretary of Commerce, Wilbur Ross, hailed this announcement, TSMC is likely to be impacted by the Trump administration’s new rule which seek to restrict global chip supplies to Huawei.
Why China is a preferred destination for US companies
While some US companies may look to relocate from Beijing, it is important to have an understanding of ground realities, and the views of investors. China is attractive for many investors due to a plethora of factors; this includes the large Chinese market, a rising middle class, and the ever increasing popularity of American goods amongst young consumers. Even after the outbreak of the coronavirus, retailers like Walmart and Costco are seeking to expand their operations in China. A number of other American companies continue to bet on the Chinese market.
In a Survey of 25 companies (by the American Chamber of Commerce in China and the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai), 44% stated that decoupling of US and Chinese economies was impossible. This is a significant drop from October 2019, where 2/3rd — 66% — of companies surveyed had stated that US and Chinese economies were too closely intertwined, yet it still is substantial (what is important is that only 16% of those surveyed had emphatically stated that they would shift their production outside China).
While it is true, that some companies are likely to shift from China, Beijing will seek to introduce policies which woo foreign investors. China had in fact introduced incentives for foreign companies (including greater regulatory transparency) in the beginning of 2020.
Apart from this, it also possesses some major advantages, which have been discussed earlier, vis-à-vis other countries. While countries like US, Japan, Australia, India and Vietnam need to work jointly towards shifting supply chains, it is important to be realistic and pragmatic, and understand that supply chains are not likely to change over night.
Alcoholism: Cloud Briefly Visible For A Moment Above Zelda Fitzgerald’s Head
I think of total exhaustion and being. How it takes me from winter to summer. Then I think of you...
Is an Electioneering Trump Overblowing the ‘China Threat’?
As several analysts grapple over the futility of calling for greater international cooperation against the Coronavirus pandemic, US – China...
World Bank: META 2 to Modernize the Energy and Mining Sectors in Brazil
The World Bank Board of Directors approved today a US$38 million loan for the Energy and Mineral Sectors Strengthening Project...
Middle East: From COVID-19 invasion to an epidemic of disintegration?
The recent declaration of autonomy in southern Yemen and Khalifa Haftar’s declaring himself the ruler of all Libya once again...
As the world’s forests continue to shrink, urgent action is needed to safeguard their biodiversity
Urgent action is needed to safeguard the biodiversity of the world’s forests amid alarming rates of deforestation and degradation, according...
The greening of China’s industrial strategy
The prominence of China’s role in the global green shift currently underway may seem a paradox. Whilst it has been despoiling...
ILO issues guidance for safe, healthy, return to work during COVID-19
Two guidance documents for creating safe and effective return-to-work conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic have been issued by the International...
Economy3 days ago
Possibility of companies shifting from China
East Asia3 days ago
Covid-19 pandemic: Legal, political and environmental questions for China
International Law2 days ago
What Effect Will the Coronavirus Pandemic Have on Migration Issues?
South Asia3 days ago
South Asia: A COVID-19 Outlier?
Science & Technology2 days ago
The shift to online learning and skills training shows promising trends and troubling signs
Intelligence2 days ago
Cyberwar between the United States and China
Tech News2 days ago
Blockchain Principles Launched to Preserve and Protect User Rights
Newsdesk2 days ago
Only Venezuelans can resolve Venezuela’s deepening crisis