Connect with us

Economy

Countries should resist the protectionist urge after COVID-19

Published

on

Authors: Nicholas Ross Smith andZbigniew Dumienski*

One of the most worrying trends in the global response to the COVID-19 pandemic has been the retreat of countries from participating in the so-called “international community”. Certainly, the threat of COVID-19 has resulted in extreme measures like the closing of borders and increasing centralization of politics at the country-level. However, these measures have also been accompanied by enveloping anxiety and paranoia, both of which significantly inhibit a truly cooperative international response to the crisis.

Troublingly, isolation, it seems, is not just a strategy for defeating COVID-19 but also the default mode countries are adopting with regards to international relations at this moment. 

This ‘protectionist turn’ is hardly surprising. Dissatisfaction with globalization has been rising exponentially in over the last two decades, most notably stoked by the global financial crisis. Even in the United States, a country which benefited tremendously from the deepening of global trade and finance, protectionist tones were arguably a key element of Donald Trump’s election victory in 2016. And Trump, to an extent, followed through with this protectionist bent in his policymaking since, notably the trade war the United States has been engaging in against China.

At first glance, it may seem odd that globalization, or trade liberalisation more broadly, has been attracting so much criticism because this era of globalization – often referred to as the third wave of globalization – has brought with it incredible material benefits to developed and developing countries. For instance, the percentage of people worldwide living in absolute poverty has dropped from 37% in 1990 to under 10% in 2020, while at the same time, the global population has increased by roughly 2.4 billion in the same period. 

But, simply evaluating globalization in broad metrics ignores the more important question of power, both domestically and internationally. While it is true that free trade in goods and services between willing parties can be beneficial to everyone, this recent era of globalization arguably has relatively little to do with such genuinely free exchanges.

Far from simply allowing all people to trade freely, the current set of international regimes and treaties, which govern international trade, is of primary benefit to those entities that are large enough to be able to afford to adhere to them. Likewise, domestic rules and regulations create conditions in which large companies are preoccupied more with cutting the cost of labour (heavily taxed in the West), than with reducing the pollution that is the inevitable cost of transporting goods across the world.

Furthermore, this era of globalization has not just resulted in a proliferation of free trade in goods and services globally but, more insidiously, the acquisition of all sorts of monopoly privileges by the most powerful entities and individuals, with land ownership arguably being the most significant and glaring example.

Labour products wean out, but privileges are forever. The idea that free trade enriches people in both countries do not consider trade that turns one country into tenants of another country, person or corporation.

We must, therefore, remember that globalization is not a natural phenomenon, but a phenomenon that is influenced by both domestic and international power struggles. Not surprisingly, a crisis of this magnitude is bound to affect the power dynamics that have shaped how our world has become globalized.

With regards to COVID-19, globalization has been cited as a major contributing factor to the difficulty countries have had in initially fighting the pandemic. One glaring example of this has been the global reliance on China for the key medical supplies needed to reduce the contagiousness of COVID-19, such as masks and sanitizer chemicals. Once COVID-19 forced China into lockdown, global supply chains were halted, leaving numerous countries unable to access the supplies needed in combatting the outbreaks they were experiencing.

Even after China managed to contain the spread of COVID-19 by late February which enabled them to significantly increase the production of the medical supplies needed in the frontline fight against the pandemic, issues have remained. Although China’s humanitarianism in places like Italy and Spain deserves praise, some issues have arisen such as some Chinese producers have been accused of auctioning off supplies to the highest bidder. Furthermore, the quality of the products China is providing has come under the microscope, with numerous examples of faulty medical supplies being returned.  

Globalization is painted as the underlying problem in all of this, but the reality is that much of the problem stems from a mutated version of globalization – examined above – that has come to dominate the international community, not globalization itself. But, the two are so intertwined in dominant discourses that protectionist responses to the crisis become attractive, especially to those that have suffered the most from globalization over the years. 

If globalization is bad, then what is good? Well, protectionism seems to be a popular answer being touted now. Protectionism has always been appealing to populations because, on the surface, it seems like a positive case of a government using its power to “protect” the most vulnerable within a country. But, as Henry George stated: “What protection teaches us, is to do to ourselves in time of peace what enemies seek to do to us in time of war”.

The surging protectionist sentiment after COVID-19 is spiralling out of control in some areas. And while, in the short-term, countries will certainly be forced to fend for themselves by becoming somewhat insular, they cannot be sucked into to thinking this is a viable model for the long-term.

One only has to look at Albania during the Cold War to see the folly out of control protectionism can breed. Partly due to the anxiety and paranoia of the Cold War, the Albanian Communist leader Enver Hoxha took the desire to be “self-sufficient” to the extreme, attempting to completely disengage Albania from the international community and pursue a policy tantamount to autarky. This was not simply symbolic posturing as by the mid-1980s, foreign trade accounted for merely 6% of GDP and Albania received zero foreign assistance (Albania had been previously heavily dependent on the Soviet Union and then the People’s Republic of China).

Despite nearly implanting a complete autarky, this policy was disastrous for Albania. One of the big problems was that Albania was a largely agricultural society and had not experienced significant industrialization. Albania barely produced any machinery and the capital goods they had were mostly Soviet-made from the 1950s. As a result, Albania was left to wallow for decades in poverty without any improvement of economy or life, representing, by far, Europe’s poorest country at that time. 

Communist Albania is an extreme example, but it is still a useful warning to countries which are facing increased pressure from within due to COVID-19 to become more “self-sufficient”. And while it is understandable that the COVID-19 pandemic necessitates a temporary restriction on the movement of people, it does not also have to result in the restriction of the global trade of goods and services.

Unlike in the case of past epidemics, there is now the technological capabilities to purchase goods and services directly from suppliers across the globe from within the comfort of our home. The fact that we still buy so many goods in brick and mortar shops is mostly a matter of habit than necessity. And the fact we still require countries to facilitate trade is also not a necessity.

In this context, COVID-19 could represent a critical juncture where newer, more appropriate and efficient forms of trade are established. Given the potential economic fallout that might occur due to the pandemic, radical ideas are surely needed to kickstart economic exchange. For that to occur, however, we need responsible leadership that sees trade as being an activity between people and companies, rather than perpetuate this dated idea of trade being some that should be predominately managed country-to-country.

COVID-19 also shows us that we need far more meaningful global cooperation and burden-sharing. Even the wealthiest countries with the best healthcare suffer if one country cannot contain an illness (because of poverty or incompetence). We are used to this argument in military terms. A failed state is a threat to all neighbours due to refugees, violence etc. But now maybe this thinking can extend to other areas. The real challenge is though how to boost global collaboration in a democratic and accountable way?

Protectionism is not the answer.

However, giving the growing centralization of countries and the growing protectionist sentiment in many populations, it is likely that the opportunity to reinvigorate globalization will be lost, and an era of growing protectionism and mercantilism will be upon us in no short time.  This will only compound the pain of COVID-19 in the short-term while further muddying the long-term forecasts of international relations, most notably the looming US-China great power competition.

*Zbigniew Dumienski, PhD graduate in International Political Economy from the University of Auckland, New Zealand

Continue Reading
Comments

Economy

Rohingya Influx and its Economic Significance for Bangladesh

Published

on

Authors:Shuva Das & Sherajul Mustajib Sharif*

It is generally perceived that refugees are curse for host countries though the former often play positive roles for the latter. The context of Bangladesh over hosting Rohingya refugees is portrayed in such a way that demonstrates they are solely an obvious danger for the country in the areas of its economy, politics, environment, health, and security. The above argument is true but it is a one-sided view which is enough to make hospitable Bangladeshis hostile against the Rohingya. Thus, it is crucial to explore in which areas the Rohingya have made positive contributions in Bangladesh. In this article, we intend to elucidate the economic benefits offered by the displaced Rohingya for the host country.

Brief Overview of the Rohingya Crisis

The Rohingya crisis is one of the worst humanitarian disasters in the modern world. The degree of violence and persecution taken against the Rohingya by the military of Myanmar has reached in an extremely horrendous extent in which an UN fact finding team in 2018 found genocidal elements. The Rohingya are an ethno-religious Muslim minority group of Myanmar. Though they have lived in Rakhine state of the country for centuries, to the Burmese government and Buddhists they are illegal Bengali immigrants who came from the present Bangladesh to Rakhine State for works during British colonial rule. The Burmese government withdrew their citizenship status through the “1982 Citizenship Act”, rendering them stateless. Since 1978, they have experienced several brutal military crackdowns and every time they have taken shelter in Bangladesh. In particular, since 2017 when the military of Myanmar launched “clearance operation” against the Rohingya in retaliation of an insurgent attack allegedly carried out by a Rohingya rebel group known as the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army on several police posts, a significant number of Rohingya, over 740,000, have fled to Bangladesh from Myanmar. This number with the previously remaining Rohingya refugees has exceeded the one-million mark in the host country, intensifying the level of strain on it.

Economic Advantages Offered by the Rohingya Refugees

Bangladesh is a small developing country and with a population of about 16.7 million, it is the world’s eighth most populous country. In these circumstances, over one additional million Rohingya refugees are competing with cheaper labor against many local people for jobs in the Rohingya-hosted areas in the Cox’s Bazar district of the nation, and they have put extreme pressure on its limited resources. Nonetheless, to graduate from the pool of the UN’s Least Developed Countries, with the massive refugee burden Bangladesh successfully accomplished all three required criteria in 2018 and is on track to be graduated by 2024. On an average, the real GDP growth of the country from 2017 to the running 2020 has also remained stable at around 7.70. The Rohingya influx has immense significance on the thriving economy of Bangladesh.

To begin with, Rohingya refugees have created numerous job opportunities for many Bangladeshi people who are working as volunteers, relief specialists, researchers, health workers and so on in almost 150 national and international aid groups and non-governmental organizations currently operating in Rohingya camps. In the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), for instance, more than 200 Bangladeshis have been employed to enhance its operational efficiency on the refugee crisis. Through working in humanitarian organizations, they are earning not only handsome salaries but quality skills. Besides, a good number of local people of the Rohingya-hosted areas in Bangladesh are doing transportation jobs to convey goods in the Rohingya camps.

Another vital point is that an entrepreneurial spark is currently seen among local host population. International donor agencies provide relief goods to Rohingya refugees who sell these to local traders to bring diversity in their daily meals. Local entrepreneurs purchase the relief products from Rohingya refugees at very low rate and sell these to their fellow Bangladeshis in a profitable price. Apart from this, the UNHCR took an ambitious project in 2019, under which 250 poor women of Cox’s Bazar along with equal number of Rohingya women have been given training in cloth crafting. And it has the will to train more women. Backward female population of Bangladesh can, in this manner, be empowered to be entrepreneurs, and effectively integrated into its booming economy.

Last but not least, International Organization for Migration, and the UN Food and Agriculture Organization in 2018 provided micro gardening kits to 25,000 Rohingya and 25,000 host households. This has opened a new economic window in South Eastern Bangladesh. To feed their gardens, the Rohingya purchase compost from Bangladeshi women. In addition to eating, they sell their produce in the host community market thereby generating a number of local vegetable dealers. The combined production of the Rohingya refugee and host families by micro gardening are enormously contributing to alleviate an estimated 50,000 metric ton yearly food deficit in Cox’s Bazar.

Concluding Remarks

Rohingya refugees have brought an economic boon for Bangladesh in multidimensional aspects. Because of them, many skilled and unskilled Bangladeshi people, especially women, have found their income sources. Positive contributions of the Rohingya should not be underestimated though these are less worthy if weighed against the overall drawbacks they have caused for the host nation. Since the Rohingya crisis is a protracted one having no possible certainty to be resolved soon, the government of Bangladesh needs not only to continue their diplomatic pressure against Myanmar but to focus on how effectively they can benefit from the displaced population in economic aspects.

*Sherajul Mustajib Sharif holds his BSS and MSS degrees from the Department of International Relations, University of Chittagong, Chittagong, Bangladesh.

Continue Reading

Economy

WTO’s ‘Crown Jewel’ Under Existential Crisis: Problem Explained

Published

on

World Trade Organization (WTO) is an international body that acts as a watchdog keeping an eye on the rules of trade between nations. WTO came into operation in 1995 and was founded as a successor to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which was incorporated in 1948. It acts as a forum where WTO members discuss and negotiate trade issues. Moreover, it works in the form of different multilateral as well as plurilateral WTO agreements. These agreements live at the heart of WTO as they deal with different aspects of trade policy.  Agreements like General Agreement on Trades and Tariffs; General Agreement on Trade in Services; The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights etc. forms the centerpiece of WTO.  Through these agreements, one WTO member enters into obligations and formulates the relation of reciprocity with the other WTO member.

Undeniably, the Dispute Settlement System (DSS) that works under the WTO is considered to be the ‘crown jewel’. No matter how stringent the laws are, unless they couldn’t be enforced, they are of not much worth. DSS functions as an effective mechanism to settle disputes and to enforce obligations in case of violation by any WTO member.  The ration d’etre of giving birth to DSS was to ensure settlement of disputes in a timely and structured manner.  DSS is committed to impede and further mitigate trade imbalances between stronger and weaker players by having their disputes to be settled on the verge of rules and not power. Since the day it came into force in 1995, 595 disputes have been brought before the DSS and out of which 350+ disputes are settled.

DSS is governed by the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) through the rules incorporated in Disputes Settlement Understanding (DSU).  The DSS works as a two-tier redressal forum and is the most important and busiest international tribunal having a binding authority on the parties to the dispute once they adopt the report of findings. On the first level comes the Consultation as per Article 4 of the DSU rules. Article 4 states that “each WTO member undertakes to accord sympathetic consideration to and afford adequate opportunity for consultation regarding any representations made by another Member concerning measures affecting the operation of any covered agreement taken within the territory of the former.” Therefore, Consultation is mandatory before any dispute is addressed to DSB. Once the consultation is failed, the complaining party can request the DSB under Article 6 for the establishment of a panel body that shall aim to settle the disputes between the parties.

On the top of the hierarchy comes the appellate body which shall hear the appeal from panel cases. Any party to the dispute can formally notify DSB of its decision to appeal. Under Article 17 of the DSU rules, DSB shall establish a standing appellate body. Unlike the Panel body, the appellate body is a permanent body composed of seven persons out of which three shall serve on any one case. These members are appointed for a term of four years. It is the duty of DSB to ensure that the vacancies shall be filled as they arise so as to confirm the smooth and timely functioning of the hierarchical mechanism of dispute redressal. Principally, the decision under DSB is taken through consensus methodology. Article 2.4 of DSU explains this method stating that “the consensus is said to be achieved when no WTO member, present at the meeting, formally opposes to the proposed decision”.

The genesis of the crisis is attributable to the U.S. who through its non-consensus has blocked the selection procedure to fill the vacancies alarming in the Appellate Body. The minimum requirement for Appellate Body to function is at least three persons out of total strength of seven. However, on 11th December 2019, the term of two of the remaining three members came to an end. At present, the Appellate Body has only one member and thus, it is dysfunctional and the resolution mechanism has brought to a grinding halt. The political façade started long back in 2017 when the U.S. cleared its intention of not allowing the selection procedure to taken place in order to fill the vacancies in the Appellate Body. Nonetheless, the Appellate Body continued its function as the compositional requirement was manageable due to the tenure of three of its members remaining but ultimately the crisis knocked the doors of WTO in the last month of 2019.

Although, at present, the composition of the Panel Body has not been interjected and the process of addressing disputes through Panel Body is still in continuance. However, the problem is as per the trends, in 67 percent of the cases, one of the parties to the dispute appeals the finding of the panel body and thus; when the Appellate Body is itself dysfunctional, the order remains non-binding and the whole mechanism of the dispute resolution is disrupted severing the gravity of the political disaster. The reasons for the U.S. to block the normal functioning of the Appellate Body have been shared with other countries as well. Fortunately, no other country has repelled in the way the U.S. is exclaiming to address the loopholes. The dissatisfaction of the U.S. administration with the WTO is not a secret anymore when Mr. Donald Trump labeled the WTO as ‘disaster’ for their nation.

The reason for the U.S. to express dissatisfaction is because of the overreaching power that Appellate Body enjoys. To combat that, on a lighter note, the U.S. has shown a preference of going back to the non-binding dispute settlement system that was prevalent at the time of GATT, 1948. Ironically, it was the U.S. who during the Uruguay round of negotiations (1986-1994) pressured and voted for creating a dispute redressal system that is binding and enforceable, however as the tables have turned now and the Appellate Body has become an irksome affair for the U.S.

The central issue of the U.S. to cordon the appointment revolves around the problem ofjudicial overreach.  To elaborate the claim, the U.S. believes that the dispute settlement system interprets the WTO rules in such a way that instead of simplifying, it rather creates new obligations for the WTO members. What the U.S. believes is that the Appellate Body drifts away from its original mandate due to its practice of issuing decisions that either burden the WTO members with new obligations or diminishes the right they enjoyed earlier.

Further, the U.S. has raised the objections against the procedural irregularities by the Appellate Body. Entangling the issues of the procedure, firstly, the U.S.has pointed out the contradiction of the DSU rules adopted by the WTO members and the Appellate Body Working procedure which are drawn up by the Appellate Body itself. As per the Rule 15 of the latter, it allows the Appellate Body members to remain on board and to continue to serve on appeals which are pending during their terms; however, as per Article 17.9 of the former, a member enjoys the position for a fixed four-year term. Thus, the Appellate Body working procedures violate the provisional requirement as laid down in DSU rules.

The second procedural issue raised by the U.S. deals with the violation of completing the report by Appellate Body within the time frame of 90 days as prescribed by the DSU rules. The US has pointed out that the extraordinary delay violates the mandate of a speedy trial and further it negates the right of the complaining party as well as the party brought to dispute due to the hauling of their economies to a hiatus. It is the belief of the U.S. that the prospective incapacitation of the Appellate Body is undoubtedly a menace for the WTO and its members because once the report of panel body is appealed, it cannot be made enforceable unless the appellate body decides and thus, it holds the country for the indefinite timeframe not authorizing the party to retaliate on whose favour the panel body decided the dispute.

It is indisputable that the DSS need to undergo a series of reform in order to gain the lost confidence. Unfortunately, the step taken by the U.S. has been termed as harsh and politically motivated. One move of the U.S. has paralyzed the ability of the ‘crown jewel’ to resolve international trade disputes. Even going against the decision of the U.S. and outcasting the consensus power it holds won’t serve the purpose as the U.S. is an important player of WTO and if the U.S. is not a party to it; the WTO would be synonymous to a toothless tiger. 

Nevertheless, arbitration under Article 25 of the DSU rules can act as an alternative to the hierarchal redressal system, as well as, solving disputes through bilateral agreements can be another alternative during the time of this existential crisis. The proposed idea of forming a Multi-party Interim Appellate arrangement will not succumb for long because the U.S. will not be its part and as it is certain, U.S. forms a considerable part of international trade, thus, there will again be a situation of deadlock. Moreover, choosing such interim mechanisms for the long run can raise a threat to the uniformity of rulings that WTO embraces. All in all, WTO is currently under jeopardy and it can be the beginning of the end if a solution to the crisis is not found in a timely manner. As of now, the Supreme Court of the international Trade ceases to exist and is in a life or death moment.

Continue Reading

Economy

How Local Governments in China can Utilize New Infrastructure Policy to Promote Development

Chan Kung

Published

on

Authors: Chan Kung and Wei Hongxu*

In an effort to promote economic recovery, the central government, local governments, and enterprises have placed high expectations on the investment of new infrastructure, hoping it would promote the development of the digital economy, so as to enhance the internal driving force of economic development. Especially when the scale of local special bonds is expected to be increased and again issued ahead of schedule, many local governments hope to seize the opportunity of digital economy development and increase investment in new infrastructure areas to drive regional economic development. Unlike the conventional economy and conventional infrastructure investment, the new infrastructure is not a simple way to boost investment, but rather to help the conventional industries realize digital and intelligent transformation as soon as possible, and to create new consumption, new manufacturing, and new services. While the new infrastructure investment brings a new economic model, it is different from the past in terms of content, mode, and financing channels. It requires local governments to make corresponding changes with market-oriented thinking.

New infrastructure investment is not only the demand side of local users, but also the supply side of technology investment. From the perspective of the scope of new infrastructure, new infrastructure projects include 5G base stations, ultra-high voltage (UHV) electricity, industrial Internet, intercity high-speed railway, intercity rail transit, new energy vehicle charging piles, artificial intelligence, and Big Data centers. At present, rail transit and new energy infrastructure are not much different from conventional infrastructure investment. The degree of local participation of UHV electricity is limited, while the investment in other aspects, such as 5G base stations and Big Data centers, is relatively mature in technology and has good market supply capacity. In other aspects, it is more necessary to start from the aspects of technology research and industrial cultivation, and to invest in projects that encourage innovation and industrial park construction. Therefore, this requires not only clear investment objectives on the demand side, but also needs to expand the supply side such as technology research and application at the same time, which undoubtedly increases the complexity of new infrastructure investment.

At the same time, the sources and financing channels of new infrastructure investment still need to be explored. Recently, local governments in China have begun planning to finance new infrastructure projects through issuing special bonds, and many local governments have put new infrastructure projects on their agenda. Some market analysts believe that at present, 5G is still mainly invested in base stations. Generally, telecommunications companies such as China Unicom and Mobile Communications can invest on their own without issuing special bonds, thereby the special bonds can be invested in projects related to data centers. However, such projects are only available in first-tier cities, and there are not many such projects in second-tier, third-tier, fourth-tier, and fifth-tier cities. New infrastructure projects should be more market-driven and local governments should avoid excessive involvement via direct investment in industrial projects. Local governments also need to promote the public-private partnership (PPP) model and introduce more social capital to improve efficiency and broaden financing sources.

Even for new infrastructure projects funded by special bonds, attention should be paid to the financing capacity of the projects to avoid adding to the financial burden. There are two main ideas for the new infrastructure special bond declaration projects in many provinces. One is to build a digital information application platform at the county and district level based on the resources of the provincial and municipal cloud platforms. The second is to promote the optimization and upgrading of conventional infrastructure projects with the theme of digital and wisdom. Some local finance people worry that many of these projects are packaged around the concept of “new infrastructure” and are mostly non-yielding or low-yielding projects that may require the government to cover future bond payments. Therefore, the special bond for new infrastructure construction should be invested in public welfare projects that can generate income, rather than public welfare projects that do not.

At the same time, there are new requirements for investment entities in new infrastructure investment. Some financial institutions said that after the issuance of new infrastructure special bonds, most of them will eventually be invested in local urban projects. However, local urban projects were good at conventional infrastructure construction, unfamiliar with new infrastructure construction, and lacks experience in new infrastructure project operation. If we speed up the construction of new infrastructure projects without considering the actual situation, it will easily lead to the mismatch between the capacity and the project requirements, and drag on the development of local governments and enterprises. In particular, unlike conventional investment in forming fixed assets, a considerable part of new infrastructure investment in research, personnel training, and other forms of intangible assets will be formed. The conventional urban investment model does not have the ability to use and dispose of these assets. At the same time, the large amount of hardware equipment invested in the new infrastructure is different from the conventional “iron and steel foundation”. Its wear and tear, operation, and upgrading all require continuous follow-up investment, which cannot be “invested all at once.” These are also not available in some conventional urban investment enterprises. If the local government cultivates and supports relevant enterprises by means of industrial investment, it needs more consideration in terms of income distribution and asset management. Such investment cannot be simply measured by the unit of land and capital, but more in the form of equity investment such as industrial funds and venture capital. In this respect, the local government needs to have the investment entities and relevant personnel with the ability to invest in relevant industries.

Different from the past, local governments need to play their roles in market construction and maintenance, investment entities, and end-users in promoting new infrastructure investment and the development of the digital economy. In the cultivation of the digital market, market demand, and the maintenance of the market order, local governments should play the role as a supervisor, take the development of the market as the guide, and develop the local digital market. In terms of investment, it is necessary to start with basic research and development and personnel training, promote market-oriented investment and technological innovation to enhance the competitiveness of the digital industry. In terms of end-users, it is necessary to integrate their own digital resources, establish a public digital space, and expand digital demand with the digital transformation of public services and government affairs as the direction. These three new roles are the basic problems to be solved in the process of promoting new infrastructure.

While much attention has been paid to new infrastructure, the reality is that, in terms of overall size, it needs to be recognized that infrastructure investment is still dominated by conventional infrastructure projects, with new infrastructure as defined by the market accounting for less than 15%. ANBOUND is not a proponent of separating infrastructure from the old and the new, so one cannot fully “bet” on new infrastructure to revive the post-pandemic economy. From the perspective of economic development trends and current reality, the role of new infrastructure is to promote the coordinated and integrated development of digital technology to industry and regional economy. Therefore, local governments need to make good use of fiscal expansion policies and financing tools to build new infrastructure, rather than investing for investment’s sake, they need to pay attention to the trend of economic digitization and promote the market efficiency and the expansion of market space.

Final analysis conclusion:

Promoting economic recovery and the development of the digital economy with new infrastructure are the keys to current macro policies. In this regard, local governments need to pay attention to the differences between the new infrastructure and the conventional infrastructure model, and they need to make corresponding adjustments in the investment model and development thinking so as to give full play to the efficiency of the digital economy.

*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

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Human Rights2 hours ago

More ‘can and must be done’ to eradicate caste-based discrimination in Nepal

Shocked over the killing last weekend of five men in Nepal, who had planned to escort home one of their...

Energy News4 hours ago

Myanmar: Power System Efficiency Project Brings Country Closer to Universal Electricity Access

The World Bank’s Board of Executive Directors today approved a $350 million credit from the International Development Association (IDA) to...

Economy6 hours ago

Rohingya Influx and its Economic Significance for Bangladesh

Authors:Shuva Das & Sherajul Mustajib Sharif* It is generally perceived that refugees are curse for host countries though the former...

Newsdesk8 hours ago

The “High 5s”: A strategic vision and results that are transforming Africa

For the past ten years, Africa has recorded some of the world’s strongest rates of economic growth. At the same...

Reports10 hours ago

COVID-19 Epidemic Poses Greatest Threat to Cambodia’s Development in 30 Years

The COVID-19 pandemic is hitting Cambodia’s main drivers of economic growth—tourism, manufacturing exports, and construction—which together account for more than...

Tourism12 hours ago

UNWTO Launches Global Guidelines to Reopen Tourism

The World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) has released a set of guidelines to help tourism sector emerge stronger and more sustainably...

Eastern Europe14 hours ago

Georgian Way of Combatting the Coronavirus

Despite its small size and unstable economy, Georgia was one of the first countries to start taking active measures to...

Trending