Chinese Economics Thread

Blackstone

Brigadier
Looks like the IMF is coming around to PBoC's (People's Bank of China) view on capital account flows. In the past, IMF urged developing economies to open their capital accounts and allow unfettered flows of foreign exchange. Most Asian countries took IMF's advice, with the notable exception of China. The 1997 Asian financial crash proved China right, and the 2008 global crash put a cherry on it. The IMF is now coming around to China's position that central banks should maintain some controls over capital accounts to limit excess volatility.

Kudos to the IMF for not being too proud to adopt better policies. But, what I want to know is were China's financial leaders lucky, or did they know something the IMF didn't?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The unexpected policy failures associated with the 2008 global financial crisis have provoked soul-searching among macro-economists. The leading lights among the profession were at the International Monetary Fund's
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
conference in April. Olivier Blanchard, the widely admired IMF Chief Economist, encapsulated the state of the debate in his
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


There is actually more agreement than might be implied by Blanchard's title – and more recognition of how far the conventional wisdom had to be changed to fit the evolving world.

Nowhere is this more evident than with international capital flows. Blanchard 'see(s) this as one area where the rethinking has been striking, compared to ten years ago'.

Indeed, ten years ago the Fund was urging countries to open up their capital accounts for foreign flows, unconstrained by any interference in the market. The promise was that the impact of volatile foreign flows would be ironed out with flexible exchange rates. The new consensus is that the effects of volatile capital flows are complex (impinging especially on the stability of the domestic financial sector) and can't be counter-balanced simply by exchange rate movements. In any case, exchange rates often overshoot, creating problems of their own.

So much for demolishing the old paradigm. Its policy implication was 'masterly inactivity' (leave it up to the market). Now the challenge is to formulate active policies which would address these newly perceived problems. There is less agreement here.

Some see the all-purpose answer in macro-prudential policies: adjusting the financial regulation parameters according to the state of the cycle, imposing lending limits and extra capital requirements during the upswing and easing them in the downswing. Some older hands among the central bankers remember that this is what used to be done before the financial deregulation revolution of the 1980s. But extra constraints on the regulated financial sector cause the action to shift to the less regulated shadow banking sector (this process used to be called 'disintermediation'), leaving the economy still vulnerable to surges and retreats of foreign capital flows.

While not a consensus, the majority opinion now accepts the need for foreign exchange intervention (a no-no in the old world) and restrictions to help manage capital flows, but without any firm belief that this is a complete answer to the challenge.

All this may get a field-test before long, when global financial markets, already twitchy about the impending shift of US monetary policy away from its stance of extreme ease, finally have to respond to the reality of tightening.

As Paul Krugman often
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, anyone who followed the 1997-98 Asian crisis would have recognised the inadequacy of the free-market view of capital flows. It was only when the problems directly impinged on the advanced economies that mainstream economists (and the Fund) saw the need for rethinking. This process has been assisted by
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, and more recently by the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
of Helene Rey.


This was just one of Blanchard's ten 'takeaways'. We'll return to the other important shifts in policy thinking at a later date.
 

delft

Brigadier
Looks like the IMF is coming around to PBoC's (People's Bank of China) view on capital account flows. In the past, IMF urged developing economies to open their capital accounts and allow unfettered flows of foreign exchange. Most Asian countries took IMF's advice, with the notable exception of China. The 1997 Asian financial crash proved China right, and the 2008 global crash put a cherry on it. The IMF is now coming around to China's position that central banks should maintain some controls over capital accounts to limit excess volatility.

Kudos to the IMF for not being too proud to adopt better policies. But, what I want to know is were China's financial leaders lucky, or did they know something the IMF didn't?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
I don't think they were lucky. First they didn't buy the perfect market illusion. Second they saw IMF and World Bank being used in the interest of Western countries, in the first place US, the so called Washington consensus. Think of the restructuring in African countries in the late 20th century that meant decreasing spending on health care and education. In other words they they weren't blinded by ideology.
 

delft

Brigadier
From the BBC site:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

China greenhouse gases: Progress is made, report says
By Roger Harrabin BBC environment analyst
  • 8 June 2015
China's greenhouse gas emissions could start to decline within 10 years, according to a report from the London School of Economics.

This would be five years earlier than expected and would offer a boost towards efforts to protect the climate.

The shift has been partly caused by a massive commitment to renewables. China is the world's top investor in wind and solar power.

It has also been replacing old coal plants with cleaner new stations.

'Under-promise and over-deliver'
Many of the changes in power generation have been prompted by the need to tackle chronic air pollution, but China's leaders are also acutely conscious of their country's particular vulnerability to a heating planet.

The authors of the LSE paper say: "The UN climate change conference in Paris later this year will be more successful if governments everywhere understand the extent of change in China [and] its implications for global emissions."

They say China's actions will stimulate global markets for clean goods and services and harm exporters of coal and certain other raw materials.

President Xi Jinping promised in a bilateral agreement with the US to reduce CO2 emissions by around 2030.

But the LSE authors, Fergus Green and Lord Nicholas Stern, say: "China's international commitment should be seen as a conservative upper limit from a government that prefers to under-promise and over-deliver.

"China's pledge includes a commitment to use 'best efforts' to peak before 2030; we are beginning to see the fruits of China's best efforts."

Counsel against complacency
The paper states: "China's transformation has profound implications for the global economy, and greatly increases the prospects for keeping global greenhouse gas emissions within relatively safe limits."

The authors find that if China's emissions peak by 2025 they would reach between 12.5 and 14 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent.

They say China's action increases the chances of keeping the world within the 2C (3.6F) temperature increase estimated to give a good chance of avoiding widespread damage to the climate.

But they counsel against complacency: "Whether the world can get on to that pathway in the decade or more after 2020 depends in significant part on China's ability to reduce its emissions at a rapid rate, post-peak, on the actions of other countries in the next two decades, and on global actions over the subsequent decades."

The paper is the latest bad news for coal producers: China might already have peaked in its use of coal, if statistics produced by
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
are to be believed.

The value of coal firms globally has slumped over recent years as nations turn to cleaner fuels like shale gas and increasingly cheap renewables.

Institutional investors are beginning to shun coal too, and last week Norway's pension fund confirmed that as part of a UN-backed campaign it would divest $7.6bn (£5bn) of investments in companies majoring in coal.

Some long-term energy analysts are offering the opinion that a tipping point has been reached. The world, they believe, is inexorably moving away from the fossil fuel era.
Now they are reducing coal consumption ( poor Australia ). When will they start reducing oil consumption? ( poor Saudi Arabia ).
 

broadsword

Brigadier
I don't think they were lucky. First they didn't buy the perfect market illusion. Second they saw IMF and World Bank being used in the interest of Western countries, in the first place US, the so called Washington consensus. Think of the restructuring in African countries in the late 20th century that meant decreasing spending on health care and education. In other words they they weren't blinded by ideology.

Even the Singapore Lee Kuan Yew advised China to obey the IMF instructions during the crisis, but when it was all over, he had to humbly heap praise on China.
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
Looks like the IMF is coming around to PBoC's (People's Bank of China) view on capital account flows. In the past, IMF urged developing economies to open their capital accounts and allow unfettered flows of foreign exchange. Most Asian countries took IMF's advice, with the notable exception of China. The 1997 Asian financial crash proved China right, and the 2008 global crash put a cherry on it. The IMF is now coming around to China's position that central banks should maintain some controls over capital accounts to limit excess volatility.

Kudos to the IMF for not being too proud to adopt better policies. But, what I want to know is were China's financial leaders lucky, or did they know something the IMF didn't?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

As Delft already mentioned, China's leaders were not slaved to ideology like western leaders who worship blindly the all powerful and all knowing "free market" gods.

One of the most lamentable developments and climb to prominence in recent times is that of the ideological crusaders in America, where being ideologically "pure" is valued more than even being right.

The thing to note is that IMF is traditionally a European bastion, whereas the World Bank is an American plaything.

The Europeans are not yet affected by this American obsession, which is why you have reports like this coming out of the IMF.

I would not expect the World Bank to tolerate such "heresy" though.
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
From the BBC site:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Now they are reducing coal consumption ( poor Australia ). When will they start reducing oil consumption? ( poor Saudi Arabia ).

Haha, I was just about to post that myself.

That is a rare thing indeed, an article that has something vaguely positive to say about the Chinese government.

It should be noted that it was largely penned by experts who earned their position by learning a trade and being good at it rather than journalists and editors who got to where they are by writing what those in charge of their news agency likes to read/hear.

You will certainly not find many western journalists or editors who would dare to writing anything positive about the Chinese government least they loose the favour of their patrons.
 

Blackstone

Brigadier
As Delft already mentioned, China's leaders were not slaved to ideology like western leaders who worship blindly the all powerful and all knowing "free market" gods.

One of the most lamentable developments and climb to prominence in recent times is that of the ideological crusaders in America, where being ideologically "pure" is valued more than even being right.

The thing to note is that IMF is traditionally a European bastion, whereas the World Bank is an American plaything.

The Europeans are not yet affected by this American obsession, which is why you have reports like this coming out of the IMF.

I would not expect the World Bank to tolerate such "heresy" though.
Economic debates in the US are legend, and while each camp fiercely enforces its own, there are ideas galore, beyond Monetarist vs. Keynesian. One debate I've been following is freshwater vs. saltwater, and it's a real barn-burning, Katie-bar-the-door, take no prisoners war. Check it out, it might be enjoyable.
 

Blackstone

Brigadier
Even the Singapore Lee Kuan Yew advised China to obey the IMF instructions during the crisis, but when it was all over, he had to humbly heap praise on China.
China's great contribution to the world was not employing competitive devaluation after the 1997 Asian financial crash, and instead acted as a dam to control the financial flood waters. While Beijing did what it had to for its national interests, it nevertheless was the lone beacon in the dark and Asian economies clung onto it for dear life. The 2008 global financial crash showed the world how strong China's economy had become, but the Brenton Woods Country Club was too exclusive to invite the neuvo riche; kitchen help was okay, but full membership with rights and privileges was not. After years of trying to gain membership, China gave up on Brenton Woods and went its own way, so instead of Brenton Woods +1, we have the Brave New World.
 
Top