With kind regards,
Economics International
FOCUS ON EXPERTISE
Author: REMY PIWOWARSKI at 08:32 0 comments
As the greatest strategic challenge facing leading global businesses in 2008, the industry analysts we polled selected regulatory and compliance risk. This is being driven by an escalating regulatory burden in many markets, as well as numerous compliance challenges as companies extend their value chains well beyond Europe, North America, and the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India and China). The possibility of regulatory intervention in sectors such as pharma, biotech, insurance, telecoms and utilities, is further elevating this risk. Such intervention could shape the competitive environment and drive fundamental change in business models.
Our analysts acknowledged that few sectors would escape the impact of major global financial shocks. Biotech and utilities firms, for example, would have trouble raising capital; banking, asset management, and insurance companies would be likely to suffer direct losses from market movements; and after making high-cost exploration investments – oil & gas companies might suddenly find themselves facing low prices if the global economy moves into sudden recession.
An increasing strategic risk for the majority of industries is the threat posed by workforce and consumer aging. Sectors such as asset management and insurance are experiencing dramatic shifts in demand and competitive battles are being fought for savings products that will appeal to the growing group of older consumers. Other firms, for example, those in the auto sector, are facing severe competitive challenges as a result of their aging workforces.
Author: REMY PIWOWARSKI at 12:22 1 comments
Our moderator, Jan Jablonski, seems to say: assumptions, stupid!
Author: REMY PIWOWARSKI at 17:39 1 comments
Labels: ACADEMIC PAPERS
"Paying Taxes 2008" offers data on total tax rates, payment frequency, and the time needed to comply with tax regulations in 178 economies. This year's report finds that business taxation goes well beyond corporate income taxes. It identifies five types of taxes that firms pay: profit, social, property, turnover, and other taxes, such as municipal fees and fuel taxes. The number of steps, time requirements, and various cost indicators are used to determine the overall burden of paying taxes.
Author: REMY PIWOWARSKI at 12:38 1 comments
Labels: Short Columns
At the International Monetary Fund meetings, most ministers points to the 10% growth rate of China with a mixture of envy and awe. But Brazil’s finance minister Guido Mantega says 5% will do just fine. “I don’t know if it’s desirable to grow more than 5%,” he said in an interview. “We prefer to grow at a medium rate.”
At mid-level growth rates, he said, it was easier to keep inflation under control – and provide additional incentive for Brazil’s central bank to lower the country’s sky high interest rates. The Brazilian benchmark Selic is now 11.25%, down from 19.75% in Sept. 2005.
“The conditions are there so that interest rates can head toward levels in civilized nations,” said Mr. Guido, by which he said he meant a nominal rate of 7% to 8%
But wouldn’t that ignite inflation?
Even as linkages between economies grow, far too many governments are putting the slightest domestic constraint above any international interest. Others are reviving beggar-thy-neighbor policies, except they are now on the capital account—shielding large swathes of their own economy from corporate takeovers while encouraging their own companies to take advantage of the continued openness of others.
Author: André Luis Pulcherio at 07:19 0 comments
Labels: * RIO'S VOICE, Brazil, China, Short Columns
What do F-16 fighter planes, joining the Euroarea and the falling dollar have in common?
It seems that they do have a lot.
As Gazeta Wyborcza (a large Polish centre-of-the-left newspaper, with very good econ articles) wrote, the Polish government decided to increase the number of F-16s Fighting received this year from 4 to 6 (Poland bought 48 planes to be received in the coming years and is thinking of joining the JSF programme)
There are two connections between this purchase, joining the Euroarea and the falling dollar..
The connection No. 1 is simple: the cheaper dollar is, the less you have to pay for the planes.
But there is something more to it that meets the eye.
Poland wants to join the Euroarea around 2011-2012. So far it has met all monetary requirements (inflation, interest rates etc). Nevertheless, the situation with fiscal requirements is not that good: budget deficit is still more than 3% (the Euroarea reguirements are here).
At the moment, the economy is booming - the growth is around 6%. Nevertheless, economists predict a mild slowdown next year. That means budget revenues will be smaller and budget deficit may increase.
By paying for two additional F-16s now, the government decreased expenses scheduled for the next year of about 90M USD. The predictions are that, thanks to this, the budget deficit will drop below 3% next year.
As a result, Poland will be able to start negotiations on accession to the Eurozone.
Shrewd, isn't it?
Author: REMY PIWOWARSKI at 06:13 0 comments
Labels: * CITIZEN OF EUROPE, Europe, Short Columns
Indonesia’s Position and Potential in the International Economy
“Before the 1997 financial crisis, the fast-growing economies of East Asia were favorites of economists and international investors. Then Indonesia, Malaysia, South Korea, and Thailand were hit hard with currency devaluations and high interest rates. A 40-year period of sustained rapid growth was replaced in 1998 by sharp economic contractions in these countries, ranging from 7% in South Korea to 15% in Indonesia.” (Barro, 2001: 1)
“The rupiah has appreciated from a low of 17,000 to the dollar to a steady 8,500. The budget deficit has shrunk from 4.8% of GDP to 1.8%, and government debt from 100% to 67%. Inflation, which peaked at 60% in 1998, is down to 6% and still falling. Buoyed by this parade of encouraging figures, the stock market has recently hit several successive three-year highs.” (Economist, 27 Sept. 2003).
Author: Barbara at 04:35 0 comments
Labels: ACADEMIC PAPERS
Melvin Watts looks at an economy rarely mentioned in economic news nowadays.
Author: REMY PIWOWARSKI at 19:12 20 comments
Two days ago, I was at workshops organised by one of the leading investment banks. Apart from some ibk case solving and currency trading exercise, there was a speach of one of the managing directors. The guy talked on why it is worthy to work for this investment bank and not another one.
And believe me: for most of the speach the guy tried to convince us that the subprime crisis is not a big issue for his company...
Look at an article from the Economist.
Author: REMY PIWOWARSKI at 03:59 4 comments
A couple of weeks ago, we wrote that the EU is going to regulate financial markets more tightly and make them more transparent...
Nothing new on that topic, but something definitely interesting is happening in EU international financial markets...
The new EU legal act MiFID (the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive) is due to be introduced soon.
For people not knowing the EU law: a directive is not a set of directions - it is a fully binding legal act that needs to be, nevertheless, transposed into national legal systems by member states parliaments before a set deadline.
I am now doing my homework on the EU institutional law and what's more the MiFID is not new to me: while working in corporate banking this summer, I heard many discussions on MiFID... And I must admit that he EU directive is surely a very interesting piece of legislation. As the Economist writes:
"Big Bang” or not, expect dramatic changes. The new rules end the monopoly (albeit a waning one) of national stock exchanges over share trading and throw open the field to newer electronic exchanges and even the big investment banks. Until now, some countries (such as Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary) still required trading to take place over the national exchange. Others, such as Britain, have long been more liberal.
Handed an effective monopoly like the utility companies of yore, the protected exchanges took full advantage, charging everything from fat fees on membership to hefty tariffs on each trade. Even in more liberal regimes, over-the-counter trades have had to be reported to the exchanges. The exchanges charge members for the privilege of doing so and then, to add insult to injury, levy members again for access to those data in “real time”.
The new law dismantles each one of those monopolies at a stroke. "'
"Under MiFID, these off-exchange markets will in effect become more regulated, because they will have to disclose more pricing information. They will also be freer to tempt business away from the traditional exchanges. This should encourage the traditional marketplaces to lower fees and increase the speed of transactions to become more attractive, which could make for leaner markets and larger trading volumes. On the other hand, it could “balkanise” trading; one of the tests of the new law's effectiveness will be whether it adds to overall liquidity or channels it in so many directions that it evaporates."
Author: REMY PIWOWARSKI at 16:50 0 comments
Labels: * CITIZEN OF EUROPE, Short Columns
Kasia Burzynska explains how to print money on your own. Kids, don't do it at home...
Author: REMY PIWOWARSKI at 19:46 2 comments
Labels: ACADEMIC PAPERS
Imagine that you are a CEO of huge multinational and you are looking for a suitable location of a foreign direct investment (e.g. opening a factory, a chain of shops or aquiring such entities abroad). Where would you go?
China? Slovakia? Estonia? Chile? Brazil?
None of these countries...
According to Investment Performance Index for prepared by the Irish National Bank, the top three FDI high flyers are:
1. India
2. Poland
3. Thailand.
(for an article on the index click here)
Author: REMY PIWOWARSKI at 17:12 1 comments
Labels: Short Columns
Author: REMY PIWOWARSKI at 12:57 4 comments
Labels: Short Columns
Author: REMY PIWOWARSKI at 18:52 3 comments
Labels: * CITIZEN OF EUROPE, Europe, Short Columns
A price war aimed at Japan’s 100m mobile phone users could have a significant impact on the core consumer price index, potentially prolonging the country’s brush with deflation, economists warned on Wednesday.'
Author: REMY PIWOWARSKI at 04:56 0 comments
Labels: Short Columns
Mishkin did say globalization may have helped in 'subtle' ways, such as by spreading a 'common culture that stresses the benefits of achieving price stability.'
[H]e said that while it is 'plausible' to hold the theory that lower priced imports from China and other countries are lowering inflation, research suggests that the importance of this factor 'should not be exaggerated.'
There’s only one problem. Most of those four speeches came on nights or weekends. The March inflation speech was on a Friday night. The Jackson Hole paper was presented on a Saturday and last week’s “important”-downside-risks speech was given at 7:30 p.m. EDT, which might as well be midnight for Wall Street.
Author: André Luis Pulcherio at 14:50 0 comments
Labels: Short Columns
Yuri Kasahara
Author: Yuri Kasahara at 14:56 0 comments
Author: Olga Muravjova at 08:53 0 comments
Labels: ACADEMIC PAPERS
A new approach to development or a fashionable speculation to revitalize aid-fatigued donor countries?
In these years, development institutions' capacity of delivering results to poorest countries has been questioned a lot. World Bank's mission creep – that can be summarized as starting from basic infrastructure building in the 1940s and arriving to the "working for a world free of poverty" motto – has lead to serious accountability and effectiveness problems, up to the point that today's Bank's mission has become so complex that seem hardly manageable. The IMF is in deep water as well. The words "structural adjustment" had become a catch-all phrase for the pain inflicted on the poor in developing countries by faceless austere bureaucrats in Washington, and the new implementations do not seem to satisfy all: the debate about IMF and WB reforms is still open.
To fight this lack of effectiveness a new rhetoric about developing institutions has arisen, starting with the Millennium Development Goals and UN declarations, which advertised human development, pace, equity, justice, gender equality, environmental safeguard as the new performance benchmarks for development institutions.
Surfing this wave, a new concept has been forged to provide theoretical strength for a broad approach to development and to revitalize "aid-fatigued" donor countries with new appealing evidence: the concept of global public goods. An increasing literature (Kaul et al., 1999, Agerskov, 2005 among others) recommends focusing on global public goods for boosting growth in poor countries.
In Prague, 2000, the World Bank and IMF Development Committee identified five priority areas for GPG intervention, recognizing the need for the Bank to define more precise targets. These areas are communicable diseases; environmental commons; development information and knowledge; trade and economic integration; international financial architecture (which is an IMF specific role). Actually, the architecture for Bank involvement in global programs seems to be increasing. In fiscal year 2004, 64% of the Bank's trust fund monies ($7.1 billion), went to global and regional programs, compared to 57% in 2003 (source: OED 2004). The share of single country operations, however, is still much higher, and multi-country operations among small groups of countries remain low.
The UN has also identified in 2004 six clusters of global challenges: war between states; violence within states; poverty, infectious diseases and environmental degradation; nuclear, radiological, chemical and biological weapons; terrorism; transnational organized crime.
What are global public goods exactly? What are the insights on development that this approach provides? Can this concept be a reference point for development programs? Let's try to find an answer to these questions.
The term "public goods" was first mentioned by David Hume, the Scottish philosopher and economist, and later properly introduced in the economic field in 1954 by Paul Samuelson (Economic Nobel Prize Winner in 1970). Samuelson defined public goods as a commodity or an activity with the characteristics of "non-rivalry" and "non-excludability" in consumption, i.e. where any one's person consumption of the good doesn't affect the available amount for others, and where it's hard to exclude anyone from accessing the good. Public goods' nature making this class of goods undersupplied by the market, the need to supply public goods besides market allocations traditionally justifies government involvement in the economy.
The concept of "global public goods" (GPGs), counterposed to national public goods, became widespread in the literature with the UNDP publication Global Public Goods (Kaul et al, 1999). A global – or international, the terms are almost interchangeable – public good is one where the elements in question are nations, rather than individuals. Thus, the joint and non-excludable benefits apply among nations, in a globalized environment.
While the subsequent broad literature accord on the main definition of GPGs, there are great semantic variations and different classifications among the authors. Let's quote some of the main views: Agerskov (2005) provides a very theoretical division among demand-related variations or supply-related variations on the general "public goods" concept. Focusing on spillovers, Kanbur et al (1999) distinguish three types of spillovers - national, regional and global; Sandler (2001) further analyze the geographical range to which the benefits apply: he divides local, national, regional, international and global benefits, in ascending climax. Morrissey (2002), analyzing the spatial range from a different point of view, considers three kinds of benefits that GPGs give rise to - risk reduction, enhancing capacity, and direct provision of utility – and classifies the national or international level of a public good according to benefits.
The broadest and most general attempt of classifying and analyze GPGs can be found, however, in Kaul et al. (1999). With less stress on precise economically-supported distinctions, they simply divide their book in six case studies, each of them analyzing one or two closely-related GPGs: equity and justice, market efficiency, environment and cultural heritage, health, knowledge and information, peace and security.
As these many classifications prove, the concept of "global public good" has become wide, multifaceted and increasingly unclear. So large is the basket of GPGs that the only definition of GPG that may "contain" all the examples and study cases provided in the literature is the definition given by Morrissey (2002), "a benefit providing utility that is in principle available to everybody (let's say many) through the globe". Yet it's not a very stimulating or sharp insight. The main question in defining GPG – the same question that is involved in many economical concepts – is whether we want a theoretical or an operative concept.
The theoretical, idealistic concept of GPGs, which includes values as equity, justice and peace (I'll discuss later the advisability of such classification even in a wide contest), mainly focuses on the "underprovision" and "benefit-all" aspects of GPGs. This focus has the clear aim to revitalize with new incentives the "aid fatigued" donor countries, to give them a new boost for financial intervention. However, as Kanbur (2002) smartly points out, two concerns arise. First, the "there's something in it for us" argument used to stimulate the Northern public has less solid moral basis than assistance based on humanity and empathy. Second, and more economic related, the supposed unilateral positive spillover of aid from rich to poor countries is hardly sustainable; the empirical evidence on the efficacy of IMF's and World Bank's aid for promoting development is, at least, mixed.
The operative approach, on the other hand, moves from the definition of non-excludability and non-rivalry in consumption, and from the positive spillovers among countries, to underline the practical implication of GPGs for economic development, therefore to provide a new agenda focused on global and regional programs for international organizations, World Bank in primis, with new importance on effective cooperation among the recipient countries.
If our goal is to identify the reasons of the failure of unilateral aid approach, and to provide poor countries with new bases for development, an operative, narrower approach to public goods may be useful.
Let's analyze first the definition and the division provided by Kaul et al., to show their weaknesses and to underline the necessity of a narrower approach for development.
The authors, in the first chapter, traditionally define GPGs as something that "must meet two criteria. The first is that their benefits have strong qualities of publiciness (sic) – that is, they are marked by non-rivalry in consumption and non-excludability. […] The second criterion is that their benefits are quasi universal in terms of countries, […] people […] and generations […]. This property makes humanity as a whole the publicum." Taken literally, this definition can be either very broad, if we consider any kind of abstract concepts, or very narrow, if we consider "goods" as tangible goods. The former one seems to be the pattern followed by the authors. Later on, in fact, they explicitly further divide GPGs in final global public goods, which are "outcomes rather than goods in the standard sense", and which can be tangible (environment, common heritage of mankind), or intangible (peace, international stability), and in intermediate global public goods, which "contribute to the provision of final GPGs" (international regimes, economic growth).
Even considering "goods" not just in a strict sense, it's very hard to see how international regimes can really benefit the whole humanity (even organizations as UN and IMF face huge problems of representation and are not able to account for small countries), how economic growth can be non-excludable toward the whole humanity (just recognizing positive externalities doesn't mean that growth per se benefit all the globe, unfortunately), or how heritage of a culture can benefit everyone (how archaeological sites in Peru can benefit all the citizens of Russia, for example).
The standard definition applies neither to the equity nor justice nor peace, other GPGs mentioned in the book. Can we really define them as GPGs? Aren't them values to pursue and to be inspired by rather than "goods" to provide? How can equity concretely be part of a specific development program?
Regarding knowledge, it's at least curios to classify it as a GPG, after a whole branch of philosophy (epistemology and gnoseology) has been studying for centuries what knowledge is and how is provided. If we want to talk about externalities, we may consider public-made, shared knowledge rather than knowledge itself. And still, the implications are quite problematic: first, nothing assures that all "kinds" of knowledge will be shared to a global public and will become easily available; second, even when shared through printed documents, internet or mass-media (thus becoming "information"), strong prerequisites are necessary to access it – such as information technologies to physically access, education to fully take advantage of it. Thus, knowledge and information are everything but non-rivalry and non-excludable in consumption.
As for financial stability, market efficiency and security, they are classified as global public goods because they prevent global public "bads", i.e. financial crises, market failures and wars. Besides the appealing pun, the definition is again unclear: global public bads seem to be just negative externalities, and they do not really fall into the categories of non-rivalry and non-excludability. That does not mean that international institutions such as the IMF or NATO do not have to promote financial stability and security. It just means that not everything that is important for global growth can be labeled as GPGs.
Environment is maybe one of the few pure cases of GPGs: the stratospheric ozone layer and the stability of the climate affect the whole world, they are non-rivalry and non-excludable, and similarly reduction in the use of ozone-depleting chemicals and in the emission of greenhouse gases benefits the whole humanity. Moreover, they have practical connotations: the levels of emissions are scientifically measurable, and it's not hard to think about concrete project to enhance environmental protection. However, environmental problems usually have regional, not global, implications: water pollution, acid rain, biodiversity and resource conservation are examples of region-related problems.
As well as environment, health is a GPG that can have both a global and a regional connotation. Diseases such as AIDS, malaria and avian influenza may have worldwide spread, but they are mostly concentrated in specific regions (Africa, Asia).
Environment and health thus lead us to a question: are GPGs really global in a pure sense, or are they mostly regional? In the second case, does a "global approach" really make sense, and can it be operational and useful? Even if recent literature have mostly focused on the appealing concept of global public goods – so easy to link to the fashionable concept of globalization – besides few examples international public goods have more often regional rather than global implications. Consequently, a closer focus on narrower concepts such as regional public goods can be more useful for understanding public goods' potential for development.
References
* Addressing the challenges of globalization, World Bank Operations Evaluation Department, 2004
* Agerskov, A. H., Global Public Goods and Development – A guide for policy makers, in Global Development Challenges Facing Humanity, World Bank Seminar, May 2005
* Kanbur et al., The future of development assistance: common pools and international public goods, ODC, 1999
* Kanbur, R., International financial institutions and international public goods: operational implications for the World Bank, G-24 discussion paper series, December 2002
* Kaul et al., Global public goods, Oxford University Press, 1999
* Morrissey et al., Defining international public goods: conceptual issues, Overseas Development
* Sandler, T., Comment on "The growing importance of regional public goods by Marco Ferroni", February 2002
Author: Mariagiovanna Di Feo at 09:19 1 comments
Labels: ACADEMIC PAPERS, development studies