Substantially. That single word, left out of the IMF’s assessment of China’s undervalued currency, laid bare the tricky internal politics that govern even its most routine interactions with the world’s newest economic power.
IMF staff, under pressure for years from member countries to tell it like it is when assessing a country’s economic health, said China’s yuan was “substantially” undervalued.
However, by the time the final assessment passed through the IMF’s 24-member board of shareholder countries last Monday, that word had fallen victim to disagreements between those who put faith in Beijing to let its currency rise more rapidly and those among the G7 rich nations who doubt much progress would be made.
The board statement simply called the yuan “undervalued” with several countries questioning the accuracy of IMF staff projections of a major increase in China’s current account surplus over the next several years.
On the one side are emerging market economies, like Brazil, which stood behind China, and on the other the G7 old-line powers who believe the yuan is still too cheap but did not say so.
“The G7 wants more flexibility in how the currency is managed, but at the same time they want to do that diplomatically,” said Domenico Lombardi, a former IMF board member now at the Brookings Institution.
Still, Lombardi said calling the yuan undervalued, regardless of whether it is substantial or not, sent a strong signal to Beijing that it needs to revalue the currency.
reevaluation
“It is clear the board adopted a diplomatic stance. They tried to do their best not to upset the Chinese authorities but in the end preserved the substance of the IMF staff’s message by concurring the exchange rate was undervalued,” he added.
The outcome reflects not only muscle-flexing on the part of China but some softening of the US position.
US President Barack Obama’s administration has toned down some of the rhetoric former US president George W. Bush’s administration used when describing the extent to which China’s yuan is undervalued.
US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has said repeatedly it is “China’s choice” to decide how and when to let market forces play a larger role in determining the yuan’s value, even as he emphasized it was in China’s interest to do so.
As recently as a week ago, he praised Beijing’s recent move to free the yuan from a dollar peg and described that as a helpful move toward easing global trade imbalances, even though the yuan has risen less than 1 percent since China did so.
“What matters to us is how fast and how far they let it go,” Geithner said, a gentle reminder that while Washington likes Beijing’s policy direction, it is also monitoring its effectiveness.
In contrast, the Bush administration grew frustrated with efforts to convince China to let its currency rise faster and pressured the IMF unsuccessfully to label China a currency manipulator.
While the IMF never bowed to that pressure, it did change its currency surveillance rules to say that member countries should stay away from policies that result in “external instability,” in addition to avoiding currency manipulation and intervention.
external instability
Beijing accused the IMF of not being even-handed and stalled the IMF’s process for reviewing its economy for two years. IMF Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn has overturned that rule, saying it made discussions with member countries less open.
In another twist, China — supported by other emerging market economies — took umbrage with a footnote in the IMF staff report estimating that the yuan was undervalued by somewhere between 5 percent and 27 percent.
The footnote was removed at China’s behest before the staff documents were published on Thursday.
Such estimates are not unusual and fall well within the IMF’s area of expertise. They have, however, always been a thorny issue because of the broad disagreement among economists on how best to determine whether currencies accurately reflect a country’s economic fundamentals.
To be fair, all IMF member countries have a say in what is published and what is not in reviews of their economies.
“The Chinese looked at the whole report to assess whether it’s a fair and balanced report and also if we had reflected their views correctly in the report,” IMF mission chief to China Nigel Chalk told reporters on a conference call.
Eswar Prasad, a former IMF official and trade professor at Cornell University, said China’s surprisingly quick agreement to release the report reflected Beijing’s growing confidence it is in control of the global debate over its currency.
While the staff report had some tough language on the need for further currency reforms, it also praised Beijing’s recent announcement that it would move to a more flexible exchange rate, even though there has been little actual movement in the yuan.
China was further emboldened by the board’s at best lukewarm support for the IMF staff’s relatively hard-line position on the currency issue, Prasad said.
He said the staff report, which contains the authorities’ views, shows Beijing pushing back on all of the staff’s analysis and assertions used to support the finding of a substantially undervalued exchange rate.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US