The IMF has repeatedly revised downward its outlook for world growth since the fourth quarter last year. Economists have been stressing a “new normal” or a “new mediocre.”
Tumbling crude oil prices did not generate consumption as expected. Quite the contrary, falling energy prices have caused distortions on base effects and dragged down aggregate output growth on a year-on-year basis.
Strong growth seems unlikely for the time being.
In addition, geopolitical factors are furthering uncertainties amid deteriorating economic conditions; large nations are not showing leadership to pull the world economy along, rather they are desperately trying to cope with their own difficulties.
In the face of heavy fiscal constraints and debt pressure, extreme monetary operations, through quantitative easing, have become one of the few workable options. Overcapacity due to overinvestment at bad times has been an issue causing inexhaustible structure reforms, whereas continuous reforms have also slowed growth momentum and limited growth potential. When big players are dealing with either tepid growth or periodical headwinds, soggy demand holds back others that are closely associated with global or regional supply chains.
As every economy is specialized in specific ways, almost none are immune to shrinking world demand. Therefore, to pick one’s growth potential is no longer simply to seek the betterment of oneself, but the well-being of all.
Consumption, investment and trade are main engines that used to drive economic growth yet have seemingly lost steam in recent times. Decisionmakers are responsible for building hale and hearty environments that are able to encourage consumption, investment and trade.
Private or household consumption is the most important component of GDP. Estimates for this year show that private consumption accounts for 58 percent of worldwide GDP, 61.9 percent of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) GDP and 51.5 percent of non-OECD GDP.
Despite consumption preferences and decisions being dissimilar among the nations, it is a rule of thumb that demand for consumption goods is strong in good times, whereas consumers tend to retreat in bad times. Since the marginal propensity to consume theory indicates that an increase in consumer spending occurs with an increase in disposable income, avoiding income traps is essential to support consumption. Income traps have been present in different forms: emerging economies are suffering from middle-income traps, while advanced economies are stressing high-income traps.
In addition, to escape from income traps, building sound social safety nets is also a necessary task to promote private consumption. Saving is critical, especially for developing economies when lacking sufficient social safety nets. However, high saving rates restricts other economic activities, such as consumption.
With well functioning safety nets, people will be more willing to spend.
As for investment, it is the key for growth. Besides the fact that investment is a crucial component of domestic demand, it also paves the way for supplying external demand.
Not only emerging, but also advanced economies have strived to attract foreign investments. For emerging economies, foreign investment comes with technology and the chance to upgrade economic capacity. For advanced economies, foreign investments bring in capital and job opportunities. Complicated and excessive regulations, poor infrastructure and unstable political systems are some of many reasons that could impede potential foreign investments. Hence, capacity building to create healthy environments through information and knowledge sharing among economic partners to eliminate or mitigate those unattractive factors is much needed.
Furthermore, foreign investment can come in two forms: foreign direct investment and foreign portfolio investment. The former is also known as cold money and the latter is called hot money.
It seems that cold money is more popular and welcomed by governments, because it provides solid contributions to GDP. By comparison, hot money is resented by governments, especially by central banks, because it influences or even twists currency exchange rates and sometimes forms financial bubbles. Creating sound peripheries that can help direct hot money into cold money would be another signature joint mission for economists, decisionmakers and businesses.
Last but not least, trade is an engine for GDP growth, otherwise negotiations for most free-trade agreements would not be so difficult to conclude. The conclusion of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) has been in the spotlight, as regional supply chains will be reshuffled when the treaty comes about. The TPP also sets a high quality benchmark for others, including the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.
Free trade is in theory good for all participants. If an agreement covers the region, then it would be beneficial for the entire region. When a free-trade deal is implemented, tariff and non-tariff barriers are eliminated. As a result, suppliers’ and consumers’ surpluses are maximized, overall welfare increases and resources are optimally allocated.
However, free trade poses serious threats for outsiders. For example: rules of origin require a high percentage of intermediate components of a final product to enjoy duty-free treatment.
Those requirements reduce outsiders’ chances to compete with members in that trading bloc. As more members will certainly create more benefits, making sure every economy is included would be to seek the well-being of all.
Darson Chiu is deputy director of the Macroeconomic Forecasting Center at the Taiwan Institute of Economic Research.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers