A profound change is underway in the world economy. The balance of economic and financial power is shifting from the West to the East. This shift could usher in a super-cycle of strong, sustained growth for those economies best-positioned to succeed. The successful countries will be those with financial clout or natural resources, or with the ability to adapt and change with the times.
The current crisis, triggered by a systemic failure of the financial system in the West and by an imbalanced world economy, is a sign of this global shift. Savings flowed “uphill” from regions running current account surpluses, such as the Middle East and Asia, to deficit countries like the US, Spain, and the UK.
Some blame the savers, not just the borrowers. This is harsh. The countries that provided the savings to fuel the global boom were not the problem, but are part of the solution. The 1944 Bretton Woods agreement, which has driven thinking since, placed no obligations on savers to correct global imbalances. The onus was put on countries with deficits to take corrective action. This has to change. A more balanced global economy is needed.
The West should spend less and save more, while the Middle East and Asia should do the reverse. Achieving this will take years, and the implications are huge. The West will become relatively poorer. Money and savings will flow eastward as multinationals and pension funds invest in markets with higher growth and rising incomes. Asia will need to change its growth model and boost domestic demand.
At this year’s Asian Development Bank meeting in Bali, there was a determination to put steps in motion to achieve this, with a focus on social safety nets to discourage saving for a rainy day. Asia also needs to deepen and broaden its capital markets to allow firms to raise funds, invest, and generate jobs. Over the next decade, Asia needs 750 million extra jobs for its young, growing population. Achieving this would create a huge market for the West to sell into, but at the price of greater global competition.
In recent years, the pace and scale of change on the ground in economies as diverse as Brazil, Vietnam, and China have been profound. Furthermore, the catch-up potential of these and others, such as India and Indonesia, is huge. Despite the crisis, the infrastructure boom seen in the Middle East continues, particularly in Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Emerging countries are accounting for an increasing share of global growth.
Although the change is widespread, it is China and India that naturally attract attention.
China is still a poor country with huge imbalances, yet its rise over the last three decades has been phenomenal. Now, China is heading into a new development phase, building its infrastructure to compete at every level. China’s US$586 billion stimulus package over this year and next is supplemented by two profound measures — one aimed at building a social safety net, and the other at helping farmers to buy consumer goods. As a result, this year alone, the increase in Chinese consumer spending may make up for more than half the shortfall in US consumption.
China’s growth is forcing others to step up a gear, too. India’s general election this summer saw the government re-elected with a larger majority that could usher in a period of reform, boosting investment and innovation. With 600 million people aged under 25, the potential for India, if it gets this right, is huge.
There are serious implications for commodities, trade and financial flows. Already, China accounts for one-third of global demand for metals and this is rising. India could follow suit, not just in metals, but in food as well. The outcome will be higher commodity prices, increased investment in countries rich in resources and in water, and a growing need for technological solutions.
Regional trade flows are already shifting, with more bilateral deals, rising intra-Asian trade, and greater flows of commodities, goods, and investment between Asia and the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America. This will continue, and as it does, it will spell problems for the dollar.
There is a slow-burning fuse underneath the dollar. A decade ago, Asian central banks held one-third of global currency reserves, and this has now risen to two-thirds, the bulk in dollars. Although this has been called the “dollar trap,” the reality is that countries do not want to sell the dollar actively. Instead, passive diversification is underway. As reserves build, fewer are put into the dollar. Brazil and China recently discussed paying for each other’s trade in their own currencies, not in dollars, as is the norm. As trade flows change, we expect more countries to manage their exchange rates against baskets of currencies with which they trade.
The shift of economic power from the West to the East will create profound challenges for many economies, not least the US. It will create huge opportunities for emerging economies, especially those which can position themselves to benefit from the new reality. Regardless of the winners and losers, this shift is inevitable, and it is crucial to correcting the imbalances in the global economy.
Gerard Lyons is chief economist and group head of global research at Standard Chartered Bank.
Father’s Day, as celebrated around the world, has its roots in the early 20th century US. In 1910, the state of Washington marked the world’s first official Father’s Day. Later, in 1972, then-US president Richard Nixon signed a proclamation establishing the third Sunday of June as a national holiday honoring fathers. Many countries have since followed suit, adopting the same date. In Taiwan, the celebration takes a different form — both in timing and meaning. Taiwan’s Father’s Day falls on Aug. 8, a date chosen not for historical events, but for the beauty of language. In Mandarin, “eight eight” is pronounced
In a recent essay, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” a former adviser to US President Donald Trump, Christian Whiton, accuses Taiwan of diplomatic incompetence — claiming Taipei failed to reach out to Trump, botched trade negotiations and mishandled its defense posture. Whiton’s narrative overlooks a fundamental truth: Taiwan was never in a position to “win” Trump’s favor in the first place. The playing field was asymmetrical from the outset, dominated by a transactional US president on one side and the looming threat of Chinese coercion on the other. From the outset of his second term, which began in January, Trump reaffirmed his
US President Donald Trump’s alleged request that Taiwanese President William Lai (賴清德) not stop in New York while traveling to three of Taiwan’s diplomatic allies, after his administration also rescheduled a visit to Washington by the minister of national defense, sets an unwise precedent and risks locking the US into a trajectory of either direct conflict with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) or capitulation to it over Taiwan. Taiwanese authorities have said that no plans to request a stopover in the US had been submitted to Washington, but Trump shared a direct call with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平)
It is difficult to think of an issue that has monopolized political commentary as intensely as the recall movement and the autopsy of the July 26 failures. These commentaries have come from diverse sources within Taiwan and abroad, from local Taiwanese members of the public and academics, foreign academics resident in Taiwan, and overseas Taiwanese working in US universities. There is a lack of consensus that Taiwan’s democracy is either dying in ashes or has become a phoenix rising from the ashes, nurtured into existence by civic groups and rational voters. There are narratives of extreme polarization and an alarming