COVID-19’s implications for the global economy are highly uncertain, but potentially disastrous. As of March 5, the WHO had identified 85 countries and territories with active COVID-19 cases — an increase from 50 countries the previous week.
More than 151,760 with 5,764 deaths had been reported worldwide [as of Saturday] and these figures almost certainly understate the scale and scope of the outbreak.
To understand how the epidemic could cause a global recession (or worse), one need only read Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, book I, chapter Three: “That the Division of Labour is Limited by the Extent of the Market.”
It is already clear that the pandemic could cause a negative supply shock if the amount of available labor were to decline rapidly because working-age people have fallen ill (or died) from the disease.
Worse, unchecked fear of the contagion could lead to the suspension of critical supply chains.
The media are already paying plenty of attention to cross-border supply chains involving China, South Korea and other frontline countries; but, with links to firms all over the world, these hubs represent just the tip of the iceberg.
Moreover, domestic supply chains are just as vulnerable.
As the coronavirus spreads, a larger number of links between buyers and sellers — intermediate and final — are going to be disrupted.
More to the point, “the extent of markets” will shrink, and the gains from the division of labor — one of the main drivers of the “wealth of nations” — will steadily be curtailed, because more resources will be needed to produce domestically what was previously imported more cheaply from elsewhere.
A return to subsistence production or autarky, even if it is only temporary, would be immensely damaging economically.
On March 3, the British government published an “action plan” that seems to contain a reasonably coherent strategy for heeding Smith and addressing the public health crisis at the same time.
The authors call for a sequenced four-stage response: contain, delay, research, mitigate.
However, judging from the coronavirus’s spread in China, South Korea, and other heavily affected countries, the UK’s chance for containment has passed.
On March 4 alone, COVID-19 cases in the UK jumped by 60 percent, and the virus claimed its first life the following day.
Many of these new cases (including that of the patient who died) did not involve travel abroad, which suggests that community transmission is already underway.
That puts the UK in the “delay” phase, where the top priority is to identify cases early and isolate them.
Heightened public awareness can help here.
The goal is to buy time until the warmer months arrive, or until a vaccine has been developed (the “research” phase) and widely deployed.
Once the epidemic has taken root in the UK (and other countries accounting for most of global GDP), we will have fully entered the “mitigation” phase, where the priority is to provide essential services and help those most at risk.
At this stage, the danger is not just that real GDP will grow at a slower rate, but that output and production will enter a material and persistent decline, owing to the disruption of established channels for market transactions.
In this scenario, the initial (Smithian) negative supply shock would soon be compounded by Keynesian demand shocks.
The decline in aggregate demand would start with those who are too ill to work or otherwise prevented from working, but it would be magnified by an uncertainty-driven increase in precautionary saving, as well as a fall in capital expenditures.
Worse, the new climate of uncertainty could well last for years, depending on whether the coronavirus becomes a recurrent problem.
With interest rates already so low, further cuts by central banks are among the least effective instruments available for mitigating such economic conditions.
Otherwise viable enterprises whose purchasing orders are interrupted for weeks or even months could face bankruptcy. Central banks, financial regulators and other policymakers must not only make credit available on easy terms, but also incentivize (or instruct) lenders to keep coronavirus-affected borrowers solvent.
Central banks’ balance sheets offer the means to fix the holes in corporate and household finances.
While such an intervention would inevitably produce a number of zombie firms that eventually would have failed even without the epidemic, addressing that issue is best left for a later day.
Finally, governments should be prepared to pick up the wage bill for workers who are ill or quarantined. Conventional fiscal stimulus (intelligently targeted public spending and tax cuts) can be used to address the shortfall of effective demand.
Policymakers have the economic tools they need to minimize the damage caused by the coronavirus, but even with those measures in place, the global economy might not be able to avoid a bleak scenario — one resembling a depression more than a recession.
Willem Buiter, a former chief economist at Citigroup, is a visiting professor at Columbia University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS