The US expects to “celebrate independence” from COVID-19 by Independence Day on July 4, when vaccines would have been made available to all adults. However, for many developing countries and emerging markets, the end of the crisis is a long way off.
As we show in a report for the Institute for New Economic Thinking’s (INET) Commission on Global Economic Transformation, achieving a rapid global recovery requires that all countries be able to declare independence from the virus.
Because the coronavirus mutates, it would put everyone at risk as long as it continues to flourish anywhere in the world. It is thus critical that vaccines, personal protective equipment and therapeutics be distributed everywhere as quickly as possible. Insofar as today’s supply constraints are the result of a poorly designed international intellectual property (IP) regime, they are essentially artificial.
While IP reform in general is long overdue, what is needed most urgently now is suspension or pooling of the IP rights attached to products needed to fight COVID-19. Many nations are pleading for this, but corporate lobbies in advanced economies have resisted, and their governments have succumbed to myopia.
The rise of “pandemic nationalism” has exposed a number of deficiencies in the global trade, investment and IP regimes (which the INET commission plans to address in a later report).
Advanced economies, especially the US, have acted forcefully to reignite their economies, and support vulnerable businesses and households. They have learned, even if only briefly, that austerity is deeply counterproductive in such crises.
However, most developing countries are struggling to obtain the funds to maintain existing support programs, let alone absorb the additional costs imposed by the pandemic. While the US has spent 25 percent of GDP to support its economy — thereby greatly containing the magnitude of the downturn — developing countries have been able to spend only a small fraction of that.
Our calculations, based on World Bank data, show that at nearly US$17,000 per capita, US spending has been 8,000 times higher than that of the least-developed countries.
Beyond unleashing their fiscal firepower, developed countries would help themselves and the global recovery by pursuing three policies.
First, they should push for a large issuance of special drawing rights (SDR), the IMF’s global reserve asset. As matters stand, the IMF could immediately issue about US$650 billion in SDRs without seeking approval from member-state legislatures. Moreover, the expansionary effect could be boosted significantly if rich countries were to transfer their disproportionately larger allocations to countries in need of cash.
The second set of actions also involves the IMF, owing to its large role in shaping macroeconomic policies in the developing world, particularly in countries that have turned to it for help with balance-of-payments problems.
In an encouraging sign, the IMF has actively supported the pursuit of massive, prolonged fiscal packages by the US and the EU, and has even recognized the need for enhanced public spending in developing countries, despite the adverse external conditions.
However, when it comes to setting the terms for loans to countries facing balance-of-payments stress, the IMF’s actions are not always consistent with its statements.
An Oxfam International analysis of recent and ongoing standby agreements finds that from March to September last year, 76 of the 91 IMF loans negotiated with 81 countries required public-expenditure cuts that could undermine healthcare systems and pension schemes, freeze wages for public-sector workers (including doctors, nurses and teachers), and reduce unemployment insurance, sick pay and other social benefits.
Austerity — especially cutbacks in these vital areas — would not work any better for developing nations than it would for developed ones. Additionally, more assistance, including the aforementioned SDR proposals, would give these countries more fiscal space.
Lastly, developed countries could orchestrate a comprehensive response to the overwhelming debt problems many countries are facing. Money spent servicing debt is money that is not helping countries fight the virus and restart their economies.
In the early stages of the pandemic, it was hoped that a suspension of debt servicing for developing countries and emerging markets would suffice. However, it has now been more than a year and some countries need comprehensive debt restructuring, rather than the usual Band-Aids that merely set the stage for another crisis in a few years.
There are a number of ways that creditor governments can facilitate such restructurings and induce more active participation from the private sector, which so far has been relatively recalcitrant. As the INET commission’s report shows, if there were ever a time to recognize the principles of force majeure and necessity, this is it. Countries should not be forced to pay back what they cannot afford, especially when doing so would cause so much suffering.
The policies described here would be of enormous benefit to the developing world and would come at little or no cost to developed countries. Indeed, it is in these countries’ enlightened self-interest to do what they can for people in developing countries and emerging markets, especially when what they can do is readily available and would bring enormous benefits to billions.
Political leaders in the developed world must recognize that no one is safe until everyone is safe, and that a healthy global economy is not possible without a strong recovery everywhere.
Michael Spence, a Nobel laureate in economics, is emeritus professor at Stanford University and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics, is university professor at Columbia University and a member of the Independent Commission for the Reform of International Corporate Taxation. Jayati Ghosh, executive secretary of International Development Economics Associates, is professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and a member of the Independent Commission for the Reform of International Corporate Taxation.
This commentary is also signed by Rob Johnson, Rohinton Medhora, Dani Rodrik and other members of the Commission on Global Economic Transformation at the Institute for New Economic Thinking.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with