The audacity Germany has shown in floating a demand to manage Greece’s finances is a window on the leaders of that country and how much perspective they’ve lost. Let’s be clear; not all in Germany agree with this narrow, insensitive stance and the uninformed and uneducated demands for austerity economics in debt-ridden and recessionary nations. For example, there are political parties in Germany that want their country to take the lead on a Marshall Plan for the periphery of the eurozone. But they are not the ones setting policy.
I am tempted to say that antediluvian economics is ruling in Germany, but it may not really be about economic theory, but rather superior pride, irrational fear of inflation, and perhaps vindictiveness. It’s as if a German version of our own Tea Party is now running economic policy in Europe. Germany reduced its unit labor costs beginning in the late 1990s, which were higher than much of the rest of the EU, but with the euro fixed, they benefited as their export prices remained low. Could they have done well without their eurozone trading partners buying more from them than they were selling? And they lent them the money to do so. Do they have no moral obligation here? Without the fixed euro, the DM would have soared.
Ecuador must be one of the most exciting places on Earth right now, in terms of working towards a new development paradigm. It shows how much can be achieved with political will, even in uncertain economic times.
Just 10 years ago, Ecuador was more or less a basket case, a quintessential “banana republic” (it happens to be the world’s largest exporter of bananas), characterised by political instability, inequality, a poorly-performing economy, and the ever-looming impact of the US on its domestic politics.
In 2000, in response to hyperinflation and balance of payments problems, the government dollarised the economy, replacing the sucre with the US currency as legal tender. This subdued inflation, but it did nothing to address the core economic problems, and further constrained the domestic policy space.
A major turning point came with the election of the economist Rafael Correa as president. After taking over in January 2007, his government ushered in a series of changes, based on a new constitution (the country’s 20th, approved in 2008) that was itself mandated by a popular referendum. A hallmark of the changes that have occurred since then is that major policies have first been put through the referendum process. This has given the government the political ability to take on major vested interests and powerful lobbies.
What should protesters protest for? They rightly oppose the many faults of the current economic system, but what is the alternative? What ground should occupiers occupy? What can politicians who reject corporatist politics-as-usual, and economists who reject wrong economic thinking do in response to justified protest? How can the economy be transformed to serve the 99%, instead of the 1%?
Capitalism can work if reformed, and history can teach us much. In the period 1940-80, the Keynesian, mixed-economic models of north-west Europe, North America and many developing regions delivered to the poor and weak, while not frightening the strong. The financial sector was fairly small, well-regulated and simple; it financed the real economy, as it is supposed to. Growth, employment and security were high, poverty was reduced and liberty preserved, partly because social democracy helped both to moderate capitalism and to oppose communism.
The World Economics Association has been founded in spring 2011 and has so far attracted more than 7000 members from around 120 countries. The Journals of the association are committed to a policy of inclusiveness, openness and transparency. You are encouraged to read and comment on submitted papers that interest you. Editors will also make public comments to make their final decision making process transparent and to allow readers and authors to react and interact.
Papers submitted to the World Economics Journal include:
Emerging markets have fallen victim to unstable capital flows in the wake of the financial crisis. In an attempt to mitigate the accompanying asset bubbles and exchange rate pressures that come with such volatility, a number of emerging markets resorted to capital controls. Although these actions have largely been supported by the International Monetary Fund, some policy-makers and economists have decried capital controls as protectionist measures that can cause spillovers that unduly harm other nations.
Recently-published research shows that these claims are unfounded. According to the new welfare economics of capital controls, unstable capital flows to emerging markets can be viewed as negative externalities on recipient countries. Therefore regulations on cross-border capital flows are tools to correct for market failures that can make markets work better and enhance growth, not worsen it.
Growth in China, it is said, is slowing. GDP growth has reportedly fallen from 9.7 per cent in the first quarter of 2011, to 9.5 per cent in the second quarter, 9.1 per cent in the third and 8.9 per cent in the fourth. Much is being made of these numbers, though the 9.2 per cent average over 2011 is still high and the government has itself attempted to slow the system to rein in inflation.
One can sense an element of schadenfreude here. For too long now China has been showing up the rest of the world with its high rates of growth. This is especially true of the United States, which imports much from China, depends on inflows of capital from that country to finance its deficits, and is always looking for the next country to challenge its global supremacy.
However, if China’s growth is indeed slowing, this is no cause for even the US government to celebrate. A poorly performing China can drag the US down as well. Not just because China, with its large geographical size and population, is the growth pole that prevents the multi-speed global economy from sinking into another crisis. But because China is too important a market for the large multinational corporations that symbolise US economic power.
The Obama administration has launched a “21st Century” trade negotiation with a number of pacific-rim nations referred to as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). While the full details of the proposed treaty are yet to be made public, early estimates show that the economic benefits of the agreement will be relatively small and the regulatory costs could be significantly high—especially for the emerging market and developing countries engaged in the negotiations.
The gains of the agreement may be a mere $20 billion, or just over one percent of GDP on average for the nations involved. To get those small gains nations will have to trade away the ability to use measures to prevent and mitigate financial crises, to develop a growth-based innovation system, to protect public health and the environment, and more.
Triple Crisis blogger Gerald Epstein was recently interviewed by Olaf Storbeck of Economics Intelligence on the American Economic Association’s (AEA) new guidelines requiring economists to disclose conflicts of interest. In 2011, Epstein and Jessica Carrick-Hagenbarth spearheaded an effort to get the AEA to adopt an ethics code for economists with a sign-on letter that garnered the support of over 300 economists.
“adopt a code of ethics that requires disclosure of potential conflicts of interest that can arise between economists’ roles as economic experts and as paid consultants, principals or agents for private firms”.
More than 300 economists signed the letter, among them Nobel laureate George Akerlof and Christina Romer, a former advisor to US president Barack Obama.
What do the authors of the open letter make of the new guidelines? I did an interview with Gerald Epstein, who wasn’t involved in the discussions about the new rules.