» This Story:Read +| Comments
» This Story:Read +| Comments
» This Story:Read +| Comments
Archive   |   Biography   |   RSS Feed   |   Opinions Home

Will U.S. Recovery Go Global?

Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Monday, August 17, 2009

Before we get too giddy about any U.S. economic "recovery," we should remember that the preceding economic collapse was global. No recovery can succeed unless it, too, is global. Will that happen? The world can no longer rely for growth on free-spending Americans, who are overburdened by debt and sobered by trillions of dollars of losses on homes and stocks. Without a substitute for American buying, any global revival will be feeble, because the United States needs export-led growth and other countries must somehow offset their lost sales to our market.

This Story
This Story
This Story
View All Items in This Story
View Only Top Items in This Story

Developing countries would seem to be the obvious replacement for American spending as the world's economic motor. These countries already account for nearly half of global economic output, estimates the International Monetary Fund. China (11.4 percent), India (4.8 percent) and Brazil (2.9 percent) alone represent nearly a fifth. By comparison, the United States is also a fifth.

All these societies have huge needs for housing, consumer goods, health care and more. Except as a job creator, export-led growth doesn't make much sense. Logically, these countries should produce more for themselves and less for export. Stronger domestic spending would also increase their demand for imports. As a result, the United States would export more and import less. What economists call "global imbalances" -- big U.S. trade deficits matched by big surpluses in China and elsewhere -- would shrink. World economic growth would revive. Problem solved.

Just possibly, this transformation is starting. Other countries have stimulated their economies, most conspicuously China. Government spending increased; credit eased. China expanded at an impressive 7.9 percent rate in the second quarter. "Asia's Astonishing Rebound," headlines The Economist, which also notes fast growth in Indonesia and South Korea. As for India, the IMF reckons it will grow 5.4 percent this year and 6.5 percent next. Brazil's long-term prospects are good, judges Norman Gall, an American who heads the Fernand Braudel Institute in Sao Paulo. The country has a "strong industrial base and energetic and creative entrepreneurs"; government debt has dropped from 85 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2002 to 65 percent now. Even France and Germany show signs of recovery.

Sounds reassuring. Still, there's room for skepticism. If Americans are spending less and saving more, then a balanced global economy requires people elsewhere to spend more and save less. That's the permanent fix, not repeated bursts of temporary economic "stimulus." The large trade imbalances fundamentally stemmed from high saving rates, especially in Asia, that dampened domestic spending and encouraged export-led growth. In 2008, China's saving rate was an astounding 54 percent of GDP, Hong Kong's 35 percent and Taiwan's 28 percent, reports economist Eswar Prasad of Cornell University. The U.S. saving rate, including both households and businesses, was 12 percent of GDP.

In theory, these vast savings could be absorbed by equal amounts of investment spending -- on factories, machinery -- but for most Asian countries (an exception: India), there was an investment shortfall. The surplus savings were then invested abroad, exchange rates were artificially depressed and exports substituted for domestic demand.

China is the key country in any transition. Prasad doubts that rising domestic spending can now quickly fill the void left by falling exports. He notes that despite China's rapid economic growth, overall employment increases (which are what political leaders crave) have been sluggish, about 1 percent annually since 2000. "The export sector is what created jobs," he argues. "It's going to be difficult to get away from export-led growth."

This suggests China may resort to aggressive export promotion, at other countries' expense. Its currency, the renminbi, remains undervalued, and export rebates on its value-added tax recently increased. Ben Simpfendorfer, an analyst in Hong Kong for the Royal Bank of Scotland, agrees. As U.S. and European markets have weakened, Chinese exporters have shifted to "emerging market" countries, such as Brazil and Egypt, Simpfendorfer says. China's exports could hurt other developing countries.

Economist Nicholas Lardy of the Peterson Institute for International Economics is more optimistic. China's leaders, he says, recognize their dangerous dependence on exports. They're trying to boost domestic spending by decreasing household saving. One reason for high savings, Lardy says, is the shredding of the social safety net. Historically, state-owned companies provided health and pension benefits; as these firms shut, benefits vanished and workers compensated by saving more to pay for sickness and old age. Now, China is rebuilding the safety net. Since 2005, spending on health insurance, pensions and education has roughly doubled.

What counts is the political and cultural capacity of countries -- especially China -- to graduate from export-led growth. The global economy is at a fateful juncture. Without the prop of American spending, the world needs a new basis for mutually beneficial growth. Without it, we may face protectionism, nationalism and economic strife.



» This Story:Read +| Comments
» This Story:Read +| Comments
» This Story:Read +| Comments

More Washington Post Opinions

PostPartisan

Post Partisan

Quick takes from The Post's opinion writers.

Washington Sketch

Washington Sketch

Dana Milbank writes about political theater in the capital.

Tom Toles

Tom Toles

See his latest editorial cartoon.

© 2009 The Washington Post Company