Economic growth is normally seen as the most important long-term macroeconomic objective. Without economic growth, so it is argued, people will be unable to achieve rising living standards. But, according to Nicholas Stern, Professor of Economics and Government at the London School of Economics, former head of the Government Economic Service, former World Bank chief economist and author of the 2006 Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, countries will need to reconsider making growth the goal of their societies.
Speaking to students at the People’s University of Beijing, Lord Stern warned that unless substantial cuts were made in carbon emissions, the effects of global warming would have devastating effects on people’s lives. As the Stern report stated, “Climate change will affect the basic elements of life for people around the world – access to water, food production, health, and the environment. Hundreds of millions of people could suffer hunger, water shortages and coastal flooding as the world warms.” The implications are that countries must making cutting carbon emissions a priority and must reconsider their growth strategies. In his speech he said that “Beijing should shift the economy away from heavy industry, manufacturing for exports and other high-emission activities. Instead, it should focus more on domestic consumption, service industries and low-carbon technology.”
So should countries rethink their economic objectives? Is economic growth either a necessary or sufficient condition for an increase in human welfare? Read the articles and then consider the questions below.
World must help China shift to clean growth-Stern Reuters (11/9/09)
Stern Truths: Some Parts of China Have Western-Style Emissions Wall Street Journal (11/9/09)
Stern: Rich nations will have to forget about growth to stop climate change Guardian (11/9/09)
Stern words in Beijing Hot Topic (New Zealand) (13/9/09)
Questions
- Are the objectives of economic growth and tackling gobal warming necessarily incompatible?
- What would a low carbon growth strategy look like?
- What would you include in the opportunity costs of maintaining a high growth strategy compared with switching to a lower carbon, lower growth one?
- Consider whether economic growth is (a) a necessary condition; (b) a sufficient condition for a growth in the wellbeing of the human race.
The world experienced a large increase in merger activity from 2003 to 2007. The merger boom came to an end, however, in 2007/8 with the credit crunch and the ensuing recession. For example, the value of acqusitions of UK companies by overseas companies fell from £82.1 billion in 2007 to £52.6 billion in 2008, while the value of acquisitions of overseas companies by UK companies fell from £57.8 billion in 2007 to £29.7 billion in 2008 (see Mergers & Acquisitions data (National Statistics)). The decline continued in the first part of 2009.
Recent evidence, however, suggests that the beginnings of recovery in the world economy, a greater availability of credit and a substatial rise in share prices since March (see for example the FTSE 100 and Dow Jones indices) are leading to a new wave of mergers. Recent weeks have seen, amongst others, the takeover of Marvel Entertainment by Disney (see Disney is ‘Marvel’lous), the proposed merger of T-Mobile and Orange, and Kraft’s bid for Cadbury (see Cadbury: Chocolate All Change). So what has stimulated this new merger wave? How do mergers relate to the business cycle and to the stock market? Should they be welcomed? The following articles look at some recent mergers and at the issues they raise.
The return of the deal The Economist (10/9/09)
The revival of M&A is better than a poke in the eye Guardian (8/9/09)
Hovering Kraft The Economist (7/9/09)
Orange and T-Mobile to create UK’s largest mobile phone company Guardian (8/9/09)
Watchdog urged to investigate T-Mobile and Orange merger Guardian (8/9/09)
Questions
- Why has there been a recent rise in M&A activity? Discuss whether the revival in activity is likely to continue.
- Discuss whether an increase in M&A activity is ‘better than a poke in the eye’?
- To what extent will mobile phone users in the UK benefit or lose from a merger between Orange and T-Mobile?
- Will Cadbury’s consumers and workers benefit from a takeover by Kraft?
On the eve of the September 5/6 G20 meeting of Finance Ministers in London, the OECD published an interim forecast of the macroeconomic and financial performance of the G7 economies. According to the OECD, “Recovery from the global recession is likely to arrive earlier than had been expected a few months ago but the pace of activity will remain weak well into next year.” So is it time to start reversing the various fiscal and monetary stimuli adopted around the world? Or should governments and central banks continue to stimulate aggregate demand in order to maintain the fragile recovery? The following news releases, speeches and articles look at answers given to these questions by various countries and international institutions.
Recovery arriving quicker than expected but activity will remain weak, says OECD OECD News release (3/9/09)
What is the economic outlook for OECD countries? An interim assessment OECD Economic Outlook, Interim Assessment (3/9/09)
IMF Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn sees Renewed Stability but remains cautious about Global Economic Recovery, notes need for Continued Policy Actions IMF press release (4/9/09)
Beyond the Crisis: Sustainable Growth and a Stable International Monetary System Speech by Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (4/9/09)
Brown urges further G20 spending (video) Gordon Brown on BBC News (5/9/09)
America’s Timothy Geithner says it’s ‘too early’ to withdraw economic stimulus Telegraph (3/9/09)
Finance chiefs warn against early end to state support for eurozone economies Guardian (3/9/09)
Keep spending – Darling warns G20 against complacency Independent (3/9/09)
Brown’s agenda deserves a hearing Financial Times (1/9/09)
Tories join Germany and France in call for exit strategy from G20 bailout Times Online (3/9/09)
UK recession: Why are we lagging our neighbours? Telegraph (3/9/09)
Reflections after the conference:
After the shock, challenges remain BBC News (7/9/09)
The G20 has saved us, but it’s failing to rein in those who caused the crisis Observer (6/9/09)
The world is as one on not endangering recovery Times Online (t/9/09)
Questions
- Why is the pace of recovery in the G7 countries likely to be modest for some time?
- Why have unemployment rates risen much more rapidly in some countries than in others (see page 19 of the OECD report)?
- Referring to the OECD report, how would you summarise changes in the global financial situation over the past few months?
- Assess the arguments put forward by France and Germany for reining in their expansionary fiscal and monetary policies.
- Why is the UK economy, according to the OECD, likely to be the last of the G7 countries to pull out of recession?
From October 2007 to March 2009, stock markets around the world fell massively. In the UK, the FTSE 100 fell from a peak of 6752 on 15 October 2007 to a trough of 3461 on 9 March 2009 (a fall of 49 per cent). By the end of August 2009 it had reached 4944 (a rise since March of 43 per cent). Does this mean that the March value represented an over-correction downwards? Did the subsequent rise represent an over-correction upwards? Are stock markets about to plummet? The following two articles reflect on the past and look into the future!
World Wide Stock Market Crash on Pause The Market Oracle (3/9/09)
Are shares about to fall off a cliff? BBC News (4/9/09)
Questions
- What is meant by the ‘efficient (capital) market hypothesis’?
- If stock markets are overvalued, does this mean that they are inefficient?
- Why might (a) stock markets plummet in the near future; (b) carry on rising? Why don’t the ‘experts’ know which will happen?
- Explain why markets may over-shoot their long-term equilibrium value?
In October 2004, the USA brought a complaint to the WTO that Airbus had received illegal subsidies from the UK, French, German and Spanish governments. One of these subsidies was the so-called ‘launch aid’, which the US government argued was a form of export subsidy. In a counter-complaint to the WTO made on the same day, the EU maintained that the US government had provided illegal support to Boeing in the form of subsidies, legislation, regulations and other administrative measures.
On 4 September 2009, the EU and the USA were handed the confidential preliminary findings by the WTO panel in the first of the two disputes. This found that some of the support measures by the EU countries violated WTO rules. However, some two thirds of the complaints by the USA were dismissed.
Despite some progress in its deliberations, the WTO is unlikely to give a final judgment in the first case for several months and not even a preliminary report has been issued on the second case (the EU’s complaint against the USA). But can any conclusions be drawn at this interim stage? The following videos and articles look at the findings and their implications.
Videos
Airbus violated trade laws msnbc news (4/9/09)
WTO issues report on Airbus-Boeing dispute AlJazeera (4/9/09)
Update – Boeing vs. Airbus Bloomberg (4/9/09)
Articles
Airbus Loans Toward A380 Jumbo Faulted in WTO Ruling Bloomberg (4/9/09)
World trade body ruling reflects pre-crisis time Boston Globe (Associated Press report) (5/9/09)
WTO rules that Airbus benefited from E.U. subsidies MarketWatch (4/9/09)
Boeing wins first round in trade battle with Airbus Independent (5/9/09)
WTO rules on huge plane dispute BBC News (4/9/09)
Boeing and Airbus: Round one to Boeing The Economist (4/9/09)
Partial US victory on Airbus funds Financial Times (5/9/09)
Questions
- What sanctions does the WTO have to enforce its rulings? (see the WTO site.)
- What sanctions do individual governments have for ensuring that countries abide by the WTO rulings?
- How could strategic trade theory be used to justify support to aircraft manufacturers? Do such arguments apply to Airbus and Boeing?
- Do airlines and airline passengers gain or lose from the behaviour of Airbus and Boeing? Should the WTO take this into account?