Many rich countries have made repeated commitments to the United Nations to give at least 0.7% of their gross national income (GNY) as international aid – or ‘official development assistance (ODA)’ as it is known. The first such commitments were made in 1970. Despite this, many of these countries’ aid to developing countries falls well short of the target.
In fact the average amount given in aid in 2011 by the 23 donor countries which are members of the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee (DAC) was a mere 0.31% of GNY, with the USA, the biggest donor in absolute terms, giving only 0.2% of GNY. (Click here for a PowerPoint of the chart.) Since 2003, the DAC average has been 0.29% as compared with 0.30% between 1970 and 2002.
In 2005, at the Gleneagles G8 summit, the 15 members of the EU which are Development Assistance Committee members committed themselves to reaching an ODA target of 0.51% of GNY in 2010 and to reach the 0.7% target by 2015. In 2011, the UK’s ODA/GNY ratio stood at 0.56% and so was above the EU target.
Section 18 of the Coalition agreement pledges that the UK government will meet the 0.7% target by 2013 – a pledge initially made by the Labour government. So far, the government has stuck to this pledge and the aid budget has escaped cuts.
But with other parts of government expenditure facing cuts, pressure is mounting on the government to reduce the aid budget. There are two main parts to the argument. The first is that aid should face its ‘fair share’ of the cuts. The second is that aid is often an inefficient way of tackling poverty in developing countries and, when discussing aid, the focus should be on getting value for money rather than on the simple total amount of aid.
The following articles look at arguments for and against meeting aid targets and examine ways of making aid ‘smarter’.
Articles
Money may be tight, but ‘smart aid’ to developing countries can really work The Guardian, Larry Elliott (13/1/13)
International aid, but not as we know it The Guardian, Andy Sumner and Richard Mallett (31/12/12)
One in four support Britain’s foreign aid policies The Telegraph, Ben Leach (29/12/12)
Why is so much UK aid money still going to companies based in Britain? The Guardian, Claire Provost and Nicola Hughes (21/9/12)
Is the 0.7% aid target still relevant? The Guardian, Niels Keijzer (2/8/12)
What’s wrong with foreign aid? The Spectator (3/1/13)
Five reasons to deliver and legislate on international aid bond, UKAN (6/12)
The Political Economy of Bilateral Foreign Aid Working Knowledge, Harvard Business School, Eric D. Werker (4/1/13)
Misconceptions about aid Dawn (Pakistan), Niaz Murtaza (8/1/13)
Why political short-sightedness and randomised control trials can be a deadly mix for aid effectiveness Vox EU, Anders Olofsgård (13/10/12)
Aid in troubled times DfID, Paul Collier (2/7/12)
Data and information
Aid Effectiveness data World Bank
Aid statistics OECD
Aid effectiveness OECD
Aid Wikipedia
Questions
- What was agreed at the Gleneagles G8 summit?
- Examine the argument that aid crowds out private investment.
- Compare the relative benefits of tied and untied aid.
- Give some examples of ‘smart aid’.
- How would you establish whether or not it is ‘fair’ to cut the aid budget?
- Give three arguments for maintaining the aid budget and three arguments for cutting it. On which side do you come down and why?
While the Western world has struggled with economic growth for the past 6 years, emerging economies such as China, Brazil and India have recorded some very high rates of growth. Throughout 2012, there were signs that these economies were not going to be the saviour of the global economy that we all thought. But, as we enter 2013, is it these economies that still hold the hope of the West for more positive figures and better economic times?
The article below from BBC News, in particular, considers the year ahead for the Asian economies and what it might mean for the Western world. Although these countries are by no means safeguarded against the impending approach of the US economy to their fiscal cliff or the ongoing eurozone crisis, they have seemed to be more insulated than the rest of the world. A crucial question to consider is whether this will continue. Furthermore, are the growth levels and policies of a country such as China sustainable? Can it continue to record such high growth rates in the face of the global economic situation?
The Japanese economy has been in serious trouble for a couple of decades, but measures to boost growth for this economy are expected. If these do occur, then western economies may feel some of their positive effects. At present, there is a degree of optimism as we enter the New Year, but how long this will last is anybody’s guess. The following articles consider the year ahead.
Asian economies face regional and global challenges BBC News (1/1/13)
Asia faces hard road ahead China Daily, Haruhiko Kuroda and Changyong Rhee (31/12/12)
Asia to continue rise despite US fiscal cliff Economic Times, Sugata Ghosh (1/1/13)
‘3.6% growth’ for global economy next year China Daily, Alvin Foo (28/12/12)
Asian economies surge ahead despite global slowdown Coast Week, Ding Qilin and Hu Junxin (4/1/13)
Global grind The Economist, Robin Bew (21/11/12)
Questions
- Why have the Asian economies been more insulated to the global economic conditions over the past few years, in comparison with the Western world?
- What challenges will the global economy be facing over the coming year?
- What challenges are the Asian economies facing? How different are they from the challenges you identified in question 3?
- Why is the rate of exchange an important factor for an economy such as Japan?
- What does a low exchange rate for the yen mean for European countries? Is it likely to be seen as a good or bad thing? What about for South Korea? Use a diagram to help you answer this question.
- Why is the economic situation in countries such as China and India so important for the rest of the global economy? Use a diagram to illustrate this.
Japan’s general election on 16 December was won by the centre-right Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), led by Shinzo Abe. It gained a two-thirds majority in the lower house. It returns to power after losing to the Democratic Party in 2009. Previously it had been in office for most of the time since 1955.
The LDP has promised to revive the flagging Japanese economy, which has been suffering from years of little or no growth and returned to recession last quarter. Economic confidence has been damaged by a dispute with China about the sovereignty over some small islands in the East China Sea. The economy, whose exports make up some 13% of GDP, has suffered from the global slowdown and a high yen. The yen has appreciated against the dollar by around 40% since 2007.
The economy has also suffered from the shutdown of all its nuclear reactors following the earthquake and tsunami last year. Nuclear power accounted for over 30% of the country’s electricity generation.
Mr Abe promises to revive the economy through fiscal and monetary policies. He plans a fiscal stimulus package in early 2013, with increased government expenditure on infrastructure and other public-works. He also wants the Bank of Japan to increase its inflation target from 1% to 3% and to achieve this through various forms of monetary easing.
The initial reactions of markets to the election result were favourable. The stock market rose and the yen fell.
However, as the following articles discuss, there are dangers associated with Mr Abe’s policies. The expansionary fiscal policy will lead to a rise in the country’s general-government debt, which, at some 240% of GDP, is by far the largest in the developed world. This could lead to a loss of confidence in Japanese debt and a fall in the price of bonds on the secondary markets and a rise in government borrowing costs. Also, a depreciation of the yen, while welcomed by exporters, would increase the price of imports, including food and raw materials.
Changing of guard in Japan as PM concedes vote CNN, Yoko Wakatsuki, Brian Walker, and Hilary Whiteman (17/12/12)
LDP Win Clears Pipes for Japan Fiscal Spigot Bloomberg Businessweek, Toru Fujioka (17/12/12)
Economic implications of Japan’s election Huffington Post (16/12/12)
Japan economy contracts again Taipei Times (11/12/12)
Japan elections: Shares rise and yen weakens on Abe win BBC News (17/12/12)
Shinzo Abe’s challenges in reviving Japan’s economy BBC News, Puneet Pal Singh (17/12/12)
Can Shinzo Abe Save Japan? Slate, Matthew Yglesias (30/11/12)
Deflation only natural when politicians refuse to fix oversupplied Japan Japan Times, Teruhiko Mano (17/12/12)
New Year messages from Japan BBC News, Stephanie Flanders (18/12/12)
Japan – Muddling On Or Growing Stronger? Seeking Alpha, Anthony Harrington (12/12/12)
Japanese government unveils £138bn stimulus package The Guardian (11/1/13)
Questions
- Using macroeconomic data from sources such as sites 6, 7 and 9 in the Economics Network’s Economic Data freely available online, describe Japan’s macroeconomic situation over the past 10 years.
- Why has the Japanese yen appreciated so much in recent years?
- What forms could monetary easing take in Japan?
- Why might it prove difficult to stimulate the Japanese economy through fiscal and monetary policies?
- What undesirable side-effects might result from expansionary fiscal and monetary policies?
- What structural weaknesses are there in the Japanese economy that have hindered economic growth? What policies might the new Japanese government pursue in tackling these structural weaknesses?
Many developing Asian countries have experienced rapid and yet relatively stable economic growth over a number of years. In other words, this has not been a short-term unsustainable boom associated with the expansionary phase of the business cycle – with aggregate demand expanding more rapidly than aggregate supply. Rather it is the result of a rapid growth in aggregate supply.
Over the period from 2000 to 2011, several Asian countries experienced average annual growth rates of over 4% and some, such as China and India, much more than that, as the following table shows. The table also shows forecasts for the period from 2012 to 2017. The high forecast growth rates are based on a continuing rapid growth in aggregate supply as the countries invest in infrastructure and adopt technologies, many of which have already been developed elsewhere.
Average annual economic growth rates
|
2000–11 |
2012–17 |
| China |
10.2 |
8.4 |
| India |
7.2 |
6.3 |
| Lao |
7.1 |
7.9 |
| Vietnam |
7.1 |
6.5 |
| Indonesia |
5.2 |
6.5 |
| Malaysia |
5.0 |
4.9 |
| Philippines |
4.7 |
4.9 |
| Thailand |
4.0 |
5.1 |
Source: World Economic Outlook Database IMF (October 2012)
But for aggregate supply to continue growing rapidly there must also be a stable growth in aggregate demand. With the recession in the developed world, some of the more open economies of Asia, such as South Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia and Singapore themselves suffered a slowdown or recession as demand for their exports fell. The Malaysian economy, for example, contracted by 1.5% in 2009.
Given the continuing macroeconomic problems in the developed world, many Asian countries are seeing the need to rebalance their economies away from a heavy reliance on exports. China, for example, is putting more emphasis on domestic-led demand growth. Others, such as Indonesia, have already embarked on this route. As The Economist article states:
Household consumption contributed half of the growth of just over 6% Indonesia enjoyed in the year to the third quarter (its eighth consecutive quarter of growth at that pace). Exports have fallen from about 35% of GDP ten years ago to less than a quarter in 2011. Developing Asia’s combined current-account surplus, which reflects its dependence on foreign demand, more than halved from 2008 to 2011 and is expected to fall further this year.
The continuing success story of many developing Asian economies thus lies in a balance of supply-side policies that foster continuing rapid investment and demand-side policies that create a stable monetary and fiscal environment. A crucial question here is whether they can emulate the ‘Great Moderation’ experienced by the Western economies from the mid-1990s to 2007, without creating the conditions for a crash in a few years time – a crash caused by excessive credit and an excessively deregulated financial system that was building up greater and greater systemic risk.
Articles
Asia’s great moderation The Economist (10/11/12)
Asia Seen Nearing End of Slowdown on China Recovery: Economy Bloomberg, Karl Lester M. Yap and Michael J. Munoz (15/11/12)
An Insider’s China M&A Notes: What Economic Slowdown? CFO Innovation, Peter Hall and Yuan Peng, The Valence Group (31/10/12)
Building a stronger Asia The Star (Malaysia), Cecilia Kok (24/11/12)
Data and reports
World Economic Outlook Database IMF (October 2012)
OECD: south-east Asian economic outlook to return to pre-crisis levels Guardian datablog, Nick Mead (18/11/12)
Southeast Asian Economic Outlook 2013, Executive Summary OECD (18/11/12)
Asia Economic Outlook BBVA Research (Q3 2012)
Questions
- Why have developing Asian countries experienced much more rapid rates of economic growth than developed countries?
- In what ways are the structures of developing Asian economies likely to change in the coming years?
- What factors would support their continuing to achieve both rapid and stable economic growth in the coming years?
- What factors might prevent them from achieving both rapid and stable economic growth in the coming years?
- What structural policies are likely to enhance productivity?
- What is the Asean Economic Community? How will this benefit its member countries?
10 of the 17 eurozone countries have agreed to adopt a financial transactions tax (FTT), often known as a ‘Tobin tax’ after James Tobin who first proposed such a tax back in 1972. The European Commission has backed the proposal, which involves levying a tax of 0.1% on trading in bonds and shares and 0.01% on trading in derivatives.
The 10 countries, France, Germany, Austria, Belgium, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain, and possibly also Estonia, hope to raise billions of euros from the tax, which will apply whenever at least one of the parties to a trade is based in one of the 10 (or 11) countries.
On several occasions in the past on this site we’ve examined proposals for such a tax: see, for example: Pressure mounts for a Tobin tax (update) (Nov 2011), A ‘Robin Hood’ tax (Feb 2010), Tobin or not Tobin: the tax proposal that keeps reappearing (Dec 2009) and A Tobin tax – to be or not to be? (Aug 2009). Tobin taxes are also considered in Economics (8th ed) (section 26.3) and Economics for Business (5th ed) (section 32.4).
As we noted last year in the blog Is the time right for a Tobin tax?, the tax is designed to be too small to affect trading in shares or other financial products for purposes of long-term investment. It would, however, dampen speculative trades that take advantage of tiny potential gains from very short-term price movements. Such trades account for huge financial flows between financial institutions around the world and tend to make markets more volatile. The short-term dealers are known as high-frequency traders (HFTs) and their activities now account for the majority of trading on exchanges. Most of these trades are by computers programmed to seek out minute gains and respond in milliseconds. And whilst they add to short-term liquidity for much of the time, this liquidity can suddenly dry up if HFTs become pessimistic.
Supporters of the tax claim that it will make a major contribution to tackling the deficit problems of many eurozone countries. Critics claim that it will dampen investment and growth and divert financial business away from the participating countries. The following articles look at the arguments.
EU Commission backs 10 countries’ transaction tax plan Reuters, Jan Strupczewski (23/10/12)
EU ‘Robin Hood’ tax gets the nod fin24 (23/10/12)
European financial transaction tax moves step closer The Guardian, Larry Elliott (23/10/12)
Financial transaction tax for 10 EU states BBC News (23/10/12)
Rejecting a Robin Hood tax would be a spectacular own goal The Guardian, Max Lawson (11/10/12)
More than 50 financiers back Robin Hood Tax The Robin Hood Tax (23/10/12)
Topical Focus – Transaction Taxes Tax-News (23/10/12)
Could a transactions tax be good for capitalism? BBC News, Robert Peston (3/10/11)
A Tax to Kill High Frequency Trading Forbes, Lee Sheppard (16/10/12)
Questions
- Explain how the proposed financial transactions tax will work.
- Why would many parties to trades who are not based in one of the 10 participating countries still end up paying the tax?
- What are likely to be the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed tax?
- Is it appropriate to describe the proposed FTT as a ‘Robin Hood Tax’?
- How does a financial transactions tax differ from the UK’s stamp duty reserve tax?
- Explain why the design of the stamp duty tax has prevented the flight of capital and trading from London. Could a Tobin tax be designed in such a way?
- What are HFTs and what impact do they have on the stability and liquidity of markets?
- Would it be desirable for the FTT to ‘kill off’ HFTs?
