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?
The US Institute of Medicine of the National Academies has recently published a 92-page on report on childhood obesity and the use of taxes on junk foods to tackle the problem. In the report, titled Local Government Actions to Prevent Childhood Obesity, “a panel of experts suggested such taxes could play an important role in helping children make healthier eating choices”.
Meanwhile, in Australia, the Federal Government’s preventive health taskforce argued, amongst other things, that “junk food advertising should be phased out, the cost of cigarettes should be more than $20 a packet, and soft drinks and cask wine should be hit with higher taxes”.
So how effective are higher taxes in achieving a reduction in ill health associated with eating, drinking and smoking? If adopted, what is the socially optimum design and rates of such taxes? What other complementary policies could be adopted? The following articles consider the issues.
More support for a junk-food tax Los Angeles Times (2/9/09)
Tax junk food, drinks to fight child obesity-report Reuters (31/8/09)
Could Raising Taxes on Junk Food Curb Obesity? eMaxHealth (2/9/09)
Junk food and tobacco under fire The Age (Australia) (2/9/09)
What price health? The Australian (2/9/09)
Questions
- For what reasons does the free market fail to achieve an optimum level of consumption of junk foods, alcohol and cigarettes?
- How would you determine the socially optimum level of consumption of such products?
- How are the price, income and cross-price elasticities of demand, and the price elasticity of supply, relevant to assessing the effectiveness of taxes for reducing the consumption of unhealthy products?
- What determines the incidence of taxes on unhealthy products?
- What other policies would you advocate to tackle the problems associated with consuming unhealthy products? How would they affect the price elasticity of demand for such products.
- To what extent do the objectives of social efficiency and equity conflict when designing appropriate policies to discourage unhealthy consumption?
On 30 August, Japan’s opposition party, the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), won a landslide victory in the Japanese election. Although there are signs that the Japanese economy is beginning to pull out of recession (see Green shoots as autumn approaches), deep economic problems remain. Unemployment is at record highs; it has the highest national debt as a proportion of GDP of any of the G8 countries (see OECD Economic Outlook Statistical Annex Tables; consumer spending remains subdued; deflation seems entrenched; exports have slumped; bureaucracy is deeply embedded in government; and it has a rapidly ageing population.
So what is expected of the new government and what can it do? The following articles address these questions.
Japan’s Hatoyama sweeps to power (video) BBC News (31/8/09)
New Japanese government seeks a strategy for growth The Nation (Thailand) (1/9/09)
Japan’s new leader faces tough task Radio Australia (1/9/09)
Hatoyama faces daunting economic task BBC News (31/8/09)
DPJ needs to reinvigorate domestic economy of Japan China View (1/9/09)
Analysts worry DPJ’s policies may be a bane to Japan’s economy Channel NewsAsia (31/8/09)
Hamish McRae: Post election, what do the Japanese really want to do with their country? Independent (1/9/09)
Japan’s Government: Five Ways to Fix the Economy Time (1/9/09)
The vote that changed Japan The Economist (3/9/09)
Questions
- Paint a brief picture of the current state of the Japanese economy.
- What policies are advocated by the new government and what difficulties lie in the way of achieving the policy goals?
- What supply-side policies would you recommend for Japan and why?