Delegates
to the World Economic Forum at Davos this year came despondent and left
in despair. Both the discussions and the new evidence released at and
during the Forum indicated that the global crisis was not just bad,
but worse than originally anticipated. One damaging projection came
from the IMF in its January 2009 Update to the World Economic Outlook,
which declared: ''Global growth in 2009 is expected to fall to half percent
when measured in terms of purchasing power parity and to turn negative
when measured in terms of market exchange rates. This represents a downward
revision of about 1¾ percentage point from the November 2008
WEO Update.'' (Chart 1)
Moreover,
data released in recent months by the US Bureau of Labour Statistics
points to a sharp fall in non-farm employment in the US in recent months
(Chart 2). The monthly decline in nonfarm payroll employment touched
598,000 in January when the unemployment rate rose from 7.2 to 7.6 percent.
Nonfarm employment has declined by 3.6 million since the start of the
recession in December 2007, and about a half of this decline occurred
in the past 3 months (Chart 3). The impact this would have on demand
would only aggravate the recession.
Finally, there is evidence that the global recession led by contraction
in the US is transmitting itself through global trade. Export growth
from the advanced economies is projected to fall from a positive 5.9
per cent in 2007 and 3.1 per cent in 2008 to a negative 3.7 per cent
in 2009. But this trend is not restricted to the developed countries.
The relevant figures for the emerging and developing economies are 9.6
per cent, 5.6 per cent and -0.8 per cent. (Chart 4). It is small recompense
that growth is projected to rebound sharply in 2010. Such projections
are suspect, since the IMF has made it a habit of putting out optimistic
projections and then revising them downwards.
In
fact, fear of a long recession stems not just from the distressing developed
country figures. It is also triggered by evidence that the recessionary
trend is affecting Asia as well. Developing economies in Asia, which
as a group grew at 10.6 per cent and 7.8 per cent in 2007 and 2008,
are now expected to grow at just 5.5 per cent or 1.6 percentage points
lower than projected as recently as November last year. Japan was already
contracting by 0.3 per cent in 2008, and is projected to see that figure
falling to -2.6 per cent in 2009. But the three growth engines in Asia,
the ASEAN-5, China and India also now seem to be badly affected by the
crisis. The ASEAN-5 economies, which grew at 6.3 and 5.4 per cent in
2007 and 2008, are now projected to grow at 2.7 per cent in 2009 (down
1.5 percentage points from the November 2008 estimates). The corresponding
figures for China are 13.0, 9.0 and 6.7 per cent (1.8 percentage points)
and for India are 9.3, 7.3 and 5.1 per cent (1.2 percentage points).
Moreover, the IMF has predicted a damaging immediate future for South
Korea, with its economy projected to contract by 4 per cent this year.
Estimates from national sources and elsewhere are less pessimistic than
the IMF, but there is consensus that outside the US it is Asia where
the recession is biting most. This is reflected in available estimates
on rising employment. According to official Chinese figures, more than
20 million rural migrant workers have lost their jobs and returned to
their homes as a result of the global economic crisis. According to
these estimates, by January 25, 15.3 per cent of China's 130 million
migrant workers had lost their jobs and left coastal manufacturing centres
to return home. And the aggregate figure of migrant job loss does not
include those who stayed back in cities in search of new jobs.
India too has made a feeble effort at estimating the impact of the downturn
on employment. An official survey by the Labour Bureau focuses on 8
sectors (Mining, Textile & Textile Garments, Metals & Metal
Products, Automobile, Gems & Jewellery, Construction, Transport
and the IT/BPO industry) to arrive at an estimate of job loss as a result
of the economic slowdown in the country. In these sectors it sampled
units employing 10 or more workers to make its estimates.
The
survey covered 2581 out of the sampled 3000 units of which 1168 were
from the Textile & Textile Garments industry, followed by 752 in
Metals & Metal Products, 242 in IT/BPO, 132 in Automobiles, 104
in Gems & Jewellery, 103 in Transportation, 19 in Mining, and 61
in Construction. Based on this limited sample, the total estimated employment
in all the sectors covered by the survey went down from 16.2 million
during September 2008 to 15.7 million during December 2008, implying
a job loss of about half a million (Table 1). The actual decline in
employment if coverage and method were better is likely to be much higher.
However, the survey does suggest that employment fell in every month
during this period. After September, 2008 employment in all industries
declined at an average rate of 1.01 per cent per month. A comparison
of employment in export and non-export units indicates that employment
declined at an average monthly rate of 1.13 per cent in the case of
the former, as opposed to 0.81 per cent in the latter (Table 2), pointing
to the direct role of the global slowdown.
Table
1: Trends in Average Employment, India (million) |
Period
|
Average
Employment |
%age
change |
September,08
|
16.2 |
|
October,08 |
16
|
-1.21 |
November,08 |
15.9
|
-0.74
|
December,08 |
15.7
|
-1.12
|
Average Monthly change |
|
-1.01
|
These
trends in Asia are of significance because at the time when the crisis
was just beginning to unfold, optimists pointed to Asia as the shock
absorber that would buffer the global downturn. A decoupled Asia, it
was argued, would through its own growth and the demands that it would
make on the world's output ensure that the financial crisis that was
largely a phenomenon restricted to the developed countries would not
have as damaging an effect on global growth as the pessimists, then
in a minority, were predicting.
Implicit
in this confidence was the view that Asia was a region where the turn
to market friendly policies was undertaken in a form and at a pace that
had strengthened these economies and delivered an ''Asian century''. When
sceptics pointed to the East Asian financial crisis, they were countered
with the view that 1997 was an aberration that resulted from ''cronyism''
or some such intangible and not from liberalisation and global integration.
Table
2: Percentage change in Employment of Exporting
and Non-Exporting units
|
|
Exporting
Units |
Non-
Exporting Units |
Overall
|
October,08 |
-1.3 |
-1.05 |
-1.21 |
November,08 |
-0.45 |
-1.24 |
-0.74 |
December,08 |
-1.66 |
-0.15 |
-1.12 |
Average Monthly Change |
-1.13 |
-0.81 |
-1.01 |
It needs
noting that the damage wrought by early liberalization had forced many
Latin American countries to search for alternative strategies. The resulting
turn in economic policy-making in Latin America has had positive consequences.
In the past a crisis in the US and other developed countries proved
damaging for Latin American countries dragging them down to degrees
far greater than the crisis in the developed countries itself. However,
this time around, growth in the developing countries of the Western
Hemisphere, which was estimated at 5.7 and 4.6 per cent in 2007 and
2008, is expected to fall to a positive 1.1 per cent in 2009. That is,
the continent seems to have escaped the kind of contraction it was prone
to in the past, when the global economy faced crises of even lesser
intensities.
It was the poor performance of much of Africa and Latin America since
the 1970s that resulted in Asia emerging as its showcase, with global
capital talking up these economies and attempting to garner the support
of domestic elites for more liberal policies. As success accompanied
each turn in policy, the shift to a regime that opened these economies
to trade, foreign direct investment and purely financial flows intensified.
Asia came to symbolise the benefits to be derived from liberalisation
and global integration, and epitomise the view that the world is flat
with no walls to climb.
Over the last two decades and more this shift towards more open strategies
has indeed transformed Asia's relationship with the rest of the world.
While the region was earlier home to a few mercantilist, export-oriented
economies like Japan, South Korea and Taiwan (Province of China), in
time every Asian economy, including the biggest, was looking for a market
abroad with some like China proving extremely successful in manufacturing
and others like India in services. Moreover, while Asia could be proud
of a high degree of regional integration through trade and investment
flows, this integration reflected not the decoupling of Asia from the
rest of the world but the creation of an export platform in which multi-country
production networks created products that were targeted at world markets.
Production processes were segmented, and each segment located at appropriate
sites that generated intermediate products that were combined at the
final location ( such as China) to be shipped abroad. The other impact
of the process of liberalisation and integration was a sharp increase
in foreign investment flows to the region, including large inflows of
portfolio capital. A concomitant of this inflow was the liberalisation
of rules regarding the presence and operation of foreign firms, including
financial firms like banks, merchant banks, insurance companies, hedge
funds and private equity firms. Capital inflows in many countries in
the region were far in excess of that needed to finance their current
account deficits. In fact, some countries with current account surpluses
were also recipients of large capital inflows.
Given such integration, it is not surprising that an Asia that was experiencing
robust growth till recently has been affected quite adversely by the
global financial and economic crisis. As the financial crisis unfolded,
foreign financial investors in need of capital to cover losses and meet
margin calls at home unwound their positions in Asia resulting in a
collapse in stock markets in many Asian economies. Countries like China,
India and Vietnam which had seen their stock markets outperforming their
global ''competitors'' were also the ones that recorded the steepest falls.
The outflow of capital put pressure on many currencies, forcing central
banks to unwind a part of their reserves. A liquidity and credit contraction
ensued. Foreign financial institutions that were located in these countries
and were facing difficulties in global markets had to downsize or close,
leading to ripple effects in domestic economies. Domestic financial
institutions exposed to sub-prime mortgage related assets recorded large
losses. Finally, the global economic recession slowed export growth
in these increasingly export-driven economies. All this generated an
Asian version of the global financial and economic crisis, which is
what the collapse in aggregate growth figures reflects.