Browse by Tags

Developing Asia continues to lead the way in growth rate. But you might be surprised at what region is second: sub-Saharan Africa. From the IMF : The IMF’s Regional Economic Outlook for sub-Saharan Africa projects regional economic growth of 5 ½ percent in 2013–2014, compared with 5 percent in 2012. Investment is expected to remain a key driver of growth, while measured activity in 2013 will also be boosted by one-off factors in some countries, including rebound effects from floods in Nigeria and recovery of agriculture in regions previously affected by drought. Upper middle–income countries are expected to continue grappling with sluggish growth, while activity should gradually normalize in some fragile economies that were negatively affected by political instability. The region’s downtrend in inflation is set to extend into 2013–14. This forecast is premised on moderating nonoil commodity prices, productive local crops, and inflation-focused monetary policy. Gains made in combating inflation in eastern Africa are expected to be consolidated, while the pace of price rises is projected to slow in countries that experienced inflation flare-ups. Read Sub-Saharan Africa Builds Momentum in Multi-speed World here .

Real Gross Domestic Product expanded at an annual rate of 2.5% in the first quarter of 2013, according to an advance estimate just released by the Commerce Department . This was a significant improvement over the 0.4% increase over the last quarter of 2012, but is below what many economists expected, according to Reuters . The Bureau of Economic Analysis report points to inventory investment as the main driver of the increase in GDP: The pick up in real GDP growth was largely accounted for by a rebound in inventory investment, mainly reflecting an upturn in manufacturing and a smaller decrease in wholesale trade. Farm inventory investment also picked up. In addition, consumer spending accelerated, primarily reflecting a pick up in spending for services (mainly household utilities), and exports rebounded, mainly due to upturns in foods, feeds, and beverages and in nonautomotive capital goods. In contrast, imports turned up, reflecting in part an upturn in nonpetroleum industrial supplies and materials. Also, business investment slowed, reflecting a slowdown in equipment and software (mainly in information processing) and a downturn in structures. Here is a look at the trend: Read the BEA release here .

Things are looking up in Japan, as businesses in the world's third largest economy gain confidence in the economic policies of the Abe government . At The Guardian , Joseph Stiglitz gives Abe credit for tackling big structural challenges that have been holding back growth. And, Stiglitz writes that Japan could become a "ray of light" for advanced economies: Abe is doing what many economists (including me) have been calling for in the US and Europe: a comprehensive programme entailing monetary, fiscal, and structural policies. Abe likens this approach to holding three arrows – taken alone, each can be bent; taken together, none can. The new governor of the Bank of Japan, Haruhiko Kuroda, comes with a wealth of experience gained in the finance ministry, and then as president of the Asian Development Bank. During the East Asia crisis of the late 1990s, he saw firsthand the failure of the conventional wisdom pushed by the US treasury and the International Monetary Fund. Not wedded to central bankers' obsolete doctrines, he has made a commitment to reverse Japan's chronic deflation, setting an inflation target of 2%. Deflation increases the real (inflation-adjusted) debt burden, as well as the real interest rate. Though there is little evidence of the importance of small changes in real interest rates, the effect of even mild deflation on real debt, year after year, can be significant. Kuroda's stance has already weakened the yen's exchange rate, making Japanese goods more competitive. This simply reflects the reality of monetary policy interdependence: if the US Federal Reserve's policy of so-called quantitative easing weakens the dollar, others have to respond to prevent undue appreciation of their currencies. Some day, we might achieve closer global monetary-policy co-ordination; for now, however, it made sense for Japan to respond, albeit belatedly, to developments elsewhere. Monetary policy would have been more effective in the US had more attention been devoted to credit blockages – for example, many homeowners' refinancing problems, even at lower interest rates, or small and medium-size enterprises' lack of access to financing. Japan's monetary policy, one hopes, will focus on such critical issues. But Abe has two more arrows in his policy quiver. Critics who argue that fiscal stimulus in Japan failed in the past – leading only to squandered investment in useless infrastructure – make two mistakes. First, there is the counterfactual case: how would Japan's economy have performed in the absence of fiscal stimulus? Given the magnitude of the contraction in credit supply following the financial crisis of the late 1990s, it is no surprise that government spending failed to restore growth. Matters would have been much worse without the spending; as it was, unemployment never surpassed 5.8%, and, in throes of the global financial crisis, it peaked at 5.5%. Second, anyone visiting Japan recognises the benefits of its infrastructure investments (America could learn a valuable lesson here). The real challenge will be in designing the third arrow, what Abe refers to as "growth". This includes policies aimed at restructuring the economy, improving productivity, and increasing labour-force participation, especially by women. Read Japan banks on success of Abenomics here .

Global economic growth is going to depend more and more on Chinese consumers and their growing buying power. So it would be nice if we felt like could rely on official figures about consumption in China. An article in the latest edition of The Economist raises some doubts: In 2012, according to estimates by Jonathan Garner and Helen Qiao of Morgan Stanley, a bank, the Chinese spent over 2.3 trillion yuan ($370 billion) on domestic tourism alone. And yet China’s GDP statistics captured only a tiny part of that spending, they argue, as well as missing spending on financial services, health care and housing. As a result, official figures show private consumption languishing at around 35% of GDP. Morgan Stanley’s “bottom-up” calculations, by contrast, imply that it has grown since 2008 to almost 46% of GDP (see chart). Mr Garner and Ms Qiao draw on company reports and industry studies to fill gaps in the official data, which, they say, undercounted consumption by $1.6 trillion in 2012, more than Australia’s entire GDP. Their calculations echo earlier studies, which also found that official statistics undercount consumption, albeit by a smaller margin. As well as stuff bought offshore, spending online is also undercounted, the two economists argue. On a single weekend in November, Chinese consumers spent more than $3 billion on two websites, Taobao and Tmall (both part of Alibaba, an online giant), in celebration of “singles’ day”, the bachelor’s equivalent of Valentine’s day. But official statistics have failed to keep pace with changing consumer habits, Ms Qiao argues, neglecting entire categories of e-spending. Online gaming, for example, is largely missing. Yet it amounted to 53 billion yuan ($8.5 billion) last year, according to Morgan Stanley’s tally of revenues earned by online gaming firms. China’s statistics have long been viewed with scepticism or worse. Some economists worry that they fail to reflect reality, others that they slavishly reflect political imperatives. In 2002 Thomas Rawski of the University of Pittsburgh complained about a “tornado of deception”. Five years later Carsten Holz, then of Princeton University, said that official statistics should be taken with a “rock of salt”. When Li Keqiang, now China’s prime minister, was party chief of Liaoning province in 2007, he called the province’s output figures “man-made” and “for reference only”. Read Bottums up here .

Real GDP contracted at an annual rate of 0.1% in the third quarter of 2012, according to an advance estimate just released by the Commerce Department . According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis , government spending (lack thereof) was a key factor: The decline in real GDP growth in the fourth quarter reflected the following: • Inventory investment turned down, mainly because of a decline in inventory investment in manufacturing industries. • Federal government spending fell significantly, reflecting a downturn in defense spending (for more information, see the technical note). • Net exports turned down, mainly reflecting a decrease in exports of goods; food, feeds, and beverage items as well as civilian aircraft, engines, and parts fell significantly. In contrast, business investment turned up, as spending on equipment and software rebounded (mainly computers and related parts as well as transportation equipment). Consumer spending also picked up (mainly financial services as well as autos and parts). Here is a look at the trend: Read the BEA release here .

Britain's economy shrank again in the fourth quarter of 2012, according to the United Kingdom's Office of National Statistics , sparking concerns there of a triple-dip recession. Here are some of the key takeaways from the release: • GDP was estimated to have decreased by 0.3% in Q4 2012 compared with Q3 2012. • Output of the production industries was estimated to have decreased by 1.8% in Q4 2012 compared with Q3 2012, following an increase of 0.7% between Q2 2012 and Q3 2012. • Construction sector output was estimated to have increased by 0.3% in Q4 2012 compared with Q3 2012, following a decrease of 2.5% between Q2 2012 and Q3 2012. • Output of the service industries was estimated to have been flat in Q4 2012 compared with Q3 2012, following an increase of 1.2% between Q2 2012 and Q3 2012. • GDP was estimated to have been flat in Q4 2012, when compared with Q4 2011. Not a pretty picture. Here's a look at GDP and main components since 2000: Read the full release here . And at the Mirror , Graham Hiscott says Britain might have already been in the third dip of the triple dip recession had London not hosted a pretty big party this past summer: Does the Chancellor have a Jessica Ennis poster on his wall at the Treasury? If not, he should, because if it weren’t for Team GB’s heroics and the big boost from the Olympics, it’s likely the UK would already be stuck in a triple dip recession. The Games - and the surge in spending - were a fig leaf for problems plaguing our economy. Today’s figures showing the economy shrank 0.3% in the fourth quarter of 2012 were a case of business as usual for battered Britain. Take out the Olympic bounce, and the economy has shrunk for four of the past five quarters. Hardly a gold medal winning performance. Read the full article here .

Fantastic storytelling from Adam Davidson in the New York Times about visiting the Bank of England and meeting with Monetary Policy Committee member Adam Posen. But Davidson's story is also about, well, storytelling and how it is applied to decision making at one of the most influential global financial institutions. It seems Posen has been fighting against the tide within the BofE and losing because his math hasn't squared with the narratives his fellow committee members have bought into: Economics often appears to be an exercise in number-crunching, but it actually resembles storytelling more than mathematics. Before the members of the Monetary Policy Committee gather for their monthly meeting, they sit through a presentation from the Bank of England’s economic staff. The staff members take the most recent economic data — G.D.P. growth, the unemployment rate and more subtle details gathered from interviews with businesspeople throughout the country — and try to fashion it into a narrative. Does a sudden spike in new factory orders represent a fundamental shift, or is it just a preholiday blip? Do anecdotal reports of rising food prices herald a period of inflation, or is it the result of a cold snap? Which story feels truer? A few days later, each of the nine members of the M.P.C. puts forth his or her own interpretation. Over two days, the members debate these competing narratives and discuss what the Bank of England should do. Then the committee votes, and the winning policies are implemented. Soon after Cameron was elected, Posen argued that the committee should endorse a more radical, expansionary approach of economic recovery. He believed that the data indicated the sputtering would end and the economy would grow only if the Bank of England began buying many billions of pounds’ more worth of bonds. This added stimulus would flood the banking system with new cash and indirectly push banks to lend to businesses and citizens. (Banks don’t make money by sitting on cash.) Some of Posen’s colleagues warned that this would lead to inflation. He countered that the economy was operating below its capacity, so there was no reason to fear inflation. Each month, the committee heard Posen’s advice. Each month, it voted 8 to 1 against him. The bank eschewed his more expansionary suggestions and stuck to a more conservative approach of keeping interest rates low and modest bond-buying. Soon Posen became a famously divisive figure in London’s financial community, alternatively the enlightened genius trying to save the country and the mad Yank who wanted to inflate the pound out of existence. “There was this period,” he remembers, “when I would lie awake at night and think: Am I just crazy? Maybe I’m nuts. It’s like the scene in ‘12 Angry Men.’ I almost wavered. But then I decided: No, no, no. I was convinced: They’re nuts and I’m right.” Read God Save the British Economy here .