Азиатские тигры (igor_tiger) wrote,
Азиатские тигры

О супер-цикле

Развивающиеся рынки вступают в суперцикл
The world economy is in a super-cycle. This is a period of historically high global growth, lasting a generation or more.
There are many factors driving this, including rising trade, high rates of investment, rapid urbanisation and technological innovation.

Super-cycles are also characterised by the emergence of economies enjoying rapid growth, such as China, India and now Indonesia.

The world economy has twice enjoyed super-cycles before. The first, from 1870 to 1913, saw a significant pick-up in global growth, with the world growing on average each year by 2.7%, a full one percent higher than previously seen. That cycle was led by the emergence of the United States and saw increased trade and greater use of technologies from the Industrial Revolution.

The second super-cycle, from 1945 to the early 1970s, saw growth averaging 5% and was characterised by the post-war reconstruction and catch-up across large parts of the globe. It saw the emergence both of a large middle-class in the West and of exporting nations across Asia, led by Japan.

We may now be in another super-cycle. For people in Asia and across the emerging world, the idea of strong growth may not sound unusual. But for many in the West, the thought of a super-cycle may sound strange, given the present problems confronting the world economy. Yet the reality is that the world economy now is over US$62 trillion, about twice the size it was a decade ago, and it has already exceeded its pre-recession peak. Over the last two years, its rebound has been driven by policy stimulus in the West and by stronger growth in the East. Indeed, emerging economies, which are one-third of the world economy, currently account for two-thirds of its growth. This trend looks set to continue. By 2030, the world economy could grow to $308 trillion. Excluding inflation, that would equate to $129 trillion in real terms, or in today's prices, and to $143 trillion, keeping prices constant but allowing for some emerging-market currency appreciation.

The projections would imply a real growth rate of 3.5% for the period between 2000, when the super-cycle started, and 2030, or 3.9% from now till 2030. That would be a significant step-up compared with 2.8% between 1973 and 2000.

What is remarkable is not only the likely scale of this expansion but the fact that these forecasts are based on projections for growth that some might even think are too cautious. For instance, China is expected to grow on average 6.9% per annum over the period to 2030, and India by 9.3%. By 2030, India may have become the world's third largest economy. Moreover, Indonesia, currently the 28th largest economy may have moved to fifth largest in 20 years, having enjoyed nearly 7% average growth over that period. There are always risks that could impact global growth. The first super-cycle ended with the outbreak of the First World War, the second with the oil shocks of the early '70s. Hopefully, the world today is better placed to address such risks thanks to the emergence of international decision-making bodies and policy fora such as the G20. It is important to stress that a super-cycle does not mean that growth will be continuously strong over the whole period. For the last three or four years, we have been amongst the most pessimistic about US growth. I am still cautious. Despite the benefits of quantitative easing, the US economy will still struggle in the year ahead, growing below trend. Likewise, Europe and Japan face a sluggish near-term outlook where growth will be modest. All this makes it even more remarkable if Asia can drive more of its own growth. That is, after all, what the world needs.

Next year, China sees the first year of its 12th five-year plan. That should help growth. But, even allowing for this, the Chinese and other central banks across Asia will be tightening policy to cap inflation. In turn, this should allow growth to be more sustainable, but at rates either close to, or even below, those seen this year. So, even in a super-cycle, there can be challenges for policy-makers.

Just as it is important to focus on near-term challenges, it is also vital to keep sight of longer-term opportunities. During the super-cycle, we believe that China can displace the US as the world's largest economy by 2020, far sooner than many expect. Whilst such forecasts give a scale of the outlook, it is the story behind what is happening that is as important. There is the scale of the economies that are growing. As emerging economies grow they will exert greater influence on the world economy. Then there is the impact from the growth of new trade corridors. Close to 85% of the world's population are becoming increasingly inter-connected through trade, allowing an unprecedented number of people to contribute to the global economy. Cash and financial resources will be critical drivers of growth, given the need for investment, particularly in infrastructure. Then there is what I call perspiration, with more people working and spending, and inspiration, with greater use of innovation and technology.

The countries that will succeed will be those with the cash, the commodities and the creativity. In recent years I have described what was happening as the New World Order, reflecting a shift in the balance of economic and financial power from the West to the East.

While still valid, a super-cycle better reflects what is happening. It is still possible for the West to do well in this environment, particularly if economies there are creative. Yet it is Asia  that appears to be the clear winner.

Андерс Ослунд: 10 факторов почему Россия в ближайшие 2-3 года вступит на траекторию высокого роста.
1. The root cause is the profound sense of malaise in the Russian elite. Nothing is better for reform than malaise. Remember how former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and former Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze before assuming power told each other: “We cannot go on like this any longer!” Once again, Moscow is reaching this point.

Ideas are also crucial, and a new intellectual paradigm has taken hold. Since February 2008, President Dmitry Medvedev has advocated modernization. While this ambitious idea has dominated the public discourse, little has been done. This contrast between word and action is reminiscent of the Soviet Union in 1987, when Gorbachev had preached acceleration and perestroika for two years but accomplished little. That year, he shifted gear to focus on democratization to shake society up.

Russia is finally about to accede to the World Trade Organization within a year, which would be a game changer. The best available studies predict enormous gains for the country. Economists Jesper Jensen, Thomas Rutherford and David Tarr estimate in a World Bank study that Russia should annually gain about 3.3 percent of GDP in the medium term and 11 percent of GDP in the long term. The gains would mainly come from increased foreign direct investment and services. International integration and convergence will drive the country’s growth for a couple of decades.

One of Russia’s largest drawbacks and constant drags on growth is its immense corruption, but Russia is simply too rich, well educated and open to be so corrupt. As the country has failed to extend its road network since 1997, something has to be done. Even former Mayor Yury Luzhkov — the country’s “ultimate traffic jam” — has been sacked. Significant progress in the fight against corruption can be made with relatively easy and small steps — for example, public procurement for key infrastructure projects can be significantly cleaned up if a few honest people are appointed at the top.

Money is no longer a free utility for the Kremlin. The oil price has risen above $80 per barrel, but at that level Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin foresees a budget deficit in 2010 of 4.6 percent of GDP, and deficits will continue until 2014. Therefore, the government can no longer simply throw money at problems. It has to actually solve some of them.

Energy production has leveled off and is not likely to rise significantly any time soon. Therefore, growth has to come from other sectors. Look at the composition of and trends among leading companies on the RTS or MICEX and you will see how Russia has changed. The energy companies are now the laggards, while the many growth companies are in consumer industries.

particular, Gazprom, the old cancer of the Russian economy, is in a serious structural crisis. Its market value has fallen by two-thirds from its peak in spring 2008. As a high-cost producer, it is losing out to independent producers — notably Novatek — and liquefied natural gas in Europe. Gazprom represents the most pressing case for restructuring. The company has to cut costs by reducing corruption and enhancing efficiency. This means that Gazprom must put an end to its history of being the huge slush fund for Russia’s rulers.

Russia’s greatest resource is its quickly expanding human capital. According to UNESCO statistics, 51 percent of young Russians graduated from higher educational institutions in 2008, placing Russia as the ninth-highest country in the world. Compare this figure with the United States, where only 35.5 percent of the young population completed higher education in 2008. Admittedly, the Russian numbers are swollen by corruption, plagiarism and often low standards, but even with some deduction, the Russian figures remain impressive. Everywhere, you see young, ambitious, well-educated and hard-working Russians, who are determined to succeed.

The long absence of any significant reforms has left many low-hanging fruits, such as elementary deregulation. Privatization is becoming inevitable, and it instantly reduces the corruption characteristic of Russian state corporations.

Russia’s leading businessmen often talk about “the 2012 problem” — that is, their uncertainty about the elite’s presidential selection in March 2012, or probably in December 2011, when a presidential candidate has to be nominated.

The choice is becoming increasingly clear: Putin symbolizes corruption, energy dependence and stagnation, while Medvedev presents an image of modernization and reform. These alternatives are becoming as crystal clear as in 1985, when the Soviet elite opted for change.
Medvedev has real levers to exert power. Among other things, he possesses a “nuclear option” — at any moment, he can sign an amnesty for former Yukos CEO Mikhail Khodorkovsky, which could significantly change the presidential race in 2012.
In the end, the choice is between a growth rate of 3.5 percent a year or 6.5 percent a year in the medium term. Would big Russian businessmen prefer stagnation of their companies over healthy growth? Why should they ignore their own interests?

Источник: http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/10-reasons-why-the-economy-will-recover/424578.html

  • Post a new comment


    Comments allowed for friends only

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded