Pointing fingers at Davos

Published : Feb 24, 2006 00:00 IST

The main focus of the World Economic Forum meeting at Davos was to locate the problem of global imbalances outside the U.S. and transfer the burden of adjustment to the rest of the world.

THE turnaround was near complete. A year back the annual World Economic Forum meeting at Davos of political, social and business leaders was overcome with gloom. This year, most participants were complacent, if not upbeat.

Last year's gloom was directly related to United States' seemingly unsustainable current account and budgetary deficits that were widening because of a consumption splurge induced by the wealth bonanza delivered by a speculative housing boom. To finance those deficits, the U.S. was relying on inflows of the large foreign exchange surpluses accumulating in countries such as China and India, which seemed to be growing wary of their excessive dollar exposure. A dollar crash and the end of the American bubble seemed a real possibility. If that did transpire, a global slowdown and even recession could be the outcome. Last year's gloom was attributable to the fact that, with the U.S. unwilling to make the adjustments needed to correct its twin deficits and the rest of the world reluctant to take on the burdens of adjustment, an engineered `soft-landing' seemed an unlikely possibility.

Fortunately, the expected crash has not yet come, providing more time to work out a solution. But, the dominant mood in Davos this year was to underplay the problem. Those like Stephen Roach, the Chief Economist of Morgan Stanley, who refused to argue that the problem had gone away, were dismissed as perennial pessimists who never learn. The lesson from the past year, it was argued, was that while imbalances exist, they are not of the crisis-producing kind. The unusual "equilibrium" in the global economy was sustainable, even though it possibly needs correction. In the end, the battle was won by those like Laura Tyson, Dean of the London Business School, who in a noncommittal fashion predicted that there "was a good chance of another Goldilocks year" - neither too hot nor too cold - so that the world can muddle through with a reasonable rate of growth and no calamity.

The perception of the temporal optimists was sought to be strengthened by reference to the currently popular choices as global winners: India and China. These two countries are seen as the source of the solution in two rather divergent ways. To start with, the buoyancy in India and China is expected to provide the demand to spur global growth and substitute for the U.S. consumption splurge when it registers a much-needed decline. Recently released data establish China as the fourth largest economy in the world, which the Chinese Vice Premier Zeng Peiyan promises will keep growing. "Over the next five years, China's development will bring more opportunities to the rest of the world," Zeng reportedly said. "The total import of commodities alone is expected to exceed $4 trillion."

This view was advanced forcefully by Jim O'Neill, the Chief Economist of Goldman Sachs. Citing estimates which showed that a third of total global domestic demand over the past five years originated in the BRIC group of countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China), he argued that these countries would be able to cover any reduction in consumption spending in the U.S. He is quoted as having optimistically held that the world is today in a position to "cope with a U.S. slowdown better than at any time over the past decade". In particular, growth based on higher technology is expected to create more big spenders in these economies who would generate the jobs in the U.S. and Europe to neutralise the effects of the offshoring boom on developed country employment.

The second way in which China and India, especially the former, are seen as being able to contribute to global adjustment is through the appreciation of their undervalued currencies. Such adjustment would reduce the bilateral trade surplus that China has with the U.S. by making its exports more expensive and cheapening imports from the U.S. In fact, the U.S. chose to campaign for such a process of adjustment. According to reports, when speaking at a panel session, the U.S. Undersecretary of the Treasury for International Affairs, Tim Adams, held that a big question for the International Monetary Fund (IMF) was "what do you do with countries that are attempting to thwart balance of payments adjustments".

As of now the Managing Director of the IMF, Rodrigo Rato, seems unwilling to fall in line and serve as a tool for the international economic designs of the U.S. "There is a trade-off between our role as confidential adviser in our surveillance work and our role as transparent judge. ... I think that trade-off is well balanced," he reportedly argued. But this was not because he, and presumably his organisation, was not in agreement on the need for appreciation of the Chinese yuan. It was because he felt that the Chinese were complying. Noting that the IMF had been among the first to advocate publicly a move away from a fixed peg, he expressed satisfaction that China was moving in that direction: "We like what they did this summer, but they have to let it work."

In sum, the complacence generated by the unrealised forecast from Davos 2005 that global imbalances are likely to lead to a growth slowdown is being used to locate the source of the global imbalances problem outside the U.S. and transfer the burden of adjustment to the rest of the world. Those who were calling for immediate action, including from the U.S., were in a minority. Stephen Roach reportedly raised a note of caution about "a dangerous degree of complacency," since "out of complacency comes the surprise that does most damage to global markets and economies". But there were few takers.

Having set aside the threat of a global recession, the focus shifted to the seemingly never-ending potential of new technology to deliver profits. According to official Forum figures, among the more than 2,340 participants from 89 countries, were 735 who were chairmen, chief executives or chief financial officers of their companies. Betting on technology to raise profits either through innovation or by reducing costs through offshoring, they exuded confidence that strengthened the overall air of complacency. Such confidence also came from the belief that better performance in European Union (E.U.) countries and Japan and sustained buoyancy in China and India would spur global demand, which they could exploit with facilities located at home and abroad. To legitimise the forecast link between technology and profit, much was made of the benefits that can flow from science to the rest of the world, as for example by reducing the world's oil dependency.

There seem to be others who are interested in a technology focus. Beleaguered by a never-ending war in Iraq that cannot be won, and days after the Davos meet came to end, President George W. Bush took up the baton in his State of the Union address. Pointing to the threat from new competitors like China and India and the dangers of dependence on imports from "unstable" parts of the world, he pledged to spend $50 billion on research aimed at strengthening U.S. competitiveness. Among his stated priorities is research into alternative energy, aimed at dealing with the problem. His target is to replace 75 per cent of West Asia oil imports by 2025.

The $50 billion pledge would help double federal spending on research in the sciences and harness U.S. talent and creativity by the training of 70,000 new science and mathematics teachers. According to one estimate, the full cost of the competitiveness initiatives would be $136 billion over 10 years, of which the remaining $86 billion would come from the cost of an additional proposal to make permanent the tax credits for private sector research and development. Bush manages to achieve his tax cut objectives even while pursuing technological superiority of the kind that the world leaders endorsed at Davos.

Were there no problems and dangers discussed at Davos then? There were: terrorism, an oil-price spike, natural disasters and a bird-flu pandemic were among the topics. Interestingly, in keeping with its effort to focus on areas that are not in its remit, the World Economic Forum spent much energy discussing the last of these. Holding the view that the avian flu has the potential to develop into a global pandemic as devastating as the Black Death of the 14th century, a report released at Davos argued that: "An outbreak of H5NI [avian flu] human to human transmission could have devastating impacts globally across all social and economic sectors, disrupting efficient processes, severely degrading response capabilities and exacerbating the effects of known weaknesses in different systems." While this is no doubt an important global problem, it also serves to deflect attention from the main problems that should concern a Davos-style meet.

WHERE does India stand in all this? Indian delegates at Davos seem to have been driven by two, perhaps even conflicting, objectives. The first was to play down the image that India was a haven for cheap labour waiting to be exploited by offshoring initiatives. The idea was to declare that the country was emerging as a technological leader with a global manufacturing presence. According to Financial Times, London, business delegates from India were arguing that the country was not simply an offshore back-office and software service centre but an emerging manufacturing power.

The second was to declare that India was a better investment destination than China, which does not have a monopoly over manufacturing. Rather, India was presented as developing technology-related manufacturing in which it could establish an advantage over China, with its focus on cheap mass production. "If you want to make Barbie dolls, don't come to India," Anand Mahindra, vice-chairman of Mahindra & Mahindra reportedly declared. Many read a not to veiled reference to China in one of the hoardings advertising India's attractiveness: "India, the preferred democracy for global investors." As Jeremy Warner of The Independent put it: "If that's not a side swipe at China, I don't know what is."

Everybody at Davos seemed to have fingers to point and a clear direction in mind.

Sign in to Unlock member-only benefits!
  • Bookmark stories to read later.
  • Comment on stories to start conversations.
  • Subscribe to our newsletters.
  • Get notified about discounts and offers to our products.
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide to our community guidelines for posting your comment