Many people seem to believe that authoritarian rulers deliver better economic results. And yet, with the possible exception of China’s Xi Jinping, Asia’s autocrats, from India to the Philippines, are presiding over increasingly fragile states and even more vulnerable economies.
Downshifting is always painful, but politicians often make it more painful—and ultimately more destabilising—than it needs to be. That was certainly the case in the U.S. in the 1970s, and Chinese leaders would do well to learn from America’s experience.
For centuries the Silk Road, stretching across deserts, steppes, and mountains, linked the imperial dynasties of China with Europe. Chinese rulers used the thoroughfares to expand their power and influence deep into Asia. Today a newly assertive Chinese empire—this time, a communist one—is undertaking a gargantuan project to re-create those ancient trade routes and the political and economic clout that came with them.
Differing views have been expressed in the debate on who is going to be the biggest US creditor. However, it is certain that China and Japan will remain as the top 2 creditors for the foreseeable future.
Mr Modi’s government has proceeded in a manner exactly predictable from his claims and promises on the campaign trail. He will not change the bedrock of economic policy since 2004 — the reliance on private-public partnerships, for example. He will instead work towards quicker execution, lower taxes, and a less intrusive state.
Watching China’s economic planning process, Indians may be tempted to ditch democracy. Here’s why they shouldn’t.
In a move that came as a surprise to no one, the nearly 3,000 delegates of the National People’s Congress elected 59-year-old Xi Jinping as president of China, replacing 70-year-old Hu Jintao, on March 14 in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing. Xi is expected to serve two five-year-terms, following precedent. The vote: one against, three abstentions, and 2,952 in favor.
Two fundamental beliefs have driven economic policy around the world in recent years. The first is that the world suffers from a shortage of aggregate demand relative to supply; the second is that monetary and fiscal stimulus will close the gap.
Is it possible that the diagnosis is right, but that the remedy is wrong? That would explain why we have made little headway so far in restoring growth to pre-crisis levels. And it would also indicate that we must rethink our remedies.
High levels of involuntary unemployment throughout the advanced economies suggest that demand lags behind potential supply. While unemployment is significantly higher in sectors that were booming before the crisis, such as construction in the United States, it is more widespread, underpinning the view that greater demand is necessary to restore full employment.
FOR investors around the world, the recovery seems assured. The MSCI global share index has risen almost 10% since July. The credit for this largely goes to central bankers. In July Mario Draghi, president of the European Central Bank (ECB), said he would do whatever it takes to hold the euro together. In early September the ECB pledged to be a lender of last resort to governments, albeit under certain conditions. Soon afterwards the Federal Reserve launched a new round of quantitative easing (printing money to buy bonds) and promised to keep buying assets until American unemployment was “substantially” less awful. Other central banks followed with loosening of their own, in part to stop their currencies from rising (see article). All this activism boosted share prices.
