A deeper look into
the problems of the Fragile Five shows that the fault does not lie with global
finance.
There are times in life when it is tough to figure out who
is the hero and who is the villain. Such
may be the case with the current turmoil engulfing emerging markets. Adding ignominy to injury, economists have
tarred Brazil, Turkey, India, Indonesia, and South Africa with the dubious
epithet of “the Fragile Five” as an outflow of funds has sparked a multitude of
economic imbalances. Investors have been
quick to yank their money out as higher investment returns are expected to
follow the paring back of monetary stimulus.
First impressions might suggest that the blame lies with the fickle
nature of global finance.
Yet, as with all good detective novels, it is not always the
obvious culprit who is in the wrong. It is
entirely logical that money should move out of badly run countries in the same
way as shoddy companies are shunned by investors. It is more often corrosive politics that are to
blame for driving investors away. With
this in mind, a shake-up at the (invisible) hands of the financial markets may work
out for the best.
Politicians themselves have been quick to blame the Federal
Reserve in the US. The Federal Reserve
was buying US$85 billion in bonds each month in 2013, which drove down the
yields on US bonds and prompted investors to shift their money overseas in
search of better returns. Reductions in
these monthly bond purchases have triggered a return of funds from overseas
which has caught out many emerging economies.
If politicians in emerging markets were honest (admittedly,
an odd concept), their fingers would be pointing closer to home. Many emerging economies benefited from the
cheap capital but came to rely on it too much.
Economic growth which had been sustained past the global financial
crisis began to slow as governments put off reforms to keep their economies going. Instead, governments tapped into funds from
overseas to ramp up spending and cover growing shortfalls in demand. This only masked the problems which have since
been laid bare by the countries being stripped of their external financing (see
No need to fear for the Fragile Five for more on this).
No more excuses for
politicians
All of the talk surrounding the Fragile Five tends to focus
on their economies but the real issue is with their politics. The rise of the middle classes in these
countries has been a catalyst for more responsive government. Minor issues have triggered large protests
fuelled by frustrated voters. A rise in
transport costs incited upheaval in Brazil.
A sit-in protest at a park in Istanbul escalated into unrest throughout
Turkey. The rapid rise of an
anti-corruption party threatens to derail the major parties in elections in
India. Workers strike in South Africa
demanding higher wages.
The faltering economic growth has revealed the inadequacies
of government. Slower economic growth
means that voters cannot be bought off with higher incomes. Their dissatisfaction has now been coupled
with that of investors who hold the upper hand in terms of where they stash
their cash. Being spurned by investors
does involve some short-term pain. However,
this can be limited by countries building up foreign currency reserves. Other measures such as controls over inflows
and outflows of funds are increasingly gaining acceptance (for more, see beware of a flood of funds).
There are clear long-term benefits from keeping politicians
in emerging markets honest by means of checks rooted in global finance. Voters everywhere are disillusioned with
their politicians (a sentiment shared by Your Neighbourhood Economist) and emerging
countries are no exception. But levels
of wealth in poorer countries are considerably more dependent on the quality of
their politicians. Governments in
developing countries also have a tendency to fiddle with the economy through
state-owned firms or measures against free trade. Argentina is probably the best example of
this - the country is so badly run that it does not even attract enough foreign
capital to merit inclusion in the Fragile Five.
Extra incentives for governments to adopt appropriate
policies should thus be welcomed. Trying
to stick to the economic equivalent of a diet may not be easy but there are
rewards at the end of it. In conclusion,
there is no point in blaming someone who keeps you on the straight and narrow,
in fact, there is a lot to gain.
No comments:
Post a Comment