'Democracy Means Conflict and Parliament is the institution to mediate Conflict' Ayesha Jalal

 

'Are We All Soviets Now?'

 

The Politics of Tariffs

 

How to tell good industrial policy from bad

Gillian Tett in The FT

 
Five years ago Reda Cherif and Fuad Hasanov, two economists at the IMF, wrote a paper with the (slightly) sarcastic title: “The Return of the Policy That Shall Not Be Named: Principles of Industrial Policy”. 

This pointed out that while strategic policy intervention was widely viewed as a key reason for the east Asian economic miracle, it had a “bad reputation among policymakers and academics” — so much so that, from the 1970s onwards, the phrase was rarely mentioned in polite company, or by the IMF. 

No longer. Last month the fund reported that it had observed no less than 2,500 industrial policy actions around the world in the last year alone, of which “more than two-thirds were trade-distorting as they likely discriminated against foreign commercial interests”. 

More striking still, industrial policies used to be far “more prevalent in emerging economies” than developed ones; between 2009 and 2022, there were cumulatively 7,000 subsidies tracked in developing countries, and fewer than 6,000 in developed ones. But last year’s surge was “driven by large economies, with China, the EU and the US accounting for almost half of all new [industrial policy] measures”. 

That shift can be seen not just in data, but rhetoric too. Last month, Mario Draghi, former head of the European Central Bank, lamented that Europe “lack[s] a strategy for how to shield our traditional industries from an unlevel global playing field caused by asymmetries in regulations, subsidies and trade policies”. He called for the EU to fight back with industrial policy. 

In the UK, the opposition Labour party is echoing these themes, calling for a “New Deal” and touting what it calls “securonomics”. In the US, Donald Trump wants huge trade tariffs, while Joe Biden has called for tariffs in sectors such as steel. The president’s Inflation Reduction Act is yet more industrial policy. 

But anyone pondering that striking number in the IMF report should remember a crucial point that ought to be obvious but is often overlooked: “industrial policy” can mean many different things. As Cherif and Hasanov told a seminar at Cambridge’s Bennett Institute this week, there is an important difference between policies that try to create growth by shielding domestic companies from foreign competition and those which help those companies compete more effectively on the world stage.  

The former “import substitution” strategy was pursued by many developing countries in recent years, including India. It is also the variant favoured by Trump and the one being considered by some European politicians, for instance in the case of Chinese solar panels. 

But it is this latter approach that has given industrial policy a bad name. On the basis of copious data, Cherif and Hasanov argue that import substitution models undermine growth in the long term since they create excessively coddled, inefficient industries. 

By contrast, the second variant of industrial policy aims instead to make industries more competitive externally in an export-oriented model, while worrying less about imports. This approach is what drove the east Asian miracle, and is what creates sustained growth, the data suggests. 

The difference in approach is embodied by the contrasting fortunes of Malaysian automaker Proton car and South Korea’s Hyundai. The former was developed amid import substitution policies, and never soared; the latter flourished on the back of an export-oriented strategy.  

A cynic might retort that policy is rarely so clear cut as these contrasting car tales might suggest. It is hard for any company to fly on the world stage if its key competitors are excessively subsidised in closed markets — as evidenced by the woes of EU solar-panel makers trying to compete with their Chinese rivals. It is also tough to tell countries to aim for export-driven growth in a world where trade is fragmenting and protectionism rising. 

In any case, while export-oriented strategies work for small or medium-sized countries such as South Korea, they may seem less relevant for a giant such as America. 

Then there is a more fundamental question around economic change. As a thoughtful paper published last year by the economists Réka Juhász, Nathan Lane and Dani Rodrik notes, while “industrial policy has traditionally focused on manufacturing”, it is the service sector that now dominates. Thus “governments are likely to look beyond manufacturing as they consider productivity-enhancing ‘industrial’ policies in the future”. 

Cherif and Hasanov think institutions such as America’s Darpa give one clue to innovation-boosting measures in this space; Juhász, Lane and Rodrik cite worker training and export credit. But this needs holistic policy, which America, say, lacks. 

Either way, the key point is that insofar as western politicians are now increasingly happy to utter the once forbidden words “industrial policy”, they need to define what they mean. Is the goal to exclude competitors from the domestic stage, via tariffs? Or to make domestic producers more competitive and innovative in a global sense and better able to compete? Or is it something else? Investors and markets need clear answers. So, more importantly, do voters.

The US v Students

 

Pakistan Bombs Afghanistan

 

Reality of Indian Students Going Abroad

 

Why Bharat Matters: A review

 

The US has broken its Promises to Russia: Jeffrey Sachs

 

Why Israel's Gaza Onslaught Could Be Stopped By Genocide Case

 

The Israel Palestine Mis-Information war

 

'Canada is the new Pakistan': Shekar Gupta

 

India is already a Vishwa Guru in Holding Elections

 

From Sanctions to Cooperation: The America-India (AI) Cooperation declaration

 

The True Cost of Trade Embargoes/Sanctions!

 

How China changed the game for countries in default

Robin Wigglesworth and Sun Yu  in The FT

Zambia, struggling from an economic and financial crisis compounded by the Covid-19 pandemic, first missed an interest payment on its international bonds. Two and a half years later it remains in limbo, unable to resolve the default on most of its $31.6bn debts. 

That an impoverished and vulnerable country has for so long unsuccessfully laboured to reach a deal with creditors and move on from the crisis is an illustration of the messy process to deal with government bankruptcies, which some experts fear has now broken down completely. 

The consequences could be severe for the spate of countries that have recently defaulted on their debts, and the topic has been high on the agenda of this week’s spring meetings of the IMF and World Bank in Washington. 

In her opening remarks at those meetings, the IMF’s managing director Kristalina Georgieva noted that about 15 per cent of low-income countries were already in “debt distress” and almost half were in danger of falling into it. 

“This has raised concerns over a potential wave of debt restructuring requests—and how to handle them at a time when current restructuring cases are facing costly delays, Zambia being the most recent example,” she told attendees.  

While domestic laws and judges govern the bankruptcies of companies and individuals, there is no international law for insolvent countries — only a chaotic, ad hoc process that involves working through a hodgepodge of contractual clauses and tacit conventions, enduring tortuous negotiations and navigating geopolitical expediency. 

A decade ago, US-based hedge fund Elliott Management exploited that landscape to notch up several lucrative victories by suing defaulters for full repayment of their debts. But this fragile patchwork is now under threat of unravelling completely due to the emergence of a new, disruptive, opaque and powerful force in sovereign debt: China. 

Some experts say Beijing’s lending spree to developing countries and refusal to play by western-established rules represents the single greatest impediment to government debt workouts and threatens to leave some countries in debt limbo for years. 

But Yu Jie, a senior research fellow on China at think-tank Chatham House, believes Beijing’s stance “is less about economic rationalities and more about geopolitical competition”. 

“The multilateral financial institutions are run largely by Americans and Europeans. China had hoped to be able to shape the agenda of debt relief, not to have it dictated by the west,” she says. 

Jay Newman, the former Elliott fund manager who successfully sued Argentina for $2.4bn after its 2001 debt restructuring, says the emergence of China as a significant player has left the entire system in uncharted waters. “You now have one big state creditor with the power to dictate terms and the patience not to make a deal if it doesn’t suit them. It has completely changed the game.” 

The new landscape 

In a grim sign of the times, Alvarez & Marsal — one of the world’s biggest corporate bankruptcy advisers — this year set up a sovereign practice for the first time. Underscoring its expectations for the business, it hired Reza Baqir, a former senior IMF official and governor of Pakistan’s central bank, to lead the new unit. 

The potential is clear. The latest IMF data from the end of February indicates that nine poorer countries — such as Mozambique, Zambia and Grenada — are already in what it terms “debt distress”, while another 27 countries are at “high risk” of falling into it. A further 26 more are on the watchlist. Baqir points out that there are also a lot of struggling state-controlled companies in these countries that will need help as a result. 

“The timing was right” for A&M to set up a sovereign advisory unit, he says. “Given that there are more than 50 countries in various stages of debt distress there is an opportunity for a more holistic approach.” 

Baqir is among those that say the debt restructuring process is broken, largely because it was primarily designed for a bygone era, when creditors were overwhelmingly western countries and western banks. 

Decades ago, the Paris Club was formed to co-ordinate between government creditors, while bankers formed the London Club to restructure their debts. Broadly speaking, western governments drove the process, and occasionally leaned on banks to accept painful settlements. It was largely improvised and often slow, but it mostly worked. 

But the decline of bank lending and the growth of the bond market shook things up in the spate of sovereign defaults that started in the early 1990s. Creditor co-ordination became trickier with myriad bondholders trading claims around the world, rather than just a handful of banks. 

Argentina’s default on $80bn of bonds in 2001 led to years of fights between Buenos Aires and investors such as Elliott, which refused to accept the terms agreed by other creditors. At one point the hedge fund famously seized an Argentine naval vessel when it docked in Ghana. Its reputation became such that bondholders would sometimes invoke the mere spectre of Elliott to scare countries contemplating a default, while policymakers used it as prima facie evidence of the sovereign debt restructuring system’s weaknesses. 

In the wake of the Argentine debacle the IMF responded by attempting to set up a kind of bankruptcy court for countries with itself as judge. But the sovereign debt restructuring mechanism foundered after attracting little support from the IMF’s biggest shareholders. Instead, the US championed the insertion of “collective action clauses” into bonds, which compel recalcitrant creditors to accept a restructuring agreement made by a majority. After Greece’s debt restructuring in 2012 these CACs were beefed up further. 

However, many bonds still lack these clauses. Moreover, they can only help ease a restructuring agreement once it is struck. Many experts point out that they do nothing to solve the biggest fundamental problem: countries are far too slow to seek a debt restructuring as they are wary of a messy process with the potential of worsening an economic crisis and the inevitable political humiliation of defaulting. 

“If I was a finance minister, I’d find it hard to tell my prime minister that we have a clean framework to work with,” says Baqir. 

When they are finally forced into a debt restructuring, the financial relief that countries secure is often too little to ensure a durable upswing. In the few cases where it does clean up their balance sheet, it sometimes only leads to another debt binge. 

This flawed process has now been further complicated — some say wrecked — by China’s vast lending programme across the developing world over the past decade. Many of these loans are opaque in size, terms, nature and sometimes even existence. 

The overall size of the lending programmes is hard to judge, given that China does not report most of it to the likes of the IMF, OECD or Bank for International Settlements. But AidData, a development think-tank based at William & Mary’s Global Research Institute, estimates that the loans amount to about $843bn. China is not a member of the Paris Club, and in most cases the loans are made by its myriad state-owned or merely state-controlled banks, muddling things further. 

It’s like the international financial policy community spent the past decade trying to clean up around the street light, oblivious to the mounds of rubbish piling up unseen around the rest of the darkened street, says Anna Gelpern, a professor of law and international finance at Georgetown University. 

“We spent 20 years focusing on contractual tweaks, assuming that bonds were the problem,” she says. “The problem is the state of global politics, and the fate of low-income countries just isn’t a big priority anywhere.” 

Life in default 

Zambia is a prime example. Of the roughly $20bn of external debt that the IMF tallied when forming its programme in 2022, $2.7bn was lent by international development banks, $1.3bn comes from various western governments, bank loans come to $1.6bn, local kwacha-denominated bonds held by non-residents are $3.3bn and international dollar-denominated bonds account for $3.3bn. But the biggest chunk is nearly $6bn owed to China. 

The IMF has reached a support agreement with Zambia that is conditional on its debt burden becoming sustainable. But other bondholders do not want any relief they offer to simply go towards paying off China. Beijing has in principle agreed to accept a “haircut” on its debts, but experts say it appears to not want anything it offers to go towards improving the recovery of private creditors, leading to the impasse. 

In the meantime, Zambia says it has accumulated about $1.2bn in arrears since its default. Including missed payments to various government contractors, the IMF has estimated that the arrears are actually nearly $3bn. 

Highlighting how China also appears to be leveraging these situations to undermine the western-designed global financial architecture, in January it called for international organisations such as the IMF and World Bank to participate in the debt restructuring. This would overturn half a century of convention that these organisations are “super-senior” creditors exempt from debt restructurings, as participating would imperil their ability to lend to other countries. 

One senior adviser to the Chinese government says that “there is no law that requires World Bank loans to be prioritised” and that the country was “not happy” with a practice that originated in an era when western countries were generally the only creditors. “If we allow the World Bank to take precedence over us, we need to have bigger voting rights and take larger stakes at the bank. China’s duty doesn’t match its rights in development finance.” 

Another increasingly common wrinkle in debt restructuring is what to do with domestic bonds, which local banks and financial companies have often gorged upon. Here too, Zambia is a good example. 

The $3.3bn of local currency bonds held by non-residents have also been cordoned off from the debt restructuring. Lusaka fears that reducing the value of kwacha bonds could wreck its banking industry and do more damage than they are worth. But some holders of other international bonds argue that they should also be included in the restructuring. 

“In the sovereign debt restructuring business we didn’t really think much about local debts,” says Lee Buchheit, a leading lawyer in the field. “There often wasn’t much of it, and we always assumed that the sovereign has a much broader palate of mechanisms it can use to deal with domestic debt.” 

But what to do about Zambia’s Chinese loans remains the thorniest issue and has risen to the highest levels in Washington and Beijing. US Treasury secretary Janet Yellen this year raised the stand-off with Chinese president Xi Jinping’s economic adviser Liu He, and said that it had “taken far too long already to resolve this matter” when she visited Lusaka in January. 

China’s exceptionalism? 

For the most part, experts say China seems mostly content with rolling its debts rather than restructuring them, handing out new loans to ensure that its domestic banks can be repaid in full. But it prefers to act alone, at its own pace, and feels no need for transparency. 

A recent paper by several economists, including Harvard University’s Carmen Reinhart, estimated that China has made 128 bailout loans worth $240bn to 20 distressed countries between 2000 and 2021. About $185bn was extended over the last five years of the study, and more than $100bn in 2019-21. 

Reinhart says that China’s lending stands out for its “extreme” opacity but stresses that its overall behaviour is not as unusual as some people say. “China is really playing hardball because it is a major creditor. US commercial banks also played hardball back in the 1980s,” she says. Baqir agrees, saying: “Whatever the colour or creed of a creditor, creditors think like creditors.” 

The Chinese government adviser also points to factors such as the country’s relative inexperience with debt workouts. “China is still at an early stage in coming up with its debt relief programme,” he says. 

Incomplete domestic financial reforms have also made it harder to offer debt relief to overseas creditors, while some Chinese banks are also struggling with big hits from the country’s wilting real estate sector. 

“We need co-ordination from the top level, which now has other priorities,” the adviser says. He also points out that the pressure on developing countries has intensified following a series of US interest rate rises, and that as a result Washington “should be responsible for the debt trap”. 

But whatever the root cause, most agree on the end result. “All of this [creditor] fragmentation is leading to paralysis,” says Sean Hagan, a former general counsel at the IMF who now teaches international law at Georgetown. 

 There are few solutions being floated around. The IMF in February announced a new Global Sovereign Debt Roundtable to bring together the full gamut of creditors and debtors, and hopefully thrash out ways to “facilitate the debt resolution process”. It is an initiative that few experts harbour much hope for. 

Buchheit likens the impact of an assertive new player on an already fault-riddled debt restructuring system to someone having a bad cold that a doctor struggles to treat, who is then impaled by a spear. “The cold hasn’t gone away, but the doctor is likely to focus more on the spear,” he says. 

Ironically, both Buchheit and Newman — who clashed many times over the years as the leading lawyer for and suer of bankrupt countries — advocate for the same basic approach: countries should restructure the debts they can, remain in default to China, and the IMF should drop its “kumbaya” approach and accept semi-permanent arrears to its biggest shareholders. 

But most expect Zambia-like debt limbo to be the likeliest outcome for a lot of countries. “I suspect this is going to be a recurring problem,” says Reinhart. “And the longer these countries are in the [debt] netherworld . . . the [more the] fabric of the country is affected.”  

"The USA and Allies will leave Ukraine by the end of March 2023": Sanjay Dikshit

 

The West is playing Russian roulette

 

The US Elections - "Key Issues not Discussed"!

 

New World Order?