Economics Essay 33: Dependency on Primary Commodity Production

Explain why dependency on a narrow range of primary products may damage an economy’s economic development.

Dependence on a narrow range of primary products can have significant implications for the economic development of a country. Economic development refers to a broader concept that encompasses not only economic growth but also improvements in living standards, human well-being, and structural transformation. Here's a comprehensive explanation of why such dependency can damage an economy's economic development:

1. Vulnerability to external shocks: When an economy relies heavily on a narrow range of primary products, it becomes highly vulnerable to external shocks such as changes in global commodity prices, natural disasters, or shifts in international trade policies. Any adverse event that affects the primary product can have a severe impact on the economy, leading to revenue losses, reduced government spending capacity, and lower economic growth. This vulnerability hampers the overall progress and stability needed for sustained economic development.

2. Limited diversification and structural transformation: Dependence on primary products can hinder diversification efforts and structural transformation in the economy. Economic development requires the expansion and development of various sectors, such as manufacturing, services, and knowledge-based industries. By relying on a narrow range of primary products, a country misses out on opportunities for diversification and fails to develop other sectors that can drive innovation, create higher-skilled jobs, and increase productivity. This lack of diversification limits the country's potential for sustained economic development and puts it at a disadvantage in the global economy.

3. Lack of value addition and low technology adoption: Primary product dependency often involves limited value addition and low technology adoption. Countries primarily engaged in the extraction and export of raw materials tend to focus on exporting the unprocessed products without adding significant value. This results in missed opportunities for increasing value through processing, manufacturing, and innovation, which are crucial for economic development. Without value addition and technological advancements, the country's competitiveness and productivity remain low, hindering overall development prospects.

4. Unequal distribution of wealth and income: In economies dependent on primary products, wealth and income tend to be concentrated in the hands of a few individuals or sectors involved in the primary product industry. This can lead to income inequality and socio-economic disparities, hindering inclusive development. The lack of equitable wealth distribution can undermine social cohesion, limit opportunities for social mobility, and hinder efforts to reduce poverty and improve living standards for the broader population.

5. Environmental and sustainability challenges: The production and extraction of primary products often have significant environmental consequences, including deforestation, pollution, and depletion of natural resources. Countries overly reliant on primary products may face environmental challenges that can damage ecosystems, impact biodiversity, and jeopardize the long-term sustainability of the economy. Sustainable economic development requires balancing economic growth with environmental conservation and ensuring the responsible use of natural resources.

An example that exemplifies the challenges of primary product dependency is several African countries heavily reliant on a single commodity, such as oil, diamonds, or minerals. Despite having substantial natural resources, these countries have struggled to achieve sustained economic development and have faced issues related to economic volatility, limited diversification, environmental degradation, and social inequalities.

In conclusion, dependence on a narrow range of primary products can damage an economy's economic development by exposing it to external shocks, hindering diversification and structural transformation, limiting value addition and technology adoption, perpetuating income inequalities, and posing environmental challenges. Promoting economic diversification, investing in human capital and technology, enhancing value addition, addressing income disparities, and pursuing sustainable development practices are essential for breaking the cycle of primary product dependency and fostering long-term economic development.

When evaluating the impact of primary product dependency on economic development, we can consider the theory of comparative advantage. The theory of comparative advantage suggests that countries should specialize in producing goods or services in which they have a lower opportunity cost compared to other countries. This specialization allows for increased efficiency and trade, leading to mutual gains.

In the context of primary product dependency, the theory of comparative advantage provides some insights:

1. Comparative advantage in primary products: Countries with abundant natural resources may possess a comparative advantage in producing primary products. They can exploit their resource endowments and export these products to earn foreign exchange and generate revenue. This specialization can initially bring economic benefits by capitalizing on the country's natural resource advantages.

2. Limited diversification challenges: However, reliance on a narrow range of primary products can hinder diversification efforts. The theory of comparative advantage suggests that countries should diversify their production and trade to fully capitalize on their comparative advantages in different sectors. By focusing excessively on primary products, countries may miss out on opportunities to develop and expand other sectors with comparative advantages, such as manufacturing or services. This limited diversification can impede economic development and make the country susceptible to external shocks.

3. Volatility and instability: Primary product prices tend to be more volatile compared to prices of manufactured goods or services. Changes in global demand, technological advancements, or shifts in supply conditions can lead to significant price fluctuations in primary product markets. This volatility can impact the stability of an economy, making it more vulnerable to economic downturns or revenue shocks. Economic development requires stability and predictability, and excessive dependence on primary products can hinder these objectives.

4. Building a knowledge-based economy: Comparative advantage also emphasizes the importance of building a knowledge-based economy. This involves investing in education, research and development, and technology adoption to enhance productivity and competitiveness. While primary products can provide a short-term advantage, long-term economic development relies on the ability to innovate, add value, and move up the value chain. Overreliance on primary products can discourage investment in developing a knowledge-based economy, slowing down the overall pace of development.

5. Structural transformation challenges: Comparative advantage suggests that countries should undergo structural transformation, shifting resources from low-productivity sectors to high-productivity sectors. Excessive reliance on primary products may hinder this transformation process by locking resources and labor in a specific sector. This can limit the development of higher-skilled industries and impede overall economic growth.

In evaluating the impact of primary product dependency on economic development through the lens of comparative advantage, it becomes evident that while countries may initially benefit from their comparative advantage in primary products, overreliance can pose challenges to long-term development. Diversification, building a knowledge-based economy, addressing volatility, and promoting structural transformation are critical for sustained and inclusive economic development.

It is important to note that the evaluation of primary product dependency should consider country-specific factors, such as institutional quality, governance, and policies. Each country has unique circumstances that can shape the outcomes of primary product dependency, and a comprehensive assessment requires analyzing these factors in conjunction with the theory of comparative advantage.

On the Indian Farmers' Agitation for MSP

By Girish Menon

In this article I will try to explain the logic behind the Delhi protests by farmers demanding a Minimum Support Price (MSP).

If you are a businessman who has produced say 1000 units of a good; and are able to sell only 10 units at the price that you desired. Then it means you will have an unsold stock of 990 units. You now have a choice:

Either keep them in storage and sell it to folks who may come in the future and pay your asking price.

Or get rid of your unsold stock at whatever price the haggling buyers are willing to pay. 

If you decide on the storage option then it follows that your goods are not perishable, it’s value does not diminish with age, you have adequate storage facilities and you have the resources to continue living even when most of your goods are unsold.

If you decide on the distress sale option it could mean that your goods are perishable and/or it’s value diminishes with age and/or you don’t have storage facilities and/or you are desperate to unload your stuff because for you whatever money you get today is important for your survival,

If one were to approach any small farmers’ output, I think such a farmer does not have the storage option available to him. Hence, he will have to sell his output to the intermediary at any price offered. This could mean a low price which results in a loss or a high price resulting in a profit to the farmer.

Whether the price is high or low depends on the volume of output produced by all farmers of the same output. And, no farmer is able to predict the likely future harvest price he would get at the moment he decides what crop to grow.

Thus a subsistence farmer, without storage facilities, is betting on the future price he could get at harvest time. This is a bet that destroys subsistence farmers from time to time when market prices turn really low due to a bumper harvest.

Subjecting subsistence farmers to ‘market forces’ means that some farmers will get bankrupted and be forced to leave their village and go to the city in search of a means of living. In many developed countries, governments have tried to prevent farmer exodus from villages by intervening and ensuring that farmers receive a decent return for their toils,

MSP is a government guarantee of a minimum price that protects farmers who cannot get their desired price at the market, The original draft of the farm law bills passed by the Indian Parliament has no mention of MSP. Also, in Punjab etc., some of these agitating farmers are already being supported with MSP by the state government and they fear that the new bills will take away their protection.

This is a simple explanation of the demand for MSP.

It must also be remembered that:

• Unlike the subsistence farmer, the middleman who buys the farmers’ output is usually a part of a powerful cartel and who enjoys more market power than the farmer.

• As depicted in ‘Peepli Live’ destitute farmers, if forced to leave their villages, will add to supply of cheap labour in an era of already high unemployment.

• These destitute may squat on a city’s scarce public spaces and be an ‘eyesore’ to the better off city dwellers.

• Some farmers may even contemplate suicide and this will produce less than desirable PR optics for any 'caring' government.

Humans are not resources. Coronavirus shows why we must democratise work

Our health and lives cannot be ruled by market forces alone. Now thousands of scholars are calling for a way out of the crisis. Nancy Fraser, Susan Neiman , Chantal Mouffe, Saskia Sassen, Jan-Werner Müller, Dani Rodrik, Thomas Piketty, Gabriel Zucman, Ha-Joon Chang, and many others write in The Guardian 

 

Healthcare workers protest against the handling of the coronavirus crisis in Liège, Belgium, May 2020. Photograph: Yves Herman/Reuters


Working humans are so much more than “resources”. This is one of the central lessons of the current crisis. Caring for the sick; delivering food, medication and other essentials; clearing away our waste; stocking the shelves and running the registers in our grocery stores – the people who have kept life going through the Covid-19 pandemic are living proof that work cannot be reduced to a mere commodity. Human health and the care of the most vulnerable cannot be governed by market forces alone. If we leave these things solely to the market, we run the risk of exacerbating inequalities to the point of forfeiting the very lives of the least advantaged.

How to avoid this unacceptable situation? By involving employees in decisions relating to their lives and futures in the workplace – by democratising firms. By decommodifying work – by collectively guaranteeing useful employment to all. As we face the monstrous risk of pandemic and environmental collapse, making these strategic changes would allow us to ensure the dignity of all citizens while marshalling the collective strength and effort we need to preserve our life together on this planet.

Every morning, men and women, especially members of racialised communities, migrants and informal economy workers, rise to serve those among us who are able to remain under quarantine. They keep watch through the night. The dignity of their jobs needs no other explanation than that eloquently simple term “essential worker”. That term also reveals a key fact that capitalism has always sought to render invisible with another term, “human resource”. Human beings are not one resource among many. Without labor investors, there would be no production, no services, no businesses at all.

Every morning, quarantined men and women rise in their homes to fulfil from afar the missions of the organisations for which they work. They work into the night. To those who believe that employees cannot be trusted to do their jobs without supervision, that workers require surveillance and external discipline, these men and women are proving the contrary. They are demonstrating, day and night, that workers are not one type of stakeholder among many: they hold the keys to their employers’ success. They are the core constituency of the firm, but are, nonetheless, mostly excluded from participating in the government of their workplaces – a right monopolised by capital investors.

To the question of how firms and how society as a whole might recognise the contributions of their employees in times of crisis, democracy is the answer. Certainly, we must close the yawning chasm of income inequality and raise the income floor – but that alone is not enough. After the two world wars, women’s undeniable contribution to society helped win them the right to vote. By the same token, it is time to enfranchise workers.

Representation of labour investors in the workplace has existed in Europe since the close of the second world war, through institutions known as works councils. Yet these representative bodies have a weak voice at best in the government of firms, and are subordinate to the choices of the executive management teams appointed by shareholders. They have been unable to stop or even slow the relentless momentum of self-serving capital accumulation, ever more powerful in its destruction of our environment. These bodies should now be granted similar rights to those exercised by boards. To do so, firm governments (that is, top management) could be required to obtain double majority approval, from chambers representing workers as well as shareholders.

In Germany, the Netherlands and Scandinavia, different forms of codetermination (Mitbestimmung) put in place progressively after the second world war were a crucial step toward giving a voice to workers – but they are still insufficient to create actual citizenship in firms. Even in the United States, where worker organising and union rights have been considerably suppressed, there is now a growing call to give labour investors the right to elect representatives with a supermajority within boards. Issues such as the choice of a CEO, setting major strategies and profit distribution are too important to be left to shareholders alone. A personal investment of labour; that is, of one’s mind and body, one’s health – one’s very life – ought to come with the collective right to validate or veto these decisions.

This crisis also shows that work must not be treated as a commodity, that market mechanisms alone cannot be left in charge of the choices that affect our communities most deeply. For years now, jobs and supplies in the health sector have been subject to the guiding principle of profitability; today, the pandemic is revealing the extent to which this principle has led us astray. Certain strategic and collective needs must simply be made immune to such considerations. The rising body count across the globe is a terrible reminder that some things must never be treated as commodities. Those who continue arguing to the contrary are imperilling us with their dangerous ideology. Profitability is an intolerable yardstick when it comes to our health and our life on this planet.

Decommodifying work means preserving certain sectors from the laws of the so-called free market; it also means ensuring that all people have access to work and the dignity it brings. One way to do this is with the creation of a job guarantee. Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reminds us that everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. A job guarantee would not only offer each person access to work that allows them to live with dignity, it would also provide a crucial boost to our collective capability to meet the many pressing social and environmental challenges we currently face. Guaranteed employment would allow governments, working through local communities, to provide dignified work while contributing to the immense effort of fighting environmental collapse. Across the globe, as unemployment skyrockets, job guarantee programs can play a crucial role in assuring the social, economic, and environmental stability of our democratic societies.

The European Union must include such a project in its green deal. A review of the mission of the European Central Bank so that it could finance this program, which is necessary to our survival, would give it a legitimate place in the life of each and every citizen of the EU. A countercyclical solution to the explosive unemployment on the way, this program will prove a key contribution to the EU’s prosperity.

We should not react now with the same innocence as in 2008, when we responded to the economic crisis with an unconditional bailout that swelled public debt while demanding nothing in return. If our governments step in to save businesses in the current crisis, then businesses must step in as well, and meet the general basic conditions of democracy. In the name of the democratic societies they serve, and which constitute them, in the name of their responsibility to ensure our survival on this planet, our governments must make their aid to firms conditional on certain changes to their behaviours. In addition to hewing to strict environmental standards, firms must be required to fulfil certain conditions of democratic internal government. A successful transition from environmental destruction to environmental recovery and regeneration will be best led by democratically governed firms, in which the voices of those who invest their labor carry the same weight as those who invest their capital when it comes to strategic decisions.

We have had more than enough time to see what happens when labor, the planet, and capital gains are placed in the balance under the current system: labor and the planet always lose. Thanks to research from the University of Cambridge, we know that “achievable design changes” could reduce global energy consumption by 73%. But those changes are labor intensive, and require choices that are often costlier over the short term. So long as firms are run in ways that seek to maximise profit for their capital investors alone, and in a world where energy is cheap, why make these changes? Despite the challenges of this transition, certain socially minded or co-operatively run businesses – pursuing hybrid goals that take financial, social and environmental considerations into account, and developing democratic internal governments – have already shown the potential of such positive impact.

Let us fool ourselves no longer: left to their own devices, most capital investors will not care for the dignity of labour investors, nor will they lead the fight against environmental catastrophe. Another option is available. Democratise firms; decommodify work; stop treating human beings as resources so that we can focus together on sustaining life on this planet.

Don’t blame foreign investors – the roots of the housing crisis lie closer to home

David Madden in The Guardian

In a city where super-prime properties and tenant evictions are both on the rise, the housing system is broken and many residents are looking for someone to blame. For Londoners, rent consumes nearly two-thirds of the typical tenant’s income, and it will take 46 years for the average single person to save for a deposit on their first home. With overseas buyers acquiring as much as three-quarters of all new-build housing in London in recent years, it is understandable that foreigners would be cast as the villains behind the housing crisis. As a result, the London mayor Sadiq Khan last week launched an inquiry into foreign investment in the city’s housing market.

Londoners are not alone in questioning the impact of global investors in local housing markets. The issue is being politicised in cities throughout the world. In Vancouver, Canada, where single-family homes cost around 21 times the region’s median income, the city introduced a 15% tax on non-resident foreign property owners this August. Australian states that encompass Sydney, Melbourne, and other cities have also introduced or raised taxes on house purchases by foreigners.

It’s important to understand how overseas investment shapes residential opportunities and neighbourhood life. Khan is right to draw attention to the ways that housing in London is intertwined with global financial flows.

But foreign ownership is only part of a complex story – one that involves many actors and institutions located much closer to home. Searching for meddling non-natives to blame is ultimately a distraction. The idea that the housing crisis can be pinned on foreigners is a politically convenient simplification that risks letting other culprits off the hook, while doing little to change the status quo.

Focusing on overseas investors allows British policymakers to obscure their own role in producing the housing crisis. Over the decades, politicians at all levels of government have played an active part in creating this situation. Ministers promoted market-centric reforms such as the right to buy and more flexible tenancies, welcomed institutional investors into the housing market, and pushed through budget cuts in the name of austerity. These changes undermined council housing and weakened tenants’ security while making housing a more liquid commodity. Councillors across greater London have given the green light to estate demolition and gentrification, and allowed developers to build expensive new projects without significant numbers of affordable housing units.

Without these actions, we wouldn’t even be talking about Russian or Chinese investors. National and local political elites in Canada, Australia, the US, and elsewhere likewise bear responsibility for promoting the financialisation of housing.


Pointing at foreigners is a way to pretend to address the housing problem while ignoring the demands of activists

Blaming overseas investors similarly ignores domestic ones. Foreign owners may be particularly disconnected from local knowledge and conditions, but if they were simply replaced by their native counterparts who pursue the same strategies, the housing crisis would remain.

Pointing the finger at foreigners is also a way to pretend to address the housing problem while ignoring the demands of activists. The movements that have been mobilising in opposition to developers, councils and national government are fighting against displacement and in favour of establishing housing as a universal right. Whether exploitative landlords and serial collectors of luxury flats are British or foreign is beside the point. No housing activist has ever carried a sign demanding “British mansions for British oligarchs.”

None of this is to say that foreign ownership doesn’t matter. But the real issue is the political-economic condition that makes it possible: the commodification of housing. This term describes the process by which housing comes increasingly to function as a financial instrument rather than as shelter. Foreign ownership only matters because it is fuelling this broader process.

Rather than lashing out at foreigners, who are an easy target, city-dwellers and politicians such as Sadiq Khan need to ask tougher questions. Whose interests are served by urban regeneration in its current form? Why are collective resources such as public housing being dismantled and sold off? What alternatives to deepening housing inequalities are possible?

Australia bet the house on never-ending Chinese growth. It might not end well

Lindsay Davis in The Guardian

Assumptions about coal and iron ore exports helped build Australian prosperity. But with China’s economy threatening to unravel, a less rosy picture is emerging

 

Chinese tourists in Sydney. The two countries have prospered through their close economic ties but there could also be a downside. Photograph: David Gray/REUTERS


Over the last couple of decades, China has undergone profound change and is often cited as an economic growth miracle. Day by day, however, the evidence becomes increasingly clear the probability of a severe economic and financial downturn in China is on the cards. This is not good news at all for Australia. The country is heavily exposed, as China comprises Australia’s top export market, at 33%, more than double the second (Japan at 15%).

Is 2016 the year when the world tumbles back into economic crisis?



A considerable proportion of Australia’s current and future economic prospects depend heavily on China’s current strategy of building its way out of poverty while sustaining strong real GDP growth. To date, China has successfully pulled hundreds of millions of its people out of poverty and into the middle class through mass provision of infrastructure and expansion of housing markets, alongside a powerful export operation which the global economy has relied upon since the 1990s for cheap imports.

Though last week’s volatile falls on the Chinese stock markets alongside a weakening yuan sent shockwaves through the global markets, Australia’s exposure lies much deeper within the Chinese economy. The miracle is starting to look more and more fallible as it slumps under heavy corporate debts and an over-construction spree which shall never again be replicated in our lifetimes or that of our children.

As of the second quarter of 2015, China’s household sector debt was a moderate 38% of GDP but its booming private non-financial business sector debt was 163%.Added together, it gives a total of 201% and its climbing rapidly. This may well be a conservative figure, given it is widely acknowledged the central government has overstated GDP growth.

Australia, though it frequently features high on lists of the world’s most desirable locations, currently has the world’s second most indebted household sector, at 122% of GDP, soon to overtake Denmark in first place. Combined with private non-financial business sector debt, Australia has a staggering total of 203%, vastly larger than public debts at all levels of government.

Australia’s long-term bet on China was and still is conceptually simple – an incredibly flawed assumption that the country would never cease to consume increasingly more iron ore.

The assumption ran right to the top. Back during the Labor (Rudd/Gillard/Rudd) administrations of 2007-13, the bureaucrats at the Reserve Bank and the treasury, alongside the then treasurer Wayne Swan, forecast that China would import so much iron ore up to 2029 that the only way so much steel could be consumed was if they built more houses than there were people. There would also be infrastructure projects like airports, highways, exhibition centres and sports stadiums.

This was just the base forecast. The best-case scenario manufactured by Australian bureaucrats would liken parts of China to resemble the planet Coruscant from the Star Wars movies (the political centre of the galaxy, whose surface is covered by an entire city). With incredible complacency, politicians from both sides of parliament basked in the glory and reacted smugly when the US and the eurozone hit a brick wall.

So what did Australia do with this rosy outlook? Like a letter of guarantee, the financial services industry used it to convince the international wholesale lending community that the Australian economy was as safe as houses. Lenders around the world were facing an indefinite period of zero interest rates and were desperate for better yield. Australia must have seemed a good place to put their money.

For a time, the Australian bet looked good. The banking and financial system collected all the debt they could source from overseas wholesale lenders, underpinning increasingly greater expansion into Australia’s already grossly overvalued residential housing market.

Like most other nations in the Asia-Pacific region, the problem for Australia now is that riding on the back of China’s economic growth is no longer a “letter of guarantee” but a statement of significant overexposure to a bad bet and risky mortgage debt. The current downturn in China is smashing the Australian mining industry via lower demand for commodities amid increased global supply, especially in iron ore.

As well as hitting Australia hard, the mining export-driven states and territories (Western Australia, Queensland and the Northern Territory) will suffer the most.Population growth rates are falling in these regions, growth is softening and underutilization (unemployment and underemployment) is steadily rising. Spillover effects into the other states are likely, which could impact the country’s largest and most leveraged asset class: the housing market.

This may leave little desire for international wholesale lenders to provide credit to the banking and financial system in the future as Australia’s economic prospects deteriorate. It is becoming obvious both domestically and internationally that the country is beset with a massive housing bubble, driven by debt-financed speculation. Without Australia’s lenders importing an ever increasing sum of credit, the overleveraged and overvalued housing market will run into trouble.

Government and industry have managed over the last decade and a half to instill severe complacency in Australia, hoping policymakers’ two big bets on the finance, property and mining sectors would continue to pay dividends far into the future. While these bets paid off in the short-term, genuine productivity-enhancing policies which would diminish the incredible and mostly unearned wealth millionaires and billionaires have siphoned off could then be ignored.

With the Chinese economy beginning to falter, the fear is Australians must now figure out where their economic future lies for the next generation who have been brainwashed into believing that digging up rocks and flipping houses by accumulating a gargantuan mountain of private debt is how a modern western country builds its future. The results will not be pretty.

The global economy is slowing down. But is it recession – or protectionism?

Heather Stewart and Fergus Ryan in The Guardian

For one Chinese company that depends on global trade, fears over the worldwide economy have come to pass already. “The global economy is pretty bleak at the moment,” says Luo Dong, the owner of Doyoung, a Beijing-based exporter of frozen seafood and fruit. “This is having a big effect on us. Our clients’ sales are a lot slower than they used to be, and as purchasing power overseas drops, our exports are taking a hit.”

Luo’s observations were echoed on a wider stage last week, when the Paris-based Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development voiced the fear gripping many economists: that the drop-off in trade, driven by China, may be a harbinger of something more worrying – a global recession.

Days later, Rolls-Royce became the latest British exporter to face what it called “headwinds” from China, joining a slew of others, from carmaker Jaguar Land Rover to luxury brand Burberry. Meanwhile, commodities including platinum and crude oil resumed their decline in value as investors continued to fret about sliding demand for the raw materials of global commerce. Beijing has cut interest rates six times in less than a year and let the yuan slide against the dollar, underlining the sense of alarm about slowing growth.

Official figures show GDP expanding at around 6.9% in the world’s second-largest economy, conveniently in line with the government’s official target of “around 7%”; but outside analysts believe it may be much weaker. “We find these numbers pretty implausible,” says Andrew Brigden of City consultancy Fathom. “China is slowing a lot more markedly than the official figures show.” Fathom’s calculations, based on alternative indicators such as electricity use, suggest GDP growth of 3% or even less.

However, inside China it feels as though sluggish demand from the eurozone, rather than a homegrown problem, is to blame for the deterioration in the economic weather.

Luo, whose company exports to the US, Europe, Middle East and Africa, says exports have roughly halved since last year. “The worst market has been Europe, largely due to exchange rate fluctuations,” he says.

The European Central Bank has deliberately driven down the value of the single currency by implementing quantitative easing. “The other major factor has been labour costs here, which have gone up about a third,” Luo adds.

For the UK, so far, the impact of global trade headwinds has been relatively mild, notwithstanding the tone of alarm from exporters. Lee Hopley, chief economist at the UK manufacturers’ association EEF, says: “It’s something that’s certainly on our members’ radar, and it’s a source of concern.”

FacebookTwitterPinterest Angel Gurría of the OECD: ‘Global trade, which was already growing slowly over the past few years, appears to have stagnated.’ Photograph: Evaristo Sa/AFP/Getty Images

But for a string of other countries, especially those heavily dependent on commodities exports, the result has been economic chaos – and the OECD fears worse may be to come. After the great financial crisis hit in 2008, reports that demand for exports had “fallen off a cliff”, as it was often put at the time, were among the first signals that a deep downturn was under way.

“Global trade, which was already growing slowly over the past few years, appears to have stagnated,” said Angel Gurría, the OECD’s secretary general, presenting its latest economic forecasts and predicting trade growth of around 2% this year. “What happened in the past 50 years whenever there was such a slowdown in trade growth, it was a harbinger of a very sharp turn of the economy for the worse.”

Gurría explained that the recent slowdown in emerging market economies, led by China, had been particularly damaging because it had come at a time when the advanced economies, in particular the eurozone and Japan, were not yet growing at a robust enough pace to drive global growth.

“A further sharp slowdown in emerging market economies is weighing down on activity and trade. At the same time, subdued investment and productivity growth are checking the momentum of the recovery in advanced economies. It’s a double whammy,” Gurría said.

The OECD’s prescription for this malaise is a collective effort by the advanced economies to ramp up investment – helping to boost demand, improve productivity and generate stronger growth. A similar approach was set out by President Barack Obama on Friday, and he is likely to press for more action to prop up domestic demand at this weekend’s G20 meeting in Turkey.

But with Germany and the UK still enthusiastically espousing austerity, any commitment to new investment seems highly unlikely; so economists have been left trying to count the costs of China’s transition from high-speed, export-led growth to a new economic model at a time when demand in other markets is far from booming.

Economist and China-watcher George Magnus reckons the world will avoid recession, but the damage will be severe for economies that have hitched themselves to the Chinese bandwagon in recent years.

“In Africa, exports to China are 12% of total exports, but three-quarters of the exposure is concentrated among five countries: Angola, South Africa, Democratic Republic of Congo, Republic of Congo and Equatorial Guinea,” he said in a recent blogpost. “In Australia, exports to China are a third of total exports. In Latin America, exports to China are about 2% of regional GDP.”

Most of these countries are exporters of coal, oil and minerals, and their struggles coincide with the end of what became known as the “commodities supercycle” – a decade or so in which prices were held aloft by the belief that demand for raw materials would continue rising, as developing economies became the engines of global growth.

FacebookTwitterPinterest Protests in Brazil, which is now in recession. Photograph: Imago/Barcroft Media

Goldman Sachs’s decision to close down its loss-making Bric fund was a symbolic reminder that the days are gone when the economic rise of Brazil, Russia, India and China (the four countries from which the fund drew its name) seemed guaranteed. Indeed, Brazil and Russia are both in recession.

The US Federal Reserve’s plans to raise interest rates from near zero, which many experts now expect to happen next month, could deepen the agony of countries already struggling with plunging currencies and rising borrowing costs. The International Monetary Fund has warned of a flurry of bankruptcies in emerging economies as rates rise.

“A lot of these countries haven’t been helping themselves: Taiwan, Korea; they’ve all been cranking up their own credit growth,” says Russell Jones of Llewellyn Consulting, an economics advisory firm. But he too believes the world should escape a general slump. “I don’t think we’re on the cusp of a major downturn — probably more of the same.”

Simon Evenett of St Gallen University in Switzerland, who collates detailed data for the thinktank Global Trade Alert, offers an alternative explanation for the recent slide in trade volumes. He calculates that about half of the fall, since exports peaked in September last year, has been caused by the commodity price rout; but the rest, rather than evidence of sickly global demand, has resulted from a creeping rise in protectionism.

His analysis suggests the declines have overwhelmingly taken place in just 28 categories of product. “That’s very concentrated; that makes me doubt that it’s a global downturn.” Eight of these categories are commodities; but the rest map closely on to areas where countries have taken protectionist measures.

In the wake of the financial crisis, policymakers from the G20 countries pledged not to resort to the tit-for-tat protectionism that led to collapsing trade volumes in the wake of the Great Crash of 1929, and was ultimately seen as a contributor to the Great Depression. Since then, there has been little sign of anything with the scope of America’s Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930, which slapped import tariffs on more than 800 products.

But Evenett says there has been a flurry of more subtle manoeuvres: restricting public procurement to domestic firms, for example, or quietly tightening regulations to raise the bar against imports. “I think the China story is adding spice to it, but I think there’s more going on here,” he says.

He is concerned that unless action is taken, politicians will continue to throw sand in the wheels of the international trading system. If he’s right, the downturn seen so far may not be sending a warning signal about global demand; instead, it would be best read as a measure of the fragility of globalisation.