Economics is in Disarray: Time to Rethink

 The Guardian View

When Labour’s Gordon Brown embraced “post neo-classical endogenous growth theory” in 1994, he was ridiculed by his opponents. This said more about his critics than Mr Brown. His speech reflected an engagement with academic debates as well as a worldview and diagnosis distinct from Tory narratives. He judged education to be key, as growth depended on human capital. By contrast, today Labour’s top team struggles to say exactly what they believe will drive growth and how they will achieve it.

Part of the reason is that mainstream economics is proving incapable of giving sensible answers to important questions. Whether it is the financial crash, the pandemic or inflation shocks, the response is that spending cuts are needed as public debt threatens to bankrupt the nation. Many economists are questioning their discipline’s worth. Last month, the Nobel laureate Angus Deaton blogged that economics was in “disarray” and had “largely stopped thinking about ethics”. Jeremy Rudd of the US Federal Reserve writes scornfully in his latest book, A Practical Guide to Macroeconomics, that economists’ role today is to justify “what elite interests want to do anyway: deregulate, pay fewer taxes, keep wages as low as possible”.

One school of thought attempting to rewrite the textbooks is called modern monetary theory, whose face is Stephanie Kelton, a former economic adviser to Bernie Sanders. She argues that there is no financial constraint on government spending; money can be created and invested so long as there is capacity in the economy to absorb the cash. If not, inflation will follow. This shouldn’t be controversial. John Maynard Keynes said as much in his 1940 book, How to Pay for the War. The theory is not just about deficits: a strong exporting nation should pursue fiscal surpluses – an insight attributed to Prof Kelton’s tutor and ex-Treasury adviser Wynne Godley.

Her work made headlines during Covid-19, when governments spent big without asking first where the money would come from. Prof Kelton’s book The Deficit Myth became a bestseller. Next month, a movie, Finding the Money, hits US screens. The film looks at why politicians hide behind economic “myths” rather than explain to voters the trade-offs required to help them. Prof Kelton’s positions are often counterintuitive, which makes them interesting. Her current argument that rising US interest rates might be inflationary finds her agreeing with her sharpest critic, Larry Summers. Such challenges should be welcome in Britain. The US debates have produced an industrial policy powered by government deficits – and the world’s fastest growing advanced economy.

Mr Brown’s successor Rachel Reeves prefers a deadening consensus, sacrificing policies to placate business while committing to Tory spending now that is “paid for” by austerity later. Both major parties say deregulation would crowd in private investment and the state could capture the ensuing productivity gains. The Tories would use the proceeds for tax cuts whereas Labour would spend them on public services. This strategy has failed since 2010. Why would it work now? One of Ms Reeves’ predecessors said that “the history of British policymaking in the last hundred years has taught us that on all the other occasions when major economic misjudgments were made, broad-based political, media, financial and popular opinion was in favour of the decision at the time, and the dissenting voices of economists were silenced or ignored”. Ed Balls’ 2011 speech is as relevant today as it was then.

A level Economics: Can India Inc extricate itself from China?

The Economist

China and India are not on the friendliest of terms. In 2020 their soldiers clashed along their disputed border in the deadliest confrontation between the two since 1967—then clashed again in 2021 and 2022. That has made trade between the Asian giants a tense affair. Tense but, especially for India, still indispensable. Indian consumers rely on cheap Chinese goods, and Indian companies rely on cheap Chinese inputs, particularly in industries of the future. Whereas India sells China the products of the old economy—crustaceans, cotton, granite, diamonds, petrol—China sends India memory chips, integrated circuits and pharmaceutical ingredients. As a result, trade is becoming ever more lopsided. Of the $117bn in goods that flowed between the two countries in 2022, 87% came from China (see chart).

India’s prime minister, Narendra Modi, wants to reduce this Sino-dependence. One reason is strategic—relying on a mercurial adversary for critical imports carries risks. Another is commercial—Mr Modi is trying to replicate China’s nationalistic, export-oriented growth model, which means seizing some business from China. In recent months his government’s efforts to decouple parts of the Indian economy from its larger neighbour’s have intensified. On August 3rd India announced new licensing restrictions for imported laptops and personal computers—devices that come primarily from China. A week later it was reported that similar measures were being considered for cameras and printers.

Officially, India is open to Chinese business, as long as this conforms with Indian laws. In practice, India’s government uses a number of tools to make Chinese firms’ life in India difficult or impossible. The bluntest of these is outright prohibitions on Chinese products, often on grounds related to national security. In the aftermath of the border hostilities in 2020, for example, the government banned 118 Chinese apps, including TikTok (a short-video sensation), WeChat (a super-app), Shein (a fast-fashion retailer) and just about any other service that captured data about Indian users. Hundreds more apps were banned for similar reasons throughout 2022 and this year. Makers of telecoms gear, such as Huawei and zte, have received the same treatment, out of fear that their hardware could let Chinese spooks eavesdrop on Indian citizens.

Tariffs are another popular tactic. In 2018, in an effort to reverse the demise of Indian mobile-phone assembly at the hands of Chinese rivals, the government imposed a 20% levy on imported devices. In 2020 it tripled tariffs on toy imports, most of which come from China, to 60% then, at the start of this year, raised them to 70%. India’s toy imports have since declined by three-quarters.

Sometimes the Indian government eschews official actions such as bans and tariffs in favour of more subtle ones. A common tactic is to introduce bureaucratic friction. India’s red tape makes it easy for officials to find fault with disfavoured businesses. Non-compliance with tax rules, so impenetrable that it is almost impossible to abide by them all, are a favourite accusation. Two smartphone makers, Xiaomi and bbk Electronics (which owns three popular brands, Oppo/OnePlus, Realme and Vivo), are under investigation for allegedly shortchanging the Indian taxman a combined $1.1bn. On August 2nd news outlets cited anonymous government officials saying that the Indian arm of byd, a Chinese carmaker, was under investigation over allegations that it paid $9m less than it owed in tariffs for parts imported from abroad. mg Motor, a subsidiary of saic, another Chinese car firm, faces investment restrictions and a tax probe.

A convoluted licensing regime gives Indian authorities more ways to stymie Chinese business. In April 2020 India declared that investments from countries sharing a border with it must receive special approvals. No specific neighbour was named but the target was clearly China. Since then India has approved less than a quarter of the 435 applications for foreign direct investment from the country. According to Business Today, a local outlet, only three received the thumbs-up in India’s last fiscal year, which ended in March. Last month reports surfaced that a proposed joint venture between byd and Megha Engineering, an Indian industrial firm, to build electric vehicles and batteries failed to win approval over security reasons.

Luxshare, a big Chinese manufacturer of devices for, among others, Apple, has yet to open a factory in Tamil Nadu, despite signing an agreement with the state in 2021. The reason for the delay is believed to be an unspoken blanket ban from the central government in Delhi on new facilities owned by Chinese companies. In early August the often slow-moving Indian parliament whisked through a new law easing the approval process for new lithium mines after a potentially large deposit of the metal, used in batteries, was unearthed earlier this year. Miners are welcome to submit applications, but Chinese bidders are expected to be viewed unfavourably.

In parallel to its blocking efforts, India is using policy to dislodge China as a leader in various markets. India’s $33bn programme of “production-linked incentives” (cash payments tied to sales, investment and output) has identified 14 areas of interest, many of which are currently dominated by Chinese companies.

One example is pharmaceutical ingredients, which Indian drugmakers have for years mostly procured from China. In February the Indian government started doling out handouts worth $2bn over six years to companies that agree to manufacture 41 of these substances domestically. Big pharmaceutical firms such as Aurobindo, Biocon, Dr Reddy’s and Strides are participating. Another is electronics. Contract manufacturers of Apple’s iPhones, such as Foxconn and Pegatron of Taiwan and Tata, an Indian conglomerate, are allowed to purchase Chinese-made components for assembly in India provided they make efforts to nurture local suppliers, too. A similar arrangement has apparently been offered to Tesla, which is looking for new locations to make its electric cars.

Some Chinese firms, tired of jumping through all these hoops, are calling it quits. In July 2022, after two years of efforts that included a promise to invest $1bn in India, Great Wall Motors closed its Indian carmaking operation, unable to secure local approvals. Others are trying to adapt. Xiaomi has said it will localise all its production and expand exports from India which, so far, go only to neighbouring countries, to Western markets. Shein will re-enter the Indian market through a joint venture with Reliance, India’s most valuable listed company, renowned for its ability to navigate Indian bureaucracy and politics. zte is reportedly attempting to arrange a licensing deal with a domestic manufacturer to make its networking equipment. So far it has found no takers. Given India’s growing suspicions of China, it may be a while before it does.

A level Economics: 'If Governments can find money to fight wars, surely they can find money for health and education'

ChatGPT

Governments around the world face the constant challenge of allocating limited resources to a wide array of priorities, ranging from defense and infrastructure to education and healthcare. A common sentiment expressed by critics is encapsulated in the quote: "If tomorrow there's a war, won't the government find the money to fight it? If yes, then surely the government can find the money for schools and hospitals." This argument questions the allocation of funds, especially in scenarios where governments allocate substantial resources to war efforts while supposedly neglecting essential social services. However, the issue is multifaceted, involving factors such as government priorities, opportunity costs, economic considerations, and budget deficits.

1. Government Priorities and Public Demand: Governments allocate funds based on perceived priorities, which are often influenced by national security concerns and public demand. In times of conflict, the urgency of defense may lead governments to prioritize military expenditures. Similarly, public demand for improved education and healthcare can drive funding decisions in those sectors. For example, the implementation of universal healthcare systems in various countries illustrates the power of public demand in shaping government priorities.

2. Opportunity Costs and Resource Allocation: The concept of opportunity costs plays a crucial role in resource allocation. When resources are directed towards one endeavor, they are inevitably unavailable for other pursuits. The decision to allocate substantial funds to war efforts might come at the expense of investing in education, healthcare, and infrastructure. This trade-off underscores the challenge governments face when balancing immediate needs with long-term societal benefits.

3. Economic and Political Factors: Economic considerations and political dynamics further complicate funding decisions. Governments might fund war efforts by borrowing money, leading to increased budget deficits and national debt. These financial burdens can have ripple effects on the overall economy, affecting long-term prospects for social programs. Furthermore, political pressures and lobbying can sway funding allocations, sometimes diverting resources away from essential services.

4. Budget Deficits and National Debt: The argument in the quote overlooks the implications of budget deficits and mounting national debt. While governments might "find the money" for certain endeavors, such as war, these actions often result in deficits when expenditures exceed revenues. The accumulation of deficits contributes to national debt, which can lead to higher interest payments and limit a government's capacity to fund essential services. This complex relationship underscores the need for prudent financial management.

5. Real-World Examples: Historical and contemporary examples highlight the interplay of these factors. The Cold War saw both the United States and the Soviet Union allocating substantial resources to military endeavors while neglecting certain domestic needs. In recent times, countries like Greece faced severe economic challenges due to unsustainable levels of debt, impacting their ability to fund public services effectively.

The quote that questions government funding priorities in relation to war and essential services encapsulates a sentiment shared by many. However, the issue is far more intricate than a simple comparison suggests. The allocation of funds involves intricate considerations, including government priorities, opportunity costs, economic factors, and budget deficits. While the ability to "find the money" exists, the long-term implications of such decisions on national debt, economic stability, and societal well-being must be carefully weighed. To achieve a balanced society that addresses both defense and fundamental needs, governments must navigate these complexities with wisdom and foresight.

--- Pakistan a case study

Pakistan's allocation of resources to defense expenditure in comparison to social needs is a topic of ongoing debate. The quote, "If tomorrow there's a war, won't the government find the money to fight it? If yes, then surely the government can find the money for schools and hospitals," sheds light on this issue. This essay delves into Pakistan's defense spending, its impact on social services, and provides a comparative analysis of defense expenditure among Pakistan and its neighboring countries.

1. Pakistan's Defense Expenditure and Its Impact: Pakistan's strategic position in a volatile region has historically driven high defense expenditures. In 2020, Pakistan allocated approximately 18% of its total government expenditure to defense, according to SIPRI. While safeguarding national security is crucial, this allocation has implications for addressing social needs.

2. Social Services and Comparative Analysis: Investing in education and healthcare is essential for sustainable development. However, in comparison to its neighbors, Pakistan's expenditure on social services often falls short. Let's consider a comparative analysis of defense expenditure as a percentage of the budget for the year 2020 among Pakistan and its neighbors:

Country	Defense Expenditure as % of Budget (2020)	Absolute Defense Expenditure (Million USD)
Pakistan	~18%	~$10,361
India	~16%	~$65,861
China	~19%	~$261,697
Afghanistan	~4%	~$174
Iran	~15%	~$14,051

3. Comparative Analysis Insights:

• Pakistan's defense spending as a percentage of its budget is relatively high, but China's and Iran's are also substantial due to regional dynamics and security concerns.
• Afghanistan's low defense spending reflects its post-conflict state, focusing on reconstruction and nation-building.
• India's allocation, while slightly lower than Pakistan's, has still been significant due to long-standing geopolitical tensions.

4. Balancing Defense and Social Priorities: Pakistan's allocation to defense must be seen in the context of security challenges. However, the comparative analysis highlights the need for balanced resource allocation. While defense is crucial, an equitable allocation to education, healthcare, and other social services is equally important for sustainable development.

5. Real-World Example: Social Development in Neighboring Countries: India's advancements in sectors like information technology showcase the potential of balanced resource allocation. China's rapid economic growth has been fueled by investments in education, infrastructure, and healthcare. These examples emphasize the need for Pakistan to strike a balance between defense and social development.

Pakistan's allocation of resources to defense versus social needs is a complex issue influenced by historical, geopolitical, and security factors. While safeguarding national security is paramount, the comparative analysis indicates room for rebalancing resources. A comprehensive approach that considers both defense and social development can lead to a more stable and prosperous Pakistan. As the nation moves forward, a pragmatic allocation of resources that addresses security needs while investing in education, healthcare, and infrastructure is essential to fulfill the aspirations of its citizens. The quote's essence resonates, reminding governments to judiciously allocate resources for both immediate security and long-term societal well-being.

---

Also, let's examine how the comparative strategic choices made by Pakistan's neighbors have resulted in growth while Pakistan faces certain challenges. It's important to note that the situations in these countries are influenced by a multitude of factors beyond strategic choices alone.

1. India's Economic Diversification and Technological Innovation: India has pursued a strategy of economic diversification and technological innovation. By investing in sectors such as information technology, pharmaceuticals, and services, India has managed to achieve robust economic growth. Additionally, India's focus on education and research has produced a skilled workforce that contributes to its economic development.

2. 
   

3. China's Comprehensive Development Initiatives: China's strategy of comprehensive development initiatives, including its Belt and Road Initiative, has facilitated economic growth and global influence. By investing in infrastructure projects and building strong international trade ties, China has positioned itself as a global economic powerhouse. This strategic approach has allowed China to leverage its resources effectively.

4. 
   

5. Afghanistan's Complex Challenges and Regional Instability: Afghanistan's situation stands in contrast due to decades of conflict, political instability, and external interventions. The absence of a coherent and stable government, compounded by geopolitical complexities, has hindered its growth. The strategic choices of various actors, both internal and external, have contributed to the challenges Afghanistan faces today.

6. 
   

7. Pakistan's Strategic Choices and Economic Challenges: Pakistan's allocation of substantial resources to defense, driven by regional security concerns, has at times diverted resources away from economic development and social services. While defense is important, a disproportionate focus on it, along with internal political challenges and terrorism-related issues, has hindered economic growth. In recent years, the structural and fiscal constraints of the economy have added to the challenges.

Comparative strategic choices highlight the impact of long-term policy decisions on economic growth and stability. While India and China have prioritized economic diversification, technological advancement, and international trade, Pakistan's security-focused strategy has at times hindered its ability to allocate resources effectively for economic development. Afghanistan's unique challenges stem from decades of conflict and geopolitical complexities.

It's crucial to recognize that each country's circumstances are unique, and various internal and external factors contribute to their growth trajectories. While strategic choices play a role, historical context, geopolitical dynamics, governance, and regional stability also significantly impact the outcomes. For Pakistan, diversifying its strategic choices to strike a better balance between defense and socio-economic development could potentially lead to enhanced growth and stability, aligned with the experiences of its neighbors.