Is the game up for China’s much emulated growth model?

Jayati Ghosh in The Guardian



Illustration by Robert G Fresson



Whatever happened to emerging markets? Brics, Mints, whatever global investors call them: For a while it appeared as if countries such as Brazil, India and Turkey had secure and buoyant futures, regardless of the travails of advanced economies. There was much trumpeting of their advantages, such as the demographic bulges producing young populations. Few asked about the nature of the growth, or whether it could last. The euphoria spread, leading to large private-capital inflows that pushed up asset prices in these countries.

That already seems a long time ago, as investor opinion has done yet another volte face. Investors who were slow to read the tea leaves during the boom times have now taken fright. In just 13 months, capital outflows from these countries have crossed $1tn. Stock markets have tanked across countries as distant and diverse as Malaysia, India, South Africa and Brazil; currencies have depreciated; and bond issues are slowing down, with fewer takers.

For a change, this is not being driven by policy in the developed world. Unlike the “taper tantrum” unleashed in mid-2013 by Ben Bernanke, the then US Federal Reserve chairman – when he simply announced the possibility of reducing the massive liquidity stimulus that was being provided in the US – the current skittishness in emerging markets is the fallout of what is happening in China. This is hugely important, not just because of China’s major role in global trade, but because it signifies the end of a particular growth strategy that many other countries were trying to emulate.

The recent travails of China’s economy are well known by now: falling real estate prices put paid to the construction boom, and the subsequent bursting of the stock market bubble was hamfistedly controlled through official measures. But these current difficulties are the outcome of earlier economic strategies that were widely celebrated, when the going was good.

From the early 1990s China adopted an export-led strategy that delivered continuously increasing shares of the world market, fed by relatively low wages and very high rates of investment, enabling massive increases in infrastructure. It led to big increases in inequality and even bigger environmental problems, but the strategy seemed to work – until 2008-09, when exports were hit by the global financial crisis.

Yet even then, China, India and other large emerging markets continued to grow. The talk at the time was that they were already “decoupled” from the west. In reality, China (and much of developing Asia) had simply shifted to a different engine of growth without abandoning the focus on exports. The Chinese authorities could have generated more domestic demand by stimulating consumption through rising wage shares of national income, but this would have threatened their export-driven model. Instead they put their faith in even more accumulation to keep growth rates buoyant.

So the “recovery package” in China essentially encouraged more investment, which was already nearly half of GDP. Provincial governments and public sector enterprises were encouraged to borrow heavily and invest in infrastructure, construction and more production capacity. To utilise the excess capacity, a real estate and construction boom was instigated, fed by lending from public sector banks as well as “shadow banking” activities winked at by regulators. Total debt in China increased fourfold between 2007 and 2014, and the debt-GDP ratio nearly doubled to more than over 280%.

We now know that these debt-driven bubbles end in tears. The property boom began to subside in early 2014, and real estate prices have been stagnant or falling ever since. Chinese investors then shifted to the stock market, which began to sizzle – once again actively encouraged by the Chinese government. The crash that followed has been contained only because the government pulled out all the stops to prevent further falls.

All this comes in the midst of an overall slowdown in China’s economy. Exports fell by around 8% in the year to July. Manufacturing output is falling, and jobs are being shed. Construction activity has almost halted, especially in the proliferating “ghost towns” dotted around the country. Stimulus measures such as interest rate cuts don’t seem to be working. So the recent devaluation of the yuan– which has been dressed up as a “market-friendly” measure – is clearly intended to help revive the economy.

But it will not really help. Demand from the advanced countries – still the driver of Chinese exports and indirectly of exports of other developing countries – will stay sluggish. Meanwhile, China’s slowdown infects other emerging markets across the world as its imports fall even faster than its exports and its currency moves translate into capital outflows in other countries.

The pain is felt by commodity producers and intermediate manufacturers from Brazil to Nigeria and Thailand, with the worst impacts in Asia, where China was the hub of an export-oriented production network. Many of these economies are experiencing collapses of their own property and financial asset bubbles, with negative effects on domestic demand. The febrile behaviour of global finance is making things worse.

This is not the end of the emerging markets, but is – or should be – the end of this growth model. Relying only on exports or debt-driven bubbles to deliver rapid growth cannot work for long. And when the game is finally up, there can be severe political fallout. For developing countries to truly “emerge”, a more inclusive strategy is essential.

Emerging markets (BRICs) mania was a costly mistake: Goldman strategist

 

 

Goldman Sachs executive Mossavar-Rahmani argues that the net gains for US stock markets may just be a taste of the reassertion of western dominance that may emerge in the next few years.

Reuters | Jul 4, 2013, 09.17PM IST

LONDON: Investors who wrongly called time on US economic supremacy during the financial crisis are set to pay a hefty price for betting too much on the developing world, according to a top Goldman Sachs strategist. 

The US investment bank helped inspire a twenty-fold surge in financial investment in China, India, Russia and Brazil over the past decade, its chief economist popularizing the term BRICs in a 2001 research paper. 

Sharmin Mossavar-Rahmani, in charge of shaping the portfolios of the bank's rich private clients, has been arguing against that trend for four years, however, trying to persuade investors and colleagues they were safer sticking with the developed world. 

The past six months has substantially vindicated that view. China's boom is finally wobbling under the weight of economic imbalances including an undervalued currency, and emergingstock markets are down 13 per cent compared to an 11 per cent rise in the US S&P 500 index over the same period. 

"Many investors and market commentators have been too euphoric about China over the last decade and this euphoria is finally abating. Many just followed the herd into emerging markets and over-allocated to many of the key countries," she says. 

"It is easier to be part of the herd even if one is wrong, than stay apart from the herd and be right in the long run." 

The net gains for US stock markets may just be a taste of the reassertion of western dominance that may emerge in the next few years, Mossavar-Rahmani argues. 

Structural advantages like abundant mineral wealth, positive demographics and, most importantly, inclusive, well-run political and economic institutions make the United States the best bet going forward, she says. 

"(Emerging market) investors are taking on so many risks compared with the US where the risk is largely cyclical rather than structural," she says. 

Many of the cyclical issues affecting the US such as high levels of debt, are also on their way to being resolved. 

"One thing that normally puts investors off from increasing their US holdings is the long term debt profile, but we think the magnitude of the work done to address this has been underappreciated by investors," she says. 

West is best 

The idea that authoritarian countries are less effective than open economies like the US at incentivising entrepreneurship and innovation is long accepted in academia. 

Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson laid out the case for doubting the emerging power of China and others in a book 'Why Nations Fail' last year, arguing poor institutions that entrench inequality will hamper a country's path to prosperity. 

But this view was largely put aside by professional investors who allowed themselves to be swept up in a "mania" about the rewards up for grabs in emerging markets, especially China. 

The widely held position, enhanced by the crisis of 2007-8, was that the developed world was entering a long decline and the best prospects for investors would be found in emerging markets, particularly in Asia. 

That prompted a boom in emerging market themed equity funds, which in Europe multiplied from 13 in 2002 to 67 in 2012 according to Lipper, a Thomson Reuters company that tracks the funds industry. 

Lipper data also shows the balance of money flowing into emerging market themed equity funds globally, including those focused on the BRICs, soared from 2.42 billion euros in 2008 to 51.23 billion euros in 2012. 

In contrast, equity funds overall lost 21.5 billion euros in 2012. 

Unrest 

China's efforts to rebalance its economy from an export dependent to consumer-led model is likely to bring slower growth, more market volatility and greater potential for social unrest - a worrying trinity of red flags for foreign investors who have poured cash into China in recent years. 

Meanwhile, mass protests are causing political crisis in Brazil and investors are fretting about ponderous, economically stifling bureaucracy in India. South Africa, sometimes called a fifth BRIC, is also struggling with a tide of labour unrest and infrastructure and social problems. 

Data from fund tracker EPFR Global shows investors pulled out a record $10 billion from emerging markets debt and equity funds in the week to June 28. 

Mossavar-Rahmani argues investors should not base decisions so heavily on which countries post the most impressive economic growth numbers, a temptation to which she says many succumbed when overallocating money to China. 

Even when countries enjoy rapid economic growth, the increases in GDP do not equate to similar jumps in investment returns, she says, citing a study published in 2005 by the London Business School. 

"If you rank the world's economies from fastest to slowest in terms of growth, the fastest-growing quintile actually generate the lowest investment return while the slowest third deliver the highest," she said.