Has China’s economy outgrown its economic blueprint?

Below is an excellent video from German state broadcaster Deutsche Welle (DW). It outlines the decline in China’s GDP which is now at historic lows. DW look at the problems that have been building in China as for the first time in two decades, its output fell behind that of the rest of Asia. It also addresses the history of economic rise and the mountain of debt that it has accumulated. Add to that the demographic change and international threats. Below are some points from the video:

The draconian measures to contain COVID has sapped domestic consumption crippled small businesses and kept China’s factories closed.

The Chinese government has shielded its economy for years with infrastructure projects – building roads, dams, harbours, rail networks etc. It is the latter that is a good example of excess capacity and mounting financial losses – the network keeps growing even less populated locations where there isn’t much demand and now maintenance costs and interest payments have overtaken the railway’s income.

With the working population declining it is hard to maintain dynamic growth. Less workers puts pressure on wages and for China to maintain its cheap prices it has to improve productivity. Demographic change is a long-term phenomenon so the Chinese government still has room to respond and it has already switched to a three-child policy.

Also the demand for China’s exports has decreased as the global economy goes through an economic slowdown with surging inflation. Exports declines from 36% of GDP in 2006 to 20% in 2021 – see graph. Therefore more domestic consumption is needed to maintain growth and an expansionary fiscal policy like that in western economies might be the way to go.

Advertisement

Most Premier League clubs make as much money as a branch of IKEA

With the recent World Cup in Qatar I thought I would share this post again on the Economics of Football. The David McWilliams podcast entitled ‘The Economics of Football’ in which he interviews Simon Kuper of Soccernomics fame, is particularly insightful. What he basically says is that the vast majority of clubs are not businesses and are not trying to make profits. They are pursuing trophies and with this intention spend what money they do make on buying the best players. If you look at the teams in the four English Divisions in 1921 there has been little change even when some clubs go bankrupt. As they are fan based institutions they seem to be unaffected by things like debt in a normal business. For example if a club (limited company) goes bankrupt you discard the old company and form a new limited company changing the name of the club (ABC City to ABC United) but playing at the same ground with the same strip etc. To put it in perspective a typical Premier League club is the size of a branch of IKEA.

Football clubs are huge emotional brands but not very big businesses. For example in 2019 Barcelona was the first club to made over $1bn in revenue but that equates to 0.02% of what Walmart made that year. The problem that football clubs have is how to monetise that passion for the club without affecting their fan base.

Bundesliga should be the richest league in Europe?
When you look at the economic indicators of the German economy – population size, income levels, GDP growth etc – it should be the league with the most money. Why is this not the case? The German FA doesn’t want foreign money coming into their clubs like Chelsea, Manchester City, Paris Saint-Germain etc. Also the German Bundesliga has a rule that over 50% of a club must be controlled by its supporters.

New breed of foreign owners and European Super League
The owners of Manchester United, Tottenham and Arsenal are more focused on making money out of the football club compared to others – Man City, Chelsea, PSG – whose owners want success at the expense of profit. This new breed of owner has come under a lot of pressure from the club’s supporters in that some are borrowing money to buy the club and then taking money out. Take for instance Man United – in the 5 years up to 2020, no owners in the Premier League have taken out more money than Man Utd £133m (dividends £112m, share buy back £21m). In stark contrast, some owners have put in significant funds: Everton £348m, Aston Villa £337m and Chelsea £255m – see graphic.

Source: SwissRamble

You can therefore see why some owners were keen on the European Super League. The proposed ESL was all but free-market capitalism with an American style franchise system with 12 teams guaranteed a place in the competition – significant barriers to entry and not conducive to competition. So much for Joseph Schumpeter’s creative destruction with a group of elite clubs protecting their market and the owners being rentier capitalists. The ESL’s proposed move is similar to what has been happening in the market place – a structure of businesses taking huge debt and taking little interest in competition as long as they are making money. Manchester United, probably the most famous club in the world, got knocked out of the Champions League in the group stage in 2021 but are still making a lot of money for the owners. It seems that the desire to win trophies has been superseded by profit – the proposed ESL avoids competition as member clubs are protected against the risk of failure. Not to say this is not already happening as the EPL and many other leagues in Europe are dominated by a small number of clubs which have significant funds available.

Taylor rule and New Zealand interest rates (OCR) at 8%

The Taylor Rule is a specific policy rule for fixing interest rates proposed by the Stanford University economist John Taylor. The rule is a formula for setting interest rates depending on changes in the inflation rate and economic growth.

A simplified formula is: r = p + 0.5y + 0.5 (p – 2) + 2
r = the short term interest rate in percentage terms per annum.
p = the rate of inflation over the previous four quarters.
y = the difference between real GDP from potential output.
This assumes that target inflation is 2% and equilibrium real interest rate is 2%

Taylor argued that when:

  • Real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) = Potential Gross Domestic Product
  • Inflation = its target rate of 2%,
  • Federal Funds Rate (FFR) should be 4% (that is a 2% real interest rate).

If the real GDP rises 1% above potential GDP, then the FFR should be raised by 0.5%.
If inflation rises 1% above its target rate of 2%, then the FFR should be raised by 1.5%.
He stated that the real interest rates should be 1.5 times the inflation rate.

This rule has been suggested as one that could be adopted by other central banks – ECB, Bank of England, etc for setting official cash rates. However, the rule does embody an arbitrary 2% inflation target rather than, say 3% or 4%, and it may need to be amended to embody alternative inflation targets at different times or by different central banks. The advantages of having such as explicit interest rate rule is that its very transparency can create better conditions for business decisions and can help shape business people’s and consumers’ expectations. Central banks prefer to maintain an air of intelligent discretion over the conduct of their policies than to follow rules, but to some extent they do unwittingly follow a Taylor rule. This makes the rule a useful benchmark against which actual policies can be judged.

New Zealand and the Taylor rule
When the Taylor Rule is applied to the New Zealand economy it suggests an optimal, OCR of more than 8% – see graphic from live gross domestic product (GDP) tracker. A rate as high as this would do significant damage to the economy even if inflation did get down to the 2% target for inflation. Households and businesses would find it particularly hard with incomes being squeezed. An OCR of this level would have an unwieldly impact on households and businesses, squeezing incomes. 

Criticisms of Taylor rule
The theory assumes that only the central bank can affect the equilibrium real rate of interest and there is a closed economy with households that have identical consumption patterns and the same declining marginal utility. However, an economy is a much more intricate machine which aims to allocate scarce resources to satisfy the utility of economic agents such as individuals, firms and government. The dominant model for many years has been “Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium” (DSGE) and it takes all the characteristics of an individual (this person is typically called the representative agent) which is then cloned and taken to represent the typical person in an economy. These agents make supposedly perfect decisions by optimising, working out the kinds of mathematical problems in an instant. This almost rules out any fluctuations in the natural rate that might arise from alterations in how individuals discount the future, from how consumption preferences may differ among individuals or alter over time for one individual, or from differences in the distribution of wealth.

Source: Live GDP tracker

Globalisation to regionalisation and its impact.

With the global economy experiencing supply chain pressures, inflationary problems, higher interest and geopolitical tensions are we seeing a move to more regionalisation rather than globalisation?

Part of this change has come about from the decoupling of the American, European and Japanese economies from China. This ultimately alters trade and investment flows around the global economy and will mean lower economic growth and less liquidity. For instance consider the restrictions on technology including complex microchips being placed by the US on China. Janet Yellen the US Treasury secretary referred to ‘friendshoring’ which means relocating production to countries that fall within the US economic sphere of influence. Apple’s recent announcement that it would begin sourcing sophisticated chips from North America is the signal that many global firms have been waiting for to begin reducing their exposure to China.

Furthermore as well as the impact of decoupling of trade with China, a shortage of labour will also add to production costs and will result in slower rates of growth. Labour force participation rates have dropped as there have been less migrant workers coming into countries. This scarcity of labour will put further pressure on wages and ultimately inflation. To counteract the latter interest rates will continue to climb and this will lead to further problems:

  • The cost of financing economic expansion will become more expensive.
  • Firms that have lived off 0% interest rates and negative real rates (nominal interest rate – inflation) will face increasing problems on their balance sheets

In the medium term interest rates are determined by inflationary expectations and rates tend to move lower in periods of disinflation and higher in periods of inflation. The risk for all central banks and policymakers is if the rate of inflation goes above that of expectations there can be a further tightening cycle.

Response to shocks – GFC and COVID-19

The GFC and COVID-19 saw the primary policy response of an expansionary monetary policy (near 0% interest) due to insufficient aggregate demand. The result of this policy has changed the economic landscape. Today things are quite different:

  • insufficient aggregate supply,
  • persistent supply shocks,
  • higher inflation,
  • higher interest rates
  • slow growth.

After years of loose fiscal, monetary, and credit policies and major negative supply shocks, stagflationary pressures are now putting the squeeze on a massive mountain of public- and private-sector debt. Recession (negative GDP for two consecutive quarters) seems on the cards.

Source: The Real Economy Blog

Sign up to elearneconomics for comprehensive key notes with coloured illustrations, flash cards, written answers and multiple-choice tests on macro economic indicators that provides for users with different learning styles working at their own pace (anywhere at any time).

Paradox of Thrift – Great Depression & GFC

Although the paradox of thrift has been a regular part of the CIE A Level syllabus it is has only become more relevant since the Global Financial Crisis (GFC). It has its origins in the 1714 book entitled ‘The Fable of Bees’ by Bernard Mandeville but it was John Maynard Keynes who really popularized this concept during the Great Depression of the 1930’s. Classical economic theory suggests that greater levels of saving will increase the amount of loanable funds in the banks and therefore reduce the cost of money – interest rates. This allows people to put off consumption to a later date thereby avoiding the risk of taking on debt and thereby give people security if their jobs became threatened during a recessionary period

Keynes’ beliefs
Keynes argues that saving was not a virtue from a macroeconomic view as he believed that negative or pessimistic expectations during the Depression would dissuade firms from investing. Cutting the rate of interest is supposed to be the escape route from economic recession: boosting the money supply, increasing demand and thus reducing unemployment. He also suggested that sometimes cutting the rate of interest, even to zero, would not help. People, banks and firms could become so risk averse that they preferred the liquidity of cash to offering credit or using the credit that is on offer. In such circumstances, the economy would be trapped in recession, despite the best efforts of monetary policy makers. The graph below shows a liquidity trap. Increases or decreases in the supply of money at an interest rate of X do not affect interest rates, as all wealth-holders believe interest rates have reached the floor.

Liquidity Trap

All increases in money supply are simply taken up in idle balances. Since interest rates do not alter, the level of expenditure in the economy is not affected. Consequently, monetary policy under these circumstances is futile.

Keynes saw the 1930’s as a time when aggregate demand needed boosting – C+I+G+(X-M) – as the economy was in underemployment equilibrium. With the help of the multiplier, output and employment would increase – GDP. But with increased saving leading to reduced consumption and a fall in aggregate demand, a recession will worsen.

The fact that income must always move to the level where the flows of saving and investment are equal leads to one of the most important paradoxes in economics – the paradox of thrift. Keynes explains how, under certain circumstances, an attempt to increase savings may lead to a fall in total savings. Any attempt to save more which is not matched by an equal willingness to invest more will create a deficiency in demand – leakages (savings) will exceed injections (investment) and income will fall to a new equilibrium. In the graph below, the point of equilibrium is at E where the saving curve SS and investment curve II intersect each other. The level of income at equilibrium is OY and saving and Investment are equal at OH. When the aggregate saving increases, the saving curve shifts upwards from SS to S1S1. The new equilibrium point is E1 with OY1 level of income. Saving and investment are equal at point OT. As the level of saving increases, national income decreased from OY to OY1. Similarly, the volume of saving and investment also declined from OH to OT.

Paradox of Thrift

Negative Multiplier

People save more → spend less → another’s reduced income → negative multiplier → reduces demand → unemployment ↑ → incomes ↓ → AD↓ therefore planned increase in savings makes a recession worse.

Paradox of thrift and the GFC

The relevance of the paradox of thrift today is different from that during the Great Depression in the 1930’s. Back then consumers weren’t in as much debt as they are today and the government played a much smaller role in the economy with little or no welfare state to provide automatic stabilizers. Also the financial system wasn’t an interconnected as it is today and the financial engineering that evolved in the 2000’s allowed for the creation of instruments that had no real value to the economy – CDO and CDS. But after the GFC the expectations of consumers became very negative and as workers became fearful of losing their jobs what followed was an increase in savings as they wanted less exposure to debt, which negatively affected consumption.

Sign up to elearneconomics for comprehensive key notes with coloured illustrations, flash cards, written answers and multiple-choice tests on the liquidity trap that provides for users with different learning styles working at their own pace (anywhere at any time).

Nordic equality and the bumblebee

Always been interested in the Nordic economies especially when you look at their standing in HDI and other indicators like happiness, trust and ease of doing business etc. There is a series of three books that looks at the fundamental features of these societies whether it be Equality, Economic Performance and Happiness – see image.

The Nordic countries rank amongst the best for equality in society. How is it possible that these economies are some of the richest and the most equal? Many people compare the Nordic model of equality to a bumblebee. The bumblebee tends to go against the laws of aerodynamics – a very big body with tiny wings. The Nordic countries model of inequality is very expensive but there is still economic growth in the economy. Carsten Jensen talks of 3 aspects of Nordic society that makes this possible.

  1. The flexicurity system – flexibility and security. This is where employment regulation is fairly lenient (ability to make employees redundant) combined with a generous welfare programme The welfare support has two main aims: to protect against loss of income that come with losing your job and ensuring that you have the right skills to better fit the labour market. Should be noted that the government play an important role in the provision of free education at the tertiary level in Nordic countries. This leads to the golden triangle of flexicurity – flexible labour markets, training and retraining, and unemployment protection – see fig below.
  2. The business friendly environment. The World Bank’s Ease of Doing Business Index ranks countries according to how conducive their regulatory environment is to establishing and running a company. In the 2020 Index Denmark were 4th, Norway 9th and Sweden 10th. However this does not imply that equality is somehow intrinsically good for a country’s commercial environment.
  3. Social trust – this is important for growth as it make cooperation between individual citizens and companies easier. The lower transaction costs from social trust mean the environment is more conducive to investment from entrepreneurs and banks. Those countries that have less social trust spend more time and money on monitoring employees, other companies and consumers.

Source: Equality in the Nordic world – Carsten Jensen – 2021

The topic Inequality on elearneconomics has fully integrated flash (cue) cards linked back to the key notes that assist students to understand economic vocabulary, improve their skills, develop knowledge and build their confidence.

Causes of recessions and how do you manipulate the economy for a ‘soft landing’?

Below is a very good video from CNBC that covers the main causes of recessions – overheated economy, asset bubbles and black swan events. Good analysis of soft and hard landings as well as the wage price spiral effect.

“History teaches us that recessions are inevitable,” said David Wessel, a senior fellow in economic studies at The Brookings Institution. “I think there are things we can do with a policy that makes recessions less likely or when they occur, less severe. We’ve learned a lot, but we haven’t learned enough to say that we’re never going to have another recession.” As the nation’s authority on monetary policies, the Federal Reserve plays a critical role in managing recessions. The Fed is currently attempting to avoid a recession by engineering what’s known as a “soft landing,” in which incremental interest rate hikes are used to curb inflation without pushing the economy into recession.

Is Green growth rather than degrowth the way forward?

Martin Sandbu of the Financial Times in his Free Lunch on Film produced a very good video (see below) on how, with the help of technology, the global economy can be decarbonised without impacting on what is seen as normal growth rates. He travels to his native Norway where Oslo has around 30% of all its passenger cars being EV’s. The key to its success has been to make EV’s as affordable and attractive as conventional cars. Policies of tax exemptions on EV’s, lower tolls, cheaper parking and taxes on polluting vehicles have directed consumers to the cleaner option. He goes on to talk about the Kaya Identity. This is the relationship between four factors:

  • Global carbon dioxide emissions, in carbon dioxide (CO2);
  • Global primary energy consumption, in Ton of Oil Equivalent (TOE);
  • GDP, in dollars ($);
  • Global population, in billions.

In other words global CO2 emissions from a human source = global population x quality of life x energy intensity x intensity of carbon in the energy mix.

  • GDP/Per Capita: represents the total value of output in an economy divided by the population
  • Energy/GDP: represents the energy intensity, i.e. the amount of energy used (in kWh) necessary to create a monetary unit, meaning to manufacture a product or provide a service. This intends to encourage us to rationalise our use of energy.
  • CO2/energy: represents the intensity of carbon in the global energy mix. This relationship demands a reduction in CO2 emissions in the production of energy, in particular through the promotion of energies low in carbon, such as renewable energy.

So from Kaya we can decarbonise in 3 ways:

  • shrink the world’s population.
  • limit and reduce incomes.
  • lower the amount of CO2 emitted for each dollar of GDP.

In some areas, like ground transport, it’s technologically feasible, even easy, to take the carbon out. In other areas, it’s more costly, more difficult, maybe even impossible to do by 2050: flying, cement making, meat production. The video is well worth the time to watch.

Global GDP per capita – income up but unequal

If you are studying the Growth unit at CIE or NCEA the image below – from the ‘Visual Capital’ site which is well worth a visit – is a good discussion starter for your class. It has an interactive chart where you can elect individual countries and look at the GDP per capita form 1820 to 2018. The graph below shows the major groups of countries with New Zealand added.

  • 1800 – 80% of global population lived in extreme poverty
  • 1975 – incomes were 10 times higher on average. Post WW2 growth was rapid as Europe etc rebuilt after the war.
  • 2015 – incomes rose faster in developing countries with many lifted out of poverty. Between 1975 and 2015 saw the fastest decline in poverty.

In the 19th Century there was much more equal distribution of income across regions of the world – $1,100 per capita. Many lived below the poverty line but the world had less wealth. Today the GDP global average is approximately $15,212 but although there is more wealth the distribution is less equal.

At the highest end of the spectrum are Western and European countries. Strong economic growth, greater industrial output, and sufficient legal institutions have helped underpin higher GDP per capita numbers. Meanwhile, countries with the lowest average incomes have not seen the same levels of growth. This highlights that poverty, and economic prosperity, is heavily influenced by where one lives.

Sign up to elearneconomics for multiple choice test questions (many with coloured diagrams and models) and the reasoned answers on Real GDP. Immediate feedback and tracked
results allow students to identify areas of strength and weakness vital for student-centred learning and understanding.

Global Economic Outlook

Below is a look at economic conditions in leading global economies. Unemployment is surprising low and with the rise in the cost of living (see inflation figures) this should put pressure on wages. The unemployment rate within the OECD area fell to 5.2% in February, the first time it has fallen below the pre-pandemic unemployment rate (which was recorded in February 2020). The unemployment rate within the OCED had peaked at 8.8% in April 2020.

Inflation, Unemployment and Interest Rates
Annual inflation within the OECD area rose to 8.8% in March 2022, its highest annual increase since 1988. Energy prices have risen by over a third during the past year, while food prices have risen by ten percent within the OECD area. Most central banks have already commenced a tightening programme with the on-going threat of inflation. The Australian Reserve Bank commenced tightening their cash rate in early May, increasing the cash rate by 25 basis points to 0.35%. It is expected that the RBNZ will increase the OCR by 50 basis points next week.

Outlook
If you look at conditions in the major economies you find the following:

  • China – limited growth potential with severe lockdowns
  • USA – higher interest rates could lead to a bust scenario
  • Euro Zone – cost of living crisis
  • Emerging markets – food crisis / famines.

With the indicators looking at recessionary conditions the best news for the global economy would be a withdrawal from Ukraine by Russian troops and an end to a zero-Covid strategy in China. These actions should reduce food and energy prices and therefore save government spending on raising benefits and subsidising food and energy. Economists are fairly optimistic that we will avoid a recession in 2022 as they still have the tools to stimulate if things get worse. However with no end in sight for the Ukraine conflict and interest rates on the rise a recession is on the cards.

Sign up to elearneconomics for multiple choice test questions (many with coloured diagrams and models) and the reasoned answers on Inflation and Unemployment. Immediate feedback and tracked results allow students to identify areas of strength and weakness vital for student-centred learning and understanding.

The Headwinds and the economic system

I came across this graphic by Bruce Mehlman in ‘Thoughts from the frontline’ from Mauldin Economics. It looks at the change that was already evident before COVID-19 and the war in the Ukraine but have accelerated because of these events. The tailwinds for 30 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall are starting to slow/stop and it seems that there are now headwinds rising and reversing the process. The trust element in the global economy is probably at all time low and survey data between 1979 and 2021 saw that the military gain trust. All others—media, religion, courts, schools, labor, business, Congress—lost much and sometimes most of their credibility since then.

However in times crisis humanity can usually conjure up accelerating innovation and change: faster productivity, entrepreneurship, smarter healthcare, and a transition to next-generation energy sources.

Regional GDP in New Zealand for March 2021

Some recent stats – geographical breakdown of nominal GDP within New Zealand for year ended March 2021. Out of all 15 regions only Taranaki (-5.8%) and Otago (-2.2%) contracted from the previous year.

Highest GDP per capita
– Wellington $75,319
– Auckland $70,952
– Taranaki $70,626

Lowest GDP per capita
– Northland $43,931
– Gisborne $45,545
– Manawatu/Wanganui $49,932

A good exercise with your class is to get them to match the figures with the area of New Zealand. Figures below are in $m

Teaching Monetary Policy – Every Breath You Take – Every Change of Rate (Fed Funds Rate)

Here is a really funny video by the students of Columbia Business School (CBS) – you may have seen it before but I find it very useful when you start teaching monetary policy and interest rates.

Back in 2006 Alan Greenspan vacated the role of chairman of the US Federal Reserve and the two main candidates for the job were Ben Bernanke and Glenn Hubbard. Glen Hubbard was (and still is) the Dean at Columbia Business School and was no doubt disappointed about losing out to Ben Bernanke. His students obviously felt a certain amount of sympathy for him and used the song “Every Breath You Take” by The Police to voice their opinion as to who should have got the job. They have altered the lyrics and the lead singer plays Glenn Hubbard.

Some significant economic words in it are: – interest rates, stagflate, inflate, bps, jobs, growth etc.

OCR – LSAP – FLP = New Zealand’s Monetary Policy Toolkit

Below is a useful flow diagram from the ANZ bank which adds Large Scale Asset Purchases (LSAP) and Funding for Lending Programme (FLP) to the Official Cash Rate (OCR – Base Rate)

LSAP – this is the buying of up $100 billion of government bonds – quantitative easing
FLP – this gives banks cheap lending based on the Official Cash Rate – could be about $28 billion based on take up
OCR – wholesale interest rate currently at 0.75%. Commercial banks borrow at 0.5% above OCR and can save at the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) at 1% below OCR.

With FLP and more LSAP this will mean lower lending rates and deposit rates. This should provide more stimulus in the economy and allay fears of future funding constraints making banks more confident about lending. Add to this a third stimulus – an OCR of 0.75%. Although there is currently a tightening policy the rate is probably still stimulatory. The flow chart shows the impact that these three stimulus policies have on a variety of variables including – exchange rates – inflation -unemployment – consumer spending – investment – GDP. Very useful for a class discussion on the monetary policy mechanism.

For more on Monetary Policy view the key notes (accompanied by fully coloured diagrams/models) on elearneconomics that will assist students to understand concepts and terms for external examinations, assignments or topic tests.

Limitations of GDP – the informal economy

Been covering this topic with my A2 Economics class. Below is a recent video from Venezuela outlining the size of the informal sector. It is estimated that 50% of the workforce make some sort of living from selling items on the street usually for US$. This explains one of the limitations of GDP as a measurement of a country’s standard of living.

The informal economy is generally associated with low productivity, poverty, high unemployment, and slower economic growth. It is also more prevalent in low-income countries because as countries develop, the easier it is for workers to transition to the formal sector. At the same time, it provides employment and income to people who would otherwise not find employment, or it supplements their income from employment in the formal, regulated sector. IMF The Global Informal Economy: Large but On The Decline. 30-10-19

Sign up to elearneconomics for multiple choice test questions (many with coloured diagrams and models) and the reasoned answers on GDP and its limitations. Immediate feedback and tracked results allow students to identify areas of strength and weakness vital for student-centred learning and understanding.

Robots don’t necessarily mean fewer jobs but can impact inequality.

With the onslaught of COVID one wondered whether the jobs lost during the pandemic would “come back”. Part of the logic was that since robots don’t fall ill, bosses would turn to them instead of to people and COVID would act as a catalyst towards automation.

For a number of years the rhetoric has been that robots will see the end of a lot of jobs and whilst that maybe the case for some occupations the number of people in work has risen to very high levels in developed economies. For instance countries that have the highest presence of robot use e.g. Japan and South Korea also have the lowest unemployment rate. However both those countries do have ageing populations which does make the supply of labour more scarce. A study by Daisuke Adachi of Yale University suggested that between 1978 and 2017 an increase of one robot per 1,000 workers boost firms’ employment by 2.2%. Other research done in Finland concluded that the adoption of advanced technologies led to increases in hiring. According to The Economist there are an estimated 30m unfilled vacancies across the OECD.

“a strong positive association with firm survival, and that greater initial automation was associated with increases in employment”.

Automation and Inequality

However although technology doesn’t necessarily mean a loss of jobs it may have helped to increase the widening gap between incomes. In November 2021 Daron Acemoglu Testified its the US Congress on Automation and Economic Disparity. He identified two types of evidence to show the impact of technology on inequality:

  1. In local labour markets (commuting zones) where there has been faster adoption of industrial robots, we see not just lower employment and wages, but also greater inequality between high-education and low-education workers and a bigger gap between those at the top and bottom of the income distribution.
  2. There is an interesting relationship between two groups of workers – those that had their jobs taken over by automation and those that have not experienced much direct automation. Acemoglu’s research showed that those employed in routine tasks that can automated in industries undergoing rapid automation — have almost uniformly experienced large declines in their real wages. These groups include all demographic categories with less than a college degree. However those workers that have not experienced much direct automation, including those with post-graduate degrees and women with college degrees, have seen their earnings increase rapidly over the last 40 years. The Figure below indicates that more than half, and perhaps as much as three quarters, of the surge in wage inequality in the US is related to automation.

For more on Inequality view the key notes (accompanied by fully coloured diagrams/models) on elearneconomics that will assist students to understand concepts and terms for external examinations, assignments or topic tests.

Sources:

Economists are revising their views on robots and jobs. The Economist – January 22nd 2022

Daron Acemoglu – Written Testimony, House Select Committee on Economic Disparity and Fairness in Growth Hearing on Automation and Economic Disparity. November 3, 2021

Limits to Growth

This video about the book ‘Limits’ is useful when teaching the CIE A2 course Unit 4. It looks at the problem of unlimited wants and needs versus finite resources and the need for limits in society. With countries addiction to GDP growth, limits can enhance greater freedom.

This book reclaims, redefines, and makes an impassioned plea for limits – a notion central to environmentalism – clearing them from their association with Malthusianism and the ideology and politics that go along with it.

China and the economic centre of gravity

Very good FT video with Martin Sandbu and James Kynge discussing the fact that although the Chinese economy has grown at an alarming rate over the last 40 years, will it become the global superpower? Some of the main points:

  • Global economy is now becoming more regionalised
  • From 1979 to 2018 China’s GDP growth rate averaged 9.5%
  • 2,000 years ago everyone was poor – centre of gravity of global economy followed population size
  • Key change in the mid ’90s, when China began to allow the sons and daughters of farmers to migrate from the village to these big factory towns.
  • Liberalised global trade in 1980’s helped China access markets
  • China still very much a developing nations – ranks 61st in terms average per-capita income but got an excellent infrastructure.
  • China’s middle class approx 400m but that means approx 1bn of the population are poor
  • Middle income trap – getting from poor to middle income is a very different process from getting to middle income to high income.
  • Economy needs to change from a growth model based on accumulating labour and capital to a growth model led by technological development and technological progress.
  • China is either a global leader or at least close to the cutting edge, wind and solar power, online payment systems, digital currencies, aspects of artificial intelligence, 5G telecoms, drones, ultra-high-voltage power transmission.
  • Three major trading hubs – EU, US and China – with trade being more regionalised. China reluctant to lose export markets in EU and US as they are big drivers of exports
  • Three trading blocs will lead to protectionism and decoupling of supply chains. unless the EU, the US, and China can sort out their differences.