By Devesh Kapur, Pratap Mehta and Arvind Subramanian

Is a liberal international economic order losing intellectual support? Should developing economies be worried? If Larry Summers is the canary in the intellectual mine, his two columns in the Financial Times (April 28 and May 5) suggest that the answers to both questions are yes.

The liberal economic order of the last several decades was premised on two assumptions. First, that the proliferation of prosperity across countries was a good thing. Second, there would be winners and losers but, on balance, a majority of people in both developing and developed countries would benefit. Mr Summers now appears to be questioning both assumptions. He has not stated outright that the proliferation of prosperity is undesirable but his columns do suggest that globalisation creates competition for America.

This is an obvious fact. For the first time since the 17th century the west’s economic pre-eminence is being seriously challenged. But he goes on to draw the disturbing conclusion that the process of globalisation should be attenuated, precisely because it poses potential threats to the US. In doing so he, perhaps unwittingly, presents the rise of the poorer parts of the world (whose standards of living are still a fraction of US levels) more as a threat than an opportunity to the US. In effect, globalisation is justified only when it serves American interests.

The remainder of this column can be read here. Debate from our panel of economists appears below.

By Lawrence Summers

Last week, in this column, I argued that making the case that trade agreements improve economic welfare might no longer be sufficient to maintain political support for economic internationalism in the US and other countries. Instead, I suggested that opposition to trade agreements, and economic internationalism more generally, reflected a growing recognition by workers that what is good for the global economy and its business champions was not necessarily good for them, and that there were reasonable grounds for this belief.

The most important reason for doubting that an increasingly successful, integrated global economy will benefit US workers (and those in other industrial countries) is the weakening of the link between the success of a nation’s workers and the success of both its trading partners and its companies. This phenomenon was first emphasised years ago by Robert Reich, the former US labour secretary. The normal argument is that a more rapidly growing global economy benefits workers and companies in an individual country by expanding the market for exports. This is a valid consideration. But it is also true that the success of other countries, and greater global integration, places more competitive pressure on an individual economy. Workers are likely disproportionately to bear the brunt of this pressure.

(more…)

By Lawrence Summers

While the financial crisis dominates current discussion on the US economy, questions regarding America’s future approach to globalisation are looming increasingly large.

Since the end of the second world war, American economic policy has supported an integrated global economy, stimulating development in poor countries, particularly in Asia, at unprecedented rates. Yet America’s commitment to internationalist economic policy is ever more in doubt. Even before the significant increases in unemployment likely in the months ahead, the indicators are all disturbing. Presidential candidates attack the North American Free Trade Agreement. The Colombian free trade agreement languishes. There are increasing attacks on foreign investment in the US, not to mention growing support for restrictive immigration policies.

To all of this the conventional wisdom has a well developed response, with four standard elements. First, the sceptic regarding trade deals or other internationalist policies is educated around the many benefits of trade, not just for exporters but also for consumers and the economy more generally. (more…)

On March 17, Alan Greenspan wrote an article for the FT entitled “We will never have a perfect model of risk“, in which he argued: “We will never be able to anticipate all discontinuities in financial markets.” He concluded: “It is important, indeed crucial, that any reforms in, and adjustments to, the structure of markets and regulation [do] not inhibit our most reliable and effective safeguards against cumulative economic failure: market flexibility and open competition.”

The article attracted a number of critical responses in this forum. For example, Paul de Grauwe wrote: “Greenspan’s article is a smokescreen to hide his own responsibility in making the financial crisis possible.” (Read all the responses.)

The article below is Mr Greenspan’s reply to those criticisms, written exclusively for the Economists’ Forum:

I am puzzled why the remarkably similar housing bubbles that emerged in more than two dozen countries between 2001 and 2006 are not seen to have a common cause. The dramatic fall in real long term interest rates statistically explains, and is the most likely major cause of, real estate capitalization rates that declined and converged across the globe. By 2006, long term interest rates for all developed and major developing economies declined to single digits, I believe for the first time ever.

Doubtless each individual housing bubble has its own idiosyncratic characteristics and some point to Fed monetary policy complicity in the US bubble. But the US bubble was close to median world experience and the evidence of monetary policy adding to the bubble is statistically very fragile. Paul De Grauwe depends on John Taylor’s counterfactual model simulations to conclude that the low funds rate was the source of the US housing bubble. Taylor (with whom I rarely disagree) and others derive their simulations from model structures that have been consistently unable to anticipate the onset of recessions or financial crises. This suggests important missing variables. Counterfactuals from such flawed structures cannot form the basis for policy.

De Grauwe asserts that “signs of recovery” (I assume he means sustainable recovery) were evident before 2004 and hence the Federal Reserve should have started to tighten earlier. With inflation falling to quite low levels, that was not the way the pre-2004 period was experienced at the time. As late as June 2003, the Fed reported “conditions remained sluggish in most districts.” Moreover, low rates did not trigger “a massive credit . . . expansion.” Both the monetary base and M2 rose less than 5% in the subsequent year, scarcely tinder for a massive credit expansion. In fact, growth in total credit market debt owed by the U.S. financial sector declined from a 13% gain during 2001 to an 8% gain during 2004. Nonfinancial sector growth was less.
(more…)

By Lawrence Summers

Neither US financial institutions nor the economy are likely to suffer from a lack of central bank liquidity provision. New lending facilities are coming along almost weekly, the safety net has been expanded to include non-bank primary dealers, the Fed has demonstrated a willingness to take on directly the most problematic parts of Bear Stearns’ balance sheet, and the Fed funds rate has been reduced by 200 basis points within 7 weeks.

At the same time, processes are in motion that may lead to new demands for more than $1,000bn in mortgages, directly or indirectly. Recent regulatory actions will enable Federal Home Loan Banks along with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the government-sponsored enterprises) to purchase more than an additional $300bn in mortgage-backed securities.

There is substantial scope for further regulatory action as only a third of the punitive capital charge placed on Fannie and Freddie years ago has been lifted. Moreover, legislation to reduce foreclosures being pushed by Senator Christopher Dodd and Representative Barney Frank could result in the federal government purchasing or providing guarantees that enable the purchase of several hundred billion dollars worth of mortgages.

(more…)

By Alan Greenspan

The current financial crisis in the US is likely to be judged in retrospect as the most wrenching since the end of the second world war. It will end eventually when home prices stabilise and with them the value of equity in homes supporting troubled mortgage securities.

Home price stabilisation will restore much-needed clarity to the marketplace because losses will be realised rather than prospective. The major source of contagion will be removed. Financial institutions will then recapitalise or go out of business. Trust in the solvency of remaining counterparties will be gradually restored and issuance of loans and securities will slowly return to normal. Although inventories of vacant single-family homes - those belonging to builders and investors - have recently peaked, until liquidation of these inventories proceeds in earnest, the level at which home prices will stabilise remains problematic.

The remainder of this column can be read here. Comment from our expert panel and guest members can be read below.

By Charles Wyplosz

In 1971, with the greenback weak and falling, US Treasury secretary John Connally famously told the rest of the world that the US dollar was “our currency and your problem”. Thirty years later, with the dollar strong and still rising, Robert Rubin, his successor, no less famously stated that “a strong dollar is in the interest of the United States”.

These days, because the dollar is weak and falling, we would have expected US officials to return to Connally’s mantra but they unexpectedly chose Rubin’s. On reflection, glorifying a strong dollar when it is so weak means they do not care. Connally without compassion, if you prefer.

Jean-Claude Trichet, president of the European Central Bank, is thereby left bemoaning “excessive exchange rate moves”. This, too, is an extraordinary statement. In the past week the dollar has barely lost 1 per cent vis a vis the euro. That is significant, but “excessive”? Yes, he may be reacting to the 6 per cent dollar depreciation in the past month. Or to the 17 per cent change over the past 12 months. Or perhaps the 31 per cent depreciation since the dollar was last strongish in late November 2005.

Well, currencies float. They are bound to be sometimes overvalued and sometimes undervalued. This is what they do and these numbers are not especially large by historical standards. Margaret Thatcher, former UK prime minister, was right when she said that exchange rates were a matter for markets to decide.

Of course, markets react to monetary policies. As the US economy faces a recession, a weak dollar is in the country’s interests. As inflation exceeds its own definition of price stability, a strong euro is in the interests of the eurozone. End of story? Not quite. (Continued)

Charles Wyplosz is professor of economics at the Graduate Institute of Geneva. The remainder of his column can be read here. Comment from our expert panel and guest members can be read below.

By Michael S Barr and Laura D Tyson

The US economy is caught in a vicious downward spiral of declining home prices, escalating foreclosures, rising losses on mortgage-backed securities, and disappearing liquidity. The liquidity crisis has spread rapidly from the mortgage market to engulf other forms of consumer credit, commercial real estate, and municipal and corporate debt.

Alarmed by the spectre of a prolonged economic slowdown, both the Federal Reserve and the US Congress have acted aggressively to stimulate demand through monetary and fiscal levers. The US Treasury has pressed mortgage holders to restructure mortgages and suspend foreclosures on a voluntary basis. But the continuing turmoil in financial markets confirms that these actions are not enough. Restoring confidence and liquidity in credit markets requires bold action to restructure the overhang of distressed assets and contain the losses in the US housing and mortgage markets.
(more…)

By Dani Rodrik and Arvind Subramanian

First large downhill flows of capital – from rich countries to poor countries – led to the Latin American debt crisis of the early 1980s. In the 1990s similar flows begat the Asian financial crisis.

Since 2002 the flows have been uphill, from emerging markets and oil-exporting countries to the developed world, especially the US. But the outcome has not been very different. So, it does not seem to matter how capital flows. That it flows in sufficiently large quantities across borders – the celebrated phenomenon of financial globalisation – seems to spell trouble.

Causes and consequences vary, depending on which way capital flows. Developing country borrowing was associated with unsustainable fiscal policies (Latin America) and inappropriate exchange rate policies (Asia). But the financial sector was not blameless: for every overborrower there was an overlender.

The pathologies were different when the US went on a borrowing binge. Large current account surpluses and the associated savings glut in the rest of the world fed a global liquidity boom, which stoked asset prices. Even though the roots of the subprime crisis lie in domestic finance, international capital flows magnified its scale.

The remainder of this column can be read here. Debate from our panel of economists appears below.

By Lawrence Summers

The American economic outlook remains highly uncertain. But macro­economic policy is now properly aligned, as the economy will benefit over the next several quarters from fiscal and monetary stimulus. To the extent conditions warrant and inflation risks permit, monetary and fiscal policy are appropriately poised to provide further stimulus.

Policy towards America’s failing housing sector is in a far less satisfactory state. All honest analysts accept that policies adopted so far, such as the “teaser freezer” limits on resetting mortgage interest rates and increased federal support for mortgage lending, have had only a marginal impact on what may be the most serious crisis in housing finance since the Depression.

It appears house prices are down by 5-10 per cent from their peak, with derivatives markets predicting further declines of about 20 per cent. Price falls of this magnitude are likely to mean more than 10m would have negative equity in their homes and more than 2m foreclosures would take place over the next two years.

Foreclosures are extremely costly. Between transaction costs that typically run at one-third or more of a home’s value and the adverse impact on neighbouring properties, foreclosures can easily dissipate more than the total value of the home being repossessed. They also inflict collateral economic damage, as reduced wealth and diminished borrowing capacity in homes reduces consumer spending, increases credit market fragility and depresses local tax bases.

(more…)