Opinion

Two cheers for the new normal

The conventional wisdom about the state of the world economy goes something like this: Since the start of the 2007-2008 financial crisis, the developed world has struggled to recover, with only the United States able to adjust. Emerging countries have fared better, but they, too, have started to flounder lately. In a bleak economic climate, the argument goes, the only winners have been the wealthy, resulting in skyrocketing inequality. That scenario sounds entirely right – until, on closer examination, it turns out to be completely wrong.

By: Date: February 11, 2015 Topic: Global Economics & Governance

The conventional wisdom about the state of the world economy goes something like this: Since the start of the 2007-2008 financial crisis, the developed world has struggled to recover, with only the United States able to adjust. Emerging countries have fared better, but they, too, have started to flounder lately. In a bleak economic climate, the argument goes, the only winners have been the wealthy, resulting in skyrocketing inequality.

That scenario sounds entirely right – until, on closer examination, it turns out to be completely wrong.

Start with economic growth. According to the International Monetary Fund, during the first decade of this century, annual global growth averaged 3.7%, compared to 3.3% in the 1980s and 1990s. In the last four years, growth has averaged 3.4%. This is far lower than what many had hoped; in 2010, I predicted that in the coming decade, the world could grow at a 4.1% annual rate. But 3.4% is hardly disastrous by historical standards.

it is only the eurozone that has badly disappointed in recent years

To be sure, all of the large, developed economies are growing more slowly than they did when their economic engines were roaring. But it is only the eurozone that has badly disappointed in recent years. I had assumed, when I made my projections in 2010, that the region’s poor demographics and weak productivity would prevent it from growing at more than 1.5% a year. Instead, it has managed only a meager 0.3%.

For Japan, the US, and the United Kingdom, the prospects are brighter. It should be relatively straightforward for them to grow at an average rate that outpaces that of the last decade – a period that includes the peak of the financial crisis. In addition, the dramatic drop in the price of crude oil will serve as the equivalent of a large tax cut for consumers. Indeed, I am rather baffled by the IMF’s decision to downgrade its growth forecast for much of the world. If anything, with oil prices falling, an upward revision seems warranted.

Another factor supporting a more positive outlook is the rebalancing that has occurred between the US and China, the world’s two largest economies. Each entered the financial crisis with huge current-account imbalances. The US was running a deficit of more than 6.5% of its GDP, and China had a surplus of close to 10% of its GDP. Today, the US deficit has fallen to about 2%, and the Chinese surplus is less than 3%. Given that their intertwined imbalances were key drivers of the financial crisis, this is a welcome development.

It has recently become fashionable to disparage the economic performance of the large emerging countries, particularly China and the other BRIC economies (Brazil, Russia, and India). But it is hardly a surprise that these countries are no longer growing as fast as they once did. In 2010, I predicted that China’s annual growth would slow to 7.5%. It has since averaged 8%. India’s performance has been more discouraging, though growth has picked up since early 2014.

The only real disappointments are Brazil and Russia, both of which have struggled (again, not surprisingly) with much lower commodity prices. Their lethargic performance, together with the eurozone’s, is the main reason why the world economy has not managed the 4.1% growth that optimists like me thought was feasible.

The conventional wisdom on wealth and inequality is mistaken

The conventional wisdom on wealth and inequality is similarly mistaken. From 2000 to 2014, global GDP more than doubled, from $31.8 trillion to over $75 trillion. Over the same period, China’s nominal GDP soared from $1.2 trillion to more than $10 trillion – growing at more than four times the global rate.

In 2000, the BRIC economies’ combined size was about a quarter of US GDP. Today, they have nearly caught up, with a combined GDP of more than $16 trillion, just short of America’s $17.4 trillion. Indeed, since 2000, the BRICs have been responsible for nearly a third of the rise in nominal global GDP. And other emerging countries have performed similarly well. Nigeria’s economy has grown 11-fold since 2000, and Indonesia’s has more than quintupled. Since 2008, these two developing giants have contributed more to global GDP growth than the EU has.

Statistics like these utterly disprove the idea that global inequality is growing. Gaps in income and wealth may be shooting up within individual countries, but per capita income in developing countries is rising much faster than in the advanced economies. Indeed, that is why one of the key targets of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals – to halve the number of people living in absolute poverty – was achieved five years ahead of the deadline.

Economically, at least, the world is continuing to become a better place.

None of this is meant to deny that we are living in challenging and uncertain times. But one thing is clear: economically, at least, the world is continuing to become a better place.

This article originally appeared on Project Syndicate


Republishing and referencing

Bruegel considers itself a public good and takes no institutional standpoint.

Due to copyright agreements we ask that you kindly email request to republish opinions that have appeared in print to communication@bruegel.org.

View comments
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

China’s Coronavirus will not lead to recession but to stimulus and even more debt

The coronavirus outbreak will not lead to recession but the costs of ensuring growth targets will be high

By: Alicia García-Herrero Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: February 6, 2020
Read article Download PDF More on this topic More by this author

External Publication

From globalization to deglobalization: Zooming into trade

This article shows some evidence of the decrease in merchandise, capital and, to a lesser extent people to people flows.

By: Alicia García-Herrero Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: February 3, 2020
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

The US-China trade agreement will not put an end to geopolitical risks

The agreement between the US and China should not be read so positively in Europe, especially in Germany

By: Alicia García-Herrero Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: January 31, 2020
Read article More on this topic

Opinion

Stability remains key to China

The most concerning aspect for the Chinese economy will still be to hold up domestic demand. The rapidly rising household debt will put further breaks of the households' ability to purchase durable goods

By: Alicia García-Herrero and Jianwei Xu Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: January 15, 2020
Read article More on this topic

Blog Post

Lessons from the China-US trade truce

The tentatively agreed deal between China and the United States temporarily stops a dangerous dynamic, yet it falls far short of the negotiating objectives of both sides. US trade policy has become a dominion of the executive branch guided principally by the President’s electoral interests. Meanwhile, China demonstrates its capacity to resist pressure: it will enact structural reforms at its own pace in line with its interests. Sadly, the deal confirms that the United States no longer feels obligated to follow WTO rules, and can induce others to do the same.

By: Uri Dadush and Marta Domínguez-Jiménez Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: December 19, 2019
Read article More by this author

Opinion

Watch out for China’s currency in case of no-deal scenario

The U.S. and China’s negotiations on a phase-one deal seem to have stalled again. The market was already aware of the limited nature of the likely deal, but was still hoping for it. Against this backdrop, the investors have reacted negatively to the increased likelihood of not reaching a deal on December 15. If this is the case, the U.S. will apply additional tariffs on Chinese imports. The obvious question to address, thus, is, what can happen to China under such a scenario?

By: Alicia García-Herrero Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation Date: December 11, 2019
Read article Download PDF More on this topic More by this author

Policy Contribution

The European Union-Russia-China energy triangle

Concern is growing in the European Union that a rapprochement between Russia and China could have negative implications for the EU.

By: Georg Zachmann Topic: Energy & Climate Date: December 9, 2019
Read article Download PDF More on this topic

External Publication

Manufacturing employment, international trade, and China

The decline in manufacturing employment is often seen as a major reason for rising inequality, social tensions, and the slump of entire communities. With the rise of national populists and protectionists in recent years, the issue has become even more prominent.

By: Uri Dadush and Abdelaziz Ait Ali Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: November 28, 2019
Read article Download PDF More on this topic

Working Paper

The state of China-European Union economic relations

More can be done to capture the untapped trade and investment opportunities that exist between China and the EU. China’s size and dynamism, and its recent shift from an export-led to a domestic demand-led growth model, mean that these opportunities are likely to grow with time.

By: Uri Dadush, Marta Domínguez-Jiménez and Tianlang Gao Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: November 20, 2019
Read article Download PDF More on this topic

Working Paper

How does China fare on the Russian market? Implications for the European Union

China’s economic ties with Russia are deepening. Meanwhile, Europe remains Russia’s largest trading partner, lender and investor. An analysis of China’s ties with Russia, indicate that China seems to have become more of a competitor to the European Union on Russia’s market. Competition over investment and lending is more limited, but the situation could change rapidly with China and Russia giving clear signs of a stronger than ever strategic partnership.

By: Alicia García-Herrero and Jianwei Xu Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: November 18, 2019
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

The role of China in global value chains

This event looked at how the rise of China is affecting global value chains.

Speakers: Alicia García-Herrero, Seamus Grimes, Margit Molnar and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: Global Economics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: November 18, 2019
Read article More on this topic

Opinion

Why sentiment in Greater Bay Area is deteriorating, especially in Hong Kong

Lack of concrete plans affects sentiment after brief surge on announcement of Outline Development Plan for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area

By: Alicia García-Herrero and Gary Ng Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: November 13, 2019
Load more posts