Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Will more drinks cure a hangover?

By Geoff Carmody - posted Friday, 13 March 2009


Getting a just-right “Goldilocks” balance between imminent “bust” and (another) “boom” is really hard for a benevolent dictator. It’s near-impossible for individual democratic governments with short election cycles.

But it’s worse. We have an increasingly globalised world. We all depend (increasingly) on each other. Each country’s actions affect other countries (e.g., through international trade and capital flows). A synchronised global economic downturn requires a synchronised, mutually reinforcing, national policy response.

Here we face a real test. Each national government faces strong political/short term employment pressures to try to insulate its electorate from the immediate adverse effects of the global financial and economic correction (a.k.a. crisis). But doing so means cutting the trade and capital flow linkages between nations that have been important in supporting growth in the past.

Advertisement

History is a guide, if we are prepared to learn its lessons. Part of the reason for the extent and severity of the Great Depression in the 1930s was national governments “pulling down the shutters” on international trade via protectionist measures. This was motivated by a desire to keep local demand allocated to their own national production and jobs, and to insulate their respective economies from the economic turmoil in other countries.

Because this was a widespread practice, it was mutually self-defeating. Sure, each country’s imports were reduced. But so were each country’s exports (after all, one country’s imports are another’s exports). Globally, then, national governments made the situation worse by stomping on trade.

Despite this very clear historical lesson, never under-estimate individual national government incentives to cheat, and hope that they can get away with it.

Today, we hear all the right-sounding platitudes via communiqués emanating from the G7, the G20 and all sorts of groups (and individual government leaders). They all decry protectionist measures. But don’t listen to what national governments say. Look closely at what they are doing. Signs of protectionism are on the rise all around the world. Governments, seeking to maximise the local demand benefits of their spending initiatives, are engaging in all sorts of protectionist measures even as they loudly proclaim their opposition to them. Union movements, ostensibly the champions of workers around the world, can be no less ruthless in cutting off their poorer brethren overseas in an attempt to protect their own locally (via “buy Australia”, and “fair trade not free trade” campaigns, and the like.)

Amplified and multiplied across a myriad of government procurement and policy areas, this trend will definitely make the looming global economic downturn much worse. It’s already happening.

What shouldn’t governments do? They shouldn’t be hypocrites, denouncing protectionism in words while embracing it in deeds. I’ll bet most if not all are guilty. Australia is, too. You don’t need to dig far to establish that. Governments can even exploit loopholes in the way the World Trade Organisation operates (just ask the Europeans). Memo WTO head, Pascal Lamy: do you sleep well at night?

Advertisement

In short, on protectionism, governments “talk the talk”. On action, they should U-turn, and “walk the walk”.

What role can central banks, (e.g., the Reserve Bank of Australia) play? Lower interest rates can be powerful tools, reducing debt-servicing costs, facilitating faster “de-leveraging”, and lowering hurdle rates of return for new investments. (Their additional role in lowering a country’s exchange rate is likely to be limited when all countries are reducing interest rates.)

Central banks must keep a longer-term eye on inflation, however.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

15 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Geoff Carmody is Director, Geoff Carmody & Associates, a former co-founder of Access Economics, and before that was a senior officer in the Commonwealth Treasury. He favours a national consumption-based climate policy, preferably using a carbon tax to put a price on carbon. He has prepared papers entitled Effective climate change policy: the seven Cs. Paper #1: Some design principles for evaluating greenhouse gas abatement policies. Paper #2: Implementing design principles for effective climate change policy. Paper #3: ETS or carbon tax?

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Geoff Carmody

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 15 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy