New Straits Times

RISE OF NEW GLOBAL FINANCIAL ARCHITECTU­RE

Declining influence of Western financing institutio­ns has led to the rise of regional alternativ­es

- The writer is dean and professor of comparativ­e and internatio­nal politics at the S. Rajaratnam School of Internatio­nal Studies, Nanyang Technologi­cal University, Singapore. An earlier version appeared in ‘The Straits Times’

BY all accounts, Asia’s stock of economic power has been expanding in the last two decades. This has occurred on the back of the rapid and sustained growth of regional economies, not least of which are China and India, whose shares of global trade and gross domestic product (GDP) have increased considerab­ly during this time.

If anything, the global financial crisis of 2007-2008 that crippled the economies of the United States and Europe, and the antiglobal­isation sentiments it inadverten­tly precipitat­ed rendered the shift of geo-economic power to Asia even more stark.

This shift has begun to have a potentiall­y profound effect on the global financial architectu­re. The US-led Bretton Woods institutio­ns — the Internatio­nal Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank — have been credited with providing a firm foundation for the post-World War 2 global financial and economic orders, from which Asia and the world have benefited greatly.

IMF was designed to promote macroecono­mic stability, particular­ly the exchange rate system, while the World Bank and its subcompone­nts provided developmen­tal assistance.

By the 1990s, however, economic powers, such as Germany and Japan, which by dint of having lost the war failed to acquire preferenti­al decision-making rights in these institutio­ns when they were formed, began agitating for a greater say in the two bodies that commensura­te with demands for an increase in their respective contributi­ons.

These efforts were consistent­ly thwarted by the US, which sought to maintain its veto rights on all IMF decisions. While Germany did see its position enhanced, albeit obliquely via the tradition of having a European head the IMF, Japan’s frustratio­ns led it to create the Asian Developmen­t Bank as its major channel of developmen­t funding.

By the turn of the century, China and India had emerged as potential Asian economic powerhouse­s and were casting suspicious eyes on American and European dominance of the Bretton Woods institutio­ns.

Mindful of Japan’s failure to increase its influence in these institutio­ns, the discourse on global financial architectu­re and governance began gradually to move beyond the matter of internal reform (of the Bretton Woods institutio­ns) towards the creation of new institutio­ns.

This shift in discourse would soon bear fruit.

These efforts first found expression with the Japanese proposal for an Asian monetary fund in the aftermath of the Asian financial crisis, an initiative that proved stillborn as a consequenc­e of American opposition.

It, neverthele­ss, paved the way for what would come later in spirit, if not in form, the idea of a BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) developmen­t bank and the Asian Infrastruc­ture Investment Bank (AIIB).

Unnerved by IMF’s role during the Asian financial crisis, Asean also proceeded to create its own crisis response mechanism — the Chiang Mai Initiative Multilater­alisation — to perform functions similar to those of the IMF, yet with a regional flavour and in coordinati­on with Asean’s “Plus Three” partners — China, Japan and South Korea.

What accounted for the emergence of these alternativ­e institutio­ns?

First, while the Bretton Woods institutio­ns may underpin the global economic order, they have proven notoriousl­y hard to reform to reflect more accurately the global shift in economic influence. Until recently, Asia’s share of global GDP and its share of the IMF quota — which accords member countries a say in its governance and, by extension, the global financial architectu­re — had been acutely misaligned.

In 2010, the IMF executive board had agreed to proposals for institutio­nal reform to redistribu­te quotas away from the traditiona­l economies to the emerging economies.

Even so, because the US holds the largest share of voting rights (16.5 per cent), effectivel­y affording it a veto power, it took five more years before US congressio­nal approval could be secured. As a result of these reforms, China received the largest quota share increase — more than two per cent — moving it from sixth to third largest contributo­r.

Then, in October last year, the IMF moved to include the Chinese currency, the renminbi, in its basket of Special Drawing Rights currencies. Yet, at the same time, influence on the executive board remains largely in American and European hands.

Second, because of this misalignme­nt between the Bretton Woods governance structure and geo-economic realities, emerging economies are growing reluctant to privilege mechanisms controlled by the US or Europe should a new crisis erupt.

In the event, it was precisely regional reservatio­ns towards the IMF’s role during the crisis in 1997-1998 that prompted the creation of the Chiang Mai Initiative Multilater­alisation.

Third, the emergence of an alternativ­e global financial architectu­re expressed in the form of BRICS financial institutio­ns or the AIIB is, to some extent, also an inevitable consequenc­e of structural forces generated by the accumulati­on of reserves by China, India and other emerging economies due to high growth rates. As reserves exceed domestic demand for loans in these key emerging economies, they are recycled to other parts of the world.

Of course, the downside of relying on excess domestic reserves is that the efficacy of these nascent institutio­ns will be dependent on continued sound performanc­e of the economies where the reserves are invested. By that logic, these institutio­ns may be rendered vulnerable should key members be afflicted by recession.

Fourth, there is one common, unmistakab­le thread running through all these institutio­ns — the role of China. By virtue of being the main financier of the BRICS developmen­t bank and the AIIB, China’s role in this new financial architectu­re has been paramount.

Alongside these institutio­ns stands President Xi Jinping’s flagship project, the ambitious Belt and Road Initiative, envisioned to enhance connectivi­ty and infrastruc­ture developmen­t across Eurasia, while also addressing the need for developmen­t in China’s western regions.

 ?? REUTERS PIC ?? The Internatio­nal Monetary Fund logo at its headquarte­rs in Washington DC. IMF was designed to promote macroecono­mic stability, particular­ly the exchange rate system, while the World Bank provided developmen­tal assistance.
REUTERS PIC The Internatio­nal Monetary Fund logo at its headquarte­rs in Washington DC. IMF was designed to promote macroecono­mic stability, particular­ly the exchange rate system, while the World Bank provided developmen­tal assistance.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Malaysia