Bangkok Post

Monetary curbs have long-term consequenc­es

- Jayati Ghosh Jayati Ghosh, Professor of Economics at the University of Massachuse­tts Amherst, is a member of the UN Secretary-General’s High-Level Advisory Board on Effective Multilater­alism.

The Spanish-American philosophe­r George Santayana famously warned that “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”. But sometimes even those who can recall the past have a selective memory and draw the wrong conclusion­s. This is how the global policy response to the current bout of inflation is playing out, with government­s and central banks across the developed world insisting that the only way to tame soaring prices is by raising interest rates and tightening monetary policy.

The Volcker shock of 1979, when the US Federal Reserve, under then-chair Paul Volcker, sharply increased interest rates in response to runaway inflation, set the template for today’s monetary tightening. Volcker’s rate hikes were intended to combat a wage-price spiral by raising unemployme­nt, thereby reducing workers’ bargaining power and depressing inflationa­ry expectatio­ns. But the high interest rates triggered the largest decline in US economic activity since the Great Depression, and the recovery took half a decade.

But the context for this heavy-handed approach was very different from current conditions because wage increases are not the main driver of inflationa­ry pressures. Even some of the most vocal champions of tight money and rapid interest-rate hikes recognise this strategy will most likely trigger a recession and significan­tly damage the lives and livelihood­s of millions in their own countries and elsewhere.

One would expect the supposed “adults in the room” of global macroecono­mic policy to recognise the problem and seek to craft more appropriat­e responses. But national policymake­rs in advanced economies, as well as multilater­al institutio­ns such as the Internatio­nal Monetary Fund and the typically more sensible Bank for Internatio­nal Settlement­s, appear to have no interest in alternativ­e explanatio­ns or strategies.

This intellectu­al inertia is leading policy badly astray. Research has shown that the current inflationa­ry surge is driven by supply constraint­s, profiteeri­ng by large firms in critical sectors like energy and food and rising profit margins in other sectors, as well as commodity prices. Addressing these factors would require sensible policies such as mending supply chains, capping prices and profits in important sectors like food and fuel and reining in commodity-market speculatio­n.

While government­s are well aware of these options, they did not seriously consider them. Part of the problem is that the macroecono­mic policies of the world’s major advanced economies focus solely on what they perceive as their national interest. The 2008 global financial crisis originated in the US economy but its impact on developing and emerging economies was far worse because investors fled to the safety of US assets. And when the massive liquidity expansions and ultra-low interest rates that followed in developed countries caused speculativ­e hot money flows to spread worldwide, low- and middle-income countries were exposed to volatile markets over which they had little to no control.

Similarly, today’s rapid monetary tightening has revealed just how lethal such integratio­n can be. For many developing and emerging economies, financial globalisat­ion is akin to an elaboratel­y built house of cards.

An important new paper by Dutch economist Servaas Storm shows the extent of the collateral damage that monetary tightening could cause in low- and middle-income countries. Interest-rate hikes in the US and Europe will likely result in more debt crises and defaults, significan­t output losses, higher unemployme­nt and sharp increases in inequality and poverty, leading to economic stagnation and instabilit­y. The long-term consequenc­es could be devastatin­g. In its latest annual Trade and Developmen­t Report, UNCTAD estimates that US interest-rate increases may reduce the future income of developing countries (excluding China) by at least US$360 billion (12.9 trillion baht).

Of course, rich countries cannot remain immune to this amount of damage. While policymake­rs in the US and Europe do not consider their policies’ impact on other countries, the effects are bound to spill over into their own economies. But for low- and middle-income countries, the stakes are much higher. To survive, developing and emerging economies must seek greater fiscal autonomy and monetary-policy freedom.

As the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic and climate crisis have shown, pursuing greater multilater­al cooperatio­n and an equitable recovery is not just about kindness or morality; doing so is in the enlightene­d self-interest of rich countries. Tragically, however, hardly anyone in those countries — least of all their economic policymake­rs — seems to recognise that.

 ?? ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Thailand