Damn the Aid

I was recently directed to what is probably the most damning opinion on foreign aid I’ve come across in a while (hat tip Jodi and Tracy.)

Here’s the bottom line:
Over the past 60 years at least $1 trillion of development-related aid has been transferred from rich countries to Africa. Yet real per-capita income today is lower than it was in the 1970s, and more than 50% of the population -- over 350 million people -- live on less than a dollar a day, a figure that has nearly doubled in two decades.

The point the author makes is that Africa (and I would add other developing nations) needs investment and not aid. When you accept investment, be it equity or debt, there is significant responsibility attached to provide a return. In other words, you need to make the money work so you can pay back your investors.

Hopefully the money you make with the investment is more than what you need to pay back. If so, you have economic growth and that is good.

It’s not a perfect system, but it seems to work in places like India, SE Asia and more recently in Latin America (the Economist gushed on Brazil in its cover story a few weeks back.)

I’ve touched on this point before, but my view is that the world is awash with capital trying to find its way into places like Africa. Yes, I know there is a credit crunch going on but I think the view still holds.

African countries could start by issuing bonds to raise cash. To be sure, the traditional capital markets of the U.S. and Europe remain challenging. However, African countries could explore opportunities to raise capital in more non-traditional markets such as the Middle East and China (whose foreign exchange reserves are more than $4 trillion). Moreover, the current market malaise provides an opening for African countries to focus on acquiring credit ratings (a prerequisite to accessing the bond markets), and preparing themselves for the time when the capital markets return to some semblance of normalcy.

I would also add multilateral institutions and development banks as potential partners. Yes they have been part of the problem in the past, endlessly financing non-returning projects. But there are factions within these organizations that are now demanding a return and reform for their development financing dollars, and that is a good thing.

Corporations are eager to invest in developing country as well. The problem is there aren’t any good projects to invest in. There is a lot of money sitting on the sidelines waiting for the right time to enter Africa (I’m talking about investment in things other than resource extraction).

So what is everyone waiting for? Institutional reform for one (or even institutional creation in some instances)

Governments need to attract more foreign direct investment by creating attractive tax structures and reducing the red tape and complex regulations for businesses. African nations should also focus on increasing trade; China is one promising partner. And Western countries can help by cutting off the cycle of giving something for nothing. It's time for a change.

I would disagree with the point on China. Yes, China is pouring money into Africa but it is doing so to buy up resources and it is hard to see China making the demands for reform an outside investor has to make on Africa. Recent news from Dubai may make the Middle East a less active investor as well.



Why Foreign Aid Is Hurting Africa - WSJ.com

From anti-globalist to globalist cheerleader

I wrote earlier that Brazil's economy has improved because of its anti-globalist nature... meaning that much of Brazil's growth has been powered by its relatively insular market and strong internal consumption.

That may be true of the past, but Brazil needs a strong globalized system in order to grow in the future.

But Brazil’s ethanol-fueled economy may have hit a rough patch. The country’s stock market went into bear territory this week, falling 20 percent from its recent high. The collapse of the Doha world trade round has put the brakes on Brazil becoming a major exporter of agricultural products to the United States market. Meanwhile, a drop in oil and metal prices could send the country’s economy into a tailspin.

Can Brazilian M&A Stay Hot?

All this probably explains why Lula is so keen to restart the failed Doha talks.

Food inflation

The FT talks about a worrying trend to restrict global trade in food.

Countries are reducing import tariffs (a good thing) but to maintain some semblance of control over their food supplies, they are propping up export tariffs, which is bad. By reducing foreign competition (because countries aren't exporting as much), such export taxes on a global scale could have the impact of driving up local prices and limiting local supply.

If no supply is coming in from abroad, local producers of a restricted item (say corn or rice) will have an incentive to limit local production in order to drive prices up and make more profit.

I can hardly bemoan a poor farmer trying to make a healthy profit, but the end result is more hardship across a society. With a profit-maximizing farmer reducing supply, there is obviously less food to go around which increases prices and, ultimately, misery.

U.S. Import Prices Soar, Boosted by Chinese Goods - WSJ.com

Increasing global demand pushes prices up, and a dropping US dollar makes more expensive goods seems even more expensive.

This shouldn't surprise anyone

U.S. Import Prices Soar, Boosted by Chinese Goods - WSJ.com

Update: More on China and inflation.

The global/local paradox

It is not just markets that are globalizing, but companies are as well.

Being a globalized company means more than just having a single corporate HQ and selling abroad. It is the globalization of the HQ itself, with different senior corporate functions being located in many parts of the world.

In doing do, the company in effect becomes a local one. The global company mimics the behavior of an indigenous company because key corporate decisions are made within the country's boarders.... even though those decisions have global impact.

A company truly becomes global when it mimics a local company in as many different countries as it can.

Thoughts on deficit drop

Some quick thoughts on whythe drop in the US trade deficit.

Low dollar means foreign goods are more expensive here, so demand drops. Low dollar also means the US goods are cheaper elsewhere so demand abroad increases. This may be fine while it lasts, but a low currency is not what I would call a sustainable competitive advantage for the US.

The positive side to this, however, is that exports could help lessen the impact of a recession. Recovery could very well be export-lead.

Low confidence could mean that consumers are spending less, that would worsen the impact of any recession. On the plus side, however, if consumers are spending less, that could mean that they are (hopefully) saving more.

If that becomes sustained, that would be a huge plus because it would keep permanent downward pressure on the trade deficit, could boost liquidity without excessive interest rate cuts, and in the long run will make the individual financial situation of US consumers more stable, especially in their retirement.

Spinning a Global Plan - WSJ.com

Pretty good interview with IBM's Sam Palmisano talking about global ambitions.

Once again the issue comes up about foreign workers being a competition to US ones. I find this line of questioning to be uncreative.

1) This competition will push US workers into higher value jobs.

2) Opening markets abroad is essentially a form of global income redistribution. IBM (or any other company) actively doing business abroad creates jobs and wealth, which in turn creates new markets for goods and services.

Here are some money quotes:

WSJ: There's a lot of worry that globalization means fewer jobs and lower pay for U.S. workers. Is that a legitimate worry?

Mr. Palmisano: It's actually a big opportunity. Why not take advantage of it? The leading nation in the global economy is the United States of America. Great schools. Great capital formation. A system that works.

WSJ: Some would say that if you're helping Vietnam or South Africa build their education systems, it takes away job opportunities from Americans.

Mr. Palmisano: There is a real issue here where I think we need to do something more [in the U.S.]. IBM announced programs where we'll match money put in a learning account, and you can apply those tuitions to get future skills that you think are necessary for you.

WSJ: Can you give an example of a smaller country where your work has expanded rapidly?

Mr. Palmisano: Egypt's growing like crazy. We have a huge software laboratory in Egypt. It's doing development for IBM: software components and middleware. At the same time, it's doing commercial work, which they would view as an export business, you know, for clients around the world. The commercial business is growing double digits, right? Egypt is one of the largest populations in the Middle East and has a government that's trying to modernize its economy.

Deconstructing Krugman

It seems that few economists can raise the ire of other economists the way Paul Krugman can. In his latest column on trade, Krugman begins to discuss the increasing downward pressure being exerted on US wages by increased trade with developing nations.

As Krugman lays out the basic framework of his argument, he takes pains to state (twice) that he is not a protectionist. He does state in his final thought, however, that we should be wary of knee-jerk acceptance of trade and that we should listen to those who question trade.

This final thought has lead to two interpretations by Dani Rodrik and Greg Mankiw.

For his part, Mankiw seems intrigued by Krugman's thoughts(although would like to see the data backing them up) but wonders if we should take trade-questioners seriously if they are really just closeted protectionists.

Rodrik jumps on Mankiw's statement and asserts that people who question trade should not all by labeled as protectionists.

In fairness, I don't think that is what Mankiw was saying, that everyone who questions trade is necessarily a "protectionist" (which seems to be a bad word in economist circles.) What Mankiw (I think) was asking was if we know someone is a protectionist, should we listen to their views on trade? (presumably because their views will be highly skewed against trade).

My answer to Mankiw is yes, we should list to different (intelligent) views on trade, even if they are posited by a protectionist. Trade is crucially important to the economic growth of humanity and needs to be discussed, examined and deconstructed from many different angles. The purpose of this IMO is not to try to find a way to stop trade, but to continually try to find ways to make it better.

And to Rodrik I would agree that applying blanket terms to describe people's views is not helpful, but that is not what Mankiw was doing in this instance.