Everyone
now recognises the need to reform the international
economic regime. But the idea should not simply be
to fix a system that is obviously broken: we need
to exchange it for a better model. That is because
the current financial architecture has failed in some
very important ways.
Most importantly, the international financial system
has failed to meet two obvious requirements: of preventing
instability and crises, and of transferring resources
from richer to poorer economies. Not only have we
experienced much greater volatility and propensity
to financial meltdown across emerging markets and
now even industrial countries, but even the periods
of economic expansion have been based on the global
poor subsidising the rich.
These global failures are so immense that they constitute
enough reason to abandon this system. But there are
other associated failures in terms of what the regime
has implied within national economies: it has encouraged
pro-cyclicality; it has rendered national financial
systems opaque and impossible to regulate; it has
encouraged bubbles and speculative fervour rather
than real productive investment for future growth;
it has allowed for the proliferation of parallel transactions
through tax havens and looser domestic controls; it
has reduced the crucial developmental role of directed
credit.
So we clearly need a new system, even if the goals
remain the same as that of the original Bretton Woods:
to ensure currency stabilisation through international
monetary co-operation; to encourage the expansion
of international trade in a stable way; and to promote
development by facilitating productive investment.
To achieve this in the current context, four elements
are crucial. First, the belief that self-regulation
supported with external risk assessment by rating
agencies is an adequate way to run a financial system
has been blow sky-high. There is no alternative, therefore,
to systematic state regulation of finance.
Second, since private players will inevitably attempt
to circumvent regulation, the core of the financial
system - banking - must be protected, and this is
only possible through social ownership. Therefore,
some degree of the socialisation of banking (and not
just socialisation of the risks inherent in finance)
is also inevitable. In developing countries it is
also important because it enables public control over
the direction of credit, without which no country
has industrialised.
Third, to cope with the adverse real economy effects
of the current crisis, fiscal stimulation is essential
in both developed and developing countries. Enhanced
public expenditure is required to prevent economic
activity and employment from falling, to manage the
effects of climate change and promote greener technologies,
and to advance the development project in the South.
Fourth, we need an international economic framework
that supports this, which in turns means that capital
flows must be controlled and regulated so that they
do not destabilise any of these strategies.
It may be argued that such an international system
based on state regulation will reduce the possibility
of developing countries to access much-needed capital
for their own economic expansion. But this perception
is wrong, because in fact the current liberalised
system did not provide for a net transfer of resources
to the developing world. In the past six years, there
has been a net flow of financial resources from every
developing region to the North, primarily the US,
even as global income disparities have increased.
And within countries, the idea that deregulated finance
could put more resources in the hands of the poor
(as in sub-prime lending) has proved to be unsustainable.
So greater state involvement in economic activity
is now both necessary and desirable. The time for
arguing about whether to have it or not is over. Instead,
we should be thinking of how to make such involvement
more democratic and accountable, within our countries
and internationally.
October
27, 2008.
This article has appeared in the The Guardian, 24
October 2008.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/24/economics-development
|