海外之声 | 后疫情时代的经济挑战

导读

新冠疫情之下，各国采取的紧急经济措施会带来全球性影响。本文旨在评估各类措施对全球经济所带来的溢出效应，本文由三部分组成：第一、疫情对全球经济主要影响；第二、各国为保护本国国民所采取的措施；第三、这些措施对中国经济发展的影响。

在疫情的严重冲击之下，大批人口失业，无法按时偿还自身债务，消费能力不断下降。股票市场保持活力，全球金融危机后建立的缓冲措施日益改善，储蓄蓬勃发展，银行业有效抵御疫情冲击。地缘政治形势紧张加剧，全球经济已面临极大不确定性，经济深度衰退和失业率上升之间的历史关系首次被打破。制造业和建筑业在最初封锁后实现反弹，但部分服务尚未恢复。电子商务蓬勃发展，居家办公人数激增，推动住宅物业需求蓬勃发展。

各国政府迅速做出反应，采取灵活应对措施，包括暂停支付和延缓纳税等。为确保资金流动，政府制定宽松货币政策来缓解流动性短缺和波动性激增，确保金融市场有序运作。

中国采取措施，有效缓解疫情对增长、需求和就业的影响，特别是对中小微企业的影响，推出的货币政策包括降低准备金要求和增加贷款目标等，银行可能面临信贷质量恶化引起的不良贷款和信贷拨备风险。

BIS 设有两种备选方案。第一个假设在“通胀上升和金融状况收紧”的情况下迅速恢复正常状态，第二个假设基于病毒突变引起的长期大流行下的 “复苏停滞和企业破产上升”。这两种情景都将作为第二轮效应对中国经济产生更大的影响。

作者 | 赫伯特·波尼施，IMI国际委员、国际清算银行原高级经济学家

英文原文如下：

Postpandemic economic challenges

By Herbert Poenisch, IMI International Committee, former senior economist BIS

The Covid 19 pandemic which has plagued virtually all countries in the world has brought an unprecedented relapse into nationalism not seen by the present generation. The relapse in terms of sanitary and economic emergency not only resorted to measures for residents of one country but to their nationals. Borders were closed and existing agreements on free movement of people were suspended. Foreigners were shown the door and if they stayed they received no special attention. However, the spillover of domestic measures affected the whole population of countries including expats and foreign workers. The economic emergency measures adopted for nationals of countries had global implications.

This article will not cover the fallout of the pandemic on economic growth and the dislocation of various factors of production which are analysed widely and deeply by various experts and organisations such as the BIS and the IMF. It will rather assess the spillover, or contagion of various measures to the global economy. In the first part the major fallout of the pandemic for domestic and international economies will be assessed. The measures taken by national authorities to save their citizens from this fallout with the effects on the global economy will follow in the second part. The third part deals with the fallout of these measures for the Chinese economy.

China has been successful in controlling the spread of the pandemic and thanks to tough measures taken, reverted to robust growth earlier than other countries. However, they have been affected by policy measures taken elsewhere. There are positive effects but also negative contagion makes itself felt as the dust settled and growth resumed. Ample use will be made of statistics published in the 2020 IMF article IV consultation and by the PBOC.

Fallout from pandemic to domestic and global economy

The pandemic which spread in early 2020 led to widespread disruptions affecting countries’ economies to more or less equal measure. Countries were forced to reduce the movement of people domestically and cross border in order to stem the contamination. Large swathes of the population, with the micro small and medium enterprises (MSME) worst affected, lost their jobs mostly in the gig economy, or were reduced to part time work or put on furlough. Some sectors such as tourism, organisation of events,  sports and entertainment shut down completely whereas other sectors, such as medical, logistics and online platforms expanded exponentially.

The financial impact was that some sectors and part of the population badly affected could not pay their liabilities on time and had to be rescheduled. For those continuing to earn incomes their savings increased sharply as consumption declined. Equally, the stock market remained buoyant after periods of sell off. The banking sector weathered the storm well thanks to improved cushions built up after the GFC and the buoyancy of savings.

During the past year uncertainty about the duration of the pandemic, possible insolvencies, changing consumption patters and disruptions in global supply chains led to a negative growth of 3.4% for the whole world, with China the only exception with a positive growth rate of 2.3%.

The global economy, including global value chains and global trade had entered a period of uncertainty before the pandemic struck because of geopolitical tensions. Goods trade recovered sharply after a drop of 20% in the first half of 2020. Only trade in services did not recover and international tourism collapsed.

Unemployment rates which crept up somewhat do not tell the whole story. Members of the workforce were kept on, but had reduced their working hours and continued working online. Many were furloughed but these schemes mostly expired by the end of 2020, contributing to the rise in unemployment rates. However, the historical relationship between a deep recession and rising unemployment was broken in AE.

These patterns did not work in EME where the decline in growth had full impact on unemployment as support measures in AE were not working there. The population in EME bore the full brunt of the economic and sanitary fallout of the crisis.

Regarding sectors, manufacturing and construction bounced back after the initial lockdown, but customer related services have not recovered until today. While retail shops were forced to shut down e-commerce boomed. Commercial property bore the full brunt due to working from home. At the same time demand for residential property boomed as online workers looked to upgrade their working environment.

The disinflationary effect of the pandemic was prevalent in AE during most of 2020 due to the drop in demand, less wage pressure and firms’ cost cutting. Interests rates and other borrowing costs remained low. The picture was somewhat different in EME where a tighter supply situation caused inflation to emerge. Rising raw material prices added to the picture even in China where the PPI started to rise in early 2021.

The asset markets, such as stock and real estate markets showed resilience, very untypical during a recession. This gave rise to the discussion on a disconnect between finance and the real economy. It might be the result of a more unequal income and wealth distribution when the rentiers are worried about returns on their assets while the average wage earners struggle with everyday survival. This was fuelled by monetary accommodation as outlined below.

Measures taken by national authorities

Once the pandemic struck, authorities were quick to respond in all countries. They all faced the choice between sanitary and economic consideration. They needed to walk the tightrope day by day as the pandemic unfolded. Needless to say that the spectre varied from country to country. Some were putting priority on health measures, others on economic concerns. What saved the ordinary people from catastrophe was the decisiveness by authorities to abandone principles and theories in favour of a flexible response, summed up by the phrase: whatever it takes! 

The catalogue of measures compiled by the Financial Stability Forum (FSF) was under the heading: extending, amending and ending, thus clearly denoting a sequencing over time, adapted to changing circumstances. The response was different to various phases. Authorities in AE implemented an unprecedented package of measures of fiscal and monetary policy as well as financial regulation to alleviate the suffering of the population while putting neither the fiscal solvency nor monetary and financial stability at risk.

The measures according to the FSF fall into the following categories:

Payment moratoria and tax deferrals: to avoid a liquidity crunch for economic agents

Public guarantee schemes: mostly for MSME and self-employed

Public guarantee schemes for trade credit insurance: to sustain exports

Short time work schemes: to avoid laying off staff and ensure income streams

Direct grants, tax relief and equity injections for big firms to continue operations

Measures to facilitate continued and orderly operation of capital markets: thus big companies continued to obtain funds in the equity and bond markets at good terms

The authorities also opened the spigots to ensure adequate liquidity by

Monetary policy accommodation helped to mitigate liquidity short falls and volatility spikes to ensure orderly functioning of financial markets. In this course central bank balance sheets expanded in the USA from 16% to 33% of GDP, in the Eurozone from 40% to 60% of GDP and in Japan even reached 120% of GDP. Interest rates remained at their historically low levels.

Fiscal authorities used various measures as listed above to support households and firms. The fiscal packages adopted amounted to 25% of GDP in the USA, including the new packages under the Biden administration, in Japan some 20% of GDP and 18% in the UK. In Eurozone countries these packages amounted to 10-12% of GDP.

Measures adopted by regulatory and supervisory bodies to ensure banks continued to lend to customers in need.

Prudential measure to complement monetary policy and thus enhance transmission.

As a result national money supply as measured by M2 increased moderately as did global liquidity, measured as credit provided by banks in their international operations.

A brightening economic outlook together with fiscal stimulus, monetary accommodation and increased vaccination rates led  to a so called ‘reflation trade’ with rising sovereign spreads in AE. This spilled over into EME, aggravated by rising raw material prices. As result, inflation raised its head again, with expectations of a short term spike in AE but a prolonged increase in EME.

What is the long term impact of these measures? As financial conditions were benign while indebtedness of households,  firms but mostly governments increased well above the trend. The unwinding of these positions once the pandemic is surely under control and economic recovery is on a solid footing will pose challenges for the domestic and global economy.

On the domestic front, monetary tightening will become inevitable, the ‘reflation trade’ acting as a stark reminder that benign conditions cannot continue. The fiscal packages will have to be phased out. The higher debt levels can be accepted in the short term but have to be wound down as the economic recovery gains momentum. In this case the ‘flattening of the debt curve’ served the purpose by avoiding household and corporate insolvencies.

On the international front, responding to monetary tightening in AE reminds of the tapering a few years ago. Countries in EME again face capital outflows and weakening of exchange rates, pressure to tighten their monetary regimes while not having fully controlled the pandemic. Markets will continue to provide adequate financing for higher debt levels in AE at higher remuneration.

Response in China

The experience of China was rather unique during this period. China was the first country to be affected by the pandemic and the first one to return to economic growth thanks to the stringent sanitary measures adopted in 1Q2020.Although China did not follow the full out support of monetary and fiscal policy adopted in AE, emergency measures were taken to cushion the impact of the pandemic on growth, demand and employment, particular in MSMEs. China prided itself of not resorting to quantitative easing or extreme fiscal stimulus, keeping the central government budget deficit at 3.6% of GDP.The monetary policy measures included reducing reserve requirements for banks, increasing lending targets, credit support by the policy banks, loan repayment moratoria, zero interest funding for lending to MSME and window guidance to steer lending to the hard hit sector. The monetary survey statistics show that M1 increased markedly by 15% in 2020, and M2 was growing between 8-10% during 2020, much faster than GDP, continuing the previous trend.As credit quality deteriorated banks recorded higher NPLs and credit provisions, growing by 18% and 34% respectively in 2020. Banks were also hit by local government financing debt which reached 25% of GDP in 2020. Local governments were asked to implement many of the support measures. While the central government borrowing was kept under control, total government borrowing increased from 6.3% of GDP in 2019 to 11.9% in 2020. The IMF calculated augmented fiscal borrowing increased from 12.6% of GDP in 2019 to 18.2% in 2020.While it is true that China’s stimulus during the pandemic was less than in AE it was not negligible either. It contributed to the increase in the financial risk in the Chinese economy as outlined by Guo Shuqing in his speech to the 2021 Lujiazui Forum. In particular he stated the following concerns:End of debt moratoria for MSME will increase NPLsLeverage of shadow banksIllegal security issues carrying government riskSpillover from derivatives risksPonzi schemes disguised as FinTech productsIn his speech he also singled out the increase of money supply in AE during the crisis as a power source for global inflation. While it is true that inflation is a monetary phenomenon following Milton Friedman, it is not evident why this would affect China particularly strongly.China with its capital controls in place can isolate itself from a direct spillover which works as transmission in open economies. Due to its excellent export performance in 2020 China achieved a current account surplus of USD 274bn. This is largely due to the monetary and fiscal packages adopted in AE and EME which sustained demand for Chinese exports. This would lead to an appreciation of the currency in a normal country and was also allowed to work in China where RMB appreciated by close to 10%. This would induce capital inflows which in turn increase the money supply and subsequently cause inflationary pressure.According to available statistics from the PBOC this did not occur in China as foreign exchange reserves in RMB did not increase during 2020, and M0 declined somewhat. The current account surplus was offset by an outflow of USD 106bn on the financial account and 160bn in errors and omission. The financial account result was reached by portfolio inflows of USD 254bn, outflows of USD 167bn and other investment of USD 314bn.Checking also the global liquidity indicator published by the BIS this increased moderately in 2020 thus not suggesting a global spillover of the increased money supply in AE. The massive increase in fiscal packages in the AE led to greater issue of government securities, notably US treasuries which caused higher yield in the bond market and a weakening of the USD, the mirror image of the RMB appreciation.How far the rise in commodity prices in 2021 can be ascribed to the monetary and fiscal stimulation in AE is a mute point as these prices are normally affect by demand and supply expectations. As worldwide demand was weak, the only other explanatory factors are future markets, expectations and transport bottlenecks.

Conclusion

While China embarked on a different cycle from AE and EME thanks to its determined response to the pandemic, its early normalisation and return to growth, it will face second round effects. The favourable performance was due to excellent response of Chinese authorities but also due to support measures in AE and EME. China could not have done it alone without the global economy functioning adequately. Looking forward, the uncertainty caused by the pandemic has not been lifted and various economic scenarios have been linked to how quickly the pandemic can be controlled. The BIS runs two alternative scenarios. The first one assumes a quick return to normal conditions under the heading ‘higher inflation and tightening of financial conditions’ and the second one based on a prolonged pandemic with mutations of the virus called ‘recovery stalls and business insolvencies rise’. Both these scenarios will have a stronger impact on the Chinese economy as second round effects.

编辑  查王皓天

来源  BIS

编译  胡斌

责编  李锦璇、蒋旭

监制  朱霜霜、董熙君

点击查看近期热文

欢迎加入群聊

为了增进与粉丝们的互动，IMI财经观察建立了微信交流群，欢迎大家参与。

入群方法：加群主为微信好友（微信号：imi605）,添加时备注个人姓名（实名认证）、单位、职务等信息，经群主审核后，即可被拉进群。

欢迎读者朋友多多留言与我们交流互动，留言可换奖品：每月累积留言点赞数最多的读者将得到我们寄送的最新研究成果一份。

关于我们

中国人民大学国际货币研究所（IMI）成立于2009年12月20日，是专注于货币金融理论、政策与战略研究的非营利性学术研究机构和新型专业智库。研究所聘请了来自国内外科研院所、政府部门或金融机构的90余位著名专家学者担任顾问委员、学术委员和国际委员，80余位中青年专家担任研究员。

研究所长期聚焦国际金融、货币银行、宏观经济、金融监管、金融科技、地方金融等领域，定期举办国际货币论坛、货币金融（青年）圆桌会议、大金融思想沙龙、麦金农大讲坛、陶湘国际金融讲堂、IMF经济展望报告发布会、金融科技公开课等高层次系列论坛或讲座，形成了《人民币国际化报告》《天府金融指数报告》《金融机构国际化报告》《宏观经济月度分析报告》等一大批具有重要理论和政策影响力的学术成果。

2018年，研究所荣获中国人民大学优秀院属研究机构奖，在182家参评机构中排名第一；在《智库大数据报告（2018）》中获评A等级，在参评的1065个中国智库中排名前5%。2019年，入选智库头条号指数（前50名），成为第一象限28家智库之一。

国际货币网：http://www.imi.ruc.edu.cn

微信号：IMI财经观察

（点击识别下方二维码关注我们）

理事单位申请、

学术研究和会议合作

联系方式:  

010-62516755 

[e-mail]

只分享最有价值的财经视点

We only share the most valuable financial insights.