190 likes | 289 Views
Analyzing the ramifications of the rapid and significant decline in international trade post-2008 recession, exploring causes, implications, and the interplay with protectionism. Evaluating if the trade effect on GDP is negligible, and the relevance of trade in shaping economic activity.
E N D
Comments on O’Rourke Andrew K. Rose UC Berkeley, NBER, CEPR and EIEF
Some Tensions Exist:Let’s Eat the Cake and Have it Too • Is Loose Monetary Policy • “better policy response” or • “beggar thy neighbour”? • Special Role of American Dollar • “days of dollar supremacy numbered” or is there • “no alternative”?
1. O’Rourke data on Industrial Production Now and Then: Terrifying!
Dating the Recessions • O’Rourke uses June 1929, April 2008 • But NBER has peaks at August 1929 (2 months later) and December 2007 (4 months earlier) • CEPR uses January 2008 (3 months earlier) • Does Changing Dates by 6 months Matter? • Quick Check on American Data shows …
2. Is Decline in Industrial Production Serious, Permanent? • Many Countries • Serious decline in (trade and) IP • Dramatic bounce-back of late in at least some • Especially Small Open Economies Most Affected by Trade
Relevant?Industrial Production and GDP • Industrial Production a Small Part of GDP • OECD: Most value-added and employment is services • USA 2009Q1: GDP = $14,097.2 billion • Equivalent IP ≈ $5035.7 billion (35%!) • Unusually cyclic compared to services, direct government (especially investment, inventories, durable goods) • But IP is still obviously relevant …
3. Why Has Trade Collapsed? • Fall in International Trade has been: • Very Fast • Very Large • Essentially Simultaneous across Countries • 10/’08 – 3/’09 OECD average was -21%! • “Great Synchronization” of Trade Collapse
“Great Synchronization”High fraction of countries now experiencing negative export value growth
But: No Big Signs of Protectionism • So the decline in trade simply cannot have been “unnatural” – must be some “natural” reason(s)!
Policy Implication • Fears about Protectionism are forward-looking • Warranted and Reasonable, but • Not (yet) Realized • Reasonable if protection driven by macroeconomy
Causes of Collapse of Trade • Trade always responds disproportionately to recessions (goods respond more than services) • Contracts faster than GDP, bounces back faster too • Shrinking Trade Credit may play special role in ‘08 • Probably Key: More Trade in Intermediates • Trade recorded gross, not value-added; trade may fall a lot without value-added changing much • Elasticity of Trade wrt Income rising; now ≈ 4 (Freund) • So 5% decline in global growth → 20% decline in trade • Elasticity used to be <2 (Irwin)
Should We Care?Minnesota on Great Depression • Cole and Ohanian agree with O’Rourke: trade effect on GD is trivial • (So is everything else … though any policy response slowed recovery … of course …) • Still, perhaps trade (and protection) a side-show … except insofar as it affects real activity …
4. Great Depression: a Once-Off? • One observation can estimate one coefficient with zero degrees of freedom • World Quite Different Now • Legacy of WWI; Gold Standard; Communism; Fascism; Empires; Stabilizers (automatic, discretionary) … • More Trade Institutions (in part, because of GD) • WTO • Regional Trade Arrangements • Recognized Importance of Trade (e.g., G-20) • Previous Recessions Haven’t Lead to Protection • 1975, 1982 recessions; Asian crisis; …
International Monetary System:Closer to Bretton Woods Reversed:No “Golden Fetters” preclude growth
Vox-Ops • Must Guard Against Exaggeration • Necessary for Policy-Makers • Reform is Difficult • But Care Required for Academic Audiences • Vox has a LONG memory Case for the “Tale of Two Depressions” Unclear