Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

From $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

Asian Economic Integration Report 2018: Toward Optimal Provision of Regional Public Goods in Asia and the Pacific
Asian Economic Integration Report 2018: Toward Optimal Provision of Regional Public Goods in Asia and the Pacific
Asian Economic Integration Report 2018: Toward Optimal Provision of Regional Public Goods in Asia and the Pacific
Ebook505 pages4 hours

Asian Economic Integration Report 2018: Toward Optimal Provision of Regional Public Goods in Asia and the Pacific

Rating: 0 out of 5 stars

()

Read preview

About this ebook

This publication is the annual report of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) on Asia's progress in regional cooperation and integration. It covers ADB's 48 regional members and analyzes regional and global economic linkages. This year's special chapter, "Toward Optimal Provision of Regional Public Goods in Asia and the Pacific," examines how collective action among countries can help find solutions to growing transnational development challenges. It discusses how to best provide regional public goods that transcend the so-called "collective action problem," which occurs when individual interests are too weak on their own to drive cooperation on common issues. The chapter suggests that multilateral development banks should act as honest broker in enhancing mutual trust and facilitating regional cooperation for regional public goods.
LanguageEnglish
Release dateOct 1, 2018
ISBN9789292613556
Asian Economic Integration Report 2018: Toward Optimal Provision of Regional Public Goods in Asia and the Pacific

Read more from Asian Development Bank

Related to Asian Economic Integration Report 2018

Related ebooks

Business Development For You

View More

Related articles

Reviews for Asian Economic Integration Report 2018

Rating: 0 out of 5 stars
0 ratings

0 ratings0 reviews

What did you think?

Tap to rate

Review must be at least 10 words

    Book preview

    Asian Economic Integration Report 2018 - Asian Development Bank

    1

    Regional Economic Outlook and Development Challenges

    Economic Outlook and Risks

    ADB forecasts for developing Asia’s economic outlook have improved since the Asian Economic Integration Report 2017—economic output is set to grow 6.0% in 2018 from 6.1% in 2017.

    Developing Asia’s economic growth in 2018 is 0.2 percentage points above the estimate used as a backdrop for last year’s Asian Economic Integration Report.¹ Some 26 of the region’s 45 developing economies (57.8%) recorded a better-than-expected economic expansion according to the latest forecasts of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) available in the Asian Development Outlook 2018 Update. The People’s Republic of China (PRC) is expected to grow 6.6% in 2018, bolstered by strong economic performance in the first half of the year (Table 1.1).

    Over the past year, external conditions improved—growth in the euro area has been revised upwards (by 0.2 percentage points) along with the United States (US) (0.4 percentage points). Even as the first quarter 2018 growth in the euro area slowed to 1.6%, it stabilized at 1.5% in the second quarter as labor markets improved, the accommodative monetary policy continued, and fiscal support remained intact. In Japan, growth recovered strongly in the second quarter of 2018, reversing the contraction in the previous quarter. In the US, growth accelerated to 4.2% in the second quarter of 2018 from 2.2% growth in the previous quarter (first half growth reached 3.2%). If this trend continues, the US Federal Reserve may be forced to raise interest rates faster than expected.

    Table 1.1: Regional Gross Domestic Product Growtha (%, year-on-year)

    – = data not available.

    a Aggregates weighted by gross national income levels (Atlas method, current $) from World Bank, World Development Indicators.

    b Forecasts based on Asian Development Outlook Update 2018.

    c Refers to the 45 developing members of the ADB.

    d Data for Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan are according to their fiscal year. For India, the fiscal year is from April of the specified year through March of the following year. For Bangladesh and Pakistan, the fiscal year is from July of the previous year through June of the specified year.

    e Excludes Nauru as weights are unavailable.

    f Quarterly growth rates are based on quarter-on-quarter seasonally adjusted annualized rate.

    Sources: ADB (2018); CEIC (accessed September 2018); and World Bank. World Development Indicators. https://data.worldbank.org/products/wdi (accessed September 2018).

    Risks to the Outlook

    Risks remain tilted to the downside, primarily due to the escalating trade frictions between the US and the PRC; in addition, elevated debt levels could cause greater financial market volatility as US monetary policy normalizes and interest payments rise.

    The threat against open, free trade has begun—posing a clear downside risk to developing Asia’s growth forecasts. In August, the US launched tariffs on $50 billion of PRC imports, and the PRC countered in kind. The US also canceled country exemptions from steel and aluminum tariffs, prompting countermeasures from Canada, the European Union, Mexico, and the Russian Federation.

    Based on recent ADB estimates, the direct impact from the first set of tariffs had very little net effect on growth, investment, and the external current account balance (ADB 2018). But there is no assurance that a further escalation in protectionist measures will not disrupt global supply chains or curb future business expansion plans. Asia is one of the most open regions worldwide—and closely integrated into the global value chain—so a slowdown in global trade or any global shock to trade and investment could easily harm its economic prospects (Box 1.1).

    Box 1.1: Trade Volume Outlook for Developing Asia

    World trade growth is expected to slow moderately from 4.7% in 2017 to 4.5% in 2018 as growth eases in some advanced economies—likely to affect exports of emerging and developing economies as well.

    Developing Asia’s trade is also expected to grow but at a slower pace. Trade volume growth is projected to decline from the 7.6% estimate in 2017 to 5.5% in 2018. In the first 5 months of the year, the region’s major economies saw trade volume growth moderating. A key risk to the trade volume projection is the escalating trade friction between the United States and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) (ADB 2018).

    As in previous years, the PRC will remain the key driver of developing Asia’s trade growth, while the four middle-income economies of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Thailand) and the newly industrialized economies (Hong Kong, China; the Republic of Korea; Singapore; and Taipei,China) will also provide a boost. Imports to these economies will be buoyed by robust domestic demand, while exports will benefit from growing intraregional demand.

    Trade Volume Growth (%, year-on-year)

    ASEAN = Association of Southeast Asian Nations, E = estimate, GDP = gross domestic product, NIE = newly industrialized economies, P = projected, PRC = People's Republic of China.

    Note: ASEAN4 includes Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Thailand. NIE4 includes Hong Kong, China; the Republic of Korea; Singapore; and Taipei,China. Trade volume growth projections are calculated using trade volume growth rates of all economies, which were generated using each economy’s elasticities-to-real GDP (for imports) and elasticities-to-real GDP of top trading partners (for exports).

    Sources: ADB calculations using data from International Monetary Fund.

    World Economic Outlook April 2018 database. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2018/01/weodata/index.aspx (accessed May 2018); International Monetary Fund. Direction of Trade Database. https://www.imf.org/en/Data (accessed August 2018); and World Trade Organization Statistics database. http://stat.wto.org/Home/WSDBHome.aspx (accessed May 2018).

    High debt levels can be a destabilizing factor for the financial sector.

    Since the 2008/09 global financial crisis, many large developing economies in the region have rapidly accumulated private external debt as a share of gross domestic product (GDP). For example, the PRC’s corporate debt rose from 120% of GDP in 2009 to 160% in 2017. The ratio has increased significantly in Thailand; the Republic of Korea; Hong Kong, China; and Singapore. The concern is that these ratios could prove unsustainable should global interest rates rise sharply.

    Given this concern and market expectations of further rate rises in the US, many developing Asian currencies weakened relative to the US dollar from early-April 2018 to the end of September. Leading the group is the Indian rupee, which depreciated 11.2% over the period. The PRC yuan fell 9.4%, the Indonesian rupiah 8.4%, Japanese yen 7.4%, and the Malaysian ringgit 7.2%. The Korean won, Taipei,China NT dollar, Singapore dollar, Philippine peso, and Thai baht weakened between 3.8% and 5.0%.

    Capital outflows from the region—mostly portfolio investment—have occurred recently.

    The regional currency weakness—combined with higher 10-year US Treasury yields—triggered some bouts of capital outflows from emerging markets and the region (Figure 1.1). However, these mostly nonresident portfolio outflows could also be explained by the strong inflows of portfolio investment in 2017—which reached nearly $760 billion (see Financial Integration, pp. 60–80).

    Figure 1.1: Nonresident Portfolio Capital Inflows—Developing Asia ($ billion)

    BOP = balance of payments, IIF = Institute of International Finance.

    Notes: Portfolio flows are the sum of equity and debt flows. BOP data cover developing Asian economies: Brunei Darussalam; Cambodia; Hong Kong, China; India; Indonesia; the Lao People Democratic Republic; Malaysia; Myanmar; the People’s Republic of China; the Philippines; the Republic of Korea; Singapore; Taipei,China; Thailand; and Viet Nam. The IIF data are based on the IIF monthly portfolio flow tracker, which covers India; Indonesia; Malaysia; the People’s Republic of China; the Philippines; the Republic of Korea; Taipei,China; Thailand; and Viet Nam.

    Sources: ADB calculations using data from CEIC; IIF. Monthly Portfolio Tracker. https://www.iif.com; and International Monetary Fund. International Financial Statistics. https://www.imf.org/en/Data (all accessed August 2018).

    Nonetheless, the decline in portfolio investment flows was far more muted compared with nonresident outflows during the 2013 taper tantrum episode. More importantly, nonresident capital outflows were more than offset by stronger inward flows of foreign direct investment and other investments—including bank lending. These inflows contributed to stronger accumulation of international reserves across much of the region, although some economies had foreign exchange reserves decline due to exchange rate volatility.

    Still, there has been some market turbulence. For instance, elevated external debt in Argentina and Turkey recently contributed to some financial market turmoil and spillover effects—with the Turkish lira losing more than 40% of its value this year as markets reacted to Turkey’s high external debt-to-GDP ratio (over 50%), high and rising inflation (15% in July), and the delayed response from the central bank after it failed to raise interest rates to defend the lira. This turbulence could generate spillover shocks to other emerging markets if confidence suffers, and risk perceptions lead investors to extract their investments.

    Capital flow volatility has subsided in developing Asia during the US monetary policy normalization—except for portfolio debt flows most affected by rising interest rates in the US.

    For most subregions, the volatility of net debt investment flows into developing Asia has increased as US monetary policy normalization tightens global financial conditions since 2016. In contrast, during the same period, the volatility of net capital flows—in equity, foreign direct investment, and financial derivatives—has declined (Table 1.2).

    Table 1.2: Capital Flow Volatility—Developing Asia (standard deviation of capital net flow levels as % of GDP)

    ** = refers to the direction of capital flow volatility between post-global financial crisis and post-normalization, = decrease, = increase, FDI = foreign direct investment, GDP = gross domestic product, GFC = global financial crisis, MP = monetary policy, SDR = special drawing rights.

    a The category Other Investments includes (i) other equity; (ii) currency and deposits; (iii) loans (including use of International Monetary Fund credit and loans); (iv) nonlife insurance technical reserves, life insurance and annuities entitlements, pension entitlements, and provisions for calls under standardized guarantees; (v) trade credit and advances; (vi) other accounts receivable/payable; and (vii) SDR allocations (SDR holdings are included in reserve assets).

    Notes: Central Asia includes Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, and Tajikistan. East Asia (excluding Japan) includes Hong Kong, China; Mongolia; the People's Republic of China; and the Republic of Korea. South Asia includes India and Sri Lanka. Southeast Asia includes Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Viet Nam. Data for Brunei Darussalam are only until Q4 2016.

    Sources: ADB calculation using data from CEIC; and International Monetary Fund. Balance of Payments and International Investment Position Statistics. http://www.imf.org/external/np/sta/bop/bop.htm (both accessed July 2018).

    The Financial Stress Index of developing Asia remains unusually low despite recurring economic and financial events, suggesting that investors have become more complacent toward risk.

    Since December 2015, when the US Federal Reserve began normalizing its monetary policy—raising policy rates for the first time since June 2006—developing Asia’s Financial Stress Index (FSI)—a composite index that measures the degree of financial stress in four major financial sectors and markets including the banking sector, debt, equity, and foreign exchange markets—has remained very low (Figure 1.2) despite a series of economic, financial, and policy events that have significant implications for financial stability. Though the US Federal Reserve rate hikes in 2017 and 2018 may have contributed to some uptick in the FSI, levels were nowhere near those during the global financial crisis or the 1998/99 Asian financial crisis.

    Figure 1.2: Financial Stress Index—Developing Asia

    AFC = Asian financial crisis, FSI = Financial Stress Index, GFC = global financial crisis, PRC = People’s Republic of China, US = United States, US Fed = United States Federal Reserve System.

    Notes:

    (i) Pre-AFC = Jan 1995–Jun 1997, AFC = Jul 1997–Jun 1999, Pre-GFC = Jul 1999–Sep 2007, GFC = Oct 2007–Jun 2009, Post-GFC = Jul 2009–Sep 2015, Normalization = Oct 2015–Jun 2018.

    (ii) Based on principal components analysis on data from four major financial sectors: the banking sector, debt, equity, and foreign exchange markets. Principal components are based from banking sector price index, sovereign yield spreads, stock market volatility, stock price index, and exchange market pressure index.

    (iii) Developing Asia includes Hong Kong, China; India; Indonesia; Malaysia; the Philippines; the PRC; the Republic of Korea; Singapore; Thailand; and Viet Nam.

    Sources: ADB calculations using data from Bloomberg; CEIC; Haver Analytics (all accessed August 2018); and methodology by Park and Mercado (2014).

    A possible explanation is the wide array of reforms adopted in response to past crises—covering sound macroeconomic fundamentals (budget and foreign reserve management), more flexible exchange rates, stronger financial regulation and supervision, and a stronger regional cooperation framework—which likely contributed to bolstering the region’s financial stability and resilience.

    Yet, the current low FSI levels may also indicate that investors have become more complacent toward risk—despite looming financial vulnerabilities. Subdued market volatility, coupled with a low risk premium, has often led to a buildup of systemic risks. Investor complacency may contribute to a major price correction in financial markets when investors’ risk sentiments suddenly shift due to a worsening growth outlook, or an unexpected change in monetary and credit conditions and policies.

    Development Challenges: Vulnerabilities to Economic, Environmental, and Social Shocks

    Global economic shocks

    Greater economic interdependence and integration is contributing to faster transmission of global economic shocks.

    Since the global financial crisis, episodes like the 2010 European debt crisis, the 2013 taper tantrum, this year’s sell-off of the Turkish lira, and the threat of escalating US–PRC trade tensions, remind everyone—from policy makers to investors—of the downside risks of a highly interconnected global economy. Until now, global financial and business cycles—and policy adjustments in the US—have largely driven capital flows, asset prices, and risk premia on a global scale, sometimes harming national economies.

    This is evident from the strong correlation—since the Asian financial crisis—between the incidence of developing Asia’s recessions with those globally; possibly a consequence of the region’s deepening integration with the global economy (Figure 1.3). Generally, developing Asia’s recessions do not last very long—their median duration is about 3 quarters. However, the cost of recessions to developing Asia is proportionately larger than those in advanced economies. For instance, the cumulative output losses from recessions in developing Asia have a median of around 5.6% of peak GDP compared with 3.3% for advanced economies (Figure 1.4). This validates the findings of Aghiar and Gopinath (2007), which attributed the large and persistent volatility in emerging markets to their less diversified economic structures and limited ability to tap the international financial

    Enjoying the preview?
    Page 1 of 1