Search

The global financial architecture is struggling to facilitate the sustainable investment needed to address climate change. Some argue that if the Basel III global capital rules treated environmentally friendly assets as being safer forms of capital, banks would be incentivized to hold more of these assets on their balance sheets and extend more green debt, promoting sustainable investment. This paper explores the possible impacts of this reform by combining firm-level environmental, social, and governance (ESG) data with a global general equilibrium model. It finds that the reform would result in a significant reallocation of capital, goods, and services across sectors and economies. It finds that while the reform could significantly increase investment, the investment is not necessarily sustainable and not all countries benefit from cooperation. The paper identifies a range of challenges that need to be overcome for these results to hold, including the reliability of ESG data, inconsistencies in taxonomies and methodologies, and further analysis confirming whether green firms are indeed safer borrowers. The paper argues that the G20 is well placed to address these challenges and outlines an agenda to achieve it.

Many US policymakers on both sides of the aisle, including President Trump, have called on the US Federal Reserve to cut interest rates to depreciate the US dollar. This paper uses an intertemporal general equilibrium model to explore what would likely happen if this policy was pursued. It shows that the general equilibrium effects of a depreciated real effective exchange rate brought about by lower US interest rates can result in a wide variety of unintended consequences. The paper explores what would happen if US trading partners were to retaliate by devaluing their currencies.

Indonesia has managed the complex challenges of the global economy well. The country's capital outflows were smaller in 2018 than during the Taper Tantrum in 2013; the rupiah had regained most of its lost ground by January 2019; the Indonesian stock market has outperformed its peers; growth is forecast to remain stable; inflation is low; unemployment remains below its five-year average; consumer and business confidence are robust; and the government budget has improved through a smaller deficit and cheaper borrowing costs. But significant risks remain. This paper assesses these risks and evaluates the adequacy of Indonesia's crisis management framework. It finds that the framework has serious deficiencies that could see liquidity challenges become systemic solvency crises. The framework effectively removes Bank Indonesia as the lender of last resort, risks politicising the process of crisis response, and could mean slower, less effective responses to crises. This paper explores how the framework could be improved and what reforms could be undertaken to deepen Indonesia's financial system, strengthen financial resilience, and boost the long-term growth outlook.

Economic theory suggests that monopoly prices hurt consumers but benefit shareholders. But in a world where individuals or households can be both consumers and shareholders, the impact of market power on inequality depends in part on the relative distribution of consumption and corporate equity ownership across individuals or households. The paper calculates this distribution for the United States, using data from the Survey of Consumer Finances and the Consumer Expenditure Survey, spanning nearly three decades from 1989 to 2016. In 2016, the top 20 per cent consumed approximately as much as the bottom 60 per cent, but had 15 times as much corporate equity. Because ownership is more skewed than consumption, increased mark-ups increase inequality. Moreover, over time, corporate equity has become even more skewed relative to consumption.

This paper provides the first estimates of the extent of common ownership of competing firms in Australia. Combining data on market shares and substantial shareholdings, we calculate the impact of common ownership on effective market concentration. Among firms where we can identify at least one owner, 31 per cent share a substantial owner with a rival company. Analysing 443 industries, we identify 49 that exhibit common ownership, including commercial banking, explosives manufacturing, fuel retailing, insurance and iron ore mining. Across the Australian economy, common ownership increases effective market concentration by 21 per cent. Our estimates imply that if listed firms seek to maximise the value of their investors’ portfolios, then they place the same value on $3.70 of their competitors’ profits as on $1 of their own profits. We discuss the limitations of the available data, and the potential implications of common ownership for competition in Australia.

The world’s developed economies are experiencing a sharp backlash against globalisation, and it appears to be contagious. Will Asia catch it next? Asia has seen spectacular growth in recent decades. It has benefited substantially from global trade, finance, openness and the rules-based international order. But much of the growth Asia has enjoyed has not been shared. It has not been inclusive growth. Inequality in Asia is among the highest in the world. The richest man in Vietnam now earns more in a single day than the poorest person does in a decade. Asia has far to go in making its societies more inclusive to women, ethnic minorities and the LGBT community. How can Asia reduce inequality? What are the forces that determine whether growth in the Asia Pacific is inclusive or not? And what can be done to make Asia’s growth more inclusive in the future? This book brings together the region’s leading thinkers to explore how to change Asia’s trajectory, before it is too late. The Pacific Trade and Development (PAFTAD) conference series has been at the forefront of analysing challenges facing the economies of East Asia and the Pacific since its first meeting in Tokyo in January 1968.

In 2019, President Trump called on the U.S. Federal Reserve to cut interest rates to depreciate the U.S. dollar, which, according to the IMF, is overvalued by between 6 and 12 percent. This paper uses an intertemporal general equilibrium model to explore what would likely happen if the President’s wish was granted. Using the G-Cubed (G20) model, it shows that the general equilibrium effects of a depreciated real effective exchange rate brought about by lower U.S. interest rates can result in a wide variety of unintended consequences, many of which contradict the stated aims of President Trump and his administration. Such a policy would likely result in a larger U.S. trade deficit, would only temporarily devalue the real effective exchange rate and would only temporarily support the U.S. economy. The policy would boost the trade balances of most U.S. trading partners, depreciate China’s exchange rate and boost China’s GDP. Given the policy would make the overvalued exchange rates of many economies even more overvalued, the paper explores what would happen if U.S. trading partners were to retaliate by devaluing their currencies. It shows that this makes it harder for the U.S. to achieve its objectives and forces a more severe adjustment for economies that presently have undervalued exchange rates.

The rise of China is challenging the international financial architecture in a number of ways. This paper highlights three that are of critical importance: the challenge of absorbing massive Chinese savings; the incorporation of China into a cohesive global financial safety net; and the organisation of China's participation in funding the demand for international investment projects. The global financial architecture needs to be reformed. But what role should China play? The paper defines the options open to China and the opportunities and barriers it will face. We argue that China can work with the established economic powers in reforming the existing architecture. At the same time, China seeks cooperation in building new institutions and organisations that fill gaps in the existing arrangements. But no matter how international financial diplomacy plays out in the near term, deep financial and economic reform at home will alone deliver China a central role in the international financial architecture. Domestic reform could also attend to some of the challenges that currently plague China's impact on the system. The success or failure of these domestic reforms will be at the crux of the strength or fragility of the international financial architecture in the years ahead.

Economic theory suggests that monopoly prices hurt consumers but benefit shareholders. But in a world where individuals or households can be both consumers and shareholders, the impact of market power on inequality depends in part on the relative distribution of consumption and corporate equity ownership across individuals or households. The paper calculates this distribution for the United States, using data from the Survey of Consumer Finances and the Consumer Expenditure Survey, spanning nearly three decades from 1989 to 2016. In 2016, the top 20 per cent consumed approximately as much as the bottom 60 per cent, but had 15 times as much corporate equity. Because ownership is more skewed than consumption, increased mark-ups increase inequality. Moreover, over time, corporate equity has become even more skewed relative to consumption.

Economic theory suggests that monopoly prices hurt consumers but benefit shareholders. But in a world where individuals or households can be both consumers and shareholders, the impact of market power on inequality depends in part on the relative distribution of consumption and corporate equity ownership across individuals or households. The paper calculates this distribution for the United States, using data from the Survey of Consumer Finances and the Consumer Expenditure Survey, spanning nearly three decades from 1989 to 2016. In 2016, the top 20 percent consumed approximately as much as the bottom 60 percent, but had 13 times as much corporate equity. Because ownership is more skewed than consumption, increased mark-ups increase inequality. Moreover, over time, corporate equity has become even more skewed relative to consumption.