Trade Deficits and the Health of the Economy - Part XV
This letter constitutes a permission to reprint or mirror any and
all of the materials mentioned or linked to herein subject
to appropriate credit and linkback. Every article published MUST
include the author bio, including the link to the author's Web site
(at the bottom of this message).
===============================================================
Trade Deficits and the Health of the Economy - Part XV
Dialog with Nikola Gruevski, former Minister of Finance of the
Republic of Macedonia
By Sam Vaknin
Author of "Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited"
SV: You touched upon the three alternatives available to small
countries that wish to increase their exports and to extract
themselves from a chronic state of poverty (=of deficits). The first
alternative, is to attach itself to one big economic power. This is
the case of the Czech Republic and used to be the case of Israel,
Cuba and dozens of other countries. The lessons show clearly that
this is a good strategy as an interim measure. A small country can
attach itself, economically, to a bigger one, ONLY if it uses the
time that it thus buys to get rid of this dependence. While closely
and overwhelmingly collaborating (usually, not only economically but
also politically) with the bigger power - the small country should
fervently and ceaselessly develop alternatives: other markets.
Otherwise, it will end up like Cuba did. It sank into abject poverty
when its main "sponsor" (USSR) became economically defunct. "Sponsor-
Client" or "satellite" relationships are good as a stopgap measure
or in times of emergency. There is no such thing as "pure"
economics. In the global arena, economics is a reflection of
political and geopolitical realities. Ask Saddam Hussein. There is a
political price to pay for attaching oneself to a global power. Many
will find this price unacceptable. Germany allows itself to publicly
humiliate and chastise the Czechs (regarding the Sudetenland Germans
issue) precisely because it is economically dependent. The wish of
Macedonia to join the EU has always hampered its ability to
negotiate freely with Greece.
The second option is to join a regional trade club. The most
prestigious is, of course, the EU. I have expressed my opinion many
times: it would be unwise for Macedonia to join the EU now. These
are the conditions under which a country should join a regional
club:
1.. That it includes all the major trade partners of the country;
2.. That it will not be overwhelmed by the size, importance,
wealth, history, experience, or personality of the other
participants;
3.. That it will not be consigned to one role (Macedonia - the
supplier of cheap and educated labour or the supplier of cheap, good
quality raw materials, for instance);
4.. That it will benefit by joining. In other words, that due to
the privileges of the membership either the net foreign exchange
outflows will decrease or the net cash inflows will increase. This
could be achieved by lowering trade barriers and simplifying
bureaucracy or by providing investment and export incentives;
5.. That it will not get involved in a trade war as a result of
joining the club and that it will not breach any international
treaty or convention;
6.. That it will have well defined and clear opt-out options,
clear procedures for the settlements of disputes, equitable and fair
treatment of all the members and a clear political and economic
stance vis-a-vis other clubs and countries;
7.. That the rules of the club will not conflict with its rules,
the mentality of its people, its ethos, its political structure or
any other important component of its identity.
Historically, regional clubs are doomed entities. The trend is to
GLOBAL trade, free of all regional restrictions, as embodied in the
WTO charter. Most Economists regard regional clubs with horror
because they consider them to be obstructions on the way to
completely liberalized trade. Regional clubs tend to encourage trade
between the members at the expense of trading with external
partners. This is bad and counterproductive economically. But
reality is that everyone (including the mighty USA) is engaged in
initiating, constructing or becoming a member of a regional trade
club. If you can't beat them - join them. Like the first option its
is a good stopgap, temporary measure until the country's accounts
get balanced and it gets fully integrated into the global economy.
The third option is always preferable and admissible. Politicians,
diplomats and spies all should participate in the new "Green
(economic) World War". Politicians and statesmen should sign
bilateral and multilateral agreements. Lesser political mortals
should protect the interests of their businessmen and exporters.
Diplomats should educate, disseminate information, visit, lecture,
cajole, convince, threaten, negotiate and matchmake (joint
ventures). This activity is the raison d'etre of modern government.
NG: I wish to concentrate more on Japan as a country which was
devastated after the second world war and as a country which with
very little natural resources succeeded to become the second rated
world economic power. Even though I risk that someone will "teach me
a lesson" concerning the weaknesses of the system which Japan had
built and which from last year became very evident, and if we
connect all of it with certain illusions of the South East Asian
countries, I still maintain that the current crisis cannot cast a
shadow over the past successes of Japan and even of the countries
from that region, which are enduring the recent crisis on a higher
developmental phase than tens years ago, which for example is not
the case with RM. Of course, it is not right to compare RM Japan in
its condition today, but let's talk about: WHEN JAPAN WAS RM, or
let's compare Japan's past to Macedonia's past and PRESENT.
I discovered that Japan in the past and RM today have many common
characteristics and similarities.
Industrialization in Japan begun slowly with the revival of imperial
authority in 1868. Japan remained closed to the external world for
230 years, a period known as the Tokugawa era. The country was very
poor by way of natural resources and its people lived an improvised
existence, something similar to RM at that time. According to some
estimates GDP per capita during this period was $100-200, which
placed Japan in the category of the world's poorest countries
according to standards which are used by the UN today. People were
employed in agriculture, and Japan today as in the past was totally
dependent on imported raw materials. Today Japan depends on foreign
imports for its carbon (92.9%), distilled oil (99.7%), oil
derivatives (19.4%), natural gas (96.1%) (imported frozen in
container ships), iron ore (100.00%), bauxite (100.00%), phosphate
rock (100.00%), lumber (55.2%), pulp (20.3%), salt (90.2%). The
energy and the metals are imported from a few countries in the world
and Japan depends on them.
The four bigger and the few smaller islands on which Japan exists
represent 0.3% of the planet's earth surface, and the Japanese
population is 2.4% of the total population of the planet. Within the
years following its opening to the world, Japan went from being a
poor agricultural county to full industrialization. For them to
start and to develop the industry on the basis of the European and
American technology was imperative. At that time the Japanese
government invited people from different countries, experts from
different areas. So, in the period 1880-1910 the establishment of
the most important science institutions, which started to conduct
research, to transfer and develop western technology, started. The
construction of a complete travel infrastructure started.
Governmental intervention and planning were big at that time. Prior
the second world war, Japan became one of the most advanced
countries in the world even though it depended heavily on imports,
which means that it had to export and with the foreign currency
earned, to import. Unfortunately, in 1936 the controlled economy
begun, the economy which was prepared for war, from which Japan
emerged totally destroyed (as a result of mass bombarding),
territorially and humanly damaged and above all suffering the
consequences of the nuclear bomb. It was tortuously difficult to
find work for 7.2 million ex soldiers plus 13 million unemployed
workers, students and others from factories, faculties etc. The real
income in 1946 had been 30% of the average one in the period 1934-
1936 and the inflation was 200% in the period August 1946 - March
1947. Everything that was built before had been destroyed and Japan
started its development anew.
In the beginning of the 60s Japan had been on a level very similar
to former Yugoslavia within whose borders was RM. But where is Japan
today (ignoring the current crisis, which is incomparable with the
Macedonian one) and where is RM? What is the Japanese secret of
success, even taking into consideration the so called "bubble
economy"? For the bubble economy to have existed, the system which
inflated the bubble should have been formed, though at the end the
bubble blew-up (as it happened in Asia last year) and crisis
prevailed. The Macedonian bubble, unfortunately, still is just a sad
drop. Kuzuhide Okada, a professor in Senshu University, says that
the Japanese economy is principally a market economy, but from the
very beginning the government understood that somebody should have
led the policies to direct or control the operations of the firms,
which acted in the specific foreign markets, as well as in their
own, domestic one. This is related to the Japanese high level of
dependence on the outside (which characterizes RM as well). This is
the reason why I began to study the past of this geographically
remote country. The government's active policies supported
development very strongly. That was not a classical socialist way of
planning, even though some similarities can be found. I think that
for a country to reach the state of wholly free market economy, a
period of governmental policies to direct and control the economy
and raise it to a higher level is needed. I have the impression that
in certain portions of the trade laws and their practice RM is more
liberal than England, Germany or USA. I am not very convinced that
it is useful to the nation. The system which Japanese built after
the second world war meant strong fiscal, legislative, political and
monetary support of exports (not to forget that the yen-dollar
exchange rate during the period of development reached 300 yens to
the dollar, with the latter falling in value during the period of
crisis period) and on the other hand import restrictions. The
Japanese motto was "to export or to die". The Japanese success was
that it developed the exports mostly, in certain decades even three
times faster than its competitors (the USA and Germany). In
comparison with the above mentioned period, in the later years the
Japanese government drastically reduced its involvement (but it
would seem that not enough). The elimination of all governmental
management and regulation, however, is not possible. Beside other
activities, the Japanese government directly provides public works
projects, through which and through the fiscal policies, the
government still dominates the determination of the economic trends.
Untimely deregulation, a badly structured financial system, and a
certain conservatism in the management model (which is transforming
itself according to western standards) are the main reasons for the
current crisis, which however deeper it goes, will not be in a
position comparable to the Macedonian crisis. This says that when
one economy is in crisis, and especially when that crisis is during
a low developmental phase of the economy and industry, the state
should help in the construction of a regular strategy and in
putting it into an appropriate framework. When the strategy starts
to be implemented and the economy gets better by many parameters,
the state should provide a self-withdrawal system from the body
economic, because it can be transformed into an obstacle for further
development. Today RM is in situation that requires a strategic
change in the economy, and this cannot be realized spontaneously,
the state should help, very carefully, not to allow an adverse
effect to happen.
>From the bottom of the list by its economic development and natural
resources, the relatively small Japan pulled itself into the
position of the second economic power in the world with the biggest
foreign currency reserves in the world (which the current currency
crisis reduced somewhat), a long term surplus in the trade balance,
the second place in the world by GDP per capita (above $36.000),
bigger than the USA's or Germany's (above $28.000), a country which
almost one third of its exports (one way or the other) are placed
ion the very sensitive markets of North America and 22% in Western
Europe, transforming itself at the same time to a regional leader,
and into a country with an unemployment rate which in the past few
years increased from 2.7% to 4.1% (close to the American rate). Only
25 years ago its income per capita was less than one half of the
American one. To reach a situation of having an advantage of 25%
over the USA is an amazing feat. In the period 1900-1987 Japan with
an annual average economic increase of 3.1% digested the biggest
increase of the real income per capita. Beside this, from a sizable
importer of expertise transformed itself into a big exporter. For
example in 1989 about 100 thousand professionals left Japan (more
than half went to the USA) and it accepted 65 thousand from other
countries (90% from the undeveloped Asian countries). Besides the
stable political constellation, the Japanese built a separate
strategy for car exports to the USA and Europe. However criticized,
as much as it relied on dumping, it helped Japanese firms a lot.
Towards the end of the last decade, Japan became the biggest
investor in the world. The Japanese began to invest twice as much
abroad than they earned by their exports, their foreign investments
in the mentioned period were eight times bigger than their domestic
investments. The Japanese penetrated strongly the export of capital.
They exporting capital to the West as direct investments in 1988 of
more than $30 billion, which translates to ten times their imports
of capital in the same year.
A closer look reveals the ten categories of products with at least
2% of the exports in 1989:
1.. Cars (17.8%);
2.. Office equipment (AOP processing machines) (7.2%);
3.. Precision machinery (4.8%);
4.. Steel (4.4%);
5.. Car spare parts (3.8%);
6.. Self-regulated instruments (integral movement, etc.) (3.1%);
7.. Internal Combustion Engines (excluding aircraft engines)
(2.2%);
8.. VCRs (2.2%);
9.. Telecommunications equipment (2.1%); and
10.. Organic pharmaceutics (2.0%).
>From a total of 7.864 thousand transport vehicles manufactured in
1996, Japan exported almost one half (3.232) and imported only 440
thousand. According to the IMF, in 1996 Japan controlled 7.8% of
total world imports.
(continued)
==============================================================
AUTHOR BIO (must be included with the article)
Sam Vaknin ( samvak.tripod.com ) is the author of Malignant
Self Love - Narcissism Revisited and After the Rain - How the West
Lost the East. He served as a columnist for Global Politician,
Central Europe Review, PopMatters, Bellaonline, and eBookWeb, a
United Press International (UPI) Senior Business Correspondent, and
the editor of mental health and Central East Europe categories in
The Open Directory and Suite101.
Until recently, he served as the Economic Advisor to the Government
of Macedonia.
Visit Sam's Web site at samvak.tripod.com
|