FT: Visegrad Four are Less Vulnerable to Crisis

A 'Special Report' on the Visegrad countries in Friday's Financial Times argues that the region is less vulnerable and may be in a better position to 'deal with problems' than many eurozone countries. Articles also touch upon the difficulty of moving from emerging to developed economy and the limitations of FDI-based development without an increase in R&D spending and improving education. Plus, everything you wanted to know about Czech viticulture...

Read more on FT: Visegrad Four are Less Vulnerable to Crisis

IMF blogger puzzled by Central Europe and Baltic experience in crisis

By Zdenek Kudrna

Ajai Chopra, Deputy Director of the IMF’s European Department, is puzzled by the different performance of Central European 3 (CE3 - Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary) and Baltic 3 (B3 - Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) in the current crisis. He provides an elegant macroeconomic analysis and contrasts their experience to that of the Asian Crisis a decade ago. However, his analysis fails to note important differences in CE3 and B3 industrial structures that influence the sustainability of their respective economic models throughout the crisis and subsequent recovery. Over the last two decades, the CE3 economies developed traditional economic model based on manufacturing that makes them less vulnerable to financial crisis then is the service-led model of the B3.


Chopra finds that CE3 avoided the much greater currency collapses witnessed in East Asia by ‘luck’ stemming from:

• First, in contrast to the soft pegs in Asia, the CE3 currencies were floating.
• Second, the CE3 economies never suffered a full “sudden stop” of capital inflows as in Asia. Wholesale funding markets dried up, but western European parent banks maintained credit lines to their central European subsidiaries. In addition, bank supervision and capital levels in emerging Europe have been better than in Asia in the 1990s, helping limit financial sector strains.
• Third, the task for external financial assistance was therefore mostly limited to replacing temporarily impaired wholesale funding markets.
• And fourth, EU membership may have instilled confidence in the region’s long-term stability and catch-up potential due to an accelerated convergence process.

He then turns attention to the question why Baltics 3 have not been similarly ‘lucky’ and finds the key difference in:

• Hard currency pegs and expectations of early euro entry had helped attract large capital inflows, but these often fed real estate bubbles, caused heavy exchange rate overvaluations, and fostered a substantially larger accumulation of foreign-currency denominated private debt than in any other region.
• Current account deficits not only dwarfed those in central Europe, but also those in Asia in the late 1990s.

These explanations scratch the surface of the more important differences that stems from export structures. It is true that 2 of the 3 Baltic countries operated euro pegs, but this hardly justifies their higher suggested propensity to (i) join euro, (ii) attract capital inflows, (iii) borrow in foreign currencies. The CE3 currencies were reasonably stable in pre-crisis years, likelihood of joining euro was not substantially different, capital inflows comparable and, at least in case of Hungary, unhedged forex borrowing by households was equally prevalent. Thus we are left with the current account deficit to explain the difference in CE3 and B3 crisis experiences.

The difference in past current account deficits as well as present crisis experiences has a lot to do with different proportions and types of manufacturing established in these economies. Over the last two decades, Baltic countries were busy building service oriented economies, much to the applause of the outside world. They were providing logistical services to booming Russian exports and turned capital inflows into asset bubbles. They inflated their amicable growth rates by selling overvalued real estate to each other. Such growth drivers all but evaporated in the crisis and they offer limited opportunities for export-led recovery that are already hampered by the need to sustain the currency peg.

The CE3 built old fashion manufacturing economies that produced “stuff” for exports. Much of the capital inflow were direct investments into export-oriented production facilities. They have also achieved some progress in upgrading into more sophisticated export goods and are thus more tightly integrated into global supply chains. In crisis their industries proved more susceptible to stimulus packages in their export markets (such as cash for clunkers subsidies in Germany) and to replenishment of inventories that seem to drive the recent “green shoots”. Moreover, depreciation of their currencies puts their export industries into a promising position for export-led recovery once their export markets (Germany) start to recover.

The scholars who stubbornly insisted that there is no sustainable development without industrialization and industrial upgrading seem to be vindicated by this comparative experience.

Read more on IMF blogger puzzled by Central Europe and Baltic experience in crisis

Philosophy, hope and crisis

by Lucia Kurekova

If you felt some disillusionment or even depresion after reading a recent post in The Economist about the world economic crisis dubbed "A glimmer of hope", perhaps you will find appealing (or even inspiring) the opinion piece by Alain de Botton in the last week Financial Times issue in which he tells us what we can adopt from the Roman Stoic philosophy and Christianity when dealing with crisis. Enjoy both.

Read more on Philosophy, hope and crisis

G20 summit, crisis measures and what is in it for EU10

By Zdenek Kudrna

The G20 leaders agreed on their London summit to the following commitments:

Restore confidence, growth, and jobs by:

• fiscal expansion in 2009 of up to $5 trillion, plus $1 trillion package added at the summit;
• exceptional easing of monetary policy by central banks;
• recapitalisation, liquidity and impaired assets removal from banks;
• commitment to cooperation in order to return to trend growth;
• promise of credible exit strategies to ensure long-term fiscal sustainability and price stability of the above;
• commitment to refrain from competitive devaluations.

Repair the financial system to restore lending by:

• establishing a new Financial Stability Board (FSB) with a strengthened mandate including all G20 countries, Financial Stability Forum (FSF) members, Spain, and the European Commission;
• ensuring that the FSB collaborates with the IMF to provide early warning of macroeconomic and financial risks and the actions needed to address them;
• reshaping regulatory systems so that the authorities are able to identify and take account of macro-prudential risks;
• extending regulation and oversight to all systemically important financial institutions, instruments and markets, including systemically important hedge funds;
• endorsing and implementing the FSF’s strict new principles on pay and compensation and supporting sustainable compensation schemes;
• taking action, once recovery is assured, to improve the quality, quantity, and international consistency of capital in the banking system so that regulation prevents excessive leverage and require buffers of resources to be built up in good times;
• ending the era of banking secrecy by taking action against non-cooperative jurisdictions (on OECD black list), including tax havens to protect public finances and financial systems;
• calling on the accounting standard setters to work urgently with supervisors and regulators to improve standards on valuation and provisioning and achieve a single set of high-quality global accounting standards; and
• extending regulatory oversight and registration to Credit Rating Agencies to ensure they meet the international code of good practice, particularly to prevent unacceptable conflicts of interest.

Strengthen financial regulation to rebuild trust by:

• providing up to $750bn of new funds to IMF which shall provide it via Flexible Credit Line and reformed lending and conditionality framework;
• completing the next review of IMF voting quotas by January 2011 and ensure open, meritocratic selection of leadership for IMF and the World Bank;
• deliberating on a new global consensus desirable on the key values and principles that will promote sustainable economic activity.
• Promote global trade and investment and reject protectionism by:
• refraining from measures that in their consequences reduce trade and investment flows (even though they may be acceptable under the WTO rules);
• supporting trade financing with to $250 bn channeled through export credit agencies and multilateral development banks; and
• remaining committed to Doha Round of WTO negotiations.

Build an inclusive, fair, green, and sustainable recovery by:

• limit the impact of the crisis on poorest countries and people by sticking to pre-existing commitments for development and social financing and using additional $6 bn of IMF surplus and proceeds from gold sales to this end over next 2 to 3 years;
• channel the stimulus funding towards sustainable green projects as much as possible.

What is in it for EU10?

• The EU10 development models are crucially dependent on their connections to global economy via open trade and capital flows. Commitment to preserve the former and provide better institutional underpinnings for the latter must be welcome in EU10 capitals. EU10 economies are bound to benefit from increased demand for their exports that stimuli are likely to deliver, providing that their trading partners do not impose any "buy American" or "build in France" type of restrictions. This may be especially relevant in respect to stimuli focused on European car demand.
• Given that Hungary, Latvia and Romania depend for elementary macroeconomic stability on IMF lending, beefed up IMF is good news. It is likely that more countries will have to reach for a stand-by agreements. If they can do so under more creative and flexible conditions, then reforms of IMF practices are welcome.
• None of the EU10 economies is a member of G20 (although Czech Prime Minister was present in London as he holds the rotating EU presidency now). EU10 have limited role in global affairs and will have to adjust to whatever the new regulatory regime evolves. However, better regulation will definitely reduce the uncertainty stemming from gaping holes in the EU and global banking regulation that keeps host-country supervisors on the sidelines. In case of failures of foreign banks dominating EU10 financial sectors, the host country regulators, central banks and governments can only hope that their home-country counterparts, will succeed in restructuring and limit the spillover-effects on EU10 economies. Improvement of the international regulatory regime that would strengthen involvement of host-country authorities and define credible ex ante rules for burden sharing is better than current vagueness and uncertainty.

Read more on G20 summit, crisis measures and what is in it for EU10

Saving glut or… investment famine?

by Ugo Pagano

The financial crisis is often blamed on a saving glut, while protectionism is almost unanimously viewed as its most dangerous potential consequence. But it is more likely that the crisis is due to a famine of investments due partly to protectionism camouflaged behind the blessed principles of ‘intellectual property’.

The immediate causes of the crisis are often seen as being the lack of regulation and the expansionary policies of the Fed, which by keeping interest rates artificially low, has provoked an excessive supply of saving. As amply explained by the well-known models of adverse selection, the latter has in turn produced a growing pool of toxic debt, with the consequences by now evident worldwide. According to an article in the Economist of last January, a beneficial “flow” of saving has turned into a disastrous “flood”, but this flood is more due to “global imbalances” generated abroad than being an endogenous product of the American economy and policies. Governor Bernanke has long argued that the role of the Fed in credit expansion has been marginal, and that the prime cause of the crisis has been a saving glut forced on the United States by massive inflows of savings from other countries.


There is something appealingly infantile in Bernanke’s argument. For many of us (and for me at my mother’s), ‘bellyfuls’ and the indigestion which they cause are due to the excellent and over-abundant food that is served. The real weakness in Bernanke’s thesis, however, is not so much its infantilism as the inaccuracy of its content. As shown by the data set out in the Bank of France paper by Moec and Frey, there has been no overabundance of savings in other countries, but rather a famine of investments. In recent years, savings have not grown around the world; instead, and especially outside the United States, investments have diminished. In other words, the abundance of food in America has been the result of a blockage in the digestive systems of its neighbours. It can be argued that, in this situation, the Americans have generously done the digesting on behalf of other countries, and give them transfusions of pre-digested food. Part of the saving absorbed by America, in fact, has been injected in the form of direct investments in countries suffering from blockages in their digestive systems. Is it therefore not the fault of the neighbours if they have been unable to create suitable investment opportunities and if, moreover, they have poisoned the Americans with their flood of savings?

The problem is that the lobbies for the American multinationals, by applying pressure for the new architecture of international trade founded at Marrakech in 1994, have played a major role in causing the blockages of their competitors’ digestive systems. We may start from 1992, when George Bush Senior concluded a presidency replete with success in foreign policy which saw, among other things, the collapse of the socialist economies and the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Yet the slogan “It’s the economy, stupid!” was enough to make him lose the elections against Clinton. The cause was not so much the economic crisis which began in 1990 as the consolidated perception that the “American model” was falling behind the alternative Japanese and German models. In the previous decade, a huge body of studies had described the miracles of Japanese management and suggested various ways in which the Americans could imitate it. By the end of the 1990s the situation had gone into reverse. The United States (and the United Kingdom) had become the model to imitate, and yesterday’s heroes (not only Germany and Japan but, after the 1997 crisis, also all the Asian tigers) strove to restructure their economies on the so-called Anglo-American model. In the meantime the Chinese economy had undergone rapid development. What had led to this unexpected reversal?

The explanation may lie in the standard liberalist refrain: only the Americans (and the British) had suddenly have rediscovered the virtues of the market, thus offering numerous investment opportunities precluded to their rigid competitors. However, on closer inspection, it was not the virtues of competition, but rather the advantages of intellectual monopoly, which enabled the United States rapidly to catch up with the other Western economies. Indeed, in the first half of the 1990s, the United States no longer had global military and political rivals. It was thus able to reorganize the world economy so as to enhance its scientific and technological leadership, and above all its monopoly positions, to the maximum.

The salient features of the new world were contained in the TRIPS agreement signed at Marrakech on 15 April 1994. Significantly, TRIPS was the 1C annex to the agreement founding the WTO. The preamble to TRIPS states as self-evidently obvious that “intellectual property rights are private rights” like all other private property rights. Yet this obviousness would have been unknown to an innovation economist of Schumpeter’s calibre, and it has been recently disputed in Boldrin and Levine’s fine book Against Intellectual Monopoly. Whilst the granting of property rights (including intellectual ones) constituted the natural basis for free trade, ratification of TRIPS necessarily created an annex to the WTO agreements, and an obligatory requisite for access to international trade. Unlike all previous international agreements on intellectual property, the inclusion of TRIPS in the WTO constitution created an efficient mechanism with which to enforce intellectual property rights. States could now be disciplined through the institutions of the WTO itself; and, in extreme cases, access to international trade by intellectual property “thieves” could be restricted.

Notwithstanding the seductive rhetoric extolling free trade and private property, the Marrakech agreement surreptitiously introduced super-tariffs such that the most extreme protectionism pales into insignificance. Since TRIPS, intellectual property rights have become global monopolies; that is, in a certain sense, customs tariffs of almost infinite magnitude. Not only are competitors of other countries not allowed to export a good to the country of the intellectual monopolist, they are also prohibited from producing it in their own country. When multinationals of some countries organize themselves into “patent pools”, the economic desertification of that sector in other countries becomes inevitable, resembling Britain’s erstwhile levies on its colonies, especially India (Marcello De Cecco, Money and Empire, Rowman and Littlefield, 1975).

With notable exceptions like Krugman, a chorus of alarm at the dangers of impending protectionism has been raised in recent months. It is claimed that one of the worse effects of financial crises is the disruption of free trade. Yet the relationship between the two phenomena has a chicken-and-egg complexity which does not admit to easy solutions. It is certainly true that the crisis is generating protectionist attitudes and the resumption of economic nationalism. But it also true that protectionism, by appropriating the blessed principle of private property rights, has helped produce the financial crisis. It initially only reduced opportunities for investment outside the United States, while the latter, thanks to direct investments by its multinationals, for a certain time also ‘digested’ for others. In fact, as Moec and Frey show, the crisis was preceded primarily by a fall of investments outside America. This fall was initially attenuated by the direct investments of multinationals endowed with an unbeatable recipe based on American intellectual monopoly and low-cost Chinese labour.

Added to the fall of investments by other countries was a gradual digestive blockage of the American multinationals themselves. Already in July 2005 an article in the Economist talked of a “corporate savings glut”, and its subtitle noted that the great corporations, more than the emerging economies, had become the world leaders of the global switch to thrift. The same article then referred to Keynes’ famous paradox of thrift whereby if everyone wants to save, they must (in the absence of investments) reduce their saving … though they naturally first go through speculative bubbles and various “financial innovations”.

In conclusion, although the financial crises have provoked protectionism, the super-protectionism of intellectual property has driven down investments. This has happened in two stages (largely overlapping in time) and through two mechanisms. The first stage after TRIPS saw the launching of the Chinese-American model and a shift to investments designed to consolidate American intellectual monopolies. As new spaces opened up for the American companies super-endowed with these “resources”, numerous opportunities for investment were closed to Japan and the former Asian tigers, which had neither America’s monopolistic endowment nor China’s lower costs. This phase culminated in the Asian crisis of 1997. In the second stage, because of the mechanisms described in the well-known tragedies of the anti-commons, world intellectual monopolies became too pervasive and began to block each other. At this point the accumulation mechanism used by the great “knowledge owners” became jammed as well. The fall in investments therefore created some of the factors that led to the financial crisis, and the latter in its turn drove investments down to further depths from which it will be difficult to re-emerge without a significant number of economic policy measures. One such measure should engender an investment super-multiplier by combining Keynesian policies, on the one hand, with the capacity for knowledge to be used infinite times without deterioration on the other. Support for aggregate demand and the re-appropriation of knowledge may constitute the two components of a single policy intended to free innovation from the cage of intellectual monopoly and to furnish greater investment opportunities for everyone.

Read more on Saving glut or… investment famine?

Anti-crisis policies in the Czech Republic and Slovakia: what do they have in common?

By Lucia Kurekova and Katka Svickova

Czech Republic and Slovakia have diverged in their developmental paths and policy choices over the course of transition. In spite of common institutional legacy and very similar export profiles, sixteen years after separation, the policy choices frequently differ, perhaps not least because of opposing political orientations of their governing elites during different periods of transition. This is the case also today, when individual countries are facing the world economic downturn in their local shapes and forms: Slovakia is governed by social democratic/third way SMER in coalition with centre-right HZDS and nationalist SNS while the Czech Republic is headed by a centre-right government of Miroslav Topolanek. In spite of many similarities in how the crisis has been affecting these two countries, which are both heavily dependent on automotive industry, the remedies that the governments have passed are quite different.

The governments of both countries, however, shared a similar initial denial that the global crisis might have any significant effects on their domestic economies. In both countries, too, the opposition was coining a different message and suggesting their own recipes for a remedy. And in both countries, the governments have not been really listening to these voices. While the wounds to the economies of both countries have been caused by a deep dip of external demand for their exports of consumer durable goods, the reactions of both countries in the form of adopted anti-crises measures have been different. Is the reason for these different reactions an underlying difference in the state of these economies, as persuasively argued in the last week’s issue of the Economist, or is it purely an outcome of different ideological orientations and tastes of the governments steering the countries?

To summarize, the set of Czech anti-crisis measures has a strong pro-business flavor while the Slovak government has concentrated more on supporting the ‘ordinary citizens’ and keeping employment almost at any cost. Further, while the Czech measures are partially forward-looking and have a modernizing aspect (support for environmental measures, increase of R&D investment), this can hardly be said about any of the three Slovak anti-crisis packages. While the government of Robert Fico fiercely refuted any opposition calls to decrease further the 19% flat tax rate, the “tax package” that it passed in the end will make most of working Slovaks richer by about 10 euro per month via the raised tax deductible minimum. The Czech Republic, on the other hand, will not only reduce the corporate tax by another 2% in the next two years (only reaching, however, the current Slovak level of 19 %) but has also decreased social insurance deductions on salaries for employees by 1,5%. Instead of up to 2000 euro ‘srotovne’ (bonus on buying a new car and recycling an old car) passed after its success in Germany last week also in Slovakia, the Czech Republic decided to reduce the VAT for cars. Additional changes to the administrative and institutional business environment in the Czech Republic include an amendment of the insolvency law, faster depreciations, an abolishment of the obligation to pay an advance on income tax for self-employed and small enterprises (below 5 employees) or enhancing the provision of export loans to businesses and loan guarantees for SMEs. The overall goal is to reduce the cost of labor and thus, desirably, preserve employment and facilitate the cash-flow for businesses. Fairly enough, Slovakia passed a handful of pro-business oriented measures too, among them easier book-keeping for self-employed and SMEs, faster depreciations, a quicker return of VAT to businesses or state guarantees for loans (up to 55% of the loans for companies employing less than 100 people).

However, the core of Slovak anti-crisis tools is in its ‘social package’. The leitmotif of the government is ‘keeping employment at any price’, which is not surprising in the light of the Slovak structural (read “high and persistent”) unemployment nightmare that has been present during the whole transition. Yet the set of job creation measures passed by the government is not only extremely complicated, but there are fears that many of them are very corruption-prone and might lead to more – rather than less - red tape. Measures such as state help to employers who are experiencing serious operational problems to cover the compulsory health and social insurance payments for their employees for a maximum of 60 days, or intentions to subsidize new jobs for a period of 12 months up to 15% of the costs of a new job in Bratislava region and 30% in the other regions of Slovakia are only examples of ways where crony practices and potential waste of money are likely to loom in unless the system is properly monitored and the support is given to enterprises with good prospects of future growth and innovation. The law on the support for one-man businesses started during the crisis, for example, had to be amended shortly after it came into effect following cases of its misuse.

There are a few instances, however, where the countries seem to stand out in a positive way. Bratislava has been praised for keeping its investment incentives to foreign firms - and extending them to domestic investors. Czech Republic, on the other hand, plans to invest more into R&D, a field where nearly every country has been trying to save during the crisis. Both of these measures are forward-looking. And although they are unlikely to act as immediate fire-fighters against the slump, which is projected to be the deepest in the next moths, the countries will be grateful for them in the mid-term to long-term period.

To answer our question from the beginning on the cause of the divergence of policy reactions in the two countries, the color of the governing coalitions seems to explain a lot of the outlined differences. At the same time, however, Slovakia has a long-lasting experience with high unemployment to which the society is extremely sensitive. In addition, both countries will need to deal with the issue of migration, but from very different ends: the Czech Republic is trying to figure out how to send back some of its foreign labor that has served it well until now, while Slovakia should start monitoring who and in which proportions is coming back to the country from nearer (Czech Republic) or farther abroad (Britain and Ireland). Lastly, Slovakia, now an EMU member, is not spending any of its energy on defending its currency, while the Czech Republic is less lucky in its respect. But then – it has one more tool at hands in dealing with the crisis cycle and its exporters are more competitive than the Slovaks exporters.

This brief comparison of reactions to the domestic repercussions of the world economic crisis in two Central and Eastern economies also contributes to underline a broader trend of divergence in the development of the countries from the whole Central and Eastern European region, despite a shared legacy as centrally-planned economies.

Read more on Anti-crisis policies in the Czech Republic and Slovakia: what do they have in common?

What the Varieties of Capitalism framework does and does not tell us about the troubles of the Big Three

By Vera Šćepanović, CEU PhD Candidate, Political Science

Now that the heat of debates over the US auto industry bail-out has somewhat subsided, here are a few belated thoughts in response to the earlier post “What does Varieties of Capitalism have to say about the bailout of the U.S. auto industry?” (by Kristin Makszin). There’s always something suspicious when a theory comes together so smoothly. Indeed, according to the Varieties of Capitalism (VoC) framework, automobile industry should not have existed in the US at all. To the extent the theory relies on sector-specific properties in the division of labour it envisages between coordinated and liberal market economies (skill specificity, pace of innovation, investment time horizons etc.), a mature manufacturing industry does not sit well with a dynamic liberal market environment which ought to support radical innovation, easily transferable workers’ skills and is characterised by a volatile investment environment.

Now, the demise of Detroit looks like a final victory for the theory, especially since the US Big Three seemed to display exactly the characteristics of a firm embedded in a coordinated market environment: close relations with the trade unions, long-term support of the workforce (instead of the supposedly typical adversarial labour relations and flexible fire and hire policies), and little display of radical innovation (e.g. few “greener” cars). And we know from the VoC that complementarities between the national institutional environment and firm operations are the key to success. If the complementarities fail, somebody is bound to suffer. The debate still rages whether it will be the firm or the national institutional environment.

But the question is, why did the Big Three let themselves be tricked into this trap, why did the companies that have been through the thick and thin of the international markets for the last hundred years fail to see what a handful of academics understood so clearly?

(And the Japanese, don’t forget them. The well-justified worries over Detroit seem to have made everybody forget about “the rest” of the US auto industry – 2008 was a bad year for the carmakers all around, but apart from that for all we know the East Asian transplants in the US have all been rather alive and well. Which sort of spoils the possibilities for sectoral generalisations. True, they found a different way to make cars – the one that calls for fewer skilled workers, no unions and more adversarial labour relations. All that means for the VoC framework is that the I-make-machines-you-make-chips division of labour between CMEs and LMEs may have been a tad too rough if usefully illustrative shorthand.)

The answer, I suspect, lies in the incompleteness of the framework, which is essentially that of a production model. There’s one way in which the stubborn clinging of the Big Three to their big expensive cars and big expensive workforce makes sense, and that’s if we conceive of it as a giant, if restricted, Fordist scheme to secure the market. Which only makes sense if we believe that these multinational juggernauts are that dependent on the US market. Surprisingly enough, that really seems to be the case.

Contributions of North American and rest-of-the-world operations to GM’s global net profit, 1960-2007 (compiled from annual reports, based on Bruno Jetin:2004)

In the example of GM, the foreign operations provided a small if positive contribution to its global profits since the 1960s, and when they plunged with the advent of the two oil crises the gains on the national market were more than enough to offset the losses. It was only at the end of this period that GM started to pursue more aggressive expansion in the foreign markets which paid off during the general recession of the early 1990s, but already since the mid-1990s the national (US) operations started to regain primacy, while the international front appeared was on the retreat. Only since 2005 the contraction of the US market and the success of GM’s Chinese operations have been changing the picture a little. Still, in 2007 GM sold 4.5 million cars in the US, which is only a few less than in all of the other countries of the world put together. The situation is very similar with Ford (see the graph below). Simply, the US carmakers have always relied heavily on their home markets, and the strategy has paid off. Then in 2005 something went amiss (probably with the beginning of the oil price hikes) and the three years since have been too little to make a significant turnaround. The question is, what kind of a turnaround should it be?

Contributions of North American and rest-of-the-world operations to Ford’s global net profit, 1960-2007 (compiled from annual reports, based on Bruno Jetin:2004

The VoC and the concerned observers suggest one direction with several routes: get rid of the overpaid workers (which would imply endangering the market potential even further); get rid of the costs of supporting workers’ purchasing power while keeping the market afloat (presumably by somehow transforming the national institutional environment to externalise the costs of provision of healthcare, unemployment benefits and pensions); or innovate and move into new markets (start making green, hybrid etc. cars). The problem with the first two is that they may take time and be socially difficult to execute. The problem with the latter deserves some elaboration.

The financial crisis of 2008 caused an awful drop of the car sales in the US across all market segments. The small car segment suffered the least (only – 1.1%, as compared to the -18% in the industry), but the small car segment in the US market represents only about 15% of the overall sales (as compared to West European market where the market share of the equivalent segment is 27%). The fact that the US manufacturers choose to focus on the bigger, more expensive and less fuel-efficient cars is therefore the function of their dependence on the US market with its peculiar characteristics (which, incidentally, may also have limited their success internationally, given the different preferences in other markets, and has also made them more vulnerable to the downturn which took a greater toll on the large and luxury segments). Forcing the Big Three to rethink their production strategy and start making smaller, fuel-efficient cars or innovate in the direction of hybrid and electric cars in exchange for the bailout will only work if there is a market to sell them. And taking a cue for Toyota’s decision to delay the production of its Prius hybrid in the US indefinitely, one suspects that the times are not propitious.

This is all not to say that the Big Three are not ripe for restructuring or that the humanity is not in a dire need of a cleaner solution for transportation. But the two may not go together as smoothly as we would like to think they should. The Varieties of Capitalism is a story of how every wheel of the system comes together like clockwork, but we just might be seeing them grind each other to halt.

Read more on What the Varieties of Capitalism framework does and does not tell us about the troubles of the Big Three

Russians are strangling Europe

By: Karel Hirman, Slovak energy policy expert

[Original published in Slovak on 7.1.2009, translated by Andrej Nosko. Translated and republished with the permission of the author.]

Picture by: Shooty. [Text: "So that you don't forget, who is the boss here"]

January 2009 marks the end of 40-years-long fair and mutually beneficial energy cooperation between Moscow and Europe. From now on, European customers must be well aware that the Russian partner is not only trading with them, but his priority is promotion of geopolitical interests of the Kremlin. Vladimir Putin, already in March 2000 declared, that "Our work (meaning the export of oil and gas) will be driven by our geo-strategic interests!" Since then, in a targeted and very effective way, the Kremlin uses energy cooperation and the supply of raw materials for the promotion of its foreign policy interests. Brezhnev's doctrine of limited political and [national] security sovereignty for Eastern Europe was replaced by Putin's doctrine of limited energy sovereignty.


The argument that it is primarily a trade dispute between inadequately paying Ukraine, and tough Russia is ultimately wrong and misleading. Regular followers of these issues known, that these tensions have always been present between Ukraine and Russia. But it is only since February 2004, when Gazprom for the first time deliberately disrupted gas supplies to Belarus, as well as a further transit to Poland and Germany, that switching off gas and oil pipelines has become a regular Russian practice. This has nothing to do with civilized business, because the question of price and the letter of the agreement is always a matter of agreement of both parties, and the third parties cannot suffer due to this. THE KREMLIN AND GAZPROM VERY WELL KNOW THAT WHENEVER THEY CLOSE VALVES TO UKRAINE OR BELARUS, THEY ARE CLOSING THEM FOR EUROPE AS WELL. The subsequent Russian "P.R." aerobics about how evil Ukrainians steal transited gas are spiteful, because in the given technological circumstances, Ukrainians simply do not have enough gas to power their transit compressors, and at the same time to balance their pipeline system. Targeted and repeated discrediting of Ukraine as a reliable transit country for gas and oil, should compel the Europeans to swiftly agree, and primarily to foot, the huge and unnecessary bills for the construction of new pipelines through the Baltic and Black Sea.

Are today's events surprising? For a considerable part of the EU they certainly are. European leaders, particularly those from key countries such as Germany, France and Italy, often prefer narrow commercial interests over international security interests of not only their EU partners, but even of their own citizens.

The real shock is experienced by those countries and governments that still have not done anything for the diversification of gas and oil, and remained totally dependent on the Russian supplies. All Slovak governments, and managements of SPP [Slovak Gas Company] up to date, have failed in this area. Let me be personal. For the past ten years, I have repeatedly emphasized the gravity of this situation in my various articles, analyses, as well as numerous speeches at various conferences, and personal meetings with various politicians.
For years, I have been frustrated over the fact that almost none of them considered this a problem. I was disappointed that representatives of investors repeated phrases about the reliability of Russian supplies, while they knew that the absolute priority of their domestic companies has always been diversification of supplies so that no supplier could blackmail them.

The responsibility for the situation in which we had to declare the emergency, and a real energy crisis is around the corner, is not borne only by Gazprom, but also by all responsible in Bratislava, because they were not properly prepared for this situation.
The hard lesson for citizens and businesses is, that not artificially low domestic prices should be the priority, but fair prices reflecting the highest possible reliability and continuity of supply from abroad.
What's the use of low price, if the pipe is empty? The case of diversification is similar to insurance. It is costly, but if my life, property or business is to be ensured against unexpected events and unfair partners it's a necessary expense. This is one but not the only reason why we have to urgently review the reality of our recently approved energy security strategy.

Read more on Russians are strangling Europe

Anti-crisis policies in knowledge-intensive economies

By Ugo Pagano, visiting professor at Central European University. web.me.com/ugopagano

A long period of neo-liberal academic dominance is coming to an end. Unfortunately, it is being wiped out by a difficult economic crisis and not by an end of the inertia of cross-citations-based academia. Some “old theories” (which were academic pariahs until a couple of months ago) offer the main intellectual framework for anti-crisis policies. Re-considering past theories and policies is certainly a very useful re-starting point. However, policy suggestions should not ignore how much the economy has changed since the thirties. At that time, the main focus of policies stimulating aggregate demand was on traditional infrastructures, like bridges, roads etc. In a modern knowledge-intensive economy, the focus should be different. Policies should exploit the new opportunities that contemporary economies offer for Keynesian-type measures.


The knowledge-intensive economy is characterized by an unprecedented share of privately owned knowledge (or, in other words, by widespread monopoly rights on intellectual assets). While global institutions (WTO and the related TRIPs agreements) have made private intellectual property more profitable, no global institution has increased the convenience of public intellectual property. The present (and, even more, the missing) institutions of the global economy have made it convenient to over-privatize knowledge and over-monopolize the economy by an intensive web of intellectual property rights (IPR).
Intellectual private property rights (IPR) can be a cause of economic stagnation. Monopoly prices restrict production. The drive to acquire monopolies may initially stimulate investments but, after a while, the stimulus is increasingly offset by the fear that the use of new knowledge may be blocked by monopolies on pre-existing complementary knowledge (the so called anti-commons tragedy). Moreover, IPR involve asymmetric arrangements for rich and poor countries. While developing countries export their commodities in competitive conditions, many firms of the first world countries can sell knowledge-intensive goods under the monopoly shield granted by IPR. Although being sold as a necessary ingredient of free trade, IPRs offer stronger protection than the strongest protectionist tariffs. They grant total protection not only for the home market but also everywhere else in the World. Similarly to high tariffs, they can make the economic crisis only worse.

The present institutions of the knowledge-intensive economy are likely to become one of the causes of a prolonged stagnation. However, the knowledge-intensive economy offers great opportunities for more effective Keynesian policies. Instead of being used to nationalize inefficiently the assets of firms producing private goods, Keynesian policies could be used to decrease the monopolization of knowledge and to transfer efficiently knowledge from the private to the public sphere. The WTO, which has made intellectual private property more convenient, should be balanced by the institution of a strong WRO (World Research Organization) which helps to make intellectual public property feasible whenever it can better foster development. Countries should acknowledge that knowledge is a non-rival good which should be treated as the most precious and specific global common of humankind. In Jefferson’s vivid image, knowledge is like the flame of candle: lightening one more candle is not diminishing the flame of the other candles. By contrast, allowing others to contribute to the fire increases the shining of each candle!
Anti-crisis policies should include the funding of public research infrastructures.
This funding should be coordinated at supranational level to avoid the free riding problems among countries, which are presently fettering the development of investments in public research.
More important, in the present crisis, the funding can immediately take the shape of a public acquisition of well-established IPRs from private firms. The effects of this policy would go well beyond those entailed by many current anti-crisis measures:
In the first place the funding does not involve a nationalization of the firm or the use of taxpayers money without any counterpart. By contrast, while the IPR is paid at its private value, it is transferred in the public arena where it has a greater public good value and decreases costs for many producers.
Secondly, financial support is granted to firms who have proved to be innovative. A powerful stimulus for new investments is given to the most efficient firms. On the one hand, these firms receive fresh funds but, on the hand, having sold the old intellectual property rights, they face tough competition. Therefore, they have an urgency to invest in the production of new intellectual assets, which boosts aggregate demand.
Thirdly a monopoly price for the asset is replaced by the lower competitive price, which has again a positive effect on aggregate demand.
Finally, the “anti-commons” problem is eased; everyone can now invest in new knowledge with the awareness that complementary pre-existing knowledge is less likely to be owned by other firms. The policy decreases the costs of future risky transactions necessary to use the fruits of innovation. While the immediate funding goes to incumbent innovative firms, which may often belong to the richer countries, the increase of the knowledge freely available to everyone has widespread beneficial effects and contributes to the overall development of the world economy.
The multiplicative effects, which we have indicated, are stronger than those traditionally associated with standard Keynesian policies: their total effects are more powerful both on aggregate demand and on the level efficiency of the economy. An investment “super-multiplier” can be made to work in knowledge-intensive economies

Read more on Anti-crisis policies in knowledge-intensive economies

Crude’s Bumpy Ride: In Search of Fundamental Determinants of Oil Price

By Michal Trnik, PERG guest author, http://michal.trnik.sk/

Providing credible and accurate forecasts of crude oil prices was always a tricky business resembling rather fortune telling than an exact science. With the unfolding oil price volatility, the reputation of analysts suffered a heavy blow once again. Only recently, many experts prognosticated record high $200 per barrel to be hit in a reasonably short time. Today, oil price continues its unexpected nose-dive, and oscillates below $60 a barrel, however.

Source: Shooty; used and modified with the kind permission from the author.


To be clear, explanations and estimates of crude prices were always a messy field. The recent unexpected price volatility unraveled weaknesses of many silver bullet explanations and left average consumers with the pressing question on their mind: "So who the hell can I blame?" The list of potential culprits has always been long.

It’s OPEC, stupid
The OPEC’s influence is still by many believed to be one of the most important causes defining the crude oil price. However, the market power of OPEC today is not what it used to be. Although the shortening of supply to increase oil price was used as a tool to boost producers’ profit, nowadays the situation is largely different as a result of OPEC being an example of undisciplined cartel; increasing availability of energy substitutes, and the nature of the current oil pricing system. The so called reference price regime in place today is based on two main freely traded reference crudes – Brent and WTI – both of which determine the price of other types of crudes, which are not freely traded. This current regime thus largely eliminates the drawbacks of the OPEC price regime (1970-85) in which prices were unilaterally determined by producers.

Crises raise prices
Political crises and instability in oil-producing regions became one of the most routine media used explanations on oil price increases. Such interpretation, however, is of no use given that political unsteadiness is rather a norm than an exception and in today’s globalized world it is fairly easy to find a geopolitical disturbance to which climbing prices can be attributed. No doubt that severe geopolitical crises can impact oil prices. Nevertheless, this explanation has to be used reasonably and with extreme caution.

Running out of oil (once again)
The Hubbert’s famous peak-oil theory rightly predicts that oil as a definite source will have to reach its production peak sooner or later. The price is expected to rise as a consequence of oil production reaching its terminal decline and thus becoming increasingly scarcer. There are many "prophets" who regularly omen that the end is near or had mistakenly announced the peak already some decades ago (video at 5:45). Briefly, we’re not there yet. Linking any oil price run-up with the alleged peak thus cannot be taken seriously.

Hedge funds, pension funds, speculators and other vermin
Various funds and fortune hunters are often accused of sky-rocketing oil prices and such view still enjoys credibility whether among consumers, politicians, analysts, industry executives, or among former chief speculators themselves.

Keeping the argument as simple as it gets, it was very recently the speculators were accused of artificial inflating of oil price, which was believed to be above the level at which demand is in balance with supply. Higher price allegedly created by artificial speculative demand would in effect mean a necessary existence of physical excess oil supply that has to be hoarded by the seller for future sale to fulfill his commitments to the buyer. Likewise, if the price is suddenly too high, then demand from the traditional consumers would shrink, leading to a large surplus of the oil in the market. The question is: what happens to this excess supply then? Well, as it is not consumed it should be stored in physical inventories somewhere. There is no empirical evidence of such accumulation at any point during the last price increase, however, which in turn means that the alleged existence of price bubble does not hold up to the economic reality.


Moreover, speculators cannot directly influence prices as they are nothing more than price bettors willing to throw their millions into the market hoping their forecasts of future price will be accurate enough to earn them profits. In any case, the oil price remains unaffected as betting on the future oil price has no direct effect on actual price moves similarly as betting on horses has no direct effect on the winner of the race no matter how much cash and how many people bet on that particular horse. It is the futures market which is the main playing field of all ‘speculators’ who instead of buying physical barrels bet on future prices of oil by buying futures contract.

What the future(s) hold
Sometimes the least sexy explanations are the most valuable ones. The futures market and trading of futures is the key to understanding the working of current oil price mechanism. The market with futures, which is a market for financial contracts, is where the oil price is determined.

The oil market, like any other commodity markets, can be divided into the spot market and futures market. In the spot market physical “wet barrels” of oil are traded. The futures market, where “paper barrels” are traded, on the other hand serves the needs of those who need oil in the future but do not want to purchase it today but rather when their actual demand arises. These traders instead of purchasing physical oil barrels opt for a futures contract which entitles them for those barrels later on. The price of such contract is set by an agreement between the buyer and seller. At the same time these contracts make predictions about the future direction of prices, which determines also the current price on the stock market. Today, only a small portion of oil is traded on the spot market, however, as it has became very thin due to its insufficient liquidity caused by a rapid decline in oil production of the two reference crudes (WTI and Brent). The futures market should not be understood as a cause of the oil price changes but rather as a place where it happens.

Current volatility and good ol’ supply and demand
In economics you won’t usually go off the track too much if you go for the supply and demand explanation whenever you are not sure about the answer. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with such answer neither in the oil markets. As the world tends to be complicated, saying supply and demand is not enough, nevertheless it is crucial for understanding the recent oil price tumble. Moreover, the recent unexpected plunge of oil price indirectly confirms that OPEC, political crises, peak oil or speculators are not the most important factors shaping the oil price.

One barrel of fresh crude without bubbles please
The recent extreme volatility is related to shocks to both supply and demand. First, the sharply increasing demand for crude in developed and developing countries combined with structurally stagnant supply stemming from persistent shortage of refining capacity stood behind the soaring price. Second, its subsequent plummet is a logical reaction to contracting demand caused by slumping economies all around the globe triggered by the credit crunch.

Supply and demand, no rocket science. Making analogies between the development of price in oil markets and the price bubble we’we encountered in the US housing market thus seems rather inadequate.

Read more on Crude’s Bumpy Ride: In Search of Fundamental Determinants of Oil Price

Review of Soros' book

Financial Times published a review of the latest book by George Soros that I have mentioned here. 



A successful prophet of the markets
By John Authers
Published: May 19 2008 03:00 | Last updated: May 19 2008 03:00

This was a book that George Soros badly wanted to write. It is probably not what many of its readers expect to read. But it shows that in his deeper thinking about the way markets operate, Soros was several decades ahead of his time. 

The New Paradigm for Financial Markets includes Soros' verdict on the credit crisis. He thinks, as has been widely reported, that it is the most severe since the 1930s, and that it marks the end of a 25-year "era of credit expansion based on the dollar as the international reserve currency". 

He also offers some solutions, which centre on new regulation for markets, and how to avoid forced sales for US homeowners. A highly entertaining diary recounts his investment moves in the first three months of this year, culminating with the confusion surrounding the fire sale of Bear Stearns. 

His insights are clear and concisely expressed. They are worth reading for anyone interested in the topic. But what is most interesting, and obviously engages Soros at an emotional level, is the idiosyncratic philosophy he has developed to explain the metaphysics of how markets work. Even before the emergence of the efficient markets hypothesis, which has dominated academic thinking on markets for at least three decades, Soros had devised his own theory to prove markets were not efficient. He acted on this philosophy as an investor with spectacularly successful results. 

That philosophy derived from his undergraduate studies at the London School of Economics under Karl Popper. The "relationship between thinking and reality", Soros calls "reflexivity." It fills the book's centre in chapters which he admits many will find "heavy going". In markets, Soros says, participants' thinking plays a dual function: they try to understand the situation (the "cognitive function"), and to change it (the "manipulative function"). The two functions can interfere with each other; when they doso the market displays "reflexivity". 

So an investor's misperception of reality can help to change that reality, begetting further misperceptions. When market actors' decisions affect outcomes, patterns emerge. If a lot of people are bullish about internet stockstheir price goes up. Soros used the theory to predict, and profit from, a series of "initially self-reinforcing but eventually self-defeating boom-bust processes, or bubbles". Each bubble "consists of a trend and a misconception that interact in a reflexive manner". 

A key implication of this is that markets do not tend towards "equilibrium", as predicted by modern portfolio theory. And they will not move in the "random walk" promulgated by efficient markets theory, which holds that prices always incorporate all known information and so move randomly in response to new information. 

This is important, as the architecture of modern capital markets depends on these theories.And it begins to look as though the credit crisis was the tipping point at which academics and practitioners decided a new paradigm was needed to replace the efficient markets hypothesis. Alternative theories borrow from experimental psychology, advanced mathematics and evolutionary biology and have been built in response to experience in the markets. 

The theory of "adaptive markets" - that markets follow trends until they become overblown and then start building up other trends - seems to be gaining ground as an alternative paradigm. Soros' title is a bid for his own theory of reflexivity to become the new paradigm. What is fascinating is how much modern thinking is in line with the theory he developed decades ago. 

How does it help explain the credit crisis? Soros believes that a "super bubble" has been formed as the result of a "long-term reflexive process" over the last 25 years. Its hallmarks include credit expansion (boosted by the belief that inflation has been vanquished), and a prevailing misconception, which Soros unsurprisingly blames on Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, that markets should be given free rein. 

There have been numerous financial crises in this period. According to Soros, these "served as successful tests which reinforced the prevailing trend and the prevailing misconception". Thus the current crisis grows in severity because it marks "the turning point when both the trend and the misconception have become unsustainable". 

Many will dislike Soros' politics. Others will find the book self-indulgent. He calls himself a "failed philosopher" and badly wants his theory to reach a broader public. It is hard to imagine it would have been published were he not so famous and successful. But his restless intellectual curiosity commands respect. So does his ability to foresee the debate in theoretical finance. He may have been a failed philosopher, but he was a successful prophet. 

The writer is the FT's investment editor 

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008

Read more on Review of Soros' book

George Soros on the current financial crisis and his new book

George Soros, who is inter alia a founder of CEU, has a new book called "The New Paradigm for Financial Markets: The Credit Crash of 2008 and What It Means". The title pretty much summarizes the topic, although readers might be surprised by his venture into philosophy (of science) in the first part of the book.





Geoge Soros talks about the current financial crisis in the US. Although he does not say anything new that an informed reader would not know, he provides accessible summary of some key issues.

Soros is trying to get across his point that financial models are build on the assumption that markets tend to equilibrium around which prices oscillate randomly are built on the false paradigm. Instead he proposes an alternative paradigm of 'reflexivity' that has a post-modern constructivist flavor (there are no hard facts in social sciences, because people manipulate these facts while trying to comprehend them and act upon such knowledge).

In the interview, he is having hard to explain what is the difference in his line of thinking and the common sense perception of markets (perhaps it is just financial economists who got themselves disconnected from common sense:). At the end he pronounces Basel II failed idea (because it presumes that banks know what they are doing) and calls for the regulation of leverage.

His new book just arrive to the library; I am reading it know an plan to do some review.

Read more on George Soros on the current financial crisis and his new book