NYT Editorial
September 30, 2010
China and President Obama have a lot to think about after the House voted, overwhelmingly, on Wednesday to give the Obama administration expanded authority to impose tariffs on nearly all Chinese imports.
Protectionist impulses run far too strong on Capitol Hill, especially in an election year. But China’s aggressive undervaluation of its currency is providing a hugely unfair boost to its exports — hurting some American exports, but doing a lot more damage to others and hindering the recovery around the world.
If the House vote grabs Beijing’s attention, that would be a good thing. We are skeptical that punitive tariffs are the answer. They wouldn’t provide all that much redress to American companies because at this point, except for steel and a few other products, most of the things Americans buy from China: TVs, refrigerators, toys — are no longer made here.
As for whether tariffs would change Beijing’s thinking, we fear there is at least an equal chance that China will lash back. A trade war would be disastrous for bilateral relations, complicating efforts to contain nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea, and disastrous for the world economy.
A more effective strategy would be to muster the support of the many other countries whose manufacturing industries have been mauled. China needs to hear and see that its currency policy is a global problem that is undermining the global influence it so clearly desires.
So far, Beijing has used its clout as a major foreign investor and the world’s biggest importer of raw materials to mollify or intimidate its potential critics. The Obama administration needs to be at least as determined in its efforts to persuade others to finally speak up.
A lot of that can and should be done with behind-the-scenes diplomacy. There is also an important public part to be played. One of the best venues to get the message across — to Beijing and other world capitals — is at the World Trade Organization. China, which relies so heavily on exports, keeps an especially close watch there.
Last month, Washington filed two W.T.O. cases against China for duties it slapped on American steel and its discrimination against American suppliers of electronic payment services. It would be unlikely to win a case on China’s currency manipulation (which the World Trade Organization does not define as illegal). A broad challenge against China’s illegal trade practices, including providing subsidized energy and cheap credit to its exporters, could help embolden others to put forth their own complaints.
This strategy also carries the risk of retaliation. But the United States can’t be paralyzed, and moving with others should lessen that threat. A few other countries are already speaking out. Japan has begun criticizing China’s currency policies. Brazil’s finance minister complained earlier this week about the “international currency war” set off by the manipulation of China’s currency, the renminbi.
As the vote in the House loomed, Beijing defiantly slapped steep tariffs on poultry from the United States. On the day of the vote, Foreign Ministry officials warned of potentially dire consequences to bilateral trade relations, and China’s central bank let the renminbi fall a little. Still, over the last three weeks, the bank allowed the currency to rise about 1.5 percent against the dollar, roughly three times as much as it appreciated in the previous three months.
Hours before the House vote, China’s central bank issued a statement pledging to “increase currency flexibility,” and “gradually improve the exchange rate setting mechanism.” Beijing has made these promises before. Which is why the United States and other countries need to push harder, together.
03/10 More Countries Adopt China’s Tactics on Currency
October 3, 2010
By DAVID E. SANGER and MICHAEL WINES
WASHINGTON — As the Obama administration escalates its battle with Chinese leaders over the artificially low value of China’s currency, a growing number of countries are retreating from some free-market rules that have guided international trade in recent decades and have started playing by Chinese rules.
Japan and Brazil have taken measures recently to devalue their currencies, or at least prevent them from appreciating further against the Chinese currency, the renminbi. The House of Representatives last week overwhelmingly passed the first legislation to allow the United States to slap huge tariffs on Chinese goods unless China allows the renminbi to appreciate, another mechanism for making Chinese goods more expensive here and American exports more competitive in China.
In Europe, policy makers have begun to fret that, despite the debt crisis that sent investors fleeing just a few months ago, the euro has now risen sharply again against the dollar, potentially weakening exports by making European goods more expensive. Those exports have been one of Europe’s few sources of growth, and President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, who will take over leadership of the Group of 20 biggest economies, said over the weekend that he was pushing for a new system of coordinating global currencies as wealthy nations did in the 1970s, before a free market orthodoxy took hold.
It is unclear if the result will be a “currency war,” as Brazil’s finance minister recently warned, or if these are just warning shots, fired to force Beijing’s leadership to make good on years of promises that it would allow the value of its currency to appreciate.
But that question is so in the air that Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner felt compelled last week to try to dampen the fear. “We’re not going to have a trade war,” he said at a forum sponsored by The Atlantic. “We’re not going to have currency wars.” He acknowledged that the only way to break the cycle was for a country “to decide it is in its own interest to allow its currency to appreciate in response to market forces,” and he said he believed that a “substantial fraction of the Chinese leadership” now understands the need to allow the currency to rise in value.
But it is unclear how far the Chinese are willing to go, since a more expensive currency means more expensive exports and a possible loss of jobs. “It’s a tradeoff for the Chinese leadership,” said one senior United States official who has talked at length to China’s top officials. “They are under pressure from governors and mayors who fear unemployment in China’s manufacturing territory, exactly what we are struggling with.”
But the fact remains that the rest of the world is beginning to mimic the technique China has perfected: manipulating currencies for national advantage, while resisting political pressure from trading partners.
Some economists argue that the standoff over China’s currency could herald a new era of protectionism reminiscent of the 1920s and ’30s, which they say they fear could undermine trade and make a weak recovery even weaker. But others argue that it was the free-market consensus of the 1980s and ’90s that weakened American competitiveness and was exploited by rising powers like China, calling for a more assertive policy to protect jobs, increase exports and keep industry at home.
“Everyone’s playing beggar-thy-neighbor games, willingly or unwillingly,” Michael Pettis, a Peking University professor and economist at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said in an interview. “This is very similar to what happened in the ’30s, when the collapse in Europe’s ability to finance itself also meant a collapse in its trade deficit, and the world rushed around trying to find a new equilibrium in which every country tried to grab a larger share of the dwindling global demand.”
Of course, many countries have manipulated their currencies before — the United States reached a political accord with Japan in the Reagan administration to do exactly that, in an effort to reduce a yawning trade deficit. And for decades, despite global rules prohibiting the practice, countries have sought to help their industries by providing subsidies to companies, as Europe did for years with Airbus, its competitor to Boeing.
But many around the world fear getting trampled as the United States and the Chinese battle each other. Japan intervened in the currency markets recently for the first time in six years, after accusing China of driving the yen up to a 15-year high, in part by buying Japanese debt. But it was a short-term move, many Japanese experts fear. “Japan is in a sense losing out in this competitive devaluation war” through inaction, said Kazuo Ueda, a professor of finance at the University of Tokyo, and a former member of the policy board of Japan’s central bank.
Brazil took similar action and vowed last week to take whatever action it needs to prevent its currency from appreciating. Its finance minister, Guido Mantega, said in an interview that the actions by developed countries, including the United States, to keep interest rates at record lows, one way of devaluing a currency, was a “strategy from the past” that was threatening the economy of Brazil and other “dynamic” emerging markets.
“This is a kind of desperate action taken by countries to try to activate their economies,” Mr. Mantega said. “Since they have not been able to activate their own internal markets, the way out becomes exports. So developed countries work on devaluing their currency in order to become competitive in the few dynamic markets in the world.” Most Western governments, and many economists, place the blame for currency frictions on China, which has refused to let the renminbi trade at anywhere near its real value. Moreover, China has subsidized its exports with artificially low interest rates that shift money from consumers’ bank deposits into cheap loans to businesses.
These tactics are nothing new, especially among the emerging economies of Asia. But experts say the sheer size of the Chinese economy means that its currency policies have global effects.
Not surprisingly, the Chinese see the problem differently. The Chinese press is filled with articles arguing that Americans do not appreciate China’s efforts on their behalf. While other nations’ currencies devalued against the dollar in the 2008 financial crisis, some economists note, the renminbi did not. And while Chinese exports may be artificially cheap, the effect has been to give American shoppers bargains at the expense of Chinese consumers.
“Nobody thinks about that,” Shen Minggao, the chief China economist for Citibank, said in a telephone interview from Hong Kong. “Should China think about the welfare of Chinese consumers, not U.S. consumers?”
China could solve much of the problem by shifting to an economy driven by domestic consumption instead of profits from exports. And in principle, Chinese experts agree.
But China’s progress toward that goal has been glacial. Since June, when the government said it would move the renminbi closer to its real value, the currency has gained about 1 percent. Most experts say the real value is 15 percent to 20 percent higher.
A variety of economic and political factors limit China’s flexibility, said Li Daokui, who directs Tsinghua University’s Center for China in the World Economy. Dr. Li sits on the government’s Monetary Policy Committee, which advises China’s central bank, and stressed he was not speaking for the government. If China lets its renminbi gain value too quickly, he said, that could make exports too expensive and collapse an entire sector of the economy. That would spike unemployment and risk social unrest, which Chinese leaders are committed to avoiding.
Dr. Li said that a “mild appreciation” of the renminbi was needed, but that ordinary Chinese need to be prepared for even that small step. Otherwise, he said, “it’s counterproductive, because many people believe there’s a conspiracy to keep the Chinese economy from growing.”
David E. Sanger reported from Washington, and Michael Wines from Beijing. Alexei Barrionuevo contributed reporting from São Paulo, Brazil, Steven Erlanger from Paris, and Martin Fackler from Tokyo.
By DAVID E. SANGER and MICHAEL WINES
WASHINGTON — As the Obama administration escalates its battle with Chinese leaders over the artificially low value of China’s currency, a growing number of countries are retreating from some free-market rules that have guided international trade in recent decades and have started playing by Chinese rules.
Japan and Brazil have taken measures recently to devalue their currencies, or at least prevent them from appreciating further against the Chinese currency, the renminbi. The House of Representatives last week overwhelmingly passed the first legislation to allow the United States to slap huge tariffs on Chinese goods unless China allows the renminbi to appreciate, another mechanism for making Chinese goods more expensive here and American exports more competitive in China.
In Europe, policy makers have begun to fret that, despite the debt crisis that sent investors fleeing just a few months ago, the euro has now risen sharply again against the dollar, potentially weakening exports by making European goods more expensive. Those exports have been one of Europe’s few sources of growth, and President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, who will take over leadership of the Group of 20 biggest economies, said over the weekend that he was pushing for a new system of coordinating global currencies as wealthy nations did in the 1970s, before a free market orthodoxy took hold.
It is unclear if the result will be a “currency war,” as Brazil’s finance minister recently warned, or if these are just warning shots, fired to force Beijing’s leadership to make good on years of promises that it would allow the value of its currency to appreciate.
But that question is so in the air that Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner felt compelled last week to try to dampen the fear. “We’re not going to have a trade war,” he said at a forum sponsored by The Atlantic. “We’re not going to have currency wars.” He acknowledged that the only way to break the cycle was for a country “to decide it is in its own interest to allow its currency to appreciate in response to market forces,” and he said he believed that a “substantial fraction of the Chinese leadership” now understands the need to allow the currency to rise in value.
But it is unclear how far the Chinese are willing to go, since a more expensive currency means more expensive exports and a possible loss of jobs. “It’s a tradeoff for the Chinese leadership,” said one senior United States official who has talked at length to China’s top officials. “They are under pressure from governors and mayors who fear unemployment in China’s manufacturing territory, exactly what we are struggling with.”
But the fact remains that the rest of the world is beginning to mimic the technique China has perfected: manipulating currencies for national advantage, while resisting political pressure from trading partners.
Some economists argue that the standoff over China’s currency could herald a new era of protectionism reminiscent of the 1920s and ’30s, which they say they fear could undermine trade and make a weak recovery even weaker. But others argue that it was the free-market consensus of the 1980s and ’90s that weakened American competitiveness and was exploited by rising powers like China, calling for a more assertive policy to protect jobs, increase exports and keep industry at home.
“Everyone’s playing beggar-thy-neighbor games, willingly or unwillingly,” Michael Pettis, a Peking University professor and economist at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said in an interview. “This is very similar to what happened in the ’30s, when the collapse in Europe’s ability to finance itself also meant a collapse in its trade deficit, and the world rushed around trying to find a new equilibrium in which every country tried to grab a larger share of the dwindling global demand.”
Of course, many countries have manipulated their currencies before — the United States reached a political accord with Japan in the Reagan administration to do exactly that, in an effort to reduce a yawning trade deficit. And for decades, despite global rules prohibiting the practice, countries have sought to help their industries by providing subsidies to companies, as Europe did for years with Airbus, its competitor to Boeing.
But many around the world fear getting trampled as the United States and the Chinese battle each other. Japan intervened in the currency markets recently for the first time in six years, after accusing China of driving the yen up to a 15-year high, in part by buying Japanese debt. But it was a short-term move, many Japanese experts fear. “Japan is in a sense losing out in this competitive devaluation war” through inaction, said Kazuo Ueda, a professor of finance at the University of Tokyo, and a former member of the policy board of Japan’s central bank.
Brazil took similar action and vowed last week to take whatever action it needs to prevent its currency from appreciating. Its finance minister, Guido Mantega, said in an interview that the actions by developed countries, including the United States, to keep interest rates at record lows, one way of devaluing a currency, was a “strategy from the past” that was threatening the economy of Brazil and other “dynamic” emerging markets.
“This is a kind of desperate action taken by countries to try to activate their economies,” Mr. Mantega said. “Since they have not been able to activate their own internal markets, the way out becomes exports. So developed countries work on devaluing their currency in order to become competitive in the few dynamic markets in the world.” Most Western governments, and many economists, place the blame for currency frictions on China, which has refused to let the renminbi trade at anywhere near its real value. Moreover, China has subsidized its exports with artificially low interest rates that shift money from consumers’ bank deposits into cheap loans to businesses.
These tactics are nothing new, especially among the emerging economies of Asia. But experts say the sheer size of the Chinese economy means that its currency policies have global effects.
Not surprisingly, the Chinese see the problem differently. The Chinese press is filled with articles arguing that Americans do not appreciate China’s efforts on their behalf. While other nations’ currencies devalued against the dollar in the 2008 financial crisis, some economists note, the renminbi did not. And while Chinese exports may be artificially cheap, the effect has been to give American shoppers bargains at the expense of Chinese consumers.
“Nobody thinks about that,” Shen Minggao, the chief China economist for Citibank, said in a telephone interview from Hong Kong. “Should China think about the welfare of Chinese consumers, not U.S. consumers?”
China could solve much of the problem by shifting to an economy driven by domestic consumption instead of profits from exports. And in principle, Chinese experts agree.
But China’s progress toward that goal has been glacial. Since June, when the government said it would move the renminbi closer to its real value, the currency has gained about 1 percent. Most experts say the real value is 15 percent to 20 percent higher.
A variety of economic and political factors limit China’s flexibility, said Li Daokui, who directs Tsinghua University’s Center for China in the World Economy. Dr. Li sits on the government’s Monetary Policy Committee, which advises China’s central bank, and stressed he was not speaking for the government. If China lets its renminbi gain value too quickly, he said, that could make exports too expensive and collapse an entire sector of the economy. That would spike unemployment and risk social unrest, which Chinese leaders are committed to avoiding.
Dr. Li said that a “mild appreciation” of the renminbi was needed, but that ordinary Chinese need to be prepared for even that small step. Otherwise, he said, “it’s counterproductive, because many people believe there’s a conspiracy to keep the Chinese economy from growing.”
David E. Sanger reported from Washington, and Michael Wines from Beijing. Alexei Barrionuevo contributed reporting from São Paulo, Brazil, Steven Erlanger from Paris, and Martin Fackler from Tokyo.
NYT: 03/10 Fear and Favor by Paul Krugman
October 3, 2010
By PAUL KRUGMAN
A note to Tea Party activists: This is not the movie you think it is. You probably imagine that you’re starring in “The Birth of a Nation,” but you’re actually just extras in a remake of “Citizen Kane.”
True, there have been some changes in the plot. In the original, Kane tried to buy high political office for himself. In the new version, he just puts politicians on his payroll.
I mean that literally. As Politico recently pointed out, every major contender for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination who isn’t currently holding office and isn’t named Mitt Romney is now a paid contributor to Fox News. Now, media moguls have often promoted the careers and campaigns of politicians they believe will serve their interests. But directly cutting checks to political favorites takes it to a whole new level of blatancy.
Arguably, this shouldn’t be surprising. Modern American conservatism is, in large part, a movement shaped by billionaires and their bank accounts, and assured paychecks for the ideologically loyal are an important part of the system. Scientists willing to deny the existence of man-made climate change, economists willing to declare that tax cuts for the rich are essential to growth, strategic thinkers willing to provide rationales for wars of choice, lawyers willing to provide defenses of torture, all can count on support from a network of organizations that may seem independent on the surface but are largely financed by a handful of ultrawealthy families.
And these organizations have long provided havens for conservative political figures not currently in office. Thus when Senator Rick Santorum was defeated in 2006, he got a new job as head of the America’s Enemies program at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a think tank that has received funding from the usual sources: the Koch brothers, the Coors family, and so on.
Now Mr. Santorum is one of those paid Fox contributors contemplating a presidential run. What’s the difference?
Well, for one thing, Fox News seems to have decided that it no longer needs to maintain even the pretense of being nonpartisan.
Nobody who was paying attention has ever doubted that Fox is, in reality, a part of the Republican political machine; but the network — with its Orwellian slogan, “fair and balanced” — has always denied the obvious. Officially, it still does. But by hiring those G.O.P. candidates, while at the same time making million-dollar contributions to the Republican Governors Association and the rabidly anti-Obama United States Chamber of Commerce, Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, which owns Fox, is signaling that it no longer feels the need to make any effort to keep up appearances.
Something else has changed, too: increasingly, Fox News has gone from merely supporting Republican candidates to anointing them. Christine O’Donnell, the upset winner of the G.O.P. Senate primary in Delaware, is often described as the Tea Party candidate, but given the publicity the network gave her, she could equally well be described as the Fox News candidate. Anyway, there’s not much difference: the Tea Party movement owes much of its rise to enthusiastic Fox coverage.
As the Republican political analyst David Frum put it, “Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us, and now we are discovering we work for Fox” — literally, in the case of all those non-Mitt-Romney presidential hopefuls. It was days later, by the way, that Mr. Frum was fired by the American Enterprise Institute. Conservatives criticize Fox at their peril.
So the Ministry of Propaganda has, in effect, seized control of the Politburo. What are the implications?
Perhaps the most important thing to realize is that when billionaires put their might behind “grass roots” right-wing action, it’s not just about ideology: it’s also about business. What the Koch brothers have bought with their huge political outlays is, above all, freedom to pollute. What Mr. Murdoch is acquiring with his expanded political role is the kind of influence that lets his media empire make its own rules.
Thus in Britain, a reporter at one of Mr. Murdoch’s papers, News of the World, was caught hacking into the voice mail of prominent citizens, including members of the royal family. But Scotland Yard showed little interest in getting to the bottom of the story. Now the editor who ran the paper when the hacking was taking place is chief of communications for the Conservative government — and that government is talking about slashing the budget of the BBC, which competes with the News Corporation.
So think of those paychecks to Sarah Palin and others as smart investments. After all, if you’re a media mogul, it’s always good to have friends in high places. And the most reliable friends are the ones who know they owe it all to you.
By PAUL KRUGMAN
A note to Tea Party activists: This is not the movie you think it is. You probably imagine that you’re starring in “The Birth of a Nation,” but you’re actually just extras in a remake of “Citizen Kane.”
True, there have been some changes in the plot. In the original, Kane tried to buy high political office for himself. In the new version, he just puts politicians on his payroll.
I mean that literally. As Politico recently pointed out, every major contender for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination who isn’t currently holding office and isn’t named Mitt Romney is now a paid contributor to Fox News. Now, media moguls have often promoted the careers and campaigns of politicians they believe will serve their interests. But directly cutting checks to political favorites takes it to a whole new level of blatancy.
Arguably, this shouldn’t be surprising. Modern American conservatism is, in large part, a movement shaped by billionaires and their bank accounts, and assured paychecks for the ideologically loyal are an important part of the system. Scientists willing to deny the existence of man-made climate change, economists willing to declare that tax cuts for the rich are essential to growth, strategic thinkers willing to provide rationales for wars of choice, lawyers willing to provide defenses of torture, all can count on support from a network of organizations that may seem independent on the surface but are largely financed by a handful of ultrawealthy families.
And these organizations have long provided havens for conservative political figures not currently in office. Thus when Senator Rick Santorum was defeated in 2006, he got a new job as head of the America’s Enemies program at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a think tank that has received funding from the usual sources: the Koch brothers, the Coors family, and so on.
Now Mr. Santorum is one of those paid Fox contributors contemplating a presidential run. What’s the difference?
Well, for one thing, Fox News seems to have decided that it no longer needs to maintain even the pretense of being nonpartisan.
Nobody who was paying attention has ever doubted that Fox is, in reality, a part of the Republican political machine; but the network — with its Orwellian slogan, “fair and balanced” — has always denied the obvious. Officially, it still does. But by hiring those G.O.P. candidates, while at the same time making million-dollar contributions to the Republican Governors Association and the rabidly anti-Obama United States Chamber of Commerce, Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, which owns Fox, is signaling that it no longer feels the need to make any effort to keep up appearances.
Something else has changed, too: increasingly, Fox News has gone from merely supporting Republican candidates to anointing them. Christine O’Donnell, the upset winner of the G.O.P. Senate primary in Delaware, is often described as the Tea Party candidate, but given the publicity the network gave her, she could equally well be described as the Fox News candidate. Anyway, there’s not much difference: the Tea Party movement owes much of its rise to enthusiastic Fox coverage.
As the Republican political analyst David Frum put it, “Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us, and now we are discovering we work for Fox” — literally, in the case of all those non-Mitt-Romney presidential hopefuls. It was days later, by the way, that Mr. Frum was fired by the American Enterprise Institute. Conservatives criticize Fox at their peril.
So the Ministry of Propaganda has, in effect, seized control of the Politburo. What are the implications?
Perhaps the most important thing to realize is that when billionaires put their might behind “grass roots” right-wing action, it’s not just about ideology: it’s also about business. What the Koch brothers have bought with their huge political outlays is, above all, freedom to pollute. What Mr. Murdoch is acquiring with his expanded political role is the kind of influence that lets his media empire make its own rules.
Thus in Britain, a reporter at one of Mr. Murdoch’s papers, News of the World, was caught hacking into the voice mail of prominent citizens, including members of the royal family. But Scotland Yard showed little interest in getting to the bottom of the story. Now the editor who ran the paper when the hacking was taking place is chief of communications for the Conservative government — and that government is talking about slashing the budget of the BBC, which competes with the News Corporation.
So think of those paychecks to Sarah Palin and others as smart investments. After all, if you’re a media mogul, it’s always good to have friends in high places. And the most reliable friends are the ones who know they owe it all to you.
20/09 Đồng Nhân dân tệ lên mức giá kỷ lục so với USD
20/09/2010 | 14:47:00
Sáng 20/9, giá trị đồng Nhân dân tệ (NDT) đã tăng 62 điểm cơ bản, lên mức kỷ lục mới so với đồng USD là 6,711 NDT/USD.
Trong phiên giao dịch cuối cùng của tuần trước vào thứ sáu (17/9), tỷ giá này là 6,7172 NDT đổi được 1 USD.
Như vậy, với sự tăng giá mới nhất của đồng NDT ngay trong phiên giao dịch đầu tiên của tuần này, đồng USD đã giảm 1,7% giá trị so với NDT, nếu so với cách đây một tháng.
Tỷ giá NDT đã có những biến động liên tục trong thời gian qua, sau khi Ngân hàng Nhân dân Trung Quốc (tức Ngân hàng Trung ương) ngày 19/6 ra thông báo về cải cách cơ chế hình thành tỷ giá NDT nhằm tăng tính linh hoạt cho tỷ giá hối đoái.
Trên thị trường hối đoái Trung Quốc, giá trị đồng NDT có thể tăng hoặc giảm 0,5% trong các phiên giao dịch mỗi ngày./.
(TTXVN/Vietnam+)
Sáng 20/9, giá trị đồng Nhân dân tệ (NDT) đã tăng 62 điểm cơ bản, lên mức kỷ lục mới so với đồng USD là 6,711 NDT/USD.
Trong phiên giao dịch cuối cùng của tuần trước vào thứ sáu (17/9), tỷ giá này là 6,7172 NDT đổi được 1 USD.
Như vậy, với sự tăng giá mới nhất của đồng NDT ngay trong phiên giao dịch đầu tiên của tuần này, đồng USD đã giảm 1,7% giá trị so với NDT, nếu so với cách đây một tháng.
Tỷ giá NDT đã có những biến động liên tục trong thời gian qua, sau khi Ngân hàng Nhân dân Trung Quốc (tức Ngân hàng Trung ương) ngày 19/6 ra thông báo về cải cách cơ chế hình thành tỷ giá NDT nhằm tăng tính linh hoạt cho tỷ giá hối đoái.
Trên thị trường hối đoái Trung Quốc, giá trị đồng NDT có thể tăng hoặc giảm 0,5% trong các phiên giao dịch mỗi ngày./.
(TTXVN/Vietnam+)
24/09 Quan hệ Mỹ-Trung vẫn "nóng" về vấn đề đồng NDT
24/09/2010 14:30:00
Tổng thống Mỹ Barack Obama ngày 23/9 đã thúc giục Thủ tướng Trung Quốc Ôn Gia Bảo nhanh chóng tiến hành các bước đi nhằm giải quyết bất đồng về giá trị đồng NDT, đồng thời khẳng định Washington sẽ bảo vệ các lợi ích kinh tế của mình.
Cuộc gặp song phương giữa Tổng thống Obama và Thủ tướng Ôn Gia Bảo, kéo dài hai giờ đồng hồ bên lề khóa họp thường niên Đại hội đồng Liên hợp quốc lần thứ 65, được dư luận hết sức quan tâm bởi nó diễn ra trong bối cảnh các nghị sĩ Mỹ dường như đang tiến gần hơn bao giờ hết tới việc thông qua một dự luật có khả năng sẽ trừng phạt việc Trung Quốc duy trì giá trị của đồng NDT ở mức "thấp giả tạo."
Hạ viện Mỹ theo kế hoạch sẽ bỏ phiếu thông qua dự luật này trong ngày 24/9.
Theo quan chức cấp cao phụ trách các vấn đề châu Á của Hội đồng an ninh quốc gia Mỹ Jeffrey Bader, tại cuộc hội đàm, Tổng thống Obama nhấn mạnh tỷ giá đồng NDT là "vấn đề quan trọng nhất" trong cuộc gặp này. Ông mong muốn trong thời gian tới Bắc Kinh sẽ thực thi nhiều hành động thiết thực hơn nhằm định giá lại đồng NDT và cho biết Washington đã khiếu nại lên Tổ chức Thương mại Thế giới (WTO) về các chính sách thương mại của Trung Quốc, được cho là đối xử không công bằng với các nhà cung cấp thép và các dịch vụ thanh toán điện tử của Mỹ.
Tổng thống Obama khẳng định nếu Bắc Kinh không hành động, Washington sẽ hành động để bảo vệ các lợi ích của mình.
Bên cạnh đó, ông còn đề cao mối quan hệ hợp tác với Trung Quốc, mong muốn hai nước tiếp tục tăng cường mối quan hệ dựa trên các lợi ích cơ bản chung và thái độ tôn trọng lẫn nhau nhằm đạt được hòa bình và ổn định trong khu vực, đồng thời nhấn mạnh tầm quan trọng của việc thảo luận chân thành và hợp tác chặt chẽ nhằm phát triển kinh tế cân bằng và bền vững.
Thời gian qua, hai bên đã hợp tác chặt chẽ đối với một loạt vấn đề quan trọng trong đó có cuộc khủng hoảng tài chính toàn cầu, cũng như theo khuôn khổ của Nhóm 20 nền kinh tế phát triển và đang nổi (G-20).
Trong bối cảnh nền kinh tế toàn cầu đang dần phục hồi, Washington và Bắc Kinh cần tăng cường hợp tác trong việc giải trừ vũ khí hạt nhân và đối phó với tình trạng biến đổi khí hậu.
Về phần mình, Thủ tướng Ôn Gia Bảo tái khẳng định việc Trung Quốc sẽ tiếp tục cải cách các quy định về tỷ giá hối đoái. Ông cho biết Trung Quốc và Mỹ cần hợp tác sâu sắc hơn trong các vấn đề quan trọng của quốc tế và khu vực, cũng như các nỗ lực nhằm đối phó với những tác động tiêu cực của cuộc khủng hoảng tài chính toàn cầu và tình trạng biến đổi khí hậu.
Theo Thủ tướng Ôn Gia Bảo, mối quan hệ giữa Bắc Kinh và Washington đã phát triển dựa trên các lợi ích song phương và có tầm ảnh hưởng lớn đối với thế giới. Ông nhấn mạnh "lợi ích chung của hai nước còn lớn hơn nhiều những bất đồng."
Mặc dù đoàn đại biểu Trung Quốc không phát biểu với báo giới sau cuộc gặp, song trong lúc chụp ảnh, Thủ tướng Ôn Gia Bảo đã nói với Tổng thống Obama rằng ông tin tưởng mọi bất đồng giữa Mỹ và Trung Quốc có thể được giải quyết thông qua đối thoại và hợp tác./.
(TTXVN/Vietnam+)
Tổng thống Mỹ Barack Obama ngày 23/9 đã thúc giục Thủ tướng Trung Quốc Ôn Gia Bảo nhanh chóng tiến hành các bước đi nhằm giải quyết bất đồng về giá trị đồng NDT, đồng thời khẳng định Washington sẽ bảo vệ các lợi ích kinh tế của mình.
Cuộc gặp song phương giữa Tổng thống Obama và Thủ tướng Ôn Gia Bảo, kéo dài hai giờ đồng hồ bên lề khóa họp thường niên Đại hội đồng Liên hợp quốc lần thứ 65, được dư luận hết sức quan tâm bởi nó diễn ra trong bối cảnh các nghị sĩ Mỹ dường như đang tiến gần hơn bao giờ hết tới việc thông qua một dự luật có khả năng sẽ trừng phạt việc Trung Quốc duy trì giá trị của đồng NDT ở mức "thấp giả tạo."
Hạ viện Mỹ theo kế hoạch sẽ bỏ phiếu thông qua dự luật này trong ngày 24/9.
Theo quan chức cấp cao phụ trách các vấn đề châu Á của Hội đồng an ninh quốc gia Mỹ Jeffrey Bader, tại cuộc hội đàm, Tổng thống Obama nhấn mạnh tỷ giá đồng NDT là "vấn đề quan trọng nhất" trong cuộc gặp này. Ông mong muốn trong thời gian tới Bắc Kinh sẽ thực thi nhiều hành động thiết thực hơn nhằm định giá lại đồng NDT và cho biết Washington đã khiếu nại lên Tổ chức Thương mại Thế giới (WTO) về các chính sách thương mại của Trung Quốc, được cho là đối xử không công bằng với các nhà cung cấp thép và các dịch vụ thanh toán điện tử của Mỹ.
Tổng thống Obama khẳng định nếu Bắc Kinh không hành động, Washington sẽ hành động để bảo vệ các lợi ích của mình.
Bên cạnh đó, ông còn đề cao mối quan hệ hợp tác với Trung Quốc, mong muốn hai nước tiếp tục tăng cường mối quan hệ dựa trên các lợi ích cơ bản chung và thái độ tôn trọng lẫn nhau nhằm đạt được hòa bình và ổn định trong khu vực, đồng thời nhấn mạnh tầm quan trọng của việc thảo luận chân thành và hợp tác chặt chẽ nhằm phát triển kinh tế cân bằng và bền vững.
Thời gian qua, hai bên đã hợp tác chặt chẽ đối với một loạt vấn đề quan trọng trong đó có cuộc khủng hoảng tài chính toàn cầu, cũng như theo khuôn khổ của Nhóm 20 nền kinh tế phát triển và đang nổi (G-20).
Trong bối cảnh nền kinh tế toàn cầu đang dần phục hồi, Washington và Bắc Kinh cần tăng cường hợp tác trong việc giải trừ vũ khí hạt nhân và đối phó với tình trạng biến đổi khí hậu.
Về phần mình, Thủ tướng Ôn Gia Bảo tái khẳng định việc Trung Quốc sẽ tiếp tục cải cách các quy định về tỷ giá hối đoái. Ông cho biết Trung Quốc và Mỹ cần hợp tác sâu sắc hơn trong các vấn đề quan trọng của quốc tế và khu vực, cũng như các nỗ lực nhằm đối phó với những tác động tiêu cực của cuộc khủng hoảng tài chính toàn cầu và tình trạng biến đổi khí hậu.
Theo Thủ tướng Ôn Gia Bảo, mối quan hệ giữa Bắc Kinh và Washington đã phát triển dựa trên các lợi ích song phương và có tầm ảnh hưởng lớn đối với thế giới. Ông nhấn mạnh "lợi ích chung của hai nước còn lớn hơn nhiều những bất đồng."
Mặc dù đoàn đại biểu Trung Quốc không phát biểu với báo giới sau cuộc gặp, song trong lúc chụp ảnh, Thủ tướng Ôn Gia Bảo đã nói với Tổng thống Obama rằng ông tin tưởng mọi bất đồng giữa Mỹ và Trung Quốc có thể được giải quyết thông qua đối thoại và hợp tác./.
(TTXVN/Vietnam+)
29/09 Thế giới đang tiến đến cuộc khủng hoảng đồng USD
29/09/2010 16:10:00 Từ khóa :
Các nhà kinh tế Mỹ và quốc tế cảnh báo thế giới đang tiến gần hơn đến một cuộc khủng hoảng đồng USD do nợ của nền kinh tế lớn nhất thế giới này đã tăng cao chưa từng thấy.
Ngày 28/9, Văn phòng Ngân sách của Quốc hội Mỹ (CBO) dự báo vào cuối tài khóa kết thúc vào ngày 30/9 tới, thâm hụt ngân sách của Mỹ sẽ lên mức kỷ lục 1,3 nghìn tỷ USD, tương đương với 9,1% Tổng sản phẩm quốc nội (GDP) của nước này, và sẽ lên tới đỉnh 6,27 nghìn tỷ USD trong thập kỷ tới.
CBO cho biết thêm tình hình nợ nần của nền kinh tế Mỹ ngày càng tồi tệ hơn và chưa có dấu hiệu cải thiện. Bất cứ sự lên giá nào của đồng USD cũng chỉ là tạm thời và sự mất giá ngày càng nghiêm trọng của đồng tiền này là không thể tránh khỏi.
Trong bối cảnh đó, nhà kinh tế đã từng đứng đầu Quỹ Tiền tệ Quốc tế và Ngân hàng Trung ương Pháp, ông Jacques de Larosiere, đã kêu gọi Nhóm các nền kinh tế phát triển và mới nổi (G-20) thiết lập hệ thống tiền tệ toàn cầu hài hòa hơn để ngăn chặn nguy cơ các nước đua nhau giảm giá đồng nội tệ.
Ông cho rằng hệ thống tiền tệ quốc tế hiện hành không vận hành tốt.
Trong khi đó, Bộ trưởng Tài chính Brazil, ông Guido Mantega, cho rằng cuộc chiến tranh tiền tệ quốc tế đã bắt đầu với việc các nước đua nhau giảm giá đồng nội tệ để kích thích xuất khẩu.
Trong tháng Chín, bất chấp chỉ trích của Mỹ và các nước khu vực đồng tiền chung châu Âu, Nhật Bản đã gia nhập đội ngũ các nước châu Á và Mỹ Latinh giảm giá đồng yen so với đồng USD để giành lợi thế xuất khẩu./.
(TTXVN/Vietnam+)
Ảnh minh họa. (Nguồn: Internet).
Các nhà kinh tế Mỹ và quốc tế cảnh báo thế giới đang tiến gần hơn đến một cuộc khủng hoảng đồng USD do nợ của nền kinh tế lớn nhất thế giới này đã tăng cao chưa từng thấy.
Ngày 28/9, Văn phòng Ngân sách của Quốc hội Mỹ (CBO) dự báo vào cuối tài khóa kết thúc vào ngày 30/9 tới, thâm hụt ngân sách của Mỹ sẽ lên mức kỷ lục 1,3 nghìn tỷ USD, tương đương với 9,1% Tổng sản phẩm quốc nội (GDP) của nước này, và sẽ lên tới đỉnh 6,27 nghìn tỷ USD trong thập kỷ tới.
CBO cho biết thêm tình hình nợ nần của nền kinh tế Mỹ ngày càng tồi tệ hơn và chưa có dấu hiệu cải thiện. Bất cứ sự lên giá nào của đồng USD cũng chỉ là tạm thời và sự mất giá ngày càng nghiêm trọng của đồng tiền này là không thể tránh khỏi.
Trong bối cảnh đó, nhà kinh tế đã từng đứng đầu Quỹ Tiền tệ Quốc tế và Ngân hàng Trung ương Pháp, ông Jacques de Larosiere, đã kêu gọi Nhóm các nền kinh tế phát triển và mới nổi (G-20) thiết lập hệ thống tiền tệ toàn cầu hài hòa hơn để ngăn chặn nguy cơ các nước đua nhau giảm giá đồng nội tệ.
Ông cho rằng hệ thống tiền tệ quốc tế hiện hành không vận hành tốt.
Trong khi đó, Bộ trưởng Tài chính Brazil, ông Guido Mantega, cho rằng cuộc chiến tranh tiền tệ quốc tế đã bắt đầu với việc các nước đua nhau giảm giá đồng nội tệ để kích thích xuất khẩu.
Trong tháng Chín, bất chấp chỉ trích của Mỹ và các nước khu vực đồng tiền chung châu Âu, Nhật Bản đã gia nhập đội ngũ các nước châu Á và Mỹ Latinh giảm giá đồng yen so với đồng USD để giành lợi thế xuất khẩu./.
(TTXVN/Vietnam+)
30/09 Khơi dậy cuộc đấu tranh quyền lực mới trong IMF
30/09/2010 15:37:00
Giám đốc điều hành Quỹ Tiền tệ quốc tế (IMF) Dominique Strauss-Kahn đã khơi dậy cuộc đấu tranh quyền lực mới trong ban điều hành IMF với tuyên bố châu Âu phải từ bỏ vị thế chi phối thể chế tài chính đa phương này để nhường một số ghế trong Ban Giám đốc cho các nước đang phát triển.
Phát biểu ngày 29/9 trước thềm hội nghị của IMF và Ngân hàng Thế giới (WB), dự kiến diễn ra trong hai ngày 8-9/10 tới tại Washington, nhà lãnh đạo IMF nêu rõ một sự nhượng bộ như vậy của châu Âu là công bằng và IMF sẽ nêu vấn đề này tại hội nghị của các nước châu Âu ở Brussels, Bỉ sắp tới. Tuy nhiên, ông khẳng định vấn đề này sẽ do các nước thành viên quyết định.
Theo Giám đốc Kahn, cơ cấu của Ban Giám đốc IMF phải phản ánh nhóm G-20, gồm các nước phát triển và đang phát triển hàng đầu. Các nền kinh tế đang phát triển mới nổi lên cũng yêu cầu châu Âu nhường một số ghế trong ban lãnh đạo thể chế này cho khối các nước đang phát triển.
Đại diện Brazil tại IMF cho rằng điều chỉnh quyền đại diện quá mức của châu Âu trong Ban Giám đốc IMF là tất yếu và cần thiết để cơ quan này đại diện rộng rãi hơn cho nền kinh tế toàn cầu.
Cuộc tranh luận về cải tổ Ban Giám đốc IMF đã nóng lên từ tháng Tám do Mỹ mở cuộc vận động liên quan đến thủ tục và cơ cấu để bầu chọn Ban Giám đốc IMF trước ngày 1/11 tới.
Các nước châu Âu lập luận nếu châu Âu từ bỏ một số ghế trong Ban Giám đốc IMF, Mỹ cũng phải từ bỏ quyền phủ quyết các quyết định của thể chế này và thỏa thuận có hiệu lực lâu nay giữa Mỹ và châu Âu, trong đó châu Âu lựa chọn Giám đốc điều hành IMF còn Mỹ lựa chọn Chủ tịch Ngân hàng Thế giới (WB). Mỹ đã bác bỏ đề nghị này.
Ban Giám đốc IMF hiện có 24 thành viên, trong đó châu Âu có 9 thành viên. Quyền bỏ phiếu và số thành viên trong Ban Giám đốc phản ánh quy mô của các nền kinh tế thời điểm thể chế này được thành lập năm 1945. Tuy nhiên, các nền kinh tế đang phát triển hiện đã chiếm tỷ lệ khá lớn trong nền kinh tế thế giới và yêu cầu phải được đại diện tương xứng trong Ban lãnh đạo IMF cũng như WB.
Tranh chấp hiện nay đã làm nổi lên nhiều vấn đề liên quan đến tương lai của hai thể chế tài chính quốc tế này./.
(TTXVN/Vietnam+)
Giám đốc điều hành IMF Dominique Strauss-Kahn. (Nguồn: AP)
Giám đốc điều hành Quỹ Tiền tệ quốc tế (IMF) Dominique Strauss-Kahn đã khơi dậy cuộc đấu tranh quyền lực mới trong ban điều hành IMF với tuyên bố châu Âu phải từ bỏ vị thế chi phối thể chế tài chính đa phương này để nhường một số ghế trong Ban Giám đốc cho các nước đang phát triển.
Phát biểu ngày 29/9 trước thềm hội nghị của IMF và Ngân hàng Thế giới (WB), dự kiến diễn ra trong hai ngày 8-9/10 tới tại Washington, nhà lãnh đạo IMF nêu rõ một sự nhượng bộ như vậy của châu Âu là công bằng và IMF sẽ nêu vấn đề này tại hội nghị của các nước châu Âu ở Brussels, Bỉ sắp tới. Tuy nhiên, ông khẳng định vấn đề này sẽ do các nước thành viên quyết định.
Theo Giám đốc Kahn, cơ cấu của Ban Giám đốc IMF phải phản ánh nhóm G-20, gồm các nước phát triển và đang phát triển hàng đầu. Các nền kinh tế đang phát triển mới nổi lên cũng yêu cầu châu Âu nhường một số ghế trong ban lãnh đạo thể chế này cho khối các nước đang phát triển.
Đại diện Brazil tại IMF cho rằng điều chỉnh quyền đại diện quá mức của châu Âu trong Ban Giám đốc IMF là tất yếu và cần thiết để cơ quan này đại diện rộng rãi hơn cho nền kinh tế toàn cầu.
Cuộc tranh luận về cải tổ Ban Giám đốc IMF đã nóng lên từ tháng Tám do Mỹ mở cuộc vận động liên quan đến thủ tục và cơ cấu để bầu chọn Ban Giám đốc IMF trước ngày 1/11 tới.
Các nước châu Âu lập luận nếu châu Âu từ bỏ một số ghế trong Ban Giám đốc IMF, Mỹ cũng phải từ bỏ quyền phủ quyết các quyết định của thể chế này và thỏa thuận có hiệu lực lâu nay giữa Mỹ và châu Âu, trong đó châu Âu lựa chọn Giám đốc điều hành IMF còn Mỹ lựa chọn Chủ tịch Ngân hàng Thế giới (WB). Mỹ đã bác bỏ đề nghị này.
Ban Giám đốc IMF hiện có 24 thành viên, trong đó châu Âu có 9 thành viên. Quyền bỏ phiếu và số thành viên trong Ban Giám đốc phản ánh quy mô của các nền kinh tế thời điểm thể chế này được thành lập năm 1945. Tuy nhiên, các nền kinh tế đang phát triển hiện đã chiếm tỷ lệ khá lớn trong nền kinh tế thế giới và yêu cầu phải được đại diện tương xứng trong Ban lãnh đạo IMF cũng như WB.
Tranh chấp hiện nay đã làm nổi lên nhiều vấn đề liên quan đến tương lai của hai thể chế tài chính quốc tế này./.
(TTXVN/Vietnam+)
22 策定進むＡＰＥＣ成長戦略 ＦＴＡ締結促進の弾みに
鍋嶋郁 アジア経済研究所主任調査研究員
農業も「自由化」を享受 韓国の政策転換に学べ
11月に横浜で行われるアジア太平洋経済協力会議（ＡＰＥＣ）首脳・閣僚会議に向けて、日本各地で関連会議が開催されている。９月25、26日にも高級実務者会合が仙台で開かれ、今年のＡＰＥＣの主要課題である「アジア太平洋自由貿易圏（ＦＴＡＡＰ）」構想や「ＡＰＥＣ成長戦略」などについて議論がなされる予定である。
今年はＡＰＥＣの今後のあり方を再考するのに格好の年である。ＡＰＥＣでは1994年に「ボゴール目標」が採択され、先進国では2010年、発展途上国では20年までの貿易自由化達成を目指してきた。本年は先進国にとってまさにボゴール目標の達成年である。同目標の掲げる「自由で開かれた貿易および投資」には明確な定義がないことから、達成されたかどうかの厳密な評価は困難であるものの、94年以降、関税などの貿易障壁は大幅に削減された。しかし一方で、貿易・投資の自由化に向けて取り組まなければならない課題がいまだ多く残されていることも事実である。
ＦＴＡＡＰ構想は、ＡＰＥＣの21カ国・地域全体で多国間の自由貿易協定（ＦＴＡ）締結を目指すものである。ＦＴＡＡＰが推奨される背景には、自主的措置のみでは真の域内貿易自由化が困難ではないかとの見方が広まっていることがある。ＦＴＡＡＰは、自主的措置を前提とするこれまでのＡＰＥＣとは性格が異なり、拘束性のあるＦＴＡとして確立されなければならない。特に重要なのが、どれだけ本当の意味での貿易自由化が達成できるかである。
ＦＴＡＡＰ実現への道筋をつけるためにも重要な議題が、ＡＰＥＣ域内の成長戦略である。現在策定されているＡＰＥＣ成長戦略案には(1)「均衡ある成長」(2)「あまねく広がる成長」(3)「持続可能な成長」(4)「革新的成長」(5)「安全な成長」の５つの要素がある。
貿易自由化を円滑に進めるためには「あまねく広がる成長」を考慮する必要がある。経済地理学の理論では、産業は自然に集積し、集積した産業はより高い生産性を持つため、産業の分布は均一にならず、ある特定地域に集中する。これは、経済構造が知的財産に由来する度合いが大きければ大きいほど強く出てくる傾向である。
貿易自由化により恩恵を受ける産業がさらなる成長を遂げ、その産業が集積する地域をより活性化させる。一方で、貿易自由化による恩恵を受けにくい産業が主体の地域では、その産業だけでなく地域全体が大きな打撃を被る可能性もある。このような産業間・地域間の貿易自由化における恩恵度の違いに配慮し、適切な政策を加味しなければ、ＦＴＡＡＰ構想への域内各国の同意、もしくは我が国の貿易自由化政策への各界からの同意を得ることが困難となり、今後の自由貿易政策の推進にとって大きな足かせとなろう。
ここで留意する必要があるのは「あまねく広がる成長」のために単純な国内産業の保護を推進するのではなく、恩恵が受けにくい産業に対してどのような政策を打ち出していくかである。言いかえれば、ＦＴＡＡＰによる恩恵が最終的にＡＰＥＣ域内全体、すべての産業、すべての人々に広く浸透していくことを意識した制度作りが必要といえよう。
ＡＰＥＣにおけるＦＴＡＡＰのみならず、貿易自由化の促進、ＦＴＡ締結は、輸出依存型の経済である我が国にとって極めて重要な課題である。本来ならば世界貿易機関（ＷＴＯ）を通じて多国間の貿易自由化が推進されるべきだが、多角的通商交渉（ドーハ・ラウンド）が停滞している今、各国は条件の合う国々と個別にＦＴＡを進めており、2000年以降150以上もの２国間ＦＴＡが締結されている。その中で日本はかなりの後れを取っている。
日本にとって、ＦＴＡ締結の最大の障壁となっているのが農業保護政策である。その結果、経済協力開発機構（ＯＥＣＤ）の09年のデータをみると、農産物の国内価格を国境価格（輸入品の自国到着時点の価格）で割って計算する「名目保護指数」が日本は1.80に達し、ＯＥＣＤ加盟国平均（1.13）と比べて非常に高い。今後の我が国のＦＴＡ戦略を考える上で、この問題の解決が不可欠である。すでに述べたように「あまねく広がる成長」は国内産業の保護を推進するのではなく、恩恵を受けにくい産業に対していかなる政策を打ち出していくかが重要であり、農業問題の解決も同様の発想方法で臨むべきである。
まず、第一歩として、農産物の輸入規制緩和を促し、徐々に自由化の方向へ政策転換を図るべきであろう。日本もウルグアイ・ラウンド合意後、農産物の関税化に踏み切り、形式上は自由化の方向に向かった。しかし、保護対象となっている農産物の関税があまりに高く、ほとんど輸入禁止措置と変わらないのが現状である。少なくとも、これらの関税をある程度下げ、国際市場との関連性を高めていかなくてはいけない。
それと同時に農業政策の大幅な見直しも必要である。政府は、将来的に貿易自由化の恩恵を受けられる農業を目指し、そういった姿へと移行するための援助を積極的に行うべきである。具体的には、農地規模の拡大（大規模専業農家・企業の参入）、専業農家に限定した支援、確立されたゾーニングによる農地の確保、輸出産業化などである。
一方で、現在の農家への戸別所得補償制度は保護対象者の適切なターゲティングができているとは言い難く、財源の有効活用の観点から更なる見直しが必要である。専業・兼業農家の区別なく、そのうえ、農家の所得減が貿易の影響か否かの判断なしに、画一的に補償する「バラマキ」は、真に日本の農業を活性化させる政策とはなり得ない。
かつて、韓国も日本と同様に、国内農業を保護してきた。しかしながら、韓国政府は「119兆ウォン投融資計画」を掲げて農業政策を見直し、ＦＴＡ締結に向けて邁進（まいしん）している。この計画は04年から13年までの10年間における農業対策である。農村インフラ整備と、短期的被害補償などの直接支払いに加え、特筆すべき項目は専業農家20万戸育成、営農規模拡大、優秀品種開発、世代交代の促進などである。農業の中・長期的な競争力向上を目標とし、農家の所得を競争力向上によって賄おうとしている。これは韓国政府がＦＴＡなしでは今後の韓国経済の成長は望めないと認識しているからである。
この政策が成功する保証はない。しかしながら、韓国のこのような大胆な農業政策は国内農家のＦＴＡへの反発を抑える上で一定の役割を果たし、米国など主要国とのＦＴＡ早期締結合意に寄与した。これによって韓国企業の米国市場へのアクセスは日本企業よりも有利になり、今後の韓国産業界にとって、明るい材料となっている。
日本も今後ＦＴＡを促進する中で、農業政策の見直しが必要である。農業を保護が必要な脆弱（ぜいじゃく）な産業としてとらえるのではなく、成長産業・輸出産業となり得る産業として認識し、そのための政策を打ち出していくべきである。実際、アジア諸国では、日本の農産物は高品質・安全という評判である。中国においては乳製品へのメラミン混入など食品安全面で問題が発生したために日本からの粉乳の輸出が倍増しており、その他の日本産農産物・食品も高価ながらも堅調な伸びを見せている。この機会をうまく活用し、農業も製造業と共に成長産業として、貿易自由化の恩恵を十分に享受できる産業になるべきである。
ＡＰＥＣが「貿易・投資の自由化」と「成長戦略」の両者を有機的に連関させつつ推進しようとしていることは大いに時宜を得たものである。我が国自身も同様のアプローチを取り、多国間ＦＴＡの枠組みである環太平洋戦略的経済パートナーシップ（ＴＰＰ）への参加など、貿易投資自由化の積極的推進を図らなければならない時期に来ている。このまま内向的政策を続け、徐々にグローバル経済から離脱し、経済力が衰えていくのを容認するのか。それとも今まで以上に世界経済と深く連携し「あまねく広がる成長」の戦略を取るのか。今の選択により日本経済の将来の明暗は分かれるであろう。
<ポイント>
○ＡＰＥＣ、真の自由化へ残された課題多い
○自由化推進に「あまねく広がる成長」戦略
○韓国の大胆な農業政策はＦＴＡ推進に寄与
農業も「自由化」を享受 韓国の政策転換に学べ
11月に横浜で行われるアジア太平洋経済協力会議（ＡＰＥＣ）首脳・閣僚会議に向けて、日本各地で関連会議が開催されている。９月25、26日にも高級実務者会合が仙台で開かれ、今年のＡＰＥＣの主要課題である「アジア太平洋自由貿易圏（ＦＴＡＡＰ）」構想や「ＡＰＥＣ成長戦略」などについて議論がなされる予定である。
今年はＡＰＥＣの今後のあり方を再考するのに格好の年である。ＡＰＥＣでは1994年に「ボゴール目標」が採択され、先進国では2010年、発展途上国では20年までの貿易自由化達成を目指してきた。本年は先進国にとってまさにボゴール目標の達成年である。同目標の掲げる「自由で開かれた貿易および投資」には明確な定義がないことから、達成されたかどうかの厳密な評価は困難であるものの、94年以降、関税などの貿易障壁は大幅に削減された。しかし一方で、貿易・投資の自由化に向けて取り組まなければならない課題がいまだ多く残されていることも事実である。
ＦＴＡＡＰ構想は、ＡＰＥＣの21カ国・地域全体で多国間の自由貿易協定（ＦＴＡ）締結を目指すものである。ＦＴＡＡＰが推奨される背景には、自主的措置のみでは真の域内貿易自由化が困難ではないかとの見方が広まっていることがある。ＦＴＡＡＰは、自主的措置を前提とするこれまでのＡＰＥＣとは性格が異なり、拘束性のあるＦＴＡとして確立されなければならない。特に重要なのが、どれだけ本当の意味での貿易自由化が達成できるかである。
ＦＴＡＡＰ実現への道筋をつけるためにも重要な議題が、ＡＰＥＣ域内の成長戦略である。現在策定されているＡＰＥＣ成長戦略案には(1)「均衡ある成長」(2)「あまねく広がる成長」(3)「持続可能な成長」(4)「革新的成長」(5)「安全な成長」の５つの要素がある。
貿易自由化を円滑に進めるためには「あまねく広がる成長」を考慮する必要がある。経済地理学の理論では、産業は自然に集積し、集積した産業はより高い生産性を持つため、産業の分布は均一にならず、ある特定地域に集中する。これは、経済構造が知的財産に由来する度合いが大きければ大きいほど強く出てくる傾向である。
貿易自由化により恩恵を受ける産業がさらなる成長を遂げ、その産業が集積する地域をより活性化させる。一方で、貿易自由化による恩恵を受けにくい産業が主体の地域では、その産業だけでなく地域全体が大きな打撃を被る可能性もある。このような産業間・地域間の貿易自由化における恩恵度の違いに配慮し、適切な政策を加味しなければ、ＦＴＡＡＰ構想への域内各国の同意、もしくは我が国の貿易自由化政策への各界からの同意を得ることが困難となり、今後の自由貿易政策の推進にとって大きな足かせとなろう。
ここで留意する必要があるのは「あまねく広がる成長」のために単純な国内産業の保護を推進するのではなく、恩恵が受けにくい産業に対してどのような政策を打ち出していくかである。言いかえれば、ＦＴＡＡＰによる恩恵が最終的にＡＰＥＣ域内全体、すべての産業、すべての人々に広く浸透していくことを意識した制度作りが必要といえよう。
ＡＰＥＣにおけるＦＴＡＡＰのみならず、貿易自由化の促進、ＦＴＡ締結は、輸出依存型の経済である我が国にとって極めて重要な課題である。本来ならば世界貿易機関（ＷＴＯ）を通じて多国間の貿易自由化が推進されるべきだが、多角的通商交渉（ドーハ・ラウンド）が停滞している今、各国は条件の合う国々と個別にＦＴＡを進めており、2000年以降150以上もの２国間ＦＴＡが締結されている。その中で日本はかなりの後れを取っている。
日本にとって、ＦＴＡ締結の最大の障壁となっているのが農業保護政策である。その結果、経済協力開発機構（ＯＥＣＤ）の09年のデータをみると、農産物の国内価格を国境価格（輸入品の自国到着時点の価格）で割って計算する「名目保護指数」が日本は1.80に達し、ＯＥＣＤ加盟国平均（1.13）と比べて非常に高い。今後の我が国のＦＴＡ戦略を考える上で、この問題の解決が不可欠である。すでに述べたように「あまねく広がる成長」は国内産業の保護を推進するのではなく、恩恵を受けにくい産業に対していかなる政策を打ち出していくかが重要であり、農業問題の解決も同様の発想方法で臨むべきである。
まず、第一歩として、農産物の輸入規制緩和を促し、徐々に自由化の方向へ政策転換を図るべきであろう。日本もウルグアイ・ラウンド合意後、農産物の関税化に踏み切り、形式上は自由化の方向に向かった。しかし、保護対象となっている農産物の関税があまりに高く、ほとんど輸入禁止措置と変わらないのが現状である。少なくとも、これらの関税をある程度下げ、国際市場との関連性を高めていかなくてはいけない。
それと同時に農業政策の大幅な見直しも必要である。政府は、将来的に貿易自由化の恩恵を受けられる農業を目指し、そういった姿へと移行するための援助を積極的に行うべきである。具体的には、農地規模の拡大（大規模専業農家・企業の参入）、専業農家に限定した支援、確立されたゾーニングによる農地の確保、輸出産業化などである。
一方で、現在の農家への戸別所得補償制度は保護対象者の適切なターゲティングができているとは言い難く、財源の有効活用の観点から更なる見直しが必要である。専業・兼業農家の区別なく、そのうえ、農家の所得減が貿易の影響か否かの判断なしに、画一的に補償する「バラマキ」は、真に日本の農業を活性化させる政策とはなり得ない。
かつて、韓国も日本と同様に、国内農業を保護してきた。しかしながら、韓国政府は「119兆ウォン投融資計画」を掲げて農業政策を見直し、ＦＴＡ締結に向けて邁進（まいしん）している。この計画は04年から13年までの10年間における農業対策である。農村インフラ整備と、短期的被害補償などの直接支払いに加え、特筆すべき項目は専業農家20万戸育成、営農規模拡大、優秀品種開発、世代交代の促進などである。農業の中・長期的な競争力向上を目標とし、農家の所得を競争力向上によって賄おうとしている。これは韓国政府がＦＴＡなしでは今後の韓国経済の成長は望めないと認識しているからである。
この政策が成功する保証はない。しかしながら、韓国のこのような大胆な農業政策は国内農家のＦＴＡへの反発を抑える上で一定の役割を果たし、米国など主要国とのＦＴＡ早期締結合意に寄与した。これによって韓国企業の米国市場へのアクセスは日本企業よりも有利になり、今後の韓国産業界にとって、明るい材料となっている。
日本も今後ＦＴＡを促進する中で、農業政策の見直しが必要である。農業を保護が必要な脆弱（ぜいじゃく）な産業としてとらえるのではなく、成長産業・輸出産業となり得る産業として認識し、そのための政策を打ち出していくべきである。実際、アジア諸国では、日本の農産物は高品質・安全という評判である。中国においては乳製品へのメラミン混入など食品安全面で問題が発生したために日本からの粉乳の輸出が倍増しており、その他の日本産農産物・食品も高価ながらも堅調な伸びを見せている。この機会をうまく活用し、農業も製造業と共に成長産業として、貿易自由化の恩恵を十分に享受できる産業になるべきである。
ＡＰＥＣが「貿易・投資の自由化」と「成長戦略」の両者を有機的に連関させつつ推進しようとしていることは大いに時宜を得たものである。我が国自身も同様のアプローチを取り、多国間ＦＴＡの枠組みである環太平洋戦略的経済パートナーシップ（ＴＰＰ）への参加など、貿易投資自由化の積極的推進を図らなければならない時期に来ている。このまま内向的政策を続け、徐々にグローバル経済から離脱し、経済力が衰えていくのを容認するのか。それとも今まで以上に世界経済と深く連携し「あまねく広がる成長」の戦略を取るのか。今の選択により日本経済の将来の明暗は分かれるであろう。
<ポイント>
○ＡＰＥＣ、真の自由化へ残された課題多い
○自由化推進に「あまねく広がる成長」戦略
○韓国の大胆な農業政策はＦＴＡ推進に寄与
22/09 米・ＡＳＥＡＮ 連携加速
首脳会議共同声明案 経済・安保など広範に
南シナ海問題 中国をけん制 div/div.JSID_key_html
$.JSID_actGadgetReload_scrap
../../.cmn-article_title/span.JSID_key_fonthlm ../../.cmn-section/.cmn-small_headline/h5.JSID_key_fonthlm ../../h4.JSID_key_fonthlm ../../.cmn-section/.cmn-article_title/span.JSID_key_fonthlm ../../.cmn-article_title/span.JSID_key_fonthln ../../.cmn-section/.cmn-small_headline/h5.JSID_key_fonthln ../../h4.JSID_key_fonthln ../../.cmn-section/.cmn-article_title/span.JSID_key_fonthln ../../.cmn-article_title/span.JSID_key_fonttxt ../../.cmn-section/.cmn-small_headline/h5.JSID_key_fonttxt ../../h4.JSID_key_fonttxt ../../.cmn-section/.cmn-article_title/span.JSID_key_fonttxt ../../.cmn-section/.knc-article_wrapper/div.JSID_key_fonttxt ../../div.JSID_key_fonttxt ../../.cmn-section/div.JSID_key_fonttxt ../../.cmn-indent/ul.JSID_key_fonttxt ###保存#印刷
【ハノイ＝岩本陽一】米国と東南アジア諸国連合（ＡＳＥＡＮ/async/async.do/ae=P_LK_ILTERM;g=96958A90889DE2E6E3EAE7E6E5E2E3E4E2E1E0E2E3E29BE0E2E2E2E2;dv=pc;sv=KN）が戦略的パートナーシップの構築に動き出す。24日にニューヨークで開く米ＡＳＥＡＮ首脳会議で、経済や安全保障など幅広い分野の包括連携で合意する。「東アジア共同体」構想の推進で主導権を握るとともに、南シナ海の領有権問題で中国をけん制する狙いがある。ＡＳＥＡＮは日中韓３カ国を軸に域外連携を進めてきたが、今後は米国の関与も受け入れ、東アジア全体の成長を目指す。
米国はオバマ政権になってＡＳＥＡＮに急接近している（７月、ハノイのＡＳＥＡＮ関連会議に出席したクリントン国務長官）＝ＡＰ
２回目となる今回の首脳会議で採択する共同声明の原案によると、米とＡＳＥＡＮは「賢人会議」を活用して包括連携の中身を協議。2011年までに「具体的かつ実務的な提言」をまとめる。
オバマ米大統領は来年からＡＳＥＡＮと日中韓など16カ国で構成してきた東アジア首脳会議（サミット）に出席する方針。米国はＡＳＥＡＮとの連携強化を足がかりに、東アジア共同体を巡る今後の議論で発言力を高める方針。今年から同サミットに加わる予定のロシアに対抗する狙いもある。
共同声明案は包括連携の大枠について、投資・貿易の拡大、知的財産権の保護、科学技術分野での協力、エネルギー開発や食料安保での協調などを盛り込んだ。
安保分野では中国やベトナム、フィリピンなどが争う南沙（スプラトリー）諸島と西沙（パラセル）諸島を中心とする南シナ海の領有権問題について「地域の平和と安定を重視する」との方針を強調。船舶の航行が妨げられるなどの事件が発生しないよう関係国に要請した。ベトナムでは中国によって漁船が拿捕（だほ）される事件が相次いでおり、間接的な表現ながら同海域で影響力を強める中国をけん制した。
同問題を巡る共同声明案には当初、中国により厳しい内容が盛り込まれていたが、改訂版では削除された。経済面などでＡＳＥＡＮは中国依存を強めており、関係悪化を懸念するＡＳＥＡＮが米側に修正を要請したとみられる。一方、中国外務省の姜瑜副報道局長は21日の記者会見で「南シナ海に関係ない国家が南シナ海の争いに手を出すことに断固反対する」と述べ、関与を強める米への反発を改めて示した。
11月に総選挙を実施するミャンマーには「国民和解に向け政治・経済の改革に期待する」と表記、軍事政権への厳しい批判は盛り込まなかった。
米とＡＳＥＡＮの首脳はシンガポールで昨年11月、初会合を開いた。米国は経済・産業分野での関係強化を狙って成長ペースの速いＡＳＥＡＮに接近。ブッシュ政権時代に手薄になった東南アジア政策で巻き返しを進めている。米国は10月に第１回会合が予定されているＡＳＥＡＮ拡大国防相会議にも参加する方針。ＡＳＥＡＮへの関与を深め、軍備拡張を進める中国への警戒を強める戦略の一環とみられる。
南シナ海問題 中国をけん制 div/div.JSID_key_html
$.JSID_actGadgetReload_scrap
../../.cmn-article_title/span.JSID_key_fonthlm ../../.cmn-section/.cmn-small_headline/h5.JSID_key_fonthlm ../../h4.JSID_key_fonthlm ../../.cmn-section/.cmn-article_title/span.JSID_key_fonthlm ../../.cmn-article_title/span.JSID_key_fonthln ../../.cmn-section/.cmn-small_headline/h5.JSID_key_fonthln ../../h4.JSID_key_fonthln ../../.cmn-section/.cmn-article_title/span.JSID_key_fonthln ../../.cmn-article_title/span.JSID_key_fonttxt ../../.cmn-section/.cmn-small_headline/h5.JSID_key_fonttxt ../../h4.JSID_key_fonttxt ../../.cmn-section/.cmn-article_title/span.JSID_key_fonttxt ../../.cmn-section/.knc-article_wrapper/div.JSID_key_fonttxt ../../div.JSID_key_fonttxt ../../.cmn-section/div.JSID_key_fonttxt ../../.cmn-indent/ul.JSID_key_fonttxt ###保存#印刷
【ハノイ＝岩本陽一】米国と東南アジア諸国連合（ＡＳＥＡＮ/async/async.do/ae=P_LK_ILTERM;g=96958A90889DE2E6E3EAE7E6E5E2E3E4E2E1E0E2E3E29BE0E2E2E2E2;dv=pc;sv=KN）が戦略的パートナーシップの構築に動き出す。24日にニューヨークで開く米ＡＳＥＡＮ首脳会議で、経済や安全保障など幅広い分野の包括連携で合意する。「東アジア共同体」構想の推進で主導権を握るとともに、南シナ海の領有権問題で中国をけん制する狙いがある。ＡＳＥＡＮは日中韓３カ国を軸に域外連携を進めてきたが、今後は米国の関与も受け入れ、東アジア全体の成長を目指す。
米国はオバマ政権になってＡＳＥＡＮに急接近している（７月、ハノイのＡＳＥＡＮ関連会議に出席したクリントン国務長官）＝ＡＰ
２回目となる今回の首脳会議で採択する共同声明の原案によると、米とＡＳＥＡＮは「賢人会議」を活用して包括連携の中身を協議。2011年までに「具体的かつ実務的な提言」をまとめる。
オバマ米大統領は来年からＡＳＥＡＮと日中韓など16カ国で構成してきた東アジア首脳会議（サミット）に出席する方針。米国はＡＳＥＡＮとの連携強化を足がかりに、東アジア共同体を巡る今後の議論で発言力を高める方針。今年から同サミットに加わる予定のロシアに対抗する狙いもある。
共同声明案は包括連携の大枠について、投資・貿易の拡大、知的財産権の保護、科学技術分野での協力、エネルギー開発や食料安保での協調などを盛り込んだ。
安保分野では中国やベトナム、フィリピンなどが争う南沙（スプラトリー）諸島と西沙（パラセル）諸島を中心とする南シナ海の領有権問題について「地域の平和と安定を重視する」との方針を強調。船舶の航行が妨げられるなどの事件が発生しないよう関係国に要請した。ベトナムでは中国によって漁船が拿捕（だほ）される事件が相次いでおり、間接的な表現ながら同海域で影響力を強める中国をけん制した。
同問題を巡る共同声明案には当初、中国により厳しい内容が盛り込まれていたが、改訂版では削除された。経済面などでＡＳＥＡＮは中国依存を強めており、関係悪化を懸念するＡＳＥＡＮが米側に修正を要請したとみられる。一方、中国外務省の姜瑜副報道局長は21日の記者会見で「南シナ海に関係ない国家が南シナ海の争いに手を出すことに断固反対する」と述べ、関与を強める米への反発を改めて示した。
11月に総選挙を実施するミャンマーには「国民和解に向け政治・経済の改革に期待する」と表記、軍事政権への厳しい批判は盛り込まなかった。
米とＡＳＥＡＮの首脳はシンガポールで昨年11月、初会合を開いた。米国は経済・産業分野での関係強化を狙って成長ペースの速いＡＳＥＡＮに接近。ブッシュ政権時代に手薄になった東南アジア政策で巻き返しを進めている。米国は10月に第１回会合が予定されているＡＳＥＡＮ拡大国防相会議にも参加する方針。ＡＳＥＡＮへの関与を深め、軍備拡張を進める中国への警戒を強める戦略の一環とみられる。
国家公務員制度改革論点 （下）「個」の意欲引き出す環境を
加藤創太 国際大学教授
政官の分担、明確に 内閣機能の強化は重要
公務員制度改革が主要な政治的アジェンダ（政策課題）になってからすでに10年以上たつ。その間、国家公務員法が数度にわたり改正され、行政改革推進法、国家公務員制度改革基本法などが成立し、様々な「大綱」や「方針」が閣議決定された。法改正や新法制定には政府内の膨大なエネルギーと時間が費やされ、毎年のように新たな改革案が提示される。なぜ延々と改革論議が続くのだろうか。
政治学において、世論が割れず一方向に流れる争点を合意争点（ｖａｌｅｎｃｅ ｉｓｓｕｅ）という。政治倫理、環境などが典型例として挙げられる。公務員制度改革もその一つといえよう。政治主導の実現、公務員組織のスリム化、といった基本部分について、世論の大勢も主要政党もメディアも、同じ方向を向いている。
こうした合意争点は、しかし、いったん具体案が政権与党から提示されると、途端に対立争点（ｐｏｓｉｔｉｏｎ ｉｓｓｕｅ）に転じることが多い。世論の方向性が明らかであるため、与党案では「手ぬるい」という批判や対案を、与党内の対抗勢力や野党などが出してくるからである。
2008年に当時与党であった自民党が国会に提出した国家公務員制度改革基本法を、民主党は「手ぬるい」と激しく批判した。しかし、政権交代後に民主党が提出した国家公務員法改正案に対しては、今度は自民党が「手ぬるい」と批判している。
公務員制度改革の重要性は非常に大きいが、政策課題が山積する中、延々と議論を続け改革競争をエスカレートさせていくのは適切ではない。
こうした議論を収斂（しゅうれん）させるためには、超党派での取り組みが有効となる。参院選後の衆参ねじれ現象は、必然的に超党派の政策形成を促すため、そのよい機会となるだろう。実際、玄葉光一郎前公務員制度改革担当相は、他党との政策協議に前向きな発言をしていた。
超党派での取り組みにあたっては、「改革派」対「抵抗勢力」の浅薄な二元論ではなく、制度改革の目的や根本理念に立ち返った骨太の議論を望みたい。公務員制度改革論争は、基本の方向性では一致しつつお互いの差異を強調してきたため、細かな法制度論の隘路（あいろ）にはまり込んでいる。半面、基本方向についての批判が少ないので、根幹部分の議論は粗い。
公務員制度改革の目的は、(1)国家と公務員の目指す方向性を一致させ(2)政官の役割分担を定め(3)目指すべき方向性に向け「個」の公務員の意欲・活力を最大化させることに尽きるはずである。これは企業など他の組織改革と変わらない。(1)(2)(3)を実現する上での制約要因は、権力分立原則、公務員の中立性の維持、公務員人件費縮減の必要性、などである。
図を見れば、この目的の実現が容易ではないことがわかる。日本は先進民主主義国家の中で、人口当たりの国家公務員数が非常に少ない。その上さらに公務員人件費を縮減しつつ、望ましい公務員制度改革を達成するためには、よほど効率良く(1)(2)(3)を達成しなければならない。
ここ10年以上の公務員制度改革は(1)の国家と公務員の方向性の一致に終始してきた。その中心が、官僚主導から政治主導への動きだ。省益に走りがちな官僚を、選挙で選ばれた政治家が主導し、国民の望む方向へ向けさせる、というロジックである。
民主党政権が提示した改革案の多くも(1)についてである。彼らが目指す政治主導は、基本的には政党主導ではなく、「内閣主導」である。特に重点が置かれているのは縦割り行政の打破で、幹部人事の一元化、内閣人事局の設置、国家戦略局（室）の設置などはいずれもその視点のものだ。
低成長、少子高齢化時代を迎え、政治・行政には「何を捨て、何を取るか」という調整機能が求められる。そのためにも縦割り行政の打破と内閣機能の強化は極めて重要である。その意味で、幹部公務員人事の横の流動化は必要であり、国家戦略室の機能は縮小されるべきでない。
しかし、幹部人事の一元化や内閣人事局の設置などを通じ、政治家が公務員の人事権を強く握ることについては、公務員の中立性や権力分立の観点から慎重な検討が必要だ。公務員は内閣の指揮命令に服すると同時に「全体の奉仕者」（憲法15条）として政治的中立性も要求される。この両者の微妙なバランスには敏感でなければならない。実際、民主党が政治主導のモデルとする英国では、大臣の公務員に対する人事権を認めていない。
政治家が幹部公務員に対して強い人事権を持てば、幹部公務員は政治家の歓心を買うために政治化する。しかし、官僚が政治家と一体化し利害調整を担うことになれば、それは「自民党時代の族議員・官僚主導」への逆戻りとなるのではないか。
望ましい政治主導とは、政治家と官僚が一体化することではないはずだ。選挙で選ばれた政治家が方向性やプライオリティーを示し、官僚は専門知識を生かして政策の選択肢を示すといった役割分担こそが必要となる。
その際、政治家が、党利党略や選挙区利益のため公務員を「主導」しないよう監視することも必要となる。政官の接触制限を導入すべきである。また、政党や政務三役の意思決定過程の透明化も重要となる。そのためにドイツなどに見られる政党法の発展的な導入や、政務三役会議の議事録公開を検討すべきだ。
公務員制度改革の論議のおそらく最大の特徴は(3)「個」の公務員の意欲最大化についての議論が驚くほど欠けていることである。当然のことながら、組織のパフォーマンスは個の構成員の能力と意欲にかかっている。優秀な人材を確保し、彼らが意欲とプライドを持って、自らの知力や創造力を前向きに絞り出すような環境をつくる必要がある。
企業などの組織改革でトップが最も重視するのは、構成員へのインセンティブ（誘因）の付与であろう。適切なインセンティブを与えることで構成員を前向きに正しい方向へと誘導できれば、構成員の意欲の最大化だけでなく、組織と構成員の方向性の一致も実現できるからだ。これに対し、トップが構成員を強権的に抑えつければ、方向性は一致できるかもしれないが、意欲が損なわれる。
だが、同じ人間の組織を扱っているにもかかわらず、公務員制度改革では公務員にインセンティブを与えるという前向きの議論は少なかった。代わりに、公務員の行動規制や法律の抜け穴をふさぐことばかりに熱を上げてきた。これは企業でいえば、抜本的な経営改革をするのに就業規則の改定ばかりに熱中するようなものだ。
天下り問題もインセンティブの観点から考えることができる。天下りは、退官後に高額の報酬を与える制度であるため、組織に対する長期的な忠誠のインセンティブとなっていた。しかしこれは、縦割り行政の弊害が叫ばれる現在ではむしろ逆効果であろう。民主党案のように天下りのあっせんを禁止しつつ、定年を実質延長する方向に進むことが望ましい。
最後に、公務員制度改革についての問題点と取るべき方向性についてまとめたい。
１つは、改革のベースとなる基本的な点について、政治哲学や理論、データを基に検討し直すべきである。たとえば、自民党政権では官僚主導だったと思われているが、政治学者の丹念な実証研究の結果は、否定的なものが多い。
２つ目は、政治制度改革との連動である。政治家が、党利や部分利益でなく全体利益のため公務員を主導するよう、国民が政務三役や政党を監視できる制度が必要となる。
３つ目は、上からの法規制ではなく、個を中心に置いた制度設計を進める必要があるという点だ。公務員制度の根源は、個々の公務員の能力と意欲である。彼らの創造力や活力を最大限に引き出すようなインセンティブ付けが必要となる。若手公務員の声にもっと耳を傾けるべきだ。法律家でなく、経営者や経営学者の視点が重要となる。
そして最後は、国家ビジョンである。これがあってはじめて、公務員制度も、個の公務員が向くべき方向性も、最終的に定まってくるはずだ。
<ポイント>
○公務員制度の議論、超党派の取り組み有効
○従来は「国家と公務員の方向性一致」に終始
○国家ビジョン踏まえた骨太の改革議論必要
政官の分担、明確に 内閣機能の強化は重要
公務員制度改革が主要な政治的アジェンダ（政策課題）になってからすでに10年以上たつ。その間、国家公務員法が数度にわたり改正され、行政改革推進法、国家公務員制度改革基本法などが成立し、様々な「大綱」や「方針」が閣議決定された。法改正や新法制定には政府内の膨大なエネルギーと時間が費やされ、毎年のように新たな改革案が提示される。なぜ延々と改革論議が続くのだろうか。
政治学において、世論が割れず一方向に流れる争点を合意争点（ｖａｌｅｎｃｅ ｉｓｓｕｅ）という。政治倫理、環境などが典型例として挙げられる。公務員制度改革もその一つといえよう。政治主導の実現、公務員組織のスリム化、といった基本部分について、世論の大勢も主要政党もメディアも、同じ方向を向いている。
こうした合意争点は、しかし、いったん具体案が政権与党から提示されると、途端に対立争点（ｐｏｓｉｔｉｏｎ ｉｓｓｕｅ）に転じることが多い。世論の方向性が明らかであるため、与党案では「手ぬるい」という批判や対案を、与党内の対抗勢力や野党などが出してくるからである。
2008年に当時与党であった自民党が国会に提出した国家公務員制度改革基本法を、民主党は「手ぬるい」と激しく批判した。しかし、政権交代後に民主党が提出した国家公務員法改正案に対しては、今度は自民党が「手ぬるい」と批判している。
公務員制度改革の重要性は非常に大きいが、政策課題が山積する中、延々と議論を続け改革競争をエスカレートさせていくのは適切ではない。
こうした議論を収斂（しゅうれん）させるためには、超党派での取り組みが有効となる。参院選後の衆参ねじれ現象は、必然的に超党派の政策形成を促すため、そのよい機会となるだろう。実際、玄葉光一郎前公務員制度改革担当相は、他党との政策協議に前向きな発言をしていた。
超党派での取り組みにあたっては、「改革派」対「抵抗勢力」の浅薄な二元論ではなく、制度改革の目的や根本理念に立ち返った骨太の議論を望みたい。公務員制度改革論争は、基本の方向性では一致しつつお互いの差異を強調してきたため、細かな法制度論の隘路（あいろ）にはまり込んでいる。半面、基本方向についての批判が少ないので、根幹部分の議論は粗い。
公務員制度改革の目的は、(1)国家と公務員の目指す方向性を一致させ(2)政官の役割分担を定め(3)目指すべき方向性に向け「個」の公務員の意欲・活力を最大化させることに尽きるはずである。これは企業など他の組織改革と変わらない。(1)(2)(3)を実現する上での制約要因は、権力分立原則、公務員の中立性の維持、公務員人件費縮減の必要性、などである。
図を見れば、この目的の実現が容易ではないことがわかる。日本は先進民主主義国家の中で、人口当たりの国家公務員数が非常に少ない。その上さらに公務員人件費を縮減しつつ、望ましい公務員制度改革を達成するためには、よほど効率良く(1)(2)(3)を達成しなければならない。
ここ10年以上の公務員制度改革は(1)の国家と公務員の方向性の一致に終始してきた。その中心が、官僚主導から政治主導への動きだ。省益に走りがちな官僚を、選挙で選ばれた政治家が主導し、国民の望む方向へ向けさせる、というロジックである。
民主党政権が提示した改革案の多くも(1)についてである。彼らが目指す政治主導は、基本的には政党主導ではなく、「内閣主導」である。特に重点が置かれているのは縦割り行政の打破で、幹部人事の一元化、内閣人事局の設置、国家戦略局（室）の設置などはいずれもその視点のものだ。
低成長、少子高齢化時代を迎え、政治・行政には「何を捨て、何を取るか」という調整機能が求められる。そのためにも縦割り行政の打破と内閣機能の強化は極めて重要である。その意味で、幹部公務員人事の横の流動化は必要であり、国家戦略室の機能は縮小されるべきでない。
しかし、幹部人事の一元化や内閣人事局の設置などを通じ、政治家が公務員の人事権を強く握ることについては、公務員の中立性や権力分立の観点から慎重な検討が必要だ。公務員は内閣の指揮命令に服すると同時に「全体の奉仕者」（憲法15条）として政治的中立性も要求される。この両者の微妙なバランスには敏感でなければならない。実際、民主党が政治主導のモデルとする英国では、大臣の公務員に対する人事権を認めていない。
政治家が幹部公務員に対して強い人事権を持てば、幹部公務員は政治家の歓心を買うために政治化する。しかし、官僚が政治家と一体化し利害調整を担うことになれば、それは「自民党時代の族議員・官僚主導」への逆戻りとなるのではないか。
望ましい政治主導とは、政治家と官僚が一体化することではないはずだ。選挙で選ばれた政治家が方向性やプライオリティーを示し、官僚は専門知識を生かして政策の選択肢を示すといった役割分担こそが必要となる。
その際、政治家が、党利党略や選挙区利益のため公務員を「主導」しないよう監視することも必要となる。政官の接触制限を導入すべきである。また、政党や政務三役の意思決定過程の透明化も重要となる。そのためにドイツなどに見られる政党法の発展的な導入や、政務三役会議の議事録公開を検討すべきだ。
公務員制度改革の論議のおそらく最大の特徴は(3)「個」の公務員の意欲最大化についての議論が驚くほど欠けていることである。当然のことながら、組織のパフォーマンスは個の構成員の能力と意欲にかかっている。優秀な人材を確保し、彼らが意欲とプライドを持って、自らの知力や創造力を前向きに絞り出すような環境をつくる必要がある。
企業などの組織改革でトップが最も重視するのは、構成員へのインセンティブ（誘因）の付与であろう。適切なインセンティブを与えることで構成員を前向きに正しい方向へと誘導できれば、構成員の意欲の最大化だけでなく、組織と構成員の方向性の一致も実現できるからだ。これに対し、トップが構成員を強権的に抑えつければ、方向性は一致できるかもしれないが、意欲が損なわれる。
だが、同じ人間の組織を扱っているにもかかわらず、公務員制度改革では公務員にインセンティブを与えるという前向きの議論は少なかった。代わりに、公務員の行動規制や法律の抜け穴をふさぐことばかりに熱を上げてきた。これは企業でいえば、抜本的な経営改革をするのに就業規則の改定ばかりに熱中するようなものだ。
天下り問題もインセンティブの観点から考えることができる。天下りは、退官後に高額の報酬を与える制度であるため、組織に対する長期的な忠誠のインセンティブとなっていた。しかしこれは、縦割り行政の弊害が叫ばれる現在ではむしろ逆効果であろう。民主党案のように天下りのあっせんを禁止しつつ、定年を実質延長する方向に進むことが望ましい。
最後に、公務員制度改革についての問題点と取るべき方向性についてまとめたい。
１つは、改革のベースとなる基本的な点について、政治哲学や理論、データを基に検討し直すべきである。たとえば、自民党政権では官僚主導だったと思われているが、政治学者の丹念な実証研究の結果は、否定的なものが多い。
２つ目は、政治制度改革との連動である。政治家が、党利や部分利益でなく全体利益のため公務員を主導するよう、国民が政務三役や政党を監視できる制度が必要となる。
３つ目は、上からの法規制ではなく、個を中心に置いた制度設計を進める必要があるという点だ。公務員制度の根源は、個々の公務員の能力と意欲である。彼らの創造力や活力を最大限に引き出すようなインセンティブ付けが必要となる。若手公務員の声にもっと耳を傾けるべきだ。法律家でなく、経営者や経営学者の視点が重要となる。
そして最後は、国家ビジョンである。これがあってはじめて、公務員制度も、個の公務員が向くべき方向性も、最終的に定まってくるはずだ。
<ポイント>
○公務員制度の議論、超党派の取り組み有効
○従来は「国家と公務員の方向性一致」に終始
○国家ビジョン踏まえた骨太の改革議論必要
20/09 公務員制度改革論点 （上）政治的中立性も重視を
稲継裕昭 早稲田大学教授
天下り廃止は不可避 人件費削減、現実的な案に
終戦直後の1947年に制定された国家公務員法は、戦前の身分的な官吏制度を改革し、民主的で能率的な公務運営を確保するための公務員制度を確立しようとするものであった。翌年、労働基本権の制約と、その代償措置として人事院の創設を目玉とする大改正がなされたが、それから半世紀の間、日本の公務員制度は抜本的な改革を経験してこなかった。
以前なら、国民の間には「キャリア官僚たちはエリート意識が鼻持ちならないし、天下りもあってねたましいが、金銭面で手を汚すことは少なく（なぜなら退職金や天下りが“人質”になっている）、日本の経済発展に貢献している」という意識がある程度共有されていたと考えられる。実際、80年代の世論調査では、天下りに対する批判は少なく、今とは隔世の感がある。
長年運用されてきた国家公務員制度の根幹は、二重の「将棋の駒」の形で、かつ「アップ・オア・アウト型」の昇進管理にあった（図の上）。まず各省ごとの採用時点でキャリア（上級甲）とノンキャリア（中級・初級）を分ける。同期で採用された各省20人程度の事務系キャリアは「同一年次採用者の同時昇進」の原則に従って、一定レベル（本省課長級）までは同時に昇進していく。
だが、審議官クラスへは同期全員は昇進（アップ）できず、昇進競争に敗れた者は外部（特殊法人、公益法人、民間企業）へ天下り（アウト）する。その上の局長クラス、さらに事務次官を選抜するまでこの昇進競争が続く。このシステムにより、比較的若い時期に重要なポストを経験させ、官僚組織を活性化するとともに、忠誠心をもって職務に精励するキャリア公務員制度をつくり出した。
だが、このシステムはある時期から逆機能に転じる。もともと公務員の忠誠心は国家ではなく各省に向かっていたが、経済成長が鈍化して各省間のゼロサムゲームが熾烈（しれつ）化するにつれ、セクショナリズムが加速した。試験制度の変更後、大学卒の２種（ノンキャリア）採用者の中の優秀な者は、能力的に１種（キャリア）採用者の一部を上回る例も見られるようになってきた。さらに、80年代末から90年代にかけてキャリア官僚の不祥事も相次ぎ、官僚バッシングの大合唱となる。これらを契機として公務員制度改革が大きな政治問題となってきた。
公務組織の活性化に役立ってきた天下りも様々な問題点が指摘されるようになった。現在の国民世論からして天下り廃止は不可避であり、従来のアップ・オア・アウト方式はもはや継続できない。そのため、従来50歳代前半で天下りさせていた職員を省内にとどめざるを得ず、各省ともその対応に苦慮している。
昇進年齢を遅らせると、若手職員のモチベーション低下を招く。これを避けるため、現役のまま独立行政法人などへ出向させる方法をとっているが、一部メディアからは、これすらも「天下り」と批判されている。上級専門スタッフ職という制度が考えられているものの「窓際厚遇」との批判もあり、今年の人事院勧告には盛り込まれなかった。
結局、同期採用同時昇進という昇進制度の在り方そのものを変えざるを得ないと考えられる。能力・実績主義の徹底ということである。すでに、１種と２種という区分ではなく、総合職と一般職という区分へと試験制度を変更することを人事院が提案しており、キャリアとノンキャリアの境界がゆるやかなものとなるだろう。
2008年成立の国家公務員制度改革基本法は次の３点を規定している。(1)縦割り行政の弊害を排除するため、内閣の人事管理機能を強化すると同時に、多様な人材の登用および弾力的な人事管理を行える幹部職員制度を設けること(2)その任用については内閣官房長官がその適格性を審査して候補者名簿を作成し、各大臣が人事（任免）をするにあたっては、首相および官房長官と協議したうえで行うこと(3)それらを所掌する内閣人事局を設置することである。
さらに、民主党政権が本年の国会に提出した国家公務員法改正案（審議未了で廃案）には、事務次官、局長、審議官を同一職階とみなして、その間の異動を柔軟に行えるようにする（極端にいえば事務次官から審議官へも可能）という内容も盛り込まれていた。全体として、内閣主導で、より柔軟な人事異動を可能にする方向が目指されている。
ただ「内閣主導の適材適所の人材登用を柔軟に行う」場合に、留意しなければならない重要なポイントがある。政治的応答性（政治的な要求にどれだけ応えるか）と、官僚のもつ専門性の両立、バランスである。政治的応答性は重要であるけれど、他方で政治的中立性（政権が交代しても従来と同じく専門性をもって政策提案ができること）が不可欠である。猟官制が跋扈（ばっこ）した大正時代の例を引き合いに出すまでもなく、行政の中立性を損ねた場合に、非効率な行政の被害を最終的にこうむるのは国民である。
米国の官僚の政治任用に関する最近の注目される研究は、政治化が進んだ省庁や機関のパフォーマンスが低下することを実証的に明らかにしている。政治化が進んだ米連邦緊急事態管理局（ＦＥＭＡ）は05年、米国南東部を襲ったハリケーン・カトリーナに極めてお粗末な対応をして、大勢の犠牲者を出してしまった。政治的応答性を重視しようとする場合でも、公務員の政治的中立性を念頭に置き、また、組織のパフォーマンスを低下させないためにはどうすればよいか、制度設計および運用において、十分な配慮が必要である。
今後の制度設計にあたっては、人事権の乱用や恣意（しい）的人事が行われないように細心の注意が必要であるとともに、そのための装置を用意する必要がある。
まず、適格性審査の段階で、中立公正な判断のできる第三者（有識者委員会や人事委員会）をかませる必要がある。適格性審査において政治家は排除されるべきだろう。
次に、幹部候補者名簿の中から特定のポストに任命する段階においても、英国の幹部リーダーシップ委員会・各省選考委員会による審査のような仕組みが検討されてよい。何らかの専門的機関が、ポストごとの候補者名簿を順位をつけて作成し、そこから大臣が任命するという仕組みにしてはどうだろうか。大臣は、名簿の第１順位でなく第２順位の候補者を選んでもよいが、その場合は説明責任が発生することにする。それくらいの仕組みにしないと、情実任用、猟官制の危険は避けられないと考えられる。
最後に、人件費削減と労働基本権の問題について触れておきたい。労働基本権を付与する代わりに人件費を２割削減すべきだ、との議論が横行しているが、これは現実的ではない。労働組合側からすれば基本権を付与してもらって人件費が減らないことを狙うのは当然である。人件費削減をもくろむ政府与党と、権利回復を求める労組側の思惑は同床異夢となっている。スト権を含む労働基本権論議の大前提としては国民をも巻き込んだ議論が必要であるが、残念ながら十分な議論が尽くされているとはいえず、今後まだ時間を要する課題である。
人件費２割削減はより現実的な案を検討する方がよい。まずは多くの自治体で行っているように内閣や議会が責任をもって公務員給与の５％程度のカットを行う。そのうえで、国の地方出先機関の職員のうち４万５千人程度（国家公務員30万人の15％、出先機関20万人の23％程度）を非公務員型の独立行政法人化する方法がある。国立大学や国立病院は非公務員型の独法となり厳しい評価を受けている。ガバナンス（統治）があまり効いていない地方出先機関はこの際、非公務員型の独法にして、評価委員会の厳しい視線にさらすことが必要だろう。
〈ポイント〉
○能力・実績主義の人事制度へ変更が必要に
○省庁の政治化が進むとパフォーマンス低下
○労働基本権付与して人件費削減は非現実的
天下り廃止は不可避 人件費削減、現実的な案に
終戦直後の1947年に制定された国家公務員法は、戦前の身分的な官吏制度を改革し、民主的で能率的な公務運営を確保するための公務員制度を確立しようとするものであった。翌年、労働基本権の制約と、その代償措置として人事院の創設を目玉とする大改正がなされたが、それから半世紀の間、日本の公務員制度は抜本的な改革を経験してこなかった。
以前なら、国民の間には「キャリア官僚たちはエリート意識が鼻持ちならないし、天下りもあってねたましいが、金銭面で手を汚すことは少なく（なぜなら退職金や天下りが“人質”になっている）、日本の経済発展に貢献している」という意識がある程度共有されていたと考えられる。実際、80年代の世論調査では、天下りに対する批判は少なく、今とは隔世の感がある。
長年運用されてきた国家公務員制度の根幹は、二重の「将棋の駒」の形で、かつ「アップ・オア・アウト型」の昇進管理にあった（図の上）。まず各省ごとの採用時点でキャリア（上級甲）とノンキャリア（中級・初級）を分ける。同期で採用された各省20人程度の事務系キャリアは「同一年次採用者の同時昇進」の原則に従って、一定レベル（本省課長級）までは同時に昇進していく。
だが、審議官クラスへは同期全員は昇進（アップ）できず、昇進競争に敗れた者は外部（特殊法人、公益法人、民間企業）へ天下り（アウト）する。その上の局長クラス、さらに事務次官を選抜するまでこの昇進競争が続く。このシステムにより、比較的若い時期に重要なポストを経験させ、官僚組織を活性化するとともに、忠誠心をもって職務に精励するキャリア公務員制度をつくり出した。
だが、このシステムはある時期から逆機能に転じる。もともと公務員の忠誠心は国家ではなく各省に向かっていたが、経済成長が鈍化して各省間のゼロサムゲームが熾烈（しれつ）化するにつれ、セクショナリズムが加速した。試験制度の変更後、大学卒の２種（ノンキャリア）採用者の中の優秀な者は、能力的に１種（キャリア）採用者の一部を上回る例も見られるようになってきた。さらに、80年代末から90年代にかけてキャリア官僚の不祥事も相次ぎ、官僚バッシングの大合唱となる。これらを契機として公務員制度改革が大きな政治問題となってきた。
公務組織の活性化に役立ってきた天下りも様々な問題点が指摘されるようになった。現在の国民世論からして天下り廃止は不可避であり、従来のアップ・オア・アウト方式はもはや継続できない。そのため、従来50歳代前半で天下りさせていた職員を省内にとどめざるを得ず、各省ともその対応に苦慮している。
昇進年齢を遅らせると、若手職員のモチベーション低下を招く。これを避けるため、現役のまま独立行政法人などへ出向させる方法をとっているが、一部メディアからは、これすらも「天下り」と批判されている。上級専門スタッフ職という制度が考えられているものの「窓際厚遇」との批判もあり、今年の人事院勧告には盛り込まれなかった。
結局、同期採用同時昇進という昇進制度の在り方そのものを変えざるを得ないと考えられる。能力・実績主義の徹底ということである。すでに、１種と２種という区分ではなく、総合職と一般職という区分へと試験制度を変更することを人事院が提案しており、キャリアとノンキャリアの境界がゆるやかなものとなるだろう。
2008年成立の国家公務員制度改革基本法は次の３点を規定している。(1)縦割り行政の弊害を排除するため、内閣の人事管理機能を強化すると同時に、多様な人材の登用および弾力的な人事管理を行える幹部職員制度を設けること(2)その任用については内閣官房長官がその適格性を審査して候補者名簿を作成し、各大臣が人事（任免）をするにあたっては、首相および官房長官と協議したうえで行うこと(3)それらを所掌する内閣人事局を設置することである。
さらに、民主党政権が本年の国会に提出した国家公務員法改正案（審議未了で廃案）には、事務次官、局長、審議官を同一職階とみなして、その間の異動を柔軟に行えるようにする（極端にいえば事務次官から審議官へも可能）という内容も盛り込まれていた。全体として、内閣主導で、より柔軟な人事異動を可能にする方向が目指されている。
ただ「内閣主導の適材適所の人材登用を柔軟に行う」場合に、留意しなければならない重要なポイントがある。政治的応答性（政治的な要求にどれだけ応えるか）と、官僚のもつ専門性の両立、バランスである。政治的応答性は重要であるけれど、他方で政治的中立性（政権が交代しても従来と同じく専門性をもって政策提案ができること）が不可欠である。猟官制が跋扈（ばっこ）した大正時代の例を引き合いに出すまでもなく、行政の中立性を損ねた場合に、非効率な行政の被害を最終的にこうむるのは国民である。
米国の官僚の政治任用に関する最近の注目される研究は、政治化が進んだ省庁や機関のパフォーマンスが低下することを実証的に明らかにしている。政治化が進んだ米連邦緊急事態管理局（ＦＥＭＡ）は05年、米国南東部を襲ったハリケーン・カトリーナに極めてお粗末な対応をして、大勢の犠牲者を出してしまった。政治的応答性を重視しようとする場合でも、公務員の政治的中立性を念頭に置き、また、組織のパフォーマンスを低下させないためにはどうすればよいか、制度設計および運用において、十分な配慮が必要である。
今後の制度設計にあたっては、人事権の乱用や恣意（しい）的人事が行われないように細心の注意が必要であるとともに、そのための装置を用意する必要がある。
まず、適格性審査の段階で、中立公正な判断のできる第三者（有識者委員会や人事委員会）をかませる必要がある。適格性審査において政治家は排除されるべきだろう。
次に、幹部候補者名簿の中から特定のポストに任命する段階においても、英国の幹部リーダーシップ委員会・各省選考委員会による審査のような仕組みが検討されてよい。何らかの専門的機関が、ポストごとの候補者名簿を順位をつけて作成し、そこから大臣が任命するという仕組みにしてはどうだろうか。大臣は、名簿の第１順位でなく第２順位の候補者を選んでもよいが、その場合は説明責任が発生することにする。それくらいの仕組みにしないと、情実任用、猟官制の危険は避けられないと考えられる。
最後に、人件費削減と労働基本権の問題について触れておきたい。労働基本権を付与する代わりに人件費を２割削減すべきだ、との議論が横行しているが、これは現実的ではない。労働組合側からすれば基本権を付与してもらって人件費が減らないことを狙うのは当然である。人件費削減をもくろむ政府与党と、権利回復を求める労組側の思惑は同床異夢となっている。スト権を含む労働基本権論議の大前提としては国民をも巻き込んだ議論が必要であるが、残念ながら十分な議論が尽くされているとはいえず、今後まだ時間を要する課題である。
人件費２割削減はより現実的な案を検討する方がよい。まずは多くの自治体で行っているように内閣や議会が責任をもって公務員給与の５％程度のカットを行う。そのうえで、国の地方出先機関の職員のうち４万５千人程度（国家公務員30万人の15％、出先機関20万人の23％程度）を非公務員型の独立行政法人化する方法がある。国立大学や国立病院は非公務員型の独法となり厳しい評価を受けている。ガバナンス（統治）があまり効いていない地方出先機関はこの際、非公務員型の独法にして、評価委員会の厳しい視線にさらすことが必要だろう。
〈ポイント〉
○能力・実績主義の人事制度へ変更が必要に
○省庁の政治化が進むとパフォーマンス低下
○労働基本権付与して人件費削減は非現実的
20/09 ７月の全産業活動指数（22日） ４カ月連続で上昇へ 三井住友ＡＭチーフエコノミスト 宅森昭吉
経済産業省は22日、７月の全産業活動指数を発表する。季節調整済みでは前月より0.9％程度高い97.0前後になりそうだ。４カ月連続で前月を上回り、景気の拡大局面が続いていることを裏付ける見通し。７月には消費者が、環境保全に配慮した「」に対する政府の補助金が残り少なくなったことで自動車を買い急ぎ、猛暑をしのぐため衣料品や飲料の購入を増やしたとみられる。
全産業活動指数の構成要素として６割以上のウエート（比率）を持つ第３次産業活動指数は、７月の上昇率が前月比1.6％に達した。これは一般的な予想を0.9ポイントほど上回っている。
一方、全産業活動指数に対するウエートが２割弱の鉱工業生産指数は７月、前月より0.2％下落した。７月の内訳を推定すると、たばこの生産が10月１日の値上げを控えた駆け込み需要で伸びたが、医薬品の生産は落ち込んだとみられる。
全産業活動指数は各産業が生み出す付加価値の増減を反映する。そのため、国内総生産（ＧＤＰ）の推移と似た動きをすることが多い。やや気が早いが、７～９月期の実質成長率は前期比年率で２％台に乗る可能性が高い。これは４～６月期の同1.5％をしのぐ。７～９月期を通して消費が堅調になるとみられるためだ。エコカー補助金、猛暑は８月以降も消費の底上げ要因になった。
さらに先の話になるが、10～12月期の実質ＧＤＰ成長率は、７～９月期の反動で低い値になるという見方が多い。
全産業活動指数の構成要素として６割以上のウエート（比率）を持つ第３次産業活動指数は、７月の上昇率が前月比1.6％に達した。これは一般的な予想を0.9ポイントほど上回っている。
一方、全産業活動指数に対するウエートが２割弱の鉱工業生産指数は７月、前月より0.2％下落した。７月の内訳を推定すると、たばこの生産が10月１日の値上げを控えた駆け込み需要で伸びたが、医薬品の生産は落ち込んだとみられる。
全産業活動指数は各産業が生み出す付加価値の増減を反映する。そのため、国内総生産（ＧＤＰ）の推移と似た動きをすることが多い。やや気が早いが、７～９月期の実質成長率は前期比年率で２％台に乗る可能性が高い。これは４～６月期の同1.5％をしのぐ。７～９月期を通して消費が堅調になるとみられるためだ。エコカー補助金、猛暑は８月以降も消費の底上げ要因になった。
さらに先の話になるが、10～12月期の実質ＧＤＰ成長率は、７～９月期の反動で低い値になるという見方が多い。
20/09 働きやすい会社2010、ソニーが初の首位
新人の特性に合わせ研修
本社調査
日本経済新聞社は19日、主要企業を対象に実施した2010年の「働きやすい会社」調査の結果をまとめた。ソニーが初めて総合ランキングの首位になった。２位の東芝をはじめ上位10位のうち電機が６社を占めた。グローバル人材の育成など時代に即した社員教育を充実させた企業や、育児・介護に配慮し多様な働き方の実現に取り組む企業が高い評価を得た。＝企業ランキングと調査結果の詳細を21日付日経産業新聞に
働きやすい会社調査は日経リサーチとの共同企画で、企業の人事・労務制度の充実度を点数化し、ビジネスパーソンが重視する度合いに応じて傾斜配分してランキングを作成した。４つの項目別ランキングも作った。
総合１位のソニーは「社員の意欲を向上させる制度」の項目でトップだったほか「働く側に配慮した職場づくり」で東芝に次ぐ２位に入った。
ソニーは今春から新入社員とチューターの教育に、米海兵隊で使われている組織論「ＦＳＳ理論」を導入した。
「部下を放任する」「細かく指導する」など社員を行動パターンで類型化し、１つのチームに様々なタイプを組み合わることで生産性を上げる理論で「新人の特性に合った適切な指導が可能になった」（人事企画部）。
社員１人あたりの研修費が36万8988円と１位だった点や、10月を「キャリア月間」に位置付け、社員の意欲を引き出していることも高評価につながった。
年休制度の利用 東芝、要件緩和
２位の東芝は「働く側に配慮した職場づくり」「子育てに配慮した職場づくり」の２つの項目で最多得点を獲得し、昨年の18位から躍進した。今年４月から最低１時間から取得できる年休制度の利用要件を緩和し、使い勝手を向上させた。
パナソニックは昨年１位から３位に後退したが、４つの項目すべてで４位以内に入った。今年３月までの２年間で育児休業を取得した男性社員は1386人と、日産自動車に次ぐ２位だった。
日立製作所は留学機会を提供
４位の日立製作所は「今後２年半の間に2000人の意欲ある若手社員に海外業務研修や留学の機会を提供する」、５位の凸版印刷は「本社と関連会社の垣根を取り払いグループ全体で人材を育成する」（凸版印刷）と回答。時代の変化に即して社員の成長を後押しする姿勢を示した。
本社調査
日本経済新聞社は19日、主要企業を対象に実施した2010年の「働きやすい会社」調査の結果をまとめた。ソニーが初めて総合ランキングの首位になった。２位の東芝をはじめ上位10位のうち電機が６社を占めた。グローバル人材の育成など時代に即した社員教育を充実させた企業や、育児・介護に配慮し多様な働き方の実現に取り組む企業が高い評価を得た。＝企業ランキングと調査結果の詳細を21日付日経産業新聞に
働きやすい会社調査は日経リサーチとの共同企画で、企業の人事・労務制度の充実度を点数化し、ビジネスパーソンが重視する度合いに応じて傾斜配分してランキングを作成した。４つの項目別ランキングも作った。
総合１位のソニーは「社員の意欲を向上させる制度」の項目でトップだったほか「働く側に配慮した職場づくり」で東芝に次ぐ２位に入った。
ソニーは今春から新入社員とチューターの教育に、米海兵隊で使われている組織論「ＦＳＳ理論」を導入した。
「部下を放任する」「細かく指導する」など社員を行動パターンで類型化し、１つのチームに様々なタイプを組み合わることで生産性を上げる理論で「新人の特性に合った適切な指導が可能になった」（人事企画部）。
社員１人あたりの研修費が36万8988円と１位だった点や、10月を「キャリア月間」に位置付け、社員の意欲を引き出していることも高評価につながった。
年休制度の利用 東芝、要件緩和
２位の東芝は「働く側に配慮した職場づくり」「子育てに配慮した職場づくり」の２つの項目で最多得点を獲得し、昨年の18位から躍進した。今年４月から最低１時間から取得できる年休制度の利用要件を緩和し、使い勝手を向上させた。
パナソニックは昨年１位から３位に後退したが、４つの項目すべてで４位以内に入った。今年３月までの２年間で育児休業を取得した男性社員は1386人と、日産自動車に次ぐ２位だった。
日立製作所は留学機会を提供
４位の日立製作所は「今後２年半の間に2000人の意欲ある若手社員に海外業務研修や留学の機会を提供する」、５位の凸版印刷は「本社と関連会社の垣根を取り払いグループ全体で人材を育成する」（凸版印刷）と回答。時代の変化に即して社員の成長を後押しする姿勢を示した。
25/09 Cuba sẽ thúc đẩy thực hiện mô hình tự kinh doanh
Ngày 24/9, Chính phủ Cuba thông báo sẽ mở rộng mô hình tự kinh doanh tới 178 loại hình dịch vụ kể từ ngày 1/10 tới.
Quyết định trên nhằm tạo công ăn việc làm cho hàng trăm nghìn lao động thuộc khu vực nhà nước sắp bị tinh giản biên chế trong vòng sáu tháng tới.
Thông báo nói trên, đăng tải trên tờ Granma - Cơ quan ngôn luận của Đảng Cộng sản Cuba, khẳng định chính sách mới này phù hợp với quyết định của Chính phủ nhằm điều chỉnh chính sách kinh tế quốc gia, với mục đích tăng cường năng suất lao động cũng như tính hiệu quả của nền kinh tế đất nước.
Giải pháp này khuyến khích người lao động tham gia tích cực vào các hoạt động sản xuất và nỗ lực hết mình trong công việc mà họ tự lựa chọn, đồng thời góp phần đáng kể vào kế hoạch cắt giảm chi phí ngân sách nhà nước dành cho trả lương người lao động, phù hợp với bối cảnh nền kinh tế Cuba hiện nay.
Trong khi đó, Phó Chủ tịch Hội đồng Bộ trưởng kiêm Bộ trưởng Kinh tế Marino Murillo cho biết Chính phủ đang tiếp tục nghiên cứu kế hoạch thực hiện những thay đổi trong năm tới.
Ngân hàng Trung ương Cuba cũng đang xem xét khả năng cung cấp tín dụng cho những người đăng ký tham gia mô hình tự kinh doanh.
Bên cạnh đó, Viện Nhà ở Quốc gia thông báo từ ngày 1 tháng Mười tới, sẽ dỡ bỏ quy định cấm cho thuê nhà bằng ngoại tệ./.
(TTXVN/Vietnam+)
Quyết định trên nhằm tạo công ăn việc làm cho hàng trăm nghìn lao động thuộc khu vực nhà nước sắp bị tinh giản biên chế trong vòng sáu tháng tới.
Thông báo nói trên, đăng tải trên tờ Granma - Cơ quan ngôn luận của Đảng Cộng sản Cuba, khẳng định chính sách mới này phù hợp với quyết định của Chính phủ nhằm điều chỉnh chính sách kinh tế quốc gia, với mục đích tăng cường năng suất lao động cũng như tính hiệu quả của nền kinh tế đất nước.
Giải pháp này khuyến khích người lao động tham gia tích cực vào các hoạt động sản xuất và nỗ lực hết mình trong công việc mà họ tự lựa chọn, đồng thời góp phần đáng kể vào kế hoạch cắt giảm chi phí ngân sách nhà nước dành cho trả lương người lao động, phù hợp với bối cảnh nền kinh tế Cuba hiện nay.
Trong khi đó, Phó Chủ tịch Hội đồng Bộ trưởng kiêm Bộ trưởng Kinh tế Marino Murillo cho biết Chính phủ đang tiếp tục nghiên cứu kế hoạch thực hiện những thay đổi trong năm tới.
Ngân hàng Trung ương Cuba cũng đang xem xét khả năng cung cấp tín dụng cho những người đăng ký tham gia mô hình tự kinh doanh.
Bên cạnh đó, Viện Nhà ở Quốc gia thông báo từ ngày 1 tháng Mười tới, sẽ dỡ bỏ quy định cấm cho thuê nhà bằng ngoại tệ./.
(TTXVN/Vietnam+)
Ngân sách của Nga sẽ dựa vào tín dụng trong nước
Với chủ trương tiếp tục hiện đại hóa đất nước và duy trì sự ổn định kinh tế vĩ mô, chính phủ Nga đang nỗ lực phấn đấu hoàn thành các trách nhiệm xã hội đối với người dân, trong đó đặc biệt chú trọng đến việc chăm sóc y tế, tăng lương hưu và trợ cấp trẻ em, sinh hoạt phí cho quân nhân và học bổng cho sinh viên.
Những ưu tiên này được Chính phủ liên bang Nga đặt ra cho kế hoạch chi tiêu ngân sách giai đoạn 2011-2013.
Trong dự thảo ngân sách liên bang được xem xét tại phiên họp chính phủ ngày 23/9, Thủ tướng Vladimir Putin khẳng định đặc thù của ngân sách liên bang trong những năm tới chủ yếu dựa vào các nguồn vay tín dụng trong nước và các khoản thu từ cổ phần hóa các doanh nghiệp.
Năm 2011, Nga có kế hoạch vay tín dụng nước ngoài ít hơn so với năm nay, khoảng hơn 3,5 tỷ USD, nguồn vốn để trang trải các khoản chi ngân sách chủ yếu sẽ huy động vốn nội bộ.
Chủ tịch Viện Năng lượng và Tài chính Leonid Grigoriev cho biết trong dự trù ngân sách 2011-2013 có tính đến những khoản dành cho việc giải quyết các nhiệm vụ xã hội.
Theo các nhà phân tích, một trong những nét mới của dự thảo ngân sách giai đoạn 2011-2013 của Nga là không tăng biên chế trong lực lượng lao động thuộc các đơn vị nhà nước và liên bang, thực hiện kế hoạch của Điện Kremlin đến năm 2013 giảm khoảng 20% biên chế nhà nước.
Mục tiêu của kế hoạch này là cắt giảm những biên chế hoạt động kém hiệu quả, loại bỏ các biên chế và chức năng trùng lặp giữa các ban ngành để tiết kiệm ngân sách./.
(TTXVN/Vietnam+)
Những ưu tiên này được Chính phủ liên bang Nga đặt ra cho kế hoạch chi tiêu ngân sách giai đoạn 2011-2013.
Trong dự thảo ngân sách liên bang được xem xét tại phiên họp chính phủ ngày 23/9, Thủ tướng Vladimir Putin khẳng định đặc thù của ngân sách liên bang trong những năm tới chủ yếu dựa vào các nguồn vay tín dụng trong nước và các khoản thu từ cổ phần hóa các doanh nghiệp.
Năm 2011, Nga có kế hoạch vay tín dụng nước ngoài ít hơn so với năm nay, khoảng hơn 3,5 tỷ USD, nguồn vốn để trang trải các khoản chi ngân sách chủ yếu sẽ huy động vốn nội bộ.
Chủ tịch Viện Năng lượng và Tài chính Leonid Grigoriev cho biết trong dự trù ngân sách 2011-2013 có tính đến những khoản dành cho việc giải quyết các nhiệm vụ xã hội.
Theo các nhà phân tích, một trong những nét mới của dự thảo ngân sách giai đoạn 2011-2013 của Nga là không tăng biên chế trong lực lượng lao động thuộc các đơn vị nhà nước và liên bang, thực hiện kế hoạch của Điện Kremlin đến năm 2013 giảm khoảng 20% biên chế nhà nước.
Mục tiêu của kế hoạch này là cắt giảm những biên chế hoạt động kém hiệu quả, loại bỏ các biên chế và chức năng trùng lặp giữa các ban ngành để tiết kiệm ngân sách./.
(TTXVN/Vietnam+)
NYT: Structural Unemployment: The First Generation
September 26, 2010, 6:56 am
Structural Unemployment: The First Generation
Who said this? More important, when did he say it?
In the light of this brief survey of the characteristics of the labor supply and the probable demand for labor, what is the outlook for unemployment? My opinion is that the demand, even though active and strong, will be met by supply which will be badly adjusted to fit it. There may very well be a great shortage of labor of certain kinds, with no prospect of any shifting or adapting which will bring about an increased supply. But this will be accompanied by an actual surplus of labor in other occupations. I believe this present labor supply of ours is peculiarly unadaptable and untrained. It cannot respond to the opportunities which industry may offer. This implies a situation of great inequality-full employment, much over-time, high wages, and great prosperity for certain favored groups, accompanied by low wages, short time, unemployment, and possibly destitution for others.
The answer is, it’s from a paper titled The Problem of Unemployment and the Changing Structure of Industry (subscription required), from the Journal of the American Statistical Association, published in 1935. That’s right: in the depths of the Great Depression, wise heads proclaimed the problem one of structural unemployment, which obviously could not be cured just by increasing demand.
Structural Unemployment: The First Generation
Who said this? More important, when did he say it?
In the light of this brief survey of the characteristics of the labor supply and the probable demand for labor, what is the outlook for unemployment? My opinion is that the demand, even though active and strong, will be met by supply which will be badly adjusted to fit it. There may very well be a great shortage of labor of certain kinds, with no prospect of any shifting or adapting which will bring about an increased supply. But this will be accompanied by an actual surplus of labor in other occupations. I believe this present labor supply of ours is peculiarly unadaptable and untrained. It cannot respond to the opportunities which industry may offer. This implies a situation of great inequality-full employment, much over-time, high wages, and great prosperity for certain favored groups, accompanied by low wages, short time, unemployment, and possibly destitution for others.
The answer is, it’s from a paper titled The Problem of Unemployment and the Changing Structure of Industry (subscription required), from the Journal of the American Statistical Association, published in 1935. That’s right: in the depths of the Great Depression, wise heads proclaimed the problem one of structural unemployment, which obviously could not be cured just by increasing demand.
NYT: Fairer Deal
September 24, 2010
By SEBASTIAN MALLABY
Way way back, which means before the financial sector imploded, it wasn’t Wall Street bonuses and vampire squids that excited the most fury. People agonized, instead, about the stagnation of middle-class incomes and exploding inequality. In “Aftershock” — impressively, his 12th book — Robert B. Reich steers our attention back to those earlier worries, which have arguably become more urgent in the wake of the financial crisis. But right on the first page, he comes close to blowing it.
Reich opens his book by quoting Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner. “For too long,” Geithner says, referring to the period leading up to the financial bust, “Americans were buying too much and saving too little.” This assertion is so sleep-inducingly true that one wonders why Reich bothers to invoke it. But then, astonishingly, the author’s purpose becomes clear. He actually doesn’t agree with it.
Reich insists instead that American consumers, and particularly the middle class, have been buying too little. For years, the United States has consumed more than it has produced; the excess demand has sucked in products from abroad, which is why the nation has run a trade deficit. The idea that the economy has suffered from a lack of demand is, shall we say, eccentric. But Reich declares repeatedly that the stagnation of middle-class buying power has been a drag on growth. “If earnings are inadequate,” he asserts, “an economy produces more goods and services than its people are capable of purchasing.” If that sentence described the American condition in the 1990s and the period leading up to the crash, Reich’s predicted excess output would have gone abroad and the United States would have run a trade surplus.
Reich is trying to fortify the standard case for redistribution. As he acknowledges, he could have grounded his argument in morality: it is simply unfair that the richest 1 percent of Americans capture almost a quarter of the total income in the economy. Alternatively, Reich could have invoked American values: a grotesquely skewed inequality of outcomes is bound to tip the playing field for the next generation of Americans, mocking the nation’s commitment to equality of opportunity. But instead Reich reaches for an economic claim — that redistribution is a prerequisite for growth. He fumbles it.
This is a pity, since much of Reich’s book is important and well executed. A Berkeley professor, public radio commentator and Clinton-era labor secretary, he is fluent, fearless, even amusing. He cheerfully denounces members of his own party: Senator Chris Dodd for his cozy links to the financial industry, Tom Daschle for monetizing his connections after leaving the Senate and failing to pay taxes, Dick Gephardt for denouncing lobbyists and then becoming one. Recalling the 1950s, when white male workers had it good, Reich wryly acknowledges that others fared less well. In 1957, United Airlines advertised its “executive” service between New York and Chicago, promising comfortable slippers, a steak dinner and “no women on board except for two stewardesses.”
Setting aside his confused stance on middle-class demand, Reich makes several cogent arguments. Drawing on well-known findings from psychology and economics, he notes that people find it hard not to increase consumption when others around them are spending lavishly. In a poor country, a man proves that he loves his wife by presenting her with a rose; in a country where the rich splash money on extravagant bouquets, even ordinary husbands feel obliged to buy six roses. Thanks at least partly to the example set by millionaire nuptials, the cost of the typical American wedding rose to about $28,000 from $11,000 between 1980 and 2007 after adjusting for inflation.
Caught between rising aspirations and stagnant wages, Reich says, middle-class Americans have gone through a series of coping mechanisms. First, women joined the workforce, giving families a second income. Then husbands and wives put in longer shifts, creating a species of family called DINS — “double income, no sex.” Finally, families went into debt. In this sense, inequality helped to stoke the credit bubble.
Now that the bubble has burst, these coping mechanisms are exhausted. Americans are not going to push their working hours up even more. Already, according to some estimates, they sleep an average of one or two fewer hours per night than did their parents in the 1960s; in 2007 they spent a whopping $23.9 billion on sleep aids, from white-noise machines to medications. Nor are Americans going to incur more debts; to the contrary, the credit bust has forced them to pay down their balances. And so, as Reich puts it, Americans will “face a necessity they have managed to avoid for decades: They have to make do with less.”
The belt-tightening is not likely to be popular, and Reich goes so far as to suggest that it could trigger a political convulsion. People are very likely to resent material losses bitterly if these are not broadly and fairly shared. And in the wake of the financial crisis, fairness has gone by the wayside: millions of Americans have lost jobs, but the financial sector has bounced back; eye-popping bonuses have returned; and last year the top 25 earners at hedge funds bagged a combined $25 billion. At some point in the not-too-distant future, Reich warns, C.E.O.’s may find that limousines are being purposely scratched and mobs are picketing their offices.
Reich concludes with a wish list of reforms that might head off such a confrontation. He wants a more progressive income tax, including negative taxes for anyone earning below $50,000. He wants a top income-tax rate of 55 percent, with the kicker that income from capital gains, now taxed at 15 percent, would face the same rate as income from salaries. He wants wage insurance — temporary compensation for workers who take big pay cuts when they shift jobs — as well as investments that make public transportation and Medicare more available. These proposals are generally reasonable — the top marginal tax rate was 70 percent or more between 1936 and 1980, a period of generally strong growth, and Medicare is more cost-effective than private insurance. But Reich also throws a few curveballs, and fails to discuss the gains in social fairness and economic growth that could be secured by limiting mortgage-interest deductions and other loopholes in the tax code.
But the really interesting question is whether Reich is right about the politics — whether the new Gilded Age will conjure up a new William Jennings Bryan, and whether such a candidate could be elected. Even in the harshest periods of American history, after all, economic resentments have been surprisingly muted and rabble-rousing populists have failed to win power. Toward the end of the Depression, in the late 1930s, a sociologist named Alfred Winslow Jones conducted field research around the violently strike-prone factories of Akron, Ohio, expecting that bitter industrial conflict might have created equally bitter class divisions. To his surprise, he found little evidence of such polarization.
Thus reassured, Jones migrated from sociology to journalism to finance. Ultimately, in a twist that Reich might grimly appreciate, he invented a fantastically profitable investment vehicle. He called it a “hedged fund.”
Sebastian Mallaby is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. His book “More Money Than God: Hedge Funds and the Making of a New Elite” was published in June.
By SEBASTIAN MALLABY
AFTERSHOCK
The Next Economy and America’s Future
By Robert B. Reich
Way way back, which means before the financial sector imploded, it wasn’t Wall Street bonuses and vampire squids that excited the most fury. People agonized, instead, about the stagnation of middle-class incomes and exploding inequality. In “Aftershock” — impressively, his 12th book — Robert B. Reich steers our attention back to those earlier worries, which have arguably become more urgent in the wake of the financial crisis. But right on the first page, he comes close to blowing it.
Reich opens his book by quoting Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner. “For too long,” Geithner says, referring to the period leading up to the financial bust, “Americans were buying too much and saving too little.” This assertion is so sleep-inducingly true that one wonders why Reich bothers to invoke it. But then, astonishingly, the author’s purpose becomes clear. He actually doesn’t agree with it.
Reich insists instead that American consumers, and particularly the middle class, have been buying too little. For years, the United States has consumed more than it has produced; the excess demand has sucked in products from abroad, which is why the nation has run a trade deficit. The idea that the economy has suffered from a lack of demand is, shall we say, eccentric. But Reich declares repeatedly that the stagnation of middle-class buying power has been a drag on growth. “If earnings are inadequate,” he asserts, “an economy produces more goods and services than its people are capable of purchasing.” If that sentence described the American condition in the 1990s and the period leading up to the crash, Reich’s predicted excess output would have gone abroad and the United States would have run a trade surplus.
Reich is trying to fortify the standard case for redistribution. As he acknowledges, he could have grounded his argument in morality: it is simply unfair that the richest 1 percent of Americans capture almost a quarter of the total income in the economy. Alternatively, Reich could have invoked American values: a grotesquely skewed inequality of outcomes is bound to tip the playing field for the next generation of Americans, mocking the nation’s commitment to equality of opportunity. But instead Reich reaches for an economic claim — that redistribution is a prerequisite for growth. He fumbles it.
This is a pity, since much of Reich’s book is important and well executed. A Berkeley professor, public radio commentator and Clinton-era labor secretary, he is fluent, fearless, even amusing. He cheerfully denounces members of his own party: Senator Chris Dodd for his cozy links to the financial industry, Tom Daschle for monetizing his connections after leaving the Senate and failing to pay taxes, Dick Gephardt for denouncing lobbyists and then becoming one. Recalling the 1950s, when white male workers had it good, Reich wryly acknowledges that others fared less well. In 1957, United Airlines advertised its “executive” service between New York and Chicago, promising comfortable slippers, a steak dinner and “no women on board except for two stewardesses.”
Setting aside his confused stance on middle-class demand, Reich makes several cogent arguments. Drawing on well-known findings from psychology and economics, he notes that people find it hard not to increase consumption when others around them are spending lavishly. In a poor country, a man proves that he loves his wife by presenting her with a rose; in a country where the rich splash money on extravagant bouquets, even ordinary husbands feel obliged to buy six roses. Thanks at least partly to the example set by millionaire nuptials, the cost of the typical American wedding rose to about $28,000 from $11,000 between 1980 and 2007 after adjusting for inflation.
Caught between rising aspirations and stagnant wages, Reich says, middle-class Americans have gone through a series of coping mechanisms. First, women joined the workforce, giving families a second income. Then husbands and wives put in longer shifts, creating a species of family called DINS — “double income, no sex.” Finally, families went into debt. In this sense, inequality helped to stoke the credit bubble.
Now that the bubble has burst, these coping mechanisms are exhausted. Americans are not going to push their working hours up even more. Already, according to some estimates, they sleep an average of one or two fewer hours per night than did their parents in the 1960s; in 2007 they spent a whopping $23.9 billion on sleep aids, from white-noise machines to medications. Nor are Americans going to incur more debts; to the contrary, the credit bust has forced them to pay down their balances. And so, as Reich puts it, Americans will “face a necessity they have managed to avoid for decades: They have to make do with less.”
The belt-tightening is not likely to be popular, and Reich goes so far as to suggest that it could trigger a political convulsion. People are very likely to resent material losses bitterly if these are not broadly and fairly shared. And in the wake of the financial crisis, fairness has gone by the wayside: millions of Americans have lost jobs, but the financial sector has bounced back; eye-popping bonuses have returned; and last year the top 25 earners at hedge funds bagged a combined $25 billion. At some point in the not-too-distant future, Reich warns, C.E.O.’s may find that limousines are being purposely scratched and mobs are picketing their offices.
Reich concludes with a wish list of reforms that might head off such a confrontation. He wants a more progressive income tax, including negative taxes for anyone earning below $50,000. He wants a top income-tax rate of 55 percent, with the kicker that income from capital gains, now taxed at 15 percent, would face the same rate as income from salaries. He wants wage insurance — temporary compensation for workers who take big pay cuts when they shift jobs — as well as investments that make public transportation and Medicare more available. These proposals are generally reasonable — the top marginal tax rate was 70 percent or more between 1936 and 1980, a period of generally strong growth, and Medicare is more cost-effective than private insurance. But Reich also throws a few curveballs, and fails to discuss the gains in social fairness and economic growth that could be secured by limiting mortgage-interest deductions and other loopholes in the tax code.
But the really interesting question is whether Reich is right about the politics — whether the new Gilded Age will conjure up a new William Jennings Bryan, and whether such a candidate could be elected. Even in the harshest periods of American history, after all, economic resentments have been surprisingly muted and rabble-rousing populists have failed to win power. Toward the end of the Depression, in the late 1930s, a sociologist named Alfred Winslow Jones conducted field research around the violently strike-prone factories of Akron, Ohio, expecting that bitter industrial conflict might have created equally bitter class divisions. To his surprise, he found little evidence of such polarization.
Thus reassured, Jones migrated from sociology to journalism to finance. Ultimately, in a twist that Reich might grimly appreciate, he invented a fantastically profitable investment vehicle. He called it a “hedged fund.”
Sebastian Mallaby is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. His book “More Money Than God: Hedge Funds and the Making of a New Elite” was published in June.
Xinhua: Forum on China-Arab investment, trade kicks off
The 2010 China Investment and Trade Fair and the first China-Arab States Economic and Trade Forum opened Sunday in northwestern Yinchuan City, with aims to strengthen investment and trade ties between China and the Arabic states.
"The forum will certainly strengthen and deepen the traditional friendship and win-win cooperation between China and the Arabic states, as well as the Muslim regions, to realize mutual development," Chinese Minister of Commerce Chen Deming said at the opening ceremony of the five-day event at the capital of Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region.
Wan Jifei, chairman of the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade, said the forum has been held "in the right place" because Ningxia has a large Muslim population, and the region has played a significant role in Sino-Arabic relationships over history.
Ningxia is home to at least 10 percent of China's 20 million Muslims. It has drawn up plans to expand trade and economic cooperation with the world's Muslim community.
"We hope the future cooperation between the two sides will not be limited to trade. We hope to strengthen cultural cooperation, based on better mutual understanding of society, education and people," said Nader Al Dahabi, former prime minister of Jordan.
The five-day forum and fair has attracted more than 6,000 government officials and businessmen from 66 countries, regions and international organizations, including Chinese Vice Premier Hui Liangyu.
"We welcome China's enterprises to invest in energy and water resources and also in other promising fields, including hi-tech industries, food processing and electrical manufacturing," said Jaafar Hassan, minister of Planning and International Cooperation of Jordan, at the Summit Meeting of the forum.
China had offered 116 million U.S. dollars of interest-free and preferential loans to the country as of the second quarter this year, Jaafar Hassan said.
The Chinese economy and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) are complementary to each other, said Abdullah Bin Ahmed Al Saleh, director-general of the Ministry of Foreign Trade of the UAE.
"Chinese labor services export had extended from construction to other fields, including medical treatment and sea transportation. More and more Chinese workers can be seen in the UAE. At the same time, China has open its door to the Arab states with its 1.3 billion potential consumers," he said.
His views were echoed by Su Jing, commercial counselor of the Department of Foreign Trade of the Ministry of Commerce of China.
The Arabic states taken as a whole is a large market with a population of 339 million. The states rely on oil and gas production but lack a machinery manufacturing base, while China is a large importer of oil and its machinery exports take up a large market share of the states, Su said.
The total volume of Sino-Arabic trade grew to 132.8 billion U.S. dollars in 2008 from 5.8 billion U.S. dollars in 1996, but fell slightly in 2009 due to the economic crisis, to 107.4 billion U.S. dollars. The trade volume made a rapid recovery in the first six months of this year and reaching 69.1 billion U.S. dollars, he said.
Chinese Vice Premier Hui Liangyu said cooperation between China and the Arab states has great potential and a broad future, as two-way trade continues to grow.
As of the end of June, direct investment from China to the Arab states reached 3.78 billion U.S. dollars and the investment fields have extended from resource exploring, food and textile to those including leather manufacturing, automobile assembly and petrochemicals, Hui said.
At the same time, investment from the Arab states to China was 2.15 billion U.S. dollars, covering fields of petrochemicals, food, real estate and investment framework, he said.
Also other sectors which have received investment from the Arab states, including finance, tourism, aviation and new energy sectors, are booming, he said.
Hui said to strengthen mutual cooperation more strategic partnerships need to be developed.
"The forum will certainly strengthen and deepen the traditional friendship and win-win cooperation between China and the Arabic states, as well as the Muslim regions, to realize mutual development," Chinese Minister of Commerce Chen Deming said at the opening ceremony of the five-day event at the capital of Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region.
Wan Jifei, chairman of the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade, said the forum has been held "in the right place" because Ningxia has a large Muslim population, and the region has played a significant role in Sino-Arabic relationships over history.
Ningxia is home to at least 10 percent of China's 20 million Muslims. It has drawn up plans to expand trade and economic cooperation with the world's Muslim community.
"We hope the future cooperation between the two sides will not be limited to trade. We hope to strengthen cultural cooperation, based on better mutual understanding of society, education and people," said Nader Al Dahabi, former prime minister of Jordan.
The five-day forum and fair has attracted more than 6,000 government officials and businessmen from 66 countries, regions and international organizations, including Chinese Vice Premier Hui Liangyu.
"We welcome China's enterprises to invest in energy and water resources and also in other promising fields, including hi-tech industries, food processing and electrical manufacturing," said Jaafar Hassan, minister of Planning and International Cooperation of Jordan, at the Summit Meeting of the forum.
China had offered 116 million U.S. dollars of interest-free and preferential loans to the country as of the second quarter this year, Jaafar Hassan said.
The Chinese economy and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) are complementary to each other, said Abdullah Bin Ahmed Al Saleh, director-general of the Ministry of Foreign Trade of the UAE.
"Chinese labor services export had extended from construction to other fields, including medical treatment and sea transportation. More and more Chinese workers can be seen in the UAE. At the same time, China has open its door to the Arab states with its 1.3 billion potential consumers," he said.
His views were echoed by Su Jing, commercial counselor of the Department of Foreign Trade of the Ministry of Commerce of China.
The Arabic states taken as a whole is a large market with a population of 339 million. The states rely on oil and gas production but lack a machinery manufacturing base, while China is a large importer of oil and its machinery exports take up a large market share of the states, Su said.
The total volume of Sino-Arabic trade grew to 132.8 billion U.S. dollars in 2008 from 5.8 billion U.S. dollars in 1996, but fell slightly in 2009 due to the economic crisis, to 107.4 billion U.S. dollars. The trade volume made a rapid recovery in the first six months of this year and reaching 69.1 billion U.S. dollars, he said.
Chinese Vice Premier Hui Liangyu said cooperation between China and the Arab states has great potential and a broad future, as two-way trade continues to grow.
As of the end of June, direct investment from China to the Arab states reached 3.78 billion U.S. dollars and the investment fields have extended from resource exploring, food and textile to those including leather manufacturing, automobile assembly and petrochemicals, Hui said.
At the same time, investment from the Arab states to China was 2.15 billion U.S. dollars, covering fields of petrochemicals, food, real estate and investment framework, he said.
Also other sectors which have received investment from the Arab states, including finance, tourism, aviation and new energy sectors, are booming, he said.
Hui said to strengthen mutual cooperation more strategic partnerships need to be developed.
NYT: The Responsibility Deficit
September 23, 2010
By DAVID BROOKS
One of the oddities of the current moment is that the country wants a radical change in government but not a radical change in policy.
On the one hand, voters are completely disgusted with Washington. On the other hand, they have not changed their fundamental views on the issues. There has been some shift to the right over the past two years, but the policy landscape looks mostly the way it did over the last few decades. We’re still a closely divided nation; it’s just that we’re angrier about it.
The result is that over the next two years we’ll probably see gridlock on stilts. The energized Republicans will try to reduce the size of government, but they won’t be able to get their bills past President Obama. The surviving Democrats will try to expand government programs, but they will run smack into a closely divided Senate and possibly a Republican-controlled House.
Unable to do anything in the short term, both parties will devote their energies to nothing but campaign gestures for 2012. The rhetoric will fly. Childishness will mount. Public nausea will hit an all-time high.
Somewhere in the country, though, there is a politician who is going to try to lead us out of this logjam. Whoever that person is, I hope he or she is listening carefully to what the public is saying. Because when you listen carefully, you notice the public anger doesn’t quite match the political class anger. The political class is angry about ideological things: bloated government or the predatory rich. The public seems to be angry about values.
The heart of any moral system is the connection between action and consequences. Today’s public anger rises from the belief that this connection has been severed in one realm after another.
Financiers send the world into recession and don’t seem to suffer. Neighbors take on huge mortgages and then just walk away when they go underwater. Washington politicians avoid living within their means. Federal agencies fail and get rewarded with more responsibilities.
What the country is really looking for is a restoration of responsibility. If some smart leader is going to help us get out of ideological gridlock, that leader will reframe politics around this end.
Philip K. Howard has thought hard about the decay of responsibility and what can be done to reverse it. In a series of books ranging from “The Death of Common Sense” to “Life Without Lawyers,” Howard has detailed the ways our political and legal systems undermine personal responsibility.
Over the past several decades, he argues, a thicket of spending obligations, rules and regulations has arisen, which limits individual discretion, narrows room for maneuver and makes it harder to assign responsibility.
Presidents find that more and more of their budgets are precommitted to entitlement spending. Cabinet secretaries find that their agenda can’t really be enacted because 100 million words of existing federal rules and statutes prevent innovation this way and that. Even when a new law is passed, it’s very hard to tell who is responsible for executing it because there is a profusion of agencies and bureaucratic levels all with some share of the pie.
These things weaken individual initiative, discretion and responsibility. But the decay expands well beyond Washington. Teachers don’t really control their classrooms. They have to obey a steady stream of mandates that govern everything from how they treat an unruly child to the way they teach. Doctors don’t really control their practices but must be wary of a capricious malpractice system that could strike at any moment. Local government officials don’t really govern their towns. Their room for maneuver is sharply constrained by federal mandates and by the steady stream of lawsuits that push them in ways defying common sense.
What’s needed, Howard argues, is a great streamlining. He’s not calling for deregulation. It’s about giving teachers, doctors and officials the power to actually make decisions and then holding them accountable. Some of their choices will be wrong, Howard acknowledges, but it is better to live in an imperfect world of individual responsibility than it is to live within a dehumanizing legal thicket that seeks to eliminate risk through a tangle of micromanaging statutes.
Howard proposes expanding specialized health courts, which would be more predictable than the malpractice system. He would lift controls on teachers and civil servants — giving them more freedom but then ending tenure and holding them accountable. He would create commissions to eliminate obsolete laws. He would expand judges’ discretion and end mandatory sentencing.
Howard’s agenda raises some thorny issues. But he has seized the crucial theme of the moment. If bad government undermines responsibility then it should be restructured. And he’s offering one tool a creative politician could use to break through the logjam and help us avoid a truly awful few years.
By DAVID BROOKS
One of the oddities of the current moment is that the country wants a radical change in government but not a radical change in policy.
On the one hand, voters are completely disgusted with Washington. On the other hand, they have not changed their fundamental views on the issues. There has been some shift to the right over the past two years, but the policy landscape looks mostly the way it did over the last few decades. We’re still a closely divided nation; it’s just that we’re angrier about it.
The result is that over the next two years we’ll probably see gridlock on stilts. The energized Republicans will try to reduce the size of government, but they won’t be able to get their bills past President Obama. The surviving Democrats will try to expand government programs, but they will run smack into a closely divided Senate and possibly a Republican-controlled House.
Unable to do anything in the short term, both parties will devote their energies to nothing but campaign gestures for 2012. The rhetoric will fly. Childishness will mount. Public nausea will hit an all-time high.
Somewhere in the country, though, there is a politician who is going to try to lead us out of this logjam. Whoever that person is, I hope he or she is listening carefully to what the public is saying. Because when you listen carefully, you notice the public anger doesn’t quite match the political class anger. The political class is angry about ideological things: bloated government or the predatory rich. The public seems to be angry about values.
The heart of any moral system is the connection between action and consequences. Today’s public anger rises from the belief that this connection has been severed in one realm after another.
Financiers send the world into recession and don’t seem to suffer. Neighbors take on huge mortgages and then just walk away when they go underwater. Washington politicians avoid living within their means. Federal agencies fail and get rewarded with more responsibilities.
What the country is really looking for is a restoration of responsibility. If some smart leader is going to help us get out of ideological gridlock, that leader will reframe politics around this end.
Philip K. Howard has thought hard about the decay of responsibility and what can be done to reverse it. In a series of books ranging from “The Death of Common Sense” to “Life Without Lawyers,” Howard has detailed the ways our political and legal systems undermine personal responsibility.
Over the past several decades, he argues, a thicket of spending obligations, rules and regulations has arisen, which limits individual discretion, narrows room for maneuver and makes it harder to assign responsibility.
Presidents find that more and more of their budgets are precommitted to entitlement spending. Cabinet secretaries find that their agenda can’t really be enacted because 100 million words of existing federal rules and statutes prevent innovation this way and that. Even when a new law is passed, it’s very hard to tell who is responsible for executing it because there is a profusion of agencies and bureaucratic levels all with some share of the pie.
These things weaken individual initiative, discretion and responsibility. But the decay expands well beyond Washington. Teachers don’t really control their classrooms. They have to obey a steady stream of mandates that govern everything from how they treat an unruly child to the way they teach. Doctors don’t really control their practices but must be wary of a capricious malpractice system that could strike at any moment. Local government officials don’t really govern their towns. Their room for maneuver is sharply constrained by federal mandates and by the steady stream of lawsuits that push them in ways defying common sense.
What’s needed, Howard argues, is a great streamlining. He’s not calling for deregulation. It’s about giving teachers, doctors and officials the power to actually make decisions and then holding them accountable. Some of their choices will be wrong, Howard acknowledges, but it is better to live in an imperfect world of individual responsibility than it is to live within a dehumanizing legal thicket that seeks to eliminate risk through a tangle of micromanaging statutes.
Howard proposes expanding specialized health courts, which would be more predictable than the malpractice system. He would lift controls on teachers and civil servants — giving them more freedom but then ending tenure and holding them accountable. He would create commissions to eliminate obsolete laws. He would expand judges’ discretion and end mandatory sentencing.
Howard’s agenda raises some thorny issues. But he has seized the crucial theme of the moment. If bad government undermines responsibility then it should be restructured. And he’s offering one tool a creative politician could use to break through the logjam and help us avoid a truly awful few years.
NYT: Management Shuffle Seen at HSBC
September 23, 2010
By LANDON THOMAS Jr. and JULIA WERDIGIER
LONDON — The chief executive of HSBC, Michael Geoghegan, is expected to step down after failing to be promoted to the chairman’s job, a surprise development that has rattled a bank not generally known for boardroom intrigue.
Mr. Geoghegan is to be replaced by Stuart Gulliver, who currently runs HSBC’s investment banking business, according to a person with direct knowledge of the plan, who declined to be identified until the decision was made public.
While such sharp-elbowed tussles are common on Wall Street, they are unusual for tradition-bound HSBC, a global behemoth with roots dating to the heyday of the British Empire. They also underscore the extent to which bank boards have become sensitive to corporate governance issues in choosing leaders.
The shakeup is unlikely to affect the bank’s strategy, however, which has been to move away from its disastrous foray into the U.S. subprime market and expand its already substantial operations in Hong Kong, mainland China and elsewhere in emerging Asia.
“The strategy doesn’t look like it’s going to change, so that will calm investors,” said Keith Bowman, an analyst at the asset management firm Hargreaves Lansdown in London.
Mr. Geoghegan recently moved to Hong Kong to head the bank’s shift in focus toward Asia. He had received credit for having maintained the bank’s profitability during the financial crisis better than its peers.
But the ambitious and quick-tempered Mr. Geoghegan was resisting a move by a board succession committee to appoint a chairman from outside the bank’s ranks. That would have broken a longstanding precedent at HSBC of chief executives’ moving directly up to the role of chairman.
The issue came to a head two weeks ago when the current chairman, Stephen Green, said he was stepping down for a job as trade minister in the new British government, ending a 28-year career at the bank.
Over the past few months, John Thornton, a former Goldman Sachs president who recently joined HSBC’s U.S. operations as a nonexecutive chairman, had emerged as a leading candidate to take the overall chairman’s job, which is still based in London.
The chairman still has an executive role, but responsibility for the main strategic decisions has shifted over the past year toward the chief executive. Still, Mr. Geoghegan dug in, and the board succession committee began to look for other options.
It appears to have settled on Douglas Flint, the chief financial officer, as chairman based in London, according to the person with direct knowledge of the matter. The chief executive’s post would remain in Hong Kong.
HSBC’s board is scheduled to meet in Shanghai on Tuesday and is expected to vote on the appointments then.
“There seems to be an underlying sentiment that now may be a good time for a new management,” Mr. Bowman said. “There’s also an element of fatigue, and it seems banks are through the worst and now is a time to step aside and let someone else do the job.”
HSBC shares were up slightly in midday London trading.
The changes are the latest in a series at London-based banks. Earlier this month, Robert E. Diamond Jr. was named to replace John Varley as chief executive of Barclays, and Eric Daniels, the chief executive of Lloyds, has said he will step down at the end of the year.
For the ever-striving Mr. Thornton, the near miss with HSBC is certainly a blow.
Earlier this decade, Mr. Thornton, as president of Goldman Sachs, missed out on the top job there when Henry M. Paulson Jr. passed him by, prompting his departure. Since then, Mr. Thornton has thrown his considerable energies into China, teaching at a university and advising corporations and politicians there.
The HSBC chairmanship would have been a coup, giving him a substantial corporate platform with one of the most globally oriented financial institutions.
While Mr. Gulliver is an investment banker by trade, he does not typify the risk-happy, larger-than-life mold set by Mr. Diamond — a prototype that has set political teeth on edge in Britain amid concerns that Barclays would become beholden to the big bets taken by its bankers and traders. In fact, since taking the helm of the bank’s markets division in 2006, Mr. Gulliver has worked on aligning investment banking efforts with the group’s broader focus of continuing to expand in emerging markets.
And in so doing, he has reversed an earlier course set by the bank to build up a U.S.-style investment institution by hiring banking superstars, most notoriously John Studzinski, a former Morgan Stanley banker who for a period shared the title of investment banking head with Mr. Gulliver before he left to join the Blackstone Group.
As with Barclays, the investment bank — called global banking and markets — drove profitability at HSBC, generating half of the group’s pretax profit through the first six months of last year. But with the focus on emerging markets, as opposed to U.S. capital markets, the risk profile for the division is lower.
Still, Mr. Gulliver, 51, a Briton who has worked at the bank since 1980, was paid £9 million, or more than $14 million at current rates, in shares last year, along with a base of £826,000, making him the highest-paid banker at HSBC.
As for Mr. Flint, he is a well-regarded executive whose tight grip on the bank’s finances should make him an appealing chairman for investors.
What remains unclear is the extent to which the boardroom divisions will heal over time. Mr. Thornton, in addition to his position in the United States, is a group director and head of the remuneration committee, and it is uncertain how his having narrowly missed out on the job would affect his fiduciary duty as a board member.
What is more, by having two longtime executives running the bank, HSBC runs the risk of being seen as having a less independent board than its main peers in London, Barclays and Lloyds, both of which have chairman who have not held executive positions at the banks they preside over.
“The decision to settle a bitter succession battle by appointing two insiders to top positions is a troubling reminder that an ‘independent board’ remains more hope than reality in financial services giants such as HSBC,” said James Post, a professor of corporate governance at Boston University school of management.
By LANDON THOMAS Jr. and JULIA WERDIGIER
LONDON — The chief executive of HSBC, Michael Geoghegan, is expected to step down after failing to be promoted to the chairman’s job, a surprise development that has rattled a bank not generally known for boardroom intrigue.
Mr. Geoghegan is to be replaced by Stuart Gulliver, who currently runs HSBC’s investment banking business, according to a person with direct knowledge of the plan, who declined to be identified until the decision was made public.
While such sharp-elbowed tussles are common on Wall Street, they are unusual for tradition-bound HSBC, a global behemoth with roots dating to the heyday of the British Empire. They also underscore the extent to which bank boards have become sensitive to corporate governance issues in choosing leaders.
The shakeup is unlikely to affect the bank’s strategy, however, which has been to move away from its disastrous foray into the U.S. subprime market and expand its already substantial operations in Hong Kong, mainland China and elsewhere in emerging Asia.
“The strategy doesn’t look like it’s going to change, so that will calm investors,” said Keith Bowman, an analyst at the asset management firm Hargreaves Lansdown in London.
Mr. Geoghegan recently moved to Hong Kong to head the bank’s shift in focus toward Asia. He had received credit for having maintained the bank’s profitability during the financial crisis better than its peers.
But the ambitious and quick-tempered Mr. Geoghegan was resisting a move by a board succession committee to appoint a chairman from outside the bank’s ranks. That would have broken a longstanding precedent at HSBC of chief executives’ moving directly up to the role of chairman.
The issue came to a head two weeks ago when the current chairman, Stephen Green, said he was stepping down for a job as trade minister in the new British government, ending a 28-year career at the bank.
Over the past few months, John Thornton, a former Goldman Sachs president who recently joined HSBC’s U.S. operations as a nonexecutive chairman, had emerged as a leading candidate to take the overall chairman’s job, which is still based in London.
The chairman still has an executive role, but responsibility for the main strategic decisions has shifted over the past year toward the chief executive. Still, Mr. Geoghegan dug in, and the board succession committee began to look for other options.
It appears to have settled on Douglas Flint, the chief financial officer, as chairman based in London, according to the person with direct knowledge of the matter. The chief executive’s post would remain in Hong Kong.
HSBC’s board is scheduled to meet in Shanghai on Tuesday and is expected to vote on the appointments then.
“There seems to be an underlying sentiment that now may be a good time for a new management,” Mr. Bowman said. “There’s also an element of fatigue, and it seems banks are through the worst and now is a time to step aside and let someone else do the job.”
HSBC shares were up slightly in midday London trading.
The changes are the latest in a series at London-based banks. Earlier this month, Robert E. Diamond Jr. was named to replace John Varley as chief executive of Barclays, and Eric Daniels, the chief executive of Lloyds, has said he will step down at the end of the year.
For the ever-striving Mr. Thornton, the near miss with HSBC is certainly a blow.
Earlier this decade, Mr. Thornton, as president of Goldman Sachs, missed out on the top job there when Henry M. Paulson Jr. passed him by, prompting his departure. Since then, Mr. Thornton has thrown his considerable energies into China, teaching at a university and advising corporations and politicians there.
The HSBC chairmanship would have been a coup, giving him a substantial corporate platform with one of the most globally oriented financial institutions.
While Mr. Gulliver is an investment banker by trade, he does not typify the risk-happy, larger-than-life mold set by Mr. Diamond — a prototype that has set political teeth on edge in Britain amid concerns that Barclays would become beholden to the big bets taken by its bankers and traders. In fact, since taking the helm of the bank’s markets division in 2006, Mr. Gulliver has worked on aligning investment banking efforts with the group’s broader focus of continuing to expand in emerging markets.
And in so doing, he has reversed an earlier course set by the bank to build up a U.S.-style investment institution by hiring banking superstars, most notoriously John Studzinski, a former Morgan Stanley banker who for a period shared the title of investment banking head with Mr. Gulliver before he left to join the Blackstone Group.
As with Barclays, the investment bank — called global banking and markets — drove profitability at HSBC, generating half of the group’s pretax profit through the first six months of last year. But with the focus on emerging markets, as opposed to U.S. capital markets, the risk profile for the division is lower.
Still, Mr. Gulliver, 51, a Briton who has worked at the bank since 1980, was paid £9 million, or more than $14 million at current rates, in shares last year, along with a base of £826,000, making him the highest-paid banker at HSBC.
As for Mr. Flint, he is a well-regarded executive whose tight grip on the bank’s finances should make him an appealing chairman for investors.
What remains unclear is the extent to which the boardroom divisions will heal over time. Mr. Thornton, in addition to his position in the United States, is a group director and head of the remuneration committee, and it is uncertain how his having narrowly missed out on the job would affect his fiduciary duty as a board member.
What is more, by having two longtime executives running the bank, HSBC runs the risk of being seen as having a less independent board than its main peers in London, Barclays and Lloyds, both of which have chairman who have not held executive positions at the banks they preside over.
“The decision to settle a bitter succession battle by appointing two insiders to top positions is a troubling reminder that an ‘independent board’ remains more hope than reality in financial services giants such as HSBC,” said James Post, a professor of corporate governance at Boston University school of management.
NYT: Downhill With the G.O.P.By PAUL KRUGMAN
September 23, 2010
Once upon a time, a Latin American political party promised to help motorists save money on gasoline. How? By building highways that ran only downhill.
I’ve always liked that story, but the truth is that the party received hardly any votes. And that means that the joke is really on us. For these days one of America’s two great political parties routinely makes equally nonsensical promises. Never mind the war on terror, the party’s main concern seems to be the war on arithmetic. And this party has a better than even chance of retaking at least one house of Congress this November.
Banana republic, here we come.
On Thursday, House Republicans released their “Pledge to America,” supposedly outlining their policy agenda. In essence, what they say is, “Deficits are a terrible thing. Let’s make them much bigger.” The document repeatedly condemns federal debt — 16 times, by my count. But the main substantive policy proposal is to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, which independent estimates say would add about $3.7 trillion to the debt over the next decade — about $700 billion more than the Obama administration’s tax proposals.
True, the document talks about the need to cut spending. But as far as I can see, there’s only one specific cut proposed — canceling the rest of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which Republicans claim (implausibly) would save $16 billion. That’s less than half of 1 percent of the budget cost of those tax cuts. As for the rest, everything must be cut, in ways not specified — “except for common-sense exceptions for seniors, veterans, and our troops.” In other words, Social Security, Medicare and the defense budget are off-limits.
So what’s left? Howard Gleckman of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has done the math. As he points out, the only way to balance the budget by 2020, while simultaneously (a) making the Bush tax cuts permanent and (b) protecting all the programs Republicans say they won’t cut, is to completely abolish the rest of the federal government: “No more national parks, no more Small Business Administration loans, no more export subsidies, no more N.I.H. No more Medicaid (one-third of its budget pays for long-term care for our parents and others with disabilities). No more child health or child nutrition programs. No more highway construction. No more homeland security. Oh, and no more Congress.”
The “pledge,” then, is nonsense. But isn’t that true of all political platforms? The answer is, not to anything like the same extent. Many independent analysts believe that the Obama administration’s long-run budget projections are somewhat too optimistic — but, if so, it’s a matter of technical details. Neither President Obama nor any other leading Democrat, as far as I can recall, has ever claimed that up is down, that you can sharply reduce revenue, protect all the programs voters like, and still balance the budget.
And the G.O.P. itself used to make more sense than it does now. Ronald Reagan’s claim that cutting taxes would actually increase revenue was wishful thinking, but at least he had some kind of theory behind his proposals. When former President George W. Bush campaigned for big tax cuts in 2000, he claimed that these cuts were affordable given (unrealistic) projections of future budget surpluses. Now, however, Republicans aren’t even pretending that their numbers add up.
So how did we get to the point where one of our two major political parties isn’t even trying to make sense?
The answer isn’t a secret. The late Irving Kristol, one of the intellectual godfathers of modern conservatism, once wrote frankly about why he threw his support behind tax cuts that would worsen the budget deficit: his task, as he saw it, was to create a Republican majority, “so political effectiveness was the priority, not the accounting deficiencies of government.” In short, say whatever it takes to gain power. That’s a philosophy that now, more than ever, holds sway in the movement Kristol helped shape.
And what happens once the movement achieves the power it seeks? The answer, presumably, is that it turns to its real, not-so-secret agenda, which mainly involves privatizing and dismantling Medicare and Social Security.
Realistically, though, Republicans aren’t going to have the power to enact their true agenda any time soon — if ever. Remember, the Bush administration’s attack on Social Security was a fiasco, despite its large majority in Congress — and it actually increased Medicare spending.
So the clear and present danger isn’t that the G.O.P. will be able to achieve its long-run goals. It is, rather, that Republicans will gain just enough power to make the country ungovernable, unable to address its fiscal problems or anything else in a serious way. As I said, banana republic, here we come.
Once upon a time, a Latin American political party promised to help motorists save money on gasoline. How? By building highways that ran only downhill.
I’ve always liked that story, but the truth is that the party received hardly any votes. And that means that the joke is really on us. For these days one of America’s two great political parties routinely makes equally nonsensical promises. Never mind the war on terror, the party’s main concern seems to be the war on arithmetic. And this party has a better than even chance of retaking at least one house of Congress this November.
Banana republic, here we come.
On Thursday, House Republicans released their “Pledge to America,” supposedly outlining their policy agenda. In essence, what they say is, “Deficits are a terrible thing. Let’s make them much bigger.” The document repeatedly condemns federal debt — 16 times, by my count. But the main substantive policy proposal is to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, which independent estimates say would add about $3.7 trillion to the debt over the next decade — about $700 billion more than the Obama administration’s tax proposals.
True, the document talks about the need to cut spending. But as far as I can see, there’s only one specific cut proposed — canceling the rest of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which Republicans claim (implausibly) would save $16 billion. That’s less than half of 1 percent of the budget cost of those tax cuts. As for the rest, everything must be cut, in ways not specified — “except for common-sense exceptions for seniors, veterans, and our troops.” In other words, Social Security, Medicare and the defense budget are off-limits.
So what’s left? Howard Gleckman of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has done the math. As he points out, the only way to balance the budget by 2020, while simultaneously (a) making the Bush tax cuts permanent and (b) protecting all the programs Republicans say they won’t cut, is to completely abolish the rest of the federal government: “No more national parks, no more Small Business Administration loans, no more export subsidies, no more N.I.H. No more Medicaid (one-third of its budget pays for long-term care for our parents and others with disabilities). No more child health or child nutrition programs. No more highway construction. No more homeland security. Oh, and no more Congress.”
The “pledge,” then, is nonsense. But isn’t that true of all political platforms? The answer is, not to anything like the same extent. Many independent analysts believe that the Obama administration’s long-run budget projections are somewhat too optimistic — but, if so, it’s a matter of technical details. Neither President Obama nor any other leading Democrat, as far as I can recall, has ever claimed that up is down, that you can sharply reduce revenue, protect all the programs voters like, and still balance the budget.
And the G.O.P. itself used to make more sense than it does now. Ronald Reagan’s claim that cutting taxes would actually increase revenue was wishful thinking, but at least he had some kind of theory behind his proposals. When former President George W. Bush campaigned for big tax cuts in 2000, he claimed that these cuts were affordable given (unrealistic) projections of future budget surpluses. Now, however, Republicans aren’t even pretending that their numbers add up.
So how did we get to the point where one of our two major political parties isn’t even trying to make sense?
The answer isn’t a secret. The late Irving Kristol, one of the intellectual godfathers of modern conservatism, once wrote frankly about why he threw his support behind tax cuts that would worsen the budget deficit: his task, as he saw it, was to create a Republican majority, “so political effectiveness was the priority, not the accounting deficiencies of government.” In short, say whatever it takes to gain power. That’s a philosophy that now, more than ever, holds sway in the movement Kristol helped shape.
And what happens once the movement achieves the power it seeks? The answer, presumably, is that it turns to its real, not-so-secret agenda, which mainly involves privatizing and dismantling Medicare and Social Security.
Realistically, though, Republicans aren’t going to have the power to enact their true agenda any time soon — if ever. Remember, the Bush administration’s attack on Social Security was a fiasco, despite its large majority in Congress — and it actually increased Medicare spending.
So the clear and present danger isn’t that the G.O.P. will be able to achieve its long-run goals. It is, rather, that Republicans will gain just enough power to make the country ungovernable, unable to address its fiscal problems or anything else in a serious way. As I said, banana republic, here we come.
Dispute with Japan highlights China's foreign-policy power struggle
By John Pomfret
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 24, 2010; 7:43 AM
The increasingly bitter dispute between China and Japan over a small group of islands in the Pacific is heightening concerns in capitals across the globe over who controls China's foreign policy.
A new generation of officials in the military, key government ministries and state-owned companies has begun to define how China deals with the rest of the world. Emboldened by China's economic expansion, these officials are taking advantage of a weakened leadership at the top of the Communist Party to assert their interests in ways that would have been impossible even a decade ago.
It used to be that Chinese officials complained about the Byzantine decision-making process in the United States. Today, from Washington to Tokyo, the talk is about how difficult it is to contend with the explosion of special interests shaping China's worldview.
"Now we have to deal across agencies and departments and ministries," said a U.S. official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss ties with China. "The relationship is extraordinarily complex."
Said a senior Japanese diplomat: "We, too, are often confused about China's intentions and who is calling the shots."
Japanese officials said the People's Liberation Army is responsible for the friction over the disputed island chain, known as the Senkakus in Japan and the Diaoyu islands in China. In early September, Japan's coast guard detained the captain of a Chinese fishing trawler, accusing him of ramming a Japanese coast guard vessel. In previous crises, China's Foreign Ministry has acted as a calming influence, but this time, Japanese diplomats said, the military led the charge.
China responded by demanding the captain's release, suspending talks, canceling the visits of Japanese schoolchildren and on Thursday arresting four Japanese who allegedly were taking photographs near a Chinese military installation.
In an apparent effort to defuse the escalating tensions, Japan announced Friday that it would release the Chinese captain.
Washington signaled to Beijing on Thursday that it would back Japan in the territorial dispute. Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters: "Obviously we're very, very strongly in support of . . . our ally in that region, Japan."
Other examples
The island dispute is the latest instance of players other than the party's central leadership driving China's engagement with the outside world.
Throughout this year, officials from the Ministry of Commerce, who represent China's exporters, have lobbied vociferously against revaluing China's currency, the yuan, despite calls to the contrary from the People's Bank of China and the Ministry of Finance.
In Iran, China's state-owned oil companies are pushing to do more business, even though Beijing backed enhanced U.N. sanctions against Tehran because of its alleged nuclear weapons program. The China National Offshore Oil Co. is in talks to ramp up its investment in the massive Azadegan oil field just as Japanese companies are backing out, senior diplomatic sources said. The move by CNOOC would have the effect of "gutting" the new sanctions, one diplomat said. U.S. officials have stressed to China that they do not want to see China's oil companies "filling in" as other oil companies leave, a senior U.S. official said.
China's main nuclear power corporation wants to build a one-gigawatt nuclear power plant in Pakistan even though it appears to be a violation of international guidelines forbidding nuclear exports to countries that have not signed onto the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or do not have international safeguards on reactors. Pakistan has not signed the treaty.
"We have never had this situation before," said Huang Ping, the director of the Institute for American Studies at China's Academy of Social Sciences. "And it is troubling. We need more coordination among all agencies, including the military."
U.S. reaction
The U.S. government is trying to adapt to this new China with a mixture of honey and vinegar.
In July, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton talked tough with China about its claims to the whole of the South China Sea, joining with Vietnam and 10 other Southeast Asian nations to criticize China's recent aggressive behavior in that strategic waterway.
That message - that China should ensure freedom of the seas and negotiate disputed claims peacefully - is expected to be reinforced Friday when President Obama meets in New York with leaders from Southeast Asian nations. Several U.S. officials said the People's Liberation Army and China's state-owned oil companies had been driving China's more forceful claims to the sea.
U.S. officials have also moved to establish more personal connections with Chinese officials. Last month, Deputy Secretary of State James B. Steinberg, the second-ranking U.S. diplomat, spent a full day with Cui Tiankai, one of 12 assistant Chinese foreign ministers, taking him to the Inn at Little Washington, a restaurant in Virginia. The entourage proceeded to a 30-acre farm belonging to a senior State Department official, where Cui took a ride on a tractor. And in an attempt to engage more Chinese stakeholders than in the past, Clinton and Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner led the largest-ever delegation of U.S. officials to Beijing in May.
Several factors account for the rise of competing interests. President Hu Jintao has led the Communist Party for eight years, but it is not clear that he has ever been fully in control. After Hu took power in 2002, his predecessor, Jiang Zemin, stayed on as chief of China's military for two years. And Hu was the top man in a nine-member Politburo standing committee, but at least five of the seats were occupied by Jiang's allies.
"This is a time when the Chinese government is weak," said Shen Dingli, the executive dean of the Center for American Studies at Fudan University in Shanghai. "As a result, different interest groups have been unleashed in a less coordinated and less centralized way."
Simultaneously, the influence of China's Foreign Ministry is waning. Dai Bingguo, the current foreign policy supremo has no seat on the powerful 25-member Politburo; the military has two, and the state-owned sector has at least one.
While there is competition across ministries in China, U.S. officials have focused on the gap between the civilian side of the government and the People's Liberation Army.
In recent months, military officers have begun to air their views on foreign policy matters, seeking to define China's interests in the seas around the country.
Gen. Ma Xiaotian, deputy chief of the army's general staff, has blasted the United States for its involvement in the South China Sea. And in August, Maj. Gen. Luo Yuan lashed out at the United States for reportedly planning to deploy the aircraft carrier USS George Washington in the Yellow Sea for joint exercises with South Korea. (The George Washington was subsequently sent to the Sea of Japan, farther from China.)
Countering military
Not all of the military statements went over well in China. In recent weeks, the Foreign Ministry has begun to push back against the military. In recent interviews in Beijing, officials and senior advisers to the government excoriated the military for making policy pronouncements.
"For me, it is surprising that I'm seeing a general from the People's Liberation Army making a public statement regarding foreign policy, but this is China today," said Wu Jianmin, a former ambassador who helps run a think tank and advises China's leadership on foreign policy.
"This is not something the military should do," said Chu Shulong, professor of international relations at Tsinghua University. "These people don't represent the government, but it creates international repercussions when they speak out."
China's media is another factor in the fracturing of China's foreign policy. Another foreign policy player, the Ministry of Propaganda, has allowed the state-run press to criticize foreign governments as a way to bolster the Communist Party's position at home. As a result, China's newer publications, such as the mass-circulation Global Times, cover international affairs - in particular relations with the United States and Japan - with all the verve that People magazine pours into the adventures of Paris Hilton.
"We are not happy about many of the stories published today," Wu said. "We Foreign Ministry people have told them you shouldn't do that, but they say, 'So what? Let the Americans hear a different voice.' "
Shen, the American studies scholar, said some in China's leadership may support the idea of sending mixed messages on foreign policy as a way of testing the United States or Japan.
"The civilian government may think it does no harm," he said. "After all, if they succeed, it may advance China's interests."
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 24, 2010; 7:43 AM
The increasingly bitter dispute between China and Japan over a small group of islands in the Pacific is heightening concerns in capitals across the globe over who controls China's foreign policy.
A new generation of officials in the military, key government ministries and state-owned companies has begun to define how China deals with the rest of the world. Emboldened by China's economic expansion, these officials are taking advantage of a weakened leadership at the top of the Communist Party to assert their interests in ways that would have been impossible even a decade ago.
It used to be that Chinese officials complained about the Byzantine decision-making process in the United States. Today, from Washington to Tokyo, the talk is about how difficult it is to contend with the explosion of special interests shaping China's worldview.
"Now we have to deal across agencies and departments and ministries," said a U.S. official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss ties with China. "The relationship is extraordinarily complex."
Said a senior Japanese diplomat: "We, too, are often confused about China's intentions and who is calling the shots."
Japanese officials said the People's Liberation Army is responsible for the friction over the disputed island chain, known as the Senkakus in Japan and the Diaoyu islands in China. In early September, Japan's coast guard detained the captain of a Chinese fishing trawler, accusing him of ramming a Japanese coast guard vessel. In previous crises, China's Foreign Ministry has acted as a calming influence, but this time, Japanese diplomats said, the military led the charge.
China responded by demanding the captain's release, suspending talks, canceling the visits of Japanese schoolchildren and on Thursday arresting four Japanese who allegedly were taking photographs near a Chinese military installation.
In an apparent effort to defuse the escalating tensions, Japan announced Friday that it would release the Chinese captain.
Washington signaled to Beijing on Thursday that it would back Japan in the territorial dispute. Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters: "Obviously we're very, very strongly in support of . . . our ally in that region, Japan."
Other examples
The island dispute is the latest instance of players other than the party's central leadership driving China's engagement with the outside world.
Throughout this year, officials from the Ministry of Commerce, who represent China's exporters, have lobbied vociferously against revaluing China's currency, the yuan, despite calls to the contrary from the People's Bank of China and the Ministry of Finance.
In Iran, China's state-owned oil companies are pushing to do more business, even though Beijing backed enhanced U.N. sanctions against Tehran because of its alleged nuclear weapons program. The China National Offshore Oil Co. is in talks to ramp up its investment in the massive Azadegan oil field just as Japanese companies are backing out, senior diplomatic sources said. The move by CNOOC would have the effect of "gutting" the new sanctions, one diplomat said. U.S. officials have stressed to China that they do not want to see China's oil companies "filling in" as other oil companies leave, a senior U.S. official said.
China's main nuclear power corporation wants to build a one-gigawatt nuclear power plant in Pakistan even though it appears to be a violation of international guidelines forbidding nuclear exports to countries that have not signed onto the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or do not have international safeguards on reactors. Pakistan has not signed the treaty.
"We have never had this situation before," said Huang Ping, the director of the Institute for American Studies at China's Academy of Social Sciences. "And it is troubling. We need more coordination among all agencies, including the military."
U.S. reaction
The U.S. government is trying to adapt to this new China with a mixture of honey and vinegar.
In July, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton talked tough with China about its claims to the whole of the South China Sea, joining with Vietnam and 10 other Southeast Asian nations to criticize China's recent aggressive behavior in that strategic waterway.
That message - that China should ensure freedom of the seas and negotiate disputed claims peacefully - is expected to be reinforced Friday when President Obama meets in New York with leaders from Southeast Asian nations. Several U.S. officials said the People's Liberation Army and China's state-owned oil companies had been driving China's more forceful claims to the sea.
U.S. officials have also moved to establish more personal connections with Chinese officials. Last month, Deputy Secretary of State James B. Steinberg, the second-ranking U.S. diplomat, spent a full day with Cui Tiankai, one of 12 assistant Chinese foreign ministers, taking him to the Inn at Little Washington, a restaurant in Virginia. The entourage proceeded to a 30-acre farm belonging to a senior State Department official, where Cui took a ride on a tractor. And in an attempt to engage more Chinese stakeholders than in the past, Clinton and Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner led the largest-ever delegation of U.S. officials to Beijing in May.
Several factors account for the rise of competing interests. President Hu Jintao has led the Communist Party for eight years, but it is not clear that he has ever been fully in control. After Hu took power in 2002, his predecessor, Jiang Zemin, stayed on as chief of China's military for two years. And Hu was the top man in a nine-member Politburo standing committee, but at least five of the seats were occupied by Jiang's allies.
"This is a time when the Chinese government is weak," said Shen Dingli, the executive dean of the Center for American Studies at Fudan University in Shanghai. "As a result, different interest groups have been unleashed in a less coordinated and less centralized way."
Simultaneously, the influence of China's Foreign Ministry is waning. Dai Bingguo, the current foreign policy supremo has no seat on the powerful 25-member Politburo; the military has two, and the state-owned sector has at least one.
While there is competition across ministries in China, U.S. officials have focused on the gap between the civilian side of the government and the People's Liberation Army.
In recent months, military officers have begun to air their views on foreign policy matters, seeking to define China's interests in the seas around the country.
Gen. Ma Xiaotian, deputy chief of the army's general staff, has blasted the United States for its involvement in the South China Sea. And in August, Maj. Gen. Luo Yuan lashed out at the United States for reportedly planning to deploy the aircraft carrier USS George Washington in the Yellow Sea for joint exercises with South Korea. (The George Washington was subsequently sent to the Sea of Japan, farther from China.)
Countering military
Not all of the military statements went over well in China. In recent weeks, the Foreign Ministry has begun to push back against the military. In recent interviews in Beijing, officials and senior advisers to the government excoriated the military for making policy pronouncements.
"For me, it is surprising that I'm seeing a general from the People's Liberation Army making a public statement regarding foreign policy, but this is China today," said Wu Jianmin, a former ambassador who helps run a think tank and advises China's leadership on foreign policy.
"This is not something the military should do," said Chu Shulong, professor of international relations at Tsinghua University. "These people don't represent the government, but it creates international repercussions when they speak out."
China's media is another factor in the fracturing of China's foreign policy. Another foreign policy player, the Ministry of Propaganda, has allowed the state-run press to criticize foreign governments as a way to bolster the Communist Party's position at home. As a result, China's newer publications, such as the mass-circulation Global Times, cover international affairs - in particular relations with the United States and Japan - with all the verve that People magazine pours into the adventures of Paris Hilton.
"We are not happy about many of the stories published today," Wu said. "We Foreign Ministry people have told them you shouldn't do that, but they say, 'So what? Let the Americans hear a different voice.' "
Shen, the American studies scholar, said some in China's leadership may support the idea of sending mixed messages on foreign policy as a way of testing the United States or Japan.
"The civilian government may think it does no harm," he said. "After all, if they succeed, it may advance China's interests."
Xinhua: British economist: China has promising growth prospects
June-2-2010
China has promising growth prospects and should not be blamed for world imbalances, says Danny Quah, a renowned British economist.
"Emergency financing that was placed in the Chinese economy to counter the downturn from the 2008 global financial crisis was the right thing...The imbalances is a global problem, not a China problem," said Quah, a professor at the London School of Economics and Political Science.
China did the right thing in infusing its economy with fiscal stimulus, Quah said in a recent interview with Xinhua.
He also declined to describe the ballooning real estate prices as a bubble, pointing out "the strong fundamentals" of China's economy.
He said the expansion of China's housing construction will be proved useful eventually, given the fact that "China is still engaging in the task of moving hundreds of millions of people from rural areas to urban China to continue to power its manufacturing and industrial progress."
"So I would not describe it as a collapse of real estate bubble, we can look forward to a rationalization of housing and real estate prices," Quah said. "The improvement and expansion of housing stock will play an important role in continuing to move the Chinese economy forward."
"I think Chinese fundamentals will continue to be strong. And a little bit of high inflation, as long as it doesn't break out into some kind of runaway high inflation, is probably no bad thing," he said. "We will get it under control again as the Chinese government did previously."
On allegations that China deliberately keeps its currency RMB weak to obtain unfair advantages in trade with countries like the United States, Quah said people who draw such a false conclusion are misguided.
"The United States is running a trade deficit not just against China. It is running a trade deficit against almost 100 other countries," he said. "China is not unique in how it is exporting more to the United States than it's importing."
The U.S. government was beginning to run a large trade deficit long before China's trade surpluses started grow, he added.
"If you take the ratio of China's bilateral trade surplus against the U.S. as a fraction of the U.S.' overall bilateral trade deficit against all of the countries, it has remained constant over the last 15, 20 years," Quah said.
He said these facts clearly show that the appreciation of RMB will not end the U.S. trade deficit, instead it may produce unexpected repercussions upon the U.S. economy and the rest of the world.
Quah said RMB appreciation would also force American consumers to purchase goods from other nations at higher expenses.
"Revaluation proponents should be reminded that manufacturers of the U.S. rely on the inputs from China," he said. "If China's commodities get more expensive, it would hurt the U.S. industry, and hundreds of thousands of jobs will be destroyed."
When asked what is behind the world imbalances, Quah said: "The direction of the causality I think is much more compelling from the behavior of the U.S. economy to the rest of the world than it is from China to the U.S. economy."
"The inability of the dollar to adjust the world imbalance contributes much to the financial crisis," he said.
"If you believe this alternative of this pattern of causality, then how we fix the problem of trade deficit imbalances is to fix the U.S. economy," he added.
Quah said the U.S. role in the world economy is no longer as optimistic as it was. Other parts of the global economy are actually growing faster and already having a much bigger role in the global economy. American consumers have to be more careful with their borrowing behaviors, he said.
"When they do that, I would argue, a more rational attitude toward savings and consumption. That would restore the world pattern of global balances," he said. "We would need other things as well, but I think that is the single largest cause for global imbalances."
Quah said the "global economy's center of gravity," a quantified indicator showing the global distribution of economic activities, has been moving 2,000 km eastwards for the past three decades, indicating the increasing importance of the East in the world economy.
However, "it may take decades if not centuries to see a shift of leadership from the West to the East with the reconfiguration of political power and soft power paralleled with the economic power," he said.
China has promising growth prospects and should not be blamed for world imbalances, says Danny Quah, a renowned British economist.
"Emergency financing that was placed in the Chinese economy to counter the downturn from the 2008 global financial crisis was the right thing...The imbalances is a global problem, not a China problem," said Quah, a professor at the London School of Economics and Political Science.
China did the right thing in infusing its economy with fiscal stimulus, Quah said in a recent interview with Xinhua.
He also declined to describe the ballooning real estate prices as a bubble, pointing out "the strong fundamentals" of China's economy.
He said the expansion of China's housing construction will be proved useful eventually, given the fact that "China is still engaging in the task of moving hundreds of millions of people from rural areas to urban China to continue to power its manufacturing and industrial progress."
"So I would not describe it as a collapse of real estate bubble, we can look forward to a rationalization of housing and real estate prices," Quah said. "The improvement and expansion of housing stock will play an important role in continuing to move the Chinese economy forward."
"I think Chinese fundamentals will continue to be strong. And a little bit of high inflation, as long as it doesn't break out into some kind of runaway high inflation, is probably no bad thing," he said. "We will get it under control again as the Chinese government did previously."
On allegations that China deliberately keeps its currency RMB weak to obtain unfair advantages in trade with countries like the United States, Quah said people who draw such a false conclusion are misguided.
"The United States is running a trade deficit not just against China. It is running a trade deficit against almost 100 other countries," he said. "China is not unique in how it is exporting more to the United States than it's importing."
The U.S. government was beginning to run a large trade deficit long before China's trade surpluses started grow, he added.
"If you take the ratio of China's bilateral trade surplus against the U.S. as a fraction of the U.S.' overall bilateral trade deficit against all of the countries, it has remained constant over the last 15, 20 years," Quah said.
He said these facts clearly show that the appreciation of RMB will not end the U.S. trade deficit, instead it may produce unexpected repercussions upon the U.S. economy and the rest of the world.
Quah said RMB appreciation would also force American consumers to purchase goods from other nations at higher expenses.
"Revaluation proponents should be reminded that manufacturers of the U.S. rely on the inputs from China," he said. "If China's commodities get more expensive, it would hurt the U.S. industry, and hundreds of thousands of jobs will be destroyed."
When asked what is behind the world imbalances, Quah said: "The direction of the causality I think is much more compelling from the behavior of the U.S. economy to the rest of the world than it is from China to the U.S. economy."
"The inability of the dollar to adjust the world imbalance contributes much to the financial crisis," he said.
"If you believe this alternative of this pattern of causality, then how we fix the problem of trade deficit imbalances is to fix the U.S. economy," he added.
Quah said the U.S. role in the world economy is no longer as optimistic as it was. Other parts of the global economy are actually growing faster and already having a much bigger role in the global economy. American consumers have to be more careful with their borrowing behaviors, he said.
"When they do that, I would argue, a more rational attitude toward savings and consumption. That would restore the world pattern of global balances," he said. "We would need other things as well, but I think that is the single largest cause for global imbalances."
Quah said the "global economy's center of gravity," a quantified indicator showing the global distribution of economic activities, has been moving 2,000 km eastwards for the past three decades, indicating the increasing importance of the East in the world economy.
However, "it may take decades if not centuries to see a shift of leadership from the West to the East with the reconfiguration of political power and soft power paralleled with the economic power," he said.
Xinhua: IMF forecasts China's 2010 GDP growth to 10.5%
Xinhua, July 8, 2010
The International Monetary Fund ( IMF) lifted China's GDP growth forecast for 2010 to 10.5 percent from the earlier projection of 10 percent, the IMF said in a latest world economic outlook released on Thursday.
The body also revised the country's GDP growth projection for 2011 to 9.6 percent, down 0.3 percentage point from the previous estimate released in April.
With the revised figures, China still ranks first in terms of GDP growth among all economies listed in the World Economic Outlook Projections, followed by India, which is forecast to grow 9.4 percent in 2010 and 8.4 percent in 2011.
The IMF attributed the upward revision of China's 2010 GDP growth to the strong rebound in exports and resilient domestic demand so far this year in the country.
The organization said that China could take further measures to slow credit growth and maintain financial stability, and thus comes the lower growth estimate for 2011.
The International Monetary Fund ( IMF) lifted China's GDP growth forecast for 2010 to 10.5 percent from the earlier projection of 10 percent, the IMF said in a latest world economic outlook released on Thursday.
The body also revised the country's GDP growth projection for 2011 to 9.6 percent, down 0.3 percentage point from the previous estimate released in April.
With the revised figures, China still ranks first in terms of GDP growth among all economies listed in the World Economic Outlook Projections, followed by India, which is forecast to grow 9.4 percent in 2010 and 8.4 percent in 2011.
The IMF attributed the upward revision of China's 2010 GDP growth to the strong rebound in exports and resilient domestic demand so far this year in the country.
The organization said that China could take further measures to slow credit growth and maintain financial stability, and thus comes the lower growth estimate for 2011.
Xinhua: China has promising growth prospects: economist
Xinhua, June 2, 2010
China has promising growth prospects and should not be blamed for world imbalances, says Danny Quah, a renowned British economist.
"Emergency financing that was placed in the Chinese economy to counter the downturn from the 2008 global financial crisis was the right thing...The imbalances is a global problem, not a China problem," said Quah, a professor at the London School of Economics and Political Science.
China did the right thing in infusing its economy with fiscal stimulus, Quah said in a recent interview with Xinhua.
He also declined to describe the ballooning real estate prices as a bubble, pointing out "the strong fundamentals" of China's economy.
He said the expansion of China's housing construction will be proved useful eventually, given the fact that "China is still engaging in the task of moving hundreds of millions of people from rural areas to urban China to continue to power its manufacturing and industrial progress."
"So I would not describe it as a collapse of real estate bubble, we can look forward to a rationalization of housing and real estate prices," Quah said. "The improvement and expansion of housing stock will play an important role in continuing to move the Chinese economy forward."
"I think Chinese fundamentals will continue to be strong. And a little bit of high inflation, as long as it doesn't break out into some kind of runaway high inflation, is probably no bad thing," he said. "We will get it under control again as the Chinese government did previously."
On allegations that China deliberately keeps its currency RMB weak to obtain unfair advantages in trade with countries like the United States, Quah said people who draw such a false conclusion are misguided.
"The United States is running a trade deficit not just against China. It is running a trade deficit against almost 100 other countries," he said. "China is not unique in how it is exporting more to the United States than it's importing."
The U.S. government was beginning to run a large trade deficit long before China's trade surpluses started grow, he added.
"If you take the ratio of China's bilateral trade surplus against the U.S. as a fraction of the U.S.' overall bilateral trade deficit against all of the countries, it has remained constant over the last 15, 20 years," Quah said.
He said these facts clearly show that the appreciation of RMB will not end the U.S. trade deficit, instead it may produce unexpected repercussions upon the U.S. economy and the rest of the world.
Quah said RMB appreciation would also force American consumers to purchase goods from other nations at higher expenses.
"Revaluation proponents should be reminded that manufacturers of the U.S. rely on the inputs from China," he said. "If China's commodities get more expensive, it would hurt the U.S. industry, and hundreds of thousands of jobs will be destroyed."
When asked what is behind the world imbalances, Quah said: "The direction of the causality I think is much more compelling from the behavior of the U.S. economy to the rest of the world than it is from China to the U.S. economy."
"The inability of the dollar to adjust the world imbalance contributes much to the financial crisis," he said.
"If you believe this alternative of this pattern of causality, then how we fix the problem of trade deficit imbalances is to fix the U.S. economy," he added.
Quah said the U.S. role in the world economy is no longer as optimistic as it was. Other parts of the global economy are actually growing faster and already having a much bigger role in the global economy. American consumers have to be more careful with their borrowing behaviors, he said.
"When they do that, I would argue, a more rational attitude toward savings and consumption. That would restore the world pattern of global balances," he said. "We would need other things as well, but I think that is the single largest cause for global imbalances."
Quah said the "global economy's center of gravity," a quantified indicator showing the global distribution of economic activities, has been moving 2,000 km eastwards for the past three decades, indicating the increasing importance of the East in the world economy.
However, "it may take decades if not centuries to see a shift of leadership from the West to the East with the reconfiguration of political power and soft power paralleled with the economic power," he said.
China has promising growth prospects and should not be blamed for world imbalances, says Danny Quah, a renowned British economist.
"Emergency financing that was placed in the Chinese economy to counter the downturn from the 2008 global financial crisis was the right thing...The imbalances is a global problem, not a China problem," said Quah, a professor at the London School of Economics and Political Science.
China did the right thing in infusing its economy with fiscal stimulus, Quah said in a recent interview with Xinhua.
He also declined to describe the ballooning real estate prices as a bubble, pointing out "the strong fundamentals" of China's economy.
He said the expansion of China's housing construction will be proved useful eventually, given the fact that "China is still engaging in the task of moving hundreds of millions of people from rural areas to urban China to continue to power its manufacturing and industrial progress."
"So I would not describe it as a collapse of real estate bubble, we can look forward to a rationalization of housing and real estate prices," Quah said. "The improvement and expansion of housing stock will play an important role in continuing to move the Chinese economy forward."
"I think Chinese fundamentals will continue to be strong. And a little bit of high inflation, as long as it doesn't break out into some kind of runaway high inflation, is probably no bad thing," he said. "We will get it under control again as the Chinese government did previously."
On allegations that China deliberately keeps its currency RMB weak to obtain unfair advantages in trade with countries like the United States, Quah said people who draw such a false conclusion are misguided.
"The United States is running a trade deficit not just against China. It is running a trade deficit against almost 100 other countries," he said. "China is not unique in how it is exporting more to the United States than it's importing."
The U.S. government was beginning to run a large trade deficit long before China's trade surpluses started grow, he added.
"If you take the ratio of China's bilateral trade surplus against the U.S. as a fraction of the U.S.' overall bilateral trade deficit against all of the countries, it has remained constant over the last 15, 20 years," Quah said.
He said these facts clearly show that the appreciation of RMB will not end the U.S. trade deficit, instead it may produce unexpected repercussions upon the U.S. economy and the rest of the world.
Quah said RMB appreciation would also force American consumers to purchase goods from other nations at higher expenses.
"Revaluation proponents should be reminded that manufacturers of the U.S. rely on the inputs from China," he said. "If China's commodities get more expensive, it would hurt the U.S. industry, and hundreds of thousands of jobs will be destroyed."
When asked what is behind the world imbalances, Quah said: "The direction of the causality I think is much more compelling from the behavior of the U.S. economy to the rest of the world than it is from China to the U.S. economy."
"The inability of the dollar to adjust the world imbalance contributes much to the financial crisis," he said.
"If you believe this alternative of this pattern of causality, then how we fix the problem of trade deficit imbalances is to fix the U.S. economy," he added.
Quah said the U.S. role in the world economy is no longer as optimistic as it was. Other parts of the global economy are actually growing faster and already having a much bigger role in the global economy. American consumers have to be more careful with their borrowing behaviors, he said.
"When they do that, I would argue, a more rational attitude toward savings and consumption. That would restore the world pattern of global balances," he said. "We would need other things as well, but I think that is the single largest cause for global imbalances."
Quah said the "global economy's center of gravity," a quantified indicator showing the global distribution of economic activities, has been moving 2,000 km eastwards for the past three decades, indicating the increasing importance of the East in the world economy.
However, "it may take decades if not centuries to see a shift of leadership from the West to the East with the reconfiguration of political power and soft power paralleled with the economic power," he said.
Obama: China's growth is 'good for' U.S.
1 CommentsPrint E-mail Xinhua, September 21, 2010 Adjust font size: U.S. President Barack Obama said Monday that China's rapid economic development is in the interest of U.S. economy.
U.S. President Barack Obama hosts a press conference in the East Room of the White House in Washington D.C., capital of the United States, Sept. 10, 2010. [Xinhua]
"It's good for us that China has done well," Obama said at a town-hall-style meeting telecast live on CNBC before heading to Pennsylvania to raise money for a Democratic Senate candidate.
His address is in line with U.S. Secretary of Treasury Timothy Geithner's testimony to the Congress last Thursday.
"We have very significant economic interests in our relationship with China," Geithner said, "a strong and growing China benefits the United States, just as a strong and growing United States is good for China."
In responding to a question about China's currency issue, Obama said that China's currency is lower than the market says that it should be, but trade is in the benefit for both sides.
"I just want to make sure trade is good for American businesses and American workers," Obama said.
"We are going to continue to insist that on this issue, and on all trade issues between us and China, that it is a two-way street, " he said.
Facing November elections shaped by voter anger at the sour economy, U.S. lawmakers are weighing bills that would slap sanctions on Chinese goods, amid accusations that China keeps its currency -- and thereby its exports -- artificially cheap.
The Obama administration acknowledged that China's imports supported the global economy and contributed substantially to recovery around the world.
With over 1.3 billion people and an economy continuing to grow at or near double-digit rates, China is the U.S.' fastest-growing major overseas market.
China's record of bringing hundreds of millions out of poverty, building a rapidly growing middle class, and now its efforts to encourage growth led by domestic demand, ultimately mean more demand for American goods and services.
In order to pull the economy out of recession, Obama launched National Export Initiative (NEI) in March and set the goal of doubling the U.S. export in five years and creating two million jobs in the country.
The Obama administration is clear that the vast Chinese market is a crucial part to fulfill the goal.
"Increasing opportunities for U.S. firms and workers through expanded trade and investment with China will be an important part of the success of the President's National Export Initiative and our efforts to support job growth more broadly."
According to the Treasury Department, China is a critical market for a broad range of American products, from agriculture, to manufacturing, to services.
China was the largest market for U.S. soybeans last year, importing over 9 billion dollars.
In the manufacturing sector, the United States has already exported nearly 3.5 billion dollars in aircraft to China this year alone, and U.S. exports of automobiles and parts to China have grown over 200 percent.
The issues in China and U.S. economic relations and trade should be properly solved through consultations on an equal footing. Exerting pressure cannot solve the issue. Rather, it may lead to the contrary, China's Foreign Ministry said recently.
U.S. President Barack Obama hosts a press conference in the East Room of the White House in Washington D.C., capital of the United States, Sept. 10, 2010. [Xinhua]
"It's good for us that China has done well," Obama said at a town-hall-style meeting telecast live on CNBC before heading to Pennsylvania to raise money for a Democratic Senate candidate.
His address is in line with U.S. Secretary of Treasury Timothy Geithner's testimony to the Congress last Thursday.
"We have very significant economic interests in our relationship with China," Geithner said, "a strong and growing China benefits the United States, just as a strong and growing United States is good for China."
In responding to a question about China's currency issue, Obama said that China's currency is lower than the market says that it should be, but trade is in the benefit for both sides.
"I just want to make sure trade is good for American businesses and American workers," Obama said.
"We are going to continue to insist that on this issue, and on all trade issues between us and China, that it is a two-way street, " he said.
Facing November elections shaped by voter anger at the sour economy, U.S. lawmakers are weighing bills that would slap sanctions on Chinese goods, amid accusations that China keeps its currency -- and thereby its exports -- artificially cheap.
The Obama administration acknowledged that China's imports supported the global economy and contributed substantially to recovery around the world.
With over 1.3 billion people and an economy continuing to grow at or near double-digit rates, China is the U.S.' fastest-growing major overseas market.
China's record of bringing hundreds of millions out of poverty, building a rapidly growing middle class, and now its efforts to encourage growth led by domestic demand, ultimately mean more demand for American goods and services.
In order to pull the economy out of recession, Obama launched National Export Initiative (NEI) in March and set the goal of doubling the U.S. export in five years and creating two million jobs in the country.
The Obama administration is clear that the vast Chinese market is a crucial part to fulfill the goal.
"Increasing opportunities for U.S. firms and workers through expanded trade and investment with China will be an important part of the success of the President's National Export Initiative and our efforts to support job growth more broadly."
According to the Treasury Department, China is a critical market for a broad range of American products, from agriculture, to manufacturing, to services.
China was the largest market for U.S. soybeans last year, importing over 9 billion dollars.
In the manufacturing sector, the United States has already exported nearly 3.5 billion dollars in aircraft to China this year alone, and U.S. exports of automobiles and parts to China have grown over 200 percent.
The issues in China and U.S. economic relations and trade should be properly solved through consultations on an equal footing. Exerting pressure cannot solve the issue. Rather, it may lead to the contrary, China's Foreign Ministry said recently.
Xinhua: Chinese PM meets Obama
0 CommentsPrint E-mail Xinhua, September 24, 2010 Adjust font size: Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao met with U.S. President Barack Obama in New York on Thursday, focusing on bilateral ties and regional and world issues and calling for more cooperation.
Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (L) meets with U.S. President Barack Obama in New York, the United States, Sept. 23, 2010. [Huang Jinwen/Xinhua]
China and the United States can deepen their cooperation on significant international affairs and major regional issues as well as on efforts to handle global financial woes and climate change, Wen said.
He said China and the United States could forge an even closer and wider-ranging trade and financial relationship.
At the beginning of the meeting, Wen said the China-U.S. relationship has advanced beyond the bilateral scope and has a major impact on the world.
The common interests of the two countries far outweigh their differences, Wen said.
Although there exist differences between China and the United States, the problems can be well solved through dialogue and cooperation, the premier said.
The meeting at the United Nations added to the increasing number of meetings held between Chinese and American leaders since Obama took office in 2009.
Obama, for his part, noted that since taking office, he has had good cooperation with the Chinese leadership. The United States will continue to enhance its ties with China on the basis of common interests and mutual respect, Obama added.
The two sides have already cooperated on a range of important issues, including the global financial crisis, and have also cooperated well under the G-20 framework, the president said.
With the global economic situation gradually restoring stability, Washington and Beijing need to consolidate cooperation to fight nuclear proliferation and climate change, Obama added.
"On economic terms, it is important for us to have frank discussion and to work cooperatively in order to achieve a type of more balanced and sustainable economic growth," the president said.
"We also have to work cooperatively together to achieve regional peace and stability" because the world regards the China-U.S. relationship as critical criteria on the whole range of security cooperation, he added.
The meeting arranged on the sidelines of U.N. conferences, was expected to improve bilateral ties and deepen mutual trust at a time when Sino-U.S. relations are clouded by trade arguments but dominated by both countries' willingness to cooperate.
Wen arrived in New York on Tuesday evening to attend a series of U.N. meetings.
Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (L) meets with U.S. President Barack Obama in New York, the United States, Sept. 23, 2010. [Huang Jinwen/Xinhua]
China and the United States can deepen their cooperation on significant international affairs and major regional issues as well as on efforts to handle global financial woes and climate change, Wen said.
He said China and the United States could forge an even closer and wider-ranging trade and financial relationship.
At the beginning of the meeting, Wen said the China-U.S. relationship has advanced beyond the bilateral scope and has a major impact on the world.
The common interests of the two countries far outweigh their differences, Wen said.
Although there exist differences between China and the United States, the problems can be well solved through dialogue and cooperation, the premier said.
The meeting at the United Nations added to the increasing number of meetings held between Chinese and American leaders since Obama took office in 2009.
Obama, for his part, noted that since taking office, he has had good cooperation with the Chinese leadership. The United States will continue to enhance its ties with China on the basis of common interests and mutual respect, Obama added.
The two sides have already cooperated on a range of important issues, including the global financial crisis, and have also cooperated well under the G-20 framework, the president said.
With the global economic situation gradually restoring stability, Washington and Beijing need to consolidate cooperation to fight nuclear proliferation and climate change, Obama added.
"On economic terms, it is important for us to have frank discussion and to work cooperatively in order to achieve a type of more balanced and sustainable economic growth," the president said.
"We also have to work cooperatively together to achieve regional peace and stability" because the world regards the China-U.S. relationship as critical criteria on the whole range of security cooperation, he added.
The meeting arranged on the sidelines of U.N. conferences, was expected to improve bilateral ties and deepen mutual trust at a time when Sino-U.S. relations are clouded by trade arguments but dominated by both countries' willingness to cooperate.
Wen arrived in New York on Tuesday evening to attend a series of U.N. meetings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)