Trade has played an instrumental role in driving global growth, helping to produce unprecedented advances in productivity and living standards, to lift millions out of poverty, and to lower prices. However, the growth of trade—along with productivity and incomes—has slowed. This trend partly reflects, and has contributed to, the slackening of economic growth in the wake of the 2008 global financial crisis.
For all its benefits, trade has had a negative impact on groups of workers and communities, particularly in Europe and the United States. These dislocations, which also reflect the impact of technological innovation, have been intensified by slower growth, and the resulting backlash has undermined support for global economic integration.
At the 2016 Group of Twenty (G20) financial and economic forum summit in China, leaders called for domestic policies that would enable the gains from trade to be shared more widely.
A paper jointly prepared by the IMF, World Bank, and World Trade Organization for the March 2017 G20 Sherpas meeting in Germany discussed policies that can respond to this call.
In its April 2017 communiqué, the IMF’s International Monetary and Financial Committee acknowledged that “the prolonged period of low growth has brought to the fore the concerns of those who have been left behind,” and stated that “it is important to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to benefit from global economic integration and technological progress.” The IMF staff is increasingly focused on the impact of trade on labor market outcomes.
Increased trade integration helped drive economic growth in advanced and developing economies in the latter part of the twentieth century.
Since the early 2000s, however, the pace of trade, productivity, and income growth has slowed, leaving many behind, most notably in advanced economies.
With the right policies, countries can benefit from trade, lift up those who have been left behind, and strengthen overall economic flexibility and performance.
From 1960 to the 2008 global financial crisis, trade in goods and services grew at an average annual rate of about 6 percent—roughly twice the rate of GDP growth (Figure 1.1). The expansion was supported by reductions in trade costs, including tariffs and technology, and led to the emergence of global supply chains that drove advances in manufacturing and productivity. Across the globe, the rising living standards that accompanied trade lent support to the view of trade as a key engine of growth. More recently, however, trade has slowed, reflecting to a large extent weak economic activity—in particular, investment—as documented in Chapter 2 of the October 2016 World Economic Outlook.
Concerns about the impact of trade are on the rise among some in many advanced economies. This shift has been reflected in public opinion surveys and some elections. Attitudes toward trade are generally more favorable in emerging market and developing economies.
Trade and economic growth have slowed globally since 2008, but emerging markets and developing economies have had greater increases in GDP and imports than advanced economies.
Productivity growth slowed sharply across the world following the global financial crisis (Figure 1.2). This trend has contributed to stagnating incomes in many advanced economies and has added to the political backlash against globalization.
Sources: Penn World Trade Table 9.0; IMF World Economic Outlook; and IMF staff calculations.
Note: Group averages are weighted using GDP at purchasing power parity.
This pattern has been visible in labor productivity (output per worker) as well as total factor productivity, which measures the overall efficiency of an economy’s use of labor, capital, and elements such as technology. If the trend continues, it would threaten progress in raising global living standards, addressing private and public debt, and ensuring the viability of social protection systems. Declining productivity growth could also affect the ability of policymakers to respond to future economic shocks.
An IMF paper, “Gone with the Headwinds: Global Productivity,” that addresses the issues surrounding productivity was published in April 2017. These issues were also the subject of an article in the March 2017 issue of Finance & Development.
There are structural and crisis-related reasons for the slowdown. Structural forces include the fading impact of the information and communication technology boom, weaker labor and product market reform efforts, skills shortages and mismatches, and demographic factors such as aging populations. In addition, the lingering effects of the global crisis continue to be felt—weak corporate balance sheets, tight credit conditions in some countries, soft investment, weak demand, and policy uncertainty.
Productivity growth—a key driver of living standards— was already in decline in advanced economies before the global financial crisis drove it down sharply.
Structural headwinds include a waning boom in information and communications technology, partly reflecting an aging workforce, slowing global trade, and weaker human capital accumulation.
Reviving productivity growth requires addressing remaining crisis legacies in the short term while pressing ahead with structural reforms to tackle longer-term headwinds.
To address the issues contributing to declining productivity growth, policymakers need to focus on strengthening innovation and education, advancing structural reforms, and continuing to reap the gains from open trade and migration, while implementing policies that address inclusiveness. But because much of the slowdown reflects the scars of the global financial crisis, action must be targeted at crisis legacies.
Productivity growth has slowed significantly around the world since the 2008 global financial crisis.
It was already in decline in advanced economies before the crisis drove it down sharply.
Structural forces and demographic factors also contributed to the trend.
Concern over income inequality and inclusive growth has emerged as an issue of global importance (Figure 1.3). Over the past 30 years, inequality has risen in many countries, in large part because of technological change. Governments worldwide are now devoting attention and resources to the challenges of making growth more inclusive.
Sources: World Wealth & Income Database; IMF, World Economic Outlook; and IMF staff calculations.
Note: The sample includes Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Market income refers to individuals’ income before taxes and transfers.
In advanced economies, the incomes of the top 1 percent have grown three times faster than those of the rest of the population.
IMF research in this area has shown that rising inequality poses risks to the durability of economic growth, that the design of government policies has an impact on income distribution, and that government also can help address the situation. An IMF paper released in January 2017 extended that research to the impact of macro-structural policies in low-income developing countries (Figure 1.4). Other research has focused on the implications of budget deficits, labor market liberalization, and cross-border capital movements.
Sources: IMF, World Economic Outlook; PovcalNet; World Bank Socio-Economic Database for LatinAmerica and the Caribbean; World Bank World Development Indicators; and IMF staff calculations.
Note: The Gini coefficient measures the income distribution of a country’s residents. The higher the index, the greater the inequality. The Gini calculation is based on 40 low-income countries.
The economy has been growing and poverty has been on the decline, but inequality remains stubbornly high in low-income countries.
The Fund is now shifting its work toward the concrete ways in which this deeper understanding of the roots of inequality can translate into policies that advance inclusive growth—with a focus on equitable ways to tax and spend. Decisions in this area need to be made by country authorities.
For the past two years, the IMF staff has worked with a group of pilot countries spread across all regions and income groups to bring inequality issues and policy responses into discussions during the IMF annual health checkup with its member countries. The issues are now featured in the reports prepared as part of the Article IV consultation process.
Despite strong growth over the past two decades, income inequality remains high in many low-income developing countries (LIDCs), which can impair both the future pace and the sustainability of growth and macroeconomic stability.
Features such as high levels of informality, limited geographic or intersectoral labor mobility, large intersectoral productivity differences, lack of access to finance, and low levels of infrastructure can make growth-inequality trade-offs particularly challenging for these economies.
Growth-oriented policies such as fiscal reforms (tax policy measures, higher public infrastructure investment), financial sector reforms, and reforms to the agricultural sector can have important distributional consequences in LIDCs. Targeted policy interventions, implemented in conjunction with progrowth reforms, can be deployed to contain any adverse distributional effects of the reform measures.
In a country that once had one of the highest levels of inequality in Latin America, high commodity prices combined with government policies spurred a significant improvement. As commodity prices dropped, Bolivia sought to hold on to that progress. The IMF’s 2015 and 2016 consultations with Bolivia focused on inequality, drawing on a household income study. The IMF staff developed a model that simulates the evolution of inequality and tests policies to preserve Bolivia’s gains. The 2016 consultation determined that the most effective policy response would be to maintain infrastructure investment, better target cash transfers, and expand access to financial services.
Ethiopia’s financial sector is relatively underdeveloped, with about two-thirds of total bank credit channeled to government enterprises. Deposit rates are negative in real terms. The 2016 Article IV consultation outlined steps the authorities are taking to increase financial inclusion. A separate analysis discussed reforms to decrease lending to the public sector and increase deposit rates. It showed that the reforms likely would increase inequality by benefiting manufacturing and services. This pointed to the need to improve financial access and increase labor mobility.
Malawi’s fertilizer subsidy program for small farmers has been central to the country’s poverty reduction effort. But the program had become increasingly costly and rife with abuses—without significantly lifting maize production or reducing poverty—partly because of a severe drought. The IMF, in collaboration with the World Bank, is working with the government to shift subsidy resources to cash transfers to the rural poor. Meanwhile, spending on agricultural research and development and irrigation is intended to raise small farm productivity and strengthen resilience to weather shocks. This effort, combined with cash transfers, is expected to be a more effective means of reducing inequality.
Gender equality goals in policy dialogues with countries: Twenty-three country and regional pilot studies were completed, and four others were underway. This work focuses mainly on increasing female labor force participation and quantifying the macroeconomic losses from gender inequality. In emerging market and developing economies, recommendations emphasize increasing access to finance, to education and training, and to basic infrastructure such as electricity and sanitation; in advanced economies, recommendations emphasize shifting tax systems to avoid penalizing secondary earners in families and access to high-quality, affordable child care.
IMF loans: Gender considerations are now included in programs. In Egypt and Niger, for example, programs include a goal of increasing women’s economic participation by improving the availability of public nurseries and developing a gender strategy, respectively.
Gender budgeting: The IMF published the paper “Gender Budgeting in G7 Countries” in early FY2018 for the Italian Presidency of the Group of Seven (G7) to inform the G7 discussion on gender equality. The Fund now provides an online database on global gender-budgeting efforts and two gender equality indices. The work on gender budgeting will continue, including as part of technical assistance in the public financial management area.
Financial inclusion: The IMF conducted pilot studies on women’s access to banking and other financial services in 28 countries. The results were used to assess how to reduce data gaps, and a toolkit was developed.
Publications: In February 2017, the IMF published a book titled Women, Work, and Economic Growth: Leveling the Playing Field.
Conferences: The IMF held two conferences on gender issues: a one-day event on Fiscal Policies and Gender Equality, and a three-day conference on Gender and Macroeconomics. There were more than 200 participants at each event. The Gender and Macroeconomics conference was preceded by a peer learning event for sub-Saharan African researchers and practitioners.
Capacity building: The IMF’s technical assistance on gender budgeting is growing in importance. Examples include Cambodia (financial reporting), Ukraine (medium-term budget framework), and Austria (fiscal transparency evaluation).
IMF studies have shown significant macroeconomic gains when women are able to participate more fully in the labor market and given the same opportunities (legal rights, education, health, access to finance [Figure 1.5]). Despite significant progress, female labor force participation remains lower than that of males across most advanced, emerging market, and developing economies. Wage gaps are high, and women are overrepresented in the informal sector and among the poor. In 90 percent of countries, legal restrictions constrain women from developing their full economic potential. While equality between men and women is in itself a significant development goal, women’s economic participation is also important to growth, output and exports, diversification, and more equal income distributions.
Note: USA: United States of America; UAE: United Arab Emirates.
gender budgeting is an approach that uses fiscal policy and public financial management instruments to promote gender equality and development. It is not just about funding explicit gender equality initiatives. It is also about analyzing fiscal policies and budgetary decisions to understand their impact—both intended and unintended—on gender equality, and using this information to design effective gender equality policies. Some countries focus on spending allocations or the structure of fiscal policies, others on administrative changes to budget planning and monitoring. The most successful efforts encompass both areas. The IMF now provides an online database on global gender-budgeting efforts and two gender equality indices.
Women make up a little over half the world’s population, but their contribution to measured economic activity, growth, and well-being is far below its potential, with serious macroeconomic consequences.
In rapidly aging economies, higher female labor force participation can boost growth by mitigating the impact of a shrinking workforce. In developing economies, better opportunities for women can also contribute to broader economic development, for instance, through higher levels of school enrollment for girls.
Implementing policies that remove labor market distortions and create a level playing field for all will give women the opportunity to develop their potential and to participate in economic life more visibly.
Countries of all income levels would see significant increases in GDP if women’s labor force participation were increased to match men’s.
In the wake of the steep decline in global oil prices, the Saudi Arabian government set out plans for a bold transformation of the country’s economy under its Vision 2030 and the National Transformation Program. Plans include diversifying the economy, creating private sector jobs, taking gradual steps to balance the budget, and further strengthening investment capabilities. To achieve these goals, the government needs to deepen liquidity in the capital markets and fortify the role of the debt market.
Until recently, oil producer Saudi Arabia had no need to borrow because it did not face any significant funding gaps. But the decline in revenue receipts due to the drop in oil prices has resulted in fiscal deficits (Figure 1.6), though oil prices have recovered to some extent. In these circumstances, the government made a fundamental policy shift and adopted a two-pronged approach to safeguarding macroeconomic stability: drawing on its sizable fiscal reserves and borrowing money by issuing debt.
The drop in oil prices in recent years has meant declining revenue.
The resulting fiscal deficits have prompted a shift in government policy.
The Saudi Arabian Debt Management Office began operations in October 2016. Its main objective is to secure the country’s financing needs with the best possible combination of costs and risks compatible with the government’s policies. As part of the debt management strategy, government debt instruments will gradually be registered, listed, and traded on the Tadawul, the Saudi Arabian stock exchange.
The IMF’s engagement with Saudi Arabia could be a useful model for a range of other oil- or commodity-exporting countries that need a comprehensive and strategic approach to debt management.
Companies manage their consolidated assets and liabilities as a core element of managing risk across their balance sheets. But many governments, with diverse assets and liabilities—some explicit and some implicit or contingent—don’t typically compile full balance sheets or even statements of their financial positions, as public assets and liabilities don’t lend themselves to such conventional analysis. This makes assessment of public balance sheet risks difficult.
Uruguay has taken an innovative approach to this challenge. The Uruguayan debt management unit and the IMF worked together to take a more comprehensive look at the government’s debt management in the context of the wider public sector balance sheet, and to assess the role of the domestic bond market in managing potential public portfolio risks. This work, which involved reviewing balance sheets across the government, including the central government, the Central Bank of Uruguay, major state-owned enterprises, and the State Insurance Bank (Figures 1.7 and 1.8), helped identify key mismatches and possible policy changes.
Sources: Banco Central del Uruguay; Haver Analytics; IMF, World Economic Outlook; and IMF staff calculations.
Sources: Banco Central del Uruguay; Haver Analytics; IMF staff calculations; and IMF, World Economic Outlook.
Uruguay’s debt management unit identified key mismatches.
Gross debt increased in 2015 mostly because of the depreciation of the peso, given the large share of foreign-currency-denominated debt.
For instance, the US dollar liabilities exceeded US dollar assets, indicating that the country should establish a strategy to reduce US dollar debt by further developing the local currency bond market. This also indicates that Uruguay should hedge prevailing foreign exchange risks by using deeper forward markets. That would necessitate further coordination between debt management and the implementation of monetary policy, as well as consolidation in the types of debt instruments issued. Also, that would require addressing inflation-linked and wage-linked indexation in the context of a maturing pension system, and improving global custody and settlement arrangements.