汪濤、魏尚進:逆全球化對通脹的影響

語言: CN / TW / HK

■本文選自《復旦金融評論》

■作者: 汪濤  瑞銀亞洲經濟研究主管、首席中國經濟學家; 魏尚 進 復旦大學泛海國際金融學院訪問教授、哥倫比亞大學終身講席教授、亞洲開發銀行前首席經濟學家

■公眾號:復旦金融評論

WTO 規則的改革或 G20 層面的合作,通過限制逆全球化的泛濫可以降低由此帶來的通脹影響,從而降低各國央行猛踩剎車以治理通脹的必要性,進而有助於減少全球經濟衰退的可能性。

汪濤

瑞銀亞洲經濟研究主管、

首席中國經濟學家

魏尚進

復旦大學泛海國際金融學院訪問教授

哥倫比亞大學終身講席教授

亞洲開發銀行前首席經濟學家

高通脹在諸多發達經濟體重現,不僅讓各國央行感到意外,而且迅速成為人們對經濟的首要擔憂。 雖然緊縮的貨幣政策難以避免,但結構性因素在目前通脹抬頭情況下的作用也值得關注。 具體而言,除了新冠肺炎疫情導致供應鏈中斷、俄烏衝突加劇能源價格和食品價格衝擊等因素外,決策者還必須更明確地認識到逆全球化會帶來的通脹後果。

在2008年全球金融危機爆發前的20年裏,全球化趨勢似乎勢不可擋。全球貿易量的增速是全球GDP增速的兩倍 [1] 。由於亞洲、拉丁美洲以及中歐和東歐諸多國家的改革與開放,其中中國的改革開放成果最為突出,使得許多產品的生產在全世界重新佈局。

這一時期的高速全球化,特別是中國融入世界貿易和投資,不僅大大提高了世界各國商品供應的多樣性,也大大降低了許多國家商品的價格和家庭消費的成本。 例如,過去幾年裏,當美國的全年通貨膨脹率在 2% 左右徘徊時,商品通貨膨脹率通常會在 -1% 左右。 1990 年至 2008 年間,美國從工業化國家進口的製成品價格上漲了 33% ,而從發展中國家進口的產品價格僅上漲了 3.4% [2] 對於某些商品,如果中國的出口佔美國進口比重較高的話,其價格的上升程度就會低一些,甚至會出現價格下降的現象 [ 3 ] 世界市場上也有一種“中國價格效應”的講法( The China Price Effect : 對於某一商品,只要是中國企業成為全球的主要生產者,其價格往往會出現下降。

中國之所以能幫助各國控制價格上升是因為其持續的經濟改革及隨之而來的跨國企業投資。中國在2001年加入世界貿易組織時,將其平均關税從20世紀90年代初的40%以上降至15%左右,隨後幾年又降至8%左右 [4] 。市場化改革和進入世界市場的機會讓中國企業迅速成長起來。

與此同時,中國鼓勵外國直接投資的政策、低廉的勞動力成本和相對良好的基礎設施,吸引了跨國企業,推動中國成為最大的直接投資目的地之一和“世界工廠”。在過去30年大多數的時間裏,外資企業的出口佔到中國出口總額的三分之一乃至二分之一。

發達國家在全球化過程中通過低成本進口產品取代更昂貴的國內產品,除了直接享受到低價進口商品的好處,也以全球化為理由間接削弱工人的議價能力,從而讓國內生產的商品也能保持相對較低的價格。

雖然反全球化的聲音一直存在,美國總統特朗普挑起的對多國的貿易爭端,特別是在2018年至2019年期間對美國從中國進口的產品加徵關税的行動,給全球化帶來了沉重打擊。

特朗普的行為直接或間接地推高了美國物價。直接影響是,美國家庭現在必須為中國製造的商品支付更多的費用。間接後果包括美國從其他國家進口的商品和服務因競爭減少出現價格上漲。

拜登政府由於擔心被指責對華軟弱,迄今未取消特朗普在任期間的關税。相反,由於對國家安全的擔憂和地緣政治局勢變得更加緊張,過去幾年美國和其他國家的逆全球化壓力有所增加。

受到美國種種措施的啟發或影響,許多其他國家近年也引入了進口關税或其他貿易壁壘,從而導致類似美國的價格上漲壓力。美國和包括歐盟國家在內的一些國家計劃通過補貼激勵企業將生產搬回國內或將供應鏈轉向“友岸”,這也將可能導致其國內商品價格上漲。

同樣,中國長期以來也強調“自力更生”的產業政策。為應對國際上可能的“掐脖子”而強調高端製造和科技行業自給自足的政策,也可能會帶來相關產品價格的上漲。

儘管“逆全球化”的説法現在已轉化為實際政策,但其推升通脹的後果只會隨着時間的推移而顯現。2019年,英國央行貨幣政策委員會前委員福布斯提出了一個關鍵問題:如果之前的全球化帶來反通脹效應,使得全球主要央行更容易追求和維持低通脹,那麼目前日益加劇的逆全球化是否會產生背道而馳的效果?

如果逆全球化勢頭不受控制地繼續下去,各國央行可能需要更嚴格地收緊貨幣政策。一個國家的逆全球化措施可能會促使其他國家效仿,扭曲全球生產和貿易模式,使每個國家的情況都變得更糟。因此,世界需要一些全球性規則,來規範這些措施,最合乎邏輯的做法是通過WTO和G20來承擔規範工作。

WTO的規則改革或G20層面的合作,通過限制逆全球化的泛濫可以降低由逆全球化帶來的通脹影響,從而降低各國央行猛踩剎車以治理通脹的必要性,進而有助於減少全球經濟衰退的可能性,或者至少使最終的衰退得以減輕。

本文僅代表作者個人意見,僅供讀者參考,並不構成提供或賴以作為投資、會計、法律或税務建議。

□編譯 | 潘   琦

□視覺 | 葛雯瑄

The Inflationary Consequences of Deglobalization

Tao Wang and Shang-Jin Wei

HONG KONG/NEW YORK – The return of high inflation in many developed economies seems to have surprised central banks and has quickly become people’s leading economic worry. While monetary tightening is necessary, the role of structural factors warrants attenti on, too. Specifically, besides pandemic-related supply-chain disruptions and the energy and food price shocks amplified by the Ukraine war, policymakers must also acknowledge more explicitly the inflationary consequences of deglobalization.

During the two decades before the 2008 global financial crisis, globalization seemed unstoppable. The volume of global trade increased twice as fast as world GDP [1] , as liberalization of trade and investment in developing Asia, Latin America, and Central and Eastern Europe contributed to a boom in cross-border reallocation of production flows of final and intermediate goods.

The hyper-globalization of this period, and notably the integration of China into world trading and investment portfolios, helped to reduce inflationary pressures in developed economies. For example, when overall annual US inflation was hovering around 2%, goods inflation was often about -1%. While US import prices of manufactured goods from industrialized countries rose by 33% between 1990 and 2008, prices of goods from developing countries increased by a mere 3.4% [2] . Furthermore, the smallest price increases were for products imported largely from China [3] . A “China Price Effect” is often heard in the world market: Once Chinese firms become main producers of a product, one can expect the price of that product to fall.

The disinflationary pressure from China resulted from the country’s sustained economic reforms and international firms’ investments. China reduced its average tariff from over 40% in the early 1990s to 15% when it joined the World Trade Organization in 2001, and to about 8% in subsequent years [4] . Economic liberalization and access to world markets spurred domestic Chinese entrepreneurs to set up firms in response to growing opportunities.

Meanwhile, China’s encouragement of foreign direct investment, coupled with its low labor costs and relatively good infrastructure, attracted international companies, helping to turn the country into one of the largest FDI recipients and the “factory of the world.” Foreign companies accounted for one-third to one-half of China’s overall exports for much of the previous three decades.

By enabling low-cost imports to replace more expensive domestic products, globalization had a direct disinflationary impact on advanced economies. It also helped to make domestically produced goods more competitive and weakened workers’ bargaining power.

While there were always anti-globalization voices, US President Donald Trump dealt a body blow to globalization by launching a series of trade wars, and especially by hiking tariffs on US imports from China during 2018 and 2019.

Trump’s actions have pushed up US prices both directly and indirectly. The direct effect is that US households must now pay substantially more for Chinese-made goods. The indirect consequences include higher prices of US imports from other countries and of other goods and services.

Moreover, US President Joe Biden’s administration, wary of accusations of softness toward China, has so far not rescinded Trump’s tariffs. In fact, deglobalization pressures in the US and elsewhere have increased in the past couple of years amid rising national security concerns and geopolitical tensions.

Seemingly inspired by these US measures, many other countries have recently introduced import tariffs or other trade barriers, resulting in comparable upward pressure on prices. Plans by the US and some other countries including those in the EU to offer companies incentives to reshore production at home or “ friend-shore ” their supply chains will likewise lead to higher domestic prices.

Similarly, China has long-standing industrial policies aimed at increasing “self-reliance”.Its recent adoption of a “dual-circulation” strategy that emphasizes on “domestic circulation” may lead to the pursuit of self-reliance in the name of supply chain security, especially in technology sectors. Such focus on domestic supplies will likely have similar effects on the prices.

Although talk of deglobalization is now translating into actual policy, the inflationary consequences will be felt only over time. In 2019, Kristin Forbes, a former member of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee, asked a key question : If globalization’s disinflationary effects previously made it easier for major central banks to pursue and maintain low inflation, will increasing deglobalization have the opposite effect?

If deglobalization proceeds unchecked, central banks may need to tighten monetary policy more than they otherwise would have. One country’s deglobalization measure may prompt others to follow suit, potentially distorting global production and trade patterns and making every country worse off. The world therefore needs some global rules, most logically via the WTO and the G20, to discipline national policies in these domains.

Through WTO or G20 , nations should erect guidelines and rules that can restrict uncontrolled de-globalization. By minimizing de-globalization induced price increases, central banks would find less need to step on a brake too aggressively to address the inflation problem. This will decrease the likelihood a global recession, or at least lesson the severity of a recession when it does come.

註釋:

[1] https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators

[2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org

[3] https://www.nber.org/papers/w24886

[4] https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/world-trade-organization-revive-appellate-body-by-shang-jin-wei-and-xinding-yu-2019-12?barrier=accesspaylog

-END-

掃碼徵訂《復旦金融評論》全年刊

優惠 購買 《復旦金融評論》 單期刊

↙↙ 點擊 “閲讀原文” ,優惠訂閲《復旦金融評論》單期