Global stability rests on sharingthe gains
The surge in the Chinese trade surplus to a record $14.6bn in July has been followed by the expected pronouncements on its unsustainability and predictions of a destabilising "hard landing" for the US dollar. Yet, the current system of globalised production and liberal financial markets may be more sustainable than analysts maintain.
Capital flows are driven by calculations about risk and return and the rising US import surplus works favourably on both these fronts. US imports of intermediate (as opposed to final) goods and services have risen steadily in the past 15 years and surged recently to more than 25 per cent of all input use in some sectors. These have lowered the cost of production in the US and improved profit margins. At the same time, the development of a wide set of suppliers reduces the risk of production bottlenecks.
ADVERTISEMENT
All this has raised profits of American companies and attracted capital from abroad. Despite the dotcom bust, inflows of foreign direct investment to the US have remained over $100bn per year. Most countries still hold the bulk of their reserves in dollars. International payments imbalances, although large, are self-reinforcing. However, the factors generating the imbalances have had consequences for income inequality in the US and China. It is the sustainability of these distributional trends more than the growth in debt to gross domestic product ratios that may determine the outcome of current international financial arrangements.
The increased reliance of US companies on foreign production has reduced costs and also demand for American workers, damping down wage pressures and boosting profit margins. The globalisation of production has been associated with a dramatic increase in corporate profits as a share of US national income, exceeding 12 per cent in the first quarter of 2006 - higher than any quarter since 1966. Wages have stagnated while business productivity growth remains strong.
Similar income distributional considerations are present in China. Low Chinese wages, lagging behind productivity growth, are an important driver of China's export surplus and thus of its foreign reserves accumulation. Chinese workers are subsidising their government in the amount of the interest on China's holdings of US assets.
How sustainable is this rising inequality? In the US, employment growth has been strong and labour unions weak, limiting resistance to wage stagnation. Adverse wage pressures have been mitigated by low prices resulting from cheap imports and by household borrowing at low interest rates. But healthcare and higher education costs continue to soar and employee pension plans are nearing insolvency. Income disparity and the trade deficit are likely to be big issues in the next congressional and presidential elections.
In China, there has been unrest in the outer provinces, protests of unsafe mining conditions and reports of disgruntled workers leaving the export zones. But the sensitivity in the current situation may stem less from China's working class and more from its rising middle and upper-class, which inevitably will want more say in the political process. Will the government be able to use the earnings on its reserves to placate this group, for example with tax breaks and other preferential treatment? The increasing disparity between rural and urban incomes will also have to be addressed.
If the US unilaterally adjusts its balance of payments - with devaluation or tariffs or deflationary macroeconomic policy - the situation could worsen. American incomes would fall along with exports from emerging markets, heightening inequality on all sides.
Improving the distribution of gains from increased global production interdependence in both the US and China might offer the best way to sustain the system. Gradual democratisation and heightened protection of worker rights in China would ease tension from that country's explosive growth.
In the US, a strengthening of the pension system, a substantial increase in the minimum wage and the provision of universal access to health insurance would protect against the unequal effects of globalisation. More equal distribution of the gains from a liberal global system of trade and finance should also improve the payments imbalances, by raising domestic demand in China and shoring up the balance sheets of households in the US.
Jan Kregel is chief of policy analysis and development at the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. William Milberg is research fellow at the Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis at The New School
全球稳定有赖收益共享
中
国7月份贸易顺差大幅飙升至创纪录的146亿美元，其后，有关方面发表了意料之中的声明：即这种情况难以持续，同时预言美元将出现破坏稳定的“硬着陆”。然而，当前的全球化生产及自由金融市场体系，也许比分析人士所认为的更可持续。
资金流动受风险及收益的计算推动，而美国日益扩大的进口盈余，对于这两者都有利。过去15年间，美国中间（与制成品相对应）产品及服务的进口稳步增长，并于近期大幅上升，占到了一些领域全部投入的25%以上。这些因素降低了美国的生产成本，提高了利润率水平。同时，随着供应商的来源更加广泛，降低了出现生产瓶颈的风险。
凡此种种，都增加了美国企业的利润，并吸引了海外资金。尽管网络泡沫破裂，每年流入美国的海外直接投资仍超过1000亿美元。大多数国家的外汇储备仍以美元为主。庞大的国际收支失衡仍在“自我强化”。但是，导致这些失衡的因素，对美国和中国的收入不平等产生了后果。正是这些分配趋势的可持续性，而不是债务在国内生产总值(GDP)中所占比例的上升，可能决定当前国际金融安排的结果。
美国企业对国外生产依赖程度的上升，降低了成本以及对美国工人的需求，减轻了工资压力，并推高了利润率。生产的全球化，一直伴随着企业利润占美国国民收入百分比的戏剧性增长，2006年第一季度超过12%――高于1966年以来的任何一个季度。在企业生产率增长保持强劲的同时，工资却停滞不前。
中国也存在类似的收入分配方面的担忧。中国的工资水平较低，落后于其生产率的增长，这是该国贸易顺差及外汇储备增长的一个重要驱动力。中国工人正在补贴他们的政府，其数额相当于中国持有美元资产的利息。
这种日益加剧的不平等状况能够维持多久呢？在美国，就业增长一直颇为强劲，而工会组织的力量比较弱，从而限制了工人对薪资停滞不前的抵制。廉价进口导致商品价格低廉，加之家庭借贷利率较低，减轻了不利的工资压力。但是，医疗和教育开支继续激增，雇员养老金计划的偿付能力正出现问题。在下一届美国国会和总统选举中，收入差距和贸易逆差可能会成为最重要的议题。
在中国，偏远省份一直存在动荡，抗议矿井作业条件危险的活动不时爆发，媒体也在报道不满的工人离开出口区。然而，当前局势中的敏感性，可能较少来自中国工人阶层，更多来自该国正在涌现的中、上等阶层，他们将不可避免地希望在政治进程中拥有更多话语权。中国政府能否利用其外汇储备的收益来安抚这个群体，如实施减税和其它优惠待遇？此外，不断扩大的城乡收入差距问题也必须得到解决。
如果美国利用本币贬值、关税或具有通缩效应的宏观经济政策，单方面调整其收支平衡，那么情况可能会恶化。美国人的收入下滑，新兴市场的出口随之下滑，加剧各方的不平等程度。
美中两国对全球生产相互依赖的程度都有所提高，改善其收益的分配，可能是维系这一体系的最佳方法。中国逐渐推进民主化，并改善工人权益保障，可能会缓解由于经济爆炸式增长所造成的紧张关系。
在美国，强化养老金体系，大幅提高最低工资标准，以及提供全民医保，可能有助于防范全球化的不平等影响。通过提振中国内需和改善美国家庭的资产负债状况，全球自由贸易和财政体系的收益分配将更加平等，从而改善收支失衡的状况。
杨?克雷格尔是联合国经济和社会事务部(UNDESA)政策分析及发展首席经济学家。威廉?米尔贝格是纽约新学院大学(The New School)施瓦兹经济政策分析中心(Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis)研究员。
