A Return to Fixed Rates?
As the world economy becomes more integrated than ever, governments are more reluctant than ever to act together against big swings in exchange rates. That's causing a growing number of officials, businesspeople and economists to worry.
British officials, who will preside over meetings of the Group of Seven leading industrial economies this year, want to debate whether the present exchange-rate system -- in which Asian currencies including China's yuan are linked to the U.S. dollar while the euro, yen and pound float freely -- is the best way to balance the world's trade and capital flows. Mervyn King , governor of the Bank of England, predicted that the coming year would feature talks "about a set of issues that have not been talked about for a long time, such as how does the international monetary system operate."
International officials, businesspeople and economists meeting at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, this week have identified the risk of currency instability as one of the threats to the otherwise mostly benign outlook for the global economy. WEF chief economist Augusto Lopez-Claros says that instead of getting more stable exchange rates along with a globalized economy, "We are moving in the opposite direction, into a world in which there are extreme swings among the major trading currencies. Are we happy with this?"
Many businesspeople aren't. Big currency moves force companies to change or delay their strategic decisions about where to produce and market their products -- for the wrong reasons, says Rainer Hundsdoerfer, chief executive of German machine-tool maker Weinig Group. Currency swings "lead to decisions that are driven by reactions to temporary events, but which don't make strategic sense," he says.
Central bankers expect to debate the merits of revamping the global currency system later this year at a Vienna conference titled "A New Bretton Woods?" -- a reference to the post-World War II system of fixed exchange rates. Martin Huefner, chief economist at German bank HVB Group AG, who will preside as chairman for part of that debate, is skeptical about reviving fixed exchange rates, but acknowledges the allure.
"Of course, it would be nice if we had a 'globo,' a world currency modeled on the euro," Mr. Huefner says. "But it's not realistic. It would require a surrender of sovereignty over monetary policy, and we saw how difficult it was to achieve that in Europe."
Most economic experts believe floating exchange rates are needed to allow economies to adjust to disturbances such as recessions or oil-price shocks that can affect different countries at different times. But some experts argue that the downsides of floating currencies are growing because of globalization.
"The current exchange-rate system has functioned reasonably well since the 1970s, but I think it's not suitable for the future," says Richard Cooper, a professor of economics at Harvard University. "Floating exchange rates will become less and less a shock absorber, and more and more a source of shocks," he says.
Economic shocks from events such as oil-price rises won't go away, Prof. Cooper says. But because G-7 economies are increasingly integrated and industrially diversified, he argues, such disturbances will tend to affect the major advanced economies more equally than in the past, meaning that exchange-rate shifts between these countries are becoming less relevant to absorbing shocks.
On the other hand, he argues, global financial markets are growing ever bigger and more autonomous in relation to the flow of trade and investment in the real economy, thanks to technology and financial liberalization. Swings in exchange rates often reflect capital flows that are only indirectly linked to the real economy, and can be dominated by traders' attempts to predict the momentum of other traders' behavior. The rise of fund managers whose rewards depend on their performance relative to other fund managers bolsters this trend, he says.
Trading flows of this kind can lead to big, prolonged currency swings that disrupt the real economy, by making a country's industry exaggeratedly competitive or uncompetitive for a period. Ronald McKinnon, a professor at Stanford University, argues that the large swings in the yen caused Japan's economy to overexpand in the 1980s and lead to its deflation in the 1990s.
"Exchange rates do sometimes go to levels that have nothing to do with the need for adjustment," says John Williamson, a senior fellow at the Institute for International Economics in Washington. While a supporter of floating exchange rates, he says governments should be more active than they are at present in saying what long-term value their currency should have and intervening verbally or financially to resist extreme swings.
Some other economists go further, supporting target zones for major currencies, and Prof. Cooper even says a common currency for the U.S., euro zone, Japan and U.K. would be the best solution -- an idea he admits is "quixotic" at present.
A common currency would require countries to surrender sovereignty over interest rates, which the 12 European users of the euro were willing to do thanks only to a strong commitment to political unity. Outside Europe, enthusiasm for a common currency is low, owing partly to the breakdown of past attempts to fix exchange rates -- the gold standard before World War I, and the Bretton Woods system after World War II. Fixing exchange rates is also viewed as inviting speculative attacks when economies get out of sync.
But floating currencies create strains at a micro level, critics say. The euro's nearly 50% rise against the U.S. dollar in the past three years has forced Weinig, the machine-tool maker, to postpone plans to market its wood-processing machines in Southeast Asia, where the company can't compete at present against rivals from China and Taiwan, whose costs are tied to the U.S. dollar. "It's a missed opportunity, because you allow your competitors to get strong, and when the exchange rate changes you have to reverse course and catch up," says Mr. Hundsd?rfer, the company's CEO.
European exporters who are grumbling today enjoyed an exchange-rate advantage a few years ago when the euro was weak. "But it's a sweet poison, because you don't see and solve problems in your company," says Mr. Hundsdoerfer. "It would be better to eliminate currency fluctuations and compete only on companies' merits," he says.
Although many exporters use derivatives to secure the value of their near-term earnings, hedging the returns of investments planned over several years is often too expensive or speculative. Instead, many companies are trying to spread their production around different currency zones, so that their costs move in sync with their revenue when currencies fluctuate. German car makers Volkswagen AG and DaimlerChrysler AG, for example, are expanding production in North America to protect themselves against large future swings in the euro.
But such tactics, if pursued on a large scale, would mean that industrial production doesn't necessarily take place where it is most efficient -- reducing global prosperity, says Mr. Lopez-Claros. "If companies decide where to produce in order to defend themselves against exchange-rate volatility, that is the tail wagging the dog."
回归固定汇率制？风险太大
全球经济一体化的程度超过以往任何时候，而各国政府却比以往更加不愿共同抗击汇率的大幅波动。这让不少官员、商界人士和经济学家们忧心忡忡。
七大工业国(Group of Seven, 简称G7)会议今年的主办国是英国。英国官员希望借此机会讨论目前的汇率体制──也就是包括中国的人民币在内许多亚洲货币与美元挂钩，而欧元、日圆和英镑自由浮动的体制──是否是平衡全球贸易和资本流动的最好方式。英国央行(Bank of England)行长默文?金(Mervyn King)曾预言，来年人们热烈的讨论重点会是“长期备受冷落的一系列话题，比如全球货币体系应当怎样运转等”。
全球各地的官员、商界人士和经济学家们本周齐聚瑞士达沃斯，参加那里召开的世界经济论坛(World Economic Forum)年会。他们已经指出，汇率的不稳定是全球经济面临的威胁之一，否则全球经济大局会显得更健康。世界经济论坛首席经济学家奥古斯托?洛佩兹-克拉罗斯(Augusto Lopez-Claros)称，在各国经济日益全球化的今天，汇率并没有随之变得更加稳定；“反而走上了相反的方向，主要贸易货币剧烈动荡。看到这一切，我们是不是满意呢？”
许多商界人士都不满意。汇率大幅波动会迫使企业改变，甚至推迟关于商品产地和市场的战略性决策──可惜是出于错误的理由，德国机械工具生产商Weinig Group首席执行长雷纳?洪茨德费尔(Rainer Hundsdorfer)如是说。汇率波动“促使企业根据短暂临时的事件和变化作出决策，但这些决策往往都不具备战略性的意义”。
今年下半年维也纳即将召开的一次会议上，各国央行行长们有望探讨调整全球货币体系的优劣。会议提名为“新的布雷顿森林体系？”所谓的“布雷顿森林体系”，指的就是二次世界大战后确定了全球固定汇率制的一次国际性会议。德国银行HVB Group AG首席经济学家马丁?许夫纳(Martin Hufner)将主持这场辩论。他对重新启用固定汇率制也表示怀疑，但承认这个观点有一定的吸引力。
“如果能将欧元模式推广到全球当然好，”许夫纳说，“但不现实。为此，政府必须放弃货币政策主权，我们已经看到在欧洲做到这一点有多难了。”
许多经济学家坚信，需要采取浮动汇率制以允许各经济体在遇到不同冲击时进行调整。这些冲击包括经济衰退、油价突变等。不同国家在不同时间都难免遇到类似打击。但有些专家认为，随著全球化的加深，浮动汇率制的弊端也日益明显。
哈佛大学(Harvard University)经济学教授理查德?库珀(Richard Cooper)表示，目前的汇率体制从上世纪七十年代以来发挥了合理作用，但恐怕并不适合将来的发展。浮动汇率制吸纳、削弱经济冲击的作用会越来越小，而成为冲击来源的可能性则越来越大。
库珀说，油价上涨等问题带来的冲击不会自己消失。但是，G7各国的经济日益融合，行业也日益多样化，类似冲击对他们的影响会比以往更加均衡。也就是说，这些国家的汇率出现波动，所能起到的削弱冲击的作用会变得越来越小。
但另一方面，全球金融市场的规模日益扩大，与真实经济中贸易流动和资本流动的关系也越来越松散。这要归因于科技和金融市场自由化的发展。汇率波动往往体现资本的流动，而资本流动与真实经济之间只有间接联系，而且可能会被交易员们彼此猜测对方行为的心理所主导。库珀教授说，根据基金表现获得报酬的基金经理阶层日益扩大，也助长了这种趋势。
斯坦福大学(Stanford University)教授罗纳德?麦金农(Ronald McKinnon)认为，这种交易流动会导致重大长期的汇率波动，长期加剧一国经济竞争力强大或者弱小的程度，干扰真实经济的发展。他举例说，日圆大幅波动导致上世纪八十年代日本经济过度扩张，最终陷入了九十年代的通货紧缩。
约翰?威廉姆斯(John Williamson)是华盛顿的国际经济研究所(Institute for International Economics)的高级研究员。他认为，汇率逐渐成为与经济调整无关的问题了。尽管他是浮动汇率制度的支持者，但却称各国政府在表明本国货币长期价值方面，以及口头或者以财力干预汇率抵御大幅动荡方面，都应该比现在更加积极。
还有些经济学家走得更远，他们建议对几种主要货币设置目标区间。库珀教授甚至说，美国、欧元区、日本和英国采用一种共同货币是最好的解决办法。不过他也承认这种设想在目前状态下是“狂热之想”。
采用共同货币就需要相关国家的政府放弃利率主权，欧盟12国能够做到这一点是出于他们对政治一体化的坚决承诺。但在欧洲之外，推行统一货币的想法并不热烈，部分原因要归结到以前几次试图固定汇率的企图都以失败告终──第一次世界大战之前的金本位制，第二次世界大战之后的布雷顿森林体系。还有一种观点就是，实行统一的固定汇率制，那么部分经济体发展不能保持同步时，就会引发投机性冲击。
批评人士则称，浮动汇率制引起了微观层面的种种限制。比如说，过去三年内欧元兑美元飙升50%，就迫使德国机械工具生产商Weinig多次推迟了开拓东南亚木材加工机械市场的计划。公司无法在东南亚市场同台湾和中国大陆的同行展开竞争，因为这些地区的货币都是与美元挂钩的。公司首席执行长洪茨德费尔说，“大好机会都错过了，只能坐视竞争对手变得强大。一旦汇率有所变动，公司就不得不回过头来，然后再次迎头赶上。”
现在牢骚满腹的欧洲出口商们几年前可是因为欧元疲软而获益颇丰。“但那是糖衣炮弹，因为公司的问题并没有解决，”洪茨德费尔说，“最好是能消除汇率的波动，然后根据公司的实力展开竞争。”
虽然很多出口商都利用衍生金融产品来确保近期收益不会贬值，但是安排一项长达数年的投资，然后对投资回报进行套期保值，代价过于高昂，风险也未免太大。不过，许多公司现在想出一个办法，就是将生产分散到不同的货币区，这样即使汇率动荡，公司的成本和收入也能保持同步。例如，德国汽车生产商大众公司(Volkswagen AG)和戴姆勒克莱斯勒(DaimlerChrysler AG)将生产基地延伸到北美大陆，防范欧元/美元将来可能出现的剧烈波动。
但这些办法，如果大规模普及开来，就意味著工业生产并不一定会安排在效率最高的地方──全球经济繁荣就会因此失色，洛佩兹-克拉罗斯说。“如果企业从防范汇率波动的角度出发决定生产基地的位置，那可真是本末倒置。”
