Trade
Asia will fall with the multilateral system unless it now springs to its defence
Authors: Alex Rouse and Adam Triggs, ANU
The COVID-19 pandemic is a test for the multilateral system — one that could not have come at a worse time. The multilateral system is vital to keep supply chains open, allow medical supplies to flow freely, resist trade protectionism, deal with the international economic and financial repercussions and coordinate financial assistance to countries in need.
But the multilateral system has never been weaker. Reviving multilateralism to address these challenges will require a new source of strong leadership. Which countries have the greatest incentive to provide that leadership? Which countries benefit the most from the multilateral system? And which would suffer the most from its decline? These are the questions we explored in a recent study.
The 2010s were a bruising decade for the multilateral system. The United States withdrew from the Paris Climate Accord, trade and technology wars weakened the global economy and the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) dispute settlement body was shutdown. The backlash against globalisation intensified sharply. Less than half of survey respondents in the United States, Britain and France believed that the effects of globalisation were positive.
Critical multilateral forums ended the decade facing deep challenges: progress on European integration remains slow and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) remains dangerously under-resourced to deal with economic and financial shocks. The governance structures of many institutions are out of step with global realities and the value of NATO and other long-term military alliances are being called into question.
All countries benefit from the multilateral system but some do more than others. The G20 is a useful case in point. Declared the preeminent forum for international economic cooperation, the G20 has been broadly successful in implementing its commitments. Its commitments provide significant economic benefits and political backbone that led countries to do things they otherwise would not have done.
We can measure how the economic benefits of G20 commitments are distributed between countries. And we can use results from in-depth interviews with leaders, ministers, central bank governors and officials from all G20 countries to guage how the political benefits of G20 commitments are distributed between countries.
The results are stark. Asian countries are overwhelmingly and consistently the largest beneficiaries of the G20’s commitments, both economically and politically. It follows that they have a disproportionately large incentive to show leadership in protecting and promoting the G20 and the multilateral system more broadly.
The modelling shows that the main beneficiaries of coordinated fiscal stimulus are G20 economies in Asia, particularly South Korea, Australia, Indonesia and India. For most, the first-year GDP impacts are more than twice as large thanks to G20 coordination. South Korea is more than four-times better off. India and Indonesia are almost two and a half times better off working together than acting alone.
Structural reform will be necessary for reconstructing the global economy post-pandemic. The modelling shows that, when coordinated, structural reform disproportionately benefits Asian G20 countries. If a country reforms alone, it sees a significant increase in domestic production, some of which spills over into other countries through increased demand for their exports. But with coordinated reform, that country experiences the benefits from its increased domestic production and enjoys positive spill-overs from increased production in other G20 economies through increased demand for exports.
The benefits to G20 economies from coordinated structural reform are large. Calculated as a weighted average, G20 GDP is estimated to be permanently 2.5 per cent larger as a result of coordinated structural reform.
Countries also enjoy important political benefits from G20 commitments. The G20 provides policymakers with the political cover they need to sell important reforms domestically. It also helps build networks and relationships across countries and between policymakers and generates a global dialogue on critical issues to shape consensus on how best to address them. It helps defeat concerns that other countries might be free-riding and boosts the credibility of policies. The G20 plays a critical role in setting higher standards and developing better norms.
These political benefits also disproportionately flow to Asian economies. When asked whether there were domestic…
Trade
Self-Reliance and Openness: Core Principles of China’s Third Plenary Session
The Third Plenum communique from the CCP indicates a prioritization of stability and compromise in response to China’s economic challenges. It highlights the concept of Chinese-style modernization and establishes political guidelines for balancing regulation and market forces.
The CCP’s Third Plenum communique signals a focus on stability and compromise in the face of China’s economic challenges. It emphasises Chinese-style modernisation and sets political directions for balancing regulation and market forces. While not as groundbreaking as previous plenums, it acknowledges the importance of market mechanisms and technological self-reliance, aiming to address issues like high youth unemployment and private sector uncertainty. The communique seeks to navigate the complexities of global competition and domestic innovation, potentially reshaping global supply chains and trade dynamics. Overall, it presents a pragmatic blueprint for China’s economic future.
Source : Self-reliance and openness central pillars of China’s Third Plenum | East Asia Forum
Trade
Trade Prevails Over Political Persuasions in China-Germany Relations
China and Germany maintain a strong bilateral relationship, rooted in economic cooperation despite ideological differences. Recent visits and agreements focus on expanding trade and addressing mutual concerns, navigating challenges while nurturing ties.
Evolving Bilateral Ties
China and Germany share a strong bilateral relationship, rooted in history since 1972. This connection has seen moments of cooperation intertwined with periods of tension. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s April 2024 visit underscores Germany’s commitment to fostering this partnership, reflecting a mutual interest in maintaining economic ties despite ideological differences.
Economic Pragmatism
As the second and third largest global economies, China and Germany’s economic interdependence is crucial. Germany emerged as China’s primary trading partner in 2023, with trade values reaching €254.4 billion (US$280 billion). In response to global scrutiny, Germany has taken a balanced approach, emphasizing economic stability over political discord. This was evident during Scholz’s prior visit in November 2022, where his diplomatic tone contrasted with broader EU sentiments.
Facing Challenges Together
Despite increasing public skepticism in Germany regarding China’s global influence and human rights issues, both nations continue to seek common ground. Their October 2023 Joint Statement highlights intentions to pursue cooperation in areas like carbon neutrality and open markets. To navigate these complex terrains, Germany can utilize its institutional frameworks to enhance dialogue, while also considering supply chain diversification to reduce dependency on China. The intertwining nature of their economies suggests that, despite challenges, both countries will continue to prioritize their substantial trade relations.
Source : Trade trumps political persuasions in China–Germany relations
Trade
Fixing fragmentation in the settlement of international trade disputes
Fragmentation in global trade due to the lack of development in multilateral trade rules at the WTO has led to an increase in FTAs. The Appellate Body impasse has further exacerbated fragmentation, requiring a multilateral approach for reform.
Fragmentation in Global Trade
Fragmentation in global trade is not new. With the slow development of multilateral trade rules at the World Trade Organization (WTO), governments have turned to free trade agreements (FTAs). As of 2023, almost 600 bilateral and regional trade agreements have been notified to the WTO, leading to growing fragmentation in trade rules, business activities, and international relations. But until recently, trade dispute settlements have predominantly remained within the WTO.
Challenges with WTO Dispute Settlement
The demise of the Appellate Body increased fragmentation in both the interpretation and enforcement of trade law. A small number of WTO Members created the Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA) as a temporary solution, but in its current form, it cannot properly address fragmentation. Since its creation in 2020, the MPIA has only attracted 26 parties, and its rulings have not been consistent with previous decisions made by the Appellate Body, rendering WTO case law increasingly fragmented.
The Path Forward for Global Trade
Maintaining the integrity and predictability of the global trading system while reducing fragmentation requires restoring the WTO’s authority. At the 12th WTO Ministerial Conference in 2022, governments agreed to re-establish a functional dispute settlement system by 2024. Reaching a consensus will be difficult, and negotiations will take time. A critical mass-based, open plurilateral approach provides a viable alternative way to reform the appellate mechanism, as WTO Members are committed to reforming the dispute settlement system.
Source : Fixing fragmentation in the settlement of international trade disputes
- China’s Golden Rooster Film Festival Kicks Off in Xiamen – Thailand Business News
- Italy and China New DTA Set to Take Effect in 2025: Important Changes and Implications
- China’s New Home Prices Stabilize After 17-Month Decline Following Support Measures
- U.S. national debt is its Achilles’ heel, but China sees it as an opportunity
- Business Update: Southern Sun Reports Earnings Growth; China Stimulates Property Market – News24
- Vietnam’s Approach to China: A Balance of Cooperation and Struggle