|Issues Briefs for
2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000
The Challenge of Globalization in Africa
Remarks by Stanley Fischer Acting Managing Director
International Monetary Fund
Given at the France-Africa Summit
January 19, 2001
Factors Driving Global Economic Integration
by Michael Mussa Economic Counselor and Director of Research IMF
August 25, 2000
Publications on Globalization
The term "globalization" has acquired considerable emotive force. Some view it as a process that is beneficial—a key to future world economic development—and also inevitable and irreversible. Others regard it with hostility, even fear, believing that it increases inequality within and between nations, threatens employment and living standards and thwarts social progress. This brief offers an overview of some aspects of globalization and aims to identify ways in which countries can tap the gains of this process, while remaining realistic about its potential and its risks.
Globalization offers extensive opportunities for truly worldwide development but it is not progressing evenly. Some countries are becoming integrated into the global economy more quickly than others. Countries that have been able to integrate are seeing faster growth and reduced poverty. Outward-oriented policies brought dynamism and greater prosperity to much of East Asia, transforming it from one of the poorest areas of the world 40 years ago. And as living standards rose, it became possible to make progress on democracy and economic issues such as the environment and work standards.
By contrast, in the 1970s and 1980s when many countries in Latin America and Africa pursued inward-oriented policies, their economies stagnated or declined, poverty increased and high inflation became the norm. In many cases, especially Africa, adverse external developments made the problems worse. As these regions changed their policies, their incomes have begun to rise. An important transformation is underway. Encouraging this trend, not reversing it, is the best course for promoting growth, development and poverty reduction.
The crises in the emerging markets in the 1990s have made it quite evident that the opportunities of globalization do not come without risks—risks arising from volatile capital movements and the risks of social, economic, and environmental degradation created by poverty. This is not a reason to reverse direction, but for all concerned—in developing countries, in the advanced countries, and of course investors—to embrace policy changes to build strong economies and a stronger world financial system that will produce more rapid growth and ensure that poverty is reduced.
How can the developing countries, especially the poorest, be helped to catch up? Does globalization exacerbate inequality or can it help to reduce poverty? And are countries that integrate with the global economy inevitably vulnerable to instability? These are some of the questions covered in the following sections.
Economic "globalization" is a historical process, the result of human innovation and technological progress. It refers to the increasing integration of economies around the world, particularly through trade and financial flows. The term sometimes also refers to the movement of people (labor) and knowledge (technology) across international borders. There are also broader cultural, political and environmental dimensions of globalization that are not covered here.
At its most basic, there is nothing mysterious about globalization. The term has come into common usage since the 1980s, reflecting technological advances that have made it easier and quicker to complete international transactions—both trade and financial flows. It refers to an extension beyond national borders of the same market forces that have operated for centuries at all levels of human economic activity—village markets, urban industries, or financial centers.
Markets promote efficiency through competition and the division of labor—the specialization that allows people and economies to focus on what they do best. Global markets offer greater opportunity for people to tap into more and larger markets around the world. It means that they can have access to more capital flows, technology, cheaper imports, and larger export markets. But markets do not necessarily ensure that the benefits of increased efficiency are shared by all. Countries must be prepared to embrace the policies needed, and in the case of the poorest countries may need the support of the international community as they do so.
Globalization is not just a recent phenomenon. Some analysts have argued that the world economy was just as globalized 100 years ago as it is today. But today commerce and financial services are far more developed and deeply integrated than they were at that time. The most striking aspect of this has been the integration of financial markets made possible by modern electronic communication.
The 20th century saw unparalleled economic growth, with global per capita GDP increasing almost five-fold. But this growth was not steady—the strongest expansion came during the second half of the century, a period of rapid trade expansion accompanied by trade—and typically somewhat later, financial—liberalization. Figure 1a breaks the century into four periods.1 In the inter-war era, the world turned its back on internationalism—or globalization as we now call it—and countries retreated into closed economies, protectionism and pervasive capital controls. This was a major factor in the devastation of this period, when per capita income growth fell to less than 1 percent during 1913-1950. For the rest of the century, even though population grew at an unprecedented pace, per capita income growth was over 2 percent, the fastest pace of all coming during the post-World War boom in the industrial countries.
The story of the 20th century was of remarkable average income growth, but it is also quite obvious that the progress was not evenly dispersed. The gaps between rich and poor countries, and rich and poor people within countries, have grown. The richest quarter of the world’s population saw its per capita GDP increase nearly six-fold during the century, while the poorest quarter experienced less than a three-fold increase (Chart 1b). Income inequality has clearly increased. But, as noted below, per capita GDP does not tell the whole story (see section IV).
Globalization means that world trade and financial markets are becoming more integrated. But just how far have developing countries been involved in this integration? Their experience in catching up with the advanced economies has been mixed. Chart 2a shows that in some countries, especially in Asia, per capita incomes have been moving quickly toward levels in the industrial countries since 1970. A larger number of developing countries have made only slow progress or have lost ground. In particular, per capita incomes in Africa have declined relative to the industrial countries and in some countries have declined in absolute terms. Chart 2b illustrates part of the explanation: the countries catching up are those where trade has grown strongly.
Consider four aspects of globalization:
The special case of the economies in transition from planned to market economies—they too are becoming more integrated with the global economy—is not explored in much depth here. In fact, the term "transition economy" is losing its usefulness. Some countries (e.g. Poland, Hungary) are converging quite rapidly toward the structure and performance of advanced economies. Others (such as most countries of the former Soviet Union) face long-term structural and institutional issues similar to those faced by developing countries.
Source: IMF World Economic Outlook Databases: (May 2000), Direction of Trade
During the 20th century, global average per capita income rose strongly, but with considerable variation among countries. It is clear that the income gap between rich and poor countries has been widening for many decades. The most recent World Economic Outlook studies 42 countries (representing almost 90 percent of world population) for which data are available for the entire 20th century. It reaches the conclusion that output per capita has risen appreciably but that the distribution of income among countries has become more unequal than at the beginning of the century.
But incomes do not tell the whole story; broader measures of welfare that take account of social conditions show that poorer countries have made considerable progress. For instance, some low-income countries, e.g. Sri Lanka, have quite impressive social indicators. One recent paper2 finds that if countries are compared using the UN’s Human Development Indicators (HDI), which take education and life expectancy into account, then the picture that emerges is quite different from that suggested by the income data alone.
Indeed the gaps may have narrowed. A striking inference from the study is a contrast between what may be termed an "income gap" and an "HDI gap". The (inflation-adjusted) income levels of today’s poor countries are still well below those of the leading countries in 1870. And the gap in incomes has increased. But judged by their HDIs, today’s poor countries are well ahead of where the leading countries were in 1870. This is largely because medical advances and improved living standards have brought strong increases in life expectancy.
But even if the HDI gap has narrowed in the long-term, far too many people are losing ground. Life expectancy may have increased but the quality of life for many has not improved, with many still in abject poverty. And the spread of AIDS through Africa in the past decade is reducing life expectancy in many countries.
This has brought new urgency to policies specifically designed to alleviate poverty. Countries with a strong growth record, pursuing the right policies, can expect to see a sustained reduction in poverty, since recent evidence suggests that there exists at least a one-to-one correspondence between growth and poverty reduction. And if strongly pro-poor policies—for instance in well-targeted social expenditure—are pursued then there is a better chance that growth will be amplified into more rapid poverty reduction. This is one compelling reason for all economic policy makers, including the IMF, to pay heed more explicitly to the objective of poverty reduction.
Growth in living standards springs from the accumulation of physical capital (investment) and human capital (labor), and through advances in technology (what economists call total factor productivity).3 Many factors can help or hinder these processes. The experience of the countries that have increased output most rapidly shows the importance of creating conditions that are conducive to long-run per capita income growth. Economic stability, institution building, and structural reform are at least as important for long-term development as financial transfers, important as they are. What matters is the whole package of policies, financial and technical assistance, and debt relief if necessary.
Components of such a package might include:
All these policies should be focussed on country-owned strategies to reduce poverty by promoting pro-poor policies that are properly budgeted—including health, education, and strong social safety nets. A participatory approach, including consultation with civil society, will add greatly to their chances of success.
Advanced economies can make a vital contribution to the low-income countries’ efforts to integrate into the global economy:
The IMF supports reform in the poorest countries through its new Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility. It is contributing to debt relief through the initiative for the heavily indebted poor countries.4
Anxiety about globalization also exists in advanced economies. How real is the perceived threat that competition from "low-wage economies" displaces workers from high-wage jobs and decreases the demand for less skilled workers? Are the changes taking place in these economies and societies a direct result of globalization?
Economies are continually evolving and globalization is one among several other continuing trends. One such trend is that as industrial economies mature, they are becoming more service-oriented to meet the changing demands of their population. Another trend is the shift toward more highly skilled jobs. But all the evidence is that these changes would be taking place—not necessarily at the same pace—with or without globalization. In fact, globalization is actually making this process easier and less costly to the economy as a whole by bringing the benefits of capital flows, technological innovations, and lower import prices. Economic growth, employment and living standards are all higher than they would be in a closed economy.
But the gains are typically distributed unevenly among groups within countries, and some groups may lose out. For instance, workers in declining older industries may not be able to make an easy transition to new industries.
What is the appropriate policy response? Should governments try to protect particular groups, like low-paid workers or old industries, by restricting trade or capital flows? Such an approach might help some in the short-term, but ultimately it is at the expense of the living standards of the population at large. Rather, governments should pursue policies that encourage integration into the global economy while putting in place measures to help those adversely affected by the changes. The economy as a whole will prosper more from policies that embrace globalization by promoting an open economy, and, at the same time, squarely address the need to ensure the benefits are widely shared. Government policy should focus on two important areas:
The succession of crises in the 1990s—Mexico, Thailand, Indonesia, Korea, Russia, and Brazil—suggested to some that financial crises are a direct and inevitable result of globalization. Indeed one question that arises in both advanced and emerging market economies is whether globalization makes economic management more difficult (Box 1).
Clearly the crises would not have developed as they did without exposure to global capital markets. But nor could these countries have achieved their impressive growth records without those financial flows.
These were complex crises, resulting from an interaction of shortcomings in national policy and the international financial system. Individual governments and the international community as a whole are taking steps to reduce the risk of such crises in future.
At the national level, even though several of the countries had impressive records of economic performance, they were not fully prepared to withstand the potential shocks that could come through the international markets. Macroeconomic stability, financial soundness, open economies, transparency, and good governance are all essential for countries participating in the global markets. Each of the countries came up short in one or more respects.
At the international level, several important lines of defense against crisis were breached. Investors did not appraise risks adequately. Regulators and supervisors in the major financial centers did not monitor developments sufficiently closely. And not enough information was available about some international investors, notably offshore financial institutions. The result was that markets were prone to "herd behavior"— sudden shifts of investor sentiment and the rapid movement of capital, especially short-term finance, into and out of countries.
The international community is responding to the global dimensions of the crisis through a continuing effort to strengthen the architecture of the international monetary and financial system. The broad aim is for markets to operate with more transparency, equity, and efficiency. The IMF has a central role in this process, which is explored further in separate fact sheets.5
National and international institutions, inevitably influenced by differences in culture, play an important role in the process of globalization. It may be best to leave an outside commentator to reflect on the role of institutions:
As globalization has progressed, living conditions (particularly when measured by broader indicators of well being) have improved significantly in virtually all countries. However, the strongest gains have been made by the advanced countries and only some of the developing countries.
That the income gap between high-income and low-income countries has grown wider is a matter for concern. And the number of the world’s citizens in abject poverty is deeply disturbing. But it is wrong to jump to the conclusion that globalization has caused the divergence, or that nothing can be done to improve the situation. To the contrary: low-income countries have not been able to integrate with the global economy as quickly as others, partly because of their chosen policies and partly because of factors outside their control. No country, least of all the poorest, can afford to remain isolated from the world economy. Every country should seek to reduce poverty. The international community should endeavor—by strengthening the international financial system, through trade, and through aid—to help the poorest countries integrate into the world economy, grow more rapidly, and reduce poverty. That is the way to ensure all people in all countries have access to the benefits of globalization.
1 The discussion in this section is elaborated in the World Economic Outlook, International Monetary Fund, Washington D.C., May 2000.
2 Nicholas Crafts, Globalization and Growth in the Twentieth Century, IMF Working Paper, WP/00/44, Washington DC, April 2000.
3 These issues are explored in greater depth in IMF, World Economic Outlook, May 2000, Chapter IV.
4 These are described in the factsheets "The Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility (PRGF) - Operational Issues", and "Overview: Transforming the Enhanced Structural Adjustment Facility (ESAF) and the Debt Initiative for the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPCs)," which may be viewed at www.imf.org.
5 See "Progress in Strengthening the Architecture of the International Monetary System": http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/facts/arcguide.htm and Guide to Progress in Strengthening of the International Financial System: http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/facts/arcguide.htm.
6 Bordo, Michael D., Barry Eichengreen, and Douglas A. Irwin, Is Globalization Today Really Different than Globalization a Hundred Years Ago? Working Paper 7195, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, June 1999.