No Risk of Default

My Harvard colleague Martin Feldstein writes me in an email:

The WSJ and FT continue to write about the risk of default, quoting the Treasury, Boehner and others.There really is no need for a default on the debt even if the debt ceiling is not raised later this month. The US government collects enough in taxes each month to finance the interest on the debt, etc. The government may not be able to separate all accounts into "pay" and "no pay" groups but it can certainly identify the interest payments. An inability to borrow would have serious economic consequences if it lasted for any sustained period but it would not have to threaten our credit standing.

Are weak governments going to make Arab labor markets better?

I find Arab economies depressing because the amount of mismanagement is staggering and because institutions are very ill-conceived. Part of it comes from the influence of religion, and part form the legacy of the Ottoman empire. It is unclear how corrupt and incompetent governments fit into this history, but they are certainly to blame, too.

Ragui Assaad shows that the labor markets in Arab countries are seriously messed up and finds the governments as the main culprits. Government employment is particularly important and is used as a political tool. The result is a lot of nepotism and cronyism, bloated administrations doing nothing, and large sectors of the economy depending on the government's largesse. Few businesses thrive without these handouts, there is thus very little healthy competition that tries to innovate. The competition is only in getting favors from agencies. As a consequence, there is little accumulation of human capital. While there is a boom in education, not much useful is concretely learned: the education sector is just as corrupt and diplomas do not mean much. I may add that the fields of study are also driven by the corrupt environment, as rent-seeking is everyone's goal.

Is this a hopeless situation? Assaad thinks Arab economies are stuck in this equilibrium. But I think there may be a way out. Indeed, the Arab Spring has considerably weakened governments. This is usually a bad outcome, but in this case this is an opportunity. While this may lead to some chaos, this may be better than counter-productive order. We'll see.

'Reshoring' Fad: Fed by 'Made in the USA' Fad?

I am in the minority over at Yahoo! News

Country of origin remains a sticking point in IPE no matter what economic liberals say. Today, let us look at a possible 'multiplier effect' where inviting manufacturing back home to America may be complemented by retailers advertising that more of their products are made there. In case you missed it, there's a 'reshoring'  fad going on Stateside wherein manufacturers who once decided to go to China and coming back since the cost savings they expected did not materialize. Often, transaction costs in the from of chronographic, geographic or linguistic differences negated labor cost savings. With China rapidly industrializing and its working age population falling, it was perhaps inevitable that even the labor cost advantage would be eroded. Whatever the cause, the net effect is more American firms coming home to America:

The Boston Consulting Group survey found 21 per cent of a sample of 200 executives of large manufacturers were either already relocating production to the US, or planning to do so within the next two years. A further 33 per cent said they were considering it, or would consider it in the near future.

Retailing giant Wal-Mart recently put more emphasis on selling US-made goods for obvious reasons. In difficult times, it becomes harder to justify selling boatloads of goods made elsewhere regardless of cost savings passed on to consumers. There's even a feature trumpeting "Made in the USA" products on their website. With Wal-Mart setting a quota for Stateside purchases, it was perhaps inevitable that the reshoring movement gained even more momentum:

Wal-Mart's new emphasis on U.S. goods spells opportunity for Lip Yow, a Malaysia-born entrepreneur who until recently made everything in China. Mr. Yow's company, AFC Trident Inc., Ontario, Calif., uses contract manufacturers in Shenzhen, China, to make plastic cases that shield smartphones and tablet computers. In April, Trident began production at a small factory in Rancho Cucamonga, Calif. Mr. Yow aims to shift most production from China to the new California plant, partly to appeal to retailers like Wal-Mart.

Getting on the shelves of Wal-Mart, the nation's largest retailer, is "very important," Mr. Yow said, showing a visitor his new plant where an American flag hangs from an overhead crane. [Yeah! USA #1!]

Wal-Mart has promised to increase purchases of U.S.-made merchandise by $50 billion, which would work out to an average of $5 billion a year. That affects just roughly 2% of what Wal-Mart spends annually on merchandise at U.S. stores, said Matthew Nemer, an analyst at Wells Fargo Securities. It is less than 1% of the U.S. trade gap in 2012. 

It could be a perverse sort of trade diversion if US retailers expressed trade preferences for buying American despite the economic case not being there. However, it appears that, in certain instances at least, doing so only reinforces the incentives manufacturers increasingly have of making stuff Stateside.

Literally Dying for 2022 World Cup: Migrants in Qatar

Just when you thought Qatar's 2022 World Cup could not get any more controversial after continuing debates about the procedure used to select the tiny state and the difficulties associated with hosting the event during the peak of summer in the desert, there's more: It is common knowledge that the bulk of Qatar's workforce is composed of migrants who do the 3-D (dirty, dangerous, difficult) while its few citizens enjoy air-conditioned insulation from the harsh desert environment. However, recent reports have brought to light just exactly what the human cost is on migrant workers.

The Guardian got--pardon the expression--the ball rolling by reporting on the death toll of Nepalese workers due to poor living and working conditions out in the blast furnace of the Arabian desert to put up mega-stadiums in time for the 2022 event:

This summer, Nepalese workers died at a rate of almost one a day in Qatar, many of them young men who had sudden heart attacks. The investigation found evidence to suggest that thousands of Nepalese, who make up the single largest group of labourers in Qatar, face exploitation and abuses that amount to modern-day slavery, as defined by the International Labour Organisation, during a building binge paving the way for 2022.

According to documents obtained from the Nepalese embassy in Doha, at least 44 workers died between 4 June and 8 August. More than half died of heart attacks, heart failure or workplace accidents. The investigation also reveals:

• Evidence of forced labour on a huge World Cup infrastructure project.
• Some Nepalese men have alleged that they have not been paid for months and have had their salaries retained to stop them running away.
• Some workers on other sites say employers routinely confiscate passports and refuse to issue ID cards, in effect reducing them to the status of illegal aliens.
• Some labourers say they have been denied access to free drinking water in the desert heat.
• About 30 Nepalese sought refuge at their embassy in Doha to escape the brutal conditions of their employment.

Der Spiegel then added fuel to the fire by suggesting that Indian workers are also dying of exploitation out in the desert so that the 2022 show may go on:

There are many indications that the 44 dead Nepalese are no exception. Following the revelations in the Guardian, the Indian ambassador reported that 82 Indian workers had died in the first five months of this year, and noted that 1,460 Indians had complained of poor working conditions. The International Trade Union Confederation [ITUC] fears that up to 4,000 workers could die in Qatar before the starting whistle is blown for the first match -- that is, if working conditions don't change.

The 4,000 worker deaths are an extrapolation of the current rate of fatalities being incurred by South Asian workers in Qatar over ten years. Moreover, ITUC argues that Qatar's efforts are in vain since the structure of migrant construction labor is fundamentally abusive:

"The labour inspection system in Qatar has failed, and the government's announcement would simply add some inspectors into a system that doesn't work and will not make a difference," said Sharan Burrow, the ITUC general secretary. "Workers are not able to speak freely as, under the strict visa sponsorship system, employers retain their passports and they are not allowed to change jobs or leave the country without the employer's permission."

Alike nearly all other migrant-receiving states, Qatar has not signed up to the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. Hence, Qatar's critics are applying pressure on Qatar being a signatory in another ILO convention concerning forced labor:

Qatar is failing to fully implement an international convention banning the use of forced labour ahead of the 2022 football World Cup, the United Nations' International Labour Organisation (ILO) has warned. Azfar Khan, the ILO's senior labour migration adviser in the Arab states, told the Guardian that despite pledges to do otherwise Qatar did not properly inspect workplace conditions and there was "no coherence" in the state's policies over the use of migrant labour.

"The onus is on the Qataris if they have ratified the convention to better implement it," he said. "Many of the abuses that take place which can lead to forced labour are still happening."

It is turning out to be a fiasco not only for football organizers but also for Qatar. The latter's image is receiving a battering that it's hard to imagine it will recover from in nine years' time. Isn't improving national reputation the goal of the whole enterprise? Qatar seems to be losing sight of it very badly.

The price of diamonds

The diamond market is really strange. The wholesale market is dominated by a single firm that basically acts like a monopolist, as it is able to control supplies with large stockpiles (and even get a bailout from the government) and thus sets the prices at will. The resale market is heavily self-regulated to limit the supply from others than the dominant firm (just try to resell your diamond and get more than half what you paid for it...). Thus, if you would want to study price setting in this market, you would want to look at it from the angle of a monopolist trying to maximizing its profit and extracting as much as possible from demand.

Nicolas Vaillant and François-Charles Wolff do none of it. They just apply a hedonic regression and blindly regress selling prices on diamond characteristics. It is interesting that they find that there are some important non-linearities at round carat sizes, but is to be expected given the marketing by the diamond industry. But what quickly put me off in this paper is that the authors do not seem to understand some basics of economics. Here is a quote from the first paragraph:

In 2003, world demand for rough diamonds (US$9.5 billion) was significantly above the diamond supply (US$8.2 billion), so that the excess demand had to be satisfied from producers’ existing stockpiles.

First, by definition, supply includes stockpiles. How one would measure supply by ignoring the stock is a mystery to me. And how could one quantify supply and demand separately like this? In addition, it is not like there is rationing going on, which would justify higher demand than supply, as I cannot imagine that a monopolistic supplier set prices below equilibrium. After this opening paragraph, I cannot trust anything in the paper.

PS: And I just realized this is the second time I criticize a paper by these two authors...

The (Delayed) Ascent of PRC Rating Agencies

There was another large controversy about Chinese firms operating Stateside three years ago when the PRC-based credit rating agency (privately-owned, mind you) Dagong was denied by the SEC from being granted Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization (NRSRO) status. As IPE Zone readers know by now, NRSRO status is important insofar as gaining this recognition allows a credit rating agency to legitimately evaluate what is still the most liquid capital market of them all for dollar-denominated debt. Then, the SEC claimed that Dagong could not comply with the Feds' standards for tranparency if so required:

[W]e find that we must deny Dagong's application because, irrespective of the jurisdictional question, it does not appear possible at this time for Dagong to comply with the recordkeeping, production, and examination requirements of the federal securities laws.

The "jurisdictional question" concerns the Chinese SEC equivalent the China Securities Rating Commission (CSRC) having its own set of rules concerning access to such documents. At any rate, Dagong was partly culpable in not properly explaining how it would handle SEC requests for information about ratings in terms understandable to Westerner bureaucrats. Dagong even threatened to sue, but nothing came of it:

Chinese rating agency Dagong Global Credit Rating Co. called the Securities and Exchange Commission's recent denial of its application as an officially recognized bond rater in the U.S. discriminatory and said it considers taking legal action against the agency.

In a strongly worded statement posted on the company's website Sunday, Dagong said SEC's sole reason for denying its application is the commission can not conduct cross-border supervision over the Chinese firm.

At any rate, Dagong has not given up on its quest to become a global player in the ratings game. Aside from the publicity stunt of downgrading US debt from AAA status before S&P, it now has done what few PRC ratings firms are willing to do in downgrading local issuances regardless of the argument that the government always stands ready to bail out SOEs which constitute a large part of the Chinese economy:

At the end of June, Dagong Global Credit Rating Co. broke ranks with its local competitors and downgraded three bonds issued by infrastructure-construction companies wholly owned by Chinese cities. It said it was losing faith in the governments' backing of the bonds [...] The three bonds Dagong downgraded—for the infrastructure-construction arms of local governments in Jilin, Jiangxi and Hubei provinces—had their ratings lowered by only one notch and still are rated investment grade.

Another strategy aside from establishing an image of political independence at home is using Europe instead of the US as Dagong's Western beachhead:

Dagong's go-it-alone stance is a measure of its ambitions. Chairman Guan Jianzhong—a trained accountant who took over in 1998 and owns a chunk of the 20-year-old private firm, according to a person familiar with the company—has spoken bullishly about the need to break the lock-hold Standard & Poor's Ratings Services, Moody's Investors Service and Fitch Ratings have on global debt ratings. Dagong hopes investors would be open to a new ratings firm after the global financial crisis resulted in a major loss of faith in the established players.

European regulators have taken note. In June, before the downgrades, six European Union regulators approved the registration of Dagong's Milan-based unit, allowing it to rate companies in Europe. Dagong previously had been turned down by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in 2010 after it applied to do the same in the U.S.

The best way to combat Western discrimination is to tell it like it is when handing out ratings, since being proven right by subsequent bond issuer performance is the best way to gain others' confidence. Besides, who exactly is going to argue that Western ratings firms are any good in this day and age? As bond issuances increase from China in particular and East Asia in general, the clout of Asian ratings firms should increase accordingly.

The lame 2010 NRSRO application aside which appeared to fail due to unpreparedness as much as discrimination, it's only a matter of time. 

Britain should not take its credit status for granted

From Ken Rogoff.

Update: And a follow-up from Ken.