• SERVICES
  • INDUSTRIES
  • PERSPECTIVES
  • ABOUT
  • ENGAGE

WORLD ECONOMY

by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

The Gloomy Post-Olympic Scenario for Brazil

353views

Now that the Rio Olympics have ended, Brazil will soon get to see whether the expected benefits of its enormous investment start materializing. The sports extravaganza was heavy on Brazil’s pocket, as the country spent massive amount of money on construction of sports venues, housing, transportation, and other infrastructure. Hosting Olympics has indisputably driven tourism, created job opportunities, and generated profit from industries such as transportation, hospitality, entertainment, food, retail, etc. However, this upsurge seems to have been momentary, and mostly limited till the time games lasted. The mid and long term benefits of Olympics are still questionable and raising doubts whether Brazil will pay a high price for the Olympic glory.

Hosting a massive event like Olympics is always exorbitant, requiring huge investments to spruce infrastructure, improve accommodation facilities, etc. Brazil invested heavily to host the games resulting in cost overrun of 51%. Some of the major cost heads included administration, technology, and infrastructure.

1-Cost

During the games, Brazil was flocked with visitors, restaurants and hotels were buzzing with people, who spent mammoth amount of money, adding on to Brazil’s revenue. Foreign visitors spent about US$ 617 million, while ticket sales alone generated US$ 323 million. Bars and restaurants witnessed upsurge in sales and hotels enjoyed much higher occupancy rates than any other time.


2-Impact

The post-Olympic scenario looks gloomy with minimal impact on economic growth of the country (meager addition of 0.05pp to GDP) while Brazil remains engulfed with rising inflation, public debt, and high insolvency rate. Further, results of a survey conducted by Fecomércio MG (Federation of Trade in Goods, Services, and Tourism) in 2016, suggests that only 4% people believe that Brazil will reap benefits post-games and 53.3% people consider that Olympics will have no impact on businesses.


3-Post Olympic Impact

EOS Perspective

In 2009, when Rio was chosen to host the 2016 Olympics, Brazil was at the crest of its economic boom. However, currently, Brazil is struggling to fight its third straight year of recession, growing unemployment, and double-digit inflation. The economy is expected to shrink by 3.5% in 2016 owing to weak commodity prices, political instability, and low import demand from China (one of Brazil’s key trade partners). Amidst all the economic mayhem, hosting Olympics further deepened the financial crack such that Rio had to declare a state of financial emergency, when the Brazilian government authorized a loan of US$ 850 million to pay for Olympic infrastructure and security.

Economic benefits of hosting extravagant events like Olympics are often quite exaggerated. For instance, London earned revenue of barely US$3.5 billion after its lavish spending of US$ 15 billion.

For Brazil, Olympics will definitely drive a modest short-term growth in terms of economy, tourism, and job creation, however, the net impact is likely to be negative. Investment in building massive infrastructure for Olympics and additional public spending are expected to escalate public debt. Organizing a mega sporting event like Olympics amidst rising public debt is likely to result in high inflation rate visible until 2020 and an increase in regional business bankruptcies. The benefits generated by hosting Olympics might be insufficient to compensate for the economic turmoil that had already plagued Brazil even before the games commenced. Unfortunately, the timing of hosting opulent events like World Cup and Olympics back to back might jeopardize the much needed positive impact expected from these sports events.

by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Sharing Economy Needs Regulator Support

370views

Sharing economy works on a business model where individuals have the ability to borrow or rent goods or services owned by someone else. The concept has been widely accepted in a short span of time and companies such as Uber and Airbnb have become well known among consumers. The sharing economy sector has witnessed tremendous growth with aggregate valuation of the companies operating in this market reaching US$ 140 billion in 2015. The industry has already started causing a shift in the employment sector and is said to have far-reaching implications which are likely to disrupt the traditional rental business model, particularly for companies in hotel and transportation sectors. The growth potential of sharing economy has become of considerable interest to policy makers around the globe as well, and the industry has recently come under scrutiny of various governments and regulators, and is likely to face regulatory barriers affecting its potential to scale up.

The concept of sharing economy, also known as peer-to-peer economy, facilitates a direct contact between consumers and service providers and is centered around the use of privately owned, unused inventory. Technology is key to the growth of this type of economy, which has already witnessed the emergence of several sharing platforms enabling consumers to share products and services such as cars and houses.

Sharing EconomySharing EconomySharing EconomySharing EconomyEOS Perspective

Companies such as Uber and Airbnb have become the talk of the town, due to their tremendous growth achieved thanks to a simple business model: providing consumers the ability to monetize idle inventory and rent an asset, instead of purchasing it. Sharing economy also meets consumers’ desire for social interaction, lower costs, and technology-based access to goods and services. However, the sudden and overwhelming rise in its popularity has shaken the governments’ ability to appropriately and sufficiently regulate this economy. Weak legal frameworks hampering consumer’s safety and tax collection have led to debates around the benefits of sharing economy.

Implementation of the traditional regulatory frameworks in the sharing economy sector is likely to upend the peer-to-peer business model. Inclusion and implementation of monetary employee benefits, tax obligations, and safety regulations in the sharing economy can be expected to lead to an increase in the cost of services offered by these companies, thereby defeating the purpose of the existence of sharing economy. Thus, instead of imposing regulations originally developed and meant for traditional rental sector, there arises a vital need to develop a new policy framework best suited to the peer-to-peer business model.

Instead of completely imposing bans on these services and eliminating the opportunity to make use of idle inventory, governments should work alongside these companies and create regulations tailored to their regions to encourage safe business conduct. For instance, Airbnb signed an agreement with the City of Amsterdam to promote responsible home sharing in 2015. The agreement includes a set of rules for the hosts to be followed before activating their listing, and also stipulates the collection and remittance of tourist tax by Airbnb on behalf of the hosts. In addition, the agreement also includes a partnership with Airbnb to collect content from the company’s database to shutdown illegal hotels. These efforts are expected to ensure the hosts receive clear information on renting their homes and promote consumer safety.

Sharing economy has the potential to make a tremendous impact on the traditional rental sector and is likely to create opportunities across various different economic activities. However, from a legal perspective, it cannot be ignored that the model lacks a strong regulatory support, which over time will continue to put pressure on this newly emerged sector. The peer-to-peer model will be required to address these imperatives in the near future in order to scale to new heights.

by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

GST Likely to Become India’s Biggest Tax Reform

Business Acronym GST as Goods and Services Tax

After 16 years from the conception of the idea, in August 2016, the Indian parliament finally passed the much awaited Constitution Amendment Bill for the introduction of Goods and Services Tax (GST) which is set to replace almost all indirect taxes in the country by April 2017, effectively simplifying India’s tax system. GST, a value added tax, is a single tax levied on the supply of goods and services from the manufacturers to the end consumers. As per this new tax regulation, the dealer of the product will be liable to pay tax only on the value added by him in the supply chain, thereby offsetting tax credits paid on inputs. Thus, the consumer will bear only the GST charged by the last party in the supply chain.

Under the previous tax regime, the state and the central governments levied different charges such as income tax, sales tax, excise duty, central tax, and security transaction tax separately. The GST is set to replace this procedure of implementing multiple indirect taxes with a single comprehensive tax regime under the GST umbrella. The new regime will have a dual structure with the central government and the state government having administrative powers to charge GST across the supply chain. It will include three kinds of taxes: the central GST, the state GST, and an integrated GST to handle inter-sate transaction.

This new tax reform is said to have far reaching impact on the Indian economy. It aims to eliminate the shortcomings of the current way of applying taxes across the supply chain involving numerous multi-layered policies and to remove the ‘cascading effect’ of multiple taxes on goods and services. The old regime of imposing separate taxes on goods and services and dividing transaction values for taxation purpose led to administrative complications and high compliance costs. The new system of uniform and integrated tax rates is likely to facilitate ease of doing business in the country, while the removal of inter-state taxes is likely to reduce time and logistics cost of the movement of goods. In addition, the integration of taxes and removal of Central Sales Tax (CST) is expected to lead to a decline in prices of domestic goods and services. Lower transaction costs combined with the removal of CST are likely to facilitate a rise in the competitiveness of the country’s goods and services in the international market and boost exports.

A robust IT infrastructure will be the backbone of the GST system, initiating ease of tax administration for the government and transparent and easy conduct of tax services, such as payments and registrations, for the citizens. Only a comprehensive IT infrastructure is likely to enable smooth transfer of tax credit across the supply chain, keeping a check on leakage. The new system is also expected to lead to a decline in the cost of tax collection, thereby generating high tax revenues for the government.

The GST system is also believed to be of significant importance to the consumers. Multiple indirect taxes levied by the central and state governments led to incomplete input tax credit availability which had to be adjusted against tax payable leading to the inclusion of various hidden taxes in the cost of goods and services. The GST system will levy a single tax from the manufacturer to the consumer, providing transparency and clarity of taxes paid. Further, efficient business conduct and reduction of leakages will lower the tax burden on the goods.

While the GST promises to streamline the indirect tax regime with a single tax, it has to overcome various challenges to be successful. Since the country is adopting a dual structure with the central and state governments, the main issue would be the coordination between different states. The central and state governments will be required to come to an agreement regarding the GST rates, administration efficiency, and the implementation of the GST, which might prove to be a cumbersome procedure. Further, IT infrastructure, which is said to be the foundation of the GST regime, will be a critical factor affecting the success of the new system. A strong technology support connecting all state governments, banks, industry, and other stakeholders on a real-time basis will be required for the efficient conduct of business. In addition, since the working of the GST tax regime is different from the indirect tax system, proper training will be required for the tax administrative staff at central and state levels regarding legislation and procedures within the GST. Another factor the government will need to consider is to adjust the new tax in a way that the tax revenue remains at least same without any revenue loss. For this purpose, a Revenue Neutral Rate (RNR) will need to be calculated and critically evaluated, as such a rate is likely to have a great impact on the Indian economy.

GST is a much awaited revolutionary tax reform in the Indian economy. If implemented properly, it is believed to add 2% to 2.5% to the nation’s GDP in the long run. It promises ease of doing business, economic growth, and higher tax revenue. Even with the diverse challenges the new tax regime is likely to be faced with, the GST has the potential to be a game changer for the Indian economy in the near future and is said to pave the way to a ‘one nation, one tax’ system.

by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

BREXIT: First Thoughts

Streit ums Haus

In a landmark decision, UK’s citizen expressed their preference to leave the European Union. While the process is not straight forward, and will take at least two years to complete, Britain could struggle to lift the markets sentiment in a short to medium term.

Sterling Pound, probably one of the strongest currencies in the world, immediately suffered the largest drop in the past 30 years. Stock markets across the world have also responded to the news, with most stock exchanges witnessing a significant drop in share prices. This only reciprocates the negative market sentiment currently dominating the market. Some even feel that announcement of BREXIT could be a dawn a new recession period, similar to the 2008 crisis.

Britain will have to undergo massive negotiations over the next two years – not only in terms of their relations with other EU member countries, but also at a more granular level. Most companies will have to renegotiate their EU-wide contracts, to enable provisions for a separate/independent Britain. A major challenge will be addressing trade with EU member states, as well as countries with which EU has signed free trade agreements, which according to estimates puts about £250 billion worth of trade at risk.

Several companies, especially the ones which use Britain as the base to serve other EU markets, have been left in the midst of turbulent waters, unsure of what pans for them in the future. All will again depend on how negotiations go among the 27 EU member states during a long drawn process, after Britain enforces the Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, for officially exiting the EU.

China, already suffering from the stock market and debt crisis in early 2016 following a crash in crude oil prices, could see its trade with European countries taking a hit. UK is the second largest customer for China in Europe. Weakening of the Sterling Pound and Euro is expected to erode the competitive advantage that China sought by devaluing its currency several times since August 2015. Moreover, the negative market sentiment is also likely to drive the crude oil prices further downwards, which could add the pressure on the debt-ridden country.

The knock-on effect will also be felt in other emerging markets in Asia. Nomura’s analysts predict growth rates in other Asian emerging markets to drop by up to 1.0 percentage point.

EOS Perspective

While many expect the impact of BREXIT to be felt gradually, the short terms scenario certainly seems to point otherwise. All will depend on how the exit process progresses, along with the negotiations, which might leave Britain in a slightly less advantageous position. Even if all goes well, it will take several years to attain normalcy.

by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Zika Virus Headed To Europe: WHO Alerts Several European Countries

Zika virus is likely to spread across the European countries after being predominately contained in Caribbean islands and Latin America (we wrote about it in our “Zika Virus Outbreak: How Is It Dampening the LATAM and Caribbean Economies?” article in May 2016 issue). While Zika is expected to arrive to Europe this summer, World Health Organization (WHO) declared that the risk of virus transmission across European countries is low to moderate.

Europe should brace itself as Aedes aegypti mosquitos (Zika virus transmitters) are likely to flock the continent in summer months, which provide an ideal thriving temperature for the mosquitos. The risk of transmission is expected to vary across countries. Madeira Island and the north-eastern Black Sea coast are highly susceptible to the virus if appropriate measures are not taken to alleviate the threat. In countries such as France, Italy, Malta, Croatia, Israel, Spain, Monaco, San Marino, Turkey, Greece, Switzerland, Bulgaria and Romania, among others, the likelihood of Zika transmission is expected to be moderate. Northern countries, including Belarus, Latvia, Iceland, Estonia, and Finland are not likely to be impacted by the virus. As of April 2016, The European Center for Disease Prevention and Control registered 452 Zika cases across Europe imported by travelers, however, no local infection has been detected yet.

Slide1

For the regions with moderate to high probability of Zika breakout, WHO has urged to bolster vector-controlled measures to reduce mosquito breeding sites. Also, the countries are required to increase preparedness by training health experts, so that they can impart care to people affected with Zika, particularly women.

Zika’s impact on tourism or economies of European nations still remains unclear, as the virus outbreak alert has just been issued. However, there is a probability that tourism might be impacted, as pregnant women have already been alerted to postpone travel to areas with likelihood of virus transmission. Several travel companies have declared that they will be as flexible as possible with pregnant customers. Further, with regards to EURO UEFA Championship 2016 scheduled in France (moderately susceptible to Zika), WHO has assured that it has the capacity to detect and curb local Zika virus transmission, if it occurs.

European countries have already started taking precautionary measures to mitigate risk of Zika transmission, hence, the intensity of impact on tourism or economy is likely to be lower as compared with LATAM and Caribbean regions.

by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Anatomy of a Bubble – Case Study: China

For years, China has been seen as a shining beacon amidst the global crisis, growing at a stunning pace while other countries reeled under the pressure of the global economic downturn of 2008-2009. However, Chinese stock market crashes, first in August 2015, and now at the start of 2016 have let people to question whether China is as immune to crisis as initially thought.

As per estimates by the Economist, Chinese equity market only impacts 15% of households. Therefore, the possibility of a widespread depression was quickly ruled out. However, there are other forces which are likely to be a greater cause of concern for the Chinese government, and possibly everyone around – the most prominent of them being the huge government and corporate debt bubble.

Looking at recent developments, there seems to be a striking resemblance between the increasingly swollen and inflated Chinese debt bubble and a simple spherical bubble, one that is impacted, shaped, and molded by a range of forces, as studied in school science books.

Slide1 - Forces Driving the Chinese Debt Bubble

Slide2 - Surface Tension

Slide3 - Government Measures

Slide4 - External Factors

EOS Perspective

China is under pressure in the face of rising labor costs, industrial overcapacity, falling prices, and weak global demand. Combination of economic slowdown, excess production in manufacturing, and rising debts at the macroeconomic level may cause a massive wave of firm closures and bad loans.

While China has expressed its intentions to reform its debt situation, internal and external market factors have forced the government to plunge more money into the market to finance economic growth and sustain the entire economy. These initiatives may diffuse the situation getting out of hand on a short-term basis. But the repercussion of a future debt crisis could be more severe. The scenario would not only be severe for China, but several other economies in the region, which are key sources of raw materials to China.

From a procurement point of view, while increasing price competition could make China still feature as an attractive proposition, buyers must consider the suppliers’ debt situation before making any decision. No one knows when, or if, the Chinese debt bubble will burst. With the situation still unclear, short-term contracts could be the way forward.

by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

The West vs. Russia: Will Russia Really Survive The Impact Of Sanctions?

358views

Russia trampled international laws with annexation of Crimea (previously part of Ukraine) to its territory and is reeling under wrath of sanctions imposed by the EU, the USA, Australia, Canada, Norway, and Switzerland, among others. Over a period of time, the sanctions have expanded to inflict economic damage to Russia by targeting its financial, energy, and military sectors. Even though the ball has always been in Russia’s court, the country has only deepened the damage by retaliating with food embargos and standing adamant on its decision to hold on to Crimea against Ukraine’s sovereignty.

The sanctions are intended to limit trading relationships with Russia, which in turn have adversely affected both the EU and the USA. The economic impact is more intensive on the EU member countries and Russia, as they were engaged in high volume and value trading relationship.

Understanding the Sanctions Imposed on Russia

Russia’s economy is suffering under the contracting GDP, growing inflation, capital flight, as well as Ruble depreciation. Economic turbulence has been further intensified with plunge in global oil prices — as Russia’s is one of the world’s largest oil producers, with oil and gas exports accounting for 70% of its export income.

How Are Sanctions Savaging The Russian Economy

The sanctions also had a crumbling effect on the Western companies operating in Russia. Several luxury and consumer goods companies had previously flocked into Moscow to capture the growing middle class market, however, Russia lost its attractiveness and image to being a ‘malignant country’ post Crimea annexation. After the sanctions were imposed, several consumer goods companies shut down their operations — Zara, a Spanish fashion brand, closed flagship store in Moscow in 2014. Wendy’s (an American international fast food restaurant chain), Esprit (China-based clothing brand), and River Island (British fashion shop) are also planning to end their operations in Russia. Consumer spending and retail sales reflect the economic sanctions with retail sales falling 7.7% y-o-y in February 2015.

Western Companies Hit Worst By Russian Crisis

In August 2014, Russia devised a strategy to retaliate against Western countries by banning agricultural import of certain products from the USA, the EU, Canada, Australia, and Norway. Presently, the Russian government is encouraging domestic production to reduce reliance on imports. However, it will take at least five years, if not more, before import substitution starts yielding real impact on domestic food availability and the Russian economy.

Food Embargo Imposed by Russia and Its Impact


EOS Perspective

There is no doubt that sanctions along with falling oil prices have damaged Russian economy. Decline in oil prices strained the availability of domestic liquidity, which could normally be compensated with foreign debt market borrowings. However, borrowing has been prohibited by the ban on Western debt and credit, which intensified the situation and put crushing pressure on the Russian economy.

It is expected that the sanctions are not going to be lifted any time soon, which is projected to bring absence of foreign loans, which in turn is likely to be paired by significantly reduced of foreign investment. This could be a major challenge for Russia, as the FDI tends to be one of the key sources of capital and technologies in emerging nations. With this isolation, Russia might not be able to keep the necessary pace of growth due to lack of capital and limited trading relationships.

Under the pressure of sanctions, Russia can be expected to undergo a transformation to rebalance its economy — with Western companies exiting Russia, their place could be taken by Asian counterparts or domestic companies. For instance, in October 2014, Russia signed 40 agreements with China spanning energy, financial, and technology sectors. Further, Chinese banks agreed to offer credit lines valued at US$ 4.5 billion to Russian banks and companies. These recent agreements clearly show that Russia has been seeking to deepen its strategic ties with Middle Kingdom, intending to improve trade between the two countries to double it to US$ 200 billion by 2016 end.

Sanctions are likely to continue to deeply impact Russia’s key choices in its internal policies as well as the international arena, with expected focus to increase domestic production and choosing Asian allies over Western partners to establish trading relationships.

by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

A Dragon Unfurls its Wings – How China’s Economic Slowdown Is Rippling Through Emerging Markets

Almost 10 years ago, Goldman Sachs published a report, in which it predicted Chinese GDP to overtake the USA’s GDP by 2020. Today, this prognosis looks like a far-fetched dream as China has recently been riding a wild economic horse. When Chinese economy was growing, its demand for various products and services contributed to the economic growth of emerging markets across the world. The deteriorating performance of Chinese economy over the past few years appears to have started adversely affecting these markets. Will the emerging markets be able to successfully sustain in future?

China witnessed a spectacular and continued rise of its GDP during major part of last three decades. However, end of 2007 saw a turning point, and the country’s economic growth rate cooled off from 14.2% still in 2007 down to 9.6% in 2008, reaching mere 7.4% in the first quarter of 2014. This single digit growth would be more than satisfactory for a lot of economies. However, for China, which regularly recorded double digit rates, this extended period of slower growth is disappointing, with some calling it as ‘an end of an era’.

For years, China was enjoying relentless economic growth through massive investments, exemplary rise in exports, as well as abundance of labor force which was available at low wages. Due to these factors, economists started referring to China’s economic growth model as an investment-and-export driven model. This model has played a key role in driving exports also from emerging markets such as Latin America, Asia, and Middle East, as there was substantial demand for commodities from China’s end to support its domestic consumption as well as export requirements. With the weakening of foreign demand and internal consumption, China’s export demands have considerably weakened, leading to declining prices of export-related commodities and resulting in an adverse impact on emerging markets’ GDPs.

Is the Slowdown for Real?

China’s economic slowdown has not only been reflected in its modest GDP growth figures, but also in several other negative trends that have been observed. These include a continuous decline in the percentage of fixed-asset investments as a part of China’s GDP. Investments contracted from 24.8% in 2007 to 19.6% in 2013. Reduction of fixed-asset investments is likely to negatively contribute towards a country’s economic slowdown by adversely affecting sectors such as real estate, infrastructure, machinery, metals, and construction.GDP

Moreover, yuan has depreciated against US dollar (with average exchange rate of 7.9 in 2006 down to 6.26 in April 2014). In addition to this, Purchasing Managers’ Index (PMI), which is a composite index of sub-indicators (production level, new orders, supplier deliveries, inventories, and employment level), has plunged from 52.9 in 2006 to 48.3 in April 2014, below the middle value (50), thus indicating some contraction of China’s manufacturing industry. This industry contributes significantly to China’s GDP, therefore, the industry’s deterioration has a direct adverse effect on China’s economy.

This negative twist in China’s economic growth story is believed to be a result of a synergetic effect of various internal and external factors, some of which include:

  • Over-reliance on abundant supply of low-cost labor. For decades, China has based its growth on production of goods requiring high amount of cheap manual labor. However, as the economy continued growing, the demand for higher wages has increased, pumping up the labor cost. This cost is contributing to the inflation of products’ export prices, which is ultimately translating to a lower demand of Chinese goods.

  • The focus of Chinese workforce has been shifting from rural agriculture to urban manufacturing. The government has been taking steps to propel this transition in order to boost economic growth, prosperity, and industrialization. As more and more Chinese moved to urban areas, gradually, the transition has started yielding diminishing returns mainly due to saturation in the manufacturing industry.

  • Europe has also played a villainous role in China’s story. It has been one of China’s largest export markets but has recently been extending a significantly low demand for commodities and products from China. In 2007, the European Union accounted for 20.1% of all the exports from China. This percentage has fallen to 16.3% in 2012.

Chinese Leaders React

The Chinese government is in a reactive mode and has been unveiling a plethora of actions to bolster growth. The overall approach looks conservative in nature with a targeted GDP growth of 7.5% for this year, after recording a growth of 7.7% in 2013.

In an attempt to improve the situation, some of the expected financial and fiscal reforms are in the pipeline. Liberalizing bank deposit rates and relaxing entry barriers for private investment are some of the moves to be implemented by 2020. Various property measures (such as relaxing home purchase rules, providing tax subsidies, or cutting down payments) are planned to be introduced (based on local demands and conditions prevailing in a particular city) in order to balance the property market as a whole. A target of creating 10 million new jobs in Beijing has also been set for 2014. The underlying motive of all the rescue measures is strengthening the Chinese economy’s reliance on domestic consumption and services.

Influence on Emerging Markets

Undoubtedly, swing of the Chinese economy towards consumption and services is expected to considerably affect all the connected economies, several of them being emerging markets economies (EMEs). Commodity producing emerging markets such as Latin America, Middle East, parts of Africa and Asia are likely to be affected. Within this group, metal producers will probably suffer the most, as China had a significant demand for iron ore, steel, and copper during its investment boom phase. Within this subgroup, economies which are running current account deficits are forecast to be more susceptible to the ill-effects of China’s economic slowdown.

As China tilts towards domestic consumption, Latin America has started to witness a dawdling growth as the region’s growth rate dropped from an average of 4.3% in the period of 2004-2011 to 2.6% currently. For instance, as Chile depends heavily on copper exports to sustain its economic expansion, the country has been regularly reporting sluggish growth rates (5.8%, 5.9%, and 5.6% in 2010, 2011, and 2012, respectively) due to the decline in the price of copper, largely fueled by a lower demand from China. In addition to this, Brazil and Mexico are struggling to survive through falling benchmark stock indexes. The fall is mainly due to declining prices of commodities, as exports to China from Brazil and Mexico have weakened.

Middle East will probably register both positive and negative effects of China’s economic slowdown. One of the ill-effects could be reduction in oil prices, from US$140 per barrel in 2008 to approximately US$80 per barrel by the end of 2014, due to China’s lower demand of oil. On the positive side, Middle East is strengthening its position as an attractive region with long-term growth since China is being considered as a slightly less attractive option for investment by a majority of investors. This is mainly due to Middle East’s good infrastructure and accelerated development of industries such as defense, chemical, and automotive, and not only traditionally developed energy and petrochemicals.

The impact on African countries is expected to be negative primarily due to declining commodity prices. As Africa’s growth substantially depends on its exports to China, some African commodity exporters, such as Zambia, Sudan, and Angola, have started to feel the strain as China’s demand for commodities is weakening. This weakened demand has led to lower prices of commodities such as aluminum, copper, and oil, which registered a y-o-y decline by 4%, 9.5%, and 5.4%, respectively in January 2013. Zambia is likely to receive the strongest hit as copper constitutes almost 80% of the country’s total exports and reduction in copper prices could make its current account deficit to account for almost 4% of GDP in 2014.

Effect of China’s economic slowdown will vary from country to country in case of Asia. Countries such as Indonesia and Philippines, which have significant domestic demand, would be less adversely affected as they are less dependent on commodities exports to China. China’s unstable economy has spurred new investments in other growing Asian economies such as Cambodia. India is also likely to benefit from the ability to import oil at lower prices, which are pushed down by China’s weakened demand for oil. At the same time, however, export of cotton and metals such as copper and iron ore from India to China is dampened, adversely affecting India’s economy.

While EMEs have already been witnessing a lower demand from their traditional trading partners such as European Union and the USA, China’s slowdown will be an added burden to their economies.
China's Impact


It’s Touch and Go

It is rather evident that Chinese economic slowdown is having an adverse impact on emerging countries across Africa, Asia, and Latin America. One can hope that the measures taken by the Chinese leadership to curtail the slowdown will soon start taking effect and gradually lift up the economy, and in doing so, control the extent of damage spilling over many emerging countries and their economies.

In the event that the Chinese economy is unable to recover from this period of slowdown soon, it will continue to be a terrible blow to the economic ambitions of several emerging markets, especially those in Africa and parts of Asia-Pacific, which are heavily reliant on Chinese investment and trade relations.

Simultaneously to absorbing fewer production inputs imported from emerging countries, it is worth noting that China’s role in world economics might start to alter as it transforms to a consumption-led economy. This transformation is likely to slowly increase China’s appetite for imports of products and services, apart from traditional commodities-focused imports. It will be interesting to observe whether and how some of the emerging economies will attempt to satisfy this new Chinese hunger for goods extending beyond simple commodities.

Top