• 倫敦、亞洲、區域經濟

    這期Economist有意思的文章不少。

    首先是【Capital City】這篇,言簡意賅地討論了倫敦如何在1986年的金融Big Bang之後鞏固其全球金融中心的位置,不過從這段話來看:
    By October 1986, the City already felt quite different. American investment bankers brought a brash new style to its financial markets, including breathtaking bonuses and early starts. The City, long notorious as a stuffy place where the old school tie mattered more than talent, became more meritocratic. The boisterous colour-jacketed traders in financial futures at LIFFE, a market founded in 1982, typified the new unbuttoned style of business.
    好像也沒那麼值得驕傲了(我寫過一篇討論倫敦城金融文化轉變的文章),而芝加哥商品交易所(CME)與芝加哥期貨交易所(CBOT)的合併計畫,恐怕會給倫敦證交所更大的壓力。比方說,要不要接受NASDAQ的併購
    In an ironic coda to Big Bang, which saw the stock-exchange's member firms gobbled up by foreign owners, the LSE—since 2001 a listed company itself—is under siege from NASDAQ, an American exchange, which already owns 25% of its shares. Tellingly, the government's only worry about the deal is that it could lead to a back-door introduction of heavy-handed American-style regulation—a threat it will block through a change in the law. That apart, it is unfazed by the prospect of this citadel of British capitalism falling to a foreign predator.
    所以,工黨啊,要不要保護英國的金融業呢?還是你們真的以為這幾年英國經濟是靠文化創意產業撐起來的?

    另一篇文章,【The alternative engine】,則討論了近期亞洲經濟在全球經濟成長中扮演的角色(尤其是對比美國經濟的疲弱)。

    文章裡說:
    Asia's export growth would certainly slow sharply, but it is the change in net exports that contributes to a country's growth rate, not the absolute size of that surplus. Since 2001 the increase in emerging Asia's trade surplus has added less than one percentage point a year on average to the region's average growth rate of almost 7%. Contrary to the received view, the bulk of Asia's growth has been domestically driven. True, domestic demand (investment and consumption) has grown more slowly than GDP over the past year everywhere except in Malaysia (see chart 1). But in most cases the gap has been small, especially in China, India, Japan and Indonesia. In contrast, growth in Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore has been heavily dependent on external demand over the past year.
    嗯,四小龍到現在還是走出口導向沒錯啦,不過,台灣的對比會不會太極端了?最後是關於中國的一段話:
    It is true that exports account for 40% of China's GDP, but those exports have a large import component; only a quarter of the value of China's exports is added locally. The impact of a slowdown in export growth would therefore be partially offset by a slowdown in imports. China's GDP growth has come mainly from domestic demand, which has been growing by an annual 9% in recent years.

    The idea that China's growth is mainly export-led is not the only popular myth.
    所以啊,想把發展型國家理論加個「地方」兩個字就套上去解釋中國的台灣學者,要小心哩。
  • You might also like

    1 comment:

    HOW said...

    這學期用功深入國際金融匯率議題,去年好好念了產業經濟以及亞洲和拉丁美洲國家發展的論文。這篇economist的文章來的正是時候。

    前兩個星期老師還在課堂上問了一個問題:倫敦為什麼還是全球期貨和金融的中心?老師的意思是指出國家刻意經營的重要性。

    有時候實在搞不懂某些學者刻意強調自由主義經濟的說法。越是挖掘越發現問題遠比想像中來的複雜。真不知道為什麼有人可以非常簡單將中國畫成純然由出口領導發展的政策。也很難在看見巴西、阿根廷等南美經濟搖搖欲墜的同時,去相信台灣正在進行的一個似乎沒有基礎的金融經濟政策。

    以上感言之外,倒是有一點值得注意:是前陣子和一個美國的學者聊天聊到的。他過去博士論文研究的是拉丁美洲的發展與美國的關係。他說台灣沒什麼人好好研究拉丁美洲,但對於現在在研究拉丁美洲的學者來說,越來越嚴重複雜的派系化是他們很難搞清楚的事情。台灣似乎可以作為一個對照案例。

    不知道,感覺有些模模糊糊的東西隱約浮現,但又很難確實抓清楚整個脈絡到底可能是什麼。總覺得發展中國家似乎浮現了一些共同的特徵出來了...

Powered by Blogger.