Economy

Percentage change in duration of one-way commutes from 2019 to 2022 9.8% shorter –8.9 –8.1 –7.7 –7.5 –7.5 –6.6 –6.5 –6.3 –6.1 –6.1 –6.0 Atlanta Washington San Francisco Boston Kansas City, Mo. Chicago Minneapolis New York City Los Angeles Philadelphia Columbus Denver Source: Replica | Note: Change is from autumn of 2019 to autumn of 2022. More

BEIJING (Reuters) -President Xi Jinping said on Monday stable ties between China and Australia served each other’s interests and both should expand their cooperation, sending a clear signal that Beijing was ready to move on from recent tensions. China and Australia should promote the development of their strategic partnership as they build up mutual understanding and trust, Xi told Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, the first Australian leader to visit Beijing since 2016, at the Great Hall of the People in the heart of the Chinese capital. A strong relationship “will be beneficial into the future,” Albanese told Xi in their second face-to-face talks in a year, a meeting that lasted more than an hour.For decades, China and Australia built a relationship on trade, with Beijing becoming Canberra’s biggest commercial partner with purchases of Australian food and natural resources.But ties soured after Australia in 2017 accused China of meddling in its politics. The following year, Australia banned equipment from Chinese tech giant Huawei Technologies Co for its 5G network out of national security fears.An Australian call in 2020 for an international inquiry into the origin of the COVID pandemic, which emerged in the Chinese city of Wuhan in late 2019, infuriated Beijing, which responded with blocks on various Australian imports.As relations deteriorated, China warned its students against studying in Australia, citing racist incidents, threatening a multi-billion-dollar education market.Earlier on Monday, Albanese stopped by Beijing’s iconic Temple of Heaven and posed for a photograph at the circular Echo Wall where Australia’s then prime minister, Gough Whitlam, stood in 1973, a year after the two countries established ties.”In China we often say that when drinking water, we should not forget those who dug the well,” Xi said. “The Chinese people will not forget Prime Minister Whitlam for digging the well for us.”‘VERY POSITIVE’Albanese took steps to stabilise relations after he became prime minister in May last year and met Xi on the sidelines of a G20 summit in Indonesia in November.China soon began lowering trade barriers, allowing imports of coal in January and ending tariffs on barley in August. Last month, Beijing agreed to review dumping tariffs of 218% on Australian wine. “I noted very much unimpeded trade was in the interest of both countries, was good for Chinese consumers as well as Australian exporters,” Albanese told reporters after the meeting. “He certainly agreed that Australian wine is good.”China’s January-September imports from Australia increased 8.1% from a year earlier to $116.9 billion, Chinese customs data show. In 2022, imports plunged 12.7% to $142.1 billion.The meeting was “very positive”, Albanese said, adding that he had invited Xi to visit Australia.”Both of us certainly agreed that we shouldn’t be defined by our differences, recognise that they are there, but also recognise the mutual benefit that we have.”Obstacles remain in their relationship.Australian backing of a U.N. ruling rejecting China’s territorial claims in the South China Sea has angered Beijing, which has told Canberra the issue is not its concern.Australia says the South China Sea is an important passageway for its trade with Japan and South Korea. Beijing’s projection of power among Pacific island nations also alarmed Australia, while Canberra’s security alliance with the United States and Britain in the Indo-Pacific – known as AUKUS – stoked Chinese worries about containment.”AUKUS didn’t come up explicitly. We discussed, though, regional stability,” Albanese said, without giving specifics. “I spoke about guardrails and military-to-military cooperation between the United States and China. That’s important.”Albanese also raised the case of Australian writer Yang Hengjun, who has been jailed in Beijing for four years on espionage charges. More

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for freeRoula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.This article is an on-site version of our Trade Secrets newsletter. Sign up here to get the newsletter sent straight to your inbox every MondayWelcome to Trade Secrets. There’s an interesting event coming up this week, as Australian prime minister Anthony Albanese meets China’s Xi Jinping. Diplomatic relations between the two countries are rapidly improving, with China lifting its coercive restrictions on Australian exports. But let’s remember what underpins that. Australia’s bargaining position was hugely strengthened by its exporters finding other markets in response to Beijing’s bullying rather than Canberra having to escalate a trade war. In today’s main pieces I look at the Biden administration’s break with the previous US trade policy consensus on data flows and digital trade, and ask what those issues are doing in trade deals anyway. Charted waters is on the Bank of Japan and the weak yen.Get in touch. Email me at [email protected]’s break with the digital consensusA longstanding constant of US trade policy (and one that survived the Trump presidency) was rocked a couple of weeks ago. The US withdrew from its previous position in negotiations on digital trade at the World Trade Organization, saying that the right to regulate was more important than pushing for the free cross-border movement of data.The Biden administration has always been keener on reining in Big Tech than was either Obama’s or Trump’s. Its new stance is closer to the position the EU has long taken — that privacy is a fundamental right, and the ability to regulate it is not to be bargained away in trade deals. In theory, together with a general move towards tighter rules on the use of personal data, at least at state level, it looks as if the different US and EU regulatory philosophies — laissez faire versus tough privacy protection — are converging somewhat. (This trend has already been identified by the guru in this area, Columbia University’s Anu Bradford.)Now, as noted by Simon Lester, who founded the WorldTradeLaw.net website, in practice the US shift might not make a dramatic difference to how data is actually treated in trade deals, which are often shot through with exceptions.I’d add that no strong and binding rules guaranteeing the free flow of data would ever have made it out of the WTO ecommerce negotiations alive in any case. Along with the EU’s reservations, China wants to preserve its incredibly pervasive system of controls, with companies wanting to take data out of the country facing multiple barriers.But that just raises a bigger question: what are the likes of data flows (and AI, policymakers’ latest obsession) doing in trade agreements in the first place?Trade in data needs trustTo answer this we turn to Susan Aaronson of George Washington University, who’s often to be found pushing out the boundaries of creative thinking on digital trade and the like. Here’s her latest paper on the subject — an earlier piece from Trade Secrets favourite Dan Ciuriak is also worth a read.Aaronson’s take is that the case for including data flow and digital trade in trade agreements is strongly conflicted. There’s a good argument from the practical and institutional point of view. Trade deals are legally binding and have provisions to arbitrate disputes, unlike the softer guidelines that emerge from discussions in places such as the OECD.But data isn’t really like a normal traded service. As Aaronson says, data flow isn’t always accompanied by an actual commercial transaction, and although data can be a commercial asset, it’s also a public good and a national security issue. Countries have a whole variety of different data protection laws that they somehow have to make compatible with their obligations in trade deals, and so far there hasn’t been much progress towards developing international norms of behaviour. For example, governments have shut down parts of the internet in the past (including democracies such as India and Brazil, which have banned particular apps) but no other government has managed to challenge this as an illegal restraint of trade. There’s a lot of public suspicion of the big internet platforms and the way in which personal data is used and transferred. Trade deals, which are typically negotiated in secret and subject to intense lobbying from affected companies, are unlikely to be the best way to address that. If governments are going to maintain public support for making data flows work, they’re going to have to do a lot of work building trust in their own regulations first. The US, for example, badly needs a comprehensive federal data protection regime rather than a state-by-state and sector-by-sector patchwork, but there isn’t much sign it’s going to get one soon.This all seems a pretty plausible argument. Putting digital issues into a trade deal sounds like a good idea, but it has to be a complement to building public confidence in the way personal information is handled, not a substitute for it.Charted watersThe Bank of Japan last week ended its long experiment of keeping monetary policy loose by preventing long-term bond yields rising higher than 1 per cent. This might help arrest the fall in the yen, which has slid pretty much throughout the year, without having to resort to currency intervention.Trade linksThe EU is launching a drive to improve economic growth and competitiveness. It is concerned about the strength of the single market and Europe’s lagging performance in high-technology sectors.The shipping giant Maersk has cut 10,000 jobs as the post-Covid rebound in global container trade has eased off and the freight industry returns to something more like normal.The challenges the EU will have in admitting Ukraine as a member, as very well described in today’s Europe Express newsletter, have been underlined by Polish hauliers threatening to block Ukrainian trucks from entering Poland, saying they are being undercut by low-paid drivers. Following its constraints on selling germanium, gallium and graphite abroad, China is imposing export controls on its hitherto flourishing giant panda export trade. I’m saying nothing.The UK continues to repair the damage Brexit has done with painful slowness, this time boosting its tourist industry by cutting the bureaucracy required for school trips from France to enter the UK. Trade Secrets is edited by Jonathan MoulesRecommended newsletters for youEurope Express — Your essential guide to what matters in Europe today. Sign up hereChris Giles on Central Banks — Your essential guide to money, interest rates, inflation and what central banks are thinking. Sign up here More

(Reuters) – Social media researchers have canceled, suspended or changed more than 100 studies about X, formerly Twitter, as a result of actions taken by Elon Musk that limit access to the social media platform, nearly a dozen interviews and a survey of planned projects show.Musk’s restrictions on critical methods of gathering data on the global platform have suppressed the ability to untangle the origin and spread of false information during real-time events such as Hamas’ attack on Israel and the Israeli airstrikes in Gaza, researchers told Reuters.The most important method was a tool that gave researchers access to data about 10 million tweets per month. Twitter notified researchers in February it would end free academic access to this application programming interface (API) as part of an overhaul of the tool, according to an email seen by Reuters.The survey of 167 academic and civil society researchers conducted at Reuters’ request by the Coalition for Independent Technology Research in September quantifies for the first time the number of studies that have been canceled due to Musk’s policies.It also shows a majority of survey respondents fear being sued by X over their findings or use of data. The worry follows X’s July lawsuit against the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) after it published critical reports about the platform’s content moderation.Musk did not respond to a request for comment and an X representative declined to comment. The company has previously said that nearly all content views are of “healthy” posts.Musk’s first year of ownership of X has been marked by advertisers fleeing the site, concerned that their ads could appear next to harmful content. X’s U.S. ad revenue declined at least 55% year-over-year each month since Musk’s acquisition, Reuters previously reported.The survey showed 30 canceled projects, 47 stalled projects and 27 where researchers changed platforms. It also revealed 47 ongoing projects, though some researchers noted that their ability to collect fresh data would be limited.The affected studies include research on hate speech and topics that have garnered global regulatory scrutiny. In one example, a stalled project sought to study child safety on X. The platform was recently fined by an Australian regulator for failing to cooperate with a probe into anti-child abuse practices.The researcher for the stalled project and several others who responded to the Coalition’s survey requested to remain anonymous. An author of the survey said researchers may seek to avoid backlash from X or protect ongoing studies.European Union regulators are also currently investigatingX’s handling of disinformation, which was the focus of multiple stalled or canceled independent research studies, the survey found.The reduced ability to study the platform “makes users on (X) vulnerable to more hate speech, more misinformation and more disinformation,” said Josephine Lukito, an assistant professor at the University of Texas at Austin.She helped conduct the research survey for the coalition, a global group with more than 300 members, that works to advance the study of technology’s impact on society.The survey was sent in mid-September by email to the coalition’s members as well as email lists for other academic groups, such as experts focused on political communication or social media.The EU’s investigation of X, under new strict internet rules that took effect in August, underscore the potential regulatory threat to the San Francisco-based company. Any violation could result in fines of up to 6% of global revenue.An EU Commission spokesperson said it is currently monitoring X’s, as well as other large platforms’, compliance with the law’s obligations, which includes allowing researchers who meet certain conditions to gain access to publicly available data.UNAFFORDABLE COSTBefore Musk bought Twitter for $44 billion, a large proportion of studies about social media had been related to Twitter, because the platform was a valuable source of information about politics and current events. Its data was easily accessible, four researchers told Reuters.But almost from the moment Musk stepped into Twitter’s headquarters, he began slashing costs and laying off thousands of employees, including those who worked on the research tools.Now, X offers three paid tiers of the API ranging from $100 to $42,000 per month, and the lower-priced tiers provide less data than what was available to researchers for free previously. Nearly every researcher who spoke with Reuters said they could not afford the costs.One former employee, who declined to be named for fear of backlash from Musk, said the decision to shut down free academic API access came down to an urgent need to focus on boosting revenue and cutting costs in the aftermath of Musk’s takeover.A majority of survey respondents cited the API changes as the reason for canceling or pausing their studies about the platform.The unaffordable cost of paying to receive less data than what was available previously means research ahead of 2024, a major election year globally, is severely challenged, Lukito said.Tim Weninger, a professor of engineering at University of Notre Dame, said his team has been “flying blind” while trying to track China-linked information operations without data from the API, the cost of which is prohibitive, he said.Several researchers told Reuters they now have limited options to study X, such as manually analyzing posts.Researchers also face limitations in gathering data from other social platforms. Short-form video app TikTok announced an academic research API earlier this year, but its onerous terms and conditions limit its usefulness for researchers, said Megan A. Brown, a researcher at New York University, in a blog post for Tech Policy Press.Facebook and Instagram-owner Meta Platforms (NASDAQ:META) has partnered with external researchers on studies, which is not a substitute for independent research, but shows Meta’s willingness to collaborate, Lukito said.LEGAL CONCERNSThe CCDH, an organization that said it aims to fight hate speech and disinformation, published several reports after Musk’s acquisition that claimed the social media platform failed to moderate and also profited from harmful content.X sued CCDH in July, accusing the organization of improperly accessing data from the platform and promoting false claims about X’s moderation.”Musk wants to silence any criticism of the way he does business,” said CCDH Chief Executive Imran Ahmed, adding CCDH stood by its reports.In the survey from the Coalition for Independent Technology Research, 104 out of 167 respondents cited the possibility of legal action due to either their use of data or their research findings as a concern about their projects.”The move against the CCDH communicates to researchers looking at misinformation and hate speech on online platforms that there is intrinsic liability in publicly disseminating findings,” said Bond Benton, an associate professor at Montclair State University, which produced a study last year that found hate speech increased on Twitter in the hours after Musk’s takeover.One researcher, who declined to be named, was studying how the subject of rape is discussed on X and told the survey they were worried about legal risk and the scientific validity of data collected without access to the API. The researcher said they moved the study to examine a different social media platform.Musk and X CEO Linda Yaccarino have articulated a new policy called “freedom of speech, not reach” that restricts the distribution of some posts but refrains from deleting them from the platform.X has said 99% of content that users see on the platform is “healthy,” which the company attributed in July to estimates from Sprinklr, a software company that helps brands monitor market trends and customer sentiment online.A spokesperson for Sprinklr, which is listed as an official partner of Twitter, declined to confirm the figures cited in the July post after Reuters requested comment and said “any recent external reporting prepared by Twitter/X has been done without Sprinklr’s involvement.” The spokesperson pointed to a March blog post that said toxic posts on X received three-times fewer views than non-toxic posts. More

Firms have increasingly discussed shifting production sites after the pandemic and Russia’s war in Ukraine disrupted value chains, but there has been little empirical evidence of mass relocations. Seeking on-the-ground confirmation, the ECB surveyed 65 very large firms with a global footprint and 49% said they were looking to “near-shore”, or bring production closer to the point of sales. In total, 42% wanted to “friend-shore” some operations, or move them to more welcoming locations. “As to those countries which posed – or could pose – a risk to supply chains in their sector more generally, two-thirds of all respondents cited China,” the ECB said in an Economic Bulletin article. More than half of the firms sourced critical materials from a specific country or small number of countries, and nearly all said that these supplies now faced elevated risk.”A large majority of these identified China as that country, or one of those countries, with all of them considering this an elevated risk,” the ECB added.Near-shoring was already a tendency in recent years but friend-shoring is a new phenomenon as only 11% said they were already pursuing such a strategy in the past five years.The European Union is still likely to be a loser in such corporate movements as the number or firms looking to move production out of the bloc remains larger than the number moving it in, and this could have a “significant” impact on employment.The moves could also fuel inflation as close to half of firms said they expected the changes to result in higher prices, the paper added. More

Mangudya highlighted the problem of rising global inflation, which has been triggered by supply chain disruptions since 2021. This has led to increased borrowing costs and Zimbabwe’s annual inflation rate now stands at 17.8%. The RBZ governor anticipates that global inflation will continue to rise, hitting 6.9% in 2023 and 5.8% in 2024.In order to ensure macro-stability while promoting the formalization of the economy through digitization, Mangudya recommended several measures. These include abolishing tax on point-of-sale transactions, increasing public transactions settled in local currency including QPDs (Quarterly Payment Dates), leveraging increased diaspora remittances and private sector loans, rationalizing the tax system, and effective communication on policies to anchor inflation and exchange rate expectations.Despite a drop of 9.6% in export receipts, foreign currency receipts have seen growth of 2.5%. The governor’s call for fiscal prudence and a strict monetary policy in 2024 reflects the government’s efforts to confront both domestic and global economic risks.This article was generated with the support of AI and reviewed by an editor. For more information see our T&C. More

The high-level talks will address significant matters such as debt relief for developing nations and financing for climate change initiatives. The duo will also seek to clear up misunderstandings arising from recent U.S. national security actions, including investment restrictions in Chinese industries.This initiative underscores the Biden administration’s drive to better comprehend China’s economic policies. This is a continuation of efforts that began with Yellen’s visit to Beijing in July and the subsequent establishment of financial and economic working groups for continuous dialogue between the two nations.In addition to these discussions, Yellen is also championing for the diversification of U.S. supply chains as a strategy to lessen dependence on China. This move forms part of a broader plan to ensure stability and resilience in U.S. economic operations amidst shifting global dynamics.This article was generated with the support of AI and reviewed by an editor. For more information see our T&C. More

The high-level meetings in San Francisco will lay the groundwork for talks between President Biden and China’s top leader, Xi Jinping.Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen will hold two days of high-level meetings with her Chinese counterpart, Vice Premier He Lifeng, this week, as the United States and China look to build upon an effort that started earlier this year to improve communication between the world’s two largest economies.The meetings will take place on Thursday and Friday in San Francisco ahead of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit, which begins on Saturday. The meetings will help lay the groundwork for expected talks at the summit between President Biden and China’s top leader, Xi Jinping. The Treasury Department said that the United States hoped Ms. Yellen’s meetings would “further stabilize the bilateral economic relationship” and make progress on key economic issues.The revival of economic diplomacy between the two countries comes at a fraught moment for the global economy, which is grappling with sluggish output and wars in Ukraine and the Middle East.A senior Treasury Department official said the Biden administration continued to seek a better understanding of China’s economic policies. Ms. Yellen is expected to talk to Mr. He about issues like debt relief for developing countries and the financing of international efforts to combat climate change. The discussions are also intended to address any misunderstandings from recent national security actions that the Biden administration has taken, such as restrictions on investments that Americans can make in Chinese industries.The talks in San Francisco follow Ms. Yellen’s trip to Beijing in July. After that visit, the Treasury Department established financial and economic working groups to promote more regular dialogue between the United States and China.As Treasury secretary, Ms. Yellen has been trying to help the United States diversify its supply chains so that it relies more on allies and domestic production and less on China, which over the past decade has similarly worked to become less reliant on imports.In a speech at the Asia Society last week, Ms. Yellen said that the United States would continue to respond to China’s economic practices while seeking ways to work together where possible. But she also made clear that she opposed efforts to sever economic ties with China.“A full separation of our economies, or an approach in which countries including those in the Indo-Pacific are forced to take sides, would have significant negative global repercussions,” Ms. Yellen said. “We have no interest in such a divided world and its disastrous effects.” More