Developing Countries

More stories

  • 150 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Why What We Thought About the Global Economy Is No Longer True

    by

    While the world’s eyes were on the pandemic, the war in Ukraine and China, the paths to prosperity and shared interests have grown murkier.When the world’s business and political leaders gathered in 2018 at the annual economic forum in Davos, the mood was jubilant. Growth in every major country was on an upswing. The global economy, declared Christine Lagarde, then the managing director of the International Monetary Fund, “is in a very sweet spot.”Five years later, the outlook has decidedly soured.“Nearly all the economic forces that powered progress and prosperity over the last three decades are fading,” the World Bank warned in a recent analysis. “The result could be a lost decade in the making — not just for some countries or regions as has occurred in the past — but for the whole world.”A lot has happened between then and now: A global pandemic hit; war erupted in Europe; tensions between the United States and China boiled. And inflation, thought to be safely stored away with disco album collections, returned with a vengeance.But as the dust has settled, it has suddenly seemed as if almost everything we thought we knew about the world economy was wrong.The economic conventions that policymakers had relied on since the Berlin Wall fell more than 30 years ago — the unfailing superiority of open markets, liberalized trade and maximum efficiency — look to be running off the rails.During the Covid-19 pandemic, the ceaseless drive to integrate the global economy and reduce costs left health care workers without face masks and medical gloves, carmakers without semiconductors, sawmills without lumber and sneaker buyers without Nikes.Calverton National Cemetery in New York in early 2021, where daily burials more than doubled at the height of the pandemic.Johnny Milano for The New York TimesCaring for Covid patients in Bergamo, Italy, in 2020. Cost-cutting and economic integration around the globe left health care workers scrambling for masks and other supplies when the coronavirus hit.Fabio Bucciarelli for The New York TimesThe idea that trade and shared economic interests would prevent military conflicts was trampled last year under the boots of Russian soldiers in Ukraine.And increasing bouts of extreme weather that destroyed crops, forced migrations and halted power plants has illustrated that the market’s invisible hand was not protecting the planet.Now, as the second year of war in Ukraine grinds on and countries struggle with limp growth and persistent inflation, questions about the emerging economic playing field have taken center stage.Globalization, seen in recent decades as unstoppable a force as gravity, is clearly evolving in unpredictable ways. The move away from an integrated world economy is accelerating. And the best way to respond is a subject of fierce debate.Of course, challenges to the reigning economic consensus had been growing for a while.“We saw before the pandemic began that the wealthiest countries were getting frustrated by international trade, believing — whether correctly or not — that somehow this was hurting them, their jobs and standards of living,” said Betsey Stevenson, a member of the Council of Economic Advisers during the Obama administration.The financial meltdown in 2008 came close to tanking the global financial system. Britain pulled out of the European Union in 2016. President Donald Trump slapped tariffs on China in 2017, spurring a mini trade war.But starting with Covid-19, the rat-a-tat series of crises exposed with startling clarity vulnerabilities that demanded attention.As the consulting firm EY concluded in its 2023 Geostrategic Outlook, the trends behind the shift away from ever-increasing globalization “were accelerated by the Covid-19 pandemic — and then they have been supercharged by the war in Ukraine.”A view of the destruction in Bakhmut, Ukraine, in May.Tyler Hicks/The New York TimesUkrainians lined up to receive humanitarian aid in Kherson last year. Trade and shared economic interests weren’t enough to prevent wars, as once thought.Lynsey Addario for The New York TimesIt was the ‘end of history.’Today’s sense of unease is a stark contrast with the heady triumphalism that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union in December 1991. It was a period when a theorist could declare that the fall of communism marked “the end of history” — that liberal democratic ideas not only vanquished rivals, but represented “the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution.”Associated economic theories about the ineluctable rise of worldwide free market capitalism took on a similar sheen of invincibility and inevitability. Open markets, hands-off government and the relentless pursuit of efficiency would offer the best route to prosperity.It was believed that a new world where goods, money and information crisscrossed the globe would essentially sweep away the old order of Cold War conflicts and undemocratic regimes.There was reason for optimism. During the 1990s, inflation was low while employment, wages and productivity were up. Global trade nearly doubled. Investments in developing countries surged. The stock market rose.The World Trade Organization was established in 1995 to enforce the rules. China’s entry six years later was seen as transformative. And linking a huge market with 142 countries would irresistibly draw the Asian giant toward democracy.China, along with South Korea, Malaysia and others, turned struggling farmers into productive urban factory workers. The furniture, toys and electronics they sold around the world generated tremendous growth.China joined the World Trade Organization at a signing ceremony in 2001. ReutersThe favored economic road map helped produce fabulous wealth, lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and spur wondrous technological advances.But there were stunning failures as well. Globalization hastened climate change and deepened inequalities.In the United States and other advanced economies, many industrial jobs were exported to lower-wage countries, removing a springboard to the middle class.Policymakers always knew there would be winners and losers. Still, the market was left to decide how to deploy labor, technology and capital in the belief that efficiency and growth would automatically follow. Only afterward, the thinking went, should politicians step in to redistribute gains or help those left without jobs or prospects.Companies embarked on a worldwide scavenger hunt for low-wage workers, regardless of worker protections, environmental impact or democratic rights. They found many of them in places like Mexico, Vietnam and China.Television, T-shirts and tacos were cheaper than ever, but many essentials like health care, housing and higher education were increasingly out of reach.The job exodus pushed down wages at home and undercut workers’ bargaining power, spurring anti-immigrant sentiments and strengthening hard-right populist leaders like Donald Trump in the United States, Viktor Orban in Hungary and Marine Le Pen in France.In advanced industrial giants like the United States, Britain and several European countries, political leaders turned out to be unable or unwilling to more broadly reapportion rewards and burdens.Nor were they able to prevent damaging environmental fallout. Transporting goods around the globe increased greenhouse gas emissions. Producing for a world of consumers strained natural resources, encouraging overfishing in Southeast Asia and illegal deforestation in Brazil. And cheap production facilities polluted countries without adequate environmental standards.It turned out that markets on their own weren’t able to automatically distribute gains fairly or spur developing countries to grow or establish democratic institutions.Jake Sullivan, the U.S. national security adviser, said in a recent speech that a central fallacy in American economic policy had been to assume “that markets always allocate capital productively and efficiently — no matter what our competitors did, no matter how big our shared challenges grew, and no matter how many guardrails we took down.”The proliferation of economic exchanges between nations also failed to usher in a promised democratic renaissance.Communist-led China turned out to be the global economic system’s biggest beneficiary — and perhaps master gamesman — without embracing democratic values.“Capitalist tools in socialist hands,” the Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping said in 1992, when his country was developing into the world’s factory floor. China’s astonishing growth transformed it into the world’s second largest economy and a major engine of global growth. All along, though, Beijing maintained a tight grip on its raw materials, land, capital, energy, credit and labor, as well as the movements and speech of its people.Globalization has had enormous effects on the environment — including deforestation in Roraima State, in the Brazilian Amazon.Victor Moriyama for The New York TimesDistributing food in Johannesburg in 2020, where the pandemic caused a significant spike in the need for assistance.Joao Silva/The New York TimesMoney flowed in, and poor countries paid the price.In developing countries, the results could be dire.The economic havoc wreaked by the pandemic combined with soaring food and fuel prices caused by the war in Ukraine have created a spate of debt crises. Rising interest rates have made those crises worse. Debts, like energy and food, are often priced in dollars on the world market, so when U.S. rates go up, debt payments get more expensive.The cycle of loans and bailouts, though, has deeper roots.Poorer nations were pressured to lift all restrictions on capital moving in and out of the country. The argument was that money, like goods, should flow freely among nations. Allowing governments, businesses and individuals to borrow from foreign lenders would finance industrial development and key infrastructure.“Financial globalization was supposed to usher in an era of robust growth and fiscal stability in the developing world,” said Jayati Ghosh, an economist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. But “it ended up doing the opposite.”Some loans — whether from private lenders or institutions like the World Bank — didn’t produce enough returns to pay off the debt. Others were poured into speculative schemes, half-baked proposals, vanity projects or corrupt officials’ bank accounts. And debtors remained at the mercy of rising interest rates that swelled the size of debt payments in a heartbeat.Over the years, reckless lending, asset bubbles, currency fluctuations and official mismanagement led to boom-and-bust cycles in Asia, Russia, Latin America and elsewhere. In Sri Lanka, extravagant projects undertaken by the government, from ports to cricket stadiums, helped drive the country into bankruptcy last year as citizens scavenged for food and the central bank, in a barter arrangement, paid for Iranian oil with tea leaves.It’s a “Ponzi scheme,” Ms. Ghosh said.Private lenders who got spooked that they would not be repaid abruptly cut off the flow of money, leaving countries in the lurch.And the mandated austerity that accompanied bailouts from the International Monetary Fund, which compelled overextended governments to slash spending, often brought widespread misery by cutting public assistance, pensions, education and health care.Even I.M.F. economists acknowledged in 2016 that instead of delivering growth, such policies “increased inequality, in turn jeopardizing durable expansion.”Disenchantment with the West’s style of lending gave China the opportunity to become an aggressive creditor in countries like Argentina, Mongolia, Egypt and Suriname.A market in Buenos Aires. China has become an aggressive creditor to countries like Argentina. Sarah Pabst for The New York TimesSelf-reliance replaces cheap imports.While the collapse of the Soviet Union cleared the way for the domination of free-market orthodoxy, the invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation has now decisively unmoored it.The story of the international economy today, said Henry Farrell, a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, is about “how geopolitics is gobbling up hyperglobalization.”Old-world style great power politics accomplished what the threat of catastrophic climate collapse, seething social unrest and widening inequality could not: It upended assumptions about the global economic order.Josep Borrell, the European Union’s head of foreign affairs and security policy, put it bluntly in a speech 10 months after the invasion of Ukraine: “We have decoupled the sources of our prosperity from the sources of our security.” Europe got cheap energy from Russia and cheap manufactured goods from China. “This is a world that is no longer there,” he said.Supply-chain chokeholds stemming from the pandemic and subsequent recovery had already underscored the fragility of a globally sourced economy. As political tensions over the war grew, policymakers quickly added self-reliance and strength to the goals of growth and efficiency.“Our supply chains are not secure, and they’re not resilient,” Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen said last spring. Trade relationships should be built around “trusted partners,” she said, even if it means “a somewhat higher level of cost, a somewhat less efficient system.”“It was naïve to think that markets are just about efficiency and that they’re not also about power,” said Abraham Newman, a co-author with Mr. Farrell of “Underground Empire: How America Weaponized the World Economy.”Economic networks, by their very nature, create power imbalances and pressure points because countries have varying capabilities, resources and vulnerabilities.Russia, which had supplied 40 percent of the European Union’s natural gas, tried to use that dependency to pressure the bloc to withdraw its support of Ukraine.The United States and its allies used their domination of the global financial system to remove major Russian banks from the international payments system.The Port of Chornomorsk near Odesa, last year. In 2021, Ukraine was the largest wheat exporter in the world.Laetitia Vancon for The New York TimesHarvesting grapes at a vineyard in South Australia. China blocked Australian exports of wine and other goods after the country expressed support for Taiwan.Adam Ferguson for The New York TimesChina has retaliated against trading partners by restricting access to its enormous market.The extreme concentrations of critical suppliers and information technology networks has generated additional choke points.China manufactures 80 percent of the world’s solar panels. Taiwan produces 92 percent of tiny advanced semiconductors. Much of the world’s trade and transactions are figured in U.S. dollars.The new reality is reflected in American policy. The United States — the central architect of the liberalized economic order and the World Trade Organization — has turned away from more comprehensive free trade agreements and repeatedly refused to abide by W.T.O. decisions.Security concerns have led the Biden administration to block Chinese investment in American businesses and limit China’s access to private data on citizens and to new technologies.And it has embraced Chinese-style industrial policy, offering gargantuan subsidies for electric vehicles, batteries, wind farms, solar plants and more to secure supply chains and speed the transition to renewable energy.“Ignoring the economic dependencies that had built up over the decades of liberalization had become really perilous,” Mr. Sullivan, the U.S. national security adviser, said. Adherence to “oversimplified market efficiency,” he added, proved to be a mistake.While the previous economic orthodoxy has been partly abandoned, it is not clear what will replace it. Improvisation is the order of the day. Perhaps the only assumption that can be confidently relied on now is that the path to prosperity and policy trade-offs will become murkier.A solar farm in Yanqing district, in China. The country makes 80 percent of the world’s solar panels.Gilles Sabrié for The New York Times More

  • 125 Shares139 Views

    in Economy

    World Bank Projects Weak Global Growth Amid Rising Interest Rates

    by

    A new report projects that economic growth will slow this year and remain weak in 2024.The World Bank said on Tuesday that the global economy remained in a “precarious state” and warned of sluggish growth this year and next as rising interest rates slow consumer spending and business investment, and threaten the stability of the financial system.The bank’s tepid forecasts in its latest Global Economic Prospects report highlight the predicament that global policymakers face as they try to corral stubborn inflation by raising interest rates while grappling with the aftermath of the pandemic and continuing supply chain disruptions stemming from the war in Ukraine.The World Bank projected that global growth would slow to 2.1 percent this year from 3.1 percent in 2022. That is slightly stronger than its forecast of 1.7 percent in January, but in 2024 output is now expected to rise to 2.4 percent, weaker than the bank’s previous prediction of 2.7 percent.“Rays of sunshine in the global economy we saw earlier in the year have been fading, and gray days likely lie ahead,” said Ayhan Kose, deputy chief economist at the World Bank Group.Mr. Kose said that the world economy was experiencing a “sharp, synchronized global slowdown” and that 65 percent of countries would experience slower growth this year than last. A decade of poor fiscal management in low-income countries that relied on borrowed money is compounding the problem. According to the World Bank, 14 of 28 low-income countries are in debt distress or at a high risk of debt distress.Optimism about an economic rebound this year has been dampened by recent stress in the banking sectors in the United States and Europe, which resulted in the biggest bank failures since the 2008 financial crisis. Concerns about the health of the banking industry have prompted many lenders to pull back on providing credit to businesses and individuals, a phenomenon that the World Bank said was likely to further weigh down growth.The bank also warned that rising borrowing costs in rich countries — including the United States, where overnight interest rates have topped 5 percent for the first time in 15 years — posed an additional headwind for the world’s poorest economies.The most vulnerable economies, the report warned, are facing greater risk of financial crises as a result of rising rates. Higher interest rates make it more expensive for developing countries to service their loan payments and, if their currencies depreciate, to import food.In addition to the risks posed by rising interest rates, the pandemic and the conflict in Ukraine have combined to reverse decades of progress in global poverty reduction. The World Bank estimated on Tuesday that in 2024, incomes in the poorest countries would be 6 percent lower than in 2019.“Emerging market and developing economies today are struggling just to cope — deprived of the wherewithal to create jobs and deliver essential services to their most vulnerable citizens,” the report said.The World Bank sees widespread slowdowns in advanced economies, too. In the United States, it projects 1.1 percent growth this year and 0.8 percent in 2024.China is a notable exception to that trend, and the reopening of its economy after years of strict Covid-19 lockdowns is propping up global growth. The bank projects that the Chinese economy will grow 5.6 percent this year and 4.6 percent next year.Inflation is expected to continue to moderate this year, but the World Bank expects that prices will remain above central bank targets in many countries throughout 2024. More

  • 138 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    New World Bank President Ajay Banga Leads at a Pivotal Moment

    by

    The incoming president will be under pressure to juggle the global institution’s ambitions to combat climate change and fight poverty.Ajay Banga officially became the 14th president of the World Bank on Friday and urged staff to join him in developing a “new playbook” for a global institution whose relevance has come into question in recent years.The ascension of Mr. Banga to be the next leader of the bank comes at a pivotal moment in its 77-year history. The global pandemic reversed decades of progress in poverty reduction, Russia’s war in Ukraine continues to be a threat to economic stability and the World Bank is under new pressure to become a more ambitious player in the fight against climate change.“Making good on our ambition will require us to evolve to maximize resources and write a new playbook, to think creatively, take informed risks and forge new partnerships with civil society and multilateral institutions,” Mr. Banga wrote in a note to staff that was viewed by The New York Times.Mr. Banga was nominated by President Biden in February after the resignation of David Malpass, the outgoing World Bank president who had been selected by former President Donald J. Trump. The World Bank’s executive board approved Mr. Banga in May following an extensive listening tour that included visits to eight countries and dozens of meetings with government officials around the world.In his message to staff, Mr. Banga defined the bank’s mission as aspiring to “create a world free from poverty on a livable planet.”It is the second part of that mission by which Mr. Banga will be likely be judged.Mr. Malpass left the job a year early after failing to sufficiently demonstrate his commitment to combating global warming amid a renewed emphasis from the Biden administration broadening the bank’s focus on the environment.However, Mr. Banga, a former chief executive of Mastercard, does not bring extensive climate credentials to the job and will be under pressure to demonstrate progress on the bank’s environmental agenda. He has described the tasks of dealing with climate change and poverty as intertwined.“The World Bank’s challenge is clear: It must pursue both climate adaptation and mitigation; it must reach out to lower-income countries without turning its back on middle-income countries; it must think globally but recognize national and regional needs; it must embrace risk but do so prudently,” Mr. Banga wrote in a statement to World Bank’s executive board that accompanied his memo to staff.Activists protest during meetings of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank in April.Yuri Gripas for The New York TimesClimate activists plan to appear outside the World Bank on Friday and attempt to hand postcards to staff with demands that they want Mr. Banga to heed during his first 100 days on the job. They continue to be frustrated that the World Bank finances coal, oil and gas projects despite its pledges to prioritize clean energy projects.Mr. Banga is expected to use his expertise to amplify the resources of the World Bank and build new partnerships between the private and public sectors. The former finance executive added in his memo that accomplishing the World Bank’s many goals will require an annual global investment of trillions of dollars.Mr. Banga will also face a difficult diplomatic task as he seeks to satisfy the climate ambitions of the United States and Europe while facing skepticism from some developing countries. He will also confront the delicate task of urging China, a major World Bank shareholder and creditor, to allow poor countries that have borrowed huge sums from Beijing to restructure their debts.The World Bank president is traditionally chosen by the United States; the managing director of the International Monetary Fund is selected by the European Union.Mr. Banga met on Thursday with Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen. They discussed ways to refine how the bank operates and make it more agile and responsive, according to a summary of their conversation released by the Treasury Department. More

  • 163 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    Pressure Mounts on China to Offer Debt Relief to Poor Countries Facing Default

    by

    There was optimism at the spring meetings of the I.M.F. and World Bank that China will make concessions over restructuring its loans.WASHINGTON — China, under growing pressure from top international policymakers, appeared to indicate this week that it is ready to make concessions that would unlock a global effort to restructure hundreds of billions of dollars of debt owed by poor countries.China has lent more than $500 billion to developing countries through its lending program, making it one of the world’s largest creditors. Many of those countries, including several in Africa, have struggled economically in the wake of the pandemic and face the possibility of defaulting on their debt payments. Their problems have been compounded by rising interest rates and disruptions to supplies of food and energy as a result of Russia’s war in Ukraine.The United States, along with other Western nations, has been pressing China to allow some of those countries to restructure their debt and reduce the amount that they owe. But for more than two years, China has insisted that other creditors and multilateral lenders absorb financial losses as part of any restructuring, bogging down a critical loan relief process and threatening to push millions of people in developing countries deeper into poverty.A breakthrough would offer an economic lifeline to vulnerable nations at a time of sluggish growth and uncertain financial stability, and it would signal a renewed interest from China in economic diplomacy.Economists and development experts are watching carefully to determine if China is serious about easing the loan forgiveness logjam and if its talk will be followed by action. By some calculations, the world’s poor countries owe around $200 billion to wealthy nations, multilateral development banks and private creditors. Leaders of the world’s advanced economies have been grappling in recent months with how to avert financial crises in teetering markets such as Zambia, Sri Lanka and Ghana.Africa’s private and public external debt has increased more than fivefold over the last two decades to about $700 billion and Chinese lenders account for 12 percent of that total, according to Chatham House, the London policy institute. Researchers for the Debt Relief for Green and Inclusive Recovery Project estimated in a recent report that 61 emerging market and developing economies were facing debt distress, and that more than $800 billion in debt must be restructured.Leaders of the world’s advanced economies have been grappling in recent months with how to avert financial crises in teetering markets such as Sri Lanka.Dinuka Liyanawatte/Reuters“China is facing increasing pressure from every quarter, including from other emerging market economies, to play a more constructive role in the negotiations over debt restructuring,” said Eswar Prasad, a former head of the International Monetary Fund’s China division, who said China’s intransigence had left it “increasingly isolated.”There were indications this week that China was prepared to end that isolation as top economic officials from around the world convened at the spring meetings of the I.M.F. and World Bank. Participants expressed optimism that representatives from Beijing appeared to be ready to back off its insistence that multilateral lenders such as the World Bank, which provides low-interest loans and grants to poor countries, accept losses in the debt restructuring.“My sense from the current context is we’re moving on to new steps,” David Malpass, the departing World Bank president, said at a news conference on Thursday, pointing to “progress on equal burden sharing.”Kristalina Georgieva, the I.M.F.’s managing director, said she was “very encouraged” that a “common understanding” had been reached that could accelerate relief for countries such as Zambia, Ghana, Ethiopia and Sri Lanka.“I always say the proof of the pudding is in the eating,” Ms. Georgieva said.To restructure a country’s debt, creditors generally must agree to a combination of lowering the interest rate on the loan, extending the duration of the loan or writing off some of what is owed. China, which has faced an array of domestic economic challenges over the last three years, has been reluctant to take losses on debt and has pushed for other lenders, such as the World Bank, to incur losses.The urgency for a resolution was palpable among countries that are most in need of relief. Zambia defaulted in 2020 and has been trying to restructure $8.4 billion that it owes through a program established by the Group of 20 nations. It owes about $6 billion to Chinese lenders, and its total debt to foreign lenders is approaching $20 billion.On Friday, Ghana’s finance minister, Ken Ofori-Atta, lamented that 33 African nations were saddled with interest payments that approached or exceeded what their governments spent on health and education.Yuri Gripas for The New York Times“Zambia urgently needs debt relief,” Situmbeko Musokotwane, Zambia’s finance minister, told The New York Times. “Delay on debt restructuring puts our currency under pressure, excludes Zambia from capital markets and makes it difficult to attract much-needed foreign direct investment.”Ghana appealed to the Group of 20 nations this year for debt relief through a fledgling program known as the Common Framework after securing preliminary approval for a $3 billion loan from the I.M.F. That money is contingent on Ghana’s receiving assurances that it can restructure the approximately $30 billion that it owes to foreign lenders. Officials from Ghana have been meeting with their Chinese counterparts about restructuring the $2 billion that it owes China.On Friday, Ghana’s finance minister, Ken Ofori-Atta, lamented that 33 African nations were saddled with interest payments that approached or exceeded what their governments spent on health and education and expressed disappointment that advanced economies had been slow to act.“Honestly, it is disheartening to watch Africa struggle in this way, especially considering the potential loss of productivity over the next decade should African economies buckle under the weight of suffocating debts,” Mr. Ofori-Atta said at an Atlantic Council event on Friday.But it remains uncertain how far China is willing to go.Brad Setser, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, said that it was not clear what financial terms Beijing would accept when restructuring debt but that it appeared to be taking a “positive step” that would remove “a financially unwarranted roadblock to any progress.”Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen at a farm in Zambia in January. She said this week that she would continue to press her Chinese counterparts to make the restructuring process work better.Fatima Hussein/Associated PressBut given the grinding pace of the talks, big investors in emerging markets are not counting on quick resolutions.“We are starting to see tokens of flexibility from China on their stance in sovereign debt restructuring, but complexities abound,” said Yacov Arnopolin, emerging markets portfolio manager at PIMCO. “Near term, we don’t expect a clear-cut solution on China’s willingness to take losses.”China’s reluctance has been another source of tension with the United States, which has expressed concern that Beijing’s onerous lending terms and refusal to renegotiate have amplified the financial problems that developing countries are facing. Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen said this week that she would continue to press her Chinese counterparts to improve the restructuring process but that she was encouraged that China had recently expressed a willingness to help Sri Lanka restructure its debt.People familiar with Chinese economic policymaking said domestic politics had made it hard for China to make difficult decisions last autumn and over the winter about accepting possible losses on its loans.In October, the Communist Party held its once-in-five-years national congress and chose a new team of senior party officials to work with Xi Jinping, the country’s top leader. Maneuvering then began to reshuffle the government’s senior ranks, which had been expected during the annual session of the National People’s Congress in early March, although some changes of financial policymakers were unexpectedly delayed.China is now ready to focus on addressing a wide range of economic issues, including international debt, the people said. However, Beijing still faces other challenges that may limit its willingness to bargain, including a commercial banking system that faces very heavy losses on loans to real estate developers and does not want to accept large losses on loans to developing countries at the same time.Chinese officials offered support for the debt relief initiatives in broad terms this week.Wang Wenbin, a spokesman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry, said on Friday that China had put forward a three-point proposal that included calling for the I.M.F. to more quickly share its debt sustainability assessments for countries that need relief, and for creditors to detail how they will carry out the restructurings on “comparable terms.”After a meeting in Washington between Yi Gang, China’s central bank governor, and Mr. Musokotwane of Zambia, the Chinese central bank released a brief statement.“They exchanged views on issues of common concern including bilateral financial cooperation,” it said.Keith Bradsher More