Georgieva, Kristalina Ivanova

Latest story

138 Shares189 Views

Global Economy May Be in a ‘Lost Decade,’ World Bank Warns

by

Adding to crises like the pandemic, recent stress in the banking system is a new threat to world growth, experts at the organization said.WASHINGTON — The World Bank warned on Monday that the coronavirus pandemic and Russia’s war in Ukraine had contributed to a decline in the global economy’s long-term growth potential, leading to what could be a “lost decade” that would mean more poverty and fewer resources to combat the impact of climate change.The warning comes as the world deals with overlapping crises — a pandemic that crippled economies and strained public health systems and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which disrupted global supply chains and hurt international trade ties. The threat of a more protracted slump coincides with new signs of stress in the world’s financial system as a series of banking crises threaten to undermine economic growth.The World Bank projected in a new report that average potential global output is poised to fall to a 30-year low of 2.2 percent per year between 2023 and 2030. That would be a sharp decline from 3.5 percent per year during the first decade of this century.The falloff will be even more pronounced for developing economies, which grew at an average annual rate of 6 percent from 2000 to 2010; that rate could decline to 4 percent this decade.“A lost decade could be in the making for the global economy,” said Indermit Gill, the World Bank’s chief economist and senior vice president for development economics. “The ongoing decline in potential growth has serious implications for the world’s ability to tackle the expanding array of challenges unique to our times — stubborn poverty, diverging incomes and climate change.”Officials at the World Bank said the “golden era” of development appeared to be coming to an end. They warned that policymakers would need to get more creative as they tried to address global challenges without being able to rely on the rapid economic expansions of countries such as China, which has long been an engine of worldwide growth.They suggested that international monetary and fiscal policy frameworks should be more closely aligned, and that world leaders needed to find ways to reduce trade costs and increase their labor force participation. A return to faster growth, they said, will not be easy.Kristalina Georgieva, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund, said on Sunday that “risks to financial stability have increased.”Jing Xu/Reuters“It will take a herculean collective policy effort to restore growth in the next decade to the average of the previous one,” the World Bank said in the report.The increasing frequency of global crises continues to weigh on output even as signs of an economic rebound emerge. Efforts by central banks to tame inflation by raising interest rates have fueled turmoil in the banking sector, leading to the failures of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank in the United States this month and the rescue of Credit Suisse by UBS.Top economic officials have been watching to see if the strain on the banking system will become a significant economic headwind that could tip the United States into a recession.“It definitely brings us closer right now,” Neel Kashkari, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, said of a recession on the CBS program “Face the Nation” on Sunday. “What’s unclear for us is how much of these banking stresses are leading to a widespread credit crunch.”Kristalina Georgieva, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund, said on Sunday that “risks to financial stability have increased” and that given high levels of uncertainty, policymakers must remain vigilant. She noted that the recent turmoil could have implications for the I.M.F.’s global economic outlook and financial stability report, which will be released in the next few weeks.“At a time of higher debt levels, the rapid transition from a prolonged period of low interest rates to much higher rates — necessary to fight inflation — inevitably generates stresses and vulnerabilities, as evidenced by recent developments in the banking sector in some advanced economies,” Ms. Georgieva said at the China Development Forum.The I.M.F. said in January that it believed a global recession could be avoided as growth began to rebound later this year. At the time, it projected that output would be more resilient than previously anticipated, and it upgraded its growth projections for 2023 and 2024, but it did warn that “financial stability risks remain elevated.”World Bank officials said that if the current banking turmoil spiraled into a financial crisis and recession, then global growth projections might be even weaker because of the associated losses of jobs and investment.“However you look at it, if the current situation gets worse and turns into a recession, especially a recession at the global level, that could have negative implications for long-term growth prospects,” said Ayhan Kose, director the World Bank’s Prospects Group and the lead author of the report. More

More stories

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    IMF Warns Ukraine-Russia War Will Likely Slow Global Growth

    by

    The war in Ukraine and the associated sanctions that countries around the world have imposed on Russia are likely to cause a downgrade of the International Monetary Fund’s global economic growth forecast, Kristalina Georgieva, the I.M.F.’s managing director, said on Thursday.The Ukraine crisis is another shock to a world economy that was just emerging from the coronavirus pandemic, and it has been compounding global supply chain disruptions and inflation headwinds that have been cause for concern. The full impact on the world economy remains uncertain, I.M.F. officials said, and will depend on the outcome of the war and how long sanctions remain.“We just got through a crisis like no other with the pandemic, and we are now in an even more shocking territory,” Ms. Georgieva told reporters. “The unthinkable happened — we have a war in Europe.”In January, the I.M.F. reduced its estimated global growth rate for 2022 to 4.4 percent, from the 4.9 percent it had projected last year, as a result of slowdowns in the United States and China.Ms. Georgieva said the most significant threat to the world economy was greater inflation coming from higher commodity prices as countries shifted consumption away from Russian oil and gas. This, in turn, could eat into consumer spending. Worsening financial conditions and business confidence also have the potential to weigh on growth.“The surging prices for energy and other commodities — corn, metals, inputs for fertilizers, semiconductors — they are coming, in many countries, on top of already high inflation and are causing grave concern in so many places around the world,” Ms. Georgieva said.The I.M.F. is working to develop a plan to provide more assistance for Ukraine’s eventual rebuilding effort, but said it was too soon to know the extent of the country’s needs. This week, the fund’s executive board approved $1.4 billion in emergency financing.Ukraine’s top economic adviser said earlier on Thursday that Russia had already destroyed $100 billion worth of the country’s assets.The fund is also assessing the impact of the sanctions on the economy of Russia. Much of its financial sector and its central bank has been blacklisted.“The Russian economy is contracting, and the recession in Russia is going to be deep,” Ms. Georgieva said. “That is already clear.”She said Russia was unlikely to have access to its emergency currency reserves because of sanctions.The I.M.F. has halted operations and programs in Russia. Ms. Georgieva said there had been no discussions about ending Russia’s membership in the fund. More

  • 150 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    Debate Looms Over I.M.F.: Should It Do More Than Put Out Fires?

    by

    As the International Monetary Fund gets set for its annual meeting, economists ask if it’s time to update its mandate as the world’s financial crisis responder.Lopsided access to vaccinations, extreme economic inequality, rising food prices and staggering debt are on the agenda when the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank gather for their annual meetings in Washington next week.A pressing issue not in the official program is the controversy that has been swirling for weeks around the chief of the I.M.F., Kristalina Georgieva, threatening her leadership.An investigation last month accused Ms. Georgieva of rigging data to paint China as more business friendly in a 2018 report when she was chief executive at the World Bank. Ms. Georgieva has denied any wrongdoing.The scandal has focused on the bank’s credibility — billion-dollar decisions can be made on the basis of its information — as well as Ms. Georgieva’s culpability.But lurking behind the debate over her future are foundational questions about the shifting role of the I.M.F., which has helped guide the planet’s economic and financial system since the end of World War II.Once narrowly viewed as a financial watchdog and a first responder to countries in financial crises, the I.M.F. has more recently helped manage two of the biggest risks to the worldwide economy: the extreme inequality and climate change.Some stakeholders, though, have chafed at the scope of the fund’s ambitions, and how much it should venture onto the World Bank’s turf of long-term development and social projects. And they object to what’s perceived as a progressive tilt.“There is a modernizing streak here running through major financial institutions which is creating a kind of tension,” said Adam Tooze, a historian at Columbia University and the author of “Shutdown: How Covid Shook the World’s Economy.”Other pressures weigh on the agency as well. Washington is still home to the I.M.F.’s headquarters, and the United States is the only one of the 190 member countries with veto power, because it contributes more money than any other. But its dominance has been increasingly challenged by China — straining relations further tested by trade and other tensions — and emerging nations.The willingness of the Federal Reserve and other central banks to flush trillions of dollars into the global economy to limit downturns also means that other lenders, aside from the I.M.F., have enough surplus cash on hand to lend money to strapped nations. China has also greatly expanded its lending to foreign governments for infrastructure projects under its ambitious Belt and Road Initiative.At the same time, long-held beliefs like the single-minded focus on how much an economy grows, without regard to problems like inequality and environmental damage, are widely considered outdated. And the preferred cocktail for helping debt-ridden nations that was popular in the 1990s and early 2000s — austerity, privatization of government services and deregulation — has lost favor in many circles as punitive and often counterproductive.The debate about the role of the I.M.F. was bubbling before the appointment of Ms. Georgieva, who this month started the third year of her five-year term. But she has embraced an expanded role for the agency. A Bulgarian economist and the first from an emerging economy to head the fund, she stepped up her predecessors’ attention to the widening inequality and made climate change a priority, calling for an end to all fossil fuel subsidies, for a tax on carbon and for significant investment in green technology.She has argued that however efficient and rational the market is, governments must step in to fix built-in flaws that could lead to environmental devastation and grossly inequitable opportunity. Sustainable debt replaced austerity as the catchword.When the coronavirus pandemic brutally intensified the slate of problems — malnourishment, inadequate health care, rising poverty and an interconnected world vulnerable to environmental disaster — Ms. Georgieva urged action.Here was “a once in a lifetime opportunity,” she said, “to support a transformation in the economy,” one that is greener and fairer.The I.M.F. opposed the hard line taken by some Wall Street creditors in 2020 toward Argentina, emphasizing instead the need to protect “society’s most vulnerable” and to forgive debt that exceeds a country’s ability to repay.I.M.F. headquarters in Washington, where Republicans have bristled at Ms. Georgieva’s agenda.Daniel Slim/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesThis year, Ms. Georgieva managed to create a special reserve fund of $650 billion to help struggling nations finance health care, buy vaccines and pay down debt during the pandemic.That approach has not always sat well with conservatives in Washington and on Wall Street.Former President Donald J. Trump immediately objected to the new reserve funds — known as special drawing rights — when they were proposed in 2020, and congressional Republicans have continued the criticism. They argue that the funds mostly help American adversaries like China, Russia, Syria and Iran while doing little for poor nations.Ms. Georgieva’s activist climate agenda has also run afoul of Republicans in Congress, who have opposed carbon pricing and pushed to withdraw from multinational efforts like the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris climate agreement.So has her advocacy for a minimum global corporate tax like the one that more than 130 nations signed on Friday.In July, Laurence D. Fink, who runs BlackRock, the world’s largest investment management company, and was at odds with the I.M.F.’s stance on Argentina, called the fund and the World Bank outdated and said they needed “to rethink their roles.”The investigation into data rigging at the World Bank focused on what is known as the Doing Business Report, which contains an influential index of business-friendly countries. WilmerHale, the law firm that conducted the inquiry, said various top officials had exerted pressure to raise the rankings of China, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates or Azerbaijan in the 2018 and 2020 editions.The law firm reported that Ms. Georgieva was “directly involved” with efforts to improve China’s rating for the 2018 edition. She said WilmerHale’s report was inaccurate and rejected its accusations. The I.M.F. executive board is reviewing the findings.The United States, which is the fund’s largest shareholder, has declined to express support for her after the allegations. Ahead of a meeting of the I.M.F. board on Friday, Ms. Georgieva maintained strong support from many of the fund’s shareholders, including France, which had lobbied hard for her to get the job in 2019. Late Friday, the I.M.F. released a statement saying the board would “request more clarifying details with a view to very soon concluding its consideration of the matter.”In Congress, Republicans and Democrats called for the Treasury Department to undertake its own investigations. A letter from three Republicans said the WilmerHale inquiry “raises serious questions about Director Georgieva’s ability to lead the International Monetary Fund.”Several people sprang to her defense, including Shanta Devarajan, an economist who helped oversee the 2018 Doing Business Report and a key witness in the investigation. He wrote on Twitter that the law firm’s conclusions did not reflect his full statements, and that the notion that Ms. Georgieva had “put her thumb on the scale to benefit one nation is beyond credulity.”“It was her job to ensure the final report was accurate and credible — and that’s what she did,” Mr. Devarajan added.In an interview, he said critics had used the investigation to discredit Ms. Georgieva. The problem, he said, is “how people may have chosen to read the findings of the report and use that to criticize Kristalina’s credibility and leadership.”Mr. Devarajan was not the only one to make the case that the controversy was functioning in some ways as a proxy for the contest over the I.M.F.’s direction. Jeffrey Sachs, director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia, wrote in The Financial Times that Ms. Georgieva was receiving “McCarthyite treatment” by “anti-China forces” in Congress.Whatever role one might prefer for the I.M.F. — traditional, expanded or something else entirely — the scandal is both a distraction and a threat.Nicholas Stern, a British economist who formerly served as the chief economist and senior vice president of the World Bank, said this controversy could not come at a worse moment.“The coming few years are of vital importance to the future stability of the world economy and environment,” he wrote in a letter to the I.M.F. board in support of Ms. Georgieva. “This is as decisive a period as we have seen since the Second World War.”Alan Rappeport More

  • 200 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Kristalina Georgieva’s tenure at the I.M.F. is in limbo as its board weighs allegations against her.

    by

    WASHINGTON — The tenure of Kristalina Georgieva as managing director of the International Monetary Fund faces a pivotal moment on Friday, when the fund’s executive board will meet to decide whether she should continue to be its leader after allegations that she pressured staff to manipulate a report to placate China when she was a top World Bank official.This week, the executive board spent hours questioning Ms. Georgieva about her actions. It also interviewed lawyers from WilmerHale, the firm that conducted the World Bank’s internal review of the circumstances surrounding the Doing Business survey. The review, published last month, concluded that Ms. Georgieva had played a central role in meddling with the report, raising questions about her judgment and ability to continue leading the I.M.F.Ms. Georgieva has denied the allegations, and in a meeting with the board on Wednesday she offered a forceful rebuttal.“The WilmerHale Report does not accurately characterize my actions with respect to Doing Business 2018, nor does it accurately portray my character or the way that I have conducted myself over a long professional career,” Ms. Georgieva said in a statement to the board, which was obtained by The New York Times.Mr. Georgieva, a Bulgarian economist who assumed the top I.M.F. job in 2019, also criticized the nature of the World Bank investigation and said she had been misled.“The email from WilmerHale requesting my participation said clearly that I was not a subject of the investigation and assured me that my testimony was confidential and protected by World Bank staff rules, which guarantee due process,” Ms. Georgieva said. “None of this proved to be true.”The controversy has raised questions about China’s influence in multilateral institutions. It has also become a distraction for the I.M.F. as it is trying to help coordinate the global economic response to the pandemic. Prominent economists have publicly debated whether Ms. Georgieva should step down. The Economist magazine called last month for her resignation.The United States, which is the fund’s largest shareholder, has yet to offer public support, and officials have declined to say if she should stay in the job.“There is a review currently underway with the I.M.F. board, and Treasury has pushed for a thorough and fair accounting of all the facts,” said Alexandra LaManna, a Treasury spokeswoman. “Our primary responsibility is to uphold the integrity of international financial institutions.”Former World Bank officials have described Ms. Georgieva as a polarizing figure, but she has generally won praise at the I.M.F. When she assumed the job, she quickly restructured the fund to give her more direct control over its daily operations. That included removing David Lipton, a longtime I.M.F. official and its first deputy managing director, before his term expired.Mr. Lipton is now a top adviser to Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen, who will have significant input as to whether Ms. Georgieva remains in the job.Treasury officials have been debating how to respond to the allegations against Ms. Georgieva. A person familiar with the deliberations said that Mr. Lipton has been among the officials who have been supportive of Ms. Georgieva, who he worked closely with while she was at the World Bank and he was at the I.M.F.Republicans and Democrats in Congress have expressed concern about Ms. Georgieva’s actions at the World Bank and called on Ms. Yellen to ensure “full accountability.”The United States traditionally selects an American to be president of the World Bank, while the managing director of the I.M.F. is usually from Europe.The I.M.F.’s executive board could make a decision about whether it continues to have confidence in Ms. Georgieva when it meets on Friday.The annual meetings of the World Bank Group and the International Monetary Fund take place next week. More

  • 150 Shares109 Views

    in Economy

    As U.S. Prospects Brighten, Fed’s Powell Sees Risk in Global Vaccination Pace

    by

    Some countries are lagging behind in vaccinations, and policymakers warned that no economy is secure until the world is safe from coronavirus variants.Jerome H. Powell, the Federal Reserve chair, and the managing director of the International Monetary Fund, Kristalina Georgieva, emphasized the economic need for worldwide vaccinations on Thursday.Pool photo by Stefani ReynoldsJerome H. Powell, the Federal Reserve chair, stressed on Thursday that even as economic prospects look brighter in the United States, getting the world vaccinated and controlling the coronavirus pandemic remain critical to the global outlook.“Viruses are no respecters of borders,” Mr. Powell said while speaking on an International Monetary Fund panel. “Until the world, really, is vaccinated, we’re all going to be at risk of new mutations and we won’t be able to really resume activity with confidence all around the world.”While some advanced economies, including the United States, are moving quickly toward widespread vaccination, many emerging market countries lag far behind: Some have administered as little as one dose per 1,000 residents.Mr. Powell joined a chorus of global policy officials in emphasizing how important it is that all nations — not just the richest ones — are able to widely protect against the coronavirus. Kristalina Georgieva, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund, said policymakers needed to remain focused on public health as the key policy priority.“This year, next year, vaccine policy is economic policy,” Ms. Georgieva said, speaking on the same panel as Mr. Powell. “It is even higher priority than the traditional tools of fiscal and monetary policy. Why? Without it we cannot turn the fate of the world economy around.”Still, she also warned against pulling back on monetary policy support prematurely, saying that clear communication from the United States is helpful and important. The Fed is arguably the world’s most critical central bank thanks to the widely used dollar, and unexpected policy changes in the United States can roil global markets and make it harder for less developed economies to recover.“Premature withdrawal of support can cut the recovery short,” she cautioned.The Fed has held interest rates near zero since March 2020 and has been buying about $120 billion in government-backed bonds per month, policies meant to stoke spending by keeping borrowing cheap. Officials have been clear that they will continue to support the economy until it is closer to their goals of maximum employment and stable inflation — and that while the situation is improving, it is not there yet.“There are a number of factors that are coming together to support a brighter outlook for the U.S. economy,” Mr. Powell said, noting that tens of millions of Americans are now fully vaccinated, so the economy should be able to fully reopen fairly soon. “The recovery though, here, remains uneven and incomplete.”Employers added more than 900,000 workers to payrolls last month, but the country is still missing millions of jobs compared with February 2020 and fresh data showed that state jobless claims climbed last week. Mr. Powell pointed out that the burden is falling heavily on those least able to bear it: Lower-income service workers, who are heavily minorities and women, have been hit hard by the job losses.When asked what keeps him awake at night, Mr. Powell said that “there’s a pretty substantial tent city” he drives past on his way home from work in Washington. “We just need to keep reminding ourselves that even though some parts of the economy are just doing great, there’s a very large group of people who are not.”Given the pandemic’s role in exacerbating inequality, both Mr. Powell and Ms. Georgieva said it was critical to support workers and make sure they can find their way into new and fitting jobs.The Fed chair said policy tended to focus too much on short-term, palliative measures and not enough on longer-term solutions that help to expand economic possibility.“I think we need to, really as a country — and I’m not talking about any particular bill — invest in things that will increase the inclusiveness of the economy and the longer-term potential of it,” Mr. Powell said. “Particularly invest in people, so that they can take part in, contribute to and benefit from the prosperity of our economy.”Those comments come as the Biden administration is pushing for an ambitious $2 trillion infrastructure package that would include provisions for labor market training, technological research and widespread broadband. The administration has proposed paying for the package by raising corporate taxes.“For quite some time, we have been in favor of more investment in infrastructure. It helps to boost productivity here in the United States,” Ms. Georgieva said, calling climate-focused and “social infrastructure” provisions positive. She said they had not had a chance to fully assess the plan, but “broadly speaking, yes, we do support it.”But the White House’s plan has already run into resistance from Republicans and some moderate Democrats, who are wary of raising taxes or engaging in another big spending package after several large stimulus bills.Some commentators have warned that besides expanding the nation’s debt load, the government’s virus spending — particularly the recent $1.9 trillion stimulus package — could cause the economy to overheat. Fed officials have been less worried. “There’s a difference between essentially a one-time increase in prices and persistent inflation,” Mr. Powell said on Thursday. “The nature of a bottleneck is that it will be resolved.”If price gains and inflation expectations moved up “materially,” he said, the Fed would react.“We don’t think that’s the most likely outcome,” he said. More