International Relations

More stories

  • 125 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    War Has Already Hurt the Economies of Israel’s Nearest Neighbors

    by

    The impact on global growth of the Middle East violence has so far been contained. That’s not the case for Egypt, Lebanon and Jordan, which were already struggling.In the Red Sea, attacks by Iranian-backed Houthi militants on commercial ships continue to disrupt a crucial trade route and raise shipping costs. The threat of escalation there and around flash points in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Yemen and now Iran and Pakistan ratchets up every day.Despite the staggering death toll and wrenching misery of the violence in the Middle East, the broader economic impact so far has been mostly contained. Oil production and prices, a critical driver of worldwide economic activity and inflation, have returned to pre-crisis levels. International tourists are still flying into other countries in the Middle East like Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar.Yet for Israel’s next-door neighbors — Egypt, Lebanon and Jordan — the economic damage is already severe.An assessment by the United Nations Development Program estimated that in just three months, the Israel-Gaza war has cost the three countries $10.3 billion, or 2.3 percent of their combined gross domestic product. An additional 230,000 people in these countries are also expected to fall into poverty.Iranian-backed Houthi militants have been attacking commercial ships in the Red Sea.Sayed Hassan/Getty Images“Human development could regress by at least two to three years in Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon,” the analysis warned, citing refugee flows, soaring public debt and declines in trade and tourism — a vital source of revenue, foreign currency and employment.That conclusion echoed an update last month by the International Monetary Fund, which said that it was certain to lower its forecast for the most exposed countries when it publishes its World Economic Outlook at the end of this month.The latest economic gut punches could not come at a worse time for these countries, said Joshua Landis, director of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma.Economic activity across the Middle East and North Africa was already on a down slide, slipping to 2 percent growth in 2023 from 5.6 percent the previous year. Lebanon has been enmeshed in what the World Bank calls one of the world’s worst economic and financial crises in more than a century and half. And Egypt has been on the brink of insolvency.Since Hamas fighters attacked Israel from Gaza on Oct. 7, about 25,000 Palestinians have been killed by Israel, according to the Gazan health ministry. The strip has suffered widespread destruction and devastation. In Israel, where the Hamas attacks killed about 1,200 people, according to officials, and resulted in 240 being taken hostage, life has been upended, with hundreds of thousands of citizens called into military service and 200,000 displaced from border areas.In Jordan, Lebanon and Egypt, uncertainty about the war’s course is eating away at consumer and business confidence, which is likely to drive down spending and investment, I.M.F. analysts wrote.Rising prices in Egypt continue to gnaw at households’ buying power.Mauricio Lima for The New York TimesEgypt, the Arab world’s most populous country, has still not recovered from the rise in the cost of essential imports like wheat and fuel, a plunge in tourist revenue, and a drop in foreign investment caused by the coronavirus pandemic and the war in Ukraine.Lavish government spending on showy megaprojects and weapons caused Egypt’s debt to soar. When central banks around the world raised interest rates to curb inflation, those debt payments ballooned. Rising prices within Egypt continue to gnaw away households’ buying power and business’s plans for expansion.“No one wants to invest, but Egypt is too big to fail,” Mr. Landis said, explaining that the United States and I.M.F. are unlikely to let the country default on its $165 billion of foreign loans given its strategic and political importance.The drop in shipping traffic crossing into the Red Sea from the Suez Canal is the latest blow. Between January and August, Egypt brought in an average of $862 million per month in revenue from the canal, which carries 11 percent of global maritime trade.James Swanston, an emerging-markets economist at Capital Economics, said that according to the head of the Suez Canal Authority, traffic is down 30 percent this month from December and revenues are 40 percent weaker compared to 2023 levels.“That’s the biggest spillover effect,” he said.For these three struggling economies, the drop in tourism is particularly alarming. In 2019 tourism in Egypt, Lebanon and Jordan accounted for 35 percent to nearly 50 percent of their combined goods and services exports, according to the I.M.F.Displaced Palestinians on their way from the north of the Gaza Strip to its south last year.Samar Abu Elouf for The New York TimesIn early January, confirmed tickets for international arrivals to the wider Middle East region for the first half of this year were 20 percent higher than they were last year, according to ForwardKeys, a data-analysis firm that tracks global air travel reservations.But the closer the fighting, the bigger the decline in travelers. Tourism to Israel has mostly evaporated, further hammering an economy upended by full-scale war.In Jordan, airline bookings were down 18 percent. In Lebanon, where Israeli troops are fighting Hezbollah militants along the border, bookings were down 25 percent.“Fears of further regional escalation are casting a shadow over travel prospects in the region,” Olivier Ponti, vice president of insights at ForwardKeys.In Lebanon, travel and tourism has previously contributed a fifth of the country’s yearly gross domestic product.“The number one site in Lebanon is Baalbek,” said Hussein Abdallah, general manager of Lebanon Tours and Travels in Beirut. The sprawling 2,000-year-old Roman ruins are so spectacular that visitors have suggested that djinns built a palace there for the Queen of Sheba or that aliens constructed it as an intergalactic landing pad.Now, Mr. Abdallah said, “it is totally empty.” Mr. Abdallah said that since Oct. 7, his bookings have dropped 90 percent from last year. “If the situation continues like that,” he said, “many tour operators in Beirut will go out of business.”Travel to Egypt also dropped in October, November and December. Mr. Landis at the Middle East Center in Oklahoma mentioned that even his brother canceled a planned trip down the Nile, choosing to vacation in India instead.The top tourist site in Lebanon is the 2,000-year-old Roman ruins of Baalbek, said Hussein Abdallah, general manager of Lebanon Tours and Travels in Beirut. Now, he said, “it is totally empty.”Mohamed Azakir/ReutersKhaled Ibrahim, a consultant for Amisol Travel Egypt and a member of the Middle East Travel Alliance, said cancellations started to pour in after the attacks began. Like other tour operators he offered discounts to popular destinations like Sharm el-Sheik at the southern tip of the Sinai Peninsula, and occupancy hit about 80 percent of normal.He is less sanguine about salvaging the rest of what is considered the prime tourist season. “I can say this winter, January to April, will be quite challenging,” Mr. Ibrahim said from Medina in Saudi Arabia, where he was leading a tour. “Maybe business drops down to 50 percent.”Jim Tankersley More

  • 125 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Red Sea Shipping Halt Is Latest Risk to Global Economy

    by

    Next year could see increasing volatility as persistent military conflicts and economic uncertainty influence voting in national elections across the globe.The attacks on crucial shipping traffic in the Red Sea straits by a determined band of militants in Yemen — a spillover from the Israeli-Hamas war in Gaza — is injecting a new dose of instability into a world economy already struggling with mounting geopolitical tensions.The risk of escalating conflict in the Middle East is the latest in a string of unpredictable crises, including the Covid-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine, that have landed like swipes of a bear claw on the global economy, smacking it off course and leaving scars.As if that weren’t enough, more volatility lies ahead in the form of a wave of national elections whose repercussions could be deep and long. More than two billion people in roughly 50 countries, including India, Indonesia, Mexico, South Africa, the United States and the 27 nations of the European Parliament, will head to the polls. Altogether, participants in 2024’s elections olympiad account for 60 percent of the world’s economic output.In robust democracies, elections are taking place as mistrust in government is rising, electorates are bitterly divided and there is a profound and abiding anxiety over economic prospects.A ship crossing the Suez Canal toward the Red Sea. Attacks on the Red Sea have pushed up freight and insurance rates.Mohamed Hossam/EPA, via ShutterstockA billboard promoting presidential elections in Russia, which will take place in March.Dmitri Lovetsky/Associated PressEven in countries where elections are neither free nor fair, leaders are sensitive to the economy’s health. President Vladimir V. Putin’s decision this fall to require exporters to convert foreign currency into rubles was probably done with an eye on propping up the ruble and tamping down prices in the run-up to Russia’s presidential elections in March.The winners will determine crucial policy decisions affecting factory subsidies, tax breaks, technology transfers, the development of artificial intelligence, regulatory controls, trade barriers, investments, debt relief and the energy transition.A rash of electoral victories that carry angry populists into power could push governments toward tighter control of trade, foreign investment and immigration. Such policies, said Diane Coyle, a professor of public policy at the University of Cambridge, could tip the global economy into “a very different world than the one that we have been used to.”In many places, skepticism about globalization has been fueled by stagnant incomes, declining standards of living and growing inequality. Nonetheless, Ms. Coyle said, “a world of shrinking trade is a world of shrinking income.”And that raises the possibility of a “vicious cycle,” because the election of right-wing nationalists is likely to further weaken global growth and bruise economic fortunes, she warned.A campaign rally for former President Donald J. Trump in New Hampshire in December.Doug Mills/The New York TimesA line of migrants on their way to a Border Patrol processing center at the U.S.-Mexico border. Immigration will be a hot topic in upcoming elections.Rebecca Noble for The New York TimesMany economists have compared recent economic events to those of the 1970s, but the decade that Ms. Coyle said came to mind was the 1930s, when political upheavals and financial imbalances “played out into populism and declining trade and then extreme politics.”The biggest election next year is in India. Currently the world’s fastest-growing economy, it is jockeying to compete with China as the world’s manufacturing hub. Taiwan’s presidential election in January has the potential to ratchet up tensions between the United States and China. In Mexico, the vote will affect the government’s approach to energy and foreign investment. And a new president in Indonesia could shift policies on critical minerals like nickel.The U.S. presidential election, of course, will be the most significant by far for the world economy. The approaching contest is already affecting decision-making. Last week, Washington and Brussels agreed to suspend tariffs on European steel and aluminum and on American whiskey and motorcycles until after the election.The deal enables President Biden to appear to take a tough stance on trade deals as he battles for votes. Former President Donald J. Trump, the likely Republican candidate, has championed protectionist trade policies and proposed slapping a 10 percent tariff on all goods coming into the United States — a combative move that would inevitably lead other countries to retaliate.Mr. Trump, who has echoed authoritarian leaders, has also indicated that he would step back from America’s partnership with Europe, withdraw support for Ukraine and pursue a more confrontational stance toward China.Workers on a car assembly line in Hefei, China. Beijing has provided enormous incentives for electric vehicles.Qilai Shen for The New York TimesA shipyard in India, which is jockeying to compete with China as the world’s largest manufacturing hub.Atul Loke for The New York Times“The outcome of the elections could lead to far-reaching shifts in domestic and foreign policy issues, including on climate change, regulations and global alliances,” the consulting firm EY-Parthenon concluded in a recent report.Next year’s global economic outlook so far is mixed. Growth in most corners of the world remains slow, and dozens of developing countries are in danger of defaulting on their sovereign debts. On the positive side of the ledger, the rapid fall in inflation is nudging central bankers to reduce interest rates or at least halt their rise. Reduced borrowing costs are generally a spur to investment and home buying.As the world continues to fracture into uneasy alliances and rival blocs, security concerns are likely to loom even larger in economic decisions than they have so far.China, India and Turkey stepped up to buy Russian oil, gas and coal after Europe sharply reduced its purchases in the wake of Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine. At the same time, tensions between China and the United States spurred Washington to respond to years of strong-handed industrial support from Beijing by providing enormous incentives for electric vehicles, semiconductors and other items deemed essential for national security.A protest in Yemen on Friday against the operation to safeguard trade and protect ships in the Red Sea.Osamah Yahya/EPA, via ShutterstockThe drone and missile attacks in the Red Sea by Iranian-backed Houthi militia are a further sign of increasing fragmentation.In the last couple of months, there has been a rise in smaller players like Yemen, Hamas, Azerbaijan and Venezuela that are seeking to change the status quo, said Courtney Rickert McCaffrey, a geopolitical analyst at EY-Parthenon and an author of the recent report.“Even if these conflicts are smaller, they can still affect global supply chains in unexpected ways,” she said. “Geopolitical power is becoming more dispersed,” and that increases volatility.The Houthi assaults on vessels from around the world in the Bab-el-Mandeb strait — the aptly named Gate of Grief — on the southern end of the Red Sea have pushed up freight and insurance rates and oil prices while diverting marine traffic to a much longer and costlier route around Africa.Last week, the United States said it would expand a military coalition to ensure the safety of ships passing through this commercial pathway, through which 12 percent of global trade passes. It is the biggest rerouting of worldwide trade since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.Claus Vistesen, chief eurozone economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics, said the impact of the attacks had so far been limited. “From an economic perspective, we’re not seeing huge increase in oil and gas prices,” Mr. Vistesen said, although he acknowledged that the Red Sea assaults were the “most obvious near-term flashpoint.”Uncertainty does have a dampening effect on the economy, though. Businesses tend to adopt a wait-and-see attitude when it comes to investment, expansions and hiring.“Continuing volatility in geopolitical and geoeconomic relations between major economies is the biggest concern for chief risk officers in both the public and private sectors,” a midyear survey by the World Economic Forum found.With persistent military conflicts, increasing bouts of extreme weather and a slew of major elections ahead, it’s likely that 2024 will bring more of the same. More

  • 163 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. and Europe Eye Russian Assets to Aid Ukraine as Funding Dries Up

    by

    Despite legal reservations, policymakers are weighing the consequences of using $300 billion in Russian assets to help Kyiv’s war effort.The Biden administration is quietly signaling new support for seizing more than $300 billion in Russian central bank assets stashed in Western nations, and has begun urgent discussions with allies about using the funds to aid Ukraine’s war effort at a moment when financial support is waning, according to senior American and European officials.Until recently, Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen had argued that without action by Congress, seizing the funds was “not something that is legally permissible in the United States.” There has also been concern among some top American officials that nations around the world would hesitate to keep their funds at the New York Federal Reserve, or in dollars, if the United States established a precedent for seizing the money.But the administration, in coordination with the Group of 7 industrial nations, has begun taking another look at whether it can use its existing authorities or if it should seek congressional action to use the funds. Support for such legislation has been building in Congress, giving the Biden administration optimism that it could be granted the necessary authority.The talks among finance ministers, central bankers, diplomats and lawyers have intensified in recent weeks, officials said, with the Biden administration pressing Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Canada and Japan to come up with a strategy by Feb. 24, the second anniversary of the invasion.The more than $300 billion of Russian assets under discussion have already been out of Moscow’s control for more than a year. After the invasion of Ukraine, the United States, along with Europe and Japan, used sanctions to freeze the assets, denying Russia access to its international reserves.But seizing the assets would take matters a significant step further and require careful legal consideration.President Biden has not yet signed off on the strategy, and many of the details remain under heated discussion. Policymakers must determine if the money will be channeled directly to Ukraine or used to its benefit in other ways.They are also discussing what kinds of guardrails might be associated with the funds, such as whether the money could be used only for reconstruction and budgetary purposes to support Ukraine’s economy, or whether — like the funds Congress is debating — it could be spent directly on the military effort.The discussions have taken on greater urgency since Congress failed to reach a deal to provide military aid before the end of the year. On Tuesday, lawmakers abandoned a last-ditch effort amid a stalemate over Republican demands that any aid be tied to a crackdown on migration across the U.S. border with Mexico.The Financial Times reported earlier that the Biden administration had come around to the view that seizing Russia’s assets was viable under international law.A senior administration official said this week that even if Congress ultimately reached a deal to pay for more arms for Ukraine and aid to its government, eroding support for the war effort among Republicans and Ukraine’s increasingly precarious military position made it clear that an alternative source of funding was desperately needed.American officials have said that current funding for the Ukrainians is nearly exhausted, and they are scrambling to find ways to provide artillery rounds and air defenses for the country. With Europe’s own promise of fresh funds also stuck, a variety of new ideas are being debated about how to use the Russian assets, either dipping into them directly, using them to guarantee loans or using the interest income they earn to help Ukraine.“This amount of money that we’re talking about here is simply game-changing,” said Philip Zelikow, a State Department official in both Bush administrations and a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. “The fight over this money which is occurring is actually in some ways the essential campaign of the war.”Seizing such a large sum of money from another sovereign nation would be without precedent, and such an action could have unpredictable legal ramifications and economic consequences. It would almost certainly lead to lawsuits and retaliation from Russia.Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, referred to the discussions in a video address to his country last week, saying that “the issue of frozen assets was one of the very important decisions addressed” during his recent talks in Washington. He seemed to suggest that the funds should be directed to arms purchases, adding, “The assets of the terrorist state and its affiliates should be used to support Ukraine, to protect lives and people from Russian terror.”In a sign that some European countries are ready to move forward with confiscating Russian assets, German prosecutors this week seized about $790 million from the Frankfurt bank account of a Russian financial firm that was under E.U. sanctions.The Biden administration has said little in public about the negotiations. At the State Department on Tuesday, Matthew Miller, a spokesman, said: “It’s something that we have looked at. There remains sort of operational questions about that, and legal questions.” He said he did not have more information.Very little of the Russian assets, perhaps $5 billion or so by some estimates, are in the hands of U.S. institutions. But a significant chunk of Russia’s foreign reserves are held in U.S. dollars, both in the United States and in Europe. The United States has the power to police transactions involving its currency and use its sanctions to immobilize dollar-denominated assets.President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine at the Capitol this month. A Biden administration official said that even if Congress ultimately reached a deal to send more aid to Ukraine, an alternative source of funding was still desperately needed.Kent Nishimura for The New York TimesThe bulk of the Russian deposits are believed to be in Europe, including in Switzerland and Belgium, which are not part of the Group of 7. As a result, diplomatic negotiations are underway over how to gain access to those funds, some of which are held in euros and other currencies.American officials were surprised that President Vladimir V. Putin did not repatriate the funds before the Ukraine invasion. But in interviews over the past year, they have speculated that Mr. Putin did not believe the funds would be seized, because they were left untouched after his invasion and annexation of Crimea in 2014. And bringing the funds home to Russia would have been another tipoff that an invasion was imminent, at a time Mr. Putin was vigorously denying American and British charges that he was preparing for military action.One Group of 7 official said the coalition had been considering a variety of options for how to use Russia’s assets, with the goal of putting forward a unified proposal around the second anniversary of the war, when many top officials will be gathering in Germany for the Munich Security Conference. The first debates have focused on what would be permissible under international law and under each nation’s domestic laws, as they consider Russia’s likely legal responses and retaliatory measures.Earlier in the year, American officials said they thought the frozen assets could be used as leverage to help force Russia to the negotiating table for a cease-fire; presumably, in return, Moscow would be given access to some of its assets. But Russia has shown no interest in such negotiations, and now officials argue that beginning to use the funds may push Moscow to move to the negotiating table.Among the options that Western countries have discussed are seizing the assets directly and transferring them to Ukraine, using interest earned and other profits from the assets that are held in European financial institutions to Ukraine’s benefit or using the assets as collateral for loans to Ukraine.Daleep Singh, a former top Biden administration official, suggested in an interview this year that the immobilized reserves should be placed into an escrow account that Ukraine’s Ministry of Finance could have access to and be used as collateral for new bonds that Ukraine would issue.If Ukraine can successfully repay the debt — over a period of 10 to 30 years — then Russia could potentially have its frozen assets back.“If they can’t repay, my hunch is that Russia probably has something to do with that,” said Mr. Singh, who is now the chief global economist at PGIM Fixed Income. “And so in that way, Russia has a stake in Ukraine’s emergence as a sovereign independent economy and country.”Settling on a solid legal rationale has been one of the biggest challenges for policymakers as they decide how to proceed.Proponents of seizing Russia’s assets, such as Mr. Zelikow and former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, have argued that nations that hold Russian assets are entitled to cancel their obligations to Russia and apply those assets to what Russia owes for its breach of international law under the so-called international law of state countermeasures. They note that after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990, $50 billion of Iraqi funds were seized and transferred through the United Nations to compensate victims in Iraq and other countries.Robert B. Zoellick, the former World Bank president, has been making the case to Group of 7 finance ministers that as long as they act in unison, seizing Russian assets would not have an impact on their currencies or the status of the dollar. He suggested that other countries were unlikely to rush to put their money into another currency, such as China’s renminbi.“With reserve currencies, it’s always a question of what your alternatives are,” said Mr. Zoellick, who was also a Treasury and State Department official.One of the obstacles in the United States for seizing Russian assets has been the view within the Biden administration that being able to lawfully do so would require an act of Congress. At a news conference in Germany last year, Ms. Yellen highlighted that concern.“While we’re beginning to look at this, it would not be legal now, in the United States, for the government to seize those statutes,” Ms. Yellen said. “It’s not something that is legally permissible in the United States.”Since then, however, Ms. Yellen has become more open to the idea of seizing Russia’s assets to aid Ukraine.Factions of Congress have previously tried to attach provisions to the annual defense bill to allow the Justice Department to seize Russian assets belonging to officials under sanction and funnel the proceeds from the sale of those assets to Ukraine to help pay for weapons. But the efforts have faltered amid concerns that the proposals were not thoroughly vetted.With Ukraine running low on funds and ammunition, the debate about how to provide more aid could shift from a legal question to a moral question.“One can understand the precedential point made by those who do not believe the assets should be seized,” said Mark Sobel, a former longtime Treasury Department official who is now the U.S. chairman of the Official Monetary and Financial Institutions Forum. “Given skirmishes and wars in many spots, one could easily argue such a precedent could get out of hand.”However, Mr. Sobel argued that the barbarity of Russia’s actions justified using its assets to compensate Ukraine.“In my mind, humanity dictates that those factors outweigh the argument that seizing the assets would be unprecedented simply because Russia’s heinous and unfathomable behavior must be strongly punished,” he said.Eric Schmitt More

  • 163 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    The Debt Problem Is Enormous, and the System for Fixing It Is Broken

    by

    Economists offer alternatives to financial safeguards created when the U.S. was the pre-eminent superpower and climate change wasn’t on the agenda.Martin Guzman was a college freshman at La Universidad Nacional de La Plata, Argentina, in 2001 when a debt crisis prompted default, riots and a devastating depression. A dazed middle class suffered ruin, as the International Monetary Fund insisted that the government make misery-inducing budget cuts in exchange for a bailout.Watching Argentina unravel inspired Mr. Guzman to switch majors and study economics. Nearly two decades later, when the government was again bankrupt, it was Mr. Guzman as finance minister who negotiated with I.M.F. officials to restructure a $44 billion debt, the result of an earlier ill-conceived bailout.Today he is one of a number of prominent economists and world leaders who argue that the ambitious framework created at the end of World War II to safeguard economic growth and stability, with the I.M.F. and World Bank as its pillars, is failing in its mission.Martin Guzman, a former finance minister in Argentina, is among the economists and world leaders who argue that the framework created at the end of World War II to safeguard economic growth and stability is not working.Nathalia Angarita for The New York TimesJavier Milei, the newly elected president of Argentina, at an election event in Salta, Argentina, in October. He has described himself as an “anarcho-capitalist.”Sarah Pabst for The New York TimesThe current system “contributes to a more inequitable and unstable global economy,” said Mr. Guzman, who resigned last year after a rift within the government.The repayment that Mr. Guzman negotiated was the 22nd arrangement between Argentina and the I.M.F. Even so, the country’s economic tailspin has only increased with an annual inflation rate of more than 140 percent, growing lines at soup kitchens and a new, self-proclaimed “anarcho-capitalist” president, Javier Milei, who this week devalued the currency by 50 percent.The I.M.F. and World Bank have aroused complaints from the left and right ever since they were created. But the latest critiques pose a more profound question: Does the economic framework devised eight decades ago fit the economy that exists today, when new geopolitical conflicts collide with established economic relationships and climate change poses an imminent threat?Volunteers serving free meals in Buenos Aires. Argentina’s economy is in a tailspin, with growing lines at soup kitchens.Rodrigo Abd/Associated PressProtests in Buenos Aires in 2001. A debt crisis in Argentina led to default, riots and a devastating depression.Fabian Gredillas/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesThis 21st-century clash of ideas about how to fix a system created for a 20th-century world is one of the most consequential facing the global economy.The I.M.F. was set up in 1944 at a conference in Bretton Woods, N.H., to help rescue countries in financial distress, while the World Bank’s focus was reducing poverty and investing in social development. The United States was the pre-eminent economic superpower, and scores of developing nations in Africa and Asia had not yet gained independence. The foundational ideology — later known as the “Washington Consensus” — held that prosperity depended on unhindered trade, deregulation and the primacy of private investment.“Nearly 80 years later, the global financial architecture is outdated, dysfunctional and unjust,” António Guterres, secretary general of the United Nations, said this summer at a summit in Paris. “Even the most fundamental goals on hunger and poverty have gone into reverse after decades of progress.”The world today is geopolitically fragmented. More than three-quarters of the current I.M.F. and World Bank countries were not at Bretton Woods. China’s economy, in ruins at the end of World War II, is now the world’s second-largest, an engine of global growth and a crucial hub in the world’s industrial machine and supply chain. India, then still a British colony, is one of the top five economies in the world.A session of the United Nations Monetary Conference in Bretton Woods, N.H., on July 4, 1944. Delegates from 44 countries are seated at the long tables.Abe Fox/Associated Press, via Associated PressAntónio Guterres, secretary general of the United Nations, said this summer that “the global financial architecture is outdated, dysfunctional, and unjust.”Martin Divisek/EPA, via ShutterstockThe once vaunted “Washington Consensus” has fallen into disrepute, with a greater recognition of how inequality and bias against women hamper growth, as well as the need for collective action on the climate.The mismatch between institution and mission has sharpened in recent years. Pounded by the Covid-19 pandemic, spiking food and energy prices related to the war in Ukraine, and higher interest rates, low- and middle-income countries are swimming in debt and facing slow growth. The size of the global economy as well as the scope of the problems have grown immensely, but funding of the I.M.F. and World Bank has not kept pace.Resolving debt crises is also vastly more complicated now that China and legions of private creditors are involved, instead of just a handful of Western banks.The World’s Bank’s own analyses outline the extent of the economic problems. “For the poorest countries, debt has become a nearly paralyzing burden,” a report released Wednesday concluded. Countries are forced to spend money on interest payments instead of investing in public health, education and the environment.An assembly line at the electric vehicle manufacturer Nio in Hefei, China. China’s economy was in ruins at the end of World War II but is now the world’s second largest and an engine of global growth.Qilai Shen for The New York TimesGita Gopinath, first deputy managing director of the International Monetary Fund, said of the current financial system, “We have countries strategically competing with amorphous rules and without an effective referee.”Jalal Morchidi/EPA, via ShutterstockAnd that debt doesn’t account for the trillions of dollars that developing countries will need to mitigate the ravages of climate change.Then there are the tensions between the United States and China, and Russia and Europe and its allies. It is harder to resolve debt crises or finance major infrastructure without bumping up against security concerns — like when the World Bank awarded the Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei a contract that turned out to violate U.S. sanctions policy, or when China has resisted debt restructuring agreements.“The global rules-based system was not built to resolve national security-based trade conflicts,” Gita Gopinath, first deputy managing director of the I.M.F., said Monday in a speech to the International Economic Association in Colombia. “We have countries strategically competing with amorphous rules and without an effective referee.”The World Bank and I.M.F. have made changes. The fund has moderated its approach to bailouts, replacing austerity with the idea of sustainable debt. The bank this year significantly increased the share of money going to climate-related projects. But critics maintain that the fixes so far are insufficient.“The way in which they have evolved and adapted is much slower than the way the global economy evolved and adapted,” Mr. Guzman said.Argentina’s new president devalued the currency by 50 percent this week.Sarah Pabst for The New York TimesA vegetables shop in Almagro in Buenos Aires. Argentina’s economy is South America’s second largest.Anita Pouchard Serra for The New York Times‘Time to Revisit Bretton Woods’Argentina, South America’s second-largest economy, may be the global economic system’s most notorious repeat failure, but it was Barbados, a tiny island nation in the Caribbean, that can be credited with turbocharging momentum for change.Mia Mottley, the prime minister, spoke out two years ago at the climate change summit in Glasgow and then followed up with the Bridgetown Initiative, a proposal to overhaul the way rich countries help poor countries adapt to climate change and avoid crippling debt.“Yes, it is time for us to revisit Bretton Woods,” she said in a speech at last year’s climate summit in Egypt. Ms. Mottley argues that there has been a “fundamental breakdown” in a longstanding covenant between poor countries and rich ones, many of which built their wealth by exploiting former colonies. The most advanced industrialized countries also produce most of the emissions that are heating the planet and causing extreme floods, wildfires and droughts in poor countries.Mavis Owusu-Gyamfi, the executive vice president of the African Center for Economic Transformation, in Ghana, said that even recent agreements to deal with debt like the 2020 Common Framework were created without input from developing nations.“We are calling for a voice and seat at the table,” Ms. Owusu-Gyamfi said, from her office in Accra, as she discussed a $3 billion I.M.F. bailout of Ghana.Yet if the fund and bank are focused on economic issues, they are essentially political creations that reflect the power of the countries that established, finance and manage them.And those countries are reluctant to cede that power. The United States, the only member with veto power, has the largest share of votes in part because of the size of its economy and financial contributions. It does not want to see its influence shrink and others’ — particularly China’s — grow.The impasse over reapportioning votes has hampered efforts to increase funding levels, which countries across the board agree need to be increased.A vegetable market in Accra, Ghana. “We are calling for a voice and seat at the table,” said Mavis Owusu-Gyamfi, the executive vice president of the African Center for Economic Transformation in Ghana.Natalija Gormalova for The New York TimesCustomers at lunch in Buenos Aires. Mr. Guzman and others pushing for change argue that indebted countries need more grants and low-interest loans with long repayment timelines.Sarah Pabst for The New York Times‘Big Hole’ in How to Deal With DebtStill, as Mr. Guzman said, “even if there are no changes in governance, there could be changes in policies.”Emerging nations need enormous amounts of money to invest in public health, education, transport and climate resilience. But they are saddled with high borrowing costs because of the market’s often exaggerated perception of the risk they pose as borrowers.And because they are usually compelled to borrow in dollars or euros, their payments soar if the Federal Reserve and other central banks raise interest rates to combat inflation as they did in the 1980s and after the Covid pandemic.The proliferation of private lenders and variety of loan agreements have made debt negotiations impossibly complex, yet no international legal arbiter exists.Zambia defaulted on its external debt three years ago, and there is still no agreement because the I.M.F., China and bondholders are at odds.There’s a “big hole” in international governance when it comes to sovereign debt, said Paola Subacchi, an economist at the Global Policy Institute at Queen Mary University in London, because the rules don’t apply to private loans, whether from a hedge fund or China’s central bank. Often these creditors have an interest in drawing out the process to hold out for a better deal.Mr. Guzman and other economists have called for an international legal arbiter to adjudicate disputes related to sovereign debt.“Every country has adopted a bankruptcy law,” said Joseph Stiglitz, a former chief economist at the World Bank, “but internationally we don’t have one.”The United States, though, has repeatedly opposed the idea, saying it is unnecessary.Rescues, too, have proved to be problematic. Last-resort loans from the I.M.F. can end up adding to a country’s budgetary woes and undermining the economic recovery because interest rates are so high now, and borrowers must also pay hefty fees.Those like Mr. Guzman and Ms. Mottley pushing for change argue that indebted countries need significantly more grants and low-interest loans with long repayment timelines, along with a slate of other reforms.“The challenges are different today,” said Mr. Guzman. “Policies need to be better aligned with the mission.”Mia Mottley, the prime minister of Barbados, offered a proposal this year to overhaul the way rich countries help poor countries adapt to climate change and avoid crippling debt.Sean Gallup/Getty ImagesFlash flooding in Bangladesh last year. The global economic framework was devised long before climate change posed an imminent threat to poor nations.Mushfiqul Alam/NurPhoto More

  • 150 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Europe and Asia React to U.S. Push for Tech and Clean Energy

    by

    Other governments, particularly in Europe, are trying to counter the Biden administration’s industrial policies with their own incentives.The United States has embarked on the biggest industrial policy push in generations, dangling tax breaks, grants and other financial incentives to attract new factories making solar panels, semiconductors and electric vehicles.That spending is aimed at jump-starting the domestic market for crucial products, but it has implications far outside the United States. It is pushing governments from Europe to East Asia to try to keep up by proposing their own investment plans, setting off what some are calling a global subsidy race.Officials, particularly in Europe, have accused the United States of protectionism and have spent months complaining to the Biden administration about its policies. Governments in the European Union, in Britain and elsewhere are debating how to counteract America’s policies by offering their own incentives to attract investment and keep their companies from relocating to the United States.“I think we all deny that there is a subsidy race, but up to a certain extent, it’s happening,” said Markus Beyrer, the director general of BusinessEurope, Europe’s largest trade association.The United States is deploying nearly $400 billion in spending and tax credits to bolster America’s clean energy industry through the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. Another $280 billion is aimed at facilities that manufacture and research semiconductors, as well as broader technological research.The Biden administration says the full agenda will unleash $3.5 trillion in public capital and private investment over the next decade. It is both a response to the hefty subsidies offered by governments in China and East Asia and an attempt to rebuild an American factory sector that has been hollowed out by decades of offshoring.Fredrik Persson, left, and Markus Beyrer, executives of BusinessEurope, a large trade group. “I think we all deny that there is a subsidy race, but up to a certain extent, it’s happening,” Mr. Beyrer said.Virginia Mayo/Associated PressThe administration says the investments will put the United States in a better position to deal with climate change and make it less dependent on potentially risky supply chains running through China.But the spending has sparked concerns about taking government resources away from other priorities, and adding to the debt loads of countries when high interest rates make borrowing riskier and more expensive. Gita Gopinath, the first deputy managing director of the International Monetary Fund, said in an interview in October that the spending race was “a matter of concern.”Ms. Gopinath pointed to statistics showing that whenever the United States, the European Union or China enacts subsidies or tariffs, there is a very high chance that one of the other two will respond with its own subsidies or tariffs within a year.“We are seeing a tit-for-tat there,” Ms. Gopinath said.The spending competition is also straining alliances by giving the companies that make prized products like batteries, hydrogen and semiconductors the ability to “country shop,” or play governments against one another other as they try to find the most welcoming home for their technologies.Freyr Battery, a company founded in Europe that develops lithium ion batteries for cars, ships and storage systems, was partway through building a factory in Norway when its executives learned that the Inflation Reduction Act was under development. In response to the law, the company shifted production to a factory in Georgia.“We think it is a really ingenious piece of modern industrial policy, and consequently, we’ve shifted our focus,” Birger Steen, Freyr’s chief executive officer, said in an interview. “The scaling will happen in the United States, and that’s because of the Inflation Reduction Act.”Mr. Steen said the company was keeping the Norwegian factory ready for a “hot start,” meaning that production could scale up there if local policies become friendlier. The company is talking to policymakers about how they can compete with the United States, he said.Some countries are reaping direct benefits from U.S. spending, including Canada, which is included in some of the clean energy law’s benefits and has mining operations that the United States lacks.Canada’s lithium industry stands to benefit as battery manufacturing moves to the United States and companies look for nearby sources of raw material.Brendan George Ko for The New York TimesKillian Charles, the chief executive at Brunswick Exploration in Montreal, said in an interview that Canada’s lithium industry stood to benefit as battery manufacturing moved to the United States and companies looked for nearby sources of raw material.But in most cases, the competition seems more zero-sum.David Scaysbrook, the managing partner of the Quinbrook Infrastructure Partners Group, which has helped finance some of the largest solar and battery projects in the United States, said that America’s clean energy bill was the most influential legislation introduced by any country and that other governments were not able to replicate “the sheer scale” of it.“Other countries can’t match that fiscal firepower,” he said. “Obviously, that’s a threat to the E.U. or other countries.”The United States has sought to allay some of its allies’ concerns by signing new trade agreements allowing foreign partners to share in some of the clean energy law’s benefits. A minerals agreement signed with Japan in March will allow Japanese facilities to supply minerals for electric vehicles receiving U.S. tax credits. American officials have been negotiating with Europe for a similar agreement since last year.But at a meeting in October, the United States and Europe clashed over a U.S. proposal to allow labor inspections at mines and facilities producing minerals outside the United States and Europe. Officials are continuing to work toward completing a deal in the coming weeks, but in the meantime, the lack of agreement has cast a further pall over the U.S.-E.U. relationship.Biden administration officials have continued to defend their approach, saying that the Inflation Reduction Act does not signal a turn toward American protectionism and that climate spending is badly needed. Even with such significant investments, the United States is likely to fall short of international goals for curbing global warming.John Podesta, the senior adviser to the president for clean energy innovation, said in a conversation at the Brookings Institution in October that foreign governments had been doing “a certain amount of bitching.” But he said the U.S. spending had ultimately spurred action from other partners, including a green industrial policy that Europe introduced early this year.“So with the bitching comes a little bit more shoulder to the wheel, so that’s a good thing,” he added.Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, presented the European Union’s Green Deal Industrial Plan in Brussels in February after the United States enacted the Inflation Reduction Act.Yves Herman/ReutersIn addition to the Green Deal Industrial Plan, which the European Union proposed in February, the bloc has approved a significant green stimulus program as part of an earlier pandemic recovery fund, and additional spending for green industries in its latest budget.Japan and South Korea have proposed their own plans to subsidize green industries. In the technology industry, South Korea and Taiwan both approved measures this year offering more tax breaks to semiconductor companies, and Japan has been setting aside new subsidies for major chipmakers like TSMC and Micron.Europe also proposed a “chips act” last year, though its size is significantly smaller than the American program’s. And China has been pumping money into manufacturing semiconductors, solar panels and electric vehicles to defend its share of the global market and prop up its weakening economy.The competition has also given rise to anxieties in smaller economies, like Britain, about the ability to keep up.“The U.K. is never going to compete on money and scale at the same level as the U.S., E.U. and China because we are firstly under fiscal constraints but also just the size of the economy,” said Raoul Ruparel, the director for Boston Consulting Group’s Center for Growth and a former government special adviser.British officials have made it clear that they don’t intend to offer a vast array of subsidies, like the United States, and are instead relying on a more free-market approach with some case-by-case interventions.Some economists and trade groups have criticized this approach and Britain’s resistance to creating a sweeping industrial strategy to shape the economy more clearly toward green growth, with the assistance of subsidies.“The question is, do you want to capture the economic benefits along the way and do you want to tap into these sources of growth?” Mr. Ruparel asked.TSMC is building a $7 billion plant in Kikuyo, Japan. Japan has been setting aside new subsidies for major chipmakers like TSMC and Micron.Kyodo News, via Getty ImagesSome experts insist fears of a subsidy race are overblown. Emily Benson, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the scale of overall spending by the United States and the European Union was not significantly different, though European spending was spread out over time.“I don’t see some huge kickoff to this massive subsidy race that will completely upend global relations,” Ms. Benson said.Business leaders and analysts said the frustration in the European Union stemmed partly from broader economic concerns after the conflict with Russia. The combination of higher energy prices and tougher competition from the United States and China has pushed down foreign direct investment in Europe and sparked other fears.Fredrik Persson, the president of BusinessEurope, said the companies his group represented had “a very strong reaction” to the Inflation Reduction Act.“We fully support the underlying direction with the green transition, but it came at a sensitive moment,” he said.Madeleine Ngo More

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    E.U. Relaxes Trade Rules on Electric Cars From Britain

    by

    The NewsThe European Union plans to postpone strict local-content rules that would have led to costly tariffs imposed on cars traded between the bloc and Britain beginning Jan. 1.“This removes the threat of tariffs on export of E.U. electric vehicles to the U.K. and vice versa,” Maros Sefcovic, the European Union’s executive vice president, told journalists in Brussels Wednesday.The tariffs would have forced consumers in Britain and the European Union to pay more for many electric vehicles. Andrew Testa for The New York TimesWhy It Matters: Relief for carmakers that were facing tariffs.The proposal provides for a three-year delay in the trade rule, and represents a huge reprieve for many carmakers, especially those with plants in Britain. Eighty percent of cars made in Britain are exported, with 60 percent of them going to the European Union. The delay means that British electric vehicles with batteries made outside Europe will no longer face tariffs of up to 10 percent starting in three weeks.European carmakers would have faced similar hits in their sales of cars to Britain, a major market. The delay will probably be seen as a win for Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s British government, which lobbied for the change along with the European car industry.Background: Europe and Britain do not make enough batteries.The rule would have made it virtually impossible for cars made in Britain with batteries from Asia to be imported tariff-free into the European Union. Neither Britain nor the Europe Union is manufacturing enough batteries for the rising number of electric vehicles expected to be produced in coming years. Batteries are the most expensive components of electric vehicles.Local origin rules are designed to discourage automakers from importing expensive parts, and to encourage local production. But this rule would have been counterproductive, the auto industry argued, by forcing consumers to pay more for many electric vehicles. Those higher prices could have opened the door for electric vehicles from outside Europe, especially China, whose makers are churning out low-cost models that have gained traction in Britain.What Happens Next: Time for the battery industry “to catch up.”The proposal still needs the support of European Union governments. Early indications are that it will be welcomed by auto industry. An extension would give “the European battery industry time to catch up,” the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, a British trade group, said Wednesday in a statement.Mr. Sefcovic also said the European Union planned to provide 3 billion euros ($3.25 billion) to encourage local manufacturing of batteries. More

  • 138 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    At COP28, More Than 20 Nations Pledge to Triple Nuclear Capacity

    by

    The group, including Britain, France and the United States, said the agreement was critical to meeting nations’ climate commitments.The United States and 21 other countries pledged on Saturday at the United Nations climate summit in Dubai to triple nuclear energy capacity by 2050, saying the revival of nuclear power was critical for cutting carbon emissions to near zero in the coming decades.Proponents of nuclear energy, which supplies 18 percent of electricity in the United States, say it is a clean, safe and reliable complement to wind and solar energy. But a significant hurdle is funding.Last month, a developer of small nuclear reactors in Idaho said it was canceling a project that had been expected to be part of a new wave of power plants. The cost of building the reactors had risen to $9.3 billion from $5.3 billion because of increasing interest rates and inflation.Britain, Canada, France, Ghana, South Korea, Sweden and the United Arab Emirates were among the 22 countries that signed the declaration to triple capacity from 2020 levels.Tripling nuclear energy capacity by 2050, which would also help Europe reduce its dependence on Russia oil and gas, would require significant investment. In advanced economies, which have nearly 70 percent of global nuclear capacity, investments has stalled as construction costs have soared, projects have run over budget and faced delays. On top of cost, another hurdle to expanding nuclear capacity is that plants are slower to build than many other forms of power.Addressing the issue of financing, John Kerry, President Biden’s climate envoy, said that there were “trillions of dollars” available that could be used for investment in nuclear. “We are not making the argument to anybody that this is absolutely going to be the sweeping alternative to every other energy source — no, that’s not what brings us here,” he said. But, he added, the science has shown that “you can’t get to net-zero 2050 without some nuclear.”Nuclear power does not emit carbon, and an International Energy Agency report last year that said nuclear was crucial to helping to reduce carbon emissions in line with the Paris Agreement goals outlined in 2015. President Emmanuel Macron of France said nuclear energy, including small modular reactors, was an “indispensable solution” to efforts to curb climate change. France, Europe’s biggest producer of nuclear power, gets about 70 percent of its own electricity from nuclear stations.Mr. Macron and other leaders, including Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson of Sweden, called on the World Bank and international financial institutions to help finance nuclear projects. Mr. Kristersson said that governments must “assume a role in sharing the financial risks to strengthen the conditions and provide additional incentives for investments in nuclear energy.”While world leaders on Saturday called nuclear the most effective alternative to fossil fuels, some climate activists said nuclear energy was not a panacea.David Tong, a researcher at Oil Change International, said the pledge was divorced from the reality of nuclear energy — that it was too costly and too slow. “It’s a self-serving political pledge that doesn’t reflect the role that nuclear is likely to play in the energy transition, which is menial,” he said. “There is very small growth in nuclear — certainly nothing like tripling.” He said he rejected the stance that there was no pathway to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels, a goal set in the Paris Agreement to avoid the worst effects of global warming, without nuclear. Masayoshi Iyoda, an activist from Japan with 350.org, an international climate action campaign, cited the nuclear disaster at Fukushima in 2011 and said that nuclear power was a dangerous distraction from decarbonization goals. “It is simply too costly, too risky, too undemocratic, and too time-consuming,” he said in a statement.“We already have cheaper, safer, democratic, and faster solutions to the climate crisis, and they are renewable energy and energy efficiency,” Mr. Iyoda said.All but four of the 31 reactors that have begun construction since 2017 were designed by Russia or China, with China poised to become the leading nuclear power producer by 2030, the International Energy Agency said. This year, Germany shut its last three nuclear plants.Nuclear capacity rose in the 1980s, particularly in Europe and North America, but dropped sharply over the subsequent years after accidents at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979 and Chernobyl in 1986. New technology and tighter regulations have been put in place since then. Americans are conflicted about nuclear power, but a growing number favor expansion compared with a few years ago, according to a Pew Research Center study published in August. More

  • 125 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. Limits China’s Ability to Benefit From Electric Vehicle Subsidies

    by

    The Biden administration issued new rules to prevent Chinese firms from supplying parts for electric cars set to receive billions of dollars in tax credits.The Biden administration proposed new rules on Friday aimed at shifting more production of electric vehicle batteries and the materials that power them to the United States, in an attempt to build up a strategic industry now dominated by China.The rules are meant to limit the role that firms in China can play in supplying materials for electric vehicles that qualify for federal tax credits. They will also discourage companies that seek federal funding to build battery factories in the United States from sourcing materials from China or Russia.The rules could encourage shifts in automotive supply chains, which continue to rely heavily on China for materials and components of electric vehicles. Automakers are also facing intense cost pressures as they try to modify their factories to make electric cars, and China offers some of the most advanced and lowest-priced battery technology in the world.The Biden administration is trying to use billions of dollars in new federal funding to change that dynamic and create a U.S. supply chain for electric vehicles.The climate law that President Biden signed in 2022 includes up to $7,500 in tax credits to consumers who buy electric vehicles made in the United States using largely domestic materials. The law also included a general ban on Chinese products. Lawmakers mandated that firms in China, Russia, North Korea and Iran be prohibited from providing certain materials to cars that received those tax breaks.But the law left open several questions, including what constitutes a Chinese or Russian company. Administration officials said those definitions included any entity that was incorporated or had headquarters in China or Russia, as well as any firm in which 25 percent of the board seats or equity interest was held by Chinese or Russian governments.Chinese companies that set up operations outside China appear to be able to benefit from the rules as long as the Chinese government is not a significant shareholder. That provision came as a relief to some automakers, which feared that the Biden administration might bar them from contracting with Chinese-owned mines or factories in the United States or other parts of the world.Lithium hydroxide is processed at a facility in Bessemer City, N.C. American companies are investing in factories and technologies aimed at developing the materials needed for electric vehicle.Travis Dove for The New York TimesThe law also requires battery makers that strike contracts or licensing agreements with Chinese firms to ensure that they are retaining certain rights over their projects. That provision is intended to make sure a Chinese firm is not effectively in control of such a project.Some conservative lawmakers had challenged Ford Motor’s plans to license technology from the Chinese battery giant known as CATL for a plant in Marshall, Mich., arguing that such a partnership should not be eligible for federal tax credits. Some Republican lawmakers suggested on Friday that the Treasury Department’s guidance did not go far enough to lessen the country’s dependence on China.“At a time when China is using massive subsidies to undercut U.S. manufacturers and throttle the global market for battery components, Treasury’s naïve new regulations would open the floodgates for American tax dollars to flow to Chinese companies complicit in trade violations and forced labor abuses,” said Representative Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin, chairman of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party. The rules kick in for battery components in 2024, and in 2025 for critical minerals like lithium, cobalt and nickel. They could be adjusted depending on industry comment.The rules could have a profound impact on the U.S. electric vehicle market, which is rapidly growing — battery-powered vehicles made up about 8 percent of new cars sold in the third quarter. Car and battery makers said Friday that they were still reviewing the rules, and that it would take time to determine how many models would qualify for tax credits.Tesla said on Friday that the two least expensive versions of its Model 3 sedan would qualify for only half the $7,500 credit starting in January. The Model Y sport utility vehicle also might not qualify for the full credit after Dec. 31, Tesla said. The Model Y and Model 3 are the top two electric vehicles by sales in the United States. Tesla buys some batteries from CATL.John Bozzella, the chief executive of Alliance for Automotive Innovation, wrote in a blog post Friday that the rules struck “a pragmatic balance,” including by exempting trace materials. If the administration had banned all minor Chinese parts from the supply chain, no car models might have qualified for tax credits next year, he said.Many cars have already been disqualified from purchase credits by other rules, like a requirement that vehicles be assembled in North America. Only about 20 vehicles currently qualify for the program out of more than 100 electric vehicles sold in the United States.The rules also raised new questions about whether stricter requirements for supply chains could continue a trend of driving more shoppers to lease, rather than buy, vehicles.The prohibition on sourcing from China applies only to vehicles that are sold, not to those that are leased. Consumers can receive tax credits for electric vehicles they lease from auto dealers, and that has led to a boom in E.V. leasing.Jack Fitzgerald, chairman of Fitzgerald Auto Malls, which operates dealerships in Florida, Maryland and Pennsylvania, said he had seen a spike in customers leasing electric vehicles. But he said concern about electric vehicle range and the availability of chargers, more than price, was holding back electric vehicle sales.“That’s the principal thing,” Mr. Fitzgerald said.Auto industry lobbyists have warned that extremely strict rules could stifle electric vehicle sales, and they have urged the administration to strike more trade deals to secure supplies of scarce battery minerals. But Paul Jacobson, the chief financial officer of General Motors, said the company had structured its electric vehicle operations to be successful regardless of the federal rules.“We’re not anchoring the business on saying this has to happen” with regard to regulations, Mr. Jacobson told reporters on Thursday. If regulations change, he added, “it’s not a backbreaking thing for us.”While the rules may create headaches for automakers, they are likely to benefit companies planning to supply batteries from factories in the United States.“It’s actually good news for us,” said Siyu Huang, chief executive of Factorial, a Massachusetts company that is developing next-generation electric vehicle batteries with support from Mercedes-Benz, Hyundai and Stellantis, the owner of Dodge, Jeep and Ram.Acquiring large amounts of lithium, an essential ingredient in batteries, could be difficult because most of the metal is processed in China, Ms. Huang said. But the rules will encourage investment in U.S.-based refineries, she continued. “Its definitely going to be another incentive to build more domestic supply,” Ms. Huang said.John DeMaio, chief executive of Graphex Technologies, which is building a factory in Michigan to process graphite for batteries, said the rules might temporarily slow electric vehicle sales by making it harder to qualify for the tax credit. But in the long run, he added, they will encourage investment in domestic suppliers.“It might be a hiccup,” he said, “but in general it provides certainty and clarity to get people off the fence.”Wally Adeyemo, the deputy secretary of the Treasury Department, said in a briefing with reporters that the rules would help advance the administration’s goals of building up an American clean energy supply chain while also cutting emissions in the transportation sector.“These changes take time, but companies are making the investments and Americans are buying these cars,” he said.Over the past year, companies have invested $213 billion in the manufacturing and deployment of clean energy, clean vehicles, building electrification and carbon management technology in the United States, according to tracking by the Rhodium Group and the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. That is a 37 percent increase from a year earlier..A lithium mine in northern Quebec. A majority of the world’s lithium and cobalt is processed in China.Brendan George Ko for The New York TimesStill, the global electric vehicle industry remains heavily anchored in China, which is the world’s largest producer and exporter of electric vehicles. China produces about two-thirds of the world’s battery cells, and refines most of the minerals that are key to powering an electric vehicle.The rules also restrict automakers from sourcing nickel used in their batteries from Russia, which is one of the world’s largest nickel producers.One of the challenges for automakers will be developing systems to track all the components of their battery through a long, and often opaque, supply chain.Vehicles that are reported incorrectly will be subtracted from an automaker’s eligibility for tax credits, Treasury said, and automakers that commit fraud or intentionally disregard the rules could be declared ineligible for the credit in the future. More