蘇馬·查克拉巴蒂
英國海外發展研究院董事、
前歐洲複興開發銀行行長
Suma CHAKRABARTI
Chair of Overseas Development Institute (ODI) Board
Sixth President of European Bank for Reconstruction andDevelopment (EBRD)
問：除周期性因素外，近年來世界經濟變得更容易受到意外沖擊的影響。2024年，全球将迎來創紀錄數量的選舉，不确定性将進一步加劇。您認為2024年全球經濟面臨哪些主要風險？
答：我想指出兩個主要風險。首先是氣候危機，其影響日益嚴重和緊迫。我們亟需更多、更有效的資金來進行減排和适應措施，這種融資方式需要建立在公平正義的基礎上，以支援最脆弱國家的應對能力。
其次是人道主義和地緣政治風險，尤其是中東和歐洲目前的主要沖突，以及全球範圍内的多起危機和大規模人口流離失所問題。這些沖突都在加劇全球地緣政治分裂。
尤其值得注意的是，如果美國及其盟友扣押俄羅斯資産，這可能會促使包括中國在内的其他中等收入國家采取措施，尋求減少對美元及其所支援金融體系的依賴，我們可能會看到經濟分化進一步加劇。
問：随着地緣政治風險上升和貿易保護主義興起，全球産業和供應鍊仍在重建之中。重複投資和勞動分工侵蝕，以及由此帶來的收益減少，阻礙了全球經濟增長潛力。我們如何在供應鍊和産業鍊的效率與安全之間取得平衡？
答：近期地緣政治的變動引發了這樣的疑問：我們是否正在見證全球經濟的結構性變化，而這種變化正朝着去全球化的方向發展。全球分裂的風險是切實存在的，對企業和消費者都可能造成嚴重後果。如果企業将其供應鍊轉向本國周邊而非追求效率，可能會導緻消費者面臨更高的價格，同時損害國内經濟和供應鍊原本所在國經濟。
盡管如此，在地緣政治風險、貿易保護主義以及全球貿易格局持續變化的背景下，全球化仍然是經濟增長和減少貧困的關鍵因素。
雖受到政策變動和新冠疫情的幹擾，但根據世界銀行的最新研究，全球價值鍊(GVC)目前在全球貿易中所占份額在2022年達到了52%，比2015年的48%有所上升。
企業仍在全球範圍内尋找客戶和供應商，繼續推動全球化。對于那些依賴專業化投入的行業，難以替換已有供應鍊，開拓新市場也存在困難。保護主義政策阻礙全球貿易，不僅影響這些企業的營運，還會助長全球通脹壓力，阻礙整體經濟增長。
是以，保持國際合作和開放性尤為重要。政策制定者需要支援供應商體系多樣化，評估保護主義措施可能帶來的全球影響，以確定供應鍊和産業鍊既高效又安全。
在企業層面，鑒于日益嚴峻的形勢，采取積極主動政策至關重要。
企業應評估其價值鍊中的機遇與風險，為供應鍊制定應急方案，探索提高響應能力的途徑。長期來看，這可能涉及供應鍊抗災能力的情景規劃和實時監測系統的實施，以便及早發現潛在沖擊。
未來一年，另一個值得關注的新趨勢是所謂的“綠色擠壓”。
逐漸引入的以“綠色”為由的貿易政策因其高合規成本和複雜性，減少了貧困國家進入發達市場的機會。歐盟“綠色新政”相關的措施最為突出，但其他主要經濟體也在跟進。歐洲大型零售商響應新政，尋求限制對進口産品的依賴，生産商和出口商的業務是以面臨不利影響。
像美國《通脹削減法案》這樣旨在促進脫碳的工業補貼政策，也開始影響全球價值鍊和供應網絡的供需關系。
Q: Besides cyclical factors, the world economy has become more vulnerable to unexpected shocks in recent years. A record number of elections will be held worldwide in 2024, and uncertainty is set to heighten further. In your opinion, what are the major risks confronting the global economy in 2024?
A: I would highlight two. The first is the climate crisis, the effects of which are being felt with ever increasing force and urgency. We desperately need more and better financing for mitigation, but also increasingly adaptation, embedded within an approach grounded in equity and justice, to support the resilience of the most vulnerable countries.
The second is humanitarian and geopolitical risk, in particular the major conflicts currently under way in the Middle East and Europe, but also the large number of crises around the world, and large-scale displacement. These conflicts are deepening geopolitical fault lines, and we are likely to see a growing economic bifurcation, especially if, for example, the US and allies seize Russian assets, which is likely to provoke responses from other middle-income countries (including China) to diversify away from the US dollar and the dollar-backed financial architecture.
Q: As geopolitical risks and trade protectionism rise, global industry and supply chains are still being reconstructed. Investment overlap and the erosion of division of labor as well as the resulting diminishing yields have impeded global economic growth potential. How can we strike a balance between efficiency and security for supply and industry chains?
A: Recent shifts in geopolitics raise questions about whether we are witnessing structural changes in the global economy that lean towards deglobalisation. The risk of global fragmentation is tangible, and its ramifications could be severe for both companies and consumers. If firms redirect their supply chains towards proximity rather than efficiency, it could result in increased prices for consumers and hurt both domestic economies and economies that are being de-risked.
Nevertheless, amidst geopolitical risks and trade protectionism, and a changing global trading landscape, globalisation remains a key driver of economic growth and poverty reduction. Despite disruptions from policy changes and the COVID-19 pandemic, global value chains (GVCs) now constitute a larger share of global trade, accounting for 52% in 2022, up from 48% in 2015, according to recent World Bank research.
Firms continue to drive globalisation as they seek customers and suppliers globally. This is due to the difficulty of replacing established supply chains, especially in industries relying on specialised inputs, and the pursuit of new markets. Protectionist policies impeding global trade not only affect the operations of these firms, but also contribute to global inflationary pressures and hinder overall economic growth.
It is all the more important to stay the course on international cooperation and openness. Policy-makers need to support supplier base diversification and assess potential global repercussions of protectionist measures to ensure efficient and secure supply and industry chains.
At the firm level as well, a proactive approach is essential in light of the increasingly difficult context. Firms should evaluate opportunities and risks in their value chains, plan contingencies in their supply chains, and explore ways to enhance responsiveness. This may involve scenario planning for long-term supply chain resilience and the implementation of real-time monitoring systems for early detection of potential shocks.
Another emerging trend to watch in the coming year is what’s been called the “green squeeze”, where the progressive introduction of green trade policies reduces poorer countries’ access to developed markets by increasing the costs and complexity of compliance. The most prominent examples of such measures are associated with the EU’s New Green Deal, but other major economies are following the EU’s lead. Producers and exporters are also at risk of adverse effects to their businesses as large European retailers react to new policies and seek to limit their exposure to imported produce, while industrial subsidies to promote decarbonisation, such as the US Inflation Reduction Act, are beginning to influence demand and supply across global value chains and supply networks.