苏马·查克拉巴蒂
英国海外发展研究院董事、
前欧洲复兴开发银行行长
Suma CHAKRABARTI
Chair of Overseas Development Institute (ODI) Board
Sixth President of European Bank for Reconstruction andDevelopment (EBRD)
问：除周期性因素外，近年来世界经济变得更容易受到意外冲击的影响。2024年，全球将迎来创纪录数量的选举，不确定性将进一步加剧。您认为2024年全球经济面临哪些主要风险？
答：我想指出两个主要风险。首先是气候危机，其影响日益严重和紧迫。我们亟需更多、更有效的资金来进行减排和适应措施，这种融资方式需要建立在公平正义的基础上，以支持最脆弱国家的应对能力。
其次是人道主义和地缘政治风险，尤其是中东和欧洲当前的主要冲突，以及全球范围内的多起危机和大规模人口流离失所问题。这些冲突都在加剧全球地缘政治分裂。
尤其值得注意的是，如果美国及其盟友扣押俄罗斯资产，这可能会促使包括中国在内的其他中等收入国家采取措施，寻求减少对美元及其所支持金融体系的依赖，我们可能会看到经济分化进一步加剧。
问：随着地缘政治风险上升和贸易保护主义兴起，全球产业和供应链仍在重建之中。重复投资和劳动分工侵蚀，以及由此带来的收益减少，阻碍了全球经济增长潜力。我们如何在供应链和产业链的效率与安全之间取得平衡？
答：近期地缘政治的变动引发了这样的疑问：我们是否正在见证全球经济的结构性变化，而这种变化正朝着去全球化的方向发展。全球分裂的风险是切实存在的，对企业和消费者都可能造成严重后果。如果企业将其供应链转向本国周边而非追求效率，可能会导致消费者面临更高的价格，同时损害国内经济和供应链原本所在国经济。
尽管如此，在地缘政治风险、贸易保护主义以及全球贸易格局持续变化的背景下，全球化仍然是经济增长和减少贫困的关键因素。
虽受到政策变动和新冠疫情的干扰，但根据世界银行的最新研究，全球价值链(GVC)目前在全球贸易中所占份额在2022年达到了52%，比2015年的48%有所上升。
企业仍在全球范围内寻找客户和供应商，继续推动全球化。对于那些依赖专业化投入的行业，难以替换已有供应链，开拓新市场也存在困难。保护主义政策阻碍全球贸易，不仅影响这些企业的运营，还会助长全球通胀压力，阻碍整体经济增长。
因此，保持国际合作和开放性尤为重要。政策制定者需要支持供应商体系多样化，评估保护主义措施可能带来的全球影响，以确保供应链和产业链既高效又安全。
在企业层面，鉴于日益严峻的形势，采取积极主动策略至关重要。
企业应评估其价值链中的机遇与风险，为供应链制定应急方案，探索提高响应能力的途径。长期来看，这可能涉及供应链抗灾能力的情景规划和实时监测系统的实施，以便及早发现潜在冲击。
未来一年，另一个值得关注的新趋势是所谓的“绿色挤压”。
逐步引入的以“绿色”为由的贸易政策因其高合规成本和复杂性，减少了贫困国家进入发达市场的机会。欧盟“绿色新政”相关的措施最为突出，但其他主要经济体也在跟进。欧洲大型零售商响应新政，寻求限制对进口产品的依赖，生产商和出口商的业务因此面临不利影响。
像美国《通胀削减法案》这样旨在促进脱碳的工业补贴政策，也开始影响全球价值链和供应网络的供需关系。
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.