[from Bank of England]
The Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) sets monetary policy to meet the 2% inflation target, and in a way that helps to sustain growth and employment. At its meeting ending on 15 June 2022, the MPC voted by a majority of 6-3 to increase Bank Rate by 0.25 percentage points, to 1.25%. Those members in the minority preferred to increase Bank Rate by 0.5 percentage points, to 1.5%.
Read the Monetary Policy Summary and Minutes [Archived PDF]
[from the Council on Foreign Relations]
by Benn Steil and Benjamin Della Rocca
The Global Energy Tracker allows you to gauge trends in energy use across the globe through time.
The charts on the tracker page compile data on energy-consumption trends in seventy-nine countries going back to 1990. Each chart shows how much energy a given country consumes from nine different sources.
The charts display each country’s consumption data for each energy source by the amount of exajoules consumed, by exajoules consumed per capita, and as a share of that country’s total energy consumption. (Exajoules are a measure of energy; one exajoule is roughly equivalent to California’s annual electricity use.)
As the legend indicates, five energy sources covered by the tracker—coal, oil, natural gas, biofuels, and other (unclassified)—emit high levels of carbon dioxide. Four others—solar, wind, nuclear, and hydroelectric—are low-carbon emitters.
Together, the charts reveal significant trends in global energy usage. They show, for example, that high-carbon energy sources—especially oil—are the world’s dominant source of power. On average, 83 percent of tracker countries’ energy comes from high-carbon sources, and 37 percent specifically from oil.
Low-carbon sources, however, are on the rise, particularly in developed countries. Since 2010, the United States’ low-carbon consumption share climbed from 12 to 16 percent, the United Kingdom’s from 10 to 19 percent, and Germany’s from 14 to 19 percent. China, the world’s largest energy consumer, saw its low-carbon share rise from 9 to 15 percent. Rapid cost declines for low-carbon sources such as wind and solar, beneficiaries of technological innovation, explain much of the change. Still, low-carbon power’s share has actually declined in some rich countries, such as Japan—where it has fallen from 18 to 11 percent.
Some tracker countries rely highly on low-carbon energy. Twenty-five percent of Canada’s energy and 29 percent of Brazil’s, for example, comes from hydroelectric—compared with 9 percent for tracker countries on average. France derives over a third of its energy from nuclear. Other countries remain heavy users of higher-carbon sources. China derives 56 percent of its power from coal—although that figure is down from 70 percent a decade ago.
View the Global Energy Tracker.
[from the Center for China and Globalization]
by WANG Huiyao (王辉耀), Founder of the Center for China and Globalization
The global economy is being rocked by war, sanctions and spiraling commodity prices—not to mention the ongoing strain of the pandemic, geopolitical tensions and climate change. These compounding risks present a serious challenge to the system of open trade that the World Trade Organization was designed to uphold. But it also offers a chance for the beleaguered organization, which is holding its first ministerial conference since 2017, to prove its continuing relevance.
The WTO has traditionally focused on combating protectionism—measures designed to insulate producers from international competition. Now, though, the biggest threats to free trade come from policies meant to safeguard national security and protect citizens from risks, such as those related to health, the environment or digital spaces.
Former WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy has called this growing use of export controls, cybersecurity laws, investment blacklists, reshoring incentives and the like “precautionism.” It’s been on the rise since the start of the pandemic, when many countries moved to restrict exports of medical supplies and other essentials. COVID-19 has also raised concerns about the vulnerability of supply chains, particularly those dependent on geopolitical rivals.
The world’s two biggest trading nations, the United States and China, have both engaged in precautionism. The U.S. is actively pursuing a policy of “friend-shoring”—shifting trade flows from potentially hostile countries to friendlier ones. China’s “dual circulation” strategy aims in part to reduce dependence on foreign imports, especially technology, while its government has long imposed limits on data flows in and out of the country.
With Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the momentum toward friend-shoring has grown. Meanwhile, food shortages and surging prices have triggered another round of precautionary measures: Since the war began, 63 countries have imposed a more than 100 export restrictions on fertilizer and foodstuffs.
While the impulse driving such policies is understandable, the trend could cause great harm if allowed to run unchecked. It will increase inflation and depress global growth, especially if it involves costly redeployment of supply chains away from efficient producers such as China. A recent WTO study estimated that decoupling the global economy into “Western” and “Eastern” blocs would wipe out nearly 5% in output, the equivalent of $4 trillion.
As a recent study by the International Monetary Fund points out, the way to make global value chains more resilient is to diversify, not dismantle them. Turning away from open trade will only make states more vulnerable to economic shocks such as war, disease or crop failures.
The WTO is an obvious vehicle to rally collective action on these issues. However, like other global institutions, it has been weakened by years of deadlock. At this week’s meeting, countries should start to build positive momentum with some small but symbolically significant breakthroughs to show the WTO can still mobilize joint action.
Given current threats to food security, at the very least members should agree not to restrict exports of foodstuffs purchased for the World Food Programme. A step further would be a joint statement calling on members to keep trade in food and agricultural products open and avoid imposing unjustified export restrictions. There should also be closer coordination to smooth supply chains and clogged logistics channels.
Another low-hanging fruit is finally securing a waiver covering intellectual property rights for COVID-19-related products. This proposal has languished for over 18 months but has now been redrafted to address concerns from the U.S. and European Union. Signing it would go some way to expanding global access to vaccines, which are still sorely needed in many parts of the world.
Beyond this week, the WTO secretariat and members need to develop a work program to reform the organization. This should include developing a framework to ensure that if states do take precautionary measures, they do so in a transparent, rules-based manner that does not slide into more harmful forms of protectionism.
Reviving the WTO’s defunct dispute settlement mechanism is a clear priority. Twenty-five members have agreed to an interim arrangement that would function in a similar way. More members should join this agreement, ideally including the U.S., and start negotiating the full restoration of a binding mechanism. They should also set clear criteria for carveouts for legitimate precautionary measures related to national security, healthcare and environmental issues.
No one should expect big breakthroughs in Geneva. But practical agreements on immediate priorities such food security and vaccines would at least help to reassert the WTO’s relevance and show that the world’s trading partners are not simply going to give up on multilateralism. At this dangerous moment, even small victories are welcome.
[from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis]
The marine economy accounted for 1.7 percent, or $361.4 billion, of current-dollar U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) in 2020 and 1.7 percent, or $610.3 billion, of current-dollar gross output. Real (inflation-adjusted) GDP for the marine economy decreased 5.8 percent from 2019 to 2020, compared with a 3.4 percent decrease for the overall U.S. economy. Real gross output for the marine economy decreased 8.5 percent, while marine economy compensation decreased 1.2 percent, and employment decreased 10.8 percent.
Read the current release [Archived PDF]
[from FreightWaves]
The supply chain challenges we hear about today likely bear little resemblance to those we envisioned at the beginning of 2020. Ongoing disruption to the global supply chain has accelerated and heightened the need to focus on risk mitigation — or face even more critical concerns.
To uncover ways small and midsized (SMB) organizations can overcome tech adoption challenges and continue to grow, FreightWaves has partnered with MyCarrier for a one-hour webinar at 2 PM EDT on Tuesday, June 14.
In this webinar, learn how SMB organizations can alleviate the pressure of industry volatility by utilizing technology to:
[from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s Applied Macroeconomics and Econometrics Center]
A new reading of the Global Supply Chain Pressure Index has been posted.
The GSCPI compiles more than two dozen metrics across seven economies—data on global transportation costs and regional manufacturing conditions—to track shifts in supply chain pressures from 1997 to the present.
The GSCPI will be updated regularly at 10 AM ET on the fourth business day of each month. The index was first introduced through a Liberty Street Economics post in early January 2022 [archived PDF], with subsequent blog posts in late January 2022 [archived PDF] and March 2022 [archived PDF].
The GSCPI is a product of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s Applied Macroeconomics and Econometrics Center.
[from the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta’s Center for Human Capital Studies]
What do May employment data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics mean for the outlook for labor markets? Find out in the Atlanta Fed’s Labor Market Distributions Spider Chart, Jobs Calculator, and Labor Market Sliders.
Want to see even more economic data? Our EconomyNow app will put GDPNow and all our data tools right in your hands. Download it today to see the latest data on inflation, growth, and the labor market.
[Federal Reserve Bank San Francisco Economic Letter 2022-14, by Brandyn Bok and Nicolas Petrosky-Nadeau]
Before the pandemic, the U.S. unemployment rate reached a historic low that was close to estimates of its underlying longer-run value and the short-run level associated with an absence of inflationary pressures. After two turbulent years, unemployment has returned to its pre-pandemic low, and the estimated underlying longer-run unemployment rate appears largely unchanged. However, economic disruptions appear to have pushed up the short-run noninflationary rate substantially, as high as 6%. Examining these different measures of the natural rate of unemployment can provide useful insights for policymakers.
Read the full article [archived PDF].
[From the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)]
Fast and brutal mutations in the global economy today are reshaping conditions for transforming African economies and creating better opportunities for its youth. Efforts to reduce the continent’s dependence on raw material exports, advance productive transformation and increase investment and domestic resource mobilization are being challenged.
Can innovative policies and international partnerships help address:
Join OECD experts, African leaders and policy makers and shakers to discuss next steps for a more sustainable future.
The 21st edition of the AU–OECD International Economic Forum on Africa takes places in the framework of the OECD Ministerial Council Meeting (MCM), chaired by Italy under the theme “The Future We Want: Better Policies for the Next Generation and a Sustainable Transition.” The Forum is an opportunity for OECD members to engage at high level, yet informally, with Africa’s leaders, movers and shakers on the way forward.
Can’t come to Paris? Join the Forum online, watch it on OECD TV, Twitter or Facebook
[Deutsche Bundesbank discussion paper 16/2022 by Mark Kerssenfischer & Maik Schmeling]
A key question in the macro-finance literature concerns the drivers of asset prices. Are asset prices mainly driven by news, or by changes in sentiment and other factors unrelated to economic fundamentals? In most asset pricing models, news play a dominant role. But in empirical investigations, the explanatory power of news is often quite low.
We study the explanatory power of news by building a large, time-stamped event database covering a wealth of news related to the macroeconomy, including macroeconomic data releases, central bank announcements, bond auctions, election results, sovereign rating downgrades, and natural catastrophes. We combine this event database with high-frequency stock price and bond yield changes, both for the U.S. and the euro area, going back to 2002.
We find that roughly half of all stock and bond price movements in the U.S. and euro area occur in tight windows around clearly identifiable news and in this sense can be explained by those news. On the positive side, this share is much higher than most previous studies found. However, our results still ascribe a large role to return variation that cannot be linked to news about economic fundamentals.
Read the paper [archived PDF].
