The Renminbi An Exorbitant Burden The New Triumvirate

The Renminbi: The Political Economy of a Currency

Why it's a mistake for the United States to fear the yuan.

BY ARTHUR KROEBER | SEPTEMBER 7, 2011

The Chinese currency, or renminbi (RMB), has been a contentious issue for the past several years. Most recently, members of the U.S. Congress have suggested tying China currency legislation to the upcoming votes on the free trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama. While not going that far, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Sen. Charles Schumer have promised a vote on the issue sometime this year.

The root of the conflict for the United States -- and other countries -- is complaints that China keeps the value of the RMB artificially low, boosting its exports and trade surplus at the expense of trading partners. Recent government data show that the bilateral trade deficit between the U.S. and China grew nearly 12 percent in the first half of 2011 -- fueling U.S. efforts to boost job creation domestically by authorizing import tariffs and other restrictions on countries that manipulate their currencies.

Although the U.S. Treasury has repeatedly stopped short of labeling China a "currency manipulator" in its twice-yearly reports to Congress, it has consistently pressured China to allow the RMB to appreciate at a faster pace and to let the currency fluctuate more freely in line with market forces. The International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and many economists have also argued for faster appreciation and a more flexible exchange-rate policy as part of a broader program of "rebalancing" the Chinese economy away from its traditional reliance on exports and investment and toward a more consumer-driven growth model. Partly in response to these pressures, but more because of domestic considerations, China has allowed the RMB to rise by about 25 percent against the U.S. dollar since mid-2005. Yet the pace of appreciation remains agonizingly slow for the United States and other countries in Europe and Latin America whose manufacturing sectors face increasing competition from low-priced Chinese goods.

The international conversation over the RMB remains perennially vexed because China and its trade partners have fundamentally divergent ideas on the function of exchange rates. The United States and other major developed economies, as well as the IMF, view an exchange rate simply as a price. Consistent intervention by China to keep its exchange rate substantially below the level the market would set is, in this view, a distortion that prevents international markets from functioning as well as they could. This price distortion also affects China's own economy by encouraging large-scale investment in export manufacturing, and discouraging investment in the domestic consumer market. Thus it is in the interest of both China itself and the international economy as a whole for China to allow its exchange rate to rise more rapidly.

Chinese officials take a very different view. They see the exchange rate -- and prices and market mechanisms in general -- as tools in a broader development strategy. The goal of this development strategy is not to create a market economy, but to make China a rich and powerful modern country. Market mechanisms are simply means, not ends in themselves. Chinese leaders observe that all countries that have raised themselves from poverty to wealth in the industrial era, without exception, have done so through export-led growth. Thus they manage the exchange rate to broadly favor exports, just as they manage other markets and prices in the domestic economy to meet development objectives such as the creation of basic industries and infrastructure. These policies do not differ materially from those pursued by Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan since World War II, or by Britain, the United States, and Germany in the 19th century. Because the Chinese leaders perceive that an export-led strategy is the only proven route to rich-country status, they view with profound suspicion arguments that rapid currency appreciation and markedly slower export growth are "in China's interest." And because China -- unlike Japan in the 1970s and 1980s -- is an independent geopolitical power, it is fully able to resist international pressure to change its exchange-rate policy.

A second issue raised by China's currency and trade policies is the persistent trade surplus since 2004 that has contributed to about three-quarters of the nearly $3 trillion increase in China's foreign exchange reserves over the past eight years. Close to two-thirds of these reserves are invested in U.S. Treasury debt. Some fear that China has become the United States' banker and could cause a collapse in the U.S. dollar and the U.S. economy by dumping its dollar holdings. Others suggest that China's recent moves to increase the international use of the RMB through an offshore market in Hong Kong signal China's intent to build up the RMB as an international reserve currency to rival or eventually supplant the dollar. All these concerns are based on serious misunderstandings of both international financial markets and China's domestic political economy. China is not in any practical sense "America's banker"; it is more a depositor than a lender, and its economic leverage over the United States is very modest.

And while China's leading position in global trade makes it quite sensible to increase the use of the RMB for invoicing and settling trade, it is a huge leap from making the RMB more internationally traded to making it an attractive reserve currency. China does not now meet the basic conditions required for the issuer of a major reserve currency, and may never meet them. Most importantly, the RMB is unlikely to become more than a second-tier reserve currency so long as Chinese leaders cling to their deep reluctance to allow foreigners a significant role in China's domestic financial markets.

LAURENT FIEVET/AFP/Getty Images

 SUBJECTS: CHINA, ECONOMICS
 

Arthur Kroeber is managing director of GK Dragonomics, a Beijing-based economic consultancy; editor of the China Economic Quarterly; and a nonresident fellow of the Brookings-Tsinghua Center in Beijing.

SUNT

1:51 PM ET

September 7, 2011

No leverage? You've got to be kidding

"International pressure to accelerate the pace of RMB appreciation is unlikely to have much impact because other countries have very little leverage that they can bring to bear."

You've got to be kidding. The US can easily tax China's holdings of US assets, or at the very least reverse Reagan's tax exemption for foreign holders of Treasuries. See Joe Gagnon's piece in Foreign Affairs. That would raise the costs of China's currency manipulation (or reserve accumulation, it's the same thing functionally), and force them to spend some of those dollars on imports rather than park them in assets. Also, it's ironic that at the same time we ask the Chinese to reduce their currency manipulation, we give them a tax preference for doing it.

And that's only on the capital account side of the equation. The US also has plenty of leverage on the current account side of the equation, if only by doing some of the same things that China (and Japan, Korea and Taiwan) are doing to foreigners. The problem is not lack of leverage, the problem is lack of will.

 

BING520

1:15 PM ET

September 8, 2011

Levy tax on Chinese holding of US T-Bills?

How are you going to create a set of rules for Chinese and another for the rest of the world and American buyers of T-Bills?

 

CARDSHARP

9:10 AM ET

September 9, 2011

he can't

but he doesn't know enough to realise it.

 

SUNT

9:23 AM ET

September 9, 2011

clueless

"but he doesn't know enough to realise it."

If you had bothered to read Joe Gagnon's piece referenced above (the same Mr. Gagnon who worked for the Treasury and the Federal Reserve) you would have found your answer. Some people don't know what they don't know.

 

BING520

3:28 PM ET

September 9, 2011

Taxing China's holding of US T-Bill

I did read it. Joe Gagnon wants the Congress to authorize the US Government to arbitrarily cancel our tax treaty with any foreign country suspected of manipulative purchase of T-Bills. He defines the manipulative purchase as a purchase of US T-Bills by a foreign government to influence the exchange rate.

US has tax treaty with almost every country around the world. It regulates what we or our treaty partners can and can't do in terms of taxes. Each treaty has to be approved by the Congress. Without a tax treaty with China, we can do whatever we want to tax Chinese business interest. So can the Chinese government. It means that any and every business in the US wanting to do business with Chinese would not know how China would tax its profit.

If the Congress were to authorize to the Treasury to cancel a treaty at will. The treaty would be meaningless. Who wants to sign a contract with a guy who openly asserts his right to cancel the contract at any time he feels like to cancel?

Joe Gagnon has a very radical idea. In practice, it would extremely difficult to define the manipulative buying of US T-Bills. Remember James Baker's Plaza Accord in 1985? It is an agreement to manipulate exchange rates. Then, again in 1987, Louvre Accord was signed to cancel the effect of Plaza Accord that was the continuous depreciation of the US dollars. Another reverse manipulation.

Japan was a fool and turned out to the biggest loser in this Plaza Accord. Japna lost its influence on international monetary systems and entered a 2-decade-long recession. James Baker was extremely brilliant, but he never reached his stated goal - reduce the trade deficit with Japan.

 

XTIANGODLOKI

10:56 AM ET

September 12, 2011

US forced Japan on Plaza Accord

"Japan was a fool and turned out to the biggest loser in this Plaza Accord."

To be fair, Japan (and Germany) didn't have much choice as this article indicated. The US has the greatest leverage over Japan as Japan depends on the US for its military. This is one of the benefits of the US being a global military hegemony.

The US doesn't have much leverage over China because US cannot influence its own people's buying behavior all that much without suffering from seriously negative consequences.

 

BING520

1:21 PM ET

September 8, 2011

ARTHUR KROEBER

This is one of the best analyses on reminbi I had ever read in years. His conclusion - pressing China to open its market - is the very thing I always wonder why the US Government manned by the best legal minds in the world has NOT be more aggressive to file complaints against China to WTO. China has to a very large extent abided by WTO's rulings.

 

JYS390

11:27 PM ET

September 9, 2011

Great article: Clear, Pragmatic, Short

Arthur Kroeber has single-handedly redeemed FP's China coverage with this simple, well-organized explanation of Chinese currency and economic policies. I always wonder if American politicians and bureaucrats secretly recognize how to deal with China but simply belabor public attack points to pressure China.

Don't get me wrong: I wish we had the leverage over China. Even if you did enact some targeted tax on certain T-Bill buyers, unfortunately I have no faith in the American multinational corporation to follow through on on the other trade and currency issues when their first loyalty is always maximization of profits.

 

XTIANGODLOKI

10:46 AM ET

September 12, 2011

Wow an objective and informational article on China

This article nicely explains why China does what it does rather well without political rhetoric. You would expect this site to contain more of such articles.

I have commented many times that instead of bashing China, US pundits should explore how to sell more to China. It's good to read someone else with this view.

 

RAYE

9:27 PM ET

September 15, 2011

China can never be U.S’s Banker!

Chinese contrived strategy of keeping their currency low has been irking the major countries for long. Its export-driven approach might not benefit other countries of similar trading patterns. Over the years countries have employed various policies to boost their exports rate simultaneously keeping the imports rate minimally low. U.S fears about Yuan’s strength seem unfounded considering the fact that the value of RMB is no where nearer to the American dollar like wobenzym n and it might even take decades before it emerges as a strong contender to the dollar. For China, internationalization of the currency is just a means of sustaining its reserve currency status alone.

 

MARTY MARTEL

2:20 PM ET

September 22, 2011

U. S. is responsible for the rise of China

U. S. has nobody to blame but itself for the rise of China.

Afterall China was a pariah country in the world just like today’s North Korea until Nixon’s 1972 visit. All the West European and East Asian countries stayed away from China following the US lead until 1972 and embraced China after Nixon’s visit. While US would not give MFN status to Soviet Union (remember Jackson-Vanik amendment?) unless Russia shed Communism, it had no problem giving it to China’s Communist dictators with a capitalist mask. Trade with China expanded by leaps and bounds during 12 years of Republican rule beginning in 1981. After campaigning against butchers of Beijing in 1992 elections, even Bill Clinton became enthusiastic supporter of trade with China once he took lessons in foreign policy from Nixon in early 1993 during a special Whitehouse-arranged meeting. US also promoted China to a super power status by accepting it as a permanent UNSC member.

Had it not been for that Nixon embrace in 1972, China’s rise to super power status would have been far more slower with all the US, West European and East Asian markets closed to cheap Chinese products. Had it not been for that Nixon embrace, China’s technological progress would have been far slower in the absence of West’s technology transfers. Had it not been for that Nixon embrace, China’s military progress would have been far slower in the absence of huge forex reserves that China accumulated from the massive exports of cheap Chinese products and China used those forex reserves to acquire latest military technology.

Now China has US by the tail - US businesses are hooked to huge profits that cheap Chinese products generate for them as a walk through any Walmart, Home Depot, Sears and Macy’s filled with Chinese goods prove and US government is hooked to huge investments that China makes in US treasuries from the sales of cheap Chinese products to US businesses.

The second cold war has already started, this time between US and China. And if US had upper hand against Soviet Union in first cold war, then creditor China has upper hand against debtor US in this second cold war.

China’s rise to super power status to challenge US is a fitting monument to the much-celebrated far-sightedness of Nixon-Kissinger to embrace China to counter Soviet Union in 1972 just as 9/11 attacks is a fitting monument to Reagan embrace of Islamic fundamentalists to counter Soviet Union in 1980s Afghanistan.

 

CINGOZ439

4:52 AM ET

September 30, 2011

CURse

Now looking to get rid of the curse of terrorism turkey bulunu?u in states all over the world thought otherwise, all states should fight against terrorism is a terrorism problem will continue. Terrorism be fought on one front
sikiş sikiş
sikiş
sikiş
sikiş
web tasarım

 

YARINSIZ

2:31 PM ET

October 6, 2011

Arthur Kroeber has

Arthur Kroeber has single-handedly redeemed FP's China coverage with this simple, well-organized explanation of Chinese currency and economic policies. I always wonder if seslichat American politicians and bureaucrats secretly recognize how to deal with China but simply belabor public attack points to pressure China.