The Grexit's Threat to Southeast Asia

Source: Getty
Op-Ed Commentary
Summary
Southeast Asia should guard against a potentially dangerous spillover from the Eurozone crisis by trimming sovereign debt and reigning in spending.
Related Topics
Related Media and Tools
 

Southeast Asia has had its fair share of ups and downs over the last fifteen years. First it went through the traumatic events of the Asian financial crisis in 1997-98. No sooner had it regained some economic momentum, than the region was hit by the global financial crisis. Now, Southeast Asia faces the European crisis and its impact threatens to dwarf the previous two. 

Southeast Asia can’t be blamed if it is experiencing “adjustment fatigue.” But complacency would be unforgiveable. The region may have weathered the global financial crisis enviably well, but it may not be so lucky next time. In any event, even as Southeast Asian policymakers may hope for the best, they should be preparing for the worst.

European Scenarios

It is difficult to predict how the European crisis will unfold, but there are three scenarios worth exploring. The first is if Europe “muddles through” while keeping Greece within the monetary union. The second is an orderly Greek exit, or the so-called Grexit. And the third is a disorderly Greek exit with contagion spreading to Spain, Portugal, and beyond.

There is some confidence that Southeast Asian economies can weather a “muddling through” scenario in which Greece remains in the eurozone and is supported by a combination of austerity measures, structural reforms, bank bailouts, and continued quantitative easing by the European Central Bank (ECB). That’s the most optimistic scenario out there, but it’s increasingly less probable.

The second scenario—an orderly Grexit—would add macroeconomic turbulence in the near term as European banks deal with the damage to their balance sheets, and seek to recapitalize and deleverage. Although Greece is a relatively small economy compared to the rest of the eurozone, the macroeconomic fallout from its euro exit could still be severe. And the ECB will likely need to pump in more liquidity to counterbalance shortages. 

The third and worst-case scenario is that Greece not only exits the eurozone, but the firewalls of the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) and the ECB prove ineffective in containing a contagion that spreads to other economies in and out of Europe. If this happens, all bets are off. 

The global economy will be in a place it has likely never been before—certainly not in the last eight decades. The crisis will not only hit the stronger European economies hard, but spread to the United States where the current recovery is anemic and the banks are still in the process of repairing the damage to their balance sheets caused by the Great Recession.

Southeast Asian Economic Slowdown

Southeast Asian economies are particularly vulnerable to a global slowdown given their direct and indirect trade links with Europe and the United States. Not only will direct exports to Europe take a hit, but component and commodity exports immediately headed to China will also suffer if Chinese exports to the advanced economies are affected, as they almost certainly will be. And a slowing global economy will mean lower commodity prices, leading to still lower export revenues for Southeast Asia.

Indeed, most Southeast Asian economies are already showing signs of slowing export and GDP growth in the first quarter of 2012. Export earnings are not increasing at the same pace and the stimulus packages introduced in 2009 and 2010 have now run their course. Thailand and the Philippines are the notable exceptions to this as Thailand is still recovering from the devastating floods of late 2011 and the Philippines continues to be buoyed by strong remittance inflows.

The Grexit’s Impact on Southeast Asia

Greece’s exit from the eurozone will not only lead to a further deterioration in export and GDP growth for Southeast Asia, it will also have repercussions for financial flows. 

In fact, Southeast Asia should expect a replay of late 2008 and early 2009. This will include an initial withdrawal of liquidity as banks in advanced countries seek to deleverage, recapitalize, and reduce lending, followed by significant injections of liquidity by the ECB and the U.S. Federal Reserve that will push capital flows into emerging markets, including Southeast Asian economies, in search of high returns a few quarters later.

Most Southeast Asian economies are fairly resilient to volatility in capital flows. Thanks to prudent policies over the past decade, the majority of banks in the region are well capitalized, the corporate sector holds relatively low debts, and the debt burden of sovereigns remains within prudent limits. But there is little doubt that volatile capital flows will complicate macroeconomic management, lead to pressures on exchange rates, interest rates, and inflation rates, and require deft handling by central banks to ensure that stability is maintained.

Financial flows are likely to be most volatile in Indonesia, because a relatively large proportion of the country’s traded stocks and short-term domestic debt instruments are owned by non-residents who can sell their holdings at the slightest sign of trouble. As a result, the exchange rate for the rupiah tends to be the most unstable in Southeast Asia, and domestic liquidity management during crises is always a challenge. Indeed, the rupiah has predictably weakened in the last few weeks and the government now needs to consider an appropriate monetary policy response.

Policy Implications

Although the Southeast Asian economies are in reasonably good shape heading into the impending European crisis, they are not as well positioned today as they were three years ago when the global financial crisis first erupted. Their sovereign debt burdens are heavier, budget deficits larger, inflation rates higher, and growth rates slower. What is more, this time around China is less likely to respond with the same oversized economic stimulus package that it used in 2009 amid a global slowdown.

So what should the Southeast Asian economies do in the short term? The answer, interestingly enough, is the same irrespective of which scenario ultimately unfolds in Europe. Southeast Asia must build shock absorbers while it increases international competitiveness, and put contingency mechanisms in place that can be drawn upon if, and when, the crisis breaks. 

Economies can absorb the shock of a sudden slowdown with countercyclical fiscal policies, but freedom to do so depends on existing sovereign debt burdens and fiscal deficits. Indonesia, for example, has the most room among Southeast Asian economies to run countercyclical fiscal policies thanks to its low sovereign debt burden, small primary deficit, and large external reserves. 

Malaysia, on the other hand, has arguably the least room to maneuver. Indeed, while other Southeast Asian economies were reigning in their fiscal spending this year, Malaysia introduced an expansionary budget with populist measures in anticipation of an upcoming general election. As a result, from a macroeconomic perspective, Malaysia is somewhat more vulnerable than its neighbors to a sudden deterioration in Europe.

Much can also be done to improve competitiveness through an adjustment in the composition of government spending. With this in mind, Malaysia and Indonesia should reduce their fuel subsidies and apply the savings either toward deficit reduction or infrastructure and education development. In a similar vein, Thailand needs to stem the hemorrhaging of public funds through its new rice policy and apply the savings toward higher priority programs to boost international competitiveness.

The economies of Southeast Asia should also be testing the efficacy of contingency mechanisms in the event of a European debacle. Most important among these is the multilateral Chiang Mai Initiative that would activate swap arrangements among the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and China, Japan, and South Korea. This mechanism has never been used—not even when South Korea was in dire straits in late 2008—so it remains an open question whether it will respond as expected in the heat of a crisis. 

Southeast Asian economies also need to put in place other bilateral swap arrangements, such as with the U.S. Federal Reserve. This is a mechanism that proved effective during the Asian financial crisis and during the global financial crisis. And yes, Southeast Asia should put aside its aversion to the International Monetary Fund and employ precautionary credit lines that can act as a final insurance against liquidity shortages if all other arrangements fail.

Southeast Asian economies can see the storm approaching even if its severity is difficult to predict. There is no excuse for inaction. Now is the time to check the ballast, clear the decks, and make ready for the heavy weather that lies ahead. Even if the storm doesn’t materialize, a trimmer economy will be more competitive. But if the storm does strike, the economy will be better positioned to withstand the shocks that are likely to come its way. 

End of document

About the Asia Program

The Carnegie Asia Program in Beijing and Washington provides clear and precise analysis to policy makers on the complex economic, security, and political developments in the Asia-Pacific region.

 

Comments

 
  • Report Abuse
Source http://carnegieendowment.org/2012/06/06/grexit-s-threat-to-southeast-asia/b69m

More from The Global Think Tank

In Fact

 

45%

of the Chinese general public

believe their country should share a global leadership role.

30%

of Indian parliamentarians

have criminal cases pending against them.

140

charter schools in the United States

are linked to Turkey’s Gülen movement.

2.5–5

thousand tons of chemical weapons

are in North Korea’s possession.

92%

of import tariffs

among Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru have been eliminated.

$2.34

trillion a year

is unaccounted for in official Chinese income statistics.

37%

of GDP in oil-exporting Arab countries

comes from the mining sector.

72%

of Europeans and Turks

are opposed to intervention in Syria.

90%

of Russian exports to China

are hydrocarbons; machinery accounts for less than 1%.

13%

of undiscovered oil

is in the Arctic.

17

U.S. government shutdowns

occurred between 1976 and 1996.

40%

of Ukrainians

want an “international economic union” with the EU.

120

million electric bicycles

are used in Chinese cities.

60–70%

of the world’s energy supply

is consumed by cities.

58%

of today’s oils

require unconventional extraction techniques.

67%

of the world's population

will reside in cities by 2050.

50%

of Syria’s population

is expected to be displaced by the end of 2013.

18%

of the U.S. economy

is consumed by healthcare.

81%

of Brazilian protesters

learned about a massive rally via Facebook or Twitter.

32

million cases pending

in India’s judicial system.

1 in 3

Syrians

now needs urgent assistance.

370

political parties

contested India’s last national elections.

70%

of Egypt's labor force

works in the private sector.

70%

of oil consumed in the United States

is for the transportation sector.

20%

of Chechnya’s pre-1994 population

has fled to different parts of the world.

58%

of oil consumed in China

was from foreign sources in 2012.

$536

billion in goods and services

traded between the United States and China in 2012.

$100

billion in foreign investment and oil revenue

have been lost by Iran because of its nuclear program.

4700%

increase in China’s GDP per capita

between 1972 and today.

$11

billion have been spent

to complete the Bushehr nuclear reactor in Iran.

2%

of Iran’s electricity needs

is all the Bushehr nuclear reactor provides.

78

journalists

were imprisoned in Turkey as of August 2012 according to the OSCE.

Stay in the Know

Enter your email address in the field below to receive the latest Carnegie analysis in your inbox!

Personal Information
 
 
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
 
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20036-2103 Phone: 202 483 7600 Fax: 202 483 1840
Please note...

You are leaving the website for the Carnegie-Tsinghua Center for Global Policy and entering a website for another of Carnegie's global centers.

请注意...

你将离开清华—卡内基中心网站,进入卡内基其他全球中心的网站。