A partnership with academia

Building knowledge for trade and development

Vi Digital Library - Text Preview

World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011

Report by DESA,UNCTAD,ECA,ECE,ECLAC,ESCAP,ESCWA, 2011

Download original document (English)

The World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011 analyses the slowdown in economic growth among developed countries as from mid-2010. It highlights the continued challenge posed by high unemployment rates in many economies and outlines a number of risks and uncertainties for the economic outlook such as a premature withdrawal of policy stimulus, increased exchange rate volatility and a renewed widening of global imbalances. Against this background, several policy challenges are discussed in greater detail, including the optimal design of fiscal policies as well as the coordination between fiscal and monetary policies, the provision of sufficient support to developing countries in addressing the fallout from the crisis and the coordination of policy measures at the international level.

Printed at the United Nations, New York


10-61546—December 2010— 4,270


USD 30


ISBN 978-92-1-109162-5


World Economic Situation
and Prospects


W
orld Econom


ic Situation and Prospects 2011
United Nations






World Economic Situation
and Prospects 2011


asdf
United Nations
New York, 2011




Acknowledgements
The report is a joint product of the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN/DESA), the United
Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and the five United Nations regional commissions
(Economic Commission for Africa (ECA), Economic Commission for Europe (ECE), Economic Commission for Latin
America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) and Economic
and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA)).


For the preparation of the global outlook, inputs were received from the national centres of Project LINK and
from the participants at the annual LINK meeting held in New York from 20 to 22 October 2010. The cooperation and
support received through Project LINK are gratefully acknowledged.


The United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) contributed to the section on international
tourism.


The report has been prepared by a team coordinated by Rob Vos and comprising staff from all collaborating
agencies, including Grigor Agabekian, Tarik Alami, Clive Altshuler, Shuvojit Banerjee, Sudip Ranjan Basu, Jeffrey Bliss,
Alfredo Calcagno, Rodrigo Cárcamo, Jaromir Cekota, Ann D’Lima, Oumar Diallo, Adam Elhiraika, Kumi Endo,
Pilar Fajarnes, Heiner Flassbeck, Marco Fugazza, Samuel Gayi, Sergei Gorbunov, Cordelia Gow, Yejin Ha, Aynul Hasan,
Pingfan Hong, Alberto E. Isgut, Alex Izurieta, Osvaldo Kacef, Jane Karonga, Matthias Kempf, John Kester, Detlef Kotte,
Nagesh Kumar, Alexandra Laurent, Daniel Jeongdae Lee, Hung-Yi Li, Muhammad Hussain Malik, Sandra Manuelito,
Joerg Mayer, Nicolas Maystre, Simon Neaime, Victor Ognivtsev, Ann Orr, Oliver Paddison, José Palacin, Ingo Pitterle,
Marco V. Sánchez, Benu Schneider, Krishnan Sharma, Robert Shelburne, Amos Taporaie, Alexander Trepelkov,
Aimable Uwizeye-Mapendano, Sergio Vieira, Jürgen Weller, Yasuhisa Yamamoto and Anida Yupari.


Jomo Kwame Sundaram, Assistant Secretary-General for Economic Development, provided comments
and guidance.


For further information, see http://www.un.org/esa/policy or contact:


DESA:
Mr. Sha Zukang, Under-Secretary-General, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Room DC2-2320,
United Nations, New York, NY 10017, USA; telephone: +1-212-9635958; email: sha@un.org
UNCTAD:
Mr. Supachai Panitchpakdi, Secretary-General, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development,
Room E-9042, Palais de Nations, CH-1211, Geneva 10, Switzerland; telephone +41-22-9175806;
email: sgo@unctad.org
ECA:
Mr. Abdoulie Janneh, Executive Secretary, United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, P.O. Box 3005,
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; telephone: +251-11-544 3336; email: ecainfo@uneca.org
ECE:
Mr. Ján Kubiš, Executive Secretary, United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Information Service,
Palais des Nations, CH-1211, Geneva 10, Switzerland; telephone: +41-22-9174444; email: info.ece@unece.org
ECLAC:
Ms. Alicia Bárcena, Executive Secretary, Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean,
Av. Dag Hammarskjold 3477, Vitacura, Santiago, Chile; telephone: +56-2-2102000; email: secepal@cepal.org
ESCAP:
Ms. Noeleen Heyzer, Executive Secretary, Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific,
United Nations Building, Rajadamnern Nok Avenue, Bangkok 10200, Thailand; telephone: +66-2-2881234;
email: unescap@unescap.org
ESCWA:
Ms. Rima Khalaf, Executive Secretary, Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia, P.O. Box 11-8575,
Riad el-Solh Square, Beirut, Lebanon; telephone: +961-1-978800; website: http://www.escwa.un.org/about/staff.asp
Cover photo credits:
iStockphoto.com/Konstantin Inozemtsev




iii


Executive Summary
The global economic outlook


Weaker global growth is expected in 2011 and 2012…


After a year of fragile and uneven recovery, global economic growth started to decelerate
on a broad front in mid-2010. The slowdown is expected to continue into 2011 and 2012
as weaknesses in major developed economies continue to provide a drag on the global re-
covery and pose risks for world economic stability in the coming years. The unprecedented
scale of the policy measures taken by Governments during the early stage of the crisis no
doubt helped stabilize financial markets and jump-start a recovery. The policy response
weakened during 2010, however, and is expected to be much less supportive in the near
term also, especially as widening fiscal deficits and rising public debt have undermined
support for further fiscal stimuli. Many Governments, particularly those in developed
countries, are already shifting towards fiscal austerity. This will adversely affect global
economic growth during 2011 and 2012.


…as multiple risks to the recovery remain


Despite the notable progress made by the banking sector in disposing of its troubled assets,
multiple risks remain. Real estate markets may deteriorate further, credit growth remains
feeble, and levels of unemployment are persistently high. Most countries have kept in
place, or even intensified, policies of cheap money (low interest rates and quantitative
easing) in efforts to help financial sectors return to normalcy and stimulate economic
activity as fiscal stimuli are being phased out. This has, however, added new risks, includ-
ing greater exchange-rate volatility among major currencies and a surge of volatile capital
flows to emerging markets, which have already become a source of economic tension and
could harm the recovery in the near term. Such tensions have weakened the commitment
to coordinate policies at the international level, which in turn has made dealing with the
global imbalances and other structural problems that led to the crisis, as well as those that
were created by it, all the more challenging.


The global recovery has been dragged down by the developed economies


World gross product (WGP) is forecast to expand by 3.1 per cent in 2011 and 3.5 per cent
in 2012. The recovery may, however, suffer setbacks and slow to below 2 per cent, while
some developed economies may slip back into recession if several of the downside risks
take shape.


Among the developed economies, the United States of America has been on
the mend from its longest and deepest recession since the Second World War, but has
nonetheless been experiencing the weakest recovery pace in history. Although the level of
gross domestic product (GDP) will return to its pre-crisis peak by 2011, a full recovery
of employment will take at least another four years. Growth in many European countries
will also remain low; drained by drastic fiscal cuts, some may continue to be in recession.
Growth in Japan will also decelerate notably.




iv World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


Developing country growth will also moderate


Developing countries and the economies in transition continue to drive the global recovery,
but their output growth is also expected to moderate during 2011 and 2012. Developing
Asia continues to show the strongest growth performance. Strong growth in major devel-
oping economies, especially China, is an important factor in the rebound in global trade


A decelerating global recovery


Percentage change in world gross product


4.0


3.6


4.1 4.0 3.5


1.6


-2.0


3.6


3.1


-3


-2


-1


0


1


2


3


4


5


2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010a 2011b 2012b


Baseli
ne


Optim
istic


Pess
imis


tic


Source: UN/DESA and
Project LINK.


Note: For the baseline
forecast assumptions, see


box I.1. The pessimistic
scenario refers to a situation


of enhanced macroeconomic
uncertainty in the outlook


(see box I.4), while the
optimistic scenario is one
of limited, but improved,


international policy
coordination (see box I.5).


a Partly estimated.
b United Nations forecasts.


Percentage


Developing country growth is leading the recovery


Developed
economies


Economies in
transition


Developing
economies


Least developed
countries


2009


2010a


2011b


2012b


-8


-6


-4


-2


0


2


4


6


8


Source: UN/DESA and
Project LINK.


a Partly estimated.
b United Nations forecasts.




vExecutive Summary


and commodity prices, which is benefiting growth in Latin America, the Commonwealth of
Independent States and parts of Africa. Yet, the economic recovery remains below potential
in all three regions. The fuel-exporting economies of Western Asia have not levelled oil
production after the cutbacks made in response to the global recession; hence, the recovery
in this region is also below pre-crisis levels of output growth.


Formidable challenges remain for the long-run development of many low-
income countries. In particular, the recovery in many of the least developed countries
(LDCs) will also be below potential.


The outlook for employment, achievement of the
Millennium Development Goals and inflation


Between 2007 and the end of 2009, at least 30 million jobs were lost worldwide as a result
of the global financial crisis. Despite a rebound in employment in parts of the world, espe-
cially in developing countries, the global economy will still need to create at least another
22 million new jobs in order to return to the pre-crisis level of global employment. At the
current speed of the recovery, this would take at least five years.


Long-term unemployment is rising


Owing to the below-potential pace of output growth in the recovery, particularly in
developed economies, few new jobs have been created to rehire those workers who have been
laid off. As more Governments are embarking on fiscal tightening, the prospects for a quick
recovery of employment look even gloomier. The longer term employment consequences of
the present crisis are already becoming visible, as the share of the structurally or long-term
unemployed has increased significantly in most developed countries since 2007.


Percentage share of labour force


Persistent high unemployment in developed countries


5


6


7


8


9


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010a 2011b 2012b


Source: UN/DESA.
a Partly estimated.
b United Nations
baseline forecasts.




vi World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


The recovery of employment has been faster in developing countries


Workers in developing countries and economies in transition have also been severely af-
fected by the crisis, although the impact in terms of job losses emerged later and was much
more short-lived than in developed countries. The impact on aggregate employment was
also softened by the absorption of many workers into the informal sector, although many
more workers have ended up in more vulnerable jobs with lower pay as a result. Job growth
in developing countries started to rebound from the second half of 2009; by the end of the
first quarter of 2010, unemployment rates had already fallen back to pre-crisis levels in a
number of developing countries.


The crisis has caused important setbacks in progress towards the MDGs


The economic downturn has caused important setbacks in progress towards the Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs). Achieving the millennium target of halving global poverty
rates by 2015 (from 1990 levels) is within reach for the world as a whole, although it will
not be met in sub-Saharan Africa nor, possibly, in parts of South Asia. However, the crisis
has significantly increased the challenge of achieving targets for universal primary educa-
tion, reducing child and maternal mortality and improving environmental and sanitary
conditions. The requirements for stepping up economic growth and social spending posed
significant macroeconomic challenges even before the crisis; these have become all the
more pressing in cases where setbacks have been the greatest. Unfortunately, the mood for
fiscal tightening is taking hold even in those developing countries with a policy intention
of safeguarding “priority” social spending. This is a worrying trend, particularly where
GDP growth is still well below potential and tax revenues have declined significantly
because of the crisis. Among the many low-income countries especially, sufficient support
through official development assistance (ODA) will be critical for enabling stepped-up
efforts to achieve the MDGs.


Inflation does not pose a present danger, except in parts of South Asia


The current rates of headline inflation have stayed at very low levels despite the massive
monetary expansion. Except in some Asian economies, where increasingly strong infla-
tionary pressures reflect a combination of supply and demand-side factors, inflationary
expectations are likely to remain muted in the near future owing to the stagnation in
credit growth, alongside wide output gaps and elevated unemployment in most developed
economies.


Trade and commodity prices
The rebound in world trade decelerated during 2010


World trade continued to recover in 2010, but the momentum of the strong growth ob-
served in the first half of the year has started to peter out. While the volume of exports of
many emerging economies has already recovered to, or beyond, pre-crisis peaks, exports
of developed economies have not yet seen a full recovery. In the outlook, world trade is
expected to grow by about 6.5 per cent in both 2011 and 2012, moderating from the 10.5
per cent rebound in 2010.




viiExecutive Summary


Despite the gradual recovery of the past two years, the value of imports of the
three largest developed economies was still significantly below pre-crisis peaks by August
2010. Meanwhile, export recovery in these economies is mirrored in the fast growth of im-
ports by countries in East Asia and Latin America. The question now is whether emerging
economies can continue to act as the engines of world trade growth in the outlook, par-
ticularly as the dynamics of the initial phase of the recovery seem to be fading and as
growth in developed countries remains sluggish.


Financial factors are exacerbating the
volatility in food and other commodity prices


Most commodity prices have rebounded. The world price of crude oil fluctuated around
$78 per barrel during 2010, up from an average of $62 for 2009. However, oil prices are
expected to decrease somewhat in 2011. World prices of metals followed a similar trend in
2010 and are expected to edge up only slightly in 2011 and 2012.


Food prices declined during the first half of 2010, but rebounded in the
second. While the expansion of global acreage and favourable weather patterns in key
producing areas helped increase global food supplies considerably during 2009 and early
2010, adverse weather conditions in mid-2010 affected the harvests of basic staples. In ad-
dition, speculation amplified many commodity prices. Food prices will remain vulnerable
to supply shocks and speculative responses in commodity derivatives markets.


International finance for development
Net transfers from developing to developed countries
increased again in 2010 and are set to continue on this trend


Developing countries as a group continued to transfer vast amounts of financial resources
to developed countries. In 2010, net transfers amounted to an estimated $557 billion—a
slight increase from the level registered in the previous year. As has been the pattern for
more than a decade, much of the net transfers reflect additional reserve accumulation by
developing countries. In the outlook, net resource transfers from developing countries are
expected to increase moderately along with the projected widening of current-account im-
balances. This continuation of the pre-crisis pattern, in which, on balance, poor countries
transfer significant amounts of resources to much richer nations, is also a reflection of the
need felt by developing countries to continue to accumulate foreign-exchange reserves
as a form of self-protection against global economic shocks. Instances of global financial
market turbulence, increased exchange-rate volatility among major reserve currencies and
a surge in short-term private capital flows have added to the sense of high macroeconomic
uncertainty and the perceived need for self-insurance.


Net private capital flows to developing
countries have increased significantly


Net private capital flows to developing countries have recovered strongly from their slump
in 2008 and early 2009. Investors are searching for higher returns, and economic growth
in emerging and other developing economies has been much stronger than in advanced
economies; also, extensive monetary easing has kept interest rates very low in the latter.




viii World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


With continued fragility and the substantial excess liquidity in developed financial mar-
kets, investors have shifted parts of their portfolios to emerging markets. Much of the
surge in private capital flows to developing countries has taken the form of short-term, and
probably volatile, equity investments, though foreign direct investment (FDI), especially
in the extractive industries of commodity-exporting economies, has also increased.


The crisis has increased the need for ODA,
but has complicated the delivery on commitments


The global financial crisis and economic recession of 2008 and 2009 negatively impacted
many developing countries and put a severe strain on many low-income countries, making
the delivery of committed ODA even more critical. Although net transfers to low-income
countries have remained positive during 2010, the fragile recovery in developed countries
and the possible threat of a double-dip recession create considerable uncertainty about the
future volume of ODA flows. Moreover, aid delivery is falling short of commitments by
the donor community.


The debt situation in many developing
countries has improved, but problems remain


Despite improvements in the debt position of many developing countries prior to the cri-
sis, some countries, including some small middle-income countries, remain in vulnerable
situations. In the wake of the crisis, other developing economies have moved into more
critical debt positions. The total external debt (public and private) of developing countries
as a share of GDP rose to 24.8 per cent in 2009, an increase of 2.2 percentage points over
the previous year, while the downward trajectory of the debt service-to-exports ratio was


Billions of dollars


Net financial transfers from poor to rich countries still flow at an increased rate


Low-income countries
Lower middle


income countries
Upper middle


income countries
All developing


countries


Average 2000-2008


2009


2010


-600


-500


-400


-300


-200


-100


0


100


Source: UN/DESA, based on
International Monetary Fund


(IMF), World Economic Outlook
Database, October 2010 and


IMF, Balance of Payments
Statistics.




ixExecutive Summary


reversed because of the negative impact of the crisis on the dollar value of both GDP and
exports. As a result, the average external debt-to-export ratio of developing countries and
transition economies increased from 64.1 per cent in 2008 to 82.4 per cent in 2009. In
many countries, debt ratios increased even more significantly, as managing the impact of
the crisis resulted in rapid increases in public debt. Despite the generous debt relief pro-
vided, 13 (out of 40) heavily indebted poor countries (HIPCs) are classified as being “in
debt distress” or at “high risk of debt distress”, while 7 non-HIPC low-income countries
are identified as facing debt problems.


The persisting external debt problems among both low- and middle-income
countries and the surge of sovereign debt distress among a number of developed countries
points to the limits of the existing arrangements for dealing with debt problems. It also
points to the urgent need for setting up an international sovereign debt workout mecha-
nism which would allow countries to restructure their debt in a timely and comprehensive
manner.


Some progress has been made towards providing
a better framework for regulating the financial sector


A reform agenda set out by the Group of Twenty (G20) envisaged the introduction of
macroprudential supervision that would take due account of systemic risk and the overall
stability of the financial system, including pro-cyclicality and moral hazard caused by
activities of systemically important financial institutions. A new capital and liquidity re-
form package, Basel III, was agreed upon and issued by the Basel Committee on Banking
Supervision. This is an important step forward, as it requires banks to hold larger amounts
of capital and reserves against outstanding loans so as to increase their resilience under
more turbulent financial market conditions. However, these new capital and liquidity
standards apply only to banks. Consequently, more also needs to be done to address risks
outside the traditional banking system (investment banks, hedge funds, derivatives mar-
kets, and so forth), which represented a major factor in generating the global crisis in
2008. The new standards and rules will have to be made applicable across different types
of financial markets and institutions offering similar products.


Uncertainties and risks
Key uncertainties and risks to the baseline scenario for 2011 and 2012 are slanted towards
the downside.


Fiscal austerity could risk further deceleration of the recovery


Despite continued fragile recovery, the sense of urgency and the will to move fiscal and
monetary policies in tandem dissipated during 2010 over worries, especially in developed
countries, that fiscal sustainability could be in jeopardy. Such worries are juxtaposed to
fears that the phasing-out of fiscal stimulus and a quick retreat into fiscal austerity would
risk further deceleration of the recovery and fail to bring unemployment down, while
public debt ratios would continue to rise because of insufficient output growth.


Since budget deficits have widened sharply, public debt of developed countries
will continue to increase, even under conservative assumptions, surpassing 100 per cent
of GDP, on average, in the next few years. Governments of many advanced economies




x World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


will thus face large and increasing funding needs. At the same time, the risk of enhanced
financial fragility has increased because of the way in which public indebtedness became
linked to the health of the banking sector during the crisis: while Governments have
guaranteed vast amounts of bank liabilities, banks have been purchasing large amounts of
government securities. As a result, a heightened risk for the financial health of one of these
two parties will feed into the other, possibly forming a vicious circle that could amplify the
risk throughout the whole economy.


Increased exchange-rate instability remains a risk…


The exchange rates among major currencies experienced high volatility during 2010, with
escalated tension spreading rapidly to other currencies. The failure to maintain exchange-
rate stability among the three major international reserve currencies has also affected cur-
rencies of emerging economies. The surge in capital inflows to emerging economies, fuelled
by the quantitative easing in developed countries and portfolio reallocation by international
investors, as well as by the weakening of the dollar, has led to upward pressure on the
exchange rates of some emerging economies. Developing countries have responded by in-
tervening in currency markets and/or imposing capital controls to avoid soaring exchange
rates, loss of competitiveness and inflating asset bubbles. Currency instability and perceived
misalignment of exchange rates could become part of a major skirmish over trade, which
may well turn into a wave of protectionist measures and retaliations worldwide, once again
risking derailment of global growth and destabilization of financial markets.


…as does an uncoordinated rebalancing of the world economy


The global imbalances may widen again, which in turn could feed more instability back
into financial markets. Prospects for narrowing the imbalances will depend on how suc-
cessful economies will be in making structural adjustments. However, the path of these
adjustments is unclear, particularly given the uncertainties about how the risks of a further
slowing of growth and the persistence of high rates of unemployment, sovereign debt
problems and further exchange-rate instability will all play out. Even if the global imbal-
ances do not edge up significantly in the near term, the underlying adjustment in stocks
of international asset and liability positions would continue to move in a risky direction,
particularly as the global financial crisis has caused a surge in net foreign liabilities of the
United States.


More quantitative easing and a further depreciation of the dollar might be a
way for the United States to try to inflate and export its way out of its large foreign liability
position, but it would more likely risk disruption of trade and financial markets. Moreover,
dollar weakness poses a threat because it increases import prices in the United States, the
world’s largest consumer market, and thus erodes purchasing power. This could lead to a
decline in global trade, constituting the antithesis of the United States consumption boom
that fuelled global economic growth before the financial crisis.


Accordingly, if concerns grow about exports’ being hit by dollar weakness,
developing countries will understandably feel inclined to intervene in their foreign-
exchange markets, as is already the case. However, frequent intervention in foreign-
exchange markets increases the potential for international currency and trade conflicts,
which could further undermine the international cooperation shaped at the level of the
G20. A further waning of the commitment to international policy coordination will be an
added liability for the prospects of a balanced and more sustained global recovery.




xiExecutive Summary


Policy challenges
Five major policy challenges need to be addressed


The potentially damaging spillover effects of national policies once again highlight the
need for strengthened international policy coordination. Unfortunately, during 2010, the
cooperative spirit among policymakers in the major economies has been waning. World
Economic Situation and Prospects 2011 suggests that avoiding a double-dip recession and
moving towards a more balanced and sustainable global recovery would require that at
least five related major policy challenges be addressed.


First, continued and coordinated stimulus


First, by using the ample fiscal space that is still available in many countries, additional
fiscal stimulus, in tandem with appropriate monetary policies, is needed in the short run
to boost the global recovery. Such action should be adequately coordinated among the
major economies to ensure a reinvigoration of global growth that will also provide external
demand for those economies which have exhausted their fiscal space. Absent a new net
fiscal stimulus and faster recovery of bank lending to the private sector, growth is likely to
remain anaemic in many countries in the foreseeable future.


Second, redesigning fiscal stimulus


Second, fiscal policy needs to be redesigned to strengthen its impact on employment and
aid in the transition towards promoting structural change for more sustainable economic
growth. A prudent policy would be to target public investments with a view to alleviating
infrastructure bottlenecks that mitigate growth prospects. One priority area would be to
expand public investment in renewable clean energy as part of commitments to reduce
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and in infrastructure that provides greater resilience
to the effects of climate change. Another area might be to expand and improve public
transportation networks, which would create potentially significant amounts of new jobs
while at the same time helping to reduce GHG emissions, particularly in rapidly urbaniz-
ing environments. Social protection policies are another crucial element in cushioning the
impact of economic shocks, boosting aggregate demand and contributing to the sustain-
ability of economic growth.


Third, more effective monetary policy and
addressing international spillover effects


The third challenge is to find greater synergy between fiscal and monetary stimulus, while
counteracting damaging international spillover effects in the form of increased currency
tensions and volatile short-term capital flows. This will require reaching agreement about
the magnitude, speed and timing of quantitative easing policies within a broader frame-
work of targets to redress the global imbalances. It will also require deeper reforms of
financial regulation, including those for managing cross-border capital flows, as well as in
the global reserve system in order to reduce dependence on the United States dollar.




xii World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


Fourth, more predictable access to
development finance for achieving the MDGs


The fourth challenge is to ensure that sufficient resources are made available to developing
countries, especially those possessing limited fiscal space and facing large development
needs. These resources will be needed, in particular, to accelerate progress towards the
achievement of the MDGs and for investments in sustainable and resilient growth. Apart
from delivering on existing aid commitments, donor countries should consider mecha-
nisms to delink aid flows from their business cycles so as to prevent delivery shortfalls in
times of crisis, when the need for development aid is most urgent.


Fifth, more concrete and enforceable
targets for international policy coordination


The fifth challenge is to find ways to arrive at credible and effective policy coordination
among major economies. In this regard, there is some urgency in making the G20 frame-
work for sustainable global rebalancing more specific and operational. In this context,
establishing concrete “current-account target zones” might be a meaningful way forward.
Having clear and verifiable targets for desired policy outcomes would help make parties
accountable, while the possible loss of reputation through non-compliance would be an
incentive to live up to policy agreements. Such target zones would also highlight the need
for both surplus and deficit countries to contribute to sustaining global effective demand.


The target zones should not, however, be seen as an end in themselves, but
rather as a guide towards a sustainable growth path for the world, which should encompass
the proposed actions to address all five challenges listed above. They should also be seen as
an intermediate step towards the more fundamental reforms of the global reserve system
and the financial regulation that are needed to prevent future global financial instability
and meltdowns.




xiii


Contents
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................................................................... iii


Contents .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. xiii


Explanatory Notes ......................................................................................................................................................................................... xvii


I Global outlook .................................................................................................................................................. 1


Macroeconomic prospects for the world economy ................................................................................................................ 1
Growth prospects ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3
Outlook for employment ..................................................................................................................................................... 10
Prospects for achieving the Millennium Development Goals ...................................................................... 13
Continued low inflation ........................................................................................................................................................ 17
International economic conditions for developing countries and economies in transition ......................... 18
Returning, but risky, capital flows ................................................................................................................................... 18
Rebounding world trade, volatile commodity prices ........................................................................................ 20
Declining remittances ............................................................................................................................................................ 22
Uncertainties and risks................................................................................................................................................................................ 23
Risks associated with sovereign debt and fiscal austerity ............................................................................... 23
Risk of increased exchange-rate instability ............................................................................................................... 28
Risks of an uncoordinated rebalancing of the world economy ................................................................... 30
Policy challenges ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 33
Continued and coordinated stimulus .......................................................................................................................... 36
Redesigning fiscal stimulus ................................................................................................................................................. 37
Making monetary policy more effective and addressing its international spillover effects ...... 39
Financing for achieving the MDGs and investments in
sustainable development in low-income countries ......................................................................................... 40
Strengthening the framework for policy coordination ..................................................................................... 40
Appendix ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 44


II International trade ........................................................................................................................................... 47


The below-trend recovery of world trade ...................................................................................................................................... 47
Terms of trade of developing and transition economies ..................................................................................................... 49
Trends in primary commodity markets ............................................................................................................................................ 51
Markets for non-oil commodities ................................................................................................................................... 51
Agricultural commodities .................................................................................................................................................... 55
Minerals and metals ................................................................................................................................................................ 57
The oil market .............................................................................................................................................................................. 58
Trade in services ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 60
Developments in trade policy ............................................................................................................................................................... 65
The Doha Round ....................................................................................................................................................................... 65
Resumption of the trend towards more preferential trade agreements ................................................ 66
The continuation of low-intensity protectionism ................................................................................................. 67




xiv World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


III Financial flows to developing countries ........................................................................................................ 63


Net resource transfers from poor to rich countries .................................................................................................................. 63
Private capital flows to developing countries .............................................................................................................................. 71
International financial cooperation .................................................................................................................................................... 74
Official development assistance ...................................................................................................................................... 74
South-South cooperation .................................................................................................................................................... 77
Innovative sources of development finance ........................................................................................................... 77
Debt relief ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 81
Strengthening the international financial architecture ......................................................................................................... 85
Reform of the framework for financial regulation ................................................................................................ 85
Multilateral surveillance and policy coordination ................................................................................................ 88
A global financial safety net ............................................................................................................................................... 90
The international reserve system .................................................................................................................................... 92
Strengthening global economic governance......................................................................................................... 94


IV Regional developments and outlook ............................................................................................................ 97


Developed market economies .............................................................................................................................................................. 97
North America: decelerating recovery ......................................................................................................................... 98
Developed Asia and the Pacific: diverging outlook ............................................................................................. 101
Developed Europe: cautious recovery ......................................................................................................................... 103
Economies in transition ............................................................................................................................................................................. 108
South-eastern Europe: a feeble recovery ................................................................................................................... 109
The Commonwealth of Independent States: a muted recovery ................................................................ 110
Developing economies .............................................................................................................................................................................. 114
Africa: divergent growth recovery .................................................................................................................................. 115
East Asia: moderate growth, but the outlook is still good ............................................................................... 118
South Asia: robust growth momentum ...................................................................................................................... 123
Western Asia: solid growth after a sharp rebound ............................................................................................... 125
Latin America and the Caribbean: strong economic
recovery, but diverging across countries ................................................................................................................. 128


Statistical annex
Country classification .................................................................................................................................................................................. 133
Annex tables ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 145


Boxes
I. 1 Key assumptions for the United Nations baseline forecast for 2011 and 2012 ...................................................... 4
I. 2 Prospects for the least developed countries ................................................................................................................................ 7
I. 3 Impact of the crisis and macroeconomic challenges to
meeting the Millennium Development Goals .......................................................................................................................... 14
I. 4 A pessimistic scenario for the world economy ........................................................................................................................... 34
I. 5 Feasible policy coordination for rebalancing the world economy ................................................................................. 42




xvContents


II. 1 The financialization of commodity trading ................................................................................................................................... 53
II. 2 International tourism ................................................................................................................................................................................... 63
III. 1 Mechanisms underlying innovative financing for global health ..................................................................................... 80
IV. 1 Banking systems and financial risks in the CIS economies .................................................................................................. 112
IV. 2 Addressing global macroeconomic imbalances in East Asia ............................................................................................. 121
IV. 3 Currency appreciation in Latin America and the Caribbean .............................................................................................. 130


Figures
I. 1 Growth of the world economy, 2004-2012 ................................................................................................................................... 6
I. 2 Growth of GDP per capita, by level of development, 2000-2012 .................................................................................... 7
I. 3 Post-recession employment recovery in the United States, 1973, 1980, 1981, 1990, 2001 and 2007 ...... 11
I. 4 Proportion of working poor, 2003, 2008 and 2009 ................................................................................................................... 13
I. 5 Foreign reserve accumulation by developing countries, first quarter 2007-second quarter 2010 ............ 19
I. 6 Volume of world merchandise trade, January 2005-August 2010 .................................................................................. 20
I. 7 Historical best case, worst case and average scenarios for the general
government gross debt burden, selected developed economies .............................................................................. 25
I. 8 Flow costs of public debt, selected emerging and other developing countries, 2000-2009 ........................ 27
I. 9 Exchange rates among major currencies, March-October 2010 ..................................................................................... 29
I. 10 Trade-weighted effective exchange rates, selected countries, March-October 2010 ........................................ 30
I. 11 Resurge in global imbalances, 1996-2011 ...................................................................................................................................... 31
I. 12 Net international investment position of the United States, 1976-2009 .................................................................... 32
II. 1 Growth of world income and of the volume of imports, 2002-2012 ............................................................................ 47
II. 2 Growth of the volume and dollar values of world exports, 2002-2012 ....................................................................... 48
II. 3a Net barter terms of trade, selected developing and
transition economies, by trade structure, 2000-2010 ........................................................................................................... 50
II. 3b Terms of trade, selected developing and transition economies, 2000-2010 ........................................................... 50
II. 4 Trade shocks by export specialization, country groups, 2001-2010 .............................................................................. 52
II. 5 Non-oil commodity price index, all groups, in dollar and SDR terms, January 2006-September 2010 ... 53
II. 6 Price indices of selected agricultural commodities, current
United States dollars, January 2006-September 2010 ......................................................................................................... 55
II. 7 Price indices of selected minerals, in current United States dollars , January 2006-September 2010 ...... 57
II. 8 Growth of exports of trade in services in current United States dollars, 2005-2009............................................ 60
II. 9 Components of liner shipping connectivity, country averages, July 2004-July 2010 ......................................... 62
III. 1a Net financial transfers to economies in transition and developing countries, 1998-2010 .............................. 70
III. 1b Net financial transfers, by income categories, 2000-2010 .................................................................................................... 70
III. 2 Net ODA of DAC members, 1990-2009, and DAC secretariat simulations to 2010 .............................................. 75
III. 3 Low-income countries in debt distress or at high risk of debt distress, October 2010 ...................................... 84
IV. 1 Unemployment rates in the G7 countries, 2008-2012 ........................................................................................................... 97
IV. 2 Evolution of United States civilian employment during the recession,
and possible future path, June 2007-October 2013 .............................................................................................................. 99
IV. 3 Industrial production in the euro area and selected Western European economies,
second quarter 2008-fourth quarter 2010 ................................................................................................................................... 104




xvi World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


IV. 4 Industrial production, excluding construction, selected
new EU member States, October 2009-August 2010........................................................................................................... 107
IV. 5 Comparison of retail turnover in countries of the Commonwealth of
Independent States, 2009 and 2010 (January-June) ............................................................................................................. 111
IV. 6 Africa growth map ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 116
IV. 7 GDP growth in selected East Asian economies, 2009-2011 ................................................................................................ 119
IV. 8 Year-on-year changes in the consumer price index in selected
South Asian economies, January 2007-July 2010 ................................................................................................................... 124
IV. 9 GDP growth in Western Asia, 2002-2012 ........................................................................................................................................ 126
IV. 10 Latin America: GDP growth rate and contribution to growth of
components of aggregate demand, 2004-2010 ..................................................................................................................... 128
IV. 11 Latin America and the Caribbean: government revenue,
expenditure and fiscal balances, 2006-2010 .............................................................................................................................. 132


Tables
I. 1 Growth of world output, 2006-2012 .................................................................................................................................................. 5
I. 2 Frequency of high and low growth of per capita output, 2008–2012 ......................................................................... 9
I. 3 Growth of worker remittances to developing countries and economies in transition, 2004-2009 ........... 22
II. 1 Income gains or losses from the terms of trade of selected developing
and transition economies, by trade structure, 2002-2010 ................................................................................................. 51
II. 2 Growth of trade in services by category, 2006-2009 ............................................................................................................... 61
II. 3 Major providers of international services among
developing countries, 1990, 2000, 2007, 2008 and 2009 ................................................................................................... 62
II. 4 Growth rate of export services of LDCs and comparison with developing countries, 2005-2009 ............. 63
III. 1 Net transfer of financial resources to developing economies
and economies in transition, 1998-2010 ...................................................................................................................................... 71
III. 2 Net financial flows to developing countries and economies in transition, 1997-2011 ..................................... 72
III. 3 Official development assistance in 2009 and 2010 in relation to commitments and targets ....................... 76




xvii


Explanatory Notes


The following symbols have been used in the tables throughout the report:


.. Two dots indicate that data are not available or are not separately reported.


– A dash indicates that the amount is nil or negligible.


- A hyphen (-) indicates that the item is not applicable.


- A minus sign (-) indicates deficit or decrease, except as indicated.


. A full stop (.) is used to indicate decimals.


/ A slash (/) between years indicates a crop year or financial year, for example, 2008/09.


- Use of a hyphen (-) between years, for example, 2008-2009, signifies the full period involved, including the
beginning and end years.


Reference to “dollars” ($) indicates United States dollars, unless otherwise stated.


Reference to “billions” indicates one thousand million.


Reference to “tons” indicates metric tons, unless otherwise stated.


Annual rates of growth or change, unless otherwise stated, refer to annual compound rates.


Details and percentages in tables do not necessarily add to totals, because of rounding.


Project LINK is an international collaborative research group for econometric modelling, jointly coordinated by
the Development Policy and Analysis Division of the United Nations Secretariat and the University of Toronto.


Data presented in this publication incorporate information available as at 30 November 2010.




xviii World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


The following abbreviations have been used:


ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations


BCBS Basel Committee on Banking Supervision


BIS Bank for International Settlements


BRIC Brazil, China, India and Russia


CFA Communauté fianancière africaine


CIS Commonwealth of Independent States


CMIM Chiang Mai Initiative Multilateralization
Agreement


CRA credit-rating agency


CTT currency transactions tax


DAC Development Assistance Committee (of the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development)


DCF Development Cooperation Forum


DFQF duty-free, quota-free


DRF Debt Reduction Facility


ECA Economic Commission for Africa


ECB European Central Bank


ECE Economic Commission for Europe


ECLAC Economic Commission for
Latin America and the Caribbean


ECU European Currency Unit


EMBI+ Emerging Markets Bond Index Plus


ESCAP Economic and Social Commission for
Asia and the Pacific


ESCWA Economic and Social Commission
for Western Asia


EU European Union


FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations


FCL Flexible Credit Line


FDI foreign direct investment


Fed United States Federal Reserve


FSAP Financial Sector Assessment Program
(of the International Monetary Fund)


FSB Financial Stability Board


FTAs free trade agreements


FTT financial transactions tax


G8 Group of Eight


G20 Group of Twenty


GAVI Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation,
now called the GAVI Alliance


GCC Gulf Cooperation Council


GDP gross domestic product


GHGs greenhouse gases


GNI gross national income


HICP Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices


HIPCs heavily indebted poor countries


IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction
and Development


IDA International Development Association


IFC International Finance Corporation


IFIs international financial institutions


ILO International Labour Organization


IMF International Monetary Fund


IMFC International Monetary and Financial Committee


LDCs least developed countries


LSCI Liner Shipping Connectivity Index
(of the United Nations Conference
on Trade and Development)


MAP Mutual Assessment Process


mbd millions of barrels per day


MDGs Millennium Development Goals


MDRI Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative


MBS mortgage-backed securities


NAMA non-agricultural market access


NAB New Arrangements to Borrow


NGOs non-governmental organizations


NPLS non-performing loans


NTM non-tariff measures


ODA official development assistance


OECD Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development


OPEC Organization of the Petroleum
Exporting Countries


pb per barrel


PCL Precautionary Credit Line


RTAs regional trade agreements


SDRs Special Drawing Rights


SIFIs systemically important financial institutions


SGP Stability and Growth Pact


TEUs twenty-foot equivalent units


UNCTAD United Nations Conference on
Trade and Development


UN/DESA Department of Economic and Social Affairs
of the United Nations Secretariat


UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund


UNWTO United Nations World Tourism Organization


WEFM World Economic Forecasting Model
(of the United Nations)


WGP world gross product


WHO World Health Organization


WTO World Trade Organization




1


Chapter I
Global outlook


Macroeconomic prospects for the world economy
The road to recovery from the Great Recession is proving to be long, winding and rocky.
After a year of fragile and uneven recovery, growth of the world economy is now decelerat-
ing on a broad front, presaging weaker global growth in the outlook.


Weaknesses in major developed economies continue to drag the global recov-
ery and pose risks for world economic stability in the coming years. There will be no
quick fix for the problems these economies are still facing in the aftermath of the financial
crisis. The unprecedented scale of the policy measures taken by Governments during the
early stage of the crisis has no doubt helped stabilize financial markets and jump-start a
recovery, but overcoming the structural problems that led to the crisis and those that were
created by it is proving much more challenging and will be a lengthy process. For example,
despite the notable progress made by the banking sector in disposing of its troubled as-
sets, many of the banks in major developed countries remain vulnerable to multiple risks.
Those risks include a further deterioration in real estate markets, more distress in sovereign
debt markets, and continued low credit growth associated with overall economic weakness
and the ongoing deleveraging among firms and households. Persistent high levels of unem-
ployment, with increasing numbers of workers that have been without a job for prolonged
periods, are restraining private consumption demand; they are also a continued cause of
increasing housing foreclosures, which are adding to the fragility of the financial system.
Troubles with public finances have become daunting as well. Fiscal deficits have widened
dramatically and have become a source of political contention. Deficits have increased,
mainly as a consequence of the impact of the crisis on falling government revenues and
rising social benefit payments. The costs of fiscal stimulus measures have compounded
this situation but, contrary to popular belief, have contributed only in minor part to the
increase in public indebtedness. Yet, rising public debt has engendered political and finan-
cial stress in a number of European countries and, more broadly, has undermined support
for further fiscal stimuli. However, as Governments shift from fiscal stimulus to austerity,
the recovery process is being placed in further jeopardy. The fiscal consolidation plans that
have been announced so far by Governments of developed countries will impact negatively
on gross domestic product (GDP) growth in the outlook for 2011 and 2012.


This contrasts with the strong GDP growth in many developing countries and
economies in transition, which has been contributing to more than half of the expansion
of the world economy since the third quarter of 2009. The rebound has been led by the
large emerging economies in Asia and Latin America, particularly China, India and Brazil.
Many developing countries have been able to use the policy buffers (in the form of ample
fiscal space and vast foreign-exchange reserves) they had generated in the years before the
crisis to adopt aggressive stimulus packages. These have helped boost domestic demand
and have thus facilitated a relatively quick recovery from the global downturn. Since the
second quarter of 2009, low- and middle-income countries have also led the recovery of
international trade, building on ties among developing countries through global value
chains. Many smaller economies in Africa and Latin America have been able to benefit
from these South-South linkages, as well as from more buoyant international primary


Weaker global growth is
expected in 2011 and 2012


There will be no quick fix
for economic problems in
advanced countries


Developing country growth
remains the main driver of
the global recovery…




2 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


commodity prices which have rebounded largely on account of the recovery in demand
in the large developing economies. The return of private capital inflows to middle-income
countries has further supported the recovery. By late 2010, developing country trade and
industrial output had climbed to above pre-crisis levels.


It is uncertain, however, whether the developing countries and economies
in transition can sustain the same robust pace of growth in 2011 and beyond. Despite
strengthened trade ties amongst these countries, they remain highly dependent on demand
in the developed countries for their exports. Access to capital flows and official develop-
ment finance is also highly conditioned by financial circumstances and fiscal stances in
advanced economies. A faltering recovery in those economies, on account of the above-
mentioned risks, should thus be expected to moderate growth prospects for developing
economies as well.


In addition, there are also important risks associated with the surge in private
capital flows to emerging market economies. These flows are causing upward pressure
on these countries’ currencies and risk inflating domestic asset bubbles. The return of
capital flows is associated, to some degree, with the strong monetary expansion in the
major developed countries, which has induced investors to seek more profitable ventures
given continued weakness in financial sectors and the real economy in those countries. It
has led policymakers in the emerging market economies to worry about the competitive-
ness of exports and the possibility of sudden capital flow reversals. They are responding
by intervening in currency markets and imposing controls on short-term capital inflows.
Fears of protectionist retaliation by developed countries have increased. As primary com-
modities are increasingly seen as alternative financial assets, short-term capital has also
moved deeper into commodity markets, risking higher volatility in commodity prices and
raising economic insecurity for many developing countries. Together with the increase in
volatility in the exchange rates of major reserve currencies (the dollar, the euro and the
yen) and a weakening commitment to coordinate policies to redress the global imbalances
effectively, these factors pose increasing risks to the stability of international trade and
finance, and, unless addressed in a timely fashion, will impede a strong, sustainable and
balanced recovery of the global economy.


Mitigating these risks poses enormous policy challenges. In major developed
economies, macroeconomic policy options are limited by political factors restraining fur-
ther fiscal stimulus and market responses to sovereign debt distress. This has led policymak-
ers to rely increasingly on monetary policy. Authorities in the main developed countries
have cut interest rates further and moved deeper into quantitative easing, but it is unlikely
that this will suffice to boost aggregate demand and create new jobs, especially as long
as financial sector weaknesses remain and fiscal stimulus is on the wane. Active income
policy could be an alternative or complementary tool for strengthening domestic demand,
but it remains largely unused. The surge in capital flows to emerging and other developing
economies and the consequent pressures on currencies are complicating the international
environment for developing countries, rendering policies to restructure their economies in
support of sustained growth all the more challenging. The spillover effects of national poli-
cies are significant and a potential source of renewed instability. This once again highlights
the need for strengthened international policy coordination. In this regard, the waning
cooperative spirit among policymakers in the major economies has become an additional
risk to the recovery of the world economy.


…but developing countries
face challenges


in the outlook




3Global outlook


Growth prospects


After a year of fragile and uneven recovery, global economic growth started to decelerate
on a broad front in mid-2010. The slowdown is expected to continue into 2011 and 2012.
The outlook is shrouded in great uncertainty and serious downside risks remain. Premised
on the key assumptions delineated in box I.1, the United Nations baseline forecast for the
growth of world gross product (WGP) is 3.1 per cent for 2011 and 3.5 per cent for 2012,
which is below the 3.6 per cent estimated for 2010 and the pre-crisis pace of global growth
(see table I.1 and figure I.1). The recovery may suffer further setbacks if some downside
risks take shape. In such a pessimistic scenario—discussed further in box I.4—growth of
the world economy could slow significantly, to 1.7 per cent in 2011 and 2.3 per cent in
2012. Better outcomes may be expected only through strengthened international policy
coordination (see the section on policy challenges and box I.5 below).


Among the developed economies, the United States of America has been on the
mend from its longest and deepest recession since the Second World War. Yet, the pace
of the recovery has been the weakest in the country’s post-recession experience. At 2.6
per cent in 2010, growth is expected to moderate further to 2.2 per cent in 2011 and to
improve slightly to 2.8 per cent in 2012. At these rates, the level of GDP will return to its
pre-crisis peak by 2011, but a full recovery of employment would take at least another four
years (see below), leaving the level of output well below potential.


The growth prospects for Europe and Japan are even dimmer. Assuming con-
tinued, albeit moderate, recovery in Germany, GDP growth in the euro area is forecast to
virtually stagnate at 1.3 per cent in 2011 and 1.7 per cent in 2012 (growth in 2010 was 1.6
per cent). Many European countries will see even less growth, especially those in which
drastic fiscal cuts and continued high unemployment rates are draining domestic demand.
This is especially the case in Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain, which are entrapped in
sovereign debt distress and whose economies will either remain in recession or stagnate.
Japan’s initially strong rebound, fuelled by net export growth, started to falter in the
course of 2010. Challenged by persistent deflation and elevated public debt, the economy
is expected to grow by a meagre 1.1 per cent in 2011 and 1.4 per cent in 2012.


Among the economies in transition, the Commonwealth of Independent States
(CIS) and Georgia experienced a rebound in GDP by about 4 per cent on average in 2010,
up from the deep contraction of 6.7 per cent in 2009. Increased external demand and
rebounding commodity prices are the drivers of the recovery. Domestic demand remains
weak in most economies, especially in Ukraine. The recovery has slowed in the course of
2010, however. Output growth is not expected to accelerate in the outlook for 2011 and
2012. After a prolonged period of contraction, output growth in the economies in transi-
tion in South-eastern Europe, except for Croatia, returned to positive territory in 2010. In
this case, too, export growth has been driving most of the recovery so far, while domestic
consumption and investment demand remain subdued. In 2011 and 2012, the pace of
recovery in South-eastern Europe is expected to be rather slow.


Developing countries continue to drive the global recovery, but their output
growth is also expected to moderate to 6.0 per cent on average during 2011-2012, down
from 7.1 per cent in 2010. Developing Asia, led by China and India, continues to show
the strongest growth performance, but GDP growth in these two new economic giants is
expected to experience some moderation in 2011 and 2012.


Growth in Latin America, particularly that in the South American economies,
is projected to remain relatively robust at about 4.1 per cent in the baseline forecast. Yet,


The global recovery started
to falter in mid-2010


Slower economic growth
is expected in the United
States, Europe and Japan


Developing country growth
is also expected
to moderate during
2011-2012




4 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


Key assumptions for the United Nations
baseline forecast for 2011 and 2012


The forecast presented in the text is based on estimates calculated using the United Nations World
Economic Forecasting Model (WEFM) and is informed by country-specific economic outlooks pro-
vided by participants in Project LINK, a network of institutions and researchers supported by the
Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations. The provisional individual country
forecasts submitted by country experts are adjusted based on harmonized global assumptions and
the imposition of global consistency rules (especially for trade flows measured both in volumes and
values) set by the WEFM. The main global assumptions are discussed below. The baseline forecast
does not include any specific assumption about international coordination of macroeconomic poli-
cies. It is also supposed that, other than the changes indicated below, there are no other exogenous
shocks to the global economy. (See box I.4, box I.5 and the section on policy challenges for alterna-
tive scenarios.)


Monetary and fiscal policy assumptions for major economies


It is assumed that the United States Federal Reserve (Fed) will hold the federal funds rate at its current
level of 0.00-0.25 per cent until the fourth quarter of 2011, to be followed by a gradual increase in
the rate in 2012. Similarly, the European Central Bank (ECB) is also expected to hold its main policy
rate (the minimum bid rate) at its current level of 1 per cent until the end of 2011, also with a gradual
tightening in 2012. The Bank of Japan is expected to hold its policy rate at virtually 0.00 per cent until
the end of 2011, also with gradual tightening in 2012. The central banks of the three major developed
economies are expected to continue their unconventional measures of quantitative easing.


Fiscal policy in the United States of America is assumed to feature continued implemen-
tation of the remaining parts of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and extension
of the current tax cuts, but the overall fiscal policy stance will become negative in 2011 and 2012.
Most economies in the euro area and the rest of Western Europe have announced plans for fiscal
consolidation, which are reflected in the baseline assumptions. The degree and timing of these plans
vary significantly, but the overall stance for the region will be contractionary. Fiscal stimulus through
public investment spending has already been phased out in Japan, but supportive tax policy meas-
ures are assumed to remain in place.


Fiscal policies among major developing countries and economies in transition are as-
sumed to implement or phase out stimulus plans, as has been announced. Additionally, monetary
policy stances vary across countries (see chapter IV for details) and are reflected in the baseline as-
sumptions. These include increases in policy interest rates in several of the emerging economies to
reflect anticipated moves from monetary easing back to more neutral monetary stances during 2010
and 2011.


Exchange rates


The exchange rates of major currencies have fluctuated significantly over the past two years. Given
no significant change in interest differentials between the United States and the euro area and no
significant difference between the two regions’ growth prospects, it is assumed that the dollar-euro
exchange rate will remain at its current average of 1.35 for the years 2011 and 2012, but with fluctua-
tions around that level.


The yen has been appreciating vis-à-vis both the dollar and the euro, its value reaching
83 yen to the dollar in September 2010, the highest in 15 years, and triggering an intervention of the
Japanese Government in foreign-exchange markets. It is assumed that the average exchange rate of
the yen vis-à-vis the dollar will average 85 yen per dollar for the years 2011 and 2012.


Oil and other commodity prices


The price of Brent crude oil is expected to average $75 per barrel in 2011 and $80 per barrel in 2012.
The prices of non-oil commodities are assumed to fluctuate around their current levels in the fore-
cast period of 2011 and 2012.


Box I.1




5Global outlook


this implies a marked moderation from the 5.6 per cent GDP growth estimated for 2010.
Brazil continues to act as the engine of regional growth, with strong domestic demand
helping to boost the export growth of neighbouring countries. The subregion also benefits
from improved terms of trade and strengthened economic ties with the emerging econo-
mies in Asia.


Table I.1
Growth of world output, 2006-2012


Annual percentage change


Change from United
Nations forecast of


June 2010c


2006 2007 2008 2009 2010a 2011b 2012b 2010 2011


World outputd 4.0 3.9 1.6 -2.0 3.6 3.1 3.5 0.6 -0.1


of which:


Developed economies 2.8 2.5 0.1 -3.5 2.3 1.9 2.3 0.4 -0.2
Euro area 3.0 2.8 0.5 -4.1 1.6 1.3 1.7 0.7 -0.2
Japan 2.0 2.4 -1.2 -5.2 2.7 1.1 1.4 1.4 -0.2
United Kingdom 2.8 2.7 -0.1 -4.9 1.8 2.1 2.6 0.7 -0.2
United States 2.7 1.9 0.0 -2.6 2.6 2.2 2.8 -0.3 -0.3


Economies in transition 8.3 8.6 5.2 -6.7 3.8 4.0 4.2 -0.1 0.6
Russian Federation 8.2 8.5 5.2 -7.9 3.9 3.7 3.9 -0.4 0.7


Developing economies 7.3 7.6 5.4 2.4 7.1 6.0 6.1 1.2 0.2
Africa 5.9 6.1 5.0 2.3 4.7 5.0 5.1 0.0 -0.3


Nigeria 6.2 7.0 6.0 7.0 7.1 6.5 5.8 0.6 -0.5
South Africa 5.6 5.5 3.7 -1.8 2.6 3.2 3.2 -0.1 -0.3


East and South Asia 8.6 9.3 6.2 5.1 8.4 7.1 7.3 1.3 0.2
China 11.6 13.0 9.6 9.1 10.1 8.9 9.0 0.9 0.1
India 9.6 9.4 7.5 6.7 8.4 8.2 8.4 0.5 0.1


Western Asia 6.1 5.1 4.4 -1.0 5.5 4.7 4.4 1.3 0.6
Israel 5.7 5.4 4.2 0.8 4.0 3.5 3.0 1.1 0.4
Turkey 6.9 4.7 0.7 -4.7 7.4 4.6 5.0 3.9 1.3


Latin America and the Caribbean 5.6 5.6 4.0 -2.1 5.6 4.1 4.3 1.6 0.2
Brazil 4.0 6.1 5.1 -0.2 7.6 4.5 5.2 1.8 -1.1
Mexico 4.9 3.3 1.5 -6.5 5.0 3.4 3.5 1.5 0.6


of which:


Least developed countries 7.6 8.1 6.7 4.0 5.2 5.5 5.7 -0.4 -0.1


Memorandum items:


World tradee 9.3 7.2 2.7 -11.4 10.5 6.6 6.5 .. ..
World output growth with
PPP-based weights 5.1 5.2 2.7 -0.8 4.5 4.0 4.4 0.6 0.0


Source: UN/DESA.


a Partly estimated.
b Forecasts, based in part on Project LINK and baseline projections of the United Nations World Economic Forecasting Model.
c See World economic situation and prospects as of mid-2010 (E/2010/73), available from http://www.un.org/esa/policy/wess/wesp2010files/


wesp10update.pdf.
d Calculated as a weighted average of individual country growth rates of gross domestic product (GDP), where weights are based on GDP in 2005


prices and exchange rates.
e Includes trade in goods and non-factor services. Previous WESP reports reported growth of merchandise trade only.




6 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


The economic recovery in Western Asia is also expected to moderate from 5.5
per cent in 2010 to 4.7 per cent in 2011 and 4.4 per cent in 2012. At this pace, average
annual output growth will be below the rates prevailing in the years before the crisis. The
fuel-exporting economies of the region have not levelled oil production after the cutbacks
made in response to the global recession.


Economic recovery has been solid but below potential in most countries in
Africa. In South Africa especially, the region’s largest economy, output growth remains sub-
par as a result of, inter alia, weak manufacturing export growth. Elsewhere in the region,
the economic recovery has been supported by the rebound in the demand for and prices
of primary commodities as well as by increases in public investments in infrastructure,
foreign direct investment (FDI) in extracting industries and improvements in conditions
for agricultural production. In the outlook, the economic growth in the region is expected
to remain somewhat below pre-crisis rates, averaging about 5.0 per cent for 2011-2012.


On the other hand, formidable challenges remain in the long-run development
of many low-income countries. Although average per capita income growth for these coun-
tries is expected to return to near pre-crisis rates in the outlook (figure I.2), it will not be
sufficient to fully make up for the setbacks caused by the crisis. In particular, the recovery
in many of the least developed countries (LDCs) will be below potential. Per capita income
growth among LDCs is expected to reach about 3 per cent per annum during 2010 and
2011, which is well below the annual average of 5 per cent achieved during 2004-2007. The
LDCs face diverging conditions. Bangladesh and the LDCs in East and Southern Africa are
showing strong economic growth, while production in the Sahel, West Africa and parts of
Asia is suffering either from adverse weather conditions or from fragile political and security
situations, or both (see box I.2 for the economic prospects for the LDCs).


Overall, the number of countries experiencing declines in per capita income
dropped significantly, from 52 in 2009 to 12 in 2010 (table I.2). During 2010, 45 developing


The recovery in least
developed countries will


be below potential in
the near term


Figure I.1
Growth of the world economy, 2004-2012


Percentage change


4.0


3.6


4.1 4.0 3.5


1.6


-2.0


3.6


3.1


-3


-2


-1


0


1


2


3


4


5


2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010a 2011b 2012b


Baseli
ne


Optim
istic


Pess
imis


tic


Source: UN/DESA and
Project LINK.


Note: See box I.1 for
the baseline forecast


assumptions. The pessimistic
scenario refers to a situation


of enhanced macroeconomic
uncertainty in the outlook


(see box I.4), while the
optimistic scenario is one
of limited, but improved,


international policy
coordination (see box I.5).


a Estimates.
b United Nations forecast.




7Global outlook


Figure I.2
Growth of GDP per capita, by level of development, 2000-2012


Percentage


-6.0


-4.0


-2.0


0.0


2.0


4.0


6.0


8.0


10.0


2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012


Source: UN/DESA and Project
LINK.


Lower middle
income countries


Upper middle
income countries


Least developed
countries


High-income
countries


Low-income
countries


Prospects for the least developed countriesa


Most least developed countries (LDCs) have weathered the crisis relatively well owing to their limited
exposure to the international financial system and, in the case of a number of non-fuel exporters,
their relatively low exports-to-gross domestic product (GDP) ratios. Yet, none of the LDCs have been
immune to the synchronized global slowdown, which depressed exports and reduced investment.
The crisis has set back the progress made in these countries towards achieving the Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs). The welfare losses suffered in late 2008 and early 2009 will be long-
lasting, as nearly all LDCs will see a recovery well below pre-crisis growth rates in the outlook for 2011
and 2012. The outlook differs significantly across countries, however.


A number of LDCs have been severely affected by natural disasters. Haiti was hit by a
catastrophic earthquake, with damage totalling about 120 per cent of the country’s GDP for 2009.
Droughts in the Sahel have severely affected Chad, Mauritania and especially Niger, where up to
half the population has faced acute food shortages. In Benin, months of heavy rain resulted in the
worst flooding since 1963. Meanwhile, a number of countries, including Afghanistan, the Democratic
Republic of the Congo, Haiti and Liberia, obtained some financial relief through debt relief or debt
restructuring.


Economic activity in most LDCs improved in 2010 along with the recovery in interna-
tional trade and the rebound in many commodity prices. In addition, growth in several economies
was supported by increased government spending. Aggregate growth for the group will accelerate
from 4.0 per cent in 2009—the lowest rate in over a decade—to about 5.5 per cent in 2010-2012,
with significant divergence among the poorest and structurally handicapped nations (see figure).
Nevertheless, growth will remain well below the annual average of 7.2 per cent during the period
2003-2008. In the five fuel-exporting LDCs, growth is forecast to decelerate from an annual average
of 9.2 per cent in 2003-2008 to 4.6 per cent in 2010-2012, with oil output declining in Equatorial Guinea


Box I.2


a While the group of least
developed countries (LDCs)
includes 49 economies, only
the 38 members for which
macroeconomic data are
available are covered here.
For details on the definition
of the category of LDCs,
see http://www.un.org/esa/
policy/devplan/.




8 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


and growth decelerating to about 5 per cent in Angola. By contrast, growth for fuel-importing LDCs
will accelerate from 5.5 per cent in 2009 to 6.1 per cent in the outlook period, only marginally below
the 6.3 per cent average during the period 2003-2008. Yet, these aggregate figures mask consider-
able variation in both subgroups.


The economies of several LDCs in East and Southern Africa are expected to perform
strongly in the near term, with GDP projected to grow at 6 per cent or more in 2011-2012. This ex-
pectation is based in part on available macroeconomic policy space, improved governance and
planned increases in public expenditures, especially infrastructure. GDP growth alone will not suffice
to meet major development challenges. For example, in countries like Mozambique, despite high
and sustained GDP growth for many years, food insecurity remains a central concern. It is likely that
continuing food price hikes will lead to growing food security pressures in other LDCs as well.


Growth in most West African LDCs, except Liberia, will continue to be rather modest
owing to severe gaps in infrastructure, especially insufficient power generation capacity and high
transport costs, which are not expected to be overcome in the near term.


Bangladesh—the most populous LDC—proved to be relatively resilient to the finan-
cial crisis owing to robust domestic demand, partly supported by increased government spending.
During 2010, however, GDP growth was hampered by a slowdown in industrial output owing to
energy shortages, slower growth in remittance inflows and, early in the year, a sharp deceleration in
the garments sector as a result of weak demand from Europe and the United States. With investment
spending expected to strengthen, GDP growth is forecast to pick up slightly, to 6.0 per cent in 2011
and 6.2 per cent in 2012.


Political instability and fragile security conditions are affecting economic develop-
ment in a number of LDCs, including the Comoros, Eritrea, Haiti, Madagascar, Nepal, Somalia, Togo
and Yemen. For these countries, any lasting progress in the medium run will ultimately depend on
improved domestic stability and security. There are also concerns regarding the situation in many
coastal West African LDCs (the Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Senegal and Sierra Leone),
where drug trafficking is undermining the security situation as well as efforts to strengthen govern-
ance and the promotion of the rule of law.


As the recovery is proceeding at different speeds, all LDCs face two common downside
risks. First, the slowdown and fiscal tightening in developed economies threaten to affect aid flows in
the near term. Second, any deterioration in global food markets will accentuate the problem of food
insecurity, particularly for the 21 LDCs that heavily depend on food aid.b


Box I.2 (cont’d) Divergence in economic performance in least developed countries, 2003-2011


An
nu


al
G


D
P


gr
ow


th
ra


te
in


p
er


ce
nt


ag
e


2003-2007 2008 2009 2010 2011


20


10


0


-10


b Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United


Nations (FAO), “Countries
in crisis requiring external


assistance for food”, Global
Information and Early


Warning System (GIEWS),
September 2010. Available


from http://www.fao.org/
giews/english/hotspots/


index.htm (accessed on 28
October 2010).


Source: UN/DESA and
Project LINK.


Note: The five horizontal
bars, from bottom to top,


correspond to the minimum,
the mean of the first quartile,


the median, the mean of
the third quartile and the


maximum value of the inter-
quartile range between the


third and first quartiles of the
distribution of the observed


data. The outliers are
represented by the dots.




9Global outlook


Table I.2
Frequency of high and low growth of per capita output, 2008–2012


Number of
countries


monitored


Decline in GDP per capita
Growth of GDP per capita


exceeding 3 per cent


2008 2009 2010a 2011b 2012b 2008 2009 2010a 2011b 2012b


Number of countries


World 160 29 95 20 11 7 72 21 59 66 73


of which:


Developed economies 35 16 33 6 5 2 6 0 4 6 8
Economies in transition 18 0 10 2 0 0 15 3 10 12 15
Developing countries 107 13 52 12 6 5 51 18 45 48 50


of which:


Africa 51 6 19 7 5 4 25 11 17 21 22
East Asia 13 2 8 1 1 1 4 3 12 11 12
South Asia 6 2 0 0 0 0 4 2 3 3 3
Western Asia 13 1 8 0 0 0 7 1 3 4 5
Latin America 24 2 17 4 0 0 11 1 10 9 8


Memorandum items:


Commonwealth of Independent States 12 0 5 1 0 0 10 3 10 11 11
Least developed countries 39 5 13 8 5 4 20 8 9 15 15
Sub-Saharan Africac 44 6 17 7 5 4 21 9 13 17 17
Landlocked developing countries 25 2 8 2 1 1 17 8 13 12 14
Small island developing States 17 4 7 3 1 1 7 2 4 6 5


Shared Percentage of world populationd


Developed economies 15.3 11.3 14.4 1.3 1.1 0.2 1.2 0.0 2.1 0.9 1.4
Economies in transition 4.7 0.0 3.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.6 4.1 4.3 4.5
Developing countries 80.0 6.1 17.4 1.5 0.4 0.4 61.5 50.3 65.9 63.8 65.5


of which:


Africa 14.3 1.1 3.5 0.9 0.4 0.4 9.8 5.2 7.8 8.3 8.3
East Asia 29.9 0.1 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.2 25.1 29.9 28.6 29.9
South Asia 24.3 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.6 21.1 21.7 22.0 22.3
Western Asia 3.0 1.1 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.1 1.2 1.5 1.9
Latin America 8.5 0.2 7.8 0.6 0.0 0.0 5.2 0.0 6.8 5.2 5.2


Memorandum items:


Commonwealth of Independent States 4.3 0.0 3.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.6 4.1 4.2 4.3
Least developed countries 11.1 0.5 2.1 1.0 0.4 0.4 8.2 4.7 6.2 7.1 6.5
Sub-Saharan Africac 8.9 1.1 2.6 0.9 0.4 0.4 5.8 2.6 3.7 4.3 3.8
Landlocked developing countries 5.1 0.3 0.8 0.3 0.2 0.2 3.9 2.8 3.3 3.0 3.2
Small island developing states 0.8 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.4


Source: UN/DESA, including population estimates and projections from World Population Prospects: The 2008 Revision.


a Partly estimated.
b Forecast, based in part on Project LINK and baseline projections of the United Nations World Economic Forecasting Model.
c Excluding Nigeria and South Africa.
d Percentage of world population for 2005.




10 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


countries achieved per capita growth rates of 3 per cent or more, which is sometimes consid-
ered the minimum rate needed to facilitate substantial poverty reduction. In comparison,
before the crisis in 2007, there were 68 developing countries with welfare increases above
that threshold. In sub-Saharan Africa, 13 countries registered per capita growth of more
than 3 per cent in 2010, compared with 23 in 2007. In the outlook, 48 developing countries
are expected to have per capita growth of more than 3 per cent in 2011, and 50 in 2012.


Outlook for employment


Next to the continued financial fragility in developed countries, the lack of remunera-
tive employment growth is probably the weakest link in the recovery. Between 2007 and
the end of 2009, at least 30 million jobs were lost worldwide as a result of the global
financial crisis.1 Even this number most likely underestimates the true depth of the jobs
crisis, since it is based on official labour statistics, which in many developing countries
only account for formal sector employment in urban areas and hence may not include
those pushed into precarious employment in the informal sector or underemployment in
low-productivity rural economic activities. Owing to the below-potential pace of output
growth in the recovery—particularly in developed economies—which barely matched the
natural growth rate of the labour force, few new jobs have been created to hire back those
workers who have been laid off. Meanwhile, as more Governments are embarking on fiscal
tightening, including tax hikes and spending cuts, the prospects for a fast recovery of
employment look even gloomier.


Only a few developed economies, such as Australia and Germany, have seen
a discernable improvement in labour markets. In the United States, the labour market
improved slightly in early 2010, only to falter again later, in particular as state and local
Governments started to lay off workers. The unemployment rate may increase to 10 per
cent in early 2011, up from 9.6 per cent in the third quarter of 2010. All projections indi-
cate that it will take more than a few years before the unemployment rate in the United
States falls to its pre-crisis level.


In the euro area, despite improvements in Germany’s job market, the average
unemployment rate has continued to drift upwards, reaching 10.1 per cent in 2010, up
from 7.5 per cent before the crisis. In Spain, the unemployment rate more than doubled,
to 20.5 per cent. It also increased dramatically in Ireland, where it reached 14.9 per cent in
2010, and in other countries in the region. In France, unemployment edged up along aver-
age lines for the euro area. In the outlook, unemployment in Europe is expected to come
down at only a snail’s pace. In Japan, the improvement in the labour market was marginal
during 2010, with the unemployment rate expecting to remain above 5 per cent in 2011.


A “jobless” recovery such as the one being faced at present by the developed
countries is not uncommon in the recent history of the business cycle. However, the time
needed for employment levels to recover to pre-recession levels has become successively
longer. Data for the United States indicate that after each recession during the 1950s and
1960s it took about one year to recover the jobs lost in the downturn. In the 1970s and
1980s, it took between one and two years, but after the recession of the early 1990s and
after the 2001 dotcom crisis, the period for job recovery lengthened to two and a half years
or more (figure I.3). Today’s Great Recession, however, has caused a faster and steeper rise


1 See International Monetary Fund (IMF) and International Labour Organization (ILO), “The
challenges of growth, employment and social cohesion”, discussion document from the Joint ILO-
IMF conference in cooperation with the office of the Prime Minister of Norway, 13 September
2010, Oslo, Norway. Available from http://www.osloconference2010.org/discussionpaper.pdf.


Thirty million jobs have
been lost worldwide
because of the crisis


It may take several years
for employment to return


to pre-crisis levels in
developed economies




11Global outlook


in the rate of unemployment in the United States than in any previous downturn. It has
already been three years since employment started to fall in 2007, longer than any previous
episode, and it is yet to see any significant recovery. At the present pace of job recovery, it
will take many more years for employment to be back at pre-crisis levels.


A few interrelated factors explain the lagging recovery in the job markets of major
developed economies. First, the pace of GDP growth in the recovery phase has become less
and less robust after each business cycle. Second, rapid technological progress, along with
structural economic change, especially in the form of a smaller share of manufacturing and a
larger share of services in the economy, explain why purely cyclical movements have become
less important than structural factors in determining the upward and downward swings
in developed economies. In earlier business cycle episodes, workers who lost jobs during
the downturn would, for the most part, be able to regain employment relatively quickly
in the upturn in the same sector, if not the same company, in which they had been work-
ing. Nowadays, however, more and more job losses during the downturn tend to become
permanent, forcing the unemployed to find jobs in other sectors during the recovery. This
often means workers have to acquire different skills, and ones that are highly dependent
upon the development of new industrial sectors in the economy. In addition, the history of
financial crises suggests that when a recession is caused or accompanied by a banking crisis,
the recovery of output, employment and real wages is much more protracted.


The longer term employment consequences of the present crisis are already
becoming visible. Workers have been without a job for more time, and in some coun-
tries youth unemployment has reached alarming heights. The share of the structurally
or long-term unemployed has increased significantly in most developed countries since
2007. In the United States, for instance, the share of workers who have been unemployed
for 27 weeks or more has been rising at a disturbing pace during 2010; about half of the


Long-term unemployment
is rising and youth
unemployment is reaching
alarming heights


Figure I.3
Post-recession employment recovery in the United States,
1973, 1980, 1981, 1990, 2001 and 2007


Percentage


-7


-6


-5


-4


-3


-2


-1


0


1


0 6 12 18 24 30 36
Number of months from start of recession


D
eg


re
e


of
e


m
pl


oy
m


en
t b


el
ow


(-
) o


r a
bo


ve
(+


) p
re


-r
ec


es
sio


n
le


ve
l


2007


198119731980 2001 1990


Source: UN/DESA
calculations, based on data
from U.S. Department of
Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics
(www.bls.gov/ces).
Note: Data refer to “civilian
employment”, seasonally
adjusted, for workers
16 years of age and older.




12 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


workers without a job are now in that position. The situation is equally worrisome in many
European countries.


Unemployment and underemployment rates are very high among young peo-
ple (15 to 24 years of age), both in developed and developing regions. At the end of 2009,
there were an estimated 81 million unemployed young people, and the rate of global youth
unemployment stood at 13.0 per cent, having increased by 0.9 percentage points from
2008. This represents a significant acceleration compared with the 0.6 percentage point
increase seen in the rate of youth unemployment between 1998 and 2008.


Persistent high unemployment, stagnant or declining real wages and subdued
output recovery can push the economy into a vicious circle and entrap it in a protracted
period of below-potential growth, or, in some cases, it may even cause a double-dip reces-
sion. High unemployment and lower real wages will constrain the recovery in household
consumption, which in turn will drag output growth; below-potential output growth will,
for its part, constrain employment growth. The longer this vicious circle lasts, the higher
the risk of “cyclical” unemployment becoming “structural”, thereby impairing potential
growth of the economy in the longer run. For younger workers who stay without a job
for a prolonged period, the likely implications will seriously jeopardize future earnings
opportunities as a result of their being deprived of years of working experience.


Workers in developing countries and economies in transition have been se-
verely affected by the crisis also, though the impact in terms of job losses emerged later and
was much more short-lived than in developed countries. Most job losses occurred in export
sectors and were greatest during the last quarter of 2008 and the first quarter of 2009 when
global trade collapsed. Where domestic demand was also affected, further job losses oc-
curred in other parts of the economy, especially in construction. The impact on aggregate
unemployment rates was softened by the absorption of many workers into the informal
sectors and, in fact, even allowed aggregate employment levels to continue to grow during
2009, albeit only weakly. The consequence is that while the impact on open unemploy-
ment rates has been muted, many more workers have ended up in vulnerable jobs with
lower pay. The International Labour Organization (ILO) estimates that the proportion of
workers earning less than $2 per day increased by 3 percentage points, implying that the
number of working poor increased by about 100 million during 2009 (figure I.4).


With the recovery in production, employment also started to rebound in
many developing countries and economies in transition from the second half of 2009.
Improvements in employment conditions are also noticeable in some CIS countries, includ-
ing Belarus, the Russian Federation and Kazakhstan. In East Asia, the strong economic
growth in the first half of 2010 was reflected in a visible decline in unemployment rates.
Job growth was strongest in the manufacturing, construction and services sectors. By the
end of the first quarter of 2010, unemployment rates had already fallen back to pre-crisis
levels in most East Asian economies. Employment levels were also back up to pre-crisis
levels by the first quarter of 2010 in a number of other developing countries, including
Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Egypt, Mexico, Peru, the Philippines and Turkey.


Despite this rebound in employment in parts of the world during 2010, the
global economy would still need to create at least another 22 million new jobs in order to
return to the pre-crisis level of global employment. At the current speed of the recovery,
this would take at least five years, according to recent estimates by the ILO.2 This is al-
most entirely on account of the weak recovery in advanced countries and the increasingly
structural nature of unemployment in those countries.


2 ILO, World of Work Report 2010: From one crisis to the next? (Geneva: International Institute for
Labour Studies).


High unemployment is the
Achilles heel of the recovery


in developed economies


Recovery of employment
has been faster in


developing countries




13Global outlook


Prospects for achieving the Millennium Development Goals


The economic downturn in 2009 and the consequent increase in unemployment and vul-
nerable employment, compounded in some cases by retreats in social spending, have caused
important setbacks in the progress towards the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).
Estimates presented in the 2010 issue of the present report pointed to the possibility of
between 47 million and 84 million more people falling into or staying in extreme poverty
because of the global crisis.3 While significant, these setbacks are not large enough to
change expectations of achieving the millennium target of halving global poverty rates by
2015 (from 1990 levels). At the present pace of economic growth in developing countries,
this target is within reach for the world as a whole, although it would not be met in sub-
Saharan Africa and possibly parts of South Asia.4 However, meeting the poverty reduction
target is not secured elsewhere either given the uncertainties surrounding growth of the
world economy and structural problems in many developing economies that affect their
ability to create remunerative employment for large parts of their populations.


Furthermore, the crisis has also caused setbacks in the progress towards other
MDGs and has significantly increased the challenge of achieving targets for universal
primary education, reducing child and maternal mortality and improving environmental


3 United Nations, World Economic Situation and Prospects 2010 (United Nations publication,
Sales No. E.10.II.C.2), table I.3. These estimates refer to people living on less than $1.25 per day
and are similar to those of the World Bank, which estimates about 64 million additional poor
by 2010 compared with had the crisis not taken place (see also World Bank, Global Economic
Prospects 2010: Crisis, Finance and Growth (Washington, D. C.: World Bank, January)).


4 See IMF and World Bank, Global Monitoring Report 2010: The MDGs after the Crisis (Washington,
D.C.: IMF and World Bank), table 4.1. Available from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/
INTGLOMONREP2010/Resources/6911301-1271698910928/GMR2010WEB.pdf.


The crisis has caused
important setbacks in
progress towards the MDGs


Accelerating progress to
achieve the MDGs will pose
enormous macroeconomic
challenges in many
countries


Figure I.4
Proportion of working poor, 2003, 2008 and 2009


Percentage


0


10


20


30


40


50


60


70


80


90


Su
b-


Sa
ha


ra
n


Af
ric


a


So
ut


h
As


ia


N
or


th
A


fri
ca


Ea
st


A
fri


ca


W
es


te
rn


A
sia


La
tin


A
m


er
ic


a
an


d
th


e
Ca


rib
be


an


So
ut


h-
Ea


st
As


ia


Ec
on


om
ie


s i
n


tra
ns


iti
on


2003


2008


2009


Source: International
Labour Organization, Global
Employment Trends January
2010 (Geneva: ILO).
Note: Data refer to the
proportion of workers
earning less than $2 per day
(purchasing power parity).




14 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


and sanitary conditions. Despite increasing fiscal constraints, many Governments in de-
veloping countries made laudable efforts during the crisis to protect the most vulnerable by
directing a significant proportion of stimulus measures at pro-poor and social protection
programmes.5 Countries that managed to do so, such as Bolivia and Ecuador, were able
to mitigate the impact of the crisis on education and health outcomes, but nonetheless
could not avoid certain setbacks. Accelerating progress towards the MDGs has become
more costly as a consequence, both in these cases and even more so in countries that did
not manage to protect social spending during the crisis (see box I.3). The requirements for
stepping up economic growth and social spending had posed significant macroeconomic
challenges even before the crisis, but they have become all the more pressing in cases
where setbacks have been the greatest. In Nicaragua, for instance, additional spending
requirements for education, health, water and sanitation have increased to about 11 per
cent of GDP annually between 2010 and 2015 in order to meet the MDG targets, up from
8 per cent of GDP in a scenario absent the impact of the global crisis. In Ecuador, the
additional requirements are significantly less, despite a stronger drop in GDP growth, as
the Government managed to protect social spending better during the crisis.


5 See, for instance, Yongzheng Yang and others, Creating Policy Space in Low-Income Countries during
the Recent Crises (Washington, D. C.: IMF, 2009), which shows that in 16 out of 19 low-income
countries an average of about 24 per cent of the total announced fiscal stimulus was directed at
pro-poor and social protection programmes.


Impact of the crisis and macroeconomic challenges
to meeting the Millennium Development Goals


Slower or negative per capita income growth has undoubtedly caused setbacks in the progress
towards the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in many developing countries. How much? That
is more difficult to answer as it depends on country conditions. Slower growth affects household
incomes and job creation, which will have a direct impact on income poverty (MDG1). But some parts
of the economy, such as export sectors, have been hit harder than others in most economies, and
the degree of the impact will also depend on how many poor find employment in export activities
or how much an expansion of informal sector employment pushes down the average remuneration
in that part of the economy. Less income will also affect access to social services and hence progress
towards the other MDGs. But that impact will further depend on the fiscal space countries have to
protect spending on education, health and basic sanitation during the crisis. In cases where setbacks
were unavoidable, accelerating progress to meet the MDGs by 2015 will provide an even greater chal-
lenge for spending strategies and macroeconomic policies. To take account of all the interactions
at work, to estimate the macroeconomic costs of achieving the MDGs and to evaluate alternative
financing strategies, an economy-wide macro-micro framework was applied to a reasonable number
of developing countries.a As indicated in the body of the chapter, the macroeconomic challenges of
accelerating progress towards the MDGs differ widely across countries. This is illustrated further by
the six country cases discussed below.


Under a scenario of the observed impact of the crisis on output growth and govern-
ment spending during 2008-2010 and a projected slow and gradual economic recovery towards 2015,
Nicaragua and the Philippines would suffer a setback of 2 percentage points in poverty reduction,
whereas Bolivia, Ecuador and Kyrgyzstan would experience a setback of about 1 percentage point
(see table). In the case of Uzbekistan, setbacks for all of the MDGs have been minimal as the country
barely suffered any downturn and was thus able to sustain spending towards the MDGs. In the other
countries, differences in the impact on projected outcomes for primary school completion rates, child
and maternal mortality and access to drinking water and sanitation by 2015 can be attributed in part
to different responses to adjusting social spending during the crisis. Bolivia and Ecuador managed to


Box I.3


a For a description of the
methodology, see Marco


V. Sánchez and others,
Public Policies for Human


Development (London:
Palgrave, 2010), chapters


1 and 3. The country-level
analysis was conducted
by national researchers


and government experts
with technical support


from the Department of
Economic and Social Affairs


of the United Nations
(UN/DESA) and the World


Bank. The methodology
involves, inter alia, a


detailed microeconomic
analysis of determinants of
MDG achievement, which


is used as an input to a
dynamic economy-wide


modelling framework called
MAMS (MAquette for MDG


Simulations).




15Global outlook


protect spending better than Kyrgyzstan and the Philippines, where setbacks have been relatively
larger. Based on announced social spending plans, in Nicaragua the impact may have been less severe
(as shown in the table), than in a situation where social spending had been scaled down.


In the face of these setbacks, the Governments of Ecuador, the Philippines and
Nicaragua would need to spend an additional 1.0-1.5 per cent of GDP per year between 2010 and
2015 in order to meet the MDG targets for education, health and basic services, compared with the
pre-crisis scenario (see figure). In the cases of Bolivia and Kyrgyzstan, the additional cost of achieving
these MDGs would be 0.7 per cent and 0.5 per cent of GDP, respectively; the extra cost would be
negligible in the case of Uzbekistan. While these additional costs may seem manageable, they come


Box I.3 (cont’d)
Impact of the crisis on MDG achievement by 2015, selected countries


Percentage point increase in the gap towards the 2015 target, unless otherwise indicated


Bolivia Ecuador Nicaragua Kyrgyzstan Uzbekistan Philippines


MDG 1: Poverty
(income less than $1.25 a day, PPP) 0.8 0.8 2.2 1.3 n.a. 2.1
MDG 2: Completion rate
of primary education 0.6 2.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 6.4
MDG 4: Child mortality
(deaths per 1,000 live births) 1.7 1.3 1.3 3.2 0.1 1.4
MDG 5: Maternal mortality
(deaths per 1,000 live births) 8.0 6.1 4.7 5.3 0.1 12.0
MDG 7a: Access to drinking water 0.9 2.1 0.5 0.0 0.1 1.8
MDG 7b: Access to basic sanitation 2.2 4.8 1.8 1.8 0.2 0.7


Source: UN/DESA, based on simulation results using the MAMS modelling framework adapted to each country context. The original country
models were adapted specifically to each context by national researchers and government experts, with technical support provided by UN/DESA
and the World Bank.


Additional public spending needed to achieve MDG targets for
education, health and water and sanitation by 2015


Percentage of GDP; average annual cost for 2010-2015


1.0


1.1


0.5


0.7


1.5


0.2


0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0


Nicaragua


Bolivia


Kyrgyzstan


Uzbekistan


Ecuador


Philippines
Pre-crisis


Crisis


Source: UN/DESA, based on
simulation results using the
MAMS modelling framework
adapted to each country
context. The original country
models were adapted
specifically to each context
by national researchers and
government experts, with
technical support provided
by UN/DESA and the World
Bank.




16 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


Unfortunately, the mood for fiscal tightening also seems to be taking hold in
many developing countries, even in those with a policy intention of safeguarding “priority”
social spending.6 This is a worrying trend, particularly where GDP growth is moderating
because of weaker export growth and continued weak domestic demand, and also because
protecting social spending is not the same as the significant expansion needed in most
countries that still display large shortfalls in MDG achievement. The difficulties in most
low-income countries in sustaining (or increasing) expenditure patterns has thus far been
caused mainly by substantial declines in tax revenue rather than major declines in official


6 A recent study by UNICEF concluded that real government expenditure in about one quarter
of 126 developing countries is expected to contract in 2010-2011 (see Isabel Ortiz and others,
“Prioritizing expenditures for a recovery for all: A rapid review of public expenditures in 126
developing countries”, Social and Economic Policy Working Paper (New York: United Nations
Children’s Fund (UNICEF), 2010)). Moreover, another study has found that two thirds of the 56
low-income countries surveyed are cutting budget allocations in 2010 to one or more “priority”
pro-poor sectors, which include education, health, agriculture and social protection (see Katerina
Kyrili and Matthew Martin, “The impact of the global economic crisis on the budgets of low-
income countries”, research report for Oxfam International (Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxfam GB,
July 2010)).


on top of the already considerable MDG spending requirements prior to the crisis (given pre-existing
shortfalls). As a result, the challenge for Nicaragua would be to increase spending for education,
health and basic services by 9.5 per cent of GDP during 2010-2015. The required efforts would be of
a similar magnitude in Bolivia and Kyrgyzstan, while in Ecuador, the Philippines and Uzbekistan the
estimated additional macroeconomic costs in these policy simulations would be in the order of 3.0-
5.0 per cent of GDP. Such impacts may be even larger in many countries that are poorer than these
lower middle income countries. Clearly, additional costs of this magnitude may stretch government
finances and could lead to steep increases in public debt or demand infeasible increases in domestic
tax burdens. The situation would be even more pronounced absent a simultaneous acceleration of
economic growth.


The additional government spending for the achievement of the MDGs could have
a counter-cyclical impact. Further analysis shows, however, that without a broader set of accom-
panying growth-stimulating policies, even large increases in social spending may be partially off-
set by macroeconomic trade-offs. For instance, in a scenario where all additional spending was
financed through foreign borrowing (as assumed in the simulations discussed above) significant real
exchange-rate appreciation would have a negative impact on export and investment growth. Similar
macroeconomic trade-offs would be induced if additional aid inflows covered the additional costs
of achieving the MDGs. In alternative financing scenarios in which the tax burden were increased or
the Government were to borrow on domestic capital markets, private consumption or investment
spending, or both, would be affected and thus lower the aggregate growth effects. Such trade-offs
tend to be stronger where the MDG spending strategy is not accompanied by productivity improve-
ments. Better education and health outcomes are likely to have a positive impact on overall labour
productivity. However, as assumed in the present analysis, such an impact is not likely to take shape in
the short run. Education cycles are long and today’s improvements in the health status of the young
will take time before they translate into higher labour productivity. Much of the productivity growth
effects of additional action taken today to accelerate progress towards the MDGs will likely take effect
after 2015. The MDG strategy may thus pose important intertemporal macroeconomic trade-offs.
These would need to be addressed by broader economic policies that strengthen employment and
productivity growth, such as infrastructure investments, credit policies and other support measures
fostering investments in economic diversification and counteracting exchange-rate appreciation.
Such policies would further need the support of an enabling external environment, especially in
the form of a stronger recovery of export demand. This in turn, however, will require strengthened
international policy coordination, as discussed in the body of the chapter.


Box I.3 (cont’d)




17Global outlook


development assistance (ODA). However, the outlook for more generous aid delivery in
the near future is sombre, and this will make the achievement of the MDGs all the more
challenging in many developing countries.


Continued low inflation


Inflation is expected to remain low worldwide during 2010-2012 (annex tables A.4-A.6).
Except for a few Asian developing economies, inflation should not be of much concern to
policymakers in most countries in the near outlook.


In several developed economies, aggregate price levels actually declined (defla-
tion) during the nadir of the recession in 2009, but with the recovery in aggregate demand,
inflation returned, though at low levels. During 2010, inflation ranged between 1 and 2
per cent in most developed countries. Deflation persists in Japan, however.


With the huge amounts of liquidity provided by the central banks of developed
countries, the extremely low interest rates and the widening government deficits, some
analysts have been warning of risks of escalating inflation. However, not only have the
current rates of headline inflation stayed at very low levels despite the massive monetary
expansion, inflationary expectations, as measured by inflation-indexed bonds and various
business surveys, also remain muted. As explained in the section on policy challenges be-
low, much of the liquidity provided by the central banks has been retained in the banking
system, with hardly any growth in credit supplies to the real economy. The stagnation in
credit growth, along with wide output gaps and elevated unemployment in most developed
economies, should give rise to little concern that inflation would escalate much in the near
future. Moreover, central banks in developed economies have already announced plans
to withdraw liquidity once the recovery has matured in order to pre-empt any surge in
inflation.


Among developing countries and economies in transition, South Asia is a cause
for some concern as regards inflation. Consumer price inflation is expected to average 11.0
per cent in 2010 in this subregion. The continuing strong inflationary pressures in most
countries of the region reflect a combination of supply- and demand-side factors. These
include higher fuel prices, partly as a result of reduced subsidies, strong demand for manu-
factured goods and rapidly rising food prices, which account for a large share of consumer
price indices. While food price inflation has eased somewhat in the second half of 2010
owing to good harvests, it has still pushed the general price level higher. In India, the
central bank continues to be particularly concerned with inflation, which has remained
persistently high despite significant monetary tightening in 2010. In Pakistan, consumer
price inflation increased sharply in the second half of the year as the disastrous floods
of July and August destroyed crops and rural infrastructure, leading to food shortages
and driving up food prices further. Rapidly rising food prices have also exerted upward
pressure on consumer prices in some East Asian economies, most notably in China, where
authorities have started to reduce the monetary stimulus injected during the financial
crisis. In other developing regions, inflation rates have also increased during 2010, but only
modestly, such that inflation is still below pre-crisis levels.


Inflation poses no
present danger…


…except in parts
of South Asia




18 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


International economic conditions for developing
countries and economies in transition


Returning, but risky, capital flows


During 2010, net private capital inflows to emerging economies7 continued to recover
from their precipitous decline in late 2008 and early 2009. A better economic performance
of emerging economies has been conducive to the recovery of private inflows. In addition,
the extremely low nominal interest rates and unprecedented scale of quantitative easing
in major developed economies have led international investors to relocate funds towards
emerging markets in search of higher returns. The expectations of currency appreciation
in emerging economies and improved prospects for the prices of primary commodities
that many emerging economies export have heightened perceptions of much higher profit-
ability in these markets, and much of the increase in financial flows appears to be short
term and speculative in nature.


Net private inflows to these economies are estimated to be above $800 billion
in 2010, a more than 30 per cent increase from the previous year, though still about $400
billion lower than the pre-crisis peak levels registered in 2007. The momentum of the
capital inflows to these economies tapered off somewhat in late 2010, and the outlook for
2011 is for only a slight increase in the inflows.


FDI inflows remain the largest component, accounting for more than 40 per
cent of the total inflows to emerging economies in 2010. However, the increase in in-
flows of portfolio equity has been strongest among the different types of capital flows
and increased by 25 per cent in 2010. While inflows of portfolio equity to Asia account
for the lion’s share, the rebound in inflows to Latin America has also been particularly
strong, doubling the amount of inflows received in 2009. In the outlook for 2011, some
moderation is expected. An important part of the increase in equity inflows in 2010 was
related to a reallocation in the portfolios of major institutional investors, including pen-
sion funds, which some observers expect to be a “one-off” adjustment, moderating the
prospect of any large increases in the near outlook. The appetite for investing in emerging
markets may also moderate because those equities now look more expensive than they did
a year ago. Yet, the prospects for private capital flows remain subject to great uncertainty
given the risks of further exchange-rate instability and global monetary conditions, as
discussed below.


International bank lending to emerging economies also resumed in 2010 after
negative net flows in 2009. Even so, the share of bank lending in total private capital flows
to emerging markets is still far below that of the pre-crisis period and reflects the ongoing
process of deleveraging in international banks. Non-bank lending has recovered more
vigorously, as both private and public sectors in emerging economies managed to increase
issuance of bonds in developed countries and take advantage of low interest rates. With the
improved outlook in emerging markets and positive perceptions of investors, the external
financing costs for emerging economies have fallen back to pre-crisis levels.


While private capital returned, emerging economies also significantly stepped
up their own investments abroad. Direct investments from countries like China continued


7 The reference is to a group of some 30 developing countries and economies in transition, which
are well integrated into the global economy through trade and finance linkages. For more details,
see Institute of International Finance, “Capital flows to emerging market economies”, IIF Research
Note, 4 October 2010. Available from http://www.iif.com/press/press+161.php.


A surge in private capital
flows is posing policy
concerns in emerging


economies


Capital outflows from
emerging markets continue


to increase…




19Global outlook


to increase and private residents in emerging markets sought safe havens in assets abroad.
Outflows fell in 2009, to increase again in 2010 and 2011. New FDI by firms established
in emerging economies, destined especially towards commodity production in other de-
veloping countries, explain a large part of the increase.


In addition, developing countries and economies in transition have continued
to accumulate foreign-exchange reserves in 2010, adding about $500 billion to the total of
$5.4 trillion by the end of 2009. A large proportion was accumulated by developing coun-
tries in Asia, particularly China, which is holding about $2.6 trillion in foreign-exchange
reserves. During the trough of the crisis, the last quarter of 2008 and the first of 2009,
developing countries tapped into this buffer, and reserve holdings dropped by about $300
billion in the aggregate (figure I.5). The recovery of exports and the subsequent return of
capital flows facilitated the resumption of the growth in reserve holdings.


Many low-income economies have weaker policy buffers and limited access to
capital markets. As detailed in chapter III, stagnation in flows of ODA and shortfalls in
the delivery on commitments made by donor countries to increase those flows in support
of the achievement of the MDGs, estimated at $20 billion in 2010, are limiting scope for
counter-cyclical responses in low-income countries. The shortcomings in ODA delivery
were compensated to some degree through increased funding and reform of multilateral
financial facilities.8 In January 2010, countries that qualified to draw on concessional re-
sources obtained enhanced access to International Monetary Fund (IMF) facilities under
much simplified conditions. By 30 April 2010, 30 low-income countries had arranged
concessional IMF programmes totalling almost $5 billion, up from $0.2 billion in 2007.
Multilateral development banks also sharply boosted their lending. While the majority of


8 United Nations, MDG Gap Task Force Report 2010: The Global Partnership for Development at
a Critical Juncture (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.10.I.12).


…as do their reserve
holdings


Figure I.5
Foreign reserve accumulation by developing countries,
first quarter 2007-second quarter 2010


Trillions of US dollars


20082007 2009 2010


0.0


1.0


2.0


3.0


4.0


5.0


6.0


I II III IV I II III IV I II III IV I II


Use of reserves
during trough


of crisis


Other developing countries


China


Source: IMF, Statistics
Department COFER
database; and International
Financial Statistics.




20 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


their outlays were non-concessional, there were very significant increases in concessional
lending as well. In particular, the International Development Association of the World
Bank committed $14 billion in loans in 2009, a 20 per cent increase over 2008, to be
disbursed over several years.


Rebounding world trade, volatile commodity prices


World trade continued to recover in 2010, but the momentum of the strong growth
observed in the first half of the year started to peter out in the second. The volume of
exports of many emerging economies, including Brazil, China, India and other developing
economies in Asia, have already recovered to, or beyond, pre-crisis peaks. In contrast,
exports of developed economies have not yet reached full recovery and were still 8 per cent
below the pre-crisis peaks seen in the third quarter of 2010 (figure I.6). In the outlook,
world trade is expected to grow by about 6.5 per cent in 2011 and 2012, moderating from
the 10.5 per cent rebound in 2010.


At the height of the crisis, the value of imports of the European Union (EU),
Japan and the United States plummeted by almost 40 per cent between July 2008 and
April 2009 and triggered the worldwide collapse in international trade.9 Despite the
gradual recovery of the past two years, the value of imports of the three largest developed
economies was still about 25 per cent below pre-crisis peaks by August 2010. The export
recovery in these economies is mirrored in the fast growth of imports by countries in East
Asia and Latin America. For instance, in China the contribution of net exports to GDP


9 The volume of imports of the three major developed economies fell by about 18 per cent during
that period, compounded by a decline of about 24 per cent in import prices. These estimates are
based on the same source as that for figure I.6.


The rebound in world trade
decelerated during 2010


Figure I.6
Volume of world merchandise trade, January 2005-August 2010


Index, 2005=100


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010


Ja
n


M
ay


Se
p


Ja
n


M
ay


Se
p


Ja
n


M
ay


Se
p


Ja
n


M
ay


Se
p


Ja
n


M
ay


Se
p


Ja
n


M
ay


Emerging economies


Developed economies


World


80


90


100


110


120


130


140


150


Source: CPB Netherlands
Bureau for Economic


Policy Analysis.




21Global outlook


growth was negative during 2010, implying that the contribution of China’s net imports
to GDP growth in the rest of the world has been positive.


The question is, however, whether emerging economies can continue to act as
the engines of world trade growth in the outlook. As discussed in the previous section,
there is reason not to be overly optimistic in this regard. The dynamics of the initial phase
of the recovery seems to be fading, especially as growth in developed countries remains
sluggish. Without a stronger recovery in import demand from developed economies, ex-
port growth of developing countries is also bound to slow, given their continued high
dependence on advanced country markets. Furthermore, as some major surplus countries,
like China, are reorienting growth to rely more on domestic demand, growth of import
demand is likely to slow given the lower import propensity of domestic demand compared
with that of export production.


The value of world trade received a boost as most commodity prices have re-
bounded. The world price of crude oil fluctuated at about $78 per barrel during 2010,
up from an average of $62 for the year 2009. In the outlook for 2011, global oil demand
is expected to increase further, but at a more moderate pace than in 2010. Most of the
demand growth will continue to come from emerging economies, especially China and
India. The efforts towards achieving greater energy efficiency in these countries are being
offset by the economic expansion and higher living standards which keep up the demand
for fossil-fuel based energy. In contrast, oil demand in developed economies is expected
to register a modest decline, owing to the combination of subdued economic growth and
further efficiency gains, as well as the progressive substitution of conventional fuel with
ethanol and other biofuels.


On the supply side, fuel-producing countries that are not members of the
Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) are expected to post a small
increase in output in 2011, driven by oil production increases in Brazil, Azerbaijan and
Colombia. These expansions will outweigh the fall in production among oil producers in
advanced economies, mainly caused by the decline in output from maturing oil fields in
Europe. OPEC producers, however, retain ample spare output capacity. As a result, oil
prices are expected to decrease somewhat in 2011, to fluctuate at about $75 per barrel, and
to edge up to about $80 per barrel in 2012.


World prices of metals followed a similar trend in 2010, being sensitive to
changes in the prospects for output growth in emerging economies, especially China.
China’s demand for copper, aluminium and other base metals is estimated to account for
about 40 per cent of the world total. In the outlook for 2011 and 2012, global demand
for metals is expected to stabilize at 2010 levels, partly reflecting sluggishness in world
investment demand. No major changes in supply conditions are expected in the short run.
Consequently, metal prices are expected to edge up only slightly in 2011 and 2012.


Food prices declined during the first half of 2010, but rebounded in the second.
World food prices are much more sensitive to changes in supply conditions than those of
demand. The expansion of global acreage in response to higher prices during 2005-2008
and favourable weather patterns in key producing areas helped increase global food sup-
plies considerably during 2009 and early 2010. In mid-2010, however, drought and fires
in the Russian Federation, Ukraine and, to a lesser extent, North America affected the
harvests of basic staples, especially wheat, leading to a spike in prices for these crops. The
spike was short lived, in part because of ample availability in global wheat inventories
and because the Russian Federation and Ukraine have only minor shares in global wheat
trade. Speculation in wheat markets thus seems to have had a strong influence on grain


Financial market trends
are exacerbating the
volatility in food and other
commodity prices




22 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


prices in the third quarter of 2010. On the demand side, emerging economies continue
to account for much of the growth for major crops during 2010-2012. Nonetheless, also
in the outlook for 2011 and 2012, food prices will remain vulnerable to any supply shock
and speculative response in commodity derivatives markets. The latter uncertainty applies
to all commodity markets as a result of their increased “financialization”,10 which has also
enhanced the influence of exchange-rate fluctuations on commodity price volatility.


Declining remittances


The global financial crisis also triggered a visible decline in worker remittances to developing
countries and economies in transition, from $336 billion in 2008 to $315 billion in 2009.
This 6 per cent drop presents a relatively small shock for developing countries as a whole
(0.1 per cent of their combined GDP), but the impact differs significantly across regions
and countries (table I.3). Countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, Central Asia and
Eastern Europe were hardest hit. The most severe impact was experienced in Kyrgyzstan,
the Republic of Moldova and Tajikistan, where the decline in remittance income repre-
sented between 8 and 16 per cent of GDP. In several Central American and Caribbean
countries, including Haiti, the impact ranged from between 1 and 2 per cent of GDP,
while in South-eastern European countries it was between 2 and 3 per cent. Remittance
incomes in these regions were strongly affected by rising unemployment among migrant
workers in the Russian Federation, Western Europe and the United States.


In South Asia, in contrast, remittance flows increased as dependence on mi-
gration to Western Asia proved to be a stabilizing factor during the crisis, especially as
construction activities in the Gulf States remained robust. As a result, worker remittances


10 See Chapter II and United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), Trade and
Development Report 2009: Responding to the global crisis (United Nations publication, Sales No.
E.09.II.D.16), for further discussion.


Table I.3
Growth of worker remittances to developing countries and economies in transition, 2004-2009


Percentage


2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009


Impact of crisisa
(percentage


of GDP)


Remittances
as a share


of GDP


All developing countries 17.3 21.0 18.4 23.1 15.9 -6.0 -0.1 1.9


Least developed countries 12.8 10.3 18.4 23.9 31.2 7.6 0.4 5.0
Low-income countries 15.3 21.5 23.9 24.0 29.4 1.0 0.1 6.8
Lower middle income countries 12.4 22.6 18.6 29.2 19.7 -2.7 -0.1 2.5
Upper middle income countries 25.9 18.6 16.8 13.3 5.7 -14.9 -0.2 1.1
East Asia and the Pacific 23.4 25.1 14.2 23.8 20.7 -0.4 0.0 1.5
Europe and Central Asia 49.1 43.6 24.1 36.0 13.3 -20.7 -0.3 1.4
Latin America and the Caribbean 17.9 15.8 18.1 6.9 2.1 -12.3 -0.2 1.5
Middle East and North Africa 13.2 8.4 4.6 21.4 9.8 -8.1 -0.3 3.1
South Asia -5.5 18.2 25.3 27.1 32.6 4.9 0.2 4.7
Sub-Saharan Africa 34.5 16.4 34.8 48.5 14.1 -2.7 -0.1 2.3


Source: World Bank, Development Prospects Group.
a Calculated as the proportion of remittances in GDP in 2008 times the growth rate of remittances in 2009.




23Global outlook


to Bangladesh, Nepal and Pakistan actually increased, and were also a factor in keeping up
resource flows to the Philippines in East Asia and to several African countries.


Exchange-rate effects also had a bearing on flows, with the depreciation of
the Russian rouble affecting remittance flows to Central Asian and Eastern European
countries, especially during the first half of 2009. Depreciation of national currencies in
the Philippines and other South Asian countries, in contrast, appears not only to have
increased the domestic value of remittances, but also to have provided an incentive for
migrants to buy long-term assets at home.11


As a result of these diverging patterns, remittance incomes to low-income
countries proved resilient during the crisis, while mostly middle-income countries saw an
adverse shock. In the outlook, some rebound in remittance flows may be expected during
2010-2012 but, given the persistent high unemployment in important recipient countries
of migratory flows as well as rising anti-immigrant sentiments in those countries, the
rebound will be weak at best. Increased exchange-rate instability, as discussed below, poses
a risk to the rebound and stability of remittance flows in the outlook.


Uncertainties and risks
Key uncertainties and risks to the baseline scenario for 2011 and 2012 remain on the
downside. A much weaker recovery of the world economy is far from a remote possibility,
especially as continued high unemployment, financial fragility, enhanced perceptions of
sovereign debt distress and inadequate policy responses could further undermine business
and consumer confidence in the developed countries. For the dynamic developing countries
and economies in transition, the recent surge in capital inflows is posing challenges to
growth and stability, especially in the form of currency appreciation and risk of domestic
credit and asset price bubbles. These challenges are closely related to the financial weak-
nesses and policy stances in developed countries. Further large-scale quantitative easing in
the United States is likely to push down the value of the dollar and send even more money
flowing into the faster-growing economies of Asia and Latin America, where rates of return
are higher. Heightened tensions over currency and trade have already led to defensive inter-
ventions in emerging market economies in efforts to keep exchange rates competitive and to
curb the flow of capital into their economies. Such tensions are compounding the increased
volatility in exchange rates among the major reserve currencies which emerged during 2010
as a result of uncoordinated quantitative easing strategies in Europe, Japan and the United
States. Failure to arrive at more coordinated policy responses aimed at a more benign global
rebalancing will put the process of economic recovery and the stability of financial markets
at further risk. The importance of each of these risks is weighed below.


Risks associated with sovereign debt and fiscal austerity


The dire outlook of the global economy in the second half of 2008 propagated unprec-
edented fiscal expansion in most developed economies and several developing countries.
Arguably, the fiscal stimulus and coordinated monetary expansion stabilized the global


11 See Dilip Ratha, Sanket Mohapatra and Ani Silwal, “Migration and Development Brief”, No. 12,
(Washington, D. C.: World Bank, Development Prospects Group, April 2010). Available from
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPROSPECTS/Resources/334934-1110315015165/
MigrationAndDevelopmentBrief12.pdf.


The rebound in worker
remittances will likely be
weak in 2011-2012


Early retreat to fiscal
austerity, enhanced
exchange-rate volatility and
weaker policy coordination
pose major downside
risks to the recovery




24 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


economy in the aftermath of the financial meltdown in the United States, preventing
employment collapses of the type experienced during the Great Depression. Despite a still
fragile recovery, the sense of urgency and the will to move fiscal and monetary policies in
tandem dissipated during 2010 over worries that fiscal sustainability, especially in devel-
oped countries, was in jeopardy. The sovereign debt distress in several Southern European
countries became a source of global financial turmoil in early 2010 and also led to greater
concerns among policymakers that further increases in public debt might lead to higher
interest rates down the road, increasing the debt-service burden and crowding out private
investment. The response to these concerns is already evident in the form of fiscal austerity
plans, especially in European countries. Further quantitative easing in the form of central
bank purchases of government securities has been the answer to keep interest rates low.
Such policy responses are raising concerns at the other end of the spectrum: there are fears
that the phasing out of fiscal stimulus and a quick retreat to fiscal austerity would risk
further deceleration of the recovery, prolong high unemployment and be self-defeating,
and that budget deficits and public debt ratios as a share of GDP would continue to rise
because of insufficient output growth and despite the fiscal tightening. How should these
two sides of the coin be assessed in the present-day context?


First, it is clear that budget deficits have widened sharply and that public debt
will increase further in the near term. The average deficit for developed economies soared
to 10 per cent of GDP by the end of 2009, with public debt reaching over 80 per cent.
The deficit is estimated to decline to about 9 per cent in 2010, mainly on account of the
phasing-out of the government spending associated with the bailout of the financial sector
in the United States. Many developed economies continued to experience deficit increases.
The projected deficits for 2011 suggest an improvement by 1 percentage point of GDP,
premised on continued GDP growth as delineated in the baseline, smooth implementa-
tion of announced fiscal consolidation plans and accommodative capital markets. Under
conservative assumptions, the public debt of developed countries will continue to increase,
surpassing 100 per cent of GDP, on average, in the next few years.


It should be emphasized, however, that while fiscal stimulus measures may
have added to the widening of budget deficits and rising debt burdens, the impact of the
crisis itself (in particular through lower tax revenues) has had the greatest bearing on
projected future public debt ratios.12


The second question is whether this situation is likely to cause rapid upward-
spiralling debt growth as perceptions of emerging debt stress push up interest rates (as well
as risk premium) on government securities, thereby putting greater pressure on deficits
to widen and on public debt to increase. These kinds of dynamics have clearly affected
Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and several economies in Eastern Europe, countries that
still have a relatively limited tax capacity, making the vicious forces at work more power-
ful. Yet, despite these experiences, evidence that there would also be strong dynamics
between public indebtedness and the cost of servicing the debt in developed countries
is scanty. During the present crisis, real interest rates have remained low and have even
seen a decline despite mounting public debt in the United States, the major economies of
the euro area and Japan. There is also not much historical evidence to support the claim


12 The IMF estimates that only about 20 per cent of the projected increase in public debt of the
developed countries belonging to the Group of Twenty (G20) is due to fiscal stimulus measures
and financial rescue operations undertaken in response to the crisis. Revenue loss explains about
half of the debt increase, and debt dynamics another 20 per cent. See IMF, “Navigating the fiscal
challenges ahead”, Fiscal Monitor, 14 May 2010, p. 14. Available from http://www.imf.org/external/
pubs/ft/fm/2010/fm1001.pdf.


Public debt of developed
countries will rise to over


100 per cent of GDP…


…but in most countries
the cost of higher debt


remains very low




25Global outlook


for such dynamics to emerge under all circumstances. The most glaring example may be
Japan, where public debt has soared to 200 per cent of GDP during two decades of defla-
tion and low interest rates since the late 1980s. Further back in history, the level of public
debt in the United States increased to over 100 per cent of GDP at the end of the Second
World War without inducing a major increase in interest rates. Several studies on public
finances in the United States found no significant relationship between debt-to-GDP ra-
tios and inflation or interest rates over the period 1946-2008.13


A study prepared for this report traced the flow cost of servicing the public debt
in developed countries in the present-day context.14 It finds that the cost of public debt in
the United States and the major economies of the euro area has remained very low so far.
Figure I.7 reports the average flow cost of the projected debt burden (measured as the dif-
ference between the real interest rate on debt and GDP growth) of 26 developed countries,
using IMF projections of public debt-to-GDP by 2015. It also shows the cost of public debt


13 See Alessandro Missale and Olivier Jean Blanchard, “The debt burden and debt maturity”, American
Economic Review, vol. 84, No. 1 (March), pp. 309-319; and, Joshua Aizenman and Nancy P. Marion,
“Using inflation to erode the U.S. public debt”, NBER Working Paper, No. 15562 (Cambridge,
Massachusetts: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2009).


14 See Joshua Aizenman and Yothin Jinjarak, “The role of fiscal policy in response to the financial
crisis”, background paper for the World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011, available from
http://www.un.org/esa/policy/index.html. The argument in the text is based on a commonly used
measure of fiscal burden; that is to say, a measure of the funding flow needed to keep public debt-
to-GDP constant. Specifically, the public debt-to-GDP ratio, d, would grow over time at a rate equal
to the gap between the real interest rate on the debt, r, minus the growth rate of the economy,
g, assuming a primary fiscal balance of zero. The gap (r – g) can be referred to as the flow cost of
public debt. The fiscal burden associated with a given public debt-to-GDP ratio, d, equals (r-g)*d.
Consequently, annual taxes of (r-g)*d (as a fraction of the GDP) assures that public debt-to-GDP
would remain stable over time as long as the primary fiscal balance is zero.


Figure I.7
Historical best case, worst case and average scenarios for the general
government gross debt burden, selected developed economies


Projected 2015 debt/GDP


0


5


-5


-25


-20


-15


-10


10


15
-to-GDP


Ja
pa


n


Ire
la


nd


Po
rt


ug
al


Sl
ov


ak
ia


U
ni


te
d


Ki
ng


do
m


Au
st


ria
a


Sw
itz


er
la


nd


Ca
na


da


Au
st


ra
lia


N
et


he
rla


nd
s


Po
la


nd


H
un


ga
ry


U
ni


te
d


St
at


es


Be
lg


iu
m


Fr
an


ce


Cz
ec


h
Re


pu
bl


ic


Sp
ai


n


N
or


w
ay


N
ew


Z
ea


la
nd


Sw
ed


en


G
er


m
an


y


D
en


m
ar


k


Fi
nl


an
d


Ira
ly


G
re


ec
e


Best case


Worst case


Average over best and worst cases


Source: Aizenman and Jinajarak,
“The role of fiscal policy in
response to the financial crisis”.
Note: The gross debt burden
representing the lowest flow
costs is calculated by taking
an average of the two lowest
values of the difference (r-g) and
multiplying it with the projected
debt-to-GDP ratio. For countries
for which flow costs for less than
four periods are available, the
single highest and lowest costs
are used.
a Real rates for Austria are based
on the average return on bonds
with maturities greater than one
year for 1970-1982, and with a
9-10 year maturity for 1983-2010.
Real rates for all other countries
are the real rates on the maturity
closest to the most recent
average maturity of general
government debt in table 2. The
growth rate of the GDP deflator
was used to convert nominal
interest rates to real rates.




26 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


under the historical worst- and best-case scenarios during the last four decades. Intriguingly,
for most countries, the flow cost of servicing the debt is below 2 per cent of GDP, except
for Greece, Italy and Finland. For most of the developed countries, including the United
States, the projected expected public debt burden is zero or negative. The country with
the greatest uncertainty in the future debt burden is Japan, followed by Greece, Belgium,
Ireland, France and Canada. The United States has the eleventh highest uncertainty in
terms of (worst-best) scenarios. While most countries that have low projected debt ratios
occupy the lower end of the scale, that is to say, they have lower uncertainty in future debt
burdens, this uncertainty does not increase monotonically with the size of the projected
debt. For instance, the projected debt of the United States for 2015 is higher than that of
seven countries that face a much greater uncertainty in future debt burden.


From this perspective, one could conclude that, insofar as future growth de-
pends on short-term stabilization during or in the aftermath of a financial crash and a
deep recession, the additional debt incurred for such stabilization may not translate into
excessively high medium-term flow costs of public debt for an important part of the de-
veloped countries. This finding should not be used as an excuse for fiscal complacency, as
it remains true that the degree of uncertainty of the future debt burden likely increases
with the size of the future public debt-to-GDP ratios. This is illustrated by looking at the
worst-case fiscal scenario in figure I.7, in which permanent low growth would likely create
onerous debt burdens in most developed countries. The flow cost of the debt burden in the
United States would climb to above average, at 3.9 per cent of GDP, while Greece’s would
rise to about 12.4 per cent of GDP.


These findings highlight that the risk of triggering vicious public debt dynamics
depends critically on the growth scenario. A focus on belt-tightening today, which would
slow and delay economic recovery, could well trigger such a vicious circle. Developed
countries with less fiscal space that already have high public debt ratios and flow costs may
see few options but to engage in fiscal consolidation, but they would risk entering into
vicious debt dynamics anyway if the consequent demand contraction cannot be offset by
other sources of growth, including export growth, which would require demand expan-
sion elsewhere.


Third, the higher projected growth for developing countries implies that the
flow costs of public debt are lower, increasing their fiscal space. Emerging markets with
modest public debt may benefit by using this fiscal space to accommodate the adjustment
challenges associated with lower demand in developed countries. The flow costs of public
debt in several fast-growing emerging markets and developing countries are actually very
low or even negative, reflecting the high growth and low real interest rates of recent years
(figure I.8). In particular, since 2000, a high rate of growth, coupled with relatively low
levels of public debt and large domestic savings, have allowed the Governments of develop-
ing countries in Asia and Latin America to build up local-currency bond issuance and ex-
tend the maturity of their public debt. Indeed, the negative flow cost of public debt is most
evident in Asia. However, the notion of fiscal space is country-specific and countries with
better adjustment capacities, lower debt overhang and a greater tax base tend to possess
more of it. Low-income countries tend to have weaker tax bases and hence significantly
less fiscal space.15 As a result, their scope for counter-cyclical policies depends to a greater
degree on inflows of development assistance.


In sum, continued slow GDP growth in developed economies will have
significant implications for fiscal sustainability. If the ongoing trend of deceleration in


15 See Aizenman and Jinjarak, ibid., for comparative estimates.


Fiscal austerity that
dampens growth poses


the greatest threat for the
emergence of public


debt distress


Developing countries grow
faster and have more


fiscal space




27Global outlook


0


0.01


0.02


0.03


0.04


0.05


0.06


0.07


0.08


0.09 Brazil


20
00


20
01


20
02


20
03


20
04


20
05


20
06


20
07


20
08


20
09


India


20
00


20
01


20
02


20
03


20
04


20
05


20
06


20
07


20
08


20
09


-0.06


-0.04


-0.02


0


0.02


Mexico


20
00


20
01


20
02


20
03


20
04


20
05


20
06


20
07


20
08


20
09


-0.04


-0.02


0


0.02


0.04


China


20
00


20
01


20
02


20
03


20
04


20
05


20
06


20
07


20
08


20
09


-0.04


-0.03


-0.02


-0.01


0


Republic of Korea


20
00


20
01


20
02


20
03


20
04


20
05


20
06


20
07


20
08


20
09


-0.015


-0.01


-0.005


0


Figure I.8
Flow costs of public debt, selected emerging and other developing countries, 2000-2009
(percentage of GDP)


Thailand


20
00


20
01


20
02


20
03


20
04


20
05


20
06


20
07


20
08


20
09


-0.02


0


0.02


0.04


Source: Aizenman and Jinajarak, “The role of fiscal policy in response to the financial crisis”.




28 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


global growth continues, leading to significantly lower growth than the baseline, or even a
double-dip recession in some developed economies, the fiscal position of these economies
would deteriorate further. At the same time, in the present context, global growth is af-
fected by waning fiscal stimulus. Additional fiscal austerity will weaken growth further.
In developed countries, GDP growth will fall, on average, by about 1 percentage point
per 1 per cent of GDP decline in government spending. Such fiscal retrenchment among
advanced economies would spill over to developing countries and lower their growth by
0.3 percentage points.16


Government balances in a number of European economies are especially vul-
nerable to lower GDP growth, as they are, too, in Japan. In the outlook, Governments of
many advanced economies will face large and increasing funding needs, the cost of which
will be highly vulnerable to changes in market sentiment. If sovereign risk premiums in
capital markets continue to surge, they will jeopardize market access for some of these
countries, as has been seen in the cases of Greece and a few other countries in 2010. The
risk does not seem to be a major concern in most developed economies, which still have
fiscal space and should be more concerned with protracted low growth. They should, how-
ever, be wary of the risk of enhanced financial fragility because of the way in which public
indebtedness became linked to the health of the banking sector during the crisis. On the
one hand, Governments have guaranteed vast amounts of bank liabilities, and in some
cases have taken partial ownership of banks; on the other, banks, stashed with cash, have
been purchasing large amounts of government securities at home and abroad. As a result,
a heightened risk for the financial health of any of these two parties will feed throughout
the other, possibly forming a vicious circle that could amplify the risk into the whole
economy. For example, higher sovereign credit spreads for some countries could push up
bank spreads, increasing financing needs for Governments and banks alike.


Risk of increased exchange-rate instability


The exchange rates among major currencies experienced extremely high volatility during
2010, with an escalated tension spreading rapidly to other currencies. The volatility in
the first half of 2010 featured the sharp devaluation of the euro, triggered by heightened
concerns about sovereign debt in a number of European economies. Between the begin-
ning of the year and June, the euro depreciated by about 20 per cent against the United
States dollar and the Japanese yen (figure I.9). The tide in foreign-exchange markets has
since reversed, however, featuring a sharp weakness of the dollar driven by the deteriorat-
ing growth prospects for the United States, along with, as indicated above, the anticipated
need for further quantitative easing, that is to say, for further printing of the dollar. As a
result, the euro rebounded by nearly 20 per cent vis-à-vis the dollar, while the yen hit a
15-year high against the dollar, engendering intervention by the Japanese Government in
foreign-exchange markets.


The announcement of large-scale purchases of government securities by the
United States Federal Reserve (Fed) might be a source of further nervousness in global


16 These estimates are based on a simulation using the United Nations World Economic Forecasting
Model, assuming an additional, across-the-board 1 per cent cut in government spending in
Europe and the United States in comparison with the baseline. The implied average growth
elasticity of fiscal expenditures of about 1 for the first-year effect is approximately the mean of
that reflected in other global models or macroeconomic models of individual major developed
countries.


Exchange-rate volatility
among major currencies


has caused tensions
worldwide


A weakening dollar is
raising concerns in Europe


and elsewhere




29Global outlook


financial markets in the near term.17 The prospect of further weakening of the dollar has
already raised concerns, especially in Europe, as it would dampen hopes of an export-led
recovery in countries like Greece, Ireland, Spain and the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland, who need to offset the negative demand effects from fiscal austerity.
But it will also affect growth in Germany, which is strongly export-oriented, unless that
country manages to stimulate domestic demand.


The failure to maintain exchange-rate stability among the three major inter-
national reserve currencies has also affected currencies of emerging economies. The surge
in capital inflows to emerging economies, fuelled by the quantitative easing in developed
countries and portfolio reallocation by international investors, as well as by the weakening
of the dollar, has led to upward pressure on the exchange rates of some emerging econo-
mies. For example, Brazil’s real appreciated by about 10 per cent vis-à-vis the currencies of
its trading partners in 2010, while the Republic of Korea and South Africa also saw their
exchange rates strengthen significantly in the third quarter of 2010 (figure I.10).


Developing countries have responded by intervening in currency markets, buy-
ing foreign exchange and/or imposing capital controls in order to avoid soaring exchange
rates, loss of competitiveness and inflating asset bubbles. Brazil, for instance, tripled the
tax rate on foreign purchases of its domestic debt, while Thailand announced a 15 per cent
withholding tax for such purchases. China has received continuous political pressure to
revalue its currency further, but has resisted making major adjustments out of concern for
possible disruptive effects on its economy.


17 The Fed announced on 3 November 2010 that it would purchase an additional $600 billion in
long-term United States government securities by June 2011. This is, however, far less than the
$1.75 trillion worth of debt the Fed bought between early 2009 and early 2010 in its first round of
quantitative easing.


Figure I.9
Exchange rates among major currencies, March-October 2010


Inverted scale, dollars per euro and dollars per 100 yen
1.00


1.05


1.10


1.15


1.20


1.25


1.30


1.35


1.40


1.45


1.50


1
M


ar
2


01
0


1
Ap


r 2
01


0


1
M


ay
2


01
0


1
Ju


n
20


10


1
Ju


l 2
01


0


1
Au


g
20


10


1
Se


p
20


10


1
O


ct
2


01
0


Dollar to yen


Dollar to euro


Source: United States Federal
Reserve Board.




30 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


Currency instability and perceived misalignment of exchange rates could be-
come part of a major skirmish over trade, which may well turn into a wave of protection-
ist measures and retaliations worldwide. It remains to be seen whether this will actually
transpire, but clearly, the unpredictability of exchange rates risks derailing global growth
and destabilizing financial markets once again.


Risks of an uncoordinated rebalancing
of the world economy


The risks associated with uncoordinated fiscal and monetary policies and the large swings
in exchange rates are not only slower global growth but also a widening of the global
imbalances, which in turn could feed more instability back into financial markets.


The global imbalances narrowed markedly along with the global recession (fig-
ure I.11). The large external deficit of the United States declined from its peak of 6 per cent
of GDP before the recession to a trough of 2.7 per cent in 2009. Commensurately, the
external surpluses in China, Germany, Japan and a group of fuel-exporting countries, have
also reduced. China’s surplus, for instance, dropped from a high of 10 per cent of GDP
to 6 per cent in the same period. Related changes were also made in domestic savings and
investment in these economies. In the United States, the household savings rate increased
from about 2 per cent in 2007 to 5.9 per cent in 2009, although a large part of the increase
in private savings was offset by the rise in the budget deficit. In China, the ratio of private
consumption to GDP started to rise for the first time in a decade, although it remains
extremely low, below 40 per cent, compared with that of between 60 and 70 per cent in
most other major economies.


Figure I.10
Trade-weighted effective exchange rates, selected countries, March-October 2010


Index, average for 2009=100


1
M


ar
2


01
0


15
M


ar
2


01
0


29
M


ar
2


01
0


12
A


pr
2


01
0


26
A


pr
2


01
0


10
M


ay
2


01
0


24
M


ay
2


01
0


7
Ju


n
20


10


21
Ju


n
20


10


5
Ju


l 2
01


0


19
Ju


l 2
01


0


2
Au


g
20


10


16
A


ug
2


01
0


30
A


ug
2


01
0


13
S


ep
2


01
0


27
S


ep
2


01
0


95


100


105


110


115


120


125


Source: UN/DESA
calculations, based on


J.P. Morgan data.


Brazil


South Africa


Republic of Korea


Russian Federation


China




31Global outlook


In 2010, the global imbalances widened again along with the global recovery.
The external deficit of the United States increased slightly to above 3 per cent of GDP,
while surpluses of fuel-exporting countries and those of Germany and Japan widened,
somewhat. China’s external surplus, while increasing in absolute terms, continued to
decline relative to its GDP (to 4 per cent). At these levels, the global imbalances may be
considered moderate compared with those prior to the crisis. A critical issue is whether the
global imbalances will widen again substantially in the coming years and compound the
above-mentioned risk factors, thus endangering global growth and stability.


In the near-term outlook, pressure on the imbalances to widen in flow terms
does not seem excessively great, but the forces that could lead to a narrowing of the imbal-
ances are equally weak. Households in the deficit countries, mainly the United States, are
not expected to resume the debt-financed expansion of consumption quickly, and further
widening of the government deficit relative to GDP is likely to be politically constrained.
With a mild growth in demand from the deficit countries, room for an increase of the
external surpluses in the surplus countries will also be small.


The prospects of narrowing the imbalances in the longer run will depend on
how successful economies will be in making structural adjustments. Changes in the right
direction are visible in both deficit and surplus countries. For example, China has taken
various measures to boost private consumption, reducing its dependence on exports. But
it will take a long time before a more significant structural change is achieved that will
also make a global impact. Such structural change would also entail important sectoral
shifts and institutional change, which will take time to effectuate. Household savings in
the United States have increased as a result of more cautious consumption behaviour and
ongoing deleveraging of household balance sheets.


The global imbalances
are widening again, albeit
moderately


Figure I.11
Resurge in global imbalances, 1996-2011


Current-account balances as a percentage of world gross producta


-3


-2


-1


0


1


2


3


2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011


Source: UN/DESA, based
on data from IMF World
Economic Outlook Database.
a Summation of each


country’s GDP.


Fuel-exporting countries


East Asia


Germany and Japan


United States


European deficit countries


Others




32 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


Uncertainties remain regarding the future path of these adjustments,
particularly given the unknown quantity of how the risks of a further slowing of growth
and the persistence of high rates of unemployment, sovereign debt problems and further
exchange-rate instability will play out. A weaker dollar would certainly increase the com-
petitiveness of United States exports, which could help reduce the economy’s large external
deficit. However, as discussed, the factors underlying the weakening of the dollar also
point to much greater unpredictability and volatility in exchange rates which would be
harmful for trade. Clearly, without more effective international policy coordination that
recognizes the interconnectedness between these problems, the risk of a disorderly adjust-
ment in the global imbalances remains high.


Even if the global imbalances do not edge up strongly in the outlook, the un-
derlying adjustment in stocks of international asset and liability positions would continue
to move in a risky direction. Continued external deficits add further to the net external
liability position of the United States. The global financial crisis caused a surge in the
country’s net foreign liabilities, which reached a record high of $3.5 trillion by the end
of 2008 (figure I.12). They declined somewhat during 2009, to a level of $2.7 trillion,
strongly influenced by the recovery in asset prices and the depreciation of the United
States dollar in the second half of the year. This also increased the value of the assets held
abroad by the United States by more than that of the country’s foreign liabilities.18


Further quantitative easing and a further depreciation of the dollar could be
a way for the United States to try to inflate and export its way out of its large foreign
liability position, but it could more likely risk disruption of trade and financial markets.
Expectations for a further and sustained weakening of the dollar could sour foreign inves-
tors’ attraction to dollar-denominated assets. This, in turn, could spur an exodus of capital


18 For more information, see the United States Bureau of Economic Analysis, available from http://
www.bea.gov/international/index.htm#iip.


The ever-increasing foreign
liability position of the


United States will put
further downward pressure


on the dollar


Figure I.12
Net international investment position of the United States, 1976-2009


Billions of US dollars


-3 500


-3 000


-2 500


-2 000


-1 500


-1 000


-500


0


500


19
76


19
78


19
80


19
82


19
84


19
86


19
88


19
90


19
92


19
94


19
96


19
98


20
00


20
02


20
04


20
06


20
08


Source: U.S. Department
of Commerce, Bureau of


Economic Analysis.




33Global outlook


out of the United States and also cut the influx of international capital into United States
markets. Even the temporary appreciation of the dollar after mid-2008 did not prevent a
sharp decline in the net inflow of foreign investment funds into the United States, reflect-
ing concerns about the United States economy. If international investors start to avoid
dollar-denominated financial assets, it would be natural for the influx of liquidity into
financial markets outside the United States to increase. It would also be likely to spill over
into more price instability in commodity markets given the high degree of financialization
of those markets and the impact of exchange rates (especially the value of the dollar) on
commodity prices (see chapter II).


Moreover, for countries trying to export their way out of the global slump, dol-
lar weakness poses a threat because it will increase import prices in the United States, the
world’s largest consumer market, and thus erode purchasing power. A decline in United
States’ household demand for imported goods could lead to a decline in global trade. It
would be the antithesis of the United States consumption boom that fuelled global eco-
nomic growth before the financial crisis. Accordingly, if concerns grow about exports’ be-
ing hit by dollar weakness, affected developing countries will understandably feel inclined
to intervene in their foreign-exchange markets, as is already happening. However, frequent
intervention in foreign-exchange markets by emerging economies increases the potential
for international currency and trade conflicts. If the unnecessary political confrontations
surrounding the issue of foreign-exchange rates continue to deepen, they could further un-
dermine the international cooperation shaped at the level of the Group of Twenty (G20),
which has spearheaded the global economic recovery. Commitment to coordinated policy
responses has already suffered over disagreements regarding the role of fiscal policy in the
context of a slowing recovery and mounting public indebtedness, as manifested at the
G20 Summit in Toronto in July 2010, and the uncoordinated retreats to fiscal austerity
and further monetary easing, and have resulted in greater global economic uncertainty,
as discussed above. The Seoul Summit of the G20, held on 11 and 12 November 2010,
recognized the currency risks and the need for national macroeconomic policies to take ac-
count of international spillover effects, but it failed to offer any specifics for a coordinated
solution. A further waning of the commitment to international policy coordination will be
an added liability to the prospects for a balanced and more sustained global recovery.


Policy challenges
Overcoming the risks outlined above and reinvigorating the global recovery in a balanced
and sustainable manner poses enormous policy challenges. Doing so has become even
more challenging, given that the sense of urgency and the will to coordinate policies that
existed during the peak of the crisis seems to have unravelled. The risks enhance uncer-
tainty in the global economy and that, in itself, may well contribute to a further slowdown.
Business and consumer confidence may be further restrained against the backdrop of
continued high unemployment, the anticipation that further quantitative easing in the
United States will do little to boost aggregate demand but will further weaken the dollar,
and the expected growth costs of fiscal consolidation in major economies.


According to an alternative simulation using the United Nations World
Economic Forecasting Model (WEFM) (see box I.4), in this more pessimistic scenario
of greater uncertainty, but with an unchanged fiscal and monetary stance in developed
economies, Europe could well see a double-dip recession, while the economies of the
United States and Japan might virtually stagnate and possibly also fall back into recession


A waning commitment
to international policy
coordination poses a
further threat to global
growth and stability


Further uncertainty and
unchanged policies
may lead to a double-
dip recession in major
developed economies




34 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


A pessimistic scenario for the world economy


Risks arising from macroeconomic uncertainty clearly increased during 2010. Concerns are that the
global recovery is losing steam and that the present poorly coordinated policy stances may be inad-
equate for reinvigorating growth and could be a source of renewed instability.


A pessimistic scenario was simulated using the United Nations World Economic
Forecasting Model (WEFM), in order to quantify the possible implications for global growth if some
downside risks, as discussed in the body of the chapter, were to become a present danger. The
scenario delineates a situation in which greater macroeconomic uncertainty would cause a further
weakening of growth in developed economies, dragging down growth of the world economy as a
whole. Specifically, it is assumed that the prospect of fiscal consolidation and continued weakness in
financial institutions, especially the banks, in the United States of America and the countries of the
European Union (EU) would make them even more risk-averse in their lending to households and
businesses, while higher uncertainty among unemployed workers of finding a job in the near future
is assumed to hamper private consumption demand more severely than in the baseline. It is assumed
further that the sovereign debt problems of some EU members will start to agitate financial markets
again, thereby aggravating the difficulties facing the banking sector and depressing confidence more
generally. On the policy front, the monetary policy stance, in terms of quantitative easing, would be
the same as that assumed in the baseline scenario, but in the pessimistic scenario it is assumed that
its anticipated effects on aggregate demand and employment would be even smaller. Fiscal policy
stances, particularly the fiscal consolidation plans of developed economies, are also unaltered with
respect to the baseline assumptions, but with greater uncertainty, the adverse impact of the fiscal
consolidation on aggregate demand will be larger.


Under these assumptions, private consumption, business investment, the housing
sector and import demand in major developed economies would all be significantly weaker than
in the baseline. For example, in the United States, consumption growth would decelerate from 1.6
per cent in 2010 to 0.5 per cent in 2011 and 2012, compared with the more than 2 per cent growth
in the baseline outlook. Growth in business investment would slow to 1.8 per cent in 2011, down
from 6.4 per cent in the baseline. The housing sector, as measured by residential investment, would
continue to contract by another 5 per cent instead of rebounding as in the baseline. Overall, gross
domestic product (GDP) growth in the United States would come to a virtual standstill in 2011 and
then rise to 1.1 per cent in 2012, 2 percentage points lower than in the baseline forecast. A slowdown
of similar magnitude is expected in private consumption and business investment in the EU, where
GDP would fall by 0.4 per cent in 2011, followed by a feeble recovery of 1.4 per cent in 2012. In Japan,
much weaker export growth, combined with a faltering domestic demand, would cause renewed
stagnation of the economy, with GDP growing by a mere 0.4 per cent in 2011 and by 0.9 per cent in
2012 (see table).


Pessimistic scenario for the world economy, 2011-2012


Percentage annual growth rate


Baseline forecast Pessimistic scenario


2011 2012 2011 2012


World GDP growth rate 3.1 3.5 1.7 2.3
Developed economies 1.9 2.3 0.1 1.1
Economies in transition 4.0 4.2 3.6 3.5
Developing economies 6.0 6.1 5.3 5.1
Least developed economies 5.5 5.7 5.3 5.2


Memorandum item:


World trade volume
(goods and non-factor services) 6.6 6.5 5.1 4.5


Source: UN/DESA.


Box I.4




35Global outlook


during 2011. Growth in the developed countries would be almost 2 percentage points
lower in 2011 than in the baseline forecast, and this would also significantly lower growth
prospects for developing countries (by almost 1 percentage point).


There have been contentious policy discussions in the political constituencies
of a number of key countries regarding the future role of fiscal stimulus and tax poli-
cies, and among countries about exchange-rate realignments. For instance, facing close to
double-digit unemployment, stagnating employment rates and the uncertainty regarding
the strength of the economic recovery—particularly as there seems to be no end in sight
for the continued sizeable foreclosures—the United States has been vigorously debating
the case for a second federal fiscal stimulus package. But the likelihood of new fiscal
stimulus has evaporated following the election results of November 2010. Meanwhile,
the Greek crisis has shaken confidence in many developed economies and has propagated
doubts about the fiscal soundness of several European countries. Gaps between France,
which has a more pro-fiscal stimulus stance, and Germany, which has advocated more
fiscal consolidation and belt-tightening, are indicative of differences in policy perspectives
within Europe. In addition, the stronger automatic stabilizers and broader social security
provisions in Europe in comparison with the United States has led to further complica-
tions as not all countries share the impetus for fiscal stimulus that continues to prevail
in some quarters in the United States. Indeed, several countries already embarked upon
fiscal retrenchment in 2010, while others have announced plans to do so in 2011. This is
making the task of coordinating fiscal policy between Europe and the United States much
harder. It is also making it harder to arrive at a national consensus on whether to start
fiscal consolidation sooner or later.


At the same time, monetary and exchange-rate policies have become issues of
contention across countries. China’s resistance to let its currency appreciate faster has been
blamed for hampering the adjustment of global imbalances; China and other emerging
economies, on the other hand, view excessive quantitative easing, especially in the United
States, as a greater source of distortion in the global economy, and one that has been


For a balanced and
sustainable global recovery,
five policy challenges need
to be addressed


Growth prospects for developing countries and economies in transition will be hurt by
a further slowdown in developed countries. This analysis accounts for the impact through the trade
channel only. The dependence of these economies on demand from major developed economies
remains high, as more than 50 per cent of their exports are still destined for developed economies.
Consequently, cumulative GDP growth of developing countries would be 1.7 percentage points
lower in the two years of the forecasting period compared with the baseline. Some Asian and Latin
American economies would be hit harder because of greater trade dependence on demand growth
in major developed economies.


Global economic growth would slow to 1.7 per cent in 2011 and 2.3 per cent in 2012,
compared with 3.1 per cent and 3.5 per cent, respectively, in the baseline.


Because of certain limitations of the WEFM, particularly the lack of a detailed specifica-
tion of international financial linkages and contagion effects in financial sectors, the scenario does
not consider all the risk factors discussed in the body of the chapter. If the increased exchange-rate
volatility and the spillover effects into commodity prices were accounted for, for instance, the out-
comes would likely be even gloomier. At the same time, however, worsening economic prospects
could trigger shifts in policy stances; for example, some developed economies might postpone fiscal
consolidation plans, which could mitigate a further slowdown. The purpose of the analysis in this
scenario is to show to what extent increased uncertainty, caused by the downside risks, would further
harm growth given the present macroeconomic policy positions.


Box I.4 (cont’d)




36 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


causing exchange-rate volatility among major reserve currencies and a flood of short-term
and volatile capital to flow their way and put upward pressure on their own currencies.
These policy quarrels reflect differences in perspective regarding the role of policies as
well as more fundamental problems in the world economy, which can only be overcome
through a common and coordinated approach. Given existing discrepancies, reaching a
more common understanding and approach may seem difficult. But recognition that the
world economy is still fragile and that current uncoordinated policy stances risk adding
insult to injury, as analysed above, should suffice to motivate and forcefully seek coordi-
nated solutions. Moving towards a more balanced and sustainable global recovery would
require addressing at least five related major policy challenges. The first is to provide ad-
ditional fiscal stimulus, by using the existing fiscal space available in many countries, and
to coordinate it to the degree needed to ensure a reinvigoration of global growth that will
also provide external demand for those economies which have exhausted their fiscal space.
The second is to redesign fiscal stimulus and other economic policies to lend a stronger ori-
entation towards measures that directly support job growth, reduce income inequality and
strengthen sustainable production capacity on the supply side. The third challenge is to
find greater synergy between fiscal and monetary stimulus, while counteracting damaging
international spillover effects in the form of increased currency tensions and volatile short-
term capital flows. The fourth is to ensure that sufficient and stable development finance is
made available for developing countries with limited fiscal space and large developmental
deficits, including those in the form of the large shortfalls in progress towards the MDGs.
The fifth challenge is to make the G20 framework for sustainable global rebalancing more
specific and concrete, which would include having verifiable and, ideally, enforceable tar-
gets for more balance and sustainable global growth.


Continued and coordinated stimulus


The first challenge, as mentioned above, is to ensure that there is enough stimulus world-
wide to reignite global demand. This needs to be done in a concerted fashion to avoid
resurging global imbalances. Coordination is also needed to strike a balance between, on
the one hand, those countries which have little fiscal space left and need to rely on greater
foreign demand to avoid deep contractions and, on the other, those that still posses an
ample degree of fiscal space.


Structural and policy shortcomings that have contributed to significant fiscal
deficits in a number of developed countries need to be addressed, particularly where long-
term entitlement adjustments (old-age pension systems and health systems) will absorb
increasingly large proportions of public expenditure. However, the fragility of the eco-
nomic recovery, particularly in developed economies, requires that there be an additional
and coordinated push for fiscal stimulus to reignite the global economy. Indeed, fiscal
expenditure can have a large multiplier effect when interest rates are zero bound, as is
currently the case. It is premature to declare that an enduring stabilization and resump-
tion of sustainable growth has been accomplished, particularly as aggregate demand from
the private sector remains weak in most developed, and in many developing, economies.
Absent a new net fiscal stimulus and faster recovery of bank lending to the private sector,
growth is likely to remain anaemic in many countries in the foreseeable future.


As analysed above, at times of global slack with very low interest rates, the cost
of further fiscal stimulus is low relative to the growth risk of fiscal consolidation. This is es-
pecially the case when the short-term impact of contractionary fiscal policy is exacerbated


Further fiscal stimulus
is needed


The cost of further fiscal
stimulus is low relative to


the growth risk of fiscal
consolidation




37Global outlook


by near zero interest rates, as it is in many developed economies. Fiscal consolidation
has been accompanied by growth in the past. However, upon closer inspection, enabling
factors—such as exchange-rate policy and net export demand—played a pivotal role in
most cases. Against the backdrop of a global crisis, it not clear from where such enabling
factors will originate: beggar-thy-neighbour policies such as exchange-rate readjustments
to increase competitiveness might lead to successive rounds of depreciations, with little
real impact; additionally, there is no obvious source for export demand that can com-
pensate for the lack of demand from developed economies. Meanwhile, the inability, or
unwillingness, to provide greater fiscal support in most developed countries is negatively
impacting upon emerging and developing economies.


Larger capital inflows, resulting from policies of quantitative easing that are
being implemented in many developed economies to make up for the lack of fiscal support,
are causing upward pressure on the currencies of many developing economies. Despite
having managed their fiscal policy prudently before the global crisis and having significant
room for counter-cyclical fiscal policies, authorities in emerging economies may therefore
be inclined to implement contractionary fiscal policies to offset these pressures and to
try to overcome bottlenecks in labour markets at home, irrespective of continued weak
demand for exports. Doing so will clearly frustrate their growth prospects. It will also have
knock-on effects in low-income countries, many of which remain painfully exposed to the
looming uncertainty regarding global growth and depend on the demand for commodities
from developed and emerging economies. By leading to a downward spiral in the global
economy, austerity measures in developed economies could well trigger a similar spiral
of pro-cyclical fiscal adjustment. It is likely that fiscal consolidation will turn out to be
self-defeating on a global scale.


It is therefore important to continue to provide accommodative and coordi-
nated fiscal stimulus in the short run, in tandem with appropriate monetary policies (see
below), in order to reinvigorate the global recovery.


Redesigning fiscal stimulus


The second challenge will be to redesign fiscal policy—and economic policies more
broadly—in order to strengthen its impact on employment and aid in its transition from
a purely demand stimulus to one that promotes structural change for more sustainable
economic growth. Thus far, stimulus packages in developed countries have mostly fo-
cused on income support measures, with tax-related measures accounting for more than
half of the stimulus packages. In many developing countries, such as Argentina, China
and the Republic of Korea, in contrast, infrastructure investment tended to make up the
larger share of the stimulus and strengthened supply-side conditions. The optimal mix
of supporting demand directly through taxes or income subsidies or indirectly through
strengthening supply-side conditions, including by investing in infrastructure and new
technologies, may vary across countries. In most contexts, however, direct government
spending tends to generate stronger employment effects.


A prudent policy would be to target public investments to alleviate infrastruc-
ture bottlenecks that mitigate growth prospects, and to supplement this policy with fiscal
efforts to broaden the tax base. One priority area would be to expand public investment in
renewable clean energy as part of commitments to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
and in infrastructure that provides greater resilience to the effects of climate change. Some


Fiscal policies, in tandem
with income and structural
policies, will need to be
reoriented to foster job
creation and green growth




38 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


countries, like the Republic of Korea, have already laid out ambitious plans to that end.
Such a reorientation of stimulus measures has the potential to provide significantly greater
employment effects, as the renewable energy sector tends to be more labour-intensive than
existing, non-renewable energy generation.19 Another area might be to expand and im-
prove public transportation networks, which would create potentially significant amounts
of new jobs while at the same time helping to reduce GHG emissions, particularly in
rapidly urbanizing environments. These strategies would represent win-win scenarios by
both orienting the recovery towards job creation and combating climate change.20


The redesigned fiscal strategy would also need to monitor closely the way in
which income growth and productivity gains are shared in society. A recent discussion
paper of the IMF and the ILO suggests that rising inequality has implications for the
effectiveness of macroeconomic policies and global rebalancing.21 Declining wage shares
(resulting from higher unemployment and underemployment or lagging real wage growth)
may undermine consumption growth and thereby contribute to national and international
imbalances. Labour-market and income policies may thus need to supplement fiscal and
monetary policies for a more balanced outcome. In particular, allowing labour incomes to
grow at the pace of productivity growth can help underpin a steady expansion of domestic
demand and prevent income inequality from rising.22


The supplementary policies could target the unemployed, such as by provid-
ing job-search training, short vocational training or general and remedial training. These
have worked in a number of countries to compensate for sharp declines in vacancies. Job
subsidies have been useful in stimulating an early pick-up in employment after a recession,
as successfully demonstrated in Germany, for example. Similarly, in the United Kingdom
and the United States, for instance, income subsidies to low-paid workers that make it more
attractive for beneficiaries of income support to move into employment have proven to be
effective in reducing poverty and stimulating demand. In other countries, employment
programmes targeted at disadvantaged communities have proven effective. For instance,
India’s Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act provides one hun-
dred days of employment at the minimum wage to 43 million low-income households,
while in Mexico the temporary employment programme in response to the crisis has been
expanded, creating more than half a million jobs between January and July of 2009.


Social protection policies are another crucial element in cushioning the impact
of economic shocks and helping people avoid falling into poverty. They are also important
tools for boosting aggregate demand and contributing to the sustainability of economic
growth. While social transfers, such as family benefits, unemployment benefits and other
cash transfers, help protect household consumption against shocks or crises, they also pre-
vent asset depletion that may have adverse long-term consequences and further undermine
a sustainable recovery.


19 See, for instance, ECOTEC, “Analysis of the EU Eco-Industries, their Employment and Export Potential”,
a Final Report to DG Environment, 2002. Available from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/
eco_industry/pdf/main_report.pdf.


20 As shown in annex table A.22, GHG emissions in Annex I countries are projected to decline by
about 2 per cent during 2010-2012 given the slow recovery in GDP growth and existing plans for
trends in improving energy efficiency and emissions reductions. However, the pace of reduction
in a number of Annex I countries is too slow for them to meet the agreed targets under the Kyoto
Protocol.


21 IMF and ILO, op. cit.


22 UNCTAD, Trade and Development Report 2010: Employment, globalization and development (United
Nations publication, Sales No. E.10.II.D.3).




39Global outlook


Making monetary policy more effective and
addressing its international spillover effects


The third challenge relates to monetary and exchange-rate policies. As indicated above,
quantitative easing in major developed countries will likely be more effective when sup-
ported by greater fiscal stimulus in the short run. Printing more money to buy government
bonds will only work if the extra liquidity can find its way into aggregate demand growth.
In the United States, it may do relatively little, as the transmission channels are either
clogged or relatively weak. First, lower real yields could spur borrowing and investment
demand; but households cannot borrow because they are still overleveraged as a result of
the fall in home values, corporate firms are already stashed with cash and demanding little
credit and banks are reluctant to lend to small-scale firms and households. Second, the
quantitative easing has helped stock markets rebound and has increased household wealth;
this could spur some additional spending, but with unemployment still high, home prices
still down and high mortgages still to be paid, this channel will also be weak at best.
Third, a weaker dollar could spur United States exports; but not all exports are responsive
to a weaker dollar (primary commodity prices, for instance, tend to increase with a depre-
ciating dollar) and the United States needs more structural policies to develop new export
niches. Moreover, the share of exports in GDP of the United States is only about 10 per
cent, meaning that a very large expansion of net exports will be needed in order to make a
strong impact on aggregate output growth.


In the present context, maintaining an accommodative monetary policy could
be supportive of additional fiscal stimuli in the short run as it would help limit the flow costs
of rising public debt. A key condition for this to work, however, would be the refocusing
of fiscal policy to accelerate job creation and provide incentives for structural change that
would put economies on a sustainable growth path. It would also work better if comple-
mentary policies were undertaken which would help unclog the financial system, including
through additional measures to reduce the mortgage debt overhang and by providing tem-
porary guarantees which could enhance credit access for small and medium-sized firms.


A similar approach could be tailored to the conditions of other major econo-
mies. However, international repercussion effects should be borne in mind, and this would
hence require explicit policy coordination. Quantitative easing in the United States is
spilling over to the rest of the world, as indicated, through its impact on exchange rates
and capital flow surges. The euro area, Japan and many developing economies have seen
upward pressure on their currencies. The challenge is to avoid a damaging round of cur-
rency interventions and even stronger exchange-rate volatility among major reserve cur-
rencies. If the European Central Bank (ECB), the Bank of Japan and the Fed were all to
print more money without mopping up the excess liquidity, they could easily exacerbate
such volatility. Hence, coordinating monetary and fiscal policy is important, as are agree-
ments about the magnitude, speed and timing of quantitative easing policies within a
broader framework of targets to redress the global imbalances (see below).


This will also be important for emerging economies and other developing
countries that are well integrated into the international financial system. It would take
some steam out of the push for short-term capital to move to emerging markets. In the
meantime, it makes sense for developing countries to impose capital controls, as has al-
ready been done by several countries, to extend the maturity of capital inflows and miti-
gate their volatility. The IMF is now also supportive of such measures. Effective capital
controls should also reduce the need to accumulate vast amounts of foreign reserves as it
would limit the risk of sudden capital-flow reversals.


Further quantitative easing
is unlikely to work without
additional fiscal stimulus
and a resolution of financial
sector weaknesses


Strong policy coordination
is needed to avoid trade
and currency wars




40 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


The suggested responses should be within reach as long as the authorities of the
major economies take the risks posed by the spillover effects of national monetary policies
sufficiently seriously. Such responses are no panacea in the medium term, however. There
will be a limit to how much capital controls imposed by recipient countries can achieve.
Aside from coordinated monetary policies, additional corrective measures to incentives for
interest-rate arbitrage at the source of capital flows may need to be considered. For instance,
a reserve requirement on cross-border capital flows could be agreed upon and made part of
the ongoing reform of financial regulatory systems. But deeper reforms of the international
monetary system would still be needed since the more fundamental causes conducive to
exchange-rate volatility are inherent in the present system, which overly relies on a single
national currency as the world’s reserve.23 In the transition towards a new monetary system,
further enhancing the role of special drawing rights (SDRs)—which countries can convert
into other currencies if need be—and including the Chinese renminbi in the basket of cur-
rencies that determine the value of SDRs could be included in the steps towards reducing
reliance on the United States dollar as a reserve currency for the world.


Financing for achieving the MDGs and investments in
sustainable development in low-income countries


The fourth challenge is to ensure that sufficient resources become available to develop-
ing countries with limited fiscal space and large development needs, including resources
for achieving the MDGs and investing in sustainable and resilient growth. Low-income
countries with limited fiscal space are in need of additional ODA to finance the expansion
of social services and programmes needed to meet the MDGs and to engage in counter-
cyclical and broader development policies. These increased needs contrast with the signifi-
cant shortfall still existing in aid delivery against commitments. Apart from delivering
on existing aid commitments, donor countries should consider mechanisms to delink aid
flows from their business cycles so as to prevent delivery shortfalls in times of crisis, when
the need for development aid is most urgent.


More broadly, the global crisis has highlighted the need for very large liquidity
buffers to deal with sudden, large capital market shocks. In response to the financial crises
of the 1990s, many developing countries accumulated vast amounts of reserves as a form
of self-protection. But doing so comes with high opportunity costs and has, moreover, con-
tributed to the problem of the global imbalances. A better pooling of reserves, regionally
and internationally, could reduce such costs to individual countries and could also form
the basis for more reliable emergency financing and the establishment of an international
lender-of-last-resort mechanism. Broadening existing SDR arrangements could form part
of such new arrangements.


Strengthening the framework for policy coordination


The need for strengthened international policy coordination thus seems more urgent than
ever. Yet, the cooperative spirit that emerged in the immediate aftermath of the crisis has
been waning. Governments in major economies have become more focused on domestic
policy challenges than on the spillover effects of their actions. While it is clear that global


23 These issues were discussed extensively in United Nations, World Economic Situation and Prospects
2010, op. cit.; United Nations, World Economic and Social Survey 2010: Retooling Global Development
(United Nations publication, Sales No. E.10.II.C.1); and, in UNCTAD, 2009, op. cit.


Over the medium run, more
fundamental reforms in


the international financial
architecture need
to be effectuated


Developing countries need
more predictable access
to development finance


to achieve the MDGs and
sustainable development


Concrete and enforceable
targets for international


policy coordination should
be considered




41Global outlook


demand needs rebalancing, achieving this will not be easy as it will require a range of
structural reforms, a high degree of policy coherence and several years of continued ef-
forts. The focus in recent policy debates on exchange-rate realignment is too narrow and
bilaterally focused and seems to reflect a misunderstanding of the global spillover effects
of present macroeconomic policy stances. The fifth major challenge, therefore, will be
for leaders of the major economies to make the G20 framework for strong, balanced and
sustainable global growth more concrete and to implement it.


A renewal of pledges to intensify and broaden macroeconomic policy coor-
dination will, in itself, not guarantee that all parties will remain committed to agreed
joint responses. Having clear and verifiable targets for desired policy outcomes will help
make parties accountable, and the possible loss of reputation through non-compliance
would be an incentive to live up to policy agreements. The proposal of the United States
Secretary of the Treasury made at the G20 finance ministers meeting in October 2010,
to establish “current account target zones” among major economies did not receive much
support. Nevertheless, apart from establishing transparent targets, the proposal reflects
the need for both surplus and deficit countries to contribute more to sustain global effec-
tive demand. Overall economic policies, rather than simple exchange-rate realignment,
determine the balance of national savings and investments underpinning growth of output
and employment. Moreover, the proposal explicitly recognizes that national policies have
international consequences.


It seems feasible to combine policies which would, when conducted simul-
taneously, be both growth enhancing and reduce current-account surpluses and deficits
to likely more manageable proportions of, say, 3 per cent of GDP or less for the major
economies (including China). It would seem reasonable that other emerging and develop-
ing countries, such as major fuel exporters and smaller economies, be allowed to run
somewhat larger surpluses or deficits. Simulations with the other United Nations global
modeling framework, the Global Policy Model—reflecting the key policy directions sug-
gested above—show that this would be a win-win scenario for all economies, as it would
enhance GDP and employment growth compared with the baseline, while reducing public
debt-to-GDP ratios and requiring limited exchange-rate realignment (see box I.5). WGP
would accelerate to over 4 per cent per year during 2012-2015, especially as developed
economies would be lifted from their anaemic growth, while developing countries would
also reach a higher growth path compared with the baseline situation where policy coor-
dination is absent.


The mutual assessment process that is to accompany the implementation of the
G20 framework for policy coordination would become more concrete with the establish-
ment of current-account target zones. The target zones should not be seen as an end in
themselves, but as a guide towards a sustainable growth path for the world, which should
be considerate of the proposed actions to address all five challenges listed above. They
should also be seen as an intermediate step towards more fundamental reforms of the
global reserve system and the financial regulation that are needed to prevent future global
financial instability and meltdowns.




42 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


Feasible policy coordination for
rebalancing the world economy


A scenario of strengthened policy coordination aimed at strong, sustainable and balanced growth
was simulated using the United Nations Global Policy Model.a It takes on board several of the policy
directions suggested in the chapter, including a stronger role for fiscal policy in the short-term out-
look, one that aims at strengthening the supply side through government spending, investment in-
centives and structural policies. While the assumptions underlying the simulation aim to strengthen
output and employment growth, policies are coordinated so as to help place the global imbalances
within a narrower and more sustainable band.


The scenario pursues growth targets per country and per country grouping (as speci-
fied in the table contained in the appendix to this chapter), which are considered sensible in view of
their historical experience and strategic concerns. The growth targets for developed economies are
close to (non-inflationary) potential, while those for developing and emerging economies represent
reasonable improvements over the present rates and baseline projections, even if still below poten-
tial and hence having room for improvement.


To achieve these targets, policy instruments are adjusted in small, feasible steps in the
desired direction. The scenario assumes policymakers have opted for certain choices. First, additional
incentives to private investment are provided to ensure increases in the capital stock needed to sus-
tain the target rate of growth of gross domestic product (GDP), but these incentives are assumed to
be biased in favour of using more energy and commodity-efficient technologies so as to also comply
with the sustainability objective. Second, the investment push is supported by increased government
spending for improvements in infrastructure and expansion of research and development in energy
efficiency. Third, government spending is increased further, as part of income policies to strengthen
household consumption, to allow expansion of social services and social protection programmes,
as well as tax cuts and subsidies. The latter set of measures is assumed to support consumption
growth in developing countries at a moderate but sustained pace. In surplus developed countries,
these measures equally result in rising disposable household income, including pension income in
countries with ageing populations. In developed countries with large external deficits, these policies
are designed to enhance private savings and to limit consumption growth.


Under these assumptions, Governments in all major developed countries and China
would easily be able to comply with a target of narrowing current-account balances to less than
3 per cent of GDP (see figure). The external surpluses of major oil and mineral exporting countries
adjust more slowly, mainly as a result of higher initial oil and other commodity prices induced by
stronger global growth; but over time these surpluses would also narrow further once the impact of
investments in greater energy and raw material efficiency have taken effect. Many other developing
countries may still need to be allowed a wider margin of external imbalances, but one that would not
endanger exchange-rate instability or risk unsustainable levels of public indebtedness. Indeed, public
sector borrowing requirements and debt-to-GDP ratios would decline with the coordinated policies
for stronger and sustainable growth across all country groupings (appendix table).


Box I.5


a Available from
http://www.un.org/esa/


policy/publications/
ungpm.html.




43Global outlook


Box I.5 (cont’d)


(i) Selected developed economies
(percentage of GDP)


Baseline
Balanced growth scenario


- 5


- 4


- 3


- 2


- 1


0


1


2


3


4


5


6


2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015


Japan


Europe


United States


(iii) Developed economies and major fuel exporters
(percentage)


0


1


2


3


4


5


6


7


8


9


10


2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015


CIS and Western Asia


United States, Japan and Europe


(iv) Selected developing economies
(percentage)


0


1


2


3


4


5


6


7


8


9


10


2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015


China and India


Other developing countries


Source: UN/DESA Global Policy Model, available from http://www.un.org/esa/policy/publications/ungpm.html.


(ii) Developing economies
(percentage of GDP)


-5


-4


-3


-2


-1


0


1


2


3


4


5


6


2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015


CIS and Western Asia


China


India


Other developing
economies


(a) Current account of selected countries and country groups, 2010-2015


(b) GDP growth of selected countries and country groups, 2010-2015




44 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


Appendix
Table
A balanced growth scenario: main outcomes by groups of countries, 2010-2015


2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015


GDP growth (percentage)


Europe 1.7 2.0 2.9 2.7 2.6 2.6
Japan 2.8 2.3 2.3 2.7 2.9 3.0
United States, Canada and other developed countries 2.7 2.9 3.4 3.2 3.2 3.2
China 10.0 10.2 9.6 9.2 9.0 8.8
India 8.4 8.6 9.1 8.6 8.3 8.1
CIS and Western Asia (major fuel exporters) 4.8 4.8 4.8 5.2 5.1 5.0
Other developing countries 5.9 5.5 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.4


Current account (percentage of GDP)


Europe 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2
Japan 2.8 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6
United States, Canada and other developed countries -2.6 -2.2 -2.1 -2.2 -2.4 -2.6
China 3.6 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.2
India -3.7 -3.4 -2.9 -2.6 -2.4 -2.1
CIS and Western Asia (major fuel exporters) 4.3 4.9 4.6 4.5 4.5 4.4
Other developing countries -1.0 -1.5 -1.5 -1.3 -1.0 -0.8


Growth of private investment (constant prices)


Europe -6.5 0.1 1.7 3.3 3.5 3.6
Japan -4.2 6.1 3.5 3.0 3.1 3.1
United States, Canada and other developed countries -6.0 -1.0 2.2 4.3 4.7 5.0
China 13.1 10.4 8.8 7.6 7.0 6.6
India 8.9 7.5 7.2 7.6 7.1 6.9
CIS and Western Asia (major fuel exporters) -6.1 10.5 9.7 8.2 7.7 7.0
Other developing countries 4.5 12.3 9.5 7.8 6.8 6.3


Private investment (percentage of GDP)


Europe 15.7 15.5 15.3 15.5 15.7 15.8
Japan 18.9 19.6 19.9 19.9 19.9 19.9
United States, Canada and other developed countries 12.0 11.7 11.6 11.7 11.8 12.0
China 39.3 39.5 39.1 38.5 37.8 37.0
India 31.4 31.3 30.9 30.7 30.4 30.0
CIS and Western Asia (major fuel exporters) 13.8 14.3 14.8 15.1 15.5 15.7
Other developing countries 16.9 18.0 18.6 19.0 19.2 19.3


Growth of government spending (constant prices)
Europe 1.3 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8
Japan 1.4 1.5 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0
United States, Canada and other developed countries 4.2 2.5 1.9 2.1 2.1 2.1
China 8.1 6.9 7.1 6.7 6.3 5.9
India 6.2 5.2 5.5 6.0 6.3 6.5
CIS and Western Asia (major fuel exporters) 8.1 5.4 4.6 4.2 4.0 3.9
Other developing countries 5.6 5.9 5.3 4.8 4.5 4.4




45Global outlook


Table (cont’d)


2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015


Government spending (percentage of GDP)


Europe 24.9 24.6 24.1 23.7 23.3 23.0
Japan 21.8 21.6 21.3 21.0 20.6 20.1
United States, Canada and other developed countries 22.9 22.9 22.6 22.4 22.2 21.9
China 17.9 17.4 17.0 16.6 16.2 15.7
India 16.1 15.7 15.2 14.9 14.6 14.4
CIS and Western Asia (major fuel exporters) 25.4 25.2 25.0 24.5 24.0 23.7
Other developing countries 19.3 19.4 19.3 19.1 18.9 18.7


Private consumption (percentage of GDP)


Europe 59.2 59.0 59.1 59.3 59.7 60.0
Japan 59.3 58.7 58.6 58.7 59.0 59.4
United States, Canada and other developed countries 69.0 68.2 67.9 68.0 68.1 68.2
China 37.5 37.7 38.6 39.5 40.6 41.7
India 53.2 54.0 54.6 55.0 55.4 55.8
CIS and Western Asia (major fuel exporters) 53.9 52.9 53.0 53.2 53.3 53.5
Other developing countries 62.0 61.2 60.8 60.4 60.1 59.9


Net private sector financial surplus
(percentage of GDP)


Europe 4.9 4.1 3.3 2.5 1.9 1.4
Japan 2.7 0.9 0.0 -0.8 -1.3 -1.8
United States, Canada and other developed countries 6.5 5.9 5.0 4.1 3.3 2.7
China 5.9 5.5 5.2 4.9 4.6 4.3
India 2.3 1.5 0.9 0.4 0.2 0.1
CIS and Western Asia (major fuel exporters) 8.7 8.9 8.4 8.0 7.7 7.4
Other developing countries 0.8 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4


Net government financial surplus (percentage of GDP)


Europe -4.5 -3.8 -3.0 -2.3 -1.7 -1.1
Japan 0.1 1.1 1.9 2.5 3.0 3.4
United States, Canada and other developed countries -9.1 -8.1 -7.1 -6.4 -5.8 -5.2
China -2.3 -2.0 -1.8 -1.6 -1.4 -1.1
India -6.0 -4.9 -3.8 -3.1 -2.6 -2.2
CIS and Western Asia (major fuel exporters) -4.3 -4.1 -3.9 -3.5 -3.2 -3.0
Other developing countries -1.8 -1.7 -1.6 -1.5 -1.4 -1.2


Government debt (percentage of GDP)


Europe 89 91 91 91 90 88
Japan 170 169 167 162 157 152
United States, Canada and other developed countries 79 82 84 86 87 87
China 8 7 7 8 8 8
India 70 67 63 60 58 55
CIS and Western Asia (major fuel exporters) 40 41 42 42 42 42
Other developing countries 44 45 46 47 48 49




46 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


Table (cont’d)


2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015


Nominal exchange-rate appreciation (percentage)


Europe -5.0 -5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Japan 6.0 5.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
United States, Canada and other developed countries 1.8 1.4 0.2 -0.4 -0.6 -0.5
China 1.0 0.0 0.0 -1.0 -1.0 0.0
India -3.0 -2.0 -3.0 -4.0 -4.0 -4.0
CIS and Western Asia (major fuel exporters) 0.0 0.0 -1.0 -6.0 -7.0 -7.0
Other developing countries 4.0 3.0 -2.0 -6.0 -6.0 -5.0


Memorandum items (percentage)


Growth of gross world product at market rate
(percentage) 3.6 3.7 4.2 4.1 4.1 4.1
Growth of gross world product at PPP rate
(percentage) 4.5 4.7 5.0 4.9 4.9 4.9
Growth of exports of good and services
(percentage) 6.9 7.0 8.4 8.3 8.3 8.4
Real world price of energy (index) 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6
Real world price of food and primary commodities
(index) 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
Real world price of manufactures (index) 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1


Source: UN/DESA Global Policy Model, availble from http://www.un.org/esa/policy/publications/ungpm.html.




47


Chapter II
International trade


The below-trend recovery of world trade
World trade had declined by more than 11 per cent in 2009 (figure II.1). The 3.6 per
cent rebound of global output in 2010 was accompanied by a 10.5 per cent expansion of
the worldwide volume of imports of goods and services. Monthly data for world trade in
goods, produced by the CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis, indicate
that the turnaround in trade took place in mid-2009 (see chap. I, figure I.6). The recovery
was particularly strong between mid-2009 and mid-2010 when the trade volume increased
at an annualized rate of nearly 20 per cent. Since then, however, world trade growth has lost
steam along with the slowdown in the recovery of the world economy.


Compared with the average growth rates attained between 2004 and 2007,
cumulative losses of world gross product (WGP) and world trade volume of about 8 and 26
percentage points were seen during 2008 and 2009, respectively, as a result of the global
financial crisis. In the outlook, growth of world income is expected to average 3.3 per cent
between 2011 and 2012 and that of world trade to be about 6.7 per cent. As the rates of
recovery between 2011 and 2012 do not make up for the cumulative losses of income and
trade experienced during the crisis, such losses can be said to be permanent. This state of
affairs also corroborates the hypothesis that economic recoveries following financial crises
tend to be protracted and also keep import demand depressed for several years.1


1 See, for example, Caroline Freund, “The trade response to global downturns: historical evidence”,
World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, No. 5015 (Washington, D. C.: World Bank, August 2009).


The recovery of world trade
decelerated in the second
half of 2010


Growth of world trade will
be far too slow to return
to the levels it would have
reached at continued
pre-crisis trends


Figure II.1
Growth of world income and of the volume of imports,a 2002-2012


Percentage


-15.0


-10.0


-5.0


0.0


5.0


10.0


15.0


2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010b 2011c 2012c


World imports


World gross product


Source: UN/DESA and Project
Link.
a Growth rates are calculated
on the basis of GDP and
import values in constant
2005 United States dollars.
Imports cover both goods
and non-factor services.
b Partly estimated.
c Projections based on
the United Nations World
Economic Forecasting Model
and Project LINK.




48 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


Trends in the volume and dollar values of world trade have started to converge
during 2010, a pattern that is expected to continue in the forecast period (figure II.2).
In the pre-crisis years, the dollar value of world trade increased much faster than the
volume, as a result, in particular, of steep rises in commodity and energy prices and the
depreciation of the United States dollar during that period. During the crisis, collapsing
commodity prices and an appreciation of the dollar caused a stronger decline in the value
than in the volume of world trade. During the recovery, the rebound in commodity prices
was initially not accompanied by renewed dollar depreciation. The latter trend returned
from mid-2010, when upward pressure on commodity prices had weakened considerably.
As a result, the rates of growth in the volume and value of trade have converged.


During the crisis, import demand for consumer durables and investment goods
saw the sharpest decline and, by mid-2010, the demand for these goods was, on average,
still about 20 per cent below trends (in other words, the level that would have been reached
given continued pre-crisis trends). Trade in non-durable consumer goods was not affected
as much, and the decline was short-lived. During 2010, international demand for these
goods was back up to near pre-crisis levels. Demand for intermediate and primary com-
modities is still 10 per cent below pre-crisis trends.2


Across regions, the speed of the recovery of international trade remains uneven.
Developing countries have been leading the recovery, in line with the stronger expansion of
their economies. By September 2010, the trade volume of this group as a whole had already
surpassed the pre-crisis peak of April 2008 by 7 per cent, owing in particular to strong
trade growth in developing Asia. At the same time, trade by developed economies was still
9 per cent below the pre-crisis peak, with Europe’s trade volume showing the largest gap,


2 International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Economic Outlook: Recovery, Risk, and Rebalancing
(Washington, D. C.: IMF, October 2010).


Distinct patterns can be
observed among different


types of products…


…as well as across regions


Figure II.2
Growth of the volume and dollar values of world exports,a 2002-2012


Dollar value of world exports


Volume of world exports


-25.0


-20.0


-15.0


-10.0


-5.0


0.0


5.0


10.0


15.0


20.0


25.0


2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009b 2010c 2011c 2012c


Percentage


Source: UN/DESA and
Project Link.


a Growth rates are calculated
on the basis of export values
in constant 2005 prices and


current United States dollars.
Exports cover both goods


and non-factor services.
b Partly estimated.


c Projections based on
the United Nations World


Economic Forecasting Model
and Project LINK.




49International trade


at 11 per cent. As a result, the developing country share in global trade increased from
about one third to more than 40 per cent between 2008 and 2010 (see annex tables A.16
and A.17 for annual figures per region).


Terms of trade of developing
and transition economies


Primary commodity prices have fluctuated strongly compared with prices of manufactures.
As a result, countries specializing in exports of primary commodities and those with high
shares of imports of energy, food and industrial raw materials have had large swings in
their terms of trade. During 2010, the terms of trade of the fuel exporters and exporters of
minerals and mining products improved significantly along with rebounding commodity
prices, but stayed below the peaks reached in 2008 and 2007, respectively. Concomitantly,
exporters of manufactures saw part of the gains in their terms of trade dissipate. In 2010,
exporters of agricultural products experienced an increase in the unit prices of both their
exports and imports but, on balance, saw a modest improvement in their terms of trade.
The countries that are net food importers and that do not export oil or mining products
on a significant scale suffered a slight deterioration in their terms of trade during 2010,
continuing a longer trend (figure II.3a).


Trends across regions show similarly diverging patterns, depending on the pre-
dominant trade structures (figure II.3b). The economies in transition, Africa, Western Asia
and Latin America and the Caribbean saw a significant rebound in their terms of trade,
having suffered important losses in 2009 following trends in primary commodity prices.
The predominantly manufactured exports in East and South Asia, in contrast, saw stag-
nant or slightly declining terms of trade in 2010, after a modest improvement during the
global recession. Greater export diversification explains the mild fluctuations in the terms
of trade among these economies. Similarly, developed countries saw little movement, on
average, in their terms of trade.


Broadly, terms-of-trade indices moved back to 2007 levels. This may be seen
as a correction of the exceptionally large spikes (upward and downward) in commodity
prices during 2008, caused by the global crisis and exacerbated by large-scale financial
speculation. The present levels seem to be more in line with the upward trend in primary
commodity prices relative to those of manufactures that had set in in the late 1990s. This
trend has been strongly influenced by the fast economic growth in the large economies in
developing Asia, which has pushed down world market prices of manufactures through
the vast expansion of the supply of a large range of low-priced industrial products and has
pushed up demand for and prices of primary commodities.


Future trends remain uncertain, however, given the high degree of “financiali-
zation” of commodity markets and the influence on prices of speculative investments in
commodity futures markets (see box II.1), as well as the uncertainties regarding the global
economic recovery, as discussed in chapter I.


The large terms-of-trade fluctuations of the past few years have had measurable
effects on national income and the balance of trade of many economies. Countries lacking
the means (such as adequate foreign-exchange reserves or stabilization funds) to cope with
swings of this magnitude tend to suffer adverse long-term growth consequences because of
the macroeconomic volatility caused by these shocks. Table II.1 shows the income gains
and losses caused by swings in the terms of trade (with all other things being equal) rela-
tive to the income of selected developing countries and economies in transition.


While primary commodity-
exporting countries
benefited the most from
the turnaround in the terms
of trade, they also suffered
from price falls during the
crisis


Greater volatility affecting
countries with a higher
concentration in exports
of primary commodities
necessitates the
preservation of adequate
foreign-exchange reserves
or stabilization funds




50 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


60


80


100


120


140


160


180


200


220


240


2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010c


Fuel exporters


Exporters of minerals and other mining products


Exporters of manufactures


Net food importersb
Exporters of agricultural products


Figure II.3a
Net barter terms of trade, selected developing and
transition economies, by trade structure,a 2000-2010


2000=100


Transition economies


Western Asia


Developed economies


East and South Asia


Latin America and the Caribbean


Africa


60


80


100


120


140


160


180


200


2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010c


Figure II.3b
Terms of trade, selected developing and transition economies, 2000-2010


2000=100


Sources: UNCTAD secretariat
calculations, based on


UNCTADstat, United
Nations Commodity Trade
Statistics Database, United


States Bureau of Labor
Statistics, Japan Customs,


IMF, International Financial
Statistics database, and


ECLAC, Balance of Payments
Statistics database.


a Grouped by product of
export concentration.


b Net food importers are
food-deficit countries,
excluding exporters of


fuel, minerals and other
mining products.


c Partly estimated.




51International trade


Exporters of minerals and other mining products, and above all fuel exporters,
saw particularly large income effects because of changes in the terms of trade. This is the
result not only of the large swings in their export prices but also of the high dependence of
their economies on those products. More diversified economies, which generally also have
a greater share of manufactured exports, typically suffer much less from terms-of-trade
shocks.


The pattern of total trade shocks, which combines the fluctuations in the terms
of trade and export demand, confirms the marked effect caused by price fluctuations alone
(figure II.4).3 Countries dependent upon exports of primary commodities experienced far
greater trade shocks (positive or negative) than those with more diversified export struc-
tures or reliance on manufactured exports. Shocks of any significance among the latter
are typically driven by fluctuations in import costs of energy and other raw materials, but
show little volatility in export earnings and demand. Agriculture exporters are typically in
the mid-range of fluctuations in both prices and demand.


Trends in primary commodity markets


Markets for non-oil commodities


The non-oil commodity sector is still reeling from the sharp slide of primary commodity
prices that started in the second half of 2008. Prices progressively recovered during 2009,
but receded, in dollar terms, during the second quarter of 2010 owing to the financial
turmoil in Europe. In the second half of 2010, prices surged again (figure II.5) as a result of
rising demand for commodities in emerging Asian economies, replenishment of industrial
inventories in advanced countries, the depreciation of the United States dollar amidst
greater exchange-rate volatility and increasing interest from financial investors in commod-
ity markets (see box II.1). The influences of the last two factors are particularly worrisome
as they signal greater uncertainty about future price dynamics for non-oil commodities.


3 The analysis in the following paragraphs is based on the world economic vulnerability framework
of UN/DESA. Demand shocks are defined by the change in the volume of merchandise exports.
Terms of trade shocks refer to the income gains or losses emanating from the change in export
prices relative to that of import prices, as defined in figures II.3a-b, in any given year. The total
trade shock is the sum of these two types of shocks. For further details of the related methodology,
see the technical note available from http://www.un.org/esa/policy/publications/wespwevm/
monitor_note.pdf.


Significant volatility
remains in primary
commodity markets
amidst large exchange-
rate variations and greater
financialization of trading


Table II.1
Income gains or losses from the terms of trade of selected developing
and transition economies, by trade structure, 2002-2010


Percentage of GDP


2002-2007 2008 2009 2010


Exporters of manufactures -0.9 -2.6 1.8 -1.0


Fuel exporters 4.6 7.7 -10.5 5.0


Exporters of minerals and other mining products 3.0 -4.4 -1.0 4.6


Exporters of agricultural products 0.2 1.6 -0.5 1.0


Source: UNCTAD secretariat calculations, based on UNCTADstat.




52 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


(a) Developed economies


-18
-15
-12


-9
-6
-3
0


3
6
9


12


15
18


W
ho


le
g


ro
up


En
er


gy


M
in


er
al


s


Ag
ric


ul
tu


re


M
an


uf
ac


tu
rin


g


D
iv


er
si


ie
d


0.
5 2.


1


7.
1


5.
5


2.
0 3


.7


-0
.4


-2
.7


-1
4.


1


-2
.3


-2
.5


-5
.0


-1
.5 -0


.5


1.
8


4.
2


8.
8


0.
9


0.
5 1.


1


(d) Western Asia


4.
0


8.
3


7.
2


12
.0


1.
6


7.
7


-1
.6


0.
3


0.
0


-1
2.


0


-18
-15
-12


-9
-6
-3
0


3
6
9


12


15
18


17
.2


-2
1.


7


W
ho


le
g


ro
up


En
er


gy


M
in


er
al


s


Ag
ric


ul
tu


re


M
an


uf
ac


tu
rin


g


D
iv


er
si


ie
d


(b) Economies in transition


5.
8 6.


8


6.
4


4.
9 5.


6


3.
4


1.
3


8.
5


-3
.5


-3
.1


-1
0.


0


-1
2.


1


1.
7 2.


2


-2
.1


-1
.4


-5
.3


3.
7


2.
6


1.
2


-18


-15


-12


-9


-6


-3


0


3


6


9


12


15


18


W
ho


le
g


ro
up


En
er


gy


M
in


er
al


s


Ag
ric


ul
tu


re


M
an


uf
ac


tu
rin


g


D
iv


er
si


ie
d


(c) East and South Asia


-2
.2


-1
3.


4


-1
.7


-4
.0


4.
7


1.
9


6.
6


6.
6


9.
6


2.
9


10
.4


6.
5 6.


8


10
.0 1


2.
4


-4
.1


1.
5


4.
3


14
.6


2.
1 4


.5 5.
2


-18


-15
-12


-9
-6
-3
0


3
6
9


12
15


18


23
.2


W
ho


le
g


ro
up


En
er


gy


M
in


er
al


s


Ag
ric


ul
tu


re


M
an


uf
ac


tu
rin


g


D
iv


er
si


ie
d


-1
4.


4


(e) Latin America and the Caribbean


1.
7 3


.5 4.
2


1.
6


1.
3


0.
9


0.
6


-0
.5


0.
5


-1
.3


-2
.3


-7
.5


-3
.6 -1


.3


-1
.5 -1


.0


6.
1


0.
9


4.
4 6


.2


11
.1


4.
1 4.


6


2.
2


-18
-15
-12


-9
-6
-3
0


3
6
9


12


15
18


W
ho


le
g


ro
up


En
er


gy


M
in


er
al


s


Ag
ric


ul
tu


re


M
an


uf
ac


tu
rin


g


D
iv


er
si


ie
d


Figure II.4
Trade shocks by export specialization, country groups, 2001-2010
(percentage of group GDP)


(f) Africa


2.
1 3.


5


-3
.3 -1


.7


4.
0


4.
5 5


.9 6.
0


8.
9


1.
8


0.
6


0.
4


0.
3


-0
.3-0


.1


-0
.7


-5
.3


-1
1.


1


-0
.9


2.
9


2.
8 3.


3


2.
1


1.
0


-18
-15


-12
-9
-6


-3
0
3


6
9


12


15
18


W
ho


le
g


ro
up


En
er


gy


M
in


er
al


s


Ag
ric


ul
tu


re


M
an


uf
ac


tu
rin


g


D
iv


er
si


ie
d


Source: UN/DESA, World Economic Vulnerability framework based on Comtrade and UNCTAD data, available from http://www.un.org/esa/policy/
publications/wespwevm/monitor_note.pdf.
Note: Economies are considered “diversified” in terms of export structure if there is no major commodity category that makes up more than 40 per cent
of the total. For manufactures, this limit is set at 50 per cent because of the great range of products falling into that category. Any concentration above
these limits defines the specialization by type of commodity.


2001-2007 2008 2009 2010




53International trade


Figure II.5
Non-oil commodity price index, all groups, in dollar and SDR terms,
January 2006-September 2010


Index 2000=100


2006 2007 2008 2009 2010


Ja
n


Ap
r


Ju
l


O
ct Ja


n


Ap
r


Ju
l


O
ct Ja


n


Ap
r


Ju
l


O
ct Ja


n


Ap
r


Ju
l


O
ct Ja


n


Ap
r


Ju
l


50


0


100


150


200


250


300


350


United States dollars


Special drawing rights


Source: UNCTADstat.


The financialization of commodity trading


The traditional function of the commodity exchanges has been to facilitate price discovery and al-
low for the transfer of price risk from producers and consumers to other agents that are prepared
to assume such risk. But these functions have become impaired by the growing “financialization of
commodity trading”. This term refers to the increasing role of financial motives, financial markets and
financial actors in the operation of commodity markets. It is visible, for example, in the increased
correlation between commodity and equity prices, as well as between commodity prices and the ex-
change rates of currencies important in carry trade (in particular, the dollar, the yen and the euro).a


Many financial investors enter commodity markets with the motive of diversifying their
portfolios, their position-taking being typically unrelated to the fundamentals of supply and demand
in commodity markets. They regard commodities merely as an alternative class of assets, next to
equities, bonds and so forth. As a result, conditions in financial markets have been increasingly influ-
encing commodity prices.


Financialization has had a number of adverse effects on commodity exchanges. First, it
has led to greater volatility in commodity market prices. Second, it has caused shifts in price trends
that are unrelated to the relative scarcity of primary commodities. Third, it has made hedging against
commodity price risk more complex and expensive. For example, as the risk increases with greater price
volatility, so do margin payments—the normally small payments made to clearing houses by suppliers
and buyers of a commodity to cover the risk assumed by the clearing house. Fourth, increased margins
owing to volatility and greater transaction costs owing to more complex trading have substantially
reduced the affordability of price hedging for many developing country actors in the market.


Financial investors can choose from a range of instruments through which to invest in
commodity markets. Index investment is one of the more popular ones. This type of investment tends
to drive up commodity prices as it implies taking long positions; that is to say, positions that indicate
an interest in buying commodities at a future date. At the same time, money managers (especially
hedge fund managers) have become increasingly important players in commodity derivatives trad-
ing, particularly in the market for crude oil.b In contrast to index investors, money managers tend to
have a shorter investment horizon and may alternate between taking long or short positions. Much


Box II.1


a For further discussion,
see, UNCTAD, Trade and
Development Report 2009:
Responding to the global crisis;
Climate change mitigation
and development (United
Nations publication, Sales
No. E.09.II.D.16), chap. 2.


b R.K. Kaufmann, “The role
of market fundamentals and
speculation in recent price
changes for crude oil”, Energy
Journal, forthcoming.




54 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


of this short-term position-taking relies on automatic trading, which is determined by pre-defined
algorithms based on standardized trading strategies. These strategies combined tend to multiply
responses in one particular direction, allowing such automatic trading to easily ignite self-reinforcing
speculative bubbles.


In theory, arbitrage should help eliminate price changes that are not justified by chang-
es in fundamentals. In practice, however, the overoptimism and overconfidence of market players
affect the decision-making processes, forming expectations that prices will tend to move upwards
indefinitively (as is typical of speculative financial markets). Moreover, there are limits to arbitrage—
for example, constraints on the risk-bearing capacity of rational arbitrageurs.c As risks increase with
the degree of perceived under- or overpricing of commodities, individual arbitrageurs may lack the
funds to hedge against large risks and will be outcompeted by financial investors who typically have
less funding constraints. Given their increasingly dominant role, financial investors are enacting a
substantial and often lasting impact on commodity prices.


Holding physical positions in commodities would be an alternative strategy to bet
against perceived mispricing of commodities. However, taking physical hold of commodities would
add significant transportation and storage costs. In addition, information asymmetries regarding
quality, for instance, may drive up costs further. These factors are likely to discourage financial arbi-
trageurs from taking “physical” market positions.


While its growing importance is clear, it is nonetheless difficult to quantify the precise
impact of financialization on price trends. This is in part because it is not easy to disentangle the
impact of financial market developments on supply and demand conditions (since they may affect
overall economic growth and, hence, commodity demand) from the more direct impact of financial
market conditions on commodity prices through speculative behaviour. It is also difficult because
financial speculation is intrinsically unpredictable. One prominent recent empirical study that made a
respectable attempt to disentangle the impacts of fundamental and financial factors has refuted the
notion that the growing demand for commodities from emerging economies was the main driver
of the commodity price hike in 2006–2008 and supported the hypothesis that financialization was at
least equally as important.d


Containing the influence of financialization on commodity price volatility is equally
challenging. Some action is under way, however, including through stricter regulation. Debates on
measures in other areas are ongoing.


It is widely recognized that much of the commodity trading activities of financial
investors is not recorded. Scheduled changes in financial regulation in both the United States of
America and the European Union should help to address this deficiency and improve transparency
in commodity exchanges. The question remains whether over-the-counter (OTC) trading will also
be subject to the regulated exchanges. Difficulties herein are exemplified by the divergence in the
views of regulators and industry representatives regarding which market players can be identified
as swap dealers in order to subject them to the new regulation. It is hoped that in the United States,
regulation of commodity trading will become stricter through the application of upper limits on the
positions that can be taken in energy and agricultural commodity trading across futures markets and
equivalent OTC markets, as mandated by the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.


Beyond tighter regulation, new commodity price stabilization schemes have been
proposed. These include, for instance, the creation of a virtual reserve and intervention mechanism
that would intercede in the futures markets if market prices differed significantly from the estimated
dynamic price band based on market fundamentals. In addition, a multitier transaction tax system for
commodity derivatives markets has been proposed. Under this scheme, transaction tax surcharges
of increasing scale would be levied as soon as prices start to move beyond the price band defined
either on the basis of commodity market fundamentals e or on the basis of the observed degree of
correlation between the price changes of equities, currencies and commodities. Both proposals de-
serve due consideration, even though putting them into practice appears to be difficult both for ad-
ministrative reasons and because they face strong opposition from vested interests in the industry.


Mitigating the adverse effects of financialization in commodity trading would seem im-
perative, but more research is needed into the kinds of measures that would be the most effective to
this end. The Government of France has placed both commodity price and exchange-rate stabilization
priorities in the agenda for the Group of Twenty (G20) meeting to take place in 2011 under its presi-
dency. Political recognition of the problem thus exists, but workable options are urgently needed.


Box II.1 (cont’d)


c See, for example,
A. Shleifer and R.W. Vishny,


“The limits of arbitrage”,
Journal of Finance, vol. 52,


No. 2, pp. 737-783; and Denis
Gromb and Dimitri Vayanos,


“The ‘limits of arbitrage’
agenda”, available from


http://www.voxeu.org/index.
php?q=node/4841.


d Kei Tang and Wei
Xiong, “Index investment


and financialization of
commodities”, NBER


Working Paper, No. 16385
(Cambridge, Massachusetts:


National Bureau of Economic
Research, September 2010).


e On both proposals, see
Joachim von Braun and


Maximo Torero, “Physical
and virtual global food
reserves to protect the


poor and prevent market
failure”, IFPRI Policy Brief,
No. 4 (Washington, D. C.:
International Food Policy


Research Institute, June); and
M. Nissanke, “Mitigating the


commodity-dependence
trap in LDCs through global
facilities”, mimeo, School of


Oriental and African Studies,
University of London.




55International trade


Agricultural commodities


During 2009 and up until the third quarter of 2010, the price of agricultural commodities
fluctuated around an upward trend (figure II.6). The trend reflected rising global demand,
while the volatility around the trend resulted from commodity-specific supply shortfalls
caused by adverse climatic conditions, policy measures in some countries to restrict exports
of commodities in short supply, and speculative behaviour.


Specifically, wheat prices reached a two-year high in September 2010, owing
to adverse weather conditions in major producing and exporting countries (Argentina,
Canada, France, Germany, Pakistan and countries in the Black Sea region). The emerging
supply shortage was only partly offset by robust harvests in Brazil. Preliminary United
Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) estimates, based on data
from the International Grains Council, show that the stock-to-use ratio for total grains
was about 20 per cent in 2009-2010, while for wheat it stood at 28 per cent in 2010,
compared with 17 per cent and 20 per cent, respectively, during the food crisis of 2007
and 2008. Thus, grain prices, in general, and wheat prices, in particular, are not likely to
increase sharply again in the near term.


Meanwhile, the prices of rice, corn and sugar followed a downward trend during
the first half of 2010, although they are still higher than the average for the decade. More
recently, however, price trends reversed slightly owing to a variety of factors, including ad-
verse weather conditions in major Asian rice-producing countries, growing world demand
for corn amidst concerns about the sufficiency of yields in corn fields in the United States
of America, increased interest in biofuels as the rise in oil prices resumes, and higher world
demand for refined sugar in a context of stocks’ approaching critically low levels.


Adverse climatic conditions
and export bans pushed
up the prices of several
agricultural commodities
amidst increased
speculative behaviour


Figure II.6
Price indices of selected agricultural commodities, current
United States dollars, January 2006-September 2010
Index 2000=100


2006 2007 2008 2009 2010


Ja
n


Ap
r


Ju
l


O
ct Ja


n


Ap
r


Ju
l


O
ct Ja


n


Ap
r


Ju
l


O
ct Ja


n


Ap
r


Ju
l


O
ct Ja


n


Ap
r


Ju
l


Vegetable oilseeds and oils


100


50


0


150


200


250


300


350


400


Food
Agricultural raw materials
Tropical beverages


Source: UNCTADstat.




56 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


Over the 15 months up to July 2010, the index for oilseeds and vegetable oils
remained more or less flat, after spiking to record highs during the 2007-2008 food crisis.
From mid-2010, prices started to rise again (figure II.6). Prices of soybeans, soybean oil
and palm oil recovered following fears of tightening supplies owing to droughts in South
America and delayed planting for the production of soybean oil in the United States. This
upward trend in prices is expected to moderate as soybean production has resumed in
Argentina, Brazil and the United States.


Developments in food prices will continue to be influenced by further diversion
of land use for biofuel production, encouraged by government subsidies.4 Brazil, China,
the European Union (EU), India and the United States have all set targets to increase the
production and use of biofuels. Considering that biofuel production is competitive above
the threshold price of fossil fuels (in Europe, for instance, this threshold stands at about
$70 per barrel (pb) of oil), future prices of food crops that could alternatively be useful for
biofuel production would remain linked to the evolution of oil prices. In addition, increased
demand for production inputs has led to increased world prices for other food crops.


Weather-induced factors affected supply and price trends of tropical beverages
in 2010. Coffee prices steadily increased over the first nine months of 2010 as world coffee
production decreased by about 6.6 per cent in 2009/2010 owing to the fall in output in
several major producing countries (such as Brazil, Colombia and Viet Nam) as a result of
bad weather conditions. If demand for coffee increases at existing trend rates, stocks of
the commodity will continue to fall to critical levels, particularly for the highest grades of
Arabica, thereby exerting additional upward pressure on prices.


Cocoa prices peaked at $1.60 per pound in January 2010, mainly owing to
supply deficits. Prices dipped to a three-month low of $1.39 per pound in August 2010,
however, but rallied again for three months following the speculative behaviour of a hedge
fund which had bought a stake in cocoa beans equivalent to about 7 per cent of the global
supply. Prices have since fallen and are likely to remain subdued in the coming year based
on reports of improved cocoa harvests in Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana and despite concerns
over the potential impact of black pod disease in West Africa.


The price index of agricultural raw materials rose steadily from 139 in March
2009 to 212 in September 2010 on the back of strong world demand. Commodity-specific
factors affected rubber prices, which rose because of a forecast fall in world production
following adverse weather in the main producing countries. Cotton prices reached historic
peaks as a significant drop in world cotton production was recorded in 2009/2010, while
demand for fibres from Asian emerging economies increased sharply. As stocks will remain
low, prices are likely to remain high.


Looking ahead, price developments for agricultural commodities are uncer-
tain as they are largely influenced by weather-induced supply shocks and the speed of
stock depletion, which depends on the strength of demand in a context of uncertainty
about the global recovery. For food items, additional sources of uncertainty lie in the
possible implementation of national trade policies such as export bans, and the scope for
greater demand for biofuels which, in turn, is influenced by uncertain trends in crude
oil prices.


4 See “The future energy matrix and renewable energy: implications for energy and food security”
(TD/B/C.1/MEM.2/8).


Developments in food
prices will continue to


be influenced by further
diversion of land use for


biofuel production




57International trade


Minerals and metals


The price index of minerals, ores and metals increased sharply from early 2009 onwards
(figure II.7) in response to the stronger-than-expected recovery in emerging economies,
coupled with decreasing inventories. The largest price gains were posted for copper, lead
and zinc. Further increases in metal prices would depend on the growth prospects of large,
metal-intense economies, such as China, Brazil, India and the Russian Federation. If current
demand trends prevail, prices are expected to remain high over the short-to-medium term.


Copper prices reached historic highs in the months prior to the global financial
crisis, fell by about two thirds in the following few months, but have started to rise again
since early 2009 owing to a combination of stronger-than-expected industrial production
worldwide and strikes in key copper mines in Chile. By end-2010, it is estimated that the
world copper price will have returned to its pre-crisis peak.5 Zinc prices were on a decline
in the years before the global financial crisis, but reversed trend from early 2009 and had
effectively doubled by the end of 2010, pushed by global demand. Tin prices reached
historic highs in the early months of 2008 but had fallen by half by early 2009; they have
since recovered to nearly pre-crisis levels, however. The rebound was underpinned by a
combination of a drop in production in Indonesia and increased demand from China’s
electronic sector. The price of gold continued to soar, surging to an average price of $1,180
per troy ounce during the first nine months of 2010, at times reaching levels above $1,400.
An estimated 8.5 per cent fall in world supply during 2010, plus sustained increases in
demand by the jewellery (15.5 per cent) and the electronic (21 per cent) sectors, combined
with its character as a safe portfolio investment in times of uncertainty, contributed to


5 United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and International Copper Study
Group (ICSG) statistics, October 2010.


The rebound of industrial
activity in emerging
economies boosted prices
of minerals and metals


Figure II.7
Price indices of selected minerals, in current
United States dollars , January 2006-September 2010


Index 2000=100


2006 2007 2008 2009 2010


Ja
n


Ap
r


Ju
l


O
ct Ja


n


Ap
r


Ju
l


O
ct Ja


n


Ap
r


Ju
l


O
ct Ja


n


Ap
r


Ju
l


O
ct Ja


n


Ap
r


Ju
l


Nickel
Copper
Minerals, ores and metals
Gold


100


0


200


300


400


500


600


700


Source: UNCTADstat.




58 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


the surge in gold prices. Because of the uncertainty inherent in each of these factors, the
outlook for gold remains uncertain in the medium run. In the short run, however, the
price is likely to remain high.


The partial recovery of the world economy, boosted by the robust, albeit mod-
erating, growth of the major emerging economies, is likely to support a slight upward
trend in the prices of basic and precious metals and minerals. This may continue in the
medium term, with further price increases being fed by expected declines in productivity
of existing mines and concerns over the environmental impact of metal smelting that
may weaken the capacity of supply to respond to increases and shifts in demand. While
sluggish supply conditions could attract investments in new mines, the impact on supply
would be felt only in the medium-to-long run, considering the lengthy gestation periods of
typically more than 10 years for investments to mature in base and precious metal mines.


The oil market


Oil demand mirrored trends in global economic growth. During the crisis, demand fell
from 86.0 million barrels per day (mbd) in 2008 to 84.7 mbd in 2009.6 With the global
economic recovery, oil demand is estimated to have picked up again, to reach 86.6 mbd
in 2010.


These headline figures for oil demand mask marked differences in the driving
forces behind global oil demand. Demand in Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development (OECD) countries, which makes up 54 per cent of global demand,
fell by 4.6 per cent in 2009, but increased only modestly, by 0.4 per cent, in 2010. The
non-OECD economies, in contrast, registered an increase in oil demand of 2.3 per cent in
2009, which strengthened to 4.3 per cent in 2010.


On the supply side, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries
(OPEC) announced significant cuts in its production quotas in 2008 in response to the
emerging global crisis. Initially, the compliance rate with the new quota was high and the
total supply of oil by OPEC member States fell from 31.2 mbd in 2008 to 28.7 mbd in
2009. Increasing crude prices and greater needs for revenues eventually eroded compliance
with the reduced production quota. As a result, OPEC output increased somewhat to 29.0
mbd in the second quarter of 2010. Nevertheless, spare capacity in OPEC remained at a
relatively high level of almost 17.3 per cent of potential.


Oil supply by non-OPEC countries remained flat, at 50.9 mbd, during the
trough of the economic crisis in 2008 and 2009. By the second quarter of 2010, non-OPEC
output had increased to 52.6 mbd. The increase came mainly from fuel-exporting develop-
ing countries. Oil production in OECD countries remained virtually unchanged, with that
in North America increasing modestly to offset a continued decline in European output.


As further evidence of a well-provisioned market, total stocks of oil in OECD
countries remained at relatively high levels, falling only modestly from 96 days of forward
demand coverage in the second quarter of 2009 to 95 days in the second quarter of 2010.7


Oil prices rebounded from their 2009 levels as expectations regarding an ac-
celerating global economic recovery carried over into 2010, though only briefly. Supported
by exceptionally cold weather in the northern hemisphere, oil prices reached a 15-month
high of $80.67 pb in January 2010, a jump of 15.0 per cent from the low in December of
the previous year. However, prices subsequently reversed course and fell by almost 14.0 per


6 Data for demand and supply are provided by the International Energy Agency.


7 These figures refer to inventories of both industries and governments.


Oil demand picked up
owing to acceleration in the
growth of major non-OECD


economies


OPEC and non-OPEC
countries increased their


production




59International trade


cent, to $69.50 pb, in early February in view of concerns about possible slower economic
growth as a consequence of the potential fallout from fiscal instability in the euro area as
well as fears of a premature withdrawal of fiscal stimulus policies.


From February onwards, however, oil prices were back on an upward trend,
peaking at $88.09 pb in early May. A number of factors underpinned this turnaround.
Global equity markets boomed based on perceived expectations of a continued global
economic recovery and the strong rebound in emerging market economies, which created
a generally more positive outlook for oil demand. This, in turn, also helped support a
tighter market for gasoline in anticipation of stronger demand in the summer months. In a
second-round effect, the resulting higher crack spreads fed back into rising crude demand
and crude prices. In the geopolitical sphere, increasing political tensions in some major
suppliers, such as the Islamic Republic of Iran and Iraq, intensified fears of possible supply
disruptions.


But oil prices subsequently declined by more than 23.0 per cent in less than a
month, to $67.61 pb at the end of May, resulting from continued instability in financial
markets triggered by the Greek debt crisis. The downward spiral came to a halt as EU
Governments showed support for the public debt of member States. Subsequently, prices
crept higher with the continued recovery of equity markets, the threat of supply disrup-
tions from the hurricane season and a weakening dollar. However, after reaching a high of
$85.28 pb in early August, prices again receded in tandem with equity markets following
weak job numbers in the United States and general doubts about the strength of the global
economic recovery.


In the outlook, global oil demand is assumed to increase by 1.5 per cent in
2011, to 87.8 mbd, stoked by a jump in demand from non-OECD countries by 3.7 per
cent. Demand from China and India will continue to provide the bulk of the expansion
in the market and is projected to increase by 4.3 per cent and 3.1 per cent, respectively. In
these economies, efforts to increase energy efficiency are outweighed by the effects of con-
tinued subsidies of fuel prices as well as the impact of strong economic growth. In contrast,
OECD demand will register a modest decline of 0.2 mbd owing to economic weakness
and further efficiency gains, as well as the ongoing substitution of conventional fuel with
ethanol and biofuels. On the financial side of the oil market, the continued environment
of low interest rates creates both the liquidity and the motivation for seeking higher yields
that will preserve interest in crude oil as an investment asset (see box II.1 above).


On the supply side, non-OPEC countries are expected to post an increase
in output of 0.6 per cent in 2011, to 52.9 mbd, driven by non-OECD producers such
as Azerbaijan, Brazil, Colombia and Ghana. However, OECD producers, which provide
about 35.0 per cent of non-OPEC output, will see their production fall by 1.6 per cent
in 2011, to 18.4 mbd. The bulk of this decline will be the result of maturing oil fields in
Europe. In the United States, the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in April
2010 has had only a limited effect on total national output. The main output risks pertain
to future projects that depend on the evolving regulatory environment.


For 2011, oil prices are assumed to average $75 pb in a market characterized
by ample spare capacity among OPEC producers, eroding quota compliance by OPEC
members as well as relatively high levels of inventories. While continued solid demand
expansion in markets such as China and India will provide support to crude prices, the
fading of stimulus measures in developed markets and limited potential for any additional
such initiatives in light of growing fiscal constraints will constitute a significant offset-
ting demand factor. In parallel, financial investors are expected to tread rather cautiously.


Unless the dollar
depreciates markedly, no
further significant increase
of oil prices is expected in
the outlook




60 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


Consequently, upward pressure on crude prices resulting from these forces will likely be
limited as well.


This outlook is subject to significant uncertainty, however. Weaker-than-
expected economic activity would also create significant downward pressure on oil prices.
Possible sources for such economic weakening include a premature tightening of monetary
policy and a more pronounced slowdown of the Chinese economy. Conversely, a number of
geopolitical factors could lead to an unexpected jump in oil prices. In particular, a further
rise in international tensions regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear programme
could also affect expected or actual oil supply. In addition, more pronounced swings in the
value of the dollar would have a significant impact on oil price volatility.


Trade in services
World trade in services has been severely hit by the financial and economic crisis. It is
presumed to have recovered during 2010, but insufficient data were available at the end of
the year to confirm this. UNCTAD data indicate that the value of international trade in
services fell by 12 per cent in 2009, a significant drop, but less than the 23 per cent decline
in merchandise trade during the same year. The weaker downturn in services trade during
the global crisis could reflect a lesser dependence on intermediate inputs as much as a lesser
reliance on trade finance of certain services sectors like communications.


During 2009, international trade in services decreased by 13 per cent in devel-
oped countries, by 10 per cent in developing countries and by 17 per cent in the economies
in transition (figure II.8). The worst performance of the economies in transition reflects
a greater contraction in all services sectors, but especially those related to construction,
travel and transportation.


Trade in services was
more resilient than trade
in goods, although some


sub-categories within this
group were badly


hit in 2009


Figure II.8
Growth of exports of trade in services in current United States dollars, 2005-2009


Annual rates of growth in per cent


-20


-15


-10


-5


0


5


10


15


20


25


30


World Developing economies Economies in transition Developed economies


2005 2006 2007 2008 2009


Source: UNCTAD Secretariat
calculations, based


on UNCTADstat.




61International trade


Disaggregated data for 198 countries reveal that all types of services trade,
with the exception of two, faced negative growth in 2009 (table II.2). Trade in computer
and information services increased by 3 per cent and services earning royalties and licence
fees expanded by 19 per cent. The largest drop was in the construction services sector,
which shrank by 20 per cent, followed by financial services, which contracted by 16 per
cent. Travel and transportation services, which account for about half of world trade in
services, also suffered heavily from the global crisis and declined by 16 per cent and 9 per
cent, respectively.


A large share of trade in manufactured goods is shipped around the world
through container ships. The annual UNCTAD Liner Shipping Connectivity Index
(LSCI)8 indicates that the average maximum vessel size per country has seen a continu-
ous increase since July 2010 (figure II.9), and was 7 per cent higher than the year before
and more than 20 per cent higher than it had been in July 2008. While ship sizes have
increased, the number of companies providing services has decreased. The average number
of shipping companies per country dropped by one fifth, from 21.8 in 2004 to 17.6 in
2010. The increased concentration in the shipping industry is also visible in the fact that,
in 2010, 41 countries were receiving ships from only four companies or fewer, an increase
of 25 per cent over 2004. Mergers and acquisitions have led to less competition in the mar-
ket and are of particular concern to countries with lower trade volumes, which have seen
visible increases in unit costs. In contrast, the number of ships, and especially their total
twenty-foot equivalent unit (TEU) carrying capacity, rebounded in 2010, as China—the
country with the highest LSCI—expanded notably. In July 2010, the number of ships that
included a Chinese port in their liner shipping route was 13 per cent higher year on year,
while their TEUs registered an increase of 17 per cent.


Of the top 10 developing country providers of international services, the
Republic of Korea felt the greatest impact from the crisis (table II.3). The poor performance


8 The index is published in UNCTAD, Review of Maritime Transport 2009 (United Nations publication,
Sales No. E.09.II.D.11), p. 121, available from http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/rmt2009_en.pdf.
Data are available from http://unctadstat.unctad.org/TableViewer/tableView.aspx?ReportId=92
(accessed on 29 November 2010).


Increased concentration
in the shipping industry
remains of particular
concern for developing
countries with lower trade
volumes


Table II.2
Growth of trade in services by category, 2006-2009


Category 2006 2007 2008 2009


Communication services 13 10 13 -4
Computer and information services 36 29 18 3
Construction services 11 13 24 -20
Financial services 8 27 25 -16
Government services 4 6 7 -8
Insurance 2 36 5 -2
Other business services 15 24 12 -9
Personal cultural and recreational services 24 24 6 -11
Royalties and licence fees 7 6 9 19
Transport 11 12 15 -16
Travel 12 18 14 -9
Other services 12 17 13 -6


Source: UNCTAD secretariat calculations, based on UNCTADstat.




62 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


Figure II.9
Components of liner shipping connectivity, country averages, July 2004-July 2010


July 2004=100


100


110


120


70


80


90


130


140


150


160


170


2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010


Maximum vessel size
Twenty-foot equivalent units (TEUs)
Vessels
Services
Companies


Source: UNCTAD, calculated
from data provided
by Containerisation


International online.
Note: UNCTAD Liner Shipping


Connectivity Index (LSCI)
is generated from five


components: (1) the largest
vessel deployed on services
to a country’s ports, (2) the
number of companies that


provide services to a country’s
ports, (3) the number of


services offered by the liner
companies, (4) the number of
ships deployed on services to


a country’s ports, (5) the
TEU capacity on the


deployed ships.


Table II.3
Major providers of international services among developing countries, 1990, 2000, 2007, 2008 and 2009


1990 2000 2007 2008 2009


Val ST SWT Val ST SWT Val ST SWT Val ST SWT Val ST SWT


Developing
economies 150.0 100.0 18.0 348.0 100.0 23.0 881.6 100.0 25.0 1000.3 100.0 26.0 902.5 100.0 26.0
China 5.9 3.90 0.71 30.4 8.74 1.99 122.2 13.86 3.53 147.1 14.71 3.78 129.5 14.35 3.79
Hong Kong
SARa 17.9 11.93 2.16 40.4 11.62 2.65 84.7 9.61 2.44 92.1 9.21 2.37 86.3 9.56 2.53
India 4.6 3.08 0.56 16.7 4.79 1.09 87.0 9.86 2.51 102.9 10.29 2.65 91.1 10.09 2.67
Singapore 12.8 8.54 1.55 28.2 8.09 1.84 80.7 9.15 2.33 83.2 8.32 2.14 73.9 8.18 2.16
Republic of
Korea 9.6 6.43 1.17 30.5 8.77 2.00 63.3 7.19 1.83 77.2 7.72 1.98 58.5 6.48 1.71
Taiwan Province
of China 7.0 4.67 0.85 20.0 5.75 1.31 31.3 3.55 0.90 33.9 3.39 0.87 31.0 3.43 0.91
Thailand 6.4 4.28 0.78 13.9 3.98 0.91 30.4 3.44 0.88 33.4 3.34 0.86 30.2 3.35 0.88
Malaysia 3.9 2.57 0.47 13.9 4.01 0.91 29.5 3.34 0.85 30.3 3.03 0.78 28.7 3.18 0.84
Turkey 8.0 5.35 0.97 19.5 5.61 1.28 29.0 3.29 0.84 35.0 3.50 0.90 33.2 3.68 0.97
Brazil 3.8 2.51 0.46 9.5 2.73 0.62 24.0 2.72 0.69 30.5 3.04 0.78 27.7 3.07 0.81
Egypt 6.0 3.98 0.72 9.8 2.82 0.64 19.9 2.26 0.58 24.9 2.49 0.64 21.5 2.38 0.63
Mexico 8.1 5.40 0.98 13.8 3.95 0.90 17.6 2.00 0.51 18.5 1.85 0.48 15.4 1.71 0.45
Saudi Arabia 3.0 2.02 0.37 4.8 1.37 0.31 16.0 1.81 0.46 9.4 0.94 0.24 9.7 1.07 0.28
Macao SARa 1.5 0.98 0.18 3.6 1.03 0.23 13.9 1.57 0.40 17.5 1.75 0.45 17.1 1.90 0.50
South Africa 3.4 2.27 0.41 5.0 1.45 0.33 13.8 1.57 0.40 12.8 1.28 0.33 12.0 1.33 0.35
Lebanon 0.1 0.1 1.41 1.2 0.3 7.71 12.8 1.4 36.80 17.6 1.8 45.19 16.9 1.9 49.45


Source: UNCTAD secretariat calculations, based on UNCTADstat.
Abbreviations: Val, value (billions of US dollars); ST, share in trade by developing countries (percentage); SWT, share in world trade (percentage).


a Special Administrative Region of China.




63International trade


was reflected in declines in trade of all major services. The Republic of Korea’s exports of
construction, financial and transport services dropped by 43 per cent, 37 per cent and 35
per cent, respectively. Services exports from least developed countries (LDCs), in contrast,
were affected only marginally by the global crisis, decreasing by no more than 2.9 per cent
in 2009 (table II.4). Services provided by the poorest countries are only weakly integrated
into the global economy, however, and the growth of their services trade has been well
below the average for developing countries as a whole.


Tourism (which is part of trade in travel and transportation services) provides
an important source of income to many developing countries. International tourism de-
clined during 2009 but picked up again during 2010, in some cases returning to levels
reached in 2008 (see box II.2).


Tourism, an important
source of income to many
developing countries,
returned to 2008 levels


Table II.4
Growth rate of export services of LDCs and
comparison with developing countries, 2005-2009


Percentage


Country 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009


Least developed countries 11.1 14.2 21.5 23.0 -2.9
African LDCs and Haiti 13.2 12.4 22.3 23.6 -1.6
Asian LDCs 14.0 13.6 20.5 24.7 -5.6
Island LDCs -16.6 37.1 18.8 10.4 -2.8


Heavily indebted poor countries (HIPCs) 14.5 12.4 23.1 18.2 -1.4


Developing economies 16.6 16.1 21.4 13.5 -9.8


Share of exports of LDCs in relation
to developing countries as a whole 2.8 2.1 1.9 2.1 2.2


Source: UNCTAD secretariat calculations, based on UNCTADstat.


International tourism


International tourism started to pick up again at the end of 2009, having declined starkly from the
second half of 2008. The global economic recession, aggravated by the uncertainty created by the
AH1N1 influenza pandemic, turned 2009 into an exceptionally difficult year for a sector accustomed
to continuous growth over recent decades. International tourist arrivals for business, leisure and other
purposes worldwide totalled 880 million in 2009, down from 919 million in 2008. This corresponds to
a decline of 4.2 per cent, compared with a growth of 2.0 per cent in 2008 and about 6.0 per cent per
year during 2004-2007. With the exception of Africa, which bucked the global trend with a 3 per cent
growth, all regions of the world closed 2009 in negative territory, Europe (-6.0 per cent), the Middle
East (-5.0 per cent) and the Americas (-5.0 per cent) being hit hardest.


Visitor expenditures are an important source of revenue and employment for many
destination countries. Worldwide international tourism receipts reached $852 billion in 2009, down
from $941 billion in the previous year. The revenue decline corresponded closely with the drop in ar-
rivals in 2009, suggesting that the slowdown in tourism proceeds has more to do with tourists taking
less trips on holiday than with their spending less per trip they make.


International tourism receipts are recorded as services exports (travel credit) in balance-
of-payments statistics. Receipts from international passenger transport contracted from companies
outside the travellers’ countries of residence are not included, but reported under a separate catego-
ry (passenger transport credit). After adding international passenger transport, total tourism receipts
worldwide exceeded $1 trillion in 2009, thus contributing close to $3 billion a day to worldwide
export earnings.


As an internationally traded service, tourism exports account for as much as 30.0 per cent
of the world’s exports of commercial services and 6.0 per cent of the overall exports of goods and
services. Globally, as an export category, tourism ranks fourth after fuels, chemicals and automotive
products, while for many developing countries it is the number one export category. Although 2009
results were below standard, this performance can also be read as a sign of comparative resilience,


Box II.2




64 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


given the extremely difficult economic environment in which it was achieved. This becomes even
more evident when compared with the estimated 11.0 per cent slump in overall exports resulting
from the global crisis.


The rebound in international tourism, which started at the end of 2009, continued in
2010. Based on preliminary data available at end-October 2010 for almost 150 destination countries,
international tourist arrivals are estimated to have grown by 7.0 per cent in the first eight months
of 2010 (see figure). Growth was positive in all regions of the world, led by a robust performance in
emerging economies (8.0 per cent compared to 6.0 per cent for advanced economies).


Asia and the Pacific showed resilience and a quick recovery. Tourism in the region suf-
fered early on in the global economic crisis but it was also first to rebound, posting an impressive 14.0
per cent growth in international arrivals through August 2010. Growth was also strong in the Middle
East (17.0 per cent), but this reflected a rebound from a deep downturn in the first part of 2009. Africa
(10.0 per cent) maintained momentum, further helped by the worldwide exposure created by the
FIFA World Cup hosted by South Africa. The Americas (8.0 per cent) just exceeded average worldwide
growth, while Europe posted the weakest recovery (3.0 per cent). By August 2010, total international
tourist arrivals were back to the record level registered in August 2008. Many destinations have al-
ready received more tourists than during their pre-crisis peaks, but Europe and parts of the Americas
are still lagging in the recovery.


For the remainder of 2010, international tourism growth is expected to have slowed
down, with a projected increase in the range of 5.0-6.0 per cent for the year as a whole. The prelimi-
nary assessment for 2011 points to a growth close to the long-term average of 4.0 per cent, based
on the current trend and the continued rising level of confidence as expressed by the World Tourism
Organization (UNWTO) Panel of Experts.


The precise impact of international tourism on employment is difficult to track because,
in most contexts, providers service both residents and international visitors at the same time. Taking
national and international tourism together, the related services are estimated to generate about
6.0-7.0 per cent of jobs worldwide.


Box II.2 (cont’d)


World international tourist arrivals, monthly evolution, 2008-2010


Year-on-year percentage change


-15


-10


-5


0


5


10


15


2008 2009 2010
Source: World Tourism


Organization (UNWTO).




65International trade


Developments in trade policy


The Doha Round


The global financial and economic crisis has brought to the forefront new realities in the
international trading environment, including risks of resurgent protectionism, and has
distracted the attention of policymakers from the Doha Round of multilateral trade nego-
tiations, which was launched almost a decade ago, in November 2001, by the World Trade
Organization (WTO). In 2010, there were several attempts, including by two summit
meetings of the Group of Twenty (G20), to push for the Round’s successful and prompt
conclusion. In practice, however, little progress has been made on key issues of the nego-
tiations, including in the areas of agriculture, non-agricultural market access (NAMA),
services and special and differential treatment for developing countries. The precarious
state of the Doha Round and the uncertainty in its development outcome constitute a
major challenge for the credibility of the multilateral trading system.


Many observers coincide—even more so after the November 2010 summit
of the G20 in Seoul—that there exists only a very narrow window of opportunity to
conclude these negotiations in 2011.


It has been widely acknowledged that a balanced and ambitious outcome of
the Doha negotiations would send a powerful signal that Governments acting jointly are
capable of providing adequate multilateral trade policy responses by adopting new rules
which would correct the existing asymmetries and become more development-oriented,
including through the provision of more policy space to developing countries. Such an
outcome is necessary not only for the stability of international trade, but also for reform-
ing the global monetary and financial system, which requires new multilaterally agreed
arrangements.9 The absence of visible progress in building a cohesive regulatory system for
international finance, along with the limited ability of current practices to ensure a contri-
bution of international finance to growth and stability in the real economy, poses the risk
that emerging and developing countries might feel compelled to erect higher protection
barriers against unfettered global finance.10 The communiqué of the G20 Seoul Summit
recognized this risk and suggested alternatively that, “policy responses in emerging market
economies with adequate reserves and increasingly overvalued flexible exchange rates may
also include carefully designed macro-prudential measures”.11


One expectation was that the poorest developing countries would obtain early
benefits from the Round, in particular by introducing a largely duty-free and quota-free
(DFQF) treatment for LDC exports and by adopting measures to facilitate their trade
through both negotiating new rules for trade facilitation and providing targeted aid-for-
trade programmes. Indeed, there has been some progress, as several developed and devel-
oping countries have increased DFQF to LDCs. But the increases still fall well short of
the targets set. An “early harvest” for LDCs is needed to allow them more time to adapt
to the inevitable preference erosion process following the Doha Round’s final completion.
For the time being, according to UNCTAD estimates of relative market access conditions,
a number of LDCs have faced an increase in their average effective preference margins


9 See UNCTAD, Trade and Development Report 2010: Employment, globalization and development
(United Nations publication, Sales No. E.10.II.D.3), p. 24.


10 Ibid., p. 25.


11 The Seoul Summit Document, para. 6, available from http://www.g20.utoronto.ca/2010/g20seoul-
doc.pdf.


The Doha Round has
delivered little progress on
key development areas


New rules for trade
facilitation for the least
developed countries still
fall well short of established
targets




66 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


over recent years.12 However, a growing concern is that DFQF treatment is becoming less
relevant, since main competitors have embarked upon free trade agreements (FTAs) with
major importing countries, thus reducing the effective preference margin of LDCs when
measured, on a trade-weighted basis, against competitors’ trade within FTAs.13 Finally,
reliance on preferences should not be considered as a viable long-term strategy for these
countries, nor for small and vulnerable developing countries.


Resumption of the trend towards
more preferential trade agreements


In the absence of results from the Doha Round, the trading system has moved in the
direction of multiplying regional, plurilateral and bilateral preferential trade agreements14
which are crowding the trade policy landscape and making it difficult, in practice, for
countries to navigate through it. According to the WTO, almost 300 preferential trade
agreements are currently in force worldwide, half of which have come into effect since
2000. The global financial crisis had somehow halted the negotiation of new agreements
but, with the recovery, the process appears to have regained momentum and several new
initiatives were launched in 2010, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement.


Despite proclaimed benefits for the participants, preferential trade agreements
through bilateral or regional FTAs tend to discriminate against other trading partners by
eroding the most favoured nation (MFN) principle, the cornerstone of the multilateral
trading system. Today, more than half of world trade is subject to multiple preferential
arrangements. Furthermore, there are worrying signs that the private sector, both in devel-
oped and developing countries, may consider preferential agreements more desirable than
the multilateral trade liberalization and rule setting, which is deemed lengthy, unpredict-
able and overly politicized. For instance, tariff reductions under preferential agreements
are considered “real” in the sense that they cut applied tariff rates, while they can also
provide some “WTO-plus” rules to areas of business concerns such as investment protec-
tion, environmental regulations, labour standards and government procurement. Ideally,
the WTO multilateral rules should have provided an overarching regulatory framework
for all types of trade agreements, within which preferential agreements could have specific
rules according to the needs of their own members and economic operators.15 Since this
is not the case, there is a serious risk that the multilateral trading system could gradually
lose its relevance.


A common problem facing LDCs, and to a lesser degree other developing
countries, relates to their limited capacity to contribute actively to the trade policy debate


12 M. Fugazza and A. Nicita, “Policy issues in international trade and commodities”, Study Series No.
51 (UNCTAD/ITCD/TAB/51), forthcoming.


13 See C. Carrere and J. de Melo, “The Doha Round and market access for LDCs: scenarios for the EU
and US markets”, Journal of World Trade, vol. 44, No. 1, pp. 251-290.


14 All of these preferential agreements are termed “regional trade agreements” (RTAs) by the WTO.


15 In the Doha Round, the situation with the WTO rules on FTAs has recently been described as
follows: “The situation at present is that while we have a growing spaghetti bowl of regional
trade agreements, some more comprehensive than others, and a well functioning Mechanism to
promote transparency and our understanding of these RTAs, we are not making much progress
in the substantive part of our work to define WTO rules on RTAs. The problem, it would seem is
that we are trying to negotiate rules on RTAs, without a complete understanding of the market
access pursued by RTAs and implications of RTAs on the parties’ and multilateral trade.” (from “The
situation of the RTA negotiations”, communication from Ambassador Valles Galmés, Chair of the
WTO Negotiating Group on Rules (TN/RL/25), 6 May 2010).


Regional trade agreements
continue to emerge as the


multilateral negotiations
remain stalled




67International trade


and, furthermore, to take proper advantage of negotiating trade agreements, owing to the
lack of institutional capacity and the lack of relevant trade data, in general, and data on
trade in services, in particular.16


Developing countries may see preferential agreements with developed coun-
tries as a way to attract foreign direct investment (FDI) and improve their access to export
markets. However, obvious downsides to such a strategy are the substantially increased
pressure on developing countries to open markets beyond what is agreed to at the WTO
and the imposition on them of a WTO-plus regulatory framework by their developed
partners. For example, a typical North-South preferential trade agreement today would
involve a full and reciprocal tariff liberalization of trade in industrial products (that is to
say, zero tariffs), a more comprehensive liberalization of key services sectors (including
financial services) and the inclusion of specific rules in areas which are either not covered
by the WTO agreements (for example, investment, environment and labour standards)
or which go beyond what has been agreed multilaterally (for example, protection of intel-
lectual property and government procurement). In this context, UNCTAD suggested that
“when assessing the potential economic and social benefits and costs of entering into such
agreements, they should take into account not only the potential impact on exports and
imports arising from market opening, and possible increases in FDI, but also the impact
of these agreements on their ability to use alternative policy options and instruments in
the pursuit of a longer term developing strategy”.17


The continuation of low-intensity protectionism


At the G20 summits in Toronto (June 2010) and Seoul (November 2010), leaders reaf-
firmed their pledge to renew their commitment to refrain, at least until the end of 2013,
from increasing or imposing new barriers to investment or trade in goods and services,
from imposing new export restrictions or from implementing WTO-inconsistent measures
to stimulate exports, and committed themselves to rectifying any such measures should
they arise. In the early stages of the crisis, such commitments helped to avoid slippage into
extended protectionist measures. However, in the present situation of fragile and uneven
recovery, the risk of rising protectionism should not be underestimated. Indeed, persistent
high levels of unemployment, shrinking fiscal space in developed countries, competitive
devaluations of exchange rates to support exports, and the eventual probability of resurg-
ing global imbalances in the absence of serious adjustment efforts are all policy factors that
can fuel protectionist pressures.


One hedge against protectionism lies in the unbroken resilience of exist-
ing multilateral trade rules. The other defence probably lies in global supply chains and


16 A survey is currently being conducted by the secretariat of the United Nations Committee
for Development Policy in the context of a project aimed at improving the capacity of LDCs
to gain access to and benefit from the special support measures adopted by the international
development community (http://www.un.org/esa/policy/devplan/ldcproject.html). Preliminary
observations reveal that poor data availability remains a major shortcoming in many LDCs,
particularly in relation to the implementation of WTO processes (Survey question No. 15). More
generally, lacking the capacity to actively participate in the negotiating processes and, moreover,
lacking data to ensure effective results deriving from the reform, many developing countries risk
giving concessions without getting anything in return or without properly understanding their
development implications, as also noted by C. Raghavan, Developing Countries and Services Trade:
Chasing a Black Cat in a Dark Room, Blindfolded (Penang, Malaysia: Third World Network, 2002).


17 UNCTAD, Trade and Development Report 2007: Regional cooperation for development (United
Nations publication, Sales No. E.07.II.D.11), chap. 3.


In the present situation
of a fragile and uneven
recovery, the risk of rising
protectionism should not
be underestimated




68 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


production networks, through which producers, exporters and importers have developed
increasing mutual dependence and support. Over the past two decades, a growing share
of international trade is taking place in components and intermediates of final products
transacted through the supply chains and intrafirm trade. This phenomenon has likely
diminished the importance of traditional arguments for protectionism.


The most recent joint WTO-OECD-UNCTAD report indicates that new im-
port restrictions, introduced in the period between May and October 2010, applied to 0.2
per cent of total world imports, much less than during the trough of the crisis when such
trade measures covered about 0.8 per cent of total world imports. The most affected sectors
were electrical machinery and equipment, chemical products, machinery and mechanical
appliances, iron and steel, and dairy products.18


At the same time, however, more subtle and not-so-subtle non-tariff measures
(NTMs) are being erected under various permissible pretexts (such as the protection of
health and the environment), but these have a much more ambiguous effect on trade
than tariffs that are based on price or transparent policy measures. The majority of such
NTMs fall into two categories: technical barriers to trade (such as technical regulations
and standards) and sanitary and phytosanitary measures. Moreover, in spite of their
growing importance, there is little understanding of the exact implications of NTMs
on trade flows, export-led growth, and social welfare in general. A recent UNCTAD/
International Trade Centre (ITC) survey of over 2,000 small and medium-sized firms
in several developing countries (Brazil, Chile, India, the Philippines, Thailand, Tunisia
and Uganda) revealed that the majority of NTMs perceived to be restrictive for exports
could in fact be categorized under technical barriers to trade or sanitary and phytosanitary
regulations. These measures particularly affected such sectors as electrical and machinery
products, textiles and clothing, chemical and allied industries, base metal, and agriculture
and fisheries.19


18 See “Reports on G20 Trade and Investment Measures”, issued on 4 November 2010 by the World
Trade Organization, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the United
Nations Conference on Trade and Development, available from http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/
unctad_oecd2010_fourthsummary_en.pdf.


19 UNCTAD, Developing Countries in International Trade Studies 2009 (UNCTAD/DITC/TAB/2009/3),
forthcoming.


While the increase in
tariffs remains marginal,


the erection of non-tariff
measures have more


adverse effects on trade




69


Chapter III
Financial flows to
developing countries
Net resource transfers from poor to rich countries


Developing countries as a group are expected to have continued to provide a net transfer
of financial resources,1 of approximately $557 billion, to developed countries in 2010
(see figures III.1a-b and table III.1). The volume of net financial resource transfers was
up slightly from 2009, but remained well below the peak of $881 billion in 2007. The
decline in net transfers since 2007 reflected narrowing global trade imbalances as a result
of the dampening effect of the global recession on imports of major deficit countries. As
discussed in chapter I, this change was transitory, and net transfers from developing to de-
veloped countries increased again during 2010. The aggregate trade surplus of developing
countries also increased again as exports recovered, while private portfolio capital inflows
surged. This situation allowed for additional reserve accumulation by these countries.


Western Asia and Africa experienced the strongest increase in net outward
resource transfers in 2010, reflecting much higher export revenues of net fuel exporters in
both regions, owing to the rebound in oil prices. Low-income countries in sub-Saharan
Africa are expected to remain recipients, however, and to continue to receive positive net
transfers, as are the group of low-income countries as a whole (figure III.1b). The crisis
hurt export revenues, while more compensatory financing was made available to them.
The net inflow of resource transfers to low-income countries is expected to increase slightly
in 2010, but may taper off in the outlook if official development assistance (ODA) suffers
from the fiscal retrenchment in many donor countries.


Net transfers from East and South Asia continued to decline modestly in 2010,
along with China’s smaller trade surplus. Net transfers from Latin America and Caribbean
countries similarly declined moderately, influenced by factors that included the return of
private capital flows. Net outward transfers from economies in transition increased sub-
stantially in 2010 as trade surpluses increased from the rebound in oil export revenues of
the Russian Federation and other net fuel exporters of the Commonwealth of Independent
States (CIS).


Net resource transfers from developing countries are expected to increase mod-
erately along with the projected widening of current-account imbalances (see chap. I). This
continuation of the pre-crisis pattern in which poor countries transfer significant resources
to much richer nations also reflects the need felt by developing countries to continue accu-
mulating foreign-exchange reserves as self-protection against new global economic shocks.
Instances of global financial market turbulence, enhanced exchange-rate volatility among
the major reserve currencies and the short-term surges and volatile private capital flows have
added to high macroeconomic uncertainty and the perceived need for self-protection dur-
ing 2010. Several emerging markets and other developing countries have responded with
new capital controls and foreign-exchange rate market interventions in order to mitigate


1 The net transfer of financial resources measures the total receipts of financial and other resource
inflows from abroad and foreign investment income minus total resource outflows, including
increases in foreign reserves and foreign investment income payments. The net transfer of a
country’s financial resources is thus defined as the financial counterpart to the balance of trade in
goods and services.


Net transfers from
developing to developed
countries increased again
in 2010


Western Asia and Africa
experienced the greatest
increase in outward
resource transfers


The trend of increasing
resource transfers from
developing countries is set
to continue




70 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


-1000


-900


-800


-700


-600


-500


-400


-300


-200


-100


0


100


1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010b


Developing countries


Economies in transition


Billions of dollars


Figure III.1a
Net financial transfers to economies in transition
and developing countries, 1998-2010


Billions of dollars


Figure III.1b
Net financial transfers, by income categories, 2000-2010


-400


-300


-200


-100


0


100


Low-income countries Lower middle income countries Upper middle income countries


Average 2000-2008


2009


2010Source: UN/DESA, based on
IMF, World Economic Outlook
Database, October 2010; and


IMF, Balance of Payments
Statistics.




71Financial flows to developing countries


the adverse impacts of these developments on their economies. In spite of the increased
availability of international assistance, developing economies will continue to accumulate
reserves for self-protection as a first line of defence against financial shock. Despite the ef-
fective use of foreign reserve holdings by emerging market economies to buffer the impact
of financial instability, capital outflows from these countries during the financial crisis have
highlighted the importance of building a global financial safety net. During 2010, there
has been some progress in tightening international rules for regulating financial sectors
worldwide to enhance the voice and representation of developing countries in the Bretton
Woods institutions. But key systemic issues, such as the faltering global reserve system, an
inadequate global financial safety net, the lack of sovereign debt workout mechanisms and
deficiencies in the existing global economic governance mechanisms still need to be tackled
to safeguard against further, potentially severe, global instability in the future.


Private capital flows to developing countries
Net private capital flows to developing countries have continued to recover strongly from
their slump in 2008 and early 2009.2 They increased from about $110 billion in 2008 to
about $386 billion in 2009 and are estimated to have grown strongly in 2010 (see table III.2).
This trend has been driven by the combination of stronger economic growth in a number
of developing countries and problematic economic fundamentals in many advanced econo-
mies. Extensive monetary easing has kept interest rates low, while fragility in the financial


2 Unlike the section on international finance in chapter I, net capital flows are defined here as “net
net”, that is to say, net capital inflows less net capital outflows; coverage is of all developing countries
and economies in transition. At variance with the net transfer concept, net capital outflows refer
only to items of the capital account (including reserves) of the balance of payments.


Net private capital flows to
developing countries have
increased significantly


Table III.1
Net transfer of financial resources to developing economies and economies in transition, 1998-2010


Billions of dollars


1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010a


Developing economies -41.0 -128.0 -194.0 -164.4 -210.2 -302.7 -379.5 -597.2 -807.8 -881.1 -876.4 -545.1 -557.0


Africa 2.9 1.6 -31.7 -16.4 -4.2 -16.1 -34.5 -76.4 -108.3 -100.9 -99.1 2.9 -35.3
Sub-Saharan Africa
(excluding Nigeria and
South Africa) 11.5 7.9 2.3 6.4 4.4 5.3 3.5 -0.6 -10.5 -9.1 -4.8 27.3 14.6


East and South Asia -129.8 -139.8 -122.8 -120.8 -149.2 -175.6 -183.4 -265.7 -385.7 -529.8 -481.3 -427.5 -352.9
Western Asia 34.5 2.7 -35.3 -29.7 -23.2 -46.7 -76.3 -143.7 -175.6 -144.0 -222.5 -48.4 -112.7
Latin America and the
Caribbean 41.5 7.4 -4.2 2.5 -33.6 -64.3 -85.4 -111.4 -138.0 -106.4 -73.5 -72.1 -56.1


Economies in transition 0.7 -25.1 -51.6 -32.9 -28.0 -38.0 -62.5 -96.0 -117.1 -95.9 -149.1 -81.1 -133.0


Memorandum items:


Heavily indebted poor
countries (HIPCs) 8.8 9.5 7.9 8.3 8.9 8.8 10.7 13.4 11.2 19.0 31.0 29.6 31.0
Least developed
countriesb 12.5 10.2 5.0 8.2 5.9 7.5 5.0 1.3 -7.9 -5.2 -4.5 26.3 16.8


Source: UN/DESA, based on IMF, World Economic Outlook Database, October 2010; and IMF, Balance of Payments Statistics.


a Partly estimated.
b Cape Verde graduated in December 2007 and is not included in the calculations.




72 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


Table III.2
Net financial flowsa to developing countries and economies in transition, 1997-2011


Average annual flow


2007 2008 2009 2010b 2011c1997-2000 2001-2006


Developing countries


Net private capital flows 92.3 103.5 383.7 110.0 385.7 659.2 602.8
Net direct investment 146.4 161.9 311.8 341.6 193.3 247.5 270.9
Net portfolio investmentd 31.1 -59.4 7.7 -135.5 77.7 93.4 79.9
Other net investmente -85.3 1.0 64.1 -96.0 114.7 318.2 252.1


Net official flows -0.4 -69.1 -140.7 -113.5 -26.8 -249.4 -217.7
Total net flows 91.9 34.4 243.0 -3.5 358.9 409.7 385.1
Change in reservesf -76.7 -373.1 -1059.4 -787.8 -687.5 -654.2 -561.6


Africa


Net private capital flows 7.8 13.3 31.5 26.0 38.8 53.8 57.4
Net direct investment 8.5 22.5 41.9 52.5 42.3 39.9 50.3
Net portfolio investmentd 2.3 3.7 8.4 -31.1 -3.4 14.4 12.9
Other net investmente -3.0 -12.8 -18.8 4.6 -0.1 -0.5 -5.7


Net official flows 0.9 -10.3 -6.7 -1.2 8.9 12.9 15.4
Total net flows 8.7 3.0 24.8 24.9 47.7 66.7 72.8
Change in reservesf -8.0 -34.8 -86.9 -75.3 1.5 -25.3 -26.6


East and South Asia


Net private capital flows 4.7 65.7 137.6 -23.6 267.2 426.4 377.7
Net direct investment 62.8 72.8 133.6 138.9 57.3 67.8 63.7
Net portfolio investmentd 20.9 -34.9 2.2 -88.8 27.9 48.0 40.0
Other net investmente -79.0 27.8 1.8 -73.7 182.0 310.6 273.9


Net official flows -0.4 -16.3 -43.4 -17.5 -16.5 -259.9 -185.2
Total net flows 4.2 49.5 94.2 -41.1 250.7 166.5 192.5
Change in reservesf -59.7 -269.2 -674.5 -529.0 -644.1 -497.1 -460.7


Western Asia


Net private capital flows 15.9 -2.7 109.1 50.1 56.0 47.3 34.5
Net direct investment 6.6 18.2 49.5 57.8 31.2 61.8 60.8
Net portfolio investmentd -4.8 -20.7 -39.2 2.2 22.1 -17.0 -13.0
Other net investmente 14.1 -0.3 98.9 -9.8 2.7 2.5 -13.3


Net official flows -7.7 -32.7 -84.8 -96.1 -64.1 -28.9 -54.3
Total net flows 8.2 -35.4 24.3 -46.0 -8.1 18.5 -19.9
Change in reservesf -6.6 -46.4 -164.8 -133.2 6.4 -56.8 -45.8


Latin America and the Caribbean


Net private capital flows 63.9 27.2 105.4 57.4 23.7 131.6 133.2
Net direct investment 68.5 48.4 86.8 92.4 62.6 78.1 96.0
Net portfolio investmentd 12.7 -7.5 36.4 -17.9 31.1 48.0 40.0
Other net investmente -17.3 -13.7 -17.8 -17.1 -69.9 5.6 -2.8


Net official flows 6.8 -9.7 -5.7 1.3 44.9 26.4 6.4
Total net flows 70.8 17.5 99.6 58.7 68.6 158.1 139.6
Change in reservesf -2.4 -22.6 -133.2 -50.2 -51.2 -75.0 -28.5




73Financial flows to developing countries


systems of the major developed economies and the weak recovery continue to constrain
credit growth in the major high-income countries. This has created substantial excess li-
quidity in advanced financial markets. In search of higher returns, investors have shifted to
emerging markets. Improving terms of trade have attracted foreign direct investment (FDI)
in commodity-exporting economies, contributing to greater private capital flows.


The more favourable perceptions of emerging market risk are also reflected in
the narrowing spreads of United States government debt. J.P. Morgan’s Emerging Markets
Bond Index Plus (EMBI+) spread is, at the time of writing, trading at close to 260 basis
points, in comparison to close to 700 basis points at the end of 2008.3


Evidence of an ongoing reallocation of assets by institutional investors towards
emerging markets, away from mature economies, is consistent with these developments.
Looking ahead, this may continue, driven by both short-term cyclical factors as well as
more embedded structural developments. In the immediate period, a further round of
monetary easing, led by the United States of America and Japan, would make more funds
available to investors that could be used to purchase emerging market assets. On a longer
term basis, there is still potential for further significant asset reallocation. The major glo-
bal financial institutions currently hold between 2 and 7 per cent of their total assets
in emerging markets, whereas the share of emerging markets in global gross domestic
product (GDP) has increased to more than 30 per cent.4 Medium-term projections for
strong growth in net private capital flows to developing countries arising from continuing
asset reallocation by institutional investors might, however, be tempered by the possibility
that a large increase in the public sector financing requirements of developed economies
would enhance competition for global funds and raise borrowing costs for developing
countries. This could limit the growth in debt flows to developing countries in the near
future. As discussed in chapter I, however, global financial market trends are subject to
great uncertainty.


3 J.P. Morgan Emerging Markets Bond Index Plus (EMBI+) database.


4 Stefan Wagstyl and David Oakley, “Bubble fears as emerging nations test fresh highs”, Financial
Times, 8 October 2010.


Institutional investors have
been reallocating assets
towards emerging markets


Table III.2 (cont’d)


Average annual flow


2007 2008 2009 2010b 2011c1997-2000 2001-2006


Economies in transition


Net private capital flows -20.1 27.7 149.0 -77.2 -49.6 1.9 14.2
Net direct investment 5.8 14.3 39.3 62.0 21.6 25.6 36.2
Net portfolio investmentd -12.7 2.9 20.9 -32.3 -10.4 -0.5 0.5
Other net investmente -13.2 10.5 88.8 -107.0 -60.7 -23.2 -22.5


Net official flows 9.3 -8.9 -5.5 -18.3 46.1 7.5 8.4
Total net flows -10.7 18.9 143.5 -95.5 -3.5 9.4 22.6
Change in reservesf -4.8 -56.9 -170.3 30.0 -12.1 -69.7 -71.2


Sources: IMF, World Economic Outlook Database, October 2010; Institute of International Finance, “Capital flows to emerging market economies”,
IIF Research Note, 4 October 2010; UNCTAD; and UN/DESA.


a Net financial flows are defined here as “net net”, that is to say, net financial inflows less net financial outflows.
b Partly estimated.
c Forecasts.
d Including portfolio debt and equity investment.
e Including short- and long-term bank lending, and possibly including some official flows owing to data limitations.
f Negative values denote increases in reserves.




74 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


After declining markedly during the crisis, portfolio equity flows to develop-
ing countries recovered strongly in 2009 and 2010. This recovery was particularly strong
for those countries in Asia and Latin America that are viewed as having better growth
prospects. Stockmarkets in Colombia, Indonesia and the Philippines hit record levels in
October 2010; markets in Brazil and India also boomed.5 The revival in flows from 2009
onwards also reflected a return of investors who had feared that the global crisis would
have more severe effects on the corporate sector in emerging economies.6


Portfolio debt flows have also been staging a strong recovery from the finan-
cial crisis. This has been helped by the fact that both non-bank credit institutions and
emerging market issuers of debt have been less damaged by the crisis. In addition, low
interest rates in some of the major advanced economies appear to have been encouraging
a wave of foreign currency bond issuance in their capital markets by emerging market
borrowers. Bond inflows to Latin America and Asia have been particularly strong, as has
issuance by the non-financial corporate sector. Non-portfolio debt flows (bank credit) have
also rebounded. However, mounting non-performing loans have restrained lending in the
transition economies of Europe and Central Asia.


FDI remains the single largest component of private capital flows to developing
economies. FDI was affected by the crisis through reduced access to finance for investing
firms and low investor confidence as a result of gloomy economic prospects and market
conditions. Despite a revival in corporate earnings, the weak global investment environ-
ment has limited the recovery in FDI flows.


Outward FDI by companies based in developing countries has also increased.
Companies have invested in both developed and developing countries. The rise of
South-South FDI is often closely linked to extractive industries and infrastructure.


While the recovery in private capital flows to developing economies can be
seen as beneficial, there is concern that a recovery in investor appetite for emerging-market
risk could herald a surge in short-term capital flows to certain countries that may gener-
ate inflationary pressures and have the potential to destabilize currencies and financial
markets. In addition, there are downward risks to the general expectation of continued
robustness in private capital flows to the developing world. Most importantly, another
round of economic slowdown in developed countries could sharply affect the access to
capital of developing economies. Moreover, continuing public debt concerns in Europe
could place at risk countries, especially in emerging Europe, whose financial sectors are
closely linked to those of highly indebted countries.


International financial cooperation


Official development assistance


The global financial crisis and economic recession of 2008and 2009 negatively impacted
many developing countries and has placed severe strain on many low-income countries,
making ODA delivery even more critical. The fragile recovery in developed countries and
the possible double-dip recession create considerable uncertainty about the future volume
of ODA flows. Aid delivery, although higher than 2002 levels, has fallen short of commit-
ments by the donor community.


5 Ibid.


6 Institute of International Finance, “Capital flows to emerging market economies”, IIF Research
Note, 4 October 2010.


Asia and Latin America, in
particular, saw a surge in


portfolio inflows


The surge in short-term
capital flows involves risks


to stability in developing
countries


The crisis has increased
the need for ODA but


complicated the delivery
on commitments




75Financial flows to developing countries


In 2009, total net ODA from the members of the Development Assistance
Committee (DAC) of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD), including the Republic of Korea, whose membership became effective on 1
January 2010, rose slightly by 0.7 per cent in real terms, to $120 billion. This represented
0.31 per cent of their combined gross national income (GNI). Debt relief—exceptionally
high in 2005 and 2006 owing to extraordinary Paris Club packages for Iraq and Nigeria—
fell sharply. With the exclusion of debt relief, the rise in ODA in real terms in 2009 was
6.8 per cent. The further exclusion of humanitarian aid brings the increase to 8.5 per cent
in real terms. Most of the rise took the form of new lending, but grants also increased.


The pledges made at the 2005 Group of 20 (G20) Gleneagles Summit implied
lifting ODA from its 2004 level of about $80 billion to nearly $130 billion (at 2004
prices and exchange rates) by 2010, or to 0.36 per cent of the combined GNI of the DAC
members. It is now clear that the DAC members as a group will fail to meet the Gleneagles
target.7 With only modest growth projected, the shortfall in aid delivery will be $18 bil-
lion (in 2004 prices), or $20 billion (in 2009 prices), against the Gleneagles commitment
set for 2010. This shortfall is expected to reduce the volume of ODA to Africa, and the
increase in net ODA to that continent in 2010 is now projected to be less than half of the
pledged increase of $25 billion. At 2009 exchange rates and prices, the gap in the delivery
against the Gleneagles commitments is $18 billion, and the delivery gap on commitments
for the least developed countries (LDCs) is estimated at between $23 billion and $43
billion (table III.3).


The Gleneagles target can be seen as an intermediate commitment towards
meeting the longstanding United Nations ODA target of 0.7 per cent of donor GNI. The


7 United Nations, MDG Gap Task Force Report 2010: The Global Partnership for Development at a
Critical Juncture (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.10.I.12).


The Gleneagles targets will
not be reached


Figure III.2
Net ODA of DAC members, 1990-2009,
and DAC secretariat simulations to 2010


0.33


0.22


0.26


0.33


0.28


0.31 0.32


0.00


0.05


0.10


0.15


0.20


0.25


0.30


0.35


0.40


19
90


19
91


19
92


19
93


19
94


19
95


19
96


19
97


19
98


19
99


20
00


20
01


20
02


20
03


20
04


20
05


20
06


20
07


20
08


20
09


20
10


Pe
rc


en
ta


ge
o


f G
N


I


0


20


40


60


80


100


120


140


160
Bi


lli
on


s o
f d


ol
la


rs
(2


00
4


pr
ic


es
)


ODA as a percentage
of GNI (left scale)


Total ODA
(right scale)


ODA to Africa
(right scale)


Source: OECD/DAC.
Note: Dashed line (-----)
indicates the growth-adjusted
trajectory envisaged at
Gleneagles.
Dotted line (.....) indicates
estimates based on reported
intentions or current 2010
budget plans made by
DAC members.
Dotted line for Africa (.....)
indicates a DAC secretariat
estimate of probable
spending.




76 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


MDG Gap Task Force Report 20108 estimates the gap in delivery towards this commitment
at $153 billion in 2009 (see table III.3). Thus, in order to reach the 2015 target, ODA for
2011-2015 needs to increase by approximately $35 billion per year.


The United Nations Millennium Development Goals (MDG) summit in
September 2010 reiterated the importance of fulfilling all ODA commitments, including
that of meeting the target of 0.7 per cent of donor country GNI. All donor countries were
strongly encouraged “to establish…rolling indicative timetables that illustrate how they
aim to reach their goals, in accordance with their respective budget allocation process”.9


Only slow progress has been made on improving aid effectiveness as defined by
the five principles of the 2005 Paris Declaration—national ownership, alignment, harmo-
nization, managing for results and mutual accountability—with considerable variations
across indicators and countries.10 Slow progress towards the targets is especially visible in
countries receiving lower levels of aid, fragile States and LDCs, where distortions in aid al-
location have been exacerbated. In 2008, the Accra Agenda for Action reiterated the need
for strengthening country ownership, building more effective partnerships, and deliver-
ing and accounting for development results. During 2010, further agreements have been
reached to improve the quality of aid to fragile States (the Dili Declaration: A new vision for
peacebuilding and statebuilding of April 2010) and the quality of development assistance


8 Ibid.


9 United Nations, General Assembly resolution A/65/1 of 22 September 2010, paragraph 78 (f ).


10 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 2008 Survey on Monitoring the
Paris Declaration: Making Aid More Effective by 2010 (Paris: OECD, 2008).


Little progress has been
made in improving aid


effectiveness


Table III.3
Official development assistance in 2009 and 2010 in relation to commitments and targets


Billions of
2004 dollars


Billions of
2009 dollars


Percentage
of GNI


Total ODA


Commitment for 2010 125.8 145.7 ..
Delivery in 2009 103.3 119.6 ..
Gap in 2009 22.5 26.1 ..
Projected shortfall in 2010a 17.7 19.7 ..
Overall United Nations target .. 272.2 0.7
Delivery in 2009 .. 119.6 0.31
Gap in 2009 .. 152.7 0.39


ODA to Africa


Commitment for 2010 53.1 61.5 ..
Delivery in 2009b 37.9 43.9 ..
Gap in 2009b 15.2 17.6 ..
Projected shortfall in 2010b 14.1 16.3 ..


ODA to least developed countries


Target .. 58.9-78.5 0.15-0.20
Delivery in 2008 .. 36.0 0.09
Gap in 2008 .. 22.9-42.5 0.06-0.11


Source: United Nations, MDG Gap Task Force Report 2010: The Global Partnership for Development at a Critical Juncture
(United Nations publication, Sales No. E.10.I.12).


a Based on the OECD review of donors’ budget plans for 2010, excluding the Republic of Korea.
b Based on OECD estimates of ODA to Africa.




77Financial flows to developing countries


by middle-income countries, civil society and non-government organizations (NGOs) (the
Bogota Statement: Towards Effective and Inclusive Development Partnerships of March
2010). In addition, at the Group of Eight (G8) summit in Muskoka, Canada, on 26 June
2010 leaders endorsed an action plan to enhance efforts towards development-related com-
mitments that included a reconfirmation of commitments to untie aid and disburse it in a
timely and predictable manner.


Aid predictability is one of the goals of the Paris Declaration and requires the
inclusion of aid commitments in national budgetary plans of donor countries. The 2010
Development Cooperation Forum (DCF) of the United Nations Economic and Social
Council recognized that aid predictability had improved in some programme countries,
but emphasized that greater flexibility was needed to fund changing priorities and counter
exogenous shocks. Durability, stability and flexibility in aid delivery need to be improved
further to meet the goal of aid effectiveness. The conditionality attached to aid flows,
despite some streamlining, continues to contradict international agreements on national
ownership and leadership in policymaking. Donor earmarking of aid also becomes a prob-
lem when a donor’s priorities do not match the needs and goals of the recipient country
and undermine the recipient’s leadership in and ownership of budgeting and program-
ming. Progress on mutual accountability, a cornerstone of the Paris Declaration, remains
limited. As at end-2009, only seven recipient countries had established fully functioning
mutual accountability mechanisms, and the change in donor behaviour was uneven.11


South-South cooperation


South-South cooperation is gaining importance, even though, according to available
estimates, it accounts for only 10 per cent of global aid flows. More than 90 per cent of
South-South cooperation is “country programmed”. Three quarters of South-South aid
flows still take the form of project finance, but budget support and debt relief have recently
increased in importance. Furthermore, South-South philanthropy is increasing, mainly in
social and rural development, as through microfinance charities. Technical cooperation
remains vital for smaller providers, and humanitarian assistance is rising rapidly.


The 2010 DCF stressed that several features of South-South cooperation set it
apart from North-South cooperation. These include the typical absence of policy condi-
tionality, the establishment of horizontal relationships, and the often high degree of com-
plementarity between the cooperating parties. These features are among the reasons the
DCF recommended that South-South cooperation need not be subject to the principles of
harmonization established by OECD donors.


Innovative sources of development finance


The MDG summit of September 2010 stressed the important role innovative financing
mechanisms can play in fulfilling the financing needs of developing countries to accelerate
progress towards the international development goals.12 According to available estimates,
innovative sources of finance for development have generated an estimated $57.1 billion
between 2000 and 2008. The most successful of such schemes have supported the imple-
mentation of global health programmes.


11 United Nations, MDG Gap, op. cit., p. 21.


12 United Nations, General Assembly resolution A/65/1, op. cit., para. 78 (h).


Greater durability, stability
and flexibility of ODA
are the key elements of
improved aid effectiveness


South-South cooperation
is becoming increasingly
important


Greater importance is being
attached to innovative
financing mechanisms




78 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


Given the global economic and financial crisis and the need for sources of
finance complementary to ODA, greater attention has been given to the possible introduc-
tion of an (international) currency or financial transactions tax (CTT or FTT). The G20
Pittsburgh Summit (24 and 25 September 2009) requested the International Monetary
Fund (IMF) to evaluate the option of a tax on financial sector activity.13 In July 2010,
the Leading Group on Innovative Financing for Development released a report on the
FTT entitled Globalizing Solidarity: the Case for Financial Levies. Based on four criteria
(sufficiency; market impact; feasibility; and sustainability and suitability), the report con-
cluded that, among five FTT options,14 a centrally collected multicurrency transaction
tax was the most appropriate for financing global public goods and sharing wealth gener-
ated through global financial integration. This option was labelled the “Global Solidarity
Levy”. The Leading Group estimated that such a levy could generate as much as between
$25 billion and $34 billion annually if a tax rate of 0.005 per cent were imposed on global
cross-border currency transactions.


During the MDG summit in September 2010, the leaders of France and Spain
stressed the need for innovative financing with explicit reference to introducing a global
FTT, while 60 member States of the Leading Group, led by Belgium, France and Japan,
encouraged non-Leading Group countries to join the initiative to move forward by host-
ing a high-level side event.


The achievements made so far in the health sector by UNITAID and two multi-
lateral donors utilizing some innovative financing mechanisms—namely, the Global Alliance
for Vaccines and Immunisation (GAVI), now called the “GAVI Alliance”, and the Global
Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria—have been commended in international
forums. Since 2006, UNITAID, an international drug purchasing facility, has raised more
than $1.5 billion for scaling up access to treatments for AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria in
93 countries through multilateral organizations, including the World Health Organization
(WHO) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). About 70 per cent of revenues
for UNITAID come from air ticket levies introduced in France and one dozen developing
countries. A part of Norway’s tax on carbon dioxide (CO2)


emissions from air travel has also
been contributed to UNITAID. The remaining part of UNITAID funding comes from
multiyear contributions from private foundations and five Governments (including Brazil),
of which one country (Spain) collects contributions from air passengers on a voluntary ba-
sis.15 UNITAID now finances antiretroviral drugs for three quarters of the children around
the world and has managed to reduce the price of the medicine by more than half.


In March 2010, the Millennium Foundation launched a voluntary solidar-
ity contribution scheme on travel products under the trademark “MASSIVEGOOD” in
support of UNITAID funding. The Millennium Foundation estimates that this scheme
will generate over $2 billion annually if implemented globally.16 In July 2010, UNITAID


13 In response, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) published a report entitled “A fair and
substantial contribution by the financial sector: Final report for the G20” in June 2010.


14 The five options examined were: (1) a financial sector activity tax; (2) a value added tax on financial
services; (3) a broad FTT; (4) a nationally collected single-currency transaction tax; and (5) a
centrally collected global multicurrency transaction tax.


15 Based on information provided by the delegation of the European Union to the United Nations
in its statement delivered during the United Nations Informal Event on Innovative Sources of
Development Finance, Panel discussion 1 on “Mechanisms of innovative development financing
in operation”, held in New York on 3 June 2010.


16 Bernard Salome and Philippe Douste-Blazy, “The voluntary solidarity contribution project for
UNITAID”, in Innovative Financing for Development: The I-8 Group Leading Innovative Financing for
Equity [L.I.F.E.], Philippe Douste-Balzy, ed. (New York: United Nations, December 2009).


A financial transactions tax
is under consideration


Innovative financing
has been successful in


supporting global
health initiatives




79Financial flows to developing countries


established a voluntary patent pool mechanism, the Medicines Patent Pool Foundation,
under which the production of new HIV/AIDS medicines will be facilitated to make them
available in developing countries at more affordable prices. In September 2010, the United
States National Institutes of Health became the first patent holder to share its intellectual
property with the Medicines Patent Pool.17


The GAVI Alliance and the Global Fund have become the major multilateral
donors in the health sector, having contributed to the 14 per cent growth in global health
funding from 2000 ($5.5 billion) to 2007 ($13.5 billion).18 In 2008, the Global Fund
was the second-largest multilateral donor in the health sector with a commitment of $2.2
billion, or 12 per cent of total donor commitments, and the GAVI Alliance was ranked
the fifth-largest donor. From 2000 to July of 2010, the GAVI Alliance had received total
donor commitments of $10.6 billion.19 From 2001 to September of 2010, the Global Fund
had received $18.2 billion against pledges of $30.1 billion.20 These funds make use of
different mechanisms of innovative financing, but further expansion remains challenging
(see box III.1). As a result, the scale of revenues generated through currently operational
mechanisms for global health initiatives is too small to meet funding needs. At the Global
Fund’s Third Voluntary Replenishment meeting, more than 40 countries committed $11.7
billion for 2011-2013, up from the $9.7 billion provided during 2008-2010.21 The new
commitment falls short of the lower bound of the estimated funding needs of $13 billion.
No firm pledges were obtained from the private sector, nor could they be secured through
innovative funding mechanisms. UNITAID also faces a funding challenge. As at June
2010, there was a delay in receiving committed funds from some donors, and only four
donors had committed funding for 2011.22


Additional funding would need to be secured in order to scale up operations
and step up efforts to meet the internationally agreed health goals. Recognizing these
needs, the G8 reaffirmed its commitment to improving the health of mothers and young
children in the developing world in its 27 June 2010 Muskoka Initiative on Maternal,
Newborn and Child Health,23 while the United Nations Global Strategy for Women’s and
Children’s Health was launched at the MDG summit.


17 UNITAID, “US National Institutes of Health (NIH) First to Share Patents with Medicines Patent Pool”,
30 September 2010, available from http://www.unitaid.eu/en/20100930290/News/US-National-
Institutes-of-Health-NIH-First-to-Share-Patents-with-Medicines-Patent-Pool.html.


18 OECD, 2010 DAC Report on Multilateral Aid (Paris: OECD, September 2010).


19 GAVI Alliance, “Donor contributions & commitments: latest figures as of October 2010”, available
from http://www.gavialliance.org/about/donors/table/index.php (accessed on 23 November 2010).


20 Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, “Pledges as of 31 October 2010”, available
from http://www.theglobalfund.org/documents/pledges_contributions.xls (accessed on 23
November 2010).


21 Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, “Donors commit US$ 11.7 billion to the Global
Fund for next three years”, press release, 5 October 2010, available from http://www.theglobalfund.
org/en/pressreleases/?pr=pr_101005c. According to a list of pledges for 2011-2013, the Global
Fund expects about 2 per cent of revenues during this period ($109 million) to be generated from
the Debt2Health initiative and other innovative financing schemes ($163 million). The role played
by the innovative mechanisms in the overall funding remains modest.


22 UNITAID, “More countries should apply solidarity air levy to complement funding for global health:
Secure funding key to keep expanding treatment for people with AIDS, Malaria and TB”, press release
of 10 June 2010, available from http://www.unitaid.eu/en/20100610264/News/MORE-COUNTRIES-
SHOULD-APPLY-SOLIDARITY-AIR-LEVY-TO-COMPLEMENT-FUNDING-FOR-GLOBAL-HEALTH.html.


23 G8 Muskoka Declaration: Recovery and New Beginnings, Muskoka, Canada, 25-26 June 2010,
available from http://g8.gc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/declaration_eng.pdf .


The GAVI Alliance and the
Global Fund face funding
challenges




80 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


Innovative finance mechanisms thus far have been by and large confined to
supporting global health initiatives. Their usage to increase funding for other develop-
ment purposes, such as education, climate change adaptation and food security, are being
explored. The Leading Group formed a new task force on education, which brought out
a report in September of 2010, entitled “2+3=8: Innovating in Financing Education”. The
United Nations High-Level Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing also studied


Innovative financing
options are being explored


for education, climate
change adaptation and


food security


Mechanisms underlying innovative
financing for global health


Innovative forms of financing have been effectively introduced to support global health initiatives.
The two innovative mechanisms used by the GAVI Alliance are the International Financing Facility for
Immunisation (IFFIm) and the Advance Market Commitment (AMC). The IFFIm has been the major
source of funding for GAVI since 2006, having raised $2.6 billion (as of March 2010), mostly through
issuance of foreign currency-denominated bonds against long-term official development assistance
(ODA) pledges of $6 billion made by nine donor countries (including South Africa). In relation to the
overall financial requirements of $4.3 billion for 2010-2015, GAVI expects that these two mechanisms
will generate revenues to cover about half of its funding needs, namely, $1.3 billion through the IFFIm
and $920 million through the AMC.


The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria receives resources through
three mechanisms. First, voluntary contributions from (PRODUCT)redtm, which collects profits gener-
ated from products and events under the trademark (RED)tm. Second, it receives half of the value of
cancelled debt under Debt2Health debt-swap agreements. And, third, it obtains contributions from
UNITAID. It should be noted, however, that in the case of the Global Fund, these innovative sources
of financing provide only a fraction of its overall revenues. Since 2006, (PRODUCT)redtm has trans-
ferred over $150 million to the Global Fund.a Under the Debt2Health initiative, the Global Fund has
implemented health projects in Indonesia and Pakistan worth €45 million through two debt-swap
agreements since 2007, by securing the commitment of €200 million for 2008-2010 from Germany.b
The cumulative paid-in contributions by UNITAID to the Global Fund amounted to $130 million. The
sum of revenues raised by these three mechanisms, therefore, accounts for not more than 2 per cent
of the Global Fund’s cumulative contributions received so far.


Further expansion of these mechanisms remains challenging. In the case of the GAVI
Alliance, IFFIm commitments after 2010 are levelling off, creating an estimated funding gap of $2.6
billion during 2010-2015. Although a few new donors have been added, GAVI would need to find ad-
ditional IFFIm donors or secure larger contributions from existing donors in order to fill its financing
gap. In March 2010, the GAVI Alliance did manage to secure the participation of two pharmaceutical
companies in making long-term commitments to supply new vaccines under the AMC.


Progress in enhancing the Debt2Health initiative has also been slow. Debt2Health was
incorporated as a permanent feature of resource mobilization for the Global Fund in November 2009,
but only two new agreements have been signed so far. The two new agreements included one
between Australia and Indonesia involving a debt write-off worth AS$ 75 million, signed in July; and
one between Germany and Côte d’Ivoire signed in September 2010, cancelling €19 million of the
latter’s debt. With these agreements, the total amount of debt swapped under this initiative is now
€164 million (US$ 213 million). While no new official donors have been added to the Debt2Health
initiative, the Global Fund did manage to forge two innovative financing agreements with private
agents which could yield important new revenue: it agreed with the Dow Jones Indexes to explore
the creation of a new blue chip index, which could be licensed as the basis for investible products,
and with the National Bank of Abu Dhabi to launch an Exchange-Traded Fund, from which the Global
Fund would receive a portion of the licence and management fees.


Box III.1


a See, (RED)tm, available
from http://www.joinred.


com/FAQ (accessed on
18 August 2010).


b The Global Fund to
Fight Aids, Tuberculosis


and Malaria, “Debt2Health:
Innovative Financing of the
Global Fund”, available from
http://www.theglobalfund.
org/en/publications/other/


debt2health/?lang=en
(accessed on


18 August 2010).




81Financial flows to developing countries


funding options, including innovative mechanisms, to raise $100 billion per year by 2020,
and presented its final report in November 2010.24


As new options are being explored, questions are being raised whether in-
novative financing for global initiatives should not also be subjected to aid effectiveness
criteria as established by the Paris Declaration. There is also criticism that new financing
mechanisms are further complicating the already complex aid architecture and contribut-
ing to its further fragmentation.


Debt relief


Sovereign debt problems appeared to have become a thing of the past in mid-2008, as
debt indicators of developing countries had improved remarkably, aided by several years of
unhampered economic growth and debt relief for many low-income countries. However,
while many developing countries were reducing their indebtedness, many developed
countries were increasing their borrowing. Discussions on debt sustainability, which for
decades focused on overindebtedness in low-income and emerging market countries, have
now become global. Public debt in advanced countries reached about 70 per cent of GDP
as at end-2007, and is projected to rise to above 100 per cent of GDP at the end of 2015.


Despite improvements in the debt positions of many developing countries prior
to the crisis, some countries, including some small middle-income countries, remained in
vulnerable situations; since the crisis, many more have vulnerable debt positions. The total
external debt (public and private) of developing countries as a share of GDP rose to 24.8 per
cent in 2009, an increase of 2.2 percentage points over the previous year. The downward
trajectory of the debt service-to-exports ratio was reversed owing to the negative impact
of the crisis on the dollar value of both GDP and exports. As a result, the average external
debt-to-export ratio of developing countries and transition economies increased from 64.1
per cent in 2008 to 82.4 per cent in 2009. In many countries, debt ratios increased even
more significantly as efforts to manage the impact of the crisis resulted in rapid increases in
public debt. The public debt of a large number of developing countries is above 40 per cent
of GDP, including the debt of countries that benefited from the Heavily Indebted Poor
Countries (HIPC) Initiative. Many post-completion point HIPCs have increased debt to
levels above the thresholds utilized for their debt writeoffs.


Gross IMF lending commitments, which stood at $1 billion in 2007, went up to
$49 billion in 2008 and $120 billion in 2009. IMF concessional lending commitments in
2007 amounted to $0.2 billion, and rose to $1.2 billion in 2008 and $3.8 billion in 2009.
Other multilateral financial institutions also sharply increased their lending levels. The
World Bank increased its gross commitments from $36.5 billion in 2007 to $65 billion in
2009. Most of the increase was for International Bank for Reconstruction and Development
(IBRD) loans targeted to middle-income countries. The main regional development banks
also increased their lending from $30 billion to $50 billion over the same period.


Although generous debt relief has been provided to low-income countries
under the HIPC Initiative, vulnerabilities remain. As at end-September 2010, after the
Comoros reached its decision point in June of 2010, 36 out of 40 countries qualified
for debt relief under HIPC (“post-decision point HIPCs”). Since the beginning of 2010,
four countries—Afghanistan (January), the Congo (January), Liberia (June) and the


24 United Nations, “Report of the Secretary-General’s High-level Advisory Group on Climate Change
Financing”, 5 November 2010, available from http://www.un.org/wcm/webdav/site/climatechange/
shared/Documents/AGF_reports/AGF_Final_Report.pdf (accessed on 23 November 2010).


Debt problems have
now engulfed developed
countries also


The debt situation in many
developing countries has
improved, but problems
remain


Despite generous debt-
relief measures, a number
of countries remain
vulnerable




82 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


Democratic Republic of the Congo (July)—have reached their completion points and
qualified for irrevocable debt relief from the HIPC Initiative and the Multilateral Debt
Relief Initiative (MDRI), increasing the number of post-completion point countries to
30. Six countries are now between their decision and their completion points (“interim
HIPCs”), three of which are expected to reach their completion point within the next 12
to 18 months. Assistance committed to the 36 post-decision point HIPCs ($127 billion,
including $51 billion under the MDRI) represents, on average, 38 per cent of their 2009
GDP. The debt burden of these countries has been reduced by more than 80 per cent on
average compared to pre-decision point levels.25


The total cost of the HIPC Initiative is estimated at $76.4 billion by end-2009
in present value terms (an increase of $2.5 billion from end-2008 in present value terms),
of which $54.3 billion represents irrevocable debt relief to the 30 post-completion point
countries. The estimated costs for the six interim countries and four pre-decision point
countries are $5.3 billion and $16.9 billion, respectively. Additional HIPC assistance re-
ceived so far by the six interim HIPCs represents less than 3 per cent of the total cost.
In order to provide debt relief to the few HIPCs with protracted arrears to international
financial institutions (IFIs), more funds will be required.26


The total cost of the MDRI is estimated at $30.3 billion at end-2009 in present
value terms (an increase of 1.9 billion from end-2008 in present value terms)27, of which
$26.7 billion has been delivered to the 30 post-completion point HIPCs. In addition,
the IMF has also provided MDRI relief to Cambodia and Tajikistan. While the World
Bank’s Debt Relief Trust Fund and International Development Association (IDA) have
sufficient resources to cover debt relief costs under the HIPC Initiative over the IDA-15
commitment period (FY 2009-2011), IMF resources are sufficient to cover the costs of
the remaining HIPCs, except for the protracted arrears of Somalia and Sudan, for which
no provision had been made under the original HIPC financing framework. Additional
resources will be needed if more countries, such as Myanmar (whose end-2004 debt data
to determine eligibility are yet to be made available), become eligible for assistance under
the Initiative.


Non-Paris Club official creditors and commercial creditors account for 13 per
cent and 6 per cent of debt relief, respectively.28 While Paris Club creditors’ costs are
mostly for debt relief to post-completion point HIPCs, more than half of the estimated
costs of non-Paris Club and commercial creditors relate to pre-decision point HIPCs. The
IDA and IMF estimate that non-Paris Club creditors have delivered between 34 and 39
per cent of their programmed debt relief.29 Delivery of debt relief by commercial creditors
has improved in recent years. Some commercial creditors continue to pursue litigation
against HIPCs to recover claims. The number of litigation cases declined from 33 to 14
cases in 2009; the situation was similar in 2010, the key changes being the conclusion or
withdrawal of two cases.30 The limited participation of non-Paris Club official creditors in


25 World Bank, “HIPC At-A-Glance Guide (Fall 2010)”, available from http://siteresources.worldbank.
org/INTDEBTDEPT/Resources/468980-1256580106544/HIPCFall2010_ENG.pdf (accessed on 18
October 2010).


26 International Development Association (IDA) and IMF, “Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC)
Initiative and Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative (MDRI): Status of implementation”, 14 September
2010.


27 World Bank, op. cit.


28 IDA and IMF, op. cit.


29 Based on IDA and IMF, op. cit., annex table 15.


30 IDA and IMF, op. cit.


More funds are needed to
provide debt relief to HIPCs


with protracted arrears


More than half of the costs
of non-Paris Club and


commercial creditors relate
to pre-decision point HIPCs




83Financial flows to developing countries


the debt relief process and litigation by commercial creditors remain obstacles to minimiz-
ing the risk of future debt-servicing difficulties of HIPCs.


One positive development in the litigation cases by commercial creditors was
the agreement in principle of the litigants in the two lawsuits against Liberia in April
2009 to participate in an external commercial buy-back operation, with support from the
IDA Debt Reduction Facility (DRF). Another relates to national and multilateral initia-
tives, such as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland’s Debt Relief
(Developing Countries) Act of April 2010 which limits the amounts that litigating credi-
tors can recover in the country’s courts against HIPCs. A member of the United States
House of Representatives has also presented legislation that would limit the ability of
non-participating creditors to seek awards from HIPCs via United States courts. While no
legal support facility is yet available for HIPCs outside Africa, the African Legal Support
Facility, launched by the African Development Bank with an initial endowment of $16
million, is now operational to provide support for African countries facing litigation from
commercial creditors.31


The global financial crisis has enhanced the debt vulnerabilities of many low-
income countries, including HIPCs, although the IMF forecasts that systemic post-crisis
debt difficulties are unlikely.32 According to the latest information from the IDA and IMF
on implementation of the HIPC and MDRI initiatives, five HIPCs are classified as being
“in debt distress”, while eight others are at “high risk of debt distress” (figure III.3). Seven
non-HIPC low-income countries are identified as facing debt problems. Two new post-
completion point HIPCs, namely, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Liberia,
were classified as being “in debt distress” in the April 2010 study;33 however, at the time of
the study, both were interim HIPCs. Since then, the Democratic Republic of the Congo
has exited the HIPC Initiative with a “high risk” rating,34 while the most recent IMF
country report dated July 2010 indicates that Liberia exited with a “low risk” rating.35


Despite the debt relief already provided, the World Bank classifies almost half
(19) of the 40 HIPCs as being in “fragile situations”, lacking effective delivery of develop-
ment finance and services.36 Only a few HIPCs are on track to meet the MDGs, while
progress in eradicating extreme poverty and hunger and in improving maternal health has
been particularly slow. Continued and increased access to concessional financing needs to
be considered if post-completion point HIPCs are to maintain debt sustainability beyond
their completion points.


After the fourth extension of the sunset clause, which expired at the end of
December 2006, no further extension is being considered in the light of the crisis. This
means that, no matter how unsustainable their debt levels may be, developing countries


31 IDA and IMF, op. cit., pp. 20-23.


32 IMF and World Bank, “Preserving debt sustainability in low-income countries in the wake of the
global crisis”, paper prepared by the staffs of the IMF and the World Bank, 1 April 2010, available
from http://www.imf.org/external/np/pp/eng/2010/040110.pdf.


33 Ibid., p.17.


34 IDA and IMF, op. cit., p.9.


35 Based on IMF Country Report No. 10/192 of 8 June 2010, “Liberia: Enhanced Initiative for Heavily
Indebted Poor Countries—Completion Point Document and Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative”,
which contains Liberia’s debt sustainability analysis and concludes that “Liberia’s risk of debt
distress remains low following the debt relief under the HIPC initiative and the MDRI, although
delays in implementing structural reforms aimed at raising growth, investment and exports could
be a source of external vulnerability.” (p. 55).


36 IMF and World Bank, Global Monitoring Report 2010: The MDGs after the Crisis (Washington, D.C.:
IMF and World Bank).


Some positive
developments have
occurred in the area of
litigation


Only some HIPCs are on
track to meet the MDGs


No further extension of
the sunset clause is being
considered




84 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


that did not meet the HIPC eligibility criteria in 2006 will not be able to enjoy the benefits
of HIPC or MDRI debt relief despite new debt vulnerability and distress. Zimbabwe, for
example, currently assessed as being in debt distress,37 did not meet the World Bank’s
income criteria based on its end-2004 data. For the country to be eligible for HIPC debt
relief, the eligibility criteria would have to be modified. Additional efforts need to be made
to ensure that all eligible countries benefit under the HIPC and MDRI initiatives.


The 2009 review of the joint World Bank-IMF Debt Sustainability Framework
for Low-Income Countries resulted in a change in approach towards the debt of State-
owned enterprises, remittances and the growth-investment nexus. However, the review did
not allay concerns about country policy and institutional assessments, whose continued
inclusion in the framework have come under greater criticism. While institutions matter
for long-term development, thresholds for debt-carrying capacity defined in the short-
and medium-term, based on institutional quality, give greater weight to institutional and
governance factors, without recognizing that improvement of these factors requires fiscal
capacity. A needs-based assessment for the allocation of grants to invest in the MDGs and
other development goals would therefore need to be considered so that development gains
lead to improved institutional governance and debt-carrying capacity.


While the debt problems of small middle-income countries do not pose sys-
temic risks, they reduce space for growth and development expenditure. For the majority
of countries in this category, the bulk of the debt is owed to multilateral institutions.
Many of these countries are beset with structural vulnerabilities and suffer from debt
overhang. New borrowing in these cases would only make these economies even more in-
debted. Other complementary policy tools are needed in addition to official sector lending.


37 IMF and World Bank, “Preserving debt sustainability”, op. cit., p.17.


Figure III.3
Low-income countries in debt distress or at
high risk of debt distress, October 2010


0


2


4


6


8


10


12


14


HIPCs Non-HIPCs


Decision point


Pre-decision point


Post-completion
point


Number of countries


Source: UN/DESA, based
on IMF, “List of LIC DSAs for
PRGT-Eligible Countries, as


of October 12, 2010” and IDA
and IMF, “Heavily Indebted


Poor Countries (HIPC)
Initiative and Multilateral


Debt Relief Initiative (MDRI)—
Status of Implementation”,


14 September 2010.
Note: Debt distress rating


according to the latest
DSA publication.




85Financial flows to developing countries


Further work is needed to provide the technical basis for a balance between new resources
and other debt resolution tools.


The unfolding debt distress in some European countries, as well as renewed
indebtedness in some developing countries, points to the limits of the existing arrange-
ments for dealing with debt problems. There is an urgent need to set up an international
sovereign debt workout mechanism which would allow countries to restructure their debt
in a timely and comprehensive manner, if necessary.


Strengthening the international
financial architecture


The international community has continued its efforts to overhaul financial regulation
and supervision, as well as to review the mandate of the IMF and its responsibilities for
surveillance, financing and stability of the international monetary system, including the
international reserve system. There have also been further deliberations on improving
global economic governance and governance reform of the IFIs, with a view to enhancing
their legitimacy, credibility and effectiveness.


Reform of the framework for financial regulation


The financial crisis has demonstrated the urgent need to significantly improve financial
regulation and supervision in order to achieve global financial stability. The June 2009
United Nations Conference on the World Financial and Economic Crisis and Its Impact
on Development called for expanding the scope of regulation and supervision and making
them more effective with respect to all major financial centres, instruments and actors.


It has also been recognized that financial regulation at the microprudential level,
focused on individual financial institutions, is not enough to achieve global financial sta-
bility and has to be supplemented by an adequate macroprudential framework. The reform
agenda—set in motion by the G20 summits in Washington, London, Pittsburgh, Toronto
and Seoul—envisages the introduction of macroprudential supervision that would take
due account of the overall stability of the financial system, including pro-cyclicality, and
systemic risks and moral hazard caused by systemically important financial institutions
(SIFIs). Close cooperation and coordination among numerous national and international
regulatory and standard-setting bodies is important to ensure coherence and consistency
of reform measures and to assess the costs and benefits of the proposed changes.


A major step in the reform process is the modification of the Basel II frame-
work for capital and liquidity regulation. The goal of Basel III is to raise the level, quality,
consistency and transparency of bank capital. Banks have already increased their capital
and liquidity buffers beyond those required by Basel II following market pressures and
increased scrutiny by bank supervisors after the crisis. Nevertheless, significantly higher
formal minimum capital requirements are deemed necessary to help avoid any return to
the low pre-crisis capital and liquidity levels when financial conditions return to normal
and competitive pressures reassert themselves. The new capital and liquidity reform pack-
age, Basel III, was agreed to and issued by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision
(BCBS) between July and September 2010.38


38 Bank for International Settlements (BIS), “The Basel Committee’s response to the financial crisis:
report to the G20”, October 2010, available from http://www.bis.org/publ/bcbs179.htm.


Surging sovereign debt
problems point to the need
for an international debt
restructuring mechanism


Efforts to overhaul financial
regulation and supervision
are continuing


Global financial stability
requires a macroprudential
framework




86 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


A key element of Basel III is an increase in the minimum common equity
requirement, to 4.5 per cent from 2.0 per cent under Basel II.39 To address pro-cyclicality,
in addition to minimum requirements, the BCBS agreed to introduce capital conservation
and counter-cyclical buffers to be built up in good times and drawn upon in periods of
stress. A capital conservation buffer of 2.5 per cent of common equity is aimed to ensure
that capital remains available to support the bank’s ongoing business operations during
times of stress. A counter-cyclical capital buffer in a range of 0.0-2.5 per cent may be
built during periods of rapid credit growth if, in the judgement of national authorities, a
credit bubble has led to the build-up of system-wide risk. The buffer will be released in the
downturn of the credit cycle to help absorb losses in the banking system that pose risks to
financial stability.


There is also an agreement to introduce a leverage ratio, that is to say, a cap on
the amount of assets a bank may have in relation to its equity. This backstop is seen as sup-
plementary to the risk-based capital framework. In addition, there will be higher capital
charges related to bank-trading activities, complex securitizations and derivatives.


Along with more and better capital to absorb unexpected losses, the BCBS
has proposed a global liquidity standard which would require banks to better match the
maturities of their assets and liabilities. Another feature of this standard is the requirement
for banks to hold sufficient stocks of high-quality liquid assets to allow them to survive a
30-day loss of access to market funds.


According to the BCBS, implementation of the main components of Basel III
should be completed by the beginning of 2019. It has been agreed that phase-in arrange-
ments for adopting the new standards should reflect different national starting points and
circumstances.40 In particular, special attention needs to be given to the characteristics,
depth and capacity of local financial markets.


Higher capital requirements would force banks to raise additional capital.
This may have a negative impact on banks’ ability to lend and could result in somewhat
slower global growth. However, according to the Financial Stability Board (FSB)/BCBS
Macroeconomic Assessment Group, the reforms proposed by the Basel Committee are
likely to have, at most, a modest impact on aggregate output, provided appropriate transi-
tion arrangements are in place.41


According to many observers, Basel III represents a substantial improvement
in the quantity and quality of bank capital. It has been stressed, however, that these new
capital and liquidity standards apply only to banks. Consequently, despite some progress,
much more needs to be done to address risks outside traditional banks and to ensure
consistency in the application of regulations across different types of financial markets and
institutions offering similar products.


Furthermore, work is under way at the FSB to develop principles to reduce the
reliance of authorities and market participants on credit-rating agency (CRA) ratings. The


39 The minimum ratio of 2.0 per cent under Basel II is more like 1.0 per cent for an average bank in
the new, stronger definition under Basel III (see, “Basel III: towards a safer financial system”, speech
by Jaime Caruana, General Manager of the BIS, at the Third Santander International Banking
Conference, Madrid, 15 September 2010, available from http://www.bis.org/speeches/sp100921.
htm).


40 The G20 Toronto Summit Declaration, Toronto, Canada, 26-27 June 2010, available from http://
www.g20.org/Documents/g20_declaration_en.pdf.


41 BIS, “Assessing the macroeconomic impact of the transition to stronger capital and liquidity
requirements: Interim report”, prepared by the Macroeconomic Assessment Group, established
by the Financial Stability Board and the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, August 2010,
available from http://www.bis.org/publ/othp10.pdf.


A higher minimum
common equity


requirement constitutes a
key element of Basel III


In addition, a cap on the
leverage ratio will


be introduced


The phase-in of the new
conditions will differ


according to national
circumstances


The new standards only
apply to banks, while better


regulation of non-banking
institutions is at least


as important




87Financial flows to developing countries


goal is to reduce the effects of CRA ratings that amplify pro-cyclicality and cause systemic
disruption.42


Apart from addressing pro-cyclicality, the FSB and BCBS are developing policy
approaches for addressing the “too-big-to-fail” problems associated with SIFIs. These are
considered major concerns of regulatory reform, as the crisis has exposed an alarming
disparity between the global activities of these banks and the constraints of mainly
national regulation. The starting point is to identify systemically important institutions,
size not always being the sole indication of systemic relevance. Interconnectedness, sub-
stitutability and the state of the markets are also relevant. However, there is not yet
consensus on the issue.43


As regards ensuring the safety and soundness of SIFIs, the introduction of the
Basel III framework and the resulting improvement in the capacity of these institutions to
absorb losses are considered to be only part of the solution. It has been agreed that SIFIs
should have loss-absorbing capacity beyond the general standards. Proposed measures
include capital surcharges and levies related to the institutions’ contribution to systemic
risk, contingent capital and bail-in debt. The proposed policy framework also includes
enhanced on-site supervision, harmonized enforcement activities and strengthened super-
visory cooperation and coordination, including a mutual policy review process to promote
consistent national policies.


Another important focus of reform is the development of legal and policy
frameworks for cross-border resolution that should allow institutions of all types and sizes
to fail without putting the rest of the financial system or taxpayers at risk. Given the com-
plexity of the tasks and the different interests of the countries involved, harmonization of
national wind-down rules that would allow regulators to step in promptly and in a coordi-
nated way when problems emerge in financial institutions is a precondition for an effective
resolution framework. Standards for global firms should set a common floor, while actions
across countries must be sufficiently coordinated to avoid unilateral responses and regula-
tory arbitrage. There may also be a need in an international agreement for principles that
would promote equitable outcomes on the disposition of assets and payment of the costs
of resolving failed institutions. Besides, every important firm, regardless of the institution’s
legal form, must be included within the parameters of such regulation.


Should attempts to create such a comprehensive framework not succeed, some
alternative solutions may gain broader acceptance, including the placing of restrictions on
certain business activities and on the size and structure of financial firms so as to make all
institutions resolvable without adverse systemic implications.


Options to devise a fair and substantial contribution from the financial sec-
tor to fund the fiscal costs of financial failures are also being explored internationally.
Initially, the discussion was centred on the imposition of levies and taxes on financial
institutions. However, global bank taxation lacks the necessary support. Accordingly, it
was acknowledged that there was a range of policy options, with countries pursuing dif-
ferent approaches.44


42 Statement of Mario Draghi, Chairman of the Financial Stability Board, at the twenty-second
meeting of the International Monetary and Financial Committee (IMFC) of the IMF, Washington,
D. C., 9 October 2010, available from http://www.imf.org/External/AM/2010/imfc/statement/eng/
fsb.pdf.


43 See, “The G20 agenda on financial regulation”, speech by Axel A. Weber, President of the Deutsche
Bundesbank at the International Conference on Financial Market Regulation, Berlin, Germany, 19
May 2010, available from http://www.bis.org/review/r100520a.pdf.


44 The G20 Toronto Summit Declaration, op. cit.


“Too-big-to-fail” problems
remain a major policy
concern


Creating an orderly cross-
border default mechanism
poses another challenge for
policymakers


Other options include
restrictions on certain
business activities




88 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


The crisis has shown that prudential regulation alone cannot ensure financial
stability and that monetary and fiscal policies also matter in helping to mitigate the build-
up of financial imbalances. According to many observers,45 besides controlling inflation,
monetary policy should take better account of asset prices and credit booms. Fiscal policy
must play a supporting role in a financial stability framework. While the major goal of
fiscal policy is counter-cyclical demand management, it should also take into account the
need to build fiscal buffers in good times to respond to financial system stress.


Multilateral surveillance and policy coordination


The IMF has recognized that, unlike the outside world, Fund surveillance has not changed
much since the late 1970s and is almost the same for all members.46 The crisis, however, has
forcefully demonstrated that, in a world of integrated capital markets and interconnected
national financial sectors, the status quo is no longer acceptable. A key goal of reform is
therefore to strengthen multilateral surveillance and enhance the coverage and depth of
analysis of financial sector issues and policies. To promote global stability, the Fund’s
surveillance activities need to pay more attention to policy spillovers, especially those of
systemically important countries. Surveillance at the country level remains fundamental,
but is no longer sufficient. Assessing international coherence and promoting coordination
among national policies should become a central objective of the collaboration.


According to the Independent Evaluation Office of the IMF, most members
support a greater direct Fund presence in international policy coordination and spillover
analysis.47 However, the Fund’s role is not well defined; it is therefore deemed useful
to clarify what is expected of the Fund and its membership in order to preserve sys-
temic stability, including key modalities, procedures and outcomes. In this regard, the
International Monetary and Financial Committee (IMFC) has requested the Fund to
study the cross-border implications of the policies of systemically important economies
under consideration.48 The goal of the reports is to raise the members’ awareness of their
responsibilities in preserving global financial stability, and to more clearly highlight the
risks faced by countries affected by international spillover effects. A trial exercise with
five major economies (China, the euro area, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United
States) is to be completed by July 2011.


There have also been suggestions to hold multilateral consultations, as needed,
on specific topics that have systemic implications, in order to foster collaboration and col-
lective action.49 One such topic might be growing sovereign risks of developed countries.


45 See, for instance, “Towards a global financial stability framework”, speech by Hervé Hannoun, Deputy
General Manager of BIS at the 45th SEACEN Governors’ Conference, Siem Reap Province, Cambodia,
26-27 February 2010, pp. 19-23, available from http://www.bis.org/speeches/sp100303.htm.


46 IMF, “Modernizing surveillance mandate and modalities”, paper prepared by the IMF Strategy,
Policy and Review Department and the Legal Department, 26 March 2010, p. 4, available from
http://www.imf.org/external/np/pp/eng/2010/032610.pdf.


47 Independent Evaluation Office of the IMF, “IMF Interactions with Member Countries”, Evaluation
report, 25 November 2009, p. 34, available from http://ieo-imf.org/eval/complete/pdf/01202010/
IMC_Full_Text_Main_Report.pdf.


48 Communiqué of the Twenty-Second Meeting of the International Monetary and Financial
Committee of the Board of Governors of the International Monetary Fund, Press release No. 10/379,
9 October 2010, available from http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pr/2010/pr10379.htm.


49 IMF, “IMF Executive Board discusses modernizing the Surveillance Mandate and Modalities and
Financial Sector Surveillance and the Mandate of the Fund”, Public Information Notice (PIN) No.
10/52, 22 April 2010, available from http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pn/2010/pn1052.htm.


Regulation alone cannot
ensure financial stability


Surveillance needs to place
greater emphasis on


policy spillovers




89Financial flows to developing countries


Thus far, the most major attempt at the highest political level to take account of
multilateral dimensions when setting national policies has been initiated outside of the IMF
surveillance process. At the September 2009 Pittsburgh Summit, G20 leaders announced
the Framework for Strong, Sustainable and Balanced Growth and committed themselves to
submitting their actions to peer review via the Mutual Assessment Process (MAP). Through
the MAP, the world’s largest economies are supposed to be accountable to one another for
the global coherence and consistency of their budget, monetary and structural policies. At
the G20 Summit in Seoul, participants agreed to enhance the MAP through, among other
things, the establishment of indicative guidelines with respect to the global imbalances.


However, there have been signs that the momentum for closer cooperation and
coordination is decreasing and giving way to diverse narrow domestic agendas. Global eco-
nomic prospects have been threatened by tensions over current-account imbalances and
exchange-rate issues. In November 2010, in an attempt to reinvigorate commitment to
cooperation, G20 leaders, at their Summit in Seoul, the Republic of Korea, made a com-
mitment to move towards more market-determined exchange-rate systems, to enhance
exchange-rate flexibility so as to reflect underlying economic fundamentals (while being
vigilant of excess volatility and disorderly movements in exchange rates), and to refrain from
competitive devaluation of currencies.50 The Seoul Summit also reaffirmed its commitment
to strengthen multilateral cooperation, to promote external sustainability and to pursue
policies conducive to reducing excessive imbalances. In this regard, the G20 leaders noted
the importance of assessing, against indicative guidelines (to be agreed upon by the G20
Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors), the nature of persistently large imbalances
and the root causes of impediments to adjustment as part of the MAP, while recognizing
the need to take into account national and regional circumstances.51 However, no precise
guidelines, targets or policies on how to rebalance the global economy were agreed to.


The IMF has been asked to assist the MAP by providing an analysis of how G20
member policies fit together and whether these policies are consistent with more sustainable
and balanced global growth. Such technical assistance is separate from Fund surveillance.
Nevertheless, it holds some promise of greater engagement by systemically important coun-
tries with the Fund, including in ways that involve the whole IMF membership. Moreover,
IMF involvement in the MAP could inform discussion on surveillance reform.


The global financial crisis has revealed the critical importance of enhancing the
coverage and depth of analysis of financial sector issues in Fund surveillance. To better un-
derstand and assess the risks of transmission of macrofinancial instability across countries,
the Fund would need closer engagement with members with systemically important finan-
cial sectors, as well as those with large and complex financial institutions. In September
2010, the IMF Executive Board approved making financial stability assessments under the
Financial Sector Assessment Program (FSAP) a regular and mandatory part of the Fund’s
Article IV surveillance for 25 members with systemically important financial sectors. This
group of countries covers almost 90 per cent of the global financial system and 80 per cent
of global economic activity.


Financial sector surveillance is not the purview of the IMF alone. There is a
need for closer collaboration with the FSB, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) and
financial sector standard-setting bodies. Coordination and enhanced collaboration should


50 The G20 Seoul Summit Leaders’ Declaration, 11-12 November 2010, available from http://www.
g20.utoronto.ca/2010/g20seoul.pdf.


51 The Seoul Summit Document, available from http://www.g20.utoronto.ca/2010/g20seoul-doc.
pdf.


Tensions over current-
account imbalances have
prompted new, but vague,
pledges by the G20


The crisis has illustrated the
importance of including
financial sector issues in
Fund surveillance




90 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


help to avoid excessive duplication and to develop a division of labour and a clearer delinea-
tion of responsibilities, with each party making the most of its comparative advantage.


There is also a need to revise analysis, as well as policy prescriptions, related
to cross-border capital flows. Low interest rates and highly liquid conditions in developed
countries, the result of monetary policy measures undertaken to forestall the crisis, have
led to surges of capital flows to many emerging market economies with comparatively
higher interest rates and a stronger growth outlook. Sudden inflow surges complicate mac-
roeconomic management and may lead to inflation and asset price bubbles. There are also
risks of abrupt stops or reversals in those flows. It has been recognized that, along with
macroeconomic and prudential policy measures, and depending on the circumstances, the
imposition of capital controls may be an appropriate response.52 Moreover, free flows of
capital may not necessarily be preferred for emerging market and developing countries, as
fully open capital accounts can be problematic.53


To help its members deal with capital flows, and as part of its surveillance
activities, the Fund will continue work to fill information gaps on cross-border capital
flows and exposures and to deepen the understanding of capital flows and their interrela-
tionships with other policy areas. This should include providing countries with pragmatic
policy advice on how to limit excessive short-term flows. Moreover, on the basis of this
analysis, the Fund could provide a much-needed multilateral perspective on the issue by
advising both capital-exporting and capital-importing countries on the economic policy
choices necessary for ensuring orderly capital flows. Such a multilateral platform for man-
aging capital flows would be an appropriate response to the current crisis that once again
underscored the capriciousness of capital flows.


Despite expanding the Fund’s surveillance mandate, there is general concern
that this surveillance does not have enough traction in member countries and can only
be effective to the extent that members are cooperative and responsive. Going forward,
the challenge is to ensure that the international community will be more willing and able
to respond to global risks in a more coordinated fashion. This requires more flexibility,
receptiveness and willingness by member countries to implement policy advice (and is part
of membership obligations that they should clearly commit to fulfilling).


A global financial safety net


Alongside prudential regulation and surveillance, an effective global financial safety net is an
important backstop for the preservation of global economic and financial stability. The crisis
has been a powerful reminder that liquidity, both domestic and international, may dry up
concurrently everywhere in the world, leading to simultaneous sharp falls in output and trade.
When such a global liquidity shock occurs, public provision of liquidity should fill the gap.


The multilateral safety net was strengthened significantly during the recent
crisis through $350 billion in capital increases for the multilateral development banks,
reform of IMF credit facilities and the commitment to treble IMF resources. The Fund is
increasingly seen as a provider of insurance-like crisis prevention facilities in the face of
volatile cross-border capital flows and risk of contagion.


52 See, “Macro-Prudential Policies—an Asian Perspective”, closing remarks by Dominique Strauss-
Kahn, IMF Managing Director, at the high-level conference in Shanghai, China, 18 October 2010,
available from http://www.imf.org/external/np/speeches/2010/101810.htm.


53 See, for instance, statement of Guido Mantega, Minister of Finance of Brazil, at the twenty-second
meeting of the International Monetary and Financial Committee of the IMF, Washington, D.C.,
9 October 2010, available from http://www.imf.org/external/am/2010/imfc/statement/eng/bra.pdf.


Current economic
conditions require a


reassessment of the role
of measures to manage


capital flows


The Fund could provide a
much-needed multilateral


perspective on capital flow
management


A global financial safety net
would help in dealing with


any liquidity crises




91Financial flows to developing countries


In August 2010, the Fund increased the duration and credit available under
the existing Flexible Credit Line (FCL), an insurance option for countries with very strong
policies and economic fundamentals, and established a new Precautionary Credit Line
(PCL). The PCL, a form of contingent protection, is designed for those countries that do
not qualify for the FCL but have only moderate vulnerabilities. Unlike the FCL, the PCL
features ex post conditionalities focused on reducing any remaining vulnerabilities identi-
fied in the qualification assessment.


At its October 2010 meeting, the IMFC called upon the IMF “to continue
its work on ways to improve its capacity to help members cope with systemic shocks, and
to cooperate with other relevant bodies, in particular regional financial arrangements”.54
In this regard, discussions are under way on the merits of creating a global stabilization
mechanism to strengthen the Fund’s ability to channel liquidity proactively, in close coop-
eration with central banks, regional institutions and systemic-risk bodies, to countries that
may be affected by a systemic event. A critical issue here is to find an appropriate balance
and develop effective coordinating mechanisms among multilateral, regional and bilateral
liquidity support arrangements.


To effectively provide a global financial safety net, the IMF needs adequate
financing. In 2009, it was decided to triple the Fund’s resources to over $850 billion.
However, as a share of global GDP, this amount is still smaller than it was when the
Fund was created, as the Fund’s quota-based resources have not kept pace with growth of
the world economy. As a result, supporting its members during the recent crisis required
recourse to bilateral loan agreements and prompted expansion of the New Arrangements
to Borrow (NAB).


At their October 2010 meeting, the G20 finance ministers proposed a doubling
of IMF quotas, with a corresponding rollback of the NAB. The Fund is a quota-based insti-
tution, and quotas should be its primary resource. In exceptional crisis situations, like the
one recently experienced, the IMF can and should resort to borrowed resources—bilateral
or, preferably, multilateral—through the expanded and enlarged NAB. The new and ex-
panded NAB should be seen as a backstop against extreme situations and not as a major
source of Fund resources. Its activation must remain the exception rather than the rule.


A broader financial safety net at the global level also includes self-protection
through reserve accumulation, bilateral foreign-exchange swap arrangements between
major central banks, and regional reserve pools. There have been discussions on how to
improve coordination and collaboration among the IMF, central banks and regional fi-
nancial arrangements in case of market stress. For instance, during the current crisis,
Latin American regional and subregional financial institutions played a significant role
by providing credit on more flexible conditions, particularly to help finance the liquid-
ity needs of small countries. The ASEAN+3 Chiang Mai Initiative Multilateralization
(CMIM) Agreement, covering a total of $120 billion credit lines and developed from
the Chiang Mai Initiative bilateral swap network, came into effect in March 2010. It has
also been emphasized that the recent actions taken to strengthen economic and financial
stability in the euro area by using a combination of insurance options may be a model for
future cooperation.55


To address sovereign risk, on 10 May 2010, the European leaders announced
the establishment of a European financial stabilisation mechanism, which would entail up


54 Communiqué of the Twenty-Second Meeting of the IMFC, op. cit.


55 IMF Survey online, 11 May 2010, available from http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/
so/2010/NEW051110A.htm.


The establishment of
a global stabilization
mechanism is being
considered


A broader financial
safety net will require
strengthened international
cooperation




92 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


to $77 billion in European Union (EU) funding and a special-purpose vehicle that could
raise up to $568 billion in additional funds in capital markets with guarantees provided
by the euro area member Governments. The IMF also agreed to cooperate with the EU
if so requested by euro area members. Total available support through loans and credit
lines, including potential IMF loans to member countries (up to $284 billion), could be as
large as $930 billion. Upon request by individual countries, the IMF is ready to provide
financial assistance in parallel with the EU, similar to the cofinancing already provided to
Greece, Hungary, Latvia and Romania.


To address market liquidity, the European Central Bank (ECB) announced
that it was prepared to purchase government and private debt securities. The ECB also
expanded its liquidity provision facilities. In addition, to forestall an emerging shortage
of dollar liquidity, the United States Federal Reserve (Fed) reopened temporary dollar
liquidity swap lines with the ECB and other major central banks.


The initiatives to strengthen the global safety net are unlikely to radically
change countries’ incentives to accumulate reserves, which remain their first line of de-
fence against potential shocks. Reserve accumulation has been an effective option for
emerging market economies to protect them from the crisis. During the crisis, central
banks in many emerging and some developed countries used part of their reserves to ease
domestic tensions created by dollar liquidity shortages. It is hardly possible that, in the
foreseeable future, countries will have automatic access to a sufficient quantity of foreign
currency funding to cope with a major crisis. Consequently, countries will continue to
hold some reserves of their own and, as discussed in chapter I, there are strong indications
that reserve accumulation will persist and grow in the aftermath of the crisis. The practice
of relying, to varying degrees, on a mix of complementary self-insurance and bilateral and
multilateral agreements will likely continue.


The international reserve system


Much of the debate surrounding the international monetary system is centred on the
sustainability of an international monetary regime in which one national currency, the
United States dollar, serves as a primary international reserve asset. The current interna-
tional reserve system made an important contribution in the absence of a smooth adjust-
ment to imbalances, volatile capital flows and lopsided provision of liquidity. The need to
reform the international reserve system is now broadly acknowledged.


There have been suggestions to move towards a system based on several, com-
peting national currencies that would perform reserve functions on a more or less equal
footing. However, there are few alternatives, if any, readily available to assume a reserve
role comparable to that of the United States dollar. Besides, such a system may result in
even higher exchange-rate volatility owing to the possibility of sharp shifts in demand
from one international currency to another, since they are likely to be close substitutes.


A more modest solution might be for countries with surplus savings to ex-
pand the range of their own safe and liquid financial assets to domestic and international
investors. This would raise the efficiency of domestic financing, provide investors with
a broader range of choices and reduce incentives to export capital in order to protect its
value. Another option is the introduction of a new global reserve currency issued by a
global central bank. The establishment of a full-fledged international currency, however,
requires far-reaching changes, including relinquishment of national sovereignty over key


Incentives for individual
countries to accumulate


currency reserves persist


The potential for moving
to a multicurrency reserve


system is limited




93Financial flows to developing countries


issues of economic policy, which the international community does not yet seem ready to
make. Nevertheless, the international community should continue discussions on future
needs and parameters of the financial system.


A more realistic path to reform may be to broaden existing special drawing
right (SDR) arrangements which could, over time, evolve into a widely accepted world
reserve currency. This may also require broadening the composition of the SDR basket to
make it more representative. All component currencies, however, should be fully convert-
ible and have well-developed financial markets. Along with reducing the inherent instabil-
ity of the current system, the greater use of SDRs may result in more democratic control
of global liquidity.


In August 2009, for the first time since the late 1960s, IMF member govern-
ments took a decision on a general SDR allocation by the IMF equivalent to $250 billion.
This will be complemented by a network of voluntary arrangements allowing SDRs to be
traded effectively among members. Together with the special one-time allocation of about
$33 billion in September 2009, the outstanding stock of SDRs increased nearly tenfold,
from about $33 billion to about $321 billion.56 Nevertheless, SDRs still represent less than
5 per cent of global foreign-exchange reserves. As not all members need to increase their
international reserves, the Fund should explore mechanisms for redistributing SDRs to
countries most in need, especially in times of crisis. Such allocations would be cancelled
once the crisis has passed. The crisis allocations should not be linked to individual coun-
try situations, but rather to systemic risk stemming from liquidity shocks on a global or
regional scale.


For SDRs to take on a significant role, their issuance should be made regular,
with possible linkage to expected additional long-term demand for foreign reserves. SDR
use in international trade and financial transactions, as well as in a functioning settlement
system to facilitate the direct exchange of SDR claims into all constituent currencies,
needs to be enhanced. Thus far, a private SDR market has not taken off. Reaching a critical
mass that would allow the development of a deep, diversified and liquid market for SDR
instruments would likely be impossible without strong support from the public sector;
actions could include some of those taken to foster the development of the European
Currency Unit (ECU) market, including the issuance of SDR-denominated debt by na-
tional governments and multilateral institutions.


Additionally, SDR-denominated reserve accounts may need to be established
at the IMF. These would allow large reserve holders to exchange their currency reserves for
SDR-denominated securities and deposits without encountering undesirable exchange-rate
effects. The resulting shift of the exchange-rate risk from the original holders of currency
reserves to other parties will require agreement on an appropriate burden-sharing arrange-
ment. This issue was discussed when the substitution account was negotiated within the
IMF more than a quarter century ago.


Past experience suggests that any reform of the current international reserve
system should be part of a broader framework. Indeed, it is unlikely that any feasible
reform will bring about smooth and automatic balance-of-payments adjustments. For in-
stance, while reserve alternatives would increase pressure on the United States to adjust,
incentives for surplus countries would not change much. Therefore, along with moving
towards greater reserve options, policy dialogue and cooperation aimed at more balanced
and sustainable global growth will remain indispensable.


56 IMF, “Special Drawing Rights”, Factsheet, 29 September 2010, available from http://www.imf.org/
external/np/exr/facts/sdr.htm.


Expanding existing SDR
arrangements could be a
more practical way forward


The Fund should
explore mechanisms for
redistributing SDRs to
countries most in need


Reform of the international
reserve system should
be part of a broader
framework




94 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


Strengthening global economic governance


Addressing global economic governance issues is a prerequisite for all other changes in the
international financial architecture. The emergence of the G20 as an ad hoc governance
group in response to the crisis underscores the shortcomings in global institutions and
rules that were shaped, for the most part, more than 60 years ago, at the time of the found-
ing of the United Nations. There is a diversity of views among countries regarding the
increased role of the G20. Some feel that it has succeeded in averting a global depression
and has managed to put the world economy on a path towards recovery. Others point out
that 172 countries were left out of the process and their voices not heard.


The emergence of the G20 as the major forum for global discussions on inter-
national economic cooperation is a welcome development. However, the majority of the
United Nations Member States are still excluded. The G20 process will need to develop
greater legitimacy, including through forging stronger institutional linkages with non-
member States and developing constructive dialogue with universal international bodies,
such as the United Nations, to ensure that the views and concerns of all countries, espe-
cially the poorest, are taken into account.


An initiative aimed at developing such dialogue on coordination and coop-
eration between G20 and non-G20 members is the formation of the informal Global
Governance Group (3G), comprising 24 United Nations Member States. The establish-
ment of the Group underscores that, given the complexities and interdependencies of the
global economy, it is important for the G20 to be consultative, inclusive and transparent
in its deliberations for its outcomes to be implemented effectively on a global scale. The
3G has put forward several ideas on how to improve engagement between the G20 and
the United Nations through regular and predictable channels. It has also proposed allow-
ing non-G20 countries to participate in G20 ministerial gatherings and senior-level and
expert working groups on specialized issues.57


Achieving more sustainable and balanced global growth will also require
close coordination of macroeconomic policy decisions with other areas of global govern-
ance, including those related to the multilateral trading system; aid architecture; the pov-
erty eradication and sustainable development agenda; and climate change. No specific
mechanism to promote coherent policy responses to these interdependent issues exists
at present. A strengthened United Nations framework for enhancing coordination and
complementarity should be at the centre of efforts to bridge this gap. For instance, there
has been a proposal to create, within the United Nations, a global economic coordina-
tion council, which would promote development, seek consistency of policy goals and
policies of major international organizations, and support consensus-building among
Governments on efficient and effective solutions for global economic, social and environ-
mental issues.58


It has also been recognized that IFIs need more representative, responsive and
accountable governance reflecting the realities of the twenty-first century. Accordingly,
both the IMF and the World Bank have taken important steps to redress imbalances in
voice and representation.


57 See “Letter dated 11 March 2010 from the Permanent Representative of Singapore to the United
Nations addressed to the Secretary-General” (A/64/706).


58 See “Report of the Commission of Experts of the President of the United Nations General Assembly
on Reforms of the International Monetary and Financial System”, New York, 21 September 2009, p.
91, available from http://www.un.org/ga/econcrisissummit/docs/FinalReport_CoE.pdf.


The substitution of the G20
for the G8 is welcome


but insufficient


Further efforts are needed
to make international


cooperation more
transparent


Achieving sustainable and
balanced growth requires


coordination among
different policy areas




95Financial flows to developing countries


At their October 2010 meeting, the G20 finance ministers proposed a shift of
over 6 per cent of aggregate quota shares in the IMF to underrepresented dynamic emerging
market and developing countries, and reiterated their commitment to protect the voting
share of the poorest members. As a result of the quota rebalancing, the 10 biggest mem-
bers of the Fund in terms of quota will be the United States, Japan, the four BRIC coun-
tries (Brazil, China, India and Russia), and four European countries (France, Germany,
Italy and the United Kingdom). The ministers also agreed to increase representation for
emerging market and developing countries at the Fund’s 24-member Executive Board by
reducing Board membership from advanced European countries by two; to allow scope
for appointing second Alternate Executive Directors to enhance representation of multi-
country constituencies; and to move to an all-elected Board. It has also been suggested
that, following the completion of the 14th General Review of Quotas by January 2014, the
Board’s composition should be reviewed every eight years. On 5 November 2010, the IMF
Executive Board approved these proposals and recommended the reform package to the
Board of Governors. The target date for completion of the changes to IMF governance is
the IMF-World Bank Annual Meetings in October 2012.59


According to many Fund members, the current quota formula falls short of the
objective of achieving legitimate representation in the Fund based on a country’s economic
weight.60 To address the deficiencies in the present formula, the G20 ministers called for
a comprehensive review by January 2013. There have been proposals to assign a greater
weight to GDP, preferably at purchasing power parity prices, so as to better reflect the
growing role and contribution to global growth of emerging market and other developing
countries.61 Many developing countries also insist on adjustments to the measures of vari-
ability and openness.


Political will and the strong support of the entire Fund membership are neces-
sary to translate reform commitments into reality. Indeed, the very modest 2008 IMF
quota and voice reform, involving quota redistribution among the group of emerging mar-
ket and developing countries, has not yet gone into effect. As of mid-August 2010, 85 out
of the required 112 members, representing about 78 per cent of the total voting power (the
requirement being 85 per cent), had accepted the proposed amendment to the Articles of
Agreement to enhance voice and participation in the Fund.


Agreement on the second phase of governance reform for the World Bank Group
was reached during the World Bank-IMF Spring Meetings in April 2010.62 According to
the agreement, there will be a small shift in voting power to developing and transition
countries in the IBRD, the International Finance Corporation (IFC) and the IDA. For the


59 IMF, “IMF Executive Board approves major overhaul of quotas and governance”, Press release No.
10/418, 5 November 2010, available from https://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pr/2010/pr10418.
htm.


60 See, for instance, statement of Timothy F. Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury of the United States,
at the Twenty-First Meeting of the International Monetary and Financial Committee of the IMF,
Washington, D. C., 24 April 2010, available from https://www.imf.org/External/spring/2010/imfc/
statement/eng/usa.pdf.


61 Communiqué of the Intergovernmental Group of Twenty-Four on International Monetary
Affairs and Development, 7 October 2010, available from http://www.imf.org/external/np/
cm/2010/100710.htm.


62 The initial package of reforms (Phase 1), adopted in 2008, concentrated mainly on the IBRD and
included the doubling of basic votes and the allocation of authorized but unallocated shares to
16 developing countries and countries with economies in transition (DTCs) whose voting power
would be reduced by the increase in basic votes. The Phase 1 reforms will increase DTC voting
power in the IBRD from 42.6 per cent to 44.1 per cent. In addition, it was decided to add an elected
Executive Director for sub-Saharan Africa on the World Bank Group Executive Board.


The IMF Executive Board
has agreed on significant
reform steps


Many Fund members view
the current quota formula
as being insufficient


Agreement on the second
phase of governance
reform in the World Bank
Group has been reached




96 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


IBRD, the voting power of developing and transition countries was increased by 3.13 per
cent, bringing it to 47.19 per cent (representing a total shift of 4.59 per cent since 2008).
For the IFC, an increase in basic votes and selective capital increases were endorsed which
represented a shift of 6.07 per cent (bringing the total to 39.48 per cent). For IDA, the
voting share of developing countries would be raised from 40 per cent prior to the start of
the reforms to about 46 per cent. These reform targets fall short of the recommendation
of the High-Level Commission on Modernization of World Bank Group Governance that
the balance in voting power in the World Bank be evenly split between developed and
developing countries.63


At the World Bank-IMF 2010 Spring Meetings, ministers also reaffirmed
their commitment to continue moving, over time, towards equitable voting power at the
World Bank, while protecting the voting power of the smallest poor countries. The next
shareholding review is scheduled for 2015. Accordingly, it has been decided to establish a
work programme to arrive at a dynamic formula which primarily reflects countries’ evolv-
ing economic weight and the Bank’s development mission. Along with the shareholding
review, work is under way at the Bank on strengthening Board effectiveness and internal
governance, deepening responsiveness to developing and transition countries’ views on de-
velopment and establishing a merit-based and transparent selection process for the Bank’s
President.


63 See “Repowering the World Bank for the 21st Century”, Report of the High-Level Commission
on Modernization of the World Bank Group Governance, October 2009, available from http://
siteresources.worldbank.org/NEWS/Resources/WBGovernanceCOMMISSIONREPORT.pdf.




97


Chapter IV
Regional developments
and outlook


Developed market economies
Developed market economies recovered from recession during 2010, posting generally
strong growth in the first half of the year. The recovery has slowed since, however, as
global trade has decelerated, fiscal stimuli are replaced by austerity-based fiscal consolida-
tion, and inventory restocking is coming to an end. Trade and industrial production have
rebounded, but levels of both remain below their previous cyclical peaks and will take
some time to reach them, given the deceleration in activity under way. Tentative signs of a
recovery maturing to where consumption and investment spending take the leading roles
has been seen in some instances. But domestic demand growth generally remains sluggish
and is expected be slow in recovery: balance sheets of firms and consumers are still not
repaired, bank lending conditions remain tight, capacity utilization—while improved—
remains low, and unemployment is still very high (see figure IV.1). A new push for fiscal
stimuli is unlikely and, in fact, many developed countries have already taken steps towards
drastic budgetary retrenchment. Monetary policy remains highly accommodative, but
may not provide much of a boost to output and employment growth, and may exacerbate
tensions in foreign-exchange markets, as discussed in chapter I. The value of the United
States dollar has seen wide swings against other major currencies during 2010.


Figure IV.1
Unemployment ratesa in the G7 countries, 2008-2012


Percentage of labour force


0.0


2.0


4.0


6.0


8.0


10.0


12.0


Germany France Italy United Kingdom Canada United States Japan


2008 2009 2010 2011 2012


Source: UN/DESA and Project
LINK, based on data from
the OECD Main Economic
Indicators.
a Standardized
unemployment rates
(see OECD, Standardized
Unemployment Rates: Sources
and Methods (Paris, 1985)).




98 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


North America: decelerating recovery


Weakening growth in the United States


Economic growth resumed in the third quarter of 2009 in the United States of America.
Initially, the speed of the expansion was comparable to that observed during previous
recoveries. However, by mid-2010, the rate of growth of gross domestic product (GDP)
had decelerated to about 2 per cent (annualized rate), with other indicators also pointing
to more subdued growth in the rest of the year. The GDP growth rate is estimated to be
2.6 per cent in 2010, decelerating to 2.2 per cent in 2011 as inventory restocking as a
driver of recovery is coming to an end and fiscal stimuli are waning. Private consumption
and investment demand may pick up gradually, allowing for the projected acceleration of
GDP growth to 2.8 per cent in 2012 (see annex table A.1).


During 2009 and 2010, inventory restocking contributed about 60 per cent
to total growth. Rebounding consumer demand started to contribute only later on in
the recovery. Government consumption and investment demand have only marginally
contributed to growth over the past two years. While certainly helping to prevent a steeper
downturn, the impact of federal Government stimulus measures has been diluted by
spending cuts and tax increases at state and local levels made necessary by the tremendous
drops in revenues stemming from the recession. Investment in residential and business
construction has been too weak to support output growth, and in the early stages of the
recovery, still detracted from it. Only business investment in equipment and software has
shown solid growth. The collapse in import demand mitigated the decline in GDP during
the height of the recession, but net exports have weakened aggregate demand during the
recovery as imports have increased faster than exports.


Unemployment rates did not come down during 2010. Household survey data
show that civilian employment had dropped by almost 6 percentage points when it reached
its trough in late 2009. During 2010, job growth remained anaemic, total employment
was still about 5 percentage points below its previous peak level, and the unemployment
rate remained high, reaching 9.5 per cent at the end of 2010. Compared with previous
recessions, labour market recovery is significantly slower. At the rate of output growth of
the United Nations baseline forecast, it will take another three years to bring employment
back to its pre-crisis level of early 2008 (figure IV.2). The unemployment rate is expected
to decline only modestly to 9.3 per cent in 2011 and to 8.7 per cent in 2012 (see annex
table A.7)


The grave employment situation is expected to restrain consumption ex-
penditure in the near term. It is already restraining labour income growth, but high and
persistent unemployment is also causing greater income insecurity among workers and
their families, delaying consumption and investment decisions. Furthermore, household
wealth, both financial and housing, has been significantly eroded by the crisis, leading
households to save more to rebuild their balance sheets. The shift in household behaviour
is expected to be long-lasting and, as a result, consumer demand in the United States will
remain weak in the coming years.


The United States housing market did not show much improvement during
2010. The federal first-time homebuyer tax credit programme induced some qualified buy-
ers to advance home purchases, but after its expiration in early 2010, residential housing
activity dropped significantly. Given the many structural impediments, the outlook is for
a very slow recovery. Business structure investment spending, as a whole, has remained


Consumption and
investment have yet


to make an impact


Unemployment
remains high


The housing market
remains weak but business


investment is improving




99Regional developments and outlook


anaemic so far, held back by low rates of capacity utilization and weak demand prospects
in the near term. Tightened standards for loan applications have also handicapped firms’
capacity to make new investments, especially by small and medium businesses. The cur-
rent financial environment should, in principle, be favourable for investment. Quantitative
easing is keeping interest rates at very low levels. A large proportion of rebounding profits
are being held by larger corporations as cash. For these firms, the funding costs for invest-
ment projects will be very low. In addition, investment in equipment and software has
been promising, expanding at double-digit rates since coming out of recession. This trend
may continue in the coming years, with fixed investment picking up significantly from its
modest pace in 2010, provided that the factors underlying the increased macroeconomic
uncertainty and continued financial sector fragility will not worsen and will be addressed.
Resolving financial sector fragility will be critical for access to investment finance for
small and medium-sized firms.


Both export and import volumes of goods and services are predicted to grow
by about 10 and 9 per cent in 2010 and 2011, respectively. Given the net trade deficit in
the base year, this means net exports are not expected to contribute positively to GDP
growth in either year. The trade deficit will widen only moderately, however, and will not
come anywhere near its pre-crisis level.


The economy continues to possess vast slack capacity. Keeping new job hiring
to a minimum, firms managed to achieve productivity gains and reduce unit labour costs
as production picked up again during the recovery. Prices for commodities and energy
are also expected to remain contained. As a result, inflationary pressures will remain low.
Consumer prices, especially the core index which excludes energy and food items, are
expected to increase only moderately. The baseline outlook predicts a headline inflation
rate of 1.4 per cent in both 2010 and 2011 (see annex table A.4).


Inflationary pressures
remain weak


Figure IV.2
Evolution of United States civilian employmenta during the
recession, and possible future path, June 2007-October 2013


Millions


135


140


145


150


Ja
n-


20
07


Ap
r-2


00
7


Ju
l-2


00
7


O
ct


-2
00


7


Ja
n-


20
08


Ap
r-2


00
8


Ju
l-2


00
8


O
ct


-2
00


8


Ja
n-


20
09


Ap
r-2


00
9


Ju
l-2


00
9


O
ct


-2
00


9


Ja
n-


20
10


Ap
r-2


01
0


Ju
l-2


01
0


O
ct


-2
01


0


Ja
n-


20
11


Ap
r-2


01
1


Ju
l-2


01
1


O
ct


-2
01


1


Ja
n-


20
12


Ap
r-2


01
2


Ju
l-2


01
2


O
ct


-2
01


2


Ja
n-


20
13


Ap
r-2


01
3


Ju
l-2


01
3


O
ct


-2
01


3


Source: UN/DESA, based on
data from the United States
Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Note: The solid line represents
the actual observation up
to October 2010; the dashes
represent the baseline
projection for which the
monthly level is a linear
interpolation of annual
forecasts.
a Monthly seasonally-
adjusted level of civilian
employment.




100 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


The collapse in government revenue and the large fiscal stimulus package
have significantly widened fiscal deficits at all levels of government. The federal deficit
amounted to about 10.0 per cent and 8.8 per cent of nominal GDP, respectively, in the fis-
cal years 2009 and 2010. The budget situation of most state and local governments is also
of some concern. Without additional federal support, many state and local governments
will be forced to make severe budget cuts. Further stimuli are extremely unlikely in the
near term, however, given political constraints. At the federal level, execution of the final
part of the existing fiscal stimulus package will still have an impact on the economy during
2011, though increased pressures for fiscal consolidation may lead to retrenchments in the
same year, or become effective in 2012.


The United States Federal Reserve (Fed) has kept its policy rate at an extremely
low level since late 2008 and is expected to continue doing so for “an extended period”.
The first round of quantitative easing was terminated in early 2010. After observing the
slower-than-expected recovery, the Fed decided in November 2010 to start the second
round of quantitative easing by purchasing $600 billion of longer-term securities over the
span of eight months. By doing so, the Fed intends to keep long-term interest rates at a low
level. Nevertheless, this action has raised concerns, both domestically and internationally.
Domestically, the concern is focused on the implications for future inflation. After the Fed
first hinted at the possibility of a second round of quantitative easing in August, expected
inflation (measured by the yield differential between inflation-indexed and non-indexed
bonds) increased by about 70 basis points within a span of seven weeks between August
and the end of October. Internationally, the expressed concern is that low interest rates in
the United States are encouraging surges in short-term capital flows and causing exchange-
rate instability.


Next to persistent high unemployment, the major risk faced by the United
States economy is that a dangerous cycle will develop between the housing and financial
sectors. If housing prices continue to decline and force more mortgages into foreclosure,
financial institutions are likely to tighten credit supply further, reducing the supply of
mortgage loans even more, and reducing the number of potential buyers for foreclosed
homes, further pushing down prices. This could cause new shockwaves in the economy.
First, it would reinforce low consumer confidence. Second, declining housing prices would
encourage more mortgage holders to abandon their homes, weakening financial institu-
tions. Third, it would reduce the value of mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and further
weaken the financial health of holders of this type of assets. Given the international dis-
tribution of MBS, this may trigger demand for a higher risk premium for United States
securities by foreign investors.


Canada: continued recovery despite weakening export demand


The Canadian economy exited from recession in the second half of 2009. However, after
a few quarters of solid growth, economic expansion decelerated. GDP growth is estimated
to be 2.9 per cent in 2010 and to slow to 2.5 per cent in 2011.


Domestic demand continues to be the main driver of growth. Given relatively
healthy balance sheets, Canadian households have been able to keep up consumption at
the rate of growth of disposable income. Private consumption is expected to continue to
grow steadily in 2010 and 2011. Residential investment demand increased strongly until
the middle of 2010. Many home buyers advanced purchases in order to avoid the higher


Fiscal stimulus is
petering out


Quantitative easing is
raising concerns


Risks centre on housing
and financial markets




101Regional developments and outlook


cost of new housing imposed by new tax rules introduced in some provinces. Housing
investment has cooled down since then. Investment in machinery and equipment and
non-residential construction will remain strong, partially due to a change in the tax law
which provides incentives in the form of higher capital cost allowance, lower corporate
income tax and the elimination of corporate capital tax.


Weaker export demand was a major cause of the slowdown in 2008 and 2009.
The recession in the United States could be quickly transmitted to the Canadian economy
given the latter’s high dependence on markets in its bigger neighbour. The slower-than-
usual recovery in the United States and the appreciation of the Canadian dollar vis-à-vis
the United States dollar will adversely affect net export growth in 2011 and 2012 and keep
Canada’s external balance in deficit.


During 2010, most jobs lost during the recession were recovered. In the third
quarter of 2010, the level of employment had returned to its peak of 2008. Nonetheless,
continuous growth of the labour force has kept the rate of unemployment at 8.1 per cent,
on average, during 2010. This is 2 percentage points above the unemployment rate of
2008. Employment growth is expected to barely keep up with labour force growth, so no
significant drop in the unemployment rate is expected in 2011.


Developed Asia and the Pacific: diverging outlook


Tenacious deflation in Japan


Japan’s economy showed strong recovery in early 2010. GDP grew by nearly 5 per cent
in the first quarter. However, the recovery has been faltering since, with output growth
decelerating to less than 2 per cent in the following quarters. For the year as a whole,
GDP is estimated to have grown by only 2.7 per cent, a sub-par rebound after the deep
recession of 2009 when the economy contracted by 5 per cent. In the outlook, growth is to
slow further to 1.1 per cent for 2011 and 1.4 per cent in 2012 (see annex table A.1). Weak
domestic demand, particularly the phasing-out of the public investment programmes that
formed part of the early fiscal stimulus, will impede output growth. Export growth has
also weakened as a result of slowing world trade and yen appreciation. A new stimulus
package was announced in September 2010 to prevent the economy from sliding into a
double-dip recession. The size of the stimulus seems to be too small, however, to make up
for the drop in aggregate demand growth. Persistent deflation and the already high and
growing public debt are posing additional policy challenges.


Exports remain the key driver for output growth in Japan. After falling at an
annualized rate of 50 per cent during the global downturn at the end of 2008 and early
2009, Japan’s exports rebounded in line with the global recovery and stronger import
demand in China in the first half of 2010. In the second half of 2010, export growth
decelerated to below 20 per cent, and is expected to decelerate further to about 10 per cent
in 2011.


Domestic demand has recovered only slowly. Public investment started to de-
cline in the second half of 2010. Fixed investment by businesses has recovered gradually, fi-
nanced by rising corporate profits. Excess production capacity is still considerable, however,
and will restrain new capital spending in the near term. Private consumption has picked
up slightly thanks to fiscal stimulus measures, but further strengthening is limited, as the
employment and income situations for most Japanese households remain challenging.


The main growth engine,
exports, is sputtering




102 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


The unemployment rate rose to an all-time high of 5.7 per cent in 2009 and
did not come down by much during 2010, remaining above 5 per cent. The average pay
of workers, which had declined since 2008, started to show some improvement in late
2010. Deflation persists in Japan. It has characterized much of the last two decades. Since
2009, all price indices have been falling even more sharply and deflationary conditions are
expected to persist during 2011 and 2012.


The Bank of Japan has implemented various monetary policy measures, in-
cluding reductions in the policy interest rate, measures to ensure stability in financial
markets and measures to facilitate corporate financing. Facing tenacious deflation, further
measures have been taken to inject more liquidity into the economy through the purchase
of corporate debt and long-term government bonds. In September 2010, the yen reached
a 15-year high vis-à-vis the dollar, leading the Bank of Japan to intervene in the foreign-
exchange market in order to stave off further appreciation. The policy interest rate was
already very low at 0.1 per cent, but the Bank of Japan cut it further to zero. As with defla-
tion, the real interest rates are still positive and nominal rates cannot be cut further, so the
Bank of Japan has engaged in further quantitative easing. In the outlook, monetary policy
is expected to maintain its current extremely accommodative stance until late 2011. If
economic activity picks up in 2012, policy interest rates are likely to be gradually increased
and quantitative easing phased out.


A series of fiscal stimulus packages have been launched since mid-2008. Some
of the stimulus was rolled back in the 2010 budget with the reduction in public invest-
ment, but direct support to households, on the other hand, was increased. In late 2010,
the Government announced a new stimulus package of ¥915 billion in additional public
spending. Expectations are that this will boost GDP by about 0.3 per cent, create 200,000
jobs and encourage consumer and business spending. The boost to GDP growth is, how-
ever, much less than the deceleration in aggregate demand observed in the second half of
2010. Japan’s budget deficit was over 6 per cent of GDP in 2010 and public debt increased
to about 200 per cent of GDP. Corporate and household savings have matched the budget
deficit, however, limiting the sovereign debt risk so far, and Japan continues to be a net
exporter of capital to the rest of the world.


Australia’s economy showing resilience


Australia is the only developed economy that avoided recession during 2008-2009.
Buttressed by stimulus measures, the growth of domestic demand has been exceptionally
strong since late 2009, particularly private investment in the booming mining sector. The
rise in the prices of Australia’s commodity exports, together with the rebound in export
volumes, particularly to emerging economies, pushed the trade balance to its largest sur-
plus as a share of GDP since the 1970s. Growth has slowed somewhat since mid-2010, but
the economy is still estimated to have grown by 3.3 per cent for the year as a whole. In the
outlook, public demand is expected to detract from GDP growth as stimulus projects are
gradually completed, but private consumption should continue to grow along with jobs.
GDP is forecast to grow at 3.7 per cent in 2011. The Reserve Bank of Australia has been
raising interest rates since 2009, but no further increases in the policy interest rate are
expected in 2011 and 2012.


Labour market conditions
are weak and deflation


remains persistent


The Bank of Japan
is maintaining


unconventional
policy measures


The new fiscal stimulus
package may fall short


of what is needed


Strong domestic demand
is driving GDP growth


in Australia




103Regional developments and outlook


New Zealand recovering from a prolonged recession


New Zealand has been recovering at a moderate pace from a prolonged recession. While
net exports have made a solid contribution to growth, household consumption and busi-
ness investment have also increased, driven in part by low interest rates. Consumer and
business confidence continues to improve, but credit conditions remain tight and busi-
nesses continue to deleverage their balance sheets. As a result, domestic demand growth
is expected to be mild in the outlook. The damage from the earthquake in Canterbury in
September 2010 is estimated to have slowed quarterly GDP by about 0.3 per cent, but the
post-quake reconstruction is expected to boost the economy. GDP is estimated to have
increased by 2.7 per cent in 2010 and is forecast to grow by 2.4 per cent in 2011 and 3.0
per cent in 2012.


Developed Europe: cautious recovery


Western Europe: slow growth of domestic demand


Economic activity picked up strongly in Western Europe during the first half of 2010,
through an export-driven industrial rebound, fiscal support measures of varying intensi-
ties and inventory restocking. Output growth slowed in the second half of 2010, however,
with the weakening rebound in global trade, the turn in the inventory cycle, the gradual
withdrawal of fiscal stimuli and, in some countries, the shift to fiscal austerity. This pat-
tern was reinforced by large swings in the values of the euro and other currencies of the
region, which depreciated strongly against the United States dollar in the first half of the
year, but subsequently rose in the second half. This lower pace of growth is expected to
continue into 2011 as more countries push for deep fiscal cuts. Given the strong carry-over
from the first half of the year and continued moderate activity, GDP growth for the EU-15
is estimated to be 1.7 per cent in 2010, slowing to 1.5 in 2011. Growth is expected to pick
up slightly in 2012, to 1.9 per cent, as domestic demand strengthens.


While growth has recovered, it is not robust. The recovery in 2010 masks
a number of important weaknesses. Industrial production, for example, remains 12 per
cent below its peak of April 2008, indicating that, in terms of levels, recovery is far from
complete (see figure IV.3). Unemployment rates remain high in many countries (and ex-
ceptionally high in some, like Spain). More ominously, the recovery is taking place at
different speeds. At one end are the countries (led by Germany) showing a relatively strong
rebound, whose economic activity expanded by 3.4 per cent in 2010 and who were able to
take full advantage of the improvement in global trade. At the other end of the spectrum
are the countries entrenched in fiscal crises, such as Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain,
which will either remain in recession or see minimal recovery at best.


Private consumption expenditure acted as a stabilizing factor during the down-
turn in many European countries, thanks to measures to mitigate the rise in unemploy-
ment and the broad coverage of social security. However, it has yet to assume a more
prominent role in leading the recovery, held back by high rates of unemployment in most
countries and subdued wage growth. In the outlook, consumption expenditure is expected
to improve gradually for the majority of countries in the region, but without much vigour:
labour markets are stabilizing and are expected to improve slowly, savings rates have re-
treated from their highs during the financial crisis, and inflation is expected to remain low.
Financing conditions remain more challenging than before the crisis, but bank lending to


Export growth and fiscal
stimulus have driven
the recovery


Consumption continues to
support GDP growth but
is anything but vibrant




104 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


the household sector has been increasing slowly. The situation is far worse in countries with
severe fiscal consolidation programmes. In Greece, for example, consumption expenditure
is expected to continue to decline through 2012.


The precipitous decline in investment in both equipment and housing was a
major driver of the recession, and evidence for a turnaround is sparse, with the second
quarter seeing the first positive investment growth for the euro area since the recession.
Going forward, with the exception of the countries undergoing severe fiscal consolidation
programs, investment is expected to pick up gradually, registering positive, but low, rates
of growth in 2011 and 2012. Capacity utilization has moved up significantly since its
record low in the third quarter of 2009. Industrial new orders continue to improve, as
have business profits. One major obstacle to a more significant rebound is that external
financing conditions remain tight. The cost of external finance is low, but banks continue
to tighten credit standards, and although this appears to have reached a nadir, conditions
are significantly tighter than before the recession. This may not be a constraint in the near
term as loans to the non-financial sector typically lag the pick-up in economic activity dur-
ing a recovery, with firms relying more on internal financing. As the recovery progresses,
however, any persisting major weaknesses in the banking sector could then bring further
recovery to a halt. So far, however, loans to non-financial corporations have continued to
decline, but at a slower pace, which could suggest that a turning point is near.


The rate of unemployment in the euro area drifted up from 7.2 per cent in
March of 2008 to 10.1 per cent in September of 2010, but most of the increase took place
in 2009—since September of that year, the jobless rate has risen by only 0.3 percentage
points. The picture differs widely across countries, however, with rates of unemployment
reaching 20.0 per cent in the case of Spain, 14.1 per cent in Ireland and 10.0 per cent in
France, while in Germany, the rise in unemployment has been largely contained and is


Investment could be
nearing a turning point


High unemployment
remains worrisome,


although conditions
differ across countries


Figure IV.3
Industrial production in the euro area and selected Western European economies,
second quarter 2008-fourth quarter 2010


Index: April 2008 = 100


2008 2009 2010


II III IV I II III IV I II III IV


0.70


0.75


0.80


0.85


0.90


0.95


1.00


1.05


Euro area
France


Italy
United Kingdom


Germany


Source: OECD Main Economic
Indicators.




105Regional developments and outlook


currently 6.7 per cent of the workforce. The modest increases in 2010 could indicate that
labour markets are approaching a turning point. Germany has turned the corner already,
as the unemployment rate has fallen by a full percentage point since its peak in 2009. The
decline has been more modest in other European countries. In Greece and Spain, however,
unemployment rates are still increasing and the situation is likely to worsen with the pro-
longation of the recession and the severe fiscal austerity. The divergence in labour market
outcomes is explained by differences in the speed of recovery, labour market policies and
economic structure. In Spain, for instance, much of the initial increase in unemployment
was caused by the collapse of the construction sector after a long real estate boom. It will
take years for employment to rebound, requiring both a reorientation of the sources of
growth in the economy and a resolution to the present mismatch in demand and supply for
skills. Italy is another case where skills mismatches, coupled with a weak growth outlook,
are expected to lead to increasing rates of unemployment. In the outlook for the euro
area, unemployment is anticipated to have peaked in 2010, coming down only gradually
over the forecast horizon, held back by low levels of growth and the transitional costs of
structural economic change in some cases.


Headline inflation, as measured by the Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices
(HICP), increased slightly with the rebound in global commodity prices in the first half of
2010 and the currency depreciation, which pushed up import prices. Core inflation—which
abstracts from energy, food, alcohol and tobacco, in an attempt to measure underlying
inflationary pressures—bottomed at 0.8 per cent in May and has ticked up since, but there
is no evidence that inflation is either accelerating or decelerating. Continued weak labour
market conditions mean that wage growth will remain slow and, with rising productivity,
unit labour costs will remain contained. Output gaps remain large and are expected to
narrow only slowly during 2011-2012. World market prices for commodities are projected
to increase only slightly on average and, hence, will only have a limited impact on consumer
prices. Consequently, headline inflation is expected to remain below 2 per cent.


Fiscal policy and the workings of automatic stabilizers played a major role in
softening the impact of the global downturn on most European economies. It has come,
however, at the cost of large increases in fiscal deficits and public debt. Across the region,
policy stances are shifting towards tightening budgets. The budget deficit in the euro area
rose from 2.0 per cent of GDP in 2008 to 6.2 per cent in 2009, while the debt-to-GDP
ratio rose from 69.3 per cent to 78.7 per cent. Both ratios are estimated to have increased
further in 2010. In some countries, however, including Greece, Ireland, Portugal and
Spain, the fiscal situation deteriorated to such an extent that the cost of borrowing surged,
with marked increases in sovereign bond spreads vis-à-vis the German Bund rate. Spreads
hit record levels in some cases after downgrades of investment ratings by credit rating
agencies. In the first half of 2010, Greece faced a sovereign debt crisis which could only
be quelled with the announcement of a massive European financial stabilization fund
worth €720 billion, consisting of government-backed loan guarantees and bilateral loans
provided by euro area members; an expansion of the existing balance of payments facility
(involving all European Union (EU) members); and money provided by the International
Monetary Fund (IMF). Nonetheless, at the end of 2010, concerns remained over the ca-
pacity of Greece to bring down its public debt, while Ireland and Portugal continued to
suffer imminent debt distress, spurring calls for an international bail out.


Towards the end of the year, another crisis erupted. After weeks of resisting
assistance from the EU, and amidst tremendous pressure in the financial markets, Ireland
finally requested, and was granted, emergency finance to deal with the huge increase in its


There are no signs of
inflationary pressures


Fiscal policy is transitioning
to consolidation, spurred
by the sovereign debt crisis




106 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


deficit, which had resulted from bailing out its insolvent banking system. This assistance
totals up to €85 billion and consists of a mix of EU and IMF sources, made conditional
upon Ireland’s adopting further austerity measures as part of its planned four-year fiscal
adjustment and structural reform programme. But markets have so far reacted sceptically.
Sovereign bond spreads for Ireland, Greece, Portugal and Spain continue to be elevated,
and there is evidence of further contagion—spreads for Italy and Belgium have increased
since the onset of this phase of the crisis, and the euro has again weakened against the
United States dollar. Pressure for fiscal consolidation remains high.


More generally, all members of the euro area, with the exception of Finland
and Luxembourg, are required to consolidate their budgets, as their deficits exceed the 3
per cent of GDP limit enshrined in the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP). Fiscal retrench-
ment in most countries is scheduled to start in 2011, and it will take from two to four years
to bring deficits to below the ceiling. The countries facing deeper fiscal crises, however,
were already forced into drastic fiscal austerity in 2010 and the degree of retrenchment
ahead is considerable. The Greek Government, for example, aims to reduce its deficit by
more than 10 percentage points of GDP by 2014.


Monetary policy continues to rely on unconventional measures. In the early
stage of the crisis, central banks aggressively cut their main policy rates. The European
Central Bank (ECB) cut its main policy interest rate from 4.25 per cent in July 2008 to
1.00 per cent in May 2009, and has maintained that rate since. The Bank of England,
as well as all other central banks in Europe, also brought rates down drastically. After
reducing interest rates, central banks moved to less conventional measures. The ECB
targeted mostly money markets. It modified and extended its refinancing operations by
moving from a variable-rate tender with fixed allotment to a fixed-rate tender with unlim-
ited allotment of liquidity, and then extended lending maturities up to one year. Other
policies included: ample provision of foreign currency liquidity; purchases of covered
bonds; expansion of the list of eligible assets for use as collateral; lowering of the credit
rating standards for accepted collateral. The Bank of England adopted quantitative easing
through the Asset Purchase Facility, allowing it to purchase securities (gilts) issued by the
British Government in the secondary market as well as high-quality private sector assets,
including commercial paper and corporate bonds. The ECB subsequently added quantita-
tive easing to its policies, purchasing sovereign bonds of the constituent economies of the
euro area. Some of these measures have already been phased out, but others will only be
withdrawn gradually during 2011-2012. It is expected that policy interest rates will be kept
low during 2011, with very gradual tightening beginning in 2012.


Risks to the forecast are slanted to the downside. The impact of the fiscal
austerity under way or planned could risk a renewed economic downturn. Sovereign debt
distress for some countries could cause renewed financial market turbulence. Problems
for Governments to repay or refinance their debts would also cause problems for banks
holding the debt. Without a concerted EU response, it could affect confidence in the euro,
as the affected economies are part of the common currency area. There is a risk for further
appreciation of the euro and other regional currencies, given the forces in play that are
weakening the United States dollar. Exchange-rate appreciation would erode export com-
petitiveness and thus weaken a key driver of growth in the region. If remaining financial
fragility is not addressed, bank lending could remain constrained, hampering the rebound
in investment, while consumption spending would falter if labour market conditions are
too slow to improve. On the upside, export growth may strengthen if growth in emerging
market economies remains robust, and investment expenditure could be stronger if bank-
lending conditions were to ease sooner than expected.


Unconventional measures
of monetary easing are


being phased out gradually


Risks are skewed to
the downside, led
by fiscal concerns




107Regional developments and outlook


The new EU member States:1 a cautious export-led recovery


Following the sharp economic downturn of 2009, the new EU member States in Eastern
Europe saw a modest recovery in 2010. The recovery was mainly driven by rebounding
exports, supported by stronger external demand. In the case of the Baltic States, export
growth was stimulated further by the decline in nominal wages, reducing labour costs
and enhancing competitiveness. Inventory restocking was also important, especially in
the first half of the year. Private consumption and investment demand, by contrast, either
stagnated or contracted further, being restrained by lower nominal and/or real wages,
high unemployment, fiscal austerity measures, higher indirect taxes and tight credit. Low
capacity utilization rates deterred both domestic and foreign investment, undermining the
region’s long-run growth prospects.


The recovery remains fragile in most economies. Only Poland and Slovakia ex-
hibited solid economic performance in 2010, with output increasing at more than 3.5 per
cent. Elsewhere, the upturn was feeble, while in Latvia, Lithuania and Romania, economic
contraction continued. On average, GDP of the new EU member States increased by 1.9
per cent in 2010, having shrunk by 3.6 per cent in 2009 (see annex table A.1). Growth is
expected to strengthen to 3.2 per cent in 2011, as consumption demand gradually recov-
ers, domestic investment and FDI picks up, and absorption of EU funding improves. It
will take time, however, before pre-crisis growth rates will be achieved again. To improve
long-term competitiveness, further structural reforms are needed.


External conditions for the new EU member States improved in 2010. Import de-
mand, particularly for durable consumer goods and capital and intermediate goods, strength-
ened in many important trading-partner economies. This supported the rebound in indus-
trial production, including in the automotive industries in Central Europe (see figure IV.4).


1 This section mainly refers to the new EU member States in Central and Eastern Europe.


Exports help the new EU
members out of recession


External conditions
improved in 2010


Figure IV.4
Industrial production, excluding construction, selected
new EU member States, October 2009-August 2010


Percentage


2009 2010


O
ct


N
ov


D
ec Ja


n


Fe
b


M
ar


Ap
r


M
ay Ju


n Ju
l


Au
g


-30


-20


-10


0


10


20


30


40


Ch
an


ge
in


th
e


in
du


st
ria


l p
ro


du
ct


io
n


in
de


x
ov


er
th


e
co


rre
sp


on
di


ng
m


on
th


o
f t


he
p


re
vi


ou
s y


ea
r


Czech Republic
Estonia
Latvia
Hungary
Poland
Slovakia
Slovenia


Source: Eurostat.




108 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


Access to international capital markets also improved. Parent banks in the EU-15 avoided
withdrawing more capital as the financial sectors of the new EU countries stabilized.


Inflation remained low among new EU members in 2010, as their economies
operated well below full capacity. Latvia experienced deflation following the demand con-
traction forced by the fixed exchange-rate regime. Increases in energy prices and indirect
taxes pushed up headline inflation in countries with flexible exchange rates, most notably
Romania. Although producer prices strengthened in late 2010, a build-up of serious inflation-
ary pressures in these countries during 2011 is highly unlikely. Headline inflation is projected
to increase by 1 to 2 percentage points as a consequence of higher world market prices for
energy and primary commodities and possible further increases in indirect tax rates.


The space for stronger counter-cyclical measures which could speed up recov-
ery is limited. There is an urgent need for countries to undertake deeper structural reforms
to underpin more sustained long-term growth. Better utilization of available EU funds
could support such reforms. Budget deficits are large, especially in the economies most
affected by the global crisis. In Latvia and Lithuania, fiscal deficits exceeded 8 per cent
of GDP in 2010. Given their commitment to the SGP of the EU, all Governments of the
new EU member States will be engaging in drastic fiscal retrenchment over the next three
or four years in an attempt to bring deficits below the ceiling of 3 per cent of GDP. This
includes Estonia, whose deficit is already below 3 per cent of GDP, but nevertheless aims
to balance its government budget in the medium term. This will be challenging in most
cases and could come at substantial cost to growth in the short run.


The central banks of the new EU member States continued to keep policy rates
low during 2010, hoping to encourage private lending and discourage inflows of specula-
tive capital. Monetary authorities in the Czech Republic, Hungary and Romania cut inter-
est rates in successive rounds. In the case of Slovakia and Slovenia, which have become
members of the euro area, the very low rates set by the ECB apply. Estonia, in turn, will
adopt the euro in January 2011 and is gradually reducing its reserve requirements to those
mandated by the ECB. Accommodative policy should continue in 2011, but thus far it has
not unleashed much credit because of continued fragility in the banking sectors.


Unemployment rates remain relatively high in most new EU member States
although they seem to have stabilized by mid-2010. In Latvia, the unemployment rate
reached 19.7 per cent in 2009, but had declined to 15 per cent in August 2010. Nevertheless,
the time during which unemployed workers are without a job has increased. This is all the
more worrisome as fiscal stimulus measures that supported job creation are being with-
drawn and more public employment is lost through fiscal austerity measures. This will
hold back further improvements in labour markets during 2011.


Economies in transition
During 2010, economies in transition recovered visibly from the steep downturn caused
by the global crisis. On average, GDP expanded by 3.8 per cent, a significant turnaround,
but far short of what it will take to make up for the dramatic setback of 6.7 per cent in
2009. The recovery was primarily a result of more favourable external conditions, which
helped the rebound in exports. The impact of the crisis was greater in the Commonwealth
of Independent States (CIS) than in the transition economies of South-eastern Europe,
with the former contracting by 7.0 per cent in 2009 compared to 3.6 per cent for the latter.
The CIS economies benefited from higher commodity prices and GDP growth reached 4.1


The large output gap is
containing inflation


Central banks are
maintaining low


policy rates


There are mixed trends
in labour markets




109Regional developments and outlook


per cent in 2010. Economic performance in South-eastern Europe, by contrast, remained
lacklustre as weak domestic demand stifled most of the impetus from export growth. GDP
expanded by a mere 0.1 per cent in 2010 (see annex table A.2).


In the outlook, GDP growth is expected to remain subdued in 2011, but may
accelerate somewhat in 2012. Downside risks emanate in particular from further weaken-
ing of the global recovery and fragility in financial sectors, especially in the CIS. Possible
renewed financial turmoil over sovereign debt distress in Greece would be potentially
harmful to the recovery in South-eastern Europe.


South-eastern Europe: a feeble recovery


Export growth was the main driving force behind an otherwise weak recovery in Bosnia
and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
during 2010. Croatia, however, failed to climb out of the recession as continued declines
in consumption and investment outweighed export growth. Domestic demand growth
led the recovery in Albania. The recovery is expected to provide an impetus for the entire
region in 2011, with GDP growth averaging 2.5 per cent on the expectation of continued
favourable external conditions and modest revivals in domestic demand.


The weakness in domestic demand acted as a drag on aggregate output in 2010.
Importantly, after several years of growth driven by booming domestic demand accompa-
nied by heavy external borrowing and large current-account deficits, export growth was the
main factor in whatever economic recovery the countries in the region saw during 2010.
However, in order to sustain more dynamic, export-led growth in the future, manufactur-
ing and services sectors will need to be modernized and become more diversified. This will
require additional foreign direct investment (FDI) and technological change. To facilitate
this, additional structural reforms will be needed to change the business environment.


Consumer inflation remained subdued in most countries of the region, re-
strained by stagnant real household incomes and tight consumer credit. Inflation is ex-
pected to accelerate by 1 percentage point in 2011, as domestic demand gradually picks
up. In Serbia, inflation exceeded 5 per cent, reflecting the effect of currency depreciation as
well as the one-off effect of a poor harvest on food prices. Inflationary pressures will likely
increase in 2011, following the end to the temporary freeze in pensions and public sector
wages (see annex table A.5).


As businesses continued to shed workers, unemployment increased in the region
in 2010, with the exception of Albania. Unemployment is particularly high in Bosnia and
Herzegovina and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. As the economic recovery
is expected to gain some speed in 2011, job creation in the private sector is also expected
to improve. Large numbers of workers have now been without a job for a long period of
time. This problem is likely to persist in the absence of targeted measures to encourage
retraining and hiring in the formal sector (see annex table A.8).


Macroeconomic policies in South-eastern Europe have been characterized by
fiscal discipline. Policymakers have given priority to providing businesses with better ac-
cess to finance and to incentives aiming to attract strategic investors from abroad. In
most countries, monetary policy remained accommodative in 2010 and no change in this
regard is expected. Only in Serbia has the central bank increased its policy rate to counter-
act rising inflation, doing so several times in the second half of the year. More generally,
boosting credit to the private sector and encouraging lending in domestic currency are key
components of the recovery strategy. Invariably, however, this has not been successful. In


A weak recovery is
driven by exports


Medium-term prospects
depend on structural
reforms


Inflation remains subdued


Labour markets have
deteriorated further


While fiscal policy is
tightening, monetary policy
remains accommodative




110 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


Croatia, for instance, credit supply remains tight despite the lowering of official reserve
requirements, and in Montenegro, credit supply fell sharply.


Moderate export growth and weak import demand led to a narrowing of
current-account deficits of all economies in the region, except Serbia. All countries secured
the external financing needed to cover the deficits. Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina
needed support from the IMF in order to do so. FDI inflows have remained subdued and
are unlikely to reach the high pre-crisis levels in the near term, especially given the adverse
impact of the Greek financial crisis on the confidence of prospective investors.


In addition to weakening global demand conditions, downward risks include
the high degree of euroization of bank loans, particularly in Serbia, which given prevailing
currency mismatches, could lead to large numbers of non-performing loans in the case of
a devaluation. The banking sector of the countries in the region will likely also be affected
directly from any serious further deterioration in the financial situation in Greece.


The Commonwealth of Independent States:2
a muted recovery


After a sharp contraction in 2009, output in the CIS bounced back in 2010, driven by the
recovery of commodity prices and general improvement in the external environment. The
return to economic expansion in the Russian Federation particularly contributed to the
renewed dynamism in the region, boosting exports, financial flows and remittances, which
remain critical for low-income countries in the region. However, despite these positive
influences, recovery remained muted, as continued fragility in the financial sector and
uncertain economic prospects constrained domestic demand in the largest economies in
the region. Some further strengthening of domestic demand can be expected in 2011, but
the external environment remains uncertain and cannot be relied upon as a major source
of economic dynamism. After growing by around 4.1 per cent in 2010, aggregate GDP in
the region is expected to increase at a similar pace in 2011.


Domestic demand is gathering strength (see figure IV.5). However, despite
improvement in the terms of trade and reduction of unemployment, recovery of domestic
demand has been limited and remains dependent upon a favourable external environment.
In the Russian Federation, consumer demand benefited from expansionary fiscal policy,
which included increases in pensions and public sector wages. Higher remittances have
also boosted consumption in small, low-income countries, although adverse weather con-
tributed to depressed agricultural output throughout the region. Exports have increased
as the world economy has stabilized, while growth of imports has been constrained by
the weakness of the recovery (see annex table A.16). However, unlike in 2009 when net
external demand was the main factor sustaining economic activity, domestic demand has
played an increasing role in driving economic expansion.


Output recovery was accompanied by an improvement in labour market indica-
tors across the region (see annex table A.8). In the Russian Federation, the return to growth
was accompanied by a sharp fall in wage arrears and job creation. In Kazakhstan, the ex-
pansion of employment has been the fastest in the region, being particularly remarkable as
the country continued to create new jobs during the economic slowdown in 2009. However,
performance remains far below potential in most economies. While the fiscal consolidation


2 Georgia officially left the Commonwealth of Independent States on 18 August 2009. However,
its performance is discussed in the context of this group of countries for reasons of geographic
proximity and similarities in economic structure.


Current-account deficits
are narrowing


The economic recovery
in the CIS faces uncertain


prospects


Although domestic
demand is gathering
strength, the region


depends on a favourable
external environment




111Regional developments and outlook


that is expected in 2011 may dampen prospects for employment in the region, credit revival
and strengthening domestic demand will provide a positive impulse.


Inflation continued to decline early in 2010 in the CIS, despite the economic
rebound, the delayed impact of past devaluations and generally loose monetary policies (see
annex table A.5). However, a number of supply shocks put an end to this trend and infla-
tion started to pick up in the second half of 2010 in some countries. Food prices increased
sharply as a consequence of adverse weather in the Russian Federation and Ukraine, while
border-crossing problems in Central Asia contributed to inflationary pressures. However,
weak demand limited the impact of supply-driven inflationary pressures in the region.


Monetary authorities have supported the economic recovery with interest rate
cuts in most countries, amidst benign inflation conditions. In some cases, strengthening
of national currencies, following the devaluations and exchange-rate volatility observed
in 2009, increased the scope for accommodating monetary policies. However, monetary
authorities put an end to the easing with the resurgence of inflationary expectations fol-
lowing supply shocks over the summer, stronger economic activity and concerns over the
rapid growth of monetary aggregates. Amidst concerns over the fragility of the recovery,
interest rates remained unchanged despite accelerating inflation in most countries, with
the exception of Armenia and Georgia.


The economic recovery has boosted revenues, particularly in energy-producing
countries where there is a direct link between commodity prices and fiscal performance.
However, fiscal deficits persist throughout the region. In 2010, the Russian Federation
continued to run a fiscal gap for a second year, following a long period of surpluses. Official
financing has eased financing constraints and avoided the need to undertake sharper ad-
justments in other countries, but the fiscal situation remains precarious. A shift towards
fiscal retrenchment has already started, dampening GDP growth. However, the increases


After sharp declines,
inflationary pressures
are re-emerging


Monetary easing is coming
to an end, while fiscal
tightening has begun


Figure IV.5
Comparison of retail turnover in countries of the Commonwealth
of Independent States, 2009 and 2010 (January-June)


-20


-15


-10


-5


0


5


10


15


20


Ky
rg


yz
st


an


Ar
m


en
ia


a


U
kr


ai
ne


Ru
ss


ia
n


Fe
de


ra
tio


na


Re
pu


bl
ic


o
f


M
ol


do
va


a,
b


Az
er


ba
ija


n


U
zb


ek
ist


an


Ta
jik


ist
an


Ka
za


kh
st


an
a


Be
la


ru
s


First half of 2009 as percentage of the rst half of 2008


First half of 2010 as percentage of the rst half of 2009


Source: Based on data from
the Interstate Statistical
Committee of the CIS.
a Excluding turnover of
catering enterprises.
b Trading organizations.




112 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


in social expenditures and public sector wages are perceived to be permanent, thereby
making fiscal adjustment more challenging as government revenues remain dependent on
volatile commodity prices.


Higher commodity prices and recovery of export volumes amidst an improved
external environment have boosted export earnings. Import growth also accelerated as
domestic demand strengthened, particularly in the Russian Federation. While several
non-energy exporting countries, such as Armenia, Georgia and Tajikistan, also benefited
from rising export prices, their current-account deficits remain large. Overall, the com-
bined current-account surplus of the CIS increased. This was, however, primarily due to
significant improvements in the region’s terms of trade in 2010.


The return to growth in the region largely reflects the improvement in external
circumstances. Overall dynamics in the CIS remain highly dependent upon the economic
performance in the Russian Federation. Greater access to external financing also remains
critical for many countries in the region. The lack of export diversification makes most CIS
economies highly vulnerable to external shocks. Government revenues also remain highly
dependent upon revenue from primary commodity exports, making public finances vul-
nerable to volatility in world market prices. The continued fragility of the financial sector
(see box IV.1) remains a policy concern that will need to be addressed to create solid
foundations for economic expansion.


The current-account
surplus of the region


has widened


Fragilities remain,
particularly in the


financial sector


Banking systems and financial risks in the CIS economies


The financial sector was one of the main channels through which the external shocks of the finan-
cial crisis were transmitted to the economies of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). In
several countries, the banking system came under severe pressure, prompting the need for strong
policy responses. In contrast, a low degree of financial development and limited integration into
international capital markets provided some protection elsewhere, particularly to the financial sec-
tors of the low-income economies of the region.


Policy interventions, an improved external environment and the ongoing economic
recovery have helped stabilize the overall economic situation in the CIS. However, the banking sector
remains fragile due to a combination of funding problems and rising non-performing loans. Despite
improved liquidity, this fragility, the need to rebuild balance sheets and weak demand for credit have
all contributed to the sluggish growth of credit throughout the region. Among the largest countries,
there have been clear signs of improvement only in the Russian Federation.


Rapid credit growth in the pre-crisis period came to an abrupt halt as access to interna-
tional capital markets dried up (figure A). In Kazakhstan, for instance, annual credit growth exceeded
100 per cent in mid-2007, but was almost flat in the next year. Dependence on external sources of
finance, even in countries with current-account surpluses, was a common feature among the largest
economies in the region. However, the role of the banking system in intermediating foreign financing
has varied from country to country. In Kazakhstan, the crisis started earlier and was more severe ow-
ing to the strong reliance of domestic banks on foreign borrowing. In Ukraine, access to international
funding was channelled, in part, through foreign-owned banks, which initially represented a source
of resilience. While banks’ access to external finance was more limited in the Russian Federation,
this was not the case for large firms, some of which benefited at times from implicit State guaran-
tees. These firms were, however, directly affected by the turmoil in financial markets. Meanwhile, in
the low-income economies, declining remittances deprived banks of a source of liquidity and also
reduced borrowers’ creditworthiness. Overall, countries that relied to a larger extent on domestic
deposits as a source of funding (such as Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan) were relatively sheltered from
the effects of the financial crisis.


Looser monetary policy and a temporary relaxation of financial sector regulation
helped offset dwindling access to external finance. In energy-exporting countries, sovereign funds


Box IV.1




113Regional developments and outlook


were also tapped to provide additional liquidity, while in Ukraine, foreign banks contributed to repair-
ing the balance sheets of their subsidiaries through additional capital contributions. By contrast, in
Kazakhstan, where direct foreign equity participation was limited but external debt was substantial,
debt restructuring resulted in write-offs of $11 billion.


The banking sector faces two main challenges


Financial sectors in the region face two key challenges: overcoming remaining fragilities, especially
the high shares of non-performing loans (NPLs) and currency mismatches, and how to mobilize more
domestic resources now that reliance on foreign borrowing is neither possible nor desirable.


The economic slowdown resulted in a sharp deterioration in the quality of loan port-
folios. This has been particularly marked in Kazakhstan, where NPLs are expected to peak at around
30 per cent. In Ukraine, the official estimate of the ratio of NPLs reached almost 12 per cent in August
2010, and is projected to continue to rise. Such high levels of NPLs will require concerted efforts to
rehabilitate the financial sector, particularly as the latest stress tests have identified recapitalization
needs of around $5 billion in Ukraine.


Moreover, foreign currency lending and foreign currency deposits remain significant
throughout the region, reflecting a mixture of macroeconomic concerns, risk mispricing and pre-
crisis access to international funding. In most countries, the share of foreign currency in banking
activities declined in the years prior to the crisis as consumer confidence improved and as, in some
cases, local currencies appreciated. This was especially the case in those countries that experienced
large inflows of foreign currency, such as Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation. Responding to the
large capital outflows that occurred in the wake of the crisis, several countries in the region were,
however, forced to depreciate their currencies, which in turn contributed to a rise in foreign currency
banking activity (figure B). It also intensified the problems of the banking sector in countries such as
Ukraine, where most borrowers do not have income sources in foreign currency and—in contrast to
banks that raise funding in international capital markets—are unable to hedge against the currency
risk by lending in foreign currencies. Consequently, in these countries, credit risk has been replaced
by currency risks.


Box IV.1 (cont’d)


Figure A
Banking sector, net capital flows, 2004-2009


Billions of dollars


-20


-15


-10


-5


0


5


10


15


20


25


2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
-60


-40


-20


0


20


40


60
Kazakhstan
Russian Federation
(right-hand scale)
Ukraine


Source: Central banks.




114 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


Developing economies
Developing economies have been experiencing a robust economic recovery in 2010 with
GDP growth averaging 7.1 per cent, up from 2.3 per cent in the previous year. Growth
performance has been fairly balanced across regions, with East Asia continuing to post the
highest growth rate, averaging 8.8 per cent, followed by South Asia with 7.0 per cent. In
both Western Asia and Latin America, the rebound in 2010 followed an economic con-
traction in 2009. While the revival in global trade has remained a key driver of economic


Several countries in the region, including low-income economies in Central Asia, have
reacted by introducing regulatory changes, such as higher reserve deposit requirements, in order
to reduce external vulnerability in general and foreign currency risk in particular. In Ukraine, foreign
currency lending to households has been prohibited outright. Such changes, however, contribute
to dampening credit growth in the short term. A deepening of domestic financial markets to reduce
external vulnerability may be better as it would reduce foreign-exchange risks structurally and en-
able greater mobilization of domestic savings through the financial system. While doing so has been
a stated policy target in some countries in the region for some time, the recent crisis has provided
new impetus to pursue this goal, particularly in Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation.


However, progress in this area is closely linked with the quality of monetary and fiscal
institutions. The credibility of macroeconomic policy and the commitment to support growth and
stability are necessary to facilitate the deepening of a sound domestic financial system. Given the
long-term financing needs of public sectors, the development of well-functioning domestic markets
for government securities should be an important ingredient of the financial deepening process. It
would further foster the creation of necessary trading infrastructure and facilitate the pricing of cor-
porate bonds. Moreover, better regulation of the activities of institutional investors, such as pension
funds, would also support the domestic supply of long-term finance.


Box IV.1 (cont’d)
Figure B
Foreign currency-denominated deposits and credits as a
percentage of total, end-year 2002, 2005, 2007 and 2009


Billions of dollars


0


10


20


30


40


50


60


70


80


Kazakhstan
Russian


Federation
Russian


FederationUkraine Kazakhstan Ukraine


Deposits Credits


2002 2005 2007 2009


Source: Central banks.




115Regional developments and outlook


expansion, economic performance has been fairly broad-based as domestic demand has
taken on more significance in underpinning growth with the support of fiscal stimulus
measures and accommodative monetary policy stances. In 2011, economic growth is ex-
pected to slow down somewhat, but should still reach a solid pace averaging 6.0 per cent.
There is a major risk of a further slowdown of growth in developed economies which
would weaken global trade. Surging but volatile capital flows pose a further risk to mac-
roeconomic stability in many developing countries. Several have already seen significant
currency appreciation, which is, inter alia, undermining export competitiveness.


The economic rebound has helped improve the employment situation, as seen
in falling unemployment rates in many countries. In many regions, however, job growth is
lagging the rebound, and high levels of vulnerable and informal employment continue to
hamper accelerated progress in poverty reduction and achievement of the other Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs).


Africa: divergent growth recovery


Africa’s rebound from the Great Recession has been faster and stronger than from previous
global downturns. GDP growth accelerated to 4.7 per cent on average in 2010, up from
2.3 per cent in 2009 (see annex table A.3). Exports were not the only driver of growth,
as was the case in previous cycles. This time, the positive turn in external conditions was
supported by domestic factors as well. These included rising public spending on infrastruc-
ture, increasing FDI in extractive industries, good harvests and increasing agricultural
productivity. Nevertheless, high levels of underemployment and vulnerable employment,
as well as continued widespread malnourishment, remain concerns. The continued reliance
on a narrow export base and primary production is a hurdle to faster poverty reduction
and more broadly shared welfare improvements.


The speed of recovery varies greatly among countries in the region. The re-
bound among fuel exporters was stronger than in other countries, continuing the trend
of the past decade. Yet, a simple distinction in performance between fuel and non-fuel
economies is no longer a good basis for explaining divergent performance, because not all
output growth in fuel-exporting economies has been on account of expanding activity in
the oil sector, as differences in domestic factors also weigh in.


Four patterns can be observed by looking at growth performances before and
after the crisis. For this exercise, 3 per cent per capita GDP growth is used to identify
fast-growing economies.3 Some economies remained in the same growth category before
and after the crisis. A small group of economies managed to accelerate above the 3 per cent
threshold between the “pre-crisis” high-growth period of 2004-2007,4 and 2010-2011,
while others decelerated. Figure IV.6 maps the four patterns of growth performance across
the region.


Countries belonging to the first group of slow-growing economies are mostly
characterized by continued political instability and/or insecurity, with presumed adverse
effects on investment and other drivers of growth. In some countries, such conditions
were compounded by adverse weather conditions: prolonged droughts in Chad and Niger
significantly reduced food production and slowed overall economic activity. In Niger, the


3 In the African context, a GDP per capita growth rate of 3 per cent is widely seen as the minimum
rate of growth to make a dent in poverty rates.


4 The comparison focuses on factors of growth across these two periods, thus overlooking the effect
of the 2008-2009 crisis, which was, in significant ways, an “external” crisis.


Improved external
conditions as well as
domestic demand growth
have supported economic
recovery in Africa


Fuel exporters continue to
grow faster, but oil is not
the only thing that counts




116 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


decline in food production outweighed growth in mining output. In contrast, insuffi-
ciently widespread structural reforms to diversify and dynamize Algeria’s economy pulled
its average below 3 per cent in the periods before and after the crisis. Nevertheless, in
the medium run, Algeria’s massive $286 billion development plan for 2010-2014 should
provide enough impetus to boost GDP per capita above this threshold.


UNITED REP. OF
T A N Z A N I A


S O U T H
A F R I C A


DEMOCRATIC
REPUBLIC


OF THE
C O N G O


CENTRAL
AFRICAN REPUBLIC


TO
G


O


BURKINA
FASO


CÔTE
D'IVOIRE


LIBYAN ARAB
JAMAHIRIYA


Western
Sahara


ERITREA


SOMALIA


UGANDACONGO


CAMEROON


B
EN


IN


GHANA


MAURITANIA


MOROCCO


TUNISIA


MALAWI


MOZAMBIQUE


SEYCHELLES


MADAGASCAR


LESOTHO


SIERRA
LEONE


GUINEA-
BISSAU


GAMBIA


C H A D


N I G E R


A L G E R I A


M A L I


N I G E R I A
G U I N E A


SENEGAL


SWAZILAND


BOTSWANA


ZIMBABWE


MAURITIUS
N A M I B I A


A N G O L A
Z A M B I A


BURUNDI


RWANDA


Cabinda (ANGOLA)


Annobón
(EQUATORIAL GUINEA)


GABON


EQUATORIAL GUINEA


LIBERIA


COMOROS


KENYA


E T H I O P I A


S U D A N


E G Y P T


DJIBOUTI


medium gray


darker green


darker green


darker
green


SAO TOME and PRINCIPE


CAPE
VERDE


The boundaries and names shown
and the designations used on this map
do not imply official endorsement
or acceptance by the United Nations.


Map No. 4427 UNITED NATIONS
November 2010


Department of Field Support
Cartographic Section


E C O N O M I C G R O W T H M A T R I X


- Matrix combines the growth rates for both periods
- Percentages are annualized Gross Domestic Product per capita
- Colour represents economy type from its growth performance
- Countries coloured in medium gray are not monitored


3 per cent
or more


3 per cent
or more


Less than
3 per cent


Less than
3 per cent


P e r i o d 2 0 1 0 - 2 0 1 1


Per iod
2 0 0 4 -
2 0 0 7 Fast Growing


Accelerating


Decelerating


Slow Growing


Figure IV.6
Africa growth map




117Regional developments and outlook


The group of fast-growing economies, by contrast, has shown resilience which
can be attributed to the robustness of their manufacturing and services sectors, as in Egypt
and Uganda; strong expansion of investments in infrastructure and/or of mining activity,
as in Ethiopia and the United Republic of Tanzania; agricultural productivity growth,
as in Rwanda and Zambia; or a combination of higher oil exports and vibrant domestic
activity, as in Nigeria, Africa’s most populous country.


Decelerating economies ran out of fortune for different reasons. In Equatorial
Guinea, declining oil output and slow growth in the non-oil sector limited economic
growth to about 2 per cent, after double-digit economic growth rates for many years be-
fore the crisis. In South Africa, depressed demand for manufactures, major labour strikes
and subdued domestic demand explain the country’s rather weak economic recovery.


Several economies where growth accelerated saw significant improvements
in external conditions. Botswana took advantage by also implementing strong counter-
cyclical fiscal policies. In Mali, new investments in gold mining played an important role.
In the Congo and Zimbabwe, political instability abated, spurring expectations of strong
growth. As political tensions may linger, the near-term growth projection is surrounded
by uncertainty.


Efforts at containing inflationary pressures in the region have not been equally
successful. Cost-push effects weakened with lower food prices in 2010. In most parts of East
and Southern Africa, improved weather conditions allowed for greater harvests and helped
to moderate food prices. In several countries, like Ethiopia, Mozambique and Sierra Leone,
however, inflation is expected to remain high—between 10 and 20 per cent—as a result of
pass-through effects from exchange-rate devaluation. In South Africa, high unemployment
and low capacity utilization rates have offloaded demand pressures on the aggregate price
level. Low inflationary pressures in most countries have persuaded central banks to continue
policies of monetary easing or, at the minimum, to refrain from monetary tightening. The
two central banks in the Communauté financière africaine (CFA) zone, for instance, de-
layed further monetary easing, after a sequence of interest rate cuts and reserve requirement
relaxations. The South African Reserve Bank reduced its repurchase rate by 50 basis points
to 6.0 per cent in September 2010 in an attempt to strengthen the economic recovery. The
Central Bank of Nigeria, however, engaged in monetary tightening as inflationary pressures
mounted and increased the interest rate payable on reserve deposits held with the Central
Bank by 225 basis points. Irrespective of the stance, however, the transmission effects of
monetary policies into the real sector remain weak in most countries because the lenders
are risk averse amidst continued high macroeconomic uncertainty. Lower interest rates have
not induced any significant expansion in credits provided to the private sector, despite most
banks’ being well capitalized.


Fiscal policy remained supportive in the majority of countries, reflecting both
Governments’ commitments to nurture the recovery as well as ongoing efforts geared
towards bridging infrastructural gaps, a key objective of many medium-term development
plans. Such expansionary stances contributed to a short-term widening of fiscal deficits.
In the aggregate, the fiscal deficit for the region as a whole is estimated to have increased
to between 3 and 4 per cent of GDP in 2010, up from about 2 per cent in 2009. A
larger budget deficit has prompted some countries to shift focus from short-term demand
management to medium-term fiscal sustainability and to tighten fiscal policy stances.
This could risk weakening the economic recovery, which would make accomplishing fiscal
consolidation a more difficult task.


Inflationary pressures have
declined, creating more
headroom for expansionary
monetary policy


Fiscal policies have
supported the recovery




118 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


The strong recovery of merchandise export revenues helped improve Africa’s
external accounts markedly in 2010. The rebound was mostly on account of growth in
revenue from exports of hydrocarbons and minerals, which comprise approximately four
fifths of the total of the region. The rebound has not been strong enough, however, to
bring the level of total merchandise exports back to its pre-crisis peak in 2011, especially
because demand from advanced economies remains subdued. Africa’s import bill has also
been growing, albeit at a slower pace. In volume terms, however, imports grew at a faster
pace than exports, highlighting Africa’s dependence on foreign manufactures.


Official development assistance (ODA) to the region is estimated to have in-
creased by nearly 4 per cent in 2010 in real terms. Yet, ODA flows continue to fall well
short of the targets and commitments made by the international donor community.


Private capital flows to Africa have been growing steadily with the exception of
the short-lived slump in the last part of 2008 and the early months of 2009. FDI rebounded
sharply, particularly in the primary sector which is receiving growing interest from Asian
and South American companies. Although to a much lesser extent, foreign investments in
services and light manufacturing sectors have also increased. Meanwhile, there have been
growing cross-border mergers and acquisitions of South African enterprises.


As in other emerging markets, there was also a surge in portfolio inflows dur-
ing 2010, mainly to the countries with the two largest stock markets in the region, Egypt
and South Africa. In Egypt, for instance, private transfers from abroad in the second
quarter soared by 235 per cent, to $4.19 billion. There has also been a surge in short-term,
speculative capital flows into South Africa, where the large interest rate differential with
developed-country financial markets and exchange-rate appreciation has stimulated the
carry trade.


Macroeconomic prospects for 2011 are generally positive. Average GDP
growth is forecast to grow by 5.0 per cent in 2011 and 5.1 per cent in 2012, which means
that growth of GDP per capita will be 2.7 and 2.8 per cent, respectively, and hence below
the 3 per cent threshold. Several factors that supported the recovery in 2010 are expected
to support economic development in Africa in the near future, but growth is expected to
remain below pre-crisis rates. A possible further slowdown of global growth, caused by the
weaknesses in developed economies, poses an important downside risk and would affect
both demand for and prices of African exports. Another risk is posed by possible retreats
in fiscal stimuli and public investment in infrastructure, as noted earlier.


East Asia: moderate growth, but the outlook is still good


East Asia’s economies rebounded strongly in 2010, with manufacturing output and ex-
ports returning to pre-crisis levels earlier than expected. Driven by rapid growth in China
and a rebound in the export-oriented economies, the region’s GDP expanded by 8.8 per
cent in 2010, up from 4.9 per cent in 2009. Following a very strong recovery in the first
two quarters of 2010, growth across the region decelerated in the second half as global
conditions weakened and the impact of stimulus measures moderated. This trend is likely
to continue in the quarters ahead with GDP forecast to grow, on average, by 7.2 per cent
in 2011 and 7.4 per cent in 2012 (see annex table A.3). Given the subdued outlook in
developed economies, countries with large and buoyant domestic markets, such as China,
Indonesia and Viet Nam, are in a better position to maintain the growth momentum than
highly export-oriented economies. Despite the vigorous recovery from the crisis, inflation
increased only slowly in most countries, leaving room for central banks to keep monetary


Africa’s external balance
improved markedly in 2010


ODA also increased in 2010
but fell short of targets


Private capital inflows have
returned and are increasing


Growth is expected to
moderate in 2011 as


external demand weakens




119Regional developments and outlook


policy accommodative. In 2011 and 2012, Governments and central banks will gradually
move towards a neutral policy stance.


The region’s recovery since mid-2009 has increasingly been driven by private
sector demand. Loose monetary conditions and a rebound in export demand—partly
owing to the restocking of inventories—led to strong growth in business investment, es-
pecially in the first half of 2010. Thanks to improved labour market conditions, consump-
tion demand also expanded at a robust pace. Government spending continued to provide
significant stimulus in many countries, but contributed less to growth than in 2009. While
economic activity expanded at a rapid pace virtually everywhere in East Asia, China and
the highly export-oriented economies of Singapore and Taiwan Province of China re-
corded the fastest growth (see figure IV.7). The Chinese economy grew by 10.1 per cent in
2010 as exports rebounded and domestic demand soared amidst continuing government
support. However, the monetary measures taken to slow credit growth, investment spend-
ing and property speculation, have also moderated output growth. GDP growth in China
is forecast to decelerate to 8.9 per cent in 2011 and 9.0 per cent in 2012.


Labour market conditions in East Asia generally improved in 2010. Strong
growth has reduced excess production capacity and boosted employment, especially in
manufacturing, construction and services. Unemployment rates have continued to decline
and are back to or below pre-crisis levels in most economies. Notably, the employment
situation improved considerably in Indonesia and the Philippines, which had faced high
unemployment rates. In Indonesia, the unemployment rate dropped to 7.1 per cent in the
first quarter of 2010, the lowest level in almost 10 years. The gradual tightening of labour
markets, combined with somewhat higher inflation, has led to upward pressure on wages.
In most countries, average real wages are estimated to have risen moderately in 2010.
China has seen a particularly strong increase in real wages, following significant minimum


Private sector demand has
become more important
to the recovery


Unemployment is back to
pre-crisis levels in most
economies


Figure IV.7
GDP growth in selected East Asian economies, 2009-2011


Ch
in


a


H
on


g
Ko


ng
SA


Ra


In
do


ne
sia


Ko
re


a,
Re


pu
bl


ic
o


f


M
al


ay
sia


Ph
ili


pp
in


es


Si
ng


ap
or


e


Ta
iw


an
P


ro
vi


nc
e


of
C


hi
na


Th
ai


la
nd


Vi
et


N
am


-5


0


5


10


15


2009 2010 2011


Source: UN/DESA.
a Special Administrative
Region of China.




120 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


wage hikes in several provinces. In the outlook, labour market trends in East Asia will
likely continue to be favourable. Unemployment and underemployment rates are expected
to decline slowly and real wages are forecast to increase further.


Consumer price inflation in East Asia started to pick up in mid-2009 but has
remained well contained in most countries. Average inflation in the region rose from a low
of 0.7 per cent in 2009 to 3.2 per cent in 2010 (see annex table A.6). In all economies,
except Myanmar, Papua New Guinea and Viet Nam, annual inflation rates are estimated
to remain below 5 per cent and inflationary expectations are generally within central banks’
target ranges. Most of the increase in consumer price indices over the past year can be
attributed to higher food prices, whereas core inflation continues to be low. In China, for
example, food prices increased by about 6 per cent during the first three quarters of 2010,
well above the increase in the consumer price index of 3 per cent. In most countries, core
inflation continued to be mitigated by limited labour cost pressures and stronger currencies.
With the slowing of global growth and expected stabilization of world commodity prices,
inflation is forecast to accelerate only slightly to about 3 per cent in both 2011 and 2012.


Central banks across East Asia maintained an accommodative monetary policy
stance in 2010 as inflationary pressures remained subdued and uncertainties about glo-
bal recovery persisted. Despite the economic rebound, authorities have been very cautious
about tightening monetary policy, keeping interest rates at or close to the very low levels
adopted in 2008 and 2009. In China, Malaysia, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan Province of
China and Thailand, policy rates were raised between 25 and 75 basis points. Despite the
increases in policy rates and reserve requirements, the People’s Bank of China maintained
its overall “moderately loose” monetary policy stance. Growth of money supply and credit
in China has returned to a more sustainable level in the course of 2010. Authorities also
resumed the basket exchange-rate regime, adopted in 2005 but suspended since mid-2008,
allowing for a more flexible exchange rate. However, appreciation of the renminbi has so far
been very mild as concerns about possible shocks to exports persist. In the outlook, most
central banks are expected to tighten monetary conditions slowly. However, in doing so,
authorities will remain vigilant to the strength of the recovery in developed economies and
the risk of further encouraging capital inflows by increasing the interest rate differential.


Across East Asia, fiscal policy continued to support growth, especially in the
first half of 2010, as stimulus measures adopted earlier were being implemented. This is
particularly the case for infrastructure investment, which represents the largest component
in most stimulus packages. Government consumption expenditure also expanded at a
robust pace in most economies, albeit slower than GDP growth. Like other countries in
the region, China continued its proactive fiscal policy in 2010, aiming at faster economic
restructuring. Going forward, most Governments are likely to gradually move towards a
more neutral fiscal policy stance by phasing out the stimulus. In general, Governments
in export-oriented economies such as Malaysia and Singapore may reduce their stimuli
earlier than others. Mainly as a result of strong growth, budget deficits as a share of GDP
narrowed in most countries in 2010; this trend is likely to continue in 2011 and 2012.


East Asia’s exports rebounded in 2010, driven by a restocking of inventories
and rising import demand from China. In many economies, total export earnings were up
by more than 25 per cent compared to 2009 despite a slowdown in the second half of the
year. The manufacturing sector accounted for most of the growth as demand for machinery
and electrical equipment rapidly increased. This lifted the revenues of the export-oriented
economies in the region, in particular. Commodity-exporting countries, such as Indonesia
and Papua New Guinea, benefited from strong increases in the prices of their main export


Inflation has picked up, but
remains well contained


Central banks remain
cautious about tightening


monetary policy


Governments are expected
to phase out fiscal stimulus


Export growth is
expected to slow


down markedly
in 2011




121Regional developments and outlook


goods. Overall, intraregional trade rebounded faster than trade with the United States and
European countries. In 2011, export revenues are expected to grow further, although at a
much slower pace than in 2010 as demand from developed economies weakens. Owing
to higher international commodity prices and strong domestic demand, import spend-
ing rose even faster than export revenues in early 2010, thus reducing trade and current
surpluses. However, with import demand slowing markedly, trade surpluses have begun
to widen again, most notably in China and the Republic of Korea. In value terms, the
full-year surplus is therefore expected to increase in most economies in 2011. By contrast,
trade surpluses as shares of GDP are likely to continue to decline to levels well below those
reached in the years before the global financial crisis (see box IV.2).


Addressing global macroeconomic imbalances in East Asia


Prior to the global financial crisis of 2008 and 2009, the world economy was characterized by record
large and increasing trade and current-account imbalances among major trading partners. While
the United States current-account deficit soared to a record 6.0 per cent of GDP in 2006, the current-
account surpluses of four East Asian economies (China, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand) reached a
peak of 9.8 per cent of their combined GDP in 2007. Although the global financial crisis reduced these
imbalances in 2009, they are still large by historical standards (see figure).


In fact, during the period 1996 to 2006, net exports became an important source of
economic growth for these four East Asian countries. Net exports increased not only as a share of
GDP but also in their contribution to GDP growth: they accounted for 13.0 per cent of China’s aver-
age growth of 9.3 per cent during this period and for as much as 72.7 per cent of Thailand’s average
growth of 2.9 per cent.


Box IV.2


Trade and current-account balances of selected East Asian
countriesa and the United States, 1980-2010


Percentage of GDP


-8


-6


-4


-2


0


2


4


6


8


10


1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010b


Trade balance, East Asian countries
Current-account balance, East Asian countries
Current-account balance, United States
Trade balance, United States


Source: UN/DESA, based on
IMF World Economic Outlook
database.
a China, Indonesia, Malaysia
and Thailand.
b Estimates.




122 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


While East Asia has rebounded strongly from the crisis and is expected to con-
tinue on a firm recovery path, there are several downside risks. A key risk is related to the
rapid inflows of short-term capital to some economies owing to very low interest rates and
abundant liquidity in developed countries. These capital flows lead to exchange-rate pres-
sures, while also increasing the risk of asset price bubbles and of accelerating inflation. In
2010, several East Asian currencies, most notably the Malaysian ringgit and the Thai baht,
appreciated significantly against the dollar and the renminbi. Indonesia, the Republic of
Korea, Taiwan Province of China and Thailand have put in place capital controls to limit
the impact of volatile foreign capital on the exchange rate. Since most East Asian econo-
mies rely heavily on external demand, competitive devaluations, combined with other
protectionist measures, would be particularly damaging to growth in the region.


Large and volatile capital
inflows pose serious risks


for some economies


Going forward, with the sputtering recovery in developed countries and the implementa-
tion of medium-term fiscal consolidation plans in many European countries, global macroeconomic
imbalances may continue to decline. But given the high degree of export orientation of East Asian econ-
omies, such an adjustment process will have detrimental effects for the region’s recovery and growth.
Hence, there is an emerging consensus that the region should rely more on its domestic and regional
markets to sustain its dynamism, which could contribute to reducing global imbalances. However, in or-
der to design appropriate policies at the national and regional levels, it is necessary to take into account
important differences in the nature of the macroeconomic imbalances across countries in the region.


The large surpluses of China, on the one hand, and Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand, on
the other, have different underlying causes. By definition, a current-account surplus reflects an excess
of national savings over domestic investment. In the case of China, this results mainly from a very
high savings rate. The share of household consumption in GDP dropped steadily over time, from 57
per cent in 1986 to 46.1 per cent in 1996 and to 36.7 per cent in 2006. As a result, the contribution of
household consumption to GDP growth was only 30.7 per cent during 1996-2006. By contrast, during
the same period, the share of consumption in GDP increased slightly in Indonesia and Malaysia, and
remained roughly the same in Thailand. In these three countries, the share of investment in GDP
decreased sharply and the contribution of investment to GDP growth was negative. For example, in
Malaysia, the share of gross fixed capital formation in GDP declined from 43.6 per cent in 1995 to 20.5
per cent in 2005.


Hence, a “one-size-fits-all” approach will not work when reducing economic imbalances
in Asia and the Pacific. First, although China’s average growth rate of household consumption in-
creased from 7.7 per cent during 1996-2006 to 10 per cent during 2006-2010, the share of household
consumption in GDP is still very low. One reason for this phenomenon lies in precautionary motives
for savings associated with the shifting burden of education and health care expenditures from the
State to households, as well as uncertainties about State enterprise restructuring in a period of rapid
reforms. The unusually high level of savings among younger age groups, in particular, has been
attributed to underdeveloped financial markets and the scarcity of mortgage products accessible to
younger, urban households.a Therefore, policy reforms aimed at enhancing the coverage and scope
of social protection systems and at fostering inclusive financial development could boost household
consumption in China.


Second, given the declines in investment rates in Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand dur-
ing 1996-2006, boosting investment should play a major role in any rebalancing towards domestic
demand in these countries. However, it is important to keep in mind that the dramatic drops in
investment after 1997 partly reflected the end of real estate price bubbles. Thus the investments to
be promoted should be carefully considered. In this respect, it has been estimated that the members
of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) needed about $60 billion per year in infra-
structure investment over the period 2006-2015, amounting to roughly five times the average annual
level of private sector investment.b


Box IV.2 (cont’d)


a Marcos Chamon and
Eswar Prasad, “Why are


saving rates of urban
households in China rising?”,


American Economic Journal:
Macroeconomics, vol. 2, No. 1


(January), pp. 93-130.
b Biswa Nath Bhattacharya,


“Infrastructure development
and ASEAN economic


integration,” ADBI Working
Paper Series, No. 138 (Tokyo,


Japan: Asian Development
Bank Institute, May 2009).




123Regional developments and outlook


South Asia: robust growth momentum


The global economic crisis had only a limited impact on South Asia and economic activity
gained further strength in 2010, most notably in India and Sri Lanka. A rebound in private
investment and exports, along with a strong industrial expansion and improved agricultural
performance, supported the growth momentum. Aggregate GDP expanded by 7.0 per cent
in 2010, the second-highest rate of any region after East Asia. Growth is forecast to deceler-
ate slightly in 2011 to 6.9 per cent, before picking up to 7.2 per cent in 2012 (see annex
table A.3). Strong inflationary pressures continue to be a major concern for policymakers,
however. In several countries, consumer price inflation has remained at double-digit levels,
with food prices rising particularly fast. In response, a number of central banks tightened
monetary policy in 2010. Governments have started to implement fiscal consolidation plans
to reduce the large budget deficits. The combination of tighter monetary and fiscal policy is
expected to moderate output growth in 2011.


The strong regional growth masks stark differences among South Asian coun-
tries. India continued to lead the region’s recovery in 2010, owing to a rapid expansion in
gross fixed capital formation, increased government spending and robust growth in private
consumption. The manufacturing sector expanded at a fast pace, driven by strong domes-
tic and external demand. Agricultural output was boosted by good monsoon rains. After
accelerating to 8.4 per cent in 2010, growth is forecast to moderate to 8.2 per cent in 2011,
mainly as a result of tighter monetary and fiscal policies. Sri Lanka’s economy is reaping
a peace dividend. Following the end of its violent domestic conflict, agricultural output
has expanded strongly, domestic trade and transport activities have surged, tourist arriv-
als have increased and post-conflict reconstruction activities have boosted the investment
rate. In contrast to these two economies, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Nepal, Pakistan
and, to a lesser extent, Bangladesh are growing at much more subdued paces, owing mostly
to country-specific structural factors such as political uncertainties, weak infrastructure
and a poor investment climate. Driven by robust private consumption, Bangladesh re-
corded moderate growth in 2010 despite massive power shortages. Pakistan’s recovery was
adversely affected by the worst flooding in the country’s history, which severely damaged
agricultural crops and physical infrastructure. In the Islamic Republic of Iran, economic
activity in 2010 was supported by higher oil prices, but it continues to be below potential
owing to insufficient investment in the hydrocarbon industry in recent years and slow
growth in private consumption.


The recovery in several South Asian economies since mid-2009 has led to some
improvements in the labour market. In India, employment in export-oriented industries
increased owing to stronger global demand, while in Sri Lanka, the unemployment rate
declined markedly. However, most countries continue to face serious employment chal-
lenges, including high rates of vulnerable and informal employment, large labour surpluses
in rural areas and low productivity in the agricultural sector. In addition, youth unem-
ployment remains a core problem. In Sri Lanka, 18.6 per cent of young men and 24.6 per
cent of young women were unemployed in the second quarter of 2010. The employment
situation is particularly dire in Pakistan, where more than 5.3 million jobs were lost or
affected by the recent flooding.


High inflation remains a key challenge in most countries, with weighted-aver-
age regional consumer price inflation standing at 11.0 per cent in 2010 (see figure IV.8).
Continued strong inflationary pressures reflect a combination of supply- and demand-side
factors, including rapidly rising food prices and growing demand for manufactured goods.


Economic growth gained
strength, but inflation
remains a concern


India and Sri Lanka enjoy
strong growth, driven by
rising investment demand


The employment situation
remains a key challenge
despite some recent
improvements


Inflation is expected to
decelerate somewhat
in 2011 with weaker
food prices




124 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


Moreover, higher electricity charges and lower fuel subsidies have pushed up the cost of
production and transportation of consumer goods and services. In Pakistan, the inflation
rate increased sharply in the second half of the year as the flooding destroyed crops and
rural infrastructure. In the outlook, inflation is forecast to decline moderately in most
countries, averaging 8.7 per cent in 2011 and 7.7 per cent in 2012, as a result of a slower
rise in food prices and tighter monetary policies (see annex table A.6).


Given ongoing strong inflationary pressures, several central banks have started
to tighten monetary policy. In India, key policy rates were raised six times in 2010, more
often than anywhere else. These moves follow sharp policy rate reductions in late 2008 and
early 2009, thus largely reflecting a normalization of monetary conditions. In Bangladesh
and Pakistan, key policy rates were also increased in the course of 2010. Pakistan’s mon-
etary authorities view high inflation and heavy government borrowing as major risks to
macroeconomic stability. By contrast, monetary policy was eased in Sri Lanka in the third
quarter after inflation declined in the first six months. In the outlook, monetary policy
is expected to become tighter, although slowing inflation may give central banks greater
room to manoeuvre.


Although budget deficits were already high prior to the global crisis,
Governments had little choice but to increase them further as a means of counter-cyclical
stabilization policies. The fiscal deficit rose to about 10 per cent of GDP in Sri Lanka and
to almost 7 per cent in India. In 2010, Governments in both countries started to imple-
ment fiscal consolidation plans, based on a combination of increased tax and non-tax
revenues and lower expenditures. Owing to strong economic growth and reduced fuel
subsidies, India is in a good position to achieve the target of reducing its deficit to 4.8
per cent of GDP in 2011. Sri Lanka’s budget situation benefited from improved security
conditions, which facilitated improved tax collection and allowed for a gradual reduction


Central banks have
tightened monetary policy


to contain inflation


Several Governments have
started to implement fiscal


consolidation plans


Figure IV.8
Year-on-year changes in the consumer price index in selected
South Asian economies, January 2007-July 2010


Ja
n


Ap
r


Ju
l


O
ct Ja


n


Ap
r


Ju
l


O
ct Ja


n


Ap
r


Ju
l


O
ct Ja


n


Ap
r


Ju
l


Percentage


2007 2008 2009 2010


0


5


10


15


20


25


30


Bangladesh
India
Pakistan
Sri Lanka


Source: Official national
sources.




125Regional developments and outlook


in defence spending. In Bangladesh, however, the fiscal deficit is expected to rise in 2011
as expenditures grow faster than revenues. Pakistan’s fiscal deficit increased markedly in
the fiscal year 2009/10, missing the IMF target by a wide margin. Given low tax revenues,
increased military expenditures, shortfalls in budgetary support from donors and post-
flood reconstruction work, the Government will face difficulties in reducing the deficit in
the outlook period.


Following a sharp decline in 2009, trade activity has picked up significantly
in 2010. Strong demand from East Asia for agricultural commodities and manufacturing
goods boosted export revenues. This was particularly the case in India, where export earn-
ings increased by about 25 per cent in 2010. In Bangladesh, the garments sector, which
accounts for almost 70 per cent of total merchandise exports, rebounded in the second half
of the year as Pakistan and Sri Lanka lost orders. Despite the improved export perform-
ance, trade deficits widened in all South Asian countries in 2010, except for the Islamic
Republic of Iran. Higher prices for energy products, along with strong domestic demand,
caused a significant increase in import bills. The factors causing trade deficits to widen
were offset, in part, by increased worker remittances, which continued to grow in 2010,
albeit at a slower rate than in recent years. In 2011 and 2012, trade deficits are expected to
increase further, although at a more moderate pace than in 2010.


Downside risks for the region’s outlook are related to the expected tightening
of monetary and fiscal policies amidst relatively weak global conditions. If energy and
food prices increase in 2011 and become more volatile, policymakers will find it even more
difficult to bring inflation back to target and to consolidate fiscal balances. A more rapid-
than-expected tightening could weaken growth and lead to further social unrest in some
countries. In Pakistan, a further deterioration of the security situation would hinder the
reconstruction of the flood-hit areas and lead to a sharper economic slowdown.


Western Asia: solid growth after a sharp rebound


Western Asia’s economic prospects have been improving continuously after the pessimism
that prevailed during 2008-2009. After a pronounced economic recovery in 2010, the re-
gion will see solid economic growth of about 4.5 per cent in both 2011 and 2012, although
this remains below the levels reached in the years preceding the global economic crisis (see
annex table A.3 and figure IV.9).


The economic performance of fuel exporters mirrors the trajectory of oil prices.
After dropping by 37 per cent in 2009, the annual average oil price increased by 28 per cent
in 2010 and is expected to fall by 5 per cent in 2011. Against this background, oil exporters
will register growth rates in 2011 comparable to those for 2010, although non-oil related
engines of growth seem to be becoming more important. In Saudi Arabia, for example,
which is the second-largest producer of crude oil after Russia and where oil-related activities
represent almost 30 per cent of GDP, both government consumption and public investment
have become stronger drivers of growth in an overall fairly balanced economic performance.
The picture is similar in the United Arab Emirates, with government spending underpin-
ning robust growth in 2011. However, as a payback to the economic diversification strategy,
the services sector, particularly tourism, and the manufacturing sector are also providing
significant growth impulses. In Yemen, by contrast, the economy will benefit from increases
in its gas production capacity, while water shortage hampers the agricultural sector and
political instability casts a shadow over the general economic performance.


Trade deficits have widened
despite a recovery in
exports


An increase in energy
and food prices could
lead to more rapid policy
tightening


Growth is recovering but
remains below pre-crisis
levels


Higher oil prices are
driving growth for
the fuel exporters




126 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


The non-oil exporters are forecast to see continued solid growth rates, with
private consumption representing a major pillar of support. This is the case, for example,
in Turkey, whose economy contracted by 4.7 per cent in 2009 and where supportive mon-
etary and fiscal policies have been propelling private consumption and investment, leading
to a pronounced jump in GDP growth to 7.4 per cent in 2010. The recovery is expected
to continue in 2011, but at a more moderate pace of 4.6 per cent. A similar constellation
emerges in Israel, where strong private consumption will more than offset the dampening
effect from relatively weaker export demand, resulting in growth rates of about 3.0 per
cent or higher in both 2011 and 2012. As an example of the positive ripple effects of gener-
ally positive regional growth conditions, Lebanon is forecast to register growth of more
than 5.0 per cent in 2011 and 2012. One of the main drivers of this performance remains
tourism, which has significant positive impacts for construction activity, employment and,
thus, available household incomes and private consumption.


The employment situation generally remains challenging, referring to both
open and hidden unemployment as well as underemployment. However, some relatively
positive signs have emerged in the aftermath of the peak of the crisis. In Turkey, after a
jump to above 14 per cent in 2009, the unemployment rate is expected to fall modestly to
below 13 per cent in 2010 and 2011. Likewise, in Israel, after reaching 7.6 per cent in 2009,
unemployment will drop below the 7 per cent mark in 2011. The global recovery, not least
reflected in the revival of international trade, has been a major factor in this respect.


Since its peak during the second half of 2008, consumer price inflation in the
region has slowed down considerably, with the lower level of commodity prices being a
major factor. Iraq, Jordan and Qatar experienced deflation in 2009. In the case of Qatar,
deflation persisted in 2010. In 2011, all economies in the region are forecast to see positive
inflation rates on the back of upward price pressure in the form of gradually increasing


Private consumption is
supporting economic


activity for the
non-oil exporters


Unemployment has
stabilized but remains a


major challenge


The inflation picture
remains mixed


Figure IV.9
GDP growth in Western Asia, 2002-2012


-2.0


0.0


2.0


4.0


6.0


8.0


10.0


2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010a 2011b 2012b


Western Asia


Gulf Cooperation
Council countries


Source: UN/DESA, based
on Project LINK.


a Partly estimated.
b Baseline scenario forecasts,
based in part on Project LINK.




127Regional developments and outlook


food prices and rising public sector wages, particularly in the Gulf Cooperation Council
(GCC) countries. However, second-round effects on inflation from the expected public
sector wage increases are expected to be limited.


In line with the inflation outlook, monetary policy in the region will likely
vary as well. In Turkey, the central bank is expected to increase its policy interest rate in
the first half of 2011 in view of rising price pressures on the back of stronger domestic
demand. By contrast, in Israel, where monetary policy tightening has already been in
progress since 2009, the central bank is expected to proceed more slowly with any further
interest rate hikes in light of a slight drop in inflation to 2.4 per cent in 2011. Other
countries such as Jordan, Kuwait and Qatar saw lower policy interest rates in 2010 and
are expected to maintain their policy stances in 2011, not least in view of relatively tighter
financing conditions in the regional credit market.


In general, Western Asia’s Governments remained prudent in their budget
planning and implementation. The fiscal stance of GCC countries has remained active
in 2010 and is expected to stay in the range of active to neutral in 2011. Overall, fuel
exporters will post solid budget surpluses in 2011, although these will be moderately lower
than in 2010, reflecting slightly lower oil prices. By contrast, non-fuel exporters will face
increasing fiscal policy constraints. Both Jordan and Lebanon, for example, will continue
to run budget deficits of about 10 per cent of GDP in 2010 and 2011. Consequently,
outstanding public debt and the implied interest payments are significant factors limiting
fiscal room to manoeuvre.


External balances in the fuel-exporting countries will continue to show solid
surpluses in 2011 in light of the combination of only slightly lower oil prices and largely
stable output. In Saudi Arabia, for example, the current-account surplus is forecast to
remain at about 10 per cent of GDP in 2011, after more than doubling to about 12 per
cent in tandem with recovering oil prices in the immediate aftermath of the global eco-
nomic crisis in 2010. The general dynamics of global trade also remain relevant for the
fuel-exporting economies, as illustrated by the case of Oman. The economy will benefit
not only from its oil sector but also from the increasing role of re-exports through its port
facilities. The outlier in the region remains Qatar, where major new liquefied natural gas
projects will boost exports and lead to a tripling of the trade surplus in 2010 and a further
increase by about 65 per cent in 2011.


By contrast, non-fuel exporters saw an increase in trade deficits during the re-
covery from the crisis, not least due to vigorous domestic demand that outpaced impulses
from the main export markets. In 2011, trade balances will register further increases in
deficits as the effect of slightly lower oil prices on the import bill is more than offset by
strength in domestic demand. This will generally keep current accounts in deficit. In the
case of Israel, however, strong exports of business services, including computer software,
will continue to ensure a solid current-account surplus.


Sharper volatility and a possible drop in oil prices remain major downside risks
for fuel exporters. Economic performance of non-fuel exporters will be directly affected
by weaker growth in the major developed economies. For example, almost half of Turkey’s
exports go to the EU, while about 40 per cent of the exports of Israel go to the United
States. Consequently, any renewed economic slowdown in these export markets holds
the potential to significantly alter the growth trajectory in the region. At the same time,
however, the prospects for the region’s major international debtors are fair with respect to
achieving balance-sheet adjustments through debt rescheduling.


Monetary policy will also
vary depending on the
phase of the recovery


Fiscal policies will remain
active but will become
increasingly subject to
constraints


Oil exports drive solid
external surpluses in the
fuel-exporting countries


Strong domestic demand
is pushing trade balances
further into deficit for the
non-fuel exporters


Oil price volatility and
the weakening recovery
of developed economies
remain major downside
risks




128 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


Latin America and the Caribbean: strong economic
recovery, but diverging across countries


Latin America and the Caribbean saw a stronger-than-expected economic recovery in
2010. GDP of the region as a whole is estimated to have increased by 5.6 per cent in 2010,
after contracting by 2.1 per cent in 2009. In 2011 and 2012, economic growth is expected
to slow to 4.1 per cent and 4.3 per cent, respectively, but to remain relatively robust by
historical standards of the region (see annex table A.3).


The strong rebound has been supported in part by counter-cyclical macr-
oeconomic policies initiated in 2009, which helped restore confidence and strengthened
domestic demand through 2010. Private consumption growth was generally strong,
stimulated by lower interest rates, higher real wages—as a consequence of sharp reduc-
tions in inflation—and targeted social programmes. As a result, in most Latin American
countries, the recovery was led by domestic demand. Despite improved external condi-
tions, the contribution of net exports to growth was negative in 2010 (see figure IV.10).
Strong domestic demand pushed up import volumes at a rate faster than export growth.
In 2011, growth is expected to decelerate as counter-cyclical policies are being phased out
and inventory-building will make a smaller contribution to GDP.


The recovery has been especially strong among the South American countries,
which were more proactive in implementing counter-cyclical macroeconomic policies, but
which also saw a strong return of private capital flows and benefited from high demand
for and prices of primary commodities (especially, mining and agricultural products).
The combination of these factors supported strong growth of domestic demand. During
the first half of 2010, Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay posted the highest GDP
growth (9.4, 8.9, 11.7 and 9.6 per cent, respectively). The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
was the main outlier as it saw its economy shrink by 3.5 per cent in the first half of 2010,
owing to strong declines in domestic demand and oil production. On average, however,


The region will see higher-
than-anticipated growth


South America has seen a
strong economic rebound


Figure IV.10
Latin America: GDP growth rate and contribution to growth of components
of aggregate demand, 2004-2010


Constant 2000 dollars


- 6


- 4


-2


0


2


4


6


8


2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010a


Private consumption


Public consumption


Investment


Net exports


GDP (annual growth rate)


Source: Economic
Commission for Latin America


and the Caribbean (ECLAC),
on the basis of official figures.


a First trimester.




129Regional developments and outlook


GDP growth in South America reached an estimated 6.3 per cent of GDP growth in 2010
but is expected to slow to 4.5 per cent in 2011 with the phasing out of stimulus measures
and a weakening of global trade growth.


The economic recovery in Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean has
been slower, as these countries continue to be highly dependent upon output growth in
the United States. Mexico recovered steadily in the first half of 2010, supported mainly
by external demand for automobiles produced in the country. The rebound is expected
to weaken, however, as recovery of the United States economy is losing its momentum.
Domestic demand growth in Mexico and Central America is not strong enough to offset
weakening external demand, as consumer confidence remains low and Governments are
tightening budgets. The Mexican economy is estimated to have grown by 5.0 per cent in
2010, but GDP growth is projected to slow to 3.4 per cent in 2011. In the Caribbean, de-
spite some improvements in remittances and tourist inflows through 2010, the economic
situation is also expected to continue to be particularly challenging in 2011 and 2012.


The strong rebound in output has boosted job creation in several South
American countries. This has helped to bring down the average rate of unemployment for
the region, which dropped to 7.8 per cent in 2010, down from 8.2 per cent in 2009, but is
still above that reached in 2008. The situation is more dramatic in some Caribbean coun-
tries, such as Jamaica, where double-digit unemployment is increasing further. Real wages
have increased in several countries across the region, particularly in Chile, Costa Rica, El
Salvador, Paraguay and Uruguay, as inflation rates dropped significantly from 2008 levels
and employment growth put upward pressure on nominal wages.


Inflation rates have been on an upward trend in 2010, but remain low compared
with pre-crisis levels. Higher inflation is mainly explained by an increase in commodity
prices and the withdrawal of subsidies for energy and food products in Central America
and the Caribbean. Inflationary pressures are expected to remain weak in the near term in
most countries. The situation is more challenging in Argentina and the Bolivarian Republic
of Venezuela, where inflation rates are expected to continue in the double digits.


Current-account deficits are expected to widen somewhat in 2011 and 2012, as
a result of weakening export prospects. During 2010, the rebound in global trade and rising
commodity prices boosted export revenue, especially for net commodity exporters, includ-
ing the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador and the Plurinational State of
Bolivia. For the region as a whole, the terms of trade are estimated to have improved by about
7 per cent in 2010. Despite gains in the terms of trade, the regional trade surplus observed in
2009 is expected to have eroded in 2010, as import volumes have increased at a faster pace.
The current-account deficit is estimated at about 0.5 per cent of regional GDP in 2010 and is
expected to widen in 2011 and 2012, reflecting a deterioration of the trade account.


Remittance inflows have recovered modestly, rising by an estimated 5 per cent
in 2010, having fallen significantly in 2009, by 12 per cent. As labour markets in Europe
and the United States are not expected to improve rapidly, prospects for remittances re-
main weak for 2011 and the losses in 2009 will not be recovered.


Private capital inflows to Mexico and South America recovered during 2010.
FDI inflows are estimated to have increased by 40 to 50 per cent in 2010. This outweighed
the increase in the current-account deficit, allowing for further accumulation of foreign-
exchange reserves. In addition, risk premia on external borrowing have declined to below
pre-crisis levels. Lower borrowing costs and easier access to external financing support
the expansion of domestic demand, but also contribute to the exchange-rate appreciation
(see box IV.3). Currencies of the region appreciated on average by about 4.5 per cent in
2010. Monetary authorities in several countries have responded by intervening in foreign-
exchange markets and introducing stricter controls on short-term capital inflows.


Growth in Mexico, Central
America and the Caribbean
is highly sensitive to that
of the United States


Employment creation
has strengthened, but
unemployment is above
pre-crisis rates


The inflation outlook
remains benign


Current-account deficits
will widen as export growth
weakens


The surge in capital
inflows to Latin America
contributes to currency
appreciations




130 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


Currency appreciation in Latin America and the Caribbean


Since the end of the first quarter of 2009, there have been strong and persistent upward pressures on
most currencies of the countries in Latin America and the Caribbean (see figure).


Several external and internal factors explain these pressures. First, unprecedented ex-
pansionary monetary policy in the United States of America, the euro area and Japan, including ag-
gressive interest rate cuts and quantitative easing measures, has led to low rates of return and excess
liquidity in the financial markets of developed economies. Higher rates of return in emerging markets,
including those in South America and Mexico, have induced international investors to change their
portfolios. The rate of return differential is expected to persist in the near future as developed coun-
tries are expected to continue their expansionary monetary policy stance given the weak recovery
of their economies, while economic growth in Latin America is forecast to remain relatively strong
in 2011. Second, several countries, including Brazil, Chile and Peru, have started to tighten monetary
policies during 2010 in efforts to take some air out of emerging asset price bubbles and to limit
domestic credit expansion. This has led to a further widening of the interest rate differentials with
financial markets in Europe and the United States, providing further stimulus to capital inflows.


The surge in capital inflows has put upward pressure on real exchange rates in the
region, thus posing macroeconomic policy challenges. The currency appreciation is eroding the
competitiveness of exports and making imports cheaper. With domestic demand staying strong,
current-account deficits are set to widen. In the short run, exports of manufactures are likely to be
hurt most, being more sensitive to exchange-rate adjustments. The consequences will be felt most
in the economies of Mexico and Central America, which rely more heavily on manufacturing exports
and face even stronger competition from exports from China in the United States market, particularly
as the Chinese currency does not appreciate significantly.


The currency appreciation induced by capital inflows is structurally weakening export
capacity. Booming commodity prices helped the strong recovery, especially in the South American
economies, but they also reinforced existing export specialization patterns with a heavy reliance on
primary exports. The real exchange-rate appreciation will further limit incentives towards greater
diversification, which may harm economic growth in the medium term. Primary export specializa-
tion makes economies more vulnerable to external shocks as fluctuating exchange rates and inter-
est rates cause high volatility in key domestic prices. This in turn induces greater macroeconomic
uncertainty, which tends to affect productive investment and thereby weaken long-term growth
and employment generation.


Box IV.3


Real effective exchange-rate variables,a
third quarter 2008 to third quarter 2010


Percentage


-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20


Costa Rica
Trinidad and Tobago


Colombia
Uruguay


Honduras
Ecuador


Peru
Brazil


Panama
Bolivia, Plurinational State of


Chile
El Salvador


Dominican Republic
Jamaica


Argentina
Nicaragua


Guatemala
Mexico


Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of
Paraguay


Source: ECLAC, on the basis
of official figures.


a A decline in the real
effective exchange rate


represents appreciation,
while an increase indicates


depreciation.




131Regional developments and outlook


On the whole, fiscal revenues in Latin America and the Caribbean increased,
on average, by about 1 per cent of GDP in 2010, reflecting the robust economic recovery
in South America. This has narrowed the primary deficit and contributed to the reduc-
tion of the average fiscal deficit of the region, estimated to have fallen from 2.7 per cent
in 2009 to about 2.1 per cent of regional GDP in 2010 (see figure IV.11). However, fiscal
conditions vary across the region. Not all countries saw government revenue increase, while
most expanded public spending during 2010 to support the recovery. As a result, a number
of countries, especially several in Central America and the Caribbean, have limited fiscal
space left and face high levels of public indebtedness. Some will need additional external
financing to cover expenditure needs. By contrast, most South American countries have
sufficient fiscal space left and should be able to continue stimulus as needed to keep the
momentum of recovery. This includes Chile, which has large additional expenditure needs
in order to continue the post-earthquake reconstruction.


As domestic demand rebounded strongly and fears of overheating economies
increased, a number of countries in South America have started to tighten monetary pol-
icy. Several central banks, including those of Brazil, Chile and Peru, have increased their
policy interest rates and their reserve requirements for banks to stem excessive lending. As
the inflation outlook remains benign, central banks are not expected to tighten monetary
conditions much further in the near term. In several countries in Central America and the
Caribbean, monetary policy is expected to continue to be relatively loose, given limited
fiscal space and the need for further stimulus given the outlook for a weak economic
recovery in the near term.


Risks to the outlook are associated with both external and domestic factors.
External risks are related to a worse-than-anticipated slowdown in developed economies.
This could affect commodity prices and export volumes in general. Further appreciation
of national currencies against the dollar could also undermine export growth. At the do-
mestic level, fears of domestic asset bubbles or lack of fiscal space could push countries to
withdraw their monetary and fiscal stimuli faster than expected, which could be harmful
to GDP growth in the near term.


Fiscal balances have
strengthened in South
America, but fiscal policy
space is limited in Central
America and the Caribbean


Monetary tightening has
started in South America
in the light of fears of
economic overheating


Downside risks are
associated with external
and domestic factors


Policymakers in the region have responded with measures to stem the volatility
of short-term capital inflows and offload pressure on their exchange rates. The central banks of
Argentina, Colombia, and, more recently, Brazil and Peru have introduced capital controls. Brazilian
authorities, for instance, reintroduced a tax on foreign purchases of domestic equity and bonds, and
tripled the rate from 2 per cent to 6 per cent. The monetary authorities in Peru increased reserve
requirements on short-term foreign loans. In addition, several central banks are actively intervening
in foreign-exchange markets—accumulating more international reserves in the process—in efforts
to reduce pressures for further appreciation of their national currencies. By heavily intervening in
foreign currency markets, monetary authorities in Argentina were successful in avoiding an apprecia-
tion of the peso. In the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, the Government introduced a multitiered
fixed exchange rate regime and devalued the national currency against the United States dollar—by
21 per cent for certain purchases abroad and by 50 per cent for non-essential products—in January
2010. The devaluation was large enough to more than offset the real appreciation of the bolívar in
the period prior to that.


Capital-account regulations and reserve accumulation appear sensible policy responses
in the present context, but may not be enough. The measures will need to be supplemented with
structural policies to support sustained growth over the medium term and fiscal and/or monetary
measures to contain domestic demand that has grown too quickly, spurred by asset price bubbles. In
addition, greater coordination at the international level in managing exchange rates, readjusting the
global imbalances and improving financial regulation will be needed for a more lasting solution.


Box IV.3 (cont’d)




132 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


Figure IV.11
Latin America and the Caribbean: government revenue,
expenditure and fiscal balances, 2006-2010a


Percentage of GDP


-25


-20


-15


-10


-5


0


5


10


15


20


25


2006 2007 2008 2009 2010b


Re
ve


nu
es


a
nd


e
xp


en
di


tu
re


s


-5


-4


-3


-2


-1


0


1


2


3


4


5


Pr
im


ar
y


ba
la


nc
e


Source: ECLAC, based
on official figures.


a Coverage refers to the
central government, except
for the Plurinational State of
Bolivia where it refers to the


general government.
b Projections.


Other revenue


Tax revenue


Current expenditure


Capital expenditure


Total revenue


Total expenditure


Primary balance




Statistical annex






135


Country classification
Data sources, country classifications
and aggregation methodology


The statistical annex contains a set of data that the World Economic Situation and Prospects
(WESP) employs to delineate trends in various dimensions of the world economy.


Data sources


The annex was prepared by the Development Policy and Analysis Division (DPAD) of
the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat (UN/
DESA). It is based on information obtained from the Statistics Division and the Population
Division of UN/DESA, as well as from the five United Nations regional commissions, the
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), the United Nations
World Tourism Organization (UNWTO), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the
World Bank, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD),
and national and private sources. Estimates for the most recent years were made by DPAD
in consultation with the regional commissions, UNCTAD, UNWTO and participants
in Project LINK, an international collaborative research group for econometric modelling
coordinated jointly by DPAD and the University of Toronto. Forecasts for 2011 and 2012
are primarily based on the World Economic Forecasting Model of DPAD, with support
from Project LINK.


Data presented in WESP may differ from those published by other organi-
zations for a series of reasons, including differences in timing, sample composition and
aggregation methods. Historical data may differ from those in previous editions of WESP
because of updating and changes in the availability of data for individual countries.


Country classifications


For analytical purposes, WESP classifies all countries of the world into one of three broad
categories: developed economies, economies in transition and developing countries. The
composition of these groupings, specified in tables A, B and C, is intended to reflect basic
economic country conditions. Several countries (in particular the economies in transition)
have characteristics that could place them in more than one category; however, for purposes
of analysis, the groupings have been made mutually exclusive. Within each broad category,
some subgroups are defined based either on geographical location or on ad hoc criteria, such
as the subgroup of “major developed economies”, which is based on the membership of the
Group of Seven. Geographical regions for developing countries are as follows: Africa, East
Asia, South Asia, Western Asia, and Latin America and the Caribbean.a


In parts of the analysis, a distinction is made between fuel exporters and fuel
importers from among the economies in transition and the developing countries. An
economy is classified as a fuel exporter if the share of fuel exports in its total merchandise
exports is greater than 20 per cent and the level of fuel exports is at least 20 per cent higher
than that of the country’s fuel imports. This criterion is drawn from the share of fuel


a Names and composition of geographical areas follow those specified in the statistical paper
entitled “Standard country or area codes for statistical use” (ST/ESA/STAT/SER.M/49/Rev. 4).




136 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


exports in the total value of world merchandise trade. Fuels include coal, oil and natural
gas (table D).


For other parts of the analysis, countries have been classified by their level of
development as measured by per capita gross national income (GNI). Accordingly, coun-
tries have been grouped as high-income, upper middle income, lower middle income and
low-income (table E). To maintain compatibility with similar classifications used elsewhere,
the threshold levels of GNI per capita are those established by the World Bank. Countries
with less than $995 GNI per capita are classified as low-income countries, those with
between $996 and $3,945 as lower middle income countries, those with between $3,946
and $12,195 as upper middle income countries, and those with incomes of more than
$12,196 as high-income countries. GNI per capita in dollar terms is estimated using the
World Bank Atlas method,b and the classification in table E is based on data for 2009.


The list of the least developed countries (LDCs) is decided upon by the United
Nations Economic and Social Council and, ultimately, by the General Assembly, on the basis
of recommendations made by the Committee for Development Policy. The basic criteria for
inclusion require that certain thresholds be met with regard to per capita GNI, a human assets
index and an economic vulnerability index.c As at 25 November 2010, there were 49 LDCs
(table F).


WESP also makes reference to the group of heavily indebted poor countries
(HIPCs), which are considered by the World Bank and IMF as part of their debt-relief
initiative (the Enhanced HIPC Initiative).d In November 2010, there were 40 HIPCs (see
table G).


Aggregation methodology


Aggregate data are either sums or weighted averages of individual country data. Unless
otherwise indicated, multi-year averages of growth rates are expressed as compound annual
percentage rates of change. The convention followed is to omit the base year in a multi-year
growth rate. For example, the 10-year average growth rate for the decade of the 2000s
would be identified as the average annual growth rate for the period from 2001 to 2010.


WESP utilizes exchange-rate conversions of national data in order to aggregate
output of individual countries into regional and global totals. The growth of output in
each group of countries is calculated from the sum of gross domestic product (GDP)
of individual countries measured at 2005 prices and exchange rates. Data for GDP in
2005 in national currencies were converted into dollars (with selected adjustments) and
extended forwards and backwards in time using changes in real GDP for each country.
This method supplies a reasonable set of aggregate growth rates for a period of about 15
years, centred on 2005.


The exchange-rate based method differs from the one mainly applied by the
IMF and the World Bank for their estimates of world and regional economic growth,
which is based on purchasing power parity (PPP) weights. Over the past two decades, the
growth of world gross product (WGP) on the basis of the exchange-rate based approach


b See http://data.worldbank.org/about/country-classifications.


c Handbook on the Least Developed Country Category: Inclusion, Graduation and Special Support
Measures (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.07.II.A.9). Available from http://www.un.org/
esa/analysis/devplan/cdppublications/2008cdphandbook.pdf.


d International Development Association (IDA) and IMF, “Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC)
Initiative and Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative (MDRI): Status of implementation”, 14 September
2010. Available from http://www.imf.org/external/np/pp/eng/2010/091410.pdf.




137Country classification


has been below that based on PPP weights. This is because developing countries, in the
aggregate, have seen significantly higher economic growth than the rest of the world in the
1990s and 2000s and the share in WGP of these countries is larger under PPP measure-
ments than under market exchange rates.


Table A
Developed economies


Europe


Other countries Major developed economies (G7)European Union Other Europe


EU-15


Austria
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Ireland
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
United Kingdom


Iceland
Norway
Switzerland


Australia
Canada
Japan
New Zealand
United States


Canada
Japan
France
Germany
Italy
United States


New EU member States
Bulgaria
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Hungary
Latvia
Lithuania
Malta
Poland
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia




138 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


Table B
Economies in transition


South-eastern Europe
Commonwealth of Independent
States and Georgiaa


Albania
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Croatia
Montenegro
Serbia
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia


Armenia
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Georgiaa
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Republic of Moldova
Russian Federation
Tajikistan
Turkmenistan
Ukraine
Uzbekistan


a Georgia officially left the Commonwealth of Independent States on 18 August 2009. However, its performance
is discussed in the context of this group of countries for reasons of geographic proximity and similarities in
economic structure.




139Country classification


Table C
Developing economies by regiona


Latin America and
the Caribbean Africa East Asia South Asia Western Asia


Argentina
Barbados
Bolivia
(Plurinational State of )
Brazil
Chile
Colombia
Costa Rica
Cuba
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
El Salvador
Guatemala
Guyana
Haiti
Honduras
Jamaica
Mexico
Nicaragua
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Trinidad and Tobago
Uruguay
Venezuela
(Bolivarian Republic of )


Algeria
Angola
Benin
Botswana
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cameroon
Cape Verde
Central African Republic
Chad
Comoros
Congo
Côte d’Ivoire
Democratic Republic
of the Congo
Djibouti
Egypt
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Gabon
Gambia
Ghana
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Kenya
Lesotho
Liberia
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
Madagascar
Malawi
Mali
Mauritania
Mauritius
Morocco
Mozambique
Namibia
Niger
Nigeria
Rwanda
Sao Tome and Prinicipe
Senegal
Sierra Leone
Somalia
South Africa
Sudan
Togo
Tunisia
Uganda
United Republic
of Tanzania
Zambia
Zimbabwe


Brunei Darussalam
China
Hong Kong SARb
Indonesia
Malaysia
Myanmar
Papua New Guinea
Philippines
Republic of Korea
Singapore
Taiwan Province of China
Thailand
Viet Nam


Bangladesh
India
Iran (Islamic Republic of )
Nepal
Pakistan
Sri Lanka


Bahrain
Iraq
Israel
Jordan
Kuwait
Lebanon
Oman
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Syrian Arab Repuplic
Turkey
United Arab Emirates
Yemen


a Economies systematically monitored by the Global Economic Monitoring Unit of DPAD.
b Special Administrative Region of China.




140 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


Table D
Fuel-exporting countries


Economies in
transition


Developing countries


Latin America and
the Caribbean Africa East Asia South Asia Western Asia


Azerbaijan
Kazakhstan
Russian Federation
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan


Bolivia (Plurinational
State of )
Colombia
Ecuador
Trinidad and Tobago
Venezuela
(Bolivarian
Republic of )


Algeria
Angola
Cameroon
Chad
Congo
Côte d’Ivoire
Egypt
Equatorial Guinea
Gabon
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
Nigeria
Sudan


Brunei Darussalam
Indonesia
Viet Nam


Iran (Islamic
Republic of )


Bahrain
Iraq
Kuwait
Oman
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
United Arab
Emirates
Yemen




141Country classification


Table E
Economies by per capita GNI


High income Upper middle income Lower middle income Low income


Australia
Austria
Bahrain
Barbados
Belgium
Brunei Darussalam
Canada
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Equatorial Guinea
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hong Kong SARa
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Kuwait
Latvia
Luxembourg
Malta
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Oman
Poland
Portugal
Qatar
Republic of Korea
Saudi Arabia
Singapore
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan Province of China
Trinidad and Tobago
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States


Albania
Algeria
Argentina
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
Colombia
Costa Rica
Cuba
Dominican Republic
Gabon
Iran (Islamic Republic of )
Jamaica
Kazakhstan
Lebanon
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
Lithuania
Malaysia
Mauritius
Mexico
Montenegro
Namibia
Panama
Peru
Romania
Russian Federation
Serbia
South Africa
The former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia
Turkey
Uruguay
Venezuela (Bolivarian
Republic of )


Angola
Armenia
Bolivia (Plurinational
State of )
Cameroon
Cape Verde
China
Congo
Côte d’Ivoire
Djibouti
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Georgia
Guatemala
Guyana
Honduras
India
Indonesia
Iraq
Jordan
Lesotho
Morocco
Nicaragua
Nigeria
Pakistan
Papua New Guinea
Paraguay
Philippines
Republic of Moldova
Sao Tome and Prinicipe
Senegal
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Syrian Arab Republic
Thailand
Tunisia
Turkmenistan
Ukraine
Uzbekistan
Viet Nam
Yemen


Bangladesh
Benin
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Central African Republic
Chad
Comoros
Democratic Republic
of the Congo
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Gambia
Ghana
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Haiti
Kenya
Kyrgyzstan
Liberia
Madagascar
Malawi
Mali
Mauritania
Mozambique
Myanmar
Nepal
Niger
Rwanda
Sierra Leone
Somalia
Tajikistan
Togo
Uganda
United Republic
of Tanzania
Zambia
Zimbabwe


a Special Administrative Region of China.




142 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


Table F
Least developed countries


As of November 2010


Africa East Asia South Asia Western Asia
Latin America and
the Caribbean


Angola
Benin
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Central African Republic
Chad
Comoros
Democratic Republic
of the Congo
Djibouti
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Gambia
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Lesotho
Liberia
Madagascar
Malawi
Mali
Mauritania
Mozambique
Niger
Rwanda
Sao Tome and Principe
Senegal
Sierra Leone
Somalia
Sudan
Togo
Uganda
United Republic of Tanzania
Zambia


Cambodiaa
Kiribatia
Lao People’s
Democratic Republica
Myanmar
Samoaa, b
Solomon Islandsa
Timor Lestea
Tuvalua
Vanuatua


Afghanistana
Bangladesh
Bhutana
Maldivesa, c
Nepal


Yemen Haiti


a Not included in the WESP discussion because of insufficient data.
b Samoa will graduate from the list of the least developed countries in January 2014.
c Maldives will graduate in January 2011.




143Country classification


Table G
Heavily indebted poor countries


As of end-July 2010


Post-completion point HIPCsa Interim HIPCsb Pre-decision point HIPCsc


Afghanistan
Benin
Bolivia
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cameroon
Central African Republic
Congo
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Ethiopia
Ghana
Guyana
Gambia
Haiti
Honduras
Liberia
Madagascar
Malawi
Mali
Mauritania
Mozambique
Nicaragua
Niger
Rwanda
Sao Tome and Principe
Senegal
Sierra Leone
Uganda
United Republic of Tanzania
Zambia


Chad
Comoros
Côte D’Ivoire
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Togo


Eritrea
Kyrgyzstand
Somalia
Sudan


a Countries that have qualified for irrevocable debt relief under the HIPC Initiative.
b Countries that have qualified for assistance under the HIPC Initiative (that is to say, have reached decision


point), but have not yet reached completion point.
c Countries that are potentially eligible and may wish to avail themselves of the HIPC Initiative or the Multilateral


Debt Relief Initiative (MDRI).
d The Kyrgyz authorities indicated in early 2007 that they did not wish to avail themselves of debt relief under the


HIPC Initiative, but subsequently expressed interest in the MDRI. Based on the latest available data, however,
indebtedness indicators were estimated to be below the applicable HIPC Initiative thresholds, while income
levels were estimated to be above the MDRI thresholds.






Annex tables




List of tables


A. 1 Developed economies: rates of growth of real GDP, 2002-2012 ...................................................................................... 147
A. 2 Economies in transition: rates of growth of real GDP, 2002-2012 .................................................................................... 148
A. 3 Developing economies: rates of growth of real GDP, 2002-2012 .................................................................................... 149
A. 4 Developed economies: consumer price inflation, 2002-2012........................................................................................... 151
A. 5 Economies in transition: consumer price inflation, 2002-2012 ......................................................................................... 152
A. 6 Developing economies: consumer price inflation, 2002-2012 ......................................................................................... 153
A. 7 Developed economies: unemployment rates, 2002-2012 .................................................................................................. 155
A. 8 Economies in transition and developing economies: unemployment rates, 2001-2010 ................................ 157
A. 9 Major developed economies: quarterly indicators of growth,
unemployment and inflation, 2008-2010 .................................................................................................................................... 159
A.10 Selected economies in transition: quarterly indicators of growth and inflation, 2008-2010 ......................... 160
A.11 Major developing economies: quarterly indicators of growth,
unemployment and inflation, 2008-2010 .................................................................................................................................... 161
A.12 Major developed economies: financial indicators, 2001-2010 .......................................................................................... 163
A.13 Selected economies: real effective exchange rates, broad measurement, 2001-2010 ...................................... 164
A.14 Indices of prices of primary commodities, 2001-2010 ........................................................................................................... 166
A.15 World oil supply and demand, 2002-2011 ..................................................................................................................................... 167
A.16 World trade: changes in value and volume of exports and imports,
by major country group, 2002-2012 ............................................................................................................................................... 168
A.17 Balance of payments on current accounts,
by country or country group, summary table, 2001-2009 ................................................................................................... 170
A.18 Balance of payments on current accounts, by country or country group, 2001-2009 ...................................... 171
A.19 Net ODA from major sources, by type, 1989-2009 ................................................................................................................... 174
A.20 Total net ODA flows from OECD Development Assistance Committee
countries, by type, 2000-2009 ............................................................................................................................................................. 175
A.21 Commitments and net flows of financial resources,
by selected multilateral institutions, 2000-2009 ...................................................................................................................... 176
A.22 Greenhouse gas emissions of Annex 1 Parties to the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change, 1990-2012 ..................................................................................................... 177




147Annex tables


Table A.1
Developed economies: rates of growth of real GDP, 2002-2012


Annual percentage change


2002-
2009a 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010b 2011c 2012c


Developed economies 1.3 1.4 1.8 3.0 2.5 2.8 2.5 0.1 -3.5 2.3 1.9 2.3


United States 1.6 1.8 2.5 3.6 3.1 2.7 1.9 0.0 -2.6 2.6 2.2 2.8
Canada 1.7 2.9 1.9 3.1 3.0 2.8 2.2 0.5 -2.5 2.9 2.5 3.1
Japan 0.5 0.3 1.4 2.7 1.9 2.0 2.4 -1.2 -5.2 2.7 1.1 1.4
Australia 3.1 3.9 3.2 3.6 3.2 2.6 4.8 2.2 1.2 3.3 3.7 3.0
New Zealand 2.6 4.6 4.4 4.0 3.1 2.3 3.1 -0.5 -0.4 2.7 2.4 3.0


European Union 1.2 1.2 1.3 2.5 2.0 3.2 2.9 0.5 -4.2 1.8 1.6 2.0


EU-15 1.0 1.2 1.2 2.4 1.8 3.0 2.8 0.3 -4.3 1.7 1.5 1.9
Austria 1.6 1.6 0.8 2.5 2.5 3.6 3.7 2.2 -3.9 1.8 2.0 2.1
Belgium 1.4 1.4 0.8 3.2 1.7 2.7 2.9 1.0 -2.7 2.0 1.0 1.6
Denmark 0.6 0.5 0.4 2.3 2.4 3.4 1.7 -0.9 -4.7 1.4 1.8 2.0
Finland 1.6 1.8 2.0 4.1 2.9 4.4 5.3 0.9 -8.0 2.6 3.0 2.5
France 1.1 1.0 1.1 2.5 1.9 2.2 2.4 0.2 -2.6 1.6 1.2 1.3
Germany 0.5 0.0 -0.2 1.2 0.8 3.4 2.7 1.0 -4.7 3.4 2.2 2.4
Greece 3.1 3.4 5.9 4.6 2.2 4.5 4.5 2.0 -2.0 -4.8 -3.6 0.1
Ireland 2.5 6.5 4.4 4.6 6.0 5.3 5.6 -3.5 -7.6 -1.0 -0.9 1.5
Italy 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.5 0.7 2.0 1.5 -1.3 -5.0 1.3 1.1 1.2
Luxembourg 3.0 4.1 1.5 4.4 5.4 5.0 6.6 1.4 -3.7 3.2 2.0 2.6
Netherlands 1.2 0.1 0.3 2.2 2.0 3.4 3.9 1.9 -3.9 1.8 1.5 2.4
Portugal 0.4 0.7 -0.9 1.6 0.8 1.4 2.4 0.0 -2.6 0.8 -0.9 0.2
Spain 2.2 2.7 3.1 3.3 3.6 4.0 3.6 0.9 -3.7 -0.7 0.4 1.0
Sweden 1.7 2.5 2.3 4.2 3.2 4.3 3.3 -0.4 -5.1 4.3 3.4 3.0
United Kingdom 1.3 2.1 2.8 3.0 2.2 2.8 2.7 -0.1 -5.0 1.8 2.1 2.6


New EU member States 3.8 3.1 4.3 5.6 4.7 6.5 6.2 4.0 -3.6 1.9 3.2 4.3
Bulgaria 4.6 4.7 5.5 6.7 6.4 6.5 6.4 6.2 -4.9 0.4 3.4 5.5
Cyprus 2.9 2.1 1.9 4.2 3.9 4.1 5.1 3.6 -1.7 1.0 1.5 1.5
Czech Republic 3.4 1.9 3.6 4.5 6.3 6.8 6.1 2.5 -4.1 2.0 2.0 3.0
Estonia 3.5 7.9 7.6 7.2 9.4 10.6 6.9 -5.1 -13.9 1.5 3.0 3.0
Hungary 2.0 4.4 4.3 4.9 3.5 4.0 1.0 0.6 -6.3 0.8 2.5 3.5
Latvia 3.6 6.5 7.2 8.7 10.6 12.2 10.0 -4.2 -18.0 -0.8 3.0 3.8
Lithuania 4.5 6.9 10.2 7.4 7.8 7.8 9.8 2.9 -14.7 -0.6 2.7 3.5
Malta 1.9 2.6 -0.3 0.9 4.0 3.6 3.7 2.6 -2.1 1.5 2.0 1.5
Poland 4.2 1.4 3.9 5.3 3.6 6.2 6.8 5.1 1.6 3.6 4.2 5.5
Romania 4.6 5.1 5.2 8.5 4.2 7.9 6.3 7.3 -7.1 -1.5 2.5 4.0
Slovakia 5.1 4.6 4.8 5.0 6.7 8.5 10.6 6.2 -4.7 3.8 3.5 4.0
Slovenia 2.9 4.0 2.8 4.3 4.5 5.9 6.9 3.7 -8.1 0.6 2.4 3.1


Other Europe 1.6 0.9 0.4 3.2 2.8 3.1 3.3 1.4 -1.8 1.3 2.1 2.2


Iceland 2.7 0.1 2.4 7.7 7.5 4.6 6.0 1.0 -6.8 -3.4 0.5 0.5
Norway 1.7 1.5 1.0 3.9 2.7 2.3 2.7 0.8 -1.4 1.0 2.4 2.2
Switzerland 1.5 0.4 -0.2 2.5 2.6 3.6 3.6 1.9 -1.9 1.8 1.9 2.2


Memorandum items:


North America 1.6 1.9 2.4 3.5 3.1 2.7 2.0 0.0 -2.6 2.6 2.2 2.8
Western Europe 1.2 1.2 1.3 2.5 2.0 3.2 3.0 0.5 -4.1 1.7 1.6 2.0
Asia and Oceania 0.9 0.8 1.7 2.9 2.1 2.1 2.7 -0.7 -4.2 2.8 1.5 1.7
Major developed economies 1.1 1.3 1.7 2.9 2.3 2.6 2.2 -0.2 -3.6 2.5 1.9 2.3


Sources: UN/DESA, based on data of the United Nations Statistics Division, OECD and individual national sources.
Note: Country groups are calculated as a weighted average of individual country growth rates of gross domestic product (GDP), where weights are
based on GDP in 2005 prices and exchange rates.


a Average percentage change.
b Partly estimated.
c Baseline scenario forecasts, based in part on Project LINK and UN/DESA World Economic Forecasting Model.




148 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


Table A.2
Economies in transition: rates of growth of real GDP, 2002-2012


Annual percentage change


2002-
2009a 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010b 2011c 2012c


Economies in transition 5.1 5.1 7.3 7.7 6.5 8.3 8.6 5.2 -6.7 3.8 4.0 4.2


South-eastern Europe 3.8 4.5 4.1 5.6 4.7 5.1 6.1 4.3 -3.7 0.1 2.5 3.4


Albania 5.5 4.2 5.8 5.7 5.8 5.4 5.9 7.7 3.3 2.5 3.0 3.5
Bosnia and Herzegovina 4.2 4.9 3.8 6.3 3.9 6.1 6.2 5.7 -2.9 1.0 2.5 3.0
Croatia 3.1 5.4 5.0 4.2 4.2 4.7 5.5 2.4 -5.8 -1.7 1.6 2.7
Montenegro 4.1 1.9 2.5 4.4 4.2 8.5 10.6 7.0 -5.7 0.8 3.0 4.0
Serbia 4.3 3.9 2.4 8.3 5.6 5.2 6.9 5.5 -3.1 1.5 3.5 4.5
The former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia 3.2 0.9 2.8 4.1 4.1 4.0 5.9 4.9 -0.7 1.5 3.0 4.0


Commonwealth of Independent
States and Georgiad 5.2 5.1 7.6 7.9 6.6 8.7 8.8 5.2 -7.0 4.1 4.1 4.3


Net fuel exporters 5.3 5.1 7.4 7.4 6.9 8.7 8.9 5.3 -6.5 4.1 3.9 4.2
Azerbaijan 16.9 10.6 11.2 10.1 26.5 34.4 25.1 10.7 9.3 3.5 3.0 6.5
Kazakhstan 7.8 9.8 9.3 9.6 9.7 10.7 8.9 3.3 1.2 5.5 5.3 5.5
Russian Federation 4.8 4.7 7.3 7.2 6.4 8.2 8.5 5.2 -7.9 3.9 3.7 3.9
Turkmenistan 7.5 0.3 3.3 4.5 13.0 11.4 11.6 10.5 6.1 6.0 10.0 10.0
Uzbekistan 7.1 4.0 4.2 7.4 7.0 7.5 9.5 9.0 8.1 8.0 7.0 8.0


Net fuel importers 5.1 5.5 9.1 11.4 5.0 8.1 8.4 4.6 -10.1 4.3 5.3 4.9
Armenia 8.7 15.1 14.0 10.5 13.9 13.2 13.7 6.9 -14.2 3.5 4.5 3.0
Belarus 7.7 5.0 7.0 11.4 9.4 10.0 8.6 10.2 0.2 5.0 7.0 5.0
Georgiad 6.4 5.5 11.1 5.9 9.6 9.4 12.3 2.3 -3.9 6.0 6.5 4.0
Kyrgyzstan 4.5 0.0 7.0 7.0 -0.2 3.1 8.5 8.4 2.3 -3.5 6.0 6.0
Republic of Moldova 4.7 7.8 6.6 7.4 7.5 4.8 3.0 7.8 -6.5 3.5 3.5 4.0
Tajikistan 8.0 10.8 11.1 10.3 6.7 6.6 7.6 7.9 3.4 5.0 5.5 5.0
Ukraine 3.7 5.2 9.6 12.1 2.7 7.3 7.9 2.3 -15.2 4.1 4.5 5.1


Sources: UN/DESA, based on data of the United Nations Statistics Division, the Economic Commission for Europe and individual national sources.
Note: Country groups are calculated as a weighted average of individual country growth rates of gross domestic product (GDP), where weights are
based on GDP in 2005 prices and exchange rates.


a Average percentage change.
b Partly estimated.
c Baseline scenario forecasts, based in part on Project LINK and UN/DESA World Economic Forecasting Model.
d Georgia officially left the Commonwealth of Independent States on 18 August 2009. However, its performance is discussed in the context of this


group of countries for reasons of geographic proximity and similarities in economic structure.




149Annex tables


Table A.3
Developing economies: rates of growth of real GDP, 2002-2012


Annual percentage change


2002-
2009a 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010b 2011c 2012c


Developing countriesd 5.8 4.3 5.2 7.2 6.6 7.3 7.6 5.4 2.4 7.1 6.0 6.1


Africa 5.3 5.2 5.3 5.9 5.5 5.9 6.1 5.0 2.3 4.7 5.0 5.1
North Africa 4.6 3.0 6.3 4.8 5.1 5.4 5.0 4.7 2.8 4.6 5.1 5.7
Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding
Nigeria and South Africa) 5.9 4.1 4.2 6.5 6.2 6.7 7.4 5.9 3.1 5.3 5.8 5.6
Net fuel exporters 5.6 7.2 6.8 6.7 6.1 5.8 6.9 5.3 3.5 5.3 5.4 5.7
Net fuel importers 5.1 3.5 4.0 5.1 5.1 6.1 5.4 4.7 1.1 4.0 4.7 4.5


East and South Asia 7.2 6.6 6.7 7.8 7.7 8.6 9.3 6.2 5.1 8.4 7.1 7.3
East Asia 7.4 7.2 6.8 7.9 7.6 8.7 9.6 6.4 4.9 8.8 7.2 7.4
South Asia 6.6 4.8 6.6 7.4 8.0 8.4 8.5 5.8 5.5 7.0 7.0 7.2
Net fuel exporters 5.5 5.8 5.9 5.2 5.5 5.9 7.0 4.1 3.6 5.0 5.1 5.4
Net fuel importers 7.3 6.7 6.8 8.0 8.0 8.9 9.7 6.3 5.0 8.8 7.3 7.5


Western Asia 4.9 2.8 5.8 8.3 6.9 6.1 5.1 4.4 -1.0 5.5 4.7 4.4
Net fuel exporters 5.4 1.0 7.7 8.5 6.6 5.8 5.3 7.0 0.6 4.6 4.9 4.2
Net fuel importers 4.4 4.6 4.0 8.1 7.2 6.3 4.9 2.0 -2.6 6.4 4.4 4.6


Latin America and the Caribbean 3.7 0.2 1.8 5.9 4.6 5.6 5.6 4.0 -2.1 5.6 4.1 4.3
South America 3.9 0.0 1.8 7.1 5.0 5.6 6.5 5.3 -0.3 6.3 4.5 4.8
Mexico and Central America 2.9 0.4 1.6 4.1 3.4 5.1 3.7 1.8 -5.9 4.8 3.4 3.5
Caribbean 5.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 8.0 10.4 6.5 3.5 1.3 2.9 3.1 3.4
Net fuel exporters 3.4 -2.1 -0.5 10.6 7.2 8.3 6.5 4.1 -1.0 1.5 3.2 3.6
Net fuel importers 3.9 0.6 2.1 5.2 4.0 5.1 5.4 4.0 -2.3 6.4 4.2 4.4


Memorandum items:


Least developed countries 6.7 5.3 5.7 7.3 7.6 7.6 8.1 6.7 4.0 5.2 5.5 5.7
East Asia (excluding China) 4.8 5.6 4.0 5.9 5.0 5.7 5.9 2.8 0.0 7.2 4.8 5.1
South Asia (excluding India) 5.3 5.4 6.1 5.9 5.9 6.1 6.8 2.2 3.0 3.7 4.0 4.3
Western Asia
(excluding Israel and Turkey) 5.3 1.5 7.0 8.3 6.3 5.6 5.3 6.9 0.9 4.6 4.9 4.2
Landlocked developing economies 7.1 5.5 5.9 7.6 8.1 9.4 8.7 5.9 3.2 5.8 5.5 6.2
Small island developing economies 5.1 3.7 4.0 6.1 7.2 8.6 7.3 3.0 0.1 7.4 3.8 4.2


Major developing economies


Argentina 3.7 -10.9 8.8 9.0 9.2 8.5 8.7 6.8 0.8 8.0 5.0 4.4
Brazil 3.7 2.7 1.1 5.7 3.2 4.0 6.1 5.1 -0.2 7.6 4.5 5.2
Chile 4.2 2.2 4.0 6.0 5.6 4.6 4.6 3.7 -1.5 5.0 6.0 4.5
China 10.0 9.1 10.0 10.1 10.4 11.6 13.0 9.6 9.1 10.1 8.9 9.0
Colombia 4.4 2.5 3.9 5.3 5.0 7.1 6.3 2.7 0.8 4.5 4.7 4.5
Egypt 4.9 3.2 3.2 4.1 4.5 6.8 7.1 7.2 4.7 5.5 6.4 6.7
Hong Kong SARe 4.9 1.8 3.0 8.5 7.1 7.0 6.4 2.2 -2.8 6.5 4.4 4.6
India 7.2 4.6 6.9 8.1 9.1 9.6 9.4 7.5 6.7 8.4 8.2 8.4
Indonesia 5.1 4.5 4.8 5.0 5.7 5.5 6.3 6.0 4.5 6.1 6.2 6.4
Iran, Islamic Republic of 5.2 7.5 7.2 5.1 4.7 5.8 7.8 1.0 1.8 3.0 3.1 3.4
Israel 3.8 -0.4 1.5 5.0 4.9 5.7 5.4 4.2 0.8 4.0 3.5 3.0
Korea, Republic of 4.8 7.1 2.8 4.6 4.0 5.2 5.1 2.3 0.2 6.2 4.5 4.7




150 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


Table A.3 (cont’d)


2002-
2009a 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010b 2011c 2012c


Malaysia 5.5 5.4 5.8 6.8 5.3 5.8 6.5 4.7 -1.7 7.1 5.0 5.3
Mexico 2.8 0.1 1.3 4.0 3.2 4.9 3.3 1.5 -6.5 5.0 3.4 3.5
Nigeria 8.8 21.2 10.3 10.6 5.4 6.2 7.0 6.0 7.0 7.1 6.5 5.8
Pakistan 5.5 3.2 4.9 7.4 7.7 6.1 5.6 1.6 3.4 3.3 3.8 4.2
Peru 5.6 5.0 4.0 5.0 6.8 7.7 8.9 9.8 0.9 8.5 5.5 5.7
Philippines 5.1 4.4 4.9 6.4 5.0 5.3 7.1 3.7 1.1 6.8 4.6 5.1
Saudi Arabia 3.9 0.1 7.7 5.3 5.6 3.2 2.0 4.2 0.6 3.4 3.8 3.9
Singapore 5.4 4.2 4.6 9.2 7.4 8.6 8.5 1.8 -1.3 13.5 4.6 5.0
South Africa 4.1 3.7 2.9 4.6 5.3 5.6 5.5 3.7 -1.8 2.6 3.2 3.2
Taiwan Province of China 3.6 5.3 3.7 6.2 4.7 5.4 6.0 0.7 -1.9 9.0 4.5 4.9
Thailand 5.0 5.3 7.1 6.3 4.6 5.1 4.9 2.5 -2.2 7.3 4.8 5.1
Turkey 4.7 6.2 5.3 9.4 8.4 6.9 4.7 0.7 -4.7 7.4 4.6 5.0
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of 4.4 -8.9 -7.8 18.3 10.3 9.9 8.2 4.8 -3.3 -1.8 2.0 3.0


Sources: UN/DESA, based on data of the United Nations Statistics Division, IMF and individual national sources.
Note: Country groups are calculated as a weighted average of individual country growth rates of gross domestic product (GDP), where weights are based
on GDP in 2005 prices and exchange rates.


a Average percentage change.
b Partly estimated.
c Baseline scenario forecasts, based in part on Project LINK and UN/DESA World Economic Forecasting Model.
d Covering countries that account for 98 per cent of the population of all developing countries.
e Special Administrative Region of China.




151Annex tables


Table A.4
Developed economies: consumer price inflation, 2002-2012


Annual percentage changea


2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010b 2011c 2012c


Developed economies 1.6 1.9 2.0 2.3 2.3 2.1 3.3 0.1 1.4 1.4 1.6


United States 1.6 2.3 2.7 3.4 3.2 2.9 3.8 -0.4 1.4 1.4 1.6
Canada 2.3 2.8 1.9 2.2 2.0 2.1 2.4 0.3 1.8 2.3 2.2
Japan -0.9 -0.2 0.0 -0.3 0.2 0.1 1.4 -1.4 0.3 0.1 1.0
Australia 3.0 2.8 2.3 2.7 3.5 2.3 4.4 1.8 1.3 1.4 1.6
New Zealand 2.7 1.8 2.3 3.0 3.4 2.4 4.0 2.1 2.5 4.0 2.4


European Union 2.3 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.2 3.5 0.8 1.9 1.8 1.7


EU-15 2.1 2.0 1.9 2.1 2.2 2.1 3.3 0.7 1.8 1.7 1.6
Austria 1.7 1.3 2.0 2.1 1.7 2.2 3.2 0.4 1.7 1.8 1.7
Belgium 1.6 1.5 1.9 2.5 2.3 1.8 4.5 0.0 2.3 2.7 2.4
Denmark 2.4 2.0 0.9 1.7 1.9 1.7 3.6 1.1 2.3 1.9 1.0
Finland 2.0 1.3 0.1 0.8 1.3 1.6 3.9 1.6 1.6 1.9 2.0
France 1.9 2.2 2.3 1.9 1.9 1.6 3.2 0.1 1.7 1.4 2.0
Germany 1.4 1.0 1.8 1.9 1.8 2.3 2.8 0.2 1.1 1.4 1.5
Greece 3.9 3.4 3.0 3.5 3.3 3.0 4.2 1.4 4.7 1.2 -0.6
Ireland 4.7 4.0 2.3 2.2 2.7 2.9 3.1 -1.7 -1.0 0.6 0.9
Italy 2.6 2.8 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.0 3.5 0.8 1.6 1.6 1.4
Luxembourg 2.1 2.5 3.2 3.8 3.0 2.7 4.1 0.0 2.1 2.0 2.0
Netherlands 3.9 2.2 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.6 2.2 1.0 0.8 1.5 2.0
Portugal 3.7 3.3 2.5 2.1 3.0 2.4 2.7 -0.9 1.0 1.2 0.9
Spain 3.6 3.1 3.1 3.4 3.6 2.8 4.1 -0.2 1.7 1.6 1.8
Sweden 1.9 2.3 1.0 0.8 1.5 1.7 3.4 1.9 1.8 0.9 1.2
United Kingdom 1.3 1.4 1.3 2.1 2.3 2.3 3.6 2.2 3.1 2.7 1.8


New EU member States 5.3 3.7 5.1 3.4 3.1 4.1 6.2 3.2 2.8 2.7 2.5
Bulgaria 5.8 2.2 6.3 5.0 7.3 8.4 12.3 2.8 2.5 3.0 3.0
Cyprus 2.8 4.1 2.3 2.6 2.5 2.4 4.7 0.4 2.0 2.0 2.5
Czech Republic 1.8 0.1 2.8 1.8 2.5 2.9 6.4 1.0 1.5 1.9 2.0
Estonia 3.6 1.3 3.0 4.1 4.4 6.6 10.4 -0.1 2.7 3.2 2.5
Hungary 5.3 4.6 6.8 3.6 3.9 7.9 6.1 4.2 4.5 3.6 2.5
Latvia 1.9 3.0 6.2 6.7 6.5 10.1 15.4 3.5 -1.2 1.0 2.0
Lithuania 0.3 -1.1 1.1 2.7 3.7 5.7 10.9 4.4 1.0 1.0 2.8
Malta 2.2 1.3 2.8 3.0 2.8 1.3 4.3 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.0
Poland 1.9 0.8 3.6 2.1 1.1 2.4 4.3 3.8 2.6 2.5 2.5
Romania 22.5 15.3 11.9 9.0 6.6 4.8 7.8 5.6 6.0 4.8 3.8
Slovakia 3.3 8.6 7.5 2.7 4.5 2.8 4.6 1.6 1.0 1.8 1.8
Slovenia 7.5 5.6 3.6 2.5 2.5 3.6 5.7 0.9 1.2 1.5 2.3


Other Europe 0.8 1.2 0.8 1.3 1.8 0.8 3.1 1.1 1.3 1.6 1.8


Iceland 5.3 1.4 2.3 1.4 4.6 3.7 12.7 16.3 5.5 5.5 4.0
Norway 0.8 1.9 0.6 1.5 2.5 0.7 3.4 2.3 1.7 2.3 2.6
Switzerland 0.6 0.6 0.8 1.2 1.1 0.7 2.4 -0.5 0.7 0.8 1.0


Memorandum items:


Major developed economies 1.2 1.7 1.9 2.3 2.3 2.1 3.2 -0.1 1.4 1.4 1.5
Euro area 2.3 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.1 3.3 0.3 1.5 1.5 1.6


Sources: UN/DESA, based on OECD, Main Economic Indicators; Eurostat; and individual national sources.


a Data for country groups are weighted averages, where weights for each year are based on 2005 GDP in United States dollars.
b Partly estimated.
c Baseline scenario forecasts, based in part on Project LINK and UN/DESA World Economic Forecasting Model.




152 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


Table A.5
Economies in transition: consumer price inflation, 2002-2012


Annual percentage changea


2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010b 2011c 2012c


Economies in transition 13.5 11.7 9.9 11.6 9.0 8.9 14.6 10.6 6.7 8.4 6.6


South-eastern Europe 7.1 3.7 4.1 6.4 5.7 3.7 7.9 3.3 2.8 3.5 3.2
Albania 7.8 0.5 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.9 3.4 2.2 3.5 3.5 3.0
Bosnia and Herzegovina 0.3 0.5 0.3 3.6 6.1 1.5 7.4 -0.3 2.0 2.5 2.5
Croatia 1.7 1.8 2.0 3.3 3.2 2.9 6.1 2.4 1.5 2.5 2.7
Montenegro 18.4 6.7 2.1 2.7 3.0 4.3 9.0 3.8 1.5 3.0 3.0
Serbia 19.5 9.9 11.0 16.1 11.7 6.4 12.9 7.8 5.5 6.0 4.5
The former Yugoslav Republic
of Macedonia 2.3 1.1 0.9 0.2 3.3 3.6 7.2 -0.3 1.6 2.5 2.6


Commonwealth of Independent
States and Georgiad 14.1 12.5 10.5 12.1 9.3 9.4 15.3 11.3 7.1 8.9 6.9


Net fuel exporters 14.6 12.8 10.4 12.1 9.5 9.1 14.3 11.0 6.9 8.3 6.5
Azerbaijan 2.8 2.2 6.7 9.7 8.4 16.6 20.8 1.4 5.0 4.6 4.8
Kazakhstan 5.8 6.4 6.9 7.6 8.6 10.8 17.2 7.3 6.8 6.5 7.3
Russian Federation 15.8 13.7 10.9 12.7 9.7 9.0 14.1 11.7 6.8 8.4 6.4
Turkmenistan 8.8 5.6 5.9 10.7 8.2 6.3 14.5 -2.7 6.0 7.0 9.0
Uzbekistan 1.0 5.0 7.0 1.0 3.0 4.0 9.0 3.4 12.0 13.0 8.0


Net fuel importers 10.6 10.6 10.8 11.8 8.4 11.3 21.2 13.4 8.7 12.6 9.7
Armenia 1.1 4.7 7.0 0.6 2.9 4.4 9.0 3.4 6.7 5.2 6.0
Belarus 42.5 28.4 18.1 10.3 7.0 8.4 14.8 12.9 7.1 10.0 8.0
Georgiad 5.6 4.8 5.7 8.3 9.2 9.2 10.0 1.7 6.2 7.0 1.3
Kyrgyzstan 2.1 3.0 4.1 4.4 5.6 10.2 24.5 6.9 4.5 5.5 5.2
Republic of Moldova 5.3 11.7 12.5 12.0 12.8 12.4 12.8 -0.1 7.3 6.2 3.0
Tajikistan 12.3 16.3 7.1 7.2 10.0 13.4 20.9 6.4 7.5 8.3 9.5
Ukraine 0.8 5.2 9.0 13.6 9.1 12.8 25.2 15.9 9.8 14.9 11.5


Source: UN/DESA, based on data of the Economic Commission for Europe.


a Data for country groups are weighted averages, where weights for each year are based on 2005 GDP in United States dollars.
b Partly estimated.
c Baseline scenario forecasts, based in part on Project LINK and UN/DESA World Economic Forecasting Model.
d Georgia officially left the Commonwealth of Independent States on 18 August 2009. However, its performance is discussed in the context of this


group of countries for reasons of geographic proximity and similarities in economic structure.




153Annex tables


Table A.6
Developing economies: consumer price inflation, 2002-2012


Annual percentage changea


2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010b 2011c 2012c


Developing countries by region 6.2 6.1 5.1 4.8 4.5 5.3 8.2 4.4 5.4 4.9 4.7


Africa 8.0 7.9 6.1 6.5 5.9 6.3 11.2 7.8 6.8 6.0 5.7
North Africa 0.6 2.2 4.6 2.6 4.1 5.2 9.1 6.0 5.9 4.8 4.7
Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding
Nigeria and South Africa) 13.9 13.8 8.4 9.3 8.2 7.2 13.2 9.1 7.3 6.7 6.4
Net fuel exporters 10.1 10.9 8.4 8.7 5.3 4.9 8.9 7.7 7.4 6.1 6.1
Net fuel importers 7.4 6.2 3.4 5.2 6.0 6.8 11.6 7.2 5.3 5.2 5.0


East and South Asia 2.1 2.7 4.1 3.7 3.7 4.9 7.4 3.0 4.9 4.3 4.1
East Asia 1.1 1.8 3.5 2.9 2.7 3.9 6.0 0.7 3.2 3.1 3.1
South Asia 5.9 5.9 6.2 6.5 7.1 8.5 12.7 11.2 11.0 8.7 7.7
Net fuel exporters 11.8 9.8 9.4 11.2 11.9 10.4 16.9 9.0 6.7 7.8 7.4
Net fuel importers 1.1 2.0 3.6 2.9 2.8 4.3 6.5 2.4 4.7 4.0 3.8


Western Asia 19.4 11.1 5.1 5.6 6.4 6.2 10.1 4.7 5.5 4.8 4.6
Net fuel exporters 0.3 0.8 1.1 2.1 3.2 5.3 10.4 3.9 3.9 3.8 4.3
Net fuel importers 33.7 18.8 8.1 8.2 8.8 6.8 9.8 5.3 6.6 5.6 4.8


Latin America and the Caribbean 8.6 10.6 6.9 6.2 5.1 5.3 7.8 6.1 6.2 5.9 5.7
South America 10.8 13.7 7.0 7.2 5.7 5.8 8.8 6.8 7.3 7.2 7.0
Mexico and Central America 5.1 4.6 4.9 4.4 3.9 4.2 5.8 5.1 4.3 3.6 3.6
Caribbean 5.3 18.4 29.8 7.4 8.2 7.2 13.0 4.1 8.1 6.0 5.4
Net fuel exporters 13.4 16.8 12.0 9.4 8.2 10.8 17.6 14.5 14.3 15.1 14.2
Net fuel importers 7.9 9.6 6.1 5.7 4.6 4.4 6.3 4.8 5.0 4.5 4.4


Memorandum items:


Least developed countries 16.9 15.1 9.8 10.2 9.2 9.3 13.4 9.3 8.3 7.5 6.9
East Asia (excluding China) 2.9 2.5 3.2 3.9 3.9 3.1 6.1 2.2 3.0 3.1 3.1
South Asia (excluding India) 8.9 9.9 11.0 11.0 9.8 12.8 21.3 11.9 10.2 11.2 9.8
Western Asia
(excluding Israel and Turkey) 0.7 1.4 1.7 2.7 3.9 5.3 11.0 3.8 4.1 3.9 4.4


Major developing economies


Argentina 25.9 13.4 4.4 9.6 10.9 8.8 8.6 6.3 11.0 10.0 10.0
Brazil 8.4 14.7 6.6 6.9 4.2 3.6 5.7 4.9 5.0 4.6 4.5
Chile 2.5 2.8 1.1 3.1 3.4 4.4 8.7 1.5 2.0 3.0 3.0
China -0.8 1.2 3.9 1.8 1.5 4.8 5.9 -0.7 3.3 3.2 3.0
Colombia 6.4 7.1 5.9 5.0 4.3 5.5 7.0 4.2 2.5 2.6 3.6
Egypt 2.7 4.5 11.3 4.9 7.6 9.3 18.3 11.8 12.1 9.5 8.4
Hong Kong SARd -3.1 -2.5 -0.4 0.9 2.1 2.0 4.3 0.6 2.3 2.5 2.6
India 4.4 3.8 3.8 4.2 5.8 6.4 8.4 10.9 11.4 7.4 6.7
Indonesia 11.9 6.6 6.2 10.5 13.1 6.3 10.1 6.4 4.9 5.1 5.0
Iran, Islamic Republic of 14.3 16.5 14.8 13.4 11.9 17.2 25.6 13.5 9.1 12.0 11.0
Israel 5.7 0.7 -0.4 1.3 2.1 0.5 4.6 3.3 2.6 2.4 2.5
Korea, Republic of 2.8 3.5 3.6 2.8 2.2 2.5 4.7 2.8 3.1 3.0 3.1
Malaysia 1.8 1.0 1.5 3.0 3.6 2.0 5.4 0.6 1.6 2.1 2.4
Mexico 5.0 4.5 4.7 4.0 3.6 4.0 5.1 5.3 4.3 3.5 3.5
Nigeria 12.9 14.0 15.0 17.9 8.2 5.4 11.6 11.5 11.5 8.6 8.1




154 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


Table A.6 (cont’d)


2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010b 2011c 2012c


Pakistan 3.3 2.9 7.4 9.1 7.9 7.6 20.3 13.6 13.7 13.0 10.2
Peru 0.2 2.3 3.7 1.6 2.0 1.8 5.8 2.9 1.6 2.5 2.0
Philippines 3.0 3.5 6.0 7.6 6.2 2.8 9.3 3.2 3.9 4.2 4.2
Saudi Arabia 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.7 2.2 4.2 9.9 5.1 4.9 4.5 5.2
Singapore -0.4 0.5 1.7 0.4 1.0 2.1 6.5 0.6 2.7 2.4 2.5
South Africa 9.2 5.9 1.4 3.4 4.6 7.1 11.5 7.1 5.1 5.6 5.3
Taiwan Province of China -0.2 -0.3 1.6 2.3 0.6 1.8 3.5 -0.9 0.9 1.4 1.6
Thailand 0.7 1.8 2.8 4.5 4.6 2.2 5.5 -0.8 3.3 2.9 3.0
Turkey 45.0 25.3 10.6 10.1 10.5 8.8 10.4 6.3 7.9 6.5 5.4
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of 22.4 31.1 21.7 16.0 13.7 18.7 31.4 28.6 30.0 32.0 29.0


Source: UN/DESA, based on IMF, International Financial Statistics.


a Data for country groups are weighted averages, where weights are based on GDP in 2005 prices and exchange rates.
b Partly estimated.
c Baseline scenario forecasts, based in part on Project LINK and UN/DESA World Economic Forecasting Model.
d Special Administrative Region of China.




155Annex tables


Table A.7
Developed economies: unemployment rates, a, b 2002-2012


Percentage of labour force


2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010c 2011d 2012d


Developed economies 7.3 7.4 7.1 6.9 6.3 5.7 6.1 8.4 8.7 8.6 8.2


United States 5.8 6.0 5.5 5.1 4.6 4.6 5.8 9.3 9.6 9.3 8.7
Canada 7.7 7.6 7.2 6.8 6.3 6.0 6.1 8.3 8.1 8.0 7.6
Japan 5.4 5.3 4.7 4.4 4.1 3.9 4.0 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.8
Australia 6.4 5.9 5.4 5.0 4.8 4.4 4.2 5.6 5.3 5.2 5.0
New Zealand 5.3 4.8 4.1 3.8 3.9 3.7 4.2 6.1 6.4 6.0 5.8


European Union 8.9 9.0 9.1 8.9 8.2 7.2 7.0 8.9 9.6 9.4 9.2


EU-15 7.6 8.0 8.1 8.1 7.7 7.0 7.1 9.1 9.5 9.6 9.3
Austria 4.2 4.3 4.9 5.2 4.8 4.4 3.8 4.8 4.4 4.2 4.2
Belgium 7.5 8.2 8.4 8.5 8.3 7.5 7.0 7.9 8.3 8.1 7.7
Denmark 4.6 5.4 5.5 4.8 3.9 3.8 3.3 6.0 7.1 6.6 6.1
Finland 9.1 9.0 8.8 8.4 7.7 6.9 6.4 8.2 8.4 8.0 7.7
France 8.6 9.0 9.3 9.3 9.2 8.4 7.8 9.5 9.8 9.6 9.3
Germany 8.4 9.3 9.8 10.7 9.8 8.4 7.3 7.5 6.9 6.5 6.0
Greece 10.3 9.7 10.5 9.9 8.9 8.3 7.7 9.5 12.0 13.7 13.7
Ireland 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.6 6.3 11.9 13.8 12.9 12.3
Italy 8.6 8.4 8.0 7.7 6.8 6.1 6.7 7.8 8.5 9.3 10.0
Luxembourg 2.6 3.8 5.0 4.6 4.6 4.2 4.9 5.1 4.9 4.7 4.5
Netherlands 3.1 4.2 5.1 5.3 4.4 3.6 3.1 3.7 4.5 4.5 4.2
Portugal 5.1 6.4 6.7 7.7 7.8 8.1 7.7 9.6 10.8 11.7 12.1
Spain 11.1 11.1 10.6 9.2 8.5 8.3 11.3 18.0 20.2 19.9 19.2
Sweden 6.0 6.6 7.4 7.6 7.0 6.1 6.2 8.3 8.5 8.2 8.0
United Kingdom 5.1 5.0 4.7 4.8 5.4 5.3 5.6 7.6 7.8 8.0 7.8


New EU member States 13.7 12.9 12.9 11.9 10.0 7.6 6.5 8.4 9.8 9.0 8.4
Bulgaria 18.2 13.7 12.1 10.1 9.0 6.9 5.6 6.8 10.0 9.0 8.0
Cyprus 3.6 4.1 4.7 5.3 4.6 4.0 3.6 5.3 6.9 6.5 6.5
Czech Republic 7.3 7.8 8.3 7.9 7.2 5.3 4.4 6.7 7.1 6.8 6.3
Estonia 10.3 10.0 9.7 7.9 5.9 4.7 5.5 13.8 18.5 17.0 15.5
Hungary 5.8 5.9 6.1 7.2 7.5 7.4 7.8 10.0 11.2 10.2 9.1
Latvia 12.2 10.5 10.4 8.9 6.8 6.0 7.5 17.1 19.5 17.4 15.5
Lithuania 13.5 12.5 11.4 8.3 5.6 4.3 5.8 13.7 17.8 16.1 15.0
Malta 7.5 7.6 7.4 7.2 7.1 6.4 5.9 7.0 6.5 6.0 5.8
Poland 20.0 19.7 19.0 17.8 13.9 9.6 7.1 8.2 9.6 8.6 8.3
Romania 8.6 7.0 8.1 7.2 7.3 6.4 5.8 6.9 7.1 6.8 6.5
Slovakia 18.7 17.6 18.2 16.3 13.4 11.1 9.5 12.0 14.5 13.5 12.8
Slovenia 6.3 6.7 6.3 6.5 6.0 4.9 4.4 5.9 7.3 6.5 6.0




156 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


Table A.7 (cont’d)


2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010c 2011d 2012d


Other Europe 3.4 4.2 4.3 4.4 3.8 3.2 3.1 4.0 3.8 3.6 3.6


Icelande 2.5 3.3 3.0 2.6 2.9 2.3 3.0 7.2 7.5 8.1 7.5
Norway 3.7 4.2 4.3 4.5 3.4 2.5 2.5 3.1 3.6 3.7 3.8
Switzerland 3.2 4.3 4.4 4.4 4.0 3.6 3.5 4.4 3.8 3.3 3.4


Memorandum items:


Major developed economies 6.5 6.6 6.3 6.2 5.8 5.4 5.9 8.0 8.2 8.1 7.7
Euro area 8.4 8.8 9.0 9.0 8.3 7.5 7.5 9.4 10.0 10.1 9.8


Source: UN/DESA, based on data of the OECD and Eurostat.


a Unemployment data are standardized by the OECD and Eurostat for comparability among countries and over time, in conformity with the
definitions of the International Labour Organization (see OECD, Standardized Unemployment Rates: Sources and Methods (Paris, 1985)).


b Data for country groups are weighted averages, where labour force is used for weights.
c Partly estimated.
d Baseline scenario forecasts, based in part on Project LINK and UN/DESA World Economic Forecasting Model.
e Not standardized.




157Annex tables


Table A.8
Economies in transition and developing economies: unemployment rates,a 2001-2010


2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010b


South-eastern Europe


Albaniac 16.4 15.8 15.0 14.4 14.1 13.8 13.4 13.0 13.8 13.8
Bosnia and Herzegovina .. .. .. .. .. 31.1 29.0 23.4 24.1 27.0
Croatia 15.8 15.1 13.9 13.7 12.6 11.1 9.6 8.4 9.1 12.0
Montenegro 36.6 36.5 33.4 31.1 27.3 22.3 18.0 15.9 13.9 16.0
Serbia 12.2 13.3 14.6 18.5 20.8 20.9 18.1 14.0 15.9 18.0
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 30.5 31.9 36.7 37.2 37.3 36.0 34.9 33.8 32.2 32.8


Commonwealth of Independent States and Georgiad


Armeniac 9.8 10.5 10.2 9.4 7.6 7.2 6.4 6.3 6.9 7.1
Azerbaijan .. .. 10.7 8.4 7.6 6.8 6.5 6.1 6.0 6.0
Belarusc 2.3 3.0 3.1 1.9 1.5 1.2 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9
Georgiad 11.1 12.6 11.5 12.6 13.8 13.6 13.3 16.5 16.9 ..
Kazakhstan 10.4 9.3 8.8 8.4 8.1 7.8 7.3 6.6 6.6 6.0
Kyrgyzstanc 3.2 3.1 2.9 2.9 3.3 3.5 3.3 2.9 2.8 ..
Republic of Moldovac 7.3 6.8 8.0 8.2 7.3 7.4 5.1 4.0 6.4 8.1
Russian Federation 8.9 7.9 8.2 7.8 7.2 7.2 6.1 6.3 8.5 8.1
Tajikistanc 2.3 2.6 2.3 2.0 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.1 2.1 2.2
Turkmenistanc 2.6 2.5 2.5 .. 3.7 .. 3.6 .. .. ..
Ukraine 10.9 9.6 9.1 8.6 7.2 7.4 6.6 6.4 8.8 8.4
Uzbekistanc 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2


Africa


Algeria 27.3 25.9 23.7 17.7 15.3 12.3 13.8 11.3 10.2 ..
Botswana 19.6 .. 23.8 .. .. 17.6 .. .. .. ..
Egypt 9.2 10.2 11.9 10.3 11.2 10.7 9.0 8.7 9.4 9.0
Mauritius 6.8 7.2 7.7 8.4 9.6 9.1 8.5 7.0 7.5 8.0
Morocco 12.5 11.6 11.9 10.8 11.0 9.7 9.8 9.6 9.1 9.1
South Africa 27.9 30.0 29.8 27.0 26.6 25.5 23.3 22.9 24.0 25.3
Tunisiae .. .. .. .. 12.9 12.5 12.4 12.4 13.3 ..


Developing America


Argentinaf, g 17.4 19.7 17.3 13.6 11.6 10.2 8.5 7.9 8.7 8.1
Barbados 9.9 10.3 11.0 9.6 9.1 8.7 7.4 8.1 10.0 10.6
Boliviaf 8.5 8.7 9.2 6.2 8.1 8.0 7.7 .. 7.9 6.9
Brazilh, i 6.2 11.7 12.3 11.5 9.8 10.0 9.3 7.9 8.1 7.1
Chile 9.9 9.8 9.5 10.0 9.2 7.7 7.1 7.8 10.8 8.8
Colombiaj 18.2 17.6 16.7 15.4 13.9 13.0 11.2 11.3 12.0 12.5
Costa Rica 5.8 6.8 6.7 6.7 6.9 6.0 4.8 5.0 7.8 6.8
Dominican Republic 15.6 16.1 16.7 18.4 17.9 16.2 15.6 14.1 14.9 14.2
Ecuadork 10.4 8.6 9.8 9.7 8.5 8.1 7.4 6.9 8.5 8.4
El Salvador 7.0 6.2 6.2 6.5 7.3 5.7 5.8 5.5 .. ..
Guatemala .. 5.4 5.2 4.4 .. .. .. .. .. ..
Honduras 5.9 6.1 7.6 8.0 6.5 4.9 4.0 4.1 4.8 5.1
Jamaica 15.0 14.2 11.4 11.7 11.3 10.4 9.7 10.6 11.4 13.0




158 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


Table A.8 (cont’d)


2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010b


Mexico 3.6 3.9 4.6 5.3 4.7 4.6 3.7 4.0 5.5 5.3
Nicaragua 11.3 11.6 10.2 9.3 7.0 7.0 6.9 8.0 8.2 7.7
Panama 17.0 16.5 15.9 14.1 12.1 10.4 7.8 6.5 6.6 6.5
Paraguayf 10.8 14.7 11.2 10.0 7.6 8.9 7.2 7.4 8.0 6.9
Peruf, l 9.3 9.4 9.4 9.4 9.6 8.2 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4
Trinidad and Tobago 10.8 10.4 10.5 8.4 8.0 6.2 5.6 4.6 5.3 6.7
Uruguayf 15.3 17.0 16.9 13.1 12.2 11.4 9.6 8.2 7.5 7.4
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of 13.3 15.8 18.0 15.3 12.4 10.0 8.5 6.9 7.9 8.7


Developing Asia


China 3.6 4.0 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.1 4.0 4.2 4.3 4.2
Hong Kong SARm 5.1 7.3 7.9 6.8 5.6 4.8 4.0 3.5 5.2 4.4
India .. .. .. 5.0 .. .. .. .. .. ..
Indonesia 8.1 9.1 9.5 9.9 11.2 10.4 9.4 8.4 8.0 7.2
Iran, Islamic Republic of .. 12.8 .. 10.3 11.5 .. 10.5 10.3 11.5 13.8
Israel 9.4 10.3 10.7 10.4 9.0 8.4 7.3 6.1 7.6 6.5
Jordan 14.7 14.4 14.8 12.5 14.8 14.0 13.1 12.7 13.5 12.3
Korea, Republic of 4.0 3.3 3.6 3.7 3.7 3.5 3.2 3.2 3.6 3.7
Malaysia 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.6 3.3
Pakistan 7.8 8.3 8.3 7.7 7.7 6.2 5.3 5.2 5.5 ..
Palestinian Occupied Territory 25.2 31.3 25.6 26.8 23.5 23.6 21.5 26.0 29.3 ..
Philippinesn, o 9.8 10.2 10.2 10.9 7.8 7.9 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.4
Saudi Arabia 4.6 5.3 5.6 5.8 6.1 6.3 5.7 5.1 5.4 ..
Singapore 2.7 3.6 4.0 3.4 3.1 2.7 2.1 2.1 3.0 2.2
Sri Lankap 7.9 8.8 8.1 8.1 7.7 6.5 6.0 5.4 5.8 5.3
Taiwan Province of China 4.6 5.2 5.0 4.4 4.1 3.9 3.9 4.1 5.8 5.2
Thailand 3.3 2.4 2.2 2.1 1.8 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.3
Turkey 8.4 10.3 10.5 10.3 10.3 9.9 10.2 10.9 14.0 12.7
Viet Namf 6.3 6.0 5.8 5.6 5.3 4.8 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.4


Sources: UN/DESA, based on data of the Economic Commission for Europe (ECE); ILO LABORSTAT database and KILM 6th edition; Economic
Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC); national sources.
a As a percentage of labour force. Reflects national definitions and coverage. Not comparable across economies.
b Partly estimated.
c End-of-period registered unemployment data (as a percentage of labour force).
d Georgia officially left the Commonwealth of Independent States on 18 August 2009. However, its performance is discussed in the context of this


group of countries for reasons of geographic proximity and similarities in economic structure.
e New methodology starting in 2005.
f Urban areas.
g Break in series: new methodology starting in 2003.
h Six main cities.
i Break in series: new methodology starting in 2002.
j Thirteen main cities.
k Covers Quito, Guayaquil and Cuenca.
l Metropolitan Lima.
m Special Administrative Region of China.
n Partly adopts the ILO definition; that is to say, it does not include one ILO criterion, namely, “currently available for work”.
o Break in series: new methodology starting in 2005.
p Excluding Northern and Eastern provinces.




159Annex tables


Table A.9
Major developed economies: quarterly indicators of growth, unemployment and inflation, 2008-2010


Percentage


2008 2009 2010


I II III IV I II III IV I II III


Growth of gross domestic producta
(percentage change in seasonally adjusted data from preceding quarter)


Canada -0.6 -0.1 0.4 -3.1 -7.0 -2.8 0.9 5.0 5.5 2.3 1.0
France 2.1 -2.6 -1.1 -6.0 -5.7 0.6 0.6 2.5 0.8 2.7 1.4
Germany 5.6 -2.7 -1.8 -8.5 -13.1 1.9 2.8 1.3 2.3 9.5 2.8
Italy 1.8 -2.6 -4.4 -7.9 -11.0 -1.1 1.7 -0.2 1.7 1.9 0.7
Japan 1.3 -2.7 -5.4 -10.4 -15.8 9.9 -1.5 4.2 6.6 1.8 3.9
United Kingdom 2.0 -1.1 -3.5 -8.1 -9.0 -3.1 -1.2 1.4 1.8 4.7 3.2
United States -0.7 0.6 -4.0 -6.8 -4.9 -0.7 1.6 5.0 3.7 1.7 2.5
Major developed economies 0.9 -0.9 -3.6 -7.5 -8.5 1.0 0.9 3.6 3.6 2.9 2.6
Euro area 2.8 -1.7 -2.1 -7.1 -9.6 -0.6 1.7 0.8 1.4 3.9 1.5


Unemployment rateb
(percentage of total labour force)


Canada 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.5 7.8 8.4 8.5 8.4 8.2 8.0 8.0
France 7.6 7.7 7.9 8.2 9.0 9.4 9.6 9.9 9.9 9.9 10.0
Germany 7.6 7.4 7.2 7.1 7.3 7.6 7.6 7.5 7.3 6.9 6.8
Italy 6.5 6.8 6.8 6.9 7.4 7.6 8.0 8.3 8.4 8.4 ..
Japan 3.9 4.0 4.0 4.1 4.5 5.1 5.4 5.2 4.9 5.2 5.1
United Kingdom 5.1 5.3 5.8 6.3 7.0 7.7 7.8 7.8 7.9 7.8 ..
United States 5.0 5.3 6.0 6.9 8.2 9.3 9.7 10.0 9.7 9.7 9.6
Major developed economies 5.5 5.6 6.0 6.5 7.3 8.1 8.3 8.5 8.3 8.2 ..
Euro area 7.2 7.4 7.6 8.0 8.8 9.4 9.7 9.9 9.9 10.0 10.0


Change in consumer pricesc
(percentage change from preceding quarter)


Canada 1.3 8.5 4.3 -5.9 -1.3 3.5 0.4 0.6 2.0 2.5 2.2
France 3.6 6.2 0.6 -2.1 -1.7 2.3 -0.3 1.4 2.4 3.8 -0.5
Germany 3.1 3.2 3.4 -2.8 -0.5 1.0 0.6 0.3 1.3 1.9 1.3
Italy 0.6 9.1 0.4 1.7 -5.3 7.0 -2.5 4.2 -3.2 8.2 -1.9
Japan -0.4 3.5 4.0 -2.8 -4.9 0.0 -1.2 -2.0 -1.4 0.9 -0.7
United Kingdom 1.8 8.3 5.2 0.5 -1.6 4.6 2.4 3.0 3.0 5.3 1.1
United States 4.5 9.1 4.8 -10.9 -1.8 4.1 2.9 0.7 1.5 2.2 0.4
Major developed economies 3.4 6.9 4.1 -6.8 -2.2 3.4 1.5 0.7 1.1 2.2 0.4
Euro area 2.3 6.9 1.1 -1.1 -2.9 3.8 -1.1 2.2 -0.4 5.3 -0.4


Source: UN/DESA, based on Eurostat, OECD and national sources.


a Expressed as an annualized rate. Calculated as a weighted average, where weights are based on annual GDP valued in 2005 prices and exchange
rates.


b Seasonally adjusted data as standardized by OECD.
c Expressed as an annualized rate. Calculated as a weighted average, where weights are based on 2005 GDP in United States dollars.




160 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


Table A.10
Selected economies in transition: quarterly indicators of growth and inflation, 2008-2010


Percentage


2008 2009 2010


I II III IV I II III IV I II III


Rates of growth of gross domestic producta


Armenia 13.0 9.6 15.4 -5.9 -6.1 -17.9 -19.8 -8.4 5.4 6.7 ..
Azerbaijan 8.7 10.5 11.3 11.8 5.5 6.0 6.6 16.4 .. .. ..
Belarus 11.2 10.5 11.3 8.1 1.1 -0.4 -1.1 1.7 4.0 8.9 ..
Croatia 7.6 4.4 0.0 -2.0 -3.6 -5.5 -8.3 -5.5 -1.4 -2.2 ..
Georgia 9.9 7.9 -5.0 -0.8 -5.1 -10.1 -1.2 0.4 4.5 8.4 ..
Kazakhstan 6.3 5.4 1.1 1.6 -4.5 -2.6 -0.3 10.3 7.1 8.6 ..
Kyrgyzstan 6.0 7.6 6.3 13.2 -2.3 -1.7 4.3 5.3 16.4 .. ..
Republic of Moldova 3.9 5.5 11.6 8.6 -5.1 -5.4 -7.1 -7.5 4.7 6.4 ..
Russian Federation 9.1 7.7 6.4 -1.1 -9.3 -11.0 -8.6 -2.9 3.1 5.2 ..
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 6.4 7.9 6.4 1.2 -1.1 -1.9 -1.9 1.6 -1.1 0.4 ..
Ukraine 8.5 6.2 4.3 -7.8 -20.2 -17.8 -16.0 -6.8 4.9 5.9 ..


Change in consumer pricesa


Armenia 7.9 10.1 11.2 6.8 2.0 3.3 3.4 4.9 8.4 6.3 ..
Azerbaijan 16.6 23.8 24.1 18.7 8.2 -0.7 -1.0 -0.5 3.8 6.0 5.6
Belarus 12.8 15.4 16.2 14.7 15.6 13.9 12.4 10.2 6.1 6.8 7.7
Bosnia and Herzegovina 6.4 8.4 9.4 5.5 1.6 -1.0 -1.4 -0.7 1.7 2.5 1.8
Croatia 5.9 6.6 7.4 4.5 3.8 2.8 1.2 1.6 0.9 0.7 1.1
Georgia 11.2 11.4 11.0 6.3 2.8 2.3 -0.8 3.0 4.7 4.3 8.7
Kazakhstan 18.7 19.5 19.5 11.5 8.8 8.3 6.4 5.9 7.3 6.9 ..
Kyrgyzstan 22.4 28.7 29.2 18.5 16.2 9.1 2.8 0.6 2.6 3.1 ..
Republic of Moldova 14.9 16.3 11.9 8.4 3.1 -0.9 -1.7 -0.6 5.6 7.7 7.7
Russian Federation 12.9 14.9 14.9 13.7 13.7 12.4 11.4 9.2 7.2 5.9 ..
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 9.5 9.9 8.4 5.5 0.9 -0.6 -1.4 -2.1 0.5 1.1 1.8
Ukraine 22.5 30.2 25.8 22.6 20.4 15.1 15.3 13.3 11.2 8.3 8.5


Source: UN/DESA, based on data of the Economic Commission for Europe and national sources.


a Percentage change from the corresponding period of the preceding year.




161Annex tables


Table A.11
Major developing economies: quarterly indicators of growth, unemployment and inflation, 2008-2010


Percentage


2008 2009 2010


I II III IV I II III IV I II III


Rates of growth of gross domestic producta


Argentina 8.5 7.8 6.9 4.1 2.0 -0.8 -0.3 2.6 6.8 11.8 ..
Brazil 6.1 6.2 6.8 1.3 -1.8 -1.2 -0.2 4.8 8.3 8.9 ..
Chile 3.7 5.1 5.2 0.7 -2.1 -4.5 -1.4 2.1 1.5 6.6 7.0
China 11.5 10.4 9.8 7.5 6.4 7.8 9.0 10.8 11.9 10.3 9.6
Colombia 5.1 4.5 3.5 -1.5 -0.4 -0.2 0.9 3.0 4.2 4.5 ..
Ecuador 6.5 9.5 8.9 4.0 2.8 0.5 -1.2 -0.5 0.7 2.7 ..
Hong Kong SARb 9.8 6.3 3.2 -3.2 -7.0 -2.9 -3.4 2.7 10.1 6.5 9.5
India 8.5 7.8 7.5 6.1 5.8 6.0 8.6 6.5 8.6 8.9 8.9
Indonesia 6.2 6.3 6.2 5.3 4.5 4.1 4.2 5.4 5.7 6.2 5.8
Israel 5.3 5.0 5.0 1.5 0.8 0.1 -0.2 2.5 1.2 4.9 4.3
Korea, Republic of 5.5 4.3 3.1 -3.4 -4.3 -2.2 1.0 6.0 8.1 7.2 4.5
Malaysia 7.6 6.5 4.9 0.1 -6.2 -3.9 -1.2 4.4 10.1 8.9 5.3
Mexico 2.4 3.0 1.6 -1.1 -7.2 -9.6 -5.5 -2.0 4.6 7.6 5.3
Philippines 3.9 3.7 4.6 2.8 0.5 1.2 0.2 2.1 7.8 8.2 6.5
Singapore 6.7 2.5 0.0 -2.5 -8.9 -1.7 1.8 3.8 16.9 19.5 10.6
South Africa 4.0 4.8 3.8 1.8 -1.4 -2.6 -2.1 -0.6 1.7 3.1 2.6
Taiwan Province of China 7.6 5.7 -1.2 -7.5 -8.6 -7.2 -1.2 9.2 13.6 12.9 9.8
Thailand 6.4 5.2 2.9 -4.2 -7.1 -5.1 -2.5 6.0 12.0 9.2 6.7
Turkey 7.0 2.6 0.9 -7.0 -14.6 -7.6 -2.7 6.0 11.7 10.3 ..
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of 4.9 7.2 3.8 3.5 0.5 -2.6 -4.6 -5.8 -5.2 -1.9 -0.4


Unemployment ratec


Argentina 8.4 8.0 7.8 7.3 8.4 8.8 9.1 8.4 8.3 7.9 7.5
Brazil 8.4 8.1 7.8 7.3 8.6 8.6 7.9 7.2 7.4 7.3 6.6
Chile 7.4 8.0 8.1 7.5 8.6 10.2 10.6 9.1 9.0 8.5 8.0
Colombia 12.1 11.0 11.4 10.6 12.9 11.7 12.2 11.3 13.0 12.0 11.5
Ecuador 6.9 6.4 7.1 7.3 8.6 8.3 9.1 7.9 9.1 7.7 7.4
Hong Kong SARb 3.3 3.3 3.4 4.1 5.2 5.4 5.3 5.1 4.4 4.6 4.2
Israel 5.9 5.7 6.4 6.4 7.1 7.7 7.8 7.5 7.0 5.9 7.2
Korea, Republic of 3.4 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.8 3.8 3.6 3.3 4.7 3.5 3.5
Malaysia 3.6 3.5 3.1 3.1 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.6 3.4 3.2
Mexico 4.0 3.5 4.2 4.3 5.0 5.2 6.3 5.3 5.4 5.2 5.6
Philippines 7.4 8.0 7.4 6.8 7.7 7.5 7.6 7.1 7.3 8.0 6.9
Singapore 1.9 2.2 2.3 2.5 3.3 3.2 3.3 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.1
South Africa 23.5 23.1 23.2 21.9 23.6 23.6 24.4 24.2 25.2 25.2 25.3
Taiwan Province of China 3.9 3.9 4.2 4.7 5.6 5.8 6.1 5.9 5.7 5.2 5.1
Thailand 1.7 1.4 1.2 1.3 2.1 1.7 1.2 1.0 1.1 1.3 ..
Turkey 11.5 9.5 10.3 12.6 14.2 14.5 14.0 13.2 12.6 11.9 ..
Uruguay 8.5 7.5 7.6 6.6 7.5 8.0 7.1 6.6 7.4 7.4 6.6
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of 8.2 7.3 7.0 6.3 8.2 7.7 7.4 7.3 9.2 8.2 8.9




162 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


Table A.11 (cont’d)


2008 2009 2010


I II III IV I II III IV I II III


Change in consumer pricesa


Argentina 8.5 9.1 8.9 7.8 6.6 5.5 5.9 7.1 9.0 10.6 11.1
Brazil 4.6 5.5 6.2 6.2 5.8 5.2 4.4 4.2 4.9 5.1 4.6
Chile 8.0 8.9 9.3 8.5 5.6 3.1 -0.6 -1.9 -0.3 1.2 2.2
China 8.0 7.8 5.3 2.5 -0.6 -1.5 -1.3 0.7 2.2 2.9 3.4
Colombia 6.1 6.4 7.7 7.8 6.6 4.8 3.2 2.4 2.0 2.1 2.3
Ecuador 5.3 9.1 10.0 9.3 7.9 5.5 3.5 3.9 4.0 3.2 3.6
Hong Kong SARb 4.6 5.7 4.6 2.3 1.7 -0.1 -0.9 1.3 1.9 2.6 2.4
India 6.3 7.8 9.0 10.2 9.4 8.9 11.8 13.3 15.3 13.7 10.3
Indonesia 6.7 10.1 12.0 11.4 8.6 4.8 2.8 2.6 3.7 4.4 6.2
Israel 3.7 5.0 5.0 4.5 3.5 3.2 3.1 3.6 3.5 2.8 2.0
Korea, Republic of 3.8 4.8 5.5 4.5 3.9 2.8 2.0 2.4 2.7 2.6 2.9
Malaysia 2.6 4.9 8.4 5.9 3.7 1.3 -2.3 -0.2 1.3 1.6 1.9
Mexico 3.9 4.9 5.5 6.2 6.2 6.0 5.1 4.0 4.8 4.0 3.7
Philippines 5.5 9.7 12.2 9.7 6.9 3.2 0.3 2.9 4.3 4.2 3.8
Singapore 6.6 7.5 6.6 5.5 2.6 0.3 -0.1 -0.4 0.9 3.1 3.4
South Africa 11.2 11.5 12.4 11.0 8.4 7.7 6.4 6.0 5.7 4.5 3.5
Taiwan Province of China 3.6 4.2 4.5 1.9 0.0 -0.8 -1.3 -1.3 1.3 1.1 0.4
Thailand 5.0 7.5 7.3 2.1 -0.2 -2.8 -2.2 1.9 3.7 3.2 3.3
Turkey 8.8 10.3 11.7 10.9 8.4 5.7 5.3 5.7 9.3 9.2 8.4
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of 26.2 31.0 34.7 33.4 29.5 28.2 28.7 28.1 27.4 29.7 26.3


Sources: IMF, International Financial Statistics, and national sources.
a Percentage change from the corresponding quarter of the previous year.
b Special Administrative Region of China.
c Reflects national definitions and coverage. Not comparable across economies.




163Annex tables


Table A.12
Major developed economies: financial indicators, 2001-2010


Percentage


2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010a


Short-term interest ratesb


Canada 4.0 2.6 3.0 2.3 2.8 4.2 4.6 3.3 0.7 0.6
Francec 4.3 3.3 2.3 2.1 2.2 3.1 4.3 4.6 1.2 0.7
Germanyc 4.3 3.3 2.3 2.1 2.2 3.1 4.3 4.6 1.2 0.7
Italyc 4.3 3.3 2.3 2.1 2.2 3.1 4.3 4.6 1.2 0.7
Japan 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.7 0.7 0.3 0.2
United Kingdom 5.0 4.0 3.7 4.6 4.7 4.8 6.0 5.5 1.2 0.7
United States 3.7 1.7 1.2 1.6 3.5 5.2 5.3 3.0 0.6 0.3


Long-term interest ratesd


Canada 5.5 5.3 4.8 4.6 4.1 4.2 4.3 3.6 3.2 3.3
France 4.9 4.9 4.1 4.1 3.4 3.8 4.3 4.2 3.6 3.2
Germany 4.8 4.8 4.1 4.0 3.4 3.8 4.2 4.0 3.2 2.8
Italy 5.2 5.0 4.3 4.3 3.6 4.0 4.5 4.7 4.3 4.0
Japan 1.3 1.3 1.0 1.5 1.4 1.7 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.2
United Kingdom 4.9 4.9 4.5 4.9 4.4 4.5 5.0 4.6 3.6 3.7
United States 5.0 4.6 4.0 4.3 4.3 4.8 4.6 3.7 3.3 3.3


General government financial balancese


Canada 0.7 -0.1 -0.1 0.9 1.5 1.6 1.4 0.0 -5.5 -4.9
France -1.6 -3.2 -4.1 -3.6 -3.0 -2.3 -2.7 -3.3 -7.6 -7.4
Germany -2.8 -3.6 -4.0 -3.8 -3.3 -1.6 0.3 0.1 -3.0 -4.0
Italy -3.1 -3.0 -3.5 -3.6 -4.4 -3.3 -1.5 -2.7 -5.2 -5.0
Japanf -6.3 -8.0 -7.9 -6.2 -6.7 -1.6 -2.4 -2.1 -7.1 -7.7
United Kingdom 0.6 -2.0 -3.7 -3.6 -3.3 -2.7 -2.8 -4.8 -11.0 -9.6
United States -0.6 -4.0 -5.0 -4.4 -3.3 -2.2 -2.9 -6.3 -11.3 -10.5


Sources: UN/DESA, based on OECD, Economic Outlook; OECD, Main Economic Indicators and Eurostat.


a Average for the first nine months.
b Three-month Interbank Rate.
c From January 1999 onwards, represents the three-month Euro Interbank Offered Rate (EURIBOR).
d Yield on long-term government bonds.
e Surplus (+) or deficit (-) as a percentage of nominal GNP or GDP. Estimates for 2009.
f Deferred tax payments on postal savings accounts are included in 2000 and 2001.




164 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


Table A.13
Selected economies: real effective exchange rates, broad measurement,a, b 2001-2010


2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010c


Developed economies


Australia 95.7 99.7 111.1 121.0 127.9 133.3 142.4 141.4 130.1 145.4
Bulgaria 103.0 105.0 110.5 113.3 116.2 125.8 132.5 142.7 140.0 142.3
Canada 96.5 94.7 102.4 104.5 108.0 111.7 112.5 103.3 95.0 101.6
Czech Republic 106.7 118.5 117.4 121.5 129.4 133.5 139.1 156.9 149.3 149.5
Denmark 102.6 106.8 113.9 114.5 112.0 109.8 109.8 110.5 117.5 112.5
Euro area 101.6 105.0 116.8 120.9 119.8 121.0 125.7 131.4 125.6 118.1
Hungary 107.2 113.6 115.3 119.1 119.3 115.7 119.9 122.2 119.2 119.1
Japan 88.7 82.8 82.8 83.4 79.1 72.0 67.2 73.7 83.8 83.7
New Zealand 99.4 111.5 130.5 140.1 147.1 135.8 146.0 134.5 127.4 138.6
Norway 102.9 108.9 108.4 110.6 117.1 122.9 131.9 134.3 129.5 139.4
Poland 110.8 107.4 99.3 102.0 111.3 113.5 117.5 126.1 109.5 114.3
Romania 108.0 113.2 117.3 127.0 153.7 171.3 190.9 181.2 173.8 175.6
Slovakia 102.2 104.3 112.7 117.0 117.2 118.4 128.6 131.9 141.4 130.5
Sweden 91.3 93.6 97.4 96.3 93.3 94.2 97.6 91.8 89.3 92.0
Switzerland 103.2 109.5 111.3 109.1 105.0 100.4 95.5 97.5 105.9 107.9
United Kingdom 97.3 98.4 95.7 99.7 97.3 97.1 99.1 87.1 79.7 81.0
United States 106.1 106.2 98.1 91.9 89.3 86.9 82.8 79.6 88.1 84.4


Economies in transition


Croatia 105.7 107.0 110.3 114.3 115.2 116.1 117.3 125.0 127.9 128.0
Russian Federation 120.9 126.9 131.3 140.8 154.8 170.6 180.5 193.2 183.1 200.1


Developing economies


Argentina 105.0 56.1 62.5 60.8 60.1 58.5 57.8 58.9 57.1 57.7
Brazil 90.2 89.8 98.6 105.9 129.7 140.8 155.6 175.2 168.3 190.4
Chile 94.7 93.0 92.0 100.1 111.8 118.0 117.3 122.8 127.1 126.0
China 105.5 103.0 97.9 96.0 98.3 101.1 103.3 112.3 112.6 114.0
Colombia 100.5 99.2 88.1 94.8 104.9 102.8 110.4 114.4 107.9 125.0
Ecuador 102.5 111.0 114.4 114.7 121.2 130.7 125.9 136.7 111.1 127.0
Egypt 91.2 81.7 65.6 66.3 72.1 74.2 76.5 86.7 85.5 91.5
Hong Kong SARd 101.9 101.5 95.0 89.9 86.5 84.1 80.1 75.7 80.7 78.2
India 102.6 99.2 98.4 99.2 101.3 98.8 106.1 99.2 93.7 100.1
Indonesia 96.3 116.6 123.3 113.5 113.8 142.0 149.3 162.7 163.4 185.3
Israel 99.7 89.8 87.6 85.5 86.4 86.9 88.0 98.1 97.7 102.6
Korea, Republic of 90.6 93.5 92.9 95.0 104.9 110.0 107.6 90.6 78.7 85.5
Kuwait 107.5 109.4 102.5 94.9 96.3 95.3 93.3 99.1 102.7 102.2
Malaysia 104.0 101.6 98.7 100.7 103.3 107.0 112.7 115.6 111.2 109.4
Mexico 107.9 109.6 100.1 98.2 103.1 106.0 106.0 105.9 91.4 98.6
Morocco 97.9 98.7 99.0 97.4 94.8 94.7 93.6 94.1 100.2 96.1
Nigeria 111.9 117.0 108.4 111.9 127.7 136.2 133.8 145.2 139.1 151.4
Pakistan 95.5 100.2 101.1 100.4 102.3 105.8 105.7 105.5 103.3 113.3
Peru 104.2 104.1 100.0 99.6 99.3 99.4 99.7 106.6 105.7 110.3
Philippines 107.6 112.5 107.6 100.7 107.1 129.5 136.0 130.7 129.5 120.4




165Annex tables


Table A.13 (cont’d)


2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010c


Saudi Arabia 103.6 102.4 94.4 87.7 85.0 84.1 81.9 83.3 92.1 93.4
Singapore 97.8 95.9 95.5 102.2 106.8 112.2 119.6 125.3 114.7 118.1
South Africa 90.6 80.7 105.8 115.4 117.7 113.6 109.3 100.1 105.6 118.7
Taiwan Province of China 96.1 93.9 89.6 90.8 89.2 89.0 87.8 84.6 76.7 79.9
Thailand 97.0 101.2 100.3 100.1 102.7 111.6 124.9 121.1 112.4 122.8
Turkey 87.6 100.8 110.8 116.3 124.7 120.7 127.9 126.1 116.2 120.8
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of 109.4 92.6 93.6 98.9 99.3 107.9 119.7 138.6 189.5 116.5


Source: JPMorgan Chase.


a Year 2000=100.
b Indices based on a “broad” measure currency basket of 46 currencies (including the euro). The real effective exchange rate, which adjusts the


nominal index for relative price changes, gauges the effect on international price competitiveness of the country’s manufactures owing to
currency changes and inflation differentials. A rise in the index implies a fall in competitiveness and vice versa. The relative price changes are
based on indices most closely measuring the prices of domestically produced finished manufactured goods, excluding food and energy, at the
first stage of manufacturing. The weights for currency indices are derived from 2000 bilateral trade patterns of the corresponding countries.


c Average for the first ten months.
d Special Administrative Region of China.




166 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


Table A.14
Indices of prices of primary commodities, 2001-2010


Index 2000=100


Non-fuel commodities Combined index
Manufac-


tured
export
prices


Real prices
of non-fuel


commo-
ditiesa


Crude
petroleumbFood


Tropical
beverages


Vegetable
oilseeds
and oils


Agricul-
tural raw
materials


Minerals
and


metals Dollar SDR


2001 103 79 94 96 89 96 100 98 98 83.8
2002 102 89 117 95 87 97 99 99 98 88.3
2003 104 94 137 111 98 105 99 108 97 101.8
2004 119 100 155 125 137 126 112 117 108 130.6
2005 127 126 141 129 173 140 126 120 117 183.5
2006 151 134 148 147 278 183 164 123 149 221.3
2007 164 148 226 164 313 207 178 133 155 250.4
2008 234 178 298 198 332 256 213 139 184 342.2
2009 220 181 213 163 232 213 182 132 161 221.2


2007 I 155 143 179 158 288 191 169 129 148 198.0
II 154 142 210 162 336 206 180 131 157 235.5
III 165 150 236 161 321 209 181 133 157 259.0
IV 183 157 278 175 307 219 184 138 159 308.1


2008 I 223 182 342 201 358 261 216 141 185 335.2
II 272 184 359 211 381 293 239 145 202 425.7
III 245 191 306 216 355 271 225 141 192 411.3
IV 196 155 185 163 236 199 173 130 153 190.3


2009 I 206 164 188 146 182 188 167 126 149 155.5
II 213 175 226 150 214 203 177 129 158 212.0
III 228 186 215 164 252 223 188 134 166 245.3
IV 233 201 224 193 278 237 197 137 173 269.3


2010 I 232 198 234 210 299 245 210 134 183 273.2
II 205 201 233 205 296 230 205 129 179 277.5
III 225 220 258 206 301 244 213 .. .. 267.3


Sources: UNCTAD, Monthly Commodity Price Bulletin; United Nations, Monthly Bulletin of Statistics; and data from the Organization of the Petroleum
Exporting Countries (OPEC) website, available from http://www.opec.org.


a Combined index of non-fuel commodity prices in dollars, deflated by manufactured export price index.
b The new OPEC reference basket, introduced on 16 June 2005, currently has 12 crudes.




167Annex tables


Table A.15
World oil supply and demand, 2002-2011


2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010a 2011b


World oil supplyc, d
(millions of barrels per day) 76.9 79.8 83.3 84.3 85.0 84.7 85.2 83.5 85.6 87.4


Developed economies 18.3 17.8 17.4 16.5 16.3 16.0 15.5 15.8 15.8 15.7
Economies in transition 9.6 10.5 11.6 12.0 12.4 12.9 12.9 13.4 13.7 13.9
Developing economies 47.3 49.7 52.5 54.0 54.4 53.6 54.5 52.0 53.9 55.5


OPECe 28.8 30.8 33.1 34.2 34.3 34.6 35.6 33.4 34.9 36.3
Non-OPEC 18.5 18.9 19.4 19.8 20.1 19.0 18.9 18.6 19.0 19.2


Processing gainsf 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.2


World total demandg 77.7 79.3 82.5 83.8 85.1 86.5 86.0 84.7 86.6 87.8


Oil prices (dollars per barrel)


OPEC basketh 24.36 28.10 36.05 50.64 61.08 69.08 94.45 61.06 75.82 73.10
Brent oil 24.97 28.85 38.30 54.43 65.39 72.7 97.64 61.86 78.00 75.00


Sources: United Nations, World Bank, International Energy Agency, U.S. Energy Information Administration, and OPEC.


a Partly estimated.
b Baseline scenario forecasts.
c Including crude oil, condensates, natural gas liquids (NGLs), oil from non-conventional sources and other sources of supply.
d Totals may not add up because of rounding.
e Includes Angola and Ecuador as of January 2007 and December 2007, respectively.
f Net volume gains and losses in the refining process (excluding net gain/loss in the economies in transition and China) and marine transportation


losses.
g Including deliveries from refineries/primary stocks and marine bunkers, and refinery fuel and non-conventional oils.
h The new OPEC reference basket, introduced on 16 June 2005, currently has 12 crudes.




168 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


Table A.16
World trade:a changes in value and volume of exports and imports, by major country group, 2002-2012


Annual percentage change


2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009b 2010c 2011c 2012c


Dollar value of exports


World 4.4 15.9 21.3 13.6 15.2 16.0 14.5 -20.0 12.8 8.5 8.9
Developed economies 4.0 15.0 18.5 9.3 12.5 15.4 11.3 -20.2 10.2 6.9 7.9


North America -2.3 4.8 13.9 11.0 11.5 11.7 9.8 -17.3 13.1 10.5 10.8
EU plus other Europe 6.8 19.1 19.6 8.9 13.5 17.1 11.4 -20.6 7.2 5.2 7.3
Developed Asia 3.2 13.8 21.0 8.5 8.6 11.1 14.0 -23.8 25.9 10.0 5.5


Economies in transition 8.7 25.5 35.0 27.1 24.3 21.4 32.6 -37.4 22.5 8.0 6.5
South-eastern Europe 8.2 33.8 25.5 12.3 19.3 24.9 19.1 -24.1 10.3 6.6 10.5
Commonwealth of Independent States 8.7 24.6 36.1 28.7 24.8 21.1 33.8 -38.5 23.7 8.1 6.2


Developing economies 5.0 16.9 26.2 20.9 19.2 16.6 18.2 -17.6 15.9 10.9 10.6
Latin America and the Caribbean 1.0 8.0 22.9 20.2 18.7 12.7 15.7 -21.2 9.6 7.0 6.1
Africa 2.6 22.2 25.0 28.2 25.4 12.7 23.2 -30.0 19.6 11.5 8.6
Western Asia 4.5 22.0 31.5 30.3 19.0 16.3 33.1 -20.2 4.5 5.0 5.3
East and South Asia 6.5 17.7 26.1 18.3 18.6 18.1 14.9 -14.5 19.5 12.7 12.7


Dollar value of imports


World 3.5 15.9 21.3 13.2 14.4 15.5 15.5 -22.0 11.0 7.5 8.8
Developed economies 3.3 15.7 18.9 11.3 12.8 13.3 11.4 -22.3 8.4 6.4 8.1


North America 2.0 8.2 16.0 13.0 10.6 6.6 7.5 -22.5 12.8 9.6 10.8
EU plus other Europe 4.5 20.0 20.0 10.3 14.3 16.7 11.7 -21.9 6.2 5.1 7.4
Developed Asia -0.1 13.4 20.5 12.7 9.6 10.5 21.8 -24.1 12.0 6.2 5.0


Economies in transition 13.0 24.6 29.3 20.1 24.2 33.7 29.3 -36.7 20.6 14.8 11.7
South-eastern Europe 19.1 28.6 25.7 7.8 16.4 29.4 22.5 -27.3 2.5 4.4 8.5
Commonwealth of Independent States 11.8 23.7 30.1 22.8 25.7 34.5 30.5 -38.2 24.0 16.4 12.2


Developing economies 3.3 15.6 26.4 17.1 17.0 18.5 22.3 -20.0 14.6 8.8 9.8
Latin America and the Caribbean -7.1 3.6 20.4 18.8 18.0 19.1 20.1 -20.6 17.1 9.7 7.7
Africa 5.1 20.0 20.7 20.2 19.5 25.0 21.3 -17.2 17.6 10.9 9.3
Western Asia 8.6 18.5 30.2 18.9 19.5 25.5 23.8 -21.9 7.9 5.8 7.6
East and South Asia 5.5 17.9 27.9 16.1 16.1 16.3 22.7 -19.8 15.0 8.8 10.7


Volume of exports


World 3.6 4.7 10.6 7.7 9.2 7.1 2.7 -11.3 10.6 6.4 6.3
Developed economies 1.6 1.9 8.0 5.7 8.5 6.1 2.0 -12.6 10.2 6.1 5.9


North America -1.2 0.6 8.3 5.5 6.9 7.4 3.7 -10.5 9.7 7.8 8.2
EU plus other Europe 1.9 1.6 7.4 5.8 9.1 5.5 1.5 -12.2 9.1 5.5 5.3
Developed Asia 5.9 6.6 11.7 5.9 8.3 7.4 1.7 -19.9 19.6 6.2 5.0


Economies in transition 9.7 11.7 12.6 4.1 6.5 7.0 1.4 -9.6 5.0 4.5 3.5
South-eastern Europe 2.4 12.7 8.0 6.5 7.1 9.3 3.8 -18.7 7.6 6.4 7.7
Commonwealth of Independent States 10.4 11.6 13.0 3.9 6.4 6.8 1.1 -8.8 4.8 4.3 3.1


Developing economies 7.6 10.4 15.5 11.8 10.7 9.0 4.0 -9.1 11.7 6.9 7.2
Latin America and the Caribbean 1.8 4.0 12.4 7.8 6.5 5.8 2.2 -10.1 7.7 4.0 4.9
Africa 4.4 7.2 7.8 14.4 6.9 7.7 2.8 -12.5 8.6 6.0 5.2
Western Asia -0.8 12.1 13.9 8.3 5.8 6.5 -3.9 -11.7 4.2 5.1 4.5
East and South Asia 12.0 12.2 17.7 13.2 13.3 10.4 6.1 -8.1 14.1 7.9 8.3




169Annex tables


Table A.16 (cont’d)


2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009b 2010c 2011c 2012c


Volume of imports


World 3.5 5.6 11.1 8.3 9.3 7.2 2.8 -11.6 10.3 6.8 6.7
Developed economies 2.0 3.7 8.7 6.3 7.8 4.8 0.6 -12.8 8.9 5.7 5.5


North America 3.1 4.4 10.6 6.3 5.9 3.2 -2.0 -13.9 10.9 8.3 8.1
EU plus other Europe 1.4 3.2 7.7 6.3 9.2 5.6 1.2 -12.0 7.7 4.4 4.5
Developed Asia 2.9 5.2 9.7 6.3 4.5 4.0 4.0 -14.6 12.2 7.0 5.2


Economies in transition 11.1 13.6 18.2 9.6 15.1 22.0 11.8 -23.7 10.2 8.7 9.4
South-eastern Europe 14.1 8.7 10.0 -0.6 6.1 14.6 5.7 -22.1 1.4 4.2 8.0
Commonwealth of Independent States 10.3 14.8 20.1 11.7 16.8 23.3 12.8 -23.9 11.6 9.3 9.6


Developing economies 7.2 10.0 16.6 12.6 12.1 11.1 6.3 -8.2 12.8 8.5 8.5
Latin America and the Caribbean -5.4 1.2 14.2 11.2 13.6 13.2 10.0 -13.9 17.0 9.7 9.2
Africa 3.7 11.2 5.6 9.8 12.9 15.6 8.9 -5.7 9.0 7.7 6.5
Western Asia 7.8 11.3 17.7 16.1 11.9 16.1 -2.1 -5.3 7.9 6.8 6.1
East and South Asia 11.5 12.0 18.4 12.6 11.7 9.2 6.6 -7.6 13.2 8.6 9.0


Sources: UN/DESA, based on data of the United Nations Statistics Division, IMF, OECD and individual national sources.


a Includes goods and non-factor services.
b Partly estimated.
c Baseline scenario forecasts, based in part on Project LINK and UN/DESA World Economic Forecasting Model.




170 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


Table A.17
Balance of payments on current accounts, by country or country group, summary table, 2001-2009


Billions of dollars


2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009


Developed economies -282.5 -285.2 -320.0 -336.6 -523.3 -596.5 -540.9 -667.8 -280.3


Japan 87.8 112.6 136.2 172.1 165.7 170.4 211.0 157.1 141.8
United States -397.2 -458.1 -520.7 -630.5 -747.6 -802.6 -718.1 -668.9 -378.4
Europea 19.5 65.3 85.7 144.6 88.2 68.3 23.4 -103.7 41.7


EU-15 -9.5 37.0 43.7 107.0 27.2 12.5 26.8 -86.4 -26.6
New EU member States -19.1 -20.5 -28.5 -42.6 -37.8 -57.1 -93.7 -103.0 -22.1


Economies in transitionb 31.0 25.3 30.3 56.3 80.2 87.5 56.0 85.1 31.5


South-eastern Europe -2.1 -5.1 -5.4 -7.2 -7.4 -8.6 -15.5 -23.3 -11.3
Commonwealth of Independent Statesc 33.4 30.6 36.2 63.9 88.2 97.2 73.5 111.3 44.0


Developing economies 78.6 125.7 219.8 282.5 481.8 722.8 799.1 799.5 470.9


Net fuel exporters 57.4 39.0 78.8 131.0 268.0 390.9 353.8 440.7 97.1
Net fuel importers 21.3 86.7 141.0 151.4 213.8 331.9 445.4 358.8 373.9
Latin America and the Caribbean -52.4 -14.9 10.6 22.3 38.5 52.1 17.7 -26.3 -19.8


Net fuel exporters 0.4 5.0 11.5 16.1 28.2 34.4 22.6 42.2 5.6
Net fuel importers -52.8 -19.9 -0.9 6.3 10.2 17.7 -5.0 -68.5 -25.4


Africa 5.4 -7.5 0.0 11.8 35.9 85.1 65.3 59.1 -22.5
Net fuel exporters 8.8 -5.0 5.2 24.1 52.2 105.8 98.9 110.2 16.3
Net fuel importers -3.4 -2.5 -5.2 -12.3 -16.4 -20.6 -33.6 -51.1 -38.9


Western Asia 31.7 21.0 41.0 70.3 142.3 184.9 149.4 218.9 41.9
Net fuel exportersd 31.9 25.8 51.9 86.2 166.2 213.3 188.4 266.4 55.3
Net fuel importers -0.2 -4.8 -10.9 -15.9 -23.9 -28.3 -39.0 -47.4 -13.4


East and South Asia 93.9 127.1 168.2 178.0 265.2 400.7 566.7 547.7 471.3
Net fuel exporters 16.3 13.2 10.1 4.7 21.4 37.6 43.8 21.8 19.9
Net fuel importers 77.7 113.9 158.1 173.3 243.8 363.1 522.9 525.9 451.5


World residuale -172.9 -134.2 -69.9 2.3 38.6 213.8 314.2 216.8 222.1


Sources: IMF, World Economic Outlook, October 2010; and IMF, Balance of Payments Statistics.


a Europe consists of the EU-15, the new EU member States and Iceland, Norway and Switzerland.
b Includes Georgia.
c Excludes Georgia, which left the Commonwealth of Independent States on 18 August 2009.
d Data for Iraq not available prior to 2005.
e Statistical discrepancy.




171Annex tables


Table A.18
Balance of payments on current accounts, by country or country group, 2001-2009


Billions of dollars


2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009


Developed economies


Trade balance -254.9 -254.6 -304.6 -419.5 -634.2 -784.1 -776.6 -883.7 -437.7
Services, net 69.7 90.0 106.1 160.9 200.5 272.3 382.5 435.9 352.0
Income, net 39.9 19.6 48.9 124.6 152.1 150.8 140.7 99.8 118.1
Current transfers, net -137.3 -140.3 -170.3 -202.7 -241.7 -235.5 -287.4 -319.9 -312.7
Current-account balance -282.5 -285.2 -320.0 -336.6 -523.3 -596.5 -540.9 -667.8 -280.3


Japan


Trade balance 69.2 92.5 104.0 128.5 93.9 81.1 105.1 38.4 43.4
Services, net -42.7 -40.7 -31.4 -34.3 -24.1 -18.2 -21.2 -20.8 -20.4
Income, net 69.2 65.8 71.2 85.7 103.5 118.2 138.6 152.6 131.0
Current transfers, net -7.9 -4.9 -7.5 -7.9 -7.6 -10.7 -11.6 -13.1 -12.3
Current-account balance 87.8 112.6 136.2 172.1 165.7 170.4 211.0 157.1 141.8


United States


Trade balance -422.0 -475.4 -541.5 -665.6 -783.8 -839.5 -823.2 -834.7 -507.0
Services, net 57.6 54.8 47.4 56.3 69.6 80.2 121.1 135.9 132.0
Income, net 31.7 27.4 45.3 67.2 72.4 48.1 99.6 152.0 121.4
Current transfers, net -64.5 -65.0 -71.8 -88.4 -105.8 -91.5 -115.6 -122.0 -125.0
Current-account balance -397.2 -458.1 -520.7 -630.5 -747.6 -802.6 -718.1 -668.9 -378.4


Europea


Trade balance 48.8 96.7 108.0 86.4 20.5 -57.7 -83.6 -125.7 33.0
Services, net 59.3 79.0 95.9 146.4 164.6 222.0 300.1 346.7 260.5
Income, net -22.2 -39.6 -27.0 18.0 30.1 36.0 -34.3 -140.0 -78.6
Current transfers, net -66.4 -70.8 -91.3 -106.1 -127.0 -132.0 -158.9 -184.6 -173.2
Current-account balance 19.5 65.3 85.7 144.6 88.2 68.3 23.4 -103.7 41.7


EU-15


Trade balance 52.4 95.5 107.1 83.4 8.1 -64.4 -70.4 -126.7 -18.5
Services, net 29.2 49.8 64.4 110.1 122.1 171.0 234.8 266.8 194.5
Income, net -26.9 -39.2 -37.0 20.8 22.1 38.9 23.1 -42.4 -32.2
Current transfers, net -64.3 -69.1 -90.7 -107.3 -125.0 -133.1 -160.7 -184.1 -170.5
Current-account balance -9.5 37.0 43.7 107.0 27.2 12.5 26.8 -86.4 -26.6


New EU member States


Trade balance -26.7 -25.5 -29.1 -34.3 -35.2 -51.0 -72.8 -90.9 -14.8
Services, net 9.7 8.7 8.0 9.5 13.1 15.5 21.9 26.9 20.9
Income, net -7.1 -10.1 -15.4 -28.0 -27.5 -35.0 -57.7 -55.1 -42.8
Current transfers, net 5.0 6.4 8.0 10.3 11.8 13.4 14.8 16.0 14.6
Current-account balance -19.1 -20.5 -28.5 -42.6 -37.8 -57.1 -93.7 -103.0 -22.1


Economies in transitionb


Trade balance 37.7 34.3 43.1 71.2 106.5 128.5 110.0 165.2 93.4
Services, net -7.1 -8.4 -7.1 -10.5 -12.3 -11.9 -18.5 -22.3 -18.3
Income, net -6.8 -8.8 -16.1 -17.0 -28.3 -44.3 -51.1 -77.9 -61.6
Current transfers, net 7.2 8.1 10.5 12.7 14.2 15.1 15.7 20.1 17.9
Current-account balance 31.0 25.3 30.3 56.3 80.2 87.5 56.0 85.1 31.5




172 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


Table A.18 (cont’d)


2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009


South-eastern Europe


Trade balance -10.9 -14.1 -18.6 -22.6 -23.1 -25.5 -34.3 -43.3 -30.1
Services, net 3.5 3.4 6.1 6.6 7.2 8.0 9.7 11.6 9.9
Income, net 0.1 0.0 -0.3 -0.3 -1.0 -1.3 -1.9 -3.1 -3.0
Current transfers, net 5.2 5.6 7.3 9.1 9.5 10.2 11.0 11.6 11.8
Current-account balance -2.1 -5.1 -5.4 -7.2 -7.4 -8.6 -15.5 -23.3 -11.3


Commonwealth of Independent Statesc


Trade balance 49.1 48.9 62.3 94.7 130.8 156.0 147.2 212.4 125.9
Services, net -10.7 -11.8 -13.3 -17.2 -19.5 -20.0 -28.4 -33.9 -28.5
Income, net -6.8 -8.8 -15.8 -16.8 -27.4 -43.2 -49.3 -74.6 -58.5
Current transfers, net 1.8 2.2 2.9 3.1 4.3 4.5 4.0 7.4 5.2
Current-account balance 33.4 30.6 36.2 63.9 88.2 97.2 73.5 111.3 44.0


Developing economies


Trade balance 181.7 220.8 293.4 354.2 549.3 746.5 806.2 843.6 528.6
Services, net -58.2 -56.7 -55.7 -50.6 -59.8 -68.9 -76.6 -128.1 -122.0
Income, net -111.9 -117.6 -119.6 -138.0 -158.2 -141.9 -138.8 -146.4 -134.1
Current transfers, net 67.0 79.2 101.7 116.9 150.5 187.3 208.2 229.9 198.1
Current-account balance 78.6 125.7 219.8 282.5 481.8 722.8 799.1 799.5 470.9


Net fuel exporters


Trade balance 141.9 136.8 185.5 255.4 405.7 524.2 534.1 712.0 346.2
Services, net -56.9 -62.3 -68.2 -75.6 -90.2 -110.9 -147.5 -210.7 -185.5
Income, net -15.3 -25.4 -30.6 -43.1 -56.6 -39.5 -43.3 -64.6 -57.9
Current transfers, net -12.5 -10.5 -8.6 -7.3 6.2 14.3 6.3 -1.0 -7.8
Current-account balance 57.4 39.0 78.8 131.0 268.0 390.9 353.8 440.7 97.1


Net fuel importers


Trade balance 39.9 84.1 107.9 98.8 143.6 222.3 272.1 131.5 182.4
Services, net -1.3 5.5 12.5 24.9 30.3 42.0 70.9 82.6 63.5
Income, net -96.6 -92.1 -88.9 -94.9 -101.5 -102.4 -95.5 -81.8 -76.2
Current transfers, net 79.5 89.7 110.3 124.2 144.2 173.0 202.0 230.9 205.9
Current-account balance 21.3 86.7 141.0 151.4 213.8 331.9 445.4 358.8 373.9


Latin America and the Caribbean


Trade balance -5.3 22.0 43.8 59.2 82.5 101.6 72.8 47.8 54.9
Services, net -17.7 -12.6 -11.9 -12.4 -16.4 -17.3 -23.2 -31.1 -31.4
Income, net -55.7 -54.1 -59.1 -69.2 -80.8 -96.1 -98.4 -109.6 -100.8
Current transfers, net 26.3 29.8 37.8 44.8 53.1 63.9 66.5 66.6 57.6
Current-account balance -52.4 -14.9 10.6 22.3 38.5 52.1 17.7 -26.3 -19.8


Africa


Trade balance 16.3 5.6 15.5 33.5 65.6 94.8 94.7 114.4 2.7
Services, net -7.7 -9.0 -8.5 -11.2 -15.6 -17.0 -30.3 -55.1 -39.6
Income, net -19.4 -22.3 -27.5 -35.4 -45.1 -41.4 -54.8 -63.8 -46.0
Current transfers, net 16.2 18.2 20.6 24.9 30.9 48.8 55.5 62.9 60.0
Current-account balance 5.4 -7.5 0.0 11.8 35.9 85.1 65.3 59.1 -22.5




173Annex tables


Table A.18 (cont’d)


2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009


Western Asiad


Trade balance 64.5 61.9 83.4 111.8 182.9 234.2 221.8 341.3 165.2
Services, net -20.6 -23.4 -21.8 -24.5 -28.1 -45.8 -63.1 -91.8 -81.7
Income, net -2.2 -6.5 -9.3 -5.6 -4.4 9.6 16.0 3.7 -2.2
Current transfers, net -10.0 -11.0 -11.4 -11.4 -8.0 -13.1 -25.3 -34.2 -39.3
Current-account balance 31.7 21.0 41.0 70.3 142.3 184.9 149.4 218.9 41.9


East Asia


Trade balance 117.5 139.0 166.0 180.0 255.5 367.4 473.7 448.1 423.8
Services, net -12.9 -12.5 -15.4 -9.2 -10.3 -4.8 15.9 20.6 -4.6
Income, net -28.0 -27.4 -15.8 -20.5 -17.8 -5.8 7.1 32.8 30.5
Current transfers, net 9.8 14.3 19.5 24.9 33.4 38.3 51.5 63.5 51.2
Current-account balance 86.4 113.3 154.3 175.2 260.8 395.1 548.2 565.0 500.9


South Asia


Trade balance -11.2 -7.6 -15.3 -30.3 -37.3 -51.6 -56.8 -108.1 -118.1
Services, net 0.8 0.8 1.9 6.6 10.6 15.9 24.1 29.2 35.4
Income, net -6.6 -7.3 -7.9 -7.2 -10.0 -8.2 -8.8 -9.5 -15.5
Current transfers, net 24.6 27.9 35.2 33.7 41.1 49.4 60.0 71.1 68.7
Current-account balance 7.6 13.8 13.9 2.9 4.4 5.6 18.5 -17.3 -29.6


World residuale


Trade balance -35.4 0.6 31.8 5.9 21.6 90.8 139.5 125.1 184.3
Services, net 4.4 24.9 43.3 99.8 128.4 191.5 287.4 285.5 211.8
Income, net -78.8 -106.7 -86.8 -30.4 -34.4 -35.4 -49.2 -124.5 -77.6
Current transfers, net -63.1 -53.0 -58.2 -73.0 -77.0 -33.0 -63.5 -69.9 -96.7
Current-account balance -172.9 -134.2 -69.9 2.3 38.6 213.8 314.2 216.8 222.1


Sources: IMF, World Economic Outlook, October 2010; and IMF, Balance of Payments Statistics.


a Europe consists of EU-15, new EU member States plus Iceland, Norway and Switzerland.
b Includes Georgia.
c Excludes Georgia, which left the Commonwealth of Independent States on 18 August 2009.
d Data for Iraq not available prior to 2005.
e Statistical discrepancy.




174 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


Table A.19
Net ODA from major sources, by type, 1989-2009


Donor group
or country


Growth rate of ODA
(2008 prices and
exchange rates)


ODA as a
percent-


age of GNI


Total ODA
(millions


of dollars)


Percentage distribution of ODA by type, 2009


Bilateral Multilateral


1989-
1998


1999-
2008 2009 2009


Total
(Grants


& Loans)


Grants


Loans


Total
(United
Nations
& Other)


United
Nations OtherTotal


of which:
Technical


cooperation


Total DAC
countries -0.73 5.27 0.31 119 681 69.8 67.5 14.3 2.3 30.2 5.2 25.1


Total EU -0.17 5.48 0.45 67 246 61.0 57.2 16.1 3.8 39.0 5.3 33.7


Austria 3.71 10.61 0.30 1 142 44.4 44.9 17.6 -0.5 55.6 3.1 52.5
Belgium -0.73 6.67 0.55 2 610 60.7 61.1 19.6 -0.3 39.3 5.4 33.8
Denmark 4.00 -0.11 0.88 2 810 67.8 68.1 4.0 -0.3 32.2 10.0 22.1
Finland -5.05 6.62 0.54 1 286 61.1 59.0 22.5 2.0 38.9 11.2 27.7
Francea -1.07 2.32 0.46 12 431 55.1 45.8 20.9 9.4 44.9 2.0 42.9
Germany 0.03 5.56 0.35 12 079 58.8 55.9 37.4 2.9 41.2 3.0 38.3
Greece – 7.39 0.19 607 48.9 48.9 31.2 – 51.1 2.3 48.8
Ireland 11.85 14.53 0.54 1 006 68.9 68.9 1.4 – 31.1 7.6 23.5
Italy -7.34 4.75 0.16 3 297 26.5 26.4 2.7 0.1 73.5 6.2 67.3
Luxembourg 16.89 7.95 1.04 415 64.1 64.1 1.7 – 35.9 16.5 19.4
Netherlands 1.10 3.04 0.82 6 426 74.7 76.5 5.2 -1.8 25.3 9.2 16.1
Portugal 7.17 1.73 0.23 513 53.9 43.9 28.2 10.1 46.1 2.6 43.5
Spain 12.50 9.64 0.46 6 571 65.4 59.6 13.6 5.8 34.6 5.4 29.2
Sweden -0.93 8.00 1.12 4 548 66.2 64.2 3.0 2.0 33.8 12.7 21.1
United Kingdom 0.69 9.29 0.52 11 505 67.5 61.9 6.7 5.6 32.5 4.0 28.5


Australia -0.45 5.07 0.29 2 761 90.6 87.4 38.7 3.2 9.4 1.1 8.4
Canada -2.51 3.64 0.30 4 013 78.4 79.4 38.2 -1.0 21.6 5.2 16.4
Japan -0.59 -1.04 0.18 9 480 63.3 56.2 24.6 7.1 36.7 9.1 27.7
New Zealand 1.86 4.42 0.28 309 73.1 73.1 17.0 – 26.9 14.2 12.8
Norway 1.99 3.11 1.06 4 086 77.5 76.5 11.2 1.1 22.5 12.3 10.1
Switzerland 2.22 3.88 0.47 2 305 75.9 75.2 – 0.7 24.1 6.7 17.4
United States -3.32 9.96 0.20 28 665 87.6 90.4 2.6 -2.8 12.4 2.6 9.8


Source: UN/DESA, based on data of the OECD online database, available from http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx.


a Excluding flows from France to the Overseas Departments, namely Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique and Réunion.




175Annex tables


Table A.20
Total net ODA flows from OECD Development Assistance Committee countries, by type, 2000-2009


2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009


Net disbursements at current prices and exchange rates
(millions of dollars)


Official Development Assistance 53 962 52 687 58 575 69 431 79 855 107 830 104 823 104 181 122 296 119 681
Bilateral grants and
grant-like flows 33 087 33 562 39 885 51 033 57 458 83 750 79 691 75 677 88 174 80 732
of which:


Technical cooperation 12 787 13 623 15 482 18 389 18 725 20 812 22 359 15 037 17 231 17 154
Humanitarian aid 2 213 1 951 2 782 4 363 5 206 7 147 6 748 6 464 8 842 8 415
Debt forgiveness 2 045 2 501 4 538 8 317 7 134 24 999 18 600 9 624 11 067 544


Bilateral loans 3 108 1 720 1 079 -1 053 -2 823 - 862 -2 414 -2 305 -1 214 2 767
Contributions to multilateral
institutionsa 17 766 17 404 17 612 19 450 25 220 24 942 27 546 30 809 35 335 36 181


Source: UN/DESA, based on OECD, The DAC Journal of Development Co-operation Report 2009 and DAC online database, available from
http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/idsonline.


a Grants and capital subscriptions. Does not include concessional lending to multilateral agencies.




176 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


Table A.21
Commitments and net flows of financial resources, by selected multilateral institutions, 2000-2009


Billions of dollars


2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009


Resource commitmentsa 63.1 72.2 95.3 67.6 55.9 71.7 64.7 74.5 135.2 193.7


Financial institutions, excluding IMF 36.9 41.8 38.5 43.1 45.7 51.4 55.7 66.6 76.1 114.5
Regional development banksb 16.2 19.3 16.8 20.4 21.5 23.0 23.1 31.3 36.1 54.4
World Bank Groupc 20.2 22.0 21.4 22.2 23.7 27.7 31.9 34.7 39.4 59.4


International Bank for
Reconstruction and
Development (IBRD) 10.7 11.7 10.2 10.6 10.8 13.6 14.2 12.8 13.5 32.9
International Development
Association (IDA) 5.9 6.9 8.0 7.6 8.4 8.7 9.5 11.9 11.2 14.0
International Financial Corporation
(IFC) 3.7 3.4 3.2 4.1 4.6 5.4 8.2 10.0 14.6 12.4


International Fund for Agricultural
Development (IFAD) 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.7


International Monetary Fund 22.4 25.7 52.2 17.8 2.6 12.6 1.0 2.0 48.7 68.2
United Nations operational agenciesd 3.8 4.7 4.6 6.7 7.6 7.7 8.3 6.3 10.5 11.0


Net flows -10.9 14.9 2.0 -11.7 -20.2 -39.6 -25.9 -6.8 40.7 52.3


Financial institutions, excluding IMF -0.1 1.4 -11.2 -14.8 -10.2 0.8 5.2 -11.4 21.8 20.4
Regional development banksb 0.3 1.7 -3.9 -8.0 -6.6 -1.7 3.0 5.9 21.2 15.5
World Bank Groupc -0.4 -0.3 -7.3 -6.7 -3.7 2.5 2.2 5.5 0.7 4.9
International Bank for Reconstruction
and Development (IBRD) -4.1 -4.6 -12.1 -11.2 -8.9 -2.9 -5.1 -1.8 -6.2 -2.1
International Development
Association (IDA) 3.7 4.4 4.8 4.5 5.3 5.4 7.3 7.2 6.8 7.0


International Monetary Fund -10.8 13.5 13.2 3.1 -10.0 -40.4 -31.0 -18.0 18.9 32.0


Memorandum item:
(in 2000 purchasing power units)e


Resource commitments 63.1 73.7 97.2 62.6 47.8 59.8 54.9 56.0 97.3 146.7
Net flows -10.9 15.2 2.0 -10.8 -17.3 -33.0 -21.9 -5.1 29.3 39.6


Sources: Annual reports of the relevant multilateral institutions, various issues.
a Loans, grants, technical assistance and equity participation, as appropriate; all data are on a calendar year basis.
b African Development Bank (AfDB), Asian Development Bank (ADB), Caribbean Development Bank (CDB), European Bank for Reconstruction and


Development (EBRD), Inter-American Development Bank (IaDB) (including Inter-American Investment Corporation (IaIC)) and the International
Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD).


c Data is for the fiscal year.
d United Nations Development Program (UNDP), United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) and the World


Food Programme (WFP).
e Totals deflated by the United Nations index of manufactured export prices (in dollars) of developed economies: 2000=100.




177Annex tables


Table A.22
Greenhouse gas emissionsa of Annex I Parties to the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change, 1990-2012


Teragram CO2 equivalent


1990 2000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009b 2010b 2011c 2012c


Annual
growth rate
1990-2012


Cumulative
change


between 1990
and 2012


Australia 418 496 528 533 541 550 544 549 556 560 1.3 33.7


Austria 78 80 93 90 87 87 83 86 87 87 0.5 11.8


Belarus 140 79 85 88 88 91 85 73 66 58 -3.9 -58.8


Belgium 143 145 141 136 130 133 122 125 120 116 -0.9 -18.9


Bulgaria 117 69 71 72 76 73 59 52 46 40 -4.7 -65.6


Canada 592 717 731 718 750 734 695 696 700 703 0.8 18.8


Croatia 31 26 30 31 32 31 29 28 28 28 -0.5 -11.1


Czech Republic 195 148 145 147 147 141 133 131 132 132 -1.8 -32.5


Denmark 70 70 65 73 68 65 58 56 54 52 -1.3 -25.7


Estonia 41 18 19 19 22 20 14 13 11 9 -6.5 -77.3


Finland 70 69 68 80 78 70 63 60 59 58 -0.9 -18.2


France 566 561 561 545 535 532 500 491 483 476 -0.8 -15.9


Germany 1 232 1 025 978 983 957 958 896 884 873 863 -1.6 -30.0


Greece 103 125 133 129 132 127 120 110 102 98 -0.2 -5.3


Hungary 97 77 80 78 76 73 65 62 60 58 -2.3 -40.6


Iceland 3 4 4 4 5 5 4 4 4 4 0.4 9.3


Ireland 55 68 69 68 68 67 56 51 51 48 -0.6 -12.4


Italy 517 550 573 562 553 541 508 509 507 506 -0.1 -2.2


Japan 1 269 1 344 1 355 1 337 1 369 1 282 1 208 1 217 1 226 1 228 -0.1 -3.2


Latvia 27 10 11 12 12 12 8 5 3 1 -12.8 -95.1


Liechtenstein 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 10.3


Lithuania 50 19 23 24 25 24 19 17 16 15 -5.3 -69.7


Luxembourg 13 10 13 13 13 12 11 11 10 9 -1.5 -27.6


Monaco 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1.1 -21.1


Netherlands 212 215 212 209 207 207 192 188 182 178 -0.8 -15.9


New Zealand 61 70 77 77 75 75 74 76 77 79 1.2 29.6


Norway 50 53 54 53 55 54 52 49 50 51 0.1 2.3


Poland 453 390 390 403 400 396 372 354 336 320 -1.6 -29.5


Portugal 59 81 87 82 80 78 76 74 69 68 0.6 14.8


Romania 242 136 150 154 153 146 130 122 116 111 -3.5 -54.2


Russian Federation 3 322 2 025 2 115 2 183 2 188 2 230 1 938 1 889 1 894 1 893 -2.5 -43.0


Slovakia 74 49 50 50 48 49 42 42 39 35 -3.3 -52.5


Slovenia 18 19 20 20 21 21 21 22 22 22 0.8 18.6


Spain 285 381 435 427 439 406 403 398 413 415 1.7 45.4


Sweden 72 69 68 67 66 64 58 59 58 58 -1.0 -20.6




178 World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011


Table A.22 (cont’d)


1990 2000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009b 2010b 2011c 2012c


Annual
growth rate
1990-2012


Cumulative
change


between 1990
and 2012


Switzerland 53 52 54 54 52 53 52 52 51 51 -0.2 -3.6


Turkey 187 297 330 350 380 367 340 359 383 399 3.5 113.6


Ukraine 928 393 423 440 440 428 349 357 357 365 -4.1 -60.6


United Kingdom 775 676 658 653 644 632 575 552 526 508 -1.9 -34.4


United States 6 112 7 008 7 105 7 010 7 120 6 925 6 626 6 543 6 520 6 515 0.3 6.6


All Annex I Parties 18 733 17 623 18 003 17 976 18 131 17 759 16 579 16 365 16 286 16 217 -0.7 -13.4


Source: UN/DESA, based on data of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) online database available from
http://unfccc.int/ghg_emissions_data/ghg_data_from_unfccc/time_series_annex_i/items/3814.php (accessed on 5 November 2010).
Note: Based on the historical data provided by the UNFCCC for the GHG emissions of the Annex 1 Parties up to 2008, DESA/DPAD extrapolated the data
to 2012. The extrapolation is based on the following procedure:


GHG/GDP intensity for each country is modelled using time-series regression techniques, to reflect the historical trend of GHG/GDP. While the y
trend for each individual country would usually be a complex function of such factors as change in structure of the economy, technology change,
emission mitigation measures, as well as other economic and environmental policies, the time-series modelling could be considered a reduced
form of a more complex structural modelling for the relations between economic output and GHG emissions.
GHG/GDP intensity for each country is extrapolated for the out-of-sample period (2009-2012), using parameters derived from the time-series y
regression model.
In some cases, the extrapolated GHG/GDP intensity for individual countries was adjusted to take account of announced emission control measures y
taken by Governments.
The projected GHG emissions were arrived at using GDP estimates in accordance with the y World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011 baseline
forecast and the extrapolated GHG/GDP intensity.


a Without land use, land-use change and forestry.
b Estimated.
c Baseline scenario forecasts.










Litho in United Nations, New York United Nations publication
10-61546—January 2011—4,760 Sales No. E.11.II.C.2
ISBN 978-92-1-109162-5






Printed at the United Nations, New York


10-61546—December 2010— 4,270


USD 30


ISBN 978-92-1-109162-5


World Economic Situation
and Prospects


W
orld Econom


ic Situation and Prospects 2011
United Nations




Login