hide

Read Next

2012 A Level H2 Economics Review: Macroeconomics Qn 4

On Econoception

4.  Governments generally face trade-offs between different macroeconomic policy objectives. Discuss how far a government’s macroeconomic policy decisions when faced with these trade offs are affected by the extent to which the economy is open. [25]

The basic premise behind this question is that governments are faced with trade-offs between low inflation and full employment and growth in the short run as well as trade off between a healthy balance of trade and strong domestic growth. The question then wants us to look at how governments can approach these trade-offs (so a good answer should first illustrate the kind of trade-offs that are present), and evaluate the role of the openness of the economy in affecting the kind of macroeconomic policy decisions that governments make.

To answer this question, I have come up with a basic venn diagram.

The degree of openness, if we take it as a given, will restrict the set of policy tools available to a government, in the sense that some policies become impossible (interest rate policy for an open economy like Singapore) and some just become plain ineffective (i.e. fiscal policy for open economies that floats its exchange rate). This in itself, will restrict and affect policy options and a good answer should then go on to explain how such a constraint works.

An excellent answer will then explore the other factors that could weigh into this decision making process. The three circles I have drawn represent other possible constraints that can play a role in restricting policy options. For example, like in Europe, a budget problem or a debt issue can affect the viability of choosing fiscal policy, because the poor fiscal health of the country can worsen the crowding out effect or lead to even higher borrowing costs as investors bet against the country. Global demand and monetary conditions can affect a country like Singapore which relies heavily on external demand and foreign investment for growth - an unstable global demand environment will favour a more free-floating approach to the exchange rate so that the slowdown in growth from a fall in exports can be cushioned with a depreciation of the exchange rate; or like what we see now, cheap money from Japan and USA can create inflation in other open economies around the world as investors borrow cheaply to search for returns in other open fast growing economies thus exacerbating the painfulness of the trade-off between unemployment and inflation. The nature of the economic problems confronting the country can also dictate the sort of policy choices a government is able to select. Some examples: Structural rigidities in an economy might call for better microeconomic policies and supply side policies and restrict the effectiveness of any fiscal or monetary policy; a pessimistic investment environment can mean that monetary policies might not work as intended as investment is not responsive to interest rate changes.

Industry Awakens to Threat of Climate Change

On The Perfectly Flaky Hawk

WASHINGTON — Coca-Cola has always been more focused on its economic bottom line than on global warming, but when the company lost a lucrative operating license in India because of a serious water shortage there in 2004, things began to change.

Today, after a decade of increasing damage to Coke’s balance sheet as global droughts dried up the water needed to produce its soda, the company has embraced the idea of climate change as an economically disruptive force.

“Increased droughts, more unpredictable variability, 100-year floods every two years,” said Jeffrey Seabright, Coke’s vice president for environment and water resources, listing the problems that he said were also disrupting the company’s supply of sugar cane and sugar beets, as well as citrus for its fruit juices. “When we look at our most essential ingredients, we see those events as threats.”

Coke reflects a growing view among American business leaders and mainstream economists who see global warming as a force that contributes to lower gross domestic products, higher food and commodity costs, broken supply chains and increased financial risk. Their position is at striking odds with the longstanding argument, advanced by the coal industry and others, that policies to curb carbon emissions are more economically harmful than the impact of climate change.

Rendering New Theme...