|
February 25, 1999 RR-2978
"POLICY CHALLENGES FOR ASIA IN 1999" DEPUTY TREASURY SECRETARY LAWRENCE SUMMERS REMARKS BEFORE THE AMERICAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE SEOUL, KOREA
Thank you. It's good to be back in Seoul. The last time I was here --
a
little over a year ago -- the light at the end of the tunnel seemed a very long way away.
If
someone had predicted the developments we have seen in Korea these past 12
months -- the
authority which the government has shown in implementing reform; the speed at which
foreign
reserves have been rebuilt; the signs of output bottoming out in the second half of the
year and
the return of foreign investors -- it is fair to say that the prediction would have been
treated with
a good degree of scepticism.
Looking across the region, the impact of the crises of the past eighteen months
is still very much apparent. And markets continue to seem worried by the risks and
uncertainties
facing Japan, China and others. But, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, if we are
perhaps not at
the beginning of the end of the crisis, here in Korea we may well be at the end of the
beginning.
Automobile traffic, at any rate, seems to be back to pre-crisis levels.
However, there is an important difference between recovering from a heart
attack --
and changing your lifestyle to be sure you never have another one. Whether and how
that kind of
permanent regime change is going to take place is still perhaps more of an open
question.
Let me reflect today on the roots of the recent crisis; the policy response to
it; and
the key challenges ahead, not merely for governments in the crisis economies but for
the United
States and the international community. I will concentrate on Korea, because I think
that in
many respects the problems that led to Korea's crisis, and the way the government has
sought to
resolve them, carry important lessons for better understanding and resolving crises in
other
countries.
I. Roots of the Crisis
When a car crashes on the open road, one can usually point to many
contributing
causes. If the driver had been driving less recklessly -- or wearing a seat-belt -- it might
not have
happened. If the road had been better designed, and the markings clearer -- it might
not have
happened. If other drivers had been more attentive, or the weather less treacherous --
it might not
have happened. One could point to a similar range contributors in thinking about the
crisis here in
Korea.
On the one hand, by the time of the crisis there had for some time been
widespread
concern about Korea's short-term macroeconomic course and the risks it presented: the
rising
inconsistency between monetary policy and the exchange rate regime; the substantial
declines in
industrial competitiveness; the speculative bubble channeling large amounts of private
capital into
unproductive investment; and the mounting, ill-monitored, stocks of short-term private
debt.
On the other hand, these problems could be traced to deeper doubts about
the
underlying structure of the economy and rules by which it operated. Korea's
development since the
1960s had been spectacular. To be sure, one needs to be doing quite a lot right to
achieve more than
three decades of 8 percent growth. But through the 1990s a number of commentators --
most
prominent among them Kim Dae Jung himself -- had been warning that time was
running out.
Beneath the surface, they argued, was a growing structural crisis in the
economy, a
crisis that could be traced directly to core parts of the government's long-time recipe for
growth:
notably the wide scale government coordination of productive activity; the implicit and
explicit
subsidization of particular industries; the heavy dependence on export-led growth and
targeted
protection; and the cultivation of nontransparent, relationship-based bank finance.
And yet -- to appeal to the economist's third 'hand' -- it seems clear that the
outside
environment played its part in these problems combusting in quite the way they did:
- had private institutions been less exuberant in their investments in
Korea (and
other Asian emerging markets) from the mid-1990s onwards, the macro- and
microeconomic
imbalances in the economy might not have been able to mount so high -- or for so
long.
- equally, if the external economic climate had not deteriorated as sharply
as it did
during 1997 -- led by the rapid decline in the performance of Japan -- it is fair to say
that the
crisis might not have erupted at the time that did, or with the same kind of severity.
In the event, all of these elements came together and were then
compounded by a
crisis of confidence and large-scale run for the exits. The upshot was a situation with
many of the
features of a bank run, in which the fear that even fundamentally sound institutions
might fail, can
become a self-fulfilling prophesy.
This, then, was a different kind of crisis -- calling for a different kind of
response. It
had a common element with almost all financial crises: money borrowed in excess and
used badly.
But it was also profoundly different because, relative to most of the crises we have seen
in the past --
the problems that had to be fixed were much more microeconomic than
macroeconomic, and
involved the private sector more and the public sector less.
When I met the (then) President-elect shortly before his inauguration last
year he
handed me his book, "The Mass Participatory Economy". He had written it several
years before but
its solutions were the right ones for the short run and the long run problems that the
country faced:
transparent, non-inflationary macroeconomic policies; large-scale liberalization and
deregulation of
the economy; improved governance and an end to government-directed lending to
industry;
reforming the Chaebol; and opening up the domestic financial system.
II. The Response to the Crisis and Where We Are Today
The program of economic and structural adjustment that the Korean
government has worked to implement since the end of 1997 reflected this diagnosis.
We saw it in the relatively greater emphasis on regaining investor confidence. And we
saw it in the commitment to wide-ranging structural reform.
Policy makers faced an enormous challenge designing such a program in
the thick of crisis. Inevitably, especially with 20/20 hindsight, one can question the way
in which they settled some of the details. But comparing Korea's situation today with
that of a little over a year ago, it seems difficult to question that the broad approach
was the right one. Consider:
- in December 1997, the won was at 1800 per dollar. Today it is
below 1200. The stock market index is now significantly up from its crisis lows. Net
foreign reserves -- at one time below $4 billion -- are upwards of $50 billion. And
Korean bonds are once again to be considered investment grade.
- renewed stability and investor confidence, in turn has provided room to
loosen policy. Short-term interest rates have now come done to below pre-crisis
levels, and fiscal policy has eased substantially.
- and most important, all of this is filtering through to growth -- with
manufacturing production now near its level in December 1997, and private forecasters
now predicting upwards of 2-3 percent real growth in 1999.
At the same time, the government has started to make progress on the
critical tasks of restructuring the bank and corporate sectors -- tasks which the past
year has taught needto be addressed together. The vicious cycle is by now all too
familiar:
- weak banks balk at making new loans, or undertaking new risks,
and charge higher rates to corporate borrowers when they do lend. They are also more
reluctant to take part in much-needed corporate workouts that would involve rite-downs
of capital they do not have. The upshot is to prolong the problem of corporate
insolvency.
- insolvent corporations, in turn, continue to consume precious national
savings that could be employed more productively by viable firms -- and may well
end up
running up further losses for the banks, and further need for banking sector
recapitalizations.
As this audience knows well, breaking the cycle is an immense undertaking.
And
it is fair to say that efforts to address these problems got off to a slow start here. But the
government has lately made some important progress.
The first stage of its financial sector program has been completed. Nearly
fifty
non-viable institutions have been closed and all but two commercial banks have been
recapitalized. Only yesterday, one of the largest international banks announced it was
buying a
major Korean bank and declared that it did plan to exercise its option to buy out the
government's share. At the same time, President Kim and the independent Financial
Supervisory
Commission (FSC) are making determined efforts to accelerate the pace of corporate
restructuring -- notably with their new accord with the Top Five chaebol last December.
III. Challenges for 1999
The problems that Korea faced in 1998 were in many ways problems of too
little
confidence. Lack of confidence show up in bank runs; it shows up in runs on the foreign
reserves, it shows up in lack of demand, it shows up in the drying up of foreign
investment. All
of these clearly have self-fulfilling prophesy aspects, which is why they needed to be
addressed
as quickly and decisively as possible.
But the government's very success in addressing these problems and
restoring
economic stability means that to some extent the problems that it faces this year will be
more
ones of complacency. And complacency, for its part, has a habit of becoming a
self-denying
prophesy:
- it can put a brake on necessary restructuring;
- it can reduce the pressure for unity that was such a hallmark of the
Korean response;
- it can deter moves to increase labor flexibility;
- and it can create macroeconomic problems of its own such as managing
sharp increases in capital inflows.
If what Korea had to fear in 1998 was fear itself -- it might be that what it has
to
fear in 1999 will be the lack of fear itself. Ambitious goals have been set. The challenge
will be
to persevere in achieving them when the storm clouds appear to be moving on.
The December agreement commits the Big Five chaebol to cutting the
number of
their affiliates in half and dramatically reducing their debt-equity ratios by the year 2000.
But in
the end, restructuring that is shallow and gimmicky will deliver a recovery to match. As
President Kim said in this context yesterday, "when you make a promise, you ought to
keep that
promise." Companies need to show they are making genuine reductions in excess
capacity and
changes in the way they operate. That means providing the means for effective
monitoring; and it
means the creation of transparent, market-based procedures that apply to all.
The government's own commitments to restructuring and renouncing past
practices await the same test. President Kim has pledged to end directed lending and
hidden
subsidies. He has pledged to build and defend a more transparent system of corporate
governance. He has pledged to push banks into insolvency that cannot meet their
obligations. In
the coming months he will need to show that he still means it.
In this context the United States has welcomed President Kim's commitment
to
openness and to doing away with directed lending, hidden subsidies and other unfair
practices
that have been such a stumbling block in global trade arena in past years. But as you
know,
suspicion in this area will often be as damaging as hard proof. In the steel and
semi-conductor
sectors, especially, it will be vital to put to rest any doubts that subsidies are continuing
behind
closed doors.
Maintaining a feeling of national unity -- the feeling that was so palpable last
December when housewives were bringing their wedding rings to the banks -- is the
country's
best insurance against complacency. And an important way to support that kind of unity
will be
moving rapidly to create an effective system for protecting dislocated workers, support
retraining
and provide for basic social services. To be sure, culture and history matter. It us up to
Korea to
work out the kind of social safety net that is right for its people and its way of life. But it
will be
important to ensure that effective protections exist.
The fact that employment and real wages are likely to lag well behind the
recovery in output will put enormous pressure on trade unions to return to business as
usual. In
its early support for tripartite dialogue the government rightly recognized the need to
include
labor and its representatives in the restructuring process. But that inclusion has to be
based on a
reasonable bargain.
Despite last year's agreements, a company's right to lay off workers still
seems to
carry with it a legal obligation to be near death. In the months ahead, the unions need
to
recognize that Korea will not continue to move rapidly out of crisis while the major
segment of
its workforce is standing still.
Going forward, rising capital inflows as investor confidence recovers will
present
macroeconomic policy challenges of its own -- albeit ones that are much easier to
address than
soaring capital outflows. But in all these challenges it will be important for Koreans to
keep their
eyes on the long-term prize.
For decades Korea was one the world's greatest development success
stories. The
key ingredients of that success remain today. And as painful as the past year has been
-- and as
painful as the next year may be for many people -- it is at least possible to see Korea
emerging
stronger as a result. In a global economy fueled increasingly by technology and human
capital,
Korea is a country, after all, with unquestioned technological capacities and a share of
high
school graduates going on to college that is second only to the United States'.
IV. The Role of the United States and the International Community
Let me conclude today by reflecting briefly on the role of the United States
and
the international community with respect to Korea and with respect to the problems
facing the
global economy.
While national policy is always of paramount importance, there is no
question that
the Korean experience demonstrates the potential difference that conditioned provision
of finance
-- and the confidence it can engender -- can make. Had Korea been forced into a
moratorium or
general default at the end of 1997, as looked quite likely for a time, it is very unlikely
that
industrial production would be at anything like the pre-crisis levels today. And the
turbulence in
other markets around the world could have been even more severe.
Just as Korea has its part to play in supporting a global recovery in 1999, so
has
the rest of the international community. Let me highlight just three aspects.
Policies to secure strong growth in the industrial countries
The United States has played its part in supporting global growth over the
past five
years -- with policies that have achieved a balanced budget, lower interest rates, low
inflation
and strong growth. These have made and will continue to make a major contribution to
supporting global growth and financial confidence. But we cannot carry the burden of
global
adjustment to the Asian crisis on our own.
Japan and Europe both have critical roles to play in achieving broad-based
growth
in the major industrial economies and helping curb the development of destabilizing
global
imbalances. With the Japanese economic situation still very troubling, it is as important
as it has
ever been for the government to take effective steps to achieve its goal of strong
domestic
demand-led growth. For their part the European economies need to pursue effective
macroeconomic policies and structural measures to ensure solid growth in domestic
demand.
Working With the International Financial Institutions to Support Key Remaining
Priorities
As the crisis economies start to enter a new phase of the crisis the
international
community's response has also evolved to respond to key priorities. Notably:
- through the Asian Growth and Recovery Program, part of a
multilateral initiative to assist Asian restructuring efforts that was launched by
President
Clinton and Japanese Prime Minister Obuchi at APEC. The AGRP aims to help
governments to tackle this critical barrier to recovery by supporting the
implementation
of strengthened policy frameworks for restructuring and by helping to catalyze,
through
use of official credit enhancements, where appropriate, new private funds to finance
the
fiscal costs of recapitalizing banks.
- through stepped-up support of social safety net programs in the
economies worst hit by crisis. Following President's call last autumn, the World Bank
has trebled its social lending programs to these economies and the ADB's social
lending
has doubled.
Helping to Prevent Future Crises
Finally we need to work together -- industrial economies and developing
ones --
to find better ways to prevent crises and deal more effectively contain them when they
occur.
Among the priorities here will be:
- increased transparency and disclosure. If one were writing a history
of the American capital market I would suggest to you that the single most important
innovation shaping that capital market was the idea of generally accepted
accounting
principles. We need that internationally, and we need it at the level of individual
companies and financial institutions.
- and designing effective systems of crisis response. That means every
country having an effective regime for corporate insolvency. And as we saw in
Korea,
these can often involve an important role for voluntary participation of private sector
creditors.
Without in any way minimizing the scale or the enormity of challenges ahead
in
this country, I think that what has been accomplished here in Korea in the past year
points up the
key elements of an effective crisis response: the importance of appropriate
macroeconomic
policies; of transparency, and of structural reforms to let market forces operate. But if
there is
one lesson above all others in the Korean experience it is the critical importance of
political
leadership. Looking around the world today I cannot think of another first presidential
anniversary I am happier to celebrate. Thank you.
|
|