6. Keeping Asia at the Forefront
- International Monetary Fund. Asia and Pacific Dept
- Published Date:
- October 2018
Asia is the world’s most dynamic economic region. But it faces a number of serious challenges over the medium to long term—that its trade-reliant growth strategy will no longer be viable (at least in its current form), that population aging will weigh on many dimensions of economic performance, that productivity growth may not accelerate again, and that the ongoing digitalization of its economies may lead to major disruptions even as k boosts productivity over time.
What these forces will mean for the region’s future is squarely in the hands of Asian policymakers. Global trade tensions may well persist, and opportunities to export to advanced economies may be diminished. But Asia can offset this and create a new source of regional growth by liberalizing its relatively restrictive trade and investment regimes—particularly in services—and thus boosting intraregional trade. Productivity growth may be lagging, but policies to improve entry and exit and to help firms resolve their debt situation will help address some of the key micro-level drivers of the slowdown. And in terms of the digital economy, as discussed above, there is an important role for policymakers to play in developing education, infrastructure, and regulatory environments to allow their economies to reap the full benefits of digitalization and ensure that it can be a key growth engine, while taking steps to soften the accompanying labor market and other adjustments. While addressing these specific challenges, Asian policymakers will also need to do their part in ensuring continued regional and global policy collaboration, including via their engagement with, and governance of, global institutions.
To sum up, Asia’s growth may face serious challenges, but with continued sound policymaking, the region should have good prospects for staying at the forefront over the coming decade and beyond.
AcemogluD. andP.Restrepo. 2017. “Robots and Jobs: Evidence from US Labor Markets.” NBER Working Paper No. 23285, National Bureau of Economic ResearchCambridge, MA.
Asian Development Bank (ADB). 2017. Asian Economic Integration Report 2017. Manila.
CerdeiroD. andR.Nam. 2018. “A Multidimensional Approach to Trade Policy Indicators.” IMF Working Paper 18/32, International Monetary FundWashington, DC.
DeckerR. A.J.HaltiwangerR. S.Jarmin andJ.Miranda. 2016. “Declining Business Dynamism: Implications for Productivity?” Hutchins Center on Fiscal and Monetary Policy at Brookings Working Paper No. 23, Brookings InstitutionWashington, DC.
DobbsR.Y.ChenG.OrrJ.ManyikaM.ChuiE.Chang. 2013. “China’s E-Tail Revolution: Online Shopping as a Catalyst for Growth.” McKinsey Global Institute.
International Federation of Robots. 2017. World Robotics2017. Frankfurt.
International Monetary Fund (IMF). 2016. “Global Trade: What’s Behind the Slowdown?” World Economic Outlook. Washington, DCOctober.
International Monetary Fund (IMF). 2018a. “Asia as the Cycle Matures.” Regional Economic Outlook: Asia and PacificBackground Paper No. 1. Washington, DCOctober.
International Monetary Fund (IMF). 2018b. “The Evolving Role of Trade in Asia: Opening a New Chapter.” Regional Economic Outlook: Asia and PacificBackground Paper No. 2. Washington, DCOctober.
International Monetary Fund (IMF). 2018c. “Productivity Growth in Asia: Boosting Firm Dynamism and Weeding out the Zombies.” Regional Economic Outlook: Asia and PacificBackground Paper No. 3. Washington, DCOctober.
International Monetary Fund (IMF). 2018d. “The Digital Revolution in Asia: Disruptor or New Growth Engine (or Both)?” Regional Economic Outlook: Asia and PacificBackground Paper No. 4. Washington, DCOctober.
International Monetary Fund (IMF). 2018e. “Manufacturing Jobs: Implications for Productivity and Inequality.” World Economic Outlook. Chapter 2 Washington, DCApril.
International Monetary Fund World Bank and the World Trade Organization. 2017. Making Trade an Engine of Growth for All: The Case for Trade and for Policies to Facilitate Adjustment. Washington, DC.
International Monetary Fund World Bank and the World Trade Organization. 2018. Reinvigorating Trade and Inclusive Growth. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.
McGowanA.MugeAdaletD.Berlingieri andV.Millot. 2017. “The Walking Dead?: Zombie Firms and Productivity Performance in OECD Countries.” OECD Economics Department Working Paper No. 1372, OECD Publishing, Paris.
ManoR.2016. “Quantifying the Spillovers from China Rebalancing Using a Multi-Sector Ricardian Trade Model.” IMF Working Paper 16/219, International Monetary FundWashington, DC.
MathaiK.G.GottliebG.HongS. E.JungJ.Schmittmann andJ.Yu. 2016. “China’s Changing Trade and the Implications for the CLMV Economies.” APD Departmental Paper No. 1, International Monetary FundWashington, DC.
Further country details are available in IMF (2018a).
IMF (2018a) provides a detailed description of the outlook for a range of other countries in the region.
This section is based on IMF (2018b).
The forecasts in Table 1 above have not been revised down as sharply as this since some of the tariff actions are still just proposals, and also because it is assumed that China implements substantial stimulus to bolster growth.
This section is based on IMF (2018c).
We follow the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development approach of McGowan and others (2017), which defines a zombie firm as one that is aged 10 years or older and has an interest coverage ratio (ICR) less than one for three consecutive years. The ICR is defined as the ratio of earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) to interest paid.
Cross-country comparisons should be interpreted with care given idiosyncratic factors, including varying levels of corporate subsidies and other support.
This section is based on IMF 2018d.