• No results found

PRESS RELEASE EMBARGO

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2022

Share "PRESS RELEASE EMBARGO"

Copied!
7
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

1 October 2019

(19-6264) Page: 1/7

PRESS RELEASE

E M B A R G O N O T F O R P U B L I C A T I O N , O R D I S T R I B U T I O N B Y N E W S A G E N C I E S U N T I L 1 1 : 0 0 G E N E V A T I M E 1 O C T O B E R 2 0 1 9

TRADE STATISTICS AND OUTLOOK

WTO lowers trade forecast as tensions unsettle global economy

Escalating trade tensions and a slowing global economy have led WTO economists to sharply downgrade their forecasts for trade growth in 2019 and 2020. World merchandise trade volumes are now expected to rise by only 1.2% in 2019,

substantially slower than the 2.6% growth forecast in April. The projected increase in 2020 is now 2.7%, down from 3.0% previously. The economists caution that downside risks remain high and that the 2020 projection depends on a return to more normal trade relations.

“The darkening outlook for trade is discouraging but not unexpected. Beyond their direct effects, trade conflicts heighten uncertainty, which is leading some businesses to delay the productivity- enhancing investments that are essential to raising living standards," said WTO Director-General Roberto Azevêdo. "Job creation may also be hampered as firms employ fewer workers to produce goods and services for export."

"Resolving trade disagreements would allow WTO members to avoid such costs," the WTO Director- General added. "The multilateral trading system remains the most important global forum for settling differences and providing solutions for the challenges of the 21st century global economy.

Members should work together in a spirit of cooperation to reform the WTO and make it even stronger and more effective.”

The updated trade forecast is based on consensus estimates of world GDP growth of 2.3% at market

MAIN POINTS

• World merchandise trade volume is forecast to grow 1.2% in 2019.

This is substantially below the 2.6%

trade growth that had been projected in April.

Trade volume growth should accelerate slightly to 2.7% in 2020

while global GDP growth holds steady at 2.3% (at market exchange rates), but this depends on an easing of trade tensions.

Trade conflicts pose the biggest downside risk to the forecast

but macroeconomic shocks and financial volatility are also potential triggers for a steeper downturn.

Trade-related indicators signal a worrying trajectory

for world trade based on global export orders and economic policy uncertainty.

Export and import growth slowed across all regions

and at all levels of

development in the first half of 2019.

(2)

exchange rates for both 2019 and 2020, down from 2.6% previously. Slowing economic growth is partly due to rising trade tensions but also reflects country-specific cyclical and structural factors, including the shifting monetary policy stance in developed economies and Brexit-related

uncertainty in the European Union. Macroeconomic risks are firmly tilted to the downside.

Due to the high degree of uncertainty associated with trade forecasts under current conditions, the estimated growth rate for world trade in 2019 is placed within a range of 0.5% to 1.6%. Trade growth could fall below this range if trade tensions continue to build, or outperform it if they start to recede. The range of likely values is wider for 2020, ranging from 1.7% to 3.7%, with better outcomes depending on an easing of trade tensions.

Risks to the forecast are heavily weighted to the downside and dominated by trade policy. Further rounds of tariffs and retaliation could produce a destructive cycle of recrimination. Shifting

monetary and fiscal policies could destabilize volatile financial markets. A sharper slowing of the global economy could produce an even bigger downturn in trade. Finally, a disorderly Brexit could have a significant regional impact, mostly confined to Europe.

Chart 1: World merchandise exports and imports by level of development, 2012Q1- 2019Q2

Volume index, 2012Q1=100

Source: WTO and UNCTAD.

Charts 1 and 2 show quarterly merchandise export and import volumes on a seasonally-adjusted basis by level of development and geographic region. In the first half of 2019, world merchandise trade was up 0.6% compared to the same period in the previous year. This marks a substantial slowdown compared to recent years. Exports of developed economies were up just 0.2% for the year-to-date, while those of developing economies were up 1.3%. On the import side, developed economies recorded year-on-year growth of 1.1% while developing countries declined by 0.4%.

Growth rates based on quarterly data may differ slightly from calculations based on annual statistics, but they should be of similar magnitude.

90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130

2012Q1 2012Q3 2013Q1 2013Q3 2014Q1 2014Q3 2015Q1 2015Q3 2016Q1 2016Q3 2017Q1 2017Q3 2018Q1 2018Q3 2019Q1

Exports

World Developed Developing

90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130

2012Q1 2012Q3 2013Q1 2013Q3 2014Q1 2014Q3 2015Q1 2015Q3 2016Q1 2016Q3 2017Q1 2017Q3 2018Q1 2018Q3 2019Q1

Imports

World Developed Developing

(3)

Chart 2: Merchandise exports and imports by region, 2012Q1-2019Q2 Volume index, 2012Q1=100

1 Refers to South and Central America and the Caribbean.

2 Other regions comprise Africa, Middle East and the Commonwealth of Independent States, including associate and former member States.

Source: WTO and UNCTAD.

All geographical regions recorded positive year-on-year export growth in the first half of 2019 despite a substantial weakening of global demand. North America had the fastest export growth of any region at 1.4%, followed by South America at 1.3%, Europe at 0.7%, Asia at 0.7%, and Other regions (comprising Africa, the Middle East and the Commonwealth of Independent States,

including associate and former member States) at 0.1%.

North America recorded the fastest import growth of any single region at 1.8%, followed by Europe at 0.2%. Two regions registered declines (South America at -0.7% and Asia at -0.4%).

Collectively, the imports of Other regions grew faster than those of North America, at 2.4%.

Import demand has been particularly weak in Asia, weighing heavily on exporters of manufactured goods (e.g. Japan, Korea, and Germany). Exporters of natural resources have also seen demand for their products weaken, as evidenced by the 12% year-on-year decline in commodity prices in August.

There are no comprehensive statistics on services trade in volume terms due to the general unavailability of price data, but an approximate measure of services trade volume can be derived by adjusting nominal commercial services trade statistics to account for exchange rates and inflation. This index shows that, like merchandise trade, commercial services trade has plateaued recently (Chart 3).

80 90 100 110 120 130 140

2012Q1 2012Q3 2013Q1 2013Q3 2014Q1 2014Q3 2015Q1 2015Q3 2016Q1 2016Q3 2017Q1 2017Q3 2018Q1 2018Q3 2019Q1

Exports

North America South America¹ Europe

Asia Other regions²

80 90 100 110 120 130 140

2012Q1 2012Q3 2013Q1 2013Q3 2014Q1 2014Q3 2015Q1 2015Q3 2016Q1 2016Q3 2017Q1 2017Q3 2018Q1 2018Q3 2019Q1

Imports

North America South America¹ Europe

Asia Other regions²

(4)

Chart 3: World services trade activity index, 2015Q1 – 2019Q2 Index, 2015=100

Source: WTO and UNCTAD, United States Federal Reserve, Bank for International Settlements and Secretariat calculations.

Monthly economic indicators provide some worrying clues about the current and future trajectory of world trade. An index of new export orders derived from purchasing managers' indices has fallen from 54.0 in January 2018 to 47.5 in August 2019, the weakest reading since October 2012 (Chart 4). Note that values below 50.0 signal contraction.

Chart 4: Global PMI new export orders index, Jan. 2010 – Aug. 2019 Index, base=50

Note: Values greater than 50 indicate expansion while values less than 50 denote contraction.

Source: IHS Markit.

A separate indicator based on the frequency of phrases in press reports captures aspects of monetary, fiscal and trade policy uncertainty (Chart 5). In 2019, the index has risen from 289 in January to 348 in August, its highest level ever. To the extent that economic uncertainty deters

90 95 100 105 110 115 120

2015Q1 2015Q2 2015Q3 2015Q4 2016Q1 2016Q2 2016Q3 2016Q4 2017Q1 2017Q2 2017Q3 2017Q4 2018Q1 2018Q2 2018Q3 2018Q4 2019Q1 2019Q2

47.5

40 45 50 55 60

2010M01 2010M07 2011M01 2011M07 2012M01 2012M07 2013M01 2013M07 2014M01 2014M07 2015M01 2015M07 2016M01 2016M07 2017M01 2017M07 2018M01 2018M07 2019M01 2019M07

(5)

investment, it can have a disproportionately negative effect on trade since capital goods that make up investments tend to have high import content.

Chart 5: Global economic policy uncertainty, Jan. 2005 – Aug. 2019 (index, average 1997-2015=100)

Source: PolicyUncertainty.com.

Monthly merchandise trade values in current US dollar terms are shown for selected economies in Chart 6 below. Some countries (e.g. the United States and China) may show signs of a turnaround while others (the Republic of Korea and Japan) provide no such indication. Nominal trade statistics are strongly influenced by prices and exchange rates, so these trends should be interpreted with caution.

If current GDP estimates are realised, the volume of world merchandise trade should increase by 1.2% in 2019 (Table 1), but this would require a degree of recovery in the second half of the year.

Monetary easing in developed countries has not had a major impact to date but is likely to be felt toward the end of 2019 and into 2020. Other measures, including fiscal policies for surplus countries, are being undertaken to stem the current slowdown. These measures could provide some upside potential to the forecast, especially if outstanding trade disputes are resolved.

However, the balance of risk remains on the downside, with trade disputes, financial volatility and geopolitical tensions providing potential triggers for a steeper downturn.

199.0 212.7

304.7

113.3

348.0

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

2005M01 2005M07 2006M01 2006M07 2007M01 2007M07 2008M01 2008M07 2009M01 2009M07 2010M01 2010M07 2011M01 2011M07 2012M01 2012M07 2013M01 2013M07 2014M01 2014M07 2015M01 2015M07 2016M01 2016M07 2017M01 2017M07 2018M01 2018M07 2019M01 2019M07

(6)

Table 1: Merchandise trade volume and real GDP, 2015-20201 Annual % change

1 Figures for 2019 and 2020 are projections.

2 Average of exports and imports.

3 Includes the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), including associate and former member States.

4 Refers to South and Central America and the Caribbean.

5 Other regions comprise Africa, Middle East and Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).

Source: WTO and UNCTAD for trade, consensus estimates for GDP.

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019P 2020P

Volume of world merchandise trade2 2.3 1.7 4.6 3.0 1.2 2.7

Exports

Developed economies 2.4 1.0 3.6 2.1 0.4 2.2

Developing economies3 1.7 2.3 5.6 3.5 2.1 3.4

North America 1.1 0.3 4.2 4.3 1.5 3.6

South and Central America4 -0.4 0.7 3.0 0.6 1.3 0.7

Europe 2.9 1.2 3.7 1.6 0.6 1.7

Asia 1.4 2.3 6.8 3.8 1.8 3.8

Other regions5 3.2 2.9 1.6 2.7 0.9 2.5

Imports

Developed economies 4.2 2.0 3.3 2.5 1.6 1.2

Developing economies3 0.6 1.3 6.8 4.1 1.1 4.3

North America 5.4 0.1 4.0 5.0 2.9 2.1

South and Central America4 -8.4 -8.8 4.6 5.2 -0.7 4.5

Europe 3.5 3.1 2.9 1.1 0.4 0.9

Asia 3.9 3.6 8.3 5.0 1.3 3.9

Other regions5 -4.3 -1.9 2.5 0.5 2.6 4.3

Real GDP at market exchange rates 2.8 2.4 3.0 2.8 2.3 2.3

Developed economies 2.3 1.6 2.3 2.2 1.7 1.4

Developing economies3 3.7 3.8 4.3 4.1 3.4 3.8

North America 2.7 1.6 2.3 2.7 2.2 1.9

South and Central America4 -0.8 -2.0 0.7 0.6 0.1 2.4

Europe 2.4 2.0 2.7 2.0 1.3 1.2

Asia 4.3 4.2 4.6 4.2 3.9 3.5

Other regions5 1.2 2.4 2.0 2.2 1.7 2.4

(7)

Chart 6: Merchandise exports and imports of selected economies, January 2014-July 2019

(Billion dollars)

Source: IMF International Financial Statistics, Global Trade Information Services GTA database, national statistics.

END

Chart 5

Merchandise exports and imports of selected economies, January 2014-July 2019 (Billion dollars)

Sources: IMF International Financial Statistics, Global Trade Information Services GTA database, national statistics.

India Russian Federation

United States European Union (extra-trade)

Japan Republic of Korea

Brazil China

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Exports Imports

0 20 40 60 80 100

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Exports Imports

0 50 100 150 200 250

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Exports Imports

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Exports Imports

0 5 10 15 20 25

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Exports Imports

0 50 100 150 200 250

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Exports Imports

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Exports Imports

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Exports Imports

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

Via meneer Van Koningsbrugge hoorde ik dat er bij het World Trade Center Leeuwarden gezocht werd naar een stagiair die taken binnen de organisatie van de

In short, EXP-ht (tot. EXP) is the sum of all import from high-tech industries (total import) by the EU15 from the three CEEs selected. The first control variable, Iit, is the

(4) trigger of Article 50 (5) start of official negotiations between the UK and EU. These dates are chosen since they reflect critical dates in the process towards the Brexit.

The empirical literature on trade–growth relationships can be classified into two broad strands of studies: one using time-series models and assessing mainly the demand-driven

The knowledge gained from this study can be implemented in daily anaesthetic practice in the following manner: educating the anaesthetic personnel on the storage

In such a case, if an industry accounts for a large (small) share of regional employment compared to the national average, we would expect employment to decrease (increase) in

Ten slotte vestig ik in dit verband nog kort de aandacht op het Europese Verdrag voor de Rechten van de Mens (EVRM). Ook hier is sprake van import van internationaal

Die gemiddelde keuse van leerders vir die antroposentriese items tydens die na- en agternametings in die kontrole groep toon ‘n beduidende groot verskil van 0.83 wat daarop dui