Dukungan fiskal tambahan di negara-negara besar, terutama Amerika Serikat, semakin meningkatkan prospek. Kami sekarang memproyeksikan pemulihan yang lebih kuat untuk ekonomi global dibandingkan dengan perkiraan kami pada Januari 2021, pertumbuhan diproyeksikan menjadi 6 persen pada 2021 dan 4,4 persen pada 2022 setelah perkiraan kontraksi -3,3 persen pada 2020. Nonetheless, the future presents daunting challenges.
Pandemi belum dapat dikalahkan dan kasus virus meningkat di banyak negara.Pemulihan juga sangat berbahaya dan di negara2 karena sebab ekonomi vaksin yang lambat diluncurkan, dukungan kebijakan yang lebih terbatas, dan lebih bergantung pada pariwisata kurang berhasil.
Peningkatan pertumbuhan global untuk 2021 dan 2022 terutama berasal dari peningkatan ekonomi maju, terutama peningkatan yang cukup besar untuk Amerika Serikat yang diperkirakan akan tumbuh 6,4 persen tahun ini.
Negara-negara maju lainnya, termasuk kawasan euro, juga akan pulih tahun ini, tetapi dengan kecepatan yang lebih lambat di antara emerging markets and developing economies. China diproyeksikan tumbuh tahun ini sebesar 8,4 persen. Sekarang, ekonomi China telah kembali ke PDB sebelum pandemi pada tahun 2020, banyak negara lain diperkirakan tidak akan hingga tahun 2023.
Sekarang pemulihan yang berbeda ini cenderung menciptakan kesenjangan yang lebih luas dalam standar hidup di berbagai negara dibandingkan dengan ekspektasi sebelum pandemi. Kerugian tahunan rata-rata dalam PDB per kapita selama tahun 2020 hingga 24 relatif terhadap prakiraan pra pandemi diproyeksikan menjadi 5,7 persen di negara-negara berpenghasilan rendah dan 4,7 persen di pasar negara berkembang.
Sedangkan di negara maju, kerugian diperkirakan lebih kecil di 2,3 persen. Kerugian tersebut membalikkan perolehan dalam pengentasan kemiskinan, dengan tambahan 95 juta orang diperkirakan telah memasuki kelompok sangat miskin pada tahun 2020 dibandingkan dengan proyeksi sebelum pandemi.
Pemulihan yang tidak merata juga terjadi di negara-negara karena pekerja muda dan berketerampilan rendah serta perempuan yg masih lebih terdampak. Sekarang, karena krisis telah mempercepat transformasi digitalisasi dan otomasi, banyak pekerjaan yang hilang kemungkinan besar tidak akan kembali, sehingga membutuhkan realokasi pekerja lintas sektor yang sayangnya sering kali disertai dengan pinalti berat atas penghasilan.
Swift policy action worldwide, including 16 trillion dollars in fiscal support, prevented far worse outcomes. Our estimates suggest last year’s severe collapse could have been three times worse had it not been for such support. Now, because the financial crisis was averted, medium term losses are expected to be smaller, though still substantial then after the global financial crisis at around 3 percent. However, unlike after the 2008 crisis, this time it is emerging markets and low-income countries that are expected to suffer greater scarring given their more limited policy space.
Now policymakers will need to continue supporting their economies while dealing with more limited policy space and higher debt levels than prior to the pandemic. This requires better targeted measures to leave space for prolonged support of needed. With multi speed recoveries, a tailored approach is necessary with policies well calibrated at this stage of the pandemic, the strength of the economic recovery and the structural characteristics of individual countries.
Right now, the emphasis should be on escaping the health crisis by prioritizing health care spending on vaccinations, treatments, healthcare infrastructure. Fiscal support should be well targeted to affected households and firms, and monetary policy should remain accommodative while proactively addressing financial stability risks.
Financing these endeavors will be more difficult for economies with limited fiscal space. In such cases, improving tax capacity, increasing tax progressivity, deploying carbon pricing, and eliminating wasteful expenditures will be essential. All countries should anchor policies, in credible medium-term frameworks and adhere to the highest standards of transparency to help contain borrowing costs and eventually reduce debt and rebuild buffers for the future.
On the international stage, first and foremost, countries need to work together to ensure universal vaccination. While some countries will get to widespread vaccinations by the summer, most will likely have to wait till the end of next year. Speeding up vaccinations will require ramping up vaccine production and distribution, avoiding export controls, fully funding COVAX facility and ensuring equitable global transfers of excess doses.
Policymakers should also continue to ensure adequate access to international liquidity. The major central bank should provide clear guidance on future actions with ample time to prepare to avoid taper tantrum kinds of episodes, as occurred in 2013. Low income countries will benefit from further extending the pause on debt repayments under the debts service suspension initiative and operationalizing the G20 common framework for orderly debt restructuring.
A new allocation of the IMF special drawing rights will provide needed liquidity protection in what is still highly uncertain times. Now, even while all eyes are on the pandemic, it’s essential that progress is made in resolving trade and technology tensions and countries will need to cooperate on climate change mitigation, on modernizing Internet and modernizing international corporate taxation.
What does the IMF think about Secretary Yellen call yesterday for a global minimum corporate tax?
We have for long been in favor of a common global corporate minimum tax. It is a big concern that we have a large amount of tax shifting, tax avoidance, countries sending money to tax havens, and that’s reducing the tax base from which governments can collect revenues and do the necessary social and economic spending that’s required. So we are very much in favor of a global minimum corporate tax.
Further on the tax question, Gita, so the and there are people, you know, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, that say that the Biden administration’s call for raising the corporate tax could lead to companies leaving the United States and could slow the U.S. economy. Have you had a chance to look at that yet? And what is your thinking about that as distinct from Yellen’s call for a global minimum tax?
We still have to study very carefully this the new proposal from the Biden administration. So it’s a bit premature for us to talk about what the effect would be if the tax rates went up from 21 percent to 28 percent. We did have a pretty careful study of what happened the last time around, which is when you had the corporate tax cut from 35 percent to 21 percent. And in that time, at least when you look at the evidence, the impact, for instance, on investment was not that large. So the kind of the standard supply side impulses that you would expect were somewhat weaker than we would have thought ex-ante. But again, let’s see. You know, we’ll have to say this is a little more carefully for this current round.
In the fiscal monitor to you, raised the possibility of, you know, sort of more progressive income taxes. You also talk about possibly even a wealth tax and ensuring that companies really do chip in. I mean, do you have a suggestion for this OECD discussion about what the global minimum tax should be to ensure that companies are helping fund the necessary social safety net, but also climate investments?
The simple answer is no. I don’t have a number for you at this point. Again, like I said, we are we are studying this. Now governments will need to build back their fiscal positions after this crisis. The hope is that they will build forward better to have more inclusive, sustainable green economies. And that would require measures both on the revenue side and on the expenditure side. And again, for some countries, it would mean increasing tax capacity. And for some others it would involve a progressivity of taxes. So, again, it’s going to be a tailored response.
Yes, good morning. I wanted to ask these questions about [your views] on US proposals. I know in January you had studied the impact of a recently passed US$1.9 trillion stimulus proposal by the Biden administration. I am curious about the IMFs study thus far of the 2 trillion infrastructure proposal and how much that would impact if that were to be passed?
We don’t have a number for you, so we are still working on it. We don’t have an estimate at this point. We certainly support the idea of needed public infrastructure investments. We have again, been calling for that in all aspects in terms of roads and bridges, water, telecommunications. So, that would be very, quite welcome. And also, the green focus is, again, something that we would support.
Now, of course, our research points very strongly to the need for carbon pricing to successfully attain climate mitigation goals. And the current proposal doesn’t have that. So I would say that that’s one area that I hope the administration will look into more, which is on carbon pricing.