/ 27 November 2007

The central bank conundrum

The latest economic releases from the United States point to the growing twin threats of slowing economic growth and rising inflation.

Some analysts are beginning to pencil in a US recession in the near future. The problem at home is similar: consumer inflation is above the South African Reserve Bank’s target range still, but the growth trends of leading economic indicators, like vehicle and retail sales, are declining.

Inflation can come from two sources: demand-pull or cost-push pressures.

Demand-pull inflation comes from strong economic growth and consumer spending demand. Managing demand-pull inflation is something central banks are accustomed to doing. They simply raise interest rates — the cost of borrowing money — to the levels required to rein in general economic activity. Simply put: consumers have to pay more on their home loans and car repayments and therefore have less disposable income to spend in the broader economy.

Alternatively, cost-push inflationary pressure is the result of rising input costs that have a knock-on effect in the production of goods and services. In the past cost-push inflation was controlled with higher interest rates, reducing disposable income and therefore the demand for these goods and services and, in turn, their inputs.

However, the world economy is entering a new era of uncertainty. A volatile global geopolitical situation and ever-growing demand for increasingly scarce fossil fuels and other commodities are pushing oil and other input prices to unprecedented levels. The world economy is, for the first time, confronting the finite nature of its natural resources.

With oil prices close to $100 a barrel, the biofuel alternative has become attractive, but the direct consequence has been an upward pressure on food prices. So you have central banks essentially needing to solve problems they have never been faced with before: in order to control the inflationary culprits the oil price needs to be lowered by sorting out geopolitical risks and they need to find an alternative to using foodstuffs in the production of biofuels.

Additionally some dramatic progress is required in the development of alternative fuels. Central banks are simply not equipped with the tools to do any of this.

Because it is the government that gives the central bank its mandate to keep inflation low, it is the governments of the world (and not the banks) that are best suited to addressing these issues.

It is not sensible for government to require the central bank to use the only tool it has, interest rates, to solve a problem that simply cannot be solved by higher interest rates — and at the expense of economic growth.

Just because you have only a hammer in your toolbox does not mean you have to use it for every problem that comes along. If the problem is one we have never dealt with before, let’s open the debate and apply our minds to deal with it and not just bash it with the hammer and hope for the best — simply because that is the tool we’ve always used in the past. It may make the problem worse.

Let’s not pretend the problem is one we know how to deal with. We don’t.

One idea that could see many economists shot is to suggest a fundamental shift away from the rampant consumption of material goods. With resources running out, we need to consume fewer resource-based products and focus more on non-resource-based services.

Instead of that second television set, flashy car or new cellphone, enjoy a relaxing massage, hire a tour guide to take you around a nature reserve or take some dancing lessons — you would be surprised at how much more life-enhancing such activities can be!

Réjane Woodroffe is chief economist and head of international portfolios at Metropolitan Asset Managers