Full text of "Treasury Department's biannual report on international economic and exchange rate policy : hearing before the Subcommittee on International Finance and Monetary Policy of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, United States Senate, One Hundred Third Congress, first session ... May 25, 1993"

See other formats

^ S. HrG. 103-129

TREASURY DEPARTMENT'S BIANNUAL REPORT ON
INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC AND EXCHANGE
RATE POUCY _^=_=^_

Y 4. B 22/3: S.HRQ. 103-129

Trcasurj Departnent's Biannual Rcpo. . . ^lW(jr

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON
INTERNATIONAL FINANCE AND MONETARY POLICY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

COUNTRIES THAT MANIPULATE THEIR EXCHANGE RATES TO GAIN
UNFAIR TRADE ADVANTAGES WITH THE UNITED STATES

MAY 25, 1993

Printed for the use of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
70-746 CC WASHINGTON : 1993

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-0A1357-5

S. Hrg. 103-129

TOEASURY DEPAR™ENT'S BIANNUAL REPORT ON
INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC AND EXCHANGE
RATE POUCY

Y4.B22/3:S.HRQ.1()3-129

Treasury Oepartnent's Biannual Repo. . . lIWCjt

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON
INTERNATIONAL FINANCE AND MONETARY POLICY

OP THE

COMMITTEE ON

BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

COUNTRIES THAT MANIPULATE THEIR EXCHANGE RATES TO GAIN
UNFAIR TRADE ADVANTAGES WITH THE UNITED STATES

MAY 25, 1993

Printed for the use of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

OCT

«*i

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
70-746 CC WASHINGTON : 1993

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents. Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-041357-5

COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AF'FAIRS

DONALD W. RIEGLE, Jr., Michigan, Chairman
PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland ALFONSE M. D'AMATO, New York

CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut PHIL GRAMM, Texas

JIM SASSER, Tennessee CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missoinri

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama CONNIE MACK, Florida

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts LAUCH FAIRCLOTH, North Carolina

RICHARD H. BRYAN, Nevada ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah

BARBARA BOXER, California WILLIAM V. ROTH, JR., Delaware

BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
CAROL MOSELEY-BRAUN, Hlinois
PATTY MURRAY, Washington

Steven B. Harris, Staff Director and Chief Counsel

Howard A. Menell, Republican Staff Director

Edward M. Malan, Editor

Subcommittee on International Finance and Monetary Poucy

JIM SASSER. Tennessee, Chairman

PATTY MURRAY, Washington CONNIE MACK, Florida

PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland PHIL GRAMM, Texas

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah

BARBARA BOXER, California WILLIAM V. ROTH, JR., Delaware

BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri

Chuck MaRR, Economist

Patrick A. Mulloy, Senior Counsel / International Affairs Adviser

Martin J. Gruenberg, Counsel

John S. Gorman, Republican Counsel

Wayne a. ABERNATHY, Republican Economist

(II)

CONTENTS

TUESDAY, MAY 26, 1993

PafB

Opening statement of Senator Sasser 1

Opening statements, comments, or prepared statements of:

Senator Riegle 2

Senator Mack 5

Senator Sarbanes 14

WITNESS

Lawrence H. Summers, Under Secretary of the Treasury for International

Affairs, Washington, DC 5

Prepared statement 28

Global growth 28

Negotiations with China, Taiwan, and South Korea 29

China 29

Korea and Taiwan 30

Conclusion 30

Response to written questions of:

Senator Riegle 48

Senator Sasser 50

Additional Material Supplied for the Record

Treasury report to Congress 30

(III)

TREASURY DEPARTMENTS BIANNUAL RE-
PORT ON INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC AND
EXCHANGE RATE POLICY

TUESDAY, MAY 25, 1993

U.S. Senate, Committee on Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs, Subcommittee on International
Finance and Monetary Policy,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met at 10:06 a.m., in room SD-538 of the
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Jim Sasser (chairman of
the subcommittee) presiding.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JIM SASSER

Senator Sasser. The committee will come to order.

This morning, we begin again what I hope and expect will be a
productive and informative dialog between Congress and the new
administration on International Economic Policy.

I want to welcome Dr. Larry Summers before the subcommittee
this morning, and shortly. Dr. Summers will present the Treasury
Departments biannual report on this critical subject of inter-
national economic policy.

But first, I want to take this opportunity to commend you. Dr.
Summers, and also Secretary of the Treasury Bentsen, and the
President, himself I want to congratulate all of you for breathing
new life into the G-7 coordinating process.

In recent years, as the world economy has slumped, the G-7 has
floundered and U.S. influence within Gr--7 has waned. And pressure
and prodding from the United States could easily be deflected in
times past with the statement, why don't you do something about
your own budget deficit, and then come talk to us.

Well, now we are doing something about the deficit. The Presi-
dent has stepped forward boldly and proposed a comprehensive eco-
nomic and deficit reduction plan. His plan has been hailed around
the world. As a matter of fact, it's gotten more acclaim, I think,
internationally than it has internally here in the United States. It
has restored credibility with our trading partners abroad.

The New York Times described the initial G-7 meeting, and I
quote, as "Mr. Bentsen rides into town tall in the saddle."

So this renewed credibility has created an opportunity to reinvig-
orate the Gr-7, and I submit that this opportunity must be seized.
It must be seized because global economic growth and trade issues
are key to growing the economy here in the United States.

(1)

In fact, during the past 3 years, exports have provided all of the
economic growth in our economy. In the first quarter of this year,
exports declined by a sharp 7 percent rate, and this is a major rea-
son why overall economic growth has been cut at least in half in
the first quarter of this year over the fourth quarter of last year,
and why, once again, we're seeing very few iobs created.

There's real concern today that the already large trade imbalance
will widen, because gprowth abroad is so slow. There is a critical
need for our allies to aggressively stimulate their domestic econo-
mies. This is a strange statement to make, I suppose, to some, in
view of the fact that we were unable to pass, here in the Congress,
a very, very modest stimulus package of our own.

But lower interest rates in Europe and a strong fiscal stimulus
program in Japan are needed to put the world economy back on a
gp'owth track. Growth abroad is also needed to narrow the large
trade imbalance. While growth abroad is absolutely necessary, it is
not sufficient in and of itself. U.S. exporters must have fair access
to the foreign markets of our trading partners.

Let's take China, for example. The economy in China's booming,
but United States exports into China are being held down by Chi-
nese manipulation of the exchange rate and currency reserves. The
result is that the United States is running an $18 billion trade def-
icit with China. So I look forward to exploring this and other key
issues with Dr. Summers following the presentation of his report.

But let me again commend you, Dr. Summers, and the entire ad-
ministration for reinvigorating the G-7 process at this critical junc-
ture.

The chairman of the fiill committee is with us here this morning,
and I'll turn to him for any opening statement he might wish to
make.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DONALD W. RIEGLE, JR.

Senator Riegle. Thank you very much. Chairman Sasser.

Let me say, at the outset, how much I appreciate your leadership
as you assume the duties as chairman of the International Finance
and Monetary Subcommittee. This is a critical part of the work of
this committee and I very much appreciate the fact that you are
leading this effort today, just in terms of the whole scope of the
work of this subcommittee.

I also want to commend Senator Sarbanes, who was the previous
subcommittee chairman, for his important work over a long period
of time. And I want to make some opening comments, and then re-
inforce a point or two that Chairman Sasser has just made.

Under the provisions of the Omnibus Trade Act, which were
drafted by this committee, the Secretary of the Treasury is re-
quired to submit to us, semiannually, a report on economic policy
in the international arena, including exchange rate policy, which
brings us here today. We drafted these provisions to ensure that
the Executive Branch would make the achievement of a healthy
balance of trade a top priority in our international economic nego-
tiations. We also asked the Treasury Department to identify, in
each report, those countries that manipulate their exchange rates
to gain unfair trade advantages with the United States.

In the past, the Treasury Department has identified both Korea
and Taiwan as exchange rate manipulators. Now this morning, for
the third time within 12 months, the Treasury will again identify
China as manipulating its currency in this area.

Now the facts are these. In 1991, China's trade surplus with the
United States was $12.7 billion, and that is in their favor. They
drew that much capital out of the United States and the jobs that
go with it. But in 1992, that number had jumped substantially and
was up to $18.3 billion, a surplus in their favor, a deficit for the
United States.

Now the Treasury report submitted to the committee this morn-
ing is telling us that China's overall trade surplus with the United
States is approaching $20 billion, and may well go beyond that,
and that China is continuing to manipulate its currency in order
to capture United States markets, and at the same time, restrict
the movement of American imports into China. This is totally unac-
ceptable behavior on the part of China, which has now been
charged with this improper practice in each of the last three re-
ports by the Treasury Department, and that of course stems now
to two administrations.

American workers, for example, who make sporting goods or foot-
wear or clothing are losing their jobs, and the/re losing their liveli-
hood, in part, because our Government has continued to let China
get away with this unfair practice. Because of this, we're losing op-
portunities to expand American exports to China, and we are losing
jobs in America that would be associated with this fair and ex-
panded export activity.

Later this week, I plan to introduce legislation that would forbid
our Grovemment fi*om granting China most-favored nation treat-
ment unless and until it stops manipulating its exchange rate. If
China continues its current exchange rate manipulation practices,
then under my legislation, they would lose their most-favored na-
tion trade treatment.

Now a second highly disturbing aspect of toda/s latest Treasury
report involves our country's continuing and growing massive trade
deficit with Japan. Japan is by far the worst offender in terms of
the problems that we have in the trade area. The latest Treasury
report suggests that Japan will have an overall global trade sur-
plus this year in excess of $135 billion. And of that, over $50 bil-
lion, well over $50 billion will be with the United States. In just
the month of March, the United States had a trade deficit with the
rest of the world in excess of $10 billion, £ind of that amount, over
half, over $5 billion was with Japan alone. And that means that
Japan NET took out of our economy, in a 31-day period, over $5
billion.

That hurts America. It hurts the job base of America. And much
of it is due to persistent, long-term, deliberate, unfair trading prac-
tices. Barriers to entry into the Japan market that hold out Amer-
ican goods that otherwise should be selling there on a sound, com-
petitive basis, and also a variety of techniques used in this coimtry,
including the Keiretsu practices to come in and to sell more in this
market than I think can be defended under any definition of inter-
national trading rules.

So these sort of trade figures are totally unacceptable and it
makes it clear that Japan is continuing to operate its economy, not
only to the detriment of the United States economy, but I think
clearly to the world trading system.

And so I again today call on the new administration, as I have
with past administrations, to use every possible means to force
these issues to a showdown with the Japanese to break open their
markets so that our goods can be sold there on a fair and equitable
basis, and to bring this trade deficit down to a rough balance with-
in a reasonable period of time.

We cannot tolerate a situation where one nation, in this case,
Japan, has drawn over $500 billion out of the United States in the
trade account since 1980. That's a half a trillion dollars. It's
wounded this economy. It's in effect a type of economic warfare,
and it has to be confronted and stopped before more damage is
done to this country. There is no excuse for it, and the crocodile
tears that I see the Japanese leaders shedding mean nothing in
terms of the face of the kind of data and job damage and economic
hardship being imposed on this country by these practices.

Mr. Chairman, I want to just conclude by saying, with respect to
your comments a minute ago, I am very much concerned about the
weakness in the American economy, and for that matter, in the
global economy. And I hope that our witness today will talk about
the economic situation that we're facing at this moment.

We've got consumer confidence data, which has just come out,
which is down again. That's a disturbing report, series of reports.
There's a lot of softness in the domestic economy, and I think we
very much needed the job stimulus program. We still do.

You see Japan having just recently announced a job stimulus
program this year of $114 billion, because their unemployment rate
is up to 2,25 percent. We were trying to get $16.3 billion and our
posted unemployment rate is 7 percent, more than three times as
high as what it is in Japan. And ironically, because of this bloated
trade surplus that the Japanese have with us, the American people
are paying for about half of the stimulus program that the Japa-
nese have just announced. So you've got this terrible contradiction
where we're saying, we can't afford to have a stimulus program
here in America to get unemployed people back to work, but we're
going to allow a trade imbalance with Japan to take over $50 bil-
lion out of the country to Japan for which they pay for half of their
job stimulus program. That's just wrong, and that can't be toler-
ated.

But I look forward today to our witness talking about the eco-
nomic situation, laying the cards on the table face up so that we
understand where we are. I'm very much concerned that if this
softness continues, and particularly if there's an indifference to the
problem in the Congress, and an unwillingness to go with some
kind of a stimulus program, that we could find ourselves in a situa-
tion where the economy could start sliding backward, and slide into
another recession.

I worry very much about that, and I think it's essential that the
Federal Reserve not add to a calamity of that kind by raising inter-
est rates. That's out there as another possible element in the mix

that could work very much against the economic recovery that we
need in the country at this time.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Sasser. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Mack has joined us, and I'll call on him now for any
opening statement he might have.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CONNIE MACK

Senator Mack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try to confine
my comments, for the next minute or two, to what I expect to hear
from Under Secretary Summers, and not respond to the chairman
of the full committee and the comments that he has made.

I, too, would like to welcome Under Secretary Summers to the
Banking Committee for his first hearing in this new capacity.

International exchange rates are an important factor in the
world economy, and I look forward to benefiting from our witness'
expertise on this topic. But before we start, I would like to express
a concern that I have.

In recent months, both President Clinton and Secretary Bentsen
have made statements that have suggested that the dollar is val-
ued too high with respect to the yen. And these statements cause
great volatility in exchanges rates, and indicated to international
markets that perhaps this administration was going to actively en-
gage in a policy of dollar devaluation.

I'd hate to see this administration promoting a policy of dollar
devaluation. I think it is a mistake. It causes an erosion in long-
term competitiveness of American industry, and destroys con-
fidence in the value of the U.S. dollar.

I know that Under Secretary Summers considers that manipula-
tion of exchange rates to be inappropriate, and has said so publicly.
I agree with him, as he was quoted in press reports in April, stat-
ing that, "excessive volatility is counterproductive for growth." So
I'll be interested in hearing your views this morning.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Sasser. Thank you. Senator Mack.

Mr. Secretary, we turn to you now, and listen with great interest
to your statements and observations.

STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE H. SUMMERS, UNDER SECRETARY
OF THE TREASURY FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

Mr. Summers, Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I'm delighted to be here with this committee to discuss these
very important issues. I'll submit a prepared statement that goes
into more detail than what I'm going to say right now.

In a sense, the title of the report that we re submitting to you
is a bit of an anachronism. It's a bit of an anachronism because
international economic policy can no longer be delinked from do-
mestic economic policy.

Our prosperity at home depends upon our success abroad. It de-
pends on our success abroad particularly because of the critical role
of exports in promoting the health of the American economy.

The President has put forth a bold program of domestic revital-
ization that emphasizes increases in public investment, and also
emphasizes the critical role of budget deficit reduction in the long

run. That emphasis on budget deficit reduction corresponds to what
our allies have asked us to do for many years. It also provides us
with a key vehicle for addressing the problem of the twin deficits
that plagued us throughout the 1980's, a budget deficit and an as-
sociated trade deficit.

But if reductions in budget deficits are to succeed, we must see
interest rates decline, and we have seen interest rates decline. But
we must also see the trade deficit decline from where it would have
been because of the budget deficit reduction. One way that can
happen is the way we don't want it to happen, through a reduced
U.S. economy that's less strong and able to import less.

The way we want to see budget deficit reduction translate into
a reduced trade deficit is through increased U.S. exports. That's
why an export activist trade policy, directed at opening foreign
markets, is so important, and thats why macroeconomic coopera-
tion directed at spurring global growth is so important, as well.

I want to concentrate briefly, this morning, on the macro-
economic element of a strategy. It's a critical time. The U.S. econ-
omy, as Senator Riegle said, is recovering, but the recovery is slow-
er than we would like it to be, and certainly does not have the kind
of job creation impact that we would like it to have.

The economies of Europe and Japan are not as far along in the
cycle as we are, and so recovery is less clearly underway, and in-
deed in Europe, there is substantial evidence of continuing eco-
nomic decline. This is a problem for the citizens of the industri-
alized world where unemployment in the industrialized world is
steadily increasing. It is also a problem for us because slow growth
abroad means slow growth in the demand for U.S. exports, and it
also means more protectionist pressure and more resistance to
entry by U.S. firms into foreign markets.

That's why, as Senator Sasser said. President Clinton and Sec-
retary Bentsen have made revitalization of the G-7 process such a
key priority. And I think we've been very successful so far. In the
first 100 days of the administration, there were three G-7 Finance
Ministers meetings. There was meaningful dialog at those meet-
ings.

Secretary Bentsen's taking a somewhat different approach to the
process than has been taken before; much more emphasis on quiet
cooperation directed at real results and much less emphasis on
public hectoring.

We've seen the first fruits of that policy. Japan has taken a first
step toward stimulating its economy, toward increasing domestic
demand, using fiscal policy, in order to encourage its economy to
grow more rapidlv, and be in a position to accept more imports.

In Europe, we have seen German interest rates decline, as condi-
tions for relatively stable inflation have been laid through reduced
budget deficits and through some favorable wage settlements.

\^'ve seen French interest rates decline quite substantially fol-
lowing the French election to the point where the spread between
French and German interest rates has largely disappeared. But the
world growth problem remains. Even with all of these measures,
international organizations are forecasting relatively slow growth.
And so, as we move toward the summit and beyond, we're going
to need more to spur growth in the industrialized world.

Let me also comment, briefly, on what has been an important
subject in these reports in the past; the question of specific coun-
tries that may be manipulating their exchange rates.

In our continuing review of newly industrialized economies in
Asia and China, the Treasury has concluded that China continues
to manipulate its foreign exchange system in a manner that pre-
vents effective balance of payments adjustment. China has contin-
ued to sustain global trade and current account surpluses, and its
bilateral trade surplus with the United States grew to $18 billion
on 1992.

These outcomes, as well as the pervasive and inflexible restric-
tions on access to foreign exchange in China — and I would stress
the importance of those restrictions in our thinking — ^measures
which deny potential importers of American goods in China the op-
portunity to get access to foreign exchange to import those goods,
underlie our conclusion. I have stressed, in my talks with Chinese
officials, that the recent narrowing of China's global surplus re-
flects the overheating of the economy and that this surplus, be-
cause it reflects the overheating of the economy, will probably be
reversed as growth drops to a more sustainable pace. Therefore, it
cannot be interpreted as indicating that there is no further need
for liberalization of the foreign exchange regime.

You will note that we no longer find that Taiwan is a manipu-
lator. While Taiwan does still nave global trade and current ac-
count surpluses, these surpluses have declined. Also, Taiwan does
not appear to be intervening in exchange markets to manipulate
the value of its currency or to limit appreciation. Nevertheless,
since the tools that could bring that about remain, i.e., continue to
be in the hands of the Taiwanese authorities, we will monitor the
situation in Taiwan very closely.

That concludes my remarks. I'd be happy to answer questions.

Senator Sasser. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.

A little over a month ago, the Japanese Government announced
a fiscal stimulus package that received substantial acclaim around
the world. And I must say, however, that I was surprised to see
that even with the announcement of that stimulus package, the
International Monetary Fund [IMF] still predicts only 1.3 percent
real growth in Japan this year. Am I correct in my reading of this
report? Does the IMF 1.3 percent growth figure include the stimu-
lus package?

Mr. Summers. I believe it does.

Senator Sasser. That was the stimulus package has been var-
iously reported about $116 billion to $119 billion which would work
out, if that is really an accurate, if that is really a stimulus pack-
age, would work out to what? About 2 to 3 percent of the Japanese
GDP?

Mr. Summers. Senator Sasser, there are I think several points
one has to take account of in evaluating that stimulus package.

Senator Sasser. That's what I was going to come to, but go
ahead.

Mr. Summers. First, a substantial part of that stimulus package
doesn't really represent incremental government spending. It sim-
ply represents the government is making available loans to people
to make investments who otherwise would have been in a position

to borrow to make those investments in the private market. And
so this so-called FILP spending is not regarded by most economists
as providing additional stimulus.

Second, the stimulus package can't be evaluated wdthout looking
at what the benchmark is. ^d had there been no supplemental
stimulus package, Japanese fiscal policy would have been quite
contractionary this year, and so a significant part of the stimulus
really served to bring the budget up to the neutral level.

Once you take account of those two factors and some other tech-
nical issues, I think you come to the conclusion that the Japanese
fiscal package is a useful and valuable contribution toward global
growth, but it is one that leaves room for further efforts in the fu-
ture to spur domestic demand in Japan.

And that really is, I think, the critical priority. In the past, in
Japan, there have been periods of export-led growth, where the de-
mand from foreign sources has pulled the domestic economy along,
in a sense where domestic demand growth was less than domestic
supply growth. Now we need something. Now we're looking for
something quite different — a period of domestic demand-led growth
where a growth of domestic demand actually exceeds the growth of
production, so that you see the trade surplus come down.

Senator Sasser. Well according to the Nikkei Weekly, part of
this so-called stimulus package was to be paid for with higher
taxes. Moreover, this particular article that I allude to said that
much of the spending program was not, to use their term, "real
water." That it included things like purchases of public lands that
have little or no stimulative effect. And you've indicated that the
actual stimulus was overstated considerably.

What is the bottom line size of the package? And by that, I mean
the year over year change in the structural deficit or surplus?

Mr. Summers. There are a variety of different estimates, but I
think a fair characterization would be that there has been a modest
reduction in the Japanese structural surplus, that is far less than
1 percent of GNP, and that, with the package in place, the Japa-
nese budget in aggregate continues to be in surplus.

Senator Sasser. Isn't it sort of a rule of thumb among economists
that if you're going to get any genuine meaningful stimulus, you
have to come with about 1 percent of GDP in stimulus?

Mr. Summers. That would be a commonly accepted economic
proposition in discussions of many industrialized economies, yes.

Senator Sasser. Right. Do you agree with that, Mr. Secretary?
I'm not trying to put you on the spot. I want to get your opinion
about it.

Mr. Summers. I would have liked to see larger Japanese actions
to provide fiscal stimulus to their economy, but, as I said, I think
what we've seen is a useful step. We will in the G-7 process, be
discussing the importance of domestic demand-led growth, which is
best produced in Japan by fiscal policy, and is critical to a success-
ful Japanese recovery, and to a successful world economic recovery.

Senator Sasser. Let me ask you a fimdamental and basic ques-
tion. In view of the fact that we're running a trade deficit with the
Japanese of about $50 billion a year, how does it benefit our econ-
omy for the Japanese economy to be growing?

Mr. Summers. The more rapidly their economy g^ows, the larger
their market is, and the more imports of American goods that they
take. That's why I keep emphasizing domestic demand-led growth.
Crudely put, if you put more money in the hands of Japanese con-
sumers, they will buy more American goods.

If the government makes more purchases, particularly if it
makes the purchases appropriately, some of those purchases will
fall on American goods, and some of those purchases will fall on
Japanese goods, which will put money in Japanese workers' hands,
which will lead to increased purchases of American goods.

So it's growth, but I emphasize that it's domestic demand
gprowth. Domestic demand has to be the driving force in the growth,
not increased foreign sales, because of the large Japanese imbal-
ance.

Senator Sasser. Well, let's turn, for just a moment, to what's
happening in Europe. Now German short-term interest rates are at
about 8 percent. And we know that because of the exchange rate
mechanism, other European countries are effectively forced to keep
their interest rates up also. In other words, the deutschemark leads
the other currencies in Europe.

Now, with rates as high as 8 percent, you would expect there to
be substantial inflation in the German economy. But if you look at
the IMF figures, they report inflation in France is running at 2
percent. Inflation in Germany is running at about 3.4 percent after
you take out the one time 1 percent VAT tax increase.

Now next year, the IMF expects inflation in France and Grer-
many to be at about 2.5 percent, that's in 1994. Now if you subtract
that 2.5 percent inflation from the interest rate, you come up with
a real interest rate of in excess of 5 percent. Now that is a very,
very substantial real interest rate.

Dr. Summers, does this not suggest that there is considerable
room yet for European interest rates to come down, and specifically
German interest rates?

Mr. Summers. Mr. Chairman, for reasons that I think are clear
enough, administration officials traditionally are very reluctant to
make direct prescriptions as to what our own central bank should
do, let alone to the actions of the central banks of other countries.

I would say, however, two things.

First, a substantial part of the German situation is a con-
sequence of a very skewed fiscal/monetary mix, in many ways simi-
lar to the one we had in the United States in the early 1980's.

The German equivalent of the defense build-up and the Kemp-
Roth tax cut is the actions that are being taken to spur East Ger-
man reconstruction — in the context of German unification.

Those high real interest rates are a consequence of very expan-
sionary fiscal policy, mirrored by tight monetary policy to keep in-
flation under control. The real interest rates are extremely high,
and they are having substantial consequences in the rest of Eu-
rope, but I think it's important to understand that their fundamen-
tal source lies in the very dramatic change in the fiscal/monetary
mix that we've seen in Germany.

I think that we're seeing some of the preconditions for lower in-
terest rates, and indeed the pace of interest rate reduction in Ger-
many has increased in the last several months. And I would cite

increasingly favorable inflation figures, increasingly favorable wage
settlement figures, some improvement of figures in terms of money
growth, and the Solidarity Pact that will help control budget den-
cits. These are factors working in the direction of making it easier
for interest rates to come down over time.

But there's no question that the situation is a very difficult one,
and wherever you have real interest rates in the 5 to 6 percent
range, you are going to have very real strains.

Senator Sasser. well, of course we're all aware that the Ger-
mans have an historic fear of inflation that goes back to their expe-
rience after the First World War, but I don't think it's exaggeration
to say that the rest of Europe and the United States, to some ex-
tent, are helping, are suffering economically from the German ef-
fort to finance the German unification.

In other words, that's the reason for an expansive fiscal policv
which the reaction is a very restrictive monetary policy. So I think
you could make the case that, to some extent, the rest of Europe
and the United States are helping shoulder the burden of German
reunification. It seems as if we never get World War II behind us.

Let me turn to Senator Mack for any questions he might have.

Senator Mack.

Senator Mack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to pick up on where I left off with my opening statement.
In essence, you have said that you believe that manipulation of ex-
change rates is inappropriate, and again, I support you. But I won-
der, though, what you would say in response to headlines like the
one that was in a Wall Street Journal op ed piece, "Yen Apprecia-
tion Does Reduce Japan's Surplus." Since you have been so force-
fully against exchange rate manipulation, how would you respond
to those in favor of manipulating currencies to address our trade
deficit with Japan?

Mr. Summers. Let me first just clarify that administration ex-
change rate policy continues to be along the lines of the statement
that Secretary Bentsen made at the end of April, that was em-
bodied in the communique of the G— 7 Ministers.

It recognizes that exchange rates need to reflect economic fun-
damentals. It rejects artificial influence on or manipulation of ex-
change rates. It recognizes that excess volatility can be counter-
productive, and indicates that we stand ready to cooperate with our
partners in foreign exchange markets. So that

Senator Mack. That's a statement that basically says we really
didn't mean the things that we said earlier. It was not to be a pol-
icy statement, but the idea that the dollar is valued too high with
respect to the yen is not statements we would expect to hear then
in me future?

Mr. Summers. We reject, as I said, manipulation of exchange
rates, and it is our firm conviction that there is no way to devalue
yourself into prosperity. And that that is not a viable strategy for
producing prosperity.

At the same time, I would emphasize that exchange rates do, as
we say, reflect fundamentals, and that fundamentals are influenced
by changing cyclical conditions and by changing monetary and fis-
cal policies in different countries. And while I have very firmly re-
jected manipulation of exchange rates as a strategy for trying to do

something about trade balances or anything else, I think it is im-
portant to recognize as an analytic proposition that, when exchange
rates move, they do have an impact on competitiveness. And that
there is that impact which does, over time, show up in trade flows.
But that in no way justifies or constitutes any argument for a pol-
icy of trying to devalue your way into prosperity.

Senator Mack. OK, I appreciate that comment. I'd like to shift
to Russia for a moment, and the pursuit of an idea that I have
raised on several occasions, and has been discussed for quite some
time, and that's the concept of using a currency board or something
similar to a currency board to try to get a hold of the inflation rate.

I guess the whole thing I'm driving at is we're going to provide
some $28 billion in assistance to Russia despite a 300 percent rate
of inflation there. Basically, what we will be giving them will be
gone within a very short period of time.

There is a better way. Both Argentina and Estonia have recently
linked their currency to a hard currency using elements of the cur-
rency board concept. Both saw inflation drop significantly, in fact,
almost immediately.

The Estonian experience was so successful that Jeffrey Sachs
and the IMF were both claiming credit for it in a World Bank
newsletter, though I believe the Estonians really pursued it on
their own.

Now, I know that the Russian Government and the Central Bank
have reached a new agreement to control inflation, but knowledge-
able Russians are already saying that the new agreement is almost
certain to be violated.

I believe a currency board would be a great solution, perhaps the
only solution that has a chance. Have you been looking into sta-
bilizing the Russian currency through a currency board? And have
you had discussions with the Russians with respect to this?

Mr. Summers. Senator Mack, I think there's a great deal of
power in the concept. The Estonian experience, and to a lesser ex-
tent, because the economies are different, the Argentinean experi-
ence, are examples for other countries is a good example — for other
countries, to a somewhat lesser extent, because the economies are
more different, such as the Argentinean experience.

But I think if you look carefully at those experiences, what you
see is that the fixed exchange rate currency board concept was very
powerful in providing credibility and in facilitating stabilization.
But the success of the stabilization program was ultimately an-
chored and dependent, not on the establishment of a currency
board, but on the government's taking the difficult measures to re-
duce the budget deficit and to control the growth of credit to enter-
prises.

If you don't control the growth of credit to enterprises, no matter
what your exchange rate mechanism is, you're not going to viably
stop inflation. So I think the first priorities in Russia have to in-
volve staunching these rather enormous credit flows, controlling
the budget deficit by reducing subsidies and the like, and charging
firms something that approaches a market interest rate.

As long as you're printing money at a fierce clip, and as long as
there are political pressures that can't be resisted to provide this

credit, no exchange rate system is really going to viably protect
against inflation.

I think that after you have some clear commitments to imple-
ment these fundamental policies, then systems that rely on pegging
the exchange rate in one way or another, perhaps a currency board
concept, can make a very valuable contribution to stability.

Senator Mack. The concept has been used in Russia twice before.
It's in use todav in Hong Kong. And I don't know that I know
enough to be able to get into a discussion with you about the other
factors necessary and the total experience with respect to Argen-
tina and Estonia.

But it seems to me, again, when we're asking the American peo-
ple to participate in assistance to the country, that we would want
the kinds of assurances that vou had mentioned in your statement.
Certainly I hope we wouldn t be prepared to go ahead with that
$28 billion without those kind of assurances.

And I guess the last point that I would make is that I'm not talk-
ing about imposing a currency board as the only mechanism. I
would suggest that the currency board could issue a parallel cur-
rency, if you will. A hard ruble issued by a currency board would
drive out the soft rubles issued by the central bank, on the theory
that good money drives out bad. It is clear to me that if you have
a currency board, you're going to see the Russian people wanting
this currency that has real value to it.

I'm not trying to get a commitment out of you that this is the
way to go. What I really would like to hear from you, though, is
whether there is a willingness on your part and the Treasuiy s to
get into some discussions about this concept of a currency board
with the Russians. Because I have heard that there are a number
of Russians who are interested in this idea, and I think we ought
to be pursuing it.

Mr. Summers. Let me start by saying, Senator, that the Treas-
ury absolutely believes that the control of inflation is absolutely
critical to the Russian reform effort. History teaches us that there's
never been a stable democracy with hyper-inflation. Gretting control
of the inflationary process is absolutely central to the reform effort
in general, and to ensuring that any other assistance money is
used wisely — ^that, for example, farmers plant seeds, rather than
plant deposits in Swiss bank accounts, requires getting control of
the inflation process.

There is no question that institutional monetary arrangements
like currency boards can make an enormous contribution to the
control of inflation. And we hope and expect that it will be a sub-
ject that will come up in our discussions and the IMF's discussions
with Russia on monetary arrangements.

I would stress the near term preconditions for that to work. A
budget deficit that is under control and reduced credit growth have
to be our top priorities.

And, finally, I would express some reservation about parallel cur-
rency systems, which I do think have a great deal of potential to
produce instability, as people rush into one currency and out of the
other, and the other currency hyper-inflates. I would rather see a
more pure system than a parallel currency system.

Senator Mack. I would make the point, Dr. Summers, that
frankly there is already a dual system under way in Russia today,
anyway. As a matter of fact, most economists indicate that the dol-
lar is more important than the ruble. At least, there is movement
away from the ruble to the dollar. So I think there is value to the
concept of parallel currency. But we can discuss that later at some
other time.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might be able to — be permitted to
ask one additional question, because I am probably going to have
to leave.

Senator Sasser. All right.

Senator Mack, It has to do with China and the comments you
made with respect to China and the manipulation of their exchange
rate system, I think is the way you referred to it. And this is now
just land of one additional argument, if you will, for those of us
who have been making the case that there should not be an exten-
sion of most favored nation status to China.

How does the administration, given all the other debate that has
been going on about proliferation of weapons systems, human
rights concerns, and now this issue of manipulation of exchange
rates — ^how is it possible that China is ever going to take us seri-
ously?

President Clinton campaigned against the butchers of Beijing
and said he would not extend most favored nation status. And now
here you are this morning testifying that, in addition to all the
things that we have talked about for the last year or so, there is
an additional thing, and that is manipulation of the exchange rate
system. And how can the administration defend a position of ex-
tending most favored nation status?

Mr. Summers. I am not in a position to get ahead of the adminis-
tration in terms of describing its policy with respect to MFN exten-
sion for China. I don't think there is any question that there are
a variety of very real and important issues with respect to China
that concern American economic interests, American values, and
American security. But I am not in a position to get ahead of the
President in terms of describing or defending the administration's
policy with respect to future policy with respect to the MFN exemp-
tion.

Senator Mack. Let me make the point more focused, without
putting you in a position of having to stake out what the adminis-
tration's position might be. But my point is that if we do extend
it, then how are you going to convince the Chinese that they need
to do something about their exchange rate when they are not pre-
pared to move on something that he campaigned on, that the Con-
gress has been adamantly trying to make a statement about the
need to cut off most favored nation status? How in the world can
you ever — what is your leverage then? How are you going to con-
vince them that you really mean it?

Mr. Summers. I think on the narrow question of the exchange
rate, which really is a much narrower question than the broader
set of issues in the Chinese relationship, that there has been some
progress in the form of liberalization of the exchange rate system,
that we sense the likelihood that there will be further progress.

After all, the exchange rate is now at a level where the black
market exchange rate is 50 percent lower than the existing ex-
change rate. That tells you, I think, something. The fact that the
global surplus has declined considerably tells you something as
well. And we made very clear that, in the context of China's desire
to join the GATT, the exchange rate issue will be one that figures
centrally.

Senator Mack. And my last comment is that what I am saying
to you is I think you are going to find it extremely difficult for the
Chinese to take you seriously with what you are trying to accom-
plish with respect to exchange rates when we failed to move on
most favored nation status.

Senator Sasser. Thank you. Senator Mack.

We are pleased to have the former chairman of the subcommit-
tee. Senator Sarbanes, today to return to his old haunts here.

Senator Sarbanes.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PAUL S. SARBANES

Senator Sarbanes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
would like to make a brief opening statement before I put some
questions to Secretary Summers.

Senator Sasser. Absolutely.

Senator Sarbanes. We are very pleased to have the Under Sec-
retary here this morning to testify on the Treasury Department's
report to the Congress on international economic and exchange rate
policy. The 1988 Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act required
this report from the Treasury to Congress each year on economic
policy, including exchange rate policy, with a written update every
6 months after the initial report.

The report this morning is the out date of the fifth annual report
which was submitted toward the end of last year. The impetus for
this reporting requirement which we have now been pursuing since
the 1988 Act was experienced in the early 1980's when a rapid ap-
preciation of the dollar took place with no action by the administra-
tion then in power to respond to the increase. The result was a dev-
astating deterioration in the U.S. balance of trade that we are still
coping with today.

In fact, I spoke to Europeans at that time who could not under-
stand why the United States was refusing to address that over-
valued dollar. And it was not until Baker went to the Treasury in
the Plaza Accords that an effort was made to deal with it. Mean-
while, we were running these huge trade deficits. Our international
asset position deteriorated, and in fact so much that we went from
being a creditor to being a debtor country.

Last week, the Commerce Department released the U.S. mer-
chandise trade figures for March. The report showed that the U.S.
trade deficit increased by $10 million in March alone and by over
$25 billion during the first 3 months of this year.

There has been a very disturbing deterioration in our trade bal-
ance. Last year, it deteriorated to $84 billion, an increase of almost
$18 billion from the $66 billion trade deficit in 1991. And this year
it looks like it is going to go over $100 billion.

The major challenge for the new administration will be to come
to grips with the stagnation in the world economy to find a means

to stimulate world economic growth. And therefore, we of course
are interested in the Gr-7 plans.

Secretary Bentsen in February made a concerted effort in that
regard and we have seen some positive action from both the (Ger-
mans and the Japanese. And I am very concerned about or inter-
ested in what the administration's plans are for the July economic
summit in this regard.

Now the 1988 Trade bill also requires the Treasury Secretary to
analyze exchange rate policies of foreign governments and to con-
sider whether they are mtmipulating the rate of exchange between
their currency and the U.S. dollar for purposes of preventing effec-
tive balance of pajonents, adjustments, or gaining unfair competi-
tive advantage in international trade.

I think members of this committee regard this as a very impor-
tant provision that was designed as a mechanism to help prevent
a recurrence of the developments about which I spoke earlier by
improving the dialog between the executive branch and the Con-
gress. That report has been taken seriously by this committee. In
fact, we have held a hearing on the report or its update each and
eveiy year.

As Chairman Sasser indicated, I was privileged to chair some of
those hearings and I am delighted that his first hearing as chair-
man of this subcommittee is on this very important issue here this
morning. It seems to me there is reason to be concerned about the
international economic outlook.

The interim committee of the board of governors of the IMF at
its April 30 meeting said:

With economic stagnation or decline in most of Europe, only tentative indications
of an upturn in Japan, and quite gradual recovery in the United States, 1993 will
be the third straight year of generally poor growth for industrial countries.

Now if the Treasury finds that manipulation is occurring with re-
spect to countries that have material global current account sur-
pluses, have significant bilateral trade surpluses with the United
States, Treasury is required to initiate negotiations with such for-
eign countries to ensure that they regularly and promptly adjust
the rate of exchange between their currencies and the U.S. dollar
to permit effective balance of payments adjustments and to elimi-
nate the unfair advantage.

Now in the report submitted last year, Treasury found both
China and Taiwan were manipulating the exchange rate of their
currencies within the terms of the statute. In the update submitted
this morning, Treasury has determined that China is continuing to
manipulate its currency within the terms of the statute to gain un-
fair competitive advantage in international trade. And it is to
China that I first want to direct my attention.

The United States bilateral trade deficit with China in 1992 was
$18.2 billion, second in size only to our trade deficit with Japan.
During the first 3 months of this year, the U.S. balance of trade
with China has continued to deteriorate. And therefore, I think
that raises a very serious problem in trade relations, and indeed
not only in trade relationships, in the basic relationship between
our two countries. Of course, you were in China only recently; is
that correct?

Mr. Summers. I was in China, not as a United States Treasury
official, but as a World Bank official late last summer.

Senator Sarbanes. Who went to China recently from the admin-
istration to raise our concern over a number of these issues that
are on the agenda?

Mr. Summers. I believe that was Winston Lord, who is the As-
sistant Secretary of State for that area.

Senator Sarbanes. Well, is the Treasury in negotiation with the
Chinese over this currency manipulation issue?

Mr. Summers. We are engaged in discussions with the Chinese
Central Bank and Minister of Finance, yes.

Senator Sarbanes. Mr. Secretary, am I correct, I believe that
China's economy is growing? In fact, you say it right in your state-
ment. The Chinese economy has grown enormously in recent years
and continues to exhibit tremendous potential growth. Last year
exceeded 12 percent. Is that real growth?

Mr. Summers. Yes, it is.

Senator Sarbanes. Real growth of 12 percent. In the first quar-
ter of this year it will reach 14 percent on an annual basis. What
is the real growth rate in the United States?

Mr. Summers. It was 1.8 percent in the first quarter. Senator,
based on very preliminary estimates. And we are expecting some-
where in the 3 percent range over the course of this year.

Senator Sarbanes. 1.8 percent in the first quarter and you're
hoping for 3 percent for the year. And the Chinese are going to be
at 14 percent this year?

Mr. Summers. Well, they are certainly growing much more rap-
idly than we are. Fourteen percent in the first quarter is not sus-
tainable over the course of the rest of the year.

Senator Sarbanes. Now, of course, if they are building up a
trade surplus, exporting more than they are importing, that con-
tributes to the growth of their economy, does it not, in a very sig-
nificant and substantial way?

Mr. Summers. It certainly does.

Senator Sarbanes. And they are achieving that trade perform-
ance in part, at least, perhaps in very substantial part, by manipu-
lating their currency?

Mr. Summers. Senator, we have labeled them a manipulator be-
cause we see critical problems with their exchange rate system.
But I would note that the Chinese global surplus is not likely to
be very large this year.

Senator Sarbanes. Why do you think that is? What do you think
is happening that leads the Chinese — this is an interesting point
and I would like to explore it with you for a moment. What is it
that — ^why is it that they are running these very large trade sur-
pluses with the United States but not elsewhere, if that is correct?
Is there an accounting difficulty or other countries in their trade
relations with China sort of — are they demanding greater reciproc-
ity, more quid pro quo in the trading arrangements and not allow-
ing this escalation of a very large trade deficit which we have per-
mitted to happen? Now I am not really hanging this on you. When
were you sworn into office?

Mr. Summers. April 5.

Senator Sarbanes. Well, you haven't been there long enough yet
to really alter the situation. You have inherited a situation. But
what is happening?

Mr. Summers. I think there are a couple of different things to
say. One is, as the Chinese economy is growing so rapidly, its de-
mand for imports, both of consumer goods and capital goods, is in-
creasing very rapidly. And Uiat is causing, all the time, its surplus
to come down.

Senator Sarbanes. That is not growing with us, though, is it?
Let me show you this chart.

[Laughter.]

Senator Sarbanes. I mean, it is an interesting point. In fact,
you're saying their economy is growing 12 percent real ^owth last
year, 14 percent this year. Therefore, they are pulling in imports
from elsewhere. And yet, our trade imbalance is going up in a very
significant way. What I am getting at is I am beginning now to sus-
pect that other countries in their trading arrangements with China
are insisting that there be some reciprocity, that it be a two-way
street. And the U.S. relationship is essentially a one-way street.

Now this line here, that is our exports to China. They have risen
somewhat. But I don't think anyone would regard this as signifi-
cant. This is 1981 and we were here, and this is 1993 and we are
there.

[Indicating.]

Senator Sarbanes. A little higher; not much.

What has happened is that the imports from China into the
United States have just escalated, particularly beginning in about
1986, 1987, at a phenomenal rate. And this is this climbing line
here. And, of course, this gap is reflected in the deterioration and
in the trade balance.

Now, every time we start talking about this China trade relation-
ship, we get these people, some of our colleagues even, running on
the floor and they talk about our exports to China. Well, there are
some exports, but they are not growing. What is really growing are
our imports from China.

Now the imports from China mean iobs in China, not here. And
in fact, I think the United States trade deficit accounts for almost
all of the Chinese positive trade balance worldwide; is that correct?
Actually it may account for more. What is the Chinese trade bal-
ance worldwide?

Mr. Summers, Senator, I am not trying to be evasive.

Senator Sarbanes. I hope not.

Mr. Summers. The difficulty is that the data used in calculating
the U.S. surplus that you have reflected in your chart here are
based on one set of concepts, used by the Department of Commerce,

The data used in calculating the Chinese global surplus are
based on another set of concepts. The difference arises when goods
are exported from one country to a third country and then re-ex-
ported, which is a very large issue with respect to China, given the
importance of Hong Kong and its trade. And so for that reason, we
do not have a set of data on a comparable basis that include the
Chinese bilateral relationship with the United States and the Chi-
nese global relationship. And that makes it difficult to give a mean-
ingful answer to your question. What I think we can

Senator Sarbanes. Is it not possible to provide data using the
same concepts?

Mr. Summers. I will make available to you the best possible
analysis. But essentially

Senator Sarbanes. Having done that best possible analysis, and
using comparable concepts, what do you find the Chinese world
trade balance to be and what do you find the United States trade
balance to be?

Mr. Summers. The Chinese world trade balance is substantially
lower than the Chinese-United States trade balance.

Senator Sarbanes. So in other words, the United States is more
than providing all of China's world trade positive balance; is that
correct?

Mr. Summers. In an arithmetic sense, it is. In a different sense,
however, China is running a significant deficit vis a vis Hong Kong.
And that is a consequence of goods that China is exporting to Hong
Kong, which are then exportea to the United States.

Senator Sarbanes. Where are those goods produced? In China?

Mr. Summers. In China, yes.

Senator Sarbanes. So those goods mean jobs in China?

Mr. Summers. Yes.

Senator Sarbanes. So it is reasonable, isn't it, that those goods
would be included in the Chinese figures and not in the Hong Kong
figures? I mean, I understand. What the Chinese as I understand
it seek to do is they say, well, we're not running this large trade
deficit with you because you are running the trade deficit with
Hong Kong, because they are sending the goods to Hong Kong and
Hong Kong sends them to the United States. Hong Kong is their
passthrougn, their port of departure. But the goods are being pro-
duced in the PRC, are they not? And when we make a calculation,
we attribute them to the PRC, don't we, when we do our own bilat-
eral calculation?

Mr. Summers. I can promise you that the note we will send you
will be accurate. I cannot promise you that what I am saying now
is precisely accurate. But I think the issue also involves the exports
that go firom the United States through Hong Kong to China, which
show up as United States exports to Hong Kong, even though they
are ultimately intended for Chinese destination.

The key point is that China runs a deficit globally with Hong
Kong. That means that they are importing more from Hong Kong
than they are exporting to Hong Kong. And some of those imports
from Hong Kong have United States production behind them. And
that is one of the reasons why the exports figure on your graph
does not show so much growth.

Senator Sarbanes. Now that is an interesting point. We really
need — because I am now looking at actually the chart in your re-
port just submitted to us this morning, on the last page. And it
shows that the trade imbalance between the United States and
Hong Kong in 1992 was minus $700 million; is that correct?

Mr. Summers. Yes, that is correct.

Senator Sarbanes. Well, that is not even an offset. It is just —
it compounds the deficit problem; isn't that right? In other words
as I understood your answer just now, you were suggesting that
there was significant United States exports going to Hong Kong

which then passed through to China which are not counted in the
China trade balance. And therefore, we should, if we really equal-
ized these concepts, we ought to take that into account.

Namely, if we are counting goods coming out of China and pass-
ing through Hong Kong to the United States to the PRC and the
trade relationship, that we should count goods going into Hong
Kong and on to the PRC and the trade relationship.

Now I don't know whether they are being counted or not, but in
any event, even if they are not, the order of magnitude is not very
great. And in any event, it is negative. So it only worsens this pic-
ture that I have presented this morning, wouldn't that be correct?

Mr. Summers. It is certainly correct that if you take the United
States deficit with the whole Chinese area that includes Hong
Kong and Taiwan, that that is greater than the United States defi-
cit with just the PRC.

Senator Sarbanes. You treat Taiwan differently?

Mr. Summers. Hong Kong. It is certainly true if you take — it
looks like it is true that if you take the United States deficit with
China plus Hong Kong, it is bigger than the United States deficit
with China.

Senator Sarbanes. Right.

Mr. Summers. But I think that, if you want to understand the
global Chinese figures, which is what I was referring to, and why
the global Chinese figure is low, even though the surplus with the
United States is high, that you cannot just attribute it to other
countries' demanding more effective reciprocity. But you have to
recognize that some of that is due to the Chinese deficit with Hong
Kong. And the Chinese deficit with Hong Kong has to do with
something other than the demanding of reciprocity.

Just how important these adjustments for flow through with
Hong Kong are with respect to the United States versus how im-
portant they are with respect to Japan, Europe, China's other trad-
ing partners, is something we will have to do some analysis of and
get back to you on.

Senator Sarbanes. Mr. Secretary, let me make this final obser-
vation. I am told that a number of the European countries press
a very hard reciprocity position with the PRC. And that, in effect,
they say, look, we are not going to let your exports to us escalate
unless we get a comparable access into your market. And the con-
sequence, since we apparently are not doing that, is that the Euro-
peans are getting part of that market that otherwise might come
to the United States. Because the Chinese, if they are manipulat-
ing the trade with us, they are in a position to manipulate it with
the Europeans. And if the Europeans are driving, as it were, a
harder bargain or insisting on reciprocity and are getting it, then
we are the ones that are being disadvantaged.

We get all these people in this country who talk about the great
China market when the exports have not significantly gone up and
the imports are going up at an astronomical rate.

Mr. Chairman, the red light is on. I will stop here. I would like
to come back witn another round.

Senator Sasser. Sure.

Mr. Summers. Let me promise that we will get back to you, Sen-
ator Sarbanes, on the analysis of the composition of China's global

trade position vis a vis different regions of the world and how it
is influenced by the poHcies of those different regions of the world
as well as by these data issues that I mentioned.

Senator Sasser. Thank you, Senator Sarbanes.

Mr. Secretary, following up on Senator Sarbanes's line of ques-
tioning here, using your chart, if we look at the trade deficit that
the United States is running with China, it is steadily going up
from 1985, where there was a trade balance, jumping steadily to
now we have an $18.3 billion trade deficit. And it just comes up
incrementally year by year.

Now the question comes, what concrete steps is the administra-
tion prepared to take to reduce China's trade surplus? Is the ad-
ministration prepared to use section 301 authority to sanction the
Chinese?

Mr. Summers. I am reluctant to get ahead of the President and
Ambassador Kantor on the question of specific trade measures. I
can say that I am very confident that the administration will vigor-
ously pursue the opening of the Chinese market.

Senator Sasser. I am pleased to hear that. And I think what you
can take away from this hearing here today and impart to your col-
leagues in the administration, there is great concern here at least
with regard to members of the subcommittee, and I think a broad
concern across the Senate, that we are greatly concerned about this
growing trade imbalance between the United States and the PRC,
particularly in light of the evidence, and I think uncontroverted
evidence, that the PRC has been manipulating their currency.

Now, following up on that question, many of our exporters com-
plain about the predatory trading practices of the Europeans and
the Japanese. And clearly, currency manipulation by the Chinese
would fall within this category as well.

Now, some years ago, we created here a so-called War Chest
within the Export Import Bank in order to give the executive
branch some flexibility in responding to the predatory practices of
so many other coimtries. Now the question is, could EXIM's War
Chest or some other program provide an effective response to the
kinds of currency manipulation now being undertaken by the Chi-
nese?

Mr. Summers. Let me get back to you on that. My understanding
was that it was usually to be used in situations where other coun-
tries were being predatory in their export financing practices when
selling in third markets. And I am not sure that, given the basic
problem of the Chinese market being too closed because people can-
not get access to foreign exchange, now much we can do with the
War Chest. But let me look into that and get back to you.

Senator Sasser. All right. Let's get on a more positive line here.

I pointed out in my opening statement that the President has
tremendously enhanced the credibility of our country and his ad-
ministration in its role within the G-7. President Clinton has done
this by boldly stepping forward with an aggressive and courageous
deficit reduction plan. The attention span of many people in this
country is so short that they have forgotten that. And we see now
many of the same deficit hawks who for years have been complain-
ing that we need to reduce the deficit are now running around like

Chicken Little saying "the skv is falHng," and saying, "yes, we want
to reduce the deficit but not tnis way."

They cannot seem to come to gnps with the fact that reducing
the deficit is going to require some sacrifice, minimal sacrifice, I
might say, in most areas. And it might even involve some political
risk, minimal political risk, I might say, on the part of some politi-
cal leaders.

But in any case, I want to ask you this question, Mr. Secretary,
Is it not critical that this Congress pass the President's plan, that
is, his deficit reduction plan, in order to bolster the renewed credi-
bility that we are experiencing among our G-7 partners?

Mr. Summers. It is absolutely critical to U.S. capacity to provide
leadership in the Gr-7 that we carry through with the commitments
that the President has made to revitalize our economy. The critical
step in doing that is legislating the President's program of deficit
reduction.

The bond market response to that program since the election is
indicative of its importance and its credibility. I think it is critical
to our providing leadership that it be legislated as soon as possible.

Senator Sasser. Let me ask you this question. If we do move for-
ward and put in place the President's deficit reduction plan, would
we not then be in a much better position to go to our G-7 partners
and say to the Japanese, for example, look, you have got a situa-
tion here where your debt as a share of GDP is about 3 percent.
We are sitting here with debt as a percent of GDP of about 40 to
50 percent. That is net debt.

Now, we think you've got a responsibility to move forward and
stimulate your economy in a very meaningful way. And would we
not be in a better position to go to the Germans and say, look, you
know, we are getting our economic house in order here. And how
about bringing those rates down more and faster and let's get some
economic growth here going worldwide? Wouldn't we be in a better
position to say that if we passed this deficit reduction program the
President has put before the American people?

Mr. Summers. No question about it. It is integral to any effort
to promote international economic cooperation for growth.

Senator Sasser. And if we don't, conversely, are we right back
in the same old soup we have been in for years, where we say, you
do that, and they say, you do that, and nothing happens?

Mr. Summers. It would make things much more difficult.

Senator Sasser. I would like to get that on the record.

Now, with regard to the Japanese, Mr. Secretary, Dennis Incar-
nation, a professor at the Harvard Business School has written a
new book about the United States-Japanese relationship, entitled
Rivals Beyond Trade, and I don't know if you are familiar with this
book or not. But the thrust of it is this: in the book he argues that
a major reason for Japan's persistent trade surplus with our coun-
try is related to the gross imbalance in direct investment.

Japan, he argues, follows policies of restricting U.S. investment
in their country while their firms expand investment here. As a re-
sult, two thirds of all American imports from Japan are shipped as
"intracompany exports."

For example, Honda in Japan shipping to Honda in Marysville,
OH. And the parts are then assembled into an automobile. Toyota

in Japan ships to Toyota in Kentucky, and they are assembled into
a Toyota automobile and sold here.

Now the question I asked, do you think this point that is made
by Mr. Incarnation about the relationship of trade and investment
has merit?

Mr. Summers. I am not familiar with the details of his book. I
am familiar with the argument. If you look at United States for-
eign direct investment in Japan, it really stands out for being so
small. And I think that there is a very strong argument to be made
that increased foreign investment in Japan by the United States
would be export-creating, not export substituting.

The question you always have to ask about evaluating foreign in-
vestment is: Is the foreign investment replacing prodfuetion that
otherwise would have taken place in the United States? Or is the
foreign production stimulating sales that will involve a larger con-
tent of imports from the United States than otherwise would have
taken place?

I am convinced that United States foreign direct investment to
Japan would be export-enhancing for the United States and I think
it is something that we therefore have to work to achieve.

Senator Sasser. What sort of policy should we adopt to further
that goal? Do you have any idea about that at this point?

Mr. Summers. I do not want to get ahead of the framework that
is in the process of being developed for the content of the United
States economic discussion with Japan over the next several years.
But I think that there is a very real chance that foreign investment
and policies directed at it will be included in that framework.

Senator Sasser. All right. Thanks.

Senator Sarbanes.

Senator Sarbanes. Mr. Secretary, on page 6 of your report, in
your table, you show the United States current account deteriorat-
ing from $62 billion last year to $101 billion this year and a further
deterioration to $131 billion next year. Now, this deteriorating
trend is obviously a core cause of real concern. You report earlier
on page 4 of the report, "IMF projections for growth this year are
zero ^r France, 0.3 percent for Italy, -1.3 percent for Germany."
Essentially, Europe is in deepening recession. And you also note
that Japan had the lowest growth in 20 years last year and it is
not expected to do better this year.

What actions ought to be taken to sort of alter this — I mean, we
are getting a stagnant or indeed recessionary situation worldwide
at a time when our own economy has yet to come out of the last
recession in any real sense. What ought to be done?

Mr. Summers. I think, as the report suggests, we see domestic
demand led growth on a large scale in Japan as an important pri-
ority. And we see the need for preconditions to be laid and then for
interest rates to fall in Europe so that there can be a revival of
growth in Europe. And I think those points — ^fiscal policy in Japan
and interest rates in Europe — are key to global growth.

Senator Sarbanes. First of all, the Japanese fiscal stimulus
tends to concentrate on infrastructure spending as a rule, which
fails to pull in a lot of imports.

Second, even if you have the possibility of increased imports, we
run into all of the Darriers and friction. And I don't know quite how

you're going to do the fiscal policy in a way to accomplish what you
just talked about.

Now, in Europe, the interest rates, that leads me into the fact
that the Wall Street Journal yesterday reported that the Federal
Reserve officials voted to lean toward higher interest rates at their
closed door meetings last week. I want to put this in a sort of calm
and reasonable way if I can.

Senator Sasser. I missed something there. Is the Senator refer-
ring to the open market committee leaning to higher interest rates
last week?

Senator Sarbanes. That's right.

As I understand it, two members wanted to take the rates up
and cast formal votes in favor of higher rates. And this I am now
reading in the Wall Street Journal report:

This suggests that some other Fed oflicials are sympathetic to the idea.

Now, given the weakness of the world economy, which we have
just discussed, and the tentativeness of the United States recovery,
do you think it would be wise for there to be a tightening of mone-
tary policy in the United States at this time?

Mr. Summers. I do not want to get into the business of making
prescriptions as to what the Federal Reserve system should do.
Growth is obviously a critical concern, and I think that, as one
looks at growth forecasts in the United States today, there is more
room on the down side for disappointment than there is room on
the up side for our growth — for too rapid growth to become a prob-
lem.

But one can never entirely discount the fear of inflation. And one
does have to be concerned by the recent inflation statistics. So I do
not want to get in the business

Senator Sarbanes. You are prepared to go to the Europeans and
urge them to lower interest rates at the same time you would be
prepared to raise interest rates in the United States as part of a
global strategy to get the world economy moving again; would that
be correct?

Mr. Summers. The Treasury does not, and certainly the Under
Secretary for International Affairs, does not, determine interest
rates in the United States. I did not make the suggestion about
what I was prepared to do with respect to U.S. interest rates. As
far as Europe is concerned

Senator Sarbanes. You want the Europeans to lower their rates?

Mr. Summers. As far as Europe is concerned, it would be desir-
able to see conditions for stable inflationary growth that would
make possible reductions in interest rates. The goal is not to try
to revive inflation in Europe, but the goal is to see the kinds of
moderation and budget deficits, moderation in wage growth, that
would make possible monetary stimulus through lower interest
rates to contribute to more rapid growth.

Senator Sarbanes. Now, Hobart Rowan had a column in the
Washington Post only a few days ago in which he said:

Besieged Clinton needs Fed help with economy.

You would not regard raising interest rates as constituting Fed
help, would you, with regard to the economy?

Mr. Summers. Clearly, higher interest rates do not contribute to
more rapid growth in the short run.

Senator Sarbanes. In fact, the Clinton fiscal policy is
contractionary, is it not?

Mr. Summers. I think in analyzing the fiscal policy you have to
look at what the effects of the fiscal policy are on long-run expecta-
tions in the bond market. And I think one recognizes the 75 basis
point reduction in long term rates we have seen as a consequence
of the program, that it quite clearly will have a net stimulative ef-
fect on the economy.

Senator Sarbanes. But you are depending on the interest rate
side of the economy to provide the stimulus, are you not. The tax-
ing and spending aspects of it are contractionary. It will take de-
mand out of the economy, will it not, in and of themselves? You
hope to offset it by an increased demand as a consequence of lower
interest rates; is that correct?

Mr. Summers. In a tautological sense, whenever you reduce the
budget deficit, you are reducing the net of spending and taxing as
a source of demand on the economy, so yes, the Clinton program
is one of deficit reduction. But we are convinced that it is one that
will be providing stimulus to the economy because of its impact on
expectations feeding through long term interest rates.

Senator Sarbanes. Suppose the Fed starts moving in the direc-
tion of a tighter monetary policy and raising interest rates? Doesn't
that directly contradict what you're trying to do?

Mr. Summers. If the Fed raises interest rates, as I said, I think
that will reduce growth, that will reduce growth relative to what
it otherwise would have been in the short nm. My hope is that in-
flation will not be a problem and that there will be no reason at
any point to adjust interest rates. But I think

Senator Sarbanes. Isn't there a danger that if you reduce growth
your deficit reduction program will in fact result in an increase in
the deficit? Reduced growth will contribute to the deficit problem,
will it not?

Mr. Summers. Yes, it will. And growth is a critical priority.
Growth is influenced by both fiscal and monetary policies. There is
no solution to any of this country's economic problems without
more rapid growth. But it is critical that the growth we get not be
a 6-month or a 1-year flash, but that the growth be sustainable.

I think the lesson that we have learned is that we have to focus
on the sustainability of growth as well, and it is for that reason as
well as the traditional boundaries that I am reluctant to make pre-
scriptions as to what the Federal Reserve should do.

Senator Sarbanes. How confident are you that there is going to
be 2 to 3 percent growth this year?

Mr. Summers. No economic forecaster is ever wise if he is very
confident in his forecasting. Two to 3 percent range

Senator Sarbanes. If the Congress carries out this
contractionary fiscal policy and if the Fed moves to a
contractionary monetary policy, would not that make it less likely
that we would achieve a 2 to 3 percent growth rate this year?

Mr. Summers. I don't think that there is any question that, in
the short run, short run contractionary policy is indeed
contractionary.

Senator Sarbanes. Let me just make this point. You just can-
not— the problem is that if you get these contractionary policies in
the short run, which increase your deficit problem, as they are very
likely to do, and also increase your unemployment problem and
your CTOwth problem, you are on a line that you simply cannot sus-
tain, because your problems are worsening and not getting better.
The trend line is not turning around for you.

And it seems to me that, you know, the administration — ^if the
Fed does not provide a monetary — as Rowan says here, "Besieged
Clinton needs Fed help with the economy," in fact he concludes by
sajdng that Greenspan should be urged to nudge money rates down
further.

Senator Sasser. This is Hobart Rowan?

Senator Sarbanes. Yes. And not have this story here that they
are considering raising rates. I mean, we are really eoing to be in
the soup if we have a contractionary fiscal policy ana, at the same
time, the Fed moves toward a contractionary monetary policy.

And it seems to me — I mean, I think that you have indicated
some concern, although I know that you're trying to be careful
here. But at some point, it seems to me, that if tne Fed is not going
to help this expansion, I don't know wnere the expansion is going
to come from. And if we do not get the expansion, we are going to
have a problem on the jobs front, on the growth front, and on the
deficit front. And I don't see how you can go to the Europeans £ind
ask them to cut their rates and to start to get things moving and
at the same time the rates are being raised in the United States.

Mr. Summers. Senator Sarbanes, I would just say that I share
your concern about the absolute centrality of growth to everything
the administration is trying to achieve. I would note that growth
depends upon short term interest rates and on long term interest
rates, and that long term interest rates have a great deal to do
with inflation expectations and the credibility of tne policy that is
being pursued. But I don't think there is any question that the top
priority for economic policy over the next year has to be accelerat-
ing the rate of growth in the American economy.

Senator Sarbanes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Sasser. I thank you. Senator Sarbanes.

One final question, Mr. Secretary. I am concerned about the
Treasury's new report that shows that Japan's global trade surplus
is going to mushroom to $130 bilHon this year. $50 billion of that
will be with the United States.

Now, on April 28, the New York Times, in an article entitled
"U.S. Wants Group 7 to Focus on Trade," you Mr. Secretary were
portrayed as showing exasperation with Japan's trade surpluses
and trade practices. You were quoted as saying:

Trade imbalances between countries say something important about the openness
of markets and the fairness of competition in these markets.

If you are fairly quoted and if you were exasperated, I say bully
for you and would urge you on along that line.

Now, what specific steps is this administration planning to take
to open up Japan's markets to us? Are macropolicies enough to try
to get that done or not?

Mr. Summers. At the meeting that President Clinton had with
Prime Minister Miazawa, the absolute importance of the economic

relationship to the broader relationship between the two countries
was stressed. And at that time, the President very clearly called for
economic discussions to take on new energy.

The framework for those discussions is being developed, and I
don't think it would be appropriate for me to go into detail on it
here. I would say that framework is premised on the recognition
of two important issues with respect to Japan's trade patterns.

One is what one might refer to as the imbalance problem that
is heavily macroeconomic in nature, and it refers to the gaps be-
tween savings and investment and to the $130 billion global sur-
plus that you referred to.

The other is what one might refer to as the penetration problem,
the fact that even when Japan's current account surplus was sig-
nificantly reduced, as it was at the beginning of this decade, there
were still very substantial trade concerns having to do with ability
of businesses from other countries to penetrate the Japanese mar-
ket.

That penetration problem is perhaps manifested by comparisons
of quantity of Japanese manufactured imports relative to our goods
market, with that in other countries. And that penetration problem
is a second problem that has to be addressed, and it has to be ad-
dressed through measures that relate to trade policies.

Obviously the two reinforce each other. A more open Japanese
market will respond more to stimulus in terms of imports. A grow-
ing Japanese economy will be one where there will be more politi-
cal pressure to liberalize things.

But I am confident that we will be able to pursue actively the
question of the economic relationship with Japan addressing both
the imbalance problem and the penetration problem with tools that
are both macroeconomic and microeconomic. In a sense, they are
like blades of a scissors. You cannot make economic progress with-
out using both of them.

Senator Sasser. Do you have any further questions?

Senator Sarbanes. I have one, Mr. Chairman.

I want to briefly address the Taiwan situation. And of course, we
run with Taiwan our third largest trade imbalance, a very large
one, given the size of the respective economies.

Taiwan actually has the world's second largest foreign exchange
reserves, not relative to their economy, but in absolute terms. I
mean, it is just — any table you look at, that figure sort of leaps out
at you.

Now, you say in your report that it is your judgment that they
are not at this time manipulating the rate of exchange for purposes
of preventing effective balance of payments adjustment or gain in
unfair competitive advantage in international trade. You then go
on, on page 18, to say that:

Meetings were held with Taiwan authorities after determining before that it was
manipulating its currency. Despite these negotiations, Taiwan has not made any
significant changes in the array of controls and practices that provide the authori-
ties with sufficient scope to manipulate or strongly influence the exchange rates.

And then you say, the central bank promised to review them. No
significant action has subsequently been taken.

The Taiwan authorities appear to hope that by retaining the ca-
pability to manipulate or strongly influence the exchange rates.

they will be able to slow or avoid the gradual internationalization
of the NT dollar that should accompany the island's growing eco-
nomic stature as a global trader and investor.

Now what it appears is that Taiwan has kept in place all of the
mechanisms to manipulate its exchange rates while refraining, for
the moment, from actually doing so. Now, that is better than actu-
ally doing it, but it still means that this whole system is there. The
control regime is there.

And what is your reaction to that and how important an objec-
tive is it to actually get the dismantling of that control regime?
Otherwise, even the presence of it constitutes, I would think, some
influence and restraint on normal operations. And, of course, it
could be kicked back in at any time.

Mr. Summers. We will certainly continue to work at that and we
will be vigilant with respect to the possibility that those mecha-
nisms will be used again for the purpose of manipulation.

But, at this point we felt that enough progress had been made
and results in terms of Taiwan's trade patterns had changed
enough that it would be inappropriate to label them as a manipu-
lator. But that does not mean that the process of our dialog with
them will stop.

Senator Sarbanes. I want it understood that we are following
this matter very closely. And, as reflected, we were reading your
total report on Taiwan and I identified what I thought was the im-
derpinning. There is a difference between the underpinning and
what is happening, and it is simply through self-restraint, as it
were. And that, I think, ought to remain a matter of concern with
respect to this matter. I assume that Taiwan will again be ad-
dressed with great care and scrutiny in the report that will be com-
ing to us in the fall.

Mr. Summers. Absolutely.

Senator Sarbanes. Thank you very much.

Senator Sasser. Thank you very much, Senator Sarbanes. I will
just end the hearing this morning on this note, Mr. Secretary. I
want to commend you and the administration for reinvigorating G^
7, the Gr-7 negotiations, and I think that is very, very important
and I agree with you that if we continue to have any credibility
with the G-7 it is very, very important that we pass the adminis-
tration's deficit reduction program her in the Congress.

I also would like to say that I think Senator Sarbanes is right
on target in his statement that if we are going to pass the Clinton
deficit reduction program, which is going to put in place a mod-
erately restrictive fiscal policy at a time when the country is expe-
riencing very slow economic growth, it is imperative that we have
cooperation on the monetary side from the Fed.

And I think it is unthinkable that they be contemplating raising
rates at this particular time, at a very critical, crucial time, as I
think this economy and as the world economies are striving hard
to try to reach some level of economic growth and recovery.

The committee is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

[Prepared statement of witness and additional material for the
record follow:]

STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE H. SUMMERS
UNDER SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY

May 25, 1992

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: It is a pleasure to be here today
to present the Treasury Department's spring 1993 Report on International Economic
and Exchange Rate Policy.

The title of the Report is becoming increasingly outmoded. The distinction be-
tween domestic and international economic policy no longer exists, if it ever did.
Today, for example exports and imports each account for roughly 11 percent of na-
tional income. In recent years, over half of U.S. income growth and almost all of
our growth in manufacturing jobs have been due to growth in exports.

It used to be said that when the U.S. sneezed, the world caught a cold. The oppo-
site is equally true today. Our prosperity is linked inextricably to the maintenance
of a strong world economy, open international trading system, and stable global fi-
nancial markets.

Global Growth

This reality underlies the Clinton Administration's international economic ipohcy.
This policy starts from the critical premise that a strong competitive economy is the
most effective international economic policy. We recosnize that, while the battle of
imports and exports may be fought at the border, domestic policies, in the final
analysis, will determine the outcome.

The Resident has outlined a bold and ambitious program to reduce the budget
deficit and revitalize the American economy. The success of this effort will depend
importantly on preserving and strengthening an open, growing world economy. It
is for this reason that we have placed emphasis on and effort into reinvigorating
the G— 7 economic policy coordination process.

The President's economic program has brought us new credibility in the inter-
national economic arena; it nas strengthened our hand in encouraging our major
trading partners to take complementary actions to strengthen growth in their own
countries. We have also succeeded in changing the atmosphere in the meetings,
from confrontation to frank discussion, by avoiding public lecturing and recognizing
that each country must decide its policies on the basis of its national interests. But
increasingly, where economic growth is concerned, national interests and inter-
national imperatives coincide. FinaUy, we are improving the analytical framework
for the surveillance of our economies.

The need for effective cooperation with our G-7 partners has never been clearer
than now. We are in the third year of sub-par growth and the prospects for sus-
tained recovery are by no means certain. The United States is experiencing a mod-
est recovery, but with inadequate job creation. Growth in Europe is weak, unem-
ployment mgh and rising, and recovery still in the distance. Japan is expected to
grow only 1.3 percent this year, the lowest rate in nearly 20 years, and its growing
external surplus continues to be a drag on the rest of the world.

We have made a beginning and the initial fruits of this effort are being realized.
However, we are not out of 3ie woods and more must be done. The prospect of sig-
nificant U.S. budget deficit reduction and improved saving and investment have
been received favorably by the most critical judge, the maricets. Long-term interest
rates have declined substantially. Some have suggested that the decline reflects a
weak economy. However, forecasts for the economy are up, the stock market has in-
creased and credit quality spreads have narrowed. This suggests that the interest
rate decline is due to greater confidence in deficit reduction and not a weaker econ-
omy. It would be tragic, however, if the nay-savers succeeded in defeating the Presi-
dent's program, with the result being both higher interest rates and a weaker econ-
orny.

Japan's latest stimulus package is a useful first step but needs to be sustained.
The economy is operating well below productive capacity, and consumer and inves-
tor confidence is weak. As a result, the trade surplus continues to rise, with new
forecasts indicating it could reach over 3 percent of GDP next year.

What the world and Japan needs is a multi-year commitment to use fiscal policy
to achieve domestic demand-led growth and to promote substantial external adjust-
ment. The authorities are now in the process or formulating the guidelines for
spending in the fiscal 1994 budget. We hope these guidelines will send a message
that the April 1993 supplemental stimulus package will be reinforced in next year's
budget with continued support for domestic demand.

In Europ)e, interest rates have come down from their peaks. The pace of decline
needs to quicken, however. If the current recession is to be brought to an early end.

Moreover, structural reforms, particularly in labor markets, are required urgently
to produce greater wage and price flexibility. This would permit economies to adjust
more effectively to external developments, without damaging growth, especially
given the constraints on exchange rate adjustments.

Negotiations with China, Taiwan, and South Korea

A growing world economy and an open international trade and payments system
are like two blades of a scissors. You need both to cut to your objective, increased
U.S. exports. It is for this reason that President Clinton is conunitted to a "prompt
and successful completion of the [Uruguay] Round" and to implementation of the
NAFTA. It also is the basis for our efforts to confront bilaterally the special prob-
lems posed by countries with chronic export surpluses, including those that use
their exchange and payments systems to impede imports.

In 1992, U.S. exports to China, Taiwan and Korea totalled $37 billion. Exports
to Taiwan grew by 15 percent and to China by 19 percent, far exceeding the 6.2
percent growth in total U.S. exports. However, to reach our lull potential in these
expanding markets, it is essential that their foreign exchange systems be open so
that their importers are able to purchase and pay for foreign goods and services.

China

The Chinese economy has grown enormously in recent years and continues to ex-
hibit tremendous potential. Growth last year exceeded 12 percent and in the first
quarter this year reached 14 percent on an annual basis. While the economy is now
showing signs of overheating, with inflation accelerating, China probably will con-
tinue to sustain hi^ real growth over the coming decade. With China increasingly
needing high tech imports, the United States has a good chance of sustaining strong
growth in exports to China.

That potential for growth appears to be restrained, however, by the opaque and
arbitrary foreign exchange system which simply turns away potential importers.
Foreign and American joint ventures in China report that they cannot obtain even
the small sunount of foreign exchange in the swap centers that they are allocated
under government regulations. This shortage of foreign exchange is so severe that
Chinese enterprises are beginning to turn once again to the black market. The situ-
ation has been exacerbated by companies' hoarding foreign exchange for their own
use or for private trading, possibly in offshore financial markets. Hoarding has re-
duced the supply of foreign exchange to the swap centers and increased pressure
for depreciation of the renminbi.

Last year China sustained global trade and current account surpluses, although
they declined substantially from 1991 levels. China's bilateral surplus with the
United States increased from almost $13 billion in 1991 to over $18 billion in 1992.
These outcomes, as well as the pervasive and inflexible restrictions on access to for-
eign exchange in China, have led Treasury to conclude that China manipulates its
foreign exchange system in a manner that prevents effective balance of payments
adjustment.

In my recent negotiations with officials from the People's Bank of China, I strong-
ly reiterated the point made by many others in this Administration that China's
trade surplus with the United States is a very serious matter that must be ad-
dressed by Chinese action now. I stressed that China's foreign exchange controls
were acting as trade barriers and were limiting the ability of U.S. firms to export
to China. These exchange restrictions will have a bearing on progress made toward
China's entry into the GATT.

I also stressed in my talks with Chinese officials that, while China's current ac-
count surplus may be on a declining trend in 1992-93, this appeared to be occurring
only because China's economy is overheating, with high growth and rising inflation
approaching a danger zone. As growth drops to a more sustainable pace, we could
expect China's import growth to diminish and the current account to remain in sur-
plus. In that context, a liberalized foreign exchange regime would be necessary to
promote the correction of payments imbalances. I also suggested that overall reform
of China's foreign exchange system would contribute to a sounder, more evenly
paced macroeconomic policy.

These negotiations will continue in the coming months. I believe that the Chinese
authorities share our reform goals, although, unfortunately, they will not commit to
a specific timetable for implementation of reforms. We will continue to seek action,
both in China and other high growth Asian economies, in order to secure access for
exports of U.S. goods and services.

Korea and Taiwan

In the past, both Korea and Taiwan were determined to be currency manipula-
tors. While Taiwan was cited as recently as last December, we do not at this time
believe that either Korea or Taiwan meets the criteria for that determination.

Korea's global trade and current accounts remain in deficit, albeit substantially
reduced from 1991 levels. We have discerned no activity in the foreign exchange
market which would signify intervention to influence the exchange rate. However,
Korea maintains a system of foreign exchange and capited controls that limit trade
and investment flows and thereby dampen the influence of market forces in the for-
eign exdiange market.

In our recent contacts with Korean oflicials, we have stressed that these controls
limit our ability to export to smd invest in Korea, and particularly limit the scope
of our financial institutions' activities in Korea. We will sustain our eflbrts to pro-
mote market opening.

Taiwan's overall current account remains large but feU significantly from 1991.
While the United States remains in bilateral deficit with Taiwan, it does not appear
at this time that Taiwan is intervening in the exchange market to limit appreciation
of the New Taiwan (NT) dollar. Furthermore, Taiwan's capital controls do not ap-
pear to be constraining capital inflows or appreciation of the NT dollar, although
the existence of these controls leaves the potential for future interference in ex-
change rate movements.

Treasury is actively engaged in negotiations with the Taiwan authorities to elimi-
nate the capital controls that can deter potential demand for the NT dollar and to
open farther its financial services markets to U.S. institutions.

Conclusion

Sound growth in our principal trading partners, coupled with open trade and pay-
ments systems, is increasingly essential to the health of the U.S. economy. We have
reinvigorated cooperation with other major countries and have begun to see pros-
pects Tor enhanced growth, but more must be done. U.S. exports to the emerging
economic powers of Asia are growing, but not achieving their full ]X)tential. At the
present time, only China is found to be manipulating its foreign exchange system;
however, we remain attentive to the policies of^Korea and Taiwan as well.

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY REPORT TO THE CONGRESS ON
INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC AND EXCHANGE RATE POUCY

May 1993

Part I: Summary and Conclusions

This interim report discusses developments in U.S. international economic policy,
including exchange rate policy, since tne fiflh annual report to Congress submitted
in December 1992. 'Hiese reports are required under Section 3005 of the Omnibus
Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988.

While economic recovery is clearly underway in North America, real growth in
Japan and Europe is extremely weak. Japan is experiencing its slowest growth in
twenty years. Stagnation characterizes most European countries. The United States
recovery is itself moderate, with limited creation of new jobs. A burgeoning surplus
in Japan's current account is threatening to reverse the considerable progress
achieved in reducing the external imbalances of the latter part of the 1980's. A posi-
tive development in almost all industrial countries is the further ebbing of inflation.

In the face of these developments, the new Administration has sought to reinvigo-
rate the coordination of economic policy among the major industrial countries to
strengthen the world economy. In particular, it has sought to create an environment
more conducive to frank and informal discussion; suggested ways to improve the an-
alytical framework for considering key issues; and recognized that coordination
must take account of national difTerences and interests rather than seek a common
approach. This effort is already producing results. The Finance Ministers and
Central Bank Governors of the seven Summit countries (G-7) have agreed that
their national objectives of increased growth converge with their international inter-
ests and are seeking to implement cooperative policies that reflect their differing
economic conditions:
• for the United States and Canada, improved domestic savings and investment,

i>rimarily through substantial reductions in fiscal deficits;
or Europe, measures to stimulate private demand and combat rising unemploy-
ment, particularly through further declines in interest rates as a result of imple-

mentation of medium-term budget consolidation plans and containment of labor
costs and inflation pressures; and
• for Japan, substantial stimulus of domestic demand, which will contribute to re-
duction of its large external surplus.

Implementation of these policies will lay the basis for sustainable economic
growth and reduction of unemplovment in the G— 7 countries and other market
economies. Passage of President Cflinton's economic program is the essential U.S.
contribution to this agreed approach. In addition, the €^-7 are agreed that all must
undertake a broad range of structural reforms in order to increase their long-term
growth potential, and that a further opening of the international trading system is
indispensable for maximizing world growth.

Because of the diflering economic conditions and prospects among major countries,
the U.S. trade and current account deficits widened somewhat in 1992 and are like-
ly to increase further in 1993. Nevertheless, the U.S. competitive position is strong;
the current trend of widening external deficits should slow and eventually reverse
course, provided that the G— 7 growth strategy outlined above is achieved.

The dollar's value has not changed much in recent months on a trade-weighted
basis. However, this overall stability largely reflected offsetting moves against dif-
ferent currencies. A moderate appreciation against European currencies was mainly
attributable to the diflering prospects for interest rates in Europe and the United
States. A decline vs. the yen can be seen as a reflection of forces tending to limit
and ultimately reverse Japan's widening trade surplus.

The Administration believes that exchange rates should reflect economic fun-
damentals and that attempts to artiflcially influence or manipulate exchange rates
are inappropriate. At the same time, excessive volatility of exchange rates is coun-
terproductive for growth. Consequently, the United States remains ready to cooper-
ate in exchange markets with its G-7 partners.

Exchange rate policies of emerging trading powers such as China, Korea, and Tai-
wan continued to receive the close attention of U.S. authorities. These countries
have at various times in the past been deemed to be "manipulating" the exchange
rate of their currencies vs. the dollar in the meaning of Section 3004 of the Omnibus
Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988. The Treasury Department has held a com-
bination of formal and informal talks with the authorities of these countries aimed
at encouraging the removal of measures which do or might discourage appreciation
of their currencies in response to market forces.

In this report. Treasury has concluded that China manipulates its foreign ex-
change system. China's global trade and current accounts remained in surplus in
1992, although these surpluses have declined somewhat, and its foreign reserves
have increased further. Its bilateral surplus with the United States widened. De-
spite these factors, China continues to maintain signiflcant limits on foreign ex-
change activity which impede balance of pajmients adjustments by restricting im-
ports.

It is TreasurVs judgement that Taiwan is no longer manipulating its currency.
A significant element in the analysis underlying this conclusion is that Taiwan's

flobal current account and trade surpluses narrowed signiflcantly in 1992, and its
ilateral surplus with the United States declined. However, the Department re-
mains seriously concerned that si^iflcant restrictions on foreign exchange trading
and international capital transactions remain and may be reducing demand for the
NT dollar. Although the depreciation of that currency in recent months was not the
consequence of oflicial actions that could be deemed a manipulation, Treasury notes
that the instruments needed for manipulation are still in place.

As in the December 1992 Report, the Treasury Department does not find that
South Korea has been manipulating the exchange rate of the won. South Korea con-
tinues to register deflcits in its trade and current accounts, although they narrowed
sharply in 1992. Korea's bilateral trade balance with the United States registered
a surplus and foreign reserves increased to the highest level ever recorded. How-
ever, the authorities do not appear to be intervening in the exchange market to pre-
vent an appreciation of the won.

Part U: Global Economic Developments, Impact on U.S. Balance of
Payments, and the G-7 Response

A. Economic Situation in the G-7 Countries
Growth

Real GDP growth in the G-7 countries in 1993 now shows a clear distinction be-
tween an expanding North America and a Europe and Japan in recession/stagna-
tion. The U.S. recovery app>ears clearly on track — although growth remains unusu-

ally moderate for a recovery period — while Canada also is on an expansionary path.
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) now projects (see Table 1 below) UJS. real
GDP growth of 3.2 percent on a year-over-year basis for both 1993 and 1994, while
Canada is expected to grow at a 3.2 percent rate this year and 4.4 percent in 1994.

Table!

n-7 Real GDP Growth

(% change y/y)

1992

1993F

1994F

2.1%

3.2%

1.3

3.5

2.0

-1.3

1.7

1.4

0.0

2.3

-0.6

1.4

3.1

0.9

0.3

1.9

0.9

3.2

4.4

United States

Japan

Germany*

France

United Kingdom

Italy

Canada

Total G-7 1.6 1.9 3.0

* All Germany; comparable figures for GDP growth in western Germany only are 1.5%,
-2.0% and 1.2%. F = forecast; source: IMF, World Economic Ouflook. April 1993

Growth in Japan has decelerated sharply; last year's performance was the lowest
in nearly 20 years. Exports were strong, however, as Japan's markets in Asia expe-
rienced solid growth and recovery in North America continued. The stock market
and land price declines have made both borrowers and lenders more cautious, and
the earlier boom in private investment led to a build-up of plant and equipment that
may now seem excessive to business decision makers. Thus consumption and private
investment spending are likely to remain subdued for some time. The Japanese au-
thorities have announced a substantial fiscal expansion package, to be put into ef-
fect this year. While this package is a welcome first step, a sustained effort is need-
ed to put Japan back on its potential growth path and to reduce its large external
surpluses. The IMF staffs projection of 1.3 percent real GDP growth for Japan this
year includes the estimated impact of the fiscal program in the current calendar
year. Thus it appears that the fiscal package has served more to prevent a recession
or near recession than to guarantee a strong expansion. With this in mind, the
Fund's projection that Japanese growth will snap back to 3.5 percent in 1994 with-
out further policy action could be optimistic.

"The outlook for Europe is very disappointing. Of the four largest countries, only
the United Kingdom is expected to show measurable p)ositive growth in 1993, and
the low forecast of only 1.4 percent growth for this year follows two recession years.
The decline in German interest rates since last sununer's peaks is an encouraging
sign, but the cautious nature of the Bundesbank's action, together with the normal
lags in the impact of monetary policy, will likely mean that recovery in Europe is
delayed until 1994. For the EC as a whole, the IMF sees essentially no growth (+0.1
percent) this year and only 2.2 percent for 1994.

Inflation

Inflation has been declining in most (}-7 countries, and low inflation for the G-
7 as a group is likely to continue. IMF projections for consumer price increases (see
Table 2 below) show inflation at the lowest aggregate rates (excepting the 1986-88
period when world petroleum prices fell sharply) since the early 1960's.

Table 2

n-7 ronsumer Price Inflation
(% change y/y)

1992

1993F

1994F

United States

3.0%

3.1%

Japan

Germany*

France

1.6
4.5
2.3

1.0
4.4
2.0

1.5
2.5
2.5

United Kingdom

Italy

Canada

3.8
5.4
1.5

2.1
5.7
2.3

4.0
5.2
2.0

Total G-7

3.0

2.8

2.9

• All Germany; comparable figures for western Germany only are 4.0%, 3.8% and 2.1%.
F= forecast; source: IMF, World Economic Oudook. April 1993

While Italy continues to have the highest inflation rate among the 0—7 (although
the rate is now declining), inflation in Germany has been of major concern, in part
because high interest rates in Germany to contain inflation have spread to other
European countries and impeded economic recovery. However, Germany's inflation
outlook is slowly improving. Consumer price inflation has been raised temporarily
by the one percentage point rise in value added tax on January 1, which added
about half a point to the year-over-year rate for western Germany (4.2 percent in
March 1993). Significantly lower wage settlements this year — in the 3 to 3V2 percent
range, vs. 5V2 to 6 percent last spring — should contribute to a lower inflation picture
which should be visible in coming months. Slower monetary growth is also now evi-
dent.

External Account Developments

The most important development in the external accounts of the G-7 countries
has been Japan's record high and rising trade and current account surpluses. IMF
projections for the G-7 are shown in Table 3.

Table 3

G-7 Current Account Balances

($ billions ( % GDP))

1992

I993F

1994F

United States

Japan

Germany*

France

United Kingdom

Italy

Canada

-$62.4
+ 117.6
-25.9
+ 2.5
-21.1
-25.2
-23.6

(-1.0)
(3.2)
(-1.3)
(0.2)
(-2.0)
(-2.1)
(-4.2)

-$101
+ 137
-27
+2
-26
-16
-19

(-1.6)
(3.4)
(-1.4)
(0.2)
(-2.8)
(-1.6)
(3.3)

-$131
+ 128
-24
+3
-26
-14
-15

(-2.0)
(3.0)
(-1.2)
(0.3)
(-2.7)
(-1.3)
(-2.4)

Total G-7

-38.1 (-0.2)

-49 (-0.3)

-79 (-0.5)

• All Germany
F= forecast; source: IMF, World Economic Outlook. April 1993

The IMF's forecast of a modest decline in the Japanese surplus next year is open
to doubt. (In the preceding two years, the Fund tended to underestimate the surplus
significantly.) With projected stronger growth in Europe and Canada, and continued
solid growtn in the United States (3.2 percent) and in Asian developing countries
(6V^ percent), Japanese exports should continue to grow. (Using Bank of Japan price
deflators to derive indices of Japanese export and import volumes indicates that the
volume of Japanese exports grew 8.0 percent in 1991 and 5.3 percent in 1992, while
the volume of imports grew only 2.6 percent in 1991 and actually fell 1.4 percent
in 1992.) Imports are likely to remain weak as the Japanese economy srows below
trend performance. The yen's rise earlier this year, if sustained, would eventually
provide some counterweight to the forces tending to increase Japan's surpluses. On
balance, however, it is still possible that Japan's surpluses could increase rather
than decrease next year.

llie Fund also may have overestimated VS. current account deficits for 1993 and
1994. While the UJS. deficit is expected to rise to over $100 billion by 1994 (see the
section on the U.S. balance of payments), the moderate nature of the U.S. expansion
and the strong competitive position of U.S. exports (of both goods and services)
should help restrain the rise in the trade and current account deficits of the United
States.

On the latter point. Chart 1 shows the value of the dollar (and yen and DM) in
relation to the currencies of a number of major trading partners, adjusted for dif-
ferences in national inflation rates. These real trade-weighted exchange rates for the
three most important world currencies are at least a rough measure of national
trade price competitiveness. The chart shows that the dollar has maintained the
competitive position it r^ained by early 1988, with only moderate fluctuations since
that time on a real trade-wei^ted basis. The yen, on the other hand, has risen to
levels whidi are now the hi^est in the period shown (Januaiy 1980-April 1993).
The DM has shown less dramatic chants. Exchange rate movements for the period
since early October 1992 are described m greater detail below.

Chart 1

140

130

120

110

100

T 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r — I 1 r

8(Viei/ia2/18a/1»«/ia8/iae/187A180^80^9Q^O1/18S/19Vt
NolK A rtM bi ttw Mm > appM^Mof^a^w in <

c JP Mmomi: laao tad* waMi (IS tndMVM and 22 <
aa>ioa oabamnniAptao. lasa).

B. Developments in Foreign Exchange Markets

Overview

Since early October 1992, the dollar has declined by approximately 8 percent vs.
the Japanese yen and has appreciated by approximately 11 percent vs. the German
maik. On a trade wei^ted basis, the dollar rose by 0.1 percent.

TTie main factor affecting dollar movements against European currencies was the
diflerence in cyclical conditions in the United States and Europe. The dollar firmed

amid a i-ecovery in the U.S. economy and a downturn in Europe, which contributed
to expectations in the market that interest rate difTerentials unfavorable to dollar
placements would narrow. Meanwhile, Japan's economic slowdown weighed on the
yen, although the effect on the yen/dollar exchange rate was mitigated by uncer-
tainty about the U.S. presidential election and, later, about the policy direction of
the new Administration.

Subsequently, cyclical disparities between the United States and Japan were over-
shadowed by market perceptions that the G— 7 countries, and perhaps the United
States in particular, would favor appreciation of the yen as a meems of addressing
Japan's trade surplus. Also, there was a broader concern in the market that the
United States might welcome a decline of the dollar against other currencies as
well.

Chart 2

Dollar vs. Yen and Mark

Sine* October 1992

1S-014S Oct

Sauroa: daily opening N.Y. rates

Differing Economic Cycles

The pace of the U.S. economy in the fourth quarter of 1992 led market partici-
pants to believe that prospects for further monetary easing by the Federal Reserve
had all but ended. Expectations of fiscal stimulus measures under the new Adminis-
tration were also a factor.

Meanwhile, deteriorating economic conditions in Europe encouraged expectations
that interest rates there would trend lower. Some European central banks began
lowering interest rates in the weeks following the September currency crisis in the
European Monetary System. The Bundesbank lowered its official rates in February,
but the market remained unconvinced that a monetary easing cycle had definitively
begun in Germany. Subsequently, it became apparent that further easing by the
Bundesbank would proceed very gradually.

Moreover, the market was tfisappointed with "soft" U.S. economic growth in the
first quarter and early second quarter of 1993. Consequently, there was little incen-
tive to take on long dollar positions, particularly amid only a gradual narrowing of
interest rate differentials unfavorable to dollar placements. Declines in German
money rates and, in April, a further oflicial interest reduction by the Bundesbank
did not materially change this situation.

The market also viewed Japan's economic adjustment, particularly the decline in
domestic demand and the involuntary accumulation of inventories, with mounting
concern. The political situation in Japan compounded the market's caution toward
yen assets. However, the market saw that, relative to Europe, Japan had little scope
for further reducing its already low interest rates and better prospects for economic
recovery. Although confined to a narrow range against the dollar, the yen appre-
ciated in terms of Euroj>ean currencies.

There were signs in the first quarter of 1993 that the Japanese economy was
nearing a cyclical bottom and would soon be poised to begin a recovery. TTie Bank
of Japan's action to lower interest rates in early Februaiy was welcomed in the mar-
ket and contributed to the emergence of more positive market sentiment toward yen
assets amid a rebound in the Japanese stock market and expectations of a fiscal
stimulus to support economic recovery.

Market Perceptions of Official Policies

Amid signs of slow growth in the United States and a steeper than expected de-
cline in Continental European economies, the yen appreciated to a record level of
Y 109.25 in April. A key factor in this appreciation was the belief in the market
that the G-7 countries viewed a higher yen as a means of addressing Japan's widen-
ing trade surplus.

The yen's appreciation was particularly sharp during February, when many mar-
ket participants expected the G— 7 to malce a pronouncement specifically in favor of
a higher yen. However, the February G-7 meeting did not result in such a call.
Ahead of another G— 7 meeting in April, Japanese officials expressed concern about
prospects for further yen appreciation, and there were reports of Japanese interven-
tion to curb the yen's rise. The U.S. authorities were also reported to have inter-
vened at one point. The April meeting also produced no specific references to the
yen, and exchange rates have remained relatively steady since.

The clarification of U.S. policies on exchange rates was designed to keep the mar-
ket's focus on the real issues of the economic policies that are needed among G-
7 countries to support sustainable, non-inflationary economic growth. As stated in
the communique of the April G— 7 meeting, a cooperative strategy for non-inflation-
ary growth, based on sound policies, structural reforms, and more open trade, will
foster conditions in currency markets that will reflect economic fundamentals. The
major challenge that the G-7 faces is to restore growth and to ensure that the com-
position of growth contributes to the reduction of trade imbalances.

C. U.S. Balance of Payments Situation

The U.S. trade and current account deficits rose in 1992, alter declining for four
consecutive years. This reversal was not unexpected, since the U.S. economy was
in a recovery mode while major trading partners were heading into recession. Thus,
the deterioration in the U.S. external position is not seen as symptomatic of a de-
cline in U.S. competitiveness, but rather as the result of cyclical factors.

The trade deficit rose to $96 billion in 1992, compared with $73 billion for 1991.
Reflecting the cyclical situation, U.S. exports slowed while imports grew over 9 per-
cent after a very slight decline in 1991. U.S. export performance was characterized
by a slight fall in exoorts to Europe and Japan in value terms, but increases to all
other major geograpnic areas. Exports to Latin America, especially Mexico, rose
sharply. Overall, export growth was substantially below rates of recent years, when
the trade deficit was declining. Imports picked-up from near stagnation in 1991. The
pick-up was primarily in finished manufactures, notably capital and consumer
goods. Reflecting the impetus from stron^r U.S. growth, increases in imports were
spread across geographic areas and supplier countries.

On a regional basis, the largest contributors to the total trade balance deteriora-
tion of $23 billion were W. Europe (-$12 billion), Jap{m (-$6 billion), and China
(-$5.5biUion).

Table 4

U.S. Trade with Selected Areas: 1991&92

($ billion; data from Survey of Current Business)

Country
or Region

Exports to
1991 1992

Imports from
1991 1992

1991 1992

W. Europe
Japan
China
Asian NTF.s
L. America

116.8

47.2

6.3

44.4

63.2

114.4

46.9

7.5

46.9

75.3

101.9
91.5
19.0
59.2
63.0

111.4
96.9
25.7
62.4
69.2

-1-14.9

-44.3

-12.7

-14.8

0.3

-1-3.0
-50.0
-18.2
-15.5
-t-6.2

R. 0. W.

138.1

148.3

154,8

169.9

-16,8

-21.8

TOTAL

416.0

439.3

489.4

535.5

-73.4

-96.3

By contrast with the merchandise trade balance, the balance on trade in services
recorded a substantial surplus ($55 billion) in 1992, $10 billion hi^er than the 1991
surplus. Trade in a wide range of services had emerged as a major area of U.S. com-
petitive advantage, recording steadily rising surpluses in recent years.

Net investment income also reflected the relative cyclical position. Receipts on
U.S. direct investments abroad, weakened by the recession in Europe, fell while the
reviving U.S. economy produced a shift from losses to modest gains on foreign direct
investments in this country. The overall surplus on net investment income fell to
$10 billion, a $6 billion decline which partially offset the gain on services trans-
actions.

Given the relatively modest size of balances in other categories of transactions,
the current account balance has tended to move with the trade balance over time.
For 1992, the current account deficit rose — after adjustment to remove the one-time
influence of foreign transfers in support of Desert Storm — by $16 billion, compared
with $23 billion for the trade deficit.

Tables
U.S. Trade and Current Account: 1987; 1991-2
($ billion: data from Survey of Current Business)

Mao££ I2SZ 1331 1331

Trade -160 -73 -96

Services 8 45 55

Investment Income 11 16 10

Transfers -23 -34* -31

Current Account -163 -46* -62

'Adjusted to exclude $42 billion in transfers from allies in support of Desert Storm.

Recorded net capital inflows totalled $75.6 billion, of which $24.3 billion was ac-
counted for by private flows while the remainder reflected oflicial transactions. (The
difference between the current account deficit and the recorded capital flow is cat-
egorized as the "statistical discrepancy".) By contrast with the large inflows of re-
cent years, there was a small outflow from the United States by foreign direct inves-
tors in 1992, which combined with continued investment activity abroad by U.S. di-
rect investors to generate a net direct investment outflow of $39 billion. Foreign
purchases of U.S. securities rose by $14 billion, while there was a substantial net
inflow ($47 billion) through banking channels.

Prospects for 1993 and 1994

The relative growth performance of the United States and major trading partners
is expected to dominate the trade and current account outlook for 1993 and into
1994.

• Based on present prospects for U.S. and foreign growth, it seems likely that the
U.S. trade and current account deficits will increase this year and next, with an
expanding trade deficit overwhelming a further increase in the net surplus on
trade in services.

• The trade deficit probably will rise to well over $100 billion this year, and the
current account deficit may well reach or exceed $100 billion in 1994.

A sustained upward trend in the deficits could be of particular concern if the gap
became so large that very rapid export growth was required just to keep the gap
from widening further. (For example, when the trade deficit was at its peak in 1987,
exports were only about 60 percent as large as imports. This meant that exports
had to grow nearly IV2 times as fast as imports just to avoid further increases in
the deficit. At present, exports total over 80 percent of imports.)

There are important differences between the present situation and the episode of
rising deficits during the mid-1980's, however.

• The U.S. coinpetitive position is strong in merchandise trade as well as the grow-
ing services industries. Exports are sluggish because some overseas markets are
not growing.

• U.S. national saving should increase, rather than deteriorate as was the case dur-
ing the 1980's, particularly with adoption of the President's economic program.

• Important sources of surging imports during the first half of the 198(fs are no
longer present.

— ^An increasing share of U.S. sales by Japanese auto firms is now sourced in the
United States. Thus, imports of Japanese autos have declined as a percent of
Japanese market share. Moreover, total Japanese market share has declined,
reflecting the more competitive position of U.S. auto makers.

— Exchange rate changes have reduced the strong competitive advantage pre-
viously enjoyed by the Asian NIE's.

D. New G-7 Cooperative Approach to Growth

Two major, interrelated international economic challenges presented themselves
to the new Administration upon taking oflice: (1) reinvigorating the G— 7 process in
order to (2) help strengthen the global economic recovery. The need for concerted
G-7 action was made clear by the moderate nature of the U.S. recovery, continued
sub-par prospects in the other major countries, and growing external imbalances. At
the same time, there were concerns over the G-7's inability in recent years to agree
to a common approach to promoting growth due to cyclical divergences in perform-
ance among countries and differences in economic priorities.

Revitalizing the G-7 is a high priority of the Administration because of the in-
creasingly significant impact of global trade and capital flows on U.S. economic pros-
pects. Rising net exports of goods and services accounted for 40 percent of U.S.
growth between 1987 and 1991 and contributed importantly to new, comparatively
high-paying jobs. Thus, the slowdown in overseas markets in 1992 and continued
weak prospects in 1993 are of particular concern. In addition, the recent Group of
Ten (G-10) study on International Capital Movements and Foreign Exchange Mar-
kets underscores the importance of efforts by the major industrial countries to im-
plement compatible policies in order to ensure efficient and stable financial markets.

Against the backdrop of continued economic uncertainty, the United States took
the lead beginning earlier this year in coordinating a new cooperative G-7 approach
which would (1) ensure a strong recovery that created jobs and (2) establish the
basis for sustainable growth over the medium term. Rapia and tangible progress has
been made over the past few months.

At an informal G-7 Ministerial meeting in London on February 27, Secretary
Bentsen presented the President's economic program to his G— 7 colleagues. The new
program was well-received as both a serious contribution to world growth and a tan-
gible reflection of the U.S. commitment to enhanced G— 7 coordination. By making
politically difficult choices on a comprehensive deficit reduction plan — something our
allies have recommended for some time now — ^the United States gained valuable
credibility which enhanced the possibility of eliciting complementary policy actions
by others, particularly Japan and Germany.

The new U.S. approach reflects changes in tone as well as substance in fostering
a new cooperative G— 7 approach to growth. As noted earlier, the U.S. has sought
to foster a more results-onented process that encourages more frank and informal
discussions. To enhance the quality of G-7 surveillance over economic developments,
a common analytical framework is being developed to improve the comparability of
economic data across countries. To facilitate actions toward mutually desired goals,
this new approach recognizes the need to take into account national differences and
interests, rather than seeking a conunon approach, which too often proves elusive
and which may not be appropriate given the unique circumstances in each country.

Recent actions by the United States, Germany, and Japan reflect the convergence
of national objectives and international interests:

(1) The President's economic program offers a blueprint for sustainable growth
this year and into the future. The new package's inclusion of substantial deficit
reduction measures totaling $500 billion over five years and measures to increase
public and private investment are critical to improving U.S. competitiveness and
growthprospects.

(2) The 13 trillion yen ($119 billion) Japanese fiscal stimulus package rep-
resents a positive step toward boosting domestic demand and reducing the grow-
ing trade surplus. Further actions may be warranted, however. Most analysts es-
timate that only about hsdf of this package clearly represents a direct ad(ution to
domestic demand. As noted earlier, the IMF forecasts only 1.3 percent Japanese
growth this year after accounting for the stimulus package. The Japanese econ-
omy is operating below its potential, and a sustained fiscal stimulus is the most
effective means for increasmg growth in a timely fashion. Japan's strong fiscal
and net public debt positions provide ample room for further action in this regard.

(3) The pace of reductions in German interest rates may be quickening. Just
prior to the recent G-7 Ministerial, monetary authorities cut the Lombard rate
by Vi a percentage point to 8.5 percent (reducing short-term interest rates to lev-
els some 220 basis points below September 1992 rates). Recent Bundesbank ac-
tions and comments appear to reflect the view that the balance of risks in the
German economy have swung from inflation to stagnation. Accelerated action to
reduce interest rates appears warranted. The Solidarity Pact among German
labor, business, and federal and state governments should help contain wage in-
creases and reduce government borrowing over the medium-term, enhancing the
scope for a further easing of interest rates.

Recent Japanese and German measures to increase growth represent signiiicant
complements to the President's economic program that should result over time in
increased U.S. exports and jobs as economic growth picks up in Europe and Japan.
At the same time, the United States has made clear that more actions may be war-
ranted to ensure a strong recovery. For its part, the United States must implement
the President's program in order to maintain the momentum of current policy direc-
tions, including further complementary policy measures in Japan and Germany. G-
7 countries wifi continue to monitor the impact of these actions and have reaflirmed
their continued commitment to close cooperation in exchange markets.

Part ni: Newly Industrialized Asian Economies and China

Under Section 3004 of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, the
Secretary is required, on an annual basis, to "consider whether countries manipu-
late the rate of exchange between their currency and the United States dollar for
purposes of preventing effective balance of payments adjustment or gaining unfair
advantage in international trade. If the Secretary considers that such manipulation
is occurring with respect to countries that (1) have material global current account
surpluses and (2) have signiflcant bilateral trade surpluses with the United States,
the Secretary of the Treasury shall take action to initiate negotiations ... on an
expedited basis ... for the purpose of ensuring that such countries regularly and
promptly adjust the rate of exchange between their currencies and the United
States dollar to permit effective balance of payments adjustments and to eliminate
unfair advantage."

In the first report (fall 1988), Treasury determined that Taiwan and Korea manip-
ulated their currencies within the meaning of the legislation. Following bilateral ne-
gotiations. Treasury concluded that, while significant problems remained, Taiwan
(as of the fall 1989 report) and Korea (as of the spring 1990 report) were no longer
manipulating their currencies. These findings were reaflirmed in fall 1990, spnng
1991, and fall 1991. The applicability of Section 3004 to China was first considerea
in fall of 1990; in that report and in the spring and fall 1991 reports, Treasury noted
that (China's exchange rate controls were of serious concern but did not find that
currency manipulation was occurring.

In the spring and fall 1992 reports. Treasury reaflirmed its determination that
Korea was not manipulating its currency. However, with regard to Taiwan, Treas-
ury determined that Taiwan was once again manipulating its currency, as it was
using central bank intervention and restrictions on foreign exchange transactions
and capital flows to constrain demand for the NT dollar, even though its external
sunpluses were increasing.

With respect to China, Treasury found that China was also manipulating its cur-
rency. The basis for the changed judgement was the continued devaluation of the
administered exchange rate, despite growing external surpluses, and the significant
control exercised by the authorities over foreign exchange swap center rates which
had also depreciated since the emergence of the lai^e surpluses.

As a result of these manipulation findings. Treasury initiated negotiations with
China and Taiwan during 1992. The remainder of this chapter describes the results
of those negotiations, as well as recent balance of payments and exchange rate de-
velopments, and assesses the foreign exchange systems of China, Taiwan, and
Korea.

Taiwan

Taiwan continues to have a material global current account surplus and a signifi-
cant bilateral trade surplus with the United States: However, it is the judgement
of the Treasury Department that Taiwan is not at this time manipulating the rate
of exchange between the New Taiwan (NT) dollar and the U.S. dollar for purposes
of preventing efiective balance of payments adjustment or gaining unfair competi-
tive advantage in international trade.

Notwithstanding this determination, and particularly in view of the fact that Tai-
wan continues to nave large external imbalances (including a $9.4 billion trade sur-
plus with the United States in 1992), the Treasury Department remains seriously
concerned that restrictions maintained by Taiwan on foreign exchange transactions
and capital flows continue to reduce market demand for the NT dollar and thereby
amount, in effect, to indirect manipulation of the exchange rate.

Despite several rounds of negotiations during 1992, Taiwan appears unwilling to
remove the restrictions that can constrain demand for the NT dollar and unwilling
to guarantee that it will not again engage in practices that constitute direct manipu-
lation of the exchange rate. Permitting the full range of market forces to determine

the level of demand for the NT dollar would likely contribute to further adjustment
of the existing bilateral trade imbalance.

Trade and Economic Developments

Significant adjustment seems to be taking place in Taiwan's overall external im-
balances. The current account surplus fell 34 percent to $7.9 billion in 1992 (3.8 per-
cent of GDP) from $12.0 billion in 1991 (6.8 percent of GDP). This decline was at-
tributable both to a smaller overall merchandise trade surplus, which fell to $9.5
billion from $13.3 billion in 1991 (a decline of 29 percent) and to a larger deficit
in services and income, which rose to $4.7 billion in 1992 compared to $3.5 billion
in 1991.

However, recent adjustment in Taiwan's bilateral trade surplus with the United
States has been rather modest. The 1992 surplus of $9.4 billion represents only a
slight decline from $9.8 billion in 1991, less than half the adjustment that occurred
in 1991. Data for the first three months of 1993 show a continued decline in the
imbalance. U.S. exports to Taiwan grew 15.3 percent in 1992 compared to 1991, sub-
stantially faster than the 6.3 percent growth m overall U.S. exports.

Taiwan ended 1992 with $87.3 bulion in foreign exchange reserves, equal to
roughly 14 months of imports, and, after Germany, had the world's second largest
holdings. By comparison, the industrial countries, on average, hold non-gold re-
serves equivalent to 2-3 months of import cover.

Exchange Rate Developments

Market pressures have resulted in a depreciation of the NT doUar since the De-
cember 1992 report, which is likely to impede further reduction of the bUateral im-
balance. The exchange rate stood at NT$ 25.96 per U.S. dollar on May 19. The NT
dollar has depreciated 2.2 percent since end-1992, and 5.7 percent since it reached
a record high in July 1992. The NT$ appreciated a scant 1.3 percent during 1992.
The recent decline of the NT dollar and consequent increase in Taiwan's global com-

{>etitivenes8 would have been even greater if exchange rate changes against non-dol-
ar currencies and inflation diflerentials are taken into account.
The NT dollar has declined even more markedly against the Japanese yen — 13

ftercent since end-1992 alone. As Taiwan purchases most of its imports from Japan
30 percent in 1992) and the United States (21 percent in 1992); a depreciation of
this magnitude will raise import prices and increase inflationary pressures in Tai-
wan's domestic economy.

Exchange Rate System

Taiwan retains a variety of controls and restrictions that provide scope for cur-
rency manipulation. Collectively, these controls help to limit the volume of trading
in Taiwan's foreign exchange market, which remains small and thin. As a con-
sequence, the central bank can still exert strong influence in the foreign exchange
maiket. The key controls described below were covered more fully in the fall 1992
report; no significant changes have occurred since that report.

Tlie lack of transparency in activities of the central bank means that it continues
to retains the ability to intervene directly in the exchange market, use proxies to
intervene indirectly, or manage purchases by state-owned corporations.

Ceilings on foreign exchange liabilities, which vary from bank to bank, still affect
forward trading in the NT dollar. The ceilings also constrain the ability of foreign
bank branches, including branches of U.S. banks, to offer foreign currency loans in
Taiwan and to use swap funding for local currency lending. In place of the Quan-
titative limits imposed by these ceilings, prudential concerns in this area could be
addressed througn other means, such as through risk-based capital requirements
that apply to the financial institution as a whole.

The scope of the forward foreign exchange market is restricted by a number of
rules that prohibit transactions for non -trade-related purposes, limit trading to au-
thorized banks, impose a sizable deposit guarantee, and limit the maximum lorward
period to one year. These restrictions also prevent foreign banks and securities firms
Doth in and outside of Taiwan from hedging capital in Taiwan's onshore market.

Non-trade-related capital inflows and outflows are limited to $5 nullion per firm
or individual (capital flows for trade purposes are unlimited). The amount of cash
an individual may carry in and out of Taiwan is limited to NT$40,000 (about
$1,500).

The ability of foreign institutional investors to invest in Taiwan (i.e., in NT dollsu*-
denominated financial instruments) is constrained by government regulation, in
part due to fears that such investment will increase the demand for NT dollars. Re-
strictions include a cap on the aggregate amount of foreign investment in the stock
market, limits on the amount of capital that can be brought in by any one investor,
and a minimum time that must elapse before capital and earnings can be repatri-

ated. Investment by foreign individuals is prohibited altogether. Efforts by Taiwan
to improve the attractiveness of its financial markets could increase foreign interest
and promote capital inflows that could lead to increased demand for the NT dollar.

Exchange Rate Negotiations

After determining that Taiwan was manipulating its currency under Section 3004,
Treasury held four meetings with the Taiwan authorities during the course of 1992.
Despite these negotiations, Taiwan has not made any significant changes in the
array of controls and practices that provide the authorities with sufficient scope to
manipulate or strongly influence the exchange rate. During the last round of nego-
tiations, the central bank promised publicly to review its controls with the intention
of removing those that are unnecessary, a commitment that it has not fulfilled. No
significant action has subsequently been taken, though Taiwan has taken several
very modest steps to remove impediments to appreciation of the NT dollar.^ The
Taiwan authorities appear to hope that, by retaining a capability to manipulate or
strongly influence the exchange rate, they will be able to slow or avoid the gradual
internationalization of the NT dollar that should accompany the island's growing
economic stature as a global trader and investor.

Assessment

The present determination represents a change from Treasury's assessments of
May and December 1992 that, in the context of Taiwan's large and increasing exter-
nal imbalances, the system of exchange and capital controls maintained oy the
central bank, as well as its direct and indirect involvement in the exchange market,
constituted manipulation of the currency.

Three developments described above have led to our changed determination. First,
the array of controls on capital inflows and exchange transactions maintained by the
central bank do not appear at this time to be directly constraining appreciation of
the NT dollar. Second, it does not appear that the central bank has oeen intervening
in the exchange market to dampen pressures for appreciation. Instead, on a number
of occasions (fiiring the past several months it appears to have intervened in the
maricet to support the NT dollar. Finally, significant adjustment seems to be taking
place in Taiwan's overall current account surplus.

With regard to the outlook for further reduction in Taiwan's trade imbalance with
the United States, the imbalance may grow without NT dollar appreciation in the
months ahead. In view of the lack of appreciation in the NT dollar during 1992, Tai-
wan's exporters may become even more competitive in world markets, particularly
in the ILS. market as our own economy grows more rapidly than Taiwan's other
export markets.

Consequently, Treasury remains concerned that, if strong market pressures for
NT dollar appreciation recur in the period ahead, Taiwan might again resort to cur-
rency manipulation, using instruments at its disposal, in order to limit the rise of
the NT dollar. Taiwan expects that its economy will continue to grow strongly. Tai-
wan has targeted GNP growth of 7 percent in 1993, up from 6.1 percent in 1992.
Interest-rate differentials between NT dollar- and U.S. dollar-denominated assets
appear to be increasing as monetary policy tightens in response to re-emerging in-
flationary pressures. Confidence in Taiwan's stock market seems to be growing,
which has fueled foreign interest and spurred capital inflows from foreign institu-
tional investors. Political uncertainty has diminished with the election of a new Leg-
islative Yuan in December 1992 and the appointment of a new premier and cabinet
in February 1993.

Because of the serious nature of these concerns. Treasury will continue to monitor
Taiwan's exchange rate policies closely in the period leading up to the next report
to Congress to determine whether the authorities are again manipulating the ex-
change rate of Taiwan's currency and to ensure that the exchange rate is playing
an appropriate role in adjustment of Taiwan's external imbalances, including its bi-
lateral trade surplus with the United States.

In this regard, Treasury would view official actions or practices that interfere with
the role of maiiet forces in exchange rate determination — such as intervention in
the foreign exchange market to dampen pressures for appreciation or maintenance
of restrictions on foreign exchange transactions or capital inflows that appear to
constrain NT dollar appreciation — as an effort by the authorities to manipulate the

^The foreign exchange liabilities ceiling for all commercial banks was raised in two stages
from $19.2 billion to $20.6 billion. Also, the ceiling on investment by a foreign institutional in-
vestor was effectively raised from $50 million to $100 milhon (after the first $50 milhon is
brought in, an institutional investor can apply to bring in another $50 million).

exchange rate to inhibit eflective balance of payments adjustment and gain unfair
competitive advantage in international trade.

Pur^ermore, Treasury will use further discussions to seek changes in Taiwan's
exchange rate policies and restrictions on capital movements with respect to both
their impact on external adjustment, and their harmful effect on U.S. financial
firms in Taiwan. Finally, with reganl to Taiwan's accession to the GATT and tiie
economic and political benefits GATT membership will bring, the United States has
noted that, under the GATT Articles, Taiwan must negotiate a special exchange ar-
rangement with GATT members to ensure that Taiwan cannot use exchange rate
policies to fiustrate the intent of GATT trade provisions.

South Korea

The Treasury Department does not find the Korean authorities to be manipulat-
ing the exchange rate directly to gain unfair competitive advantage in international
trade or to prevent eflective balance of payments ac^ustments. Korea's external defi-
cits were reduced significantly in 1992 as economic growth slowed foUowmg the im-
plementation of stabilization policies in late 1991 and throughout 1992. There con-
tinues to be little evidence that the Korean central bank is intervening in the ex-
change market, and the level of activity of other government-owned foreign ex-
chan^ banks in the market has been minimal since the fall 1992 report. Treasury
remains concerned, however, about the continued prevalence of stringent foreign ex-
change and capital controls that thwart the influence of market forces in the aeter-
minaiion of Korea's exchange rate and trade and investment flows. Such controls
frustrate the emergence of a truly market-determined exchange rate.

Recent Developments

The Korean economy in 1992 experienced the consolidation of a process of adjust-
ment after the 1990-91 period of overheated growth. Real GNP growth slowed to
4.7 percent, compared to 8.4 percent in 1991 and 9.4 percent in 1990. At the same
time, substantial progress was made in addressin£[ the effects of two years of exces-
sive domestic demand caused in part by expansive financial policies initiated in
1989. Consumer price inflation in 1992, at 4.5 percent (down from 9.3 percent in
1991), was the lowest in six years.

In 1992, the current account deficit was cut nearly in half to $4.6 billion (1.6 per-
cent of GNP) from $8.7 billion in 1991 (3.1 percent of GNP). Stabilization i)olicies
to cool domestic demand and the overheated construction sector resulted in import
growth of just under 1 percent, compared to 17.7 percent a year earlier. Although
export growth declined from 10.3 percent in 1991 to 7.9 percent in 1992, exports
grew faster than imports for the first time since 1988. The overall trade deficit fell
m 1992 to $2.2 billion from $7 billion in 1991.

According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, the United States recorded a bi-
lateral traae deficit with Korea of $2.1 billion in 1992, compared to $1.5 billion in
1991. Korean data show a slight suiylus for the United States in 1992, and indicate
that Korea also had deficits with Japan, the EC, and China, but surpluses with
countries in Southeast Asia and Latin America.

In the capital account, overall net capital inflows totalled $7.8 billion in 1992, up
from $4.2 billion a year earlier. The increase is largely the result of a rise in long-
term capital inflows following the limited opening of the Korean stock market to for-
eign investment in January 1992. The level of Korea's net foreign debt declined by
8.2 percent from $11.9 billion in 1991 to $11 billion in 1992 (3.7 percent of GNP).
Korea's debt service ratio is estimated to have remained stable in 1992 at 6 percent.

Korea's foreign exchange reserves mtiintained an upward trend in 1992 in con-

{ 'unction with the continued improvement in the external accounts, rising $3.4 bil-
ion to $17.1 billion (2.7 months of import coverage), the highest level ever recorded.
As of May 19, 1993, the exchange rate stood at 801.1 won per dollar, representing
a nominal depreciation of 1.2 percent since the end of 1992. Since the inception oi
the maricet average rate (MAK) system on March 2, 1990 (see fall 1992 report for
description of this system), the won has depreciated against the dollar by 15 per-
cent, due laroely to higher inflation in Korea and the emergence of trade and cur-
rent account deficits in 1990.

Foreign Exchange and Capital Controls

A broad array of controls on foreign exchange and capital account transactions in
Korea continues to prevent mai^et forces from playing a fully effective role in ex-
change rate determination, distorts trade and investment flows, and constitutes a
potential channel for Korean monetary authorities to influence the exchange rate.

The so-called "real demand rule," which requires foreign exchange banks to obtain
and review documentation of an underlying commercial transaction for most foreign

exchange transactions, continues to impede the development of the Korean foreign
exchange market and financial sector as a whole. Korea's restrictive terms for de-
ferred import payment, especiaUy regulations that limit payback periods to only a
fraction oT international norms, continue to be of key concern, as are tight restric-
tions on off-shore financing alternatives. While there have been a few limited steps
since the fall 1992 report to ease controls in some of these areas, much remains to
be done to enhance the role of market forces in the determination of the exchange
rate and trade and investment flows. Reaching the Korea's stated goal of integrating
the Korean financial sector into global capitsd markets will require the Korean au-
thorities to take bolder steps toward shortening significantly the list of prohibited
foreign exchange and capital transactions and to move forward with broad^based re-
form of the financial sector.

Status of Financial Policy Talks

Although no formal Financial Policy Talks (FPT) have been held between Treas-
ury and Ministry of Finance officials since the last report, informal dialogue has
continued as Korea moves toward completion of the Financial Sector Liberalization
Blueprint (FSLB) announced in the March 1992 FPT (see fall 1992 report for fur-
ther discussion). A parallel package of reform measures to deregulate tne domestic
financial industry is under formulation as well. While the two plans overlap in a
number of key areas, the FSLB addresses to a greater extent issues relating to in-
creased market access and other aspects of the internationalization of Korea's finan-
cial sector. The final measures of both plans will be incorporated into Korea's "Five
Year New Economy Plan," slated for completion in June 1993.

Treasury's £issessment of Korea's reform efforts will focus on both the substance
and timing of the implementation of policies which target the lifting of foreign ex-
change and capital controls; liberalization of interest rates; elimination of directed
credit schemes; adoption of indirect means of monetary control; further opening of
the stock market to foreign investment; and enhancement of local currency funding
sources for U.S. and other foreign financial institutions operating in Korea.

China

As China maintains significant restrictions on all aspects of foreign exchange ac-
tivity in China, it is Treasury's judgement that China manipulates its foreign ex-
change system by restricting imports and that this action impedes effective balance
of payments a4justment. O? particular concern are China's priority list of permis-
sible imports and restrictions on access to foreign exchange. Moreover, China main-
tained a global current account surplus in 1992 and a large bilateral trade surplus
with the United States. There have been no significant changes in China's foreign
exchange system since the December 1992 Exchange Rate Report to Congress.

Trade and Economic Developments

China's globtil trade and current account surpluses remain substantial although
they continued to fall in 1992. China reported that merchandise imports rose 26 per-
cent in 1992 to $80.6 bilHon while merchandise exports rose 18 percent to $85 bil-
lion. As a result, according to Chinese figures, China's merchandise trade surplus
dropped from $8.2 billion in 1991 to about $4.4 billion in 1992. Rapid import growth
was fueled by strong domestic demand and rapid growth of GDP. China's smaller
trade surplus contributed to a decline in China's current account surplus from $13.3
billion in 1991 to a reported $6.4 billion in 1992. Reserves increased by $2.6 billion
to reach $46.9 billion in September 1992, about 7 months of import cover.^ China's
current account surpluses have allowed China to meet its debt service obligations
with ease. While China's total external debt increased from $60.6 billion in 1991 to
$69.3 billion in 1992, its debt service ratio has remained at about 11 percent.

China's bilateral trade surplus with the United States continued to grow rapidly
in 1992. According to U.S. data, Chinese exports to the United States increased 37
percent to readi $25.7 billion. Tovs, sporting goods, clothing, and footwear continue
to be the largest categories of Qunese exports. Chinese imports from the United
States rose 19 percent to reach $7.5 billion. Aircraft, fertilizers, measuring equip-

'In December 1992, Chinese authorities announced they would change the method used to
calculate China's ofRaal reserves. Henceforth, foreign exchange held by the Bank of China will
not be included in oCndal reserves since it represents the deposits of state enterprises in the
Bank of China (a bank controlled by the central government which specializes in foreign ex-
change transactions). According to the new calculations, China's oflicial reserves for September
1992 would fall fiDm $46.9 billion to $25.0 billion. With the central authorities maintaining a
high degree of control over the use of funds held by enterprises in the Bank of China, the higher
dgure would be more appropriater

ment, and wheat were the largest categories of imports from the United States in
1992. China's trade surplus with the United States rose from $12.7 billion in 1991
to $18.3 billion, an increase of 44 percent. In 1992, China had the second largest
trade surplus with the United States after Japan. U.S. Commerce Department infor-
mation for January-March 1993 indicates that China's trade surplus with the Unit-
ed States increased $0.8 billion over January-March 1992.

In other economic developments, China's economy grew at an estimated annual
rate of 12.8 percent in 1992. Chinese economic growth was spurred by a reform
drive early in 1992 and by rapid increases in investment and the money supply. In-
vestment in fixed assets jumped 38 percent over a year earlier while M2 increased
31 percent. In addition, China's domestic saving and investment rates remain high.
In 1992, gross national savings stood at 36 percent of GNP while gross domestic in-
vestment stood at 34 percent. China's high level of national savings has allowed the
country to maintain modest current account surpluses while investing a large por-
tion of GNP. Chinese inflation remained a reported 5.4 percent in 1992, although
it appears to be accelerating. The end of period inflation rate was over 7 percent
while urban inflation reached 12 percent in 1992.

In the future, the Chinese economy faces a real threat of economic overheating
unless the authorities take steps to prevent excessive growth of the money supply
and investment. So far the Chinese authorities have not taken such steps. High eco-
nomic growth continues to affect China's external sector, with preliminary indica-
tions that rapid growth in imports may substantially diminish China's trade and
overall current account surpluses in 1993. According to Chinese trade figures for
January-March 1993, China's imports rose 25 percent over the same period a year
earlier while China's exports rose only 7 percent, leaving a global trade deficit of
$1.2 billion.^ But this cyclical development does not provide me promise of correc-
tion of the underlying structural imbalances sustained, in part, by distorted ex-
change markets.

China's Foreign Exchange System

China operates a dual exchange rate system. The oflicial exchange rate is set
daily and generally applies to priority imports for state enterprises under the State
Plan. China's second exchange rate, the "swap" rate, is determined in foreign ex-
change adjustment centers. Joint ventures, foreign invested entenprises, and domes-
tic trading firms with access to foreign exchange may buy and sell foreign exchange
and foreign exchange quotas at the swap centers. Swap center rates are established
through an open bidding system (15 centers) or as the State Administration of Ex-
change Control matches applications for foreign exchange (approximately 85 cen-
ters).

China continues to maintain extensive restrictions on access to foreign exchange.
For goods on the restricted list, an enterprise must receive a license from the Min-
istry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation (MOFTEC) "■ before it may buyfor-
eign exchange in the swap centers. For those goods that do not require MOPTFC
approval, access is based on a priority list of uses of foreign exchange drawn up in
conformity with state industrial policy. The authorities generally discourage pur-
chased of foreign exchange to finance imports of goods not formally approved by the
government. In April 1992 the authorities issued new guidelines outlining priorities
for access to foreign exchange in the swap centers. Preferred access was given to
those purchasing foreign exchange for agricultural inputs and products, interest
payments and remittances, technology imports, and inputs to key construction
projects. Access to swap centers was also granted for purcnases of foreign exchange
for industrial inputs, educational materials, and some spare parts. Purchases of for-
eign exchange for a wide range of consumer and luxury goods (cigarettes, wine,
clothing, household appliances, and film) are prohibited. These limits on access to
the swap centers act as barriers to trade since importers cannot purchase foreign
exchange to import a wide range of goods.

TreasuiVs November 1991, May 1992, and December 1992 Reports to Congress
contain additional detail on China s foreign exchange system.

Exchange Rate Developments

Since 1980, the Chinese currency has experienced substantial depreciations
against major currencies. From 1980 to 1992, the renminbi (as measured at the offi-

^ Chinese trade flgures appear to be undergoing revision. The same trade report indicated a
32 percent drop in exports to Hong Kong and a 97 percent increase in exports to the United
States. Changes in Chinese rules of origin and statistical methods may account for part of the
change in trade figures.

* Formerly the Ministry of Foreign Economic Relations and Trade (MOFERT).

cial exchange rate) depreciated 73 percent versus the U.S. dollar, 85 percent versus
the yen, and 71 percent versus the ECU. The depreciation of China's exchange rate
has improved China's trade and China's current account positions. In particular, the
devaluations of 21 percent in 1989 and 10 percent in 1990 helped China move from
a current account deficit of $4.3 billion in 1989 to a cuirent account surplus of $13.8
billion in 1991.

Administered Rate: On May 14, 1993, the official rate of the renminbi stood at
5.74 yuan/dollar. This represents a nominal depreciation of 7.8 percent since the
adoption of the "managed fioat" system in April 1991. In 1992, authorities held the
official rate relatively constant from January through August, but allowed the rate
to depreciate toward the end of the year. By December 31, 1992, the official ex-
change rate had depreciated 5.5 percent over a year earlier. For the first three
months of 1993, the official exchange rate has remained relatively constant at ap-
proximately 5.75 jruan/dollar.

Swap Riate: For the week ending May 14, 1993, the average swap center rate
stood at 8.04 yusm/dollar. The swap rate depreciated 23.5 percent in 1992 due large-
ly to increased demand for imports, rapid monetary growth, fears of renewed infla-
tion, and speculation that the Chinese authorities would devalue in preparation for
entry into GATT. In 1993, the renminbi reached a low of 8.41 yuan/dollar in Feb-
ruary and has since appreciated slightly to 8.04 yuan/dollar. This represents a de-
preciation of 10 percent since year-end 1992. It appears the Chinese government has
intervened in the swap centers to prevent further depreciation of the currency.

The gap between tne official and swap center exchange rates has continued to
widen, from 10 percent in January 1992 to 40 percent on May 14, 1993.

Exchange Rate Negotiations

Treasury held negotiations with the People's Bank of China in April 1993. In
these negotiations, Treasury urged the Chinese to improve access to foreign ex-
change. In particular. Treasury urged Chinese officials to lengthen the list of im-
ports for which foreign exchange is available and to commit to a timetable for re-
form. Treasury also urged Chinese officials to move quickly to full current account
convertibility, on the ground that such action would eliminate the need for the high-
ly regulated foreign exchange allocation system now in place, which was driving for-
eign exchange trading to the informal market. These reforms would benefit the Chi-
nese economy more broadly by improving economic efficiency, while addressing
many of the U.S. concerns. Once such reforms were undertaken, market forces
would then play a greater role in determining the exchange rate response to devel-
opments in tne external payments position.

Treasury believes that foreign exchange restrictions form an integral part of Chi-
na's overall trade regime. As such, these restrictions cannot be separated from larg-
er trade questions affecting U.S. -China economic relations. Easing restrictions on
access to loreign exchange would represent a step toward liberalizing China's trade
regime, reducing the bilateral trade imbalance, and improving economic relations
between China and the United States.

In 1992, China began more serious preparations for entry into the GATT. Treas-
ury believes that China's accession to the GATT would be a positive step toward
integrating China into the international economic community and beneficial for both
China and the United States. Treasury notes that GATT Article XV contains two
obligations with respect to exchange restrictions: (1) that GATT members shall not,
by exchange action, frustrate the intent of the GATT trade provisions; and (2) that
members may apply exchange restrictions only in accordance with the Fund Arti-
cles. As it accedes to the GATT, China must bring its exchange system into conform-
ity with GATT Article XV and the IMF Articles of Agreement.

Assessment

While China has committed itself to reform of its trade regime in the context of
the market access Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and GATT, similar com-
mitments have not been made with respect to its foreign exchange system. Chinese
officials have expressed general support for reform of the system, including: elimi-
nating the requirement for surrender of foreign exchange, liDeraUzing access to the
swap centers, and making the system more transparent. Chinese authorities have
also set forth the long-term objectives of unifying the dual exchange rates and mak-
ing the currency convertible. However, they have not indicated the specific nature
of the steps they plan to take, and have not committed to specific measures or the
timing of reform.

WhjJe China's current account surplus may diminish in 1993, its foreign exchange
restrictions continue to impede balance of payments adjustment and contribute to
large bilateral trade surpluses. In 1992 and early 1993, no significant changes were

made in China's foreign exchange regime, and the authorities continue to maintain
limits on access to foreign excJiange. Therefore, it is Treasury's judgement that
China is manipulating its foreign exchange system in a manner that prevents efiec-
tive balance of payments adjustment within the meaning of Section 3004. We uree
the Chinese authorities to take steps to liberalize access to foreign exchange by
eliminating the pervasive foreign exchange restrictions that impede the external
payments adjustment process.

z
u

Of
D
U

Z
<

<
I

z
z
<

PS3«SSP

•^g-as-"^

2:>.,P si

•

<M (M &i — vO — 00

Cj — — rJ rJ Ci Ci

1 1 "■ 1

OS-

# ^ ^ # # {S #

r» m ■» 00 i~ <vi 00

d ■^ d a r4 \0 "v

1 1 "" 1 1

Sv vO r» ^ •» r« 00

O * K ■« j^ r^ 00

1 ' '

# # t^ ^ !P ^ ^
& f , r- 00 vo r^ n

"JJJ

e
u

— «j r-' c> 9< ^ r«;
1 ~ T

^.^

g.s

^^^^i^i

u ^

a _

- = iq = 2 = ft

1 1

>•■»'

#^ ^g ^{^ g

^ — <n O vt iTi o

°Ta2=7«

2
CO

^^ ^ ^ ^ # «

oo lo •»• 00 O NO O

c
u

® *-■ S S 5 2 ^

— t^ rr — •» & —

- 1

■«

2|IP5si

1 "^

— o

1 «^

»M

o o

1 1

1 r4

— e

•^

■♦ «»>

(bci

1 1

— e

<«

-»

r~ ^

«^

1 1

««

>rt

«M 00

t".

«r

1 1

■o

00 «N

r»;

T ;;

<«-*

'£

* rt O O

«*i

ri
1

— m

' T

^6
1

« 0> (M «

»M

<r>

t>;

«n

CO
u

1 1 7

»^

■o

■i

»N

— <M

««

»>

oei
1

r4K

' T

'■3"

<•

ff>

■w

rt ««1

r-;

r»

1 7

fji

??i

00 t~

•M

o -

(0
B

n
1

t«

8.=

[13

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR RIEGLE BY
SECRETARY LAWRENCE H. SUMMERS

Q.l, Mr. Taggart Murphy, a noted expert on Japan's financial mar-
kets, wrote an op-ed piece entitled "Stronger Yen, Weaker U.S."
that appeared in the May 1, 1993 edition of the New York Times.
He claims that continuing a policy of weakening the dollar to cure
our trade deficit with Japan, begun in the Nixon Administration
twenty years ago, will not work. He claimed that:

"Japanese bureaucratic skill at blocking meaningful foreign participation in its
economy is the real cause of the trade and investment balances."

Do you think that Mr. Murphy makes a valid point?

A.1. Mr. Murphy's point — that the relative paucity of "meaningful
foreign participation" in the Japanese economy is a central factor
in Japan's trade and investment surpluses — ^is well taken. How-
ever, it is not the whole story. Japan presents two problems for the
rest of the world: an import and investment penetration problem
to which the above citation refers, and an overall external imbal-
ance problem.

The unusually low levels of imports of foreign goods and services
and inward foreign direct investment relative to the size of Japan's
economy compared to that of other major countries illustrates the
penetration problem. This anomaly cannot be explained away by
the natural qualities of the Japanese economy, e.g., its distance
from markets. A number of factors including the complex distribu-
tion system and the relatively high price of land contribute to these
low penetration levels, but the system of Japanese government reg-
ulation and administrative guidance also plays a role. Accordingly,
we have identified this problem as an area of concern in our discus-
sions with the Japanese on the new U.S. -Japan economic frame-
work.

However, the overall external imbalance is also a real problem.
This is mainly the result of, and is responsive to, macroeconomic
factors. For example, between 1987 and 1991, afler a substantial
adjustment in exchange rates and a sustained period of rapid eco-
nomic growth, Japan's current account surplus dropped from 3.6
percent of GNP to just 1.2 percent of GNP. Even if we were able
to completely eliminate the penetration problems posed by Japan's
system of regulation and administrative guidance, Japan's overall
current account surpluses would not be sufficiently reduced unless
the underlying imbalances in Japan's savings and investment pat-
terns were reduced.

Q.2. Last week in a speech you made to the Japan Society in New
York, you stated it would be a Treasury priority to open foreign fi-
nancial markets and described how Japan, among other things,
prevents American investment advisory firms from competing to
manage the bulk of Japan's one trillion dollar pension fund busi-
ness.

We have been negotiating intensively with Japan for over 10
years to open its financial markets to U.S. firms without great suc-
cess. In that period Japanese financial firms have expanded rapidly
in our markets.

Do you think we need to strengthen our bargaining hand by
passing legislation such as Fair Trade in Financial Services Act
which has passed the Senate several times?

A.2. As Secretary Bentsen stated at his confirmation hearings,
Treasury is extremely concerned that certain foreign countries take
advantage of our open financial markets yet do not provide U.S. fi-
nancial firms with a fair opportunity to compete. He noted that
Treasury will be pleased to take a close look at the Fair Trade leg-
islation and work with its supporters on an appropriate policy.

I reiterated this view in my own confirmation hearings before
your Committee and intend to work toward our objective of assur-
ing that our firms are able to compete fairly in foreign financial
markets.

Q.3. Mr. Masaru Hayami, the Chairman of the Japan Association
of Corporate Executives, recently wrote an article entitled "Strong-
er Yen Will Benefit Japan in the Long Run" that appeared in the
Nikkei Weekly. In the article Mr. Hayami notes that the apprecia-
tion of the yen over the years has helped Japanese industry be-
cause "it results in lower prices for imported materials including
fuel."

Do you agree with that point or do you think dollar depreciation
will help our trade balance with Japan?

A.3. 1 would prefer not to comment on the impact on bilateral trade
balances of a given exchange rate since such a discussion is subject
to considerable uncertainty and vulnerable to misinterpretation.
Speaking more broadly, I would reiterate the Administration's view
that exchange rates are determined largely by economic fundamen-
tals. They can be expected to respond to actual or anticipated
changes in those fundamentals and in policies designed to affect
them. Experience-shows that efforts to artificially influence or ma-
nipulate exchange rates are frequently misplaced and inappropri-
ate. At the same time, excessive volatility of^ exchange rates can be
counterproductive and adversely affect growth. Thus, we continue
to cooperate closely with our G-7 partners on exchange rates.

Q.4. In the May 21 edition of the Japanese Times, Mr. Hanawa,
the Vice President of the Nissan Motor Co., said that his company
would lose $50 million yen in revenue if the dollar falls further.

Will this cause Nissan to lose market share here, or will they
iust shift production to lower cost Asian countries to maintain mar-
ket share here?

A.4. Obviously, I am not in a position to predict how Nissan might
respond to the conditions you described. Were the company to
confront a decline in market share, it could presumably take steps
to control costs in order to limit such a loss. I would imagine this
might include resorting to greater global outsourcing, shifting as-
sembly operations to low-wage locations, or increasing its trans-
plant capacity in the United States. A variety of other factors and
possible actions would undoubtedly be considered as well. In this
regard, the question is best answered by the man whose comments
inspired it: Mr. Hanawa.

Q.3. On page 6 of your report, you show a forecast for the U.S. cur-
rent account deficit in 1994 of $131 billion. That would be our third

BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY

3 9999 05981 925 8

worst current account deficit ever and more than double last year's
deficit. It seems to me that we are not solving this problem. Blam-
ing it all on cyclical differences between our economy and other
economies looks to me to be wishful thinking. Your table on the
previous page forecasts our economic growth in 1994 at just about
the average for the G-7 countries. I think we need some serious
action here. How do you propose to deal with this enormous deficit?

A.3. To illustrate the importance of cyclical factors, it is important
to understand that exports to Japan and Europe equal nearly 40
percent of total U.S. exports. Exports to these two markets fell be-
tween 1991 and 1992, after very rapid growth during the 1987-91
period of declining external deficits. Had exports to these markets
grown as fast as all other exports, the U.S. trade deficit would have
risen by only $3 billion; the current account (excluding effects of
Desert Storm) would have declined by several billion dollars be-
cause we have a large and growing surplus on services trans-
actions.

The weakness of U.S. export markets in Europe and Japan re-
flects an extended period of sluggish and, in some cases, negative
growth, from a level of demand already well below potential. Res-
toration of growth and a return to full capacity in these major U.S.
export markets, as we are working to achieve in G-7, OECD and
other fora, would make a major contribution to resumption of a
downward trend in the U.S. external deficit.

However, you are correct in noting that removal of cyclical fac-
tors still leaves a large external deficit. This remaining deficit re-
flects in large measure a level of savings in the United States
which is inadequate to finance needed levels of investment. If we
are to reduce this structural component of the external deficit, we
must raise national savings. The Clinton program to reduce the
budget deficit by $500 billion over several years is essential if we
are to raise the insufficient level of national savings. At the same
time, the Administration will continue to pursue a policy of "export
activism" to remove barriers and open markets to U.S. exports.
Taken as a whole, the success of these efforts could have an impor-
tant and favorable impact on reducing U.S. external imbalances.

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR SASSER BY
SECRETARY LAWRENCE H. SUMMERS

Q.l. ". . . Now, following up on that question, many of our export-
ers complain about the predatory trading practices of the Euro-
peans and the Japanese. And clearly, currency manipulation by the
Chinese would fall within this category as well.

Now, some year ago, we created a so-called War Chest within the
Export-Import Bank in order to give the executive branch some
flexibility in responding to the predatory practices of so many other
countries. Now the question is, could Exim's War Chest or some
other program provide an effective response to the kinds of cur-
rency manipulation now being undertaken by the Chinese?"

A.1. We understand that the legislative mandate for use of Exim's
tied aid credit fund (the "War Chest") precludes its being used to
counter currency manipulation. The War Chest was originally en-
acted to augment U.S. leverage in OECD negotiations to increase
disciplines over others' use of trade distorting tied aid credits.

Exim's new charter broadens this mandate somewhat to permit use
of the War Chest:

'To supplement the financing of a U.S. export when there is a reasonable expecta-
tion that predatory financing will be provided by another country for a sale by a
competitor of the U.S. exporter with respect to such export and with special atten-
tion to matching tied aid and partially untied aid creoits by other governments —
(i) in violation oT the OECD Arrangement on Guidelines for Officially Supported Ex-
port Credits; (ii) in cases in which the Bank determines that tj.S. trade or economic
interests justify the matching of tied aid credits extended in compliance with the
Arrangement, including grandfathered cases."

This lan^age clearly envisages War Chest use to counter preda-
tory financmg rather tnan currency manipulation.

The Administration has indicated that, with agreement on new
tied aid rules in the OECD, it would use the War Chest selectively
and focus on monitoring and enforcing the new agreement. It is im-
portant that the War Chest remain available to enforce the new
a^eement, which is aimed at disciplining the trade distorting tied
aid practices of the principal competitors of U.S. exporters.

If not needed, War Chest resources are available to finance the
budget subsidy requirements of Exim's normal lending program,
which provides substantially greater financing leverage to promote
U.S. exports than does War Chest use.

70-746 (56)

ISBN 0-16-041357-5

780160

413575

90000

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

See other formats