Afghanistan is experiencing the mother of all "sudden stops"
i.e. economic collapse resulting from a sudden stop of foreign money that was financing a large trade deficit
Afghanistan was financing a trade deficit of ~ 25% of GDP
How large is 25%? It is about 3 times as large as the largest sudden stops in recent history such as east asia, southern europe, mexico etc.
And it gets even worse
~9B$ of their reserves have also been frozen, and there's no other credit line
So what happens when there's a sudden stop?
in the absence of foreign money, the only way left for the economy to balance its imports is to contract, i.e. GDP falls so demand falls, so imports fall
exchange rate devalues a lot too to cut imports
It is a very painful process
It is this "sudden stop" that makes Taliban's second coming very different from their first in economic terms
The first time they came to power, Afghanistan was a subsistence economy with no particular reliance on foreign flows for local demand
So ordinary Afghans did not experience as large a negative decline as they are going to experience now
It seems like its going to be a much tougher road for the Taliban this time
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
We all know what it is at a personal level: I get 100$ check and might save 20$ out of it
But what is savings in the aggregate? Say for the world as a whole?
That's where it gets tricky.
e.g. people talk about a "global saving glut". But can we measure it?
Not really - at least not in a direct sense
The reason is that when a person (say Adam) "saves", someone else (say Eve) uses that saving, i.e. "dissaves", by borrowing it and spending it for one purpose or another
So, aggregate total saving is always exactly zero!
Now you might say, that according to the world bank worldwide saving is about 25% of GDP historically.
Some broad takeaways for development from 20 years of Afghan economic experience
The Afghan economy stalled in 2012 after foreign aid started receding from a high of about 50% of GDP.
The big injection of foreign money did not translate into sustainable growth. Why?
Because foreign money artificially raised domestic spending power - artificial in the sense that it was not associated with increased domestic productivity
We can see this in Afghan trade statistics. Imports rise three-fold, while exports are stagnant.
There was a temporary spending boom, that vanished when foreign flows dried up.
The spending boom is actually harmful when it is artificial, because it hurts exports via real exchange rate appreciation and other misallocations
The answer matters, because spending that is "infrastructure" should be seen as an "investment", i.e. spending that expands the overall size of the economy in the future -
and hence infrastructure spending should be prioritized
So is child care infrastructure?
We live in a knowledge based economy where required skills are constantly changing - prolonged periods away from one's profession naturally lowers their productive capacity
So making it easier for people, esp women, to stay connected to their profession helps us all - we will not lose valuable talent
The other side of child care is the child of course
Is the executive/PM in developing countries constrained by "talent pool" for top leadership positions?
Not really. The market for top talent is global, and as such there is little excuse for incompetence at the top.
One reason for failure to attract competence is environment - it's not about the money: the opportunity to work at the "country level" is super attractive
But executive needs to create the right environment, e.g. delegate properly, that is her job.