Is the impact of China s emergence on France as large as currently thought?

Transcription

1 N 5 November 2006 Is the mpact of Chna s emergence on France as large as currently thought? The openng up of the French economy snce 1960 has facltated an enlargment of the range of dsposable products and a downward pressure on prces. These developments have benefted consumers and have translated nto a larger exposure of French frms to foregn competton. These pressures globalsaton has brought to bear on companes, come from both the evoluton of compettveness and from France s exposure to competton from each of ts tradng partners. Ths study was prepared under the authorty of the Treasury and Economc Polcy General Drectorate and does not necessarly reflect the poston of the Mnstry of the Economy, Fnance and Industry. Although French compettveness - measured n terms of unt labour costs (ULCs) - has mproved compared wth our European partners (excludng Ireland) and Japan, and although t has held farly steady relatve to the other countres, France has come under ncreasng pressure from globalsaton over the last 20 years due to the growng openness of France's foregn trade. Between 1983 and 1993, Span and the US were the countres that contrbuted most to the ncreased pressure on France. Between 1993 and 2003, Span contnued to gan n mportance, but contrbuted less than Chna and Ireland. Heavy losses n compettveness suffered by Germany between 1983 and 1993, and Italy and the Unted Kngdom between 1993 and 2003, powerfully helped to lmt the ncrease of the aggregate pressure on France. 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% -1% -2% Pressure exerted by each country on France ( ) change n country s compettveness relatve to France change n exposure of France to competton from country aggregate change n pressure exerted by country on France Source : DGTPE calculatons -3% Chna Span Ireland Unted States Inda South Korea Bel-Lux Portugal Hungary Japan Fnland UK Canada Poland Greece Denmark Mexco The Netherlands Italy Swtzerland Germany

2 Globalsaton s often assocated n people's mnds wth the growng power of the major emergng countres, Chna especally. Chna, t s clamed, s pushng up the costs and gans assocated wth globalsaton prmarly for two reasons: t s a very large country n terms of ts populaton, and to a lesser extent n terms of ts GDP; ts factor endowment dffers wdely from that of France - labour, and unsklled labour n partcular, s very plentful n relaton to captal, and ths manpower s very cheap. In the manufacturng sector, the average wage n dollars s ffty tmes smaller than n France 1 and dfferences are even larger for unsklled workers. But does Chna affect France as much as people thnk? And more generally, s France comng under ncreasng pressure from ts partners as a whole? To answer these questons we need an ndcator capable of measurng the pressure each country exerts on France. Unfortunately, the most commonly used ndcators for measurng globalsaton are somewhat rough-and-ready and fal to capture adequately two key factors, namely: the change n the country's compettveness vsà-vs France: trade wth low wage countres such as Chna and Inda may ental hgher adjustment costs than trade wth the developed countres f wages are not n lne wth productvty; the dfferent types of competton to whch France s exposed: n France, n the competng country, and n thrd markets. Here we propose an ndcator that seeks to satsfy these two requrements by combnng trends n compettveness and trends n competton from the dfferent countres. 1. France's compettveness relatve to ts European partners has mproved snce 1980, and has remaned farly stable vs-à-vs ts other partners Labour costs (hourly wages for example) are a poor ndcator of a country's nternatonal compettveness. Ths s because goods are only produced at low costs f wages are low n comparson wth the workers' productvty. The concept of unt labour costs (ULCs),.e. the rato of the cost of labour to the worker's productvty, s a better ndcator of compettveness. Expressed n dollars for all countres, ULCs serve to compare the cost of labour nvolved n the producton of a unt of output between dfferent countres and n a gven currency 2. Takng dollar ULCs as an ndcator of compettveness, a country's compettveness rses when labour costs fall n the local currency, when productvty (expressed as the rato of real value added to total employment) rses, and/ or that the local currency deprecates relatve to the dollar. Below, for reasons of avalablty of data, we concentrate on ULCs 3 n manufacturng sectors, reconstructed from avalable sources (see appendx 1). Estmatng levels of unt labour costs s a dffcult exercse, n partcular for developng countres. Wage costs usually nclude socal contrbutons pad by companes and should also take nto account compensatons of "sngle worker companes", two factors whch are generally not properly calculated n developng countres. Moreover, t s very dffcult to estmate levels of productvty whch could be compared. Such calculatons requre estmatons of purchasng power partes by sectors of actvty, whch s actually somethng harldy avalable. Consequently, the results should be treated cautously. French manufacturers' ULCs have remaned n check for the past 25 years. Real French wages have slowed sharply 4 relatve to the 1960s and 1970s as a result of rsng unemployment n the 1980s and 1990s, the polcy of "wage dendexng" and moderate real ncreases n the mnmum wage (SMIC) 5. Overall, wages moved n lne wth productvty gans; as a result French ULCs n 2004 were at the same level as n ULCs were also relatvely stable n the major emergng countres and n the Unted States. However, ULCs n the other European countres and n Japan have rsen sgnfcantly snce Consequently French compettveness has mproved relatve to ts European and Japanese partners over the past 25 years and remaned stable n relaton to ts non-european partners (charts 1 and 2). In absolute terms, and takng nto account prevous comments on the brttleness of data, France appears to be roughly as compettve as Germany and the UK n By contrast, t s less compettve than Italy and Span where ULCs are about 30% lower and far less compettve than (1) Cf. B. Van Ark, J. Banster, C. Gullemneau (2006) : «Compettve advantage of low-wage countres often exaggerated», Executve acton seres n 212, Conference Board et Chna Center for Economcs and Busness. (2) Whch leaves asde the cost of captal. (3) Wth the excepton of Italy, for whch ULCs concern the whole of the economy. (4) Cf. Desplatz, Jamet, Passeron, Romans (2003): «La modératon salarale en France depus le début des années 1980», Econome et Statstque n 367. (5) Cf. Carcllo, Delozer (2004): «Le SMIC en France : pouvor d'achat et coût du traval sur longue pérode», DPAE n 39. TRÉSOR-ECONOMICS n 5 November 2006 p.2

3 Chart 1: compettveness vs. European partners Chart 2: compettveness vs. non-european partners 4 Improvement n France s compettveness vs-à-vs ts European partners 7 6 Chna Inda US Japan 3 2 French ULC are currently 30% hgher than Italan and S hulc Chnese ULC are currently 3 tmes lower than French ULC 1 2 Germany Span Italy UK Ireland Interpretaton: the chart presents the rato of French ULCs to foregn ULCs. French ULCs were 1.7 tmes hgher than those of Germany n Ths rato had fallen to 1 n French compettveness relatve to Germany has thus mproved consderably n the ntervenng perod. Data concern the manufacturng sector, except n the case of Italy Interpretaton: the chart represents the rato of French ULCs to those of other countres. French ULCs were twce those of Chna n Ths rato ncreased to 3 n 2004, whch means that French compettveness has deterorated relatve to Chna n the ntervenng perod. Ireland where ULCs are 3 to 4 tmes lower. Ths latest fgure mght however result from a very dfferent structure regardng actvty sectors, n partcular a much larger weght of new technologes n the Irsh economy. France also seems to be less compettve than ts large non-european tradng partners: Amercan and Japanese ULCs are respectvely 35% and 20% lower than n France. Laslty, the gap s very large wth the large emergng countres: ULCs n Chna and n Inda are respectvely 3 tmes and 6 tmes lower than n France. Such a gap wth Chna and Inda reflects very large wage dfferences whch are only partally offset by productvty dfferences. Gven the heterogenety of the Chnese economy (n partcular the coexstence of old natonal frms where productvty s low and very productve prvate companes), ths means that n some sectors or for some products, Chnese ULCs are even sgnfcantly below 1/3 of French ULCs. Some avalable data suggest that ths could halve relatve ULCs 6. Further, average ULCs fal to dstngush effects assocated wth dfferences n factor endowment. The relatve abundance of unsklled labour n Chna means that the wages of Chna's sklled workers are hgh relatve to those of unsklled workers: a bus drver n Shangha s pad 3.2 tmes less than an engneer, for example, whereas the rato s only 1.8 n France 7. In that case, Chnese ULCs are probably much lower than n France n the unsklled labour ntensve sectors, and relatvely hgher n the sklled labour ntensve sectors. 2. The openng up of the French economy s ncreasng ts exposure to foregn competton France has contnuously opened up ts economy to the rest of the world over the past 25 years, and to the rest of Europe especally. The 1980s and 1990s saw the mplementaton of the sngle market n Europe, whch contrbuted to a boom n ntra-ndustry trade 8 : French consumers have benefted greatly from these developments through the wder choce of goods on offer, and lower prces thanks to economes of scale and ncreased competton ; French frms too have benefted greatly from the new markets thus afforded to them. The benefts to France of ths openng up, lke the costs, result from ts ncreased exposure to nternatonal competton. Foregn frms compete wth France n three places: n France, n ther domestc market, and n thrd markets. The Unted States, for example, can take market shares from France: n France, by exportng goods that replace local manufacturng products, n the Unted States, f Amercan goods are more compettve than French exports, n thrd countres, f Amercan exports are more compettve than French exports. France's exposure to competton from each country can be measured by the share of French GDP exposed to competton from each country (see box 1). (6) Cf. B. Van Ark, J. Banster, C. Gullemneau (2006) : «Compettve advantage of low-wage countres often exaggerated», Executve acton seres n 212, Conference Board et Chna Center for Economcs and Busness. (7) Cf. «Prces and Earnngs, a comparson of purchasng power around the globe», 2003, UBS. (8) Intra-ndustry trade refers to trade n goods belongng wthn a gven sector. TRÉSOR-ECONOMICS n 5 November 2006 p.3

4 Box 1: measurng France's exposure to competton from each of ts partners France's exposure to competton from partner k s defned as the porton of French GDP exposed to competton from country k, n France, n country k and n thrd markets. If s French output, F, French exports to a country,, F French mports from country, F aggregate French exports, and D F French demand, then the share S k of French GDP that s exposed to competton from country k s: F S k k, F F, k Q k k F, k, = + D F D k D Where: F k, F measures exposure to competton from country k, n France, D F F, k Q k k measures exposure to competton from country k, n the country k, D k F, k, measures exposure to competton from country k, n all thrd markets, D F We also have: F, k F, = 1 The data used to estmate exposure to competton are drawn from the Chelem database (CEPII) and concern goods exclusvely. The sectors selected are agrculture and ndustry wth the excepton of energy. The countres studed are the OECD countres and the major emergng countres, whch accounts for 87% of French trade a. To lmt prce effects, French mports and exports are expressed n real terms, and lkewse French GDP for the sake of homogenety b. The other quanttes are expressed n nomnal terms, however, n the absence of avalable data expressed n real terms. a. The Arab countres (the Gulf countres and North Afrca) are the man mssng countres. b. Even when calculated wth these quanttes n money terms, the results are very comparable. Chart 3: share of French GDP exposed to foregn competton 35% Chart 4: share of French GDP n competton wth each country 7% 30% 25% Competton n thrs markets 6% 5% 20% 4% % Competton abroad 3% 10% 2% 5% Competton n France 1% 0% Source :DGTPE calculatons 0% Germany Italy Span UK Bel-Lux US Neth. Chna Japan Source :DGTPE calculatons Between 1980 and 2003, the openng up of the French economy ncreased France's exposure to globalsaton 9. The share of French GDP exposed to foregn competton ncreased from 20% to 30% (see chart 3). Foregn competton operates above all n France (nearly 50%) and n the partner countres themselves (nearly 40%), but only to a small extent through competton n thrd markets (approxmately 13%). Consequently, France s exposed above all to competton from the countres wth whch t trades a lot,.e. the European countres. The competton exerted by the major emergng countres s relatvely small n absolute terms. Even n 2003 Chna ranked only 8th (see chart 4). France's exposure to Indan competton s vrtually neglgble (however, the ndcator constructed omts servces, n whch France's (9) The apparent declne n France's exposure to nternatonal competton snce 2000 stems from the apprecaton of the euro, whch has resulted n a reducton n the value of French exports and mports n euros relatve to the value of French GDP n euros TRÉSOR-ECONOMICS n 5 November 2006 p.4

5 exposure to competton from Inda s probably much larger). The geographcal breakdown of competton vares accordng to the type of tradng partner. The countres wth whch France has a trade defct (.e. Belgum, Germany, the Netherlands and Chna) compete manly n France. Conversely, those countres wth whch France s runnng a trade surplus (the Unted States, Canada, and the Unted Kngdom) are competng wth France n ther domestc markets. Only those Asan countres that export relatvely lttle to France compete wth France manly n thrd markets (Tawan, South Korea, and to a lesser extent Japan and Inda). At the aggregate level, the breakdown of the places where competton occurs appears to be relatvely stable over tme (see chart 3), wth the bulk of competton occurrng n France. However, ths competton has changed n the case of certan countres. For nstance, the competton exerted by Chna on France s occurrng more and more n France and less and less n Chna, reflectng Chna's growng trade surplus wth France. Chnese competton s also beng felt more and more n thrd markets as Chna rapdly opens up to a large number of markets to whch France also exports. 3. Internatonal compettve pressure on France has ncreased over the last 20 years, manly as a result of growng trade wth Span and Chna Compettveness and exposure to competton may be synthessed by buldng an ndcator of the pressure exerted on France by globalsaton. Ths s assessed on the bass of the compettveness and prmary competton exerted by each country. By "pressure exerted on France by globalsaton", we mean the pressure exerted by all of ts partners (see box 2). Ths ndex does not measure the cost to France of globalsaton. Greater compettve pressure can ndeed result n tougher condtons for French frms, through reduced compettveness and greater foregn competton. But the offsettng gans are greater too, n the shape of lower mport prces, a wder choce of products for consumers, and broader markets for French exports. 3.1 France's overall compettveness has mproved relatve to ts partners snce 1980, but ts exposure to nternatonal competton has ncreased over the same perod The ndex thus estmated shows that the pressure of globalsaton on France declned sharply between 1980 and France devalued ts currency a number of tmes durng ths perod, whch yelded very strong short-term gans n compettveness despte large wage ncreases. 0,07 Chart 6: Pressure exerted by the top 5 contrbutors * Snce 1983, on the other hand, worldwde pressure on France has gone on growng. As shown above, ths growth stems from ncreasng exposure to foregn competton and not from a loss of French compettveness. 0,42 0,40 0,38 0,36 0,34 0,32 Chart 5: synthetc ndex of pressure exerted on France devaluaton of the French franc 0, Interpretaton: the constructon of the ndex s descrbed n detal n box 2, next page. Breakng down the ndex accordng to the compettve pressures exerted by each country shows the pressure from European countres to be dstnctly preponderant n the 1980 s, whereas pressure from Chna has become close to those exerted by each of the large European countres over the last couple of years (see charts 6 and 7). 0,04 Chart 7: Pressure exerted by the next largest contrbutors* 0,06 0,05 0,03 0,04 0,03 0,02 0,02 0,01 Germany Span Unted States Italy Belgum-Lux 0, * eexposure to competton + compettveness effect 0,01 Chna Ireland 0,00 Netherlands UK TRÉSOR-ECONOMICS n 5 November 2006 p.5

6 Hence, France's exposure to competton from Chna, whch s dstnctly less n absolute terms than that of the other European countres, s offset by Chnese compettveness - Chnese ULCs are 2 to 3 tmes lower than those of large European partners. 3.2 In the perod the man contrbutors to the growth n global pressure were Span, the Unted States, the Unted Kngdom and Chna The progressve mplementaton of the sngle market went hand n hand wth an ntensfcaton of trade between France and the Unted Kngdom, Italy, Germany, Belgum, Portugal, and above all Span. The boom n trade between France and Span 10 turned the latter nto the second-largest contrbutor to the rse n overall compettve pressure, even though Span's ULCs rose steeply relatve to those of France. Conversely, n Belgum, Italy, Portugal, and above all Germany, the expanson of trade was offset by greater French compettveness vs-à-vs these countres. The declne n German compettveness was a major factor lmtng the change n total compettve pressure over ths perod. Symmetrcally, as far as European countres are concerned, Span and to a lesser degree the Unted Kngdom contrbuted powerfully to the ncrease n global pressure on France. The ndex of French exposure to competton from the Unted States grew very moderately, but because of the very sharp mprovement n US compettveness vs. France (chefly due to the dollar's deprecaton aganst the French franc), the Unted States was the second factor accountng for the change n the ndex of compettve pressure over the perod. Fnally, Chna's nfluence was not preponderant durng the course of ths decade, but the change n Chnese pressure was nevertheless remarkable: the absence of any loss of Chnese compettveness vs. France and the steep rse n mports of Chnese manufactured goods made ths country the fourth-largest contrbutor to the rse n the ndex over the perod, after Span, the Unted States and the Unted Kngdom. 3.3 Durng the course of the followng decade ( ), pressure from Chna ncreased the most, followed by Ireland, although Span contnued ts rse Imports from Chna contnued to grow very rapdly. Computers, electrcal and electronc equpment joned the lst, n addton to the mports of apparel and leather seen n the 1980s. Because the growth n these mports was very pronounced and the relatve compettveness of the two countres remaned constant, Chna contrbuted very powerfully to the ncrease n total compettve pressure on France. In the 1990 s, relatve gans of Irsh compettveness (see chart 1) as well as the ncrease of competton exerted by Ireland n France and n the thrd markets pushed the pressure exerted by Ireland on France much hgher. Box 2: constructng a synthetc ndex of pressure exerted by globalsaton on France The pressure exerted on France by a gven country s defned as the product of that country's relatve compettveness vs. France and France's exposure to competton from that country. The aggregate ndex of pressure exerted by globalsaton on France s, qute smply, the sum of pressures exerted on France by each of ts partners. Ths ndex I s therefore (wth the notaton used n box 1): F I k, F F, k Q k k F, k, CSU F = + + D F D k D CSU k k Ths compettve pressure ncreases when the country exports more to France, when the country mports more from France, when t exports more to the same countres as France or, fnally, when ts ULCs declne relatve to those of France. Countres relatvely dstant from France, such as Chna and Inda, and exertng relatvely weak compettve pressure on France because ther trade lnks wth France are relatve dstended, can nevertheless exert powerful compettve pressure on France f they are hghly compettve. Ths ndcator s dffcult to nterpret n absolute terms. It s worth notng, however, that the contrbuton of each country k to the ndcator s equal to the share of French GDP exposed to competton from country k, ULCs n country k are the same as those n France. (10) Trade between France and Span surged n the car ndustry especally n the 1980s, wth France exportng engnes and vehcle parts to Span, where they were assembled and then re-exported to France. TRÉSOR-ECONOMICS n 5 November 2006 p.6

7 Charts 8 and 9: Change n the pressure exerted by each country (exposure to competton + compettveness effect) 0, , ,020 0,020 0,015 0,015 0,010 0,010 0,005 0,005 0,000 0,000-0,005-0,005-0,010-0,010-0,015-0,020 competton compettveness total change n pressure -0,015-0,020 competton compettveness total change n pressure -0,025 Span US UK Chna Ireland Inda South Korea Bel-Lux Tawan Italy Japan Fnland Australa Canada Portugal Austra Sweden Iceland Norway Greece New Zealand Hungary Denmark Netherlands Poland Swtzerland Mexco Germany -0,025 Chna Ireland Span Hungary Inda Austra Portugal Sweden Poland South Korea Bel-Lux Japan Tawan Australa Fnland Germany Canada New Zealand Mexco Iceland Denmark Greece Norway US Netherlands Swtzerland Italy UK Note: n both charts countres are ranked from the left to rght n descendng order of pressure exerted by them.. Even f the change n Franco-Spansh trade was more pronounced than the change n Franco-Chnese trade (notably due to the contnung very rapd growth n trade n the car ndustry wth Span), Spansh pressure rose less than Chnese pressure over ths perod because Span's compettveness vs-à-vs France deterorated very sgnfcantly. The other countres that substantally ncreased ther pressure on France were those European countres that expanded ther trade wth France whle at the same tme ganng n compettveness relatve to France, namely Portugal and Austra. Ths also appled to those Eastern European countres that grew ther trade wth France,.e. Poland and Hungary. Conversely, Italy and the Unted Kngdom were a major factor attenuatng the change n global pressure on France through ther loss of compettveness vs-à-vs France. Benjamn DELOZIER TRÉSOR-ECONOMICS n 5 November 2006 p.7

8 Annexe : constructng comparable unt labour cost data sets n absolute terms The US Bureau of Labor Statstcs publshes trends n ULCs n dollars for the whole of the manufacturng sector, as does the OECD. Ths nformaton s ncomplete n two respects: 1) t leaves out Chna and Inda, 2) ULCs levels are not comparable. It s possble to construct a certan number of data sets that are comparable n absolute terms by calbratng them on ILO data a. That s because these data permt comparsons n absolute terms of manufacturers' ULCs across dfferent countres at dfferent dates. By takng levels for 1996 (the most recent avalable data pont), we were able to reconstruct trends n manufacturers' ULCs n dollars wth the ad of trends n ULCs n local currences and exchange rate trends (usng Ecown data). Accordngly, three factors are lable to contrbute to dvergent trends n ULCs across dfferent countres, namely: productvty trends, labour cost trends n local currency, and exchange rate trends. Other methods need to be used for the constructon of Indan and Chnese manufacturers' ULCs. Concernng Inda, ULCs trends n rupees used are calculated on the bass of the average wage n rupees n the manufacturng sector (as suppled by the ILO). The data used for labour productvty, on the other hand, are those used for the economy as a whole, calculated usng World Bank data (total real GDP and total manpower). The data set s calbrated n absolute terms wth the ad of UNCTAD data, whch provde comparsons of manufacturers' ULCs at a gven date b In the absence of recent data for ULCs, these have been extended to by ULCs n constant rupees (consequently only changes n exchange rates have an mpact). For Chna, ULCs trends n dollars are calculated n a relatvely recent artcle c. These are adjusted to ther 1998 level (as for Inda) wth the ad of UNCTAD data. Fnally, there are those countres for whch ULCs trends are avalable, but for whch there are no data n absolute terms permttng ther calbraton. The level of ther ULCs s artfcally calbrated to ft that of other countres. For nstance, the ULCs of Swtzerland, Iceland and Norway are calbrated to ft the European average; those of ULCs of Tawan to ft those of Chna; those of Hungary and Poland to ft those of Turkey; those of New Zealand to ft those of Australa. ULCs seres for some countres do not go back far enough n tme, n whch case seres are retropolated to the begnnng of the 1980s. Chna's ULCs are retropolated from 1987 to 1980 wth the ad of those for Tawan. Those of Hungary and Poland are retropolated wth the ad of those for Turkey. Portugal's ULCs are retropolated wth the ad of those of Span. Ths retropolaton has lttle mpact on the global ndex snce the countres concerned accounted for only a very small porton of the ndex at the tme. a. Cf. Bart Van Ark, Judth Banster et Catherne Gullemneau (2006) : «Compettve advantage of "Low-Wage" countres often exaggerated», Executve Acton seres n. 212, octobre 2006, the conference board, Chna center for economcs and busness. b. Sébasten Dullen (2004) : «Chna's changng compettve poston :lessons from a Unt-Labor-Cost-Based REER». c. Cf. Bart Van Ark et Erk Monnkhof (2000) : «Productvty and unt labour cost comparsons : a data base», Employment sector, Internatonal Labour Offce Geneva Edtor: Mnstère de l Économe, des Fnances et de l Industre Drecton Générale du Trésor et de la Poltque économque 139, rue de Bercy Pars CEDE 12 Publsher: Phlppe Bouyoux Edtor n chef: Phlppe Gudn de Vallern +33 (0) tresor-eco@dgtpe.fr Page layout: Maryse Dos Santos ISSN proceedng Recent Issues n Englsh November 2006 n 4. Census of French companes establshments abroad. Nla Cec n 3. Busness relatonshps between suplers and retalers. Clare Brosenberger, Ncolas Dosy n 2. Estmates of French medum to long terme potental growth revsted. Mayls Coupet October 2006 n 1. The global economc outlook n autumn Wllam Roos, Dana Hochrach Aprl 2006 (DPAE) n 106. Economc challenges n the ntegraton of clearng and settlement ndustres n Europe. Frédérc Cherbonner, Séverne Vandelanote February 2006 (DPAE) n 99. Analytcal model of French State debt strategy. Jean-Paul Renne, Ncolas Sagnes TRÉSOR-ECONOMICS n 5 November 2006 p.8