When a new drug is approved in the United States, it is virtually impossible to know all of the risks that a population may encounter when using that product. Even though the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires drug manufacturers to meet rigorous standards demonstrating the drug’s safety and effectiveness for its intended use, once approved, drugs can be used by many more patients than were studied in clinical trials. This may include patients with unique clinical conditions, differing health status, ethnicity, age, or other characteristics which were not well-represented before the drug’s approval. Further, the drugs themselves can be used in different ways and in different settings than were studied. Until recently, FDA did not have the necessary tools and data access to rapidly and consistently track the risks of serious side effects of regulated drugs after approval. Recognizing this challenge, FDA has developed a pilot system to make the best use of available electronic health data using a new data and research network capable of evaluating the safety of medical products in the U.S. 

Authorized by the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act (FDAAA) of 2007, this pilot is known as Mini-Sentinel, and is part of FDA’s larger Sentinel Initiative. Sentinel was envisioned as a national electronic system to track the safety of regulated medical products, through the use of existing health insurance claims and electronic clinical data that are generated as part of routine care. In the four years since its inception, Mini-Sentinel has made tremendous progress toward developing this system. Mini-Sentinel is comprised of insurance claims and clinical data from 18 participating data-partners, including some of the largest private health plans in the United States. In order to best protect patient privacy, the data from each partner is maintained behind each individual health plan fire-wall. This “distributed data” approach allows a single coordinating center to distribute FDA safety questions in the form of “queries,” to each of the participating data partners to be run against their own data. Aggregated summary results are then sent back to the coordinating center for final analysis. This process allows FDA to access data that can help in addressing safety questions in near real-time.  

Through Mini-Sentinel, FDA has the capability to better understand the safety outcomes using electronic health care data of approximately 169 million covered lives. This accumulation of data represents the capture of 382 million person-years of observation time and billions of prescription dispensings.[1] Examples of the types of safety questions that have already been addressed by Mini-Sentinel include the following:

• Safety concerns with drugs used to treat high blood pressure and the incidence of angioedema;
• Safety concerns with a new diabetes treatment and the incidence of heart attacks; and
• Impact of FDA regulatory actions (i.e. drug label changes) intended to mitigate serious risks of drugs.

The Mini-Sentinel pilot has demonstrated substantial progress and has proven to be a very useful tool for FDA, largely due to the strong partnerships developed between FDA, collaborating academic institutions, and private health plans. However, in order to ensure continued progress and long-term sustainability, it will be critical for progress to continue in several key areas. 

First, continued methods development and data understanding will be necessary to ensure FDA has access to the most innovative tools. The field of pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety surveillance is still young and the continued development of better study designs and analytic tools to quantify risks of serious adverse events, while accounting for many confounding factors that are inherent on observational data, will be critical. Further, as health reforms impact that way health care is delivered and financed (e.g., development of accountable care organizations and increased use of bundled payments), the electronic health data will change. It will be important to focus efforts on understanding how these changes will impact data used for safety evaluations. 

Second, it is clear that Sentinel’s contributions may extend well beyond FDA’s medical product assessments. The tools and infrastructure that have been developed by FDA over the last four years could be used as a platform to establish a national resource for a more evidence-based learning health care system. This system will enable a better understanding of not only the risks, but also benefits and best uses, of drugs in the post-market settings. 

FDA has initiated steps to ensure the long-term sustainability and impact of Sentinel infrastructure and tools. Within the next few years, FDA has proposed that Sentinel be transitioned into three main components: the Sentinel Operations Center, the Nation Resource Data Infrastructure, and the Methodological Resource for Medical Product Surveillance using Electronic Healthcare Databases. FDA has indicated that while the Sentinel Operations Center will continue to serve as FDA’s portal to the distributed database, the Nation Resource Data Infrastructure could potentially be used by other groups to support broader evidence generation. Potential groups with interest in improving our understanding of the impact of medical products and who could benefit from this framework include the National Institutes of Health, the Regan-Udall Foundation, the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and other possible stakeholder groups, such as the private industry. 

Collectively, these components will ensure that FDA continues to have the tools to engage in medical product surveillance, while ensuring the long-term sustainability of the system. In just four years, the Sentinel Initiative has laid the groundwork to transform how FDA, and the nation, benefits from electronic health care data. This network continues to foster a community of stakeholders committed the evidence generation, which will ultimately contribute to a learning health care system.

For more information on these issues, including discussion by leaders from Sentinel stakeholders, please visit the Sentinel Initiative Public Workshop event page. There you will find archived video, presentations, and further reading.

Video

• New Advances in Medical Records Reflects the Realities of the U.S. Healthcare System

At the very heart of the American idea is the notion that, unlike in other places, we can start from nothing and through hard work have everything. That nothing we can imagine is beyond our reach. That we will pull up stakes, go anywhere, do anything to make our dreams come true. But what if that's just a myth? What if the truth is something very different? What if we are…stuck?

I. What does it mean to be an American?

Full disclosure: I'm British. Partial defense: I was born on the Fourth of July. I also have made my home here, because I want my teenage sons to feel more American. What does that mean? I don't just mean waving flags and watching football and drinking bad beer. (Okay, yes, the beer is excellent now; otherwise, it would have been a harder migration.) I'm talking about the essence of Americanism. It is a question on which much ink—and blood—has been spent. But I think it can be answered very simply: To be American is to be free to make something of yourself. An everyday phrase that's used to admire another ("She's really made something of herself") or as a proud boast ("I'm a self-made man!"), it also expresses a theological truth. The most important American-manufactured products are Americans themselves. The spirit of self-creation offers a strong and inspiring contrast with English identity, which is based on social class. In my old country, people are supposed to know their place. British people, still constitutionally subjects of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, can say things like "Oh, no, that's not for people like me." Infuriating.

Americans do not know their place in society; they make their place. American social structures and hierarchies are open, fluid, and dynamic. Mobility, not nobility. Or at least that's the theory. Here's President Obama, in his second inaugural address: "We are true to our creed when a little girl born into the bleakest poverty knows that she has the same chance to succeed as anybody else because she is an American; she is free, and she is equal, not just in the eyes of God but also in our own."

Politicians of the left in Europe would lament the existence of bleak poverty. Obama instead attacks the idea that a child born to poor parents will inherit their status. "The same chance to succeed as anybody else because she is an American…."

Americanism is a unique and powerful cocktail, blending radical egalitarianism (born equal) with fierce individualism (it's up to you): equal parts Thomas Paine and Horatio Alger. Egalitarian individualism is in America's DNA. In his original draft of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote that "men are created equal and independent," a sentiment that remained even though the last two words were ultimately cut. It was a declaration not only of national independence but also of a nation of independents.

The problem lately is not the American Dream in the abstract. It is the growing failure to realize it. Two necessary ingredients of Americanism—meritocracy and momentum—are now sorely lacking.

America is stuck.

Almost everywhere you look—at class structures, Congress, the economy, race gaps, residential mobility, even the roads—progress is slowing. Gridlock has already become a useful term for political inactivity in Washington, D. C. But it goes much deeper than that. American society itself has become stuck, with weak circulation and mobility across class lines. The economy has lost its postwar dynamism. Racial gaps, illuminated by the burning of churches and urban unrest, stubbornly persist.

In a nation where progress was once unquestioned, stasis threatens. Many Americans I talk to sense that things just aren't moving the way they once were. They are right. Right now this prevailing feeling of stuckness, of limited possibilities and uncertain futures, is fueling a growing contempt for institutions, from the banks and Congress to the media and big business, and a wave of antipolitics on both left and right. It is an impotent anger that has yet to take coherent shape. But even if the American people don't know what to do about it, they know that something is profoundly wrong.

II. How stuck are we?

Let's start with the most important symptom: a lack of social mobility. For all the boasts of meritocracy—only in America!—Americans born at the bottom of the ladder are in fact now less likely to rise to the top than those situated similarly in most other nations, and only half as likely as their Canadian counterparts. The proportion of children born on the bottom rung of the ladder who rise to the top as adults in the U.S. is 7.5 percent—lower than in the U.K. (9 percent), Denmark (11.7), and Canada (13.5). Horatio Alger has a funny Canadian accent now.

It is not just poverty that is inherited. Affluent Americans are solidifying their own status and passing it on to their children more than the affluent in other nations and more than they did in the past. Boys born in 1948 to a high-earning father (in the top quarter of wage distribution) had a 33 percent chance of becoming a top earner themselves; for those born in 1980, the chance of staying at the top rose sharply to 44 percent, according to calculations by Manhattan Institute economist Scott Winship. The sons of fathers with really high earnings—in the top 5 percent—are much less likely to tumble down the ladder in the U. S. than in Canada (44 percent versus 59 percent). A "glass floor" prevents even the least talented offspring of the affluent from falling. There is a blockage in the circulation of the American elite as well, a system-wide hardening of the arteries.

Exhibit A in the case against the American political elites: the U. S. tax code. To call it Byzantine is an insult to medieval Roman administrative prowess. There is one good reason for this complexity: The American tax system is a major instrument of social policy, especially in terms of tax credits to lower-income families, health-care subsidies, incentives for retirement savings, and so on. But there are plenty of bad reasons, too—above all, the billions of dollars' worth of breaks and exceptions resulting from lobbying efforts by the very people the tax system favors.

So fragile is the American political ego that we can't go five minutes without congratulating ourselves on the greatness of our system, yet policy choices exacerbate stuckness.

The American system is also a weak reed when it comes to redistribution. You will have read and heard many times that the United States is one of the most unequal nations in the world. That is true, but only after the impact of taxes and benefits is taken into account. What economists call "market inequality," which exists before any government intervention at all, is much lower—in fact it's about the same as in Germany and France. There is a lot going on under the hood here, but the key point is clear enough: America is unequal because American policy moves less money from rich to poor. Inequality is not fate or an act of nature. Inequality is a choice.

These are facts that should shock America into action. For a nation organized principally around the ideas of opportunity and openness, social stickiness of this order amounts to an existential threat. Although political leaders declare their dedication to openness, the hard issues raised by social inertia are receiving insufficient attention in terms of actual policy solutions. Most American politicians remain cheerleaders for the American Dream, merely offering loud encouragement from the sidelines, as if that were their role. So fragile is the American political ego that we can't go five minutes without congratulating ourselves on the greatness of our system, yet policy choices exacerbate stuckness and ensure decline.

In Britain (where stickiness has historically been an accepted social condition), by contrast, the issues of social mobility and class stickiness have risen to the top of the political and policy agenda. In the previous U.K. government (in which I served as director of strategy to Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister), we devoted whole Cabinet meetings to the problems of intergenerational mobility and the development of a new national strategy. (One result has been a dramatic expansion in pre-K education and care: Every 3- and 4-year-old will soon be entitled to 30 hours a week for free.) Many of the Cabinet members were schooled at the nation's finest private high schools. A few had hereditary titles. But they pored over data and argued over remedies—posh people worrying over intergenerational income quintiles.

Why is social mobility a hotter topic in the old country? Here is my theory: Brits are acutely aware that they live in a class-divided society. Cues and clues of accent, dress, education, and comportment are constantly calibrated. But this awareness increases political pressure to reduce these divisions. In America, by contrast, the myth of classlessness stands in the way of progress. The everyday folksiness of Americans—which, to be clear, I love—serves as a social camouflage for deep economic inequality. Americans tell themselves and one another that they live in a classless land of open opportunity. But it is starting to ring hollow, isn't it?

III. For black Americans, claims of equal opportunity have, of course, been false from the founding.

They remain false today. The chances of being stuck in poverty are far, far greater for black kids. Half of those born on the bottom rung of the income ladder (the bottom fifth) will stay there as adults. Perhaps even more disturbing, seven out of ten black kids raised in middle-income homes (i.e., the middle fifth) will end up lower down as adults. A boy who grows up in Baltimore will earn 28 percent less simply because he grew up in Baltimore: In other words, this supersedes all other factors. Sixty-six percent of black children live in America's poorest neighborhoods, compared with six percent of white children.

Recent events have shone a light on the black experience in dozens of U. S. cities.

Behind the riots and the rage, the statistics tell a simple, damning story. Progress toward equality for black Americans has essentially halted. The average black family has an income that is 59 percent of the average white family's, down from 65 percent in 2000. In the job market, race gaps are immobile, too. In the 1950s, black Americans were twice as likely to be unemployed as whites. And today? Still twice as likely.

From heeding the call "Go west, young man" to loading up the U-Haul in search of a better job, the instinctive restlessness of America has always matched skills to work, people to opportunities, labor to capital.

Race gaps in wealth are perhaps the most striking of all. The average white household is now thirteen times wealthier than the average black one. This is the widest gap in a quarter of a century. The recession hit families of all races, but it resulted in a wealth wipeout for black families. In 2007, the average black family had a net worth of $19,200, almost entirely in housing stock, typically at the cheap, fragile end of the market. By 2010, this had fallen to $16,600. By 2013—by which point white wealth levels had started to recover—it was down to $11,000. In national economic terms, black wealth is now essentially nonexistent.

Half a century after the passing of the Civil Rights Act, the arc of history is no longer bending toward justice. A few years ago, it was reasonable to hope that changing attitudes, increasing education, and a growing economy would surely, if slowly, bring black America and white America closer together. No longer. America is stuck.

IV. The economy is also getting stuck.

Labor productivity growth, measured as growth in output per hour, has averaged 1.6 percent since 1973. Male earning power is flatlining. In 2014, the median full-time male wage was $50,000, down from $53,000 in 1973 (in the dollar equivalent of 2014). Capital is being hoarded rather than invested in the businesses of the future. U. S. corporations have almost $1.5 trillion sitting on their balance sheets, and many are busily buying up their own stock. But capital expenditure lags, hindering the economic recovery.

New-business creation and entrepreneurial activity are declining, too. As economist Robert Litan has shown, the proportion of "baby businesses" (firms less than a year old) has almost halved since the late 1970s, decreasing from 15 percent to 8 percent—the hallmark of "a steady, secular decline in business dynamism." It is significant that this downward trend set in long before the Great Recession hit. There is less movement between jobs as well, another symptom of declining economic vigor.

Americans are settling behind their desks—and also into their neighborhoods. The proportion of American adults moving house each year has decreased by almost half since the postwar years, to around 12 percent. Long-distance moves across state lines have as well. This is partly due to technological advances, which have weakened the link between location and job prospects, and partly to the growth of economic diversity in cities; there are few "one industry" towns today. But it is also due to a less vibrant housing market, slower rates of new business creation, and a lessening in Americans' appetite for disruption, change, and risk.

This geographic settling is at odds with historic American geographic mobility. From heeding the call "Go west, young man" to loading up the U-Haul in search of a better job, the instinctive restlessness of America has always matched skills to work, people to opportunities, labor to capital. Rather than waiting for help from the government, or for the economic tide to turn back in their favor, millions of Americans changed their life prospects by changing their address. Now they are more likely to stay put and wait. Others, especially black Americans, are unable to escape the poor neighborhoods of their childhood. They are, as the title of an influential book by sociologist Patrick Sharkey puts it, Stuck in Place.

There are everyday symptoms of stuckness, too. Take transport. In 2014, Americans collectively spent almost seven billion hours stuck motionless in traffic—that's a couple days each. The roads get more jammed every year. But money for infrastructure improvements is stuck in a failing road fund, and the railophobia of politicians hampers investment in public transport.

Whose job is it to do something about this? The most visible symptom of our disease is the glue slowly hardening in the machinery of national government. The last two Congresses have been the least productive in history by almost any measure chosen, just when we need them to be the most productive. The U. S. political system, with its strong separation among competing centers of power, relies on a spirit of cross-party compromise and trust in order to work. Good luck there.

V. So what is to be done?

As with anything, the first step is to admit the problem. Americans have to stop convincing themselves they live in a society of opportunity. It is a painful admission, of course, especially for the most successful. The most fervent believers in meritocracy are naturally those who have enjoyed success. It is hard to acknowledge the role of good fortune, including the lottery of birth, when describing your own path to greatness.

There is a general reckoning needed. In the golden years following World War II, the economy grew at 4 percent per annum and wages surged. Wealth accumulated. The federal government, at the zenith of its powers, built interstates and the welfare system, sent GIs to college and men to the moon. But here's the thing: Those days are gone, and they're not coming back. Opportunity and growth will no longer be delivered, almost automatically, by a buoyant and largely unchallenged economy. Now it will take work.

The future success of the American idea must now be intentional.

Entrepreneurial, mobile, aspirational: New Americans are true Americans. We need a lot more of them.

There are plenty of ideas for reform that simply require will and a functioning political system. At the heart of them is the determination to think big again and to vigorously engage in public investment. And we need to put money into future generations like our lives depended on it, because they do: Access to affordable, effective contraception dramatically cuts rates of unplanned pregnancy and gives kids a better start in life. Done well, pre-K education closes learning gaps and prepares children for school. More generous income benefits stabilize homes and help kids. Reading programs for new parents improve literacy levels. Strong school principals attract good teachers and raise standards. College coaches help get nontraditional students to and through college. And so on. We are not lacking ideas. We are lacking a necessary sense of political urgency. We are stuck.

But we can move again if we choose.

In addition to a rejuvenation of policy in all these fields, there are two big shifts required for an American twenty-first-century renaissance: becoming open to more immigration and shifting power from Washington to the cities.

VI. America needs another wave of immigration.

This is in part just basic math: We need more young workers to fund the old age of the baby boomers. But there is more to it than that. Immigrants also provide a shot in the arm to American vitality itself. Always have, always will. Immigrants are now twice as likely to start a new business as native-born Americans. Rates of entrepreneurialism are declining among natives but rising among immigrants.

Immigrant children show extraordinary upward-mobility rates, shooting up the income-distribution ladder like rockets, yet by the third or fourth generation, the rates go down, reflecting indigenous norms. Among children born in Los Angeles to poorly educated Chinese immigrants, for example, an astonishing 70 percent complete a four-year-college degree. As the work of my Brookings colleague William Frey shows, immigrants are migrants within the U. S., too, moving on from traditional immigrant cities—New York, Los Angeles—to other towns and cities in search of a better future. Entrepreneurial, mobile, aspirational: New Americans are true Americans. We need a lot more of them.

This makes a mockery of our contemporary political "debates" about immigration reform, which have become intertwined with race and racism. Some Republicans tap directly into white fears of an America growing steadily browner. More than four in ten white seniors say that a growing population of immigrants is a "change for the worse"; half of white boomers believe immigration is "a threat to traditional American customs and values." But immigration delves deeper into the question of American identity than it does even issues of race. Immigrants generate more dynamism and aspiration, but they are also unsettling and challenging. Where this debate ends will therefore tell us a great deal about the trajectory of the nation. An America that closes its doors will be an America that has chosen to settle rather than grow, that has allowed security to trump dynamism.

VII. The second big shift needed to get America unstuck is a revival of city and state governance.

Since the American Dream is part of the national identity, it seems natural to look to the national government to help make it a reality. But cities are now where the American Dream will live or die. America's hundred biggest metros are home to 67 percent of the nation's population and 75 percent of its economy. Americans love the iconography of the small town, even at the movies—but they watch those movies in big cities.

Powerful mayors in those cities have greater room for maneuvering and making an impact than the average U. S. senator. Even smaller cities and towns can be strongly influenced by their mayor.

There are choices to be made. Class divisions are hardening. Upward mobility has a very weak pulse. Race gaps are widening.

The new federalism in part is being born of necessity. National politics is in ruins, and national institutions are weakened by years of short-termism and partisanship. Power, finding a vacuum in D. C., is diffusive. But it may also be that many of the big domestic-policy challenges will be better answered at a subnational level, because that is where many of the levers of change are to be found: education, family planning, housing, desegregation, job creation, transport, and training. Amid the furor over Common Core and federal standards, it is important to remember that for every hundred dollars spent on education, just nine come from the federal government.

We may be witnessing the end of many decades of national-government dominance in domestic policy-making (the New Deal, Social Security, Medicare, welfare reform, Obamacare). The Affordable Care Act is important in itself, but it may also come to have a place in history as the legislative bookend to a long period of national-policy virtuosity.

The case for the new federalism need not be overstated. There will still be plenty of problems for the national government to fix, including, among the most urgent, infrastructure and nuclear waste. The main tools of macroeconomic policy will remain the Federal Reserve and the federal tax code. But the twentieth-century model of big federal social-policy reforms is in decline. Mayors and governors are starting to notice, and because they don't have the luxury of being stuck, they are forced to be entrepreneurs of a new politics simply to survive.

VIII. It is possible for America to recover its earlier dynamism, but it won't be easy.

The big question for Americans is: Do you really want to? Societies, like people, age. They might also settle down, lose some dynamism, trade a little less openness for a little more security, get a bit stuck in their ways. Many of the settled nations of old Europe have largely come to terms with their middle age. They are wary of immigration but enthusiastic about generous welfare systems and income redistribution. Less dynamism, maybe, but more security in exchange.

America, it seems to me, is not made to be a settled society. Such a notion runs counter to the story we tell ourselves about who we are. (That's right, we. We've all come from somewhere else, haven't we? I just got here a bit more recently.) But over time, our narratives become myths, insulating us from the truth. For we are surely stuck, if not settled. And so America needs to decide one way or the other. There are choices to be made. Class divisions are hardening. Upward mobility has a very weak pulse. Race gaps are widening. The worst of all worlds threatens: a European class structure without European welfare systems to dull the pain.

Americans tell themselves and the world that theirs is a society in which each and all can rise, an inspiring contrast to the hereditary cultures from which it sprang. It's one of the reasons I'm here. But have I arrived to raise my children here just in time to be stuck, too? Or will America be America again?

Editor's note: This piece originally appeared in Esquire.

Britain’s Conservative Party just tore itself apart over the EU referendum; David Cameron was forced to resign as prime minister. Yet the party in meltdown is Labour. Polling out this past weekend shows Labour drawing 31%, vs. 37% for Conservatives, if a general election were held tomorrow.

The Conservative Party, showing once again its extraordinary capacity for self-preservation, is closing ranks behind new Prime Minister Theresa May. Still, how can the Tories be riding so high after such a political omnishambles? One doesn’t have to look far for an answer: the hard-left Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn.

Asked who is or would be the best prime minister, just 16% of British voters give Mr. Corbyn the thumbs-up, compared with 52% for Ms. May. Fewer than half of Labour supporters (48%) think Mr. Corbyn would be the best PM. In her first outing in the House of Commons, Ms. May easily trounced Mr. Corbyn. (Her performance was described by the left-leaning Guardian newspaper as a “brutally brilliant” debut.) No wonder most of his parliamentary colleagues have abandoned him, forcing a leadership contest.

Again, the Conservative Party has just presided over an amateurish, disastrous session of British political history. That Tories still dominate is less about their strength than their political opponents’ weakness.

So: What will happen? I’ve just been in London, and conversations with political insiders suggest that this is the most likely scenario to play out:

First, Jeremy Corbyn, having attracted many left-wingers onto party rolls, fends off challenger Owen Smith to retain the leadership of the Labour Party.

Next, the majority of Labour MPs set themselves up as a separate parliamentary group.

As the second-largest group in parliament, these MPs would become the official opposition. They could call themselves anything–say, New Labour Party. (Read this excellent summary of the constitutional implications by Meg Russell of the University College London). This means money and status. If the anti-Corbyn MPs can’t get a new leader, they’ll get a new party.

In the meantime, a few remaining anti-Corbyn MPs stay behind and try to recapture their party. The key here, for those interested in the details, is to take control of Unite, the U.K.’s largest trade union. (Unite’s leader, Len McCluskey, is a strong supporter of Mr. Corbyn and has rallied the union’s members behind him, but his term ends soon.)

If the Labour Party, reduced to a parliamentary rump, remains in Mr. Corbyn’s hands, the next general election would be the moment when the split becomes formal. The New Labour Party would try to attract Liberal Democrat and Green supporters, as well as pro-European conservatives.

Theresa May is likely to wait until the next scheduled general election, in 2020, to face voters. But if Labour were to split, she might decide to call a snap general election to take advantage of opponents’ disarray. Either way, it seems likely the Tories would win.

Center-left parties across the globe seem to be struggling to connect with the anxieties of ordinary voters, leaving them at the mercy of populist appeals. Between populist surges and volatile electorates, we are seeing destabilizing forces at work in politics. Strong political parties act as stabilizers in stormy waters. Whatever one’s individual politics, the fate of the Labour Party in Britain, and perhaps the Republican Party in the U.S., should concern us all.

Editor's note: This piece originally appeared in The Wall Street Journal. 

The Chinese currency, or renminbi (RMB), has been a contentious issue for the past several years. Most recently, members of Congress have suggested tying China currency legislation to the upcoming votes on the free trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama. While not going that far, the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, and Senator Charles Schumer have promised a vote on the issue some time this year.

The root of the conflict for the United States—and other countries—is complaints that China keeps the value of the RMB artificially low, boosting its exports and trade surplus at the expense of trading partners. Recent government data show that the bilateral trade deficit between the U.S. and China grew nearly 12 percent in the first half of 2011—fueling efforts to boost job creation domestically by authorizing import tariffs and other restrictions on countries that manipulate their currencies.

Although the U.S. Treasury has repeatedly stopped short of labeling China a “currency manipulator” in its twice-yearly reports to Congress, it has consistently pressured China to allow the RMB to appreciate at a faster pace, and to let the currency fluctuate more freely in line with market forces. The International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and many economists have also argued for faster appreciation and a more flexible exchange rate policy as part of a broader program of “rebalancing” the Chinese economy away from its traditional reliance on exports and investment, and towards a more consumer-driven growth model. Partly in response to these pressures, but more because of domestic considerations, China has allowed the RMB to rise by about 25 percent against the U.S. dollar since mid-2005. Yet the pace of appreciation remains agonizingly slow for the United States and other countries in Europe and Latin America whose manufacturing sectors face increasing competition from low-priced Chinese goods.

The international conversation over the RMB remains perennially vexed because China and its trade partners have fundamentally divergent ideas on the function of exchange rates. The United States and other major developed economies, as well as the IMF, view an exchange rate simply as a price. Consistent intervention by China to keep its exchange rate substantially below the level the market would set is, in this view, a distortion that prevents international markets from functioning as well as they could. This price distortion also affects China’s own economy, by encouraging large-scale investment in export manufacturing, and discouraging investment in the domestic consumer market. Thus it is in the interest both of China itself and the international economy as a whole for China to allow its exchange rate to rise more rapidly.

Chinese officials take a very different view. They see the exchange rate—and prices and market mechanisms in general—as tools in a broader development strategy. The goal of this development strategy is not to create a market economy, but to make China a rich and powerful modern country. Market mechanisms are simply means, not ends in themselves. Chinese leaders observe that all countries that have raised themselves from poverty to wealth in the industrial era, without exception, have done so through export-led growth. Thus they manage the exchange rate to broadly favor exports, just as they manage other markets and prices in the domestic economy to meet development objectives such as the creation of basic industries and infrastructure. These policies do not differ materially from those pursued by Japan, South Korea and Taiwan since World War II, or by Britain, the United States and Germany in the 19th century. Since the Chinese leaders perceive that an export-led strategy is the only proven route to rich-country status, they view with profound suspicion arguments that rapid currency appreciation and markedly slower export growth are “in China’s interest.” And because China—unlike Japan in the 1970s and 1980s—is an independent geopolitical power, it is fully able to resist international pressure to change its exchange-rate policy.

A second issue raised by China’s currency and trade policies is the persistent trade surplus since 2004 which has contributed about three-quarters of the nearly US$3 trillion increase in China’s foreign exchange reserves over the past eight years. Close to two-thirds of these reserves are invested in U.S. treasury debt. Some fear that China has become the United States’ banker, and could cause a collapse in the U.S. dollar and the U.S. economy by dumping its dollar holdings. Others suggest that China’s recent moves to increase the international use of the RMB through an offshore market in Hong Kong signal China’s intent to build up the RMB as an international reserve currency to rival or eventually supplant the dollar. All of these concerns are based on serious misunderstandings of both international financial markets and China’s domestic political economy. China is not in any practical sense “America’s banker;” it is more a depositor than a lender, and its economic leverage over the United States is very modest.

And while China’s leading position in global trade makes it quite sensible to increase the use of the RMB for invoicing and settling trade, it is a huge leap from making the RMB more internationally traded to making it an attractive reserve currency. China does not now meet the basic conditions required for the issuer of a major reserve currency, and may never meet them. Most importantly, the RMB is unlikely to become more than a second-tier reserve currency so long as Chinese leaders cling to their deep reluctance to allow foreigners a significant role in China’s domestic financial markets.

China’s Currency Policies

China’s exchange-rate policy must be understood within the context of two political-economic factors: first, China’s overall development strategy which aims to build up the nation’s economic and political power with market mechanisms being tools to that end rather than ends in themselves; and second, China’s geopolitical position.

The Chinese development strategy, which emerged gradually after Deng Xiaoping began the process of “reform and opening” in 1978, is based on a careful study of how other industrial nations got rich—and in particular, the catch-up growth strategies of its east Asian neighbors Japan, South Korea and Taiwan after World War II. A key lesson of that study is that every rich nation, in the early stages of its development, used export-friendly policies to promote domestic industry and to accelerate technology acquisition. In earlier eras, when the use of the gold standard made it impossible to maintain permanently undervalued exchange rates, countries used administrative coercion and high tariffs to achieve the same effect of favoring domestic manufacturers over foreign ones. Britain’s policies of using colonies as captive markets for its manufactured exports, and prohibiting the colonies from exporting manufactures back to Britain, were important components of that nation’s rise as the world’s leading industrial power in the late 18th and 19th centuries. Resentment of those policies was one cause of the American Revolution; once independent, the United States spurred its economic development through the “American system,” which featured high tariff walls (often 40 percent or more) through the 19th and into the early 20th century. Germany used similar protective policies to foster its industries in the late 19th century. Countries did not become advocates for free trade until their firms were secure in global technological leadership and the need for protection waned for Britain, this occurred in the mid-19th century; for the United States, the mid-20th.

After World War II, undervalued exchange rates became an important tool of export promotion, partly because new global trading rules under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT, which morphed into the World Trade Organization in 1995) made it more difficult to maintain extremely high levels of tariff protection. The testimony of post-war economic history is quite clear. Countries that maintained undervalued exchange rates and pursued export markets enjoyed sustained high-speed economic growth and became rich. These countries include Germany, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. Countries that used other mechanisms to block imports and encouraged their industrial firms to cater exclusively to domestic demand—so-called “import substitution industrialization,” or ISI, which usually involved an overvalued exchange rate—in some cases grew quite rapidly for 10 years or more. But this growth could not be sustained because the ISI strategy includes no mechanism for keeping pace with advances in global technology. Most ISI countries, including much of Latin America and the whole of the Communist bloc, experienced severe financial crisis and fell into long periods of stagnation.

As it tried to accelerate growth by moving from a planned to a more market-driven economy in the 1980s, China gradually depreciated the RMB by a cumulative 80 percent, from 1.8 to the dollar in 1978 to 8.7 in 1995. Since then, however, the RMB has only appreciated against the dollar, moving up to a rate of 8.3 by 1997, and holding steady at that rate until mid-2005 after which gradual appreciation resumed. Since 2006 the RMB has appreciated at an average annual rate of about 5 percent against the dollar, to its current rate of about 6.4, and it is likely that this average rate of appreciation will be sustained for the next several years. This history demonstrates that supporting export growth, while important, is not the sole determinant of China’s exchange-rate policy. During the Asian financial crisis of 1997-1998, the consensus of most economists held that the RMB was overvalued; despite this, Beijing kept the value of the RMB steady, on the grounds that devaluation would further destabilize the battered Asian regional economy. As a consequence, China endured a few years of relatively anemic growth in exports and GDP, and persistent deflation. The leadership decided that this was a price worth paying for regional economic stability.

Conversely, the appreciation since 2005 reflects Beijing’s understanding that clinging to a seriously undervalued exchange rate for too long risks sparking inflation. This occurred in many oil-rich Persian Gulf countries in 2005-2007, which held fast to unrealistically low pegged exchange rates and suffered annual inflation rates of 20 percent to 40 percent. For Chinese leaders, an inflation rate above 5 percent is considered dangerously high, and the most rapid currency appreciation in the last few years has occurred when inflationary pressure was relatively strong. A second reason for switching to a policy of gradual appreciation was the view that an ultra-cheap exchange rate disproportionately benefited manufacturers of ultra-cheap goods, whose technology content and profit margins were low. While these industries provided employment for millions, they did not contribute much to the nation’s technological upgrading. A gradual currency appreciation, economic policymakers believed, would eventually force Chinese manufacturers to move up the value chain and start producing more sophisticated and profitable goods. This strategy appears to be bearing fruit: China is rapidly gaining global market share in more advanced goods such as power generation equipment and telecoms network switches. Meanwhile, it has begun to lose market share in low-end goods like clothing and toys, to countries like Vietnam, Cambodia, Indonesia and Bangladesh.

In short, China’s exchange-rate policy is mainly driven by the aim of enhancing the nation’s export competitiveness. But other factors play a role, namely a desire to maintain domestic and regional macro-economic stability, keep inflationary pressures at bay, and force a gradual upgrading of the industrial structure. From the point of view of Chinese policy makers, all of these objectives suggest that the exchange rate should be carefully managed, rather than left to unpredictable market forces. While economists may argue that long-run economic stability is better served by a more flexible exchange rate, Chinese officials can point to the excellent track record their policies have produced: consistent GDP growth of around 10 percent a year since the late 1990s, inflation consistently at or below 5 percent, export growth of more than 20 percent a year, and a steady increase in the sophistication of Chinese exports. Until some kind of crisis convinces them that their economic policies require major adjustment, China’s economic planners are likely to stick with their current formula.

International pressure to accelerate the pace of RMB appreciation is unlikely to have much impact. The basic reason is that other countries have very little leverage that they can bring to bear. In the 1970s, the United States was able to pressure Germany and Japan to appreciate their currencies because those countries were militarily dependent on America. (Moreover, the United States was able unilaterally to engineer a devaluation of the dollar by going off the gold standard in 1971.) Japan’s position of dependency forced it to accede to the Plaza Accord of 1985, which resulted in a doubling of the value of the yen over the next two years. China, being, geopolitically independent, has no incentive to bow to pressure on the exchange rate from the United States, let alone Europe or other nations such as Brazil. The only plausible threat is that failure to appreciate the RMB could lead to a protectionist backlash that would shut the world’s doors to Chinese exports. Yet this threat has so far proved empty: even after three years of the worst global recession since the Great Depression, trade protectionism has failed to emerge in the United States or Europe.

Other considerations further strengthen the Chinese determination not to give in to foreign pressure on the exchange rate. One is the Japanese experience after the Plaza Accord. The generally accepted view in China is that the dramatic appreciation of the yen in the late 1980s was a crucial contributor to Japan’s dramatic asset-price bubble whose collapse after 1990 set the former world-beating economy on a two-decade course of economic stagnation. Chinese officials are adamant that they will not repeat the Japanese mistake. This resolve was strengthened by the global financial crisis of 2008, which in China thoroughly discredited the idea—already held in deep suspicion by Chinese leaders—that lightly regulated financial markets and free movements of capital and exchange rates are the best way to run a modern economy. China’s rapid recovery and strong growth after the crisis are deemed to vindicate the nation’s strategy of a managing the exchange rate, controlling capital flows, and keeping market forces on a tight leash.

The Internationalization of the RMB

Despite this generally self-confident view of the merit of its exchange-rate and other economic policies, Chinese leaders are troubled by one headache caused by the export-led growth strategy: the accumulation of a vast stockpile of foreign exchange reserves, most of which are parked in very low-yielding dollar assets, principally U.S. treasury bonds and bills. For a while, the accumulation of foreign reserves was viewed as a good thing. But after the 2008 financial crisis, the perils of holding enormous amounts of dollars became evident: a serious deterioration of the US economy leading to a sharp decline in the value of the dollar could severely reduce the worth of those holdings. Moreover, the pervasive use of the dollar to finance global trade proved to have hidden risks: when United States credit markets seized up in late 2008, trade finance evaporated and exporting nations such as China were particularly hard hit. The view that excessive reliance on the dollar posed economic risks led Chinese policy makers to undertake big efforts to internationalize the RMB, beginning in 2009, through the creation of an offshore RMB market in Hong Kong.

Before considering the significance of RMB internationalization, it is worth addressing some misconceptions about China’s large-scale reserve holdings and investments in U.S. treasury bonds. Because China’s central bank is the biggest single foreign holder of U.S. government debt, it is often said that China is “America’s banker,” and that, if it wanted to, it could undermine the U.S. economy by selling all of its dollar holdings, thereby causing a collapse of the U.S. dollar and perhaps the U.S. economy. These fears are misguided. First of all, it is by no means in China’s interest to cause chaos in the global economy by prompting a run on the dollar. As a major exporting nation, China would be among the biggest victims of such chaos. Second, if China sells U.S. treasury bonds, it must find some other safe foreign asset to buy, to replace the dollar assets it is selling. The reality is that no other such assets exist on the scale necessary for China to engineer a significant shift out of the dollar. China accumulates foreign reserves at an annual rate of about US$400 billion a year; there is simply no combination of markets in the world capable of absorbing such large amounts as the U.S. treasury market. It is true that China is trying to diversify its reserve holdings into other currencies, but at the end of 2010 it still held 65 percent of its reserves in dollars, well above the average for other countries (60 percent). From 2008 to 2010, when newspapers were filled with stories about China “dumping dollars,” China actually doubled its holdings of U.S. Treasury securities, to US$1.3 trillion.

The other crucial point is that China is not in any meaningful sense “America’s banker,” and its economic leverage is modest. China owns just 8% of the total outstanding stock of US Treasury debt; 69% of Treasury debt is owned by American individuals and institutions. Measured by Treasury debt holdings, America is America’s banker—not China. And China’s holdings of all US financial assets – equities, federal, municipal and corporate debt, and so on – is a trivial 1%. Chinese commercial banks lend almost nothing to American firms or consumers. The gross financing of American companies and consumers comes principally from U.S. banks, and secondarily from European ones. It is more apt to think of China as a depositor at the “Bank of the United States”: its treasury bond holdings are super-safe, liquid holdings that can be easily redeemed at short notice, just like bank deposits. Far from holding the United States hostage, China is a hostage of the United States, since it has little ability to move those deposits elsewhere -- no other bank in the world is big enough.

It is precisely this dependency that has prompted Beijing to start promoting the RMB as an international currency. By getting more companies to invoice and settle their imports and exports in RMB, China can gradually reduce its need to put its export earnings on deposit at the “Bank of the United States.” But again, headlines suggesting that internationalization of the RMB heralds the imminent demise of the current dollar-based international monetary system are premature.

The simplest reason is that the RMB’s starting point is so low that many years will be required before it becomes one of the world’s major traded currencies. In 2010, according to the Bank for International Settlements, the RMB figured in under 1 percent of the world’s foreign exchange transactions, less than the Polish zloty; the dollar figured in 85 percent and the euro in 40 percent. There is no question that use of the RMB will increase rapidly. Since Beijing started promoting the use of RMB in trade settlement (via Hong Kong) in 2009, RMB-denominated trade transactions have soared: around 10 percent of China’s imports are now invoiced in RMB. The figure for exports is lower, which makes sense. Outside China, people sending imports to China are happy to be paid in RMB, since they can reasonably expect that the currency will increase in value over time. But Chinese exporters wanting to get paid in RMB will have a difficult time finding buyers with enough RMB to pay for their shipments. Over time, however, foreign companies buying and selling goods from China will become increasingly accustomed to both receiving and making payments in RMB – just as they grew accustomed to receiving and making payments in Japanese yen in the 1970s and 1980s.

Since China is already the world’s leading exporter, and is likely to surpass the United States as the world’s leading importer within three or four years, it is quite natural that the RMB should become a significant currency for settling trade transactions. Yet the leap from that role to a major reserve currency is a very large one, and the prospect of the RMB becoming a reserve currency on the order of the euro—let alone replacing the dollar as the world’s dominant reserve currency—is remote. The reason for this is simple: to be a reserve currency, you need to have safe, liquid, low-risk assets for foreign investors to buy; these assets must trade on markets that are transparent, open to foreign investors and free from manipulation. Central banks holding dollars and euros can easily buy lots of U.S. treasury securities and euro-denominated sovereign bonds; foreign investors holding RMB basically have no choice but to put their cash into bank deposits. The domestic Chinese bond market is off-limits to foreigners, and the newly-created RMB bond market in Hong Kong (the so-called “Dim Sum” bond market) is tiny and consists mainly of junk-bond issuances by mainland property developers.

Again, we can reasonably expect rapid growth in the Hong Kong RMB bond market. But the growth of that market, and granting foreigners access to the domestic Chinese government bond market, remain severely constrained by political considerations. Just as Chinese officials do not trust markets to set the exchange rate for their currency, they do not trust markets to set the interest rate at which the government can borrow. Over the last decade Beijing has retired virtually all of its foreign borrowing; more than 95 percent of Chinese government debt is issued on the domestic market, where the principal buyers are state-owned banks that are essentially forced to accept whatever interest rate the government dictates. There is absolutely no reason to believe that the Chinese government will at any point in the near future surrender the privilege of setting the interest rate on its own borrowings to foreign bond traders over whom it has no control. As a result, it is likely to be many years before there is a large enough pool of internationally-available safe RMB assets to make the RMB a substantial international reserve currency.

In this connection the example of Japan provides an instructive example. In the 1970s and 1980s Japan occupied a position in the global economy similar to China’s today: it had surpassed Germany to become the world’s second biggest economy, and it was accumulating trade surpluses and foreign-exchange reserves at a dizzying rate. It seemed a foregone conclusion that Japan would become a central global financial power, and the yen a dominant currency. Yet this never occurred. The yen internationalized – nearly half of Japanese exports were denominated in yen, Japanese firms began to issue yen-denominated “Samurai bonds” on international markets, and the yen became an actively traded currency. Yet at its peak the yen never accounted for more than 9 percent of global reserve currency holdings, and the figure today is around 3 percent. The reason is that the Japanese government was never willing to allow foreigners meaningful access to Japanese financial markets, and in particular the Japanese government bond market. Even today, about 95 percent of Japanese government bonds are held by domestic investors, compared to 69 percent percent for US Treasury securities. China is not Japan, of course, and its trajectory could well be different. But the bias against allowing foreigners meaningful participation in domestic financial markets is at least as strong in China as in Japan, and so long as this remains the case it is unlikely that the RMB will become anything more than a regional reserve currency.

Implications for U.S. Policy

The above analysis suggests two broad conclusions of relevance to United States policymakers. First, China’s exchange-rate policy is deeply linked to long-term development goals and there is very little that the United States, or any other outside actor, can do to influence this policy. Second, the same suspicion of market forces that leads Beijing to pursue an export-led growth policy that generates large foreign reserve holdings also means that Beijing is unlikely to be willing to permit the financial market opening required to make the RMB a serious rival to the dollar as an international reserve currency. A related observation is that an average annual appreciation of the RMB against the dollar of about 5 percent now seems to be firmly embedded in Chinese policy. An appreciation of this magnitude enables China to maintain export competitiveness while achieving two other objectives: keeping domestic consumer-price inflation under control, and gradually forcing an upgrade of China’s industrial structure.

Generally speaking, these trends are quite benign from a U.S. perspective. In substantive terms, there is little to be gained from high-profile pressure on China to accelerate the pace of RMB appreciation, since the United States possesses no leverage that can be plausibly brought to bear. While the persistent undervaluation of the RMB will present increasing difficulties for American manufacturers of high-end equipment, as Chinese manufacturers gradually become more competitive in these sectors, the steady appreciation of the currency will increase the purchasing power of the average Chinese consumer and the total size of the Chinese consumer market. United States policy should therefore de-emphasize the exchange rate, where the potential for success is limited, and instead focus on keeping the pressure on China to maintain and expand market access for American firms in the domestic Chinese market, which in principle is provided for under the terms of China’s accession to the World Trade Organization.

This paper is part of a series of in-depth policy papers, Shaping the Emerging Global Order, in collaboration with ForeignPolicy.com. Visit ForeignPolicy.com's Deep Dive section for discussion on this paper.

Time and again, China has defied the skeptics who claimed its unique mixed model—an ever-more market-driven economy dominated by an authoritarian Communist Party and behemoth state-owned enterprises—could not possibly endure. Today, those voices are louder than ever. Michael Pettis, a professor at Peking University's Guanghua School of Management and one of the most persistent and well-regarded skeptics, predicted in March that China's economic growth rate "will average not much more than 3% annually over the rest of the decade." Barry Eichengreen, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley, warned last year that China is nearing a wall hit by many high-speed economies when growth slows or stops altogether—the so-called "middle-income trap."

No question, China has many problems. Years of one-sided investment-driven growth have created obvious excesses and overcapacity. A weaker global economy since the 2008 financial crisis and rapidly rising labor cost at home have slowed China's vaunted export machine. Meanwhile, a massive housing bubble is slowly deflating, and the latest economic data is discouraging. Real growth in GDP slowed to an annualized rate of less than 7 percent in the first quarter of 2012, and April saw a sharp slowdown in industrial output, electricity production, bank lending, and property transactions. Is China's legendary economy in serious trouble?

Not just yet. The odds are that China will navigate these shoals and continue to grow at a fairly rapid pace of around 7 percent a year for the remainder of the decade, overtaking the United States to become the world's biggest economy around 2020. That's a lot slower than the historical average of 10 percent, but still solid. Considerably less certain, however, is whether China's secretive and corrupt Communist Party can make this growth equitable, inclusive, and fair. Rather than economic collapse, it's far more likely that a decade from now China will have a strong economy but a deeply flawed and unstable society.

China's economic model, for all its odd communist trappings, closely resembles the successful strategy for "catch-up growth" pioneered by Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan after World War II. The theory behind catch-up growth is that poor countries can achieve substantial convergence with rich-country income levels by simply copying and diffusing imported technology. In the 1950s and 1960s, for instance, Japan reverse-engineered products such as cars, watches, and cameras, enabling the emergence of global firms like Toyota, Nikon, and Sony. Achieving catch-up growth requires an export-focused industrial policy, intensive investment in enabling infrastructure and basic industry, and tight control over the financial system so that it supports infrastructure, basic industries, and exporters, instead of trying to maximize its own profits.

China's catch-up phase is far from over. It has mastered the production of basic industrial materials and consumer products, but its move into sophisticated machinery and high-tech products has only just begun. In 2010, China's per capita income was only 20 percent of the U.S. level. By most measures, China's economy today is comparable to Japan's in the late 1960s and South Korea's and Taiwan's around 1980. Each of those countries subsequently experienced another decade or two of rapid growth. Given the similarity of their economic systems, there is no obvious reason China should differ.

For catch-up countries, growth is mainly about resource mobilization, not resource efficiency, which is the name of the game for lower-growth rich countries. Historically, about two-thirds of China's annual real GDP growth has come from additions of capital and labor. Mainly this means moving workers out of traditional agriculture and into the modern labor force, and increasing the amount of capital inputs (like machinery and software) per worker. Less than a third of growth in China comes from greater efficiency in resource use.

In a rich country like the United States—which already has abundant capital resources and employs all its workers in the modern sector—the reverse is true. About two-thirds of growth comes from efficiency improvements and only one-third from additions to labor or capital. Conditioned by their own experience to believe that economic growth is mainly about efficiency, analysts from rich countries come to China, see widespread waste and inefficiency, and conclude that growth must be unsustainable. They miss the larger picture: The system's immense success in mobilizing capital and labor resources overwhelms marginal efficiency problems.

All developing economies eventually reach the point where they have moved most of their workers into the modern sector and have installed roughly as much capital as they need. At that point, growth tends to slow sharply. In countries that fail to make the tricky transition from a mobilization to an efficiency focus (think Latin America), real growth in per capita GDP can virtually grind to a halt. Such countries also find themselves stuck with high levels of income inequality, which tends to rise during the resource mobilization period and fall during the efficiency phase. Some worry that China—which for the last decade has had by far the highest capital spending boom in history—is already on the edge of this precipice. But the data do not support this pessimistic view. First, much surplus agricultural labor remains. Just over one-third of China's labor force still works in agriculture; the other northeast Asian economies did not see their growth rates slow noticeably until the agricultural share of the workforce fell below 20 percent. It will take about a decade for China to reach this level.

And despite years of breakneck building, China's stock of fixed capital—the total value of infrastructure, housing, and industrial plants—is not all that large relative to either the economy or the population. Rich countries typically have a capital stock a bit more than three times their annual GDP. For China, the figure is about two and a half. And on a per capita basis, China has about as much fixed capital as Japan did in the late 1960s and less than a third of what the United States had as long ago as 1930. Further large-scale investments are still required. So China's economy can continue to grow in part based on capital spending, though a gradual transition to a consumer-led economy does need to begin soon.

One illustration of China's enduring capital deficit is housing. Scarred by the catastrophic U.S. housing bubble, many observers see an even scarier property bubble in China. Robert Z. Aliber, who literally wrote the book on financial manias, called China's housing boom "totally unsustainable" this January. And it's true: Since 2005, land and housing prices have rocketed, and the outskirts of many cities are dotted by blocks of vacant apartment buildings.

But China's housing situation differs dramatically from that of the United States. The U.S. bubble started with too much borrowing (mortgages issued at 95 percent or more of a house's supposed market value), which caused a rise in housing prices far beyond the well-established trend of the previous 40 years and sparked the construction of far more houses than there were families to buy them. In China, mortgage borrowing is modest; price appreciation was mainly a one-off growth spurt in an infant market, rather than a deviation from established trend; and there is a desperate shortage of decent housing.

Since 2000, the average house in China has been bought with around 60 percent cash down, according to research by my firm, GK Dragonomics, and the minimum legal down payment has been something in the range of 20 to 30 percent—a far cry from the subprime excesses of the United States. House prices rose rapidly, but that's partly because they were artificially low before 2000, when state-owned enterprises allocated most of the housing and there was no private market. Much of the home-price appreciation of the last decade was simply a matter of the market catching up with underlying reality. And despite articles about "ghost cities" of empty apartment blocks, the bigger truth is that urban China has a housing shortage—the opposite of what typically happens at the end of a bubble.

Nearly one-third of China's 225 million urban households live in a dwelling without its own kitchen or toilet. That's like the entire country of Indonesia living in factory dormitories, temporary shelters on construction sites, basement air-raid shelters, or shanties on city outskirts. Over the next two decades, if present trends continue, another 300 million people— equivalent to nearly the entire population of the United States—will move from the countryside to China's cities. To accommodate these new migrants, alleviate the present shortage, and replace dilapidated housing, China will need to build 10 million housing units a year every year from now to 2030. Actual average completions from 2000 to 2010 were just 7 million a year, so China still has a lot of building to do. The same goes for much basic infrastructure such as power plants, gas and water supplies, and air cargo facilities.

Yet the housing market also illustrates China's true problem: not that growth is unsustainable, but that it is deeply unfair. The overall housing shortage coexists with an oversupply of luxury housing, built to cater to a new elite. Although most Chinese have benefited from economic growth, the top tier have benefited obscenely—often simply because of their government or party connections, which enable them to profit immensely from land grabs, graft on construction projects, or insider access to lucrative stock market listings. A 2010 study by Chinese economist Wang Xiaolu found that the top 2 percent of households earned a staggering 35 percent of national urban income. A handful of giant state firms, secure in monopoly positions and flush with cheap loans from state banks, has almost unlimited access to moneymaking opportunities. The state-owned banks themselves earned a staggering $165 billion in 2011. Yet private firms, which produce almost all of China's productivity and employment gains, earn thin margins and suffer pervasive discrimination.

At the root lies a political system built on a principle of unfairness. The Communist Party ultimately controls the allocation of all resources; its officials are effectively immune to legal prosecution until they first undergo an opaque internal disciplinary process. Occasionally a high official is brought down on corruption charges, like former Chongqing party secretary Bo Xilai. But such cases reflect elite power struggles, not a determined effort to end corruption. In a few years' time, China will likely surpass the United States as the world's top economy. But until it solves its fairness problem, it will remain a second-rate society.

In the last two months China has executed a decisive change in its policy for managing its currency, the renminbi. Ending an eight-year period of slow but relentless appreciation against the U.S. dollar, the People’s Bank of China (PBOC) engineered a swift devaluation of about 3 percent, and doubled the size of the currency’s daily trading band. These moves took financial markets by surprise and sowed confusion. Was Beijing simply trying to re-ignite export growth by making its currency cheaper? Or was it making a more fundamental shift?

The answer is straightforward. China has taken a huge step towards making its exchange rate more flexible and market determined. In doing so, the authorities have clearly signaled their intention to switch from a monetary policy that mainly targets the exchange rate, to one that mainly targets domestic interest rates. The change in renminbi policy is thus part of a broad and ambitious financial reform strategy, reflecting the agenda laid out last November in the “Decision” published following the Third Plenum of the 18th Party Congress. It is all about improving China’s macroeconomic management, and has little or nothing to do with boosting exports.

Four Phases of China’s Exchange Rate Management

To understand the significance of the new renminbi policy, some background is helpful. The history of China’s exchange rate management can be divided into four phases. In the first, from 1979 to 1994, there was a steady depreciation in order to wean the country off the artificially overvalued exchange rate inherited from the previous period of Communist autarky. During this period Beijing maintained a dual exchange rate system. This consisted of an official rate, still overvalued, but gradually converging toward reality, which essentially applied to the capital account; and a more market based “swap rate” which was available to exporters. The purpose of this arrangement was to enable a competitive (though rudimentary) export economy to develop while still keeping the local price of imported capital goods relatively low, and avoiding the collapse in living standards that a full-on depreciation would have caused.

The second phase was a brief transition period in 1994-1995 when the two exchange rates were combined and the currency was allowed to float more or less freely in order for fair value to be established. In late 1995 the value of the renminbi was fixed at a rate of 8.3 against the U.S. dollar, initiating the third phase—a hard peg against the U.S. dollar—which lasted until July 2005.

It’s important to recall that the first test of this regime was the refusal to devalue in 1998 in the wake of the Asian financial crisis, when the currencies of the countries with whom China was then competing for export orders all fell dramatically. Rather than devaluing to help out exporters, Beijing hardened its peg. This was costly: China’s exports flatlined in 1998, and arguably the relatively strong currency played a role in the deflation that China suffered for the next four years. One reason the government hardened the peg, rather than devaluing, was to establish that China was a dependable player in the world system and that its currency could be relied on as a store of value. The short-term hit to exports was more than offset by the strategic gain in China’s reputation as “responsible stakeholder” and a safe place for foreign direct investment.

The hard peg against a declining U.S. dollar led eventually to a depreciation of the trade-weighted, inflation-adjusted exchange rate (known as the real effective exchange rate, or REER) that contributed to the exploding exports and ballooning trade surpluses of the early 2000s. This in turn prompted the fourth phase of Chinese currency policy: a crawling peg against the U.S. dollar, starting in July 2005. Each day, the PBOC fixed a reference rate for the renminbi against the dollar, and permitted the currency’s value to fluctuate within a narrow band around the reference. The daily trading band was initially set at 0.3 percent (in either direction), and subsequently widened to 0.5 percent in 2007 and 1 percent in April 2012. Over eight years, the crawling-peg system delivered a 35 percent appreciation against the U.S. dollar and a 40 percent appreciation of the REER.

In light of the vociferous criticism China endured for its undervalued exchange rate, it is striking in retrospect how swift Beijing was to change its currency regime once a serious external imbalance appeared. As late as 2004, China’s merchandise trade balance was around 2.5 percent of GDP, just slightly above the 15-year average. In 2005 it jumped to 5.5 percent, and the decision to let the currency rise was immediate. At first the rise was too timid, and the trade and current account balances continued to expand. But by mid-2007 the appreciation pace picked up to 5 percent a year. The ultimate result of the crawling-peg regime was a reduction in the current account surplus from its peak of 10 percent of GDP in 2007 to the measly 0.8 percent recorded in the first quarter of 2014.

As the above account makes clear, mercantilist motives historically played a secondary role in China’s exchange rate policies—and after 2007 China pursued an anti-mercantilist policy of deliberately shrinking its trade surplus. Beijing’s bigger concerns were the exchange rate’s role in facilitating a broad shift from administered to market prices (1978-1995), as an anchor for monetary policy (1995-2013) and as instrument for correcting an external imbalance and promoting a shift in favor of domestic demand (2007-2013). Lying in the background was the idea that a relatively stable exchange rate was strategically beneficial. After the Asian crisis, foreign investors were reassured that China was a safe place for direct investment; and after the 2008 global crisis the case for the renminbi as an international trade-settlement and portfolio investment currency was strengthened.

Given this history, we can safely rule out the theory that this year’s devaluation is a tactic to boost exports at a time of flagging domestic demand. An explanation that better fits both the recent facts and the historical context is that, in line with the Third Plenum Decision, Beijing wanted to make the exchange rate more flexible and market-determined. But it faced a problem: for almost 18 months from September 2012, the daily market rate of the renminbi was at or near the top of the 1 percent trading band, because investors assumed (rightly) that the Chinese currency would always go up: it was a “one-way bet.” The one-way bet caused large-scale capital inflows that were routinely much larger than the monthly trade surplus. Under these conditions, if the central bank had simply widened the daily trading band, traders would quickly have pushed the value of the currency to the top of the new band, and even more capital would have flowed in. To prevent this outcome, the PBOC in late February starting pushing down its daily fixing, and ordered Chinese state-owned banks to sell renminbi and buy dollars. In mid-March, when the “one-way bet” psychology had been chased out of the market, PBOC doubled the daily trading band to 2 percent.

Welcome to the Managed Float

It is clear that China has entered a new phase of currency management, and the rulebook that has worked well since 2005 must be heavily revised. Two observations inform this judgment. First, the main aims of the strong renminbi policy have been achieved. The current account surplus has been virtually eliminated, and at least one serious technical study of the currency (by Martin Kessler and Arvind Subramaniam of the Peterson Institute for International Economics), the structural undervaluation of the renminbi has been eliminated.

Second, the adoption of a 2 percent daily trading band means that, on a day-to-day basis, the renminbi rate can now be determined mainly by the market most of the time (since only at times of extreme stress do currencies move more than 2 percent in a day). This newfound capacity seems consistent with the broad aim articulated in the Communist Party’s reform agenda last November, of having market forces play a “decisive role” in resource allocation. A willingness to let the currency float more freely is also consistent with the apparent agenda to liberalize deposit interest rates within in the next two years, which implies shifting from a monetary policy that mainly targets the exchange rate to one that mainly targets a domestic money-market interest rate.

It is also clear, however, that the renminbi will not simply be left to its own devices: the float will be a heavily managed one. Mechanically, it will likely operate much like the Singapore dollar “basket, band and crawl,” or BBC system, with an undisclosed trade-weighted index target, a 2 percent daily trading band puts a limit on extreme movements and a periodic readjustment of the slope of the policy band to prevent a major misalignment of the currency emerging (as it did at the end of China’s hard-peg era).

Strategically, the two most important aims of Beijing’s exchange rate regime will be maintaining stability of both the current and capital accounts, and providing support for the emergence of the renminbi as a serious international currency. (For an analysis of the renminbi-internationalization drive, see China’s Global Currency: Lever For Financial Reform.)

The first factor basically means that when capital flows (in or out) threaten to become destabilizing, the PBOC will use the exchange rate to reverse those flows; the same applies to extreme movements in the current account. In effect, Beijing will try to keep both parts of the balance of payments in roughly neutral position, while it undertakes deep reforms of the domestic economy.

The second aim means that sustained depreciation is unlikely to be tolerated, since as the new kid on the block the renminbi still must convince global investors that it is a reliable store of value over the medium to long term. Yet intolerance for sustained depreciation is perfectly compatible with significant short-term depreciations lasting several months or more, to correct current or capital account imbalances. The days of the one-way bet are over.

The bottom line is that Beijing has made a decisive commitment to a much more flexible and far more market-driven exchange rate—exactly what the U.S. Treasury Department and the International Monetary Fund have been suggesting for years. This commitment means that the exchange rate will cease to be a major point of friction between China and its trading partners. The interesting question now is how quickly China will follow up with the even bigger task of liberalizing its domestic financial system.

Editors' Note: Hammering out the political deal that has now brought Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations to a successful conclusion was a landmark achievement, but as Mireya Solis argues, there are still battles to be fought. This post originally appeared in Nikkei Asian Review.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) deal that the United States and 11 other Pacific Rim countries struck in Atlanta today was five years in the making. More than once we heard that the end game had come, only to see deadlines pass us by as the negotiations continued to move at a frustratingly slow pace. The grueling work required to cinch this mega trade deal should not come as a surprise, however, given the sheer complexity of the negotiation agenda and the wide differences in the makeup of the participating countries.

Hammering out the essential political deal that has brought TPP negotiations to a successful conclusion is a landmark achievement. But we should not lose sight of the fact that more battles will need to be won before the TPP morphs from an agreement in principle to an agreement in reality. Success at the Atlanta ministerial, however, delivers immediate and portentous benefits. 

U.S. leadership: A balance between strength and flexibility 

Central to American grand strategy has been updating the international economic architecture to match the realities of 21st-century economy and consolidating the critical role of the United States as a Pacific power as envisioned by the Asian rebalance policy. The TPP has long emerged as a litmus test of the American will and resolve to rise to these challenges in a world of fluid geopolitics. With success at the TPP negotiating table, the convening power of the United States—as demonstrated by its ability to steward the most ambitious blueprint for trade integration—has received an enormous boost. 

But equally important is that in the final TPP deal, the United States has displayed another key trait of international leadership: flexibility. Critics of American trade strategy have frequently complained that the U.S. rigidly pushes for its own free-trade agreement (FTA) template without incorporating the preferences of its counterparts: that de facto, the United States does not “negotiate” in trade negotiations. But the set of final compromises that enabled the TPP deal to be struck at Atlanta shows a different picture, one that in fact makes U.S. leadership more attractive and the TPP project more compelling. 

The TPP project is still a promise, not a reality.

In endorsing the principle that TPP countries can opt out of investor-state dispute settlement in their public regulation of tobacco products, and in adopting a hybrid approach that will give up to eight years of data protection for biologic drugs, the United States has shown the strength to compromise without surrendering high standards. In turn, these negotiated compromises cast a favorable light on the TPP as a collective endeavor with a commonality of purpose among founding members: to ensure that protection of foreign direct investment does not hinder public health regulations; and to both promote innovation and access to medicines.

Reviving trade policy 

The trade regime has not had a success of this magnitude for the past two decades. Rather, the list of failures and missed opportunities is long, and the prospects of the Doha Round are dim at best. 

In powerful ways, the TPP revives a stagnant trade regime. It shows that mega trade agreements can offer a platform to devise updated rules on trade and investment that cover sizable share of the world economy. And it creates an incentive structure for concurrent trade agreements to aim higher if they want to remain competitive. 

A genuine re-launch of Abenomics 

After a bruising political battle to secure passage of the security legislation, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe announced that the economy would be his utmost priority. In so doing, he disclosed three fresh arrows: a strong economy, raising the fertility rate, and boosting social security to care for the elderly. 

Abenomics 2.0, however, has fallen flat, as it lacks specifics on how to achieve the target of 600 trillion yen GDP, and because subsidies for young families and the expansion of nursing homes, while desirable and politically popular, do not make for a strategy of economic revitalization. Instead, the TPP deal boosts Abenomics 1.0 where its true transformative power lies: structural reform.

An informed debate on TPP 

After legal scrubbing, the TPP text will be released. This will offer the much-needed opportunity to debate the merits and demerits of the agreement with facts, and not speculation. Full disclosure of the agreement, close public scrutiny, and a spirited discussion on where the agreement has lived up to expectations and where it has fallen short will be essential in shoring up public support.

The TPP project is still a promise, not a reality. Another set of milestones will be required (twelve, to be exact). Each participating country has its own domestic procedures for ratification, and some definitely face an uphill battle: Malaysia is gripped by a major political crisis as Prime Minister Najib Razak fights charges of corruption; and it is anyone’s guess what the electoral results in a couple of weeks will mean for Canada’s place in the TPP. 

For the United States too, the quest for TPP ratification could not come at a more complicated time with a full-blown presidential election race. In wrapping up the TPP negotiations, the United States has demonstrated its leadership in convening a significant and diverse group of countries and in stewarding with success the negotiation of an ambitious blueprint for economic governance. But this will mean little if TPP is voted down in Congress or stays frozen in ratification limbo. Without the power to deliver a TPP in force, past accomplishments will rightfully be brushed aside. 

Event Information

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has been promoting the increased participation of women in the Japanese economy, a policy popularly known as womenomics, as a pillar of his campaign for economic revitalization. While significant strides have been made with regard to increasing female workforce participation, corporate efforts to introduce flexible working practices, and spurring the promotion of women on the corporate ladder, womenomics will be incomplete if it remains confined to the established corporate structure. Unleashing the creative potential of half of Japan’s population will require an equally sustained effort to promote female entrepreneurship. This is a tall order for Japan where female entrepreneurs face a two-fold challenge: the modest development of venture capital and a host of legal and cultural hurdles to individual entrepreneurship; plus the additional hurdles for women in gaining access to the assets widely perceived as essential to success such as business networks, financing, technology, and access to markets at home and abroad. However, entrepreneurship offers Japanese women significant benefits through the opportunity to bypass rigid corporate hierarchies, custom tailor their workloads to better achieve work-life balance, and offer new and innovative products and services to the Japanese consumer.

On February 8, the Center for East Asia Policy Studies at Brookings hosted a distinguished group of policy experts and entrepreneurs for a discussion on the current state of female entrepreneurship in Japan and concrete strategies to promote female-run businesses in the country. They compared Japan and the United States, both in terms in differing results but also on-going common challenges, and discussed their own personal experiences.

Join the conversation on Twitter using #Womenomics

Video

• Womenomics 2.0: The potential of female entrepreneurs in Japan
• The importance of mentors for female entrepreneurs
• Female entrepreneurs: Different options and different styles
• Female leadership creates opportunities

Audio

• Womenomics 2.0: The potential of female entrepreneurs in Japan

Transcript

• Uncorrected Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

• Kurihara Presentation for website
• 20160208_womenomics_japan_transcript

What makes the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) consequential?

Since the onset of the 21st century, countries from every corner of the world have vigorously negotiated free trade agreements (FTAs) based on the principle of preferential market access (as opposed to the most-favored nation obligation of the WTO). This has resulted in a veritable avalanche of such trade deals, with close to 400 FTAs notified to the WTO in the past 20 years. If the negotiation of preferential trade agreements is now the dominant trend in the trading regime, and almost no country has escaped contagion from the FTA syndrome, why does one agreement in particular—the TPP—remain the focal point of policy debates on trade?

Chart 1. Multilateral trade regimes and FTA proliferation

The TPP generates most attention because it has spurred the emergence of mega trade agreements (as compared to the mostly small bilateral trade deals that had characterized the FTA wave), and has offered a new platform to advance the trade agenda as negotiations on the Doha Round continue gridlocked. The TPP has come a long way from its humble beginnings as a trade grouping of four small open economies (Brunei, New Zealand, Chile, and Singapore). Today, it comprises 12 nations, covers 26 percent of world trade, and is expected to generate global income gains in the neighborhood of $492 billion by 2030.

Chart 2. From humble beginnings to mega trade deal

But the significance of the TPP is not to be grasped by numbers alone. Consider the following defining traits of this trade agreement:

1. Its high level of ambition for tariff liberalization vowing to disallow sectoral carve-outs. While it is true that sensitive sectors asserted their political weight by deferring or limiting tariff elimination (e.g., autos for the United States and five agricultural commodities for Japan), the commitment of TPP countries to eventually eliminate 99-100 percent of tariff rates is indeed impressive. Japan does stand out for a lower level of committed tariff elimination (95 percent); but again this is the highest level of liberalization that Japan has ever committed to in any trade negotiation.
2. Its comprehensive set of rules to target non-tariff barriers by introducing disciplines on issues such as regulatory coherence, state-owned enterprises, competitiveness, supply chains, etc. With 30 chapters and over 5,000 pages of text, grasping the reach of TPP rules will certainly take time. However, a quick glance does reveal novel, and needed, disciplines in important areas of the economy. For example, the e-commerce chapter establishes a binding obligation for governments to allow free data flows, disallows forced localization of data servers (except for the financial sector), and mandates that all countries must provide a legal framework to protect personal information. Another important innovation is the TPP provision that governments cannot require the transfer of source code from private companies operating in their market.
3. Its expansive vision as an Asia-Pacific platform with aspirations to set global standards. Its open architecture with a docking mechanism to encourage further member expansion and its explicit aim to establish a trans-regional platform that bridges Asia and North and South America are strong selling points for the TPP. It undercuts the oft-mentioned fear of using preferential trade agreements to create closed-off regions, and it gives its rules and standards the opportunity to disseminate far and wide.
4. Last but not least, the TPP has emerged as a central policy priority for both the U.S. and Japan to hone their international economic competitiveness and achieve broader foreign policy goals. In the area of foreign economic policy, the TPP is one of the most compelling frameworks to encourage China to deepen its market reforms and sign on to more ambitious liberalization commitments. The TPP, therefore, has emerged as a central arena for the interaction of the three giants of the world economy.

The United States as a Pacific power

The U.S. expects to reap important economic benefits from the TPP. It is a trade agreement that taps into the areas of competitive strength of the American economy: agricultural exports, trade in services, the digital economy, to name a few. Econometric studies put the expected income gains of the TPP for the U.S. in the order of $131 billion per year, and to the extent that the TPP becomes a global standard, these gains will grow. Indeed, the TPP is the centerpiece of the American trade agenda. Its success is required for continued momentum in the on-going trans-Atlantic trade negotiations, but it could also influence other important trade initiatives. For example, TPP disciplines on services and state-owned enterprises are expected to influence deliberations on the Trade in Services Agreement, a plurilateral trade negotiation carried out under the aegis of the WTO.

From the point of view of global governance, the TPP is a litmus test of the U.S. ability to provide leadership at a time of great complexity in the world economic order: one where supply chains have emerged as a main driver of production and trade, where emerging economies are increasingly vocal in the management of the global economy, and where the test of updating Bretton Woods institutions looms large. Through the TPP, the U.S. can display its convening power to negotiate novel trade rules, to devise new institutional forms that complement and spur on the multilateral regime, and to be proactive and not just reactive to initiatives from rising economic powers.

But the TPP is also a pillar of U.S. Asia policy, one that solidifies the U.S. commitment to remain an engaged Pacific power. This trade agreement increases the appeal of the rebalancing policy by defining it not just as a reorientation of military resources toward a region undergoing a significant power transition; but also as the pursuit of a common endeavor: furthering economic interdependence with rules that match the realities of the 21st century economy, and potentially establishing a bridge toward China with the prospect of TPP membership.

Japan is an essential partner for the U.S. to achieve these important goals. Japan came late to the TPP negotiations (in the summer of 2013), but it transformed the economic and political significance of this deal. Japan’s participation allowed the TPP to qualify as a mega trade agreement. For the U.S. alone, the projected economic gains with Japan on board tripled. This is not surprising given the size of the Japanese market and the fact that the U.S. and Japan do not have a bilateral trade agreement; nor has Japan ever accepted these levels of liberalization. Moreover, prior to Japan joining the TPP there were doubts as to whether this could indeed become an Asia-Pacific platform of economic integration since no major Asian economy was participating. Japan’s entry put those objections to rest.

Japan as a reviving power

For Japan as well, the TPP negotiations have had salutary effects on its trade diplomacy and on the pursuit of central domestic and foreign policy priorities. Prior to joining the TPP, Japan’s trade strategy had achieved modest results: it lagged behind its peer competitors in negotiating an FTA network that covered a substantial share of its trade, it had faced difficulty in persuading Southeast Asian countries to adopt many WTO+ rules, it had received the cold shoulder from the U.S. and Europe as it proposed the negotiation of trade agreements, and remained deadlocked with China over the membership configuration of an East Asian trade grouping. The TPP altered the parameters of Japanese trade policy. It allowed the country to negotiate preferential access to main markets of destination, to disseminate next frontier trade rules, and to undertake concurrent mega trade negotiations. As a reaction to Japan’s courting of TPP membership, China recalibrated its trade policy to speed up the launch of trilateral trade negotiations in Northeast Asia and was now amenable to a 16-member trade grouping upholding the principle of ASEAN centrality (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership or RCEP), and the Europeans also came to the negotiation table.

As a full participant in the mega FTA movement, Japan can aim high in order to pursue signature objectives such as:

• Negotiate deep integration FTAs that enhance the international competitiveness of Japanese global supply chains. An assessment of Japan’s core competencies in the 21st century should start with the recognition that a significant share of industrial capacity has been relocated overseas. On-shoring of manufacturing operations is not a viable goal given projected demographic trends. Rather, the aim should be to sustain and strengthen Japan’s role in global supply chains (the leading force of international production and trade today). Japan’s international diplomacy has a role to play here by negotiating deep FTAs that meet the needs of fragmented production chains. Additionally, deep FTA commitments will also help Japan address its own domestic inefficiencies such as the modest liberalization of the services sector.
• Lock-in structural reforms. One of the main benefits of linking the domestic structural reform agenda to international trade commitments is that it will be harder to roll back the reforms if and when political circumstances change (this is indeed a major lesson of the failure to institutionalize Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi’s reforms). Importantly, the TPP negotiations do not conform to the old-style gaiatsu pattern where a reluctant Japan would deflect U.S. pressure for it to change its ways. This time Japan has eagerly sought to be at the TPP table and has—of its own accord—identified the synergies between the new trade commitments and its own efforts to reform the domestic economy.
• Manage the transition from “regime-taker” to “regime-maker.” With the stagnation of the WTO, we have moved to a system of decentralized competition whereby different clusters of countries seek to define the standards for economic integration. The costs of a passive trade policy are much higher today than in a most favored nation (MFN) world where preferential trade agreements were the exception and not the rule. The expectation of steady liberalization benefits through successive multilateral trade rounds has been sharply revised. Therefore, countries that want to avoid the discriminatory effects of existing preferential trade deals and to improve access to important markets through additional elimination of tariffs and the adoption of rules that address behind-the-border barriers have resorted to an active FTA diplomacy. More broadly, Japan has much to win from displaying leadership in international economic governance, in a manner that resonates with the goals of the Abe administration to play a proactive role in world affairs.

For all the shared interests between the U.S. and Japan in the TPP project, negotiations over long divisive market access terms proved difficult and frustratingly long. Of course, a host of other issues also kept the larger TPP membership apart. Biologics especially was the last topic to close in the final TPP ministerial held in Atlanta in October 2015, and negotiations went to the wire. Despite all these difficulties, the ability to strike a TPP deal last fall represents a big win for the trade regime which has not seen a success of this magnitude in two decades. Since its creation, the WTO has not updated the rules of international trade and investment, and the Doha Round lingers on life support. Many were skeptical that a major trade negotiation tackling front and center the complex and unwieldy behind-the-border agenda could succeed. This is the most powerful message coming from Atlanta: it can be done.

With a TPP deal in hand there is greater hope that we can manage the tectonic changes in international trade governance. The transformation of the trade agenda (increasingly about regulatory matters) and the limitations of the WTO as a negotiation forum, have called into question the pure multilateral ideal—one set of binding rules for 150+ countries. Instead, the center of action is now on what we call “variable geometry” arrangements where subsets of countries negotiate next-frontier rules: the plurilaterals in the WTO and the preferentials through mega trade agreements. The emerging system for trade governance is not risk-free, and much effort will be required to forestall potential dangers: fragmentation (if TPP-like standards do not disseminate widely) and exclusion (if less developed countries are bypassed by the FTA wave).

Moreover, the TPP deal opens a new and promising chapter in U.S.-Japan relations. It is certainly more than a U.S.-Japan trade agreement—it represents the ability of 12 countries at varying levels of development and with very different regulatory regimes to agree on the most substantive trade liberalization to date. But it is also true that at the core of the TPP, the U.S. and Japan as the largest and most developed economies have acted as an engine of negotiations. The TPP marks a milestone in U.S.-Japan relations, as an effective instance of cooperation to upgrade the international economic architecture. In the TPP, the U.S. and Japan are on close alignment on the rules area of the talks and were able to reach an agreement on market access issues that in the past had proven intractable.

Ratification, reform, and reach

None of these effects will be long lasting nor will they reach their full potential, if TPP countries (and the U.S. and Japan in particular) do not double down on the next crucial steps. For simplicity sake, these can be dubbed the three “Rs” of ratification, reform, and reach.

Ratification

Ratification rules in the TPP require that six countries representing 85 percent of combined GDP approve the agreement before it enters into force. Therefore, to meet this numerical requirement both the U.S. and Japan must ratify. However, for the U.S., TPP ratification will represent a steep political battle in the midst of an American presidential election year. Despite public opinion polls showing that most Americans see in international trade an opportunity, the politics of trade agreements are fractious. Long-standing opposition by environmental groups and unions to trade agreements has resulted in their active mobilization against the TPP. And the debate on the merits of trade agreements has only become more heated as critics suggest that trade globalization is to be blamed for growing income inequality and the erosion of state regulatory powers.

For both national parties, the TPP is a divisive issue. While President Barack Obama has made TPP negotiation and ratification a central priority of his administration, Democrats in Congress have not backed his trade initiative in large numbers, in part due to the opposition of the party’s traditional base, labor unions. The internal dynamics of the Republican Party have shifted dramatically, complicating the odds for the TPP. The Republican Party has become less cohesive with the emergence of the Tea Party wing determined to deny Obama a legacy-making trade agreement. The support of key Republican figures in the Senate has also waned due to dissatisfaction over the tobacco carve-out from investor-state dispute settlement and the exclusivity period for biologics. And the business community has also criticized these provisions, offering only qualified support for the TPP deal.

The U.S. has yet to fail in ratifying a negotiated trade agreement. And a vote down on the TPP would be singularly costly for the credibility of U.S. foreign policy and the evolution of the international trade regime.

Reform

One of the most powerful benefits of trade agreements is the ability of governments to use them as commitment devices to implement needed economic changes. Reform is in fact the crucial issue for Japan as it tries to leave behind stagnant growth. Economic revitalization certainly goes beyond agricultural reform, to encompass the host of productivity-enhancing measures across all areas of the economy, the internationalization of services, the promotion of inward direct investment, and the further upgrading of regional and trans-regional production networks.

Yet, farming countermeasures adopted in the wake of the TPP deal have raised doubts about the government’s resolve to transform its agricultural sector. Japan’s TPP market access commitments do include a 56,000-ton import rice quota (to grow eventually to 78,400 tons). But the government promptly announced an increase in stockpiling purchases to match the TPP quota, effectively preventing a drop in the price of rice and market adjustment. This artificial support preempts the modernization of the agricultural sector since it enables part-time farmers to continue operating in tiny plots, hindering the emergence of commercial farming. The government also submitted a generous 2016 supplementary budget with 312 billion yen earmarked for agricultural TPP countermeasures. But informed experts question its impact in boosting farming competitiveness since public works allocations still loom large (30 percent of outlays will go to land reclamation projects).

Just as the electoral cycle has not facilitated TPP ratification in the U.S., the looming Japanese Upper House election in July is not conducive to moving past prior trade compensation practices.

Reach

The release of the TPP text has clarified a very important point: membership can be extended not only to APEC economies but also to other countries that are willing to meet TPP disciplines. Enlargement will be critical to avoid the above-mentioned risks of fragmentation and exclusion by helping disseminate TPP standards. In the short and medium term, the conclusion of the TPP talks is expected to have two main effects: increase the list of potential applicants, and encourage a higher level of ambition among on-going trade negotiations.

The number of economies expressing an interest in joining the TPP has grown to include South Korea, Taiwan, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, Colombia, and Costa Rica, among others. Regarding the second wave of accession the key issue will be readiness to undertake the ambitious liberalization commitments of the TPP, and the list of prospective applicants shows wide variation on this score. The conclusion of TPP talks also creates an incentive for the updating of existing FTAs and/or scaling up the level of ambition in ongoing trade negotiations, as countries outside the TPP want to secure export markets, attract foreign direct investment, and embed their companies in global supply chains.

In the long run, the key challenge will be to devise an effective strategy to engage emerging economies, such as China, India, and Brazil. This is still the gaping hole in the U.S. plans to develop trans-Pacific and trans-Atlantic trade groupings. Certainly, putting in place the TPP and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is the first step in such strategy since it changes the incentive structure for these countries to entertain further market liberalization. But at the end of the day, these emerging economies must reach the determination that it is in their national interest to abide by these economic standards, and find the political will to tackle vested interests. This is a tall order indeed.

The most pressing question may well be how China will position itself vis-à-vis the TPP. Can we expect it to act on past precedent and seek TPP accession just as in the past it used WTO membership to advance economic reforms? Or will it choose instead to champion the negotiation of a Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific (FTAAP) after both the TPP and RCEP materialize, in order to play a more proactive role in the international economic architecture—more in conformance with the recent launch of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank?

The recently struck TPP agreement underscores the potential of furthering U.S.-Japan cooperation to supply needed international economic governance. However, the overview of remaining challenges also shows that clinching a TPP deal is just the first step.

This article originally appeared in the March/April 2016 issue of Economy, Culture & History Japan SPOTLIGHT Bimonthly.

Downloads

• The high stakes of TPP ratification: Implications for Asia-Pacific and beyond

Event Information

Japan may face political uncertainty in the weeks ahead with an election slated for the Diet’s Upper House this summer. Only a few months ago, it was widely thought that Prime Minister Abe would dissolve the Lower House in order to have a double election this summer. However, lackluster economic performance, the pending decision on a consumption tax increase, and the task of reconstruction after the Kumamoto earthquakes may encourage the Prime Minister to reevaluate his options. How will the ruling coalition redefine its electoral strategy as voters expect further progress on the economic agenda? Can the newly-formed Democratic Party use this first electoral test to demonstrate greater potential?

On May 3, the Center for East Asia Policy Studies hosted a panel of distinguished Japanese politicians for a discussion on the future of Japanese politics. Yoshimasa Hayashi, Yasutoshi Nishimura, and Itsunori Onodera of the Liberal Democratic Party and Goshi Hosono of the Democratic Party shared their thoughts on their respective parties’ preparations for the upcoming election and the impact the election may have on the balance of power in the Diet, as well as issues such as the ratification of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the implementation of signature reform policies, and the potential resurgence of the opposition Democratic Party.

Join the conversation on Twitter using #JapanPolitics

Audio

• The future of Japanese politics (Japanese)

The Brexit vote has stunned us. It has shaken us. It has forced upon us a set of dreadful questions none of us ever wished answers were required for:

• How do you disarticulate deeply integrated economies? How do you prevent the rancor of the U.K.'s divorce from the EU wreaking more havoc, not only in Europe but in the rest of the world? The divorce metaphor is apt here as it signals the treacherous waters ahead when the feeling of betrayal and the temptation of revenge may result in a misguided punitive approach to separation. Let's not forget that almost half of U.K.'s referendum voters chose "remain." Let's not forget that the youth in the U.K. overwhelmingly chose the EU for their future. EU leaders therefore face the ultimate test of leadership. In negotiating exit terms they must strengthen this constituency for internationalism. The U.K. needs committed internationalists. We all need them.
• How do you prevent rising nationalism from dialing back globalization? Is the "Great Convergence" at risk? In the past few decades, developing countries have emerged into the international trading system, and in opening their economies they have lifted millions from abject poverty. Will this future be off-limits to the next round of poor nations seeking to avail themselves of the opportunities of the international marketplace? Has globalization already peaked and are we to be the unlucky generation that lives through the tumultuous process of retrenchment? Are we to feel firsthand the dread that the generation of a century ago experienced when they all suffered from beggar-thy-neighbor policies?
• Are we next? Are the forces of economic nationalism and nativism that drove the referendum outcome in the U.K. unstoppable elsewhere? Will they decide the outcome of the American presidential election this fall? And if so, what happens to the international economic order?

These are still imponderable questions, but I would venture two answers: Brexit is not the final indictment of globalization, and our futures are not yet destined to be ruled by the politics of grievance.

The United States need not become the next domino to succumb to the harmful influence of populism. The parallels in the anti-globalization campaign on both sides of the Atlantic are of course unnerving:

• Anti-elitism: Fueled by the sense of economic disenfranchisement of older white voters who feel that a future of "splendid isolation" is possible.
• Nationalism: Driven by a desire to "take back" our country.
• Nativism: Spurred by strong anti-immigration feelings and rejection of a multicultural polity.

But the differences are also striking, especially when it comes to the issue of trade which commanded so much attention during both the Brexit campaign and the American presidential nomination debates. In reading the "Leave" campaign's statement on trade policy, you will not find:

• The rejection of trade deals for "killing jobs" with special blame placed on developing countries (aka China) for inflicting a mortal wound on manufacturing prowess;
• The promise to impose punitive tariffs on major trading partners even at the risk of initiating a trade war;
• The call for a boycott of firms that relocate part of their production overseas.

Brexit then is not an endorsement of the Trump brand of predatory protectionism.

Instead, what the Leave campaign offered on trade policy are heaps of wishful thinking and hidden truths. It sought to downplay the importance of the EU market to U.K. producers in order to justify setting its sights on other horizons. It promised to open up trade opportunities and job growth by negotiating trade deals with emerging economies such as China and India. And it confidently stated that trade links with the EU could be restored through a U.K.-EU trade deal that would mirror what countries like Norway have done. But this optimistic prognosis left out a lot. For starters, a future U.K.-EU free trade agreement will most likely yield pared-down benefits. Norway gained access to the single market by agreeing to free movement of labor that Brexiters vehemently reject. Moreover, the U.K. cannot chart its own course on trade policy until its separation from the EU is complete. Restructuring U.K.'s trading relations will take years and the results are hard to predict. But the costs of uncertainty are immediate as companies and investors will recalibrate their strategies without waiting for a protracted process of trade negotiations.

Brexiters struck a xenophobic note, but did not produce an overtly protectionist manifesto. Yet, their success at the ballot did deliver a major blow to economic internationalism. Trumpism is both xenophobic and protectionist, and were it to prevail in the November election, its negative impact on globalization will be vastly more profound. But the die has not been cast, and there are sound reasons to doubt a Trump victory.

If we are to prevail in overcoming the politics of grievance, we must first reckon that populism did not materialize from thin air. It is based on a fact: As globalization intensified during the past two decades, the middle classes in the industrialized world experienced stagnant incomes. The inward push is enabled by the manipulation of this fact: Offering trade as an easy scapegoat for a vastly more complex set of factors producing economic disparities (such as technological change and political decisions on taxation, education, and safety nets). And this populism is based on a false promise—that "taking control," i.e., taking our countries out of the existing trading regime will make those left behind better off. Its one unmistakable deliverable will be to make all of us worse off.

Editor’s Note: This blog post is one in a series of posts in which guest bloggers respond to the Brookings paper, “The potential and limitations of impact bonds: Lessons from the first five years of experience worldwide."

In 2014, clause 5 (1) of the County Early Childhood Education Bill 2014 declared free and compulsory early childhood education a right for all children in Kenya. Early childhood education (ECE) in Kenya has historically been located outside of the realm of government and placed under the purview of the community, religious institutions, and the private sector. The disparate and unstructured nature of ECE in the country has led to a proliferation of unregistered informal schools particularly in underprivileged communities. Most of these schools still charge relatively high fees and ancillary costs yet largely offer poor quality of education. Children from these preschools have poor cognitive development and inadequate school readiness upon entry into primary school.

The Kenyan constitution places the responsibility and mandate of providing free, compulsory, and quality ECE on the county governments. It is an onerous challenge for these sub-national governments in taking on a large-scale critical function that has until now principally existed outside of government.

In Nairobi City County, out of over 250,000 ECE eligible children, only about 12,000 attend public preschools. Except for one or two notable public preschools, most have a poor reputation with parents. Due to limited access and demand for quality, the majority of Nairobi’s preschool eligible children are enrolled in private and informal schools. A recent study of the Mukuru slum of Nairobi shows that over 80 percent of 4- and 5-year-olds in this large slum area are enrolled in preschool, with 94 percent of them attending informal private schools.

In early 2015, the Governor of Nairobi City County, Dr. Evans Kidero, commissioned a taskforce to look into factors affecting access, equity, and quality of education in the county. The taskforce identified significant constraints including human capital and capacity gaps, material and infrastructure deficiencies, management and systemic inefficiencies that have led to a steady deterioration of education in the city to a point where the county consistently underperforms relative to other less resourced counties. 

Nairobi City County now faces the challenge of designing and implementing a scalable model that will ensure access to quality early childhood education for all eligible children in the city by 2030. The sub-national government’s resources and implementation capacity are woefully inadequate to attain universal access in the near term, nor by the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) deadline of 2030. However, there are potential opportunities to leverage emerging mechanisms for development financing to provide requisite resource additionality, private sector rigor, and performance management that will enable Nairobi to significantly advance the objective of ensuring ECE is available to all children in the county.

Social impact bonds (SIBs) are one form of innovative financing mechanism that have been used in developed countries to tap external resources to facilitate early childhood initiatives. This mechanism seeks to harness private finance to enable and support the implementation of social services. Government repays the investor contingent on the attainment of targeted outcomes. Where a donor agency is the outcomes funder instead of government, the mechanism is referred to as a development impact bond (DIB).

The recent Brookings study highlights some of the potential and limitations of impact bonds by researching in-depth the 38 impact bonds that had been contracted globally as of March, 2015. On the upside, the study shows that impact bonds have been successful in achieving a shift of government and service providers to outcomes. In addition, impact bonds have been able to foster collaboration among stakeholders including across levels of government, government agencies, and between the public and private sector. Another strength of impact bonds is their ability to build systems of monitoring and evaluation and establish processes of adaptive learning, both critical to achieving desirable ECD outcomes. On the downside, the report highlights some particular challenges and limitations of the impact bonds to date. These include the cost and complexity of putting the deals together, the need for appropriate legal and political environments and impact bonds’ inability thus far to demonstrate a large dent in the ever present challenge of achieving scale.

In the Kenyan context, especially at the sub-national level, there are two key challenges in implementing impact bonds.

To begin with, in the Kenyan context, the use of a SIB would invoke public-private partnership legislation, which prescribes highly stringent measures and extensive pre-qualification processes that are administered by the National Treasury and not at the county level. The complexity arises from the fact that SIBs constitute an inherent contingent liability to government as they expose it to fiscal risk resulting from a potential future public payment obligation to the private party in the project.

Another key challenge in a SIB is the fact that Government must pay for outcomes achieved and for often significant transaction costs, yet the SIB does not explicitly encompass financial additionality. Since government pays for outcomes in the end, the transaction costs and obligation to pay for outcomes could reduce interest from key decision-makers in government.

The above challenges notwithstanding, a combined approach of results-based financing and impact investing has high potential to mobilize both requisite resources and efficient capacity to deliver quality ECE in Nairobi City County. To establish an enabling foundation for the future inclusion of impact investing whilst beginning to address the immediate ECE challenge, Nairobi City County has designed and is in the process of rolling out a modified DIB. In this model, a pool of donor funds for education will be leveraged through the new Nairobi City County Education Trust (NCCET).

The model seeks to apply the basic principles of results-based financing, but in a structure adjusted to address aforementioned constraints. Whereas in the classical SIB and DIB mechanisms investors provide upfront capital and government and donors respectively repay the investment with a return for attained outcomes, the modified structure will incorporate only grant funding with no possibility for return of principal. Private service providers will be engaged to operate ECE centers, financed by the donor-funded NCCET. The operators will receive pre-set funding from the NCCET, but the county government will progressively absorb their costs as they achieve targeted outcomes, including salaries for top-performing teachers. As a result, high-performing providers will be able to make a small profit. The system is designed to incentivize teachers and progressively provide greater income for effective school operators, while enabling an ordered handover of funding responsibilities to government, thus providing for program sustainability.

Nairobi City County plans to build 97 new ECE centers, all of which are to be located in the slum areas. NCCET will complement this undertaking by structuring and implementing the new funding model to operationalize the schools. The structure aims to coordinate the actors involved in the program—donors, service providers, evaluators—whilst sensitizing and preparing government to engage the private sector in the provision of social services and the payment of outcomes thereof.

Event Information

Webcast archive:

View speaker presentations here:
1. Impact Bonds Worldwide
2. Impact Bonds for ECD

Impact bonds, also known as Pay for Success contracts in the United States, have leveraged over $200 million in upfront private capital for social services worldwide over the last six years, and by 2020 the market is expected to triple. Brookings experts have published two reports analyzing the market, the first of which is a comprehensive review of the global impact bond market and the second of which examines applications to Early Childhood Development programs.

On February 29, the Global Economy and Development program at Brookings hosted a discussion on the scope for social and development impact bonds to address social challenges globally. Sessions reflected on the types of challenges for which these new financing modalities are best suited, and the factors critical for their success. Sir Ronald Cohen, chairman of the Global Social Impact Investment Steering Group, provided keynote remarks, followed by presentations from Emily Gustafsson-Wright, fellow at the Center for Universal Education at Brookings and lead author of both reports on impact bonds.  The event included two panel discussions and a networking lunch.  

 Join the conversation on Twitter using hashtag #ImpactBonds.

Audio

• The global potential and limitations of impact bonds

Transcript

• Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

• 20160229_social_impact_bonds_transcript

“For a not-for-profit it’s the equivalent of venture capital,” said Sir Ronald Cohen, chairman of the Global Social Impact Investing Steering Group, about impact bonds in his keynote address at a recent event at the Brookings Institution. Impact bonds combine results-based financing and impact investing, where investors provide upfront capital for a social service and government agencies, or donors, agree to pay investors back based on the outcomes of the service. At their best, they could allow for innovation, encourage performance management and adaptability, promote learning through evaluation, and create a clear case for investing in what works. However, impact bonds thus far have had immense transaction costs and there are risks that poor execution of the impact bond mechanism could have negative consequences for beneficiaries.

It has been six years since the first impact bond was implemented in March of 2010, and the field is beginning to move from an exploratory stage to looking at systemic change, as Tracy Palandjian, CEO and co-founder of Social Finance U.S. described. The event, “The Global Potential and Limitation of Impact Bonds,” served as a point of reflection for stakeholders at this pivotal stage of the field, bringing together over 500 individuals in the room and on the webcast, including practitioners developing impact bonds around the world. While context matters, there were notable similarities in the motivations and challenges across regions.

In our presentations of our research and subsequent panels, we focused on the potential value and challenges of combining results-based financing and impact investing through an impact bond. Shri Naveen Jain, mission director of the National Health Mission of Rajasthan, India, who is working to develop an impact bond for maternal and child health services across his entire state, pointed out that the value of a results-based financing contract to him was in the added transparency it provides—the government is able to see what they are paying for, keep service providers accountable, and incentivize providers to achieve better outcomes. Louise Savell, a director at Social Finance U.K., the entity that first put impact bonds on the map, explained that results-based financing contracts are often arranged such that only one portion of the contract is based on results. This, she explained prescribes a model and does not allow for flexibility; furthermore, it forces service providers to bear a significant risk. Impact bonds allow for the entirety of payments to be based on results, which gives the provider full flexibility (at least in theory), but puts the risk of service performance on the investor. The shift of risk to investors could be particularly useful for service delivery in conflict affected areas, where donors are often highly concerned about how money will be used, mentioned Francois de Borchgrave, co-founder and managing director of Kois Invest, who is working on an impact bond with the International Rescue Committee of the Red Cross. The panelists also emphasized that impact bonds are more powerful than results-based financing contracts alone because, if successful, they pay real financial returns to investors. This draws a great deal of attention from policymakers and the public, and the added scrutiny helps in making the investment case for preventive interventions highly explicit. Mayor Ben McAdams of Salt Lake County, Utah said that “data and evidence is bridging a partisan divide” in his state—when the case for investment is clear, policymakers from both sides of the aisle are willing to invest. Impact bonds do not necessarily add value by increasing the total amount of funding available for social services, because investors are repaid if outcomes are achieved. Rather, impact bonds could help increase the outcomes achieved with given funding.

Overall there was agreement that impact bonds have enormous potential to lead to more outcome-focused financing that focuses on preventive interventions and incentivizes collaboration. However two critical considerations for the use of impact bonds arose throughout the day.

The first consideration discussed was whether or not impact bonds can support innovation or scale. As found in our first report, impact bonds have been relatively small in scale in terms of capital and beneficiaries. The average upfront investment in impact bonds to date is $3.7 million, reaching an average of 1,900 beneficiaries. They also have not, on average, focused on particularly innovative interventions—in fact they have almost all had a relatively strong base of evidence behind them. Views on the panel differed on whether the uses of impact bonds could be expanded—if they could be used for highly innovative pilot programs or proven large scale programs. One perspective was that impact bonds could indeed provide seed capital to test new ideas for service delivery. This would require investors who are willing to test not only the innovation but also this relatively new financing mechanism. Given the high transaction costs that impact bonds entail, however, this may not be the most efficient use of resources. Impact bonds could also reach more beneficiaries per transaction (greater scale) with changes in public procurement and the creation of markets for tradeable impact bond assets. Government can play a role in facilitating larger impact bonds by creating central government outcome payment funds, providing tax breaks for investment in impact bonds, and enabling the development of investment vehicles, all of which are being implemented in the U.K. Impact bonds could also help effective social services reach scale by encouraging government to fund programs at scale after the impact bond is over or by improving data use and performance management in government-funded services broadly.

A second, and related, discussion happened around evaluation methodology—which may differ depending on whether the impact bond is intended to test an innovative intervention or scale an intervention already backed by significant evidence. The “gold standard” randomized controlled trial (RCT) is the only methodology that eliminates the possibility that impact could be attributed to something other than the intervention, though the majority of impact bonds thus far use evaluation methodologies that are less rigorous. The panelists explained that it is important, however, to consider the status quo—currently, less than 1 percent of U.S. federal spending on social services has been shown to be effective. The same is true in low- and middle-income countries, where there are relatively few impact evaluations given the number of interventions. At the end of the day, the government agency acting as the outcome funder must decide on the importance of attribution to trigger payment through the impact bond in view of the already available evidence of program effectiveness and weigh the criticism that might ensue in the absence of a valid counterfactual.

Though impact bonds are a potentially useful tool in the toolbox of many financing mechanisms, there are some significant constraints to their implementation. The biggest barrier to impact bonds and other results-based contracts is the administrative hurdle of contracting for outcomes. Peter Vanderwal, innovative financing lead at the Palladium Group, and Caroline Whistler, co-president and co-founder of Third Sector Capital Partners, both stated that governments often are unable or do not know how to contract for outcomes, and there is a need to invest in their capacity to do so. Appropriation schedules are part of this challenge, governments are often not allowed to appropriate for future years. When an audience member asked how we go about changing the culture in government to one of contracting for outcomes, Mayor McAdams answered that impact bonds may have a contagious effect—contracting for outcomes will be the expectation in the future. Additionally, the transaction costs of establishing the partnership are large relative to other mechanisms, though they may be worthwhile. Jim Sorenson, of the Sorenson Impact Center, pointed out that service provider capacity and data collection systems could be barriers to the development of future impact bonds. There is also still a long way to go in developing outcome measures and in particular in calibrating those outcome measures to low- and middle-income countries.

The influence that impact bonds have on the provision of quality services globally depends on the quality of implementation. With a rapidly growing market, there will inevitably be “bad” impact bonds in the future. To ensure that impact bonds are used as effectively as possible, governments and the research community have a pivotal role to play in asking the right questions: Will a results-based contract help improve outcomes in this particular case? What should the outcomes be to avoid perverse incentives or potentially negative externalities? And would an impact bond structure add value? 

This week the Dutch Ministry of Security and Justice announced that it will pay for the successful achievement of employment and prison recidivism outcomes among short-term adult prisoners as part of the new “Work After Prison” social impact bond (SIB)—the fifth such transaction in the Netherlands and one of about 60 in the world. In a SIB—which is a mix of results-based financing, a public-private partnership, and impact investing—private investors provide upfront capital for preventive social services, and in turn an outcome funder (usually government) pays them back plus a return contingent upon the achievement of agreed-upon outcomes. Where consistent social outcomes achievement poses challenges, this model has considerable potential to create a path forward.

What is the social challenge?

Each year in the Netherlands, around 40,000 adults are incarcerated and about 30,000 are released. What’s troubling is that the rate of recidivism two years after release from prison is nearly 50 percent. And the costs of successful reintegration and reduced recidivism rates are high and include enormous amounts of social benefits paid out to previously incarcerated individuals. Multi-pronged approaches are often necessary including programs that address housing needs, employment, mental health and substance abuse issues, and debt settlement. Addressing all of these challenges simultaneously is difficult and often the right incentives are not in place for the outcomes of importance to be at the forefront of decision-making. But SIBs may offer a promising way to meet these hurdles.

Who are the players in the SIB?

In a typical SIB, the players at the table include an outcome funder (government), investors (usually impact investors including foundations), a service provider or providers (usually a non-governmental entity but it can also be public), and the beneficiary population. In addition, there can be external evaluators who assess whether or not the agreed-upon outcome has been achieved; and, in many SIBs, there is also an intermediary party that brings the stakeholders to the table, structures the deal, manage the deal, or conducts performance management for the service provider.

The Dutch SIB for prison recidivism has a total of 10 players not including the beneficiary population. Most interestingly, this deal differs from all four previous SIBs in the Netherlands in that the outcome funder, the Ministry of Security and Justice, is at the national level rather than subnational level—the previous outcome funders were all municipal governments. Notably, less than half of the SIBs in the world have a national-level outcome funder. The Dutch bank ABN Amro, the Start Foundation, and Oranje Fonds are equal investors (and have all invested in previous Dutch SIBs). Three organizations that are part of the Work-Wise Direct Consortium—Exodus Foundation, Restart, and Foundation 180—will provide services to the population in need. Society Impact, an organization supporting social entrepreneurship and innovative financing in the Netherlands, acted as a matchmaker in the transaction by helping to bring all parties to the table. An evaluation arm of the Ministry of Security and Justice and a research entity, Panteia will evaluate whether or not outcomes are achieved.

The beneficiary population includes 150 adults who have been in prison between three and 12 months. There is no targeting based on type of crime, age, or gender and consent must be provided by the participant and the municipality.

What’s at stake?

There are two outcome metrics established in this SIB. In a period of two and half years, the outcome funder will repay investors the principal investment of 1.2 million euros plus a maximum return of 10 percent of the investment (but expected return is around 5 percent) contingent upon: 1) a 25 to 30 percent decrease in the social benefits issued to the previously incarcerated participants (which is estimated to require a 882-month increase in labor force participation by the entire group); and 2) a 10 percent reduction in recidivism among the participants.

Who will benefit?

The beneficiary population

In theory, with all eyes on the target (outcomes), beneficiary populations have a greater chance of success with this results-based financing mechanism compared to traditional input-based financing contracts. The potential for greater collaboration among stakeholders, performance management, and adaptive learning should all bode well for the delivery of the set goals. This could allow for improvements even beyond the targets within the impact bond structure such as improved family life, higher earnings, and increased civic participation.

The outcome funder (and taxpayers)

For the Ministry of Security and Justice, the SIB provides an opportunity to shift to private investors the implementation and financial risk of funding social service programs. If outcomes are achieved, then the ministry repays the investors an amount that represents the value they place on outcome achievement, and if outcomes are not achieved, then they do not pay. What’s more, the ministry could benefit from reduced costs as a result of shifting from remedial to preventive services. Additional cost savings, in particular the reduction in social welfare benefits, and other inherent benefits will be accrued to other government entities as well as society as a whole.

The service providers

There can be multiple benefits for services providers. First, the availability of upfront capital allows them to do their job better. Second, the longer-term (multi-year) contract reduces time spent on grant proposals and allows for more steady funding flows. Third, the SIB can provide an opportunity to strengthen the providers’ systems of data collection. Fourth, it allows the service providers to conduct a rigorous evaluation of their program. Further, SIBs can allow for flexibility and learning-by-doing in the delivery of the social services.

The investors

The three investors in this SIB have an opportunity to earn a financial return of maximum 10 percent if outcomes are successfully achieved. In addition, they benefit from having contributed to the improvement of the lives of the target population and their families. Furthermore, they could generate an impact that goes way beyond the SIB itself. They have the potential to create larger systemic change in the provision of social services by shifting government’s focus away from how services are delivered to which outcomes they want to achieve and by helping to build systems of monitoring and evaluation that allow for systematic assessment of those outcomes.

A way forward

Six years after the implementation of the first SIB for prison recidivism in the United Kingdom, this creative idea has spread to at least 12 other countries with the aim of tackling some of the world’s most intractable social problems. The Netherlands, known globally as a leader on many social and environmental issues, is taking a leading role in the adoption of this mechanism. Moving forward, the rest of the world will be watching to see what lessons can be gleaned from these early experiments as the burden of tough societal issues and potential solutions become increasingly global in nature.

Event Information

On July 5, the Center for Universal Education at Brookings and the partners of the world’s first development impact bond for education held an online a discussion of the first year’s enrollment and learning results. The impact bond provides financing for Educate Girls, a non-profit that aims to increase enrollment for out-of-school girls and improve learning outcomes for girls and boys in Rajasthan, India. The UBS Optimus Foundation has provided upfront risk capital to Educate Girls and, contingent on program targets being met, will be paid back their principal plus a return by the Children's Investment Fund Foundation. Instiglio, a non-profit organization specializing in results-based financing mechanisms, serves as the program intermediary.

The webinar explored the experiences so far, the factors affecting the initial results, the key learnings, and ways these will inform the development of the programs it moves forward. The partners shared both positive and negative learnings to start a transparent discussion of the model and where, and how, it can be most effective.

Chaired by Emily Gustafsson-Wright, a fellow at the Center for Universal Education, the discussion featured Safeena Husain of Educate Girls, Phyllis Costanza of UBS Optimus Foundation, and Avnish Gungadurdoss of Instiglio. For further background on impact bonds as a financing mechanism for education and early childhood development in low- and middle-income countries, please see the Center for Universal Education’s report.

Further information on the outcome metrics and evaluation design in the Educate Girls Development Impact Bond » (PDF)

Watch a recording of the webinar via WebEx »

Impact bonds, and other RBF mechanisms, require the measurement of outcomes and create an incentive for the service provider to deliver results. Both aspects encourage the service provider to improve performance management and, ultimately, the quality of the service. Because governments or donors only pay if results are achieved, funding is not wasted on unsuccessful programs. Furthermore, the guarantee of value can encourage governments or donors to explore new, potentially high-impact interventions, instead of continuing to fund low-impact programs.

Impact bonds may also have other positive spillover effects on development. For example, the involvement of private intermediaries and investors may also help grease the wheels of new government contracting systems or provide a way for the business sector to engage in a social issue.

However, despite the enormous potential of impact bonds, there are also some considerable limitations and challenges associated with their implementation. Three criteria are necessary to even consider the use of an impact bond:

1. The ability of the funder to pay for outcomes rather than inputs
2. Sufficient evidence that a given intervention and service provider will be able to deliver a stated outcome for an investor to take the risk of engaging
3. Meaningful outcomes (i.e., related to the SDG indicators) that can be measured within a time frame suitable to both investors and outcome funders

In addition to these three critical criteria, the ability for the key stakeholders to collaborate with one another has enormous implications for getting an impact bond off the ground. These factors contribute to the complexity and high transaction costs associated with impact bonds (relative to traditional input-based financing). Given these constraints, impact bonds are suited to areas where service providers need flexibility and where risk factors discourage direct funding but are minor enough to attract impact investors.

Thus far, these criteria have limited impact bonds to particular subsectors, regions, and investor types and have restricted their scale (both monetarily and in terms of beneficiary numbers). Impact bonds have been developed in fields with complex service inputs and simple outcomes, and for services that cater to particularly underserved or marginalized populations. The scale of impact bonds has been limited—the majority serve fewer than 2,000 individuals, and the largest reaches less than 16,000. Investors have been limited to philanthropic or impact investors rather than commercial investors. However, all impact bonds thus far have supported interventions that have at least some evidence of effectiveness.

Given trends in the global impact bond market, what role do impact bonds have in fulfilling the financing needs to achieving the SDGs, in particular in developing countries?

Impact bonds are likely to be improve effectiveness of financing rather than increasing volume. They also serve an important role in financing mid-scale interventions with some evidence of effectiveness. While they may not be best suited to large-scale financing of social services, they have the potential to affect large-scale systemic shifts in how governments and service providers think about service provision because they build cultures of monitoring and evaluation, encourage investments in prevention, and incentivize collaboration, all of which are essential to achieving the SDGs.