Presidents Trump and Von der Leyen announced yesterday from Scotland that a trade agreement had been reached. Is it a good deal? Political commentators and many editorialists mostly say no. The stock market reaction says yes. Our take: the deal is at the better end of the spectrum of what could realistically be achieved. Importantly, it removes the risk of a trade war escalation in the world’s largest trade relationship, and creates a more predictable environment for firms on both sides of the Atlantic to operate in.
Despite the slowdown in inflation and the increase in household purchasing power (measured by real gross disposable income), private consumption in the Eurozone remains weak compared to the pre-Covid period. This sluggishness can be explained by the gap between harmonised inflation and households' perception of price trends. Recent developments in inflation and households' opinions on past price trends show a more marked divergence than before. Since early 2025, the associated opinion balances have not moderated much. This reflects the persistence of inflation in households' perceptions despite the observed slowdown. Households probably still have in mind (at least in part) the cumulative increase over the entire inflationary episode, rather than that over the last 12 months.
Outside the US, GDP growth in the first quarter generally exceeded expectations in the European Union, the UK, and emerging economies, including China. After the surge in imports that preceded the US tariff hike, the backlash in the second quarter will be more limited than expected in most cases. However, it would be premature to sound the all-clear, as three dangers loom: tariffs, inflation, and public debt.
This time, these are not estimates based on models, but actual data provided by customs authorities. Partially available until the second quarter of 2025 in both China and Germany, they show a dramatic drop in exports to the United States in the wake of the tariffs imposed by the Trump administration, as well as the remarkable ability of international trade to redeploy when it is hindered in one area.
The latest monetary tightening in the United States between March 2022 and July 2023 resulted in much larger outflows of portfolio investments by non-residents than during the previous tightening (2016-2018) and the famous taper tantrum of 2013. However, emerging economies are less vulnerable to monetary tightening across the Atlantic than they were a decade ago. On the one hand, the impact of "flight to quality" capital movements by non-resident private investors on risk premiums and local currency bond yields is less significant. Secondly, the level and structure of corporate debt have improved.
Each year, summer is bookended by two landmark central banking conferences where central bankers, academics and a few members of the private financial sector congregate to discuss new research of interest for monetary policy and compare notes on the outlook: in late June, the ECB Forum held in the windy coastal town of Sintra, Portugal; and in late August in the scenic Rocky Mountains valley of Jackson Hole, Wyoming. This year, the Sintra winds were blustery and relentless, but the discussions as calm, focused and insightful as ever, an apt metaphor for central bankers’ condition these days. Some key takeaways.
While FDI inflows into Southeast Asia have been higher on average since 2021 than in the 2016–2019 period, they have declined in India. As a share of GDP, net FDI inflows to India (non-resident FDI inflows minus disinvestment) reached only 0.7% of GDP in 2024, the lowest level since 2012. This decline is all the more surprising given that, according to UNCTAD, the value of greenfield FDI projects announced in the country has been rising sharply since 2022.
The economic news and highlights of recent days selected by the economists of the Economic Research.
The rise in interest rates seen in the advanced economies since the end of Covid has been continuing in scattered order. Long-term interest rates have generally been on the rise, but with significant divergences. The general situation of uncertainty and the undeniably upward trajectories of public debt in advanced countries are having negative repercussions on the bond markets, which are likely to have a similar impact on the financing of the economy.
The Spending Review and the GBP 725 billion ten-year infrastructure plan, unveiled on 11 and 19 June, respectively, demonstrate the British government's desire to move away from forced fiscal consolidation. Getting public finances back on track remains a major challenge in the UK, which is constrained by pressure from the bond market, and provides a point of comparison for France. This is against a backdrop of major structural upheaval and growing investment needs. At this stage, we believe that the UK's fiscal consolidation strategy is credible, but the government is walking a tightrope.
While the Federal Reserve (Fed) estimates that uncertainty has eased, its conviction that a tariff-related rise in inflation is looming has hardened. The Committee (FOMC) nevertheless appears to be greatly divided on the balance of risks. We maintain our forecast that there will be no rate cuts in 2025 in light of renewed inflationary pressures combined with insufficiently slowing growth.
The quantitative theory of money — the idea that inflation in an economy depends on the quantity of means of payment in circulation — is a very old one. It is generally attributed to the French philosopher and jurist Jean Bodin, who, around the middle of the 16th century, was the first to have the intuition that the causes of the "rise in the price of all things" in Europe were to be found in the influx of precious metals from the New World.
The tariffs imposed by the Trump administration and the acceleration of the US-China decoupling will lead to a slowdown in global economic growth, a further reconfiguration of international trade, and the continued reorganization of value chains. These changes will have multiple consequences for emerging countries. All will suffer negative effects linked to the slowdown in their exports and increased competition from Chinese products. Some may also seize new opportunities to attract FDI and develop their export base.
The first half of 2025 was marked by two major turning points: the outbreak of a global trade war by the United States and, on the European side, announcements regarding rearmament efforts and the German investment plan, supporting the Old Continent's economic revival. The second half of the year will be marked by the aftermath of these announcements and is likely to be as hectic as the first, given the continuing uncertainty surrounding the outcome of the tariffs. The uncertainty surrounding the extent of their inflationary impact in the US and the duration of the Fed's monetary policy status quo is also significant. The risk of a derailment caused by fiscal policy remains
The fall in global oil prices is one of the most dramatic effects of the uncertainty generated by the tightening of US trade policy. The price of Brent crude is now expected to average USD 65 in 2025-2026, compared with USD 80 in 2024, and the risks of a further fall are high. For the Gulf States, where hydrocarbons account for 60% of budget revenues and 70% of exports, the consequences will be manifold.
The gradual recovery in demand, which has been noticeable for almost six months, seems to be continuing in the Eurozone. It remains to be confirmed given the uncertainties surrounding US trade policy. Nevertheless, the trend towards improvement has not been called into question by the decisions taken so far. In the medium term, the implementation of the European rearmament plan and the German investment plans should strengthen this dynamic.
The EU-UK summit on 19 May marks a new phase in economic rapprochement, more than five years after the Brexit, which has undeniably weakened the UK economy. The structural challenges facing the UK – high inflation, sluggish business investment, low productivity – partly result from this event.
The investment required to meet the challenges of competitiveness and energy and technology transition in the European Union is huge, and the need for it is imminent (2025-2030). To this must now be added expenditure to strengthen the European Union's military capabilities. To finance this, the EU must of course speed up its roadmap towards a Savings and Investment Union. But given the urgency, it must also take account of its financial ecosystem and rely on its banks. The postponement of the FRTB (Fundamental Review of Trading Book) until 2027 and the European Commission's legislative proposal on securitisation, expected in June, are steps in this direction.
France's fiscal deficit worsened in 2023 and 2024. Spending growth was maintained, despite the slowdown in public revenues growth. The 2025 budget should enable consolidation to begin thanks to a rebound in revenues. However, spending as a share of GDP is expected to remain relatively stable. The challenge of continuing fiscal consolidation in 2026 therefore remains intact. This exercise will be constrained by the expected increase in interest payments and military spending.
Central European economies have defied pessimist predictions in recent years on their ability to cope with shocks. The region posted a less pronounced GDP contraction in 2020 compared to advanced EU countries. In 2022, at the onset of the Russia-Ukraine war, the region was viewed as the most exposed within Europe due its high energy dependence on Russia. However, the widely expected recession did not occur as these economies implemented generous fiscal stimulus. Central European countries are now facing the tariff shock imposed by the US administration. Will this time be different?
Since January 2025, the United States has announced major reversals in its foreign and trade policies. For developing countries that depend on international aid, the suspension of USAID and the increase in tariffs on US imports create a double shock that will durably weaken their economic prospects.
Since WWII ended, 80 years ago this week, the US dollar has been the unparalleled dominant currency at the center of the international monetary and financial system. Every now and then, questions have arisen about this dominance and for brief periods became front page material in the financial press. Despite the excitement invariably elicited, the answer was always, sit tight, nothing is going to change. This time feels different. In particular, financial markets’ reaction to the “Liberation Day” tariff announcements, whereby the dollar and US Treasuries sold off instead of being bought as the safe haven of last resort like in all previous crises. But it would be premature to call the end of dollar dominance.
The vast majority of Latin American countries have been subject to 10% tariffs, the minimum rate, since April 2, imposed by the Trump administration. This leniency is due to the composition of their exports (raw materials and energy, whereas the Trump administration's “reciprocal” tariffs mainly targeted exporters of manufactured goods) and the fact that most of them have a trade deficit with the US.
Every Spring and Fall, economic and financial policymakers from the whole world gather in Washington DC for the IMF/WB Meetings. Thousands of private financial sector professionals tag along. All over town, in both formal and informal settings, participants share and compare with their peers their own assessments of the world’s economic prospects. In my 25 years of taking part in these Meetings, this was one of the most interesting ones, with a pervasive sense among participants of living through a pivotal moment of economic history. In what follows, I offer a distillation of what this global pulse-check revealed.
For several years now, Italy has had to generate primary budget surpluses in order to stabilize its public debt. The current level of fiscal deficits and the foreseeable increase in interest payments are likely to put the United States, the United Kingdom, and France in a similar situation in the coming years. These countries will ultimately have to balance their primary budgets if they want to stabilize their public debt.
