eco TV Week

The economic consequences of the coronavirus

2/7/2020

The outbreak of the coronavirus is a textbook example of an exogenous shock. It forces a rethink of the scenario for growth for the next months by looking at the demand and the supply side effects.

William DE VIJLDER

TRANSCRIPT // The economic consequences of the coronavirus : February 2020

Part 1

A demand shock

The outbreak of the coronavirus is a textbook example of an exogenous shock. It forces a rethink of the scenario for growth for the next months by looking at the demand and the supply side effects.

On the demand side various transmission channels can be distinguished. Household consumption is impacted because people have to stay at home, suffer from an income loss, feel uncertain and hence postpone big ticket purchases. Foreign travel declines as well as purchases of foreign goods, so imports declines. Public spending will tend to increase, either to build health care facilities, or, possibly, to support growth (this could also happen via tax cuts or spending incentives). Corporate investment will decline because of reduced demand but in particular, increased uncertainty. Companies will probably hold off investing until they have enough confidence that the epidemic will not spread further. The decline of imports and tourism represents a direct spillover effect to the rest of the world. Exports can also suffer because of what happens on the supply side.

Part 2

A supply shock

Production declines because of a drop in demand and a shutdown of factories, shops and offices. Global value chains cause international repercussions, all the more so because substitution effects will be small in the short run, because customers prefer to wait rather than switching to another brand, or simply because it’s impossible to reorganise the value chain at short notice. In addition, for a temporary shock, this would make little economic sense. Another consequence is massive destocking.

Part 3

What kind of recovery?

Estimates of the consequences for growth are very much hypothetical. SARS is estimated to have had a negative impact on GDP growth in Hong Kong of 2.6% for the full year 2003 and 1% in China. In the US the impact was tiny (0.07%).

Of course, that was another era: China’s economic size and weight in the world economy were a lot smaller, tourism was a fraction what it is today and the importance of China in global value chains was also a lot smaller.

To put it differently, the impact will be bigger than SARS but how much very much depends on the assumptions.

The coronavirus epidemic comes at a particularly bad moment: based on survey data, the global economy was showing tentative signs of a growth pick-up and, in all likelihood, this momentum will now be stopped or even reversed, depending on the country or sector.

The key question is, for how long and, subsequently, what kind of recovery can be expected, once the epidemic has passed its peak.

On the former question, the view of financial markets seems to be that it will be brought under control quite rapidly. This implies it is crucial to indeed see quite soon a lasting reduction in the daily number of new victims.

On the latter, the one about the type of recovery, the case can be made for a V-shaped recovery in demand. Inventories, after the big drawdown, will need to be replenished. There is also a phenomenon of pent-up demand which will be unleashed, although that will probably be less the case as far as tourism is concerned.

In the medium run, the supply side may also be impacted via changes in global value chains in case companies would consider to be too dependent on a single country in terms of intermediate inputs.

In the short run, we have to prepare ourselves for weak data in February and March so business surveys in April will become particularly important to assess whether by then we will have seen the worst in terms of economic impact.

 

 

View more videos Eco TV Week

On the Same Theme

PMIs confirm the collapse in global economic activity 3/25/2020
The PMI indices published this week give an early insight into the scale of the economic shock from Covid-19. The composite indices for Japan (35.8), Germany (37.2), France (30.2), the UK (37.1) and the US (40.5) all slumped in March. The euro zone composite PMI was the lowest ever recorded at 31.4. The deterioration was particularly marked for the sub-indices relating to employment and orders for goods and services. Figures for April, whilst remaining at historically low levels, are expected to show increasing divergence between the regions. In East Asia, internal demand should start to pick up, as activity starts to normalise in China. Conversely, the epidemic is spreading more rapidly in the US, India and Africa; meanwhile, many European countries remain in lock-down.
China: economic contraction is expected in Q1 2020 3/18/2020
The most recent PMIs announced the shock earlier this month: industrial production fell strongly in January-February 2020, declining by 13.5% year-on-year. China also registered a very severe contraction in total exports (-18% y/y), fixed-asset investment (-24.5%) and volumes of retail sales (-23.7%). Such a collapse in economic activity is an unprecedented situation in China, which is expected to record a contraction in real GDP in Q1 2020. Activity has been recovering gradually in recent days, and a rebound in real GDP growth is expected in Q2 2020, notably supported by the authorities’ stimulus policy measures. However, the extent of the economic recovery is now likely to be constrained by the consequences of the sanitary and economic crisis currently spreading in Europe and the rest of the world.
The covid-19 epidemic economic consequences: pervasive uncertainty, delayed recovery 3/12/2020
The coronavirus epidemic represents a combination of a demand, a supply and an uncertainty shock. This has knock-on effects on the price of oil and on financial conditions which in turn should end up acting as an additional drag on growth. The huge drop in the price of oil following the absence of an agreement amongst the OPEC+ countries on further production cuts, makes this worse. It hits the producer countries, increases the financial pressure on energy companies, in particular those which are highly indebted, whereas the reaction on the demand side will be muted due to the epidemic and lack of visibility. The timid improvement of business survey data at the end of 2019 has been stopped. Recent data show a very significant deterioration in China, Hong Kong. Elsewhere, the reaction has, on the whole, been limited, but this is not expected to last. The big drop in the price of oil complicates matters further. The Federal Reserve is back in (aggressive) easing mode, the Bank of England has followed and the ECB is expected to ease as well. Several governments have taken various, very targeted policy measures. We should expect more is to follow. When the peak of the epidemic will have been passed and the international propagation halted, the rebuilding of inventories as well as some pent-up demand should support growth. A very accommodative monetary environment should also help. However, the timing of the recovery entirely depends on how he epidemic evolves.
The cryptocurrency economy 3/11/2020
Depending on the source, estimates of the number of ‘cryptocurrencies’ vary between 1,600 and 3,000. These crypto-assets struggle to fulfil the three economic functions of money, and so cannot be considered as such. Although their fairly modest uptake currently limits their economic impact, increased use could create risks in the transmission of monetary policy, money creation and financial stability. Several central banks are looking at the introduction of a ‘central bank digital currency’ (CBDC) in response to these challenges. However, far from being simply a substitute for private cryptocurrencies, these CBDCs would carry specific risks in terms of financial stability, most notably that of a ‘digital bank run’. We believe that their possible introduction, and the associated details, will require meticulous analysis.
The global economy after the coronavirus outbreak 3/10/2020
Macroeconomic surveys conducted since the outbreak of the epidemic have provided relief thus far, but over the next several weeks we should expect the negative impact to become more visible in activity and spending data. Yet, the shock is of a temporary nature and a rebound of activity will follow once the supply chain disruption is abating and demand picks up again. In China, stimulus measures which have already been announced, should help in this respect. The unleashing of pent-up demand and inventory rebuilding should also play a role. The dynamics are rather clear but the timing of course depends on how the epidemic evolves, in China and other countries.
Except for China and Hong Kong, little impact thus far of the coronavirus 3/6/2020
At the start of a new month, the purchasing managers indices are amongst the earliest data providing information on what happened the month before. Following the coronavirus outbreak they were even more eagerly awaited than normal. For the manufacturing sector, the picture is very mixed, with a considerable decline for the world index on the back of huge drops in China and Hong Kong. On the other hand, the index for the eurozone saw another increase, driven by Germany, the Netherlands, Spain and Greece with Italy remaining stable and France weakening. In the US, both the Markit PMI and the ISM index declined. Clearly, except for China and Hong Kong, the data do not yet show the impact of the coronavirus epidemic but it is only a matter of time for this to happen. To some degree this also applies to the services PMIs. For this sector, there were huge declines in China and Hong Kong. Japan weakened considerably, contributing to the decline of the world index. The eurozone was stable. The decline in the US is puzzling considering that the ISM non-manufacturing index improved.
The coronavirus: which role for economic policy? 3/6/2020
The Federal Reserve’s rate cut as well as promise of action by other central banks and finance ministers raise the question of how economic policy can react to the epidemic. The very nature of the shock makes monetary policy at first glance ill-equipped.
The coronavirus: international propagation and tail risks 2/28/2020
The international propagation of the coronavirus forces a rethink of the consequences for the global economy. Coming after the outbreak in China, the marginal impact on the global economy of the spreading of the epidemic should, a priori, be rather limited. Yet, financial markets have reacted very negatively. This jump in risk aversion reflects concern that the economic consequences may have been underestimated thus far as well as increased focus on tail risk. This ‘financial accelerator’ phenomenon may in turn contribute to the worsening of the growth outlook.
China: the central bank is taking action to support corporates amid the Covid-19 outbreak 2/26/2020
A large number of economic sectors have been struggling with the impact of the Covid-19 epidemic on Chinese consumer demand, transport, tourist flows and industrial production chains. Over the past month, the People’s Bank of China (PBOC) has loosened monetary and credit conditions in order to support local corporates, help them cover their cash requirements et encourage a rapid recovery in activity. PBOC has injected a large amount of liquidity into the financial system, reduced interest rates – monetary rates, medium-term lending facility rate and benchmark lending rate – and announced special loans to firms directly affected by the virus outbreak. As a result, the weighted average lending rate, which has declined since Q2 2018 (from 5.94% to 5.44% at end-2019 in nominal terms), should continue to fall in H1 2020. Yet, the acceleration in domestic credit growth should prove to be very moderate.
Central banks: current objectives and the issues they raise 2/26/2020
In this podcast, we look at central banks policy objectives, which sometimes differ. The ECB’s top priority is to meet its inflation target, whereas the Fed is targeting both inflation and full employment. These objectives raise several questions: how can we measure inflation and full employment? How do central banks set their targets? And what instruments can be used to attain them? We will also see how central banks must deal with a constantly changing economic environment.

ABOUT US Three teams of economists (OECD countries research, emerging economies and country risk, banking economics) make up BNP Paribas Economic Research Department.
This website presents their analyses.
The website contains 2362 articles and 601 videos