Text size
In November 2008, Richard Elman spoke with McKinsey’s Clay Chandler about the economic downturn’s implications on global trade.
There’s been this amazing integration of the world over the last 20 years. Is that going to continue at the same pace, or have we reached the limits of it?
In 1997 we had a crisis, but it didn’t really affect Europe that much. It didn’t particularly affect Africa or the United States either. This time we have a crisis that seems to have started in New York—and it is creating a recession globally.
So I think the interdependence of everything and everybody in the world is getting deeper. The US consumer can’t buy electronic goods unless they’re made first in China. And the Chinese factory cannot employ workers unless it has somewhere to export its goods.
And, in fact, what we’re seeing today is a large number of factories in southern China closing down. One, they don’t have enough business. And, two, they also became very expensive. But somebody else will fill that slot; whether it goes to Romania or Bulgaria or some other country.
What about moving materials around the world? For commodities that have a high level of efficiency in terms of energy expenditure per ton moved, the sorts of commodities that you handle, do carbon emissions and energy costs still pinch?
Ships do emit carbon. And probably in a rather unfriendly way because they tend to burn the worst type of fuel—heavy fuel oil. But people are looking for the cheapest raw materials; nobody’s willing to spend money on that sort of thing, mainly, I think, because you don’t actually see cargo ships. They’re in the middle of the ocean somewhere. But slowly, people are getting around to trying to monitor emissions in ships. We, in fact, have just completed a carbon neutral exercise. And we have bought carbon emissions rights equal to the amount of emissions that we produce.
Aren’t there other issues such as increasing drought conditions that force some regions to import even more items?
Global warming has created long-lasting drought conditions in certain areas. So there are a few producing areas of the world that are immune to drought—particularly South America and the United States. I don’t think we’re going to get rid of coal or oil for many, many years—maybe 30, 40, or 50 years.
You don’t see the reliance on coal vanishing or decreasing?
No. It’s too important to the world. And it’s still the cheapest energy source. Can we burn it cleaner? Of course.
People are now suddenly acutely aware of their dependence on other markets in a way that they weren’t, probably, a year ago. Do you think that awareness of their exposure to other volatile markets translates into a retreat from interdependence and integration?
You can’t avoid interdependence. There’s a global economy. The sterling dollar rate is the sterling dollar rate. It doesn’t matter where you are in the world. And it has some relationship to the Australian dollar, to the US dollar, and so on.
Where have you seen, in your business, the greatest impact from the financial crisis?
It’s not necessarily that commodity prices are fluctuating. We’ve learned how to manage ourselves. We’ve learned how to manage a lot of volatility. But it’s very, very difficult when there’s a breakdown of the financial system of the world.
The charter rates for ships has gone from a peak, for a short period, of $250,000 a day. But let’s take the top-end average; let’s say it’s $150,000 a day, down to $10,000 a day. So people who have made commitments at $150,000 have an asset that’s $10,000 today. That is major. You’ve lost 90 percent of your asset value. Sixty percent, 70 percent, 80 percent, 90 percent—these are major, major impacts. And anybody who had any leverage, had any debt, can’t refinance it. What do they do?
There’s nowhere to go for cover. That’s the worst thing. There are no umbrellas out there, so you’re on your own.
How long do you think it takes to digest a shock of this magnitude?
I think it gets deeper as each week goes by. A couple of months ago I thought this could be an 18-month experience. And then the national growth of the world would kick in again. I think it could be many years now. But when it does kick in again, I think you’re going to see just enormous inflation.
Text size
Commenting is closed for this article.
Send an e-mail to let us know how we can make our site better.
Follow the opposing views presented by our two debaters, then make up your mind and join the conversation
The business landscape has changed fundamentally; tomorrow’s environment will be different, but no less rich in possibilities for those who are prepared, argues McKinsey's worldwide managing director Ian Davis.
The Wall Street Journal reports on China's call for a new currency to replace the dollar as the world's standard.
The full text of the essay by Zhou Xiaochuan, China's central bank governor, in which he calls for a new world currency, is available here.
Rising wage inequality in the U.S. is threatening a protectionist backlash that will hurt everyone. The best way to avert the problem, argue Kenneth Scheve and Matthew Slaughter in Foreign Affairs, is by instituting a New Deal for globalization -- one that links engagement with the world economy to a substantial redistribution of income. (Article requires registration)
I agree that Globalization is here to stay. When the concept was first mooted by Prof Theodore Levitt, it contained all the merits of standardization and lower costs, from which the consumer would benefit. Unfortunately, MNCs which practised globalization from 1990s onwards took the concept too far and misused the very objectives on which it was founded. MNCs had the financial and the technological might and it was not difficult to exploit the situations in the developing countries, and destroy local industrialization. This is what brought the wrath against globalization and several protests at Intenational levels. Globalization will, and must continue for overall well being of consumers the world over, but only for causes which are just and equitable, otherwise developing nations, which are the largest recipients of the benefits of globalization, may protest again and force these govermnets to adopt protectionist policies. So, Globalization with caution please!
Posted 4 April 2009, 10:01 by Prof Harish C. Chopra
Yes, I agree that globalization isn’t over yet; it’s here to stay but with a more definite and purposeful agenda – to integrate the world.
If globalization is for integration, then it should serve to promote development among all players and stakeholders. However, the contrary is true in recent years. Globalization served to impoverish the “poor” nations while it strengthened (financially, economically, and politically) those with mighty powers. In that sense, the globalization that we experienced was not the “real” globalization in its truest intention. What happened was a competition for lowest manufacturing costs, lowest wages, least governmental regulations, and so on. Countries who were willing to offer the least to the mighty giants earned the merits of globalization at the expense of people and the country’s resources.
But all is not over yet. There is still time to change paradigms and focus on a real globalization which unites the countries of the world – bringing each one to at least the minimum level of decency. This is social justice and this is what is fair.
Posted 26 March 2009, 20:55 by Cecilia L. Real