In the period leading up to the 2008 global financial crisis, a few prescient voices warned of potentially catastrophic systemic instability. In a famous 2005 speech, Raghuram Rajan, who later became governor of the Reserve Bank of India, explicitly cautioned that although structural and technological changes meant that the financial system was theoretically diversifying risk better than ever before, it might in practice be concentrating risk.
At the time, Rajan was mocked. Former US secretary of the treasury Larry Summers was not alone in thinking him a “Luddite.”
This episode comes to mind because of the widespread shortages emerging around the world. Markets for gas, truck drivers, carbon dioxide, toys, ready-to-assemble furniture, iPhones, computer chips, and a lot of other things have been affected.
Will these supply shocks prove merely a temporary disruption as the global economy recovers from the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic? Or are we instead witnessing a meltdown of the global production system? And in the latter case, what would be the supply-chain equivalent of leading central banks’ interventions to prevent a global financial collapse in 2008?
The parallels between today’s supply shocks and the 2008 financial shocks are striking. Prior to each crisis, the prevailing assumption had been that decentralized markets would provide adequate resilience, whether by spreading financial risks or ensuring a diversity of alternative supplies.
In the energy sector, for example, there has been a steady shift away from national self-sufficiency toward reliance on global markets.
The EU started the “liberalization” process in 2008, enabling new competition in gas and electricity in what was intended to be an EU-wide market. Although some had previously expressed concerns about the implications for security of supply, policymakers pressed ahead with legislation to entrust European economies’ energy imports to global markets.
However, most analysts and policymakers failed to anticipate that the global markets for gas and many other commodities would have bottlenecks or gatekeepers. The supposed diversification of supply resulting from liberalization frequently seems to be illusory.
For many products, including semiconductors and carbon dioxide (a by-product of fertilizer) for food processing, supplies have become more concentrated. The splitting of global production chains into ever more specialized links over several decades has led to unexpectedly close correlations between industry supply shocks, as with fertilizer and food or semiconductors and vehicles.
In addition, some shortages — such as those of truck drivers and shipping containers, or gasoline in the UK — directly affect the logistics connecting the links in supply chains. As a result, vulnerabilities have rapidly become mutually reinforcing and self-amplifying. The global production system’s highly specialized, just-in-time design delivered substantial benefits, but its weaknesses are now evidently greater.
So, how should policymakers think about this lack of system resilience and what can be done to counter it?
Benjamin Golub, from Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, has shown that queueing theory offers insights into how a small change in a well-functioning system — such as cutting two supermarket checkout lanes down to one — can lead to huge increases in wait times.
Conversely, introducing a little slack into a system adds a lot of resilience.
Likewise, the classic cobweb model shows how time lags can destabilize markets and trigger large fluctuations in demand and supply. If demand is less responsive than supply to price signals, and expectations about the future prove incorrect, then a delay in suppliers’ responses drives volatility.
W. Brian Arthur’s El Farol Bar problem, which combines decisionmaking and the need to form expectations, produces a similarly unstable outcome.
As McKinsey & Co’s Tera Allas has said, system dynamics was invented to think about supply chains as complex, non-linear dynamic systems.
So, there are plenty of mental models for understanding the current shortage problem.
The pressing challenge is how to restore stability and ease the shortages so that people are not facing a holiday season with no toys, turkeys or gas.
A top priority is to have better data and better business intelligence in government. Even after 30 years of globalization, there is astonishingly little detailed, publicly available information on product flows in global supply chains. Ministries need to restore the kind of engineering-based industry knowledge that was more common when industrial policy was considered a key government function.
However, in the short term, decentralized markets and price signals are the problem, not the solution. Governments will need to step in — whether by deploying soldiers to drive gasoline tankers or providing production subsidies — to mitigate some of the shortages.
When the immediate supply concerns abate, firms and policymakers must consider what kind of insurance or slack they should build into the production system over the longer term.
Just as banks needed to increase their equity buffers after 2008, we perhaps now need to step back from just-in-time production and redefine productivity in light of supply-chain risks.
Diane Coyleis a professor of public policy at the University of Cambridge in the UK.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Donald Trump’s return to the White House has offered Taiwan a paradoxical mix of reassurance and risk. Trump’s visceral hostility toward China could reinforce deterrence in the Taiwan Strait. Yet his disdain for alliances and penchant for transactional bargaining threaten to erode what Taiwan needs most: a reliable US commitment. Taiwan’s security depends less on US power than on US reliability, but Trump is undermining the latter. Deterrence without credibility is a hollow shield. Trump’s China policy in his second term has oscillated wildly between confrontation and conciliation. One day, he threatens Beijing with “massive” tariffs and calls China America’s “greatest geopolitical
US President Donald Trump’s seemingly throwaway “Taiwan is Taiwan” statement has been appearing in headlines all over the media. Although it appears to have been made in passing, the comment nevertheless reveals something about Trump’s views and his understanding of Taiwan’s situation. In line with the Taiwan Relations Act, the US and Taiwan enjoy unofficial, but close economic, cultural and national defense ties. They lack official diplomatic relations, but maintain a partnership based on shared democratic values and strategic alignment. Excluding China, Taiwan maintains a level of diplomatic relations, official or otherwise, with many nations worldwide. It can be said that
On Sunday, 13 new urgent care centers (UCC) officially began operations across the six special municipalities. The purpose of the centers — which are open from 8am to midnight on Sundays and national holidays — is to reduce congestion in hospital emergency rooms, especially during the nine-day Lunar New Year holiday next year. It remains to be seen how effective these centers would be. For one, it is difficult for people to judge for themselves whether their condition warrants visiting a major hospital or a UCC — long-term public education and health promotions are necessary. Second, many emergency departments acknowledge
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) made the astonishing assertion during an interview with Germany’s Deutsche Welle, published on Friday last week, that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not a dictator. She also essentially absolved Putin of blame for initiating the war in Ukraine. Commentators have since listed the reasons that Cheng’s assertion was not only absurd, but bordered on dangerous. Her claim is certainly absurd to the extent that there is no need to discuss the substance of it: It would be far more useful to assess what drove her to make the point and stick so
RSS