英语论文网

, because many emerging economies donot report seasonally adjusted quarterly GDP figures. Also, downturns are rarely perfectlysynchronised across countries, so even if most countries contract at some stage during atwo-year period, global GDP growth may not turn negative. Indeed, global GDP has neverfallen in any year since the 1930s Depression. Its worst years since then were 1982 and1991, with growth of 0.9% and 1.5% respectively (see left-hand chart).
World growth also needs to be adjusted for rising world population. The IMF suggests that asufficient (although not necessary) condition for a global recession is any year in whichworld GDP per head declines. In each of the downturns in 1975, 1982 and 1991, growth inworld GDP per head turned negative. By contrast, in 2001, despite much talk of .the 代写ASSIGNMENTmotherof all recessions., global GDP per head expanded by around 1%. The annual growth rate inworld population has now slowed to 1.2%, so recent GDP forecasts would still allow averageworld income per head to rise.
If market exchange rates are used to measure world output instead of PPPs, then somerecent forecasts would imply a fall in world GDP per head. However, the IMF believes that PPP weights are more appropriate, because a dollar buys a lot more in poor countries than in America, thanks to lower prices. Converting China.s GDP into dollars at market exchange rates therefore understates the true size of its faster-growing economy and, in turn,understates world growth.
The IMF.s definition of global recession also takes account of the fact that the trend growth rate in emerging economies is higher than in developed ones, so even a steep downturn will leave GDP still expanding. A growth rate of 4% would count as a boom in America, but a recession in China. Nevertheless, some economists reckon that the IMF.s 3% benchmark for global recession may be too high. UBS, for instance, suggests a demarcation point of 2.5%.Even the IMF now seems less sure. At the original launch of the World Economic Outlook in October, Olivier Blanchard, the fund.s chief economist, said .it is not useful to use the word.recession. when the world is growing at 3%..
When tracking such diverse economies, it does make much more sense to define a global recession not as an absolute fall in GDP, but as when growth falls significantly below its potential rate. This can cause anomalies, however. Using the IMF.sdefinition (ie, growth below 3%), the world economy has been in recession for no fewer than 11 out of the past 28 years. This sits oddly with the fact that America, the world.s biggest economy, has been in recession for only 38 months during that time, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research (the country.s official arbiter of recessions), which defines a recession as a decline in economic activity. It is confusing to have different definitions of recession in rich and poor economies.

Growing apart
Before proclaiming global recession, it is also important to consider the extent to which adownturn has spread around the world. As stockmarkets and currencies have slumped in emerging economies and some governments have had to knock on the IMF.s door, it might appear as if these economies are being hit harder than rich countries. Even in China, growth seems to be slowing sharply, prompting the government to lift its quotas on bank lending at the start of this month. Yet most emerging economies are st