There is a parallel presumption in favour of freedom of capital movements, and much greater openness around the world to foreign investment. BIS Review 47/2001  1  Among other things on the supply-side, there is a shared emphasis on the need to direct public spending to developing human resources through education and training, to effective health care, and affordable social safety nets. There has been a global trend to privatisation through which governments have increasingly returned essentially commercial activities, in which they have no necessary comparative advantage, to market disciplines. And there is a common recognition of the need for reforms in labour and product markets designed to remove unnecessary regulation, and to reduce distortions, which impede the efficient allocation of resources. But broad agreement on the principles, does not make them any easier to apply in practice. This is evident from the imbalances which have built up within and between the major industrial countries in recent years. It is uncertainty as to how those imbalances are likely to be corrected that underlies much of the current concern about the prospects for the global economy. The major uncertainty relates to the situation in the United States which has experienced a period of exceptionally strong economic growth with relatively low inflation until quite recently. Briefly – and no doubt oversimply – this very strong performance is widely seen as driven largely by exceptional productivity gains, as the application of new information and communications technologies spread through the economy.
But the intention – the international commitment to macro-economic stability – is clear. Acceptance of the aim of macro-economic stability served to bring into sharper focus the structural, supply side, of the economy – that is the whole raft of influences that can affect the underlying growth rate of capacity and thus the growth rate of aggregate demand that can be sustained. And here, too, there has been a strengthening international presumption in favour of open markets and free competition – both domestically and internationally – with a continuing strong presumption against predatory trade or exchange rate manipulation. The justification is that undistorted competition contributes to potential global economic growth through increased efficiency and the more effective allocation of productive resources. Faster growth in turn provides a more favourable context for addressing social concerns, including the issue of poverty. The international presumption in favour of free markets in itself is somewhat remarkable, given that, at the micro-economic level, increased competition invariably constitutes a threat to established producers – and their employees – who might well be tempted to urge protection in one form or another on their national governments. Consumers, who benefit from such competition, tend to be less vocal or well organised. The threat of protectionism is never, therefore, far away. But in fact the presumption in favour of competition has proved encouragingly robust. And that is not just in relation to international trade.