In its latest report, “Swimming Against the Tide: How Developing Countries are Coping with the Global Crisis,” the World Bank says that 94 out of 116 developing countries have experienced a slowdown in economic growth. Of those, 43 have high levels of poverty.

And the most affected sectors are those that were the most dynamic not too long ago: Urban-based exporters, construction, mining and manufacturing – the result of shrinking global trade that’s on track to record its largest annual decline in 80 years.

Developing countries are facing a $270 billion to $700 billion financial shortfall. But the biggest private sector creditors are seeing the biggest loan demand for high-income countries, choking their ability to loan to emerging markets. And the emerging economies that can secure loans will face higher borrowing costs and lower capital flows, leading to weaker investment and slower growth in the future, the World Bank said.

“When this crisis began, people in developing countries, especially those in Africa, were the innocent bystanders in this crisis, yet they have no choice but to bear its harsh consequences,” World Bank Managing Director Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala said in the report. “We must look at poor people as assets and not liabilities. The new globalization should mean we adopt new ways of caring for our infants, educating our youth, empowering our women and protecting the vulnerable.”

All totaled, only one quarter of the most vulnerable countries have the ability to finance measures to economic downturn – such as job creation and safety programs. The rest will likely see already drastic poverty worsen, the bank said.

“We need to react in real time to a growing crisis that is hurting people in developing countries,” said World Bank Group President Robert B. Zoellick. “This global crisis needs a global solution and preventing an economic catastrophe in developing countries is important for global efforts to overcome this crisis. We need investments in safety nets, infrastructure, and small and medium size companies to create jobs and to avoid social and political unrest.”

The best way to ease the damage, World Bank Chief Economist and Senior Vice President Justin Yifu Lin says, would be for developed countries to spend a portion of their stimulus plans on developing countries.

“Clearly, fiscal resources do have to be injected in rich countries that are at the epicenter of the crisis, but channeling infrastructure investment to the developing world where it can release bottlenecks to growth and quickly restore demand can have an even bigger bang for the buck and should be a key element to recovery,” Lin said.

The World Bank’s report will be presented at Saturday’s meeting of the G-20 finance ministers and central bank governors.

Source: World Bank: Emerging Markets Will Take Brunt of First Global Economy Decline Since WWII

Investors who have studied the global trade figures lately are no doubt also aware that East Asian countries are in an entirely separate mess since their exports have dropped 30%-40% – or even more – in the past few months, because U.S. and European consumers have stopped buying their manufactured goods.

However, there is a third global disaster, equally intractable, in Eastern Europe – and it has nothing to do with the housing bubbles, falling exports, or the massive layoffs that are becoming problems everywhere. This third global disaster is being caused by a regional balance of payments problem and a localized currency crisis.

Internationally, that disaster is this week’s worry.

As the Eastern European countries closed in on membership in the European Union (EU) after 2001, preparatory to entering it in 2004 or 2007, they kept their currencies as stable as possible against the euro. At the same time, the economies of these countries were growing rapidly, so Western banks bought local operations and expanded their lending.

Local consumers heard from their governments that their currencies were now stable against the euro and noticed that local currency interest rates were much higher than euro, dollar or Swiss francs. Naturally, they borrowed from local banks in euro, dollars or Swiss francs.

This would all have turned out fine if the local currencies had indeed been stable against the euro (borrowers in dollars would have made out like bandits until last summer, and lost since, as the dollar reversed course and strengthened). However, in addition to foreign currency consumer loans, foreign investment of all kinds flooded into these countries; after all, they were EU members – or would soon become so – and yet they were growing much faster than Western Europe.

With all this money coming in, local wage rates and other costs rose. As a result, many Eastern European countries ran huge balance-of-payments deficits: For Latvia and Bulgaria, for example, the deficits were more than 20% of each country’s gross domestic product (GDP).

This all didn’t seem to matter too much at a time when world trade was robust and lending flowed freely (although those of us familiar with periodic Latin American catastrophes sucked through our teeth in a suitably concerned manner – we had seen it all before).

Since last September, however, world lending has stopped flowing freely – as has world trade. European, U.S. and Asian companies that had been madly keen to invest in Eastern Europe put their expansion plans on hold, as they discovered they had big problems of their own at home. Naturally, the Eastern European currencies started to decline.

This brought a horrible problem for the local banks, most of them owned by Western European banks. If they lent to local borrowers in euro, Swiss francs or dollars, their borrowers are suddenly in trouble.

For example, the Polish zloty has dropped by about a third against the euro in the last six months. Even without any decline in local real estate prices, an apartment in Warsaw is thus worth 33% less in euros, so the euro loan against it has suddenly become subprime. What’s more, the salary of the borrower has also dropped 33% in euro terms, so his ability to service the loan has declined correspondingly.

Conversely, if the foreign-owned banks lent primarily in local currencies, they internalized the problem if they borrowed in euros from their parent to do so; in that case, the bank is directly insolvent or close to it, rather than merely having a bunch of defaulting borrowers on its books.

The solution everybody is looking at is a bailout, and it will again have to be a big one. World Bank President Robert B. Zoellick is putting together a $25 billion trade facility, but he wants the EU to help with more money. Austria has tried to put together a $200 billion loan for Eastern Europe – not unreasonably, as Austrian banks have about $300 billion in loans outstanding to that area – equal to about 70% of Austria’s GDP.

Total Eastern European debt is reckoned to be around $1.7 trillion, with about $400 billion of it maturing this year.

With the EU, Austria and Eastern Europe all looking for money, the eyes of the region automatically turn to Germany. Germany has an almost balanced budget, and the German finance minister called British stimulation policies “crass Keynesianism” as recently as December. If it weren’t for Eastern Europe, Germany would be in pretty good shape. However, with 10 Eastern European countries among the 27 EU members, Germany’s finance minister better be concerned about getting his pocket picked.

My own guess is, the less the EU and the unfortunate Germans are forced to subsidize their neighbors, the quicker the problem will sort itself out, albeit at the cost of a lot of defaults on Polish home mortgages. In a world where all major countries are providing “stimulus” and bailouts for everything, the ultimate winner will be the country that bails out the least.

Bottom line? You might look at Brazil …

Source: Eastern Europe’s Banks are Next in Line for a Bailout

Where trade flourishes, business is good. But trade does not always flourish. The linked forces of globalization move in fits and starts.

The authors of Power and Plenty, a new book on trade over the last thousand years, tell us as much. “If anything,” they write, “history suggests that globalization is a fragile and easily reversible process.”

One of the looming threats in 2009 is the reversal in trade flows and increasing barriers to trade.

For the first time since 1982, The World Bank predicts global trade volumes will shrink in 2009. Undoubtedly, global trade enjoyed a boom over the last two decades or so. The global slump, though, is taking a bite out of that happy ride. Already, through November, exports from China, Taiwan, Chile and South Korea plunged by 20% or more.

The falloff in trade is worrisome enough as a globe-trotting investor. In the last several years, companies with operations overseas did much better than those confined to North America. In 2008, though, that wasn’t true. According to Bespoke Investment Group, stocks of companies that booked more than 50% of their revenues abroad fell 46% on average in 2008, versus a drop of 38% for those with no international revenue.

But there are signs that things could get much worse. Because like tea leaves steeping in a pot of hot water, the longer the economic slump persists, the more likely political trouble is to brew. The rise of barriers to trade is a particularly bitter brew of political trouble.

Already, a number of countries have taken actions to close their markets or protect domestic industry. Consider:

- Indonesia – new restrictions on over 500 goods as well as new fees for imports
- Russia – new tariffs on imported cars, poultry and pork
- France – a new state fund to protect French companies from foreign takeovers
- Argentina and Brazil – new tariffs on imported wine, leather goods, peaches and more
- India – a new 20% duty on imported soybean oils.

And then there is the U.S. bailout of the automakers, seen as an unfair subsidy by foreign competitors. This is only a partial list involving some of the bigger economies. However you view these moves politically, there is a good reason we should keep an eye on these things: They will affect how you invest.

For example, Russia is Europe’s largest car market. But now there is a tax on foreign cars of as much as 35%. Moscow wants to protect its automakers. The Russian people are poorer because of it. But as an investor, your favorite automaker, which may have had a nice business selling cars in Russia, may now find it tough going.

Moscow also put high imports on poultry and pork. Russia is the largest market for U.S. poultry. If you own a chicken producer, this is not good news. Your potential profits in a big foreign market are cut, and such tariffs could result in excess poultry staying in the U.S., leading to falling prices and lower profits at home.

All of these kinds of moves tend to happen when economies weaken. They can also bring about nasty trade wars.

In 1930, America passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. It raised tariffs on a number of imported goods. As the authors of Power and Plenty contend: “It triggered a wave of tariff increases.” By 1931, “average tariffs on foodstuffs had risen 53% in France, 59.5% in Austria, 66% in Italy, 75% in Yugoslavia, more than 80% in Czechoslovakia, Germany, Romania and Spain and to more than 100% in Bulgaria, Finland and Poland.”

These were hard to unwind. It took decades to reverse these anti-trade policies. They certainly didn’t help resolve the Great Depression.

I don’t think it is a coincidence that global trade expanded nearly fourfold since 1990, during a time when the average tariff fell from 26% to 8.8% by 2007.

A reversal of that trend spells bad things for investors. So far, we’re OK. Most of our companies sell goods that other countries can’t get enough of – things like fertilizers, road-building machines and power equipment. In many foreign countries, there is little domestic supply. China, for instance, it is trying to keep fertilizers in, not out. In fact, the Chinese have made it easier to import goods such as potash.

Still, it’s something to watch.

Source: Globalization Halt!