Regulation: the West's new competitive disadvantage

Is it really the solution?

Regulation and more regulation have become the siren calls of governments and the general public across the Western world. The curtailment of banking freedoms and greater government oversight of the sector has been deemed by experts and laymen as the most effective way to prevent another financial crisis.

Whilst the banks were undoubtedly reckless in their pre-crisis activities, their behaviour did not occur in a vacuum and reflected the prevailing government and public sentiment of the time. Easy credit was a vote winner for both President Clinton in the US, where more African Americans were able to buy their own homes, and the Labour Party in Britain  who were buoyed by a property and credit boom in the traditionally poorer areas of the country. Governments were more than willing to tax banking profits and collect stamp duty revenue from house purchases and consumers were happy to spend money they didn’t have.

Despite efforts to hold the banks solely culpable for the financial crisis, governments across Europe have still fallen, swept away by disillusioned electorates. Against this backdrop, insufficient questions are being asked about the efficacy of the new regulation, its impact on trade and investment and the rebounding of the US and European economies. Far from being the salvation of Western capitalism, regulation may further accelerate the movement of the world’s economic centre of gravity eastward, a trend that increased in vigour during the economic crisis.

Whilst the US and the EU floundered under the burden of sovereign debt and banking failures, Asia rebounded from recession much more quickly thanks to its more robust banking system and debt dynamics. Cash-rich Asian banks seized the opportunity to ramp up their businesses and expand market share while Western banks retrenched.

In the wake of the financial crisis, growth has become the mantra of Asian markets whilst Western governments have adopted an ambitious programme of regulatory reform to address the fundamental weaknesses in the structure of financial regulation. The objective is to provide cohesion, consistency and coordination between countries and to ensure greater oversight of the financial sector and activities of private corporations. In the quest to achieve this noble objective little has been said about the impact tighter regulation will have on Western competitiveness.

The implications of this omission were quickly revealed when the panic associated with the global crisis dissipated and the emphasis on coordination and cohesion receded. While most regulatory changes are taking place under the auspices of the G20, significant differences are present between the EU, the US and Asia. The EU and to a lesser extent the US, are acting against a backdrop of fragility in the banking system and the sovereign debt markets, and are confronted with the unenviable task of solving the current problems whilst designing a regulatory system that will prevent future crises. All the while, the governments are facing increasing pressure from the public and large sections of the media to take action against the banking sector.

Europe’s reality stands in stark contrast to that of Asia. The region is booming and the focus is on the unimpeded development of the financial infrastructure rather than on crisis response. The debate centres on the benefits of a global approach to regulatory reform as opposed to the ability to retain local flexibility. Indeed there is a prime opportunity for the regional financial centres of Hong Kong and Shanghai to develop their own banking, brokerage and asset management sectors independently of the restrictive regulation of the West and to secure a competitive advantage in doing so. .

Capital adequacy and liquidity standards for banks are a key area to be targeted as a result of the crisis. Basel III, adopted in 2010, effectively triples the capital reserves for many banks to 7 per cent as compared with the 2 per cent required under Basel II. The Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR) will also be tightened to ensure banks apply adequate capital to all their exposures, including those off balance sheet, to offset forecast cash outflows during a 30-day crisis. Such a system should prevent a future financial crisis from spreading beyond the financial sector into the real economy, thereby limiting the impact and making a crisis more containable.

The threat to Western competitiveness posed by Basel III derives from the fact that the accords will fail to create a truly global level playing field among international banks. They lack the binding force of a treaty and their adoption is likely to be limited to European banks. Basel III regulates the amount of lending that a bank can do - in conjunction with the central bank reserve requirements - and as a consequence also ends up partially regulating the money supply expansion for the entire economy. The impact on trading activity will be particularly severe because the application of the new leverage ratio to the trading book, with a 100% credit conversion factor for trade related business, will make trade and asset secured lending much more capital intensive. There is a real possibility of a significant drop in trade and a further reduction in the developed nations’ GDP, particularly in the Eurozone.

Laws and norms governing financial regulation generally reflect the ideological leanings of those at the highest levels of government. What is palpable at present is that the historically capitalist and entrepreneurial spirit of the UK and the US is being dampened by regulation and in reversal of its strong commitment to economic and financial liberalisation, the US has led efforts to nationalise its financial and some aspects of its manufacturing sectors, to an unprecedented degree. As many EU governments become increasingly left leaning, the efforts to restrict the operations of the financial sector intensify.

After the dominance of the West, we are moving towards a new economic paradigm characterised by competing ideologies and regulatory systems of governance. It is highly possible that different regions of the world will adopt contrasting regulatory systems, creating opportunities for regulatory arbitrage. While this may create a competitive disadvantage for sovereign states, investors who are not restricted by borders will be well placed to benefit from the investment opportunities increasingly divergent economies have to offer, with a greater scope for diversification and risk control. Over time, such diversification may reduce the high degree of correlation between stock markets in times of crisis and a more diverse regulatory world may be more resilient to shocks.

The creation of economic inefficiencies and limiting the optimal allocation of capital will impact Western markets more keenly than their rising Asian peers and it appears that the growth of Western economies will be stymied by regulatory restrictions.

Photograph: Getty Images

JLT Head of Credit & Political Risk Advisory

Getty
Show Hide image

David Osland: “Corbyn is actually Labour’s only chance”

The veteran Labour activist on the release of his new pamphlet, How to Select or Reselect Your MP, which lays out the current Labour party rules for reselecting an MP.

Veteran left-wing Labour activist David Osland, a member of the national committee of the Labour Representation Committee and a former news editor of left magazine Tribune, has written a pamphlet intended for Labour members, explaining how the process of selecting Labour MPs works.

Published by Spokesman Books next week (advance copies are available at Nottingham’s Five Leaves bookshop), the short guide, entitled “How to Select or Reselect Your MP”, is entertaining and well-written, and its introduction, which goes into reasoning for selecting a new MP and some strategy, as well as its historical appendix, make it interesting reading even for those who are not members of the Labour party. Although I am a constituency Labour party secretary (writing here in an expressly personal capacity), I am still learning the Party’s complex rulebook; I passed this new guide to a local rules-boffin member, who is an avowed Owen Smith supporter, to evaluate whether its description of procedures is accurate. “It’s actually quite a useful pamphlet,” he said, although he had a few minor quibbles.

Osland, who calls himself a “strong, but not uncritical” Corbyn supporter, carefully admonishes readers not to embark on a campaign of mass deselections, but to get involved and active in their local branches, and to think carefully about Labour’s election fortunes; safe seats might be better candidates for a reselection campaign than Labour marginals. After a weak performance by Owen Smith in last night’s Glasgow debate and a call for Jeremy Corbyn to toughen up against opponents by ex Norwich MP Ian Gibson, an old ally, this pamphlet – named after a 1981 work by ex-Tribune editor Chris Mullin, who would later go on to be a junior minister under Blai – seems incredibly timely.

I spoke to Osland on the telephone yesterday.

Why did you decide to put this pamphlet together now?

I think it’s certainly an idea that’s circulating in the Labour left, after the experience with Corbyn as leader, and the reaction of the right. It’s a debate that people have hinted at; people like Rhea Wolfson have said that we need to be having a conversation about it, and I’d like to kickstart that conversation here.

For me personally it’s been a lifelong fascination – I was politically formed in the early Eighties, when mandatory reselection was Bennite orthodoxy and I’ve never personally altered my belief in that. I accept that the situation has changed, so what the Labour left is calling for at the moment, so I see this as a sensible contribution to the debate.

I wonder why selection and reselection are such an important focus? One could ask, isn’t it better to meet with sitting MPs and see if one can persuade them?

I’m not calling for the “deselect this person, deselect that person” rhetoric that you sometimes see on Twitter; you shouldn’t deselect an MP purely because they disagree with Corbyn, in a fair-minded way, but it’s fair to ask what are guys who are found to be be beating their wives or crossing picket lines doing sitting as our MPs? Where Labour MPs publicly have threatened to leave the party, as some have been doing, perhaps they don’t value their Labour involvement.

So to you it’s very much not a broad tool, but a tool to be used a specific way, such as when an MP has engaged in misconduct?

I think you do have to take it case by case. It would be silly to deselect the lot, as some people argue.

In terms of bringing the party to the left, or reforming party democracy, what role do you think reselection plays?

It’s a basic matter of accountability, isn’t it? People are standing as Labour candidates – they should have the confidence and backing of their constituency parties.

Do you think what it means to be a Labour member has changed since Corbyn?

Of course the Labour party has changed in the past year, as anyone who was around in the Blair, Brown, Miliband era will tell you. It’s a completely transformed party.

Will there be a strong reaction to the release of this pamphlet from Corbyn’s opponents?

Because the main aim is to set out the rules as they stand, I don’t see how there can be – if you want to use the rules, this is how to go about it. I explicitly spelled out that it’s a level playing field – if your Corbyn supporting MP doesn’t meet the expectations of the constituency party, then she or he is just as subject to a challenge.

What do you think of the new spate of suspensions and exclusions of some people who have just joined the party, and of other people, including Ronnie Draper, the General Secretary of the Bakers’ Union, who have been around for many years?

It’s clear that the Labour party machinery is playing hardball in this election, right from the start, with the freeze date and in the way they set up the registered supporters scheme, with the £25 buy in – they’re doing everything they can to influence this election unfairly. Whether they will succeed is an open question – they will if they can get away with it.

I’ve been seeing comments on social media from people who seem quite disheartened on the Corbyn side, who feel that there’s a chance that Smith might win through a war of attrition.

Looks like a Corbyn win to me, but the gerrymandering is so extensive that a Smith win isn’t ruled out.

You’ve been in the party for quite a few years, do you think there are echoes of past events, like the push for Bennite candidates and the takeover from Foot by Kinnock?

I was around last time – it was dirty and nasty at times. Despite the narrative being put out by the Labour right that it was all about Militant bully boys and intimidation by the left, my experience as a young Bennite in Tower Hamlets Labour Party, a very old traditional right wing Labour party, the intimidation was going the other way. It was an ugly time – physical threats, people shaping up to each other at meetings. It was nasty. Its nasty in a different way now, in a social media way. Can you compare the two? Some foul things happened in that time – perhaps worse in terms of physical intimidation – but you didn’t have the social media.

There are people who say the Labour Party is poised for a split – here in Plymouth (where we don’t have a Labour MP), I’m seeing comments from both sides that emphasise that after this leadership election we need to unite to fight the Tories. What do you think will happen?

I really hope a split can be avoided, but we’re a long way down the road towards a split. The sheer extent of the bad blood – the fact that the right have been openly talking about it – a number of newspaper articles about them lining up backing from wealthy donors, operating separately as a parliamentary group, then they pretend that butter wouldn’t melt in their mouths, and that they’re not talking about a split. Of course they are. Can we stop the kamikazes from doing what they’re plotting to do? I don’t know, I hope so.

How would we stop them?

We can’t, can we? If they have the financial backing, if they lose this leadership contest, there’s no doubt that some will try. I’m old enough to remember the launch of the SDP, let’s not rule it out happening again.

We’ve talked mostly about the membership. But is Corbynism a strategy to win elections?

With the new electoral registration rules already introduced, the coming boundary changes, and the loss of Scotland thanks to decades of New Labour neglect, it will be uphill struggle for Labour to win in 2020 or whenever the next election is, under any leadership.

I still think Corbyn is Labour’s best chance. Any form of continuity leadership from the past would see the Midlands and north fall to Ukip in the same way Scotland fell to the SNP. Corbyn is actually Labour’s only chance.

Margaret Corvid is a writer, activist and professional dominatrix living in the south west.