【英语财经】重绘世界经济地图 Emerging markets: Redrawing the world map

When Matteo Ricci, the Italian 16th century Jesuit missionary, travelled to China to win converts to his faith, he found that his European maps — which showed China relegated to the cartographical margins — failed to endear him to his hosts. So he redrew them. The resulting world map of 1602 placed China at its centre, an accommodation that is said to have helped him win influence among the Middle Kingdom’s elite.

Ricci’s revisions were made on woodcuts and paper. Now, commentators say, it is the world’s mental map that is in dire need of an overhaul, particularly when it comes to the practice of categorising countries as “emerging” or “developed” markets.

The current economic hierarchy, which places emerging nations at the periphery and developed markets at the core of world affairs, no longer accurately describes a world in which EM countries contribute a bigger share to global gross domestic product than their developed counterparts, when measured by purchasing power parity. Nor does the capacious category, which lumps together countries of such diverse economic strengths as China and the Czech Republic, serve to illuminate crucially different realities between these nations.

“The EM term has outgrown its usefulness,” says Michael Power, strategist at Investec, a fund management company. “The term today embraces big and small, developed and under-developed, industrialised and agrarian, manufacturing and commodity-based, rich and poor, deficit runners and surplus runners, and I could go on,” he adds. At issue are not merely the niceties of symmetry and order. Emerging markets is one of the most powerful definitions in the world, with an estimated $10.3tn invested in emerging financial markets via an alphabet soup of equity and bond indices. But these indices embrace such a collection of incongruous assets, that they misdirect investors and potentially reduce returns to pension funds, insurance companies and other financial institutions.

The term also forms one of the organising principles for global databases and an analytical starting point for those seeking insights into economic, environmental, social and other trends that shape the world. But this, commentators say, generates flawed perceptions and fuzzy arguments that impact on the efficiency of global governance.

“As an asset class, EM equities are nearly finished,” says John Paul Smith at Ecstrat, an investment consultancy. “The old paradigm is dead.”

Already, some commentators are proposing alternatives to the definition, seeking to identify ordering principles and shared dynamics among clusters of developing countries. This, they hope, will allow institutions, companies and multilateral organisations to assess more accurately the balance of risk and opportunity in large parts of the world.

What’s in a name?

At its inception, “emerging market” was not designed as a definition with specific criteria. Antoine van Agtmael, then an economist at the International Financial Corporation, the private sector arm of the World Bank, coined it as a marketing catchphrase in the 1980s.

The attraction was clear: it sounded aspirational. Countries previously known by monikers such as “less developed” or “third world” were suddenly imbued with the promise that they might be on a journey towards something better.

Since the 1980s, the stunning success of the term has spawned several attempts to nail down a set of commonly recognised characteristics — with the unintended consequence that different organisations such as the International Monetary Fund, the UN and financial index providers such as MSCI, JPMorgan and FTSE use a clutter of conflicting criteria to categorise emerging markets.

Adding to the confusion, the term is sometimes used to describe equity, bond or currency markets in developing countries and sometimes to describe the countries themselves. Different criteria make a world of difference. The MSCI equity index identifies 23 emerging markets countries and puts 28 into a “frontier emerging markets” category. The IMF, by contrast, defines 152 “emerging and developing economies”.

Even accepting prevailing classifications, it is often unclear why one country has been awarded emerging status while another merits a developed tag. Chile has a bigger economy, a bigger population, less debt and lower unemployment than Portugal but is classed as emerging, whereas the European nation remains part of the developed world. Similarly, on a per-capita income basis, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and South Korea are wealthier than several developed countries, but are still consigned to the emerging camp.

Such judgments often depend on the classifier. Providers of financial indices look at issues such as the freedom with which international investors can access the stocks and bonds of a particular country. Others such as the IMF consider questions about the diversity of a country’s economy, in terms of how many products they import and export. Increasingly, the sense that emerging nations take their lead in global affairs from the so-called developed world is also under examination. In some senses, emerging economies already wield power. When calculated by purchasing power parity, which takes account of exchange rate changes, developed countries account for only 39 per cent of global GDP, down from 54 per cent in 2004.

Developed markets are also weaker, in aggregate, when it comes to the size of their foreign exchange reserves, the huge stashes of money that accumulate when a country notches up trade surpluses and attracts foreign direct investment. Developed markets hold $3.97tn, compared with $7.52tn for developing countries, according to IMF data.

This leads to the curious situation in which emerging nations, which need

to invest their reserves in large liquid debt markets, have ended up bankrolling years of deficit-financed excess in large developed countries. China, for instance, was the biggest foreign buyer of US Treasury debt for six years until early 2015.

But aside from the various ways in which the EM tail appears to be wagging the developed dog, the broad inclusion of scores of countries glosses over crucial differences between emerging nations, misleading observers to construe equivalence where none exists.

Sree Ramaswamy, senior fellow at McKinsey Global Institute, says that key determinants of a country’s economic dynamism and resilience often come down to “economic structure, industry dynamics, corporate landscape, and role of government or social and political make-up”.

“When it comes to these indicators, the differences between emerging markets outweigh their similarities,” Mr Ramaswamy argues.

“For instance, capital investment makes up 20 per cent of GDP in Mexico, but 45 per cent in China. Household consumption makes up 50 per cent of GDP in South Korea but 70 per cent in Turkey,” he adds. “The populations of China and India are similar in size but their demographic trends are very different. So is the corporate landscape; 60 per cent of Latin America’s corporate revenue is held by family controlled firms but in India it is 50 per cent and in China 30 per cent.”

China breaks the mould

To many, the problem of how to classify China highlights the emerging market dilemma. In PPP terms, China is already the world’s largest economy and yet it is still classified as emerging. The country has a literacy rate of 96 per cent, more high-speed rail track than all other countries combined and more college students than any other country.

Its near $8tn stock market is the world’s second largest after the US and its $5.5tn domestic bond market ranks third in the world after those of the US and Japan. Nevertheless, its domestic equities — not counting those listed in Hong Kong — and its bonds feature only marginally in the MSCI EM Index and JPMorgan EMBI+, the world’s leading equity and bond indices.

As a result much of the investment opportunity and risk that Chinese assets represent remains largely sequestered from global investors. In June, MSCI decided not to include China’s A-share stock market into the index because of governance concerns.

Inclusion in an index may sound like a relatively minor detail but, in fact, such indices pack an enormous financial clout. The competence of fund managers is assessed by their ability — or failure — to generate returns that exceed those of the dominant index in their asset class. This results in an industry-wide tendency to buy stocks or bonds that are included in an index, thus reducing the risk that a fund manager will egregiously underperform it.

Inducting even a mere slice of the huge Chinese stock and bond markets into emerging market indices would create a financial earthquake, effectively forcing fund managers with ambitions to match an index’s performance into loading up on Chinese assets.

Peter Marber, fund manager at Loomis Sayles, echoes a widely held view that China’s size may break the emerging market mould.

“China is so enormous that if it goes [fully] into EM indices it will dwarf everything, so it is required to treat China as a separate category,” he says. But if China stands outside such indices, the case for India to be treated as separate may also harden, hastening the disintegration of emerging market indices.

As it is, Mr Marber says, emerging market indices mix investment assets that range from “garbage” to high quality, rendering investors unable to properly assess risk and dissuading them from investing.

These contradictions threaten to consign the term emerging markets to the dustbin. But if it follows the likes of “third world” into virtual extinction, its passage will raise the question of what — if anything — should replace it.

（照片说明：以上四个图片分别为四个所谓的“新兴市场国家”，从上左开始，按顺时针顺序，这四个国家分别为巴西、土耳其、中国和印度尼西亚）

16世纪时，意大利的耶稣会传教士利玛窦(Matteo Ricci)前往中国发展信徒，他当时发现，他所使用的欧洲地图使他无法博得东道主的欢心，因为这些地图上中国居于边缘位置。于是他重新绘制了地图。在1602年版的世界地图上，中国处于正中央。据说，此举使得他在“中央王国”(Middle Kingdom)的上层阶级中颇有影响力。

利玛窦的修订版地图是在木头材质及纸上绘制的。如今，评论人士称，世界的心理地图也亟需修订，特别是在把不同国家归类为“新兴市场”和“发达市场”方面。

在全球事务中将新兴国家置于外围、而把发达市场置于核心的现行经济等级体系已不能准确反映当今世界。以购买力平价(PPP)衡量，新兴国家在全球GDP中贡献的份额已经超出了发达国家。这种笼统的分类方法，将经济实力迥异的国家如中国和捷克混为一谈，也无法体现这些国家之间天壤地别的现实差异。

“新兴市场这个词已经失去了它的作用，”基金管理公司Investec的策略师迈克尔?鲍尔(Michael Power)称，“如今这个词涵盖的国家有大有小、有发达国家也有欠发达国家、有工业国家也有农业国家、有制造业国家也有大宗商品生产国、有穷国有富国、有赤字国家也有盈余国家……我还能举出更多例子。”问题不只在于相称、秩序这类细节。新兴市场是世界上影响最大的概念之一，据估计有10.3万亿美元资金通过各类相关股票和债券指数投资于新兴金融市场。但是这些指数中包含了许多相互间差异很大的资产，它们会误导投资者，并可能降低养老基金、保险公司以及其他金融机构的投资收益。

这个词还成了全球数据库的构建原则之一。对于试图探索经济、环境、社会及其他领域中影响世界的发展趋势的人来说，新兴市场也是他们进行分析的一个出发点。评论人士称，这造成了有缺陷的观点和含糊不清的论点，影响全球治理的效率。

“作为一个资产类别，新兴市场股票差不多没戏了，”投资咨询机构Ecstrat的约翰-保罗?史密斯(John-Paul Smith)称，“旧范式已经消亡。”

一些评论人士正尝试提出可以替代新兴市场的概念，以把握发展中国家不同集群的分类原则以及共同的动态特点。他们希望，新概念将使机构、企业和多边组织能够更准确地评估全球很大一部分地区的风险与机遇。



一个词语的涵义

创造“新兴市场”一词的初衷，并不是把它作为具有某种特定标准的概念。上世纪80年代，在世界银行(World Bank)下属私营机构国际金融公司(IFC)任经济学家的安东尼?范阿格塔米尔(Antoine van Agtmael)发明了这个词，将之作为一个营销用语。

这个词显然富有吸引力：它听起来令人向往，之前被贴以“欠发达”或“第三世界”标签的国家，突然间充满了希望，似乎正在朝着更美好的方向前进。

自从上世纪80年代以来，这个词大获成功，许多人为此尝试归纳出它所具有的一些公认特点。结果令人意想不到：包括国际货币基金组织(IMF)、联合国(UN)以及MSCI明晟、摩根大通(JPMorgan)和富时集团(FTSE)等金融指数提供商在内，许多组织使用相互矛盾的标准对新兴市场进行了归类。

使情况更加混乱的是，这个词有时还被用来指代发展中国家的股票、债券或外汇市场，有时也指代这些国家本身。不同的标准使世界变得不同。MSCI股票指数划分出了23个新兴市场国家，并把28个国家归入“前沿新兴市场”。IMF则把152个国家归为“新兴及发展中经济体”。



即使是接受了普遍的分类标准，关于一个国家为何被归为新兴国家，而另一个国家却被贴上发达标签，其中原因往往也莫名其妙。与葡萄牙相比，智利的经济规模更大、人口更多、债务负担更小而失业率更低，但却被归为新兴国家，而葡萄牙却是发达国家。同样，以人均收入来看，卡塔尔、沙特阿拉伯和韩国都比某些发达国家富有，但却仍然隶属于新兴阵营。

此类判断通常取决于分类者。金融指数提供商考量的是诸如国际投资者进入一国股市及债市自由程度等问题。IMF等其他组织考量的是一国经济多元化问题，关注产品进出口总量。新兴国家在全球事务中逐渐给人以领先所谓发达国家的感觉，关于这方面的研究越来越多。在某些方面，新兴经济体已经开始行使权力。以购买力平价计算（考虑汇率变化），发达国家占全球GDP的比重从2004年的54%下滑到了43%。

在外汇储备规模方面，总体而言，发达市场也处于弱势。外汇储备是一国在实现贸易盈余和吸引外国直接投资过程中积累起来的。IMF数据显示，发达市场拥有3.97万亿美元的外汇储备，而发展中国家拥有7.52万亿美元。



这造成了一种怪现象：新兴国家需要将外汇储备投资到拥有良好流动性的大型债券市场，结果却为多年来过度进行赤字融资的大型发达国家提供资金。例如，在直到2015年初的6年内，中国是美国国债最大的外国买方。

暂且不谈新兴市场和发达国家之间这种本末倒置的现象，笼统地将几十个国家归为一类，掩盖了新兴国家之间的关键区别，误导观察人士去解读本不存在的均衡。

麦肯锡全球研究院(McKinsey Global Institute)高级研究员斯里?拉马斯瓦米(Sree Ramaswamy)表示，一国的经济活力和弹性的主要决定因素往往归结于“经济结构、行业活力、企业概况，以及政府角色或者社会和政治体制”。

“在这些指标上，新兴市场之间的差异超过了它们的相似之处，”拉马斯瓦米表示。

“比如，资本投资占墨西哥GDP的20%，但在中国为45%。家庭消费占韩国GDP的50%，但在土耳其为70%，”他补充道：“中国和印度的人口规模相近，但两国的人口发展趋势大相径庭。企业的情况也是如此，拉美60%的企业收入由家族企业所有，但在印度这个比例为50%，在中国为30%。”

中国：应独属一类

对很多人来说，如何归类中国的难题凸显了新兴市场的窘境。按照购买力平价计算，中国已是世界最大经济体，然而中国依然被列为新兴市场。中国识字率达到96%，高速铁路总里程超过其他所有国家总和，大学生的数量比其他任何一个国家都多。

中国股票市场总市值接近8万亿美元，仅次于美国；国内债券市场总规模5.5万亿美元，仅次于美国和日本，居世界第三。然而，中国国内股票（不算那些在香港上市的）及债券在世界主要股票和债券指数——“MSCI新兴市场指数”和摩根大通(JPMorgan)新兴市场债券指数“EMBI+”中被边缘化。



因此，全球投资者基本上被隔绝于中国资产所蕴含的投资机会和风险之外。今年6月，出于对治理问题的担忧，MSCI决定不将中国A股纳入其新兴市场指数中。

纳入一项指数听起来好像是不太重要的事情，但事实上，这些指数拥有巨大的金融影响力。评估基金经理能力的依据，是他们取得的回报是否能超过与其所配置资产类别相关的主要指数。这催生了一种行业趋势——购买包含在一项指数中的股票或债券，以减少业绩表现过分逊于指数的风险。

即使只将中国庞大的股市和债市的一部分纳入新兴市场指数，也会造成一场金融地震，实际上这将迫使希望表现不逊于某一指数的基金经理买入中国资产。

Loomis Sayles基金经理彼德?马伯尔(Peter Marber)谈到了一个普遍持有的观点：中国的巨大规模可能打破了新兴市场这个模子。

“中国太庞大了，如果它（完全）进入新兴市场指数，会使其他一切相形见绌，因此需要将中国视为一个单独的类别，”马伯尔说。但如果将中国置于这些指数之外，或许也会加强将印度视为单独类别的理由，进而加速新兴市场指数的瓦解。

事实上，据马伯尔表示，新兴市场指数包含了从“垃圾”到优质的多种投资资产，使投资者无法正确评估风险，因而降低了投资意愿。

这些矛盾可能会使新兴市场这个词被扔进垃圾桶。但如果该词步“第三世界”之类词语的后尘，变得名存实亡，那就产生了一个问题：有没有一个词能够代替它？



译者/何黎