This technical note describes an up-to-date data repository containing balance of payment, exchange rate, and aggregate macroeconomic data in a standard format used by case studies written by members of the Business, Government & the International Economy (BGIE) group at Harvard Business School.
The Great Depression was, by far, the worst economic contraction of the twentieth century, and some of the most important ideas about both fiscal and monetary policy in the second half of the century were developed in response to it. The economic collapse, which started with a sudden stock market crash in the United States, had quickly assumed worldwide proportions. A combination of deflation, massive unemployment, dramatic declines in industrial production, numerous banking panics, and catastrophic increases in poverty and homelessness led many to doubt the system of capitalism itself. Old remedies and new cures had been applied with varying degrees of success in different countries, but ongoing diatribes over World War I reparations and debts obstructed any form of meaningful cooperation in the international arena. Nations turned inward, and while world trade collapsed, more than one sought salvation at the extremes of the political spectrum.
By December 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic had swept across the globe, creating widespread disruption in all aspects of everyday life. Almost 90 million people had been infected and nearly two million had died from the disease. By this point in the pandemic-a year since the first rumors about the novel virus began, mask-wearing and social-distancing had become routine, and millions of people were working or studying from home. Grief and anxiety were widespread due to the loss of loved ones, financial hardships, and uncertainty about when the pandemic would recede. Hoping to solve the health crisis, governments worldwide were relying on private companies to fast-track the development and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines. Meanwhile, the global economy was experiencing the worst output crisis in decades, with a recovery that was uncertain and uneven across countries, coupled with rising concerns about the levels of debt and inflation.
Under the rule of presidents Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro, Venezuela experienced one of the worst economic and political meltdowns in modern history, culminating with a massive hyperinflation. Remarkably, during this dramatic times Automercados Plaza's had grown to become one of the most successful supermarket retailers in the country. Its management team had faced all kinds of challenges, including price indexation, price controls, scarcity and stockouts, informal competitors, and an ever-shifting set of government interventions. Showing resourcefulness and the flexibility needed to quickly adapt, Plaza's had managed to survive and even thrive. The future, however, looked very uncertain. Could Plaza's keep growing in an ever-shrinking economy? Would the (now larger) company manage to continue to avoid clashing with the government? Cheap financing in bolÃvares was no longer available, and other companies had learned to operate under high inflation conditions as well. While additional growth could help fend off new rivals if the economy improved, it was not clear when (or even if) that would happen. Despite increasing domestic and international pressure, President Maduro refused to resign. Even if he did, could Venezuela's economy recover after more than two decades of Chavismo?
In April 2020, the world struggled to contain the exponential escalation of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Dozens of countries had imposed restrictions on travel, work, and social gatherings. A large share of the global population was under lockdowns and unprecedented supply and demand disruptions crippled the economy. In response, central banks announced massive lending programs to avoid a financial meltdown, and governments were launching unprecedented fiscal packages designed to contain the collapse. In a matter of weeks, the pandemic turned into one of the worst global economic crises since the Great Depression. As governments struggled to make policy decisions, uncertainty and tensions were rising. How to balance the public health and economic concerns? What would be the economic and political consequences of the policy response? Was this the end of globalization, or the beginning of a new era of international cooperation? The only certainty was that some of the hardest choices still lay ahead.
In the early hours of Friday, December 13, 2019, a triumphant Boris Johnson, the UK Prime Minister, stood in front of his supporters and declared, "We did it - we pulled it off, didn't we? We broke the deadlock, [. . .] we smashed the roadblock. [. . .] This election means getting Brexit done is now the irrefutable, irresistible, unarguable decision of the British people." To Johnson, this was the culmination of a long process that had started with the shocking results of the 2016 referendum on Britain's exit (Brexit) from the European Union (EU). But many long-run economic and political challenges still lay ahead: Would the UK and the EU be able to agree on a mutually-beneficial economic relationship before the end of the transition period? Could the UK negotiate better deals with other countries in a context of rising global protectionism? With renewed calls for Scottish independence and uncertainty about Northern Ireland's future, would the UK itself start to break apart?
As 2018 drew to a close, India prepared to once again carry out the largest democratic exercise in human history, as in less than six months more than 850 million eligible voters would have the chance to choose their representatives to the Lok Sabha-the country's lower house of parliament-and, thus, their country's Prime Minister and cabinet.[i] The election would pit the ruling party-the Bharatiya Janata Party (Indian People's Party, known as the BJP) led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi-against a collection of parties that included the once-dominant Indian National Congress party (Congress). The 2019 elections would serve as a referendum on Modi's first term in office and, therefore, on a high stakes question: had India's implausibly robust democracy produced the right leader for the right moment, or had it taken the wrong path?
On December 1, 2018, U.S. President Donald Trump and China's Leader Xi Jinping faced each other across a dinner table during a G20 meeting in Buenos Aires, Argentina. After what Trump called an "amazing and productive meeting," the two leaders announced a truce in the ongoing trade war between their countries, following months of accusations, tariffs, and mounting retaliation. The U.S. agreed to postpone for 90 days an increase from 10% to 25% in tariffs applied to a large number of Chinese goods, which had been initially scheduled for January 1, 2019. In exchange, the White House announced that China would purchase a "very substantial" amount of agricultural and other products from the United States, adding that it expected the two nations "to immediately begin negotiations on structural changes with respect to forced technology transfer, intellectual property protection, non-tariff barriers, cyber intrusions and cyber theft, services, and agriculture." The Chinese government simply stated that it was "willing to expand imports according to the needs of the domestic market" and that it hoped to "reach a concrete agreement on mutual benefit and win-win as soon as possible." Despite Trump's assurances that China was sending "very strong signals" after the meeting, the outcome of the negotiations was highly uncertain. Would China provide enough concessions to satisfy the demands of the U.S.? Would the U.S. back down? Or would the trade war escalate, causing unprecedented disruptions-and opportunities-in global trade patterns?