Wednesday, November 26, 2014

Back to the Brink for the Eurozone?

ISTANBUL – When European Central Bank President Mario Draghi announced in late July that the ECB would “do whatever it takes” to prevent so-called “re-denomination risk” (the threat that some countries might be forced to give up the euro and reintroduce their own currencies), Spanish and Italian sovereign-bond yields fell immediately. Then, in early September, the ECB’s Council of Governors endorsed Draghi’s vow, further calming markets.

The tide of crisis, it seemed, had begun to turn, particularly after the German Constitutional Court upheld the European Stability Mechanism, Europe’s bailout fund. Despite the ECB’s imposition of conditionality on beneficiaries of its “potentially unlimited” bond purchases, financial markets across Europe and the United States staged a major rally.

It seems, however, that the euphoria was short-lived. Yields on Spanish and Italian government bonds have been inching up again, and equity investors’ mood is souring. So, what went wrong?

When I welcomed Mario Draghi’s strong statement in August, I argued that the ECB’s new “outright monetary transactions” program needed to be complemented by progress toward a more integrated eurozone, with a fiscal authority, a banking union, and some form of debt mutualization. The OMT program’s success, I argued, presupposed a decisive change in the macroeconomic policy mix throughout the eurozone.

There has been some progress, albeit slow, toward agreement on the institutional architecture of a more integrated eurozone. The necessity of a banking union is now more generally accepted, and there is a move to augment the European budget with funds that could be deployed with policy or project conditionality, in addition to ESM resources. (Germany and its northern European allies, however, insist that this be an alternative to some form of debt mutualization, rather than a complement to it.)

The ESM, supported by the ECB, could become a European version of the International Monetary Fund, and the new funds in the European budget could become, with support from the European Investment Bank, Europe’s World Bank. All of this will take time, but there is some movement in the right direction.

Where there has been virtually no progress at all is in the recalibration of the macroeconomic policy mix. The prevailing strategy in Europe remains simply to force internal devaluation on the southern countries, with excessive austerity aimed at causing severe wage and price deflation. While some internal devaluation is being achieved, it is producing so much economic and social dislocation – and, increasingly, political upheaval – that there is no supply response, despite the accompanying structural reforms.

Indeed, the deflationary spiral, particularly in Greece and Spain, is causing output to contract so rapidly that further spending cuts and tax increases are not reducing budget deficits and public debt relative to GDP. And Europe’s preferred solution – more austerity – is merely causing fiscal targets to recede faster. As a result, markets have again started to measure GDP to include some probability of currency re-denomination, causing debt ratios to look much worse than those based on the certainty of continued euro membership.

While all of this is happening in Europe’s south, most of the northern countries are running current-account surpluses. Germany’s surplus, at $216 billion, is now larger than China’s – and the world’s largest in absolute terms. Together with the surpluses of Austria, the Netherlands, and most non-eurozone northern countries – namely, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, and Norway – northern Europe has run a current-account surplus of $511 billion over the last 12 months. That is larger than the Chinese surplus has ever been – and scary because it subtracts net demand from the rest of Europe and the world economy.

Inflicting excessive austerity on the southern European countries while limiting their exports by restricting effective demand in the north is like administering an overdose to a patient while withholding oxygen. The political and economic success of southern Europe’s much-needed structural reforms requires the proper dose and timing of budgetary medicine and buoyant demand in the north.

The northern countries argue that permitting wage growth and boosting domestic demand would reduce their competitiveness and trade surplus. But that misses the entire point: surplus countries must contribute no less than deficit countries to global and regional rebalancing, because the world economy cannot export to outer space. This argument was always emphasized when the Chinese surplus was deemed excessive, but it is virtually ignored when it comes to northern Europe.

If conservative politicians and economists in Europe’s north continue to insist on the wrong overall macroeconomic policy mix in Europe, they could yet bring about the end of the eurozone, and, with it, the end of the European project of peace and integration as we have known it for decades. This is not to argue against the need for vigorous structural and competitiveness-enhancing reforms in the south; it is to give those reforms a chance to succeed.

Read more from our "Sticking with the Banking Union" Focal Point.

  • Contact us to secure rights


  • Hide Comments Hide Comments Read Comments (4)

    Please login or register to post a comment

    1. CommentedAndré Rebentisch

      This statement is unsourced, in fact no argues about that. What we care for is trust in agreements, monetary stability and good governance.

    2. CommentedSuhan Gurer

      During a crisis time, maintaining balance would be harder than normal times. Therefore the effect of trying to correct the south by structural reforms may outweigh the balancing affect it might create in the north.

      Unfortunately we have seen many examples that has defied the economic postulates that we had in mind. Considering the thread that we are currently walking on, substantial changes can have an overwhelming effect in the short run and more or less most countries don't have that extra reserve energy/recources to sustain their position in such a case.

    3. CommentedZsolt Hermann

      The article asks: "What went wrong?"
      Simply speeches and pouring even more virtual money into financial institutions cannot solve the problem if the main, root problem is not addressed.
      We read here yesterday about micro, macro, meso and meta economic analysis.
      What is missing is the meta-economic diagnosis, the understanding of how the interconnected global system works, what laws determine the state of affairs today.
      Until the governance system, economic model and financial institutions are not adjusted in a fundamental change to the new global, interconnected and 100% interdependent human network, the global economy and the whole human system will continue to slide deeper into crisis until all the resources are exhausted.
      We simply cannot run away from the fact that we evolved into a new system that requires a total change of attitude and lifestyle. As any time during the evolution process humanity needs to adapt to the changing conditions.
      We struggling against a vast natural system that is not going to change, only we can change.