The Unbound Economy
The IMF Does Europe
Kenneth Rogoff
|
|
|
|
CAMBRIDGE – With the International Monetary Fund playing a central role in the eurozone’s blueprint for a bailout of Greece, the multilateral lender has come full circle. In its early days after World War II, the IMF’s central task was to help Europe emerge from the ravages of the war. Once upon a time, the Fund had scores of programs across the Continent (as Rong Qian, Carmen Reinhart, and I illustrate in new research on “graduation” from sovereign debt crises.) But, until the financial crisis, most Europeans assumed they were now far too wealthy to ever face the humiliation of asking the IMF for financial assistance.
Welcome to the new era. Europe has become ground zero for the biggest expansion of IMF lending and influence in years. Several large Eastern European countries, including Hungary, Romania, and Ukraine, already have substantial IMF loan programs. Now, the eurozone countries have agreed that the Fund can come into Greece and, presumably, Portugal, Spain, Italy, and Ireland, if needed.
The IMF’s resurgence over the past year is breathtaking. Castrated by populist rhetoric during the Asian debt crisis of the late 1990’s, the Fund had been struggling to re-anchor its policies and rebuild its image. When France’s Dominique Strauss-Kahn took over the helm in the fall of 2007, even poor African countries were shunning the IMF like a leper, preferring to make deals with non-traditional lenders such as China. Absent new business and new revenues, the Fund was facing dire cutbacks to ensure its own survival.
What a difference a crisis makes. Now the IMF has ascended Mount Olympus. In April 2009, G20 leaders approved a quadrupling of the Fund’s lending capacity. The increase was perhaps exaggerated in the heat of the moment, but a good chunk of the money actually appears to have materialized. And for Europe, the help has come none too soon.
Does the IMF’s arrival in Europe signal the beginning of the end of the region’s staggering debt woes? Hardly. The Fund does not bestow gifts; it only offers bridge loans to give bankrupt countries time to solve their budget problems. Although countries occasionally can grow their way out of debt problems, as China did with its 1990’s banking crisis, bankrupt countries usually face painful budget arithmetic. Short of default and inflation, most countries are forced to accept big tax hikes and spending cuts, often triggering or deepening a recession.
To be fair, the Fund’s reputation for imposing austerity is mostly an illusion. Countries usually call in the IMF only when they have been jilted by international capital markets, and are faced with desperate tightening measures no matter where they turn. Countries turn to the Fund for help because it is typically a far softer touch than private markets.
But gentleness is relative. It will be very tough – not only for Greece, but for all the other overextended countries of Europe – to tighten fiscal policy in the midst of recession without risking a deepening spiral. Simply put, no one wants to be the next major IMF supplicant.
Nor does the IMF’s arrival mean that bond holders are off the hook. As Qian, Reinhart, and I document, there have been numerous instances in which countries enter IMF programs but end up defaulting anyway. The most famous case is Argentina in 2002, but other recent examples include Indonesia, Uruguay, and the Dominican Republic.
The endgame could be the same for many European countries. Ukraine is already struggling. But, for the most part, the sovereign default process is slow-motion Kabuki theater. Why should a country choose to default as long as there are rich benefactors willing to lend money to preserve an illusion of normalcy? Bond markets are easily lulled.
The stakes for the IMF in Europe are huge. It is not going to be an easy balancing act. If the Fund attaches tough “German-style” conditions to its loans, it risks provoking immediate confrontation and default. This is the last thing that it wants to do. So far, it has been pretty soft in Eastern Europe, endorsing programs that depend on optimistic projections of both future budget cuts and economic growth.
The problem with being “Mr. Nice Guy” for too long is that, even with its vast new resources, the IMF cannot let clients hang on forever. If it does, it might not have sufficient funds for the next crisis, which will inevitably come, possibly from an unexpected quarter such as Japan or China.
Moreover, if the Fund loses all credibility for catalyzing budget reform, its magnanimous bailouts will only serve to exacerbate the larger global sovereign-debt crisis that is brewing not just in Europe, but in the United States, Japan, and elsewhere. Slow growth, aging populations, and soaring deficits are a dangerous mix.
The question for the IMF in Europe is not whether it has a plan viable for getting in. It has landed in force. The question is whether it has a plausible exit strategy.
Kenneth Rogoff is Professor of Economics and Public Policy at Harvard University, and was formerly chief economist at the IMF.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2010.
www.project-syndicate.org
For a podcast of this commentary in English, please use this link: http://media.blubrry.com/ps/media.libsyn.com/media/ps/rogoff67.mp3
You might also like to read more from Kenneth Rogoff or return to our home page.
|
|
Mountern 01:59 20 Apr 10
The IMF has lost its soul a long time ago. And the reason why even African countries are shunning it like lepers is because even a dumb man when burnt enough times by fire know when to avoid it sooner or later.
Academics generally find religion only after they leave the IMF. But inevitably they are affected by the "Goebbels Effect" which state that a lie told long enough seemed like the truth: the only problem is that after lying long enough it also seems like the truth to the liar. In this current crisis where the main actor is USA it is disingenuous to shine the light on Japan and China - the West's flavour-of-the-month's bogeyman - suggesting their economy would falter and crumble soon.
The true tragedy of all those who ever worked in the IMF is the amount of lost souls who found religion later: a perverted kind.
Mountern 02:14 20 Apr 10
Dear 42nat1:
It is not just Rogoff's dismissal of "populist rhetoric" against the IMF by people harmed by it that is offensive. It is his insidious portrayal of IMF as Mr Nice Guy that is totally and utterly offensive.
It is quite clear the language he uses is that of someone schooled in the fine art of Joseph Goebbels' Advanced College of Propaganda. In the midst of a global financial crisis started by USA he is blithely suggesting that Japan and China would be the next ground zero of financial crisis.
Noticed that he doesn't directly accuse the duo of any "crimes" yet. If he does, he would have to present evidence: something the IMF is not very good with. This is the hallmark of a master in the fine art of propaganda.
kristain77 10:08 03 Sep 10
With the International Monetary Fund playing the central role in the eurozone’s blueprint for a bailout of the Greece, the multilateral lender has come full circle. Well I am a group memberof a blog. You can find useful information here Countries In Europe
42nat1 12:58 04 Apr 10
My only quibble with Rogoff's insightful narrative is the pass he gives the IMF, saying its failure and near dissolution was caused by populist rhetoric.
The reason even poor Africans were shunning the IMF like a leper was not rhetoric, but incredibly brain-dead demands, policies and results...economic medicine that was more poison than pallative for two decades. Countries not suicidal learned to avoided the IMF. The IMF's economic ideology and commercial ignorance caused as much damage as it sought to repair.
It would seem, however, that Rogoff has learned something from his time observing and perhaps contributing to the messes the IMF's counter-productive policies made. Give him much credit...he's not saying now what he was doing then.