The eurozone’s survival demands a credible solution to its sovereign-debt crisis, which in turn requires addressing the two macroeconomic imbalances – external and fiscal – that are at the heart of that crisis. But such a solution requires neither a euro breakup or a major austerity-induced recession.
CAMBRIDGE – This year is likely to mark a make-or-break ordeal for the euro. The eurozone’s survival demands a credible solution to its long-running sovereign-debt crisis, which in turn requires addressing the two macroeconomic imbalances – external and fiscal – which are at the heart of that crisis.
The crisis has exposed the deep disparities in competitiveness that have developed within the eurozone. From 1996 to 2010, unit labor costs in Germany increased by just 8%, and by 13% in France. Compare that to 24% in Portugal, 35% in Spain, 37% in Italy, and a whopping 59% in Greece. The result has been large trade imbalances between eurozone countries, a problem compounded by large fiscal deficits and high levels of public debt in southern Europe (and France) – much of it owed to foreign creditors.
Does addressing these imbalances require breaking up the eurozone? Suppose, for example, that Portugal were to leave and re-introduce the escudo. The ensuing exchange-rate devaluation would immediately lower the price of Portugal’s exports, raise its import prices, stimulate the economy, and bring about much-needed growth. But a euro exit would be a messy affair. The resulting turmoil could very well trump any short-term gains in competitiveness from devaluation.
To continue reading, register now.
Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.
If the US Federal Reserve raises its policy interest rate by as much as is necessary to rein in inflation, it will most likely further depress the market value of the long-duration securities parked on many banks' balance sheets. So be it.
thinks central banks can achieve both, despite the occurrence of a liquidity crisis amid high inflation.
Although Silicon Valley Bank was not deemed to be systemically important, its insolvency forced the US Federal Reserve to head off systemic contagion and exposed the inadequacy of the FDIC’s partial deposit insurance regime. The financial-stability framework adopted after the 2008 crisis obviously needs another overhaul.
considers what the bank’s failure should mean for the current financial-stability framework.
CAMBRIDGE – This year is likely to mark a make-or-break ordeal for the euro. The eurozone’s survival demands a credible solution to its long-running sovereign-debt crisis, which in turn requires addressing the two macroeconomic imbalances – external and fiscal – which are at the heart of that crisis.
The crisis has exposed the deep disparities in competitiveness that have developed within the eurozone. From 1996 to 2010, unit labor costs in Germany increased by just 8%, and by 13% in France. Compare that to 24% in Portugal, 35% in Spain, 37% in Italy, and a whopping 59% in Greece. The result has been large trade imbalances between eurozone countries, a problem compounded by large fiscal deficits and high levels of public debt in southern Europe (and France) – much of it owed to foreign creditors.
Does addressing these imbalances require breaking up the eurozone? Suppose, for example, that Portugal were to leave and re-introduce the escudo. The ensuing exchange-rate devaluation would immediately lower the price of Portugal’s exports, raise its import prices, stimulate the economy, and bring about much-needed growth. But a euro exit would be a messy affair. The resulting turmoil could very well trump any short-term gains in competitiveness from devaluation.
To continue reading, register now.
Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.
Subscribe
As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.
Register
Already have an account? Log in