Comments 8

欧洲例外论

Sep 6, 2012 Jean-Claude Trichet

发自巴黎——欧洲经济和货币联盟的创立在主权国家的历史上是非常独特的。欧元区构建了一个全新形式的“国家社会”，超越了传统威斯特伐利亚式的主权国家概念。

就像一个社会中的个体，欧元区成员国之间既相互独立，又相互依存。它们可以对彼此产生积极和消极两方面的影响。欧元区的良好治理需要各成员国以及欧盟各机构履行其职责。最重要的是，经济和货币联盟如同它的字面意思：两个联盟，一个经济的，一个货币的。

欧洲的货币联盟迄今为止运作得非常良好。自1999年欧元发行以来，17个欧盟成员国及3.32亿人民一直享受着稳定的物价，其年通货膨胀率仅为2.03%，比德国1955到1999年间的记录更为优秀。此外自1999年以来欧元区还创造了1450万个新就业岗位，而同期美国只创造了850万到900万个新工作机会。这并不是说欧洲就没有严重的失业问题；但欧洲在这方面也没有明显的劣势：所有先进经济体都必须能创造新的就业机会。

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

To access our archive, please log in or register now and read two articles from our archive every month for free. For unlimited access to our archive, as well as to the unrivaled analysis of PS On Point, subscribe now.

Featured

China’s Currency Catch-22

Jul 19, 2018 Paola Subacchi
Can Multilateralism Survive?

Jul 20, 2018 Kemal Derviş
How to Debate a Populist

Jul 19, 2018 Helmut K. Anheier
Nationalism, Immigration, and Economic Success

Jul 18, 2018 Jason Furman
Trump May Kill the Global Recovery

Jul 18, 2018 Nouriel Roubini

0 Comments on this paragraph, 9 in all 9 Comments on this article

John Cioffi Sep 17, 2012

Mr. Trichet describes his modest proposal as “bold.” That is hardly adequate to convey how radical and troubling it really is. A brief consideration of the provenance of this appalling idea of government “by exception” will more fully illuminate its character and potential consequences. Whether or not Mr. Trichet is aware of it (and I hope he’s not), the notion of rule by exception is hardly new. In fact, it was central to the explicitly and unapologetically authoritarian political theory of Carl Schmitt. Notorious for his personal and intellectual support of German fascism, Schmitt famously asserted, “Sovereign is he who decides the exception” to positive law and normative constraint on the exercise of state power. Ultimately, rule by exception becomes unexceptional and the authoritarianism emerges from the ruins of democracy and the rule of law. Mr. Trichet’s “federation by exception” confers this authority on the EU—and even foresees its institutional entrenchment. This proposal is a not only an attack on the member states’ sovereignty (at least those within the Eurozone and albeit unequally), it is also profoundly anti-democratic. And what motivates this bureaucratic rolling back of the democratic nation state? It is all for the preservation of dysfunctional monetary union and the single market agenda. Mr. Trichet correctly criticizes EU-Eurozone institutions and governance as gravely dysfunctional, yet refuses to confront the monetary union’s fundamental structural flaws that made the Eurozone crisis both inevitable and intractable by eliminating both monetary and fiscal policy as effective adjustment mechanisms.
Leaving aside economic criticisms of the Euro regime, Mr. Trichet apparently fails to grasp the deeply disturbing political ramifications of “federation by exception.” Mr. Trichet’s proposal exemplifies the rigid commitment of the EU political class to a neo-liberal finance-centered vision of the EU and its imposition on recalcitrant member states. I do not think that Mr. Trichet seeks to establish the EU as a nascent authoritarian regime, but at the same time his proposal is symptomatic of an elite more than willing to subordinate or circumvent democratic politics whenever it poses a threat, or even an obstacle, to the market liberalism and economic financialization the EU has come to embody. The fig leaf of democratic accountability provided by the European Parliament in the Trichet proposal would hardly suffice to legitimate the reallocation of sovereign power to Brussels, or redress the democratic deficit of an emergent technocratic Eurocracy. Nor will it render economic and social impoverishment accompanying austerian fiscal policies more palatable to the increasingly resentful and dispirited citizens of the Eurozone’s member states.
Mr. Trichet’s “federation by exception” threatens a denigration of democratic rule that even Carl Schmitt wouldn’t like. This points to an even more disturbing implication of EU governance by exception. Schmitt envisioned the authoritarian state as embodying, and enforcing, the unity of the nation as a political community. Rather than pre-sage a pan-European democratic super-state, Mr. Trichet’s “federation by exception” likely would amplify the centrifugal forces threatening the EU by casting anti-EU sentiments and interests in national, and in the end anti-liberal nationalistic, terms. Given the current absence of a coherent and effective political left, right-wing nationalism is now the path of least resistance for political mobilization against the EU status quo. By valuing a common currency and market over democracy, he may have stumbled on a way to hasten the fracturing of the EU and resurrect, on the nationalist right, the specter of a pathological and atavistic form of politics that European integration was supposed to have eradicated.
- John Brian Shannon Oct 29, 2012
  
  Hi John,
  
  While I agree with much of your post, I do differ briefly on a few points.
  
  I quote you; "Mr. Trichet correctly criticizes EU-Eurozone institutions and governance as gravely dysfunctional, yet refuses to confront the monetary union’s fundamental structural flaws that made the Eurozone crisis both inevitable and intractable by eliminating both monetary and fiscal policy as effective adjustment mechanisms."
  
  I do agree with you that in the broadest possible way monetary and fiscal policy are effective economic levers, the U.S.A. and other countries which do have "both monetary and fiscal policy as effective adjustment mechanisms" have suffered similar economic fates in recent years.
  
  If you blame the economic crisis in EU-Eurozone nations on dysfunctionality and "the monetary union’s fundamental structural flaws" why did other countries without those flaws suffer almost exactly the same fate?
  
  Point #2) What you see as "rolling back of democracy" I see as an enhancement to better democracy and the drive to leave behind obsolete feudalism.
  
  "This proposal is a not only an attack on the member states’ sovereignty (at least those within the Eurozone and albeit unequally), it is also profoundly anti-democratic."
  
  Unchecked, all government leads to plutocracy, especially democratic governments, which is why all democracies need strong checks and balances.
  
  An elected upper house, is merely another set of checks and balances within a democracy.
  
  For me, Mr. Jean-Claude Trichet's proposal is barely bold enough.
  
  I would have the end of feudalism and independence replaced by full-on interdependence between EZ states, the further checks and balances afforded by an elected upper house, more and better European integration and full SGP compliance. Fiscal and monetary levers must be applied by a strong central structure for the economic health of all, as well as EZ debt mutualization.
  
  Building anything is a messy business, building a democracy (all democracies are a work-in-progress, by definition) is very messy, but worthwhile. We must not confuse messy with ineptitude, indifference or evil intent, but rather, we must work towards a common good for the benefit of the largest number of citizens, which in the largest possible context is the basis of democratic thought.
  
  "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." - Sir Winston Churchill
  
  Best regards, JBS
Stefan Schuetzinger Sep 13, 2012

I am convinced, that the EU and the Euro are the right strategy for all European countries. However, when I read the words from Mr. Trichet about how many jobs the EU created over the last decade, I'm getting doubts, that we have had the right leaders on board of this project. Under the leadership of Mr. Trichet, billions of cheap ECB money was pumped into the Spanish real-estate market and "created jobs". Today the world is in trouble, because we have difficulties to find a way out of this mess.

The longterm solution for Europe and particularly for the countries in the periphery is, to become more competitive. In these days we can read a lot of wise articles about higher inflation and similar "artificial" solutions. But as long as the "product" is not competitive in terms of quality, price,.... there will be no real solution.
Kevin Lim Sep 10, 2012

The dream behind the European project was to make the common market so wonderful and integrated and mutually beneficial to the states involved that the voting public would slowly come around to the idea of greater political integration. That dream is dead. Now its the threat that if there is no further political integration, the euro project's inherent contradictions will cause it to collapse, and take down most of the euro economies with it. We've gone from enticing the euro voter with the honey of growth, to now putting a gun to his head and saying "Hand over your political sovereignty or your economy gets it"

Further political integration was always going to be a hard sell in a region where no shared political identity has existed at least since Roman times. Its going to be an impossible sell now.
Burak M Sep 8, 2012

As a recently qualified lawyer specialisng in international public and trade law, and aspiring macro investor, and a fan of Mr. Soros (and no not for the purely cliche reason of his shorting of the pound and hence 1 billion trade as genuis as it were) but rather his comprehension of the global financial system and the the causes which he invests heavily in, I once again applaud Mr Soros for his I'm sure simplied version of the current situation in Europe and the responsibility that falls onto predominantly Germany. As much as Northern states blame irresponsible debt piling while same time decreasing competitiveness on southern states for the current crisis, one need not go futher than the mirror if your the northern states on who to blame for providing such finances for the piling of this debt. Europe once and for all by force must either integrate beyond just being merely monetary union or go their own ways hence the devaluing of currencies ie Greece, Spain, Portugal to increase some sense of competition(after an initial knee jerk massacre in global financial markets no doubt). However better the massacre earlier than later one must assume. Clearly even in the currently urgent atmosphere of the crisis, Europe is suffering contradictions in a sense of continued and increased unification such as Merkels approving of Draghis recent bond buying pledges on one hand which was although delayed positive none the less vs domestic populism such as the Dutch PM pledging that Holland will abstain from anymore potential assistance to Greece no matter the Troikas eventual conclusion of Greece's austerity implementations which is evidently negative. If the grand dream which Europe so self righteously promoted of a first ever unified continent is to materialise than it must act up on it. As the current dilemma of a supposed unified continent could be construed as California seeking Federal government assistance and New York saying "nope, you won't be getting a cent out of our tax payers". When viewed in this sense, apart from a four letter word that starts wit an E and ends with a O, the unified continent dream seem to have stalled at the dream phase.
srinivasan gopalan Sep 8, 2012

With due deference to the scholarly former Chairman of the ECB, let me differ from him that the concept of common market and one-size-fits all strategy for the whole of the Europe appear passe now after the crisis in the southern part of Europe made a formidable Northern Europe Germany a bit tetchy. No country in the current context is willing to surrender its sovereignty to a supra-national authority-- be it European Council or European Parliament. In fact, the incomplete monetary union of Europe with Britain out of the euro a few years back itself presaged the weakness of the concept. In today's context when national economic policies have wider ramifications and across the boundaries through transmission or contagion effect of the crisis, it requires exceptional skill on the part of each nation to manage its house better than what it is otherwise doing in bringing about the crisis in the first place! Creation of a Eurozone finance ministry would render each country's finance ministry a round whole in a square peg and unnecessarily being hobbled by a higher bureaucracy. It is time scholars thought out of box to extricate the shambles the Europe is in today, instead of investing existing institutions with more executive powers that would be followed more in breach than in practice by nations when the chips are down. G.Srinivasan
Cher Calusa Sep 6, 2012

You've pointed out that monitoring and surveillance of competitive indicators wasn't carried out but you've also shown here that the relationship of states and institutions is interdependent. I think we're seeing what happens when motives and desires outside the common good overtake what is supposed to be a well functioning system. Since, we as humans are creating imitations of true systems, we don't consider all phases of activity, from top to very bottom, including all the human intentions, desires, emotional decision making, etc. A system denotes the interactions between all parts and a certain cooperation between all parts of the whole for the overall health of the entire functioning system. If we modeled our prototypes after true functioning systems we would find ourselves busy making the necessary improvements and constant changes instead of having to collapse periodically until the "machine" is repaired.
Zsolt Hermann Sep 6, 2012

1. What we learn today, especially in a painful way through the crisis, that we evolved into a global, interdependent human network not only in Europe but all over the world.
2. In a global, integral system the connections are full, they cover the whole network, there are no partial connections, as some economic experts said it we are all sitting on the same boat.
3. The European Union and moreover the Eurozone was a pioneering concept when this global integral network was not so apparent as it is today. But they made the mistake believing they can create a partial union only on financial, economical grounds, leaving everything else separate and fragmented.
Based on the laws of integral, analog systems no partial connection relationship can work.
This is the big question today for the Eurozone, which politicians still try to cloud as they do not dare to put the whole picture in front of the electorate as they only care about personal legacies and re-elections: either the Eurozone countries move into a full democratic but supra-national integration, or they will explode.
And since the whole world is in the same system, this will show an example how the global economy, global human system will unfold in a immediate future.
Thus Europeans have a huge responsibility on their shoulders, as option B, the explosion would bring very unpredictable and volatile events with it, since the conditions around us necessitate union, integration, if we go against it, we go against unbreakable natural laws.
Frank O'Callaghan Sep 6, 2012

A somewhat confusing work. Does this refer to the Eurozone or to the EU? The European institutions are not a clear fit to solving the problem.

http://prosyn.org/NbsH8HT/zh;

Log in/Register

欧洲例外论

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

Featured

China’s Currency Catch-22

Can Multilateralism Survive?

How to Debate a Populist

Nationalism, Immigration, and Economic Success

Trump May Kill the Global Recovery

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Italy’s Turn Against Europe

Why the World Cup Mattered

No Robo-Apocalypse

Can Multilateralism Survive?

PS. In Theory: Rethinking Austerity

What Trump Gets Wrong About EU Defense

Rewriting Europe’s Narrative

China’s Currency Catch-22

Cookies and Privacy