Germany and the other countries of the eurozone core are signalling that debt mutualisation within the monetary union is out of the question, and that bailouts of countries or financial institutions will be balanced by “bail-ins” of their creditors. Increased uncertainty concerning the safety of deposits will push up interest rates and deepen Europe’s recession, and may also trigger capital outflows from the eurozone’s weaker peripheral economies to the core.
If all countries simultaneously attempt to improve their fiscal or external balances by cutting spending and raising taxes, all will fail
Moreover, a deep and prolonged recession implies vanishing support for reforms, as governments fail to convince citizens that current sacrifice will ensure a better future. Privatization, market liberalization, the opening of closed professions, and government downsizing involve conflicts with powerful vested interests, such as businesses in protected industries, public-sector unions, or influential lobbies. Resolving such conflicts requires social alliances, which are invariably undermined by discontent, civil disorder, and political instability.
The recent Italian election has shown how toxic the association of austerity policies with the pursuit of reform has become. Anti-austerity anger swept away the reform agenda of Mario Monti’s previous technocratic government, leaving Italy, its future uncertain, to continue muddling through. The same scenario seems to be emerging in Greece, where the depth of the austerity-induced recession, with output down by 25% over five years and unemployment at 27%, is paralyzing a reform-minded center-right government.
The gaps in the strategy are clear. First, the eurozone authorities misread the real causes of the debt crisis, which stemmed mainly from a growing competitiveness gap between the core and periphery countries. The resulting private-sector imbalances culminated in banking problems that were eventually transferred to sovereigns. Greece’s fiscal profligacy was the exception rather than the rule.
Indeed, in contrast to the United States, eurozone authorities were slow to consolidate the banking system after the global financial crisis erupted in 2008, and failed to sever the ties between sovereigns’ and banks’ balance sheets. Nor did they push strongly for structural reforms. Instead, they emphasized harsh austerity, which was to be pursued everywhere.
Second, the effects of austerity were exacerbated by the choice to pursue nominal, rather than structural, fiscal-deficit targets. Countries with a stronger fiscal position (that is, smaller structural deficits) should be encouraged to adopt more expansionary policies in order to contribute to lifting overall demand. Moreover, the European Investment Bank’s lending capacity could be increased substantially, and European Union structural funds mobilized, to finance investment projects in the peripheral economies.
Third, the European Central Bank’s announcement last August of its “outright monetary transactions” program – through which it guarantees eurozone members’ sovereign debt, subject to policy conditionality – has contributed significantly to subduing financial turbulence in the eurozone. But the OMT scheme has not been reinforced by a reduction in key interest rates, which would boost inflation in core countries with external surpluses and thus help to close the competitiveness gap with the periphery. Crucially, monetary-policy measures do not address the underlying problem of lack of demand.
Last, but not least, the eurozone authorities misread the confidence factor. In theory, simultaneous fiscal consolidation and supply-side reform facilitates economic recovery, because it increases confidence among consumers and investors, thereby inducing
The eurozone’s flaws reflect its conceptual distance from the US, which is the only model of a well-functioning monetary union
higher spending and production. But this does not necessarily work in an imperfectly functioning monetary union, such as the eurozone, where the continual appearance of systemic flaws erodes confidence; in such circumstances, the result may be hoarding and capital outflows, rather than increased spending.
The eurozone’s flaws reflect its conceptual distance from the US, which is the only model of a well-functioning monetary union. Europe’s history rules out emulating the US model. But, to make the eurozone work, monetary unification should extend to the fiscal and financial fields, thereby creating an integrated economic union.
The longer that European authorities postpone the introduction of Eurobonds, an effective banking and fiscal union, and lender-of-last-resort status for the ECB, the longer the crisis will last. By effectively defaulting on a deposit-insurance guarantee through its actions in Cyprus, the eurozone backtracked on the planned banking union.
Pursuing a strategy that simultaneously deepens recession and weakens confidence will not resolve the debt crisis. As funding problems recur in the recession-hit economies, governments may resist “bailing in” and the associated losses. Civil unrest and political destabilization could erupt into financial and social crises that ultimately threaten the monetary union’s survival.
In short, the “solution” to the Cyprus crisis is no solution at all for the eurozone. Unless the authorities embrace a growth strategy – and do so quickly – the eurozone’s prospects will become increasingly bleak.
Yannos Papantoniou is a former economy and finance minister of Greece (1994-2001) and is president of the Center for Progressive Policy Research.