skip to Main Content

Deepening the Economic and Monetary Union – no solution in sight

Periodically, the European Commission puts out a new report or paper on how it is going to fix the unfixable mess that the Eurozone continues to wallow in. I say unfixable because all of the proposed reforms refuse to confront the original problem, which, at inception, the monetary union builders considered to be a desirable design feature – a lack of a federal fiscal capacity. They now know that this is the major issue but cannot bring themselves to deal with it directly. The politics won’t allow that. Everyone knows that Germany will veto such a development immediately and that would be the end of it. The latest report (May 31, 2017) – Reflection paper on the deepening of the economic and monetary union – maintains the inertness that was characteristic of previous ‘grand’ statements, such as the White paper on the future of Europe and the way forward (March 1, 2017) and the The Five Presidents’ Report: Completing Europe’s Economic and Monetary Union (June 22, 2015). So not much has happened in 2 years, despite the unemployment rate still hovering around 9.5 per cent, other than many workshops, conferences, reports, speeches, meetings in salubrious surrounds where the catering is the highlight and the conclusions moribund.

The latest Report – Reflection paper on the deepening of the economic and monetary union – adds another 40 odd pages to the already high pile of talk with little meaningful action.

The self-stated aim of the ‘reflection paper’ is to set:

… out possible ways forward for deepening and completing the Economic and Monetary Union up until 2025.

We learn there are “concrete steps that could be taken” by 2019 and “options for the following years”.

But the devil is in the non-committal nature of the words.

Within a context where the draftees claim the “single currency is one of Europe’s most significant and tangible events” – which we can agree on as long as we add the qualifier ‘disasters’ to the “significant”, the Report maintains the line that the single currency is the key to “prosperity” because it:

… more stability, more protection, and more opportunities ..

I wonder which data this crowd look at.

Which suburbs they walk around.

Which food banks they visit.

The Report is in denial of these failures.

It concludes that the “‘Monetary’ pillar of the EMU is well developed” referring to the conduct of the ECB.

But, in seeking a deeper integration, it assesses that the:

“Economic” component is lagging behind, with less integration at EU level hampering its ability to support fully the monetary policy and national economic policies. This is symptomatic of the need to strengthen political will to cement the “Union” part of the EMU. More trust is needed across the board, among Member States, between Member States and EU institutions, and with the general public.

What does that mean?

Well, according to the ‘reflection paper’:

There is not one, single answer.

To which I say, sorry, there is a single answer and that answer is beyond the cultural and political possibilities of the collective Member States.

I will come back to that at the end.

The ‘reflection paper’ is quite amazing in its continued self-praise of the policy makers and structure and performance of the Eurozone.

We read, for example, that:

1. “The architecture of the euro area is as robust as it has ever been” – which might have been supplemented by ‘prone to crisis and instability’.

2. “major new steps were also taken by the other EU institutions to strengthen the integrity of the euro area” – by which they mean the destruction of Greece and Cyprus, the increased rigidity of the Stability and Growth Pact, the turning a blind eye to Spain’s violation of the fiscal rules so it could resume growth in time for the PP to be re-elected, and more – see Chaos in Europe and the flawed monetary system.

3. “A new Investment Plan for Europe – also known as the “Juncker Plan” – was launched” – which has so far been a dismal failure and was underfunded from the start – see Hype aside – the Juncker Plan – a failure from day one.

4. Youth guarantee – see 4 years later – the European Youth Guarantee is an under-funded failure.

The proposed solutions?

The ‘reflection paper’ offers a number of suggestions for “completing the Economic and Monetary Union” to reduce the divergences that have arisen despite the claim that that the euro would ferment convergence.

Per capita income has divergent dramatically.

Unemployment disparities across regions and nations are much higher.

Investment rates are divergent and remain low in most nations.

Public infrastructure is crumbling and grossly underfunded with weak productivity growth.

So the ‘reflection paper’ proposes “further steps towards Economic Union” to create a “sustained re-convergence across countries”.

How?

The ‘reflection paper’ says that:

the euro area economies need to get on a stronger path of growth and prosperity … will benefit from — a sustained re-convergence across countries … This requires structural reforms to modernise economies …

Which at that point one concludes – progress stopped – déjà vu – whatever.

But there is more!

The ‘reflection paper’ goes on to discuss the public debt situation and how “the crisis exposed the limits of individual Member States in absorbing the impact of large shocks.”

We read that:

1. “in several countries, the limited availability of fiscal buffers and the uncertain market access to finance public debt meant that this was not enough to counter the recession” – which was a design feature. The operation of the automatic stabilisers alone (without any discretionary shift in fiscal policy) in many countries pushed their fiscal balances over the Stability and Growth Pact threshold.

The EUs response – enrol the nation in the Excess Deficit Mechanism and demand austerity. That is why the early recovery in the Eurozone, which followed the recovery of the US was quickly terminated and the monetary union plunged back into recession.

The “limited availability of fiscal buffers” was designed – it was deliberate because Germany didn’t trust its partners to run fiscal policy responsibly.

Further, the “uncertain market access to finance” occurred because the nations use a foreign currency which carries default risk and the ECB refused to publicly back the deficits of the Member States.

It claimed the Treaty prevented them from doing so, but that didn’t stop them introducing the Securities Markets Program in May 2010, which effectively funded fiscal deficits around the union and prevented the Eurozone from collapsing at that point.

The whole public debt crisis could have been prevented in 2009 if the ECB had have said it would do whatever it took to ensure fiscal spending was sufficient in Member States to ensure real GDP and employment growth returned to pre-crisis levels quickly.

That would have been the end of it.

2. “In particular, it is important to avoid ‘pro-cyclical’ fiscal policies” yet the report praises how the ” EU fiscal rules – the Stability and Growth Pact – have been reinforced over the years”.

While there is some flexibility in the allowable deficit limits, the experience of the Eurozone has been clearly to demand ‘pro-cyclical’ fiscal policy responses at a time when strong counter-cyclical responses were required for extended periods.

So in terms of the proposed “further steps towards Fiscal Union”, all we get is:

sound public finances … complementing common stabilisation tools … the combination of market discipline and of a shared rulebook …

Which even in the Groupthink speak of the European Commission doesn’t tell us much more than what is already on the table – which is not much at all.

The language or specifics have not changed since the release of the Five Presidents’ report – Completing Europe’s Economic and Monetary Union in June 2015.

Please read my blog – The five presidents of the Eurozone remain firmly in denial – for more discussion on this point.

Instead, the ‘reflection paper’ continues to extol the virtues of the “‘Six-Pack’, the ‘Two-Pack’ and the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance” (the fiscal compact),

A federal riskfree asset?

They note that no such asset exists but conclude that “developing a safe asset for the euro area raises a number of complex legal, political and institutional questions”.

One word: Germany. They will never allow debt mutualisation in the Eurozone, which is the implication of a safe asset.

They also suggest that rules should be developed to prevent (or discourage) ‘home banks’ buying “home-sovereign bonds” which would break the “bank-sovereign loop”.

And, further worsen the plight of the less attractive nations in the face of the private bond markets.

A fiscal union

The only real mention of a federal fiscal capacity is the proposal to create “a macroeconomic stabilisation function for the euro area”.

This would apparently:

… not lead to permanent transfers, minimise moral hazard, and not duplicate the role of the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) as crisis management tool.

In other words, it would not be a fiscal capacity that could insulate economies within the Eurozone that face negative asymmetric shocks at all.

Fiscal policy would remain tightly constrained by the Stability and Growth Pact and its additional components (Six, Two Packs etc).

“Compliance with EU fiscal rules and the broader surveillance framework” would continue.

And what form might this take?

The “protection of public investment from economic downturn and an unemployment insurance” all of which would have to be paid back by Member States.

So no permanent net transfers.

How would this ‘federal’ function be funded?

Waffle follows. ESM or some “new instrument” based on national contributions. No currency issuing capacity to available or to be tapped into via democratically derived legislative fiat.

I noted above that I considered that there is a single answer to the problem despite the millions of words that the European Commission has published over the last several years, which duck and weave around that solution.

The single answer is that for the Eurozone to work it must become a true federation, with a European-level fiscal capacity to ensure that total spending in the Eurozone is sufficient to generate enough jobs to satisfy the desire of the workers is assessed.

The various hybrid schemes that have been proposed by economists in Europe and beyond (unemployment insurance, special blue bonds and the like) will not be sufficient.

That fiscal capacity has to be embedded within the European Parliament to give the policy regime democratic legitimacy. In other words, the European Council, European Commission would not be responsible for Eurozone-wide fiscal policy.

Further, the cult of austerity which biases fiscal policy towards fiscal surplus without regard to the economic circumstances (for example, the state of the labour market) has to be abandoned.

That austerity bias arises because there is a lack of trust among the Member States, something that has been long developed in history and will not change.

The lack of trust and a lack of collective will means that fiscal policy is reduced to being largely pro-cyclical in impact (net government spending falls at the same time as the non-government cycle is contracting) which is the anathema of responsible fiscal policy design and practice.

The ECB also would have to become an integrated part of this new federal government economic capacity, which means policies such as overt monetary financing (OMF) would have to be available. That requires a major shift in thinking and Treaty design and means that the ‘Monetary pillar’ is far from “well developed”.

This federal fiscal capacity would have to allow for the possibility and likelihood of continuous fiscal deficits separate from the automatic stabiliser component – that is full employment deficits – which would allow the non-government sector to save overall and for nations to cope with drains coming from external deficits.

All the suggestions that have been made by the European Commission to date (unemployment insurance, public investment insurance) are all predicated on fiscal neutrality – balanced fiscal positions. In other words, any stimulus in a downturn would have to be paid back in an upturn.

The problem is that a balanced fiscal position (deficit equal to zero) may not be (and is most likely not) the most appropriate long-term position for a nation seeking full employment and prosperity and in trying to impose such balance usually results in fiscal policy becoming pro-cyclical.

Conclusion

The conclusion that anyone who understands these matters would reach is that the differences between the European nations are so great that such a shift towards a true federation is highly unlikely despite the fact that the EMU could function effectively if the capacity was developed.

The other conclusion is that by failing to solve the inherent design problem either by introducing a full federal fiscal capacity or disbanding the monetary union, the European Commission is setting the Eurozone up for the next crisis.

While there is some growth now, after nearly a decade of malaise, the residual damage from the crisis remains. The private sector still has elevated levels of debt, the banking system is far from recovered (particularly in Italy), the property market is still depressed, governments have elevated levels of foreign-currency debt (euros), and the labour market remains depressed.

What that means is that when the next economic downturn comes – and economic cycles repeat – the crisis will be magnified and the mechanisms set in place as emergency measures to deal with the GFC will fail immediately.

It is only a matter of time.

That is enough for today!

(c) Copyright 2017 William Mitchell. All Rights Reserved.

Spread the word ...
    This Post Has 12 Comments
    1. I think we will see, soon, an Euroarea fiscal capacity.
      Only that, instead of modeled after the USA treasury or any national treasury, it will be inspired by the IMF and will impose the same kind of policies.

      For me, everyday it’s more difficult to see this as incompetence or paralysis, instead of a planned strategy to get free of the different welfare states existing in Europe. What would be a political impossibility to do in a separate Europe is, in a common currency area without democratic control, just a question of time.

    2. Not only the Italian banks. DB isn’t healthy. While its debt has been reduced from about 57 trillion Euros to about 44 trillion Euros, this seems to be only due to the bank getting some central banks to buy its debt. How they managed this feat, I don’t know. Basically, DB are insolvent. Both DB and SG should be wound up.

      On another note, before the Tories could wind up the SFO, Serious Fraud Office, four present and former Barclays bankers have been charged with fraud. Let us hope the outcome is what it should be.

    3. EU have had plenty of time to create a European “people”, that would had made the foundation for a common fiscal policy. But no, they did go for the unification of capital Europe. With all the superficial cladding insignia of a “nation”, a flag, fake parliament, anthem, coins etc, but no people. They don’t like the people? A cumbersome ingredient for any politician with power ambitions.

      Now at last roaming charges in EU is outlawed, hurray. But they could have learn from history, how was the industrialized Europe built? With common public utilities, instead they choosed to privatize it. They could have introduced a common postal service and railroad system etc, for the people’s benefit. Made it possible to organize cross boarder political party’s and vote EU wide.
      As with postal and tele in Sweden we the owners had the lowest fee while companies did have to pay more, now it’s the opposite, individual have to pay exorbitant while the bigger company the lower fee.

      That is a European model I would embrace any day and share a fiscal function with.

    4. @Roberto
      That is eminent risk, they will use a fiscal capacity to enforce even more neoliberal austerity nonsens on the peoples of Europe. Fellows like Macron an Merkel can’t be trusted.

    5. This is crisis by design. The plans for a European fiscal union are already written up and waiting to be slammed into place, all that is required is the surrender of Europe. When the various states are pushed to their limit and ready to snap, *then* they will have the opportunity to kneel and pledge fealty to the emperor. This will occur sooner than you think – within the next 3-4 years. All is according to plan.

    6. Would it be conspiracy theory to suggest ,that the Euro was designed exactly as they wished.
      A nation without its own Sovereign currency is required to either increase tax, privatise its State assets,or go to the Financial Markets to sell bonds at punitive interest rates, all to raise money to finance its budget spending.
      Thus the Euro nations have been shepherded into a cul- de- sac to be stripped and looted by the Financial powers. Greece being a prime example.

    7. Faith in the market denies the reality of adequate levels of both fiscal stimulus and fiscal
      transfers being neccesary for increasing broad based prosperity.
      At a national level the political will required to deliver adequate fiscal stimulus and
      transfers is exceptionally challenging across national borders it does seem impossible to
      coordinate radical political change in that direction.
      As this blog notes the big test comes in the next downturn.Of course political domination
      of neo liberal economics means the next ecoconomic downturn will be a big test
      outside the EU as well.
      Not expecting many nations to past that test.

    8. Europe does appear to be run according to the agenda of the neo-liberal banks and major corporations with monetarist austerity seen as a way of shrinking the welfare state and the government sector and for unconstrained predation by the finance sector and major corporations. What is most stupid about this strategy is that the private sector is also constrained due to weak consumer demand. The mass unemployment, poverty, industry closures, stagnant wages, increased cost of living and declining levels of social and medical services especially for the most needy is however the worst consequence of monetarism and neo-liberalism. Add to this Germany’s huge trade surplus with the rest of Europe which is greatly exacerbated by the common currency zone in addition to Germany’s economies of scale, comprehensive subsidies and well trained manufacturing workforce means a downward spiral for much of Europe.

      The solution is obvious – a return to national currencies and fiscal stimulus/full employment policies for each European nation, a return to state control of any privatised assets that have increased in cost to users/consumers, fair, humane and efficient government services and for the EU to become just a preferential trade zone rather than attempting to become a unified state.

    9. Hi Bill,
      I was reading the same report last week and I was disgusted by the official self-praise and denial of reality that the whole document oozes out through every single pore.
      I totally agree with your analysis. Fiscal “responsibility” permeates the document and reveals a lack of understanding of the role of fiscal deficits.
      The most ridiculous proposals is “the development of so-called sovereign bond-backed securities (SBBS)”, securitised financial products wht could be issued by a commercial institution (they know that they will never get debt mutualization through Germany).With the ECB now buying sovereign debt (except Greece’s) what does that add? Another opportunity of generating fees and profits for some investor bank friend of Mario Draghi? Why not just say that henceforward the ECB will buy all the sovereign debt of Greece instead?

    10. @ Salford Lad
      When the idea of have so called independent central banks and balanced budgets and so on, the core system of S&G pact it was openly argued (by some economists and politicans) that its purpose was to rein in “irresponsible” democracy. That was accused of causing “us” (99%) living beyond “our” (1%) means – inflation. In the model politicians would yield to any desire of the masses and engage in reckless overbidding. Any empirical evidence for this is hard to find, it’s much easier to find that they have a flavor of doing the 1% bidding. That they “gladly” accepted the above described model is a living proof of that, it striped them of political power in exchange for reinforcing their bonds with the economic elite.

    11. peculiar ideas from EU yet again.

      /Lars that’s very interesting -That DB are essentially being sustained by ecb support (much like spain’s PP right now)

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    *
    To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the answer to the math equation shown in the picture.
    Anti-spam equation

    This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

    Back To Top