Category Archives: Europe

Greece, the IMF and the Euro

Leave a reply

Talk about possible trade wars with China and the Brexit negotiations has crowded the Greek debt crisis out of the headlines, but a new decision point is approaching. It is possible that this time the beleaguered Greek government will announce a withdrawal from the Eurozone, if only to drive home the point to other European governments that the status quo is not acceptable. But those governments, facing resistance from voters suspicious of foreign engagements, may not offer terms acceptable to the Greek government. Moreover, the IMF does not want to approve the next stage of a bailout agreement that it believes is not credible. Consequently, each side may feel pushed to accept an outcome it knows is not optimal. If that comes to pass, the consequences for the Eurozone will be far-reaching.

Greek economic performance, after years of contraction, has stabilized. The IMF projected that GDP, after stagnating in 2016, would increase in the current year by 2.8%. But the ratio of gross debt to GDP, according to the IMF’s projection in last fall’s Global Stability Report, was 183.4% last year, up from 176.9% in 2015 and 180.1% in 2014. Moreover, a draft report from the Fund projects continuing growth in the debt burden, ultimately reaching a crushing 275% in 2060.

The IMF’s concerns come as European governments are assessing Greek compliance with its current bailout agreement. Greece needs a successful review to qualify for disbursal of about $90 billion, which the government requires for debt repayments. Greece has met its recent fiscal targets, but the agreement calls for a 3.5% primary budget surplus target by 2018. The IMF fears that this is not achievable without a degree of fiscal austerity that would kill off the incipient recovery. Not everyone shares the IMF’s apprehensions, and the agency that administers the European Stability Mechanism has issued a positive assessment. But if the IMF does not approve the next stage of the bailout, at least some European governments will not want to proceed.

George Papaconstantinou in Game Over has provided an insider’s look at the outbreak of the crisis and the course of negotiations in the early years. Papaconstantinou, who earned a Ph.D. in economics at the London School of Economics, served first as Finance Minister and then Minister of Environment, Energy and Climate Change, in the government of Prime Minister George Papandreou from 2009 to 2012. He faced what he calls a “disconnect” between the demands from European ministers that the Greek government close the fiscal deficit and the realization at home what the abrupt change in the government’s fiscal position meant for the economy. There was a continuous refusal on both sides to address the reality of the situation and to temporize in the unfounded hope that the arrival of another day would deliver a solution—or at least delay any decision that would generate voter unhappiness, either at home or in the European electorate. But postponement only raised the cost of what became three bailout agreements. Among the lessons that Papaconstantinou draws: “time is expensive: the more you delay, the more you pay.”

The IMF was also facing challenges in its involvement in the crisis negotiations, as Paul Blustein recounts in Laid Low. The Fund joined the European Central Bank and the European Commission, representing the European Union, in an arrangement known as the “troika.” The IMF, however, was viewed as a “junior partner,” and had to negotiate with its partners as well as with the Greek government. This was a departure from past practice, and placed the IMF in the position of making compromises that it came to regret.

The principal violation of the Fund’s own practices took place early in the crisis when it approved “exceptional access” credit to Greece, i.e., an unusually large amount of credit. Such approval was supposed to be contingent on a high probability that the debt was sustainable. This condition had clearly not been met in 2010, but the IMF gave itself a loophole when it approved exceptional credit if there is a high risk of international systemic spillovers. The insertion of the systemic exception clause violated any notion of the IMF’s evenhandedness when dealing with members who required assistance, and reinforced the image of the Fund as an agency dominated by its richer members.

The IMF subsequently has sought to recover its reputation as an institution that has extensive experience in macro adjustment and is willing to “speak truth to power.” It eliminated the exceptional access provision in 2016. The Fund now admits that the fiscal policies imposed on Greece in the earlier bailout programs were contractionary. And in a statement it issued on Tuesday, the IMF called for more debt relief by the European creditor governments:

“Most Directors considered that, despite Greece’s enormous sacrifices and European partners’ generous support, further relief may well be required to restore debt sustainability.”

But in a highly unusual public statement, the IMF also announced that the Board was split on the feasibility of the new agreement:

“Most Directors agreed that Greece does not require further fiscal consolidation at this time, given the impressive adjustment to date which is expected to bring the medium-term primary fiscal surplus to around 1½ percent of GDP, while some Directors favored a surplus of 3½ percent of GDP by 2018.”

Could there be a better outcome? Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University argues that the monetary union is inherently flawed in The Euro. He points out that the euro was justified on the premise that a single currency would facilitate trade and financial flows, and “…the resulting economic integration would improve societal welfare everywhere within the Eurozone.” In fact, there were winners and losers, and the latter were not compensated for their losses. Such a redistribution requires political integration, which does not automatically follow the establishment of economic integration.

Stiglitz does not want to abandon what he calls the “European project,” and offers several structural reforms to rescue the euro. But all of these require political resolution as well intellectual flexibility, and these are not qualities rewarded by voters. Upcoming elections in France and Germany will show whether their citizens approve of the attempts to maintain the viability of the euro. If they follow the examples of the U.S. and British electorates, then the days of the euro may be numbered.

Greek Tale(s)

Leave a reply

No matter what new twist the Greek debt crisis takes, there can be no question that it has been a catastrophe for that country and for the entire Eurozone. The Greek economy contracted by over a quarter during the period of 2007 to 2013, the largest decline of any advanced economy since 1950. The Greek unemployment rate last year was 26.5%, and its youth unemployment rate of 52.4% was matched only by Spain’s. But who is responsible for these conditions depends very much on which perspective you take.

From a macroeconomic viewpoint, the Greek saga is one of austere budget polices imposed on the Greek government by the “troika” of the International Monetary Fund, the European Commission and the European Central Bank in an attempt to collect payment on the government’s debt. The first program, enacted in 2010 in response to Greece’s escalating budget deficits, called for fiscal consolidation to be achieved through cuts in government spending and higher taxes. The improvement in the primary budget position (which excludes interest payments) between 2010-11 was 8% of GDP, above its target. But real GDP, which was expected to drop between 2009 and 2012 by 5.5%, actually declined by 17%. The debt/GDP level, which was supposed to fall to about 155% by 2013, actually rose to 170% because of the severity of the contraction in output. The IMF subsequently published a report criticizing its participation in the 2010 program, including overly optimistic macroeconomic assumptions.

To address the continuing rise in the debt ratio, a new adjustment program was inaugurated in 2012, which included a writedown of Greek debt by 75%. Further cuts in public spending were to be made, as well as improvements in tax collection. But economic conditions continued to deteriorate, which hindered the country’s ability to meet the fiscal goals. The Greek economy began to expand in 2014, and registered growth for the year of 0.8%. The public’s disenchantment with the country’s economic and political status, however, turned it against the usual ruling parties. The left-wing Syriza party took the lead position in the parliamentary elections held this past January, and the new Prime Minister, Alexis Tsipras, pledged to undo the policies of the troika. He and Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis have been negotiating with the IMF, the ECB and the other member governments of the Eurozone in an attempt to obtain more debt reduction in return for implementing new adjustment measures.

The macroeconomic record, therefore, seems to support the position of those who view the Greek situation as one of imposed austerity to force payment of debt incurred in the past. Because of the continuing declines in GDP, the improvement in the debt/GDP ratio has remained an elusive (if not unattainable) goal. (For detailed comments on the impact of the macroeconomic policies undertaken in the 2010 and 2012 programs see Krugman here and Wren-Lewis here.)

Another perspective, however, brings an additional dimension to the analysis. From a public finance point of view, the successive Greek governments have been unable and/or unwilling to deal with budget positions—and in particular expenditures through the pension system—that are unsustainable. Pension expenditures as a proportion of GDP have been relatively high when compared to other European countries, and under the pre-2010 system were projected to reach almost 25% of GDP by 2050.  Workers were able to receive full benefits after 35 years of contributions, rather than 40 as in most other countries. Those in “strenuous occupations,” which were broadly defined, could retire after 25 years with full benefits.  The amount that a retiree received was based on the last year of salary rather than career earnings, and there were extra monthly payments at Christmas and Easter. The administration of the system, split among over 100 agencies, was a bureaucratic nightmare.

Much of this has been changed. The minimum retirement age has been raised, the number of years needed for full benefits is now 40, and the calculation of benefits changed so as to be less generous. But some fear that the changes have not been sufficient, particularly if older workers are “sheltered” from the changes.

Moreover, government pensions are important to a wide number of people. The old-age dependency ratio is around 30%, one of the highest in Europe. The contraction in the Greek economy means that the pension is sometimes the sole income payment received by a family. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the pension system is seen as a “red line” which can not be crossed any further in Greece.

The challenge, therefore, is for the government to establish its finances on a sound footing without further damaging the fragile economy. This will call for some compromises on both sides. The IMF’s Olivier Blanchard has called for the Greek government “to offer truly credible measures“ to attain the targets for the budget, while showing its commitment to a limited set of reforms, particularly with pensions. But he also asks the European creditors to offer debt relief, either through rescheduling or a further “haircut.” Other proposals have been made (see here) that also attempt to satisfy the need to restructure the government’s finances while offering the Greek people a way to escape their suffering. There may be a strategy that allows Greece to reestablish itself on a new financial footing. But if the European governments insist that Greece must also pay back all its outstanding debt, then there is only one possible ending for this saga, and it will not be a happy one.

Recovery in Europe?

8 Replies

Greece has returned to the bond market, issuing $4.2 billion of five-year bonds at an interest rate of 4.95%. The government’s ability to borrow again is a “reward” for posting a surplus on its primary budget (although the accounting that produced the surplus has been questioned).  This has been viewed as a sign, albeit fragile, of recovery. Portugal has also sold bonds and hopes to exit its bailout program this spring. But what does recovery mean for these countries, and is it sustainable?

Growth for these countries reflects a rise from a brutally harsh downturn. Greece has an unemployment rate of 26.7%, with much higher rates for its youth. Portugal’s unemployment rate of 15.3% was achieved in part by emigration.

A look forward indicates that the debt that drove these countries to borrow from their European neighbors and the IMF will fall in the next five years but continue at elevated levels. The latest Fiscal Monitor of the International Monetary Fund forecasts gross government debt to GDP ratios for these countries, as well as for the Eurozone:

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Greece 171.3 162.5 153.7 146.1 137.8
Portugal 124.8 122.6 119.1 116.6 113.8
Eurozone 94.5 92.6 90.4 88.1 85.5

Even if the debt/GDP ratios above the Reinhart-Rogoff 90% threshold do not pose a threat to growth, it is noticeable that the Eurozone’s debt does not fall below it until 2018, while debt/GDP in Greece and Portugal will be in triple digits for many years.

These debt levels become more worrisome in light of fears of deflation in the Eurozone. Greek consumer prices have been falling, and inflation in the Eurozone is below its 2% target level. European Central Bank head Mario Draghi has downplayed these concerns, pointing to rising prices in other Eurozone countries.  But IMF economists Reza Moghadem, Ranjit Teja and Pelin Berkman point out that even low inflation can also pose problems. Deflation and less than expected rates of inflation increase the burden of existing debt. Greece’s debt will become more of a burden if it rises in real terms. Low inflation also makes wage adjustment harder to achieve.

The ECB would (presumably) respond if the prospect of deflation became more likely. But would it be able to stave off falling prices through its version of quantitative easing? There are concerns that large-scale purchases of assets by the ECB might not be as effective as anticipated. Interest rates have already fallen and are unlikely to fall further. Moreover, the decline in borrowing costs for Greece and other sovereign borrowers may have already have factored in ECB intervention.

Draghi’s pledge in 2012 to do “whatever it takes” to protect the euro undoubtedly lowered concerns about a collapse of the Eurozone. But, as I have argued before, the confidence within the Eurozone inspired by the ECB’s powers could vanish, particularly if there were doubts about the ECB’s ability to actually accomplish whatever it takes to avoid deflation. Lower borrowing costs based on faith in the ECB will ease conditions in the Eurozone crisis countries. But they need to be backed up by improving economic fundamentals before they are seen as justified. Until then, purchasing sovereign debt is a high-risk proposition, no matter what the interest rates signal.

High Road, Low Road

1 Reply

Among the many thorny issues that would arise if Scotland were be become an independent nation is the question of its choice of a currency. The first minister of Scotland claims that an independent Scotland would continue to use the pound. But Mark Carney, the governor of the Bank of England, has raised several caveats and stipulations—including limitations on fiscal autonomy—that would be required if a currency union were to be formed. Moreover, British elected officials have thrown cold water on the idea. And that could be a problem for an independent Scotland, as there is no obvious good alternative.

Scotland could unilaterally decide to continue using the pound, just as Panama and Ecuador use the U.S. dollar. But dependence on the United Kingdom for its money is not fully compatible with political independence. Nor is it congruent with the international status that the new country would undoubtedly seek.

How about adopting the euro? Scotland would join the current 18 members of the Eurozone, and would have to hope that it did not suffer from any Scotland-specific shocks. Optimal currency theory spells out the alternative mechanisms a country needs to address an asymmetric shock: mobile labor, flexible prices and wages, and/or a fiscal authority that can direct funds to the area facing the shock. The sight of Irish, Spanish, etc., workers leaving their respective homelands in search of work outside of Europe has hardly been reassuring to prospective members. The Baltic states have shown that prices and wages will fall in response to a policy of austerity, but the economic cost is severe. And no Scottish government would survive the harsh policy conditions attached to the financial assistance extended to Greece, Ireland and Portugal by their European partners and the IMF. Joining the Eurozone at this stage of its existence would not be consistent with Scottish canniness.

If Scotland can not—or will not—join an existing monetary union on terms it deems acceptable, should its create its own currency? The prospect of a Scottish currency has drawn a fair amount of comment: see, for example, here and here and here.  A study by Angus Armstrong and Monique Ebell of the National Institute of Economics and Social Research makes the point that the viability of an independent currency for the country would depend on the amount of sovereign debt the new government would have to take on after a breakup witht the United Kingdom versus its anticipated oil revenues. Standard & Poor’s issued a nuanced assessment of how it would rate Scotland’s debt that noted the country’s economic wealth, which is largely based on oil and gas. But the report also raised concerns about the viability of Scotland’s financial sector in the absence of a reputable lender of last resort.

If an independent Scotland issued its own currency, it would be joining other north European countries that either do not belong to the European Union (Iceland, Norway) or have not adopted the euro (Denmark, Sweden). These countries have certainly suffered bouts of volatility and instability (particularly Iceland), but have not fared any worse than many members of the Eurozone. Their decision not to enter the Eurozone itself is interesting and worth further analysis.

But none of them is as deeply tied to another single country as Scotland is to the United Kingdom. Disentangling those ties for the purpose of establishing national autonomy would be difficult and most likely costly. Proclaiming monetary independence, therefore, would be a policy action that makes limited sense in economic terms but carries a great deal of nationalistic baggage. And those types of ventures do not usually end well.