June « 2013 « Euro

Archiv: June 2013

German Federal Constitutional Court Chews on Role of European Central Bank

18. June 2013, von Almut Möller, Comments (0)

Verdicts from Karlsruhe usually serve as pacifiers for the German public and, more recently, for the eurozone as a whole. Remember the ruling on the ESM and the Fiscal Compact, which the German Federal Constitutional Court concluded was reconcilable with the country’s basic law, or Grundgesetz, in September 2012. What a relief this announcement was for the eurozone’s capitals in their step-by-step struggle for the rescue of the common currency. Germans tend to have a great deal of respect for their constitutional court, and fellow Europeans over the past years learned that every year or so they would have to set eyes onto this city in the southwest of Germany: What does Karlsruhe say?

However, on the euro, things remain far from being put to rest. The overall question that continues to loom is to what extend the more recent rescue measures are covered under the Grundgesetz, or whether they lead to a further Europeanization that the German constitution does not allow for in its current shape. The eurozone continues to be a moving target and at the time of the ESM verdict in the fall of 2012 the judges already knew they would have to chew on another measure of the euro rescue: the ECB’s Outright Monetary Transactions (OMT) programme announced as the court was still dealing with the ESM and the Fiscal Compact. With the programme the ECB said it was ready to buy government bonds of eurozone countries affected by the crisis in order to stabilize their interest levels.

Critics say that this programme violated EU treaties, in particular article 123 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the EU. It is however widely assumed that without this bold move of the ECB the eurozone would not have made it into 2013. What is being questioned though by several groups, among them the NGO “Mehr Demokratie” supported by various organisations and 37.000 German citizens is the legality of the rescue measure. Did the ECB go well beyond its mandate and did it thereby violate the budgetary rights of the German parliament and of German taxpayers? Clearly, these are fair and reasonable questions to ask.

With an impressive line-up including Minister of Finance Wolfgang Schäuble, powerfully eloquent political figures such as Gregor Gysi, the head of DIE LINKE in the Bundestag, and the euro-critic MP Peter Gauweiler, the president of the Bundesbank Jens Weidmann and ECB executive board member Jörg Asmussen, the stage was set for drama in Karlsruhe. The media particularly loved what was framed as two gladiators, reportedly friends from university days in Bonn, confronting each other in the courtroom: Jens Weidmann, well-known for its critical stance on the ECB’s bond buying programme, was the only member of the Governing Council that voted against the programme in the fall of 2012. Jörg Asmussen then has been an articulate and public advocate of the ECB’s programme, making the point that while indeed the mission of the central bank was to work for price stability in the eurozone, there was no point in sticking to a narrow interpretation of the mandate when the eurozone was facing a breakup. There are a number of very complex issues that the court will have to look at in the months to come, and many of them are without precedent. But not surprisingly, German gladiators deliberate even the hottest issues in the calmest way – no big surprises in the courtroom last week.

Politically speaking the issues on the table are certainly powerful, and potentially challenging what has perhaps been the most effective intervention in the euro rescue so far. The weird thing is that while the current German government and all that work for a further recovery of the eurozone certainly long for yet another pacifier made by Karlsruhe, the court might have to disappoint when it announces its conclusions in the fall: de facto, Karlsruhe for now is dealing with a non-issue. So far, the ECB only announced the OMT programme without implementing it in detail, a move that proved enough to prevent the breakup of the eurozone. Can a mere announcement form the basis of a court case? The president of the Federal Constitutional Court Andreas Voßkuhle during last week’s hearings made the point that the court’s power was limited. The ECB was an independent European institution, indicating that it was beyond Karlsruhe’s competence to rule over the ECB’s action. Commentators say there is a chance for the case to be conveyed to the European Court of Justice in the end – which perhaps would bring a different dynamic to the outcome.

What has already been a feature of last year’s deliberations on the ESM and the Fiscal Compact was visible again last week: The highest German judges would perhaps like to stay away from the politics of the euro rescue, but because of the nature of the complaints clearly struggle to do so. Ironically, the ECB would (or should) also be more in its comfort zone in a less politicised role.

The real baffling issue around last week’s shoulder rubbing between Karlsruhe and Frankfurt is therefore the weakness (some would even argue the absence) of politics. Without any doubt, the OMT will not solve the problems of the eurozone in the end. For the eurozone’s governments still to make their case! I am not sure the June summit will bring some of the much-needed decisions and will get back to this.

Reckless Spending and Excessive Wage Growth: Myths Debunked

13. June 2013, von Alexandre Abreu, Comments (0)

If I were to pinpoint the two most harmful and most often repeated myths at the core of the orthodox account of the euro crisis, these would surely be, first, that the public debt crisis across the eurozone was solely or mostly caused by reckless government spending; and second, that the fundamental competitiveness problem of the economies of the eurozone periphery is a result of excessive real wage growth. Both of these propositions have been repeated so often that they have become a sort of common wisdom – and yet they are both false.

Let us begin with the first proposition. The problem with it, of course, is that it disregards the crucial facts that: a) budget deficits are an endogenous variable whose ‘receipts’ and ‘expenditures’ components are both adversely affected by recession, as indeed they have been in the last few years and especially so in 2008-2009; b) that in many eurozone countries, bank bailouts account for a substantial portion of the budget deficits of the last few years and c) that factors other than budget deficits contribute to public debt levels spiralling out of control – namely the compounding interest charged on that debt, particularly when far in excess of GDP growth (the so-called ‘snowball effect’). Take all of these into account and you get a very different picture from the alleged government largesse.

Of course, there is a lot to be said about the quality of public finance in many of these countries in the last few years or decades, including with respect to ruinous public-private partnerships, tax exemptions and other forms of government capture by vested interests. However, the idea that the simultaneous public debt crises of numerous eurozone countries was caused by governments in all of these countries suddenly and recklessly deciding to increase spending on a whim is, quite simply, not true. What really underlies the public debt crisis is the lethal combination of recession, deflation and the unbelievably Byzantine financial-sector mediation between the ECB and governments (a case-study in financial expropriation for many decades to come). And the corollary is that austerity only makes everything worse and will continue to do so; the only way to solve the (public and private) debt crisis is growth along with moderate inflation (and in some cases the inevitable write-downs).

The second fallacy is also a particularly persistent and pervasive one, and usually relies on showing how the nominal compensation of employees, or alternatively unit labour costs (ULCs), increased in excess of productivity in the eurozone periphery in the last couple of decades, thereby causing competitiveness to deteriorate. In turn, this argument very quickly leads to the conclusion that regaining competitiveness requires sharp wage cuts (internal devaluation). This, too, has been repeated to the point of exhaustion, perhaps most notably and recently by Mr. Draghi in a two-hour session with the eurozone’s 17 heads of state and government in March (see the power point here). Both the argument and the conclusion are plainly wrong, however.

As Felipe and Kumar show in one of the most important (and neglected) papers to have been written on the euro crisis , while ULCs lend themselves to an intuitive and correct interpretation at the firm level (say, the labour cost of producing a table or laptop), at the aggregate level of the economy they are constructed using the economy’s value added, rather than physical quantities, as the measure of output – and therefore the ‘intuitive’ interpretation is no longer appropriate. Rather, these authors show algebraically that, at the aggregate level, ULCs are nothing other than a simple product of two factors: the labour share in the functional distribution of income multiplied by the price deflator (rate of inflation). Allow me to rephrase this: an increase in aggregate ULCs can only be accounted for about by an increase in the labour share of income and/or by inflation. Indeed, we can construct an exactly analogous indicator, called Unit Capital Costs (UKCs), which increases to the extent that the capital share of income increases and/or that there is inflation. And what do we get when we do compute this indicator for the eurozone economies? Refer back to Felipe and Kumar (p. 16) and… lo and behold: with the sole exception of Greece, UKCs increased more than ULCs in every single euro zone country both between 1980 and 2007 and between 1995 and 2007.

The interpretation should by now be obvious: Greece was the only euro country where the functional distribution of income changed in labour’s favour in the last three decades; in all the other countries, the capital share of income increased at the expense of labour; and the extent to which the various economies had greater or lesser increases in both their ULCs and their UKCs was a consequence of differential inflation. So ULCs are really quite distinct from real wages; and following this aggregate approach to its logical policy consequences would entail measures to cut down profits, not wages, in order to regain competitiveness. The real culprits of the differential change in ULCs (or the nominal compensation of employees) across the euro zone is differential inflation and the real wage decrease in the European core – not real wage increases in the periphery.

Promoting competitiveness in the periphery through wage compression is therefore both cynical and wrong – in several different ways. First, workers are being forced to foot the bill twice over; second, the prime determinant of economic competitiveness is not sale price per se, but rather sale prices combined with the pattern of productive specialisation (and recessionary internal devaluations are not helping with the latter, either); and third, the Great Stagnation that the US and Europe as a whole have been living through is a consequence of insufficient demand in the context of a massive (though protracted) process of debt deflation, so compressing wages in the current context is a sure way to further compress demand and curb growth (see here for more detailed information on this).

On some occasions, this erroneous diagnosis takes on an especially aberrant and cynical twist: that’s when the argument is constructed around a comparison of nominal ULCs (or the nominal compensation of employees) with real (i.e. deflated) productivity. Seems obviously wrong even to a first-year undergraduate, wouldn’t you say? Well, that’s actually what many analysts and commentators have been doing for quite a while – and it’s also a key part of Mr Draghi’s story (check slides 9 and 10 in his power point presentation, link above).

So neither is the public debt crisis caused by reckless spending, nor is declining competitiveness a consequence of excessive wage increases. And yet, these ‘fairy tales’ are repeated again and again to make us believe them and are used as a pretext for deleterious and counterproductive policies. We’ve been here before (does the name Heinrich Brüning ring any bells?) – and it wasn’t pretty. Shouldn’t we be taking the lessons from history far more seriously?

Europe For Citizens

“This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.”

The Commission and the European Semester: is the Fox Guarding the Chicken?

5. June 2013, von Adriaan Schout, Comments (0)

2013 is a pivotal year for Commissioner Rehn, the European Semester and the Commission. All three have had to prove their legitimacy regarding economic governance. Rehn’s credibility and that of the European Semester centre on the reputation of the Commission and that of DG EcFin in particular. Given the importance of the European Semester, it is important that there are no doubts about the independence and the quality of Olli Rehn as Commissioner. To save the euro project and the trust people have in the Commission in euro-related processes, it was decided in 2011 to create the post of an ‘independent’ Commissioner to supervise the Stability and Growth Pact. The famous six-pack and two-pack have reinforced the role of the independent Commissioner who now has the power to monitor and even fine Member States. The Commission’s unshaken reputation is crucial, if it wants stand up to criticism in the media and by peers and (Nobel-prize winning) economists.
Alas, the Commission does not stand the test of quality and of independence. As a result, the criticism on this year’s reports and recommendations has been overly political – for example concerning the extra year France received to bring its deficit down – and cannot be brushed aside.

When trying to understand the process through which the ‘independent’ Commissioner has operated, we stumble upon questions concerning the procedure the country reports are actually written by the Commission. First of all, there is the issue of other Commissioners making public statements about Rehn’s work. The remarks by Commissioner for Industry and Entrepreneurship Antonio Tajani who openly criticised Rehn’s emphasis on austerity and those made by Commission President Barroso, that the boundaries of the public acceptance of austerity have been reached, have resulted in any statements by the Commission and hence Olli Rehn being put in a political perspective. Secondly, DG Ecfin does not write the reports independently but needs input from other DGs and hence has to work with colleagues who, for example, fall under Commissioner Tajani’s authority. Thus, Rehn’s reputation depends on more than just DG Ecfin’s work but also on the negotiations among DGs. Thirdly, we do not exactly know what happens with the reports from DG Ecfin once they are passed on to the College of Commissioners. Even officials from DG Ecfin were surprised about changes made in texts. Apparently, there is a lack of transparency at this stage within the Commission.

Fourthly, other Commissioners are allowed to pose questions concerning the reports and recommendations in the College which suggests that there are discussions on the proposals put forward by Rehn before adoption by the College. In addition, Barroso is advised by a senior economic advisor (a newly created post) who is apparently in a position to second- guess the work of Rehn as independent Commissioner. Generally speaking, Rehn wears at least two hats: that of independent Commissioner concerning the excessive deficit procedure and that of ‘normal’ Commissioner (as one among equals in the College) concerning the structural imbalances procedure.

Hence, Rehn’s position in the college is complicated and far from transparent. The six-pack dictates that Member States have to have an independent budgetary authority. Strangely enough, this requirement does not apply to the Commission (DG Ecfin) itself. As a result, we are stuck with a semi-trustworthy European Semester. The Commission confuses its functions as independent economic analyst and its ambition to operate as economic government of the EU.

Reputation is a key factor in advanced economic societies. The Commission does not seem to care about the reputation of the ‘independent’ Commissioner. If it did, it could separate data gathering (Eurostat – also falling under the College of Commissioners), data analysis (DG Ecfin), policy advice (the College) and monitoring (DG Ecfin). Now, all these functions, including the political aspects, remain combined. This situation is unacceptable in view of the required transparency, the promised independence and basic principles of good governance to separate policy from analysis and from supervision. Yet, it is well recorded that the Commission is not very fond of putting its tasks at arm’s length in independent agencies.

Power seems to be more important than reputation. It is high time the Commission re-examines its organisation in the light of the demands of a reliable European Semester process. It remains doubtful whether the Commission will be happy to accept the consequences. It seems to prefer to operate as the fox guarding the chickens.

Europe For Citizens

“This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.”

Frau Merkel and the ‘C-Word’

5. June 2013, von Almut Möller, Comments (0)

Both the European Commission and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) have just published findings about the performance of the German economy and the state of structural reforms. While there is plenty of discussions in Berlin about what ‘the others’ (in particular France) are not getting right, there is not much of a debate on what ‘the others’ (Commission and IMF) suggest that Germany is or is not getting right. The new findings did not get much attention in the public debate.

Not surprisingly perhaps, as both reports continue what sounds like good news and point out that Germany’s public finances have been overall sound. The IMF underlines that Germany’s “safe haven status and strong balance sheets” has been an “anchor of stability” during the eurozone recovery. When it comes to the recommendations, however, the IMF experts do again not shy away from getting involved with the politics of the euro crisis, welcoming this year’s marginal loosening of the fiscal stance: “(…) fiscal over-performance should be firmly avoided as it could imply a contractionary fiscal stance that is unwarranted in the current low growth environment.”

The Commission is more cautious on the question that has been dominating the eurozone debate for the past months: is Germany that is leading on fiscal consolidation (which makes it look like the teacher’s pet, something Chancellor Merkel was so pleased about in her home country) the real burden to the eurozone? It is hardly surprising that the Commission avoids this hot issue, since the report is a mere recommendation to the Council of Ministers. And, arguably, the Commission diligently follows a rather narrow mandate in assessing German fiscal policy and its 2013 national reform programme. However, against the background of a fierce debate (mostly resonating outside of Germany) on how to trigger jobs and growth in the eurozone the European Commission’s proposals look rather innocent. Frau Merkel, of course, will have been pleased not only with the findings, but also with the fact that the Commission basically restricted itself to inserting the data they collected in the Member States into tables without spending too much time on interpreting them.

The IMF underlines Germany’s crucial role in shaping the future institutional and legal framework of the eurozone. This reads like a hardly veiled criticism on Chancellor Merkel’s so far rather woolly ideas. Just last week, her joint proposal with President Hollande on establishing the function of a permanent president for the eurozone raised eyebrows even within her coalition in Berlin. While I believe it was right to respond to the French initiative launched by President Hollande, as I suggested in my previous blog piece, Merkel should not underestimate the attention she gets for such moves. She might have considered it as a friendly yet half-hearted response to the bruised neighbour, likely to end up watered down or even abandoned the moment its gets on the agenda of the 27 members. But Merkel should know that any move that might shed light on where Germany wants to take the eurozone is taken rather seriously these days and tactical moves are likely to be met with indignation.

Another more telling intervention of Angela Merkel received attention this week. In an interview with DER SPIEGEL the chancellor reiterated what has become in my opinion the word around which she develops her construction plan for Europe: coordination. In her world, the Commission president has a “coordinating function over the policies of the national governments” and therefore should continue to be nominated by the heads of state and government (with a certain role for the European Parliament to play). No more transfer of competencies to the Commission, but improved coordination in policy areas that can strengthen the competitiveness of the eurozone. Read again her Bruges speech of 2010 – it is pretty much in there already.

Needless to say that Merkel’s “c-word” has been a declaration of war to those who carry the “f-word” banner (in the continental, not the British understanding of federalism) advocating for strong and independent EU institutions. A widely overlooked decision: the heads of state used a clause in the Lisbon Treaty and agreed to keep one Commissioner for each Member State at the recent May summit. While this was only a formal adoption of a decision previously being granted to Ireland, Chancellor Merkel was surely pleased. After all, the European party families are gearing up their campaigns for the European Parliament elections in 2014 with joint candidates for the post of the Commission president. What a nightmare for the ‘c-lady’ to imagine a democratically legitimised president of the European Commission representing the majority in the EP, presiding over a reduced college of Commissioners. What would the reports of such a more independent figure have looked like?

After the questionable results of the “open methods of coordination” in the Lisbon Strategy of 2000 – will coordination as a mode of governance get its second wind? Frau Merkel is taking the lead in its revival.

Europe For Citizens

“This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.”

Blog Authors

Adriaan SchoutAdriaan Schout

Dr Adriaan Schout is Deputy Director Research/Europe at Clingendael, Netherlands Institute of International relations. (read more...)

Alexandre AbreuAlexandre Abreu

Dr Alexandre Abreu is a 33-year-old Portuguese economist with a PhD from the University of London. Currently he is a lecturer in Development Economics at the Institute of Economics and Business Administration, Technical University of Lisbon, and a Researcher at the Centre for African and Development Studies of the same University.

Almut MöllerAlmut Möller

Almut Möller is a political analyst in European integration and European foreign policy. She is currently the head of the Alfred von Oppenheim Centre for European Policy Studies at the German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP) in Berlin. (read more...)

Supported by