by Hugo Brady
Between June 4th and June 7th, Europeans will cast their votes to elect a new European Parliament (EP). Recent opinion polls indicate that they will do so without much enthusiasm. Indeed, there is every chance that the average turnout will be the lowest ever – it has fallen at every election since the first time that Europeans directly elected their MEPs in 1979, and sank to 45.6 per cent in 2004. But despite the prevailing apathy, this election matters. During its next five-year term, the EP will influence what the EU decides in areas as diverse as financial services, trade, climate change, energy security and immigration.
Why do European elections so often struggle to capture the public imagination? Evidently, voters think the stakes are lower than in national elections – or at any rate less clear. Unlike legislative elections in a member-state, European elections do not, strictly speaking, lead to the formation of a new government. Moreover, the EP can often seem distant because few voters know what it actually does. And even if they do, the areas where the EP exercises most influence seem technical and dull. Voters tend to be less interested in arguments such as home versus host regulation of service companies, or the pros and cons of ‘unbundling’ vertically-integrated energy companies, than in the subjects which dominate domestic elections – tax and spending, health and education policy, foreign and defence policy and so on. And on those issues the EP has no say.
MEPs are remote from most voters. The party list system used in most countries means that few electors know the names of their MEPs. European constituencies are huge, making it difficult for any voter to meet an MEP; in national politics members of parliament can more easily hold ‘surgeries’ to meet constituents. Furthermore, the process-heavy, non-adversarial way in which the Parliament operates attracts little media, and voter, attention. Political groups in the EP stand out less clearly than in most national assemblies. Although they are organised on a conventional left-right spectrum, they are composed of MEPs from very different national traditions, which makes them less monolithic. And there is not a great difference between the policies proposed by the three biggest groups, the centre-right European People’s Party (EPP), the centre-left Party of European Socialists (PES) and the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE). Finally, the parliament lacks political theatre. Many of its proceedings revolve around consensus-building and horse-trading in specialist committees.
Eurosceptics sometimes argue that these flaws weaken the legitimacy of the EP as a representative institution. That argument is unfair for two reasons. The first is that the EP’s job is not to replace national assemblies but to complement them, by providing an additional layer of democratic representation in EU policy. The second is that the EP has become a serious actor. During its 2004-2009 term, it influenced EU policy in areas as diverse as climate change, energy, the cross-border provision of services, telecoms regulation and the authorisation of chemicals. This trend is set to continue, especially if – depending on Ireland’s autumn referendum – the Lisbon treaty enters into force. The EP would then have the power of ‘co-decision’ – an equal say to the Council of Ministers – over virtually all legislation, instead of around 70 per cent as is now the case. In particular, the Lisbon treaty would give the EP much more legislative power on justice and home affairs.
The future political balance of the EP will be largely determined by the outcome of voting in the big six member-states: Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Poland and Spain. The EPP seems likely to remain the largest political group in the Parliament, albeit with a reduced majority, despite the fact that Britain’s Conservatives are due to leave it. The Party of European Socialists (PES), for its part, should increase its representation, but only a little. When other groupings are taken into account – including the new group that the British Conservatives plan to lead – the centre-right is likely to dominate the EP.
If current opinion polls are to be believed, the mainstream centre-left will fail to draw much advantage from the current ‘crisis of capitalism’. In the largest member-states, centre-left parties are either unpopular incumbents (as in Britain, Germany and Spain), or in opposition and disarray (as in France, Italy and Poland). The great unknown is how well populist fringe groups of the left and right – those who are really opposed to the current political and economic system – will perform. It would still be a major surprise if fringe parties won much more than 50 seats in the 736-seat EP.
The balance of the parties matters for the leadership of the European Commission. In June the European Council is due to nominate the Commission’s next president. EU leaders are likely to offer José Manuel Barroso, who is affiliated with the EPP, a second five-year term. But if the PES becomes the largest group in the EP, they will try and insist on one of their own. The newly elected Parliament is due to approve the European Council’s nominee for Commission president in July. Assuming that the centre-right dominates the Parliament, Barroso will be voted in.
In the autumn the EP will hold hearings on the individual commissioners proposed by governments. These hearings matter. Five years ago, the EP did not like the look of Silvio Berlusconi’s nominee, Rocco Buttiglione, on account of his views on gays and women – and it forced Berlusconi to withdraw him. In January the Parliament will vote to invest the entire team of commissioners. If it is implemented, the Lisbon treaty will make more explicit the need for the appointment of the Commission president to ‘take into account’ the results of the European elections. In the long run, whatever happens to that treaty, the Commission is likely to become more directly accountable to the Parliament. But whether that makes Europeans any more willing to vote for MEPs is another matter.
Hugo Brady is a research fellow at the Centre for European Reform.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Making a success of the EAS
by Charles Grant
If the Irish people vote yes to the Lisbon treaty at the second attempt, and the Czechs, Germans and Poles also ratify, the EU will set up an ‘external action service’ or EAS. This new institution promises to make the Union’s common foreign and security policy more effective. But of course an EAS will not mean that the EU suddenly develops a single foreign policy on every issue. The EU’s inability to develop a coherent approach to Russia, for example, would probably not be very different if an EAS was in place. Different member-states believe that they have different interests in Russia and so disagree on how to handle it.
That said, some of the EU’s incoherence in foreign policy can be put down to its often dysfunctional institutions, notably the rotating presidency; the split between both the High Representative (currently Javier Solana) and the external relations commissioner (currently Benita Ferrero-Waldner), and their respective bureaucracies; and the fact that the current institutions do not provide EU foreign ministers with high quality analysis on a number of important subjects.
The EAS should solve some of those problems. It will be a single bureaucracy made up of the merged foreign desks of the Commission and the Council of Ministers secretariat, as well as secondees from member-states. It will be led by the new High Representative or HR, fusing the Solana and Ferrero-Waldner jobs. That individual plus the EAS will take on the tasks currently performed by the rotating presidency, in terms of external representation and foreign policy.
If the member-states get the design of the EAS right – and give it the budget it needs – it should improve EU foreign policy in four ways.
1) The EAS should help the EU to join up its foreign policies. The EU has the potential to play a powerful international role because it has such a broad range of instruments at its disposal, such as aid, trade, soldiers, policemen, humanitarian aid, rules on asylum and visas, and so on. Neither NATO nor the UN can draw on such wide-ranging capacities. But in practice the EU rarely joins up its external policies. Within the Commission there is seldom much co-operation between the various directorates-general, let alone between those directorates and the Council of Ministers. By merging parts of the Commission and the Council into a single institution, the EAS should help to join up EU foreign policy. But it will still be a challenge to ensure that other parts of those bodies – such as the trade, enlargement, justice and energy directorates of the Commission – work in harmony with the EAS.
2) The EAS should be able to provide more high quality and common analysis to EU ministers. If the 27 governments view a problem in a similar way, they are more likely to be able to hammer out a common approach to it. The current institutions sometimes succeed in encouraging common thinking. For example the EU has taken a single line on Iran’s nuclear programme in recent years, partly because of the quality of the analysis provided by the Situation Centre (which gathers intelligence from the member-states) in the Council of Ministers. The EAS will have more resources and expertise than the current array of Brussels institutions. National diplomats seconded to it should help to feed in the best analysis from national capitals.
3) The integration of the Commission’s 120-odd overseas representations into the EAS should increase the EU’s clout. At the moment they focus (naturally) on the Commission’s priorities and are of little help to Solana and his team in Brussels, or to EU foreign ministers. In order to improve their performance and enhance their expertise in areas like political reporting and hard security, senior figures from national governments should be given prominent roles in some missions. These offices will need to have positions to represent in their part of the world, which will probably encourage the EAS to develop common policies. They will play a role in co-ordinating (though not managing) the work of member-state embassies. They will represent the smaller member-states that have no embassy in the country concerned. Even large member-states such as Britain or Germany do not have embassies everywhere and may find EU missions useful. In the longer run, small and large member-states may start to rely on missions as a way of saving money: if and when a government trusts the quality of the EAS’s work, it may decide to close embassies in countries that it considers relatively unimportant.
4) The EAS will eliminate the problem that a weak presidency can undermine EU foreign policy. The Czech presidency has, by general consent, been one of the worst in memory, and not only because the government collapsed half way through. When the EU is represented by the High Representative and the EAS it will, one may hope, be spared the embarrassments it has faced in the first half of 2009.
It is inevitable that the creation of the EAS will be a bureaucratic nightmare. Each of the existing bureaucracies, as well as the member-states, will fight to protect its specific interests. The EAS will need to be shaped by men and women of vision who can look beyond those interests. Whether or not the EAS is a success will depend, in part, on how well it meets four challenges.
1) Will the EAS attract very good people to work for it? National governments must send their best and brightest. It is not self evident that they will: the UK, for example, has not always sent its top diplomats to work in the Council of Ministers secretariat. The High Representative must be the kind of politician who inspires and whom bright young people will want to work for. And he or she will need to get on well with the president of the European Council (a new post) and the Commission president. The effectiveness of both the Commission and the Council of Ministers is marred by national flags being imposed on particular jobs. The High Representative must have the freedom to appoint the best people to the key jobs (of course, every member-state must have people in the EAS). He or she will also need deputies. Solana works about 100 hours a week, but the new HR will have extra responsibilities in the Commission and in chairing the meetings of EU foreign ministers. The HR will need at least five senior deputies: for traditional diplomacy, managing military missions, generating civilian capabilities, working with the various Commission directorates, and ensuring that justice and home affairs (JHA) is integrated into external policies. Other deputies may be needed to focus on specific regions.
2) Will the EAS succeed in stitching together policy on JHA with the EU’s foreign policies? A lot of the things the EU does that matter to the rest of the world are in areas like visas, asylum, illegal immigration, organised crime, counter-terrorism, police and judicial co-operation and border controls. At the moment the EU seldom joins up policies in these areas with other external policies. For example, when the JHA directorate general negotiates an agreement on the repatriation of illegal immigrants with a third country, it can offer to discuss visa rules, but not trade, aid or non-proliferation, which are handled by other parts of the EU. The EAS needs to find a way of integrating the EU’s work on JHA with other external policies.
3) When several parts of the EU are operating in the same problem country, will the EAS manage to co-ordinate their work? When there are several EU missions in the same country they tend not to work together. For example, when the EU peacekeeping mission arrived in Bosnia it found that the EU police mission, the Commission office and the EU special representative’s office had different objectives and did not want to work with it. There was little co-ordination from Brussels. There have been similar problems in Congo and Afghanistan. In order to ensure that the various EU agencies work together in such important places, the EAS should deploy a special representative to each of them. He or she should have the authority to co-ordinate the work of the various missions on the ground.
4) Will the 27 member-states identify with the EAS and trust it to promote their interests? Most small countries will see the value of a body that can represent them in places where they lack embassies. But there is a real danger that the foreign ministries of Britain, France or Germany could see the EAS as a rival source of power and as a competitor for money and the best people. They would then work round or against the EAS. The High Representative should therefore ensure that the big countries are given the chance to send good people to fill some of the top posts in the EAS. If the HR can establish an efficient bureaucracy that produces high-quality analysis, national foreign ministries will, hopefully, learn to respect it.
Charles Grant is director of the Centre for European Reform.
If the Irish people vote yes to the Lisbon treaty at the second attempt, and the Czechs, Germans and Poles also ratify, the EU will set up an ‘external action service’ or EAS. This new institution promises to make the Union’s common foreign and security policy more effective. But of course an EAS will not mean that the EU suddenly develops a single foreign policy on every issue. The EU’s inability to develop a coherent approach to Russia, for example, would probably not be very different if an EAS was in place. Different member-states believe that they have different interests in Russia and so disagree on how to handle it.
That said, some of the EU’s incoherence in foreign policy can be put down to its often dysfunctional institutions, notably the rotating presidency; the split between both the High Representative (currently Javier Solana) and the external relations commissioner (currently Benita Ferrero-Waldner), and their respective bureaucracies; and the fact that the current institutions do not provide EU foreign ministers with high quality analysis on a number of important subjects.
The EAS should solve some of those problems. It will be a single bureaucracy made up of the merged foreign desks of the Commission and the Council of Ministers secretariat, as well as secondees from member-states. It will be led by the new High Representative or HR, fusing the Solana and Ferrero-Waldner jobs. That individual plus the EAS will take on the tasks currently performed by the rotating presidency, in terms of external representation and foreign policy.
If the member-states get the design of the EAS right – and give it the budget it needs – it should improve EU foreign policy in four ways.
1) The EAS should help the EU to join up its foreign policies. The EU has the potential to play a powerful international role because it has such a broad range of instruments at its disposal, such as aid, trade, soldiers, policemen, humanitarian aid, rules on asylum and visas, and so on. Neither NATO nor the UN can draw on such wide-ranging capacities. But in practice the EU rarely joins up its external policies. Within the Commission there is seldom much co-operation between the various directorates-general, let alone between those directorates and the Council of Ministers. By merging parts of the Commission and the Council into a single institution, the EAS should help to join up EU foreign policy. But it will still be a challenge to ensure that other parts of those bodies – such as the trade, enlargement, justice and energy directorates of the Commission – work in harmony with the EAS.
2) The EAS should be able to provide more high quality and common analysis to EU ministers. If the 27 governments view a problem in a similar way, they are more likely to be able to hammer out a common approach to it. The current institutions sometimes succeed in encouraging common thinking. For example the EU has taken a single line on Iran’s nuclear programme in recent years, partly because of the quality of the analysis provided by the Situation Centre (which gathers intelligence from the member-states) in the Council of Ministers. The EAS will have more resources and expertise than the current array of Brussels institutions. National diplomats seconded to it should help to feed in the best analysis from national capitals.
3) The integration of the Commission’s 120-odd overseas representations into the EAS should increase the EU’s clout. At the moment they focus (naturally) on the Commission’s priorities and are of little help to Solana and his team in Brussels, or to EU foreign ministers. In order to improve their performance and enhance their expertise in areas like political reporting and hard security, senior figures from national governments should be given prominent roles in some missions. These offices will need to have positions to represent in their part of the world, which will probably encourage the EAS to develop common policies. They will play a role in co-ordinating (though not managing) the work of member-state embassies. They will represent the smaller member-states that have no embassy in the country concerned. Even large member-states such as Britain or Germany do not have embassies everywhere and may find EU missions useful. In the longer run, small and large member-states may start to rely on missions as a way of saving money: if and when a government trusts the quality of the EAS’s work, it may decide to close embassies in countries that it considers relatively unimportant.
4) The EAS will eliminate the problem that a weak presidency can undermine EU foreign policy. The Czech presidency has, by general consent, been one of the worst in memory, and not only because the government collapsed half way through. When the EU is represented by the High Representative and the EAS it will, one may hope, be spared the embarrassments it has faced in the first half of 2009.
It is inevitable that the creation of the EAS will be a bureaucratic nightmare. Each of the existing bureaucracies, as well as the member-states, will fight to protect its specific interests. The EAS will need to be shaped by men and women of vision who can look beyond those interests. Whether or not the EAS is a success will depend, in part, on how well it meets four challenges.
1) Will the EAS attract very good people to work for it? National governments must send their best and brightest. It is not self evident that they will: the UK, for example, has not always sent its top diplomats to work in the Council of Ministers secretariat. The High Representative must be the kind of politician who inspires and whom bright young people will want to work for. And he or she will need to get on well with the president of the European Council (a new post) and the Commission president. The effectiveness of both the Commission and the Council of Ministers is marred by national flags being imposed on particular jobs. The High Representative must have the freedom to appoint the best people to the key jobs (of course, every member-state must have people in the EAS). He or she will also need deputies. Solana works about 100 hours a week, but the new HR will have extra responsibilities in the Commission and in chairing the meetings of EU foreign ministers. The HR will need at least five senior deputies: for traditional diplomacy, managing military missions, generating civilian capabilities, working with the various Commission directorates, and ensuring that justice and home affairs (JHA) is integrated into external policies. Other deputies may be needed to focus on specific regions.
2) Will the EAS succeed in stitching together policy on JHA with the EU’s foreign policies? A lot of the things the EU does that matter to the rest of the world are in areas like visas, asylum, illegal immigration, organised crime, counter-terrorism, police and judicial co-operation and border controls. At the moment the EU seldom joins up policies in these areas with other external policies. For example, when the JHA directorate general negotiates an agreement on the repatriation of illegal immigrants with a third country, it can offer to discuss visa rules, but not trade, aid or non-proliferation, which are handled by other parts of the EU. The EAS needs to find a way of integrating the EU’s work on JHA with other external policies.
3) When several parts of the EU are operating in the same problem country, will the EAS manage to co-ordinate their work? When there are several EU missions in the same country they tend not to work together. For example, when the EU peacekeeping mission arrived in Bosnia it found that the EU police mission, the Commission office and the EU special representative’s office had different objectives and did not want to work with it. There was little co-ordination from Brussels. There have been similar problems in Congo and Afghanistan. In order to ensure that the various EU agencies work together in such important places, the EAS should deploy a special representative to each of them. He or she should have the authority to co-ordinate the work of the various missions on the ground.
4) Will the 27 member-states identify with the EAS and trust it to promote their interests? Most small countries will see the value of a body that can represent them in places where they lack embassies. But there is a real danger that the foreign ministries of Britain, France or Germany could see the EAS as a rival source of power and as a competitor for money and the best people. They would then work round or against the EAS. The High Representative should therefore ensure that the big countries are given the chance to send good people to fill some of the top posts in the EAS. If the HR can establish an efficient bureaucracy that produces high-quality analysis, national foreign ministries will, hopefully, learn to respect it.
Charles Grant is director of the Centre for European Reform.
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
Are the British the new French?
by Simon Tilford
The British tend to deride France as a hopelessly statist, anti-entrepreneurial country full of bolshie workers intent on extracting disproportionate rewards for their labour and a state too weak to resist them. This characterisation is not wholly inaccurate. But the implicit (and sometimes explicit) assumption is that the UK is everything that France is not. This is not the case.
In some respects, Britain now looks worse than France. For all its faults, France produces good public services and decent social outcomes, such as relatively low levels of poverty and high overall skills levels. Britain, by contrast, now combines a very big state, patchy public services, generally poor social outcomes and increasing barriers to wealth creation. This is a poisonous mixture. The situation can be rescued, but not without breaking some eggs.
The figures are arresting. Britain has gone from having one of the smallest states in the EU to one of the largest. In 2000, public spending accounted for 37% of GDP in the UK, just three percentage points above the US and a full 15 percentage points below France. By 2010 the OECD estimates that state spending will account for 49% of GDP in Britain, against 53% in France (52% in famously high-spending Sweden). Britain has already overtaken Germany and the Netherlands (44% and 46% respectively).
This unprecedented expansion of the British state would be less of problem if the UK now had Scandinavian (or even French) levels of public services or first-rate physical infrastructure. But improvements in British public services over the last ten years have been nowhere near big enough to justify the increase in expenditure. Most of the money has gone on increased employment and wages, rather than improvements in services. Perhaps unsurprisingly, given the stranglehold that the unions have on the public sector, productivity has stagnated.
It is also notable that Britain’s welfare-state is not comparable to that of Germany or the Netherlands, let alone France or Sweden. Unlike in these countries, many of the ordinary Britons currently losing their jobs will receive only derisory sums in unemployment benefits because these are means-tested. And only a forensic scientist could spot significant improvements in the country’s physical infrastructure. Britain’s roads remain as congested as ever and its railways expensive and unreliable.
Of course, the tax burden in the UK is still lower than in France. In 2008, taxes accounted for 49% of GDP in France compared to just 42% in Britain. But the gap between tax and expenditure in Britain is completely unsustainable, given the parlous state of the country’s public finances. How it is closed will to a large extent determine Britain’s economic prospects. If the gap is bridged by cutting expenditure, the UK stands a chance of returning to a relatively strong growth path. But if it is closed primarily through increased taxes, Britain will have a bleak future. The tax burden will be among the highest in the OECD, but public services (and the country’s social outcomes) will be nowhere near good enough to justify the tax take. In short, Britain will have Scandinavian levels of taxation and American levels of public services and social welfare.
The Labour party is poorly placed to sort out this mess because of its close links to the public sector unions. Under Labour the public sector has become a privileged class that is impervious to change and reform. By way of illustration, public sector wages are currently rising by close to 4% a year at a time of economic crisis. And this despite the fact that public workers are on average better paid than their private sector counterparts and enjoy generous pension entitlements. What about the country’s physical infrastructure? On the government’s forecasts, public investment will halve over the next 4 years. In fact, the only significant cuts the government intends to make are to investment.
The Tories stand a better chance of taking on entrenched public sector vested interests, but it will be a battle. Moreover, they will need to avoid the mistakes of the 1980s when they reduced spending by cutting services and investment rather than by increasing public sector efficiency. If they do this again, UK taxes will remain very high relative to what those taxes deliver in terms of services.
Britain still has strengths, of course. It is straightforward to set up a business in the UK and the labour market remains flexible. But overall Britain looks increasingly like one of the sick men of Europe, and certainly as sick as France. The French state is an efficient provider of services and quasi-state institutions construct and manage first-rate physical infrastructure. France, unlike Britain, has bitten the bullet on public pensions, increasing the retirement age to 65. The French have no qualms about allowing private companies to provide healthcare. Even the Tories do not appear to have the stomach for dismantling the NHS’s near monopoly on the provision of public healthcare.
The British need to get over the idea that they took all the difficult decisions in the 1980s and that Britain is an example for others to follow. It has a huge state, yet has poor social outcomes. Much of its growth in recent years has been down to a turbo-charged financial services industry and an unsustainable expansion of the public sector. Both trends have now run their course and the public sector has become a dead weight on the economy. Britain needs to concentrate on improving the climate for wealth creation. This will require much better public sector productivity and high levels of investment in human capital and physical infrastructure.
Simon Tilford is chief economist at the Centre for European Reform.
The British tend to deride France as a hopelessly statist, anti-entrepreneurial country full of bolshie workers intent on extracting disproportionate rewards for their labour and a state too weak to resist them. This characterisation is not wholly inaccurate. But the implicit (and sometimes explicit) assumption is that the UK is everything that France is not. This is not the case.
In some respects, Britain now looks worse than France. For all its faults, France produces good public services and decent social outcomes, such as relatively low levels of poverty and high overall skills levels. Britain, by contrast, now combines a very big state, patchy public services, generally poor social outcomes and increasing barriers to wealth creation. This is a poisonous mixture. The situation can be rescued, but not without breaking some eggs.
The figures are arresting. Britain has gone from having one of the smallest states in the EU to one of the largest. In 2000, public spending accounted for 37% of GDP in the UK, just three percentage points above the US and a full 15 percentage points below France. By 2010 the OECD estimates that state spending will account for 49% of GDP in Britain, against 53% in France (52% in famously high-spending Sweden). Britain has already overtaken Germany and the Netherlands (44% and 46% respectively).
This unprecedented expansion of the British state would be less of problem if the UK now had Scandinavian (or even French) levels of public services or first-rate physical infrastructure. But improvements in British public services over the last ten years have been nowhere near big enough to justify the increase in expenditure. Most of the money has gone on increased employment and wages, rather than improvements in services. Perhaps unsurprisingly, given the stranglehold that the unions have on the public sector, productivity has stagnated.
It is also notable that Britain’s welfare-state is not comparable to that of Germany or the Netherlands, let alone France or Sweden. Unlike in these countries, many of the ordinary Britons currently losing their jobs will receive only derisory sums in unemployment benefits because these are means-tested. And only a forensic scientist could spot significant improvements in the country’s physical infrastructure. Britain’s roads remain as congested as ever and its railways expensive and unreliable.
Of course, the tax burden in the UK is still lower than in France. In 2008, taxes accounted for 49% of GDP in France compared to just 42% in Britain. But the gap between tax and expenditure in Britain is completely unsustainable, given the parlous state of the country’s public finances. How it is closed will to a large extent determine Britain’s economic prospects. If the gap is bridged by cutting expenditure, the UK stands a chance of returning to a relatively strong growth path. But if it is closed primarily through increased taxes, Britain will have a bleak future. The tax burden will be among the highest in the OECD, but public services (and the country’s social outcomes) will be nowhere near good enough to justify the tax take. In short, Britain will have Scandinavian levels of taxation and American levels of public services and social welfare.
The Labour party is poorly placed to sort out this mess because of its close links to the public sector unions. Under Labour the public sector has become a privileged class that is impervious to change and reform. By way of illustration, public sector wages are currently rising by close to 4% a year at a time of economic crisis. And this despite the fact that public workers are on average better paid than their private sector counterparts and enjoy generous pension entitlements. What about the country’s physical infrastructure? On the government’s forecasts, public investment will halve over the next 4 years. In fact, the only significant cuts the government intends to make are to investment.
The Tories stand a better chance of taking on entrenched public sector vested interests, but it will be a battle. Moreover, they will need to avoid the mistakes of the 1980s when they reduced spending by cutting services and investment rather than by increasing public sector efficiency. If they do this again, UK taxes will remain very high relative to what those taxes deliver in terms of services.
Britain still has strengths, of course. It is straightforward to set up a business in the UK and the labour market remains flexible. But overall Britain looks increasingly like one of the sick men of Europe, and certainly as sick as France. The French state is an efficient provider of services and quasi-state institutions construct and manage first-rate physical infrastructure. France, unlike Britain, has bitten the bullet on public pensions, increasing the retirement age to 65. The French have no qualms about allowing private companies to provide healthcare. Even the Tories do not appear to have the stomach for dismantling the NHS’s near monopoly on the provision of public healthcare.
The British need to get over the idea that they took all the difficult decisions in the 1980s and that Britain is an example for others to follow. It has a huge state, yet has poor social outcomes. Much of its growth in recent years has been down to a turbo-charged financial services industry and an unsustainable expansion of the public sector. Both trends have now run their course and the public sector has become a dead weight on the economy. Britain needs to concentrate on improving the climate for wealth creation. This will require much better public sector productivity and high levels of investment in human capital and physical infrastructure.
Simon Tilford is chief economist at the Centre for European Reform.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Towards a new system of financial regulation
by Philip Whyte
The financial crisis is often portrayed as the product of weak regulation in the Anglosphere. But it is more accurate to think of it as the result of flawed thinking (and policy) across the global financial system as a whole. One reason is that countries outside the Anglosphere have also experienced unsustainable credit and housing market booms. Another is that differences in regulatory systems are smaller than is often supposed. The lesson of the crisis is not, as Nicolas Sarkozy and Jean-Claude Juncker seem to think, that Anglo-Saxons must move in a European direction. It is that all countries must converge on a new regulatory model.
It is not hard to see why the attention of European politicians should have zeroed in on regulatory flaws in the US – it is, after all, where the financial crisis broke out. There are unquestionably important lessons to be learned from the US experience – particularly in relation to the ‘shadow banking system’ and securitisation (the process of originating loans, then packaging them up as securities and selling them on to the market). But the financial crisis has done more than simply expose flaws in the US’s regulatory model. It has also called into question the very principles on which institutions the world over have been supervised.
The first flaw that the crisis has exposed is the ‘pro-cyclicality’ of financial regulation. Regulation did nothing to mitigate the expansion of leverage, credit and house prices. Capital adequacy rules did not become more constraining during the upswing, while accountancy rules exacerbated the downswing by forcing firms to sell assets at distressed prices. So the regulatory framework did not provide enough of a check on banks at the top of the credit cycle – but compounded their problems when the cycle turned. Lesson: the regulatory framework must be redesigned so that it mitigates, rather than exacerbates, the credit cycle.
A second problem brought to light by the crisis is that regulators were not paying enough attention to liquidity. For the past twenty years or so, international discussions between regulators have concentrated overwhelmingly on solvency – that is, how much capital financial institutions should hold to cushion themselves against losses on their banking and trading books. But many of the institutions that were brought low by the crisis (such as Northern Rock and Lehman Brothers) ran into trouble because their sources of funding dried up. In effect, regulators had spent the past twenty years preparing for a right hook, but ended up being floored by an upper cut. Liquidity will loom larger in regulation than it has done to date.
A final flaw that the crisis exposed is the belief that the stability of a financial system follows inexorably from the soundness of its individual constituents. What this belief ignored was that institutions were more interconnected (and hence vulnerable) than was previously realised; and that actions by individual institutions to maintain their own stability could, when copied by all their peers, push the system itself to collapse. In short, regulatory regimes paid too much attention to the supervision of individual institutions (micro-prudential regulation) and not enough to the system as a whole (macro-prudential regulation). Macro-prudential supervision will be one of the key innovations to emerge from the crisis.
A major overhaul of financial regulation is in prospect, both in the Anglosphere and Europe. It will not involve the supposedly unregulated Anglo-Saxon systems converging on existing European models, but Anglo-Saxon and European models converging on an entirely new model, with novel rules and institutional structures. Will the new system regulate future crises out of existence? Almost certainly not. Financial systems will always be prone to periodic crises because of the nature of their function – borrowing short and lending long – and because they rely on fickle human traits such as confidence and trust. But if the new system can limit the scale of future crises, it will have done its job.
Philip Whyte is a senior research fellow at the Centre for European Reform.
The financial crisis is often portrayed as the product of weak regulation in the Anglosphere. But it is more accurate to think of it as the result of flawed thinking (and policy) across the global financial system as a whole. One reason is that countries outside the Anglosphere have also experienced unsustainable credit and housing market booms. Another is that differences in regulatory systems are smaller than is often supposed. The lesson of the crisis is not, as Nicolas Sarkozy and Jean-Claude Juncker seem to think, that Anglo-Saxons must move in a European direction. It is that all countries must converge on a new regulatory model.
It is not hard to see why the attention of European politicians should have zeroed in on regulatory flaws in the US – it is, after all, where the financial crisis broke out. There are unquestionably important lessons to be learned from the US experience – particularly in relation to the ‘shadow banking system’ and securitisation (the process of originating loans, then packaging them up as securities and selling them on to the market). But the financial crisis has done more than simply expose flaws in the US’s regulatory model. It has also called into question the very principles on which institutions the world over have been supervised.
The first flaw that the crisis has exposed is the ‘pro-cyclicality’ of financial regulation. Regulation did nothing to mitigate the expansion of leverage, credit and house prices. Capital adequacy rules did not become more constraining during the upswing, while accountancy rules exacerbated the downswing by forcing firms to sell assets at distressed prices. So the regulatory framework did not provide enough of a check on banks at the top of the credit cycle – but compounded their problems when the cycle turned. Lesson: the regulatory framework must be redesigned so that it mitigates, rather than exacerbates, the credit cycle.
A second problem brought to light by the crisis is that regulators were not paying enough attention to liquidity. For the past twenty years or so, international discussions between regulators have concentrated overwhelmingly on solvency – that is, how much capital financial institutions should hold to cushion themselves against losses on their banking and trading books. But many of the institutions that were brought low by the crisis (such as Northern Rock and Lehman Brothers) ran into trouble because their sources of funding dried up. In effect, regulators had spent the past twenty years preparing for a right hook, but ended up being floored by an upper cut. Liquidity will loom larger in regulation than it has done to date.
A final flaw that the crisis exposed is the belief that the stability of a financial system follows inexorably from the soundness of its individual constituents. What this belief ignored was that institutions were more interconnected (and hence vulnerable) than was previously realised; and that actions by individual institutions to maintain their own stability could, when copied by all their peers, push the system itself to collapse. In short, regulatory regimes paid too much attention to the supervision of individual institutions (micro-prudential regulation) and not enough to the system as a whole (macro-prudential regulation). Macro-prudential supervision will be one of the key innovations to emerge from the crisis.
A major overhaul of financial regulation is in prospect, both in the Anglosphere and Europe. It will not involve the supposedly unregulated Anglo-Saxon systems converging on existing European models, but Anglo-Saxon and European models converging on an entirely new model, with novel rules and institutional structures. Will the new system regulate future crises out of existence? Almost certainly not. Financial systems will always be prone to periodic crises because of the nature of their function – borrowing short and lending long – and because they rely on fickle human traits such as confidence and trust. But if the new system can limit the scale of future crises, it will have done its job.
Philip Whyte is a senior research fellow at the Centre for European Reform.
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
Towards a better EU migration policy
by Hugo Brady
Over the last decade, EU countries have experienced a rapid rise in both legal and illegal migration, mostly from Turkey, Morocco, Albania, Algeria and Serbia. Each spring and summer, Mediterranean member-states struggle to cope as migrants perish attempting to reach Europe from North Africa in unseaworthy and over-crowded boats. The deaths of 300 people, who drowned while trying to reach Italy from Libya, marked a particularly grim beginning to this year’s ‘smuggling season’.
Unsurprisingly, then, migration has supplanted terrorism and crime as the top priority for European interior ministers. Ministers think that collective EU action is essential if migration is to be managed better. That includes making European border management more effective and technologically advanced; integrating migration issues – visas, border controls, the resettlement of refugees and the return of illegal immigrants – into EU foreign policy; and helping Europe to fill the 50 million skilled vacancies that Europe’s retiring baby boomers will leave behind by 2060.
European policies to tackle these challenges are in their infancy, such as the Union's rather weak scheme to attract more skilled workers with an EU working visa or 'blue card'. One reason for this is that ministers have to work around major knowledge gaps about the specific foreign labour needs of the single market and about the movement of migrants into and around the EU, a free movement area. Governments have little idea where migrants go next after entering the UK from Pakistan, Spain from Ecuador or Poland from Brazil. For example, how many move to other EU countries; how many go back home; and how many are granted residency? Similarly, policy-makers are not yet certain about how good the EU’s border controls are. How many visas to the EU’s passport-free area result in illegal overstays or how many travellers are allowed in, refused at the border or returned home? Officials say they need to properly understand such movements before they can agree serious migration policies.
In many cases, such data is available but the patterns have not yet been analysed to draw concrete conclusions. The European Commission, which might be expected to have such information readily to hand, is over-burdened. Its directorate-general dealing with migration issues also has a plethora of other responsibilities, ranging from commercial law to terrorism. To overcome this lack of analytical capability, Commission officials often emphasise technological solutions such as biometric databases for visas and law enforcement. But these have tended to be subject to long development delays and will not, in any case, cut out the need to synthesise vast amounts of information.
One idea to help address such knowledge gaps would be to create national ‘immigration profiles’. The idea – already floated by the Commission – would be to maintain a precise and detailed picture of migration and border management in each member-state at any given moment. The Commission would also be able to ascertain the foreign labour needs of each member-state, by identifying skill shortages by sector and occupation, though member-states would still control the issuance of work visas. Similar profiles of non-EU countries could help identify the skills composition of different migrant communities and to provide analysis to EU policy-makers negotiating with migrants’ home governments on visa facilitation, border controls and the return of illegal immigrants. The member-states think that the EU speaking with one voice in such negotiations would be a significant improvement on national efforts.
The compilation of national immigration profiles is not a panacea for solving all of Europe's migration challenges. But if implemented effectively, the profiles could help to ensure that future migration policies are properly evidence-based and, therefore, more effective. However, if the Commission wants the job of providing such analysis, it will need to create a separate department for migration or to boost the resources of its current directorate-general for justice, liberty and security.
Hugo Brady is a research fellow at the Centre for European Reform.
Over the last decade, EU countries have experienced a rapid rise in both legal and illegal migration, mostly from Turkey, Morocco, Albania, Algeria and Serbia. Each spring and summer, Mediterranean member-states struggle to cope as migrants perish attempting to reach Europe from North Africa in unseaworthy and over-crowded boats. The deaths of 300 people, who drowned while trying to reach Italy from Libya, marked a particularly grim beginning to this year’s ‘smuggling season’.
Unsurprisingly, then, migration has supplanted terrorism and crime as the top priority for European interior ministers. Ministers think that collective EU action is essential if migration is to be managed better. That includes making European border management more effective and technologically advanced; integrating migration issues – visas, border controls, the resettlement of refugees and the return of illegal immigrants – into EU foreign policy; and helping Europe to fill the 50 million skilled vacancies that Europe’s retiring baby boomers will leave behind by 2060.
European policies to tackle these challenges are in their infancy, such as the Union's rather weak scheme to attract more skilled workers with an EU working visa or 'blue card'. One reason for this is that ministers have to work around major knowledge gaps about the specific foreign labour needs of the single market and about the movement of migrants into and around the EU, a free movement area. Governments have little idea where migrants go next after entering the UK from Pakistan, Spain from Ecuador or Poland from Brazil. For example, how many move to other EU countries; how many go back home; and how many are granted residency? Similarly, policy-makers are not yet certain about how good the EU’s border controls are. How many visas to the EU’s passport-free area result in illegal overstays or how many travellers are allowed in, refused at the border or returned home? Officials say they need to properly understand such movements before they can agree serious migration policies.
In many cases, such data is available but the patterns have not yet been analysed to draw concrete conclusions. The European Commission, which might be expected to have such information readily to hand, is over-burdened. Its directorate-general dealing with migration issues also has a plethora of other responsibilities, ranging from commercial law to terrorism. To overcome this lack of analytical capability, Commission officials often emphasise technological solutions such as biometric databases for visas and law enforcement. But these have tended to be subject to long development delays and will not, in any case, cut out the need to synthesise vast amounts of information.
One idea to help address such knowledge gaps would be to create national ‘immigration profiles’. The idea – already floated by the Commission – would be to maintain a precise and detailed picture of migration and border management in each member-state at any given moment. The Commission would also be able to ascertain the foreign labour needs of each member-state, by identifying skill shortages by sector and occupation, though member-states would still control the issuance of work visas. Similar profiles of non-EU countries could help identify the skills composition of different migrant communities and to provide analysis to EU policy-makers negotiating with migrants’ home governments on visa facilitation, border controls and the return of illegal immigrants. The member-states think that the EU speaking with one voice in such negotiations would be a significant improvement on national efforts.
The compilation of national immigration profiles is not a panacea for solving all of Europe's migration challenges. But if implemented effectively, the profiles could help to ensure that future migration policies are properly evidence-based and, therefore, more effective. However, if the Commission wants the job of providing such analysis, it will need to create a separate department for migration or to boost the resources of its current directorate-general for justice, liberty and security.
Hugo Brady is a research fellow at the Centre for European Reform.
Friday, April 03, 2009
The G20 summit – a distraction?
By Simon Tilford
The good news first. The summit delivered more than expected. The trebling of the funds available to the IMF goes well beyond anything expected and is very welcome. From a European perspective it increases the likelihood of further crises in central and Eastern Europe being handled through the IMF, rather than the EU having to get involved in the politically fraught business of setting conditionality. A renewed commitment to resist protectionism, together with an additional $250 billion for trade finance and $250 billion in special drawing rights are positive moves, as is the agreement to use the proceeds from IMF gold sales to help the poorest countries.
The agreements to extend financial regulation to all systemically important financial institutions and to establish a Financial Stability Board (FSB) to replace the existing Financial Stability Forum (FSF) also represent progress. The FSB will include FSF members along with G20 countries that are not FSF members, Spain and the European Commission. It will be in charge of identifying systemic risks and will collaborate with the IMF to provide an early warning system for future crises. The FSB will also implement FSF principles on bankers' pay and insure appropriate capital adequacy ratios. The deal represents a necessary democratisation of the international financial system.
Now the bad news. The agreement does little to address the immediate challenges facing the global economy – dealing with toxic debt and the contraction of aggregate demand. In this respect, the summit and the grandiose statements accompanying it were probably a distraction. There is little in the agreement that will help "restore confidence, growth and jobs" or "repair the financial system and restore lending", as claimed by the summit communiqué. Over time, the agreement might help to “strengthen financial regulation and rebuild trust” and could help to ‘prevent future crises’. But it is unlikely to help "overcome this crisis."
The absence of additional national measures to stimulate demand comes as no surprise, but it is no less disappointing. Perhaps the most important moment at the summit was when President Obama reminded the world that it can no longer expect the US to provide a disproportionate share of the growth in global demand. While condemning the US for its profligacy and talking about the advent of a fairer, more multilateral world, many countries seem to be relying on the US continuing to perform the role of 'consumer of last report'. This is either hypocritical or parochial or both.
Across much of Europe, the summit agreement is being portrayed as victory over the 'Anglo-Saxons'. This is rather puzzling. The agreement will not lessen the economic crisis facing Europe. Listening to French and German criticism of US proposals for a co-ordinated stimulus, anyone would be forgiven for thinking that the US would have had most to gain from such a package. In fact, the countries that stand to lose most from the collapse in global trade and the prospect of several years of exceptionally weak growth in global demand are the countries running big trade surpluses. The Japanese understand this and the need for stimulus; the German government does not. Europe as a whole will pay the price.
Similarly, the G20 agreement will do very little to address the problem of frozen credit markets. The Europeans are right to stress that strengthened regulatory oversight will be needed in order to put the financial sector on a more stable long-term footing. Indeed, everyone recognises this. But the more immediate problem is dealing with toxic debt. Agreeing to tighten regulation once the recession is over will not persuade financial institutions to lend now. The agreement to "provide significant and comprehensive support to our banking systems to provide liquidity, recapitalise financial institutions, and access address decisively the problem of impaired assets" means little. Too many European governments remain in denial over the extent of the problem, and will not take the necessary action to remove toxic debt from their banking systems.
The deal will not prevent the economic slump in Europe from deepening. This will lead to the further weakening of public finances that many European governments are anxious to prevent. Moreover, even the strengthening of multilateral control over the global financial system might have unintended consequences for some European countries. One systemic risk the FSB is almost certain to flag up is the persistence of huge, structural current account deficits, and the destabilising impact these have on the global financial system. A more regulated global financial system will involve more obligations for the big surplus countries, such as Germany.
Simon Tilford is chief economist at the Centre for European Reform
The good news first. The summit delivered more than expected. The trebling of the funds available to the IMF goes well beyond anything expected and is very welcome. From a European perspective it increases the likelihood of further crises in central and Eastern Europe being handled through the IMF, rather than the EU having to get involved in the politically fraught business of setting conditionality. A renewed commitment to resist protectionism, together with an additional $250 billion for trade finance and $250 billion in special drawing rights are positive moves, as is the agreement to use the proceeds from IMF gold sales to help the poorest countries.
The agreements to extend financial regulation to all systemically important financial institutions and to establish a Financial Stability Board (FSB) to replace the existing Financial Stability Forum (FSF) also represent progress. The FSB will include FSF members along with G20 countries that are not FSF members, Spain and the European Commission. It will be in charge of identifying systemic risks and will collaborate with the IMF to provide an early warning system for future crises. The FSB will also implement FSF principles on bankers' pay and insure appropriate capital adequacy ratios. The deal represents a necessary democratisation of the international financial system.
Now the bad news. The agreement does little to address the immediate challenges facing the global economy – dealing with toxic debt and the contraction of aggregate demand. In this respect, the summit and the grandiose statements accompanying it were probably a distraction. There is little in the agreement that will help "restore confidence, growth and jobs" or "repair the financial system and restore lending", as claimed by the summit communiqué. Over time, the agreement might help to “strengthen financial regulation and rebuild trust” and could help to ‘prevent future crises’. But it is unlikely to help "overcome this crisis."
The absence of additional national measures to stimulate demand comes as no surprise, but it is no less disappointing. Perhaps the most important moment at the summit was when President Obama reminded the world that it can no longer expect the US to provide a disproportionate share of the growth in global demand. While condemning the US for its profligacy and talking about the advent of a fairer, more multilateral world, many countries seem to be relying on the US continuing to perform the role of 'consumer of last report'. This is either hypocritical or parochial or both.
Across much of Europe, the summit agreement is being portrayed as victory over the 'Anglo-Saxons'. This is rather puzzling. The agreement will not lessen the economic crisis facing Europe. Listening to French and German criticism of US proposals for a co-ordinated stimulus, anyone would be forgiven for thinking that the US would have had most to gain from such a package. In fact, the countries that stand to lose most from the collapse in global trade and the prospect of several years of exceptionally weak growth in global demand are the countries running big trade surpluses. The Japanese understand this and the need for stimulus; the German government does not. Europe as a whole will pay the price.
Similarly, the G20 agreement will do very little to address the problem of frozen credit markets. The Europeans are right to stress that strengthened regulatory oversight will be needed in order to put the financial sector on a more stable long-term footing. Indeed, everyone recognises this. But the more immediate problem is dealing with toxic debt. Agreeing to tighten regulation once the recession is over will not persuade financial institutions to lend now. The agreement to "provide significant and comprehensive support to our banking systems to provide liquidity, recapitalise financial institutions, and access address decisively the problem of impaired assets" means little. Too many European governments remain in denial over the extent of the problem, and will not take the necessary action to remove toxic debt from their banking systems.
The deal will not prevent the economic slump in Europe from deepening. This will lead to the further weakening of public finances that many European governments are anxious to prevent. Moreover, even the strengthening of multilateral control over the global financial system might have unintended consequences for some European countries. One systemic risk the FSB is almost certain to flag up is the persistence of huge, structural current account deficits, and the destabilising impact these have on the global financial system. A more regulated global financial system will involve more obligations for the big surplus countries, such as Germany.
Simon Tilford is chief economist at the Centre for European Reform
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
The Europeans at the London summit
by Katinka Barysch
Christine Lagarde, the French finance minister, threatens to walk out of the London G20 summit unless France gets its way on tougher financial regulation. The toppled Czech Prime Minister, Mirek Topolanek, who happens to hold the EU presidency, describes the US fiscal stimulus as “the road to hell”. Not one EU leader deems it necessary to support Gordon Brown publicly when he tries to drum up support for a more concerted international effort to revive the global economy. The Dutch and the Spaniards are turning the G20 itself into a misnomer by insisting on their own place at the table, and raising the number of the already over-represented Europeans (The fact that there will be six European governments represented, plus the Czech presidency, plus the European Commission, not counting the European heads of the World Trade Organisation and the International Monetary Fund, attracts deserved ridicule from other countries).
So is the G20 just another opportunity for the Europeans to show how weak, divided and status-conscious they are?
In fact, the Europeans have not done as badly in the run-up to the summit as some media reports (and occasional outbursts by stressed prime ministers) suggest.
EU leaders managed to thrash out a reasonably coherent position at their spring summit on 20th -21st March. The meeting’s final communiqué has a special section on the agreed line for the London summit. The words in this section are vague but represent a workable compromise which could allow the Europeans to speak with one voice at the G20.
G20 finance ministers had already reached a kind of truce on the issue of more fiscal stimuli at their meeting on March 14th. Not surprisingly, EU leaders, at their spring summit a week later, also rejected calls for an immediate increase in budgetary spending. So why some commentators are still speculating whether the G20 may come up with a new, co-ordinated package is a bit of a mystery. There needs to be a firm pledge from all G20 countries to assess critically the fiscal efforts they have made so far, and then to revisit the issue of a co-ordinated stimulus at their next summit, probably later this year.
At the March 20th–21st summit, EU leaders called only for swift implementation of those packages already announced. This, and the fact that the communiqué also calls on the EU countries to prepare for “an orderly reversal of macro-economic stimuli” and to “ensure consistency with longer term objectives such as sustainable public finances” represents a victory for Berlin and other capitals worried about inflationary pressures and the stability of the euro.
The Europeans supported global efforts to make more money available for the poorer and more vulnerable countries around the world. They started at home, by doubling the size of the EU’s own emergency fund for Central and Eastern Europe to €50 billion. The Europeans also agreed to raise an additional €75 billion as their contribution to a significant increase in the IMF’s war chest, to at least $500 billion. Since Japan had already pledged $100 billion, the onus is now on the US and China to chip in.
China, of course, will be cautious about committing money to an unreformed IMF. Here the EU’s position is lame. The communiqué only calls for a “reform of the IMF so that it reflects more adequately relative economic weights in the world economy”. The Europeans should have made it clearer that they are prepared to decrease their own voting shares and representation on the IMF’s management board. But diplomats say that the strongest opposition to thorough IMF reforms currently comes from the US – reluctant to give up its de facto ability to veto IMF decisions – rather than Europe.
On financial market regulation, the EU’s position is quite far advanced, much more so than the American one. The EU summit communiqué list all the measures that the EU wants to take – on regulating credit agencies, hedge funds, credit default swaps and so forth – and attaches deadlines to each. There has been a great deal of convergence within Europe, chiefly between Germany, France and others that want to see tighter rules and supervision of financial markets, and the UK, which has abandoned its belief in ‘light touch’ regulation. There are a lot of similarities between the recommendations of the recent reports from Jacques de Larosiere, which the EU wants to use as a basis for its legislative programme, and Adair Turner, head of the UK’s Financial Services Authority. Both, for example, call for more co-ordination between the supervision of individual banks and the monitoring of the stability of the financial system as a whole. The emerging US position as presented by US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on March 26th also calls for more centralised supervision of US financial services, as well as a reform of capital adequacy and accountancy rules (in line with EU demands). Geithner for the first time acknowledged that hedge funds and other hitherto lightly regulated but systemically important finance vehicles need at least some supervision.
Of course the devil is in the detail and the London summit cannot and will not agree on more than the broad principles of further regulation and supervision. The debate about a new supervisory system in the US is only just beginning. It will be long and politicised. The EU’s deadlines for new legislation run from May until the end of 2009. Since the European Parliament will be re-elected in June and the European Commission will step down in October (although it could be extended to the end of the year), comprehensive new rules are unlikely before 2010.
The EU has looked weak and divided in the run-up to the G20 summit. Its reluctance to make more commitments to increase fiscal stimuli is rightly open to criticism. But the Europeans have actually managed to agree a reasonably coherent position and in many respects, their positions are as, or more, polished than the US ones.
Katinka Barysch is deputy director of the Centre for European Reform.
Christine Lagarde, the French finance minister, threatens to walk out of the London G20 summit unless France gets its way on tougher financial regulation. The toppled Czech Prime Minister, Mirek Topolanek, who happens to hold the EU presidency, describes the US fiscal stimulus as “the road to hell”. Not one EU leader deems it necessary to support Gordon Brown publicly when he tries to drum up support for a more concerted international effort to revive the global economy. The Dutch and the Spaniards are turning the G20 itself into a misnomer by insisting on their own place at the table, and raising the number of the already over-represented Europeans (The fact that there will be six European governments represented, plus the Czech presidency, plus the European Commission, not counting the European heads of the World Trade Organisation and the International Monetary Fund, attracts deserved ridicule from other countries).
So is the G20 just another opportunity for the Europeans to show how weak, divided and status-conscious they are?
In fact, the Europeans have not done as badly in the run-up to the summit as some media reports (and occasional outbursts by stressed prime ministers) suggest.
EU leaders managed to thrash out a reasonably coherent position at their spring summit on 20th -21st March. The meeting’s final communiqué has a special section on the agreed line for the London summit. The words in this section are vague but represent a workable compromise which could allow the Europeans to speak with one voice at the G20.
G20 finance ministers had already reached a kind of truce on the issue of more fiscal stimuli at their meeting on March 14th. Not surprisingly, EU leaders, at their spring summit a week later, also rejected calls for an immediate increase in budgetary spending. So why some commentators are still speculating whether the G20 may come up with a new, co-ordinated package is a bit of a mystery. There needs to be a firm pledge from all G20 countries to assess critically the fiscal efforts they have made so far, and then to revisit the issue of a co-ordinated stimulus at their next summit, probably later this year.
At the March 20th–21st summit, EU leaders called only for swift implementation of those packages already announced. This, and the fact that the communiqué also calls on the EU countries to prepare for “an orderly reversal of macro-economic stimuli” and to “ensure consistency with longer term objectives such as sustainable public finances” represents a victory for Berlin and other capitals worried about inflationary pressures and the stability of the euro.
The Europeans supported global efforts to make more money available for the poorer and more vulnerable countries around the world. They started at home, by doubling the size of the EU’s own emergency fund for Central and Eastern Europe to €50 billion. The Europeans also agreed to raise an additional €75 billion as their contribution to a significant increase in the IMF’s war chest, to at least $500 billion. Since Japan had already pledged $100 billion, the onus is now on the US and China to chip in.
China, of course, will be cautious about committing money to an unreformed IMF. Here the EU’s position is lame. The communiqué only calls for a “reform of the IMF so that it reflects more adequately relative economic weights in the world economy”. The Europeans should have made it clearer that they are prepared to decrease their own voting shares and representation on the IMF’s management board. But diplomats say that the strongest opposition to thorough IMF reforms currently comes from the US – reluctant to give up its de facto ability to veto IMF decisions – rather than Europe.
On financial market regulation, the EU’s position is quite far advanced, much more so than the American one. The EU summit communiqué list all the measures that the EU wants to take – on regulating credit agencies, hedge funds, credit default swaps and so forth – and attaches deadlines to each. There has been a great deal of convergence within Europe, chiefly between Germany, France and others that want to see tighter rules and supervision of financial markets, and the UK, which has abandoned its belief in ‘light touch’ regulation. There are a lot of similarities between the recommendations of the recent reports from Jacques de Larosiere, which the EU wants to use as a basis for its legislative programme, and Adair Turner, head of the UK’s Financial Services Authority. Both, for example, call for more co-ordination between the supervision of individual banks and the monitoring of the stability of the financial system as a whole. The emerging US position as presented by US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on March 26th also calls for more centralised supervision of US financial services, as well as a reform of capital adequacy and accountancy rules (in line with EU demands). Geithner for the first time acknowledged that hedge funds and other hitherto lightly regulated but systemically important finance vehicles need at least some supervision.
Of course the devil is in the detail and the London summit cannot and will not agree on more than the broad principles of further regulation and supervision. The debate about a new supervisory system in the US is only just beginning. It will be long and politicised. The EU’s deadlines for new legislation run from May until the end of 2009. Since the European Parliament will be re-elected in June and the European Commission will step down in October (although it could be extended to the end of the year), comprehensive new rules are unlikely before 2010.
The EU has looked weak and divided in the run-up to the G20 summit. Its reluctance to make more commitments to increase fiscal stimuli is rightly open to criticism. But the Europeans have actually managed to agree a reasonably coherent position and in many respects, their positions are as, or more, polished than the US ones.
Katinka Barysch is deputy director of the Centre for European Reform.
Monday, March 23, 2009
What if the eurozone broke up?
by Tomas Valasek
The future of the euro may not be secure, warned the CER’s Simon Tilford in a January 2009 essay. The current economic crisis threatens to exacerbate the tensions within the eurozone, and an insolvent member-state... could default and leave the eurozone. Since January, the economic crisis has deepened further, and the eurozone’s weakest economies have come under even greater strain. This does not make their exit from the eurozone inevitable there is a strong argument in favour of keeping the eurozone together at any cost. But what if it did happen? What would leaving the eurozone mean in practice? What happens to the physical currency in circulation in the afflicted country?
There is a considerable body of precedents. Most historical currency unions have broken up. The most recent examples come from Central and Eastern Europe. Since the end of the Cold War, three countries with national currencies the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia have fallen apart, forcing their constituent parts to hastily adopt national currencies. To find out what the separation entailed, the CER spoke to an architect of one of those transitions: the former member of the board of the Slovak National Bank, Ján Mathes.
We asked him what a country leaving the eurozone would use instead of the euro. Several options are possible, Mathes said. Members of the eurozone have not kept a stock of national currencies in reserve so they would need to print and mint replacements. But if a country is in a hurry to leave the euro, there may not be enough time. Minting a sufficient number of new coins takes months. Producing today's high-tech, secure banknotes, from design to the printing stage, took Slovakia nearly a year. Even though eurozone members would need less time they would presumably revert to the design they used before adopting the euro printing hundreds of millions of notes still takes many months.
If a country left the eurozone abruptly, it would need to find temporary ways to separate its share of the euros from the rest. In the early 1990s, the Czech Republic and Slovakia chose to stick distinguishing stamps on their banknotes. We had thousands of people working day and night, putting tiny stamps on nearly 80 million old Czechoslovak banknotes, Mathes said. The Czechs affixed different stamps to their portion of the old notes and the currency was thus divided. Each side eventually printed its own currency, and the stamped notes were withdrawn and destroyed.
But what worked for the Czechoslovak koruna may not work for the euro. Stamps are easy to remove and the temptation to remove them would be strong. The value of the currency of the country leaving the eurozone is certain to plunge vis-Ã -vis the euro, so its citizens would remove stamps en masse, thus converting them to the more valuable original euros. Another physical solution, Mathes says, it to laser-engrave distinguishing marks onto the portion of the euros, which would have been allocated to the country departing the eurozone. This can be done relatively quickly and would make the currencies irreversibly different, said Mathes, adding “but I suspect that the European Central Bank will not look kindly on a state burning holes in its currency.
In many ways, the birth of the new currency would only mark the beginning of its troubles. A country would only resort to leaving the eurozone if it was in deep economic crisis but this guarantees that its currency will inspire little confidence. There is a risk that the currency’s value would slide uncontrollably. To prevent such a scenario, the new money would have to be introduced in tandem with a thorough stabilisation and recovery programme overseen and financed by the IMF or the World Bank.
But the same reforms, if introduced early, would also reduce the chances of a country dropping out of the euro in the first place. And the rest of the eurozone members will have strong interest to prevent anyone from leaving, because of the risks to the rest: a member's departure would weaken the credibility of the euro, deepening the sense of crisis and possibly forcing other countries to drop out. Self-interest may drive the rest of the eurozone to prop up the ailing country’s economy at nearly any cost. It is probably too early for ordering replacement currencies or burning holes in the euro.
Tomas Valasek is director of foreign policy and defence at the Centre for European Reform.
The future of the euro may not be secure, warned the CER’s Simon Tilford in a January 2009 essay. The current economic crisis threatens to exacerbate the tensions within the eurozone, and an insolvent member-state... could default and leave the eurozone. Since January, the economic crisis has deepened further, and the eurozone’s weakest economies have come under even greater strain. This does not make their exit from the eurozone inevitable there is a strong argument in favour of keeping the eurozone together at any cost. But what if it did happen? What would leaving the eurozone mean in practice? What happens to the physical currency in circulation in the afflicted country?
There is a considerable body of precedents. Most historical currency unions have broken up. The most recent examples come from Central and Eastern Europe. Since the end of the Cold War, three countries with national currencies the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia have fallen apart, forcing their constituent parts to hastily adopt national currencies. To find out what the separation entailed, the CER spoke to an architect of one of those transitions: the former member of the board of the Slovak National Bank, Ján Mathes.
We asked him what a country leaving the eurozone would use instead of the euro. Several options are possible, Mathes said. Members of the eurozone have not kept a stock of national currencies in reserve so they would need to print and mint replacements. But if a country is in a hurry to leave the euro, there may not be enough time. Minting a sufficient number of new coins takes months. Producing today's high-tech, secure banknotes, from design to the printing stage, took Slovakia nearly a year. Even though eurozone members would need less time they would presumably revert to the design they used before adopting the euro printing hundreds of millions of notes still takes many months.
If a country left the eurozone abruptly, it would need to find temporary ways to separate its share of the euros from the rest. In the early 1990s, the Czech Republic and Slovakia chose to stick distinguishing stamps on their banknotes. We had thousands of people working day and night, putting tiny stamps on nearly 80 million old Czechoslovak banknotes, Mathes said. The Czechs affixed different stamps to their portion of the old notes and the currency was thus divided. Each side eventually printed its own currency, and the stamped notes were withdrawn and destroyed.
But what worked for the Czechoslovak koruna may not work for the euro. Stamps are easy to remove and the temptation to remove them would be strong. The value of the currency of the country leaving the eurozone is certain to plunge vis-Ã -vis the euro, so its citizens would remove stamps en masse, thus converting them to the more valuable original euros. Another physical solution, Mathes says, it to laser-engrave distinguishing marks onto the portion of the euros, which would have been allocated to the country departing the eurozone. This can be done relatively quickly and would make the currencies irreversibly different, said Mathes, adding “but I suspect that the European Central Bank will not look kindly on a state burning holes in its currency.
In many ways, the birth of the new currency would only mark the beginning of its troubles. A country would only resort to leaving the eurozone if it was in deep economic crisis but this guarantees that its currency will inspire little confidence. There is a risk that the currency’s value would slide uncontrollably. To prevent such a scenario, the new money would have to be introduced in tandem with a thorough stabilisation and recovery programme overseen and financed by the IMF or the World Bank.
But the same reforms, if introduced early, would also reduce the chances of a country dropping out of the euro in the first place. And the rest of the eurozone members will have strong interest to prevent anyone from leaving, because of the risks to the rest: a member's departure would weaken the credibility of the euro, deepening the sense of crisis and possibly forcing other countries to drop out. Self-interest may drive the rest of the eurozone to prop up the ailing country’s economy at nearly any cost. It is probably too early for ordering replacement currencies or burning holes in the euro.
Tomas Valasek is director of foreign policy and defence at the Centre for European Reform.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
How serious is the threat to the single market?
by Simon Tilford
There has been a lot of anguished talk about how the EU’s single market is under threat. Much of this alarm has focused on government support for struggling car firms and public bail-outs of crisis-ridden banks. An erosion of the EU’s competition rules would be every bit as debilitating as the impact of the financial crisis and the resulting recession. But how serious is the risk to the single market?
On the face of it, there is plenty to worry those who see the single market as key to Europe’s future prosperity. First, any hope that the impact of the financial crisis on the ‘real economy’ would be limited has ended. In the face of huge falls in industrial output this year and the prospect of several years of very weak economic growth, many European industrial firms will go bankrupt. Wage subsidies and short-time working, and all the other strategies currently being employed to cope with the collapse of demand, can only be sustained for so long. Many of the firms that go bust will be fundamentally competitive, or at least appear so. EU governments will be under huge pressure to intervene to protect such companies. The way in which they intervene will be crucial. The Commission will have a real fight on its hands to ensure that competition is not distorted. It should be strong enough to enforce the rules. But much will depend on whether member-state governments support the Commission and on who is appointed to be the next EU commissioners for competition and the internal market.
Second, the landscape of European banking has changed fundamentally over the past year and competition policy in this sector has effectively been suspended. A number of the biggest EU banks have been nationalised in all but name and governments have moved to provide public guarantees for bank loans. The shot gun marriage of Britain’s Lloyds TSB with another high street British bank, Halifax Bank of Scotland (HBOS), has left the combined group controlling around a third of the entire UK market for consumer banking services. The German, Dutch and Belgian governments have bailed out financial institutions, while governments across the EU have recapitalised banks.
The dramatic increase in government influence over the lending process will need to be reversed if potentially serious distortions are to be avoided. There is a risk that pressure will be put on banks to maintain funding for national champions and to avoid lending to companies based in other EU states. Such politicised lending would undermine the efficient allocation of capital throughout the EU by protecting inefficient companies and reducing available funds for more competitive firms. Once the financial sector has stabilised and normal levels of financial intermediation have been restored, the Commission will have to get serious about ensuring that the EU does not retreat into such ‘capital protectionism’.
Third, a further deepening of the single market can be ruled out. Crucially, faster action to liberalise and integrate service sectors across the EU now looks out of the question. It was hard enough to gain consensus in favour of radical moves to dismantle obstacles to the integration of service sectors before the crisis, but it will be impossible in the face of the backlash against liberalisation. This is bad news. Service sectors account for around two-thirds of economic activity across the EU. Service sector productivity has been extremely weak for a number of years now, holding back economic growth. More competition at both national and European level would do much to change this, and boost economic growth.
The lack of service sector integration will be particularly damaging for the eurozone. Countries that decide to forego exchange rate flexibility as a tool of economic adjustment need to ensure that their economies can be flexible in other ways. If countries such as Spain and Italy are to recover their competitiveness within the currency union, they will have to boost their productivity. This, in turn, requires more competition in service industries. The alternative route to greater competitiveness – wage cuts – would condemn their economies to stagnation. And such wage deflation might not be possible in any case, as Germany is heading for deflation. It will be extremely difficult to cut costs relative to Germany, if German costs are falling.
The legal underpinnings of the single market appear robust. But there are real reasons for concern. The steady progress in reducing state-aid has been halted and is likely to be put into reverse. The partial renationalisation of bank lending is inimical to the emergence of a single capital market. And progress towards deepening the single market in services has ground to a halt. All this bodes ill for Europe’s growth prospects and the stability of the eurozone. All EU governments profess to be committed to upholding the single market. The next couple of years will determine the strength of that commitment. If member-states do not respect the Commission’s right to enforce those rules, the single market could indeed come under threat.
Simon Tilford is chief economist at the Centre for European Reform.
There has been a lot of anguished talk about how the EU’s single market is under threat. Much of this alarm has focused on government support for struggling car firms and public bail-outs of crisis-ridden banks. An erosion of the EU’s competition rules would be every bit as debilitating as the impact of the financial crisis and the resulting recession. But how serious is the risk to the single market?
On the face of it, there is plenty to worry those who see the single market as key to Europe’s future prosperity. First, any hope that the impact of the financial crisis on the ‘real economy’ would be limited has ended. In the face of huge falls in industrial output this year and the prospect of several years of very weak economic growth, many European industrial firms will go bankrupt. Wage subsidies and short-time working, and all the other strategies currently being employed to cope with the collapse of demand, can only be sustained for so long. Many of the firms that go bust will be fundamentally competitive, or at least appear so. EU governments will be under huge pressure to intervene to protect such companies. The way in which they intervene will be crucial. The Commission will have a real fight on its hands to ensure that competition is not distorted. It should be strong enough to enforce the rules. But much will depend on whether member-state governments support the Commission and on who is appointed to be the next EU commissioners for competition and the internal market.
Second, the landscape of European banking has changed fundamentally over the past year and competition policy in this sector has effectively been suspended. A number of the biggest EU banks have been nationalised in all but name and governments have moved to provide public guarantees for bank loans. The shot gun marriage of Britain’s Lloyds TSB with another high street British bank, Halifax Bank of Scotland (HBOS), has left the combined group controlling around a third of the entire UK market for consumer banking services. The German, Dutch and Belgian governments have bailed out financial institutions, while governments across the EU have recapitalised banks.
The dramatic increase in government influence over the lending process will need to be reversed if potentially serious distortions are to be avoided. There is a risk that pressure will be put on banks to maintain funding for national champions and to avoid lending to companies based in other EU states. Such politicised lending would undermine the efficient allocation of capital throughout the EU by protecting inefficient companies and reducing available funds for more competitive firms. Once the financial sector has stabilised and normal levels of financial intermediation have been restored, the Commission will have to get serious about ensuring that the EU does not retreat into such ‘capital protectionism’.
Third, a further deepening of the single market can be ruled out. Crucially, faster action to liberalise and integrate service sectors across the EU now looks out of the question. It was hard enough to gain consensus in favour of radical moves to dismantle obstacles to the integration of service sectors before the crisis, but it will be impossible in the face of the backlash against liberalisation. This is bad news. Service sectors account for around two-thirds of economic activity across the EU. Service sector productivity has been extremely weak for a number of years now, holding back economic growth. More competition at both national and European level would do much to change this, and boost economic growth.
The lack of service sector integration will be particularly damaging for the eurozone. Countries that decide to forego exchange rate flexibility as a tool of economic adjustment need to ensure that their economies can be flexible in other ways. If countries such as Spain and Italy are to recover their competitiveness within the currency union, they will have to boost their productivity. This, in turn, requires more competition in service industries. The alternative route to greater competitiveness – wage cuts – would condemn their economies to stagnation. And such wage deflation might not be possible in any case, as Germany is heading for deflation. It will be extremely difficult to cut costs relative to Germany, if German costs are falling.
The legal underpinnings of the single market appear robust. But there are real reasons for concern. The steady progress in reducing state-aid has been halted and is likely to be put into reverse. The partial renationalisation of bank lending is inimical to the emergence of a single capital market. And progress towards deepening the single market in services has ground to a halt. All this bodes ill for Europe’s growth prospects and the stability of the eurozone. All EU governments profess to be committed to upholding the single market. The next couple of years will determine the strength of that commitment. If member-states do not respect the Commission’s right to enforce those rules, the single market could indeed come under threat.
Simon Tilford is chief economist at the Centre for European Reform.
Friday, March 13, 2009
The real G20 agenda
by Katinka Barysch
Finance ministers from the G20 countries are meeting in London this weekend to prepare for the global economic summit at the start of April. Expectations are high. But what will the summit be about? Judging by recent comments from European leaders, the agenda will include clamping down on tax havens, regulating hedge funds and cutting bankers’ bonuses. Most commentators agree that these questions are not the most pressing for restoring financial stability and economic growth. Martin Broughton, president of the UK employers’ federation CBI, rightly dismissed them as “red herring issues”.
World leaders must focus two things: how best to work together to prevent an even deeper global recession; and how to avoid future crises of such magnitude.
The first issue is as pressing as it is divisive. While the US administration is pushing for more fiscal spending, the Europeans are reluctant, and most emerging powers are keeping quiet. Many countries are loath to commit to more budget spending before they know whether and how their existing emergency packages are working. The second part of the agenda is longer term and fiendishly complicated. No-one should expect an unwieldy group of 25 or so (G20 has become a misnomer) heads of state to discuss the minutiae of capital adequacy ratios or cross-border supervision. The G20 is a process, not an event, and this summit is a political exercise, not a technical one.
What the April meeting is really about is maintaining faith in multilateral solutions at a time when the temptation for go-it-alone and beggar-thy-neighbour policies is growing. If leaning on Liechtenstein or forcing disclosure onto hedge funds helps this cause then so be it. But in terms of confidence building two issues appear paramount: the role of the International Monetary Fund and governments’ commitment to avoid protectionism.
Since September 2008, the IMF has lent over $50 billion to countries ranging from Pakistan to Ukraine. It urgently needs more cash. The US and EU governments are supporting a doubling of the Fund’s resources to $500 billion. They appear less willing, however, to redress their own over-representation in international financial institutions. This would be a precondition for emerging powers such as China to contribute significantly to an increase in IMF resources, and – perhaps more importantly – accept its legitimacy at the heart of the global financial system.
The IMF needs enhanced legitimacy to fulfil other functions that will be equally essential for future financial stability. First, the world needs better surveillance of national macro-economic and exchange rate policies to address the kind of global imbalances that have contributed to the current crisis. The IMF already has such mechanisms in place but they need to be strengthened. Second, the Fund needs to expand its new, $100 billion short-term, conditionality-light lending facility for emerging markets that are well run. It could also encourage such countries to pool their foreign exchange reserves to make them available for emergency lending.
Without easily available emergency finance, emerging markets will conclude that the best insurance against future pain is to accumulate more reserves. They will do this by keeping their currencies down and running big external surpluses. This kind of policy, as practiced by China, has already caused lots of friction. In an environment where global trade is shrinking, it would fuel a nasty protectionist backlash in the West. That is why the G20 summit needs to produce a firm commitment to increasing the IMF’s role and resources while setting in train a thorough reform of its governance structures.
There are already some signs that protectionism is rising. World Bank economists have counted 47 new trade restrictions since late 2008. More than a third have been put in place by the G20 countries that pledged to avoid such measures at their November 2008 summit. But the real risk is not a return to a 1930s-style tariff war but what Richard Baldwin and Simon Evenett (in a recent CEPR paper) call “murky protectionism”: industrial subsidies, requests that banks lend to only local companies, or the use of environmental arguments to discriminate against foreign goods and services. Examples abound, such as the ‘buy American’ provisions in the US stimulus programme or Nicolas Sarkozy’s idea that French car companies should make cars only in France. Encouragingly, in these instances international outrage ensued and the governments in question backtracked. The risks, however, remain high.
Therefore, G20 leaders need to broaden the ‘no protectionism’ pledge from last November to cover non-tariff measures. And they need to task international organisations such as the OECD and the WTO with alerting the world to national measures that could be harmful for that country’s trading partners.
Katinka Barysch is deputy director of the Centre for European Reform.
Finance ministers from the G20 countries are meeting in London this weekend to prepare for the global economic summit at the start of April. Expectations are high. But what will the summit be about? Judging by recent comments from European leaders, the agenda will include clamping down on tax havens, regulating hedge funds and cutting bankers’ bonuses. Most commentators agree that these questions are not the most pressing for restoring financial stability and economic growth. Martin Broughton, president of the UK employers’ federation CBI, rightly dismissed them as “red herring issues”.
World leaders must focus two things: how best to work together to prevent an even deeper global recession; and how to avoid future crises of such magnitude.
The first issue is as pressing as it is divisive. While the US administration is pushing for more fiscal spending, the Europeans are reluctant, and most emerging powers are keeping quiet. Many countries are loath to commit to more budget spending before they know whether and how their existing emergency packages are working. The second part of the agenda is longer term and fiendishly complicated. No-one should expect an unwieldy group of 25 or so (G20 has become a misnomer) heads of state to discuss the minutiae of capital adequacy ratios or cross-border supervision. The G20 is a process, not an event, and this summit is a political exercise, not a technical one.
What the April meeting is really about is maintaining faith in multilateral solutions at a time when the temptation for go-it-alone and beggar-thy-neighbour policies is growing. If leaning on Liechtenstein or forcing disclosure onto hedge funds helps this cause then so be it. But in terms of confidence building two issues appear paramount: the role of the International Monetary Fund and governments’ commitment to avoid protectionism.
Since September 2008, the IMF has lent over $50 billion to countries ranging from Pakistan to Ukraine. It urgently needs more cash. The US and EU governments are supporting a doubling of the Fund’s resources to $500 billion. They appear less willing, however, to redress their own over-representation in international financial institutions. This would be a precondition for emerging powers such as China to contribute significantly to an increase in IMF resources, and – perhaps more importantly – accept its legitimacy at the heart of the global financial system.
The IMF needs enhanced legitimacy to fulfil other functions that will be equally essential for future financial stability. First, the world needs better surveillance of national macro-economic and exchange rate policies to address the kind of global imbalances that have contributed to the current crisis. The IMF already has such mechanisms in place but they need to be strengthened. Second, the Fund needs to expand its new, $100 billion short-term, conditionality-light lending facility for emerging markets that are well run. It could also encourage such countries to pool their foreign exchange reserves to make them available for emergency lending.
Without easily available emergency finance, emerging markets will conclude that the best insurance against future pain is to accumulate more reserves. They will do this by keeping their currencies down and running big external surpluses. This kind of policy, as practiced by China, has already caused lots of friction. In an environment where global trade is shrinking, it would fuel a nasty protectionist backlash in the West. That is why the G20 summit needs to produce a firm commitment to increasing the IMF’s role and resources while setting in train a thorough reform of its governance structures.
There are already some signs that protectionism is rising. World Bank economists have counted 47 new trade restrictions since late 2008. More than a third have been put in place by the G20 countries that pledged to avoid such measures at their November 2008 summit. But the real risk is not a return to a 1930s-style tariff war but what Richard Baldwin and Simon Evenett (in a recent CEPR paper) call “murky protectionism”: industrial subsidies, requests that banks lend to only local companies, or the use of environmental arguments to discriminate against foreign goods and services. Examples abound, such as the ‘buy American’ provisions in the US stimulus programme or Nicolas Sarkozy’s idea that French car companies should make cars only in France. Encouragingly, in these instances international outrage ensued and the governments in question backtracked. The risks, however, remain high.
Therefore, G20 leaders need to broaden the ‘no protectionism’ pledge from last November to cover non-tariff measures. And they need to task international organisations such as the OECD and the WTO with alerting the world to national measures that could be harmful for that country’s trading partners.
Katinka Barysch is deputy director of the Centre for European Reform.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)