scholarly journals Neoliberalism, trade imbalances, and economic policy in the Eurozone crisis

Nova Economia ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 25 (spe) ◽  
pp. 749-775 ◽  
Author(s):  
Engelbert Stockhammer ◽  
Collin Constantine ◽  
Severin Reissl

Abstract: This paper analyzes the causes of the Eurozone crisis. In doing so,it carefully surveysauthors from different economic schools of thought. The paper discusses competing explanations for European current account imbalances. Remarkably, opposing views on the relative importance of cost developments and demand developments in explaining current account imbalances can be found in both heterodox and orthodox economics. Regarding the assessment of fiscal and monetary policy there is a clearer polarisation, with heterodox analysis regarding austerity as unhelpful and most of orthodox economics endorsing it. We advocate a post-Keynesian view,which holds that current account imbalances are not a fundamental cause of the sovereign debt crisis. Rather, the economic policy architecture of the Eurozone, which aims at restricting the role of fiscal and monetary policy, is the key to understanding the crisis in Europe.

2021 ◽  
Vol 54 (3) ◽  
pp. 347-373
Author(s):  
Taiki Murai ◽  
Gunther Schnabl

The paper analyses the role of fiscal and monetary policy for the development of the current account imbalances in the euro area, including the most recent developments during the coronavirus crisis. Several financial transmission channels such as international bank lending, changes in TARGET2 balances, international rescue credit and government bond purchases of euro area central banks are identified. It is found that differing fiscal policy stances which have interacted differently with the ECB’s monetary policy have been at roots of first diverging and then converging current account positions in the euro area. Since the European financial and debt crisis, public financing mechanisms and the unconventional monetary of the ECB have contributed to the persistence of intra-euro area current account imbalances.


Author(s):  
Sergio de Ferra

Abstract The experience of the European monetary union has been characterized by current account imbalances, widening gross external positions, and a severe sovereign debt crisis. I argue that institutional features of the European Economic and Monetary Union have contributed to all three. I show in a model that subsidies on holdings of assets issued within the union contribute to current account imbalances, to gross capital flows, and to the severity of the crisis. In a quantitative model with heterogeneous countries, I show that the subsidies account for a substantial fraction of the widening of gross external positions in the euro area by inducing countries with high income and external assets to engage in intermediation of gross capital flows.


2013 ◽  
Vol 2013 ◽  
pp. 1-17
Author(s):  
Séverine Menguy

With the current European sovereign public debt crisis and current account imbalances difficulties in the EMU, many papers now underline that the problem of the European construction is its lack of institutional framework and common economic governance necessary to make a monetary union viable. According to these papers, the solution would lie in a stronger economic cooperation, with the Northern European countries contributing to lighten the burden of the Southern debtor countries. In this context, our model shows that a symmetric positive demand shock in the EMU could only slightly reduce the external indebtedness of the Southern European countries but would efficiently reduce their public debt levels. To the contrary, an asymmetric positive demand shock in the creditor Northern European countries (e.g., an increase in German wages) could reduce the current account deficits of the Southern European countries, in particular for countries with the highest openness to trade. Nevertheless, it would worsen the indebtedness levels, and it would also increase the recessionary risks in these countries.


Policy Papers ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 (45) ◽  
Author(s):  

Global current account imbalances were broadly unchanged in 2016, with minor shifts adding to the reconfiguration under way since 2013. The fall in commodity prices, uneven cyclical recoveries in systemic economies, and differences in policy responses contributed to the rotation of imbalances. Current account surpluses of oil-exporting economies, as a group, shifted from large surpluses to small deficits, while deficits in emerging and developing economies narrowed markedly. At the same time, surpluses and deficits in key advanced economies widened. These trends were generally supported by real exchange rate movements. Overall excess current account imbalances (i.e., deficits or surpluses that deviate from desirable levels) represented about one-third of total global imbalances in 2016, remaining broadly unchanged since 2013, although increasingly concentrated in advanced economies. In particular, excess imbalances narrowed in emerging and developing economies, led by a smaller excess surplus in China and smaller excess deficits in others (Brazil, Indonesia, South Africa, Turkey). This narrowing, however, was accompanied by a widening of excess imbalances in some advanced economies. The persistence of large excess surpluses in several advanced economies (e.g. Germany, Korea, the Netherlands, Singapore, Sweden) remains a distinguishing feature of the constellation of imbalances, an issue that is explored in greater detail in this year’s report. Persistent global excess imbalances suggest that automatic adjustment mechanisms are weak. While the rotation of excess imbalances toward advanced economies—with deficits increasingly concentrated in the United States and United Kingdom—likely entails lower deficit-financing risks in the near term, the increased concentration of deficits in a few economies carries greater risks of disruptive trade policy actions. Diverging stock positions coupled with continued overreliance on demand from debtor countries could also pose risks to global growth and raise the likelihood of disruptive adjustments down the road. With nearly-closed output gaps in most systemic economies, addressing external imbalances in a growth-friendly fashion requires a recalibration of the policy mix in deficit and surplus economies alike. Excess deficit countries should move forward with fiscal consolidation, while gradually normalizing monetary policy in tandem with inflation developments. Excess surplus economies with fiscal space should reduce their reliance on easy monetary policy and allow for greater fiscal stimulus. Where monetary policy is constrained from playing a role, as in individual euro area members, fiscal and structural policies to facilitate relative price adjustments should take priority. Meanwhile, structural policies in excess surplus countries should focus on lifting distortions that constrain domestic demand or limit trade competition; while in excess deficit economies, policies should be directed to improving external competitiveness and overall saving. Protectionist and mercantilist policies should be avoided as they are detrimental to global growth.


2020 ◽  
pp. 150-171
Author(s):  
Raphael Reinke ◽  
Nils Redeker ◽  
Stefanie Walter ◽  
Ari Ray

Surplus countries usually do not attract attention in balance-of-payment crises. However, even though the immediate crisis repercussions mostly center on countries with large current account deficits, surplus countries form an integral part of current account imbalances. They contribute to the underlying problem and could be part of the solution. While in the Eurozone crisis this became especially apparent in negotiations about bailout packages and mutual adjustment measures, such conflicts between surplus countries and deficit states occupy hardly a unique situation. This chapter, therefore, examines the position of surplus countries during the Eurozone crisis in a broader, comparative perspective. Building on the concepts laid out in Chapter 2, it develops a quantitative measure of surplus country vulnerability profiles, which express the relative costs of external and internal adjustment. Specifically, vulnerability profiles of surplus countries in the Eurozone crisis are developed against the backdrop of 272 historical surplus episodes in 61 countries and are specifically compared with those outside the monetary union and with those in the EMS crisis. Similarly to their deficit counterparts, the surplus countries in the Eurozone were in the “misery corner,” where they faced high costs to both external and internal adjustment. The vulnerability profiles indicate why they acquiesced to bailout packages for deficit countries, but only after a difficult and lengthy political struggle.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document