Policy Coordination in the Euro Area

2009 ◽  
pp. 5-31
Author(s):  
Carlo Panico ◽  
Vŕzquez Suŕrez Marta

The paper deals with the problems of coordination between monetary and fiscal policies in the Euro area. It examines how the existing institutions handle these problems and how the literature evaluates their working, deriving from these evaluations a proposal to reorganise them. The paper points out that there is a need for coordination between monetary and fiscal policies when both cyclical (short-run) and structural (long-run) problems are dealt with. Then it assesses how coordination is carried out under the existing institutional arrangements and identifies which parts of them, according to the existing literature, are in need of modification. Finally, on the basis of the content of this literature, it formulates a proposal to reform the institutional arrangements and the economic content of the Stability and Growth Pact, which aims at making them work effectively.

2000 ◽  
Vol 174 ◽  
pp. 92-104 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco Buti ◽  
Bertrand Martinot

Now that the budget deficits in the Euro Area are approaching balance, the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) looks like a largely non-constraining institutional framework with little impact on national fiscal policies. This article challenges this view and argues that the implementation of the SGP ‘at cruising speed’ is faced with a number of outstanding issues: safeguarding the automatic stabilisers under the SGP; coping with the consequences of the asymmetric nature of the SGP for the co-ordination of macroeconomic policies; and ensuring the long-run sustainability of public finances. It concludes that enlarging the scope and enhancing the credibility of the stability and convergence programmes to become a true instrument of fiscal policy coordination in the Euro Area would be a first step in lifting the uncertainties surrounding the implementation of the SGP.


Significance This follows the submission by euro-area countries of their 2016 draft budgetary plans (DBPs), in compliance with the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP). The Commission will release its judgements by end-November. DBPs can be deemed 'compliant', 'broadly compliant' or 'at risk of non-compliance'. Impacts Under October 21 plans, the Commission will pursue more transparency for economic forecasts and surveillance decisions. The ongoing recovery and the Commission's flexible approach will support fiscal consolidation efforts. Submission of Portugal's DBP remains subject to the fate of newly reappointed centre-right Prime Minister Pedro Passos Coelho. The Spanish government will have to submit a revised budget following the Commission's early judgement in its case.


2004 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Carsten Hefeker ◽  
Friedrich Heinemann ◽  
Klaus F. Zimmermann

AbstractIn his contribution Carsten Hefeker points out that most of the official arguments concerning the necessity of the Stability and Growth Pact are not convincing. Nevertheless, a mechanism that credibly avoids excessive debts and deficits is needed in most member states. It would be more useful, however, if such rules would focus on overall debt rather than on deficits. In addition, he advocates to create an external control for such fiscal rules, independent from the Commission and ECOFIN. He concludes that the Pact does not need to become more flexible, but more credible.Friedrich Heinemann states that much of the recent reform debate on the Stability Pact is based on a fundamental misconception: The Pact has not been established as a guiding tool for welfare - maximising politicians, but in order to limit detrimental incentives from fiscal short-sightedness. “Stupid” elements like the three-per-cent deficit ceiling have a clear and beneficial strategic function as boundary within the national budgetary process. Furthermore, simple rules are superior to smart ones in increasing the political costs of high deficits in terms of public awareness. The critique on the pact′s missing flexibility is correct mainly regarding its lose logical link to long-run sustainability. Increasing flexibility in a cyclical sense, however, is not a reform priority. Already today the Pact leaves sufficient leeway for responsible politicians. Instead, the reform focus must be on depoliticising the pact in the sense of limiting Council power in the deficit procedure. More flexibility must not come without depoliticising. He recommends that any reform should only be carried into effect with a significant time lag in order to limit the reputation damage which would be the consequence of any quick institutional response to the Pact′s recent crisis.In his paper Klaus F. Zimmermann argues that the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) has been subject to criticism ever since its inception. He points out that it overlooks business cycle developments within the framework of the consolidation process; it adopts a too short-term view of the stabilisation target which is also hardly under control of policy-makers; and it deals with policy imperfections in a sub-optimal way. Therefore, a reform of the SGP is urgent. The author suggests that the rules must be handled more flexibly. In his opinion, a mediumterm budgetary target and a focus on public expenditures to tackle the pro-cyclical bias is needed. To restore credibility, the task of supervision should be transferred to an independent European institution.


2001 ◽  
Vol 31 (125) ◽  
pp. 637-648
Author(s):  
Hansjörg Herr

The terrorattack hit the western world in a situation of a sharp cyclical downturn in the USA, Europe and Japan. Mainly because of increased uncertainty the downturn will be intensified by the attack. Immediately after the attack US monetary and fiscal policy became even more expansive. In Europe monetary policy reacted very reluctantly. Active fiscal policy in the Euro-area is nearly not existing as the Stability and Growth Pact as well as neo-liberal ideology prevents fiscal measures. The inactive economic policy in the Euro-area is not only dangerous for Europe but also a depressing factor for the world economy.


Author(s):  
Charlotte Rommerskirchen

This chapter sets the scene for this study by providing historical context and introducing the key aspects, processes, and players of fiscal policy coordination. In so doing it charts key developments of pre-crisis fiscal policy coordination, before turning to the creation of the European crisis agreement, the European Economic Recovery Plan (EERP), and finally the reform packages post-crisis. Despite impressions to the contrary, the procedures for fiscal policy coordination are extensive, albeit enforced and reinforced with little political and legal power. Although there is persistent continuity for some ideas and procedures—the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) and its fear of stability free riding chief among them—new innovations and reforms have made inroads.


2019 ◽  
Vol 239 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 861-894
Author(s):  
Christophe Kamps ◽  
Nadine Leiner-Killinger

Abstract This paper reviews how the European Union’s fiscal rules have developed from the Maastricht Treaty that established the single monetary policy up until today. It shows that the design of these rules did not always follow economic logic but often resulted from political constraints, giving rise to some flaws in the framework from its very beginning. At the same time, the repeated attempts to adjust the fiscal framework to a multitude of circumstances over the past 25 years have made it overly complex and incoherent. Based on a finding that euro area countries’ compliance with the EU fiscal rules has been unsatisfactory, the paper concludes that in its current shape the Stability and Growth Pact is an insufficient disciplining device in good economic times, with the consequence that there are no fiscal buffers, in particular in high-debt countries, such that growth can be supported in economic troughs. Based on this finding, the paper reviews reform options for making the fiscal framework more effective in bringing about sounder public finances and avoiding the pro-cyclicality observed over the past two decades.


2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 540-554 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ramona Coman

This article examines the debates surrounding the Regulation 1303/2013 on structural funds, arguing that the rules adopted in the midst of the eurozone crisis to strengthen the governance of the euro area had spill-over effects on cohesion policy. It shows how, in the fast-burning phase of the crisis (2010–2013), some actors pushed forward the idea of suspending structural funds in case of non-compliance with the rules of the Stability and Growth Pact, making funding conditional on Member States’ compliance with the rules of the new economic governance, and how, after the entry into force of this Regulation, in the slow-burning phase of the crisis (from 2013 onwards), a greater number of actors has been calling for a more flexible interpretation of the rules. To explain the disruption between t1 and t2, the article examines the change in the power relations between and within institutions and the change in ideas.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document