iosif_329
Transcript of iosif_329
-
8/3/2019 iosif_329
1/15
EC 329 Iosif Iosif
- 1 -
Question 2: Has the Euro been an economic success story so far? Or
would its member states have been better off economically by not joining?
Discuss.
Historical Background:
The adoption of the Euro and the establishment of the European Monetary
Union are two of the latest steps in the effort to unify the European continent; an
effort that started with the founding of the European Coal and Steel Community
in 1952 (Europa online source).
As we read from Baldwin and Wyplosz (2006) the road to the adoption of
Euro was a long one starting early in the 70s. The most important step was
taken in 1991 with the signing of the Maastricht Treaty. The participating
members agreed upon the adoption of a common currency on the 1st of January
1999. In 1999 the euro was introduced for the first time in a virtual form for
cashless transactions and accounting purposes (Europa, Online source). The
first banknotes and coins were introduced in 2002. At this point of time Euro-zone
has 16 members: Belgium, Spain, Ireland, Germany, France, Italy, Luxembourg,
Netherlands, Portugal, Austria, Finland (1999), Greece (2001), Slovenia (2007),
Cyprus, Malta (2008), Slovakia(2009). (Europa, Online source)
It will be useful, in our evaluation of the Euro, to mention some concerns
raised mainly by Germany before the signing of the Treaty. While some countries
for decades had shown Monetary discipline 1 achieving a low and stable
inflation rate, other countries had failed to do so. This could create problems to
the European Central Bank since in a common currency environment, trying to
1Baldwin and Wyplosz, 2006
-
8/3/2019 iosif_329
2/15
EC 329 Iosif Iosif
- 2 -
fight inflation in some countries could create adverse effects to countries like
Germany who at that point had a healthy economy.
For this reason the adoption of euro is not an automated process, but the
countries who wish to join the Euro-zone need to fulfill some criteria. Briefly these
criteria are: Inflation rate should not exceed the average of the three lowest in the
Euro-zone by more than 1.5%, interest rates should not exceed the average of
the three rates of the countries with the lowest inflation rates, be a member of the
Exchange Rate Mechanism for at least two years i.e. Do not devaluate its
currency with respect to future partner currencies. Also budget deficits and
Public Debt should not exceed the 3% and 60% of the GDP respectively.
(Baldwin and Wyplosz, 2006)
Why was the Euro created?
Apart from tightening the binds between member states, joining the Euro-
zone of course offers many other benefits, at least theoretically, otherwise
countries would not had been willing to take such a large and risky step.
One of the most important benefits is the significant reduction in
transaction costs. Before the introduction of the euro, firms and individuals were
spending significant amounts when converting their money from one currency to
another, for traveling or for doing business. Now with the use of only one
currency, firms and individuals doing business within the Euro-zone borders do
not bare this cost. (Baldwin and Wyplosz, 2006). This is also very beneficial for
tourism.
-
8/3/2019 iosif_329
3/15
EC 329 Iosif Iosif
- 3 -
Another significant advantage of the common currency is the elimination
of exchange rate risk, which undermines the trade between different countries.
Without this risk present, trade should improve greatly boosting economic growth.
Another important aspect is the transparency of prices. Euro-zone
citizens/firms can now clearly see which products are cheaper and better for
them. Firms can now import raw materials from countries within the Euro-zone,
according to a value-quality criterion, easier than before. This transparency gives
rise to a cross border competition with the benefits of lower prices, better quality
and an increase in production efficiency inside the borders of Euro-zone. Baldwin
and Wyplosz, 2006
The required discipline, in exercising monetary policy in order to be
granted entry into Eurozone and the commitment of the European Central Bank
to keep inflation close to 2% are expected to keep inflation rates low and stable.
In this environment expectations about inflation and interest rates are also
expected to be at low levels. Baldwin and Wyplosz, 2006
The introduction of Euro could lead to a more efficient financial market.
Firms and individuals can invest through out the euro area in order to get the
best returns on their investment; they have more options to diversify their
portfolios and they can also borrow where the cost is the lowest.
The tougher competition between banks (more banks compete now) can lead to
a reduction in transaction costs which encourages more investment by firms and
individuals and thus higher economic growth and employment2.
2European Commission: Why the Euro? , Single Financial Market. Access online at:
http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/the_euro/why_euro9329_en.htm
-
8/3/2019 iosif_329
4/15
EC 329 Iosif Iosif
- 4 -
Criticism
The main concern of eurosceptics is how the ECB will react in the case of
an asymmetric adverse shock, i.e. an adverse shock that does not influences all
member states in the same way. In this case trying to fight the effects of the
shock in one country can lead to adverse effects in other countries that did not
have problems prior to the ECBs decisions, or it can make existing problems
more persistent. (Baldwin and Wyplosz, 2006)
Some economists suggest that, by giving up their own currencies and so
the right to independently exercise monetary policy, countries will not be able to
fight effectively adverse shocks and the effects will last longer. For example in a
recession where investment and consumption are falling a Central Bank might
want to devaluate its currency. This way, domestic products become more
competitive and exports will increase acting as a cushion to the reduction of
consumption and investment. Horvath and Komarek (2002).
Finally there is a concern whether or not different member states will
agree on the way monetary policy should be implemented in order to achieve the
common target of an inflation rate close to 2%. Frequent disagreements will
result in a dysfunctional ECB, in an environment where Central Banks need to be
flexible and quick in their decisions.
An area is able to enjoy the benefits of a common currency and avoid the
costs of adverse shocks only if it is an optimum currency area. The criteria for an
OCA are mentioned briefly below: From Bergman:
-
8/3/2019 iosif_329
5/15
EC 329 Iosif Iosif
- 5 -
Mundell criterion: In an OCA there must be perfect capital and
labor mobility.
Kenen criterion: Production and export diversification.
McKinnon criterion: When countries are very open to trade and
trade heavily with each other they form an OCA.
Fiscal Transfer Criterion: Countries agree on financially helping
each other in the face of an adverse shock
Homogeneity of preferences criterion: Currency Union members
must share a wide consensus on the way to deal with shocks.
Solidarity Criterion: National interests and benefits must be
sacrificed in the name of common destiny.
Evidence:
The costs and benefits mentioned before are of theoretical background. In
this section we analyze the evidence available to decide whether or not Euro has
been a success so far.
Budget balance/National Debt:
In order for countries to be allowed to join the EMU, their budget deficit
must not exceed the 3% of the GDP and the National Debt must not exceed 60%
of the GDP. How well have the Euro-zone members have performed?
Table 1
-
8/3/2019 iosif_329
6/15
-
8/3/2019 iosif_329
7/15
EC 329 Iosif Iosif
- 7 -
60% target while the rest of them are only slightly higher. The only outliers are
Greece and Italy that for many years register a debt close to 100% of the GDP
pulling the average higher. The UK is doing much better than the EU-15 and EU-
27 average with a national debt at 44.2% of the GDP.
As Patterson (2006) reports what really matters in this case is the
sustainability of the government financial position. The main indicators for this
are the yield spreads on different long-term government bonds, which indeed
apart from a small period in 2005 (Greece, Italy, Portugal) were narrow. He also
points out that 91.6% of the government debt is long-term indicating that
governments are not borrowing because they are in a difficult financial position.
Inflation Rate:
The main monetary target that the ECB pursues is an inflation rate close
to 2%. Maintaining an inflation rate low and stable would also keep expectations
about inflation at low levels. This would create an environment with less
uncertainty giving an incentive for more investment and thus growth. The
Governor of the Bank of France in his speech in 2006, reports that the inflation
target was met successfully; inflation is below but close to 2% over the medium
run.
Diagram 1:
-
8/3/2019 iosif_329
8/15
EC 329 Iosif Iosif
- 8 -
From Diagram1 we can see that the inflation rate in the period starting in the first
Quarter of 2002 until the third Quarter of 2007 fluctuates very close to 2%. We
neglect the period after 2007 since it consists a special case and we will discuss
it later on.
One of the main concerns of eurosceptics is how the ECB can achieve its
monetary target since the nominal interest rates it sets, translate into different
real interest rates in every member state due to inflation differentials. Euro
supporters answer that in time, the unified market and the intense competition
will lead to a convergence of the inflation rate across all member states and the
problem will seize to exist. Diagram2 provides some evidence that these claims
can be correct. In the period prior and until 1998 inflation rates across the euro
area seem to converge, but after 1998 there is a great difference between them.
They start coming together again in 2002. Patterson (2006). Overall we can say
that euro is exhibiting success in this aspect aswell.
One of the greatest examples in this case is Italy. Italys effort to meet the
requirement of low inflation (and also the credibility associated with the euro-
zone membership ) lead to a significant reduction in the Italian interest rate, thus
-
8/3/2019 iosif_329
9/15
EC 329 Iosif Iosif
- 9 -
making it easier for the government to repay its high debt. (Baldwin and Wyplosz,
2006)
Diagram 2: Inflation rates in the Euro area 1996-2005
Source: Patterson (2006)
Unemployment:
The euro area is accused by a lot of economists, especially in the UK that
it is performing very poorly in fighting unemployment. The average
unemployment rate fluctuates close to 8% percent and in the period starting from
2002 until 2005 it reached 9% (Eurostat, online source) in contrast to the USA
and UK unemployment rate which moved below 5% in the period before the
recent crisis. (Trading Economics, Global Economic research, online source)
Diagram 3
-
8/3/2019 iosif_329
10/15
EC 329 Iosif Iosif
- 10 -
Source: Eurostat
In my opinion this high unemployment cannot be attributed solely to the
ECBs choice of actions aiming at maintaining price stability. A lot of countries
achieve unemployment rates much lower than the high EU-15 average. So we
can say that this high average can be due to country specifics and governments
choices as well. Also as Patterson (2006) reports, since this unemployment rate
is observed in a period of price stability someone can argue that it is the Natural
Rate of Unemployment of the Euro area.
GDP Growth Rate:
The Currency Union exhibits very low growth rates compared to its
competitors the UK, Japan and the USA. As Diagram3 shows the GDP growth
rate for the Currency Union exceeded 4% only for a short period in 2004 and
most of the time was significantly below 3%. Again according to Patterson (2006)
-
8/3/2019 iosif_329
11/15
EC 329 Iosif Iosif
- 11 -
this can be attributed to country specifics and not necessarily to ECB policy since
some member states (e.g. Greece, Ireland) exhibited high growth rates in
contrast with the average. He also suggests that the difference in growth rates
between USA and the EU can be due to the higher population growth in the
former since the GDP Growth per head is almost the same.
Diagram 3:
Did the changeover cause prices to rise?
Ranyard (2007) reports that 82% of the Euro-barometer respondents
believe that most business took advantage of the euro changeover to hide
increases in the prices of many goods. Surveys conducted following these claims
showed that the prices rose for some goods but ongrand scale inflation did not
rise since competition lead to a decrease in other goods. Therefore any claims
that the transition to euro alone can cause an increase in inflation are false.
The Euro and other Currencies:
The general public impression is that Euro is a strong currency and it has
done very well compared to its competitors. This has not always been the case
-
8/3/2019 iosif_329
12/15
EC 329 Iosif Iosif
- 12 -
but even so appreciation of one currency against others is not necessarily a good
thing.
When the Euro was first introduced in 1999 its value against the Dollar fell.
At that point in time oil prices were rising sharply and as a result inflation aswell.
This depreciation of the euro made the economic situation worse for the member
states since oil prices became even more expensive. In 2000 euro started rising
against major currencies but in a period of economic slowdown thus making
euro area countries less competitive (more expensive products). This story
repeats itself in the current period. Euro has appreciated especially against
sterling again making EU-16 products less competitive during a recession.
Baldwin and Wyplosz (2006)
Current Financial Crisis:
According to BBC (2008) Eurozone has officially entered in recession after
two consecutive quarters of negative growth. The main reason for that is
Germanys passing into recession which drove the whole eurozone with it since
Germany is the strongest economy in the Union. Most of the countries in the
EMU also saw their growth rates falling. The forecasts for 2009 even though are
not clear yet show that the recession is going to continue. Entering in recession
does not prove that countries would be better off by not joining since US, Japan
and the UK also experienced a significant reduction in growth rates and a rise in
unemployment. It proves that Eurozone membership does not necessarily shield
from adverse shocks. The positive insight is that none of the country members
-
8/3/2019 iosif_329
13/15
EC 329 Iosif Iosif
- 13 -
went bankrupt, while countries outside the Union have, with Iceland being the
best example.
Conclusion
The economic conditions following the introduction of Euro were very hard
for the new currency. But under these difficult conditions the Euro not only
managed to survive, contradicting all those who believed that the idea of a
common currency was very risky, but it also performed very well. The main
target of stable and low inflation was achieved and the interest rates were kept at
a suitably low level to encourage investment. Also Budget deficits were kept at
levels below the 3% of the GDP target. The national debt of most countries is
kept below the 60% of GDP with only Greece and Italy driving the EU-15 average
above its target.
The high EU-15 unemployment levels and the low growth rates as we
have seen can be attributed to countrys specifics and not to the Union, since
many of the member states achieved low unemployment rates and high growth
rates in contrast to the average. The only real disadvantage of the eurozone in
my opinion is the movements of the exchange rate during a crisis. We have seen
the exchange rate moving in directions that are likely to prolong recessions or
exercise inflationary pressures.
Someone cannot answer with certainty the question if countries would be
better off by not joining the eurozone. Eurozone has offered many advantages to
its member states but also some disadvantages. Up to this point there is no
evidence that entering the Union has made any country worse off. On the
-
8/3/2019 iosif_329
14/15
EC 329 Iosif Iosif
- 14 -
contrary there are examples of countries e.g. Italy, that were significantly
benefited from joining. We can neither suggest that not joining is a wrong
decision. The UK economy for example has performed as well as the EU-15 and
sometimes even better. We should not forget that euro is a young currency and
perhaps the data we have up to this date is not enough to evaluate it correctly. In
the next decade we will have a better picture about the euro and perhaps we will
be able to answer with certainty to this important question.
References/Bibliography:
1. Arthur I. Cyr (2003), The Euro: Faith, hope and Parity, International Affairs
Vol. 79, p 979-992
2. Baldwin R. and Wyplosz C. (2006), The Economics of European
Integration, McGrawhill, 2nd Edition
3. BBC News (2008), Eurozone officially in Recession.
4. Bergman M. The Optimum Currency Area Criteria, University of
Copenhagen
5. Europa, Eurostat, Access online at:
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page?_pageid=1090,30070682,10
90_33076576&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
6. Europa, the History of the European Union. Access online at:
http://europa.eu/abc/history/index_en.htm
7. European Central Bank (2008), Eurosystem, Monthly Bulletin
8. European Commission: Economic and Financial Affairs The Euro.Access Online at:http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/the_euro/index_en.htm?cs_mid=2946
-
8/3/2019 iosif_329
15/15
EC 329 Iosif Iosif
- 15 -
9. European Commission: Why the Euro? , Single Financial Market. Accessonline at:http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/the_euro/why_euro9329_en.htm
10. Horvath R. and Komarek L. (2002), Optimum Currency Area Theory: An
approach for thinking about monetary integration, Warwick Economic
Research Papers
11. Noyer C. (2006), Is the Euro a success story? Governor of the Bank of
France, at the Paris Europlace International Forum, Tokyo
12. Patterson B. (2006), The Euro: Success or failure?European Movement
13. Ranyard R. (2007), Euro Stories: The Irish Experience of Currency
Change, Springer Science + Business Media, p 313-322
14. Trading Economics, Global Economic Research. Access Online at:
http://www.tradingeconomics.com