Pitfalls of Austerity Part I: A Misdiagnosed Crisis

Yesterday the European Commission gave its annual recommendations for the member states’ economic policies. Barroso said, that “Europe must move beyond the crisis.” Policy proposals focus on growth, rather than austerity, allowing several member states to take more time to cut their deficits. The EU’s executive celebrated the reduction of countries suffering from severe deficits from 24 to 16 since 2011, calling on Germany to consider wage increases to boost domestic demand. Wow, it seems like the crisis is about to pass! Of course, at the same time the OECD reduced the eurozone’s growth forecase to -0.6% this year, down from -0.1% six months earlier.

Barroso seems lost

The Commission is panicking, and it has got every reason to. The EU’s strategy to combat the crisis is failing, and calling the Commission’s proposals “a shift from austerity,” as EurActiv does, seems almost cynical. Giving the member states a few extra years to cut their deficits cannot seriously be called a policy shift, particularly as the proposal is met with resistance from the EU’s largest member state. Austerity should not be weakened a bit, as this would mean a mere extension of the policy – it has to be abandoned altogether. It is 2013, and austerity has been in place for four years without success. It seems necessary to spell out once more why austerity is a misguided, dangerous and hopeless policy that will lead Europe into an abyss that it might not recover from.

This post is the first of a series of blog posts discussing the fallacies of austerity. It draws heavily on an article by Robert Boyer on the subject. One of the major reasons for why austerity cannot work is because it is based on a false diagnosis of the roots of the crisis – Europe’s policy-makers are administering antibiotics against a virus. The underlying assumption behind austerity is that the crisis is caused by irresponsible public spending, when it has really the result of a private credit boom in the US.

The deregulation of the banking sector in the 1980s allowed for toxic subprime loans to be securitized by mixing them with high quality loans. It was thought that this would spread out the fallout risk of these loans to a minimum, allowing for a surge of private lending to the poorest fraction of Americans. Banks felt relieved of the responsibility related to the need for the careful selection of their debtors, and the real estate bubble was allowed to grow. The untaxed free global trade with financial products enabled these loans to be spread out to Europe in particular, and when the bubble burst, several EU member states became afflicted with excessive debt burdens as a result of having to bail out their ruined banks. The crisis is not the result of irresponsible public spending, but of a deregulated financial market. Spain even ran a budget surplus before the shock of 2008 as a result of its own booming real estate market.

Underlying Causes of Financial Deregulation

Growing inequality in the US in the late 20th century

The story of the crisis begins after WWII. Keynesian policies were adopted, allowing for a steady and sustainable growth pattern in the capitalist world over the post-War decades. Productivity and the mean incomes per household were rising. In the US of the late 1970s, the increase in productivity began to slow down, causing the wages for low-skilled labour to stagnate. Wages for in the services sector and in the high-tech industries on the other hand continued to increase, initiating the growth of the income gap. Initially governments were able to compensate for this trend by the establishment of extensive welfare systems, which were based on the solidarity of those with high salaries. In the 1980s, this assumed solidarity was quickly met with resistance, and governments began to finance their welfare system with cheap credit from their central banks. This caused public debt to grow radically. Public debt may thus be seen as the attempt to states to balance out the rising inequality in their societies.

The increasing importance of the financial sectors was due to the rising dependence of governments on debt, as well as to the use of the financial industries to compensate for the slowing growth figures of the manufacturing sector. Economic growth and high public spending could only be sustained by innovation in the financial sector – the deregulation of the financial ‘industry’ was seen as the most effective method to ensure its continuing growth. It is that deregulation that ultimately allowed for the emergence of the financial crisis of 2008 which triggered the implementation of austerity policies.

Structural Problems within the Eurozone

Polarization of trade surpluses/deficits in Europe

The finance-based growth of the post-1970s was exacerbated in Europe by the introduction of the euro. The introduction of a common currency under strict anti-inflationary regulations disallowed the member states from devaluing their currencies. When the euro was designed, policy-makers did not think of a compensating mechanism for this problem, and it was assumed that the price transparency linked to the common currency would drive the participating economies to convergence. Reality was quite different. Even before the introduction of the euro banknotes in 2002, the eurozone had begun to divide. Still faced with the effort to compensate for the rising inequality within their societies, the member states adopted different strategies to finance their welfare systems without increasing exports by devaluing their currencies. Germany adopted a deflationary low-wage policy, which has the same effect as a currency devaluation. This drove up Germany’s exports. Having no strong manufacturing sectors of their own, other member states focused on an imaginary credit-led growth, leading to the vast growth of their financial industries. When the real-estate bubble burst in 2008, these countries were particularly vulnerable.

Austerity is Fighting the Wrong Malady

The myth of irresponsible public spending is extremely superficial, and falls apart upon a minimum of close examination. As long as the European Commission does not fundamentally change its discourse and its policy recommendations on the crisis, Europe cannot recover. The re-regulation of the financial markets, and the establishment of a permanent European solidarity mechanism is of paramount importance to economic recovery and to the success of European integration. Austerity is not only destroying the economy, but it is translating the economic divisions of Europe into the hearts and minds of Europe’s citizens.

Harald Köpping

Also read: Boyer, R. (2012). The four fallacies of contemporary austerity policies: the lost Keynesian legacy. Cambridge Journal of Economics. 36. 283-312.

EUtopia Lost? Thoughts on Austerity

I am truly worried about Europe. I am currently marking essays on the effects of austerity on the eurozone. Perhaps two out of 250 students wrote that deeper integration of the EU would be a way out of the crisis. As a Europeanist, I had always placed my hopes in my generation: a generation of travellers and exchange students, a generation that loves to learn new languages, a generation that experiences the achievements of European integration every day when they use the euro. I read today that particularly the youth of the European south is losing confidence in the European institutions. In France the majority believes that European integration has harmed the French economy. Austerity is devouring the backbone of this Union.

Europe's youth is becoming disillusioned

One would think that the idea of austerity as a means to resolve economic crises had been abandoned ages ago. John Maynard Keynes understood in the 1930s that times of crisis require programmes to boost the economy, and that do not suffocate it. Nevertheless, Europe has chosen the path of austerity. When Germany’s unemployment surpassed reached nearly 5 million in 2005 (11,4%), the Schröder-government introduced austerity measures to fight unemployment. Unemployment benefits were controversially cut quite radically, and the German welfare system received a serious blow. Nevertheless, the policy was afterwards justified by its success. Germany today has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the EU, and it is among the few countries that have survived the crisis relatively unscathed. Following the German example of the 2000s, countries lacking an industrial base embraced austerity, thereby fulfilled conditions that allowed them to receive bail-outs from the IMF and the eurozone. Germany is competing with China over the title of being the world’s largest exporter. Its entire economy is built around exports. A policy that keeps wages low has the same effect as the devaluation of one’s currency. However, such policies only make sense if the economy is based on exports. The economies of the European south are based on domestic consumptions – austerity is bound to fail. The current German dominance in Europe is encouraging the application of a model that is not applicable to economies like those of Spain or Greece.

At the same time, unemployment skyrockets. Europe is largely a post-industrial region with the lowest fertility rate in the word. Never has there been a generation that is proportionally as tiny as mine. While 35% of the population were below 20 in 1950, today merely 20% are below 20. I am part of a small generation, but youth unemployment is higher than ever. Austerity has caused youth unemployment in Spain to skyrocket from 17% in 2007 to over 50% in 2013. Greece, Portugal, Italy and Ireland have experienced similar developments. The blame for this is inevitably and rightly directed at European leaders. Instead of regulating a banking industry that has caused the crisis in the first place, it was decided in the European Council to implement austerity measures that have crippled half the continent. The European Council is an intergovernmental institution that it dominated by the strongest member states, and most Europeans have no say about who leads those member states. There is a time for any emotion, and if you understand what is going on here, you have every right to feel frustration, helplessness, and also anger, against the incompetence, coldness and supposed hyper-rationality of the politicians of our time.

Youth unemployment in the EU

In the the Bible says that a people without vision are doomed. I had always thought that the unification of Europe could provide this vision - I see it not only as a vision for Europeans, but for all of humanity, because it proves that people can work together, and that national divisions are insignificant. This EU has no chance to survive unless its institutions are fundamentally reformed, allowing for a European government that is democratically elected by all Europeans. Austerity is not the choice of Europeans – democracy in the EU is also in crisis. Austerity turning the tides against European integration, and if you believe that the crisis is over, think again.

Harald Köpping

Cyprus: Let the Banks Go Bankrupt!

It seems like the euro crisis is entering yet another phase. Negotiations on the bail-out of the Cypriot banking sector seemed to initially go so smoothly. Cyprus appeared to be just another country making use of the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), and while Greece was humiliated, no one saw Cyprus’ application for the European bail-out fund to be particularly shameful. Operation Cyprus was part of a routine that had entered the Council after years of bargaining. Perhaps that was where the problem can be found. Europe’s policy-makers underestimated the Cypriot problem. The Greek state has survived, the euro is still alive; Portugal, Ireland, Spain, Italy – austerity has been harsh, unemployment has skyrocketed, and poverty is on the rise, yet life somehow goes on. Taking out 6.5% of people’s savings from their bank accounts? Well, the Greeks have been treated like crap as well, and parliament still waved things through, right? I suppose technocracy has reached its limits in Cyprus. Alex pointed out the irony of it all in her last post though. People in Cyprus were enraged by the idea of anyone taking out money from anybody’s bank account, whether they were affected or not. When the government suggested not to touch anyone’s savings if they are below €100,000, people still got angry. Sheep protecting wolves, and deer protecting hunters. I supported the expropriation of savings above a certain threshold, because I believe that the alternative, to introduce Greek-style austerity measures, is even worse. However, to understand what is really going on here, one has to understand whose interests are really being protected.

Germany and the EU: really the right target?

I am certainly not a liberal, yet I believe that in this case, a liberal response of non-intervention is the right way to proceed. Europe ought to rid itself of the plague of investment gambling. I regard the purpose of a bank to be to supply people with loans if they want to build a house or start a business. I took a loan to finance my studies in the UK and in the Netherlands. Banks also serve the purpose of keeping my money safe for us. Rather than storing stacks of money under the bed, I bring my money to a bank, expecting them to store it for me. When I do that I do not expect to take a risk, on the contrary! I believe that whatever else banks do is their problem. No one should have to pay for their greed for profit. The Cypriot banking sector was way out of proportion, and parallels to the Icelandic banking crisis in 2008 are numerous. An economy based on the totally non-productive financial ‘industry’, can, in the long run, not succeed (this also applies to Luxembourg, which seems to follow a similar business model; money laundry is by no means a particularly Cypriot problem). If the Cypriot banks face bankruptcy, then to hell with it, let them sink. Rather than using our money to finance immoral business activities in the banking sector, use the funds of the ESM to guarantee people’s savings for up to €100,000. There is no need for private banks. So many people who studied with me now work for the banking sector, which produces absolutely nothing, and which grows on the soil of greed and selfishness. People should spend their creativity and their energy on doing something useful. The Cypriot government should select the bank with the most solid business model, and nationalise it. There is no need for more than one bank in a country with 750,000 inhabitants, and that bank’s total assets do not have to amount to €40bn (more than twice the total GDP!). Let the banks go bankrupt! Rich people would lose their savings (which were useless to the economy anyway, if they were lying dormant on a bank account), shareholders would lose their shares. People need to realise that few people will be affected by this, and that our economy, not just in Cyprus, but in all of Europe, requires an ablution of the financial industry.

The affairs of the Cypriot state must obviously be allowed to continue, and funds from ESM can be made available for that. The main reason Cyprus got into trouble is the entanglement of the Cypriot banking sector with the sovereign debt crisis in Greece, which was of course itself partially caused by the financial crisis in 2008. Nevertheless, while the Cypriot state may of course be criticised, I think that many of these criticisms apply to the dominant members of the eurozone as well. Reforms are necessary all over Europe especially in Luxembourg, not just in Cyprus.

I don’t think that this is what’s going to happen of course. The new phase of the euro crisis is that the bankruptcy a member has very much become an option, and I would not be surprised if that’s what we’re going to see in the next couple of days. Just remember that there would have been an alternative. Supporting further bank-bailouts turns us into sheep protecting wolves.

Harald Köpping