Evolution of the stability and growth pact
Transcript of Evolution of the stability and growth pact
Evolution of the Stability and Growth Pact
A Perspective on the Current Reform Agenda
Rodney ThomPaschal Donohoe
“Economic prosperity and the viability of the monetary union cannot be sustained without tackling past fiscal failures - a trend towards
increasing government expenditure and taxation levels combined with high structural budget
deficits and government debt accumulation.”
The European Commission (2001)
“I know very well that the Stability Pact is stupid, like all decisions
which are rigid.”Romano Prodi, EU Commission President (2002)
Agenda• Key Features of the SGP
• Operation of Pact
• Reform Agenda
• Perspectives on Reform
• Different Model
• Conclusion
SGP – Key Features
Pact
SGP I(1997 – 2005)
• Member States deliver budget deficits below 3%/GDP.• Debt/GDP ratios at most 60% or moving to this target.• Excessive Development Procedure (EDP) for Member States outside target levels.
SGP II(2005 – current)
• Exception to fiscal rules allowed based on economic circumstances.• Permits consideration of ‘relevant factors’ – pension, R&D spend + investment programmes.• Council given additional power to determine time frame for corrective action.
Pact breaks into two distinct periods.
SGP – Key Features
• Definition of excessive deficit• Preventive Arm – designed to stop excessive
deficits developing.• Corrective Arm – what Member States should
do.• Sanction Procedure – if corrective action is not
taken.
Operation of PactEvaluate Pact based on key reference points • Deficit Levels
• Debt Levels
• EDP
• Macroeconomic Stability
Deficit/GDP Levels – Euro Average
-6.00%
-5.00%
-4.00%
-3.00%
-2.00%
-1.00%
0.00%
1.00%
1998 '00 '02 '04 '06 '08
% Deficit/GDP
Euro average only breached target deficit levels twice since Pact foundation.
Source : Eurostat
Deficit/GDP Levels – Member States
‘00 ‘01 ’02 ‘03 ‘04 ‘05 ’06 ‘07 ’08
Euro-zone(#)
11 12 12 12 12 12 12 13 14
Breach(#)
0 3 3 4 6 4 3 1 5
Member States
PortugalItaly
Greece
FranceGreece
Germany
N’landsItaly
FranceGermany
PortugalAustria
ItalyFranceGreece
Germany
PortugalItaly
GreeceGermany
PortugalItaly
Greece
Greece MaltaFranceSpain
GreeceItaly
Consistent breaching of 3% reference level by mixture of Member States.
Debt/GDP Levels – Euro Average
58%
60%
62%64%
66%
68%
70%
72%74%
76%
78%
80%
1998 '00 '02 '04 '06 '08
% Debt /GDP Ratio
Source : Eurostat
Continual breaching of Debt/GDP Target across Eurozone.
Debt/GDP Levels – Member States
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
2000 - 08
%D
ebt/
GD
P Germany
Spain
France
Italy
Portugal
Key economies began to breach 60% reference from 03/04. Exception was Spain…..
Use of EDP
• Triggered 14 times between 2001 and 2008.• Did not lead to sanction implementation on a
single occasion.• First Country to be warned was Ireland.
– Target budget surplus of +4.3% in ’01.– Delievered surplus of +1.7%.– Commission warned that budget was pro cyclical
across period of rising inflation.– No action taken.
Use of EDP – France and Germany• Both France and Germany received Commission warnings between 2002
and 2003.
• In 2003 both Member States breached 3% deficit target.
– France – lower income tax receipts due to policy changes.
– Germany – floods in East Germany.
• By November ’03 neither country delivering ECOFIN recommendations.
• ECOFIN then decided (via QMV) to suspend EDP.
• This decision subsequently rejected by the ECJ.
Macroeconomic Stability- Ireland and Spain -
2007(Eurostat)
Ireland Spain
%Government Deficit +0.1% +1.9%
%Debt/GDP 25% 36%
EDP Use
Both economies delivering Pact commitments.
Both economies experienced massive and rapid fiscal deterioration.
Focused on health of ‘state’ – ignored private and foreign sectors.
Summary
Performance
Deficit Level Consistent Breaching
Debt LevelLarge Member States > 60% value
EDP Triggered 14 times No sanctions
Macroeconomic Stability
Did not recognise imbalances or risks.
Reform Agenda
• Sanctions for High Levels of Debt - > 60%– “For example, a country would be subject to an excessive
debt procedure even with a deficit below 3% if the debt is above 60% and the path of debt reduction is considered unsatisfactory” (Herman Van Rompuy).
• Extend sanction measures to Debt prevention.– Introduces concept of PFPM (Prudent Fiscal Policy
Making).– Public spending growth should not be faster than expected
GDP growth.
Reform Agenda
• Pursuing Member States that do not address persistently poor competitiveness or macroeconomic imbalances. Rigorous use of score carding systems.
• Changing sanction process. Default is to apply. Can only be overturned by Council via QMV. – ‘Semi-automaticity’.
Pact Evolution
SGP 1 : Corrective
SGP 2: Exceptions to Corrective Arm
SGP 3: Preventative Sanctions Extensions of Sanctions
Semi Automaticity
Perspectives on Reform
1. Centralisation of Decision Making
2. Credibility of Sanction Application
3. Role of Monetary Policy
4. Strengthening the Pro Cyclical Bias
5. Crisis Management and Resolution Framework
Centralisation of Decision Making
Increase in powers of EU Commission.
Spending and taxation remain national
decisions.
“ …the European Commission will be able to impose sanctions on national Governments and Parliaments and force them to lower spending and/or increase taxes, while this institution will not face the political sanction of its decisions..” Paul De Grauwer (2010).
Credibility of Sanction ApplicationWill the Commission
sanction Member States?
Yes No
Small Member States
Larger Member States
Only once for credibility damage
• No successful sanction application in history of Pact.
• Higher frequency of potential sanction due to increase in sanction ‘arsenal’.
• Credibility damage will be greater as ambition is stronger.
Role of Monetary PolicyGrowth in Euro Area Lending for House
Purchase (ECB)
-202468
101214
2000 - 2010
% C
han
ge
vs Y
A
Expansion of lending played a key role in driving asset price inflation.
Strengthening the Pro Cyclical Bias
• Proposals widen debt parameters that tigger sanction.– Pro cyclical bias in place under previous Pacts.– Bias stengthened due to 1) increase in sanction
triggers 2) ‘semi automaticity’– Official fine will be in addition to higher lending
rates on Government Bond Markets.
Crisis Management and Resolution Framework
• Current framework is based on prevention.• Use of sanctions will prevent default.
Crisis Management ≠ Crisis Resolution
• Sovereign defaults happen.• Will creation of resolution framework stimulate
defaults?• Not be better to manage this market ambiguity now
versus height of crisis?
A Different Model ?
• Establishment of national fiscal councils or laws underpinned by a Commission template.
• Acknowledgement that financial markets are a source of sanction through higer costs of lending.
• More focus on surveillance vs additional sanction mechanisms.
• Greater focus on surveillance allows lower grower debt levels to trigger flexibility in deficit levels.
Source of Sanctions• Exchange Rate Mechanism assumed the DM as
system anchor.• Expectation was that a currency would be devalued if
domestic policies were expansionary versus anchor.• Led to higher local interest rates.• Similar trend on sovereign debt markets.
– Sanctions already in existence – current not ‘threatened’ in future.
– Different role for institutions.
Reform Focus
Sanction
START CRISIS END
Reform Focus
START CRISIS END
MARKET
SURVEILLANCE RESOLUTION
Conclusions• Pact must work for future stability of euro.
• Current proposals mark significant development in policy through sanction strengthening.
• Surveillance capacity vital given role of macroeconomic imbalances in causing crisis.
• Could be integrated with more decentralisation and acknowledgement of current sanctions?