After appearing to drag its feet on the issuance of joint
bonds, the German government last week endorsed a French proposal to set up a
fund capable of delivering €500bn of grants to EU member states suffering from
the economic impact of Covid-19. This week the European Commission went further
by setting out a plan to borrow €750bn by directly issuing bonds and distributing
the proceeds to member states. After a decade of wrangling, this is a very
important step and is vital if the EU is to hold together as a cohesive body.
At last, the Commission has decided to lend its weight to a plan to issue
pan-European fiscal instruments and will thus back up the ECB which has done
all the heavy lifting on policy up to now. There are many who see this as a
game changing event. And if implemented, it will be. But there are a number of
hurdles to be crossed before the plan can be realised.
What does the plan
entail?
Ursula von der Leyen, the Commission President, outlined a
programme dubbed Next Generation EU.
This is very apt because if it can be made to stick the EU could be about to
take the first steps on the way to a fiscal union. Who knows, but this plan may
be to the formation of a common fiscal policy what the snake in the tunnel was to the single currency. If nothing else it would break the taboo on fiscal
cooperation which has long been one of the structural issues which has
prevented the euro zone/EU from becoming the economic entity that the 1990s
generation of leaders envisaged. That said, this measure is viewed as a one-off
plan, nor will the Commission take any responsibility for debt already incurred
by member states.
The idea is that the Commission will use its strong credit
rating to borrow €750bn on international capital markets and recoup the funds
though future EU budgets “not before 2028
and not after 2058”(i.e. not within the current budgetary period). Of this
total, €500bn will be distributed in the form of grants whilst the remainder will
take the form of loans. But the Commission is not simply proposing to write
blank cheques: The funds will be distributed via EU programmes designed to achieve
specific goals such as boosting competitiveness, supporting a broader green
agenda and building the digital economy.
In order to facilitate repayment, the Commission suggested
that a number of additional revenue raising items could be agreed at the
pan-European level with each country paying the revenues from these streams
into a centralised budget. “These could
include a new own resource based on the Emissions Trading Scheme, a Carbon
Border Adjustment Mechanism and an own resource based on the operation of large
companies. It could also include a new digital tax … These will be in addition
to the Commission’s proposals for own resources based on a simplified Value
Added Tax and non-recycled plastics.”
In terms of the entitlement of individual states, the
Commission has set out a formula based on three main economic factors: (i)
population; (ii) the inverse of GDP per capita and (iii) the average
unemployment rate over the past 5 years compared to the EU average. Based on
this formula, Italy would be entitled to the largest share of the grants (20.5%)
followed by Spain (19.9%), whereas France would only be able to secure a
maximum of 10% and Germany 7% (chart).
What are the
obstacles?
The first obstacle, and the most difficult, will be to
convince the ‘frugal four’ (Austria, Denmark, Netherlands and Sweden) to sign
up. The plan requires unanimous approval from governments, primarily because it
entails structural changes in the EU budget that demand ratification by
national parliaments. The frugal four have consistently opposed the creation of
a debt union and have led the opposition which the German government is not
willing to explicitly lead but which its electorate supports. But although
Germany may have come somewhat reluctantly to the table, the government
realises that failure to take action will ultimately weaken the ties that bind
the union. After all, rising euroscepticism in Italy risks taking the EU in a
direction it would rather not go and Germany certainly does not want to be the
trigger for a breakup of the union. Arguably, however, the frugal four have
less to lose and since they do not have the clout to bring down the union on
their own, they act as a useful sounding board for the fears of all the
northern countries.
A second concern is whether the establishment of an EU-wide
fund will prompt individual governments to reduce their own efforts to put in
place measures to combat the economic crisis. There has long been a concern
amongst northern European members that an EU-wide safety net would result in
moral hazard issues.
There are also some concerns with regard to fiscal
legitimacy. One of the biggest problems is that only national governments have
the power to levy taxes on their citizens since the government derives its
tax-raising power from its electorate. Although there is a European Parliament which
derives its legitimacy from citizens of the EU, it looks after pan-EU interests
rather than the local interests which are generally more important to electorates. The levying of specific taxes for pan-European purposes
might thus be seen as problematic.
But a brave attempt
for all that
A decade ago it was clear that the euro zone is not a
proper economic union – it was effectively a fixed exchange rate system in
which debtor nations had to bear the brunt of the necessary economic adjustment.
Greece and Ireland learned this lesson in a very painful way as the global debt
crisis unfolded. It was also equally clear that some form of fiscal transfer
mechanism would be necessary if the euro zone were to survive in the longer
term, but efforts by Emmanuel Macron to make headway over the last three years
largely fell on deaf ears. Now the tide has turned. That said, the Commission’s
proposals are unlikely to be accepted in their current form and a compromise
will emerge instead. Nor do the proposals outlined this week constitute a
fiscal union. But they do mean that some form of countercyclical transfer
mechanism could be in place sooner rather than later. In my view it is a very
heartening move – at least from an economic standpoint although we can argue about the politics. The only disappointment
is that it took so long to get here.
No comments:
Post a Comment