Arrivederci Signor Draghi
The changing of the guard at the ECB has been well
documented recently with numerous articles looking back over Mario Draghi's
tenure as President. Opinions are mixed, depending on where one stands on the
question of QE. A large part of the German economics profession believes he has
followed an unsound monetary policy, with QE serving only to swell asset values
whilst having little overall impact on the economy. A more sympathetic view is
that Draghi is the man who saved the euro zone following his 2012 promise to
"do whatever it takes" to support the single currency.
For my own part, I give him great credit for his actions in
2012. Without his decisiveness, in the face of significant internal opposition,
there is a serious risk that the single currency could have collapsed. Odd
though it may seem now, given the relatively small size of its economy, the
raging Greek debt crisis laid bare the fault lines underpinning the euro zone.
Draghi was able to put a sticking plaster over the gaping wound and prevent a
bad situation from becoming worse. Had he listened to other voices which argued
against taking action, things could have been very different. Indeed, many have
pointed out that Draghi is a very adroit politician. He did not have the policy
tools to back up his 2012 promise and who knows what would have happened had
markets tested him out. Indeed, it took almost three years before the ECB
embarked on a policy of asset purchases.
The fact that the euro zone remains stuck in low gear reflects
a combination of political intransigence on the part of euro zone governments
and changed economic circumstances which have put downward pressure on global
inflation, and make the euro zone economy appear more sluggish than it really
is. Governments have offered the ECB no real support. The fact that they
continue to sit on their hands with regard to fiscal policy makes the ECB's job
harder. And as the ECB's first President, Wim Duisenberg, pointed out almost 20
years ago, governments need to do more to restructure their economies in order
to remove growth obstacles. In so doing this would remove the reliance on the
central bank to support growth. But aside from Germany, whose Hartz IV policies
in the mid-2000s proved to be a successful package of labour reform measures,
most governments have done little or nothing.
That said, the ECB's policy stance of further cutting
interest rates into negative territory and continuing to buy huge quantities of
government bonds are the actions of an institution that has run out of ideas.
Indeed, the September decision to resume QE caused huge dissent within the Governing
Council and prompted the resignation of German representative Sabine
Lautenschläger. It is not the first time a German representative has quit in
protest. In 2011 both Axel Weber and Jürgen Stark walked the plank. However it
is significant that the most recent dissent was not only confined to German
board members with French, Dutch and Austrian members expressing doubts
about the policy stance.
It is well known that QE has an increasingly smaller
marginal impact - the greater the volume of asset purchases, the smaller the
impact. A recent research paper suggested that asset purchases produced an average increase of 0.3 percentage
points in annual GDP growth between 2015 and 2018 and 0.5 percentage points in
CPI inflation, with a maximum impact in 2016. Interestingly, when the working paper version was published the impacts were assessed to be rather larger. Either way, with
the central bank balance sheet already at 40% of GDP it is questionable whether
the benefit of increasing asset purchases is worth the cost. But whilst this is
a valid concern, the simple fact is that the euro zone is still afloat because
of Draghi’s actions. He has expanded the ECB’s policy toolkit and given his
successor a fighting chance of moving the economy along.
Bienvenue Madame Lagarde
The appointment of Christine Lagarde as Draghi's successor
was initially a controversial choice and she faces a number of challenges going
forward. I have no doubts about her ability to do the job but she was clearly a
political appointee, as Emmanuel Macron sought to shoehorn a French candidate
into one of Europe's top jobs. As the head of an independent central bank,
Lagarde will have her work cut out to maintain the impression that it is not
simply an institution designed to maintain the cohesion of the EU – a view
prevalent in some quarters which judges the ECB's monetary policy as a way of
keeping Italy afloat.
Lagarde probably has little choice initially but to continue
with the policy initiated under Draghi, but her challenge will be to keep the
representatives of northern countries onside. The last thing she needs are
further damaging splits amongst council members. However the fact that she
represents one of the powerhouse economies means her views may carry a bit more
clout. Bigger challenges will come later. It is unlikely that a loosening of
monetary policy will have any significant impact on growth, and the debate is
increasing likely to turn to the damaging side effects of low interest rates.
Low rates work by shifting consumption and investment
patterns across time. If consumers are spending today they are not saving for
later. But if they are forward looking, as modern macro theory assumes, at some
point they are going to change their behaviour in order to build up
precautionary savings balances - perhaps for pension purposes. Moreover since
interest rates are so low, the amount they will have to save to build up a
decent pension pot is likely to be quite substantial. In other words, a policy
of low rates forever could start to prove self-defeating. I would not be
surprised if at some point in future, the debate starts to shift towards
raising interest rates in order to boost long-term growth prospects. Of course,
it will not be put in such terms; central bankers will simply talk about policy
normalisation.
Recent comments by Lagarde suggest that she will continue to
be outspoken on policy issues. In comments earlier this week, she suggested
that “those that have the room for manoeuvre, those that have a budget
surplus, that’s to say Germany, the Netherlands, why not use that budget
surplus and invest in infrastructure? Why not invest in education? Why not
invest in innovation, to allow for a better rebalancing?” and suggested
that both “have not really made the
necessary efforts.” This is pretty powerful stuff and although it is
unusual to name individual governments, it chimes with the view I have held for
a number of years that governments need to get involved on the fiscal front.
There are those who say that central bankers should focus on monetary policy
issues. Whilst I respect that view, it is also the case that when fiscal inaction
impacts on monetary policy they have a duty to speak out.