For years, the Euro Zone has been perceived as a disaster area, with discussions of the monetary union’s future often centred on a possible break-up. When the British voted to leave the European Union last year, they were driven partly by the perception of the Euro Zone as a dysfunctional – and perhaps unsalvageable – project. Yet, lately, the Euro Zone has become the darling of financial markets — and for good reason.
The discovery of the Euro Zone’s latent strength was long overdue. Indeed, the Euro Zone has been recovering from the crisis of 2011-2012 for several years. On a per capita basis, its economic growth now outpaces that of the United States. The unemployment rate is also declining — more slowly than in the US, to be sure, but that partly reflects a divergence in labour-force participation trends.
Whereas labour-force participation in the Euro Zone is on the rise, it has been declining in the US since around 2000. The departure of Americans from the job market reflects what economists call the “discouraged worker” phenomenon. And, indeed, the trend has accelerated since the recession of 2009.
In principle, declining labour-force participation should be a problem in the Euro Zone, too, given the prolonged period of very high unemployment that many European workers have faced. But, in the last five years, 2.5 million people in the Euro Zone have actually joined the labour force, as five million jobs were created, reducing the overall decline in unemployment by half.
Moreover, the Euro Zone recovery has been sustained, somewhat unexpectedly, even in the absence of continuous fiscal stimulus. The heated discussions about austerity of recent years have been misplaced, with both critics and official cheerleaders overestimating the amount of austerity applied. The average cyclically adjusted fiscal deficit has been roughly constant since 2014, at around 1 per cent of GDP.
Of course, large differences in the fiscal position of individual member states remain. But this is to be expected in such a diverse monetary union. The truth is that even France, often considered a weak performer, has deficit and debt levels comparable to those of the US.
A comparison with the US, as well as with Japan, also undercuts the common perception that the Euro Zone’s fiscal rules, including the (in)famous Stability and Growth Pact and the 2012 “fiscal compact,” have been irrelevant. True, no country has been officially reprimanded for excessive deficits or debts. But the clamour over rule breaches at the margin has overshadowed the broad underlying trend toward sound public finances that the fiscal rules have fostered. All of this suggests that the “soft austerity” pursued in many Euro Zone countries may have been the right choice after all.
More From This Section
To be sure, one should not overestimate the Euro Zone’s long-term economic strength. While the average growth rate might remain above 2 per cent for the next few years, as the remaining unemployed are absorbed and the long-term trend of older workers rejoining the labour market continues, the pool of unused labour will eventually be exhausted.
Once the Euro Zone has reached the so-called “Lewis turning point” – when surplus labour is depleted and wages start to rise – growth rates will fall to a level that better reflects demographic dynamics. And those dynamics aren’t particular desirable: The Euro Zone’s working-age population is set to decline by about half a percentage point per year over the next decade at least.
Yet, even then, the Euro Zone’s per capita growth rate is unlikely to be much lower than that of the US, because the difference in their productivity growth rates is now minor. In this sense, the Euro Zone’s future may look more like Japan’s present, characterised by headline annual growth of a little over 1 per cent and stubbornly low inflation, but per capita income growth similar to that of the US or Europe.
Fortunately for the Euro Zone, it will enter this period of high employment and slow growth on sound footing — thanks, in part, to that controversial austerity. By contrast, both the US and Japan are facing full employment with fiscal deficits higher than 3 per cent of GDP — about 2-3 percentage points higher than those of the Euro Zone. The US and Japan also have heavier debt burdens: The debt-to-GDP ratio stands at 107 per cent in the US and more than 200 per cent in Japan, compared to 90 per cent in the Euro Zone.
There is evidence that in the wake of a financial crisis, when monetary policy becomes ineffective – for example, because nominal interest rates are at the zero bound – deficit spending can have an unusually strong stabilising impact. But there remains a key unresolved issue: Once financial markets have normalised, will maintaining a deficit for a long time provide continuous stimulus?
The fact that the Euro Zone’s recovery is now catching up with that of the US, despite its lack of any continuing stimulus, suggests that the answer is no. Indeed, the experience of the Euro Zone suggests that while concerted fiscal stimulus can make a difference during an acute recession, withdrawing that stimulus when it is no longer vital is preferable to maintaining it indefinitely. With austerity – that is, reducing the deficit, once the recession has ended – recovery might take longer to become consolidated; but once it is, economic performance is even more stable, because the government’s accounts are in a sustainable position.
John Maynard Keynes famously said, “In the long run, we are all dead.” That may be true, on a long enough timeline. But it is no excuse to dismiss longer-term considerations. In fact, for the Euro Zone, the long run seems to have arrived — and the economy is still alive and kicking.
The writer is director of the Center for European Policy Studies
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2017