A Greek tragedy is typically composed of three acts. The first sets the scene. It is only with the second that the plot reaches its climax. For current-day Greece, the imposition of “voluntary” losses on the country’s private creditors represents just the end of the beginning. The real tragedy has still to unfold.
On the face of it, the “voluntary” arrangement with creditors might appear to have been a big success. The volume of Greece’s foreign debt has been reduced by more than 100 billion euros (US$132 billion) and its European partners have provided 130 billion euros in new loans. As a result, Greece has avoided generalized bank failures and it has been able to continue paying its public employees.
However, despite these trumpeted results, the reality is much harsher. Even with the latest deal, Greece’s debt ratio remains at 120 percent of last year’s GDP. With a projected drop in GDP of 7 percent this year and a sustained deficit, the debt ratio would exceed 130 percent before stabilizing at 120 percent in 2020.
However, even this reduced level is not sustainable. With its population set to contract by 0.5 percent annually over the next 30 years, even if per capita income in Greece were to rise at the German rate of 1.5 percent per year, the debt would be difficult to service.
Assuming that Greece could borrow at a real interest rate of only 3 percent (the current level is 17 percent), the government would need to run an annual 2.6 percent of GDP primary budget surplus (the fiscal balance minus debt-service costs) for the next 30 years, just to keep the debt burden stable.
To put that task in perspective, in the last 25 years, Greece ran an average primary deficit of 2 percent per year. To reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio to 70 percent, Greece would have to maintain an average primary surplus of 4 percent for the next 30 years, a level that it has temporarily achieved in only four of the last 25 years.
If the situation is so dramatic, why are the EU and IMF celebrating the recent agreement? Simply put, these institutions’ primary objective was to minimize the repercussions that a Greek default would have on the international financial system. Greece, frankly, was not their priority.
Given the reaction in financial markets, they have succeeded. The delay in reaching an agreement enabled most private creditors to escape the consequences of their reckless lending to Greece. About half of Greece’s external debt migrated from the private sector to official institutions.
However, the group of lenders that the EU and the IMF wanted to help the most — the banks — only partly reduced their exposure. Between May 2010 and September last year, the value of Greek sovereign debt held by French banks dropped by 4.6 billion euros (39 percent), while German banks reduced their holdings by 2.9 billion euros (31 percent) and Italian banks by 530 million euros (30 percent). In part, this drop reflects the reduction in market value of the existing liabilities. Thus, on average, banks have sold very little.
However, while private-sector losses have been minimized, what has the price been? Had Greece defaulted on its debt in 2010, imposing the same “haircut” on private creditors as it has imposed now, it would have reduced the debt-to-GDP ratio to a more manageable 80 percent. That would have been painful, but it could have spared the Greeks from a 7 percent decline in GDP and a rise in unemployment to 22 percent (including an increase in youth unemployment to a whopping 48 percent).
More importantly, a default in 2010 would have left some room for adjustments. Under the current plan, there is none: If the economy does not turn around quickly, Greece will need more help. But where can it go now to find it? Most of the sovereign debt is now held by the official sector, which traditionally does not allow any haircut. The remainder has been reissued under English, not Greek, law, putting it outside of the control of the Greek government and its new collective-action clause, which facilities partial defaults.
In other words, Greece has exhausted its ability to share part of the burden with the private sector. Next time, Europe’s taxpayers will be on the hook.
The second act of the Greek tragedy will cast desperate Greeks against angry and disenchanted Europeans elsewhere. Only at the climax will we know whether the effort to delay the inevitable contributed to undermining the idea of Europe for the current generation.
Luigi Zingales is professor of Entrepreneurship and Finance at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under