In the recent elections in Greece and France, voters voted loudly for politicians who argue that with record levels of unemployment, poverty and despair, only a growth plan will prevent Europe disintegrating politically, economically and socially.
The new emphasis on “growth” is due to the failure of austerity, in all countries, to kickstart a post-crisis recovery (or even reduce debt levels), and the failure of quantitative easing in achieving much but bailing out the banks that are now rich enough to start speculating again. Healthy banks in a sick economy: a bad mix. Yet this new emphasis on growth is hardly a consensus.
Economists, since the time of Adam Smith’s 1776 work, The Wealth of Nations, have debated what causes growth. Indeed, some economists have long insisted that growth occurs precisely through thrift — that is, austerity. In recent weeks, we have heard many economists argue that growth in the eurozone will come from “structural reforms” that will make it easier to collect taxes, reduce red tape and hire and fire workers.
However, growth requires investment. Companies invest to make profits and grow. Evidence shows those which invest more in new technology, human capital and research and development, and are located in countries where public spending in these areas is high, are able to produce more competitive and better value products.
Italy has not grown for the last 10 years, mainly because its public and private sector did not make key investments in factors that increase productivity. Its debt-to-GDP ratio rose because its growth rate was so much lower than the interest it paid on its debt. Greece grew in the 1990s not because it was making smart investments, but because badly directed European structural funds allowed it to get away with not making them. Once those funds expired, so did the false growth.
Structural reforms without investment do not produce growth. When Telecom Italia was privatized in 1997 it cut its research spending, and is now much less innovative and competitive than France Telecom, which remained partly public and continued to invest. Scandinavia, with its large welfare states and stringent labor laws, has been one of the most crisis-resilient regions because it invests in innovation.
Yet through its moralistic and deflationary stance of “do what the Germans did,” pressure from Germany is not allowing the weaker eurozone countries to do just that. German competitiveness is not due only to its lower unit labor costs (which are not low when welfare benefits are included), but to its strategic investments in research and development, vocational training, state investment banks that create “patient” finance and its recent emphasis on greening the economy.
Similarly, the engineering group Siemens did not win a UK contract for fast green trains because of low wages, but because of its innovation investments, which have made it one of the most competitive companies in the world.
The eurozone will grow only once weaker countries are allowed to make the strategic investments that Germany has. There is much talk about the need for internal rebalancing, to increase the competitiveness of the deficit-burdened south relative to the surplus-blessed north, but this is a limited view. What is required is not that wages fall in Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain, but that they make investments that increase their productivity — an impossibility with austerity-driven policies.
The lack of these investments only makes Germany more competitive relative to its southern neighbors — but without a strong EU, Germany will not be able to compete with China and Brazil in emerging sectors and technologies.
A critical player, the European Investment Bank, could encourage productive investments across Europe, generating a real rebalancing. The bank could become the financial arm of what should be, but is not, Europe’s equivalent of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Applying the principle of the “Keynesian multiplier,” the current proposal is to increase its capital by a modest 10 billion euros (US$12.6 billion), unleashing 60 billion euros in co-financing projects which will then (hopefully) multiply to as much as 180 billion euros of EU output.
However, to render this a systematic mechanism for European economic solidarity, more is needed. Under the present law, EIB investments need to be co-financed by member states; and the weaker ones have no cash for this. Only if European Central Bank bonds can co-finance EIB bonds — which Germany resists — will EIB investments allow Greece, for instance, to grow through investment in renewables, putting its sunshine to better use than just tourism. And, in the process, create the desperately needed dynamic “spillovers” in technology, research, education and training.
So if growth is really on the agenda, the focus should be on the productive investments needed to rebalance Europe, and mechanisms that allow that to happen.
It is far too easy for British Prime Minister David Cameron to say “get your house in order” and then work against such mechanisms. The eurozone will rise when new economic thinking wins over static ideology.
Mariana Mazzucato is an economist and RM Phillips professor of science and technology policy at Sussex University.
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