European monetary union was never a good idea. I remember my surprise when, as a young assistant professor, I realized that I was opposed to the Maastricht Treaty. I believed then — and I still do — that European integration is a very good thing. However, the textbook economics I was teaching showed how damaging monetary union could be in the absence of European fiscal and political union.
Nothing that has happened since has convinced me that the textbook was excessively pessimistic. On the contrary: It was far too optimistic. Life is strewn with banana skins and when you step on one you need to be able to adjust. However, the monetary union itself turned out to be a gigantic banana skin, inducing capital flows that pushed up costs around the European periphery. In addition, adjustment — that is, currency devaluation — was not an option.
Furthermore, most textbooks of the time ignored the financial sector; thus they ignored the fact that capital flows to the periphery would be channeled via banks and that when the capital stopped flowing, bank crises would strain peripheral members’ public finances. This, in turn, would further erode banks’ balance sheets and constrain credit creation — the sovereign-bank doom loop that whas received so much publicity in recent years. Also, no textbooks predicted that European cooperation would impose pro-cyclical austerity on crisis-struck countries, creating depressions that in some cases have rivaled those of the 1930s.
It has been obvious for some years that the existing attempts at monetary union have been a costly failure, both economically and politically. Trust in European institutions has collapsed and political parties skeptical not just of the euro, but of the entire European project, are on the rise. However, most economists, even those who were never keen on European monetary union in the first place, have been reluctant to make the argument that the time has come to abandon a failed experiment.
An article by Barry Eichengreen said that an anticipated breakup of monetary union would lead to the “mother of all financial crises.”
It is hard to disagree with him. That is why economists of all stripes, whether or not they supported the introduction of the common currency, have spent the past five years developing and promoting a package of institutional reforms and policy changes that would make the eurozone less dysfunctional.
In the short term, the eurozone needs much looser monetary and fiscal policy. It also needs a higher inflation target to reduce the need for nominal wage and price reductions; debt relief where appropriate; a proper banking union with an adequate, centralized fiscal backstop; and a safe eurozone asset that national banks could hold, thereby breaking the sovereign-bank doom loop.
POLITICALLY IMPOSSIBLE?
Unfortunately, economists have not argued strongly for a proper fiscal union. Even those who consider it economically necessary censor themselves, because they believe it to be politically impossible. The problem is that silence has narrowed the frontier of political possibility even further, so that more modest proposals have fallen by the wayside as well.
Five years on, the eurozone still lacks a proper banking union, or even, as Greece demonstrated, a proper lender of last resort. In addition, a higher inflation target remains unthinkable and the German government argues that defaults on sovereign debt are illegal within the eurozone. Pro-cyclical fiscal adjustment is still the order of the day.
The European Central Bank’s belated embrace of quantitative easing was a welcome step forward, but policymakers’ enormously destructive decision to shut down a member state’s banking system — for what appears to be political reasons — is a far larger step backward. No one is talking about real fiscal and political union, even though no one can imagine European monetary union surviving under the “status quo.”
Meanwhile, the political damage is ongoing: Not all protest parties are as pro-European as Greece’s ruling SYRIZA and domestic politics is being distorted by the inability of centrist politicians to address voters’ concerns about the eurozone’s economic policies and its democratic deficit. To do so, it is feared, would give implicit support to the skeptics, which is taboo.
Thus, French President Francois Hollande channels French economist Jean-Baptiste Say, arguing that supply creates its own demand, while National Front leader Marine Le Pen gets to quote Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz approvingly. No wonder that working-class voters are turning to her party.
A victory for the National Front in 2017 or 2022, which is no longer unthinkable, would destroy the European project. The public in smaller eurozone member states have noted the brutal way the European Central Bank was politicized to achieve Germany’s goals in Greece, and the conclusion that the eurozone is a dangerous union for small countries must seem inescapable. If centrist parties remain on the sidelines, rather than protesting what has happened, the political extremists are set to gain further valuable territory.
As for economists such as myself, who have balked at advocating an end to the failed euro experiment and favored reform, perhaps it is time to admit defeat and move on. If only anti-Europeans oppose monetary union, the EU baby could end up being thrown out with the euro bathwater.
An end to the euro would indeed provoke an immense crisis. However, ask yourself this: Do you really think the euro will be around in its present form a century from now? If not it is set to end and the timing of that end would never be right. Better, then, to get on with it before more damage is done.
Kevin Hjortshoj O’Rourke is a professor of economic history at Oxford University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Taiwan’s victory in the World Baseball Softball Confederation Premier12 championship is an historic achievement. Yet once again this achievement is marred by the indignity of the imposed moniker “Chinese Taipei.” The absurdity is compounded by the fact that none of the players are even from Taipei, and some, such as Paiwan catcher Giljegiljaw Kungkuan, are not even ethnically Chinese. The issue garnered attention around the Paris Olympics, yet fell off the agenda as Olympic memories retreated. “Chinese Taipei” persists, and the baseball championship serves as a reminder that fighting “Chinese Taipei” must be a continuous campaign, not merely resurfacing around international
This month, the National Health Insurance (NHI) is to implement a major policy change by eliminating the suspension-and-resumption mechanism for Taiwanese residing abroad. With more than 210,000 Taiwanese living overseas — many with greater financial means than those in Taiwan — this reform, catalyzed by a 2022 Constitutional Court ruling, underscores the importance of fairness, sustainability and shared responsibility in one of the world’s most admired public healthcare systems. Beyond legal obligations, expatriates have a compelling moral duty to contribute, recognizing their stake in a system that embodies the principle of health as a human right. The ruling declared the prior
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) appears to be encountering some culture shock and safety issues at its new fab in Arizona. On Nov. 7, Arizona state authorities cited TSMC for worker safety violations, fining the company US$16,131, after a man died in May. The Arizona Division of Occupational Safety and Health released its six-month investigation into the fatality and cited TSMC for failing to keep the workplace free from hazards likely to cause death or serious harm. At about the same time, the chip giant was also sued for alleged discriminatory hiring practices favoring Asians, prompting a flurry of debate on whether TSMC’s
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Weng Hsiao-ling (翁曉玲) has motioned to abolish the “Wu Sz-huai” (吳斯懷) clauses of the Act Governing Relations Between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area (臺灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例) — which forbid all Taiwanese who enter China from engaging in any activities detrimental to national security or interests. This motion led the Taiwan Statebuilding Party (TSP) to report her for infringing upon the National Security Act (國家安全法), which Weng called a lawless and undisciplined attempt to threaten a legislator. However, the true lawless and undisciplined person is Weng — the one standing in the enemy
RSS