austerity Archives

Despite its new rhetoric, the IMF still promotes failed policies

An event titled Income Inequality Matters: How to Ensure Economic Growth Benefits the Many and Not the Few is not exactly what comes to mind when one thinks of the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

Yet, in April, at the latest Spring Meetings, managing director Christine Lagarde, along with the IMF’s chief economist, discussed the urgency of addressing rising income inequality and the need for redistributive policies. While IMF staff in Washington were expressing their concern with inequality, people in Ecuador, Argentina and Tunisia were taking to the streets to protest against anti-worker austerity policies their governments are implementing as part of the IMF programs.

In the 1980s and 1990s, when a series of debt crises plagued the developing world, the IMF lent money to those countries as part of what it called structural adjustment programs (SAPs). These programs, part of what is now referred to as the ‘Washington consensus’, aggressively promoted an agenda of liberalization, deregulation, and privatization, along with sharp cuts to social spending.

SAPs protected creditors and opened the doors for multinational corporations to do business in these countries, while the brunt cost of the adjustments was borne by people.

As the growth and development that was promised as a result of these programs never materialized, the IMF slowly lost some of its influence. The painful memories of the social costs that resulted from SAPs have made the IMF an extremely unpopular institution.

In recent years, the IMF has made substantial efforts to rebrand itself and create the image of an institution concerned with inclusive growth and social indicators. The IMF’s research department has dedicated a significant amount of time and space to the issue of rising inequality. This included research that showed that the fiscal consolidation and liberalization of capital accounts – policies that are at the core of IMF programs – increase income inequality.

The Fund has also examined the effect of the labor market policies it promotes and their contribution to the decline in the share of income captured by labour.

Yet, while its research department tackled questions on how to pursue both growth and inclusion, the Fund’s loan programs have not incorporated these concerns.

In the aftermath of the financial crisis in 2008, the IMF re-emerged as a major player on the global scene. The IMF stopped using the name SAP, but the structure of IMF loan conditions and the policy demands remained very similar, with the failure of previous programs all but forgotten.

To make matters worse, the IMF continues a trend of underestimating the depth of recessions caused by the austerity policies it promotes, which prolongs economic crises and increases debt burdens as economies shrink.

The IMF’s latest loan agreement with Ecuador has the typical features of a structural adjustment program. It demands massive cuts in government spending, which directly target public sector employees, along with a series of neoliberal institutional reforms.

The program continues to impose failed policies that are shown by the IMF’s own research department to increase inequality and have high social costs.

To go along with the IMF’s new image, the program does include a floor on social spending, along with a modest increase in spending on social assistance for the first year. However, the spending floor, which establishes a minimum amount of the budget to be allocated towards social assistance programs is set at a low level, which is unlikely to keep up with the increased needs that will arise from Ecuador’s recession.

The case of Argentina, which entered an agreement with the IMF in the summer of 2018, has already shown the inadequacy of social spending floors. As the economic crisis has continued to worsen throughout the program, poverty in Argentina has skyrocketed, increasing from 25.7 percent in mid-2017, to 32 percent by the end of 2018, a staggering 6.3 percentage points.

Argentina also serves as an example of the failure of IMF austerity programs, where growth projections had to be adjusted downwards by over 3 percent for a single year only 3 months after the initial agreement was signed

An in-depth study of all IMF loans approved in 2016 and 2017 has shown that 23 out of a total of 26 programs imposed austerity measures. The number of conditions attached to loans also continues to increase. Furthermore, the study has shown the inadequacy of social spending floors, which do not provide enough funding, even for the provision of basic healthcare.

The IMF has changed its rhetoric on inequality and social inclusiveness, but its operations continue to impose the same harmful policies of the past. While some symbolic steps have been taken on how to operationalize research on inequality, they have yet to be incorporated into lending agreements.

If the IMF is truly concerned about growth that benefits ‘the many,’ it needs to stop promoting policies that have time and time again hurt working people.

This article originally appeared in Equal Times.

Puerto Rico’s Colonial Legacy and its Continuing Economic Troubles

When Puerto Rico was hit by Hurricane Maria, the island was ill-equipped to handle the storm that claimed thousands of lives and devastated most of the island’s infrastructure, leaving it in the dark for months. Prior to the storm, Puerto Rico’s economy had already experienced two decades without economic growth, a rare occurrence in the history of modern capitalism. Neither a sovereign country nor a US state, Puerto Rico has had constrained ability to respond to negative economic shocks, while only receiving limited federal support. The island’s prolonged economic failure resulted in the accumulation of an unsustainable debt burden, and Puerto Rico’s bankruptcy.

Puerto Rico became a territory of the United Stated in the aftermath of the Spanish-American War of 1898. While residents of Puerto Rico were given US citizenship in 1917, they still cannot vote in US presidential elections on the island and have no voting representation in the US Congress. The UN officially removed the island from its list of colonies in 1953 after the US Congress approved a new name, the “Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,” along with a constitution that granted the island authority over internal matters.

Despite this semblance of autonomy, Puerto Rico continued to be subject to the Territory Clause of the US Constitution, which grants the US Congress “power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations.” Recent developments have shown beyond doubt that Puerto Rico continues to be a colony, with the island now effectively ruled by a Federal Oversight and Management Board (the Board), created by the US Congress, which supersedes the authority of the island’s elected government.

After Puerto Rico defaulted on its $74 billion debt in 2015, the US Supreme Court struck down a bankruptcy law passed by the island. In 2016, the US Congress then passed the “Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act” (PROMESA), to create a framework for Puerto Rico to restructure its debt. While many attribute Puerto Rico’s accumulation of unsustainable debt to irresponsible government spending, this narrative ignores the fact that much of what led to Puerto Rico’s prolonged economic failure was out of the island’s control.

During the last two decades of the twentieth century, Puerto Rico’s economy more than doubled in real terms as it became an attractive destination for US manufacturing, offering strong legal protections and relatively cheap labor. As the rules of the global economy were rewritten with the creation of the World Trade Organization and the passage of trade deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, Puerto Rico became much less attractive as a manufacturing hub.

The island’s economy has not registered any growth since 2005. Puerto Rico did not have the policy tools available to sovereign nations that could have allowed it to more effectively address the shifting global trade environment, e.g., by adjusting its exchange rate. Between 2005 and 2016, Puerto Rico’s economy was shrinking at an annual real rate of 1 percent per year. Investment, which was over 20 percent of GDP in the late 1990s, fell to less than 8 percent of GDP in 2016.

Furthermore, Puerto Rico did not receive the same federal support that US states do, meaning that as the economy worsened, its government had to foot the bill for a large share of social programs. Just in terms of health care, it is estimated that the Puerto Rican government has had to spend more than $1 billion per year more than it would have had it received the same reimbursements from the US federal government that states do.

By 2016, before Hurricane Maria, Puerto Rico had a poverty rate of 46 percent, and 58 percent for children, and had already lost 10 percent of its population to migration. With higher overall living costs than the mainland US, and lower incomes, many Puerto Ricans have chosen to leave the island and seek better opportunities on the mainland. In Maria’s aftermath, Puerto Rico is predicted to lose another 14 percent of its population by 2019.

As Puerto Rico’s economy declined, so did the revenues of the government, which increasingly financed operations through borrowing. Puerto Rican bonds were part of US municipal bond markets, and carried special tax exemptions that made them sufficiently attractive that buyers ignored the island’s macroeconomic reality ― something explicitly mentioned in Puerto Rico’s credit assessments. The bonds were only downgraded to “junk” in 2014 after Puerto Rico could no longer make interest payments on its debt.

PROMESA established a process to reach a consensus with creditors, and, were that to fail, it created a legal path to access bankruptcy court, where the Board would also represent Puerto Rico. As part of the consensus process, the board was tasked with certifying a 10-year fiscal plan that would keep the government operational, provide essential services to residents, adequately fund public pensions, and set funds aside for debt repayment in agreement with creditors.

The Board has taken an austerity approach that fails to address any of Puerto Rico’s long-term economic problems and is likely to exacerbate the downward spiral of economic decline and outmigration. In the aftermath of Maria, despite inadequate relief, the Board is using the increase in liquidity provided by relief funds to set aside more funds for creditors.

Yet many creditors continue to demand even harsher austerity, and the bankruptcy case is currently being heard by a bankruptcy judge in the New York District Court. Ironically, many of the most aggressive creditors are hedge funds that bought bonds at a steep discount after the default, and in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria.

To add insult to injury, the undemocratically appointed Board is setting aside $1.5 billion of the island’s budget for its own expenses, including legal and consulting fees for the next five years. Many of the advisors and lawyers now profiting from the bankruptcy process are the same actors who were involved in issuing the unsustainable debt. Meanwhile, island residents face pension cuts, layoffs, benefit freezes, and school closures. Given that the people of Puerto Rico have no democratic representation or say in this process, it is not surprising that their colonial rulers are ignoring their needs.

This article was originally written for the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and INET YSI Summer School 2018.

Austerity in the UK: Senseless and Cruel

As the UK recorded its first current budget surplus in 16 years, the IMF was quick to use this development as sufficient proof to declare the austerity measures, imposed by the UK government in the aftermath of the financial crisis, a success. To the IMF, the UK case of eliminating its budget deficit, while avoiding a prolonged recession, and faring better than other European countries, supports the case for further austerity.

However, this overly simplistic interpretation disregards the long-term structural problems that the UK economy is facing, does not acknowledge the active role played by the Bank of England (BoE) in mitigating the crisis, nor does it attempt to understand what is behind the growing voter discontent that led to the Brexit vote. Furthermore, given that the austerity measures have been linked to 120,000 deaths, it seems rather odd to celebrate this approach.

While at a first glance, one might think the UK economy is in pretty good shape, with low unemployment levels and continuous growth for the last 8 and a half years, a closer look at the data reveals a less optimistic picture. As outlined in this report from the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) that I co-authored with Mark Weisbrot, the UK economy is facing some serious challenges.

The last decade has failed to deliver any improvement in living standards to most households, with real median incomes of working-age households barely returning to their pre-recession levels this year. Retired household have fared somewhat better, yet are under threat as a target for further spending cuts. While increased employment has meant household incomes reached their precession levels, real hourly wages have not. To make matters worse, a widely cited decline in the gender pay gap is due to a larger drop in male wages, rather than female wages increasing.

One of the most striking and unusual aspects of the recovery is that poverty, by some measures, has actually increased for people of working age. After accounting for housing costs, the percentage of people aged 16–64 with income below the poverty threshold has risen to 21 percent in 2015/16, from 20 percent in 2006/07.

In terms of productivity growth, which is the engine of rising living standards, the past decade has been the worst for the UK since the 18th century. The slowdown in productivity growth means that GDP per person is about 20 percent lower than it would have been if the prior growth trend continued. The problem of slow productivity growth is directly linked to low investment levels in the UK, which has the lowest rate of gross capital formation amongst G7 countries.

The UK currently finds itself in an economy where demand is lagging, and the prospects of Brexit bring significant uncertainty over the future. This is an environment that is unlikely to attract major private investment, especially in the areas it is most needed. There is a clear need for public investment and spending that can grow the economy and improve living standards. More austerity might seem to reduce the government’s deficit now but its price will ultimately be paid through lost output and slower growth.

The negative feedback from the fiscal tightening was undoubtedly mitigated by the expansionary monetary policy conducted by the BoE, which also explains why the UK was able to withstand austerity without deepening its recession and fared better than countries in the eurozone. The BoE started lowering its Bank Rate in October 2008 until it reached 0.5 percent. The rate was further decreased in the aftermath of Brexit to 0.25 percent, only to be raised again to 0.5 percent at the end of 2017.

The most important step taken by the BoE was its Quantitative Easing program, launched in August 2008, to buy bonds and ensure long-term interest rates for the UK remain low. The European Central Bank (ECB) only took similar steps for euro denominated sovereign bonds in July 2012.

While the IMF portrays the UK net public debt-to-GDP ratio as unsustainable high (it was 80.5 percent in 2017), this assessment is mostly arbitrary, especially given the UK’s specific circumstances. The burden on the public debt is best measured by the interest payments on the debt, relative to the size of the economy since the principal is generally simply rolled over. At present, the net interest payments on the debt are about 1.8 percent of GDP, a number significantly lower than in the 1980s when interest payments on the debt were generally above 3 percent of GDP annually, and in the 1990s when they were between 2 and 3 percent per year.

It is essential to note that financial markets recognize there is little risk to holding UK bonds, and the UK government can currently borrow at negative real interest rates. Given that the UK issues bonds in its own currency, investors understand there is no risk of default.

There are many public investments that have a positive real rate of return by increasing the productivity of the economy. Thus, given the current circumstances, it seems rather absurd to focus on reducing the debt rather than growing the economy.

There is no doubt that Brexit is one of the major challenges that the UK faces. However, particularly in this context of uncertainty, macroeconomic policies play an essential role. Unnecessary fiscal and monetary tightening pose an immediate threat to economic progress and the UK’s ability to improve living standards of its residents.

Imposing austerity on an economy where incomes have not recovered from the last recession, there is a large slowdown in productivity growth, an overall lack of investment, and the government can finance its spending at negative real interest rates is senseless and cruel.

For more details, graphs, and complete sources check out the full report.

Greece has a Private Debt Crisis and We Can Blame the Troika

The Greek public debt debacle and the bailout received by the government from the European Central Bank (ECB), the European Commission (EC), and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) – referred to collectively as the “troika” – has been making headlines for years. However, very little attention has been paid to the debt crisis in the Greek private sector. An alarmingly high portion of private sector borrowers is behind on their debt payments, and the Greek banking system currently has one of the highest ratios of delinquent loans in the European Union.

This collapse of debt prepayments is a direct result the policies imposed by the Troika and threatens the future of Greek economic growth. After the Greek government required financial assistance from international creditors, it was forced to introduce draconic austerity measures to repay its debt. Cutbacks to state services, collapses in incomes, and an increasingly unstable economic environment contracted spending, therefore, eliminating future cash flows that private entities expected to use to repay their debt. The result has been a spiral of collapsing demand and shrinking growth.

Greece’s accession to the Eurozone was followed by a largely ignored, rapid, and unsustainable build-up in private sector debt. Once the Greek government was forced to impose severe austerity measures and the economy collapsed, the private debt crisis followed. Now, the large ratio of delinquent loans held by Greek banks is adding to the factors hampering economic growth. For Greece to recover, its private debt problems need to urgently be addressed with an approach that offers relief to both borrowers and lenders.

This article was originally published by the Private Debt Project. Read the entire article here.

The full article highlights how the mismanagement of the Greek sovereign debt problems triggered the current private debt crisis. We show the rapid growth in private debt, document the macroeconomic context that pushed to Greece into a depression, and explain how these factors created a private debt crisis. Then, we discuss some of the existing proposals for addressing a large number of loan delinquencies and their limitations, and finally, propose other approaches to tackle this pressing problem.

Brazil Suffers Under a Leader that Believes in Fairies

Brazil’s current economic policy follows the logic of a fairytale. And unless President Temer wakes up to reality, the Brazilian people will continue to suffer the consequences.

In conservative circles, the solution advocated for economic recovery is a reduction in government spending. The argument behind it is that a large government deficit lowers the market’s confidence in its ability to repay. This lower confidence then drives private investment away.

By the same logic, if the government cuts down the deficit, markets are reassured of its commitment to be a good payer. This newly gained confidence drives up private sector investment and the economy grows.

While this may sound like a great way to boost a struggling economy, it’s not. To expect that a reduction in public spending will lead to an increase in private spending in the middle of a recession is like believing in an economic “confidence fairy.” Picture a creature dressed in dollar bills, fluttering eyelashes at private investors while the government takes a step back. With enough fairy dust, investors regain confidence, and the economy turns into a sparkly paradise. It sounds nice, but it’s not real.

The idea of expansionary austerity is a dangerous one. While most of the arguments against government deficit rest upon flawed economic theory, the confidence fairy has its backbone solely on psychological factors that play into private investment decisions. However, what a depressed economy needs is a boost in aggregate demand, many times driven by public investment. Even fairy-enthusiasts, as the IMF, have expressed increasing skepticism towards the ability of austerity to expand an economy.

There are plenty of recent examples that cast doubt on the confidence theory. Take the low growth trap of the world economy, for instance. Several countries struggled with low growth for almost a decade despite their efforts to reduce their budget deficit. As monetary policy played an excessive role, fiscal policy ― and by effect aggregate demand ― was ostracized. New investments do not take place in a depressed economy regardless of the interest rates level or the government debt; in Minsky’s words, investment does not take place as long as the demand price of capital is lower than the supply price of capital.

Nevertheless, Brazil’s Michel Temer continues to be captivated by the fairytale. Amid continuous involvements in the corruption scandals, Temer introduced ambitious austerity measures to cut government spending and reduce the fiscal deficit. Placing his faith in the confidence fairy, he portrays his policies as the only path to recovery and growth ― as if there were a certain magic debt number to achieve.

But thus far, Temer’s policies have failed miserably. Expecting to see the fairy do wonders, 2016’s 3.6% decline in GDP was “unexpected” to Temer’s team. That’s a harsh reality to wake up to, especially since 2015 showed a similar decline in growth. For 2017, the economy is expected to grow 0.5 percent; but growth projections keep getting adjusted downward, and a third year of recession is only half a percentage point away.

Brazil’s collapse in domestic demand is visible in the economy’s capacity utilization. Averaging 73.5 percent in 2016, it’s reached the lowest level since the early 1990s, when the country was plagued by hyperinflation. At this rate, Brazil will have to get through a long period of idle capacity until new private investments can foster demand. Furthermore, the efforts to reduce the government deficit seem to have been futile. The budget deficit has actually surged due to the reduction in tax revenues and the increasing burden of interest rate payments.

Despite everything, Temer isn’t giving up on the confidence fairy yet. Earlier last month, he announced a cut of $42.1 billion reais (approx. US $13.5) in the government budget, nearly a fourth of which on the Growth Acceleration Program for social, urban, and energy infrastructure investment. Other significant cuts were made to the ministries of defense ($5.7 billion reais), transportation ($5.1 billion reais), and education ($4.3 billion reais).

As you may expect, none of this helps to create jobs. On April 28, it became known that the unemployment rate reached a record-high 13.7% for this year’s first quarter. Since the last quarter of 2016, 2 million more people lost their jobs. The number of unemployed now adds to 14.2 million, and that’s more than double the record-low rate of 6.2% in 2013.

Unlike the President, the people of Brazil know they can’t count on fairy dust. Last week, workers went on a general strike, during which millions of Brazilians protested against the austerity agenda. As much as 72 percent of the population opposes the reforms that are being discussed today, and government approval rates are as low as 10%.

But Temer ignores all cries of concern and keeps going steady. Two of his the structural reforms have already been initiated. Real government spending is frozen for the next 20 years, and labor market is under flexibilization. A third, more complex one is the pension reform, whose main proposal is to increase the minimum retirement age and time of contribution. Although the subject is too extensive to be covered in here, it’s worth mentioning that the pension reform disregards some of the social inequalities in the country (e.g. conditions of rural and poor workers) and it solely focus on curbing the long-term system’s expenditure instead of dealing with the falling revenues that collapsed in recent years due to tax breaks and the crisis.

Together, these reforms dismantle any efforts at building a social welfare system in Brazil. Crucial areas for public investment such as education and health will suffer.

Right now, it’s more clear than ever that Brazil’s story is not a fairytale, but a living nightmare. And there’s no confidence fairy that can fix it. As Skidelsky puts it, “confidence cannot cause a bad policy to have good results, and a lack of it cannot cause a good policy to have bad results, any more than jumping out of a window in the mistaken belief that humans can fly can offset the effect of gravity.”

Denouncing the Flaws of the EU is not Extremist, it’s Necessary

The main takeaway from the French presidential election is that criticism of the European Union (EU), including the eurozone, is not well received regardless of its validity. While Europe might currently be breathing a sigh of relief, the strategy of silencing and ridiculing those who express dissatisfaction with EU policies is dangerous for its future.

Presidential campaigns in France

During the campaign for the first round of the French presidential election, two candidates touted the possibility of leaving the euro: Jean-Luc Mélenchon, representing the leftist France Insoumise party, and Marine Le Pen from the extreme right-wing Front National. Most outlets considered their attacks on the euro to be a political liability with the mainstream electorate. The media slotted both candidates as “anti-European” extremists that should be feared. However, a closer look at the platforms of these two reveals that their critiques of the EU and their desired outcomes bear very few similarities.

Marine Le Pen promised a “France-first” approach and pledged to pull France out of the eurozone and close the country’s borders. Her platform plays on racism and xenophobia, and blames France’s woes on immigrants. It is important to note that she did propose strengthening the welfare state and extending benefits, but only for French people and not foreigners.

Mélenchon’s take on the EU was very different. His platform’s “Plan A” was to push for EU-wide reforms that aimed at bringing growth and strengthening mutual support amongst member states. He criticized the EU for becoming a place ruled by banks and finance, and his goal was to leverage France’s influence within the bloc to end austerity policies in all member states. If these negotiations with other EU members failed, then there was a “Plan B” that called for France to leave the euro and the EU in order to pursue a stimulus plan, which is not permitted under the deficit limits imposed by current EU regulation.

A large part of the media coverage received by Mélenchon centered on personal attacks, rather than on providing an accurate overview of his policies. He was accused of being a communist, both an admirer of Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez, and a Russia sympathizer. With a significant social media following and energizing campaign, Mélenchon was able to surge in the polls late in the race. However, he did not manage to garner sufficient support to qualify for the second round of the election.

Plagued by scandals and voters’ discontent with the current administration, the candidates backed by the two traditionally mainstream parties in France, the Republicans and Socialists, did not make it past the first round. The run-off election will take place on May 7th between Le Pen and Emmanuel Macron.

Dubbed the establishment’s anti-establishment candidate, Macron describes himself as a staunchly pro-EU, pro-immigration, and pro-globalization centrist. Macron is backed by the party he created in 2016, “En Marche!,” and is successfully managing to brand himself as an outsider candidate. However, it should not be forgotten that as an economy minister in Francois Hollande’s government, who did not seek re-election due to extremely low approval rates, Macron was the architect of labor market reforms that weakened protections for workers and favored businesses. A close look at his program reveals his policies are strikingly similar to those of Hollande, just with different branding and rhetoric.

Macron’s platform consists of neoliberal platitudes that espouse values such as tolerance and acceptance of immigrants, while advocating for austerity and dismantling of social protections under the guise of increasing efficiency and “modernizing” the French economy. Macron pledged to reduce France’s deficit below 3 percent, as mandated by the EU, while also cutting taxes. To achieve both goals, Macron would undoubtedly have to slash government spending, which would most likely have a negative impact on the economy overall.

Macron’s uncritical embrace of the EU has gained him the praise and endorsement of other European leaders. Global financial markets that are reassured by his pro-EU stance are also celebrating the prospect of his victory. While his commitment to structural reforms and budget cuts is likely to please Germany and the European Commission, the question is if he can also satisfy the people of France.

Polls suggest that Macron will now win the run-off against Le Pen. However, concerns are mounting that if his government fails to deliver, the far right will be strengthened by the following election. Given how similar Macron and Hollande’s programs are (despite the different packaging) they are unlikely to deliver a different result.

The failed economic policies of the EU

The French economy struggles with high unemployment rates, particularly for young people, and is facing a decade of economic stagnation. Under increased pressure from the EU for France to abide by its deficit rules and reduce spending, previous governments have implemented harsh pension and labor reforms. These measures have failed to jumpstart the economy, and it seems intuitive that France should pursue different policies that could actually provide the much needed stimulus to its economy.

It’s not just France that is stagnating. Since the 2008 crisis, the entire Eurozone has seen a slow and uneven recovery. Particularly, the worst hit countries such as Greece, Italy, and Spain, are still dealing with the consequences of shrinking incomes and high unemployment. Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz showed how the structure and design of the euro were a key factors in holding back the recovery of the EU.

The structure of the euro was established by the Maastricht Treaty which laid down the groundwork for how the EU and the euro area ought to be set-up institutionally. The treaty arbitrarily established yearly deficit limits for countries at 3 percent of GDP. After the crisis, the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union expanded the influence of the European Commission, an unelected body, to impose policies on member states. EU institutions have used the deficit limit as justification to dictate a neoliberal agenda, characterized by imposing austerity measures and pro-business structural reforms on member states, with very little consideration on the worsening of unemployment, poverty, and other social indicators.

Considering the shortcomings of neoliberal policies imposed by the EU, perhaps Melélnchon’s “Plan A,” to push for EU-wide reform is not that “extremist” after all. Rather than crucifying him, he should have been given the chance to advocate for reform. The current direction taken by the EU is one that through austerity measures is slowly dismantling the European Social Model, which has traditionally been characterized by a strong safety net.

What the future holds

As long as the EU imposes and encourages a platform that hurts people, far right politicians like Marine Le Pen will continue to tap into those anxieties and gain popularity. The success of the Brexit campaign should serve as impetus for the EU to reevaluate its policies.

Politicians like Macron, who chose to ignore the flaws of the eurozone and advocate for more of the same unsuccessful policies may win popularity now, but set themselves up for failure in the long run. Macron’s unconditional praise of the EU’s virtues is somewhat similar to Hillary Clinton, who under a backdrop of suffering and social crisis, responded to Trump’s slogan “Make America Great Again,” by stating “America is already great!” This strategy failed and Clinton lost, with areas where jobs were under the most severe threats swinging towards Trump.

For the European project to succeed and continue bringing peace and unity to Europe, economic policy reform is necessary and austerity needs to end. Ignoring the economic struggles of the bloc and refusing to recognize the role of EU policy in exacerbating them will continue to fuel the rise of extremist right wing politicians. Calling those who advocate for socially inclusive reforms “extremists” is a strategy bound to backfire.

The Shortage of Money: A Fallacious Problem

Whether they are implemented in Latin America (1970-90s), in the UK (under Thatcher) or in Greece (since 2012), austerity measures are all justified by the fact that “there is not enough money.” People are told that “there is no alternative,” and that the state needs to implement structural adjustment programs—usually including across-the-board spending cuts—to restore investors’ confidence and to hope for a better future.

What if this shortage of money could be overcome? What if this problem was ultimately the wrong one? What if we could have money for everything we needed?

In her latest book, The Production of Money: how to break the power of Bankers, Ann Pettifor argues that:

YES the society can afford everything that it needs,
YES we are able to ensure enough money for education, healthcare, sustainable development and the well-being of our communities,
YES we can discard money shortage, contrary to the human or physical (land and resources) ones.

However, one condition needs to be fulfilled: our monetary system should be well-regulated and managed.

To understand how and why, Ann Pettifor takes us back to basics. She starts by defining money as a “social construct based primarily and ultimately on trust”. One of the reasons why we use money in the first place is because we know that others will accept it in the future; it is the means “not for which we use to exchange goods and services, but by which we undertake this exchange” (Law). Your 100-dollar bill would be worthless if others didn’t accept it. The value of money depends on the “acceptance” of money, i.e. on the trust you and others have in money.

Contrary to popular belief, 95% of (broad) money (i.e. cash and coins + bank deposits) is created by private banks and not by the central bank. When a bank makes a loan to a firm, it creates simultaneously a deposit account from which the firm withdraws the loan. Money is therefore created “out of thin air” when the account of the borrower is credited—i.e. when loans are made. This has two implications:

When money is created, so is debt. This debt needs to be repaid. Ann Pettifor uses the example of a credit card which allows you to purchase goods and services today. The spending (= purchasing power) on a credit card “is created out of thin air”. You will ultimately need to pay back the amount spent plus a pre-agreed interest rate. Money is therefore a promise of a future productive value.
The money supply depends on private borrowers and their demand for loans. Central banks influence (but do not control) the money supply by increasing or decreasing the cost of borrowing with their policy interest rate. Money creation is therefore a bottom-up process rather than a top-down one.

Does this mean that we should create as much money as people want loans? Of course not. According to Ann Pettifor, there are constraints that make unlimited borrowing impossible: inflation (and deflation). Indeed, if money is not channeled toward productive purposes, the claim associated to it might not be reimbursed. In other words, the promise of a future productive value might not be fulfilled. When there is too much money “chasing too few goods and services”, reflecting over-confidence in the economy, it results in inflation, eroding the value of assets (such as pensions). Similarly, when there is not enough borrowing (either because borrowers need to repay their debts, as it has been the case in Japan and the US right after the last recession, or because the cost of borrowing is effectively too high), reflecting distrust in the ability to repay debt, deflation steps in.

Therefore, as money can be created “out of thin air”, there is no reason to have a shortage of money as long as it is channeled towards productive purposes. An unlimited amount of money can be created for projects that will ultimately result in the production of value, which will allow the repayment of debt. However, the author does not define what “value” or “productive purposes” are, which in my opinion is the main drawback of the book.

Although Pettifor does give some hints by opposing “productive purposes” to “speculative” ones and by associating “value” to the notion of “income, employment and sustainability”, her approach is rather imprecise and in this sense disappointing. To her credit, defining value is a difficult task, especially if we want to define what is valuable to the society as a whole. Pinning down the definition of value is, in my opinion, ultimately a political debate. If one considers that democracies reflect “collective preferences”, it can be said that societies decide through elections on what is most valuable to them at a given point in time.

Unfortunately, the current monetary system does neither enable nor guarantee that money and credit are used for productive purposes. It is characterized by “easy” and “dear” money; the former refers to unregulated and easy access to borrowing, while the latter conveys the idea of expensive borrowing, i.e. with loans charged at high interest rate. The issue with this system is that (1) with unregulated borrowing, money will be used for unproductive purposes, (2) with high interests, debtors will meet difficulties reimbursing their loans.

Such a system is harmful to society. In the words of Ann Pettifor:

“If rates of interest are too high, debtors have to raise the funds of debt repayment by increasing rates of profits, and by the further extraction of value. These pressures to increase income at exponential rates for the repayment of debt implies that both labor and the land (defined broadly) must be exploited at ever-rising rates. Those who labor by hand or brain work harder and longer to repay rising, real levels of mortgage or credit card debt. It is no accident therefore that the deregulation of finance led to the deregulation of working hours.”

A sound financial and monetary system would precisely have opposite features, with “tight but cheap credit” (Keynes), in which loans are regulated but cheap. “Tight credit” would ensure the soundness and creditworthiness of loans, while “cheap credit”, secures the affordability and thus the repayment of loans.

Hence, Ann Pettifor makes a remarkable argument by providing an in-depth but accessible insight into the workings of the monetary system and the debates surrounding it. Both economists and non-economists should give it a read.

It is indeed quite astonishing that money, ever-present in our lives, is so poorly understood; even by many economic experts themselves. According to Ann Pettifor, this incomprehension stems from the deliberate efforts of the financial sector to “obscure its activities” in order to maintain its omnipotence. The Production of Money aims at addressing this “crisis of ignorance” by providing an intelligible and comprehensive overview of money in the hope of empowering people against finance’s grip over society.

By Céline Tcheng
Disclaimer: views are my own.

About the Author

Céline grew up between Paris, China and Singapore. After graduating in a Master’s degree in Economics and Public Policy, she now works for a public policy institution in France. In her free time, she coordinates INET (Institute for New Economic Thinking) YSI (Young Scholars Initiative)’s Financial Stability Working Group and performs with her dance crew “Slash Art”. Her main interests are: macroprudential policy, financial stability, monetary policy. Follow her on Twitter: @celine_tcheng

Using Minsky to Better Understand Economic Development – Part 2

The work of Hyman Minsky highlighted the essential role of finance in the capital development of an economy. The greater a nation’s reliance on debt relative to internal funds, the more “fragile” the economy becomes. The first part of this post used these insights to uncover the weaknesses of today’s global economy. This part will discuss an alternative international structure that could address these issues.

Minsky defines our current economic system as “money manager capitalism,” a structure composed of huge pools of highly leveraged private debt. He explains that this system originated in the US following the end of Bretton Woods, and has since been expanded with the help of financial innovations and a series of economic and institutional reforms. Observing how this system gave rise to fragile economies, Minsky looked to the work of John Maynard Keynes as a start point for an alternative.

In the original discussions of the post-war Bretton Woods, Keynes proposed the creation of a stable financial system in which credits and debits between countries would clear off through an international clearing union (see Keynes’s collected writings, 1980).

This idea can be put in reasonably simple terms: countries would hold accounts in an International Clearing Union (ICU) that works like a “bank.” These accounts are denominated in a notional unit of account to which nation’s own currencies have a previously agreed to an exchange rate. The notional unit of account – Keynes called it the bancor – then serves to clear the trade imbalances between member countries. Nations would have a yearly adjusted quota of credits and debts that could be accumulated based on previous results of their trade balance. If this quota is surpassed, an “incentive” – e.g. taxes or interest charges – is applied. If the imbalances are more than a defined amount of the quota, further adjustments might be required, such as exchange, fiscal, and monetary policies.

The most interesting feature of this plan is the symmetric adjustment to both debtors and creditors. Instead of having the burden being placed only on the weakest party, surplus countries would also have to adapt their economies to meet the balance requirement. That means they would have to increase the monetary and fiscal stimulus to their domestic economies in order to raise the demand for foreign goods. Unlike a pro-cyclical contractionist policy forced onto debtor countries, the ICU system would act counter-cyclically by stimulating demand.

Because the bancor cannot be exchanged or accumulated, it would operate without a freely convertible international standard (which today is the dollar). This way, the system’s deflationary bias would be mitigated. Developing countries would no longer accumulate foreign reserves to counter potential balance-of-payment crises. Capital flows would also be controlled since no speculation or flow to finance excessive deficits would be required. Current accounts would be balanced by increasing trade rather than capital flows. Moreover, the ICU would be able to act as an international lender of last resort, providing liquidity in times of stress by crediting countries’ accounts.

Such a system would support international trade and domestic demand, countercyclical policies, and financial stability. It would pave the way not only for development in emerging economies (who would completely free their domestic policies from the boom-bust cycle of capital flows) but also for job creation in the developed world. Instead of curbing fiscal expansion and foreign trade, it would stimulate them – as it is much needed to take the world economy off the current low growth trap.

It should be noted that a balanced current account is not well suited for two common development strategies. The first is import substitution industrialization, which involves running a current account deficit. The second is export-led development, which involves a current account surplus. However, the ICU removes much of the need for such approaches to development. Since all payments would be expressed in the nation’s own currency, every country, regardless it’s size or economic power, would have the necessary policy space to fully mobilize its domestic resources while sustaining its hedge profile and monetary sovereignty.

Minsky showed that capable international institutions are crucial to creating the conditions for capital development. Thus far, our international institutions have failed in this respect, and we are due for a reform.

Undeniably, some measures towards a structural change have already been taken in the past decade. The IMF, for example, now has less power over emerging economies than before. But this is not sufficient, and it is up to the emerging economies to push for more. Unfortunately, the ICU system requires an international cooperation of a level that will be hard to accomplish. Aiming for a second-best solution is tempting. But let’s keep in mind that Brexit and Trump were improbable too. So why not consider that the next unlikely thing could be a positive one?