In his 1992 analysis “Maastricht and All That”, the late economist Wynne Godley argued that, “the present situation is screaming aloud for co-ordinated reflation, but there exists neither the institutions nor an agreed framework of thought which will bring about this obviously desirable result.” Yesterday, and almost thirty years later, Fabio Panetta, a member of the ECB’s Executive Board, called for a “strong and symmetric fiscal response that offsets the economic damage from the pandemic.” Echoing Godley, Panetta stressed the risks of the current, asymmetric fiscal responses, argued why a new framework was required and made the threat to the future of the single market very clear.
From a corporate, rather than an investment perspective, one of his most interesting observations was that, “uneven fiscal support implies that a firm’s location, rather than its business model, will be the decisive factor in determining whether it survives the crisis.” A new angle?
What links Godley and Panetta’s observations is the fact that by design, the nation states of the euro area (EA) have given up sovereignty of their national currencies – they have become users rather than issuers of currency – and have, in effect, limited policy options to controlling money supply and balancing budgets. Why does this matter? In previous posts, I have argued that: (1) monetary policy has been only partially successful, at best, but also carries hidden risks; (2) asymmetric rules that are tough on deficits but weak on surpluses are inappropriate in the current situation; and (3) this is the time for co-ordinated, counter-cyclical fiscal policy across the EA.
One of Godley’s criticisms of the Maastricht Treaty was that it created no new institutions other than the ECB and yet, somewhat ironically, it is the ECB that is now leading the arguments for a new and more appropriate policy framework (see also “Fiscal, first and foremost“). Panetta concluded that, “Acting now to create the conditions for a symmetric fiscal response will help all member countries to shorten the duration of the crisis period, protect the economic base on which their future production structures and exports rely, and – perhaps most importantly – uphold the premise of a shared and indivisible European destiny.”
I would concur up until the final point – most importantly acting now will minimise the appalling human costs not only of the pandemic itself but also of the subsequent economic downturn. This should be the top priority for all. EU leaders meet tomorrow (23 April 2020) to debate their response and to consider possible funding models. Their responsibilty is immense.
Please note that summary comments above are extracts from more detailed analysis (including extended links to Modern Monetary Theory and Balance Sheet Theory) that is available separately.