Blog Post

The Greek debt trap: missing the wrong target

IMF and European officials have publicly clashed over the date by when Greece public debt should be reduced to 120 percent of GDP. The IMF insists on the earlier target date of 2020, while the Europeans propose 2022. Both are wrong: a 120 percent target, whether it is reached in eight or ten years, will […]

By: Date: November 15, 2012 European Macroeconomics & Governance Tags & Topics

IMF and European officials have publicly clashed over the date by when Greece public debt should be reduced to 120 percent of GDP. The IMF insists on the earlier target date of 2020, while the Europeans propose 2022. Both are wrong: a 120 percent target, whether it is reached in eight or ten years, will not restore trust now and will not make investments in Greek bonds attractive to private investors a decade from now. A credible strategy should involve zero-interest official lending and indexing loans to GDP.

A major reason for Greece’s public debt misery is a negative feedback loop between high public debt and the collapse in GDP. The loop is especially strong when there are widespread expectations of a Greek euro exit. The prospect of euro exit discourages private investment and increases incentives for tax evasion and capital flight, thereby dragging growth down and worsening the fiscal situation. As the budget deficit and debt ratio increase, the official lenders are demanding additional fiscal consolation measures, which further drag down output.

A point may come when the Greek government and parliament may be unable or unwilling to pass new measures, perhaps because of social unrest. That could lead to a collapse of the government, domestic political paralysis and the stopping of external financial assistance. Without external financial assistance, the Greek state may default, which could culminate in an accelerated and possibly uncontrolled exit from the euro area, with devastating consequences both inside and outside Greece.

Therefore, restoring public debt sustainability, and thereby resisting euro-exit speculation, is a necessary (though not sufficient) condition for stopping further economic contraction. The 120 percent of GDP target by 2020 has proved to be inadequate for restoring trust and thereby limiting the probability of a Greek euro exit. A reiteration of the same target, or its extension to 2022, is unlikely to help. That would just prolong economic and social misery and the uncertainty about Greek euro membership.

A strategy leading to a credible resolution of the Greek public debt overhang would benefit both Greece and its lenders. Such a strategy should involve a maximum 100 percent of GDP debt ratio target by 2020, along with a safeguard that would minimise the probability of a similar debt overhang occurring later. The measures currently under discussion, such as a small reduction in the interest rate on bilateral loans, the exchange of European Central Bank Greek bond holdings, or buy-back of privately-held Greek debt, won’t be enough.

While these measures should be tried, the main plank of the strategy should be the reduction of the official lending rate to zero until 2020. In its effect this official sector involvement would be similar to a write-down of the debt, but could be perhaps politically more acceptable. The second plank of the strategy should be the indexing of the notional amount of all official loans to Greek GDP. This would help to avoid a repetition of the current situation should growth disappoint further. But if growth is better than expected, official creditors will also benefit.

Since the Greek financing programmes were designed by the troika of the European Commission, ECB and the IMF, and were approved by euro-area member states, responsibility for programme failure should be shared between all lenders and the Greek government. Therefore, there should be no reason for excluding any of the official lenders from the debt restructuring and hence the IMF and the ECB should also share the burden. The ECB cannot participate directly because of the strict prohibition of monetary financing by the EU Treaty, but this is not an obstacle: the ECB’s interest income from Greek bonds will be ultimately transferred to euro-area member states, which should grant this interest income to Greece.

At the same time, all efforts should be made by Greece to pay back the debt relief provided via the zero-interest lending (realistically, beyond 2030). Greece should commit to a stable primary budget surplus in the long run (say, 3.5 percent of GDP) and that commitment should be enforced, possibly by curtailing further Greece’s fiscal sovereignty. Then the debt ratio will fall further. When the debt falls below a certain threshold, such as 60 percent of GDP, then Greece should not reduce the debt ratio further, but gradually pay back the debt relief. An extended privatisation plan could also be used to pay back the debt relief, though there are major uncertainties even about the current privatisation plan.

Policymakers have to recognise the failure of their current Greek strategy and decide if they wish to keep Greece inside the euro area or push it out. If they want to keep Greece in, which I hope they do, then they need to change course and not just implement some easy measures, grant some extra money and prolong by two years the anyway inadequate debt target of 120 percent of GDP. That would backfire soon.

The author is research fellow at Bruegel and author of the report ‘The Greek debt trap: an escape plan’.


Republishing and referencing

Bruegel considers itself a public good and takes no institutional standpoint. Anyone is free to republish and/or quote this post without prior consent. Please provide a full reference, clearly stating Bruegel and the relevant author as the source, and include a prominent hyperlink to the original post.

View comments
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

Inclusive growth in the European Union

Why is inclusive growth important and how do the EU’s social problems differ from social problems in other parts of the world?

Speakers: Brando Benifei, Monica Brezzi, Bea Cantillon, Zsolt Darvas, Jana Hainsworth, Stefaan Hermans, Barbara Kauffmann, Dalia Marin, Tim Murphy, André Sapir, Reinhilde Veugelers, Luca Visentini and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: September 29, 2016
Read about event More on this topic

Upcoming Event

Oct
4
12:30

Potential impediments to long-term investment

How can we encourage long-term investment in Europe? Many factors hinder long-term investment but are there risks involved in reviewing existing regulation?

Speakers: Sophie Barbier, Grégory Claeys, Miguel Gil Tertre, Edoardo Reviglio and Sandra Rigot Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels
Read article More on this topic

Blog Post

André Sapir
Guntram B. Wolff

The Continental Partnership proposal: a reply to five main criticisms

The proposal for a Continental Partnership (CP) has received a great deal of attention. Two of the authors, André Sapir and Guntram Wolff, clarify some misunderstandings and respond to five key criticisms. They argue that the CP does not offer a way for EU members to restrict freedom of movement, nor is there a great risk of “political contagion”. Indeed, a CP arrangement could be the best route for the remaining EU members to maintain strong economic and security cooperation with the UK, while defending themselves against dumping and vetoes.

By: André Sapir and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: September 27, 2016
Read article Download PDF More on this topic More by this author

Policy Contribution

pc15_16

Low long-term rates: bond bubble or symptom of secular stagnation?

Yields on European sovereign bonds have reached historically low levels in 2016. This secular decline in long-term sovereign yields is not limited to the euro area. Why are interest rates currently so low? Are low long-term trates justified by fundamental factors or is it an artificial phenomenon?

By: Grégory Claeys Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: September 26, 2016
Read about event More on this topic

Upcoming Event

Oct
10
12:30

Financial Times/Bruegel European Forum: Where now for the UK and the EU after the vote for Brexit?

Three months after the results of the UK referendum there is still a lot of uncertainty about the future. The Financial Times and Bruegel bring together a panel to discuss the most crucial questions.

Speakers: Lionel Barber, James Blitz, Maria Demertzis, Sylvie Goulard and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels
Read about event More on this topic

Upcoming Event

Oct
13
08:30

The Euro and the battle of ideas

Why is the Euro in trouble? Are philosophical differences between the founding countries to blame and can those differences be reconciled?

Speakers: Markus K. Brunnermeier, Marco Buti, Maria Demertzis and Harold James Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels
Read article Download PDF More by this author

Parliamentary Testimony

written-evidence-house-of-lords-12-9House of Lords

The future of financial services in the UK following the Brexit vote

UK House of Lords EU Sub-Committee on Financial Affairs' call for evidence on the future of Financial Services in the UK following the vote to leave the European Union.

By: Dirk Schoenmaker Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, House of Lords, Parliamentary Testimonies Date: September 15, 2016
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Nicolas Véron

The City will decline—and we will be the poorer for it

Just as the City owes much of its current awe-inspiring prosperity to European integration, the brutal realities of Brexit will make it shrink, not thrive. All this is bleak news, not just for the City but for the UK's economy.

By: Nicolas Véron Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: September 14, 2016
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

From crisis management to launching economic growth

What have been the most effective strategies in limiting the impact of the economic crisis in Europe? What challenges lie ahead? Bruegel's 10th anniversary event in Budapest will foster discussion of these important topics.

Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Location: Budapest, Hungary Date: September 14, 2016
Read about event More on this topic

Upcoming Event

Nov
21-22
13:30

Vision Europe Summit 2016

The 2016 Vision Europe Summit is titled "Redesigning European Migration and Refugee Policy" and will be held in Lisbon on 21-22 November 2016.

Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Location: Lisbon
Read article Download PDF More on this topic

Policy Contribution

cover

What are the prerequisites for a euro-area fiscal capacity?

In this Policy Contribution, Maria Demertzsis and Guntram B. Wolff discuss three progressive steps for strengthening the fiscal framework at the euro-area level. These lead to less interference in national fiscal policymaking thanks to a more credible no-bailout clause, increased risk sharing and different degrees of provision of euro-area-wide public goods and fiscal stabilisation.

By: Maria Demertzis and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: September 9, 2016
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Dijsselbloem photo

Speech by Jeroen Dijsselbloem at Bruegel Annual Dinner 2016

Jeroen Dijsselbloem, President f the Eurogroup, delivered the keynote speech at Bruegel's Annual Dinner 2016, held on 6 September 2016.

By: Jeroen Dijsselbloem Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: September 7, 2016
Load more posts