Opinion

Europe’s Troika should grow up

In early 2010, a group of men (and a few women) in dark suits landed in Athens. They belonged to a global institution, the International Monetary Fund, and to a pair of regional ones, the European Commission and the European Central Bank.

By: Date: June 6, 2013 European Macroeconomics & Governance Tags & Topics

In early 2010, a group of men (and a few women) in dark suits landed in Athens. They belonged to a global institution, the International Monetary Fund, and to a pair of regional ones, the European Commission and the European Central Bank. Their mission was to negotiate the terms and conditions of a financial bailout of Greece. A few months later, what became known as the “troika” was dispatched to Ireland, then to Portugal, and later to Cyprus.

This endeavor was bound to have wide implications. The troika negotiated what ended up being the largest financial assistance packages ever: loans to Greece from the IMF and European partners are set to reach €240 billion ($310 billion), or 130% of the country’s 2013 GDP – far more in both absolute and relative terms than any country has ever received. Loans to Ireland (€85 billion) and Portugal (€78 billion) are also significantly bigger than those usually provided by the IMF.

Moreover, cooperation between the three institutions is unprecedented. Back in 1997-1998, during the Asian crisis, the G-7 flatly rejected Japan’s proposal for an Asian Monetary Fund. Now the IMF has even accepted a minority-lender role, with the bulk of assistance coming from the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), a new institution often viewed as an embryonic European Monetary Fund.

It is frequently argued that the size of the assistance packages is a testament to Europe’s clout within the IMF. Perhaps, but the packages are, first and foremost, a consequence of the constraints to which Europeans were (and still are) subject.

Economic adjustment is necessarily slower within a monetary union than it is for countries with their own currency, because, even for very flexible economies, prices change more slowly than the exchange rate. Delivering the same result therefore takes more time, and requires keeping countries in intensive care for longer – and at higher cost.

Three years later, the results are mixed at best. Unemployment has increased much more than anticipated and social hardship is unmistakable. There is one bright spot: Ireland, which is set to recover from an exceptionally severe financial crisis. But there is also a dark spot: Greece, where GDP has shrunk by 20% since 2009 and where the public debt/GDP ratio is now higher than anticipated at the launch of the program, despite the debt reduction negotiated with private creditors in February 2012. This is not because of a lack of fiscal consolidation. On the contrary, the Greek authorities have done more than planned on this front. But the collapse of GDP has necessarily implied a rising debt ratio, driving the country into a recessionary spiral as economic contraction forces further spending cuts.

Could the troika have done better? It was not responsible for existing monetary conditions – a currency union with a central bank focused on price stability. But European officials’ hesitant response to the crisis added to the difficulty. Prolonged controversies over the terms and conditions of assistance and the absurdly high interest rate initially set on official loans exacted a heavy toll on countries already under stress.

Furthermore, the troika made three mistakes. First, Greek debt reduction was postponed for too long. Once it became clear that the burden was unbearable, debt should have been cut expeditiously. Too many creditors were reimbursed at par on their maturing claims.

Second, the troika based its programs on overly optimistic assumptions. It misjudged the consequences of fiscal consolidation and credit constraints, underestimating the contraction of employment and overestimating exports and privatization receipts.

Finally, not unlike what happened during the Asian crisis in the late 1990’s, the troika took country cases one by one. As a result, it did not pay enough attention to cross-country spillovers and deteriorating conditions in the wider eurozone.

Should the troika survive? Its three participating institutions have different mandates and different roles. It was perhaps inevitable that initially they worked jointly; but there is reason to question such an approach now.

Operationally and financially, the IMF has become much more involved in Europe than its global shareholders deem sustainable. It should become a catalytic lender whose participation in eurozone programs remains desirable but not indispensable – giving it the possibility to disagree and walk away.

The ECB is in an odd position as well, but for different reasons. As the eurozone’s central bank, rather than a lending institution, it does not have a clear role in negotiations on behalf of creditors. If it remains in the troika, its participation should be mostly silent.

Finally, Europe should transform the ESM into a European Monetary Fund capable of providing policy assessment and advice, as well as financial assistance – possibly drawing on European Commission staff.

Beyond European specifics, the troika experiment answers a question of major importance to other parts of the world: Can the IMF cooperate with regional institutions? The answer is yes – but not easily. The troika has proved functional, and Europe would have been at pains to provide conditional assistance to eurozone countries without the IMF’s participation and support. But cooperation has proved to be difficult, if only because each participating institution has rules and constraints that are not easy to reconcile with the others’.

This column was first published here by Project Syndicate. It draws on a Bruegel report co-authored with André Sapir and Guntram Wolff.


Republishing and referencing

Bruegel considers itself a public good and takes no institutional standpoint.

Due to copyright agreements we ask that you kindly email request to republish opinions that have appeared in print to communication@bruegel.org.

View comments
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 about event More on this topic

Upcoming Event

Sep
29
08:30

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
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
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 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 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 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 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