Blog Post

Olivier Blanchard fails to recognise two major IMF mistakes in Greece

This blog draws two lessons from the failed Greek programme. Olivier Blanchard is right that the fiscal adjustment of the last 5 years was unavoidable. An earlier debt restructuring could hardly have prevented it. (1) However, an earlier debt restructuring would have allowed significantly lower primary surpluses from now on and it would have made the programme more credible. (2) Equally important, the IMF failed to prioritise a strategy for Greece to regain competitiveness.

By: Date: July 13, 2015 Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance

This blog draws two lessons from the failed Greek programme. Olivier Blanchard is right that the fiscal adjustment of the last 5 years was unavoidable. An earlier debt restructuring could hardly have prevented it. (1) However, an earlier debt restructuring would have allowed significantly lower primary surpluses from now on and it would have made the programme more credible. Higher confidence in Greece would have provided more political and financial stability, essential ingredients for growth. Financial contagion was probably an incorrect argument for delaying debt restructuring. Even if it had been right though, it did not change the underlying problem of debt unsustainability. (2) Equally important, the IMF failed to prioritise a strategy for Greece to regain competitiveness. The programme initially made a correct diagnosis of Greece’s major competitiveness problem.  The problem was a result of the pre-crisis Ponzi scheme with ever-increasing deficits financing higher public salaries and rising pensions. However, conditionality on improving the business environment and product markets, augmenting competition and lowering wages through the abolition of the 13th month salary were weak or absent. This made a turn-around of the economy away from a bloated state sector towards a larger export sector impossible. Contrary to Portugal, exports hardly increased in Greece. Political economy considerations would have called for a frontloading of structural reforms for which the political energy in 2013/14 was clearly lacking – despite later IMF insistence on such reforms. These mistakes raise significant questions on the governance of the IMF. They also call for drawing the right lessons for the third programme.

The IMF’s chief economist, Olivier Blanchard, just came out with a robust defence of the IMF policy choices in Greece. His piece is clear and deserves careful reading and analysis. It is important to understand the key mistakes in the Greek programme and to draw the right conclusions.

Greece’s 30 June failure to meet a payment obligation to the International Monetary Fund starkly exposed the wider failure of the Greek financial assistance programme. It was the biggest missed payment in the IMF’s history and highlights the uncertain prospects of repayment of the €24 billion the IMF has outstanding to Greece. However, the IMF’s exposure is small compared to the exposure of the euro-area institutions, which amounts to more than €190 billion.

Five years after the start of the programme, what do we now know about the mistakes and what lessons should the Fund draw from the Greek failure? I would prioritise two points, which Olivier Blanchard does not sufficiently recognise:

Believe your numbers

Independent economists and IMF staff had doubts about Greek debt sustainability from the beginning of the programme. Instead of insisting on earlier and deep debt restructuring, the IMF agreed to change its internal rules to cater for financial stability concerns as a reason to overrule the sustainability doubts.

We now know that the financial stability concerns were overstated. We also know that they were not directly related to the Greek situation. Instead, the rising spreads elsewhere were largely a result of debt sustainability doubts in those territories. The absence of a proper lender of last resort was the other missing piece – until the European Central Bank stepped in with the Outright Monetary Transactions programme. The Irish and Portuguese programmes were bound to happen even without the crisis in Greece. As regards the banks in France and Germany, the direct exposure numbers were small compared to the overall size of the banking systems. They were also small compared to the bank rescue programmes enacted.

One has to concur though with Olivier Blanchard, that the policy system was genuinely worried about the debt restructuring. At the beginning of the programme, it was simply impossible to convince any policy maker that this was the right choice. However, the euro area lost substantial time until the decision to restructure was finally taken. The debt exchange happened only in March/April 2012, almost two years after the start of the programme. Moreover, the restructuring was executed in a way that made future debt restructuring more difficult as Zettelmeyer, Trebesch and Gulati point out. Pushing for an earlier debt restructuring and less generous terms for holdout creditors could have saved substantial resources to Greece.

In any case, even with financial stability concerns, the fact that Greece’s debt was from the outset unsustainable should have been recognised. Financial contagion risk cannot be an excuse for ignoring sustainability.

The IMF should have assumed responsibility for this mistake early on and accepted the postponement of debt repayment – as the Europeans did in November 2012. The European debt moratorium significantly reduced the Greek debt burden. If the IMF had accepted delayed debt repayments similar to the Europeans, it would have gone a long way in preventing the current escalation of the situation: no new programme would have been needed to fund an IMF rollover.

More importantly, however, an earlier and deeper debt restructuring would have given more fiscal space for later years.

Even with earlier restructuring, I doubt that a slower fiscal adjustment up to now would have been feasible. Even with a full debt restructuring, creditors’ appetite to fund huge deficits would have been limited. In any case, up to now more than 40% of GDP worth of deficits has been funded by the programme. Olivier Blanchard clearly accepts the fact that deficits had to come down, although he has typically argued for less austerity. More specifically, he argues that

“Fiscal austerity was not a choice, but a necessity. …. The deficit reduction was large because the initial deficit was large. ‘Less fiscal austerity,’ i.e., slower fiscal adjustment, would have required even more financing ….”

Indeed, the initial deficit of Greece was extremely high, at 15% of GDP, and the Greek financial assistance programme is by far the largest in recent history. Here Blanchard is aware of the limits of what can be done with such starting conditions: fiscal deficits were too high and had to be reduced.

One can make this point differently: high deficits were the root of Greece’s problem, not the solution. Greece lost market access in early 2010 because its economy was severely imbalanced. Since joining the Euro, Greek governments had been running a Ponzi scheme by increasing their government borrowing every year, paying higher public wages and making the pension system more generous. Greek public sector wages more than doubled between 1999 and 2009, while increasing by only 40 percent in the rest of the euro area. Other economists such as Ricardo Hausmann have highlighted explicitly that Greece’s problem did not come from austerity. I clearly agree with Blanchard that deficits had to come down – this was an inevitable reaction to the unsustainable pre-crisis policies. One can debate the speed of fiscal adjustment but even spread over 7 years, it would have both been painful for Greece and it would have required more IMF/EU funding.

However, an earlier debt restructuring would have allowed for lower primary surpluses as of 2015. In our computations, a one percentage point lower primary surplus per year during 2015-2030 amounts to some 10% difference in the debt to GDP ratio by 2030. An earlier debt restructuring could have easily brought 10 or even 20% of GDP less debt, allowing for substantially lower primary surpluses going forward. Concessionary financing, as Olivier Blanchard argues, has helped. However, it was clearly not enough to restore debt sustainability.

In short, the IMF bears responsibility for not insisting earlier that the debt is not sustainable and asking for earlier and deeper debt restructuring. This would have allowed running a much lower and more realistic primary surplus target. Instead, the IMF accepted to structure the programme in a way that put all hope on higher future primary surpluses. The historical evidence, however, is rather clear that such high primary surpluses are extremely unlikely – and quite bad for economic growth especially when paid to external creditors. In contrast, contagion risk was probably overstated. Fiscal numbers that did not add up were also undermining confidence in Greece. With fiscal sustainability, there would be no Grexit debate now.

When you enter a programme, address all serious imbalances upfront

Greece had lost a huge amount of competitiveness relative to its partners. It was running current account deficits of well above 10 percent in the five years preceding the programme. This loss of competitiveness was driven by the bloated state sector but it extended to the entire economy. The programme should have prioritised restoring the competitiveness of the Greek economy. For this, an elimination of the 13th month salary in the private sector or a similar measure was inevitable. Yet, the IMF did not insist on this crucial point, despite discussing that it would actually be advisable (see point 43 in the staff agreement). Delaying it meant delaying the competitiveness adjustment. The result was a deeper recession as unemployment increased instead of wages.

In the public sector as well reforms were initially rather timid or inconsistent.  The bloated state sector was tackled partly by reducing the number of public employees. However, early retirement schemes for public sector employees were put in place and these now cause significant problems in the pension system. This was not really a lasting solution.

In an upcoming Bruegel paper, Alessio Terzi shows how little emphasis was put on product market and business reforms in the first programme. Yet, the programme should also have prioritised product market reforms and productivity enhancing investment. It should have addressed vested interests as manifested in oligopolistic structures. Yet competition policy was hardly touched. With the second programme issues such as business environment finally became more important in the conditionality (see our blog here). However, during 2013/14, it became more and more difficult to enact any meaningful reforms in Greece. Conditionality on reforms thus came too late.

Yet, regaining competitiveness earlier would have allowed the export sector to pick up some of the slack in the economy. In Portugal, the cut in domestic demand was partly offset by a significant increase in exports of more than €10 billion since 2008. In contrast, exports in Greece have barely increased since 2008. Clearly, the programme did not do enough to achieve a turn-around in the export sector in Greece.

Political economy provides us with the simple insight that when a crisis occurs, there is only a short window of opportunity for deep reform. In the Greek case, the IMF failed to seize the opportunity of frontloading tough conditionality on structural reforms that would have boosted the export sector. Professor Blanchard only mentions that Greece did not comply with structural reform demands:

“Only 5 of 12 planned IMF reviews under the current program were completed, and only one has been completed since mid-2013, because of the failure to implement reforms”

This should come as no surprise.  Since mid-2013, compliance with conditionality weakened as th economy weakened and interest groups had time to organise themselves. Political economy teaches us that resistance to reform will be fiercer the later the reform comes.

In conclusion

A combination of many factors is responsible for the failure of the Greek programme. We have argued that fiscal policy, lacking confidence, corrupt elites, a lack of competitiveness and weak productive structures combine to explain Greece’s miserable performance. Professor Blanchard shares this view: “But fiscal consolidation explains only a fraction of the output decline.  Output above potential to start, political crises, inconsistent policies, insufficient reforms, Grexit fears, low business confidence, weak banks, all contributed to the outcome”. Generations of empirical economists will struggle to assign percentages to the different mistakes.

Yet, the IMF spectacularly failed on two fronts: earlier debt restructuring and substantial and early reforms to restore the competitiveness of Greece. The former would have allowed running lower primary surpluses in the future. It would have made the programme more credible allowing confidence to be restored; the latter would have been the best way of minimising the unavoidable shrinkage of the Greek pre-crisis bubble by boosting exports.

One can debate whether the IMF is the main institution responsible for the failures in the design of the programme. Certainly, the EU institutions played a major role. However, the IMF participated in the programme to be an independent and experienced institution. If it made those mistakes because the European institutions overruled it, it should draw the right lessons for its governance and its participation in financial assistance programmes as a junior partner.

Going forward, the IMF should indeed be the impartial voice of reason on Greece and resist political pressure. Numbers are merciless and politics can ultimately not overrule them. The following things are central:

  • The IMF should insist on lower primary surpluses going forward. Achieving a primary surplus of 3.5% would trigger a further substantial shrinkage of the Greek economy. Entering a third programme with these numbers and only later organizing debt relief is counterproductive. Fear of Grexit does not make a programme sustainable.
  • The IMF should seize the opportunity of new programme discussions to insist on structural reforms that matter for growth. Political ownership of reforms is crucial.
  • Finally, the IMF should review its governance and its participation in financial assistance programmes as a junior partner.

The Europeans needed the independent outside view of the IMF to start their first programme. Five years on, the IMF is still needed as a voice of reason. It should learn from its mistakes.


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

Upcoming Event

Jun
27
12:30

Euro tragedy: a drama in nine acts

This event will feature a presentation by Ashoka Mody of his new book, which argues that the Euro is at the root of the problems the European Union faces today.

Speakers: Maria Demertzis, Ashoka Mody 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

Policy Contribution

Is the European Semester effective and useful?

The authors study whether and to what extent EU countries implement recommendations on macroeconomic imbalances given by the EU in the so-called European Semester. Overall implementation of recommendations by EU countries has worsened in the last few years, in particular when it comes to recommendations addressed to countries with excessive macroeconomic imbalances.

By: Konstantinos Efstathiou and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: June 13, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

« Mieux vaudrait laisser les gouvernements libres de tenter les politiques de leur choix »

Les peuples ont le droit de faire des erreurs: Selon l’économiste Jean Pisani-Ferry, l’Union européenne doit accepter les aspirations légitimes à des politiques disparates, tout se prémunissant contre la contagion de leur corollaire : la possibilité d’une faillite souveraine.

By: Jean Pisani-Ferry Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: June 12, 2018
Read article More on this topic

Blog Post

Is the ECB collateral framework compromising the safe-asset status of euro-area sovereign bonds?

Central banks’ collateral frameworks play an important role in defining what is considered as a safe asset. However, the ECB’s framework is unsatisfactory because it is overly reliant on pro-cyclical ratings from credit rating agencies, and because the differences in haircuts between the different ECB credit quality steps are not sufficiently gradual. In this note, the authors propose how the ECB could solve these problems and improve its collateral framework to protect its balance sheet without putting at risk the safe status of sovereign bonds of the euro area.

By: Grégory Claeys and Inês Goncalves Raposo Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: June 8, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

Mattarella’s line in the sand

The vital task confronting Europe is to reconcile citizens’ right to make radical choices with the need to ensure that decisions leading to constitutional change are subject to sufficient public deliberation. The EU and the euro must not be constitutional cages; but nor should they be subject to ill-considered decisions.

By: Jean Pisani-Ferry Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: June 1, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Italian populism calls for hard choices

The economic agenda of Italian populists is likely to exacerbate rather than alleviate Italy’s longstanding problems. But the piecemeal, small-step approach followed by European and national ruling elites, while perhaps tolerable for countries under normal economic conditions, is insufficient for an Italy stuck in a low-growth-high-debt equilibrium. If defenders of the European project want to regain popularity, they will need to present a clear functioning alternative to setting the house on fire.

By: Alessio Terzi Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: May 31, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Are SBBS really the safe asset the euro area is looking for?

The European Commission is pushing to create a synthetic euro-area-wide safe asset in the form of sovereign bond-backed securities (SBBS). However, SBBS do not fully fulfil their original promises. If introduced on a massive scale, they might increase the supply of safe assets in good times and loosen the link between sovereigns and banks. But they will not give governments a means to maintain market access during crises, they might change incentives for governments to default, and they could pose a problem to individual bonds not included in SBBS if, in the end, they are put at a regulatory advantage vis-à-vis individual bonds.

By: Grégory Claeys Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation Date: May 28, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Argentina’s troubles

Argentina has abruptly called on the International Monetary Fund for financial help, amid currency pressures. We review recent economists’ position on this.

By: Silvia Merler Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: May 22, 2018
Read article More on this topic

Blog Post

How large is the proposed decline in EU agricultural and cohesion spending?

Cohesion spending is proposed by the Commission to increase by 6% in the next MFF, but inflation is expected to reduce the real value of such spending by 7%. The gradual convergence of the least developed regions to the EU average reduces the need for cohesion spending. Common agricultural spending is proposed to be cut by 4%, while if we consider inflation too, the reduction in real value is 15%.

By: Zsolt Darvas and Nicolas Moës Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: May 4, 2018
Read article More by this author

Blog Post

Europe needs a broader discussion of its future

When thinking about what will determine the prosperity and well-being of citizens living in the euro area, five issues are central. This column, part of VoxEU's Euro Area Reform debate, argues that the important CEPR Policy Insight by a team of French and German economists makes an important contribution to two of them, but leaves aside some of the most crucial ones: European public goods, a proper fiscal stance and major national reforms. It also argues that its compromise on sovereign debt appears unbalanced.

By: Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Finance & Financial Regulation Date: May 4, 2018
Read article More on this topic

Blog Post

Structural Reforms 0.0 – The case for strengthening institutions

Improvement in institutional quality, particularly concerning the rule of law, is the most essential and urgent structural reform the EU can make. Without it, the obtrusive lack of trust in the EU – which has thus far hampered expansionary and reformist efforts – will persist.

By: Maria Demertzis and Inês Goncalves Raposo Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: May 3, 2018
Read article Download PDF More on this topic

Working Paper

State contingent debt as insurance for euro-area sovereigns

Since the financial crisis, EU countries' economies have recovered to the point that they are exiting their adjustment programmes. Institutional stability mechanisms have been improved at the European level, with the promotion of the banking union and the establishment of a European Monetary Fund, for instance. However, the authors argue that such crisis contingencies should include markets in their risk-sharing, which would require better coordination with institutions.

By: Maria Demertzis and Stavros Zenios Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation Date: April 26, 2018
Load more posts