Blog Post

How export growth achieved adjustment of massive trade deficits in the euro area

The reduction of current account deficits in euro-area countries since the 2008 crisis is strongly driven by increases in exports that dampened the effect on production of the fall in demand and imports.

By: and Date: May 31, 2017 Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance

The correction of several euro area countries’ external imbalances began almost 10 years ago. A number of euro area countries ran massive current account deficits in 2007/8. With 15.2% of GDP, Greece had the largest deficit, followed by Portugal with a deficit of 12.1%, Spain of 9.6% and Ireland at 6.9%. Those deficits were not only large but had been large for a number of years leading to a significant build-up of external liabilities.

As funding dried-up, deficits came down. A popular myth of the history of the euro area is that the correction of these external deficits became a process predominantly driven by falls in imports, while exports hardly moved. Accordingly, so the myth goes, domestic consumption and  production  fell dramatically while there was no offsetting increase in exports that would have helped dampen the fall in production and employment.

After ten years, it is time to revisit this myth and tell the story of how economies adjusted and boosted exports. If we consider the time period 2007 –2016 (see  Figure 1), one can see that in this 10 year period, in most countries the adjustment happened through exports, while imports remained flat or increased more slowly. In Spain and Portugal, the trade balance adjusted by about 8.5 percentage points (pp.) of GDP,  with the contribution of exports being 8 and 11 pp. and that of imports 0.5 and -2.5 (i.e. imports increased) respectively. In Ireland too, the improvement of the trade balance was the result of an increase in both exports (60 pp.) and imports (43 pp.), with the former outpacing the latter. However, a major revision of Irish national account statistics that took place in 2015 and impacted mainly exports of goods and imports of services is at least partly responsible for these large changes. There is, however, one major exception: Greece. Essentially all of the adjustment of this major deficit happened through a massive contraction in imports, while the export sector played virtually no role in adjustment.

Figure 1: Adjustment of the trade balance: import or export driven

fig1 Source: AMECO Of course, one has to ask what a good benchmark is. One cannot take pre-crisis import growth, which was certainly too large and driven by unsustainable capital inflows. For reasons of completeness, we also show Germany, France and Italy for the same period. However, all three countries were following different dynamics in the concerned years. Of course, the German data confirm the well-known and worrying fact that in Germany, exports were growing more strongly than imports thus driving up the trade balance even further. As a consequence, there was no adjustment in Germany.

The new data confirm and strengthen the overall picture of a previous blog post from 2013: external trade balance adjustment in the major current account deficit countries of the euro area was driven by increases in exports and flat or slowly increasing imports. The exception is Greece, whose external adjustment does not fit into that story. The Greek story certainly underlines the importance of firms that can operate and compete in global markets and increase their production destined for  export when domestic demand is weak.

Most euro area periphery countries therefore had the capacity to partially compensate the shortfall in domestic demand by re-directing production towards exports. This can be qualified as a success in adjusting to the decline in domestic demand that followed the previous excess borrowing.

Another way to see the contribution of exports is to assess their relative importance in the economy. Figure 2 shows the share of exports in nominal GDP both in 2007 and 2016. Whereas countries like Germany, France and Italy saw their exports only increase slightly in terms of GDP, to the tune of 2.5-3 pp., all programme countries now boast substantially higher export to GDP ratios (+7 pp. in Spain, +9 pp. in Portugal, +7.5 in Greece; with the caveat above in mind, +40pp. in Ireland).

Figure 2: Exports of goods and services as a share (%) of GDP

fig2 Source: AMECO But do export-to-GDP shares tell the whole story? After all, programme countries underwent severe recessions during the same period: sizable falls in the denominator (GDP) can mimic the effect of increased openness and export competitiveness. Moreover, both exports and GDP are measured in nominal terms and, thus, include the effects of changes in prices. Again, the value of exports may go up even if the same amount of goods and services is purchased if prices increase; the same goes for GDP. Therefore, a more nuanced approach calls for disentangling these various impacts.

Figure 3 decomposes the change in the export-to-GDP share into five constituent components. The first four capture the contribution of volume and inflation of both exports and GDP. The fifth, smaller term encompasses interactions between the growth rates. The main point raised above remains relevant: for Spain, Portugal and Ireland most of the increase in the share of exports is indeed explained by higher export volume. Only in Greece almost the entirety of the rise in the export share is accounted for by falling real GDP.

Figure 3: Contributions to the change in the export-to-GDP ratio (%), 2007-16

fig3 Source: AMECO; own calculations equation


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 article More on this topic

Blog Post

Implications of the Japan – United States Mini Trade Agreement

Details of the US-Japan mini-trade deal are lacking but the agreements’ direct impact on the US and Japanese economies is likely to be minuscule. The deal seems to have been made to compensate American farmers – a crucial electoral base of the President – for their losses from the trade war with China.

By: Sybrand Brekelmans and Uri Dadush Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: October 11, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Podcast

Podcast

Brexit: a European Odyssey

Nicholas Barrett and Guntram Wolff talk to Kalypso Nicolaïdis, author of Exodus, Reckoning, Sacrifice: Three Meanings of Brexit. Together they discuss the mythology that binds Britain to continental Europe

By: The Sound of Economics Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: October 11, 2019
Read article Download PDF More on this topic More by this author

Policy Contribution

With or without you: are central European countries ready for the euro?

The debate on euro adoption by central European EU countries has intensified in the last years. In this Policy Contribution the author does not review all the complex aspects of euro-area enlargement, but analyse a particularly important issue: the build-up of macroeconomic vulnerabilities and the subsequent adjustments.

By: Zsolt Darvas Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: October 10, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Long term real interest rates fell below zero in all euro area countries

The 10-year real government bond yield, which is the nominal yield deflated by expected inflation, has fallen below zero in Italy and Greece, boosted by increased market confidence for their new governments. Romania is the only remaining EU country with a positive real interest rate. Negative real interest rates vastly help fiscal sustainability and provide a great opportunity to invest in much needed infrastructure and the transition to a carbon-neutral economy.

By: Zsolt Darvas Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: October 8, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

Europe: en finir avec la politique en silos

Projetée dans un monde de rapport de force dont les principaux protagonistes ne séparent pas géopolitique et économie, l’UE va devoir conduire un changement de logiciel culturel, une mutation organisationnelle et un rééquipement opérationnel, explique l’économiste Jean Pisani-Ferry.

By: Jean Pisani-Ferry Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: October 8, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Thomas Piketty's New Book: Impressive Research, Problematic Solutions

Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century blended history, statistics, and theory. Capital and Ideology his new magnum opus, is long enough (1,200 pages) to lump together several books: a quantitative history of inequality through time and space, from medieval Europe and ancient India to present-day societies; a largely noneconomic theory of social stratification; an investigation into the social roots of current populism; and a political manifesto for the European left.

By: Jean Pisani-Ferry Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: October 3, 2019
Read article More by this author

Blog Post

Why structural balances should be scrapped from EU fiscal rules

A prominent team from DG ECFIN of the European Commission challenged some of the criticisms of the EU’s methodology for estimating potential output and output gaps, as well as their role in the EU fiscal framework. In this post, I conclude that their responses to the criticisms they considered are questionable. More importantly, they overlook serious problems with the EU’s potential output methodology.

By: Zsolt Darvas Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Finance & Financial Regulation Date: October 1, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Podcast

Podcast

Deep Focus: What's slowing the Mercosur agreement?

The EU-Mercosur has been 20 years in the making, but a hostile trading environment, unpredictable government and growing environmental concerns are putting it in peril. Is the deal worth fighting for and can it be saved? And could it become a casualty Brazil's forest fires?

By: The Sound of Economics Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: September 27, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Questions to Phil Hogan, Commissioner-designate for Trade

At the presentation of her team for the next European Commission, President-elect Ursula von der Leyen declared that hers will be a ‘geopolitical Commission’. It is no surprise, therefore, that her mission letter to Mr Hogan, the incoming Commissioner-designate for Trade, assigns two roles to European Union trade policy. 

By: André Sapir Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: September 25, 2019
Read article Download PDF More on this topic

Policy Contribution

The European Union-Mercosur Free Trade Agreement: Prospects and risks

After nearly 20 years of on-off negotiations, the European Union and Mercosur – a customs union covering Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay – in June 2019 reached a political agreement on a trade deal. But to derive the full benefits from the EU-Mercosur agreement, major reforms will be needed.

By: Michael Baltensperger and Uri Dadush Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: September 24, 2019
Read article

Blog Post

The EU is in the US trade war crosshairs. It should further raise its game

The incoming European Commission faces a dilemma on the transatlantic trade relationship, because of the unpredictable policies of the Trump administration. The EU must rally its citizens; the greater the divides between member states and EU institutions, the lesser the chances are of forging effective policies toward the United States and China.

By: Anabel González and Nicolas Véron Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Global Economics & Governance Date: September 19, 2019
Read article More on this topic

Opinion

Trump's Backfiring Trade Policy

President Trump’s radical trade policy continues, as do trade disputes with China. The president promised to sign far better trade deals, ensure fair treatment of American firms and reduce the United States’ trade deficit. None of these objectives have been met.

By: Uri Dadush and Laurence Kotlikoff Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: September 17, 2019
Load more posts