Friday, 1 July 2016

The EU should take the side of the losers of globalization

How should the European Union react to the decision of the British people to withdraw from the union? This is the question that is at the center of the political debate in Europe.
The starting point in trying to answer this question is the observation that the European Union has a very negative image today, not only in the UK but also in other parts of the EU, leading to dissatisfaction about the European project. I will argue that this dissatisfaction has to do with the inability of the European Union to set up a mechanism that protects the losers of globalization. Worse, the EU has reduced the capacity of national governments to take on the role of protector, while little has been done to create such a mechanism at the EU-level.
Free trade creates an incredible dynamic of innovation and material prosperity. That prosperity, however, does not benefit everyone. Many are better off thanks to globalization. But many others are not. Some even see their welfare decline because they lose their jobs or because their incomes fall.
As globalization creates material welfare in the countries that participate in it, it is in principle possible to compensate the losers from globalization. That is the argument that most economists find strong enough to defend globalization. But the political obstacles against organizing redistribution towards the losers of globalization are large. This is a problem in most industrialized countries, but it is made even more intense in the EU.
The European institutions have become major promoters of globalization. The single market and the trade agreements reached by the European Commission have widely opened up the European gates to globalization. There is nothing wrong with that per se. Except that there is a complete failure to organize the necessary compensation towards the losers of the globalization. The European institutions have no power over social policy, which has been kept in the hands of the national authorities. However, the hands of these authorities have been shackled by the same European institutions’ fiscal rules.
The European fiscal rules not only make it extremely difficult to compensate the losers from globalization. What is worse, they have amplified the hardship of the losers from globalization. Since at least five years the European Commission has pushed all member-countries of the Eurozone into an austerity straightjacket that has produced economic stagnation and rising unemployment mainly of those who had already been hit badly by globalization. It will be no surprise that many turn their backs towards the European institutions that are seen as cold and ready to punish when millions live in hardship.
Not only the fiscal rules but also the structural reforms that have been imposed by the same European institutions are to blame for the rejection of the European Union by millions of people.  European policy makers have adopted the neo-liberal discourse. According to this discourse, workers must be flexible (read: they should be happy when their wages fall, when they can be dismissed quickly and when they receive less unemployment benefits). The neo-liberal policymakers that now dominate the European Union preach that social security is unproductive and should be downsized. These policies are euphemistically called structural reforms. They are imposed on millions of people, mostly the losers of globalization, by European institutions and national governments alike.
The problem of the European Union today is that, instead of helping those who suffer from globalization, it has set up policies that hurt these people even more. It is no surprise that the losers revolt. If the EU continues with austerity and structural reforms, revolt will spread and will take the form of attempts to exit the Union. It is time the European Union takes the side of the losers of globalization instead of pushing for policies that mainly benefit the winners.
This can be done in two ways. The first one is to stop imposing structural reforms on the member-states. The rationale for these structural reforms has been that they promote economic growth and therefore should benefit everybody. The empirical evidence of a positive link between structural reforms and economic growth, however, is very weak. Recent econometric analysis of the OECD countries fails to find evidence that reforms in the labour markets and in the product markets boost economic growth (De Grauwe and Ji(2016), IMF(2015)). These studies, however, find that investment, both private and public, has a strong positive effect on economic growth.
The latter result points the way to the second change in economic policies that the European policymakers should initiate. This should consist in boosting public investment. The latter have suffered severe collateral damage from the ill-conceived austerity programs imposed by the European institutions.
A boost in public investment can only be achieved by changing the fiscal compact that imposes structural budget balance in the member-states of the Eurozone. This compact has the unfortunate implication that public investment can only be financed by current revenues. A more destructive rule for economic growth has rarely been imposed.  When politicians are told that the cost of public investment should be fully borne by present taxpayers (voters) while the benefits will accrue to future taxpayers (voters) it will not surprise that the political incentives to engage in public investment will be weak. This is what happens today. Thanks to an ill-conceived rule, public investment in the Eurozone is at a historic low level.
It is often said that allowing public debt to increase will saddle our children with an unbearable debt burden. This criticism confuses gross and net debt. When productive public investments are undertaken by issuing government bonds, our children will inherit both productive assets and government bonds. Today the cost of issuing government bonds is close to zero in many Eurozone countries. If governments manage to invest in productive assets that have a return higher than zero, our children will inherit assets that create revenues exceeding the cost of borrowing. As a result, their net debt burden will have declined. They will not understand why we have not increased public investment when borrowing was so cheap.
I am a proponent of more political integration in Europe. But today grand schemes for “more Europe” should be put on the back burner. Instead European politicians should change their economic policies and, in so doing, show in the facts that the European Union can produce welfare, also for the losers of globalization.  
References:
De Grauwe, P. and Ji, Y., (2016), Crisis Management and Economic Growth in the Eurozone, Chapter 2, in Francesco Caselli, (ed), Prospects for Growth in the European Union, Oxford University Press.

IMF World Economic Outlook, (2015), Ch. 3, Box 3.5 on The Effects of Structural Reforms on Total Factor Productivity, 104–7.

16 comments:

  1. Well, perfectly clear and pointing in the direction where the problem is, neo-liberal policies in national governments. The question is besides how much these national policies in turn are administered by international corporations.

    ReplyDelete
  2. How can the EU soften the austerity somewhat and start investing in infra-structure and other productive investments? To what a degree is the current straigth jacket imposed by Merkel versus supra-national organizations like the IMF? How can a fair system of transfer payments be set up to soften the blow on those that have been hurt the most by globalization? What can Europe do to avoid that a Trump like person starts to preach protectionism in Europe?

    ReplyDelete
  3. How can the EU soften the austerity somewhat and start investing in infra-structure and other productive investments? To what a degree is the current straigth jacket imposed by Merkel versus supra-national organizations like the IMF? How can a fair system of transfer payments be set up to soften the blow on those that have been hurt the most by globalization? What can Europe do to avoid that a Trump like person starts to preach protectionism in Europe?

    ReplyDelete
  4. "The cost of issuing government bonds is close to zero ..." There is obviously something very artificial going on that explain why it would be uberhaupt possible to borrow at 0% interest rate. I am not familiar with the details of the applicable regulations, but I somehow suspect that they have implemented a way to force the banking industry to offer (=forced supply) the deposits that they are holding for the public for free to government borrowers. "If governments manage to invest in productive assets that have a return higher than zero" If this were possible, I wonder why private investors would not invest in these opportunities, if they really existed, instead of getting a zero return on their bank deposits? At first glance it does indeed look like an interesting form of arbitrage, but there is also a fishy sonority to the idea of "investing money obtained for free into high-yielding investments". It almost sounds like a brochure from Madoff Investments Ltd.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The return for society might be higher than for an individual investor. Moreover, individual investors have increasingly a shorter time horizon (limited to 3 to 5 years) while the return of public investments is in many cases only realized over a longer period.

      Delete
  5. Impossible: the E.U. is a Liberal or neo Liberal realization, based on free trade. NOT a Socialist organization.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rubbish. First of all there is a huge difference between liberal and neo-liberal, which you seem to disregard. Second of all Europe as a project is 30 years older than the neoliberal trend and was started (by the americans) during the era when the New Dealers were setting the agenda. You perception of political ideology seems too black-white, while there are true nuances. About the EU, it became neoliberal in character because many of the politicians as well as the public servants have had an economic education which is tilted towards the neoclassical school. It seems to me that it's this limited (and growing discredited) education combined with a disability by many of them to think outside the box which is the cause of the EU suffering from neoclassical dogmatic thinking. But I'm afraid the same thinking has infested many national goverments (profoundly the UK, or for instance the Netherlands) as well. Prime example of a person with limited economic education and a disability or unwillingness to reasses his oen way of thinking is the dutch minister of finance and chairman of the (unofficial) Eurogroup. This guy is sombody so rigidly set in his way of dogmatic thinking, he doesn't even realises it anymore. To him there's only one truth, the truth he had been taught at the Wageningen University of Agriculture where he'd studied. (presumimgly not the place where they would teach alternative macro-economic theories)

      Delete
  6. You might find my 2014 working paper on the topic interesting: one reason why the cause of globalization losers has not been addressed is the mainstream parties' neglect. Mainstream parties across Europe have subscribed to the same narrative of globalization as always benign, and have therefore overlooked its negative effects. Protest parties have picked up on this and are now feasting on this division.

    http://www.fiia.fi/en/publication/430/eurosceptics_in_the_2014_ep_elections/

    ReplyDelete
  7. I fully agree with the analysis and the proposals, but would add that on top of this national politicians are often hiding behind the EU in order to avoid announcing unpopular measures themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I agree that the EU could/should do more to compensate the losers of globalisation. It is a logic consequence of having a federated structure that the level most apt to deal with a task should take that task on. Other types of structural reform and at least dropping the austerity myth would be a good start. Other possibilities can be considered. Nevertheless, voters in the UK did not vote against the EU because austerity was imposed by Brussels. London has been an enthusiastic follower of the EU rules, but needed no encouragement. Rather, it was a vote against the Conservative government's austerity policies over the last 6 years, a coalition of discontent, that exploded in the hands of a political party that had skilfully avoided taking a stance itself.

    ReplyDelete
  9. 'The losers of globalization'?... You mean everybody excepting the global 1% and Asia's emerging middle classes?

    This is such a disrespectful and ideologically-laden phrase that no person with an ounce of social conscience should make use of it. Honestly, Mr DeGrauwe, with friends like this, who needs neoliberal crusaders!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Asia's emerging middle classes are numerically much larger than the the low-skilled labor in the western world that loses out. What would be your answer? Protectionism? Just throw the emerging world back into poverty in order to protect our (relatively wealthy) unskilled labor?

      Delete
  10. “EU should take the side of the losers of globalization”?

    That sounds like a bad idea. I would want my grandchildren to be somewhere that pursues increasing the number of winners. One way to do that is to get rid of the absolutely useless, even dangerous, risk weighted capital requirements for banks.

    http://perkurowski.blogspot.com/2016/04/here-are-17-reasons-for-why-i-believe.html

    ReplyDelete
  11. The Louis Vuitton handbags comes in three sizes and assorted colors. Chanel handbags It is a affected bag fabricated of bland covering with topstitched detail. Rolex Air King brands that have a history in China often do better than newcomers, because the Chinese trust Original Rolex Watches brands they have heard of for a long time. “Trust of the 1:1 Replica Breitling Watches is a very serious issue for Chinese consumers, because Chinese consumers are concerned about quality and safety problems and worried about counterfeit products, which hits hard on the Omega Watches Replica trust they put on made-in-China products and brands.This reimagined Replica Tag Heuer advertence 116523 is the antecedent bearing Rolex Daytona that aboriginal came out in 2000.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The 'losers' of globalization should be helped by teaching winning ways, in other words, they should be prepared to compete better. We should stress education as our long-term weapon to beat the competition. Monetary compensation to those who lose out should be limited in amounts and time, because it does not help long-term and it creates dependency.

    Globalisation is a winning game, just look at the masses that have been lifted out of abject poverty.

    Globally, we are doing much better. Any objective global yardstick will show you this. From calorie intake via life expectancy to (ever shrinking) child mortality!

    Three cheers for optimism. This doomsday thinking about capitalism is short-sighted and related to our taking for granted what we have become used to.

    ReplyDelete