|
|
European
Policy Coordination
Europessimism?
According to the
Commission of the European Communities the present level of unemployment
in Europe will worsen in the foreseeable future. European GDP and
industrial production have recently grown at much lower rates than in
the United States and Japan. At a lunchtime meeting on 6 November,
Research Fellow Gilles Oudiz examined what he termed the
'extraordinary European convergence towards deflationary macroeconomic
policies'. He explored the consequences for Europe of a depreciation in
the US dollar and argued that, in the absence of effective economic
policy coordination, European governments would be tempted to revert to
'beggar thy neighbour' policies which would inflict output and
employment losses on all concerned. Oudiz concluded that the European
Monetary System (EMS) could facilitate policy cooperation among the
European governments, improving the scope for expansionary policies.
Nevertheless, the strong priority European governments seemed to attach
to low inflation and to the current account suggested that they were
likely to adopt only moderately expansionary policies.
Gilles Oudiz is Vice-President of the Compagnie Bancaire, Paris, having
previously been with the Institut National de la Statistique et des
Etudes Economiques. He is a Research Fellow in CEPR's International
Macroeconomics programme and has written extensively on exchange rates
and inflation and on economic policy coordination among industrial
economies. The lunchtime meeting at which he spoke was one of a series
in which CEPR Research Fellows discuss policy-relevant research. The
meeting was sponsored by the French Cultural Delegation and the German
Marshall Fund of the United States. The opinions expressed by Dr Oudiz
were his own, however, and not those of the sponsoring organizations or
of CEPR, which takes no institutional policy positions.
Oudiz first described the convergence towards deflationary policies in
Europe. Labour market imbalances play a key role in most explanations,
but they account for only a portion of present unemployment. Earlier
work by Oudiz, reported in Discussion Paper No. 81, suggests that the
absence of a single European macroeconomic strategy has been an equally
important explanation of the deflationary convergence. Traditional
macroeconomics might suggest that in order to combat unemployment
European countries should fix their exchange rates, reduce interest
rates, and set out together on an expansionary path. This analysis is
unsatisfactory, Oudiz argued, because it does not focus on the strategic
aspects of the European situation. It cannot explain why such
expansionary policies are not currently implemented in Europe, even
though all countries would appear to benefit from such policies. The
multiplicity of policies and policy-makers suggests that discussions of
European macro policy should take into account recent economic research
on problems of policy coordination, which has applied concepts drawn
from game theory to the macroeconomic modelling of open economies.
Oudiz noted two important aspects of the European policy 'game'. First,
governments have a variety of policy goals. They cannot achieve all
their targets simultaneously and so they are forced to make trade-offs.
By assuming that each European government's observed monetary and fiscal
policy actions represent its optimal choices it is possible to estimate
the relative weights each government implicitly attaches to various
policy objectives. Oudiz's estimates of these revealed policy
preferences indicated that policy-makers had over the last three years
attached a much higher priority to inflation and the current account
than to employment. West Germany attached the same weight to a 5.6%
movement in GNP as to a 1% change in inflation. For France this ratio
was 2.3:1 and for the United Kingdom and Italy about 1:1 These policy
preferences were a key factor in explaining deflationary policies and
high rates of unemployment in Europe.
Second, the policy actions of each European government have an impact,
or 'spillover effect', on its partners' economies. These spillover
effects are essential to an understanding of European macro policy,
according to Oudiz. Given the high degree of interdependence of their
economies European governments have a strong incentive to 'export' their
inflation or unemployment to each other. Policies of fiscal expansion
tend to benefit neighbouring economies, while having adverse effects on
domestic prices and the balance of trade, as the Mitterrand experiment
had shown. Restrictive monetary policies, on the other hand, have
negative spillover effects on one's neighbours. Such 'policy
competition' among countries which have similar economic structures,
policy goals and policy instruments leads to 'beggar thy neighbour'
strategies, which are sub-optimal for all concerned.
The EMS is clearly intended to enforce cooperation and policy
coordination among the European governments, but its effectiveness in
this respect depends very much on how it operates. It could function in
a variety of ways: first, as an uncompromising exchange rate zone with
wide margins of fluctuation around central exchange rate parities;
second, as a Deutschmark zone; and third, as a mechanism for truly
cooperative policy formulation. Oudiz discussed simulations of the
impact of US dollar depreciation on the European economies within each
of these EMS frameworks. These simulations showed that even if the
dollar were to achieve a smooth downward fall (a 'soft landing'), there
were significant risks of adverse effects on the European economies.
Failure to coordinate policies in response to the fall in the dollar
could make Europe significantly worse off, Oudiz argued.
Although labour market and structural factors play a large part in
European unemployment, Oudiz concluded that far better macroeconomic
policies were available than those adopted at present. Even given their
current policy preferences, all economies would benefit if the EMS were
to function properly as a mechanism for economic policy coordination.
There would even be some advantage if all the EMS did was to force
governments merely to discuss their policies with each other. Second,
reduced emphasis on containing inflation would counter the excessively
deflationary and costly effects of present policies. If European
governments achieved greater coordination of policy but preserved their
current policy preferences, however, they would only adopt mildly
expansionary policies. In this respect the 'Europessimism' theory which
has flourished in the media might be justified, according to Oudiz.
In the discussion after the talk, one member of the audience argued that
the EMS operated as a 'Deutschmark zone', optimizing West German
interests, which was no more satisfactory than if the Federal Reserve
System fulfilled New Jersey's policy goals. The only alternative role
for the EMS was for its members to negotiate their different policy
goals democratically. But the EMS could not function in this way, it was
argued, since European governments had different policy preferences and
did not even agree on how the world economy worked. In addition, game
theory assumed that each government seeks to use demand management to
optimize short-run macroeconomic policy goals, whereas both West Germany
and the United Kingdom choose instead to give priority to medium-term
money supply and inflation objectives. Others argued that the EMS
prevented member nations from pursuing different policy goals, citing
the experiences of the Schmidt and Mitterrand governments, which both
ended in a return to more conservative policies.
Oudiz disagreed with all these pessimistic analyses. He argued that the
EMS was sufficiently flexible to accommodate differing policy goals
noting that France had chosen to stay within EMS in 1982 in order to
take advantage of the Bundesbank's credibility. The ideal would be for
the EMS to function as a permanent supranational institution, actively
working to maintain agreed rates of exchange during the periods between
regular meetings of its member states. This would be more effective if
the United Kingdom were to become a member, according to Oudiz, since
this would reduce West German influence on the System.
|
|