IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/bre/polcon/12893.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Which fiscal union for the euro area?

Author

Listed:
  • Agnès Bénassy-Quéré
  • Xavier Ragot
  • Guntram B. Wolff

Abstract

Highlights Fully-fledged federations assign fiscal policy stabilisation largely to the federal level, based on a relatively large budget. In the euro area, a large federal budget is unrealistic at the current level of political and societal integration, and fiscal stabilisation will continue to rely mainly on national policies. For aggregate fiscal policy to become more stabilising with respect to the economic cycle, while achieving long-term sustainability, it is necessary (i) to avoid imposing self-defeating fiscal adjustments on crisis countries by making sovereign debt restructuring a real possibility (which involves strengthening the banking sector and extending the remit of the European Stability Mechanism); (ii) to task the planned independent European Fiscal Board with delineating exceptional times during which fiscal coordination is needed on top of monetary policy; (iii) to make national fiscal policies more stabilising by allowing incremental investment and unemployment spending to be shifted from bad to good times based on national adjustment accounts. We also recommend a move towards a European unemployment (re-)insurance scheme targeted at ‘large’ shocks, with varying contributions from countries and a minimum set of labour-market harmonisation criteria, which in any case are desirable for the functioning of monetary union. For footnotes and references, please see the PDF version of this publication. Summary The construction of the euro area left aside the question of a fiscal union, but the crisis re-opened the debate. Of the three classical functions of fiscal policy – provision of public goods, redistribution and stabilisation – only the last provides a clear justification for fiscal policy at euro-area level. Unsustainable fiscal policies in one member state could destabilise the entire euro area, and national policies could also have direct and indirect demand effects with an impact on area-wide inflation. ‘Every man for himself’ is not an option. But coordination is difficult because it involves 19 national budgetary processes and a common central bank. Empirically, fiscal policy in the euro area and elsewhere often tends to accentuate rather than attenuate the economic cycle. The discretionary part of fiscal policy, as opposed to automatic stabilisers, is responsible for this unfortunate feature, while automatic stabilisers generally work well. Fully-fledged federations assign fiscal policy stabilisation largely to the federal level, based on a relatively large budget. In the euro area, a large federal budget is unrealistic at the current level of political and societal integration, and fiscal stabilisation will continue to rely mainly on national policies. We make three recommendations that would lead national fiscal policies to be more stabilising with respect to the economic cycle, while achieving long-term sustainability. First, the euro area should avoid imposing self-defeating fiscal adjustments on crisis countries. To achieve this, sovereign debt restructuring should be made possible by further strengthening the banking sector and extending the remit of the European Stability Mechanism. Second, fiscal policy in exceptionally good or bad times should be guided by the planned independent European fiscal board, while the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) would apply strictly in ‘normal’ times. Of course, fiscal coordination is mostly needed in exceptional times, when the European Central Bank can no longer by itself stabilise the euro area. Third, the Stability and Growth Pact should be able to adapt in a more flexible way to the economic cycle by shifting incremental investment and unemployment spending from bad to good times based on national adjustment accounts, rather than through unclearly defined discretionary measures as is presently the case. This third proposal would strengthen automatic stabilisers that were in fact cut in some cases during the crisis. In addition, we recommend a move towards ‘federal’ insurance for very large shocks. This should be based on automatic stabilisers and should not involve conditionality when it is activated. The best option is likely to be a European unemployment (re-)insurance scheme for large shocks. All countries that comply with a minimum set of labour-market harmonisation criteria would be required to participate, with their payments into the scheme based on objective criteria. Labour market harmonisation is also desirable for the functioning of monetary union and could be incentivised by the re-insurance scheme. Introduction The idea to complement European Monetary Union with some form of fiscal federalism is not new. In 1977, the MacDougall report suggested the introduction of a small budget of around 5-7 percent of GDP as a first step, the long-term objective being “a Federation in Europe in which federal public expenditure is around 20-25 percent of gross product as in the USA and the Federal Republic of Germany” (Commission of the European Communities, 1977, pp10-11).

Suggested Citation

  • Agnès Bénassy-Quéré & Xavier Ragot & Guntram B. Wolff, 2016. "Which fiscal union for the euro area?," Policy Contributions 12893, Bruegel.
  • Handle: RePEc:bre:polcon:12893
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://bruegel.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/pc_2016_05.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Fabrizio Balassone & Sara Cecchetti & Martina Cecioni & Marika Cioffi & Wanda Cornacchia & Flavia Corneli & Gabriele Semeraro, 2016. "Economic governance in the euro area: balancing risk reduction and risk sharing," Questioni di Economia e Finanza (Occasional Papers) 344, Bank of Italy, Economic Research and International Relations Area.
    2. Anne-Laure Delatte & Clemens Fuest & Daniel Gros & Friedrich Heinemann & Martin Kocher & Roberto Tamborini, 2017. "The Future of Eurozone Fiscal Governance," EconPol Policy Reports 1, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich.
    3. Jeroen Hessel & Niels Gilbert & Jasper de Jong, 2017. "Capitalising on the euro. Options for strengthening the EMU," DNB Occasional Studies 1502, Netherlands Central Bank, Research Department.
    4. repec:cpn:umkeip:v:16:y:2017:i:4:p:413-432 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Thirion, Gilles, 2017. "European Fiscal Union: Economic rationale and design challenges," CEPS Papers 12160, Centre for European Policy Studies.
    6. Willi Semmler & Brigitte Young, 2017. "Re-Booting Europe: What kind of Fiscal Union - What kind of Social Union?," Working Papers 1713, New School for Social Research, Department of Economics.
    7. Agnes Benassy-Quere, 2016. "Euro-Area Fiscal Stance: From Theory to Practical Implementation," CESifo Working Paper Series 6040, CESifo Group Munich.
    8. Grégory Claeys & Zsolt Darvas & Alvaro Leandro, 2016. "A proposal to revive the European Fiscal Framework," Policy Contributions 13490, Bruegel.
    9. van Riet, Ad, 2016. "Safeguarding the euro as a currency beyond the state," Occasional Paper Series 173, European Central Bank.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bre:polcon:12893. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Bruegel). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/bruegbe.html .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.