IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Good Governance in Crisis or a Good Crisis for Governance? A Comparison of the EU and the US

  • Waltraud Schelkle
Registered author(s):

    The crisis since August 2007 provides an opportunity to observe the workings of good governance institutions under an extreme stress test and in radically different political settings. Institutions such as independent central banks, fiscal rules and regulatory oversight of public finances were meant to depoliticize macroeconomic stabilization. The comparison of responses to the crisis in the United States and in the European Union shows that good governance institutions are in crisis in the US while it has been a good crisis for governance so far in the EU. Levels of fiscal stimulus and monetary easing are surprisingly similar between the EU and the US, yet the ECB has maintained its independence and member states have been restrained from inserting protectionist elements in their stimulus measures. By contrast, the boundaries between economic stabilization and distributive politics have been wiped out in the US because neither the political forces in the states nor the economic forces in the financial sector erected many defences. In the EU, the boundaries as drawn are inimical to joint stabilization efforts but this is exactly why they are politically self-enforcing.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL: http://www.lse.ac.uk/europeanInstitute/LEQS/LEQSPaper16.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Paper provided by European Institute, LSE in its series LEQS – LSE 'Europe in Question' Discussion Paper Series with number 16.

    as
    in new window

    Length:
    Date of creation: Jan 2010
    Date of revision:
    Handle: RePEc:eiq:eileqs:16
    Contact details of provider: Postal: Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE
    Phone: +44 (020) 7405 7686
    Web page: http://www.lse.ac.uk/europeanInstitute/LEQS/

    More information through EDIRC

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    as in new window
    1. Barry Eichengreen & Jürgen Hagen, 1996. "Fiscal restrictions and monetary union: Rationales, repercussions, reforms," Empirica, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 3-23, February.
    2. Waltraud Schelkle, 2006. "The Theory and Practice of Economic Governance in EMU Revisited: What Have we Learnt About Commitment and Credibility?," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44, pages 669-685, November.
    3. Kydland, Finn E & Prescott, Edward C, 1977. "Rules Rather Than Discretion: The Inconsistency of Optimal Plans," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 85(3), pages 473-91, June.
    4. Deborah Mabbett & Waltraud Schelkle, 2007. "Bringing Macroeconomics Back into the Political Economy of Reform: the Lisbon Agenda and the 'Fiscal Philosophy' of EMU," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45, pages 81-103, 03.
    5. Henning Bohn & Robert P. Inman, . "Balanced Budget Rules and Public Deficits: Evidence from the U.S. States (Reprint 060)," Rodney L. White Center for Financial Research Working Papers 10-96, Wharton School Rodney L. White Center for Financial Research.
    6. Follette, Glenn & Kusko, Andrea & Lutz, Byron, 2008. "State and Local Finances and the Macroeconomy: The High–Employment Budget and Fiscal Impetus," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association, vol. 61(3), pages 531-45, September.
    7. Bohn, Henning & Inman, Robert P., 1996. "Balanced-budget rules and public deficits: evidence from the U.S. states," Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 13-76, December.
    8. Waltraud Schelkle, 2005. "The Political Economy of Fiscal Policy Co-ordination in EMU: From Disciplinarian Device to Insurance Arrangement," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(2), pages 371-391, 06.
    9. Charles Wyplosz, 2005. "Fiscal Policy: Institutions versus Rules," National Institute Economic Review, National Institute of Economic and Social Research, vol. 191(1), pages 64-78, January.
    10. Jón R. Blöndal & Dirk-Jan Kraan & Michael Ruffner, 2003. "Budgeting in the United States," OECD Journal on Budgeting, OECD Publishing, vol. 3(2), pages 7-53.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eiq:eileqs:16. 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: (Katjana Gattermann)

    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.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 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.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.