Economy

Euro – 20 years on: Who won and who lost?

Published

4 years ago

May 20, 2019

The common European currency – the euro – came into being 20 years ago. Since January 1, 1999, the euro has been widely used in cashless money transfers. On January 1, 2002, banknotes and coins were introduced into circulation. How did the European countries benefit from the single currency? How many profited from its introduction?

In the early 1990s, the European Community entered a new stage of development which was characterized by a transition to a higher level of integration within it and expansion to include more members. This was provided by the Treaty on European Union, which was signed on February 7, 1992 in the Dutch city of Maastricht and entered into force on November 1, 1993. The Maastricht agreements and the subsequent decisions of the EU’s governing bodies – the European Council and the Council of the EU –formed a groundwork for a gradual, stage-by-stage creation of a monetary union and the introduction of a single currency, the euro.

At the time the decision on the introduction of the euro came into effect it was believed that the main objectives of the transition to a single monetary policy and the replacement of national banknotes with a single European one were the following. First of all, a monetary union was supposed to put the finishing touches to the formation of a common market and was to transform the EU territory into an economic space with equal opportunities for all players. A single currency was expected to facilitate the transition of the EU to a common economic policy, which, in turn, was seen as indispensable for moving to a new level of political integration. Many also viewed a single currency as vital for cementing European integration and a symbol of the economic and political integrity of the region. It was assumed that the euro would keep European countries “in the same harness” even in times of crisis and would help them to overcome differences and even resist outbursts of nationalism.

The second goal was to prevent losses caused by continuous fluctuations in the rates of Western European currencies. Once the euro was established, risk payments for possible losses in different-currency transactions became a thing of the past. It was assumed that stable and low interest rates would bring down inflation and stimulate economic growth. Thirdly, it was thought that fixed exchange rates within the euro zone with no more fluctuations would boost investment activity and, as a result, would improve the situation on the labor market. In addition, a better economic performance was to make it easier for countries to enter the EU and adapt to the new reality. A better economic performance was supposed to make European products more competitive in world markets.

Fourth, a single currency was supposed to significantly cut circulation costs. At the end of the 1990s, the existence of various national currencies cost the EU countries 20-25 billion ECU (26-33 billion dollars) annually, including the cost of keeping records of currency transactions, insuring currency risks, conducting exchange operations, drawing up the price lists in various currencies, etc. Finally, fifthly, the initiators of the single currency hoped that the euro would become one of the international reserve currencies. The introduction of the euro was supposed to change the balance of strength between the United States and united Europe in favor of the latter. In the long run, it boiled down to ensuring more independence of the EU economic policy since interest rates on long-term loans would be less dependent on American ones.

What is happening at present? Not surprisingly, the greatest difficulties emerged while grappling with the most pressing and large-scale agenda involving the ambitious plans of the political and economic transformation of the EU and the strengthening of its global geo-economic role. Indeed, since the late 1990s, the economic and financial spheres of the EU have undergone dramatic changes. In 2004 and 2007, the majority of Central and Eastern European countries joined the Union (an increase in social dumping). The current EU “bears little resemblance” to that of 20 years ago. “Not only the currency has become different, but the entire European economy has changed.”

Nevertheless, as predicted by those who criticized the approved version of transition to a single European currency, chances for meeting the criteria of eurozone membership in case the global economy followed an unfavorable scenario are pretty slim for most countries of the eurozone. As economic and financial crises sweep Europe one after another, the presence of the euro and the unprecedentedly high level of the European Central Bank’s autonomy and its extensive powers are restricted by the “possibility of influencing the economy” of separate states. Since inflation rates vary from country to country, the interest rate suggested by the ECB (about 2%) turns out to be too low for countries with high inflation (which leads to financial bubbles) and too high for countries with low inflation (which has a negative impact on investments).

As a result, the economic slowdown in European economies in the 2000s through 2010s led to increases in budget deficits. According to the requirements of the eurozone, governments have to raise taxes or cut spending, even if it damages national economy. Formally, there exists a procedure to tackle economic upheavals in this or that country of the eurozone to minimize their consequences for other members. From the point of view of abstract macroeconomic indicators this procedure is functioning well. But, judging by what happened in Spain, and then in Greece and Italy, its social, economic and subsequently, political costs are too high. In the first place, we talk about social upheavals, which became one the main reasons for the rise of “right-wing populists” across Europe.

The euro is running into problems mainly because it hinges on politics, rather than economics. On the one hand, it is this that largely keeps it from the collapse. The EU leadership is ready to sustain any financial or economic losses to preserve the single currency. However, from the economic viewpoint, the ECB’s readiness for currency interventions has ruined market discipline. In March this year the German Wirtschafts Woche stated that the euro had failed to become either an effective currency or an EU stability enhancing tool. What proves it is the fact that without “billions and billions in financial injections on the part of the European Central Bank and European governments to save the euro the single currency would have long sunk dead”. The 2008 financial crunch quickly triggered the crisis of the eurozone which culminated in the Greek debt crisis of 2010. As a result, “the dispute over how to save the single currency laid bare purely political differences across Europe”.

As skeptics forecast, membership in the eurozone, sought by countries with different levels of economic development regardless of the tough requirements and selection criteria, resulted in a situation in which a setback in the global economic performance hit weaker members the hardest. Citing the IMF, Le Figaro points out that “the euro exchange rate is too high for France and Italy (which deals a blow on their competitiveness), and is too low for Germany (by about 20%)”. This provided the German economy with a clear edge over other EU members and secured a “huge foreign trade proficit”. Moreover, in the course of the eurozone crisis in 2009 there emerged a vicious circle: Germany’s domineering position in the EU enabled Berlin to dictate its policy of austere budgetary measures to the greater part of the rest of Europe, which, in turn, gave rise to an outburst of anti-German sentiment in a whole range of countries, including Greece and Italy.

Therefore, in 20 years of its existence the euro has made Germany yet more powerful economically than it used to be. Simultaneously, it has become a major factor that contributed to Germany’s isolation in Europe. Critics say that while drafting the euro project its authors meant to weaken Germany. Instead, the single currency “strengthened it, providing it with competitive advantages through a “weak” euro”. Central Europe has become a supplier of spare parts for German businesses thereby putting into practice the Mitteleuropa Doctrine in the 21^st century. The rest of the EU countries have become a market for German goods. Meanwhile, Germany has to pay for economic failures of an ever greater number of its EU partners. In such a way, Germany’s economic might has all but become a major threat to European integration. Pessimists fear the current economic and geopolitical trends will sooner or later push the Germans into pursuing a more “egoistic” and “aggressive” policy, in every sense of the word. Everyone remembers what this kind of policy ended with in a period from the mid19th to the mid20th century.

As for the second and third points of the objectives of a single currency, the results are contradictory. Inflation in the eurozone is indeed at an all-time low. There has occurred a unification of the common market of goods, capitals and workforce. At the same time, measures which are being taken by the European Central Bank to fight low inflation have more than once driven a number of EU countries into recession and sovereign debt crises. Living standards in EU countries have not been growing steadily over the past few years. A rise in wages has turned out to be much smaller than predicted in the late 1990s. Most European banks still prefer holding debt obligations of their countries only, which, in case of financial crisis, is fraught with banking problems and could ruin national economy. As for competitiveness, the appearance of a single market “in the first place, aggravated competition between EU countries”. Simultaneously, the introduction of the same standards and requirements for all countries of the eurozone “cemented their differences, rather than brought them together”.

The fourth point can be considered fully implemented. Economic transactions have been simplified, cost less and have got rid of exchange-related risks. According to the British The Economist, three out of five residents of eurozone countries consider the euro useful for their country. And 75% of Europeans are sure that the single currency benefits the EU. Meanwhile, the removal of barriers to capital movements has led to a significant imbalance in investments, especially in the industrial sector. The main benefits went to countries located in the center of the EU while the geographical “periphery” of the eurozone has lost some of its former investment attractiveness. But the presence of the euro makes it impossible for the less fortunate countries to stimulate the economy by bringing down the currency value.

As for the fifth point, some of the ambitious plans have been implemented. The euro has already made a significant contribution to the weakening of the position of the US dollar in the global economy. According to the European Commission, one-fifth of the world’s currency reserves are denominated in the single European currency. “340 million citizens use it daily, 60 countries and territories link their currency to it”. On the other hand, 10 years of 20 years of its history the eurozone has devoted to the struggle against an “unprecedented crisis”. By now, experts say there has been a “fragile recovery.” Nevertheless, unlike its main competitors, the dollar and the yuan, the euro has no solid foundation. The EU budget is used mainly for paying subsidies to member countries, while the years-long disputes over prospects for creating a common EU ministry of finance all but fuel differences between 19 eurozone governments.

Thus, according to optimists, criticism of the euro is first of all the result of profound differences on the fundamental issues of European economic policy. The single currency consolidated the leaders of Europe, provided them with the common goal of creating a more integrated, a more attractive for trade and business, and a globally competitive, economy. However, a further stable existence of a single currency mechanism in Europe calls for urgent reforms, which European politicians are either not ready for or are not capable of. According to critics, the single currency has driven the different economies of the EU countries into the Procrustean bed of all-fitting standard format. The single currency mechanism completely ignores, if not completely denies, the geographical, historical and cultural specifics of the member states. Overall, the current model of economic and monetary integration in the EU mindlessly forces countries whose national economies do not match the general format “to carry out endless reforms,” which all but aggravate their long-standing inherent problems.

First published in our partner International Affairs

Related Topics:Economics European Union Eurozone

Up Next

Convergence Of Competitive Markets And Indian Elections

Don't Miss

Afreximbank Meets Ahead of Russia-Africa Summit

Andrei Kadomtsev

political scientist

Comments

Economy

Blue Economy and its potential in Pakistan

Published

8 hours ago

March 21, 2023

Mudasar Faiz Memom

Blue economy refers to the sustainable use and management of ocean and coastal resources for economic growth, improved livelihoods, and the preservation of the marine environment. It encompasses a wide range of economic sectors, including fisheries, aquaculture, tourism, shipping, renewable energy, and biotechnology, among others.

The concept of blue economy recognizes that the ocean and its resources can contribute significantly to the global economy and the well-being of coastal communities. However, it also acknowledges the need to ensure that these resources are used in a sustainable and responsible manner, considering the fragility of the marine ecosystem and its crucial role in supporting life on Earth.

The blue economy concept has gained prominence in recent years, with several countries and international organizations promoting policies and initiatives to harness the economic potential of the ocean while preserving its health and biodiversity.

Pakistan has a long coastline of approximately 1,046 kilometers, which presents immense potential for blue economy development. The country’s coastal areas are rich in marine resources, including fish, shrimp, crab, lobsters, and other seafood, which can be exploited sustainably for economic growth and job creation.

Pakistan’s fisheries sector is one of the main contributors to the country’s economy, providing livelihoods to millions of people. The sector can be further developed by introducing modern fishing techniques, improving the quality of seafood, and promoting export-oriented fisheries.

Pakistan also has significant potential for the development of mariculture, which involves the cultivation of marine organisms such as seaweed, shellfish, and finfish. The country’s warm waters and favorable climatic conditions provide ideal conditions for mariculture, which can help diversify the economy and reduce pressure on wild fish stocks.

In addition, Pakistan’s coastal areas are rich in mineral resources, including oil and gas, which can be extracted sustainably to contribute to the country’s energy needs and economic growth.

Furthermore, Pakistan has significant potential for developing the tourism sector along its coastal areas, including beaches, historical sites, and marine parks. This can attract both domestic and international tourists, creating job opportunities and generating revenue.

Moreover, Pakistan has great potential for developing its blue economy, and it is important to ensure that this is done in a sustainable and responsible manner to protect the marine environment and ensure long-term benefits for the country’s economy and people.

There are several ways to ensure the sustainable development of the blue economy in Pakistan. Here are some key steps that can be taken:

Implement and enforce regulations: Pakistan should adopt and enforce strong laws and regulations to ensure sustainable use of marine resources, protect the marine environment, and promote responsible business practices. This can include measures such as catch limits, gear restrictions, and protected areas.

Strengthen research and monitoring: Adequate research and monitoring of marine ecosystems are crucial for effective management and conservation. Pakistan should invest in scientific research and monitoring programs to better understand the marine ecosystem and the impacts of human activities.

Promote sustainable fisheries practices: Pakistan should promote sustainable fishing practices, such as using selective fishing gear, reducing bycatch, and implementing closed seasons and areas, to ensure that fish stocks are not depleted and the ecosystem is protected.

Encourage responsible tourism: The tourism sector can have both positive and negative impacts on the marine environment. Pakistan should promote responsible tourism practices, such as limiting tourist activities in sensitive areas, reducing waste and pollution, and educating tourists about sustainable behavior.

Support innovation and technology: Innovative technologies can help reduce the impact of human activities on the marine environment and improve resource management. Pakistan should invest in research and development of new technologies, such as offshore aquaculture, renewable energy, and waste management systems.

Foster public-private partnerships: Public-private partnerships can play a critical role in developing sustainable blue economy practices. Pakistan should encourage collaboration between government, businesses, and civil society to promote sustainable practices and ensure that economic development is balanced with environmental protection.

Overall, ensuring the sustainable development of the blue economy in Pakistan will require a collaborative effort from all stakeholders, including government, businesses, civil society, and local communities. By taking a holistic approach and prioritizing sustainable practices, Pakistan can unlock the economic potential of its marine resources while safeguarding the health and well-being of its people and the environment.

Economy

China-Russia summit: What economic goals ahead?

Published

16 hours ago

March 21, 2023

Yaroslav Lissovolik

Photo: Sergei Karpukhin, TASS

The visit of Chinese President Xi Jinping to Russia to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin is likely to feature a wide range of issues for discussion, with bilateral economic cooperation being one of the most critical areas that will need an in-depth analysis and an ambitious action plan.

As stated by the Chinese president in his article titled “Forging Ahead to Open a New Chapter of China-Russia Friendship, Cooperation and Common Development,” published in the Russian media on March 20, both countries “need to raise both the quality and quantity of investment and economic cooperation and step up policy coordination to create favorable conditions for the high-quality development of our investment cooperation.”

The track-record of intensifying the China-Russia economic cooperation in 2022 will need to be assessed with due consideration with regard to both the achievements as well as those areas where there remains substantial scope for boosting bilateral ties.

On the bright side, there is the record-high trade turnover between China and Russia posted in 2022. A figure of around $190 billion in trade turnover comes close to the newly established $200 billion target for bilateral trade set for 2024. With annual growth in trade turnover reaching 34.3 percent in 2022, the momentum appears strong for the $200 billion target to be reached well ahead of schedule.

China’s optimization of COVID-19 measures and the liberalization of transportation regulations (including with respect to direct flights between China and Russia) will likely boost bilateral trade further, including in the services sector (most notably in the tourist segment).

On the other hand, figures on investment from China to Russia, most importantly long-term foreign direct investment (FDI) flows, show a significantly more moderate growth pace compared to the above-mentioned trade growth figures. The FDI data published by the Eurasian Development Bank suggests that the stock of FDI from China to Russia grew by 27.4 percent from 2016 to mid-2022, implying an annual average growth rate of a little over 3 percent. According to the forecasts coming from the Eurasian Development Bank, growth in FDI inflows from China into Russia is likely to continue, albeit still at a moderate pace.

Against the backdrop of these trends in trade and investment, the use of national currencies will very likely be another point of discussion at the China-Russia talks. Last year saw a substantial rise in the use of the rouble and the Chinese yuan in bilateral trade transactions. In the course of 2022, the share of the rouble and the yuan in Russia’s export operations increased from 12 percent and 0.5 percent to 34 percent and 16 percent, respectively; the share of the U.S. dollar and the Euro declined to less than 50 percent by end-2022.

As regards Russia’s imports the share of the yuan increased from 4 percent to 23 percent, while that of the Russian rouble declined from 29 percent to 27 percent, the share of the U.S. dollar and the Euro declined from 65 percent to 46 percent.

In spite of the impressive scale of de-dollarization in bilateral trade, there is still ample scope to further increase the use of national currencies. This should be made possible by greater use of national and regional payment systems – not only on a bilateral basis, but also in the broader framework of BRICS via the introduction of the long-awaited BRICS Pay system.

Another possible venue to de-dollarization that may be discussed at the summit may be the launching of a new BRICS reserve currency – a project that Putin unveiled in mid-2022. The future of this new currency dubbed R5 (all five currencies of BRICS countries start with a letter “R”) to a significant degree will depend of the readiness of both China and Russia to pursue a coordinated approach to launching such an undertaking that may prove to be critical not only for the BRICS proper, but for the broader realm of the developing world.

To forge ahead with greater de-dollarization, it is critical to ensure greater coordination in international economic organizations. This is particularly important for the advancement of the global role of such groupings as BRICS that have taken on a rising prominence on the international arena, particularly after the successful BRICS chairmanship of China in 2022. Both countries play a crucial role in making BRICS a dynamic, open and inclusive platform, with one of the near-term issues being that of BRICS expansion and the possibility of the inclusion of new large emerging markets into the BRICS core.

In the end, the meeting between the leaders of China and Russia will present an opportunity to build on the strong momentum in boosting bilateral economic cooperation. Apart from the rising prominence of Global South, there is the resurgence of economic concerns in the West – against the backdrop of rising fragilities in the financial sector in the U.S. and Europe, boosting bilateral economic ties between China and Russia may be seen as lowering the susceptibility to the rising frequency of crisis waves emanating from developed economies.

Author’s note: First published at CGTN

Economy

Is the Western Moral Triumph still possible? Of Jeffrey Sachs and Edges of Globalization

Published

21 hours ago

March 21, 2023

Wissal Chokri

“It feels like I imagine 1912 to feel” stated US Columbia Professor Jeffrey Sachs during an extraordinary zoom conference on the 8^th of March. The discussion about the current geopolitical state with Geneva participants, concepted and hosted by professor Anis H. Bajrektarevic, was held on an emblematic day, the International Women’s Day, celebrating female achievements in social, cultural and political fields. As Professor Sachs reminded, to remember this occasion is of the highly importance to maintain human rights at the core of our engagements in a froth and difficult geopolitical situation.

Jeffrey David Sachs, born November 5, 1954 is a US economist, academic, public policy analyst, and former director of the Columbia’s Earth Institute, where he holds the title of university professor. He is known for his work on sustainable development, economic development, and the fight to end poverty.

Currently, Sachs is Director of the Centre for Sustainable Development at Columbia University and President of the UN SD Solutions Network. He is an SDG Advocate for UN Sec-General Antonio Guterres on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), a set of 17 global goals adopted at a UN summit meeting in September 2015. Previously, from 2001 to 2018, Sachs served as Special Advisor to the UN Secretary General, and held the same position under the previous UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and prior to 2016 a similar advisory position related to the earlier Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), eight internationally sanctioned objectives to reduce extreme poverty, hunger and disease by 2015. In connection with the MDGs, he had first been appointed special adviser to the UN Secretary-General in 2002 during the term of Kofi Annan.

Sachs is co-founder and chief strategist of Millennium Promise Alliance, a nonprofit organization dedicated to ending extreme poverty and hunger. From 2002 to 2006, he was director of the UN Millennium Projects network on MDGs. He is co-editor of the World Happiness Report (co-authored with Helliwell and Layard). In 2010, he became a commissioner for the Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development (developmental effects of broadband in international policy).

For the past three decades, Sachs extensively advised numerous governments in Europe, MENA, and Afro-Asia. He has written number of books and received several awards. He has been criticized for his views on economics, the origin of Covid-19, war in Ukraine and decoupling from China.

During his mesmerizing talk and exchange with the participants, professor Sachs evoked the biased diametrically opposed media information conveyed by the West and Russia, reinforcing the dangerous and froth environment of an escalating and unpredictable war. The honorable guest spoke about the conflict’s real debuts, “33 years ago at the cold war’s sundown under Gorbachev’s leadership and the promise by the US and Germany that NATO would not expand east, as well as the rise of the US as the ultimate superpower”. Giving the admiring audience anecdotes of his career, Jeffrey Sachs explained how the conflict is wrongly portrayed aiming for an Orwellian amnesia, and how things could have been handled strategically differently and with more honesty and empathy, ending in a dissimilar outcome. His principal host, prof. Anis asked him: “Jeff, is the moral triumph of the (political) west still possible?”

He lankly criticized the change of US policy towards China since 2015, labeling the country as an enemy as its economy rose, creating a dangerous environment that leaves no place for diplomacy. Professor shared his worries towards the tensions and the fear of an escalating hot war that could easily lead to a nuclear conflict. To Professor Sachs the aggressive US’ hegemonic policy towards China is senseless and dangerous and weakening diplomacy. “All China wants is to be respected and all America wants is to be told how smart they are”- he stated. He insisted on the fact that we need an open new world where there is no US or Europe leading but a world of acknowledgement, history, justice, appreciation and hope.

Throughout the discussions, the esteemed Professor criticized the lack of communication between Biden and Putin and the huge irresponsibility that he places mostly on the US side. He insisted on the importance of communicating in diplomacy as well as with each other in day to day lives. Further on, distinguished guest engaged audience in a constructive critic of the western positions in contemporary world of slobalisation and attempts of decoupling from the Sino world through the accelerated spiral of violent rhetoric’s and wargames. Finally, he made a reference on the recent hearing at the UN Security Council related to the so-called North Stream issue.

The inspiring yet easy-going talk evolved in a friendly exchange of questions and remarks between Professor Sachs and the participants. Content intensive, inspiring reflective and farsighted, yet amicable and family-like atmosphere with a direct, personal access to the notable guest deeply impressed all. As the event came to an end, with the univocal wish of organizing global teaching, a global seminar to educate people and especially young people on important topics (including human rights and liberties), Professor Anis Bajrektarevic closed the meeting by inviting Professor Sachs to make time on his very busy agenda to visit Geneva soon to continue the discussion, proposition that was kindly welcomed and agreed to.