Ad van Riet

EMU in Crisis: What’s Next?

EMU is in crisis. Yet, there is a firm willingness among policy makers to do whatever it takes to restore trust in the euro. Over the past two years, new EU institutions were introduced, the governance and supervisory framework was overhauled, and a new intergovernmental treaty was signed. Also at the national level, there appears to be a broader understanding of the need for bank restructuring, ambitious fiscal adjustments, and deep structural reforms. Still, the challenges that need to be addressed to restore EMU stability are manifold and formidable. While the transition process is difficult and will take time, the ‘old’ EMU is changing into a ‘new’ EMU at a pace which a few years ago would have been unthinkable.

Monetary Policy Stretched to the Limit: How Could Governments Support the European Central Bank?

New-style central banking in many advanced economies, involving the use of unconventional monetary policy instruments and forward guidance at the effective lower bound for interest rates, has raised questions about the appropriate role of fiscal policy – also in the euro area, where a fiscal counterpart to the European Central Bank (ECB) and the Eurosystem is missing. This paper considers three areas where euro area governments could act as the ‘joint sovereign’ behind the euro and support the ECB in its task of maintaining price stability, staying within the boundaries of the Maastricht Treaty. First, member countries could coordinate a growth-friendly aggregate economic policy mix that is supportive of the single monetary policy, with the help of a central fiscal capacity subject to common decision-making. Second, they could introduce a safe sovereign asset for the eurozone without assuming common liability in order to anchor financial integration and facilitate monetary policy implementation. Third, the significant benefits for the Eurosystem from a lower burden on monetary policy and a reduced exposure to sovereign risk could make it acceptable for euro area governments to indemnify it against potential large losses on its much expanded balance sheet. The fundamental solution, however, lies in advancing with fiscal integration to address the ‘institutional loneliness’ of the Eurosystem with full respect for its independent status.New-style central banking in many advanced economies, involving the use of unconventional monetary policy instruments and forward guidance at the effective lower bound for interest rates, has raised questions about the appropriate role of fiscal policy – also in the euro area, where a fiscal counterpart to the European Central Bank (ECB) and the Eurosystem is missing. This paper considers three areas where euro area governments could act as the ‘joint sovereign’ behind the euro and support the ECB in its task of maintaining price stability, staying within the boundaries of the Maastricht Treaty. First, member countries could coordinate a growth-friendly aggregate economic policy mix that is supportive of the single monetary policy, with the help of a central fiscal capacity subject to common decision-making. Second, they could introduce a safe sovereign asset for the eurozone without assuming common liability in order to anchor financial integration and facilitate monetary policy implementation. Third, the significant benefits for the Eurosystem from a lower burden on monetary policy and a reduced exposure to sovereign risk could make it acceptable for euro area governments to indemnify it against potential large losses on its much expanded balance sheet. The fundamental solution, however, lies in advancing with fiscal integration to address the ‘institutional loneliness’ of the Eurosystem with full respect for its independent status.

Government Funding Privileges in European Financial Law – Making Public Debt Everybody's Favourite?

Since the global financial crisis of 2008 European authorities have set out to strengthen financial governance in order to create a more stable and resilient financial system. As discussed in this paper, the new and updated EU legislation addressed at a wide array of financial markets and institutions also significantly broadened the scope of the existing preferential regulatory treatment of sovereign bonds and introduced new funding privileges for governments. The many regulatory incentives for investors to buy and hold (domestic) government debt facilitate public debt management, at the cost of crowding out private sector funding and raising financial stability concerns every time the government faces distress. Moreover, a privileged access to capital markets reduces market discipline and may lead to moral hazard on the part of sovereigns. The growing scope of these government funding privileges in EU financial law may be interpreted in three (complementary) ways: as a revival of financial repression in a modern prudential guise to reduce the burden of high public debt, as a return to the traditional close relationship between the government and the financial sector so as to align mutual interests in fiscal and financial stability, or as a way to increase explicit and implicit taxes on finance and recoup public revenues lost during the financial crisis. The preferential treatment of sovereign exposures and governments’ market access is found in a growing body of EU financial law. Regulatory efforts to reduce it would have to be coordinated at the international level, take account of the financial structure and allow for a (long) period of transition to avoid market disruption.

Market-Preserving Fiscal Federalism in the European Monetary Union

Responding to the euro crisis, European leaders have put in place an enhanced economic and financial governance framework for the euro area, including the main pillars of a banking union, while they have initiated work on a capital markets union. This should more effectively secure sound national macroeconomic and fiscal policies, a healthy financial sector and the stability of the euro. This paper poses the question whether the status quo of half-way political integration is sufficient to safeguard the cohesion and integrity of the euro area. National governments still have considerable leeway to circumvent the “hard�? budget constraint and the strong market competition implied by the euro area’s “holy trinity�? (one market, one currency and one monetary policy). For example, they might target captive sovereign debt markets or take protectionist measures. This economic nationalism would entrench the crisis-related fragmentation of the single market and frustrate the efficient functioning of the monetary union. A higher level of market-preserving fiscal federalism could prevent member countries from encroaching on markets and foster sustainable economic convergence towards an optimal currency area.