Eurozone finance ministers just appointed a new head of the European Stability Mechanism (ESM). They should seize the opportunity to turn the ESM into a more useful institution.
As a rapid
succession of crises has engulfed the European economy, silence reigns
on the Circuit de La Foire Internationale in Luxembourg, home to the
European Stability Mechanism (ESM). The eurozone’s permanent rescue fund
was set up in 2012 to provide loans to financially distressed
countries, and today has about €410 billion in lending capacity. It
played an important role during the euro crisis a decade ago. But the
ESM was left on the sidelines as the eurozone was hit by the pandemic
and Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, with member-states no longer
being willing to resort to its bail-out programmes. As the eurozone
economy heads for a recession, having a non-functional ESM is risky,
because eurozone governments need an emergency lender in the event of a
financial crisis, and if they resort to the ESM too late millions of
Europeans might be condemned to unemployment. Last week, EU leaders
appointed Luxembourg finance minister Pierre Gramegna as the
institution’s new managing director: he should press them to rethink the
ESM’s status and purpose. New EU fiscal support instruments developed
during the pandemic provide a blueprint for meaningful reform.
The current ESM model is unviable
Cyprus,
Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain used ESM support during the euro
crisis ten years ago. Modelled on the IMF, the ESM can issue loans to
distressed EU members, but in most cases the recipient must agree to
tighten its budget, carry out structural economic reforms and, where
relevant, clean up its financial sector. The specific conditions are
negotiated between the European Commission and the member-state
concerned, supported by ECB, ESM and possibly IMF staff, on behalf of
the ESM’s shareholders: the eurozone finance ministers.
The EU’s emergency measures during the pandemic suggest that the ESM model is now in trouble.
The EU set up a loans scheme – the ‘instrument for temporary support to
mitigate unemployment risks’, also known as SURE – to buttress national
unemployment insurance schemes. The €750 billion pandemic recovery
instrument, NextGenerationEU (NGEU), uses EU members’ joint
creditworthiness to raise money for grants and loans to member-states
that pledge public investment and structural reforms. European finance
ministers also made ESM credit available with few strings attached:
the funds simply had to be used for health expenditures. Countries
would pay a broadly similar interest rate for lending from SURE and
NGEU, and the ESM. The result: nineteen EU countries used the SURE
program to fight the sharp pandemic downturn. All EU countries used NGEU
grants, and six countries requested NGEU loans. Not a single country
tapped the ESM’s support.
The
ESM has become the eurozone’s fire brigade that nobody calls when the
house catches fire. At the beginning of the pandemic governments did not
tap ESM support because going through a bailout was too costly
politically, and may not have been necessary, but even after they
relaxed the conditions, governments were still hesitant to tap a fund
they perceive to be run by the most hawkish members of the eurozone.
Citizens recognise this: public opinion across Europe is much more
positive about the pandemic recovery instruments than they were about
the old wrangling between creditor and debtor countries in the ESM
boardroom. In the December 2021 Eurobarometer, 77 per cent of eurozone
citizens had a favourable view of the EU recovery plan...
more at CER
© CER
Key
Hover over the blue highlighted
text to view the acronym meaning
Hover
over these icons for more information
Comments:
No Comments for this Article