In the face of a near-existential debt crisis, the euro area introduced important institutional reforms, which helped to make the single currency more resilient. In 2010, the European Union began putting together financial rescue programs to limit economic contagion and prevent a wider economic collapse of the currency area. This included the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), which provides the euro area with financial resources to bail out distressed member states and (indirectly) to provide financial support to stem banking crises. The euro area has also reformed its fiscal regime and made some (albeit limited) progress towards establishing a banking union in an effort to prevent future sovereign crises from spilling over into the banking sector, as well as minimizing the risks of a banking crisis. which will cause financial difficulties for the public (the so-called state bank link).<\/p>\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/image-109.png\")
<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However, it was the ECB (with its ostensibly unlimited financial resources and commitment to do “whatever it takes”) that primarily helped to stabilize the euro area. Greece received bailouts in 2010 and 2012, Ireland in 2010, Portugal in 2011 and Cyprus in 2013. Banking crises in Spain, Ireland and Cyprus led their respective governments to request bailouts, which, in the case of Cyprus, accompanied by a bailout of bank depositors. The Greek government also restructured its debt in 2012, and has not done many voluntary debt swaps since then.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
- \n
- During the initial emergency in 2010, euro area members were forced to provide financial support to prevent a wider financial contagion and systemic destabilization of the euro area. This took place, firstly, under the guise of the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) and the European Financial Stabilization Mechanism (EFSM). Due to their limited size, both funds were replaced in 2012 by the newly established European Stability Mechanism (ESM). The ESM today effectively functions as a idiosyncratic “International Monetary Fund” of the eurozone, providing financial resources to distressed members in exchange for economic adjustment and reform.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
- \n
- In the wake of the crisis, the ECB created new instruments to stabilize the markets. Through the “Securities Markets Program” (SMP), the central bank aimed to hold down long-term interest rates in the weakest countries. In 2012, it launched the Outright Monetary Transactions (OMT) bond buyback program to shore up public debt under strict policy conditions. In 2022, the ECB introduced the Transmission Protection Instrument (TPI) to ensure smooth transmission of monetary policy and manage interest rate differentials, buying unlimited medium- and long-term debt securities, provided that countries follow sound EU fiscal policies and rules. The ECB also established the Public Sector Purchase Program (PSPP) for large purchases of non-sovereign financial assets. During the COVID-19 pandemic, they created the \u20ac1,350 billion Public Emergency Purchase Program (PEPP). Government debt purchases by central banks help reduce borrowing costs, but are seen by some as monetary financing of government debt.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
- \n
- Eurozone members also implemented several reforms to their fiscal regimes. In 2011, the eurozone introduced the so-called “six pack” or “six bundle” of regulations aimed at strengthening the rules of the Stability and Growth Act. In 2012, the Fiscal Compact was replaced and integrated into the Stability and Growth Pact, further strengthening the fiscal regime governing national financial policies in terms of constraints and enforcement, adjustment requirements and transparency. The fiscal pact subjects member countries’ fiscal policies to the supervision of the European Commission, binds countries to a mandatory balanced budget rule, strengthens the excessive deficit process and requires convergence towards medium-term goals, among other provisions. The EU’s fiscal rules were updated in 2024 to make them less complex and therefore less complicated and operational to enforce.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
- \n
- After the 2009 crisis, the euro area also took measures to limit the risk of systemic banking crises. In 2014, it established a “Single Supervisory Mechanism” (SSM), which gives the ECB supervisory powers over large banks in the euro area (smaller banks remain largely under the supervision of national authorities). It also created a Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM) to enable the orderly resolution of banks, along with the Single Resolution Fund (SRF), which is intended to help resolve failed banks in the event that “rescues from the inside”, i.e. appeals to depositors’ money (bail-ins) are not sustainable, but also to prevent disorderly bankruptcies in the banking sector through the rescue of creditors or through a large-scale liquidation.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
The SRF is financed by banks and is intended to cover 1% of all deposits in the euro area. In 2015, the European Commission also proposed the creation of a European Deposit Insurance Scheme to limit the risks and costs to governments of bank failures, but this proposal was never approved. A recent reform, currently in the approval process, seeks to further develop the ESM and buffer the SRF through a revolving “credit line”, a renewed credit limit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Although the euro area has proven resilient to recent shocks caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine, the current institutional architecture still leaves it vulnerable to severe shocks. The architecture of the eurozone is incomparably more robust than it was 15 years ago, but it still has key weaknesses, particularly compared to nation-states with national central banks and a more centralized fiscal authority.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
1. <\/strong>While the euro area’s financial rescue mechanisms have made the system more resilient, their financing capacity is limited. This is why the ECB’s Outright Monetary Transactions (OMT) program is an integral part of the euro area’s financial architecture, providing the financial “firepower” to reliably hold back even the largest member governments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
2.<\/strong> The financial “firepower” of the SRM is also quite limited. Again, while the ESM provides additional funding under certain conditions, the financial capacity (representing just 1% of bank deposits in the euro area) is small, particularly if there is no additional explicit or implicit agent able and willing to stop the system in case of a serious crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
3. <\/strong>National banking systems in many eurozone countries remain vulnerable, given their government’s limited ability to stop the system and no common eurozone-wide deposit insurance. This in times of crisis will exacerbate banking movements, as local depositors will move their money to eurozone countries that are not at risk of defaulting on the currency. Since the end of the euro area debt crisis in the mid-2010s, euro area governments have benefited from low nominal interest rates and extensive purchases of sovereign debt by central banks. While they have so far outperformed higher policy rates, it remains to be seen how well they will cope with higher interest rates, as well as wider spreads in bond yield prices and lending rates.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/image-111.png\")
<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The medium- and long-term fiscal outlook will also prove challenging given the need to increase spending on defense and the green transition, as well as on social welfare amid Europe’s aging population \u2014 which will be particularly challenging for countries with low economic development, such as Italy. These pressures may, in turn, erode eurozone governments’ support for prudent fiscal policies and compliance with eurozone fiscal rules, leading to increased conflict with national-level fiscal priorities and the eurozone’s zone-level constraints. euro. This action has the potential in itself to upset markets and lead investors to charge higher interest rates, thus worsening the economic outlook of countries facing financial problems.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
- \n
- The public debt of the euro area has increased significantly in euros, therefore also in relation to the financing capacity of the ESM. Italian and French public debt stood at around \u20ac3 trillion in 2023, or 140% of GDP and 110% of GDP, respectively. Domestic credit to the private sector (an indicator of non-government lending to the banking sector, as well as potential government liabilities in the event of a banking sector bailout) stood at 70% and 120% of GDP, respectively. Meanwhile, total lending capacity of the ESM amounts to EUR 500-700 billion.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
- \n
- The recently created “Next Generation EU” (NGEU) or “European Union Recovery Instrument”, adopted in 2020, provides for common EU funding, financed from EU-level resources. However, the economically stronger governments with net contributions \u2013 payments, have made it clear that it will remain a one-off, from 2021-2027 and will provide just \u20ac750 billion to support post-pandemic investment and reforms. However, the financial challenges of many of the weakest members of the euro area are much greater in economic scope and time horizon. The new instrument is therefore a drop in the ocean in terms of longer-term fiscal challenges.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
The politics of euro area reform and crisis protection remain thoroughly controversial, which will continue to hinder progress towards such reforms in the coming years. In the absence of another major challenge, the euro area will likely prove sufficiently resilient in the coming years. At the same time, the eurozone is unlikely to suffer defections due to popular opposition in member states or adverse legal decisions that undermine key elements of the current financial-institutional architecture. The euro remains very popular in almost all eurozone countries, while legal challenges to the new financial architecture have been largely, if not entirely, defeated by national constitutional or European courts. This short-term stability will reduce the urgency for significant progress towards crisis-proof eurozone reforms, which have long proved contentious, pitting low-debt “creditor” countries in northern Europe against high-debt “debtor” countries in the south. Europe.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Although all member countries have an interest in increasing the resilience of the euro area to shocks, they differ on how to allocate the real and potential costs of reforms. Reforms that risk creating a so-called “transfer union” enshrining the possibility of permanent transfer of resources are not attractive to creditors, economically or politically. Creditor countries retain the right to veto any such reform. This is also why any transfer of resources and risk sharing is limited and usually conditional, be it emergency lending, bank consolidation or banking union. The most economically vulnerable countries\u2014that is, countries with large public debt and a banking sector that owns a large portion of that debt\u2014simply are not in a position to contribute significantly to risk sharing. Fiscally conservative eurozone countries will continue to resist reforms aimed at significantly greater risk-sharing or resource transfers. And debtor countries will continue to oppose institutional reform that shifts the costs of financial distress (whether in terms of macroeconomic adjustment, public debt restructuring, or banking sector insolvencies) to economically weaker countries. Therefore, unless another major, systemic crisis occurs in the coming years, forcing eurozone members to implement far-reaching changes to the current regime, reform will be slow. And this, in turn, means that in the near future risk sharing and direct or indirect resource transfers are unlikely to increase significantly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The interests of fiscally conservative, largely northern European countries (such as Germany, the Netherlands, Ireland and the Baltic states, whose public debt levels are all less than 70% of GDP) continue to diverge from those of less financially disciplined Southern European countries (such as Greece, Italy, France, Spain, Belgium and Portugal, whose public debt levels exceed 100% of GDP). The first group generally opposes significant resource transfers and significant direct or indirect risk sharing, while the second group opposes more inflexible rules and the loss of policy discretion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Almost all euro area governments face significant long-term fiscal challenges caused by a combination of aging populations and welfare systems, including pension and health spending. In addition, increased green transition and defense spending will also put upward pressure on fiscal deficits and, in most cases, public debt ratios. The necessary major fiscal reform will prove politically controversial. It will also make it unlikely that a significant redistribution will take place within the euro.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In the coming years and decades, without significant fiscal reform, the eurozone will remain vulnerable to both endogenous and exogenous shocks. An obvious long-term challenge facing the euro is a combination of low economic and fiscal restraint, which may undermine support for the euro and lead politicians and political parties to support exiting the euro. Although the economics of common currency areas are complex, most voters in eurozone countries seem to “intuitively” understand the economic benefits of joining the EU’s single market, and that if their country were to leave the eurozone , this event would likely prove to be an economic disaster, also forcing their country out of the single market. This has so far forced the various populist parties to partially or fully back down from their calls to leave the single currency.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However, while support for the euro is currently high in all euro area member countries, public opinion can change rapidly if euro area membership is again linked to economic conditions and financial crises. Indeed, whatever the short-term cost of an exit from the euro, politicians may support replacing the euro if voters tire of the economic regime of low economic growth. In the short term, an unforeseen “shock” could lead to economic and financial destabilization capable of crushing the euro area’s financial architecture. Such a scenario (which can materialize when one of the largest member countries refuses to comply with the rules of the euro area, submits its policies to a review and is not eligible to receive bailout funds or benefit from an effective program bailout of the ECB), perhaps in an ill-fated attempt to force the eurozone to provide more favorable bailout terms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In a more likely scenario, a larger euro area member country may also face significant financial problems at a time when the domestic ruling political group decides to block adjustment to common European policies and when available bailout funds prove potentially insufficient. In addition to sovereign debt crises within the euro area, future external shocks could also trigger destabilizing crises in the currency area, such as those caused by global conflicts or prolonged global economic stagnation.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Eurozone is sufficiently far from the debt crisis of 2009, but the risks remain. In the eurozone, the end of ultra-low interest rates and…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":18952,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[818,390],"tags":[142,25,190,5542],"class_list":["post-18950","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-europe","category-politics","tag-crisis","tag-eu","tag-eurozone","tag-risks"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18950","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=18950"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18950\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":18955,"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18950\/revisions\/18955"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/18952"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=18950"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=18950"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=18950"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
- The recently created “Next Generation EU” (NGEU) or “European Union Recovery Instrument”, adopted in 2020, provides for common EU funding, financed from EU-level resources. However, the economically stronger governments with net contributions \u2013 payments, have made it clear that it will remain a one-off, from 2021-2027 and will provide just \u20ac750 billion to support post-pandemic investment and reforms. However, the financial challenges of many of the weakest members of the euro area are much greater in economic scope and time horizon. The new instrument is therefore a drop in the ocean in terms of longer-term fiscal challenges.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
- The public debt of the euro area has increased significantly in euros, therefore also in relation to the financing capacity of the ESM. Italian and French public debt stood at around \u20ac3 trillion in 2023, or 140% of GDP and 110% of GDP, respectively. Domestic credit to the private sector (an indicator of non-government lending to the banking sector, as well as potential government liabilities in the event of a banking sector bailout) stood at 70% and 120% of GDP, respectively. Meanwhile, total lending capacity of the ESM amounts to EUR 500-700 billion.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
- After the 2009 crisis, the euro area also took measures to limit the risk of systemic banking crises. In 2014, it established a “Single Supervisory Mechanism” (SSM), which gives the ECB supervisory powers over large banks in the euro area (smaller banks remain largely under the supervision of national authorities). It also created a Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM) to enable the orderly resolution of banks, along with the Single Resolution Fund (SRF), which is intended to help resolve failed banks in the event that “rescues from the inside”, i.e. appeals to depositors’ money (bail-ins) are not sustainable, but also to prevent disorderly bankruptcies in the banking sector through the rescue of creditors or through a large-scale liquidation.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
- Eurozone members also implemented several reforms to their fiscal regimes. In 2011, the eurozone introduced the so-called “six pack” or “six bundle” of regulations aimed at strengthening the rules of the Stability and Growth Act. In 2012, the Fiscal Compact was replaced and integrated into the Stability and Growth Pact, further strengthening the fiscal regime governing national financial policies in terms of constraints and enforcement, adjustment requirements and transparency. The fiscal pact subjects member countries’ fiscal policies to the supervision of the European Commission, binds countries to a mandatory balanced budget rule, strengthens the excessive deficit process and requires convergence towards medium-term goals, among other provisions. The EU’s fiscal rules were updated in 2024 to make them less complex and therefore less complicated and operational to enforce.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
- In the wake of the crisis, the ECB created new instruments to stabilize the markets. Through the “Securities Markets Program” (SMP), the central bank aimed to hold down long-term interest rates in the weakest countries. In 2012, it launched the Outright Monetary Transactions (OMT) bond buyback program to shore up public debt under strict policy conditions. In 2022, the ECB introduced the Transmission Protection Instrument (TPI) to ensure smooth transmission of monetary policy and manage interest rate differentials, buying unlimited medium- and long-term debt securities, provided that countries follow sound EU fiscal policies and rules. The ECB also established the Public Sector Purchase Program (PSPP) for large purchases of non-sovereign financial assets. During the COVID-19 pandemic, they created the \u20ac1,350 billion Public Emergency Purchase Program (PEPP). Government debt purchases by central banks help reduce borrowing costs, but are seen by some as monetary financing of government debt.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n