By Raul Sampognaro

On 13 January, the Juncker Commission clarified its position on the flexibility that the Member States have in implementing the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP). The new reading of the SGP should result in reining in the fiscal consolidation required for certain countries[1]. Henceforth, the Commission can apply the “structural reform clause” to a country in the corrective arm of the Pact[2], whereas previously this was only possible for countries in the Pact’s preventive arm[3]. This clause will allow a Member State to deviate temporarily from its prior commitments and postpone them to a time when the fruits of reform would make adjustment easier. In order for the Commission to agree to activate the clause, certain conditions must be met:

–          The reform plan submitted by the Member State must be major and detailed, and approved by the Government or the National Parliament; its timetable for implementation must be explicit and credible;

–          The plan must have a favourable impact on potential growth and / or the public finances in the medium-term. The quantification of the impact should be carried out transparently and the Member State must submit the relevant documentation to the Commission;

–          The Member State must make a structural budget improvement of at least 0.5 GDP point.

In this new context, France has reforms it can point to, such as the regional reform and the law on growth and activity, the so-called Macron law. According to OECD calculations from October 2014, the reforms already underway or being adopted [4] could boost GDP by 1.6 points over the next 5 years while improving the structural budget balance by 0.8 GDP point[5] (the details of the impacts estimated by the OECD are shown in Table 1).

In March, the Commission will decide whether France’s 2015 Finance Act complies with the rules of the SGP. To benefit from the structural reform clause, France must then meet certain conditions:

1)      The outline of the reforms needs to be clarified: at end December 2014, the Commission felt that there were still many lingering uncertainties concerning the regional reform and the content of the Macron law, uncertainties that will be resolved in the course of the parliamentary process.

2)      The Ministry of Finance at Bercy must produce credible assessments of the impact of the Macron law, while the Commission will carry out its own evaluation. The Commission has already noted that the OECD’s calculations will constitute the upper bound of the impact.

The evaluation of the 2015 Finance Act may result in the imposition of financial sanctions on France, unless the government decides to go for a greater fiscal adjustment. The Commission warned in late November that further steps would be needed to ensure that the 2015 budget complies with the SGP. Indeed, the Commission found that the adjustment was only 0.3 GDP point, while in June 2013 France had committed to an annual structural adjustment of 0.8 point in 2015 to bring its deficit below 3% in 2015[6].

While the Commission approves the positive effects expected from the reforms, there is a problem with the application of the “structural reform clause”: the structural budgetary adjustment is still below 0.5 GDP point, which prevents the application of the new clause. France therefore still faces the threat of sanctions, despite the new doctrine.

While this analysis of the document published on January 13 shows that the Commission has given the Pact greater flexibility, it also shows that the Commission expects France to make a larger fiscal adjustment. This would be on the order of 4 billion euros (0.2 percent of French GDP) instead of the 8 billion (0.4 percent of GDP) that would have been expected back in October (the impact of a strict reading of the Pact has been analyzed here).

The Government’s refrain is that it does not wish to go any further with fiscal adjustment, that this is not desirable in the current economic climate: 2015 could be a year for recovery provided that the risk of deflation is taken seriously. There is a lot of support for economic activity, including lower prices for oil and the euro, an expansionary monetary policy and the Juncker plan, even if the latter needed to go much further. However, France’s fiscal policy is continuing to be a drag, and just how much so will remain uncertain until March. From now till then, with the terms of the debate clearly spelled out, everyone will need to take the risk of deflation seriously.

[1] The Commission permits subtracting investments made under the Juncker Commission Plan from the deficit calculation; it clarifies the applicability of the “structural reform clause” and moderates the speed of convergence towards the medium term objectives (MTO) for countries in the preventive arm of the Pact based on their position in the business cycle.

[2]Grosso modo this means countries with a deficit of more than 3%.

[3]Grosso modo  this means countries with a deficit of less than 3%.

[4] Which goes beyond the Macron law alone and includes the CICE tax credit and the Responsibility Pact.

[5] The OECD data were used by the Prime Minister in his October 27 letter to the Commission.

[6] In its 2014 autumn forecast, the Commission quantified the adjustment at 0.1 GDP point, but this figure is not directly comparable with the commitment of 0.8 point from June 2013. Once the changes in national accounting standards and the unpredictable changes in certain variables are taken into account, the corrected adjustment is 0.3 GDP point. This figure is the calculation basis for the excessive deficit procedure.

By Eric Heyer

On April 17, the government presented its Stability Programme for 2013-2017 for the French economy. For the next two years (2013-2014), the government has relied on the projections of the European Commission in forecasting growth of 0.1% in 2013 and 1.2% in 2014. Our purpose here is not to revisit these forecasts, though they do seem overly optimistic, but rather to discuss the analysis and outlook for France for the period 2015-2017 that is explicit and sometimes implicit in this document.

According to the document provided to Brussels, the government is committed to maintaining its fiscal consolidation strategy throughout the five-year period. The structural effort will lessen over the years, representing only 0.2 percent of GDP in 2017, i.e. nine times less than the effort required of citizens and business in 2013. Under this assumption, the government expects a return to 2% annual growth during the period 2015-2017. The deficit will continue to shrink, reaching 0.7 percent of GDP in 2017. This effort would even lead for the first time in over 30 years to a structural fiscal surplus in 2016, rising to 0.5 percent of GDP in 2017. For its part, public debt would peak in 2014 (at 94.3 GDP points) then begin to decline from 2015 to a level of 88.2 GDP points by the end of the five-year period, which is lower than the level when the Socialists came to power (Table 1). It should be noted, however, that in this official document nothing is said about the changes in unemployment that the government expects will result from its policies by the end of the five-year period. This is the reason for our introduction of a missing line in Table 1.

Based on assumptions similar to those of the government for fiscal policy as well as for the potential for growth, and starting from the same short-term situation, we have attempted to verify the analysis provided by the government and to supplement it by integrating the changes in unemployment related to its Programme.

Table 2 summarizes this work: it indicates that growth would accelerate gradually over the period 2015 to 2017, to over 2% in 2017. Growth over the period would average 1.8%, a rate close to but slightly lower than the 2% expected in the Stability Programme [1].

At end 2017, the deficit would be close to the government target, without however reaching it (1 GDP point instead of 0.7 GDP point). The public debt would also fall to a level comparable to that in 2012.

In this scenario, which is similar to that of the government, the trend in unemployment will not reverse until 2016; by the end of the five-year period, the unemployment rate is expected to be 10.4% of the working population, i.e. a level higher than that prevailing at the time François Hollande assumed office.

The scenario proposed by the government in the Stability Programme seems optimistic in the short term and misses the goal in the medium term. On this last point, it seems surprising to want to stick to a policy of austerity after the economy has seen the public finances balanced in structural terms and while the unemployment rate is rising above its historical peak.

A more balanced approach could be considered: assume that from 2014 the euro zone adopts a “reasonable” austerity plan aimed at both restoring the structural balance of the public finances and reducing the unemployment rate. This alternative strategy would involve rolling back the planned fiscal stimulus in all the euro zone countries and limiting it to 0.5 GDP point [2]. This would constitute a fiscal effort that could be sustained over time and allow France, for example, to eliminate its structural deficit by 2017. Compared to the current plans, this would provide a greater margin for maneuver that would spread the burden of the adjustment more fairly.

Table 3 summarizes the results of simulating this new strategy. Less austerity leads to more growth in all the countries. However, our simulation also takes into account the impact of economic activity in one country on other countries via international trade. In 2017, in the “less austerity” scenario, the public finances would be in the same state as in the baseline scenario, with the additional growth offsetting the reduced effort. However, in this scenario, unemployment would decline in 2014, and by 2017 would have fallen to a level comparable to the 2012 level.

[1] The difference in growth can arise either because of not taking into account the impact of foreign trade due to the austerity plans being implemented in other partner countries, or because the fiscal multiplier used in the Stability Programme is lower than in our simulation, where it is around 1. Indeed, we believe that in a period of low economic activity, adopting policies of fiscal restraint that are applied simultaneously in all the European countries and when there is little maneuvering room for monetary policy (real interest rates are close to zero) leads to pushing up the value of the multiplier. There is also now a broad consensus on the fact that the short-term multipliers are high, especially given that full employment is still out of reach (see Heyer (2012) for a review of the literature on multipliers).

[2] This strategy has already been simulated in previous OFCE work, such as that by Heyer and Timbeau in May 2012, by Heyer, Plane and Timbeau in July 2012 and by the iAGS report in November 2012.

By Christophe Blot, Catherine Mathieu and Christine Rifflart

This text summarizes the special study of the October 2012 forecast.

Since the summer of 2007, the central banks of the industrialized countries have intervened regularly to counter the negative impact of the financial crisis on the functioning of the banking and financial system and to help kick-start growth. Initially, key interest rates were lowered considerably, and then maintained at a level close to 0 [1]. In a second phase, from the beginning of 2009, the central banks implemented what are called unconventional measures. While these policies may differ from one central bank to another, they all result in an increase in the size of their balance sheets as well as a change in the composition of their balance sheet assets. However, three years after the economies in the United States, the euro zone and the United Kingdom hit bottom, it is clear that recovery is still a ways off, with unemployment at a high level everywhere. In Europe, a new recession is threatening [2]. Does this call into question the effectiveness of monetary policy and of unconventional measures more specifically?

For almost four years, a wealth of research has been conducted on the impact of unconventional monetary policies [3]. Cecioni, Ferrero and Sacchi (2011) [4] have presented a review of recent literature on the subject. The majority of these studies focus on the impact of the various measures taken by the central banks on financial variables, in particular on money market rates and bond yields. Given the role of the money market in the transmission of monetary policy, the ability of central banks to ease the pressures that have emerged since the beginning of the financial crisis constitutes a key vector for effective intervention. More recently, this was also one of the reasons motivating the ECB to conduct an exceptional refinancing operation in two stages, with a maturity of 3 years. This intervention has indeed helped to reduce the tensions on the interbank market that had reappeared in late 2011 in the euro zone, and to a lesser extent in the United States and the United Kingdom (see graph). This episode seems to confirm that central bank action can be effective when it is dealing with a liquidity crisis.

Another critical area of debate concerns the ability of unconventional measures to lower interest rates in the long term and thereby to stimulate activity. This is in fact an important lever for the transmission of monetary policy. The findings on this issue are more mixed. Nevertheless, for the United States, a study by Meaning and Zhu (2012) [5] suggests that Federal Reserve programs to purchase securities have contributed to lowering the rates on 10-year US Treasury bills: by 60 points for the first “Large-scale asset purchase” program (LSAP1) and by 156 points for LSAP2. As for the euro zone, Peersman [6] (2011) shows that the impact of unconventional measures on activity has in general closely resembled the effect of lowering the key interest rate, and Gianone, Lenza, Pill and Reichlin [7] (2012 ) suggest that the various measures taken by the ECB since the beginning of the crisis have helped offset the rise in the unemployment rate, although the impact is limited to 0.6 point.

Under these conditions, how is it possible to explain the weakness or outright absence of a recovery? One answer evokes the hypothesis of a liquidity trap [8]. Uncertainty is still prevalent, and the financial system is still so fragile that agents are continuing to express a preference for liquidity and safety, which explains their reluctance to undertake risky projects. Thus, even if financing conditions are favourable, monetary policy will not be sufficient to stimulate a business recovery. This hypothesis probably explains the timidity of the recovery in the United States. But in the euro zone and the United Kingdom this hypothesis needs to be supplemented with a second explanation that recognizes the impact of restrictive fiscal policies in holding back recovery. The euro zone countries, like the UK, are pursuing a strategy of fiscal consolidation that is undermining demand. While monetary policy is indeed expansionary, it is not able to offset the downward pressure of fiscal policy on growth.

[1] One should not, however, forget the exception of the ECB, which prematurely raised its key interest rate twice in 2011. Since then it has reversed these decisions and lowered the key rate, which has stood at 0.75% since July 2012.

[2] The first estimate of UK GDP for the third quarter of 2012 indicates an upturn in growth following three quarters of decline. However, this rebound is due to unusual circumstances (see Royaume-Uni: l’enlisement), and activity will decline again in the fourth quarter.

[3] Unconventional monetary policies have already been analyzed repeatedly in the case of the Bank of Japan. The implementation of equivalent measures in the United States, the United Kingdom and the euro zone has contributed to greatly amplifying the interest in these issues.

[4] “Unconventional monetary policy in theory and in practice”, Banca d’Italia Occasional Papers, no.102.

[5] “The impact of Federal Reserve asset purchase programmes: another twist”, BIS Quarterly Review, March, pp. 23-30.

[6] “Macroeconomic effects of unconventional monetary policy in the euro area”, ECB Working Paper no.1397.

[7] “The ECB and the interbank market”, CEPR Discussion Paper no. 8844.

[8] See OFCE (2010) for an analysis of this hypothesis.