Is Germany to blame for the euro crisis?

Should German Prime Minister Angela Merkel, right, be pointing in the mirror? (Photo: Francois Lenoir/REUTERS)

The financial turmoil in the Eurozone is fostering another potentially scary problem that could hamper the resolution of Europe’s debt crisis – smoldering anger towards Germany, the dominant member of the monetary union. Take a look at the venom spewed at Germany by José-Ignacio Torreblanca, head of the Madrid office of the European Council of Foreign Relations, the other day in The Financial Times:

Seeing how the story unfolded in Greece and Ireland and watching the crisis heading for Portugal, it is no wonder that the dominant sentiment in Spain is concern. But more than that, the prevailing feeling is one of frustration with Germany…Spain’s current problems start not at home but rather abroad – in Germany, to be precise…Seen from Spain, it is as if Germany had decided southern Europe was a burden that prevents it from going global and needs to be dumped.

Pretty strong stuff. But it is fair? The fact is that Germany, as the leading economic and political force in the Eurozone, does have to take its share of the blame for the severity of Europe’s debt crisis. Here’s why:

Germany has been at the center of Europe’s mishandling of the euro crisis from the very beginning. Germany is expected to take the lead on policy in the Eurozone, and when dealing with the debt crisis, that leadership has sometimes been lacking. The misplaced reluctance of Chancellor Angela Merkel to support floundering Greece earlier this year allowed the contagion genie out of the bottle and spread the crisis to other weak Eurozone states. More recently, Merkel has been criticized for ushering Ireland into a bailout with her push to transfer some of the costs of Europe’s rescue efforts onto private bondholders. Though a good idea in principle, the proposal, later adopted by the European Union as part of a permanent framework for resolving debt crises, fueled investor concerns about future losses at an incredibly sensitive point in market sentiment. Now that proposal is being blamed for spreading the euro crisis even deeper, to Portugal and perhaps Spain. Here’s what Torreblanca had to say about this issue:

Ms Merkel’s proposal to have investors, and not only citizens, suffer the consequences of their investment decisions is both fair and rational. Yet, as we are seeing, there is a good chance that in real life the eurozone could be killed precisely by this proposal to make it work better. This would be no small irony. But it highlights the extent to which religious zeal has replaced political vision in Germany. As the saying goes: fiat iustitia, pereat mundus (let there be justice, though the world perish).

To be fair to Merkel, she’s only been attempting to resolve the euro crisis in a politically viable manner. Voters in Germany are in no mood to see their taxpayer money shoveled off to bailout the Greeks and Irish, so there is a limit to how far Merkel can go in using German resources to rescue the rest of Europe. Her well-founded reluctance to go around saving everybody is symbolic of a greater European aversion towards bailing out neighbors and interfering too much in their domestic affairs.

At the same time, however, it’s not hard to see why the rest of Europe would resent Germany and its behavior. The issues of contention with Germany run much deeper than Merkel’s recent comments. At the heart of it, there is a feeling that Germany is hoisting the problems of the Eurozone onto its weakest members. Germany’s view on solving the crisis has been based mainly on forcing adjustment in the crisis-hit nations in return for bailout money – it is Ireland, Greece and the other weak economies that got themselves into trouble and now have to dig themselves out of it through some tough structural reform. Though that may be the true, there is still a feeling in Europe that Germany needs to be doing more to get Europe out of crisis. Germany, this thinking goes, needs to change as well if the Eurozone is to return to health.

That’s because Germany’s recent economic success is perceived to be coming (in part) at the expense of its Eurozone neighbors. Germany’s growth is a result of strong exports, and the country runs a giant current account surplus, which the IMF expects to reach more than 6% of GDP this year. Economists, EU officials and policymakers around Europe believe Germany should be taking more aggressive measures to reduce this surplus, by stimulating domestic demand and thus supporting export growth in the rest of Europe. Instead, from the perspective of the rest of Europe, Germany is only too happy to revel in its healthy rebound while imposing years of dire pain onto the citizens of its prostrate, debt-ridden neighbors.

Germany’s attitude has made the nation appear somewhat self-centered and heartless. Here’s how Roger Cohen of The New York Times put it recently:

How shallow, paltry and mean-spirited has this German reaction to the euro crisis been! I don’t recall one word from Merkel about the idea of Europe, about why sacrifices for the euro are consistent with Germany’s moral debt to Europe and stake in its united future. “If the euro fails, then Europe fails,” she says. But what, pray, is Europe to the Frau Bundeskanzlerin? A burden, it seems, a conundrum — anything but an idea.

The view from Germany is quite different, however. Germany believes that it is playing a responsible role in Europe, both in regard to the current crisis and in ensuring the success of the monetary union overall. From the German standpoint, the success of the German economy is a boost to the success of the entire region, which benefits from the German export machine. In other words, a strong Germany is not only good for Germany but good for Europe. I recently discussed these issues with Steffen Kampeter, parliamentary secretary to Germany’s minister of finance, and here’s his view on the matter:

Our imports are growing stronger than our exports. Please do not forget that the Germany economy is contributing growth to those who contribute to our export goods. Our source of competitiveness is not only based in Germany. Eastern Europe and other parts within the euro area are benefiting very directly from German exports. The development we think goes in the right direction. A growing Germany is better for the European Union and the world economy than a Germany that is has a shrinking economic power. That’s the story that has to be told.

The notion, then, that Germany “exports to much” is seen in Berlin as ridiculous, As Germany’s exports rev up, incomes will increase, making Germans bigger consumers of goods from the rest of Europe. Here’s Kampeter again:

Growing exports leads to growing investment and growing investment leads to growing income. Our private demand is growing faster. The classical traditional story is now working in Germany.

Kampeter also stressed Germany’s commitment to making the monetary union successful. More from the interview:

We see the euro as a peace and freedom-keeping mission, not only an economic instrument. We have to do a lot more. We go on with further integration in Europe. We have profited as a country from this integration. We won’t exit the euro. We’ll do everything to stabilize this instrument. It is in our national interests to have a stable euro. We have a responsibility to keep the euro stable.

Simultaneously, though, there is a feeling in Germany it is (to a great degree) up to the weaker economies of Europe to fix their own affairs. Germany believes its economy is emerging out of the Great Recession in a solid position because its policymakers were far-sighted enough to proactively implement tough reforms other, lazier Eurozone nations failed to make. In other words, Germany is rightfully benefiting from its own hard work – now others in Europe have to roll up their sleeves and do the same. Here’s more from Kampeter:

We’ve done a good job over the past 10 years. Our labor market is much more flexible than it was 10 years ago. Our productivity strategies are moving forward. We invested much to become more competitive and to contribute more to global growth.

If one is more competitive than others, then others have to become more competitive. If you are accusing Germany of exporting too much, you’re proposition can only be to export less, to be less competitive. Economically, there is a perception that exporting is not a very bad thing as long as Germany isn’t doing it.

There is some truth to this argument. Over the past decade, Germany did overhaul politically sensitive aspects of its economy to make itself more competitive, which included reforming its unemployment insurance system and increasing labor market flexibility. German unions have also been willing to accept meager wage increases in return for employment guarantees. These are the types of reforms France, Spain, Greece and others are only getting to now. There is real merit, therefore, in the German argument that the rest of Europe has to play catch-up, to make their economies more competitive for their own good and for the future of the euro.

Whatever the reality of Germany’s role in Europe, the apparently growing ire towards the Eurozone’s most important economy doesn’t bode well for the future of the monetary union. As Kampeter points out, the euro is above all part of a political agenda. As the debt crisis unfolds, and countries enjoy fewer and fewer economic benefits from keeping the monetary union together, the prevailing glue could turn out to be political, and to a certain extent, sentimental. Europe will want to maintain the euro in order to keep the dream of a peaceful, democratic and unified Europe alive. If that dream descends into resentful finger-pointing, then the political rationale for the euro could be another victim of the Eurozone’s debt crisis. Therefore, whatever the economic merit of Germany’s handling of the crisis, Berlin can’t ignore the political fallout of its actions if the euro is to survive and thrive.

Related Topics: Economy & Policy
  • Latest on Business

    Brendan McDermid / Reuters

    Facebook’s Stock Falls Below $30 for First Time

    (NEW YORK) — Facebook’s stock has fallen below $30 for the first time since its much-awaited public debut this month.

    The Jury Is Out on the EuroSlate

    U.S. consumer prices rose faster than expected in May. (Mario Anzuoni / Reuters)

    Consumer Confidence in the Economy Plunged in May

    NEW YORK — American confidence in the economy suffered the biggest drop in eight months as worries about the weak jobs, housing and stock markets rattled them again. The decline comes after a few months of optimism amid some positive economic news.

  • http://ozpence.wordpress.com Özay ÖZPENÇE

    Not only Germany, but also all the european union countries, especially the countries in emu are to blame for euro crisis. in 1947, Shuman plan said to have ” a fiscal policy”. in 2008 I argued that in my ph.d thesisand analysis for emu. only economy policies can’t afford to manage eu (emu), you need to have fiscal policy. but if you want to get fiscal policy you have to be “the united states of europe”, means you must to be a government. unless europe are fighting these crisis by one by or by country by. or we say by by european union.

  • http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

    The criticism of Germany is typical class warfare anger. The poor hate the rich because they are rich. We have it here. Obama’s reluctance to continue the Bush tax rates for the “wealthy” is an example.
    .
    But Germany is not at fault for the problems of the euro. The fault lies with the euro itself. Euro-using nations are not Monetarily Sovereign . To survive long-term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have money coming in from outside. It cannot survive on taxes alone.
    .
    The reason: A growing economy requires a growing supply of money. But even modest inflation reduces the real money supply. Taxes do not add money; they merely recirculate it.
    .
    So to survive long term, each euro-using nation must have a positive balance of trade, an unlikely situation. Either every euro-using nation should revert to monetary sovereignty (drop out of the EU), or the EU should supply more euros to its members.
    .
    The knee-jerk response is, “Inflation.” But inflation in monetarily sovereign nations has been no worse than in euro-using nations. It’s a false bugaboo.

    Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

  • http://caravaggio99.wordpress.com caravaggio99

    German make good villains, especially in English-speaking countries, so what else is new?

    “To be fair to Merkel, she’s only been attempting to resolve the euro crisis in a politically viable manner.” That’s only half the truth. The real elephant in the room is the German Supreme Court which might rule bailouts for other European countries a violation of the Maastricht treaty and therefore unconstitutional, especially if they are made in a “carte blanche” fashion. What purpose would it serve to give far-fetched declarations of German solidarity only to be whistled back by the judicial branch? Wouldn’t that only aggravate the crisis? And, by the way, I would imagine that Americans have an idea of how important constutional issues are.

  • eurozone2011

    When talking about the German government’s possibilities to “save the euro”, it is often overlooked that Angela Merkel’s ability to act is not only restricted by her voters’ resistance to doling out “German money” to european “neighbours”, but also by German constitutional law.

    1.This is a complex legal issue. At its heart lies the distinction between the independent european nation- states and a european confederation of states.

    It is quite obvious that all european states were founded as independent nation-states and have retained this legal form even while associating in the “European Union” and ceding certain legislative powers to “Brussels”.

    On the other hand, it is evident that an extent of centralisation of legislative powers in Brussels may be reached, when the association of independent nation-states will have morphed into a (con)federation of states, not unlike the United States of America.

    The interesting fact is that the German Constitutional Court in its 2009 decision on the constitutionality of the Lisbon treaty has pointed out again that the current German constitution would not allow Germany to give-up its status as a nation-state and become part of a European (Con)Federation. Furthermore the Constitutional Court has made it clear that Germany’s constitution couldn’t even be changed by a parliamentary amendment in that respect. So a constitutional referendum would be needed to allow Germany to give up its nation-state status.

    In 1993 the Court had ruled on the constitutionality of creating the Euro (“Maastricht-decision”), saying that the German parliament’s budgetary power (highly relevant to its nation-state status) was not ceded to the European Union but rather retained, even though the EZB in Brussels was deciding about the euro. The Courts explanation: The (now defunct) “no-bail-out”-clause would prevent Germany having to automatically use its own tax revenues to fund other parliament’s or the EU’s budget decisions.

    Added together the “Lisbon” and “Maastricht” – decisions mean that Germany cannot in any way be part of a “European bonds” scheme or a massive bail-out of other member states. Even the idea of a “common european economic policy” decided in Brussels could be deemed unconstitutional in Germany. Why? Because without a successful referendum Germany’s constitution demands Germany to stay on the path of a nation-state, i.e. make its own fiscal and economic policy and determine its own budget.

    2. So what are Merkel’s options for “saving the euro”? The answer: none. Even the “bail-outs” for Greece and Ireland are already contested in front of the German Constitutional Court. A massive “bail-out” for even more member States will probably lead to a crushing legal defeat in front of the court. Overcoming the constitutional barriers for full-scale european integration would need a successful referendum – but even trying it would be political suicide in the current euro-sceptic environment.

  • http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

    eurozone 2011 said, ” . . .the current German constitution would not allow Germany to give-up its status as a nation-state and become part of a European (Con)Federation.”
    .
    Germany already has given up one of the key elements of a nation-state: Monetary Sovereignty. “Saving the euro” has only one solution:
    .
    The EU could use its own monetary sovereignty to fund its members, without those members actually becoming part of “a European (Con)Federation. Why ask Germany to do what it monetarily and constitutionally is unable to do, when the EU itself can do it?

    Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

  • fiso takirambudde

    Worst to come for Euro – game over pal. http://bit.ly/hAzXAJ 2010 brought the Euro’s worst annual performance since 2005, and Standard Chartered (most accurate forecaster) says the Euro should weaken to $1.20 by summer 2011.

  • http://theyenguy.wordpress.com theyenguy

    It’s best to prepare for a United States Of Europe.

    The Telegraph’s political commentator, Peter Osbourne, has called for destroying the sovereignty of individual European nation states in order to save the Euro. And he has implied reviving the power of Charlemagne who led the Holy Roman Empire in article The only way to save the euro is the destruction of its members.

    This call is actually a fulfillment of Bible prophecy of Nebuchadnezzar‘s dream by Daniel who discerned there would be a federalized Europe, which is presented in Bible prophecy of Daniel 2:40-43.

    There had been four great world powers since Daniel wrote the prophecy: Babylon, Persia, and Greece were all conquered and absorbed by the Roman Empire. All were described in the form of a giant statue representing the four Kingdoms. Babylon was the head of gold. Persia was the chest and arms of silver. Greece was the belly and thighs of bronze, followed by the two appearances of Rome, two legs of iron, Western and Eastern. And two feet of iron mixed with clay, which will be a revived Roman Empire, coming forth as a United States of Europe, whose influence will spread to ten toes, the toes being ten regions of global governance, which were called for by the Club of Rome in 1974, and which is described as a ten headed beast, manifesting in mankind’s seven institutions in Revelation 13:1-4

blog comments powered by Disqus