EurActiv Logo
EU news & policy debates
- across languages -
Click here for EU news »
EurActiv.com Network

BROWSE ALL SECTIONS

EU studies debt-neutral 'Marshall Plan'

Printer-friendly version
Send by email
Published 10 May 2012

The European Commission is studying proposals coming from eurozone countries which would allow an injection of liquidity in weak economies without breaching tighter fiscal targets.

Two main proposals have been circulating in EU southern capitals for a few weeks, with Rome at the helm of the initiatives. They have been discussed bilaterally by Italy’s Prime Minister Mario Monti and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, according to Monti’s aides.

The election of François Hollande, the anti-austerity champion, gave fresh impetus to these plans.

One idea involves the reimbursement of pending debts that European public administrations have contracted with the private sector. As a one-off exception, this payment should be granted without having an impact on the deficit of member states.

The recently approved Fiscal Compact allows indeed “one-off and temporary measures” in the pursuit for a balanced budget.

According to Commission figures, the unpaid public debt to the private sector amounts to some €180 billion. If this money was released without further delays, it would represent a massive injection of liquidity in the EU economy.

This would be something much closer to a new 'Marshall Plan' than many other ideas on the table, such as the refinancing of the European Investment Bank by a mere €10 billion.  

Obviously, the problem of finding money remains, as many EU public administrations have run out of liquitity. Issuing securities and sell them in the markets would be the most likely option to raise the necessary money, but with yields at today’s level, the risk is certainly high. 

A looming new credit crunch

Even so, this move is increasingly advocated for by small and medium enterprises (SMEs), which find more and more difficult to access financing, as a new credit crunch looms in Europe.

The latest report on access to credit for SMEs, published by the European Central Bank (ECB) in April, shows that a higher percentage of small businesses perceives a deterioration in the availability of bank loans.

They were only 14% at the beginning of 2011, while now one in five entrepreneurs polled by the ECB declares to perceive a drop in the availability of financing.

The ECB underlines however that this percentage is still significantly lower than the 30% of sceptics recorded in 2009 after the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, which heralded a serious credit crunch in Europe.

Nevertheless, it is a worrying signal. The EU commissioner in charge of industry and SMEs, Antonio Tajani, this week sent a letter to member states urging them to adopt in advance the new directive on late payments which obliges public administrations to pay their debt by 30 days, or face the penalty of 8% in overdue interests.

The directive should be translated into national law by March 2013.

In a restricted briefing with journalists this week, Tajani said that he discussed with the EU Finance commissioner Olli Rehn the idea of not including in the public deficit’s calculation the one-off repayment of pending debts.

Tajani said that Rehn showed interest in this idea. Rehn’s spokesperson confirmed that it is a matter of debate, but did not add any further remarks.

Together with Internal Market commissioner Michel Barnier, Tajani also sent a letter to the European Banking Authority (EBA) to call for a downward reevaluation of the risk weighting for loans given by banks to SMEs, in order to facilitate the supply of credit. EBA seems however reluctant to make concessions on this point.

Could good investment not be expenditure?

Another idea circulating in Brussels these days involves a conspicuous use of public investment to spur growth, in line with the traditional Keynesian approach.

As it is the case for the proposal on SMEs’ credit repayment, the extraordinary public intervention through investment should be deficit-neutral, meaning that it would not impact on fiscal targets.

The Fiscal Compact, despite being a pro-austerity pact, contains in fact clauses which could permit not to include productive investment into the deficit’s calculation. It is what Mario Monti calls the ‘golden rule’. As it is for companies and individuals, states as well should not been forced to consider investment as current expenditure, argues the Italian Prime Minister.

The Commission does not miss an opportunity to call for “targeted investment” across Europe to be carried out by all actors, including the public sector, to restore economic growth in Europe.

But whether investment can be deducted from the annual expenditure of a state and the calculation of its deficit is a matter of negotiation. “The Germans do not seem to be willing to listen to that,” acknowledged a European diplomat.

This week two Italian MEPs, Roberto Gualtieri (S&D) and Mario Mauro (EPP) proposed an intermediate solution. They suggested deducting from the calculation of the deficit two-fifths of public investment. The ball remains in Germany’s court.

Positions: 

In a speech in Florence yesterday in the occasion of Europe Day, the President of the European Commission José Manuel Barroso said: “The choice should not be austerity versus growth. The choice is unsustainable short term stimulus that will lead to a short-lived relaunch of growth versus sustainable long-term reforms that will make a difference over time. And our choice is very clear. It is about investing in lasting sustainable growth while immediately addressing the most urgent issues and first of all unemployment that has reached intolerable rates.”

EU Commissioner in charge of Industry Antonio Tajani said about late payments: “If member states demand austerity on the fiscal front, they should also be able to meet their commitments.  Not fulfilling the obligation to pay promptly, which is a moral obligation before a legal one, means to contribute increasing SMEs bankruptcy".

Francesco Guarascio

COMMENTS

  • Disregarding the possibility for a sovereign Europe to issue her own currency (like China do) without any need to loan it from private interest groups like the EU banking system, is a pitiful example of submission of the EU Commission to the sado-monetarist Rothschild-like rentiers.

    By :
    Marco Saba
    - Posted on :
    10/05/2012
  • The EU should increase its budget and its own ressources (financial transaction tax, carbon permits or pollution tax), and leverage it by guaranteeing the minimum income of EU-sponsored PPPs for green energy infrastructure projects. With minimum income guarantees, even just for the start-up phase of PPPs (7 years), the EU could attract private financing. It is well known that project finance banks pay well, even at 30 days, contrary to public administrations. EU sponsorship could include contracting or subcontracting a certain percentage of the scope of PPPs to SMEs. Finally, since the EU has legal personality, it could be the sole conceding entity. Thus, no risk that PPP debt be reclassified s national debt, it would be an EU concession. National member states could take care of permits and expropriations (in the case of transmission lines) and be compensated by the EU (in which case, their national debts would increase somewhat).

    By :
    Charles
    - Posted on :
    13/05/2012
  • Growth is a long-term situation and there are no quick fixes. Unfortunately EU leaders and mandarins do not seem to understand this. Therefore this pice-meal thinking will never do anything of significance, as our leaders, commisioners and senior figures are their own worst enemy, as they only listen to themselves and their so-called 'wise advisers. That is where the building falls down as the 'right' foundations are never put in place in the first place to create future economic dynamism.

    Even the unemployment problem is self inflicted by the EU and could have been avoided in perpetuity if the leaders and mandarins had listen years ago - to this day they never have done and that is where the great constantly unfolding EU socio-economic disaster resides. Indeed employment would still be increasing even in these harsh economic times throughout the world. The creation of new advanced technological markets is at the very heart of this continual solution to constantly create jobs. The youth in the EU deserve a great deal better and change in the mindsets of our leaders has to come to provide better times for them.

    For the biggest reason why the EU is in the terrible constantly unfolding socio-economic disaster is not all to do with inept politicians and unscrupulous bankers with no empathy with society, but a total lack of not having a driving economic policy based upon innovation and its exploitation. In this respect one can never get away from the fact that ALL real and ‘New’ wealth is technologically based. When we look at the history of the world, advanced technological concerns have always been at the leading-edge of the wealthiest and most powerful entities in the world. The reason, new technology makes old thinking and established technology redundant over time. The great companies of the world that we presently have are predominantly technologically driven. ‘Apple’ is a prime example of how technology can drive at times a corporate to the very pinnacle of the world’s richest companies. Not that long ago in relative terms, it may have gone bust. Therefore technology turns around the financial fortunes of corporations and creates vast numbers of jobs in the process.

    Therefore the EU’s problems are firmly based in not having an innovative structure that exploits this fundamental building block of economic dynamism. The ‘elites’ in the EU may think that they have but where they are simply deluding themselves and the 750 million Europeans within the EU. Indeed if the European Commission thinks that they have got it so right, why are we in constant stagnant waters when it comes to the global export markets where they decline more than advance year on year?

    What the EU has to do for its survival is to create the pan-European infrastructure that allows innovation and its exploitation to flourish. Presently we have not got this even though the ‘élites’ think that we have. Common sense dictates that we have to have new fundamental thinking first and not research and development first, which the EU leaders and mandarins think is the correct step-wise mechanism - they simply leave out the most important, the fundamental creative stage which is the most vital for our future.

    It is time to save the EU if it wants to be saved. There are differing views on this but exist or not, the successful or dire effects will be on the people of Europe, not the bureaucrats who decide our futures. Therefore not until we have a totally integrated system that is working throughout the whole of the EU when it comes to innovation, we shall continue in decline. Why cannot the powers that be see the reasoning in establishing a pan-EU system of creative incubators, for that is where the long-term prosperity of Europeans resides (the most creative people in the world through international studies)? But possibly this is because they do not understand. The reason, they never wish to think-out-of-the-box and to listen to those who just might have the solutions. Elitism I am afraid will be the death of us economically and socially over time !!!

    Dr David Hill
    Chief Executive
    World Innovation Foundation

    By :
    Dr David Hill - World Innovation Foundation
    - Posted on :
    30/05/2012

Advertising

Sponsors

Videos

Euro & Finance News videos

Euractiv Sidebar Video Player for use in section aware blocks.

Euro & Finance Promoted videos

Euractiv Sidebar Video Player for use in section aware blocks.

Advertising

Advertising