European sovereign-debt crisis

Causes

The eurozone crisis resulted from the structural problem of the eurozone and a combination of complex factors. There is a consensus that the root of the eurozone crisis lay in a balance-of-payments crisis (a sudden stop of foreign capital into countries that were dependent on foreign lending), and that this crisis was worsened by the fact that states could not resort to devaluation (reductions in the value of the national currency to make exports more competitive in foreign markets). Other important factors include the globalisation of finance; easy credit conditions during the 2002–2008 period that encouraged high-risk lending and borrowing practices; the 2008 financial crisis; international trade imbalances; real estate bubbles that have since burst; the Great Recession of 2008–2012; fiscal policy choices related to government revenues and expenses; and approaches used by states to bail out troubled banking industries and private bondholders, assuming private debt burdens or socializing losses.

Macroeconomic divergence among eurozone member states led to imbalanced capital flows between the member states. Despite different macroeconomic conditions, the European Central Bank could only adopt one interest rate, choosing one that meant that real interest rates in Germany were high (relative to inflation) and low in Southern eurozone member states. This incentivized investors in Germany to lend to the South, whereas the South was incentivized to borrow (because interest rates were very low). Over time, this led to the accumulation of deficits in the South, primarily by private economic actors.

Comparative political economy explains the fundamental roots of the European crisis in varieties of national institutional structures of member countries (north vs. south), which conditioned their asymmetric development trends over time and made the union susceptible to external shocks. Imperfections in the Eurozone's governance construction to react effectively exacerbated macroeconomic divergence.

Eurozone member states could have alleviated the imbalances in capital flows and debt accumulation in the South by coordinating national fiscal policies. Germany could have adopted more expansionary fiscal policies (to boost domestic demand and reduce the outflow of capital) and Southern eurozone member states could have adopted more restrictive fiscal policies (to curtail domestic demand and reduce borrowing from the North). Per the requirements of the 1992 Maastricht Treaty, governments pledged to limit their deficit spending and debt levels. However, some of the signatories, including Germany and France, failed to stay within the confines of the Maastricht criteria and turned to securitising future government revenues to reduce their debts and/or deficits, sidestepping best practice and ignoring international standards. This allowed the sovereigns to mask their deficit and debt levels through a combination of techniques, including inconsistent accounting, off-balance-sheet transactions, and the use of complex currency and credit derivatives structures. From late 2009 on, after Greece's newly elected, PASOK government stopped masking its true indebtedness and budget deficit, fears of sovereign defaults in certain European states developed in the public, and the government debt of several states was downgraded. The crisis subsequently spread to Ireland and Portugal, while raising concerns about Italy, Spain, and the European banking system, and more fundamental imbalances within the eurozone. The under-reporting was exposed through a revision of the forecast for the 2009 budget deficit from "6–8%" of GDP (no greater than 3% of GDP was a rule of the Maastricht Treaty) to 12.7%, almost immediately after PASOK won the October 2009 Greek national elections. Large upwards revision of budget deficit forecasts were not limited to Greece: for example, in the United States forecast for the 2009 budget deficit was raised from $407 billion projected in the 2009 fiscal year budget, to $1.4 trillion, while in the United Kingdom there was a final forecast more than 4 times higher than the original. In Greece, the low ("6–8%") forecast was reported until very late in the year (September 2009), clearly not corresponding to the actual situation.

Evolution of the crisis

The crisis began in late 2009 just after the Great Recession, and was characterized by an environment of overly high government structural deficits and accelerating debt levels. When, as a negative repercussion of the Great Recession, the relatively fragile banking sector had suffered large capital losses, most states in Europe had to bail out several of their most affected banks with some supporting recapitalization loans, because of the strong linkage between their survival and the financial stability of the economy. As of January 2009, a group of 10 central and eastern European banks had already asked for a bailout. At the time, the European Commission released a forecast of a 1.8% decline in EU economic output for 2009, making the outlook for the banks even worse. The many public funded bank recapitalizations were one reason behind the sharply deteriorated debt-to-GDP ratios experienced by several European governments in the wake of the Great Recession. The main root causes for the four sovereign debt crises erupting in Europe were reportedly a mix of: weak actual and potential growth; competitive weakness; liquidation of banks and sovereigns; large pre-existing debt-to-GDP ratios; and considerable liability stocks (government, private, and non-private sector).

In the first few weeks of 2010, there was renewed anxiety about excessive national debt, with lenders demanding ever-higher interest rates from several countries with higher debt levels, deficits, and current account deficits. This in turn made it difficult for four out of eighteen eurozone governments to finance further budget deficits and repay or refinance existing government debt, particularly when economic growth rates were low, and when a high percentage of debt was in the hands of foreign creditors, as in the case of Greece and Portugal.

The states that were adversely affected by the crisis faced a strong rise in interest rate spreads for government bonds as a result of investor concerns about their future debt sustainability. Four eurozone states had to be rescued by sovereign bailout programs, which were provided jointly by the International Monetary Fund and the European Commission, with additional support at the technical level from the European Central Bank. Together these three international organisations representing the bailout creditors became nicknamed "the Troika".

To fight the crisis some governments have focused on raising taxes and lowering expenditures, which contributed to social unrest and significant debate among economists, many of whom advocate greater deficits when economies are struggling. Especially in countries where budget deficits and sovereign debts have increased sharply, a crisis of confidence has emerged with the widening of bond yield spreads and risk insurance on CDS between these countries and other EU member states, most importantly Germany. By the end of 2011, Germany was estimated to have made more than €9 billion out of the crisis as investors flocked to safer but near zero interest rate German federal government bonds (bunds). By July 2012 also the Netherlands, Austria, and Finland benefited from zero or negative interest rates. Looking at short-term government bonds with a maturity of less than one year the list of beneficiaries also includes Belgium and France. While Switzerland (and Denmark) equally benefited from lower interest rates, the crisis also harmed its export sector due to a substantial influx of foreign capital and the resulting rise of the Swiss franc. In September 2011 the Swiss National Bank surprised currency traders by pledging that "it will no longer tolerate a euro-franc exchange rate below the minimum rate of 1.20 francs", effectively weakening the Swiss franc. This is the biggest Swiss intervention since 1978.

Crisis by country

Greece

The Greek economy had fared well for much of the 20th century, with high growth rates and low public debt. By 2007 (i.e., before the 2008 financial crisis), it was still one of the fastest growing in the eurozone, with a public debt-to-GDP that did not exceed 104%, but it was associated with a large structural deficit. As the world economy was affected by the 2008 financial crisis, Greece was hit especially hard because its main industries—shipping and tourism—were especially sensitive to changes in the business cycle. The government spent heavily to keep the economy functioning and the country's debt increased accordingly.

The Greek crisis was triggered by the turmoil of the Great Recession, which led the budget deficits of several Western nations to reach or exceed 10% of GDP. In the case of Greece, the high budget deficit (which, after several corrections, had been allowed to reach 10.2% and 15.1% of GDP in 2008 and 2009, respectively) was coupled with a high public debt to GDP ratio (which, until then, was relatively stable for several years, at just above 100% of GDP, as calculated after all corrections). Thus, the country appeared to lose control of its public debt to GDP ratio, which already reached 127% of GDP in 2009. In contrast, Italy was able (despite the crisis) to keep its 2009 budget deficit at 5.1% of GDP, which was crucial, given that it had a public debt to GDP ratio comparable to Greece's.

In addition, being a member of the Eurozone, Greece had essentially no autonomous monetary policy flexibility.

Finally, there was an effect of controversies about Greek statistics (due the aforementioned drastic budget deficit revisions which led to an increase in the calculated value of the Greek public debt by about 10%, a public debt-to-GDP ratio of about 100% until 2007), while there have been arguments about a possible effect of media reports. Consequently, Greece was "punished" by the markets which increased borrowing rates, making it impossible for the country to finance its debt since early 2010.

Despite the drastic upwards revision of the forecast for the 2009 budget deficit in October 2009, Greek borrowing rates initially rose rather slowly. By April 2010 it was apparent that the country was becoming unable to borrow from the markets; on 23 April 2010, the Greek government requested an initial loan of €45 billion from the EU and International Monetary Fund (IMF) to cover its financial needs for the remaining part of 2010. A few days later, Standard & Poor's slashed Greece's sovereign debt rating to BB+ or "junk" status amid fears of default, in which case investors were liable to lose 30–50% of their money. Stock markets worldwide and the euro currency declined in response to the downgrade.

Ireland

The Irish sovereign debt crisis arose not from government over-spending, but from the state guaranteeing the six main Irish-based banks who had financed a property bubble. On 29 September 2008, Finance Minister Brian Lenihan Jnr issued a two-year guarantee to the banks' depositors and bondholders. The guarantees were subsequently renewed for new deposits and bonds in a slightly different manner. In 2009, a National Asset Management Agency (NAMA) was created to acquire large property-related loans from the six banks at a market-related "long-term economic value".

Irish banks had lost an estimated 100 billion euros, much of it related to defaulted loans to property developers and homeowners made in the midst of the property bubble, which burst around 2007. The economy collapsed during 2008. Unemployment rose from 4% in 2006 to 14% by 2010, while the national budget went from a surplus in 2007 to a deficit of 32% GDP in 2010, the highest in the history of the eurozone, despite austerity measures.

With Ireland's credit rating falling rapidly in the face of mounting estimates of the banking losses, guaranteed depositors and bondholders cashed in during 2009–10, and especially after August 2010. (The necessary funds were borrowed from the central bank.) With yields on Irish Government debt rising rapidly, it was clear that the Government would have to seek assistance from the EU and IMF, resulting in a €67.5 billion "bailout" agreement of 29 November 2010. Together with additional €17.5 billion coming from Ireland's own reserves and pensions, the government received €85 billion, of which up to €34 billion was to be used to support the country's failing financial sector (only about half of this was used in that way following stress tests conducted in 2011). In return the government agreed to reduce its budget deficit to below three per cent by 2015. In April 2011, despite all the measures taken, Moody's downgraded the banks' debt to junk status.

In July 2011, European leaders agreed to cut the interest rate that Ireland was paying on its EU/IMF bailout loan from around 6% to between 3.5% and 4% and to double the loan time to 15 years. The move was expected to save the country between 600 and 700 million euros per year. On 14 September 2011, in a move to further ease Ireland's difficult financial situation, the European Commission announced it would cut the interest rate on its €22.5 billion loan coming from the European Financial Stability Mechanism, down to 2.59 per cent—which is the interest rate the EU itself pays to borrow from financial markets.

Portugal

Unlike other European countries that were also severely hit by the Great Recession in the late 2000s and eventually received bailouts in the early 2010s (such as Greece and Ireland), Portugal had the characteristic that the 2000s were not marked by economic growth, but were already a period of economic crisis, marked by stagnation, two recessions (in 2002–03 and 2008–09) and government-sponsored fiscal austerity in order to reduce the budget deficit to the limits allowed by the European Union's Stability and Growth Pact.

According to a report by the Diário de Notícias, Portugal had allowed considerable slippage in state-managed public works and inflated top management and head officer bonuses and wages in the period between the Carnation Revolution in 1974 and 2010. Persistent and lasting recruitment policies boosted the number of redundant public servants. Risky credit, public debt creation, and European structural and cohesion funds were mismanaged across almost four decades. When the global crisis disrupted the markets and the world economy, together with the US subprime mortgage crisis and the eurozone crisis, Portugal was one of the first economies to succumb, and was affected very deeply.

In the summer of 2010, Moody's Investors Service cut Portugal's sovereign bond rating, which led to an increased pressure on Portuguese government bonds. In the first half of 2011, Portugal requested a €78 billion IMF-EU bailout package in a bid to stabilise its public finances.

Portugal's debt was in September 2012 forecast by the Troika to peak at around 124% of GDP in 2014, followed by a firm downward trajectory after 2014. Previously the Troika had predicted it would peak at 118.5% of GDP in 2013, so the developments proved to be a bit worse than first anticipated, but the situation was described as fully sustainable and progressing well. As a result, from the slightly worse economic circumstances, the country has been given one more year to reduce the budget deficit to a level below 3% of GDP, moving the target year from 2013 to 2014. The budget deficit for 2012 has been forecast to end at 5%. The recession in the economy is now also projected to last until 2013, with GDP declining 3% in 2012 and 1% in 2013; followed by a return to positive real growth in 2014. Unemployment rate increased to over 17% by end of 2012 but it has since decreased gradually to 10,5% as of November 2016.

As part of the bailout programme, Portugal was required to regain complete access to financial markets by September 2013. The first step towards this target was successfully taken on 3 October 2012, when the country managed to regain partial market access by selling a bond series with 3-year maturity. Once Portugal regains complete market access, measured as the moment it successfully manages to sell a bond series with a full 10-year maturity, it is expected to benefit from interventions by the ECB, which announced readiness to implement extended support in the form of some yield-lowering bond purchases (OMTs), aiming to bring governmental interest rates down to sustainable levels. A peak for the Portuguese 10-year governmental interest rates happened on 30 January 2012, where it reached 17.3% after the rating agencies had cut the governments credit rating to "non-investment grade" (also referred to as "junk"). As of December 2012, it has been more than halved to only 7%. A successful return to the long-term lending market was made by the issuing of a 5-year maturity bond series in January 2013, and the state regained complete lending access when it successfully issued a 10-year maturity bond series on 7 May 2013.

Spain

Spain had a comparatively low debt level among advanced economies prior to the crisis. Its public debt relative to GDP in 2010 was only 60%, more than 20 points less than Germany, France or the US, and more than 60 points less than Italy or Greece. Debt was largely avoided by the ballooning tax revenue from the housing bubble, which helped accommodate a decade of increased government spending without debt accumulation. When the bubble burst, Spain spent large amounts of money on bank bailouts. In May 2012, Bankia received a 19 billion euro bailout, on top of the previous 4.5 billion euros to prop up Bankia. Questionable accounting methods disguised bank losses. During September 2012, regulators indicated that Spanish banks required €59 billion (US$77 billion) in additional capital to offset losses from real estate investments.

The bank bailouts and the economic downturn increased the country's deficit and debt levels and led to a substantial downgrading of its credit rating. To build up trust in the financial markets, the government began to introduce austerity measures and in 2011 it passed a law in congress to approve an amendment to the Spanish Constitution to require a balanced budget at both the national and regional level by 2020. The amendment states that public debt can not exceed 60% of GDP, though exceptions would be made in case of a natural catastrophe, economic recession or other emergencies. As one of the largest eurozone economies (larger than Greece, Portugal and Ireland combined) the condition of Spain's economy is of particular concern to international observers. Under pressure from the United States, the IMF, other European countries and the European Commission the Spanish governments eventually succeeded in trimming the deficit from 11.2% of GDP in 2009 to 7.1% in 2013.

Nevertheless, in June 2012, Spain became a prime concern for the Euro-zone when interest on Spain's 10-year bonds reached the 7% level and it faced difficulty in accessing bond markets. This led the Eurogroup on 9 June 2012 to grant Spain a financial support package of up to €100 billion. The funds will not go directly to Spanish banks, but be transferred to a government-owned Spanish fund responsible to conduct the needed bank recapitalisations (FROB), and thus it will be counted for as additional sovereign debt in Spain's national account. An economic forecast in June 2012 highlighted the need for the arranged bank recapitalisation support package, as the outlook promised a negative growth rate of 1.7%, unemployment rising to 25%, and a continued declining trend for housing prices. In September 2012 the ECB removed some of the pressure from Spain on financial markets, when it announced its "unlimited bond-buying plan", to be initiated if Spain would sign a new sovereign bailout package with EFSF/ESM. Strictly speaking, Spain was not hit by a sovereign debt-crisis in 2012, as the financial support package that they received from the ESM was earmarked for a bank recapitalization fund and did not include financial support for the government itself.

Cyprus

The economy of the small island of Cyprus with 840,000 people was hit by several huge blows in and around 2012 including, amongst other things, the €22 billion exposure of Cypriot banks to the Greek debt haircut, the downgrading of the Cypriot economy into junk status by international rating agencies and the inability of the government to refund its state expenses.

On 25 June 2012, the Cypriot Government requested a bailout from the European Financial Stability Facility or the European Stability Mechanism, citing difficulties in supporting its banking sector from the exposure to the Greek debt haircut.

On 30 November the Troika (the European Commission, the International Monetary Fund, and the European Central Bank) and the Cypriot Government had agreed on the bailout terms with only the amount of money required for the bailout remaining to be agreed upon. Bailout terms include strong austerity measures, including cuts in civil service salaries, social benefits, allowances and pensions and increases in VAT, tobacco, alcohol and fuel taxes, taxes on lottery winnings, property, and higher public health care charges. At the insistence of the Commission negotiators, at first the proposal also included an unprecedented one-off levy of 6.7% for deposits up to €100,000 and 9.9% for higher deposits on all domestic bank accounts. Following public outcry, the eurozone finance ministers were forced to change the levy, excluding deposits of less than €100,000, and introducing a higher 15.6% levy on deposits of above €100,000 ($129,600)—in line with the EU minimum deposit guarantee. This revised deal was also rejected by the Cypriot parliament on 19 March 2013 with 36 votes against, 19 abstentions and one not present for the vote.

The final agreement was settled on 25 March 2013, with the proposal to close the most troubled Laiki Bank, which helped significantly to reduce the needed loan amount for the overall bailout package, so that €10bn was sufficient without need for imposing a general levy on bank deposits. The final conditions for activation of the bailout package was outlined by the Troika's MoU agreement, which was endorsed in full by the Cypriot House of Representatives on 30 April 2013. It includes:

Recapitalisation of the entire financial sector while accepting a closure of the Laiki bank,

Policy reactions

EU emergency measures

The table below provides an overview of the financial composition of all bailout programs being initiated for EU member states, since the 2008 financial crisis. EU member states outside the eurozone (marked with yellow in the table) have no access to the funds provided by EFSF/ESM, but can be covered with rescue loans from EU's Balance of Payments programme (BoP), IMF and bilateral loans (with an extra possible assistance from the Worldbank/EIB/EBRD if classified as a development country). Since October 2012, the ESM as a permanent new financial stability fund to cover any future potential bailout packages within the eurozone, has effectively replaced the now defunct GLF + EFSM + EFSF funds. Whenever pledged funds in a scheduled bailout program were not transferred in full, the table has noted this by writing "Y out of X".

On 9 May 2010, the 27 EU member states agreed to create the European Financial Stability Facility, a legal instrument aiming at preserving financial stability in Europe, by providing financial assistance to eurozone states in difficulty. The EFSF can issue bonds or other debt instruments on the market with the support of the German Debt Management Office to raise the funds needed to provide loans to eurozone countries in financial troubles, recapitalise banks or buy sovereign debt.

Emissions of bonds are backed by guarantees given by the euro area member states in proportion to their share in the paid-up capital of the European Central Bank. The €440 billion lending capacity of the facility is jointly and severally guaranteed by the eurozone countries' governments and may be combined with loans up to €60 billion from the European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism (reliant on funds raised by the European Commission using the EU budget as collateral) and up to €250 billion from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to obtain a financial safety net up to €750 billion.

The EFSF issued €5 billion of five-year bonds in its inaugural benchmark issue 25 January 2011, attracting an order book of €44.5 billion. This amount is a record for any sovereign bond in Europe, and €24.5 billion more than the European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism (EFSM), a separate European Union funding vehicle, with a €5 billion issue in the first week of January 2011.

On 29 November 2011, the member state finance ministers agreed to expand the EFSF by creating certificates that could guarantee up to 30% of new issues from troubled euro-area governments, and to create investment vehicles that would boost the EFSF's firepower to intervene in primary and secondary bond markets.

European Central Bank

The European Central Bank (ECB) has taken a series of measures aimed at reducing volatility in the financial markets and at improving liquidity.

In May 2010 it took the following actions:

It began open market operations buying government and private debt securities, reaching €219.5 billion in February 2012, though it simultaneously absorbed the same amount of liquidity to prevent a rise in inflation. According to Rabobank economist Elwin de Groot, there is a "natural limit" of €300 billion the ECB can sterilise.

It reactivated the dollar swap lines with Federal Reserve support.

It changed its policy regarding the necessary credit rating for loan deposits, accepting as collateral all outstanding and new debt instruments issued or guaranteed by the Greek government, regardless of the nation's credit rating.

The move took some pressure off Greek government bonds, which had just been downgraded to junk status, making it difficult for the government to raise money on capital markets.

On 30 November 2011, the ECB, the US Federal Reserve, the central banks of Canada, Japan, Britain and the Swiss National Bank provided global financial markets with additional liquidity to ward off the debt crisis and to support the real economy. The central banks agreed to lower the cost of dollar currency swaps by 50 basis points to come into effect on 5 December 2011. They also agreed to provide each other with abundant liquidity to make sure that commercial banks stay liquid in other currencies.

With the aim of boosting the recovery in the eurozone economy by lowering interest rates for businesses, the ECB cut its bank rates in multiple steps in 2012–2013, reaching an historic low of 0.25% in November 2013. The lowered borrowing rates have also caused the euro to fall in relation to other currencies, which is hoped will boost exports from the eurozone and further aid the recovery.

European Stability Mechanism (ESM)

The European Stability Mechanism (ESM) is a permanent rescue funding programme to succeed the temporary European Financial Stability Facility and European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism in July 2012 but it had to be postponed until after the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany had confirmed the legality of the measures on 12 September 2012. The permanent bailout fund entered into force for 16 signatories on 27 September 2012. It became effective in Estonia on 4 October 2012 after the completion of their ratification process.

On 16 December 2010 the European Council agreed a two line amendment to the EU Lisbon Treaty to allow for a permanent bail-out mechanism to be established including stronger sanctions. In March 2011, the European Parliament approved the treaty amendment after receiving assurances that the European Commission, rather than EU states, would play 'a central role' in running the ESM. The ESM is an intergovernmental organisation under public international law. It is located in Luxembourg.

Such a mechanism serves as a "financial firewall". Instead of a default by one country rippling through the entire interconnected financial system, the firewall mechanism can ensure that downstream nations and banking systems are protected by guaranteeing some or all of their obligations. Then the single default can be managed while limiting financial contagion.

European Fiscal Compact

In March 2011 a new reform of the Stability and Growth Pact was initiated, aiming at straightening the rules by adopting an automatic procedure for imposing of penalties in case of breaches of either the 3% deficit or the 60% debt rules. By the end of the year, Germany, France and some other smaller EU countries went a step further and vowed to create a fiscal union across the eurozone with strict and enforceable fiscal rules and automatic penalties embedded in the EU treaties. On 9 December 2011 at the European Council meeting, all 17 members of the eurozone and six countries that aspire to join agreed on a new intergovernmental treaty to put strict caps on government spending and borrowing, with penalties for those countries who violate the limits. All other non-eurozone countries apart from the UK are also prepared to join in, subject to parliamentary vote. The treaty will enter into force on 1 January 2013, if by that time 12 members of the euro area have ratified it.

Originally EU leaders planned to change existing EU treaties but this was blocked by British prime minister David Cameron, who demanded that the City of London be excluded from future financial regulations, including the proposed EU financial transaction tax. By the end of the day, 26 countries had agreed to the plan, leaving the United Kingdom as the only country not willing to join. Cameron subsequently conceded that his action had failed to secure any safeguards for the UK. Britain's refusal to be part of the fiscal compact to safeguard the eurozone constituted a de facto refusal (PM David Cameron vetoed the project) to engage in any radical revision of the Lisbon Treaty. John Rentoul of The Independent concluded that "Any Prime Minister would have done as Cameron did".

Economic reforms and recovery proposals

Direct loans to banks and banking regulation

On 28 June 2012, eurozone leaders agreed to permit loans by the European Stability Mechanism to be made directly to stressed banks rather than through eurozone states, to avoid adding to sovereign debt. The reform was linked to plans for banking regulation by the European Central Bank. The reform was immediately reflected by a reduction in yield of long-term bonds issued by member states such as Italy and Spain and a rise in value of the Euro.

Less austerity, more investment

There has been substantial criticism over the austerity measures implemented by most European nations to counter this debt crisis. US economist and Nobel laureate Paul Krugman argues that an abrupt return to "'non-Keynesian' financial policies" is not a viable solution. Pointing at historical evidence, he predicts that deflationary policies now being imposed on countries such as Greece and Spain will prolong and deepen their recessions. Together with over 9,000 signatories of "A Manifesto for Economic Sense" Krugman also dismissed the belief of austerity focusing policy makers such as EU economic commissioner Olli Rehn and most European finance ministers that "budget consolidation" revives confidence in financial markets over the longer haul. In a 2003 study that analysed 133 IMF austerity programmes, the IMF's independent evaluation office found that policy makers consistently underestimated the disastrous effects of rigid spending cuts on economic growth. In early 2012 an IMF official, who negotiated Greek austerity measures, admitted that spending cuts were harming Greece. In October 2012, the IMF said that its forecasts for countries which implemented austerity programmes have been consistently overoptimistic, suggesting that tax hikes and spending cuts have been doing more damage than expected, and countries which implemented fiscal stimulus, such as Germany and Austria, did better than expected. Also Portugal did comparably better than Spain. The latter introduced drastic austerity measures but was unable not meet its EU budget deficit targets. On the other hand, Portugal's leftist coalition fought austerity (it increased the minimum wage by 25 percent and took back cuts in the pension system and the public sector) and at the same time reduced its budget deficit to below three percent in 2016. According to historian Florian Schui from University of St. Gallen no austerity program has ever worked. Schui particularly notes Winston Churchill's attempt in 1925 and Heinrich Brüning's attempt in 1930 during the Weimar Republic. Both led to disastrous consequences.

According to Keynesian economists "growth-friendly austerity" relies on the false argument that public cuts would be compensated for by more spending from consumers and businesses, a theoretical claim that has not materialised.

The case of Greece shows that excessive levels of private indebtedness and a collapse of public confidence (over 90% of Greeks fear unemployment, poverty and the closure of businesses) led the private sector to decrease spending in an attempt to save up for rainy days ahead.

Increase competitiveness

Crisis countries must significantly increase their international competitiveness to generate economic growth and improve their terms of trade. Indian-American journalist Fareed Zakaria notes in November 2011 that no debt restructuring will work without growth, even more so as European countries "face pressures from three fronts: demography (an aging population), technology (which has allowed companies to do much more with fewer people) and globalisation (which has allowed manufacturing and services to locate across the world)".

In case of economic shocks, policy makers typically try to improve competitiveness by depreciating the currency, as in the case of Iceland, which suffered the largest financial crisis in 2008–2011 in economic history but has since vastly improved its position. Eurozone countries cannot devalue their currency.

Internal devaluation

As a workaround many policy makers try to restore competitiveness through internal devaluation, a painful economic adjustment process, where a country aims to reduce its unit labour costs. German economist Hans-Werner Sinn noted in 2012 that Ireland was the only country that had implemented relative wage moderation in the last five years, which helped decrease its relative price/wage levels by 16%. Greece would need to bring this figure down by 31%, effectively reaching the level of Turkey. By 2012, wages in Greece had been cut to a level last seen in the late 1990s. Purchasing power dropped even more to the level of 1986. Similarly, salaries in Italy fell to 1986 levels and consumption fell to the level of 1950.

Other economists argue that no matter how much Greece and Portugal drive down their wages, they could never compete with low-cost developing countries such as China or India. Instead weak European countries must shift their economies to higher quality products and services, though this is a long-term process and may not bring immediate relief.

Fiscal devaluation

Another option would be to implement fiscal devaluation, based on an idea originally developed by John Maynard Keynes in 1931. According to this neo-Keynesian logic, policy makers can increase the competitiveness of an economy by lowering corporate tax burden such as employer's social security contributions, while offsetting the loss of government revenues through higher taxes on consumption (VAT) and pollution, i.e. by pursuing an ecological tax reform.

Address current account imbalances

Regardless of the corrective measures chosen to solve the current predicament, as long as cross border capital flows remain unregulated in the euro area, current account imbalances are likely to continue. A country that runs a large current account or trade deficit (i.e., importing more than it exports) must ultimately be a net importer of capital; this is a mathematical identity called the balance of payments.

In other words, a country that imports more than it exports must either decrease its savings reserves or borrow to pay for those imports. Conversely, Germany's large trade surplus (net export position) means that it must either increase its savings reserves or be a net exporter of capital, lending money to other countries to allow them to buy German goods.

The 2009 trade deficits for Italy, Spain, Greece, and Portugal were estimated to be $42.96bn, $75.31bn and $35.97bn, and $25.6bn respectively, while Germany's trade surplus was $188.6bn. A similar imbalance exists in the US, which runs a large trade deficit (net import position) and therefore is a net borrower of capital from abroad. Ben Bernanke warned of the risks of such imbalances in 2005, arguing that a "savings glut" in one country with a trade surplus can drive capital into other countries with trade deficits, artificially lowering interest rates and creating asset bubbles.

A country with a large trade surplus would generally see the value of its currency appreciate relative to other currencies, which would reduce the imbalance as the relative price of its exports increases. This currency appreciation occurs as the importing country sells its currency to buy the exporting country's currency used to purchase the goods. Alternatively, trade imbalances can be reduced if a country encouraged domestic saving by restricting or penalising the flow of capital across borders, or by raising interest rates, although this benefit is likely offset by slowing down the economy and increasing government interest payments.

Either way, many of the countries involved in the crisis are on the euro, so devaluation, individual interest rates, and capital controls are not available. The only solution left to raise a country's level of saving is to reduce budget deficits and to change consumption and savings habits. For example, if a country's citizens saved more instead of consuming imports, this would reduce its trade deficit. It has therefore been suggested that countries with large trade deficits (e.g., Greece) consume less and improve their exporting industries.

Mobilisation of credit

Several proposals were made in mid-2012 to purchase the debt of distressed European countries such as Spain and Italy. Markus Brunnermeier, the economist Graham Bishop, and Daniel Gros were among those advancing proposals. Finding a formula, which was not simply backed by Germany, is central in crafting an acceptable and effective remedy.

Proposed long-term solutions

The key policy issue that has to be addressed in the long run is how to harmonise different political-economic institutional set-ups of the north and south European economies to promote economic growth and make the currency union sustainable. The Eurozone member states must adopt structural reforms, aimed at promoting labour market mobility and wage flexibility, restoring the south's economies’ competitiveness by increasing their productivity.

At the same time, it is vital to keep in mind that just putting emphasis on emulating LME's wage-setting system to CMEs and mixed-market economies will not work. Therefore, apart from wage issues, structural reforms should be focused on developing capacities for innovations, technologies, education, R&D, etc., i.e. all institutional subsystems, crucial for firms’ success. In economies of the south special attention should be given to creating less labour-intensive industries to avoid price competition pressure from emerging low-cost countries (such as China) via an exchange rate channel, and providing a smooth transition of workers from old unsustainable industries to new ones based on the so-called Nordic-style ‘flexicurity’ market model.

European fiscal union

The crisis is pressuring Europe to move beyond a regulatory state and towards a more federal EU with fiscal powers. Increased European integration giving a central body increased control over the budgets of member states was proposed on 14 June 2012 by Jens Weidmann, President of the Deutsche Bundesbank, expanding on ideas first proposed by Jean-Claude Trichet, former president of the European Central Bank. Control, including requirements that taxes be raised or budgets cut, would be exercised only when fiscal imbalances developed. This proposal is similar to contemporary calls by Angela Merkel for increased political and fiscal union which would "allow Europe oversight possibilities".

European bank recovery and resolution authority

European banks are estimated to have incurred losses approaching €1 trillion between 2007 and 2010. The European Commission approved some €4.5 billion in state aid for banks between October 2008 and October 2011, a sum which includes the value of taxpayer-funded recapitalisations and public guarantees on banking debts. This has prompted some economists such as Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman to note that Europe is not suffering from a sovereign debt crisis but rather from a banking crisis.

On 6 June 2012, the European Commission adopted a legislative proposal for a harmonised bank recovery and resolution mechanism. The proposed framework sets out the necessary steps and powers to ensure that bank failures across the EU are managed in a way that avoids financial instability. The new legislation would give member states the power to impose losses, resulting from a bank failure, on the bondholders to minimise costs for taxpayers. The proposal is part of a new scheme in which banks will be compelled to "bail-in" their creditors whenever they fail, the basic aim being to prevent taxpayer-funded bailouts in the future. The public authorities would also be given powers to replace the management teams in banks even before the lender fails. Each institution would also be obliged to set aside at least one per cent of the deposits covered by their national guarantees for a special fund to finance the resolution of banking crisis starting in 2018.

Eurobonds

A growing number of investors and economists say eurobonds would be the best way of solving a debt crisis, though their introduction matched by tight financial and budgetary co-ordination may well require changes in EU treaties. On 21 November 2011, the European Commission suggested that eurobonds issued jointly by the 17 euro nations would be an effective way to deal with the financial crisis. Using the term "stability bonds", Jose Manuel Barroso insisted that any such plan would have to be matched by tight fiscal surveillance and economic policy coordination as an essential counterpart so as to avoid moral hazard and ensure sustainable public finances.

Germany remains largely opposed at least in the short term to a collective takeover of the debt of states that have run excessive budget deficits and borrowed excessively over the past years.

European Safe Bonds

A group of economists from Princeton University suggest a new form of European Safe Bonds (ESBies), i.e. bundled European government bonds (70% senior bonds, 30% junior bonds) in the form of a "union-wide safe asset without joint liability". According to the authors, ESBies "would be at least as safe as German bonds and approximately double the supply of euro safe assets when protected by a 30%-thick junior tranche". ESBies could be issued by public or private-sector entities and would "weaken the diabolic loop and its diffusion across countries". It requires "no significant change in treaties or legislation.“

In 2017 the idea was picked up by the European Central Bank. The European Commission has also shown interest and plans to include ESBies in a future white paper dealing with the aftermath of the financial crisis. The European Commission has recently introduced a proposal to introduce what it calls Sovereign Bond Backed Securities (SBBS) which are essentially the same as ESBies and the European Parliament endorsed the changes in regulations necessary to facilitate these securities in April 2019.

European Monetary Fund

On 20 October 2011, the Austrian Institute of Economic Research published an article that suggests transforming the EFSF into a European Monetary Fund (EMF), which could provide governments with fixed interest rate Eurobonds at a rate slightly below medium-term economic growth (in nominal terms). These bonds would not be tradable but could be held by investors with the EMF and liquidated at any time. Given the backing of all eurozone countries and the ECB, "the EMU would achieve a similarly strong position vis-à-vis financial investors as the US where the Fed backs government bonds to an unlimited extent". To ensure fiscal discipline despite lack of market pressure, the EMF would operate according to strict rules, providing funds only to countries that meet fiscal and macroeconomic criteria.

Governments lacking sound financial policies would be forced to rely on traditional (national) governmental bonds with less favourable market rates.

The econometric analysis suggests that "If the short-term and long- term interest rates in the euro area were stabilised at 1.5% and 3%, respectively, aggregate output (GDP) in the euro area would be 5 percentage points above baseline in 2015". At the same time, sovereign debt levels would be significantly lower with, e.g., Greece's debt level falling below 110% of GDP, more than 40 percentage points below the baseline scenario with market-based interest levels. Furthermore, banks would no longer be able to benefit unduly from intermediary profits by borrowing from the ECB at low rates and investing in government bonds at high rates.

Debt write-off financed by wealth tax

According to the Bank for International Settlements, the combined private and public debt of 18 OECD countries nearly quadrupled between 1980 and 2010, and will likely continue to grow, reaching between 250% (for Italy) and about 600% (for Japan) by 2040. A BIS study released in June 2012 warns that budgets of most advanced economies, excluding interest payments, "would need 20 consecutive years of surpluses exceeding 2 per cent of gross domestic product—starting now—just to bring the debt-to-GDP ratio back to its pre-crisis level". The same authors found in a previous study that increased financial burden imposed by ageing populations and lower growth makes it unlikely that indebted economies can grow out of their debt problem if only one of the following three conditions is met:

government debt is more than 80 to 100% of GDP;

non-financial corporate debt is more than 90% of GDP;

private household debt is more than 85% of GDP.

The first condition, suggested by an influential paper written by Kenneth Rogoff & Carmen Reinhart has been disputed due to major calculation errors. In fact, the average GDP growth at public debt/GDP ratios over 90% is not dramatically different from when debt/GDP ratios are lower.

The Boston Consulting Group (BCG) adds that if the overall debt load continues to grow faster than the economy, then large-scale debt restructuring becomes inevitable. To prevent a vicious upward debt spiral from gaining momentum the authors urge policymakers to "act quickly and decisively" and aim for an overall debt level well below 180% for the private and government sector. This number is based on the assumption that governments, non-financial corporations, and private households can each sustain a debt load of 60% of GDP, at an interest rate of five per cent and a nominal economic growth rate of three per cent per year. Lower interest rates and/or higher growth would help reduce the debt burden further.

To reach sustainable levels the eurozone must reduce its overall debt level by €6.1 trillion. According to BCG, this could be financed by a one-time wealth tax of between 11 and 30% for most countries, apart from the crisis countries (particularly Ireland) where a write-off would have to be substantially higher. The authors admit that such programmes would be "drastic", "unpopular" and "require broad political coordination and leadership" but they maintain that the longer politicians and central bankers wait, the more necessary such a step will be.

Debt write-off based on international agreement

In 2015 Hans-Werner Sinn, president of German Ifo Institute for Economic Research, called for a debt relief for Greece. In addition, economists from London School of Economics suggested a debt relief similar to the London agreement. In 1953, private sector lenders as well as governments agreed to write off about half of West Germany’s outstanding debt; this was followed by the beginning of Germany's "economic miracle" (or Wirtschaftswunder). According to this agreement, West Germany had to make repayments only when it was running a trade surplus, that is "when it had earned the money to pay up, rather than having to borrow more, or dip into its foreign currency reserves. Its repayments were also limited to 3% of export earnings". As LSE researchers note, this had the effect that, Germany's creditors had an incentive to buy the country's goods, so that it would be able to afford to pay them.

Controversies

The European bailouts are largely about shifting exposure from banks and others, who otherwise are lined up for losses on the sovereign debt they have piled up, onto European taxpayers.

EU treaty violations

No bail-out clause

The EU's Maastricht Treaty contains juridical language that appears to rule out intra-EU bailouts. First, the "no bail-out" clause (Article 125 TFEU) ensures that the responsibility for repaying public debt remains national and prevents risk premiums caused by unsound fiscal policies from spilling over to partner countries. The clause thus encourages prudent fiscal policies at the national level.

The European Central Bank's purchase of distressed country bonds can be viewed as violating the prohibition of monetary financing of budget deficits (Article 123 TFEU). The creation of further leverage in EFSF with access to ECB lending would also appear to violate the terms of this article.

Articles 125 and 123 were meant to create disincentives for EU member states to run excessive deficits and state debt, and prevent the moral hazard of over-spending and lending in good times. They were also meant to protect the taxpayers of the other more prudent member states.

By issuing bail-out aid guaranteed by prudent eurozone taxpayers to rule-breaking eurozone countries such as Greece, the EU and eurozone countries also encourage moral hazard in the future. While the no bail-out clause remains in place, the "no bail-out doctrine" seems to be a thing of the past.

Convergence criteria

The EU treaties contain so called convergence criteria, specified in the protocols of the Treaties of the European Union. As regards government finance, the states agreed that the annual government budget deficit should not exceed 3% of gross domestic product (GDP) and that the gross government debt to GDP should not exceed 60% of GDP (see protocol 12 and 13). For eurozone members there is the Stability and Growth Pact, which contains the same requirements for budget deficit and debt limitation but with a much stricter regime. In the past, many European countries have substantially exceeded these criteria over a long period of time. Around 2005 most eurozone members violated the pact, resulting in no action taken against violators.

The international US-based credit rating agencies—Moody's, Standard & Poor's and Fitch—which have already been under fire during the housing bubble and the Icelandic crisis—have also played a central and controversial role in the current European bond market crisis. On one hand, the agencies have been accused of giving overly generous ratings due to conflicts of interest. On the other hand, ratings agencies have a tendency to act conservatively, and to take some time to adjust when a firm or country is in trouble. In the case of Greece, the market responded to the crisis before the downgrades, with Greek bonds trading at junk levels several weeks before the ratings agencies began to describe them as such.

Speculation about the break-up of the eurozone

Some economists, mostly from outside Europe and associated with Modern Monetary Theory and other post-Keynesian schools, condemned the design of the euro currency system from the beginning because it ceded national monetary and economic sovereignty but lacked a central fiscal authority. When faced with economic problems, they maintained, "Without such an institution, EMU would prevent effective action by individual countries and put nothing in its place". US economist Martin Feldstein went so far to call the euro "an experiment that failed". Some non-Keynesian economists, such as Luca A. Ricci of the IMF, contend that the eurozone does not fulfil the necessary criteria for an optimum currency area, though it is moving in that direction.

As the debt crisis expanded beyond Greece, these economists continued to advocate, albeit more forcefully, the disbandment of the eurozone. If this was not immediately feasible, they recommended that Greece and the other debtor nations unilaterally leave the eurozone, default on their debts, regain their fiscal sovereignty, and re-adopt national currencies. Bloomberg suggested in June 2011 that, if the Greek and Irish bailouts should fail, an alternative would be for Germany to leave the eurozone to save the currency through depreciation instead of austerity. The likely substantial fall in the euro against a newly reconstituted Deutsche Mark would give a "huge boost" to its members' competitiveness.

Iceland, not part of the EU, is regarded as one of Europe's recovery success stories. It defaulted on its debt and drastically devalued its currency, which has effectively reduced wages by 50% making exports more competitive. Lee Harris argues that floating exchange rates allows wage reductions by currency devaluations, a politically easier option than the economically equivalent but politically impossible method of lowering wages by political enactment. Sweden's floating rate currency gives it a short-term advantage, structural reforms and constraints account for longer-term prosperity. Labour concessions, a minimal reliance on public debt, and tax reform helped to further a pro-growth policy.

British discount retailer Poundland chose the name Dealz and not "Euroland" for its 2011 expansion into Ireland because, CEO Jim McCarthy said, "'Eurozone' ... is usually reported in association with bad news — job losses, debts and increased taxes". His company planned to use Dealz in continental Europe; McCarthy stated that "There is less certainty about the longevity [of the currency union] now". The Wall Street Journal conjectured as well that Germany could return to the Deutsche Mark, or create another currency union with the Netherlands, Austria, Finland, Luxembourg and other European countries such as Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the Baltics. A monetary union of these countries with current account surpluses would create the world's largest creditor bloc, bigger than China or Japan. The Wall Street Journal added that without the German-led bloc, a residual euro would have the flexibility to keep interest rates low and engage in quantitative easing or fiscal stimulus in support of a job-targeting economic policy instead of inflation targeting in the current configuration.

Odious debt

Some protesters, commentators such as Libération correspondent Jean Quatremer and the Liège-based NGO Committee for the Abolition of the Third World Debt (CADTM) allege that the debt should be characterised as odious debt. The Greek documentary Debtocracy, and a book of the same title and content examine whether the recent Siemens scandal and uncommercial ECB loans which were conditional on the purchase of military aircraft and submarines are evidence that the loans amount to odious debt and that an audit would result in invalidation of a large amount of the debt.

Manipulation of public finances statistics

The revision of Greece's 2009 budget deficit from a forecast of "6–8% of GDP" to 15.4% in 2010 was the key trigger for the Greek debt crisis. However accusations of the use of "creative accounting" by several other governments have been raised

the United Kingdom, Spain, the United States, and even Germany.

Collateral for Finland

On 18 August 2011, as requested by the Finnish parliament as a condition for any further bailouts, it became apparent that Finland would receive collateral from Greece, enabling it to participate in the potential new €109 billion support package for the Greek economy. Austria, the Netherlands, Slovenia, and Slovakia responded with irritation over this special guarantee for Finland and demanded equal treatment across the eurozone, or a similar deal with Greece, so as not to increase the risk level over their participation in the bailout. The main point of contention was that the collateral is aimed to be a cash deposit, a collateral the Greeks can only give by recycling part of the funds loaned by Finland for the bailout, which means Finland and the other eurozone countries guarantee the Finnish loans in the event of a Greek default. Finland's recommendation to the crisis countries is to issue asset-backed securities to cover the immediate need, a tactic successfully used in Finland's early 1990s recession, in addition to spending cuts and bad banking.

After extensive negotiations to implement a collateral structure open to all eurozone countries, on 4 October 2011, a modified escrow collateral agreement was reached. The expectation is that only Finland will utilise it, due, in part, to a requirement to contribute initial capital to European Stability Mechanism in one instalment instead of five instalments over time. Finland, as one of the strongest AAA countries, can raise the required capital with relative ease.

In February 2012, the four largest Greek banks agreed to provide the €880 million in collateral to Finland to secure the second bailout programme.

Political impact

The handling of the crisis has led to the premature end of several European national governments and influenced the outcome of many elections:

Ireland – February 2011 – After a high deficit in the government's budget in 2010 and the uncertainty surrounding the proposed bailout from the International Monetary Fund, the 30th Dáil (parliament) collapsed the following year, which led to a subsequent general election, collapse of the preceding government parties, Fianna Fáil and the Green Party, the resignation of the Taoiseach Brian Cowen and the rise of the Fine Gael party, which formed a government alongside the Labour Party in the 31st Dáil, which led to a change of government and the appointment of Enda Kenny as Taoiseach.

Portugal – March 2011 – Following the failure of parliament to adopt the government austerity measures, PM José Sócrates and his government resigned, bringing about early elections in June 2011.

Finland – April 2011 – The approach to the Portuguese bailout and the EFSF dominated the April 2011 election debate and formation of the subsequent government.

Spain – July 2011 – Following the failure of the Spanish government to handle the economic situation, PM José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero announced early elections in November. "It is convenient to hold elections this fall so a new government can take charge of the economy in 2012, fresh from the balloting," he said. Following the elections, Mariano Rajoy became PM.

Slovenia – September 2011 – Following the failure of June referendums on measures to combat the economic crisis and the departure of coalition partners, the Borut Pahor government lost a motion of confidence and December 2011 early elections were set, following which Janez Janša became PM. After a year of rigorous saving measures, and also due to continuous opening of ideological question, the centre-right government of Janez Janša was ousted on 27 February 2013 by nomination of Alenka Bratušek as the PM-designated of a new centre-left coalition government.

Slovakia – October 2011 – In return for the approval of the EFSF by her coalition partners, PM Iveta Radičová had to concede early elections in March 2012, following which Robert Fico became PM.