Showing posts with label imf. Show all posts
Showing posts with label imf. Show all posts

Friday, March 12, 2010

The Greek Question

Ivy Ngo, BASC Research Assistant


Photo courtesy of REUTERS/John Kolesidis

Greece has never seemed so far removed from its prehistoric glory as the civilization that brought us Hercules, Aristotle and the origins of democracy. Already in dire straits due to a national debt that exceeds gross domestic product, the Greek government is now battling widespread strikes that have effectively shut down all social and public services. On March 11, 2010, 20,000 protestors took to the streets, quickly escalating an already tense situation into an all out urban battleground by fighting police, smashing storefronts, torching cars amidst a frenzy of tear gas and stun grenades explosions. The rest of the European Union has thus far only observed the devolution of Greece, hesitating on a course of action. Greece’s desperate situation reveals the deep tensions underlying even strong regional identities like the European Union. In large part, Greece’s survival, along with that of the EU, will greatly depend on the resolution of the current debate on the limitations—if any—of regional obligations.

The financial crisis of 2008 ravaged Greece, which was especially vulnerable due to overspending, speculation, and failed attempts at fiscal austerity. The country’s deficit is currently at 12.7% with a national debt that surpasses the national economy at $413.6 billion. Greece’s credit rating slipped precipitously and by December of 2009 was the lowest in the eurozone. The government of George Papandreou was forced to abandon its campaign promises of social assistance to the poor and has instead proposed antithetical and steep budget cuts. However, analysts and investors were still doubtful that these cuts will solve any problems, as they were not seen to be sustainable. A new plan introduced in January of 2010 was highly criticized by unions who immediately organized strikes, which gradually intensified through February.

Greece’s situation has caused somewhat of a crisis of confidence for the European Union. Although Greece’s problems are largely domestic, the fact that Greece is a member of the EU means that the repercussions of the crisis reach beyond Greece’s borders. Greece’s poor credit rating and lack of confidence has also negatively impacted the euro, which has dropped steadily since Greece’s crisis began. There have been calls for the IMF, traditionally the lender of last resort, to assist Greece. Others have suggested that this is an opportune moment for the EU to flex its collective might to assist one of its own through the creation of a European Monetary Fund.

That said, the concept of a European Monetary Fund is extremely tenuous and would require a huge overhaul of EU structure. Critics of the fund have argued that it would effectively function as a crutch, weakening moral hazard by granting offenders a safety net. In addition, any changes to the existing structure of the EU face an uphill slough—the Lisbon treaty was only ratified after years of delays.

Some have encouraged Germany, as the strongest member of the EU, to come to Greece’s aid. But Germany has chafed at the idea of being the one responsible to dig Greece out of its self-made hole. More alarmingly, social cleavages have bubbled up to the surface, dragging up World War II memories. Germany’s Bild Newspaper has led attacks that are increasingly prejudiced, for instance contrasting hard-working Germans against lazy Greeks. In retaliation, one Greek lawmaker has suggested German reparations for Nazi occupation during World War II—a decidedly low blow that did little to assuage tensions. This sheds light upon one of the unresolved tensions of the European Union: inequality within the eurozone between large states and small states, north and south, or as one editorial termed it “grown-ups” and “children”.

Regardless of the disparities between member countries, the task at hand is a collective one. The Euro has inexorably intertwined the political economies of its member states. The implications for the entire eurozone have brought into question the limits of EU obligations and regional responsibilities, namely who, if anyone, should be helping Greece, and what type of aid should be utilized. This can be evidenced in the possible response measures being discussed: the formation of a brand new European Monetary Fund to deal as a personal lender of last resort or an IMF bailout for Greece similar to the ones it has given numerous other beleaguered nations. These appear to be the two extremes, but there are also numerous shades of grey in between. A European Monetary Fund may seem too drastic, but closer integration and more fiscal maintenance through existing structures like Eurostat have been proposed, and French President Nicolas Sarkozy has argued that a bailout plan should be supported by all member states.

As grim a situation as this is for Greece, it could prove to be the proverbial rock bottom, from whence the only direction is up. This is the EU’s chance to truly commit itself to being a regional community not just in terms of monetary policy, but also in terms of political economy. In addition, there is also the threat of aftershock defaults in nearby indebted states like Spain, Portugal and Italy. The resolution of the Greek economic crisis—whichever path it ends up following—will have important ramifications for the future identity of European Union. For now, the only thing that seems certain is that the status quo will have to change.

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

G-20 2009: Promise-Making in Pittsburgh

This week, three BASC Research Assistants take on the recent G-20 summit in Pittsburgh, examining issues of security, institutional change, and the environment.

Crashing the G-20 Party: Line in the Sand against Iran
Ivy Ngo, BASC Research Assistant

The opening statements at the G-20 Economic Summit wasted no time in addressing the revelation of a nuclear facility in Iran. “Iran is breaking the rules all nations must follow”, President Obama said, while Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced, “The international community has no choice today but to draw a line in the sand.” Iran’s refusal to accept fault-–it did, after all, report the facility itself to the International Atomic Energy Agency and maintains the facility is for nuclear energy and not atomic bombs–-has done little to assuage the international community. Even Russia and China, who have been known to hug the fence on global security issues, have condemned Iran’s actions. The ‘line in the sand’ creates two options for Iran: diplomacy or sanctions.

The reaction towards Iran has thus far been hard-line, with little room for negotiation. Could this reaction be too harsh? Headstrong North Korea and Cuba have both been under tough sanctions for decades now, and North Korea has also recently been posturing with its own nuclear development. During his time in office, former President George W. Bush made his well-known assessment of Iran as part of an ‘axis of evil’; the continued harsh attitude towards Iran could entrench it further. Iran’s adamant denial of wrongdoing is laced with resentment. The Iranian recently posted a short opinion piece asking why Iran is excluded from the G-20 considering that it ranks 17th among the top 20 economies, based on Purchasing Power Parity, in lists compiled by the IMF and World Bank.

With the G20 now becoming the central platform to discuss the global economy, it will be interesting to see how the international community reacts, and who will dominate the discussion. So far, the US has refused to engage in direct talks, opting for six party talks with Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany instead.

Institutional Shift: Rising Powers Gain Greater Voice in the G-20
Michelle Chang, BASC Research Assistant

At a time when nations around the world are struggling to climb out of the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression, the G-20 meeting in Pittsburgh is symbolic of first steps a new world economic order. Its emergence as the primary coordinating body of global economic issues signifies the increasingly undeniable importance of developing countries such as China and India and the need to provide these rising powers with fora in which they can exercise greater influence. Similarly, leaders of G-20 nations agreed to give greater voting power to developing countries within the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to make the institution more representative. At the moment, about 57% of the voting power in the IMF belongs to developed countries and 43% belongs to developing countries, and this shift will make the two groups about even. These actions are long overdue, but hopefully they represent the first of many steps necessary to bring our existing global institutional architecture in line with the changing realities of the international order.

The G-20 and the Environment: Vague Promises Draw Continued Criticism
Ren Yi Hooi, BASC Research Assistant

Despite reiterated promises to build a ‘greener’ economy, the G20 summit failed to propose a concrete set of actions to address environmental issues. While world leaders dedicated a total of $1.1trillion towards boosting the economic and financial crisis, there was no money set aside to protect the environment, disappointing environmental groups who criticized the ‘green effort’ as one characterized by “vague aspirations”. At the summit, leaders affirmed a 15-month-old commitment to put up a new climate treaty in December, pledged to “create green jobs” and resolved to "accelerate the transition" to a low-carbon economy. However, these were seen as inadequate repetitions of old ideas by environment experts and lobbyists, who had wanted to see solid figures and stronger message to re-build a leaner economy run on wind and solar power. The G-20 may be a powerful new forum within which to deal with these complex environmental issues, but if countries hope to truly make progress, leaders must make more concrete commitments to changing the behavior of their respective nations. The current global economic crisis certainly deserves primary focus at the moment, but given the propensity for continual change and upheaval on the international stage, the environment must be prioritized in order to ensure a bright future for all countries.