“Fiscal easing and further use of the government’s balance sheet should be considered if downside risks materialize and the recovery fails to take off. In particular, if growth does not build momentum and is significantly below forecasts even after substantial additional monetary stimulus and further credit easing measures, planned fiscal adjustment would need to be reconsidered. Under these circumstances, gains from delaying fiscal consolidation could be larger as multipliers are estimated to move inversely with growth and the effectiveness of monetary policy. To preserve credibility, reconsidering the path of consolidation should be in the context of a multi-year plan focused on further reducing the UK’s large structural fiscal deficit when the economy is stronger and taking into account risks to sovereign borrowing costs. Fiscal easing measures in such a scenario should focus on temporary tax cuts and greater infrastructure spending, as these may be more credibly temporary than increases in current spending.”

The above quote is from the concluding statement of the International Monetary Fund’s mission to the UK for the so-called Article IV Consultation, released on 22 May 2012. 

A statue holds up a symbol of the euro in front of the European Parliament building in Brussels. Getty Images

A statue holds up a symbol of the euro in front of the European Parliament building in Brussels. Getty Images

The previous two posts Part 2 and Part 1 tried to explain why the sovereign debt of eurozone countries seem to be far more fragile than that of countries with their own central banks.

This issue is a relatively new one, so far as I know. But it is extremely important.

One of the questions raised in the subsequent discussions is why the possibility of illiquidity-induced default (as in the Spanish sovereign debt market) should be any different in impact from the possibility of a devaluation and inflation (as in the gilt market).

I have three suggested answers. 

In my most recent post, I investigated whether fiscal contractions were expansionary. The answer seemed to be unambiguously negative: eurozone member countries that had undertaken large cyclically adjusted fiscal contractions had also experienced larger declines in gross domestic product. This being so, a question obviously follows:

Does fiscal contraction improve actual fiscal outcomes or are the effects on GDP so dire that outcomes do not improve? 

Part 1

What is the correct approach to fiscal and monetary policy when an economy is depressed and the central bank’s rate of interest is close to zero? Does the independence of the central bank make it more difficult to reach the right decisions? These are two enormously important questions raised by current circumstances in the US, the eurozone, Japan and the UK.

Broadly speaking, I can identify three macroeconomic viewpoints on these questions: 

The answer to this question is an unambiguous “yes”. It is not possible, it is true, to have a currency crisis inside a currency union, provided the currency union is credible, though currency risk returns, implicitly, as soon as it is not. But balance-of-payments and currency crises are NOT the same thing. A balance-of-payments crisis can show itself in a currency union in one (or, more likely, both) of two ways: as a credit crisis or as a regional economic slump.

The fundamental point was made by the British economist, Tony Thirlwall, in a column entitled “Emu is no cure for problems with the balance of payments”, in the Financial Times of October 9 1991. In this he was responding to the then widespread argument that “we don’t talk about the balance of payments difficulties of Scotland, Wales and the North of England, or of Sicily and Apulia. But this does not mean that they don’t exist.”

Let us start at the most basic level: that of the individual. Can individuals have a balance of payments crisis? Certainly.