A survey of economic experts discusses quantitative easing and its impact on structural reforms in the EU - by Wouter Den Haan, Ethan Ilzetzki, Martin Ellison, Michael McMahon and Ricardo Rei

Den Haan, Wouter J.

Ellison, Martin

Ilzetzki, Ethan

McMahon, Michael

Reis, Ricardo

LSE Research Online

11/8/2016Is a loose monetary policy still appropriate for theEurozone?blogs.lse.ac.uk /businessreview/2016/11/08/is-a-loose-monetary-policy-still-appropriate-for-the-eurozone/Protest at ECB headquarters , by JIP, own work, under a CC BY-SA 3.0 licence or GFDL, via Wikimedia CommonsThe November 2016 expert survey of the Centre for Macroeconomics (CFM) and the Centre for Economic PolicyResearch (CEPR) invited views on a recent report by the German Council of Economic Experts(Sachverständigenrat), which argues that the current monetary policy of the European Central Bank (ECB) is nolonger appropriate and that it is masking structural problems in Eurozone countries.More than three quarters of the 64 respondents disagree with the view that ECB monetary policy should becomeless accommodating. Panel members also disagree with the view that ECB policy is masking structural reforms. Thepanel is divided, however, on whether ECB policy is making implementation of structural reforms less likely.BackgroundIn its annual report, the German Council of Economic Experts argues that: ‘Exceptionally loose monetary policy bythe European Central Bank (ECB) contributed significantly to the upturn in the euro area, although its extent is nolonger appropriate in light of the state of the recovery.’ Moreover, the report says: ‘Given considerable structuralproblems persist, growth is not self-supporting. Willingness to reform has faded, and some member states lacknecessary budget discipline. Monetary policy masks these problems and increasingly threatens financial stability.’The first question in our survey asked panel members whether they think that it is indeed the case that the currentmonetary policy by the ECB is no longer appropriate.Question 1: Do you agree that that exceptionally loose monetary policy by the EuropeanCentral Bank (ECB) is no longer appropriate?1/7Sixty-four panel members answered this question and a very large majority (78%) disagrees or strongly disagreeswith the proposition. A small minority (15%) agrees or strongly agrees. These numbers barely change if weightedwith self-assessed confidence.Among the panel members that disagree with the statement, many point to the current levels of inflation and slack inthe economy. For example, Costas Milas (University of Liverpool) writes: ‘With inflation consistently under-shootingthe target for more than three years now, it is really difficult to agree with the German experts. In fact, the inflationsurvey forecasts (from the ECB website) indicate that inflation will still be below the target (at 1.8%) in five years.’Michael McMahon (University of Warwick) points out that: ‘The appropriateness of ECB monetary policy must bejudged by whether or not it is likely to contribute to the achievement of the central bank’s objectives. Theseobjectives are clearly laid out in Article 127(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Price stabilityis the over-riding objective and only subject to achieving that should the ECB look to support the other objectives ofthe EU.’ Sushil Wadhwani (Wadhwani Asset Management) adds that: ‘To have a central bank not trying to achievethe target it set for itself would further undermine its credibility.’Several experts think that the weak level of aggregate economic activity in the Eurozone is an additional reason forthe ECB to continue its current policies. Pietro Reichlin (LUISS, Università Guido Carli) writes: ‘The recovery in mostof the Euro Area economies is still lagging and this appears to be related to the ongoing debt overhang of privateand public institutions… More generally, low interest rates appear to be the right policy choice to help peripheralcountries with limited fiscal space in their struggle to stabilize public debt.’2/7It is worth pointing out that several commentators stress that monetary policy by itself is not enough. For example,Jordi Gali (Universitat Pompeu Fabra) writes: ‘I don’t think loose monetary policy by itself will be sufficient to restoregrowth. Instead it should be accompanied with an expansionary fiscal policy that targeted countries whereunderutilization of resources and deflationary pressures are more evident. Given the current high debt ratios, itwould be best if the fiscal stimulus were to be financed with money creation.’Some of the experts who disagree make clear that they are quite astonished by the views of the German Council ofEconomic Experts. Simon Wren-Lewis (University of Oxford) says: ‘The German policy consensus continues toshow a degree of macroeconomic illiteracy which is astounding. The OECD suggests there is a sizable negativeoutput gap in all the major Eurozone economies except Germany (where it is roughly zero). The Eurozone coreinflation rate is still below 1%, and the core inflation rate in Germany is well below 2%. Even if ECB policy was madein the interests of Germany rather than the Eurozone as a whole, it is not at all clear that this report makes sense.’Similarly, Richard Portes (London Business School) is very critical of the report: ‘unless the German Council ofEconomic Experts could argue that exiting from QE [quantitative easing] would raise inflation and inflationexpectations, or propose alternative policies to fulfil the mandate, they should desist from ECB-bashing and let theECB get on with trying to do its job.’Whereas there is a lot of similarity in the reasons put forward by the majority that disagrees with the question, avariety of different reasons are given in support of the view that the exceptionally loose stance of the ECB’s currentmonetary policy is no longer appropriate. Sylvester Eijffinger (Tilburg University) writes that: ‘the exceptionally loosemonetary policy by the ECB does not stimulate economic growth in the Eurozone and undermines financial stabilityby distortion of the market prices of government and corporate bonds, in particular in the peripheral countries of theEurozone.’Akos Valentinyi (University of Manchester) points out that: ‘another problem is that the ECB asset purchases causea shortage of liquid assets in the Eurozone. This is a problem as new regulations increased the banks’ demand forthese assets.’John Muellbauer (University of Oxford) thinks that another disadvantage of current policies is that they may ‘becounter-productive in core Eurozone countries like Germany, France and Italy. In Germany and France, higherhouse prices contract consumer spending (given income etc.): home equity withdrawal is expensive or impossibleso the US-type channel, which also operated in Ireland and (to a lesser extent) in Spain, is missing. Prospectivefirst-time buyers need to save more for the large cash deposit needed to get a mortgage.’Finally, Ray Barrell (Brunel University London) takes issue with the view of the majority that current low levels ofinflation rates ask for a continuation of the current expansionary monetary policies: ‘there is clearly a good case forthe ECB to modify its monetary stance. Inflation is expected to rise toward target in 2017 as oil prices havestrengthened and some European economies are close to full capacity.’ECB’s monetary policy and masking of structural problemsThe second question focuses on the other claim of the German Council of Economic Experts that ECB’sexpansionary policy is masking structural problems in Eurozone countries.Question 2: Do you agree that the ECB’s monetary policy masks structural problems ofmember states?3/7Sixty-five panel members answered this question. Panel members seem divided on this issue with a minority of44% that either agrees or strongly agrees and a slightly larger minority of 47% that either disagrees or stronglydisagrees. The residual is made up of panel members who neither agree nor disagree.First of all, many of the experts do agree with the notion that there are non-trivial structural problems that need to beaddressed. Morten Ravn (University College London) writes: ‘There are clear needs for structural policies to addressthe disappointing state of many economies where high levels of youth unemployment have effectively sacrificed ageneration since the financial crisis, where inequality is high, and where wage and price adjustments are verysluggish. Loose monetary policy cannot substitute for reforms.’Reading the comments makes clear that the panel members are actually not divided on whether ECB’s monetarypolicy is ‘masking’ structural problems, but that they are divided on whether it potentially prevents nationalgovernments from dealing with them. For example, Charles Bean (London School of Economics) writes: ‘I don’tbelieve that it [ECB monetary policy] “masks” the structural problems – they are still perfectly evident – though itcertainly reduces the pressure on national governments to address them.’Since our panel members do not seem to think that ‘masking’ is the problem, we focus the remainder of thissummary on our panel’s views on whether ECB’s monetary policy makes it less likely or more likely that structuralreforms will be implemented. On this issue, the panel members are clearly divided.The key argument supporting the view that continuation of the ECB’s expansionary policy will make implementation4/7of structural reforms more likely is that this is easier to do in an environment in which monetary policy stimulateseconomic activity. John Driffill (Birkbeck, University of London) says that one can implement ‘such reforms moreeasily in an situation of low unemployment and robust growth rather than in a high unemployment/low growthsituation, since the initial effects of such reforms might well be to cause more, not less, unemployment, even thoughtheir long-term effects will enable lower unemployment.’The key argument supporting the view that ECB’s monetary policy is preventing or at least delaying structural reformis the moral hazard issue that the ECB’s exceptionally loose monetary policy is lowering interest payments onsovereign debt and, by doing so, making it less critical for governments to implement policies that safeguardgovernment financing. Several commentators support this view.Roberto Perotti (Università Bocconi) argues that: ‘There is no doubt that high-debt countries, and SouthernEuropean countries in general, have benefited enormously from the “whatever it takes” of Draghi. There is littledoubt that the decline in interest rates on their public debt has encouraged them to take it easy in terms of theirfiscal policy, after some effort around 2011 and 2012. This is a very standard moral hazard problem of loosemonetary policy.’Roberto Perotti does qualify this statement by adding: ‘however, there is a huge uncertainty regarding theappropriateness of a very tight fiscal policy in these countries anyway; in addition, none of them gives signs of sheerfiscal irresponsibility, just some relaxation. In light of this, again prudence would suggest accepting these side costsand continuing with the current monetary policy for some time.’Similarly, Pietro Reichlin is of the opinion that: ‘to some extent, I agree that we cannot ignore the moral hazardinduced by ECB actions in a Monetary Union, where member countries retain their sovereignty over spending andpublic debt.’ But he also points out that there are caveats, one of which is that: ‘the ECB promise to raise inflation upto the 2% target has not being delivered, and this imposes further limits to the solutions of the structural problemsfaced by peripheral economies.’Richard Portes takes a very strong position against the moral hazard argument: ‘“Masks structural problems” bypromoting economic expansion and price stability? Give me a break. … The only story is the “moral hazard”argument – that governments feel less pressure to reform if they feel less pressure from the bond markets. Where isthe evidence? The slowdown in reforms supposedly documented by the OECD is not based on any quantitativeevidence. Even if one accepted it, one could argue that previous reforms had exploited “low-hanging fruit”, so itwould be normal that the observed effort would slow down. Moreover, it is a common political economy argument(with some empirical support) that reforms are easier in the context of a reasonable pace of growth – otherwisethere are too many losers. Did Mr Schaeuble write this report?’But some panel members do see evidence for the negative effects of current ECB monetary policy. SylvesterEijffinger argues that: ‘a very clear example is the structural reform agenda of the Italian prime minister Renzi whichhas not been implemented since almost two years with reference by Renzi to the Italian low capital market interestrates which make structural reforms in Italy less necessary.’In striking contrast, John Muellbauer thinks that the experience in Italy provides support for the opposing view: ‘it istrue that ECB QE has pushed the spread of Italian sovereign bonds a little below what economic fundamentalswould suggest. But there is not much evidence that high values of these spreads in the past led to systematicreforms in Italy.’Finally, there are panel members who think that monetary policy is not relevant. Luigi Guiso (Einaudi Institute forEconomics and Finance) writes: ‘there are member states that undoubtedly have serious structural problems;monetary policy is neither masking nor delaying those problems. The truth is that the solutions to those structuralproblems are totally independent of the monetary policy regime. They depend on deeper features of those countries,not least their institutional design and ability to cope with political economy problems.’5/7Whether ECB monetary policy accommodates or prevents implementation of structural reform is a fascinatingquestion. In terms of judging the ECB, however, it is important to keep in mind that: ‘the ECB would be strayingbeyond its legal mandate were it to deliberately underachieve on its inflation objective in order to place morepressure on member states to undertake the necessary reforms. Such behaviour by the ECB would lack democraticlegitimacy’, in the words of Charles Bean.♣♣♣Notes:This post is based on German Council of Economic Experts’ view of ECB policy , a survey of the Centre forMacroeconomics. The post gives the views of the author, not the position of LSE Business Review or the London School ofEconomics.Before commenting, please read our Comment Policy.Wouter Den Haan is Professor of Economics at LSE and Co-Director of the Centre forMacroeconomics. HIs main research interests are in macroeconomics, the role of frictions infinancial and labour markets for business cycles, business cycle models with heterogeneousagents and computational economics. He holds a PhD in Economics from Carnegie MellonUniversity. Ethan Ilzetzki is Assistant Professor of Economics at LSE. He is an Associate at the Centre forMacroeconomics and the Centre for Economic Performance.  HIs research interests are inmacroeconomics, international finance and fiscal policy. He holds a PhD in Economics from theUniversity of Maryland. Martin Ellison is Professor of economics at the University of Oxford and a Fellow of NuffieldCollege. He gained his PhD in economics in 2001 from the European University Institute inFlorence. Ellison has worked as a consultant for the Bank of England and as a Professor at theUniversity of Warwick before his current affiliation at the University of Oxford. He is specializing inmacroeconomics; his PhD thesis was titled “Money Matters: Four Essays on MonetaryEconomics”. His main research interest is monetary policy and he is editing several journals in thefield of economics.Michael McMahon is Associate Professor of Economics at Warwick University. He is also a aResearch Associate with the Centre for Macroeconomics (CFM), Research Affiliate with theCentre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR) and the Centre for Applied Macroeconomic Analysis(CAMA, ANU), International  Consultant Economist at the IMF’s Singapore Training Institute and aVisiting Scholar at the Bank of England. He holds a PhD in Economics from LSE. Dr. McMahon’sresearch interests are macroeconomics of business cycles; monetary economics; inventories andapplied econometrics.Ricardo Reis is Professor of Economics at LSE, on leave from Columbia University. He receivedhis PhD in Economics from Harvard University in 2004. He has published extensively and has hada number of editorial positions in leading academic journals. He is a Research Associate at CFM and NBER, aResearch Fellow at the Centre for Economic Policy Research, and is also a member of NBER’s Macro Annual6/7advisory board. Dr Reis is an academic consultant of the Federal Reserve Board of New York and Richmond.Copyright © 2015 London School of Economics7/7

Is a loose monetary policy still appropriate for the Eurozone?

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online