Adjustment Programs in Euro Countries: Why Ireland Succeeded While Greece Failed

A. Mateus
{"title":"Adjustment Programs in Euro Countries: Why Ireland Succeeded While Greece Failed","authors":"A. Mateus","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2674818","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"At the close of the global financial crises, Greece, Ireland and Portugal, and later Spain, experienced severe economic and financial crises. This paper compares the adjustment programs undertaken by the four countries. The sudden-stop of capital flows led to substantial official assistance by the EU, ECB and IMF estimated at 1.4 Trillion Euros which demonstrated the solidarity among EU countries. The crises established other records: Ireland had one of the costliest banking crises and Greece a depression. We will discuss which factors – program design, structure of the economy, institutional and political capabilities and Government implementation capacity – contributed to the success of Ireland and the difficulties of Greece, with intermediate cases like Portugal and Spain. Contrary to a number of economists, the adjustment programs in these countries were largely in accordance with previous programs or with overall IMF experience, except for Greece. We discuss why this was a special case and the factors that contributed to the failure of the previous two adjustment programs. The lessons drawn for the future are in sharp contrast with most “official” reports, by emphasizing the role of “common factors” versus idiosyncratic factors in the Euro zone, problems caused by procrastination in adopting the programs, lack of program ownership, the difficulties of simultaneous contractionary policies of the core, the importance of expectations formation and the role of targeted credit policies. We also criticize the lack of substantive supply policies, like innovation and resource switching policies that could have speeded-up adjustment and mitigated the impact on potential growth.","PeriodicalId":241446,"journal":{"name":"PSN: Response to Financial Crisis (Comparative - Monetary) (Topic)","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PSN: Response to Financial Crisis (Comparative - Monetary) (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2674818","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

At the close of the global financial crises, Greece, Ireland and Portugal, and later Spain, experienced severe economic and financial crises. This paper compares the adjustment programs undertaken by the four countries. The sudden-stop of capital flows led to substantial official assistance by the EU, ECB and IMF estimated at 1.4 Trillion Euros which demonstrated the solidarity among EU countries. The crises established other records: Ireland had one of the costliest banking crises and Greece a depression. We will discuss which factors – program design, structure of the economy, institutional and political capabilities and Government implementation capacity – contributed to the success of Ireland and the difficulties of Greece, with intermediate cases like Portugal and Spain. Contrary to a number of economists, the adjustment programs in these countries were largely in accordance with previous programs or with overall IMF experience, except for Greece. We discuss why this was a special case and the factors that contributed to the failure of the previous two adjustment programs. The lessons drawn for the future are in sharp contrast with most “official” reports, by emphasizing the role of “common factors” versus idiosyncratic factors in the Euro zone, problems caused by procrastination in adopting the programs, lack of program ownership, the difficulties of simultaneous contractionary policies of the core, the importance of expectations formation and the role of targeted credit policies. We also criticize the lack of substantive supply policies, like innovation and resource switching policies that could have speeded-up adjustment and mitigated the impact on potential growth.
欧元区国家的调整计划:为什么爱尔兰成功而希腊失败
在全球金融危机结束时,希腊、爱尔兰和葡萄牙以及后来的西班牙都经历了严重的经济和金融危机。本文对这四个国家的调整方案进行了比较。资本流动的突然停止导致欧盟,欧洲央行和国际货币基金组织的大量官方援助估计为1.4万亿欧元,这显示了欧盟国家之间的团结。这两场危机还创造了其他记录:爱尔兰爆发了代价最高的银行业危机之一,希腊爆发了经济萧条。我们将讨论哪些因素——方案设计、经济结构、体制和政治能力以及政府执行能力——促成了爱尔兰的成功和希腊的困难,以及葡萄牙和西班牙等中间案例。与许多经济学家的观点相反,除了希腊,这些国家的调整计划在很大程度上与以前的计划或IMF的总体经验相一致。我们将讨论为什么这是一个特例,以及导致前两次调整计划失败的因素。为未来汲取的教训与大多数“官方”报告形成鲜明对比,强调欧元区“共同因素”与特殊因素的作用、计划实施拖延造成的问题、缺乏计划所有权、核心国家同时实施紧缩政策的困难、预期形成的重要性以及有针对性的信贷政策的作用。我们还批评缺乏实质性的供给政策,如创新和资源转换政策,这些政策本可以加速调整并减轻对潜在增长的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信