The European Debt Crisis: Causes and Consequences

V. Beker
{"title":"The European Debt Crisis: Causes and Consequences","authors":"V. Beker","doi":"10.4172/2168-9458.1000115","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A common explanation for the European debt crisis has been that the introduction of the euro in 2001 caused interest rates to fall in those countries where expectations of high inflation previously kept interest rates high. Bond buyers assumed that a bond issued by any government in the European Monetary Union was equally safe. As a result, the interest rates on Greek, Italian, etc. government bonds were not significantly different from the interest rate on the German government bonds. Governments responded to the low interest rates by increasing their borrowing. However, data do not endorse this explanation, as is shown in the paper. An alternative explanation has been that the European debt crisis was just a consequence of the American subprime one. Again, data do not entirely support this hypothesis although the connection between both crises is explored in the paper. A third argument states that the introduction of the euro, and its effects on external competitiveness, triggered mounting disequilibria and debt accumulation in the noncore countries or periphery. This argument seems to be valid to a certain extent just in the cases of Greece and Portugal, but not for the rest of the countries involved in the crisis where other factors seem to have played a major role. A distinction is made between a first group of countries whose debt problems have roots before 2007 but did not worsen significantly after that year and a second one of ‘’new’’ highly indebted countries. Finally, Spain appears as a special case. The development of the indebtedness process in these three different types of countries allows isolating the factors which were determinant in each case. The conclusion is that the European indebtedness process does not accept a unique explanation and its solution will necessarily require resource transfers from the richer to the poorer countries of the euro-zone.","PeriodicalId":315937,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Stock & Forex Trading","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Stock & Forex Trading","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4172/2168-9458.1000115","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

A common explanation for the European debt crisis has been that the introduction of the euro in 2001 caused interest rates to fall in those countries where expectations of high inflation previously kept interest rates high. Bond buyers assumed that a bond issued by any government in the European Monetary Union was equally safe. As a result, the interest rates on Greek, Italian, etc. government bonds were not significantly different from the interest rate on the German government bonds. Governments responded to the low interest rates by increasing their borrowing. However, data do not endorse this explanation, as is shown in the paper. An alternative explanation has been that the European debt crisis was just a consequence of the American subprime one. Again, data do not entirely support this hypothesis although the connection between both crises is explored in the paper. A third argument states that the introduction of the euro, and its effects on external competitiveness, triggered mounting disequilibria and debt accumulation in the noncore countries or periphery. This argument seems to be valid to a certain extent just in the cases of Greece and Portugal, but not for the rest of the countries involved in the crisis where other factors seem to have played a major role. A distinction is made between a first group of countries whose debt problems have roots before 2007 but did not worsen significantly after that year and a second one of ‘’new’’ highly indebted countries. Finally, Spain appears as a special case. The development of the indebtedness process in these three different types of countries allows isolating the factors which were determinant in each case. The conclusion is that the European indebtedness process does not accept a unique explanation and its solution will necessarily require resource transfers from the richer to the poorer countries of the euro-zone.
欧洲债务危机:原因与后果
对欧洲债务危机的一个常见解释是,2001年欧元的引入导致那些此前因高通胀预期而保持高利率的国家的利率下降。债券买家认为,欧洲货币联盟(European Monetary Union)任何国家政府发行的债券都同样安全。因此,希腊、意大利等国政府债券的利率与德国政府债券的利率没有显著差异。各国政府通过增加借贷来应对低利率。然而,正如论文所示,数据并不支持这种解释。另一种解释是,欧洲债务危机只是美国次贷危机的后果。同样,数据并不完全支持这一假设,尽管本文探讨了这两种危机之间的联系。第三种观点认为,欧元的引入及其对外部竞争力的影响,引发了非核心国家或外围国家日益加剧的失衡和债务积累。在某种程度上,这种观点似乎只适用于希腊和葡萄牙,但不适用于其他卷入危机的国家,因为其他因素似乎起了主要作用。第一类国家的债务问题在2007年之前就有根源,但在2007年之后没有明显恶化,而第二类国家则是“新的”高负债国家。最后,西班牙是一个特例。在这三种不同类型的国家中,债务进程的发展使我们能够分离出在每种情况下起决定作用的因素。结论是,欧洲债务进程不接受唯一的解释,其解决方案必然需要从欧元区较富裕国家向较贫穷国家转移资源。
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