ZKIZ Archives


【專欄】惠譽:歐洲的財政緊縮是否即將結束?

來源: http://wallstreetcn.com/node/209447

本文作者為惠譽評級全球主權評級主管詹姆斯•麥考馬克(James McCormack),授權華爾街見聞發表。

對於歐元區是否存在比較嚴重的供需問題,決策者和分析師的看法略有不同。但是,歐元區存在增長問題,已是大家的共識。準確找出影響歐洲經濟的問題才能制定最有效政策。比如,領導人是應當把重點放在創造靈活性更大的勞動市場,並發展非貿易部門的競爭性來解決供給面的限制,還是應當優先采取激勵措施,刺激需求?

雖然相關爭論尚無定論,但政策導向是明確的。在增長低迷、失業率高居不下、通貨膨脹水平較低且仍在下降的情況下,要求財政寬松的呼聲日益得到支持。決策者對更靈活地解讀歐盟預算規定帶來的好處,以及在規定上稍做變通,允許部分類型的支出(主要是投資)或預算超支(同時推行結構改革政策)的做法,已經進行公開討論。甚至連歐洲央行行長Mario Draghi在最近的Jackson Hole會議(傑克遜•荷爾會議)上也提到要讓財政政策在刺激需求方面發揮更大作用。

在研究財政政策走向之前,應當先回憶一下近期的政策動向。衡量財政政策經濟影響力的最現成的一個指標就是周期調整後基礎財政收支的年度變化。簡單從分析角度看,這其實是與實體經濟相關的財政刺激(如果財政政策支持增長,即為正向,如果政策是緊縮型的,即為負向)。

根據最新的歐盟數據,2011年以來歐元區內負向財政刺激力度一直穩步下降。也就是說,基於經濟前景而做出的最大程度的財政緊縮措施發生在金融危機最嚴重的時候,而自那之後,緊縮一直在不斷緩解。但在這一趨勢中也有例外,即塞浦路斯和愛爾蘭,這兩個地區的負向財政刺激一直很大,而且整個歐盟也有類似情況。

歐洲財政政策緩慢、穩步放寬的原因至少有四個。

第一,債券市場不太容許市場整頓,整個歐元區收益大幅降低,特別是那些外圍國家更是如此。眼下決策者擔心的是定價過高,因此降低了市場采取的維持財政可持續性的政策謹慎度,尤其是2011和2012年時更為明顯。

第二,許多國家都有一定程度的“財政疲軟”,疲軟會讓國家對進一步緊縮施加切實的政治層面限制。公眾普遍認可的一個觀點就是,決策者設法擺脫經濟危機時,應當避免采取過分緊縮政策。但遺憾的是,歐洲大部分地區實行的財政緊縮並不是一次性措施。最近,IMF的財政監察官確認,如果想實現中期債務或結構平衡的目標,大部分發達經濟體,包括歐元區的那些發達國家,仍然需要大規模的基礎調整。財政疲軟會延遲(但不會幹擾)必要的調整行為。

第三,近期歐元區宏觀經濟數據,特別是第二季度GDP增長數據均表現不佳,這表明決策者需要針對這種情況采取措施。在增長停滯或下滑的背景下,供給面措施可能會被看做是拿中期方案應對短期問題,因此不足以解決增長和就業方面的迫切經濟需求。

最後, 還有一個相關問題可能會被過於簡單化,那就是需求面的刺激措施一般被看做是中期成本分散、短期效益集中,而供給面措施則更多被看做是中期效益分散、短期成本集中。從政治層面看,在其他情況相同的條件下,決策者總是更願意采取需求面刺激。

歐洲放寬財政政策的目的很明確。當前債券市場狀況有利,經濟狀況不利,且經過這些年的緊縮,公眾盼望能出臺短期的政策支持。但即便如此,鑒於歐元區各方利益,以及該區域不久前還被政策框架中的部分問題所困擾,決策者需要對政策目的進行澄清說明,並要保證國家政策與確保統一貨幣區的完整性完全一致。

具體來說,決策者要承認,歐元區需要供給面的結構改革,且同時要采取更及時的財政措施作為支持。以前面對深化財政問題但也成功采取結構改革的國家包括希臘、葡萄牙和西班牙。另外,同樣重要的還包括決策者要切實努力實現中期財政整頓。如果大家認為財政規定被打破多於被遵守,那麽市場對歐元區的看法可能很快會發生變化。

英文原文如下:

Fitch: The End of European Austerity?

By: James McCormack

Global Head of Sovereign Ratings,Fitch Ratings

 

There is some disagreement among policymakers and analysts on whether countries in the Eurozone have a bigger supply or demand problem. There is no disagreement, however, that there is a growth problem. Properly diagnosing what ails European economies is critical to identifying the most effective policy responses. Should leaders focus, for example, on creating more flexible labour markets and fostering greater competition in non-tradable sectors to address supply-side constraints? Or should they be prioritising stimulus to spur demand?

While the debate may be unsettled, the direction of policy appears clear. In the midst of disappointing growth, stubbornly high unemployment, and low and falling inflation, proponents of fiscal easing look to be gaining ground. There are open discussions on the merits of greater flexibility in interpreting EU budget rules, as well as deviations to allow for certain types of expenditures (mainly investment) or budget overruns if they are accompanied by policies to enact structural reform. Even ECB President Mario Draghi referred to the need for fiscal policy to play a greater role in supporting demand during his recent Jackson Hole speech.

Before considering where fiscal policy might be going, it is helpful to recall where it has recently been. The most readily available single measure of the economic impact of fiscal policy is the annual change in the cyclically-adjusted primary balance. In analytical shorthand, this represents the fiscal impulse with respect to the real economy (positive when fiscal policy is supporting growth, negative when fiscal policy is contractionary).

According to the most recent European Commission figures, the negative fiscal impulse has been in steady decline across the Eurozone since 2011. In other words, the greatest fiscal tightening from an economic perspective came at the height of the crisis, and has since diminished. There are exceptions to this trend – notably Cyprus and Ireland, where the negative fiscal impulse has remained sizeable – but it can be observed for the wider EU as well.

At least four reasons are attributable to the slow but steady easing of European fiscal policy.

First, bond markets are allowing for less consolidation, with yields down dramatically across the Eurozone, and particularly for periphery countries. Absent for the time being is concern among policymakers about being priced out of the market, thus reducing the policy discipline that was being imposed by the market with respect to fiscal sustainability, especially in 2011 and early 2012. 

Second, in many countries there is a degree of “fiscal fatigue” that puts practical political limits on additional austerity. An understandable view of the public is that, while trying to climb out from an economic crisis, policymakers should refrain from further tightening measures that make the job harder. Unfortunately, fiscal belt-tightening in most of Europe is not a one-off exercise. The most recent IMF Fiscal Monitor confirms that sizeable primary adjustments are still needed in most advanced economies, including those in the Eurozone, if medium-term debt or structural balance targets are to be met. Fiscal fatigue can delay – but should not derail – the required adjustments.

Third, recent macroeconomic data in the Eurozone, especially GDP growth figures for the second quarter, have been weak, supporting the notion that policymakers ought to be doing something in response. In an environment of stagnant or sliding growth, supply-side measures are likely to be seen as a medium-term solution to a short-term problem, and thus insufficient in meeting the economy’s immediate need for growth and employment.

Finally, a related point is that – at the risk of drastically oversimplifying – demand-side stimulus tends to be characterised by medium-term distributed costs and short-term concentrated benefits, while supply-side measures are more likely to have medium-term distributed benefits and short-term concentrated costs. Politically, all else equal, the former will almost always be preferred over the latter.  

The motivations for an easing of fiscal policy in Europe are clear. Bond market conditions are favourable, economic conditions are unfavourable and the public mood calls for short-term policy support after years of austerity. Even so, given the stakes in the Eurozone, which was beset by existential questions not long ago based in part on the policy framework, there is a need for clarity in terms of policy intent as well as assurances that national policies are fully consistent with maintaining the integrity of the common currency area.

Specifically, policymakers would be well served to acknowledge that supply-side structural reforms are needed alongside more immediate fiscal support. There are good examples of countries that have managed to enact structural change despite stretched fiscal positions, including Greece, Portugal and Spain. Equally important will be credible commitments to medium-term fiscal consolidation. Market views of the Eurozone could change again, and do so quickly, if its fiscal rules are seen as more honoured in the breach than the observance.

(更多精彩財經資訊,點擊這里下載華爾街見聞App)

PermaLink: https://articles.zkiz.com/?id=115363

Next Page

ZKIZ Archives @ 2019