On June 22,
at three o’clock in the morning, officials in Brussels declared a victory for
the Eurozone’s last intensive care patient after eight years of public spending
cuts, and cleared Greece to borrow from markets after August 20.
Austerity
has brought some important results. Greece balanced its budget, so it is living
within its means. Its exports are rising, so it is bringing in much-needed
foreign revenue. The assurance of creditworthiness from the International
Monetary Fund and the European Stability Mechanism – the sovereign distress
fund that now owns most of Greece’s debt - is an important signal to markets.
It should mean that Greece can start to rebuild its credit history and
refinance its debt.
Other
aspects of the deal are less reassuring. Supervision of public spending will
persist for the next 40 years, so Greece hasn’t really graduated - it’s on
probation. During those two generations, Greece must set aside an average of
2.2 percent of its economy to repay its creditors. This means that it will
remain belaboured by austerity policies that presently include uncompetitively
high taxes.
Most
economists agree that it is unlikely that Greece can achieve high rates of
growth under such circumstances. They also agree that the most effective way to
reassure markets about the manageability of its debt is to dwarf the debt
through a fast-growing economy. When Greece was forced out of markets, its debt
was about 130 percent of its economy. Today it stands at 177 Percent, because
austerity caused its economy to shrink by a quarter – the worst depression in
any developed postwar economy. Unless that process is reversed, some economsists
say, Greece could go bankrupt again in under a decade.
The
challenge of growth brings into focus all of Greece’s present structural
problems. Unfortunately the Eurozone’s austerity medicine, as administered by
Greek governments, not only did not fix these, but often made them worse as it
became apparent that reform was no-one’s top priority: that distinction went to
liquidity, with which to keep the government functioning and repay debt that
other European taxpayers had bought, thus minimising the political risk to
their governments.
Europe’s
austerity policy has left enormous challenges that Greek governments now have
to address, and markets will be watching how, and if, they do it.
Over-taxation making up for under-reporting
Greece had to produce the same amount of annual tax revenue throughout
the crisis despite the loss of a quarter
of its economy. This was done by constantly shifting the tax focus. As
unemployment rose and revenue from personal and corporate income tax slipped,
governments raised consumption taxes. As consumption and sales fell after 2011,
new taxes were introduced on labour and property.
Greeks survived all this partly by tightening their belts, partly by
spending their savings (bank deposits have fallen by 60 percent during the
crisis) and partly by working and trading in an extensive black economy.
It is this last aspect of Greek survival that has encouraged hardline
creditors to keep pushing for higher taxes, evidently believing that what looks
unreasonable on paper works in practice thanks to the unregulated economy. Just
as the government overtaxes the Greeks to the extent that it feels they are tax
evading, the Greeks are tax evading to the extent that they feel the government
is overtaxing them. Each is now fighting for solvency and survival at the
expense of the other. It is incumbent on the government to fix this sick relationship
by removing the presumption of guilt. By assuming dishonesty, it is turning it
into a prerequisite for survival.
Shrinking
society and tax base
Greece’s ageing demographic will tend to increase overtaxation. Its
labour force is just 4.8 million in a population of 11 million, and only 3.8
million of those people are in work. Again, the crisis has made this worse.
Hundreds of thousands of public servants in their late fifties and early
sixties have rushed to retire, rightly judging that the retirement age would
rise (it is now 68).
At the same time the birth rate has plummeted by a fifth, as young
people shrink from the cost of a second child. In 2011, it dropped below the
death rate. Measured together with the emigration of young people to healthier
job markets, Greece is losing an average of 75,000 people a year – 0.7 percent
of its population. Both the rush to retirement and the loss of new blood mean a
narrowing tax base.
The state
The third structural problem made worse by the crisis is the lack of
transparency and meritocracy in the Greek state. Greek political parties are
hardly unique in awarding public jobs to loyalists, but this client base stands
as an obstacle to reforms that would make the economy more competitive. Prime
Minister George Papandreou (2009-11) started the process of putting government
online. None of his successors continued this. Shifting loyalties in the civil
servants’ union, the country’s largest and best-organised, are believed to be
largely responsible for the fall of Papandreou and the rise of Syriza.
The result of this internal power struggle is evident from Greece’s
competitiveness rankings. Despite lowering its labour costs dramatically,
Greece still ranks below all its EU partners for productivity in the World
Economic Forum’s competitiveness survey. It beats only Romania, Bulgaria and
Hungary in Transparency International’s corruption perception index. In short,
after eight years of unprecedented reform and belt-tightening for a developed
economy, Greece underperforms countries that have had the benefits of
democracy, market economies and EU membership for a fraction of the time Greece
has had them.
Solutions needed
A
spectacular feat of economic growth now requires egg-breaking reforms. For
example, Greece refuses to break a state monopoly on higher education, even
though doing so could create an enormous export industry. The Greeks clearly believe in education. Figures show that they are the most over-educated and overqualified workforce in the EU in
relation to their economy. After investing millions of dollars in stellar educations for its children, often overseas, Greece has nowhere to employ them, and sends
them abroad again.
Likewise,
Greece refuses to break a state monopoly on social security, even after it
bankrupted the system by borrowing people’s contributions and replacing them
with Greek government bonds. The government was entitled to help itself to this
money because it is also the system’s ultimate guarantor. This is now its
biggest liability. Last year social security contributions raised 8.7bn euros.
The government topped them up with another 21.1bn euros.
Stephanos Manos, a former trade minister, suggested abolishing all
social security contributions and offering a €700 state pension funded solely
through income tax. The freed up capital would generate employment and a new
industry in individual retirement accounts. Nobody took him seriously, partly because
the state pension he suggested was considered low. It now appears
optimistically large, but there is still no public discussion about changing
the system because it would cost public sector jobs and break a political taboo
in Greece’s left-leaning culture.
Smashing certain state monopolies carries a double benefit of creating
private sector growth and depriving politicians of tradeable inducements to
constituents. This ought now to seem like an obvious choice. Yet true
liberalisation and reform seem more elusive than they did at the height of the
crisis, because the Greek political system has found a way to survive and
balance the books without the liberalisation, accountability, transparency and
meritocracy that would make it competitive, and it has done this with the
blessings of the European Union and the IMF. Celebration at Greece’s graduation
is therefore premature. The current state of affairs should not be seen as a
victory, but as a second chance for Greece to begin its own, radical reform
process. There are encouraging indications that the Greeks are finally ready
for smaller and more responsible government, and a more liberalised private
sector. Hopeful prime ministers must grasp this opportunity. If they do not,
they will simply be asking the unborn to solve the problems of the living.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.