Download Top margin 1

IP/06/1597
Brussels, 22 November 2006
EU Economy 2006 Review: euro-area countries need
to adapt better to life in monetary union
The experience of the last eight years shows that many euro-area countries
have not yet fully adapted to life in a monetary union with a single monetary
policy and currency. This is the conclusion of the Commission
Communication on “Strengthening the euro area: key policy priorities”,
adopted on the occasion of the EU Economy 2006 Review. More therefore
needs to be done to improve growth performance and cement cohesion
within the euro area in order to make the benefits of a single currency clearer
to its citizens. Structural reforms must be accelerated and public finances
more firmly consolidated to create the necessary margin for manoeuvre to
weather the next economic downturn. Last but not least, better governance
of the euro area is needed, both to ensure closer coordination of national
budgets and mutually-enhancing reforms, and to give the euro area a
stronger and clearer voice in the world.
In the eight years since its creation, the euro has established itself as a strong and
stable currency. Euro-area economies have also responded well to common shocks
such as the sharp rise in oil prices or financial market volatility. Inflation has been
remarkably low and stable, enabling euro-area governments as well as companies
and households to enjoy particularly favourable financing conditions.
However, a continued subdued growth performance and persistent divergences in
growth and inflation show that internal adjustment in the euro area is sub-optimal and
that some countries have not fully internalised the implications of living in a monetary
union.
Learning from the early years of the euro area
Although growth divergences have come down somewhat in recent quarters, they
are still persistent and differences in competitiveness and inflation remain (see
tables).
These imbalances can be explained by a number of elements:
 First, in a number of countries they reflect the still-ongoing adaptation to falling
interest rates and the relaxation of credit constraints on households which
started in the run-up to the euro, while in Germany’s case unification had a
long-lasting adverse impact on its relative competitiveness.
 Second, some countries have also missed the opportunity afforded by falling
interest rates and the consequent savings on the servicing of national debts
to consolidate their public finances and enhance adjustment mechanisms to
improve their competitiveness now that the exchange rate instrument is no
longer available to them.
 Third, in some cases prices and wages have adjusted too slowly to changes in
national cyclical conditions and competitiveness trends.
 Fourth, spill-over effects have had an impact. For example, housing booms in
several economies have affected both the demand for traded goods and the
level of interest rates facing other euro-area members.
 Finally, the varied extent of nominal and real convergence across participating
countries partly reflects those countries’ individual policy approaches.
The way ahead to a stronger euro area
The implications of this are clear.
Euro-area members need to accelerate the pace of structural reforms. The recent
reform programmes submitted by governments in the framework of the revised
Lisbon Strategy for Growth and Jobs show awareness of the reforms needed. But it
is delivery – speedy delivery – which really matters.
Governments should be more ambitious in consolidating their public finances,
especially now that the area is enjoying a recovery, not only in order to avoid running
into difficulties in the next downswing, but also to achieve balanced budgets before
the budgetary impact of ageing is fully felt. At the same time, the quality of public
spending needs to be reviewed to ensure that growth-enhancing expenditure on
R&D, innovation, education and life-long training is increased, not squeezed out.
Although significant progress has already been made in integrating financial
markets, pushing further ahead with it will increasingly enable the impact of
economic shocks on incomes and national credit markets to be smoothed. Similarly,
doing more to open up services markets to competition will increase the area’s
growth potential and reduce the welfare costs of the adjustment processes. The
recent adoption of the Services Directive is good news. The sooner it becomes law
within Member States, the sooner Europe will reap the benefits in terms of growth
and jobs – just as it did after the liberalisation of previously regulated sectors such as
aviation and telecoms.
Economic agents and trade unions, like governments, also need to better grasp the
implications of living in an economic and monetary union. For the economy to remain
competitive it is important to ensure that wage–price developments reflect
productivity gains.
The governance of the euro area must also be improved by refining the coordination
instruments at both EU and national level in order to reflect the greater
interdependence between the euro area’s members and to avoid spillover effects.
Lastly, politicians need to explain the benefits of the euro to citizens or, at the very
least, think twice before using it as a scapegoat for an economy’s problems. They
should keep in mind the huge benefits that it brings in terms of macroeconomic
stability, favourable financing conditions and lower costs for government finances,
companies and all consumers alike. It is also essential that policy-makers take full
account of the lessons about moving to the euro that have emerged from the current
members of the euro area. This will allow countries preparing to join the euro to reap
the full benefits of living within a single currency.
Doing all this will make life in the euro area under a common monetary policy
smoother and will better equip its members to face the current and prospective
challenges of a globalised economy.
2
The Communication and accompanying EU Economy 2006 Review 2006 are
available on the internet at:
http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/european_economy/2006/the_eu_economy_review2006_en.htm
Graph 1: Real GDP growth rate, averages 199298 and 1999-2005
8
annual % change
7
1992-98
6
1999-05
5
4
3
2
1
0
BE
DE EL
ES
FR
IE
IT
LU
NL AT
PT
FI
EA
Source: Commission Services
Graph 2: HICP inflation rate, averages 1992-98
and 1999-2005
8
annual % change
7
1992-98
1999-05
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
BE
DE
EL
ES
FR
IE
IT
LU
NL AT
PT
FI
Source: Commission Services
3
EA
Graph 3: Real effective exchange1 rate vis-à-vis
the rest of the euro area (1999=100) – Germany,
Spain, France, Italy and the Netherlands
120
(1999=100)
115
110
NL
105
ES
100
FR
95
90
DE
IT
85
80
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
00
01
02
03
04
05
Note: 1 - Index based on nominal unit labour costs in the total
economy
Source: Commission Services
Graph 4: Real effective exchange1 rate vis-à-vis
the rest of the euro area (1999=100) – BLEU,
Greece, Ireland, Austria, Portugal and Finland
115
(1999=100)
PT
110
FI
105
IE
100
BLEU
95
AT
90
85
EL
80
75
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
00
01
02
03
04
05
Note: 1 - Index based on nominal unit labour costs in the total
economy
Source: Commission Services
4