* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download The Last Shall Be the First: The East European Financial
Survey
Document related concepts
Transcript
Lessons from the East European Financial Crisis Anders Åslund Senior Fellow, Peterson Institute for International Economics, Washington, DC Theses 1. Sharp output falls: Caused by liquidity freeze 2. Devaluation: No salvation 3. Radical Crisis Resolution 4. Good politics 5. Early & decent growth 1. Causes of Crisis Massive overheating with large current account deficits Followed by “sudden stops” Which caused large falls in GDP, Latvia 25%, Est 20%, Lith 18% Led to large budget deficits Austerity did not cause output falls, but was a consequence GDP Growth 2007 & 2009 (Percent) Crisis bred budget deficits 2009-11 2 (percent of GDP) 1 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011E -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 Baltics Central Europe Southeastern Europe 2. Why Devalue? Paul Krugman: “Latvia is the new Argentina.” • Latvia’s competitiveness had fallen too sharply • Internal devaluation was politically impossible • Latvia needed stimulus Why Devalue? (2) Danger of deflationary cycle Latvia did not deserve help “Latvia doesn’t produce much to export” • Roubini: “devaluation seems unavoidable” • • • But Devaluation Was Risky • Devaluation could have been uncontrollably large (Belarus) • Led to wild inflation (Belarus) • Less reform pressure (Ukraine) • Bank system could have collapsed (Ukraine) • Mass bankruptcies • Real foreign debt would have doubled Conclusion on Devaluation • No exchange rate regime could have salvaged the open Latvian economy • Fixed exchange rate saved Latvia from collapse of bank system, mass bankruptcies and doubling of foreign debt • It facilitated vital structural reforms • Latvia ready for euro adoption 2014 3. Crisis Resolution • Early and comprehensive fiscal adjustment • IMF & EU program in Hungary, Latvia & Romania Substantial Fiscal Adjustments Balts: Public adjustment of 9% of GDP in 2009 Latvia sacked 30% of public employees Closed half state agencies Reduced public salaries by 26% in one year Major Public Sector Reforms Public administration trimmed Education reforms – more efficiency Health care reforms - same Alas pension reforms reversed to save the poor Maastricht Criteria More Respected in East Average public debt in 10 CEE 39% of GDP in 2010, but 85% of GDP in eurozone Only Hungary has exceeded the Maastricht debt ceiling, but 12 of 14 Western EMU members Sharp Improvement in Current Account 2007-2009 (Percent of GDP) Public debt remains limited, 2010 90 (percent of GDP) 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Latvia Lithuania Estonia Slovenia Hungary Slovakia Czech Poland Romania Bulgaria Republic 4. Good Politics 1. Severe crises bred action 2. Origin of crisis external 3. Small countries more vulnerable 4. Prior great economic success 5. Credible culprits: oligarchs 6. Free market ideology 7. New leaders 8. Political instability 9. Parliamentary support 10.Expert policymakers 4. Good Politics (2) 11. Comprehensive crisis program 12. Front-loaded measures 13. More expenditure cuts than tax increases 14. Social compact 15. Equity 16. International support & sufficient finance 17. Domestic ownership 18. Early and decisive implementation 19. Good salesmanship and transparency 20. Policy review 7 Conclusions 1. No country changed exchange rate policy: Internal devaluation is possible and effective 2. Goal of euro accession is valuable: Maastricht criteria more respected outside the eurozone 3. Substantial, early fiscal adjustments preferable 7 Conclusions 4. Better to cut public expenditures than to raise taxes: Drives public sector reforms 5. Strange myth that democracies cannot cut public expenditures 6. International rescue should be large and front-loaded 7. Growth has returned fast but is likely to stay lower than before Renewed growth, good but lower 15 (percent annual growth) 10 5 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 -5 -10 -15 -20 Baltics Central Europe Southeastern Europe 2010 2011E Total GDP Growth, 2000-2010 70 (percent change) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Slovakia Romania Lithuania Bulgaria Poland Estonia Latvia Czech Republic Slovenia Hungary European Convergence Proceeds GDP in PPP as % of EU Average