Social Europe

politics, economy and employment & labour

  • Themes
    • Europe 2025
    • The Crisis Of Globalisation
    • The Future of Work
    • What is inequality?
    • Inequality In Europe
    • Europe’s Refugee Crisis
    • Where Now After Brexit?
    • Understanding PEGIDA in Context
  • Podcast
  • Videos
    • Video Podcasts
    • Social Europe Talk
  • Books
  • Papers
    • Brexit Paper Series
    • Occasional Papers
    • Research Essays
  • Advertise
  • Newsletter

Why We Need To Rewrite The Maastricht Rules

by John Weeks on 7th March 2016 @johnweeks41

John Weeks

John Weeks

The 1992 Treaty of Maastricht that lay the basis for the euro committed signing governments to several economic targets. Subsequent treaties and protocols made these targets stricter. The targets suffer from serious technical mis-specification. The problems of the criteria have their basis in a fundamental flaw that must be recognized and corrected to prevent further economic degeneration of the euro zone and the wider EU.

While allegedly having universal application across countries and over time, the targets refer to the special case of a growing economy at full employment (full capacity). The treatment of this special case as the general case comes from ideology, the narrow neoliberal version of neoclassical economics.

The Maastricht rules were inspired by belief that the private economy self-adjusts to full potential. Policy mistakes by governments prevent that outcome. It is to prevent mismanagement by governments that the Maastricht rules specify maximum and minimum targets for the public budget balance, inflation and public debt. For example, governments are instructed to not have public sector deficits of more than three percent of GDP. This is an asymmetrical rule – no upper time is specified, with the obvious implication that a surplus can never be too large.

By their nature asymmetric economic rules are contrary to rational policy. They come from neoliberal ideology: 1) government policies and their outcomes explain poor performance of the private sector; 2) rules and regulations should focus on constraining not facilitating public policy; and 3) some public policy outcomes are per se bad, requiring no justification for their prohibition.

Join our growing community newsletter!

"Social Europe publishes thought-provoking articles on the big political and economic issues of our time analysed from a European viewpoint. Indispensable reading!"

Polly Toynbee

Columnist for The Guardian

Thank you very much for your interest! Now please check your email to confirm your subscription.

There was an error submitting your subscription. Please try again.

Powered by ConvertKit

Problems with Maastricht Rules

Asymmetry derivative from ideology is basic problem with the Maastricht rules. They deny the need for counter-cyclical government interventions. For that reason alone they should be fundamentally revised. In addition, if a set of policy rules is required, at least one important thing is missing, a guideline for the balance on the external account of member states.

I have argued that that trade imbalances in the EU promoted the so-called debt crisis of the early 2010’s. Even those who disagree must concede that these imbalances have been seriously problematical. In 2010 the German current account surplus was 5.5% of GDP, now up to 8.3%.  Persistent current account surpluses of that magnitude are de facto mercantilism. As George Irvin suggested the EU needs sanctions for countries exceeding a surplus guideline, as Keynes recommended at Bretton Woods.

The existing rules suffer from serious deficiencies. Perhaps the most notorious of the rules is the infamous 3% for the public sector deficit, stated in the Treaty as follows (full text here):

The ratio of the annual government deficit to gross domestic product (GDP) must not exceed 3% at the end of the preceding fiscal year. If not, it is at least required to reach a level close to 3%. Only exceptional and temporary excesses would be granted for exceptional cases.

Watch the latest Social Europe Video Podcast

The Treaty defines “annual government deficit” as total revenue minus total expenditure. If the purpose of the rule is to ensure “sound” fiscal policy, the policy literature on public finance shows that this is the wrong measure. In its guidelines for sound fiscal policy the IMF states that the appropriate measure is the primary deficit, overall deficit minus interest on the public debt.

Citing the IMF supports what is obvious. The management of the public budget involves adjusting expenditures and revenues. Interest payments consist of legal obligations; reducing them implies debt default. The Maastricht Treaty has specified a technically wrong measure of fiscal policy that includes a component that cannot be adjusted. If the primary deficit were the guideline, the recent objections by the governments of France, Italy and Spain would be unnecessary.

The inflation guideline is also technically flawed. The European Central Bank aims for a target rate of 2% of a measure named the Harmonized Index of Consumer Prices. The measure is seriously flawed because it includes prices of internationally traded commodities over which the ECB has no significant influence.

More serious is that 2% is a technically absurd target. Twenty years ago the Boskin Commission estimated that new products and quality change account for between 0.8 and 1.6 percentage points in the US cost of living index, taking 1.1 as “best estimate”. In a world of globalized markets the EU statistic is unlikely to be very different. Therefore, an inflation target of 2% de facto aims for an effective rate of less than 1%.

The benefits of a capitalist economy come from its dynamism, the continuous reallocation of resources in response to technical change and shifts in consumer preferences. This allocation occurs through price adjustment. For example, workers move between sectors in response to wage changes. Some wage inflation and therefore price inflation are inherent in the efficient operation of a market economy. The 2% inflation target is in practice deflationary, achieved by suppressing the price adjustments essential to economic growth.

Finally, there is the most obviously flawed Maastricht rule, that the public debt should not exceed 60% of GDP. A specific ratio is irrational. The concern should be sustainability, not absolute size. Rather than setting an arbitrary maximum, the designers of the Maastricht Treaty should have read the IMF manual on public debt, which provides a simply calculated formula to measure sustainability.

As foolish as the 60% rule is, the number has more credibility than the debt measure to which it refers. As hard as it may be to believe, the measure is specified by Treaty as the gross debt, not the net debt. The latter, used by the UK Treasury and in many other countries, subtracts public sector liquid assets, such as foreign exchange holdings by the central bank.

The chart below shows the substantial difference between the gross and net debt. At the end of 2015 fifteen of 21 EU countries were above the Maastricht gross debt rule. Using the net debt, actual liabilities, that number falls to nine, and four countries had negative debt. The most absurd cases are Finland and Slovenia, over the mark for the Maastricht calculation, but on the correct measure at minus 50% (Finland) and plus 21% (Slovenia). Both countries applied growth-depressing austerity programmes, in part justified as necessary for a debt problem that never existed.

Weeks banner

Source: OECD

What to Do?

If the economic policy coming out of Brussels and Berlin had pretension to economic justification the Maastricht rules and the so-called Six Pack would collapse under the weight of ridicule. To the contrary, they remain central to the dysfunctional policies that hold most EU countries and especially the euro zone in continual stagnation.

In this period of aggressive attacks on the European Union the progressive defence of the continental system by necessity stresses the need for reform of governance and economic policy. Central to that reform is revision of the Maastricht Treaty and supporting treaties and protocols.

Progressives must embark on the tedious and time-consuming task of specifying in detail the necessary changes. Staggering on with economic guidelines designed for continuous full employment will take us from one disaster to another, with the disintegration of the Union at the end.

TwitterFacebookLinkedin
Home ・ Blogs ・ Why We Need To Rewrite The Maastricht Rules

Filed Under: Blogs, Economy

About John Weeks

John Weeks is co-ordinator of the London-based Progressive Economy Forum and professor emeritus of the School of Oriental and African Studies. He is author of The Debt Delusion: Living within Our Means and Other Fallacies (2019) and Economics of the 1%: How Mainstream Economics Services the Rich, Obscures Reality and Distorts Policy.

Partner Ads

Most Recent Posts

fibre Bread, roses and broadband too? Miranda Hall
sustainable finance Can sustainable finance really help solve the climate crisis? Basil Oberholzer
neoliberal Interregnum or transformation? Sheri Berman
Economic growth versus social security—redeeming the EU’s original sin Roberta Ferrara and Valerio Alfonso Bruno
Access to social protection, for some Ane Fernandez de Aranguiz and Bartłomiej Bednarowicz

Most Popular Posts

election in Poland The parliamentary election in Poland—the future at stake Maria Skóra
radical right Why the radical right is no longer the exclusive domain of older, male voters Caroline Marie Lancaster
digital currencies Mario Draghi and the Germans Peter Bofinger
Manchester Could a progressive phoenix arise from the ashes of the UK’s political meltdown? Paul Mason
populism What’s driving populism? Dani Rodrik

Other Social Europe Publications

For a Europe with a Future
Europe 2025 – A New Agenda
OP 14: Changing the Game: EU Development Policy for Sustainable Equality
Austerity: 12 Myths Exposed
The Crisis of Globalisation

Social Europe Edition Book

Is an unconditional basic income without means-test or work-test compatible with social justice and individual self-worth? Does it open up the space for an end to demeaning labour and a resurgence of voluntary work and cultural life? Is it affordable? This collection of short but compelling essays, all previously published in Social Europe, allows both proponents and opponents to make their case and is designed to extend this vital discussion to a wider audience.


MORE INFO

Hans Böckler Stiftung Ad

The Blocked Completion of the European Monetary Union

The reform of the euro zone is stuck. Against the background of political blockades, this report examines from a combined economic and political science perspective how the Euro can be prepared for the next crisis. The report first identifies general requirements for the stabilization of economic and monetary union. Next, the report reconstructs the political logic of the euro crisis and shows that the prospects for realizing far-reaching reform proposals aiming at a fiscal union are poor. Subsequently, the report develops a proposal of how, under the given circumstances, the room for maneuver within the existing framework of economic and monetary union can be extended in a pragmatic way in order to strengthen national fiscal policy as an instrument of macroeconomic stabilization.


FREE DOWNLOAD

ETUI Advertisement

Migrant workers in Fortress Europe

The number of legally resident migrants stands at over 22 million, but the number of Europe’s “undocumented” migrants, whose status is precarious and whose rights in many areas are limited as a result, is much harder to determine. These migrants are often forced to tolerate adverse working conditions; since they are discriminated against in the labour market, both male and female migrant workers are pushed into low-skill industries and professions that are more hazardous to health and less well-paid than other jobs, a situation that is justified by racist stereotypes and assumptions. The goal of the HesaMag editorial team in compiling this report was to introduce readers to a number of real-life examples drawn from a variety of EU Member States.


FREE DOWNLOAD

Eurofound Advertisement

Challenges and prospects in the EU: Quality of life and public services

What have been the major developments in quality of life and public services in Europe in recent years? This flagship publication provides a synthesis of the main findings on several key topics, based, in part, on European Quality of Life Survey data. It maps developments and perceptions regarding the following: trust in institutions and social cohesion; access to and quality of health and care services; the impact of digitalisation on social services; access to services for young people; and measures aimed at integrating refugees. While the report highlights many challenges and emerging issues for public services, it also showcases a number of positive experiences with the involvement of client groups in the design of services and take-up of new technologies.


CLICK FOR MORE INFO

S&D Group Ad

At the beginning of the new EU legislative cycle, this occasional paper by Udo Bullmann (MEP and S&D Group coordinator in the European Parliament’s Development Committee) makes the case for an EU development policy that puts the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and a concern for human well-being front and centre. The paper argues that EU development policy must serve to fight inequalities in partner countries to enable successful transformations in the spirit of the SDGs. Weaving a concern for achieving greater equality into the process of EU development policy-making, including through ex-ante assessment tools, is key in this regard.


FREE DOWNLOAD

About Social Europe

Mission Statement & Editorial Team

Article Submission

Social Europe ISSN 2628-7641

Legal & Privacy

Legal Disclosure

Privacy Policy

Copyright

Thought Leadership

XThis website uses cookies to improve your experience and we assume you are ok with this. Do not use this website if you have objections. Read Our Full Privacy Policy RejectAccept
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.

Necessary
Always Enabled

This is an necessary category.

Analytics
Advertisement
Performance
Uncategorized
Save & Accept