This an unedited version of my article that appeared in the Irish Examiner, April 26, 2012.
However one interprets the core parameters of the fiscal
discipline to be imposed under the Fiscal Compact, several facts concerning the
new treaty and Ireland’s position with respect to it are indisputable. Firstly,
the new treaty will restrict the scope for future exchequer deficits. Combined
structural and general deficit targets to be imposed imply a maximum deficit of
2.9-3.0 percent in 2012 as opposed to the IMF-projected general government net
borrowing of 8.5% of GDP. Secondly, it will impose a severe long-term debt
ceiling, but that condition will not be satisfied by Ireland any time before
2030 or even later.
At the same time, the Troika programme for fiscal adjustment
that Ireland is currently adhering to implies a de facto satisfaction of the Fiscal
Compact deficit bound after 2015, and non-fulfilment of the structural deficit
rule any time between now and 2017. In other words, no matter how we spin it, in
the foreseeable future, we will remain a fiscally rouge state, client of the Troika
and its successor – the ESM.
Let me run though some hard numbers – all based on IMF
latest forecasts. Even under the rather optimistic scenario, Ireland’s real GDP
is expected to grow by an average of 2.27% in the period from 2012 through
2017. This is the highest forecast average rate of growth for the entire euro
area excluding the Accession states (the EA12 states). And yet, this growth
will not be enough to lift us out of the Sovereign debt trap. Averaging just
10.3% of GDP, our total investment in the economy will be the lowest of all
EA12 states, while our gross national savings are expected to average just
13.2% of GDP, the second lowest in the EA12.
In short, our real economy will be bled dry by the debt
overhang – a combination of the protracted deleveraging and debt servicing
costs. It is the combination of the government debt and the unsustainable
levels of households’ and corporate indebtedness that is cutting deep into our
growth potential, not the austerity-driven reduction in public spending.
There is absolutely no evidence to support the suggestion
that increasing the national debt beyond the current levels or that increasing
dramatically tax burden on the general population – the two measures that would
allow us to slow down the rate of reductions in public expenditure planned
under the Troika deal – can support any appreciable economic expansion. The
reason for this is simple. According to the data, smaller advanced economies
with the average Government expenditure burden in the economy of ca 31-35% of
GDP have expected growth rates of 3.5% per annum. Countries that have
Government spending accounting for 40% and more of GDP have projected rates of
growth closer to 1.5% per annum. Ireland neatly falls between the two groups of
states both in terms of the Government burden and the economic growth rate.
Despite the already deep austerity, Irish Exchequer will
continue running excess spending throughout the adjustment period. Between 2012
and 2017, Irish government net borrowing is expected to average 4.7% of GDP per
annum, the second highest in the EA12 group of countries. Put differently,
calling on the Government to deploy some sort of fiscal spending stimulus today
is equivalent to asking a heart attack patient to run a marathon in the Olympics.
Between this year and 2017, our Government will spend some €47.4 billion more
than it will collect in taxes, even if the current austerity course continues.
Of these, €39 billion of expenditure will go to finance structural deficits,
implying a direct cyclical stimulus of more than €8.4 billion.
The exports-driven economy of Ireland simply cannot sustain
even the austerity-consistent levels of Government spending. IMF projects that
between 2012 and 2017 cumulative current account surpluses in Ireland will be
€40 billion. This forecast implies that 2017 current account surplus for
Ireland will be €10 billion – a level that is 56 times larger than our current
account surplus in 2011. If we are to take a more moderate assumption of
current account surpluses running around 2012-2013 projected levels through
2017, our Government deficits are likely to be closer to €53 billion.
In short, there is really no alternative to the austerity,
folks, no matter how much we wish for this not to be the case.
Instead, what we do have is the choice of austerity policies
to pursue. We can either continue to tax away incomes of the middle and
upper-middle classes, or we cut deeper into public expenditure. The former will
mean accelerating loss of productivity due to skills and talent outflows from
the country, reduced entrepreneurship and starving the younger companies of
investment, rising pressure on wages in skills-intensive occupations, while
destroying future capacity of the middle-aged families to support themselves through
retirement. The latter is the choice to continue reducing our imports-intensive
domestic consumption and cutting the spending power of the public sector
employees, while enacting deep structural reforms to increase value-for-money
outputs in the state sectors. Both choices are painful and short-term
recessionary, but only the latter one leads to future growth. The former choice
is only consistent with giving vitamins to a cancer-ridden patient – sooner or
later, the placebo effect of the ‘stimulus’ will fade, and the cancer of debt
overhang will take over once again, with even greater vengeance.
2 comments:
cutting those eating at the public sector trough should be the focus - but not likely to happen when the Unions and Politico's are in bed with each other.
Or we increase taxes on the 20-35k p a incomes, who are dramatically undertaxed by international standards?
And cutting e.g. university salaries any further is also a recipe for severely damaging skills generation capacity/ encouraging talent outflows.
In the end there is no alternative to:
both
cutting many things that need to be cut (but not necessarily across the board in the public sector)
and
raising taxes on many things which are undertaxed (but not necessarily raising taxes where activities are already over-taxed by UK standards).
Post a Comment