Suchergebnisse

We investigate which variables have supported growth in the euro area over the last 30 years. This is a challenging task due to dimensionality problems: a large set of potential determinants, limited data, and the prospect that some variables could be non-stationary. We assemble a set of 35 real, financial, monetary, and institutional variables for nine of the original euro area countries covering the period between 1990Q1 and 2016Q4. Using the Weighted-Average Least Squares method, we gather clues about which variables to select. We quantify the impact of various determinants of growth in the short and long runs. Our main finding is the positive and robust role of EU institutional integration on long-term growth for all countries in the sample. An improvement in competitiveness matters for growth in the overall euro area in the long run, as well as a decline in sovereign and systemic stress. Debt over GDP negatively influences growth for the periphery, but only in the short run. Property and equity prices have a significant impact only in the short run, whereas the loans to non-financial corporations positively affect the core euro area. An increase in global GDP also supports growth in the euro area.

This paper aims at determining whether economic, financial and monetary integration on the one hand, and institutional factors on the other, may have led to gradual convergence in key fiscal variables across the euro area over the recent period, bringing fiscal positions closer together. The Maastricht convergence criteria have facilitated this process but we investigate here whether the structural factors bringing fiscal positions closer together have been a feature of European integration starting already in the 1970s. The alternative scenario is that the euro zone is still characterised by largely idiosyncratic national fiscal policies. Over the 1970-1998 period we run contemporaneous cross-correlation, dispersion and cointegration tests using annual data for government net lending, and total current revenue and expenditure to uncover common trends, as measures of fiscal convergence. We also investigate whether the short term fiscal position in a given country shares both a common euro area component and national features (i.e., idiosyncratic national cycles) using a dynamic factor analysis on quarterly data for the four largest euro area countries since 1985. We find convincing evidence that for euro area countries cross-correlation has increased steadily over the sample period and that fiscal dispersion has been declining at a sustained pace among all countries in the sample. There is evidence of cointegration across the euro area for several countries on the basis of total current revenue, and also for total current expenditure. However, when the series are corrected for the business cycle, cointegration is only accepted for net lending. There is clearly common fiscal cycles for net lending across the euro area that do not only express common business cycles. However, while countries have followed more similar policies in the 1990s in particular during the run-up to EMU, the timing of fiscal adjustment differed across countries. In addition, idiosyncratic components still contribute to a significant share of the variability of individual countries.

The world has been struck by a mutating systemic financial crisis that is unprecedented in terms of financial losses and fiscal costs, geographic reach, and speed and synchronisation. The crisis from August 2007 to date can be divided into three main phases: the financial turmoil from August 2007 to the collapse of Lehman Brothers; the global financial crisis from September 2008 until spring 2010; and the euro area sovereign debt crisis from spring 2010 to the current period. While each phase has brought significant challenges, the current sovereign debt crisis has been the most critical stage for the euro area. It has brought unprecedented challenges for the monetary union and triggered extraordinary adjustments in both monetary policy and institutional arrangements at the euro area level. The purpose of this article is to outline the features of each crisis phase, to describe the actions taken by the European Central Bank (ECB) during each phase and to explain the rationale for such measures. It also discusses the need to strengthen further the economic union in order to guarantee the sustainability of the monetary union of the euro area. In this respect, it is argued that the recent institutional adjustments made at the EU level would have been necessary independently of the financial crisis.

The ECB's monetary policy has received considerable attention in recent years. This is less the case, however, for its regular monetary policy preparation and decision-making process. This paper reviews how the factors usually considered as critical for the success of a central banking system and the federal nature of the Eurosystem are intertwined with its overall design and the functioning of its committee architecture. In particular, it examines the procedures for preparing monetary policy decisions and the role of the decision-making bodies and the committees therein. We suggest that technical committees, involving all national central banks (NCBs), usefully contribute to the regular processing of a vast amount of economic, financial and monetary data, as well as to the consensus building at the level of the Governing Council. A federal organisational structure, including a two-tier committee structure with the Executive Board taking the lead in preparing the monetary policy decisions and the Governing Council in charge of the decisions with collective responsibility for them, as well as committee work at the various hierarchical levels, contributes to the efficiency of the ECB's monetary policy decision-making, and thereby facilitates the maintenance of price stability in the euro area. A fully-fledged committee structure has also contributed to the smooth integration of non-euro area Member States into the Eurosystem's monetary policy decision-making process.

The paper provides a systematic comparison of the Eurosystem, the US Federal Reserve and the Bank of Japan. These monetary authorities exhibit somewhat different status and tasks, which reflect different historical conditions and national characteristics. However, widespread changes in central banking practices in the direction of greater independence and increased transparency, as well as changes in the economic and financial environment over the past 15-20 years, have contributed to reduce the differences among these three world's principal monetary authorities. A comparison based on simple "over-the-counter" policy reaction functions shows no striking differences in terms of monetary policy implementation.

This paper examines diverse aspects of the monetary integration of the ten new Member States (NMS) which joined the EU on 1 May 2004 into the euro area. Most NMS have undergone a rapid and deep transformation in all areas with considerable progress in their processes of reform and convergence, and more is underway. While trade integration with the other 15 EU Member States (EU15) has progressed quickly, convergence in output specialisation to EU standards has been slow, especially if measured in real terms. This may influence negatively the pace of real convergence. Most NMS lag significantly behind in building up and deepening their financial systems. There is also evidence that exchange rate flexibility may still be serving as a useful shock absorber for some NMS, and so far the evidence indicates that real exchange rates have moved, broadly speaking, in line with long term fundamental equilibria. On the positive side, many NMS are quite advanced relative to the euro area in the process of labour market and institutional reform (their labour market structures are more flexible than those of the euro area countries). There is also some evidence that a few NMS have a significant degree of business-cycle synchronisation with the euro area: hence, they may become less likely to be affected by different economic shocks. This, however, is not true for all NMS. The monetary policy institutions of the NMS have also converged to some degree - goals and institutional settings of central banks are now much more similar than before. A case-by-case approach to adopting the euro, based on country-specific conditions, seems natural due to the differences between the countries.

This paper presents a European Index of Regional Institutional Integration (EURII), which maps developments in European integration from 1958 to 2014 on the basis of a monthly dataset. EURII captures what we call: (i) the "Common Market Era", which lasted from 1958 until 1993; and (ii) the first twenty years of the "Union Era" that started in 1994, but gained new impetus in response to the euro area crisis. The paper complements the economic narratives of the crisis with an institutional approach highlighting the remedies to the flaws in the initial design of Economic and Monetary Union (EMU). In fact, since 2010, EMU's institutional framework has been substantially reformed. While work on EMU's new governance is still in progress, the broad contours of a "genuine union" have been outlined in the Four Presidents' Report of December 2012. The report envisages a more effective economic union, a fiscal union, a financial union, and a commensurate political union. The aim of the EURII index is threefold: (i) to provide a tool to synthesise and monitor the process of European institutional integration since 1958 and, in particular, track institutional reforms since 2010; (ii) to expand a previous integration index by showing that monetary unification – which was initially understood as "the cherry on the Internal Market pie" – implied a major discontinuity in the process and nature of European integration, that is, a new "pie on the cherry"; and (iii) to offer a tool for further research, policy analysis and communication.

This paper tests for the hypothesis that institutional integration interacts with economic integration at the regional level. In particular, we ask what lessons can be drawn from the European experience with regional integration for Latin America. Several indicators of institutional and economic integration for both the EU and Latin America are presented. We find that Latin America is currently less economically integrated not only than the European Union today, but in some cases even than the EU at the beginning of its regional integration process. A cluster analysis illustrates that the link between institutional and economic integration has worked both ways throughout the whole EU experience. The more institutional integration went beyond the creation of a customs union and moved towards a common market and an economic and monetary union, the deeper economic integration turned out. Increasing economic integration in turn corroborated and sustained the process of institutional integration.