Reading on Debt and Rescues

I was reading today on debt crises and rescue packages and thought--most of what we have had written in the past has been about debt crises in developing countries, or as they are more congenially known these days--emerging markets. Two of those I've been reading today are 'The political economy of the Bretton Woods institutions', by C. Randall Henning and another of his works: The Exchange Stabilization Fund: slush fund or war chest?  The first provides a nice history of how the IMF and World Bank developed and changed alongside private finance. As part of that history, you'll get to read how debt crises arose in Mexico particularly, and were dealt with periodically by the American government and the two Bretton Woods institutions. You'll also get to read how, after those crises, the bulk of finance to Latin America shifted from investment in bonds to investment in stock markets, and direct investment. Bond holding shifted elsewhere, particularly Europe, which is why someone ought to write about how those two eras are different.

One obvious difference is the absence of a US Government interest in funding a rescue plan. That's something one can understand, too. The United States has enough problems of its own, and money is funnelled much more easily through the IMF these days from the countries that have it.

The second work looks at the degree of discretion that the President of the United States has to spend money on stabilising the exchange rate and the international monetary system. There are some clues there to constructing a mechanism within Europe to distribute money where its needed, because it looks at the relationship between the executive branch and Congress, of how accountability could be infused into a European mechanism for sorting its internal financial affairs.

The fact that Europe now falls into a literature applied to less prosperous countries underlines a few lessons for international political economy, and comparative politics as well. The first is that advanced and emerging market countries are plagued these days by much the same problems, and should not be treated separately. That's arrogant and presuming and passe.

The second is that it should renew our interest, if it's not already sparked, in long-term decline of advanced economy countries, and the responses to that threat. There is a history of such writing on the United States and the United Kingdom in the 1980s that emphasised strong states as exacerbating decline and strong markets as reversing it. Those messages are already being reversed in contemporary analysis that looks at the crisis generally, but how does the return of the state translate into analysing Europe's choices during the current crisis? How strongly do state intervention, (neo)Keynesian economics and international cooperation factor in giving Europe a chance to deleverage without destroying the economy? Does Europe possess sufficient political coherence and direction to construct a rescue package that compensates for the lack of a European government? Is Europe's economic constitution preventing Europe from recovering?

These are questions that affect us all, and the answers look unfavourable unless Europe changes course.

Default, deception and European debt

Europe has economic and political problems that just won't quit. There is a stench of desperation in the air that has gotten so strong that the President of the EU Council, Herman van Rompuy, has effectively told heads of government to STFU, lest they freak out the markets and send investors fleeing unnecessarily. On the contrary, Europe is suffering from a deep psychosis.

It's unlikely to make much difference unless there are real reasons for investors to think that Europe has its act together. And Europe doesn't. Standard and Poors has already downgraded bonds from Greece and Portugal to within a breath of junk bond status earlier this year. Those bonds, as well as those of Spain and Italy, are under renewed pressure as S&P considers a further downgrade of Italy.

The only question that anyone cares about, but that the politicians haven't accepted yet, is which of these countries will default on their debt this year, and by how much. If no default were likely, the problem would take care of itself. Imagine raking in the high interest payments on debt that you just bought for a big discount. The markets aren't buying it. Literally and figuratively.

Europe, with the exception of the ECB, (For its part, the ECB is demanding that the Greeks and everyone else pay in full, and that Europe reject any talk  of default, under whatever deceptive label it might come .) sent a strong message last week that it wants to let Greece default without actually calling it a default. A partial default is called a restructuring and is pretty common. But no one wants to say that. Talk started to circulate of 'soft restructuring', as if this would make an difference to anyone. When it was clear that it wouldn't, European finance ministers started talk of 're-profiling' the debt, which did nothing but slap a new label on an old plan. Last week, realising that someone would have to do something, the EU Council asked banks holding bonds from these countries not to ask for the money back.

Why does Europe think that banks and other institutional financial investors would hold on to such a crappy investment? It's the state equivalent of a sub-prime mortgage. Sooner or later, you want to get rid of it. The less confidence you have in the ability of the borrower, the sooner you want to sell. And if it isn't clear by now, holding on to that debt in the hope that it will be repaid, or at least that markets will re-invest in it at some point out of speculation, is hoping that a new economic bubble will wash the problems away. Or at least onto someone else's balance sheet.

That is a really bad idea. It's like a serious alcoholic who's trying to hide the booze bottles rather than admit having a problem and taking on the pain and responsibility of rehab. But lies and delusion don't make a problem go away. They prolong the disease and the agony. And everyone turns their backs on you.

Under these conditions, when Europe is deliberately trying to mislead the world about the depth of its problems, there are serious reasons to object to Europe insisting on its right to head the IMF. It wants to hold on to its prestige and power by birthright rather than merit, a point that is both legitimate and gaining steam internationally. It's like the town drunk, insisting on running the liquor store. Unless Europe shows a change of heart, that is another really bad idea. Europe hasn't hit bottom yet, and still thinks its in control.

It's time to take away the keys.