The austerity vs. growth argument is hotting up

The G8 and eurozone summits show that leaders still have a long way to go.

With a G8 summit one week and an EU summit the next we have the latest act of a seemingly interminable eurozone crisis. The solutions needed now are almost exactly the same as a year ago: Europe's banks, particularly in Spain and France need to be re-capitalised; the European Central Bank needs to maintain its presence in the bond market; and, most importantly, we need a concerted stimulus programme aimed primarily at southern Europe to prevent a deep recession.

So, what’s new, you might ask.

Well, the G8 summit saw the first serious growth vs austerity battle, with Obama and Hollande leading the pro-stimulus camp against Angela Merkel. Although Merkel’s refusal to cave in to demands for, amongst other things, a relaxation of deficit reduction targets, Eurobonds and quantitative easing by the European Central Bank, is clear from the summit communique, she is becoming increasingly isolated. Later this week EU leaders will meet in Brussels for a mini-summit convened by Herman Van Rompuy, and it will be interesting to see whether Merkel’s stance softens or hardens.

The election results in France and Greece made it inevitable, but it is clear that the terms of debate have shifted in the last few weeks as politicians realise that the immediate priority is to escape recession rather than cut deficits.

This is not deficit denial but common sense. A sustainable debt and deficit reduction programme cannot be achieved in countries with shrinking output, and it is an economic nonsense to suggest otherwise. A quick glance across the Atlantic should offer some guidance. Things are not exactly rosy in the US, which is still wrestling with high debt and deficit levels, but, unlike the eurozone, US economic output is rising and unemployment falling. A report published last month by Oxford Economics and the rating agency Fitch claimed that President Obama's stimulus package has been worth an extra 4% of GDP and that, without it, the US economy would still be "mired in recession".

There is also a bit of wriggle room for a targeted stimulus. European Commission officials have been talking about providing an extra €10 billion to the European Investment Bank and allocating about €80 billion in unused structural funds to fund infrastructure projects in the EU. There is also widespread support for setting up joint liability EU ‘project bonds’.

Unfortunately putting these policies into action is still not quite that straight-forward. The G8 communique, with its telling phrase that “the right measures are not the same for each of us”, reveals the divide that still exists on how best to respond.

In fact, had that line been used two years ago Europe would probably have avoided the mess it now finds itself in. The biggest mistake made by the EU’s predominantly conservative leaders has been to insist that austerity and nothing else is the “right measure” for everybody.

But a closer look reveals that the EU countries facing difficulties all have different problems. Ireland was brought down by a property binge financed by its banks which were then left horribly exposed to sub-prime mortgages. Spain does not have high government debt but its banks hold multi-billion euro losses from real estate alongside dangerously high unemployment particularly among young people. Italy has one of the lowest budget deficits in Europe but a high debt to GDP ratio. Only Greece has deep-rooted structural problems. All of them would benefit from a targeted stimulus package which, unlike a diet consisting solely of cuts, would give them the economic stability needed for fiscal consolidation.

The main questions facing the EU are not about the fate of the euro. They are on how eurozone countries can generate the economic output to move towards balancing their books and, secondly, about the democratic legitimacy of applying the terms of the rescue packages.
A situation where unelected technocrat governments push through unpopular economic reforms is a dangerous recipe for civil unrest. Without a democratic mandate to implement the terms of their rescue programmes it is hard to see how they will be successful.

As yet, no country has had a referendum on the rescue programmes their leaders signed up to. Only in Spain and Portugal can it be argued that the governments have a mandate for cuts, while Ireland will vote on the fiscal compact treaty later this month. It might be in everyone's interest - both the creditor and debtor countries- for all the countries needing emergency support to hold national referendums on whether to remain in the euro. This would force politicians at national and European level to candidly weigh up the pros and cons of the recovery programmes and their membership of the euro.

The euro is - as it has been from the start - in the hands of Europe's leaders, who have so far been unwilling or unable to spell out the reality of the options open to their electorates. They need to be clear on three points: the structure of the single currency requires reform if it is to work; debt reduction is not optional; and austerity without growth is a road to ruin. The sooner politicians from creditor and debtor countries swallow their pride and correct their mistakes the better.

The G8 summit Photograph: Getty Images
GETTY
Show Hide image

Erdogan’s purge was too big and too organised to be a mere reaction to the failed coup

There is a specific word for the melancholy of Istanbul. The city is suffering a mighty bout of something like hüzün at the moment. 

Even at the worst of times Istanbul is a beautiful city, and the Bosphorus is a remarkable stretch of sea. Turks get very irritated if you call it a river. They are right. The Bosphorus has a life and energy that a river could never equal. Spend five minutes watching the Bosphorus and you can understand why Orhan Pamuk, Turkey’s Nobel laureate for literature, became fixated by it as he grew up, tracking the movements of the ocean-going vessels, the warships and the freighters as they steamed between Asia and Europe.

I went to an Ottoman palace on the Asian side of the Bosphorus, waiting to interview the former prime minister Ahmet Davu­toglu. He was pushed out of office two months ago by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan when he appeared to be too wedded to the clauses in the Turkish constitution which say that the prime minister is the head of government and the president is a ceremonial head of state. Erdogan was happy with that when he was prime minister. But now he’s president, he wants to change the constitution. If Erdogan can win the vote in parliament he will, in effect, be rubber-stamping the reality he has created since he became president. In the days since the attempted coup, no one has had any doubt about who is the power in the land.

 

City of melancholy

The view from the Ottoman palace was magnificent. Beneath a luscious, pine-shaded garden an oil tanker plied its way towards the Black Sea. Small ferries dodged across the sea lanes. It was not, I hasten to add, Davutoglu’s private residence. It had just been borrowed, for the backdrop. But it reminded a Turkish friend of something she had heard once from the AKP, Erdogan’s ruling party: that they would not rest until they were living in the apartments with balconies and gardens overlooking the Bosphorus that had always been the preserve of the secular elite they wanted to replace.

Pamuk also writes about hüzün, the melancholy that afflicts the citizens of Istanbul. It comes, he says, from the city’s history and its decline, the foghorns on the Bosphorus, from tumbledown walls that have been ruins since the fall of the Byzantine empire, unemployed men in tea houses, covered women waiting for buses that never come, pelting rain and dark evenings: the city’s whole fabric and all the lives within it. “My starting point,” Pamuk wrote, “was the emotion that a child might feel while looking through a steamy window.”

Istanbul is suffering a mighty bout of something like hüzün at the moment. In Pamuk’s work the citizens of Istanbul take a perverse pride in hüzün. No one in Istanbul, or elsewhere in Turkey, can draw comfort from what is happening now. Erdogan’s opponents wonder what kind of future they can have in his Turkey. I think I sensed it, too, in the triumphalist crowds of Erdogan supporters that have been gathering day after day since the coup was defeated.

 

Down with the generals

Erdogan’s opponents are not downcast because the coup failed; a big reason why it did was that it had no public support. Turks know way too much about the authoritarian ways of military rule to want it back. The melancholy is because Erdogan is using the coup to entrench himself even more deeply in power. The purge looks too far-reaching, too organised and too big to have been a quick reaction to the attempt on his power. Instead it seems to be a plan that was waiting to be used.

Turkey is a deeply unhappy country. It is hard to imagine now, but when the Arab uprisings happened in 2011 it seemed to be a model for the Middle East. It had elections and an economy that worked and grew. When I asked Davutoglu around that time whether there would be a new Ottoman sphere of influence for the 21st century, he smiled modestly, denied any such ambition and went on to explain that the 2011 uprisings were the true succession to the Ottoman empire. A century of European, and then American, domination was ending. It had been a false start in Middle Eastern history. Now it was back on track. The people of the region were deciding their futures, and perhaps Turkey would have a role, almost like a big brother.

Turkey’s position – straddling east and west, facing Europe and Asia – is the key to its history and its future. It could be, should be, a rock of stability in a desperately un­stable part of the world. But it isn’t, and that is a problem for all of us.

 

Contagion of war

The coup did not come out of a clear sky. Turkey was in deep crisis before the attempt was made. Part of the problem has come from Erdogan’s divisive policies. He has led the AKP to successive election victories since it first won in 2002. But the policies of his governments have not been inclusive. As long as his supporters are happy, the president seems unconcerned about the resentment and opposition he is generating on the other side of politics.

Perhaps that was inevitable. His mission, as a political Islamist, was to change the country, to end the power of secular elites, including the army, which had been dominant since Mustafa Kemal Atatürk created modern Turkey after the collapse of the Ottoman empire. And there is also the influence of chaos and war in the Middle East. Turkey has borders with Iraq and Syria, and is deeply involved in their wars. The borders do not stop the contagion of violence. Hundreds of people have died in the past year in bomb attacks in Turkish cities, some carried out by the jihadists of so-called Islamic State, and some sent by Kurdish separatists working under the PKK.

It is a horrible mix. Erdogan might be able to deal with it better if he had used the attempted coup to try to unite Turkey. All the parliamentary parties condemned it. But instead, he has turned the power of the state against his opponents. More rough times lie ahead.

Jeremy Bowen is the BBC’s Middle East editor. He tweets @bowenbbc

This article first appeared in the 28 July 2016 issue of the New Statesman, Summer Double Issue